Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« About Those Iranian Explosives | The Oemig Resolution »

Monday, February 12, 2007

What You’re Voting For If You Vote For a New Viaduct

posted by on February 12 at 17:18 PM

As I’ve reported before, the new viaduct is not a “rebuild.” To comply with modern earthquake standards, the new viaduct would have to be significantly taller and much wider than the current structure. According to WSDOT’s own specifications, the new elevated structure would be, on average, 71 percent bulkier than the existing viaduct; in some places, it would be twice as big. Today, a group of architects including leaders of the American Institute of Architects released drawings of what the the new viaduct would look like—again, following WSDOT’s own specifications. Here’s the viaduct at Washington Street, in Pioneer Square:

New Viaduct.jpg

And a cross-section, with the outline of the existing viaduct in red:

Comparison at Washington Street.jpg

Still want a new elevated freeway on our waterfront?

RSS icon Comments

1

Hm. Makes the existing one look kind of cute and cuddly in comparison.

Any link to more details about this roving gang of architects?

Posted by cdc | February 12, 2007 5:29 PM
2

Reminds me a little of Lower Wacker Drive in Chicago. (And last I checked, Chicago is considered a "world class city." Part of being a world class city is embracing the fact that cities are often kind of gritty and functional-looking. Cities aren't there to be pretty, they're there to house people and make stuff.)

Looks like it'd provide a nice place for pedestrians to stay out of the rain, too.

I see no reason to object unless you're a rich developer who owns property along the waterfront. I'm sure those folks are salivating at the idea of Sims and his pro-tunnel crew giving them a windfall at taxpayer expense. But they need to face up to the fact that Seattle's waterfront has purposes besides being a tourist trap to put on real estate brochures.

Posted by Orv | February 12, 2007 5:29 PM
3

Ugh, I never wanted a new viaduct. Give me either the tunnel option or let's tear it down and just figure out how we can make the streets/mass transit option work. An even bigger viaduct will only be louder, uglier and a renewed earthquake danger in the future.

I still say build a tunnel. I don't care about the money, but I do care about how it will look once it's done.

Posted by Patrick | February 12, 2007 5:32 PM
4

Uh... Orv? Wacker and Lower Wacker run along Chicago's industrialized river--which is being reclaimed. It also is nothing like the Viaduct. Chicago's waterfront--the lake--is lined with parks, 25 miles of parks.

Posted by Dan Savage | February 12, 2007 5:33 PM
5

Can we indict Chopp and Gregoire over supporting this??

Posted by TheTruthHurths | February 12, 2007 5:34 PM
6

Re #4: I'm aware of all that. But Seattle's industry isn't along the river, it's along the waterfront. And there's no other good place for traffic to go. I-5 is at capacity through downtown and can't be widened. I-405 is a cruel joke because of all the Bellevue commuters. Everyone knows the Tunnel is a non-starter; the money isn't there. Telling thousands of commuters, "sorry, but the rich folks downtown want their view back, so you'll just have to sit in gridlock" is beyond petty.

Posted by Orv | February 12, 2007 5:38 PM
7

thanks, orv, for telling me what cities are for. until i read your comment, i was a mere fool who wanted the city in which i live and work to be a pleasant and attractive place.

Posted by omg | February 12, 2007 5:40 PM
8

um orv, the only "industry" on that stretch of waterfront is lame ass tourist shops.

Posted by seattle98104 | February 12, 2007 5:40 PM
9

Re #7: All cities that have any life in them have their ugly parts. Even world-class cities like San Francisco and New York. Granted, there are parts of San Francisco that look like a theme park, but they're basically fluff, there for the tourists. I'm not interested in seeing Seattle go down that path.

Re #8: The stretch where that picture was drawn, sure. But that's not all there is to Alaskan Way, and people and materials don't magically appear on other parts of that road without taking some route to get there.

Posted by Orv | February 12, 2007 5:46 PM
10

Were you under the impression that people supported the rebuild for aesthetic reasons? I'd much rather that we knock down the existing structure and put the rebuild/tunnel money into the surface/transit option, but if we insist on keeping a freeway running through downtown then I vote for whichever option is cheaper.

Posted by Umm? | February 12, 2007 5:46 PM
11


Trivia: Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe has been on the Seattle waterfront since 1899. For those who like to hear about "Old Seattle" read on:

www.yeoldecuriosityshop.com

History is here:
http://www.yeoldecuriosityshop.com/pages/yeoldecuriosityshop.html

FYI, Orv: Sims doesn't want a tunnel. he wants transit and lots of it, 'cause that's his shop.

Lastly, you don't scare me with your ghost-story reference to "rich developers" blah, blah, blah. Thanks to people like you, we lost out on the Seattle Commons (were Paul Allen would have given us a giant park for free) and now we have Allentown. Thanks a lot.

Posted by monster | February 12, 2007 5:48 PM
12

Orv, waterfront businesses, of all types, will be pretty much out of business during most of the years it would take to build the new outsized viaduct -- a road that is "necessary" to speed 45 minutes worth of rush hour traffic past downtown so it can be dumped out 2 to 4 minutes later onto an urban arterial street -- Hwy 99 north of Denny Way and south of Spokane St.

Posted by R on Beacon Hill | February 12, 2007 5:52 PM
13

Orv, not to pile on, but Sims is not pro-tunnel, nor are many of his friends.

Posted by switzerblog | February 12, 2007 5:57 PM
14


WSDOT/PB have been pumping the tunnel for years and this is the original design for the rebuild - Chopp has been asking for a slimmed down rebuild for a least a year.

I oppose the rebuild but I wonder why are you covering the non-news of a bunch of anti-transit architects? BTW did they give a drawing of the new massive viaduct going in and out of the tunnel I assume they support? We still get the viaduct for all but the 13 blocks.

Why not wake up and support the repair option and get the surface-transit in place before taking it down?

The tunnel is dead, no capacity is dead - we will either rebuild or repair - the rest of the state doesn't care about 13 blocks -

Posted by Peter Sherwin | February 12, 2007 5:57 PM
15

Oh, and more ECB pics, please!

/mild pervy crush

Posted by switzerblog | February 12, 2007 5:58 PM
16

#12: Right on.

Orv, one more thing: Do you honestly think the Viaduct is a nice place for pedestrians to stay out of the rain? Have you ever actually stood under the Viaduct? You know, that unbelievably loud, dark place dripping with filth and surrounded by garbage, puddles, and asphalt with the occasional projectile coming off the deck? I don't know about you, but I try not to spend much time under freeways.

Posted by monster | February 12, 2007 5:58 PM
17

For those interested in a kinder, gentler elevated alternative, take a look at Melbourne's solution to a noisy freeway:

The Tullmarine Freeway Sound Tube


Why not a single deck four lane "elevated lite" built to this style?

Posted by Some Jerk | February 12, 2007 6:03 PM
18

#6 I am not "rich folk" and I do not live in downtown Seattle. But I am there most days. I would love for our city to be a model for pedestrian use. Build the tunnel. Make our waterfront useable and pedestrian friendly. That is looking to the future. Art, beauty and aesthetics are not non-essentials. They are what make a city a place where those of us who live here want to stay here.

Posted by Marsha | February 12, 2007 6:22 PM
19

Peter, Sherwin,
It's useless to engage Stranger staff.

ECB, Moon, Goldstein et al have supported the convenient lie that we must Replace the Viaduct because they thought we could be manipulated into tearing it down; they won't even utter the word "Repair." (It's like with Bush and the word "inspections" in Iraq:they don't want an alternative to work.)

Now they are hoist by their own petard -- they bought into a lie and now they reap what they sow: the possibility of a Rebuild.

If anyone is ever to blame for a Rebuild (should such a monstrosity be forced on us) it will be people like ECB who refused to look at the evidence critically because they were in love with the idea of tearing down the Viaduct and bought into a convenient lie.

Posted by David Sucher | February 12, 2007 6:23 PM
20

Orv--

Nice place for pedestrians to stay out of the rain? More like, dark, creepy urine-stinking place for pedestrians to get raped. No thanks.

Posted by annie | February 12, 2007 6:24 PM
21

Ron Sims is not pro-tunnel.

Josh Feit wrote:

Another great question that got asked was this: "With all this talk of reducing carbon emissions, why is the state getting ready to build a giant freeway along the Seattle waterfront?"

There was laughter, Paulson said he didn't want to get into viaduct politics, and Sen. Majority leader Lisa Brown pretended to answer the question. Then, King County Executive Ron Sims took the microphone, and he said it straight: "You cannot talk about fighting global warming while also talking about building a tunnel or a rebuild. We will not achieve the goals."

Sims then said Seattle should "vote down both" the tunnel and the rebuild and re-think transportation. "I support what's called the surface/transit option," Sims said.

Posted by hyperlinker | February 12, 2007 6:31 PM
22

People who think the viaduct only runs along tourist shops haven't been on the viaduct. The industry of Seattle is there, too. The tourist part of the waterfront (which includes a busy ferry terminal) is short compared to the entire length.

That said, this replacement viaduct is a disaster. Not because it's big, and not because it's a viaduct, but because it's the lowest-common-denominator of a structure. There's no reason why the area underneath has to be loud, urine-soaked, puddled, or dangerous. But in Seattle, it will be.

Posted by Fnarf | February 12, 2007 6:40 PM
23

Erica and I disagree on many things other than the viaduct, but I just have to say -- that bowling pic was highly crush-worthy....

Vote NO and NO!

Posted by GoodGrief | February 12, 2007 6:51 PM
24

ECB, Moon, Goldstein et al have supported the convenient lie that we must Replace the Viaduct because they thought we could be manipulated into tearing it down; they won't even utter the word "Repair."

But every WSDOT study showed that repairing what we have would not give us any cost savings and may not even work. Repair is right out, and I don't care what some engineer with a hundred rolls of duct tape says.

Repair will requiring driving piles into bedrock; will the current viaduct handle the endless pounding?

I think what worries me, though, is that everyone is ignoring the bigger problem: The mouldering seawall.

Posted by dw | February 12, 2007 6:55 PM
25

Besides - and if memory serves, Fnarf, you first brought this up - there's bound to be a Salish/Duwamish or Suquamish (or both) campsite or two awaiting discovery as we excavate during a rebuild. That'll slow things down for awhile...

Posted by Laurence Ballard | February 12, 2007 6:56 PM
26

So Fnarf, what do you support? How are you going to vote?

Posted by golob | February 12, 2007 7:04 PM
27

DW #28
The WSDOT/PB team plus the WSDOT hired review team said it could be done but would only save $500,000,000 - remember that's after a new seawall and the 519 improvements etc. - the ERP said that the viaduct could come down in a major earthquake and that 520 was far more crucial - read their report.

The state and city have allowed traffic on the viaduct for six years after the last earthquake - doesn't that make for some doubt as to the danger?

The seawall is due to gribbles eating not the wall, but supports that propped it up during construction and the fill that was put in from the Denny regrade. The seawall was not an issue until it could be leveraged into a tunnel.

Could the viaduct fall - yes and maybe thousands of structures in the region - bridges - homes - apartments - offices could fall.

Posted by Peter Sherwin | February 12, 2007 7:21 PM
28

BTW - why does the drawing show about four lanes, two shoulders and extra pavement about as wide as three more lanes in each direction? And surely we can use the wide-shoulders for peak hour travel and reduce the size by 33%.

Posted by Peter Sherwin | February 12, 2007 7:28 PM
29

re 28: See the artillery implacement on the shore to the left, pointed at West Seattle? The extra pavement is for ammo storage.

Posted by rodrigo | February 12, 2007 8:11 PM
30

... or dust off the original plans and build a new identical viaduct that'll last another 50 years.

Or just tear the thing down and be done with it. The sky isn't going to fall.

Posted by Ken | February 12, 2007 8:17 PM
31


Unfortunately, the surface-transit option is long on surface and short on transit. ECB, Locke et al would have us believe that we would have a bucolic
waterfront, however this is pathetically far from the truth. What we would get would be a boulevarded
6 lanes of highway traffic coupled with turn lanes of displaced Viaduct traffic. People, would you like to see your kids try to compete with that mess trying to cross it to the Seattle seashore? Oh, and transit?? There is none planned and likely be little room available after highway, housing and building construction. This is what the Stranger, Burnett, Locke and others want for you, and it is utterly wrong.

Now you understand why we never see surface transit diagrams like the out of scale Viaduct provided by the Stranger for the thread. It would be just as ugly.

The ONLY proposal which will minimize vehicles on the waterfront, open up space for business and housing, remove the current viaduct and do it at the least costs of displacement and buildout is a cable-stayed, Bay Bridge.



Posted by Princess Caroline | February 12, 2007 8:34 PM
32

So, Tim Ceis is an architect then? The scale here seems to indicate the shoulders need to be 40 feet wide on one side and 15 feet wide on the other.

Yet somehow, we don’t even need shoulders for a tunnel.

If your BS detector hasn’t gone off, congratulations: you’ve drunk the kool-aid.

Posted by No Kool Aide | February 12, 2007 8:38 PM
33

That's a great illustration. Thanks.

Posted by chris | February 12, 2007 8:40 PM
34

Dear Erica:

I want to maintain the present vehicle capacity because the transit is not in place to take up the slack.

The transit proposal in the "surface-transit" option is BUSES. Those buses will use the same right-of-way that other traffic uses. There is no way in hell that this will make the situation better.

There is only so much capacity, and only so much money. Yes, the Viaduct is ugly. That's too bad. The esthetic cost is simply too high for most people. That is why we will rebuild the Viaduct.

I have come around to accepting Sucher's repair position as reasonable, and certainly I could live with that. But I have no faith that the powers in this city could agree on, much less implement, a transit mode that used another right-of way, like the (cough, cough) monorail. So it appears that a rebuild is what we'll get. Sorry.

Thanks to the Stranger for posting your picture. I think you are totally cute. I have met and spoken with Cary Moon, and I think she is a living doll. But I am hostile to your positions.

Posted by ivan | February 12, 2007 8:42 PM
35

# 29 How could I have missed the artillery placements? - of course the extra pavement is for ammo - duh

Posted by Peter Sherwin | February 12, 2007 8:44 PM
36

"...we lost out on the Seattle Commons (were Paul Allen would have given us a giant park for free) and now we have Allentown. Thanks a lot."

Um, $400 million tax dollars (1995 dollars, no less) isn't exactly what I would call "for free".

Just wait - if voters approve a rebuild and WSDOT decides to move forward with it - they will suddenly discover that it really doesn't have to be so big after all (And for those of you who haven't been paying attention for the last 10+ years, WSDOT ALWAYS intended to replace the AWV with a tunnel until the unpleasant fiscal realities reared their ugly and inconvenient heads).

Posted by Mr. X | February 12, 2007 8:53 PM
37

i think we have the whole debate backwards. all great cities in the world have leaders with visions about what're good for their cities. and most of the time drastic measures are needed. ironically, most of us are not planners nor leaders and the so-called democracy will just lead us to a solution which is most harmful to the city. so what's needed to make Seattle a better place?

- we need better transit like all other great cities;

- we need to be less car-independent coz' we all know that what we have in US won't last forever; we need to plan for a sustainable future;

- instead of spending billions on highway and all the interests to maintain it in the years to come, we should spend the money on other important issues like eduacation, eradication of pverty, affordable housing and etc.;

- yes, the viaduct is a eyesore. it visually, acoustically and physically pollutes our beautiful waterfront. the waterfront belongs to the people not the cars.

if we have these as our visions and goals, then it makes perfect sense to adopt the surface street + transit option. remember we will have to live without the viaduct for many years anyway. do you think people who use the viaduct most (like us living in west seattle) will die off? no, we will adapt creatively just like what humans always do.

instead of heading to a costly solution which will permanently scar the waterfront, why don't we give the surface street option a try, at a fraction of the cost? in the worst scenario, we can always put the god-damned viaduct back if the experiment fails. when London started to charge cars going into the city, people thought it's the craziest idea in the world, now the people love it and want more of it!!

i live in west seattle but i'm willing to sacrifice my personal inconvenience to make Seattle a better city. i hope you will too.

let's start a revolution here. vote NO-NO. we can do it with some courage and we do this not for ourselves but for our children.

(posted earlier at an earlier slog)

Posted by popsicle | February 12, 2007 9:28 PM
38

the 520 expansion is equally monstrous.

Posted by wf | February 12, 2007 9:47 PM
39

Re #11: I don't have anything against rich people in general, just against them making me sit in traffic for longer just so they can have a nice view of the waterfront while they sip their morning coffee. It seems to me the privileged few who can afford to live downtown are driving this debate at the expense of the rest of us.

Re #20: If it's not a safe neighborhood now, tearing down the viaduct is not going to magically make it safe.

Re #37: See, my problem with the "surface + transit" options is they all require a leap of faith for the "transit" part. They all are along the lines of, "let's rip out the highway capacity and see what transit springs up to replace it." This is backwards. You gotta have the alternatives in place *before* you rip out the capacity. I just can't go for this faith-based transportation policy stuff.

Posted by Orv | February 12, 2007 9:48 PM
40

Orv - What the fuck is up with you and this "rich people" thing? Do you really think only rich people live downtown? I live in a condo in Belltown and I make $42K/year. I'm not complaining about my standard of living, but I find it pretty obnoxious to be called "rich." And my neighborhood has a ton of people less well-off than myself. Lots of low-income housing -- Housing Resource Group, Plymouth Housing, dorms, various older apartment buildings, etc. Yes, there are rich people in Belltown, of course. But the median cost today of a condo in Belltown is well below the median cost of a single family home in Seattle. If you hate rich people so much, you're in the wrong place, because they are pretty much everywhere in this town.

Posted by bcp | February 12, 2007 10:02 PM
41

Re #40: I don't doubt there's the occasional deal, but the fact is the median price in Seattle is over $400,000. The old rule of thumb used to be that you shouldn't buy a place that costs more than 2.5 times your salary, which means someone looking to buy a typical place in Seattle ought to be swinging a solid six figures. Granted, things have changed a little bit with today's creative financing, but banks are also foreclosing on a lot of those creative loans as interest rates go up.

Posted by Orv | February 12, 2007 10:29 PM
42

also,

with either the tunnel or viaduct option, both will take several years to erect (i think i've read 6+ years for both) and that by the time either is finished, it would already be obsolete. this will be compounded by the million+ incoming residents by 2020. popsicle is spot on. a functioning transportation system is the correct answer (and can easily be achieved for $3 billion.
it's rather pathetic that this city is so short-sighted and retarded.

Posted by mike | February 12, 2007 10:30 PM
43

Thank you Orv, my thoughts exactly. And all the talk about "connecting" the people with the waterfront doesn't address the fact that it will disconnect the waterfront from the industry that supports the lifestyles of these same people.

Posted by bob | February 13, 2007 12:20 AM
44

This is just not going to go well, is it?

Since this is pretty much hopeless due to a fucking clueless citizenry and leaders who are incapable of any sort of long-term vision, I'd like to voice my support for a transit-only solution (ok, maybe a little 4-lane road would be ok, as long as we're keeping pavement to support transit). Some kind of train running along the waterfront (views commuters can enjoy without worrying about driving!) with lots of capacity, and stations with pedestrian bridges to 2nd or 3rd Ave (sort of like the ferry terminal has) to avoid the most brutal part of the uphill hike to the bus corridor.

Oh wouldn't it be loverly?

Posted by Violet_DaGrinder | February 13, 2007 6:24 AM
45

I can't believe I am the first one to ask this, but why is the new viaduct in the picture SINKING? Just look, the west side has clearly already sunk into the earth. Now I ask: If the new viaduct is already sinking and it is not even built yet, what are we to expect once it is already built? The old viaduct didn't even sink after 50 some years.

Why are the Seattle papers not covering this issue? The viaduct looks like it may collapse before it is even finished. Is that a good use of our tax dollars? Someone please help me here, I am not an engineer just a concerned citizen.

Posted by Jude Fawley | February 13, 2007 7:35 AM
46

Um, yeah, I still want a new elevated freeway. None of the attempted big digs anywhere in the world have ever gone well (or gone on budget). Capacity of 100,000 cars and trucks per day means that surface streets just ain't gonna absorb it, no matter how green your glasses. And at least there's a nice view from the top deck.

Posted by GL | February 13, 2007 8:10 AM
47

I honestly don't know how I'm going to vote. I want to vote the hard way, by moving out of the city I think is going to take a massive economic hit from this project no matter what they end up doing. I don't see how the container port (which San Francisco doesn't even HAVE; theirs is in Oakland), or the rail system (which SF doesn't have, properly; it's in Oakland), or the industry along the Duwamish (still hugely important to the region) can survive this project. I don't see how the downtown retail core can survive this project (I remember what happened to it during the bus tunnel). Without the retail core, all the auxiliary retail -- the high-end Rainier Square shops, the funky boutiques, the trendy restaurants, even the tatty tourist stuff dies off too. No one's going to want to visit a construction war zone.

So, most of the economic base of central Seattle disappears. Even institutions like the Art Museum and Benaroya suffer. The zillion-dollar condo dwellers will be on their own, and without having a conversation with the rest of the city, neighborhoods like that die. Condo prices crash, units stand vacant, and mentally-ill homeless roam the streets. Only the courts thrive. It's back to 1988 again downtown, which is terrible for the city and the region.

If you don't think that affects your hipster quadrant in Capitol Hill and Pike/Pine, you're wrong. You folks can start pretending you live on the gritty urban edge again, as your employed neighbors leave and junkies move back in. Like the way Broadway looks now? Imagine the whole neighborhood, full of huge half-empty condos with shuttered unrentable shop space.

The rest of the city, and the region, cut off from downtown, faces outward, towards sprawl. That's where all the jobs and businesses and economic life will be, further up and out the highways. Tacoma will take all the port traffic, and Everett and points north are building zillions of new large houses for the price (or less) of the small condos in the city. Sure, we'll all be mired in traffic all day, up in Alderwood or wherever, but it will the kind of traffic that indicates LIFE, not death.

As Laurence Ballard points out, Indian villages and graves will halt whichever project they decide on (including surface; there is no "surface+transit" plan anywhere). So you'll end up with a giant muddy pit in the middle of downtown as your final reward.

And the rest of the world will look at Seattle and wonder "how on earth can this happen? New Orleans was poor and devastated by nature, but these rich people destroyed their own city, wilfully."

More cars, not fewer. More sprawl, not less. Crappier waterfront, not Kirkland Village. Who's going to advertise in the Stranger?

Posted by Fnarf | February 13, 2007 8:38 AM
48

Every option except rebuild should be renamed to the "Screw West Seattle" option.

I can only assume you surface option proponants were not in West Seattle the last time the viaduct was closed.

Without the viaduct we will be trapped here for 6 hours a day by total gridlock. The businesses and property values will drop during the construction anyway so choose the shortest construction method.

Posted by Ken in Seattle | February 13, 2007 9:15 AM
49

Regarding Orv's comment #9: Here in SF, we're in the process of eliminating all of our elevated highways. Along the Embarcadero and Octavia, freeway bridges have been replaced by traffic-calming and pedestrian amenities, and the reduction in blight was immediate. Derelict buildings and dangerous dark nooks started vanishing almost immediately, and new homes and businesses are popping up. It's grand.

If you need evidence that planning for pedestrians is better for a city than planning for cars, SF is a good place to look.

For further reading, check out SF's "Freeway Revolt" back in the 50s:
http://www.bikesummer.org/1999/zine/freewayRevolt.htm

Posted by Mattymatt | February 13, 2007 9:25 AM
50

#44 - You and other tear it downers refuse to acknowledge that this is a state highway that carries a significant part of the N-S load. As one learns in economics the action is on the margin - - adding a few cars at peak will have a dramatic effect - a four lane boulevard will not take the traffic - much that doesn't go to I-5 will go through downtown streets. A liitle tourist train will not have any measurable effect.

The biggest canard is that there will be great views from street level. Please go down there and check out what you can see from the seawall. There is a reason most every promotional image is from above, a seagull's perspective.

Fix it and actually build the infrastructure that will allow for it's removal.

Posted by Peter Sherwin | February 13, 2007 9:53 AM
51

And regarding Fnarf's comment #47:

SF does in fact have a proper rail system, thank you very much! :) In fact, the F line runs along Embarcadero ground that was, 20 years ago, occupied by a freeway. It's much nicer now.

It's true, construction does drive people away. For a little bit. But if there's a nice result, they always come back.

Posted by Mattymatt | February 13, 2007 9:56 AM
52

Fnarf @47:

Yup, just look at the results of the 3rd Ave tunnel c&c: downtown is today in fact a complete wasteland with dogs sleeping in the streets, lulled by the whistful sounds of tumbling tumble-weeds; nobody ever goes down there anymore, and all the businesses that existed prior to construction have vanished completely. Surely, the same fate is in store for waterfront businesses, and, as you quite correctly prognosticate, the entire central business district, which faced with several years of construction - a mere five or six blocks away - will see the writing on the wall, and simply pack it in, moving their operations lock-stock-and-barrel to Bellevue or Renton.

Meanwhile, the condo-dwellers will abandon their now worthless properties for the relative comfort and safety of Issaquah and Mill Creek, leaving armies of the homeless, the mentally unstable, and chronic, hard-core alcoholics and heroin, crack and meth addicts to roam the streets in packs, preying on the occasional unlucky tourist who makes the fatal attempt to walk from the Pike Place Market to their now low-rent hotels on Sixth Avenue.

Anarchy and chaos will prevail; children will sell themselves for a few measely crumbs of day-old Starbucks pastries; the city core will be effectively abandoned, and left to slowly disintegrate back into the earth, and all because the citizens and political and civic leaders of our Once Fair City, given a plethora of unpalatable choices, inevitably picked the wrong one.

Fnarf, for your amazing foresight and ability to accurately predict the Mad-Max world of Seattle, circa 2015, I award you today's "Joel Connolly Vision Award". Enjoy your honorific!

Posted by COMTE | February 13, 2007 10:40 AM
53


We are not doing this project for today, we are doing it for the next 50-100 years. Rebuilding the elevated freeway will not handle Seattle 100 years from now. It will be clogged and will need widening over time and then it will be clogged some more. It's a short-term view.

Seattle isn't very dense right now so transit seems like a weird solution/alternative, but that's why we have to invest NOW as Seattle becomes denser over time.

By the way, Orv, I believe the average price of a condo in Seattle is $250,000 not $400,000.

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=downtown11&date=20070211&query=condo


Posted by vision | February 13, 2007 10:50 AM
54

Repair what is there and wait for the day it can reasonably be torn down. That would seem to be the best compromise.

Mattymatt @49 & 51 is spot on. Everywhere in SF where elevated freeways have been torn down the formerly blighted areas have become sought after real estate. However, the geography in SF is much smaller than Seattle and as

Ken @48 pointed out, West Seattle would be royally screwed right now if the viaduct was just taken down. Surface could not possibly handle all the traffic and transit as it exists cannot fill the gap and cannot move freight in any case.

Repair it. And with no facts or figures to back me up...I would bet Safeco Field that repairing will save more than 500,000. Any new construction will be a minium $1 billion over budget.

Posted by CameronRex | February 13, 2007 10:56 AM
55

I for one welcome our new underwater-tunnel enabled overlords and ... glub ... glub ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 13, 2007 11:14 AM
56

@48 - yes, under all scenarios except the Surface Plus Transit and the Viaduct Rebuild it is true, West Seattle will be negatively impacted for 4-6 years. The rebuild only takes it out for a few months, actually, while the tunnel also takes out an exit and forces West Seattle to commute on city streets (already congested) for many many many blocks.

But noone cares about you guys downtown - they only care about their rich property-developer friends who can sell multi-million condos to their comrades.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 13, 2007 11:19 AM
57

#54, you say that the geography of SF is much smaller than Seattle, but that's not really true. San Francisco is squeezed into a 6 mile square peninsula. The central part of Seattle from the Ship Canal to the Duwamish is smaller--the isthmus at downtown is only about three miles wide.

Now, San Francisco is entirely that chunk of peninsula, with 50% more people than we have in all of Seattle. Seattle has less density, not more troublesome geography. We're not going to build density by building larger freeways in Central Seattle (particularly a section that's only 13 blocks long). It makes sense to shore up the viaduct for the short term while we put in transit (rail, not just buses) and make other adjustments. But after that, when it's really time for the current structure to go, we shouldn't rebuild it.

This sucks for West Seattle in the short term, but the best long-term solution for West Seattle is a light rail system to downtown, basically along the Green Line route, and maybe an eventual extension south to the airport. That will encourage density in West Seattle and truly make it an integrated part of the city, instead of the afterthought it is now.

Build the rail first, then tear down the viaduct, and start now.

Posted by Cascadian | February 13, 2007 11:36 AM
58

It all comes down - at the end - to the greenbacks. Tunnel - means every Seattle resident will owe every penny above the $2.8 billion - yes, every cent will come from Seattle-only taxes. Viaduct rebuild - the state covers the cost overruns. Surface plus transit - heck, you don't get to vote on that.

Historically, cost overruns on surface highways (Surface Plus Transit or Tear It Down) are 20-40 percent - cost overruns on elevated viaducts are 20-50 percent - and cost overruns on tunnels - especially in soils that may contain ancient village remains, lahar mud flows, and other fun things - are 40-200 percent. Of course, it could be even more.

Got an extra $3 to $6 billion? That's what the tunnel is. And only we in Seattle will pay that overage.

Me, I'd rather use that money to build transit, even if it's streetcars or pogo sticks.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 13, 2007 12:06 PM
59

by the way, if you have more accurate cost overrun figures, be my guest, but Greg Nickels has a historical figure of 40 to 200 percent cost overruns on projects he's backed. Which means I probably lowballed the above costs.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 13, 2007 12:11 PM
60

My problem with a replacement viaduct is this...people who live downtown by and large are not the ones using it, but they're the ones that have to live with it. People who live in the suburbs, but work downtown/in the city somewhere are the primary users. Those who chose to live in the city shouldn't have decisions made for them by these commuters.

Instead of allowing a monstrocity to be built, ruining the waterfront for another 75 years, I would hope the city of Seattle could use the $2.8B from the state to find other ways to get these people downtown (read: transit). In combination with improved transit, the city should find ways to discourage driving downtown. Some ideas might include raising taxes on daily parking lots downtown, making more streets/exits bus-dedicated, and working with downtown businesses to provide commuter options for their employees.

I, for one, hope the City Council does everything possible to impede the construction of a new viaduct. A tunnel is a stop gap answer as well, but beats the hell out of a rebuild.

Posted by CRF | February 13, 2007 12:15 PM
61

Unless Ballard, Fremont, Wallingford Green Lake, Wedgwood and Maple Leaf are now considered "the suburbs", then CRF's perception of viaduct/99 use is wrong.

When you live in the North End, you likely take the viaduct when going to the Airport and anyplace located South or Southwest of the City, from White Center and West Seattle to Burien and beyond.

My Wallingford and Fremont friends who work in Kent certainky use the viaduct daily, and I am sure they are not alone. I live in Ballard and take the viaduct on any trip going South, even if that trip ultimately ends in Portland or beyond. Same for the return, of course. And ask a cabbie or limo driver about their airport route...bet it includes the viaduct.

My bottom line is that we should construct the cheapest roadway alternative that will shut down 99 S the shortest period of time AND handle at least as much traffic as the viaduct currently does.

Posted by Krueger | February 13, 2007 12:38 PM
62

fuck west seattle. stupid idiots, you shouldn't bitch about the shit pile you decided to sit in.

fuck people who want to commute through downtown seattle to get to kent from north seattle. ever think your dumb ass should live in kent? same thing, don't bitch about the shit pile you decided to sit in.

it's all about a bunch of selfish dickholes who think they should be able to drive a huge car through an urban area willy nilly and not be delayed by the thousands of other selfish dickholes who think they're that important too. fuck if i want to pay for your selfish idiocy.

Posted by sam hill | February 13, 2007 1:06 PM
63

Here's my proposal.

Apply a toll to the viaduct now, and have it escalate over the course of 10 years. The toll provides a disincentive to use the viaduct, so more traffic will be directed to other alternatives that can be developed in parallel (mass transit, surface).

At year 8, the city makes a determination about how things are going, and uses the collections from the tolls to seed the funding for a rebuild or tunnel. Or maybe things have gradually shifted and the city decides that the viaduct isn't needed any more.

At year 10, the plans are in place and the new project begins.

Posted by Homeslice | February 13, 2007 1:17 PM
64

Greenlake, Wedgwood, and Maple Leaf aren't all that different from the suburbs. Sure, there are always going to be occasional trips from the north side to the airport, etc., but those aren't the trips that clog up traffic day after day. Watch the regular traffic...everything is backed up going into downtown in the morning and out of downtown at night. If a major portion of that can be solved by transit, the occasional trip and the reverse commute aren't big problems.

Unless the city, region, and state do something to discourage the major commutes (nearly 50% of King county jobs are in downtown Seattle), traffic will continue to get worse. Why invest in something (a new viaduct/tunnel) when it doesn't do anything to solve the current traffic problems, and does not contain an ounce of forward-thinking?

Posted by CRF | February 13, 2007 2:07 PM
65

Sam Hill,

Well, fuck you too.

I hope you lose your job and have to find one somewhere else in the region - it happens every day to lots and lots of folks. Maybe you'd be a little less of a self righteous prick if you have to drive 25 miles or so in someone else's shoes (to mix metaphors).


Posted by westsider | February 13, 2007 2:07 PM
66

#57, perhaps I wasn't specific enough. The parts of elevated freeways taken down in SF were not the 'middle' pieces of longer freeways but the 'end' bits where drivers are approaching their destinations. And these in reality effected just the 7x7 San Francisco, not the entire peninsula.

The area effected, SF, is relatively small and the vehicles specifically effected were those exiting the freeway. Anyway, the overall impact is much different than the major altering or taking away part of a major freeway.

This is why I support the repair/prepare option.

P.S. I've never lived in West Seattle but lets keep the debate honest and admit that Seattlites (yes, they DO qualify for that title) that live in West Seattle will be hugely impacted by whatever is done. They have an understandable right to be concerned.

Posted by CameronRex | February 13, 2007 2:39 PM
67

Did anyone else notice that the viaduct replacement is already leaning into Puget Sound?!? It's designed to fail!

Posted by him | February 13, 2007 3:27 PM
68

I think rather the idea is that this will simply be the future homestretch straightaway for a 500 mile-long NASCAR track circumscribing Puget Sound.

And that structure in the lower left looks less to me like an artillery piece than it does a "public art" rendition of this pop-culture icon, done in a cubist style.

Posted by COMTE | February 13, 2007 4:28 PM
69

Who the hell is a group of architects including leaders of the American Institute of Architects and who are they affiliated with?

I smell a rat. Curious that there's no links to their website.

Posted by Gomez | February 13, 2007 4:34 PM
70

I think we should allow the govenor to piss away more money like she did to get her job,and not touch the viaduct until it falls and kills someone. I know lots of you think rerouting the traffic through surface streets is a good idea. If I had my head up my ass it might sound great to me too.I drive every day all day all over the city for work,Seattle traffic is worse than any other city I have lived in.The most often heard answer: This is Seattle, we dont beap our horns and we move at whatever pace we want, and magically cars can`t hit us if we jump out in the street.PPUULEAAASE people this is the 21 century. If you don`t want to drive faster than 50mph in the fast lane.Take the bus! it`s good for the environment.If you are the type to look down at people and say this is how Seattle has always been;please do us a favor and sit in your garage with the motor running.Our politicians are wasting our money with indecision and trying to get the public behind outdated ideas. If we refit the Viaduct to last another fifty years what then; is Seattle planning on disappearing after that? We need to make decisions that will last well into the next century or in fifty years we will be having these same assinine problems.We need real solutions and politicians that can lead the way to our cities future.It is time to stop putting off votes and decisions and get some real work done.

Posted by pat | February 13, 2007 7:04 PM
71

I vote we get pat the ability to put space between her paragraphs.

Like this.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 13, 2007 11:28 PM
72

Ladies and gentlemen: We have a population problem in Seattle. The problem is that the population is continuing to grow, and unless we come up with a convenient and far-reaching PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION system, the number of cars will also continue to grow.

We cannot call ourselves a world class city and then build a new structure that accomodates cars only...in just a few years, it will have already reached capacity. The only option is to invest dollars into making public transportation a viable option for most of people who travel in that one-person-one-vehicle fashion every day. Make public transportation attractive, and the people will use it.

Yes, I know you love your car, and I know public transit will not work for everyone, everyday. But it works for people in San Francisco, New York, Boston, Chicago, and all over the world. Stop thinking so provincially - mass transit MUST be part of the solution to the region's transportation problems.

Vote no on the viaduct!

Posted by dc | February 14, 2007 11:52 AM
73


#69: The American Institute of Architects is exactly what it sounds like. It's a national organization of architects that also includes designers and some urban planners. They generally don't jump into political issues in a big way, but have started to get political on this issue. They have an official position that is posted on their website. www.aiaseattle.org

The only "rat" is that architects are really into beauty and like things to look nice. (Usually..."nice" is of course, subjective.)

Posted by aia | February 19, 2007 10:52 PM
74

fmbk djuwcrxp ehapovjc hzatuosdc tkbdcu vnlskbyp bcetk

Posted by nutxjohg vjakxt | March 2, 2007 12:24 AM
75

hvwmyurqn wxmynoalc qnxtcid kqao qejlks roqj mcvf http://www.laqnifvjh.vopdlz.com

Posted by dpeaxt wauvpz | March 2, 2007 12:25 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).