Seattle's fiscally incontinent Mayor Greg Nickels wants to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel, even though it would be vastly more expensive than simply rebuilding the Viaduct. The Viaduct needs to be replaced, because:
The nearby seawall is also at risk. Its support timbers have been eroded by decay and infestation by underwater wood lice, called gribbles, and the structure was damaged in the earthquake.Gribbles? This suggests a new name for Mayor Greg Nickels: Grickels! As in:
Seattle's economy is also at risk. Its business climate and financial integrity have been eroded by decay and infestation by a fiscally irresponsible Mayor, called Grickels ...Mayor Grickels acknowledges why he loves the Tunnel:
There is no question that the tunnel is a very expensive project, but the tunnel has the best chance of attracting a broad coalition of supporters from business, labor, environmental and community leaders.The above but is a typo and should be replaced by a therefore. All of the constituencies that suckle on the public teat -- public works employee unions, construction contractors, environmental impact consultants, bond underwriters, bureaucrats, lobbyists, etc. will do very well with the more expensive Tunnel of Love.
The rest of us who have no need or want for a Bostonian Big Dig would only suffer and pay through the nose.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 07, 2004 04:09 PM | Email ThisIf we're talking about a 20% difference here, I'd rather have the tunnel myself as well, and open up the space for private development or mixed use public access / private development and gain property tax revenue for the land on top, which you could not do by keeping the viaduct there.
Posted by: DustinJames on December 7, 2004 04:24 PMWhat I did not see was a careful assessment of the traffic impact (how many trucks have to shift to I5) and access to downtown. Let alone any idea of the real cost for those two options. As in, why would a short stretch of viaduct on the footprint of the old viaduct cost $3.2B? Who has gone over that estimate?
Posted by: iconoclast on December 7, 2004 04:29 PMI don't suppose any of the property owners along the east side of the viaduct have any conflict of interest with the Mayor.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 7, 2004 04:38 PMOK, sounds good to me. Maybe that will finally help offload I5 through downtown.
And what, exactly, is the loss? Besides view for office space, I really don't understand.
Posted by: iconoclast on December 7, 2004 04:40 PM
Anyone want to bet me if the tunnel is chosen it will come in at a minimum of $1B over budget?
Think...light rail.
After all, the feds financed the Boston Big Dig (thanks John Kerry), so every taxpayer in the USA got to pay for that mess. I suspect we'll all have to pay for the new tunnel (and sea wall) as well, just so all the Seattle hippies can have a nice waterfront park.
Posted by: Kevin S on December 7, 2004 10:51 PMAgree that by the time Seattle's Big Dig fiasco is constructed (if ever), the currrent estimated costs will be dwarfed by the real world figures. The Democratic fiefdom of Boston has nothing on the Democratic fiefdom of Seattle when it comes to boondoggles. Can anyone imagine what havoc the combination of Seattle's caricature of a City Council and our two Democratic Senators will wreak after all the lovely add-ons their creative thinking will provide have been added to the project, AFTER its initial scope and budget are fixed? Be very afraid.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on December 8, 2004 09:45 AMShortly after the Nisqually Quake, the state engineering department was giving a review of _just_ the viaduct portion, and mentioned that replacing the existing viaduct with 2 new lanes and new on/off ramps would be $750 million on TVW. Right before the Secretary of Transportation chewed him out for 'discussing numbers'.
They're lumping 'everything' into the 3.2 billion number, and not-so-much into the 4.0 billion number... precisely to get the response "Hey, that's not such a big difference!".
It is when you get half the freight capacity, a prohibition on certain types of freight, and the 'car' capacity doesn't seem similar either. It's the 'what is the smallest tunnel we can make and get away with' plan, not a 'what size tunnel do we need to carry current capacity'. Remember just a couple of years ago what THOSE price tags were?
My choice would be: spend 750 million for a new, modern, two-tier viaduct. Then spent 200 million for one more layer - a major park layer.
Every single constituency is served. A park at the same level as Pike Place market, ground level business areas, elevated viewing areas with clear views of the bay. This leverages the city is already inherently layered anyway.
The _ONLY_ constituencies not served are 1) the landowners that have been pushing for the city to upgrade their realestate value, 2) the spend-nothing-ever groups.
Posted by: Al on December 8, 2004 12:07 PM