- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 2, 2011 at 9:50 pm #599993
DennitoMemberTunnel opponents bleat about the possibility cost overruns. Why are they focused on the unlikely and unproven? So what if the tunnel goes over budget? The Governor has said the state government will make arrangements to pay them (and hopefully Frank Chopp will be out of office by then). Unlike the WSea-Ballard monorail I would rather pay for something I’m actually using. Remember that little debacle? We spent tens of millions for nothing. The survey that drivers won’t pay tunnel tolls and use surface streets is a joke. No one answers a survey question “Are you willing to pay more (for anything)” in the affirmative. But people will gladly pay a toll when it comes down to a shorter commute. Watch what happens on 520.
August 2, 2011 at 10:29 pm #731046
mpentoParticipant“unlikely”?
August 2, 2011 at 10:42 pm #731047
DennitoMember“The sky is falling?”
August 3, 2011 at 12:26 am #731048
metrognomeParticipantDennito — I agree with you; remember all the screaming about people avoiding the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and not using the HOT lanes in S KC?
There are already 2 tunnels under downtown — the 100+ year old railroad tunnel and the 21-year old Metro bus tunnel. Both withstood the Nisqually earthquake just fine. The viaduct tunnel will be dug in similar geological conditions. One of my favorite quotes on this issue is from Vladimer Khazak, the lead engineer on the bus tunnel; when he was interviewed in 1991 or so when the job was over and he could speak his mind, he said something to the effect that if he had had another tunnel machine, he would have dug another tunnel for the viaduct.
and just to clarify, the Monorail was completely a citizen-driven initiative that was planned completely outside the local federally-mandated planning process. You can’t blame that debacle on local governments (which never would have approved it to begin with …)
August 3, 2011 at 12:37 am #731049
mightymoParticipant“Unlikely and unproven” cost overruns? Sure, there’s no proof that there will be overruns. There usually are with a big project, though, and this one is extra big with the potential for a lot of unforeseen costs because of its width (unprecedented), its route underneath historic old buildings that barely survived Nisqually, and so forth. Right now, we have the word of a governor who is not running for re-election and indications from a legislature not predisposed to help Seattle.
As for who will use it, with no exits downtown, I can’t imagine a lot of downtown commuters will bother. Those campaign mailers that imply that traffic on the West Seattle Bridge will somehow get better are a joke. A percentage of the people lining up to go north on 99 will instead head to the 1st Ave, 4th Ave, or I-5 exits. And there’s no money in the plan to make those ways into town any better than they are now.
August 3, 2011 at 1:08 am #731050
redblackParticipantif the state had any guts, they would choke the viaduct to two lanes each direction, close all entrance and exit ramps thereon, and start tolling forthwith.
then we’ll see exactly what the tunnel will look like.
and sure, west seattle traffic might improve…
sometime around 2020 when the DBT and the seawall are finished.
or we could tear down the rickety old viaduct tomorrow, and thereby light a fire under WSDOT’s booty to get something sensible, affordable, and local-job-creating done by 2015.
btw, the average cost overrun for projects of this scope and size is 35%. the DBT’s contingency fund was whittled to 15% to make it fit the state’s budget.
just saying that there are better ways to skin this cat.
and, no, i don’t mean surface-transit only.
August 3, 2011 at 2:47 am #731051
SomeGuyParticipantI love the viaduct and drive on it 6 days a week. I am hoping we can string out the tunnel discussion/ballot measures/non-voting etc for another 20 years until I retire and move out to the sticks. I’d say the odds are 50/50 at this point. TUNNEL 2031!
August 3, 2011 at 2:53 am #731052
JoBParticipantSomeGuy
Are you willing to bet your life that it will stay up that long?
i think yesterday was the 3rd or 4th anniversary of the freeway bridge collapse in Minneapolis.
The cost crunchers who bet that bridge would stay up in spite of indications to the contrary weren’t the ones who lost their lives.
August 3, 2011 at 3:42 am #731053
SomeGuyParticipantJoB, just driving anywhere in Seattle is statistically the most dangerous thing most of us do on any given day. I don’t think the viaduct adds any more risk than encountering blue Suburban lady, crazy white Camry guy, the army of local door-to-door solicitors, Honey Badgers, etc.
August 3, 2011 at 4:19 am #731054
JayDeeParticipantredblack:
The work that is going on now that created the current “squeeze” is job creating and this work would need to be done regardless of which option wins out.
–
Are you are saying that surface-transit only is not the only way to skin this cat? Then what miracle do you propose? The DBT as it stands? The DBT with exits downtown (my fave)? Replacing the current viaduct? Replacing it with a lidded variant ala Mercer Island? How about a bridge? Or a surface option with 27 cross-streets?
–
The reality is that no majority of the voters supports any of these options. In this case we should pick one and go with it. I don’t love the DBT but it is better than the continued wringing of hands that passes for process. So the DBT will cost billions? So will any option we choose aside from simple demolition (the seawall is a separate issue). If we opt for no DBT, what are the chances of getting the state to kick in any money at this point? So the “true cost” to Seattle may be as high as the DBT. My 2 cents.
August 3, 2011 at 4:29 am #731055
JoBParticipantSomeGuy..
you didn’t stand on the abyss of that bridge looking down into that river contemplating the fact that you missed being one of those cars by about 10 minutes give or take.
you didn’t see the market value of your home drop 20% in one day because your home was in a burb on one side of that bridge and the jobs on the other.
Doing so clarifies that notion of everyday risk.
August 3, 2011 at 4:35 am #731056
JoBParticipantJaydee…
“So the “true cost” to Seattle may be as high as the DBT”
i couldn’t agree more..
what are the “possible” costs if Seattle decides to forgo the federal and state money available for the DBT and the state exercises it’s option to remove the viaduct in 2012?
is it responsible to make the City of Seattle assume the entire cost of some transportation option because of opposition to the tunnel?
citizens paid into a fund for the monorail that never happened.. without getting an alternative option.
that will be chump change in contrast to what picking up the total bill for traversing the downtown area.
Certainly worth thinking about while risking a bird in the hand by fighting over some elusive perfect solution.
August 3, 2011 at 3:41 pm #731057
KBearParticipantBy the way, the tunnel project WILL have downtown exits, one at each end. And not everyone who uses Highway 99 is headed downtown.
August 3, 2011 at 4:56 pm #731058
kootchmanMemberI liked the front page editorial this morning of the D n’ C … the first paragraph was … well … so Seattle.
August 4, 2011 at 2:38 am #731059
SomeGuyParticipantAugust 4, 2011 at 3:58 am #731060
redblackParticipantjaydee: i know the south-end replacement work is necessary. it should have been done 10 years ago. i’m a huge fan of that work. road replacement, bike path, train crossings, connecting the port and BNSF… perfect.
regarding surface-transit being the only alternate option to DBT, why do you only give me that choice? because that’s mcginn’s choice? why assume that if i’m opposed to DBT that i automagically agree with the mayor on other replacement options?
i’ll put it this way: of 8 possible scenarios to replace AWV, in ’07 the AWV stakeholders committee rejected DBT in favor of 3 options, which they then recommended to WSDOT: replace AWV with another elevated; replace AWV with an integrated seawall/tunnel; or replace AWV solely with surface improvements.
it should be noted that of the 8 scenarios, all were over budget, with DBT shattering the limit as the most expensive.
so WSDOT said, “elevated or integrated?”
AWV stakeholders said, “let’s ask seattle.”
then AWV stakeholders crafted a specious ballot measure that gave seattle voters the option of rejecting BOTH options. and in typical seattle fashion, we rejected both options.
so. considering that i was never asked what i thought was the most feasible of the 8 scenarios, here’s my suggestion:
tear down the viaduct. yesterday.
on a fast track – i.e. 3 shifts a day for 6 months – maybe a year? – simultaneously dig a shallower tunnel in AWV’s footprint and rebuild the seawall.
now, regarding labor, this option – the lidded trench option, otherwise known as “scenario H” – employs local contractors, and nothing but local contractors. DBT, on the other hand, brings in hundreds of out-of-state “tunnel experts” and requires a huge out-of-state conglomerate to dig it.
regarding your cavalier attitude toward seawall replacement: well, the seawall is actually more important than 99 to seattle’s infrastructure… unless you’re okay with downtown sliding into elliott bay – and the shearing of water, sewer, and electric lines – in the next major earthquake.
and if you think that the waterfront will be magically transformed during and after the tunnel is built, then you’ve been sold a bill of goods. this whole thing is going to be messy – and it will make traffic suck – no matter what option replaces AWV.
AWV has to come down sometime, and it has to come down somewhere. that “somewhere” is the waterfront.
and only after all of that debris is cleaned up and the old pilings removed can SDOT begin replacing the seawall.
now. where do you think the old seawall will go?
bingo!
the waterfront.
the upshot? washington state needs a DOT like caltrans: take no prisoners, call all of the shots, and have a dedicated budget. WSDOT is only half-serious.
maybe this debacle will teach them a lesson.
August 4, 2011 at 4:02 am #731061
redblackParticipantand furthermore, DBT cannot and will not in any way, shape, or form have exits downtown.
…unless you’re okay with paying to dig two tunnels, one of which would go almost straight up from 200 feet underground.
think about it.
scenario H, on the other hand, could have central downtown exits.
and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper.
August 4, 2011 at 4:10 am #731062
redblackParticipantquoth jo:
citizens paid into a fund for the monorail that never happened.. without getting an alternative option.
or a monorail!
but we got 2 stadiums we didn’t want – in the worst possible locations.
hey, it’s something, huh?
August 4, 2011 at 4:13 am #731063
redblackParticipanti swear i’m done with this thread for the day… after i say this:
surface/transit should happen in addition to and regardless of whatever option replaces 99. the waterfront should not only be a vibrant economic destination; it should also be a jumping-off point for car, bike, ferry, and rail for visitors and locals to enjoy and explore the rest of our fair region.
DBT rules that out altogether, at least as far as funding goes.
August 4, 2011 at 8:35 am #731064
kootchmanMemberI read the Stranger article too SomeGuy…is this nuts or what? All that Seneca Street exiting traffic,, no Western Ave exit? All that traffic doing on surface streets, no toll fees, and Ballard destinations? It’s a remnant from Nickles and his love affair with Vulcan/Paul Allen.. a private multi-billion dollar tunnel to his developments in South Lake Union… and you thought the SLUT rail was a boondoogle…that was just a test to see how stupid we are and how short our attention span. So far .. we have financed his stadium, his private choo choo, and now his private tunnel to raise the value of his southlake land grab… I predict a new trillion dollar re-do of the ship canal, the locks so he can park his yachts downtown…
August 4, 2011 at 4:29 pm #731065
KBearParticipantSince more than half of the cars on the Alaskan Way Viaduct are NOT going downtown, it makes perfect sense not to have an exit in the middle of the tunnel, where it would be expensive to build and would impede traffic. There are several other routes to downtown, including the FOUR DOWNTOWN EXITS along the proposed tunnel route.
From the way the tunnel opponents describe it, you’d think that “downtown” comprised only a two-block area around the Art Museum. Just because you can’t get off at Seneca anymore doesn’t mean there are “no downtown exits”.
August 4, 2011 at 5:56 pm #731066
kootchmanMemberGonna force all those downtown workers into “Allentown”…office space. This is just the last chapter of the Nickles love fest with Vulcan and Paul Allen… first the stadium…then the SLUT to see if we were paying attention…. no? Perfect let’s build a private tunnel to South Lake… shoot…this deal was probably done 10 years ago…
August 4, 2011 at 10:45 pm #731067
socamrParticipantKbear,
I’d love to know what you define as “downtown”. The stadiums are south of downtown (hence SODO, right?), and Belltown is north of downtown. Where exactly are four exits between those two places?
And since approximately half the cars using the Viaduct use it to commute, that’s going to be a problem.
I’m still undecided on the tunnel, but voting for it just because “something needs to be done” isn’t a very convincing argument.
August 5, 2011 at 12:45 am #731068
metrognomeParticipantredblack — I agree with you about what needs to be done (post 19) and there IS money to do it as part of the city of Seattle seawall replacement project. All that land under the viaduct will be available and belongs to the city or the state. It may take 10 – 15 years, but the waterfront will be transformed.
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Planning/Central_Waterfront/Overview/
kooch — you may want to try reading more and typing less; the deep bore tunnel has only been an option since 2008.
as far as exits in central downtown, we will be WAY better off without them. The reason traffic comes to a standstill during pm rush hour, esp when there is an event at one of the stadii, is the influx of traffic from the NB off-ramp at Seneca and the outflux trying to use the SB Columbia on-ramp (and the idiot drivers who insist on blocking intersections.) The redesign of Alaskan Way street level and the redistribution of traffic with all the projects that are underway will be a much better solution than the current mess.
August 5, 2011 at 1:04 am #731069
chrismaParticipantWARNING: purely grammatical post:
stadia or stadiums (not stadii)
Greek, not Latin.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.