I’m not a huge Greg Nickels fan, and to be honest, it wouldn’t surprise me if a ghost writer penned the guest column that bears his name in today’s Seattle Times, “Seattle shouldn’t repeat its viaduct mistake.” But whoever wrote the words, Nickels deserves a load of credit for putting his name on the vision, and getting out in front on an issue that the MSM currently finds faddish to rail against: replacing the decaying Alaska Way Viaduct with a tunnel.
When considering Seattle’s future, it’s helpful to look back at our past.
Take the Alaskan Way Viaduct. When it opened in 1952, the “modern” double-decker highway replaced a tangle of railroad tracks along the shores of Seattle’s working waterfront.
It might have made sense to some at the time to wall off the still-gritty waterfront from the city with a noisy concrete curtain. But it didn’t take very long for people to realize that we’d made a very big mistake.
Which is why it is all the more baffling that 50 years later, when we finally have the chance to do it right by replacing the viaduct with a tunnel, some people are arguing we should make the same mistake all over again.
Another noisy, messy blight
I think I’ll go over to unsound politics and see whether steffie has gotten out of the sack yet.
What we we took down the AWV and instead added equivalent lane capacity to I-5? Of course that would also be very expensive, and would require taking down the convention center. But would it be better to have just one ugly gray wall of traffic instead of two or a tunnel that we clearly can’t afford?
explain again why it has to be replaced…..right, because someone was stupid enough to put one there the first time…stop it cuz I’m laughing so hard right now….and this is a hat tip to R. Rabbit
LOL LOL ……………………………………………LOL LOL
LOL LOL ……………………………………………LOL LOL
LOL LOL ……………………………………………LOL LOL
LOL LOL ……………………………………………LOL LOL
LOL LOL ……………………………………………LOL LOL
LOL LOL ……………………………………………LOL LOL
Hey Mayor Nickels, I’ve asked this before — how was the original seawall financed? In what way is the seawall a “transportation” project? Shouldn’t the seawall be paid for by adjacent property owners? Why in hell should any motorist anywhere in the state have to contribute 1 thin dime to the seawall? Mayor Buddy, you can get the billion bucks for the seawall if you get your head out of your heinie and tax the people who ought to pay for it — the waterfront users and downtown property owners. If you ask me to vote for a local gas tax or sales tax to pay for a seawall I’m gonna shove it up your ass!
@4
You must not have gotten the word yet — I’m Dean Logan now. Stefan “loganized” me yesterday, which is the highest honor a turd like him can bestow on a shitheel like me.
no really, build the tunnel….can we see the cars inside. Maybe we can make it like those tubes for Hamster cages…..what were those called ….? I want to say “Habitrails”, all yellowish, and we could have a wheel, that goes……
LOL LOL………………………………………………..LOL
LOL LOL………………………………………………..LOL
LOL LOL………………………………………………..LOL
LOL LOL………………………………………………..LOL
LOL LOL………………………………………………..LOL
LOL LOL…………………………………………….LOL
Roger Rabbit:
I’m moving this up from another thread since this one opened up:
Here’s an interesting idea based upon your post. We fund a AWV tunnel up to the replacement cost of the viaduct, and then fund the rest with a tax on the properties that would benefit from the seawall and the increase view. All of those offices, buisnesses and condos that would suddenly have an open view would share in with the waterfront people in the cost, and Seattle gets a beautiful waterfront. Not a bad idea, eh?
Also, I thought I would do a little factual research, just for fun.
Total posts since Monday as of 11am Wednesday on HA: 402 in 8 threads (avg 50.25 posts per thread).
Total posts since Monday as of 11am Wednesday on the minnows taking site: 299 in 12 threads (avg 24.91 posts per thread).
See what a difference and open and welcoming blog makes against one that is just lakeys and bans contrary views? Over a 2 to one ratio of posts per thread, and well over 100 more posts total with four less threads. And think about how many of the posts over at the minnow’s site are complaining about the left wing bias of the PI for telling them that David Irons doesn’t support 912. A fair and ballance place, like the minnows site, would cover up that fact.
Goldy! You have to put a stop to this fake posting right away! Take a look at this alleged “JDB” post @ 8:
“Here’s an interesting idea… We fund a AWV tunnel up to the replacement cost of the viaduct and then fund the rest with a tax on the properties that would benefit from the seawall and the increase[d] view. All of those offices, buisnesses and condos would share… in the cost and Seattle gets a beautiful waterfront.” [lightly edited by me]
C’mon! That post makes too damn much sense and even appeals to my moderate conservative sensibilities. You must put an end to phony posting right away! ;)
Here’s what I dug up: The seawall was built in two stages, 1911-1916, and 1932-34. According to HistoryLink.org, a web site devoted to Washington state history, the 1930s portion was built with “federal aid.” http://www.historylink.org/ess.....le_id=7072 This occurred at a time when vast sums of federal money were financing massive construction projects (e.g., Grand Coulee Dam) to help revitalize the Depression-era economy.
Here’s an article from The Stranger that gives a good rundown on the seawall’s and viaduct’s vulnerabilities from an engineering viewpoint. http://www.thestranger.com/sea.....?oid=16364 To summarize, both were built when the seismic hazards were not understood, and if the rotting seawall (which is partially built from wood timbers) goes, it will take the viaduct with it because the seawall is what holds up the viaduct’s foundations.
According to The Stranger, the three options for replacing the seawall and viaduct are: (1) a cut-and-cover tunnel costing $3.8 to $4.1 billion, (2) rebuilding the viaduct in place for $3.2 to $3.5 billion, and (3) replacing it with a 6-lane surface boulevard at $2.5 to $2.8 billion.
The 9.5 cent gas tax passed by the Legislature this spring will, if it survives Initiative 912, provide $2 billion for the project. The rest of project costs will have to come from local, federal, or private sources. If the cheapest alternative is chosen, local taxpayers would have to come up with $500-800 million at most; if the tunnel is built, this exposure balloons to $2.1 billion or more.
The big question, then, is what funding sources could be tapped. A local tax package is an obvious option, tolls are another. But are there other ways to avoid or minimize a hit on local taxpayers above and beyond the 9.5 cent gas tax?
1) Since the seawall was originally funded by the federal government, and is maritime related, Corps of Engineers funding for seawall replacement is an attractive option — especially given the COE’s clout in getting the money it wants from Congress and the White House. According to the WSDOT web site, a feasibility study by the Corps of Engineers and City of Seattle “will determine the Corps’ federal interest in sharing the cost of construction to address the degraded condition of the Elliott Bay Seawall.” http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projec.....stions.htm
2) Another possibility for seawall funding that I have suggested on HorsesAss is assessing waterfront users and adjacent property owners for seawall costs by establishing a Local Improvement District and imposing a levy on properties within the LID. My logic is the seawall is not a “transportation” project and is directly related to the value and protection of the property and structures behind it, so the property owners who benefit from it should pay for it. There’s no logic at all in making motorists or residential property owners located far from the waterfront pay taxes for the seawall, and doing so would give downtown waterfront property owners a windfall at their expense.
3) A cut-and-cover tunnel design raises another interesting possibility by freeing up the space currently occupied by the viaduct: Since you can build on top of the tunnel, why not raise the difference between a surface roadway and a tunnel by selling or leasing the air rights above the tunnel to developers? Surely the value of downtown land is such that a substantial amount of money could be raised by putting condos, shops, and office buildings on top of the tunnel. There’s an awful lot of space there. Sure, promenades and parks and all that are lovely, but we’re talking money here. If downtown interests want that stuff to increase their property values and business, let them buy the development rights and build sidewalks there — but no way, no how, should taxpayers be forced to make up the lost revenue or pay for the beautification! That, again, would be a shifting of costs to taxpayers receiving little or no benefit from the investment so that downtown business interests may profit. Nyet!
So … in conclusion … tunnel proponents shouldn’t give up just yet but should not look to motorists or taxpayers for the money. They should look for federal funding, an LID levy, sale or lease of development rights above the tunnel, or a combination of all three.
So sayeth the Rabbit.
I can agree with the seawall funing idea. The benefit to the City is obvious. What are the funding possibilities? The real estate alone could fund it I would think!
The fact we’re talking about the viaduct/seawall replacement and funding over here on HorsesAss is proof that liberals are people who solve problems while the Far Right does nothing but rant and fiddle while Rome burns.
Wabbit answered part of my question be for I asked it. Way to go Wabbit.
A noteworthy point from The Stranger article is that if an earthquake collapsed the viaduct, insteading of pancaking it probably would topple in an eastward direction, smashing the buildings it landed on. Consequently, the potential death toll is much higher than just the occupants of the vehicles on the viaduct when it falls.
Also read carefully in the article the details about the gooey, wet, unstable muck that’s holding up the viaduct. After reading that article, you’ll never drive on it again.
NO SHIT!!!!!!
What needs to happen now is we’ve got to head off the local tax package at the pass. Making policymakers look elsewhere for the money is something liberals and conservatives should be able to agree on, and join forces on. The only way you can steer officials like Nickels and Sims toward the funding sources I mentioned — federal money for seawall reconstruction, LID taxes, selling development rights — is to get the jump on them. Citizens have to get involved early and be loud and persistent, or the pols will try to stick it to us for sure — by hitting us with car tab fees, excise taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, and anything else they can dream up. The game for the pols is to shift the costs from downtown business interests to Joe Lunchbucket and Jane Consumer; the game for us ordinary citizens is to preempt them before they can get their funding ideas off the ground. The race will go to the swiftest.
Crank up the grassroots propaganda machine, boys and girls!
Drove it this morning, gonna drive it later today. Will happily drive on it for the next 20 years until the typical 6.5 northwest quake, too. After that, who knows? The tunnel crowd has had a hard-on to prettify the waterfront for a long time (though tearing the AWV down won’t get you an inch closer to water, and could result in a 4 or 6 lane surface street, not exactly pedestrian friendly), and were sorely disappointed when the AVW remained usable after the Nisqually quake.
There is only one thing he left out:
Because we want to do the viaduct replacement right, I am sending today an ordinance to the Council to raise the sales tax to provide for half of the cost of the Alaskan Way tunnel and all of the cost of replacing the Alaskan Way seawall.
We will have to look to the taxpayers of King County, the rest of the State and the nation to fund the other half of the tunnel.
Oh, RR you are such a good Liberal. Give me what I want but don’t ask me to pay for it.
Roger Rabbit —
The idea you had about funding the tunnel from local money makes sense to me! According to the WSDOT site, the cost of putting the AWV in a tunnel is about $1B, or 25% of the project cost. The rest is building a seawall and the cost of repairing the AWV.
Aside from the better view, the reason to put the AWV in a tunnel is that a buried thing cannot fall down. Seriously. We want a road with a low center of gravity for the kind of in-fill soil that is down there. Since it’s going to benefit the property values of condos down there, we should recover some money from property taxes. We could get the rest from a sales tax on the surrounding area. I live a mile away, and I’d be happy to pay the extra $400 in property taxes.
damn, thats one smart rabbit.
I love to see real ideas coming out of here :D
Why the fascination with a “rumored” seismic event…??? The random 6.5 won’t hurt it, you guys appear to be grasping onto thin science, in order to fund you union buddies?? Latte drinking salmon beach aspirations?
I’ve rather have 50 more policemen on the street…
Righton –
Uhhhh. The last 6.5 we had was 40 miles away and almost leveled the entire area.
Wabbit @ 16 – Holy cwap wabbit. Izzat you? “Head off the local tax package at the pass.” What kinda gwass you been eating? You been eating conservative gwass. Do you really mean that there’s more to fixing problems than just throwing money at them? Wow…
heath; what 6.5 almost leveled what area?
why can’t they just toll the tunnel users once the tunnel is built?
and rabbit — the seawall is important to the health and economy of the whole region, not just to the businesses and residents of downtown.
Seattle absolutely must replace the seawall before long, and a combination tunnel-seawall makes the most sense. That is, unless you are a builder who expects to make money off both projects. But without a solid seawall, the entire waterfront would start to slide off into Elliot Bay and this cannot be ignored.
ROGER RABBIT’S CAPITALIST TUNNEL PLAN
Here’s how to turn the White Elephant into a Cash Cow:
1. Sell viaduct to developers for $1.00.
2. Developers pay costs of tearing down viaduct and building tunnel.
3. In return, developers can collect tolls and condos, offices, and shops on top of it.
3. Public benefits are that state, county, and city spend $0; property taxes are collected on improvements; and growth management goals are furthered because city gains thousands of downtown housing units.
righton@25,
Ah, my mistake. The 2001 Nisqually quake was a 6.8, from 30 miles away, and nearly levelled Pioneer Square. The point being that the area is a liquefaction zone, that was a moderate earthquake at a substantial distance.
Redneck @ 24
“What kinda gwass you been eating? You been eating conservative gwass. Do you really mean that there’s more to fixing problems than just throwing money at them? Wow…”
No, he couldn’t have been eating conservative grass, because he actually discussed a revenue stream to pay for the project!
I have three souvenir bricks from the Fenix, which was the most heavily damaged structure in Pioneer Square, and probably all of Seattle. The building has been renovated and now is the location of the club Howl at the Moon.
I believe Heath has overstated the case about the Nisqually Quake “nearly levelling” Pioneer Square.
Wabbit – I know you’ve been ill lately, and I certainly wouldn’t want to say anything that might put you over the edge. But…
You agree with J O H N C A R L S O N ! ! ! ! ! After Goldy got off this afternoon, there was a new topic. JC criticized the mayor for trying to pass off an urban renewal program with transportation dollars. He made the point that those who would benefit from the increased property values should pay the bills.
Wow. This is great. One of the most outspoken HAs keeps moving closer to conservative right thinking views every day.
Being new to the area, I’d like to understand some of these issues. I’ll elect Roger Rabbit for the left side and Mark the Redneck for the right side.
Sell me on the viaduct needs and the tunnel needs.
heath@29;
That’s why you transportation nuts on the left get no credibility; cry wolf, you with the liquification of pioneer square and that other guy a month ago w/ the 90 foot high tsunami in Elliott bay.
We tune you guys out on the viaduct risk, for those reasons.
Shame on both of us if you are right, but your spin causes people to tune out.
PacMan – I’m not much of an expert on the AWV question, although I do agree with Wabbit and Carlson. My interest is more in the area of getting an overall integrated transportation plan that works. My plan has 6 elements:
1) We need one integrated transit plan that focuses mostly on cars since that’s how most of us travel, but with convient interconnections to trains, buses, the monorail, ferries, etc. We have too many standalone solutions now that don’t work together to reduce congestion. We need to throw out the whole RuthFisherism line of thinking.
2) We need to have one “super agency” that manages the whole thing for the entire region in order to ensure integration of each piece of the solution package into a cohesive whole.
3) The guys in charge need to be engineers…. steel and concrete guys… not lawyers, activists, politicians, kooks and eggheads like SPM has now. This is a series of huge technical project and it needs technical people in charge.
4) We need to be told the whole bill for the entire solution, and put together an financing package that makes sense to pay for all of it. No more piecemeal financing schemes.
5) We need to revamp the laws governing construction projects. See EFF web page for details.
6) The People must be allowed to vote on the entire package of projects, financing, management and laws. No more declaring “emergencies” to thwart the will of The People.
32
“Wow. This is great. One of the most outspoken HAs keeps moving closer to conservative right thinking views every day.”
The way I see it, you and Carlson are moving closer to real-world Democrats who solve problems instead of saying no all the time.
Reply to 33
PacMan, there isn’t a “left” or “right” side to this issue. There are, however, differences of opinion in the community over (a) whether the viaduct and seawall need replacing, (b) if so, with what, and (c) how it gets paid for, and who pays for it.
I’ll try to summarize what the engineers say. The shoreline bordering Elliott Bay originally was marshland and mud flats. The downtown waterfront sits atop loose, water-saturated fill upon to 280 feet deep held in place by a timber and concrete seawall built mostly in the 1930s. Testing shows the seawall has deteriorated from time, erosion, and marine creatures. The viaduct, built in the early 1950s, sits on top of this water-saturated fill material. The viaduct is not only at the end of its design life, but was damaged in the 2001 earthquake. Engineers believe that if the ground under the viaduct began shaking hard enough, the viaduct’s foundations would fail, the viaduct would fall sideways onto adjacent buildings, and the pressure on its foundations pushing against the fill material behind the seawall would cause the seawall to cave in.
When the seawall and viaduct were built, no one knew the viaduct sits directly on top of a subduction zone where the oceanic and continental tectonic plates meet. This is the type of fault zone that produces the strongest earthquakes ever recorded. The land that Seattle sits on is known to have experienced a very large earthquake in about 1700. Seattle has experienced quakes severe enough to damage buildings in 1956 and 2001. The 2001 quake cracked support piers and decking on the viaduct, and has caused settling and movement. The viaduct deck is still moving several inches a year. Some retrofitting has been done to strengthen it, but the argument for replacing it is this type of structure has a life of about 50 years, and the viaduct is worn out and should be replaced anyway. Also, retrofitting the viaduct only prevents failure of the structure itself, and would not prevent collapse in an earthquake because the structural repairs do notthing to solve the problem of the unstable soils underneath or potential seawall collapse.
The three replacement options are (a) a surface highway, (b) a new viaduct, and (c) a tunnel. In the tunnel option, a new seawall is integrated into the design, killing both birds with one stone. In the other two options, the seawall would have to be rebuilt separately.
A tunnel is the most expensive option, a new viaduct the least expensive. The arguments for a tunnel are that it will last longer (100 years versus 50 years for a viaduct), is less likely to be damaged in a strong earthquake (based on experiences elsewhere in the world), and would remove an eyesore and open up the waterfront to development.
The 9.5 cent gas tax increase passed by the Legislature this spring provides $2 billion for viaduct replacement. A new viaduct would cost $2.3 to 2.8 billion; the tunnel/seawall would cost $4.1 to 4.3 billion. As I recall, there is $200 million of federal funding available for the highway portion of the project. Washington’s congressional delegation is working with the Army Corps of Engineers to try to obtain major federal funding for seawall replacement, which is the type of project the COE traditionally builds and funds. However, that funding is not assured at this time.
Given the viaduct is only one of several major projects, it is almost certain that part of the cost of the total transportation package (which includes replacing the SR 520 floating bridge across Lake Washington, which like the viaduct is worn out, and widening I-405) will be born by local taxpayers. The regional transportation agency is discussing what tax package to put on the ballot for voter approval. They’re talking about a $75 per vehicle excise tax, a 2/10ths of 1 cent sales tax increase, a local gas tax of a couple cents, and some other fees and taxes.
The position I have argued here on HorsesAss over the last several weeks is (1) the viaduct is dangerous and should be torn down, (2) SR 99 is a vital traffic corridor, so something must be built to replace the viaduct, (3) the least expensive option should be chosen to minimize the financial burden on taxpayers, and (4) the seawall is not a “transportation” project and should not be paid for by taxing motorists or residential property owners, but should be funded by the federal government or by abutting property owners and waterfront users.
If Initiative 912 passes, it will repeal the 9.5 cent gas tax increase, and the $2 billion of state money for viaduct replacement will disappear. I have argued that if that happens, all gas taxes collected in King County should stay in King County, and should be used to make up the loss of the 9.5 cent gas tax increase. Currently, King County drivers pay roughly $460 million a year in gas taxes, and $127 million of that is exported to other counties. Some other counties pay more than they get back to, but King County accounts for 75% of the “exported” gas taxes. Consequently, if that money is redirected to projects in King County, the 28 of Washington’s 39 counties receiving more gas tax money than their residents pay will lose most of their state-funded highway subsidies, and will have to pay for highway projects in their counties with local tax increases or do without.
In my opinion, the $127 million a year is sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the bond indebtedness needed to finance the viaduct and possibly the 520 bridge replacement without the 9.5 cent gas tax increase, if other money is found for the seawall. I will vote against I-912, but if it passes, I will support taking away the King County subsidy going to other counties and using it in this way. I feel very strongly the seawall should be paid for by the downtown property owners and business interests that benefit from it, if federal funding is not available.
Reply to 33 (continued)
Okay, now we come to the really hard part. Which is, what if our political leaders come up with a project package I feel is too expensive, or I don’t like the local tax package, or both?
This puts me in the position of the proverbial egg on the fence post. I’ll vote for something that’s less than perfect, because we’ve simply got to stop dithering and do something about Seattle’s transportation needs, or this city will come to a standstill and our state’s economy will suffer. But if the price tag of the projects is too high, or the tax burden is distributed grossly unfairly, I’ll vote against the local tax package. If it fails at the polls, that will torpedo the whole thing, but in that event, the pols most likely would go back to the drawing board and come back with a redesigned tax package and possibly even a downscaled project design. If the changes were enough to satisfy me, then I’d vote for it.
Please note that with regard to the Seawall, a sizable portion of it would have to be redone separate from a tunnel no matter how you slice it – the only section of the Viaduct that is close enough to the water for the two to share the same outside wall is the part between (about) Pine/Pike and the curve at Washington Street (which, btw, is the only section of the Viaduct that suffered significant real damage in the Nisqually Quake).
So, the whole sales pitch for the tunnel that says we get to kill two birds with one stone is pretty much BS for about 2/3 of the length of the seawall (and even moreso if the Seawall needs to be replaced for the full length of Myrtle Edwards Park and to South Spokane Street. Wouldn’t want those cruise ship terminals to go into the drink, now would we?)
@39
Interesting. I didn’t know that (until now).
What student wouln’t prefer the question: Explain what intelligent design is? to ,Explain the dynamics of Natural Selection? The popularity of this idea( intelligent design ) is in direct proportion to its accessibility by the stupid and the lazy. And it gives them the added rush of moral superiority.
The end result of a person’s inquiry into intelligent design is the same as the beginning. Some “Higher Power” did everything. Can I have my Doctorate in Intelligent Design now that I’ve mastered the rigors of this academic discipline?
I generally view Mr. Nickels with suspicion, but he’s exactly right about the tunnel. Not building a tunnel would be a massively silly mistake. This city would gain immensely in livability if that viaduct were removed. Now I really enjoy the view from the viaduct on a sunny day, but this is not about my enjoyment of the view. This about a quantum leap for the city.