P/I debases itself, treats viaduct issue like Pro Wrestling

[maxsolomon]

the front page screams "VIADUCT SMACKDOWN!" let the pointless exchange of uninformed, fear-based soundbites begin.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/305836_quotesviaduct02.html

The Seattle P-I asked several prominent players in the debate to tell us what they thought. We let them speak without interruption. You can read excerpts or go to seattlepi.com to see the full audio and video responses. Gov. Chris Gregoire and Speaker of the House Frank Chopp declined our request, so we've included their recent public comments.


Seattle City Councilman Nick Licata

"The future of Seattle would be better off if we did not try to build a tunnel. It's only three quarters of a mile long and it would be consuming at least a billion dollars extra in funds, if not more than that. ... The elevated does present a problem: It's big. Although I do believe that we can approach a new design for the elevated that would be slimmed down. ... In addition, the viaduct, by being grade separated means that traffic flows quicker and smoother, therefore creating less pollution. ... In the end, perhaps most importantly, it's affordable."


Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels

"A narrower less expensive tunnel will provide us the capacity that we need for our maritime and manufacturing businesses for the future but also require that growth in traffic, if you will, not be accommodated in automobiles but rather be pedestrian, bicycle and transit. I know there are a lot of people who feel differently about whether or not a tunnel makes sense. ... But again I think the most important question and the most important voice that we need to hear from Seattle is 'no' to an elevated structure in the 21st century."


Seattle City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck

"I voted no, and emphatically no, on both options. Especially, I'm opposed to any consideration of rebuilding a larger, more monstrous and hideous freeway on our central waterfront. ... They're both anti-environmental because they contribute to a continuation of a very auto-dependent future for Seattle and the region that we can not sustain. ... But if you invest in mass transit, it can serve this community for 100 years."


Rep. Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, speaker of the House

Chopp declined the P-I's interview request for this project. What follows is a compilation of his previous statements about the viaduct:

"We cannot afford a tunnel when other critical projects such as replacing the 520 bridge also need funding."

On the March 13 Seattle advisory vote: "This is not a meaningful ballot. These are false choices. ... I didn't think that rushing to this vote was a good idea to begin with."

On the four-lane tunnel option: "(It) is not a fair representation of the costs or risks, or the closure time, or the safety standards or the capacity issues."


Gov. Chris Gregoire

Gregoire also declined the P-I's interview request. These are her most recent public comments on the viaduct:

"The only viable option on the table today is an elevated structure. We are working with (King County Executive Ron Sims) to try and see if there are much more aggressive opportunities for Metro and transit but at this point it would appear to me to reduce the size. I can't see at this point -- based on the information that DOT provided and, by the way, supplemented by the study that was done by the city (of Seattle) itself that confirmed the findings of the department -- I can't see just tearing it down and letting it go and creating a parking lot on I-5.

"I think the citizens would be appalled. What they want, yes is safety, but they want is congestion relief. And if what we're going to do is cause them just the opposite, I think they will be very unhappy, and rightfully so."