Slog
News & ArtsMonday, March 28, 2011
City Gentle People, Fear Not The Return Of The Abominable Elevated Freeway On Seattle's Waterfront
Posted by Dan Bertolet on Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:57 AM
- Dan Bertolet
- The Alaskan Way Viaduct
Dan Bertolet is an urban designer and founder of Citytank.org.
Of all the spurious reasons for supporting the deep-bore tunnel put forth by tunnel cheerleaders—-and many there are—-the silliest of all has to be this: We better let the State have their way with the tunnel or we'll end up with another elevated freeway.
That's right: Seattle, home to one of the most highly educated, civic-minded, and ecologically conscientious urban populations in the nation is going to just lay down and let the State build an even more monstrous elevated replacement for the much-loathed Alaskan Way Viaduct.
Seattle, where opposition to the deep-bore tunnel got the current Mayor elected, is going to politely accept a new elevated freeway that is environmentally just as noxious as the tunnel but ten times worse because it would also create a horrendous blight on the beloved waterfront.
Can somebody please pass the crack pipe?
The reality is that if the Alaskan Way Viaduct was rebuilt, Seattle would become the laughingstock of progressive cities worldwide. As the Center for Neighborhood Technology's Scott Bernstein recently wrote, one major reason for opposing the deep-bore tunnel is that "you don’t want to lose your world-class reputation for addressing energy and climate change." Imagine how much more that reputation would be trashed by a new elevated freeway that not only is a ridiculously expensive piece of dinosaur transportation infrastructure that exacerbates car-dependence and its associated greenhouse gas emissions, but also does all that literally right in everyone's face—a massive visual, aural, and spatial clusterfuck right on Seattle's front porch.
Seattleites successfully opposed new freeways before, when in the late 1960s activists killed the Bay Freeway and R. H. Thomson Expressway. Today, if anything, the populace is even more aware of how freeways are anathema to urban livability. On top of that, we now have peak oil, climate change, and environmental mayhem in general to deal with, while at the same time a growing demographic wave is beginning to reject the suburban, car-oriented lifestyle that has dominated the past half century. And last month over 1,000 people packed a public meeting to hear initial design ideas for a Viaduct-free waterfront from the City's design team led by James Corner Field Operations.
So, can we all agree that in the face of all this, the idea of spending a big pile of our precious public funds on a new elevated freeway ain't gonna fly, no matter how big a hissy fit the State might throw?
Now, there is another option that may call for some concern, though not much, in my opinion, and that's a retrofit of the existing viaduct. But the State has long been opposed to that option, and the latest study estimated it would cost nearly as much as a new elevated. And the fact is, pretty much everyone wants that embarrassing, ugly hulk to go bye-bye ASAP.
Compared to a replacement elevated freeway, the deep-bore tunnel is far more divisive. Some see it as the best of both worlds, while others recognize that all it really does is sweep the big problems under the rug. A public vote on that would be fascinating barometer of Seattle culture, and all indications are that we will indeed have that vote. Protect Seattle Now is reportedly on track to have enough signatures to put a referendum on the City's August 16 municipal primary-election ballot.
So then, over the next several months we can expect to be entertained by a heated PR war over the deep-bore tunnel and the I5/Surface/Transit alternative. Those of you who believe that the tunnel is a bad investment for the future of Seattle and the planet shouldn't let fear of viaduct spawn dampen your passion for joining the fight for a more sane solution.
1
Unlike the RH Thomson and Bay Freeways, this is not a "new" freeway. It's intended as a replacement for a shitty, falling-apart existing freeway. And by the Stranger's own arguments, it's reducing capacity, not augmenting it. So how about a more nuanced conversation than the "freeways make our city an ugly, unprogressive laughingstock" cliche.
It's a fair, and more practical debate to talk about the tunnel's benefits vs. the insane cost, and the false assumption that enough people will pay high-dollar tolls to justify its existence. And let's dispense with another "fascinating barometer of Seattle culture," before the current viaduct becomes a fascinating barometer of the laws of physics.
It's a fair, and more practical debate to talk about the tunnel's benefits vs. the insane cost, and the false assumption that enough people will pay high-dollar tolls to justify its existence. And let's dispense with another "fascinating barometer of Seattle culture," before the current viaduct becomes a fascinating barometer of the laws of physics.
3
Dan, have you seen the new Elway poll? Apparently, the home to one of the most highly educated, civic-minded, and ecologically conscientious urban populations in the nation prefers an elevated rebuild (38%) over a tunnel (35%) over the surface/transit thing you love (21%). And since that was the state's preferred option before they agreed to a tunnel, how is it silly to fear this could happen?
5
And incidentally, on the subject of the new Elway poll - the first poll in a year on what Seattle voters want to see happen with the viaduct, and you don't even report on it on here? I'm just making a wild guess here, but if Surface/Transit had done better than 21%, you guys would have several posts already about it.
6
"...freeways are anathema to urban livability."
Yeah, 'cause everyone knows people and goods don't have to move in and out of cities. Surely you can grow all the food you need to feed half a million people on urban P-patches. And all that stuff you order on Amazon.com? It'll come by bicycle.
It's one thing to say, "not this freeway, in this location." NIMBYism I can at least understand. This idea that high-capacity roads are unnecessary, though, is just absurd.
Yeah, 'cause everyone knows people and goods don't have to move in and out of cities. Surely you can grow all the food you need to feed half a million people on urban P-patches. And all that stuff you order on Amazon.com? It'll come by bicycle.
It's one thing to say, "not this freeway, in this location." NIMBYism I can at least understand. This idea that high-capacity roads are unnecessary, though, is just absurd.
7
Did you forget the fact that over 40% of people voted for a rebuild and that thanks to them being concentrated in certain neighborhoods you have a few LDs with strong resistance and a few with strong support? Sure Capitol Hill hates it, but West Seattle loves the idea of a rebuild. As does Magnolia and points north. Plus how many people who supported the Tunnel would shift to a rebuild if that were off the table?
But I am sure your argument that people might laugh at us will persuade them.
But I am sure your argument that people might laugh at us will persuade them.
8
Dear surface/transit supporters,
I can't thank you enough for lambasting our common enemy the tunnel for putting too many cars on Downtown streets, tolls, inadequate funding, cost overruns, and Seattle having to pay $900 million in the tunnel deal. Sucks, don't it?
Surface/transit does a little better, but still puts extra cars on Downtown streets, doesn’t have funding, and the $900 million is still needed (and might have tolls too, that’s what demand management means).
The 6-lane elevated from 2007 (that's me!), by contrast, put zero cars on Downtown streets, had no tolls, full state funding including overruns, and none of Seattle’s $900 million was needed—the state paid for the seawall, utilities, and the surface street work wasn’t needed.
Yes, that's right: I outperform surface/transit on the very anti-tunnel critiques surface/transit supporters are now making! Thank you so much! Yeah, I can't help on the CO2 and transit stuff...but you don't need any transit with me then again, do you?
See, with that kind of loose talk, if y’all kill the tunnel, you’re paving the way for my comeback. Yep, me—the Big Ugly. Remember, the state legislature loved me once, even though I'm fat and ugly. Just like they loved that bat-caver/dracula tunnel bitch before they broke up and then kissed and made up. But they've never loved you, even though you're pretty, thin, and comfortable in the light of day. And you know it.
Besides, deep down, you know as well as I do that they really love me, not that bat caver. I’m begging you: keep up the good work. It’s my only chance.
Love,
The Big Ugly
I can't thank you enough for lambasting our common enemy the tunnel for putting too many cars on Downtown streets, tolls, inadequate funding, cost overruns, and Seattle having to pay $900 million in the tunnel deal. Sucks, don't it?
Surface/transit does a little better, but still puts extra cars on Downtown streets, doesn’t have funding, and the $900 million is still needed (and might have tolls too, that’s what demand management means).
The 6-lane elevated from 2007 (that's me!), by contrast, put zero cars on Downtown streets, had no tolls, full state funding including overruns, and none of Seattle’s $900 million was needed—the state paid for the seawall, utilities, and the surface street work wasn’t needed.
Yes, that's right: I outperform surface/transit on the very anti-tunnel critiques surface/transit supporters are now making! Thank you so much! Yeah, I can't help on the CO2 and transit stuff...but you don't need any transit with me then again, do you?
See, with that kind of loose talk, if y’all kill the tunnel, you’re paving the way for my comeback. Yep, me—the Big Ugly. Remember, the state legislature loved me once, even though I'm fat and ugly. Just like they loved that bat-caver/dracula tunnel bitch before they broke up and then kissed and made up. But they've never loved you, even though you're pretty, thin, and comfortable in the light of day. And you know it.
Besides, deep down, you know as well as I do that they really love me, not that bat caver. I’m begging you: keep up the good work. It’s my only chance.
Love,
The Big Ugly
9
By "latest study" (on the repair option), you mean the "latest cherry-picking exercise designed backwards from its conclusion, not forward from the data, which was faked", of course.
But yes, a rebuilt viaduct would be a spectacular atrocity, a return to 1970s-style urban demolition. I don't think you went into enough detail about how repulsive the designs are, many features of which are required by modern highway codes. It would be much larger, much wider, and especially much much more extensive in its ramps. Large portions of Belltown, Pioneer Square, and the waterfront in between would have to go. Sorry, guys, cars coming through here, eminent domain!
If people really knew what the thing was going to look like, they wouldn't support it with @3's dishonest "38%", and if they did, public opinion SHOULD NOT MATTER. Elected officials have a duty to defend their city, and a new viaduct would destroy more of the central city than a hundred Al Qaedas ever could.
I'm not sure your anti-highway argument, or your "green city" argument, hold any water in modern reality, as opposed to civic press-release land. Highway construction and expansion are happening everywhere, no matter how many "green" awards are being handed out. The consequences for the future of the car in the region is not being written downtown, in the heart of what is increasingly a bedroom community, but out in a million directions in the suburbs, where the highways are totally in control.
But yes, a rebuilt viaduct would be a spectacular atrocity, a return to 1970s-style urban demolition. I don't think you went into enough detail about how repulsive the designs are, many features of which are required by modern highway codes. It would be much larger, much wider, and especially much much more extensive in its ramps. Large portions of Belltown, Pioneer Square, and the waterfront in between would have to go. Sorry, guys, cars coming through here, eminent domain!
If people really knew what the thing was going to look like, they wouldn't support it with @3's dishonest "38%", and if they did, public opinion SHOULD NOT MATTER. Elected officials have a duty to defend their city, and a new viaduct would destroy more of the central city than a hundred Al Qaedas ever could.
I'm not sure your anti-highway argument, or your "green city" argument, hold any water in modern reality, as opposed to civic press-release land. Highway construction and expansion are happening everywhere, no matter how many "green" awards are being handed out. The consequences for the future of the car in the region is not being written downtown, in the heart of what is increasingly a bedroom community, but out in a million directions in the suburbs, where the highways are totally in control.
10
#9 - my "dishonest" 38%? That's from the new Elway poll, why are you making it sound like I made that number up? And I do hope if people actually understood what a new viaduct would look like they would change their minds. I am not sure sure. And I agree that public opinion SHOULD NOT MATTER but that's what this Slog-supported referendum is all about -- public opinion.
13
@9: As I see it, part of the danger is that restricting access for people and goods to downtown is likely to cause businesses to move to the suburbs -- speeding up something that's already happening due to high land prices. This is frankly much more likely than vast numbers of people deciding to move into the city because their commute has gotten tougher.
What happens then is instead of an orderly in-out commute pattern that you can serve with mass transit, you end up with scattered, crosswise commutes with too few people going in the same direction at the same time to be served by transit.
What happens then is instead of an orderly in-out commute pattern that you can serve with mass transit, you end up with scattered, crosswise commutes with too few people going in the same direction at the same time to be served by transit.
14
@11, yes, and I did not do so. My first two paragraphs are about different subjects, which is why I used a different word to describe them. "Repair" = feasible, but cut off at the knees by pols with new-construction boners; "rebuild" = demolish half of the central city.
@10, it's dishonest because the people saying "yes" to the rebuild option are not being told the truth about what it entails. And the reason I say public opinion doesn't matter is because EVEN IF a large majority of city residents say "screw downtown, flatten the whole thing if it shaves three minutes off my commute to Tukwila" they should be ignored for that sentiment. If you would like me to provide a hundred horrifying examples of what happens to cities that ignore this advice I've got them handy here.
The whole structure of a "pick one of these three" poll is dishonest. You end up with numbers like this. Your "38%" sounds like plurality but it really means that almost 2/3 of the city is OPPOSED to the idea. This is the same problem the vote a couple of years ago had -- a vote that was calculated to produce impossible-to-understand results.
@10, it's dishonest because the people saying "yes" to the rebuild option are not being told the truth about what it entails. And the reason I say public opinion doesn't matter is because EVEN IF a large majority of city residents say "screw downtown, flatten the whole thing if it shaves three minutes off my commute to Tukwila" they should be ignored for that sentiment. If you would like me to provide a hundred horrifying examples of what happens to cities that ignore this advice I've got them handy here.
The whole structure of a "pick one of these three" poll is dishonest. You end up with numbers like this. Your "38%" sounds like plurality but it really means that almost 2/3 of the city is OPPOSED to the idea. This is the same problem the vote a couple of years ago had -- a vote that was calculated to produce impossible-to-understand results.
15
Let's just be honest and admit that nobody except terrorists wants the Tunnel.
And those who aid and abet them.
And those who aid and abet them.
16
Just got back from Philly last week, which has a world-class waterfront that puts ours to shame (even if the view across the water is of Camden) and which also happens to have a GIGANTIC interstate freeway at surface level for its entire length that makes the AWV look like the Burke-Gilman Trail.
PS - FNARF - if a rebuilt Viaduct would be so huge due to "modern highway requirements" for shoulders and wider lanes, how is it that S/T supporters support eliminating both of those things in their so-called "improvements" to I-5? Also, how is it that lots of those same elements have been whittled away from the SR 520 replacement project in response to concerns raised by the City of Seattle? (And I'm really not trying to get into a pissing match regarding your post, which I mostly agree with, but pointing out that the boogeymen raised with regard to a new elevated Viaduct are probably overstated. Remember Tim Ceis lying about how there wouldn't be any view due to the height of the jersey barriers?).
PS - FNARF - if a rebuilt Viaduct would be so huge due to "modern highway requirements" for shoulders and wider lanes, how is it that S/T supporters support eliminating both of those things in their so-called "improvements" to I-5? Also, how is it that lots of those same elements have been whittled away from the SR 520 replacement project in response to concerns raised by the City of Seattle? (And I'm really not trying to get into a pissing match regarding your post, which I mostly agree with, but pointing out that the boogeymen raised with regard to a new elevated Viaduct are probably overstated. Remember Tim Ceis lying about how there wouldn't be any view due to the height of the jersey barriers?).
17
"Seattle, where opposition to the deep-bore tunnel got the current Mayor elected,"
Sorry, but any of the moderates who were sitting on the fence, voted for McGinn because he said he wouldnt block the tunnel. I dont care what he meant to say, were not translating the latin bible here.
Stranger must be smoking from the same crack pipe to say that the mayor got elected on that platform. Seriously, we were voting a standing mayor out of office and played the game of "Anyone but this guy" during the election.
Sorry, but any of the moderates who were sitting on the fence, voted for McGinn because he said he wouldnt block the tunnel. I dont care what he meant to say, were not translating the latin bible here.
Stranger must be smoking from the same crack pipe to say that the mayor got elected on that platform. Seriously, we were voting a standing mayor out of office and played the game of "Anyone but this guy" during the election.
18
@7 Fremont and Ballard love a new rebuild.
We're mostly ok with Surface plus Transit too, but really that's what you on Capitol Hill want if you haven't taken the Tunnel acid tab. Not like you're going to get any increased views - current zoning has no views from Denny south, once the developers force you to pay for a Deeply Flawed Tunnel.
We're mostly ok with Surface plus Transit too, but really that's what you on Capitol Hill want if you haven't taken the Tunnel acid tab. Not like you're going to get any increased views - current zoning has no views from Denny south, once the developers force you to pay for a Deeply Flawed Tunnel.
19
#14 - I don't think "my" 38% (why do you keep saying this number is mine??) sounds like a plurality. Did I say it means people support the tunnel? No, I did not. I think the poll shows what everybody knows already, that there is no agreement among the public on what should be done -- and that the public support for surface/transit is pretty small. I agree with you that the public isn't that well informed about the details of the different options -- and they have no obligation to be so. It's an extremely complicated issue and the vast majority of people aren't studying it closely. But that's why we elect people to do the work and to make these decisions. This whole referendum is ridiculous.
20
Seattle, where opposition to the deep-bore tunnel got the current Mayor elected
LOL!!! Hold on, you actually believe this?
What got McGinn elected was:
a) the fact that his opponent was borderline retarded
b) his last minute lie in which he promised not to obstruct the tunnel.
McGinn couldn't beat an actual retard in the next election.
LOL!!! Hold on, you actually believe this?
What got McGinn elected was:
a) the fact that his opponent was borderline retarded
b) his last minute lie in which he promised not to obstruct the tunnel.
McGinn couldn't beat an actual retard in the next election.
21
It is wrong to attack the messenger('s), however, Dan Bertolet is wrong and assumes too much for too many.
There are many above ground freeways that are both beautiful and economically responsible.
The Tunnel serves few, does not serves the geographic neighborhoods, or industries that a rebuild would. The tunnel is simply, dishonest. If you believe otherwise, I've got an "extended monorail to sell you."
There are many above ground freeways that are both beautiful and economically responsible.
The Tunnel serves few, does not serves the geographic neighborhoods, or industries that a rebuild would. The tunnel is simply, dishonest. If you believe otherwise, I've got an "extended monorail to sell you."
22
Actually, the Mayor is quite popular in Seattle, @20.
It's mostly the noisy suburbanites who are having to pull their own weight who complain about him - and their hired hands.
You see the difference when you actually talk to people and ask them where they LIVE, not where they WORK.
It's mostly the noisy suburbanites who are having to pull their own weight who complain about him - and their hired hands.
You see the difference when you actually talk to people and ask them where they LIVE, not where they WORK.
23
How are we going to get to all the awesome nature right outside the city if the freeways become increasingly gnarled? Should we build light rail directly to Mt. Si? Decreased capacity might lead people to moving closer to their jobs, but many people don't actually work within Seattle proper. Won't this just increase sprawl/exurbia? I don't care about tunnel vs. rebuilding, but I can't foresee the surface/transit option as being remotely reasonable for a road that is essentially an already hamstrung highway.
24
@19:
It's an extremely complicated issue and the vast majority of people aren't studying it closely. But that's why we elect people to do the work and to make these decisions. This whole referendum is ridiculous.Amen. We have a representative democracy for a reason. (I know it's actually a functional oligarchy but let's not go there today).
25
McGinn won the election because he said he wouldn't obstruct the tunnel. Yes, many of his supporters, myself included, originally got on board because we thought he'd obstruct the tunnel, and yes, he now has, but that's not why he won.
Don't you remember? It was a shrewd and effective political move that peeled off enough moderate support to put him over the top. Us anti-tunnel McGinn supporters were incensed by it, but by that point we certainly weren't going to vote for Mallahan.
This of revisionist crap assertion makes you look like you're grasping at straws, which you are not. So don't do it.
Don't you remember? It was a shrewd and effective political move that peeled off enough moderate support to put him over the top. Us anti-tunnel McGinn supporters were incensed by it, but by that point we certainly weren't going to vote for Mallahan.
This of revisionist crap assertion makes you look like you're grasping at straws, which you are not. So don't do it.
27
"...Seattle would become the laughingstock of progressive cities worldwide..."
Uh, hate to break this to you, but Seattle already is a laughingstock among cities, period. Right up there with San Francisco...
Uh, hate to break this to you, but Seattle already is a laughingstock among cities, period. Right up there with San Francisco...
28
@16, it's not just shoulders and lanes; it's things like curve radiuses. Those on- and off-ramps at Western, Seneca, and 1st Ave. S. would never pass muster today. So even if the lane footprint is the same, the amount of space needed to accomodate it is many times larger. Space that needs to be flattened, and then never filled in again as the new ramp curls through it.
Also, I've seen the pictures. The configuration is different -- side-by-side instead of stacked. You know all those picturesque buildings that rub up against the current viaduct, including the one that actually interrupts the guardrail? Those all have to come down.
Seriously: go look at ANY new highway construction project in Seattle, and picture it in the middle of Pioneer Square. Go look at the cloverleaf at the Edgar Martinez Way overpass, which isn't even a highway, but a city street, yet takes up ACRES of space to move a handful of cars and pedestrians over a rail line. Look at the OTHER viaducts, the ones nobody ever talks about, that carry I-90 and the West Seattle Bridge approaches over Airport Way etc. When they were rebuilt, what did they look like?
We've decided that these huge areas of the city don't matter, and we'll just fill them with concrete to the sky, but downtown is different.
That's the real issue; downtown is different. The suggestion that "a growing demographic wave is beginning to reject the suburban, car-oriented lifestyle that has dominated the past half century" is patently false; virtually none of the growth in population in America or in the Puget Sound megalopolis has been in old-style city centers; it's all been outside, in suburbs and exurbs. Old-style central cities, East Coast style central cities, are being gentrified for the benefit of a small number of well-off young white people as hip dormitory and shopping districts, but they are profoundly atypical. But I think everyone here wants to preserve them, because without these cores the rest of the apple's going to rot.
No one's going to get what they want, and there are no good solutions -- because the only good solution is to return massive amounts of commercial activity to the waterfront, which is impossible -- especially since NO ONE is looking at the problem from that angle. But what we can do is avoid destroying what little we have left, no matter how enervated it is.
@19, I apologize. By "your" I mean only that you brought it to the thread, not that you originated it or attribute powers to it that it does not hold. I think we agree more than we disagree on that.
More...
Also, I've seen the pictures. The configuration is different -- side-by-side instead of stacked. You know all those picturesque buildings that rub up against the current viaduct, including the one that actually interrupts the guardrail? Those all have to come down.
Seriously: go look at ANY new highway construction project in Seattle, and picture it in the middle of Pioneer Square. Go look at the cloverleaf at the Edgar Martinez Way overpass, which isn't even a highway, but a city street, yet takes up ACRES of space to move a handful of cars and pedestrians over a rail line. Look at the OTHER viaducts, the ones nobody ever talks about, that carry I-90 and the West Seattle Bridge approaches over Airport Way etc. When they were rebuilt, what did they look like?
We've decided that these huge areas of the city don't matter, and we'll just fill them with concrete to the sky, but downtown is different.
That's the real issue; downtown is different. The suggestion that "a growing demographic wave is beginning to reject the suburban, car-oriented lifestyle that has dominated the past half century" is patently false; virtually none of the growth in population in America or in the Puget Sound megalopolis has been in old-style city centers; it's all been outside, in suburbs and exurbs. Old-style central cities, East Coast style central cities, are being gentrified for the benefit of a small number of well-off young white people as hip dormitory and shopping districts, but they are profoundly atypical. But I think everyone here wants to preserve them, because without these cores the rest of the apple's going to rot.
No one's going to get what they want, and there are no good solutions -- because the only good solution is to return massive amounts of commercial activity to the waterfront, which is impossible -- especially since NO ONE is looking at the problem from that angle. But what we can do is avoid destroying what little we have left, no matter how enervated it is.
@19, I apologize. By "your" I mean only that you brought it to the thread, not that you originated it or attribute powers to it that it does not hold. I think we agree more than we disagree on that.
30
I'd sure like to have ever seen a repair study that held up. Every time I think of that 80-something peace activist who testified at council, I think of her wish that the viaduct be repaired as is and then encased in plexiglas.
31
#29 - Will is not part of the reality-based community. In his head, McGinn has a 100% approval rating. And that's all that matters to Will.
32
"Seattle, where opposition to the deep-bore tunnel got the current Mayor elected..."
What a wonderful piece of revisionist history this is! McGinn was TRAILING in every poll prior to him flip-flopping on the Viaduct Replacement two weeks before the election. His bald face lie to the people of Seattle is what changed many voters minds and got him elected, not his obsessive obstruction of the tunnel.
What a wonderful piece of revisionist history this is! McGinn was TRAILING in every poll prior to him flip-flopping on the Viaduct Replacement two weeks before the election. His bald face lie to the people of Seattle is what changed many voters minds and got him elected, not his obsessive obstruction of the tunnel.
33
ian @3 et seq., thanks for bringing the news of the Elway poll. Guess Slog must be putting the finishing touches on its strategy for presenting it in just the right light. In the meantime, I found this summary over on Publicola:
http://publicola.com/2011/03/28/elway-po…
http://publicola.com/2011/03/28/elway-po…
34
@22, if you think three guys at the bar at the Red Door in Fremont -- the ones who didn't groan and get up and leave when they saw you come in -- constitute "talking to people where they live", then you're even dumber -- no, wait, you're just as dumb as you ever were about anything.
Suburbanites don't get to vote for Seattle's mayor, nimrod.
Suburbanites don't get to vote for Seattle's mayor, nimrod.
35
There are above ground opportunities which would solve and serve all.
http://www.cuteandweird.com/2010/07/worl…
http://www.cuteandweird.com/2010/07/worl…
36
There are many above ground opportunities which would solve many concerns and serve all.
http://www.cuteandweird.com/2010/07/worl…
http://www.cuteandweird.com/2010/07/worl…
37
@28,
I don't understand how a repair is a solution. How long will that last? Surely not as long as an entirely new structure. So all we'd do is kick the can down the road a couple of decades (at best). And, at that point, the footprint of new highways could be even worse.
I don't understand how a repair is a solution. How long will that last? Surely not as long as an entirely new structure. So all we'd do is kick the can down the road a couple of decades (at best). And, at that point, the footprint of new highways could be even worse.
40
For all those trumpeting 38% for a rebuild vs. 21% support for "surface-transit" as some kind of vote for a rebuild is fooling themselves.
If no option has a majority, and in fact if every option has a huge majority against, you don't choose to build the least unpopular option. No, in that case, you don't build anything. You tear down the viaduct (unless you can get a majority for a repair at a realistic cost--my guess is a repair can't get a majority either), and then you see what happens to traffic, and you wait for public opinion to coalesce around a majority in favor of something.
Until then, build nothing.
If no option has a majority, and in fact if every option has a huge majority against, you don't choose to build the least unpopular option. No, in that case, you don't build anything. You tear down the viaduct (unless you can get a majority for a repair at a realistic cost--my guess is a repair can't get a majority either), and then you see what happens to traffic, and you wait for public opinion to coalesce around a majority in favor of something.
Until then, build nothing.
41
@17, 20, 25, 32: McGinn never would have made it through the primary if it wasn't for his base and volunteers who were energized by his anti-tunnel position. McGinn's was a one-issue campaign, by his own admission. Or did y'all forget that bit of history?
42
I could so give a fuck whether or not Seattle becomes the "laughingstock of progressive cities' in Dan Bertolet's New Urbanist fantasy-world.
...and his rationalization of McGinn's epic flip-flop @41 makes me take his opinion even less seriously (if that was possible).
...and his rationalization of McGinn's epic flip-flop @41 makes me take his opinion even less seriously (if that was possible).
43
Joe M: in one key aspect, the deep bore expands capacity; where the AWV Battery Street Tunnel provides two narrow lanes without shoulders, the deep bore would provide four wide lanes with shoulders for bypass trips and would not have as much traffic friction in downtown. It impact would be counter to adopted land use plans.
Ian: it does not seem valid to lump those in favor of the retrofit with those in favor of a rebuild; the two would have very different phasing. A poll ought to ask about risk and cost as well.
Orv: yes, most great cities were formed with tight street grids around ports, rivers, and rail before limited access highways.
Big ugly: actually, the deep bore does take more city funds, as the fixed WSDOT funds are exhausted by the deep bore, portals, and demolition, and the city must fund the arterial connections, some of which would have been state funded under surface, I-5, and transit.
all: the key missing piece in all options is the transit funding; the three executives proposed a one percent MVET for Metro but did not convince the Legislature to provide it. It has three components: some capital, some service in the corridor, and, most importantly, filing in the base from the decline of sales tax revenue. Exec Sims saw this and conditioned his support of the deep bore on the one percent MVET.
Ian: it does not seem valid to lump those in favor of the retrofit with those in favor of a rebuild; the two would have very different phasing. A poll ought to ask about risk and cost as well.
Orv: yes, most great cities were formed with tight street grids around ports, rivers, and rail before limited access highways.
Big ugly: actually, the deep bore does take more city funds, as the fixed WSDOT funds are exhausted by the deep bore, portals, and demolition, and the city must fund the arterial connections, some of which would have been state funded under surface, I-5, and transit.
all: the key missing piece in all options is the transit funding; the three executives proposed a one percent MVET for Metro but did not convince the Legislature to provide it. It has three components: some capital, some service in the corridor, and, most importantly, filing in the base from the decline of sales tax revenue. Exec Sims saw this and conditioned his support of the deep bore on the one percent MVET.
44
They ought to repair the viaduct, but that's never been seriously discussed or proposed by anyone with any clout. Seattle hates to repair things. Given that reality, I'll vote for the tunnel, which by the way will really by a tunnel plus surface option. It's a kludge, but it's a whole lot better than the cyclista nightmare.
Oh, and the minute anyone wants me to sign a petition to yank McGinn's fat ass out of office, I'm all over it. What a putrid joker he's turned out to be.
Oh, and the minute anyone wants me to sign a petition to yank McGinn's fat ass out of office, I'm all over it. What a putrid joker he's turned out to be.
46
Whether we were for the tunnel or surface options, a few of us, I suspect, voted for McGinn, because during the debates, he appeared to be much more thoughtful than the other candidate. Given the choice of two unknowns, he seemed like the best choice and certainly better than the incumbent. At this point, whether we get the tunnel option or the surface option, my bigger concern is that the existing Viaduct may collapse, as a result of an earthquake and cost many lives.
47
Let's face it, there is a lot of lip service for transit funding, but no actual funding.
But there's lots of money promised for Tunnels we voted against.
But there's lots of money promised for Tunnels we voted against.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Have You Ever Heard of...? by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (47) RSS