According to the poll, likely voters want the tunnel over the elevated (a combination of two options). Surface was way in the distance.

A vote would cost tens of millions even if the tunnel wins, and much more if it loses. Even if the state builds the tunnel anyway, which it probably would. Why have a $50,000,000 vote for something the state will do anyway?

Hopefully the council will continue to be leaders!

Where do you find these people who want to live in Portland or Copenhagen, and why don't they move to one of those cities?

The surface/transit option consistently polls at only around 20%. So only about 1 in 5 Seattleites favor that option. Surface/transit supporters need to stop pretending that is a legitimate option. 20% is not enough support to keep including surface/transit in polls, or in any future election.

When is someone going to do a poll of people in King County, or the entire State of WA -- which will be paying for the tunnel or viaduct -- and ask simply, "which do you favor for replacing the viaduct -- a tunnel or a viaduct." Let's see what people actually favor when given a choice of the "top two" options.

The author: "Years from now people will marvel that we simply didn’t close down the viaduct, demolish it, and allow redevelopment of the new space. What appeared to be a compromise solution was really the perpetuation of an outmoded transportation mode at a time when what the city needed was a new vision for land use."

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/fhwa0311a.html

From the United States Department of Transportation:

"WASHINGTON – Americans drove three trillion miles in 2010, the most vehicle miles traveled since 2007 and the third-highest ever recorded, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced today. The increase in traffic volume comes as the U.S. in 2009 posted its lowest number of traffic fatalities and injuries since 1950.

“More driving means more wear and tear on our nation's roads and bridges,” said Secretary LaHood. “This new data further demonstrates why we need to repair the roads and bridges that are the lifeblood of our economy.""

So Roger Valdez, a founder and active member of Party of the Future, says roads are an "outdated transportation mode", but Ray LaHood, Obama's U.S. Transportation Secretary says "roads and bridges are the lifeblood of our economy." Who to believe?

Hey Roger, why don't you move to Copenhage and ride around on your bicycle all day? That will make you a real "person of the future." Yes, bicycles -- a truly futuristic transportation mode.

Roger rewrites history to suit his deceptive narrative.

What "popular upheaval against the tunnel?" 21% support for a surface option?

Roger's post epitomizes the type of communication that won Mike McGinn the support of just 28% of people in the latest poll. And it's the reason why a one trick pony Mayor can't even win the support of people who join him in opposing the tunnel.

It is either delusional or purposefully deceptive communication that speaks no whole truth, and works each day to prove a righteous point despite all else.

Dumb. And certainly no way to build a great city.

The question is, Roger, where are YOUR candidates?

You and your colleagues in the Mike McGinn Fan Club have aimed plenty of shots at the current Council but two major tunnel supporters remain unopposed (Rasmussen, Burgess) and their three colleagues have drawn minor-league opponents whom they are clearly capable of beating. Only one challenger has jumped on the anti-tunnel bandwagon and his campaign has been quiet, to say the least. And it's almost April 1. Where are your candidates?

This Council race is an effective test for Mayor McGinn. He talks constantly about having the backing of the people, but not one citizen has stepped forward to carry his banner against the Council. The tunnel referendum was wholly funded by McGinn and his City Hall and Sierra Club cronies. There's only one logical explanation: The people of Seattle support their City Council.

The Tea Party is right.

Government has become a foreign intrusion.

It is operating out of the bounds of popularly elected Mayor, multiple plebecites and referendums.

Remember the West Seattle bridge fiasco?
1950 the city wanted to replace the bridge. Public discussion and innumerable studies ate up the construction money. Then a fine fellow rammed it with a freighter. Two or so years later new bridge.

I dont think we can knock down the viaduct with a freighter so let us hope for either an earthquake or 747 hitting it. Since I doubt we will not be so lucky just dynamite the durn thing and be done. Then we can have everyone crying about traffic. Besides we wont need it if the green guys get their way - no jobs to go to anyway.

If I had my way we would put the railroads underground from Puyallip to North Seattle - freight yards can stay on the surface.

The DOT's own poll last fall reported that over 70% of those queried didn't even know the tunnel plan had been selected. Most people don’t even know where it goes. This assumption that there is a clear understanding as to the nature of this project after all of the millions of dollars spent on false PR and confusion is just wrong.

An honest vote would certainly solve this problem. Heads up...choose between an elevated solution or a tunnel. It won't cost tens of the millions of dollars. The phony referendum conjured up by Jan Drago to confuse the issue in the first place cost one million. That's chump change compared with the waste of over 2 billion dollars and the resulting congestion this tunnel will cause.

It might also be one of those rare moments when common sense trumps greed, ego and influence peddling.

I agree with Roger. The city does need a leadership change. It needs someone who will stand up to, and cut funding to, all our insidious little non-profits lurking down every alleyway.

Did Roger just throw Cary Moon under the bus?

In arguing against a new waterfront park, Valdez seems intent on further fracturing the already small 21% surface/transit base. Guess Cary Moon and Mike McGinn are sellouts, just like all the rest.

How much longer with these one-sided pieces go on? There was a committee that studied the options exhaustively over a long period of time. Now, folks who didn't have the guts to serve on the committee continue to second-guess and thus disrespect them. The only thing I'll concede is that the cost comparisons weren't meaningful. The replacement would: have to be replaced every 50 years, or 2x by the time the DBT would need it. Further, the present structure would need to be closed for 3-4 years, those 110,000 vehicles/day displaced elsewhere (city streets and I-5). Both of these costs should have been tacked onto the rebuild estimate. For the surface option, no replacement cost, but tearing down and clearing away the present structure, with those vehicles displaced permanently. If we want to discuss this issue ad nauseum, as is "The Seattle Way," a.k.a. why we got a shorter, slower, and far more costly light rail system, I'd sure like to see it limited to comparing "apples" to "apples."

abcs: I attended several presentations on viaduct replacement options a couple of years ago, and WSDOT said that the useful life of a new viaduct would be just the same as for a tunnel. Where did you get 50 years for a new viaduct? The current viaduct is 58 years old and still going strong.

A new viaduct would be built much better, with pilings all the way to solid ground, not ending in fill like some current viaduct pilings. The new viaduct would not have been damaged in the earthquake that damaged the current viaduct. You do understand that we build things better now than we did in the 1950's, right? How long do you expect the elevated parts of the Link light rail line to last -- only 50 years?

Also, WSDOT has a plan for building a new viaduct around the old viaduct while keeping traffic on the viaduct for all but a few months during construction.

Hey, Roger, why don't YOU run for City Council? I need a good laugh.

What Just Happened?: The meaning of McGinn’s win
. . .
So what did happen? My theory is that the people of this city are ready for a new story. They are rejecting the Forward Thrust vs. Lesser Seattle, Spy versus Spy, conflict which has defined politics in our town since the 1970s. These two parties were pretty clear, the latter focused on big capitol projects the former focused on keeping Seattle a small town dominated by fishermen and descendents of pioneers. One group supported the Nordstrom Parking Garage (remember that one) and the other opposed it, for example. The Thrusters saw the garage as supportive of growth which would create economic development and the Lessers saw it as another attempt to pretty up Seattle for Yuppies and people from out of town.
What Just Happened?: The meaning of McGinn’s win
http://hugeasscity.com/2009/12/03/what-just-happened-the-meaning-of-mcginns-win/

Endorsements for McGinn for Mayor
Personal:
Roger Valdez - CEO, Bricoleur LLC
McGinn for Mayor, endorsements
http://mcginnformayor.com/endorsements/

City Council members fail by not providing a full and credible explanation for their decision to support the bored tunnel. Saying a debate was conducted is not enough. There are many red flag warnings that the bored tunnel is insanely risky and terrible engineering with egregious environmental impacts. City Council haughtily expects the public to ignore these red flags? The Mercer West project and the design for Alaskan Way are likewise questionable engineering, but the council refuses to answer these concerns. Only councilmember O'Brien acted responsibly by listing the main drawbacks of the bored tunnel. The public knows why he's against it, but the public doesn't know why the rest of the council are for it aside from they're tired of hearing public concerns. Seattle got new leadership with McGinn and O'Brien. If the rest of the council continues to be indifferent to the public, one by one, they will be removed from office.

Mayor Mcginn is right about the surface/transit option. Wsdot has played fast and loose with Seattle for too long and should admit their engineering on all these projects is unacceptable. The surface/transit option doesn't rule out the more sensible cut/cover tunnel option. In the meantime, I-5 needs fixes and Seattle needs transit upgrades.

No other proposed configuration for the AWV 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 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 it's billions of dollars cheaper than the proposed tunnel.

There were two proposals for a restoration and/or replacement structure in addition to one from a private engineer...all much less expensive than any of the tunnel proposals.

It is clearly the best solution for the region and if a vote were held tomorrow it would be the choice of the voters.

I'm with ivan - run yourself! If you're mad at some electeds for being popular, maybe you should see if you can outshine them as easily in the field as you think you do in the op-ed pages. Sightline let you go, so you've got some time on your hands now. Step up!

"Years from now" citizens will say what happened to all the views that made Seattle so wonderful. so unique? The Viaduct is a paid for waterfront park.

By the way the "damaged viaduct" is a red herring. The location of the "damage" is where a gas tanker fire occurred back in the late 70's, spilling gas along the viaduct at Main street, eventually burning severely the building that housed Shelly's Leg. The fire was so intense that concrete began to explode, forever weakening that section/joint of the Viaduct. It is my understanding that no other section of the Viaduct has tested "damaged".
The pro-tear down forces have used this "evidence" as proof of the threat of collapse in an earthquake. The viaduct has lasted through several already. It has world class views. A retrofit is by far cheaper and will not destroy downtown Seattle which a limited access/egress tunnel will do.

I don't think everyone who signed that ballot is against the tunnel. I was asked repeatedly to sign it and told that it wasn't a no vote on the tunnel only a chance to vote on the tunnel. I refused becausee I knew that it would be spun up as opposition to the tunnel and I support the tunnel. If and when we do get to the day where we have no cars, the tunnel will make an excellent light rail / subway.

I would tend to agree that not everyone who signed it is against it. It is disingenuous for signature gathers to suggest that it is a vote on the tunnel. I experienced several different framings of the issue when I have been asked to sign. Sally Clark said it best when she explained exactly what the vote meant during the city council meeting. I believe it truly is a move to protect Seattle and keep us involved in this project as a co-lead.
I am no fan of the tunnel, and I chose not to sign. Why? Because I know what it really meant if I did and in reality, I think this project is moving forward, come hell or high water. The best thing we can do now and that our leadership can do now, is ensure that we make investments to make this project the best it can be so that the impacts expected can be mitigated properly.

Well my guess is that today's ploy by the city attorney to save the voters from themselves will fail the same way every pre vote Eymen initiative challenge failed.

Then we'll have a full Seattle vote and the tunnel will fail. Because the same group, the youth, who made the difference in electing Mayor McGinn will turn out and vote it down. Then we'll see city council members scramble and candidates emerge from the woodwork sensing blood in the waters.

And that will be the end of the tunnel plan. A plan that served no one but the concrete & tunneling industry.

As for a surface plan that's coming but it will take a few more votes and years before the viaduct replacement crowd also loses their future vote. Meantime it will be repaired or closed down and life won't end.

Oh and to all those King County and other non Seattle Residents. It will be a big F-U-2 from Seattle voters which have never cared for anyone else outside the city. They don't care how long it takes you to drive around the city. They don't care if it inconveniences you to drive anywhere. Seattle after the I-5 rip down has had enough of auto drivers who only want to bypass the city.

Look to the future of $5/gal gasoline and beyond and sense that the age of driving everywhere is over.

Lets look at options:

1. Surface option that will choke downtown business as well as destroy capacity to move freight in and out of the port.

2. Retrofit a viaduct that is multiple generations from current roadway standards. The cost to bring it up to those standards exceeds the cost to replace with new. Cripple business in the process while the viaduct is retrofitted. Maintain the barrier between downtown and the waterfront.

3. Build a new viaduct to current roadway standards. Cripple business in the process while the viaduct is torn down and rebuilt. Maintain the barrier between downtown and the waterfront.

4. Build the bored tunnel. Provide capacity for freight and some portion of the demand for regular car and truck traffic. Construct while the old viaduct is able to continue operating minimizing impacts on business and freight. Restore Seattle's connection to its waterfront.

5. Do nothing and accept the status quo of operating a structurally compromised double decker highway that is used by 108,000 vehicles per day that will fail most likely sooner rather than later along with the associated claims and lawsuits that will follow.

Guess what?

Its a state highway and the state makes the decison on ultimately what to do here and has by the way. The whole state is paying for this not just Seattle. Citizens of Seattle cannot unilaterally change the decision of the legislature that they helped elect with a local referendum vote.

No matter which option was chosen Seattle was paying for and on the hook for big bucks to replace the failing seawall and relocate utilities. So whatever option was chosen the money for seawall replacement and relocating utilities was not going to be saved and Seattle citizens were going to have to pay for that work.

Under the bored tunnel option freight and business will continue to function during the ~ 5-6 year project and generate tax revenue that would not be generated in the other options except the do nothing option till the viaduct collapses.

The land that the bored tunnel option frees up will provide the palate for a redeveloped waterfront connected to downtown that will create great public space, commercial space for existing and new businesses and residential space in other words an opportunity to create great place making that will activate and energize the waterfront and downtown, attract local, regional, national and international visitors and generate the tax revenues to offset the costs of the investment that the state and City are making. Yes it is an investment. An investment in our core, and investment in public space, and investment in transporttation, and investment in downtown housing and commercial space and investment in Seattle's future. Smart people will see it for what it really is. A wise investment in Seattle's future.

Lets get rid of FUD arguments:

"1. Surface option that will choke downtown business as well as destroy capacity to move freight in and out of the port."

The tunnel will dump 60K cars on the roadway.

The port has only one container ship dock still in use down next to elevated part of the viaduct. If the port bothered to run the rails over to the dock they could eliminate the truck traffic that now runs back and forth between the dock and the freight yard.

"2. Retrofit a viaduct that is multiple generations from current roadway standards. The cost to bring it up to those standards exceeds the cost to replace with new. Cripple business in the process while the viaduct is retrofitted. Maintain the barrier between downtown and the waterfront."

The retrofit camp wants to merely add some reinforcement steel not add breakdown lanes, higher curbs. This is the least cost option and if the seawall were fixed might make the current structure last another 20 years after which tunneling is going to look even worse.

"4. Build the bored tunnel. Provide capacity for freight and some portion of the demand for regular car and truck traffic. Construct while the old viaduct is able to continue operating minimizing impacts on business and freight. Restore Seattle's connection to its waterfront."

At a cost of 3.3Billion without cost overrruns, which are likely to be 50% to 6Billion. Notice that Brightwater, a smaller diameter tunnel has still boring equipment, sink holes. Just imagine sink holes under downtown Seattle buildings. and 5Billion is going to seem cheap.

And the tunnel doesn't serve the freight traffic that has complained the loudest, Ballard Oil. They don't get an entrance ramp they can use. And by the time they are done digging this tunnel they will have either gone out of business or moved. Which is what they'll have to do with either option. Frankly it would cheaper to just give Ballard Oil the money to move than build them a tunnel. And who wants to drive in a tunnel whose primary freight is combustible oil? Sounds like a recipe for a disaster.

And lets not forget the land that the entrance to this tunnel will eat Pioneer Sq at the South end.

And remember an investment pays you back. Tunnels are a net loss unless we can charge tolls which exceed the cost of building them. No matter what we build no one is seriously claiming that taxpayers are going to come out ahead cash wise. This thing is a subsidy to a life that is going way. Better to build for the future that is nearly upon us. Expensive Energy.

Lets talk with real numbers not hyped inflated exagerations.

1. Under the highest tolling level the expected diversion of vehicles is 36,000 of which a significant percentage would actually divert to I-5 but in general during non peak hours. Claims of dumping 60,000 vehicles downtown is just blatant lies. Read the Engineering reports. That said its a lot less than 108,000 with the surface street option which is the point here.

2. The problem is the federal government won't allow you to retrofit without bringing the structure up to current roadway safety standards and why would we not want it brought up to current safety standards? Options need to be reality based not pipe dreams.

4. Seattle has a successful history of constructing tunnels. The bored tunnel through Beacon did not have 100% cost over runs nor did the transit tunnel under downtown. So can problems happen? Sure. Is their contingency money for that in the 3.1 billion budget (Not 3.3 Billion lets stick with facts), Answer Yes. The bored tunnel itself is 1.9 billion ( the rest is for surface elements of the project at the North and South approaches.) So even if you doubled the 1.9 million that is the actual bored tunnel componnent, which there is no basis for, you dont get anywhere near the 6 billion figure you throw out or 10 billion that some other anti tunnel proponnents claim. The fact it is the numbers being thrown out are unsubtantiated and irresponsible and are not supported by the facts and history of tunneling in Seattle.

With respect to your reference to ballard oil there is certainly access for their trucks to use the bored tunnel it just is changing and that is only one business. Lets check facts again. The business community strongly endorses the bored tunnel option as does the Port of Seattle. Thes folks wouldn't be if it didnt provide a strong benefit to business and freight.

As to sinkholes under downtown like I said Seattle has built numerous tunnels most recently the Metro transit tunnel. Pleas eprovide one example of a major problem from tunneling under downtown for this tunnel.

Tunnels last longer, hold up much better in seismic events and are less costly to maintain than elevated structures. Those are facts. 70% of the traffic on the viaduct is pass through traffic. Why clog downtown streets with it.

Last off all what is your proposal? The anti tunnel folks have no reasonable alternative. Bottom line no option is perfect but most people who have taken time to investigate the facts have come to the conclusion that the bored tunnel alternative is the best alternative that meets all the needs that is available. Not perfect, not cheap but in the end better and cheaper in the long run to the other alternatives. The fact is other alternatives have huge major flaws that out weigh their benefits in comparison to the bored tunnel.

Option 6: stop assuming Mother Earth is with us, take the silly thing down without loss of life, damage and lawsuits, study the actual consequences and make any amends needed.

Of course, if we had done so in the first place, or the Governor had stuck to her word, the improvements to I-5 and transit would likely be behind us and we'd take the ST up on the census it has been flagging (to its credit) and start a public dialogue about the ramifications of juvenile and mature growth.

I agree with this author, and others today, there is definitely something bigger— duplicity playing to naivete about who city planning serves is changing the demographics to unthought out ends. Cities full of the up-and-coming are as unnatural as Keillor's little town "where all the children are above average." Open beaks at this time of year display nature's approach to maturity—the other end of the worm. With fewer instincts to guide us, wisdom, like citizenship, comes with shared learning and experience, i.e. age. Diversity goes far beyond race.

@ AllanFlash "Its a state highway and the state makes the decison on ultimately what to do here and has by the way." This is true it isn't as meaningful as you make it out to be. While I was quite young, back then but I seem to recall that there was a decision made by the state, and remnants of the unfinished R.H. Thomson Expressway suggest that the planning was done and they were in fact building when Seattleites stopped the project. But your other points are well-taken, and if we could expect the future to look like a projection from the past (an easy and natural assumption to make), then what you say would be a great argument in favor of Mr. Conlin and the big developers. However, it would be highly irrational, in the face of all the evidence available today, to make any such assumptions around transportation or energy.

We are in the age of peak oil. 90% of us may "choose" to drive when gas is $3.69/gallon, but history shows that the math will change on that 5 years out when it's $11/gallon, and even more so when it's $30/gallon in 10 years. The dates and prices are fictitious. but in line with what oil geologists and economists predict will happen after the peak.

Even oil industry execs now admit we're years, not decades as they'd previously claimed, away from declining supplies, and with that decline will come less not more globalization, less not more traffic. The primary drivers behind building the deep-bore tunnel are likely to dissolve away long before the project is completed, with oil geologists coalescing around a 2012 date for peak oil production. I see it as a catastrophic misallocation of precious resources to invest so heavily in cheap oil based automobile infrastructure at a time when global oil production is peaking and about to begin an inexorable decline, during which time our growth-based economic system will be collapsing and we may well be unable to make the transition our kids and grandkids are depending on.

What should we do? Let's do the things we must: fix the seawall, relocate utilities, shore up the viaduct where needed, add more transit service and hold off on making this decision until we can get a clearer view into what the near future will look like - there's still time to make the right choices, this just might not be the best time to make such a decision when the accuracy of our ability to forecast is highly questionable.

And then let Mayor McGinn's successor lead the charge into that future with the sort of leadership Seattle desperately need, whether that be a tunnel, or not.

Peak oil:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/13/suncor-energy-oil-intelligent-investing-cenovus.html?feed=rss_home

5 to 10 years, if it hasn't already passed. I've seen references that make it look as if we passed peak oil in 2008.

But "Peak Oil" is a terrible term to talk about, "Expensive Energy" is better because you can understand the implications. Oil isn't going to just run out, its going to get way more expensive. That influences everything we currently do. Including digging large tunnels with diesel trucks hauling away the dirt.

"2. The problem is the federal government won't allow you to retrofit without bringing the structure up to current roadway safety standard"

It's a state highway. Federal guildlines about things like adding breakdown lanes is irreverent here. The state can add reinforcement steel without any Federal inspections/money/oversite. FUD.

"4. Seattle has a successful history of constructing tunnels. "
Brightwater.
"sinkholes with Sound Transit"
http://beaconhill.seattle.wa.us/2009/04/03/sound-transit-sinkhole/
My what a short memory we seem to have.

My Proposal is listed elsewhere but I'll repeat it here:
#1 fix the seawall. If the sea wall fails, the viaduct falls.
#2 Reinforce the viaduct with steel, add bracing, tie the roadbed to the pillars.
#3 Build Light rail to West Seattle, and a street car line to Freemont followed by Light Rail to Ballard. Dig a tunnel under Seattle for this extended Light rail line.
#4 20 years later, tear down the viaduct.

This just passes the problem of this outdated and dangerous structure to the next generation. It doesn't sound like a very proactive or progressive way to build for Seattle's future. In fact it sounds an awful lot like the status quo in Seattle for the past 40 years which is why we have such a transportation mess.

I very much support one of your main tennants which is to improve public mass transportation. A huge failure was killing the monorail project because of a bad funding strategy. Should have just fixed the funding strategy. Even worse was selling off the whole right of way that had been acquired for it. Now we will have to start over to create this important mass transportation link. What a waste.

I also agree the seawall has to be fixed.

I think what you don't address is how will the movement of goods and services happen in the region? People need to realize that what to do about the viaduct is not just about personal vehicles. There is no question that there is long delayed and put off need to increase effective and efficient public transportation. We also know the region will continue to grow and that it will result in an increased need for freight and services transportation to move food, clothing, building supplies, people who provide services and everything else provided by the commercial side of the equation that we all use everyday. Fact is freight traffic will continue to increase and pushing it through a gridlocked downtown or across a problematic viaduct structure is not the answer. That is just more of the the same of what we have seen the past 40 years here.

The minimization of what it would take to make the viaduct structurally sound in a retrofit scenario is naive at best. This concept is an option pushed by a few fringe engineers. The consensus of the engineering community is that the cost benefit of this option does not pencil out and is a bad use of dollars. A band aid that really doesn't fix the problem and at best pushes the problem out a few more years where a replacement is needed.

Why would we want to spend the huge amounts of money for a bad fix.

With respect to Brightwater a couple of points:

It is a 17 mile tunnel done in multiple segments with several contrators. One was problematic and has been replaced.

The testing required to understand what might be encountered across that length of a line is enormous. The bored tunnel is maybe 1/15th the length and the state has done ans is still doing extensive boring tests to understand the geology they will be going through. They have even re-aligned it to move through more favorable geology.

There will always be some sinkholes associated with boring tunnels. The sinkholes that did occur in the Sound Transit Beacon Hill Tunnel and the ones that have occured with the Brightwater tunnel have not created significant problems and have been easily remediated.

Lets not continue to put on hold the needed improvements to get this region out of the transportation mess it is in. We have put it off too long already. This is not just a public transportation issue and planning and decisions need to consider all of the needs. Last of all lets stop over inflating and muddying the water with the numbers that are thrown out. The bored tunnel portion of this project is 1.9 billion dollars not 3.1 0r 3.3 or 6 or 10 billion dollars. This kind of reckless speculation does nothing to advance a reasoned look at the needs of th region, the options and associated costs and benefits.

Do all of you simply like to argue? I can't see any other reason for continuing to bloviate on what you think Seattle should do with a STATE highway. It simply confirms Seattle's main problem: the psychology of a 2-year-old.

Do all of you simply like to argue? I can't see any other reason for continuing to bloviate on what you think Seattle should do with a STATE highway. It simply confirms Seattle's main problem: the psychology of a 2-year-old.

Every artist rendering of the waterfront park area looks bland, stark and very non Northwest. YUK.

Post of the week:

The city does need a leadership change. It needs someone who will stand up to, and cut funding to, all our insidious little non-profits lurking down every alleyway. — BlueLight

I believe retrofitting the viaduct is our best affordable option today. The state, nor the city, do not have one extra penny for risk or boondoggles.

Like so many others, AllanFlash repeats bored tunnel propaganda, word for word, and ignores anti-bored tunnel analysis. I'd support the bored tunnel if it weren't extremely risky, poorly engineered for managing traffic (worse than the surface boulevard option) and poses detrimental impacts to public health and safety. Pro-tunnel whiners add nothing to the debate.

Neither do Portland voters.

Does Seattle really need nine other six-figure officials when it already has a Mayor?

I agree with Valdez that our present City Council leaves a lot to be desired but it's head-and-shoulders above his myopic PC perspective: his inarticulate and fact-loose article betrays his rigid greenieism (which discredits the effective environmental movement - think Michael Moore). And his buddy Ham Hands McSchwindle is not even on the chart of respectability. He should resign out of pure embarrassment...