Comments on Viaduct in the House

Josh Josh Josh.

Stop your hating.

You know that most Seattle citizens want us to choose either a rebuilt modern Viaduct - because we LOVE the view it's the only thing that keeps us sane in the winter - or a Surface Plus Transit option.

The only people who want the cold underwater tunnel are those who despise Seattle's roots, who want to develop massive buildings to replace our funky waterfront, and who expect to get jobs from the tunnel largesse - more than $1 billion EXTRA in Seattle-only TAXES to pay for that boondoggle (more like 2-3 billion when all the bills come due).

Now, stop your hating and tell us how there are so few Repubs left in the State House and Senate, ok?

How can you criticize the rebuild proponents for not reducing CO2 emissions and at the same time praise Murray for supporting the construction of a tunnel for cars?

WF,
Didn't mean to praise Murray for supporting the tunnel. Indeed, I'm furiously on record all over this Slog coming out against the tunnel and supporting the less capacity/surface/transit option. I was just reporting his position... and, if I had to choose, I do like the tunnel better than the rebuild.

Will,
(And I'm not being sarcastic, here). You're right about the "hating" ... I'll tone it down a bit.

There is no such thing as a surface/transit option. There is a surface option with no available money for transit. At least tell the truth if you are going to cover this story.

Stop Already,
Oh please. And the finances for the tunnel are shored up?? Look, these are all blueprints from different camps about what the future of Seattle's downtown waterfront should look like—and how we should deal with traffic. Certainly, there are financial questions about the surface/transit option. Am I going to stop fully describing that potential option. No.

There WOULD be a surfact/transit option if someone funded it. There are too many political factors against it. Plus, WSDOT is a roads agency, not a transit one.

By the way, people should take the time to check out the PWC site. I've seen Cary Moon speak on this and its compelling:

www.peopleswaterfront.org

You respond with a comparison to tunnel finances? Who said it was fully funded. The truth is there are state laws that forbid roads money being spent on transit and the political realities of this state are that there is a transit pot of money and a roads pot of money. All your surface option will do is drive roads dollars to 520 and 405.

I prefer a tunnel, but would support a surface option, but I think it is misleading to call it surface/transit when there is no money for the transit part. But when we have a president who says we are fighting terrorism in Iraq I guess accuracy doesn't mean anything anymore.

All your surface option will do is drive roads dollars to 520 and 405.

Sounds good to me. 520 is more important.

The city of Seattle is going to have to scare up at least a couple billion dollars to pay for a rebuild and several billion for a tunnel. I don't see a problem with spending those billions on transit instead.

Re #8: Actually, wouldn't the state fund the rebuild option? It wasn't clear to me that Seattle would have to come up with any money for that, just that they'd have to fund the difference between a rebuild and the tunnel. It's not clear that state funding would be available for a surface option, though; I think their funding was contingent on the capacity being maintained at at least current levels.

I'm in that kind of mood, so a minor editorial nit-pick:

"Ed Murray (D-43) has moved onto the state Senate."

Actually:

Ed Murray (D-43) has moved on to the state Senate.

Contracting "on" and "to" in this instance makes no sense, unless Ed will be living on the roof over the Senate.

Without a transit plan that is comprehensive to deal with the displacement of the trips that go away *magically* with the adoption of the surface option, you have gridlock.

The PWC has some good ideas, but some of them are bonkers. Signage to throw more through traffic onto I-405?!? They should at least read resarch from WSDOT, which in this morning's paper had said the I-405 corridor from Tukwila to Bellevue was the worst in the state (along with the 520 Bellevue Seattle corridor).
I agree with stop already's statement of supporting a tunnel but would support a surface option if there were transit options attached. Like I indicated yesterday, we need to get past the "transit vs roads" funding pots mechanism and have some real leadership on this issue that looks at it holistically. Until we do that, our hands are tied.

I do agree that we are losing a major voice in the matter with Ed Murray moving to the Senate. I don't hold out a lot of hope with the two people Josh mentioned- and who are the other three Chopp is considering?

One other point- by holistic approach I include in that the fact the PWC has nice glossy pictures of kids riding their skateboards and playing along the waterfront. I'd like to know exactly what school in the downtown/Belltown/Pioneer Square area those smiling tots will be attending?

Dave Coffman,
the other reps in contention for the spot are: Jeff Morris (D-40, San Juan County, Parts of Skagit and Whatcom Counties); Dennis Flannigan (D-27, Pierce County and Tacoma), and Bill Fromhold (D-49, Parts of Vancouver and Clark County.)

Thanks Josh. Are you going to approach them as well and ask their opinion on Seattle/Puget Sound transport issues?

Dave Coffman,
For you, Mr. Coffman, anything!

Yes. And I'll report back.

As long as Frank Chop keeps the proposed "Pork for NASCAR" in Kitsap bill dead I honestly don't care about the viaduct.

I pity the poor bastards and bastardettes that have to deal with 405 on a daily basis. Ugh.

I have now been reading about this tunnel/surface/rebuild nonsense for what seems like an eternity now. And all I can say is: LET'S GET TO WORK ON A NEW 520 BRIDGE. It's only about a million times more important and vital that the viaduct anyways. Who seriously uses the viaduct for anything important? It's all just a scam so that rich developers can develop more fancy stores and tall buildings. 520 needs to be fixed so that the flow of commerce and workers across the lake can happen.

Who seriously uses the viaduct for anything important?

Well, there's this little place called the Port of Seattle you might have heard of...

Given today's news stories about Eastsiders having 5 hour "rush hours" ... well, all I can say is, it's going to get a LOT WORSE before it gets better.

And I ain't cryin' for the Eastside. They built their car-obsessed system and dropped cranes on it, they can live with it.

Meanwhile, I'll walk to work ...

It troubles me that none of the proposed 5 represents those most affected by what happens to the Viaduct; people in Ballard, West Seattle, and downtown. And I say that as a big supporter of Geoff Simpson, who happens to be my own representative. I still think it should be one of the Seattle House members, preferably one from the 34th or 36th, that heads this issue.

EPV -- You have TWO back-up options when 520 sinks: Up and over the lake, and I-90. All's we got is to run over and use I-5, when 'the sound of nothing happening' knocks the viaduct over.

Maybe I'll see ya on I-5 in magically rapid passing! I def won't see you on 405, though, if I can help it.

There are only two through roads on a north/south directional grid through the city, and we are talking about doing away with or severely restricting one of them. I'm not just concerned about the viaduct but the impact the lack of a direct through route will have. I'm in the camp that thinks it will turn I-5 into a bigger parking lot than it already is, which in a way does serve some of the purposes of the PWC/ECB/JF/Stranger faction. I can also see that if I-5 is packed, that could lead to people getting off their duffs and creating some good transit options. I also see commerce, business and industry greatly impacted.

I love the idea of a pretty beachfront that is people friendly. It will be even more important if people lose jobs because the economy tanks- they'll have plenty of spare time.

BTW Josh- thanks for all the investigation into this. I look forward to what you find out. It's gonna be interesting.

The state WILL pulls its funding if Seattle decides to go with the "surface-transit" option, because the main parameter for funding the project is that the viaduct be fully replaced.

Don't kid yourselves. And no, the redundant boulevard doesn't count as a replacement.

A packed I-5 without a viaduct would actually just lead to a bunch of people and business moving away from Seattle... and I'm led to wonder if that's what the PWC secretly wants, thinking they can somehow return Seattle to it's provincial pre-dot-com state.

Gomez is correct. There is no money for any of the surface option improvements. The $2 billion from the state--gone. The $200 million from the port for a tunnel--gone. So, not only is there no money for transit, but there is no money for any of the surface improvements to make it work.

#20--Do you seriously think the Eastside just built itself on the Eastside? No, the Eastside was built by the businesses of Seattle who wanted access to plentiful land. The Eastide and Seattle are interwined in economic success. 520 is the key to continuing that success. AS I've pointed out before, there are vastly more people from Seattle going to work everyday on the Eastside than in the reverse. So in order to continue this success the access needs to be immediately and dramatically improved. I don't think any of these arguments hold true for the viaduct.

Staff at The Stranger will be screaming for the "surface/transit" option long after the Viaduct has been Repaired.
1. There is no money for the Tunnel.
2. The Rebuild is not politically possible.
3. The "transit" part of the "surface/transit" option does not exist and also not achievable.
The only alternative remaining is the Retrofit.
When will you folks get real?

Can you see this. Do not hesitate to choose. Look

Hi guys its me again. Can you look

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

I think the blog is interesting. Mine is http://www.apartments.waw.pl/

Hi guys its me again. Can you look

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Och beautifull site below too

If you have a minute check this.

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Nice but look below

Nice but this too

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Be so kind and click

Nice but this too

Do not be angry please

Be so kind and click

Be so kind and click

If you have a minute check this.

Be so kind and click

Be so kind and click

Do not be angry please

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

I am looking for better life

Nice but this too

Be so kind and click

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

Check this places please.

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Sorry for that.

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

I am looking for better life

Nice but this too

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

If you have a minute check this.

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Be so kind and click