the stupid, it burns us
Mar. 7th, 2007 09:44 amwhy on earth would *anyone* think that putting a tunnel for cars RIGHT NEXT TO THE WATERFRONT is a good idea?
Sure a new viaduct may suffer the same structural issues at some point in the future that the one we have now has. BUT NO ONE HAS BEEN KILLED BY IT IN AN EARTHQUAKE EITHER.
Does anyone *actually* believe that a tunnel would be SAFER than a new viaduct??
and how many times do we have to say "no really Nickels, this is just STUPID, build a new viaduct" before he stops trying to push this tunnel fantasy on the city?
talk about not being up for re-election.
*beats head*
(apologies to those not of this area)
Sure a new viaduct may suffer the same structural issues at some point in the future that the one we have now has. BUT NO ONE HAS BEEN KILLED BY IT IN AN EARTHQUAKE EITHER.
Does anyone *actually* believe that a tunnel would be SAFER than a new viaduct??
and how many times do we have to say "no really Nickels, this is just STUPID, build a new viaduct" before he stops trying to push this tunnel fantasy on the city?
talk about not being up for re-election.
*beats head*
(apologies to those not of this area)
no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 05:52 pm (UTC)I wonder if we can figure out another way for our city to become a laughing stock over transportation issues? Certainly we can. Some pockets of the US aren't laughing at us yet, which means we just arn't trying hard enough.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 11:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 05:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 06:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 06:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 06:33 pm (UTC)The fact that it'd be digging *under* extant buildings (ref: Big Dig, Boston MA)?
Those are my big two, from a safety standpoint. From a political point, the fact that voters have already killed this idea twice in referendum should be a sign that We DON'T WANT IT.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 06:14 pm (UTC)We have to get Nickels out of office, but let's be careful with the alternatives. This thing has a lot of heads.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 08:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-08 05:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 06:18 pm (UTC)Not exactly
Date: 2007-03-07 07:01 pm (UTC)Why can’t the viaduct and seawall just be repaired?
The Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall are past their design life and repairs can no longer extend their lives. The viaduct and seawall do not meet today’s seismic standards and were also damaged in the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake. Ongoing inspections have revealed the viaduct has moved and settled, and the seawall’s timber relieving platform has been eaten away by tiny marine crustaceans, called gribbles. A retrofit would still leave the structure vulnerable to another earthquake, and the cost is not a wise use of taxpayer dollars. Project engineers estimate that a retrofit would cost 85 to 90 percent of the cost to replace the entire structure.
Re: Not exactly
From:Re: Not exactly
From:Re: Not exactly
From:Re: Not exactly
From:no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 06:21 pm (UTC)People have been killed in similar designed structures during an Earthquake. Remember the freeway (was 808?) which collapsed during the bug Earthquake in San Fran about 15 years ago, same design as the current Viaduct.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 06:32 pm (UTC)How many times have you seen the "in a more serious earthquake, downtown seattle will slide into the sound" video/lecture? If there were a major earthquake, people in a tunnel would definitely die. People above ground might live.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 06:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 06:39 pm (UTC)Also, half the point of the tunnel was that the seawall there needs replacing anyhow. Whether we build a tunnel or not, we're going to be digging the crap out of that area within a decade or so; it really seems to make a lot more sense to do it all at once. (Though I don't know whether the current Tunnel Lite™ includes seawall improvements.)
Honestly, I have a strong feeling that if we rebuild the viaduct instead of putting in a proper tunnel, in a few decades people will be cursing us as shortsighted cheapskates.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 07:06 pm (UTC)I'm voting "No" on both though because the new proposed viaduct will have walls that take away any view one might have while stuck driving in slow traffic on the thing...
Eh - there's got to be a better way somehow...
no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 07:07 pm (UTC)1. I love the view from the Viaduct. It was pointed out on NPR a while back that the drive through Seattle's waterfront on the viaduct is the one chance many of us get to see the gorgeous view. Any proposal that is NOT a new elevated structure essentially sells the view to the highest bidder, with developers winning, and those of us not rich enough to live where there's a view losing.
2. Having been in the construction industry in Seattle for most of the last decade, the only thing I can say with certainty is that the tunnel proposals don't have a snowball's chance in hell of coming in on time or on budget. Any time you dig in Seattle, there are unforseen and expensive problems. Add the usual "digging in Seattle" factor to the "below the water table" bit, and you have a recipe for huge cost overruns, huge delays, and huge problems.
3. I don't personally think the idea of a boulevard or surface-level solution is practical - I currently commute 2 days a week on the viaduct, at 6:30am, and it's pretty crowded. I can't imagine all that traffic at surface level moving at all. Similarly, if you're going to build a tunnel, build one that's big enough for the traffic volume - 3 lanes in either direction, not this "tunnel light" bullshit.
4. Tunnels give me the creeps. And that's all I'm going to say about that.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 07:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 07:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 07:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-03-08 01:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-08 02:11 am (UTC)I prefer the surface + transit option. After all, traffic is going to be totally fubar during construction anyway.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-08 05:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-08 05:34 am (UTC)I do not trust that any tunnel built in seattle will be up to the specs of the one that goes under the Channel.
I spent way too much time around the local construction industry to believe that this will be built with anything more in mind than the lowest possible bid, which (I am certain) means it will fall quickly into disrepair.
Plus, the Channel Tunnel is not built on a fault line.
Honestly, I do not have an issue with tunnels elsewhere. I have an issue with tunnels in that PARTICULAR place.
But I have the biggest issue with a mayor who refuses to listen when the city votes against his proposals. he seems to have this "they didn't REALLY mean it" attitude about the seattle voters.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Well, duh!
Date: 2007-03-09 02:03 am (UTC)