Monday, January 12, 2009
City It's A Tunnel! Maybe.
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Despite the recommendation of a group of stakeholders to move forward with a surface/transit option and keep a deep-bore tunnel "on the table" (and despite the fact that voters rejected a tunnel, albeit a different one, in 2007), the city, state and county have reportedly all agreed to build a single deep-bore tunnel from King Street to Harrison Street downtown and to build a surface street for local traffic on the waterfront, according to a source. The tunnel was originally estimated at $3.5 billion, but that estimate has reportedly gone down as the design for the proposal has become more detailed. (The more detailed the design for a project, the less contingency is required; I have calls in to the city and state viaduct project managers to confirm the new cost estimate.) The good news, if there is any, is that the city and county alone will now be in charge of implementing the surface/transit part of the plan, which means Seattle will again have a say in redesigning its own waterfront. The bad news is that costs tend to balloon over time (particularly on projects at a very low level of design like this four-lane tunnel proposal, which would be one of the largest deep-bore tunnels in the world), the state has only allocated $2.8 billion to the project, and we're facing a nearly-$6 billion budget deficit.
More to come.
1
BOOOOOOO!!!!!
2
I think the bored tunnel is the only option that makes sense.
In theory, the surface option sounded best -- and I've seen the great success of the Embarcadero in San Francisco -- but Seattle's situation is somewhat different, with higher traffic volumes on the viaduct.
The clincher for me was the terrible configuration of the proposed surface option, essentially turning the lovely & almost bucolic Western Ave into an urban freeway -- without any of the advantages. I love parking on Western & walking its length from the Market to Mariners' games...it is a cool urban experience that would be totally ruined by turning Western Ave into a surface expressway.
In theory, the surface option sounded best -- and I've seen the great success of the Embarcadero in San Francisco -- but Seattle's situation is somewhat different, with higher traffic volumes on the viaduct.
The clincher for me was the terrible configuration of the proposed surface option, essentially turning the lovely & almost bucolic Western Ave into an urban freeway -- without any of the advantages. I love parking on Western & walking its length from the Market to Mariners' games...it is a cool urban experience that would be totally ruined by turning Western Ave into a surface expressway.
3
This sentence is misleading. The general fund decifit doesn't have a lot to do with this money, which is gas tax money, and can't be spent on general fund activities anyway.
... only allocated $2.8 billion to the project, and we're facing a nearly-$6 billion budget deficit.
This sentence is misleading. The general fund decifit doesn't have a lot to do with this money, which is gas tax money, and can't be spent on general fund activities anyway.
4
Very.
Very.
Bad.
Decision.
Totally insane.
Where are we going to get the $6 to $7 billion this will eventually cost?
You want this? Then pay for it with a statewide GAS TAX.
Very.
Bad.
Decision.
Totally insane.
Where are we going to get the $6 to $7 billion this will eventually cost?
You want this? Then pay for it with a statewide GAS TAX.
5
No matter what gets chosen it will get cost more than first estimated. I would like to see the schematics/artist renderings of what the tunnel would look like, but it if adds green space, is pedestrian friendly, and we can keep the bums from camping out on it, I'm for it.
6
Bad and a waste of money.
They are gambling that we will get money from the stimulus package to pay for it. But we need that money elsewhere.
SURFACE TRANIST OPTION OR REVOLUTION!!!!
They are gambling that we will get money from the stimulus package to pay for it. But we need that money elsewhere.
SURFACE TRANIST OPTION OR REVOLUTION!!!!
7
@4, Obama is giving about $800 billion for infrastructure (road) projects that are ready to go. I would be shocked if this didn't pay for the rest of the tunnel costs.
8
This tunnel has no exits, it only connects between Royal Brougham and Aurora Ave. No connections with Western/Elliott; no connections to downtown (now Seneca and Columbia).
During most of the discussion over viaduct replacement, we heard much from freight-movers and industrial businesses about how we had to serve local industrial areas -- the Ballard, Interbay, SODO, Harbor Island corridor. This tunnel plan does NOTHING for these folks! All their local truck movements will be on surface waterfront streets, exactly the same as with Cary Moon's surface/transit alternative. The only way they could access the tunnel is via a lengthy detour through Fremont to Aurora Ave.
If this alternative is to succeed, it MUST include access ramps at Western and Elliott; otherwise it ignores Seattle's industrial community. But since it's already grossly underfunded, how likely is that to happen??
I await reaction from the local industrial community. Do they speak out in support of their legitimate interests, or do they cave for the sake of "getting SOMETHING done"?
During most of the discussion over viaduct replacement, we heard much from freight-movers and industrial businesses about how we had to serve local industrial areas -- the Ballard, Interbay, SODO, Harbor Island corridor. This tunnel plan does NOTHING for these folks! All their local truck movements will be on surface waterfront streets, exactly the same as with Cary Moon's surface/transit alternative. The only way they could access the tunnel is via a lengthy detour through Fremont to Aurora Ave.
If this alternative is to succeed, it MUST include access ramps at Western and Elliott; otherwise it ignores Seattle's industrial community. But since it's already grossly underfunded, how likely is that to happen??
I await reaction from the local industrial community. Do they speak out in support of their legitimate interests, or do they cave for the sake of "getting SOMETHING done"?
9
If they haven't secured all the funding for the tunnel yet, then how is this different than the surface option plus tunnel-still-on-the-table? They're going to have to sink the money into transit anyway to get through the decade it will take to build the hoped-for tunnel, right?
So great. Tear down the viaduct, and set up the transit and traffic alternatives, and then if santa claus comes along with a few billion dollars, build your precious tunnel. If no daddy war bucks, then keep doing what we were doing during the construction/waiting-for-money phase.
Am I missing something?
So great. Tear down the viaduct, and set up the transit and traffic alternatives, and then if santa claus comes along with a few billion dollars, build your precious tunnel. If no daddy war bucks, then keep doing what we were doing during the construction/waiting-for-money phase.
Am I missing something?
10
The tunnel is what everyone really wants. It's the price that has always been the problem. I am betting that there have been some private discussion about a big chunk of the $ coming from the federal stimulus plan... if so, then I think it is safe to say Seattle's consensus-oriented (waffling) tendencies paid off.
11
Good news!
12
the tunnel makes the most people the least unhappy. and that is why it is worth the cost. the mayor was right all along!
13
@7, get shocked. Obama's money will only be given to projected ready for construction within the next year. We might be able to get some street work done, but probably no tunneling.
14
Perfect Voter, lets also remember all the buses to/from West Seattle, White Center, Burien etc that get on and off the current viaduct right downtown. Where exactly are they going to go?
15
Where are you reading that this is one of the largest deep-bore tunnels in the world? It's trivial compared to some of the tunnels Herrenknecht has built in Europe and China (up to 35 miles long, 62 feet in diameter, frequently in pairs). This one wouldn't be all that much bigger than the one they bored under Mt. Baker for I-90 a couple of decades ago.
16
elanchos nails it. so when do the wrecking balls on the Viaduct come out? We're not waiting for Santa Claus to come are we??
17
Sweet! The tunnel/surface improvements is by far the best option as it maintains the cross town capacity while also improving mobility through the city.
18
And also, The Stranger's "sources" report Christine Gregoire will be Obama's new Commerce Secretary!!
AND, the "sources" say her trip to DC will include announcing new funding for the viaduct replacement!!
The Stranger sayin it... always makes it TRUE! Yay!
And also, The Stranger's "sources" report Christine Gregoire will be Obama's new Commerce Secretary!!
AND, the "sources" say her trip to DC will include announcing new funding for the viaduct replacement!!
The Stranger sayin it... always makes it TRUE! Yay!
19
YAY! Tunnel is awesome!
@14
Busses get off at King Street and move into downtown from the South, instead of getting off the viaduct at Columbia and cutting off the south part of downtown from their route. Makes more sense anyways.
@14
Busses get off at King Street and move into downtown from the South, instead of getting off the viaduct at Columbia and cutting off the south part of downtown from their route. Makes more sense anyways.
20
@4 the state's contribution is gas tax, and so would any federal contribution, so there.
In fact, the gas tax is paying about 45% of light rail from downtown to the u-dist. And that ain't a fucking road now is it?
In fact, the gas tax is paying about 45% of light rail from downtown to the u-dist. And that ain't a fucking road now is it?
21
@15 How big do you think a tunnel is that a 62-foot TBM makes is?
Keep in mind there are concrete walls .
Keep in mind there are concrete walls .
22
And what about Buses leaving town that use the viaduct? Add even more time to a south bound bus route? Fun. When a game is in town, cant wait to see what a cluster-fuck it would be trying to go south on a bus.
23
An excellent plan. Win!
24
It's trivial compared to some of the tunnels Herrenknecht has built in Europe and China (up to 35 miles long, 62 feet in diameter, frequently in pairs). This one wouldn't be all that much bigger than the one they bored under Mt. Baker for I-90 a couple of decades ago.
That may be true of the initial segment...but the proposed tunnel extension would connect downtown Seattle to the thriving metropolis of Humptulips on the Olympic peninsula.
That may be true of the initial segment...but the proposed tunnel extension would connect downtown Seattle to the thriving metropolis of Humptulips on the Olympic peninsula.
25
And.
Money spent building this tunnel does not provide immediate economic stimulus. It hasn't even been planned designed yet. It is not a candidate for the current economic stimulus plan unless you're counting on the stimulus being terribly mismanaged.
And if you want Cantwell and Murray and the rest of our delegation working to undermine the economic stimulus just so you can have this tunnel, well, fuck you. We need to deal with this recession and we can't afford to screw that up.
Money spent building this tunnel does not provide immediate economic stimulus. It hasn't even been planned designed yet. It is not a candidate for the current economic stimulus plan unless you're counting on the stimulus being terribly mismanaged.
And if you want Cantwell and Murray and the rest of our delegation working to undermine the economic stimulus just so you can have this tunnel, well, fuck you. We need to deal with this recession and we can't afford to screw that up.
26
El Oh El. Enjoy your tunnel that costs 7 billion in the end. Hwy 99 / Aurora Ave should be simply demolished from the south to north end of Seattle city limits. It cuts far too many neighborhoods in half, and all that precious traffic can go on I5. And before you know-nothing blowhards whine about I5 traffic, go live in a real city like LA -- I5 is a breeze, even compared to what you all call "hick towns" like Denver. You could double the I5 traffic (and we all know 99 ain't equal to I5 traffic) and still only have small jams. In fact, looking out the window at 99 in downtown, I can count 20 cars northbound and 12 southbound. Yeah, real great investment there morons.
27
This "decision" actually means that nothing will happen.
Congratulations!
Congratulations!
28
I say tear it down, replace it with light rail, run the tracks up the middle of aurora all the way to 125th or so and over to west seattle. Either that or have the rail branch off in the batter street tunnel, run down into the bus tunnel, then come out and meat up with the west seattle freeway in sodo. I've never understood why all the "options" always have to consist of car-only solutions. Can't we all work to try and ensure that our friends in the north end and the west side have something other than car-centric transportation options? Is it somehow a forgone conclusion that we can't get these people out of their cars?
29
This all deeply bores me. Just do it already.
30
Ummm Erica.
I sent you a tip on this over a week ago when it was first proposed.
The tunnel is going underneath 6th street. It is an EXCELLENT alternative!
Plus, they can bore the tunnel immediately at cheaper costs. They discussed this during the previous talks. They have much better technology, technique and cost forecasting models now that they have bored the tunnel for Sound Transit.
Note that it is a HUGE bonus to traffic that they can also bore the tunnel now, and because it is going under 6th street, is far enough away from the current viaduct. What does this mean?
THE VIADUCT CAN REMAIN TEMPORARILY WHILE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TUNNEL IS HAPPENING, THEREBY REDUCING TRAFFIC SNARLS FOR 2 YEARS while the other solution is being built.
You hysterical types always make me laugh.
I sent you a tip on this over a week ago when it was first proposed.
The tunnel is going underneath 6th street. It is an EXCELLENT alternative!
Plus, they can bore the tunnel immediately at cheaper costs. They discussed this during the previous talks. They have much better technology, technique and cost forecasting models now that they have bored the tunnel for Sound Transit.
Note that it is a HUGE bonus to traffic that they can also bore the tunnel now, and because it is going under 6th street, is far enough away from the current viaduct. What does this mean?
THE VIADUCT CAN REMAIN TEMPORARILY WHILE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TUNNEL IS HAPPENING, THEREBY REDUCING TRAFFIC SNARLS FOR 2 YEARS while the other solution is being built.
You hysterical types always make me laugh.
31
@30, Yeah, because those TRAFFIC SNARLS were so amazingly horrid when they had to close the viaduct down what, a year ago? Good thing you're spending 10 billion of everyone else's money so you don't have to wait an extra 15 seconds on I5.
32
@Blackhook
Western Ave is 'bucolic?' Dude, you gotta get out of the city a little more. :-)
Western Ave is 'bucolic?' Dude, you gotta get out of the city a little more. :-)
33
@22
Buses leaving downtown that currently use the viaduct will have to travel an extra 6 blocks. SIX BLOCKS. You think Metro is crying over six blocks? How about all those people who currently work on those six blocks who are now happy they don't have to walk north up a hill in order to get on a bus going back down it but to the west? The route now includes them.
Buses leaving downtown that currently use the viaduct will have to travel an extra 6 blocks. SIX BLOCKS. You think Metro is crying over six blocks? How about all those people who currently work on those six blocks who are now happy they don't have to walk north up a hill in order to get on a bus going back down it but to the west? The route now includes them.
34
but what about all the west seattle-to-magnolia commutes?
35
@34 - Start a ferry!
36
Yeah @31 cause we all know rocket scientists like you realize that traffic levels are a constant right? I mean they can never ever increase over time when more people live densely in the area right? And by the time this project is completed traffic won't be any heavier will it?
Riiggghhht.
Maybe if many of the rabid idiots would instead jump on the bandwagon and demand that a high speed transit line be built parallel to this tunnel, and use the opportunity to build the beginning of a true transit station underground to connect Sound Transit to, we'd actually be visionary and progressive.
But you're right. We like our opportunities to bitch and whine with our coffee.
Riiggghhht.
Maybe if many of the rabid idiots would instead jump on the bandwagon and demand that a high speed transit line be built parallel to this tunnel, and use the opportunity to build the beginning of a true transit station underground to connect Sound Transit to, we'd actually be visionary and progressive.
But you're right. We like our opportunities to bitch and whine with our coffee.
37
The tunnel isn't going until 6th avenue, according to the Times.
38
@36
Yeah, "Reality" Check. Since we're spending money we don't have, why not use our imaginary funds to build a rapid transit line too? Wait. Let's pretend we have even more money and build a complete rapid transit system!
Whee. Pretending is fun. Can I have a pony too?
Yeah, "Reality" Check. Since we're spending money we don't have, why not use our imaginary funds to build a rapid transit line too? Wait. Let's pretend we have even more money and build a complete rapid transit system!
Whee. Pretending is fun. Can I have a pony too?
39
StC, 6 blocks? Yes I am bitching about six blocks. It is already a pain and a half getting out of this city on a bus due to the clusterfuck that already exisits for that section of town. Add in a mariners game and you can expect nothing to move. Sounds like you have never actually ridden a south bound bus that uses the viaduct.
40
This is a very bad decision. There is no transit in the tunnel, and there's no space left for a tunnel if we want to run light rail on the west side of the city. The downtown transit tunnel doesn't have the capacity to add a west side line. So West Seattle and Ballard will never have a light rail connection to downtown, or it will be a poorly integrated all-surface or all-elevated option.
The surface will end up better than with the proposed surface+transit, which is a bonus. But we would have been better off just to redesign the surface+transit option that agree to a tunnel.
And the expense! For what amounts to a downtown bypass. Stupid.
The surface will end up better than with the proposed surface+transit, which is a bonus. But we would have been better off just to redesign the surface+transit option that agree to a tunnel.
And the expense! For what amounts to a downtown bypass. Stupid.
41
So much for this being a regional transportation solution.
42
The Seattle public never ceases to amaze me.
You can't make everyone happy all of the time. This is the best of the proposed options. Let's do it.
You can't make everyone happy all of the time. This is the best of the proposed options. Let's do it.
43
@7 - it's not ready to go - it therefore doesn't qualify.
Seriously, do you just not get what 1 percent design threshold means?
Seriously, do you just not get what 1 percent design threshold means?
44
@15: Fnarf, how many of the top 5 largest diameter tunnels pass directly under major metropolitan areas in soft, highly variable soils? With TBM tunnels, even those using earth-pressure balance or bentonite slurry machines, settlement is a huge problem that gets more difficult to mitigate as the diameter increases. The proposed Viaduct tunnel is 54' in diameter; currently there is only one machine on Earth large enough to dig a tunnel that size.
Further, the Mount Baker tunnel is a bad example to use; it was constructed using a completely different method from what's described for the Viaduct replacement.
Further, the Mount Baker tunnel is a bad example to use; it was constructed using a completely different method from what's described for the Viaduct replacement.
45
@18, uh, I remember reading the posts about Where's Waldo, and don't recall ECB quoting sources that either of those things were factual. It was SPECULATION.
46
@21, as big as you ask them to make it. They often run them in pairs, one bore for each direction of traffic. The bottom half (under the roadway, which is across the widest part of the circle) you can run utilities and stuff.
This tunnel would not be a very big deal in terms of the bore itself. Running under a city adds complexity, obviously, as their are other things running under there they need to avoid (including the existing tunnel, for trains, that many people don't know about), and the composition of the soil is a big factor as well. But tunnel construction has advanced a lot just in the past decade or so.
As I said, this is trivial compared to some of the ones they're digging in China, or the Gotthard Base Tunnel.
Tunnels are an essential component of dense urban environments. What we should do is emulate New York and build a rail tunnel UNDERNEATH the traffic, not just through downtown but for the approaches right up to the Port's docks, so that the Port can operate efficiently. That's an aspect of viaduct replacement plans that doesn't seem to ever get addressed. The surface-plan people all seem to think that the best use of our waterfront is contemplative strolling, but in reality it's a major place of essential economic activity. Building a surface option is, ironically, a profoundly anti-environmental option, as it sets aside urban space for "natural" activities, thereby ensuring that more development will be driven outside the city into more environmentally critical areas (like farmland or undeveloped Sound waters).
This tunnel would not be a very big deal in terms of the bore itself. Running under a city adds complexity, obviously, as their are other things running under there they need to avoid (including the existing tunnel, for trains, that many people don't know about), and the composition of the soil is a big factor as well. But tunnel construction has advanced a lot just in the past decade or so.
As I said, this is trivial compared to some of the ones they're digging in China, or the Gotthard Base Tunnel.
Tunnels are an essential component of dense urban environments. What we should do is emulate New York and build a rail tunnel UNDERNEATH the traffic, not just through downtown but for the approaches right up to the Port's docks, so that the Port can operate efficiently. That's an aspect of viaduct replacement plans that doesn't seem to ever get addressed. The surface-plan people all seem to think that the best use of our waterfront is contemplative strolling, but in reality it's a major place of essential economic activity. Building a surface option is, ironically, a profoundly anti-environmental option, as it sets aside urban space for "natural" activities, thereby ensuring that more development will be driven outside the city into more environmentally critical areas (like farmland or undeveloped Sound waters).
47
@44: Don't forget, either, that even smaller deep bore tunnels cause damage to businesses above. While it won't damage larger buildings to any great extent, there is a certain liability that arises through engineering in places like Pioneer Square or our beloved Market.
48
According to the Times:
- The tunnel is paid for by gas tax collected by the state
- It runs under 1st Ave
- Total cost is $4.25 billion, the tunnel's share is $2.8 billion
To the haters: if the possibility of a plan going overbudget is a reason enough not to do something, nothing would ever be done anywhere.
- The tunnel is paid for by gas tax collected by the state
- It runs under 1st Ave
- Total cost is $4.25 billion, the tunnel's share is $2.8 billion
To the haters: if the possibility of a plan going overbudget is a reason enough not to do something, nothing would ever be done anywhere.
49
@45 Notice the word "Maybe" in the title of the post?
That means this is just as "factual" as the Gregoire garbage reporting. As in, not "factual" at all.
More speculation. Unfounded, and unattributed.
That means this is just as "factual" as the Gregoire garbage reporting. As in, not "factual" at all.
More speculation. Unfounded, and unattributed.
50
@44, my understanding of the way these things work is, the machine to bore this tunnel would be constructed for this project, so it doesn't really matter if they've already got a big enough one or not.
51
"Stakeholders" is quite the term. I know what citizens are, I know who voters are, I know who taxpayers are, but who are stakeholders? Have we suddenly created a new class of people, an aristocracy of wealth? The Stranger is the last place I would expect to see that term used in a straighforward fashion. Please dump it.
52
Fnarf @46: "Building a surface option is, ironically, a profoundly anti-environmental option"
You are right, but for the wrong reason. The surface option is anti-environmental because it creates 6 lanes of congested, stop and go traffic, thereby stinking up the waterfront and making the area hostile to any kind of strolling, let alone the "contemplative" sort.
You are right, but for the wrong reason. The surface option is anti-environmental because it creates 6 lanes of congested, stop and go traffic, thereby stinking up the waterfront and making the area hostile to any kind of strolling, let alone the "contemplative" sort.
53
@47 etc. -- yes. That's why they'll probably hire an engineering firm and a big-time boring company to do the job, rather than Slog commenters. "Challenging" is not the same as "impossible".
54
@52, my reason isn't wrong, it's additional. And the impacts of sending urban development outside the dense part of the city where it belongs are much, much greater than just a little car exhaust. Development of rural areas is THE issue of the next fifty years in this region, if you want to continue to have living things in the Sound or the Cascades. We're about 75% of the way towards a new Los Angeles right now, and the conditions become more favorable for that outcome every day.
55
@54: Fair enough.
56
@51 - I never thought I'd live to see the day when someone claims to be envious of the term "stakeholder." And yet, there it is.
57
@53: There aren't too many of those around, and a lot of them end up running into problems of some sort (see: Boston, Vancouver, Beacon Hill Tunnel, LA Metro Tunnel, etc.). Building one that is larger than the usual scheme of a dual-bore and putting it under a bluff with a smushy top, face and bottom is sure to have its problems. Pretending this will be flawless is naive at best.
58
The best news is that the Viaduct remains in place until the tunnel is done. That could be for the rest of Erica C. Barnett's lifetime, which I hope is a long one.
59
Once again the Rotten Urbs are imposing their egregious lifestyle and taxation on the formerly free Exurbians and Agrarians.
60
A tunnel is the north/south arterial we NEED. There are people who need to get across the city and I-5 just doesn't cut it.
Also, with a tunnel you can leave the viaduct up for some period while the tunnel is being built. So we don't have to do without anything for years.
Also, with a tunnel you can leave the viaduct up for some period while the tunnel is being built. So we don't have to do without anything for years.
61
@51: Stakeholder isn't the same as stock holder. It seems like such a strange phrase to take umbrage at.
Stakeholder (n): "Any organization, governmental entity, or individual that has a stake in or may be impacted by a decision."
Stakeholder (n): "Any organization, governmental entity, or individual that has a stake in or may be impacted by a decision."
62
@60, WHY does I5 not "cut it"? Because you'll have to leave 10 minutes early?
63
Awesome!
Now, if only Washington State had an advocate in DC that could steer some funding our way...
Say someone highly placed on an influential subcommittee...
Maybe something like the Senate Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations subcommittee...
Perhaps its chair... (Now who could that be?)
Oh that's right, its Patty Murray. Shit. Well so much for that idea.
Now, if only Washington State had an advocate in DC that could steer some funding our way...
Say someone highly placed on an influential subcommittee...
Maybe something like the Senate Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations subcommittee...
Perhaps its chair... (Now who could that be?)
Oh that's right, its Patty Murray. Shit. Well so much for that idea.
64
@62, the problem with I-5 is not just congestion. It simply doesn't go where a lot of people need to go. I-5 trips for a lot of people involve pointless and aggravating cross-town trips (ALWAYS more difficult in Seattle than N-S ones) at both ends.
65
@62: To add to what Fnarf said, both the congestion and unnecessary trips waste fossil fuels and add to pollution. Adding inconvenience by removing the Viaduct will not drive people to take public transit until transit becomes much MUCH more reliable and convenient.
66
@65: Which is why Ballard and West Seattle will never get LRT.
67
@62 In a number, 520. In either direction for at least half of the day 520 causes awful backups on I-5, even if you're in the left lane. The express lanes aren't always an option. From experience 99 is always a better option if you're going from Downtown to Wallingford, Ballard, Fremont, Greenwood, etc than I-5, often twice as fast. Gernally speaking, if your trip is within the Seattle city limits, and more of it is north-south than east-west, 99 is the better option.
68
@61, It's like this. Whose opinions or will are most important when it comes to making that 'impactful decision'? The voters of Seattle voted, ah, decisively against the tunnel a year ago. So now a different group of people, so-called stakeholders, decide that the decision of the voters is unimportant and undecisive? Who are these people? Most likely, business interests whose well-being is, ah, impacted by freight traffic on the 99 corridor through the city, right? So why didn't they decide to sell the voters on the importance of the tunnel by forming a group with a known membership and perhaps even show they were willing to pay for what they were getting? Instead, our elected representatives meet in secret and cut a deal that meets with their approval and the voters are told like the children they are that the adults have gotten together and have decided what's best for everyone. And the children are told to get their piggy banks, as the adults need them for a little surprise.
To channel my inner Mudede, giving an entity a name empowers that entity, and they already have sufficiency of that. I'd like a name that is more transparent, so I know who to blame for this boondoggle at the very least. Otherwise, just change the form of government and get rid of the window dressing that is supposed to make the citizens and voters of the city think they have a say in the decisions of that government. Instead of a mayor, Seattle can elect a Doge, like medieval Venice.
To channel my inner Mudede, giving an entity a name empowers that entity, and they already have sufficiency of that. I'd like a name that is more transparent, so I know who to blame for this boondoggle at the very least. Otherwise, just change the form of government and get rid of the window dressing that is supposed to make the citizens and voters of the city think they have a say in the decisions of that government. Instead of a mayor, Seattle can elect a Doge, like medieval Venice.
69
The vote against the tunnel was, possibly deliberately, constructed in such a way as to invalidate ANY conclusion that could possibly be taken from it, for or against anything.
70
@68: Invoking Mudede makes serious theorists laugh at you.
In other places, elected officials actually make decisions. Things actually get done. It's kind of nice.
That's the whole point of representative government.
In other places, elected officials actually make decisions. Things actually get done. It's kind of nice.
That's the whole point of representative government.
71
@68 - My name links to the minutes and materials of all the "secret meetings."
73
@46 - we're not built on a nice island of solid rock like NY, though, Fnarf.
Seriously, does nobody actually know the process that created Seattle and what it did?
Seriously, does nobody actually know the process that created Seattle and what it did?
74
I had to do a little dance when I read about this. It's like a second Christmas.
Also, did anyone else catch #29's (un?)intentional pun? "deeply bores me". ha
Also, did anyone else catch #29's (un?)intentional pun? "deeply bores me". ha
75
@64, the only portion of 99 that could potentially be eliminated is the short distance through downtown. I don't think you can seriously call the 5-block "trip" from 99 to I5 in downtown a "pointless and aggravating cross-town trip". If you're really opposed to planning ahead a bit and getting off at denny and back on by safeco, a surface-street 99 will still be there with a few traffic lights.
@65, if the surface-street replacement sans tunnel is truely so horrid as the FUD-crowd is promising, evidence shows (remember when the viaduct was closed?) that people would reduce the true unnecessary trips -- the ones that involve much more driving than the "unnecessary trips" you seem worried about between 99 and I5 where it turns into a surface street -- and combine that with the environmental savings of not building and maintaining a tunnel? I'd wager the "carbon footprint" of the tunnel scenario far outwieghs that of a surface street.
@67 You don't solve a problem with 520 congestion by limiting I5 traffic, you solve it by increasing the 520 flow. That, allegedly, is already in the works. I agree that 99 is, and would be, more efficient for getting me to a lot of places. I'm not saying it's not efficient. I'm questioning the importance of the lost 5 or 10 minutes that I and thousands of others might suffer if we didn't ask every man woman and child in Washington state to each pony up $1000 dollars for it.
@65, if the surface-street replacement sans tunnel is truely so horrid as the FUD-crowd is promising, evidence shows (remember when the viaduct was closed?) that people would reduce the true unnecessary trips -- the ones that involve much more driving than the "unnecessary trips" you seem worried about between 99 and I5 where it turns into a surface street -- and combine that with the environmental savings of not building and maintaining a tunnel? I'd wager the "carbon footprint" of the tunnel scenario far outwieghs that of a surface street.
@67 You don't solve a problem with 520 congestion by limiting I5 traffic, you solve it by increasing the 520 flow. That, allegedly, is already in the works. I agree that 99 is, and would be, more efficient for getting me to a lot of places. I'm not saying it's not efficient. I'm questioning the importance of the lost 5 or 10 minutes that I and thousands of others might suffer if we didn't ask every man woman and child in Washington state to each pony up $1000 dollars for it.
76
@73, Will, it's not even cute when you pretend to have any idea what you're talking about. Some of New York is built on "an island of solid rock", some of it isn't. We've been over this before, when you demonstrated your total ignorance of the fact that there are ultra-tall buildings in parts of Manhattan but not in other parts, or why that might possibly be.
The train tunnels I'm referring to are the ones that come down from various points north to Penn Station and Grand Central Station, as well as the various freight yards. They were built that way in an organized program of total grade separation (and are unrelated to the subway system or the Jersey trains).
It's hilarious to see you regurgitate ideas that were used to defeat your inane positions in earlier arguments. Remember when you suggested building 100-story apartment buildings on the mud slopes of Capitol Hill? I sure do.
Please keep your notion of any "processes" to yourself, dipshit.
The train tunnels I'm referring to are the ones that come down from various points north to Penn Station and Grand Central Station, as well as the various freight yards. They were built that way in an organized program of total grade separation (and are unrelated to the subway system or the Jersey trains).
It's hilarious to see you regurgitate ideas that were used to defeat your inane positions in earlier arguments. Remember when you suggested building 100-story apartment buildings on the mud slopes of Capitol Hill? I sure do.
Please keep your notion of any "processes" to yourself, dipshit.
77
@Blackhook...Western Ave is 'bucolic?' Dude, you gotta get out of the city a little more. :-)
Hey, cut me some slack, tres_arboles! I meant 'urban bucolic' :) ...take the walk & tell me you don't agree.
Hey, cut me some slack, tres_arboles! I meant 'urban bucolic' :) ...take the walk & tell me you don't agree.
78
@70, regarding Mudede, quite right, saying so first doesn't help myself either. My bad. However, while I completely agree on the virtues of representative government, ignoring the expressed will of the voters so shortly after a vote is taken undermines the faith of those voters that their opinions are actually being represented.
Lionel @71, thank you. I am exposed as an ignoramus, can't say I like it at all. I'll catch up on some reading before spouting off again.
Lionel @71, thank you. I am exposed as an ignoramus, can't say I like it at all. I'll catch up on some reading before spouting off again.
79
@73 - Will, I don't know what process created Seattle, but I'm fairly certain that public process is destroying it.
80
@75, do you work for Metro? You seem to live in a world where the only thing that matters is trips to and from downtown.
81
@75, does seattle revolve around you? You seem to be living in a world where 4 billion is an appropriate price for everyone else to pay to save you 10 minutes. A trip THROUGH downtown on 99 is perfecly possible without a tunnel. Have you never seen a "surface street" before? Are you carted around with helicopters in your laz-e-boi?
82
Hah! 81 should have started "@80".
-75
-75
83
I'm pretty sure Fnarf has a secret crush on Will in Seattle.
84
If I could push a button that toppled a high brick wall onto Will in Seattle, I might get a mild erotic charge out of it. That's the extent of it.
@81, it's not about the ten minutes. It's about deliberately closing off arterials, and driving the energy of the city outward instead of inward. Doing so is stupid; doing so while promoting a fatuous and dishonest vision of a glorious waterfront park and boulevard taking up a million acres in the center of the city is criminal, in my view. If surface proponents would be honest about the suburban origins of their dream, maybe we'd get somewhere.
@81, it's not about the ten minutes. It's about deliberately closing off arterials, and driving the energy of the city outward instead of inward. Doing so is stupid; doing so while promoting a fatuous and dishonest vision of a glorious waterfront park and boulevard taking up a million acres in the center of the city is criminal, in my view. If surface proponents would be honest about the suburban origins of their dream, maybe we'd get somewhere.
85
@84, I'm not sure I follow you on how a surface street option pushes urban development outside of the urban core. In fact allowing traffic easier access within downtown like a surface street does only seems to promote and encourage business and development in downtown, doesn't it? More people slowing down and passing through, more people saying "Oh, we should get out and do blah".
Anyhow, that's an argument that I can see more logic in. Sorry I thought you were only complaining about the extra time it might take you to get through the city. I jumped in here late and only skimmed the comments, I see you brought this up earlier.
-81
Anyhow, that's an argument that I can see more logic in. Sorry I thought you were only complaining about the extra time it might take you to get through the city. I jumped in here late and only skimmed the comments, I see you brought this up earlier.
-81
86
So the news is that the Viaduct will be up for at least 5 years - problem solved - Nickles. Sims, Gregoire and maybe even Chopp will be gone by then.
The view is preserved!!!!!
Anybody willing to bet that the project will be done for under $5 B?
The view is preserved!!!!!
Anybody willing to bet that the project will be done for under $5 B?
87
@84: Wow, because no world city has boulevards or high-use surface streets through them?
How about the lies on the tunnel side that not building a tunnel or elevated solution would cripple freight mobility to and from Ballard-Interbay? Because, you know, that's what this solution does.
Claiming that creating a hub-model of urban mobility is anti-urban is specious at best, especially considering the aggressively anti-growth nature of places like Ballard (NO CONDOS, EVER) and West Seattle (No unobstructed views for Master Nickels, no). Everything has to be idyllic 2-3 story trustafarian ateliers with Yet-Another-Thai-Place on the bottom, since nobody, not one person, really truly wants to work downtown. And you have to get from one to another 10 minutes faster than those anti-agrarian shmucks living on Cap Hill.
Can we grow from the inside out for once? Or does everything have to start from the sub-Suburbs?
How about the lies on the tunnel side that not building a tunnel or elevated solution would cripple freight mobility to and from Ballard-Interbay? Because, you know, that's what this solution does.
Claiming that creating a hub-model of urban mobility is anti-urban is specious at best, especially considering the aggressively anti-growth nature of places like Ballard (NO CONDOS, EVER) and West Seattle (No unobstructed views for Master Nickels, no). Everything has to be idyllic 2-3 story trustafarian ateliers with Yet-Another-Thai-Place on the bottom, since nobody, not one person, really truly wants to work downtown. And you have to get from one to another 10 minutes faster than those anti-agrarian shmucks living on Cap Hill.
Can we grow from the inside out for once? Or does everything have to start from the sub-Suburbs?
88
@84
Excellent suggestion, although I would add that the brick wall to fall upon on Will in Seattle be 100 stories tall and be part of a low-income housing tower!
Excellent suggestion, although I would add that the brick wall to fall upon on Will in Seattle be 100 stories tall and be part of a low-income housing tower!
89
@50: It may now be possible to build a machine big enough, but the settlement issue will not go away. Plus, the required depth is some multiple of the tunnel diameter, so there's that. Third, the minimum turning radius of the tunnel is also related to the machine diameter, though I have no idea if that would be a limiting factor, it has to be considered.
I'm not trying to say that a deep-bore TBM tunnel is impossible. However, an unprecedented 54' diameter tunnel, in those soils with so many sensitive buildings nearby and at such a shallow depth, does not look like a workable alternative.
I'm not trying to say that a deep-bore TBM tunnel is impossible. However, an unprecedented 54' diameter tunnel, in those soils with so many sensitive buildings nearby and at such a shallow depth, does not look like a workable alternative.
90
Ballard and West Seattle have both seen explosive growth in condo building, more so than Capitol Hill in recent years.
The illustrations for the surface option campaigners don't ever show heavily used surface streets; they only show a handful of joggers, dog-walkers and skateboarders, cavorting in front of two or three random vehicles on the wide, wide street. Because that's their ideal: a vast vacant area in the middle of the city. Look at how they keep talking about what a fantastic success the Embarcadero in San Francisco is. That's what they want -- not a Market Street, which is redolent of (gasp) economic activity, but a windswept plain.
People in Ballard and West Seattle might work downtown, or they might work in Factoria or Renton or Wallingford, but the surface option guarantees that they will look to the north or south, away from downtown, instead of into it. If you make it easier to get from Ballard to Everett than Ballard to West Seattle, to Everett they will go.
The illustrations for the surface option campaigners don't ever show heavily used surface streets; they only show a handful of joggers, dog-walkers and skateboarders, cavorting in front of two or three random vehicles on the wide, wide street. Because that's their ideal: a vast vacant area in the middle of the city. Look at how they keep talking about what a fantastic success the Embarcadero in San Francisco is. That's what they want -- not a Market Street, which is redolent of (gasp) economic activity, but a windswept plain.
People in Ballard and West Seattle might work downtown, or they might work in Factoria or Renton or Wallingford, but the surface option guarantees that they will look to the north or south, away from downtown, instead of into it. If you make it easier to get from Ballard to Everett than Ballard to West Seattle, to Everett they will go.
91
@87: Define "sub-Suburbs." I live in Wallingford and get use out of the viaduct on an almost daily basis. Seattle is a spread-out city. It's a fact. The surface streets are already jam-packed. Removing the Viaduct without putting something in its place will create a commuting hell -- not just for suburbanites, but also for people well within the city limits.
92
@84: If you do push that button, make sure to film it and put it on YouTube.
93
Then you can all move to Everett. Problem solved!
94
@91: Another fact is that Seattle is getting more dense, so by saying a bypass is necessary you're giving us the Bellevue solution of hurling roads after problems when transit solutions and a reduction in soft use (people who would use a bus or a train if it showed up more often, for example) could easily shoulder the burden of both current, future and theoretical traffic volume.
Sub-Suburb in my mind is a region outside of the city's actual core that functions like a suburb. In this case, one that requires freeway connectivity, interstate-level access and convenience that completely bypasses other communities.
I'd be fine with a tunnel if it addressed regional mobility and not local mobility, acknowledged the downtown core as the hub of regional mobility and was not predicated on lies like "it will increase freight mobility to ballard/interbay!!!!" that will end up skeeting all over downtown even more.
Sub-Suburb in my mind is a region outside of the city's actual core that functions like a suburb. In this case, one that requires freeway connectivity, interstate-level access and convenience that completely bypasses other communities.
I'd be fine with a tunnel if it addressed regional mobility and not local mobility, acknowledged the downtown core as the hub of regional mobility and was not predicated on lies like "it will increase freight mobility to ballard/interbay!!!!" that will end up skeeting all over downtown even more.
95
Nice, Amazon and Vulcan get a multi-billion$ tunnel connecting their offices Union Station with their buildings in South Lake Union and we get to pay for it. (King St <-> Harrison St.)
Why can't the new tunnel just be the underground portion of Route 99?
Why can't the new tunnel just be the underground portion of Route 99?
96
Here's your fundamental problem: by sub-suburb you are referring to about 90% of the population of the city, and your numerical situation is even worse when you consider the region (as you should). I know it's fun to think that Capitol Hill is the answer to everybody's problems if they would, you know, JUST LISTEN, but it's not and never will be.
97
@ 90:
Right you are, Fnarf. For me, coming from Vashon once a week, if I can't get it what I need in West Seattle, White Center, or Sodo, I'll get it in Burien.
Or -- I'll go off the south end of the island to Tacoma. Biodiesel's cheaper there anyway. Downtown Seattle? Less and less there for me.
But hey! The way things go around this town, we'll have the Viaduct for another 10 years.
Right you are, Fnarf. For me, coming from Vashon once a week, if I can't get it what I need in West Seattle, White Center, or Sodo, I'll get it in Burien.
Or -- I'll go off the south end of the island to Tacoma. Biodiesel's cheaper there anyway. Downtown Seattle? Less and less there for me.
But hey! The way things go around this town, we'll have the Viaduct for another 10 years.
98
@94: But Seattle doesn't HAVE a core in the way that other large cities do. Downtown is theoretically the core but most people work, shop, and play outside that area. Seattle is not LA but is much more similar to that than a dense urban area like NYC.
I don't think you're looking at Seattle as it is but as we would like it to be. Its geography and current realities produce some pretty unique challenges.
I don't think you're looking at Seattle as it is but as we would like it to be. Its geography and current realities produce some pretty unique challenges.
99
Well, fucking shit.
Also, why deep-bore? If they're already rebuilding the road bed, doesn't a cut-and-cover tunnel make more sense?
Also, why deep-bore? If they're already rebuilding the road bed, doesn't a cut-and-cover tunnel make more sense?
100
@99: THAT.
101
@99
because the deep bore tunnel is under downtown, mostly aligned with 3rd avenue. You can't cut and cover that.
The proposed cut and cover was tear down the viaduct, cut a trench where it was, build a tunnel in the trench, and then cover that. That was ten years of construction with no alternative route and still didn't allow much re-use on the top of the trench.
because the deep bore tunnel is under downtown, mostly aligned with 3rd avenue. You can't cut and cover that.
The proposed cut and cover was tear down the viaduct, cut a trench where it was, build a tunnel in the trench, and then cover that. That was ten years of construction with no alternative route and still didn't allow much re-use on the top of the trench.
102
@96: Cap Hill, U-District, LQA, Queen Anne, Central District, ID-- central Seattle is not just Capitol Hill, regardless of what you'd like to think. When I say sub-suburb, I also point to the example of Detroit, a city that has long thought things should be made as convenient as possible to get around and away from the central city. You have the Fisher slicing through, Telegraph widened through certain places, 94 obliterating Downriver communities.
All in the name of "well, the central city doesn't matter, nosiree".
All in the name of "well, the central city doesn't matter, nosiree".
103
There's already a big cut-and-cover tunnel under Third Avenue. Kind of hard to build a second one.
104
I still want to know how the hell this becomes a "turnkey" project that is eligible for the economic stimulus. They haven't even begun drawing it.
To me this is a project that is competing for Federal stimulus money from one to two years down the line; once it has been designed and is ready to go. And that timeline to me makes this tunnel compete against using our federal largesse to build real rapid transit instead. I'm not against a tunnel as long as somebody else is paying for it, but the way I read it, they're spending my rapid transit money on their stupid tunnel. Because we could be designing a transit system in the time they are designing their tunnel.
I also want to know why all of a sudden we feel it's safe to leave the viaduct up when we should have torn it down yesterday.
To me this is a project that is competing for Federal stimulus money from one to two years down the line; once it has been designed and is ready to go. And that timeline to me makes this tunnel compete against using our federal largesse to build real rapid transit instead. I'm not against a tunnel as long as somebody else is paying for it, but the way I read it, they're spending my rapid transit money on their stupid tunnel. Because we could be designing a transit system in the time they are designing their tunnel.
I also want to know why all of a sudden we feel it's safe to leave the viaduct up when we should have torn it down yesterday.
105
blow up the viaduct, throw the pieces in the sea, and leave drivers to fend for themselves. those with some sense will just walk, as we have been doing for centuries.
106
@104,
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.
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.
107
@105 - You've been doing it for centuries? Pedestrians are... immortal?
108
@107 are you seriously calling me out on this? all i'm saying is that we (people) can walk and don't need cars. live close to the city, invest in and use transit, it's not that hard. if you love driving, drive a taxi or delivery truck, or move to texas. commuting by car is a thing of the past. grow up, move on.
109
@105,
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....
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....
110
Oh, and cars will be with us for the rest of your natural life - they just won't run on gasoline.
You might want to try getting used to that.
You might want to try getting used to that.
111
@102: of those neighborhoods, only the ID and part of Capitol Hill are the kind of places where you can seriously get around completely without a car, and even there most of the residents have cars. Every day thousands of people in Capitol Hill get in their cars and drive to places where buses don't go.
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.
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.
112
All I know is, I'm not going to be the first one to drive through the 10 Billion Dollar Boondoggle. Smoooooosh!
113
I'm at City Hall where Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability Curtin University Australia, said that "politicians need to see that is $5 billion of wasted green collar jobs." We should demonstrate that this tunnel is not the answer for the people of our city.
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)
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)
114
@113: What would your answer be, besides "NO CARS!!!"?
I agree we need more mass transit, but unless we're moving to an underground rail system, roads are kind of a necessity.
I agree we need more mass transit, but unless we're moving to an underground rail system, roads are kind of a necessity.
115
Fnarf @90 (etc), your pet idea that reducing car capacity on the waterfront would lead to increased sprawl is so cute. Could you please cite some data or real world examples that support your argument? Is there anyone with any credibility that agrees with you?
116
@108 - I must remind myself to not joke with zealots.
117
@115: I think his point is more simple than that. Basically "People will move to a location which permits an easier commute." I don't think we need a study to prove that.
118
No cars would be great, but not likely. It's what they run on that will change. Peak oil will soon force us to invest in rail. Investing in a future that only services cars is short sighted.
119
@118: I wish underground rail was a part of this plan as well. Future-proofing this tunnel would be a good idea, I'm just not sure we will see it happen before the situation becomes more dire.
120
Road tunnels -
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…
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…
121
Kiss your view of the sound from Pike Place Market goodbye. Sure, they're going to put in a park, there won't be a bunch of condos put in blocking all the decent beautiful public views of our lovely water way (can I have some drugs to make this believable please… really really good ones?) ... our wonderful self sacrificing politicians will do this for us rather then take all that lovely tax money the developers will give them to let them build.
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.
More...
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.
122
@121 i agree that motorized transport is necessary but cars carrying a single person are the truly asinine part of our culture.
123
@26 Glad to hear they've cleaned up those bumper-to-bumper messes I was stuck in driving from Santa Ana to L.A. last July. Bring the asphalt, baby!
124
Where's the money going to come from for this $4.25 billion dollar tunnel?
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.
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.
125
@124, Omak can't complain much -- how do you think those miles and miles of Eastern WA highway are funded? By the taxpaying citizens of Omak?
126
@124: The problem is the way highways were built through Seattle instead of around it. We're still suffering for that bad decision from years and years ago.
127
@88 - mixed income actually, with incomes mixed on each floor so as to avoid ghettos.
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.
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.
128
and @110 is correct - even now we already know of at least 10 car models that will be either full-electric or plug-in-hybrids for sale in the USA (which Fnarf probably doesn't know, since he never actually watches those nasty dirty car shows like what they just had where they announced two more).
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.
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.
129
The bypass tunnel bypasses our need for rapid transit in this corridor.
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.
More...
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.
130
1% designed at this stage. No downtown exits. One third the throughput capacity of the current Viaduct. A considerable grade between below sea level and connecting to the Battery St. Tunnel or Aurora that all the drivers in Seattle will have to slow down on. Next to a geologic fault line. Drivers who will drown after an earthquake instead of being crushed, or maybe both, who knows, if the Seattle drivers crashing in the tunnel doesn't kill them first. Don't forget that seawall needs to be rebuilt too, probably first. Years of traffic jams since we don't have enough public transportation to get around the mess that will be started. Industrial and commercial interests moving their business to Tacoma, Everett or other ports to avoid the mess, thus less tax income.
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.
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.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Fort Worth Police Chief: That Faggot Had It Coming by Dan Savage
-
Defense Of Marriage Asshole by Dan Savage
-
Delightful Damage by Charles Mudede
-
Palin to Step Down as Governor by Lindy West
-
I'm Pretty Busy Murdering Arthouse Cinema With My Bare Hands at the Moment... by Lindy West
-
Summer In The City by Dan Savage
-
Things Come In Threes by Dan Savage
-
Re: Palin to Step Down as Governor by Eli Sanders
-
Shirt Lifter by Dan Savage
-
Wailin' For Palin by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (130) RSS