Comments on And In The Local Morning News

What about growth? What are the numbers expected to be in 5 years with all of these condos going up? You can't plan a highway or mass transit system with today's numbers.

Based on its 110K number, Team Nickels was saying they needed to build capacity for 140K.

I agree with this sentiment, that it undercuts the Nickels Tunnel project. And you can certainly question the context of the numbers (are weekends and holidays included in the numbers? Is the 100K number based on weekday commuter traffic?), but it's a good point to make.

This does not invalidate the necessity of the viaduct, however. Plus, the assumption that surface streets can eat an additional 75K cars is still way off-base. Erica obviously doesn't spend much time on the Downtown streets during rush hour, and has maybe seen the viaduct during this hour once or twice, if that.

Josh/Erica: I have a question.

Where, exactly, are the traffic sensors located? (I assume there are at least two, one for each deck/direction)

Gomez: the surface option advocates are not advocating a solution that does not alter downtown traffic flow.

There's a lot of low-hanging fruit in the form of ludicrously inefficient signaling downtown, and there's lots of room for extra lanes in what is now curbside parking (yes, you'd have to pay more to park downtown. Suck it up, single-occupancy driver).

um those condos? those people will probably work in-city ... and even if they don't, why the fuck would they be using the viaduct?

Excellent point.

Eliminating curbside parking will do more to destroy the livability of downtown streets than a thousand viaducts. Streets with a buffer of parked cars between the traffic and the sidewalks are walkable, stoppable, talkable, shoppable. Streets with no barrier have moving cars right next to the peds and immediately DIE.

This is not rocket science, it is old news. Anyone involved in the planning of this or ANY OTHER ASPECT of Seattle who doesn't grasp fundamentals of livability like this should be working in Houston, not Seattle.

I don't get it when it comes to Seattle trying to get it's shit together to build anything that eases traffic I was in Seattle last week I drove from Olympia to Seattle 6 times in 2 weeks and the traffic is frightening but I guess if you are used to it then you just consider it normal even on the viaduct. But back to a point I want to make and that is why Seattle can't get things done faster and cheaper. The cost of building a tunnel to replace the viaduct seems way too high for something that is going such a short distance. As usual (since I live here) I will use Vancouver Canada as an example of building a tunnel. We had debates over building a rapid transit tunnel to the airport but most of it was resolved and construction went ahead. Now the tunnel I am talking about is 10 times as long as the proposed tunnel to replace the viaduct and it's cost is $1.9 billion. Your tunnel cost for something one tenth the length is 3 to 5.5 billion. Man who is getting that contract. The tunnel in Vancouver is a cut and cover tunnel no boring underground. Traffic along the corridor has been diverted and is under control. This is way more traffic than the viaduct it is 11 miles containing homes, malls, traffic flowing to the airport people coming down town to sports events and traffic to industrial areas. You could keep the viaduct while a cut and cover tunnel is being built beside it, when finished pull it down redesign the water front and be done with it. Seattle above ground would look great and all the people that insist on driving will be shoved in a tunnel for a short distance. Done! And should be done cheeper.
How Seattle just can't get most things done is unbelievable to watch.

For more info on Vancouver tunel
http://www.translink.bc.ca/Plans_Projects/Richmond_Airport/default.asp

Something else missing from the local news summary: the SPD is using the Stranger's classifieds (along with the SW and craigslist) as part of its anti-prostitution stings.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003432936_craigslist16m.html

5. Your point doesn't change my point at all, nor does it really help matters.

The changes you mention would not put a significant dent in traffic flow. As signal timing goes, the streets flow pretty well as the signals stand. I've lived in cities with badly timed lights, and can affirm that the timing on the Downtown and surrounding signals is about as tight as you can get.

And removing meters only excaberates the parking problem, leading to more cars trolling around Downtown looking for places to park, and... you guessed it, more traffic and more backups, because these cars not only spend more time on the roads, but travel more slowly as they search for parking.

Is this really a scoop? One of the comments to Erica’s original post noted that traffic counts at various locations on the viaduct ranged from a minimum of 60,000 to a maximum 110,000.

Is this just an issue of sensor location? 74,000 wouldn’t be unusual at lower-volume locations on the viaduct.

Gomez:

If you think the signals are fine downtown, then you've never tried to get to I5 from there during rush hour. Sorry. The problem, incidentally, has much more to do with pedestrian traffic preventing turns than with signal timing.

And you're going to have to work pretty hard to explain how cars looking for parking would gum up streets WITH NO CURBSIDE PARKING.

Downtown Seattle has plenty of parking lots. That you have to pay for. Too pricey? Why not try that other option that the surface option advocates mention: improved public transportation?

Fnarf:

Who says you can't replace a barrier of parked cars with another barrier? Like, for instance, a handrail, or a bike lane, or both? I realize you may not have heard of "Europe," but that doesn't mean there aren't any solutions to the problem you're worried about.

And incidentally, could you point me to some instances of this downtown Seattle "sidewalk culture" that you'd like to preserve? Because from what I've seen, in Seattle's downtown core, as in those of other cities, the sidewalks are used almost exclusively by dense crowds of people walking from one place to another.

The fact that people aren't standing around on the sidewalks discussing art films (and obstructing pedestrian traffic) doesn't make the downtown cores of New York or Chicago or London less "vibrant," and the citizens on the sidewalks of Seattle's downtown core aren't going to start idling and gossiping and sipping macchiatos any time soon if we keep your precious barrier of parked cars in place, either.

Your boy-scout notions of urban planning do indeed apply in some situations, but not to areas with high-volume foot traffic. You know, the kind of foot traffic that downtown Seattle has, and downtown Houston doesn't.

The other thing I don't see being talked about in this debate is the "speed" issue. Right now, the viaduct is 50MPH for vehicles, 40 for trucks. With either a tunnel (which I prefer) or a replacement of the viaduct you'll at least have the ability to keep higher speeds than you would on surface streets. It might even be 55-60 mph. I don't see a surface street being any faster than 40-45 mph, even if it was a parkway. Each traffic signal would slow the average speed down, further causing congestive problems.

As for the viaduct numbers, I'm no rocket scientist (or vehicle counter) but I travel that route daily and during rush hour there's congestion, sometimes severe. We need to maintain capacity and plan for the future, especially if the Mayor wants even more people to live downtown. It boggles my mind that ECB and others don't seem to get this.

I'm the first to agree that transit needs to be improved. I also think its unrealistic to think that everyone will dump cars. San Francisco and Portland are not good comparables. SF has had great inner city transit for decades, good intermodal transit from the burbs (and BART as well since 1970ish) and a mission of Muni is that every point in the condensed city is within a block of some form of transit- something not accomplishable in Seattle. Portland is 20+ years ahead in the light rail game and will have 5 lines running in a *hear this anti monorail people* lines running in basically a "X" that cover distant points of the inner city by 2009. Portland is also significantly smaller.

Leadership on this issue is embarassing from our government officials.

Living in West Seattle, my big worry is whether it will take hours to get downtown when they close the existing viaduct. I'll live with that for a while if I know something is being done to alleviate it, but I can guarantee that people in West Seattle won't want to tolerate being stuck in gridlock forever.

Well put, Mr. Coffman. In the end, we do want more transit and a better city, but this is not the right way to do it. And no, doing it for the sake of doing something is NOT a good approach.

And last I checked, yes, West Seattlites are people too. Their ability to get into and out of town is a serious issue.

Also, Coffman's point illustrates how off-base robotslave's points are. And funny how robot completely changed his point in his first paragraph at #14. Well yes, pedestrians in crosswalks IS a serious traffic issue. But what does it have to do with signal timing?

Cars looking for parking will gum up streets with OMG NO CURBSIDE PARKING by driving past full overpriced parking lot after full overpriced parking lot, or if not familiar with the city, block after block, throughout Downtown, at a blazing 10-15 mph, looking for a place to park.

What, you think someone with a mandatory court date or an appointment is gonna turn around, drive back home and catch the bus?

Not very well informed.

Thanks for the gratuitous insult, Robotslave. I've been to Europe, thanks. It's terrific. I don't see them building one here in Seattle anytime soon.

In the meantime, back in the real world, I actually know a little something about how cities work. Removing parked cars from streets is NOT NEW; it's been tried a zillion times. It's a FAILED POLICY. Rails are stupid. If you would like to read a book on the subject, may I suggest William Whyte's City, or some Jane Jacobs, or our own occasional Slog commenter David Sucher, who has an excellent slim volume on what makes cities livable. Traffic roaring past unprotected sidewalks isn't on the list. Your idea would destroy Seattle. Fortunately I'm sure even our brain-dead traffic planners aren't that dumb.

Robotslave: on second reading, your argument is full of so many errors and misconceptions that it's almost impossible to know where to begin. For starters, Seattle does not have particularly high pedestrian volume downtown. For another, high pedestrian volume ATTRACTS sidewalk life, it doesn't block it. High pedestrian volume is in fact a NECESSARY CONDITION for sidewalk life.

As for your "art films" and "macchiatos" comments, I can't address them because it's impossible to tell which "side" you're attributing these horrible sins to. It is apparent that you haven't got the slightest idea what "street life" actually means. I suggest you start with the Whyte recommended above.

If you think that Seattle would be improved by knocking down the viaduct and then turning every Seattle street into a mini-Aurora, you're just simply wrong. Your idea has no foundation in actual cities on the ground.

Very well, Fnarf. I'm a boorish lout, and I've never seen a real city, and so on.

Now give me one single example of downtown (not belltown, not capital hill) Seattle "sidewalk culture" that you'd like to preserve by keeping curbside parking in place.

It's pretty clear to me that you don't spend much time at all downtown during the day, let alone time sitting in those imaginary sidewalk cafes enjoying the mimes.

The question to keep asking is given the cost, is the tunnel the best way to spend limited transportation dollars?

Shouldn't 520 be a higher priority? Wouldn't devoting these billions of dollars to expand the light rail instead help more commuters citywide?

Traffic volumes adjust to the available roadway capacity. Build a bigger Viaduct replacement, and the number of people deciding to commute by car increases. Replace it with the lower capacity surface option, people will find alternates. They did after the last earthquake, people will have to during construction, and could for the long term.

Anything less than a 6-lane new viaduct or tunnel will probably make commuting from W. Seattle more miserable. Fortunately, West Seattle is only a part of the overall region. And I have to say, people who chose to live in West Seattle complaining about their commute are about as silly as people who move to Nome Alaska and then complain about the crappy weather and long winters. Geographically West Seattle is always going to suck for commuters, regardless of what is built.

Let's spend our transportation money more wisely.

when do I get my helicopter? Do they have any of the "Airwolf" models left?

Gomez: See, I told you it would take a lot of explaining.

Again, tell me: why would anyone be doing 15mph looking for parking on a street WITH NO CURBSIDE PARKING? I know the all-caps upsets people with delicate sensibilities, but I am trying to draw your attention to a fundamental problem with your argument.

As to the signaling issue, I said the problem was with "inefficient signaling," not with poorly-timed signals. I can't help it if you don't want to consider things like, e.g., a left-turn-only, no-walk phase in the signal cycle.

I didn't change my argument, chumpy— you just assumed I was arguing something easier to attack than my actual argument.

Yes, I chose to live in West Seattle- in part to alleviate a commute as much as possible. I figured it was better to live in the inner city (which it is) than commute in from Enumclaw or somewhere else distant. Not all of us can live on Cap Hill or in a closet in Belltown.

To be honest, we had a great buildup of transportation infrastructure in the 1950's and 60's, and then have let it fall into decay. We have patched the problem bit by bit instead of looking at the problems holistically. One part of this discussion should be what can we get from the Federal Government. We should be using the leverage we have in DC. To be honest, part of this problem has been that the Dems haven't been in control. It also doesn't help that Jim McDermott, while popular, isn't particularly effective in the transportation realm in Congress for his district. Our federal government leaders should make this the number one priority of their next 2 years.

520 must be fixed. It should be 6 lanes, with some form of bulk transit crossing the lake. Alternatively, have the rapid transit cross at I-90. There will be no relieve car wise until that comes to fruition for those on the Eastside, and is relatively convenient.

For the waterfront, I'm opposed to surface street options and prefer the tunnel, but will live with a new viaduct. As for the inner city, we will always need bus service, but buses clog the exact same streets as cars.

One thing the city (or Metro) could do is to have an exclusive downtown bus route that runs every 5 mins or so. Not all buses need to transit through downtown- and with something similar to London's Circle line (although it's heavily crowded) people would be able to make quick transfers no matter where they were downtown. This however would require Metro to look at their entire system and I'm not sure the planners are smart enough to do it.

As for "rapid transit" there will always be nay sayers. Their ability to revote continuously killed the monorail. All transportation projects are expensive. We need to take a long term (ie 50 year) look and make the appropriate investments, using monetary investment instruments that reflect that reality. Somewhere in this city is someone with some balls.

BTW, West Seattle rocks.

Re #20: While it's true that traffic volumes tend to adjust to roadway capacity, there are limits. Most people don't commute long distances because they like driving. They do it because they can't afford to live close to where they work.

Everyone who currently lives in West Seattle moved there with the AWV already in place.

Next stupid argument in favor of tearing it down and/or fucking West Seattle, please.

True Mr. X, but I grow tired of people thinking that unless you're on Cap Hill/Belltown/Queen Anne/Downtown you're not *in* the city.

As for the feds, the local reps are being negligent for not carrying this through in my opinion.

Dave,

I think I was agreeing w/ya (for that matter, I also don't think Greenwood or Wedgewood are the burbs, either)...

26, Mr. X -- Correct. Also add in the neighborhoods contiguous to WS which depend on the Viaduct/509 -- from South Park to DesMoines. Go north(west) from Belltown, too.

Coffman, Gomez and Fnarf are all making the best points about the deep flaws of the surface option.

Robot -- I see what you're saying, but looking for parking (though not available on the The Surface's blvd.) requires driving around and around...onto this lovely blvd.

And not to beat a dead horse: Don't assume that people needing a fast, efficient option through (and into) downtown and the close-in neighborhoods are only people going to work. Lots of us are driving AS work. How do you think you get all your stuff? Not from me taking the bus to your supermarket.

Lloyd #29 -- Do you think your driving-as-work job will get easier with added traffic capacity? Won't the roads just fill up with cars again when people realize they can get downtown quickly again? (And since there isn't new parking capacity planned, those people circle longer trying to park their cars...)

Tolls are where it's at. Make sure the road users value the resource they're using.

22. robotslave, they're looking for parking garages and parking lots with availability. Those still exist after you remove the parking meters.

And re: "inefficient signaling"... what you're thinking about is the fundamental relationship between traffic signals and pedestrians, which is a separate traffic engineering issue. That's a matter of fundamentally redesigning the entire traffic signal system, rather than simply adjusting it to be more efficient. As it stands, pedestrians are singaled with the flow of traffic, rather than separately from traffic.

There are only two intersections I know of that give go signals exclusively for pedestrians, and that's the square in from of PPM and the Bridge Way onramp to SR99 near Fremont.

Two things -

1. Eliminating curb side parking - no, if that were true than people wouldn't live in Vancouver and other cities that did that - but when you remove curbside parking you have to REPLACE it with increased predictable transit (e.g. every 10 minutes) and workable sidewalks.

2. You forgot the trucks. They count too.

WS, South Park, Des Moines, Ballard Folk: Would you pay $5 per trip toll?

That is about what you're asking the rest of the city to pay per each of your trips for the tunnel.

Do you really think it's fair to the rest of the city to spend $3bn (at least) of city tax dollars for a tunnel serving only a small part of the overall city?

What about commuters from Lake City or Northgate (also more affordable neighborhoods). Why should they give up light rail service for a massive SOV commuter project?

Wouldn't it be wiser to concentrate on extending out already under-construction rail service from SeaTac to Kent, South Park, Des Moines? Wouldn't that be a far better use of our local tax dollars?

For the record, I'd be far more in favor of the Cable Stay Bridge + Surface option, if that was still on the table.

I just feel the tunnel is too expensive for what the whole city gets.

Most Viaduct users I talk to support the retrofit, not the tunnel.

Saying you'd spend AWV money on mass transit has absolutely no basis in the real world - and since when is light rail going to Lake City, anyway?

Where would you take light rail to after Northgate?

The money for a re-build does exist from the State, but any extra money is going to come from the city tax base.

We spend it on the tunnel, it isn't available for light-rail, bus service...

By recognizing that we can only spend a tax dollar once, am I being unrealistic?

Oh no you don’t, Golob. No, not in a thousand years.

Do NOT tell those of us who use the Viaduct—and have spent nearly 10 years paying for light rail that won’t serve us—that WE are going to make YOU pay for something that benefits us, as if it were a gross injustice. You already have your hands deep in our pockets for something that benefits you, not us.

You then have the temerity to suggest—under the guise of “fairness”— that light rail is the best use of tax dollars. Yeah, 100% for you, 0% for everyone else—who do you think you are, Paul Allen?

30, Steve -- The Viaduct is already vehicle-congested (depending on times/exits/games) but flies over pedestrians, trains, and lights. It keeps things moving through the crimp in the hourglass. Only the Surface Option is a downgrade to the existing situation.

Golob, who likes tolls? Esp if the new structure is the only stretch that has one. I suppose you'd see the 'haves' having it up, and the have-nots road raging elsewhere. A veritable private roadway. Like when they built all those new toll highways in Mexico. Never had a sweeter drive on that pile o' pesos.

So ok, everything is expensive, and Seattle (boom-be-damned) has been content to ride it out on 90 yr. old draw bridges and a 60 yr old viaduct. The problem (hello 1994 Light Rail approval!) is that Seattle can't get shit done with any urgency. So that's the fucking metaphor tucked nicely into the Surface Option: Hey Buddy, slow down. This is Seattle!

30, Steve -- The Viaduct is already vehicle-congested (depending on times/exits/games) but flies over pedestrians, trains, and lights. It keeps things moving through the crimp in the hourglass. Only the Surface Option is a downgrade to the existing situation.

Golob, who likes tolls? Esp if the new structure is the only stretch that has one. I suppose you'd see the 'haves' having it up, and the have-nots road raging elsewhere. A veritable private roadway. Like when they built all those new toll highways in Mexico. Never had a sweeter drive on that pile o' pesos.

So ok, everything is expensive, and Seattle (boom-be-damned) has been content to ride it out on 90 yr. old draw bridges and a 60 yr old viaduct. The problem (hello 1994 Light Rail approval!) is that Seattle can't get shit done with any urgency. So that's the fucking metaphor tucked nicely into the Surface Option: Hey Buddy, slow down. This is Seattle!

Ted. Rebuild it or take the surface option. That's what I'm saying. A comprimise.

Find a way to make the $2bn work. Or toll yourselves to pay for the fancy option that everyone claims to want.

To spend $3bn more (all out of city coffers) for the tunnel is absurd, particularly with all the howling that comes when the word "tolls" is mentioned.

I agree with Golob.

Oh, and Dave C @23 - one of my neighbors moved to Fremont from West Seattle because he understood what the failure to build the monorail and the plans for the Viaduct/Tunnel/SurfacePlusTransit meant.

Can't say I blame him.

Mr X: I didn't think you were disagreeing- I was making the point for some others out there.

Golob: I don't agree with your assessment that the tunnel only serves a "small part of the city". The reality is that all of the transport infrastructure is 1) interconnected, so that traffic blockages along the waterfront do effect I-5, which does effect Lake City way, etc... 2) The economics of this city are based upon the premise of the movement of goods and people in a reasonable fashion. If your goods can get to you more quickly, it costs you less, is more convenient to you and has a host of other ancillary benefits.

I rarely use the 520, but I recognize that without the 520 my slightly more frequent trips across I-90 would be more painful.

"Where would you take light rail to after Northgate?"

Most likely, it will go up I-5 in a retained cut, so I'd say Lynnwood or Everett. Don't hold your breath waiting for a second mass transit line occurring within Seattle city limits, cuz you'll turn blue and die (of course, you'll turn blue and die waiting for it to get from Downtown to Husky Stadium, but at least there's an actual plan to do that).

West Seattle tolls to pay for a waterfront promenade for downtown condo developers? I don't think so....

As for tolls, I'm for em. I have no problems with the idea that you pay (in part) for what you use. I think if we applied that to all the roads around here you'd see some different attitudes, roads would be better and transit options increased.

I lived in Sydney for several years during which time the road network suffered terribly. Toll roads have increased capacity and are being built more quickly than ever imagined. The new outer ring road around Sydney was built in about 3 years, has tolls and is already at a pretty high capacity. The inner city toll road works have had some complaints there, but people get around town a lot more quickly, even those that never set foot on a toll road or tunnel. It has made bus transit on those roads more efficient (although the same can't be said for the trains to the suburbs) and people are generally happy. Like a lot of the metro area, Sydney was built one sprawl piece at a time.

As for the idea that "poor people won't be able to use the same roads" I guess I think that argument is a bit ridiculous. We're not talking about the difference between a first class and coach airfare. Honestly, if you can afford a car, you can afford to pay an occasional toll to drive across a road that gets you to your destination more quickly. Furthermore, it will speed up the trips for those people that aren't driving for whatever reason.

So, would it just be the waterfront road that's a toll road? Nothing else? I just think that if one is willing to drive a few miles to a gas station where they save 4 cents a gallon, that might apply to a drive over to I-5 to avoid a toll.

Re #41: I think the point was that building a tunnel instead of another viaduct only benefits a small part of the city -- namely, the owners of the buildings along the stretch where the tunnel will go. The people who drive that stretch of road won't care that much if they're in the air or underwater, as long as the capacity is there.

I'm not sure how I feel about tolls. I think they make sense in theory, but having spent time in the Chicago area it seems like toll collection causes pretty massive traffic jams on its own. You're basically making everyone on the freeway come to a complete stop, automatically creating a zone of stop-and-go traffic.

Will @ 40: Ok. But there are 100K+ people living in the West Seattle/Burien/Des Moines corridor and I don't think they can all move next door to the George and Dragon.

As for the "spending the tax dollar once" idea Golob, that is how it works. However, part of the solution is recognizing that transportation has to be a priority in this region. If we're going to take the limited tax idea and apply it, I'd rather see money go towards transport and schools than a new dog poo park or other things that have less priority. It's also missing one of my main points- and that is that we need to get our federal officials to recognize that transportation infrastructure replacement is a national issue (most of our interstates and other transport are approaching the end of their useful life) and with out that, our ability to create jobs/wealth (and dog poo parks) goes out the window. This is not simply a state or local issue, and statements from people like Patty Murray saying the money won't be there isn't helpful. Sens Murray and Cantwell should be leading the way for a national transportation overhaul.

Re Orv: Yeah, we'll be in Chicago next week as a matter of fact for family reasons and I agree its a mess. However, they are attempting to get people onto the new system of electronic toll passes, which has worked well in Sydney, Melbourne, other places.

Re Lloyd: Nope, I'd put tolls on a lot of the roads. Including roads like I-5 which have been "alternatively paid for" till now. I think we all bite the bullet together. There could even be varying tolls as well. AND I think if the ECB's of the world are actually serious about transport, they should consider a London style inner city congestion toll, at least during business hours. I for one work downtown (or in Belltown, which is close enough).

We'll have to examine the way we tax transportation in the long haul anyways. Right now, we tax per gallon of gasoline. As we develop more efficient cars that tax base goes down, creating pressure. Alternative fuels will also create a decrease in tax base. One method might be to pay on a per mile basis- the more you drive (any type of vehicle) the more you put into the kitty. Maybe trucks pay more (as they do more damage) and vehicles that are particularly efficient environmentally get a break. These are all things that should be discussed for long term planning.

Just want to repeat that in SF, public transit (BART or MUNI) didn't replace the commutes of people that used to use the viaduct. There isn't any sort of rapid (or what could be considered express) service in that direction. The viaduct (Embarcadero) is gone and those trips found another way. Traffic here looks bad, and smetimes is very bad, but generally moves reasonably well.

In my opinion, traffic backup here in SF, and also in Seattle proper, is nothing compared to the crawl of 520 and 405.

It may not have replaced the commutes of people in SF Doug, but it also didn't go anywhere of significance (really only servicing people going downtown, or off I80 around the back way to get to the GG Bridge along Bay) nor do I think it ever had any of the traffic numbers we see along the viaduct here in Seattle. I still think it's comparing apples to oranges.

I think it's numbers were around 40-50,000; so yeah, lower than conservative viaduct trip estimates. I'm sure half of the people it could have served had already found another route anyhow, as it was way passed capacity.

When it was time for it to go, the arguments for repairing it were just as intense as they are in Seattle today. Although not the reason it was removed, I think the images of the quake for still fresh enough in people minds to tip the scales against keeping it, however.

As for "going anywhere significant", I'm sure there was a time you could have found more people to argue against that statement than the entire population of West Seattle (a proposal to tear it down in the 80's was defeated), but I'm not one of them.

I don't think it's apples and oranges, but you're right the comparison isn't perfect.

Yeah, probably so. I mean these waterfront viaducts, no matter where they are have love/hate relationships in the cities in which they're in (NY, Sydney, etc)...

At least there has been ongoing movement in California (and in SF) with regards to transport. I don't think anyone can really say that about what has happened in Seattle or Washington State.

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Hi guys its me again. Can you look

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Och beautifull site below too

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

Be so kind and click

Nice but this too

Nice but this too

Do not be angry please

Be so kind and click

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Be so kind and click

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

I am looking for better life

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

Check this places please.

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Sorry for that.

Sorry for that.

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Dont be angry please

Nice but this too

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Nice but look below

Check this places please.

Check this places please.