viaduct

Viaduct is not a magical answer, we could have a HSR viaduct with soundproof walls.

The purpose of the tunnel is to provide a better view of Puget Sound for real estate development, not to provide any sort of substitute for the viaduct.

We will lose significant traffic capacity and downtown accessibility when the viaduct comes down, tunnel or no tunnel.

The deep bore tunnel was the most expensive and riskiest of all the options to replace the viaduct.

A viaduct that couldn't be laid on top of existing roads to have the right profile for high speed.

As for the last option, the viaduct is sinking, if it sinks too much they'll be forced to close it and it's already nearly half of the way there.

In the interests of being pedantic, and local pride: Seattle's viaduct replacement isn't over budget-- yet.

People passing from south to north Seattle on the viaduct path would zoom through with 6 lanes and no exits.

Or, of course, keep the viaduct as is and hope there aren't any major earthquakes...

Except that every time even one direction of the viaduct is closed during rush hour (due to an overturned semi or whatever) traffic grinds to a complete halt throughout the entire city.

I was living in Seattle during the big debate over how to replace the seismically unsafe viaduct (tunnel vs.

Somehow, I don't imagine them (or any californias suburban community) being OK with a viaduct going through their towns.

A MBA in my python night class said that one approach to the viaduct problem would be to: fund a "victims of the viaduct" fund, today, with a couple million.

Here in the United States, two examples are Boston's "Big Dig" and Seattle's viaduct replacement.

>A MBA in my python night class said that one approach to the viaduct problem would be to: fund a "victims of the viaduct" fund, today, with a couple million.

As I remember, no matter how people go "wow!" about the size of the tunnel, the capacity of it will be quite a bit less than the viaduct.