What We Think About The Viaduc--Hey, Stop Hitting!

the nickels-developer issue isn't a matter of new real estate. it's that the current downtown landowners want the viaduct gone so that there's as much view of the sound as possible from their buildings. this is why nickels supports the surface option as a backup if the tunnel doesn't happen. he's carrying water for those who fear a rebuild will keep them from making as much money as possible on their current investments.

san francisco would definitely be a good model... if we had bart, the muni, and cal train, and if the original s.f. highway that was torn down served a similar purpose (essential N-S artery) as 99 does now. just about every other city which people want to use as a comparison already had copious amounts of mass transit not relying on city traffic (buses).

the 'surface'/boulevard option would kill traffic capacity, so the people (especially those in west seattle) living west of 99 would be screwed by the spillover onto I5. the PWC hates cars, and really doesn't care about what the increased traffic would do to the downtown streets or I5. they're using specious reasoning & cherry-picked facts as a base.as the original poster points out, like all interested parties they just want to appear like they have a workable plan that everyone will eventually love.

i don't really like any of the options available, but we need to make a decision. for that alone, i applaud the governor. even if it's just an advisory vote, it's more than the mayor has wanted to do. the biggest problem i have with the 'surface' option is that it's an indefinite extension of the seattle way - more studies, more discussions, more twiddling of thumbs while the city supposedly tries to find consensus. bah.

Kobe had a viaduct elivated freeway that came down when the great Kobe earthquake hit.

Honestly I think the People's Waterfront Coalition have the best plan out there.

http://www.peopleswaterfront.org/

(oops, link is here)

Good Daily Score summary of a Guardian article about the effect of removing a major roadway in Seoul, South Korea.  Make sure to follow their link to Braess' Paradox.

Knowing how shitty Seattle drivers are, why don't we just do both? We'll be dealing with bad traffic regardless of which decision we make because the drivers here suck, and taxpayers will end up getting royally shafted by some fucked up drawing that is neither architecturally remarkable or cost-effective.

I don't understand why a boulevard would necessarily be a bad thing for people in West Seattle or Magnolia. A well designed boulevard would make downtown more accessible, and would add only a few minutes to the travel time of through-traffic. For what it's worth, I drive 99 most morning to get from Fremont to 90 and don't think the change would be a hardship.

San Francisco demolished the Embarcadero Freeway, with only benefits to show from it. Might that not be a better model than emulating Boston's Big Dig?

Camille: you know, I won't disagree that an obvious motivation for building a tunnel is that it's a major project that will employ lots of people. But I'm trying to understand the fixation on a tunnel, and I think your analysis of the real estate market doesn't fully take into account what's built on top of very valuable land. (As I understand it, we're talking about what's built next to the tunnel, rather than on top -- the "tunnel" structure wouldn't support development on top of it.) Luxury condos, which is what would be built there, are far more profitable than even the $300K studio variety. Luxury condo residents would want luxury surroundings, and so forth.

But that's just speculation: maybe I can simply say that in advocating a very expensive tunnel Team Nickels seems to be speaking for downtown interests in general, rather than the outlying communities who need the ability to reach downtown or move from north to south through downtown.

Michael,

While you're correct that we need to find common ground on the question, you're doing your readers a disservice by perpetuating an incorrect interpretation of the motivations of Team Nickels.

The Tunnel isn't being pushed by downtown developers. Why would they really want it? To free up some new land for waterfront condos? That's not how the business works. Any developer who might have Nickel's ear is smart enough to know that the new land created will go to the highest bidder. The land price will escalate to the point where profits to the developer on those units will be the same as units built in any other location in the city. Free markets have a way of balancing themselves out that way.

In fact, new land along the waterfront actually works against most of the current downtown residential developers. The new units on the waterfront will be direct competitors to any project that the current development powers in this city already have lined up.

The real force behind Team Nickel's tunnel vision are the unions. In lefty Seattle it's so much more fun to bash the developers, but it's organized labor that stands to benefit from the billions spent on a high-priced tunnel. To have an honest and realistic conversation about who is answering what questions, you need to recognize that Nickel's answer is at the behest of the unions, not the developers.

Having lived in Boston, I just don't understand how anyone can claim that a tunnel is the way to go.

I think the big dig started sometime in the late 70s/early 80s and wasn't really finished until around 2004. I don't trust the city to manage picking up my garbage and that's only one day away. I sure as hell wouldn't trust them to manage a 25 year $10+ billion project.

I do live in Magnolia but never ever tend to drive on the viaduct, I say just tear the thing down and don't replace it. That could very well start the worlds largest traffic back-up on I-5, but someone else can figure out how to fix that problem.