the stupid, it burns us

Mar 07, 2007 09:44

why on earth would *anyone* think that putting a tunnel for cars RIGHT NEXT TO THE WATERFRONT is a good idea ( Read more... )

seattle

Leave a comment

Comments 98

vorona March 7 2007, 18:14:44 UTC
Nickels must have friends or business associates who stand to gain profits and/or prestige from being involved in the tunnel. I am beyond cynical about City of Seattle construction projects. It all comes down to grabbing profits, prestige, and power - screw the public, screw the workers - and Paul Allen probably gets some swag out of this.

We have to get Nickels out of office, but let's be careful with the alternatives. This thing has a lot of heads.

Reply

staxxy March 7 2007, 20:28:15 UTC
I miss Norm.

Reply

lawst March 8 2007, 05:43:51 UTC
This isn't just Nickles, this is Gregoir.

Reply

staxxy March 8 2007, 05:49:03 UTC
her too. UGH... I do NOT like her.

Reply


wendolen March 7 2007, 18:18:58 UTC
I think that a new viaduct is a dumb idea, since there's only about a 10' section of the current one damaged. So I certainly voted against that.

Reply

Not exactly javagoth March 7 2007, 19:01:11 UTC
From the DOT site (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/Questions.htm)

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.

Reply

Re: Not exactly wendolen March 7 2007, 19:06:33 UTC
Aha -- that's what I get for using word-of-mouth information. I've sent this link on to the friend who made the "Only 10' were damaged" declaration. Thanks!

Reply

Re: Not exactly javagoth March 7 2007, 19:56:25 UTC
You're welcome. I had been under asimilar impression until a friend of mine, who read the reports when they came out, better educated me on it and pointed me to more information. :)

Reply


smarier March 7 2007, 18:21:12 UTC
I'm 100% for rebuilding the Viaduct, but I need to correct something you said.

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.

Reply

staxxy March 7 2007, 18:32:53 UTC
I am not talking about the same design elsewhere. i am talking about *here*.

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.

Reply


intrepid_reason March 7 2007, 18:31:40 UTC
I voted against both...not going to happen I know, but I would prefer they spend the money to figure out a real mass transit system. Dangit.

Reply


vulture23 March 7 2007, 18:39:12 UTC
Actually, I do believe that a tunnel will be at least as safe as a new viaduct. (Plenty of viaducts and other elevated highways *have* killed people in earthquakes; I don't know offhand how statistics of viaduct failures compare to tunnel failures, but my impression is that viaducts do not come off very well here.)

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.

Reply

staxxy March 7 2007, 19:27:49 UTC
see Gwywnndd's response. She hit on all of my points.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up