Thanks, Stuart, for this well-written piece. In a comment on David Brewster's recent piece on the waterfront, I cautioned against too grand a waterfront gesture, and I still feel we don't need a vast expanse like Boston's Greenway. But fundamentally I agree with Stuart that Seattle needs a vigorous and engaging waterfront park and a connection between downtown and Elliott Bay that is not impeded by a viaduct.

Thanks to Stuart for providing a useful summary of the argument for re-fashioning the waterfront. It helpfully demonstrates what I find a fatal flaw in the discussion. I've visited many of the waterfronts he mentions, and most have dulled quickly and considerably since their hoopla unveilings after mega-redos. This is because many have turned the downtown waterfronts into lookouts- kinda urban beaches, usually without the sand. The major appeal of Seattle's waterfront has been constant throughout its history- including its native history- its been a place of work. Seattle remains one of the very few waterfronts in this country where shipping and industry is still at work. For me, gentrifying (or in reality middleclassifying) the waterfront is a very dangerous idea. Sure 300 designers have worked on it, because it can't shouldn't won't ultimately be designable- real places have functions- they don't roll over and play dead at the drafting boards. Most all the schemes I've seen make the place over for visitors not for workers. Whether the visitors are out of town folks, or people at lunch hour, its still not a real place if it exists just for people to gawk at. Seattle has always thrived on tawdry. Once cleaned up it will become literally impossible for industry or shipping to stay close- too noisy, too dirty and off it goes. While these efforts mean well, do they really mean to turn Seattle into a visitor center? What happened to the idea of an urban place as one replete with myriad types of activity?

We have already torn down most of the existing commercial buildings along our waterfronts and replaced them with incredibly cookie-cutter looking metal sided blah buildings. Are we going to design our waterfront so it doesn't offend anyone? Go over to Wallingford and take a look at Gasworks Park. Known internationally as the first park in the world to be built on a brownfield- a celebration of industry- its been abandoned by the Parks Dept almost since it was built. The towers have been walled off, allowed to be covered with graffiti, its not ever been maintained. Seattle doesn't want to acknowledge or celebrate its industrial past or present.

We don't need a fantasy waterfront. Silk's essay is yet another in hundreds calling for Seattle to be 'world-class'. It would be a world class statement if it could find a creative way to celebrate what the waterfront has always meant here, instead of trying to make it into Stanley Park. Joining the club of redone waterfronts won't make the city into anything more than a city with a redone waterfront like everyone else's.

Just a point of clarification.

The unused piers are 62 & 63.

The reason that they are that way, is not due to failing pilings. The city decided that the future of the 2 piers was their worth as over-water existing development. That over-water development bank is to be used, most likely, for the Aquarium expansion when it will need more overwater area to accomplish it's expansion goal. Prior to that vision, those two piers were the home of the summer concerts, events year round and a great place to hang out. A waterfront improvement lost!DA!

Parks decided NOT to improve the pilings even though they had already had the funds to do it. The Piers were originally designed for heavy industrial loading and could have had a much simpler fix for a waterfront park use wihout chasing the concerts off, using the failiing piling claim as the reason. Thank Parks! It eventually ended the best concert series ever in the city. Stupid!!! Thsi kinf of thinking is why a aterfront vision is doomed from the begnning.

This over-water development bank idea springs for Shoreline Management where one is allowed transfer the sq ft of existing over-water coverage to other locations. This same excuse is being played out with the now rotting of Pier 48, whose over-water coverage is to be used for the proposed, unfuned, expansion of the ferry Dock. Another big mistake! The Ferry Terminal should be reduced to passenger only traffic, and the Auto traffic diverted to new Ferry facilities NOT at the Central waterfront. But, noone wants to talk about that for improving our waterfront. Stupid!Da!

Anyway, I could go on! But we should have already learned that Seattle cannot implement a visionary plan. It never has and never will. The design profession plays this game about every 4 years and then watches as the local politics change through the election of new people with new ideas. Some parts of a vision can be implemented, but they become the few and issues. That is why the waterfront looks the way it does. And guess what,in spite of all that, it still works. Just ask the millions of people of our region who enjoy it, even with the Viaduct in place.

Please don not forget that we are all tourists in our own envions. If we were building all of this for only the enjoyment of the 600k residents of Seattle, that would give the signal to our out-of-Seattle visitors that they are not welcome. How's that for our economic future?

So, if one is to vision a better waterfront plan, forget the vision and get smaller things done while you can. Expanding the waterfront sidewalk and add urban design ellements to it can be accomplished right now and for few dollars with minimal disruption. That would tie the whole waterfront together and signal the start of a waterfront vision. Otherwise it's Bla Bla Bla, Yadda, Yadda, Yadda and then wait for the next four years to go by!

Get to work!

The mix of uses is one thing that makes our waterfront's potential so exciting. It's tourists, the lunch crowd, ferry passengers, and even some office workers on the piers. Plaza/park/promenade spaces will fit among all of this.

Art, I agree that car ferries aren't the best for the Central Waterfront. But (a) we need the walk-on capacity to be alongside the CBD, (b) walk-on passengers mostly use car ferries, and (c) WSDOT seems unlikely to build duplicate capacity, i.e. a separate walk-on system. Even if a bunch of new passenger-only routes justified a second terminal, would they really do a second Seattle-Bainbridge route?

As the millions who enjoy the current waterfront? Even those of us who go there a lot do a hell of a lot of complaining. When I go there with co-workers for lunch, some recurring topics are the noise level (because we can't hear each other sometimes), and wishing it was 2016 already.

Using the State's Colman Dock over-water development for an enhanced Passender-only Ferry terminal with more openspace, commercial activities, etc.,coupled with interconnections to other froms of transportation for those ferry passengers would greatly improve the central waterfron, south end.
The Port and State Ferries should work together(right now)to find and develop a new location for the Car Ferries (south of the Central Waterfront) to take advantage of the easy access to Spokane Street, 99 and I-5, etc. The future will show us that passenger-only ferry access to the CBD and onward will expand, thanks to gas prices, housing costs and available interconnecting alternative transportation choices.
The great majority of Cars and Trucks coming off the Ferries do not have the CBD as their destination, but to the major highways.

Accomplishing that move/switch is a win-win-win for all effected.

Letting pedestrians pass the terminal without a huge "don't walk" wait would be a big improvement. Personally I never wait of course.

I am still unclear why the waterfront streetcar is just left to languish. We gave up a means of transportation for "art" with no promise of fixing this. I've contacted every transportation person in the city and county and was told by Metro that the "city" has not even asked for it to be considered to be put back. Metro is planning to move it to another area that wants it. The answer from SDOT is a new shiny streetcar. The port's idea of running the streetcar north to the Amgen development should have happened. Now with the BAT lanes, think how nice it would be to have that alternative

The street car is gone because Mimi Gates et.al. wanted the property that the street car maintenance barn was sitting on for the sculpture Art Park.

That it wasn't moved to somewhere in Pioneer Sq, is because Mayor Nickles wanted a street car on First Ave, and having one on the waterfront cuts into the projected ridership numbers even though they really don't compete.

Now, there is no money for the city to build another maintenance barn. There is some hope that when the First Hill street car in planned that we could run the waterfront street car tracks to it, and "double up". But without out a George Benson on the city Council there is no political will to do it. Even though when the Waterfront street car ran, it generated a profit due to the tourist riders.

In addition there is plenty of wailing and nashing of teeth that the current waterfront street car tracks would be in the way of the dismantling or repair of the viaduct. So while it could have been running for the last 5 years, and could run until the current viaduct comes down another 5 to 7 years, it doesn't run at all.

Now this is the same group that can't seem to keep a single popular street car running that wants to "reclaim" the waterfront. I suspect that it's a group funded by the property owners on the West side of Western who will reap billions in additional property value once they have a clear sight line to the waterfront instead of concrete car lanes.

As for me, I'd go the Portland route, tear out the freeway. Notice the Portland didn't dig a tunnel to move it. Instead they invested in Light Rail and bicycle infrastructure and it works pretty well. We still have some freight mobility issues, but they could be addressed without a 4 lane "freeway" on the waterfront if we focused on moving people instead of automobiles.

As for the piers 61/62 we'd be better off removing them and replacing some of the rip/rap no access to the water, sea wall with beach and access for hand launched boats. Folks who live in those condos could easily walk a kayak over to the access point and enjoy the water on the waterfront, instead of just having architects who think waterfront is for strolling along on a concrete sidewalk. And builders who only think of waterfront as a view worth selling.

Um, Portland built a replacement freeway when they tore out the one on the waterfront. (A big factor in keeping the surface streets habitable for people)

As for the streetcar, First is a much better route. It's convenient to vastly more people. As for Amgen, I guess that would be good at 8:00 and 5:00 but the rest of the time it would be very weak ridership and not worth it.

I'm glad there is more attention being given to the design of the waterfront. As a transit supporter and former president of a transit coalition group, let me just say I do not support the streetcar along the waterfront. I've yet to hear a really compelling argument to bring it back.

If you look at the picture in this article that shows the Tom McCall Riverfront Park in Portland, it's pretty. But it looks abandoned. That's not what I would define as a great waterfront activity area.

There are 2 things the waterfront needs first and foremost:
1) Stuff to do that draws people on a regular basis.
2) A way to get people to/from the waterfront

The streetcar is not being visioned to cover #2, which is why it's a waste of money and space. It's being visioned as a circulator. The streetcar, therefore is not needed. Put it some place else.

I think many people are going to be disappointed in the Waterfront that is left after the Viaduct is removed. I don’t think I will be. I support removing the Viaduct and building the tunnel but articles such as this and a recent article by David Brewster suggest a transformational design could accomplish a miracle. I encourage readers to look carefully at the Waterfront Concept Plan linked by Mr. Silk. I tend to ignore the text in these kinds of presentations; composing text that is imprecise enough to gain the endorsement of dozens (if not hundreds) of participants is an art to be admired but not necessarily trusted. Look at the “plans”. The plans tend to large arrows, rows of dots, and circles, presumably the outcome of enthusiastic “goal” meetings; “we want something GOOD to happen here” (round of applause).

The aerial view is beautifully drawn. Note that the viewpoint, perhaps 25’ above the surface of Alaska Way, is centered above the paved walking area. By placing the viewpoint in that location it minimizes the size and the importance of the roadway and one could easily get the impression that the width of the walkway exceeds the road width by an order of magnitude. This is not the case. The roadway takes most of the space. Why is this not shown? it would have been easy to show an area plan at least one or two blocks of the proposal but that plan would reveal how little space is actually devoted to a pedestrians and “park” relative to the road. It is not shown because it is not good salesmanship. What we will get is a wide walkway and a very busy boulevard; we will get some flags and trees and (that old standby, important to city planners everywhere), benches. That is good. One thing we will treasure even though it can’t be shown in drawings is (relative) silence. I am sure the boulevard will create less than half the noise of the Viaduct. If our Waterfront can meet or equal the Embarcadero we should count ourselves fortunate but expect no miracles. I think I agree with Art that the extra Piers could be a substantial benefit , maybe crucial.

Portland's Waterfront Park doesn't compare well with Seattle. There are no working piers, no seawall businesses, no ferry. There is a fire station and many storefronts facing the river across Naito Pkwy, old 99 West. MAX LRT runs on 1st Ave the same distance as Western is from Alaskan Way. When major events are held in Portland's Waterfront Park, MAX is thee major transport system for tens of thousands.

I do hope Seattle will build a fine waterfront sans AWV, but I must warn that the current design for Alaskan Way, the 4-lane blvd with a Wide Plaza Promenade, is questionable.

The DBT displaces 40,000 vehicles that access SR99 AWV at Lower Belltown. Some of this traffic is questionably redirected to Elliott via the DBT north portal, the rest plys Alaskan Way fairly estimated at 20,000 additional vehicles there than today. Also, more motorists can be expected to drive the waterfront looking to park and visit. Not only will the thru-traffic struggle to get through the planned 13 stoplights, it is further hampered with side traffic.

Early designs called for a 2-lane frontage road on the eastside with islands between it and the 4-lane Alaskan Way. This frontage road divides thru-traffic from motorists looking to park and 2 of the planned 13 stoplights can be eliminated by building 'superblock' islands at Washington and Columbia, which makes entering and exitting Coleman Dock simpler, safer and faster. Seneca is another logical street for a super block.

The frontage road does reduce the width of the Promenade, but enough room is left to widen the sidewalks 6' to 12'. It creates room for the Waterfront Streetcar line, east/west bus lines near Coleman Dock, lots of street trees, landscaping and a separated bike lane, much like the current arrangement sans AWV monstrosity. It all depends upon whether Seattlers care about managing traffic. Obviously, managing traffic is not one of SDOT's strengths. The agency needs more of a shake-up than merely firing frau Crunican.

The only thing that the movers and shakers ever wanted was to tear down the viaduct. Who cares about all that pesky transportation stuff. Anyone who waits this late in the game to start worrying about where 30 to 60 thousand cars a day might go in a downtown core area should get out of the city running business.

Proof again that a camel is a horse designed by a blue-ribbon, stakeholders committee?

It's simpler than that, and makes sense. The cars heading from SODO to Aurora will go through the tunnel, which is the same capacity (plus breakdown lanes wide enough for traffic to squeeze by) as the current tunnel. Those heading to the CBD will exit a bit sooner than currently. Alaskan Way will carry more of the traffic headed to Magnolia, Belltown, etc., aided by a new surface street from AW around Pike up to Western/Elliott.

Both portal areas will have different traffic patterns than they do now, but aided by other road projects, some of which are already happening, which will primarily aid east-west access (including reconnecting three e-w streets and improving a fourth at Aurora).

Since we won't be flooding Downtown with cars, stuff like bicycling, walking, and buses will have a much easier time. The through-traffic from SoDo to Aurora isn't easy to serve with transit and bikes, but personally I'd like to wittle down the number of cars heading for the CBD, which is easy to serve with additional transit.

Compelling reasons to bring back the waterfront street car:

- It made money. Other than the monorail, no transit system in the area collects enough fare revenue to cover operational costs, never mind the capital costs.

- Tourists and residents like to ride it.. see point #1

- The tracks and the stations already exist, except for a short 100ft section of track that got a load of asphalt dumped on it. It's more than shovel ready.

- What First Ave Street car? Richard, I see you are living in NYC these days, but if you use google street view, you can see that there isn't anything but a paper plan to someday in the far future, to run a First Ave Street car.

- First Ave Trips and Waterfront Trips are not the same set of passengers. The Waterfront serves tourists and workers at the Port, and visitors to the Sculpture park, the Aquarium, and the zillions of folks who arrive by cruise ship.

All we need is a frigging barn, with tracks leading to it, sort of covered storage with a locking door. Nothing fancy like that new emergency 911 headquarters we just built. And since we need one for the First Hill street car, and that the tracks for the two systems are about a block apart, it would make sense to join the two systems. It might require re-wiring the Waterfront street cars to handle a different voltage system, but that isn't rocket science. and instantly we have doubled the number of street car miles served.

Mhays over-simplifies misleadingly, as do many DBT cheerleaders.

The 3 streets reconnected are John, Thomas and Harrison where SR99 is rebuilt below grade. Reconnecting the grid is a good plan, but could be done without the DBT at a fraction of the cost. Repukelican Street becomes the main exit/entrance ramp to either the DBT, Tunnelite or neither.

That said, reconnecting this grid does NOT aid motorists that now access the AWV in Lower Belltown.

Alaskan Way will have at least 20,000 additional thru-traffic vehicles daily with the DBT. That's 1250 an hour, more or less, running 13 stoplights between Pike and King Streets, plus side traffic. Take the blinders off, folks. The DBT, Mercer West and the Alaskan Way redesign are questionable. Furthermore, all studies show Tunnelite offers the least traffic on Alaskan Way and no diverting traffic from the DBT north portal to Elliott. It's the only option that offers a car-free gardened walkway between Steinbrueck Park and the Waterfront. Tunnel supporters who think of themselves as environmentalist are clueless.

John, Harrison, and Thomas don't have to carry the 99 traffic to be helpful. The'll carry much of the short-distance traffic that currently wedges onto Denny or Mercer/Valley/Broad, taking some pressure off those. Likewise, connecting 6th through to Mercer will carry some of the traffic now on 5th. Good for pedestrians and bikes too in all cases.

With the additional traffic, Alaskan Way will be a sizeable arterial, but nothing like the traffic volume of our largest arterials. Part of Aurora Ave N average 82,000 per day last I checked.

Further, Alaskan Way will have very minimal cross-traffic. Mostly pedestrians actually, except for the ferry terminal. This means it will be very easy to time the lights for optimal flow, which is also good for keeping off-peak traffic down to the speed limit.

Thanks for once again illustrating the popular opinion on 99 -- aside from the people who have coalesced around the current proposal (the last poll I saw showed a majority who either like the tunnel or say "sigh, just build something already"), everyone else seems to be a militant in favor of some other specific plan, and dead set against all others.

If it makes you feel any better, the cut-n-cover is my second favorite. I was resigned to its flaws, such as the years of massive disruption and leaving the Battery Street Tunnel below code, because a tunnel is important. The deep bore got rid of both of those problems, with the only major tradeoff being a moderately busy Alaskan Way.

I’m with you guys on the cut-n-cover as a second choice.

But if the same energy had gone into refurbishing and upgrading the viaduct, which was the preferred plan by the state’s own evaluation team up until 2008, we wouldn’t even be discussing the shortcomings of these other plans. The upgraded structure would continue to provide for all of them. The viaduct could even more effectively keep cars OUT of the core by continuing to provide a bypass and adopting different points of egress. And believe it or not, it provides a much friendlier environment for foot traffic with its open-sided cover in our rainy weather. Think of the amenities that could be provided with just a fraction of the savings.

Digging the DBT just to create flat space for a park is possibly the most fiscally irresponsible thing ever committed by elected officials…particularly in this economy. I guess we’ll find when we get the bill.

I'd take a refurbishment over the surface option. It's way better from a pedestrian access perspective, and of course doesn't flood Downtown with cars. (Maybe we have some common ground after all!)

My problem with the viaduct is only partially about looks and noise. Even a major upgrade would also be a temporary fix that we'd have to revisit all too soon (2030? 2040?). Further, retrofit claimants often omit the cost of knitting LQA and SLU back together, which would be very halfway and expensive with 99 in place. Plus of course the existing tunnel would remain as-is (I don't know the details, but presumably doing more than minimal work would trigger the requirement to bring it to code, which would require either a lot of code-variances or a new ditch through Belltown).

No one, mhays, has addressed the problem of redirecting 20,000 vehicles from the DBT north portal to Elliott, traffic which today accesses the AWV in Lower Belltown. Reconnecting the grid at John, Thomas, Harrison and 6th Ave is an excellent plan, but it does nothing to handle this redirected traffic. SDOT's proposal to convert Mercer into the major corridor is a fraud. Talk about disengenuous delay. All routes are longer with more turns and stoplights, hillclimbs and less suitable than Elliott/Western.

Constructing the cut/cover Tunnelite would be an ordeal, but the waterfront economy would survive and thereafter thrive with much less traffic than will occur with the DBT. There is no avoiding the construction disruption of dismantling the AWV, rebuilding the seawall and Alaskan Way.

The cut/cover would be constructed in 1 or 2-block segments from the south, with the AWV in place and operating. Normal Alaskan Way traffic is diverted around the trench, under the AWV, and returned to the surface above completed segments. Excavation debris is removed via the tunnel. The seawall is rebuilt at the same time.

Once Tunnelite's north poral at Pike is reached, the AWV is closed. Estimated date: 2014! Traffic then is redirected from Aurora along Broad Street, over the RR tracks on a permanent bridge onto Alaskan Way and enter/exit Tunnelite north portal while the Lower Belltown segment is rebuilt beneath Western and Elliott. Yes, it would be a challenge. Any of you lazy, money-grubbing chickenshits up for a challenge?

To Elliott? It sounds like you're talking about cars that are heading for Elliott in Belltown, or Downtown in general. Either way, they'll exit right before they get Downtown, rather than within Downtown. This is being accommodated, in part, by significant changes at Mercer, Edgar Martinez, etc., so that traffic can go east-west. A two-way Mercer will free up Denny a bit.

We've discussed your planned construction approach before. The idea that you could complete such an extraordinarily complex phase 1 by 2014 is beyond absurd. Your entire approach has so many holes I don't know where to begin. Ok, just one: you'd need two entire new interchange/overpasses at Broad & AW and Aurora & Broad...each of which would cause a bunch of pain and cost on its own, only to partially reduce a short-term problem of your making. Ok, one more: I don't think you get the level of difficulty and disruption that the cut-n-cover and seawall sections would each require, or the level of difficulty and disruption that would be required outside any current segment.

And what's this about asking whether we're up for a challenge? We're not searching out the most difficult, painful solution.

GaryP -

Yea, I'm living in NYC now and enjoying using transit instead of arguing about it.

My reasons for not wanting the waterfront streetcar are purely pragmatic. I've never had an attachment for the waterfront streetcar so maybe I'm a little less emotional about getting rid of it.

I will start off by saying the monorail is hardly a transit system that makes money. It's a 1 mile people mover. So you pay $2.50 to go exactly 1 mile. It's little wonder it makes money. In New York City, you can ride the subway the whole length of Manhattan and go into the Bronx or Queens or Brooklyn for only $2.25.

To me, the streetcar is about the same. It's a ride, an attraction. What's needed is a way to get people from other parts of the city TO the waterfront. Using all the space as a circulator for the cruise ship passengers is less than ideal. It would be better to have a bus that comes from other parts of the city like downtown, Queen Anne or Capitol Hill and then drops people off at the waterfront. The key here is to have transit that allows people to get to and from the waterfront. The waterfront streetcar doesn't provide that. Perhaps if it looped up the hill on Western Ave to Pike Place Market, it would more closely approximate that since it would have a REALLY popular destination that it goes to as well as dropping people off just 1 block from 1st Ave, where alot of buses run.

2 of my favorite waterfronts are San Diego's Seaport Village and their waterfront that goes all the way to the airport and the Hudson River Westside Park which runs up and down the West side of Manhattan. Neither has a streetcar yet I view them as very successful waterfronts. My definition of successful is that they attract lots of people rather than just being 'pretty'.

Most of the 40,000 vehicles that daily access SR99 in Lower Belltown, mhays, originates or is headed to West Queen Anne, Magnolia, Interbay and Ballard via Elliott, 15th Ave, whatever. For the hundredth time, Mercer Place is NOT a suitable thru-corridor! SDOT designates Mercer Place 'TBD' (to be determined). In other words, they know it won't work.

Here's how Mercer West COULD WORK:

1), Leave the Mercer Underpass (under Aurora) 4-lanes.

2), Direct westbound traffic per Mercer Rebuild Project 1st Phase into the Broad Street Underpass.

At this point refer to WSDOT's "proposed conceptual design" for the DBT North Portal. Option 2 of both new and old designs show 6th Ave forming an 'S-curve' that meets Mercer just west of Aurora where an intersection with a left turn is constructed to create access to the DBT southbound.

This approach widens Mercer to 6-lane plus a left-turn and a new Aurora bridge at a cost of at least $100 million.

3), Create a southbound ramp access intersection on Broad Street Underpass at the same spot designated in WSDOT's option 2.

This arrangement allows thru-traffic, both current and additional traffic (from the DBT or Tunnelite) to be diverted to Denny Way via 6th or Taylor instead of Lower Queen Anne where at least 20,000 additional vehicles daily, including big rigs, will have A severe impact. It retains the current thru-route. It saves $100 million. It avoids, oh my Nooo, Construkshun DISrupshun! WSDOT and SDOT are fully aware of and do not want YOU to question them about this viable, low cost, least hassle option.

Not all problems with SDOT's West Mercer plan however are solved with this 'secreted' arrangement. There is no direct route from Elliott to the DBT southbound entrance. SDOT probably intends to redirect traffic from Elliott east on Thomas, right on 1st Ave, left on Denny Way, then left on 6th Ave to the DBT southbound entrance ramp.

Tunnelite does not require redirecting this traffic. Are you people stupid or what? Whatever. Mhays et al don't mind because well, like, you know, it's like, well, like, it'd be so cool and like everything, to like have a cool, like waterfront, like you know?

Put the Waterfront Streetcar Line back in. It'll be more a necessity than ever before once the AWV is gone. Mike is a great Mayor who won't allow Seattlers to be kept clueless. Bring down the hatchet on WSDOT and SDOT, Now!

Wells, you're operating in your own reality. I guess that's why it all seems so simple.

And mhays operates with eyes and ears closed, head buried in BS. I'm talking about saving hundreds of Million$, minimizing construction disruption, and designing a transport system that does not make Seattle's notoriously bad traffic worse.

1), Leave Mercer Underpass 4-lanes but do convert it to 2-way operation.

2), Keep Mercer Phase One Broad Street Underpass. Add a 'one-sided' intersection entrance ramp for access to either the DBT or Tunnelite in the same spot depicted in WSDOT's 'proposed conceptual design' for the DBT north portal, Option 2. This is a low-cost, low-impact, ready-made southbound entrance that should be considered.

3), Lower Aurora and reconnect Harrison, Thomas and John Streets. Connecting 6th Ave at Mercer Street doesn't make sense because 6th Ave is about 10' below grade there.

4), Proceed with closing Broad Street between 6th Ave and Denny Way, creating potential for upgrading Seattle Center!

I'm sorry if my logic is too much for wee brains to comprehend or that allows sycophants a comfort zone where they can question the dictates of plainly incompetent or corrupt public servants.