Slog
News & ArtsFriday, February 19, 2010
Transportation Bridge Diagrams Show 520 With Eight Lanes—Not Six
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Diagrams used by the Washington State Department of Transportation seeking bids to rebuild the 520 bridge show a span far wider than represented in documents released publicly for an impact study. Previous plans for replacing the aging four-lane bridge, released in a January environmental impacts study (.pdf), have shown a bridge with six lanes—with four used for mixed automobile traffic and two lanes reserved for carpools (or HOV lanes). It would be 115 feet wide.
In a document released last month, the state's transportation department writes (.pdf): "Within these limits, SR 520 would be six lanes." This reflects the state laws authorizing the bridge: "The state route number 520 bridge replacement and HOV project shall be designed to provide six total lanes, with two lanes that are for transit and high-occupancy vehicle travel, and four general purpose lanes," the RCW states.
Here is a cross section of that design:
- The 520 designs we have already seen
But documents (.pdf) released by WSDOT to gather construction bids in September show that the bridge would be designed to expand to a much larger bridge. In that case, light rail would be added to the six vehicles lanes by widening the bridge (click image to enlarge).
Here is a cross section of the bridge depicted in bidding documents:
- Click to enlarge
"We have not found what is depicted here anywhere, and it is in direct conflict with the depictions you do see publicly," says Fran Conley, head of the Coalition for a Sustainable 520, which advocates that the two new lanes for the bridge be outfitted with light-rail tracks from the outset.
The diagram shows the bridge, as submitted to potential contractors, could be built out to hold at least six lanes for cars, two lanes for light rail, and possible two more lanes, Conley says. "The very broad shoulders mean that they could just be re-striped to allow additional lanes, so we could be looking at ten lanes," she says. "That is completely contrary to many verbal agreements with the citizens and mediation and other state sponsored forums."
- The existing bridge
Another law says that the state must, "minimize the total footprint and width of the bridge." This widened design depicts a bridge that is 140 feet wide, the equivalent of a 14-story building on its side (and 25 feet wider than shown previously), which is nearly 2.5 times wider than the 60-foot-wide existing bridge.
2
It's like I said, they're trying to shove 10 lanes of SOV traffic (2 lanes HOV is equivalent roughly to 1 lanes of SOV) into Seattle.
Which is amusing, because the Mercer "fix" is going to reduce the number of lanes there, and there's no room on I-5 for those cars to exit.
Insist on all lanes past the original 4 being transit-only, or you'll be paying to widen arterials in Seattle for the next 50 years, and all for cars that will slow internal traffic down to a crawl.
Besides, the EPA has this and the adjacent 2 counties on violation lists for GHG and pollution standards, by the time this is underway.
Which is amusing, because the Mercer "fix" is going to reduce the number of lanes there, and there's no room on I-5 for those cars to exit.
Insist on all lanes past the original 4 being transit-only, or you'll be paying to widen arterials in Seattle for the next 50 years, and all for cars that will slow internal traffic down to a crawl.
Besides, the EPA has this and the adjacent 2 counties on violation lists for GHG and pollution standards, by the time this is underway.
6
You know, this is not a new proposal and has been in the design discussion with WSDOT from the beginning.
The communities instructed/advised WSDOT to design a structure that could support light rail in the future. That is why this option is included. You will note that the overall width of the bridge deck changes, and the change to the structure is to add more stability floats.
The bulk of the width increase for the 6 lane version is from the desire by WSDOT to meet Federal guidelines for safety - that's where we get 10' and 4' shoulders. I will mention, however, the the WSDOT engineers would prefer another 10' shoulder next to the HOV lane plus an additional 4' buffer between the HOV lane and GP lanes.
The proposal does, to a certain degree, reflect input from the community groups. The A+ option on the West side, however, does represent a significant fuck you to Seattle's input.
The communities instructed/advised WSDOT to design a structure that could support light rail in the future. That is why this option is included. You will note that the overall width of the bridge deck changes, and the change to the structure is to add more stability floats.
The bulk of the width increase for the 6 lane version is from the desire by WSDOT to meet Federal guidelines for safety - that's where we get 10' and 4' shoulders. I will mention, however, the the WSDOT engineers would prefer another 10' shoulder next to the HOV lane plus an additional 4' buffer between the HOV lane and GP lanes.
The proposal does, to a certain degree, reflect input from the community groups. The A+ option on the West side, however, does represent a significant fuck you to Seattle's input.
7
Future slogan for 520...
Too little.
Too late.
Too much.
Fuck!
Boston's Big Dig is finally eclipsed by Seattle's Double Trouble - The Tunnel and The 520 Bridge
Too little.
Too late.
Too much.
Fuck!
Boston's Big Dig is finally eclipsed by Seattle's Double Trouble - The Tunnel and The 520 Bridge
8
#1. I have often suggested such since Lake Washington is manmade (there are still trees on the bottom).
Think of all the extra land that could be used for giant "Central Park" in the middle of Bellevue/Seattle/Renton!
And traffic woes -- disappear as we can connect hundreds of streets east and West.
Losers? The 0.0001 percent of people who own waterfront property and the UW crew team....but how about if we drained, say, half the lake?!
#1. I have often suggested such since Lake Washington is manmade (there are still trees on the bottom).
Think of all the extra land that could be used for giant "Central Park" in the middle of Bellevue/Seattle/Renton!
And traffic woes -- disappear as we can connect hundreds of streets east and West.
Losers? The 0.0001 percent of people who own waterfront property and the UW crew team....but how about if we drained, say, half the lake?!
9
So um they drew some pictures of things that, if ever wanted, could be done? Why is this an issue? Its not like is a secret that bridges can be widened. I'm sure somewhere there's a drawing of adding more lanes to I-90.
10
I love the picture on the last page where there's a Ryder truck parking on one of the pontoons underneath the traffic deck.
How are the light rail trains going to cut above or under all 6 lanes of traffic in order to get to the UW station? Adding a flyover at montlake? A tunnel through the construction access area? Most likely folks will have to go downtown & transfer.
The HOV lanes seem like a nightmare: where do they merge on & off? The current delay isn't on the bridge deck, it's the merges on & off. In this plan there will be lanes over portage bay which then get cut down to 1 lane going onto I5, right? That'll be just like the stupid HOV lanes on 520 now: You can go fast for a while, then you have to wait for the slow mergers.
How are the light rail trains going to cut above or under all 6 lanes of traffic in order to get to the UW station? Adding a flyover at montlake? A tunnel through the construction access area? Most likely folks will have to go downtown & transfer.
The HOV lanes seem like a nightmare: where do they merge on & off? The current delay isn't on the bridge deck, it's the merges on & off. In this plan there will be lanes over portage bay which then get cut down to 1 lane going onto I5, right? That'll be just like the stupid HOV lanes on 520 now: You can go fast for a while, then you have to wait for the slow mergers.
11
I worked my way from your pdf to the main RFP describing the contract: it isn't for making lanes on a bridge deck at all, to my surprise.
The RFP is for making 33 pontoons. If 520 winds up not getting replaced (which, c'mon, you know might happen) WSDOT will have them on hand to float over here whenever existing pontoons start to fail.
But the RFP says if some design does get put in play on a rebuild WSDOT will use the pontoons for that. The RFP tells pontoon people all they have to know about the bridge's configuration is that they need make buoyancy for no less than four lanes, no more than eight. (I wonder if they were ranked in your pdf by decreasing likelihood: your eight-lane excerpt was last. The six-lane was first, followed by the four-lane.)
I don't think this signals WSDOT skulduggery, only that they have once-in-a-lifetime chance to get awesome pontoons and want to make sure they're covered for a hundred years no matter how the politics works out. Or even if the bridge replacement gets stymied, and they need pontoons on hand to replace failing ones.
But you could get clarification from WSDOT, or from Kiewit, the pontoon contractor that just won the bid at $180 million below engineering estimates.
Pontoon Project link:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr520/p…
Bid documents page (see page 155 of RFP for design purpose):
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/contaa/DESIG…
The RFP is for making 33 pontoons. If 520 winds up not getting replaced (which, c'mon, you know might happen) WSDOT will have them on hand to float over here whenever existing pontoons start to fail.
But the RFP says if some design does get put in play on a rebuild WSDOT will use the pontoons for that. The RFP tells pontoon people all they have to know about the bridge's configuration is that they need make buoyancy for no less than four lanes, no more than eight. (I wonder if they were ranked in your pdf by decreasing likelihood: your eight-lane excerpt was last. The six-lane was first, followed by the four-lane.)
I don't think this signals WSDOT skulduggery, only that they have once-in-a-lifetime chance to get awesome pontoons and want to make sure they're covered for a hundred years no matter how the politics works out. Or even if the bridge replacement gets stymied, and they need pontoons on hand to replace failing ones.
But you could get clarification from WSDOT, or from Kiewit, the pontoon contractor that just won the bid at $180 million below engineering estimates.
Pontoon Project link:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr520/p…
Bid documents page (see page 155 of RFP for design purpose):
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/contaa/DESIG…
12
The plan is for Montlake Blvd, like the bridge, to have 2 GP lanes and 1 HOV lane in each direction. Thus the new Montlake Bridge.
13
Lake Washington is man-made, eh? LMFAO.
What's going to happen to the Arboretum when they have to widen the highway through there to 'alleviate' the new parking lot that goes across the lake?
What's going to happen to the Arboretum when they have to widen the highway through there to 'alleviate' the new parking lot that goes across the lake?
15
You know, I remember once when I was in first grade, I went with my grampa to have breakfast with a friend of his at a diner in Stanwood and this old dude sits down across from us, takes out a cigarette and starts smoking. Only he's one of these guys who just likes to hold his cigarette while it burns down really slowly. So there I am, six years old, sitting across from this guy while his smoke kind of pours down onto the table and makes its way across to me. Thing is, I was so short that the smoke pretty much got me right in the face. Now, my dad was a smoker so I was used to being around it, but getting it right in the face like that was more than my lungs could handle, so I waved it away -- and my grampa snapped at me, "Stop that!" 'Cause it was rude to wave away second-hand smoke in 1978.
Then 20 years go by, and everyone figured out that second hand smoke was incredibly toxic and in that light it's pretty clear that my grampa's friend was basically forcing me to deal with the negative health consequences of his poorly-informed decision to kill himself with a toxic drug.
The cities on the East Side made a collective decision over the span of several decades to sprawl as much as possible -- that whole region is full of eight-lane surface roads with no sidewalks, where everyone goes 60 miles an hour, connecting one poorly designed cluster of rickety tract housing after another. The density of grocery stores, schools, and other amenities basically requires people on the East Side to drive. The population density is too low for effective mass transit.
And that sucks for them, in my opinion. Like with smoking, all the evidence compiled over the last 40 years pretty much shows that there's an inverse relationship between the number of cars in a community and the ecological and human well-being of that community. So bummer for them.
But I live in Seattle. I paid a shitload of money for a tiny condo with no yard, because I'd rather be able to walk to the grocery store than live in a 3000 square foot house with a soggy yard, built in a drained swamp, where I have to drive to the goddamn post office. And it would be nice if, having made the decision to live my life this way, me and my fellow Seattleites could continue to live that way without having the East Side's stupid and self-destructive transit decisions drifting across the lake on a 8 lane floating superhighway like a cloud of second-hand smoke, to turn the main streets near my house into toxic parking lots and the surface throughlanes of my city into defacto freeways where you take your life in your hands every time you try to walk across one. And while part of me finds it sort of retro and provocative that the governments of the East Side consider being able to DRIVE to Seattle a civil right, I don't want their cars here, most Seattleites don't want their cars here, and at the end of the day no means no.
If the East Siders use a bunch of procedural loopholes and fat campaign contributions for our spineless city council to get their way in this, there will be significant legal repercussions, and the taxpayers will be the ones who ultimately take it in the ass as this whole thing spins out into an endless string of litigation.
More...
Then 20 years go by, and everyone figured out that second hand smoke was incredibly toxic and in that light it's pretty clear that my grampa's friend was basically forcing me to deal with the negative health consequences of his poorly-informed decision to kill himself with a toxic drug.
The cities on the East Side made a collective decision over the span of several decades to sprawl as much as possible -- that whole region is full of eight-lane surface roads with no sidewalks, where everyone goes 60 miles an hour, connecting one poorly designed cluster of rickety tract housing after another. The density of grocery stores, schools, and other amenities basically requires people on the East Side to drive. The population density is too low for effective mass transit.
And that sucks for them, in my opinion. Like with smoking, all the evidence compiled over the last 40 years pretty much shows that there's an inverse relationship between the number of cars in a community and the ecological and human well-being of that community. So bummer for them.
But I live in Seattle. I paid a shitload of money for a tiny condo with no yard, because I'd rather be able to walk to the grocery store than live in a 3000 square foot house with a soggy yard, built in a drained swamp, where I have to drive to the goddamn post office. And it would be nice if, having made the decision to live my life this way, me and my fellow Seattleites could continue to live that way without having the East Side's stupid and self-destructive transit decisions drifting across the lake on a 8 lane floating superhighway like a cloud of second-hand smoke, to turn the main streets near my house into toxic parking lots and the surface throughlanes of my city into defacto freeways where you take your life in your hands every time you try to walk across one. And while part of me finds it sort of retro and provocative that the governments of the East Side consider being able to DRIVE to Seattle a civil right, I don't want their cars here, most Seattleites don't want their cars here, and at the end of the day no means no.
If the East Siders use a bunch of procedural loopholes and fat campaign contributions for our spineless city council to get their way in this, there will be significant legal repercussions, and the taxpayers will be the ones who ultimately take it in the ass as this whole thing spins out into an endless string of litigation.
16
You have a shortage of ALL kinds of transportation -- SOV/HOV capacity AND transit. Be a big grown-up city, build ALL OF IT and stop griping. There will still be plenty of swamp around the Arboretum and south of Bellevue for all the tens of you to enjoy.
17
Um, Judah, half of the traffic on 520 is from Seattle, and that's why most of the Seattle City Council and in-city legislators support expanding it.
And Montlake's expensive tunnel plan to put the interchange that is there now by Husky Stadium is actually worse.
And Montlake's expensive tunnel plan to put the interchange that is there now by Husky Stadium is actually worse.
18
Yes, Mr. X, they support expanding it. But, "support expanding it" to six lanes with two of those lanes dedicated to transit is different than "support expanding it" to eight lanes. So sure. The Council supports expanding it. But not the same way, or to the same degree, as people on the East Side.
And saying that "half the traffic" coming out of Seattle doesn't actually dispute anything in my post. Seattle is home to a third of the population of the entire county, has more than three times as many non-car commuters and more than twice as many car-free households as the East Side. The idea that we "need" (much less want) the bridge expansion as much as the East Side does is patently ridiculous.
And saying that "half the traffic" coming out of Seattle doesn't actually dispute anything in my post. Seattle is home to a third of the population of the entire county, has more than three times as many non-car commuters and more than twice as many car-free households as the East Side. The idea that we "need" (much less want) the bridge expansion as much as the East Side does is patently ridiculous.
19
At last count, 56% of Seattle residents drive to work alone, 11% carpool, 18% use transit, 3% ride bikes, 7% walk, and 5% work at home. Seattle may not be as car dependent as the Eastside, but it's still plenty car dependent.
Forgive me if I misread you, but the logic of your post certainly seemed indicate that 520 shouldn't be expanded, period, and that only those EVIL suburbanites think it should.
But yeah, 8 lanes is certainly too big, doubly so considering that there is nowhere to put them.
Forgive me if I misread you, but the logic of your post certainly seemed indicate that 520 shouldn't be expanded, period, and that only those EVIL suburbanites think it should.
But yeah, 8 lanes is certainly too big, doubly so considering that there is nowhere to put them.
20
Quoting Seattle's numbers without comparing them to anything doesn't suggest anything about my argument that the East Side has made poor transit choices over the long term that have resulted in lower non-car mobility than one finds in Seattle. As of the 2000 census, 28% of Seattleites were non-car commuters and 16% of Seattle households didn't own a car at all. Compare that to Bellevue, with 10% and 6% respectively, Federal Way with 8% and 6%, Kirkland with 9% and 4%, Redmond with 8% and 5%, and it starts to become pretty clear that Seattle has markedly different transit needs than the East Side, and that those transit needs require fewer lanes of traffic.
Also, Seattle is almost twice as dense as the densest city on the East Side and nearly three times as dense as East Side cities generally -- which means that amenities are much more densely distributed, so that Seattleites are, by definition, less car dependent than East Siders. I've lived in Seattle most of my life; I didn't get a driver's license until I was 26 and have never owned a car (my wife owns one that I've never driven). My car dependency is and pretty much always has been nearly zero. Most other Seattleites, even those who use their cars quite a bit, could easily get by without them. That would be pretty much impossible on the East Side. I feel bad for people over there, but I don't see why their shitty choices mean I have to let them point a fire hose of traffic at my city. Especially when Seattle's streets don't have the capacity to deal with that many incoming cars, and Seattle residents have no desire to destroy our city in order to create that capacity.
Also, Seattle is almost twice as dense as the densest city on the East Side and nearly three times as dense as East Side cities generally -- which means that amenities are much more densely distributed, so that Seattleites are, by definition, less car dependent than East Siders. I've lived in Seattle most of my life; I didn't get a driver's license until I was 26 and have never owned a car (my wife owns one that I've never driven). My car dependency is and pretty much always has been nearly zero. Most other Seattleites, even those who use their cars quite a bit, could easily get by without them. That would be pretty much impossible on the East Side. I feel bad for people over there, but I don't see why their shitty choices mean I have to let them point a fire hose of traffic at my city. Especially when Seattle's streets don't have the capacity to deal with that many incoming cars, and Seattle residents have no desire to destroy our city in order to create that capacity.
21
It is patently ridiculous to casually assert that the 67% of Seattleites who rely on cars to get to work can "easily get by without them."
Get over yourself.
Get over yourself.
22
I didn't say that the entire 67% who use cars to get to work could easily get by without them. I said most could, and I based that opinion on the proximity to amenities and the availability of transit options. Your refutation is based on -- well, nothing besides the magical specialness of your opinion. So maybe you're the one who needs to get over himself.
And the fact that 67% of Seattleites use cars to get to work doesn't mean they all rely on cars -- to get to work, or for anything else. About 80% of Seattleites work inside Seattle City Limits and the most centrally located neighborhoods are the densest, meaning that the people there have the best access to the entire rest of the city. In other words, while they may enjoy their cars, they probably don't need them.
That'd be your cue to make an unsupported statement about the veracity of my reasoning and follow it up with a distracting personal attack.
And the fact that 67% of Seattleites use cars to get to work doesn't mean they all rely on cars -- to get to work, or for anything else. About 80% of Seattleites work inside Seattle City Limits and the most centrally located neighborhoods are the densest, meaning that the people there have the best access to the entire rest of the city. In other words, while they may enjoy their cars, they probably don't need them.
That'd be your cue to make an unsupported statement about the veracity of my reasoning and follow it up with a distracting personal attack.
23
2/3 is a supermajority in anyone's book - and they don't have to justify their needs, choices, or anything else to you.
24
What's your thesis here? That the 2/3 of the city that use cars to get to work -- 80% of whom work inside Seattle City Limits and don't actually need a bridge to get to work -- all want a wider bridge to the East Side and should therefore get one? Or that a 2/3 majority puts any practice above moral reproach?
Do you have a head cold or something? You're usually better than this.
Do you have a head cold or something? You're usually better than this.
25
No, just that someone like you who presumes to sit in judgement of hundreds of thousands of your neighbors (in this case, the 67% who think they need their cars to get around despite the pronouncements of the oracle Judah) is sure thin skinned when someone calls you on it.
The "get over yourself" stands.
The "get over yourself" stands.
26
So basically you're accusing me of something I haven't done in response to something I haven't said so you can win an argument we're not having, then accusing me of being thin skinned when I ask you what you're talking about?
My goodness. Aren't you clever?
My goodness. Aren't you clever?
27
Lightrail on 520 is at least 20 years more likely 30 years away.
When it does get built it will probably exit the bridge to the U-district (the 2nd highest transit destination outside of downtown) continue onto Wallingford and Fremont before heading south to downtown. In otther words it won't be 8 lane through the west portion.
The Montlake swells masquerading as enviromentalists are making much ado about nothing.
When it does get built it will probably exit the bridge to the U-district (the 2nd highest transit destination outside of downtown) continue onto Wallingford and Fremont before heading south to downtown. In otther words it won't be 8 lane through the west portion.
The Montlake swells masquerading as enviromentalists are making much ado about nothing.
28
@27
So doubling the amount of traffic pouring into a densely-packed residential area, with fixed geological borders (which is also a major waterway and ecosystem) is "much ado about nothing" because it's only a matter of time before we have a new westbound freeway cutting the city in half?
Well hell, man. Sooner or later the sun will go nova. Let's just not worry about anything.
So doubling the amount of traffic pouring into a densely-packed residential area, with fixed geological borders (which is also a major waterway and ecosystem) is "much ado about nothing" because it's only a matter of time before we have a new westbound freeway cutting the city in half?
Well hell, man. Sooner or later the sun will go nova. Let's just not worry about anything.
29
@ Judah,
Gross generalization #1 - "I don't want their cars here, most Seattleites don't want their cars here, and at the end of the day no means no. " I respond to this with the factual statement that 1/2 of the traffic on 520 comes from Seattle, and it isn't just "their" cars we are discussing.
Gross generalization #2 - "The idea that we "need" (much less want) the bridge expansion as much as the East Side does is patently ridiculous. " This is your response to my mentioning that fact that most of the Seattle City Council and our state legislators essentially support an expansion of 520 to 6 lanes. Who is the "we" in your sentence? Montlake (who were perfectly happy to pave Foster Island over as long as the offramp got moved to the other side of the Cut)? North Capitol Hill? Madison Park (whose residents comprise a good portion of existing 520 traffic that cuts through the Arboretum now)? There's more to Seattle than the 43rd District.
Gross generalization #3 - "Most other Seattleites, even those who use their cars quite a bit, could easily get by without them." My response speaks for itself and I stand by it - you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, and you are in FACT presuming to tell people what they can or cannot get by without. If that isn't "sitting in judgment of hundreds of thousands of your neighbors" I'm not sure what is.
I responded to things you actually said, pointed out why I think they're wrong, and you got huffier and huffier as your statements were contested. So yeah, I'd call that thin-skinned. Sorry.
Gross generalization #1 - "I don't want their cars here, most Seattleites don't want their cars here, and at the end of the day no means no. " I respond to this with the factual statement that 1/2 of the traffic on 520 comes from Seattle, and it isn't just "their" cars we are discussing.
Gross generalization #2 - "The idea that we "need" (much less want) the bridge expansion as much as the East Side does is patently ridiculous. " This is your response to my mentioning that fact that most of the Seattle City Council and our state legislators essentially support an expansion of 520 to 6 lanes. Who is the "we" in your sentence? Montlake (who were perfectly happy to pave Foster Island over as long as the offramp got moved to the other side of the Cut)? North Capitol Hill? Madison Park (whose residents comprise a good portion of existing 520 traffic that cuts through the Arboretum now)? There's more to Seattle than the 43rd District.
Gross generalization #3 - "Most other Seattleites, even those who use their cars quite a bit, could easily get by without them." My response speaks for itself and I stand by it - you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, and you are in FACT presuming to tell people what they can or cannot get by without. If that isn't "sitting in judgment of hundreds of thousands of your neighbors" I'm not sure what is.
I responded to things you actually said, pointed out why I think they're wrong, and you got huffier and huffier as your statements were contested. So yeah, I'd call that thin-skinned. Sorry.
30
...btw, I'm genuinely curious, where does the figure that 80% of Seattle residents work in the city come from? And how does that stack up with the fact that 67% drive?
Because even if it's accurate, I think it suggests that in-City transit is much less of a ready option that you seem to think it would be, and that many of these folks would indeed regard their cars as necessary for work trips (even if you don't).
Because even if it's accurate, I think it suggests that in-City transit is much less of a ready option that you seem to think it would be, and that many of these folks would indeed regard their cars as necessary for work trips (even if you don't).
31
Mr. X:
You weren't specific about what your first post was responding to, but I'm glad you've finally settled on something, if only retroactively. As for the rest of your recounting of our discussion thus far, it's just inaccurate.
For example, my statement about Seattleites not needing or wanting a bridge expansion as much as the East Side was in response to your "half the cars" comment, not your comment about politicians. I would expect that to be obvious, since the paragraph the sentence came out of starts with a reference to the half-the-cars line. As far as that goes, I took your mentioning of the 50% figure as a suggestion that Seattle's interest in a bridge expansion is equal to that of the East Side -- which, as a practical matter, it isn't. A lesser proportion of Seattleites commute by car, and Seattleites have transportation options that people on the East Side don't. See how those ideas all fit together?
Re your crack about the 43rd: yawn.
As to your third issue -- whatever. I clearly have at least some idea what I'm talking about, and if you can look at this comment string and claim that it's a FACT that I'm telling anyone that they shouldn't drive (how would I go about doing that, exactly? big sign? mass mailing?), I frankly can't be arsed to argue with you about it.
And, finally, re thin-skinned: projection. Look it up.
You weren't specific about what your first post was responding to, but I'm glad you've finally settled on something, if only retroactively. As for the rest of your recounting of our discussion thus far, it's just inaccurate.
For example, my statement about Seattleites not needing or wanting a bridge expansion as much as the East Side was in response to your "half the cars" comment, not your comment about politicians. I would expect that to be obvious, since the paragraph the sentence came out of starts with a reference to the half-the-cars line. As far as that goes, I took your mentioning of the 50% figure as a suggestion that Seattle's interest in a bridge expansion is equal to that of the East Side -- which, as a practical matter, it isn't. A lesser proportion of Seattleites commute by car, and Seattleites have transportation options that people on the East Side don't. See how those ideas all fit together?
Re your crack about the 43rd: yawn.
As to your third issue -- whatever. I clearly have at least some idea what I'm talking about, and if you can look at this comment string and claim that it's a FACT that I'm telling anyone that they shouldn't drive (how would I go about doing that, exactly? big sign? mass mailing?), I frankly can't be arsed to argue with you about it.
And, finally, re thin-skinned: projection. Look it up.
32
Re: the 80% number. It's from a report from a couple of years ago from one of the regional planning commissions. It goes neighborhood by neighborhood and my recollection is that the average of Seattle residents who worked in the central city worked out to about 80%. I'm sure you can find it with a little Google juice.
33
@32 - we don't tend to commute across 520.
Most Seattleites are more apt to use I-5, SR-99, or I-90 than to use 520.
Most Seattleites are more apt to use I-5, SR-99, or I-90 than to use 520.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (33) RSS