Comments on: Comments needed to support a bicycle and pedestrian trail on Portage Bay Bridge

By: lamar

lamar — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:40:41 +0000

the section of 520 between I-5 and Montlake Blvd.

By: Laura H.

Laura H. — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 03:01:18 +0000

What is the Portage Bay Bridge?

By: lamar

lamar — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:49:27 +0000

apparently you haven’t used the bridges during a winter storm: the great majority of storms are from the southwest, which means that the south side of the bridges get the brunt of the wind and waves. no way i’d want to be riding on the south side during any kind of storm from the south. the few storms from the north also are generally less severe.

the ped-bike facility on the old I-90 bridge was on the south side, and was very deliberately placed on the north side of the new bridge when the original I-90 bridge sank in a storm; and winds from the south are stronger at the 520 bridge than the I-90 bridge.

By: Put a lid on it: Seattle 520 Replacement public comment period ends Friday | montlaker

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:34:11 +0000

[...] Cascade Bicycle Club’s 520 public comment. [...]

By: Liam Stacey

Liam Stacey — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 02:47:05 +0000

Addenum to the above.
The light at the parking lot enterance at the montlake/pacific intersection is not only needless and slows car/bus traffic, it is a big hazard to cyclists and will be more so when we ride down the ramp that they are building to see the light change to red. How many. Ollege kids will run that light that rarely has cars exiting? Meanwhile the law abiding will feel anger as the break for a needless crossing for years.

By: Liam Stacey

Liam Stacey — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 02:40:59 +0000

I am very concerned that there is no solution to the problem of bringing riders from the 520/lid to the portage bay trail with out at least two stop lights to wait for.

I am also concerned about the intersection of montlake blvd and pacific street, where the powers that be insist on an entrance to the south parking lot. A study of traffic flow will demonstrate that there is no need for this intersection and that the stoplight will continue to cause a backflow on the bridge that hurts bus flow.

I suppose every one has herd my tirade for switching the 520 bike lane to the south side.

By: Mark Turner

Mark Turner — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:42:52 +0000

A 50-year problem needs a 100-year vision.

The mental model of a public conveyance, “roadway for cars/buses only” is dead. As we build infrastructure to support movement of people, and their goods, it is imperative we expand our definition of a shared public conveyance, and build solutions that allow safe travel for any mode of transport whether it be fossil fuel powered or human powered.

By: Paul Soreff

Paul Soreff — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:01:32 +0000

Done, it was long and I sure appreciated your suggestions, although I found then confusing with regard to the “Montlake Area” as there seemed to be many more places for input then you provided suggestions for. Thanks for helping us with this.

By: Melvin Coleman

Melvin Coleman — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:22:34 +0000

Do the Right Thing. Build a bridge that will allow pedestrians and cyclist to cross 520.
Future and current citizens will applaud your good judgement and forward thinking.

By: Bill Bacon, West Seattle

Bill Bacon, West Seattle — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:15:59 +0000

A bridge without accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles is not a bridge at all. We, the People with two feet and/or two wheels would definitely accrue further health benefits by being able to take a pleasant walk or ride along the proposed I-520 bridge project. Some of us are interested in our long term health, saving our local atmosphere from unnecessary pollution, and inreducing health care costs in general. Exercise for the masses ought to be more than a tertiary concern for our public officials and for the SDOT. Build pedestrian and bicycle lanes and they will come.