The cable stayed bridge will not do
any of the above. It will create a
significant architectural structure fronting the city and allow full utilization for future transit, housing, business and recreational uses.

But any money spent is just tax subsidization of cars and trucks, when you add it up. The tunnel is the worst of course, since not only is the subsidy per vehicle higher, but it removes possible transit choices.

Bygones. The poll numbers show we're getting a Viaduct since the enviro groups are too cowardly to take the right stance and communicate with their members. I'll wave to you when I drive the Viaduct with the sun shining on me.

There's an interview with Frank Chopp today where he mentions that he's open to the transit option. We just need to make noise in the next month or so, so that people know a lot of us care about this.

Those of you who favor tearing down the Viaduct should consider the interim stage of Repairing the Viaduct until we get the surface improvements in place and are ready to tear it down in an orderly fashion.

Secondly, nobody may be advocating a six lane freeway on the waterfront, but what has been proposed so far by Surface-Transit supporters isn't and certainly won't be far from it. What you advocate is the interplay of 50 metric tons of tractor trailer speeding at 50 mph while negotiating with people attempting to access the waterfront. You might as well put up cement barrier.

A cable stayed bridge is the only acceptable compromise to an in situ Viaduct, a tunnel or a surface-transit proposal.

The viaduct fiasco is more proof that Seattle has a deeply dysfunctional democracy. The city council is merely Nickels' rubber stamp, and nobody aside from the Stranger seems to be pointing out to people the absolute necessity of a No-No vote. Sigh.

A retrofit and eventual teardown or a smaller capacity tunnel are the only viable options. If you think otherwise, please explain how trucks go from Ballard Interbay to points south without a through route and how we manage the impact of those trips (5% of all viaduct trips last I checked were truck trips)

To wit: “we have yet to see a fiscally-responsible proposal from the city or state that meets these goals and has the support of the state legislature.”

Sounds like they don’t like the tunnel, but lack the courage to just say so. Typical planners, terrified of taking on City government, and already sucking up to the Mayor. Very sad.