Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
In 100 years when we finish paying for it and it’s been flooded for 50 years from ocean rise due to global warming, it won’t matter.
sorry to be such a downer, but i have a feeling seattle will regret this. recall the digging of the bus tunnels during the summer of 1988. a nightmare of unexpected problems. people dying of heat stroke when the electricity was off for 10 days in a 60 square block area.
seattle’s own “big dig” will take far longer and cost far more than predicted.
At least they’re not going with Chopp’s plan.
It a frustrating conflict between what is beautiful and assumed to be better for business and tourism, vs what we can afford in the increasingly awful republican recession.
Cause it’s going to be wildly over budget.
The Iraq war bankrupted the country, will the Seattle tunnel bankrupt our state? Don’t we learn? Guess not.
That’s one of the things I feel (real/old school) conservatives can teach us, how to be fiscally responsible. Not the current faux corporate no regulation conservatives, but the realistic pragmatic conservatives. There have to be a few left.
The “consensus” seems to consist of politicians at the state, county, and city levels — and not include the public. It seems like this is just being popped on us as a done deal without any public discussion. How well has this proposal been vetted with the engineering and financial people? Where are they gonna get the extra money they don’t have? Will the port raise our port taxes again to cover their contribution? Will the proposed local improvement district be narrowly drawn to include only the downtown commercial property owners whose values will increase from improved views, or will it have expansively-drawn boundaries designed to enrich downtown property owners by soaking homeowners for the lion’s share of the costs? There are too many unanswered questions to endorse this thing yet.
Better to do it right the first time than have to redo it later (kingdome). All of the plans had really bad elements to them. At least this is the least crappy one.
@4 The tunnel has been championed by so-called “conservatives”.
Hallelujah! All you whiners may just have your day, but for now, celebrate – a decision has been made!
this is not something to be taken lightly
Roger – you have no business complaining since its people like you that elected these tyrants. Own your disaster.
Wow, no wonder this country is going down the drain. No demands for excellence, just happiness with mediocrity.
Roger Rabbit @ 5: Not discussed? I think that all the options have been discusses ad nauseum by this point.
Personally, I like a tunnel that pushes through-traffice underground and on through the city to emerge again outside of the downtown core. And I like the idea that there are no mid-town entrances and exits. This makes it more of a hybrid “tunnel/surface” option.
I think once we see how enjoyable the waterfront can be, without the noise of the viaduct which makes it necessary to shout in normal conversation, we will appreciate it.
But I’d still like to see the engineering which guarantees that the tunnel won’t flood in an earthquake. That’s the biggest concern on my part.
#2 – Not even close to reality. Just because both projects involve ‘digging’ doesn’t make them in any way similar other than moving dirt. The bus tunnel was massively disruptive BECAUSE it was a cut & cover operation. Meaning the streets had to be dug up to dig the ‘trench’ that would eventually be covered with metal & concrete. In THIS case, we’re talking ‘bored’ tunnels, like the light rail under Beacon hill. They are NOT tearing up the ENTIRE length of the tunnel at the surface/street, it’s all deep under ground. The only impact on the surface at all is where the stations (entry) is dug. So there would be NO disruption to the downtown/streets.
That being settled…can we AFFORD it? Probably not. But be careful of being penny wise and pound foolish!
Pretty low bar for “consensus…”
Three cheers for Seattle!!!
Now all you need is a huge flexible funding source able to cover 100% cost overruns and all the construction claims.
If you all live through construction though, you will have a much improved city for all to enjoy.
Good luck! I really mean that.
Excellent. A tunnel is the correct decision.
It doesn’t matter what the right thinks. Their positions, hopes, dreams and goals were rejected on Nov 4. They lost. They were beaten like a drum. They’re irrelevant and they’re a laughing stock. No need to worry about what they do or do not think about the tunnel or anything else.
@16 Not a bad one, perhaps, if they can somehow address the deteriorating seawall issue at the same time. Otherwise, there’s a few billion waiting down the road to fix the seawall too. I prefered the partially lidded trench myself, as long as it too addressed the seawall.
David @ 12: I was working downtown during the Metro tunnel construction. I seem to remember that they DID bore the holes for most of the tunnel (at least the east-west portion of it). But they also closed off big portions of the streets/sidewalks during construction, I think they said they had to move sewers and underground utilities. So perhaps both are true – it’s not completely painless, but not as bad as a full cut-and-cover operation?
Buy the way, what’s happening to the seawall?
Thank God. Good riddance to the viaduct abortion.
It was bad enough for Gregoire to propose Rossi’s budget. Now Gregoire is proposing Rossi’s Alaskan Way tunnel as well. What’s next, Rossi’s eight lane SR-520 bridge replacement?
How are we going to pay for all of this? Will we get Rossi’s tax cuts as well?
In theory this should have no surface disruption other than near the tunnel portals, it will be deep enough to avoid utility relocation.
The reason the bus tunnel was so disruptive was the stations were all cut & cover requiring extensive utility relocation. The tunnel bores wern’t all that deep either which required some utility work in non-station areas.
The tunnel will be inland of the waterfront and there is little danger of it flooding due to a quake. Even if the tunnel was passing under Elliot Bay flooding likely wouldn’t be a problem, there are tunnels next to and under bodies of water all over the world.
Sadly by virtue of being inland this tunnel does nothing for the seawall.
In any case I oppose the tunnel purely on cost grounds. If we’re going to spend this kind of money $2.5 billion would pay for a lot of other mobility improvements.
@21
And based purely on cost grounds, it would make more sense to pave over Central Park, then sell the land to developers.
No, this is the correct decision. The tunnel is the correct decision.
Oh my gawd. I think I just agreed with Troll.
Given the current money troubles, I’m thinking that Gregoire must have some inside information about financing which Soon-To-Be-President Obama is planning on putting on the table as part of the stimulus package. Notice that she deferred the decision until now, twelve days after her original deadline, which coincided nicely with her return from her trip to Iraq via Washington D.C. The current proposal may be all local funding, but she might be expecting the federal government to kick in some substantial money which would free up state money which is currently allocated for other projects.
Boston got the “Big Dig”.
We get the “Big Bore”.
And all of the taxpayers wind up getting the “Big Shaft”, one way or another.
@23
Wow. Okay, here’s my thinking … We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to reclaim our waterfront. And it’s not even a once in a lifetime opportunity, it’s a one in a century opportunity. I don’t care about the merits of a tunnel beyond that. To me, this isn’t about the best transportation alternative, or cost. It’s simply about getting rid of something that’s a blight upon our waterfront and putting a park in its place.
Kudos to Troll’s physician!
That new prescription seems to have worked quite well at controlling his delusional thought processes.
@26 It seems to have worked well for SF in regards to the Embarcadaro. Getting rid of the viaduct will transform the Seattle waterfront. It seems a question now of what will happen to the empty space when it’s gone. Someone mention corruption earlier. I believe Seattle’s not so much corrupt as it is a place where some people just happen to get a little richer when something like this happens.
@27 Ah, Troll’s not so bad. I think he just likes to mix things up around here. Besides, he gives me plenty of stuff to pound Pudz with and I appreciate that.
I suspect that this decision has been based in part on the assumption that the incoming administration will be more inclined to attempt to bolster the economy by putting people to work “rebuilding and extending infrastructure”, and that replacing major highway structures that are likely to collapse will be fairly high on the priority list. In other words, it’s hoped that Uncle Sam will throw in to pick up some of the tab–not entirely unrealistic.
There had better be a toll on this new tunnel. If we in Pierce County have a toll on the Narrows Bridge, then Seattle gets a toll on their spiffy new tunnel! Fair is fair!
dave at 12: i’ll bet you will be surprised by what is under there… a lot of fill from the denny regrade, a beach, dock timbers, who knows what. there is a ship buried under western avenue near where 99 bends into the tunnel. how deep would you have to dig to get under all of it? i doubt anyone really knows.
still haven’t heard convincing evidence that the viaduct couldn’t just be taken down and replaced with nothing at all.
Nothing for the seawall? That strikes me as irresponsible.
However, OTOH, the seawall is more of a “Seattle” issue and probably should be maintained with Seattle funds.
So cut the port loose and let Seattle property tax payers shore up the seawall.
The next big shaker could be just around the corner.
As I pointed out in the last thread, the construction of the seawall will be considerably different whether or not it’s also supposed to be the sidewall of a cut-and-cover tunnel. At the same time, separating the two makes the seawall administratively a city and/or port problem, not a state-highway issue.
No doubt the POS would have loved to have the DOT pick up the tab for rebuilding the seawall, so the Port could take the money they’d have had to use to do it and squander it somewhere else.
34 – Yeah, scratch that last part about Seattle property tax payers.
Art @ 30: Yep, I’m thinking that the administration is moving toward infrastructure improvements to get the economy moving, instead of the current practice of throwing money at the existing businesses in the hopes that somehow that makes it all better. Using infrastructure improvements has two three big advantages: (1) you can’t outsource it to China so the money remains in the U.S., (2) it’s a “ground-up” approach which improves the economy by encouring high-wage job growth, and (3) the money spent will still be around for decades to come as a “real assett”.
Say, Artfart, about that corruption thread, sorry if the tone of my response to you was a little off.
@9 You’re new to politics, aren’t you? Every Democrat has a God-given right to bitch about elected Democrats. In fact, that’s how we usually occupy ourselves, and we were merely diverted from it the last few years while you Nazis temporarily got out of control.
@11 This plan hasn’t been discussed. Today is the first time we’ve heard about it, and from what little we know about it, it’s far from finalized. It looks more like a blank check than a specific plan.
@6 Why stop there? Why not kick out all the developers and landlords, and give downtown Seattle back to the Indians? It was theirs to start with, and it was a hell of a lot more picturesque covered with trees instead of skyscrapers.
Instead of enjoying 2 miles of breathtaking panoramic Elliott Bay views, for the next 100 years drivers will get claustrophia from looking at 2 miles of concrete walls.
Yeah well sorry about the view. Tough that. A through fare for motor vehicles that doesn’t have a spectacular view…
Clearly this is the best solution. Surface was DOA due to capacity and flow, a viaduct of any sort is an abominable edifice to motor vehicles, and this solution wisely leverages technology that has worked out very well for Beacon Hill (which has bad dirt too).
Will, saw your comment on the PI and was disappointed. I really have not a lot of patience with the “we can’t afford it” response – that one has shaped the government hating robber thug driven political philosophy has been so prevalent for the last three decades. Time to move on.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....st18m.html
We hide the slaughterhouse behind pretty landscaping. This tunnel will serve a similar purpose. It will stop those ugly working people from taking up the view of the harbor, leaving the sight lines clean and clear to the elite owners downtown. If the working bees are going to work or home in the hoi polloi neighborhoods of West Seattle or Ballard, they can do it underground. Two miles of concrete instead of a share of the view on the viaduct, one of the pleasures of living in Seattle. The powers that be win again.
#39 This plan hasn’t been discussed. Today is the first time we’ve heard about it, and from what little we know about it, it’s far from finalized. It looks more like a blank check than a specific plan.
——————-
In fact, it has in a way and was rejected if you can keep track of all the tacking of our government “leadership.” This from the PI:
The deep-bore tunnel idea is similar to the plan Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels had previously pushed. State leaders rejected it as too expensive at the time – and Seattle voters showed no support for it in a curiously designed ballot measure that also ask if an elevated structure should be built.
The idea seems to have come full circle in the past two years, with a different tunnel but similar concept.
The new plan gained momentum this year in part because the deep-bore technology allows much less disruptive construction than the cut-and-cover tunnel that Nickels had originally advocated.
It will likely cost more money than 2007’s doomed proposal.
Nickels’ support for the new plan flies in the face of his statements after the 2007 Seattle ballot measure, which showed no support for the tunnel. At the time he said that while the results were difficult to interpret, one thing was clear, voters don’t want a highway through the heart of downtown.
“I would look at it as a blank slate,” Nickels said at the time. “The voters said no to the two options that were put before them, which were both highway options, and it is up to us to take a harder look at other alternatives.”
See: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.....159234.asp
One gets the clear impression that the people who like to regularly talk about making “tough” decisions simply caved in on this one. As someone noted, none of them will have to deal with the cost and other problems that emerge later.
Leaders, indeed.
@32
That would be my prefered result. First choice is one of the surface options, second is some form of tunnel, and I’ll chain myself to the current viaduct before I’ll let another one get built.
BTW for those of you who are lamenting the loss of the view from the Southbound lanes, you were going to have that anyway. Any new elevated structure would have 8 foot tall solid guardrails. Sure you could still the sky, but not much else.
The best “view” options for motorists are the surface ones. Followed by the tunnel options where you can take the surface should you so choose.
@42 Views are expendable. Cars are here to stay. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with cars except what goes into the fuel tank and comes out of the tailpipe, which smart engineering could fix if Detroit has the will.
As for the delicate subject of affordability, wanting public projects to not cost more than what we can afford to pay for them doesn’t make someone a “government-hating robber thug,” and attitudes like that only serve to give liberals a bad name. We all have to live within our means, and when other people try to force us to live beyond our means, we have no choice but to fight. Cooperation and collaboration, negotiation and compromise, and consideration will get you a lot farther a lot quicker than confrontation. Part of the problem here in Seattle is that some people have high incomes and can easily afford all these projects and the taxes that come with them, and they don’t seem to give a damn about the segment of the population for whom the bills for these projects are a real burden. That’s divisive.
@44 There is indeed a “class” issue here. The views from the downtown highrises are enjoyed almost exclusively by bankers, lawyers, businessmen, and owners of million-dollar condos. Motorists enjoy a fabulous view from the viaduct that everyone can afford because it costs nothing and many of the people enjoying it are working stiffs who spend their workdays in shops, storerooms, or crawl spaces instead of offices with a view. Over the years, every time I’ve traveled on the viaduct, the view proved to be the highlight of my day, and it never grew old or boring. The idea of taking that view away us to improve the views of the hoity-toities up in the office towers has a certain rancid smell to it — and if the extra money is gotten from the people being consigning to an underground dungeon of a roadway the odor is downright putrid.
@45 Of course, the Seattle Way is to solve the problem of something being too expensive by rejecting it in favor of something even more expensive.
@46 Of course, the best view option of all is to figure out how to steal enough money from enough people to become a fucking billionaire and have your own personal helicopter with your own personal landing pad on top of your own personal skyscraper.
Well, “Troll” believes a tunnel is a good idea.
I rest my case.
re 51: That’s because building it is privatizing taxpayer money — and that’s dandy.
I wonder how much CO2 is going to get spewed into the air boring the tunnel and trucking out all that dirt?
Anybody know where they’re planning on taking the dirt and what happens if the find heavy metals in it?
Are there any figures out there on how much traffic 99 will be carrying when gas is $4.50 a gallon? Hell, we might have bike and horse lanes in it by the time it’s done.
Roger, 3.x billion compared to 4.x billion for a tunnel is affordable. You will not be taxed into poverty. A combination of open space and adjacent new development in the space currently being used by a noisy through fare will be a boon to not only the developers and occupants, but also to the greater public that uses Seattle. I don’t live downtown, but I’m looking forward to enjoying the view of the former viaduct real estate with a bloody mary at Lowell’s, maybe with the window open.
Rabbit @ 48
I must disagree with you on this one. First, while driving along the viaduct we might get a quick glimpse to the west. But, given the narrowness of the lanes and the speed of the highway, taking in the view is not a safe option. On the other hand, Seattle is a destination city for not only the whole state, but for people throughout the greater northwest. My father, who lives in northern Idaho, relishes visits to downtown Seattle. People from places as disparate as southeast Alaska and western Montana consider Seattle as their major city. Improving our waterfront to make this city more of a magnet (what city can any of you name with a viaductless view as beautiful as ours?) and creating jobs at the same time is a nobrainer. A tunnel is the only option that ever made any sense. You can’t win at craps if you don’t roll the dice. I hope to hell our leadership has finally settled on the only plan that might put our city out front and center. And, for what it’s worth, Frank Chopp can go fuck himself.
Even with TWO terms (G-d willing) Barack Obama will be out of office before the Seattle numbnuts even get the designs off the table. Somebody better get to ‘deciding’ or doing SOMETHING before Ma Nature pops her next big smackdown.
RR, no matter what, Seattle is the big spend city that needs to be a “World Class City”. So it will spend whatever it can’t afford. It’s in a race to become the most unaffordable city. I’ve finally come to grips with that.
@54 Bingo, my thoughts exactly. Just because gas is cheap(er) right now doesn’t mean it always will be. Maybe they should consider putting some light rail in the damned thing if they are intent on building it. I think they are crazy to build it in fill that will liquify in the case of an earthquake, and that has god know what lurking in it. Building it under the bay would be a better option. I’m still for knocking the viaduct down and not doing anything else. We need to attend to our electric grid more than we need to build more damn roads.
At least once a week I drive by Silver Lake in Everett. That’s the one by Hwy 527 (Bothell-Everett Hwy), not too far from the northern end of that throughway.
They’ve made a lot of road improvements there over the past ten years, expanding the lanes, raising the highway level to avoid flooding, etc. Some people enjoy driving on the road right beside the lake, because it’s a nice view of the small lake.
But everytime I see the lake, I can’t help thinking about what “might have been”. What if the city had bought up the properties around the lake years earlier, creating a green park-like buffer, along with riding and walking paths all the way around the lake, similar to what is available at Seattle’s Green Lake? What a wonderful addition that would have made to the community!
Instead, we have a highway which wraps right around the east side of the lake right where the water meets the dirt, homes on the lake on the north side, a small neglected park in the N.W. corner, more homes adjacent to the lake, and apartment complexes (and another tiny park) on the south side.
If the city had a plan in place over the past twenty-five years, it could have gone to the adjacent property owners and offered them a deal: an immediate 5K bonus, and they can live there as long as they want, but when it comes time to sell they have to sell to the city for a pre-determined value.
But there’s been no money allocated for such a project, and in the meantime the DOT has built up the roadway right by the lake, and businesses and condos are going up on the eastern side of the highway (making moving it unlikely). The odds are that this lake will never be anything more than something you see for a couple of minutes as you drive by.
(Sigh) the possibilities of what “might have been”….
For those of you moaning about the cost, boring tunnels is not that expensive. Caltrans is currently boring twin tunnels approximately 4,200 feet long and 30 feet wide to bypass Devil’s Slide on Hwy 1 south of San Francisco. The cost? $200 million.
Grandma_taught_me_to_hate_darkies@57: And who put those politicians into power?
Your peeps did!
You are right about one thing. Libruls have too many constituents to do the right thing.