When in some locales convenient and plentiful parking is seen as a social evil, so too can replacement of a vital roadway. Such as the Alaskan Way Viaduct. The Seattle Times reports this morning that although the city and state remain opposed, pressure is building to consider tearing down the earthquake-prone downtown Seattle waterfront throughfare, and replace it with....nothing. In a letter to the city council president Nick Licata, Kevin Fullerton, chairman of the Sierra Club political committee, wrote:
"We believe that the future demands more imaginative solutions that do not so flagrantly compromise our environmental values and anticipate cityscapes less enslaved to car dependency."
The story continues:
Licata said he intends to put the no-build option on the ballot in November when city voters are asked what option they support for replacing the viaduct. "I would also like to see a third option of just offering a surface solution," Licata said. "By offering all three options to the public, I believe that we could finally put this matter to rest and move on to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct."Cary Moon, a carless advocate who lives downtown, heads the (People's Waterfront Coalition) and said the state needs to rethink its assumptions on the viaduct. The...(coalition), which favors tearing down the Alaskan Way Viaduct and not replacing it, says some of the displaced traffic can be shifted (by)...people simply not driving in the corridor and finding jobs closer to where they live....(by shifting)...to transit....(and by finding) other streets through downtown Seattle.......Moon said traffic could shift to other Seattle streets, such as 4th and 5th and Dexter avenues. She has no specific plan about where traffic would go, and she suggested the city hire a consultant to prepare a no-build plan if it intends to put it on the ballot.
Right. I'm going to go from West Seattle to Wallingford, or Carkeek Park, using Fourth of Fifth, or Dexter? Cary, what ARE you smoking? The more expensive tunnel option is almost as insane as the do-nothing option. As for a surface option, given geography and current property usages, the challenge of seamlessly weaving it into State Route 99, of which the viaduct is a central part, would be difficult if not imposssible - and would carry its own, large cost overrun risks.
The viaduct is an essential relief valve to I-5, and without it, the interstate's traffic snarls will be even worse, affecting many who don't even use the viaduct. A standing replacement is the way to go.
I use transit when I can, and would like to see more of it. But it must be understood as a choice, not a mandate. One thing is certain: the roads-only absolutists and the transit uber alles Kool-aid quaffers deserve each other.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at March 26, 2006 08:16 AM | Email ThisWhat they don't figure is that to achieve this utopia is that it will drive enough of the producers to more favorable venues and they won't be able to afford to buy a pedicab.
"Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them."
~ Michael Levine (1954?-)
American writer & executive
When I-5 was being built the same type of people complained they did not want a multilane freeway running through the middle of seattle. The viaduct and 405 were compromises to satisfy those idiots.
To make matters worse they built a convention center over the top of it.
So now seattle has the absolute worst traffic flow on any stretch of I5. You cannot just get on the freeway and drive through seattle. You have to constantly change lanes to keep from having to exit.
The narrows bridge project was voted on by people way out of the area. This was done because it was called a regional problem. I think the same should be done for the viaduct. The people of tacoma and gig harbor should get to vote on what is done.
Posted by: BV on March 26, 2006 08:36 AMI am so glad I moved out of Seattle thirty years ago. Now, it seems I must move out of Washington. We are a state of wackos.
Posted by: Snuffy on March 26, 2006 09:45 AMHowever, I can imagine a solution in which the current viaduct is torn down, and the parking area currently underneath the viaduct is turned into roadway, i.e., Alaskan Way gets a lot more lanes. An eight-lane Alaskan Way might be able to handle the traffic.
You'd still have to build ramps from Alaskan Way up to the Battery Street tunnel, and move the streetcar to one side or the other (or remove it entirely). And to make the traffic flow you'd have to take out many of the stop lights, so you'd need pedestrian overpasses.
But it would be cheap.
And it would horrify the hide-the-road naifs, who think if there is a tunnel they will get a new waterfront park, not understanding that the point of the tunnel is to free up a bunch of waterfront property for the Big Boys to build new condos on for the Californian emigrés.
Posted by: Legast on March 26, 2006 11:01 AMI think tearing down the viaduct and putting the road at ground level makes far more sense than a new viaduct or a tunnel, and it can be done in a fraction of the time. Overall traffic may not be accommodated as well, but the years and years of construction and delays will make the ground level solution appear to be a dream. At least you will be able to use it for the next ten years.
Posted by: Janet S on March 26, 2006 11:12 AMPosted by: Wells on March 26, 2006 12:19 PM
Does the Sierra Club give a darn about you? How about the ELF? Does ST care about you? The answer is NO!! They could care less about people and how they live. All they care about is doing what they think is best and damn the rest. Until they start planning a transportation system that includes cars and trucks (semi's, other transportation trucks), then they are not thinking about what is best for our region and people.
Listen to Cary Moon, find a job closer to where you live...what the hell is that? Hmmm, does that mean that Ron Simms and Mayor fat ass need to quit their jobs?
I took public transportation when it was viable, however it is not now. So I drive to my job that helps keep this State and Country moving forward. It also allows for me to raise my family in a nice area that allows for them to have a well rounded upbringing that will benefit them in the future. Is this wrong? No!
If you want cars to go away, that is fine, but I don't. I also don't want public transpoprtation to go away. It services it's purpose for those that CHOOSE to use it.
As for a Boulevard, what are the costs and will that solve the problem of allowing for people to get to work, tourists to visit and most importantly for our goods & services to move in a manner that doesn't kill our region? The tunnnel doesn't do this, a new viaduct will. So right now that is what is best.
Posted by: Dengle on March 26, 2006 01:15 PMFigures.
Our yes votes on I-912 look better than ever.
Posted by: Misty on March 26, 2006 02:22 PMSpeaking of kool-aid drinking, Matt...have you been following the issue?
We're sunk if this is the quality of analysis we're offered.
The people of Seattle can do whatever they want to do, and it's no skin off my @ss...they can outlaw machinery within the city limits, require everyone to wear Hawaiian shirts on Fridays, whatever they want. If they want to dynamite the Viaduct and plant flower gardens, that's fine.
If they choose to do so, it will have a dramatic affect on their status as the commercial hub of western Washington. There would never be another office tower built in the city limits. Rental rates and occupancy would plummet. It would accelerate the shift of businesses toward the eastside and south county. The traffic problem would take care of itself.
They don't need my consent or participation for any of that, do they? Yet they do want my participation, for which they believe they need my consent.
The regional planning focus is bogus. It's a way for Seattle to impose its will and vision on either King County of the Tri-County area. It's an authoritarian vision, one that would impose Seattle interests and sensibilities upon the rest of King County. It would use transportation planning to cement (heh heh) Seattle's position as the hub of the tri-county region. Heck, they've managed to impose their Seattle-centric tax increase on the rest of the state. If they don't expect me to fund their foolishness, or impose it on where I live, we have no basis for conflict.
You will notice that I did not address roads versus transit in my response. Most analysts, including you, have defined the issue as roads versus transit. The question, more appropriately, is:
1) Do subareas get to decide upon appropriate projects for themselves?
2) Are subareas taxed for only their own projects?
3) Are projects built with appropriate controls for cost effectiveness?
These are reasonable requirements. Your fixation on one solution for all does not address this.
Posted by: South County on March 26, 2006 04:07 PMNot replacing it means a more clogged I-5, which in turn means less deliveries between north and south of Seattle, which in turn means .. I dunno, grid lock, windbag politicians, lots of no commerce while people can't drive out to get things...
It would be the same if all the cars ran on hydrogen or water, too.
If you want to have a city, you either need to ban private transportation, or you need roads. Otherwise, commercial transportation cannot exist, and a city cannot exist without commercial transportation.
so whats next, after the viaduct is not rebuilt, will we be banning cars from coming downtown?
That'd suit me fine, I live down here, but you all living in suburbia leeching off Seattle's economic engine while escaping its property tax load might be a bit pinched. Better get used to that waterfront in Federal Way.
Posted by: DaveD on March 26, 2006 04:26 PM (1) Do DIG and COVER for the south bound lanes.
(2) Keep parking and cross traffic on top of the cover.
(3) Let the North bound lanes be elevated just one level.
Results.
(1) Cost of dig/cover should be a lot less than tunnel.
(2) Entire structure goes down in height by about 15 feet.
(3) The Dig (south bound lanes) should still be above the water line. The engineering task would be: (a) stop surface water from getting in and (b) have pumping (for surface water) as a contingency.
(4) Extra capacity is a possibility.
(5) The earthquake engineering cost for one (1) elevated set of lanes should be lower than that of two (2) elevated sets of lanes.
(6) The view would be a little better.
and most important, logistically
(7) If the dig/cover part of the 'new viaduct' is offset to the west from the existing structure, then this corridor of the transportation grid would never be totally down.
(8) If an offset is possible, then financing changes and cost should drop. Dig/Cover first for South Bound lanes. Then a few years later replace viaduct with one set of elevated lanes for the North Bound traffic.
You heard it here at SP first.
Gregg
Posted by: Gregg on March 26, 2006 05:51 PMOther than that, some nice out of the Seattle Box thinking!
Posted by: GS on March 26, 2006 06:24 PMThey social engineered all businesses out to the city and the city into bankruptcy. But they have a really nice light rail line.
Posted by: JC Bob on March 26, 2006 07:08 PMThe less we drive, the more time and money saved and spent on more pressing needs. The more needs met nearby, the more such nearby services can best meet needs. It's essentially a conservative agenda to NOT rebuild the viaduct.
Wake up! The Far Right political agenda is to install an autocracy; government for the rich. And, Far Right leaders are using theology to trick conservatives toward that end. George Bush is an atheist.
Whatever. Blame others. Moan all you like. Right wing opinions expressed here are too obviously bogus. Vote they way you're told. Don't think for yourself. Don't think about the future - Jesus gonna come back, wave his magic Jesus wand and make everything all good, n' punish the evil-doer non-christians too. Oh boy.
Posted by: Wells on March 26, 2006 08:29 PMThe Sierra Club is suffering from what a lot of other once-good organizations are going through, loss of focus and scope creep. They have an initial agenda and once that is addressed, they do not close up shop but continue to operate. They start to drift all over the place. I am on the S.C. mailing list and their "issues" are so fraught with bad science and hysteria that I cannot read them seriously. This was not the case 20 years ago.
You say: "Wake up! The Far Right political agenda is to install an autocracy"
Are you not proposing a political autocracy yourself by imposing limits on people's choice of transportation?
You think you know how things should be run and you try various schemes to impose that on people whether they want it or not. Your heart may be in the right place -- doing this for a higher good and all that but so many times, these schemes have been abject thundering failures that require expensive reworking to correct the damage.
The only thing that limiting highway capacity will do is to drive people away from the downtown core and out into the suburbs -- jobs included.
I used to live near the University district and worked in Pioneer Square for three years. I loved the job. A #74 Express bus stopped two blocks from my front door. I tried taking it and the _Express_ bus took 90 minutes to go downtown and I was able to drive this in 30 minutes. I wound up saving two hours per day and paying $7 each day in parking. Figure burning $3 in gas, the $10 expenditure was well worth the extra two hours I saved each day.
Posted by: DaveH on March 26, 2006 08:58 PMNow....the SC was a good organization and I know some people that are still members that are trying to get it back to being a good organization. Not sure about the FBI...I guess they are burning down buildings and blaming it on the ELF? Doubt it, but then again I don't know for sure....however I truely doubt it.
As for Bush being an atheist....I didn't know that, seeing that he goes to church, but even if he was, what does that matter to our transit problem? And I believe that Jesus died on the Cross to save yours & my sins, if you don't that's fine, your choice....(darn there that word is again)....which why does believing in God mean people don't think of the future? Did the people of this region (liberals as I'm told, but would expect some conservatives too) think of the future when the did I5 or turned down money to build a lite rail system in the 60's? You can "think of the future" and still screw the pooch.
As for ST...they are trying to improve mobility in the Central Puget Sound region. They are trying to make it easier to move around...OK, but it doesn't seem to be a coordinated effort and doesn't seem to be being done efficiently. I voted for ST in 1996 hoping I wasn't being lied too. I now know I was foolish...but maybe someday someone will be able to save that organization....maybe by just making sure that every contract is prevailing wage would be a start.
Finally on ST...take a look at their measures of success.....I bet the only one that they are meeting is the diversity one....and that doesn't amount to much since they are woefully short on their plans.....
Sound Transit's measures of success:
*High-quality projects completed on time and within budget.
*Services are well used with high customer satisfaction.
*Checks and balances ensure accountability to the community.
*Staff, consultants and contractors are accountable to the Sound Transit Board.
*Projects are developed with the help of meaningful community involvement and participation.
*Technical expertise is appropriate to implement the system.
*A lean organization reflects the Sound Transit District's values and diversity.
*Maximum local participation, including Minority/Women/Disadvantaged Business Enterprise firms in Sound Transit contracting.
*Projects include innovative design and operating features that benefit Sound Transit's customers and will attract new riders.
*Partnerships leverage Sound Transit's investments and/or reduce project costs.
What is funny though about your post is Ted Kennedy said hello? or hiccup? also, was he saying hello to your brother Johnny Walker? Sorry that was to big a "soft ball" to hold off on. :-)
Posted by: Dengle on March 26, 2006 09:57 PMIf anyone remembers the 7.0 earthquake in 2001, the Viaduct was shut down for several days while the state looked at it to decide whether it was safe any longer. My former seven minute commute (hey, I lived "close to work" in an ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE MANNER) became two hours each way, because I-5 was backed up for miles.
Posted by: RiceRocket on March 26, 2006 10:28 PMWake up! The Far Left political agenda has installed an autocracy; government for the rich limousine liberals. And, Far Left leaders are using theology to trick liberals toward that end. Howard Dean is an atheist.
Whatever. Blame others. Moan all you like. Left wing opinions expressed here are too obviously bogus. Vote they way you're told. Don't think for yourself. Don't think about the future - Ramtha gonna come back, wave his magic Summerian wand and make everything all good, n' punish the evil-doer non-new age too. Oh girl.
Isn't the whole argument supposed to be about viaduct safety? Wasn't downtown Seattle built on landfill? I thought I read a report that said the city's ground could liquify in a major earthquake....If so - wouldn't that just doom the poor drivers who are caught in the tunnel? And what happens when there is a 5 car pile up in the tunnel? If emergency vehicles are having a hard time now - on top of the earth - can you imagine trying to untangle an accident mess deep inside of a tunnel?
Sure - no one want's the pancake tragedy like California's viaduct had after a major earthquake...but no one want's a tunnel to become their tomb either! At least "some" people could be rescued from a pancaked viaduct...but who could be rescued from a collapsed tunnel?
It's just madness.
Posted by: Deborah on March 27, 2006 12:14 AMDid you think about the volume of water in the Pacific? Any idea how much polar melting it would take to raise the level of the Seattle waterfront by four feet? Those kinds of changes happen over thousands and ten thousands of years. It's not going to happen in 20 years as the doom and gloom environ wackos want you to believe. If you don't believe it, sit down and do some math. Try to calculate the volume of water in the Pacifc. Realize that as water rises, the shoreline lining the entire Pacific and all of the bays, river deltas, etc. slopes at a shallower level at the current water line, thus requiring a far greater volume of water to go up one inch than in the top inch of the current water level. It would literally take melting a vast percentage of the arctic or antarctica to considerably raise the current water level.
But you just take what you read in the lamestream media at face value, rather than bother to dig deeper and to understand whether it's hysteria used for political purposes, or if there's any factual basis.
The idea of man made Global Warming along with a cadre of doomsday scenarios is an irrational political construct designed to convince people to part with their tax dollars. That is all.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 27, 2006 08:53 AMAs a comedian once said, "I think we should take all the people that just love being with other people and put them together on an island. That way it leaves more room for the rest of us!"
Posted by: Ken on March 27, 2006 08:57 AMSuch construction requires demolition of the exisiting viaduct and a three year gap until a tunnel or new vidaduct is complete i.e. no matter what we will be without the viaduct for YEARS.
If the hysterical shrieks that we can't do without the viaduct corridor are true, then we are in for a very rough patch.
Posted by: David Sucher on March 27, 2006 11:15 AMPlanning and building transit services increases travel choice, not limit choice as DaveH claims. The automobile today provides over 90% of all personal travel. How are they not a Transportation Monopoly? Automobiles are a hazard to walking and bicycling. How are they not a Constitutional Inequity, a restriction of freedom? Cities and suburbs built to accommodate only the automobile restrict choice and increase costs of living.
This site is lame. No real debate will be aired here among its narrow-minded, right wing demagogues, always blaming others for their own failings. The self-centered vote republican.
Posted by: Wells on March 27, 2006 12:09 PMI believe that KC has the most bike lane miles than any other county in the nation. I like that since I ride my bike. I would also like to see 520 re-done and have a bike lane as I90 does, but having 2 more GP lanes in each direction is more important to our area.
Again, having transit alternatives is a good thing and most support that, however, we need to make sure that we support the majority of people in this region and repair our existing roads and build new capacity.
Wells, please explain yourself about Auto's being a monopoly, a Constitutional inequity and a restriction of freedom? Are you advocating limits on auto's...only 1 per household? Only 20% of the population gets to have one? I'm not sure where you are going. Please feel free to show us the light or keep taking that rope and hanging yourself with it.
Posted by: Dengle on March 27, 2006 02:47 PMWhether the replacement is a new viaduct or a tunnel, the plans call for the soil to be strengthened by grout injection, and the foundation of the structure will be anchored in the glacial soils below the fill. And whatever structure is built would be built to modern earthquake codes, unlike the current Viaduct or the MacArthur Freeway in Oakland.
You can read all about the project here: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/default.htm
Downtown Seattle is not built on landfill, except for the parts close to the water on the southern end.
Posted by: Legast on March 27, 2006 05:49 PMI do not call for complete abolishment of cars and trucks, only that transportation systems must be multi-modal. The economics of directing urban development toward this goal are promising; costs of living should go down. Communities should gain more control over those costs while creating more jobs locally. Environmentally, more land dedicated to natural space should lead to cleaner runoff and air.
Those who oppose mass transit and the development of walkable, bikable communities do themselves, their neighbors and communities an extreme diservice.
Sound Transit can't put together an efficient, cost-effective operation because they are controlled by Seattle's right wing, Big Business interests. No business monetarily influences the media more than auto-related interests. TV, radio and newspapers take more money from car dealers, financiers, insurers, maintain/repair outfits etc, than any other advertizer. Modern and efficient mass transit is a conflict of interest to the most powerful corporate/industrial business interests. Even globalization is dependent upon a car-dependent consumer.
This really ain't worth it. The right wing is simply too corrupt or stupid to see and admit that reforms are needed. Whatever.
Posted by: Wells on March 27, 2006 09:18 PMI'm not a real fan of HA. It's just as worthlessly cliqueish as this board, but it does present more views, more broadly.
Posted by: Wells on March 28, 2006 09:59 AMYou are in denial. Right wing moderates would prefer more constraints on government and greater involvement by private interests. For example the largest subway system built in this country at the turn of the last century was designed, built and managed by privately own businesses. Check it out. The system(s)included subway and bus companies were built on time and without taxpayers money. The fares were competitively priced and produced a profit. Millions used the system everyday. If you missed a train, no big deal you just wait 5 minutes for the next train.The system runs 24/7. Compare the NYC transportation system to Sound Transit and perhaps you may begin to understand the differences. When the fifty year leases ran out, the city took over operations. Fares shot up 50% and continued to spiral out of sight. Today a 5 cent ride costs $2.00 and profit is non-existant.
Government is not the solution it is the problem.
You want a better system support private enterprise.