1. As we all know any solution has to include increased government jobs, more union payoffs, and massive tax increases. Since this requires none of those it's DOA.

Posted by: swassociates on May 3, 2006 11:17 AM

2. Seattle Logic:

The retrofit makes sense to normal, rational people. It has the least impact, least cost, best rate of return, etc.

So the retrofit is the option that won't be considered at all.

Remember, this is the same town that though that an amusement ride to Ballard was a great example of mass transit.

When all you have are ignorant environmentalists, socialists, progressives, etc. all clamoring for a seat at the victim handout table, all you get is anarchy and madness.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 3, 2006 11:24 AM

3. Eventually the viaduct will need replacement. There is no definable emergency that predicates a necessity to replace it at this time.

Eventually everything man builds wears out and needs to be redone. The Kingdome had few fans, but it irritated me no end to see a structure that still had many years of life left in it (and more importantly many more years of debt to pay off!) torn down in favor of building something (at taxpayer expense!) more "attractive" (the relative "attractiveness" of their end result is debatable in my opinion!).

Same holds true of the viaduct. Nipples wants to tear it down for one reason - it suits his "legacy building" agenda. He wants to trade an ugly duckling for a swan and he clearly doesn't care whose money he spends in order to fulfill his desire.

Arguments revolving around earthquake preparedness are strawman - meant to spread and accelerate FUD. Nipples and his ilk leap on that strategy because (1) They have no scruples, and (2) It furthers their aims. It is only because of the extraordinary expense that anyone beyond conservatives are paying any attention at all on this. My guess is that, despite the systemic liberal imperative to spend (other people's) money, they recognize that this one is poised to bite them on the butt.

Whatever decision is ultimately made, I have the utmost confidence that, being run by Dhimmicrats, it will be (1) The wrong choice, (2) Insanely expensive, and (3) Won't substantially change anything......

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 3, 2006 11:38 AM

4. Does anyone think for a minute that the major contracting firms that'd be bidding on this project (and the subcontractors they'd be sending business to) don't have an interest in keeping low-cost options off the table?

Let's not even mention WSDOT's desire to expand their empire.

It's not environmentalists at the hand-out table this time. They're the ones advocating the no-rebuild option. For once I agree with them.

It's the DOT and cement pourers that have the most to gain with the rebuild or tunnel.

Posted by: conservativationist on May 3, 2006 11:41 AM

5. And soup, you forgot (4) Will be delivered years late!

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 3, 2006 11:42 AM

6. But conservationist, the "no build" option leaves us with only 1 North South Cooridor for the highest density population in the Puget Sound area. That's just as insane as spending billions on a fancy new tunnel. The environ wackos like Steinbrueck are just another irrational angle on addressing the structure.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 3, 2006 11:47 AM

7. Jeff B. - Touche!

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 3, 2006 11:52 AM

8. Replace the seawall and make alaskan way 6 lanes plus a flyover for northbound traffic to the ferry. Take out the traffic lights and put in ped overpasses. There'd be room if the viaduct was gone.

Why wouldn't this suffice as a replacement? What's so insane about it? That it won't cost $2-4b or create another giant structure to fail or flood down the road?

Posted by: conservativationist on May 3, 2006 11:59 AM

9. conservativationist-

It would have to be at least 8 lanes as it will have to sustain the existing traffic from both the viaduct and the waterfront. Otherwise I would be okay with that option. I also think that the landowners, etc. that stand to have their property double to tripple if they tunneled or tore down should pay the lion's share of the cost.

Posted by: Jeffro on May 3, 2006 12:17 PM

10. The via duct needs fixing the tunnel idea is what I am against. I lived in New England while the Big Dig in Boston happened. I really dont want that to happen here. I dont trust the politicians to give the real number for the tunnel option. They will low ball the cost.
You know our tax dollars are used for commercials that claim that light rail in on time and on budget. It is relative. They change the numbers it doesnt matter that before one inch of rail was laid they had already spent the entire budget that the voters agreed to. Then those in power will just say it is cost overrun. If Seattle thinks 1.9 miles of tunnel will cost 2 or 3 billion dollars. It will just cost that to plan how to do it. Then just before they start the work they will need more money. My best guess(I could be wrong) is 4 to 10 billion dollars. We have traffic issues all over the tri county area. I think the money would be better spent by upgrade the viaduct and fix more roads. The overall infrastructure is falling apart. I see that every time I drive to Seattle. Cracks are getting bigger. We need to see real road work. I see some in my area but I look at the whole traffic issue it is a nightmare. Lets get the choke points fixed ASAP. then expand the system Lets improve the flow of traffic so that we can fix a road to handle all capacity growth expected for the next decade. Then we can slowly improve the infrastructure as growth moves into new areas. All the plans I see will make rush hour traffic worse. Nothing but doing a little work to maintain the current level of traffic and rush hour time. No improvement because they the politicians want to spend money in certain small areas in mega projects(Which means more waste and fraud and stealing tax dollar money by hiding payoffs within the multi-billion dollar programs)

Posted by: David Anfinrud on May 3, 2006 12:28 PM

11. I only called out 6 lanes since the battery st tunnel's already only 4 (and nobody's planning on enlarging that). 8 lanes works for me, too.

As for downtown landowners paying for it, never gonna happen. The state didn't compensate them when they built the viaduct in the first place (except for condemned land it's actually standing on).

On the other hand, West Seattle seems to be the source/destination of most traffic along the downtown segment of 99 - maybe they should pay a for any viaduct replacement roadway while the downtown landowners pay for the new seawall. Or better yet, make it an EZ-Pass-only toll road and make the users of it pay.

One thing's for sure - making the cost of the project more visible to those paying for it will improve pressure to choose the most cost-effective option.

Posted by: conservativationist on May 3, 2006 12:48 PM

12. "most government officials seem to be divided between the rabid anti-car ideologues like Peter Steinbrueck who want to tear down the Viaduct altogether, and those like Greg Nickels who look at the Viaduct replacement as a bonanza for patronage spending."

More evidence that splitting the difference between those two extremes (and man are they extreme!) to refit the existing viaduct is the practical course to take.

Both those extremes are liberal dreams - "I perceive a solution which pleases me, so the peasantry must pungle forthwith to pay for it, and change their behavior to suit my preferences while they're at it." Time to elect dreamers whose dreams fit our behavior for a change.

The proposal to simply erase the viaduct is particularly airheaded. It considers no costs to society involved in rerouting or abolishing the 100,000 or so daily trips made on that viaduct. Socially useful trips, as defined by the participants, but by default considered harmful by the Steinbrueck crowd. And the Mayor's grandiose pipe dream is brute politics at its worst.

Time to use the urban-preservationists' favorite weapon and have the viaduct declared an historic structure - which it is. Repair it, primp it up with cute little statues of all our local politicians (there! are your egos satisfied now?) and keep the traffic moving so we can make our own routing and scheduling decisions.

Posted by: Hank Bradley on May 3, 2006 01:11 PM

13. Here's the trouble: if this retrofit option actually makes it through the study period and onto the ballot (which is unlikely since the state legislature was specific in demanding that the city either come up with funding for a tunnel by a time certain or begin replacing the viaduct with the money already earmarked for replacement), then those of us who are against the tunnel will be faced with two alternatives.

Should I vote for the best option [perhaps], technically and fiscally (retrofit), or the best option, politically (rebuild, because it has the best chance of prevailing over the tunnel)? This would split the rational vote and give the victory over to the loonies, at a terrible cost to us all.

There must be only one alternative to the tunnel on the ballot, and that alternative will be a rebuild to current building and DOT codes. Let this "alternative" die a quiet death! If it gets support, we'll get the tunnel crammed down our throats - and we'll be in for a fiscal and transportation nightmare.

Posted by: srogers on May 3, 2006 02:42 PM

14. I have to add: Perhaps its a good thing if certain members of the city council are successful at getting the insane "destroy the viaduct and divert all of its traffic onto surface streets and I-5" option onto the ballot. It would split the anti-viaduct vote, which would help assure that the tunnel option loses.

Posted by: srogers on May 3, 2006 02:52 PM

15. My plan - which any elected official or candidate from any of the eight major political parties can use - is to plan for a major 7.5 earthquake to occur next month under the Alaska Way Viaduct at around 3 a.m. on a Wednesday morning.
This would completely destroy the elevated roadway, the waterfront seawall and, sadly, almost all of the historic brick buildings in Pioneer Square. With a bit of luck, the 520 floating bridge will go down too.
Once the shaking is done, we go immediately crying to the federal government and FEMA to rebuild our traffic mess using federal tax money to do it.
Fortunately, few people will be injured during this quake since most of the population will not be commuting or at work.
True, some of the homeless sleeping under the Viaduct or gangbangers shooting people at nearby nightclubs might be put in harms way. But they shouldn't be out that late at night anyway.

Posted by: Reporterward on May 3, 2006 03:17 PM

16. The debate has already had the effect of questioning the wisdom of locating a business in Seattle.

I suspect that the tunnel will be the preferred option, with the unspoken understanding that someone else will pay for the difference. Nickels has asked for a "regionwide" tax to that effect. He has not, however, put the alternatives to a vote of the region. I guess we're good enough to pay for it, but not good enough to decide what should go there.

The surface street option, I think, has a good chance of ultimately winning. No way I'm paying the balance of the cost of a tunnel; I didn't want to pay for the first $2B. No way Seattle builds it if they have to pay the balance. Seattle will not allow a new viaduct, I think.

That will drive more businesses from Seattle, making it more of an amusement park than real city. That is fine with me.

Posted by: South County on May 3, 2006 03:29 PM

17. Not rebuilding I-99 would be a boon to outlying communities. As it is now, their residents have little choice but to travel the longest distances for occupation, retail services, amenities, medical care, etc. They would be forced to invest in local economies and thus strengthen local autonomy. It is wasteful to drive the longest distances, no matter your vehicle mileage, and neglect immediate ecomomies. Not rebuilding I-99 with either elevated structure or a tunnel is a statement of respectable conservatism.

Only the radical right in its ignorance opposes this kind of conservation that strengthens community ties. Suburban subdivisions are so economically dysfunctional, they are little more than housing compounds. Hello?

Posted by: Wellson on May 3, 2006 03:31 PM

18. First let me say, I only use the viaduct once a month. I think a tunnel would be disasterous - but I do think that, following some of conservativationist ideas for a high capacity surface level highway has some potential. Conserv suggested that it become a 6 lane (I say 8), no traffic signal highway that would meet up where the viaduct currently does. Build ped overpasses (many). Parking centers on either end of the waterfront and run the streetcar between them. No pier parking, they have to use one of the parking centers, except hotels. I can see something like that working - but I still feel as though the property owners that would get a new view should pay for most. And move the GD ferry dock further south or something. We've got to stop subsidizing the ferry riders so much - they can walk, bike or bus a bit further into town.

Posted by: Jeffro on May 3, 2006 03:34 PM

19. Not rebuilding I-99 with either elevated structure or a tunnel is a statement of respectable conservatism.

Those those of us that actually have jobs, and productive life's, need to get places. I guess those of you that live in caves, and eat tree bark don't have that worry.

Posted by: swassociates on May 3, 2006 03:37 PM

20. Build one of the parking centers over the sculpture garden so we don't have to look at the perverted statues.

Posted by: Jeffro on May 3, 2006 03:40 PM

21. Jeffro--you must be referring to the "man urinating on boy" fountain that is planned.

Posted by: Organization Man on May 3, 2006 07:27 PM

22. SWassociates is a victim, a prisoner, a wage-slave serving the massah, to whom he must work in a job that requires he own a car to get to the job to pay off the car and his drug habit acquired from the mental and physical stress of driving in circles while waving an American flag the massah requires to keep the job. Meanwhile, SWassociates' associates while likewise imprisoned in similar wage-slavery, whine about traffic and attribute rising costs of living to straw men targets other than their habits and addictions.

Posted by: Wellson on May 3, 2006 09:02 PM

23. Here's where were headed if Nickels get his way:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060504/ap_on_re_us/big_dig_arrests

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 4, 2006 11:35 AM

24. Wellson,

Only the radical right in its ignorance opposes this kind of conservation that strengthens community ties. Suburban subdivisions are so economically dysfunctional, they are little more than housing compounds. Hello?

Which suburbs are you talking about? I live in an exurb, and travel to a suburb for work. I get my medical care in the same suburb, as does my wife. My commute from exurb to suburb is shorter than my old North-Seattle-to-downtown commute. How do you define "outlying areas"? I don't think you can get much more outlying than I have, due to housing costs in Seattle, and my "occupation, retail services, amenities, medical care, etc." are all taken care of outside of Seattle, to my utmost satisfaction. In fact, we only travel to Seattle proper for the occasional visit to a favorite restaurant, and to procure obscure SE Asian beers.

It is not "the radical right," but rather the leftists political establishment of King County, that opposes development in outlying areas, except when they get a cut (see Redmond Ridge / Trilogy, for example). Get your facts straight!

I would love to live in an affordable, livable Seattle, as I was the sixth generation of my family born in Seattle, but you can't point to "the radical right" as the cause of that.

Your Seattle-lefty-centricity is showing. And it's laughably small.

Posted by: Tahan on May 4, 2006 03:13 PM

25. Well Tahan, I consider right wing interests, including those in Seattle, more to blame for the traffic nightmare.

Historically, the first car-dependent suburbs produced the 'traditional' commute to downtown where better-paying jobs made it affordable to move to healthier suburban neighborhoods. Not coincidentally, the suburbs are republican strongholds. As this development pattern replicated ad nauseum, limits on transporation systems were soon reached, reducing attractiveness and affordability.

Exurban development makes the same sort of error and in time will only add to the regional traffic-jam.

Seattle is the region's 500lb gorilla. Hoarding the lion's share of concrete, steel and glass downtown (in the form of high-rise towers), will increase the demand for travel downtown, and influence market demand to make it less and less affordable.

Seattle interests surely disregarded regional needs when Tukwila's commercial core at Southcenter was nixed from the light rail route. Tukwilans could have gained new jobs and services closer to home and reduce their need for long-distance travel while adding modern, comfortable transit. Seattle hoteliers and retailers do not want tourists to make a Southcenter stop, even if it means Link runs mostly empty southbound as the only regional destination between Ranier Valley and Seatac is neglected.

So Tahan, et al, I'm trying to frame a Moderate position on Seattle development and transportation planning. Some Seattle planners must realize that Link without Southcenter actually increases the travel demand that can only be met by driving. And what interests are more related to autos? The clueless liberals? I don't think so. Conservatives aren't allowed an opportunity to consider this broader perspective and are thus equally clueless.

Posted by: Wellson on May 4, 2006 06:46 PM

26. Wellson,

I'm sure you worked real hard to write your comment, but I gotta tell ya, that ranks among the most myopic muddled messes I've seen in a long time!

Did you have a point, or were you just stringing words together to see how pretty they'd look?

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 5, 2006 01:00 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?