West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

(28 posts)

viaduct/tunnel

Started 1 year ago by autumn
Latest reply from DP

autumn
Member Profile

People, this DBT needs to be stopped Now. Before it's too late. Do we really want a scenic part of state route 99 buried beneath the city? If you live in w sea chances are great that use the viaduct. Would you really prefer a 2 mi tunnel under the city? Why? The viaduct can be upgraded and modernized to be safer, cheaper and a millions times more beautiful than a f'n tunnel.
Research the facts and let the city council know how wrong and disasterous this project really is.
It's not too late. It's NOT a done deal.

Posted 1 year ago #
bebecat
Member Profile

Thank you autumn for reminding us that we do have a say. I ask? What brought so many people to Seattle to live? Most say the beauty and views. Why would anyone want to replace the viaduct with a tunnel is beyond me. I will never support the tunnel nor go in it. I am trying to make the views from the viaduct indelible in my mind as I never want to forget the beauty of that drive. The piers jetting out into the water, the boats and ferries, Ye Old Curio Shoppe, pier 70(did I have fun there when it was a dance club)the mountains on sunny days. I would rather see a new earthquake tolerant viaduct built. Tunnel=concentrated exhaust fumes, no exits and back up and no access for emergency services when crashes occur...God forbid trapped underground in an earthquake. Nope no tunnel for this kid.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

anyone remember the monorail that was approved and then sunk...

i wondered how it was that such a seemingly progressive city as Seattle had such a crappy transportation system.. but now i know. No-one will let anything be built.

What part of the governor is going to take down the viaduct with or without a replacement because it is a STATE hiway don't you people get? It's not like there is time to resubmit and build the better covered trench option.. which still would have had you underground.. now.

Stop and go on Marginal... destroying the waterfront... is not a better option.

so you lose a view while speeding through town in your car. You gain a waterfront. It sure worked out for Portland....

Posted 1 year ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

I agree with JoB. I've always been confounded by the fact that two such similar cities - Seattle and Portland - should have such vastly different approaches to transportation and urbanization. Portland got their act together a long time ago, with impressive results. Seattle is still wallowing in the dark ages. I don't love the tunnel idea, but the viaduct is a dinosaur and an eye-saur. I also don't understand the assertion that the viaduct is essential due to the views. Here's a thought: perhaps when you're speeding 60 mph on an elevated highway you should be paying attention to the traffic - not the views. Once the waterfront is restored to something other than a freeway, there will be more and improved views for everyone.

Posted 1 year ago #
johnnyblegs
Member Profile

The view should not be important because everyone should be concentrating on DRIVING. I love the tunnel idea. It opens up the waterfront so you can enjoy the view OUTSIDE the car and on your own two feet. Do you really want to use that land for a 6 lane highway or another elevated road...OR for business and parks and open space and a great waterfront? Because admit it...Our waterfront kinda sucks. There isn't a whole lot down there at all. Do you really want to fight this construction like so many other projects in Seattle and delay it for another 10 years?

Posted 1 year ago #
Carson
Member Profile

There are many many reasons to be against the tunnel. Saving the view while you drive is not one of them.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Carson...

i still don't think the tunnel is the best option..
but it is a whole lot better than no option at all.

Posted 1 year ago #
MousePotato
Member Profile

Gosh, let's go with Mayor Mc'Idiots idea of surface street options. That plan only expects 50k or so West Seattle residents to abandon their cars and pick up a bike or take 3 (or 4) buses to work. Get up at 4 to be at work at 10 since we have such a fantastic bus plan out of West Seattle.

Doesn't anyone remember how much it sucked trying to leave WS after the quake when the viaduct was closed? It took an easy 1.5 to 2 hours just to get across the bridge.

The fact that anyone would recommend simply removing the viaduct and switching to surface street options is beyond belief.

I don't care if they build a tunnel or another viaduct but if they remove it completely and go with the surface street option that Mayor Mc'Stupid wants we might as well leave Seattle and create our own city because anyone that needs to leave the neighborhood to go to work will have the worst commute in the country...

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

maybe we could resurrect the monorail:)

Posted 1 year ago #
Carson
Member Profile

JoB,

My point was the view, while driving, should not be an issue, pro or con tunnel

Posted 1 year ago #
autumn
Member Profile

Not everyone using the viaduct is driving, some are passengers in cars or riders of metro and the speedlimit is 50mph not 60mph. And it's a lot more than just about the views. It happens to be an efficient means of getting downtown or beyond. It also has great potential for mass transit. Why must we bury this? Also, it doesn't have to be the tunnel or nothing we could have an excellent elevated roadway and a hopping waterfront.(I wonder how much the train tracks disrupt the flow of people and business to the waterfront)
And the govn signed something into law that hasn't had an environmental review completed.
There are so many reasons to fight this project.
Sinkholes, concentrated exhaust fumes, cost of maintance....
Really, It doesn't have to be a tunnel. Check out the history on how the DBT came to be the only option.
And Yes, I will fight this.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

autumn...

while you are fighting the tunnel.. i would like you to consider what commuting from West Seattle might have been like if someone else hadn't decided to fight the monorail because lord knows there had to have been better options...

the problem is that none of those options ever got traction.. instead we have a water taxi service that is not well connected to bus service or available parking... an extremely limited commuter option at best...

The viaduct will come down and we will be left with no option but surface streets. The current gridlock caused by shutting down the 1st AV on-ramp is nothing compared to the traffic snarl that will cause.

I agree that there was a better option.. a much better option.. but it's not on the table any more and isn't likely to land there in time.

Posted 1 year ago #
PSPS
Member Profile

The only reasonable solution, a retrofit of the existing structure, was strangely left out of the "options." Nevertheless, it still remains as the only practical solution because it both costs a fraction of any other alternative and has minimal impact on existing traffic.
~
The surface street option is no option at all. It would be tantamount to closing I-5 and routing its traffic onto Airport Way, only worse because of dozens of traffic lights.
~
The tunnel is a joke because its cost and disruptive effect are ridiculous and its two-lane design condemns it to being a 25 MPH "arterial."

Posted 1 year ago #
Julie
Member Profile

While I agree the viaduct views (for passengers!) are lovely, I think reclaiming the waterfront is worth losing them.

I agree that removing the highway altogether would make driving through downtown extremely awkward--and that is the point. It would be so painful that people who now drive the viaduct would choose alternatives whenever possible. This would help build demand for high-quality, efficient transit.

Cities that restrict the flow of SOVs through their centers are much pleasanter places, and Seattle has no hope of achieving carbon neutrality as long as we prioritize the use of SOVs over transit.

Posted 1 year ago #
charlabob
Member Profile

<Sarcasm> -- I think everyone should just stop worrying about this. Nothing will happen until the current viaduct falls down. Period.

We do not grok the legendary concept of disagree and commit. We elect people to make decisions. They decide. Some of us disagree. We just keep revisiting. Sometimes we "throw the bums out and elect new bums". Then the new bums "revisit" and try to undecide. As a result, nothing even gets started.

Besides meaning that nothing ever gets done (and frequently nothing even gets started) it just means that even thinking about doing something costs more in Seattle than it does anywhere else.

Maybe we're just too smart and involved for our own good. Maybe, at some point, we could just use a little apathy. </sarcasm>

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

charlabob...

i think the first part of the viaduct is actually scheduled to come down this year or next... not the downtown part.. but they definately have a plan to take down the south industrial part:(

this could get really ugly really fast.

Posted 1 year ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

When our local government finally made a decision on this, I thought I had stepped through a magical portal and landed in another city.

Clearly, the best course of action now would be to un-decide and sit around wringing our hands until a real catastrophe hits and forces us to get off our asses.

Posted 1 year ago #
MousePotato
Member Profile

maplesyrup,

It has been decided and a schedule is in place to remove the viaduct and replace it with a tunnel. The only hold up is that the moron that we chose to be called 'mayor' is against it and will do everything he can to put us all on buses or bikes....

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

mousepotato...

buses and bikes aren't such a bad deal when they are part of a well planned public transportation system...

loved the public transportation in San Francisco last month.. love the public transportation system in Portland...

Here.. not so much.

Posted 1 year ago #
MousePotato
Member Profile

I love biking and would be more than happy to take the bus if the commute wasn't so horrible. I don't have 3 or 4 hours a day to spend getting to the East side and back from WS. Busing is so bad that Microsoft has even implemented their own transportation service for their employees. Unfortunately I do not work for them. I used to ride my bike to work downtown daily and loved it. Then I had kids.... I don't have the time to spend on my bike or a bus. There are simply some people who cannot fit into this mold they expect to use to get rid of auto traffic. If we had a better transportation system (Like San Fransisco) maybe we could switch to surface street options and eliminate the viaduct but we don't have that system. We're not even close....

Posted 1 year ago #
JayDee
Member Profile

If I had any confidence that there would actually be transit-based solutions that would work in the absence of either the viaduct or the tunnel I'd be supportive of Mayor McAginnit's backdoor attempt to smother the tunnel in it's cradle.
-
I don't like abandoning the Seneca offramp -- While it shakes like a hula dancer, it is a viable alternative for cars and buses. However, it would be nice to get a real waterfront rather than a tourist trap. But without the tunnel I feel like WS is screwed.
-
Bus rapid transit would work if we actually tried to route the buses through the grid to give an incentive to the former Viaduct/car commuters. Not that we couldn't do it, but we have shown that paralysis of vision (aka, "process") is the dominant theme in our recent civic debate (Monorail, Seattle Commons, S.L.U.T., and Viaduct/tunnel/"Surface option"). I'd hate to imagine if the current politicians/public were in charge of the Denny Regrade or the Cedar River Watershed. My two cents.

Posted 1 year ago #
autumn
Member Profile

Maple syrup,
Stopping the deep bore tunnel is only the first step in solving the viaduct dilemma. And step two is to find a real solution and get it done. Doing nothing is disaster and this we are fighting to avoid.

And to those of you throwing out solutions of bikes and mass transit, Yes, of course. Being anti tunnel does not mean pro car.

And to you who want a better waterfront, Me too.
The most disruptive to the waterfront is not the viaduct, it's the traffic. Tearing down the viaduct won't get rid of the cars. All that traffic on the waterfront is from the street, ferry terminal traffic, sporting event traffic, cruise ship traffic, semitruck traffic. Burying the viaduct won't change that.

A lot about this project and the rhetoric needs to be examined very closely. For example, I want to know about tunnel maintance, you know, electricity for lights and carbon dioxide filters. What's that going to cost each year?

I keep reading the WSDOT website and when they say the deep bore tunnel has been chosen as the preferred method I wonder, Prefered by whom?

Posted 1 year ago #
autumn
Member Profile

charlabob,
They imploded the kingdome and built two new stadiums lickity split. Stalling is a political tactic used by some to eventually get their way.

Posted 1 year ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

"Stopping the deep bore tunnel is only the first step in solving the viaduct dilemma. And step two is to find a real solution and get it done. Doing nothing is disaster and this we are fighting to avoid."

Actually, autumn, by un-deciding you're back to doing nothing. No solution is perfect but at least we have a solution.

If we reverse course, can you imagine how long it will take for Seattle to make another decision and get buy-in/assistance from the state?

Posted 1 year ago #
KBear
Member Profile

I sure hope they hurry up and get that thing built so all the haters and do-nothings can move on and find something else to complain about. This is exactly why Seattle is such a transportation nightmare already. I look forward to using the tunnel, as well as having a more attractive waterfront.

Posted 1 year ago #
autumn
Member Profile

KBear,
Please refrain from name calling. I am neither 'a hater' nor 'a do-nothing'. I am saying look at all the facts of the issue at hand.
It is not too late to stop the deep bore tunnel and replace that project with a functionally sound common sense solution that won't cost the city taxpayers billions of dollars. In 2006 the govn stated that an elevated structure would be fully funded with state money. If the city chose a tunnel option then the city would be on the hook for the difference which will be billions with tolling to the tune of 240 million dollars.
A solution exists that would cost the city zero money.

And also, how will removing the viaduct eliminate the trains with shipping containers that move through the corridor,or the congestion from the fourlane road that runs parallel to the shore?

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

autumn...

just an observation...

but you seem to think the city of Seattle should have the final word .. but should pay nothing for it.

in my experience.. that isn't how it works.
in fact, in my experience.. the state and/or the feds offer money for a specific project.
If the project is rejected the state/feds withdraw the money.

Seattle could end up with no money and no option if they keep dragging their heels... just like West Seattle ended up without the monorail and without any other viable commuter alternative.

All of that work being done on approaches to the port.. It is laying the groundwork for the tunnel/replacement option.. and is i think mostly state/port money and state/port decisions.

If you take a look at what is currently being done you will find that a replacement option for hwy 99 is not an essential part of the state structure.

The viaduct can be torn down without any replacement option.

the tunnel option was the one that disrupted the city's core businesses the least.. and re-routed commercial traffic where it would least impact most downtown commerce...

and if those who designed it get their way.. ended up fee based to help pay the costs.

It isn't pretty. it wasn't the best option. But it is still a viable option.

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

When the City first floated the idea of a tunnel to replace the viaduct, I was for it. You need only stand in Victor Steinbrueck Park near Pike Place Market for five minutes to appreciate what a noisy eyesore the viaduct is.

Then, when I got a load of the original cost estimates ($11-13 billion), I was against it. That was simply too much money.

When they brought the cost of a tunnel down to around $2 billion, I was for it again. But then, Mayor McGinn started raising valid questions about cost overruns, and when Richard Conlin, Chris Gregoire, and other politicians started poo-pooing those concerns, I got worried.

I'm still for the tunnel at this point, but I think Mayor McGinn is right to bring up the question of who's going to foot the bill if it goes over budget. As mayor of Seattle, it's McGinn's job to look out for the interests of Seattle taxpayers. However—as important as the cost issue is—I don't think it's important enough to stop the tunnel cold, especially at this late date in the process.

Governor Gregoire is on record as saying that Seattle taxpayers won't be on the bill for overruns. However, she lacks the power to commit the state legislature to that position, so what McGinn should do is push to get the State to promise to pay for any overruns.

Unfortunately, McGinn continues to be coy on this point, and has said that he'd still be against the tunnel, even if the funding was secure. That has seriously diminished his moral authority in my eyes and has contributed to the sense, expressed by Kbear, Maplesyrup, and others, that Seattle just can't get anything done.

This is a complex issue, and people have raised legitimate concerns on both sides. However, my sense is that the majority of Seattleites are fatigued with all this "process" and want to move ahead with the tunnel.

So let's move ahead already.

.

Posted 1 year ago #