Posted by Marine Vet at 7/11/08 11:48 a.m.

Utter stupidity. Why on earth would we put a 2.3 BILLION dollar band aid on a monstrous structure, just to have to tear it down in the next few decades.

It's time to tear it down and find a real solution that works with the $7 per gallon gas that will be here within two years.

Posted by Concerned_Citizen at 7/11/08 12:04 p.m.

Why does a retrofit cost $2.3 billion dollars?
Is the end result a brand new viaduct that looks identical to the old one?
It might be most expedient way to get it done, politically.

Posted by gettingreal at 7/11/08 12:11 p.m.

At some point they commisioned a study by an engineering firm that said it would cost $2.3 billion. Not everyone was convinced the study wasn't biased, and for good reason. The trouble is city officials have lost all credibility because they are obviously so biased against a retrofit, so the idea hasn't died. If it was cheaper it might make sense, but all be have is this one study that says it won't be. At this point, I think we should just replace it.

Posted by sscott at 7/11/08 12:14 p.m.

The city dads in the 50's ignored their consultant and built the viaduct anyway. Mistake to begin with. it's narrow, dangerous, and rickety. Bury it under Western Avenue.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/11/08 12:29 p.m.

Why are we spending money on roads when gas is a finite commodity? Let's sink that 2.3 billion into rehabing the rail underneath it, tear down the viaduct, say goodbye to traffic and hello to mass transit.

Posted by Waffles! at 7/11/08 12:39 p.m.

Even if, and that's a big IF, even if the retrofit would cost 80% of a new span, it still would be a complete BARGAIN compared to the massive traffic disruptions that would accompany a complete rebuild/tunnel/tear down, etc.

It's really simple to explain people's opinions. If you don't use the viaduct or own waterfront property, DEMOLISH IT, but if you actually depend on the viaduct for your commute and GREATLY value the fact that the viaduct is a quick and easy bypass through Seattle, then retrofit.

Honestly, the real reason why the greenies want the thing torn down is to force people on the parking lot that which is I5. Then the understanding is that they would be "forced" to use public transportation.

Transportation infrastructure includes everything; rail, roads, trails, buses, everything. It's not about applying one solution to everything.

Posted by gettingreal at 7/11/08 12:43 p.m.

[Why are we spending money on roads when gas is a finite commodity? Let's sink that 2.3 billion into rehabing the rail underneath it, tear down the viaduct, say goodbye to traffic and hello to mass transit.]

Mass transit would cost several times the $2.3 billion. At 73 cents per passenger mile (KC Metro) busing 110000 daily 10 mile trips would cost $803000 per day, or $200 million per year (not including the weekend nightmares). So $2.3 billion would last 11 years. The viaduct would last 80 years.

Posted by gettingreal at 7/11/08 12:46 p.m.

Note that the cost of connecting streets is minimal and they are already built. The viaduct is the major cost. People will be driving electric cars in 80 years and for the forseeable future. The idea that there will be no cars is just silly.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/11/08 12:52 p.m.

You think it's monstrous now...the retrofit would include steel cross beams between the existing concrete pillars. Price-wise: My guess is the retrofit may also include more work on the footings because of the added weight of those steel beams. Think of it like a house remodel, things always cost a little more than you imagine because you have to link the new with the existing AND meet current bldg codes.

Posted by Denny P at 7/11/08 3:20 p.m.

Seattle is the ultimate example of governing by committee. Why do we continue to elect leaders who can't lead?

Waffles is right, the only ones who want to tear down the viaduct are the ones who stand to profit. The viaduct is part of Seattle, who here ever saw the water front without it? I use it daily and never worry in the slightest about it falling down.

Posted by Kal_el2000 at 7/11/08 3:27 p.m.

I hope everyone wanting to retrofit and preserve the viaduct is standing under it when it collapses!

It is a danger to public safety. The fact that the engineers that work on the viaduct won't drive on it should tell you something.

Posted by Will in Seattle at 7/11/08 4:28 p.m.

Stakeholders?

More like sticks in the mud.

Look, get over yourselves, cut the typical Seattle process process process whining and DO SOMETHING NOW!

We're sick and tired of the inaction.

Posted by Belltowngirl at 7/11/08 4:35 p.m.

The number one advantage that a retrofitted viaduct would have over every single one of the other options on the table is capacity. All of the other options from the cut/cover tunnel to the idiotic surface street pipeline actually REDUCE capacity from current levels. Reducing capacity in a city that is contiuing to grow is the height of stupidity and a complete lack of foresight.

Posted by magoos55chev at 7/14/08 1:37 p.m.

I say we just wait for it to fall down, look at what hppened when the I90 bridge sank, no studies no arguments, just work and replacement then it was back up and running in no time, just leave the viaduct alone, pay the lawsuits when it falls and kills (cheaper that replacement)

Posted by unregistered user at 7/15/08 10:21 a.m.

Tear it down and create a waterfront park. that would have way more value to people. It's an eyesore. An ugly mistake of dumbo midcentury highway planning that should have never been built. let it go. go away. let us have green space for people to use. The city has plenty of roads, not enough parks. trucks should use the 5 and everyone else should be on bikes and buses and streetcars. get with the 21st century people. Stop sending all our money to bin laden and the arabian cartels. tear it down and find a better way to get around. think outside of your concrete box! everywhere that freeways have been ditched and naysayers predicted doom (i.e. Milwaukee and SF), it has not come to pass, and in fact things have ended up even better than predicted. neighborhoods have regrown and thrived, traffic has been reduced, not gotten worse, property values have gone up, safety has been improved. It's a win for the people when the highway is gone...

Posted by Kurosawa at 7/16/08 2:55 p.m.

They're going to replace the south 40% of the Viaduct anyway, between Graham and King Streets, starting next year, no matter what is decided about what to do with the rest of the Viaduct. I'm assuming the cost the State estimated for the retrofit work includes that cost.

I'm suspicious that the real reason WSDOT has repeatedly put the kabbosh on the Retrofit option isn't the cost, but because not nearly enough concrete and cement would get poured or rebar laid to suit the highway lobby.

Posted by apollo11 at 7/17/08 8:10 a.m.

Hmm...an engineering firm that will get to control billions of dollars if they DON'T retrofit the viaduct determined that the retrofit will be too expensive.

In other words, if the retrofit is an option, they (the firms and consultants who designed the other plans) will not get rich off of our taxdollars.

The whole consultant/task force addiction by our weak politicians is sickening. On my street in Bothell, it is going to cost nearly $1,000/foot to put in a sidewalk...so? That means that it will cost $100,000 for 100 feet of sidewalk--the size of one quarter-acre lot. That is insane. In many parts of the state, you can buy a house, with a garage (and sink, lot, sewers,) and a sidewalk for $150k, and yet, in this region we can barely build a sidewalk for that cost!

Our road building is the most corrupt enterprise I have seen in my life!!!!

Posted by seattlemike at 7/18/08 4:31 a.m.

Tear this death trap down before it falls on its own !!

Posted by Randy Grein at 7/22/08 6:45 a.m.

A former neighbor was one of the engineers that did the initial study. We talked about it many times, he was appalled that the issue was being politicized in this way. The fundamental problems with retrofitting the viaduct are:

Foundations not stable. There's no real way to keep it upright in the event of an earthquake, and the roadbed will collapse just like it did in California a few years ago.

The cement is eroding. That is, the cement that makes up the entire structure. It's not a matter of a simple repave job, the entire structure is falling apart. A retrofit just isn't going to be enough.

Now, lest you think his opinions were motivated by profit he knew (and was subsequently proven correct) that he would be axed once the study was completed. Contract work is like that. He now works for another company in California.

Posted by TerryP at 7/26/08 10:47 p.m.

There's no way to keep it upright in the event of an earthquake, you say. If so, why has retired civil engineer (and former associate of civil engineer and former Washington State governor, Dann Evans) Victor Gray come forth with a plan to retrofit the Viaduct? He has no stake in the financial outcome either; but he certainly doesn't want to see people die, as they did on Highway 880, down in the Bay area, circa 1989.

Victor Gray's plan was for much less - $300 million - and that begs the question, why now, the retrofit is so much more.

The fix is in and we all know it. Governor Gregoire has gone on record, like some sort of dictator, as telling us "watch me" in regards to tearing it down. Unless she is defeated in her quest for re-election, why are we wasting time with public meetings?

Her opponent, perhaps to court the same unions that usually vote Democrat, says he too wants to tear it down and replace it with a costly (and unsafe) tunnel.

So there you go, folks. We have no say anymore on this matter. There is no democracy at work here.

Posted by Kurosawa at 7/27/08 8:52 a.m.

A former neighbor was one of the engineers that did the initial study. We talked about it many times, he was appalled that the issue was being politicized in this way. The fundamental problems with retrofitting the viaduct are...

If the case against a retrofit is so convincing, why is the state unwilling to give the different retrofit proposals a public hearing on both its feasibility and cost, if the reasons against the notion are so convincing? Or are we simply expected to rely on message board hearsay to make an informed decision?

"I'm flabbergasted you are going to dump the retrofit," said Peter Philips, who represents the Seattle Marine Business Coalition. "Since December, I've asked for economic information, I've asked for engineering information. (Eliminating the retrofit) without any hard data whatsoever, is very, very concerning."

See: Viaduct retrofit now is 'off the table'

And what if no consensus can be reached on any of the remaining options? We'll be right back to the retrofit option, again, as the default option.

One option that could allow removal of the Viaduct without replacing it with a surface highway along the Waterfront is not being discussed at all. That is a bored congestion-priced I-5 bypass tunnel. Since it would help address the downtown I-5 bottleneck, the Feds should help pay for it. It could also provide somewhere for traffic on an expanded SR-520 to go.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/31/08 6:32 a.m.

Perhaps an alternative would be to put the Northbound lanes underneath the southbound lanes. That is, put them on the street level and bring them up to Battery Street Tunnel level with a bridge that would hug the bank. Put in bracing for the weakened area which does mostly support the top tier.
This would take the heavy load off the viaduct by half or more. Yes, it will close the parking lots underneath, but that will happen anyway.

Then, turn the top tier into a park, much like Freeway park but with longer walkways and more trees.

It would keep that gorgeous view for everybody in the city, not just the few buildings that would benefit.
Also, the lowest level could be built without really disturbing the upper levels and when complete would be able to almost immediately be rerouted.

It would be cheaper as well, plus we could get a great walking park.

Posted by unregistered user at 7/31/08 6:30 p.m.

It would increase the credibility of the comments if the "editorialists" were to indicate where they live. For those of us who use the viaduct as a means of bypassing both the urban center and the I-5 corridor (e.g. residents of West Seattle or Magnolia or Ballard), its benefits and necessity seem obvious. For those who seldom use it, its loss would represent an occasional inconvenience. If you are a member of the "tear down crowd," be honest enough to indicate your dependence upon or independence of the viaduct.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/2/08 5:51 p.m.

Tear it down, of course.

Silly people think that Seattle is about business and commerce. We all know it's about feelings.

Tear it down and build a permanent Festival of Love park.

People should not be using cars - they should be forced to ride busses and trains. Only selfish people drive cars.

Posted by coldsteel at 8/4/08 7:59 a.m.

Welcome to the real world where people are selfish and where indeed that motivation and that individualism is the basis for our civilization. It isn't a good thing or a bad thing, it just is.

Cars of the future won't run on gas, and many of the densities and efficiencies of mass transit will also be co-opted.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/7/08 1:55 a.m.

How is any choice going to be paid?

Whatever is done should be done by getting people to donate their money voluntarily. That is how you will get the best solution.

Posted by unregistered user at 8/7/08 12:28 p.m.

I am still wondering how a tunnel next to a huge body of water is actually safer than a viaduct? The choice seems to be drowning or being crushed in a large earthquake. We need a viaduct to bypass downtown for a reasonable time to go north and south, I-5 certainly isn't. No one in North Seattle is going to take rail to pick up someone at the airport. Using I-5 going between North Seattle and West Seattle is absurd. Downtown is congested enough, why add more traffic?! Mass transit or not, we still need the viaduct. The only people who don't want it are people who don't use it, live downtown or make millions of dollars off developing view condos. Keep the viaduct!

Posted by unregistered user at 8/9/08 1:16 p.m.

To ignore the voice of the people regarding the no vote on a tunnel, and to not allow a vote on a retrofit for the Viaduct is politics at its worst.
The recommendatons of highly regarded civil engineer deserves more time to review his revised plan then has been given---just to satisfy a non filled commitment by the state.

Perhaps those making the big decisions should take a few lessons from the ancients of Italy or of other European countries where bildings, aquaducts, Great Wall of China have stood for thousands of years--or maybe the beautiful Colisium should be torn down, because it has been there for more then 60 years.

Those of us who live in the areas that rely on the very necessary Viaduct, use it daily (with never a backup), and at the same time enjoy the most beautiful view that Seattle has to offer want to see the fair study it deserves. And a chance to vote--but that doesn't work, because even when something is voted "no" that is ignored.

Those who would most benefit from the Viaduct being replaced by parks and surface roads or a tunnel are those who would profit monetary from that action.