the tunnel, numbers, and the fault
the p-i’s nifty “how to build a tunnel” infographic
Yesterday, some pro-tunnel people released the results of another public opinion poll. Like the one conducted by the Seattle Times earlier this month [mb], they show that when you tell respondents how you want them to answer, you can shift the results in your favor. The Times poll got a few people to change their minds about their preferred viaduct replacement by laying out the cost estimates.
Although voters surveyed in the latest poll originally favored the relatively thrifty (but ugly) viaduct option, the pro-tunnel survey group was able to get a majority to support the cut-and-cover option once they sold them on the benefits (noise, air, water pollution reduction; more enjoyable downtown; etc.) [p-i].
I’m guessing that they left out the part about the tunnel being built on the Seattle Fault [p-i, (with nifty graphics!)]. Although the prospect of a massive tidal wave flooding the highway sounds pretty scary, tunnel lovers will be consoled to know that such a catastrophic event only comes around every 3,000 - 6,000 years. By then, we’ll all be driving flying cars; so who cares about a little water damage?
Related posts:
There is an undiscussed alternative to a tunnel or a new viaduct. 99 could be replaced with a sunken roadway on the footprint of the existing viaduct. Essentially a tunnel with no roof. Crossing roads would become overpasses. This would be a lot cheaper than a complete tunnel, preserve the views, abate the noise, be safer for earthquakes or flood, and wouldn’t require the destruction of Alaskan Way during construction.
Just my $0.02.
that pop was the sound of my mind being blown. urban planning is way too complicated for me.
I was listening to NPR a week or so ago and somebody mentioned the sunken roadway. I can’t remember exactly why but there were numerous safety concerns with it so it never made the final cut. I think it was one of the options a long time ago when they had open submissions for ideas, but due to safety concerns it was tabled in favor of the three options that are currently being bandied about.