Too bad we can't afford both the Deeply Borrowed Tunnel and the 520 bridge.

And given the inevitability of $200 to $300 a barrel oil within 20 years, how can we justify a tunnel we can't afford that has twice the carbon and particulate emissions and all those quake-prone fans and pumps that would make the death toll in Christchurch NZ look like a party in comparison?

Time to get real. That should be his message. Short, sweet, and to the point.

(advance warning - I'm changing my logo this week)
I'd love to see a double-decker highway replacing the viaduct, instead of WSDOT's plan for a triple-decker highway (two decks in the tunnel, one deck for the new surface highway).

McGinn seems resigned that if we have 2 decks (4 highway lanes), we might as well have 3 decks (10 highway lanes). That is very unfortunate.
...or the mayor could forget to write a speech and stand up there making stuff up, like last year.
I want to see a Ballard-downtown-West Seattle light rail line just as much as anyone, but for the love of God, please no light rail levy in November.

The only thing we should be voting on any time in the near future involving westside light rail is whether to come up with the funding to have Sound Transit study it. Before Seattleites voted to build the Green Line monorail in the same corridor, they voted to spend $6 million and two years to have the monorail authority come up with the project to vote on. I'd like to think that, while we're avoiding repeating the mistakes of the past, we're also trying to avoid making obvious new mistakes.
I like @2's view. The Deathly Barrows Tunnel "views" will all be gone due to zoning within 5 years anyway.

But if we had light rail from Ballard we could probably get by with Surface Plus Transit.
Jet packs on bicycles!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.