...sounds more like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fuck West Seattle...

I agree, building an underwater tunnel is a great way to force people to live downtown, since there won't be any downtown exits, and we all know the developers will build a giant wall right up against the tunnel area, as they always do in port cities.

Plus, the tolls (not needed for a Viaduct rebuild or a Surface Plus Transit option) will make it pretty nigh impossible to live in West Seattle. And the beauty is they'll last 30 years, and the total cost of the underwater tunnel will be TEN times the total cost of the monorail people found "too expensive" - and over the same period of time!

Erica: Sherman's two answers seem complimentary, not contradictory. When presented with multiple options, he favors the tunnel, but he's able to see some of the positive aspects in the boulevard proposal, too.

I don't see the inconsistency. One can acknowledge that there is a lot to like about the no build option while supporting another option (I fall in that camp). As described in the post, the Sierra Club question was whether Sherman would champion the no build option "if Seattle voters expressed a preference for a surface/transit alternative to replacing the viaduct." He said he would, which seems perfectly reasonable. This doesn't seem complicated: Sherman supports the tunnel, but would champion the no build option if the electorate expressed that preference.

It's called dancing. Spin it one way for an endorsement from an environmental org, spin it the other for a paper the mayor's people will read.

God, this town!!!

The question the Sierra Club asked is not what he prefers but if he would support a (hypothetical) public preference for a surface alternative.
It sounds like he would respond to that. Is that bad? Don't we want leaders who would listen?
He's said he favors a tunnel. Is it wrong to be straight forward?

I love how forcing people to use the same road most people use to get downtown (I5) is "fucking West Seattle".

Tried getting through downtown between the hours of 7AM and 8PM on I-5 lately? Tried getting from the West Seattle Bridge to I-5 on the Spokane Street Viaduct lately? Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all?

ECB-

Bob and Zander have it right. This is what he's saying: if I had my choice, I'd choose tunnel. If the electorate supported a surface option, I'd support that because I can see some benefits of it.

what's the problem again?
and did anyone ever figure out what josh meant by that whole 'jamie was against the gay marriage case before he was for it?' comment that went unaddressed? isn't it important now that we ask this question, since pederson argued the case and it lost?

Erica, I believe that the tunnel is the best option for connecting downtown to the water, both on the merits and given the political reality here and in Olympia.

But the surface option shares a lot of the benefits of a tunnel, and the fact is that there is a lot to like in the surface option - most notably, turning away from a world where auto capacity is the first, second, and third goal of transportation projects. I think if you scratch the surface of tunnel supporters, you'll find a lot of sympathy for the surface option. I stand by my answer in the Sierra Club questionnaire - which asked "If Seattle voters express a preference for a surface and transit alternative to a viaduct tunnel or aerial, will you champion that position in the state legislature, and work to provide funding for that alternative?"

My answer was, and is, "yes." The Sierra Club interview team didn't take my answer as an endorsement of the surface option, and our discussion included a far-ranging and pretty detailed talk about the politics and practicality of the issue. I think the surface option deserves to be considered on its merits - and we should study it, get some decent information about what will happen to traffic during closure, and make a fully informed decision.

So I believe that the tunnel is the best option - but that the surface option shares many of its benefits and has benefits of its own.

The Sierra Club is a pretty savvy bunch. They (or "we" - I'm a member) understand that one-word answers aren't the measure of a candidates position or understanding of an issue. I'm proud to have their support, as well as the support of Washington Conservation Voters, and a long list of local environmental leaders fighting for a sustainable future.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=41680

ECB-
Want to talk about people being against things and then for them? Please explain what the stranger meant by this and lets discuss. It seems like it'd be mighty relevant right about now, given that the suit failed. Come on, are you just feeling sympathy? The tough questions have to be answered.

Bring This Question: Is it true that you were against filing the marriage-equality lawsuit before you decided to help fight for it?

Bill is correct that we did not ask him to endorse the surface and transit option. We could hardly set the bar that high and expect to field a winning candidate. We did not realize that the tunnel was his preference, but shouldn't be surprised: "Tunnel v. rebuild" is a wedge issue and a candidate is forced to choose -- we understand from his "unequivocal" support for the tunnel that he is dead-set against the rebuild. A conventional stance: We don't feel misled.

We disagree with Bill's assertion that the tunnel has "merit." We find little, either for the waterfront ('Bye, see you next decade), greenhouse gas reduction (a highway's a highway, after all), or for taxpayers.

Bill has at least agreed that we shouldn't move forward with any option until the surface and transit option is studied. That's helpful, because as the public more fully understands what dogs both the tunnel and rebuild are, they'll want to know what it would mean to say no to both.

We'd also like to hear our candidate point out that the City Council has the option to ignore the arbitrary decision deadline forced on us by the state legislature and refuse to approve either plan until the transit and street improvements we'll need to get around during construction are planned and funded. Once the public sees what's possible, maybe Bill and other candidates will more loudly assert that "we’ll realize that in the end we can make do just fine without it."

Wouldn't the state pull the $2 billion offered to the city if Seattle did not rebuild the viaduct? I know this is the reason the PWC restated their platform as the 'surface option' and threw in the four lane boulevard... but still, isn't part of the deal for the money the condition that Seattle build a new viaduct?

It's problematic to expect city officials to get behind a plan that would cause the city to forfeit their WSDOT money for a major project.