Today's Seattle Times has an op-ed by Henry Aronson and Krista Camenzind of OnTrack, who have done stellar work exposing the colossal idiocy of the Seattle Monorail Project: "Monorail board demonstrates its inability to guide project" Indeed it has. But I question the last part of OnTrack's conclusion:
The only credible and honorable option now available to the SMP board is to stop spending taxpayer money immediately (at our last count it had 25 people earning over $100,000 per year); conserve the remaining SMP assets (land, planning and analysis); and contract with a trusted and credible agency with large-scale transportation and public-finance capabilities to determine how much of the monorail dream can be salvaged and implemented as part of a rational, regional, integrated public-transportation system.Emphasis added.
What "trusted and credible" public transportation agency exists in this region? Sound Transit? Give me a break. The only credible and honorable option for the SMP is to dissolve itself and deliver the assets to a conservator whose authority would be limited to selling the assets and retiring the debt.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 12, 2005 10:33 AM | Email ThisBoy, this monorail project reminds me of a zombie - even when dead, it keeps walking around.
Are these loons for real? Dead is dead, man - or, at least, it should be...
Igor
Posted by: igor on July 12, 2005 11:07 AMthis is something I've been thinking about for a while. I think that someone from the SP community should run for an open position on the SMP Board with the expressed intent of bringing the project down from the inside. The candidate can run on the premise of full disclosure of all of the business of the board in an attempt to make public all information which may sway the public's opinion of the monorail.
I have long envisioned doing it myself, and may still do so. However, I reckon that there are people out there more qualified than myself, with more energy to contribute to a campaign.
Anyone?
Posted by: Morisseau on July 12, 2005 11:07 AMSounds good to me. Can you present a platform of ideas? Lets examine some ideas. Any one.
Posted by: Son of Liberty on July 12, 2005 11:15 AMAnd 25 people over 100K ?!
Posted by: Unicorn on July 12, 2005 12:20 PMIt is, you are, and I will bet your life on it ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 12, 2005 01:50 PMYet I understand your incredulity, alphabet. It must be difficult to comprehend rational thought when you live your life on an ideological fringe...
Posted by: A Moderate on July 12, 2005 01:55 PMHere's your sign (no charge):
You are a moderate. That means that you have no groundings. You are willful, a wil~o~the~wisp. You play follow the leader, and generally wilt under pressure. You would rather back a "winner" rather than a principle. As a result, you relegate yourself to the backwater of life, unable to take a stand on anything.
You are amusing in your wishy-washiness, but no one takes you seriously.
You likely have a bed wetting problem
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 12, 2005 02:00 PMJust in case you are wondering, though, I am not in favor of a tunnel to replace the Viaduct. Too many engineering problems. Just tear down the old and build a new one, but this time make it earthquake safe. But we'll need some money for that, won't we?
Posted by: HT on July 12, 2005 09:19 PMHeavens to Betsy, I was just funnin with the guy, honest! (Besides, he started it ;'}
As luck & circumstance would have it, I am aware of the age, condition, and engineering limitations of the viaduct. Imagine that.
Not to pick nits unnecessarily, but WSDOT experts predict that, should the big one happen, the viaduct would more likely tumble into the buildings adjacent to the structure, not pancake.
The "powers that be", namely Seattle democraps, have decided (for us) that a tunnel is the only option. The only option that meets the seismic requirements is a surface highway, and that idea was immediately nixed. Another overhead viaduct is seismically sensitive, and ain't likely to happen, either. The most lavish one is also the expensive one - the tunnel.
Mayor Nipples (I just love that one!) was quoted to say he expects the state "to fulfill its responsibility to provide the replacement costs for state Route 99," of which the viaduct is a part. (http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2004/12/06/daily14.html)
(Wasn't that nice of him to obligate the entire state to fund his "little Big Dig"?)
Yes, we'll need money. Lots of money. You better see about selling your watch - you're gonna need the cash, and soon....
Moving on, however, your point about WSDOT and their feelings about the viaduct is an interesting one. I understand the logic underpinning their "predictions", although depending on the fault line involved they could be very wrong (and would certainly find some wiggle-room after the fact if that were the case). Nothing like taking responsiblity. However, I doubt that many people on the bottom deck would be any less dead if the whole thing tipped to the side as opposed to falling in the direction of traffic.
Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I think that a newer version of the current freeway is still an option. A tunnel, in my humble opinion, is likely to be massively expensive (think $10BB as opposed to the $4BB currently predicted), and a surface street (as they did with the Embarcadero Freeway in SF) simply won't carry the required traffic. So I'm just hoping against hope that they can make a double-decker work.
Posted by: HT on July 12, 2005 10:33 PMIf you want an earthquake proof double-decker, be prepared to spend 2-3 times what your current estimates ($10BB) are.
Why?
Simple. Were you aware that there is a fault line that transverses the path of the viaduct? Do you know what happens along these fault lines when an earthquake occurs?
When you construct a typical building, you have an established footprint that is measured in square yards or meters.
When you construct a highway - especially an elevated highway, you are working not so much in terms of square footage, but lineal footage.
So you see where I am headed? An earthquake will likely cause materal movement along the fault line causing a "scissors cut" across the highway. No matter how fancy a "bridge" you build, when the quake that is strong enough to take down the current viaduct hits, it will take down your fancy new one, too.
Another quake will happen, we just don't know when. I don't let things like this rule my life (one could just as easily apply this illogic to being inside a building (what if it tumbles?) of a stadium (What is there is a fire?). No thanks.
If the state had any sense at all, they would tell Mayor Nipples, "Well, we have 2 billion that can be expended on your Alaskan Way project. Spend it wisely! (Because there won't be any more!)
As for the bed wetting thing - I made that up (as far as I know ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 13, 2005 08:11 AMJust like all the other Californians, coming up here and ruining this once fine city. I'm a native Seattlelite. So is my father (age 65). He was commuting on the viaduct during the '64 quake. It is an absolute certainty that nature's force can knock down anything that man can build no matter how quake proof. Life is full of uncertainties, not the least of which is getting in your car everyday. Enjoy the time you have!
Posted by: Jeffro on July 13, 2005 08:30 AMIncidentally, I agree with you about the "here's your $2BB, build whatever you want" solution. In effect, that's what the state has already done. It's only the fact that Seattle is looking for a bailout from other sources that has kept discussion about the tunnel alive.
Jeffro: the 1964 quake was generated on the Alaskan subduction zone, and was thus hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away. For the Viaduct to stand up to something that remote is not remarkable at all. A quake on the Cascadia subduction zone, however, would be quite a different thing. As for your point about being a Seattle native, I don't care if your family knew Kennewick man personally...if anything, your relatively parochial background makes you less of an authority on earthquakes, not more. Certainly not more than someone who grew up in Southern California, lived in San Francisco for a decade, and has more earthquake-related experience than you can shake a stick at. (Yes, I was a Californian! Alert the immigration authorities! Take me away in chains!) By my last count, I have been through one earthquake of than 7.3 magnitude, and at least eight of greater than 6.0. And I've seen several freeways go down. Whether I'm a jinx or just lucky, the fact that I live HERE, NOW should make the rest of you think twice about preparing for the next quake.
Posted by: HT on July 13, 2005 11:05 AM