Seattle Press on Line - Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

Jun 20, 2002 -- Viaduct Has Aged Well, Let's Keep It

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to Tara Peattie's 6/6/02 article "Viaduct: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow." Given the number of faulty assumptions and misstated facts in this piece, it is hard to know where to begin.

Let's start with the notion that the Viaduct is going to come down in the next earthquake (or strong breeze, for that matter). We've been hearing this old saw since the early 1990s, when the state first proposed making the Viaduct a toll road under the "Public-Private Partnerships" initiative. In fact, the Viaduct survived the recent 6.8 Nisqually Quake quite handily. Yes, it sustained some moderate damage, as did many other bridges and structures in the region. Given that our region typically experiences earthquakes of similar magnitude about every 35 years or so, this is the sort of event we ought to plan for, and the Viaduct fared far better than its longtime detractors expected.

But, since the Viaduct has now weathered two earthquakes of this size, the tear-it-down crowd now invokes the fear of a massive subduction quake to justify the monumental expense of burying the Viaduct. Never mind that most of Seattle will collapse in a quake of over 7.5 on the Richter Scale, and never mind the fact that WASDOT studies have shown that the Viaduct will probably survive a quake of up to this magnitude

The second misstatement of fact is the notion that there has been a comprehensive study of what it will actually cost to retrofit the existing Viaduct. In fact, anyone who has attended any of the Washington Department of Transportation Viaduct open houses can attest to the fact that little or no effort has gone toward establishing an accurate picture of what it will cost to fix the existing Viaduct. Instead, the open houses have been conducted with the predetermined assumption that the Viaduct MUST be replaced, regardless of cost, and all of these presentations have centered solely on reviewing various replacement options. (At some of these open houses, a picture of the crumbled facade of the historic Cadillac Hotel was displayed to demonstrate earthquake vulnerability--evidently there weren't enough scary pictures of the Viaduct itself to make this pitch).

Current WASDOT estimates that it would cost billions to retrofit the Viaduct are highly suspect. Those who doubt this would do well to review the history of the Kingdome. After the first study indicated that it would cost substantially less to renovate it than to build the new stadium Paul Allen wanted, that study was buried and another one was conducted to demonstrate that it was less expensive to build a new stadium than to renovate the Kingdome.

Ms. Peattie also seems to have bought into the notion that the replacement cost for the aging waterfront seawall must be attributed solely to the Viaduct and its users. Never mind the fact that the operations of the Port of Seattle, the Washington State Ferries, Piers 48 through 63, and every upland property owner also rely on this seawall--those who live on the west side of the City get to subsidize all of them with their toll dollars

There is also the oft-repeated notion that tearing down the Viaduct will "open up the Waterfront" and "reconnect downtown with Elliott Bay" and create an "unbeatable view." In fact, even if the Viaduct is removed, pedestrians will not be able to get ONE INCH closer to the water than they can now. In addition, the only view blockage the Viaduct creates is for properties on its east side and down a few street corridors (such as S. Washington)--notwithstanding the 100,000 vehicles per day who now have equal access to one of the most spectacular views in the nation. Moreover, if "reconnecting downtown with the waterfront" results in cutting Northwest and Southwest Seattle off from each other and the rest of the City, as it will, the cost is simply too high.

Which brings us to the matter of project cost. Current estimates for the plan supported by tunnel advocates approach at least 8 BILLION dollars, and the final cost will doubtless be considerably higher (ask Sound Transit about the vagaries of tunnel cost estimates). Under the best current scenario, the total amount to be raised by the Statewide and Regional Transportation Plans (including tolls) would be about 2.5 billion. This fact alone ought to spur responsible policy makers to begin reviewing other options.

It is clear that there will be no serious consideration given to Viaduct renovation options until voters reject the Statewide and Regional Transportation Plans this fall. As a resident of the University District who frequently uses the Viaduct to go from Wallingford, Fremont, and Ballard to points south, I'm looking forward to voting NO on both of these ballot issues--if only to ensure that an honest appraisal of Viaduct renovation costs and benefits is done before we spend in excess of $8 billion on a 2.5 mile stretch of road, and isolate nearly half of Seattle's neighborhoods in the process.

Matthew Fox

Tara Peattie responds:

Your letter brings up some items that are worthy of investigation, but do not pretend that it's a response to my article. These "notions" and "facts" that you've imputed from it don't exist. I did not say the Viaduct would come down in the next quake. I said WSDOT engineers report that there's a one-in-20 chance that it could happen. I certainly said nothing about strong breezes, but I guess you are trying to make me look like Chicken Little.

My column is generally conversational, not hard reporting, and not a fact sheet. I am surprised, however, at what command you seem to have of "the facts." Given your scenario for a 7.5 quake, maybe Citywide Emergency Response Guidelines should recommend that in the next large quake, we flock to the Viaduct for safety.

P.S. I look forward to a big investigational piece about the WSDOT conspiracy to bilk Seattle, and how they planted the "marine borers" in the seawall before inviting the mayor and the Seattle Times photographer down to see. That will effectively relieve Seattle of any reason to support the Statewide transportation plan!

Show Respect to Get Respect

To the Editor:

Re: "South End Students Demand Respect," June 6 issue: I find the title of this article quite ironic, to say the least. These students were let out to demonstrate and were obviously not supervised very well, if at all. According to the television news, these students showed no respect for the property of Rite Aid and a grocery store. If these children were at all interested in their cause they would have confined themselves to it! Part of their "demands" was to halt the presence of armed police in their school. The "demonstration" made a great point for the opposite position. From a purely outsider's view, the lack of books and the lack of "working" computers seem probably to be the result of vandalism. I imagine that a school's decision on how its funds are used have a great deal to do with the care of the property and the cost of its upkeep.
I am very disappointed that your article was not balanced. It did not mention the destruction these children did to stores adjacent to the school. Please be more balanced in the future.

D. T. Labi

Is Celibacy the Problem?

To the editor,

With all the media coverage on the Catholic scandal, many news writers have come out saying that celibacy is what has caused the priests to engage in inappropriate actions. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times wrote that, "The vow of celibacy serves as a magnet for men running away from sexual feelings they are ashamed of." She added that "The allegedly celibate society these men enter ... retards their sexual development, funneling their impulses in inappropriate directions." I believe that this is quite misleading. The problem that we are seeing in the Catholic church is not a celibacy problem but a homosexual one. What is happening is that we are seeing priests who for some reason cannot or will not keep their pants up around teenage boys. The gay subculture in the Catholic church is coming to the surface. In the pro-homosexual book, The Gay Report, it reported 73 percent of gay men have had sex with teenage boys. This is why celibacy is not the problem. To deal with the problem the Catholic church has to make a stand against homosexuality in the church.

Matthew Mullins
Seattle Christian High School Senior

Correction:

The letter in the June 6 issue attributed to Jan Brucker was actually written by Joel Tufel. Tufel is also a member of Citizens for a Liveable Northgate.

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!

No comments yet!