Comments on: Seattle Mayoral Candidate Mike McGinn A One Song Bird: Gut the Viaduct Plan – Editorial by Ricardo A. Guarnero

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:48:52 +0000

I am with you Ricardo. It is time to get on with a high speed, high volume tunnel replacement for the viaduct.

A WS daily viaduct commuter and former viaduct supporter.

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:50:47 +0000

Alexander, I appreciate your comments and sympathize with your sentiments. Unfortunately, the process of transferring highway money to public transport is not “simple.” If the next mayor decides to gut the viaduct, we will not get a light rail line in its stead. More likely than not, there will be a fight for the funds currently allocated for viaduct replacement for other legislators’ pet projects, most likely other highway projects. Which means we will not get light rail and the dilapidated viaduct will continue to fester and likely be torn down for a surface option which will increase congestion, cause innumerable delays during the construction phase, never mind the fact that we will be set back another decade in taking care of this problem with the notorious “Seattle Process.”

Berlin, is no doubt, a very fine model but our regulatory system is much different than Germany or Canada (see Vancouver BC) where the government has considerably more power over private development. If you read my posts on Greenbridge you will see that I am a proponent of the New Urbanism which calls for integrated, walkable neighborhoods with greenspace, bike lanes and public transportation. All great, but the viaduct is a disaster and a crisis that needs to be addressed now. No solution is going to please everyone, but at least we have a solution that provides mobility, lessens congestion during construction and finally gets rid of the crumbling viaduct.

As for light rail, please lobby for it. We need it. But signing up for McGinn’s hand grenade approach will only set us back and help no one.

By: Alexander Montes

Alexander Montes — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:51:05 +0000

The politicians in the statehouse can come up with 4 billion for rebuilding the viaduct but they can not shift this money to the construction of a West Side Rail line? What does that tell you about the fact that there is money for transportation but only for a continuation of the same old policies. By the way if you want to see a city that has a great public transportation structure you should look at Berlin. There is a terrific highway loop around Berlin and great highways all around but none of them go to the center. The main way of going to the center of the city is by public transportation which is the way it should be in central Seattle with its limited land mass. 4 billion for West Side Rail and other such projects and no to a rebuildt Viaduct!

By: Alexander Montes

Alexander Montes — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:43:52 +0000

It’s simple. The money that is going to be spent in building the new tunnel etc should be used to build the new West Side light rail system. People have to get out of their cars in Seattle and the only way that they will do so is if Mass Transit is the main way of getting in and out of the central part of the city. Why spend billions of dollars in a new traffic tunnel and not use that money for a much larger mass transit system?

By: GiacomoSolari

GiacomoSolari — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:05:03 +0000

I agree with Mcginn. When traffic backs up people will flock to their bikes, move closer to town or ride public transportation. You’ll get foot ferries regularly running to west Seattle. Hey a little adjustment, but you will adjust.

By: Brian Doennebrink

Brian Doennebrink — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:28:47 +0000

I couldn’t have written it better myself. I would hate to have been one of those who spent hours and hours reading materials and listening to testimony to fully understand the issues involved only to have it all unraveled by someone who hasn’t spent the effort on the issue who didn’t like the outcome second-guessing me. Unfortunately, Mike is joined by at least a couple of Seattle City Council candidates (Mike O’Brien, David Bloom) who feel the same way; see last Sunday’s KING-5 Up Front program for proof (http://blogs.king5.com/upfront/archives/2009/09/seattle-city-co.html ). If you disagree with unraveling a decision that’s already been made that would involve 3-4 years of surface disruption and displacement of 110,000 vehicles per day – hidden costs never accounted for – to implement their will on us, then you should be voting for Joe Malahan, Robert Rosencrantz, and Sally Bagshaw.

By: seven

seven — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:30:13 +0000

Totally disagree. Mcginn is the only candidate with a vision now and in the primary. His views on the viaduct mirror what most seattleites were saying well before he voiced it. It is expensive and not worth the time.

The tunnel was voted down. Both options were voted down because of the cost involved.

Do a little more research Ricardo. Better yet, go talk to the man – he’s quite knowledgeable.

By the way, the man doesn’t claim to be green. He is for a cleaner environment (who isn’t) but is bright enough to realize that the conservative elements within (and right outside) Seattle don’t support that unless it also benefits the economy. Not wasting money is good for the economy and the deep-bore tunnel is a waste of money.

By: Brent

Brent — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:22:09 +0000

The tunnel was not the result of careful negotiations. The Legislature merely gave up on the stakeholders’ group, and took unilateral action.

I recall voting down both the rebuild and the tunnel, in separate ballot questions. Mike is being accurate there.

My major complaint with the tunnel is not that it is being built, but that, yet again, cars get all the land-surface space, and transit gets nada. This, just after Sound Transit 2 just passed, and the county roads bond issue was voted down.

Why does the tunnel have to be just for automobiles, while the buses I ride get stuck in traffic, since the city council doesn’t have the guts to make 3rd Avenue buses only?

By: JoB

JoB — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:20:47 +0000

I echo your sentiments but am not sure that Mallahan is more than a wolf wrapped in sheep’s clothing. I don’t want to hand McGinn a mandate to derail the tunnel, but i don’t want to hand Mallahan the keys to the city either. Can you tell me anything that would make me feel better about voting for Mallahan?

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:51:48 +0000

My reaction is that it sounds great, but look at the reality. Not only would McGinn have to come up with loads of money to extend the light rail, he would have to get the land and permits (more loads of money) and he would have to go through the whole public process which would take years. I cannot imagine getting a project of this magnitude done in less than 10 years. Just another example of McGinn wanting to sound “green” but actually having little of substance to back it up.