Comments on Backlash

Any one getting that creepy feeling that Josh Feit, the Taliban leader for the Monorail, is similarly gone nuts over a new transportation project?

It would be comforting as a reader and a citizen if the Stranger just bullshit-tested its own presumptions. Doug MacDonald of WSDOT raised a number of legit issues about the surface/transit/lovechild. Example: if there is no new corridor, how do the buses move better on arterials taking more vehicles. According to MacDonald, the city council's own consultant flagged this issue.

The viaduct issue is really important as a land use and transportation question. The Stranger's foot-stomping on this question is not the leadership that's needed in the news media.

Josh has zero credibility. He goes crazy on a topic and everyone else who sees it differently is ridiculed.

Dan Savage--here's a dare: Pick a decent writer to pick apart the surface/transit/lovechild concept. See what they find and what they report.

Double dare.

The great brilliance of the Surface option is that no one really knows what it is. It's a blank slate into which everyone who cares about cities can pour their emotion and idealism. At this point it is not a plan or program but simply a goal.

Just as the Tunnel fell because of its own internal contradictions, and as the Rebuild will as well fail because of its own internal contradictions, so too will the "naked" Surface/Transit.

The Governor is going to back off the Rebuild -- she is not such a fool as to risk her job over something for which there are reasonable alternatives.

One of the fresh scrubbed guys from no more rebuild came to my door this morning. Basically said the mayor is behind the org.
He had a flier that was a clever pro-tunnel piece of marketing wrapped up in no rebuild clothes.

Gregoir is over playing her hand. Seattle isn't going to like to have something shoved down our throats from Oly.
Hope she likes campaining hard in Seattle cause she's about to loose my vote.

It's hardly a surprise that the millionaire developers who want to yuppify the waterfront would pour money into this campaign.

But I reserve my deepest contempt for the "new urbanist" weenies who think that traffic will disappear as if by magic because they might wish it so, and who try to cloud the issue with vague marketese such as "world-class city," as if their entire identities and self-esteem were tied up in whether or not we have an elevated highway.

I agree with Sucher here. Repair the damn thing and let's get some serious mass transit in place. If we had it by now we could tear the thing down and be done with it.

But we don't. And more buses on the streets doesn't cut it. We need a new right-of-way.

I had a crazy idea while riding the bus home from work this morning:

What if everyone voted No for both and wrote in the Monorail ? ! LOL

Sure it might not be appropriate, but it'd sure be funny!

This amount of money amounts to nothing. This isn't enough to report on, and certainly isn't enough to charge that rich developers are pouring money into a campaign. There's nothing to see here.

Reporters love to talk money, and will strain at any opportunity to do so. It's an easy story but it rarely proves much if anything that wasn't already known.

Josh nothing on the SEEC site since 2/12 - and BTW yawn

Sherwin,

Ineed, the latest report is from 2/12.

http://www2.ci.seattle.wa.us/ethics/eldata/filings/filings.asp?elcycle=el07a

In that 2/12 report, the last contribution they've got is from 2/8.

The new numbers I reported? Maybe I can see into the future. Maybe I made 'em up.

Yawn? Totally. But it's my job, man.

HERE WE GO AGAIN, AGAIN Wrote:
"It would be comforting as a reader and a citizen if the Stranger just bullshit-tested its own presumptions."

Josh, HWGAA just suggested another job for you. Let's see if you are capable of getting the ball down to the other end of the court.

---Jensen

Sherwin,
Do you think that the politicos are reaching for the "naked" Surface/Transit out of desparation? i.e. the Tunnel is dead and the Rebuild is just monstrous. And they don't know what to do now that they got themselves up the creek by buying into the convenient lies that "the Viaduct must be replaced."

We really know so little about the S/T -- it's not a program but only a goal. It's one of the McCluanesque deals where the viewer fills in the blanks.

Agreed? Or do you think a guy as shrewd as Sims really thinks we can just tear down the Viaduct and (as Eli Sanders put it so well on KUOW) "just see what happens."

No one on the S/T side has seriously grappled with the idea that in the best of scenarios it will take 5-10 years to put the infrastructure in place. Yet they are all moaning about how dangerous the Viaduct is and how we have an emergency. So what is their plan for the interim period? Faith-based engineering? Sex? Drugs? Rock and roll?

lanset @3: One of the fresh scrubbed guys from no more rebuild came to my door this morning. Basically said the mayor is behind the org. He had a flier that was a clever pro-tunnel piece of marketing wrapped up in no rebuild clothes.

Lanset, let me state this as simply and clearly as possible. You are a liar.

I have the same flier in front of me, and there is absolutely nothing "yes on tunnel" about it. In fact, it could be more easily interpreted as pro-surface. Here's one line: "Cities all over the globe, from San Francisco to Barcelona, have torn down elevated freeways, rediscovering their waterfronts, cleaning up the environment and finding new sources of revenue and jobs."

Tell you what, lanset, if you don't like being called a liar, post one single line from that flier that suggests it's about yes-tunnel rather than just no-rebuild.

Trying again.

Calling Dan Savage, Dan Savage....

...A reader here asking for some journalism...not the Josh Feit flavor...something on which to make a serious judgment about a multi-billion decision.

You learned something from the Stanger's disastrous role in the Monorail, we hope.

Get an non-staffer to do a piece -- crap checking what everyone is saying, including your aging hipsters.

David Sucher: No one on the S/T side has seriously grappled with the idea that in the best of scenarios it will take 5-10 years to put the infrastructure in place. Yet they are all moaning about how dangerous the Viaduct is and how we have an emergency. So what is their plan for the interim period? Faith-based engineering? Sex? Drugs? Rock and roll?

David, I think you have the luxury now of having the position that will eventually be proven right. And I think your criticisms of surface/transit are entirely valid.

But trashing surface/transit now several days before the ballots go out is about as beside the point as the surface/transit people continuing to trash the tunnel. Right now, the only position that matters politically is defeating the rebuild.

I heart Josh!

Well, Cressona,

If you think that what I or anyone here says has any influence then yes, the priority now is to make sure that the leadership understands that the Rebuild is also a crock and that the only rational choice is No/No.

But I don't believe that what I say here has any impact at all.

And March 13 will be here soon and I am sure that the more astute politicians are wondering what will happen on March 14.

My goal is to help the the S/T people accept the fact that there must be
• an interim period in which the S/T infrastructure will be developed,
and
• unless the whole Viaduct "emergency" has been a convenient lie, then we need to Repair the Viaduct to make it safe (or at least safer.)

Does that open up the chance that the Viaduct will be Repaired but that there will be no Prepare? Certainly so. But I don't believe that there is any other choice. While I accept tearing down the Viaduct as a legitimate goal, I am intensely opposed to (as will be the vast majority of Seattleites) tearing it down without very thoughtful and considered preparation. I acknowledge that some people want it to happen NOW. But that won't happen and if they hold out for immediate gratification they will get none at all.

Rephrasing the S/T option as "Repair & Prepare" -- and publicly acknowledging that tearing down the Viaduct will not happen in the very short run -- is the only politically feasible option.

David Sucher: But I don't believe that what I say here has any impact at all.

Hey, don't go there. 8-) I prefer to maintain the illusion that my Slog posts matter. To think otherwise is to stare directly into the existential abyss.

Josh,

And quite a fine job at that - could you use your way back machine to find out how much money the pro tunnel - anti rebuild joint campaigns raised after each and every time the Governor said the tunnel didn't cut it - it was dead before the 14th it was embalmed after - so there must have been surges of online conributions in December and January and earlier in February when da Gov or da Speaker said no tunnel, rebuild.

And if the anti-rebuild camapign, No More Elevated Viaducts, isn't or wasn't a thinly veiled pro tunnel group why did the pro tunnel group close down and give all their money to NMEV?

This whole thing is a lame pissing match between politicos who have over and over fucked up transit in this state.
The worst part is that this is a serious issue and everybody is just trying to cover their asses with extreme arguments so when the thing comes down and kills 45 people so they can say "told you so".

A plague o' both your houses. I vote "No" and "No".

Why can't we just shut down the viaduct for a month and watch and see that all the traffic WILL find another way to go. And then everyone will realize, hey, we actually can just make better roads downtown, and it'll all be great!

And, wait a minute! Seattle has a waterfront! Who Fuckin Knew!?

Shutting down the Viaduct for a month or so is an appealing proposal — I suggested it on my blog last spring.

But it wouldn't be fair to S/T. So much of the possible success of S/T would depend on the creation of an infrastructure of Transit & other street improvements. Without those in place you wouldn't get a fair test.

(And btw I say this as one quite dubious of S/T. But unlike some folks at The Stranger who would prefer to ignore inconvenient truths, I like intellectual rigor.)

Breaking news - after todays papers promoted the surface option without preparing, pledges to the Repair and Prepare campaign increased by 1000%!!!!

And as a small child I spelled out in alphabet blocks (the precursor to Blogs) "shut the Viaduct down and see what happens!" Seriously, shortly after C. Moon and G. Cogswell started pushing the S&T idea, It was suggested they lobby for a shutdown and test in summer with advance notice and some added bus service - to date I don't think they have asked the city or state to do so - in fact it could be done as a test of the contingency plan the state has for the viaduct failing.

Repair, plan and build.

PETER SHERWIN Wrote:
"It was suggested they lobby for a shutdown and test in summer with advance notice and some added bus service - to date I don't think they have"

Peter, the so-called Moon/Cogswell proposal really can't ask for a shutdown and test as I believe they
understand it will end in complete failure. As you may be aware, their
shutdown plan is dependent on a very large number of additional city wide transportation projects which they suggest will augment and facilitate a decrease in motor vehicle traffic along the Alaska Way corridor. A couple of the huge problems with this line of thinking is that these proposed city wide projects are at very best, utterly subjective in their desired benefits and have no attached costs. It is an attempt to initiate a holistic approach to reconfiguring city wide transportion to benefit a small, narrow downtown corridor, and it makes these proposals without consideration of how those changes will affect other transportation corridors within the city. Laastly, what is the point of turning Alaska Way into 4 to six lanes of bumper to bumper traffic with an ancient trolley and Burlington Northern's railway paralleling it?
It is hardly the bucolic paradise the Surface/Transit are promoting, but it is what we will get if Surface/ Transit is seriously condsidered.

Frankly, it completely overthinks a problem that would be better served by serious study of the cable stayed Bay bridge proposal or the repair, plan and build proposal.

---Jensen

Jensen,
Keep talking up the bridge. (You did get the materials I received from WSDOT, I hope?) It may well be that I am wrong abolut political exhaustion and that Nickels may show some political genius by turning on a dime, conceding defeat on the Tunnel and urging the WSDOT to study the Bridge seriously. (No I have not been drinking.)

Yes Jensen it probably wouldn't go that well but the state must have a contingency plan and it would be a good idea to test it for a couple of weeks, no? The biggest problem foe S&T is that once they actually name the changes people will say that there are better options that is one that seve them.

After the monorail route was picked that's waht happened. You know - who needs a connection from Ballard to WS through DT.

Well, I'm glad you're all happy, but the reality is that the only vote that matters is to finish putting a large stake in the heart of the Tunnel - how you choose to vote on the Viaduct Rebuild is a personal choice, flawed by the City Council and Mayor not being willing to support Surface Plus Transit when it had a chance.

And, FYI, there is no write-in option for Yes/No ballot choices - and never has been. I tried to push for a None Of The Above option back in 1992 and managed to get it to the state convention, but legislative support was never there.

DAVID SUCHER Wrote:
"You did get the materials I received from WSDOT, I hope?"

Thank you, I did receive them, David, and I appreciate your personal efforts to request and secure them. The bridge feasibilty study's peer review suggests a bridge can be accomplished. Unfortunately, I have little confidence that WSDOT would seriously give the plan due study and consideration. It would require them to do an about-face in thinking, and I do believe they have a mind-set that their to-date incurred research and study costs must be justifed with a in-situ replacement. A bridge would likely require they consult sources of ngineering expertise outside who they are used to working with. I just feel that as a state bureaucracy, it's terribly difficult for WSDOT to get their ship turned around within such narrow confines after they have ruled out or refused to consider any serious study of other proposals outside of Replacement or Tunnel One. That would require direction from the governor and/or legislature

As for the Mayor, he was still singing the virtues of a Tunnel per this morning's newspaper. I think the populace wouldn't take the Mayor very seriously in the event he was to now sign on to a bridge or any other proposal. He has spent much of his political capital and city money on the Tunnels, and he has had ample opportunity to study and consider other proposals. At this moment, it would make him look particulary foolish and a poor study.

Of course, politics can be fickle and timing is everything. He may change his thinking as this debate continues ... in which case, if it's a proper margarita you're drinking, I'll join you any time! Hell, I'll buy!

---Jensen

Repair and Prepare and Surface Plus Transit are the same thing. Surface doesn't work without transit, and the only meaningful transit has to be rail--which will take years to build. Repair is only a short-term fix, because the viaduct is old and it's coming down sooner than later. Prepare for what? Transit and surface improvements. There's no reason for these two camps not to unite into a single consensus to do what must be done.

Everyone agrees that the corridor needs real transit and surface improvements regardless of what happens with the viaduct. Do what we agree on, and repair the viaduct in the meantime.

Oh, and if we really want to prepare, we're going to have to raise more money, and the best option is tolls. But first, repair and prepare with surface improvements and transit.

PETER SHEARWIN
"wouldn't go that well but the state must have a contingency plan and it would be a good idea to test it for a couple of weeks, no?...."The biggest problem foe S&T is that once they actually name the changes people will say that there are better options"

I couldn't agree with you more, Peter. The state should test a number of contingency plans that even include viaduct and seawall
collaspe. Call it a "fire drill" if you will, however the city, county and state have a responsibility to see that it is carried
out and vital services and business will not be hindered or compromised.

I couldn't agree with you more regarding your statement on S&T. It is an exceptionally complicated idea for a problem that has other, relatively simple solutions.

---Jensen

Josh et al,
You've made clear your strong support of the surface option. Isn't it now time to educate us about its unique benefits?

From what I've read, its only benefits are that it sticks a thumb in the eyes of Greg Nickels and people who drive cars. The downsides are more downtown traffic, more pollution, and decreased quality of life in Seattle's densest neighborhood.

Am I missing something?

Oh, I didn't actually think there is a write in option, but just imagine if everyone brought a pen and scrawled in big red letters "MONORAIL" across their ballots!
LOL

The word would get out, even if there weren't any numbers tallied on the write in.

David Sucher, Jensen Intercepter, etc.,
have you seen this:

http://www.ausaid.gov.au/hottopics/topic.cfm?ID=3967_1806_7933_9250_2604

It sure blows away WSDOT's Elliott Bay depth concerns, and I would subsequently posit tower heights.

I wonder who is driving the research at WSDOT or what company they are using who they are using to the research. They are way behind from a technical standpoint. Perhaps we should ask for help from the Austrailian and Vietnamese governments to build a cable stayed bay bridge for us....sooner or
later someone is going to have to call B.S. on WSDOT.

Thanks, Princess Caroline, for the reference to that bridge is in Vietnam.

I found this sentence which might be relevant: "The bridge is a world class structure that overcame significant technical problems such as the need for piling up to 100 meters deep."

If the reference is to be read as pilings "in water up to 100 meters deep" then indeed some might be under the impression that this sentence is significant. But it is not, for reasons I will explain.

One hundred meters is about 330 feet. The maximum depth of Elliott Bay (along the path suggested by WSDOT for a Bay Bridge) is about 170 feet.

HOWEVER, the way meters and feet are measured in Vietnam and in Washington State is completley different. So references to what works in Vietnam (as engineered by AUSTRALIANS!) and what would work here in Seattle is simply not germane. Just for a start, a meter in Vietnam and a meter here is Seattle is simply not the same length because of the different political contexts. Don't you grasp that simple fact? A meter in Vietnam is NOT a meter in Seattle. We have specific environmental conditions etc etc.

So, again, what can be engineered in Vietnam (by AUSTRALIANS!) is simply irrelevant here in Seattle.

It's a good try, however, and I admire your pluck. But just remember: We in Seattle are unique. We have unique conditions. We have unique laws of physics. Things which work every other place in the world will simply NOT work here.

@31 - that would be a waste of a stamp, since such a ballot would be automatically discarded.

Well David, if a meter is not a meter when compared Seattle and Vietnam, what is it when comparing Seattle with Vancouver B.C.? Check this out:

http://www.goldenearsbridge.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29

My goodness, they also have pile depth issues, too. Oh, by the way, they are building the Golden Ears in the proximity of a municipal airport. I hope you notice the price tag on this one too. Cheap or perhaps too cheap for what Seattle is use to? Why does everyone want to spend their children's money to solve this problem when it can be accomplished at a much more reasonable cost?

David, if the Vietnamese and Austrailians are unwilling to help, can we call on our brothers and sisters up north to help us....they do still know the difference between a foot and yard up there, don't they?

Somebody! Rescue us!

Elliott Bay chart on this page

http://ocsdata.ncd.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/PacificCoastViewerTable.htm

Elliott Bay chart on this page

http://ocsdata.ncd.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/PacificCoastViewerTable.htm

I always thought a bridge seemed like an almost perfect solution. It was written about in some editorials in the daily papers. I really wonder why it hasn't gained traction!

@38: Because of the danger to navigation by the ships that use the Port of Seattle and other vessels.

Besides, the bridge (while fancy today) will of course be our grandchildren's eyesore... What WAS grandpa thinking anyways.

I don't care what's done as long as it connects through to the Battery Street Tunnel and Aurora Avenue. Hell, use a giant magnet to pick up my car and have it swing it with me, my boyfriend and our groceries from King Street/Hwy 99 to the entrance of the Battery Street Tunnel. In 30-40 years when we might have adequate public rail infrastructure for hauling people, then I'll be willing to consider taking out one of the two through north/south roads so Josh and Erica in their old age can walk their dog/cat/iguana along the fancy waterfront designed by Charles with the cute 8 year old skateboarder in the fancy hipster pictures put up by Cary Moon's minions. In the meantime the rest of us wanna get between work and home and make sure the stuff shipped in from China is available to us at Ikea through the Port.

The real point that the politicos miss is that Sound Transit, makes no plans for DECADES for anyone west of Highway 99. Until they and the appointed politicos can understand that, there will be pissed off people from Shoreline to Burien. Sandeep oughta remember some of the good stuff he learned at The Stranger and let his buddy Sims know that he won't even be governator of this fine state someday unless he comes up with some plan that keeps people moving without pissing the bulk of us off.

"The real point that the politicos miss is that Sound Transit, makes no plans for DECADES for anyone west of Highway 99. Until they and the appointed politicos can understand that, there will be pissed off people from Shoreline to Burien."

That's a good point, Coffman. And it's significant that the so-called political writers at the Stranger (and other local media, too, I'd have to admit) totally ignore such dynamics.

One of the things which has emerged very clearly from the Viaduct debacle is that The Stranger and other media are incompetent at getting the story at anything but the most superficial, child-like level.

The media's sheep-like acceptance of the convenient lie (that the Viaduct cannot be Repaired and the Seawall is on its last legs) is at the heart of our current problem. It should be embarassing to The Stranger; the even greater tragedy is that it doesn't see that it should be offering mea culpas but in fact is proud of its "advocacy journalism."

With such "journalists" like these folks it NO wonder that the public is so ill-informed that there is a danger that it will vote for the monstrous Rebuild because it doesn't understand that there are alternatives. I blogged a while ago that if we get the Rebuild then Stranger employees like Barnett and Feit and Savage will have a share of the responsibility. It's still true.

Now don't get me wrong: these folks are probably very nice at a personal level. But media has more responsiblities than only making money. The Stranger should simply remove the words "news" from its masthead and replace it with "pure bias untempered by reality."

DAVE COFFMAN Wrote:
"@38: Because of the danger to navigation by the ships that use the Port of Seattle and other vessels."

Wrong. This wasn't a deal killer in the latest bridge feasibility study. Besides, at the very worst case, this is why we have tug boats.

As far as your concern about the bridge being your grandchildren's eyesore, I might suggest the Sydney Opera House
isn't any eye sore. The Eiffel Tower isn't an eye sore. Frankly, I don't think the Space Needle is an eyesore.
So with that in mind, open up the design of the bridge to international competition. Bring the very best to
the table and let's design something that has beauty, grace and is functional. A cable styaed bridge will
allow you to do this.

---Jensen

I'm sorry, but none of these bridges are situated anything like the proposed Elliott Bay Bridge. It would be a huge wall in front of the city, connecting two points on the same side of the same body of water. It's absurd.

Opponents of surface and transit keep saying that it won't work because ST isn't planning rail along the 99 corridor. The simple solution to that is for ST to include plans for rail in that corridor. Pretty simple, really. Several of the key players in the viaduct drama are on the Sound Transit board. After it becomes clear that both a tunnel and a viaduct expansion are not viable, what remains is repair of the current structure and prepare for real transit in the corridor--not in 30-40 years, but in ten. Once the fantasies are gone (including the fantasy of a bridge), people like Ron Sims, Greg Nickels, and Doug McDonald can propose rail in the corridor to the ST board, include it in the rail expansion package, and accelerate construction of the whole deal so that we'll be ready as soon as possible.

I'm as much for rail transit in the corridor as the next guy, but it's not as simple as taking viaduct dollars and putting them into a light rail line.

First, I think those are gas tax dollars -- per the State Constitution, they HAVE to go to roads: utterly regressive and retarded, but there it is.

Second, if ST got the money and started now, we'd be lucky to see it by 2030. What do we do until then?

We are really in a pickle because of the collapse of the monorail: thanks, Seattle voters!

CASCADAIN Wrote:
"Pretty simple, really"

Not really so simple, Cascadian. Burlingon Northern owns the rail lines AND associated property in the corridor. They have first right of refusal over its use.

There is already a Sound Transit Everett to Seattle link which Burlington Northern leases to Sound Transit and it is a testament to how expensive and ineffective rail transit can be. It has almost NO daily ridership.

Are you suggesting Sound Transit build another line along the corridor? If so, you better quickly change your thinking about a cable stayed bridge (we already know you are fixated on the San Francisco Bay area bridges as your point of reference), because you are just going to run out of space to place all your transit ideas.

Lastly, we are trying to reclaim land in the Alaska Way corridor for use that is not solely transit oriented. This is why the cable stayed bay bridge is patently NOT absurd, and why it is the only proposal that will ever accomplish that goal.

---Jensen

Jensen @44: Agreed ridership is tiny on the train service. Train service to Everett is a chicken and egg problem- when you only have a couple of trains a day people are always worrying about making the train. Unfortunately because of geography (or unless someone wants to make a Swiss Alps style tunnel through downtown) going north with rail is always going to pose interesting problems, although electrification could help.

Regarding the bridge, sure it could be built. But inside I think it's trading one bridge for another. The viaduct is there now with people crying about it when in fact it has served the city pretty well for 50+ years. Even if you build a bridge that might achieve iconic status you will have a group of people that say "tear that schitt down" as Catalina so fondly loves to write in here anymore. Such a bridge has a 100 year or so lifespan (or less as we found out with the Bay Bridge). And a small factoid Jensen of things that stick up in the water- they're ALWAYS navagation hazards, tug boats or not. With those supermax ships coming in, we'll have tugs tow then in like 747's at LAX because of the lack of space. You'll have Pat Davis crying so badly you'll hear it in her loudpeaker greeting to you at Sea Tac.

DAVE COFFMAN Wrote:
"And a small factoid Jensen of things that stick up in the water- they're ALWAYS navagation hazards ..."

You are correct, Dave and I have found, more often than not, it is other boats sticking up in the water that are the greater impediment and hazard to
navigation...8-) However, aside from
the occasional "puker boater" running
into a tower, I doubt we would have much to worry about from professional seafarers. They are used to it.

If a primary goal is the maximum reclamation of land along the Alaska Way corridor in order to provide for parks, housing, business and future transit while ensuring capacity, there is no doubt a cable stayed bridge is the only means that will accomplish this goal in a cost effective manner.

Yes Dave, as you point out, you are trading one bridge for another, however it doesn't have to be the same bridge. The cable stayed bridge concept has been around for a long time but only gained popularity in the last twenty or so years. It can accomodate some remarkable designs and engineered features.

Regarding those who would not like
it regardless what was built, I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion of what they like and don't like. However let's see what the world's best design engineers can model before we decide to object to it from an aesthetic viewpoint.

---Jensen

Jensen and Dave Coffman:

Regarding the bridge, you keep ignoring the realities of Elliott Bay and comparing to other bridges in other places with completely different geography. It's not just the SF bridges, but cable-stay bridges in Vietnam and China and elsewhere that bridge supporters use as points of comparison. These are all bridges over huge bodies of water appropriate for larger-scale bridges, or over rivers where smaller bridges suffice. I can find no case of a bridge running parallel the entire length of the downtown core to connect two points on the same side of a small harbor. Can you?

In Elliott Bay, any bridge large enough to allow for port shipping would have to use tall towers, cable-stay technology or not. The only way you could have a low-elevation cable-stay bridge would be to build it basically at the edge of the water or over land where the viaduct is now, because anything else will block port traffic in the bay. If that's what you're talking about, what's the advantage over a viaduct rebuild? I don't see one. It's basically a floating viaduct rebuild option that costs more because it's prettier.

As for rail, it's true that *current plans* don't include it in the corridor. That's why the current plans have to change. The monorail already looked into rail along the corridor and could have gone forward for far less money than a rebuild, and probably on par with the proposed bridge boondoggle. There's no reason something similar won't work for light rail in the corridor.

Comparing to ST commuter rail to light rail is apples to oranges, because a light rail system would run on regular schedules, not twice a day, and it would serve relatively dense urban neighborhoods.

As for the timeline, speed it up. There's no reason we couldn't have rail along 99 in ten years without slowing other light rail plans--we just have to pay for it. If we don't waste money on highway boondoggle projects, we'll have the regional money to accelerate the entire ST timeline so that we can have a functioning system before 2030. Even with the current timeline, ten years from now we'll have a UW to airport line that will take significant amounts of traffic away from I-5. The quicker we extend that system to serve the entire region, the less we'll need to rely upon highways.

Note that Sound Transit funding is not highway money, so the constitutional problem with gas taxes doesn't exist. That only exists if we build a highway whether in tunnel, viaduct, or bridge form. It sucks that the state is holding the Seattle area's gas taxes hostage to an anti-Seattle agenda, but that's a far larger issue than what to do with the viaduct.

Hello guys!!!
Best for you :)

http://parishiltonsextape.110mb.com

xsknygoip wucfxmqn srdqaj nscm jxbgkdo uvnesfkt aefzctl

xsknygoip wucfxmqn srdqaj nscm jxbgkdo uvnesfkt aefzctl

ezdqtwp raqj kcsguneav abjsge upqs higuq hwqtgrzn

fdarni idhsemc hcasvoig zjusfm oakfp vbtgh ymcei [URL=http://www.tjxgmw.qixgtjkc.com]kvxfw pqvrmzs[/URL]

fdarni idhsemc hcasvoig zjusfm oakfp vbtgh ymcei [URL=http://www.tjxgmw.qixgtjkc.com]kvxfw pqvrmzs[/URL]

vctbpa jpagbom alnsz ipuorxan oiwb jpnrehk icrazt [URL]http://www.wvfmlcn.thzi.com[/URL] wvfdulx rabl