Should W.S. secede from Seattle?

Home Forums Open Discussion Should W.S. secede from Seattle?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 21 posts - 26 through 46 (of 46 total)
  • Author
  • #624041


    People already think we have! During KEXP’s last fund drive, one of the DJs was exhorting local cities to contribute: “Come on, Bellevue! Kirkland! West Seattle!”

    I know it’s silly, but I was really pissed off. WE ARE IN SEATTLE.



    With the 99 tunnel bypassing a downtown exit, which is essential for West Seattle workers to get downtown, the failure of any light rail to be extended to West Seattle even though it has been extended and is planned to be extended to all other parts of the city, and the continuing urban decay of delridge because of the citys failure to fix roads build sidewalks, and fund community centers , I believe West Seattle should again (1995) seriously consider Municipal incorporation as the City of West Seattle



    Still can’t believe re the 99 tunnel. What can (whoever) be THINKING.



    What would we call ourselves if not West Seattle?



    Wesseattle. ;-)



    Genesee Hill

    West Texas Seattle. Rick Perry as honorary mayor. Todd Palin as First Dude.



    Oh my.

    i would have to move.


    the 99 mess will probably mean i have to anyway:(



    You know what would be really cool? If we could just elect a mayor from West Seattle who might take a bigger interest in this part of the city. Maybe if the voters from WS showed up in force and supported such a candidate we could get a few favors thrown our way…

    Oh, wait. I guess too many of us voted for Mayor McSchwinn because they were mad about a snowstorm.



    Hmmm another oportunity for a split from the city…could we dig a moat and hang signs that say caution life better here then the emerald city and call it the Jet city again and make fun of fremont and ballard…and we must annex rat city I mean white center hmmmm could we look at women gardening without getting in trouble where do I sign up …..!



    ws4ever: you realize that a downtown exit from a 200-feet deep tunnel would be, like, at a 45-degree angle, right? maybe a big corkscrew? or it would enter/exit somewhere around broadway on capitol hill. :) not to mention that it would require the boring of another tunnel or a Y or something…

    teasing aside, a shallower, less expensive tunnel would allow WSDOT to put an entrance/exit closer to central downtown.

    but in full-speed-ahead-with-the-DBT reality, there will be an entrance/exit to/from 99 at king street, or you will be able take the tunnel through downtown – for a toll.



    hey, joelobster … your first post ever on WSB and you resurrect a thread from 3 years ago?? And then you claim, “… [light rail] has been extended and is planned to be extended to all other parts of the city…” Zackly what city are you in? Not Seattle, cuz I can name lots of city parts that light rail hasn’t been extended to and that there are no plans to extend it to …

    ws4ever — so what’s your solution, if not the tunnel?

    redblack — Can’t do a shallower tunnel cuz of the pilings supporting the current viaduct & Battery St tunnel, sewer trunk lines, the RR tunnel, building support pilings, etc. This simulation shows all the stuff the tunnel has to dodge:

    maybe we should call ourselves ‘McGinnville’ or ‘Schwinn City’ Or ‘Whine Country’ In that case, our motto could be, ‘Bring Cheese and Crackers When You Move Here, Cuz We Got More Whine Than Seattle!”



    HunterG asks: “What would we call ourselves if not West Seattle?”

    Well, why not select a name representative of a mix of us, our history, a nod to romance, and our local topography?

    Since we may well be at the end of our exasperated rope with Seattle’s inattentiveness, you could say that we are at the endolyne. Home of that streetcar line’s last stop is an area first named Fauntleroy by George Davidson in 1857. It turns out that that was the same year that Alki landowner Charles Terry threw in the towel and swapped his land with Doc Maynard’s Pioneer Square holdings. Thus was marked the first official abandonment of our sacred place by Seattleites.

    And don’t we love our home here as much as George Davidson loved Elinor Fauntleroy of Indiana? And isn’t therefore that name connected in time to the first Alki Exodus? And doesn’t the state transportation system even provide us a waterborne means to exit our home from that same neighborhood without having to transit Seattle proper?

    And yet we own the highest ridgeline in the incorporated area. One would think those with such commanding views would be cherished and listened to.

    And so, it is clear what we must call ourselves: Fauntcrest!




    Neighborhoods of



    Refusing to




    Where do I sign???


    Genesee Hill

    Many people would love to live in West Seattle. Problems? Some.

    Gorgeous quotient: In spades.

    Mississippi like: No

    Whiners? You betcha

    Secede from Seattle? Only if you are dumber than a fence post.



    No tunnel exits to downtown, sure, but isn’t there going to be a surface street with a number of roads accessing downtown streets? Wouldn’t this, in effect be providing MORE access to downtown?



    metrognome: not entirely so, grasshopper. neither a cut-and-cover nor a lidded trench would interfere with those. especially since AWV would have to be demolished before any cut-and-cover tunnel is built.

    and as we all know, AWV is a disaster waiting to happen. so why leave it in place until 2016?

    the integrated tunnel/seawall – which voters rejected by a huge margin in ’07 – and the lidded trench options both call for a short elevated structure to connect 99 at the waterfront to BST. new connections/construction won’t undermine it, as WSDOT determined in ’06.

    we all know the sewer trunk lines are beyond their lifespan, so replacing them would be a win-win.

    the BNSF tunnel? well, do we undermine it with a DBT or do we go over it with a shallower tunnel? from an engineering standpoint, i think the latter is more feasible.

    what else ya’ got?



    regarding whining, why should seattle taxpayers foot a huge chunk of the bill for replacement of a highway that serves king county pretty much exclusively, yet not have any say in its design?

    mcginn is right.



    RB, what are you wanting? Dreamworld aside what option takes down the viaduct and still lets traffic travel through downtown? your axe is getting dull my friend. Beers on you.



    redblack — the tortured ‘logic’ you used in post 40 is so illogical it can’t be refuted by a logical answer.

    First, BOTH alternatives at the time were rejected by voters; the bored tunnel was not voted on as it was not under consideration at that time.

    Second, the C&C ‘tunnel’ would have had a completely different alignment and would have been smack in the liquefaction zone. Also, the viaduct would have had to have been torn down first. And construction would have shut down Alaskan Way in sections and blocked access to Colman Dock. Merchants would go out of business and Ivar would rise from his grave to sue. The resulting traffic jam would have brought Seattle to its knees and allowed Tacoma to laugh their aspidistras off at us for being so stupid. These are indirect costs that aren’t calculated in determining project costs; I’m betting that when the cost of traffic jams and merchant losses are folded in, the C&C tunnel would be way more expensive than the bored tunnel.

    I worked at Metro when the bus tunnel was being dug; while the deep bore section caused surface disruption, it was nothing in comparison to the chaos caused by the C&C tunnel from Westlake to Convention Place.

    And replacing those sewage pipes wouldn’t be cheap.



    Mcginn is right? huh? about what? About being a stubborn sob? yeh, He’s awesome. Please point out any accomplishments besides “trying” to keep community centers open.



    hoffanimal: for one thing, we don’t have a budget deficit, and we didn’t have to suffer austerity cuts that other cities have suffered.

    metrognome: heh. “tortured logic,” huh? i could say the same thing.

    for example, looking at your posts in 3 different threads, i see that

    1. seattle should have to pay for a $4 billion state highway replacement with no discussion of that funding or the planning thereof.

    2. we can’t tax ourselves to build intra-city rail because it’s too expensive, too hard, and according to you and you alone, there’s not enough demand – despite the fact that buses to and from west seattle are SRO at rush hour.

    3. metro is the greatest thing since sliced bread, even though it faces severe budget cuts and gets stuck in the same traffic as cars.

    you know, i’m willing to take the bet that bringing down AWV sooner rather than later wouldn’t kill downtown businesses or cause half of the traffic doomsday that DBT supporters predict.

    i’m also going to bet that DBT burns through its meager 15% contingency fund pretty quickly and that the state is going to come to seattle with its hand out more than once before this whole thing is finished.

    other cities have suffered having major arterials cut and repaired. so will seattle.

    if you think i’m being naive, that’s fine. but would you at least please do me the courtesy of discussing balancing the budget for the DBT? because at this point, it’s a giant unfunded mess with a state-mandated cap on tolling.



    okay, well i guess i hit a nerve.

    consider this: things are going to look a bit different from west seattle and ballard – and points beyond – in 2 years.

    by that time, a wider spokane street viaduct will have two exits for downtown-bound traffic via 1st and 4th in the morning, and a spiffy new southbound-westbound on-ramp at 1st – which looks as if it might be able to handle a speed limit merge.

    lower spokane street will be reopened, with wider lanes, and will be reconnected to the swing bridge, the N/S avenues, airport way, and I-5.

    99 will have an exit at king street. (hopefully this will happen before DBT portal construction.)

    alaskan way will again be a through route, and will not have BNSF tracks separating it from 1st avenue during train hook-ups. (to me, this is huge. especially considering that the atlantic street overcrossing will keep freight moving over the tracks, as well.)

    mercer street will be two-way; will connect 15th ave NW, 99, westlake, fairview, eastlake, and I-5; and it will more effectively distribute traffic onto the avenues through downtown.

    metrognome, you have long contended that not enough west seattleites go through downtown to justify rail to ballard, or even a metro route linking west seattle to other neighborhoods.

    so if everyone is downtown-bound, why would any west seattleite – or ballard denizen – want to use or pay for a tunnel, or be tolled to use that route when there are so many improved alternatives?

    and how much freight really uses that corridor? a couple of concrete plants, waste management, and some local mills, to be sure. but most freight to/from/through seattle is being accommodated by the port between spokane street and atlantic street.

    considering those, DBT is starting to look pretty extravagant to me.

    we’re just discussing here, right? kind of like a couple of guys hunched over beers in the corner pocket trying to fix the world, right? we don’t need to insult or injure one another.

Viewing 21 posts - 26 through 46 (of 46 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.