I've been a little confused by the argument that the lack of a viaduct (or tunnel) would snarl the port as well. What percentage of goods needs to be shipped directly up Highway 99 from the port? I'd guess, um, a number close to 0%.
Josh is right, the lack of viaduct would throw some additional traffic to I-5, but I think the impact would be close to negligible. Someone please tell me two locations more easily bridged by the viaduct in which I-5 is the next likely alternate route. Unless everyone of the Pink Elephant Carwash's employee's lives in West Seattle, I just can't think of the scenario.

Doug

When the earthquake happened back in 2001 and the viaduct was shut down, we had massive backups on the west seattle bridge and I-5 as a result. Whatever alternatives to the viaduct apparently weren't viable enough to make up for the loss.

Indeed, Doug, the issue is not 99, but the backups that will spillover onto Downtown streets and I-5/I-90/520.

Any goods that enter the local area from the port WILL have trouble getting to and from, which could raise prices and limit availability locally. So while the goods that travel by rail should not be affected, the goods Seattle uses and/or exports will be affected.

So Josh, at one point do you start demanding leadership from the city council? It's time to start a score card.

Where do you get the idea that Della is for the status quo? He is for the Rebuild -- not the Retrofit. Huge difference.

The Rebuild will unleash an unpredictable outcome -- it's hardly the status quo.

I explore the politics a bit more here.

David,
Status quo in terms of urban planning.

When we're all done rebuilding: The waterfront will reamain the same place.
Alternately, Nickels's tunnel plan envisions a waterfront hub. And the transit/surface option seeks to alter our driving habits & open up the waterfront a bit as well.

Certainly, Della isn't seeking status quo in terms of the current safety issues. But I'm thinking 10 and 20 and 30 years out, when, presumably, that urgent issue wont be at play.

OK, Josh.
In that sense I see your point and agree.

But I guess I am looking at a secondary question: Once you tear down the Viaduct can you actually rebuild it? Politically?

I suggest no...that once it's gone, it's history.

"Once it's gone, it's history."

Hurray!!

yeppers...what I wouldn't give a for a precision earthquake bringing that sucker down before any decisions get made.

So Josh, time to put on your droopy Bad Ass costume...and start taking names.

The viaduct issue is huge for the city. Where's the leadership from the city council? Where's the leadership from the Stranger, demanding leadership and the right thing for out city.

Get off the sidelines, Josh. No more analysis. You still have it in you.

Let's have the scorecard. You're not afraid to start biting the council hands that feed you, hmmm?

David brings up an interesting point, here and elsewhere, that even I hadn't thought of: it's going to be years between the teardown of the viaduct and the proposed completion of a rebuild.

Even if the city chooses a rebuild or a tunnel, once the citizens have lived for years without it... there will be a lot of political pressure to not spend the money rebuilding it, and to just do without.

So really, wouldn't it be in the best interests of the no highway ERRRRRR "surface option" clique to just let them pick a plan and do as they wish? Public opinion's going to play right into your hands anyway once the teardown begins.

After how all Seattle's state reps were ganging up on city council members at meetings this week, and forcefully telling them there was zero zip nada state money for their tunnel fantasies, what do you expect Della to do?

wake up and smell the lack of funding - we're talkin an annual tax burden on Seattle residents of ten times the amount the monorail would have cost for an even longer period of time for any tunnel option, and the state won't back the sane transit plus surface option (incorrectly called the no-build option).

Poor Allied Arts - I weep crocodile tears at those anti-monorail pro-tunnel hypocrites.

oh, and Gomez, good point about the reality of the 4-8 years I used to point out for the Viaduct being out, even with a tunnel that was funded.

All I can say is, we better start buying a lot of busses and making downtown parking lanes into bus and HOV only pretty darned soon.

Might be too late to add this, but I'm sticking to my guns. The traffic mahem spoken of in the 2nd and 3rd posts I'm willing to bet were due more in part to driver's confusion. I agree if you shut the viaduct down today, suddenly, all hell might break loose on I-5, but if traffic were to be redirected and roadways compensated for elseware as is being suggested, in time, the viaduct (or proposed tunnel idea) would not be missed.
I'd hate to bring up San Francisco's Embarcadero viaduct, but...

My understanding is; unlike the Seattle Viaduct, the Embarcadero was primarily not a thru traffic corridor. It ended at the waterfront in downtown San Francisco. I believe it was the first phase of a never fully completed transportation project. Yes, like our Viaduct 110,000 cars per day were on it but according to officials in San Francisco many sat stalled in traffic queuing up to merge onto a connecting bridge which actually would take them somewhere. In contrast, the Seattle Viaduct carries a good percentage of traffic across it on their way to somewhere else besides the "Ye Old Curiosity Shop" and it's environs.

The waterfront terminus of the Embarcadero was an origin/destination already. Removing it did not cause traffic to seek other routes since the waterfront was still their start/endpoint. Many Seattle drivers who now take the Seattle Viaduct would be forced to reach their final destination via some other meandering path. That is why I worry it's removal will have much more severe traffic consequences for Seattle than San Francisco experienced.

Of course it made more sense to me and my fears laid to rest when I read the Seattle City Council's Viaduct resolutions from January of 2005, particularly "Attachment A - Guiding Principles for decisions related to the Viaduct/Seawall Project". Quoting from the document in section 2 titled - “Destination and Movement�, subsection “d� reads - Design transportation systems that implement the goals of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan. Give priority to the movement of freight and of pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and HOV, not single occupancy vehicles.� Should the Viaduct be torn down instead of repaired, I think the Council, Allied Arts and the Peoples Waterfront Coalition could all declare mission accomplished regarding section #2, part-D. Near the waterfront and the areas impacted by some reasonable fraction of it's prior traffic capacity, very little movement would be experienced by "single occupancy vehicles".