According to a poll released Thursday by PEMCO Insurance, more than half of area drivers — 58 percent, to be exact — say that if a toll is put into place across Lake Washington on I-90, they will drive across the bridge less often. … A toll would propel 28 percent of drivers to choose greener commuting options, such as taking the bus, carpooling, or telecommuting.
Then, with consumers unwilling to drive across the lake to save 20 cents on a burger, we can raise the minimum wage even higher in Seattle. Because location, location, location!
God forbid we should be willing to pay for the public infrastructure we use, and all that, but if tolling I-90 not only helps eliminate unnecessary trips (and the climate-changing carbon emissions that go with them), it also helps support a more livable minimum wage here in Seattle, then I’d call that a win-win!
Sure I am willing to pay for infrastructure, but not to pay, and pay, and pay. The new 520 bridge is projected to cost 18 times what the old (current) bridge cost, after adjusting for inflation. And the old bridge was built in the era of slide rules, not Cad-Cam (1963). The cost should have gone down, not up.
I’m more than willing to pay for the infrastructure I use, but not 18 times over in order to stuff the pockets of politicos, cronies, and public sector unions.
@2 What do public sector unions have to do with this? The bridge will be built by private contractors. Do they employ teachers, postal workers, or DSHS caseworkers?
Still, there are cost questions. Tacoma Narrows II, which is mostly steel, was built for less than $900 million. Why does 520, which is mostly concrete, cost five or six times that? Has concrete suddenly become more precious than platinum? Or is someone skimming off the top? If there’s corruption in this, you can bet none of it will trickle down to the construction workers, so only a moron would blame it on the workers. That’s like blaming Army privates when stupid generals lose a war.
What will this bridge tax really pay for? Better roads? More lanes?
@ 4
Well, I think the new 520 bridge will have an extra lane in each direction for carpools and transit. And the 520 corridor itself has been widened a bit. And we get a newer bridge. Beyond that, it does seem a bit pricey!
I first thought it was nuts to replace a four lane bridge with a six lane bridge… Huh??? Anytime capacity is reached on a bridge, DOUBLE IT. Even if you dont need the lanes now, bridges are so much more expensive than roads it always makes sense.