'No-Build' Not Dead Yet
Sorry I'm a bit behind on this one, as it is last week's story. I wanted to post it, but I don't want this blog to be "all Viaduct, all the time." Anyway, a few weeks ago I talked about the option to tear down the Viaduct and just don't replace it. At the time the idea appeared to be dead in the water, but apparently Seattle's City Council is still interested in the thought:
Despite discouraging signals from the state, the City Council said Wednesday that it is going to take a longer look at tearing down the Alaskan Way Viaduct and funneling its travelers onto surface streets and public transit, without building a new elevated or below-ground roadway as a replacement.Keep in mind that Councilman Conlin is the only member of the council that actually practices what he preaches about personal trip reduction and alternate methods of commuting. That said, I am still confused about this whole thing, because spending $15,000 on a preliminary study sure doesn't sound like it is being treated like an emergency. Wasn't the imminent collapse of the Viaduct a major part of the emotionally-charged "No on 912" campaign? Oh yes, it was indeed.
"The surface/transit option is emotionally appealing," Councilman Richard Conlin said after the announcement.
But Conlin said he doesn't have enough information to know if that's a feasible alternative. He still favors replacing the 2.2-mile double-decked viaduct with a tunnel — the position that he, and a majority of the council, supported in a 2004 vote.
The council said it's commissioning a preliminary, $15,000 study that will review previous studies of viaduct replacement options and also consider the experience of other cities. Depending on what that examination comes up with in five or six weeks, the council will decide whether to pay for a deeper analysis of the so-called no-build option.
It's so much of an emergency that we aren't even in a hurry to decide what we're going to do about it, much less actually start the work.
(Gregory Roberts, Seattle P-I, 04.27.2006)
1 comments:
The preliminary study is to simply begin to look at the no-build option. There would then be a quick and dirty 150K, 3-month study that would need to get done in time for the vote.
Though it wouldn't be a terrible idea, the problem is that if we don't go to the state with a united and coherent plan for the tunnel, they aren't going to help fund it. If Licata drags significant support towards an as-yet unstudied idea of replacing the viaduct with surface streets, we may end up with a defacto elevated rebuild, which would be the worst of all worlds, imo. Perhaps slightly cheaper than the tunnel, but an even larger (it would have to be significantly wider than the current structure) scar right down the middle of what could be the nicest waterfront of any city in the US.
Of course, the other option is to "keep the viaduct free and dangerous", to quote the as-yet unprinted bumper banging around my friend's brain.
Post a Comment