Vote NO VIADUCT, NO TUNNEL

[maxsolomon]

i couldn't agree more, and if you're a west seattle car commuter who wants to "save their views" & "stop downtown condo development", you can SUCK IT. there's ONE MONTH TILL THIS VOTE, so start talking to EVERYONE YOU KNOW.

NO & NO!

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=142603

The advisory ballot, a "compromise" reached at the end of a grueling three-hour meeting attended by all nine members of the council on January 19, is a glorified opinion poll that will include only the barest details about the options. The ballots to be mailed out in mid-February offer two separate up-or-down votes on a new, larger viaduct and a four-lane tunnel. Both would maintain traffic capacity at current levels. However, the outcome will not be binding and may be inconclusive; because the two votes will be separate, voters can check yes for both, yes for one and no for the other, or no for both. It's conceivable, perhaps even probable, that both options will either fail or win. And even if one option does emerge a clear winner, it will hardly be a mandate. The smartest vote? No... and NO. It's the only shot we have at a sensible, cost-effective, environmentally responsible solution.

After the council voted to put both measures on the ballot at the topsy-turvy January 19 public meeting, Council Member Peter Steinbrueck stood up and delivered an brief extemporaneous speech about what Seattle will be like if we, unlike the 85 other cities that have torn down their elevated freeways, decide to build a new viaduct on our waterfront. His voice choked with emotion, Steinbrueck said Seattle would be "an embarrassment. We will not be able to stand on our leadership. We will not be able to be taken seriously when we talk about sustainability and the environment... If I could trade this job today and stop that elevated freeway, I would do it in a flash. It is that important to our city, this beautiful place, the environment we live in that is so envied by people the world around."

[yewberry]

1. I'm a West Seattle bus commuter.

Should I "suck it," too?

You know what? It's not all about "views" or "condo development." There are valid concerns about transit, whether you choose to accept that or not.

For years, West Seattle has begged for better transit. We voted for a monorail. (And have you ever tried to bike across from here? It's doable--my husband bikes from here to MI--but it's absolutely not safe or lovely in any way.) Even on a bus, it can take almost an hour to get downtown from my place, and I can see downtown from the front of my building. Why? Too much damned traffic. Remember the Nisqually quake? It took three hours to get from here to the U. Yup, that's about ten miles.

What about the huge numbers of cars coming up on 509? Every morning, folks (on buses and in cars) from Burien, White Center, Des Moines, West Seattle, Normandy Park, South Park, Georgetown, etc. pour up First Ave S. onto 99. Airport traffic spills up to 99 the same way. Can we actually expect all of those cars and buses to be absorbed onto surface streets?

I can't vote for the tunnel. I can't. It would be insanely expensive. We have to rebuild the seawall and that would complicate the project more than we are being told. Western downtown, right where the tunnel would be, is FILL. Who the hell tries to build a tunnel through fill? Worse, the tunnel would reduce available lanes--four lanes instead of six. It's ridiculous.

I'd support a ground-level highway if it was being offered, but it's not. Would I support greater improvements to the transit system out of WS? Hell, yes. I have. However, you can't seriously expect to change entire population patterns (we can't all afford to live in Ballard or QA) by penalizing people who live there.

So, please understand that "views" and "condos" aren't our only concerns; in return, we'll try to believe that "enjoy your 3-hour commutes" and "let's just dig a trench around West Seattle and let it float off into the Sound" aren't your only solutions. Okay?

[maxsolomon]

2. yes, you should suck it, too.

:eyes:

seriously, just vote no on both. a rebuild would be a tragedy for the city.

[stumblnrose]

3. who cares if the tunnel is expensive

it will improve life for my kids if they decide to stay in this retro-progressive little town.

[yewberry]

5. Expensive is't the problem.

That section of town is FILL. Unstable ground.

The tunnel as it's proposed will reduce capacity by a third. That's a lot of commuters in their cars and buses for a hell of a lot longer every day. What kind of a solution actually worsens the problem?

[maxsolomon]

6. one that acknowledges the future

and the future isn't a drive-thru utopia. it looks like buses & taxis & streetcars & bikes & mosquito-fleet ferries & walking in the rain. it doesn't look like commuting by yourself to a $6 early bird parking spot (like i did today). even the 4-lane tunnel (and i agree that the capacity does not justify the expense) is clinging to the past.

but all this is moot if Frank Chopp isn't stopped. he's going to cram a rebuild down our throats, against the wishes of his constituents & the rest of Seattle, out of a misplaced, parsimonious sense of revenge for the excesses of the monorail authority. and Gregoire doesn't have the sack to stand up to Chopp or WSDOT for what's affordable, responsible, & politically inexpedient: a surface solution.

[puffthemagicdragon]

4. Vote yes for Tunnel

lets have a beautiful waterfront...yes for a tunnel! I love condo and city views. everyone I know is voting for a tunnel.