Tunnel toast?

Now we’re really confused. If the guv’s position was Replacement Viaduct Or Nuthin’, why didn’t she just say that a month ago instead of throwing the ball back for the whole advisory-vote thing? Or was it really Tunnel Lite/Less (Land)Filling that put her over the edge? Whatever the case, this morning’s update on the whole thing sure makes it sound like the tunnel’s toast (here’s exactly what she said), but the City Council’s going to meet tomorrow to talk about … something. A sit-in, maybe?

SWT January 18, 2007 (9:19 am)

If the chioce is new viaduct or nothing, I’m casting a strong West Seattle vote for nothing. Tear the sucker down and let a nicer waterfront bloom.

Some money for improved water taxi service would be nice too, but god, let’s not repeat the same gash-down-the-waterfront mistake twice in the span of 50 years. A new viaduct isn’t a solution, it’s a gaping wound.

WS January 18, 2007 (12:15 pm)

I love the viaduct! This “gash-down-the-middle” is no mistake. I am all for rebuilding BUT with some tasteful architectural updates it doesn’t have to be an eyesore. The West Seattle Bridge is already a traffic mess if NOTHING is done then I will be moving, and it won’t be downtown because I can’t afford it. Oh well, off to the suburbs commuting 25 miles each day in my new Hummer at 7 miles to the gallon!

Dis January 18, 2007 (3:34 pm)

SWT says to let the waterfront “bloom.” Maybe he/she is not aware that Seattle is a working waterfront. The blooming waterfront needs to have transportation corridors for trucks.

Keith January 18, 2007 (4:01 pm)

WS, there are no tasteful architectural updates planned for the rebuild. Unless you’re a fan of bigger and bulkier, plus obstructed views whether you’re on or off the viaduct.

Then again, if you’re driving a Hummer, perhaps a new viaduct suits your style. Or lack thereof.

Eric January 18, 2007 (5:11 pm)

A surface street is a terrible idea. That’s like saying that eliminating parking downtown will keep people from driving downtown… oh, wait, our “leaders” are actually testing this theory.

I’d vote for the tunnel even though I think the viaduct – as it stands or as it is rebuilt – is just fine.

It’s funny how people had no problem putting an elevated structure down the middle of California Ave (monorail), but will argue the viaduct is an eyesore.

See comment in above entry: leaders should lead. There shouldn’t be a vote. Make a decision and move on.

The voters will let you know if they agree if they re-elect you.

Forest January 18, 2007 (9:57 pm)

I favor a retrofit. For all the Mayor’s talk about a “100 year solution,” no one honestly knows what transportation technologies will have evolved even 25 years from now, let alone 100 years. Had a 100 year solution been built in 1907, horses and wagons might have figured as much as the now-vanished citywide streetcar system.

The Admiral bridge over Fairmount has been retrofitted twice in the last 10 years. That suggests to me that retrofitting is standard maintenance for bridges and elevated arterials or highways, not a major crisis.

When the Puget Sound (assuming it’s still called that) region gets the massive quake predicted by viaduct critics, it won’t give a damn what is supposed to be earthquake proof. If we get a monumental quake of the sort that occurs every several thousand years, it could well destroy all of the waterfront and most man-made structures, whether or not the structures have been certified by Mayor Nickels as earthquake proof.

Jan S. January 19, 2007 (12:22 am)

I suppose I could support a tunnel – lite or not – if someone could prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ground on the waterfront, which I understand is just landfill – will not turn to liquid jelly in a big, big earthquake. Will the ground there support a tunnel? As far as businesses and residents who live near the waterfront wanting their views back…you know that it was obstructed when you moved there. Why do I get the feeling that if the gov doens’t do something, it’ll never get done?

Sorry, comment time is over.