Comments on Have I Ever Mentioned...

Thanks, Barnett.

Well, if Hallivulcan's costly beautification project for the Mercer Corridor is any indication, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for these improvements to actually address the problem they purport to.

If either was going to be financed by a region-wide gas tax increase + a tax on businesses (the primary beneficiaries of both), then I'd vote for both. As it is, I'll be voting no on both, because WE KNOW advisory votes on transportation projects are meaningless circle-jerks.

All this time voting, and deciding what to do with the viaduct is just wasting time. You just know we will get hit with another earthquake which will collapse the viaduct, then they can make excuses as to why nothing was done sooner.
I'm just sayin'.

The votes are advisory, so the additional city money needed for the tunnel option is not included. What does that mean if the tunnel wins the vote? Where does the money come from? Is there another vote for that, as with the monorail, or can/will the City Council approve the money?

And, if both measures fail, does that mean Gregoire takes the money to 520?

I presume if the rebuild wins and the tunnel doesn't, or if they both pass and the rebuild has more votes, Gregoire will just rebuild the viaduct.

Cascadian is right @5. That said, why did they weasel out of giving us an up or down Surface Plus Transit vote, if they give us two other up or down votes? I predict the tunnel will increase from it's current 28 percent polling to more like 31 percent in its new incarnation of tunnel-lite. Just flip it over and call it done.

Surface + Transit doesn't have a well-developed plan, but it seems like something like it might be the end result if both measures fail and the governor keeps her promise to use the money for 520. The council unanimously voted to go ahead with mitigation for the rebuild. If both measures fail, they could just expand that mitigation plan and make it permanent, and the surface part of surface and transit would be in place--but with the ailing viaduct still standing.

I suspect the transit part of the equation will come after the viaduct's collapse in an earthquake, or when hell freezes over, whichever comes first.

Still kinda confused. Can somebody civic minded slam out a possible version of the two votes?

Will it be something like these?

Advisory ballot measure No. 1 concerns the construction of a replacement for the viaduct portion of SR-99. If approved, the measure would advise the mayor and city council to replace the viaduct with 4-lane tunnel. Construction of the tunnel is estimated at $3.41 billion. Should this advisory measure be approved? Yes/No

Advisory ballot measure No. 2 concerns the construction of a replacement for the viaduct portion of SR-99. If approved, the measure would advise the mayor and city council to replace the viaduct with an elevated roadway structure. Construction of the replacement elevated structure is estimated at $2.82 billion. Should this advisory measure be approved? Yes/No

@7 - yeah, but Surface Plus Transit is more complete - filled out - than Tunnel-lite which they put on the ballot - go for broke and let the people decide!

@8 - I hope it includes costs - not just Day Of Expenditure, but Cost Of Borrowing, Total Cost Including Borrowing.

All that is wrong with this city (nearly all) is summed up by “mediated summit to seek consensus”. It’s so in infuriating that we have no actual leaders (good or bad) with any ability, only hand wringing consensus seekers. No wonder no major public work of any significance has been done in this city since the new I-90 bridge & tunnel.

This city not only lacks ambitious innovative thought (which is mind blowing for a tech center) but competent leaders that are willing to make visionary decisions. A far cry from its founders who did the Denny Regrade (for better or worse) just because they could. All we ever hear is “it’s too hard” and/or “it’s too expensive” and/or “someone undeserving (ie: rich, white and/or male) might experience some benefit from it”.

If we get a tunnel, no one will look back 30 years from now and say “gee, what were they thinking, we could have had an elevated viaduct!” or “man that was way too expensive!”

If we get nothing (a surface street option), that’s a decision we can (will) remake if it doesn’t work out.

If we get an elevated viaduct, 30 years from now they will look back and say “what the hell were they thinking? For a little more (and 30 years from now it will seem to be a very little more indeed) they could have rid the city of a blight and rejoined it to the waterfront”.

If the state won’t allow the surface street option (which I could support) the only reasonable option remaining is a tunnel. But, as is so often the case around here, best will be the enemy of better to the benefit of worst.

Incidentally, I don’t hear a daily lament over the price or design of the I-90 project today. Granted, it was heavy in federal funding, but what the hell do we keep sending Patty & Maria to the other Washington for if not to bring home a little bacon. (It would be a fraction of what is being poured into New Orleans as federal assistance for their natural disaster, and remember, this is earthquake damage we are repairing.)

Well said, YGBKM. You should have Erica's job.

@10 - yeah, but our suicide rate will go up if we build a tunnel. In 30 years we'll all be driving mini-cars and mopeds that get 100 mpg (from electricity).

@12

WTF? Do you try to write complete sentences with real thoughts in them, or do you just put your fingers on the keyboard until they produce something that resembles a sentence?

Resolution 30957

If you vote yes for the Surface/ Hybrid Tunnel, you are stating that you prefer that a Surface/Hybrid Tunnel be constructed to replace the present Alaskan Way Viaduct at a cost currently estimated at $3.41 billion.

If you vote no for the Surface/Hybrid Tunnel, you are stating that you do not prefer that a Surface/Hybrid Tunnel be constructed to replace the present Alaskan Way Viaduct.

o I prefer the Surface/Hybrid Tunnel
o I do not prefer the Surface/Hybrid Tunnel

********

Resolution 30958

If you vote yes for the Elevated Structure Alternative, you are stating that you prefer that Alaskan Way Viaduct be replaced with an elevated structure at a cost currently estimated at $2.82 billion.

If you vote no for the Elevated Structure Alternative, you are stating that you do not prefer that the Alaskan Way Viaduct be replaced with an elevated structure.

o I prefer an elevated structure
o I do not prefer an elevated structure

I like voting for stuff.

'n things.

Well, at least Richard's mitigation measure passed. The work that is in there is stuff that has to get done regardless of how the rest of the drama plays out, and will stand surface + transit in good stead if it wins by default.

The vote is a joke. Good for Steinbrueck for opposing putting this thing on a ballot. Olympia is going to make their decision regardless of this election, anyway.

Hey what about viaduct lite? If 4 lanes works for a tunnel, it will work for a viaduct. One level held up by a single column similar to the light rail elevated sections and viaducts being built around the country -

We should go to the Gov and tell her that we will do a viaduct upgrade/retrofit boulevard hybrid with $200,000,000 for work above the cost of making it safe and the rest can be used for other state projects. Engineers could discover a less expensive approach to the repair now that they get money back. The idea would be to plan for the future. Build the transit and the boulevards. Get the city ready for losing the viaduct. Let businesses know they need to prepare for no viaduct.

"viaduct lite."

Nice.

But far too obvious for people (i.e.City Council) who seek consensus and the warm cuddly feeling of doing nothing.

Thanks A Nony Mouse.

Nick @ 4, I hope you don't really buy into the theory that our decisions should be motivated by what COULD happen in a major earthquake. I know WSDOT and a whole lot of other folks want you to think the viaduct's on the verge of imminent collapse, but the fact is that even during the 2001 Nisqually Quake, the seismic event would have needed to be of much greater magnitude or duration (i.e., a full 30 seconds longer) in order to cause a collapse. Such events are extremely rare, even in this area. Basing our planning decisions around this type of scenario would be like basing our planning decisions around a catastrophic eruption of Mt. Rainier, and saying that we need to immediately evacuate Tacoma because of the risk it could be buried under a massive lahar. Fact is, we have dozens/hundreds of publicly and privately owned structures in the region that are every bit as vulnerable to a major seismic event as the Viaduct; you don't hear a lot of talk about that, but it's the truth.

vapjo tkpwngfmc oleydfmsi bdtvz aihypxkv wfaexgdsu eroshzn

vapjo tkpwngfmc oleydfmsi bdtvz aihypxkv wfaexgdsu eroshzn