SR 520 - Option K Design Simulation

[YMIHereAgain]

The stumbling block has not been Medina. It was always going to be expensive but doable. The real problem has always been the west end. You have several limitations. You can't disturb UW Medical Center or the Stadium. The Montlake Bridge is a historical landmark and the Montlake Cut has to remain open and environmentally sound for the salmon and boat traffic.

[YMIHereAgain]

Concern for the Arboretum was what killed the N/S freeway that was planned there in the 50s (Which is why the ramps to nowhere are there). And, finally, the Montlake neighborhood with its NIMBY attitude (Not In My BackYard), disproportionate population of lawyers and City of Seattle officials, and scenic view concerns. Throw in funding and traffic problems during construction and you have a rather spectacular mess.

[dxkraus]

What these videos intentionally gloss over is the devastation this and option L will have on the Arboretum. They both use the Arboretum as the southern approach to 520. Shame on WSDOT for their misleading presentation.

[FuriousCoder]

How would the tunnel to UW mesh with the current Link Light Rail tunnel being planned? Also, is it anticipated that local drivers would "game the system" and use the tunnel to move N/S instead of the drawbridge? What impact would that have around the 520 interchange?

[kevinmsft]

Plan K is almost 2 billion more expensive than the other two.

Of course it would look better, qn is who will pay?

[7stg]

This has to be my favorite of the 3. I like the lids and the tunnel for montlake. I have pushed for 8 lanes any time I have talked with representatives from WSDOT. It would better suit the traffic needs of the region. 520 is 6 lanes now, except for the bridge. A 6 lane bridge would be great for 1996 not 2016. The traffic levels presented in the videos do not reflect current traffic levels.

[mugshotesp]

I'd agree to have a separate lane for Montlake traffic all the way across the bridge for on and off ramps to provide more throughput.

[collywobble43]

If we really want to look toward 2016 it should remain 6 lanes but add a rail link. Let's start getting commuters out of their cars and provide some better options!

[fatejd]

What?  The bus options across the bridge right now are awesome. Light rail across 520 is not going to happen, mostly because there are plans for it across I-90 (the bridge that already supports it) and the lobbying of the rich folks in Medina and Clyde Hill. Why do you think 520 is so horrible as it is and it's taken so long for us to get this far with changes? Old people in those neighborhoods don't go anywhere and don't want more people and traffic near them, so they help stop this stuff.

[adamforest]

@collywobble43

What about people that aren't going to downtown Seattle and just want to pass through?

[7stg]

look up UN Agenda 21 it explains a lot regarding development around the Puget Sound.

[melonhead901]

An 8 lane bridge would bring I-5 to a halt. Also, the rich floks in the eastside would surely block such an expansion.

[safesler]

Good plan.

[PointMutation]

Great production, but not clear on I-5 to southbound Montlake approach to Madison Valley, or where the Husky Football crowd lets out onto Montlake neighborhood.