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

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

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

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

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

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

Attempts to modernize fall flat
King County Councilmember Dow Constantine got it exactly right when he criticized Metro Transit for the agency's archaic systems and resistance to embracing new communication technologies ["Metro rebuked for snow response," Local News, Feb. 27].

In July 2006 I wrote a letter to Metro, in which I suggested the agency take immediate steps to enhance communications, including setting up a delayed-route hotline and initiating RSS feeds to push real-time updates to riders.

Nearly three years later, Metro has neither made progress nor shown interest in making progress in the way the agency communicates to its riders.

Further, even when Metro has attempted to test new technologies, such as Wi-Fi on buses, the agency has fallen flat. Even today, the only information regarding Wi-Fi on buses that one can find on the Metro Web site is a 2007 news release announcing a pilot program that will continue at least through the remainder of 2007.

Imagine buses equipped with Wi-Fi, wherein riders were using Twitter to communicate in real time, the status of their specific bus. It has the potential to be an exceptionally accurate, cost-effective communications program.

Three years ago, Metro's communications abilities were abysmal. Today, it's even worse. No wonder Microsoft has abandoned Metro altogether and rolled out its own transportation fleet, complete with Wi-Fi. If only the rest of us were eligible for such a service.

-- David Schwartz, Seattle

Waiting in vain, waiting for change

On Feb. 26, Metro again let down many riders.

There was a bit of snow on the ground, so I decided to ride the bus to North Seattle Community College. I waited 35 minutes for a northbound 48 bus at 23rd Avenue East and Aloha Street.

Along with many heading to the University of Washington and NSCC, I waited in vain. No bus passed in either direction. Eventually, it became too late to make my 9 a.m. class.

Upon returning home, I checked the Metro Web site and found no indication that the 48 route was not being served.

There is no excuse for what happened. Conditions were not that bad. Buses should have been able to navigate 23rd Avenue, as many cars were able to.

I don't want excuses or explanations. I want change.

-- Michael Kischner, Seattle

No cure for congestion until it's reliable

What if we ran our hospital like Metro runs its bus service? What if, after waiting for an hour to be seen, the hospital announces it isn't servicing patients with your insurance coverage today and you will need to find alternative solutions for your medical needs.

I would like to use the public-transportation system I pay for with my tax dollars, and cut down on traffic congestion. But, I must drive because I work in a hospital and if I wait for a bus that never shows up, I don't get to work on time, which in turn causes patients to not receive the care they deserve. Our region can't solve its traffic-congestion problems until public transportation becomes reliable.

-- Randy Nagy, Federal Way

Nonsensical for non-cities

While I agree increased density near transit stations is good public policy, I'm afraid House Bill 1490 is another example of "one-size-fits-all" legislation ["Distress over forced density," Local News, Feb. 17].

The required density of 50 units per acre may fit metropolitan downtowns such as Seattle or Bellevue, but would be outrageous and nonsensical outside of designated urban centers.

Should we really require high-rise buildings across the street from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport? Has anyone considered the effects of topography on the required half-mile radius?

In Tukwila, a person living half a mile "as the crow flies" could easily have a one-mile walk to the nearest station -- unless they chose to jaywalk across Highway 518.
I believe most cities want to encourage new transit-oriented development in their station areas, but they want to do it in a way that makes sense for their communities and their unique situations.

This legislative proposal clearly needs a large dose of common sense.

-- Pam Carter, Tukwila

Limited capacity limits cash

Metro wants to tax vehicle owners to subsidize transit riders ["Metro Transit fears major funding gap," Local News, Feb. 18]? What is going on in this state? Where is the sanity?

If Metro is not a cost-effective transportation option, it should be reduced or eliminated. Like airlines, if buses and trains are not full, you have sunk costs with no return on investment.

At any given time, you will see bus after bus more than a third or half empty. Few routes are full all the time. Fact is, if a route is not running at 90 percent capacity or above, it should be either curtailed or absorbed into more needy, cost-effective routes.

As caustic as it may sound, we cannot continue to placate limited-capacity routes.
Bottom line, stop punishing those of us with no interest in a failed system that in mismanaged, poorly designed and under utilized.

-- Art Francis, Issaquah

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

Promises like witch's pearls

Chained as I know you are to the regional power brokers, it is not surprising (but still depressing) to read the drivel you put out in the Sunday Times: "Bellevue's Rail Vision" [Feb. 15, Editorial].

You almost got the title right -- you just left out a couple important modifiers. A better, more accurate title would have been: "Bellevue railroads citizens into poverty."

Times' reporter Katherine Long's previous Bel-Red propaganda bulletin ["Re-envisioning Bel-Red," page 1, Feb. 13] didn't get it right either. By carefully selecting the acolytes from Bellevue's development-driven power brokerage, she managed to find some in favor, yet all equally ignorant and uninformed about the city staff's and council's Bel-Red rescue plan.

It is a plan modeled after the federal government's rescue efforts following Hurricane Katrina -- a plan now being updated to include the government's convoluted, arcane "rescue plan" designed to impoverish current and future U.S. citizens.

Bellevue's Bel-Red rezone plan is not "smart growth," it is just warmed-over city building based on the city staff's and council's reading of Robert Moses' success in wreaking havoc on New York City. And, of course the nuts at Cascade Land Conservancy welcome this kind of interventionist-public policy with open arms because they seek to restrict public access to public lands.

Yes, Bellevue's so-called "leaders" are championing the Bel-Red rezone and Sound Transit's uneconomical, inflexible East Link transit scheme. And they are showering Bellevue citizens with promises, like the pearls from the witch's house in Grimm's "Hansel and Gretel."

But, rather than the fairy-tale characters' happy reunion with their father, Bellevue citizens can only look forward to increased taxes to pay for our "leaders'" bloated appetites.

Bellevue citizens have no say in the council's irrational plans because they have been left in the vast forest of nonsense created by the city council and their take-it-or-leave-it acolytes on the city staff.

Your refusal to print one single word of opposition to Bellevue's mind-boggling Bel-Red rezone plan, and your turncoat endorsement of Sound Transit's noncost-effective light-rail project shows how seriously your brains have been shrunk by the regional power brokers' vise.

Times readers are the poorer for their uninformed comments on important issues affecting the region's citizens.

-- David Plummer, Bellevue

Stop the anti-housing NIMBYs

Once again Rainier Valley is the scene of wild speculation so ludicrous, it's almost hilarious. This time the fuss is not over the light rail itself, but over "transit-oriented communities" around rail stations, as dictated by House Bill 1490 ["Distress over forced density," Local News, Feb. 17].

Never mind that buildable land within half a mile of the Mount Baker Station is already zoned for an average density of over 50 dwelling units per acre, or that this bill is primarily about fighting suburban sprawl. Mount Baker resident Pat Murakami is still up in arms.

Never mind that the transit and environmental communities have joined forces with the Low Income Housing Alliance to ensure that future station-area development is mixed income as well as mixed use. Housing champion John Fox still rants and raves against imaginary densities, propelling anti-housing NIMBYs to man the barricades.

Meanwhile, we, who live near the Othello Station, love well-planned "density." It's the key ingredient for brewing truly diverse, compact, walkable communities.

You don't need to speculate. Just look at what's happening here to see what HB 1490 is all about.

-- Dick Burkhart, Seattle

Affordable and aesthetically pleasing

As a recent college graduate, affordability and convenience to public transportation are my top criteria when searching for a place to live. As a young person living in Seattle, I feel I should have equal access to housing that meets these requirements as anyone else in my neighborhood.

One of the benefits of the Transit-Oriented Communities bill (HB 1490) is that it lays the groundwork for cities to create housing near new transit stations that people like myself could afford, as well as providing flexibility for cities to plan development around stations in a way that still shapes and protects the personality of each individual community and neighborhood.

In Seattle, we certainly understand the importance of protecting the essence of our neighborhoods.

But, if this bill is not passed, people like myself will have fewer and fewer opportunities to live in areas convenient to the public transportation we need. More importantly, the region will risk losing the rare opportunity to make a socially and environmentally responsible choice in shaping the future of our communities.

I urge my fellow Washingtonians to call their legislators in support of this bill.

-- Michaela Howard, Seattle

A socioeconomic balance

Editor, The Times:

Regarding Katherine Long's article, "Re-envisioning Bel-Red" [Time, page one, Feb. 13], someone may want to ask the city how it plans to maintain or enhance the number of light-industrial jobs that could be displaced with this new development.

True sustainability is more than just preserving fish habitat and improving pedestrian amenities for those who can afford it. It's also about creating a socioeconomic balance that preserves industrial jobs close by, so that communities can be self-sustaining and transportation costs of people and products can be reduced.

-- Thomas Lunke, New York, N.Y.

Jim Bates / The Seattle Times

What will become of the Alaskan Way Viaduct? State and local officials will soon decide a replacement option for the aging elevated expressway.

Don't hold your breath

Editor, The Times:

The proliferation of viaduct-replacement plans serve well the dreams of their designers and the narrow constituencies of their promoters. What they never serve are the needs of the people who use Highway 99 for work, for commuting or for pleasure ["Viaduct replacement: Down to just 2 options?, Times, page one, Dec. 12].

Public transportation works well for getting people to and from work during the morning and evening rush. It does not work for industry, shipping or for people running errands or visiting. We need a transportation system that transports people, goods and services. None of the viaduct-replacement plans thus far serve this purpose.

Unless you have been living in a bomb shelter during the past 20 years, the population of Seattle and environs is increasing. Replacing a six-lane highway with a four-lane highway is not only shortsighted, it's stupid. Yet, this is what we are offered.

Surface-street "alternatives" make no sense at all. Perhaps the designers of this "alternative" are so accustomed to traveling the moving parking lot that is I-5 through downtown Seattle to have forgotten that highways are designed to move vehicles efficiently and quickly.

Impeding traffic might seem wise to those who believe the answer to urban issues is to remove people from their cars. Public transportation by bus, trail, trolley and monorail is one piece of the puzzle for moving people, along with bikes and walking. We need them all and we need to design our transportation corridors for all. It is stupid to cut quick and efficient transportation in favor of beautiful parkways. We can have both.

Surface-street alternatives also require stoplights. How does a stoplight help move people, goods and services? It doesn't.

For those who would like to see a beautiful parkway running along the waterfront, imagine standing along I-5 at Madison. Isn't it pretty to watch the stop-and-go traffic? To hear the big diesel engines whine? To smell the fresh auto exhaust or idling and speeding engines? That is the reality of a surface-street boulevard or parkway along the Seattle waterfront.

Until we have a viaduct-replacement plan that is designed to carry people, allows for the efficient movement of goods and services, and does so in a manner that encourages rather than impedes movement, we should keep what we have.

Perhaps it will require the viaduct's destruction by governor or for the designers and promoters to realize that the needs of the citizenry trump their own narrow perspectives.

Let's hope it doesn't come to this. But I won't be holding my breath.

-- Peter Stekel, Seattle

Maintain the flow

It seems that the biggest objection to a surface option for the viaduct is that all the traffic will clog surface streets in the downtown area.

The people who use the viaduct to go downtown are already using the downtown streets. Loss of the viaduct won't change that; they will just use a different route to go downtown.

The problem would be with people who use the viaduct to bypass the downtown area. If these people have to drive through downtown Seattle instead, this will contribute to congestion downtown.

Why not provide a lower-capacity expressway to handle through traffic and use a surface option only for traffic going downtown.

Build a lidded tunnel along the waterfront, with a widened Alaskan Way at the surface. There would be no exits in the downtown area except for transit and emergency vehicles.

In order to provide a faster route for downtown-bound traffic, Fourth Avenue South, which has a wide right of way, could have an expressway down the middle, with two separate lanes on each side for local traffic.

Due to anticipated rising sea levels, add a few feet of fill to the waterfront and build the tunnel and roadway higher accordingly. The fill would need to slope down to the existing waterfront structures, and they could be raised as needed over time.

-- Bob Fleming, Seattle

Not good enough

Whatever we do, let's not decrease Highway 99's capacity to carry north-south traffic along the waterfront.

I'm a big-time bus commuter to and from downtown. But traveling to Sea-Tac Airport to catch a plane is another matter. When we lived on Queen Anne, going to Sea-Tac via Highway 99 was 15 to 20 minutes faster than trying to get across town to I-5.

And buses to Sea-Tac offer no reasonable alternative when it's time to catch a plane during Sea-Tac's early-morning departure peaks.

Residents of Seattle's Western districts (West Seattle, Queen Anne, Ballard, Shoreline) rely heavily on Highway 99 for north-south travel. It's much faster to use Highway 99 than to move all the way east to I-5 -- whether via bus or car.

Present demand for the viaduct requires the state somehow match, if not increase, the present viaduct's capacity. It's not a solution to build a smaller viaduct, then try to send the "leftover" demand across to I-5. I-5 isn't convenient to the Western districts. I-5 has its own problems serving other parts of Seattle.

Transit alternatives aren't alternatives for that kind of demand.

-- Don Gerards, Lake Forest Park

Do it right

Neither of the two options transportation planners have suggested for replacing the viaduct really replace it. Currently, we have three lanes in each direction on the viaduct and two lanes on each direction on Alaskan Way. That is a total of 10 lanes that, during rush hour and sporting events, are filled to capacity.

How does a new viaduct with two lanes in each direction replace three in each direction? Or how does a surface plan with only three lanes in each direction (and 28 lights) replace 10 lanes of traffic flow?

In a utopian city, more people would ride bikes, buses and trains resulting in fewer vehicles on the road. The reality is, more people will continue to look for alternatives to driving, but there will always be a large volume of vehicle traffic that will need to be accommodated by whatever viaduct replacement that is chosen. We need an option that moves us forward, not holds us back.

It seems that in a fast-moving world, we need transportation options that will keep up. We need transportation options that will handle the ever-increasing population of our region. We need to make choices that not only reflect the traffic needs of today, but also those of 50 years from now.

If we don't, we are wasting our time and taxpayer money. It seems one of the best alternatives for replacing the viaduct is to truly replace it with a viaduct containing at least three lanes in each direction. Or replace it with a tunnel that removes the eyesore from the waterfront, shores up the sea-wall infrastructure and provides a beautiful waterfront open space for all to enjoy.

My message to the governor and to the transportation planners is: Don't consider plans that will be immediately obsolete. Look into plans that will help improve transportation down this vital corridor.

-- Derek Mitchell, Seattle

Use what we've got

The City Council's ill-conceived plan to further develop the streetcar system is fiscally irresponsible at a time when budget cuts have been announced that are hurting women, children and the most vulnerable among us ["Seattle council supports streetcar expansion," News, Dec. 9].

Council members are acting upon the interests of big-property developers rather than workers who rely on public transportation. Expanding Metro bus lines would save money, as they already have an infrastructure in place.

It's time the City Council was accountable to working people—not corporate interests.

-- Christina Lopez, Seattle

Doesn't add up

Metro insults all of its passengers with filthy, overloaded No. 194 buses crammed with commuters to Renton, daily Sea-Tac Airport employees and air travelers with giant bags. The baggage litters the aisles and as the bus stops, the drivers cajoles people to move back to allow other misfortunates to load their bags and themselves.

There are no overhead racks. Pity the poor daily commuter who has to deal with this every day through the tunnel stops, down to Alaskan Way and along Interstate 5 in a noisy, smelly, overcrowded, foot-jamming mess.

Contrast this with the Community Transit bus to Marysville: a comfortable, clean and roomy freeway liner, with overhead compartments, all for University of Washington commuters.

What's happening, Metro? Waiting for 2009 and the light rail?

If you can afford to travel, then take a $30 taxi to the airport, rather than our $2.25 bus. Who would notice anyway? The cheap European or Japanese? The airport worker? The Renton commuter?

Try using this bus to transport UW employees to Snohomish and see if anyone complains.

-- Brian Boyle, Seattle

Time to get moving

I am certain that, more likely than not, you'll hear Seattleites ruminate over the death of transportation infrastructure in the Seattle area -- feelings that are usually aroused by a bout with the area's traffic problems.

With the national agenda shifting rapidly toward infrastructure investment as a great way to stimulate the nation's economy, there should be a loud, steady drumbeat resonating from the governor's mansion, the county executive's office, the mayor's office and perhaps most of all the Sound Transit board's figureheads.

It behooves all of Seattle's residents to push, and push hard for those long-awaited transportation investment dollars. They should be banging on John Podesta's door saying, "We're ready to go."

Podesta, of course, is leading President-elect Barack Obama's transition team but perhaps more importantly, he runs the Center for American Progress, from which many of the progressive policy agenda items will originate over the next eight years.

With a significant amount of thought having already gone into ideas like the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement and the Highway 520 bridge replacement, I just can't understand why we aren't hearing more about funneling infrastructure stimulus dollars our way.

The point is highly relevant given that there is widespread skepticism and concern that a serious lack of "shovel-ready projects" are out there.

I, for one, believe Seattleites have heard far too much talk about improving the area infrastructure, and have seen far too little action.

Just as the stock market today presents a once-in-a-lifetime buying opportunity for many investors, the massive economic-stimulus-package funding presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Seattle to ensure a prosperous and productive future by building out a world-class infrastructure system including light-rail expansion, road and bridge replacement and even urban core rail buildouts that the Seattle monorail once attempted to achieve.

The thinking has been done.

Suddenly, the dollars are here. Now let's get moving.

-- Daniel Fletcher, New York, N.Y.

Get your mind
out of the tracks

Can someone please explain to me the advantages of a streetcar system over buses?

They both travel on the surface. They both take up a lane of traffic. They both are subject to traffic jams caused by other vehicles.

The difference is that one can be rerouted in the event of trouble. One travels on existing infrastructure. And one is much less expensive and more flexible over time.

Perhaps we need to rethink our apparent fixation with tracks.

-- Tim Rice, Seattle

Think of something less preposterous

With the exception of Seattle City Council members Nick Licata, Tom Rasmussen and Richard McIver, the other council members must be living in Alice's Wonderland ["Seattle City Council divided over future streetcar lines," News, Dec. 3]. They are either ignorant, stupid or so far removed from the problems of everyday citizens they haven't a clue where money comes from. They have no empathy for the struggling average person who can scarcely pay for his mortgage, food, transportation, etc., and may lose his job.

Of all the ridiculous ways to squander our hard-earned tax dollars, more streetcars are the most absurd. Economists' prediction of a $5.1 billion shortfall in our state's two-year budget mandates cutting expenditures to the bone and eliminating all but essentials.

For bike riders, rails in the street are extremely hazardous, and more pollution would follow increased congestion. Streetcar tracks would impede traffic flow and increase gridlock.

Thank you council members Licata, Rasmussen and McIver for opposing this inane proposal and for listening to the people you represent.

-- Helen and David Belvin, Seattle

Let's do this

The Municipal League of King County's critique of Metro transit is well taken, but there is one huge omission ["Metro Transit, an audit is scheduled," Editorial, Nov. 25]. Even with a much better allocation of bus service, the demand in the years ahead is likely to far exceed Metro's funding capacity.

King County needs to ask the state Legislature for a local-option, vehicle carbon tax, or a similar "green tax." I can't think of a better way to get serious about both green house gases and peak oil.

-- Dick Burkhart, Seattle