- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 10, 2009 at 10:45 pm #590465
Gay_CynicMemberToday WA House Speaker Frank Chopp announced he would permit the dysfunctional idiocy known as the “Tunnel Option” Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement onto the WA State House floor for an open vote. Regrettably, the Nickels Toady Faction believes it has the votes to ram this counterproductive boondoggle down the throats of the vast majority of Washington taxpayers that neither live in Seattle nor stand to make immense profits from the newly improved waterfront views.
They would have us believe that a hideously expensive cadillac-grade boondoggle with the main selling point of “pretty” which provides less traffic capacity than the current viaduct, and reduces access to the downtown core (reducing both entertainment and retail profits, and in turn slashing downtown tax revenue while facing a major deficit), reduced access (two fewer ramps into/out of downtown) which make it harder to access the roadway in case of emergencies or more mundanely commuting/shopping expeditions – is somehow a good thing.
With the tunnel the most expensive available option by far (even before the inevitable cost over-runs) at a time when our state is running a 9 billion dollar deficit (and the city struggling to catch up to build an equally vast deficit, proportionally) with things likely to only get worse over the next three years, the Tunnel Option is ALSO cursed with numerous functional flaws likely to incur substantial future expense.
Despite the current economic fiasco and our disastrous Mayor, Seattle is about the closest thing to urban growth remaining in the state. The best way to stamp this evil notion of an economic oasis (however minimal) out, seems to be to reduce the carrying capacity (three lanes each direction to two) of a major road through town while at the same time eliminating two exits into the downtown to make it harder for potential customers and freight to access the downtown retail/entertainment core. And we are to believe this is a good thing?
In yet another level of Nickels-style “goodness” the Tunnel option goes on as a grim bonus to reduce emergency (Medical/Fire/Police) access to accidents on the Viaduct-Replacement (whichever option is chosen), all while reducing options for access by those same critical services to the city core – all by introducing a new and artificial choke-point to the equation, a substantially exit-free tunnel.
For whatever reason, Nickels Toady Faction failed to learn the lesson of Boston’s Big Dig. It seems unlikely that no matter how big a tantrum Nickels can toss, that even if he flings himself to the ground and bursts into a full-blown teary-eyed hissy fit, that he can get exemptions to the laws of physics and/or economics granted. We live in a rainy climate; manmade structures are flawed, and below ground structures tend to leak. As yet another bonus, we get earthquakes now and again. Drowning in the dark sounds unappealing.
In yet another bonus, Nickels Tunnel Option particularly hurts West Seattle by further pinching our access bottleneck. The back-ups caused by implementation of this misbegotten notion will, inevitably, push back onto the W. Seattle Bridge (and possibly as far as the Fauntleroy Ferry Dock in the mornings), as folks trying that currently use Hwy 99 northbound for the morning commute are either compressed from the current three lanes to two, or simply cannot access the downtown once they are on 99 – and resort to either surface streets already operating at near capacity or I-5 which already operates above capacity for 6-8 hours each day.
All of this is bad enough, in itself, but when considered in light of the fact that W. Seattle has *no* emergency medical facilities in on the west side of the bridge (I.e., Harborview/Swedish/etc. are as good as it gets for nearby trauma care, and to get to them one must cross a newly besieged bridge) things have the potential to get simply grim.
It is almost certain that the Tunnel plan will, within a year or two of completion, generate a drive for either “Tunnel #2” or “build another Viaduct” at vastly unnecessary expense – since we can *build it right the first time* – with either equal or greater capacity and access to the current roadway.
As voters, we must derail this rampant idiocy whose sole positive design characteristic is creating really neat-o expensive view properties for certain elected officials developer cronies. We need to derail it now. And we need to punish public officials favoring such self-destructive mayhem at the ballot box. We need a solution that maintains (or improves) capacity and access while not creating *new* safety hazards nor predictable “supplemental” projects – a viaduct seems the only affordable and practical option.
April 10, 2009 at 10:53 pm #664195
PDieterParticipantI like the tunnel idea…so I guess I’m an idiot wholly set upon destroying downtown businesses with no regard to the well being of my WS neighbors. Pretty sure I eat babies too.
April 10, 2009 at 11:01 pm #664196
alki_2008ParticipantThe tunnel by itself would make travel into Downtown Seattle more difficult, but the surface street changes that coincide with the tunnel will provide other options for getting there. I need to find a link to those drawings that had been on the main WSB page a while ago, but it showed the other options for travel between West Seattle and DT Seattle…and it seemed that the tunnel was more for passing through DT to the Lake Union area, rather than getting into DT.
EDIT: This news story had some comments about access issues – https://westseattleblog.com/blog/?p=14379 And here’s another map of the project – http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/boredtunnelmap.htm
April 10, 2009 at 11:10 pm #664197
flowerpetalMemberI’m in favor of the tunnel too and happy that our elected officials are doing their job. That’s why I elected them, to make informed decisions.
April 10, 2009 at 11:12 pm #664198
Lucile 2MemberHate the tunnel, hate babies, love eating cashews and hate politics.
April 10, 2009 at 11:13 pm #664199
JennieMemberI am also a baby eater and tunnel supporter. I work on the waterfront and would love to see it be more vibrant, especially in the evening. Opening up that space to people not in their cars is invaluable.
April 10, 2009 at 11:14 pm #664200
austinMemberNo matter what happens with the downtown waterfront there will be someone vehemently opposed to it.
April 11, 2009 at 1:04 am #664201
WSBKeymasteralki2008, our viaduct coverage is all archived here:
https://westseattleblog.com/blog/?cat=76
I believe the drawings you’re looking for were featured in this report:
April 11, 2009 at 1:07 am #664202April 11, 2009 at 2:59 am #664203
JoBParticipanti have to admit i wasn’t charmed by the tunnel option myself.. but given the alternatives that would have effectively destroyed the waterfront.. it’s not so bad.
and so far, i haven’t seen a plan to tear down the existing viaduct, just to reduce the traffic on it.
April 11, 2009 at 3:07 am #664204
JanSParticipantI will watch and see how this all turns out. My solution? I work at home….in West Seattle. My commute? To the kitchen, to my desk, to my massage room. Yes, I use the West Seattle Bridge corridor occasionally..doc appts. and such. I will deal with that when it comes, I suppose.
Please note…I’m not trying to be snide. I realize that most people commute out of West Seattle on a daily basis to get to their jobs. I know that it’s gonna be a hassle, it already is. I’m not sure how I feel aobut the tunnel. I’m just glad they’re not gonna put it under the water front..that’s scary to me…it’s not stable land (the viaduct is moving/settling?) If no earthquakes take the viaduct down early, I would surmise that it will at least stay up until the tunnel is done. It will have to be dealt with sooner or later. Things can’t remain stagnant forever, no matter what we’d wish.
April 11, 2009 at 5:13 am #664205
KBearParticipantThis is exactly why nothing ever gets done (well) in Seattle. And by the way, the Seattle tunnel proposal has little in common with the Big Dig.
April 11, 2009 at 7:09 am #664206
JiggersMemberI hate long-winded posts.
April 11, 2009 at 4:07 pm #664207
JoBParticipantjiggers…
it takes more wind to explain than to comment:)
just skip the posts that are too long… i tried it in one of the topics and was blessed with a very pithy exchange without all that bothersome content:)
added on reflection…
jiggers, i don’t mean to sound so snarky and i really don’t mean what i said as an insult to you.
If someone tells me they like or don’t like something, i want to know why so i can decide for myself whether or not i agree with their reasons.
that’s just me. I am willing to spend the time it takes to understand someone’s argument even if it takes several days of exchanged forum posts and a few PMs besides.
But not everyone is so interested in what everybody thinks and why they think it.
i really did try reading one of the more controversial and long winded topics ignoring all of the long posts.. and found it quite entertaining.
Of course, i read very few of my own posts… for a writer not hear the sound of their own voice can be a painful thing ;(
but my point is that it was still entertaining .. though not satisfying for me.
that doesn’t mean that strategy wouldn’t work wonders for you…
it’s funny, when i write poetry my poems are little jewel boxes with very few precise words.. but i can’t seem to explain my thoughts so concisely in prose..
i’d attempt poetry here.. but i suspect many readers would find they needed more than a beer to appreciate my attempts at political poetry.
i do better with affairs of the heart and soul:)
April 11, 2009 at 6:39 pm #664208
KeithMemberIf you want to see a real example of dysfunctional idiocy, take a look at Frank Chopp’s previous proposal for the ridiculous viaduct/shopping mall that he wanted to build along the waterfront. Thank god he came to his senses about that monstrosity *and* the far superior tunnel solution.
April 11, 2009 at 11:50 pm #664209
phatpayMemberThat animation via the link that lowmanbeach provided is interesting.
It would appear off of that that there will be downtown access via a few different options, and that that tunnel is for thru traffic (as some have mentioned).
I’m really weird.
I like the viaduct.
I’ve always taken people visiting our neck of the woods to downtown via 99 so they could get that Jetsonian feel. Not the viaduct itself, but just traffic at mid building feel.
I’m for progress.
I’m not for a tunnel option so some condo slum lord can raise his equity with a better view.
I have little faith that our pols are “doing their job”. We should have had light rail spider webbed across the whole metropolis 7 years ago.
Portland makes us look so foolish sometimes.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.