Slog
News & ArtsMonday, June 7, 2010
City What He Said
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Goldy on the tunnel...
Okay, it’s a “state fucking highway.” Great. Then let the state pay for it. Including any cost-overruns. Especially considering that, unlike the existing Viaduct, the new deep bore tunnel will include no exits or onramps.Did you hear that folks? No exits or onramps! This is a tunnel explicitly designed not to serve downtown Seattle, but rather folks seeking to drive through it, and because of the lack of exits comparable to those northbound at Seneca and Western, and the rush hour traffic backups they create, the tunnel will be much better suited to this particular purpose than any of the other proposed options.
So don’t give me this shit about how if Seattle wants its “gold-plated tunnel” Seattle taxpayers should have to pay for it. Yes, the removal of the existing Viaduct will open the waterfront to redevelopment, but the much cheaper surface/transit option would have done same while providing far better ingress and egress to downtown Seattle than a deep bore tunnel with no exits.
In fact, the only people who will benefit from the tunnel over the surface/transit option will be those seeking to drive through downtown Seattle without being slowed down by the street traffic above.
So yeah, Highway 99 is a state highway, and the state rejected the less expensive surface/transit option in favor of the deep bore tunnel so as to better meet the needs of the thru-traffic driving on it. You win some and you lose some. I can live with that. And I’m guessing, in the long run, so can the Mayor.
But the Governor and the Legislature are making an awfully big mistake if they insist on giving McGinn no political exit.
Go read the whole thing.
1
The surface/transit option is not an option. You only need to look at Viaduct traffic for half a minute to see that throwing that amount of cars and trucks on to surface streets and asking people to take the bus would just not fucking work. Some of us don't want to live in the city and bike everywhere or spend twice as much time getting to where we're going on the bus.
2
In 1960, voters approved an $11 million omnibus highways bond issue for the R. H. Thomson Expressway (then the Empire Expressway), for an expressway route along Shilshole Avenue, for ramps to connect the Alaskan Way Viaduct to downtown Seattle, and for an extension of the Spokane Street viaduct westward to a connection with Harbor Avenue SW. At the same election, an additional bond issue of $1,925,000 was approved to help finance design and construction of a Mercer Street connection between Aurora Avenue N and the proposed Interstate 5.
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?Dis…
WSDOT is basically recreating the original failed AWV/Spokane Street configuration that proved to be completely flawed, one that Seattle voters had to foot the bill to fix.
Which means when traffic gets really terrible when the tunnel opens, they're going to make Seattle pay to fix the problem. Just like last time.
Also, when the AWV was built, a pretty busy business district on First Avenue South was destroyed. If we're repeating history, let's go whole hog and destroy businesses like last time.
Looks like The Gates Foundation is a likely candidate:
Last May, foundation leaders formally asked the city to add a route option skirting the campus. Turning up the heat in July, Choe wrote to then-Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis that a route through the campus would “create tens of millions of dollars of financial damage to our headquarters site — damages that the city would be obligated to pay.”
The route would “disrupt our work,” Choe wrote, “exposing the City to substantial tort damages.”
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/s…^3320511
3
I don't like the fact that the city is still on the hook for cost over-runs, and I hope that gets put onto the state instead. But what's the big deal about the tunnel not having exit or onramps downtown? After the first read, I thought, "Yeah! Without exit or onramps in the city, the city shouldn't have to pay for it!". But it's just *downtown* that doesn't have onramps or exit ramps. Big deal. So what? There's a lot more to the city than downtown. The city will still benefit from the tunnel. I don't get it.
4
there are already STOP LIGHTS down at michigan and up at Green Lake. i just don't get where the traffic's going in such a hurry. to those traffic lights? to mercer?
5
"In fact, the only people who will benefit from the tunnel over the surface/transit option will be those seeking to drive through downtown Seattle without being slowed down by the street traffic above."
Wrong. You're missing out the most important group that benefits: real estate developers, who will now have a nice wide swath of land to develop, without those pesky on/off ramps.
Wrong. You're missing out the most important group that benefits: real estate developers, who will now have a nice wide swath of land to develop, without those pesky on/off ramps.
6
"In fact, the only people who will benefit from the tunnel over the surface/transit option will be those seeking to drive through downtown Seattle without being slowed down by the street traffic above."
Wrong. You're missing out the most important group that benefits: real estate developers, who will now have a nice wide swath of land to develop, without those pesky on/off ramps.
Wrong. You're missing out the most important group that benefits: real estate developers, who will now have a nice wide swath of land to develop, without those pesky on/off ramps.
7
I love Goldy's notion here that the Gov and Leg need to rescue McGinn from the deadend he ran into, or else. Like rescuing a treed cat that keeps yowling.
8
Considering how limited the downtown exits and entrances are on the viaduct, I don't think the lack of them on the tunnel is much of an issue. In fact, I actually prefer that the tunnel not be dumping traffic into the heart of downtown.
And I hate to see Goldy here try to revive a tunnel-vs.-surface+transit debate. It's counterproductive, especially for someone who supports surface+transit. Sometimes the best way to get what you want is not to directly demand it.
The issue now is who's going to get stuck with the cost overruns. For those of us who want to see more transit investment, this is precisely the debate we should be welcoming. And even here, I'm convinced this is a fight we'd best not take a blunt-force approach to. Elected officials like Pete Holmes have convinced me that the city can't get stuck with the cost overruns under the controversial language in that one state law.
So let the state go ahead and build the damn thing. And if they run out of money, let them find more. But let us make clear to our own elected leaders--to Richard Conlin and Tim Burgess and Tom Rasmussen and Sally Bagshaw--that any attempt to tax their constituents to finish the tunnel simply will not fly.
And I hate to see Goldy here try to revive a tunnel-vs.-surface+transit debate. It's counterproductive, especially for someone who supports surface+transit. Sometimes the best way to get what you want is not to directly demand it.
The issue now is who's going to get stuck with the cost overruns. For those of us who want to see more transit investment, this is precisely the debate we should be welcoming. And even here, I'm convinced this is a fight we'd best not take a blunt-force approach to. Elected officials like Pete Holmes have convinced me that the city can't get stuck with the cost overruns under the controversial language in that one state law.
So let the state go ahead and build the damn thing. And if they run out of money, let them find more. But let us make clear to our own elected leaders--to Richard Conlin and Tim Burgess and Tom Rasmussen and Sally Bagshaw--that any attempt to tax their constituents to finish the tunnel simply will not fly.
9
Hey everyone. EVERYONE. The tunnel is NOT the complete viaduct replacement. It is less than ONE HALF of the viaduct replacement. There is also a NEW SURFACE HIGHWAY with 4-6 lanes being built by WSDOT where the viaduct currently sits. The tunnel is the EXPRESS LANES with 4 additional lanes beyond the 4-6 on the surface highway replacement.
There is no additional room for city or private developers - a surface highway is going where the viaduct currently sits, nothing else.
There is no park or promenade - no space and no funds.
The deep bore tunnel is NOT the complete viaduct replacement - the tunnel is the EXPRESS LANES ONLY for the much larger viaduct replacement.
The highway 99 viaduct replacement will have PLENTY of exits downtown. Only the deep bore tunnel express lanes will not have exits downtown. That's because they are EXPRESS LANES that bypass downtown, just like the express lanes for I-5.
Please pay attention to what's going on in the city. This is all in the public record and WSDOT even has YouTube video simulations of the new 8-10 lane highway (including express lanes) that is replacing the viaduct.
There is no additional room for city or private developers - a surface highway is going where the viaduct currently sits, nothing else.
There is no park or promenade - no space and no funds.
The deep bore tunnel is NOT the complete viaduct replacement - the tunnel is the EXPRESS LANES ONLY for the much larger viaduct replacement.
The highway 99 viaduct replacement will have PLENTY of exits downtown. Only the deep bore tunnel express lanes will not have exits downtown. That's because they are EXPRESS LANES that bypass downtown, just like the express lanes for I-5.
Please pay attention to what's going on in the city. This is all in the public record and WSDOT even has YouTube video simulations of the new 8-10 lane highway (including express lanes) that is replacing the viaduct.
11
@1 wrong.
We are only obligated, as a city, to move utilities to permit construction and permit construction material to be removed.
And to rebuild the Sea Wall.
Everything else is NOT an obligation.
I agree - if it has no exits downtown, let's not rebuild the exits until they either rebuild the Viaduct or build the Surface Plus Transit.
Either choice requires them to tear down the existing Viaduct, so it's not that big an impact.
We are only obligated, as a city, to move utilities to permit construction and permit construction material to be removed.
And to rebuild the Sea Wall.
Everything else is NOT an obligation.
I agree - if it has no exits downtown, let's not rebuild the exits until they either rebuild the Viaduct or build the Surface Plus Transit.
Either choice requires them to tear down the existing Viaduct, so it's not that big an impact.
12
I've been saying this all along. If you want to encourage people from West Seattle to bypass downtown, beef up I-5 on-ramps from West Seattle, but call it what it is: "West Seattle Express Lanes". Anyone else who is using 99 is doing do as a bypass for I-5 when it gets too crowded. Fix the actual problem and you remove the need for the tunnel. Or if we simply MUST bypass - just rebuild the viaduct, better & stronger than before - that option is starting to look a lot better, compared to the single choice now on the table.
@1The trouble with this theory is that option that "won't fucking work" is what we'll have the moment demolition begins on ANY option for at least 5 years - which seems long enough for people to get used to the "new normal" of using I-5 to bypass Seattle.
@3 Without the tunnel, we still have a straight shot into the downtown core, and 99 still runs from Bell Street to all points north. Again, if If you're not going into downtown, take I-5.
@8 If the option is to let the state build it, I'm sure no one would have a problem - they're just trying to get US to pay for it (and all the overruns, and all the maintenance) - that's the whole point.
@1The trouble with this theory is that option that "won't fucking work" is what we'll have the moment demolition begins on ANY option for at least 5 years - which seems long enough for people to get used to the "new normal" of using I-5 to bypass Seattle.
@3 Without the tunnel, we still have a straight shot into the downtown core, and 99 still runs from Bell Street to all points north. Again, if If you're not going into downtown, take I-5.
@8 If the option is to let the state build it, I'm sure no one would have a problem - they're just trying to get US to pay for it (and all the overruns, and all the maintenance) - that's the whole point.
13
@1 doesn't think people change their behavior when circumstances change. How delightfully stupid.
14
misha99 @9:
I have a vague recollection of this additional surface route, but perhaps someone can fill in some details.
Will it be running alongside the existing Alaskan Way or replacing it?
Can it really be called a highway? Won't it have a number of lights and cross streets and a fairly "street-y" speed limit?
Hey everyone. EVERYONE. The tunnel is NOT the complete viaduct replacement. It is less than ONE HALF of the viaduct replacement. There is also a NEW SURFACE HIGHWAY with 4-6 lanes being built by WSDOT where the viaduct currently sits. The tunnel is the EXPRESS LANES with 4 additional lanes beyond the 4-6 on the surface highway replacement.
I have a vague recollection of this additional surface route, but perhaps someone can fill in some details.
Will it be running alongside the existing Alaskan Way or replacing it?
Can it really be called a highway? Won't it have a number of lights and cross streets and a fairly "street-y" speed limit?
15
#14: There are actually 2 new surface routes. The current Alaskan Way is being re-paved to increase traffic flow. That is the "promenade" that was talked about (before the Seattle City Council voted against funding it).
The 2nd new surface route is the brand new surface highway from south of King Street to about Bell Street. This is a true blue highway. The deep bore tunnel is part of this highway.
Go to alaskanwayviaduct .org and click on "Viaduct replacement - S. King Street to Battery Street (Central)" on the left and then look at the video simulations, map, portal design, and other information.
The 2nd new surface route is the brand new surface highway from south of King Street to about Bell Street. This is a true blue highway. The deep bore tunnel is part of this highway.
Go to alaskanwayviaduct .org and click on "Viaduct replacement - S. King Street to Battery Street (Central)" on the left and then look at the video simulations, map, portal design, and other information.
16
Goldy, like so many other people in Seattle, just doesn't get it. Yes, it is a way to get THROUGH downtown Seattle, not TO downtown Seattle. That is the whole purpose of the tunnel. Many people want to get from the southern reaches of the city to the northern reaches, or vice versa, without sitting in stop and go traffic. The tunnel will serve the city in that way. It is precisely what the city needs. The city, its businesses and residents will be the greates benficiaries of the tunnel. Please, clue in.
17
Goldy, like so many other people in Seattle, just doesn't get it. Yes, the tunnel is meant to be a route THROUGH downtown Seattle, not TO downtown. Countless residents and business want to get from the south end of town to the north end without sitting in stop and go traffic. The tunnel will let them do that. The city, its businesses and residents will be the greatest beneficiaries of the tunnel. And all of the exhaust that would be spewed into the air by vechicles stuck in the surface street alternative, will not be spewed because the tunnel will be far more efficient. Please, people, clue in.
18
If that's true, then wouldn't it be a ton easier to simply remove the HOV restriction on the I-5 express lanes to replace 99?
(Honestly I can't believe that 99 is really used as a bypass much at all.)
(Honestly I can't believe that 99 is really used as a bypass much at all.)
19
Question for the anti-tunnel crowd - how does a four lane surface freeway open up the water front?
20
@16 if I wanted a tunnel to go THROUGH Seattle, I wouldn't be paying $10,000 per household for every Seattle renter or property owner for it.
Capiche?
@19 Got $4 BILLION? Didn't think so ...
Capiche?
@19 Got $4 BILLION? Didn't think so ...
21
The ETP (Exitless Tunnel Project) is what Paul Allen wishes built at public expense to most profitably connect his Pioneer Square and South Lake Union holdings. And that's separate from the $500 million in other city subsidies that have been earmarked to benefit Allen's property investments.
22
Basically, as we've done with the plans to build a Chihulhy Museum of Insanity at Seattle Center, we should do the same to the Billionaires' Tunnel.
If you actually believe Seattle VOTERS want it that much, put the project up to a PUBLIC VOTE.
Cause we don't want it.
If you actually believe Seattle VOTERS want it that much, put the project up to a PUBLIC VOTE.
Cause we don't want it.
23
NEWS FLASH: Governor Gregoire will support a surface option. She has said that the viaduct will come down in 2012, tunnel plan or no tunnel plan. Those that are against the tunnel keep stalling.
Read about it here:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation…
Read about it here:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation…
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
-
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
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (24) RSS