In our news section, news editor Daniel Person reported on a strange dichotomy forming in Seattle: As Bertha wollows underground, transit tunneling has consistently proven to be successful. This has led for plenty of entushaism for new tunneling projects that could included in the upcoming Sound Transit 3 ballot measure—among them a mulibillion dollar tunnel under the Lake Washington Ship Canal—and even some second-guessing about whether we should have done more tunnelling in the past.
I disagree with the statement that the rail should have been underground in the Rainier Valley. I feel that having it above ground has played a big part in the improvements going on in those neighborhoods. They are cleaning up. The art has for the most part been left alone for all to enjoy and there is more a sense of neighborhood then there used to be. It doesn’t make those impacts if it is not visible and passengers are not witnessing daily life there.
Linda Jannsen Anderson,
via Facebook
Sound Transit and its contractors are outperforming their contracts. We have really good construction and engineering teams bringing us great projects. U-Link is going to open soon, way ahead of schedule and $100M+ UNDER budget. Pretty awesome.
Jonathan Cracolici,
via seattleweekly.com
I think it is a bit simplistic to mention a $5 billion figure for excavating a transit tunnel [under the ship canal] without putting that number in a wider perspective. One must also consider the broader cost to our economy in lost productivity, time, fuel costs, wear and tear on vehicles, etc. as we sit in endless traffic. Some estimates I’ve seen suggest the economic impact could be as high as $2,000 per Seattle household per year. And that’s even before you consider the added costs to commerce as traffic slows the movement of goods and services provided by local industry. So if we’re already losing hundreds of millions a year it seems an investment in tunnels saves us in the long run.
Also, I’m not an economist, but my guess is that the $5 billion doesn’t evaporate when you spend it. Much of that money goes back into the economy in the form of money spent on materials and labor. So it’s not a zero sum game. While it is definitely a very serious thing to burden taxpayers with billion-dollar, multi-year bonds for transit tunnels, I think we need to consider the tremendous benefits to our economy of continuing to build out a subway system, and perhaps at the same time to curtail our mindless, billion dollar spending on roads and cars (and their ancillary costs like insurance, car payments, accidents, DUI, court costs, environmental costs, etc.) for which have run out of capacity for serving us.
christopherboffoli,
via seattleweekly.com
I Just finished your review of Bar Melusine in the SW. This service charge discussion is very tough. We were big fans of Rene. We recently ate at the Whale Wins. Ordered apps and main courses. Specifically asked for the apps first. Of course, we recd our main courses first, then the apps. The 20% tip was tough to swallow. The server didn’t really apologize or seem interested… It reminds me of traveling to Europe where the tip is always included, and the servers get paid no matter how bad the service.
I have been doing an informal poll of our servers in Seattle, and Vancouver as we just got back from a quick trip. We are asking our server if they would prefer to keep the gratuity system the same or go with the $ 15.00 per hour idea. Out of approx. 20, only one server, who was at a Denny’s, wanted to move away from the tradition tipping system.
I do not have the answer, but it is not adding a mandatory 20% service charge to the bill. Just my thought… Keep up the good work. Best, Ed Thomas
///
I think it’s money. If folks could make a lot of money and stay busy in the Pac NW, they’d stay. But, they can’t, so they go somewhere that offers the chance of at least one of those things. If it doesn’t work out, they move back to where they probably have roots and support. Seattle is not unique in this.
Travis Hartnett
