Or do you think I should take a bus downtown, then hop on the train to Seatac? THanks for the laugh….

What's so outrageous about that? It's how I get to the airport.

What is it about Seattlites that expect public transportation to be some magic carpet that will always pick you up and drop you off with no effort on their parts? Transfers are a part of public transport. Accept it. What's the rush anyway? Walk a few blocks. Sit back. Read. Arrive stress free.

Personally, I prefer the viaduct. I just used it last night at 5:10 to get to Georgetown. People need another way to get south without using I-5 or going through downtown. McGinn is crazy.

Look, I live in Ballard and drive the viaduct at least several times every week. Occasionally that trip includes a stop downtown, but I can tell you (since you don't appear to use the highway or understand how others use it), getting into and out of downtown is not easy as it is, and is not the primary use of that route. It's primarily used to get PAST downtown Seattle, not into or out of it. And it carries a hell of a lot of traffic.

I usually get on 99 in Wallingford or Fremont, and bypass downtown, doing my business in the industrial area south of downtown. Only once in a long while do I go via Western (honestly, Western is too traffic-choked to be that useful).

While I would prefer a viaduct solution that included more direct access to downtown, that's a lot less critical than maintaining the road capacity through the city that the viaduct currently provides. I can live without the downtown access – I'll simply stop going downtown (it has become such a pain in the ass to go there anyway it's barely worth it now). So I'll stop spending my money downtown and will take my business elsewhere. I'm sure my money won't be missed when all the rich folks move into the multi-million-dollar condos that will be built on the viaduct site (the REAL reason that everyone wants to tear down the highway – nothing this town needs more than more million dollar condos).

Like I said, I can live without direct downtown access from Highway 99. But if the Highway 99 through route bypassing downtown was destroyed – as McGridlock wants – then many important things I currently do (things I've built my life around over the past 20 years) would really become impossible for me.

The idea of driving over to the U-District and getting on I-5 is laughable – and that's with traffic as it is now. But when the traffic on I-5 doubles (with all the Highway 99 traffic diverted there), that's just insane. Traffic would be backed up from Everett to Tacoma 18 hours a day – meanwhile all the traffic trying to squeeze onto I-5 would back up for miles. The cars lining up to get on I-5 on 85th and 80th would be backed up all the way to Golden Gardens – I'm serious. Nice “walkable” city this will be then….

Those who keep putting their heads in the sand, closing their eyes and wishing that this city can continue to function when it wrecks half its north-south highway capacity are so disconnected from reality it's hard to know where to begin.

On this planet, the “surface option” is a plan made by idiots for a dystopia that nobody would want to suffer through.

But please keep pushing this issue, please, McGridlock. You're going to lose in the most lopsided Seattle mayoral election in decades. I'm looking forward to watching that.

A train that runs on unicorn tears.

The comment is to you because you are attacking someone who shares the same views as you because you have some personal vendetta against him (maybe because he won an election against you). And, this path of irrational personal vendettas seems to be a common thread in your work. Your anger at SDOT is an example of how you react when you don't get what you want.

If you look at the big picture, you would realize that A) McGinn's stance on transportation/land use is WAY closer to what you want – and have advocated for — for years, and B) Mallahan's empty suit is not going to give you what you want– better infrastructure and more money for it. He's not even in support of completing the Burke-Gilman trail. HOW EFFING RIDICULOUS IS THAT?

I think it's pretty insufferable for a walkability advocate to continually try to take down our best hope for getting a walkability/transit advocate in office who will be truly progressive, not just progressive in public relations.

Please, Kate Martin, for the love of god or whoever else, GET OVER IT ALREADY! It's so tiring.

Nice.

Why not focus on him instead of me? I am more than happy to respond to any questions about me, perhaps in a separate thread or under conditions when people aren't anonymous, but right now we have an election at hand and I'm giving a general summary and specific examples of my experience. I'm taking the long view forward and backward. I invite others to do the same.