Today was a good day - in many ways. The eight years of Bush Jr. finally ended. Not a day too late. He should never have been elected to the office, but one can only say that "a people get the politicians it deserves"...
That statement is certainly still true, so what a difference only 8 years can make. Today was a big day, for the US, and for the World. Probably no inauguration of a head of state has ever gotten so much attention from around the globe. And, it is not just because Bush is history, or that this is the first African-American elected to the highest office, it because finally a "good man" finally has taken the oath.
I do not know Obama, never met him, but based on what I've seen so far, he is smart, intelligent, well educated, well articulated, supposedly a good listener, engaging, and we just have to hope that he will use all his "skills" to "stand his ground", make a lot of "correct" decisions, and get people engaged and interested in the running of this nation - a nation that still has a huge impact on the rest of the globe.
The expectations on his presidency are sky high, but I think he will work hard - and it started in his speach - to get them down to a more realistic level and get people to gather around both the problems as well as the solutions. If the solutions are the "right" ones, well, only time will tell!!!
From my little cocoon out on the West Coast, I did get a chance to watch some of the day's events, and the day was "sealed" with a glass of good Single Malt. It was truly a day to remember!
To be noted as well: The White House web page has been completely overhauled and open to search engines like Google and MSN Live. The Administration really has taken a step into the 21st century - literally over night.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Finally - a TUNNEL deciZion
Puget Sound leaders today took the only sensible decision for the future: A Tunnel!
A tunnel is the ONLY sensible alternative in a region where natural beauty and access to the water literally is worth millions - if not billions. Seattle only has one waterfront and we'd do a disservice to future generations if we blocked it off with new construction - be it viaduct, condos, or warehouses.
As for the cost - yes a tunnel does cost money - now it is time go overseas and truly LEARN from what has been done on similar projects in cities around the globe (Oslo, Norway and Gothenburg, Sweden are two similar and recent project that directly comes to mind). Tunnels CAN be built wisely and cost effectively. Well managed projects do not turn in to another "Big Dig" a la Boston.
Hence, there is no reason a tunnel in Seattle should cost 8 to 10 times the cost of a recent - and similarly sized - tunnel along the waterfront in Gothenburg.
We have bright engineers, good workers, and construction companies that ought to be very interested in a project like this. On the other hand, we need regulation - yes, that pesky word - to ensure that there is ample competition for this project and not only one or two overpriced bidders (like for the recent ferry bid), or worse, like on the EastCoast, the mob and paybacks drive up the cost of construction.
And, while at it, I'd encourage WSDOT engineers to go to both Oslo and Gothenburg and see how these cities totally have changed the waterfront for something "better" - not an area that is jammed with traffic, or filled with dilapidated warehouses. Oslo is already successfully done, Gothenburg (tunnel completed in June 2006) is in the midst of the transformation process. Even if we spend a few millions on sending people on "study" trips, in the end it is worth every penny, assuming they truly learn and apply practices deployed in other successful projects.
Another project that is worth while visiting, even though it is "across the water" is the bridge/tunnel combination that connects the southern Swedish city of Malmoe with Copenhagen. A massive project, where the tunnel is 2.5 miles long (out of a total of over 9 miles for the entire link across the Oresund Strait).
Paris, France, is another example where tunnels have been both dug and "lidded" for everything from massive freeways, via high-speed rail links, to pedestrian connections.
Oslo is not stopping with traffic tunnels, but also has other project "going underwater", where parking structures with 800 stalls will be submerged to allow for housing developments go on top.
For those who are scared about the "Big One", it might be best to leave the region since really no area is "safe". Living in an earthquake prone area is a risk we are sort of willing to take (just as we take a flooding risk living close to sometimes raging rivers). But, on the other hand, BART (SF Bay Area) has several underwater tunnels, even though they are "tubes", resting on top of the seafloor, that managed extremely well in the last "big one" in 1989. Look at Japan as well. Earthquakes and long underwater tunnels move massive amounts of people. In a more geologically stable area, we have the the "Chunnel" (yes at great expense but also lenght), a working and vital link between the UK and the European continent.
What I am trying to say is that there are ways to do this right from the get go. Tunnels do not have to be that pricey, nor unsafe. If I have a small concern about this project, it is that it does not seem to include any provision for future transit. As many have stated, the additional cost for building a tunnel that can accommodate three lane in each direction is likely wise. Now or in the future, those added lanes can support some type of mass transit.
All that said, I do not think the final drawings are anywhere close to be presented. If it'll be one BIG "tube" with traffic stacked, or two smaller tubes side-by-side, or if there will be some extra "access" tubes for traffic to/from Magnolia/Queen Anne Hill, it is likely still far to early to tell.
But, all in all, a good comprise has been decided upon; tunnel, surface improvements, transit improvements, should provide ample capacity for everyone that needs to travel through our beautiful city. The leadership did what was needed - they did dare to make a decision for the future! Just too bad it took so many years.
A tunnel is the ONLY sensible alternative in a region where natural beauty and access to the water literally is worth millions - if not billions. Seattle only has one waterfront and we'd do a disservice to future generations if we blocked it off with new construction - be it viaduct, condos, or warehouses.
As for the cost - yes a tunnel does cost money - now it is time go overseas and truly LEARN from what has been done on similar projects in cities around the globe (Oslo, Norway and Gothenburg, Sweden are two similar and recent project that directly comes to mind). Tunnels CAN be built wisely and cost effectively. Well managed projects do not turn in to another "Big Dig" a la Boston.
Hence, there is no reason a tunnel in Seattle should cost 8 to 10 times the cost of a recent - and similarly sized - tunnel along the waterfront in Gothenburg.
We have bright engineers, good workers, and construction companies that ought to be very interested in a project like this. On the other hand, we need regulation - yes, that pesky word - to ensure that there is ample competition for this project and not only one or two overpriced bidders (like for the recent ferry bid), or worse, like on the EastCoast, the mob and paybacks drive up the cost of construction.
And, while at it, I'd encourage WSDOT engineers to go to both Oslo and Gothenburg and see how these cities totally have changed the waterfront for something "better" - not an area that is jammed with traffic, or filled with dilapidated warehouses. Oslo is already successfully done, Gothenburg (tunnel completed in June 2006) is in the midst of the transformation process. Even if we spend a few millions on sending people on "study" trips, in the end it is worth every penny, assuming they truly learn and apply practices deployed in other successful projects.
Another project that is worth while visiting, even though it is "across the water" is the bridge/tunnel combination that connects the southern Swedish city of Malmoe with Copenhagen. A massive project, where the tunnel is 2.5 miles long (out of a total of over 9 miles for the entire link across the Oresund Strait).
Paris, France, is another example where tunnels have been both dug and "lidded" for everything from massive freeways, via high-speed rail links, to pedestrian connections.
Oslo is not stopping with traffic tunnels, but also has other project "going underwater", where parking structures with 800 stalls will be submerged to allow for housing developments go on top.
For those who are scared about the "Big One", it might be best to leave the region since really no area is "safe". Living in an earthquake prone area is a risk we are sort of willing to take (just as we take a flooding risk living close to sometimes raging rivers). But, on the other hand, BART (SF Bay Area) has several underwater tunnels, even though they are "tubes", resting on top of the seafloor, that managed extremely well in the last "big one" in 1989. Look at Japan as well. Earthquakes and long underwater tunnels move massive amounts of people. In a more geologically stable area, we have the the "Chunnel" (yes at great expense but also lenght), a working and vital link between the UK and the European continent.
What I am trying to say is that there are ways to do this right from the get go. Tunnels do not have to be that pricey, nor unsafe. If I have a small concern about this project, it is that it does not seem to include any provision for future transit. As many have stated, the additional cost for building a tunnel that can accommodate three lane in each direction is likely wise. Now or in the future, those added lanes can support some type of mass transit.
All that said, I do not think the final drawings are anywhere close to be presented. If it'll be one BIG "tube" with traffic stacked, or two smaller tubes side-by-side, or if there will be some extra "access" tubes for traffic to/from Magnolia/Queen Anne Hill, it is likely still far to early to tell.
But, all in all, a good comprise has been decided upon; tunnel, surface improvements, transit improvements, should provide ample capacity for everyone that needs to travel through our beautiful city. The leadership did what was needed - they did dare to make a decision for the future! Just too bad it took so many years.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Just another reason why we don't want a Palin in the White HouZe
All that said, Michael Palin is of course always welcome. We need more British Comedy in our lives!
Friday, September 19, 2008
Why kill WolveZ?
These majestic and beautiful animals, brutally killed from the air. If you are out to hunt, at least give the animals a fair chance. Arial hunting is just slaughter, nothing else, and promoted by someone that could one day be the Prez.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Just one heartbeat away from being PreZident of the United States
If you missed this skit from Saturday's SNL, watch it here. Brilliant!
Also very scary when realizing that the message in this skit is way too close to becoming reality - "one heartbeat away...". Yikes!
Also very scary when realizing that the message in this skit is way too close to becoming reality - "one heartbeat away...". Yikes!
Sunday, July 06, 2008
ThiZ waZ juZt to good to leave out...
I did not write this myself, but almost wish I had. It is good...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/saturdayspin/369510_sorbo05.html
The following is reprinted from Seattle P-I on July 5th, 2008.
No surprise when animals attack hunters
CATHY SORBO
It had to happen sooner or later.
We were due for another "marauding bear" killing and this time the poor furry fellow happened to be on a food run in a neighborhood near Key Center, about a 60-mile crow flight from Olympic National Park.
The bear had been seen around the neighborhood for a few days and finally tried to enter a house, mistaking it for a large trash bin.
On a KIROTV.com video, a Key Center resident said, "Wow. I'm kind of surprised. I didn't think bears bothered anybody out here."
This is another story of one rogue bear who was simply trying to survive -- one bear who when confronted reared up, an act interpreted as "aggressive" giving authorities adequate reason to shoot to kill.
I'll bet the Krispy Kreme people are super-miffed that they didn't get any free press from supplying bait for a trap.
Surely we humans should be able to figure out how to navigate around our inevitable encounters with wildlife in a way that doesn't end with firing 16 bullets into a living creature.
Why not implement a neighborhood bear alarm, similar to the concept of a tsunami or lahar warning? Well, not to worry. Bear-hunting season starts in August, so that should make all the bear killers happy.
Speaking of happiness, there are many things that make me happy: visits from out-of-town friends, unsolicited hugs from my daughter, Kozy Shack Chocolate Pudding. But one thing stands out from all those warm and fuzzies, and that's when hunters are attacked by the animals they hunt.
In fact, a lot of people don't know this, but the TV show "When Animals Attack" was originally titled, "When Animals Attack It Makes Me Giggle."
Call me callous and hard-hearted, but I can't help but cheer on the animal that defends its life against the human dressed up in clothes that resemble shrubbery armed with the high-powered rifle, night-vision scope, GPS unit, tree-stand, animal scents and alcohol-fueled macho bravado.
Recent headlines that have given me great pleasure include:
"Hunter injured by rhino," "Mountain lion pounces on local hunter" and "Swedish hunter attacked by elk."
What compounds the wrongness of killing animals is the notion that sneaking up on a wild animal and putting a bullet through its head is a sport.
If anything qualifies as a nonsport, it is the carefree killing (or injuring and abandonment) of the lovely wild species that peacefully roam our forests and mountains. I don't care if you eat what you kill, in my opinion there is absolutely nothing at all sportsmanlike to this pastime.
In Washington, there has been a dreadful incline in cougar slaughter. The reason lies within the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's greed and lack of foresight while attempting to placate hunters.
This passage can be found in an April '08 article on the Web site of High Country News:
"The spike in cougar deaths resulted in part from a radical change in the state's game-management plan. After the hound-hunting ban passed, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife officials quickly liberalized hunting regulations in order to control the cougar population and maintain the revenue from cougar licenses.
"They extended the hunting season by six months, doubled the legal bag limit, and rolled half-price cougar tags (traditionally sold to just 1,000 hunters a year) into big-game hunting packages."
And you know how hunters are. Once they get the big green light to overhunt, they are eager and more than willing to do so. Hey, bring the kids! Junior's old enough for his first kill.
Hunting is not a sport. It is simple-minded blood lust that cheapens life and creates a revenue stream for a chosen few.
Cathy Sorbo is a Seattle-based comedian; cathysorbo.com.
OK, sure what Cathy Sorbo writes is controversial, but why is always the animal that has to be on the short end of the stick. If you hunt, you go to war with the animal. It is after all over "life and death".
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/saturdayspin/369510_sorbo05.html
The following is reprinted from Seattle P-I on July 5th, 2008.
No surprise when animals attack hunters
CATHY SORBO
It had to happen sooner or later.
We were due for another "marauding bear" killing and this time the poor furry fellow happened to be on a food run in a neighborhood near Key Center, about a 60-mile crow flight from Olympic National Park.
The bear had been seen around the neighborhood for a few days and finally tried to enter a house, mistaking it for a large trash bin.
On a KIROTV.com video, a Key Center resident said, "Wow. I'm kind of surprised. I didn't think bears bothered anybody out here."
This is another story of one rogue bear who was simply trying to survive -- one bear who when confronted reared up, an act interpreted as "aggressive" giving authorities adequate reason to shoot to kill.
I'll bet the Krispy Kreme people are super-miffed that they didn't get any free press from supplying bait for a trap.
Surely we humans should be able to figure out how to navigate around our inevitable encounters with wildlife in a way that doesn't end with firing 16 bullets into a living creature.
Why not implement a neighborhood bear alarm, similar to the concept of a tsunami or lahar warning? Well, not to worry. Bear-hunting season starts in August, so that should make all the bear killers happy.
Speaking of happiness, there are many things that make me happy: visits from out-of-town friends, unsolicited hugs from my daughter, Kozy Shack Chocolate Pudding. But one thing stands out from all those warm and fuzzies, and that's when hunters are attacked by the animals they hunt.
In fact, a lot of people don't know this, but the TV show "When Animals Attack" was originally titled, "When Animals Attack It Makes Me Giggle."
Call me callous and hard-hearted, but I can't help but cheer on the animal that defends its life against the human dressed up in clothes that resemble shrubbery armed with the high-powered rifle, night-vision scope, GPS unit, tree-stand, animal scents and alcohol-fueled macho bravado.
Recent headlines that have given me great pleasure include:
"Hunter injured by rhino," "Mountain lion pounces on local hunter" and "Swedish hunter attacked by elk."
What compounds the wrongness of killing animals is the notion that sneaking up on a wild animal and putting a bullet through its head is a sport.
If anything qualifies as a nonsport, it is the carefree killing (or injuring and abandonment) of the lovely wild species that peacefully roam our forests and mountains. I don't care if you eat what you kill, in my opinion there is absolutely nothing at all sportsmanlike to this pastime.
In Washington, there has been a dreadful incline in cougar slaughter. The reason lies within the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's greed and lack of foresight while attempting to placate hunters.
This passage can be found in an April '08 article on the Web site of High Country News:
"The spike in cougar deaths resulted in part from a radical change in the state's game-management plan. After the hound-hunting ban passed, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife officials quickly liberalized hunting regulations in order to control the cougar population and maintain the revenue from cougar licenses.
"They extended the hunting season by six months, doubled the legal bag limit, and rolled half-price cougar tags (traditionally sold to just 1,000 hunters a year) into big-game hunting packages."
And you know how hunters are. Once they get the big green light to overhunt, they are eager and more than willing to do so. Hey, bring the kids! Junior's old enough for his first kill.
Hunting is not a sport. It is simple-minded blood lust that cheapens life and creates a revenue stream for a chosen few.
Cathy Sorbo is a Seattle-based comedian; cathysorbo.com.
OK, sure what Cathy Sorbo writes is controversial, but why is always the animal that has to be on the short end of the stick. If you hunt, you go to war with the animal. It is after all over "life and death".
Monday, January 28, 2008
Ztate of the Union?
This evening was president Bush' s 7th and final State of the Union address.
As much of a distaster he is/has been as a president, is it really necessary to broadcast his speach live on ALL news channels simultaneously? In our little Comcast world, that means that we could see the same Bush speak on channels 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 44, 47, and 48 - not counting the C-span channels I did not scan this evening.
Simply too much (and that would be the same regardless of who happended to be president)!
As much of a distaster he is/has been as a president, is it really necessary to broadcast his speach live on ALL news channels simultaneously? In our little Comcast world, that means that we could see the same Bush speak on channels 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 44, 47, and 48 - not counting the C-span channels I did not scan this evening.
Simply too much (and that would be the same regardless of who happended to be president)!
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Dr. Hans Blix - a PeaZeMaker
Dr. Hans Blix, the somewhat famous Swedish diplomat (and Bush' nemesis during the buildup to the Iraq war) arrived in Seattle today for a few days. Already signed up for the lecture at UoW long time ago, I also got invited to a great little private reception and buffet before his speach. Dragged the wife and dad since I thought they'd enjoy it as well (they did).
Over a glass of red, I got a few minutes with Dr. Blix, commending him on his work for "detent" and disarmament specifically and world peace in general. A really nice guy (well, he is actually 79, maybe gentleman would better suit him...) and I feel sad that I never sort of paid any attention to him until my time in Texas when he was the face of the IAEA and later head of the UN WMD inspections team in Iraq. He has had a very long career in both the Swedish Foreign Office, as well at UN "before" Iraq. But I guess that that's the way they work most efficiently, in the quiet, in the background, never getting any recognition until they sort of retire - and then it all comes at once, proven by a large number of standing ovations tonight.
Apart from a very interesting lecture, very fitting the culture and general approch of people here in the Pacific NorthWest (where neither support for Bush or any Iraq - or Iran - war is very strong), he also pulled of a few good jokes, and a some memorable phrases, most notable probably being:
"The United Nations is not there to take us to heaven, but to help us avoid going to hell." (Dag Hammarsköld)
So apart from a nice dinner buffet, a nice one-on-one chat with Dr. Hans Blix, a good lecture, most amazing was probably to see how increadibly well respected he is (a true Statesman) and how highly his work is regarded here in the U.S. He is likely more of an international "superstar" here, outside his native Sweden.
In any case, an evening when you're proud of being Swedish!
And, almost forgot. First fall storm hit just as we were leaving home. Camera in the car, I took this picture crossing the SR-520 bridge. You could actually feel the shaking when up at the East highrise. Down on the pontoons, it was pretty smooth, but it looks sort of weird. Such a contrast between the south (angry) and north side (calm and relaxed). No windsurfers out today, though they normally have a field day during these few storm events.
Over a glass of red, I got a few minutes with Dr. Blix, commending him on his work for "detent" and disarmament specifically and world peace in general. A really nice guy (well, he is actually 79, maybe gentleman would better suit him...) and I feel sad that I never sort of paid any attention to him until my time in Texas when he was the face of the IAEA and later head of the UN WMD inspections team in Iraq. He has had a very long career in both the Swedish Foreign Office, as well at UN "before" Iraq. But I guess that that's the way they work most efficiently, in the quiet, in the background, never getting any recognition until they sort of retire - and then it all comes at once, proven by a large number of standing ovations tonight.
Apart from a very interesting lecture, very fitting the culture and general approch of people here in the Pacific NorthWest (where neither support for Bush or any Iraq - or Iran - war is very strong), he also pulled of a few good jokes, and a some memorable phrases, most notable probably being:
"The United Nations is not there to take us to heaven, but to help us avoid going to hell." (Dag Hammarsköld)
So apart from a nice dinner buffet, a nice one-on-one chat with Dr. Hans Blix, a good lecture, most amazing was probably to see how increadibly well respected he is (a true Statesman) and how highly his work is regarded here in the U.S. He is likely more of an international "superstar" here, outside his native Sweden.
In any case, an evening when you're proud of being Swedish!
And, almost forgot. First fall storm hit just as we were leaving home. Camera in the car, I took this picture crossing the SR-520 bridge. You could actually feel the shaking when up at the East highrise. Down on the pontoons, it was pretty smooth, but it looks sort of weird. Such a contrast between the south (angry) and north side (calm and relaxed). No windsurfers out today, though they normally have a field day during these few storm events.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Annexation WoeZ
I've never met Rob Butcher, but he is engaged and has done a good job in raising his voice in opposition to the potential annexation of more land into the City of Kirkland.
Check out his web "Save Kirkland - Stop Annexation".
Personally, I'm still undecided on this issue but likely leaning towards a no as well, although I and others (apart from the City Council) cannot vote on it.
We know where we have Kirkland today and we like most of what we see. However, with City Hall having to serve an additional 33,000 people, it is very likely that the small, friendly, and very caring staff at City Hall will no longer be the same. It will be more of a large administration, and no good will come out of that.
One of the things that really defines "Kirkland" today is that it is easy doing business, or having business, with people at the helm. Everyone (few expections of course) at City Hall is very service minded, have a good "feel" for their city, and knows the neighborhood. they are more "residents" than "public servants", even though I really don't know how many of them that are actually living inside the city of Kirkland.
Check out his web "Save Kirkland - Stop Annexation".
Personally, I'm still undecided on this issue but likely leaning towards a no as well, although I and others (apart from the City Council) cannot vote on it.
We know where we have Kirkland today and we like most of what we see. However, with City Hall having to serve an additional 33,000 people, it is very likely that the small, friendly, and very caring staff at City Hall will no longer be the same. It will be more of a large administration, and no good will come out of that.
One of the things that really defines "Kirkland" today is that it is easy doing business, or having business, with people at the helm. Everyone (few expections of course) at City Hall is very service minded, have a good "feel" for their city, and knows the neighborhood. they are more "residents" than "public servants", even though I really don't know how many of them that are actually living inside the city of Kirkland.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Comment from CounZil member Sternoff
Bob Sternoff is a pretty good and mostly reasonable guy, but reading a comment in today's Seattle Times sort of sets me back:
"You get to see big equipment and a house demolished, which you don't get to see every day," said Bob Sternoff, a Kirkland City Council member who viewed the demolition. "It kind of builds a sense of community."
Bob, that's EXACTLY what's wrong about Kirkland today. We see TOO MANY "big equipment" tearing down houses in our neighborhoods. A lot of the new construction is out of touch with the "look and feel" of Kirkland, sacrificing our green areas and trees in the process.
Been debated before, but we need more stringent rules as for when a house can be demolished and not. Many of the houses torn down are prime candidates for remodel, but it is easier/cheaper to just tear down.
That said, in the case surrounding this house, a tear down was in order, and the resident will be getting a brand-new home for FREE - thanks to "Extreme MakeOver - Home Edition".
"You get to see big equipment and a house demolished, which you don't get to see every day," said Bob Sternoff, a Kirkland City Council member who viewed the demolition. "It kind of builds a sense of community."
Bob, that's EXACTLY what's wrong about Kirkland today. We see TOO MANY "big equipment" tearing down houses in our neighborhoods. A lot of the new construction is out of touch with the "look and feel" of Kirkland, sacrificing our green areas and trees in the process.
Been debated before, but we need more stringent rules as for when a house can be demolished and not. Many of the houses torn down are prime candidates for remodel, but it is easier/cheaper to just tear down.
That said, in the case surrounding this house, a tear down was in order, and the resident will be getting a brand-new home for FREE - thanks to "Extreme MakeOver - Home Edition".
Friday, September 28, 2007
Roads and TranZit Package
Wow, suddenly, just a few weeks ahead of the election, things that have been quiet starts to heat up. Not too late I hope.
On the November Ballot is a gigantic measure that is referred to as the "Roads and Transit Package", RTP. Depending on who you ask, it is either a $18 Billion package, a $28 Billion package, a $57 Billion package, or a $157 Billion package. In any case, even the lowest number is $18,000,000,000 (yes, nine zeroes). A lot of money.
The legislature owes the public a fair and true estimate, and clearly explain how the ballot numbers are derived. A "what, when, how, and how much" before people can make a fair and educated decision and cross off either "yes" or "no" on the ballot.
I'm all for light rail, lots of it, but not at the enormous cost, and the huge time for construction. Elsewhere (Europe, Asia) projects of this type are built FASTER and for MUCH LESS money. Why not here? Personally, I believe it is due to poor management and lack of skilled workers! The long project times has an awkward effect on the over all cost and drives financing costs why past the actual construction costs. Sort of backwards, isn't it?
Totally neglecting to utilize the existing BNSF corridor on the Eastside is further proof that who ever came up with the "package", does not understand, or care, for the cost imposed on the tax payers. We could have functioning rail service in a 40+ mile corridor, serving major Eastside downtown communities, for what it would cost to build just a few miles of light rail. And, it could be done in a few years, not a few decades. Read more on Eastside Rail Now's web page.
Finally, a "Roads and Transit Package" that fails to FULLY FUND the SR520 bridge as well as the Alaskan Way "tunnel" is foolish and short sighted. We need both, and we need them today, not 25 years out.
A number of good articles/opinions surfaced this week:
Ron Sims opposing RTP
King 5 presentation
Seattle Times - Why Sims turned against "Roads & Transit"
A few good sites to read more and form opinions:
"NO Movement"
"Yes Movement"
On the November Ballot is a gigantic measure that is referred to as the "Roads and Transit Package", RTP. Depending on who you ask, it is either a $18 Billion package, a $28 Billion package, a $57 Billion package, or a $157 Billion package. In any case, even the lowest number is $18,000,000,000 (yes, nine zeroes). A lot of money.
The legislature owes the public a fair and true estimate, and clearly explain how the ballot numbers are derived. A "what, when, how, and how much" before people can make a fair and educated decision and cross off either "yes" or "no" on the ballot.
I'm all for light rail, lots of it, but not at the enormous cost, and the huge time for construction. Elsewhere (Europe, Asia) projects of this type are built FASTER and for MUCH LESS money. Why not here? Personally, I believe it is due to poor management and lack of skilled workers! The long project times has an awkward effect on the over all cost and drives financing costs why past the actual construction costs. Sort of backwards, isn't it?
Totally neglecting to utilize the existing BNSF corridor on the Eastside is further proof that who ever came up with the "package", does not understand, or care, for the cost imposed on the tax payers. We could have functioning rail service in a 40+ mile corridor, serving major Eastside downtown communities, for what it would cost to build just a few miles of light rail. And, it could be done in a few years, not a few decades. Read more on Eastside Rail Now's web page.
Finally, a "Roads and Transit Package" that fails to FULLY FUND the SR520 bridge as well as the Alaskan Way "tunnel" is foolish and short sighted. We need both, and we need them today, not 25 years out.
A number of good articles/opinions surfaced this week:
Ron Sims opposing RTP
King 5 presentation
Seattle Times - Why Sims turned against "Roads & Transit"
A few good sites to read more and form opinions:
"NO Movement"
"Yes Movement"
Saturday, August 04, 2007
AlaZkan Way Viaduct
I wrote this on a King5 blog, but sort of got to like it, so I'll post it here as well:
-------------------------
The Alaskan Way Viaduct is overdue for a collapse. Tragic, yes, but it will happen. Act of nature or just lack of maintenance. Wait and see (SOP in the City of Seattle).
Let’s instead take it down, planned and organized, open up the BEST ASSET this city has - its water front - and put the traffic underground!
The voters turned that down - at the price tag provided. I doubt there are many that would say "no" to a tunnel if it was priced reasonably.
About a year ago, a new waterfront tunnel opened up in Gothenburg, Sweden. It is just about the same length as a tunnel in Seattle, same capacity, and same purpose; Get through-traffic away from downtown and the waterfront!
The difference however is that that tunnel was built for less than 10% of what WSDOT and other "experts" have indicated a tunnel would cost in Seattle (~$500M versus ~$5,000M).
There is something very wrong here. Sweden is a high cost country. Public building projects are pricey and take long time. BUT, they are of good quality, they do last. What reasons/factors here in Seattle would justify that a similar project would be 10 TIMES more expensive?
WSDOT, City of Seattle; You CAN do this - “on the cheap”, w/o sacrificing anything in along the way! Just make sure you hire the right people, the right contractors, people with experience and make sure that there is not a lot of "padding" of pockets along the way.
This city deserves an open waterfront, its people deserves a safe transit and transportation system.
With the money saved, we can put trains on the Eastside and ease up the always jam-packed I-405. Maybe there would even be money left for SR-520?
But no, now were are going to spend billions in sending light rail across the lake, on a bridge that was not designed for it, and even if the transit package is approved in November, we will not see the benefits until maybe sometime around the year 2020, or later. At least 15 years out!
Take another look at the transit package. Make sure we have money for maintenance (=avoid a Minneapolis disaster), and spend the rest wisely, instead of just building more, and more, and more, and more....
-------------------------
-------------------------
The Alaskan Way Viaduct is overdue for a collapse. Tragic, yes, but it will happen. Act of nature or just lack of maintenance. Wait and see (SOP in the City of Seattle).
Let’s instead take it down, planned and organized, open up the BEST ASSET this city has - its water front - and put the traffic underground!
The voters turned that down - at the price tag provided. I doubt there are many that would say "no" to a tunnel if it was priced reasonably.
About a year ago, a new waterfront tunnel opened up in Gothenburg, Sweden. It is just about the same length as a tunnel in Seattle, same capacity, and same purpose; Get through-traffic away from downtown and the waterfront!
The difference however is that that tunnel was built for less than 10% of what WSDOT and other "experts" have indicated a tunnel would cost in Seattle (~$500M versus ~$5,000M).
There is something very wrong here. Sweden is a high cost country. Public building projects are pricey and take long time. BUT, they are of good quality, they do last. What reasons/factors here in Seattle would justify that a similar project would be 10 TIMES more expensive?
WSDOT, City of Seattle; You CAN do this - “on the cheap”, w/o sacrificing anything in along the way! Just make sure you hire the right people, the right contractors, people with experience and make sure that there is not a lot of "padding" of pockets along the way.
This city deserves an open waterfront, its people deserves a safe transit and transportation system.
With the money saved, we can put trains on the Eastside and ease up the always jam-packed I-405. Maybe there would even be money left for SR-520?
But no, now were are going to spend billions in sending light rail across the lake, on a bridge that was not designed for it, and even if the transit package is approved in November, we will not see the benefits until maybe sometime around the year 2020, or later. At least 15 years out!
Take another look at the transit package. Make sure we have money for maintenance (=avoid a Minneapolis disaster), and spend the rest wisely, instead of just building more, and more, and more, and more....
-------------------------
Friday, July 20, 2007
DoeZ it ever end....?
Yesterday, the "new" owner of the Seattle SuperSonics, Clay Bennett, again started low profile discussions with - this time - the City of Seattle regarding the future of the NBA team.
When will this end? The Sonics have a home, Key Arena, and in the spring they were dead set on leaving it in favor for the city of Renton - providing the taxpayers would have funded a new arena to the tune of some $300M (or, in other speak, $300,000,000).
A smart legislature decided to not even bring up that idea of "financing" for discussion, leading Bennett to likely move the team out of state.
But, is Bennett now getting cold feet, or is he just trying to gracefully get out of the KeyArean lease (runs through 2010).
Quoted from today's Seattle Times:
"KeyArena can be a fine building for certain events" but would not be profitable for the NBA even with a $200 million expansion, he said.
If the public wants the Sonics and Storm to stay here, "we need a new building" — whether at Seattle Center or elsewhere."
The most recent renovation of KeyArena - taxpayer funded and requested by the SuperSonics - is not paid off. The team does not even fill the arena today. Who on earth thinks the team would fill an even bigger arena? People do not go to see the Sonics due to the building, they go for the team, for the sports, for the entertainment. If the team is not "up to par" (=winning), people will not come.
Today's KeyArena is a fine "anchor" facility in the middle of the Seattle Center. It will remain a fine anchor facility and a great asset to the Seattle Center even tomorrow - with or without the Sonics and its greedy out-of-stater - and certainly w/o any injection of a few hundred million dollars. That money better be spent on our transportion system, most notably a tunnel to lead traffic away from our wonderful waterfront!
When will this end? The Sonics have a home, Key Arena, and in the spring they were dead set on leaving it in favor for the city of Renton - providing the taxpayers would have funded a new arena to the tune of some $300M (or, in other speak, $300,000,000).
A smart legislature decided to not even bring up that idea of "financing" for discussion, leading Bennett to likely move the team out of state.
But, is Bennett now getting cold feet, or is he just trying to gracefully get out of the KeyArean lease (runs through 2010).
Quoted from today's Seattle Times:
"KeyArena can be a fine building for certain events" but would not be profitable for the NBA even with a $200 million expansion, he said.
If the public wants the Sonics and Storm to stay here, "we need a new building" — whether at Seattle Center or elsewhere."
The most recent renovation of KeyArena - taxpayer funded and requested by the SuperSonics - is not paid off. The team does not even fill the arena today. Who on earth thinks the team would fill an even bigger arena? People do not go to see the Sonics due to the building, they go for the team, for the sports, for the entertainment. If the team is not "up to par" (=winning), people will not come.
Today's KeyArena is a fine "anchor" facility in the middle of the Seattle Center. It will remain a fine anchor facility and a great asset to the Seattle Center even tomorrow - with or without the Sonics and its greedy out-of-stater - and certainly w/o any injection of a few hundred million dollars. That money better be spent on our transportion system, most notably a tunnel to lead traffic away from our wonderful waterfront!
Monday, June 25, 2007
Fat, laZy Americans...
Well, that is a provoking title, isn't it?
In an article in today's edition of the Seattle Times, one can read:
"One-third of Washington residents say they traveled exclusively by car to get from one place to the other last year, NEVER walking, biking or using public transportation."
Wow! We live in a region of amazing beauty, where outdoor activities - and possibilities - are everywhere. if this study is any indication, many do not even bother to WALK to the local bar or the java hut (Starbucks) down the street.
People, walking and biking is good for you as well as for the nation. Try it out, at least once. But first make sure you can handle it, cause there's a real chance you might like it!
In an article in today's edition of the Seattle Times, one can read:
"One-third of Washington residents say they traveled exclusively by car to get from one place to the other last year, NEVER walking, biking or using public transportation."
Wow! We live in a region of amazing beauty, where outdoor activities - and possibilities - are everywhere. if this study is any indication, many do not even bother to WALK to the local bar or the java hut (Starbucks) down the street.
People, walking and biking is good for you as well as for the nation. Try it out, at least once. But first make sure you can handle it, cause there's a real chance you might like it!
Saturday, June 23, 2007
IZ annexation is getting closer?
King County has put a carrot out for the City of Kirkland: "Annex neighboring unincorporated areas and we'll help you with the finances over a 10-year transition period."
Annexation would increase Kirkland's population from somewhere around 45K to closer to 90K. Will it change the city too much, or are these areas already in all practicality part of Kirkland and it will only be an administrative change?
There are many tough questions around the annexation "yes or no" issue and likely no easy answers. At the same time, for some the issue has turned very emotional and many fear it will "destroy" our lovely city. There are arguments against an annexation, both for Kirkland residents and residents in the "PAAs" (Possible Annexation Areas). At the same time, good arguments can be made for an annexation.
Really the only right thing is for the public to discuss it and make their voices heard. There is tons of information on the City's web page, as well as some well formulated "against" arguments on the "Save Kirkland" web page.
So, get involved, study the facts, speak your mind, and contact your elected officlas at City Hall - since they are the ones that will make the final call for "yeah or neah".
Just don't sit around, do nothing, and later complain about the outcome. Instead, be a part of the solution!
Annexation would increase Kirkland's population from somewhere around 45K to closer to 90K. Will it change the city too much, or are these areas already in all practicality part of Kirkland and it will only be an administrative change?
There are many tough questions around the annexation "yes or no" issue and likely no easy answers. At the same time, for some the issue has turned very emotional and many fear it will "destroy" our lovely city. There are arguments against an annexation, both for Kirkland residents and residents in the "PAAs" (Possible Annexation Areas). At the same time, good arguments can be made for an annexation.
Really the only right thing is for the public to discuss it and make their voices heard. There is tons of information on the City's web page, as well as some well formulated "against" arguments on the "Save Kirkland" web page.
So, get involved, study the facts, speak your mind, and contact your elected officlas at City Hall - since they are the ones that will make the final call for "yeah or neah".
Just don't sit around, do nothing, and later complain about the outcome. Instead, be a part of the solution!
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Zave the Railroad!
Puget Sound is a growing region. Tons of people are moving in, or at least trying. At the same time, land is at a premium, and geographical "obstacles" are literally putting up road blocks to create a decent transportation system. Lakes, rivers, hills, mountains, and the ever present risk for Earthquakes, makes transportation a tough business to be in.
One of the most congested freeways in WA state is I-405, on the east side of Lake Washington, and it is currently undergoing lane additions. Not sure it will help, but it won't hurt (the traffic) either. Along I-405 is also found a fully functioning railroad, BurlingtonNorthernSantaFe (BNSF). BUT, apart from a few weekly freight cars, and an excursion train that takes people for a dinner ride up to the wineries in Woodinville, it is grossly underutilized. Hence, most of the time this little stretch of railroad lies idle while people sit in a neverending backup on the adjacent freeway.
The most obvious solution? Tear up the tracks and make a bike trail! At least that is what our King County Executive wants to do. Tear up the tracks, when it is historically proven that once those tracks are gone, the chance of them EVER being put back is extremely slim, to non-existant.
I love biking, but I think this asset can be of better public use than recreational biking (we already have a pretty good bike path in the same corridor, only along the lake).
This is a prime mass transit corridor, going through the downtown areas of Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland, Woodinville, and Snomhomish. All cities that are undergoing a mad growth at the moment. What better use could this rail corridor see than rail service?
Sound Transit are going to ask for some $16B-$20B (that is with 9 zeroes my friends, or $16,000,000,000 - $20,000,000,000) on the November Ballot for "transportation measures". A very ambitious package, but with any "real" results far out in the future (10-15 years at best). And this package totally bypasses this highly valuable and strategically placed rail corridor, a corridor where service could be started within the next few years for some ~$300M, a drop in the bucket compared to the "bigger" package.
Much can be written about this, but a very dedicated activist, Paul H, has started a group EastSide Rail Now and I have gotten engaged as well and tried to provide my 2 cents. Not that I agree with all objectives, but Paul's web site is very informative, his efforts should be applauded, and I urge you to take a look at the site.
One of the most congested freeways in WA state is I-405, on the east side of Lake Washington, and it is currently undergoing lane additions. Not sure it will help, but it won't hurt (the traffic) either. Along I-405 is also found a fully functioning railroad, BurlingtonNorthernSantaFe (BNSF). BUT, apart from a few weekly freight cars, and an excursion train that takes people for a dinner ride up to the wineries in Woodinville, it is grossly underutilized. Hence, most of the time this little stretch of railroad lies idle while people sit in a neverending backup on the adjacent freeway.
The most obvious solution? Tear up the tracks and make a bike trail! At least that is what our King County Executive wants to do. Tear up the tracks, when it is historically proven that once those tracks are gone, the chance of them EVER being put back is extremely slim, to non-existant.
I love biking, but I think this asset can be of better public use than recreational biking (we already have a pretty good bike path in the same corridor, only along the lake).
This is a prime mass transit corridor, going through the downtown areas of Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland, Woodinville, and Snomhomish. All cities that are undergoing a mad growth at the moment. What better use could this rail corridor see than rail service?
Sound Transit are going to ask for some $16B-$20B (that is with 9 zeroes my friends, or $16,000,000,000 - $20,000,000,000) on the November Ballot for "transportation measures". A very ambitious package, but with any "real" results far out in the future (10-15 years at best). And this package totally bypasses this highly valuable and strategically placed rail corridor, a corridor where service could be started within the next few years for some ~$300M, a drop in the bucket compared to the "bigger" package.
Much can be written about this, but a very dedicated activist, Paul H, has started a group EastSide Rail Now and I have gotten engaged as well and tried to provide my 2 cents. Not that I agree with all objectives, but Paul's web site is very informative, his efforts should be applauded, and I urge you to take a look at the site.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Seattle Zuper Zonics
Well, it is official. The (new) owner, Clay Bennett (an Oklahoman on top of that...), like to see the taxpayers in Washington State pony up some $300M for a new arena for the Seattle SuperSonics. Folks, that is $300,000,000.00 if you write it out. He has even decided on the location, Renton, even though the owner of that parcel has different ideas (even though I firmly believe it is just a negotiation game) and like to build a mall and condo complex.
Mr. Bennett said in an interview with Seattle Times the other day that "(it) would likely be the most expensive arena in the country". $300M from the state, $100M from the City of Renton, and $100M from Bennett and his co-conspirators would indeed make this an expensive arena. Indeed.
I am not sure that is anything to be proud of, and I am sure it will not help him in getting "us" to fund his pipe dream. An "elaborate" arena, at "low" cost, that'd be something the he could sell! Now he instead is trying to sell a Lexus with a Ferrari price tag.
Mr. Bennett has even publicly said that he does not want the "tax" (funding) of the arena to go to a public vote, but instead hopes lawmakers will do "the right thing". I both hope and think that lawmakers will do the right thing. Lawmakers will send Mr. Bennett (and likely then also the team) all the way home to Oklahoma. He will not be missed!
Who really cares? Well, the people who want to see a professional basketball team in the Seattle area cares. I am not really one of them, but I do not mind a team if we have one. I might even enjoy a game now and then. I am however not ready to pony up big $$$ in some type of corporate welfare, even if it means just "extending" taxes we are already paying (these taxes could better be used for a new 520 bridge, a down town tunnel, new light rail, more marinas, you name it).
If there is a market here for a team, which I firmly believe there is, one will try to establish themselves here once the Sonics are gone. The existing arena (KeyArena for you out-of-towners) is a nice facility smack dab in downtown Seattle. It is also the "anchor" at the Seattle Center, together with the Space Needle. It is really conveniently located for the entire region! And, remarkably, it is not sold out during the current Sonics games. What gives? Maybe the game is not good enough (entertainment)?
Leaving that arena unutilized - which it likely would end up being if another mega arena was built in Renton - is not only bad public policy, it is bad economics. Heck, we have not even paid off the mid-90ies renovation (that was asked for by the basket ball team) of said arena.
Lawmakers; Do not bend over for some pressure from someone who wants a "garage" to park his pro sports team. It is no longer sports, it is (big) business. And like every business owner knows, you need to have a product to sell, a product that is attractive to the market, and buyers willing to pay a price, a price that is above your cost. If the Sonics "do not sell", well I guess then their product is simply not good enough for this (demanding) market, or too expensive! Funding them with tax dollars will not decrease the price.
Mr. Bennett said in an interview with Seattle Times the other day that "(it) would likely be the most expensive arena in the country". $300M from the state, $100M from the City of Renton, and $100M from Bennett and his co-conspirators would indeed make this an expensive arena. Indeed.
I am not sure that is anything to be proud of, and I am sure it will not help him in getting "us" to fund his pipe dream. An "elaborate" arena, at "low" cost, that'd be something the he could sell! Now he instead is trying to sell a Lexus with a Ferrari price tag.
Mr. Bennett has even publicly said that he does not want the "tax" (funding) of the arena to go to a public vote, but instead hopes lawmakers will do "the right thing". I both hope and think that lawmakers will do the right thing. Lawmakers will send Mr. Bennett (and likely then also the team) all the way home to Oklahoma. He will not be missed!
Who really cares? Well, the people who want to see a professional basketball team in the Seattle area cares. I am not really one of them, but I do not mind a team if we have one. I might even enjoy a game now and then. I am however not ready to pony up big $$$ in some type of corporate welfare, even if it means just "extending" taxes we are already paying (these taxes could better be used for a new 520 bridge, a down town tunnel, new light rail, more marinas, you name it).
If there is a market here for a team, which I firmly believe there is, one will try to establish themselves here once the Sonics are gone. The existing arena (KeyArena for you out-of-towners) is a nice facility smack dab in downtown Seattle. It is also the "anchor" at the Seattle Center, together with the Space Needle. It is really conveniently located for the entire region! And, remarkably, it is not sold out during the current Sonics games. What gives? Maybe the game is not good enough (entertainment)?
Leaving that arena unutilized - which it likely would end up being if another mega arena was built in Renton - is not only bad public policy, it is bad economics. Heck, we have not even paid off the mid-90ies renovation (that was asked for by the basket ball team) of said arena.
Lawmakers; Do not bend over for some pressure from someone who wants a "garage" to park his pro sports team. It is no longer sports, it is (big) business. And like every business owner knows, you need to have a product to sell, a product that is attractive to the market, and buyers willing to pay a price, a price that is above your cost. If the Sonics "do not sell", well I guess then their product is simply not good enough for this (demanding) market, or too expensive! Funding them with tax dollars will not decrease the price.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Zeattle Tunnel?
I'm not an engineer, so my comments here need to be reviewed by experts, nor am I a commuter and use the viaduct on a daily basis. Heck, I don't even live in Seattle. I'm an Eastsider with a love for this region! I "found" it in 1994 and moved here a couple of years later, making the Puget Sound area "home"!
As wonderful as this area is, it is also amazing how hard it is to make "real" decisions on badly needed public projects. Be it mass transit, new roads, schools. Is it something in the air that makes it harder to make decisions here than in other parts of the country (or the world)?
For some $4+ billion we can reclaim our waterfront, just like San Francisco did in the early 90ies. For some $3 billion, we can replace the existing elevated freeway with one that is deemed safer and more modern. Tough choice. Money is needed for a massive amount of public projects in the state, not just along Seattle's once wonderful the water front.
Therefore, why is it so expensive to build a tunnel in Seattle?
Gothenburg, Sweden, just opened up a major underground tunnel along its water front. It is a modern 6-lane traffic tunnel, a bit shorter at about a mile, but it was built for 3.2B SEK (~$450M), or a fraction of the projected cost in Seattle. The first project decision was made in 1991, 1995 the budget was set to 1.8B SEK (~$250M) and the construction phase was to last 4 years. When the construction finally started in 2000, completion was scheduled for fall of 2005. Well, as any large project, it took longer time and turned out to be more expensive. The tunnel finally opened up in June of this year, 6 months late and 400M SEK (~$60M) over (the final) budget. About half he cost increase over the 6 year project is attributed to increases in labor and material costs.
Sweden is NOT an inexpensive place to build in, salaries are high (as are the taxes), and I dare to say that the end result might have a even higher quality than similar projects in the US. So question remains, why so expensive in Seattle?
Gothenburg finally got out of the quagmire of indecision and got its tunnel. Was it worth it? Was the money well spent? I dare to say that the vast majority will love this new tunnel. It gives downtown Gothenburg a chance to reconnect to the waterfront - sounds familiar - and yes at a high cost, but looking back through history, people will instead ask why this was not done earlier! In fact, Gothenburg is now on its way of planning a major "under-the-city-tunnel" for light rail and express trains. It start to sound more like Paris!
I spent a lot of time in Norway in the 70ies and 80ies. Driving through the capital city of Oslo was the same as utilizing the most precious real estate possible; the waterfront! All traffic passed in front of the Akershus Palace, City Hall, effectively cutting off the city from its water - the beautiful and majestic Oslo Fjord.
In the late 80ies and early 90ies, a new tunnel (and a system of toll plazas around the city) was built. This new tunnel is leading traffic essentially the same way we traveled along the waterfront, but now deep UNDER it. Getting rid of the cars changed the city dramatically. What used to be a congested thoroughfare lining an otherwise dead waterfront, has now turned the Norwegian Capital into a "Venice of the North".
The city has been reconnected to the water, there are parks, bars, restaurants, and people walking, enjoying their newfound city. The extremely dull Oslo of the 70ies is no more, thanks in large part to getting rid of the cars from the waterfront.
As a side note, most people also seem to accept the car tolls as something worth paying (about 20% of the toll revenue fund public transportation projects), dramatically changing the initial negative notion since they now actually see they get something in return. It is not just a fee, but a fee that provides something in return!
Hence, Seattle, and Seattleites (it is after all YOUR city) need to dare to be bold. Make a decision that is good not just for the slim pocket book of today, but also for generations to come. Whatever you do, its impact will last at least my life time!
That said, if the city can survive without the viaduct during a long construction phase of a tunnel, the city can probably manage without it all. But then again, I do not use the waterfront for commuting on a daily basis, nor do I rely on goods transported on the Alaskan Way.
But are there alternatives worth to be investigated? Just as an elevated tall bridge has been proposed, one needs to ask if the tunnel does need to be where the viaduct is today? Why can it not be built out of modular concrete sections that are being sunk out in Elliot Bay, essentially placing the route of the tunnel a bit west of its proposed location. Underwater tunnels have been built before. Such a design and location will allow for the Alaskan Way viaduct to be fully "operational" during the vast majority of a tunnel project. Maybe the savings of being able to use the viaduct will justify the added cost for a "true" underwater tunnel.
With the City Council's decision of last Friday, the city has dared to be bold, but also a bit cowardly by putting the final decision - and the political outfall - in the hands of Governor Gregoire. That is not fair!
As wonderful as this area is, it is also amazing how hard it is to make "real" decisions on badly needed public projects. Be it mass transit, new roads, schools. Is it something in the air that makes it harder to make decisions here than in other parts of the country (or the world)?
For some $4+ billion we can reclaim our waterfront, just like San Francisco did in the early 90ies. For some $3 billion, we can replace the existing elevated freeway with one that is deemed safer and more modern. Tough choice. Money is needed for a massive amount of public projects in the state, not just along Seattle's once wonderful the water front.
Therefore, why is it so expensive to build a tunnel in Seattle?
Gothenburg, Sweden, just opened up a major underground tunnel along its water front. It is a modern 6-lane traffic tunnel, a bit shorter at about a mile, but it was built for 3.2B SEK (~$450M), or a fraction of the projected cost in Seattle. The first project decision was made in 1991, 1995 the budget was set to 1.8B SEK (~$250M) and the construction phase was to last 4 years. When the construction finally started in 2000, completion was scheduled for fall of 2005. Well, as any large project, it took longer time and turned out to be more expensive. The tunnel finally opened up in June of this year, 6 months late and 400M SEK (~$60M) over (the final) budget. About half he cost increase over the 6 year project is attributed to increases in labor and material costs.
Sweden is NOT an inexpensive place to build in, salaries are high (as are the taxes), and I dare to say that the end result might have a even higher quality than similar projects in the US. So question remains, why so expensive in Seattle?
Gothenburg finally got out of the quagmire of indecision and got its tunnel. Was it worth it? Was the money well spent? I dare to say that the vast majority will love this new tunnel. It gives downtown Gothenburg a chance to reconnect to the waterfront - sounds familiar - and yes at a high cost, but looking back through history, people will instead ask why this was not done earlier! In fact, Gothenburg is now on its way of planning a major "under-the-city-tunnel" for light rail and express trains. It start to sound more like Paris!
I spent a lot of time in Norway in the 70ies and 80ies. Driving through the capital city of Oslo was the same as utilizing the most precious real estate possible; the waterfront! All traffic passed in front of the Akershus Palace, City Hall, effectively cutting off the city from its water - the beautiful and majestic Oslo Fjord.
In the late 80ies and early 90ies, a new tunnel (and a system of toll plazas around the city) was built. This new tunnel is leading traffic essentially the same way we traveled along the waterfront, but now deep UNDER it. Getting rid of the cars changed the city dramatically. What used to be a congested thoroughfare lining an otherwise dead waterfront, has now turned the Norwegian Capital into a "Venice of the North".
The city has been reconnected to the water, there are parks, bars, restaurants, and people walking, enjoying their newfound city. The extremely dull Oslo of the 70ies is no more, thanks in large part to getting rid of the cars from the waterfront.
As a side note, most people also seem to accept the car tolls as something worth paying (about 20% of the toll revenue fund public transportation projects), dramatically changing the initial negative notion since they now actually see they get something in return. It is not just a fee, but a fee that provides something in return!
Hence, Seattle, and Seattleites (it is after all YOUR city) need to dare to be bold. Make a decision that is good not just for the slim pocket book of today, but also for generations to come. Whatever you do, its impact will last at least my life time!
That said, if the city can survive without the viaduct during a long construction phase of a tunnel, the city can probably manage without it all. But then again, I do not use the waterfront for commuting on a daily basis, nor do I rely on goods transported on the Alaskan Way.
But are there alternatives worth to be investigated? Just as an elevated tall bridge has been proposed, one needs to ask if the tunnel does need to be where the viaduct is today? Why can it not be built out of modular concrete sections that are being sunk out in Elliot Bay, essentially placing the route of the tunnel a bit west of its proposed location. Underwater tunnels have been built before. Such a design and location will allow for the Alaskan Way viaduct to be fully "operational" during the vast majority of a tunnel project. Maybe the savings of being able to use the viaduct will justify the added cost for a "true" underwater tunnel.
With the City Council's decision of last Friday, the city has dared to be bold, but also a bit cowardly by putting the final decision - and the political outfall - in the hands of Governor Gregoire. That is not fair!
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
SonicZoo
Sometime last week, Sonic's owners lead by Howard Schultz (CEO Starbucks) announced that the (Seattle Professional BasketBall) team had been sold to a group of investors from Oklahoma. After that announcement the emotions in the Pacific NortnWest have been running high.
First, I applaude the Seattle City Council for taking a hard stance on the KeyArena. In my view - and others - it's a fine arena. No need for some $200M+ infusion of capital and renovation. Seattle area has so many more needy projects; Alaskan Viaduct, SR-520 bridge, bike lanes, transit system ,etc, etc. The list can be made long.
But, as most people don't understand these days, "Professional" sports is just that. It is no longer "sports" but big business. No fault in that, even though a pure "home team", built out of the younger generations training for a "club" feels better. Such a team is more anchored in the community, and cannot just be lifted and "sold" (out). You would have to sell the kids with that as well.
But, that's not how it is done in America. Sport is big business and teams relocate to the market where the teams owners can generate the most profit. Nothing wrong with that. Any business would do that, and the "Staff" is small enough to tag along. Think about relocating Microsoft. It'd be a major brain drain as people would hesitate to follow the company to Oklahoma City. A sports team is easier. Players and coaches are tied by contracts. They follow (the $$$).
In Sonic's case, I feel no "evil" toward Howard Schultz & Co. The loss of Sonics is sad for Seattle but paying what the owners wanted to remain here, it'd be plain stupid - given all other priorities. As for the fans, yes sad for them, but this is business, not sports. If the teams felt they needed a higher profit, raise ticket prices and see if that works. Likely outcome would be that the fans would shun the team all together and go/do somewhere/something else.
And here is the core in this issue. Seattleites has a plethora of activities to choose from. We live in the most amazing part of the United States. In North America only Vancouver B.C. can provide even a challenge. We are not a city that is without options, should we have no professional sports teams. The audience/fans have so much to choose from, be it skiing, sailing, boating, hiking, fishing, "hanging out", traveling, music, movies, golf, local politics, food. The list can be made long.
I used to live in Dallas, TX. The options were (due to natural/geographical and meterological restrictions) limited. Once could play golf/tennis (when it was not too hot outside), go to the movies, restaurants, etc, but that was pretty much it. Hence, the market for professional sports was much bigger because people in general had nothing better to do. Seattle is a VERY different "market". The options are far greater, and hence the "competition" for the audience - and its dollars - is much more pronounced. Possibly not such a great "market" for a sports team.
On top of that we have a topopgraphy that makes traveling harder and more congested (compared to Dallas, Oklahoma City, houston, etc, etc). That shrinks the available market even more. Few people would travel from Chehalis to see the Sonics, since that could be a major undertaking, while a trip from Ardmore, OK, to American Airlines Center in Dallas, would only be a long "swoop" down the same (open) freeway.
In the text above I have assumed (?) that the Sonics are leaving. Only time will tell if that is true or not. Whatever happens, they'll be missed, but Seattle, Starbucks, and Howard Schultz lives on. After all, it's only business...
First, I applaude the Seattle City Council for taking a hard stance on the KeyArena. In my view - and others - it's a fine arena. No need for some $200M+ infusion of capital and renovation. Seattle area has so many more needy projects; Alaskan Viaduct, SR-520 bridge, bike lanes, transit system ,etc, etc. The list can be made long.
But, as most people don't understand these days, "Professional" sports is just that. It is no longer "sports" but big business. No fault in that, even though a pure "home team", built out of the younger generations training for a "club" feels better. Such a team is more anchored in the community, and cannot just be lifted and "sold" (out). You would have to sell the kids with that as well.
But, that's not how it is done in America. Sport is big business and teams relocate to the market where the teams owners can generate the most profit. Nothing wrong with that. Any business would do that, and the "Staff" is small enough to tag along. Think about relocating Microsoft. It'd be a major brain drain as people would hesitate to follow the company to Oklahoma City. A sports team is easier. Players and coaches are tied by contracts. They follow (the $$$).
In Sonic's case, I feel no "evil" toward Howard Schultz & Co. The loss of Sonics is sad for Seattle but paying what the owners wanted to remain here, it'd be plain stupid - given all other priorities. As for the fans, yes sad for them, but this is business, not sports. If the teams felt they needed a higher profit, raise ticket prices and see if that works. Likely outcome would be that the fans would shun the team all together and go/do somewhere/something else.
And here is the core in this issue. Seattleites has a plethora of activities to choose from. We live in the most amazing part of the United States. In North America only Vancouver B.C. can provide even a challenge. We are not a city that is without options, should we have no professional sports teams. The audience/fans have so much to choose from, be it skiing, sailing, boating, hiking, fishing, "hanging out", traveling, music, movies, golf, local politics, food. The list can be made long.
I used to live in Dallas, TX. The options were (due to natural/geographical and meterological restrictions) limited. Once could play golf/tennis (when it was not too hot outside), go to the movies, restaurants, etc, but that was pretty much it. Hence, the market for professional sports was much bigger because people in general had nothing better to do. Seattle is a VERY different "market". The options are far greater, and hence the "competition" for the audience - and its dollars - is much more pronounced. Possibly not such a great "market" for a sports team.
On top of that we have a topopgraphy that makes traveling harder and more congested (compared to Dallas, Oklahoma City, houston, etc, etc). That shrinks the available market even more. Few people would travel from Chehalis to see the Sonics, since that could be a major undertaking, while a trip from Ardmore, OK, to American Airlines Center in Dallas, would only be a long "swoop" down the same (open) freeway.
In the text above I have assumed (?) that the Sonics are leaving. Only time will tell if that is true or not. Whatever happens, they'll be missed, but Seattle, Starbucks, and Howard Schultz lives on. After all, it's only business...
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Planning CommiZZion's meeting
Last night's meeting at the Planning Commission was a disaster.
Not for the hard work of the commission members, but for the lack of respect some people in the audience showed others with dissenting views - as well as the rules of the meeting.
The meeting was essentially all about looking at rules/regulations to curb the construction of "monster houses" that are totally out of "wack" in the neighborhood(s). One such regulation that was disucssed was the FAR, Floor Area Ratio. Essentially limiting the amount of square footage one can build on a certain lot. For some people living on smaller lots, it did not sit well. Others, me included, wanted more stringent regulations in order to prevent "over building" on smaller lots.
Kirkland is changing on a daily basis these days. The value of the land is such that most builders/developers do not see any rationale in keeping a smaller, older, house and remodeling it. No, in order to be "marketable", it has to be a new house with 3,000 (new) sqf or more. Realtors at the meeting claimed that "anything esle cannot be sold". Surprises me when I see old ramblers, in all shapes and qualities, selling for anything north of $600K and not staying on the market very long.
I have nothing against these big houses - as long as they are also given big lots - and a design that somewhat blends in with the surrounding neighboorhood. That said, there are some good examples on mega houses, "out-of-neighborhood-style", that have been nicely designed in to the surrounding area. A few of them (Tuscan style) can be found along Waverly Way.
But, squeezing big houses in close together on tiny lots changes an open neighborhood, and the city, in a way that is hard to revert from. Once that change has taken place, and all open space is gone, I dare to challenge those who wanted to "preserve" property values in the first place by building bigger. Once we have changed our beloved city, and allowed for all the trees, the open spaces (I am not saying parks), the sight lines of lakes and mountains, the city is no longer the same. The increased density have created something few of us longer like, less love.
When I hear comments like "I can not build 4 bedrooms on same level as the kitchen", I think immediately that the lot is too small, or the rooms are too big. It is a tough choice, but if you want the lake and city view, very short walk to downtown Kirkland, you will have to buy two smaller lots and combine them for the big house. Or give up one of the "desires", or move, or ...
Not for the hard work of the commission members, but for the lack of respect some people in the audience showed others with dissenting views - as well as the rules of the meeting.
The meeting was essentially all about looking at rules/regulations to curb the construction of "monster houses" that are totally out of "wack" in the neighborhood(s). One such regulation that was disucssed was the FAR, Floor Area Ratio. Essentially limiting the amount of square footage one can build on a certain lot. For some people living on smaller lots, it did not sit well. Others, me included, wanted more stringent regulations in order to prevent "over building" on smaller lots.
Kirkland is changing on a daily basis these days. The value of the land is such that most builders/developers do not see any rationale in keeping a smaller, older, house and remodeling it. No, in order to be "marketable", it has to be a new house with 3,000 (new) sqf or more. Realtors at the meeting claimed that "anything esle cannot be sold". Surprises me when I see old ramblers, in all shapes and qualities, selling for anything north of $600K and not staying on the market very long.
I have nothing against these big houses - as long as they are also given big lots - and a design that somewhat blends in with the surrounding neighboorhood. That said, there are some good examples on mega houses, "out-of-neighborhood-style", that have been nicely designed in to the surrounding area. A few of them (Tuscan style) can be found along Waverly Way.
But, squeezing big houses in close together on tiny lots changes an open neighborhood, and the city, in a way that is hard to revert from. Once that change has taken place, and all open space is gone, I dare to challenge those who wanted to "preserve" property values in the first place by building bigger. Once we have changed our beloved city, and allowed for all the trees, the open spaces (I am not saying parks), the sight lines of lakes and mountains, the city is no longer the same. The increased density have created something few of us longer like, less love.
When I hear comments like "I can not build 4 bedrooms on same level as the kitchen", I think immediately that the lot is too small, or the rooms are too big. It is a tough choice, but if you want the lake and city view, very short walk to downtown Kirkland, you will have to buy two smaller lots and combine them for the big house. Or give up one of the "desires", or move, or ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
