4 ms·

A downright prescient 2010 article from Seattle's local alternative newspaper http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/what-could-possibly-go-wrong/Content?oid=439965

by pyrocat 12y ago

A downright prescient 2010 article from Seattle's local alternative newspaper http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/what-could-possibly-go-wrong/Content?oid=4399657 http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/what-could-possibly-go-wr...

hga 12y ago
Fairly so, and particularly good in introducing the "who pays for overruns?" whammy in the 4th paragraph after minimally setting the stage. "While construction unions are backing this project, labor disputes could also get in the way." Some union dispute indeed delayed the start of the tunnel by a month. On the other hand many of the cited possible problems might have been amenable to fixing in place, e.g. the cutters in the front are replaceable. The terrible problem now is that its main bearing is messed up (forget if it's just one or more seals, or worse, or even if they really know yet), requiring this major excavation to get to it and then surgery. If the problem wasn't, or wasn't uniquely caused by that steel well casing, it could get broken again ... it's only done 10% or so of the length. And, yeah, the traffic projections aren't great. 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. Then there are all the other factors that can make it less desirable.
timr 12y ago
That's not especially meaningful -- if there's a hipster-reactionary position to be taken on construction projects, the Stranger will take it. The Stranger has a long history of fighting losing fights to keep things more-or-less the same -- unless the alternative is trendy and/or guaranteed not to impact Capitol Hill. For example, they'd prefer that the viaduct be replaced with a "surface boulevard" that has a fraction of the throughput, thus all but guaranteeing decades of gridlock in downtown Seattle (which they like because it "discourages driving", because they heard that San Francisco did it...and most importantly, because it doesn't affect their lives either way). Meanwhile, they complain constantly about light rail on the hill, but they campaigned heavily for the monorail-to-nowhere. Why? Because it was a monorail (cool!), and the construction wouldn't affect their favorite neighborhood (even better!) Point being, it's not difficult to pull an article from the Stranger predicting doom for a major urban planning initiative. That's practically their stock in trade.
- pyrocat 12y ago
  You apparently really don't like the Stranger, but that article is incredibly well researched and reasoned. Lots of valid points that are vindicated in retrospect. The only other notable papers in Seattle (Times + Weekly) do a piss poor job of covering government accountability.
  - timr 12y ago
    I like the Stranger fine as an alt-weekly, but I give them basically no credence on matters like this. It isn't especially challenging to come up with ways that big projects might fail. The point is, they'll whistle past the graveyard (Monorail!) or dwell on every conceivable negative outcome (Tunnel!) depending on which approach serves their purpose.

by pyrocat 12y ago

hga 12y ago

Fairly so, and particularly good in introducing the "who pays for overruns?" whammy in the 4th paragraph after minimally setting the stage. "While construction unions are backing this project, labor disputes could also get in the way." Some union dispute indeed delayed the start of the tunnel by a month. On the other hand many of the cited possible problems might have been amenable to fixing in place, e.g. the cutters in the front are replaceable. The terrible problem now is that its main bearing is messed up (forget if it's just one or more seals, or worse, or even if they really know yet), requiring this major excavation to get to it and then surgery. If the problem wasn't, or wasn't uniquely caused by that steel well casing, it could get broken again ... it's only done 10% or so of the length. And, yeah, the traffic projections aren't great. 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. Then there are all the other factors that can make it less desirable.

timr 12y ago

That's not especially meaningful -- if there's a hipster-reactionary position to be taken on construction projects, the Stranger will take it. The Stranger has a long history of fighting losing fights to keep things more-or-less the same -- unless the alternative is trendy and/or guaranteed not to impact Capitol Hill. For example, they'd prefer that the viaduct be replaced with a "surface boulevard" that has a fraction of the throughput, thus all but guaranteeing decades of gridlock in downtown Seattle (which they like because it "discourages driving", because they heard that San Francisco did it...and most importantly, because it doesn't affect their lives either way). Meanwhile, they complain constantly about light rail on the hill, but they campaigned heavily for the monorail-to-nowhere. Why? Because it was a monorail (cool!), and the construction wouldn't affect their favorite neighborhood (even better!) Point being, it's not difficult to pull an article from the Stranger predicting doom for a major urban planning initiative. That's practically their stock in trade.

pyrocat 12y ago
You apparently really don't like the Stranger, but that article is incredibly well researched and reasoned. Lots of valid points that are vindicated in retrospect. The only other notable papers in Seattle (Times + Weekly) do a piss poor job of covering government accountability.
- timr 12y ago
  I like the Stranger fine as an alt-weekly, but I give them basically no credence on matters like this. It isn't especially challenging to come up with ways that big projects might fail. The point is, they'll whistle past the graveyard (Monorail!) or dwell on every conceivable negative outcome (Tunnel!) depending on which approach serves their purpose.