This one almost deserves a new category of its own:
Seattle’s unbelievable transportation megaproject fustercluck
.
.
Mark Landman sends in a frequently mentioned (and devastating) article in Grist by David Roberts. “I’m sure none of this is at all new for you, but I was reading it with my mouth hanging open at the horror… I had a vague sense the tunnel project wasn’t going well but didn’t know any of the details.”
Sample quote:
Like most megaprojects, the tunnel was sold to voters and city leaders through a rose-tinted fantasy that is already in shambles. But no city or state leader seems willing to reverse course.
That is typical. One of the main reasons transportation megaprojects end up being such nightmares is that leaders are terrified of abandoning sunk costs. (Has the term “sunk costs” ever been more apropos?) They will keep throwing public money down holes even as disasters unfold. Anything is better than admitting a catastrophic mistake.
.
Also a follow-up by David Roberts:
Three more reasons Seattle is stuck in a fustercluck
Seattle’s ongoing transportation fiasco could not be contained in a single post.
.
Plus a January 3rd update in the Seattle Times: “Bertha’s stall has politicians stuck for answers.“
I fear the same kind of thing is happening to BC’s LNG plans. It seems the public has been overpromised; the “partners” may have ulterior motives and are far wilier than our negotiators; and the competition may be faster and smarter.
What is the alternative to exploiting NE BC’s ample gas reserves ? More “film jobs” in Vancouver ? Even higher taxes ? More taxpayer subsidies for “green” jobs ?
Why is it always so black and white. Not wanting to exploit LNG doesn’t therefore mean wanting a socialist utopia.
BC could be a leader in renewables given our geography, why we go whole hog into LNG in 2015 is beyond me.
Well, there is a huge worldwide demand for gas, and the spread between BC prices and Asian prices is 4-6 fold (but indeed dropping). As such it is wise to monetize this opportunity for BC residents, like AB did for the oilsands in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and that took 20+ years to really bear fruit for the entire country, propelling Canada into the league of the worlds top 5 or 6 oil exporters. Ditto is possible for BC.
And yes, we should exploit other resources too, such as geothermal where it makes sense, perhaps wind in remote locations or even solar on rooftops.
Hydro is a renewable, but Site C dam is opposed too. What is “greener” than a hydro dam ?
> What is “greener” than a hydro dam?
Hydro isn’t entirely green or safe. Nuclear is in fact much better and wind isn’t too far behind.
Hydro produces a fair number of GHG’s after construction. Methane from the decay of organic matter under the resevoir continues to be released for about 100 years, especially for large resevoirs. Hydro is also quite dangerous to humans from dam breakages.
However, for the amount of power it will produce, Site C has a relatively small GHG or methane impact due to it’s relatively small resevoir and the ability to leverage the already flooded Williston Lake.
Interesting story about poor urban planning. Unclear why they did not decide to dig a trench. The better option indeed would have been to close the highway altogether as I5 is only 2km or so away and already a generous 10 lanes.
Perhaps Toronto can learn from it as they also have a very ugly elevated highway, the Gardener Expressway in what could be a great urban oasis.
Perhaps they can learn from Duesseldorf, Germany which used to have a 4 lane highway between downtown (Altstadt) and the scenic 1km wide Rhine. Now the highway is in a tunnel, incl. parkade and a lively well used pedestrian / promenade area is above. It opened about 20 years ago.
Some links with text and pictures:
http://www.publicspace.org/en/works/w013-rheinufer-promenade (in English)
http://www.express.de/50-jahre-express/50-jahre-express-skandal-eroeffnung-des-jahrhundert–bauwerks,25771420,26153676.html [ in German ]
http://www.rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/duesseldorf/als-die-autos-vom-rheinufer-verschwanden-aid-1.3898094
search on Rheinuferpromendade
or
tunnel rhine duesseldorf before after
to get more info for those inclined ..
[great beer in the Altstadt, too .. but I digress ]
While I agree with the conclusion that Alaskan Way should have been replaced with a surface street, as was done with Manhattan’s West Side Highway, I find Grist’s David Roberts employs some biased and poor logic. First, claiming voters were bullied into finally approving the project. How, exactly? Voters were free to make up their own mind. Second, he deifies “visionary” former Mayor McGinn yet apparently those same bullied voters threw him out of office. And Vancouver tore down its urban highway? When did that happen? Research please.
Personally I think they should abandon the tunnel and leave Bertha’s rescue hole there as an art installation entitled The Money Pit!
I’ve been following this a bit since it started. Two things I see as big mistakes. One is having a boring machine that could not be repaired from behind. The other is that even after the tunnel was built, there would still in the design up top be a multi-lane road that you would have to cross to get to the water when walking. It wouldn’t necessarily reconnect the city to it’s water front as was one of the claims.