Tunnel or replace existing viaduct? What do you think?
2007-02-21 08:49:11 · 5 answers · asked by Jacob S 3 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Commuting
No Tunnel!
Do you want a decade of not being able to travel from one end of downtown to the other?
And did you ever notice how the viaduct is about 20 yards from the water? So it would wind up under the water level! And how well is that working out in Boston?
It's taken them 2 years to rip up some perfectly good railroad tracks in the bus tunnel to replace them with some different perfectly good railroad tracks. The tunnel was already preexisting, and it's only about a mile long. Multiply this by the size of the viaduct project to see how bad this is going to be.
2007-02-21 13:25:27 · answer #1 · answered by Lisa A 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US Government already forked over $12 Billion to corrupt Massachusetts for the $15+ Billion Big Dig project in Boston only to have ceiling tiles fall on motorists and kill them.
If Seattle officials are confident that they can bury the Alaska Viaduct for a lot less - I think Uncle Sam can foot the bill even though Washington state taxpayers are going to pay for the entire project for a long time. In the end, Seattle will look better without the viaduct just as Boston looks way better without the Central Artery (and hopefully no falling ceiling tiles to boot).
Downtown Boston remained open and accessible during the entire 18 year span of the Big Dig Project. As each section of the tunnel was completed, traffic was shifted from the elevated structure to the underground structure. Major seepage problems only existed at the Fort Point Channel and were eventually resolved after grout was injected into any seam. I feel that the engineering lessons learned from the Big Dig can be applied to the Alaska Viaduct project. With the available land, a number of new Starbucks can open where the Viaduct once stood.
2007-02-21 20:48:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The replacement is much better in my opinion. The tunnel would cost a lot more, be a lot harder to maintain, and is really not necessary. Simply replacing the viaduct would be the cheapest, easiest thing to do.
2007-02-21 17:40:45 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
who cares?
2007-02-21 16:59:57 · answer #4 · answered by soletree 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
neither ...........just refit....existing structure
2007-02-21 16:58:57 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋