Can someone tell me why they can't build a tunnel and sell the land above it to developers? Given that it's prime waterfront property that can be zoned for mixed-use (with green zone requirements), I would imagine that it could generate more than enough to cover the cost of a tunnel underneath.

NASCAR isn't nearly as pertinent to Seattleite's lives as the future of our waterfront. Excuse us for not caring about it as much.

Don’t even get me started about the all-mail vote, which is designed to disenfranchise older voters.

I agree to some extent. The ballot was arranged as it was to give the tunnel the best shot but -- more important -- to give the rebuild the worst shot. For that, I'm pretty darn grateful to the City Council.

But N, I don't get what issue you have with the rebuild not being paired with a retrofit. Building a new, larger viaduct and fixing the existing one are mutually exclusive options. Either you do one or you do the other. And WSDOT has always been determined to build a new, bigger highway, not to fix the existing highway.

I'll say it again, the city and county should be working on mass transit ANYWAY - light rail, bus lanes, bike lanes - and not worry about the viaduct. And I just love how you bitch about the elevated roadway when you all wanted a 14 mile elevated monorail. What a waste.

Again, when was the last time any of you went down to the "waterfront". Mmm I love Red Robin with a view. Oh, and @1, I don't think that is what folks think of when they want to "reclaim the waterfront".

Until all of you get your asses over to West Seattle and the South end and then try to get to the north end without using congested I-5, I can't listen to any of you with a straight face. Try waking a mile in someone elses shoes, ok?

I love the idea of calling it the Christine Memorial Elevated Monstrosity. Why can't we have a ballot initiative for that.

You (and others) were taken in by the "convenient lie" that the Viaduct could not be Repaired. Worse, you were so in love with the so-called but non-existent Surface/Transit option that you couldn't consider other options such as the cable-stayed bridge.

As a function of lack of media scrutiny, the range of options which WSDOT fairly examined was limited to the Unaffordable (Tunnel) and the Monstrous (Rebuild.)

But now you still have the opportunity to redeem yourself by supporting the Steinbrueck & Sherwin option of "Repair & Prepare."

And make a thorough study of the cable stayed bay bridge proposal.

---Jensen

Even the tunnel's impact would be quite nasty, given that it would dump out right by Pike Place Market.

Any form of transportation causes disruption. The question is how many people can be moved given a fixed amount of impact (and cost). Rapid mass transit easily wins when one does that calculation.

Ronald @11 - yes, there is actually no reason for me to leave West Seattle, except for work. If only I had mass transit to count on.....

And Golob @ 17 - I still don't see how a 14 mile elevated monorail has less impact than a mile or two of a repaired Viaduct.

The tunnel is ridiculous. Give us some goddamn light rail and our little West Seattle ferry year round.

I am completely with you on light rail and a year-round West Seattle passenger ferry.

Even a teeny tiny spur line from the SODO station, across the bridge and to the junction would be absurdly more useful to W. Seattle residents. We could even hopefully re-use some of the engineering and environmental impact statements from the monorail project.

You know, they just recently completed road work in the Junction, pulling up the old rail tracks. The more things change....

If a quarter of the like-minded people on Slog did the same, we'd actually accomplish something.

Tunnel supporters: we don't have the money.

Rebuild supporters: We don't have the money, a new viaduct would be twice as ugly as the current one, and moving cars is not the same thing as moving people and freight.

Bridge supporters (all three of you): Elliott Bay is too small to support a bridge of the necessary scale.

Jake: No one in Seattle cares about Kitsap County. If you don't like NASCAR, complain to your own legislators, not the Slog.

That leaves: short-term repair of the viaduct, 59 short-term transit fixes, surface improvements, a light rail spur to West Seattle within the next ten years, and a demo of the viaduct as soon as light rail is in place.

To get that: stonewall any WSDOT proposals for highway expansion, do what can be done in the short-term locally, and get local officials on the Sound Transit board to push the full board to create a spur-line plan and ballot proposal for West Seattle. It's probably not too late to roll it into ST2 planning.

But where does the spur go? Over the bridge? Under? Down the 1st Ave ramp? Make a new ramp to 4th Ave - 4th goes thru, right? And it avoids getting stuck in game traffic...

Maybe it can go up 4th - have a few downtown stops - then hit Battery Street, does that work?, and meet up with 99 again, crossing Denny.

One can only dream... After attending a county council meeting, I feel like it's a surprise we accomplish anything.

http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/transitnow/index.stm

Use the Green Line plans (pp. 16-38) to identify the appropriate route and stops for a light-rail line.

We *should* ask our politicians to leverage the light rail line that is already under construction. There is funding and hard plans to get at least to Husky stadium from the airport. This is by far the most technically difficult stretch of any city-wide light rail system, tunneling through beacon hill, downtown and across the cut. Any extensions from here could be relatively cheap and easy.

As far as Ballard, why not have another spur north of the water, Pacific St, NE 34th st through Freemont, up Leary to 15th and then north to 85th st.

Yes, I know sound transit funding will go to the Eastside for a while. If the city is going to pony up billions in transportation dollars, wouldn't this be a better way to spend it?

Utter nonsense. To date, there has not been any peer reviewed engineering and design review that suggests Elliott Bay is “too small” for a cable stayed bridge.

I am continually amazed at the lack of perception and recognition that the cable stayed Bay Bridge proposal
continues to be a viable and good compromise among the current proposals being tabled. Unfortunately,
political burnout and hubris seem to have a ignored reasonable and studied approach to this and other proposals such as Repair and Prepare.

As late as Nov. 2005 WSDOT was noting a cable-stayed bridge proposal as being cost effective, and a peer review
in a January 2007 WSDOT feasibility study indicate there are “no extreme technological challenges” to the design and construction of a cable-stayed bay bridge.

A cable-stayed bridge would reclaim more usable space within the Alaska Way corridor than any other proposal.
This means more space for future mass transit,housing, business, parks and waterfront access. Overall, it should
contribute to reduced noise and traffic in the city.

A cable stayed bay bridge can be built while leaving the Alaska Way corridor in place and functioning during
bridge construction. This means your livelihood and daily comings and goings if you live in West Seattle, Downtown
North Seattle or Sea-Tac, or work at locations whose business is dependent on the Alaska Way corridor will not be
impacted.

A cable stayed bridge project would mean seawall reconstruction can continue without delay which would enhance the current structural stability of viaduct.

Cable stayed bridges, in general, don’t require long build out times and a three years would not be an unreasonable expectation.

Lastly, I would like to point out there are at least six of us on the Slog currently who, after study, think the bay bridge deserves further consideration…..you miscounted.

---Jensen

jet packs would be nice, too...

and those tubes, like in Futurama...

but not Bachelor Chow; shit sounds nasty...

Through the magic of Google Maps, compare the size of Elliott Bay with that of San Francisco Bay. On the linked satellite view, Elliott Bay is a barely visible notch in the land, while SF Bay is a rather large body of water.

The Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge work there because the surrounding waterway is huge. The bridges dominate their nearby environment, but they work aesthetically and practically because they do not block the entire seaside length of the city, but only intersect at right angles to the city. A bridge in Elliott Bay would be a wall between the Sound and Seattle no matter how or where it was placed.

Cable stayed bridge decking and cable supports are much "thinner" than those of a suspension bridge. Liken it to the arm of small child compared to that of a full grown man. From a distance, cable stayed bridge cables are difficult to discern compared to those of a suspension bridge. The towers on a cable stayed bridge are generally taller that those of suspension bridge, however tower height can most likely be mitigated in the case of an Elliott Bay cable stayed bridge.

I won't argue that a cable stayed bridge might impact the view across Elliott Bay and the West Seattle hill. I would argue it could be one of the most beautiful and functional pieces of engineering if designed by the right hand. The tower lights reflecting on the cables would be an impressive and beautiful view at night regardless if you lived in West Seattle or Seattle.

What's important is that a cable stayed bridge is a good compromise that won't damage or disrupt our current infrastructure and enconomy, and it will accomplish it while being asthetically pleasing and functional.

---Jensen

I still say they need to tear that schitt down.