not witty - the Riley piece was very well written

Kate Riley is an idiot, but she's more credible on this issue than you are, Erica.

That view is a great one... for passengers. I can't look at it while I'm driving because the Viaduct is an accident waiting to happen. At least if I was stuck in traffic on the surface route I'd have something pretty to look at.

The whole pro-viaduct because of the view argument is just bullshit. I went down to the pier the other day to *gasp* enjoy the view. You know what destroys the view more than anything else, the roar of fucking traffic overhead.

The Riley column was a snooze. Seriously, folks, when you write the 450th piece published on any subject, it's hard to get bonus points for breezy writing. And didn't everyone get the word about six months ago that the "people's view" from the viaduct will be largely obstructed due to modern guardrails? Too little, too late.

JR -

That little factoid has been thoroughly debunked - you might check in w/Tim Ceis about what the current on-message soundbite is.

And Dave, they mean the view 100,000+ people get per day from the AWV, not from below it.

Is is just me, or are the anti-AWV hysterics sounding increasingly shrill and desperate?

This whole "preserve the view while driving" argument is hilarious. It's a bit like deciding to move in with a guy because he has a nice view from his condo. Or Pres. Bush ordering an invasion of Iran so that our soldiers can enjoy the scenic Persian terrain.

I remember one guest columnist in The Seattle Times called the view argument "risible." I think that's a great word choice because most of the folks for whom the view argument has merit don't know the meaning of the word "risible." (Actually, I'll confess I had to look that one up myself. Damn elitists with their fancy words.)

may just be you Xie baby.

I think I'd say the same thing about viaduct supporters. There's nothing new or noteworthy coming out of that camp either.

Personally, when I want to drop by jaw or raise my soul, I take a ferry ride to Bainbridge. THAT'S where you get the views.

But this whole "voice of the common man" crap is so typical of the Seattle Times, which is just smarmy.

Oh, and by the way - tear that schitt down.

Cressona,

The AWV is a designated scenic route (the City has let the signage fall into disrepair, doubtless because they regard that fact as inconvenient). You know, like the Pacific Coast Highway and the North Cascades Highway?

So what exactly is wrong with preserving public views that a good portion of the public can enjoy on a daily basis?

Your analogies are tortured, at best, and no less risible than ECB and the Stranger arguing ad nauseum that 100,000 trips per day can be absorbed by I-5 and the downtown street grid if the AWV is torn down and not replaced.

(Now the word risible has me thinking about the whole Biggith Dickith scene from the Life of Brian...)

From the original column: "Watching from a distance is a shrewdly calculating group rooting for the swift deaths of both tunnel and the elevated rebuild, creating a political opening for the fall of the viaduct with a transit-mostly option."

I'm still waiting for evidence that we need anything more than three lanes in both directions (as the surface option would have) to maintain capacity on SR99. Are there plans to expand the Aurora bridge to four lanes across? First Ave S? Any of the other current bottlenecks at either end of the current viaduct?

And you want a "jaw-dropping, soul-raising" view? Park your fucking car and visit any of the MANY parks already along Elliot Bay. Hurtling along in a 4000 pound chunk of steel is not a great time for gawking. No wonder why Washingtonians are such crappy drivers....

What's also hilarious about the "preserve the view while driving" argument is the response of prominent rebuild opponents to it.

Of course, you can't just call someone a idiot. Instead, with a straight face, they had to say, "You're going to lose the view due to the higher guardrails." Then Ceis and gang looked foolish when the Times reported that the higher guardrails weren't a sure thing. Then again, WSDOT has not been very forthcoming with an assurance that the higher guardrails have been ruled out.

ECB,
Go after this pro-AWV argument if you want. It is by far not the greatest reason for viaduct replacement. What is, however, is that we have CAPACITY for freight, vehicles, trucks and buses. When we don't, we have gridlock, with massive pollution.
I know you have a hatred for cars and the like, but the things you eat/use everyday do not get to you by magic. We have to make more cars run on cleaner energy (hybrids, electric, etc.) The reality is that cars will not go away no matter how much you wish.

Signed, One Who Drives a Prius, Voted No on 1, Yes on 2

Mr. X,

Why should we be paying $2.8 billion (probably more once the lawsuits and other inevitable delays ratchet up the costs of the elevated) to preserve views that last for about a minute? And shouldn't drivers be keeping their eyes no the road? And how do the Pacific Coast Highway and the North Cascades Highway, which last for a substantial distance, at all compare with our short little Viaduct?

Mr. X: Cressona,

The AWV is a designated scenic route (the City has let the signage fall into disrepair, doubtless because they regard that fact as inconvenient). You know, like the Pacific Coast Highway and the North Cascades Highway?

So what exactly is wrong with preserving public views that a good portion of the public can enjoy on a daily basis?

Mr. X, thanks for the information. I didn't know until now that the Alaskan Way Viaduct is a designated scenic route. You would think that with all the reportage on this issue a crucial data point like that would have gotten out by now. I mean, why the heck are we even arguing this issue when we have a mandate to preserve that view for future generations of drivers?

Y'know, Teddy Roosevelt gets a lot of credit for establishing our national parks system. But shouldn't we give just as much credit to those great leaders and naturalists, whoever they are, who have managed to preserve our country's rich heritage by protecting the views we can all enjoy while operating a motor vehicle traveling 50 miles an hour?

OK, fine. There is no view from the Viaduct. War is also peace, freedom is slavery, and we've always been at war with Oceania....

Hey Cressona: How's that RTID plan you like coming together?

You do understand that because of ESHB 2871 from last session, huge amounts of RTID taxes from Seattle would be used to compensate for the ST subarea deficits elsewhere, like in East King County and Pierce County, right?

That means RTID would send hundreds of millions in taxes from Seattle down to Pierce County to pave a huge cross-base highway. Plus, RTID would cost Seattle taxpayers billions that would go to widening roads in the Cascade foothills. In contrast, Seattle taxpayers get very limited road work for their RTID taxes.

Last time you posted about this, you said it was important to you that we pay through the nose for the exurban sprawl-fetishists to have peddle-to-the-metal commutes in their SOV's. You are still a big fan of RTID, right?

Personally, I love the view.

And agree that RTID is rotting and festering as we speak.

FOS @ 14,

So the 100,000+ people in this City who live west of SR 99 and for whom no mass transit is planned for DECADES (at least) can still get from point A to point B, that's why.

Personally, I'll take a functional (and, compared to any version of a tunnel - affordable) road with a view over a new wall of million dollar condos any day.

That said, my first choice is still retrofit.

Archimedes: Hey Cressona: How's that RTID plan you like coming together?

Archimedes, RTID is a bit off-topic here, no? And who knows what form it will even take? I sure would hate to see a cross-base highway, though. (And if you can find that post where I said, "it was important to you that we pay through the nose for the exurban sprawl-fetishists to have peddle-to-the-metal commutes in their SOV's," I'd love to see it. Of course, if you did, you'd be going even further off-topic.)

P.S. I guess Archimedes is not the first Seattleite to devote their greatest tenacity and ferocity to fighting people on their own side.

Hmmm. What about a surface road? Is the viaduct that much busier than Lakeshore Drive in Chicago?

(before anyone freaks out, I have not been on Lakeshore Drive since 1974, and I know they've redone it since then)

Just where did this "wall of million dollar condos" fiction come from? Isn't the land under the viaduct owned by the state? So, no condos there. Is there some automatic repeal of building height limits that would kick in if the AWV wasn't there? No, building heights along the viaduct route would remain at thier current limits, slightly higher than the current viaduct. Seems to me that this "wall of million dollar condos" trope is nothing but class warfare.

Oh, and full disclose I live on 2nd and can see the viaduct from the deck of my substansially less than 1 million dollar condo, as can the folks in public housing on western, and the retirees at Pioneer house also on western.

Cressona: Here is the latest RTID plan, the “Blueprint for Progress:”

http://www.rtid.org/blueprint.html

You back this? Archimedes is correct: the huge difference between what Seattle pays and what it would get in projects is because of the disproportionately large roads spending in East King and Pierce Counties. You can see that from the numbers in the "blueprint."

And the cross-base highway expenses are HUGE. There is an environmentalist-group lawsuit already over that cross-base highway project . . . .

Mr. X: OK, fine. There is no view from the Viaduct. War is also peace, freedom is slavery, and we've always been at war with Oceania....

Mr. X, just a piece of advice on the straw-man arguments. They work a lot better when they're not completely out of context of anything anyone else has said. I mean, if you are going to go all Orwellian on us, you at least shouldn't have to make something up to go all Orwellian about.

Is is just me, or are Mr. X's pro-AWV hysterics sounding increasingly shrill and desperate?

Mr. X,

Re your complaints about mass transit for W Seattle/Ballard. In fact, the SR-99 corridor is getting the bulk of the Seattle money from Transit Now to bolster transit service between West Seattle, Downtown, and Ballard.

See:
http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/transitnow/about.stm

Tom Byers has also nicely articulated how that corridor could be further enhanced to speed up bus service. FoS would be interested in one day supporting rail through there, but until population densities grow in that area, light rail mass transit doesn't make any sense, and BRT is the most cost-effective solution.

Don Franklin @23. Thanks for the link and I'll have to educate myself more on the RTID issue. I have never been aware of proposals to commingle RTID and ST funds and I can only hope that doesn't come to pass.

Anyway, one transportation crisis at a time please! I'm stressed out enough about the viaduct right now.

I'm not the one who started with the invasion of Iran analogies, dude. I'd say I'm actually more strident than shrill, but hey, I'm one of those evil, evil people who rely on a car to get around, what I say probably doesn't matter much to all of you Kewl Kidz on Slog anyway.

And Dave, have you been up Western Ave further north or on SR 99 north of the Battery Street Tunnel lately? Those sure look like walls of condos to me (granted, the ones on SR 99 probably only go for $750k or so).

There is no money for a new waterfront park (or promenade, to be more accurate about it), and the most likely result of freeing up waterfront view property is that Waterfront Landings Mark 2, 3, 4 and so on will be the result. It is simply naive to think otherwise.

Question for FoS @25. What about monorail for that corridor? SDOT has already identified monorail as the preferred technology for Ballard and a viable technology for West Seattle in its intermediate-capacity transit study. For that matter, what about the possibility of starting with BRT and transitioning to monorail?

"I have never been aware of proposals to commingle RTID and ST funds and I can only hope that doesn't come to pass."

It is not commingling, per se.

My understanding is that the idea is supposed to work like this. With Sound Transit, there is a subarea equity policy - spending in a subarea must be roughly proportional to the amount of taxes from that subarea. So much spending on light rail in the North King Co. subarea (Seattle) has taken place, there is a spending "deficit" in other subareas. RTID will address that imbalance. Seattle RTID taxes would be disproportionately spent in other areas, and that would be credited against the ST subarea equity imbalances. Hope that helps!

FoS,

If you think BRT is an adequate replacement for the AWV in the eyes of the people who now rely on it, you obviously don't live west of SR99. Sound Transit won't even be running to Husky Stadium until 2016 - 20 years after it was approved by voters (and it won't get to the core of the U-District as originally promised until 2024!).

And call me crazy (and I know you will!), but if anti-AWV people give me the choice between believing their bleatings about how their isn't a view from the AWV and my own lying eyes, I'll happily call them Orwellian for it - as I suspect most of the people who take those 110,000 trips per day, as well...

X,

So where will they put waterfront landings 2,3 &4? Seems to me that a belief that the state will sell the land under the viaduct for the construction of more condos is naive.

Not to mention that the "Walls of million dollar condos" is nothing more than phony working-classism.

Build a five lane cable stay bridge
adjacent to Elliott Bay. Free up
the entire corridor for additional
business, housing, etc.

BRT from West Seattle to Ballard.

Incorporate the Burke Gillmam Trail
as a transit path.

That little factoid has been thoroughly debunked - you might check in w/Tim Ceis about what the current on-message soundbite is.

No, it hasn't -- no views from the new viaduct except for you in your hummer h2. Cite your many (non-existent) thorough sources that debunk the WSDOT and SDOT, please.

The AWV is a designated scenic route (the City has let the signage fall into disrepair, doubtless because they regard that fact as inconvenient). You know, like the Pacific Coast Highway and the North Cascades Highway?

No, it's not -- there's no such thing as a "designated scenic route" unless you "designated" it yourself because it's the only thing you ever see outdoors. The viaduct is sure as hell not a National Scenic Byway and it's not even close to being one of Washington State's many designated Scenic Byways.

Please stop making shit up, Mr. X.

Height limits in the heart of the miracle 3/4 mile have been raised to 160' about three times the current viaduct.

http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/height_density.htm

Scroll down to "Map" pdf near the bottom. If someone can make this link work more easily please do.

The drive is 2 minutes - not an argument just a fact.

The guard rails might be 4 inches higher but if a variance for shoulders can be done, railings shouldn't be a problem - once again just a reality.

Or: Why the fuck should I care what some knuckle-dragger on Cap Hill thinks the state should do with my money? Seattle folks seem to forget that the Viaduct belongs to the state, not them. As someone who's pro-enviro and pro-transit, I lean towards the surface+transit idea, but frankly I don't give two shits what people in Seattle want me to do about their view. My taxes are paying for it just as much as yours are, so suck it. The "I'm from Seattle, so I get to decide" argument is just as lame and bullshit as the "keep it for the view" argument.

You wanna talk about doing something on 1st Ave or Broadway? That's all Seattle, baby, so bitch away. The rest of us get a voice on the state projects, though.

Mr. X: And call me crazy (and I know you will!), but if anti-AWV people give me the choice between believing their bleatings about how their isn't a view from the AWV and my own lying eyes, I'll happily call them Orwellian for it...

Mr. X, first a little grammatical advice. I think you meant "there," not "their." Anyway, who the heck is claiming there is no view from the viaduct?

I do appreciate your statement: "If you think BRT is an adequate replacement for the AWV in the eyes of the people who now rely on it, you obviously don't live west of SR99."

I'm not against buses, and I think that BRT (oxymoronic as it is) can be better than regular buses. But it's still buses traveling in lanes that have to cross streets and traffic just like the cars do. And I get a little leery when people who stake their claim as transit and density supporters are so quick to embrace it in corridors where we have had the expectation of better.

I mean, West Seattle was supposed to have the Green Line. West Seattle has had the viaduct. And buses, with a limited amount of dedicated new infrastructure, is a real step down from either.

Switzerblog, you know why we get to decide? There are two reasons. The first is that this thing only runs through Seattle, so we have to deal with all the consequences. The other thing? We've got the fucking numbers. We can and will break any politician that fucks with us. We've got the votes, we've got the money for campaigns, and we've got the organization. So, yeah, give us your opinion on the viaduct. Just don't be surprised that we don't give a fuck what it is.

Mr. X,

First, don't mischaracterize the view issue. No one contests that there is a view from the Viaduct. The question is how much we should take the view into account in our decision. We would say not at all, for five reasons: (1) the view only exists northbound, (2) it lasts for merely a minute, (3) drivers should have their eyes on the road anyway, (4) the barriers on the replacement will obstruct some views from smaller vehicles, and (5) when spending more than $2.8 billion on a replacement the view for drivers should be small consideration. You must explain to the public why the millions of taxpayers in this state should finance the view of 50,000 drivers (northbound only). The issue isn't the existence of the view. The issue is whether the view is worth it.

Second, we do not say BRT is an adequate replacement. Do not mischaracterize. We merely pointed out earlier that an increase in mass transit is in fact scheduled for the communities along the SR-99 corridor. The issue, obviously, becomes what role that transit should play in the strategy for replacing the Viaduct. It's one thing - amongst many, many, many things - that we can do to move people and freight. We'll say that again: one thing amongst many. We'll say it another way: not a panacea, but one tactic that we can use.

FoS in response to Mr. X: Second, we do not say BRT is an adequate replacement. Do not mischaracterize. We merely pointed out earlier that an increase in mass transit is in fact scheduled for the communities along the SR-99 corridor.

An increase in "mass transit" is scheduled for that corridor? Actually, an increase in bus service is scheduled for that corridor. I'm willing to tolerate the use of the oxymoronic, ill-defined term "bus rapid transit." Just as I'm willing to see BRT get applied in places where we have not had the expectation of better. But please, let's not start calling bus service "mass transit."

Sherwin: I don't know where your "might be 4 inches taller" figure is coming from, but it's not accurate. The new guard rails would be have a solid concrete portion about 2.5 feet taller, plus at least a 10" effectively solid guard rail. These measurements (and the linked picture) are the bare minimum and exact figures haven't been decided.

I'm so fucking sick of the "view = good" argument. You know why? It's not just cause it's a goddamn road and you should be driving on it - it's that I hear all these damn elitist upper-middle-class wankers talk about how it's free.

It's only "free" if you own a car, jackass! As long as you can afford the thousands it takes to buy, maintain, fuel, park, and insure a car in Seattle, then you get the small joy of looking out your window whilst on 99 northbound. All us other low-class folks or non-car-owners get to pay $1.25 to go out of our way to ride the 21, huh?

Jennifer,

"The SR 99 corridor is also designated a City of Seattle Scenic Route, as is the adjacent surface street from South King Street to South Broad Street, as indicated in Exhibit 30-2" (from the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall replacement project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, March 2004, Appendix D, P.33)

Local News: Sunday, March 19, 2006

The view from the viaduct

By Mike Lindblom

Seattle Times staff reporters

Even if voters back the estimated $3.6 billion tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct instead of the cheaper elevated option, solid barriers still would be a part of the project. They would appear on elevated segments at Pine and South Dearborn streets.

Eight months before an expected public vote on Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement — underground versus elevated — the pro-tunnel administration of Mayor Greg Nickels has a message for drivers who treasure their sunset views.

"You won't be able to see from a passenger vehicle," Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis told the City Council last week. Any elevated highway would require a solid concrete barrier, unlike the existing barrier that lets motorists peek between twin concrete railings.

However, views aren't necessarily doomed.

The state Department of Transportation (DOT) says national safety standards require a solid Jersey barrier or similar wall that is 32 inches high. That is four inches lower than the viaduct's current 36-inch guardrail. (The windows on a typical sedan start about three feet up, so virtually every driver sits taller than the guardrail.)

The new barrier also could rise a few inches. Viaduct project director Ron Paananen of DOT said a 10-inch aluminum railing might be added atop the 32-inch concrete portion. He emphasizes the road has not been designed. At a total of 42 inches, the guardrail would be elbow-high, to protect people who need to get out of stalled cars.

Windows on trucks, SUVs and buses still would allow views over the railing and many sedan passengers still could see the Olympic Mountains and Alki Point."

So, in the absolute worst case scenario, you could still see the Olympics and across the water. But I'm just making this shit up. Righto.

Sorry, didn't read the name carefully, I meant Jamier...

...same for the typo Cressona pointed out. Must...get..back..to...work....now....

El Ganador,

Lots and lots of buses use the AWV, too, so those transit riders benefit from it, as well.

FoS, there IS a southbound view from the AWV, albeit less spectacular than the northbound one. A lot better than you'll get from a tunnel or surface road, though, and the 2 minute view (and trip!) from the elevated will be replaced by a 20 minute crawl along the waterfront. BTW - you're lucky those "millions of taxpayers from the State" can't weigh in - they'd vote for the elevated replacement overwhelmingly (if only to put their thumb in collective eye of the Downtown Seattle business and political establishment).

Jamier,

Thanks for the link. I read that the current rail is 35.75" and the new one would be 42" - so 6" higher. The bottom of my window in my smallish sedan is at 38" - it could block my vision of the piers. I'm not for a rebuild but I'm not buying the view will be gone argument.

Gitai @ 37:

We've got the fucking numbers. We can and will break any politician that fucks with us. We've got the votes, we've got the money for campaigns, and we've got the organization. So, yeah, give us your opinion on the viaduct. Just don't be surprised that we don't give a fuck what it is.

Hm. I wonder why folks in Eastern Washington think Seattle voters are elitist arrogant fucks? Can't imagine how that idea got started...and I can't wait to see how you'll use your voters to "break" politicians who don't represent the districts within Seattle's city limits (you know, the majority of the legislators who decide how to spend state money).

SWITZERBLOG Wrote:
"Hm. I wonder why folks in Eastern Washington think Seattle...."

Or voters in T-Town, Snohomish, Bellingham, etc., etc., etc.

---Jensen

"No, it's not -- there's no such thing as a "designated scenic route" unless you "designated" it yourself because it's the only thing you ever see outdoors. The viaduct is sure as hell not a National Scenic Byway and it's not even close to being one of Washington State's many designated Scenic Byways."

As Mr. X said, it's a City of Seattle Scenic Route. Unfortunately the City hasn't maintained the Scenic Route signs since they were installed (probably) in the 60s or early 70s. There might still be a few of the signs around town somewhere -- they showed a stylized trident with trees between the tines. They were green and blue on a white background, labeled "Scenic Route" with, I think, the number of the route. Whether the Scenic Route status is still official in any way, I don't know, but growing up here I saw the Scenic Route signs all the time. (I remember being confused about the logo on the signs when I was young -- I didn't understand the shape was supposed to be a trident. I thought it was a hood ornament!)

Of course, sometimes it seems like most of the people here now didn't grow up here and don't know this stuff.

Way to rally, Mr. X.

Jensen @48 - very true. It's not like you're getting asked to the dance when you tell 'em you're there from Seattle.

They are, however, busy building roads, malls of every kind, and lots of houses.

LLOYD Wrote:
"They are, however, busy building roads, malls of every kind, and lots of houses."

You are right, Lloyd, and these areas are no longer dependent on Seattle. They are COMPETING with Seattle and winning. They have their own road and transit needs, and they get tremendously frustrated when they see Seattle endlessly dicker over bad to worse choices. I hear it daily, they are increasingly demanding more of their share of the pie. Frankly, I don't blame them.

Unfortunately, we approached the problem wrong from the beginning. We should have had federal funds for the Viaduct and 520 guaranteed immediately
after the Nisqually Quake, however our
city, state and congressional representatives let us down. They completely failed to do the job they were elected to do. But hell, that's water under the bridge...or Viaduct now.

---Jensen

Hey, if the yokels in Eastern Washington don't like us dominating state politics, they should fucking secede. I wouldn't mind not having to transfer my tax money to subsidize their anachronistic economy. In the meantime, we'll keep determining who holds statewide office.

So what's it gonna be, Cressona? You gonna' represent for RTID?

Anyone know how much Seattle gets back from the state to use for transportation projects vs. how much the city's citizens pay in taxes? Those roads in Eastern Washington don't build themselves.

For the record, I think this bickering between Seattle and the rest of the state is stupid. But Seattle IS the economic heart of the State.

Money needs to be spent wisely but to force a structure on the city that it doesn't want won't work either...and democrats cannot get elected in this state without the overwhelming support of Seattle voters.

i don't understand how anyone can enjoy the view from the viaduct. i'm always clutching the steering wheel chanting, "please don't fall down, please don't fall down, please don't fall down..."

I believe the official odds are that there is a 1 in 10 chance that an earthquake intense enough to damage the viaduct badly enough to endanger users will strike in the next twenty years - so if one drives it every day back and forth at 3 minutes a direction that would make the odds 1 in 2400 one would be on it - fatality rate one in 10,000. If you drive it once a week 1 in 70,000.

Enjoy the view.

CAMERONREX Wrote:
"But Seattle IS the economic heart of the State."

Your notion may have been true 10-15 years ago, but not today. If you are talking about Seattle within it's boundaries, I will disagree. If you are including Seattle, with Bellevue, Kent, Renton, Lynnwood, Vancouver, etc, etc, I would agree. The problem you have now is that the Bellevue's, Renton's, et al's are competing for the same pool of dollars that the City of Seattle is competing for, and they have the same sort of infrastructure problems as Seattle.

---Jensen