Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Distraction from the Tunnel/Viaduct debate
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 21, 2011 at 6:19 pm #598028
WSLiferParticipantSo I think we need some creative WS-ers to start the rumor that there are plans to replace the Spokane Street viaduct with a tunnel. Nevermind the construction that’s been going on for the past couple of years to get the new exit ramp to 4th, the new surface structure being built parallel to it on the north side, and the closures/construction happening down below. Those could be explained away if the reasoning is either well thought out or detailed enough to bore the readers till they give up and accept it as fact. We really need a good old-fashioned rumor that sounds just truthy enough that it’ll distract the Seattle Mayor so he’ll take his eyes off the Alaskan Way viaduct replacement debate. It’s over, we voted on a tunnel. Move on. A shiny object like a Spokane Street tunnel could work. OR COULD IT? Maybe since WS residents are the only ones who’d be impacted by a Spokane Street tunnel, it’s just not a heavy enough hitter. Does anyone else have ideas?
February 21, 2011 at 7:30 pm #718160
DPMemberFebruary 21, 2011 at 9:08 pm #718161
JoBParticipantFebruary 21, 2011 at 9:56 pm #718162
JanSParticipantFebruary 21, 2011 at 11:31 pm #718163
redblackParticipantwslifer: who voted for a tunnel?
oh, you mean the cut-and-cover vote in 2007? that proposal lost 70/30.
the elevated proposal lost 60/40.
i could just as easily say, “we voted to replace the viaduct with an elevated structure. we won. move on.”
i understand that everyone’s in a hurry to replace AWV with the most expensive and least certain option, but let’s not rewrite history.
February 22, 2011 at 1:17 am #718164
JoBParticipantredblack…
“oh, you mean the cut-and-cover vote in 2007? that proposal lost 70/30.”
just goes to show that voters aren’t engineers…
that option.. or a similar option.. would have solved several problems with one “tunnel”
waterfront park..
viaduct replacement
seawall reinforcement
Isn’t it time we took politics out of public transportation.. or at least took the popular vote out of public transportation?
Denver got a first class public transportation system because the mayor simply pushed it through without public vote..
Portland got theirs by creating a regional transit district.
All Seattle’s vote got it was gridlock
February 22, 2011 at 5:55 am #718165
redblackParticipantthe whole tunnel thing reminds me of safeco field.
“oh. voters don’t want a stadium. hmm. well, let’s just have them pay for it a different way.”
say wha?
only in this case, after two of eight possible replacement options went down to defeat because of a stupidly-worded ballot initiative, they put together a panel of AWV “stakeholders” whose only interest is to see a tunnel bored. somehow a panel of 15 or so people get to decide how the state spends its money? who picked that panel?
let’s also not forget that the city and state drug their feet on replacing AWV for seven years after the nisqually quake. it wasn’t until the governor threatened to tear it down and replace it with nothing that someone decided that it was an urgent matter.
well, whatever. they get the tunnel, we get the shaft. and the bill for cost overruns. and tolls.
so i gotta ask wslifer: who’s “we?” are you a stakeholder? is that you, mr. rasmussen?
February 22, 2011 at 2:53 pm #718166
redblackParticipantone other thing (okay, maybe 12): if it’s “smart” to always take the low bid for infrastructure projects, why do we, as a city, have to fund the most expensive project put before us?
why, yes, it is a state highway. if voters statewide rejected an income tax that wouldn’t affect them, i seriously doubt that they would vote to fund this tunnel – or vote for the tolls.
i hear what you’re saying, though, jo, and the AWV stakeholders are attempting to be the agency that makes the tough decision for the greater transportation good. but they’re choosing the most expensive option that benefits the fewest people and puts the greatest amount of cost on the taxpayers’ shoulders. while i agree that seattle needs a transportation czar to remove much of the decision-making from public purview, i don’t think the AWV stakeholders are working in the city’s best interest here.
the next question i ask of a public official, though, is how businesses like calportland, cadman, and waste management will be tolled for tunnel use. i think there needs to be a higher toll for those businesses.
February 22, 2011 at 3:13 pm #718167
GenHillOneParticipantAnyone else notice tv traffic reporters this morning are giving alternative routes and warnings about heavy surface street traffic because of the missing 1st Ave/99N on-ramp? All I could think was, “and that’s just a RAMP”! *sigh*
February 22, 2011 at 5:42 pm #718168
JoBParticipantand it begins…
i don’t think the tunnel was the best option …
but it’s the only option at this point.
we need to suck up and get on with it.
time’s wasting.
March 2, 2011 at 2:50 am #718169
sam-cParticipantMarch 2, 2011 at 6:49 am #718170
redblackParticipantsam: you think there are sand worms under downtown?
that’s good enough for me. stop the tunnel! we don’t need those things mixing it up with chupacabras and geoducks in the junction.
March 3, 2011 at 2:57 pm #718171
sam-cParticipant -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.