Finally

C.R. Douglas in Crosscut Seattle on Shaky assumption: An Alaskan Way Viaduct myth is dispelled.

Comments

[Douglas Tooley]

I was once a tunnel sceptic because of the record of recent projects such as the big dig project. FWIW, I think the tunnel may well be the way to go now, when one looks at the big picture - including the highly unlikely possibility of expanding I-5 through downtown in any significant fashion.

The big problem as I see it is the funding - the rest of the State isn't in to subsidizing spoiled loiterers calling themself leadership in Seattle. If you want something you have to pay for it, and having leadership who've earned their positions isn't a bad requirement either.

Tearing down the viaduct to the benefit of nearby property owners (including former Seattle Attorney Mark Sidran) isn't a bad thing, but this article just emphasizes the general problem.

Lastly, the solution. Seattle needs extra north south capacity and the rebuild of the viaduct, as part of a larger plan (including a connection to 520 via the Mercer Mess and Weave), is the best way to do that.

We need all three alternatives - tunnel, surface, and viaduct. A smart look at phasing shows pretty much the only path forward - you start from the bottom and work up - a pretty simple lesson in life.

The viaduct does not need to be torn down for tunnel construction to begin. Start building the tunnel first, with a partial surface planned for the top. Expansion of the surface option should commence with the tear down of the viaduct, but the surface should be designed to accomdate a future rebuilding of the viaduct, if it be needed. That might be fifty years from now, but it will be needed.

So Mark, Utilities and Transportation Chair under 'governor' Gregoire, you might well get a few years of better views, but long term, the historical precedent of the existing viaduct will 'stand'.

And, yes, you are going to have to pay for it. You also need to pay me, though the exact details of that are still up for debate. Do you have a problem paying your bills that you need to respond to with violence?