1. Hmmm. As an aside, I received an automated phone survey tonight asking my opinions on the plans for mix of roads and "transit" options for future tax increases. I responded NO to everything.

Posted by: Michele on February 27, 2007 11:16 PM

2. Amen,

Environmentalists constantly show that above all else, they are anti-man. The surface street will be less ped-friendly, and even less environmentally friendly, as cars accelerate from stoplights, generating more exhaust than vehicles running at a constant unimpeded speed on the viaduct.

And the whole notion that a road is inherently ugly as a double decker structure as opposed to a surface boulevard is false. It's a road. This is not a beauty contest, it's a functioning city with transportation being a key part of dynamic commercial activity.

Seattle's Klowncil is an embarassment, bent of bickering and stagnation, instead of respecting the metropolis that has been built by generations of the industrious.

Good riddance to Steinbrueck. Who else can we look forward to leaving the Klowncil, to make way for real leaders who are not ashamed of our way of life?

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 27, 2007 11:21 PM

3. Steinbrueck gone? Don't get TOO giddy. The same article points out that he may be running for Mayor. He could win more than a footrace against Nickels.

Mayor Steinbrueck. Howz that sound?

Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 28, 2007 01:46 AM

4. The surface street option would really be interesting every time a ferry dumps its load at Coleman dock. What is in Seattle's water ?

Posted by: Kitsap Voter on February 28, 2007 09:00 AM

5. Don't be too giddy about him leaving until you know who is going to take his place.

BTW, for years I've been hearing that the homeless don't have a voice in this town. Why not sit one of this city's deranged unwashed on the council for a while? Now THAT'S progressive, baby!

Posted by: Smoley on February 28, 2007 09:05 AM

6. So what! Voters will just vote in another idiot who will be as bad or worse. Then, as Bart mentions their is the possibility Mayor Steinbrueck. No doubt he would carry on Nuckles plan to starve the city of parking, streets, etc.

Posted by: NW Denizen on February 28, 2007 09:08 AM

7. The surface street option would really be interesting every time a ferry dumps its load at Coleman dock.

The ferry dumps its load of cars onto surface streets now. So really nothing would change with that.

Take the damn thing down and put in surface streets with pedestrian overpasses and put the rest of the money towards 520. Then, even with the really big earthquake, there's no issue with a viaduct coming down.

Posted by: Palouse on February 28, 2007 09:08 AM

8. The surface street option is retarded. The idea of the viaduct is to avoid huge traffic snarls (of course more all purpose lanes instead of HOV lanes would help this greatly). The surface street option will just create an even bigger traffic nightmare.

On another note, I have heard rumor that Steve Beren may run for city council. I have asked him and he says he is thinking about it, but it is in no way set in stone.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on February 28, 2007 09:20 AM

9. I think I'm in agreement with Palouse. But I'm glad Steinbrueck has decided ot work for something he really cares deeply about, and he feels will benefit his city the most. I would like to see other politicians really fighting for what they believe- like The Millennium Development Goals and the end to extreme global poverty. I think its our job as constituents though to let them know that it's what we want too! End golbal poverty now!

Posted by: KatieL on February 28, 2007 09:22 AM

10. I'm not convinced that the surface option will produce gridlock (room for 6 lanes + occasional L turn lane. No idiotic streetcar). If it does, it will be a welcome vote against the megalomaniac push to make Seattle too dense for human consumption.

Posted by: JB on February 28, 2007 09:33 AM

11. #10 - Me either. If they can get 3 lanes in each direction where the viaduct is now, it's worth exploring.

Posted by: Palouse on February 28, 2007 09:36 AM

12. #10 and #11,

that would be great if they actually did that, but if memory serves me Seattle has been trying to get rid of cars for years, so I am willing to bet there would be more emphasis on mass transit (like a light rail line) and even bigger sidewalks than on lane capacity (remember the tunnel light option).

Posted by: TrueSoldier on February 28, 2007 09:45 AM

13. Does anyone need any more incentive to move out of Seattle? The Eastside should be looking quite attractive by now.....

Posted by: H Moul on February 28, 2007 10:14 AM

14. The Eastside should be looking quite attractive by now.....

I'm sure if you love BMW's & endless stip malls you will fit in just fine on the Eastside. Try going to downtown Bellvue on a Friday night, it's clogged up tighter than 520.

Posted by: Cato on February 28, 2007 11:00 AM

15. I'm sure if you love BMW's & endless stip malls you will fit in just fine on the Eastside.

Depends on your definition of east side I guess. No strip malls by me, or at least not for several miles. No BMW's or homeowners associations either. But plenty of tractors, horses, alpacas, evergreen trees and trucks. Only thing we hear at night are crickets, and some frogs too. The lake has some pretty good trout and an amazing view of Rainier. We fit in just fine.

Posted by: Palouse on February 28, 2007 12:49 PM

16. Here in Spokane we've got the strip malls but no BMWs, except when the city mice from Seattle come to visit us. They brung us whips n' leather last time. We didn't have the heart to tell 'em we'd already eaten all the horses, but we did use the leather britches to patch up the seam in our double-wide.

Hee haw.

Posted by: Rey Smith on February 28, 2007 01:40 PM

17. I got that same phone survey, Michelle... twice within 20 min.

No comment on whether I participated in "double" opinions!

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 28, 2007 02:40 PM

18. I wonder how Peter's idea would have fared today??
Traffic was a snarled mess....the vast majority of drivers 1 per car. Yet the Social Engineering by Peter and his ilk trudges onward.

I'm with Jeff B. Klowncilor's like Peter are anti-human. They hate all people....except themselves. They exempt themselves from complyig with their own pathetic agenda's ala Algore. And try to build a constituency based on guilt!

I've talked with several folks who have attended the plethora of ANTI-HUMAN SEMINARS that are investing on Public Buildings. Folks crawl out of these seminars riddled with shame & guilt. Some have been known to leave their car at the Seminar & take a bus home so others in their new found cult won't shun them. Then they sneak back after others have left to retrieve their fossil-fuel guzzling SUV's.

Sadly, these sick bastards seem to be multiplying! If they want to take the bus and their bike everywhere....be my guest. But they don't.....because they are KLOWNS...just like KLOWNCILOR PETER!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 28, 2007 03:49 PM

19. Hey, I got the same survey. It totally irked me that it seemed to present the $12 billion proposal as a road-building. On top of that, the $ for miles driven thing was just over the top.

I can't remember exactly what the wordings were, but I say it was totally a push poll.

Posted by: DopioLover on February 28, 2007 03:52 PM

20. Mr. Cynical & others attacking mass transit proponents suffer from serious logic deficit. Mass transit proponents don't "hate people" or want something for themselves that they would deny to others. To the contrary, they want to improve mass transit more than roads even though that will hurt drivers like (in most cases) themselves. They are hoping that by doing this, people, including themselves, will have more incentive to take mass transit and less incentive to drive. They believe that as an area increases in density, this policy creates better quality of life for most people.

I believe this too; you may not. But in any case, your claim that they are hypocrites is wrong, and in fact completely misses the point.

Posted by: Bruce on February 28, 2007 04:22 PM

21. Ahhhh, Bruce. Think this out please.
Where does the money for mass-trans come from?

If enough people don't drive, you get zip for mass-trans.

Why is this so hard to learn???

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 28, 2007 04:37 PM

22. Army Medic/Vet is right, 60% of the DOT budget goes to mass transit, the rest for roads. They get the money from gas taxes. Do the math.

It's common knowledge that Stienbrueck wants cars gone. Or at least the "little people" mustn't use them. Only those like himself will get to use cars (the big ones too), because the work of controlling what others do is a never ending task requiring big V8s, black paint jobs and tinted windows!

Not having Stienbrueck in the council is a two-edge sword. I'm glad he's gone but now that he's free to roam, there's no telling what he'll do when he's out of sight. One thing it will do is give him more time to engineer how to get cars out of Seattle and us on foot. Queeg is coming, God help us all.

Posted by: G Jiggy on February 28, 2007 05:02 PM

23. Bruce,
Maybe when local hypocrite liberal politicians start taking public transit themselves they will be better suited to solving its problems. When they have to wait half an hour in the rain for the bus, and then end up having to sit next to a putrid, lice infested "homeless" person that talks to himself real loud they might see things in a different light. But no, most likely the next day they will be back driving their Volvo station wagon.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 28, 2007 05:13 PM

24. Bill:

As a car free person, your observations are spot on. Many limo libs are just that. Still, I love living in the city because of the culture. Too bad that Seattle won't elect people that make a city work for all people. San Francisco is learning that not helping people to help themselves mires people in poverty and makes the city intolerable for just about everyone else.

Posted by: WVH on February 28, 2007 05:33 PM

25. It's common knowledge that Stienbrueck wants cars gone. Or at least the "little people" mustn't use them.

G Jiggy, of course this is His plan to solve the traffic problem so He can go from place to place without being stuck in traffic. Kind of reminds you of another city named Moscow doesn't it?

Posted by: TrueSoldier on February 28, 2007 05:41 PM

26. When Steinbrueck mocked "we're just making this up as we go along" at a recent klowncil meeting, it was obvious he didn't take his job seriously anymore, if ever.

Posted by: Organization Man on February 28, 2007 09:31 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?