tung shum mir

"That closure would leave our fragile Ballard industrial businesses with 2-3 years of NO North-South Access." : ) Evan you are an opptomist. I say more like 5 or 6 years.

The boring tunnel or cut and cover tunnel are the best opinion and good idea in Seattle. The surface streets is not an best and good opinion. The surface street would make the Highway 99 go slow to 30 mph. It could make the traffic get horrible and more worst. The tunnels are the best so the Highway 99 can go more faster 50 mph so the drivers can drive to SeaTac Airport to go flying. The surface street could make the drivers miss their flight or pick up late at SeaTac Airport. The elevated bridge maybe not be the good idea because it could block their condos that can't see the sun, water, and big boats. The tunnel is very nice and best idea in Seattle so the people who live in Condos can see the water and boats. I don't want to be very upset if they made an decision on the surface. I want them to decide on the boring tunnel or cover and cut tunnel not the surface streets. If they decided yes tunnel. Then I would be very happy. I love tunnels because they are fun to ride.

JessicaBallard: I have to say something about your 4x4/heavier vehicles. We got around fine in our crappy little import with chains on. You might want to consider that before investing in another gas guzzler.

Also, another clear advantage is the time that the viaduct would be closed. With the tunnel, we can build that while the existing viaduct remains open.

With the elevated structure, we would have to close the viaduct, tear it down, and then build a new one in its place. That closure would leave our fragile Ballard industrial businesses with 2-3 years of NO North-South Access. Think about that.

Is this thread about the tunnel or about snow removal? I don't see the connection there other than people that get grumpy about everything government does.

BTW: to those of you doubting the structural integrity of a future tunnel - this new proposal would be located beneath 1st avenue (way below) and would run in the much more stable soils there, instead in the fill that the elevated structure would be built over, FYI.

Sorry, I’ve hit my annual limit for blatant misdeeds after which officials express shock & claim the once-in-a-hundred-year “event” exemption.

But really, a OIAHYE? (We’ve seen at least one of those per year during the Bush admin alone…how is that not yet a commonly used abbreviation?) I’ve lived here since 1985 (the year Seattle got 17 inches of snow before Thanksgiving) and watched our weather get progressively more extreme (esp. since the 1997 El Nino). We used to get snow every 5 yrs. But for the last 10 years, that’s become a 2-yr cycle vs 5. Two yrs ago we had a horrible snow, followed by a windstorm that blacked out east King County for a week. We shouldn’t have been geared up more for snow during winter? Really?? Our local govt blasts out campaigns that scare our kids with “3-days, 3-ways” and tells me I need to have extra batteries & bottled water in case of disaster. These guys can’t have a better plan for snow & are fine w/the city coming to a standstill? We’ve just seen a spate of the most accurate forecasts ever (incl. implications for road conditions – thank you, Cliff Mass!! And thank you MyBallard.com for the hourly updates on-the-ground reportage.) If nothing else, these guys can’t block off steep icy hills so 3 buses don’t take a disaster jump onto I-5??? Then again, those were just kids from poor families on those buses. And nobody died. Bad example. Same with those other ~100 people who went to area emergency rooms for slip & fall injuries – probably a bunch of nobodies.

And seriously, it’s not the first or second day of snowfall & nothing moving that ticks off levelheaded people. It’s the 4th, 5th, 6th days when main roads, side streets, and walking are all still unsafe…that’s the stuff worthy of righteous anger and the wake-up call we’ve got the wrong folks in charge. That’s the leadership-management-responsibility part where you’d rather have a p.o.’d mom w/small kids be your mayor, because she would get things MOVING & know it’s not safe or right to just hang back, let your city come to a standstill, and watch the pretty snowflakes from your window. Despite the sidestreets & lingering ice, my good humor & goodwill were intact until Seattle’s day 6 (12/23). Trying to drive on those horrible ruts was insane & I saw every type of vehicle sliding around. It was unforgivable those weren’t cleared during the day – it hadn’t snowed since the previous day, and the quasi-melting (which made things really slick) would have been a good oppty to get that stuff scraped or broken up – at a minimum, sanded. And when I found those same bad ruts within a block of Children’s Hospital, that was the moment it was clear the safest thing w/b to go hide indoors (or go hide on I-5) b/c no one in authority was minding the non-WSDOT roads.

The best post I saw last week was by local mom “Hostess”, day #6 of snow, on a thread responding to advice “Take the bus. Learn to ski. Walk. Stay home.” Post from Hostess: “With 80 year old grandparents in town and 2 kids? What planet do you live on? I have a better solution: SUV.” Amen.

A good example of leadership that doesn’t sit out snow days & doesn’t shirk taking care of kids or seniors. Hostess for Mayor!!

Bark, the problem is that in order to enter the toll roads (which will be every road), the mayor will force you to pick up 3 homeless people and give them rides as you drive by on the nice clear freeways.

"The only thing that will get folks out of their cars is cost. "

Not to those of us who can afford it. It will, however, get the lower classes out of their cars, which I'm fine with.

The SLUT was out of service and Portland's streetcar had some significant delays during the storm -- I remain unconvinced.

no tunnel, aren't we in the dark enough....

My little VW Rabbit did GREAT in the snow. You don't have to have a big car, just good tires. Front wheel drive helps too.

No matter what is decided, there will be many people who will hate it and think the decision is stupid.

Maria is right about one thing; a few inches under the asphalt are the streetcar lines! The last streetcar in Seattle ran down 8th Avenue NW until 1948. As it happens, the mechanisms for the counterbalance still exist as well. San Francisco has made a huge tourist attraction out of their cable cars, why don't we?
At the turn of the century or so (1911) an elevated streetcar ran from Ballard to downtown. There were streetcar lines all over the place in the city of Seattle and the rails are still there! One benefit of streetcars; unless there is some enormous blizzard, they are not affected by snow. Portland has a great system of streetcars and light rail.

In the 1960s, the Federal Governemnt offered Seattle money to build light rail, which they turned down; Atlanta got it instead. There were posters in the Atlanta rail system that said "Thank you, Seattle!"

The only thing that will get folks out of their cars is cost. That will happen don't lose sleep.

Jessica Seattle gets a snow like the one last week, maybe once in 100 years. Maybe you can invent snow insurance and make a fortune off the fears of what MIGHT happen. My guess is it will not be a viable business in Seattle. People in Seattle don’t buy SUVs because they are good in snow they buy them because they are trendy, just like in any other part of the country. I saw just as many Escalades in ditches as I saw VWs.

Matt do you also think the increase in all types of taxes to pay for a tunnel is a great idea? if you do then GREAT!

I will say I would like either a tunnel or a new viaduct just SLIGHTLY better if they had heavy tolls. And those tolls should be forever to pay for maintenance as well as construction. I think we ought to add one to I5 also of course.

Anyone else wondering how much the City's recent snow debacle will set back popular support for mass transit? I already wasn't convinced Seattle's planners could actually pull off doing a great mass transit system (i.e., that truly allows people to get everywhere they need point to point w/o disconnects). Which is what they need to formulate if they want to "get people out of their cars" as the City Council always harps.

I'm super-progressive and until 18.Dec thought SUVs were evil & should be banned. I envied the carless lifestyle & real cosmopolitan transit systems a la Europe, or even our east coast. And really did not understand why we have so many heavy vehicles in the Seattle area. But after seeing we're on our own & our local govt not step up to keep our city moving (let alone block off the dangerous slopes so buses couldn't tumble downhill onto I-5), I'd be happy to see personal vehicles added to the 2nd amendment!

It will be great if tech can make SUVs become hybrids or use alternative fuels, but in the short run it's clear 4WD and heavier vehicles are needed to keep people & our communities moving during bad weather.

Go Ballard!

The monorail is just a relic Matt of the dreams of flying cars for Century 21. Cute and amusing is all. Elevated trains are a whole different animal.

I think that the tunnel would be the best idea, if the city could get their act together and not pull another monorail.

Either a tunnel or a new viaduct will be a difficult undertaking due to the geography of the land but I do think it is likely one or the other will be attempted. Americans are just too in love with speedy personal travel to consider an alternative right now. Yeah in 40 years the oil crisis will make both option look very foolish but Americans tend to see only with hindsight and love the rosy glow of nostalgia. When the bills for the mistake come due they will whine and ask why no one stopped this just like they now whine that they were misled into paying $500,000 for a 100 year old 2 bedroom bungalow or a 900 sq ft apartment. We hold to truths that are not truths, such as real estate is ALWAYS a good investment or lowering interest rates will help the economy, or traffic congestion harms business and industry, or stocks always pay over the long run. There are mountains of evidence out there proving that none of these are truths but salesmanship and public relations are powerful. Go figure. It’s the American way. Fact is that historically limited access roads inside cities kill cities and business and industry suffer right along with that. Sadly until it happens to a city the business and industrial interests always think they will somehow fair differently.

Knowing this I feel proponents of a surface street have failed miserably with their argument. Its the insipid ‘green’ that turns so many off. The idea of a park involved is a good example. There is no need for a park along the waterfront. What we need there is CITY right down to the water. Seattle has plenty of parks that are often empty now. The silly sculpture park is a lonely place, even for the tiny handful of sculptures. The tourists avoid it and those who seek it out are disappointed when they find there is nothing there. The attraction of a city is city, not green belts. Downtown workers will not use a park at the waterfront. They are too busy eating lunch at their desks to show the boss how dedicated and busy they are so he will not see their job could be done in 20 hours a week.

A surface street needs to be sold as opening up huge sections of downtown to even more business and living space not open space. In a perfect world that is what this surface street proponent envisions. Seattle may sit in a beautiful nature setting but it is a city and we need to embrace that idea. I want to see New York on our waterfront not a lawn or a forest. Sure New York has Central park but we have Discovery Park just as close for most city dwellers as in Central Park for most new Yorkers. (guess what not all live on Central Park West) We have Alki and Golden Gardens. We have Volunteer park and the Arboretum.

Tearing down the viaduct and making Alaska Way into a better street we would have acres of land for new office building and living areas for Seattlites. Maybe a few condos and apartments might even be affordable if there were more to choose from. Sure those with the ‘to die for’ view will be millions but those without would still be in the heart of the city and thus attractive. Relatively few New Yorkers have a view of the Hudson.

I had occasion to drive down Pacific Coast Highway through Huntington Beach a few years ago. I lived in the general area about 25 years ago when it was still a laid back beach town and the Golden Bear was still a hold out from hippy days. I loved it. Now it is a glittering town of high rises right down to PCH and gorgeous overheard walkways to the beach that will is body to body with tanned babes and buff men. I still love it.

I loved the Seattle I grew up in but I also love what Seattle has become and if done right, I know I will love the Seattle we are at the crossroads of building.

I would be happy to make a decision. Can I do it already? Geez.

the big dig westcoast style?

Ah the tunnel. Gives Mayor Nichols his unobstructed view. How nice. Are they forgetting how much of that area is fill dirt? and what kind of destruction is digging a tunnel going to cause? Bring on the rails!

I'm excited about this latest move. A deep bore tunnel gives downtown advocates all or most of the benefits of the surface option.

It ALSO provides the N-S bypass that the Ballard industry advocates are hoping for. By limiting access downtown from the tunnel - it may even be faster that the elevated structure. This is a Win-Win in my view.

I would urge you all to write to your representatives about this. Clearly public comments are having an effect.


*
Gregoire: http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/default.asp

* Sims: http://info.kingcounty.gov/about/contact/defaul...

* Nickels: http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/citizen_response.htm

There are thousands of existing tracks all over Seattle, many open and now in use and many only a few inches below the surface of our current streets. When I worked on East Marginal I used to catch a bus at 28th and Market only a few feet from existing tracks that connect to the tracks I stepped across when I reached my destination near Diagonal.

Seattle had ‘studied’ the issue for what 20 years now? I wonder if they have ever actually studied other cities and seriously looked at what can be accomplished and also at the horrific results of poor planning.

Here's hoping that the elevated viaduct option is finally nixed once and for all.

I think a new viaduct would be a losing proposition: expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and never really safe due to the type of land and likelihood of another earthquake in the future.

As a Ballard resident who commutes downtown and spends a fair amount of time heading to locations south of downtown, I'd love a fast way to get to those places.

But a viaduct will be absurdly expensive, take a long time to build, and be less positive for the city overall than a transit/surface streets solution.

I'd rather see a light rail extension to Ballard from downtown, which would connect the neighborhood with the airport, Capitol Hill, and other vital parts of the city than see a new viaduct.