Tolls on the Floating Bridges to Fund the SR-520 Replacement Bridge (Seattle: homes, buy)

[scirocco22]

It now appears imminent that tolls will be necessary to fund the rebuilding of the Evergreen Point floating bridge. Tolls are expected on both SR-520 AND I-90.

Again, historically, BOTH bridges have collected tolls when they first opened. The I-90 bridge had tolls collected in the early 1940s and the SR-520 bridge had tolls during the 1970s.

I haven't been keeping abreast with the latest on what's going on pertaining to this issue. I'm relying on those of you who live there to give the latest on what is happening.

Here are a few things that I've gathered:

Toll booths may not be necessary as new technology allows for transponders to be used to collect information on how to charge each vehicle. I have an idea but can somebody fill us in on how exactly that's suppose to work?

There might be some controversy on getting tolls established on I-90 because it requires permission from the Feds. I figure that shouldn't be much of a roadblock; or will it?

One of the reasons that tolls are being proposed for both bridges is that it's assumed that if tolls are established on only SR-520 then more people will try to use I-90 creating even more congestion on already congested I-405 on the eastside and I-5 on the Seattle side. Some people say that won't be the case because people will gladly pay the tolls to save time. As I mentioned in another post, I used to commute to downtown Seattle from Kirkland in the 1970s and would try to take the bus as much as I could but when I did drive, it only made sense to pay the toll and use 520 than to drive all the way down to use I-90 (with it's deadly reversible lanes and "bulge" ...as those of you who were around then, remember).

A six lane bridge is proposed but there's of course opposition. My assumption is that to build anything less than six lanes would be preposterous because there's obviously no increase in capacity involved. This would, I suppose hinge on widening both approaches to the same number of lanes. However, both the Montlake and the Hunts Point (and surrounding area) are vehemently opposed. On the Seattle side, I'd have to assume that the widening would have to extend to I-5 to make the 6-lane bridge make in sense at all. On the other side, it would make sense to have it widened to at least I-405.

The state treasurer says that additional bonds won't be issued unless there's additional revenue from tolls being established. Is there any other way to fund? ...additional gas tax? *ack!*

So, current residents and those planning to move to the Seattle area, what are your opinions on this subject? I'm curious to hear what you all have to say.


Thanks, more later...

--'rocco

Sounds fair to me if traffic is so bad.

[jwb123]

Oh my gosh - widening that bridge to SIX LANES????

Wow, if I were Bill Gates, I would be PISSED - and you can bet he (and his rich neighbors) will have a lot of pull with the final decision.

As for the automatically charging toll, thing - here in TX you register for a TXtag - http://www.txtag.org/ - and it automatically deducts your acct to keep your toll balance around $20 (I think when it gets down to $8 or something, it loads up, not exactly sure) and so you aren't actually giving any money - you have this sticker thats attached to your front window. Also, you get a discounted rate on tolls for using this tag.

Also - for those that don't have that - there is a lane where you throw your money in, with a bill change machine - but if you just drive through, and have neither money nor tag, they take a picture of your license plate and send you a bill, slightly higher than if you were to pay the normal fee. For example, I think the normal toll might be .25 so your bill would be $1.

I assume they would adopt these sorts of practices - not actual toll takers.

[jwb123]

I am thinking more about this widening of the bridge - and think of all those homes right up on either side of the 520 bridge - not the Seattle side... I guess the government would buy them or something??? Man, what a sucky situation!

[scirocco22]

Yeah, Jen, I think that's why this 520 bridge replacement has been taking so long. It's painfully obvious for decades that the bridge is extremely over its capacity as far as traffic volume is concerned but also needs replacement because of the wind damage and earthquake reinforcement.

The communities on both sides of the lake have been very opposed to widening the bridge and its approaches ...Montlake on the Seattle side and Bill Gates' Medina community on the east. I believe that's a major reason why things have been progressing so slowly.

Speaking of Bill Gates, I've always thought that Microsoft should be contributing the majority of funds to replace the bridge. Since the evolution of the technology corridor in the Overlake area since the early 80s, the traffic on 520 has increased more than tenfold, right? Since the majority of that is caused by Microsoft related traffic, shouldn't they be responsible for a certain amount of its funding? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Microsoft pay for all or part the NE 40th interchange on 520 and the one on I-90 for the Issaquah Highlands? If so, why not the bridge itself!?

Ok, I'm sure I'll be shot down on that one! *laughs*


Thanks, more later...

--'rocco