Mass Transit: Light rail-less 520

Public response to news that plans for a new 520 bridge would probably not include one that carries light rail was disappointment and, yes, anger.

When Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said earlier this week that folks shouldn't get their "hopes up on light rail across 520.... It's probably not going to happen," the first response on the story's SoundOff board was, "Again, a sad lack of vision from the 'leaders' of this community. We need light rail 30 years ago, not 'maybe' 20-30 years from now." Many others chimed in, calling the decision a "provincial" one made by "hacks."

Of course, having light rail on the bridge would have been great, as would having light rail on the Eastside, period. But no light rail on a desperately needed new 520 bridge doesn't have to spell disaster.

For one thing, cities with the best public transportation systems offer multimodal mass transit -- buses and ferries connecting to light or heavy rail. Seamlessness and scheduling of multiple modes are more important than having just one mode going though any given corridor.

There's still the opportunity of having light rail along Interstate 90, connecting Seattle to the Eastside, although voters shot down funding for that segment of light rail when they defeated Proposition 1 in November. Buses, however, remain an affordable option for transit planners.

We ought not let the light rail issue hinder the slow progress we're making toward replacing a bridge that is fast approaching its expiration date (unless a huge storm takes it out first).