If you actually care about figuring out a replacement for the Viaduct sometime in this century - or Frank Chopp's lifespan - you'll find a recent article in Crosscut on the topic distressing.
Chopp, the uniquely powerful Speaker of the state House of Representatives, seems dead set on a...uh...creative replacement option that is sure to make heads in the offices of elected officials across the Puget Sound region explode:
Crosscut's David Brewster notes that while Christine Gregoire "headed for a foxhole" on the issue, Chopp is in the full throes of obsession.
He's "a man possessed" and "he's also famously stubborn and shows no signs of conceding."
Unreal.
Read the whole article to get a grasp on the proposal that is sure slow down the Viaduct decision-making process even further.
The shame of it is, Chopp is so powerful and has such total control of a chamber of the Legislature that almost no one is going to have the courage to give him the appropriate response:
"Frank, you're totally [bleep]ing nuts!"
Posted by Eric Earling at September 25, 2008 07:28 PM | Email ThisThis is fundamentally just adding a not-very-loadbearing roof and park to the cheap option.
If it gets the bike-crazy and car-abhoring to goo over the park instead of five more years of insane "Kill the cars! Deliberately create bottlenecks everywhere!" crap, it has possibilities.
Posted by: Al on September 25, 2008 07:52 PMThey could all just Jetsen all over town, with no polution and no cost over runs what so ever.
Posted by: gs on September 25, 2008 08:47 PM
Perhaps the construction of this monster will be the first "New Deal" of the second great depression
The present viaduct, unattractive as it is, forms a vital industrial and commuter life-line as an important alternate for much of the I-5 Corridor. It is also a major element for access to W. Seattle.
The single largest failing of the current proposals is a failure to consider that regardless of the eventual solution, it must facilitate at least current carrying capacity for transit, commercial transport, and private vehicles - if not expanded capacity.
The horse is well out the door on private vehicles, and anyone not an environmental enthusiast will only give up the convenience and safety of a personal vehicle kicking and screaming.
It may be possible to persuade the public to switch to alternative propulsion or hybrid vehicles - but not to give them up. In that context, yes, we need to build roads.
Chopp's proposal offers a wonderful new public vista on the top deck, three lanes of traffic in either direction, and increased retail presence along the waterfront.
And, finally, the Seattle Liberal Elite and Gridlock Greg ("if you make it horrid enough, they won't drive") have long needed a good solid kick in the allegorical slats.
Chopp should pull out the *big guns* and ram this plan down the collective throats of the aforementioned elitists - as no small number of us roll about on the floor giggling at their discomfiture.
Go, Frank, go!!
Posted by: GC on September 25, 2008 11:05 PMI wonder if they would be smart enough to make the rental fees for the shops pay for the maintenance of the roads?
Frankly, I don't think there is going to be a plan. There are too many people with their own agendas that are going to muck up the works. The only thing that I see happening is a straight replacement being built. Anything else will piss off too many people and get too many lawyers involved. Even that will only happen after something catastrophic happens.
Posted by: Vince on September 26, 2008 05:35 AMAKA get the homeless closer to heaven, and no access for any sort of public safety activity. Will anyone believe for one nanosecond that Doughboy Nickels or the SPD would bother keeping the riff raf out of that? Gee, the Mayor would do a weekly soup kitchen with a view........
A 7 million dollar Hilton for alkys isn't grand enough for Seattle moonbats?
Keep the viaduct kettle, er soup kitchen, boiling for another decade or two while Boeing bails out, and presto, traffic problems solved!! Frank Chopp, you are a genius!!
Posted by: Hank on September 26, 2008 05:52 AMHowever, I think it may be an idea late to the table.
Posted by: westello on September 26, 2008 09:05 AMNope.
Wanna buy a tunnel?
Uh, no thanks.
How about a tunnel on a bridge?
What?
Posted by: Acid Brain on September 26, 2008 09:59 AMHow can it look cost effective when there aren't any cost estimates (that I've seen) anywhere?
Posted by: Palouse on September 26, 2008 12:29 PM$750 million for a simple replacement six lane, two layer viaduct. That's from WSDOT. This same number is sometimes lumped into seawall replacement and battery street tunnel fixes, so there's plenty of higher quotes for the whole project, but the actual viaduct piece is $750 million.
There's nothing exotic about the actual skeleton - it's a three-layer viaduct. So the gut feeling that the skeleton shouldn't be more than $1.1 billion or so. That doesn't include actual construction of the retail spaces, etc. But those are also the very spaces you'd expect to be able to at least offset their own construction costs directly.
To compare apples with apples, you need to add the billion for the seawall etc. as needed. But the cheapest tunnel option I've seen (which was a dramatic reduction of capacity!) was still roughly double in cost.
The 'ground option' is just a non-starter.
Got it. Have a nice weekend. :)
Posted by: Palouse on September 26, 2008 02:37 PM