I was tuned in to KUOW yesterday afternoon, listening to callers explain how they intend to vote in the March 13 Viaduct advisory, and I was struck by a number of rebuild supporters who expressed the hope or belief that the final design will be substantially smaller and less obtrusive than the super-sized version that’s currently on the ballot.
I’m guessing this elevated optimism is at least partially fed by the public musings of Seattle City Council President Nick Licata, who recently told the Seattle Times that he preferred a viaduct light option “dramatically reducing the current proposed width of the structure,” and House Speaker Frank Chopp, who continues to insist that a double-decker freeway can somehow be made more elegant and attractive… by adding a third deck.
Yeah… um… except, they’re all smoking crack.
You see, we’ve been repeatedly told that the new viaduct must be substantially taller and wider than the 1950’s model, because of modern building standards, safety concerns, federal law and stuff like that, and maybe that’s true. But as the Times explained on Monday, the primary factor influencing the footprint of the new structure is the footprint of the existing structure, for in an attempt to minimize traffic disruption, WSDOT intends to build the new viaduct on top of and surrounding the old viaduct before tearing it down.
That’s right, the new viaduct must first eat the old viaduct, before it swallows the entire downtown waterfront. New columns will be built outside the footprint of the existing structure. Traffic will continue on the lower deck as the old upper deck is removed and a new upper deck is installed. Then traffic will move to the new upper deck as the old lower deck is removed and replaced. Sounds pretty clever.
A skinnier, “viaduct light” option is not possible without scrapping this construction plan, and that’s simply not going to happen. Indeed, one of the primary selling points of WSDOT’s elevated proposal has always been the three to nine month period the viaduct would be totally closed in both directions, compared to several years for a tunnel.
“One of the things this option can do, that others can’t, is keep traffic moving on Highway 99 during construction,” said David Dye, urban-corridors administrator for the state Department of Transportation (DOT). “That was a very, very important factor.”
Construction of a tunnel would close the highway completely for nearly three years.
Elevated-structure supporters such as Warren Aakervik, president of Ballard Oil, call it the only acceptable option, because it would keep fuel, parts and other goods on the move, preserving maritime business.
Sure, the whole convoluted process will take ten to twelve years, but at least it will keep “fuel, parts and other goods on the move.” And oh yeah, people too.
Or would it?
Notice what David Dye says… that this option keeps “traffic moving on Highway 99 during construction.” The revised Environmental Impact Statement uses similar language, stating “SR 99 reduced to 2 lanes in each direction” for about seven years.
WSDOT is very specific. We keep hearing that SR 99 will be reduced to 2 lanes in each direction. But they don’t necessarily say that they’ll be keeping that traffic on the viaduct.
Of course, you can’t fit four lanes on a deck that only holds three, and in fact, if you read the fine print you discover that for four to five years, only the northbound traffic actually remains on the viaduct. The southbound traffic is detoured off 99 at Broad and Denny, follows Broad to the waterfront via an elbow shaped aerial trestle, and than travels along Alaska Way until Pike Street before another aerial trestle connects back into the existing viaduct.
So, I guess you could say that two lanes of southbound SR 99 remain open… as long as you redesignate Broad Street and Alaska Way as SR 99. (And ignore the fact that during this entire time, Alaska Way is apparently reduced to one lane in each direction.)
Hmm. By this rhetorical logic, we could tear down the viaduct and build a tunnel while keeping SR 99 at three lanes in each direction, simply by designating Fourth and Second avenues as northbound and southbound SR 99 respectively. No fancy aerial trestles needed.
Despite what we’ve been repeatedly told, only two lanes of northbound 99 remain open during construction. For nearly five years, southbound traffic gets shunted onto surface streets, and that’s a fact.
Other interesting tidbits from the EIS:
- Columbia on-ramp closed for 45 months (the access point for anyone in downtown wanting to proceed south-bound on the viaduct.)
- Seneca off-ramp closed for 24 months (the access point to downtown for anyone proceeding north-bound on the viaduct.)
- Elliott on-ramps closed for 72 months (the access points in both directions for Belltown residents or Ballard, Magnolia, Interbay and West Queen Anne users who access the viaduct via 15th NW and Elliott avenue.)
- Western ramps closed for 63 months (affects northbound viaduct traffic that needs to exit to Western to access the neighborhoods listed above.)
- Alaska Way reduced to 1 lane in each direction for 10 full years.
- The entire shebang shut down in both directions, nights and weekends, for much the construction period.
Oh, and here’s one I never heard about before. SR 99 will be reduced to three lanes north of Denny — one northbound, two southbound — for 30 months. It’s not clear why, or how far north, but for those of you north of Denny who thought you’d be free from disruption, think again.
Look, no replacement option can be constructed without major disruptions, but if you believe WSDOT’s pitch that the Viaduct will continue to operate at 50-percent of capacity during the construction, then I have a bridge to sell you. Um… make that a viaduct.
If you send me an address that takes attachments I’ll send you a press release, rendering, and plan for a beautiful wing-like steel viaduct 70′ high 100’wide 430′ spans, legs in against the old viaduct. Traffic flows 100% on the old lower deck and every day on the upper deck one month then 100% for the three year construction period. Our viaduct uses 430′ sub assemblies moved (18 to 24 selected nights) along and supported by the reinforced upper deck as a scaffold. The spans are placed like a temporary lid high above upper level traffic till all traffic can be transferred up to the new spans and the old viaduct leisurely demolished many years sooner than expected.
The state highway department is no longer a trustworthy source of information about the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
I don’t know how anyone could believe a thing they say about the project given that they are hiding information people need to make informed votes and all the political spinning the highway department leadership has been engaged in on the Viaduct.
It is time to bring someone else into the project that people can trust and get an agreement between the state leadership and the city – and then tell the state highway gang what to do. They work for us, afterall. A ton of money has been wasted by the state highway crowd already designing multiple things that can’t get done.
That was high level stupidity that deserves some high level accountability. It wasted tens of millions.
Get the agreement before wasting more money on designs headed for the shredder.
It is pretty clear that the mulitbillion dollar freeway promoters (the highway department and the highway commission) have not weighed the costs against the benefits. And they wasted tens of millions on a deeply flawed strategy with poor oversight and management.
2:
WSDOT isn’t a trustworthy source of information, and Goldy, Will, Josh Feit, and Erica C. Barnett are?
Maybe for some this has been a religious issue. We’re sure getting into people’s belief systems here.
I guess we will just wait until the damn thing falls on a family of four from Lincoln, Nebraska while they are vacationing here in the great Northwest.
Then the finger pointing can begin in earnest. Then we will get a solution. A solution that will be a day and four lives too late in coming.
Look people, there are going to be disruptions no matter what solution is ultimately chosen. This is something we will moan and groan about, but ultimately, we will all make the necessary adjustments and learn to live with it.
The viaduct is unsafe in its present shape. I am not really sure which is the proper solution….tunnel, rebuild, expansion, or tear down and go back to a four lane surface street…what I do know is that this bickering has gone on long enough. Sooner, rather than later, someone is going to get hurt and then it will too late.
At that point, we are all to blame.
Back to 2:
“It’s pretty clear,” all right, that the costs and benefits that WSDOT has weighed are not the costs and benefits that *you* want to see weighed. For a lot of people, such as Goldy, there is no benefit greater than not having to look at the viaduct anymore.
Fortunately for the rest of us, the Department of Transportation is not the Department of Esthetics. I am not interested in sitting in traffic jams so that some architect can jack off over some rendering.
The “deeply flawed analysis” and the “poor oversight and management” that you refer to make sense only in that they don’t support your desired outcome.
You’re attacking the measure because you don’t like the message. You and Goldy and the stupid children at the Stranger haven’t given me one single reason to support any other solution than a rebuild.
Regional Answers
The central issues in this debate are the need for the Region to move traffic N and S and the need for Seattle to develop its downtown.
The NS issue effects a lot more than I99. In fact I99 is a lousy solution! What dimwit would want to use any sort of I99 .. that is Aurora with tis dstop lights and cross traffic .. to transpot a widget from Everett to Vanc WA? A real plan would address the rgional needs. What does this mean? 405 and a new “ring road” .. a “605,” should be taken seriously. So should rail based solutions.
The Seattle part of the equation changes once when addresses the NS issue this way. The parameters are fairly clear:
1. Seattle needs to maintian or expand its capacity for NS traffic between commercial districts on the N and the S side of the city. Part of the solution should be a COMMERCIAL toll road that would only be open on a limited gours basis to gthe rest of the drvers. Another part may be other NS traffic, esp. martin Luther King. Currently connections on the east side of the Seattle poenisula are terrible. You can easily get into the Central District from the North via Montlake or the South via MLK, but these routes do not interconnect in any efficient manner. Finally, esp., North of the canal, there is not good way of getting across Seattle.
That brings us to the real idea .. creating a NS waterfront boulevard. This debate would be a lot easier if the damn Seattle newspapers would publish some realistic numbers on costs. Mayer Nickles’ claims about costs are fanciful. We need to know what the thing would really cost. That said, we also need to know the benefit from all this to real estate developers and ow best ti optimize their efforts in terms of both the k,ind of city we get and theor willingness to contribute $$ to the effrot.
The obvious example is Allantown … or Vulcan Villas, my nasty name for South Lake Union. Vulcan/Allan are engaged in a classical visionless development. There is no regional plan for Vulcan Villas, no plans for amenities, very limited retail, no transportation plan (other than the silly street car), and certainly no plans for families to live there 9aka schools). In Vulcan’s defense, access to and from SLU is horrible. Mercer s unusable most of the day and the current way the viaduct works makes access form Aurora almost impossible,. This issue grows immensely if we are to take seriosly Vulcan’s claim to want mixed development with commercial and residential properties.
So, by going regional and figuring on the benefit to Vulcan and other developers, we could two very important questions:
1. how does all this development effect all of our taxes?
2. If improved transport will help Vulcan make $$, what should Vulcan contribute to the costs?
My Left Foot @ 4
“I guess we will just wait until the damn thing falls on a family of four from Lincoln, Nebraska while they are vacationing here in the great Northwest.”
How is the existing viaduct going to be taught political correctness, so that it collapses only onto red state Republican tourists?
thor @2, Ivan @3,
To be clear, my source of information is WSDOT. The information is there in the source material. What is misleading is the way this information has been publicly spun.
We have been told that for most of construction, two lanes will remain open in both directions. But if you read the EIS you see that only the northbound lanes remain on the viaduct, and the southbound lanes are diverted to surface streets.
I think a reasonable layperson would conclude that only the two northbound lanes remain open, and southbound is closed for five years. We have been promised 50 percent capacity during construction, but in fact we’ll only get 25 percent capacity.
How long can we safely put off the start of the viaduct replacement process? Presumably, the existing viaduct is assumed to be safe enough to drive on today, otherwise they would close it down. And presumably, it is assumed to be safe enough to drive on for several more years, since the lower level will be used while the upper level is being torn down and replaced.
If we simply do nothing, we can maintain existing capacity without any disruption in traffic flow. As least so long as the existing viaduct can be used. Of course, the political deadlock has already served to use several of these potential years of remaining viaduct lifespan.
Goldy @ 8
Wouldn’t that really be 33% capacity? The existing structure is three lanes wide in each direction. So if you only have two lanes in one direction, these two lanes would be 33% of the existing six lanes.
And isn’t 33% capacity for four to five years a lot better than having 0% capacity forever?
Richard @ 7
I see the humor in your comment, but I assure you I chose Nebraska randomly and Lincoln is the only city I knew in Nebraska. (Cornhusker, county folk, innocents.. is what I was after. I don’t wish for anyone, regardless of political ideals, to be harmed. Well, maybe if Adams Apple Annie is under the viaduct when it collapes……)
Uptight Wingnuts: The above comment about Ann Coulter is humor. I do not wish any harm come to her except that which the good Lord chooses. And if he were to choose a “rifle procedure”, so be it his will.
Has anyone thought of suspending the roadway from spiritual levitation? The rightys think it works for everything else, so why not for SR-99 too?
OK, Roger. I am now praying night and day for the spiritual levitation of the roadway. But if Adams Apple Annie is on or under it, I am suspending prayer.
Richard @10,
That occurred to me. But since we’ve been publicly told that 50 percent capacity would be maintained throughout most of construction, I started with that number, and cut it in half since in fact the viaduct will carry half the lanes advertised.
@8 Sounds to me like they’re closing one (1) surface street, not the two (2) southbound lanes open. Or does the SR-99 detour cease to be a “highway” if it doesn’t have some air under it?
@13 What we do is stand all the trolls under it, then stop praying.
Just kidding! #13 is an Ann Coulter joke.
@9 ” … it is assumed to be safe enough to drive on for several more years, since the lower level will be used while the upper level is being torn down and replaced.”
Well, yeah — the main hazard is that the upper deck will pancake onto the lower deck, and if you remove the upper deck, that risk goes away. The lower deck would be less likely to collapse in an earthquake because it doesn’t sway as much due to the shorter moment arm (height measured from footings to point of attachment to supporting columns).
Guess you ain’t no engineer, Richard.
I mean, sheesh, even a dumb bunny can figure that out.
Hey, where’s Redneck with his engineering expertise? If he won’t share his pearls of wisdom with us here, I hope he’s at least out there somewhere pouring my gas into his Hummer! My oil stock is up another buck and a half today.
@11 Nobody in Nebraska is politically innocent.
I have to admit, I haven’t been following this as closely as everyone else, but am I correct in noting that Nick Licata
a) opposes spending $500 million to keep the Sonics from leaving town
b) favors spending $3 billion to keep Ballard Oil from leaving town
Roger Rabbit @ 18
Okay, you got me on that one. Thanks for the engineering lesson. I have read the Seattle Times article now. If I drive on the thing during construction, I will try to keep out of the right hand southbound lane, since that lane will only have temporary supports attached to the column of the new structure :)
Thehim @ 23
Of course, you won’t have to pay $100 or more every time you drive on the new State Route 99. Nor will a bunch of private owners (from Oklahoma, etc.) be keeping all of the profits from users of the new State Route 99.
Thehim @ 23
Yeah, well what do you expect, it has “Ballard” in it, the new darling of the self proclaimed bohemian class now that Freemont has followed Wallingford into Bellevue-dom.
Nick Lacata can kiss my hinie, he’s a self aggrandizing clod. I buy a sixteen game pack for the Mariners each year, but I can enjoy the baseball stadium without spending a penny – watching on TV counts!
Of course, you won’t have to pay $100 or more every time you drive on the new State Route 99. Nor will a bunch of private owners (from Oklahoma, etc.) be keeping all of the profits from users of the new State Route 99.
True. But in both cases, we’re spending taxpayer money to keep a particular local business afloat. I still have to pay Ballard Oil for their services too (and boy has that been expensive recently…). I wonder if Ballard Oil can relocate as easily as the Sonics can.
Goldy. Bruce Ramsey’s article in the Times this week says the WSDOT study of the surface + transit option included 11 stoplights, one for every street between Jackson and Pike. Why so many stoplights? What was WsDOT thinking?
Are 5 stoplights possible and more desirable? Lights at Pike, University, Madison/Marion, Yesler and Jackson. Say Alaskan Way is reconfigured to 4-lanes with a 5′ median, on-street parking on the waterfront side, a 1-way frontage street ‘northbound’ between King and Pike with angle and/or on-street parking, and the trolley and ped/bike path between Alaskan Way and the frontage street. What is Alaskan Way capacity in this configuration?
Did WSDOT favor 11 stoplights in their “study” to intentionally produce a lower capacity surface boulevard?
WSDOT produced the most expensive tunnel options from the beginning of this fiasco, $11+ billion grudgingly and in small steps reduced in cost over the years, as if WsDOT knew the higher cost for the tunnel would be prohibitive.
Has WsDOT played a similar juggling trick with the surface + transit alternative?
This question needs to be answered, Goldy: What is the capacity and flow of Alaskan Way with 5 stoplights instead of 11?
@24 Not me! I’m gonna hop as close to the temporary supports as I can get, because they’re 50 years newer than the permanent supports.
Having spent some time in Portland, OR recently I’m struck by the huge contrast in foresight and civic leadership displayed by elected officials and the general public there compared to here.
If this was Portland tearing the damn thing down and building transit along with a waterfront park would be a no-brainer.
In fact they did that with their pre-interstate highway 99.
I also just can’t believe the numbers thrown around for either the tunnel or the re-build. Either one will cost way more than the monorail would have. But 14 miles of monorail was “too expensive”.
@23:
Sweet merciful crap. That’s one of the dumbest arguments yet. We’re not talking just Ballard Oil, but all traffic traveling through downtown Seattle for whatever reason. You can’t just magically wish 110,000 vehicles a day to go away by tearing down the viaduct. Not replacing the viaduct would have tremendous effects not only along the waterfront, but on I-5 and even I-405.
Your argument isn’t even apples and oranges. It’s apples and asteroids.
@28:
Hmmmmm. Wouldn’t only five crossings cut off Seattle more from the waterfront now than it is with a viaduct that you can walk under?
@30:
Did you, perchance, travel on I-405 in the Rose City? Because that was built at about the same time Portland ripped out its downtown freeway. Funny how people who mention Portland never ever seem to get around to mentioning that fact.
Sweet merciful crap. That’s one of the dumbest arguments yet. We’re not talking just Ballard Oil, but all traffic traveling through downtown Seattle for whatever reason. You can’t just magically wish 110,000 vehicles a day to go away by tearing down the viaduct. Not replacing the viaduct would have tremendous effects not only along the waterfront, but on I-5 and even I-405.
It’s going to happen no matter what, numnuts. As numerous people have already pointed out, the idea of constructing a bigger viaduct around the existing one is WAY more expensive than what we’ve been presented with, so it won’t happen (see: Monorail). What are you left with? Between 5 and 10 years of those 110,000 vehicles not being able to go down that corridor on a freeway regardless of what happens. Are you seriously going to contend that people won’t adjust in that time? And beyond that, what’s the best avenue for moving forward, transit or another freeway? If your argument is a retrofit, fine, but that actually has nothing to do with my original comparison, so the apples and oranges problem would be on your end, not mine.
32:
What transit are you talking about? More and bigger buses on already crowded city streets?
I’m not opposed to doing that, but do not pretend that it can take up the slack. Given the population growth that everyone agrees is coming, we’ll still need the Viaduct to maintain any traffic mobility whatever.
So far, any plan for transit that goes beyond more buses on existing rights of way is VAPOR. The rebuilt Viaduct is NOT VAPOR. That is why I favor it, and that is why I am guessing that we will have it.
Depaving Portland’s Harbor Drive – Hwy 99 was entirely dependent upon traffic diversion to I-405. But, it took a lot of public support to persuade City Council who were more interested in ‘repaving and widening’ Harbor Drive. That said, no city commissioner since disputes the inestimable value of Waterfront Park.
Installing medians and reducing the number of designated pedestrian crosswalks would probably make it safer to cross Alaskan Way Blvd, not to mention how the east side of Alaskan Way Blvd would be as pleasant a walk and offer many amenities as the other side.
Since the summer of 2001, I argued the monorail would be better routed on the waterfront instead of on 2nd Ave. The trolley could run in the same corridor in pretty much the same place the rails still lay. The reconstruction of SR-99 could have incorporated the monorail. ETC informally approved the Waterfront route but had promised voters a project schedule that couldn’t wait for AWV reconstruction.
Seattle is a roaring pit where rightwingers unleash attack dogs to claw to pieces and trample into dust all living things that border and encroach upon their domain.
What transit are you talking about? More and bigger buses on already crowded city streets?
Rail lines and more buses. When buses are utilized, they greatly reduce traffic (for obvious reasons). Buses have actually become much more crowded (I’ve been a busrider for almost 4 years now, and have really noticed increased ridership recently).
I’m not opposed to doing that, but do not pretend that it can take up the slack. Given the population growth that everyone agrees is coming, we’ll still need the Viaduct to maintain any traffic mobility whatever.
I disagree. If you replace it with a six lane surface street with a rail line inbetween, you won’t go quite as fast through there (in a car, that is), but it will maintain capacity.
So far, any plan for transit that goes beyond more buses on existing rights of way is VAPOR. The rebuilt Viaduct is NOT VAPOR. That is why I favor it, and that is why I am guessing that we will have it.
And I’m willing to bet that when you factor in the costs of rebuilding it in a way that satisfies everyone, it will cost WAY more than they say it does now and will be soundly rejected, just like the monorail.
@4
“Look people, there are going to be disruptions no matter what solution is ultimately chosen. This is something we will moan and groan about, but ultimately, we will all make the necessary adjustments and learn to live with it.
The viaduct is unsafe in its present shape. I am not really sure which is the proper solution….tunnel, rebuild, expansion, or tear down and go back to a four lane surface street…what I do know is that this bickering has gone on long enough. Sooner, rather than later, someone is going to get hurt and then it will too late. ”
So True….
And what is missing is an effective leader to take this difficult transportation, political, safety issue head on.
Someone who knows that they can’t please everyone, but makes the hard decision none the less.
This thing is going to be punted indefinitely unless the Gov. steps up and does her job.
@32:
You were the one who brought up the ridiculous comparison between Ballard Oil and the Sonics, not me. ivan nailed it with the next post: The viaduct is the only thing that isn’t vapor.
Now for a look at @34 and @35 together:
@34:
I agree that Portland made the right decision. I’ve spent plenty of time there and enjoyed it. But if today’s world-class-city-obsessed Seattle City Council made that decision instead of the likes of Tom McCall, that entire stretch would be condos by now.
@34:
Installing medians and reducing the number of designated pedestrian crosswalks would probably make it safer to cross Alaskan Way Blvd, not to mention how the east side of Alaskan Way Blvd would be as pleasant a walk and offer many amenities as the other side.
@35:
I disagree. If you replace it with a six lane surface street with a rail line inbetween, you won’t go quite as fast through there (in a car, that is), but it will maintain capacity.
But … but … but I thought we were going to not cut off the waterfront from the people!
@35:
And I’m willing to bet that when you factor in the costs of rebuilding it in a way that satisfies everyone, it will cost WAY more than they say it does now and will be soundly rejected, just like the monorail.
We’re still building Sound Transit, aren’t we?
@34:
Seattle is a roaring pit where rightwingers unleash attack dogs to claw to pieces and trample into dust all living things that border and encroach upon their domain.
Drugs are bad, mmmmmkay?
You were the one who brought up the ridiculous comparison between Ballard Oil and the Sonics, not me.
I’m still not clear what you’re saying. Both the viaduct and Key Arena are things that this city at large can survive without. They are both things that require taxpayer money to rebuild. One company, Ballard Oil, needs a viaduct to function at its current location. Another company (franchise, to be specific), the Seattle Supersonics, needs an arena to remain here in Seattle. Of course, a road and an arena have certain characteristic that make them different, but they are both essentially public facilities. Ballard Oil are not the only people using the viaduct and the Seattle Supersonics are not the only people using Key Arena.
Now what’s being proposed is that taxes go into replacing each of these public works projects. For the viaduct, it’s because it’s no longer safe in an earthquake. For Key Arena, it’s because the arena is too small for the NBA. I concede that this is a difference in that Ballard Oil is not solely driving the need for the works.
Ballard Oil can not have a tunnel and they believe that anything less than a new elevated freeway built around the old freeway will force them to relocate in order to survive. The Seattle Supersonics must relocate if they do not have an arena built.
The point I was making, that you read WAY TOO MUCH INTO, is that the argument that we have to rebuild the viaduct to save Ballard Oil is a canard. We need a much better reason for that to spend the kind of money to build an obtuse, ugly freeway like that. I still don’t understand why Ballard Oil can’t function with a surface street either. I assumed that they were supporting the rebuild because their trucks would most certainly be banned from tunnels. If they have objections to the surface option, I’d love to be clued in. There may be some aspect I’m not aware of.
But … but … but I thought we were going to not cut off the waterfront from the people!
Have you ever left the city of Seattle in your life? People can walk across railroad tracks. It’s possible. I can find videos of people doing it if you don’t believe me. They don’t burn your feet when you step on them.
We’re still building Sound Transit, aren’t we?
Yes, the difference is that people here WANT Sound Transit.
Drugs are bad, mmmmmkay?
Incorrect. Drugs are most excellent. :)
@39:
I concede that this is a difference in that Ballard Oil is not solely driving the need for the works.
Congratulations. Here, you seem to be finally grasping the point I’m trying to make: This viaduct isn’t about Ballard Oil. There are hundreds of businesses and thousands of people that will be affected daily by whatever we do with the viaduct, and many of them don’t even travel on the viaduct.
See, if we just tear the thing down willy-nilly like some people want us to, that’s going to send a whoooole lot of traffic onto alternative routes, and by “alternative routes” I mean it’s going to be I-5 a lot of the time. That is going to interfere with traffic that would never use the viaduct in the first place.
Don’t get on me for reading way too much into Ballard Oil when you spend most of four paragraphs talking about Ballard Oil. It’s not all about Ballard Oil. It’s also not all about aesthetics, either.
@40:
Have you ever left the city of Seattle in your life? People can walk across railroad tracks. It’s possible. I can find videos of people doing it if you don’t believe me. They don’t burn your feet when you step on them.
I’ve been to plenty of places in this state that are beneath the contempt of metronaturals like yourself, yes.
Railroad lines and six lanes of clogged traffic. That’s your view of an ideal waterfront? I’ll take the current arrangement, where you can get to the downtown waterfront in more than five places, over yours.
Yes, the difference is that people here WANT Sound Transit.
I wouldn’t be surprised by a no/no vote, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if the viaduct replacement wins big when the votes are counted next week. I do know that it would win big if you threw the voting net as wide as was done for the Tacoma Narrows bridge project.
Incorrect. Drugs are most excellent. :)
Well, that certainly explains a few things.
Congratulations. Here, you seem to be finally grasping the point I’m trying to make: This viaduct isn’t about Ballard Oil. There are hundreds of businesses and thousands of people that will be affected daily by whatever we do with the viaduct, and many of them don’t even travel on the viaduct.
And I was trying to make the same point. I’m not exactly sure why you’ve managed to miss that. You keep thinking I’m implying something very different. Using Ballard Oil as an excuse to rebuild the viaduct is silly, especially when you look at the comparison to building the new arena for the Sonics. And yes, there are hundreds of businesses and thousands of people that will be affected by what we do here. Some will be affected positively by rebuilding it. Some will be affected negatively.
See, if we just tear the thing down willy-nilly like some people want us to, that’s going to send a whoooole lot of traffic onto alternative routes, and by “alternative routes” I mean it’s going to be I-5 a lot of the time. That is going to interfere with traffic that would never use the viaduct in the first place.
But we have to do this no matter what. The idea that you can build a new viaduct without tearing the current one down is a pipe dream. People are going to adjust to the bad traffic mess before any solution is implemented.
Don’t get on me for reading way too much into Ballard Oil when you spend most of four paragraphs talking about Ballard Oil. It’s not all about Ballard Oil. It’s also not all about aesthetics, either.
Sorry, but for many people, it is about aesthetics. I’m not necessarily one of those people. I think there’s a very strong practical argument for not having a giant concrete structure on the waterfront. My reference to Ballard Oil was more geared towards what I’d heard from Nick Licata. It’s possible that I’ve misinterpreted his position. That’s why I asked that question originally, which, as I pointed out, you read WAY TOO MUCH INTO.
I’ve been to plenty of places in this state that are beneath the contempt of metronaturals like yourself, yes.
Yeah, I’m a real typical Seattle native. I meant other cities with public transit. I wasn’t talking about Wenatchee. There’s a very bizarre belief in this city that implementing public transit solutions (especially rail) are way more difficult than they really are. I’m hoping that Sound Transit helps to break that mental barrier.
Railroad lines and six lanes of clogged traffic. That’s your view of an ideal waterfront? I’ll take the current arrangement, where you can get to the downtown waterfront in more than five places, over yours.
There are a number of ways for pedestrians to get across. You could have footbridges or crosswalks.
I wouldn’t be surprised by a no/no vote, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if the viaduct replacement wins big when the votes are counted next week. I do know that it would win big if you threw the voting net as wide as was done for the Tacoma Narrows bridge project.
I’m not sure what to expect. I’ve already voted no/no, and I know a few people who’ve voted yes/no (yes on the tunnel). I don’t think either option will get above 40% approval, but I could be surprised.
Well, that certainly explains a few things.
I’m sure it does.
Drugs are bad, mmmmmkay?
“Seattle is a roaring pit where rightwingers unleash attack dogs to claw to pieces and trample into dust all living things that border and encroach upon their [motorized] domain.”
No one need be affected by some mind-altering substance or other to be fearful of today’s rightwing agenda, which incidentally is fully exhibited by the pro-viaduct automobile-idolyzing crowd.
When Henry Ford so famously quipped he wanted to pay his employees enough to buy a flivver, he was not being benevolent or supportive of labor. Rather, he wanted his employees to become addicted to using a motorcar, and thus contribute to the collapse of public transit and assure future car sales. Henry Ford was setting up a monopoly.
@43:
And I was trying to make the same point.
You did a lousy job of it.
But we have to do this no matter what.
Oh, agreed. The difference in plans is that one side wants this condition to be permanent, and then pretty much wing it from there.
I think there’s a very strong practical argument for not having a giant concrete structure on the waterfront.
Oh, hey, I agree with you there. It’d be nice, though, if some people remembered that form needs to follow function, not the other way around.
My reference to Ballard Oil was more geared towards what I’d heard from Nick Licata.
Then why didn’t you say so?
There’s a very bizarre belief in this city that implementing public transit solutions (especially rail) are way more difficult than they really are.
You call yourself a Seattle native and then in the same paragraph, you actually write that sentence? There’s a reason why we’ve spent six years squabbling over the viaduct when any other city in this state would’ve made a decision and gone with it five years ago.
Repair + prepare actually could make a good Plan B, but the way things go around here, repair + prepare could become indistinguishable from rebuilding the viaduct.
I’m hoping that Sound Transit helps to break that mental barrier.
I’m hoping it’s the first of many good things from Sound Transit, too.
There are a number of ways for pedestrians to get across. You could have footbridges or crosswalks.
Good ideas. Elevated structures do have a use after all! :D
Seriously, it’s kind of funny to see surface + transit proponents promise all these things up to and maybe including free pony rides. But I’m going to openly laugh at the notion that we’ll have some wonderful answer to Central Park on the waterfront. I’m thinking more like Harbor Steps on steroids.
I’m not sure what to expect.
Same here. If voters come back with no/no, I’d love the state to just shovel the money at 520 and tell Seattle to deal. Sadly, if the viaduct does collapse, there’s that whole liability thing to deal with on top of massive transportation problems. Juries do tend to frown on defendants that intentionally let potentially fatal problems fester for years before actually killing someone, or a hundred someones.
If Measure 2 passes, though, and Measure 1 doesn’t, it’s all over except for Peter Steinbrueck and Greg Nickels having a pissing contest on the bulldozers.
@44:
No one need be affected by some mind-altering substance or other to be fearful of today’s rightwing agenda, which incidentally is fully exhibited by the pro-viaduct automobile-idolyzing crowd.
Nope. I’m a left-wing, gay-marriage-supporing, reality-based Bush-hating, get-out-of-Iraq-and-spend-the-money-on-mass-transit Democrat. Maybe I should put “reality-based” first, though.
Are you going to be like that Sirkulat clown on the Seattle P-I soundoffs who goes on and on about how bad automobiles are? Every time I read him, I don’t want my next car to be a Prius, but an Escalade. Fortunately, that effect vanishes as soon as I go to the next comment.
When Henry Ford so famously quipped he wanted to pay his employees enough to buy a flivver, he was not being benevolent or supportive of labor.
Actually, he was being supportive of labor. Or are you completely unfamiliar with the term “living wage?”
Rather, he wanted his employees to become addicted to using a motorcar
I think he wanted to sell his product, and realized that customers had to be able to buy his product. Occam’s razor — now for both men and women!
Henry Ford was setting up a monopoly.
Chrysler, GM, Toyota, Subaru, Hyundai, VW, BWM, Saab, Volvo and even Crosley and Studebaker would agree that he sucked at creating a monopoly.
Or maybe you don’t know what the term means.
A monopoly need not be one car company out-competing another. In essence, all US car companies conspired to eliminate streetcar systems throughout the US, creating a “transportation monopoly” of automobiles-only, walking only for the poor, bicycling only for the reckless.
I believe ‘world class cynic’ is a liar and a troll, possibly a rightwing plant. I trust nothing that MF’r says.
@47:
You’re describing an oligopoly.
If you want to think I’m a liar or a troll or a rightwing plant, feel free. I really don’t care what you think of me. I’m going to go on stating my position, sometimes obnoxiously and definitely with no regard for people who don’t want to face reality, whether on the right or the left. I’m more like ivan and John Barelli and Roger Rabbit in that regard.
For some reason, I’m finding arguing about local issues more fun than national issues. And the conservatives who hang around here aren’t usually capable of coming up with a good argument, so I ignore them. That leaves my fellow liberals to argue with, I guess.
Personally, I’d love cars to play much less of a role in our lives than they do now. I’d love to be able to go a week (or weeks) at a time living in something other than a shoebox yet able to use mass transit to go to work and the grocery store and use my car sparingly.
I’m also very much against urban sprawl, too. In my perfect world, no one has to drive 30 miles to get to work, and you’d have to pass a farm on the way to the grocery store if you lived more than three miles from the grocery store.
I also would love to be tall and thin instead of short and fat, I’d love to be dating Sue Bird, and I’d also like a pony. But at some point I have to realize that I live in the real world, and I have to deal with it accordingly.
Here’s the problem with a surface + transit option that doesn’t include a very heavy and very intelligently applied dose of repair + prepare: You’re deliberately creating failure with taxpayer dollars.
Joe Average is not going to see surface + transit as a success, no matter how many times Will and Goldy and the clowns at The Stranger crow about it. If traffic is fouled up, Joe Average is going to see it as Government Screwing Up Again, and guess who that benefits? That’s right. Tim Eyman and Republicans. That’s who benefits.
I’m afraid this dynamic would come into play even if an earthquake collapsed the viaduct in the next hour. After all, that government that Joe Average sees as large and impersonal and out of touch with him (or Jo Average, for that matter) has had six years to come up with a fix, and not one damn thing has been done in that time as far Joe and Jo are concerned.
Now, when you combine that with the politicians swanking around opening sculpture parks and bleating about how Seattle is a “world-class city,” well, Joe and Jo aren’t stupid, no matter what the poseurs in Belltown and on Capitol Hill think. They’re seeing politicians who can’t even deliver Tonasket-class service slapping themselves on the back while things keep getting worse for Joe and Jo.
Joe and Jo have every damn right to ask why we can move heaven and earth to bring in WTO, or build stadiums for sports teams, or cater to Paul Allen with regards to South Lake Union while nothing ever gets done with 520 and the Mercer Mess and the Viaduct.
I love this city, but I can see perfectly clearly why people elsewhere shake their heads at us. If you don’t like having that pointed out to you, that’s too bad. Someone will point it out to the rest of the state, and those someones won’t always have our best interests in mind.
Oligarchy: a government in which power is in the hands of a few.
Monopoly: exclusive ownership as through command of supply; a commodity controlled by one party.
The ‘commodity’ is transportation. The ‘supplier’ is all those interests involved and in command of the sale, finance, insurance, maintenance, parking and road construction dedicated to and of motorized vehicles.
What I describe in previous posts is closer to a monopoly than an oligopoly (sic).
What Joe and Jo Average need is leadership. Building another elevated SR-99 only re-enforces the current transportation “monopoly” that negatively impacts their lives and pocketbooks. The AWV traffic problem is only the tip of the iceberg. Seattle is overwhelmed with traffic everywhere, much like all US cities. Replacing the AWV solves nothing.
@49:
Oligarchy
Oligopoly
They are not the same word. This is like a right-winger confusing “communitarian” with “communism.” As Mark Twain said, there’s a bit of difference between the lightning bug and lightning.
What Joe and Jo Average need is leadership.
Agreed. Too bad it’s in such short supply around here.
The AWV traffic problem is only the tip of the iceberg.
Agreed. Which is what the current surface + transit proposals — and I use that word loosely — don’t take into account.
Replacing the AWV solves nothing.
Tearing it down without an intelligent plan to replace it only makes the problem worse.
My Merriam Webster does not list the word “oligopoly”. Oligarchy is the closest alternative.
By ‘tip of the iceberg’ I mean the problems associated with traffic volume is not limited to AWV. Those who believe maintaining SR-99 capacity is a solution should not forget that the same so-called solution has to apply to more than 99.9% of similarly overloaded highways throughout the US.
Sooner or later, responsibly or due to circumstances beyond our control, we as a modern society will have to learn to get by with much less driving, flying, shipping and long-distance transport. It will be a bitter pill to swallow for the people who need it most. Some will crap their adult diapers refusing their medicine.
@51:
Looks like you need to go by Elliott Bay Book Co. and update your dictionary.
“Has to?” What do you mean “has to?”
As for the Chicken Little arguments, the more I critically examine them, the more they amuse me.
I would further explain why we “have to” get by with less driving and transport, but just raising the question strengthens the conclusion that wcc is a phony. WCC’s use of “chicken little” to describe sensible caution likewise exposes rightwing bias.
Oligopoly: a market situation in which each of a few producers affect but do not control the market.
Automobiles in affect create a Transportion Monopoly whereby all other means of travel suffer a severe impediment in the travel marketplace. The producers of automobiles and all related interests have specifically created a monopoly to control the transportation market.
The question of what to do with the AWV includes what should be done with the entire transportation system. WCC is a rightwing provocateur.
OK. Maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough last time, so let me try again:
Those who believe maintaining SR-99 capacity is a solution should not forget that the same so-called solution has to apply to more than 99.9% of similarly overloaded highways throughout the US.
I’m asking about the “has to” in that sentence. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that whatever solution we adopt for the AWV is the only one to be adopted across the USA? I reject that notion, but maybe you meant something else. Please clarify.
Good on you for clicking on the link. I wasn’t sure if you’d see it because hyperlinks aren’t easy to see on this site.
The question of what to do with the AWV includes what should be done with the entire transportation system.
Which is precisely why the only surface + transit option I could support is repair + prepare. Again, given that we’ve spent the last six years spinning our wheels, repair + prepare might as well be a rebuild.
Yes, I am a cynic about Seattle, which seems to have wrecked itself in its senseless quest for world-class status. Hence my screenname. If otherwise showing optimism in the future is a sign of right-wing bias in your opinion, then I pity you.
In fact, lack of optimism in America’s future is precisely why I left the GOP back at the end of 1991. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism, I thought now was the time to smile, say “That job is done. Next?” and get on with the other challenges that America faced.
Instead, I saw a conservative movement that had no idea for the future other than to pretend everything was OK and to bash gays and minorities. I thought to myself one morning, “Well, I’m still a Republican, but I just can’t vote for President Bush next time.” That was in November. The next July, I practically watched the Democratic convention gavel-to-gavel on C-SPAN.
I haven’t looked back since. If you want me to be a socialist, I’m just going to laugh and tell you to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh. I’m a firm believer in bridled capitalism. If that means I’m to the right of you, I’ll deal. See you at the next Democratic meeting anyhow.
I’m not sure there ever could be a ‘bridled’ capitalism, nor that our Constitution was ever intended to allow the sort of ruthless capitalism it has always been. Capitalism has always been a sort of economic imperialism.
The problem with the AWV is the same as 99.9% other US highways – overwhelming and growing moreso traffic volume. This problem cannot be solved with maintaining roadway capacity.
It’s not surprising that it’s taken 6 years to come to any decision in the AWV situation. WSDOT is primarily to blame. Of course, the waterfront would benefit enormously without the viaduct, but WSDOT’s first tunnel proposals were prohibitively grandiose, as I suspect they intended to prevent any further discussion of a tunnel. WSDOT hasn’t fully or fairly considered how the surface boulevards must function during reconstruction, nor how surface + transit could function on its own. WSDOT bias toward road construction is extreme, and its directors answer only to Big Business interests, not the public.
If Bush Sr had won re-election, the invasion and occupation of Iraq would have begun in 1993. The optimism of the rightwing is inextricably connected to petroleum-fueled globalization.
My hunch about WCC was correct – WCC is strongly influenced by rightwing propaganda. If another monstrous elevated highway is constructed along the waterfront, it will be there for more than another 50 years. It makes me sick to think about it.
OK, Wells, it’s clear you don’t want to leave your fantasy world. So I’m done with you.
Thank you Jesus! WCC is through with me! Hallelujah! Oh wait. I’m supposedly a tree hugger. Thank you mighty Oak Spirit Grandfather of all living things. May the rainfall that your all-powerful limbs coax from the sky god forever replinish the children of Mother Earth! Pagan Power!!
@45
Oh, agreed. The difference in plans is that one side wants this condition to be permanent, and then pretty much wing it from there.
Not necessarily. Many people want a study to be done on different S+T feasibility plans.
You call yourself a Seattle native and then in the same paragraph, you actually write that sentence? There’s a reason why we’ve spent six years squabbling over the viaduct when any other city in this state would’ve made a decision and gone with it five years ago.
I realized after I typed that that it didn’t sound right. I’m not a Seattle native. I’ve only lived here since 1997. That’s why I wrote that. I grew up in a city (Philadelphia) that took 70 years to build a freeway from the northwest suburbs to the airport. I think this whole viaduct debate has been a good example of how people can provide a counterbalance to government officials who seem dead set on doing something inadequate and unnecessary.
I definitely agree with you that form needs to follow function, but I just don’t agree with those who believe that that corridor must be a freeway. I picture Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. That’s a road that many people will drive instead of I-80 into downtown Chicago even though there are traffic lights.