This is the first time I've ever had the opportunity to say this, but both Joel Connelly and Joni Balter have perfectly sensible columns this week.
Both columns oppose Greg Nickels' insanely expensive Viaduct tunnel proposal. Oddly, the state House is now giving Greg Nickels (Grickels) until the end of the year to find money for his Big Dig Boondoggle (Bigdiggle?) [Try saying "Grickels' Bigdiggle" 3 times really fast].
The folks who want to give Grickels until the end of the year to come up with a plan are the same folks who told us that fixing the Viaduct immediately was an urgent matter of public safety and that if we didn't vote to uphold the gax tax then people would be killed. I hope nobody has to die just to let Grickels have more time to try to realize his dream of putting together the biggest public spending effort he can get away with.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 03, 2006 12:06 PM | Email ThisI have one word for anyone who thinks the tunnel is a good idea and can be made safe: LIQUEFACTION.
I have one world for anyone who thinks it can be done on time and to budget: MONORAIL.
Case closed.
The tunnel idea is the best all around solution to the problem with transportation on the water front. You will have not only 99 as a major north-south thoroughfare, but also the new surface streets which will have traffic bearing capability as well.
Unfortunately, Seattle does not have the leadership to get anything accomplished. Or when they do, it's usually for twice or three times the cost.
A good idea with a bad leader implementing it usually ceases to be a viable option. The fact that even the Democrats in the state legislature don't trust Nickels enough to get this done in time says a lot.
Oh, and the whole "Big Dig" analogy is not at all relevent to this issue. If we were digging from the waterfront to Alki, then you might have a case.
Posted by: Reporterward on March 3, 2006 01:30 PMThe easterly Big Dig came in at somewhere around twice its original estimate in dollars, many years later than planned. It leaks. It drops chunks of concrete on commuters.
Given the way things are done in Seattle, what evidence do we have that the project would be the first mega-doo that was completed on time, under budget, at a high enough quality to survive the overdue 9+ magnitude subduction quake dry enough for rescuers to have a prayer of finding any survivors?
If you have to double the tab on an easterly Big Dig that doesn't have major (geologic) faults running through it, how much of an cost overrun can you anticipate for a westerly Big Dig that does?
Posted by: gaelwolf on March 3, 2006 02:08 PMIf I'm understanding this new bill correctly, it allows the city until Jan 1, 2007 to make a funding plan of some sort - the plan doesn't have to actually be in place, approved, or any new taxes started. As long as they have an idea where they might get the money, it's sufficient.
Why do I sense that we'll see other areas fail to approve additional local funding by the deadline, but since the city has a vague sorta-plan in place, they'll not only save their own funding but will most likely get additional funds "re-allocated" to the tunnel project?
I said it before and I'll say it again - the gas tax was meant all along as a way to get the rest of the state to pay for Seattle's tunnel.
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on March 3, 2006 02:12 PMSeattle's priorities seem to run roughly like this:
The Soncics' owners whine, so taxpayers get to line up and fork over the dough to do something different with the rich guys' playground.
The mayor and some of his henchpeople want a nice view of the Olympics from the sparkly new high-rise condos, whose caretakers are expected to take the bus from their 800 square-footers somewhere far from the elite townies' digs, so we'll spend a few billion more on a tunnel than we would have to spend to rebuild a stronger viaduct.
So, in order to leave a bit of change in the taxpayers' pockets to fund these things, we're going to close a bunch of schools and make the kids take city buses to school.
Have I got all that right?
Oh . . . wait . . . I forgot . . .
We aren't going to need those schools any more, are we? The elites who are going to be able to afford the view condos are those oh-so-very responsible people whose no-more-than-two children per family who will be going to private schools within walking distance of the high-rise luxury box they live in. After all, Seattle's schools are so poorly resourced that students who survive the drop-out rate can't pass the Great Exit WASL, right?
Lord, save us from Utopia!
Posted by: gaelwolf on March 3, 2006 02:18 PMI personally don't think building a tunnel on fill in a known earthquake zone is a smart thing to do. I did like the little suspension bridge model that was outside the meeting room, but I don't know if that would make any more sense.
Posted by: Burdabee on March 3, 2006 03:18 PMI have not seen Nickel's actual proprosal in detail. I was just talking about a general idea of a tunnel or even a lid. I'm more in favor of it because of the ability to create a renewed waterfront.
It doesn't surprise me that the Nickels tunnel proposal would have less traffic capacity. (Read above comment about my thoughts on his leadership). Does it waste space with HOV lanes, bike lanes and light rail lines?
I'm a native here so I'm familiar with the fact that much of that area is leftover sawdust from Henry Yesler's sawmill, trash, debris and rubble from when they knocked down the hill (I forget its name right now) to create Harbor Island.
I'm also certain that proper engineering can overcome any seismological difficulties. If a tunnel is built (unlikely) I would wager the people in it would be a lot safer than the tens of thousand people working in Pioneer Square and SoDo who are in unreinforced brick and masonry buildings.
The suspension type bridge is also a good secondary alternative in my mind. Especially if it could be built in such a way that it maximizes land use below. But I am not confident in the current leadership to get anything accomplished.
Posted by: Reporterward on March 3, 2006 04:18 PMPut in a coffer dam.
Build Seattle a new seawall.
Trench behind the seawall
Build a road in a water tight box.
Fill in the box.
Do it in fill dirt.
Right next a body of water, below sea level.
Cross a fault line which is overdue to rupture.
What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by: JCM on March 3, 2006 04:25 PMPut in a coffer dam.
Build Seattle a new seawall.
Trench behind the seawall
Build a road in a water tight box.
Fill in the box.
Do it in fill dirt.
Right next a body of water, below sea level.
Cross a fault line which is overdue to rupture.
What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by: JCM on March 3, 2006 04:25 PM