Loss of handicapped parking irrelevant in long run

The Seattle Times story regarding the Seattle Center's apparent disregard for disabled citizens ["Theatergoers protest plan to move disabled parking," NWTuesday, Sept. 1] failed to put the whole situation in perspective.

Part of the Seattle Center's Century 21 Master Plan calls for the creation of new underground parking beneath a completely transformed and revitalized Memorial Stadium area. This will eventually render the Mercer parking garage itself obsolete and allow easier access to the entire center for all patrons, including the disabled.

Unfortunately, due to the rush order put on the Peter Donnelly Memorial Garden grant, all people see currently is the elimination of 13 handicapped stalls in favor of an ostensibly meager mini-park.

The master plan, however, provides a much more cohesive, awe-inspiring vision for the future of the Seattle Center. I urge anyone interested or concerned to check it out at seattlecenter.com.

-- Christian Nelson, Seattle

In remembering benefactor to arts, protect access for all

The best way to memorialize Peter Donnelly is to remain dedicated to providing equal access to the arts at Seattle Center. The very idea that it would be OK to relocate handicapped parking spaces further away from the venues they serve calls into question the Seattle Center's commitment to accessibility.

Patrons of the Seattle Repertory Theatre, Seattle Opera, Intiman Theatre and Seattle Center have already expressed strong objections to the options being proposed. The upcoming years of construction on Mercer Street cannot be ignored.

For example, would that proposed drop-off area even continue to be available? What of the path between the garage and the center grounds? Construction will surely bring changing -- and inaccessible -- pedestrian routes. As already-scarce parking becomes nonexistent, maintaining dedicated handicapped parking spaces should be the center's overriding priority.

Surely there is a rational argument to be made that accessibility for citizens is a better use for precious space than landscaping -- however well-intentioned the memorial garden might be.

I do not presume to speak for the man who epitomized an individual's commitment to bring the arts to all in our community, but I cannot believe Donnelly would approve.

-- Deborah Witmer, Seattle

Makeshift handicapped parking just doesn't cut it

Peter Donnelly was a champion of theater in Seattle, and I hardly think he would have wanted to hinder patrons' access to Seattle Center venues.

Isn't there another spot on the grounds for a memorial garden? The handicapped parking must stay, based on the comments of theater patrons quoted in the article.

Spaces in the garage across the street are not acceptable. There is a place for people to be dropped off, but what if the driver is the handicapped person who needs to park and attend the theater?

-- MaryAnne Seibert, Seattle

Roads shouldn't be governed by survival of the fittest

I heartily disagree with the state Court of Appeals and The Seattle Times ["Court right to reject Seattle traffic law," Opinion, editorial, Aug. 21] that a traffic infraction cannot turn into a crime.

It seems to me that turning illegally into the path of an oncoming vehicle -- whether bicycle or car -- and killing that other person demonstrates a certain "reckless manner" and "disregard for the safety of others."

The issue has nothing to do with the "tensions created by traffic congestion" or with "competition for road space" or with "sharing limited space." Drivers need to avoid killing other people whether the roads are crowded or not!

Driving is not a contact sport or a blood sport governed by the law of the jungle: survival of the fittest. If drivers are not held accountable for criminal actions, or criminal outcomes, then we are all at the mercy of the legions of drivers who commit traffic infractions through carelessness, thoughtlessness, stupidity, irresponsibility and incompetence.

-- Dale Flynn, Shoreline

Judge had duty to uphold state law

A motorist should be held accountable for the injury or death of a pedestrian or cyclist. I understand the anger at the overturning of the Seattle law.

However, the anger is directed in the wrong direction. The Seattle ordinance conflicted with state law, and judges have a duty to determine what the letter of the law is. The judge overturned the Seattle law because it was against state law.

The judge can't change the law and neither can The Times.

What really needs to be done is to change the state law so careless motorists are held accountable for their carelessness. Those angry about the court's decision should write to their state legislators urging a change in the law.

-- Bob Fleming, Seattle

Cyclists, pedestrians not just collateral damage in accidents

Is the life of a bicyclist or pedestrian worth no more than the life of a deer shot out of hunting season?

That appears to be the opinion of The Seattle Times in its Aug. 21 editorial ["Court right to reject Seattle traffic law," Opinion]. Per The Times and the Court of Appeals, drivers who kill or injure cyclists or pedestrians are at most guilty of traffic violations. Let the motorist pay a few hundred dollars to the city treasury and take his SUV back out on the road.

According to The Times, any death or injury is just an unfortunate result of "the increased competition for road space." Has the Times decided that the unfettered competition championed by its business columnists is an ideal policy for traffic as well?

Cyclists and pedestrians beware. You are potential collateral damage in the competitive road economy, and The Times says that's how it should be.

-- Ray Redd, Lynnwood

Court rejected accountability from motorists

Perhaps the Court of Appeals ruling isn't anti-cyclist ["Court rejects city traffic law," NWTuesday, Aug. 18]. But it sends an awfully disturbing message to the cycling community.

When I read the Motor Vehicle Laws and got my driver's license, I was sobered to learn that I would be held accountable for any damage I did with the several-thousand-pound vehicle I was being allowed to operate. Perhaps the court has rejected accountability for motor-vehicle operators by their ruling in this case, too.

The Times cited the defense attorney's earnest claim that his client had not failed to do anything that was asked of him. But he left one thing out: The motorist failed to observe the traffic law. He failed to yield the right of way to the cyclist, who subsequently died.

I learned of the circumstances of this case only through reading Times' accounts and opinions of it. Nonetheless, it now seems that all noble promises made by the Department of Licensing about traffic laws being equally enforced for all users of the roads are false, and those who take to the streets on bicycles had better ride as if every car on the road is out to do them serious bodily harm.

That certainly fits my experience of commuting to work on a bicycle. And it fits the facts of this case.

-- William Imhof, Seattle

Think Route 7 is bad? Try the 36

Anyone who thinks King County Metro Route 7 is slow, crowded and unpredictable obviously has not ridden Route 36 lately.

Southbound in the evening hours the 36 is often crammed with 20 or more riders standing in the aisle when the 36 arrives at the Benaroya Hall stop at Third Avenue and Union Street.

By the time the 36 arrives at 12th Avenue and South Jackson Street it is very often illegally overweight and jamb-packed beyond all reason and belief.

Southbound from downtown, I often take the relatively uncrowded Route 7 bus and transfer to the 39 or light rail to get to the top of Beacon Hill. The Seven is by far faster, less crowded and more likely on time.

-- George and Patricia Robertson, Seattle

Nickels cut funding that was empowering Seattleites

Editor, The Times:

I was disappointed to read Danny Westneat ["Seattle likes debate, not action," NWSunday, column, Aug. 23] parroting the tired refrain of the Greg Nickels administration: You need to choose between engaging citizens and getting something done. History shows this is a false choice.

Norm Rice involved 3,000 citizens in his education summit, paving the way for the Families and Education Levy. He then empowered 30,000 citizens in a bottom-up neighborhood planning effort that, under the Paul Schell administration, resulted in voter-approved bond and levy measures for 27 new and improved libraries, 13 new and expanded community centers and 100 new and enhanced parks. Schell tripled the size of the Neighborhood Matching Fund, a program that has empowered tens of thousands of residents to implement more than 4,000 community self-help projects.

And what has the Nickels administration accomplished? As Tim Ceis says, "This isn't supposed to be a participatory democracy." So it killed the bottom-up planning program and made deep cuts to the Neighborhood Matching Fund. Nickels' administration opposed the successful citizen-initiated parks levy.

True, Nickels did get new fire stations along with huge cost overruns. He secured a new streetcar for Paul Allen while reducing bus service for existing riders. It took seven years to reach an agreement on the waterfront tunnel precisely because Nickels tried to impose his own solution; Nickels' failure to listen to the people may mean this project will never be built.

It is telling that the politician who focused on his own legacy being more than "footprints in the sand" left the rest of us stranded in the snow. I hope our next mayor will understand that Seattle's active citizens are its greatest strength.

-- Jim Diers, Vashon [Editor's note: Diers, former director of the Department of Neighborhoods, was fired by Nickels.]

A 'B' for snow, a 'B' for understanding what Seattle wants

Greg Nickels deserves a "B" grade for his understanding of and comments about the voters who favored other candidates in the primary.

-- Russ Baker, Federal Way

Nickels did more for Seattle than it knows

Mayor Greg Nickels has long done the right thing regardless of political expediency. He was one of the first elected leaders in the country to support President Obama, at a time when it was risky.

He led a national movement to stand up to the Bush administration on global warming. Out of fundamental decency, Seattle provided health benefits for domestic partners of city employees. He finally brought a viable public-transit system to our city. And our dangerous and blighted waterfront freeway will be replaced, reconnecting the people of Seattle on foot and bicycle with our tremendous God-given natural asset, our waterfront. Our city will be greener, more livable and even more beautiful.

The people in Seattle (or the few who voted in this primary) have spoken, and Nickels will not be the second Seattle mayor in history to be elected to a third term ["Nickels all but finished," page one, Aug. 21].

I have known Nickels for 14 years, and I can say this for sure: Whether you agree with him or not on issues (and yes, he is human just like the rest of us), Nickels' integrity, love for this city and leadership are unassailable.

I thank him for his service and will miss him as our mayor.

-- Manrita Sidhu, Seattle

Nickels couldn't manage the nuts and bolts

Danny Westneat ignores a major reason that Seattle voters decided to toss out Mayor Greg Nickels: nuts and bolts.

Certainly, some folks perceived Nickels as a strongman and wanted a return to process in decision making. But many others, including me, think he just didn't manage the city very well.

The 2008 snowstorm and its self-congratulatory "B" grade indicate Nickels was badly out of touch.

But I also think of the mayor when I get jarred by potholes, read about stupid actions by city departments, try to find a parking place I can afford, learn about yet another bureaucratic barrier to business, wonder why city employment levels and pay are not reigned in and ask myself why Seattle is more friendly to misbehaving drunks in Pioneer Square than to citizens who pay taxes and want to enjoy the place with their families.

Was Nickels too corporate? Hardly. He has worked his entire professional life in government. It's about time Seattle has a mayor who can manage the nuts and bolts of the city. I think someone with experience in the private sector has an excellent shot at doing a better job.

-- Phillip Johnson, Seattle

Forward-looking mayor paid the price for progress

Danny Westneat's column on why Seattle didn't vote for Mayor Greg Nickels was so great that I have decided to save it as a clipping, but unfortunately, as with some of his other fine columns, he came to the table too late.

Nickels has actually been a fine mayor for Seattle, and he deserves a lot more credit for what he has done than discredit over what he didn't do during two weeks in December.
It is possible to both love Seattle and to seek change when change is for the better -- such as gentrifying South Lake Union and adding streetcars and light-rail trains with their attendant transit-oriented development.

The current mayor had plenty of vision to look beyond repairing potholes, and he paid the price for it. As Westneat correctly said, what we will get for it is endless dithering for yet more time on the tunnel question.

As I have argued many times lately on the Seattle Transit Blog, all of this second-guessing elected leaders leads to an inefficient use of democracy as a weapon and risks being saddled with an electorate unwilling to trust and leaders unwilling to lead for fear of being closed down.

Nickels served as a punching bag in this election and got beaten by it unfairly in my view, showing flaws in a primary process that is more about ego than anything else.
I think a fine way to honor his leadership would be to let him retain a seat on the Sound Transit board so his voice can continue to be heard. I do not have any confidence that the two candidates in November have anywhere near the current mayor's breadth of leadership on transportation issues for Seattle.

Mike McGinn is a one-issue candidate who will plunge the city only to yet more turmoil over the tunnel-vs.-street-option replacement for the viaduct, and in the meantime, nothing will get done and prices will rise.

-- Tim Whittome, Issaquah

Nickels stood above the crowd

I didn't vote for Mayor Greg Nickels the first term, but he has brought home the bacon on transportation issues and does not deserve the eye-rolling commentaries and citizen complainers. Yes, I didn't like the snow either. Big deal.

Now one candidate for mayor seeks to undo half that critical progress of the last two terms and kill the Alaskan Way tunnel.

I think Danny Westneat's Aug. 23 column nailed it. Nitpick if you want, but Nickels turned out way above the crowd. He got something done. Unusual.

Now, are we going to revert to type and start "Doin' The Seattle"? Yuk!

Please don't, people.

-- Don Bell, Seattle

In clunkers program, forgetting the three Rs

It seems people remember only two of the three R's: Reduce (what's that?), Reuse (huh?), Recycle (aah, there we go).

Many people seemed to have adopted a mindset like this: "I never reduce anything I consume, or reuse old but still workable things, but I throw that empty gallon in the green bin every time, so I can feel self righteous about my environmental efforts."

This same flawed mindset about helping the environment by recycling while not reducing or reusing is as flawed as the Cash for Clunkers program. People trade in perfectly good used cars for newer ones with better gas mileage, and although there is a benefit to better gas mileage, it doesn't offset the bad environmental impact that comes with destroying a good used car that could be reused.

This is simply a taxpayer-funded bailout of the auto industry that ultimately is going to cause a short boom followed by another hard bust. And the low-income folks, or just those trying to not live off credit like me and my family, now have fewer good used cars on the market to choose from, and with less supply there is more demand and higher prices.

Sure this will help the auto industry, but what about the auto-repair industry, which now has fewer used cars to maintain? People forget these government actions that help one group always hurt another group.

A better alternative is HR 1768, which would give tax rebates to those trading in for more fuel-efficient cars. This would allow those who trade in to keep more of their own money through a tax rebate, while not causing the taxpayer to be billed for an environmentally unfriendly program. It would also give those with less money more used cars to choose from.

-- Seth Copeland, Edmonds

Sounders' Express goes nowhere fast at all

Did you hear the one about how almost 67,000 people sneaked into Qwest Field for a Sounders game and Sound Transit didn't know about it?

After the Sounders FC and Barcelona game, just when I was thinking Seattle's making it with mass transit, Sound Transit proved it can't handle a mass of only a few hundred people. The Sounders' Express (express what?) Route 550 Eastbound stop in the tunnel was so packed people gave up and stood in another line of a couple hundred upstairs waiting for regular bus service before giving up and resorting to taxis. The transit authorities were entirely unable to find extra buses to handle the surprise. The only representative there was unsupported and only had the solution of complaining to customer service. Do you think they would cover taxi fare?

After waiting almost two hours and watching only three Route 550 buses come through, we caved and spent money on a taxi.

Seattle Sounder FC needs to ask Sound Transit to change the name of the Sounders' Express service so there's no confusion about who's lagging on the field.

-- Don Chase, Bothell

An example of why many don't take public transit

I would just like to call attention to Sound Transit's failure of service after the August 5 Sounders' game.

Sound Transit didn't add extra buses to the night routes, despite e-mails from the Sounders and other outlets calling for people to arrive early and use mass transit.

At least 500 people were waiting for the Route 550 bus to Bellevue at the tunnel stop after the game, and the buses ran every half-hour. Not only does this decrease appreciation for the system and repeat riders, it caused a legitimate safety concern with people trying to force themselves on the bus through many families and their children.

I was lucky to get on the second bus to arrive at 10:30 p.m. But I am sure there were many people who waited for at least another hour to get home.

This lack of foresight or display of ignorance is unacceptable and is an example of why people do not want to ride public transit in Seattle.

-- Chris Tezak, Bellevue

Convert clunker program to make natural gas cars

Instead of giving car buyers $4,500 to buy a gasoline-powered, fuel-efficient car, spend the money on converting existing new cars to natural gas.

That way we put more cars on the road that burn a fuel -- natural gas -- made in the U.S.A. instead of oil from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Vietnam, Iraq, or someplace where there is an oil war.

-- Martin Nix, Seattle

A call for compassion in 'cash for clunkers'

While the "cash for clunkers" has been a huge success for the automobile industry, I think it's important to point out not everyone got an opportunity to trade in their old car for a nice new one. Specifically, someone who is recently widowed.

My best friend died in April, and his wife dutifully had the registration on his 1999 Cadillac transferred to her name. She recently made the trek to a dealership in Kirkland to trade it in on a new Chevy Aveo only to find out she hadn't "owned the car for a year."

She pointed out that while the car's title had been in her husband's name, the insurance was in both of their names, and she had his death certificate and all of the other supporting documentation showing the car belonged to the family for more than four years.

She called the government's hotline, which confirmed she indeed did not qualify because she had not owned the car for the required 12 months.

It seems a shame that in the rush to put money into the car companies' bank accounts, those who drafted this bit of pork couldn't have found it in their hearts to include those who have recently been dealt a tough blow in life and who could probably use a break now more than most.

-- Randy Carl, Kent

Clunkers rebates too high for small mileage improvement

The "cash for clunkers" program is obviously popular and an unequivocal boon to automobile dealers and Americans who want to unload their low-value gas guzzlers.
But the program is not nearly as effective as it could be -- as it should be -- in producing environmental gains with this generous subsidy.

Before we pour billions of more tax dollars into this program, the U.S. Senate should seize the opportunity to elevate the fuel-efficiency standards for clunker trades to qualify for a subsidy. Buyers have been getting $3,500 rebates for buying new vehicles that get as few as four miles per gallon more than their clunkers. And buyers have been getting a maximum $4,500 rebate for new cars and trucks that get an extra 10 miles per gallon.

This program needs to be recalibrated to provide a better return on benefits to energy security and the environment.

-- Andrew Prieditis, Seattle

Nothing but idiocy in 'cash for clunkers'

It is astounding that the Obama administration would join Congress in lauding and rescuing one of the most poorly planned and thought-out programs ever.

I voted for President Obama on the hope that yes, maybe "we can." He seemed so authentic, and I was especially heartened by his oft-stated concern for environmental issues.

This "cash for clunkers" gimmick, however, is irresponsible and totally contrary to the goal of developing a future energy policy that is not based solely on fossil fuels.

It rewards greedy car owners who can turn in their oldest car, get a brand new one that makes just a couple more miles per gallon and pocket $4,500 from the National Treasury. Now they can add a high-end hybrid to their shiny new Lexus and claim to be green.

Did it not occur to Congress and the president that the neighborhood meth addict can now turn in his pile of junk for a nice new ride and plenty of money to feed his addiction?

This is nothing more than a free gift to the greedy and the car dealerships under the guise of doing something to combat global warming.

Just brilliant. Brilliant idiocy.

-- Richard P. Champlin. Seattle

Government can't handle 'cash for clunkers' -- or health care

President Obama's "cash for clunkers" program is well named.

Under the program, you can buy a new car and receive credit up to $4,500 of taxpayer money if your new car gets at least four gallons per mile more than the trade-in. Once the trade is made, the trade-in car is crushed, even though there are thousands of hard-working citizens who would love to have it.

The government estimated that the $1 billion funding would cover the program for four months, but it went broke after four days. The government is in total confusion as to how to administer it.

After changing its position three times, Obama's administration proposed an additional $2 billion.

And this is the same government that wants to administer its proposed massive health-care program.

Good luck, America. You will need it!

-- Richard King, Seattle

No faith in government health care after clunkers debacle

Congress gives us "cash for clunkers" and four days later suspends it, leaving buyers and dealers in limbo over the weekend. These same Congressmen promise we can keep our health insurance and doctor with their government option. Incredible.

-- Phillip A. Scott, Maple Valley

Columbia City isn't as dangerous as it was portrayed

In her column ["The riders' line on light rail," NWTuesday, July 21], Nicole Brodeur felt some guilt at driving part way to the Columbia City light-rail station before heading downtown. "Next time," she wrote, "I will get up early and walk to the station, and pack brass knuckles for the walk home at night."

I'd like to thank Brodeur for her candid assessment of the dangers of our shared neighborhood and her suggestion that Columbia City is too dangerous for working people.

Yes, Columbia City is dangerous. So, for safety's sake, please stay home, and stay out of my way -- I hate crowds!. There is no need to risk life and limb to patronize Columbia City businesses. Unless, of course, you like good (but dangerous) food, good (but dangerous) drink and friendly (but dangerous) people.

Heck, some thug might actually say "Hi." What would you do then?

-- Chris Osburn, Seattle

Free fares for light rail would boost ridership

Congratulations Seattle on your new light rail. It may not be perfect, but it's a tremendous step forward.

Anyone who's had a chance to ride it knows what a smooth and comfortable ride it offers. The city and region will really benefit when ridership starts increasing.
However, we're told target ridership is 25,000 on weekdays --a year from now. I would argue the goal should be more aggressive.

Increasing ridership must be one of the primary goals of mass transit. That's how we get people out of their cars and make our air cleaner and communities more livable. To accomplish this, there should be no fares for riding light rail.

This would make it so convenient, I'll bet the ridership goal could be reached in a month. With greater ridership and improved convenience, there would be even more demand for expanding light-rail. The benefit and overall savings from more mass transit would more than offset the increased subsidy for fare-free rides.

Why wait? Seattle and the region can seize the opportunity. Free fares for more light rail!

-- Demian Godon, Seattle

Light rail coming to your neighborhood? Fight noise before it's too late

I am in the small minority of Seattle residents who have had a negative reaction to the new light rail. This is due to the fact that my home is right above the Mount Baker station, where every squeak and squeal of the trains can be heard from early morning until late at night.

Imagine someone dragging their fingernails over a chalkboard every seven and a half minutes. The impact on our quality of life has been distressing.
Many of us who attended the public meetings when light rail was in the planning stages raised our concerns and were told new technology made noise from metal wheels on metal tracks a nonissue.

Now, we're being told the screeching was "not anticipated." Obviously, light rail is here to stay, and only a few of us are adversely impacted by the noise, which means the probability of anything being done for those of us in Beacon Hill is zero.

I would, however, urge those of you who will experience light rail in your neighborhood in the future to come hear the racket it makes, and begin lobbying your public officials to make sure they deal with this in their plans for the next stage of light rail before it's too late.

-- Joyce Mork-O'Brien, Seattle

Light rail, failing promises made, is not quiet

Editor, The Times:

It seems there is some shared pain and empathy between those of us who are dealing with screeching light-rail noise and those who live near the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's third runway.

What dismays many of us Rainier Valley residents is that during planning and public comment phases we expressed great concern about noise from an aboveground track. Our concern was met with assurances that this new technology would be quiet. Even so, many of us were still skeptical and continued to advocate strongly for having the rail underground because of noise concerns.

I hope Sound Transit can find a remedy to the screeching noise or realize that any future expansion of the system must be underground so others are spared from having their nervous systems constantly bombarded by metal-on-metal screeching.

-- Susan Fairo, Seattle

With adequate parking, light rail would work

It seems a shame that, after all these years of trying to get a mass-transit system that would relieve traffic congestion, we get a light-rail system that will most likely increase traffic congestion.

I would be willing to bet that if there were parking garages near the light-rail stations that were half as expensive as downtown parking, downtown workers would ride the rail and reduce traffic congestion in the downtown area.

-- Michael Ulmen, Seattle

Sound Transit parking plan made in fantasy land

Seattle Department of Transportation spokesman Rick Sheridan said, "Light rail was meant to be fed by people taking the bus, walking or biking. It was not meant to be fed by cars" ["Would-be rail riders bemoan lack of parking," page one, July 16].

That is the problem with government. Its decisions are usually based on what should be (fantasy) and not on what is (reality).

-- R. A. Virant, Bothell

Light-rail numbers just don't add up

If we take the current ridership forecast for the light rail when it is completed from Sea-Tac Airport and opens to the University of Washington at 26,000 per day and has a final cost of $4.3 billion, as is now expected, and if we assume a growth in ridership at 3 percent per year for the next 30 years along with the present cost of money at 5.5 percent, the current return on tax free municipal bonds such as the recent Dallas-Fort Worth airport offering, then the cost per rider is $43.93. With a typical fare at $2.00 per rider it is hard to imagine a worst investment for the beleaguered taxpayer.

Just imagine what the per-rider cost would be if the separate right of way for the light rail had instead been designed and set aside for the exclusive use of buses, fire engines, ambulances and other emergency-response vehicles?

While many politicos are celebrating the opening of this fine engineering wonder, dare we ask why?

-- Christopher V. Brown, Seattle

Other light-rail systems at least made provisions for parking

Editor, The Times:

Seattle Department of Transportation spokesman Rick Sheridan's quote in The Seattle Times ["Would-be rail riders bemoan lack of parking," page one, July 16] is astonishing! He said, "Light rail was meant to be fed by people taking the bus, walking or biking. It was not mean to be fed by cars."

His arrogance has blinded him; light rail is meant to serve the public. It could also serve to reduce freeway congestion. Why on Earth were there not provisions for station parking as part of the plan, other than the typical Seattle "let's do this on the cheap" mentality?

Look at the Portland MAX Light Rail interactive map. There are dozens of parking areas available, and many of them are offered by churches and businesses, so there was no cost to install them; it took only coherent planning and goodwill. BART in San Francisco also has provisions for parking. Both of these systems have high levels of ridership.

Sheridan and other Seattle official's cars-are-evil mentality will surely inconvenience the citizens who are paying for the system and may doom it to minimal use.

My wife and I would use the service, but the station is more than two miles from our home, too far to walk on a rainy evening.

-- Eric Wightman, Seattle

What, no parking?

Sound Transit is unbelievable. It will soon open a 14-mile railroad costing $2.3 billion dollars, about the cost of the more than 50 miles originally sold to taxpayers.

The one thing Sound Transit doesn't offer is parking for people who, because of distance or other concerns, must drive to their stations. For this the city can thank the greenies, including Mayor Greg Nickels, the most self-righteous greenie of them all, to whom cars are anathema.

But perhaps a lack of parking doesn't matter. In a special on the light rail, The Times named the neighborhoods in which stations are located and showed them on a low-detail map but didn't list their addresses or specific locations ["Your guide to light rail," page one, July 12].

Either Sound Transit doesn't want riders -- certainly not those who own cars -- or they expect potential riders to meander about in search of a station.

-- Harry Petersen, Bellevue

Parking limitations will only destroy ridership

Only in Seattle would the butt-headed arrogance of city planners be allowed to sabotage a major, regional transit effort. In the words of the Seattle Department of Transportation, "Light rail was meant to be fed by people taking the bus, walking or biking."

The message for those who don't live near a feeder bus line, or are unable to walk or bike due to age, infirmity or just being out of shape, is: "You are out of luck. You can help pay for the light-rail line, but Seattle is going to discourage you from using it."

This attitude will lead to a catastrophic loss of ridership on the rail line and lack of support for future regional transit improvements. How many people would be riding the bus into downtown Seattle without local and regional park-and-ride lots? It is a proven method of getting people to use mass transit.

Instead, we have another bizarre decision from the people who brought us rubber-bladed snow plows and a strategy to clear the streets for people with SUVs.

-- John Russell, Seattle

Station design promotes laziness

I heard on the news this morning that the new Beacon Hill light-rail station will normally be accessible only by elevator, with stairs for emergency use only.

Is it any wonder so many people are horribly out of shape? To try to put it politely, elevators are for the elderly, handicapped and those with baby strollers. Escalators are horrible. People just stand there, so it can be faster to take the stairs. Climbing the stairs is an easy way to get some exercise.

I know the Beacon Hill station stairs are long and tall, but I challenge you to use them. Fight entrenched laziness!

-- David Fuhriman, Edmonds

Share parking between homeowners, rail riders

Let's see if I've got it straight. The city sets up restricted parking for a quarter mile around the light-rail stations to prevent car commuters from choking up parking needed by residents and businesses. The predictable result will be a ring of commuters parking just outside the restricted zone. Then pressure to extend it and so on.

Part of the problem is that the city sees would-be light-rail car commuters as offenders and insults them with terms like "hide and riders" instead of seeing them as potential light-rail customers whose needs must be served. For the rail to succeed they've got to get as many riders aboard those trains as possible, and that means they need those commuters and their fares.

You don't have to think very far outside the box to see the solution. Share. Restrict some of the parking spaces, say every other spot, by painting the curb. That way locals and commuters can park.

-- Robert Fleagle, Redmond

Noise complaints come from 'whiners and criers'

It's as though Link Light Rail is putting so many whiners and criers into a noise hell ["Light-rail report: Neighbors right, trains are too noisy," page one, July 11]. Many of the homes near the right of way were built after the light-rail plans were in place, just like people who have built houses under power lines and airport glide paths.

I wonder how many of these malcontents were forced to buy their homes? I have lived here 30 years and have never heard so much crying about everything from soup to nuts. Seattle needs transit, and it should have been place many years ago. Ever wonder why Boeing left here for Chicago?

Bet the whiners and multiple studies had a lot to do with Boeing's move!

-- Dan Morris, Lake Stevens

Light rail, buses will need to connect better

If light rail is going to "be fed by people taking the bus" like Seattle Department of Transportation spokesman Rick Sheridan explains, then the buses actually need to connect to the train.

The Rainier Beach community will have difficulty using the train system if buses continue to layover at Henderson Street, approximately a quarter mile from the train. While the city has agreed to make changes for some bus lines, major routes like Route 7 still end at Henderson.

My family is very excited about the train and want to use it for work commutes and family outings, but the bus logistics for south-end users will need to be addressed before this can be a reality for us.

-- Jennifer Pritchard, Seattle

We should be questioning, not applauding, pork spending

In your editorial ["Murray stimulates state ferry funding," Opinion, July 16] on how Sen. Patty Murray has righted the "error" where Seattle did not get our fair share of the stimulus money set aside for ferries, the author stated: "Murray has helped right the balance by securing the extra $7.6 million. It is for these sorts of rescues that we have senators."

This entire stimulus process feels like the story of the frog sitting in the water when the heat is turned up to the point that frog gets used to the heat and boils to death. The editorial staff is like that frog that has become so comfortable with the premise that the stimulus package is justified that instead of simply questioning stupid spending and returning it to taxpayers, the argument is "our spending is less stupid than your spending so we should get a bigger piece of the pie."

I just can't tell you how disappointed I am that there is such widespread acceptance that the stimulus pork is right and justified, and it is our senator's and congressman's jobs to "rescue" us from our not getting our share of wasteful spending. I would have hoped that the author of this editorial would have at least questioned whether spending the money in the first place made sense. I would have hoped that they would have at least considered that our senators should act as stewards for the entire country's tax dollars and eliminating wasteful spending is " ... the sort of rescues we have senators for."

Maybe we have just come so comfortable with the idea of soaking the rich to pay for everything that we forget we are taking money away from some hardworking American to pay for this pork.

-- Doug Ralphs, Seattle

Different ferry requests would have brought better results

There is nothing surprising about the Washington State Ferry System getting shut out of stimulus funding and then receiving only a portion of what it asked for. According to a Seattle Times article ["Feds snub biggest ferry fleet," page one, July 15], $60 million was the allocation for funding programs from the entire 50 states.

Washington put in a $26 million proposal to replace the Anacortes Ferry terminal, almost 50 percent of the potential funds. In addition, it asked for $9 million to rehab a Bremerton/Seattle ferry, whereas the largest single funded grant for a ferry was for a brand new one in Texas -- and it was $2 million less.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Anacortes terminal and facility is not in that poor of shape, it services primarily island locals and visitors and not daily commuters. The grants funded were much smaller and went to areas that had serious economic downturn and where the funds would assist getting people to and from work.

Smaller, more appropriately targeted grants would have faired much better. Washington may have the largest ferry fleet in the U.S. but the logic used by the ferry system and the governor's office in this grant submission cycle was flawed.

-- Bob Squaglia, Seattle

More work from representatives would have brought results

Sen. Patty Murray's seniority and influence was very useful in getting a whopping $750,000 for the Guemes Island ferry despite the fact that Washington has the largest ferry system in the country.

I personally hate the entire stimulus package, but since it passed you would have figured that our ferry system would have gotten a large share. Murray loves to mention her influence and ability to get projects done in our state, but seemed to have missed the mark when it truly counted.

I know what could have helped: Sen. Murray and Sen. Maria Cantwell along with Rep. Norm Dicks, Rep. Rick Larsen, Rep. Adam Smith and Rep. Jim McDermott should have walked into Secretary Ray LaHood's office with shovels in hand to demonstrate "shovel ready."

We can make Gov. Chris Gregoire the foreman!

-- Todd Welch, Everett

In recession, ferry pork is better spent elsewhere

Stimulus money should be used to provide jobs now. Using it to design a ferry that won't be built for years is just plain pork.

That money could be used to hire workers, directly or though contractors, to fix roads, maintain parks, keep state and local workers on the payroll or do a number of other things that would enable people to earn wages. Now.

-- Tom Difloe, Camano Island

Shouldn't Murray not have to 'rescue' us?

I am responding to your editorial in which you concluded, "It is for these sorts of rescues that we have senators." Why does Sen. Murray always feel the need to rescue us. Does she have to be underdog?

This is the second time that Murray has not been proactive in getting something major for businesses in our state. It wasn't long ago she had to push and push for reconsideration of a government project for Boeing.

We need her to be our cheerleader and advocate, looking out for us and securing what is needed as it is being considered. Our senators should be proactive, not reactionary. If she truly did her job, we wouldn't need rescuing.

-- Jane Bennett, Bellevue

What gets a city employee fired?

The Seattle Times article about incompetence in city government ["The street crews that couldn't pour straight," page one, July 17] reminds me of why we need daily newspapers to serve as professional watchdogs. It also brought to mind The Seattle Times article from some years ago about the city employee who was caught by Seattle Police stealing city computers, and yet was allowed to remain on the payroll.

Sure makes one wonder: What does it take for a city employee to actually get fired?

-- Grant Fjermedal, Seattle

Seattle streets look, function terribly

Last month, a visiting friend commented that Seattle streets were as bad as the streets of bankrupt New York during the '70s. Despite having many years of unprecedented prosperity, Seattle's cracked and potholed streets are the norm and the solution from the mayor is to just patch the hole until next time.

Taxpayer's millions wasted on repeatedly built crosswalks or crooked concrete curbs isn't the only concern with the Seattle Department of Transportation.

As in other parts of town, the curbs on Capitol Hill's Pine Street are being pushed in so that all traffic behind every bus will have to stop every time. Intersections around town are being rebuilt with curb bulbs in order to eliminate the right turn lane, which only causes more congestion and idling.

Antiquated traffic signals on major streets stop rush-hour traffic flow every few blocks, causing guaranteed gridlock. The rest of the world somehow survives with stop signs, but we pay to install concrete traffic islands and "traffic calming" concrete slaloms while hundreds of city intersections go with no signage at all. And then there are the bike lanes and symbols, which seem to create more confusion than anything else.

SDOT's boss, Mayor Greg Nickels, seemingly has no clear vision for the city's transportation system and is more intent with redecorating Mercer Street. This billionaire's new driveway will certainly look nice, but it will also increase congestion and cost a bundle. Maybe the mayor does have a vision for Seattle's transportation after all?

Safety will always be the excuse for these SDOT beauty projects that steal precious tax dollars while our streets are crumbling into gravel. Safety is a very relative term and holds little weight when a town is planning for several hundred thousand more residents.

Eliminating arterial traffic lanes and public parking spaces is no way to encourage density or an efficient business climate. Bad decisions made now will effect our local economy for decades to come.

Trucks and cars will eventually have to be clean and they will never go away. A single light-rail line means most people will still need to get around by car or bus. It makes no sense to increase congestion while encouraging higher density at the same time. It is well past time that Seattle's taxpayer dollars are spent for their own benefit and no one else's.

-- David G. Wright, Seattle

Murray shows her priorities
Editor, The Times:

Sen. Patty Murray barely raised an eyebrow while for eight years the Bush administration shredded the Constitution. Now we see what makes her furious: money ["Ferries get funds after all," page one, July 16].

-- Tom Ballard, Seattle

Whining for ferry funds has everything to do with recession

When I first heard about our governor whining about not getting enough of President Obama's bailout money for our ferry system, it took me back to my childhood, remembering the wining of children when they didn't get as many Christmas presents that "Johnny" did.

"Why did Johnny get more presents than I got?" was the cry of many children back then. Everyone looks at this money spread around the states as presents, but these presents are not free, my friends.

The money will have to be paid back, and when the states cannot find the revenue to pay back this loan, John Q. Public will be hit up for more taxes and business will suffer the same fate. Chaos will result, and the real recession will be on us. The cap-and-trade bill and health-care reform, if passed, will further damage our economy and raise prices.

Had Obama -- and George W. Bush -- allowed the recession to happen normally rather than trying to fix it by throwing money at it, we would now be on our way to recovery.

These downturns have happened many times before because that is the way of capitalism, but as in all past instances, the nation has risen to new heights of employment and prosperity. I'm convinced it is too late to turn things around now, but we must try by contacting our representatives in Congress and letting them know all this free money is not really free, and ask them to defeat what the Obama administration has put before them.

It's our only chance to stop this nonsense.

-- Ed Anderson, Kirkland

Where is the change in ferry finances?

In light of the fact that the people of Washington were shafted regarding the ferry money handout, I wonder what our good governor thinks about that "hope and change" thingy now.

-- Richard King, Seattle

Really, a ferry terminal? Let's keep idiocy to a minimum

When my son was a teenager he had a phrase we often got a kick out of, and it went like this: "Let's keep the idiocity level to a minimum."

Gov. Chris Gregoire is "extremely disappointed and asking questions" as to why we were denied $56 million in federal allocations for the state and county ferry systems ["Feds snub biggest ferry fleet," page one, July 15]. Of that $56 million, $26 million was to be used on a brand new, state-of-the-art ferry terminal in Anacortes. The ferries are in constant need of repair and maintenance, our fares go higher and higher and they want to spend that kind of money on a new building?

Equally disappointed and "furious" to learn that we were ignored, Patty Murray managed to get the feds to fork over $7.6 million. Out of that, $3 million will be spent on a design of a replacement ferry terminal in Anacortes -- $3 million will be wasted on a stack of paperwork that amounts to nearly half of our precious allocation.

What we actually need help with is boats that run, not a place to wait for them.
You can't even imagine how angry people traveling to the San Juans will be to see that kind of money going into a terminal -- or a terminal proposal. Perhaps when the feds snubbed the governor they were keeping the "idiocity level to a minimum."

-- C.K. Nichols, Lopez Island

The folly of bridges outweighs that of ferries

I enjoy Danny Westneat's column usually, but I found his column "The folly of foot ferries" [NWWednesday, July 15] to be missing quite a few pieces of the puzzle.

If Westneat is going to poke holes in the plan for an alternative for crossing Lake Washington (or any other body of water around here), he should at least seriously investigate the alternatives. Let's start with the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to construct a bridge across Lake Washington -- and that's just for one bridge, also of a limited life-span and subject to periodic maintenance, as we are now enjoying on Interstate 90.

Add to that: the cost of each individual vehicle that will cross that bridge; the cost to the environment for producing all those vehicles; the real cost of the fuel that would fuel those vehicles, meaning billions in military spending to secure our oil; the environmental cost of everything spewed into the atmosphere from those vehicles; the thousands of hours of productivity lost by commuters spent sitting in those vehicles while waiting to cross that bridge.

Before long, we are talking about some real money. Westneat enjoyed quoting Fred Jarrett on "that old-time romance of boats on water." I'll take a cheap romance over an expensive reality any time. Talk about an "unstoppable mystique!"

-- Mike Joines, Seattle

West Seattle should pay for parking

The Seattle Times reports ["Pay parking in West Seattle?," NWThursday, July 9] that "Free parking is one of the core values of the West Seattle neighborhood." Of course, storing something as large as an automobile in a neighborhood where land isn't cheap has significant costs. So where does free come in?

By not directly paying for the parking they use, drivers remain ignorant about their storage costs. The community harms itself with that freedom from knowledge. Charging the right price for parking would send the signals to make spaces available and eliminate the cruising for parking that significantly contributes to neighborhood traffic.

-- Bill Carr, Seattle

Crunican doesn't compare to previous city engineers

The Times article on street crews ["Curb crew blunders mean heat for Nickels," page one, July 14] reported, "Drago has been a reliable Crunican supporter and credited her Monday with outshining her predecessors on big projects."

A more ridiculous and utterly stupid assertion is hard to imagine.

No professional engineer in Washington state, let alone King County, would dare to suggest Grace Crunican, with a long trail of engineering blunders, can hold a candle to the likes of R.H. Thompson, Roy W. Morse or Eugene Avery, past city engineers with enormous talents and concomitant citywide engineering and management success stories.

It is hard to imagine Crunican can hold a sputtering candle to these hugely successful past city engineers -- let alone "outshine" them.

Please!

-- Christopher V. Brown, Seattle

Holiday bus schedule more than just inconvenience

The holiday bus issue is far more serious than simply holiday bus fares, as reported in The Times ["Fourth of July bus fare unfair?" NW Monday, Bumper to Bumper, July 13]. It's also holiday bus schedules on a working day.

My ESL students rely on buses to get to weekday jobs. Friday for them was a normal working day. But where was their normal working bus to take them to work? They told me they were in big trouble trying to get to their jobs that Friday.

Metro is "public transit." The public's needs should come first.

-- Karleen Gerards, Seattle

Officials should go for their transportation blunders

Our government officials are wasting money that has been entrusted to them by the people they serve. At what point does a red flag go up to alert those in a position of authority to stop this gross misuse of taxpayer dollars?

Several examples: "botched street projects" as reported in the recent Seattle Times article ["The street crews that couldn't pore straight," page one, July 12]; the posting of "No street racing zone" signs in Tukwila, when normal speed-limit signs would suffice; and allowing the building and use of light-rail cars that are known now to exceed the federal standards for noise abatement -- but the opening will happen anyway ["Light-rail report: Neighbors right, trains are too noisy," page one, July 11].

If a homeowner were to take out a building permit, inspectors would issue a stop-work order when codes and standards were not met. Why didn't this happen with the light-rail cars? Instead, Sound Transit is going to use a Band-Aid and, at the taxpayer's expense, install sound barrier walls and soundproofing of homes along the route.

I find the absence of plain common sense in all of the above appalling and totally unacceptable. We need to not only reprimand those in charge of such projects ... we need to replace them.

-- Barbara Rabon, Renton

Public officials must be kept on their toes

Editor, The Times:

After reading your story "Curb crew blunders mean heat for Nickels" [page one, July 14], I feel moved once again to thank you for the countless times when public awareness has been raised by your newspaper in areas that key people would prefer to keep hidden. For an elected or appointed official, there is nothing like uncomfortable scrutiny to ruin a day.

One comment in particular from Mayor Greg Nickels caught my attention. As he attempts to defend the performance of the Seattle Department of Transportation, he coolly observes, "If you ... look at any transportation organization in the U.S. and in the world, they stack up pretty well."

This grandiose statement, meant to prop up his beleaguered agency, causes one to wonder what basis for it there could be in real terms. Is he referring to studies that have been done previously? Why do they stack up well? I think it is more probable that his one and only desire here is to deflect unwanted attention on something that has become embarrassing and sensitive.

How easy it is to conveniently throw out disinformation that has no basis in fact in order to calm the storm.

-- Tom Likai, Shoreline

Cement mason: That really is shoddy work

This kind of story ["The street crews that couldn't pour straight," page one, July 12] makes all cement masons look like they're unskilled laborers. It is upsetting to me as the business manager of union cement masons that individuals might look upon my members and judge their work by the work that was displayed on the front page of The Times.

I have been a union cement mason for more than 30 years and know what good concrete looks like. The picture on the front page of The Times was not pretty. It is a wonder these masons still have a job.

Some questions that come to my mind are: What kind of training do city employees receive? Have they been through an approved apprenticeship program?

We would hope in the future that on projects of this size, the city would use a subcontractor with employees trained to perform the exact task so poorly performed by its employees. These contractors all employ quality journey-level cement masons and state-registered apprentices.

-- John Kearns, Tukwila

Poor street work not just a recent problem

The story in The Times about street crews should come as no surprise to Seattle natives. Nor is the problem of recent vintage.

You can go just about anywhere in the city and routinely find wheelchair ramps that angle directly into the middle of intersections, rather than to the opposite curb and aligned with crosswalks, where marked.

I've always thought one of the more absurd street crossings I've ever seen is the overhead pedestrian crossing near the Oak Tree Shopping Center on North Aurora Avenue. What starts out as a nice, spiraling, wheelchair-accessible ramp on the shopping-center side comes to an abrupt set of stairs as one reaches the opposite side of the street.

Clearly, we have suffered through generations of this type of buffoonery.

-- Jeff Woodhouse, Seattle

Some empathy for light-rail noise victims

Editor, The Times:

I can almost empathize with those suffering the noisy trains ["Tracks' din stirs Tukwila outcry," NWSunday, July 5].

However, there is a large number of us being subjected to 100 decibels on a constant basis due to the third runway at Sea-Tac. The Port of Seattle has said there will be noise studies someday.

The results of the noise studies for the second runway would more than suffice. Just move the western boundary and begin the noise mitigation process.

-- Mike Adams, Des Moines

Rail priority shouldn't be on buying art

I just read the article "Making a big deal of it" [NWArts&Life, July 12] and was so relieved knowing that I'm not one of the taxpayers footing the bill for light rail's public art.

I can only imagine how much it must have cost for all of these "works of art." But I can imagine how much more bang for the buck taxpayers might have gotten from those same dollars had they been used in, perhaps, a more practical way; like working on the noise problems we're reading about or building the parking that's needed so that people riding the rails will have a place to park those cars they're not driving.

I live on Whidbey Island where we don't have the traffic problems seen in the Seattle area. It's just a shame that all that money was spent to make a few people feel good, but that's the liberal way, it seems, and the voters voted for it.

If it feels good, then it must be the right thing to do. Glad it's not on my buck!

-- Carolyn Hendry, Oak Harbor

Charging for parking would help light-rail stations stay afloat

As happy as I am about the opening of the Tukwila light-rail station, I'm at a loss to understand the free parking.

Why free? Even if we're charged a dollar for 24-hour parking -- which should hurt nobody -- a 500-car average for a year would net $182,500. No great fortune, but it would help in maintaining the station itself.

Free parking is largely a myth anyway. The concept is touted at shopping malls nationwide. But the cost, in truth, is passed along to buyers at the register. Even a customer who walks to the mall (a bizarre concept, I know) or arrives by bus, is burdened by the same higher costs, all to provide for that great American obsession -- the automobile.

-- John Lyons, Seattle

Dreaming of open roadways

Hooray, light rail has opened. No more congestion on Interstate 5!

Then I woke up.

-- Donald F. Padelford, Seattle

Light rail no louder than third runway

It was good to see The Seattle Times' article on light-rail noise ["Light-rail report: Neighbors right, trains are too noisy," page one, July 11] as well as Sound Transit's response to the complaints.

But where was the coverage when the Port of Seattle opened the third Sea-Tac runway, with an impact on far more citizens of King County? The Port might learn from Sound Transit's ability to realize the detrimental effects their work has on the community.
The Port's response to date is that it will do some new noise monitoring and will release the information this coming November. The Port's lack of foresight to realize the third runway compounded with the "unexpected" closure of another runway would cause such disruption is unconscionable.

-- Mark Maurin, Des Moines

Nickels, Crunican failed to deliver transportation promises

Mayor Greg Nickels pledged to be the "transportation mayor" and to "get Seattle moving," but the result has been years of cost overruns, mismanagement and increased congestion. The latest example of this is in the Sunday Seattle Times' article ["The street crews that couldn't pour straight," page one, July 12] on the Seattle Department of Transportation's Street Maintenance crews' inability to pour straight curbs and properly place sidewalk ramps. The department's management permitted these crews' poor work to go on for years, needlessly wasting tax money and delaying vital work.

The responsibility for this shoddy, wasteful management culture rests at the top -- with Mayor Nickels. SDOT Director Grace Crunican is fond of telling staff that, "when you create a problem, you own it." Nickels owns this problem.

Transportation topped Nickels' agenda, and he asked Seattle taxpayers to foot the bill, promising to spend the money wisely. He appointed Crunican to "reform" SDOT and "get Seattle moving" again.

Before Nickels, SDOT was getting work done on the streets in a timely manner. Nearly all personnel issues had been resolved.

Under Nickels and Crunican, SDOT has developed a management culture of fear lacking any constructive vision. Employees are more concerned about protecting their jobs than working toward a better transportation system. Vital institutional knowledge has been lost as many of the best and brightest in SDOT have left for other cities or fled to the private sector.

Under this "reformed" department, potholes go untended, downed stop signs stay down and major streets go unplowed after snowstorms. Long-term problems, such as the Mercer Street mess and improved freight mobility, go largely unaddressed.

Seattle's Department of Transportation has been run thoroughly amok. The problem cannot be solved by switching its director. It is time for Crunican and Nickels to go.

-- Liz Rankin, Seattle

Unions, incompetent workers have got to go

Fire those street maintenance crews!

Oh, that's right, the Department of Transportation and all government employees are covered by union membership, which makes it virtually impossible to fire the incompetent. Yet they continue to waste our money with do-over projects.

Why do we even have unions in the public sector? The private sector is doing just fine with only 8 percent of the work force unionized. So why can't the public sector be non-unionized?

Sure would save us a ton of money because we would need fewer men and women on the job -- remember the 10 guys you saw standing around the one guy that was actually doing the work?

Kick out the unions and fire the incompetents!

-- Pauline Cornelius, Olalla

Calling all good city employees

To those city employees who are embarrassed by this I say: Yes, I feel your pain. I am convinced there are good workers abound in the city somewhere. The Seattle Times' article sheds light on those who are not, both workers and supervisors alike. It's apparent that good management doesn't seem to apply to Seattle's Department of Transportation. Sadly, one has generally come to expect that here.

I am especially amused at DOT's dealing with Paul Jackson Jr. -- a piece of work for sure. He was transferred to manage traffic maintenance.

Nice move! I'm sure he is excelling there. I expect to see bonus announcements in the next few weeks for all those in SDOT management.

AIG certainly has nothing on your stellar operation.

-- John W. Cannon, Kirkland

Viaduct proposal has no choice but to be successful

I have just finished reading the article "The street crews that couldn't pour straight." I am a downtown business owner who has repeatedly witnessed these "pour and repour" projects over and over. I am also a Seattle homeowner. I believe one fundamental question needs to be asked and answered in a timely fashion, in regard to oversight.
Will this department be involved in any way with the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement?

This is a very relevant question, as Seattle homeowners and taxpayers will be directly responsible for any cost overages in the viaduct project, and the cavalier attitude that is displayed by the city employees interviewed in regard to cost, accountability and reasoning behind these mistakes is amazing.

I hope this all will be directly addressed and rectified before the viaduct project is started, or we are all in for quite a shock when that first tax bill comes.

-- Thomas McGurk

Electric bus wires should go so houses can move

Editor, The Times:

In the July 9 front-page article headlined "Houses vs. trees," it wasn't until deep in the story that we learn the true nature of the conflict. A more accurate headline would have been "Trees vs. electric bus wires."

A lush overhang of mature trees makes a neighborhood walkable, enhances home values and beautifies the neighborhood and, by extension, the city. These values are not easily quantifiable, but they cannot be replaced. Based on the front-page photograph, those trees are as old as or older than the oldest residents of the street.
Electric bus wires, by contrast, can be removed and replaced relatively easily with no long-term negative impact.

Good city planning requires taking more than one issue into consideration when making important decisions. I encourage the city and Metro to rethink their decision to reject the Denny Way route for moving these houses.

-- Sherry Narens, Seattle

Bus wires are the villain in 'Houses vs. trees'

The "villain" of the story, "Houses vs. trees," is neither. Neighbors should not be expected to sacrifice a beloved, tranquil canopy of mature growth. Such leafy refuges within our city are invaluable not only to residents but to people driving through the neighborhood. For those who live there, they would come home to face the loss each and every day.

The desire to salvage these homes is also laudable. There was another option, nixed by Metro, to move the home down Denny Way. Overhead wires are replaceable. Trees, and the wonderful refreshment of a leafy canopy, are not -- at least for decades.

-- Mitzi L. Simmons, Seattle

Light rail shouldn't disrupt bus service

The Seattle Times did a fine job of reporting the disruption to the Metro bus service due to the light rail traveling through South Seattle ["Rail may shake up bus-rider routines," NWTuesday, July 7].

It is interesting that Sound Transit hopes to have the bus riders of the Rainier Valley "ride the rail." I thought the purpose of the light rail was to create a viable option for those still driving their fossil-fuel-burning vehicles that are clogging the roads and freeways -- not to inconvenience the conscientious citizens who are accessing the already great bus system.

-- C. Joy Estill, Seattle

Easy science would quiet light rail

The Times reported ["Tracks' din stirs Tukwila outcry," NWSunday, July 1] that the Tukwila Sound Transit light-rail tracks show a "10 times louder" noise impact than the predicted decibel levels. Correct reporting, but highly inaccurate.

The decibel measure reports energy levels, not "loudness." Loudness is a perception as adjusted by the very clever human ear. The human ear registers only a doubling of loudness for every 10 decibels of increased energy. Still, a doubling of loudness is bad enough, especially for screechiness to which the decibel scale is totally deaf.

But this is just another example of the disconnect between policy chutzpah, journalism and important technical details. As for policy wonks, even a short memory reminds us that a more direct Sound Transit path to the Seatle-Tacoma International Airport was bent by Tukwila politicos to include a station of their very own, in place of what otherwise might still have been a relatively straight regional track alignment. The first routing corruption was bending the track for political reasons through Rainier Valley -- and away from Boeing Field and the entire Duwamish industrial area. Now the alignment is both local and regional -- and therefore neither.

And then there is the underlying issue of rail-car technology. The original regional environmental impact statement discounted rail technologies that deal with above-grade track noise. For most of a century, the Paris subway and elevated system has used very quiet rubber tires on a guideway. Not nearly trendy enough for world-class Seattle. Better to resurrect under a new name the trolleys of the 19th century.

The Times could help by getting in right -- early in the public decision process -- on how policy alternatives actually fit or do not fit with obscure technical details that make a difference. Never an easy thing to do, and not always appreciated by elites who pride themselves in "making the tough decisions."

-- Peter Beaulieu, Shoreline

Want safer roads? An in-car breathalyzer is better than cellphone ban

The Times needs to tone down the cellphone-ban rhetoric ["Washington's timid cellphone ban," Opinion, column, July 2]. This problem is not the scourge you make it out to be.

If The Times was so concerned with safer roads, it would argue for interlock breathalyzer devices mandatory to license vehicles. With no exceptions, drinking and driving would cease overnight. Or better yet, let's get rid of vehicles, and ride the light rail. That way we won't have to subsidize it for decades.

This cellphone bill is ironic in a state that exports death machines daily. Maybe we should make sure the pilots who fly the drones who bomb the women and children are using their hands-free device, too.

-- Jon Weerts, Kent

Bad drivers, not cellphones, are the problem

Editorial writer Joni Balter advocates a complete statewide ban on cellphone usage while on public highways. She supports legislation that would prohibit all of the rural citizens working east of the Cascades use of a cellphone unless they have a hands-free device in the drivers ear.

I know personally dozens of people that can drive defensively using legal communication devices -- not hands free --in their vehicles and are much safer drivers per mile than your average aggressive commuter late for work without a cellphone. These drivers have driven for years and millions of miles in trucks moving at highway speeds using citizens band radios. Do you advocate a ban on those, too?

Why not go a step further and take the cupholders out of the cars and make it illegal to install a CD player? Why not make it illegal for a driver under 21 to have passengers? Most accidents are caused by young people driving too fast. That is why insurance rates for male drivers younger than 25 are higher than any other age group.

Your ideas address the symptom but not the cause. It is the poor driving habits of careless drivers that need to be punished harshly. Careless driving is a serious offense and should be enforced to the fullest extent if an accident occurs. We have enough laws. The cellphone itself is not the problem.

-- Tim Anderegg, Manchester

Why is the cellphone ban so hard for lawmakers?

I moved here not too long ago from Colorado, where they can pull you over for talking or using a cellphone. I see a lot of letters to the editor about not being able to enforce the cellphone ban here.

Perhaps it would help if the state would remove the signs to call 1-800-HERO if drivers see someone using the commuter lane while riding solo.

Lets face it: Lawmakers need to get a wake-up call. If they can't resolve a small issue like this one, then it's no wonder our state government is so messed up.

-- Simon Gunnoe, Federal Way

Resignations should come over $40k bonus

The Seattle Times informed the public of Mayor Greg Nickels inappropriately paying a bonus to Seattle City Light Superintendent Jorge Carrasco. When the city cannot balance its budget and the superintendent allowed City Light to have a $90 million budget gap, there isn't an acceptable reason to have paid Carrasco a discretionary bonus.

If Carrasco didn't find his salary without a bonus acceptable in the current economy, he should be looking elsewhere; he clearly hasn't been able to balance his own budget. Nickels' authorization to pay him to stay, again, is unacceptable as was quoted in the article:

"Certainly, any kind of bonus should be scrutinized during tough times and flush times," said Councilmember Bruce Harrell, chairman of the Energy and Technology Committee. "But in the next two years, that utility's going to need the best leadership possible, and Jorge has demonstrated the best leadership possible."

Not only do I expect the council to scrutinize Nickels insensitive and incompetent actions regarding this bonus, I also expect the rest of Seattle City Council to scrutinize Harrell's support of this bonus.

I am very hopeful that Harell does the right thing and resigns for supporting the bonus. We deserve top-notch leadership and neither Nickels nor Harrell represent the best that Seattle deserves.

-- Henry M. Pierce, Seattle

Why do blundering transportation officials still have jobs?

After reading an article on city officials Grace Crunican and Paul Jackson Jr. ["Crunican: Promoting manager an error," NWWednesday, July 8], it is absolutely beyond me why these two people still have their jobs.

We have the transportation chief, Crunican, acknowledging her inability to manage her staff. Isn't that what her position is all about?

And then as a reward for gridlocking the city streets during the snowstorm, Jackson gets his old job back. I guess his "problematic management style" doesn't affect his old position. Pity those poor employees.

So after a winter of discontent, a $515,000 contracted study, a reversal of opinions on personnel, I ask again: Why do these people still have their jobs?

-- Michael Kaulakis, Port Angeles

Talking on phone while driving should be primary offense

Joni Balter is right on target in her column regarding the "timid" cellphone ban ["Washington's timid cellphone ban," Opinion, July 2].

We must get this law changed to a primary offense and as quickly as possible. I myself have been hit in traffic by a person who was on a cellphone; fortunately, there was only damage to the car, but things could have been worse.

I have long thought we needed stricter laws for both cellphones and texting -- I believe texting should be strictly prohibited for drivers in all cases.

Cellphones are simply a good example of useful technology getting carried to extremes. I don't know why everyone feels they have to keep in touch with one another constantly. With the overbusy lives we all have today, I would think we would all relish getting in the car to avoid this contact for a little while.

-- Kathleen Collins, Bellevue

Ban's sponsor should introduce stricter law

Joni Balter's column was excellent. I hope that Sen. Tracey Eide pushes for a stricter law next session. The current law is a joke.

I can't tell you how many times I have almost been killed by people driving, not paying attention and absorbed in a conversation on their cellphone.

-- Mary Emmick, Issaquah

It's time to move on from snowstorm blunders

For about six months now, much has been said about the Seattle Department of Transportation's (SDOT) performance during the December 2008 snowstorms. Even as the summer sun breaks through to give us these beautiful Seattle days, it is right to check the overall emergency preparedness in the event of any natural disaster. Both Mayor Greg Nickels and SDOT Director Grace Crunican are making the necessary changes to improve response in the future. I take them at their word.

What began as a critique of the city's snow response has evolved into a vicious, unrelenting and unfair attack on the city's decision to hire an outside consultant to investigate allegations of bias within SDOT's Street Maintenance Division.

Instead of attacking city leadership on this issue, we should applaud Nickels' and Crunican's decision to aggressively investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination within SDOT's work force. Ignoring these complaints does nothing to address employee concerns or lower the city's overall liability. In fact, it achieves the exact opposite. The decision to investigate each and every complaint, whether ultimately sustained or not, demonstrates a strong commitment to justice. And for that I wish to personally offer my appreciation and support to Nickels and Crunican.

I think it's time we enjoyed a little more of the sunshine, not only in this great environment, but also within City Hall, where the mayor is trying to shine a little independent light on what happened and ensure the city has done the right thing -- especially whenever discrimination is charged.

-- James Kelly, Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle president and CEO, Seattle

Big Brother alive and well thanks to cameras

I wonder, does anyone believe Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr's assertion ["Suit alleges red-light camera fines are excessive," NWThursday, June 25] that red-light cameras were installed strictly as a deterrent against red-light runners?

The fact that red-light camera fines are the same as that of a police officer issuing a fine for the same infraction suggests not. State law says cities should fine car owners no more than what they can fine them for parking tickets. An average parking ticket is around $40. Carr uses the logic that half of the maximum fine for parking in a handicap zone --$250 -- is reasonable.

While studies may have shown the number of people running red lights where cameras have been installed have declined, I'm curious how much the number of rear-end collisions increased from people slamming on the brakes to avoid running a stale yellow light?

Red-light cameras, and now more recently speed cameras, are nothing more than revenue-generating devices, depriving motorists from confronting their accusers at the scene of the alleged crime.

George Orwell's nightmare vision of Big Brother watching over our every move is alive and well in 2009.

-- Gene Davis, Lake Forest Park

Fines appropriate for running reds

Are camera fines excessive ["Suit alleges red-light camera fines excessive," NWThursday, June 25]? Not in light of the life-changing consequences of an intersection collision that could have been prevented if a driver had simply obeyed the red light and stopped. Fines ought to be way higher. It is well known that humans will change their behavior only in the face of noxious consequences; thus the purpose of the fine.

For example, as you drive King County's streets, have you noticed how many people are disobeying the new (and toothless) mobile-phone-use law?

Instead of showering every jurisdiction in King County with a class-action lawsuit, red-light runners should simply operate their vehicles in a responsible manner. Everyone would be safer.

The only down side is attorneys wouldn't have clients for their self-serving lawsuits.

-- Paul Heins, Redmond

Running red lights more severe than parking wrong

Wouldn't you consider a lawyer who would equate a parking ticket to running a red light a true mercenary?

-- Loyal Moore, Bainbridge Island

Board supports radical plan for few new roads, but more tolls

An obscure committee in a relatively obscure organization is planning the future of our transportation. It's potentially a future of 1.5 million more people but few new roads, a future where all major roads are tolled or a vehicle-miles tax is imposed.

Welcome to Transportation 2040, the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) vision of our transportation future. The PSRC's Transportation Policy Board has been overseeing the plan for months with little public awareness.

Last week, in an informal poll of the five plan alternatives, half of the board members supported the fifth alternative, the most radical option. It proposes little road building in the next 30 years but supports tolling of our entire road network from arterials to freeways.

I believe this alternative is unrealistic due to many approved and future developments, which will add tens of thousands of homes in suburban King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. These folks will need roads to get to distant job centers, schools and shopping centers.

It seems our elected officials will not effectively manage growth through planning and instead may attempt to control it through transportation policy. I believe this is wrong. It is not fair to these new and growing communities. They should not be ignored.

Everybody deserves effective transportation options, not just those living in major urban centers. It's time for us to comprehensively, collectively and concurrently plan growth and transportation for everyone in our region.

Public comment on the Transportation 2040 alternatives will be accepted until July 13th at psrc.org.

-- Noel Gerken, Transportation Policy Board member, Maple Valley

A job well done

As a weekly commuter from Sequim to Everett, would like to commend the Washington State Department of Transportation, associated bus and water shuttle companies, and their personnel ["Traffic flowing again across the Hood Canal bridge," NWFriday, June 5].

Thanks to their extensive advance planning, comprehensive advance information to the public, and unusually high "help to the public," including answering what must have been overwhelming requests for help, what could have been a horrible nightmare became only an inconvenience.

Good job by all and greatly appreciated.

(And a second thanks for the construction company getting it open so much earlier.)

-- Sharon Ireton, Sequim

Cyclists should be street-smart before sharing the road

Though I understand bicyclists' so-called right to be on the road with traffic, what I fail to understand is riders' lack of a sense of street smarts. ["Bikers go online to map way to safety," NWThursday, May 28].

It's a folly to assume every motorist is sober, straight, paying attention, playing by the rules and cares about others. Sorry to rain on your parade, folks, but there are a lot of crazed and careless motorists out there. Every time you share the road, you put your life in peril. Why would you do that?

When you factor in the careless lane-cutting and light-running of bicycle riders, it's a recipe for disaster and instant death.

Bike riders need to rely on street smarts and not the government and often-ignored street signs to protect you.

-- Robert Hoyden, Renton

Fails to serve growing suburban population

A major problem, and perhaps a costly failure, with Sound Transit's Seattle/airport light rail is that it fails to serve the larger community --particularly its commuters in the suburbs ["Who will ride this train?" page one, May 17].

It is in the suburbs where population is growing. It is the suburbs that lack adequate public transportation. It is the suburbs that need light rail. Seattle already has an excellent bus system that serves the commuters of Seattle. It is not airport-downtown Seattle that needs light rail as bus, taxi and limo service is more than adequate.

The light rails systems of Vancouver, Portland, San Francisco and San Diego run from far out in the suburbs to the central city. Each of these light-rail systems were based on serving undeveloped public-transportation needs from suburbs to city centers.

Sound Transit could have, and maybe still can, run a light rail from North Bend to Seattle along the I-90 corridor with park-and-ride lots along the way. It would then serve North Bend, Preston, Issaquah, Bellevue, Somerset, Mercer Island and Seattle.

It could have run along highway 99 from Everett to Olympia, serving Everett, Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds, Northgate, Seattle, South Center, SeaTac, Puyallup, Tacoma and Olympia, and maybe eventually to Vancouver, Wash.

In each of these choices, a much greater population would have been served. Land-acquisition costs would have been significantly less. And construction costs would also have been considerably less. It would have served our communities that lack adequate or any public transportation. It still can with look-ahead leadership.

-- E.J. Craig, Sammamish

A flawed, costly system

Seattle always likes to think of itself as unique and, after just 13 years, this region will finally get its own form of rapid transit that is truly unique to the world.

Typically, light-rail systems run within street-level traffic and have station stops every few blocks. The trains are slower and shorter, limiting their capacity. Sound Transit has chosen a hybrid option of lighter-capacity trains paired with the most expensive type of transit construction -- tunneling.

Most of the rest of the line is grade-separated just like heavy rail, except along the completely rebuilt Martin Luther King Jr. Way, where it mixes with all traffic. Stations are all spaced over a mile apart, similar to heavy rail, but transit speed will slow considerably to avoid collisions.

Next, Sound Transit will start three miles of new bored tunnels to the U District, which will have only two station stops and cost $2 billion. Potential Eastlake and First Hill riders will have to make do with transferring onto proposed snail-rail lines, since those urban neighborhoods will be bypassed.

Our version of light rail is so costly that Seattle is typically excluded from transit-cost calculations for other new potential systems.

Only here do we get a new, forever-limited transit system at subway-system prices. Current preferred proposals for the Eastside extension will only continue this dyslexic strategy. Sound Transit is consistent, at least.

-- David G. Wright, Seattle

Be responsible for your own trash

This week's "Bumper to Bumper" column [NW Monday, May 4] discussed the increasing litter proliferation along our roadways. It seems to me that at this time of budget shortfalls at state, local and personal levels, we could make up some of the deficits by being good citizens ourselves.

If we avoid littering, obey traffic laws, keep storm drains clear, park legally, treat people fairly and respectfully -- in other words, keep our own acts together and don't expect government to clean up after us and make us behave -- it will go a long way toward reducing unnecessary expenditures that we are taxed to support.

There will always be jerks, but the rest of us don't have to emulate them. There will always be tasks the government can do better than we can, but there are many small things we can easily do for ourselves.

Let's act like adults and make life better for everyone and save money and other resources in the process.

-- Carolyn Walden, Seattle

John Lok / The Seattle Times

Crosswalk caution stations in downtown Kirkland carry a warning about risks to pedestrians.

Help avoid heartbreak of losing loved one

Before Feb. 22, 2008, I may have counted myself among the numerous critics of Seattle's recent crosswalk sting ["Drivers feel crosswalk sting," NWMonday, May 4].

On that day, my father was hit in a crosswalk less than two blocks from our house, next door to a school. He was thrown up to 25 feet and suffered, among many other injuries, the massive and diffuse brain damage that led to his death.

The driver admitted he was not looking where he was going and was charged with and found guilty of negligent driving in the second degree. He was fined the statutory maximum of $250 and continues to drive past our house in the same manner as he did that day.

It's not that I believe a crosswalk sting will change this particular driver's habits. After all, if killing my dad didn't change that, I'm not sure what would. But I believe it could make other potentially negligent drivers more aware of the foot traffic that rightfully shares the road with them.

It may not, but after losing my dad's precious life so needlessly, I feel that any action taken in an attempt to avoid this heartbreak for another family is time and money well spent.

-- Nancy A. Norris, Everett

Pedestrians responsible for safety, too

Most of us are both drivers and frequent pedestrians. As such, most of us would agree that pedestrian safety should be everyone's concern.

However, it seems that those who are often least concerned about it are many of the pedestrians themselves. Some seem determined to demand their right of way and enter crosswalks regardless of the vehicle traffic's volume or speed. Others dress like ninjas at night and become almost invisible to drivers.

Then there are those whose heads appear to be attached to necks that are totally incapable of turning to look either left or right before stepping off the curb and into traffic. Quite often those same heads have cellphones grafted to them, as their owners suddenly appear from the cover of a parked vehicle.

Drivers aren't clairvoyant, and can't read pedestrians' minds in order to know what they intend to do when they're standing at an intersection. Waiting until an oncoming car is a hundred feet away and then stepping into the crosswalk is about as safe as playing catch with a live hand grenade.

While I have no problem with Seattle's finest putting the sting on drivers who blatantly or carelessly pose a threat to pedestrians, it's past time for many of our local pedestrians to also start assuming some responsibility for themselves.

-- Lee Fowble, Edmonds

An ill-advised ban

The Federal Transit Administration has banned King County Metro Transit express bus service following Mariners games because a public-transit agency cannot operate a sports charter if private operators are available to do so ["'Metro to the Mariners' service ends," NW Sunday, April 12].

I submit that this service does not constitute a "charter," transportation hired by and for one specific group of people. If it were a charter, riders would have to pay for the buses in advance to reserve a ride. It would be available to take people to and from the games.

With a charter, the provider knows in advance how many riders there will be; with Metro express bus service, Metro can only estimate the number of riders. Rather, this service should be thought of as additional routes provided by Metro Transit to serve high-ridership demand. Riders pay their fare only if they choose to ride the bus.

Furthermore, without express buses, there will be a tremendous impact on the environment. If express bus service is not available, more people will choose to drive to Safeco Field. With construction on First Avenue South and on the new I-90 ramps at Royal Brougham Way, think of the added congestion, gas consumption and pollutant emissions due to increased automobile traffic.

Those who don't drive will have to scramble to use regular buses. Think of 20,000-30,000 waiting late at night for buses running on reduced schedules of their regular routes.

Please contact your senators and representatives to intercede with FTA promptly to get this ill-advised ban lifted.

-- Ronald Kaufman, Mercer Island

Citizens have invested in Metro

I would like to encourage the Federal Transit Authority to reverse its policy of prohibiting a public-transit agency from operating a sports charter if private operators are available to provide the same service.

A private Seattle company is available to provide service, but at roughly twice the price of the Metro service. Why should the people of Seattle and Washington be prevented from leveraging the investment they've already made in mass transit just so a private concern can have the opportunity to make a profit at the expense of the fans? Keeping the government-run, taxpayer-funded (and Mariners-subsidized) "Metro to the Mariners" service from competing for the right to provide this game-day bus service is restriction of free trade.

I am a big believer in free markets and open competition. If the private sports charter in the Seattle area can provide the same type and quality of service to the ballpark that Seattle Metro can --at the same price -- then I will be the first to buy a ticket.

The people of this country are sick and tired of being told to go sit in the back of the bus and give up their seats for corporate interests. Those days are over and FTA needs to get in step with where this nation is going.

This bus is leaving the station.

-- Jim McDougal, Everett

A letter to Mayor Greg Nickels

Just after dark this past Saturday, two neighbors of mine, in separate incidents, were beaten within an inch of their lives just for walking down the sidewalk near the Othello Light Rail Station. Beyond the bloody details, all I know is this: This would not have happened in your West Seattle neighborhood.

With the light rail opening in less than 90 days, I want you, my mayor, to tell us what you are going to do to ensure this does not happen again.

Here are my suggestions for you, since you appear uninformed and incapable of real action on your stated city goal of Neighborhood Policing and Public Safety. These are from the well-respected South Seattle Crime Prevention Council, whose funding you unwisely decided to cut:

1. Hire new officers immediately.

2. Assign any new officers to the gang unit.

3. Give Rainier Beach, Othello Station, New Holly, Columbia City and Mt. Baker Seattle Police Department foot patrols comparable to those walking the beat in West Seattle Junction or the Pike/Pine Corridor. These foot patrols have been widely praised for reducing crime ["Black-and-blue assault on crime: Downtown shopping grows safer," News, Sept. 23, 2008].

4. Get someone in the SPD media-relations unit to learn how to return a phone call.

My neighbors of all ages are already getting beaten, robbed, shot at and killed, whether they're walking down the sidewalk, riding the bus or just sitting in their living rooms. What more do you require?

Step up, man, we need you.

-- Tristin Pagenkopf, Hillman City, Seattle

Kudos to Metro drivers and information line

I would like to rave in thanks for Seattle Metro bus drivers and the rider information line of our wonderful bus system.

I am an everyday user of our bus system and on Tuesday I unfortunately lost my wallet on the 41 in north Seattle. When transferring to the 75, I reached for my wallet, but it was not with me. The bus driver said, "Climb aboard and ride with me for a while and I will call it in." He called dispatch and was told it had not been found.

I went back to my transfer point to retrace my path and I didn't find it, either. I accepted the fact that it was gone, but I decided to call the information line anyway to report it. They took the information and told me a supervisor would call me back later, so I went home.

An hour later, the supervisor returned my call and said that it had been found and the bus could meet me in Lake City in a few hours. I met the bus and my wallet was safe and sound.

My rave is for the very hardworking folks who drive for Metro and I encourage all riders to be kind to our public servants. It's not their fault the bus is overcrowded or taking too long because the streets are jammed with cars holding one person each. Patience is a virtue we all need to practice more. I found that they go the extra mile to care for us customers. Thanks, Metro.

-- James J. Hupf, Seattle

Helping to break a never-ending cycle

Providing stable housing and a place for homeless to regain their balance is a wonderful idea ["Project saves taxpayer money," NW Wednesday, April 1]. As a person who used to live in the San Francisco Bay Area, homelessness is an issue that is near and dear to my heart.

Once people get stuck in the cycle of homelessness, it is very difficult to break free from it. The cycle is vicious and never-ending, especially with the recession as it is. Why would employers hire someone off the street when they can easily hire college graduates or high-school students, for that matter?

Many of these homeless have been on the street for many years and have learned to adapt to the hazards of living on the street. In this sense, they are hardworking and experienced in ways that the average student or person is not, which makes them resourceful employees.

By placing the homeless in homes, they have the opportunity to clean up, allowing them to create a better first impression and re-enter the workforce.

I hope that more cities will adopt this type of recovery program because it sounds like a wonderful idea.

-- Kellie Ouye, El Cerrito, Calif.

Allowing trucks fuels drug trade

Editorials of The Seattle Times and Yakima Herald made a similar argument about allowing Mexican trucks to freely enter this country ["Banning Mexican trucks harms Washington," Opinion, March 23].

Besides referencing questionable statistics about Mexican truck safety, both editorials essentially ignored the fact that since the 1990s, the United States and other countries began to focus drug surveillance and interdiction efforts along the corridor skirting Mexico, and as a consequence, the flow of U.S.-bound drugs was forced into Mexico, which remains the main transshipment route for the overwhelming majority of cocaine entering the United States. This has helped spark widespread drug wars, threatens our Southern border and fuels gang activity here in Seattle.

Apparently, The Times is more concerned with the price of pears in Yakima than it is in facilitating the drug and smuggling trade of Mexico.

-- Richard Pelto, Kenmore

Tunnel design unsafe

Your support of the viaduct tunnel replacement option is inappropriate ["Replace the viaduct with a tunnel," editorial, March 27].

At a minimum, this facility is classed as a "Divided Multilane P-1 Urban Arterial." The state Department of Transportation design standard requires 12-foot lanes and 10-foot shoulders on both sides of the traveled way.

Obviously, the design you champion with only an 8-foot shoulder on one side a 4-foot shoulder on the other is inadequate.

Indeed, more concerning is that with freeway-operating characteristics and high truck volumes, the actual standard design requirements call for 12-foot shoulders.

Additionally, none of the mandated standard design shoulder widths described above include a required 1.5-foot "shy distance" to the tunnel walls.

As you can readily see, the design being proposed by the state, King County and the city of Seattle is grossly remiss.

Only the trial attorneys will benefit from the tunnel as now described in your editorial. For Washington motorists, as you can see, the design is unsafe. You really need to revise your position on this significant project.

-- Christopher V. Brown, Seattle.

Senate budget doesn't support commuter base

As much as I want to congratulate the Senate in Olympia on their budget that provides Washington State Ferries with much needed replacement boats, I can't ["Senate plan funds viaduct, 520," Local News, March 26].

The budget identifies four new 64-car ferries. Of the 23 million yearly riders aboard WSF, this acquisition of vessels only helps the 3 percent who ride the Port Townsend-Keystone route.

In looking even closer, I realize that this small contingent of folks reside in the district state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee. The senator seems to have singularly made this decision ignoring consultants and community study group recommendations as well as the needs of the other 97 percent of ferry users.

First, Sen. Haugen prevented the ferry system from moving the Keystone Harbor to accommodate the larger vessels planned to the route. Next, she tells the ferry system not to repair the Steel Electric ferries because it costs too much money. However, magically, she finds money to build the new, smaller boats for her district, and to the benefit of a boat builder in her district.

The rest of the system needs the bigger boats. In places other than Port Townsend-Keystone, where most of the WSF ridership is supported, there are large commuter bases that depend on reliable ferry service to and from work every day. A fleet of 64-car ferries just won't cut it!

-- Gary Dawson, chair, Fauntleroy Ferry Advisory Committee, Seattle

Washington State Department of Transportation

This viaduct-replacement schematic shows stacked two-lane tunnels, which would run mainly under First Avenue to bypass downtown Seattle.

Tunnel doesn't "replace" viaduct; access is sacrificed

Editor, The Times:

In Friday's paper you seem to endorse the tunnel replacement of the viaduct ["Replace the viaduct with a tunnel," Times, editorial, March 27]. However, you should not be so hasty.

The current proposal does not offer access equal to that of the current viaduct. The plan envisions a tube running from the north side of the Battery Street tunnel to Qwest Field.
By eliminating access to and from Western Avenue and Seneca/Columbia streets, the proposed tunnel does not "replace" the viaduct. It merely substitutes a fraction of its usefulness.

Where will all of that existing traffic to these ramps go? Eliminating two onramps and two offramps is not building an efficient and functional transportation project to handle future growth. It is merely an expensive solution that would create a new problem that would need to be solved by another, future, expensive project.

Why can't we just get it right the first time?

-- Derek Mitchell, Seattle

Don't put me in a hole

Every day, I enjoy the Seattle waterfront. I do this with many other people as I travel the Alaskan Way Viaduct twice a day--marveling at the scenery and feeling blessed to do so.

But now the powers that be, including The Seattle Times, would like to put me in a hole that has decreased lanes and limited access.

Do those who make these decisions ever travel this route? Have they forgotten the polls that indicate most of the public did not favor a tunnel?

I hope the downtown developers enjoy the view as much as I have.

-- Kim Virant, Seattle

Less functionality, more cost

It appears that the biggest selling point for the deep-bored tunnel as replacement for the elevated Alaskan Way Viaduct is that it can be bored without disrupting traffic on said viaduct.

The tacit assumption inherent is that most people don't want the functionality of the viaduct diminished; we just want some improvements from Battery Street to South Holgate.

A Washington State Department of Transportation-studied solution that provides construction to modern federal safety standards, that retains the Columbia and Seneca ramps, that provides shoulders, that provides better runoff treatment, and that uses quieter pavement and acoustic tiles is deeply buried on the WSDOT Web site.

If one accepts Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' argument that voters in March 2007 voted down any elevated solution, then by the same argument, we must conclude that the voters in that election voted down any tunnel, since almost half voted for an elevated replacement while less than one-third voted for a tunnel.

Why are Washington citizens accepting an uber-expensive, deep-bored tunnel with less functionality than a less-expensive, elevated viaduct?

-- Harvey Friedman, Seattle

Rethink the Mercer Mess

I was overjoyed to hear that West Marine is suing the city over their plans to "fix" the Mercer mess. This is the first good news I've heard in months and I hope that other business in the area join them.

Don't get me wrong. The Mercer Street interchange with Interstate 5 desperately needs fixing but the mayor's and City Council's plans are not it. The city claims that only about 39,000 cars use Mercer Street daily. I think they are only counting the morning commute out of town because that number seems very low.

Even if they are correct and they succeed in their plan, the capacity of eastbound Mercer will be cut in half. Where will those 20,000 cars per day go? To other onramps that are already backed up as bad or worse than on Mercer?

What Mercer street needs is, first, active traffic control for all the lights from Dexter to the east, and from Denny to Westlake, possibly live police officers. Second, reroute the on/offramps to and from Mercer on I-5 to the right-hand lane. Third, repave the road with freeway-thickness concrete, not asphalt. Forth, put some trees along sides of the road for people to look at -- not in the center.

I know the city wants to make Mercer pretty, but the cost is much too high. If they succeed, it will choke downtown in its own traffic. People are already avoiding the city center because they waste too much time getting there and back. This will make it many times worse.

Please urge our City Council to step back and rethink its half-baked plan and adopt a realistic one.

-- Tom Kesterson, Seattle

Bus message inappropriate

As a recent visitor to your city for a series of business meetings, I absolutely loved the culture, cuisine and beauty Seattle has to offer.

What a dynamic, energizing place!

One sizable disappointment, though, was the blatant political message I saw on the side of a city bus while I sipped coffee at a local cafe.

The message was "End the Siege of Gaza" and it was blazoned on the bus full of morning commuters.

For what I'm guessing is a quasi-public entity to allow one of its vehicles to be used as a "vehicle" for such volatile and subjective rhetoric is in very poor taste.

Next time, they should stick to cellphone and restaurant ads.

-- Patrick O'Connor, Indianapolis, Ind.

Stop the bike assaults

The article "Attacks on bicycle commuters spur rider-awareness campaign" [Local News, March 11] worries me. The real campaign should be to stop the assaults, rather than to spur our awareness.

If people are wearing hockey masks and determined to assault people as they come out of the tunnel, it doesn't really matter how aware we are; eventually, more people will get robbed or hurt. After all, there aren't too many places to exit the tunnel other than at the ends of it.

-- Paul Backstrom, Kirkland

Sacrificing tranquil Mercer Slough

The light-rail route endorsed by the Bellevue City Council, would run very close to some of the most sensitive and valued natural habitat in the region. The council suggested the light-rail be "side running," which would place it to the right of the northbound auto-traffic lanes along Bellevue Way and 112 Avenue Southeast and immediately adjacent to wetlands and the Mercer Slough.

It is extremely likely that much of the wetland area and part of the slough itself would be sacrificed. The wetland area along 112th Avenue Southeast is home to rabbits, ducks, turtles, herons and eagles. People enjoy canoeing from Lake Washington up through this tranquil part of the slough. A nearby light rail would destroy the peace and privacy making all of this possible.

The rejected B7 route, close to I-405, would not involve this extreme environmental destruction. A traffic engineer studied one potential location for a transfer station near I-405 and deemed it problematic, but other locations need to be considered and other educated opinions offered.

Future generations will not likely remember the details of situating a transfer station, but they will definitely hold us accountable for ruining one of the remaining gems of natural habitat in the Bellevue area.

-- Shirley Crawford, Bellevue

Billions solely to beautify

The Seattle Times

Mercer Street often is clogged with cars.

Editor, The Times:

Here is another fine mess you've gotten us into: Seattle City Council voted to beautify the Mercer Street mess ["Mercer Street funding plan OK'd," Around the Northwest, Local News, Feb. 24].

Led by councilwoman Jan Drago, the council approved to make Mercer into a wide boulevard with street parking and a tree-lined median down the middle. But, according to transportation experts in the city, this will only make Mercer Street beautiful -not functional.

Eastbound traffic on Mercer Street with fewer signals will be thrown directly onto Interstate 5, making rush-hour traffic on the freeway even more of a nightmare.

But, what about potholes in the streets of Columbia City and Wedgwood or the sidewalks of Rainier Valley and West Seattle? What about Queen Anne, Capitol Hill, Ballard, Greenwood and other neighborhoods in the city?

Let's not forget we are in the worse recession in 70 years; the city council seems oblivious to this fact.

I agree Mercer Street is a mess, but lets find a solution to fixing the traffic problem other than spending millions of dollars just to make it beautiful.

-- Robert Sondheim, Seattle

A snow-covered view

With the Hood Canal Bridge closed for six weeks, communities in Port Townsend and the other side of the bridge will be largely affected.

This brings me to a question I had when they started this project: Why did the state wait until a time of the year when traveling across the bridge would become even more common for commuters and tourists to close the bridge? They could have started it in winter when there was less traffic.

However, having experienced this year's winter storms, my view has changed. I am thankful for the state's decision to replace the eastern half of the bridge in May, rather than in June when Port Townsend sees the most tourists.

Though having the bridge closed for six weeks will be a pain, making each trip to Silverdale or cities on the other side an hour or two longer, I am happy they decided to do this now rather then later, and are giving us other options for transportation.

-- Brad Smith, Port Townsend

Random tests reveal ridiculous plan

I believe the closure of the Hood Canal Bridge should be a little more thought-out.
Instead of randomly closing the bridge to do tests before the six weeks of closure even starts, why not just close it for more than six weeks and do the testings when it is closed?

It is very frustrating when you are stopped in traffic for hours due to unanticipated testings on the bridge. I am for fixing the bridge, but the approach that is being used is ridiculous.

-- Casey Green, Port Townsend

Garbage in, garbage out

Just to get the new bridge to handle today's traffic volume, we have to practically reinvent the wheel? What does this say about tomorrow?

Is it not better to do nothing than to strangle our transportation corridor with two inefficient pieces of critical infrastructure for the next 40 years?

I will ask a simpler question.

There is a proposal to build a new 520 bridge, adding HOV and bus lanes to lessen today's traffic. It uses tolls to push people to drive at different times, take different routes, stay at home, use public transportation and find work closer to home all for the purpose of congestion relief. It adds variable tolling for the same purpose.

I ask, if we need to do this today, what are our prospects for 20, 30 and 40 years down the road? If this question puts a knot in your tummy, read on.

To us citizens, this is the only pertinent question concerning both the 520 bridge and the proposed downsized viaduct tunnel. Does each meet the transportation needs of the corridor for the life of each? Also, the following must be, and has not, been part of the normal debate:
1) Projected population and vehicle-usage growth over the life of the bridge and viaduct;
2) More vehicles on the bridge and viaduct if miles per gallon increase to 60;
3) Effects of low-cost fuel on car numbers;
4) Long-term transportation effects, should a 9/11 type of event occur on a bus, train or bridge;
5) Effects of global warming on both transportation and population size (Will people move to Seattle if their area of the nation becomes too hot?); and
6) The effect of a downsized viaduct on Highway 520, projected over the next 40 years.

You simply cannot do what the Washington Transportation Commission did and take a snapshot of congestion relief, in one time period, and then apply the result to all time periods. When you do its garbage in and garbage out.

The Tolling Implementation Committee report appears to have glossed over the effects of population growth. This is a huge mistake. This is horrendous methodology. Garbage in, garbage out.

We need bridges built to easily adapt to any traffic dynamics. Instead, it appears, all the commission's time was spent getting a new bridge design that could handle existing traffic in this time period.

The 520 Tolling Commission report states that "variable tolling" works elsewhere in the country. Seattle is unique. The fact is that variable tolling simply may be nothing more than a "flash in the pan." I would feel a lot more comfortable if the commission had outlined under what conditions it is not effective? Garbage in, garbage out.

Forget all the studies, all the testing, all the interviews, all the research. There is only one test that is essential. Does either blueprint look like it can pass the test of time?

-- Ted Nelson, Seattle

Mike Siegel / The Seattle Times Mike Siegel / The Seattle Times

An aerial photo of Bellevue shows the Bel-Red corridor, between Bel-Red Road and Highway 520. The corridor, a 900-acre section of the city, is expected to be rezoned to allow dense urban development around future light-rail service.

A 21st century vision
for transportation, growth

Editor, The Times:

Last fall, even in the midst of a giant economic downturn, our region wisely chose to make a massive $17.8 billion investment in a 21st-century transportation vision because of the benefits we knew it would bring.

One of the touted benefits was the large amount of private capital investment the light-rail stations would bring in, and it looks like developers in the Bel-Red corridor got the message ("Re-envisioning Bel-Red," page one, Feb. 13).

In November, we loudly called for a new vision for transportation in our region. But like most bold, forward-looking visions, it can't be done with one vote for one mass-transit expansion. We also need to make sure those light-rail stations are surrounded with the high-density communities that will maximize the investment.

Bellevue is allowing higher-density zoning around these four new light-rail stations, but allowing and requiring are entirely different animals. The Transit-Oriented Communities bill (HB 1490) will ensure that the $17.8 billion investment we're making over the next 15 years is maximized by calling for high-density communities around our shiny new stations. Let's not just hope they get it right; let's get it right.

-- Kat Scott, Seattle

Streetcars would be better

The Seattle Times endorsement of the East Link proposal because of its role in enhancing development of the Bel-Red area is absurd.

The reality is that streetcars similar to those used near Lake Union would be far more suitable for that area. They would be more aesthetically appealing, allow more-frequent stops and avoid the need for any large station.

Sound Transit's current plans for East Link light rail will be an environment disaster along the route chosen through Bellevue and will doom the vast majority of Eastside residents who commute into Seattle to future gridlock because of loss of bridge center section.

-- Bill Hirt, Bellevue

The Seattle Times

Peace Arch Park at the U.S.-Canada border will be seen by hordes of traffic heading to and from the Vancouver Olympics next year.

New driver's license program far from tepid

Editor, The Times:

I am disappointed that your newspaper chose "tepid" to refer to British Columbia's work on making border crossings between Canada and the state of Washington easier and more secure [ "Border work won't end in time for Olympics," page one, Feb. 9].

British Columbia remains actively concerned about the impact of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) on the travel and economics of our border regions.

In cooperation with friends and partners in Washington state, British Columbia has been actively working to fully implement the Enhanced Driver's License (EDL) program, following a public announcement in January 2008, which would ease travel for Canadian residents coming to the U.S. by land.

In order to test this unique initiative and get it right, they have issued a number of enhanced drivers' licenses over the last year. I expect B.C. to announce full implementation of the EDL program by spring.

The EDL program is an important step forward. B.C. is the first jurisdiction in Canada to implement such a program and others in Canada are following their lead.

British Columbia has strong social and economic ties to Washington state, and both governments have a mutual interest in maintaining legitimate travel and trade between the two jurisdictions, especially in the run-up to the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, which a great opportunity to showcase our shared region to the world.

Tepid. I think not.

-- Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations Joan McIntyre, British Columbia

Signaling the constant threat overhead

Opening the news this morning to see the horrible scenes of a commuter-jet crash near Buffalo brings terrifying thoughts of what can and eventually will happen as air traffic increases in suburban areas ["Commuter jet crashes into home; 49 killed," page one, Feb. 13].

Yes, these are rare events, but it turns into a law of averages, as any scientist or statistician will tell you. This news is particularly disturbing in regards to Paine Field in Snohomish County, since no fewer than six schools have been built in the flight path of Paine after the Mediated Role Determination (MRD) agreement in the 1970s.

The MRD agreement was put in place to encourage suburban growth by promising a role void of commercial air traffic around Paine Field. These schools were built on the promise that children and their communities would not need to live with the constant noise or threat of larger, commuter airplanes overhead.

Interestingly enough, the tragic crash in Buffalo involved the Bombardier Q400, the plane Horizon wants to fly at Paine Field. I can't imagine a tragedy like this in our community with so many schools and family homes directly below a flight path.

Let's keep this type of tragedy away from our community, and let's hold our officials to their agreement.

-- Brad Greenfield, Mukilteo

Ellen M. Banner / The Seattle Times

Sound Transit light-rail trains sit on the tracks that run down Martin Luther King Jr. Way South in Seattle. Developers are interested in building near light-rail stations.

House bill 1490

Editor, The Times;

Portland got it right; Washington can too.

I was born and raised in Seattle, but I've also had a taste of living in Portland. Rep. Sharon Nelson, D-Maury Island., is absolutely right that Washington needs to promote the transit-oriented development Portland consciously fostered [ "Provide incentives for cities, residents to avoid sprawl," Sharon Nelson guest column, Feb. 5].

The communities that grew around Portland's MAX light-rail stations are forward-looking, sustainable and intelligent neighborhoods -- smart growth.

With the challenges of the 21st century facing us, Washington state must work to foster the same types of communities around our new light-rail lines. We can't wait "for haphazard growth and then [try] to fix it" because we don't have time to mess it up.

Seattle is expecting upward of 1.3 million new residents by 2030. Allowing growth to keep sprawling outward will simply increase traffic congestion, long commutes and dependence on oil, which are already crippling our region.

Developers are already making moves to build around Sound Transit's new light-rail stations. If they miss the mark, we all lose out.

I have already called my representatives asking them to support House Bill 1490, which
would develop smart growth. I hope everyone reading this will do the same.

-- Nicole Forbes, Seattle

Deserving kudos, not complaints

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the media have missed an opportunity with the massive road-construction activities announced to begin on Monday.

First, they're late with the news. It should have been out weeks ago to allow drivers to react.

But more importantly, the entire emphasis is negative, warning the driving public of disrupted travel and commute problems on apparently all of the local arterials. While this is certainly important, why aren't they taking advantage of the opportunity to tout the jobs created by this work, the improvements to transportation infrastructure and the dollar impact to the community -- all exclusive of the "stimulus package" endlessly debated in the other Washington.

We, in Washington state, are actually putting our money where our mouth is, starting Monday apparently, while Congress continues to debate some of the very same kind of job-creating programs.

While our politicians dither and disagree, we are actually doing something constructive. We ought to emphasize this and get kudos for our efforts.

-- Paul Beckman, Ravensdale

More lots mean more congestion

Here's a harbinger to the future of autos versus bicycles in Seattle: In Ballard there are 10 to 15 new condo projects. Each structure will station about 300 cars in underground parking.

When the depression ends and the condos fill up, look for 3,000 more automobiles in Ballard alone for bicyclists and pedestrians to contend with.

Do the math for all of Seattle's new condos. Look forward to untold traffic congestion and increased carbon monoxide. Market Street (with four bus lines) is already at capacity, particularly in summer.

So much for pro-development Mayor Greg Nickels' "green" city.

-- Bob Miller, Seattle

Craft a carbon waiver

As a person who doesn't use my car very often, I have always disliked the 72-hour parking rule. But now, when everyone is calling for people to cut their carbon emissions, the rule seems particularly troublesome.

I got a note from the police explaining that the 72-hour rule helps with street cleaning. In my neighborhood, if my car isn't there, someone else's is, and I don't believe I've ever seen evidence of a street cleaner running on my street.

The note also said if I want to park for longer, I should use a parking lot. That just seems to say that I don't have a right to have my car on the street, but my carbon-spewing neighbors who use their cars every day do.

One last reminder from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Driving a private car is probably a typical citizen's most 'polluting' daily activity."

Can someone craft a carbon waiver for the 72-hour rule that would allow me to leave my car at home and take the bus?

-- Gina Hicks, Seattle

Misleading questions mean misleading answers

Andrew Garber's Sunday story ["Deep-bore tunnel: dissecting the decision-making process," local news, Jan. 25] perpetuates the fallacy that Seattle voters rejected a tunnel in March 2007. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is, the 2007 election was deeply flawed, structured in such a way that its results were meaningless. If you supported an elevated replacement to the viaduct, you likely voted "no" on the tunnel proposal. If you supported the tunnel option, you likely voted "no" on the elevated viaduct option. And, of course, some voted "no" on both.

The ballot was set up as two separate questions with yes or no answers, rather than asking one question with the option of favoring a tunnel, an elevated roadway or neither. As a result, there were overwhelmingly more "no" votes than anything else.

I have not supported the tunnel option, but I know there are many who do. The truth is we don't know what the people of Seattle really want; the election in March 2007 was a bogus attempt at determining public opinion.

-- Vince Stricherz, Seattle

Spending more tax dollars is not the answer

In 1989, when the Loma Prieta earthquake hit San Francisco, the Embarcadero came tumbling down. It was not replaced with a tunnel or another raised road. Rather, the area is a beautiful waterfront area that supports many businesses with a breathtaking view of the bay. Amazingly enough, commuters still manage to get to their jobs without spending billions of dollars for a new raised road or tunnel.

At a time when the citizens who pay for such construction projects are struggling to make ends meet, the government of Washington state -- a state that has higher taxes than most other states -- wants to add more taxes.

How much has the state already spent on studies and elections where the voters have made their wants known? Apparently not enough because now they want to spend even more.

The state needs to take the money they are wasting and eliminate the deficit we have. If Gov. Christine Gregoire, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and a certain select group of people must have a tunnel, let them pay for it with a toll. If people really want to eliminate the gridlock in Seattle then we need a well-designed mass-transit system, not just a bunch of busses that can't seem to service major areas.

If we must waste more taxpayer money, at the very least, let's study cities that have more successful systems such as Portland and San Francisco.

-- Penny Fry, Renton

Too much emphasis on POVs,
not enough on mass transit

Using the Los Angeles basin as an example, no matter how many freeways you build, there are never enough to support community growth.

In metropolitan areas, we need to plan so people depend on mass transit and not privately owned vehicles. We need to send all traffic on an improved I-5, remove the viaduct in its entirety, develop the area with open space to the waterfront for electric trolley and service access only, and construct well-planned parking areas.

Lastly, we must pay for the project with [federal stimulus] funds, producing something residents will enjoy for years to come.

-- Paul Christen, Winthrop

Highway 520 expansion
Un-Washingtonian from start to finish

I cannot believe our City Council didn't request, when they had the opportunity to do so earlier this month, that the Washington State Department of Transportation and Sound Transit consider a transit-optimized, four-lane alternative in the environmental-impact study of the changes being proposed for Highway 520.

The people of Puget Sound have to defend the Arboretum and Lake Washington from a monstrous disaster of a freeway expansion.

In addition, the lovely neighborhood around the Arboretum would be devastated just so that we can get more cars into and out of Seattle during rush hour. So what if someone takes a few minutes longer to get to work or a cultural event?

I don't want to hear the nonsense about the more cars sitting in a traffic jam, the more pollution. They'll be polluting somewhere, whether they're in a traffic jam or not.

We as a society are at an impasse with the future. Al Gore recognizes it. Leo DiCaprio knows it. People in the state of Washington obviously do as well. I hope future generations will be able to commend us for our strong stand to protect the environment in upcoming years.

I really have no patience whatsoever with people who want to build bigger freeways to accommodate more cars as the population grows. Again, so what if more people want to use public roads? It's their lifestyle choice isn't it?

Why are we as a society sitting on our hands as the climate changes? Why do we keep waiting for someone else to do something about it?

I don't have the kind of influence at the level of government that a corporate-business lawyer -- someone who'd advocate more freeways and a wider floating bridge -- has. But, I do know common sense from greed and a stand-patism that won't embrace radical change to protect future generations from horrible ecological nightmares we can only imagine.

The people of Puget Sound have to make the Legislature and the governor stop the 520 expansion mess they are trying to force on King County in the name of progress.

What kind of progress? Progress for someone who's going to make big bucks off a wider bridge being built, more cars being sold to drive on the wider bridge and more suburban driveways being built to park all the new cars being driven.

That sounds distinctly un-Washingtonian to me. Increasingly, it sounds like a crime against humanity.

-- Tom Hundley, Seattle

Forever ruined

Congratulations Mayor Greg Nickels. Thanks to you and the powers that be in Western King County. You may have just set back mass transit 10 years thanks to the grade "D" handling of the snow.

Last Friday, with most of the snow gone, I expected bus routes to continue as normal, but instead had to pay full fare and walk 40 minutes to work. It's Monday and we are still running limited routes and are expected to be like that for the rest of the week.

Why? Almost all of the snow has melted.

Enjoy what little time you have left in office; I will remember this come voting day.

-- Russ Crandall, Seattle

WSDOT

Concept scenario D for the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement plan. In this scenario, Highway 99 would run along the waterfront via two independent bridge structures.

This time,
do it right

Editor, The Times:

Seattle now faces a choice regarding the viaduct that will shape our city for the foreseeable future and far beyond ["Viaduct replacement gives city a chance to make waterfront unforgettable," Times, Charles Anderson guest commentary, Dec. 14].

When I went to work for Paul Thiry in the early 1950s, the present viaduct was being completed and the freeway through downtown was being planned. As a leading architect and city planner, Thiry opposed both.

He fruitlessly argued that the viaduct would cut us off from our historic birthplace, the waterfront, and turn eastern Alaskan Way into a noisy, dirty street -- something only under which to park.

His solution was a tunnel that would give the traffic going through Seattle's bottleneck an alternative to the freeway.

The objections to his proposals 60 years ago were eerily similar to today's. If we had spent a few million more at the time, it would have saved us hundreds of millions now.

What will happen 30, 40, 50 years from now when we project millions more living in our metropolitan area that will need to pass through Seattle? We must find the extra money to do things right this time. It is absolutely certain that of the two selected solutions, a new viaduct would be pure folly.

Every other city in the country is working to tear viaducts down. This planning solution has been thoroughly discredited and rejected everywhere but, surprisingly, here. Of the two selected solutions, then, only the surface option merits consideration, and it has glaring weaknesses.

By making Western Avenue a major one-way thoroughfare, it infringes upon and changes the character of the Pike Place Market, which we fought hard to save as Seattle's main tourist attraction. And although Western Avenue mitigates the traffic on Alaskan Way, dumping 100,000 plus through trips on it per day would be unpleasant to live with.

The very best choice for Seattle, for now and the future, is to figure out how to pay for the very best solution, the deep-bore tunnel. It has an extra bonus, often noted, that we could use the existing viaduct while we bore it. We could easily put a toll on the tunnel to pay for the difference for as long as it takes.

Recreating Seattle's birthplace and soul, the waterfront, as an extension of the new Olympic Sculpture Park with only minimum local traffic would give us at last a Great City Park as Paul Thiry once dreamed.

-- Arne Bystrom, Seattle

Don't change a thing

The choices have been narrowed to two: a surface-street solution or rebuild the viaduct. We have heard the barrage of propaganda from the Seattle business community and mayor pushing to tear down the viaduct in favor of a surface-street solution, which would provide new opportunities for Seattle's downtown merchants.

However, let's remember that the viaduct is a state highway and provides a valuable route from north to south through the city that is independent of the Interstate 5 traffic mess. We live in West Seattle and regularly use the viaduct for business in Ballard, Wallingford and the University District. We regularly use it as alternative to Interstate 5 going either north or south. We hook up with I-5 north of downtown, usually around 80th Street.

When we travel the viaduct, I don't see everyone getting off at Seneca Street or Western Avenue for downtown. But those who do exit seem to be a fraction of the traffic.

Highway 99 is a main north/south artery for countless numbers of motorists. It is not primarily a downtown Seattle destination highway. Having to go to surface streets would be a mess. If the planned surface streets are to be pedestrian/merchant friendly, there will have to be numerous traffic lights to allow the foot traffic. How does commercial-truck traffic deal with that?

We ride transit whenever we can, but cars are not going away. Even if we are able to switch to a greener environment with more electric/hybrid cars, the traffic routes will be needed. Seattle has a unique geography, and trying to force all traffic through the downtown Interstate 5 corridor just doesn't work.
The sensible solution is to retain the free-flowing route offered by the existing viaduct route.

-- Michael Winter, Seattle

Go with the tunnel

Two years ago I suggested Seattle support replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a boulevard, similar to what has been done along the Hudson River in Manhattan. Since that time, eight viaduct-replacement proposals have been submitted for public review.

After analyzing all eight and reading the concerns expressed by Danish architect Jan Gehl and others, including the business community and Port of Seattle, I am amending my recommendation. Given that Seattle's topography limits the number of ways one can traverse the city north and south, forcing most vehicular traffic onto Highway 99 or Interstate 5, it appears that the bored tunnel option is the best approach to replacing the viaduct.

While it will cost more and require extensive monitoring to avoid the hazards that befell Boston's "Big Dig," the price may well be worth it to make downtown Seattle greener and more pedestrian friendly.

With the Port of Seattle and downtown waterfront real-estate interests benefiting directly from the tunnel option, they could help shoulder some of the added cost.

-- Thomas Lunke, New York, NY

Here you go

A six-lane surface, limited-access highway capped and soundproofed by a huge pedestrian plaza extending from the Bell Street Pier past the Coleman docks would give Seattle's harbor the most tourist-attractive harbor west of Boston.

Think of covering the highway with grass, sidewalks, Seattle Art Museum sculptures, sidewalk vendors, etc. with a railing overlooking the beautiful Seattle harbor. People would approach it at several places from First Avenue as they do to the Coleman Dock now and would descend to a one-lane south, delivery-only Alaskan Way or across walkways onto the second floor of the wharf buildings and the trolley could run on top of the plaza.

The Coleman dock entrance would also serve as the exit at the south end of the plaza and funneled onto the highway south.

Capping a highway with a grassy, pedestrian plaza cannot be nearly as expensive as a tunnel or elevating a highway. Capping and soundproofing eliminates most of the environmental complaints about a surface solution, the vented air can be cleaned and tourism will likely increase.

People are calling for a third alternative, so think of this one.

-- Tom Watson, Bainbridge Island

Save the scrapers

I appreciate the work Charles Anderson did designing the gardens for the Olympic Waterfront Park but I do not think the scope of his outlook is broad enough when considering the Seattle waterfront as part of the Puget Sound region ["Viaduct replacement gives city a chance to make waterfront unforgettable," Charles Anderson guest commentary, Dec. 14].

He claims to be a 20-plus-year citizen and advocate of the Greater Seattle community. I do not doubt this. However, as someone who remembers when the Seattle skyline consisted of the Smith Tower, the Space Needle and the box it came in (the IBM building), I feel Seattle has enough skyscrapers. We do not need more extending down to a waterfront boulevard.

If the land portion of Seattle waterfront were convex, we would not need a highway there. Since Seattle is not convex but rather concave and is constricted by Lake Washington to the east, the only logical place for a highway that relieves pressure on the crowded Interstate 5 is where the elevated Alaskan Way Viaduct is now.

How does an elevated, double-deck Alaskan Way Viaduct preclude having the waterfront amenities Anderson proposes?

-- Harvey Friedman, Seattle

Look forward

The new version of the Alaskan Way Viaduct is even worse than what we have: an even wider black hole underworld of darkness, filth, rats, pigeons, garbage, soot, dampness and crime. The waterfront will be further inaccessible to the city -- all for a 1950s mentality of moving cars.

The question to ask is, "How will our cities look and function in 2050?" Global warming, energy independence and downtown livability should be our focus over the provincial outlook of a few Ballard/West-Seattle commuters and truckers.

Seattle should be the leader in 21st-century transportation solutions, but we must follow neighbors that have reconnected to lost waterfronts. Portland and San Francisco demolished freeways to reconnect to their waterfronts, thinking globally about transportation systems and land-use patterns to reduce traffic volumes on 1950s-era freeways, and moving people alternatively with buses, trains, ferries, bicycles and feet.

The surface/transit option is the choice that puts us ahead of the curve in building a 21st-century Seattle. The fact that local voters overwhelmingly supported the Sound Transit extension last November says a lot about the direction to take on this issue.

Let's look forward to the surface/transit option.

-- Mike Moedritzer, Seattle

Who cares?

Charles Anderson's vision of Seattle's waterfront demonstrates a decided lack of understanding about how critical Highway 99 is to the city ["Viaduct replacement gives city a chance to make waterfront unforgettable," Charles Anderson guest columnist, Dec. 14].

The vast majority of Seattleites who have to use the Alaskan Way Viaduct on a daily basis couldn't care less what happens on the waterfront or how it affects local residents or tourists -- all they want is the quickest way to get through the city center without being impeded by traffic.

The viaduct serves them extremely well in that regard. Any plan that fails to be as effective in moving traffic will only further victimize those who want to avoid downtown, which is probably most of us.

-- Herb Aldinger, Seattle

Please consider

I really appreciated the column by Charles Anderson in Sunday's paper. I grew up in the Midwest and had many relatives who lived in or near Chicago. I spent many childhood vacations with them, and remember how much all of us loved driving down the Lake Shore Drive admiring the view, and occasionally spending time on the beach.

Ever since I have lived in or near Seattle, I have wondered why there isn't a space for the ordinary citizens to enjoy the beauty of the Sound in the downtown area. Recently, I have been cheering for whatever plan for replacing the viaduct will make the waterfront unforgettable to the citizens and the tourists.

Until I read yesterday's story, I hadn't realized that the plan for surface streets would be clogged with traffic and stoplights. Anderson presents another option that has many advantages, and that I hope the city will consider.

-- Mary Bartholet, Shoreline

Give us a voice

Recent meetings about the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement and the Highway 520 bridge offered dramatically different approaches to transportation planning.

The state's "mediation" process for Highway 520 has been confined to six-lane alternatives. All of these would cause more concrete, congestion and disruption of Seattle neighborhoods. There is increasing dismay among parks and Arboretum advocates, environmentalists and many community members over the lack of an environmental options in the Highway 520 mediation process.

This is an area that is sensitive to Seattle voters, who, two years ago, rejected the costly and disruptive choices of a tunnel or rebuilt viaduct. This process was established to represent a broad range of economic and environmental interests.

We need to consider a broad array of options for viaduct replacement, including choices that would reduce environmental impact, as well as shift the balance of travel toward higher transit use. Seattle, King County and the Washington State Department of Transportation representatives should rotate leadership of the meetings. There should be technical research and response to stakeholders' questions reflective of active involvement, from the beginning, by qualified transit planners.

Now is an opportunity for Seattle to move to better planning for Highway 520. Similar to the viaduct process, local officials should insist on inclusion of the four-lane transit-optimized alternative among the options evaluated. Such a process would be public, open to input from affected neighborhoods and those favoring a better chance for transit. It should be evaluated with updated traffic-projection models, reflecting potential availability of an integrated, advanced, regional transit network.

-- Bob Corwin, Seattle

The way it works

In your Dec. 11 editorial you criticize the airlines for having the nerve to charge for things that people want ["Buck up and fly," Dec. 12]. That is not such a strange concept if you think about it. Isn't that the point in a free-market economy? We want companies to make as much money as possible so shareholders can maximize their returns. However, some industries seem to run smoother than others.

Why is it that many industries lack the dysfunction and drama that is playing out with banks, automakers and airlines? Are stupid, greedy people somehow strangely drawn to manage these industries, or is there another common thread here?

All of these industries are very capital-intensive and are greatly affected by government policies and regulation. For many years we have been building eight-lane freeways and lawmakers have made great efforts to keep gas prices low. Lax regulation and low interest rates have encouraged an irresponsible use of consumer debt. Overreaching bankruptcy protection and heavy government taxes and regulation have led to a hypercompetitive, dysfunctional airline industry.

Unfortunately, taxpayers have now bailed out all three of these industries in this decade. Legislating our way to cheap gas, airline tickets and home loans has come back to haunt us. Our government needs to provide a stable, common-sense framework so these industries can operate in a long-term healthy marketplace.

Then these industries will hopefully stop giving us so much angst and provide consumers with a good product while making a reasonable profit.

-- Eric Driggers, Bainbridge Island

In more ways than one

Editor, The Times:

The service of the viaduct in the 1950s was to let vehicle traffic bypass the downtown area ["Market officials concerned about viaduct option," News, Dec. 13]. This kept people who did not want to be in downtown traffic out of it and relieved downtown pedestrians and drivers of having to contend with those extra cars. It relieved congestion, decreased exhaust along with wear and tear on vehicles and nerves.

So now the anti-auto people want to cancel the wisdom of the planners of the 1940s and 1950s by putting all of those vehicles back on surface streets, with obstructions along the way, such as 21 stoplights southbound, in this new debacle.

The basic paradigm of transportation is this: Move people or goods from here to there. The best case is to have complete freedom of route and time. The best case is that there are no obstructions.

Many years ago, people invented bridges over rivers and ravines. Over time came wheels, boats and ships, aircraft, motors and engines, and long bridges we call viaducts, causeways and such, and turnpikes and other limited-access highways for wheeled vehicles -- all to get closer to the best-case paradigm.

But a group of people today forget transportation and want to move us back in time. They say, "Use transit or bicycles. Walk, it's good for you," or "If you are 80, 70, 60, 50, if you have three children to take to Sears for back-to-school clothes, if you have a truck full of produce, plumbing repair gear, if you have an old TV to recycle in the industrial area, take a bus, a bike or walk."

A major feature of transportation in and around well-planned cities for several thousands of years has been bypass routes. This is what subways are: here to there without obstruction.

I have used foot, bike, train, transit, wagon and motor vehicle as primary means of transporting myself, others and stuff, in several places, including abroad. Each mode has its advantages. We should do what we can to make each safe, useful and efficient. But we darn sure must not discourage or disparage any one.
If we narrow-mindedly delete the viaduct, which bypasses downtown clearly, we will see more pollution, higher aggregate costs of vehicle maintenance, and more traffic injuries.

We must keep this means to get from here to there without obstruction.

-- Richard Carter, Seattle

Ellen M. Banner / The Seattle Times

Cars exit the Alaskan Way Viaduct heading south. Quest Field looms in the background.

Consider this

I see a lot of discussion of initial capital-construction costs associated with the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. But I don't see any discussion or data related to the long-term costs associated with this project.

I am thinking of costs to individual taxpayers/consumers over the life of the replacement. This includes such things as average transit time, average quantity of gasoline and amount of air pollution generated per trip for each of the replacement options.

Is there any difference in the expected accident and injury rate on the various types of roadways?
Also, what is the anticipated maintenance and repair cost over the life of the project for each of the options?
These types of costs must be considered if we are to make an intelligent choice, and I am concerned that important factors may not be considered.

-- Larry Holdren, Bellevue

Take your ideas to Nowhereland

What are these people thinking? ["Council supports streetcar expansion," page one, Dec. 9.]

In a city that is choking on its existing gridlock, the mayor and the Rubber-stamp City Council are considering more of those snail-paced, go-nowhere-fast, totally outdated and ridiculously expensive monstrosities? These people must be out of their collective minds.

If they are so enamored by those contraptions, let them buy a track out in Nowhereland, pay for it and the cars out of their own pockets and then go and play with their silly toys; don't hang those albatrosses around the public's neck.

Those folks' idea of a world-class city sure has an awful smell to it, not to mention the waste of our hard-earned tax dollars, for which their must be a long list of better uses.

-- Ruth Quiban, Seattle

Listen to the stakeholders

After one year of meetings and then being told that the three agencies will make the final recommendation as to the preferred option, the stakeholders should be upset ["Viaduct 'stakeholders' complain," News, Dec. 8].

If past performance is any guideline the state, the city and county will ignore any more input by the stakeholders.

While the recent analysis has been on the central section of the viaduct, the project has been divided into three parts: the north section, the central and the south section. All need to be taken into consideration so that the total costs are not forgotten.

Last August the state called for discussion of the EIS [environmental impact statement] for the south section. We stated that the EIS was incomplete in that it did not include retrofitting the entire viaduct. The EIS did not deal with the cost of business disruption during the four years of construction and traffic impact of 110,000 cars displaced.

The south section alone is now estimated to cost $544 million.

The cost of the north section and work on Aurora is, as of now, unknown. The central section is estimated to be about $800 to $900 million -- not including the $498 million for Interstate 5 and $378 million for surface-street improvements.

The cost of yearly business disruption is not included.

It does not make any sense to push for any surface or hybrid option with a total cost of more than $2.38 billion and wind up with less traffic capacity than we now have.

The retrofit can be done for less than half of any surface option and be completed within three years, while maintaining traffic during construction.

The stakeholders should be heard and the retrofit should be in the final mix.

-- Victor O. Gray, Port Townsend

You can't catch me

I am continually amazed when I hear proposals such as James F. Vesely's bike-fee theory ["Impose license fee on King County cyclists," Times, editorial column, Dec. 7]. Why does no one understand that unenforceable laws are ineffective?

Save costs? Generate revenue?

Who does Vesely think is going to enforce a bike-licensing law and who will pay for that enforcement? Is that how we want our limited law-enforcement officials to be spending their time -- pulling over bicyclists and writing tickets when they don't have a license? Here's one long-term bicycle commuter who wouldn't purchase a license if people like you were crazy enough to make it law.

What are you going to do, chase me down the road?

-- Ron Rowbotham, Lake Forest Park

Not what you think

I know times are tough, but must The Seattle Times resort to such blatant anti-cyclist blather as Jim F. Vesely's Sunday opinion?

Car drivers assume that the burdensome gas taxes pay for everything related to roads. The truth is that driving is subsidized to the tune of a dollar per mile. Property taxes and sales taxes pay for local roads. Only a fraction of the Bridging the Gap levy goes toward multimodal transportation.

Regional trails like the Burke-Gilman and Greenlake are heavily used by pedestrians, rollerbladers and joggers.

Vesely and people like him assume that driving a car is normal. He might be surprised to learn that 37 percent of our population doesn't drive and we spend only 2 percent of our transportation funds to serve them.

It is about time that car drivers paid their fair share. If we included the true cost to society of the people injured by uninsured drivers, air and water-pollution cleanup, and the public lands devoted to free parking, even Vesely would rush to sell his car and buy a bicycle.

-- Michael Snyder, Seattle

Paul Sakuma / The Associated Press

Gas prices have dipped to their lowest point in nearly three years.

Adapt to the times

Editor, The Times:

How sad it is that humans seem destined to run in circles, forever tripping over the mistakes of the past ["SUVs: They're baaack," Motoring, Dec. 5].

Are the $4-per-gallon gas prices of just a few months ago merely a distant memory? Fossil fuels are finite resources; today's prices are artificially low considering the costs (social, political and environmental) involved in procuring and using such resources.

Gas prices will spike again as the depletion of petroleum deposits continues. The state of the U.S. auto market, with its thousands of unsold SUVs, provides a glaring example of the consequences of failing to adapt to the times.

America's oil addiction will be cured only through changing our entire paradigm concerning the use of fossil fuels and opening our minds to alternative sources of energy. "Bringing baaack" the SUV is a step in the wrong direction.

-- Sarah Washburn, Seattle

There's more to it

In regard to the proposal to tax bicycles, James F. Vesely has one thing right in supposing that nary a local elected official has the stomach for it ["Impose license fee on King County cyclists," editorial column, Dec. 7].

As it stands, cyclists quietly accept that the money spent on bicycle facilities is nowhere near proportional; the facilities are poorly designed, discontinuous, involve ridiculous detours, have discriminatory signaling or restrictive signage, and they generally need substantial improvement to come up to the standard that motorists accept as commonplace.

The effect of a bicycle tax would be to replace cyclists' current sense of gratitude (for any bicycle facilities that are actually done right) with a sense of entitlement. Cyclists would be much more attentive to the amount of money that is designated for bicycle facilities and how it is spent.

It turns out that it's not a matter of guts after all: Local politicians are smart enough to see that a bike tax is a non-starter.

-- Thomas Hildebrandt, Mercer Island

Go all the way

You want a tax proposal that takes guts (but would actually solve our budget problems)? Try this: state income tax. I'm looking forward to seeing that column.

-- Jerrod Wendland, Seattle

Pay for what you use

I believe it is time to make licenses on all bicycles mandatory for all bikes on bike trails and roadways -- the sooner the better.

We are seeing a large growth of the numbers of bikes in the state and it is about time that the riders pay a fee to use the roads and trails. There is also a need to build and maintain additional safe roads and trails in the near future.

Thank you for bringing the subject to the attention of the public.

-- Donald and Johanna Whipple

Introducing the hybrid tunnel

All of the proposed replacements of the Alaskan Way Viaduct are, so far, unacceptable to the majority, in one way or another [" 'Hybrid' plans combine tunnel, surface streets in place of viaduct," News, Dec. 9].

A tunnel is the costliest and longest to build. It also presents the scariest scenario in case of an earthquake of large magnitude. A replacement viaduct is also expensive albeit less costly than a tunnel. A retrofit is no better because it would just serve as a bandaid as the 50-year-old structure is crumbling.

There are many proponents for a surface alternative because it is not only the cheapest to build but also the fastest to finish and gives the best view of the waterfront. Its drawback is slower traffic leading to congestion.

How about an alternative that gives the same view of the waterfront as a surface roadway while at the same time moving traffic as a tunnel and viaduct would?

Here's that alternative: a surface tunnel. Envision a road at the bottom of a 10-foot-deep canal six lanes wide. Build a wall on both sides of that canal for 18 feet and put a roof with openings for light, ventilation and easy ingress and egress in case of disaster inside the tunnel.

It should be noted that the road is only 10 feet deep but the walls are 18 feet high. That's because the earth previously dug out is used to cover up the exposed 8 or so feet above the original surface to hide the tunnel.

So, there is a tunnel that did not have to be bored deep underground, a road that has no traffic lights and the view to the waterfront is unobstructed from the city. At the same time, the new ground surface is a wide open promenade/park like the Embarcadero in San Francisco. An added and very important advantage is safety in case of major disasters as in big earthquakes. There is no tunnel to collapse and no pillars to buckle in an earthquake.

-- Avelino Reyrao, Kent

Start now on the viaduct

Has anyone asked Washington State Department of Transportation engineers what they think of moving the Alaskan Way Viaduct to Western Avenue ["All viaduct options are unfriendly to pedestrians, study finds," News, Dec. 4]. It seems it could be built while the present viaduct is still moving traffic.

This would only shut this main thoroughfare down for months instead of years. It could be configured to minimize noise and have levels for shops, buses and parks, connecting easily for pedestrians to First Avenue.

This would save the taxpayers a lot of money and inconvenience -- plus open Alaskan Way for wonderful connections and possibilities for the public, and tourism from the city to our waterfront. These possibilities could dovetail with the rebuilding of the waterfront's sea wall.

-- John Willett, Poulsbo

Streetcars? Think rural

This new plan to extend the streetcar lines has to be one of the worst ideas our City Council has come up with in a while ["Is Seattle ready for more streetcars?," page one, Dec. 3].

Anyone commuting to Seattle can tell you this plan will only negatively affect Seattle's transportation system. There are some major aspects that need to be taken into account before putting this $685 million plan into action, such as the location of the railways.

A big problem with this system is that the City Council is totally disregarding rural communities. The rub is that many of the people who are going to be contributing taxes for this rail system live in the rural communities.

I know the plan is to tax local business but many of these people who are running the businesses are commuting from places like Bellevue, Redmond and Everett. Instead of putting a slow rail system through Seattle, they could put rail systems leading into the city and maybe break up some of the congestion on the surrounding freeways.

What we should do is take ideas from much older cities such as New York City, which has subways downtown and light-rail trains coming from surrounding communities.

-- Shayne Mooney, Redmond

Enough is enough

State and local governments have spent years, millions of dollars and thousands of hours trying to define the need and location of new airport/runway capacity for Western Washington. And yet, the discussion always returns to expanding Sea-Tac Airport ["As third Sea-Tac runway opens, some seek a fourth," News, Nov. 20].

When Metro needed a new sewer facility, it didn't think about expanding West Point or Renton; it built a new facility called Brightwater. When prisons need expansion, the state builds new facilities. When airport capacity is needed, the 1948 Sea-Tac site has been chosen for continuous expansion time and time again.

The communities around Sea-Tac airport deserve some relief from noise pollution, air pollution and construction impacts.

It is time for the Port of Seattle to make an absolute commitment that there will never be another runway at Sea-Tac. This would assure the local communities that they would not be damaged again, and it would give clear direction to state and local governments that they would not have the Sea-Tac option to fall back on. They need to find a new site for a new runway.

-- Stuart Creighton, Normandy Park

Chris Joseph Taylor / The Seattle Times

A football cleat sits on the side of the road after the bus carrying the Bellevue High School football team was involved in an accident while on its way to play in a state playoff game at the Tacoma Dome.

Buckle up

Editor, The Times:

We all share a sense of relief that no one was killed when a bus carrying half the Bellevue football team rolled over in an accident ["Bellevue football players avoid serious injury in bus crash," News, Nov. 29].

Whenever passengers are ejected from the vehicle there is a high risk of death, so this was a very close call.

Let's use this accident as a wake-up call on the need for seat belts in buses, especially buses carrying students. We were lucky this time, but the next bus accident could just as easily lead to a tragic and preventable loss of life.

Belted passengers are safer and are rarely ejected from vehicles in accidents. Our children's lives are worth the cost of such a proven safety device. Washington should lead in requiring seat belts in buses, beginning with those that carry our children to school, to sporting events and on field trips.

-- Reuel Robertson, Woodinville

Quit riding the tails

It disappoints me that no one is addressing the real cause of the bus crash that affected the Bellevue High School football team. The ladder in the road was just a precipitating event.

The actual cause was the bus driver following too closely to be able to react in case of an unforeseeable event. In doing so, he was endangering himself, his passengers and everyone else on the road.

This could also be said of everyone else involved in the chain-reaction event, but I would expect a professional driver to be held to a higher standard. The person who dropped the ladder does share some
blame, since it was a preventable incident, but I wish the State Patrol and everyone else would begin to address this issue of tailgating.

-- John Moore, Bellevue

Washington State Department of Transportation

An artist's rendition of what a multi-tiered Waterfront Parkway might look like as a replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Don't forget,
you work for us

Editor, The Times:

The opinion piece "Don't mire viaduct plans in lawn-sign politics" [Times, guest columnists, Nov. 26] demonstrates the arrogance of the political elite at its worst. Former mayors Norm Rice, Charles Royer and Paul Schell contemptuously lecture us that the viaduct decision should be left exclusively in the hands of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, not "lawn-sign politics."

So who is on this "stakeholder" committee? Am I on it? No. Are you on it? No. It is a self-appointed committee of the area's political elite and so-called experts. And who are the "obstructionists" who are putting up lawn signs? They are interested citizens like you and me.

The fact that three previous mayors (i.e., public servants) would suggest that the citizenry should butt out is appalling. Who do they think they are? We are the real stakeholders, not them. We are the ones who will be living with the consequences of the viaduct decision.

Today, our country finds itself in serious trouble as a result of the failings of the political elite and economic "experts." As a nation, we have voted for change. At the core of that change is the demand that our leaders not forget who they work for.

We are not silly, irrelevant "lawn-sign" rabble rousers, we are citizens.

-- Dick Schwartz, Bellevue

A turkey of an idea

The Waterfront Parkway? Yuck, what a crummy idea ["High on elevated viaduct," News, Nov. 26].
We think the existing viaduct is bad. At least we can see through it in spots. A giant wall -- that's [Speaker of the House] Frank Chopp's idea, an architectural monstrosity of monumental proportions that will put Seattle at or near the top of the "worst public projects in history" list. Building it would mean that Seattle would take a bad thing and make it 10 times worse -- a historic civic blunder far worse than the construction of the original viaduct.

I say build a more-slender elevated roadway (if we must) or do a surface option. The surface option allows the greatest flexibility for future changes. We don't have the money for a tunnel anymore, unless it can be done under the coming "Works Progress Administration"-type federal spending.

Our waterfront is a jewel, not a condo location. It's the city's front door to the world. The Chopp wall is the architectural equivalent of those horrid tract houses that show only their garage doors to the street. It's not a problem at all for those inside looking out. But the wall would be awful for everything and everyone behind it.

What would a mile-long, mixed-use condo/mall-wall say about us? Tacky rubes who lack any vision or social/public responsibility. With all due respect to Chopp and in keeping with the season, this idea is a turkey.

-- Pete Rogerson, Seattle

Doing the best they can

I know the frustration of getting to class late due to my bus' lack of punctuality. I also get frustrated when watching bus drivers sit at a bus stop drinking coffee, instead of working ["Bumper to Bumper," News, Nov. 24].

In defense of the Metro system, however, I find it unreasonable to ask for such timeliness from the buses with the inconsistent city streets they have to work with. Unlike systems in other countries that are said to "rarely even be one second late," the Metro-bus system has to put up with day-to-day inconsistencies of Seattle streets such as stop lights, traffic, wheelchair passengers and much more.

I am frustrated with the current system, but do not see a long-term fix coming from more buses crowding the streets, or fewer coffee breaks for drivers. Making "bus-only" lanes or creating a new transportations system altogether would be fixes. I believe Metro deserves nothing but applause and gratitude for the system they have put together with the money and resources available.

-- Martin Merz, Seattle

Road construction won't be enough

As the Highway 520 tolling-implementation committee plans to slap a huge toll on 520 and Interstate 90, I have to ask, what happened to the days when highways were funded 90 percent by the federal government ["520 bridge / 6-lane bridge's cost no easy sell," News, Nov. 21]?

The federal contribution for the 520 bridge is a measly $114 million on a project that will cost at least $4.5 billion, or about 2.5 percent. How did we get here? We pay a federal gas tax of $0.184 cents/per gallon, which goes into the Highway Trust Fund, which was enough to build almost all of the freeways you see.

Now we're told that there is nearly nothing available for big interstate transportation projects like 520 and the Alaskan Way Viaduct. I know a dollar doesn't go as far, but if the Highway Trust Fund isn't being used to fund projects like 520, then what is it good for?

The federal government needs to get its act together and do its part to fund major freeway projects. Mega-construction projects simply cannot be handled on the local level. Tolls are not going to be enough to close the funding gap.

-- Franklin Hu, Seattle

The end begins here

How many levels of government does it take to raze a city?

Decline starts here: Shut down WaMu [Washington Mutual] headquarters and mothball the building. Trash law enforcement and the legal system. Gun owners with legal concealed-carry permits need to stay out.

Transit riders hurting for cash in a recession should pay more. Or, drive in and pay a toll to use the bridges or more to park. Debate the Alaskan Way Viaduct and select the worst, most expensive option and take five to seven years before traffic is normalized. But who will want to go to Seattle, if there is one?

-- William Hofmann, Burien

Assault on the senses

Now that the third runway at Sea-Tac Airport is being used, the trial balloon of a fourth runway has been released.

As a 30-year resident near the flight paths I can see why the Port of Seattle wants to continue its assault on our senses.

For all the battles against further expansion of Sea-Tac Airport we give the Port a blank check. We are pawns in the Port's progressive cementing of our neighborhood.

We fight in the courts, lose and wind up paying higher costs through our taxes.

Never mind the Port of Seattle has raised its budget 11 percent while other entities of government are cutting back. We are subjected suckers to the Port's excessive spending.

Time for another secret sweet lunch for Port executives and contractors to plan to spend that next 11 percent at our expense.

Instead of three martinis, it'll be two. Times are tough you know.

-- Bill Wippel, Normandy Park

Simply a waste

I recently received my new vanity license plates, as required by Washington state law, although my old ones were just like new.

The old plates at least had some "class," with the embossed lettering. The new ones are printed on the flat surface, but the cost went up. Despite the price hike for new plates, the cheap quality of the new plates is embarrassing.

I used to be proud to have Washington plates on my car, but this is the last time I'll pay extra for vanity plates.

The law stating that all license plates have to be renewed periodically is a flat-out waste of money for a huge percentage of Washington vehicle owners and creates more clutter on this planet.

I understand this law came about because state troopers wanted it. But they (and the state Legislature) clearly have not considered the consequences, the additional expense and that one of the concepts of the "green movement" is trying to teach people to get over this "throwaway" mentality.

I think a very small percentage of license plates become unreadable in a short period, as claimed by the State Patrol.

Check with any collector of license plates, and they'll tell you most license plates 50 years old are still readable.

-- Hannah Murphy, Toledo

Big Oil owes us

Dear senators,

I suggest that it would be eminently fair to exploit the symbiotic relationship between the auto manufacturers and Exxon et al by having the latter provide any bridge loans required.

Big Oil can certainly afford it better than we taxpayers. And if one were to view the automakers and the oil companies as a single entity, one could easily say that we have already made our significant contribution via the recent obscene profits of those oil and gas folks.

-- Lee Trousdale, Mercer Island

Join together now

The CEOs of Ford, Chrysler and GM, seemed to make a collective point that bankruptcy is off the table because consumers would never buy a car from a bankrupt company ["Big Three get more time to make case," News, Nov. 21].

I suggest the auto companies form a company by all three that would provide one service warranty to their buyers -- similar to the concept of extended warranties consumers can purchase. The work would be performed by the service departments of existing dealerships of their particular car. This entity could be insured by a respected insurance company to preserve its viability and give comfort to car buyers.

This way, a consumer could confidently buy a car even if the manufacturer is in Chapter 11. I would imagine there could be some economies of scale.

Another possible approach to our economic crisis would be to pull out an old concept used during World War II: the sale of war bonds to finance our current needs such as education.

If 100 million bonds were sold in varying denominations that would average $300 per bond, we could raise $30 billion. The good thing is the people would be part of the solution and feel they are making a contribution to our country and their grandchildren.

--Walt Winrow, Seattle

Anybody out there?

"Pirates seize oil tanker -- largest payload ever" [page one, Nov. 18]. Where the hell is the U.S. Navy?

-- Dale Van Pelt, Seattle

Greg Gilbert / The Seattle Times

Sea-Tac's new, $1 billion runway spawned lawsuits, delays and a federal probe. United Airlines Flight 197 was the first airplane to land on the new runway.

Break out the Roundup

Editor, The Times:
Some things never go away ["As third runway opens at Sea-Tac, some seek a fourth," page one, Nov. 20].
The Port of Seattle wanted the third runway on their turf.

Snohomish County residents, despite the residential origin of demand in north King County and Snohomish County, accommodated the Port of Seattle's aspirations to externalize their costs to South King County.

The obvious resource for airport expansion was (and remains) McChord Air Force Base. However, McChord lies in Pierce County, so no control and no glory for Port of Seattle and much less construction work for local supporters.

With nudges from Rep. Norm Dicks and the rest of Washington state, Eastern Washington would have been giddy with visions of the military and civilian work force. That already exaggerated air-traffic growth will not be coming for a very, very long time.

If anyone still thinks the third runway was a good idea, I've got another surefire investment: WaMu. A better bet will be Roundup to keep the weeds down until those planes show up.

--Bill Duroe, Seattle

Quit dragging your heels

"Gregoire's panel looked at high-speed rail as an alternative to more in-state flights, but concluded it was not likely to supply relief by the 2030 planning target." ["As third Sea-Tac runway opens, some seek a fourth," page one, Nov. 20]

How shortsighted. If we plan for high-speed rail now, just like California voters approved recently, a fourth runway will not be needed.

Currently, there are more than 60 takeoffs and landings for Seattle-to-Portland flights every day, nearly 50 for Seattle-to-Spokane and more than 20 for Seattle-to-Vancouver, B.C. Most of these can be eliminated if travelers can get from downtown Seattle to Portland or Vancouver in one hour and to Spokane in under two hours.

The benefits of high-speed rail along the I-5 and I-90 corridors extend well beyond the need to expand Sea-Tac's capacity. Rail travel, with no greenhouse-gas emissions, is "green" travel. High-speed rail along heavily traveled corridors would reduce construction of more freeway miles.

Conversely, design and construction of rail lines provide tangible "green economy" jobs to Washington state, Oregon and British Columbia. And, should population and economic growth in future decades necessitate air-traffic capacity expansion, high-speed rail would make Bellingham and Moses Lake plausible "satellite airport" candidates.

--Leo Egashira, Seattle

Use what we've got

$57 million of my and other Americans' tax money says that the airport near Everett should be used for the purpose for which it was built.

But with all due respect to Paine Field, wouldn't it be appropriate for commercial planes to fly over Mukilteo to and from the newly renamed "Eyman Airfield"?

-- George Randels, Port Townsend

Air travel safety

3 oz. toothpaste, 3 oz. shampoo, 3 oz. lotion and 3 oz. Pepto-Bismol -- all zipped in a clear, quart-sized bag.
Shoes off, no gel-filled inserts allowed, but my 1 lb., gel-filled breast prosthesis is legal and doesn't have to be declared to the TSA [Transportation Security Administration] as I pass through security to board my plane?

Can't we get see the inconsistent irony of these ridiculous "safety" precautions that do nothing to make air travel safer? Enough already.

-- Kay Schellberg, Seattle

Thomas James Hurst / The Seattle Times

Property owned by West Marine, a longtime marine-supply business located on Mercer Street, is being condemned by the city, part of a long-range plan to widen and beautify the Street.

We must do better

Editor, The Times:

I am of the opinion that fixing the "Mercer mess" is a very questionable use of resources ["Council bets hopes on federal stimulus plan for Mercer," Times, News, Nov. 18].

Surely, we can see the handwriting on the wall. Lines at food banks are increasingly lengthy.
Homeless, including families with children, are scattered around our city, living in filth and danger.

Community health clinics are strapped for resources and losing ground every year. In every age range, folks are suffering.

How can we decide to leave potholes and bridges in disrepair and consider, even for a moment, fixing the "Mercer mess"? How can we ignore the needs of our people?

Our mayor pushes to make Seattle a "world-class" city.

I prefer a city that honors its citizens by providing housing, transportation, health care and other human services. That would make Seattle a world-class city -- not pandering to developers (and a mayor) who may want an easier route to South Lake Union and its amenities.

Wake up. We can and must do better.

-- Nancy Bryant, Seattle

Not so average

I appreciate that you have published a positive story during the economic downturn ["Average King County family 'pretty solid,'." News, Nov. 18].

However, you have neglected to emphasize an important detail that sets the Bentler family ahead of many that are not so "solid." They purchased their home eight years ago for about half of what it's worth today. Incomes have certainly not doubled in eight years.

Do you think the Bentler's could have afforded a $300,000 home eight years ago with their income? Not a chance.

Today, many two-income professional families starting their careers are priced out of owning such a "modest" home.

My wife and I make about $57,000 and we have a young child and a dog, much like the Bentlers. We live in an apartment because we cannot afford the mortgage payment required for today's home prices. Too many families live in communities where home prices are way out of alignment with incomes.

A rise in foreclosures and sluggish home sales are a symptom of this misalignment. A price correction in the housing market is badly needed. Who will they sell homes to if a whole generation of young professionals cannot buy them?

-- Glenn Kohler, Olympia

Let's be real

Since Oct. 31, 12 people have died from youth violence ["Seattle to spend more on homeless; garbage, water, parking rates to rise," News, Nov. 18].

For decades, suburbanites have had the nonchalant attitude, "this will not happen in my neighborhood." This attitude led adults to believe the deviant and criminal behavior of the youth will not negatively impact the upper echelon of society.

We have raised a generation of children with no awareness of self and who are unloving, uninvolved and uncaring. We call them misguided youth; you can only be misguided if you received improper guidance. We looked down upon the youth in disgust with their sagging clothes, crooked baseball caps and revealing clothing. I remember my days of the AJ jeans, cross colors, white T-shirts, khaki pants, the Kangol and the NWA blasting from my boom box on the back of the bus.

But today it is time to get off the fence, stop whining about how much things will cost, what programs we need to establish, what label to use and most important stop living in blind fear. What we should do -- at no cost -- when you see young men in their sagging clothing or young women in their revealing clothing, stop and look them in the eyes, say "Hello, how are you today?" -- instead of turning your head and looking down at the ground.

We should always show the youth with our words, deeds and a positive visions how great an asset to society they can become.

I grew up around pimps, drug dealers, hustlers and gang bangers. I needed a reality check and these young people need one as well.

We must show them what life looks like if they continue on their destructive path. Show them the lifeless bodies of the young people who have died from violence. They do not need to see those nonthreatening, prom-dance photos that we see in the media.

We need to show the courtroom photos of the bereaved parents passing out, screaming and yelling because of the eternal pain, deep sorrow and emptiness they suffer. Show them there is no glamour when a jury discloses their verdict and a judge's sentencing is real.

Show them the photos of children in their orange jumpsuits in chains at Echo Glen and the lonely, haunting and cold jail cells of Maple Lane with a community toilet and shower.

If all else fails, show them videos of McNeil Island or Monroe penitentiaries. Explain to them the staggering number of their high-school friends they thought were cool who are now or will become jobless, homeless, addicted or incarcerated.

The game is still the same; it is only fiercer.

-- Elder Wyatt, Seattle

Now more than ever

Today, you reported that Seattle will finance youth-violence prevention and social services for the homeless population on a two-year budget approval.

This is interesting because I recently began outreaching to the homeless population in San Francisco, and was wondering how Seattle, where I am originally from, helps the homeless. As a community member, I feel extremely optimistic that during this recession, the city still recognizes the importance of selflessness for others in greater need and is not going through budget cuts for social programs that are vital to our community.

What people don't realize is that because we are in a recession, more people will need to access food banks and other social services and that change takes time. Sure, we don't want to pay more for utilities or parking meters, but it's just like gas prices; we complained about how high they got but still drove anyway because we had to.

One thing that could really make a difference is better education about homelessness. I know many people who are quite ignorant about issues surrounding homelessness and as a result don't understand the need for funding of important programs.

-- Karen Hong, San Francisco, Calif.

They get what they can

One specific of The Times' informative gas-price story is hard to accept: "… because Eastern Washington can buy its gas from refineries in Utah and Alberta, which could have lower prices than the Seattle-area gas [from Western Washington refineries]" ["State gas prices lowest since February 2006," News, Nov. 12].

As Vice President-elect Joseph Biden recently said, "give us a break."

Gas doesn't come to Ellensburg or Othello in cross-state pipelines; it comes in tank trucks. Both are about 90 to 130 miles from Seattle, a two to three hour tanker drive, and surely only slightly more from some Yakima, Tri-City or Spokane distribution point.

An alert middle-school math and geography student could spot this fallacious excuse.
It's called "zone pricing" -- better labeled, "get what we can."

This reader was in Othello and Ellensburg for Veterans Day. Gas was $2.27 in Othello and, get this -- $1.95 at the Thorp-Ellensburg ARCO, the "refinery capitals" of the West, for regular grade.

-- Don Gulliford, Mercer Island

Michael Fein / Bloomberg News

A lot attendant shines the front ends of General Motors Corp. Hummer SUVs at Long Hummer Saab in Southborough, Mass.

The turkey trio

Editor, The Times:

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are in dire straits because of inept executives, bloodsucking unions and their shameful government enablers ["Why might auto industry get federal bailout? Jobs," Times, Business, Nov. 8].

Detroit's trio of turkeys should not have their bumbles and stumbles rewarded by handing them $25 to $50 billion in funds taken from hardworking taxpayers.

The Republican Party will not recapture the White House in four years without the enthusiastic support of the right wing of the political spectrum. To the extent the party supports "spreading the wealth" by confiscating money from the folks who have earned it, and giving it to corporations who did not earn it, the party can expect to stay in the political wilderness -- and deservedly so.

-- Mark Kalinowski, New York, N.Y.

Take your symbol of overconsumption elsewhere

Had the auto industry started down the road they should have 34 years ago, when they got their first shot over the bow by the oil cartel and their embargo, they wouldn't need bailing out. There were always urban legends of how alternative-fuel transportation discoveries were waylaid by having the patents bought out by the industry biggies in order to keep things status quo.

The co-conspirators in the industry's inertia has to be the consumers who held up the demand side of the equation by patronizing the purchase of behemoth gas guzzlers, rather than pushing for more fuel-efficient or alternative-fuel vehicles.

Let those irresponsible ones who kept up the demand for the SUVs and Humvees be the ones to foot the bill for bailing out the big three. Let the rest of us off the hook.

I have finally figured out why the Humvees have such dark-tinted windows -- I wouldn't want to be seen driving one of those symbols of overconsumption, either.

-- Tom Munyon, Marysville

Bring back the wow

In discussing the current plight of the U.S. auto industry with my 25-year-old daughter, I realized that never in her lifetime had an affordable Detroit product inspired any significant consumer demand. I had to hearken all the way back to the original Ford Mustang of the mid '60s to find the car that we all wanted to buy with our first real paychecks.

The government will surely intervene to prevent what would be a disastrous collapse of General Motors and friends, but hopefully with the stipulation that they again create vehicles of superior design, performance and fuel economy.

We will forsake our Hondas and Toyotas only when Detroit gives us a competitive car with both a "green" and "wow" factor -- and we need it now.

--Gretchen Hawley, Seattle

This benefits no one

To illustrate that companies operating in their self-interest are not acting in the interest of the country, I will use the example provided by General Motors.

In the 1990s, GM built a prototype of their in-production EV1 electric car as a series-electric hybrid using a turbine engine to recharge the batteries. The 1990s Volvo ECC concept car was also a series-electric hybrid using a gas-turbine engine to recharge the batteries. In a series-electric hybrid the vehicle is always powered by the electric motor and the engine is only used to recharge the batteries.

A turbine engine has the advantage of being able to burn many different kinds of fuel. The same engine could use ethanol, biodiesel, E85, diesel, gasoline or something else. Chrysler's 1962 Dodge car with a turbine engine could even use vegetable oil.

Had GM produced a series-electric hybrid using a turbine engine, consumers today would have been able to switch to ethanol, biodiesel or another fuel when gasoline became too expensive. GM car sales would not have been affected by the increase in gasoline prices.

Even the limited flex-fuel vehicles being offered by U.S. automakers that operate on gasoline and ethanol mixtures would have provided some small amount of protection from the increase in gasoline prices. The Ford Model T (1908 to 1927) could run on ethanol, gasoline or a mixture of both.

Instead of creating a market for existing alternative fuels by making all of their models flexible-fuel vehicles, they are waiting for filling stations to sell E85 or ethanol. A flexible-fuel vehicle can use gasoline. You do not need to wait for a filling station to sell ethanol or E85 to build a vehicle that can run on gasoline, E85 or ethanol.

Using a turbine engine in a plug-in series-electric vehicle allows you to use fuels from renewable sources to extend the vehicle's range. However, GM plans on using a small gasoline engine in their Chevy Volt.
GM and the other automobile makers share the responsibility of the crippling effects of the increase in the price of crude oil on the economy and on their sales.

Rod Lache, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, has rated General Motors stock "sell" with a target price of $0.

Carmakers are not acting in the country's best interest and apparently not theirs, either.

-- Rene Sugar, Kirkland

Use oil profits

Oil prices went up so car prices went down.

Why use taxpayer money to bail out car manufacturers?

Use the oil profits.

Increase taxes on oil companies 1,000 percent, then allow a tax credit for any loans to GM, Ford or Chrysler that later default.

Don't loan tax dollars to the auto manufacturers. Buy from them. Buy 50,000 electric vehicles from each of the big three. Pay now with delivery in four years. Specify vehicle and battery performance that will liberate us from oil dependence.

The big three got a government subsidy to go electric and they didn't do it. We can make it happen now if we buy e-vehicles rather than just loan money and let the boardrooms decide how to spend it.

-- Nathan Kirk, Auburn

Beware the rat hole

A bankruptcy ("restructuring") of Ford and GM would not mean the end of jobs. It would mean the end of some jobs. It would mean the end of "gold-plated" health benefits for workers and a reduction in pay.

If Toyota can manufacture cars successfully in Kentucky, why shouldn't we expect the "big three" to find a way to do the same? U.S. companies must get their costs in line with competitors in order to profitably compete. A cash infusion from the federal government will not solve the problem if these companies do not get their costs down.

Our bankruptcy laws are designed to allow for the fundamental restructuring that these companies must undergo. Suppliers will be hurt by lower sales, but how did they not see this coming? This is an industry that must adapt, very much as the airlines have had to adapt. Anyone who studied economics 101 should be clear on this.

With regard to concern that consumers would be unwilling to buy a car from a company operating under bankruptcy protection, I would say that the purchase of a car -- by most people -- is anything but rational. If it were a rational decision, we would all be driving a Toyota Yaris.

A car purchase is an emotional decision. People buy cars for the image they want to project and for the way the car makes them feel. Many buyers ignore repair-history reports, gas-mileage info and even crash-safety results. You know why I believe this? Because of all of the SUVs being driven to the supermarket; because so many late-model cars are traded in well before they should be; because GM still exists at all.

Detroit purveyed inferior product for many years, only recently beginning to make cars that seem to be of acceptable quality. Detroit would lose some sales under bankruptcy, but not enough to support an argument that taxpayers should protect them.

I believe that Ford and GM are too big to fail under reorganization -- so long as they do so rationally. Competitors would have difficulty ramping up sufficiently to meet demand if Detroit were to fold.

Federal assistance for these companies without a major reorganization would amount to large-scale welfare for employed workers and money down a rat hole.

-- R. Brian Wright, Seattle

Reality check

The only thing worse than the U.S. auto industry's outstretched hand is the unseemly haste with which the Democratic leadership has lined up to satisfy its unjustified demands and pay back the support of the unions at the expense of millions of "un-bailed-out" taxpayers.

While the investment in the financial industry is also distasteful, it can be justified as a potentially profitable intervention over the long term and one necessary to provide the credit essential to getting the entire economy back on a stable footing.

The auto industry can claim no such status. It is no different to any other industry equally "justified" in seeking protection from the current economic realities. Why not bail out Circuit City or dozens of other retailers facing a disastrous sales season? What about the hundreds of thousands of small businesses hit equally hard?

From 2005 to 2007, General Motors lost a staggering $56 billion while Ford lost a "mere" $14 billion.
By any stretch of the imagination, this is an industry that is in dire need, not of more funds to hemorrhage through unsustainable employee benefits and poor strategic decisions, but rather of a rapid and unavoidably painful adjustment to reality.

-- Gary Cowan, Issaquah

What are you driving?

Which came first -- the consumer or the vehicle?

Automakers build what sells. Yes, they have lots of ads to tell us what to buy. But it's up the each of us to decide whether we want to buy a gas guzzler or something more practical.

I have dealt with a number of car salesmen. While they push the profit vehicle, none of them has ever held a gun to my head and forced me to buy a gas guzzler. If individuals won't make reasonable choices, why should we expect corporations to do any less?

As individual Americans, we can make a huge difference, or whine that it's someone else's fault.
What are you driving?

-- Douglas Daily, Seattle

We beg you

Dear Congress,

Just because you have some money in your pocket, don't do it ["Big Three's drive to survive in auto industry," Business, Oct. 29].

Save us from another bailout for a company that destroyed its last hope for redemption when it absorbed the entrepreneurial Saturn division and smothered its innovative spirit with same old same old GM [General Motors] culture.

Executives who drive their company into the ground don't deserve to be rescued. Take the money and use it to support new car manufacturers that can bring some energy and vitality to our auto industry and for retraining dislocated employees (or infrastructure projects to put them to work.)

Meanwhile, let GM go into bankruptcy, and let new companies -- or more effective companies like Toyota and Honda -- take over their factories and inject new thinking and new ideas into the largest and saddest of a moribund trio of failing companies.

-- Mark Nassutti, Kirkland

Not going to happen

For two decades, the "big three" American automakers have been making a fortune building and selling gas-guzzling SUVs while Toyota and Honda were developing energy-efficient, well-designed, long-lasting cars. They were able to profit so mightily because their SUVs were exempted from the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards, due to their lobbying of Congress.

Now the crybabies want a bailout?

I say, "Heck no." Let these companies wither or get bought up by companies who know how to make good and useful cars for the 21st century.

-- Bruce Joffe, Piedmont, Calif.

Ellen Banner / The Seattle Times

Sound Transit link light-rail trains sit on the tracks that run down Martin Luther King Jr. Way South between South Henderson Street and the South Boeing Access Road, as a Metro bus drives northbound on MLK.

Look to Brazil

Editor, The Times:

Pitting light rail against buses, as in Mike Lindblom's story, is a false choice ["Bus vs. Light Rail, Which One is Your Ticket to Ride?," Times, page one, Oct. 29].

I know. I've taken a ride on the world's most renowned bus-rapid-transit system, in Curitiba, Brazil.
What makes the Curitiba BRT system so effective? It is designed, built and operated almost like light rail. And if we were to do the same thing here, it would cost in the same ballpark to build.

The Curitiba BRT operates mostly on dedicated bus lanes, well separated from other traffic, with fancy "tube" stations. To do this cheaply here, you'd have to take all the bus lanes away from existing vehicles and go head-to-head with Tim Eyman and legions of irate drivers caught in massive traffic jams.

So we're better off with light rail where ridership is high, or where it will be high when a corridor is fully developed. We need to finance more buses where they are most effective: on secondary corridors as pseudo-BRT (mostly without dedicated lanes), as feeders to light-rail stations or for other local or suburban service.

-- Dick Burkhart, Seattle

Good for the economy

My name is Nathan Olson and I am a 19-year-old Everett Community College student who strongly supports Proposition 1 [light-rail expansion] ["Bus vs. Light Rail, Which One is Your Ticket to Ride?," page one, Oct. 29]. I believe this measure is critical to our way of life in the Puget Sound region and it will create much-needed jobs, promote choices of commuting and, most important, help our environment.

-- Nathan Olson, Everett

The right direction

What's rectangular, stretches 55 miles, can carry 1 million riders a day, and is white and blue? The upcoming light rail.

It is the alternative to rising gas prices and greenhouse-gas emissions, which pollute our world now.
The light rail can decrease traffic, provide a smoother ride than buses, can carry more people than buses and provide fewer delays.

The bus system is slower, not as comfortable and gets caught in traffic delays. Its diesel fuel pollutes and the cost of fuel is volatile.

The light rail will reach Lynnwood, north Federal Way and the Overlake Transit Center.

The light rail will cost more than $300 million a mile but it will be worth it. I think it is good to try something new; in the end it might be a very good investment.

All the major cities in Europe have light rail or subway systems and have proven very effective at moving people and reducing traffic congestion. We need to take care of the Earth; it is our responsibility. The light rail is moving in the right direction.

--Nicole Espe, Edmonds

Let's get it started

I sincerely hope we can continue to build and expand the light-rail system. For more than 30 years light rail has been held up by entrenched ignorance, inertia and obstructionism. Meanwhile traffic is getting worse.

We have just returned from Europe where we traveled extensively on the Berlin U-Bahn and S-Bahn. This system covers both inside and outside the city. The trains are quick, frequent and convenient.

We used the Vienna, Budapest and Prague systems as well. In previous years we have ridden on the excellent Barcelona system and the London tube and Paris Metro.

In March I was in New Delhi, where I saw the large construction project for their system, too.

So, wake up Seattle, King County and adjoining areas and lets get our system going as well.
We need it.

-- Michael Clarke, Redmond

We'll die in our diesel
Living in a region that has generally clean hydro-produced energy, it seems most logical to make any transportation system that does not use imported fossil fuels a priority.

I vote for trains, streetcars and expanding the electric-trolley system. If not, our economy could die in its diesel.

-- David Clifton, Seattle

Some of us still drive

The story by Mike Lindblom, "Bus vs Light Rail," left out the one thing all the planners seem to never want to consider: Where do we park our cars?

This should really be a consideration on the Eastside. I have very good service getting downtown on the bus from Redmond, but with light rail? In metropolitan Seattle? Are we serious?

-- Reed Hunt, Woodinville

Contradictory and wasteful

I'm sure most drivers in the Greater Seattle area know how grueling traffic is.

My commute begins around rush hour on Interstate 5 as I make my way to school in the morning. With elections just around the corner, I wish I could join in to vote NO against Initiative 985 ["I-985: Tim Eyman puts the meddle to the pedal," Joni Balter column, Oct. 19].

My reasoning for opposing this initiative is simple. I-985 will make congestion worse, undermine safety and is unfair to rural residents. An analysis by Independent Transportation Engineers shows traffic worsening if I-985 is taken into effect.

Among other problems, if HOV [High Occupancy Vehicle] lanes are open to all, more highway crashes are at risk due to more vehicles in the lanes

The project would take millions of dollars from elsewhere in the state -- money that could be used for health programs and schools.

HOV lanes were made for a reason; this initiative seems to be contradictory and wasteful.
I-985 causes many strains to people all over the state, at a time when Washington can least afford it.

-- Hannah Maserjian, Seattle

Eyman's initiative
is worth a shot

The state and federal government had 50 years to solve the Puget Sound area's serious traffic problems ["Federal transportation officials say Eyman's initiative could be costly to state," News, Oct. 25]. They saw the congestion, lost work hours, frustration and host of other problems coming and to this day still struggle for workable solutions.

What makes them think we should even listen to the same government that allowed the current financial meltdown and economic calamity?

The government lacks the leadership and vision to solve the traffic crisis.

I say we take matters in our owns hands and pass Initiative 985. We have to try something.

-- Bob Hoyden, Renton

You're not the boss of me

The idea of two federal officials (Daniel Mathis and Richard Krochalis) threatening to withhold moneys for opening up the HOV [High Occupancy Vehicle] lanes during nonpeak hours should irritate enough people to gain passage of Initiative 985.

Mind you, I don't think it should pass.

I certainly won't vote for it. It creates more danger for our drivers. Go to California, and drive the HOV lanes during nonpeak hours. Then tell me that California's elected officials allowed that threat to work.

There are other states that have done the same thing. We paid for the lanes, and the federal government has no business trying to tell us how to run them. Tell Paula Hammond to research things like this with other entities that have them. Do not go to the federal government and ask if it's OK for us to govern ourselves.

-- Ron Highfill, Lacey

Opening up carpool lanes
is a bad idea

The $224 million that I-985 would spend is to open up existing carpool lanes to single drivers during "nonpeak" hours. The initiative defines nonpeak hours as all times except for the fixed hours of 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays only.

Opening up these lanes to single drivers is a bad idea at any time. During congested hours, carpool lanes reduce traveler delay by allowing vehicles with more people in them to move faster. During noncongested hours, traffic is moving freely in all lanes and there is no impact on congestion because there is no congestion.

Congested hours are different from route to route, vary from week to week, and occur outside the fixed hours in the initiative. Opening up these lanes would result in losing carpool lanes on some routes during congested hours, increasing total traveler delay.

I-985 allocates $224 million to implement the change, which would not only be wasted, but would in fact increase traveler delay. Washington voters should reject this bad idea.

-- Peter Smith, Normandy Park

Saudi Arabia
is rich enough

Tim Eyman's citizen petition to open HOV lanes to single-occupancy vehicles will be struck down by the federal government.

These are high-occupancy-vehicle lanes for buses, carpools and van pools. These were built to increase the capacity of freeways and to haul more people per hour.

Opening the lanes to SOVs [Single Occupancy Vehicles] would defeat these purposes, and only create more traffic accidents, air pollution and waste fuel.

The initiative also bundles traffic-light timing and roadside assistance, which is already being done.

Tim Eyman doesn't want to understand, there is a war over oil in the Middle East, and his persistent attempts to sabotage transit is only keeping the U.S. and Puget Sound more dependent on foreign oil.

Energy conservation and development of alternative-fuel buses is one of the major reasons for
development of a bus-express system. Like it or not, bus riders pay taxes also. His initiative will get the buses off schedule.

Gasoline cars are more expensive to drive and own than riding the bus. Eyman is doing a lot of damage to the local economy, and this will only help make the King of Saudia Arabia richer and us poorer.

-- Martin Nix, Seattle

Proposition 1 / light-rail expansion: Just do it

I am rather disappointed The Seattle Times does not have enough wisdom to see the need for expanding the Sound Transit light-rail system ["Reject Proposition 1's tax for light-rail expansion," editorial, Sept. 28].
We desperately need it and the arguments against it are weak:

"It won't relieve congestion." That is true, but Los Angeles built highways all over the place and they have some of the worst congestion in the country. Building more highways just makes more traffic. Nothing is going to make the congestion go away.

"It costs too much." Compared to what? What is the cost of building several more traffic lanes through Seattle? All of the options are going to be very, very expensive.

"It will take too long to build the new system." Again, does anyone really think that we could build more highways any faster?

So let's get realistic about rail transit. It is one component in a transportation system that we need. Rail is immune to traffic jams and will function even when the buses are stuck in the snow. Nearly every major city in the world relies on rail to provide the basis for their transportation system. So let's stop debating the need for rail and get serious about building it.

Once we get the system up and running we will wonder how we managed to get along for so long without it.

--Gary Maxwell, Lynnwood

Rebuild it

Thanks to the Nisqually earthquake, we have been exposed to the flaws and weaknesses of the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

This highway is crucial to Seattle, carrying about 106,000 vehicles on a typical weekday. Something must be done to fix this viaduct, but the question is what will that be?

The state has been hinting that it wants to replace the viaduct with a tunnel, but this high-costing and long process of building a tunnel just isn't the smartest decision.

With the war in Iraq, we are already spending endless amounts of money in places where we shouldn't be: $2 billion a week on a war where nothing is getting accomplished.

Reconstructing the viaduct should cost as little as possible, but still be a major provider for the transportation system of Seattle.

Building a tunnel would cost between $3.4 billion and $4.1 billion, which is about $1 billion more than simply reconstructing the existing viaduct. While both options would carry about the same amount of traffic, the elevated railway would still allow for the views of our beautiful emerald city. Rebuilding the viaduct is the best resolution.

--Melissa Geiss, Seattle

Still a viable option

Just a reminder that foot ferries are part of a regional multimodal approach to reducing traffic congestion ["Can we tax Peter, pay Paul?," Times, Danny Westneat columnist, Oct. 22]. If those foot ferries are carrying 300 passengers, that likely means that there are 250 to 300 fewer cars on area roads.

It's hard to weigh the value of reducing traffic congestion against the value provided by the sheriff's department, but the goal is a worthy one, not just a tourist froufrou.

-- Andrea Avni, Vashon Island

Support a good system
Your failure to endorse the expansion of light rail is disappointing ["Reject Proposition 1's tax for light-rail expansion," editorial, Sept. 28]. We need better transportation choices as soon as possible. Buses will never move people as well as a separate rail system.

And if we are to address local jobs and greenhouse-gas emissions, we should be looking at the most efficient system possible.

You say we can build separate lanes for buses. Like those on Highway 520 or Interstate 405 that are often stopped during rush hour? We can see now how that will be working in 20 years.

Let's support a good system. It will mean better jobs and increased mobility.
-- Martin Adams, Seattle

Check your sources
So former state Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald thinks that I-985 will "actually increase congestion." ["Would ballot measure relieve traffic jams or worsen them?," Politics & Government, Oct. 20]. He said, "it's not going to move us forward"

This is from the expert who led the agency that spearheaded and designed the mess we are in now. Somehow having MacDonald sounding off is not very credible in my book.

This measure is at least a positive step toward helping to reduce congestion. It is not an overall solution, in and of itself, but it is not more of the same.

Positive steps were never part of MacDonald's tenure.

-- Phil Bate, Lynnwood

Do it now

Failure to pass Proposition 1 will be a big setback for Seattleites. As the growth continues, so will the gridlock. The cost that critics say is enormous is inaccurate. To postpone this project will be more costly in future -- doubling or tripling the cost due to inflation.

This is exactly what happened in my former Los Angeles residence. After the light-rail and subway were completed, there were proposals to extend it from downtown to the Santa Monica pier but voters turned it down because of the cost and construction noise.

Five years later, due to rapid and continued growth, the gridlock from Westwood to West Los Angeles up to Santa Monica became unbearable. The proposal was then brought back to the table in 2007 and was approved to extend the subway for more than $1 billion. Had they approved this years before, it could have been a lot cheaper and would have been finished by now.

Whether we like it or not, taxes will go up, whoever is running the government. As growth continues, so does the need for more infrastructure and upgrades for basic services. Where will we get the money to pay for this?

If we don't want to raise taxes then we should live like a Third World country.

What we need is to fix the economy, and go back to the American way with decent wages and more jobs.

-- Tom Lasam, Seattle

Think of something else

Here's a simple suggestion to address Puget Sound traffic congestion: Buses -- lots of them -- 1,000 buses if that's what it takes ["I-985: Tim Eyman puts the meddle to the pedal," editorial columnist, Oct. 19].

Make sure a bus runs down every major street in the area at least twice an hour. Make sure buses run between every city and employment center at least several times an hour.

This would reduce our carbon footprint and relieve congestion.

No yearlong study required.

No billion dollar, multi-year construction project necessary.

Sound too simplistic? Maybe it is, but it's a start and it's something I could actually vote for.

-- Valerie O'Halloran, Renton

Waiting for pigs to fly
Oil closed below $70 a barrel today.

Unless you're looking for that news, you probably don't care or didn't hear that.

Back on July 11 of this year, oil was selling for $147.27 a barrel and gasoline was selling for $4.11 a gallon.

Lets do some quick math here.

If the price of a barrel of oil has dropped by 50 percent, shouldn't we be seeing gas selling for around $2.05 soon?

We all know how fast the price rises, right? When do you think we'll see the price drop under $2.50?

Personally, I'm waiting for pigs to fly.
-- Steve Drake, Seattle

Make the smart choice
I have known Gov. Christine Gregoire for almost 20 years.

I knew her before she was our state's attorney general or governor.

Through the years I have seen the hardest worker I know.

Gregoire has said that her mom was the hardest worker she knew, but if her mother were still alive, I think she would take her hat off to her daughter.

The love she has and has always had for the state of Washington is truly remarkable. She has always been willing to go the extra mile to get things done. She is extremely honest, ethical and has high values. I feel lucky to have her as a friend. She is truly a caring person with her family and with the issues she holds most dear to her heart, such as education, children and the environment.

I feel Washington has been so fortunate to have her as our governor.

I hope our state is smart enough to elect her for four more years.
-- Sheila Riffe, Olympia

Who are you?
Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi is so full of contradictions. He wants to cut the minimum wage $1.50, cut $500 million from education and supports deregulating our economy and health-care system.

Rossi is now trying to quash a subpoena in a lawsuit filed by Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna regarding campaign-finance violations with the Building Industry Association of Washington ["AG's office clarifies comments regarding BIAW-Rossi lawsuit," news, Oct. 11].

He is charged with "illegally coordinated fundraising," and wants to testify after the election.

Rossi now says he is a supporter of stem-cell research. In his first debate with Gov. Christine Gregoire four years ago, local Seattle and Everett newspapers displayed these quotes: When asked who would lead stem-cell research Rossi said, "California would lead" and that he "didn't want to compete with California, with Washington state dollars." Also, "It's not relevant whether I support it or not, it's already legal," topped by "I don't know enough about the issue to say whether it is ethical."

On Rossi's current transportation plan to solve Highway 520's bridge problems, he has proposed eight lanes for his "bridge to nowhere."
He says he can do it for $1 billion less than the six-lane proposal by Gov. Gregoire. That's a head-scratcher.

Of course, he doesn't say how those extra lanes will access Interstate 5 and surrounding communities, as well as how, and at what cost, the Eastside and Seattle will be affected.

The Joker in the deck is that at a recent local Chamber of Commerce meeting, The Mukilteo Beacon reported Rossi forces are still sobbing that in the last election there were "several hundred ballots that weren't counted," and forgot to mention that those approximately 600 ballots that weren't counted came from King County, where Gov. Gregoire had a 60-40 percent advantage.

Isn't it strange that Republican Rossi, as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, with a Republican majority in the Senate, wasn't able to work in a nonpartisan way to get a fast-tract transportation system in place and, as writer of the 2003 budget, left Gov. Gregoire with a $2.2 billion deficit?
--Max W. Don, Mukilteo

Substance over style
Up until now, Washington's strong economy and Gov. Christine Gregoire's good management have kept our state from the huge budget shortfalls facing many other states. But as the current economic crisis spreads from Wall Street to the rest of the world, we are no longer immune.

Who should we trust to make the tough choices our state will have to make -- gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi or Gov. Christine Gregoire?

The only subject Rossi has been specific about is a transportation plan no one is taking seriously. He claims that he's not running for office on issues like abortion, but his socially conservative values will inevitably influence his decisions about which parts of the budget to fund and which to cut.

Gregoire has created a good business climate and expanded trade for our state, but has also improved children's health care, education and environmental policy (including a real plan for how to clean up Puget Sound).

When budgets need to be trimmed, I trust her more-balanced approach to Washington's needs.
Gregoire is a proven leader with solid accomplishments; Rossi has no real executive experience.

As times get tougher, we will need substance over style. I'll be voting for Gregoire.
-- Linda Norlen, Seattle

Find a way
I think both Boeing executives and IAM [International Association of Machinists] union leaders ought to have their heads whacked together to knock some sense into them.

The company's slogan is "find a way." How do the union and company think this strike is going to be solved? By burying their heads in the sand?

If they talked to one another again, maybe they would find some common ground.
Negotiation requires each side to give a little.
-- Rebecca R. Hathaway, Federal Way

Something is better than nothing
Boeing's chairman and CEO, Jim McNerney, is only stating a truism when he said that any union that emphasizes only wage and benefits in any settlement package will eventually negotiate themselves right out of a job. An increase in wage and benefits, without a corresponding increase in productivity, is a dead-end street for both the union and industry involved.

Those who choose to ignore this simple economic fact do so at their peril, as auto workers are now finding out. Many have lost their benefits, and those who have lost their jobs are now working for wages that are half of what they once earned.

Is all of this long-term pain really worth the short-term gain?

Settle for what you can get because it's better than nothing at all.
-- Roy Weston, Burnaby, B.C.

Do it right
Regarding Monday's editorial on the case for an eight-lane Highway 520 bridge ["The new 520 bridge: a case for 8 lanes," editorial, Oct. 6], I question the source of your expert opinion.

Engineers say that an eight-lane alternative will not improve congestion because traffic will clog up once Highway 520 reaches Interstate 5. You offer Eastside road planner James MacIsaac's "solution": two lanes of traffic could be peeled off at Montlake. But anyone who has tried to exit westbound Highway 520 at Montlake during afternoon rush hour knows that the line can snake back to the middle of the bridge because of slow traffic on Montlake.

In the same section of your paper is a story about inflated cost estimates put forward by foes of the light-rail ballot initiative. It turns out that the person providing these exaggerated numbers is none other than the same James MacIsaac. It seems that MacIsaac is not a reliable source of objective information.

Perhaps your editorial would have been more credible had you consulted an actual transportation engineer, or at least someone who does not appear to have a strongly pro-roads, anti-transit agenda.

Certainly, strategic highway improvements, such as lengthening merges by adding collector-distributor lanes, can really improve congestion by making it easier and safer for traffic to maintain constant speeds as vehicles enter and exit the freeway. But just throwing extra lanes on Highway 520 doesn't seem right.
-- Jamie Strausz-Clark, Seattle

Let's fix the problem
It would be to the betterment of the Puget Sound region if voters rejected Proposition 1 at the upcoming election ["Supporters, opponents of light rail face off in Proposition 1 debate," News, Sept. 23]. They should then ask their legislator or representative to spend some time drafting an initiative to reorganize the entire public transportation system in Puget Sound.

In the last 25 years, many major industries have gone through a restructuring period in order to meet the demands of the changing market. In order to be successful and cost effective, they had to establish organizational designs that were more efficient and operated more effectively in the marketplace. Those reformed businesses became leaner and meaner, in turn becoming more successful and more economically sound.

The regional public transportation industry is operating under protocols that were established more than 50 years ago and have not changed with the evolving transportation markets, financial funding sources and public transportation service alterations.

The transportation industry is self-regulating and is not accountable to any one regional governing body.
In the Puget Sound region, there are more than 45 different transportation taxing districts -- all of which have some authority to engage in raising public funds for public transportation projects or programs.
There are more than 12 major public transit agencies providing bus services, light rail and commuter rail services in Puget Sound -- all competing for state and federal funding.

Each year, millions of dollars are expended by these transit agencies trying to coordinate planning of bus service and public-transit-related programs. The agencies are self-serving and focused on meeting their own goals.

For example, a person traveling by bus from Olympia to Everett would have to use bus services from as many as five different bus agencies and could encounter five different fare structures.

This is a cumbersome system and does not support seamless travel in the region. For customers who want to use public transportation, it really isn't important which agency provides the bus service; it is the service that is important.

Vote "no" on Proposition 1 and vote "yes" to reform and reorganize the Puget Sound regional public transportation industry.
--Scott Preston, Seattle

Neighborhood quality more important
As someone who lives near Paine Field, I want to respond to "Paine Field revs up" [editorial, Oct. 3], which supported opening commercial flights there.

Entire communities were built around Paine Field because of an established legal agreement that no commercial flights, with the subsequent increase in noise and traffic, would occur there. Developers made a lot of money building those neighborhoods with these assurances.

Now, a few business people have decided they want to profit at the expense of these communities by pushing to have that existing agreement dismantled and commercial flights forced into Paine Field, despite what it will do to the quality of life and home values of the families in the area.

Yet, The Seattle Times supports them. Does that mean you are willing to buy our homes at full value and live with the noise and disruption yourselves? If not, then you should not use your editorial page to promote the issue.
-- Bridget Walker, Mukilteo

Lower drinking age to 18
Inga Manskopf's recent debunking of the Amethyst Initiative and the idea that lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 might reduce binge drinking on college campuses ought to be debunked ["Keep drinking age at 21," guest commentary, Sept. 30].

Manskopf represents an organization opposed to underage drinking [Northeast Seattle Coalition to Prevent Underage Drinking] so she dutifully crams her commentary with facts to support her opinion.
Alcohol can damage a young person's brain, but so can watching too much TV. In European countries with lower drinking ages, young people still binge drink.

No matter what the laws are, young people can be irresponsible about a lot of things. But even though 18-year-olds can legally do just about everything adults can do in the U.S., they can't have a beer. This is just wrong.

Unless some of the other privileges of adulthood are rescinded until age 21, drinking beer and wine should be allowed.

The current drinking age deprives thousands of young Americans of their full legal rights as adults.
-- Alan Moen, Entiat

Ellen M. Banner / The Seattle Times

A Sound Transit light-rail train scoots along the Tukwila section of track during recent testing.

Light-rail plan is a bad idea
Editor, The Times:
As an environmental leader for 35 years (I am the former president of four well-known environmental organizations) and a mass-transit rider for 40 years, I am embarrassed that some environmental groups have been duped by the false claims and distortions of Proposition 1 ["Proposition 1: a critical first step," Times, guest commentary, Sept. 30].

This proposal will not solve congestion. It will not solve global warming. It will not rejuvenate our economy. It will cost about $110 billion over 30 years.
First, light rail will have negligible impact on traffic congestion, as Metro's Environmental Impact Statement concedes.

Metro Transit, with a spider web of bus routes all over King County and more than 8,000 bus stops, has less than 5 percent of total rider trips per day. Light rail would add less than 20 stops on routes that are already served by express bus and commuter rail. Metro's own studies show that the effect on congestion would be negligible. King County Executive Ron Sims was originally a strong supporter of light rail but last fall concluded that it was a bad idea and recommended that a bond issue be defeated.

Second, Proposition 1 would have construction costs of $17.9 billion but would cost $110 billion by the time the bonds are paid off in about 30 years. Talk about giving your grandchildren something -- to pay for.
When the United States is facing a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, and Washington state is facing a deficit of more than $3 billion in the next budget, taxpayers do not need this heavy tax burden for the next 30 years. By then, there will be more fuel-efficient cars, other modes of transportation and many better ways to spend $110 billion.
-- Norm Winn, Seattle

A 21st-century solution
It pains me to see the debate around Proposition 1 devolve into an argument about dollars instead of sense ["Reject Prop. 1's tax for light-rail expansion," editorial, Sept. 28]. The nation and our state are facing massive problems right now, from failing financial institutions to record energy prices. Many of these problems are a direct result of our 20th-century mindset, failing to find 21st-century solutions.

Sound Transit's Proposition 1 is a comprehensive plan that will update our outdated and inefficient transportation infrastructure to address the struggles we face today, as well as the unseen hurdles over the horizon.

The opponents of this plan are defenders of the status quo; rehashing the same arguments that have blocked multiple attempts over the decades to invest in transportation options for our region. Unfortunately it is the status quo which has led us to the precarious situation we face today.

On Nov. 4, voters will have a choice between the failing policies of the 20th century and the bright future the 21st-century promises. I hope, for the sake of the region, voters see the wisdom in passing Proposition 1.
-- David Kosmos, Seattle

Reject the proposal
Proposition 1 is nothing more than a greedy grab for public money to develop properties on main-city streets from Tacoma to Everett, and capitalize on higher square-footage rates.

Sound Transit sent out the bagmen to the local environs to engage in logrolling with the property-tax-hungry politicians, to enable developers to triple their money at the expense of the taxpayers.

The Puget Sound Regional Council is a logrolling exhibition that provided zero meaningful adversarial testing of the Sound Transit plan. Committee members ignored all adversarial testimony, and allowed paid-off environmental groups to continue to take part without addressing any possible conflicts of interest with Sound Transit payouts and their developer board members.

The proponents of Proposition 1 will not be honest with the public and tell them what the urban-village zealots are trying to accomplish; they want to build mass-transit corridors and move the public into them with carrot-and-stick social engineering.

Of course they have learned their lesson: Former Seattle City Council member Margaret Pageler and former King County Council member Cynthia Sullivan told the truth about the city's plans regarding transit congestion. Neither was re-elected.

Politicians like Mayor Greg Nickels, King County Executive Ron Sims and Gov. Christine Gregoire are careful not to make the same mistake as Pageler and Sullivan. They will never say what they are really trying to accomplish. They hope to get public money for developers to acquire gentrification of main-city thoroughfares, then ordinance the public into the gentrified corridor with lane-mile restrictions -- and other clever social-engineering tricks -- without disclosing their true intentions to the public. Their hope is that enough uneducated voters will flock to vote for Sen. Barack Obama, then vote for Proposition 1, and not know that they will be voting for a plan not just to get them out of their cars, but frustrate them until they leave their neighborhoods.

Seattle is corrupt and just can't seem to get enough public money to allow developers to triple their investments and acquire gentrification, which would enable the city, state and county to reap the financial benefits. Seattle is counting on fooling the public again.

Vote no on Proposition 1.
-- John Worthington, Renton

Seattle needs this transit backbone
The Times editorial against the Mass Transit Now campaign made one good point, but drew the wrong conclusion. We sure do need much more bus service right now. However, most of this need is for local -- not regional -- service.

Sound Transit's Proposition 1 is all about taking a big step beyond oil dependency, toward regional transportation based on renewable energy. A transit backbone of electrical light rail will be the key to getting around for a lot more people as climate catastrophes and gas prices accelerate over the next decade.

But the backbone of regional transit will be weak without the ribs of local transit. We need to double local bus service over the next decade. This means the state Legislature must authorize a new county tax.

And we're fed up with the state telling Sound Transit and the counties that it's either going to be sales tax or the highway. How about something creative like a vehicle carbon tax? Maybe even enough of one to roll back the sales tax.
-- Dick Burkhart, Seattle

Light rail isn't improbable
The Times editorial advocating against Proposition 1 left me mystified. According to The Times, the idea of Washingtonians commuting to work via light rail represents an "improbable view" of the future -- never mind that it's a reality for residents of cities like New York, Boston and Washington, D.C., whose rail systems took substantial time, effort and money to develop.

The idea that we can simply replace our petroleum-burning cars with environmentally friendly ones is a non sequitur, since light rail is principally advocated as a solution to the region's traffic congestion, not pollution -- although it will help. And the suggestion that buses will be "kicked out" by Proposition 1 is misleading, since the measure actually adds 100,000 hours of express bus service.

As our region's population continues to bloat, we will regret not adopting a long-range, multipronged approach to our traffic problems.
-- Francesco Forin, Bellevue

Look to the future
Reading The Times recycle so many tired, discredited arguments to oppose the proposed "Sound Transit 2," I felt like I was being transported back in time -- to a time when you could afford to ask, "What's in it for me right now?"

The Times says Proposition 1 doesn't focus enough on short-term needs (never mind that The Times never has such a concern when it comes to building highways). But isn't this region's current transportation mess the product of our having settled so long for instant-gratification fixes?

Instead of light rail, The Times wants a "spider web of service," aka, more buses. Well, we've been going with that approach for 30 years, and guess what? It doesn't work here, and it hasn't worked anywhere in the industrialized world.

Of course, The Times doesn't really want more buses. After all, "Most people don't want to get out of their cars." Actually, most people don't want to make themselves -- and others -- dependent on their cars and on being stuck in traffic.

That's the same traffic that won't be addressed one iota by all those fuels of the future The Times is so confident will magically appear in the same affordable abundance as oil.
-- Mitch Gitman, Seattle

Build a freeway on the ground
There are a whole lot of ideas circling around for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, [".'Choppway' plan for viaduct," Local News, Sept. 26]. All come down to the same three options, though: Highway underground, highway aboveground or highway in pedestrians' way (the no-freeway option fits in this category).

Here's another idea: Put a freeway on the ground and build a big pedestrian bridge over the whole thing. This hides the freeway from view, like the tunnel, but is less expensive, like the bridges.

In fact, it would be cheaper than the aerial-freeway options, because the pedestrian bridge wouldn't have to support the weight of cars and trucks. This bridge would perfectly match up with the uphill part of downtown, thanks to our hills.
-- Brian Schend, Bellingham

Outsourcing hurts everybody
I am an engineer at Boeing, in the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, and I support the International Association of Machinists' position of wanting to keep jobs at home as much as possible ["Simmering strike scorching both sides," Times, page one, Sept. 29].

We all understand that some jobs are going to leave the United States because of sales contracts, but it doesn't have to be as rampant as Boeing is allowing it to be. The fact of the matter is, Boeing sees a short-term gain by outsourcing work. However, in the long term, it's not going to be good for business.

The IAM -- and SPEEA, too -- is concerned about the long-term viability of this business. We want to continue to have jobs long into the future. We want Boeing to be successful, otherwise we'll all lose our jobs, union and non-union alike. But it is the unions that stand up and say, "This isn't the smartest business move, and we're so angry about it, we're going on strike."

Call it tough-love taken to the extreme, but it is necessary. The more jobs are outsourced, the more the talent on the home front dwindles. There are distinct advantages in having the building and design work done in proximity: We engineers can walk to the factory and look at what results from our designs and what we need to do to make it better, more efficient and more practical for maintenance when the customer receives the product, etc.

The scary thing here is, it almost seems like Boeing doesn't want to build airplanes anymore. It's like they just want to take the big pieces from around the world and slap them together here. The machinists on strike don't think that's a good way to build an airplane, and they ought to know -- they've been building airplanes for years! And, pretty soon, Boeing's going to find out that the engineers agree.

Outsourcing hurts. It hurts employees and employers. Outsourcing hurts even more than a strike does.
-- Sophia Jones, Snohomish

Eliminate strikes
At what point does society say "enough!" to the Machinist union's legal extortion practices? What kind of society would we have if everyone could hold their company hostage if they didn't like how they were treated?

There are alternatives to a strike, but it doesn't appear that union leadership is too interested in pursuing these options. And, why not? Well, it's because they don't suffer during a strike -- unfortunately, everyone else does. When Boeing union members strike it hurts everyone: other Boeing employees, suppliers, local businesses, Boeing's reputation and profit margin and, most importantly, Boeing's customers, who don't have to buy Boeing products.

Let's eliminate strikes, keep the wheels on the bus turning and try to achieve workable solutions via mediation and binding arbitration. Or -- better yet -- if you don't like your job, find a better one.
-- Greg Kisinger, Renton

With the economy in trouble, gas prices rising and oil companies infiltrating our oceans, investments in transportation alternatives demand more attention than ever before.

Proposition 1 may not satisfy all the city's transportation demands, however, it's a much-needed investment to jump-start solving Seattle's transportation woes ["Eastside debates value of light rail," Local News, Sept. 24].

It is hardly a novelty to watch as overcrowded buses whiz by even more-crowded bus stops, as they are too full to pick up waiting passengers. As gas prices continue to increase, more and more drivers will be pushed to the Metro buses, only adding to the congestion. Proposition 1 will begin to bring Seattle into the 21st century with regard to transit, joining the likes of other progressive cities, such as San Francisco, New York City and Boston. It's about time!

-- Rele'e Davis, Seattle