Majority Delusion

While I agree that Proposed Viaduct (assuming we are talking about a brand-new one) is a Mega-Luxury Project we Don't Need I am astounded that so many really bright people are so willing to accept that, in the words of the blogger (of the link above),

We're going to have to tear the viaduct down anyway so why not do it now.

Why are we going to "have to tear the viaduct down?" Who says? People who have an agenda which doesn't include the Viaduct. The big elephant in the room, which many people studiously refuse to acknowledge, is that the current Viaduct can be Repaired.

The concerns about the "emergency" of the Viaduct are only excuses to tear it down. Consider, 6 years later and they still haven't even reduced speed limits on it. Think about it. There is NO emergency. (Or certainly none of the authorities are acting as if there is one.)

The Viaduct may certainly need repair -- what doesn't? -- but the idea that it must be destroyed is a "useful exaggeration" for people who have other agendas...the Peoples Waterfront Coalition, the Mayor and the majority of the City Council, The Stranger, WSDOT etc

Comments

[Gomez]

Don't quote me on this but I have a hunch that some of the parties involved have a provincial agenda to intentionally cripple this city's transport infrastructure, thinking it'll drive out all the transplants, lower the population and somehow transform Seattle into whatever paradise they thought it was before the dot-com boom.

Otherwise, ignorance via misinformation, and pure aesthetics (Savage and various city councilpeople have openly stated that they want the highway gone because it's "ugly") are what's driving this ship.

[Holly B.]

We never hear much about needing to replace the Magnolia/Interbay bridge, which suffered substantial damage from the Nisqually earthquake and was forced to close for repairs and, I think, some actual section replacements. I have strong doubts whether the viaduct really needed to be closed for more than a day or two, though it was certainly in the interest of viaduct foes to claim the earthquake did substantial damage--which turned out to be a few cracks of the sort one can find in many large concrete structures--and it was in the interest od viaduct foes to stretch out the "emergency" inspections for as long as possible.

I have particular suspicions about the overreported and miraculous incident where a rebar supposedly dropped from the viaduct underpinnings and just narrowly missed killing a bicyclist or pedestrian who happened to be passing underneath at the time. Somehow the rebar seemed to disappear without leaving any visible damage either to parked vehicles or to the road surface.

People who urge tearing down the viaduct ASAP because of the Nisqually earthquake remind me of politicians who insisted on invading Iraq because of the 9-11 attacks.