PRAISE BE BARNETT

ERICA C. BARNETT: Finally a voice of reason in the current viaduct debate ["No and Hell No," Feb 22]! Your article should be required reading before anyone is allowed to vote on this issue.

Su Job

Tear It Down

ERICA: I agree, the dilemma goes away if we tear the viaduct down. And just so you know, you don't have to be poor to ride the bus, as most of us well-heeled riders jamming the 218 from the Issaquah Highlands would attest. We could use a few more buses on the route, so the even-better-off riders that get on at the Mercer Island Park & Ride won't have to stand. The money the city saves by not building a new viaduct or tunnel could certainly pay for a few new buses, right?

Brian Moore

WHAT ABOUT A BRIDGE?

ERICA: Nice article on the viaduct, but why didn't you even talk about the bridge option (www.elliottbaybridge.com)? Thanks for the wisdom; San Francisco is the best example of what COULD be.

Kevin

AMEN, SISTER

DEAR ERICA: I moved to Seattle from Portland in 1988 and now live on Vashon Island. I still commute (via Metro VanPool) into the city on 99 so I have been watching this viaduct issue pretty closely. Thank you for being a beacon of light for those of us who want to see Seattle be something more than a stinky, gridlocked tribute to the car! I lived in Portland at a time when that city was making some tough (and ultimately visionary) decisions regarding growth and mass transit, and I have been waiting for Seattle to step up to the plate and do something similarly progressive. To no avail.

It's time for Seattle to bite the bullet and do something that will actually improve the quality of life in this city—namely, a major investment in mass transit. As you pointed out, Portland's done it. Milwaukee's done it. For Chrissakes, Chattanooga's done it. Seattle's way overdue.

Sara Van Fleet
THE GREATER GOOD

ERICA: Thank you for an exceptional article on the future plans for Seattle's viaduct. You did a wonderful job outlining the key issues and plainly stating a viable alternative that no one seems to be debating right now. I also applaud you for the restraint it must have taken to not use the platform to make numerous digs at the state legislature for even considering funding yet another sports arena (pet peeve number two of mine these days).

My wife and I moved to Fremont from Boston last May and have begun changing our lifestyle to suit a more environmentally friendly culture. We got rid of a car, and will be getting rid of the remaining one next year. We make significant use of the bus system, as it is the only transportation option available. Since we both travel a lot for our jobs, we have both been loath to consider eliminating the viaduct, as we are spoiled by the 20-minute commute to the airport. However, given your article we both realize the selfish nature of these thoughts and are ready to support alternatives.

We will continue to be avid readers of yours and appreciate you opening our eyes to the greater good.

Warren and Betsy Talbot

A VOTE FOR A REBUILD

EDITOR: Erica C. Barnett implies that it's an either/or proposition for our transportation future: Either we build a new viaduct OR tear it down completely and have good mass transit.

Nonsense.

We need BOTH a new, modern, efficient viaduct AND vastly improved mass transit. (And unless that mass transit runs either under or over the street traffic, it won't make enough of a difference to get people to drive less.) We could find the funds for both of these in just a fraction of what our country spends on occupying Iraq. It's a matter of political choice.

Without the viaduct we're facing a nightmare of traffic congestion in this city. Yes, I'd like to live in a world where nonpolluting buses, monorails, and subways that are clean, affordable, and safe can transport us virtually anywhere we'd like to go, at virtually any time of day or night. But we don't live in that world and we won't for some time.

I intend to vote for a new, modern, and vastly improved viaduct that will move traffic more safely and efficiently for all of us. To advocate its destruction and offer no alternative except vague platitudes about "mass transit" is irresponsible and unrealistic.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to fight for the type of mass-transit systems that will really make a difference. We can and must have both.

Steve Nesich

MAAKING ME HAPPY

HELLO: Many thanks to all the readers who wrote in instructing the cocksuckers and cuntlappers who run The Stranger to restore Maakies to its rightful place in their excellent publication.

Your cartoonist,

Tony Millionaire

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS: In a review in the February 22 issue, Brendan Kiley wrote that the film Becket is in black and white. In fact, it is in color.