Viaduct replacement that makes sense

[captainDave]

Citizens for Seattle Tube is proposing a sensible alternative to replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct . We have had terrific response from people who heard about the idea that was discussed on KIRO Radio two weeks ago. Just yesterday, we met with councilman Tom Rasmussen and drector of Cascadia, Bruce Agnew. Both agreed that the Seattle Tube plan should be on the table as a viable option.

The key advantage is that it can be bult while the viaduct remains in use. Other advantages for the Seattle Tube plan include faster rush hour access to I-90 and the ability to improve the Seattle waterfront.

If you are interested in learning about a real solution to the viaduct problem, check out http://www.seattletube.org

We need your help. Contact city and state officials and let thm know they need to evaluate this new option.

Share This

[JoB]

captainDave…

i am not convinced placing a tunnel along 6th makes more sense than one at the waterfront…

and it certainly won’t do anything for the seawall which will still have to be addressed sooner rather than later.. it is my understanding that a tunnel at the waterfront may even bring unintended benefits for that inevitable earthquake if engineered responsibly.

Share This

[captainDave]

It makes a lot more sense to the people who do the tunnel boring work. They (the Robbins Co.) have told us that it is most likely much less of a problem to bore a tunnel through solid ground than through the fill along the waterfront. Besides, a tunnel on the waterfront results in a steep grade to get up to the level of 99. Hills slow up trucks and make traffic congestion problems.

The sea wall only has to be fixed in its entirety if we build something along the full length. Otherwise, the repair work can be done over time as needed. The entire Seawall has not failed. The repairs are less urgent if we don’t build something there.

Share This

[inactive]

I could be wrong about many things I’ve been thinking about the viaduct options. This is a complex, politically charged endeavor.

Is it silly of me to notice that your advertiser is the tunnel boring company? And, is it irrelevant that you are proposing not only more ferry loading docks, but also CRUISE SHIPS docks? Am I understanding the content of your linked website, captaindave?

oesn’t the city currently host plentiful cruise ships slips in Magnolia at Interbay? You propose mammoth cruise ships pulling into docks at the Waterfront as a plus for the general population of Seattle residents? How would extensive view obstruction for waterfront park users be a gain? It would all be for the benefit of the cruise companies, it seems to me, not downtown workers and hotel visitors, not residents.

Not a great idea to me. But it explains why a 6th Ave bore is what your selling.

And, the span across the Elliott Bay? Someone has lost their mind. It’ll NEVER sell, for a million reasons. But mostly because, it seems to me, it is simply a re- positioning of the originally massively oppressive structure on or abutting the bay. I can buy into a wateradjacent tunnel, but a span across the bay? Why do I think that presenting an utterly undesirable span bridge is merely a ploy intended to have folks believe that there is only one tunnel option: a 6th Ave bore. Good thing folks are educated enough to know that there is ANOTHER truly viable tunnel option beside that.

I personally think the only comprehensive and instructive way for Jane and John Q. West Seattle (that’s me;)) to grasp the proposed particulars and then to judge will be to see a side-by-side, line by line, schematically presented comparison of the considerably narrower tunnel proposed at the waterfront’s edge with (I am speculating here) what is likely a much wider, larger swathe to be cut under 6th. It certainly seems longer, at brief glance. Why go so big and long when narrow and efficient could work quite elegantly at water’s edge? I’ve also read that there is the possibility that future conversion to rail would remain viable, even with the narrower design. I’ve also heard that engineers are confident that a waterfront edge tunnel will not be more problematic, given the current engineering technology. I’ve not heard one word about steep grade – well, except for a brief, short section near proposed approach to the battery tunnel, I think? Is that short section, a molehill which you are trying to make a mountain of?

Schematically presented and side-by-side comparisons will serve the West Seattle general public very well. Show us that, along with line by line pivotal points of comparison, with confidence that your tunnel boring advertisers have a truly better game plan for West Seattle and the city of Seattle and the region at large.

I’ll be interested to read it all.

Share This

[JanS]

Being quite uneducated about all of this, where will the rush hour traffic to the downtown core go – you know, the traffic/busses that now get off at Seneca Street. Will either of these tunnels address that? Some of us who do not work in the downtown core DO go there on occasion for a show, a play, to eat out, to go for a movie, etc, etc…and we at times go by car, since bus late at night doesn’t work for some of us. So…do I have to go look at the plans? Or, Capt. Dave, can you address that for me?

Todd…does a waterfront tunnel mean that I have to drive/bus past the downtown core and back track? Can I have a written guarantee that the fill dirt around the waterfront tunnel will not liquify in an earthquake? lol…(that is, if I’m in it at the time?)

Here’s my thing. I don’t want cruise ships at Pier 54-70. If we’re gonna open up the waterfront, then we’re gonna open it up, period. Also, those property owners that feel that their view is blocked knew when they bought/leased that that was the case, so if a new viaduct went up, why would that now be a problem. Certainly someone out there in the design world worth their salt can come up with something that doesn’t equal ugly…someone? anyone? Seriously, the aesthetics can be improved, can’t they? Or do we get ugly so the only option would be underground…appealing to our “aesthetic sense”. I am more like Jane Q. PUblic. I can’t get to the meetings that are held because I work into the evening. So I need someone to decipher this stuff for me.

Of course, we’ll probably have to do a study again, so…should I not be concerned that anything will happen in my lifetime?

And, Todd, anyone who promotes anything, as Capt.dave does, and has a close working relationship with the people who would make the money off boring the holes is suspicious to me.

Share This

[captainDave]

Westseattledood,

No, I nor anyone I am associated with is currently being paid by tunnel boring people. I just like what they have to offer, so I am giving them exposure for people who do not know about tunnel boring technologies. They don’t even know I put up a link to their site. And no, I do not benefit from additional cruise ships in Seattle either. Not sure where you are reading about my ulterior plans to cover the Seattle waterfront with cruise ships? Certainly not my ships. I just have a little 30′ charter boat I run on Lake Union. Sorry to debunk you big evil conspiracy theory. None of the Seattle Tube volunteers have been paid anything so far.

Not sure about the intent of your post as it bounces around to numerous transportation ideas i have written about in the past which are not on the seattle tube web site. Why the stupid remarks? What does some of your input have to do with what I posted here? You have made comments here that show you are extrapolating fiction to suppress an alternative point of view.

I drive the viaduct every day and see that it is a vital and indispensable link between the north and south of the city. It will be gone soon. I don’t like the idea of waiting 8 years before I can drive through the city again. I also think Seattle could have a much better looking waterfront that would be enjoyed by both residents and tourists alike.

What engineers have you heard from on that are “confident” about digging through the muck along the waters edge? I have been told that they initially ball parked around a $2 billion dollar cushion because they were not confident about the substrates and other issues along the waterfront path.

The step grade occurs because there is no room to put a tunnel over the old Burlington Norther rail tunnel at the waterfront, so it has to go underneath — resulting in a steep grade up to the level of 99. You are right. Not a big deal if you are in a car. But trucks behave a little different on hills than cars. Kinda like on the West seattle bridge if you ever get behind one of those trucks coming out of the steel plant, you will know what I mean.

Tunnel length of 6th is same or less then the proposed waterfront route. Not sure what you mean by width differences. The same bore would probably be used wherever the tunnel was placed. That’s up to the traffic engineers.

There is a million ways to shoot down any complex infrastructure concept. Citizens for Seattle Tube was set up to explore an alternative option that would allow construction to occur without disrupting existing traffic so that I can continue to pay my mortgage by getting to work like many other people in West Seattle. Fine points need to be flushed out as with any of the tunnel options so far. We want it to be seriously evaluated and compared to the options currently on the table. it doesn’t make sense to dismiss the idea just because you think I am making oodles of cash from cruise ship lines and ads tunnel building companies. And even if I was, why would that make it a bad idea?

Share This

[captainDave]

JanS

As I responded to todd above. No, I don’t make money from the cruise ship companies or the tunnel building companies. I just got tired of seeing dysfunctional solutions to the viaduct issue. Solutions that will affect my ability to work as I commute to Ballard frequently.

As far as getting downtown, the Seattle Tube plan currently recommends using the existing 99 route up to Royal Brougham where it would end at an elevated intersection with a ramp down to Alaskan Way and down to 1st Ave. West Seattle will end up with much more access to downtown. Although none of the plans specifically have an exit at Senica.

Share This

[JanS]

More access to downtown via Royal Brougham and Alaskan Way? Are they serious? With ferry traffic, Mariners games, and Pioneer Square? That’s the long way…it doesn’t make commuting easier. Who are these people who think up these things? What kind of a solution is that?

Share This

[captainDave]

JanS: I belive it is based on the actual number of vehicles that use the Senica Street exit and where the actually end up going downtown. If money were no object, It would be great to have a two lane transit tunnel from near Royal Brougham to up near Senica somewhere.

Share This

[inactive]

Captain Dave’s Puget Sound Travel Podcasts –

That’s your ad for your product on your pugetsoundmagazine site, right? So, you are travel industry. Nothing wrong with travel industry CaptainDave. Nothing wrong with making a profit either. There is something unpleasant, even rude, about calling my remarks stupid when you are overreading them and making assumptions. I asked that proposed alternatives be broken down – verbage into schematics or charts/tables. I guess that’s a problem for all of the stakeholders, who are of “expert” status. So why harsh on me – Jane Q Public for “stupid remarks”? Perhaps cutting the public some slack and not insulting them is a more effective strategy or garner support. If you insult rather than instruct, you won’t have much of an audience.

Besides, I’ve already come to support a tunnel captaindave, after much thought. I did not always. I had to let go of a sense of entitlement to that view from the viaduct. There are bigger issues for the region and I get that. I want to see Seattle become the world-class city I’ve always known it could be. But I want it done for the greatest good, and that is NOT just about commerce. The people who live here who are not involved in the travel industry or business have a voice in this too. I personally take offense to the notion that those folks are only concerned about commutes. Give us a break.

I just got back from a vacation where humongous, toxic-producing cruise ships dominated a body of water larger than Elliot Bay. Seattle already has 200+ cruise ships/boats per year docking at the lower terminals and at Interbay. Nobody wants a waterfront esplanade destroyed by shadow-casting ships. Further, I’m guessing that nobody wants to put the influx of tourist or resident pedestrians at risk by jeopardizing safety with a traffic flow through surface streets. Tourists from cruise ships can be shuttled and water taxied to the waterfront esplanade. Surface only traffic solutions are absurd and everyone knows it. That’s all I’m saying.

As to your unfamiliarity with newer proposals for the tunnel, all I can say is I am extremely new to catching up and trying to follow this complex issue; and, if you haven’t updated and kept pace with what the newer, more revised alternatives and costs being discussed amongst the “opinion-makers” are and you are a “volunteer organizer”, well, I am not sure what to say about that, other than it REALLY must be a complex beast.

But, I can say that also on your linked site are banners for the PugetSoundAlliance group. That group is, ironically, what I perceive as a group which object to a span type bridge proposal. I am speculating again, but I think it would be resisted to the point of litigation for legitimate environmental impacts of construction on a fragile ecosystem. Most folks won’t want that to be jeopardized, no matter the route to work. Really. We want to move ourselves, goods and services, but not at the expense of the other reasons we all live here.

Just my humble opinion, captaindave.

Share This

[JoB]

JanS…

you have a great point about rerouting traffic past the stadiums.. which are already a large enough bottleneck during games to drastically disrupt bus service downtown.

it was pretty poor planning to put stadiums on the major arterials for buses and not provide adequate parking and traffic flow during games… adding more traffic to that mix would be idiotic.

As for liquefaction during earthquakes.. i am glad to tell you that ANY material now used for infill around a waterfront tunnel would be a vast improvement on the gooey mess the viaduct currently sits on during an earthquake.

Currently, we are literally driving on a bowl full of jelly…

And i didn’t see a schematic for Seattle’s fault lines and earthquake risk imposed on that bored tunnel option… my geotech daughter has taught me the importance of that research.

Also.. how deep are the pilings for the skyscrapers along 6th and just how would they be impacted by a bored tunnel option???? you may have noticed that other bored tunnels are underneath residential areas… areas without substantial substructures.

Aside from that…

Do we want our downtown waterfront to become a cruise ship mecca when we have adequate resources for docking cruise ships away from the downtown waterfront and water taxiing tourists to the waterfront? Probably not.

Even if the city provided the water taxi service.. which by the way could be used by residents as well… it would be cheaper to purchase and maintain than the kind of docs required to increase cruise business on our waterfront.

and lastly.. why would we choose to pay for a bored tunnel… and pay for sea wall restoration over time… when we can pay for both at once at what i believe is roughly the same cost as that for a bored tunnel?

I think WestSeattleDood is right.. we need to see a side by side comparison of our options… and sooner would be better than later.

The advertising pages that CaptainDave referred us to are slick.. but don’t have much depth.

Inquiring minds want to know more.

Share This

[Anonymous]

CaptainDave, the plan you’re promoting addresses one of my most important concerns, commuting during construction. My household has to access I-90, which currently can take up to a half hour. The nightmare of no viaduct route for several years is going to have serious implications. I can’t even imagine what the bridge is going to look like.

I also happen to believe attracting tourism and providing access to the waterfront should be a priority. It is and will continue to be one of the most important contributors to our economy. Two weeks of snow seriously crippled our city and caused measurable hardship. What will almost a decade of waterfront construction cost in lost revenue?

If it’s true that the seawall can be repaired/replaced in sections, that seems like a much less disruptive project. In addition, the boring on 6th avenue with destruction of the viaduct after completion, will mean eventually less stress on the seawall. I would be interested in knowing if the existing seawall would be as vulnerable if it didn’t have to support an elevated structure.

I don’t know if The Tube is the answer, but it certainly is worth evaluating. Thank-you for bringing it to our attention.

Share This

[captainDave]

JT:

We put a lot of thought into addressing the needs of the whole system. The viaduct route was planned over 60 years ago when the neighborhoods around Seattle were much smaller and the East side was mostly farms and forests. The last major traffic system upgrade was I-5 in the early 60’s. Seattle is now a much different city with one of the most dysfunctional legacy traffic systems in the US. Now is the time to look at solving as many problems as possible with the limited funds available. The southern connection of the Seattle Tube proposal (what we are calling the “SoDo Express Way) kills two birds with one stone. It provides a better connection to the new 99 route for West Seattle by virtue o a higher speed fly-over on-ramp and helps reduce congestion on I-5 by giving West Seattle a non-stop bypass route to I-90.

You are right to assume that there will be economic hardship if things are not done right. A 2006 study by Herbert Research said that the economic impact of closing the Alaskan Way Viaduct could amount to a loss of $3.4 billion a year to the local economy. The tourism industry in Seattle employs 62,000 people and generates about 5 billion in revenues for Seattle according the Seattle’s Convention and Visitors Bureau. Tourism revenues help dampen our local economy against the fluctuations of aerospace and technology.

With regards to the Seawall, I had inherited a copy of the original schematics of the structure included in the 1910 Seattle city plan from my grandfather. It seems that it is more substantially built than similar age seawalls in other local waterfront cities like Port Townsend, Tacoma, Victoria, and parts of Vancouver. It may only be a critical issue due to the need to shore up potential heavy construction.

Thank you for recognizing that we might not be the bad guys here.

WestSeattleDood:

There is nothing in the Seattle Tube plan that discusses cruise ships. Not sure how that point is relevant here. You should consider starting a new thread to voice complaints about that issue.

Yes, I am in the travel business. So I guess that should recuse me from making suggestions to improve Seattle infrastructure because it might increase tourism for which I could possibly benefit? Actually, I think I would benefit more by promoting the surface street option so that I can make money giving people boat rides so that they could get from one side of the city to the other.

Sorry for the lack of detailed charts, graphs, and engineering data, I’ll dig some change out of the sofa and see if I can go hire a draftsman. Our goal is to get WSDOT to consider doing the detail work of sorting out the best option. Citizens for Seattle Tube is for any solution that is cost effective, can be built while the existing route stays in use through the duration of the construction, and does not pose a barrier between the city and the waterfront.

I have been promoting a bored tunnel for two years. Hence the web site and graphics are two years old. I don’t have a lot of money to hire web designers to change it as plans are upgraded. However, you can see current info on our blog which is linked on the home page (or just go to http://blog.seattletube.org) After countless e-mails to transportation officials, the mayor and the governors’ office, it is nice to see that they are finally open to evaluating an alternative option that has worked well for other cities around the world.

My neighbor suggested that I post in the West Seattle Blog to see if I can find people interested in helping to encourage the city and state to look at ALL options so that the most ideal situation for a tunnel can be compared to the elevated plan. I see that it is a double edge sword as there are people that will just sit back and fill the thread with remarks that are really not relevant to the original post, but rather to contrive inferences of hidden agendas. I would expect this kind of thing on a Myspace forum, not from my neighbors.

Share This

[TammiWS]

Continue to post CaptainDave.

Its an interesting topic, with multiple options, and obviously politically charged, that we all have a vested interest in.

Thanks for your post.

Share This

[JanS]

One thing we agree on, Capt.dave…all options need to be considered, and sometimes this city has a really difficult time looking out of the box. The two plans left standing did not appeal to me for various reasons, and I do applaud you, as a concerned citizen, for helping the city to perhaps realize that there could be other options.

I’m not sure waht you being in the travel industry has to do with anything. I was a travel agent myself years ago. If your plan would really work, who cares what you do and if you’d benefit,,,we’d all benefit, if it’s a viable answer.

I’m a novice at the intricacies of what needs to be done, so thank you for posting. West Seattle will be the biggest benefactor of what (or not) is built. We need to have conversation.

Share This

[JoB]

captaindave…

“there are people that will just sit back and fill the thread with remarks that are really not relevant to the original post, but rather to contrive inferences of hidden agendas.”

now that’s one way to write off anyone who questions you… no so great a way to win allies though… even in a small neighborhood forum:)

i do have some questions i would assume are relevant to the original post…

you seem to be saying that the tunnel boring process would minimize traffic disruption downtown…

just where would the tunnel boring staging area begin? what has to be purchased and demolished to support that construction area? how long would the “connection” to the existing tunnel disrupt traffic on 99 while the tunnel was being bored?

Have you looked a the construction sites for the current tunnel bores? These are not small staging areas… and the impact of all those slow moving trucks that remove the tunnel debris is not negligible.

how long would the current traffic patterns to downtown be disrupted while the “crossover option” you mention was being built?

While the actual drilling may be out of sight.. the supporting construction it requires is not.

and why on earth would you use 1910 city planning docs to support your argument that the seawall will not need work for some time?

Are you unaware of the extensive geotech work that was done evaluating that sea wall.. and the implications for it’s health no matter what option replaced the viaduct?

I am just guessing that if you are referencing 1910 documents.. there is current evidence supporting the need for work on our sea wall… no matter which option is pursued. (Ok.. i’m not guessing but i would have to work a little to find the references:) )

And what does your group suggest be done with the current viaduct area?

and how would those costs be figured into to a comparative analysis of the tunnel option?

If we drill a tunnel… we still have to repair the sea wall and reconstruct the viaduct area. Those costs won’t just disappear.

and what about all those high rises on 6th and 7th.. not to mention I-5 which is incredibly close to that route… and would likely have to be shut down periodically for some parts of that work.. not the least of which is the drilling/blasting that would have to be done to evaluate the feasibility of a tunnel in that location.

somehow, i don’t think any of that is irrelevant.

If your plan includes long term benefits for the travel industry and that industry is how you make your living.. Why wouldn’t mention of that fact be relevant? your possible economic benefit does not have to be direct to influence your decision.

Why would the desire not to turn the waterfront area into one huge cruise terminal be irrelevant? If that waterfront area is one of our largest tourist draws.. it would seem prudent to ensure that it remains more than a docking area for huge ships… which devalues it as a tourist destination… and would drastically change the quality of life in the downtown core area.. not to mention it’s impact on our lives in West Seattle.

especially since we have already gone to the trouble and cost of building cruise terminals that could easily be linked to the waterfront by water taxi… and where other tourist businesses could flourish servicing those who were connecting with the water taxis.

it’s just a thought.. but water taxis could actually connect the cruise terminals to other areas of Seattle, spreading those tourist dollars into Magnolia and Ballard and Lake union and … West Seattle instead of focusing them mainly on the core waterfront area… and providing those areas with direct water taxi connections.

Again.. not irrelevant to those projected tourist dollars… which projections… btw.. don’t take into account the health of our current economy and the availability of those tourist dollars…

this is a much more complex issue than you would present to us….

I did send a link to your blog to my geotech daughter.. who has made the stability of the Seattle waterfront and the options available to replace/repair the viaduct dinnertime conversation for years (i live with a family of various species of engineers) since she was working in the geotech industry in Seattle while local geotech firms were doing the science behind some of our transportation options… including the monorail that never happened… and her specialty is deep soil mixing… which is relevant to both the sea wall and waterfront tunnel option conversation.

i’ll be glad to let you know what she has to say.. though i have to warn you.. her comments are often far more pithy than her mothers…

Share This

[TammiWS]

Some of these posts do sound like an attack on his original post and are assuming he has a hidden agenda. There are ways to allow for a discussion about this topic without it degrading into an argument – and ways of asking questions about his position that encourage discussion rather than assume the worst.

Hopefully.

Share This

[captainDave]

JoB:

if you read the thread above you will see the justification for my remarks. I am not particularly in need of personal allies since I do not have a political or financial agenda. I just want to continue to commute through Seattle in my own truck with my boxes of tools and boat parts. There are a few others I see everyday on the road with me who might agree with the concept, but may not like me or the the industry I work for. However, the bigger picture here is pretty simple. It is just a plumbing problem. Lots of people get up each morning and want to go to different places in the city. When you look at it that way, the situation gets pretty simple. Cruise ships, waterfront parks, tourists, etc., etc. are cursory to the infrastructure issue. I have not formed an opinion yet wether I like cruise ships or not. I don’t need to worry about what to do with the waterfront since there are so many who want to improve it after the viaduct is gone. I am sure that what ever is done, it will be a lot better than it is now. To answer your questions relevant to the transportation system:

Staging Area, property Acquisition, & Traffic Disruption:

I would guess that the staging for the tunnel boring equipment will be contained within about two city blocks (just south of the Battery Street tunnel between Denny and Bell at the north end and between Airport Way and Royal Brougham at the south end). The staging area for the twin tube sound transit bore on beacon hill was less than a block. There is a 66′ to 100′ city right of way through all of 6th Avenue. – It is possible that no land would have to be purchased along this route. However, there may be one or two old single story warehouse buildings on airport way that would need to be purchased depending on what will be done with the proposed I-90 interchange. The last step will be tying into the existing route after the tunnel is completed.

What to do with the dirt:

The plan with any of the bored tunnel options is to remove materials via railroad to avoid heavy truck traffic like the third runway project. Rail spurs are near the south end excavation sites. Do a search on google for TBMs to see what the look like. The whole thing is underground other than lining forms going in and the dirt coming out on a conveyor.

Switch Over:

SDOT already has plans well underway for replacement of the West Seattle Freeway. The egress ramps to our proposed SoDo Expressway can be built during this same construction project. I would imagine that the switchover from the old route to the new one at the north end could happen rather quickly. I am sure it would take a bit of time before the Battery Street off-ramp to Western was completed.

Sea Wall:

Since the tunnel would be built inland from the waterfront, the seawall would no longer be a transportation dependent issue. The requirements for rebuilding the seawall change since it will no longer need to support the earth around heavy vibrating transportation structures. I am not saying that it should not be addressed, just that the purpose and functional requirements would change.

Viaduct Area:

Not really a relevant transportation concern. That issue would be left to all the folks who have been working on cool ideas for the waterfront. Although, I have suggested that the city could offset costs for the bored tunnel by doing some deal with developers. I know Donald Trump is still interested in Seattle Waterfront. I have not formed an opinion one way or the other on that yet. However, I would like to see a right-of-way earmarked incase the city wanted to sometime put a 2-lane transit tunnel from the ball field area to about Seneca.

Cost Comparison:

Our desire is to get the Seattle Tube uptown tunnel plan costed out along side the other plans by the same people at WSDOT and SDOT using the same calculators. My calculator doesn’t have that many digits and the keys are sticking.

6th & 7th High Rises & I-5

City owns the property under the street and side walks. Just like New York which has many layers of transit and subway tunnels. Deepest object to go under is the bus tunnel which is only about 30′ There may be some issues with tie-bars protruding into city property, but I am told it is a resolvable situation. I-5 is not very deep. No blasting is used in tunnel boring that I am aware of. I-5 commuters will never know what is going on down below them.

Travel industry and cruise ship stuff

I just do private tours mostly for locals so I am not involved with cruise ships so I really don’t have much of an opinion either way right now. 66,000 other people are involved in the tourism business in Seattle too including restaurant and hotel workers, bus drivers, travel agents etc. Sure, I like to see happy people come to Seattle. It helps offset some of the grumpy ones who live here.

PLease invite your daughter to one of our discussion meetings next week. (http://blog.seattletube.org)

Share This

[Author]

Posts