I don't care how many lanes the bridge is; just make sure that 520 on either end is exactly the same amount of lanes when it meets the bridge. No suddenly ending HOV lanes, no merging of lanes, whatsover.

Am I the only one who doesn't actually believe this project will ever, ever happen in reality, anyway?

I'm trying to understand how cars idling in stop-and-go traffic contribute less to global warming than cars that are actually moving. It might work that way if everyone drove Priuses with idle-stop, but they don't.

Since when is Frank "Mr. BIAW" Chopp part of the progressive leadership in Olympia?

@1 I'm in full agreement with you.

The project NEEDS to have 8 lanes from the water to the interchanges (2 lanes being an HOV in each direction, with 3 lanes each direction to I- 405 Interchange)

THAT is the ONLY way traffic congestion will be eased thru that pinch point bottleneck.

That specific area of the state is the 2nd worst bottleneck (other than the Renton I 405 S curves/ SR 167 Interchange fiasco)

If traffic needs to jockey/compress down for lane merging into fewer lanes, adding lanes across the bridge is folly.

If we don't have that many lanes, then we simply need to remove all HOV designation for that corridor. BRT transit needs to suffer with the rest of us who don't have BRT access or needs. The ultra liberal idea of us all happily cramming into metro transit is ludicrous, and those of you espousing it need to wake up to reality that many people have NO DESIRE to ever entertain the idea.

BRT is no transit solution, and is a band-aid to a larger gaping wound.

Reality Check

The simple fact is, no amount of new lanes -- not a thousand of them -- will ease congestion if the traffic is still backed up where it connects to I-5, and the neighborhood streets that inevitably take some of the overflow. And, realistically, there is only one way to ease congestion on that bridge: shut down Microsoft.

But really, I don't see why we need to have that stupid lake in the first place. Why not just fill it in, pave it over?

Washington voters reality check!

The voters Gregoire ACTUALLY needs just want to see real progress on this. They want to see that their governer is rebuilding their unsafe bridge in a way that adds more capacity. That's all.

Just build the damn thing.

In other news, Obama has a pretty sweet program for rebuilding infrastructure in America, which could mean big changes in these debates with more potential federal funding.

I have a friend who commutes through that SR-167/I-405 mess every day. I asked him if he'd thought about taking the bus. He said, "That'd be even worse. The bus just sits in the same traffic I do." And yet folks here on SLOG, following the "no new highway lanes ever" mantra, oppose widening that stretch to add HOV capacity.

The people who think that making sure freeways continue to resemble parking lots will make people move to mass transit aren't thinking it through. Short of light rail to the Eastside (which isn't going to happen any time soon, face it) traffic congestion hurts mass transit every bit as much as it hurts single-occupancy drivers.

Fnarf = the surface solution! Get Cary Moon right on it.

I... ummm... completely agree with Reality Check?

I'm going to go throw myself off a cliff now.

Also, Josh:

a voting bloc (Seattle liberals) she desperately needs in November

Riiiiiiight. Because otherwise all those Seattle liberals are going to go vote for Rossi. As opposed to the stalwart Democrats on the Eastside.

@9: The danger is that they'll stay home out of spite. I think that's how Tim Eyman's initiative got passed last election -- turnout from King County was low.

hey, if those 2 lanes are BIKE lanes, then build 'em.

and if you think you'll get 8 lanes past the montlake, clyde hill, cunt's point, & medina communities - you crazy.

simple solution: if you work on the Eastside, then you have to live on the Eastside and vice versa. And, no sneaking into town on the weekends; the B&T crowd RUIN Capitol Hill and DT on Friday and Saturday nights...go party at the Red Robin in Kirkland.

Josh I just re-read your quote:

"I’m not so scared that the Eastside will get its eight lanes in the future (I can’t imagine that will be a popular position ten years from now), but by removing the specific six-lane language that was in the bill, the negotiations are now wide open, and road interests are in a position to reframe the whole debate. Progressives had them locked in and they backed off. "

and

"It’s 2008 now—arguably year 2 when you measure the world in “An Inconvenient Truth” years. Accommodating suburban demand for maximum car capacity is cowardly, and it’s bad policy."

It is not "cowardly" to demand more capacity over Lake Washington. We DON'T have BASIC capacity that a normal similar size metro has RIGHT NOW. If you look at other metros that have a significant water barrier across them, and then LOOK at the NUMBER and CAPACITY of those lane miles, we aren't even CLOSE to normal.

You ultra fuzzy liberal types that use action words like "cowardly" really need a kick in the pants with a heavy dose of reality.

Vehicles that sit idling in traffic due to being so congested they travel at 5 MPH for 15-25 miles contributes significantly more pollution and carbon gas heating of the environment than vehicles that travel quickly and efficiently to their destination.

I'm only going to be on this Earth for another 60 years, my quality of life matters NOW to me. Not worrying about my future generations 5 generations from now. I need to HAVE a life after work. Getting to home, recreation, etc QUICKLY so that I CAN have a higher quality life trumps any liberal blubbering logic you will throw back at me, and frankly I'm not interested in hearing it.

Reality Check

This reminds me of the conservative debate over distributing condoms at school.

Not giving condoms to teenagers to have safe sex does not prevent them from having sex. And, it does create more teenage pregnancies.

Not giving extra lanes to workers, especially those not near a bus stop (my building is 3 miles from a bus stop), will not prevent them from driving across the water. And, it will create more pollution.

I totally agree with those who feel the bridge isn't the problem. 6 lanes would be plenty, the problem is and always will be the roads leading up to the bridge, that's where the bottlenecks occur, especially evening westbound traffic between the 405 interchange and the bridge.

...Or the conservative debate over the legality of abortions. Or any other conservative debate on a hot topic issue, really.

If we punish somebody for doing something we don't like, then they will stop doing it. Abortions, sex, masturbation, etc.

Liberals have really gotten touchy-feely with other people's rights to happiness.

Just make the entire bridge hybrid-only - a requirement that all vehicles crossing acheive more than 40 mpg - or have two or more people in them.

Problem solved.

Sometimes you seem like such an intelligent guy, and other times you are just a tool. Why do you even have an opinion on this? You went to see An Inconveient Truth and that makes you some kind of an expert on what is best for the 520 bridge? Please stick to writing about things that you actually know about.

michael strangeways @ 12

simple solution: if you work on the Eastside, then you have to live on the Eastside and vice versa. And, no sneaking into town on the weekends; the B&T crowd RUIN Capitol Hill and DT on Friday and Saturday nights...go party at the Red Robin in Kirkland.

Newsflash sunshine. It's not 1984 any more. Back in the 80s you could hit 520 eastbound at 8:30 in the morning and it was clear sailing at 70MPH. 5:30 westbound at night was the same way. Flashforward to 2008, Seattle is as much of, if not more of a bedroom community for the Eastside as the Eastside is for Seattle. The belief that 520 is the clusterfuck it is because of all of those damned Eastsiders jamming it to come to jobs in Seattle is nonsense.

Those evil Eastsiders ought to offer a compromise to Seattle's environmentalists. They'll go with the four or six lane design, but only if there are no on and off ramps through the Arboretum or to Madison Park.

Really, if you live on the Eastside why should you care if a bunch of self righteous, Prius driving yuppie fuckheads who live in that neighborhood have an easy commute to work? I'd love to see that, I think that if it came up that the Seattle's anti-road crowd would get thrown under the bus (or light rail in Erica's case) by Madison park commuters so quickly that it would make your head spin.

I'm laughing at this whole post, Josh, because you are your own worst enemy.

Everybody agrees that this area will grow in population -- and considerably -- in the next 20-25 years. People will need to work -- and live -- somewhere. And they are going to want to get to work and back home again in a way that suits them -- and not you.

Suburban commuters and their elected officials do not, never have, and never will take direction from sanctimonious little pissants like you who purport to decide for them what is right, what is good, what is necessary, what is desirable, and what is "progressive."

Ths Speaker of the House, whom you have publicly called a tool of the BIAW, can safely ignore you.

The Democratic majority, more and more, represents those same suburban commuters whom you and Will and the rest of the Green Taliban think should live in 100-story rabbit warrens in "urban archipelagos," just because some of *you* have chosen to.

They too, will ignore you and will reflect the will of the constituents who elected them. Everybody else does. Maybe someday you'll get it, but I think not.

What are these monolithic "Eastside" and "Eastsiders" who want more lanes on the 520 bridge, and the equally monolithic "Seattle" that wants to cap the lanes at 6?

The reality is that people in both Seattle and the Eastside have different opinions on this issue. Those who use the bridge most are probably more likely to support more lanes, regardless of which side of the lake they live on, and numbers are about even either way.

I'm so sick of Seattle vs. Eastside arguments. They're insular, simplistic, and counterproductive. There are plenty of pro-transit Eastsiders who don't want a bigger 520, and plenty of Seattleites who do.

Until you offer people a realistic alternative to driving in single-occupancy vehicles, they will continue to do so. Our current bus system is not a realistic alternative. The buses take easily twice as long to get where you're going, presuming they even go where you need to go (in my own case, there are no buses from where I live to where I work). And people can't afford to just up and move every time they change jobs.

Want fewer people driving across the lake? Then have REAL mass transit acros the lake. Fast, frequent trains/ferries, etc., that actually bypass traffic bottlenecks and connect with other transit systems efficiently and seamlessly so that people can reach their destinations more rapidly and inexpensively than driving. Such things do exist in many major metropolitan areas. They sure as hell don't exist here, nor will they ever, so long as everything is discussed to death and Seattle Paralysis continues to rule.

We have five or more disparate transit systems - buses, ferries, heavy rail, light rail, etc. - none of which connect in any meaningful fashion. You cannot easily get off a passenger ferry at the Seattle dock and hop on a train to Ballard, for instance. The Sounder train gets from Auburn to downtown in 28 minutes, which is fabulous, but then it leaves you in the bowels of King Street Station, climbing stairs and hills and crossing busy streets to try to grab a bus going to your actual destination. A real transit system would have light rail or the bus tunnel actually connecting with heavy rail and the ferries. (The bus tunnel is only across the street, but it's up two flights of stairs, across the street, then down two more flights, which is tough on those who aren't very nimble. A better solution would have been some kind of tunnel through from King Street to the bus tunnel.)

@ 21

Totally agree with you. Bottom line is that we need more transit capacity in this area. As great as light rail would be when it gets here, its unlikely to meet the needs of everyone that now travels any of the roads around Lake Washington, be it east, west, north or south. We need to invest in both mass transit and roads.

Here's one Seattleite that is all for a bigger 520.

Josh, who on the Eastside wants the eight lanes? You don't name any names in your post. Is it just that monolithic mass of Eastside meanies that's somehow always to blame for every problem in Seattle? Without further details, I am forced to conclude that you just need someone to blame, and hating on the Eastside is so popular these days.

Orv@10:

The danger is that they'll stay home out of spite

That's not much of a danger on a day where they get to choose between Barack Obama and John McCain.

Josh:

Because Microsoft, one of the area's largest employers, is on the Eastside just off 520, traffic on the bridge tends to be heaviest west-to-east (away from Seattle) in the morning and east-to-west (toward Seattle) in the evening, backward from what one might expect.

All you "progressives" in Seattle who use the 520, feel free to move to the East Side if you are really concerned about traffic and the environment (spoken as someone who lives and works on the Eastside.)

@12: The problem with that theory is the jobs are in Seattle and the Eastside, but the affordable housing is all to the south. Obviously that doesn't reflect on the SR-520 issue, but it does have a lot to do with the SR-167/I-405 mess.

@20 - Ivan, unlike you, I've actually sat in on design review panels and had discussions with people from the Medina side, as well as various engineers ...

I offered the hybrid-only option as a way to say "there is not just one choice".

I'm actually mostly in favor of the 6+8 option where we build a 6-lane version (with 2 lanes BRT/HOV only that runs from I-405 to I-5), to be upgraded with pontoon additions to an 8 lane (2 lanes LRT/monorail/other medium capacity dedicated transit that swoops down when it lands to tunnel under the Arboretum, or elevates on the Eastside; plus 2 lanes HOV/Bus only).

The four remaining lanes could easily be upgraded from SOV to SOV/PLUS - where during high demand times a vehicle with 2+ people or any plug-in hybrid gets to ride half-price in 2 of the lanes, and SOV with low-mpg are stuck to only two lanes.

Bike/ped lanes don't really add to the lift requirement - you can add fairly extensive ones, but they are wave/wind restricted - unless they have a shield wall.

The four remaining lanes could easily be upgraded from SOV to SOV/PLUS - where during high demand times a vehicle with 2+ people or any plug-in hybrid gets to ride half-price in 2 of the lanes, and SOV with low-mpg are stuck to only two lanes.

Will:

You're my buddy and all, and I'll have a beer with you anytime, but you just can't seriously imagine that such a plan will ever fly politically.

Wile sends the slow straight pitch right over the plate @19, and ivan knocks it WAY out of the park @20.