http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/01/12/it_s_a_tunnel_maybe Comments On: It's A Tunnel! Maybe. by Erica C. Barnett en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:45:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
If this were a subway transit system getting built I would be all for it. I'm a fan of the refurbed viaduct, but versus this tunnel proposal the surface option makes way more sense. This is just one more huge taxpayer ripoff and waste of resources. Mayor Nickels is a Vulcan with no logic, blinded by ambition and developer money. Let's just elect Paul Allen to be dictator and skip all the middle wo/men.
Posted by Brian Foley]]> Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:09:10 -0800 The Stranger
The bypass tunnel proponents admit it needs to come with a large tax for various transit enhancements, on top of the taxes for the bypass tunnel. So, we should be talking about what is the best use of dollars for transit in this corridor, if we are talking about spending so many dollars on transit. We should put on the table bringing back the monorail, or putting in light rail for this corridor, or putting rail or at least a bus rapid transit line inside the bypass tunnel with stops downtown (connecting to the other light rail line, unifying everything with rapid transit). If not in the tunnel, do we put rapid transit on the street? Elevated? Where does it go?

Our plans for this corridor should't bypass the need for rapid transit. Streetcars aren't so rapid and they don't increase transit throughput capacity thru the skinny hourglass. The plan to build a bypass tunnel will make bus travel times longer, not shorter. The bypass tunnel serves cars and whizzes them through downtown, but it doesn't serve transit riders, or promote a thriving city of neighborhoods connected by rapid transit. The bypass tunnel bypasses the transit comparisons we should be talking about now. If we are going to spend a large amount on transit, it would seem we should get a rapid transit line in this corridor, yet at present there is no plan for one. There should be one. Either bring back the monorail (plans would be shovel ready, and the real estate prices have been going down recently) or get the light rail plan for this corridor set, or at least, put bus lanes and bus stops in this tunnel so it has some transit purpose and builds some transit connections.

Bypass tunnel proponents are even talking bout a car tab tax. In other words, after rejecting the monorail in 2005 we are now talking about bringing back the monorail type tax, yet we don't have plan for actually building a monorail, or light rail or other rapid transit in this corridor. We should get the discussion going on rapid transit in this corridor instead of bypassing that discussion, and spending billions, with no plan for rapid transit in this corridor.

Planning huge transportation investments that leave transit riders worse off, or at best, that require additional new spending on transit -- just to maintain current levels of transit service -- isn’t the right way to go.
Posted by Cleve Stockmeyer]]> Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:31:27 -0800 The Stranger
If you shrink the throughput on a pipe, you need to either make alternatives to the pipe (transit) or you need to realize the pipe won't move faster if filled with steel bearings than when it's only got a few steel bearings in a much larger pipe.

Think of fluid dynamics and how traffic moves in waves - want to stop a traffic jam? stop following the car in front of you so closely and brake and accelerate more slowly - works wonders.
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:29:16 -0800 The Stranger
Nice try, though.

And, technically, Fremont, Ballard, and many other neighborhoods were cities before they were annexed by Seattle, so you can't call them suburbs in any sense of the word. In point of fact, Seattle started in West Seattle, not downtown.
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:24:32 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Jigae]]> Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:43:40 -0800 The Stranger Posted by joykiller]]> Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:04:37 -0800 The Stranger
I vote for a one-time tax assessment of $7000 per Seattle resident to fund tunnel construction.... which is better than a one-time tax assessment of $700 per Washington state resident (sure to go over real well in Omak)

And why aren't electronic tolls being considered to pay for the tunnel (hey, it's how Sydney financed its cross-city tunnel).

In fact, if everyone's so concerned about congestion and car-culture, why don't we make all of downtown Seattle a congestion zone, and charge people $5 during the day to drive anywhere north of Safeco and south of Denny? Congestion zones have worked fantastically well in London.
Posted by SD Dan]]> Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:47:16 -0800 The Stranger Posted by MadDogM13]]> Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:24:26 -0800 The Stranger Posted by keith]]> Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:50:15 -0800 The Stranger
Tunnel on a fault! Awesome! Frankly I'd rather be squished then drowned any day of the week. Let's hear it squishies!

And yes, all cars should go away, and with them the pike place market (seriously how the fuck do you people think that food gets there... for a while a tiny bit of it got there in my fucking CAR), your access to health care unless you happen to live right by your doc and hospital, your ability to get your drunk ass home when you decided to go to a show outside of your neighborhood, your ability to transport anything you can't carry, every damn thing you buy at a store since none of it is grown or manufactured in your neighborhood completely from crap from your own neighborhood... the list goes on and on. Ever stop to think how the peak oil folks seem just as excited about their "apocalypse" as the right wingers are?

Cars will be gone when Jesus comes back. Until then we’ll figure out other ways to make them run which has already happened anyway. Not that we shouldn’t have better transport options… we all know that. But the idea that we can just get rid of car traffic is asinine and completely ignores the realities of your own life. I don’t care if you have a car or not, your current lifestyle depends on cars period and as long as you live in an urban area it always will.

Posted by Eris]]> Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:48:31 -0800 The Stranger
At a measly 2 miles, this would not even make it into the top 50 road tunnels (I stopped counting).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lon…
Posted by uptown]]> Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:12:32 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Jigae]]> Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:45:34 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Sarah]]> Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:08:28 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Jigae]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:29:54 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Lionel Hutz]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:58:55 -0800 The Stranger Posted by dan bertolet]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:52:28 -0800 The Stranger
I agree we need more mass transit, but unless we're moving to an underground rail system, roads are kind of a necessity.
Posted by Jigae]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:50:04 -0800 The Stranger
For a sustainable, resilient city, we should make decisions with more foresight. What a total disappointment that our leaders do not have a brighter vision for our city.

(Here's the link to Newman's work, if you want to learn more about making cities more resilient in the face of crash, peak oil and climate change: www.sustainability.curtin.edu.au)
Posted by Sarah]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:01:08 -0800 The Stranger Posted by doubleg]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:18:54 -0800 The Stranger
You can pretend that your foes are all car-loving anti-transit suburbanites, but it's not true, and your dream world is not realistic. Even in NYC, London, Paris: millions of cars. In cities like Seattle, with no serious transit choices on offer, cars are a necessity of life.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:15:12 -0800 The Stranger
You might want to try getting used to that.


Posted by Mr. X]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:43:20 -0800 The Stranger
Um, yeah. Try walking from the 7500 block of West Marginal Way to downtown (let alone Ballard) sometime and get back to me on that....
Posted by Mr. X]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:42:03 -0800 The Stranger Posted by keith]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Lionel Hutz]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:25:10 -0800 The Stranger
Um, probably because the cynical use of "safety" by the waterfront/development and/or the "cars and the people who rely on them to get around are evil" crowd as a rationale to tear the AWV down was a red herring from the get-go.

Their disappointment after the AWV withstood the Nisqually Quake was palpable.





Posted by Mr. X]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:23:59 -0800 The Stranger