I am a senior at the University of Washington in architecture and urban planning and intern with the city of Seattle.

I wanted to take a moment to write a rebuttal about your article ("McFarland presses his Viaduct fix plan," June 15).

What I want to say is I am happy that you incorporated the environment and economical impacts of these two projects, but I found that you focused everything around the car. Keeping the viaduct a bridge for people to enjoy the view, from a car. Expand 509, for the car.

Why should there not be a park along the waterfront where the viaduct is right now for people to enjoy the views (while) relaxing and not by driving? Why can't (our) city find new, more efficient ways to move people around? (In) London, New York, Paris, Amsterdam, 90 percent of people commute by public transit or bike. New roads cause more people to drive. Look at what I-90 did, cause more pavement to be laid down, destroying what was there before.

I think Seattle needs to focus on new ways to transport people because, yes, driving a car is time efficient but for how much longer? Gas is only going up and our environment is yet to get better.

Robert Reeves

Class of 2006

University of Washington