1. Something fishy going on here. What is the explanation for both Seattle rags publishing articles that deign to question the viability of the various transportation boondoggles???

Very strange indeed. Somebody help me understand this.

Posted by: Danny on June 29, 2005 11:03 AM

2. Reality Bites.

Maybe the Nonorail, will start the dominoes falling on some of the wild expectations in the alternative reality zone of the Puget Sound. The Nonorail financial fiasco, vaporware tunnels, light rail ( light in every way but cost). Just may be penetrating the fog around here, maybe, just maybe we might get some real transportation solutions proposed out of the mess.

Nah, I am being too optimistic, we got a bunch of projects that will make Boston's Big Dig, look bargain basement.

Posted by: JCM on June 29, 2005 11:06 AM

3. Danny,
YES, maybe we have hit the proverbial "rock bottom" of government shenanigans and mismanagement in this city,county, and state... Maybe this is the tipping point. The local papers all of a sudden are starting to exhibit some common sense and clarity.

Let's Hope anyway.

Posted by: Joe on June 29, 2005 11:25 AM

4. Shocked! I say. I'm shocked to read this type of logical and accurate information from a newspaper in Seattle. Anyone check for ice in hell yet?

Posted by: Jim in Clark County on June 29, 2005 11:27 AM

5. I'm shocked to read this type of logical and accurate information from a newspaper in Seattle

This isn't so shocking. It's classic Bruce Ramsey. He's consistently good on local issues.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 29, 2005 11:28 AM

6. I wasn't shocked by who the author was, but the fact that it was in the paper.

Posted by: Jim in Clark County on June 29, 2005 11:32 AM

7. Danny,
Good point. The timing is interesting isn't it?
In fact, I find this sudden awakening of common sense vis-a-vis the monorail suspicious. Were all these folks asleep until now? Or is this indeed fishy as in a red herring of a sorts, to suddenly make Sound Transit look remarkably logical, rational, and an investment for all of the State?
Hey, that isn't fish I'm smelling!

Posted by: Danno on June 29, 2005 12:26 PM

8. I've long since given up any expectation of agreeing with anything in the STs. I certainly don't expect to actually enjoy reading an ST op/ed piece. I guess miracles can happen even in KC.

Is it just me, or has anyone else beheld with a sense of wonderment the notion of the Seattle elites trying to plug holes in a seawall with their fingers?

I suppose at some point we could very well be writing our very own local series of urban legends masquerading as modern fables.

Posted by: scott158 on June 29, 2005 12:28 PM

9. The rags calling question to transportation cost is shocking I agree. But when you look at this mornings editorial in the Times (which was dropped on my driveway by accident) you see they are trying to justify 15% heir tax. The reasoning..."it's better than 55%"
This from a locally owned paper?

Posted by: PC on June 29, 2005 12:34 PM

10. Since I don't live in Seattle, but am burdened by outsiders implementation of tolls on my thoroughfare (i.e., new Narrows bridges, which was rejected by the population that will use the bridge, but voted in by people who won't use the bridge), I would like to make two points. First, Seattle build whatever you want, but don't make the rest of the state pay for it. Slap a toll on it that pays for the cost. If you can't make enough on the toll to pay for the project (i.e., not get enough drivers), then maybe it shouldn't be built.

Second, why do we need the viaduct and/or why when planning I-5 through downtown was this issue not looked at. My recommendation is to widen and/or double-layer I-5. A preferred solution may also be widen I-405 to divert traffic around Seattle or build the proposed I-605 that loops out farther than I-405 and misses all the major metropolitan area. Who says all this traffic has to go through downtown?

Posted by: tc on June 29, 2005 12:35 PM

11. Follow the money. Who benefits from a tunnel only solution? The property owners next to the viaduct? Why don't they donate an extra $2B to defray the cost?

Posted by: spy on June 29, 2005 12:37 PM

12. Follow the money. Who benefits from a tunnel only solution? The property owners next to the viaduct? Why don't they donate an extra $2B to defray the cost?

Posted by: spy on June 29, 2005 12:37 PM

13. Seattle thinks it can have the finest of everything: light rail and monorail, streetcars and commuter trains, a bus tunnel and now this waterfront tunnel.

Nobody is saying Seattle can't have the finest of everything, Brucie..."Seattle" is deciding to build a tunnel, but "we" get to pay for it.

Re your comment, tc...I live in Maple Valley, and I got to vote on the toll package for the Narrows Bridge...we both know why, don't we?

Posted by: South County on June 29, 2005 01:06 PM

14. 'Seattle thinks it can have the finest of everything'

Thinks is the operative word in that sentence. My experience has been over the past ~40 years is that the average Seattleite wouldn't recognize the finest of much of anything even if it fell out of the sky and landed in their lap.

Good gawd their total absence of good taste is what defines them both individually and collectively.

Posted by: JDH on June 29, 2005 01:22 PM

15.
Stefan:

Your note about Bruce Ramsey being good on local issues is not completely on target. Back in the 1990's, Ramsey worked for the P.I. and did an expose' about Local 302's union election. The article appeared in July 1996 in the P.I. and was the cover story in the Business Section.
It was an article about a federal lawsuit in Seattle regarding election fraud in a prominant labor union (Local 302).
But my very good sources tell me that Mr. Ramsey promised to do a follow-up story after the election was over. He did not. The reason: Because Local 302's union attorney's office was located in the same building at the Seattle P.I. business offices. In otherwords, Mr. Ramsey was told to gut the follow-up story about the fraudulent union election.
Later, Mr. Ramsey was deposed by the plaintiffs who filed suit against Local 302. Mr. Ramsey was not truthful under oath. He covered his own butt and that of the crooked union bosses. He really stank in his deposition, even though the P.I. hired an expensive Seattle law firm to represent the reporter at his deposition. For a copy of Mr. Ramsey's sworn deposition contact Edgar Hanson at:

edlhanson@yahoo.com

To read Mr. Ramsey's original article on election fraud at Local 302, go to :

www.corrupt-union.com

and read the various files.

In short, don't trust everything Mr. Ramsey tells us.

Posted by: Apeman on June 29, 2005 02:11 PM

16. Has anybody realized that if we have a earthquake large enough to bring down the viaduct what would it do to a tunnel? easy flood cave in SEALED UP remember the main reason the viaduct is so frail is because it is built on loose fill. build a tunnel through that morass someone is gonna make a lot of money hauling material.

Posted by: Thrill Kill on June 29, 2005 03:22 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?