Seattle voters tell Gov Gregoire and Mayor Nickels to eff off

In Seattle, the residents have been used as a political ping pong ball in the wars between Gov. Gregoire and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels over whether to rebuild the noisy, nasty viaduct that runs along the waterfront, or pony up big bucks for a tunnel in fill dirt, or to tear it down and create a surface option.  Follow me below and I will give you the skinny on the kerfuffle.

See, in the 2001 earthquake, it was revealed that the viaduct which runs north to south and next to Elliott Bay, was rapidly reaching the end of its useful and safe life.  However, our fearless leaders, being the non-leaders that they are, could not reach a decision, much less a consensus on how best to deal with this problem.  You see, the viaduct transports more than 100,000 vehicles a day.

Gov Gregoire declared that the only way to go was to rebuild the viaduct, turning the 4 lane monstrosity into a 6 lane behemouth, with walls so tall that the motorists would no longer have a sea view, and any conversation at Pike Place Market or on the waterfront would be next to impossible due to the traffic noise.

Mayor Nickels declared that the only way to go was a tunnel a la the Boston 'big dig' even tho this would be through fill material and with Seattle in a quake zone....

Lots of shenanigans between the parties such that Seattle voters felt like pawns in a big ping pong game between the warring politicos.  

They decided to put it to a popular (but of course non binding) vote.  Ballots by mail must be postmarked by today.  Full results in on Friday.  But it seems that the voters have spoken, and they have their own ideas.  

From the Seattle Times, just moments ago:

Voters rejecting both viaduct options

Seattle Times staff

Seattle voters rejected a six-lane elevated replacement for the aging Alaskan Way Viaduct, and resoundingly defeated a four-lane tunneled option backed by Mayor Greg Nickels, in ballot counts released minutes ago by King County Elections.

About 45 percent of voters said they endorse a new aerial highway, while 30 percent of voters said they endorse the tunnel.

Results from the all-mail, advisory election may give momentum to backers of a non-highway, "surface-transit" option, in which thousands of commuters would shift to buses, water taxis, bicycles and rail.

I hope those in power are listening to us because we do not want the status quo.  And if Gregoire presumes to build the viaduct anyway, she is losing a significant portion of her voter base, which was tenuous at best in 2004 when she beat the Republican candidate Dino Rossi by barely a hundred or more votes.  She ignores us at her peril.

Go Seattle!!!

•  Hmmm

  Results from the all-mail, advisory election may give momentum to backers of a non-highway, "surface-transit" option, in which thousands of commuters would shift to buses, water taxis, bicycles and rail.

  Yeah I'm sure this will happen, just like recycling would be the big tide in the turning against pollution. I give credit to the people for not allowing the government to run wild with their money, but a solution is going to need to be found.

  by PureCynic on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:47:07 PM PDT

  •  call me idealistic

    but given that gas prices have skyrocketed more than 30cents a gallon in the last two weeks in the Seattle area, I really think we need to take a good hard look at transit options that encompass more commuter possibilities such as bus, rail (g*d forbid) van and car pool and bicycling.

    by moe99 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:11:56 PM PDT

    •  Don't disagree on any points

      It's just people are selfish bastards who expect someone else to solve these problems, true the world around.

      by PureCynic on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:23:13 PM PDT

      •  Word per word...

        Your comment is one of the most concise gems of wisdom I've ever read, and I have read quite a bit.

        There is no political solution
        To our troubled evolution
        Have no faith in constitution

        (The Police)

        by DrReason on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 06:04:58 AM PDT

    •  Hovercraft were amazingly useful

      what happened to them.

      by ohcanada on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:52:08 PM PDT

      •  wait for the movie...

        Who Killed The Hovercraft?

        Let me guess: oil companies?

        by DrReason on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 06:05:38 AM PDT

        •  I have no idea

          but I was serious...why don't they use them, so many applications..I am afraid to ask who? I am disillusioned enough.

          by ohcanada on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 01:38:17 PM PDT

  •  That is the solution

    We need to be planning not for tomorrow, but for 20 and 30 years down the line. Instead of wasting money on obsolete structures for cars, why not use this as an opportunity to spend the money to start developing truly alternative forms of transportation in this city?

    Seattle voters are in the right place on this. Too bad our crappy leaders haven't listened.

    by eugene on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:36:01 PM PDT

  •  Seattle is a great city

    nice to see them leading the way.

    by ohcanada on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:58:15 PM PDT

  •  Tacoma and Vancouver

    will love to have the extra port activity, with Seattle being totally clogged with traffic.

    By the time the light rail line is up and running, 14 years will have passed since the final yes vote. The monorail was killed on the fourth time at the polls. How long will we have to wait before we can come to a meeting of minds on transportation problems around here?

    What is the alternative? Mass transit? What's the plan? And who's going to give up their car? Not everyone works downtown. What about the folks that just want to get from the top of the state to the bottom, or vis-versa?

    The "Seattle Way" just sucks. We can't do anything here.

    by bleeding blue on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:29:41 PM PDT

    •  hate to say it, but

      Seattle is having a 'crisis of confidence' now. The big challenges, the viaduct and 520, just seem too daunting, the leadership isn't exactly inspiring and the will of the electorate has been rather incoherent. The major decisions affecting the future of Seattle right now are going to be made in Olympia.

      by sldulin on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:47:14 PM PDT

      •  Good,

        maybe Oly can put a plan together that will work. A surface option is a detriment to the state as a whole. This is not just about Seattle. If we can't solve this, other forces will.

        I admire Mayor Nickels' efforts to "green" Seattle, but the regional economy will continue, if Seattle chooses not to be the engine, then that mantle go to the city that can deal realistically with transportation issues.

        If that economic action goes elsewhere, then there might be no traffic problems here in Seattle.

        by bleeding blue on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:40:26 PM PDT

        •  True

          Then again I'm always susicpious when the government attempts to lead anything, good intentions or not.

          by PureCynic on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:20:49 AM PDT

•  Well then...

  Whats the solution?  Get rid of 99 completely?

  by areucrazy on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:47:22 PM PDT

  •  Surface boulevard

    With a huge new investment in public transit.

    We're going to need to be doing this anyway, for environmental reasons, and peak oil reasons. Better start sooner rather than later.

    by eugene on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:36:40 PM PDT

    •  I suspect you're right

      I was a UPS driver during post-Katrina era when gas was everwhere above $3 a gallon, and I did notice lighter traffic, it was measurable. And I am a PO believer myself, so I honestly think it is rather foolish to add road capacity. If prices go up to the point they will have to to dampen demand by 10% then a teardown is really a no-brainer. Another effect of PO will be an increased importance of seaports and rail, Seattle will be damn glad if it maintains a vital port/waterfront.

      by sldulin on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:35:58 PM PDT

      •  A collapsed viaduct

        Will cut off that vital port. A surface boulevard gives more options to its preservation.

        by eugene on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:49:41 AM PDT

    •  It's going to be fun

      watching that tanker truck load of molten white phosphorous get loaded onto a bus in Fremont and wend its way down to Sodo. Currently it goes down the Viaduct behind a truck cab, avoiding contact with the surface streets and nightmare of I5.

      The surface street plan is the end of what's left Seattle's blue collar supporting industrial and trade centers. The stadiums and surrounding retail shops have already damaged shipping and industry, those businesses have been looking at the cheaper land in Tacoma and Everett for some years now, I suspect their pulling their plans out of filing cabinets in the morning.

      As for access to the waterfront, before the `quake there were oped page writeups on how the viaduct could be torn down and replaced with X acres of buildings; so much for "not walling off the waterfront"  Don't think it will happen? Given the ties of the mayor with the developers, including his brother, and the way height caps and other restrictions have routinely been overridden my money is on the new Alaska Way high rise condos being approved before the viaduct comes down.

      The shipping docks are targeted for replacement with waterfront condos and twee upscale stores where the workers aren't paid 1/5 of what they need to live there.

      It's fine to plan for times when cars will be much less used. But it helps to have the replacements in place before that happens. Given that the bus system is run by the County, which is getting pissed at Seattle's influence, I don't see a reasonable mass transit system being in place until near the end of the century. It's certainly no closer than it was when the pretty display of the future of transportation of the region was on display during Century 21. The bus system within Seattle worked better then than it does now.

      by wondering if on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:02:47 AM PDT

      •  Oh jeez, not the "blue collar Seattle" argument

        That Seattle has been dying for years. Do people not recognize that the key to saving that Seattle is to lower everyone's cost of living? Providing new transportation options - buses are THE key to "blue collar Seattle" - will go a lot further than will building for auto transport, which is rapidly becoming the domain of the wealthy.

        The waterfront hasn't been a "working waterfront" for decades. The Port of Seattle has been saying to anyone who will listen that their trucks don't use the viaduct. As to Ballard Oil, their future is fucked no matter what happens to the viaduct. We should encourage the industries that remain on this side of the ship canal to relocate down to SoDo.

        The argument that the Viaduct will accelerate or can arrest the decline of "blue collar Seattle" shows an astounding ignorance of American political economy over the last 30 years.

        by eugene on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:47:51 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, right.

      "Surface boulevard" = making Alaskan Way look like Aurora Avenue. Ooh, what a victory!

      by phenry on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:19:49 AM PDT

      •  Like there's any other choice?

        Aurora moves traffic decently, and these days that's all we can ask for. There's no going back to the 1950s' dream of wide open urban freeways. Time to start building mass public transit to replace the freeway loads.

        by eugene on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:49:05 AM PDT

        •  Hobson's choice

          No, we can also ask to not replace our giant ugly viaduct with a giant ugly waterfront freeway that you can't cross on foot. Either way the waterfront gets walled off from the rest of the city.

          Time to start building mass public transit to replace the freeway loads.

          Well, I'm all for that. With Seattle voting big for "do nothing," I hope the state now cancels all viaduct plans and diverts all the money to Sound Transit 2 and SR-520 bridge replacement. If so much as one thin dime goes to the viaduct corridor before the thing crumbles into dust, I will be very disappointed.

          by phenry on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:54:27 AM PDT

          •  I totally agree with you

            Seattle can and should manage the viaduct corridor on its own. I still think an Embarcadero style solution will work quite well there. And the money should be redirected to ST2 and 520.

            by eugene on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:56:54 AM PDT

•  It's about the money

  There is x-amount of dollars available for traffic improvements in the Seattle area. Traffic is hideous both inside and outside of downtown Seattle.

  A tunnel would take too many dollars that could be used to improve roads for a lot more than 100,000 cars. No matter what Nickels thinks, he's just not seeing reality on this.

  I don't live in Seattle, I live on 405-or at least it seems like I spend an awful lot of time there every day. It would be nice to see some attention and dollars thrown towards something besides Nickel's shining tunnel under the city.

  I think the voters are saying "quit fucking around and get the most traffic improvements done with the money you have-because we don't have any more money to hand over"

  or something like that.

  by Many Dogs Barking on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:49:45 PM PDT

  •  tunnel?

    are they insane, do they know how much it costs to build tunnel?

    by fugue on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:59:45 PM PDT

    •  The cost doesn't matter

      It's your name on the shiny plaque outside the entrance that really counts. This is Nickels trophy tunnel, a legacy and all that.

      by Many Dogs Barking on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:01:22 PM PDT

•  Wahhhhhh

  All of you Seattlites are cry babies.
  They forced a toll bridge on me in Gig Harbor. We voted 81% against it, and guess what? Starting next year I hvae to pay$3 everytime I go to work in Tacoma. Its all bs.

  by IvyTodd on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:55:12 PM PDT

  •  The toll does suck

    but at least they actually got the damn thing built in less time than it's taken Seattle to not decide what to do about the viaduct.

    And it's a very pretty bridge, I must say.

    by Many Dogs Barking on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:59:46 PM PDT

    •  yeah, but

      how does someone like my mom, who is on a fixed income, lives in the Harbor, commutes to Tacoma and now has to pay $3 everyday just to go to work. Oh, and she has lived there for 28 years.
      Tolls aren't fair.
      Politicians are corrupt.

      by IvyTodd on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:08:22 PM PDT

      •  Tolls sure don't feel fair, however . . .

        . . . there is something to be said for the cost being borne by them's what use it.  Someone who crosses it five days a week and sometimes on weekends uses it more so pays more for the bridge than someone who crosses it just once in awhile ~ which is fair.    It is also a factor that should motivate communities to support public transit. There is also a benefit to the entire state to pay part of the cost, even if some individuals never use it at all, just because of emergency vehicles and commercial uses for trucking, etc.  

        I do think that the best solution for commuters is a good public transit system.  I live on the Eastside and the commute is becoming much easier with the addition of Sound Transit and its expanded, 18-20-hour/day schedule.  I hate driving into the city and do it only when absolutely necessary.  The bus is my friend (and I don't have to pay to park it, either).  ;-)

        by LeeB on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:20:37 PM PDT

  •  Don't feel like the Lone Ranger . . .

    I think we're next.  Last I heard, the rumblings about replacing the 520 Floating Bridge means both the new 520 bridge AND the nearly new I-90 Bridge will both be toll bridges.  I still remember when we were paying a toll to cross the lake on 520 back in the mid-70s ~ then it was pocket change each way.  I suppose they will roll the toll charges into the price of commuter passes.
    . . . sigh . . .

    by LeeB on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:55:15 PM PDT

  •  Yup! I did not bother to vote

    It does not matter in the end anyway.  That and I really could not decide, so I abstained.  I am not surprised at the vote.  I don't think it says anything about Gregoire or Nichols.  It says more about how dumb it was to have a referendum in the first place.  They will decide what to do and do it.  Hopefully, the thing won't collapse before they have to make their decision -- but I am afraid that is what it will come to.

    by flo58 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:46:45 PM PDT

•  Seattle should look to San Francisco...

  for some possible solutions.  San Francisco went through the same thing after the 1989 quake.  After the quake, the elevated freeways were either reinforced or demolished to make way for surface street designs.

  Once the eyesores were removed along the waterfront it brought a boom of construction in real estate high rises.  The Embarcadero has never looked better.

  by blue drop on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:56:50 PM PDT

  •  Even More

    And even better, in SF, when they returned the Embarcadero to a surface artery, they also added a very fast and efficient public transit trolley car line along the median strip.  Traffic flows okay, even with the traffic lights, public transportation has had a rejuvenation, everyone on both sides of the road now has a beautiful view of the Bay, and, as you pointed out, it created a booming condo and shopping area out of a dirty, decrepit, warehouse district.

    And of course, that's also where the Giants built their ballpark -- one of the best venues in the major leagues.

    by tailor324 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:28:25 PM PDT

    •  moved away in 2000

      I forgot about the other improvements you mentioned.

      by blue drop on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:25:30 PM PDT

  •  Exact Same Thought Occurred Here

    I live across the Bay in Oakland and was here for all that.  There was much rejoicing at getting rid of the elevated, view obscuring eyesores.

    I have been to Seattle three times in the last nine moneths and think they might be able to use a similar solution because that highway is primarily for commuting in/out of the core . . . it is not a bypass of the city (I-5 remains available to move through Seattle).  They may want to build some elevated pedestrian walkways for tourist and commuter access to waterfront areas and fewer traffic lights/problems.  They have already installed a sculpture garden but a few more public spaces would help.

    by foolrex on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:55:23 PM PDT

    •  I think the viaduct...

      serves as a bypass more than to get to the core.

      It would be better to get rid of it, but mass transit will not be enough.

      Light rail is coming, more people ride bikes than virtually anywhere else, and it costs nothing to ride a bus downtown.

      With a tunnel, downtown will flourish and be less congested.

      It is costly, but there is nothing that comes cheap.

      by citizen53 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:05:55 PM PDT

      •  Love the free downtown!!

        Was there last week, stayed near the convention center (used to be Summerfield suites) - walked or rode the bus nearly everywhere.  (Made it up to Ballard, Fremont, etc. in July when we had a car.)  They should expand that system a few blocks each way, especially with the monorail coming down.

        But they could certainly do a study on whether the viaduct is used as a bypass or an in/out of the core route.  What about creating an SF-like surface avenue (with more transit) and adding two lanes (one each way) to I-5 for the bypass traffic?

        by foolrex on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:13:13 PM PDT

        •  The ride free zone should be expanded...

          especially to Seattle Center.  I ride the bus all the time, and all over.  There is already a large transit system.  It would be good to see what effect the light rail has before acting.

          There is no room for I-5 to expand.  Using Alskan way as a surface avenue will cause too much congestion.  In the long term, the tunnel, though costly, is the best option for downtown.  It's entering a growth spurt, too.

          by citizen53 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:22:27 PM PDT

          •  Still costs money to run it

            and that money comes from somewhere.  Right now the traffic to the Center and stadiums generates revenue that helps pay for the free zone.

            I'll take the current Viaduct over the proposed tunnel in an earthquake. I was at a party a few months ago where a former engineer was talking about the mess.  Seems that he and the others on the team reposted that the post-quake Viaduct needed only some repair work in one section to be OK. They were sent back to look again, and reported the same. Repeat several more times, and they caught on and issued a report that started out talking about how (in real small letters 'a part of') the Viaduct needed repairs to be safe.

            He also talked about what the soil liquefaction during a quake will do to the tunnel. Even of the to-be-built new seawall doesn't give way, dumping the tunnel into the Bay, the tunnel has a high probability of collapsing. I'd take my chances on top of the Viaduct, or between two layers of concrete where it'll be quick, over being in a hole in the ground filling with a mix of mud and rotted garbage.

            by wondering if on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:14:56 AM PDT

            •  Take the Underground tour?

              Your post made me think of that . . . probably the filling of muck and garbage part.

              But you have a point about liquifaction.  Nonetheless, down here out BART tunnels (including the transbay tube) have held up quite well through several quakes including the Loma Prieta, when elevated freeways collapsed.

              by foolrex on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 01:15:17 PM PDT

        •  The busses will take you all . . .

          . . .   the places you used a car to get to in July.  The downtown core is free on the buses until 7:00 p.m., but heading on to the residential areas and the 'burbs has moderate fares by zones. For example, from the city center to Redmond is a $30 (+/-) cab ride, but $2.50 each way currently on Sound Transit; $2.00 each way on Metro Transit (2 zones).

          by LeeB on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:34:16 PM PDT

          •  But in July there were three of us . . .

            and we already had a rental car (weekly rates) to go on to the San Juans and Canada.  Adding three round trips by bus would have been more expensive.  We skipped the rental car until the last two days in Seattle and picked it up downtown.

            BTW Seattle is one of my favorite large cities (in company with SF, London, and Vancouver).  Whatever you guys do, spend the time to figure out a way to do it well.

            by foolrex on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 01:10:20 PM PDT

            •  Too late

              The tunnel was our last, best shot at that. Now it just remains to be seen whether our waterfront will remain isolated by an elevated superhighway or a ground-level superhighway.

              by phenry on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 01:59:47 PM PDT

        •  can't add a lane to I-5 very easily...

          The stretch of I-5 that runs parallel to 99 is an elevated highway for several miles. It would be very costly to widen it. I sure wish they would add lanes on northbound I-5 just past the I-90 intersection. It quickly shrinks from 5 lanes to 2, which is a constant bottleneck. Southbound I-5 narrows also, but it still has three lanes.

          by Lefty Mama on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:16:20 PM PDT

          •  Downtown buildings

            and the trade center are in the way for horizontal expansion. Removing most of the over- and under-passes would allow an additional layer to I5, although that would make the mantra "viaduct cuts the city off from the waterfront" more of a joke than it is now.

            by wondering if on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:19:32 AM PDT

  •  Not remotely comparable

    The San Francisco situation is not remotely comparable to the Seattle viaduct, and I really wish people would stop pretending that it is. The Embarcadero Freeway was a spur, not a through route. As originally planned, it was to be the final link in a freeway system that would link the southern city limits with the Golden Gate, but the section north of Broadway was never built. Even while the Embarcadero Freeway existed, it only added about a mile of freeway travel between the Golden Gate and the Bay Bridge or points south. Driving north-south through the city still meant driving almost four miles along surface streets... almost as much as today.

    The Alaskan Way Viaduct, by contrast, is an extremely vital north-south link connecting parts of the city, and the region, that have never been as geographically or culturally isolated from each other as, say, San Francisco and Marin County are. Eliminating that capacity and not replacing it would be madness.

    by phenry on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:28:34 AM PDT

•  the San Fran solution is mighty attractive

  I'd vote for that!

  by moe99 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:08:58 PM PDT

•  Excellent

  I voted "no" and "no" in protest of a surface solution having been completely ruled out. WTF were they thinking? At some point we have to deal with the reality that we DO need to increase public transit in the corridor and that we can't afford either of other options.

  Gawd, this state drives me nuts when it comes to transportation.

  by mcjoan on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:25:33 PM PDT

  •  When I moved here 26 years ago from the east

    I was struck by how possessive West coasters were wrt their automobiles. They viewed having a car as almost akin to a Constitutional right. I don't think it has changed much since then.  Having lived in Europe for awhile, I appreciated the freedom that came with using mass transit.  Less cost, less headaches, and you could enjoy the ride (or study if you needed to).

    by moe99 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:32:04 PM PDT

    •  It's true

      We love our cars. I think it comes in part from a largely rural tradition. When you have to drive a long way to get to anything, it just becomes a way of life, and it's hard to break out of.

      by mcjoan on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:53:21 PM PDT

    •  In our defense

      I would have to say the establishment of decent public transit has had a great deal to do with it.  For the longest time, nothing was happening on that score and when you have to rush home to pick the kids up at daycare, you can't be stuck on a bus that is winding around the hillsides making your normal 35-45 minute trip last an 1.5 hours or more.  

      Things have improved muchly from the bussing situation even just 10 years ago.  There is still much to do, but issues like this one with the viaduct help focus attention on the entire issue.  It does serve as a major arterial all the way through downtown, connecting the north end to Sea-Tac Airport and points south, and even though I don't live in the city anymore, the memories of pancaking double-decker freeways in San Francisco are still vivid in my mind, so I'm interested in the outcome of this.  We need a solution that is safe in an earthquake zone and that doesn't cut the city off from the waterfront.  It's a challenge.

      by LeeB on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:44:22 PM PDT

•  In 1970

  Seattle voters rejected bonds - and $500 million in federal funds - to build a huge mass transit system. The feds said "sorry suckers" and gave that $500 million to Atlanta. When you ride MARTA, you ride Seattle's public transit system.

  Now, nearly 40 years later, we're about to open 10 miles of light rail, at a cost of nearly a billion dollars. We had the opportunity to do the right thing in 1970. We missed it, and are paying the costs later.

  Hopefully this vote is a sign that Seattle has learned from its mistakes. We CANNOT continue to build new automobile capacity. For environmental and peak oil reasons, a new viaduct is a criminally bad idea. We must instead begin the long process of reorienting this city, away from cars and toward mass, public transit solutions. Tearing down the viaduct and replacing it with a surface boulevard and improved transportation options will benefit us in the near and long term.

  Greg Nickels claims himself to be a leader on global warming. He frittered that away with his idiotic, reckless, stupid tunnel plan. He now has a chance to prove he is serious about climate change by supporting Ron Sims' plan to tear down this wall and move Seattle into the 21st century.

  by eugene on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:40:34 PM PDT

  •  Saturday

    I'll e-mail.

    by mcjoan on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:53:59 PM PDT

    •  Cool

      I'll...read the e-mail. ;)

      by eugene on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:11:30 PM PDT

  •  That was indeed foolish

    but what will we do in the meantime? We will kiss off the good union port jobs and send the fishing industry somewhere else.

    Everyone talks about mass transit alternatives, but history around here shows that it is a verrry long and difficult process.

    Look what "they" did to kill off the monorail. There is no plan! I say just patch up the old viaduct and maybe our children can come up with a solution. We sure can't.

    BTW. I think that the rail line is more like 6  billion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    by bleeding blue on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:46:10 PM PDT

    •  ...just patch up the old viaduct...

      That actually is a coherent argument that doesn't get put forward much. The premise would be that we all know that it was engineered poorly, given what we now know about soil liquefaction. That there has been a history of similar structures failing. That it has already exceeded it's projected, designed life-span. That the slow-motion process of structure failure has already begun with the large cracks. But we like it, it works, and we can't afford to replace it. ok, life is full of risks, the best is the enemy of the good, and all that. And I'll continue to use it. Northbound only, though:)  

      by sldulin on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:10:37 PM PDT

      •  Agreed

        Why not take a chance at dodging the "big one". At the risk of being callous: If it fell, how many lives will be lost? Counter that with the shortened life-spans of thousands due to the stress of trying to cope with the daily chaos during the construction stage of either option, or the surface alternative.

        by bleeding blue on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:50:09 PM PDT

        •  risk management calculation

          we do it all the time. Look at how many people go without health insurance, my guess is that even though it may seem irresponsible, that is the preferred option of a majority of people. Rational assessment of risk. Just post signs at Battery St tunnel, Caution, Dangerous Road Enter at Own Risk.

          by sldulin on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:11:15 AM PDT

      •  According to several engineers

        one who helped in the design and another who studied it after the quake, the Viaduct is mostly good for even large quakes. There's a section down by Pioneer Square that needs replacing, and retrofitting to keep the decking from hopping off the supports needs to be done.   But that's both cheap and quicker than any of the alternative plans.

        And as I wrote above, the tunnel has it's own problems with a quake.

        by wondering if on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:25:03 AM PDT

        •  The way the vote is going

          the fix option might get some attention. I voted for the rebuild as I don't think the tunnel is fully thought out. If we could squeeze 20-25 years out of the existing structure, that would enable us to work with the technologies of that time in the future. Who knows what the transportation picture will look like then.

          by bleeding blue on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:37:04 AM PDT

          •  and actually have functioning mass transit in

            place.  Right now I've a choice between a 20 minute drive on 99, 45 minutes tacking back and forth to use I5, or nearly 2 hours and three buses to do the same trip. When the Viaduct goes the I5 route will take longer, the surface street feeders will be clogged and I5 will be worse than now. And the bus option will be slower as well, as part of it is through traffic to/from I5

            by wondering if on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 01:36:09 AM PDT

            •  Where do you drive to/from?

              WSDOT says it will take 10 years to rebuild the viaduct. By 2017 light rail will be open from Husky Stadium to SeaTac and under construction to Northgate and potentially Lynnwood. Why waste money on the viaduct when we can spend it building transit options for the future?

              I-5 will be clogged no matter what we do. Buses have other options, if we reconfigure some lanes and streets. It won't be easy, but neither is it impossible.

              by eugene on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:55:26 AM PDT

      •  Waste of $2 billion

        Someday soon, within my lifetime at least, auto transport will become no longer viable. We might as well spend our billions preparing for that day instead of futilely trying to pretend the 1950s can last forever.

        by eugene on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:53:14 AM PDT

        •  Within your lifetime?

          Individual, privately owned surface transportation vehicles have existed for 5000 years. Whatever may or may not happen to the internal combustion engine, I don't really see that changing any time soon.

          by phenry on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 10:19:07 AM PDT

          •  Have they always needed huge freeways?

            Or do you really envision horses and buggies on the viaduct?!

            by eugene on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 10:23:37 AM PDT

            •  Why are you asking me?

              You're the one who sees cars magically disappearing within the next several decades. Why don't you tell me what will replace them?

              by phenry on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:09:05 PM PDT

    •  What?

      What part of the Port of Seattle's insistence that "our trucks don't use the viaduct" don't you understand? The whole "the viaduct is key to saving blue collar Seattle" argument is a pack of lies promoted by people who haven't seen "blue collar Seattle" in 30 years.

      Mass transit is already happening. The key is getting one line built. The first is always the hardest, once it opens people clamor for more and the extensions become far easier to construct.

      King County Metro is being very aggressive about expanding its offerings, especially with the success of last fall's "Transit Now!" plan.

      Surely more needs to be done. And yes, Seattle has been sclerotic on this. But that can and must change. We WILL face this problem sooner or later. We might as well start dealing with it now.

      by eugene on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:52:21 AM PDT

•  pragmatically speaking...

  It's clear that the need to handle 100,000 commuters a day will not diminish -- and re-routing to I-5 is surely no answer -- and while I'd love to see mass transit fill the gap, it's hard for me to envision.

  I left Seattle ten years ago, and the traffic was ungodly even then, as I rode the school bus from Ballard to South Beacon Hill.  I fear any solution that makes things even worse, out of pure sympathy.

  Having lived outside Portland, and now in the Bay Area, I agree 100% that the viaduct has been an ugly blemish that, when removed, could turn into a real opportunity to beautify the waterfront.

  by steeplebob on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:43:20 PM PDT

  •  There have been reports

    That the "100,000" figure for daily viaduct users was inflated by WSDOT.

    by eugene on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:13:31 PM PDT

    •  Eugene, I am not surprised by that

      Given that the WSDOT approved the tunnel proposal in a study in January, but hid that until too late in the game for Nickels, I think there's a lot that we voters have not been let in on for the sake of Gregoire and Frank Chopp having it their way.  And that really ticks me off!

      by moe99 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:40:03 PM PDT

    •  depended on the period data was collected

      the surface street people had a lowball estimate they were pushing, the DOT one looks to be about 10K high. The DOT one may not have been intentional, someone wrote up how collection traffic volumes during the football season or during a good Mariners season would likely give results 10 to 15 percent high when extended to represent the yearly amount.

      by wondering if on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:32:02 AM PDT

•  As a ferry rider...

  we are the ones getting the shaft.

  The ferries are supposed to be an exptension of the state highways, yet riders are forced to pay 85% of the cost.  A ferry ticket has gone from $1.80 to $5.20 for frequent users in a matter of several years, and will rise again this year.  In the summer, the rates are surcharged.  If one must take a car across, it can cost over $25.00 for one round trip.

  As to the Seattle problem, there needs to be another arterial north and south through the city.  People use the viaduct to go through downtown more than to get to downtown.  Without an arterial, traffic will become even worse than it already is.  I-5 cannot handle the volume it now has.  Maybe light rail will ease the burden.  I would hate to see another viaduct, larger than the present.  I would pay for a tunnel.  In the long run, looking at the situation realistically, the tunnel would be the best option for making downtown better and connecting it to the Sound.  Developers should help pay the cost, as they will benefit from a downtown with less congestion and more open space.

  by citizen53 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:55:33 PM PDT

  •  Where are people trying to get to?

    Is there any chance that a mass transit solution linking malls, business complexes, airports, and other places could be done at competitive cost?

    -7.75 -4.67

    "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

    by Odysseus on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:06:38 PM PDT

    •  Commuter versus Commercial traffic is this area

      is being missed in this debate.  The viaduct is a critical connection between a major west coast port,a no alternative north-south trucking connection, and the lifeline connection to waterfront businesses.  Take a look at the traffic mix on the viaduct, and outside of rush hours, a constant flow of truck traffic matches commuter traffic uses on this important economic corridor.  Many of these trucks would be prohibited from using a tunnel and weight limitations on the current viaduct are causing real headaches for area shippers.
      Road policy is never just about commuter issues, but deals with a major contribution to the livelihoods of thousands of Seattle residents.
      Mass transit will relieve a lot of the traffic pressures for commuters, but UPS or container cargo can't really take the bus.

      by redlief on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:45:57 PM PDT

      •  You are absolutely correct!

        Which is why I mentioned it elsewhere in this discussion.  That is the element that makes state-wide funding for this project not only necessary but appropriate.  It is traditional, especially for people living in Eastern Washington, to dismiss such projects as being of concern just to Seattle or King County.  However, that may be changing as this public discussion continues.  I hope so, anyway.

        by LeeB on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:03:37 PM PDT

      •  Right On

        Like it or not, Seattle is a major port and choke point due to geography. This viaduct issue affects the region as a whole. That's why there is such an  intense debate between Gov/Mayor. I appreciate Nickels' stand on opening up the waterfront, but this is a working asset.

        by bleeding blue on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:15:24 AM PDT

    •  Seaattle isn't the best city for transportation

      it's long and narrow, has a large lake and a bay squeezing it's center, a valley with a canal cutting across it, several lakes and a river along its midline, and lots of big ridges running lengthwise through it.

      The ridges mean most arterials run north-south, except for a few providing east-west ties. The lakes mean that east-west traffic doesn't happen there, you have ring roads taking traffic around the lakes. The canal and river mean bridges, expensive for new routes be they bridge or tunnel.

      The ridges make mass transportation difficult. The grade in many places is too steep for rail, meaning expensive tunnels and stations a hundred feet and more below ground. Where they could mostly avoid tunnels they've decide to bisect communities; however unlike the people complaining how the Viaduct cuts the waterfront off, the people living on either side of the rail lines are mostly lower income and of darker skin so they'll be happy to put up with a railroad cutting their communities in half. Or something like that.

      by wondering if on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 01:00:34 AM PDT

•  Funny how sentimental people are

  about the viaduct. It really is the most graceful, beautiful way to enter the city from the south, you travel on a highway that itself is a relic of post WWII trash architecture, through the industrial wasteland that gave birth to the city, and then suddenly, alarmingly you're swept up above it to this dramatic stunning panorama of this beautiful bay with gorgeous Olympic Mountains in the background and some actually quite beautiful architecture. Very dramatic. And a very egalitarian pleasure, to drive that road. So, to all you snobs who have no appreciation for the joyous exhilirations of American motoring, I just say, pfffft. But to any American who wants to experience one of the great, fun roads of the NorthWest, better put this one on your life-list, because it is doomed. Those cracks are pretty ominous.  

  by sldulin on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:00:54 PM PDT

  •  yes but the new viaduct

    would cut off those romaticized views from the car by virtue of its much higher walls.

    by moe99 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:10:40 PM PDT

    •  exactly right

      I was concerned that people weren't really absorbing that fact, but I think the fact that they are voting down the rebuild...oh, who am I fooling, It's impossible to parse the voter's intent from all the recent referenda. Seriously, I think this is one area where the principle of governance should be more that of a republic than of a democracy. After the monorail debacle, rational, long-term transportation planning seems impossible as long as there is a constant threat of further public votes.  

      by sldulin on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:21:47 PM PDT

•  Seattle is built on a landfill

  I really can't see putting in a tunnel. Seattle is built on dirt/sand landfill, so what will happen in the next big earthquake? The whole area will turn to silt and can you imagine what will happen inside a burried tunnel? Ouch!

  by Peperpatch on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:19:37 PM PDT

  •  Why assume that?

    I mean, there already is a long rail tunnel that runs right under the area and there has never been a failure, I90 has a few tunnels in the city, the I90 re-build on Mercer Is is a partial tunnel, I never quite got thap part of the anti-tunnel argument, that it would be fundamentally unsafe. Tunnel engineering has a pretty good safety record as far as I know.

    by sldulin on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:28:34 PM PDT

    •  I heard a civ engineer talking on this

      Seattle isn't built on landfill, just parts of it. The waterfront and Sodo are some oft hose parts. Much of the rest is sand/gravel layered with clay, over dense zone C soils and rock.

      The I90 tunnels are fairly short and through a hill. The railroad tunnel is mostly through the remains of Denny Hill and other old undisturbed soils. Mercer Island I90 tunnel is a short trench through glacial till.  All three are above sea level. The 'Alaska Way' tunnel would be in fill, and mostly below sea level, right next to the Bay.

      When you put up a building on that stuff, or build an elevated roadway, you put down deep pilings that can reach into bedrock. The low cost tunnel plan is basically a trench that gets lined with concrete slabs, capped with more slabs, and covered over with that fill.  It would be more expensive to build it so as to be assured of coming through a big quake.

      by wondering if on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:43:31 AM PDT

    •  I lived on Mercer Island

      during the expansion.  It is all cut and cover there, no tunnels.  They built it like that to hold down noise and give some green space.

      As for the viaduct, tear it down.  Poor people can just commute through downtown.  It's worth it so the developers can build million dollar condos.  Then we get rid of the train traffic through there, and make a rich peoples park, where the important people can go without skateboarders and other undesireables interrupting their commune with nature.

      For the snark impaired, the second paragraph is sarcasm.

      by Grannus on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 01:09:34 AM PDT

•  Let's get real

  Seattle is a choke point for those who live either north or south and want to just get through it. Those of us who live here need to get around. Do nothing and this place will become a madhouse.

  There is no mass transit plan in the works. Even if there were one, who will be the first to give up their SUV? If you work downtown a transist alternative works great. My wife hasn't driven since 1981. But I have worked from Kent to Lynnwood and a couple of points in between, and I just can't get there from here without my little Geo.

  Just give the 2.8 billion to the folks on the Eastside. They will spend the money, they won't be giving up their cars, and a lot of Seattlites will be joining them across the lake before "this" is over with.

  I say just stick with the old "big ugly" and take a chance that the "big one" doesn't happen during the era of the automobile.

  by bleeding blue on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:08:28 PM PDT