Posted by gettingreal at 7/9/08 7:14 p.m.

$545 million and 1200 parking spots? What the heck are they doing? This is 20-25% of the replacement cost of the viaduct. NO, IDIOTS!

Posted by Kurosawa at 7/16/08 11:45 a.m.

In other words, the cost of retrofitting the remainder of the Viaduct will be 60% of the state's original estimate (which I suspect was jiggered up to satisfy the "highway lobby" that is bound to be opposed to any plan that doesn't involve pouring lots of concrete and cement). Even though the Retrofit option has been tossed (yet again) without a single public hearing (as far as I know), it is still the "default option" in my book (or the option that won't go away), if no consensus can be reached on any of the other options.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/29/08 10:28 a.m.

We might want to think long and hard about devoting too much money/time to a huge new rebuild project. Mass transit is extremely important as fossil fuels become less affordable. How about we retrofit the existing viaduct. NO TUNNEL! The seawall needs to be rebuilt but a tunnel would not be a good idea in this earthquake-liquifaction prone area. Surface street sounds nice but if you want to "connect" downtown to the waterfront (as if it somehow is not connected now?) then a surface street sounds bad too. I think the tunnel advocates are involved with the new pricey condos on the waterfront.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/8/08 12:24 a.m.

We should remove any and all taxation related to the viaduct and allow the people who volunteer to pay to decide how they want to spend their money.