I'm having a lot of trouble with the Sound Transit idea they'll never run light rail over the 520. If they won't, let's find someone who will- that bridge is just too big an investment to let it sit around doing nothing for the next 50 years.

Buses are not the answer. They don't scale up well to meet additional demand, and, as we've seen, this factor becomes catastrophic to local budgets when energy costs rise.

What should be done is replacement at the same size with rail. This line would open with a high degree of public approval and a high volume of ridership, and probably be a lot cheaper to build to boot. Gregoire may be triangulating herself out of the Governor's Mansion with this one.

Then one thought that I can take away from all the posturing, is regarding the 520 bridge, perhaps we should just remove it and not replace it. Removal would reduce traffic on I5, quiet the Montlake area and, quiet the 520 strip between the lake and 405. People might be forced to live in the neighborhood where they work. Very good for the environment. Of course this is based on the idea that a person works in one job the rest of their lives and will never change jobs. If all one does is sit at a computer all day and click away at their keyboard, this might work. For those of us who create things and always seem to be changing job locations it will not work. Both sides want it 100% their way it seems. Not replacing potential structural failure ie: 520 and the viaduct with a better structure, not necessarily larger, is like telling the tenants of the McGuire building that everything is "hunky dory and not to worry. We will fix it someday...." Seattle doth dither too much. Either build something or just remove both and leave everything dead ended. Actually since I am about to retire, that idea does not sound all that bad. But for God's sake MAKE A DECISION!

It sounds like Knute is advocating that planners pretend that the region is not going to grow.

Would pretending that we are not going to grow be better for the environment?

I think I get where Knute is coming from, but the frame seems to offer a false choice.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all get what we want in each of our dreams, and not have to agree with each other on anything?

I would suggest that voicing disagreement with others is not bold. It is honest, which should be rewarded. It is not bold. Actually doing something meaningful to frustrate the designs of others would be bold.

Offering a realistic alternative, and selling a reasonable path to achieving it, would be bold.

That doesn't appear to be what's going on around here right now.

This article and other critics of 520 are incredibly Seattle centric in their perspective. You can't turn back the clock. 520 is over 60 years old and wasn't built for the growth that has occurred over that period. A six lane configuration barely accommodates today's needs, much less the future. If we were truly planning for the next 75 years it would include at a minimum six lanes for cars, a lane for buses and maybe light rail capacity. Of course that would make it equal in size to I-90.

520 doesn't just serve Seattle. It serves the region and specifically north and east King County with a population equal to Seattle and growing rapidly. Light rail will have a limited impact on the Eastside regardless of whether it crosses 520 - at incredible expense - or not. The north and east areas of King County are less dense than Seattle and always will be, therefore bus and not fixed rail offers a more flexible, practical and cost effective solution to mass transit service.

McGinn and like-minded Seattle residents who are in favor of a smaller, denser, less auto dependent future need to demonstrate the efficacy of that approach (which I support for the city proper) and propose strategies that will make it real. (Enough with the platitudes and rhetoric.) How about doing more to get Seattle residents out of their cars by restricting the availability of on street parking in both commercial AND residential areas? How about proposing to pay for McGinn's expanded in-city light rail system with a tax on private parking spaces and a fee for on-street parking in residential areas?

Thank you, Jan. As long as one's view is sufficiently narrow - Bellevue to Seattle, then revisiting the SR520 bridge design makes perfect sense. But taking a larger view -- which is what PSRCis charged with doing -- indicates a slightly different problem.

Political decisions are necessarily framed by the interests of the jurisdictions involved in the decision, vertical and horizontal.

From a sustainability point of view, the current design of SR520 is pretty good ... given the geographic constrictions of fixed rail in this corridor cited by Sound Transit. More problematic, in my view, is the early priority given to Sounder, that extremely convenient north-south heavy rail route which has encouraged sprawl in King and Pierce County, at the edge of the Urban Growth Boundary. Easy transit to these more outlying lands (thus, cheaper to build) took the pressure off land use changes closer to the inner core.

Knute, you are not nicknamed Mossback for nothing. :-)

This is quite a bit of foolishness. If officials literally try to force people out of their cars, they are going to face a backlash like they have never seen. Don't be an idiot, Knute.

Here is an intelligent article in today's Crosscut:

http://crosscut.com/2010/04/20/transportation/19745/#end-of-comments

Vanpools are a great way to relieve traffic congestion, save a lot of energy, and improve the environment, at little cost to the public. But, even for vanpools, or buses, we still need roads.

The car-haters are a scary lot. Do you really want to turn the Seattle area into a third-world economy?

For the people who think we should do away with cars, there are places in Africa where there are few, if any, cars. You would probably be happier there. Why not move?

Edward Abbey had another saying: The best thing we can do for the Mexican is stop him at the border, give him a Winchester rifle and a box of bullets, and send him home to solve his customary problems in his customary manner.

All this talk about "sustainability" and nary a mention of immigration? Researchers at Oregon State University have concluded the number one threat to PNW salmon and their ecosystems is immigration into the area; the vast majority of which comes from outside the U.S. and Canada (their words, not mine). And while Transportation 2040 is more a social engineering plan than a transportation plan, it does not recognize the elephant in the room. Why not? Well, the social engineers behind Transportation 2040 are good Democrats. And they recognize that immigrants are also a cherished voting bloc of the party. And so they will treat symptoms: they'll toll, they'll narrow roads, they'll let infrastructure crumble in their real-world playing of Sim-City. And while they play, numbers roll in that make their game more fantastic everyday.

Perfect...while we're at it lets tear down 520, re-open the John Danz theater in rural Bellevue, build a yellow brick road from Playland, past the Aqua Theater and Bobo's cage at Woodland Park. Maybe re-name I-90 to Highway 10. How about a lumber mill on Yesler Hill?

I'm so embarrassed that I'm not "one of the few" who gets it, like Mayor McGinn. Gosh, I thought we had a Vision 2040, Sound Move and a Growth Management Act. But obviously those need to be scrapped, lest they cause Seattle to make a decision on something.

Knute, you're article is truly jaw-dropping; and not in a good way.

I agree with Lincoln and suggest the Michael Ennis article appearing here:

http://crosscut.com/2010/04/20/transportation/19745/

It further makes the case that successful transportation solutions for the future should/will be based on rubber tired vehicles. They scale easily, they are flexible, they are affordable and they allow for a realistic way to transition people from cars (currently used by over 90% of us) to buses, local/neighborhood taxi service, and van pools.

It’s amusing to hear people condemning our 50 year old “auto-centric” highway system while suggesting we replace it with 100+ year old rail technology.

And let’s not forget that much of the agenda (and costs) for these major projects have nothing to do with transportation, but rather a way to enhance or protect real estate.

Mr. Berger,

Well, I suppose you could TRY and resurrect LESSER SEATTLE, but you and McGinn are about fifty years too late. And Watson, et mort.

Maybe you and Mike, riding bikes everywhere you go, haven't noticed, but out principal roadways (I-5, I-405, State 9, 167, etc) are operating at capacity, and beyond.

RIGHT NOW, not just twenty years from now, the Region needs more capacity.
State 520 needs to be replaced NOW.

You and McGinn are fond of claiming that voters rejected roads, and you talk about Zombie Road Projects. Fact: Voters voted down a huge Roads AND Transit issue. The second issue, rail and transit only, most of us did not get a vote because we were not in the benefit area.

Where I live, the measure was viewed as too expensive because of the rail and transit. WE wanted the roads.

Seattle exists economically by being the crossroads (trains, planes, auto, truck, transit) of the Region. Depending on how you count, 1/3 to 1/2 to the goods and services produced in the region are sold to customers who live elsewhere ( think the Everett Boeing Plant, software, apples and wheat).

Because of our Regional prosperity, relative to the balance of the US, growth in the Puget Sound region has been, and will continue, to remain strong, averaging 3 to 4 tenths (.3 to .4 %) higher than the US as a whole
(with a US baseline rate of .7, the Region has averaged 1.0 to 1.1%).

Forecasts - and forecasting - can be tricky, but population in the Region
currently stands at 3.7 million, forecasted to grow to 4.5 million by 2030.

Remember Ron Simms line? That's TWO more Seattle's in 20 years.

Where do you put all the new people? It is NOT a question of controlling, or stopping, growth. Can't be done, waste of time to attempt it.

It is not a question of STIMULATING GROWTH. Sure, there are organizations out there that describe that as their mission. They are as about as effective as McGinn.

The Region has grown, look at the numbers, 1960 to present. We will continue to grow, the forecasts are, in part, based on history. Part of it is geography: Pacific Rim, proximity to Asia, etc. Part of it is geography: quality of life, climate, water, water, water. Part of it is geography: people continue to move here from, not only California,, but every other State in the Union.

I've never actually met Mike McGinn. I am certain he is in earnest. Sincere. Believes in what he is saying.

But from a distance, from outside Seattle, he strikes me as naive in the extreme, and silly. Undisciplined. An amateur, in all the bad senses of that word.

Ross Kane
Warm Beach

Most people disagree with Jan that no bold visions are coming forth from the McGinn office. If Jan dared criticize the projects she supports, she'd see what is meant by that statement. Dare to compare D-bore to Cut/cover honestly, fully, responsibly. Dare to question Mercer West becoming a major thoroughfare to replace the short straight connection to SR99 at Belltown. Dare to make doubly sure WDOT isn't actually preventing LRT on 520 bridge. Dare to consider Center/Left Lane streetcar line arrangement as less desirable than curbside. There's too many people in charge who agree with Jan, and too few other officeholders failing to question the completely questionable.

The entity describing itself as "seattlelifer" says: "People might be forced to live in the neighborhood where they work. Very good for the environment."

Yeah, but how good is it for the people? All of these rail-centric plans assume that people are fungible; that they are, to borrow a phrase from the business world, "human

resources". If people are just resources, like coal, timber, water or bauxite, they certainly be moved about at the whim of those whose higher purposes they serve. But people aren't objects to be pushed around like little plastic soldiers on a general's map. They are individuals. They have preferences, dreams, goals and desires. They have lives, and their lives are their own to control. They don't exist to serve the whims of the central planners. They exist for their own sake, and they resent the tin-pot dictators of the planning commissions who treat them like chattel. The people who worship at the altar of light rail should ask themselves a serious question: When do your plans for a mass-transit utopia turn light rail from a service into an instrument of oppression? When you approach that point, you are going to have trouble on your hands, and rightly so.

A mis-placed html tag made the first "paragraph" above a little messy. Too bad we can't preview these posts before they are set in stone.

When you're up to your ass in alligators, you remember that you just meant to drain the swamp...

The original intent of plans for replacing the viaduct and 520 was to avert catastrophic failure of aging structures and prevent loss of life. (Maybe the 520 intent wasn't as "pure" in that respect--there already being an energetic constituency of frustrated east/west travellers--but prior flirtations with capsizing and sinking did add an element of urgency.)

From these simple public safety roots grow our deliberations--departing from the essentials of risk management to the "also needed," the wanted, the wished-for, and the lusted-after--and the emergence of the Alligators of Desire.

What we really need is Deus Ex Machina: A Supreme Arbiter arriving in a basket from the heavens, teaching Puget Man (Salish Man, or Displacer of Salish Man) how to untie knots and impose modern-day simplicity atop the old, unserviceable Original Simplicity.

Can Mayor McGinn serve in this much-needed role? Can we fit him into a basket suitably woven of Duwamish cedar bark? Supply him with prophetic New Northwest Native verbiage, of the type that we ascribe to Chief Seattle ("Transportation, did I say? There is no transportation; there is only divinely ordained movement from Here to There!")?

Our biggest challenge is that we have lousy ways of sorting out competing visions, and we're resorting to the old tried and true: Power politics, with Mayor McGinn affecting the Boss role and various Councils, Executives, Governors, municipalities, and so forth playing the opposition.

I've always liked that quote about cancer cells and growth--but I'm not sure that anyone in our regional drama is advocating growth "for its own sake." We're still probably interested in a decent life in a lovely setting--less cumbered, if not unencumbered, with befoulment of air, loss of time in transit, and the visual blight of growth without purpose.

JMROLL, I stand with you: The independently-guided, spontaneously-scheduled, go-directly-from-here-to-there-at-any-time "car" is the essential means by which we and our neighbors will continue to make our way in the world--supplemented with all manner of walking, Segwaying, pedaling, busing, light- and heavy-railing. We can "Charlton Heston" this one, and let those communally-riding others know when they may pry the ignition keys from our cold, dead hands. What must change is the nature of the "car", and by fits and starts, that transformation is happening.

Knute, the subtext of your piece might be that "It's the Vision Thing." With all due respect to Hizzoner, I don't think the current plans for viaduct and 520 replacement are inimical to the vision he has. I'd like him to worry much less about banning cars and promoting cross-lake light rail, and much more about how to promote convenient, low-impact personal transportation.

It would also be nice if no one got crushed by a collapsing viaduct, or drowned in Lake Washington when the bridge goes under.

Knute,

You are playing to the bleachers here. The topic you start with is a very serious matter and reveals what homework you have been off studying.. Bravo. Then you switch to the tail wagging the dog, as if to get the comments going. Not only that, like Brewster today, you put thoughts and words in the Mayor's mouth.

A big distraction—the mayor, slow at being co-opted, is feeling his way and openly sharing where he is at.
Take it for what it is —human, as opposed to dbreneman's bauxite. What you hear is the worry that he may not be co-optable, another Virginia Galle. We should be so lucky.

Don't mean to be critical. I have been studying that same homework myself. It's sure worth the effort.

Berger's piece has triggered some healthy responses. It is good that
folk hereabouts care sufficiently about their community that they offer alternative visions.

One thing constantly missing from these discussions are practical financial/economic considerations. The national, state, and local public sectors are deep in red ink and struggling just to maintain their current spending paths. (In fact, they will be unable to do so---and thus all the discussions of tax increases and spending cuts to pull us out of the hole).

The region faces major pending decisions regarding not only the 520 bridge project but the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement (both of which should be seen, primarily, as public-safety imperatives), Mercer Project, continuance of the regional light-rail scheme (and Mayor McGinn's proposed Seattle extensions of same), streetcar lines, and other capital projects.
I write about these in a separate, pending article.

Growth is coming here, ready or not. How much growth and where? Analysts guess but do not really know. Estimates of recent decades have often been wrong. People have moved in unexpected patterns among cities, suburbs, and exurbs.

Whatever our differing visions, practical questions must be asked. On transportation, which systems will move the most people and goods to their desired destinations for the least public cost? What is the optimal mix of express-bus, bus, inter-city rail, and light rail transit? What percentage of commercial/personal travel can we expect to move by truck and car---despite best efforts to move them off roads? In that light, what road modernization will be necessary and where?

Mayor McGinn, among others it would seem, has not begun to address these basic questions about options and their costs. Does McGinn have any idea of the costs and benefits of light rail on 520, as compared to other modes? Or of extending light rail in Seattle to west-side neighborhoods not now scheduled for it? Or do these things simply seem vaguely "green" and attractive to the constituencies which helped elect him? What is the true degree of their greenness?

The era of cost-is-no-object is gone. The era of cost-efficiency is upon us, ready or not. We have no choice but to move beyond speculations about alternative visions to practical, down-to-earth considerations of costs and benefits (including non-economic benefits) when both governments and ordinary citizens are hurting financially.

The growth "expected" by the PSRC and others is (almost) completely self-manifesting. If you build bigger infrastructure, it will draw more people. If instead we tore down 520 then I guarantee that our growth expectations would be lower. Sure some people would get frustrated and there would be some readjusting between businesses and individuals but the idea that the region as a whole would be reduced to poverty and stagnation is, as Mossback points out, complete scare tactics. To truly maintain a healthy region our priorities need to change from "how do we keep this region's businesses growing?" to "how do we ensure that all citizens are ensured stability, opportunity, and happiness?"

Josh, if you have the formula for ensuring happiness, please post it for us.

The answer to our transportation problem is so obvious, and it is right before our eyes--the Cunnel (canal-tunnel).

First we tear down the viaduct and replace it with an attractive canal. This has the added benefit of negating the need to replace the seawall.

Next, a deep bore Cunnel from Madison, under downtown and connecting with the waterfront canal. There, of course, is no need for any downtown exits. This project is "shovel-ready" since the plans are already drawn up at the Discovery Institute/Cascadia Center, stored in a file marked "Intelligent Design".

Motorists will drive through Medina, and proceed onto waiting personal pontoon systems (PPS) for the quick trip across the lake and into the Cunnel. Once inside the Cunnel, motorists in their PPS will be in for an entertaining, "green" journey, since there will be a slight current, and no need to use the power on the PPS. The reverse commute is still under review, and any cost overruns will be paid for by Seattle residents.

If (for some strange, Seattle-Centric reason) commuters wish to make the journey without their automobile, there will be a stable of gondoliers, waiting to ferry parties across and through the Cunnel. These minimum wage jobs will have the added benefit of reducing the homeless population (gondoliers will be allowed to sleep in their boats).

Who can oppose this grand plan? Take a moment, think about the Cunnel, say "Cunnel". Support the Cunnel!

Southbound I-5 out of downtown Seattle provides a lesson for would-be pundits of regional land use and transportation planning beginning at around 3 pm every weekday. The lesson continues as one travels in his SOV/SUV to Tacoma and even points further South. Traffic in that direction starts to build and most days soon becomes a bumper-to-bumper crawl. It’s been like that for years.

Now why is that given that there are several public transportation alternatives all or part of the way: commuter rail, light rail, express bus, vanpool? And why is that given lots of available housing, whether single or multifamily, and many commercial and industrial centers, large and small, along the way? There do appear to be abundant opportunities to avoid the daily gridlock by either taking another mode or relocating place of employment. Why do people continue to pay the price of lost personal time and higher out-of-pocket travel costs?

It may have something to do with the fact that there are some things planners and policy makers haven’t yet figured out how to control: personal travel mode choice and the market for housing and employment. In fact our democratic system practically guarantees this perverse outcome because we honor in state law the primacy of local governments to design their individual land use policies to suit the needs and desires of their residents and property owners. So far, those many governments haven’t decided to conspire together to push citizens en masse into dense centers of development around public transportation stations.

That’s not to say it won’t happen in the long term. The same consumers may decide the price is too high compared to benefits and opt on their own for different travel and living patterns. Personally, I’m betting that fuel efficient personal vehicles with lots of on-board options to use time productively (like hands-free Twitter) will keep the patterns in tack.

This is a crew of commenters with the collective memory of a fruit fly. Or do you simply not believe the surge in oil prices in 08 was related to the crash of the economy that followed?

What about the rise oil prices of 1978->80? Does anyone here really think that there is more oil in the world now than there was 30 years ago?

With 520, we need to look at moving people not cars. A wider road moves cars, a Heavy/Light Rail track and a bicycle lane moves people. We do need to move freight around the lake, but 520 as currently configured is a nightmare for a truck. It's packed! Although with the warnings about flammables in the I-90 tunnel it's the main alternative for gasoline trucks those days.

Still Mayor McGinn is correct to focus on repairing the seawall first. If anyone bothered to watch the WDOT video of the Viaduct failing, the first thing that fails is the seawall, the dirt sloughs into the sea and then the pillars fail and it falls. If we repaired the seawall we might get another 30 years out of the viaduct. And it may may sink but it won't be a catastrophic failure. And by then with oil at $10/gal the rest of the population can see that an auto centric future is not sustainable. And the transit planners will have built out some of the core lines we need. And we won't have used up all our bonding (debt) to build for an unsustainable future.

We have only to look South at Portland to see the future.

The light rail Sound Transit is building moves a small number of people, compared to a highway. East LInk across I-90 is predicted to have only 45,000 boardings per year by 2030, both direcitions combined, or about 22,500 people per day per track. Right now, on the 520 bridge, 190,000 people per day cross the lake on 4 lanes, or 47,500 people per day PER LANE! This is significantly more than twice the number of people ST expects to board light rail trains acorss the lake on each track in 2030. Many of those 45,000 boardings per day in 2030 on East Link will not even cross the I-90 bridge -- they will be trips between Bellevue and Redmond, or Mercer Island and Redmond, or even between the Rainier Ave station and downtown Seattle.

So, if you are concerned about moving as many people as possible across either floating bridge, light rail is not only a terrible waste of money -- it is a terrible waste of the capacity of either bridge.

If gas prices go up significantly, that will only persuade people to car-pool, van-pool and take the bus more often, which means more people per vehicle on highway lanes, which significantly increases the number of people per day crossing a bridge in motor vehicles, without an increase in the number of vehicles per day.

The number above -- 190,000 people per day across the 520 bridge right now -- is at an average of only 1.65 people per vehicle, including all the buses and vans which use that bridge now. With a toll on the new bridge, and higher gas prices, people will have a great incentive to NOT drive alone, so the average number of people per vehicle should increase significantly, meaning even more people per day per lane will cross a new bridge in motor vehicles than do so now.

We have huge unused people-moving capacity on our area highways. The key is to get more people in each vehicle. High gas prices and tolls will help achieve this, and don't require huge sales tax increases, which is how ST is financing their stupidly expensive light rail lines. This will also make motor vehicles a lot more energy-efficient than they already are.

The cars of the future are likely to be plug-in electrics supplied by nuclear power stations.

I think. If Knute would bother to check. That the reason the region is growing is that people are reproducing (50%) and people want to move here (50%). It is not because anyone is promoting growth. It is because people are willfully participating in it. What's Knute's answer for that? Nostalgia?

It is useful, as growth in taking place, for the environment, and people, to plan for it. People need jobs to pay for mortgages, and schooling, and food. The environment needs taxes, from people with jobs, to protect it. We're practical people. We know these things.

Anyone who has been to Detroit can see the outcomes of what Knute's promoting. But hardly anyone goes there anymore.

Some people place blame for traffic woes and lack of adequate transit, and for the death of Puget Sound, on failures to plan for growth. That's probably right. That's what the Growth Management Act is about. It has changed things. Look at the data.

The population projections have, in fact, been amazingly accurate. For anyone who bothers to check.

Knute may be right about Seattle though. The current Seattle Mayor's pandering to special interests within Seattle may be driving people to other parts of the region, literally. Look at the data.

Businesses are being driven away from Seattle. The people working at them who live in Seattle now have to drive to them on the Eastside, under policies embraced by the new Mayor. The workplaces there (Eastside) are so diverse and spread out that light rail won't work for them. Is that sustainable? Better to grow jobs downtown, Seattle. For the environment.

Meantime, downtown Seattle is about to die under the new Mayor. Look at the data. What's he doing about that? Vetoing a law designed to reverse a trend and encourage density in the right places?

There is a difference between pandering to an election oriented base and actually doing something. Knute confuses being "bold" in terms of an everyday person, with being "bold" in terms of having all the tools of the Mayor of Seattle. Knute celebrates pandering to people who think like Knute, and call it "bold." Bold.

Bold Mayors do things. They don't just pander to the people who got them elected. They don't make premature statements about "positions" without first defining "interests."

It looks like a real long four years for Seattle. Let's hope that our City recovers from it afterward. People who care will start preparing now.

In the meantime, what is the new Mayor doing about the hole he's dug in Seattle's deteriorating commercial real estate situation, which is fundamental to keeping the schools and social services alive? TALK ABOUT YOUTH AND FAMILY?

Vetoing an ordinance that was passed by the majority of the City Council designed to boost Seattle schools, densities and social services?

Mayor McGinn would have a credible answer to tha question if he proposed a credible alternative. We have not seen one. All we've seen is pandering.

That's not good enough, for a great city.

It's fascinating -- the PSRC regional transportation plan update has focused on one primary issue -- whether and how tolls should be used to reduce demand and congestion. But almost nobody has been interested in that. I’ve been waiting for the headlines – regional leaders endorse tolls everywhere – but apparently that’s not news. It's true that by emphasizing that issue, the level of attention on individual projects was not as focused. But still, is tolling irrelevant entirely?

As someone who believes it's important to make a transition to a more sustainable transportation system, I have to question a strategy to make conditions incrementally worse for drivers in hopes that terrible driving conditions will lead us to rebuild our cities to be walkable and invest in transit. Is it a good political strategy to tell people they should put up with government policy to intentional worsen their quality of life based on faith that it will lead to improvements generations hence, once people decide sustainable is the only choice left? That seems like a strategy only to lose the next election.

In every other effort to promote sustainability I can think of, a different approach has been taken. To reduce home energy use, we promote insulation making your house more comfortable and less expensive to heat. A more fuel-efficient vehicle is newer and more comfortable, and again saves money each month. Recycling at least makes you feel good about yourself at little personal cost. Carpooling lets you get through traffic much more quickly. All of these approaches promote sustainability as a way to improve our lives, rather than making things progressively worse for our own theoretical good in the distant future.

At least the PSRC is taking the first transitional step. If you’re going to reduce the amount of road expansion, you first need to set the conditions where less expansion is needed. Tolling makes people think whether each trip is valuable enough to pay for, while managing traffic to get better throughput from existing highway lanes. There is a huge win-win opportunity to reduce travel and improve travel conditions that should be used fully before falling back on policies the traveling public will perceive as punishment by the nanny state.

And sometimes I think all of these arguments are an excuse not to make changes that the public already supports. Fully 2/3 of existing regional transportation funds are spent on transit already, according to the PSRC – if only those services didn’t need to operate on a deteriorating road system. There’s plenty to be done to complete sidewalks, break up suburban megablocks and mix up zoning to create more pedestrian destinations. We don’t need to wait until highway expansion stops or light rail arrives – those are just excuses not to act in my opinion. But it’s always more fun to fight the mode wars than to do the hard work and compromise needed to achieve an actual outcome.

Seneca's Editor Pick "I don't think the current plans for viaduct and 520 replacement are 'inimical' [hostile, unfriendly] to the vision (hizzoner) has," is mere opinion and not well informed. There are many reasons to actually "fear" the Deep-bore tunnel. Displacing 40,000 Interbay-bound vehicles onto Alaskan Way, Belltown and Mercer West will incur an impact to air quality and ped/bike/transit mobility.

Oh yeah, let's all ignore that while Seneca cheerleads, sure.

The strongest seawall is ONLY possible with a Cut/cover. Let's not worry about predictable sea rise. The Deep-bore tunnel is 1/2 mile longer and much deeper than a Cut/cover and therefore its evacuation design is less safe. Oh who cares, build it?

Let's not get into the nightmare scenario of a Deep-bore tunnel collapse. It's solid, right? A huge 54' diameter many-segmented tube below highrise foundations, no problem. What me Worry?

Deep-bore tunnel advocates fear the inconvenience of a Cut/cover waterfront dig, but ignore the equally huge dig to remove the AWV, rebuild the seawall and Alaskan Way.

Hooray for Mike McGinn! He's in the nutcracking business, cracking nutjobs Right and Left. Jan and Seneca are tough nuts to crack. Squeeze harder, Mike.

Some commenters above argue that higher energy costs will drive transit demand. This may be true but only to a small degree. Transit of all kinds, rail or bus, enjoys only a small advantage in energy efficiency per passenger mile over even a single-occupancy vehicle. Meanwhile a five passenger Prius demolishes all public transit in terms of energy efficiency per passenger mile. See graph at http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html#mpg. Also read Dan Sperling.

I appreciated your comments about McGinn’s principled stands on transportation for the region. He’s absolutely right—you don’t build more highway capacity except at the cost of perpetuating existing driving habits and aggravating all the associated problems, from greenhouse warming to local congestion to regional land use patterns. You don’t improve the region’s future transportation profile by simply deflecting to more highway now, in a word. McGinn is right on the need to provide alternatives to cars and is willing to walk the walk in a political environment quite hostile to him. It’s not every day you find a politician like that.

Folks are not paying attention. Big changes are right around the corner, and no one in leadership positions are
paying attention>

The Imminent Crash Of The Oil Supply
What Is Going To Happen And Why Weren't We Forewarned?
By Nicholas C. Arguimbau

April 23, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- Look at this graph and be afraid. It does not come from Earth First. It does not come from the Sierra Club. It was not drawn by Socialists or Nazis or Osama Bin Laden or anyone from Goldman-Sachs. If you are a Republican Tea-Partier, rest assured it does not come from a progressive Democrat. And vice versa. It was drawn by the United States Department of Energy, and the United States military's Joint Forces Command concurs with the overall picture.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25306.htm

There are multi million dollar projects to expand I-405 on the Eastside, expand I-5 in Tacoma, expand I-5 in Everett and expand I-90 in Spokane, meanwhile Seattle is actively pursuing eliminating highway capacity.

Former leadership believed and promoted the growth of Seattle. The current leadership seems to be chosing Detroit as their target.

Amusing to me, jmrolls, to read "It’s amusing to hear people condemning our 50 year old “auto-centric” highway system while suggesting we replace it with 100+ year old rail technology." That sentense was your quotable. So, I used it to demonstrate how complete you .

jmrolls, you assume rail offers no advantage but ignore its various successful models worldwide including here in our past. You're another self-described seattler visionary with a few useful ideas.

On the Deep-bore (DB) vs Tunnelite Debate, you support DB and are therefore out of your frickin mind wrong and don't know why.

Sorry if I misread your political alliegences, off a bit, rolls. You got style.

The DB is a god awful terrible horror story we should let happen. Geez. DB takes twice the cement as Tunnelite. Blah, there are dozens of reasons why Tunnelite is the better choice. Oh god save us from idiot DOT planners with red hair. We could/should save ourselves from this ignorance, stupidity and utmost corruption. Give Mayor Nickels his RIGHTful sponsor of "TUNNELITE" his due. Tunnelite is the only sensible tunnel option. Google me saying "the only sensible tunnel option" in maybe 10 instances over the last 6 months. Maybe 500 people read those words. They now know I'm right. DB SUCKKS !! HELL-Ohh ??

Wow! Tunnelite builds a car-less park between Steinbrueck Pk and Waterfront.

"We, smarter than thou Seattlers would rAther have 4 lanes of bumper-to-bumpber traffic between sidewalks and paint bike lanes that the ever-so-elegant Deep-Boor Tunnel shall so readily convencience for our current driving pleasure. We'd rather not have a car-free park. We'd rather have a boulevard where a park could be?" What? Grow up.

Wells…DUDE!

You have me confused with someone else regarding the AWV. I endorse the EXISTING viaduct. Please don’t confuse me with VISIONARIES and the billion dollar scams to create some other zoology for the AWV. It is PERFECT exactly the way it is. The scam was that VISIONARIES took that option off the table early on in the process for reasons that had NOTHING to do with TRANSPORTATION issues.

No other proposal matches the existing viaduct in ANY transportation related category. The rights of ways already exist. The configuration already can handle 110,000 vehicles a day. It already provides a bypass for downtown and off ramps for the core, Ballard and West Seattle. It already meets the demands for commercial vehicles. It absolutely can incorporate modern seismic protections and other enhancements for noise abatement, bikes, pedestrians and aesthetics. It acknowledges the fact that rubber-tired, multi-passenger vehicles are still the choice of over 90% of us. And we can afford it.

I also believe that the flexibility and economics of rubber-tired transit solutions trump rail for Seattle in virtually every way. They scale easily, they are flexible, they are affordable and they allow for a realistic way to transition people from cars (currently used by over 90% of us) to buses, local/neighborhood taxi service, and van pools. Flexibility is critical. If you would have said that it looks like Boeing was going to leave town ten years ago, people would have laughed in your face. What about Microsoft…they’ve threatened the same thing. Gouging enormously expensive speculative rail systems based on wishful thinking is just irresponsible. You also reference worldwide models of successful rail systems without mentioning many that are failing. Recent projections for out own ST are pretty grim.

As for the AWV…I do agree with you that if we have to suffer a tunnel, it should be the cut and cover that you endorse.

Good job of skipping the religion and doing some old fashioned reasoning, jmrolls.
Much as I hate the AWVs looks and noise, I too have to admit that here too it's no different than housing: the greenest housing is that which already exists.

I can also understand that the Mayor and his seawall must have got Wells... Dude! so excited that he's lost track of his friends and what's left of his cool. Does make one wonder with all the whole system thinking being taught now why so little is yet applied to situations that would be relatively simple but for all the silos and religions.

I am also getting damn tired of risking my life driving on it.