Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new window

SR 520 - Option K Design Simulation

This simulation shows Option K, one of three west side design options currently under environmental review for the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Project. Option K includes a tunnel under the Mo...  
 
Customize

More From: wsdot

Loading...
Play All Stop Autoplaying | Play Next

QuickList(0)

1
Clear | Save

Related Videos

Featured Videos

Upgrade to Flash Player 10 for improved playback performance. Upgrade Now or get more info.
4 ratings
Sign in to rate
4,002 views
Flag
close
Want to add to Favorites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
close
Want to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
close
Want to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!

Statistics & Data

Loading...
Sign in to post a Video Response

Video Responses (0)

This video has no Responses. Be the first to Post a Video Response.
Sign in to post a Comment

Text Comments (11)   Options

Loading...
dxkraus (2 months ago) Show Hide
+1
Marked as spam
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 (3 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
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 (4 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Plan K is almost 2 billion more expensive than the other two.

Of course it would look better, qn is who will pay?
7stg (7 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
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 (6 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
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 (5 months ago) Show Hide
+1
Marked as spam
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 (5 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
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.
7stg (5 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
look up UN Agenda 21 it explains a lot regarding development around the Puget Sound.
melonhead901 (5 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
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 (7 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Good plan.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.