Great job, Josh. And, potentially, great news. Frank Chopp is the one individual, short of Chris Gregoire, that we've been waiting to hear from on this issue.
Why, oh why, does Seattle, the largest, greatest city in the state get boobs like this in the legislature???
Frank's a great guy, but I'm a little leery of getting a major new project like this off of a napkin in Tully's (that's his primary Seattle office, BTW).
I'd like to know more about how this "surface option" has morphed into "surface plus transit", seeing as how there ain't no transit on the table right now. The monorail got voted down. Is this a revived monorail? An at-grade extension of Sound Transit? An at-grade extension of the (ridiculous, embarrassing) waterfront streetcar? Some entirely new system? Or, as I believe is most likely, an empty promise that will never move a single passenger?
The more you hear from the state legislature, the more you get the sense that the tunnel really is dead.
All these road projects' price tags have escalated on account of, not just China's construction boom and Katrina, but also the Vancouver Winter Olympics. Legislators and the RTID folks are in a position of having to cut-cut-cut, not add costs. Just as important, now that the Democrats have a solid majority in the legislature, the last thing they want to do is back a huge "war of choice" that can get them cast as big spenders. It would be the gift that keeps on giving to the Republicans and Dino Rossi. Yet another angle where the Iraq War analogy is striking!
The more you've seen the tunnel's prospects decline, the more you've seen politicians warm up to the surface option. This is what happened when the City Council and Mayor Nickels endorsed the surface option as their preferred backup. This is what happened when Ed Murray asked WSDOT to provide data on the surface route. (Never mind that asking WSDOT for data on the impact of removing a highway is a bit like asking the Bush administration for data on the impact of not drilling in an Alaskan wilderness.) I just wish that Greg Nickels would fully recognize just how this seismic this shift is and really throw his weight (forgive the pun) behind the surface+transit -- if only for the sake of further delegitimizing the rebuild and establishing that it is not the only major, mainstream option out there.
Frank Chopp is about as far from a boob as you can get. Have you ever heard him speak? Frank kicks ass.
No Money for the Tunnel, fine, give the Mayor what he wants, the Surface option. We loose some of the downtown exits with the tunnel, reducing that capacity anyway.
So let’s take the surface option. Use the dollars to fix and expand I-5 through downtown in such a way that could handle additional through traffic. How, no idea, but I-5 needs fixing too.
if it's possible, Feit, which isn't close to confirmed.
I'm a fan of Speaker Chopp, but am disappointed that he hasn't been similarly visible on 520--a corridor that is more important to his district and the region than the viaduct. WSDOT's basic "6 lane" 520 replacement proposal would gouge 9 traffic lanes plus shoulders, etc. through the middle of the 43rd District without connecting the multi-billion $ 520 project with the multi-billion $ Sound Transit light rail project. It is time for our leadership speak out against the "base 6" lane replacement, in favor of the transit-oriented Pacific Street Interchange option, and in support of strong mitigation for the arboritum, UW, and impacted neighborhoods.
Fnarf: Frank's a great guy, but I'm a little leery of getting a major new project like this off of a napkin in Tully's (that's his primary Seattle office, BTW).
And that's very much why this is such good news for the surface supporters. Suddenly, Cary Moon's arguably concrete proposals don't seem like such pipe dreams compared to the back of Frank Chopp's napkin.
Fnarf: I'd like to know more about how this "surface option" has morphed into "surface plus transit", seeing as how there ain't no transit on the table right now. The monorail got voted down. Is this a revived monorail? An at-grade extension of Sound Transit? An at-grade extension of the (ridiculous, embarrassing) waterfront streetcar? Some entirely new system? Or, as I believe is most likely, an empty promise that will never move a single passenger?
Fnarf, I'm with you on not wanting to see anything like the waterfront streetcar, which should just be removed permanently. I'm with you on not wanting to see nothing for the "plus transit." These politicians like Greg Nickels are such a timorous lot, though, I'm afraid that we're going to have to see them come to the collective conclusion, "We need surface+transit," before they come to the collective conclusion of what transit.
I think a light rail line to West Seattle built by Sound Transit -- perhaps with extra money from Seattle -- would be a real political winner. And that's in light of not only a viaduct teardown but also the Green Line's demise. It sure would be a lot better received politically than surface+nothing! But these guys' feet would really have to be held to the fire.
Why is this news to you, Josh? I recall having a conversation with him quite a long time ago on all the possibilities.
The only obstacle to a Surface Plus Transit option is the politics of it, frankly. It's a fairly viable solution, but it means building a REAL surface highway (translation, at least six lanes, no parking, bus/transit on outside, lights every 4-5 blocks). And basically doubling the local transit in a four block radius.
But it's always been a viable option - and would be pretty fun. The problem was always the politics.
Oh, and Frarf (yes, I'm ignoring Cressona), it pretty much always was Surface Plus Transit since quite a long time ago - the No Build Tear Down was dead at birth and the Surface (no transit) never could have worked.
Never underestimate the power of being in your car and being able to see Puget Sound as you drive by. This is what, more than anything else, killed the underwater tunnel (ok, the cost and lies killed that too).
good points on the Pacific Interchange option for the 520 bridge, Bob. I was originally against it, but after seeing the plans and talking with the engineers, so long as they swap greenspace sounds cool.
But I'm still waiting for even the ghost of a glimmer of a concrete transit proposal -- or even a silly transit proposal. Cressona, your idea will only work if it has a downtown transfer point with the real Sound Transit. Transit systems that don't connect suck ass.
Fnarf: But I'm still waiting for even the ghost of a glimmer of a concrete transit proposal -- or even a silly transit proposal. Cressona, your idea will only work if it has a downtown transfer point with the real Sound Transit. Transit systems that don't connect suck ass.
Y'know what, politically I think you're right. The critics are going to say, "Where's the beef? You're replacing the viaduct with nothing tangible." If the surface supporters could coalesce around one or two transit proposals, they could counter that criticism.
And this is where it would be nice if we had some real leadership from Nickels or City Council. I know Richard Conlin has talked about light rail to West Seattle, and I know that West Seattle was the one leg of the Green Line that Nickels was willing to save.
Anyway, I don't think that lack of transit connections will be an issue just because King Street Station will be the natural destination.
About ten years ago when Sound Transit was choosing the future locations for light rail stations, it had a chance--and received a lot of suggestions-- to locate one of its stations in line with the West Seattle bridge. By refusing to plan for that common sense scenario, Sound Transit knowingly destroyed any effective chance of light rail ever connecting to West Seattle.
Ah, King Street. Nice try. That's not a connection. Is there going to be a short, covered, free transfer from King Street and the Sound Transit station, either Pioneer Square or ID? No.
Transit systems that don't connect lose something like 50% of their potential ridership. I remember the pleasure of getting from BART on Market Street to CalTrans Townsend St. station and vice versa in California, and have no desire to repeat the experience here. Transit systems MUST CONNECT, it's the most fundamental rule. It's even more important than grade separation. Even more important than going INTO the airport (not near it, not to a shuttle connection; the doors should open inside the terminal).
Since that's not going to happen, what we're left with is TWO transit systems that are designed to fail, instead of the previous ONE. You couldn't design a worse system if you tried.
I'll be interested in schlepping my bags up the hill from King Street to the ID Sound Transit when I need to go to the airport. R-I-I-I-GH-T.
Number of self-references in the writer's initial post: 13.
Uh, he's reporting a conversation he had. Hard to do without referring to oneself.
Fnarf, I stand corrected. I've become so accustomed to this "King Street Station=transit hub" mantra that I forgot that the most important transit line we have on the table doesn't even have a King Street Station station. So you're right, any West Seattle spur has to have its terminus at something like the International District Station. To make the terminus King Street Station would be, well, a joke. And so the question then becomes, is an ID station or the like feasible?
Perhaps 'naming rights' should be considered; the project that raises the most money will be declared the winner and we'll finally have a friggin solution. Think about it...
The Tully's Tunnel!
Ivar's Acres of Clams Elevated Expressway!
Boulevard du Cupcake Royale!
So before everyone gets all incensed about why the Transit + Streets option isn't fleshed out with all the details, I'll offer a) what we do know, and b) why that is all we know so far.
The Transit + Streets proposal is a bunch of discrete investments to improve connectivity and flow the street grid, to make transit in the corridor more attractive and convenient, to reduce demand for car trips (esp. at peak hour) and to give freight and transit the priority over cars on appropriate routes. So far, it's just a proposal. It's been worked over several times by transportation planners -- some with serious credentials, local and other wise. But because we're not a transportation agency (duh) we can only offer out best estimates for how it can work and what it costs.
Our transpo planners estimate that with the right mix of investments, the current 100,000/day viaduct trips will be accommodated like this:
20% will shift to the new, better connected, 4-lane urban street on the waterfront; it will be an urban street with about the same amount of traffic as 1st Ave, a pedestrian-friendly street
30% will redistribute onto parallel streets in the grid if the right improvements are made there
25% will choose transit, if it's more convenient, cheaper and quicker than driving
25% will shift to local destinations, biking, walking, or be decided against. This is the average percentage of trips that have "evaporated" with other highway capacity reductions.
PWC suggests that the street grid improvements cost, in total, about $300 million. The necessary amount of additional north/south transit service through downtown costs about $200 million. We suggest about $100 million for a great waterfront street and park; about $100 million for projects to give freight the right access and priority on freight arterials; and $50 million for pedestrian and bike projects and demand management. So the transportation elements are about $750 million, and combined with the costs to replair/replace the seawall, remove the viaduct, and relocate utilities currently on the structure ($900 million), the apples to apples total cost comparison is $1.65 billion.
We would like to be more specific but we've gone as far as we can as outsiders.
If / when the City's $500,000 allocation to develop the Transit + Streets proposal in more detail kicks in, we can all get more robust information and cost estimates. But SDOT and Metro and maybe even Sound Transit have to all be ready to constructively figure out how to make this solution work. So far, that hasn't been the case.
When WSDOT threatens a miserable, jersey-barrier lined 80,00 car/day highway on our waterfront, they're just being recalcitrant. They know how to build highways, they've been asked to build highways; their expertise is not in urban mobility, or transit, or reducing demand for car trips. Their transportation models don't understand how flexible the short urban trips that use the viaduct are. Demand for urban trips isn't as fixed and permanent like they pretend: people who live in the city can find more local destinations, we can chain trips, we can switch to transit, we can decide to bike or walk, we can use a surface street instead of a highway if the trip is short....
So now that the politics are shifting, we should all start asking Metro what they need to do to be able to lure 25% of viaduct users to transit. We should ask SDOT what projects they need to do to accommodate 30% of viaduct trips in the grid. We should ask the best urban street designers how to create a great waterfront street (connected to a great park) that carries about 30,000 cars a day. And we should ask a progressive transportation planning firm to design a demand management strategy to effectively reduce demand 25%.
This expertise exists; planners have done this before in other cities successfully, facing the same doubts about "but what happens to the traffic?" Now it's time to tap that expertise and see how well it fits our situation.
Key factors in the Viaduct debate are: 1) the 2008 Gubernatorial election, and 2) 520.
The Governor has to explain how to pay for both a Viaduct replacement and a new 520. Seattle is divided on the Viaduct, so she’s unlikely to lose votes there whatever she does, thus it’s an opportunity to save money.
She needs the Eastside to win in 2008, and the Eastside wants 6 lanes on 520 (2 HOV/transit). Save money on the Viaduct, build 520, sayonara Dino Rossi.
Furthermore, Chopp’s new hand-picked head of the House Transportation Committee is Judy Clibborn, a Mercer Island tunnel opponent. I suspect getting 520 done matters to her.
The Seattle City Council will likely vote in favor of the 6-lane 520 on Monday, giving the Governor political cover—she can give Seattle its #1 choice on 520 and 2nd choice on the Viaduct.
Aren’t the pieces falling in place?
Yeah, for RTID to lose big (much of NE Seattle will oppose the Pacific Street Interchange, and SW will oppose not replacing the AWV).
Moon's plan will cripple West Seattle and Ballard. It will cripple the Port. She's now planning on a street that accomodates 30,000 cars a day, down from 68-100,000(depending on whose number you use). It's insane. People and things have to be able to get around. Once word some yahoo thinks that a street carrying 30000 cars is all that's needed without the extra RAPID transit (which will cost billions to provide) I think very strong political opposition will come forward. Moon's numbers in my mind are fictitious because they include NOTHING in the way of any kind of rapid transit. Moon's plan is more buses on streets, which will be further clogged with the extra 25,000 cars distributed on the downtown grid. Does Moon go downtown at anytime besides 2AM? That's about the only time you won't have gridlock downtown with her plan. Add to that the additional trips on I-5 further clogging that, and what you will have is a state of gridlock that will cost this city economically. Plenty of park space will accomodate those out of work just nicely.
I'll fight her plan tooth and nail politically, in Olympia, and in any way I can. I suspect so will many people living west of Highway 99.
"... the retrofit was ruled out this week..."
More bullshit from The Strangest.
I agree, Dave. Plus I don't trust people who say things like "flow the street grid". Flow is not a transitive verb. This is plannerspeak.
It's good to see Cary confirm that in her picture "transit" means fuck-all. A few more buses congesting already gridlocked streets. Breaking down her percentages, we see 20% on the new boulevard; fair enough. then 30% on parallel streets; this is sheer fantasy. There ARE NO improvements to be made, because the city DOES NOT KNOW HOW to do things like synchronize lights in two directions; if they synch the N-S streets, the E-W streets will clog like nothing you've ever seen, meaning that I-5 will be inacessible from downtown. Smooth! Then we have 25% moving to transit, dependent on conditions that cannot possibly exist; there is no route in the city where transit is faster than driving, and in her vision both transit and driving will slow to a standstill; and finally, there's this magic 25%, which is the "fuck you" part of the equation: if you want to go from Phinney to Columbia City or West Seattle to anywhere at all, you should instead eat shit and die.
In short, Cary Moon's plan is a lie -- a deliberate lie, as far as I can tell; maybe she believes her whimsical fantasies are real, I don't know, but surely she knows that most of it is smoke. Surely she knows that the "transit" portion of her plan is a total joke. And until that transit portion acquires some real dimensions I'm not interested. I'll listen to almost any idea EXCEPT hers at this point.
Also, what happens with Colman Dock? How many cars utilize the ferries from there a day? 10,000? More? There's 1/2 the 20,000 cars planned for on the lovely waterfront parkway Moon's plan is talking about right there. Of course, there may be fewer cars coming off those ferries since gridlock will prevent them from leaving the ferry itself. They can leave their cars and sun themselves in the nice $100m park while they wait to move.
Dave, the 100,000-plus number is solid for the Viaduct just north of the 1st Avenue/Royal Brougham access ramp.
The numbers are lower on other parts of the Viaduct because of mysterious devices known as entrances and exits.
There is no one “number” of Viaduct trips. It depends on where you are on the Viaduct. It starts around 60,000 at the Battery Street Tunnel, and goes up and down until you get to 100,000-plus at 1st Avenue/Royal Brougham, then down from there.
WSDOT uses the maximum number. The Stranger used a lower number. Pick a number yourself: virtually any number between 60K and 110K will be right, at some point on the Viaduct. Pin the number on the Viaduct: it's a game you can't lose.
Thanks Deep Throat. That must have been part of the same 100,000 cars I was stuck in this morning at 8am while going to work because I was unable to use the plethora of public transportation options from my home in West Seattle. For future reference, my favorite number is 3. Don't know why, I just like how it looks.
I'd just like to chime in to Dave Coffman's first comment, since I have been an ardent supporter of what he calls "Moon's plan" and lived west of highway 99 for years. We really need to push our transportation planners away from thinking and behaving as road planners. This project at its outset looked at capacity for vehicles, not the transportation of people and goods and that is a huge flaw. That's why Speaker Chopp looks at the results of the process to date and gags. They have been DOA for many of us for years. The question is when the official resistance to coming up with a better, more creative plan will end, before or after they try to ram one of these incredibly unpopular options down our collective throats...
The problem is, Nate, that's NOT what Moon and Co. are doing. They're just waving their hands. They're taking away capacity for vehicles, but not replacing it with anything. Certainly no transit; there's no transit there at all.
Problem is Nate that WSDOT does roads, and other acronyms do public transport. Unfortunately, marriage of all things transport is seen by the politicos as a bit polygamous and therefore illegal and bad for us little children...
Let me be very clear- if there's good rapid transit, I'm all on favor of Moon's little park and ride. I'll even ride my tricycle down the fancy path with a smile on my face while I enjoy watching that Panamax freighter pull into Pier 5. I'll leave my car at home in glee while the other few cars on the road wave happily at me while they drive by. I see that happening around the year 2050 at the earliest- and by that time my partner will be changing my diaper and pushing my wheelchair around (hopefully Moon budgeted in some ADA compliance money...or maybe she'll pull a monorail and underestimate the true revenue/cost!)
Cary throws out a price tag for the PWC plan at $1.65 billion. I think the solution for West Seattle will be far above that, but even if we accept that figure, there is not only no transit in the plan, but NO SURFACE. Total committed dollars to a tunnel run to $3.8 billion at least. Total committed dollars for the no surface/no transit solution=zero.
There simply is no money for the PWC plan. It is faith-based planning by people who don't ever use the viaduct and don't understand it at all.
Then Cary asks, "we should all start asking Metro what they need to do to be able to lure 25% of viaduct users to transit"
Not going to happen with buses. Not even if they were free with coffee in the morning and cocktail service at night. Not even if they came every five minutes. Probably not going to happen with a train either, but that is probably 20 years off.
Personally, I like a smaller four-lane tunnel for pass through traffic and many of the PWC solutions to handle downtown traffic. Most of us in West Seattle that work downtown get off at Seneca, but if there were better connections in the south end of downtown we wouldn't need to go that way to have a reasonable commute. Eliminate that traffic and the short hop traffic downtown and you might not need the six-lane tunnel.
It finally dawned on me this evening what Moon's plan says to the rest of us here in Seattle. That is don't go anywhere, but if you need to, take "short local trips. The PWC and Moon intentionally want to make it more difficult to get around. Using her words:
Moon Comment 1: "20% will shift to the new, better connected, 4-lane urban street on the waterfront; it will be an urban street with about the same amount of traffic as 1st Ave, a pedestrian-friendly street"
Where are the statistics for this? Right now, 1st Ave is clogged much of the day from Pioneer Square through Belltown. It's even worse at night in Belltown, and during rush hour. This "urban street" will have no comparison to 1st Avenue, plus it will have the added benefit of being the dump off point for ferry traffic.
Moon Comment #2: "30% will redistribute onto parallel streets in the grid if the right improvements are made there"
As Fnarf pointed out above, what improvements? Moon mentiones nothing, and to my knowledge most of the downtown grid is maximized as much as possible. The only street that really flows with any regularity is 2nd Avenue. The rest of the N-S streets are jammed at one point or another a lot of the day. NONE of the E-W streets flow, most of them are hemmed in by I-5 and as Fnarf pointed out sychronizing those lights will be a treat. Additionally, in the southern part of downtown (where much of the truck traffic would be thrown, as well as additional buses) the grade of the streets running E-W means that heavy traffic will slow the "grid" even further.
Moon Comment #3: "25% will choose transit, if it's more convenient, cheaper and quicker than driving."
Cary, I want you to give one example where transit at this point is more convenient, quicker than driving. Just one. As for being cheaper, even this is a misnomer since tax dollars subsizdize the limited transit we have. NONE of the transit we have to date is rapid, and the only rapid transit under development right now serves exactly NONE of the areas most effected by the plan of the PWC. This being said, PWC appears to intentionally want to cause gridlock to achieve their goals. The problem is that PWC will also kill our economy and take away jobs at the same time.
"25% will shift to local destinations, biking, walking, or be decided against. This is the average percentage of trips that have "evaporated" with other highway capacity reductions."
Trips decided against? Or Local? Jeez, so I won't visit my friends in Green Lake unless it's 1AM. Or I won't go to Nordstrom to buy socks and a suit because it's too difficult to get there. Or I won't attend a concert at Benaroya Hall because the bus trip from my house takes 2 hours due to gridlock.
The arrogance of the PWC and those that run it is incredible. They want to limit what people do, without providing options.
As Moon says: "But SDOT and Metro and maybe even Sound Transit have to all be ready to constructively figure out how to make this solution work. So far, that hasn't been the case." Absolutely right. It hasn't been the case, and the politics are such that it won't happen. Not only are they not figuring it out, there is NOTHING in the plans by any of them to improve RAPID TRANSIT other than a light rail line through a part of the city that will be the least effected.
PWC's 4 lane street plus NO transit idea is horrible and is being exposed for what it is- a short sighted view of how things work in the real world.
As for the dynamics of a city, the cities brought up most often (New York, SF, Seoul, Sydney) all have methodologies to move people off the surface street pathways. Let's take them one at a time:
New York: Largest Subway system in the world. Extensive train network to suburbs. Ferry service. Buses in NYC (Manhattan particularly) are considered the worst way to get from point A to point B in most cases.
SF: Metropolitan subway. Local street cars with subway portions. Bus system that services many areas but also acts as a spoke tied in with Muni rail stations and BART stations. CalTrain system. Golden Gate Ferry System. Embarcadero Freeway torn down after earthquake, but not missed. Additional street transit put in AFTER tear down.
Seoul: Uber modern subway system. Buses often stuck in traffic. Highly coordinated rail system that connects into country wide system.
Sydney: Cityrail system that runs to suburbs and regional areas. Active road building of motorways being undertaken.
And one I saved for last, because it is supposedly the golden child of tear downs- Milwaukee. My partner grew up in Milwaukee so I have a pretty good idea of that road system. First of all, compared to Seattle very few people actually work in Downtown Milwaukee. There are few highrises, and I think the highest building is maybe around 30 stories. Second, what was being torn down was a small spur road that was seldom used on the north end of downtown. The remainder of the freeway network (I-94/43 Marquette Interchange) has been and continues to be one giant construction project to EXPAND its size. Milwaukee is laughable as a "teardown" that works in a way that is a comparable for Seattle.
A big thanks to Mr. Coffman for standing up for us folks that don't live downtown.
I share his frustrations with PWC plan 100%.
You know, I really wish there were some way to get real stats on how many of the trips taken via the Viaduct are commuter, how many are discretionary leisure, and how many are people who are working. The reason I bring this up is that everyone I know who has to drive through the city - note I did NOT say into the city or from the city, but THROUGH the city - in the course of their daily business uses the Viaduct whenever they can. At least half the traffic I see on the Viaduct is delivery trucks, vans, folks with ladder racks on their trucks or corporate logos stenciled on the side. When I was working as a computer consultant, the Viaduct was the only sensible route for me to use to go from Burien/West Seattle to Ballard, Greenwood, etc. Who the hell wants to deal with that horrible I-5 downtown bottleneck when there's a client chomping at the bit and calling your office demanding to know where you are every five minutes?
What happens to all of those folks? Time is money for people who have to drive in the course of their work - and no matter how many yuppie urbanite fantasies we have of a car-free world, there will still be guys who have to drive a truck full of roofing materials to a jobsite. There will still be a carful of Merry Maids being timed on how long it takes them to get from Phinney Ridge to South Park, and having their pay docked if it takes too long. There will still be decorators who have to drive a van full of samples and draperies to West Seattle. To a lot of these folks, downtown is completely irrelevant and the view could not be less important. Transit is not an option. These people need a way to get rapidly from one part of the city to another.
We are going to sit on our hands in total paralysis until something makes the damned road unsafe for driving altogether, and then we will have the entire west side of the city completely crippled. On the bright side, once the Viaduct comes down, maybe I'll finally be able to afford property in West Seattle, once our self-imposed impotence makes it impossible to get to or from there.
The Denver Metro Area is spending $4.67 billion on a light rail system that will have 191 miles of track and 70 stations-does that number sound familiar? It's about the cost of the proposed tunnel. Instead of putting most of our eggs into a small segment of one transportation corridor doesn't it make more sense to invest in a transportation system that benefits a greater area and more people? Geni makes some good points about how efficient transportation can make or break a person's livlihood. And all the concerned citizens from West Seattle and Ballard who use the Viaduct on a dailiy basis also have legitimate points, but they are primarily in support of a solution that is crafted from a very narrow perspective. As soon as we all begin to support a transportation solution that is holistic, offers more choices, and is more sustainable, we will find that we all stand to benefit.
This is a very healthy debate- and an important one. One thing that Fnarf and Dave Coffman have been overlooking is the construction that any one of these "solutions" will involve. It will be 4-12 years for any rebuild or tunnel option. What will the powers that be do during that time with the folks that use the viaduct corridor during this time? You got it- transit and streets. In Seattle time, up to 10 years is a long time, much longer than it would take for us to "get used to" not having the viaduct anymore. You never know- we may just like it.
As far as Mr. "Reality Based" do we really expect people to use cars exclusively for the rest of time? We are already up near the tipping point as far as pollution, oil use and much with our car culture.
I am personally very very excited about the viaduct- we are not going to have the money to make Mr. Mayor Hypocrit's dream tunnel. This is a sparkling opportunity to move past our tipping point and help make Seattle a real city, transit-wise.
Really, what ARE you going to Fnarf when there is a 10 mile construction zone on the viaduct corridor? The sooner we get rid of that gigantic concrete mistake, the better. Transit and Streets all the way. It is the only plan that makes sense for the present and for the future.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).