Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, September 11, 2009
City What He Said
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:38 AM
During the urban highway craze, things that even today we would have thought to be insane, were done. Neighborhoods were destroyed or divided from the rest of the city. Waterfronts were cut off. Projects which just barely didn't happen—such as the destruction of the French Quarter in New Orleans—should serve to remind us of the projects which did happen.Still the presumption is that urban highways are necessary, even if we try to consider kindler gentler ones. But they aren't necessary. London doesn't have them, and it hasn't vanished from the map yet.
Imagine for a moment that the Alaskan Way Viaduct hadn't happened. Let's pretend that the viaduct was one of those projects—like the one that would've destroyed the French Quarter or Greenwich Village—that was discussed but never built. Now imagine someone proposing that we build the Alaskan Way Viaduct today. They'd be laughed out of town—they'd be laughed all the way back to Los Angeles.
No highways cut through Vancouver, British Columbia, either and it hasn't vanished from the map. Seattle won't vanish if we tear down the viaduct and spend, oh, let me just pull a figure out of the my ass... let's say $4.5 billion on "alternative infrastructure investments in rail or buses or even just nicer-looking boulevards."
1
$4.5 billion is way cheaper than the tunnel will be, that's for sure. And we could fast track a boulevard project and get the viaduct down in a few years instead of over a decade.
2
And this is why I will vote for McGinn even though I am starting to believe that he is a one issue pony.
3
> No highways cut through Vancouver, British Columbia, either
And it is one of the most irritating things about Vancouver. It's easy (sometimes) to get to the edge of the city, but you can spend an hour getting across it.
And it is one of the most irritating things about Vancouver. It's easy (sometimes) to get to the edge of the city, but you can spend an hour getting across it.
5
And we begin the rediscussion of every goddam thing. Which is okay, I know we'll have to since McGinn--barring skeletons dancing out of some closet--will win and be making us revote or something. It's just I don't have the kind of brain that retains details that went into a past decision.
So here we go again.
Maybe you just repost everything from a couple years ago, replacing Erica's byline here and there?
It could be a long autumn.
So here we go again.
Maybe you just repost everything from a couple years ago, replacing Erica's byline here and there?
It could be a long autumn.
6
The other Vancouver (in Washington) is criss-crossed every which way with highways and freeways, and it's a bleak shithole.
7
@5: Here's what you need to know:
1) The State, City and County were fine with the S/T option and applauded it and canonized it.
2) Something happened, and without a proper vote of Stakeholders, they changed horses midstream and said "deep bore tunnel"
3) They presented it as a "cheap and quick" solution that solves everyone's problems, blasted the previously gilded S/T option and said this would be done by 2016
4) They neglect to mention outside of the WSDOT page that they aren't even done with a supplemental draft EIS and won't have an EIS until 2011. Engineering and soils testing are just not finished or even usable at this point and they're already showing problems.
5) Costs will rise with this upcoming supplemental draft EIS and the timeline will push further into the future
You've been had!
1) The State, City and County were fine with the S/T option and applauded it and canonized it.
2) Something happened, and without a proper vote of Stakeholders, they changed horses midstream and said "deep bore tunnel"
3) They presented it as a "cheap and quick" solution that solves everyone's problems, blasted the previously gilded S/T option and said this would be done by 2016
4) They neglect to mention outside of the WSDOT page that they aren't even done with a supplemental draft EIS and won't have an EIS until 2011. Engineering and soils testing are just not finished or even usable at this point and they're already showing problems.
5) Costs will rise with this upcoming supplemental draft EIS and the timeline will push further into the future
You've been had!
9
Thank you, Dan! So many great cities do not have highways cutting through the urban core. Instead they have invested in mass transit systems DECADES before Seattle. Not so progressive, Seattle.
10
Dan, the real travesty, is that because Los Angeles is dependent on those freeways they just have to keep making those freeways bigger. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation even admits that there is no way the city will ever get rid of grid lock, it can only keep up with it.
Of tunnels in particular: To get on the 5 North from the 110 you have to go through a tunnel carved in to the hills. They can't make the tunnel wider to accommodate for traffic, so they've installed lights to change the number of lanes that feed the ramp to the five. Tunnels are nothing but a headache.
Because LA spends so much just trying to keep the freeway system barely functioning it has so little leftover to invest in public transportation that it's going to take them 10 years to build a couple miles of subway from downtown to Fairfax and Wilshire. That's a fraction of the proposed distance to complete the subway to Santa Monica. Which, by my projections, could be complete in 2050. I hope I'm still alive so I can ride on it.
Of tunnels in particular: To get on the 5 North from the 110 you have to go through a tunnel carved in to the hills. They can't make the tunnel wider to accommodate for traffic, so they've installed lights to change the number of lanes that feed the ramp to the five. Tunnels are nothing but a headache.
Because LA spends so much just trying to keep the freeway system barely functioning it has so little leftover to invest in public transportation that it's going to take them 10 years to build a couple miles of subway from downtown to Fairfax and Wilshire. That's a fraction of the proposed distance to complete the subway to Santa Monica. Which, by my projections, could be complete in 2050. I hope I'm still alive so I can ride on it.
11
Vancouver is a DESTINATION, the majority of people are going to the city, not cutting through it. Vancouver made a decision back in the 60s to serve the needs of its residents, not the road builders or the suburb dwellers (I know, I was there). As a result, the city has great density, many mixed use neighborhoods that are the ultimate of walkability (not a word - I know), and it hasn't disappeared off the map yet either. Grow up Seattle. Believe in yourself. Get rid to the viaduct and live a little!
12
Dan - YOU LIE!
San Francisco had to take down it's elevated freeway along the Embarcadero after an earthquake. They didn't replace it with a tunnel - they build a beautiful boulevard that connects the financial district with the waterfront.
And what happened? San Francisco is a ghost town. People no longer work or live there. Every single last person moved to Oakland, where they rebuilt their elevated freeway.
San Francisco had to take down it's elevated freeway along the Embarcadero after an earthquake. They didn't replace it with a tunnel - they build a beautiful boulevard that connects the financial district with the waterfront.
And what happened? San Francisco is a ghost town. People no longer work or live there. Every single last person moved to Oakland, where they rebuilt their elevated freeway.
13
If we didn't have urban highways, I wouldn't be 20 minutes late for work while some 9/11-obsessed person tries to jump off the Aurora Bridge this morning.
... wait, so you say we should get rid of them? hmmmmm ....
... wait, so you say we should get rid of them? hmmmmm ....
14
@4 That's not really an option for a lot of people in Seattle (and probably Vancouver too). Drawing from my own situation, I took a job in Bellevue because it paid better than anything I was going to get in Seattle, but fuck if I'm gonna live in Bellevue. So I commute. It's a part of my day-to-day life and I'm fine with it for the time being. Likewise, a lot of people simply can't afford to live in the center of the city.
Freeways and highways aren't the boogeyman The Stranger makes them out to be. The real problem is the mindset that you can somehow build your way out of congestion. Thankfully, we're on our way to having a real transit system. Just too bad it'll be another 10 years before I can take it to work.
Freeways and highways aren't the boogeyman The Stranger makes them out to be. The real problem is the mindset that you can somehow build your way out of congestion. Thankfully, we're on our way to having a real transit system. Just too bad it'll be another 10 years before I can take it to work.
15
Tear it down now, and see what happens. If it's a horrible clusterfuck, we can build a tunnel later.
16
Thanks, Baconcat! That's bringing a lot of happy memories back. I seem to recall the "they" who changed horses midstream at midnight were the folks in charge of the State-highway aspect, the Gov and all the pursestring-holders in the legislature, abetted by DSA/Nickels.
It was news to me at the time, having been told it was our local decision somehow, that if we wanted to do it our way we'd have to pay for it ourselves and work to get the legislature and governor to give up control of their state highway through town.
And then I realized we locals were kind of lacking the pull to make that happen, and that the state legislature might mess with us in many painful ways for many years if we were perceived to be bullying them.
So here we are again, I guess, trying to see what we dare to do.
It was news to me at the time, having been told it was our local decision somehow, that if we wanted to do it our way we'd have to pay for it ourselves and work to get the legislature and governor to give up control of their state highway through town.
And then I realized we locals were kind of lacking the pull to make that happen, and that the state legislature might mess with us in many painful ways for many years if we were perceived to be bullying them.
So here we are again, I guess, trying to see what we dare to do.
17
Have any of the proponents of the surface option been to the "waterfront" lately?
You realize that it's a mix of working piers, ferry docks, oily water, and tourist traps; all of which are easily accessible by walking under the viaduct, right? I repeatedly fail to see how rerouting 99s traffic to the surface level will do anything even close to "uniting" the city with the sound.
You realize that it's a mix of working piers, ferry docks, oily water, and tourist traps; all of which are easily accessible by walking under the viaduct, right? I repeatedly fail to see how rerouting 99s traffic to the surface level will do anything even close to "uniting" the city with the sound.
19
@17, nevermind the fact that the AWV covers a miniscule percentage of the City's shoreline. Whenever people refer to "connecting" the city with its waterfront, I wonder if they've ever been north or south of downtown.
20
@3: uh, at certain times of the day, it can take an hour to transverse Seattle and that's WITH highways...
21
But highways cutting through heavily populated areas are the best way to give maximum exposure to my new Hummer H3 with the custom painted Confederate flags on the doors...
22
In my spare time, I'm a Boston tour guide specializing a project you might have heard of "The Big Dig" - tearing down the 1950s freeway that cut the waterfront off from the rest of the city (displacing thousands in the process) and turning it into a tunnel and an amazing park space that is incredible. Sure, it had a huge price tag. Seattle will face similar technical issues due to that part of the city also being "made land" such as it was in Boston. You don't have the issues of trying not to avoid interfering with subway trains while you do it. And depending on how it's done, you could keep the existing Viaduct open during construction (The Big Dig didn't shut down the freeway it replaced at all until it replaced it with a cutover in the middle of the night). It also afforded the opportunity to make MAJOR upgrades to a lot of infrastructure - rerouting utility lines and sewer lines that were up to a century old. And it increased the capacity of the freeway.
The Big Dig gets a lot of bad press when all anyone can see is the price tag or all they hear about is that chunk of tunnel ceiling that fell and killed someone. But the tunnel almost didn't happen several times. But now that it's done, it's invaluable. I wish the same for Seattle.
The Big Dig gets a lot of bad press when all anyone can see is the price tag or all they hear about is that chunk of tunnel ceiling that fell and killed someone. But the tunnel almost didn't happen several times. But now that it's done, it's invaluable. I wish the same for Seattle.
23
This right here just convinced me, after years of being uncertain how I felt about the viaduct, that rebuilding it is completely unnecessary and a waste of money.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious -- if it wasn't there already, would we still want to build it? It takes a strong imagination to get past what we assume to be true.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious -- if it wasn't there already, would we still want to build it? It takes a strong imagination to get past what we assume to be true.
24
the seattle economy poses certain traffic flow requirements. we cannot undo I-5, and i fall into the camp that thinks undoing the only other north/south thoroughfare is not a good idea at this time.
we need more public transit. we need to halt expansion of highways. we need to make it safer and easier to bike, walk and take the bus in seattle.
while hoping other options catch up is a fine plan in many cases, this is one example where there is too much reliance on an existing piece of infrastructure. in addition, aurora is a blight wherever it is not elevated or underground.
we cannot become vancouver overnight. on the other hand, i suppose we could always dig a tunnel later.
we need more public transit. we need to halt expansion of highways. we need to make it safer and easier to bike, walk and take the bus in seattle.
while hoping other options catch up is a fine plan in many cases, this is one example where there is too much reliance on an existing piece of infrastructure. in addition, aurora is a blight wherever it is not elevated or underground.
we cannot become vancouver overnight. on the other hand, i suppose we could always dig a tunnel later.
25
@9 - Boston has the oldest subway system in the country. The freeway that was cut through the city in the 1950s wasn't about getting into the city so much as a way to get across the city. The surface streets were congested with people who didn't want to actually be in the city. The "Highway in the Sky" was the trendy solution.
@17 - The waterfront in Boston was always accessible if you walked under our freeway too. Passing under a 6-lane wide freeway is a loud, dingy, scary walk. Granted, walking under the Viaduct is a little more pleasant because it's a little taller. And what was on the other side of ours? A world-class aquarium, a trendy Italian neighborhood, some architectural gems, and a lot of crap. In the last few years, with the end of the elevated in sight, there's been a renewal of parks and living spaces, even beyond the new park spaces built on top of the tunnel. Crime has gone down, revenues are going up. Sure, we have more tourists in that area now too, but well, they bring a lot of $$ to our city, and they come away more impressed with the birthplace of our nation. But there's also new living spaces and new fitness opportunities.
Come to Boston and take my tour and you'll look at tearing down the Viaduct in a whole new light.
@17 - The waterfront in Boston was always accessible if you walked under our freeway too. Passing under a 6-lane wide freeway is a loud, dingy, scary walk. Granted, walking under the Viaduct is a little more pleasant because it's a little taller. And what was on the other side of ours? A world-class aquarium, a trendy Italian neighborhood, some architectural gems, and a lot of crap. In the last few years, with the end of the elevated in sight, there's been a renewal of parks and living spaces, even beyond the new park spaces built on top of the tunnel. Crime has gone down, revenues are going up. Sure, we have more tourists in that area now too, but well, they bring a lot of $$ to our city, and they come away more impressed with the birthplace of our nation. But there's also new living spaces and new fitness opportunities.
Come to Boston and take my tour and you'll look at tearing down the Viaduct in a whole new light.
27
You do understand that if traveling from anywhere north of downtown Seattle to anywhere south of downtown Seattle requires traveling through downtown Seattle, right? I mean ANYWHERE north or south. In all of Western Washington.
Just checking.
Just checking.
28
@17: yes, i've been there. every fucking day. the viaduct blights the waterfront and western with noise and looming gloom. you can't hear anyone speaking to you. my dog is flipped out by the noise and panics.
yet the tourists are out there fighting against it everyday. why? BECAUSE WATERFRONTS ARE ASSETS TO A CITY. they come to seattle and naturally head for the waterfront - they EXPECT IT TO BE LIVEABLE, and it should be.
fuck WSDOT.
yet the tourists are out there fighting against it everyday. why? BECAUSE WATERFRONTS ARE ASSETS TO A CITY. they come to seattle and naturally head for the waterfront - they EXPECT IT TO BE LIVEABLE, and it should be.
fuck WSDOT.
29
@17: i am there every day. the AWV actively blights the waterfront and western. yet the waterfront soldiers on.
30
The noise could easily be abated with one of the many noise-reduction pavements they have now instead of the noise-amplifying one they have now.
31
ya know what, fuck that, I live in downtown seattle but you know what? there are NO fucking engineering jobs in DOWNTOWN.....there goes that fucking pipe dream I had, living and working in the CITY. I use I-5 everyday to commute OUT OF THE CITY. I need that shit. Don't get me wrong, i do a good balance of riding bike, bussing to work and driving.....but seriously. fuck off. unless you want to start a engineering firm in downtown seattle.
32
When they built the Embarcadero Freeway here, they intended to destroy the entire panhandle by extending it all the way to Golden Gate park. It's hard to imagine Upper Haight looking more like South of Market, but it very well might have.
33
I say tear it down, too. If you're trying to get THROUGH Seattle, take I-5.
One of the complaints of the proposed tunnel is that there are not enough exits into downtown, which would imply that drivers are using 99 to get INTO town, not drive through. I say, let 99 dump into Alaskan Way coming from the south, and let the Aurora traffic coming from the north just dump into the Mercer mess. Eliminate the Broad Street Tunnel deathtrap.
I drove my wife to the airport this morning coming from the U-district. I took I-5 both ways, and things seemed just fine for a Friday morning commute. Left at 6:20, and got back at 7:40.
The real traffic jams are on 520 and I-90. Really, light rail should have gone from the Eastside into Seattle first. People in Seattle work in Bellevue and Redmond, that's a fact. People south of Seattle don't work north of Seattle, generally. Why would someone who worked at say, Boeing in Everett want to live in Federal Way? The exact same housing exists in Lynnwood, Bothell, or Edmonds.
One of the complaints of the proposed tunnel is that there are not enough exits into downtown, which would imply that drivers are using 99 to get INTO town, not drive through. I say, let 99 dump into Alaskan Way coming from the south, and let the Aurora traffic coming from the north just dump into the Mercer mess. Eliminate the Broad Street Tunnel deathtrap.
I drove my wife to the airport this morning coming from the U-district. I took I-5 both ways, and things seemed just fine for a Friday morning commute. Left at 6:20, and got back at 7:40.
The real traffic jams are on 520 and I-90. Really, light rail should have gone from the Eastside into Seattle first. People in Seattle work in Bellevue and Redmond, that's a fact. People south of Seattle don't work north of Seattle, generally. Why would someone who worked at say, Boeing in Everett want to live in Federal Way? The exact same housing exists in Lynnwood, Bothell, or Edmonds.
34
Yes, and imagine for a moment if Dan and his ilk had been around 100 years ago -- and we'd never built a tunnel to take traffic off of the waterfront and route it through downtown, underground and out of the way.
Oh, how the city would be different!
Alaska Way would still have its original name of "Railroad Avenue" (changed in the `30's) and the waterfront would look a lot more like this:
http://www.historylink.org/db_images/gnt…
or this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co…
than it does now.
Back then the price tag was steep as well ($1,500,000 in 1904 dollars!) and there were a great many doubters then too.
Fortunately for our city, its leaders back then recognized the value of taking transportation routes out of the public center and hiding them underground. And they had the spine to keep insisting until it actually got done!
Just imagine that!
Oh, how the city would be different!
Alaska Way would still have its original name of "Railroad Avenue" (changed in the `30's) and the waterfront would look a lot more like this:
http://www.historylink.org/db_images/gnt…
or this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co…
than it does now.
Back then the price tag was steep as well ($1,500,000 in 1904 dollars!) and there were a great many doubters then too.
Fortunately for our city, its leaders back then recognized the value of taking transportation routes out of the public center and hiding them underground. And they had the spine to keep insisting until it actually got done!
Just imagine that!
35
@33 roosevelt - that is an amazing commute time, far from average.
isn't mercer bad enough? what about I-5 with all of 99's traffic? it's difficult as is to get through town on i-5, which, btw, is usually slow during non-rush-hour times frequently. but by through we can mean both passing through, and from one point to another point across town.
as far as exits go, though, i agree. i think there are enough exits on the AWV already. when i read that the proposed rebuild might include a light at the stadium i just about flipped out: that defeats the whole purpose, and would create huge problems for people living and working and using 99 whenever there was a game.
i guess what we do know is that the end result will likely please few.
isn't mercer bad enough? what about I-5 with all of 99's traffic? it's difficult as is to get through town on i-5, which, btw, is usually slow during non-rush-hour times frequently. but by through we can mean both passing through, and from one point to another point across town.
as far as exits go, though, i agree. i think there are enough exits on the AWV already. when i read that the proposed rebuild might include a light at the stadium i just about flipped out: that defeats the whole purpose, and would create huge problems for people living and working and using 99 whenever there was a game.
i guess what we do know is that the end result will likely please few.
36
Thanks #22, the only voice of reason. Lived there before, been there after, viva la difference. The tunnel is the only way Seattle grows up.
37
And a special BITE MY ASS to Roosevelt, the voice of the Seattle Way - lets spend a bunch of money on 'studies', then pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Meanwhile, lets cook up some more meth while waiting for our rent payments to show up on all the property we inhereted.
38
FWIW, I'm not arguing in favor of a viaduct, just expressing confusion about how adding even more lanes of surface traffic along the waterfront is any kind of aesthetic or developmental improvement over having that noisy traffic elevated or buried.
39
I still don't understand how basically moving North Seattle's Aurora Ave to downtown would make the waterfront more pleasing.
40
London doesn't need highways because London is a popular world hub city with a very, very old train system that, like most other great transit systems, was installed way back when it was relatively affordable and not too intrusive to do so. They also get away with being an insanely expensive city to live in as a result of their world-class status and live off it through relatively higher taxes, which helps them do without the fluid land commercial transport networks.
Cities without this status couldn't get away with London's sort of sprawl and lack of a highway system.
Cities without this status couldn't get away with London's sort of sprawl and lack of a highway system.
41
Oh, and dude
You can't hear anything in most of Downtown because it's loud just about EVERYWHERE in the heart of Downtown. You're DOWNTOWN. Seriously, try having the same conversation in midday on 1st and anywhere... or 4th and Pike... or 3rd and Spring. Is there really a difference you can tell with a decimeter? If you say 'yes', I'm certain you're lying.
the viaduct blights the waterfront and western with noise and looming gloom. you can't hear anyone speaking to you. my dog is flipped out by the noise and panics.
You can't hear anything in most of Downtown because it's loud just about EVERYWHERE in the heart of Downtown. You're DOWNTOWN. Seriously, try having the same conversation in midday on 1st and anywhere... or 4th and Pike... or 3rd and Spring. Is there really a difference you can tell with a decimeter? If you say 'yes', I'm certain you're lying.
42
seattle seems to finally be warming to the idea of families living in the city instead of suburbs. it seems we've pushed far enough out now that there is a finally a bit of a vacuum pulling some back in. once there is enough, then the demand for infrastructure will increase as well. if not, we get the LA model. but if so, we get the NY version (still with bad traffic and commuters, mind you).
43
Well, once you get to the point where people are driving 30-45 miles to get to work, sitting in traffic forever, and living in sparsely populated exurbs with relatively few amenities, you'd think people eventually begin to question the rationality of that way of life. But one look at California or Chicago shows us that people think nothing of it.
It comes down to gas prices, plummeting real estate values and the rising costs of everything else, really.
It comes down to gas prices, plummeting real estate values and the rising costs of everything else, really.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (43) RSS