Seattle's vote means nothing

We learned in the May 13 Seattle Times that Gov. Chris Gregoire has signed into law legislation to begin construction of a deep-bore tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct ["Around the Northwest: Governor signs bill to replace viaduct," NW Wednesday]. I fear her memory is short.

As most Times readers will recall, Seattle held a special election in 2007 about the viaduct. The City Council wanted to give the voters a choice between digging a tunnel and building a new elevated viaduct. One can only imagine the look of surprise on many public officials' faces when the results reflected a clear rejection of both the tunnel and the elevated options.

Many, including Carrie Moon of the People's Waterfront Coalition (PWC), concluded that folks in Seattle didn't want either option, and were perfectly willing to live with a third option: surface-transit, which had been kept off the ballot. The PWC published voluminous information to show that moving people in the viaduct corridor could be accomplished by enhanced public transit and careful redesign of traffic flows on downtown streets.

As most are aware, global warming is going to make the world increasingly unlivable for coming generations. We also know that cars produce about one-third of global-warming gas. Shouldn't we take every opportunity to decrease our reliance on cars, as the surface-transit option would have done?

What part of "no" doesn't the governor understand?

-- Brian King, Seattle

The tunnel's numerous warts

Thanks, Gov. Gregoire -- it's our tunnel now, warts and all. And let's examine the futuristic warts.

First, the cost overruns will cripple the city budget in the next decade.

Second, can the artists' renderings of the waterfront boulevard now depict the future reality? It will not be a beautiful park scene with pedestrians strolling along. It will become a six-lane traffic nightmare with all the noise and pollution that comes along with mingling cars and people.

The thousands of affordable parking slots currently in place will disappear. If you want to continue using Embarcadero Drive in San Francisco as your benchmark, go drive it sometime and see its troubles.

Next, the view will not change -- the historic piers in place will not miraculously shrink or receive a makeover.

And last, the buses that bring in commuters from West Seattle, South Seattle and Burien will now have to traverse the city streets. Don't forget the industrial businesses that will now have find a new route to move goods.

Bucolic renderings of a peaceful waterfront are exactly what they are -- a dream. Cold reality will emerge for Seattleites as we "pay" for the tunnel for many generations.

-- David Wilson, Seattle

Appreciate the parks we have

The mayor of Bremerton should take a walk -- to the Seattle Art Museum's Olympic Sculpture Park and on to Myrtle Edwards Park -- before he spouts off about Seattle's lack of public waterfront space ["Harnessing the potential of Seattle's waterfront," Cary Bozeman guest commentary, Opinion, April 29].

-- Anne Fontaine, Seattle

Entrusting government to devious people

The Legislature's recent approval of the deep-bore tunnel legislation ends a process that nicely illustrates why the public is so disgusted with politics and politicians ["Viaduct legislation headed to governor," NW Saturday, April 25].

First, they ignored the public vote that rejected the tunnel option. Then the mayor, county executive and governor got together in a back room with the downtown business interests and endorsed the tunnel proposal.

Finally, state legislators, in a cowardly effort to provide themselves with political cover, approved a funding measure for the tunnel that contained a cost-overrun proviso that they knew very well would be unenforceable.

We would never entrust our children's schooling to such devious, disingenuous people, so why do we so casually entrust our governance to them?

-- Dick Schwartz, Seattle

Opportunity to be proud of Seattle waterfront

I am so sick and tired of the "view is so great for the common man" argument in favor of the viaduct. According to Andy Zamelis ["Deep-bore tunnel approved: Goodbye to view from viaduct," seattletimes.com, Northwest Voices, April 26], "Only the elites, living in the exclusive million-dollar condos, will be entitled to the views west" while "the plebes will be confined to the street-level, where they will mix with the vagrants, derelicts, rats and drug dealers to catch an occasional ground-level glimpse of the Sound."

First of all, I'm wondering just who is the elite here? Zamelis seems to be despairing because he may have to walk among the great unwashed masses on the ground.

Secondly, he unwittingly touches on an important point as he accurately describes what it's like under the viaduct. To his description, I would add filth and noise -- a great deal of noise. But the point is not that poor Zamelis would now have to walk there, but that an opportunity to transform the Seattle waterfront into something to be proud of is at hand.

Thirdly, if the view is so great from the top deck of the viaduct, then how about paying for it? It cost $16 to ride to the top of the Space Needle (pretty nice view there, too). How about $8 to ride the viaduct?

-- Steve Coyne, Seattle

More than two holes in tunnel plan

I find it amazing that the tunnel project seems to be sailing along.

The overcrowded viaduct is twice as big. Has anyone addressed where half the traffic congestion is headed?

The mayor did make a reference to mass transit, but with no game plan, i.e. adding buses or other ideas to get us out of our cars.

Have I missed something or is there a huge hole in the tunnel plan (besides in each end)?

-- S.A. Simon, Seattle

Another Big Dig disaster

Danny Westneat's column was most informative ["Tunnel's cost may fool us all," NW Sunday, April 26], particularly throwing light on the study by professor Bent Flyvbjerg of such megaprojects and their invariably astronomical over-budget costs.

We are suckers for such projects. They look so appealing, yet the reality will be just another Big Dig boondoggle. I thought also the kiss of death for this tunnel option was its promotion by the Discovery Institute, a bastion of anti-science creationists most notorious for their inability to fathom science and whose writings have been compared to astrology.

Let's wake up and face reality, people.

-- David Kerchner, Kirkland

Jim Bates / The Seattle Times

The viaduct, seen here at night, is slated to be torn down and replaced by a tunnel.

Editor, The Times:

It took years, but the downtown real-estate interests are finally getting their way, while the people of Seattle and tourists will be denied one of the world's most beautiful views ["Tunnel to take place of viaduct," page one, April 23].

Motoring north on the viaduct, you can see the Sound, ferries, ships and Olympics to the left and a bustling city or city lights to the right. Just turn your head and enjoy the panorama.

That will be no more. Only the elites, living in the exclusive million-dollar condos, will be entitled to the views west. Not even they will be able to see the city to the east, except from a tour boat or a private yacht. The plebes will be confined to the street-level, where they will mix with the vagrants, derelicts, rats and drug-dealers to catch an occasional ground-level glimpse of the Sound.

But what can we do? This is Seattle and this is Washington, and this is how things are done here. The people voted against a tunnel, but they will get one anyway. And even get to pay for it!

-- Andy Zamelis, Burien

Current design is flawed

The Seattle Times' April 24 editorial concluded by stating, "Final agreement on a tunnel represents momentous progress for Seattle and the larger region" ["A tunnel and a dig," Opinion, editorial, April 24]. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

The 2.1-mile-long tunnel design, incorporating a pair of two 12-foot lanes -- but with only a single 4-foot shoulder on one side and an 8-foot shoulder on the other -- is a flawed design that fails to even partially meet the adopted state and federal design standards for this class of highway.

These state and federal design standards were adopted for safety reasons. At a minimum, both shoulders must be 10 feet in width and must include a 1.5-foot "shy distance" between the shoulder edge and tunnel wall. The proposed design in the digital rendering you have displayed fails in these mandatory cross-sectional design requirements.

To abandon these currently adopted standards merely for the convenience of the Waterfront Coalition, among others, is in my opinion the highest degree of negligence.

While I cannot assume to speak for 105,000 daily users of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, I am certain that they have similar concerns regarding their individual safety, which will be obviously compromised by the tunnel design as now proposed.

-- Christopher V. Brown, Seattle

Better option than noisy, elevated freeway

It completely baffles me how replacing the existing unsightly monument to the 1950s idealism of automobile travel with yet another unsightly monument to automobile travel is even still being discussed. Seattle is a city that is trying to move forward into the 21st century and we should look forward with our transportation options, not backward to a mid-20th century solution.

The conversation seems to be completely centered on functionality and economy, while the aesthetic quality and potential for a traffic-free waterfront is tossed to the wayside. Are these really our values as a community? We're just so willing to bury the potential of a more pedestrian-oriented, green waterfront in favor of another noisy, polluting, elevated freeway that completely disconnects the downtown from Puget Sound, one of our most precious assets, all for the sake of getting there faster.

This is testament to how car-oriented we have become as a society, and even in Seattle this mode prevails.

Don't get me wrong; there are serious questions about the cost of a deep-bore tunnel, and further issues of functionality. But we should not be so willing to throw our waterfront away to another episode of elevated concrete blight.

Seriously, if you want a nice vistas of downtown or the waterfront, get out of your cars and try walking, and imagine how much nicer it would be without visually and audibly suffocating from another freeway.

-- Lance Smith, Seattle

Washington State Department of Transportation

This digital rendering of the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel shows stacked traffic lanes that would run roughly under First Avenue through downtown Seattle.

Encourage energy-saving transit, not traffic

Editor, The Times:

Apparently, the mayor and state Legislature aren't getting the message ["Tunnel to take place of viaduct," page one, April 23].

Emphasis needs to be on maintenance of the existing highway system (i.e. potholes) and alternatives to driving a car, not another highway tunnel or wider freeway.

If you are going to build a waterfront deep-bore tunnel, consider a two-lane tunnel for transit-only buses or a three-lane tunnel for HOV vehicles (carpools, van pools, buses). The difference in this plan is that it encourages more energy-efficient transportation, is affordable, and is faster and easier to build.

-- Martin Nix, Seattle

Spending money to go backward

You think Seattle traffic is bad now? Wait until we replace the six-lane viaduct with a four-lane tunnel.

Then consider the fact that the current viaduct has easy on-and-off access while the tunnel will have no easy central downtown access. There will be one ramp at the south end of downtown and one at the north end. It's easy to predict the horrific bottlenecks this will cause at both ends of town.

There is a simple wisdom somewhere that says when you rebuild a thing, the end result should be at least as good as what you're replacing. It seems with the tunnel plan, we're
spending a lot of money to go backward.

-- Greg McBrady, Seattle

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.

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

Wishful thinking, not true planning

Now that we have had some time to consider the decision of the governor, the county executive and the mayor to dig a deep-bore tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, it becomes clear that this tunnel option makes as little sense as the surface-street alternative others proposed.

First, a tunnel was roundly rejected by 70 percent of Seattle's voters. A deep-bore tunnel is still a tunnel.

Second, the proposed tunnel will handle 85,000 of the current 110,000 daily trips on Highway 99. Thus, by the proponents' own admission, a tunnel is inadequate to handle existing daily trips, let alone the daily trips when the tunnel is finally completed.

Once the tunnel is used, there is also no potential for its future expansion. This hardly makes any sense. The proponents apparently believe 25,000 daily-vehicle and truck trips through the Highway 99 corridor will magically disappear.

Wishful thinking does not replace true planning.

The three executives are making an unstated policy choice: They want to make auto traffic as congested as possible in Seattle, hoping to force people to use public transportation.

Third, a tunnel will cost at least $4.25 billion. This, too, is likely wishful thinking, as construction costs very seldom resemble the actual costs of a project.

The state has committed $3.1 billion to the viaduct replacement. This means local taxpayers will have to make up the difference, paying tolls, property taxes, motor-vehicle-excise taxes and any other taxes within the imagination of the mayor and city council.

Finally, there are safety and environmental issues associated with a tunnel. Tunneling creates significant air pollution. And, if a single truck jackknifes in the tunnel, all traffic will back up and will not be able to be rerouted.

One need only look at the problems encountered with the Big Dig in Boston to understand how tunnels are problematic.

As recently reported ["New look at how viaduct shimmies," page one, Feb. 25], a deep-bore tunnel will be severely tested by seismic issues in our region, as well. Personally, I would feel uncomfortable driving through a tunnel during an earthquake.

The tunnel option seems to be born of political expedience, a nonsolution to Highway 99 traffic, crafted by three executives who have been embarrassed by their inability to resolve the Alaskan Way Viaduct question.

There are better alternatives. This proposal does not answer the problems and creates so many of its own that Seattle citizens and our region should reject it.

-- Philip Talmadge, Tukwila

New alternative: a second bus tunnel

With all the debate swirling around the proposed tunnel to replace the viaduct, there is another option that no one has suggested: a second bus tunnel.

I'm a regular user of the current bus tunnel and I think it works great. Why not add another set of bus tunnels running under Second Avenue and take most, if not all, of the remaining buses off the downtown-surface streets?

I think this would have a lot of advantages. It would increase the utility of the bus system by allowing buses to move faster through downtown.

It would free up surface streets for private and commercial traffic and, without busses on surface streets, might make the surface option for the viaduct replacement more practical.

It would also lay the groundwork for a second light rail line that would serve the western half of Seattle (roughly similar to the route of the defunct monorail project).

-- Luke Jennings, Seattle

Communication and compromise are crucial

The Times' Feb. 28 editorial, "Viaduct project should not be casualty of bad blood," states there is a lack of communication between state legislation and the governor. Good communication is essential, but the best solution, while maintaining maximum benefits, is leaders willing to compromise and come to a united decision.

If roughly $5 billion of reconstruction is needed and projects were reduced 25 percent, there would be $1 billion available for projects not being funded, allowing jobs to be spread over a wider area.

Projects can be scaled down in size so all can be built. Seattle needs these projects because traffic will worsen after the viaduct is torn down.

To keep additional traffic from flowing onto Interstate 5, the Mercer and Spokane street projects should start before the deconstruction of the Viaduct. The amount of traffic won't disappear; it will flow into downtown, clog city streets, hurting retailers while frustrating shoppers. Gov. Chris Gregoire made a promise to Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, and she should keep it even if downsizing other projects is a consequence.

These politicians need to look at the ways they communicate and fix something because these problems aren't going away.

-- Elizabeth Roush, Seattle

The Seattle Times

Highway 520 bridge

As a person born, raised and still living in Queen Anne, I am very familiar with both the corridor infrastructure and the tendencies of those who use it. With Mercer Street, Highway 520, and the tunnel to replace the viaduct on the launchpad, it is imperative we realize the interaction of these three pieces of infrastructure are keys to the most important transportation hub in the state.

This interaction must be scrutinized thoroughly. The following is one of many possible nightmare scenarios I hope are not being overlooked in our zeal to get things done. This scenario should not be viewed as a single, lone case. Rather, it should be seen as an example of what could arise as a result of the new proposed infrastructure.

Today, Southcenter during I-5 congestion, is an exit point for northbound traffic. Many vehicles heading to the waterfront, downtown, Highway 99, Aurora, Queen Anne, Fremont, Magnolia, Interbay, Ballard, Greenwood, and other destinations in the north exit I-5 at Southcenter and the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, heading north to their final destinations.

If all three pieces of infrastructure are built as proposed, the new, smaller tunnel to replace the viaduct will back up worse than it currently does. Drivers will choose not to exit at Southcenter and, instead, continue down I-5.

This will increase traffic near the city. Vehicles will intend to exit at Mercer Street, which, because of the rebuild, will have been downsized to three lanes. The left-hand exit lane of I-5 North will quickly back up, creating stalls, which already occurs today.

Vehicles that started at Southcenter, rather than joining this long-waiting line at the revised Mercer Street exit, may choose to bypass this less vehicle-friendly exit and continue to the next logical one, the Lakeview (Roanoke) exit.

This would be a disaster.

The problem is these vehicles that were on the far left of I-5 have to do a very quick, multiple-lane change over to the far right of I-5 in order exit at Lakeview. This is the cusp of the Highway 522 entrance. Crisscrossing I-5 within a short distance is extremely dangerous.

It will also cause untold congestion and chaos as it interferers with thru-traffic. And, once the new arrivals see Lakeview is backed up and clogged, they will likely bypass Lakeview and continue on I-5 to the next exit, Lake Washington Boulevard/Montlake. But exiting here requires merging onto 520. This means, regardless of traffic, vehicles will have no choice to exit here or else they will be forced to cross the 520 bridge.

In other words, building new transportation infrastructure will turn 520 into a congestion nightmare. Can this happen? The steps follow a logical pattern.

It is imperative the state evaluate the interaction of the three-planned infrastructure revisions before any one is launched. It is very possible all three simply can't be done. It is possible two cannot be done. Or even one cannot be done.

Before we pound the first nail, we need to know.

-- Ted Nelson, Seattle

To many unknowns to bear the bore

With data on the viaduct's movement in the last earthquake and the scarcity of state and federal funds for associated street projects ["New look at how viaduct shimmies," page one, Feb. 25], it's time to get real about our options for viaduct replacement.

A new viaduct would outweigh the proposed tunnel in cost, time to completion, carrying capacity and safety. The Times reports almost weekly on the shifting-cost estimates and shrinking amount of state funding available. The time to completion varies with each iteration of plans.

The tunnel's carrying capacity is unknown. But, the Washington state Department of Transportation projects in 2030 the tunnel's two-lane-per-direction capacity and travel time will be similar to today's with three lanes per direction on most of the roadway.

Is this reasonable?

We don't even know today's carrying capacity, since daily-traffic estimates vary from 80,000 or 85,000 vehicles to 110,000. Anyone who has been stuck in the Battery Street tunnel has had a preview of the safety considerations raised by a longer, narrower tunnel with only an 8-foot shoulder on one side and without exits except at each end.

If your tire blows out, how is this plan better than a viaduct?
It's time to write the governor, mayor, state senators and representatives to think practically about this problem. We can make a more realistic decision now, before the Big Bore gets started.

-- Lilyan Snow, Mercer Island

Reminiscent of Safeco, Eyman's rescue

It is outrageous that our government leaders are again building a new stadium despite people's overwhelming vote against it. This stadium is called "the waterfront tunnel."

Don't they remember what happened when they pushed the new Mariners stadium over people's objections? It spawned Tim Eyman, who successfully cut state revenues in initiative after initiative precisely because people were fed up with the arrogance of government officials deciding what's best for them.

And, now the budget is $8 billion in the hole and still counting. It is ludicrous that Gov. Christine Gregoire, Mayor Greg Nickels, and King County Executive Ron Sims would choose the most expensive solution to the viaduct at a time like this.

They just handed Eyman his next initiative, and it will be a slam dunk.

-- Janice Van Cleve, Seattle

Obvious jargon doesn't hide a political vision

Let's think about what your article, "New Look at how viaduct shimmies" [page one, Feb. 25], said and what reality to us "nonpolitical" people is.

In the article, you state the obvious when you say bridges and buildings shake more at the top than the bottom. You say we should take down all buildings more than a few yards tall. But, modern structures are built to be flexible for this very reason. Stiff structures break in earthquakes!

Next, you say the magnitude-6.8 Nisqually quake "damaged" the viaduct, leading to costly repairs. Do you really think that a magnitude-6.8 quake would not damage an underground tunnel built with fill materials that turn to "quivering Jell-O"?

Next, which would you rather be in: a viaduct above ground in a quake or an underground tunnel, which could collapse or flood with seawater, with only two access points? Face it, with a simple modern fix of earthquake reinforcement and a comprehensive-maintenance plan, the viaduct remains a far better plan than the tunnel option.

The tunnel plan is not about traffic congestion. How is reducing the number of lanes and offramp points an improvement? This is about a "political vision" for Seattle.

-- Art Francis, Issaquah

Serving the government, not the government serving us

Gov. Christine Gregoire insists on replacing the (allegedly) collapsing viaduct with a high-tech, higher-cost, labor-intensive tunnel that will interrupt, for longer than proposed, the already poor system of mass transit and public roadways in Seattle. She insists on spending millions or billions of extra dollars at a time when the Washington state checking account is already overdrawn!

Can you imagine if we all lived our personal lives that way? I'm broke, so I should spend more?

The difference in cost between the "tunnel" and simply revising or replacing the viaduct, a Seattle Landmark, could work wonders on any number of other issues: Seattle's homeless population, the medically uninsured throughout the state, further road improvements, public-transportation enhancements or balancing the state's terminally unbalanced budget.

I voted for Gregoire, twice. I believed she represented, and had, the same values as I did: that we as citizens (and as governments) lived within our means, within a budget.
I was wrong.

I see now that Gregoire, like Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, believe what I do not believe: the government in the state of Washington is here for me to serve. I, on the other hand, believe the government is here to serve me -- to keep my best interests at heart.
I'll be voting Republican next time around.

-- Deborah Soares, Kent

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

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

Transportation first, aesthetics and tourism second

Most of the letters you are printing regarding this topic have been for the tunnel as the best replacement to the viaduct. I would like you to require that everyone who comments about the tunnel, either pro or con, states how often they use the viaduct now and plan to in the future.

I live in Magnolia and have to go to West Seattle once a week in order to pick up my granddaughter and take her to the Seattle Center. I use the viaduct to get to Costco on Fourth Avenue and to the airport. I am on the viaduct at least four times a week.

Do any of the letter writers who think a beautiful waterfront is the primary goal even use the viaduct? Ask the truckers and the people who actually use the viaduct to get from point A to point B what they think.

I know the tourist-related businesses on the waterfront are in favor of a tunnel, so more people can get to their establishments. And I am sure whoever owns the property on the waterfront would love to see a tunnel because it means more money in their pockets and ultimately more money for the government in property and other taxes. But, I quit going to the waterfront for dining because some restaurants are already hitting tourists with higher prices than locals can afford to pay.

The tunnel, as it is currently designed, doesn't help the people who live in Magnolia, Ballard and northwest of Aurora and Interstate 5. The trucking industry is already making it known the tunnel could hinder their transporting of goods to and from the waterfront.

I also wonder if the tunnel goes only to Aurora or I-5 or wherever they have planned, how many people will be forced to use surface streets to get to their destination?

-- Kathy Harris, Seattle

Keep on digging

The tunnel is a great idea, but why stop at two miles? Why not extend it all the way to Interstate 5? Better yet, extend it to the Eastside and fix the Highway 520 issue at the same time.

In fact, why don't we build a whole network of tunnels linking to the Seattle Center and finally fix the Mercer mess?

Now I've got it! Let's put I-5 in a tunnel all the way from Oregon to B.C. Wouldn't that make Western
Washington much prettier? Price is no object, right?

-- Don McDaniel, Kirkland

Potential earthquake disaster

People are missing the point, and thus the mayor and the governor are getting away with murder, perhaps literally.

These politicians tout the fact that the new First Avenue tunnel proposal allows the viaduct to remain in use until the tunnel is finished. This sounds like a huge advantage. But, the whole point is that the viaduct will not survive the next earthquake and we don't know when the earthquake will occur.

Leaving the viaduct as is, unrepaired, not replaced until 2014, exposes us to another five years of imminent peril.

That viaduct needs to be repaired or torn down now. To do otherwise is to expose motorists to an increasing probability of earthquake disaster as time passes.

-- Richard Karnes, Mercer Island

One third the space

Has anyone noticed that every government proposal to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct has just two lanes in each direction?

The viaduct today has three lanes in each direction and those are overcrowded much of the time. Elevated roadway, surface road or ditch, the future is to cram the traffic into one-third less space.

The only intelligent proposal was the architect-engineer who proposed a double tunnel with two auto lanes and one truck lane in each. But the city fathers' choice goes right along with an early decision to limit the number of lanes on Interstate 5, move the cruise ships from walking distance of downtown and close down the waterfront trolley.

Must not have been enough taxes in tourists, trolleys or commerce.

-- Kerry Edwards, Lynnwood

Tax whack

Now that the deep thinkers have decided on the tunnel option (of course, the most expensive choice) and have begun postulating on where they will "find" the money, I have a couple of questions. I'll keep them very short.

First, who of us living outside of King County believes for a minute that we will not also be whacked with new taxes to supplement this fiasco? Not me.

Second, the proposed design has four lanes instead of the current six. Was I simply hallucinating when this whole "process" began when the directives from the top dictated that no option carrying less traffic than the existing structure would be acceptable? No, I'm certain I remember that particular caveat.

-- Mark Williams, Lynnwood

Don't be deluded

Editor, The Times:

Wake up, Seattle!

The tunnel will have only four lanes compared with the six we currently have. There won't be any exits in downtown Seattle compared with the five exits we now have northbound at Columbia, Seneca and Western and southbound at Western and Royal Brougham Way. There won't be any access to Belltown, Magnolia, Ballard or lower Queen Anne without going all the way through to Mercer Street. You won't be able to get into the tunnel from downtown without going all the way south of Safeco Field or north of Denny Way.

And it's the most expensive option. How is this servicing Seattle? You won't even be able to get into the heart of downtown from the tunnel. Those of you who use it daily to get to your jobs downtown will have no option but to travel two miles of surface streets to get to your offices.

Don't be deluded by their proclamations that we'll "reclaim" the waterfront. Alaskan Way and the train tracks that run under the current viaduct will still be there; the same wide expanse of traffic and transit we have now between downtown and the waterfront will still exist. The viaduct will be replaced with more generic condos, not parks or recreation.

The politicians involved are pushing their own personal agendas, have stopped paying attention to the needs and wishes of their constituents and are spending our money recklessly at a time when none of us can afford it. Do something. Make your voice heard. Stop this ridiculous proposal.

-- Heidi Bernave, Seattle

Hybrid option

The whole process to determine the viaduct replacement focused on either a tunnel or an elevated structure. Why not a hybrid leaving the raised viaduct from the south to about Qwest Field and then a tunnel for the remainder of the distance along the waterfront? This would shorten the tunnel portion, save perhaps a half-billion dollars, reduce construction time, upgrade a major part of the waterfront and still preserve some elevated portion for the view.

An added benefit for the long run: If the tunnel proved to be a mistake, there would be less to correct.

-- Robert Mandich, Seattle

Greater capacity than alternatives

There is one aspect of the opposition to a bored tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way that I don't understand. Opponents say it would reduce the capacity of Highway 99 from six lanes to four. But all the other options, including a replacement viaduct, retain the Battery Street Tunnel with four lanes, which would serve as the "pinch point" of the system.

By contrast, the current proposal, as I understand it, has a four-lane bored tunnel plus the existing Battery Street Tunnel connecting to Alaskan Way, a wide boulevard. Thus, the total capacity of the system through downtown Seattle would actually be greater than under the alternatives. In addition it would, of course, open up downtown to the waterfront.

So, other than cost, what's not to like?

-- Donald Padelford, 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.

Federal funds first

Editor, The Times:

Why has there been so little mention of using the much-talked-about federal funds for infrastructure and roads on the tunnel and seawall? ["Tunnel extras: $1.4B needed," Times, page one, Jan. 14.]

No one would disagree that the tunnel, if affordable, would display Seattle as one of the most livable cities and tourist destinations in the U.S. The economic benefits of such acclaim would be substantial for at least the next 50 years.

-- Gregg Teslovich, Seattle

Side effects

Seattle leaders have decided on a tunnel under First Avenue as a replacement to the viaduct. While I don't particularly care for the tunnel option, I would approve of it if it met our needs.

The issues I am most worried about:

-- Taking Queen Anne, Magnolia, Ballard and Crown Hill out of the equation because it will most likely force people who live there to use alternative routes and, as a result, clog up those roads;

-- No exits to downtown and only two lanes in each direction being able to reduce traffic in the tunnel to 65,000 when there is no clear place for the remaining 40,000 to go;

-- Problems that trucking companies may face getting to and from the waterfront. I am worried that this tunnel takes more than a step back in planning for the future growth of the city. Reducing lanes, pushing traffic onto side roads and limiting access to the Port is not the correct approach.

We need an option, whether it is a tunnel or viaduct, that improves access, transit times, etc., and allows for growth.

Trying to say that people in Queen Anne, Magnolia, Ballard and Crown Hill can just use buses or build a light rail from those areas is irresponsible at best. We do not have the proper bus system from those areas now, and the monorail failed because it was too expensive. What part of this doesn't the government understand?

We need a solution that solves the issues and allows for growth. A deep-bore tunnel does not do that.

-- Kristina Falcone, Seattle

Truly world-class

I'm not a Seattle resident, but I am a citizen of Washington state. A tunnel plan will improve the city by opening up the waterfront and increasing tax revenue to improve waterfront-building aesthetics. This will truly make Seattle a world-class city.

-- Scott Wigdahl, Everett

Creating congestion elsewhere

What happened to access for Ballard, Queen Anne and Magnolia?

No solution to the Alaskan Way Viaduct problem is perfect, but the deep-bore tunnel proposal has an especially glaring deficiency. Fifteenth Avenue West and Elliott Avenue West are the major arterials for all southbound traffic from Ballard, Magnolia, and West Queen Anne.

As now configured, the tunnel will force those of us who live in these neighborhoods to make our way to an often congested Interstate 5, wind through the streets of Queen Anne to Aurora Avenue or face stop-and-go passage through the downtown core to Sodo, West Seattle, SeaTac, Tacoma or anywhere else to the south.

The northbound trip will be just as bad. The current Highway 99 entrance and exit at Western Avenue must be maintained in some form.

-- Thomas Dyer, Seattle

Australia did it, so can we

Kudos to Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels for choosing the tunnel. As an Australian-born U.S. citizen who has lived in the Seattle area since 1973, I have been waiting for the choice you have made.

The enhancement possibilities to the foreshores of Elliott Bay are finally a reality. As a tourist destination, Seattle deserves this choice. The beautiful harbors of Sydney, Australia, and Vancouver, B.C., for example, prove that in time this will be the right decision. The plan to build Sydney Opera House was not the most favored use of public money in its day. But the world now appreciates it.

To help defray the cost, consider what is logical: a toll for the use of the tunnel. San Francisco and many other U.S. cities, as well as cities worldwide, have done so with positive results.

Good for you, Mr. Nickels, for making the choice for the future, not just the "now."

-- Roslyn Resch, Snohomish

At the expense of children

It appears that medieval history is unrolling before us. Gov. Christine Gregoire claims we cannot afford to provide medical insurance for children. Too bad. You have asthma, you have to die. Sorry, we don't have the cash.

But hey, when we are talking big business, we can front $400 million in new money (as a down payment) for the new tunnel to replace the viaduct. So what if the voters voted it down. Who do they think they are? So what if it will carry significantly less traffic than today. So what if there are only two lanes in each direction, rather than today's three. So what if the tunnel is built under sea level. So what if the experience in Boston suggests that this project will be significantly over budget, meaning we will all pay a lot more for it.

We can't give children that kind of medical care; they aren't as important as this tunnel.

Why can't the media figure out the real reason this tunnel is being jammed down our throats at the expense of our children?

-- Bob Dickerson, Seattle

Profitable waterfront

I think the tunnel option is the best thing for making Seattle a world-class city. It is shortsighted to only consider the increase in taxes. By removing the elevated highway we currently have, we increase the property values in the area and create a vital waterfront with new stores and new opportunities.

The increased business and commerce will offset any tax increase. In the short run, we pay more taxes; in the long run, we have a beautiful waterfront that we can all be proud of. I think it is more than worth the price.

-- Bryce Mathern, Seattle

Mike Siegel / The Seattle Times

Gov. Christine Gregoire announces the Alaskan Way Viaduct will be replaced with a deep-bore tunnel during a news conference at the World Trade Center in Seattle Tuesday morning. At left is Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels; at right is King County Executive Ron Sims.

Not enough lanes

Editor, The Times:

I believe the decision to build a tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct ["Tunnel: A deal, but how to pay?" Times, page one, Jan. 13] is not the best decision for the Seattle area's future. There are only two lanes in each direction, which aren't enough to handle today's traffic and accommodate future increases.

If there is a stalled vehicle or accident, there will be horrendous backups, as experienced by the Evergreen Point floating ridge and Highway 520.

More lanes are needed. It is ignorant for our government leaders to say this is the solution for our future. Heck, it isn't a good solution now.

-- Gary Hamm, Seattle

Dream big, dig big

I am an older New Englander and remember when the Maurice J. Tobin Memorial Bridge (formerly called the Mystic River Bridge) was built. I also remember when its fantastic replacement, Boston's "Big Dig," was conceived, constructed and made operational. There are parallels to Seattle: old bridge, new replacement.

To some, the Big Dig took too long and exceeded its budget. I disagree. I supported the bridge because of a better civilized concept: more sports facilities, less war; more museums, less war; more parks, less war; more libraries, less war; more schools, less war and more Big Digs, less war. It's about how we choose to spend our money.

So, here is my advice, Seattle: Look at the waterfront as a very big Big Dig, do it right, cut no corners, create peacetime jobs, solve all the problems, and draw out the potential of beauty that the unique waterfront holds.

Make Boston's Big Dig seem like playing with sand at the beach.

Move Pike Place Market right down along the waterfront, tie in all the transportation systems, put more living space up on the emptied hill, and get ready for Sodo to become another amazing section of the city in the next 10 years.

Run the tunnel from Myrtle Edwards Park through the new Pike Place Market Square, down to the ballparks and Sodo, one block back uphill through Pioneer Square past the museums and performance halls, then over to Belltown and all the way to The Seattle Center. That's only about a half mile from the waterfront.

Seattle can become even more of a world-class city than what it is now. I remember Quincy Market, Scollay Square and the dregs of Boston before the city became what it is today. Maybe Seattleites can't see the tunnel as I do. Perhaps they haven't backed away far enough to see it up close in imagined detail and vision.

Seattle is awesome, but current thinking seems to be "sorta big, kinda not."

I strongly suggest that Washingtonians come to think, "Big, big Big Dig," and hopefully come to appreciate this amazing opportunity for what it is.

-- Robin Hordon, Kingston

I-5 fix instead

I have just a few observations about the new tunnel because I don't want to research it longer than five minutes.

It will supposedly cost $4.25 billion. Nobody believes that, certainly not the politicians supporting it. They just hope it doesn't expand to "Big Dig" proportions.

It will carry less traffic than the current road. Considering current viaduct and Aurora traffic, a majority of those cars don't want to be there; they want to go north or south and avoid Interstate 5.

Has anyone considered taking that $4-10 billion and improving I-5? I moved here 30 years ago and was amazed to see that the main freeway in the state reduces to two lanes at its most critical point, where it joins Interstate 90. If we fix I-5, we won't have to build a tunnel.

-- Jeff Hubner, Bellevue

Most competitive option

I support everything stated in the guest commentary you published Sunday, Jan. 11 by King County Councilmember Larry Phillips ["Putting the viaduct in a tunnel lets city, neighborhoods thrive"]. In it, he supports the decision to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bored tunnel that bypasses the current structure and runs under the city of Seattle.

I suggest two more reasons why this option is best.

First, if compared with the "true cost" of the other options, it may be much more competitive. The true cost must include the following economic disruptions that will occur during the two-year construction project:

-- Businesses in the immediate vicinity that will probably see a dramatic drop off in business -- some most likely going out of business -- as tourists avoid the area;

-- Disruptions to traffic flow through the city, which will probably cause massive traffic jams during rush hours, resulting in lost work hours, employees showing up late for work, and delayed arrival of goods and services.

Although, I expect economists will come up with some very imperfect figures for these disruptions, it would be far more imperfect not to account for them at all.

Second, funding could perhaps be obtained as part of the next federal economic-stimulus plan. This is clearly not a pork-barrel project. If we can get several of our elected officials, namely the governor, senators and representatives, to promote a deep-bored tunnel, it might be possible to get federal support. The iron is hot. Now is the time to get a move on this funding.

-- Roger Douglas, Bellevue

Cars in the basement,
citizens on top

Washington State Department of Transportation

The south terminus of the proposed tunnel would be near the SODO stadiums.

Editor, The Times:

Just looking alongside the elevated [Alaskan Way Viaduct], all one sees are dirty tired buildings, covered in decades of soot and neglect. This is what a new elevated roadway promises, too. A tunnel, opening up the city to the Sound, will promote a vibrant edge where windows are battened and unopened now. ["Tunnel: A deal, but how to pay?" Times, page one, Jan. 13.]

How can a serious city planner support a proposal that replaces the breezes on the Sound with fumes and the roar of traffic and accidents? How can we as a culture elevate cars and denigrate ourselves? Cover ourselves in grime and block off the views of the Port, the Olympics and the water?

Remember, no matter how expensive the tunnel, the benefits in access to the Sound will outnumber it; the rise in real-estate values and taxes to the city will pay for it; we all will be proud of our waterfront and the linkages between the urban and the natural environment.

Portland's downtown had a renaissance after tearing down the elevated roadway. San Francisco destroyed its elevated roadway after earthquake damage. There are precedents. We can improve our city by putting the cars in the basement and our citizens on top.

The Sydney Opera House cost $140 million, an astronomical sum back then. Yet now, the world over, it is a symbol of the whole country, for visitors and its citizens alike. Long after the hand-wringing about price is over, will we be proud of the roadway, or will we have "settled" for a "cheaper alternative" that doesn't change a thing?

-- John Richards, Tacoma

We already said no

Wasn't it just a few years ago that "we the people" voted no on the tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct?

Well, once again the political powers that be have decided "we the people" can't make decisions of any importance and made their decision that the tunnel was the right choice and the bill for their great plan will be shoved down our already gagging overtaxed throats.

Gee, its wonderful to be part of a democracy here in King County and Washington state, where votes count only if Gov. Christine Gregoire and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and their royal courts approve.

-- Jeanne Read, Seattle

Yes to the tunnel

I am in complete agreement with King County Councilmember Larry Phillips regarding the subject "Putting the viaduct in a tunnel lets city, neighborhoods thrive" [guest column, Jan. 11]. Our commitment to the region will play out over the next 56 years as it has in the past 56 years.

We must come up with a replacement that addresses the problem -- make that, the opportunity to create what our children will have to live with -- now. I side with you completely regarding getting it done right this time.

-- Wayne Lubin, Seattle

Considering alternatives

As a stakeholder for the Alaskan Way Viaduct Advisory Committee, I would like to correct a statement in your editorial on Dec. 31 ["A viaduct we can dig"]. You wrote, "The vote of the committee was nearly unanimous, except for one."

I will say this: There has never been a vote at any Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC) meeting in the past 12 months in support of a tunnel. It should be noted that eight of the 30 stakeholders did not attend the Dec. 11 meeting when this so-called vote took place.

The majority of the stakeholder comments at the December SAC meetings either supported the surface/transit, elevated or bored-tunnel option. (Readers can visit the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Web site for a summary of stakeholder comments on these issues.)

The push for the tunnel was a continual ploy brought about by downtown Seattle stakeholders who would not give up on the bored tunnel. The SAC Staff recommended that only the surface/transit and elevated options move forward.

The bored tunnel would take 12 years to build, cost the most and does not have a connection to Ballard, the T-91 Cruise Ship Terminal or Magnolia.

Your editorial also said, "The two options presented as the only options are quite possibly the worst options." If you had attended all of the stakeholder meetings, you could understand how SAC came to the conclusion that the surface/transit and elevated options were the most viable.

After a year of stakeholders' commitment and study, I believe the elevated option is the best common-sense solution for our state and region.

-- Gene Hoglund, Seattle

Time to move on

Once again I find a local wonk deliberately confusing the viaduct issue by comparing it with San Francisco's late Embarcadero ["Embarcadero, thy daughter is the Alaskan Way Viaduct," James F. Vesely, editorial columnist, Jan. 4]. I hope to provide some clarification.

First and foremost, the Embarcadero Freeway, as it was called, was not a freeway at all. It was, for all practical purposes, a ramp to and from the Interstate 80 Bay Bridge. I drove that ramp on a daily basis for the better part of six years. Westbound, it dropped off in North Beach at the foot of Broadway. That's where it stopped. It didn't continue through the city, join North Highway 101 or connect to the Golden Gate Bridge northbound. It didn't head west five miles to intersect with the Pacific Coast Highway. Southbound, it didn't connect with the Highway 101 Bayshore Freeway or Interstate 280 South. It simply provided a means to access the bridge and I-80.

Another thing the Embarcadero ramp did not do was provide nonstop access for 110,000 cars per day. While it may have carried this many autos to and from the city itself, it was not a regional thruway, as is our Highway 99. The paragraph below, from the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) own Web site, perfectly sums up the results of swapping the Embarcadero ramp for what our council members and others like to call the "Surface+Transit" option:

"Traffic from the Embarcadero did not disappear once the highway was closed. In fact, traffic from the Embarcadero shifted to more than a dozen parallel streets that serve the same neighborhoods. Traffic volumes on these streets before and after the closure show that an additional 112,000 vehicle trips per day -- about the same amount of traffic displaced from the Embarcadero -- were added to San Francisco's streets in the area where the Embarcadero was removed."

The report goes on to detail the difference between San Francisco, which had those parallel streets available, and Seattle, where we do not. "35,000-56,000 vehicles per day would clog surface Alaskan Way, compared to 10,000 vehicles using it today. Downtown street traffic would increase by 30-50 percent, causing congestion most of the day and into the evening. ... Increased congestion in downtown and on the waterfront would degrade the quality of public spaces in these areas, impact transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel, and decrease mobility to and through the downtown area. The already congested I-5 route would be unable to handle the additional traffic, even with billions of dollars of improvements."

I suggest everyone who still thinks we ought to tear down the viaduct and leave nothing in its place go read the report. It's time for Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, Vesely and The Times editorial board to get over it. All of it.

-- Jef Jaisun, Seattle

Apples and oranges

James Vesely wrote we need to replace the failing viaduct with something that's right for "the city, the region, and the postcard in our dreams." Although true, we won't achieve anything by trying to emulate the Embarcadero.

Comparing San Francisco and Seattle, Vesely misses some important differences. Seattle is a major working port with Alaskan Way providing access to huge container ships constantly being loaded and unloaded. The smaller Port of San Francisco handles one-eighth the tonnage of our port. Frisco's Ferry Building is home to passenger-only ferries while car ferries dock at Seattle's Colman Dock.

The Alaskan Way Viaduct is an alternative north-south route. Although originally intended to connect the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, the Embarcadero Freeway was simply a spur providing access to downtown.

While waterfront condos and wide esplanades could work for Seattle's central waterfront, we will still need a through route to handle high-traffic volume, to accommodate the vehicles that use the ferries, and provide easy truck access to ships if our port is to remain robust. If we can figure out a way to do all of this, we will have found a solution that is right for us, not right for another city.

-- Pam Carter, Tukwila

Don't do as the San Franciscans do

Jim Vesely's paean to San Francisco's Embarcadero is long on waterfront ambience and short on transportation considerations ["Embarcadero, thy daughter is the Alaskan Way Viaduct," editorial columnist, Jan. 4].

The Embarcadero was mostly an exit to San Francisco, not a through-way. San Francisco is also served by a limited-access arterial along its west edge, and a freeway entering town near the city's east edge. There's also a monster freeway down the Bay's east shore, serving a shipping industry and residents. Another freeway runs east of this for those bypassing the Bay Area. They're all laced together with several spurs running east to west. There are five bridges across the Bay. Driverless Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) trains travel east and south through a network of mostly tunneled lines. Besides the iconic waterfront cable cars, there are newer trolleys.

Meanwhile Seattle has one freeway through it, with a short Interstate 405 spur. We will have negligible rail alternatives even when voter-approved additions are completed. We also have the waterfront viaduct connected to limited-access arterials, serving city residents and a huge industrial infrastructure. The inevitable gridlock resulting from viaduct closures amply demonstrates a surface-street alternative is unacceptable. Basing transportation decisions on the Embarcadero experience is a tragic mistake.

-- Bill Butler, Seattle

The tunnel is back

I was deeply troubled last month when the state decided to eliminate a tunnel option as a replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct ["A viaduct we can dig," Opinion, Dec. 31].

This was a huge mistake and I am delighted to now see that Gov. Christine Gregoire's decision has been delayed until a tunnel option can be more fully assessed.

Likewise, I am pleased to see your editorial in support of consideration of a tunnel. I am convinced that a tunnel is the right answer and believe the city, county, region and state should support it even if it costs a bit more. We can afford it and we should chose to make this investment.

Thanks for the excellent coverage of this issue in The Times.

-- John Sandvig, Seattle

Here we go again

I'd pick the surface-transit option to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, with one big change: Sink the three-lane southbound roadway into a lidded trench where it adjoins the waterfront, and put a real park with grass, trees and flowers on the lid. Mitigate the added cost by selling air space for one or two condo towers above the roadway.

This hybrid offers advantages to all sides: faster traffic flows southbound and a real waterfront park -- not just wide sidewalks, traffic noise and fumes.

It includes elements of Frank Chopp's idea -- a park-covered roadway lid paid for by development -- and Mayor Greg Nickels' vision of a downtown park.

All great waterfront parks have grass and trees: think of Chicago's Grant Park, or the green waterfronts in Tacoma, Portland and Vancouver, B.C.

Seattle has a once-in-lifetime opportunity to get it right.

-- Garry Kampen, Newcastle

Fund education first

With the discussion of options and heightened tension of a decision about which Highway 99 viaduct option to fund, decision makers and our lawmakers need to step back and reconsider their priorities.

Any viaduct funding should be answered with a lawsuit, charging our Legislature with misappropriating funds. With K-12 education "the paramount duty" of the state, funding replacement of a repairable structure has to be secondary to fully funding K-12 education in the next budget.

-- John Gilbert, 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

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

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

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

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

Silence is emerald
Whichever replacement plan they accept for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, I hope they can make it quieter. On a busy day, the noise on the waterfront can be deafening.

-- Tim Carney, Seattle

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

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

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