Log In | Register
I just struck me. The choice on the viaduct is NOT about tunnel vs. rebuild, cheap vs. expensive.
It's this: do you want a waterfront that's great, or not?
Seattle: It's not tunnel vs. viaduct, it's great vs. not great.
Seeded on Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:08 PM EST
Article Source: pikeplacepolitics.blogspot.com- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (1)
I am not comfortable with the idea of driving through a tunnel built into landfill, with Seattle's penchant for earthquakes, so others can enjoy a "nicer" waterfront. I would feel much safer driving along a newly built, elevated viaduct. I have not read any reports vouching for the structural superiority of a tunnel versus a new elevated viaduct in the event of earthquakes. Entice me with valid safety projections instead of subjective visual appeal to get my support behind the tunnel idea. To me, the tunnel equals a deathtrap.
#1 - Mon Apr 3, 2006 9:27 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
