I’ve pretty much pooh-poohed Viaduct retrofit proposals, mostly because WSDOT engineers had insisted it wasn’t a cost effective option. No doubt we can extend the life of the Viaduct — we’re doing that now — but at some point it just becomes safer, less disruptive and cheaper over the long haul to replace the thing than it is to constantly repair it. Damn entropy.
Now comes a new WSDOT report that suggests a retrofit might be possible, though it doesn’t yet project the cost or the serviceable years added to the life-span of the structure.
Does this change my assessment of the various options? Well, sorta.
Money aside, there’s absolutely no doubt that given the choice between a tunnel and a bigger, wider rebuild, the former is by far the preferable option… and anybody who tells you different is either lying or crazy. The current Viaduct is a gaping wound through our city, a hunk of crumbling concrete that physically separates the downtown from the waterfront. It is a dirty, noisy, ugly monstrosity that lowers property values and offends both the physical and the aesthetic senses. It is an embarrassment to Seattle’s aspiration towards being a world-class city.
One can forgive city planners a half-century ago. I mean… who knew? But absent the existing Viaduct from our current city landscape, nobody in their right mind would ever seriously propose building one today. Such a proposal would be a nonstarter.
The only serious argument against a tunnel is the cost — at least an extra couple billion over the $2.8 billion estimate for a rebuild. But even that calculation is shortsighted. The tunnel option would dramatically increase property values in the area, and with more than double the serviceable life-span of an elevated replacement, a tunnel could end up saving future generations many billions of dollars in early replacement costs.
If we can afford the tunnel — if we can find the extra money to pay for it — we would be nuts to pass up this once in a half-century opportunity to reshape our downtown and waterfront for the better.
Which brings us back to the retrofit option.
If in fact we can safely extend the life of the Viaduct for another couple decades at the relatively bargain-basement price of say, only a billion dollars… given our region’s unique consensus-driven political culture, perhaps such a half-assed stopgap measure is the best solution we can come up with at this time. It would not only be less expensive, but less disruptive, as a retrofit is presumably the only option that doesn’t require tearing the damn thing down.
And best of all, it would give us the twenty years we obviously need to make a major decision in this town.
With a retrofit temporarily preventing the Viaduct from toppling over onto the waterfront, we would now have several years to develop complete engineering plans for the tunnel, rebuild and no-build options, which can then be put out for a public referendum by 2011… and again in 2013, and 2017. It’ll take a few more years to get the contract bids in place before voters approve the final project in 2021 and again in 2023, before repealing it only one year later in 2024. At which point the Legislature will finally step in and override the will of the voters. At this rate we can expect construction to begin sometime shortly before we’re all eaten by the Morlocks.
I know that’s not much of an endorsement of the retrofit option, but if the perfect is the enemy of the good, that’s about as good as you’re going to get from me.
Personally I think the argument that the viaduct divides the waterfront from the rest of downtown is a load of crap. It seems more likely that the dirty nasty parking lot, train tracks and busy 4-lane road is much more effective at that than an overhead structure. Building a park and a large pedestrian overpass would be more effective. It is similar to the crap argument that a monorail would be a huge ugly monstrosity running through the city. They have a monorail in Okinawa and it seems to be more of a seed area for commercial development and dense housing. And it is just friggin cool.
The retrofit is the only option that will provide high-speed travel from north to south Seattle in my lifetime.
Let’s face it. We’ve already had five, going on six, years to respond to the Niaqually earthquake damage, and were are we? Hemming and hawing over options. The money isn’t there for the tunnel, and a new viaduct sure doesn’t float my boat. At even half the cost, a retrofit is a winner.
I’ve never had any problem getting to the waterfront from the uphill side of the viaduct. All you have to do is drive or walk under it.
I have an idea — why don’t we turn the tables on wealthy sports team owners and ask them to give the city a tunnel? To sweeten the offer, we’ll let them keep the revenues from luxury suites where pedestrians can watch the cars go by.
Of course, I meant Where Are We in the message, above.
No panache in being the progenitor of a tunnel. Much more press in owning a losing team.
I agree with you about 90%, Goldy. We need to build the tunnel. What you failed to mention, however, is the seawall. A retrofit would do nothing for the seawall, which would be fixed by the tunnel. So a retrofit prevents the viaduct from falling over, but in the meantime the wharfs will fall into the sea.
Damnit ZA, thanks a fucking lot for bringing the seawall into this. You just set the decision-making process back another 5 years.
THE SEAWALL ADDS A LITTLE UNDER A BILLION TO ANY OTHER PROPOSAL OTHER THAN THE TUNNEL.
THE PERFECT IS INDEED THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD. TEAR THE FREAKING THING DOWN, FIX THE SEAWALL AND BE DONE WITH IT.
WE NEED MORE PEOPLE USING TRANSIT AND LESS DRIVERS RIDING GAS GUZZLERS SOLO.
YES I FAVOR THE WATERFRONT COALITION PLAN.
Unfortunately, I think you may be right. We have still been debating over how to replace and expand the 520 bridge for the past twenty years, and now we have both the 520 bridge and the Viaduct in “critical repair” situations. We should now be finished with the 520 Bridge rebuilt and mostly paid for, and ready to move onto the Viaduct, but now we have to deal with both at the same time.
But I’m not convinced that its going to be any easier paying for it later. Five years ago a tunnel would have cost a couple of billion dollars, now it is over 4 billion. And five years from now it might be 8 billion. And as you say, we would have lost the increased revenue from the increased property values along the waterfront (and tourist revenue) along the way.
And suppose we do get another eight years or so to deal with this issue. At that time will the Aurora Bridge and the I-5 Freeway Bridge also need to be replaced? And what guarantee do we have that the 520 Bridge issue will have been resolved by that time?
Personally, I’m all in favor of the tunnel, damn the cost. When you only get a chance once a century or so to do something right, you make sure you do it right. The reduced noise, by itself, should result in substantial increases in tourist dollars along the waterfront which will help pay for the tunnel. If they could figure out a way to squeeze more city-owned parking into the mix, that might also help pay for the project.
But since I live in Everett, I probably won’t get to vote on the issue. I think that’s a shame. All of us bordering on the east beach of the Puget Sound benefit from the viaduct, even if it merely keeps more traffic off of I-5. Besides, we like to visit Seattle from time-to-time, also. I think Pierce and Snohomish Counties should also chip in an extra share into the funding pie.
I’ve always been amazed at how much money this area has (compared with the rest of the country) and how penny-pinching it is when it comes to public improvements. The Kingdome is a good example of being penny wise and pound foolish – instead of building a couple of stadiums which would be good for at least three-quarters of a century, they instead built one poor stadium which had to be torn down after 25 years. They bought a municipal building based upon a Florida design because it was cheaper, even though it wasn’t designed for northwest weather (or utility rates).
It’s time to do it right this time. I’d rather see a limited retrofit than a re-build, but I really want to see a tunnel.
You’re all wrong. The best option is no viaduct at all. No tunnel. No bridge. No nothing. Tear it down and be done with it.
You are all stuck in the old paradigm of people driving cars. That is a hopelessly inefficient method of moving people.
Instead, we should set a goal of making cars obsolete in Western Washington within 25 years. People could own one for trips out of the area, but for daily getting around, just jump on a soundtransit train.
We should also alter the economy of the area so that most people can work “virtually”. We should encourage Boeing and other old manufacturing companies to leave, and replace them with new jobs that can be done in a “flat world”. That would also reduce the need for large high priced office buildings and would result in fewer crane accidents.
I’m sure Ron Sims would embrace this idea as part of his initiative to fix global warming. What better way than to make the car obsolete. Hell, I’ll bet we could get Algore to MOVE HERE and lead the effort if we did this, since he also thinks this is a good idea.
Knocking down the viaduct and not replacing it would make a powerful statement that Seattle is going to take the lead on moving us to a new means of transportation.
Screw it. I wrote a really nice long post, but it never posted, I had to restart Windows, etc.
Bottom line:
– I favor digging a tunnel and repairing/rebuilding the seawall. No competing plan should exclude seawall rebuilding costs.
– The viaduct AND the current four-lane road + rail cut off the waterfront from the city. I think you’ll be amazed at how many new routes to the water get opened up once the hideous gray monster is gone.
– The people who should have a views to enjoy are those who spend time and money in the city center (including *gasp* tourists), not those merely driving though.
_ I remember the dim past twenty years ago or more when we started talking about rail as part of the regional transportation grid (when other cities just got off their asses and built it). Had we built it then it would cost a fraction of what we’re paying to build it now. Let’s not make the same fucking mistake a thousand times.
Ooh, MTR lives in Ecotopia now.
Like it or not, we live in a sprawling urban/suburban metropolitan are of millions of people, and automobiles won’t disappear in 25 years. Neither will truck traffic for freight hauling, or road-based mass transit.
The seawall won’t fix itself, either.
There’s nothing in MTR’s prescription that we couldn’t do while building an efficient N/S transportation solution that would open up our waterfront.
I think we should build a Venetian waterway and populate it with gondolas and singing gondoleers and you can drift lazily over to Alki while your car slowly grinds its way over to you on a mechanical treadway.
You could drink wine and beer on the way over and smoke all the free cigarrettes and pot you could handle and then get back in your car and drive over the bridge.
Utopian? Just a crazy dream? Maybe. But everyone said Einstein was a dreamer ’til they saw that mushroom cloud over Nagasaki!
The seawall is a city of Seattle issue and the Viaduct is a State of WA issue.
I think the best thing would be to retrofit the Viaduct, and City of Seattle replace the seawall.
How about seriously considering a commercial I805 bypass east of I405?
Take commercial traffic off of the two main N/S freeways easing the burden on 99.
This is not a solution to the 99 retrofit/rebuild/tunnel question but another piece of the puzzle that would impact hwy99.
“The seawall is a city of Seattle issue and the Viaduct is a State of WA issue.”
Sorry, the seawall, among other things, protects the Wash. State Ferry docs, which are considered to be part of the State transportation system (the waterways are public “highways”. So the seawall is, at least partly, a state issue also.
And the railroad tracks are BNRR property, but if the seawall collapses, eventually also will the railroad tracks collapse into the Puget Sound. Now we have a bottleneck in moving freight from the Port of Seattle. So fewer shipping companies will use the Port, creating more costs for the Port requiring more public subsidies, while our longshoreman, truck drivers, and trucking companies, customs clearance companies, import/export companies, etc. have less work available, hence less pay into the Seattle area.
Its a public investment, which should be paid for by taxpayer dollars because in the long run everybody benefits.
If you fucking hypocrites were serious about “fixing” global warming, that last fucking thing you would do is spend billions on a new viaduct or tunnel. Algore must be shocked to see what’s going on here.
It’s time to “walk the talk” guys. Tear down the viaduct and leave it. C’mon… make a statement.
All I am saying is that they are not both the “responsibility” of the State. Yes the ferries, BNSF, Pioneer Square etc etc etc all sit on land supported by the seawall. But I think that the city of Seattle is the responsible party. Of course Seattle wants to add the seawall to the project…..It saves them ~ 1 billion in replacement cost. I think that the fiscally responsible thing to do is replace/repair the current elevated structure and the City of Seattle should replace the seawall.
MarkTheRedDickedFoley:
Here is my statement:
You are a fucking imbecile. Your whore mother should have had that abortion when your crack dealing dad asked her too. Baring that, I would submit that you are a candidate for post birth abortion. It is no wonder your wife used crack, it was the only way she could cope with your overbearing, know-it-all way.
Fuck you, MarkTheRedDickedFoley.
You are all stuck in the old paradigm of people driving cars.
WTF? IS THIS THE SAME “POUR CONCRETE”, “CAR CULTURE” REDNECK WE KNOW AND
DESPISELOVE?YOU’RE TROLLING ASSHOLE. NICE TRY.
BEFORE I FORGET, PAY YOUR FUCKING GAMBLING DEBT!
OK, Mark the CivE, help me out here…
Let’s start with the postulate that the part of the “waterfront” that the elevated portion of the viaduct goes past isn’t really a working waterfront anymore–with the exception of the ferry terminal and the cruise ship dock (which is moving away anyway) it’s all tourist stuff and retail. The “real” waterfront starts down at about Pier 40.
So, assuming all those piers aren’t really needed any more, doesn’t rebuilding the “seawall” become a much easier (and cheaper) proposition? If there wasn’t a tunnel, would simply dumping some rocks along the water like along Myrtle Edwards Park do the job, or would the weight of something like a repaired viaduct necessitate something more substantial?
I should really restate what I posted.
The city of Seattle IS responsible for the seawall. The city of Seattle should pay for the replacement.
Of course the tunnel is preferred because it includes a new seawall. That’s THE reason City of Seattle wants a tunnel.
Goldy — you’re making some BIG assumptions, to wit:
a) The engineers know what they’re doing;
b) The cost estimates are accurate;
c) The tunnel won’t leak;
d) The money can be found.
P.S. — If the retrofit could be done without shutting down the viaduct, you wouldn’t have years of traffic jams and downtown disruption that you will with all the other options.
23 Seems to me the seawall is the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers.
Roger Rabbit @ 24
What about global warming? If the sea level rises enough, the tunnel entrances will be underwater and the tunnel tubes will fill with water.
Retrofit simply throws away good money and the state DOT report is meant as a stalking horse so that Doug MacDonald can slap back the City of Seattle with something when it says that if we can’t build it below grade, we’ll work with the surface. He’ll say if you insist on the surface, I’ll go with the retrofit. It’s nuts, but it’s true.
MacDonald and Paul Schell are responsible for setting up a big bucks process that wound up handing the Governor a political lemon – a city divided over the future of an ugly monster that is very likely to crash down and break the town apart. And they handed Frank Chopp the opportunity to stupidly have his name associated with advocacy for an even bigger and uglier piece of blight that will never be built. (Anyone selling artwork of the new bigger Viaduct autographed by Frank Chopp on Ebay yet?) MacDonald apears to have thought all along that if he could just win agreement with the Mayor on a tunnel, it’d just happen. He didn’t bother with anybody else unless it was convenient for him. Dumb. Really dumb. Yet typical for a person who mostly can’t tolerate, and who is not engineered, for finding common ground.
The only current option with any legs is to dig a shallow trench and cover it with lids. That’s the Governor and the legislature’s only real choice if they ever want to doing anything about this in our lifetimes. I think they do. And that’s what is mostly likely to happen. Chopp needs to get out of the way. He’s the only real thing standing in between more expensive delay and risk – and a decision to get on with it.
Great posts!
I think Seattle needs to rethink how this whole viaduct issue from the point of view of getting cars off the road and getting commercial port traffic redirected . . . some sort of delivery pathway that lightens the burden on the rest of our system.
Regarding a tunnell . . . prove to me it won’t leak. I do not trust any contractor to do it right. We do not have the expertise to get it done.
ARE YOU A TERRORIST?
Here is what the government’s “risk assessment” looks at to determine if you’re dangerous:
Here are some of the records and information weighed by the government’s Automated Targeting System in assessing international travelers’ potential as terrorist or criminal risks:
— Passenger manifests
— Immigration control records
— Information from personal searches
— Property seizure records
— Vehicle seizure records
— Aircraft arrival records
— Visa data
— FBI National Criminal Information Center data
— Treasury enforcement actions involving people and businesses
— Dates of flight reservation and travel
— Passenger name
— Passenger seat information
— Passenger address
— Form of travel payment
— Billing address
— E-mail address
— Telephone numbers
— Travel itinerary
— Miles flown as a frequent flyer
— Travel agency used
— Travel agent who made arrangements
— Passenger travel status
— History of one-way travel
— History of not showing up for flights
— Number of bags
— Special services, such as need for wheelchair or special meals for dietary or religious reasons
— Voluntary/involuntary upgrades
— Historical changes to the passenger’s record
(from Associated Press)
Roger Rabbit Commentary: So if you leave next door to Kareem Abdul Jabbar (that’s a Mooslim-sounding name if there ever was one!) and get around in a wheelchair and missed your last flight because you were throwing up in the rest room after eating airport food — you’ll be pulled out of line, handcuffed, thrown in a paddy wagon, and held incommunicado in Gitmo for 5 years. And your family will think you’re dead.
erratum
live not leave
Rabbit,
I have an Iranian refugee living in my home, and I have a daughter attending school in Canada. How worried should I be?
31
Hope you ain’t gonna try to fly anytime soon, amigo.
I have an Iranian refugee living in my home, and I have a daughter attending school in Canada. How worried should I be?
Depends. Have you had your prostate checked recently? If so, how did you enjoy that experience?
Yer Killin,
In January, I’m scheduled to fly down to San Jose for an off-site meeting. Ya think I should try to say Salat before bording?
ATJ,
Haven’t had my prostate checked lately, and I probably should. You think I can get a two-fer on that?
Haven’t had my prostate checked lately, and I probably should. You think I can get a two-fer on that?
Now there’s a thought. Perhaps the DHS could hire security screeners straight out of medical school. They could achieve some serious economies-of-scale…
The surface street alternative (i.e. tear down the viaduct and improve the surface streets below) is NOT a viable option.
Look at the EIS on the WSDOT site. Peak hour avg. speeds are 8-15 mph in the year 2030. That is assuming that the light rail runs from sea-tac, through downtown, capitol hill, UW, and all the way to Northgate. The other alternatives (tunnel, rebuilds, existing viaduct –retrofitted of course) will yield avg speeds 3-4 times higher (~high 30s to 50 mph).
Surface street alternative is (as Tony Snow says) is a non-starter.
34
Hmmmm. How much do you want to go to that meeting?
“Hey boss, a funny thing happened on the way to San Jose . . . “
Actually, though, I have to wonder just exactly how much you have to worry about the TSA when you can apparently get through security with a live vibrator stuffed down your trousers.
“Hmmmm. How much do you want to go to that meeting?”
Well, if my proctologist/security agent looks and sounds like Dionne Warwick, maybe I should stuff a vibrator down my pants.
Federal Report Slams Touch Screen Voting Machines
“WASHINGTON (Dec. 2) – Paperless electronic voting machines … may be vulnerable to errors or sabotage … a draft report by a federal agency said. … [R]esearchers at the influential National Institute of Standards and Technology said the paperless voting machines … ‘in practical terms cannot be made secure.’
“‘Many people, especially in the computer engineering and security community, assert that the (voting machines) are vulnerable to undetectable errors as well as malicious software attacks,’ the report said. … ‘Potentially, a single programmer could rig a major election[.]’ …
“Gail Porter, NIST’s public affairs director, emphasized that the draft report is a “discussion document” whose conclusions and recommendations could change. …”
Quoted under Fair Use; for complete story and/or copyright info, see http://tinyurl.com/y394rc
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Could change? Will change, you mean. Why would Rove give up paperless electronic voting machines when he’s already stolen two presidential elections? The Democratic Congress should ban the damned things, and if Bush vetoes the ban, we should riot in the streets.
“Don Joe says: Rabbit, I have an Iranian refugee living in my home, and I have a daughter attending school in Canada. How worried should I be? 12/01/2006 at 7:27 pm”
No problem, if you have an AK-47 and live in one of these. http://www.silohome.com/
Liberals must arm!
34 Just say “Salat” at the airport and you’ll get your prostate checked for free.
38 “Yer Killin Me says: … you can apparently get through security with a live vibrator stuffed down your trousers. 12/01/2006 at 10:35 pm”
If they seat that guy next to you on the plane, be afraid … be very afraid.
So is Mark the Redneck the same Mark as the Mark Griswold who posts under FullContactPolitics on SoundPolitics?
43
That, or be excited . . . be very, very excited.
44
I dunno. Ask around. Find out whether there’s a Mark Griswold who welshes bets.
The inspection poem, by harry poon
falling cranes and inspecting vaginas
is MTR’s bane, don’t ya think so , kinda?
if the viaduct becomes vaginal inspection domain
we must tighten the rules and change the game!
for what is a man if not made to inspect?
his sex makes his visual acuity the best!
The surface alternative examined in the Viaduct EIS was rigged to deliver poor performance – everybody knows that. WSDOT presented an extremely stop lighted surface alternative and didn’t do any thoughtful traffic engineering on the alternative that would make the most out of the street grid.
The engineering consultants and WSDOT engineers, combined with the highway crowd, are all pushing for more expensive alternatives like the poorly named “tunnel” or rebuilding an even bigger blight on the face of the city. Where is the MSM in covering this vast concrete conspiracy? It could not be more obvious to the least casual participant.
And another thing the EIS does not do is examine the impact on traffic of spending the whole bank on a single few miles of waterfront downtown. There are tons of needs around town, fixing other crippled structures like the Magnolia Viaduct and other roads and bridges, and providing additional light rail and street car services (actually figuring out how to pay for the sinking 520 bridge might be a good idea for all involved) – the combination of all the opportunity lost on the rebuild and the tunnel probably far exceeds WSDOTs biased numbers in WSDOT’s EIS.
The surface alternative will not emerge as viable unless there is a protracted fist fight over a below grade trench with a lid on top. At that point it’ll be the only thing we can afford to do.
Not Qualified @ 44 – My real name is Jack Meoff.
…and mine’s, Dick Pinch.
44 Richard Pope says: So is Mark the Redneck the same Mark as the Mark Griswold who posts under FullContactPolitics on SoundPolitics? 12/02/2006 at 12:17 am
Interesting question. FullContactPolitics posted,
“Congratulations Speaker Pelosi, now let the bombs fall where they may. My prediction: terror attack on domestic soil passenger aircraft within the next six months. Casualties in the 2-300 range. And, unfortunately, maybe that’s just what we need. It’s obvious people don’t remember what happened 5 years ago. Posted by FullContactPolitics at November 8, 2006 10:52 AM”
http://tinyurl.com/ydlfwu
Now I ask, what kind of prick hopes innocent Americans die in a terrorist attack so Republicans can win elections? This guy, whoever he is, is a sociopath! And Stefan is complicit in giving him a forum to spew his unpatriotic America-hating venom. If FullContactPolitics is Mark the Welsher in mufti, we ought to start civil commitment proceedings against him. He’s insane!
Hey Welsher, you fucking weasal, are you FullContactPolitics? Did you post that anti-American shit on Sucky Politics?
We don’t need no wingnut jihadists on this board.
Hey Richard do you mean THIS Mark Griswold?
Frank Chopp (Dem) 53,515 – 84.8085%
Mark Griswold (Rep) 9,586 – 15.1915%
Total Vote 63,101 – 100%
(Source of data: WA SoS 2004 election results)
http://tinyurl.com/yn48aa
Here’s a photo and candidate statement by Mark Griswold from the 2004 Voters Pamphlet. http://tinyurl.com/yk9q2u
Hey Richard — are you saying this is the guy who posted the comment on (u)SP saying we need a terrorist attack against a U.S. airliner to get people to vote GOP? Be careful, let’s not make any mistakes about this, but if this is the guy who posted that comment by “FullContactPolitics,” then voters should be told about it if he ever runs for public office again.
Of Vulcan and the Tunnel: Better Living Through Innovation. a SWIF solution!
It seems to me that at least two assumptions in all this are false:
1. The Viaduct is an important NS route. Every study I have seen shows that Aurora is largely a local street. 99/Aurora carries a lot of traffic into and out of Seattle but the largest estimate I have seen for through traffic was about 30% of the load. It seems more rational, from a regional POV. to off set that by more NS capacity on the Eastside. In that way, a surface approach copuld be designed mainly to improve access to downtown and an exit for the estimated 200,000 new Seattlites moving into those $1,000,000 condoes Mayor Nickles likes so much.
2. If a Tunnel is built, the profits should go to private hands. This makes NO sense. The real estate created by a Tunnel would IN PRESENT VALUE terms (that is the value of income over, say 30 yrs) be worth a large amount of money. What if a Tunnel were built under eminent domain, with the City of Seattle owning the increased property values and, obviously, the tract of land created by the project? In that way the “Tunnel” beco9mes the “Waterfront Real Estate” project. What is the worth of a comparable tract of downtown Seattle today?
If I am right, how about a Swedish solution? In Sweden, by law, pension funds are invested in a publicly held fund that invests in private industry. What if we created the Seattle Waterfront Improvement Fund? Citizens would own the SWIF and profits, after paying off the bind issue, could go into a public fund or even lead to a publicly traded security that citizens would won individually.
This idea may seem outre, but a large part of Downtown Seattle already has exactly this structure … the UW owns a good part of the land under the city and collects revenue through a holding company.
OR, given that Paul Allan has lost more money than any other investor in History. maybe he could own SWIF and in return the City would give him a annuity? Lets see, at 5%, tax free, if he were to put say, 10 billion into SWIF, SWIF all we would need to do is guarantee him $500,000,000/year. BUR, we could do better! Get him to donate the money to SWIF in return for the annuity. In that way he gets a tax break of, say 3 billion AND an annuity that is tax free of 1/2 billion a year … and as soon as he kicks the bucket, the city gets the tunnel for free! Oh yeh .. what better name than Vulcan’s Hole?
OLDIE BUT GOODIE
Hmmm … here’s an interesting tidbit from a Danny Westneat column about Mark Griswold’s quixotic 2004 challenge for Speaker Frank Chopp’s seat (Griswold got 15% of the vote):
“When I called the 43rd District GOP (actual motto: ‘You Are Not Alone’), the chairman begged me not to print his name. He runs a business that contracts with Seattle government, and fears retribution if it’s known he’s a Republican.”
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Way to go, Pukes! I hope I never have to go into combat with you guys, because I have a sneaking suspicion you WOULD leave me behind! One more item … can you say “sucking on the public tit”? Repeat after me: “Sucking on the public tit.” That’s what the cowardly chair of the 43rd District GOP does for a living. There, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
You guys are funny sometimes.
I dunno, Richard. The Mark Griswold who ran for leg is only 26 years old and recently graduating from Seattle U. He ran on a pro-gay rights platform. I don’t think that could be Redneck. Might not even be the same Mark Griswold you ID’s as FullContactPolitics. Where did you get your info?
LSoS @ 49:
Hey sport, you do enough of that on your own. You are probably going to go blind.
THOR –
The tunnel option is essentially a trench with a lid; it’s expected to be a cut-and-cover construction (i.e. no boring). I’m not sure what you mean by a shallow trench option?
Currently, the viaduct services a daily volume of ~110k passenger-car equivalence/hr on the viaduct (obviously, there’s significant freight/trucking as this is an important corridor). Do you think we can serve that kind of daily volume without some type of limited access highway?
OOPS typo.
that should be: …services an average daily volume of ~110k equivalent passenger cars on the….
Rebuilding the viaduct instead of putting it underground would be a tax on the future. because eventually it would have to be redone. To think otherwise is to admit our culture has peaked.
Gotta hand it to you on this Goldy. You finally produced a post that had a modicum of sanity. The realization that the tunnel would actually cost a lot of money, and that money does not grow on trees (or at least is not something that you can continually steal from everyone by just taxing and more taxing) is a big step forward for you. Unfortunately, it takes a price around 10 Billion or so (which is probably about what a tunnel would end up costing) before you start to actually scratch your head. And at least this time you’ve realized that it does take about twenty years for anyone to make a decision in this town, largely because of the progressive mindset which does not often focus on what is actually possible.
Keep your head out of the clouds and the ground and apply the same logic to other topics and maybe you’ll even be more effective on a regular basis. Doubtful. You’ll probably just keep up the extreme and profane bluster to drive comments and listeners.
The viaduct “lowers property values?” Nonsense. The property values were lowered in 1952 or so when the thing was built. Does anyone who owned property there in 1952 still own it? Maybe, but tough shit. Knocking it down will simply raise property values for the owners of the condos and warehouses and commercial owners on Western Avenue. It’s a helluva gift.