Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, December 2, 2008
City Want to Help Stop the Great Wall of Chopp?
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Then make your presence known at tonight's public forum on the Alaskan Way Viaduct, sponsored by the Seattle/King County Municipal League, from 6 to 8 pm in the Bertha Knight Landes Room on the first floor of City Hall, 600 Fourth Ave. The panelists are Seattle Department of Transportation director Grace Crunican; Downtown Seattle Association chair Patrick Gordon; King County Labor Council executive secretary Dave Freiboth; and People's Waterfront Coalition cofounder Cary Moon.
Some talking points:
• All three surface /transit options for replacing the viaduct are less expensive than any of the highway options, have a lower risk of cost overruns, and take years less time to build than any of the highway megaprojects.
• House speaker Frank Chopp's proposed elevated tunnel costs more than almost every other option—$2.2 billion, compared to less than $1 billion for all the surface options. The ONLY more expensive option is a deep-bore tunnel running underneath downtown.
• Even that $2.2 billion doesn't include any of the bells and whistles—the park, shops, and facades that would make an enclosed elevated highway more tolerable. Instead, those would be funded by a tax Chopp believes businesses will want to pay to move under a freeway—blocks away from downtown's shopping core. This assumption is unproven; if it proves optimistic, which seems likely, we'll be left with a bigger, wider, walled-off version of what we have today.
1
Yes, tear it down! Seattle is known nationwide for this mistake. Before I moved here all I heard was, "They have a ridiculous highway blocking the shore."
2
You might also want to join Grant Cogswell's Facebook group "10,000 Voters in the 43rd Against Frank Chopp's Big Wall" at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=41…
3
FWIW, it looks like the surface option is a wrap.
Financially this looks right - surprising thing when DOT applies local costs correctly.
However there is a problem, now instead of being a financial drain upon the rest of the State Seattle is now a bottleneck for anyone wanting to get to the other side. I'm not anti-transit, but pc harrassment of working folks isn't necessarily good municipal citizenship. Thankfully though this PC stuff isn't being done for profit with this project, and for that, thanks.
However the behind the viaduct property owners, including former City Attorney Mark Sidran, are still receiving a windfall - not at the expense of the tax wallet now, just the costs of getting around the State.
As an interim step going with a surface option is okay, but we shouldn't be ruling out the possibility of expanding capacity on this corridor should the need manifest itself, and Downtown property owners, including the Port of Seattle pony up for the gold plating they originally sought for their property on top of the capacity WASHDOT and the legislature have ponied up for.
One thing about the Chopp plan is that it has additional benefits as well as additional costs, and no hidden profit agendas lurking in the background. I can't say if it pencils out, but I, for one, am still intrigued by the idea.
-Douglas Tooley
http://motleytools.com/blog
Financially this looks right - surprising thing when DOT applies local costs correctly.
However there is a problem, now instead of being a financial drain upon the rest of the State Seattle is now a bottleneck for anyone wanting to get to the other side. I'm not anti-transit, but pc harrassment of working folks isn't necessarily good municipal citizenship. Thankfully though this PC stuff isn't being done for profit with this project, and for that, thanks.
However the behind the viaduct property owners, including former City Attorney Mark Sidran, are still receiving a windfall - not at the expense of the tax wallet now, just the costs of getting around the State.
As an interim step going with a surface option is okay, but we shouldn't be ruling out the possibility of expanding capacity on this corridor should the need manifest itself, and Downtown property owners, including the Port of Seattle pony up for the gold plating they originally sought for their property on top of the capacity WASHDOT and the legislature have ponied up for.
One thing about the Chopp plan is that it has additional benefits as well as additional costs, and no hidden profit agendas lurking in the background. I can't say if it pencils out, but I, for one, am still intrigued by the idea.
-Douglas Tooley
http://motleytools.com/blog
4
Brilliant. Hell, why build a road at all? Let's just turn the thing into a beautiful park with a pony trail! If we can just provide enough rental ponies, there will be no loss in capacity! And think of the views!!
5
To be fair, the $800 million figure for the surface/transit option actually does not include any of the transit. Scenario B needs transit to succeed.
These cost estimates aren't helpful to this process. They don't includes any of the 'building blocks' (AKA requirements) for any of these scenarios to succeed.
These cost estimates aren't helpful to this process. They don't includes any of the 'building blocks' (AKA requirements) for any of these scenarios to succeed.
6
I would bet that businesses would be happy to pony up for the very waterfront location and view that the S/T advocates so value. Restaurants and bars would have the waterfront experience, no noise, and a low volume street.
I wouldn't bet against as the reason to oppose because then if they then come up with the deals there goes your argument.
I'm not at all sure that full city streets and a packed waterfront street will be the nirvana promoted.
The S/T "solution" will demand a real transit addition such as a light rail green line which will add billions to the cost.
I wouldn't bet against as the reason to oppose because then if they then come up with the deals there goes your argument.
I'm not at all sure that full city streets and a packed waterfront street will be the nirvana promoted.
The S/T "solution" will demand a real transit addition such as a light rail green line which will add billions to the cost.
7
The PWC wants the surface options to include parks, beaches, trails, and trees. They have ZERO funding for any of that. How much would it cost to build the PWC's idea for a waterfront? $5 billion? $10 billion? $20 billion? A miniscule park at the corner of John & Summit will cost over $300 million and the PWC's vision is dozens of times more grand and expensive. Chopp at least has realistic funding sources for his park and beautification, even if you think nobody will take prime government-built retail spaces.
As it is, the surface options only include a giant road blocking the waterfront, spaces for surface parking lots, widening downtown streets to make them less pedestrian-friendly, widening I-5, making 3rd ave bus-only, and maybe two streetcars. It is by far the least pedestrian and bike-friendly option.
Seriously, what are you fighting for? All of the arguments I've heard for the surface options (smaller government and space for cars above everything else) are the same as the Republican anti-transit arguments.
As it is, the surface options only include a giant road blocking the waterfront, spaces for surface parking lots, widening downtown streets to make them less pedestrian-friendly, widening I-5, making 3rd ave bus-only, and maybe two streetcars. It is by far the least pedestrian and bike-friendly option.
Seriously, what are you fighting for? All of the arguments I've heard for the surface options (smaller government and space for cars above everything else) are the same as the Republican anti-transit arguments.
9
The surface/transit option is a complete joke. There is no way that this "solution" will ever be implemented.
10
WTF does this mean? Failing to build a highway is somehow "harassment"? Guh?
pc harrassment of working folks isn't necessarily good municipal citizenship
WTF does this mean? Failing to build a highway is somehow "harassment"? Guh?
11
Go Wall of Chopp! This is the most productive thing Frank's done in 10 years, unless you count protecting the BIAW and crappy builders from being sued for building crappy homes "productive."
Erica must be in shell shock from how much this new idea has really shaken up the transportation debate. "Boo to new ideas" she says, without ever giving them a chance.
To debunk:
-Being away from the retail center is not a bad thing - it's creating anoter retail center. It's possible to have more than one. If you believe.
-Why wouldn't businesses want to pay a tax to set up shop on the most walked area in Seattle for tourists? Also ... there's a ton of businesses shut out of Pike Place Market so we can preserve its character ... these bsuinesses could move in under the freeway.
-... and what's wrong with being under a freeway? My apartment's right on a busy street, noisy as hell but I still love it - and I have to do something businesses don't have to do - sleep there!
Get ready to turn that wall ... into a mall!
Erica must be in shell shock from how much this new idea has really shaken up the transportation debate. "Boo to new ideas" she says, without ever giving them a chance.
To debunk:
-Being away from the retail center is not a bad thing - it's creating anoter retail center. It's possible to have more than one. If you believe.
-Why wouldn't businesses want to pay a tax to set up shop on the most walked area in Seattle for tourists? Also ... there's a ton of businesses shut out of Pike Place Market so we can preserve its character ... these bsuinesses could move in under the freeway.
-... and what's wrong with being under a freeway? My apartment's right on a busy street, noisy as hell but I still love it - and I have to do something businesses don't have to do - sleep there!
Get ready to turn that wall ... into a mall!
12
The Chopp Wall of Mall is the best idea if we can't have tunnels. The surface options are unrealistic in both capacity and aesthetics.
13
I'm not sure which is worse, cutting off the waterfront with Chopp's wall or Erica's surface highway.
It would be nice if someone over there at The Stranger could take a fresh look at one of the tunnel options.
It would be nice if someone over there at The Stranger could take a fresh look at one of the tunnel options.
15
Jesus Christ, Erica, since when have you employed cost-benefit analysis? You didn't apply cost-benefit analysis to the Sound Transit rail proposal. If you want to employ cost-benefit analysis, the best proposal is to retrofit the current viaduct, according to local engineers, albeit not DOT engineers. I want to pick and choose where I apply cost-benefit analysis, just like you. On this issue I support Chopp's proposal because it appeals to me. Piss on the fuckin' costs. Let's give ourselves a gift for once. Let's phone Chopp and let him know that we support his proposal.
16
CDC@#10 -
Thanks for the critique, one can always improve - unless you are Erica Barnett!
;-)
The 'harassment' is the supposedly pc green priority of blocking traffic in Seattle. It may well suit a majority in Seattle, but for the 3 million people in the region you are just making life difficult.
The State, through WASHDOT engineering and budgeting, has ponied up the money for the most efficient option. Seattle wanted to gold plate and they, including the waterfront property owners, wanted the rest of the State to pay for the cost.
I don't think the surface option is the best value, but it is definitely superior than to pay for a bunch of corporate welfare - not to mention paying the big bucks for a transit 'solution' that actually makes things worse. It also doesn't preclude future improvements, if needed.
One big problem with the surface option is that it does assume the same level of state funding, even though capacity may be reduced. Personally, I think the State should reduce funding if the proposal reduces needed capacity. I could be wrong though, and a test, via the surface option is the least expensive way to test things out - the other improvements in Downtown might also be good ideas.
Again, personally, I don't think the future is car free, much more likely it is plug-in hybrids, first gas, then a few natural gas, then a lot of hydrogen - all controlled with an intelligent vehicle system which will greatly increase the capacity of existing corridors through platooning and networked vehicle braking systems.
Thanks for the critique, one can always improve - unless you are Erica Barnett!
;-)
The 'harassment' is the supposedly pc green priority of blocking traffic in Seattle. It may well suit a majority in Seattle, but for the 3 million people in the region you are just making life difficult.
The State, through WASHDOT engineering and budgeting, has ponied up the money for the most efficient option. Seattle wanted to gold plate and they, including the waterfront property owners, wanted the rest of the State to pay for the cost.
I don't think the surface option is the best value, but it is definitely superior than to pay for a bunch of corporate welfare - not to mention paying the big bucks for a transit 'solution' that actually makes things worse. It also doesn't preclude future improvements, if needed.
One big problem with the surface option is that it does assume the same level of state funding, even though capacity may be reduced. Personally, I think the State should reduce funding if the proposal reduces needed capacity. I could be wrong though, and a test, via the surface option is the least expensive way to test things out - the other improvements in Downtown might also be good ideas.
Again, personally, I don't think the future is car free, much more likely it is plug-in hybrids, first gas, then a few natural gas, then a lot of hydrogen - all controlled with an intelligent vehicle system which will greatly increase the capacity of existing corridors through platooning and networked vehicle braking systems.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (16) RSS