Seattle... as I put is full of liberal, laptop-toting, Starbucks fixed, bus riding retro-hippies, and very proud of it. This isn't to 'all' Seattlites, but it's the image projected by the thronging majority. Everytime I go to Seattle, usually, I take the 510 from Everett to save money, and when I arrive in Downtown Seattle, I can figure out where to catch my next bus north to Green Lake to meet a friend aka the 358 Express or the 5. I've learned quickly, buses arriving into Seattle go down 5th Avenue, and if you want to leave, you go one block to the waterfront to 4th Avenue. If want to travel King County Metro to nearly anywhere, you hop to 3rd Street. Seattle is a really bus-heavy mass transit system which is just getting other modes of mass transit.
Anyhow, I've strayed off topic, for this is about the viaduct and not sub-par mass transit options. So as an observer of Seattle politics (I'm living not close to Seattle to the point where a normal person who go, "why care?"), chuckle a little at the craziness that is Seattle's mayor race. Incumbent Greg Ni
ckels is out, which was expected from a city that likes to mix things up. Now the race drops to two newbies: Mike McGinn: Local Environmentalist and Tunnel opponent (left) and Joe Mallahan: T-Mobile Executive and tunnel supporter (right).It's a race about how Greg Nickels pushed the tunnel option ever since the Nisqually earthquake damaged the Viaduct and won, after WSDOT and Governor Gregoire opposed it. WSD
OT initally opposed the tunnel because they had a lot on their plate of potential megaprojects like Hood Canal and SR 520 floating bridge replacement.Now, Seattlites put their two cents in various public meetings and such, but my personal experience of how "uppity" Seattle is over the tunnel was on a WSDOT blog on two new videos simulations on the project. I gawked at stupidity when people commented on the red brick placeholder and going, "WHERE'S THE FOLAGE!!! A FEW TREES WON'T DO!!!" and I placed a palm in my face. Then it got better with, 4 lanes isn't enough, or for the bicycle elites, "No bike path, WHAT!?!?!" They treated the simulation like it was the real deal... noting how low Seattle's IQ was on the internet.
Another thing that's a big deal is the amount of lanes, the tunnel is four lanes wide, instead of the current viaduct's six. However, in the replacement plans, the new viaduct would only be four lanes, so regardless of the options in front of them, WSDOT engineers stuck to four and I see why. The Viaduct traffic, they assume will get off at either end to enter downtown via surface streets.
I support the tunnel, it's a good thing in the long run for Seattle transportation, although I agree with the six lane lobby, it's the only thing I wish WSDOT and City of Seattle to consider. If I were a Seattlite, I would vote Joe Mallahan, over Mike McGinn. Why? Mike McGinn is not thinking like an engineer and more like tree-hugger, no offense. He supports the 'surface-option' with an expanded Alaskan Way and huge increase in buses and other mass transit items. No offense to the man, the surface option is bad for congestion and business. It just leaves I-5 as the only through way pass downtown. How I-5 is engineered and constructed, there isn't much room for expansion and Seattlites will soon either a) all move to bicycles or carpool or b) recognize surface option folly and strike down McGinn from being mayor.
Seattle does need to take advantage of lower construction costs the recession is offering to meet possible cost overruns and on-time delivery. Viaduct replacement should have started on Nickel's watch, but too much bickering on the option. If Seattle "wants" green over another viaduct, take the tunnel option, since this is only going to happen once.
And no, Seattle SR 99 Tunnel does not equal Boston Big Dig Project.
Stay informed, know both sides before voting. Do your part to be informed.
~ Tanis
Links:
--- Seattle Mayor Candidates 2009 ---
Joe Mallahan Campaign Site
Mike McGinn Campaign Site
--- Undying Facts from Washington Dept. of Transportation (WSDOT) ---
SR 99 Viaduct and Seawall Replacement project home
WSDOT Viaduct Solutions Process
Project Libary
-- PDF File of Scenarios (Note the four lanes agenda) --
Scenarios Summary
Scenarios Description
Scenario A: Demand Management and Low Capital
Scenario B: Surface Boulevard
Scenario C: Alaskan Way/Western Avenue couplet
Scenario D: Four-lane elevated
Scenario E: Four-lane integrated elevated
Scenario F: Four-lane bored tunnel
Scenario G: Four-lane cut and cover tunnel
Scenario H: Four-lane lidded trench
1 comment:
Some things jump out in reading your post.
"thinking like engineers" is what has gotten this nation into our auto-centric transportation mess. Engineers think, for example, that an effective solution to road congestion is to expand road capacity. This belief belies the research that planners have known for decades.
The tunnel is a good thing only in the short run, say 5 to 20 years. In the long run, we cannot continue to expand our road system. We can’t even afford (financially or ecologically) to maintain it. At what point do you think we stop expanding our auto-mobile system? Certainly we can use the existing infrastructure more efficiently.
The tunnel is a workable solution only when considered from a highly bounded perspective. When considering a much broader system (space, time and function), the tunnel has many features that depress performance in other areas of human endeavor.
Tunnel supporters believe that traffic will always increase. I haven’t read the primary literature yet, but my understanding is that per capita vmt leveled off some time ago and total vmt in some areas is falling. I just read a report that trips over the I-5 Columbia crossing are down 10%.
-Morgan
Post a Comment