Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

Thanks for the article on the plans for Greenwood school ("Greenwood Elementary Remodel Plans," Seattle Press, June 28 - July 11).

We are pleased that the school board has agreed to save a portion of the school, but the present plans for Greenwood Elementary are still a mistake. The loss of the historic 1920 building is unnecessary; by the district's own enrollment projections, a larger school is not needed, but to get a larger school, the district plans to shrink the playground, another error; and the district has not dealt adequately with the impacts on the neighborhood of traffic and parking.

LOSS OF HISTORY. The School District plans to keep the outside of the main building. Built in 1909, it was designed by the School District's first architect, James Stephen (who also designed such schools as Latona, Seward, Stevens, Coe, Lincoln, and the original - now-demolished - Adams).

James Stephen also used his background as a cabinetmaker in the schools he designed, and his wonderful interior work at Greenwood is in danger of being lost. For example, the plans call for demolishing interior walls to create bigger rooms, which not only drives up the cost, but leaves gaps, leading to the likely loss of the maple wood floors. As the article diplomatically noted, "budget planners have yet to approve the cost" of even some things like brick instead of cheaper concrete block; in truth, the budget is already in a fair bit of trouble.

The 1920 (west) addition to the school is to be demolished; it was designed by architect Floyd Naramore (who also designed such schools as Roosevelt, Garfield, James Monroe, and Loyal Heights).

The Landmarks Preservation Board voted five to one to preserve both the exterior and the interior of all the buildings at Greenwood. (The vote lacked a quorum necessary for legal enforcement - two members abstained, because of their work for the school district.)

Here are the school district's official cost estimates - current plan: $9,825,030; remodel both buildings: $9,659,455; i.e., keeping both buildings would cost LESS.

BIGGER SCHOOL NOT NEEDED. Relatively few neighborhood students go to Greenwood. Of the 275 current students, only 136 are from the neighborhood reference area, or 49.5 percent. At its peak, Greenwood housed 752 students (in 1929). The new school would be larger, though the new capacity is listed as 380 students. And, citywide, the district has only half as many students as it did in 1962 (there are about 48,000 students today, and there were about 99,000 students in 1962). The district has threatened to close nearby Bagley school because of low enrollment; enlarging Greenwood will only increase the pressure to close neighborhood schools like Bagley.

IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD. The current plans would increase the parking demand in the neighborhood, but the school would provide LESS parking than it does now. (The School District has applied for exemptions from the legal parking requirements.)

Once a building is torn down, that particular building, and the memories it holds for thousands of children who attended school there, can never be replaced. The school district needs to be respectful of the community's connections with its schools. The school board should keep all of Greenwood Elementary.

Chris Jackins, Coordinator
Seattle Committee to Save Schools

City Council Should Get Out of Monorail's Way

I couldn't agree more. We want the monorail. My children and I would ride it with relish as it ran every 15 minutes or so and provided a view of the city we love. The monorail would be a plus to our city and we don't understand the opposition from our government. Why are the same powers who support the Puget Sound Transit Authority (PSTA) against the monorail which will benefit us Seattleites? Why do they perceive our vote as less meaningful when we voted for a monorail system than PSTA? After all, we voted for the monorail after PSTA was already approved (and going nowhere). I'd wager that we'd vote to repeal PSTA before turning our backs on a fun, practical, and less costly system of monorails to tie our city together.

K. Gwen Kapusuzoglu
via e-mail

A Seattle Solution: Freeway Monorail

Recently, at a committee meeting of the King County Council, a new plan for a Freeway Monorail was presented as a replacement for Sound Transit's inherently flawed light rail plan. The Freeway Monorail received the enthusiastic support of King County Councilmember Kent Pullen who stated, "A regional freeway monorail is not only feasible, but has the potential to make better use of scarce funds, would attract regional ridership sooner and minimize community disruption." (The Daily Journal of Commerce, 6/28).

The Electric Transportation Company (ETC) deserves much credit for advancing a technology that is well suited to our region but the plan should be recommended as an alternative to the failures of Sound Transit planning. It is extremely unfortunate that Sound Transit did not work with the ETC to apply monorail technology in a manner that would serve the entire region.

The Freeway Monorail proposal aligns with the existing I-5 central freeway, taking advantage of the state-owned right of way, structures and residual spaces without impacting existing freeway capacity or disrupting communities. By providing views of the mountains, water and city, the Freeway Monorail could attract an enthusiastic ridership. Sound Transit has put forward a system with deep buried stations of up to 280 feet below ground, offering a "less than desirable" commuting experience unless you are a mole.

The Freeway Monorail links Alderwood to SeaTac in phase I, providing the necessary reach for a truly regional system. The Freeway Monorail system is a fiscally responsible transit solution. It avoids the costly tunneling (subject to complications and cost overruns) already estimated at $800+ million for the Portage Bay section alone!

Sound Transit's light rail is not a done deal, it can be stopped before it derails. The Freeway Monorail has the potential to provide a truly regional modern transit system while applying a technology that has broad based popular support.

Michael Godfried

Monorail—Here's Why

Why Monorail?

* Monorail can climb hills. This means NO TUNNELS and that means much LOWER COST!!

* More appropriate station location. With monorail, it is feasible to have a stop at the bottom of the hill, at the top of the hill and one or more stops along the hill. With light rail tunneling, the number of stations must be minimized because of the cost of subterranean stations. Even in flat or rolling terrain, there is much more flexibility in stationing with monorail than with light rail.

* With monorail, surface traffic flows freely and there are NO collisions. With light rail, other surface traffic is hindered and there WILL BE accidents. The Oregon MAX brags of having ONLY 11 such accidents per year!! There has been only ONE accident (recently, in Germany) in the world-wide history of monorail.

* Where there are ground-level stations, monorail can have shorter towers and enter the station at or near ground level. In long, open stretches, Monorail can also have lower towers than in town, thus saving in materials costs.

* Aesthetics—When you look at the current monorail along Fifth Avenue, remember that those towers were built with pre-1962 materials technology. With space-age materials technology, the towers and structures will be much lighter. Is there anything aesthetic about light rail? If tunneling were out of consideration, would people REALLY prefer to have trains running down the middle of their streets rather than up out of the way?

For that matter, I would like to know if there is ANY advantage of light rail over monorail. I can't think of any.

WHY ARE WE SO LOCKED INTO LIGHT RAIL???!!!???!!!

Walt Ramsden

People Who Complain about Airport Noise

This is in response to Albert Kaufman's incredible article about how the airport noise is too much for him. Well, Mr. Kaufman probably wasn't complaining about the airport when he got his apartment or home for such a cheap price. Did he move in assuming that the airport traffic would never get any more frequent? Hey, I am about sick of Seattle traffic, but rather than demanding that other people get off the road when I have to drive, I am doing something about it: I am moving away to an area with less traffic. My grandmother lives next to a fire station where fire trucks and ambulances erupt from the garages with sirens wailing and tires squealing. Should she file a complaint telling the Fire Department that they are disrupting her life?

The bottom line is this: If you don't want your property to flood, don't live on the banks of the river. If you don't like lots of traffic, don't live in downtown Seattle. If you don't like airport noise, don't live near Sea-Tac! (Incidentally Sea-Tac is expanding, and it follows to reason that there will be even MORE airplanes, not less!)

He also wants to can the Blue Angels? Hey while we're at it let's stop Seafair altogether! All those noisy hydroplane races and wild racing fans must be keeping SOMEONE up past their bedtime...

And if I ever do get the chance to talk to someone from the Port or an FAA official, I will say something to them. I'll tell them what a terrific job I think they're doing handling the volume of travelers. There are two things people living near airports, fire stations, and other sources of noise can do about it: nothing, and like it. If you don't like it move away. (I hear land around the Hanford facility is pretty cheap.)

Sandy Fix
via e-mail

Freeways and Bikeways

To the Editor:

The discovery and the application of the limited access freeway system has been a great boon to highway travel. It has resulted in much safer and faster travel. What would happen if we applied the same concept to bicycle transportation? We could, for example, separate our bike lanes from other traffic, children, wandering stray animals, etc., by erecting side fencing. Additionally, we could cover the top to keep out rain and snow. Such improvements could be made very inexpensively, comparatively speaking. Such small and lightweight structures are very flexible. They could, for example, be built at ground level or, as needed, above ground. They could be routed down alleyways and attached to existing bridges. Since it would be limited access, just like a freeway, we could call them BIKEWAYS.

If biking can be made safe and reliable, then many additional people would opt for this mode of travel. And many people would support this endeavor, simply because it would result in less automobile congestion on our roads. Today approximately 4 percent of all commuters to downtown Seattle travel by bicycle, but they do so at a considerable safety risk. And they must be careful to avoid heavily traveled roads.

Hills are a problem for biking in Seattle, but there are several obvious BIKEWAY routes, for instance, through the I-5 corridor and along our shorelines, such as the Burke-Gilman trail. Commuting to work over such level routes would qualify only as a minor physical workout. But for those who may be averse to such activity, or for those who must climb a steep hill or two, an electric driven bike could be used.

Consider your daily commute. For example, after leaving your home and traveling approximately five or ten minutes over surface streets you arrive at the BIKEWAY. After entering the BIKEWAY you travel approximately 20 mph nonstop to your final destination. Calculate your door to door time and compare this time with other modes of travel. Consider uncertainties, such as snowy conditions or jackknifed trucks on the freeway. Consider also your savings in fuel, and other costs related to the need for a second car. And consider the safety and reliability of a BIKEWAY commute.

Norm Boldt
via e-mail

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!