SR900 bike/ped bridge
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Scott P.
Jul 17, 2011, 8:09:31 PM7/17/11
to Issaquah Bicycle Club
Can anybody explain to be what exactly the controversies about the new
bridge are? I have always gone out of my way to avoid that section of
road other than at early morning commuter times (5:30-6am). SR900
from Gilman Blvd. to NW Sammamish Blvd. is a hazard to riders. The
biggest complaint about the bridge I can see is having to cross the
street onto the sidewalk on the west side of SR900. That's a small
price to pay for safety.
bridge are? I have always gone out of my way to avoid that section of
road other than at early morning commuter times (5:30-6am). SR900
from Gilman Blvd. to NW Sammamish Blvd. is a hazard to riders. The
biggest complaint about the bridge I can see is having to cross the
street onto the sidewalk on the west side of SR900. That's a small
price to pay for safety.
Jeff Youngstrom
Jul 20, 2011, 7:13:24 PM7/20/11
to issaquah-b...@googlegroups.com
Ah, nobody got back to this so I'll take a crack at it.I think the primary discontent with the new bridge is just that it seems like it cost an awful lot for what it did. I'm not actually sure that this is true. Public infrastructure projects just cost a lot of money for reasons that aren't necessarily invalid, just not completely clear to the outside observer. There's also a camp of people who are angry because the money involved came largely from the federal government.
The other issue I've heard folks talk about is the fact that it only solves part of the problem of getting across the freeway since the eastbound offramp still has to be crossed at street level and the exit from the bridge at the north end means that you have to cross at least once at the very busy intersection of SR900 and NW Sammamish Rd to get anywhere other than IHOP. There is also some lingering dissatisfaction with the boardwalks on the south side of the freeway. They're not holding up very well, and they're also a potential safety hazard (there is no way to get off of them in the unlikely event you are confronted by an unsavory character.)
The rebuttal is that the bridge was built using funds that we actually were able to acquire (most of the projects in some level of planning in the city are unfunded and waiting for a miracle to occur so they can be built) and those funds were tied to that location in a way that precluded using them for other infrastructure or a crossing elsewhere.
Finally, functionally it is undeniably an improvement over the cumbersome and scary grade-level multiple crossing we had before.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
Jeff
The other issue I've heard folks talk about is the fact that it only solves part of the problem of getting across the freeway since the eastbound offramp still has to be crossed at street level and the exit from the bridge at the north end means that you have to cross at least once at the very busy intersection of SR900 and NW Sammamish Rd to get anywhere other than IHOP. There is also some lingering dissatisfaction with the boardwalks on the south side of the freeway. They're not holding up very well, and they're also a potential safety hazard (there is no way to get off of them in the unlikely event you are confronted by an unsavory character.)
The rebuttal is that the bridge was built using funds that we actually were able to acquire (most of the projects in some level of planning in the city are unfunded and waiting for a miracle to occur so they can be built) and those funds were tied to that location in a way that precluded using them for other infrastructure or a crossing elsewhere.
Finally, functionally it is undeniably an improvement over the cumbersome and scary grade-level multiple crossing we had before.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
Jeff
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages