One chance for light rail
Mayor Mike McGinn is exactly right about a new floating bridge: We have one chance to get it right. [“Slam brakes on design of 520, McGinn urges,” page one, April 7.]
When the current bridge was designed on the eve of the Century 21 Exposition, our state missed an opportunity to look forward and develop light rail. If we fail to plan for — and realize — a light-rail system across the lake, the next generation will be bewildered and dismayed.
Someday I will be an old man and I do not want my grandkids to ask, “Pops, why didn’t your generation put a rail line across the bridge?”
Because our leadership was shortsighted, penny-wise and pound-foolish. The people of Puget Sound, the state of Washington and our leaders have one chance to get it right. Let’s do it.
— Seth! Leary, Kirkland
Mayor has audacity to derail 13-year-old process
So Seattle’s new mayor, who has been in office all of three months, has the arrogance to try to derail a process of decision-making and consensus-building regarding the design of a new 520 bridge that has been 13 years in the making because it does not accommodate light rail?
What I want to know is: How many of us, our family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers will lose our lives on the bridge when the next storm of the century blows through and finally collapses it? The time for second-guessing has passed. Build the bridge. Do it now.
— Robin Maass, Redmond
Bridge or tunnel the best and safest way to go
After reading the March 30 story “UW pushes for grander, costlier light-rail entrance” [page one] and the letter “Rainier Vista alternative designed to enhance access” [NWVoices, April 3], one thing is very clear: Neither UW President Mark Emmert nor the UW Board of Regents have ever had to cross at Montlake Boulevard and Pacific Street, much less drive through that particular bottleneck at any time of the day.
I worked at the UW Medical Center for more than 20 years. Along with thousands of other employees and patients, I was stymied by the crosswalk situation at that corner. Yes, there are lights and yes, there is a ton of traffic. What made no sense then and now is: Why have foot traffic across that intersection at all?
Either a bridge or tunnel is the best and safest way to go. There already is a tunnel from the underground patient parking lot to the UWMC. Why not repeat that really “grand” idea from the other side of Montlake Boulevard? Why endanger pedestrians further and make the bottleneck even worse?
As to the cost of their land bridge, I believe the UW has more than enough foundation funding to handle that problem. Why should taxpayers pay more for basically a “beautification” project for the UW? It could afford a giant fake tree stump on the South Campus lawn —I think it can manage its land bridge.
— Virginia Rathburn, Snohomish