"Licata wants public vote on replacing viaduct with tunnel"
[Seattle City Council President Nick] Licata said Thursday that he will introduce a resolution later this month that calls for a public vote on tunnel replacement. He wants the ballot question to read, "Should Seattle construct a tunnel to replace the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct?"Um, no, it should not. Licata opposes the tunnel. Resolution co-sponsor David Della also opposes the tunnel.
Sure sounds good.
Alternate Ballot Title:
"Should Seattle construct a tunnel to replace the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct, that will be built in fill dirt in an earthquake zone, next to the water front and below sea level, which will cost $4 billion and probably $16 billion with cost over runs, and foul up downtown traffic for 6 years?
Hell No.
Posted by: JCM on August 4, 2006 11:47 AMBuild a Bridge.
Everyone is so bitter and divided between retrofit and tunnel that no one was thinking outside the box. Then along came Earl Bell with the obvious solution. A beautiful bridge that will frame the waterfront, allow for a park like setting (to appeal to commenters like Georges) once the existing viaduct is gone, eliminate most of the concerns with traffic disruption during construction, and cost far less than any other proposal.
It's a no brainer. And the Bridge is the "common ground" that will allow all the hotheads on either side to come together and feel like they reached "consensus," sing Kumbaya, etc.
Without more information and more choices, Licata's public vote proposal is well intentioned, but not enough and will probably ultimately lead to a vote for the tunnel and then a panic for how to fund the tunnel.
Does anyone recall any recently proposed large project that recieved several yes votes from the public, only to induce a panic in terms of actual funding while may problems cropped up with regard to the engineering challenges of implementing the project?
It's Deja Vu in Seattle.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 4, 2006 12:15 PMIf the great Seattle government didn't provide enough parks for the Seattle residents, why should the rest of the state pay for them? If Seattle wants more park space Seattle residents should pay for it. If they do not like the amenities Seattle provides, move to a location that does provide them. There are always trade-offs to be made. Asking other people to pay for them is not reasonable
Posted by: Fred on August 4, 2006 12:44 PMAs for Licata, I talked to him about this plan for a public vote on the tunnel a couple of weeks ago. For what it is worth, he is convinced that Seattle voters would reject the tunnel, which is why he has proposed this vote.
Posted by: ivan on August 4, 2006 01:00 PMEarl Bell's idea of a bridge across the harbor is interesting, but he is a UW retired professor in Urban Design and Planning
I would like to see the cost estimate done by a major firm that has done actual "big project" work in Seattle and/or an area with similar soil and geological conditions
Possibly one of the general contractors on the downtown tunnel and/or Sound Transit
But we need to remember that Metro screwed up the installation of rail in the tunnel, so now the tunnel is closed for 2 years
Posted by: Green Lake Mark on August 4, 2006 01:14 PMThe main attraction I have for the bridge is that it would allow for minimal traffic disruption during construction. Over-burdening downtown streets and I-5 for 6-10 years doesn't seem like a "congestion relief" friendly project.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 4, 2006 01:17 PMIt's not more expensive. Go read Bell's article. But even a back of the napkin sketch proves it's not more expensive. For example, the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge is costing about $850 Million. That bridge has what would be a much greater span than any segment of a proposed cable stay bridge across the waterfront. Even if the proposed bridge was double the cost of the new TNB, it would still be far less than the $4 Billion as a conservative estimate for a tunnel. The big problem with a tunnel being that you have to build a complex seawall to keep all of the water out. It's just a much, much bigger project.
Versus the retrofit, the bridge would probably be comparable in price. But, the added value of a bridge would be twofold. One, it would not impact traffic for most of the construction, and two, when it was finished it would provide the same waterfront park like benefits and other aesthetic benefits that would generate more in real estate value and tourism value. So that offsets a lot of the indirect costs of a retrofit of the existing structure.
The Sound is shallow enough near the shore that the supports for a cable stay bridge would not be as difficult to construct as that of the much deeper Tacoma Narrows, and less equipment to rent for spinning cable, etc.
In short, it's simply cheaper to build something new in an empty site than it is to retrofit, or dig out an existing occupied area.
As for Licata and a plan to put this on the ballot as a preemptive strike; as I outlined above, the Monorail cost us a lot of money in only an imagined state because of a similar strategy. Is that worth the risk, or should we just state that the tunnel is a bad idea, and get on with other ideas from the start?
What's really needed is principled, visioned leadership. The type of leadership that has united opposing factions with sensible yet stunning plan for such a large public endeavor. Frankly, Nickels, the Seattle City Council and most of our elected leaders today are so worried about what other people think, and entenched in political correctness and allegiance to special interests that they have no chance of ever showing any real leadership.
Your comment is well-stated, but I have two points to communicate to you:
1. The viaduct being replaced has NOTHING to do with reclaiming park space for the city of Seattle. As other commentors have pointed out - if Seattle wants more park space, then Seattle (read: YOU, via taxes) should pay for it. I live in Seattle just a few miles north of you (Queen Anne hill), and I think that Seattle and Washington have AMPLE park space and I will vote against any taxes to acquire more.
2. Since you live in the downtown core, presumably over where the tunnel would be placed, is it safe to assume that you wouldn't be driving through the tunnel much (since you'd live above it)? If you were planning on using the viaduct replacement (like I am), you should consider that the tunnel would be built in loose soil in a liquefaction zone along a fault line. If there's an earthquake, the land that is tunneled through will turn to liquid, the tunnel will collapse, and everyone will die. Period. A suspension bridge can be built to withstand an earthquake along the Elliot Bay fault line. But no tunnel yet proposed would be anything but a coffin to those unfortunate enough to be communting through it at the time of an earthquake. Food for thought.
Posted by: Larry on August 4, 2006 01:24 PMThe same Office of Elections which has unknown thousands of illegal voters registed to vote, (including those who reside out of state, in mailboxes and offices, not to mention cemetaries), which finds "missing", overlooked and "previously counted" ballots months after the election, is going to be responsible for counting the votes on referendum near and dear to the hearts of the council?
I say no to any "plebescite" until I can be assured that vote fraud is not a structural part of the process.
pyotr
Also, if we do this, can we please put into the vote that the labor for this isn't prevailing wage? How about no sales taxes on the materials? Saving us millions? That would be nice and now I must wake up from this nice dream.
Posted by: Dengle on August 4, 2006 02:05 PMAlso: Don't assume that when the viaduct is gone that parks will magically pop-up in its place. There are railroad tracks, parking and roads under there now and I don't see those going away.
Put in the Spokane St. improvements that are already required for the extended viaduct shutdown during construction, tear down the 'duct, build 6 or 8 lane roadway with a flyover for ferry access from the southbound lanes and some more ped bridges for access to the piers.
Guaranteed this would take the least time to build, cost the least, and be the safest option in the event of "the big one." It'll also free up the serious money needed to replace 520 which is also a disaster waiting to happen.
Of course, this option won't cost $2bln and so everyone who stands to make money on the project opposes its consideration and pretends like "replace with surface roadway" doesn't exist, even though 99's already a six-lane surface road north of the (4-lane) Battery st. tunnel.
Why do we need an expensive bridge? Just build the road on the ground.
Posted by: conservativationist on August 4, 2006 04:24 PMI think that this vote is a good thing.
Problem is that Nickel Bag or anybody else in power will pay any attention to it. Look at the stadium vote. That didn't seem to make any difference.
And if the vote goes against building the tunnel, does anyone here really believe they will not build it anyway.
We've all seen a couple of stadiums go that route in our own time
Posted by: Gs on August 4, 2006 07:40 PMThey had the money to build the stadiums.
Posted by: ivan on August 4, 2006 08:38 PMThe viaduct should come down with 6 reversible surface lanes taking its place. A 4 lane tunnel isn't going to add any vehicle capacity. And increased capacity should be the first goal of any effort offering solutions to Seattle's traffic problems.
Puget Sound, and specifically Seattle traffic problems date back to the 1950s with the decision to bring I5 through the core of Olympia, Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett. For Seattle, a significant solution is neither a tunnel nor a bridge - it's to spend the probable $16B a tunnel would cost on adding capacity to I5 - in the range of 8 lanes north and south bound from Tukwila to the Lynnwood area.
What about the Convention Center, you ask? Punch a hole through it. How about crossing the Ship Canal? Build another bridge. The point is this: I5 is established and its lack of capacity is the problem. Today I5 is not a viable alternative to traveling north or south, forcing many to choose Seattle's less than stellar streets or the viaduct.
Posted by: Ted on August 4, 2006 09:24 PM