Lessee here - West Seattle bridge was fought over for how many decades until a fine gentleman rammed it with a freighter? Then it was replaced in 3 years (or less?)

I am glad to see a pretty good crystal ball job of how the whole viaduct fiasco is going to work out. I can believe this scenario of the future.

This may be the only source of humor but it is good humor for sure.

Hmmm... 10 lanes of traffic? Mayor Ron Sims? That guy is more hated than McGinn... Gov. Rob McKenna.... not after his piece in the Seattle times opposing gay marriage, he's toast.

Just because Mr. Brewster favors a tunnel does not make it the right thing for the future of the region. Energy costs are going up, that means fewer drivers. Lets look at a major city where the cost of fuel is at least 2X what it is in Seattle, London:

http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/2011/02/2011-more-bicycles-than-cars-will-cross.html

And we see that with increased fuel costs, driving goes down not up. If we built a 10 lane auto road through the waterfront it would be 6 lanes empty.

It's past time to get a grip and build the city of the future, not the past.

Seattle, September 5, 2021

Bumbershoot attendees lined up at the popular “Voters Sound Off” informal polling booth and once again, overwhelmingly chose the viaduct as their first preference for the waterfront…for the TENTH year in a row !

Still time to do the right thing.

The sworn mission of those in power is to cultivate ignorance. Brewster's tongue-in-cheek diatribe is an expression of extreme bias based upon little understanding (ignorance) of what is possible and ideal for Alaskan Way sans AWV. It is typical fear & smear tactics calculated to mislead voters. Brewster is NOT allowed to even marginally criticize the insane risk of a 60' diameter bored tunnel through unstable soils directly beneath downtown buildings.

A surface boulevard for Alaskan Way must be first of all functional. Wsdot has not achieved that goal with the current design with or without the deep bore tunnel. A functional surface boulevard design can be built and not rule out the more sensible Cut/cover tunnel or 'a more elegant' replacement viaduct eventually if necessary. There is no way to refurbish the decrepit AWV.

A grandiose park is not appropriate for the historic character of the working waterfront, and will most likely incorporate makeshift and permanent parking lots.

People choose the viaduct because it's what they know. The drawings for a replacement with the higher barrier walls, the wider footprint for the break down lane is what they'll get. They can't imagine that future because it hasn't been shown to them.

Same for a high fuel cost future. It's coming, yet most people have no idea what that is going to look like. We could have an electric car future, but we aren't upgrading the grid to support it. In the meantime, it's time to re-evaluate the use of all this space that we devote to a car centric city.

People choose the viaduct because no other proposed configuration matches it in any transportation related category. The rights of ways already exist. The configuration already can handle 110,000 vehicles a day. It already provides a bypass for downtown and off ramps for the core, Ballard and West Seattle. It already meets the demands for commercial vehicles. It can incorporate modern seismic protections and other enhancements for noise abatement, bikes, pedestrians and aesthetics. It provides the only effective way to modulate traffic in the core and you can even use it to get out of the rain. And it’s billions of dollars cheaper than this present tunnel/surface street mistake in the making.

I still think the the viaduct can be supported by all the developers interested in taking over the viaduct IF it were to be demolished. Build your condo's underneath it and put the seawall in front of it....DUH!

and lets make this happen as lickity split as the bike lane down 125th, amazing how this process works if you know someone

While the "looking backward" approach has been a great motif for writers since the days of Edward Bellamy, it rests more on assumptions than facts. In this case, the core assumption is that maximizing automobile capacity will always be the top priority of Seattle and Washington State politics.

But that assumption flies in the face of the available evidence. Vehicle miles traveled has been in decline across the city, region and state for the last decade, and that was under way before the recession hit. Young people are driving less as the digital revolution dramatically changes people's priorities, making driving significantly more inconvenient than in 60 or 70 years.

While Crosscut commenters may be among the last group to accept the shift, it is quite clearly under way, and by 2018 or 2021, the politics of automobile maximalism will no longer have much support. What will get support? Transit and public spaces.

So Brewster believes that Seattle politicians will sacrifice a new waterfront for more automobile lanes. But the evidence indicates the reverse will be true. Nobody knows what will happen 10 years from now, but the odds favor James Corner's vision.

Nice job David.

You have successfully painted a nightmare that appears all to plausible.

That's why we need to elect a new batch of people who are not identified with tunnel politics, which has now created a whole batch of silly tunnel celebrities.

It is a mile in a big city. Time to put it in its proper place and move on.

A future with of more of Sims, McGinn and Barnett: Barf.

Here's a link to the James Corner vision for the waterfront.

http://thesunbreak.com/2011/02/18/james-corner-on-restitching-seattles-waterfront-into-a-whole-photos/

I can get behind that basic set of ideas.

And the transformation of travel has begun, the younger workers at my office by and large either live close enough to walk, or bicycle or ride the bus to work. And today with the big parade, a heap of them stayed home and telecommuted.

The age of the automobile is ending. Time to get out in front of that and build the city we want for the next 100 years.

The need and desire for mobility is not in decline. The age of the automobile is not ending. For the great majority of us the issues with the waterfront have nothing to do with aesthetics or design or vision or how easy it is to meet Cary and Samantha for Mojitos after work. We resent that downtown Seattle is spending billions trying to turn itself into Paris, while the rest of Seattle's neighborhoods go without.

The question is whether or not there is an efficient bypass available for commuters to pass through the area?

How hard it this to understand?

"The question is whether or not there is an efficient bypass available for commuters to pass through the area"

Yes, that is the fundamental question. A mile and a 1/2 of slow streets while passing through a city of a million people. Oh dear! You can't drive 60mph through it? Instead you get 30mph, which with lights averages to 15mph, a whole 6 minutes lost! Vs 1.5 minutes flying by, ruining the land for those here in the city. And those poor commuters living North of the city but working South of it. What will they do? The lost productivity!

A city is not required to destroy itself to help people who live on one side get through it to the other side via a car. A much better investment would be to add more Rapid Bus Transit and bicycle lanes.

jmrolls, I've long believed your honesty and diligence has added significant matters of point to the analysis argument against the deep bore tunnel. I'm sure your effort is imminently valued by many readers on Crosscut and elsewhere.
BTW, I hope Crosscut will survive its ERROR in Judgment
on the +++DBT+++MercerWest+++AlaskanWay+++ opportunity to NOT ruin
out of ignorance, incompetence, "notorious" incompetence. Keep up the fight...

-- -- -- -- -- --

Jan commends Brewster for a successful nightmare scenario with:
"Nice job David. You've successfully painted a nightmare (scenario) that appears all too plausible." Are you ready for the actual nightmare, worst-case scenario? David's picture of a nightmare scenario is not even close what is actually possible. Get this:

A video similar to the Parsons/Brinkerhoff "Earthquake-caused AWV Collapse with Fires" can be devised to depict crumbling, tilting and falling buildings from the waterfront portal as far north as Spring, (mostly due foundation & structural integrity), and, at various spots other spots nearer the north portal.

THAT is what is called a nightmare scenario.
A nightmare scenario all too predictable for safety sake.
Someone at Wsdot is frickin insane....
Wow, people, WTFU for God's sake.

Jan's defining position is better revealed with her, "That's why we need to elect a new batch of people not identified with tunnel politics and its batch of silly tunnel celebrities," barf. Time to put it in its proper place and move on."

What does Jan know about putting tunnel & transit engineering in place? Zip.
Jan, you don't know WTH yer talkin bout, K?
Eeeet eesa beega meestakah, dees Dee bee tee tingy.
You go do sometin else what you know mor bout, K?
And don't forget to watch the video depicting Seattle's last earthquake...

People choose the viaduct because no other proposed configuration matches it in any transportation related category. The rights of ways already exist. The configuration already can handle 110,000 vehicles a day. It already provides a bypass for downtown and off ramps for the core, Ballard and West Seattle. It already meets the demands for commercial vehicles. It can incorporate modern seismic protections and other enhancements for noise abatement, bikes, pedestrians and aesthetics. It provides the only effective way to modulate traffic in the core and you can even use it to get out of the rain. And it’s billions of dollars cheaper than this present tunnel/surface street mistake in the making.

— jmrolls

ha ha, I forgot to make my original point for jmrolls sake:

"No other proposed configuration matches the AWV in transportation-related category. (way wrong). The rights of way exist and the configuration can handle 110,000 vehicles. (so what?) It provides a bypass and ramps to downtown for Ballard and West Seattle. (true, 1pt) It meets the needs of commercial vehicles. (true, 2pts). It can incorporate seismic protections, enhancements for noise abatement, amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists, aesthetics. (wrong) It provides the only effective way to modulate traffic in the central city core (wrong) and you can use it to get out of the rain. (so what?) It’s billions of dollars cheaper (are you sure?) than this "present" tunnel/surface street mistake in the making." (You get 3pts for calling the DBT "a mistake".)

I edited jmrolls much cut-n-pasted diatribe to show how editing is done & to explain that preserving the AWV is NOT good engineering. I don't blame most people for completely mis-understanding complex engineering aspects of these projects. BLAME is however due Wsdot and SDOT for falling down on the job.
It's their fault and that of the mainstream media who intentionally refuse or otherwise irresponsibly fail to inform the public.
Thanks again, Mike&Mike; and all the others whose gut instincts tell them they're right to oppose the DBT+MercerWest integrated projects,
probably instituted by some LLC.

After consistently providing commuters all of the transportation benefits listed in my “diatribe” for almost 60 years, the WSDOT’s own consultant found that the viaduct could be refurbished/rebuilt to current standards for less than the cost of the tunnel…and the punch line is that then it could continue to provide all of those features and benefits for another 75 to 100 years.

Anyway…thanks for the re-posts. Enough reach and frequency and some of this might start sinking in.

Oh and Seattle isn't the only place which built a highway which it now regrets.

http://www.streetsblog.org/category/issues-campaigns/highway-removal/

The times they are a-changing.

Oh yeah,

Cities that promote bicycling apparently are richer as well..

http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/06/americas-top-cities-for-bike-commuting-happier-too/240265/#slide10

I can tell this is a work of utter fantasy, because there won't be any Microsoft stores in 2021.

jmrolls: "The need and desire for mobility is not in decline. The age of the automobile is not ending."

Wrong; the desire is in decline, and the ability to satisfy the need more so, at least until we figure out how to bring in energy and resources from off-planet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQqDS9wGsxQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ-J91SwP8w

As for the electric car utopia; How much energy does it take to support the current number of vehicle miles, and how is that juice going to be generated? Let's see the numbers.

I feel your pain...but you and I will be long gone before there's any significant reduction in our use of privately owned commuter vehicles. Technology will compensate for the changing preferences or availability of various fuels and even that is going to take a while. Formulas about energy and vehicle miles may be interesting topics sitting around in Starbucks but the real determining factors are money and who controls the resource. That doesn’t mean that people can’t choose to live in little walking/biking communities, but restrict people’s “mobility” and they will move somewhere else.

Electric cars are OK, but we also have 75 – 100 year domestic reserves of natural gas. Cars run fine on that.