<p>You all are right about Metro Transit and Eastside service. Metro is a great (was?) system for the city proper and the near northern suburbs. What Metro perhaps hasn’t done is kept up with the growth of the county. It like was friends in places like Federal Way used to say to me years ago; ‘why should I have to drive 30 miles to downtown Seattle to conduct [municipal] business?’ Similarly, Metro buses are ‘Seattle centered,’ no pun intended to you fans of the Pacific Science Center, the Bubble Elevator and the Fun Forest.</p>
<p>Returning to politics, in my opinion Seattle may soon find itself in the uninviable position of being subordinate to its suburbs, similar to the situation in Atlanta. In metro Atlanta the aggregate population of the suburbs (former farms and fields) is now larger than that of the city proper. Economically and politically, that’s significant, particularly when it comes to power and influence in the state legislature.</p>
<p>So, what about the tolling on 520 as well as the I-90 bridge? A friend of mine attended one of the public meetings and was just astounded at the fact that Mercer Island residents will pay to leave the island and return to the island. Olympia has categorized 520 and I-90 as one transportation unit. Tolls are planned to begin as early as 2010.</p>
<p>I don’t have any problem tolling the 520 bridge. The I-90 I’m not so sure about. I wouldn’t say right off the bat that it’s a bad idea. I’d have to think about it.</p>
<p>At first blush, my reaction to the information in post #43, is that such action as applied to Mercer Island may be unconstitutional. I was thinking of the Staten Island, NY bridge case. But on reflection, if I remember the federal court ruling accurately, a government cannot impose a toll on the ONLY thoroughfare that is available to a class of citizens for use to travel to their seat of government. Mercer Island might have a claim because Seattle is the seat of King County, but the Lake Washington bridges are not county property. And island residents have alternative access to the rest of King County (and thus, the state) by means of the lake’s east shore bridge. Incidentally, in the NY case, the court eliminated only the two-way (round trip) toll. City Hall was permitted to impose a toll on the return route over the bridge to Staten Island.</p>
<p>it wasn’t that long ago that they took the toll booths off 520 & I still remember driving around the end of the lake, when I didn’t have change for the toll.</p>
<p>but as far as mercer island residents go- tax them a % , but allow them to have some sort of pass.</p>
<p>Carpools should be exempt from any I-90 bridge toll. This will hurt shopping and other activity in downtown Seattle by Eastsiders. The unintended consequences will be huge unless they take off the toll on weekends and nights. Especially if it’s around $5 a car.</p>
<p>they did have a carpool toll lane on 520 bridge- otherwise- whats the point of carpooling if not faster and cheaper? where were they going to put it on I-90?</p>
<p>I don’t know but in this case I am counting I the usual Seattle delays to extend the start of this until after I retire. Maybe one of those enviro lawsuits might work.</p>
<p>"it wasn’t that long ago that they took the toll booths off 520 "</p>
<p>I think this is one of those cases where time goes by faster the older you get…the toll was removed from the 520 bridge nearly 30 years ago in 1979.</p>
<p>Yeah, I remember calling them “the bridge” and “the toll bridge”…
Maybe there can be a system that doesn’t charge if you can pass under the gate at off hours but charges if you are in peak traffic.
All of you that came since 1965 will have to duke it out. I’m out of it until I have a spare million to retire there!</p>
<p>According to my friend what is on the website and what is being discussed in the public meetings is different. The committee is gathering input to report to the Washington State Legislature in January 2009.</p>