In a guest editorial three local leaders make the case that it is time to end the $220 million, 13 year planning process to design the replacement for the 520 Bridge
While I agree that $220 million is too much, the project isn't finished - even the leading alternative 'A+' is still being finalized as it regards transit service, and this is a crucial point. While I don't agree with the McGinn alternative to remove all carpools and vanpools from the third lane of the bridge this is an important negotiating and planning point.
Without a doubt, at some point, we will need to limit carpools and vanpools in this corridor, and adding light rail (perhaps joint rail/bus operation like in the Downtown Tunnel) is something the bridge should, without a doubt, be designed for. These questions need to be answered before the project is ready to go. Setting up criteria for the removal of carpools and vanpools would be a good idea. I'd add that ITS ought to be in the mix, and that this third lane should be used as an initial roll out corridor for the technology - which might even happen in the Obama administration.
The commenter on this piece 'bluecollarenviroguy' seems to have a pretty good handle on these issues..
