This may have the potential to become quite contentious. We don't need to have another I-90 debacle with years of court cases. I think a pragmatic approach is called for here.
The things that the city and state have in common is a 6 lane bridge. The question is whether the two new lanes would be transit only or HOV. My proposal is as follows: open the bridge up as 4 general lanes, and two HOV lanes. When the time comes that a 3 person HOV lane isn't restrictive enough, and HOV lane would need to go HOV4, that is the time the lanes become transit only.
This is the exact reason I voted against McGinn. As someone who commutes daily across 520, setting this project back 2+ years is a travesty. If these people actual took 520 ever, they would notice the HOV3 lanes are already primarily bus transit and rarely ever backed up by HOV traffic alone.
This is exactly the reason I voted for McGinn. Effective public transit needs to be our priority. This bridge must meet the needs of the future of our community, which is moving people, not cars.
ProstSeattle is right on target... Look at who bought Pedersen into office - downtown attorneys; the same ones who will benefit the most from turning 520 into the litigation circus like I-90. His conflict of interest is controlled by those who paid the way for his election.
The things that the city and state have in common is a 6 lane bridge. The question is whether the two new lanes would be transit only or HOV. My proposal is as follows: open the bridge up as 4 general lanes, and two HOV lanes. When the time comes that a 3 person HOV lane isn't restrictive enough, and HOV lane would need to go HOV4, that is the time the lanes become transit only.
It seems like a good compromise to me.