Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Live From Steinbrueck's Announcement


The City Council will lose an incredibly eloquent and powerful voice, but hopefully he is able to effect more change outside the Council. I hope he's not solidly closing the door to running for Mayor, but Rep. Steinbrueck would be almost as satisfying.

Posted by lorax | February 27, 2007 8:30 PM

Consider me confused: he wants to support the Transit & Surface option beginning with giving up the power he has?

Posted by Chris | February 27, 2007 8:37 PM

What's a Venus Velazquez? Is a drag queen running for City Council?

Posted by Tattoo You | February 27, 2007 8:44 PM

Chris: Consider me confused: he wants to support the Transit & Surface option beginning with giving up the power he has?

That was my first reaction too. Well, the guy's got to have something up his sleeve, whether it's a mayoral run or not. Hey, maybe he could give up his City Council seat to run for David Della's seat. (I can't tell you how many doors I would be willing to knock on on behalf of a progressive candidate who could defeat Della.)

Then again, maybe Steinbrueck doesn't have a plan. This is the same councilmember who wanted to scuttle this special election, even though any hope of stopping the rebuild has to start with Seattle voters declaring their opposition to it.

I can name plenty of other instances where I felt Steinbrueck was just plain wrong or even goofy. But I really am moved by the depth of his opposition to the rebuild. At that City Council meeting where they went forward with the advisory vote, he expressed better than any other elected official to date just how grave a mistake the rebuild would be. And I really, really appreciate that he's trying to unite rebuild opponents. For environmentalists, the choice between a four-lane tunnel or some surface combination should be kid's stuff compared to just fighting the rebuild.

Perhaps a lot of times Steinbrueck just doesn't get it, but this is the one issue where he really does get it, as far as I'm concerned. At least he gets it on the greatest issue facing Seattle's future.

Posted by cressona | February 27, 2007 9:04 PM

Yeah, I don't understand why he would leave to do this, but. . .glad he's planning to be a pain in the backwards asses of the mayor and gov. We need that.

Posted by Violet_DaGrinder | February 27, 2007 9:06 PM

I've had some disagreements with Peter but, I hope whoever does replace has at least half his passion for improving Seattle.
I would also caution him against becoming a "Single-Issue" advocat.

Posted by Zander | February 27, 2007 9:23 PM

Peter is as much responsible for the fix we are in as is any elected official. He played along with the absurd Tunnel long after it was obviously a financial no-go. More significantly, he played along with the convenient fiction that the Viaduct could not be Repaired. And now he balks at giving the electorate an alternative to the Rebuild via "Repair & Prepare."

Peter is a decent guy but he is no hero when it comes to the Viaduct.

Posted by David Sucher | February 27, 2007 9:48 PM

I laughed, I cried, I gasped and battled tears on reading the thoroughly objective report that Peter won't be running for re-election.

Oh, the humanity!

Posted by Smarm | February 27, 2007 10:11 PM

Of course another alternative is that Peter is positioning himself to be the civic hero who prevents a disaster by putting together the winning compromise i.e. "Repair & Prepare." I know that Peter favors that idea; in fact he and Peter Sherwin pointed it out to me in the very same week. I thought it was an exceedingly astute insight by both Peters.

You can read more about Steinbrueck's view here:

(Just in case any one is wondering, his statement was in a private email but I asked and received his permission to quote him on my blog.)

Posted by David Sucher | February 27, 2007 10:22 PM

If I read the Times article correctly, Steinbrueck isn't leaving office; he's serving out his term. And I would argue that elected officials are often bound by the politics that put/keep them in office, so he's probably going to gain some power -- or at least some room to maneuver -- rather than lose it.

I am a Seattle native and former local government junkie who had to leave this city because I couldn't bear to watch it regress. Steinbrueck is Seattle's best chance for moving forward (quite literally) with the vision and integrity that this lovely city deserves. If he runs for mayor, I'm moving back.

Posted by SC | February 27, 2007 10:36 PM

Peter deserves a lot of props from progressives in Seattle. A truly great dude and one of the only politicians in the state with a vision. Please god, have pitty on Seattle and let Steinbrueck run for mayor. Maybe we should start a "draft Peter for Mayor" campaign right now. Anyone care to join? Of course it would be great to have an effective progressive who will actually do something representing Seattle in the US Congress as well. Either way, run Peter, run!

Posted by Meinert | February 28, 2007 12:04 AM

Fucking Naderite.

Posted by mawlana | February 28, 2007 12:12 AM

Peter Steinbrueck is a talentless narcissist who used the only thing he had---a well-known father---to manage to get elected to the City Council. He fancies himself a man of great importance but is in reality just a usually ill-informed blowhard. (I was once almost kicked out of his office for daring to ask him for more details for one of his claims.) Of course, all of this would be funny except that occasionally the City Council passes---or doesn't pass---legislation that really effects some people's lives.

Peter is now moving to promote the surface/transit option so that he will go down in Seattle's great and illustrious history as the man who saved the waterfront. Then maybe he'll get a park named after him once he dies. Just like Dad.
Posted by A-Chan | February 28, 2007 2:09 AM

I'm in the odd position of agreeing with most of the posts above, even though they're all saying different - and mutually exclusive - things.

I've been encouraging Peter to run for Mayor since Nickels was first elected, but I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it.

As one of my older and wiser (no, make that oldest and wisest) bosses once said - it's a lot easier to get a job while you still have one.

The real irony, though, is that the most likely person to win an open seat Council race will wind up being the most malleable, risk averse, pro-Downtown business (and therefore well-funded), middle-of-the-road fake liberal Corporate Seattle (tm) candidate. You know - one of those tunnel-at-any-cost/world class hyping/delusional Chamber of Commerce sloganeers who pay lip service to progressive and neighborhood values while they're on the campaign trail who then promptly sell them out to the highest bidder.

Oh, how I wish I could see a glass half-full....

Posted by Mr. X | February 28, 2007 2:45 AM

Little men always seem to be striving beyond their talent

With out the saga of "Daddy and the Market" he would still be pumping gas.

All blather and no substance, no political skills to speak of.

He has been there on the council - every day - six years submerged in Viaduct - all of sudden he seizes others ideas and energy and becomes the champ. Not to mention inertia on other issues, many other issues, many other issues, many other issues.....

Let's run Carey Moon for Mayor.

Peter is grand standing - and most likely aiming for congress. McDermott will not live forever and I bet Peter has some inside info on his retirement.

Head on crash for the seat with about ten others, leading contender is Ed Murray - dyed in the wool DEMOCRAT his whole political life, in the 7th, household name, and not a Naderite.

In a run for Congress Peter will look like Dodson did running for the legislature...

As someone said in Slog a few days ago- guess they had some insight into his nature - " watch Steinbruck lay down to stop the Dozers for the media." Seems he just said he is going to do that.

Wish I thought he was really bright - great staff telling him when to jump.

Hot temper, looks fading, Green Noose on his neck - I think it is over.

Is this called the little man version of Al Gore - picking an issue to work while in the wings?

Posted by rorry | February 28, 2007 5:30 AM

I like Peter, but he would have the same problems as McDermott in Congress- usually good on the issues but finds it hard at times to get through what he really wants. When you're in Congress, you have to be willing to play in the sandbox with others, particularly those you don't like. Steinbrueck would have problems because he is so passionate. Anyone remember Pat Schroeder from Colorado? Loved, strong politician from the 80's/90. Caught one time by the media crying (literally) in a passionate way over an issue and her political career was over. If he has qualms about council and city politics, DC will be hell for him with all the knives in the back. DC makes Seattle look like a kindergarten.

Posted by Dave Coffman | February 28, 2007 6:41 AM

Pat was GREAT -

Seattle is Kindergarten. And he has been part of too many nap times.

New Blood. Real vision.

Ed will eat him a live in a fight for the 7th nomination. There is a great simmering memory of the Naderites in Seattle, not talked about much, but quite real.

Ed has a boxed collection of those knives you speak of, Dave, kniefee and kniefor. He can play hardball if needed.

Posted by celisea | February 28, 2007 6:54 AM

Apparently Washington Conservation Voters has also endorsed a "no" vote on the rebuild (measure 2).

Posted by Anon | February 28, 2007 8:11 AM

The sad thing, Anon, is that the only real pro-enviro vote has always been No-No, but that the Sierra Club and WCV and other enviro groups got coopted by "political powers that be" to change that into a pro-tunnel anti-viaduct vote.

Salmon don't care about minor changes - they care about massive tunnel fans running 24/7 to move fewer people.

The only real choice is massive investments - we are talking more than Double Local Transit, since the population will literally double by 2040, so doubling only keeps up to the current Bad State Of Things.

Bygones. Run the carbon emissions impact numbers before getting all high and mighty.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 28, 2007 8:20 AM

Will, the Sierra Club has been for the surface/transit from the beginning and are endorsing No-No. They have been leaders on this from the beginning.

You are right about the other groups--People for Puget Sound and others have been hesitant to dump the tunnel--but Sierra has been good.

Posted by 123 | February 28, 2007 9:04 AM

To his face, haters. Say it to his face.

Posted by Jason | February 28, 2007 9:13 AM

Will, salmon don't care about the Seattle waterfront, period. Even bringing the subject up in the viaduct debate is profoundly dishonest. I actually know a thing or two about salmon recovery, and it's not happening here: it's happening (or not happening) out in the more remote corners of the Sound and in the major rivers that support the major populations.

The funniest thing in the entire city is the "salmon stream" in the Port's T107 park, which is a culvert trickling into a black mud pit that connects to the Duwamish. Salmon? I don't think so. Possibly radioactive three-eyed carp or something.

The Sound is undeniably dying, and I fully expect major extinctions in the coming decade (Hood Canal will be stone dead in ten years), but it's not Seattle's fault. Seattle does less damage PER CAPITA than anyplace in the area. The damage is coming from the runoff from clearcuts and hundreds of thousands of new exurban homes and failing septic tanks and parking lots and fish farms and cruise ships.

Part of the blame for the death of the Sound will inevitably lie also with Seattle liberals who insist on focusing on bullshit remedies like "surface route 99", pretending that they're doing something about the problem when all they are really assuaging is their own consciences. There is a real problem. No one is addressing it. We talk about trivialities and misguided projects that end up making the problem worse.

It's not tunnel fans that are killing the fish.

Posted by Fnarf | February 28, 2007 9:26 AM

Steinbrueck's major accomplishment is in the area of homelessness, where he spearheaded a data collection system that has alienated every single service provider in the county, and forced them to duplicate all of their record-keeping.

Posted by Fnarf | February 28, 2007 9:29 AM

Whether it’s Steinbrueck’s intent or not, he has outmaneuvered Nickels, and left him high and dry.

The surface option is Nickel’s fallback, and he was likely going to announce his conversion the minute the election results come in. Now, if he moves in that direction, he’ll merely be joining Steinbrueck, and looking like a follower, not a leader.

That was the only escape valve Nickels had left in the Viaduct debate. Now it’s gone.


Posted by BB | February 28, 2007 9:45 AM

Not that Peter needs defending from the punks that hide behind their screens, but I'll do it anyhow. I've worked with the council for 10 years. Steinbrueck is one of the few bright spots. He is truly progressive, has vision, and is effective. He's about to majorly help save the city from a total mess created by our Mayor and Governor. Passion is a great thing in politics, and is lacking from many of our electeds. As is vision, the thing Peter has that almost all other politicians in the state lack. Peter's only as perfect as any other human, which means not at all. He's not freaking superman. But he is a hard working progressive, and he's going to be part of the solution on this viaduct mess and he should run for Mayor. He'll be severely missed on council.

Posted by Meinert | February 28, 2007 9:59 AM

A-Chan (13) thank you, you said it exactly right. The "passion" is for the sound of his own voice. Passion is a dangerous thing in a politician, even more so when he's not very bright.

Posted by Lawrence | February 28, 2007 10:05 AM

Fnarf (post 22), you might want to calm your vitriol on the plans for salmon habitat enhancement on the Seattle waterfront (for a start,
According to some UW research surprising numbers of juvenile salmon migrate past the piers and seawall there. It's not profoundly dishohnest to talk about salmon enhancement, and it's an important opportunity for salmon enhancement and restoration work to get exposure with the public. It's not some hairbrained scheme, so don't treat it that way.

Posted by salmon | February 28, 2007 10:19 AM

Mr. X: I'm in the odd position of agreeing with most of the posts above, even though they're all saying different - and mutually exclusive - things.

I'm in the odd position of reading an entire post (14) and thinking, "Hmm, sounds reasonable," and then being stunned to read the "Posted by..." Mr. X??! Hey, if I can agree with Mr. X, there's hope for this city.

Posted by cressona | February 28, 2007 10:25 AM

While I respect this move by Peter and I agree with his convictions I am also worried. Me. Steinbrueck is not very good at uniting people. He is hot headed, prone to tantrums and ranting fits. He yells at people and digs himself in on issues by making strong pronouncements that he can never back away from. I am totally with him on not wanting a new elevated but I worry about his ability to bring people together to forge a compromise. That really does not play to Mr. Steinbrueck’s strengths as a leader. Peter is more of an agitator and an obstructionist. I seriously doubt his ability to forge a politically agreeable compromise. I hope that he doesn't cause more problems than he is trying to solve by appointing himself as the spokeperson for the No New Elevated effort. Hope he proves me wrong.

Posted by Mrs. Y | February 28, 2007 10:28 AM

Fnarf, you totally get the large-scale environmental problems of the region - so why do you oppose replacing highways with transit? That is the key to addressing all this! Surface/Transit isn't just about what happens on the waterfront, but the pattern of development and trips in the area.

And A-Chan, when you tell an anecdote on here that is damning to a real person, YOU HAVE TO USE YOUR NAME. Otherwise it is just sniping, and increases the credibility of your target. If Peter's only detractors are folks too chickenshit to use their name when they slander someone on a blog, that raises him in my estimation.

Posted by Grant Cogswell | February 28, 2007 10:35 AM

123 @20: Will, the Sierra Club has been for the surface/transit from the beginning and are endorsing No-No. They have been leaders on this from the beginning.

You are right about the other groups--People for Puget Sound and others have been hesitant to dump the tunnel--but Sierra has been good.

Can someone correct me? I'm pretty sure the likes of Washington Conservation Voters, People for Puget Sound, Transportation Choices Coalition, and Futurewise are taking no position on Measure 1 (tunnel) for this election. They sure as heck are endorsing a No on Measure 2 (rebuild).

Posted by cressona | February 28, 2007 10:36 AM

Wow. Each and every time I visit Slog, I'm confronted with rabid opinions (typically, "No/No") on the waterfront transit situation. I'm just not comfortable with John Q deciding what should be done here, any more than I'm comfortable with John performing a root canal on me. Seriously, this is what we pay and train engineers for.

This is a port town. Despite Starbucks and Microsoft's (recent) supremecy, the port continues to be a major economic factor in this area. While I understand we don't live in an economy, we should understand the fundamentals of the locality in this way. Quite simply, you need to broaden the scope of this discussion beyond "the Salmon won't like it" or "sustainable growth".

I'm a little amused by the conflict between espoused values and rhetoric here. On one hand, I hear much ado about "building density" by providing more transit and more dense housing. That's great, but not everyone wants to live in a high-rise. That aside, with limited horizontal options, doesn't "building density" seem to imply that building down as well as up is advised?

Posted by M Dodds | February 28, 2007 10:40 AM

Because, Grant, there is no transit to get behind.

I supported the monorail, but it's not happening. Now I support Sound Transit, because there are no other options. But anyone who thinks ST is ever going to address the transit needs of a tiny fraction of the city, or any at all of the most important part of the region, which is NOT IN the city, is dreaming.

The intellectual model of city planning behind light rail is a century out of date. Most trips in the region are not from suburb to downtown, which is the only kind of trip that light rail works for. Most trips in the area don't start or end anywhere near downtown; most aren't in the city at all.

Every idea I've ever seen for creating a "car-free society" pretends that 9/10 of the people in the region don't exist. The action is not on the Seattle waterfront; it's in downtown Bellevue, it's along the I-90 corridor, it's in South Hill and in Arlington. If you're not talking about those places, you're wasting your time. If you are talking about maintaining Seattle's importance in the region, or trying to increase it, which is the environmentally correct thing for Seattle residents to do, then turning our working areas into wasteland parks is the exact opposite of what you should be doing.

As for juvenile salmon in Elliot Bay: these are trivial runs. The impending death of Hood Canal, and the disappearance of significant runs in Washington rivers to the north, south, east and west of us are a catastrophe. The question shouldn't be "can we all stand perfectly still and maybe we can get a few fish to come over here?" It should be "can we fight sprawl and keep dirty, loud, noisy, toxic development here in the city so it doesn't turn the entire state into Alaskan Way?

Posted by Fnarf | February 28, 2007 10:50 AM

fnarf (post 33), Again I agree that the Puget Sound is in trouble, but I'm not sure where you're going with this line of argument. Hood Canal and its hypoxia problem is a mess, but should not be conflated with salmon enhancement and restoration on the Seattle waterfront. They're both important, but not for the same reasons. The Seattle waterfront represents a great opportunity to do enhancement in order to learn how to improved the numerous nearshore environments around the Sound that are armored by bulkheads and the like.

Also, if you're saying that we should concentrate all development here in order to limit sprawl elsewhere in the Puget Sound basin, what are you proposing? This is a question, not an attack.

Posted by salmon | February 28, 2007 11:08 AM

I'm not saying "we" should concentrate all development here. Development is not a decision, it's a competition. Development should be GIVEN PRIORITY here, so that we can outcompete the sticks. The sticks have such natural advantages that I don't think we can win, but unless we want LA we have to try.

My suggestion for the viaduct would be to start over, and the focal point of the plan should not be an idiotic "park" or "boulevard" but should be improving freight access to the Port. By which I mean greatly enlarged grade-separated rail access to the container terminals just south of downtown and on Harbor Island.

Then you figure out how to connect the other pieces. King Street Station has been a problem since the day it was built; how are we going to use it to serve real transit? Where's that transit going to go? Build a real transit plan for the area, and I'll support it. Hang the cost; if it's the right thing, it doesn't matter how much it costs.

But at all times think regionally. Sound Transit doesn't go to the airport. Oh, it goes NEAR the airport, but if the doors to the trains don't open inside the main terminal, it doesn't count, and it's a FAILURE. I know that doesn't have anything to do with the viaduct, but it is indicative of a trail of half-assed "solutions" that are driving economic activity out of the city, so it's in the same category as the viaduct.

But definitely, definitely, stop pretending the car trips are going to go away, and stop pretending that what we need is something pretty for the kids to play in. This is a CITY we're talking about here. We need more economic engines, not fewer; plants, offices, stores, not parks. If you want greenery, go outside the center city to one of the many, many parks in Seattle and the surrounding area. London has Hyde Park, but Hyde Park isn't in the City of London and it's not in the Docklands. Seattle needs to attract activity to its core if it wants to avoid becoming anything more than just a bedroom community for people who work in Edge City somewhere out on the freeways. The direction they are pursuing now is based entirely on government and tourism. But tourism isn't always that ecofriendly.

The fundamental fact about cities is that they concentrate activity and thus, if properly managed, pull activity away from undeveloped areas. That's not what's happening in Seattle. The city is quieting down, and the activity is all out in the sticks. How long before Bellevue has more office space than Seattle? It's certainly more attractive, because it's accessible from all those lovely McMansions in Issaquah, Woodinville, and much further without any bridges to cross, and no whining nitwits who want to turn their center city into a lawn.

These "learning" opportunities about the shoreline need to be taking place elsewhere. There is NEVER going to be a good justification for converting Seattle's waterfront into a deserted beach. Much of what we know, besides, is already learned, but is politically impossible to implement; we KNOW why Hood Canal is dead; it's because it's solidly lined with little houses (mysteriously getting bigger by the day) on failing septic systems. We KNOW why the salmon are disappearing; it's because of the dams and the clearcuts and the houses on the water and the runoff from the miles and miles of parking lots that are being built in the watersheds.

It's stupid and morally wrong to want to make your own patch green and pretty while ignoring what's happening in the region. That's what removing the viaduct helps accomplish: drive activity elsewhere, to foul them with distributed waste that should be concentrated here.

Posted by Fnarf | February 28, 2007 11:31 AM

jesus, take it off line & lets get back to bashing Steinbreuck for getting emotional about emotional issues.

Posted by Max Solomon | February 28, 2007 11:46 AM

Oh, c'mon Fnarf, don't get too bent out of shape about ST and the airport. Yes, you're going to have to walk through the parking garage to get to the station. But at how many airports in the world blessed by a transit connection to the city they serve are you not forced to take a long walk (or amusement-park electric train ride or bus or whatever) to get to the train station? Does pulling in to a basement somewhere connected by a few escalators and a long corridor before getting to the main terminal count as a decent solution? 'Cause that's pretty much the state of the art.

Would a nice covered finished space inside the garage with a moving sidewalk make you feel any better? I bet it could be had for a relative bargain.

Posted by Airporter | February 28, 2007 12:05 PM

FNARF Wrote:
"As for juvenile salmon in Elliot Bay: these are trivial runs."

Actually, I might argue they are perhaps one of the better managed in the state. It is little known that they sustain both an ongoing commercial as well as recreational fishery. Not all salmon runs in Puget Sound are threatend, and it can be argued that the state of some of the runs which enter Elliott Bay, are in fact, not in bad shape at all, especially compared to those in Hoods Canal and the lower Sound area.


Posted by Jensen Interceptor | February 28, 2007 12:10 PM


For someone who claims to care so much about the issue, you are so awfully wrong about so many things.

Freight access projects are chugging along. The Atlantic St overpass is built, Lander St & Royal Brougham are in the pipeline, along with widening the Spokane St Viaduct. Most important, the Stampede Pass tunnel is being enlarged. The I-90 bottleneck at the pass is being addressed.

Replacing the viaduct with a six lane boulevard will have zero effect on freight travelling to other cities & states, which I would peg at 99% of the port's traffic. Sure, it sucks for Ballard Oil that trips to Harbor Island will take an extra 30 mins at rush hour, but that's the breaks of doing business in the big city.

The West Seattle Green Line is becoming a reality in BRT form. The SLU streetcar is nearly here, and extensions to the UW and Ballard will follow if we demand it. Light rail construction is going flat-out, and will pick up more steam when ST2 passes.

People also forget that we need to repave I-5 downtown soon. The perfect opportunity to convert the express lanes to two-way HOT operation, and spend a few billion fixing the bottleneck under the lid instead of befouling the waterfront.

Posted by Fnarf | February 28, 2007 12:16 PM


previous comment manifesto was directed AT Fnarf, not written BY Fnarf.

Posted by Some Jerk | February 28, 2007 12:21 PM

To my knowledge, People for Puget Sound, Transportation Choices have not yet advocated for No/No. If they have, that would be extremely recently. Transportation Choices has been largely pro-tunnel, anti-viaduct.

Posted by correct | February 28, 2007 12:23 PM

"Freight access projects are chugging along. The Atlantic St overpass is built, Lander St & Royal Brougham are in the pipeline, along with widening the Spokane St Viaduct.."

Freight traffic only moves east and west? I don't think so, and if you shutdown the Viaduct you are going to find freight traffic displaced to the primary North/South I-5 corridor. As that becomes crowded and slows, a smart trucker will look to alternatives
(especially when dispatch is on hís or her rear about not missing a cutoff at the dock). Perhaps that turns into a trip off I-5 to Holman Road to 15th Ave NW to Elliott Way. I think you are completely forgetting the impacts displaced motor vehicle traffic will have on tractor-trailer's accessing
that new east west corridor. It wasn't designed, engineered and built with the thought there wasn't going to be a viaduct or tunnel of some sort.


Posted by Jensen Interceptor | February 28, 2007 12:42 PM

Way to knock down that strawman, Jensen. Of course freight doesn't entirely move east-west.

However, the majority of freight entering & leaving the port is:

A: Traveling via UPRR or BNSF. Railyards are south of central waterfront, all SR99 options improve access.

B: Traveling via I-5 or I-90. The Port itself notes on its regional transportation page that their trucks do not use the Viaduct.

C: Therefore, the logical conclusion is to improve I-5 and I-90 access (which the SR519 project has done), and fix the downtown bottleneck on I-5.

Additionally, two-way HOT express lanes could provide trucks with a predictable travel time for a toll.

In short, the argument that a surface option hurts the Port is crap.

Posted by Some Jerk | February 28, 2007 12:58 PM

"In short, the argument that a surface option hurts the Port is crap."

Never made that claim, Some Jerk. Tractor trailers do utilize Elliott Way, Alaskan Way S.(the street), and E. Marginal Way, and somehow you forgot to mention this.

The reason you don't see many 40 footer use the Viaduct is that the only place to exit going south is at Royal Brougham. You can't turn a 40 or 48 foot rig right on RB to access Alaska Way, and it doesn't make sense to go all the way down to Spokane and then double back.

You begged the question what will occur when the Viaduct is shut down and a percentage of its traffic is dispersed to I-5, which will in turn, slow down. Truckers on schedules will use alternative roadways, and anyone making the assumption that freight traffic won't utilize a six lane boulevard on Alaskan Way whenI-5 is backed up in order to access the docks has mush for brians....especially after you begin your build out (which I might add, is complete "pie in the sky") of the I-5 convention center bottleneck. It wouldn't be unreasonable to consider line ups of idling trucks waiting on your boulevarded Alaskan Way to get into the gate at 46... much like you currently see on East Marginal.

You're right, Some Jerk, the surface option isn't going to hurt the Port of Seattle. They could care less. However it will contribute to increased costs I am paying for trucking due to the additional time of dealing with traffic and other delays. A somepoint I and many others will say, "Fuck It" and truck our stuff to the ports of Tacoma or Vancouver B.C. for shipping instead of dealing with the uncertainties of Seattle traffic.


Posted by Jensen Interceptor | February 28, 2007 2:13 PM

I Wrote:
"A somepoint I and many others will say, "Fuck It" and truck our stuff to the ports of Tacoma or Vancouver B.C. for shipping instead of dealing with the uncertainties of Seattle traffic."

Which I might add, validates FNARF's original point.


Posted by Jensen Interceptor | February 28, 2007 2:18 PM

I never said trucks wouldn't use a six lane boulevard, in fact I would expect it. My argument is not based on a dramatic reduction in car trips.

I support a limited access boulevard. The main reason the surface plan DOT studied failed is the 12 stoplights it assumed.

My plan is a six lane surface street with pedestrian overpasses and one grade seperated intersection (a "texas T" ramp) to access downtown. Without any other stoplights, it would move comparable traffic to the Viaduct, at reasonable speeds.

Posted by Some Jerk | February 28, 2007 2:46 PM

Some Jerk Wrote:
"My plan is a six lane surface street with pedestrian overpasses and one grade seperated intersection (a "texas T" ramp) to access downtown. Without any other stoplights, it would move comparable traffic to the Viaduct, at reasonable speeds."

No doubt and critics (of which I am NOT
one. I want to see more ideas on the table!) will likely suggest this is making the current viaduct into a
surface street. It deserves a consideration. I do question what your idea of reasonable speed. Mine is
60-80 mph as often as possible.


Posted by Jensen Interceptor | February 28, 2007 3:03 PM

Yeah, my plan basically is to put the viaduct at ground level.

My other brainstorm: why not simply build the seawall replacement up against the shore side of the boulevard, topping out 15 feet above ground? Instant noisewall.

Still room on the waterfront side for a nice tree-lined "woonerf" shared street for strolling, local deliveries, bikes, etc.

In the future, if the $$$ are there, widen the pedestrian overpasses till the road is nearly totally lidded. Park with views and cafes and shit goes on top. All the fun of a tunnel, without all that diggin.

I hope Ron Sims is listening: this is how to make surface/transit palatable to nearly everybody.

Posted by Some Jerk | February 28, 2007 4:15 PM

Tell me Meinert and Cogswell,

Why are you so upset when commenters don't sign their real or full names? This is not a court of law, this is a blog, where pseudonyms are the norm. Would Fnarf be half as interesting if we knew who he/she really was? And who are you, Mr. Cogswell, to declare what the rules are for slandering (sic) someone on this blog?

Of course, what I wrote about Peter Steinbrueck (#13) should be essentially obvious to anyone who has had any sort of contact with him. It is hardly a revelation that he would become angry when challenged. What do you need my name for, an investigation? ( If, Mr. Cogswell, you sincerely want details about my interactions with Peter, we could however probably arrange something.)

You know, one can often determine the credibility of a post by what is said and how it is written, regardless of whether a pseudonym is used. For instance, people who label their anonymous opponents as "punks"(#25) come across as having a very limited worldview. I can assure you, Mr. Meinert, that I am about as far from a "punk" as one can get.

Posted by A-Chan | February 28, 2007 11:36 PM

A-Chan, because what reason do you have to hide it? And if we don't know who you are what reason do we have to believe it? And in what way are you standing behind it?

Fnarf, you are well-intentioned and smart, and I have slighted you in the past. I apologize. (Re: A-Chan, It WOULD be more interesting to know who you are.) Plus you have excellent taste in women. I salute you. But don't you think it's worth something to make the change where you can? The monorail was about beginning a network and a lifestyle that would expand outward. It didn't cover much ground, but the point was expansion. Similarly, a surface/transit option would start a (slow) expansion toward (mostly) car-free (or at least -light) living that we HAVE to move toward. But hell, our grandkids are pretty much doomed by our habits, anyway. The 20th century city must die. Don't put it on life support, huh?

Posted by Grant Cogswell | March 1, 2007 1:04 AM

no, fanarf is not my last name, but I think I would like it if he stopped by for a screw

Grant, you are sounding so very churlish and silly. Whoever Chan has chewed your nuts.

Every body is aware of Peters temper, so called passions, and glory to me
bullhorn grandstanding. City TV council meetings, Peter always chimes in and speaks little mini speeches, and the last word, mostly just a waste of time, but good face for him.

Why didn't he save the monorail? Was he not in the room during the WHOLE process.

You like Peter, many of us do not think his political future is a slam dunk.

His warts and moles and dick size are now open to discussion.

Posted by hildafnarf | March 1, 2007 2:07 AM

Quite frankly, Steinbrueck is full of crap. If he really was that savvy or concerned about the Monorail, the tunnel or the surface street option, he wouldn't have gotten so easily outflanked by Nickels and the state. Carey Moon's PWC was hoping to get data to substantiate the suface only option, and the best that he could muster was 15K and a reliance on the WSDOT data.. Having grown up back east, they'll have his but for lunch..

The worst mistake PWC, the Sierra Club and any other pro-transit pro-environment goob could make is rely on these so-called progressive Democrats in office.

What's needed is collection of smart independent (non government) thinking planners, engineers, business owners to propose a well thought out vision that will meet the disparate needs of the common folks. Its got to address effective transit reform and how the corridor (Alaskaway) can be better leveraged while reconnecting the city to the waterfront.. This wil unfortunately require a capital investment as the whole area (Central Waterfront and south) is fucked up.

A key issue that everyone seems to blindly take for granted, is that Soundtransit and Metro are building something that is really going to be efficient.. and meet our needs.. Taking 2 hours to get from Beacon Hill - West Seattle is not my idea of pedestrian friendly mass transit.solution.. that in mind where is Pete.. where is the vision... the master Architect/civic leader...

In short based on my personal experiences with PS I call BS.. He is simply taking this opportunity to try to be the WhIte night.. well guess what, your ass was needed four years ago...

Posted by Blockhead | March 1, 2007 7:21 PM

You can slaughter me on my misspellings but hopefully the message is clear..

Posted by blockhead | March 1, 2007 7:25 PM

xeugcysh lvtn mtylwepug tkjcbd mkdjhqp xdui hwqvtal

Posted by kjugt vbjglkc | March 7, 2007 1:45 PM

wdetkr jycqgtm zpoyhltr hqoiawlur gqhxined ijkblum xlycrh

Posted by itxgwo ykgthdpq | March 7, 2007 1:46 PM

wdetkr jycqgtm zpoyhltr hqoiawlur gqhxined ijkblum xlycrh

Posted by itxgwo ykgthdpq | March 7, 2007 1:47 PM

foiejums ugxs qnexypjkl ctepsanb ubhzaypr qjonhrltp haeqtr lqjy kytah

Posted by lahmnec dvpeswi | March 7, 2007 1:47 PM

foiejums ugxs qnexypjkl ctepsanb ubhzaypr qjonhrltp haeqtr lqjy kytah

Posted by lahmnec dvpeswi | March 7, 2007 1:48 PM

foiejums ugxs qnexypjkl ctepsanb ubhzaypr qjonhrltp haeqtr lqjy kytah

Posted by lahmnec dvpeswi | March 7, 2007 1:49 PM

uwfykmqco svhmwlkd mozuys azhyi iuaynws ktcdr hprynq [URL][/URL] aomdg apxcfyuoi

Posted by toud pebzfw | March 7, 2007 1:51 PM

uwfykmqco svhmwlkd mozuys azhyi iuaynws ktcdr hprynq [URL][/URL] aomdg apxcfyuoi

Posted by toud pebzfw | March 7, 2007 1:52 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).