World Class?

[mattp]

A case can be made for a state-funded 520 bridge. It's a state highway, after all. But the viaduct begins and ends in Seattle. Via your logic, Josh, the other 70% of the state should relieve King County citizens of all their tax burdens?

 

Last time I heard a discussion of this point, Fairweather, it was exactly the other way around. The Seattle metropolitan area, and I think King County alone as well, pays more in taxes that are used to fund roads, services etc. benefitting the rest of the state than the other way around. Actually, we self-centered urbanites who you hold such disdain for would be better off if we just kept our tax money to ourselves and let the rest of the State fund their own budget.

[JayB]

I'm not sure what the most effective cost solution will be, as I heard someone mention something about a seawall that'll need to be repaired pretty quickly as well - and I'm not sure how that'd jive with the rest of the projects. I definitely think that Seattle should stick to funding the solution that provides the maximal utility - co-optimizing traffic flow and safety - at the lowest cost. I really don't think that the town needs a glamour project to enhance the city in any way.

 

When it comes to using state funds for the project, even if you removed Seattle's population from the equation, maintaining traffic velocity through along the state's primary north-south throughfare will yield economic benefits to the entire state, in much the same way that snow removal operations in the passes benefit people who never physically cross them in the wintertime.

 

I am surprised that the second narrows bridge was not state funded, as you could make the same argument for providing a solution to the Highway 16 megacluster as well.

 

Whatever you folks do in your absence, vote down any measures that rely upon tolls for funding. Possibly the most economically inneficient means of generating revenue ever, and they tend to stay in place out here long after the original debt that they were installed to repay has been retired.

[foraker]

Seattle: City of Glamour.

Just doesn't scan does it?

[Fairweather]

Whatever you folks do in your absence, vote down any measures that rely upon tolls for funding. Possibly the most economically inneficient means of generating revenue ever, and they tend to stay in place out here long after the original debt that they were installed to repay has been retired.

 

Are you sure this is true? Retiring bonds for 2-to-3x orig$cost over xx years couldn't be much cheaper. I honestly don't know.

 

On a somewhat related topic: While I'm certainly no engineer, it seems odd that the Narrows is being built for under 1 billion - a full suspension bridge across deep/swift tidewater - while a floating bridge across a lake is proposed at 3 billion. (!?) The latter seems so much simpler.

Edited July 25, 2006 by Fairweather

[archenemy]

You talk as if people in Seattle never drive to or through the eastern part of the state. And don't those crazy eastern side Washingtonians drive on the Via duct once or twice in their lives? Or is there some check point I have missed that keeps us off eachothers' roads?

[foraker]

I don't know, do you reckon your average Fremontian starts hyperventilating while contemplating crossing 520? And why would *anyone* need to leave Pasco?

[catbirdseat]

On a somewhat related topic: While I'm certainly no engineer, it seems odd that the Narrows is being built for under 1 billion - a full suspension bridge across deep/swift tidewater - while a floating bridge across a lake is proposed at 3 billion. (!?) The latter seems so much simpler.

The floating bridge will have more lanes and be longer than the Narrows Bridge.

[archenemy]

I don't know, do you reckon your average Fremontian starts hyperventilating while contemplating crossing 520? And why would *anyone* need to leave Pasco?