I love it. He's absolutely right that burying the viaduct as we will is a wonderful idea, and he's also right that it would have been even better if we hadn't replaced it at all.

It's a bit of a stretch, though, for those who claimed the issue for their own locally to find much comfort from this. They self-delightedly flunked the "how to build support for surface/transit" test. This is the crew who ridiculed every concern about their ideas, alienated potential allies at every turn, disdained hard work in Olympia and King County before the legislature made its choice.

Toderian's damn lucky to work in a city that can muster serious, good-natured, and skilled advocates who've worked hard to learn how to engage democratic structures to forward their progressive infrastructure ideas. Around here so many of us prefer to contemplate how legislators R dumb instead of engaging those dummies to vote for good choices.

And I neglected to mention some damn hopeful signs that some of the players who did try most sincerely seem to have reflected on what went wrong and really gotten stronger since. Sightline in particular just gets better all the time.

Just spent four days in Vancouver & Richmond, BC, got around by walking, surface transit (buses) and Skytrain, didn't miss freeways for one second. Broad, multi-lane avenues with synchronized traffic lights for intercity access and the US border, neighborhoods that remain intact and thrive. Greater Vancouver's geography is, if anything, more complicated than Seattle's, yet the city gets along just fine without giant ribbons of concrete.

First mistake is suggesting that, whatever it is the business alliance calls itself, is out to improve the city.

Vancouver's system works great, unless your destination isn't Vancouver. If you simply need to drive through one side to the other Vancouver becomes a slow, confusing roadblock. The 99 tunnel is a downtown bypass and we're going to toll the suburbanites for the privilege.

My favorite part of the speech is this:

We stopped talking aboot balancing modes [of transportation] because that is a myth. If you balance modes, the car wins. And if the car wins, you have a car-dominated environment because the other modes aren't viable let alone inviting.

In Vancouver, we prioritized walking, then biking, then transit, then goods movement - including access of trucks to the downtown area to keep businesses running, and then the single-occupancy vehicle...

We have mostly avoided this mythology of the war on the car. It's a very unhealthy and damaging mythology. We're not anti-car; we're pro city and pro mode-choice, because if you prioritize modes this way, all modes work better, including the car. That's the game changer.

@6 - Hah! No kidding. I saw the same thing.

True, if you like to smoke crack in public and get into bumfights, Downtown Vancouver kicks Seattle's ass (or perhaps shanks it with a broken bottle)

@6 & 8 - the difference between highway removal and the tunnel is the couple billion dollars we spent on the tunnel that could have gone toward better accessibility in the city

Gus wins. Again.

I have to think the one good thing about the tunnel is having 2 major north/south routes should one go away as a result of disaster.

On thr other hand:
Big enough earthquake and they could both go. We also have north/south water routes on each side of the city that might well serve us better in a disaster?

Vancouver is awesome once you get there. Getting there is a f'ing nightmare. It's almost like as if all Seattle incoming traffic was bottlenecked thru Broadway.

@10, Exactly, so maybe Dom should have complained about that aspect of it, rather than talking out of both sides of his mouth.

@10

Had the viaduct project been canceled, the money would have been re-allocated to the 520 bridge, or the Portland/Vancouver Interstate Bridge. I almost get the feeling that some were against the project thinking that once canceled, the money would have defaulted to the city, allowing it to spend it on whatever the hell it wanted. No way that would have ever happened.

If anything, these business leaders from BC should be complaining about our leaders, given that it took about 8 years and small elections to select the tunnel as the only viable option (and no, we didnt vote down the viaduct tunnel, you are confusing that with the hybrid tunnel option).

The tunnel does not reduce capacity. Through capacity on 99 has been limited to 2 lanes in the battery st tunnel since the viaduct was built. Currently it is also limited to 2 lanes at the south end as well, without the "runoff clogging city streets".

Aw, Michael, thanks! Though I see I used "structures" and "infrastructure" in the same sentence, yuk.

Wasn't there a comment in this thread about the idea to get Dom to run for Council against Conlin? Did it get disappeared by the powers that be, or am I hallucinating again? I'd hurl money at such a campaign, set aside my commenting persona to volunteer and all. It'd be great for Mr. Holden's future to get a taste of what it's like to do that work. And he could be great at it, or it might lay the groundwork for whatever his writing future needs to be, or both. So long as he avoids becoming the next Grant Cogswell.

The only people who still support the Deep Tolled Tunnel and it's Ten Dollar Each Way Fare are the Billionaires and Millionaires who won't be paying those tolls, due to exemptions, as they drive to their private jets and arena boxes.

You got taken, Seattle. You can still kill it - took five tries to kill the Monorail, and that actually was CHEAPER.

@18 yes, it does reduce capacity. It's in the appendices for the project, in black and white.

How did this article make it past copy editing?