City A Very Comprehensive Update on the Viaduct
posted by on January 20 at 14:18 PM
Yesterday’s council meeting was supposed to give voters a chance to decide how to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct while satisfying Gov. Christine Gregoire’s demand that the city send a clear message to the state about whether it will accept a new elevated freeway, Gregoire’s preferred option. Instead, it did neither. The result of the meeting—two separate up-or-down votes March 13 on a new viaduct and a four-lane “Tunnel Lite” (renamed, for PR purposes, the “surface/tunnel hybrid”)—will not be binding. Gregoire and the state legislature can do whatever they want, with or without a Seattle advisory ballot. Moreover, the outcome may be inconclusive. Because the two votes will be separated on the ballot, people can vote yes for both, yes for one and no for the other, or no for both; it’s conceivable, perhaps even probable, that both options could either fail or win. And even if one option does emerge the clear winner, unless the vote is overwhelming, it will hardly be a mandate either.
Yesterday’s hastily scheduled council meeting began inauspiciously, when council president Nick Licata (an elevated option supporter) refused to allow public comment because the meeting was technically a “special committee meeting,” not a meeting of the council. After a flurry of discussion over whether the council could and should amend its rules (Tom Rasmussen and Peter Steinbrueck said yes; Licata and David Della said no), Licata backed down and allowed about 20 people to speak. Reflecting every opinion poll to date, almost none of yesterday’s speakers supported the tunnel; most favored a new viaduct, a retrofit or the surface/transit option, which the council has so far refused to consider. Larry Todd of Friends of Seattle spoke eloquently in favor of the surface/transit proposal, noting that if a “progressive” city like Seattle can’t come up with a sustainable solution (i.e. one that doesn’t cater exclusively to cars), “who will? To look at this as merely a transportation issue is to miss the significance of what we’re about to do.” Todd also noted that, by putting two advisory measures on the ballot, the city would be “wasting a million dollars on something that isn’t binding anyway.” Council member Peter Steinbrueck picked up that theme, calling the election “political tyranny” and an “expensive, glorified opinion poll.”
“It may seem populist to have a ballot measure, and I come from a very strong family tradition of populism. … [But] it’s disingenuous to be putting options before the voters … for something the state has told us they will not honor.” Nonetheless, the council approved both ballot measures, with Licata, Della and Steinbrueck dissenting. (Licata, as mayor pro tem, had to sign the measure because Mayor Nickels was absent.)
After the vote, Steinbrueck stood up and made an extemperaneous, emotional speech about the future of Seattle if we, unlike 85 other cities that have torn down elevated freeways, decide to build a new viaduct on our waterfront:
We will be a laughingstock. We will be an embarrassment. We will not be able to stand on our leadership. We will not be able to be taken seriously when we talk about sustainability and the environment if we do this. There is a solution that’s more cost-effective and more financially responsible that we can develop. It would save the state money if they would just free us from this stranglehold of focusing on auto capacity. Twenty-five years from now, if we proceed with this plan, this elevated structure will be congested, backed up to West Seattle the day it opens. If we don’t take steps to address our transportation problems now, it will be gridlock. This is not a choice about my political future. If I could trade this job today and stop that elevated freeway I would do it in a flash. It is that important to our city, this beautiful place, the environment we live in that is so envied by people the world around.”
For months, the council and mayor have been under enormous pressure from Gregoire and the state legislature to make a decision about the viaduct. (They’ve voted four times to support the six-lane tunnel, but Gregoire has said that option is financially “infeasible.”) Initially, Gregoire insisted on a March vote between a new viaduct and the six-lane tunnel option; two weeks later, however, she recanted, telling the city to accept a new viaduct or lose $2.2 billion in state money to the SR-520 bridge replacement. That put the city (viaduct supporters excluded) in a nearly impossible position: If they did nothing, Gregoire would move forward with a new viaduct. But if they put the $3.6-$5.5 billion tunnel on the ballot next to a $2.2-$3.3 billion viaduct, the elevated option would almost certainly win. The decision they made yesterday—two side-by-side ballot measures—muddies those waters by allowing the possibility of an ambiguous vote. As Drago noted yesterday, “If we do nothing, the governor will go forward with the elevated [option]. Voting in March is our only chance of changing that.”
Well, that may be overstating it. There are four possible outcomes, only one of them even potentially good for the tunnel.
First, the tunnel could win. If it won by a small margin, it would almost certainly have no impact on the governor’s decision. If it won by a large margin, supporters hope it might convince the governor to reconsider. However, the state house of representatives remains extremely hostile to the tunnel; the senate, meanwhile, is considered a bit more open to the idea.
Second, the elevated could win. If it won by a large margin, the governor would have a mandate to move quickly to start construction. If it won by a small margin, the city could try pleading its case to the state; however, any win for the elevated is bad news for supporters of both the tunnel and the surface/transit option.
Third, both options could win. If that happened, the state would likely take the vote as a message that Seattle voters are fine with either option—a victory for the elevated replacement.
Finally, both options could lose. That would send the state the message that voters don’t like the choices they’re being given—a potential boon for backers of the surface/transit option, which neither the city nor the state has been willing, thus far, to consider.
Ballots will go out in about three weeks, giving supporters of all three options almost no time to gear up their campaigns. (The mayor has a jump on his opponents; his Waterfront for All campaign has already raised $164,000.) Tunnel supporters clearly hope that supporters of the surface/transit option—about 10 percent of Seattle voters, according to the most recent poll—will go for the “surface/tunnel hybrid.” However, most of the “surface” elements of the new tunnel could be built in any scenario, including alongside a new viaduct, and aren’t actually funded as part of the proposal.
The city council, for its part, has repeatedly stated its support for the six-lane tunnel. Weeks ago, the council passed a resolution stating that the proposed rebuild violates state and local law (including the city’s own Comprehensive Plan and the state Shoreline Management Act), opening an avenue to litigation by environmental groups and waterfront businesses if the state decides to move forward with a new viaduct. (The city itself would be hard pressed to sue if the tunnel wins, however, as that would be seen as violating the will of the voters). Yesterday, the council supplemented that resolution with one explicitly rejecting the elevated option.
Because the vote will probably be inconclusive, the council also voted yesterday (unanimously, for a change) to move forward with construction south of King Street (where there’s no debate about how to proceed) and to start implementing mitigation measures that will have to be done no matter what option is ultimately chosen.
Boycott the Vote! Leave your Ballot
Blank!
---Jensen
I think Steinbrueck said it all when he said, "We will not be able to be taken seriously when we talk about sustainability and the environment if we do this." Seattle's "leadership" on the environment so far is just a bunch of hot air and BS. I would look at the other side of the coin: here is your chance to show that the city of Seattle DOES care about the environment.
There are no obfuscatory, gassy questions of cost around this like the monorail, to trip you up. Here is your choice: spend a lot of money continuing to fuck up the planet and the region, or spend considerably less saying 'no'. Finally.
(And yes there are no cost estimates for a surface transit option because in green, progressive Seattle, no one in government has the guts to look at those numbers and see what they might say. But you damn well know it will be cheaper than building another highway.)
Good luck, folks. I'm not holding my breath.
I predict Seattle will get exactly what it deserves.
A big ugly loud stinking elevated viaduct forever isolating it from its water front.
I hang my head in shame that I was born in this unambitious provincial backwater of hand-wringing consensus seeking Liberals.
Best will always be the enemy if better to the sole benefit of worst.
Worst will win..
This vote is an incredible waste of time and money. If we learned nothing from the monorail experience, it should be that votes to determine how the public feels on a particular issue are both meaningless and ignorable.
I've resistant to the purely surface option because I don't believe the reverse social engineering necessary to suggest that making traffic worse is better for the environment or that it'll cause people to stop driving (--only effective mass transit could possibly do that, and I'm not certain that we can achieve effective mass transit here.)
However, I did like the Seattle Times article about the bus tunnel construction and its effect on downtown traffic patterns--and I agreed with the sentiment of "there's nothing wrong with trying it and seeing what happens."
The current viaduct has to come down--in any legitimate scenario, that's true. (You CAN'T hope to retrofit it and expect it to survive.) So...let's tear it down and see what happens.
I'm not against an elevated transit structure--as, other than fearing for my life every second I'm on it, I happen to truly enjoy the current viaduct. It makes it much easier for me to get to the airport or other points to the south from where I live...than fighting my way to the downtown I-5 parking lot. I love how the city and the bay looks from it. Maybe that can't be recaptured in a new elevated transit offering...but I'm not violently opposed to giving it another, smarter try.
Other than the insane cost and the uninformed sense that pushing significant travel density underground in an area prone to earthquake based liquification concerns seems more dangerous than the viaduct, I don't have a major issue with a capacity enhancing tunnel, either. If you're going to do this--commit to doing it right, don't half-ass it...don't nickel and dime it to death... I don't think we can commit to doing it right, so it's my least favored option.
And, for heavens sake--don't make a decision based on whether or not "we'll be a laughingstock." Do what's best for us, based on what's best for us...not based on what others will think.
Do people really look at Seattle and say "You know, that'd be a very pretty city...except for that darn viaduct?" And should THAT be ANY concern at all if they do?
pg
PS--An efficient freeway can also be a beautiful thing. All of those people, getting to where they need to go...one sign of a vibrant WORKING city.
It’s so infuriating that we have no actual leaders (good or bad) with any vision or 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, visionary and 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, male and/or car driving) 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 (when) 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.)
Is there a link I can check out to see what the surface option is about? I've read lots of talk about it, but I don't remember seeing it as a plan.
First off it might be mentioned that Tunnel-lite is put up against Viaduct-heavy - if four lanes work for a tunnel they will work for a viaduct or what could become a single level bridge.
What we can advocate for is a Upgrade/Retrofit/Surface Hybrid - go to the state offer the savings to them for other projects which might motivate them to find a way to fix the three sections that are at the most risk. Plan for a future without the viaduct - build transit (steel, rubber or plastic wheeled who cares), redo the roads and streets, let all the stakeholders know that it won't be up forever giving them time to make adjustments. The upgrade should include sound abatement, put ivy on it, attractive lighting under it on a walkway that connects Pioneer Square to near the Pike Place Stair Climb, and some other enhancements in the area.
We can keep the capacity for now satisfying business interests and the state, start the enhancements making the waterfront more attractive, save money making more money available for other projects maybe even some transit - doubt tunnel can succeed or that the state will give up the capacity today.
Gryph,
You've hit on the grating Catch-22: The state has never studied a plan. And since there's no plan, it's not an option.
Sen. Ed Murray, KC Exec Ron Sims, and even Rep. Frank Chopp (true!) have all asked WSDOT to come up with one.
The People’s Waterfront Coalition has laid out some numbers. They say 25% of riders will transfer to transit. They earmark $200 million for north/south transit fixes. And given that the mid-range price for the re-build is $2.8 billion and the boulevard is $2.1—there may actually be $700 million for transit fixes.
What does $700 million get? I don’t know. So, let’s find out.
Go to the PWC's web site for much more on that.
Also, as Erica reported over two years ago, the city has a plan as well.
Peter Steinbrueck is full of shit when he grandstands about car culture and the need for alternative transportation. He is the guy who drives everywhere and who threw a temper tantrum a few years ago when council members lost their perk of free parking in the city garage. Waaah!
As for the nonbinding vote, it at least will force the different sides to present the public with more accurate facts and figures than they've received so far.
HMMM..... Can't we just take Peter up on leaving his job and call it a day?
Well Josh if you look at it as an endowment it would produce about $70M per year (mutual fund return) but unlike a tax like the metro .1% that wouldn't increase every year - so say you could take out $25M the first year or about half the Metro increase. given that the current overall Metro budget is about $500M that would be about a 5%- 8% increase in service capacity not ridership.
By reinvesting the balance that service level increase could be funded forever. Of course, as population grows that service level would become a smaller percentage of the total.
Or about 2 miles of Light Rail Tunnel -
ECB, you've said it yourself: "supporters of the surface/transit option—about 10 percent of Seattle voters, according to the most recent poll..."
With numbers that small, there's no way a surface only option is going to occur. I refuse to call it "surface/transit".
The only way I'd ever be in favor of a surface option is if it ties into Aurora through the Battery Street tunnel, coupled with real dollars that go for real transit improvements throughout the city. I think that's true of a lot of people. The "surface" people don't seem to get that, for whatever reason. If that's not included, I don't think it's worth spending the money to "study" it.
If I have real transit options that are not buses (or BRT, which is the same thing, at least from West Seattle given that there are significant chokepoints in any plan that has been shown to date) on the same clogged streets, then I'll use it even if the inconvenience is moderate. What's on offer with the surface option right now leaves a couple of hundred thousand people living and working west of Highway 99 stranded. The Governor knows this and so does the state legislature.
I use buses almost daily in the downtown free zone to get around for business but I use my car to get to work. It would actually cost me significant dollars and time to use the bus system to get to work from West Seattle. I adjust my commute (coming in late, leaving late) to avoid the traffic jams. The amount of extra time it would take for me to try to get there by bus (about an hour) versus the 15 minutes or so I can do it by car means that my commute would go from about 2-1/2 hours a week to 10 hours a week. That's a difference of 390 hours a year. That's 16 days of time spent in an increased commute. That's time spent away from family, or work where I can be making money and contributing to the economy. That 16 days worth of revenue away from my job (where I work on an hourly basis) more than pays the annual salary of one of my workers. He'd like to continue to contribute to the economy as well. I understand I'll have to do something different during the construction process. I don't want to do it for the next 30 years.
We will get people out of cars when transit is convenient and at least breaks even on a time/finance basis with people. Look at New York. Look at Melbourne, or almost any city in Europe with a population over a million. I'll vote for every rapid transit ballot that comes along, because in the long run it's important. I'll vote to raise my taxes each and every time as a good citizen for the benefit for all. But we missed "the boat" in the 70's when we dinked around and others got federal money for transit systems (read Atlanta in particular) that now serve their cities. Process has killed our transit options in Seattle with the monorail being our most shining example.
Steinbrueck and others can flap hysterically about sustainability and environment, but at the end of the day it's all show politics. Steinbrueck is just as guilty as the rest of us. The fact is the political leadership both past and present does not have the balls or fortitude to work on that goal. Why did Patty Murray come out and say "don't expect help from the feds"? Where's her leadership in saying that Seattle and the rest of the country need to look at our decaying transport infrastructure? Nickels is in San Diego at some conference instead of working on details with council members, and then he issues a press release from afar? He needed to be in Seattle, not in Seat 1A on an Alaskan flight after some conference that was so important it wasn't front page material. (Of course, last week, when I rang Rasmussen's office during the storm, he was vacationing in Argentina... so par for the course I guess.)
I don't really like the idea of a new viaduct, but something that moves traffic is a necessity because the lack of foresight and planning in the past means we have to have a replacement of some sorts. Maybe if we start planning now for comprehensive transit and make it happen, when the viaduct or whatever comes in its place needs to be replaced again (which will happen) we'll be in a better position to able to say what I think a lot of us want: no, lets get rid of roads because we don't need them anymore.
BTW, good synopsis.
If I had any faith whatsoever in the industries behind huge public works projects, and if it could be done for anything like a reasonable amount of money, I actually love the idea of the tunnel.
But the tunnel is a fantasy. In reality it has "boondoggle" written all over it. It has every potential to be a worse nightmare than Boston's Big Dig. Just in the year or so we've been talking about it, the cost estimates have almost doubled. And that is before they even lift a shovel, before they discover the ancient native-american burial grounds under the surface, or the toxic fill from the Denny regrade, or that the ground is too unstable in an earthquake, or that it leaks, or that pieces fall from it, or any number of potential hang-ups that will cause the eventual cost to go higher and higher and higher.
Look at light rail. The current project will end up costing twice as much as we originally voted on, and it will be a lot shorter than we were originally promised. What makes you think they'll do any better on a tunnel?
The Feds kicked in money for the I-90 bridge because I-90 is a FEDERAL Highway. The viaduct is a STATE highway, and Cantwell and Murray will not be able to do much to get any federal money for it. The mayor was hoping for some federal contribution under the auspices of rebuilding the sea wall, but that money could be requested whether we build a tunnel, a new elevated viaduct, or a surface/transit option.
If we are going to spend a bucket of money, I'd rather spend it on running a light rail line out to West Seattle, rather than a boondoggle of a tunnel or a new eyesore to replace the old eyesore.
Granted. But the fact is that Madame Governor is limiting us to two choices. A boondoggle of a tunnel, or a new eyesore to replace the old eysore. There is no third choice that she will allow. (The do nothing and move the money to 520 option is fiction because the State won't alow the decrease in capacity.) Given that, I'd go for the boondoggle over the eysore. Atleast the boondoggle stops hurting eventualy. The eyesore is there (hurting) forever (and building it will unearth all of the problems that building the tunnel would, so really its a boondoggle and an eyesore).
Peter Steinbrueck = arrogant + blowhard
This whole debate is starting to sound like a child screaming "I want cake!" when his choices are re-heated strained peas out of a jar or fresh carrots in a lovely ginger orange sauce. While everyone agrees cake is good, grown ups know that cake (though tasty) is not always best for them and are able to recognize the options available and make the best of them. Children just stomp their feet and scream for cake until mommy makes them eat their strained peas (which are by then cold). Look out, mommy's coming with a spoon.
Geesh, Peter, after all the time I've been spending on the exact opposite side, you'd never know we tend to hang out together at parties ...
Tear that schitt down.
"We will be a laughingstock. We will be an embarrassment."
Too late!
Does anybody know what seismic standards the viaduct was built to?
Would it be a 250 year or 500 year standard?
Fuck the tunnel!
Save the money - rebuild the viaduct - and add more public transportation options. (Light Rail and Buses)
what separates downtown from the waterfront is the massive elevation change between downtown and the waterfront, not the elevated highway. in pioneer square, the presence of the viaduct actually allows the city and the waterfront to connect.
I still don't see how the surface option would help to "reclaim" the waterfront.
#22 - This whole thing has been a con. First we have the fear - the viaduct is going to fall and kill us all. If the damage was so severe why didn't they shut it down permanently. Then the ambiance police went to work and the coining of expressions like "save the middle waterfront" and "reconnect the city to its waterfront". Go look at the photo archives at the UW - the waterfront before the viaduct was one gritty place - doubt many tourists spent time down there unless they were longshoremen or railroad guys on a busman's holiday - it was called Railroad Ave. before the all concrete seawall was built - another canard - the seawall has no wood in it - the supporting timbers that propped it up while they put the fill behind it are of wood and may be of concern but the way they have described it many think part of the wall itself is made of wood.
A boulevard, full of trucks, busses, motorcycles with no muffles (next to leaf blowers the most irritating noise producers) and cars, will not be the bucolic picture shown in the pretty drawings. Give us one drawing on a cloudy and rainy day with every parking spot taken...
What kills me the most is that while the SCC is so concerned about the viaduct and ambiance - they are favoring a six lane 520 with a giant VIADUCT going across Union Bay - destroying wetlands - increasing car traffic and congestion - what a 6, 8, 10 lane VIADUCT across Portage Bay - Lake Washington now that's an ugly industrial area so why worry about putting huge highways there?
Boycott the Vote!!
The city council, city executive and state have been discussing this for months and limited the choices from the start to the cut and cover tunnel or rebuild. There was no desire on their part to consider and objectively study additional viable options as presented by those proposing a surface waterfront boulevard, cable stayed bridge or other ideas. Yet by fiat, the Mayor's office is at liberty to offer an understudied and spur-of-the-moment hybrid-tunnel proposal when his cut and cover was deep sixed.
This vote is nothing more than an attempt to continue to reinforce that political tyranny where by the mayor’s office, city council and state contine to limit potentially viable choices. What is surprising, is that nobody has bothered to ask who this ultimately benefits. The residents of the city or state of Washington? I think not.
We have not been well served by the people who we entrusted to watch over our public affairs. Let's show them our vote of confidence by boycotting the vote in March.
---Jensen
I just with the Stranger and everybody else would be honest about what they're advocating. Rather than call it "surface/transit," we should really be calling it "surface/buses." Then people will know what's being advocated, and then they realize it's a plan to put more buses on downtown streets that will be absolutely jammed with the traffic that used to be on the Viaduct, they'll realize how insane it is.
It's time for us to step up and provide the leadership this sclerotic city clearly lacks.
Though I sympathize with Jensen's boycott call, it is idiotic to leave the political process that has been initiated. Instead we need to engage it.
Our goal must be Two Noes. A No-No campaign. I personally like the latter phrase but for some it may rankle as it harkens back to political prisoners during the Japanese internment.
Whichever is chosen, make it our slogan. No to the viaduct, No to the tunnel. We do this because we want to force the city to leave the 1950s and enter the 21st century and build a surface option.
Then there must be ads. Some kind of drawing that shows an elevated viaduct trampling on green things. Deemphasize the waterfront and emphasize the green and environment. Global warming has proved to be a winning political issue often in the last few years, including people like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Tell Seattle voters they need to start getting serious about climate change.
Anyone interested, or am I going to have to do this myself?
You bunch of bitches. All of you, from the Mayor, the City Council and the State all the way on down to the very urbanist tools (especially Steinbrueck and little hissyfit speech; well played, Peter :P ) who continue to bicker about this thing and will never stop.
The only way this viaduct mess will end is with the viaduct collapsing and killing everyone on and around it, because of the divided obstinance of everyone involved. That's not a prediction. At this point, it is a foregone conclusion. I will avoid the viaduct from here on out for this reason. It ain't taking ME with it.
And the Stranger continues to do its part to muddle the debate into a perpetually inconclusive standoff.
That said, you're not anywhere near at much fault as the key cog to this mess: Mayor Greg Nickels. See, you surface optionites can simply be ignored by the much-more-powerful state DOT, but Nickels is the headmaster of the city, is basically the reason there's even a standoff at this point, and as the gatekeeper to local permits for the chosen option, can basically stand before the bulldozers and cement trucks, refusing passage. This standoff is more his fault than anyone else.
And when the viaduct finally collapses, I will call out Nickels for his role in it all: murderer, in the name of a pet project and his own ego.
Unless he wants blood on his hands, Nickels needs to STFU and let the state do what it needs to.
Basically, Peter wasted his breath. Seattle already IS an embarrassment, in part because of agendaic human roadblocks like him.
Gomez,
You seem like an appropriately skeptical fellow. (Said as a compiliment.)
So why are you so sure that the statements made by WSDOT et al about the danger of the Viaduct are true?
If there really was a severe, emergency problem don't you think they would have lowered the speed & load limts?
Good question. I believe they did, to 40 mph and 10,000 lbs GW, respectively. It has also, in the interim, shifted 4.5 inches on its foundation, and will definitely close regardless of otehr factors if it shifts another 1.5 inches. I would hope that happens before an earthquake does.
That said, there is an understanding that the road, while it can continue to be used, not only is on borrowed time in its current state but was on borrowed time years ago. Let's quit bickering and do SOMETHING, even if it's your suggested retrofit, because if we don't, it will, in its current state, eventually succumb to a substancial shock.
From June 21, 2001 - the con begins -
A 1996 study by engineers at the University of Washington found that the viaduct was built on soil that could liquefy in an earthquake. Engineers also found problems in the way the columns were connected to the foundation.
The UW study concluded that retrofitting would cost $340 million, tearing it down about $120 million and replacing it $530 million.
But those numbers are misleading, said Weigel, because they are five years old and do not take into account a new viaduct with increased capacity.
The viaduct cost $8 million to build. It opened in 1953.
Gomez,
Last I checked (maybe a week ago) the posted speed limit going south on the Viaduct is 50 MPH.
I think it's the cost of replacing the seawall that's making up the bulk of the numbers we see today. And the seawall's replacement is absolutely mandatory.
The vote was transparently designed to 1) make it easier for a tunnel to do well, but more importantly, to 2) make it hard for an elevated to win, and 3) to keep the surface alive as a backup. Nickels can live with a surface option, but not a rebuild. If he was so confident about the tunnel lite, he’d have paired it up in a direct vote against the rebuild.
Barnett’s analysis of the four potential outcomes is right on, in that only “no” and “no” votes are good for surface supporters. But more is needed: the only hope surface or retrofit supporters really have is for the City to piss off the state so much that the Legislature moves the $2.2 billion over to the 520 project.
But fear not, surface supporters, you have one secret weapon, and it is by far your best weapon: the dishonesty of Greg Nickels.
He says he’ll accept the result of the voters. This is complete, total, utter hogwash—the whole point of designing the vote this way is to avoid *any* clear result. He’ll revert on that pledge right after the results come in, and the state will react by either 1) ordering a rebuild, or, if he’s extra bad, and extra psycho, 2) shifting the money to 520.
Surface supporters, this is your task: force feed Nickels buckets of hot chili peppers and copious amounts of booze on election night. It is your best--and perhaps only—chance.
#33 From April 7, 2001 doesn't sound absoluely necessary to replace
"Many experts think a strong earthquake could destroy the seawall that borders Alaskan Way and holds back the water from Elliott Bay. If that happened, there would be nothing to hold the soil in place around the viaduct, and that could cause it to collapse."
Hey, what else would a strong earthquake take down? Check out the seawall under construction.
Could deferred maintenance do the job? The seawall was a good reason to build the tunnel.
http://content.lib.washington.edu/cgi-bin/viewer.exe?CISOROOT=/imlsmohai&CISOPTR=1769&CISORESTMP=&CISOVIEWTMP=
@25 - no, it's Surface Plus Transit - because it includes not just bus service but also streetcar service.
Gomez,
What is your source of information which makes you say with such absolute certainty that "the seawall's replacement is absolutely mandatory."
Is it the same people who were saying (they are changing their minds) that the Viaduct cannot be Repaired?
ECB - I thought this was a good comprehensive post, just like the header promised.
Those of you whining about the gov giving 2 choices - don't you people get it? This year - 2007 - is a critical time for the D's - it's a year to focus on accomplishment. Next year is all about campaigning...our party is busting it's balls now in jurisdictions across the nation to get stuff done this year to:
1) take best advantage of the momentum created by all these new majorities - which might be - hopefully not - a narrow window of opportunity and
2) as both an offensive and defensive strategy against the R's in 2008.
If you call yourself a Democrat, get with the program. We should be looking to the Gov's direction as a unifying force; she and Chopp are referred to as the D leadership for a reason people.
If the vote produces no majority, she gives the dough to 520 - not to punish us or act like a queen...but because she wants to get one of the two projects locked in THIS year! In a no-winner scenario she has to do this, cuz she can't go to the mat to fund an option w/out meeting some level of support.
BTW - If you haven't heard, neither tunnel, tunnel-lite, or surface + transit will get you one inch closer to the waterfront.
David, I cannot recall the source but the legions here who have proferred up that info should have a source. I think the original belief was that the viaduct was tied directly to the seawall, and I'm not sure that is actually the case.
Also, Will, LOL at streetcar 'transportation.' Streetcars aren't a viable, effective form of transport anymore. They're nothing more than glorified tourist and novelty rides. The SLU streetcar should do a great job of clogging up and bottlenecking the Eastlake corridor while serving nearly nobody.
Has anyone supporting the tunnel or the rebuild or the retrofit EVER FUCKING HEARD OF GLOBAL WARMING? This isn't happening in a bubble, folks, and it isn't happening in 1952. It is happening in Seattle, on this planet where the weather has only BEGUN to go apeshit, with sadly PLENTY more to come. We don't have a choice anymore. We have to start changing the way we live. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem, and a ruined ecology will be your legacy.
no kidding, Grant.
I can't believe that we're still arguing over whether the best use of transportation dollars is to make life better for vehicles rather than moving as many folks as possible using the least amount of resources.
Tear the sucka down, run light rail right through the area, through the Battery street tunnel and right up Aurora and run it south thru West Seattle. Preserve a lane or two for vehicles but give the vast majority of money to truly public transit.
G-Love - removing vehicle capacity only impacts driving habits - then the environment, when good alternatives exist...otherwise people still choose to drive.
Removal of the viaduct should not be used as a means to change behavior. Rather we should invest in transit infrastructure to increase and improve use of them. When the options exists the behaviors will change, then we can take down the viaduct.
The urgency of the mission - as you accurately describe it - almost makes me want to put aside my deep belief that you best promote public policy objectives successfully when you invest in access to them. I'd almost embrace your ends justifies the means approach...
But, the fact of the matter is that I simply don't believe removing the viaduct's capacity now - with the transportation infrastructure we have now - will increase use of transit and produce the ends we seek.
The amount of extra time it would take for me to try to get there by bus (about an hour) versus the 15 minutes or so I can do it by car means that my commute would go from about 2-1/2 hours a week to 10 hours a week. That's a difference of 390 hours a year. That's 16 days of time spent in an increased commute. That's time spent away from family, or work where I can be making money and contributing to the economy. That 16 days worth of revenue away from my job (where I work on an hourly basis) more than pays the annual salary of one of my workers.
That anthropocentric attitude of entitlement is what has ensured our extremely nasty doom. The future is all about reduced standards of living; so reduced that it won't actually be living for many of us, and for most of our kids.
remember....
Nothing Gets You Through a Food Riot Like a Hummer!
LH @ 42:
"When the options exists the behaviors will change, then we can take down the viaduct."
Huh? Mebbe. And mebbe it's far more likely that behaviors will change when you start running out of options.
People generally don't quit addictive behaviors just cause they have the option of doing so.
Rebuilding the viaduct just gives people the option to continue using it (guilty as charged, I use it damn near every day). Offering transit as an alternative option will work for some people in some situations.
But if you replace the viaduct route with a transit route, you force people to either use transit or suffer slogging it out some other way.
We need to start tearing up streets right and left and laying down rail. Yeah, in a way we're going back in time. Back to when I could've taken a streetcar from my front door (on Phinney) to the RV, intead of almost being forced to drive because there is no reasonable transit alternative.
@42: So I have to decide between whether I need to lay someone off, or take a bus? How un-progressive is that? You live in fantasyland and I suspect you've not owned or worked in a business where you're accountable for anything or anyone. Who's really got the anthropocentric attitude of entitlement?
sorry 42... that was @43, my bad.
Dave, you implied the extra commute time wouldn't have to be time taken from your work: your employee's job could be preserved. Depending on your situation, you could do paperwork and make calls on the bus, if that's part of what you do at your work, move closer to your work, carpool, work extended hours for one less day per week...
We like No. 26's suggestion. Here's our proposed slogan: NO-NO, THE WAY TO GO. Yard signs ahoy!
"Back to when I could've taken a streetcar from my front door (on Phinney) to the RV, intead of almost being forced to drive because there is no reasonable transit alternative."
Go find a 1920 schedule - I'll bet that trip would have been 1 1/2 hours if not longer. Streetcar is good for short hops not longer distance trips.
At the Tucson Transportation Museum - a sign from the early 20th C. - " If you have leisure take the streetcar, if you are in a hurry, walk!"
Steinbrueck is awesome.
One quick observation. Look who's not happy with the measures the City Council put on the ballot:
Hard not to take this as a good sign.
Grant, go crawl under a rock and wait for global warming to drown you, kthx.
Short of imposing martial law and seizing people's cars, you are not changing their habits, not even with reducing road capacity and installing transit, not nearly enough to make a significant impact.
In fact, given natural methane emissions and existing industry, there is honestly no way to reverse global warming. The best you can do is stave off the eventual effects for maybe a couple years, and that's if you pull every gas guzzler off the road right now.
Go cry yourself a river, Grant. Actually, don't. You'll just make the sea levels rise even faster :P
Don't forget folks that our economy is based on the burning of fuels. Crush all the roads you want, you're still burning the fuel just by being you. No matter who you are or what you do.
Voting both down is a bad idea. We will just get stuck with the Elevated Highway.
It's time for Tunnel supporters and Surface supporters to join hands and promote the Surface Tunnel Hybrid solution. It has a lot of merit. It REDUCES the number of SOV lanes which is an admirable goal, it does a better job of re opening the waterfront, it will allow for increased transit capacity, it has the ability to deliver continued freight capacity (do we care about working family jobs?).
It's an advisory ballot and would send a message that Seattle supports a hybrid between improved surface and scaled back tunnel on the Central Waterfront.
It's a good compromise. We need to retain the opportunity to maneuver and right now a solid vote in favor of the hybrid surface/tunnel option is Seattle's best chance at making sure the default (new viaduct) is not rebuilt on our waterfront.
Being from the Puget Sound I was wondering if you knew about Sound Experience where kids and adults learn about the Puget Sound as well and how our choices impact the environment. I did some interviews with some of the staff and have footage of the 100-year-old schooner, Adventuress. Please take a look. It is a wonderful program!!!
http://pugettown.wordpress.com/2007/01/16/meet-adventuress-magic-mistress-of-puget-sound/
The first thing to know is that the name of the sound is "Puget Sound", not "The Puget Sound". As in "the Puget Sound area surrounds Puget Sound."
krge tapmg asiqtyr qfukmgvex khoredj etrv zbjtycf
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).