Talk:Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (1963)

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 28, 2014.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Washington / Seattle Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Mid-importance).

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Longest floating bridge in the world[edit]

It would be good to come up with a citation here, as I've heard claims that it is and that it isn't for years. RadicalSubversiv E 03:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think part of the confusion is the article doesn't give separate numbers for overall length and portion on pontoons. This bridge might have the longest floating section and still have an overall length less than some other bridge. Can anyone scrounge up separate numbers? Co149 (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please compare to Hood_Canal_Bridge. 69.91.130.169 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The overall length is over 10,000 feet, but this a biased estimate, I drive the bridge every day and check the odometer. So the total length is greater than 10,000 feet, now find a source on the State of Washington website that confirms this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.43.233 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic Jams[edit]

I'm not quite sure what the reference to West Seattle and insufficient acceleration really means. First, West Seattle and Seattle are different places and the 520 bridge carries commuters to Seattle, not West Seattle. Second, the congestion is due to the high volume of commuters returning to Seattle from the east side of the bridge during the typical rush hour times and the lack of sufficient space to accomodate the commuters. I'm not certain what acceleration has to do with anything.

Looks like the nonsensical gripings of agitated commuter to me. I've reverted it. RadicalSubversiv E 08:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement[edit]

The line "Due to political pressures, a pure engineering and construction solution to the bridge cannot go forward" is rather loaded language--what are the political pressures, and what constitutes a "pure engineering" solution? A reference is cited but not available online.

It is also unclear whether some of the earlier post-construction capacity studies are relevant. I don't doubt that traffic volumes after opening quickly surpassed forecasted levels. However, congestion as experienced after the opening of the bridge likely had more to do with congestion at toll booths. Cross-lake capacity was also greatly increased with the completion of the I-90 bridges in the late 1980s. Ehol (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed for Seafair?[edit]

The bridge is not closed during Seafair. Only I-90 is closed while the Blue Angels perform. Headquarters 17:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft?[edit]

I would like to see a reference that supports the main article's contention that "reverse-commute" traffic caused by Microsoft (in Redmond) causes congestion to be opposite the expected direction. This seems on its face unlikely; I cannot imagine that Microsoft is alone, or even primarily, responsible for this (if true), given the huge growth of Eastside business of all kinds over the past 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.173.32 (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better pictures?[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but perhaps we can get some better pictures of the bridge? I might take some - the ones used currently don't quite give the feel of it I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braddodson (talk • contribs) 11:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the old image was removed quite awhile ago as copyvio. I have an overflight shot. I will find it and place it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I added an aerial shot I took on August 3, 2009, from a plane overflying at about 1,500'MSL.Jelson25 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement cost[edit]

The final line in the 'Future Replacement' section states 'As of 2000, Seattle had 258,000 households[17], making the cost equivalent to $18,000 per household.' which implies that only Seattle households are paying for the bridge's replacement. Since the funding for the bridge is coming from a variety of sources, including statewide taxes and road tolls, both of which are paid for by people from all over the state (and outside it) this claim seems like an intentional piece of misinformation designed to make the cost seem higher while adding no actual new information. Thoughts? Fijahh 20:55, 1 Jan 2012 (PST)

I removed this claim since it's misleading. The cost attributed to the bridge is also incorrect. The WSDOT page isn't very clear about the cost breakdowns, but the $4.65B price tag includes all the work between I-5 and I-405, including the expansion of the surface lanes, new HOV lanes, expanded lids and parks, and the bridge connecting Montlake to I-5.--Paulip88 (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to know WHY they made a floating bridge, instead of one of many designs of a conventional bridge. Topic is not addressed at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.121.123 (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tolling Terry Thorgaard (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[edit]

"All tolling is done automatically with no tollbooths. Tolling for people without Good To Go! passes is done by license plates."

How does "by license plate" work? I guess it's practical for Washington- licensed vehicles, but how are out-of-state vehicles, and rental cars handled? I guess that tolls for rentals would simply be debited to the driver's charge card, but out-of-state? Does the toll authority even have access to out-of-state vehicle license data?

They toll you via US mail, and charge a 2 dollar convenience fee for the privilege! 65.201.156.174 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - Seems premature pending a serious discussion on merging the two articles. Articles should be tagged for a merge request. If resolved in favor of a merge, this request is moot once the content merge is made. If not, the appropriate titles can be resolved via another RM. Mike Cline (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Point Floating Bridge → Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (1963) – As this bridge has been replaced with another at the same site with the same name (article here), I think we'll have to disambiguate. Did so boldly a few weeks ago, but was reverted as it could be seen as controversial (and, upon, further review I can agree with that). The old name should redirect to the new bridge's article, which could also be moved there, as it's the only in-service bridge. Sounder Bruce 20:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If I udnerstand the above correctly, there will be in effect a merger of the old (1963) bridge and the new bridge article, with the old bridge name as a redirect and the new bridge name wit the history of the old bridge included. Please comment if I am confused or wrong.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm proposing that the old bridge article be moved to Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (1963) and that the new bridge article (currently Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (2016)) be possibly moved to the old bridge's current article title (Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, non-disambiguated). It would be inappropriate to merge the two together, as they are completely separate bridges. I should have made myself clearer there. Sounder Bruce 04:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I would have preferred to address the replacement bridge in the current article. But since there's already a new article, let's wait and see if we should Merge, or when it becomes a real bridge, readjust. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The current article addresses the replacement bridge with its own section and is not adequate. Trying to merge the new bridge's article into the current one would create a bloated, lopsided piece. Sounder Bruce 04:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not seeing the problem, except that you built a content split for a year. Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The page move makes sense to me for the sake of consistency. I'm not sure what Dicklyon is getting at with "real bridge", since the new bridge was inaugurated more than a month before that comment was made. - Brianhe (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Demolition on the old bridge is currently active (I see the construction (destruction?) equipment every day when going to and from work), so it might be worth holding off for a little bit; but then again, there's not much more to be said until the demolition is completed. Either way, a merge on this would be a better fit. As to commentary to the effect of a bloated mess, remember that there are multiple eyes on these articles - and there is nothing stopping any editor from making changes to trim any unnecessary information from the articles. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.