By the time this is printed (if it is) the votes will have been counted, but a decision will still not have been made regarding how to replace our decrepit viaduct.
The Queen Anne News argues [in its March 7 editorial] for a new elevated structure solely on the grounds that it would be cheaper than the aesthetically preferable tunnel. But cheap in the short run is often expensive in the long run. Remember the Kingdome? Or the bus tunnel? We voted against rapid transit when it was much less costly than it is today. Now the Port Commission wants to destroy the cruiseship terminal it built three years ago and replace it with one in Interbay.
Build another elevated highway along the waterfront and the next generation will wonder what we were thinking.
Seattle has a history of getting it wrong the first time, usually because we tried to do something on the cheap. Now we have a second chance with our waterfront. This time, let's build with vision. Opening up the waterfront not only provides attractive vistas, it's the only way to add additional lanes of traffic to our infrastructure.
What do you do if you cannot afford something you want? Either you settle for something inferior - in this case an elevated viaduct - or else you save up and buy it later. Let's demolish the present viaduct and make do with street-level traffic until we can afford a tunnel. It's not what you pay, but what you get for what you pay, that counts.
Jerry Richard
Queen Anne
[[In-content Ad]]
