Blame the Seattle politicians, not the people who live here. Personally, I ride the bus.

Much of the argument for HOV lanes on 520 came from the Seattle-side communities, right?

Perhaps the discussion of 520 was so much more serious and practical because the route is actually critical for the region, unlike the viaduct.

I still maintain that if people who insist they NEED the viaduct would skip it for a $3-5 toll, they really don't need it. Who would be willing to drive around the lake to avoid paying a similar toll?

It was heartening to see the Eastside communities coming out strongly in favor of rail-based transit for the area in recent city-council votes.

Uh...so Marginal Way, in the city of Seattle, is in the "suburbs?" 520 isn't at least partly in Seattle? It now does not serve masses of Seattleites heading to their jobs in Redmond in buses?

It seems to me that perhaps the mayor could cut a deal with Olympia:

Olympia gets their lovely viaduct they seem to want so badly. We get a light rail line from West Seattle to Pike Place Market. Yes, the viaduct would have to be bigger and uglier to accommodate the rail line, but at least we'd be getting some more mass transit. AND it would follow a route that looks suspiciously like the monorail....

You forgot Everett! They're expaning the I-5 HOV up to downtown (it currently stops at the boeing freeway).

I take the bus and use Flex Car. Blame the City of Seattle by not putting heat on the County to improve bus routes in Seattle. Metro just seems to improve the suburbs but after living here for over 10 years I have yet to see improvement for the Seattle's bus routes. Not one time.

That's why the Steinbrueck compromise makes sense:

As Peter Sherwin says: "Let's Repair it for now - and work for a city that can live without it."

As Peter Steinbrueck wrote:

"I'm not opposed to fixing up the viaduct in the short term, while we figure out a better long term sustainable solution to dealing with the traffic. I absolutely can't see spending a ton of money on a short term fix. Rather, just do the minimum, and invest heavily in surface and transit improvements (Ron Sims' 49 little things, and Danny Westneat's 1000) that would ease off the demand for using the viaduct."

http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/2007/01/a_possible_gran.html

(If you have any questions that the Viaduct can be Repaired, please put them aside as there is ample documentation --some from WSDOT's own consultant -- that it can be.)

David, do you have a link to an objective source stating the Viaduct can be repaired? Not just the above-ground structure, but the foundation?

If it's "ample"...

part of the reason the 'burbs are so far "ahead" in terms of HOV planning is that we have to be--the bus system sucks everywhere other than Seattle. I carpool from Woodinville to Bellevue/Redmond because the bus route is horrendous. So instead of beefing up the transit options, the burbs are just adding in HOV everywhere to help us carpoolers.

I used to work at a building at 3rd & Spring, adjacent to Sound Transit. You could tell when they had a board meeting, the parking garage was sold out, full of big-ass SUVs! I wish I were joking, but the joke is on all of us. Ha! Ha!

Hey pferdekopf, that is über alles! It's a different letter from plain old u, you untermensch!

Tschüss!!

Herr Zee

I'm in the "do the 1000/43 things now, minimal viaduct fixes, plan for no viaduct" camp, but I think what this really reveals is how screwed up the lack of accountability is both in Seattle and statewide for transportation issues. The reason nothing gets done is that everybody has something to say, but nobody has the final say. The state wants its highway, the city wants its redeveloped watefront, and the voters want both without having to pay for it and without accepting any compromises.

What we need instead is for the city and the state to butt the hell out, and for voters to stop trying to rule by ballot measure. Devolve the state highway system in the Sound Transit area to Sound Transit. Give ST full control over transportation in the metro area. Give the state and the voters representatives on Sound Transit's board, but put all revenue-raising and decision-making in their hands. Raise the money for all transportation projects within the metro area, without state or federal money. Favor tolls, congestion pricing, car taxes, and other user fees. Mandate an integration of roads and transit to move people as quickly as possible. If voters don't like the outcome, they can elect different representatives to the agency. If the state or city doesn't like it, they can change their appointees.

Ron Sims, of all people, makes the most sense right now of any of the elected officials on transportation, and Sound Transit, of all agencies, is doing the best job of getting things done. Give them more power, more money, and more responsibility and accountability. Then get to work.

Golob is correct - it was Seattle that pushed for HOV on 520, and fought the Eastsiders' 8-lane proposal; and it was Seattle which fought the I-90 battles for decades, when the eastside wanted auto-only solutions.

But on Josh's larger theory, no bus routes currently travel the length of the AWV, as transit demand through this corridor is terribly small.

You need demand before you serve a corridor like this with public transit. Ridership does not appear out of thin air. Even the monorail numbers showed this - lots of people coming in to the Seattle CBD from north and south, but only a handfull traveling through the city.

Nickels' 'tunnel light' alternative reduces SOV capacity and eliminates Columbia St. and Seneca St. SOV access, thus creating more potential demand for transit in the future. Shoulder lanes could be used for transit-only some day, once the demand is there.

In my view, the surface option proponents failed at the outset, because they simply assumed the 99 corridor through Seattle would attract transit riders. If you look at the 5 people who ride the 99 along this route at any given hour, you can see how silly this assumption actually is.

Um, dude, the 99 corridor has the 358 bus (packed), the 5 bus, the 55 bus (West Seattle), and those are just the ones I use. The reason they don't use the tunnel is it's too small. Which is still true for tunnel-lite.

and I walk to work most days, so don't blame me.

Josh,

Not quite.

SR-167 HOT lane is not paid for by RTID.
I-405 HOV RTID project is center-to-center interchange with SR-167. As yet, the expansions on I-405 underway and on the RTID list between Renton and Bellevue are both general-purpose lanes.
Instead of two new HOV lanes on SR-520, talk should be of converting general-purpose and HOV lanes into HOT lanes on all the projects, and, implementing project R8A on I-90 as soon as possible. The lack of pricing in the RTID is a major flaw.

Andrew: consider the following improvements in last decade.
Frequency improved on many services, including routes 8, 15, 16, 18, 36, 48, 71-72-73, and 358. New Route 120 on Delridge was major improvement. New crosstown routes 31, 38, 60, 74, 330. ST routes 522, 540, 545, 550, 554 improve service in Lake City and between Seattle and Eastside.

Tree in the forest: amen re ST Board and SUVs.

When the eastside rallies to convert the eastide rail line to light rail (or heavy rail, or any public transit) between Everett and Renton, I'll be impressed.

And before anyone starts any blah blah about the various modes or multiple agencies, let me just say that I don't care who runs it, or the mode it employs - that's too prime of a route to convert to a trail. Trails are fine, and they make us feel virtuous, but we need infrastructure.

When the eastside rallies to convert the eastide rail line to light rail (or heavy rail, or any public transit) between Everett and Renton, I'll be impressed.

And before anyone starts any blah blah about the various modes or multiple agencies, let me just say that I don't care who runs it, or the mode it employs - that's too prime of a route to convert to a trail. Trails are fine, and they make us feel virtuous, but we need infrastructure.

The BNSF line that King County is trying to acquire only goes from Renton to Snohomish. The BNSF is retaining the section from Everett to Snohomish, which is part of a major east-west route over the mountains (see http://www.bnsf.com/tools/reference/division_maps/div_nw.pdf and http://dnr.metrokc.gov/dnrp/pa/bnsf/pdf/11x17BNSFmapUpdate31May06.pdf).

You're right that it would be a good place for a light rail system (with room for a parallel bikeway). The thing is, with the political mess we have today, that idea is politically impossible. We need a regional/metro agency with full accountability and an independent, ongoing source of revenue before good decisions can be made. I propose giving this power and accountability to Sound Transit.

That California Comment is not fair. We have WAY more transit and WAY more HOV than in Seattle.

I take a train to work every day!!!

Oh, as to the SUVs. If they were hybrid SUVs, like the new ones from Saturn that get 30+ mpg, that's not bad, especially if they're used to carpool.

With the imminent arrival of plug-in hybrids to the market, Sound Transit needs to consider adding station car facilities to those new suburban light rail stops.

We could be providing space for low carbon carsharing instead of parking suburbanite Escalades.

Where are Sims and Nickels on this? Lots of photo-ops in front of shiny hybrids to get one into Vanity Fair...