Like It Or Not, I-90 Transit Coming
I've seen a couple of stories in the last week touting the big important decision that's going to be made tomorrow regarding transit options across the I-90 bridge:
Just a week before Sound Transit's board of directors meets to determine whether it prefers a Seattle-to-Redmond light-rail line or bus rapid-transit system that can convert to light rail in the future, Eastside residents and community leaders are debating the merits of both.Hang on a minute. In the next 25 years, the number of cars crossing Lake Washington is predicted to go up by nearly a third. The 520 bridge is scheduled to be replaced with a new span that will include—at most—two additional lanes. The I-90 bridge, on the other hand, will lose a lane to rapid transit. So we're looking at 32% more traffic being carried on one additional lane? And eliminating an existing lane across I-90 will alleviate traffic? Sorry, something doesn't jive.
...
By the end of the year, after community input, the Sound Transit board will decide on a more detailed plan and funding package that will go before voters in November 2007.
The fast-paced growth of the region has spurred many on the Eastside to consider alternatives to alleviate traffic.
It's estimated that by 2030, the area's biggest job and housing centers will be Bellevue, Redmond and Seattle, according to the Puget Sound Regional Council.
Also by 2030, the number of vehicles that cross Lake Washington on both bridges will grow from 250,000 a day to 330,000, said Sound Transit CEO Joni Earl.
Both a light-rail system and a bus rapid-transit convertible system would take up an exclusive right of way across Interstate 90 from Seattle to Bellevue and then connect to the Highway 520 corridor to Redmond.
...
Both proposals would alleviate traffic, increase commuter reliability and provide alternative modes of transportation for special events, Sound Transit officials say.
Here's what I would do with transportation across Lake Washington if I were in charge:
- Replace 520 with an 8-lane (all for cars) bridge.
- Include an additional two lanes for bi-directional "rapid transit" across 520.
- Add a two-lane dedicated transit bridge alongside I-90.
- Institute tolls on both bridges for all vehicles.
(Lisa Chiu, Seattle Times, 07.06.2006)
3 comments:
Of course, the neighborhoods around the arb are some of the mose expensive and influential ones in Seattle. We're talking about Broadmoor here, the only serious gated community in the city.
The I-90 bridge will not lose a lane. The R-8A alternative (WSDOT) will add an HOV lane to each direction to account for the express lane loss to high capacity transit.
8 lanes would be a waste of money. The bottleneck is *not* the travel lanes, it's the interchanges. The key is this - if we build 8 lanes on the bridge now, by the time the interchanges need to be replaced (and can be upgraded), we'll need to replace the bridge again! It's better to leave that extra money in the local economy than to spend it on lanes that can't be used at capacity.
I think the argument that people "should move to where they work" is astounding. Anytime you say "people should" do something that they're not already doing, you're already ignoring reality. There's a huge problem here, and it's not going away because "people should" do anything. The only way to fix it would be in law - and I guarantee none of us will go for a law limiting people's choices of workplace and residence!
Ben,
Thanks for your input. I had not heard of R-8A before. The wording in the article ("take up an exclusive right of way") made it sound like transit would take up an existing lane, rather than adding new lanes.
As far as people living near where they work, my position has always been that people have no right to complain about a problem that they have helped to create, and continue to contribute to. Yes, it is the government's responsibility to work for the people and provide the services we all require, but certainly there must be a line drawn where it is no longer the government's responsibility so subsidize stupid and counterproductive choices.
Post a Comment