McGinn seems to wish for worst case scenarios and/or present the issues in dramatic hyperbole to rationalize the lack of due diligence and careful consideration in his decision making. We are supposed to scrap ten years of discussion and study immediately for a new waterfront corridor, the only outside of I-5, because he has decided there will be cost overruns. We are supposed to scrap DOJ reform of the SPD, because he says it will cost $5m, no wait--$41m; ask a woodcarver how much police reform is actually worth. McGinn insists we should drop any kind of normal stakeholders' vetting process, and build Hansen's stadium, because he says it is a great deal.

This is all great stuff for winning political campaigns, or at the very least, for non-profit activists using subterfuge to achieve goals through which they have no boots on the ground to add support, but it is terrible for actual leadership and governance. This attracts and employs the most emotionally malleable and shrill out in public promoting public policy, and compounds-- institutionalizes dramatic overtures, and makes meaningful discussion of consequences of rash decisions much more difficult.

We are emotional creatures to be sure, but we also have intellect and rationality in an attempt to guide this. Still waiting to see the latter two in the Mayor's office.

Cost overrunns on the waterfront tunnel? Who could have thunk it? Why nearly everybody who bothered to look at the numbers. And of course the state has already spent 50% of their cost overrun money just on the bid itself!

Good thing they haven't started to bore the tunnel yet.

And let me set the record straight. Seattle does need another tunnel for transportation. It's just that they don't need one that's for cars only. They need one for the future Ballard/West Seattle Light rail line. One for moving people.

If we need to move freight along the waterfront, and we do. It's stupid to put containers on trucks drive 2 miles to a freight yard and unload the truck onto a train. Better to do it as Tacoma does and unload directly to the train. A rail spur or three is what is needed.

Building a tunnel is solving the last century's problem of auto transportation not the next century's problem of moving people.

Funny that you'd call automobiles "last century's problem," and then propose the 19th Century solution of trains. In-city trains are a nostalgia boondoggle of gigantic proportions, proposed by "progressives" who habitually indulge in magical thinking.

Exactly.

I actually prefer the 20th century solution Monorails, but that's an ugly word around here after the last fiasco of poor finance/planning/management.

Also nice diversion from moving freight off the waterfront which should be the prime usage of that land. As long as we have an active port, we should be focused on making the most efficient one or else pack it up and go home. With Port Rupurt and a direct line to Chicago, and the Panama Canal widening about done, Seattle/Tacoma port business could easily be cut by 1/2.

A monorail is nothing more than an elevated railway, which is pure 19th Century. We dodged a bullet on that one.

There are three places to move people/cars/freight. Surface, tunnel or elevated.

With the monorail, it would have been elevated. To use the surface, we would have had to remove capacity for existing roads. To tunnel we would incur the additional expense of a tunnel.

The bullet we dodged has come around to bite us again as the next plan being offered is the "Seattle Subway" http://seattlesubway.org/ The most expensive solution to moving people.

And of course had the Monorail project actually been built it would be nearly finished by now and the Viaduct as an auto transport route would be unnecessary. And for sure a waterfront tunnel would be 100% unnecessary.

The Seattle subway is just a rail fetishist's drawing. It's not going to be built. Whether it's at grade, elevated, or underground, whether running on one rail or two rails, passenger rail is 200-year-old technology. It's a "steampunk" project, which would be fine if the "steampunks" had the money.

That's fine if the Seattle subway is never built, but it'll be bicycles that are the only moving vehicles in those corridors. You can't fit any more cars in that space even if you wanted to, same for buses.

But I suspect your prediction of the future (no fixed rail inter city systems added) is clouded by your vision of the present.

Bicycles will be "the only thing moving" if we continue to have city officials who despise automobiles and their owners, and who try to make the city streets impossible for us to use. Oh the other hand, maybe McGinn's resounding defeat next year (and if we're really lucky, a council surprise or two) will scare them. It's the only way to train your politicians.

As for growth, it's going to happen in Bellevue. The people who run Seattle have made it abundantly clear that they don't want businesses in this city.

You could build elevated tracks to move the shipping containers, but you need to realize that the loaded freight cars/containers are extremely heavy, and thus the supports would make it look like the current viaduct.

Better to elevate the cars as they've done around the stadiums.

"we continue to have city officials who despise automobiles and their owners"

This has nothing to do with current road capacity in the Ballard/West Seattle Corridors. It's your own opinion, not based in facts. The road "diets" are actually carrying as many cars as before but are now safer for all users of those roads. And if you look around you'll still see that the majority of land is set aside for autos, that's parking lots, streets etc. If it's a war, then cars won.

The roads to and from Ballard are already full. The Sodo area has room for more lanes, but as we have mentioned, more traffic would impede the movement of freight in and out of the port. Not a good tradeoff.

GaryP, Seattle Subway isn't wedded to any one technology, route or form of grade separation (keep in mind that most of the NY Subway is above ground). All that will be determined by engineering studies and analysis. What Seattle Subway is doing is leveraging the need of the people of this city to get around, their willingness to pay for that ability (see 30 point margin of victory for Sound Transit 2) with Sound Transit's proven experience and expertise at building such a system.

From International District Station to Northgate Link is all grade separated Subway. We want more of that, and we don't want to wait 20 yeas to get it. Let's raise a bit of money now to move Sound Transit's planned engineering and analysis of the Westside Corridors forward in time, so that we are primed and ready to go when ST3 hits the ballot. We'll be shovel ready and hit the ground running so instead of 20 years, maybe we are only looking at 10.

"Seattle Subway isn't wedded to any one technology, route or form of grade separation (keep in mind that most of the NY Subway is above ground). All that will be determined by engineering studies and analysis."

I know you didn't want to call it "Seattle Elevated Transit", or "Seattle Own Right of way Transit", but with the label "subway" it implies a tunnel somewhere. And the place that there is no more surface area available is downtown. And that's one of the most expensive places to put a tunnel.

What bugs me is that the old Green line Monorail project did those studies, and while they were wedded to an elevated solution, the land for the stations was bought, the engineering drawings done etc etc and we threw it all in the trash heap.

I don't mind if Seattle wants to fund expansion of Sound Transit's lines, although I have my list of things that should be changed, #1 the unelected government running it, vs direct elections for a majority of the board. #2 the highly regressive tax structure in place to fund it, sales tax. #3 the excessive tax collection to guarantee the bonds, vs pay as you go. Many other municipalities have built transit systems for far less than it's going to cost us because of the debt service on our system.

And my other pet peeve is that for far less money, were it invested in bicycle infrastructure we could move the same number of people and they'd be healthier.

GaryP,
Yes, there will likely be tunnels somewhere, Downtown being a prime place for them. There were tunnels on our first line, there will likely be tunnels for our subsequent lines. However, sometimes elevated will be the better option. None of that is for you or me to figure out. Sound Transit will conduct those studies. All Seattle Subway wants to do is to provide the money to move those engineering studies forward in time, so we can get fast reliable transit built to all our neighborhoods and in our lifetimes.

Now, if the engineering studies and alternatives analysis determine that elevated monorail is the best technology, hey great, but if another tech is better, that's great too. Let's give it an honest appraisal and just go with the best tech and form of grade separation for our public dollar.

As to the costs, that is a factor of the superior system Sound Transit is building. Link's station platforms are longer than some lines of the Paris Metro, through the core it is completely grade separated, moving people through our most congested area quickly and efficiently. Sound Transit is building us a world class system, and doing it quite well. Since 2001 every project they've done has been underbudget and ahead of schedule. Seattle Subway just wants them to build MORE.

Subway or monorail or grade level -- it's still a passenger train, which is straight out of the 1800s. Only in a corrupt and backwards looking place like Seattle, where "progressives" on the take desperately seek to remake this place in the image of 1950s Manhattan, would these projects get any traction.

Well, there's also Portland, where 100% of that area's net job growth has taken place outside of the area served by their 19th Century fixed rail network. What a disaster that has turned into. It's the rail system that ate the budget, and it's only starting.

Portland is actually a great example for why you put transportation investment in bicycling infrastructure. it cost way less than any fixed rail, road improvement project and the increase in bicycle commuters is greater proportionally to the dollars spent.

Bicycles, all the personal mobility of a car, with less cost to operate, great health benefits, none of the road wear and tear.

Portland is an unfolding disaster, the ongoing New York Times love affair notwithstanding.

For starters, all of the Portland metro area's net job growth has occurred outside of the fixed rail service area. Secondly, fixed rail has gobbled up their street maintenance budget, and as a result the city's streets are deteriorating badly. Which is actually worse for bicyclists than for drivers, something that bicyclists realize only after it's too late.

Thirdly, Portland's transit system has fallen below federal minimum requirements for the contribution of fares to operating costs, endangering their subsidies. Fourthly, the suburbs there have realized that fixed rail is a money pit, and are withdrawing their support for extensions.

Finally, as in Seattle, the transit authorities in Portland have begun to strangle bus services in an effort to keep the fixed-rail white elephant intact. But even those fares have been raised. All of this will come crashing down.

When it does come crashing down, Portland's "progressives" will blame everyone but themselves. It's the oldest American sport, and the tendency to blame the other guy knows no political boundaries. What makes it more galling with "progressives" is that they are constantly telling us in every way they can that, to be a "progressive" to be morally, ethically, and intellectually superior, when in fact they're just as stupid and venal as anyone else.

Why not build a monorail to move the containers where they need to go to get distributed by both train and truck?

"In a worst-case scenario, Wall Street investors could look at the bonds and decide they're too risky". Useless hyperbole. "In a worst-case scenario, the sun could explode and destroy our planet". Yes, both those statements are true, although one portrays a slightly different consequence.

McGinn's wasn't wrong to oppose the tunnel. He was wrong to lie about his opposition, and he was wrong to oppose the tunnel without offering a realistic alternative.

OMG, Politicians lying to get elected...or "changing their minds: once elected. Heaven forbid that ever occurred anywhere else. Anyone who looked at McGinn and was fooled by that statement of his, deserves to have their ballot shredded.

That lie is what put him over the top in a close election.

No, it was "Mike Bikes" that grabbed the youth vote. No sane adult was fooled by the "I'll abide by what the council decides" statement.

"McGinn finds worst case scenarios and presents the issues in dramatic hyperbole to rationalize the lack of due diligence and careful consideration in his decision making. Are we supposed to scrap 10 years of discussion and study for a new waterfront corridor?"

Baloney. McGinn has always led his argument against the DBT with cost issues. The worst case scenarios - destabilized old town buildings sinking beyond repair or suddenly collapsing in predicted earthquakes; downtown traffic becoming more terrifying and deadly - is not an exaggeration.

The first 6 years of study were wasted as Wsdot only intended to build another larger viaduct and 'criminally' rigged cut/cover tunnel studies for rejection. The next 2 years were likewise wasted as more cut/cover options and surface/transit studies were 'criminally' rigged for rejection, a predetermined outcome.

Wsdot studied roughly 10 Cut/cover Tunnel options but left the least disruptive option for last. Wsdot kept the least disruptive Cut/cover Tunnel option from the public during the 2007 vote and since then equated it to the others to misinform the public and people like Godwin who won't admit being dead wrong.

After the 2007 vote, Wsdot studied Surface/Transit options with 27 to 30 stoplights between Aurora and Sodo. Wsdot did NOT study Surface/Transit options with as few as 9 to 13 stoplights.

Meanwhile, SDOT chief Grace Crunican, the ex-ODOT director fired for negligence in 2000, spitefully demonstrated her callous disregard for public safety by designing surface street reconfigurations that will make downtown traffic much worse. This is not hyperbole.

It would've cost $800 million to fix the viaduct, and the repair would've lasted for 50 years. But Seattle hates to maintain anything, so the cheapest solution was never considered.

Notfan, the AWV was crappy engineering from the start. The southbound entrance from Lower Belltown is a blind uphill merge and the northbound exit there is a downhill speedway onto surface streets; NOT GOOD engineering. The ramps to 1st Ave are a terrible location for an entrance to and exit from downtown. They direct too much traffic in the midst of pedestrians and steep hills. The State highway department and its cohorts in SDOT designed the AWV. Most Seattlers just have to live with the mess and were never informed of better transportation options, including mass transit. Automobile-related business interests will KILL to keep people from having a travel choice.

The on and off ramps that you talk about are somewhat problematic, but we've been able to live with them. Those minor flaws were not a good reason to tear it down rather than fix it.

As for travel choices, you have them. If you don't want to drive, you can take the bus, ride a bicycle, or walk. None of this would've been affected by any of the designs that were discussed, vs. just fixing it. They tore it down because Seattle has never wanted to maintain anything.

yep. In fact if you watch the WSDot video for the failure of the viaduct, its the seawall collapse that triggers the fall. And the seawall is Seattle's problem, not WSDot.

Nickels tried to put the seawall replacement cost onto WSDot by having it be the outer wall of the cut/cover tunnel. What a joke. If the sea rises a mere 1meter it would have swamped that trench.

Rather than dig any tunnels, rail, auto whatever, I'd rather they wire wrapped those concrete pilings, fixed the seawall and let it sit until the next big earthquake. Could easily have lasted another 20 years. Yes it might not be drivable afterwards but it would have still been standing

I see that McGinn decided to lie about the seawall fix, and try to conceal the extra $25 million for non-seawall projects, including (surprise!) a bike path. I'm voting against the seawall unless they'll offer a seawall and nothing but seawall. If the bicyclists want a bike path, let them pay for it themselves.

Don't forget to not support

"Supports and protects major public and private utilities, including power for downtown Seattle and the western seaboard, natural gas, and telecommunications."

So no power, gas lines or telecommunications work either.. Let those utilities relocate on their own dime as well.

The city probably has a legal obligation to relocate the utilities. If they don't have such an obligation, then I'd support requiring the utilities to pay the cost. The city should pay for only what it has to, and only for a seawall.

McGinn lied his way into office, and has repeatedly lied while in office. Any project he supports needs to be closely inspected for evidence of a slush fund. The seawall comes with a slush fund of at least $25 million, and it should be rejected for that reason.

1st, the drawings of a cycle track on the Sea side of Alaskan way that I've seen are bad design for bicyclists. So I would be happy to see them removed from the plans. Some paint, a few sharrows, reduced speed and a wide right lane would work fine.

2nd, that slush fund also covers the sidewalk. Yep, lets add a tax on shoes to cover the usage of that.

3rd, they are talking about steps down to the water for kayak access, lets add a tax on REI and kayaks to cover the water access, nevermind that since the Romans, it's been everyman's right to have access to the shoreline.

4th, no project is ever just one person's thing, ie sea wall, tunnel, transit, park, etc. To get broad support various groups are always bought off with amenities. Good thing those groups also happen to live in the city and are tax payers same as everybody else, and once the amenity is built everyone gets to use it.

The operative phrase in what you wrote is this: "... various groups are always bought off with amenities."

That's the Seattle "progressive" logroll. Who knows, it'll probably work out that way this time. After all, we have a corrupt mayor, a corrupt city council, and a jaded public that's typically been willing to go along with this junk. Until they're not, such as with last fall's attempt to attach a $60 tax to car registrations to pay for city planners, Paul Allen's street cars, more bike paths, and incidentally, some street maintenance.

I, for one, will vote against the seawall if it's got the payoffs to your "various groups." As one of the people who actually pays the bills, as opposed to the hipsters with pretend jobs, I am sick of this kind of crap.

"The operative phrase in what you wrote is this: "... various groups are always bought off with amenities."

That's the Seattle "progressive" logroll."

No that's a representational republic at work. Dictators, monarchs, and oligarchies only build just what they initially wanted. Government like ours without a clear majority in favor of just one thing, will spread the amenities around to get a majority.

And frankly I'd rather it worked this way than just a pour some concrete to create a seawall.

"hipster"... not me sonny.

The Seattle "progressives" will come up with just as many excuses for corruption as the operatives of any other political machine. They are absolutely no different, and certainly no better, than any other group of sheep anywhere else.

It's not corruption to give voters what they want. Those amenities please some voting group, not enrich some contractor's brother. Sheesh...

Like I say, as long as it's done by a "progressive" politician, you're in favor of any sweetheart deal. I bet you'll be all over the new arena, too. After all, as long as "progressives" give $200 million to a California billionaire, everything's okay.

Nope, sports teams are a private entertainment business and should be funded like all other private entertainment business. For instance WA state used to fund a "make your movie here" group that greased the skids for movie making on the premise that movie makers spent cash here that otherwise they would spend in another state. No such claim can be made for a basketball arena. Perhaps some folks go to Portland to watch the Trailblazers but it's insignificant compared to the interest on a 200M bond.

But not to worry, there is no chance in hell that basketball will put a team here. We are the lever to be used against other cities to get them to fork over the cash to build a stadium. "Or else we'll move to Seattle"... see if they put an expansion team here, where would that threat get them?...nothing. So we'll be forever the bride without a groom in this kabuki game.

"After all, as long as "progressives" give $200 million to a California billionaire, everything's okay"

Ok notFan, here's your chance to admit you are wrong. The deal isn't to "give" any money to a California billionaire, it's to back bonds which are to be paid by taxes on receipts, and parking etc. And the taxes are to include the interest on those bonds.

So, I'm waiting.... or else please explain how the city of Seattle is going to "give $200Million" away.

The actual cost is the lost opportunity to have invested that money in something that actually makes money for the city, but that potential revenue not even close to $200M.

Oh geez, another sports addict.

(see my comment below about general obligation bonds)

The city isn't going to "invest" anything. It's going to grease a billionaire's palms with tax money. And I have no doubt that the same billionaire will, either himself or through his cronies, make sure that "progressive" political palms are greased in return.

That's how things are done here. Seattle is every last bit as corrupt as Chicago or Philadelphia, and the local "progressives" are in it up to their eyeballs. At least I hope they are, because if they actually believe the stories that McGinn, Dow, and the billionaire are telling, then I disrespect them even more. A hypocritical thief is bad, but an idiot is intolerable.

Oh geeze another financial genius mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_obligation_bond

The bonds pledge future tax revenue. The tax is on admissions and parking at the stadium. The revenue covers the interest on the bonds. Since only users of the stadium pay this tax, it's a usage tax for fans of NBA and NHL.

But this argument is a tempest in a teapot. There will won't be a stadium from this deal for the next twenty plus years. This whole thing is just a club to extort money from other cities. It's a threat lever to those cities to give better deals to other owners or "we'll move to Seattle!" To make that threat real, there has to be a stadium deal like the one being put together that could actual happen. The probability of it happening is in fact zero.

(See comment below for my followup on general obligation bonds.)

Even if the future revenue covered debt service, it's still a corrupt "progressive" disaster. For starters, you have a kind of "prebate," an advance rebate, of future estimated taxes to be generated by the business. Secondly, this would be a unique sweetheart deal, in that other businesses aren't given such a kickback, prospectively or otherwise. Thirdly, the price tag doesn't even begin to represent the full costs, which will inevitably include negative impacts on port operations, and the need for major transit upgrades.

Finally, if this thing is just a device for the California billionaire to extort money from other cities, then the "progressives" who run the show around here ought to have all the more reason not to even consider it. But that's not what's happening. They are considering it, alright, and it looks to me as if the corrupt "progressives" will actually rubber-stamp it.

You are trying to have it both ways. Out of one side of your "progressive" mouth, you misrepresent the nature and extent of the transaction. Out of the other side of your "progressive" mouth, you say it's meaningless to begin with. But I'm not noticing a third side of your "progressive" mouth suggesting instant rejection of this corruption.

Why? Because the "progressives" who run Seattle lust after that California billionaire's crumbs. The idea is to spend the taxpayers' money in expectation of personal rewards. Nice work for a "progressive," if (s)he can get it.

Stop being so stupid. The mayor and the county executive are endorsing the stadium deal to get sport fan votes. They both know that this deal won't happen in their political lifetimes. It has nothing to do with corruption because no cash will ever trade hands. It has nothing to do with political leanings, progressive, regressive, conservative etc. It's about wining the next election pure and simple.

Also the port chimes in with how it will ruin them, only because they can use it as a lever to build in better infrastructure to get the rail cars out the docks to better compete with Tacoma and Port Rupert.

"Secondly, this would be a unique sweetheart deal, in that other businesses aren't given such a kickback, prospectively or otherwise."

False, both the Seahawks and the Mariners got these deals. I'm not claiming I like them but your statement is patently untrue.

"Arena Co. could easily go bankrupt, leaving the city and county taxpayers holding the bag."
Or the city could do as did Wenatchee with it's "Town Toyota center", and threaten to default on the bonds. The apparently brought the bond holders to the table and they are negotiating a reduced payment. Or the city could just hand over to the bond holder's their share of the stadium.

But since neither you nor I have seen the actual legal wording on the bonds, all this ranting of yours is just an expression of fear that someone might tax you for something you don't want. And you appear to intentionally miss read my comments about this stadium deal so I'll spell it out clearly.

"I am opposed to any public money being used to finance a privately held sports stadium."

Clear enough?

False, both the Seahawks and the Mariners got these deals. I'm not claiming I like them but your statement is patently untrue.

You are correct. I didn't include the Seahawks and Mariners, and I should have. Those deals were blatantly corrupt, too.

As for the "general obligation bond" issue, I'm going to utter a qualified version of the rarest words in the English language: "I think I might have been wrong." Upon re-reading the MOU, it's ambiguous. They talk about "certificates of participation," which are similar to revenue bonds, but also talk about interest rates similar to general obligation bonds.

So, yes, GaryP, you're right that we don't yet have the language. I don't trust the corrupt "progressives" to nail it down in unambiguous form before committing the city and county to the bond issuances. I'm intensely skeptical that they'd be able to float debt that doesn't include recourse to the general fund.

Even if they can, though, I object to the deal on other grounds.

I am opposed to sports stadium deals unless the city also owns a majority interest in the team, like Greenbay. Since sports teams owners have no intention of ever letting that happen again I'll be working against these deals.

Again this deal is not about an actual team moving to Seattle. It's about every other city getting the screws put to them and votes for a couple of local politicians. Who knows what kickbacks from the NBA are being given to Hansen and Co. After all who buys into these hedge funds? Why billionaires. Who owns sports teams, billionaires. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't the deal... you "make a play for a team in Seattle, and me and my buddies will dump cash into your fund."

Anyway you look at it the NBA financials suck for cities and fans.

2.) Maybe he bought the building in the 27th where his campaign headquarters is located? Inquiring minds want to know. Please follow up if you learn more.

The elevated solution is superior to any of the proposed alternatives for the waterfront. Truth of this will become painfully clear as this self-inflicted damage to the city's traffic grid progresses. The real shame is that those responsible will be enjoying that second or third retirement or that plum consultancy when this enormously expensive tunnel fiasco is fully realized.

Jim. The AWV was crappy engineering from the start. The southbound entrance from Lower Belltown is a blind uphill merge, the northbound exit a downhill speedway onto surface streets; NOT GOOD engineering. The ramps to 1st Ave are a terrible location for an entrance and exit downtown because they direct too much traffic in the midst of pedestrians and steep hills. YOU ARE WRONG! The 'stacked' 6-lane Cut/cover Tunnel (as seen in the FEIS) maintains the same capacity as the AWV sans the stupid ramps to 1st Ave.

The on and off ramps that you talk about are somewhat problematic, but we've been able to live with them. Those minor flaws were not a good reason to tear it down rather than fix it.

AMEN! Well said.

Amen, jmrolls! Well said!

Gary, the Cut/cover Tunnel would've created a dam-like Seawall with little chance of being swamped with sea level rise; less chance than the bored tunnel with its miles of bolted seams. A cut/cover tunnel is a solid-cast, anchored structure that can withstand earthquake shockwaves. The Bored tunnel is NOT anchored but merely sits in malleable mud that liquifies in an earthquake. The Cut/cover removes 80' of soft surface fill soil and thus stabilizes the remaining soft fill further east. A new cut/cover would improve the existing underground water flows. The bored tunnel redirects these water flows unpredictably destabilizing all surface structures above.

The trench ramp being cut to place the boring machine can readily apply to the 'stacked' Cut/cover Tunnel and build 6-lanes for traffic instead of 4-lanes with the bored tunnel. If the tunnel is bored, say good bye to Pioneer Square and watch Seattle die.

There was never a good reason to tear down the viaduct to begin with. The most cost effective solution, by far, would've been to fix it.

If I read the geologists report correctly its sand down there at Pioneer Sq. It also happens to sit transversely on the Seattle fault line.

So when the 300/yr earthquake hits, the tunnel will sheer about 6 ft.

As for putting a 12 concrete wall along the seawall, I can't think of a more unfriendly to sea life, and human access device. And no, it wasn't going to be more than a meter taller than high tide within the 50 yr projection of future sea level rising.

No other proposed configuration for the waterfront matched 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 provides a way to modulate how much traffic is allowed downtown. And 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 this present mistake in the making.

While you may consider the engineering crappy, it has served with the above features and capacities for 59 years and counting.

You will miss it when it's gone.

The FEIS 'stacked' 6-lane cut/cover tunnel matches AWV capacity except the 1st Ave access for the 20,000 vehicles daily that ruin 1st Ave and truck traffic which is minimal. The AWV is a crumbling structure that cannot be preserved. The AWV could be replaced, but the highest value of the waterfront without another putrid AWV would be lost. Automobiles are the foundation of corporate control. Because automobiles dominate the other modes of urban/suburban travel, even travel by car CANNOT function optimally. Seattle's most pressing problem is its virolently corrupt, misanthropic business association fascists who lust for money and cruel control over the rest of humanity.

You hate cars because they allow people to go where they want, when they want. Everyday personal freedom really bugs the "progressives," who want to tell everyone else how to live. Oh, and the viaduct easily could've been fixed. The cost would've been $800 million, and if the state had approved it five years ago the project would have been finished by now.

Total BS. Cars are a constitutional inequity. No matter how roadways are funded, cars present a severe impediment to other means of urban/suburban travel. Because cars dominate our fundamentally multi-modal transport system, even travel by car fails because there are simply too many cars on the roads at all times. Idiot drivers can't see beyond the windshield. The seatbelt is more like a chain than a safety device. Turn on the car radio and Rush Limbaugh blares BS that only car zombies like Notfan obey.

I would just like to say that I am proud to be an unconstitutional, seatbelt-chained, idiot driver, Limbaugh-lovin' car zombie, like Wells says I am.

I would also like to say that I noticed Wells's earnest, open-minded, "progressive" spirit of seeking mutual understanding and Kumbaya through dialogue and appreciation for each others' viewpoints. It is the hallmark of Seattle's "progressives," and I truly appreciated it. So much different than the wingnut rants you see at places like FreeRepublic.

Yes NotFan, your comments on Purcola are a model of civil discourse. But with such heathens here on Crosscut.com what can one expect? You must just shoulder on, knowing that the truth will out.

For the time being, I think I will let the Seattle "progressives" of Crosscut show their true colors with no assistance from me. More fun that way, isn't it?

Here's the problem Crosscut, quality slips when you let facts slip and talking points be the news. Steve Litzow did not vote against the reproductive parity act. He voted against considering it at that particular time, as it was being used a ploy to break up the Senate budget coalition. It could have been considered earlier, or during subsequent special sessions but the majority party refused to hear it. Reality is it would have received quite a few R votes and the D's did not want to give the R's a vote that made them appear reasonable. Party over policy game and women lost because of it.

I knew it would be only a brief matter of time until the Josh 'n Erica Show made their first error of fact. Let us raise a toast to the future!

It is nice to see the city council acknowledge that classical music is unpleasant and annoying.

Once again, the city council shows its stupidity. If the merchants want to chase away the bums, but McGinn and the council refuse to empower the police, then the obvious alternative is for merchants to play "azans," the Islamic calls to prayer. That'd do the trick.

McGinn's SPD politics have been surprisingly poor, worse than Burgess. Props to the Times for calling him out.

"That's because the $200 million will have to be paid for by toll-backed bonds (bonds that rely on tolls as the first source to pay investors), which cost more than general revenue bonds because they come with additional requirements set by the state treasurer, including a large maintenance reserve fund. In a worst-case scenario, Wall Street investors could look at the bonds and decide they're too risky."

If tolls are the first source, what is the second and third? If the state's full faith is behind the bonds, no problem.

Perhaps, the writers of this column could do a little more research and provide links to more complete information.

Yes, they could. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Just as Seattle doesn't like to fix things, Josh and Erica aren't exactly the "more research" types.

Just rebuild the viaduct. We can afford that.

NotFan, you are slipping. In approximately 21 comments to this article, you've inserted "progressive(s)" only 13 times. Step it up.

Gee, Sarah, was that yet another "progressive" ad hominem attack? Are you eventually going to have anything to say, other than urging Crosscut to censor the views you deem insufficiently "progressive" for tender "progressive" sensibilities?

How's that? Enough "progressives" here for the "progressives?" Five and counting!