No doubt the critics who lamented Dino Rossi's inclusion of a tunnel to replace the Viaduct in his much-discussed transportation plan will denounce the Washington State DOT for having three such options among the ten choices still on the table for the project.
Regardless of where one stands on replacing the Viaduct, and indeed the arguments are many, it seems readily obvious that a tunnel is a fair proposal. The nauseatingly slow process involved in this case makes it even more so.
When was the Nisqually Earthquake again? Just how long exactly has our status quo leadership been unable to get this project figured out?
Pathetic.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 30, 2008 07:34 PM | Email ThisEastern Washington is doing it's part. Where is western Washington?
Posted by: Elaine on April 30, 2008 10:06 PMIf people feel the Viaduct needs to be replaced and sooner the better, then the tunnel is the poorest choice. Outside of the environmental unknowns that you won't know until you start digging, the tunnel would probably be the longest lead time.
Also, why does the state have to pay for a tunnel when a surface structure will adequately replace the existing structure. If the city wants a tunnel due to beautification efforts, let the city pay.
Posted by: tc on May 1, 2008 05:39 AMThe same enviro studies need to be done for both projects, the same type of contamination abatement needs to be done. It will shut down some of the businesses on the water front regardless. There are bound to be some cost savings by doing both at the same time, so why not go for the better choice for the long run?
I know Rossi is talking about a deep bore option, but we should not discount the tunnel just because Nichols wants it.
But I also think it should be tied to a completed freeway package linking 509 with downtown thus relieving some pressure off of I-5. I would be willing to pay for it then!
Look at it this way:
The Viaduct is dangerous.
Tear it down.
Take the default option of a boulevard.
$2.8 billion for a tunnel? C'mon. That is is based on the silly, four-lane "tunnel lite" concept. $3.3 billion for a new, increased capacity 520 bridge? When all is said and done, any reasonble person knows it will cost much more.
Additionally, he claims he'll not cut key programs from the budget, and not raise taxes - paying for most of this by simply redirecting existing tax dollars.
I'm no fan of Gov. Gregoire, and certainly am not suggesting that she has a better proposal. But Rossi isn't giving me much confidence with what is at best an implausible plan.
Posted by: aifoil on May 1, 2008 09:32 AMThink of this as Rossi's Big Dig...can you think of a transportation tunnel that has either been finished on time or on budget? I can't.
Tear it down, build a modern structurally sound one. The sign idea @8 is an excellent idea...get's the city out of liability for the deaths and saves lots of money from future lawsuits. =)
Propose a tunnel -- Seattle and King County are happy and might vote for you.
Get elected and cut the budget
Democrats in the House and Senate have a choice -- Tunnel or their normal giveaways. They chose their precious social giveaways.
No tunnel or viaduct solution.
Blame the Democrats for being obstructionists.
Good plan -- Not. How about a real solution Dino
Posted by: David on May 1, 2008 02:48 PMPropose a tunnel -- Seattle and King County are happy and might vote for you.
Get elected and cut the budget
Democrats in the House and Senate have a choice -- Tunnel or their normal giveaways. They chose their precious social giveaways.
No tunnel or viaduct solution.
Blame the Democrats for being obstructionists.
Good plan -- Not. How about a real solution Dino
Posted by: David on May 1, 2008 02:49 PMOne thing's for sure: it will be more expensive to replace if we need to do it in a hurry when the old one falls down.
As for the people suggesting we just tear it down and everyone ride bicycles or rickshaws or whatever: you don't drive. I don't have any kids, but I don't argue for defunding the school system. That's because I'm not a jerk.