Comments on Anti-Tunnel, Anti-Rebuild Rally Sunday, 11 am

Did George Bush draw that?

Uh....ya know...that poster is about as dishonest as one can get and is so blatant it doesn't help the cause. Only one car lane in each direction?

The surface option picture you had in the Stranger this week looked about as good as it is going to get within the next 50 years, with three lanes in each direction. And I still found it very appealing, especially the contrast around the issue of TREES. Certainly not much greenery there now and none coming with the rebuild-big option!

Funny, that picture looks absolutely nothing like the deptiction of a 6-lane boulevard the Stranger endorses (in my view - rather surprisingly) in the current issue.

It's sort of like a surface/transit option with absolutely none (as opposed to way too little) of either. And just where is the money in the budget to pay for this sanguine little dreamscape, anyway?

"Outlandish costumes and witty signs"

sigh...

here come the hippies...

Agreed in regards to that picture...ugh! So childishly unrealistic and ridiculous, like something drawn by a bored widow in a low-rent art class.

The Stranger's version, I can get behind. But this? Lunk-headed fantasy.

It sounds EXACTLY like your average protest.

The illustration depicts an absurd fantasy in some other city. Apparently the plan is to pull down all the piers and several hundred buildings as well? How much is that supposed to cost? Where is everything supposed to go? Where is the city?

The surface option in reality will much more closely resemble a flat, windswept wasteland empty of any kind of human activity except skateboarding and panhandling.

Don't forget that this new road is magically traffic free too. It's amazing how a four lane surface street can make traffic flow smoother than a 6 lane expressway and a 6 lane surface street.

Would it be possible for Erica Barnett to be more of a whore, bitch and shill for downtown developers. Really, would it? The lead story in the Stranger is about as dishonest as it gets, let's look at the lies. Firstly there's the whole "surface/transit alternative". Where is the plan for this? Seriously, where is a detailed and thought out plan for what to do if the viaduct is torn down? There isn't one, there is no more of a post-viaduct plan than there was a post Iraq invasion plan. The anti-viaduct forces, who are basically the same fucking moronic transit nazis that bought us the Seattle monorail and Sound Transit basically have this idea lodged in their tiny little brains that if the viaduct is torn down that they will be greeted as liberators and things will somehow work themselves out. What utter shit.

Then there's the picture at the bottom of the page, the preferred alternative of Erica Barnett and the other morons at the People's Waterfront Coalition. It shows a wonderful, friendly, six lane boulevard lined with trees. Of course absent in the picture Barnett posted in her screed are any pictures of trucks transit. No, it's a six lane boulevard with occupied with nothing but single occupancy vehicles. Am I the only person who not only sees the dishonesty in the picture that Barnett posted but also the irony given her supposed pro-transit stance.

The picture that Amy Kate Horn posted is even worse. It shows a waterfront where apparently there are only two lanes of traffic with no trucks, and what looks like some sort of bus thing, but who can tell on what is essentially a pastel postcard that is every bit as dishonest an image as those of the jubilant Iraqis pulling down the statues of Saddam Hussein.

Here's what the waterfront is going to look like if the viaduct is removed. All of the incredibly ugly piers will still be there. Colman dock and the WSF ferry terminal are still going to be there (they're both absent in the propaganda pictures posted by Horn and Barnett). What we'll have is six lanes of traffic, lots and lots of heavy trucks, lots and lots of cars and all of the buses that used to go to West Seattle. This is going to be about as pedestrian friendly as Aurora Avenue North. Then on the east side of our new six lane highway we're going to have a row of very expensive 40 story condominiums stretching down Western Boulevard all the way from Pike Place to Pioneer Square. And anyone who thinks that any historical designations those buildings in Pioneer Square might have is going to mean anything is delusional. Those buildings will be gone as soon as Nickels and the City Council cash in the checks from the downtown property owners who are backing the no replacement option.

Viaduct foes like Barnett and Horn are lying garbage, pure and simple.

yeah, fnarf, a windswept wasteland. how come you left out "littered with corpses."

what is with this handful of losers who are hitting the refresh button every 30 seconds to see if somebody on here has posted something--anything!--about the viaduct, so they can spew hyperbole about a surface road and call everybody hippies in the comments? if you think you are influencing public opinion by posting in the slog comments, you guys are really wasting your time.

Where are the 20 and 40 story tall buildings already planned for the wall where the viaduct used to be?

Oh, and, I voted already.

I agree the picture is misleading compared to the 6-lane plan, but some of the people complaining are overreacting and clearly can't see straight. Look closely--the picture shows four lanes, not two, with transit between two sets of two lanes (see how both cars in the foreground lanes are heading the same direction?). The current piers are also pictured in the background. Aside from having four congestion-free lanes instead of six clogged ones and having more amenities than is probably feasible, this is a pretty accurate view.

Personally, I'd prefer a four-lane road to a six-lane one, but we're not going to get either until we put the rebuild on hold and get transit first.

Also, it's completely possible to avoid a "windswept wasteland." There are numerous examples of decent development of similar areas in other cities. Anyone been to Portland? Defeatism based on past failures only makes bad choices in the future more likely. Learned helplessness is not necessary.

Have fun. There will be fingerpainting.

Anyone else notice that within 24 hours, the messaging on the Slog has gone from ECB's "Kid's Parade for a Better Waterfront" to now AKH's "rally... then marching to... protest"?

Anyone remember 1999 when WTO protest started as a call to AFL-CIO (Unionists) to march for workers rights to unemployed children majoring in liberal arts at Reed smashing store windows?

That's what I am saying... ECB was talking about an America, Mom, Apple Pie event, to AKH call to protest, all within 24 hours. And with the MSM not reporting on this upcoming event, pretty much Slog is the PR mechanism of choice. Well, at least rain is in the forecast, so it will be a pathetic turnout anyways.

If you're going to convert people to your cause, you have to be a little more realistic than this. Showing the worst possible scenario for the new viaduct and then this magical land where there's no traffic, crowds, or development for your case isn't exactly intellectually honest.

I started reading these threads because the article in the paper convinced me to some degree. However, there's no sense that any thought to the downside to this project has been considered. Pictures like this make the entire idea look like wishful thinking instead of a realistic plan.

How is this protest any different from the lefty protests, Stranger staffers loathe and mock so much?

Goofy Marching Bands, costumes, white folks in fleece and comfortable shoes. Hmmmmm. Sounds like what yall often refer to as the loony left. Im sure the SWP will be setting up a table.

For the record, Im a transit option supporter.

Cascadian: where in the hell is this picture supposedly indicating? The piers are "in the background" which suggests that this is, where, at the ferry dock? Where're the ferries, then? Where are all the buildings that used to be there? What are these new buildings on the right? Is that part of the plan? Why are these magic four-lanes-plus-transit so drastically foreshortened? (Wait, I know the answer to that one.) Are those fountains in the foreground?

This picture is not just a lie; it is a deliberate lie designed to sell a point of view that its adherents know to be false. It's fucking fascism, is what it is; "peace through strength", "freedom is slavery", "Arbeit macht frei".

If that picture came to pass, it would mark the transition of Seattle into the third-most-important suburb in the region. Are you SURE this isn't from Kemper Freeman's portfolio?

The first "off" seeming thing I noticed in the illustration is that it shows people in a Seattle park sharing space - socializing even, and in front of their KIDS!

That illustrator must be from out of town and unfamiliar with local edicts.

"Arbeit macht frei" Fnarf? Haha, oh lord, haven't you ever heard of Godwin's Law? You just lost this argument, dude.

Cascadian:
Your fantasies are making me uneasy. Am I myself delusional in thinking that Seattle will for the first time ever resist a big developer push to make some dough off some open space?

Politically, this sure ain't Portland. I think us "progressives" congregate here in Seattle for the wonderful speaking-to-the-choir echo we get every day and for the concentration of diversity in entertainment opportunities. I don't feel that there is ever significant exercise of creative progressive power from the bottom up.

Ooops. My cynical side has me shifting viaduct-ward. FNARF's wasteland image really has me down.

I wonder whether the array of "outlandish costumes" might include body painted naked lesbians riding their bikes in from Fremont. No?

Fnarf @6

"The surface option in reality will much more closely resemble a flat, windswept wasteland empty of any kind of human activity except skateboarding and panhandling."

As opposed to the doublewide rebuilt viaduct? Now with twice as big urine soaked dark shadows! Twice as polluted and noisy at rush hour!

I can agree that the picture is ridiculous, but the mock-ups of the surface option in the Stranger this week *are* accurate. Yes, it will be a six lane boulevard. Yes, it will be crowded at rush. It is still INFINITELY better than a rebuilt viaduct. Brutalist doesn't even begin to describe it fairly.

You are operating under a fundamentally flawed assumption: the only way to maintain a viable transportation system is through more and more roads, more and more cars. Bullshit. By every objective measure it can be shown that one CANNOT relieve gridlock or congestion *system wide* by building more roads. Period. The only way the city will be workable in 10 or 20 years is through expansion of the nascent rail-based transit systems and REMOVING crappy 1950's era urban planning disasters like the viaduct.

Are you really going to stand beside dire predictions of Seattle transitioning "into the third-most-important suburb in the region" with the removal of 1/3 of the car carrying capacity on a TINY stretch of road? Seriously? That doesn't even pass the barest bit of logic or reasoned analysis. No one is talking about removing SR99 in its entirety. Could removing a portion of car-carrying capacity on one tiny road really be such a hysterical disaster? Stop propping up straw men to knock down...

Fnarf, I agree that the picture doesn't portray any actual place. But it's also not the fantasy you and others seem to think it is.

If you look at the Allied Arts sketches for the waterfront, which assume a tunnel option with a 4-lane surface component, they're similar to this drawing. A 4-lane surface option would provide this much room for amenities. Those four lanes would be clogged in the best of circumstances, and it's a question how much vision and money can be brought to bear on making the amenities match the vision, but that's a matter of implementation and not a dishonest vision. Developers will build shiny new buildings along this route under any non-rebuild option, though they'll probably be taller.

Of course, the only surface option currently on the table has 6 lanes. I think that's a mistake, but I also think we can't seriously consider a surface option of any kind until we build rail and incorporate other surface improvements, and see how traffic patterns are affected. Until then, the viaduct stays. But we should be taking the time during the "prepare" half of "repair and prepare" to plan for something other than a windswept wasteland. Defeatism doesn't help.

mirror @ 18: Of course developers will make money off this. I'm all for developers making money off this, so long as we get a decent waterfront in the bargain. I don't think it's possible to get a decent waterfront without developers making a lot of money, in fact. The wasteland dystopia only happens if we scare off the developers. A rebuild is the number one way to scare off the developers. Overdoing the surface capacity might also scare off the developers. Only transit and amenities to attract pedestrians will be sufficient to keep the developers interested.

Dougsf @ 16: You're joking, but I think a big reason you don't see residents socializing with kids in downtown Seattle much is that there's nowhere to do it. A waterfront park in the heart of downtown changes that.

Ah, but Rehab, you've just invoked The Empty Hat Law.

That's when arguing that someone's invoked Godwin's Law in order to "win" an argument is the same thing as a magician reaching into a hat to pull out a rabbit. But instead of a rabbit, the hand emerges and opens, sadly, full of a fart instead.

: (

Looks like PI on Repair/prepare bandwagon.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/304790_viaducted.html

#8 - "The anti-viaduct forces, who are basically the same fucking moronic transit nazis that bought us the Seattle monorail and Sound Transit"

ST and SMP were not suported, by and large, by the same people - moronic nazis?

The picture reminds me of those pictures from an old Butterick sewing pattern or the cover of a brochure for Expo 72.

I hope the Oregon anarchists come up for the protest and smash up the viaduct like they did with Starbucks and Nike Town. Maybe that will speed up the process of a replacement.

the illustrator is stephanie bower.

the image is from workshops held SEVERAL YEARS AGO in which design professionals donated their time to envision what a waterfront could be. if you don't like it, why not start a campaign to make them return all the money they DIDN'T get for trying to help.

jesus christ on a crutch, you're rejecting a surface alternative because YOU DON'T LIKE A DRAWING? what a fucked up city.

Cascadian #21. Half joking.

I had to spend a lot of time away from Seattle to recognize the insane personal space issues Seattleites have (formerly including myself). "Junkies sleeping in the park! Our kids cannot play there!" That sorta thing. Generally density cures most issues related to space entitlement, but I think there's something funny in the water up there as well.

None of this would stop me from supporting a public park, however. Just saying...

And Fnarf, you're wrong - regardless of the potential the area has to become an abandoned urban wasteland, skaetboarding will not be tolerated.

That graphic is ridiculous. It shows 2 lanes of traffic with a few cars. Not a huncking concrete 6-8 lane surface level highway jam packed with cars, buses, trucks, etc. You might get a promendade like that if you build the tunnel but this drawing as a representation of what's to come without the tunnel is blatant false advertising. BOO on you guys.

"jesus christ on a crutch, you're rejecting a surface alternative because YOU DON'T LIKE A DRAWING? what a fucked up city."

No, people are rejecting an argument because it glosses over the potential problems while exaggerating those of competing ideas.

At least The Stranger doesn't suggest that we try to move more traffic to I-405, unlike the People's Waterfront Coalition at http://www.peopleswaterfront.org/transportation_solution.html ... Do those people have any idea what that road is like now?

There just isn't a sense that the question, "What if this doesn't work?" has been addressed at all. That doesn't make me want to trust them.

golob @ 20 says:

"You are operating under a fundamentally flawed assumption: the only way to maintain a viable transportation system is through more and more roads, more and more cars. Bullshit. By every objective measure it can be shown that one CANNOT relieve gridlock or congestion *system wide* by building more roads. Period. The only way the city will be workable in 10 or 20 years is through expansion of the nascent rail-based transit systems and REMOVING crappy 1950's era urban planning disasters like the viaduct."

We're not "building more roads." We're replacing what we have with something of equal capacity so that it will be earthquake-safe.

It should be removed only when there is transit in place to replace it FOR THE CORRIDOR THAT IT PRESENTLY SERVES. Not before, as you would have us do -- because you don't like looking at it.

Build the transit first, dammit. Then let's deal. Otherwise YOURS is the position that is fundamentally flawed.

Gawd! I'm so glad I don't even live in King County. I could give a rat's ass what you do with that viaduct, I have no use for it, ever! The traffic everywhere else isn't going to get any better, so what do I care what you do with the downtown area? Even if the pretty picture became a reality, this is SEATTLE..it won't stay pretty for long! It'll be another Pioneer Square full of stale piss and panhandlers. Yeah, let's get right to work on that, please! :\

Tear that schitt down

...but do something better than what that picture indicates. and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE refrain from the childlike fonts.

The reason for Seattle's decline will not be the removal of traffic. It will be the removal of the Port, the ferries, and the industrial waterfront, and the permanent closure of half of the downtown retail businesses. As Seattle increasingly loses importance to the region, and becomes just a larger bedroom community for the real economic activity, which will increasingly take place in the ever-more-distant suburbs. Downtown will be occupied only by the very rich (locked in guarded towers) and the very poor (milling around your shiny new waterfront park, robbing the few people who go near it). The parts of the city north and south will increasingly turn outward, toward the suburbs. People from Ballard, West Seattle, Columbia City will increasingly never set foot downtown unless they work in government (or have a court date).

ivan @ 29.

Ever heard of the light rail line that's opening in 2009? You know, the one that is more like a subway? The one that goes from points South right into downtown? The one that nearly parallels the entire length of the AWV?

There, transit for you. Transit that will be in place well before anything is done on the Viaduct.

Want more? With the BILLIONS we'd save, we could make spur routes to West Seattle, have a streetcar down the waterfront, get lightrail to Northgate and beyond more quickly....

The viaduct moves right now precisely because it has excess capacity as is. SR99 is limited elsewhere and will continue to be regardless if a new elevated structure or tunnel is built. Again, you prove to me that the last third of AWV capacity is critical for the city and I'll pony up.

But you don't have to "pony up," Golob, if we simply Repair it.

Max Solomon # 25

I wonder if it's not the surface option being rejected because of the drawing, but the willingness to participate in a "protest" in which a drawing is being used to attract people to what appears to be a lie.

IMO, that's a sign of the bigger part of the problem... no powerful unification of opposition with a realistic, great plan that ENOUGH people will get behind. Including the Pols. I've seen tireless efforts by small bands of individuals not working together.

And yes, the illustration sucks.

If you really want to send the pols a message, shun, snub, abstain from participating in this Potemkin election. Don't encourage and enable the bastards. Don't become the dairy cows this ballot makes of us all and dutifully return to the barn at the end of the day to be milked - in the name of a falsely constructed, non-binding vote.

Golob,

A ST route that runs from the east side of Downtown (though not north of it, or even west of I-5, let alone SR99) through the Rainier Valley and doesn't even begin to jog west until Boeing Access Road can hardly be said to "parallel" the AWV.

Hardly anyone here seems to be thinking beyond this year. In planning for this corridor we need to be thinking about what kind of transportation plan we want not today, not tomorrow, not in 2010, but in 2020 and 2030. Do we really want to maintain present auto capacity within the city, or do we want to get serious about building an alternative?

ivan isn't making sense, because a new Viaduct would likely have a 50-year lifespan on it like the current one. I highly doubt it would be torn down in 2020 if we'd just spent $3 billion on it. No, it'd sit there, a gray concrete elephant, an obsolete sign of our unwillingness to admit that the 20th century and cheap car transport is OVER.

This whole Viaduct conversation - as the reaction to the image Amy posted proves - is about nothing more than people wishing to cling to fantasies that the 1950s method of urban mobility is still viable, as well as the fundamental unwillingness of many to admit that on this, the enviros and smart growthers are absolutely and totally right.

A new viaduct is a waste of billions of dollars that we really don't have. It does nothing to solve future problems, it just makes people able to delude themselves into thinking freeways are still viable. They're not. The transition out of the car culture is going to be painful enough as it is...why not begin sooner and get us used to it?

Fnarf @ 32 says:

"The reason for Seattle's decline will not be the removal of traffic. It will be the removal of the Port, the ferries, and the industrial waterfront, and the permanent closure of half of the downtown retail businesses."

These are all classic pro-rebuild straw men. The Port isn't going anywhere, and most port traffic doesn't use the viaduct anyway. The industrial waterfront is almost entirely located outside of the area, too. Downtown retail businesses are away from Alaskan Way, and the increased traffic on other streets isn't going to prevent people from shopping.

Ferry access will get worse with a surface option, that's true, but it will be screwed for years during construction anyway. Better to save money by not expanding the highway and using the saved money on transit connections.

No, I don't buy that "the state will pay for a rebuild plus cost overruns," because a huge portion of those taxes will come from Seattle voters anyway. Save money, build transit now, plan for a future without a viaduct, and then build the most pedestrian-friendly boulevard that's feasible once other improvements are made.

"The reason for Seattle's decline will not be the removal of traffic. It will be the removal of the Port, the ferries, and the industrial waterfront, and the permanent closure of half of the downtown retail businesses. ... Downtown will be occupied only by the very rich (locked in guarded towers) and the very poor (milling around your shiny new waterfront park, robbing the few people who go near it). "

I think Fnarf has watched "Escape from New York" one too many times. Or maybe "The Running Man."

Right again Mr. X. For me, Golub @33, there's too much would, could, should in your prediction of increased traisit. That's Greg Nickels talk from '94. I'm 13 years older now, and I didn't own a car then.

Action, now.

@33 - ever walked five blocks uphill and then gone down a tunnel four blocks to get to that light rail tunnel?

didn't think so.

I used to do that every day, but most people won't go that far. Especially during our cold grey overcast winters.

That really misleading painting is FUCKING AWESOME!

It's like some long lost disco compilation LP on Casablanca or something!

Golob, you are full of shit. If you live within six or eight blocks of a station on the new Sound Transit GlitterLine, then fine, you are correct. The 99.95% of the rest of us will still be driving. What we need is a bus system that works. Metro, in conjunction with Sound Transit's moronic express bus system, has messed up the local bus system for many of us. I went from a bus rider to a car-commuter (using the viaduct-HORRORS!) due to their fine efforts.

Do we really want to maintain present auto capacity within the city, or do we want to get serious about building an alternative?

do we want to pretend that this city's population isn't going to increase, so at least maintaining *current* capacity might not be the worst idea? do we want to pretend that with the rise in popularity of hybrid vehicles that we're going to be able to convince people to stop driving altogether?

another proud member of

The Gridlock Gang
"happy to continue digging for that pony"

I'll bet Eugene a nickel (gas tax?) that people are still driving cars in 50 years. They just won't run on petroleum...

Cascadian thinks the Port doesn't use the viaduct. But it does use it, for access to Harbor Island, and ALL of the Port uses the access that the viaduct provides by NOT BLOCKING THE WAY. Because the elevated highway doesn't BLOCK access to the waterfront, it ALLOWS access. You know, grade separation, which was so lovely when it was the monorail, but on the viaduct is suddenly a boogeyman that must be eliminated. So we can "reconnect the waterfront", exactly like Aurora Avenue reconnects Fremont and Wallingford.

For supposed pedestrian advocates you don't seem to have much of a grasp of how pedestrianism actually works.

I am not reacting to the painting as a work of art. I am reacting to it as someone who has encountered the work of this kind of "design professional" countless times. I've seen this drawing's siblings over and over, used to justify every kind of urbanism-killing atrocity you can imagine, always pretending to be the opposite of what it is.

X @ 46:

Don't bust on Eugene. Don't you know he's a visionary? Everything that he says will come to pass will come to pass -- because didn't you just hear him SAY so?

I'm forming a sexy new band called SAY YES, and our first album will be "To A Waterfront For People"

You will all be dancing to it.

Now that I think about it, in 2003 they closed the viaduct for a weekend. The Huskies played that Saturday. I went to the airport that day and I-5 was backed up all the way to Sea-Tac. I tried to do some elaborate way of getting around it (99 to First Ave, then messing around with surface streets), but the backup made it take about an hour for me to get home, just north of the U District.

Everyone will be stuck in traffic blasting the sexy beats of SAY YES's debut feet blister-blaster "To A Waterfront For People".

You will like it.

Release TBA on some fucking awesome label in Williamsburg.

I just wish “beautiful waterfront” supporters would just admit that part of their plan is for the current businesses to be killed by closures, allowing for redevelopment. Maybe you’re just too naïve to see it. Developers sure aren’t.

Cascadian, you’re wrong to simply assume the Port isn’t going anywhere. Remember William Justen’s and Frank Stagen plan from 2003?

It would have redeveloped the Port from Piers 37 to 46, with 4,000 housing units, 1.3 million square feet of office space and another 1.3 million square feet of space in a campus setting for a large user. Pier 48 would become a hotel and marina. Car ferries would go south to Pier 37, leaving passenger only ferries on Piers 50 and 52.

Anything other than a rebuild, and pressure for this kind of thing will increase. Hanjin’s lease there runs through 2015. They can extend it another ten years if they act by 2012. Watch that date.

It’s the target for developers, politicos and waterfront activists to make Hanjin feel unwelcome, and make Tacoma, Oakland and Long Beach look good.

I'll bet Eugene a nickel (gas tax?) that people are still driving cars in 50 years. They just won't run on petroleum...

I'll take that nickel.

There is nothing that can replace petroleum in such a way that will allow a car culture. Nothing. Bio-fuel is completely out. It takes petroleum to produce bio-fuel. The energy ratio of petroleum to most bio-fuels is 1:1. It takes land to produce bio-fuel. The world's population is over 6.5 billion. We're going to need that land to feed billions of people, not keep SUVs running. Meanwhile, hydrogen is a la-la fantasy.

If cars exist in the future, it will be as it was when they were first invented. They'll be novelties that only the extremely rich will be able to afford.

#8, when you make a post calling a woman a 'whore' and a 'bitch' and a piece of 'garbage', you ignorant sexist scumbag, you need to use your NAME. Otherwise you have no 'balls' and you are a 'pussy'.

Even if that kind of thing happened, which is far from assured, you're talking about only a relatively small portion of the port. What's more, the freight traffic between Harbor Island and the smaller area of the working port from piers 37-46 can be accommodated on the short stretch of East Marginal Way. That's what most trucks do now anyway. The WSDOT surface alternative study even points out that freight mobility in the port area would be *improved* thanks to connections at Atlantic and Royal Brougham.

At most, you can make a case for keeping the current aerial structure as far as Safeco Field, adding direct access on and off from around Port 37, but there's no freight rationale for retaining the central portion.

What is this thing you see in these threads over and over again about evil developers? Like development is the worst thing that could happen.

There are no cities without development. Some development is bad, but there is great development too. Do you like the Space Needle, Pioneer Square, the Smith Tower, Pike Place Market, the Sculpture Park? Do you think they were placed there by God? The civic square that was just proposed over by City Hall? That is development.

And even BAD development on the waterfront would be better than a huge elevated freeway along there. You'd really rather have another I-5 instead of even ordinary apartments and condominiums? That is just incredibly weird.

Where are all the trucks hauling stuff from the port that are using the Viaduct going? I don't really get that part.

Does so much commercial freight get distributed up 99 to Ballard and the Aurora area? North of Green Lake, isn't I-5 faster even when traffic is crawling?

The elevated freeway will personally be vastly more useful to me than a Waterfront Landings Mk. 2, 3, and 4. By several orders of magnitude, in fact.

So when any of this rebuild of anything happens, cars will no doubt have to be put on surface streets right? With no Viaduct (while re-building it)to drive on, we go to the street. With no Tunnel (while being dug) to drive in, go to street. So if we're driving on surface streets during what ever event happens, why not just drive on the streets?

So when any of this rebuild of anything happens, cars will no doubt have to be put on surface streets right? With no Viaduct (while re-building it)to drive on, we go to the street. With no Tunnel (while being dug) to drive in, go to street. So if we're driving on surface streets during what ever event happens, why not just drive on the streets?

"So when any of this rebuild of anything happens, cars will no doubt have to be put on surface streets right? With no Viaduct (while re-building it)to drive on, we go to the street. With no Tunnel (while being dug) to drive in, go to street. So if we're driving on surface streets during what ever event happens, why not just drive on the streets?"

Just because something is survivable for a short period of time, doesn't mean it's the best plan for the long term. If I'm remodeling my bathroom, I might have to use a Honey Bucket on my lawn while the work is being done. Just because I could do that for a while doesn't mean that I'd want to do it forever.

Grant, dear, dear -- fags don't denounce sexism by saying you have no balls which is totally sexist to start.

To quote Lilly Tomlin, "Of course we all know how important balls are in America."

Try ignorant asshole, stupid fuck head, etc.

I am voting for the rebuild. I think it is the only funded ready to go proposal. This topic could go for another decade if left to the vision thing.

Also avid supporter of mass transit. I drive once a week or so, walk the rest - rare bus. Just too slow.

Think mini cars- electric fuel, solar panels, late night trickle charges, etc. NO, cars as a mobility options are here to stay.

Until a jet pack on your back or Trekkie transporters.

Sargon @ 59 and 60, don't you see, you're bringing logic into the discussion?! How dare!

And thanks, keshmeshi @ 53, for pointing out the centrality of petroleum to the present car culture and how it is going to be nearly impossible to maintain this same kind of mobility and reliance on cars with any other fuel source. People see alternative fuels as a panacea, and they are not.

I say again, this discussion is no longer about logic, but instead it's about a bunch of people being completely unwilling to admit that a very temporary and short-lived era in urban mobility - the car dependency that began in the '20s - is coming to an end. They don't to admit this, and they surely don't want to admit that the environmentalists, smart growthers, and other 21st century types are unarguably right on this issue.

Seattleites cannot have it both ways - they cannot claim to be concerned about the environment and global warming and then turn around and waste $3 billion on an obsolote gray monolith.

And ivan, I didn't know having a vision for the future was such a bad thing.

I'll go tell my sister to disappear in a puff of logic, with her Prius - which could be converted to run off of electricity only and get 100 mpg.

And I'll tell some former co-workers to stop driving their VW bio-diesel cars.

In reality, we used to use alcohol and crop diesel to fuel autos, until the oil cartels forced us into this path.

eugene above -

Don't be so taken in by new new talking points of the eco mafia like crowd.

Modern exploration and using future tar sands and oil shale extraction will extend oil sources a century.

Do you really believe the no more oil hype, put in place by the OIL Inc to boost revenue?

And sweeping changes in technology will, repeat, will change consumption.

And conservation, perhaps rationing by govt. mandate. High taxation and higher cost to drive so much, etc.

DO NOT look to America for the solar powered small car. Solar cells, trickle charge, long life, markets in the tens of millions of units --- look to Asia, China or Japan or India.

There are theories that the middle east, Iraq, sits on an ocean of oil so vast that it could supply for a hundred years. Deeper is all.

That is why Iraq is the corporate war prize. Not just todays pump out but futures reserves which make Exon excecs cream over and over on their profit sheets.

New fields abound, just not ready to tap. One of the reasons of Viet Nam were assertions of vast oil under Indo-China, coveted way back then.

Natural gas can fuel cars, so can bio diesel, and many more ideas and potential. Hot air from eco windbags?

People who grew up in the American insulated middle class apparently like the drama
of some hysteria about the future of cars, seems profound and rad. And so cool at the Stranger Danger.

And, oh, I predict rebuild, State road, State money and Chopp/Sommers et al. vs. the new Murray cabal. No contest.