Talk:Alaskan Way Viaduct/Archive 1

nice photo! Cacophony 05:26, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

thanks! wac 01:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like this article could stand to be broken out into 2 or 3 sections now with all the detail about the ill-fated monorail project and the replacement proposals. wac 01:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Question about ref tags

Hello, could someone explain the purpose of the ref tags used in the viaduct article after the headings in the Ballot Options section?

I'm referring to the following:

====Surface-Tunnel Hybrid <ref name="Seattle_Channel_Viaduct_In_depth" />====

Perhaps they should be removed? Thanks!

--Midwestmax 19:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Max. Please keep them in. They're important for any time that you have multiple references to the same source. Here's how it works:

Adding ref tags makes a link into a footnote:

• <ref>[link]</ref>

If you reference the same source multiple times in an article, you can reuse a single reference entry by creating a named reference:

• <ref name="myref">[link]</ref>

and then for all additional references you can reuse that same reference again using a single named ref tag (you don't repeat the link or the end tag. Do include the slash as shown below):

• <ref name="myref" />

In the references section, you'll see a little "a, b, c" indicating that the reference was used multiple times, and the letters jump-link up to the place they were used in the article.

Pladuk 19:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

One obstacle to a tunnel

Any tunnel with ramps to replace the existing Alaskan Way ramps has a big obstacle: Terrain. The existing ramps use the terrain and are largly flat. The exceptions are at the ends of the structure. The ramps in question all intercept (to go around the ramps, you must change streets) select streets that go towards and away from Elliot Bay. The same ramp from a tunnel must now fight, rather than use the terrain. It is more likely that those ramps would simply connect to the surface Alaskan Way (like Upper and Lower Wacker Drive in Chicago, IL).--Will 07:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that WSDOT is eliminating the downtown ramps in both the final options - they are currently underutilized and would be difficult to rebuild to meet current safety regulations. Only the 1st Ave S and Western Avenue ramps will be rebuilt, barring unforseen circumstances.Lack Thereof 13:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No such thing as "Earthquake proof"

Such a name is misleading. Structures can be made "earthquake resistant," but not earthquake proof. Resistant structures are design to provide some assurance that they would either survive without damage or not cause casulties in an earthquake up to a given magnitude, say 6.3 on the Richter scale. Even with weaker earthquakes, a rated structure might fail as there is no way to absolutely guarantee the structure would handle the quake as specified. That is why the owner would buy insurance.

"Earthquake proof," as mentioned in the article, would require the structure survive ANY quake -- even a hypothetical 10.0 quake. (To my knowledge, no one has ever found any historical evidence of a quake that strong on Earth.)

Focusing on future plans

I just made a few changes to improve readability and emphasis. The section called "uncertainties" was really all about the extent/risk of earthquake damage, and was largely reference and historical information. I renamed it to "Earthquake Damage" and moved it down to serve as supplemental information near the end of the article. That allows "Future Plans" to be the first named section of the article, which I think is a big improvement.

I also edited the 2nd paragraph to remove some redundancy about the viaduct capacity (I kept the stat in the 1st paragraph that was referenced and removed the unreferenced stat in the 2nd).

I hope everyone sees these as an improvement. If not, I look forward to hearing from you as to why not.

pladuk 1:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your changes have improved the entry considerably. I think at some point the "options" category needs more internal organization. I think the claim that only two options are being considered at this point is misleading and might constitute a violation of NPOV. That is, even if WSDOT is attempting to narrow the discussion to two options, there is still lively discussion about alternative projects and those projects might well be implemented if there is a shift in popular opinion (or, for that matter, a change in governance). When we're talking about projects that could last decades, the current position of WSDOT is not the end of the discussion...Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benzocane (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC).Benzocane 03:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and good thoughts on further needs for the article. I just added information on the advisory measures on the upcoming March 13 ballot, and looked for more information on the alternative projects. The option to remove the viaduct completely, as advocated by the People's Waterfront Coalition, appears active and I have included it as context for the ballot options and what a rejection of both official proposals might mean (support for this or another alternative). I didn't spot any other alternatives that need to be added, please correct me if I've missed something. pladuk 4:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Alaskan Way Viaduct song - External Links

I think the external link to the song Alaskan Way Viaduct by Seattle artist Kenji Beatbox is relevant. Just as a photography might artistically capture the size, age, and history of the structure, so too can a piece of music sonically represent a drive over the structure. If photography by unknown photographers is acceptable why not music? If the artist is known, then would the link would be acceptable? Or are all links to music unacceptable even if they relate directly to the article? Would the link be better suited for the article "Music of Washington?"

What defines an artist as a known artist? Kenji Beatbox (a.k.a. 'evolume') has appeared for live performances in Seattle at Chop Suey for the April 2005 Laptop battle and at Fuel in Pioneer Square. He also plays keyboards in the band Siege of Kaffa who has performed at El Corazon and The Comet Tavern. Kenji Beatbox is also currently featured on this month's web radio show as at Mishkas.com out of London and Lithuania. So it could be said he is known both locally and internationally, however obscure his name may be to some.

I realize music is subjective, but I believe the reason for removing the link is also subjective and to encourage NPOV, I am interested to see a little discussion on this issue.

Evolume 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits by WSDOT?

There seems to be some conflict of interest issues with the edits made by User:WSDOT Alaskan Way Viaduct Project here as noted by Seattlest. Does anyone have any comments on this? I've asked WSDOT to identify themself, but in the meantime, I don't know to what extent it should be reverted. hateless 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding WSDOT changes to page

No offense was intended in providing updates to the Wikipedia page, and we want to abide by the expectations and guidelines involving the Wikipedia community. The Wikipedia page was updated on October 27, 2006, to correct inaccuracies about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Project and project cost estimates. Below is the information we wanted to correct – we invite others to make these updates or we would like to make these changes, if no one objects.

• Under the Options section, the page read that seven replacement alternatives were studied in our Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and what followed was a bulleted list of eight replacement alternatives (this discrepancy has since been corrected). In our DEIS, released in 2004, we only studied five alternatives. We did not study retrofitting the viaduct, a series of cable-stayed bridges, or a Transit+Streets alternative in the DEIS. These alternatives have been considered at other times and in separate studies, but since the discussion was already framed in terms of what was studied in the DEIS, we wanted to show the five alternatives that were actually studied in the DEIS.

• Cost information: In September 2006, WSDOT updated cost information for the Tunnel and Elevated Structure Alternatives, in order to account for national trends of rising inflation rates and construction costs.

All of this information can be seen in more detail at the project Web site, www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/viaduct, and is based on technical studies completed by subject-matter experts.

Our goal was to present accurate information about this complex project. We think sites such as Wikipedia are a great way for people to get information and engage in dialogue about replacing the viaduct and seawall. We value the time and energy users spend on providing information to each other on this site and want to meet the expectations of other participants.

Amy Grotefendt

Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Project

viaduct@wsdot.wa.gov

Cleaning up

I removed the section regarding previous options as the serious options are now all outlined above. I think the earthwork section should be folded into the budget section. Any thoughts? If nobody objects, I'll make this change soon.Benzocane 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Florida?

Under the "Earthquake Concerns" section, the beginning paragraph 2 states: "Due to damage from continuing settlement, a group of faculty from the University of Florida urged the mayor of Seattle (in 2007) to close the viaduct within a four-year timeframe."

Florida? Seattle seems a little out of UF's area of influence. Following the citation, I discover that University of Washington faculty members have done the urging, but under a different timeframe (much shorter: two years) and at a different point in time (2006)...

This begs the question: is this statement even anywhere near factual?

Timelines

In the "Elevated Structure" subsection, it says the construction duration estimate is 10-11 years, and cites a source. Under "Costs", it cites 6-8 years without a source. Can I just go ahead and change that estimate up to 10-11? (Btw, living here, I'd totally agree with the 10-11 estimate). Zelbinian (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not really controversial, I'd say do it. rootology (C)(T) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it's not like we'll be hurting for sources in about 365 days or so, for this article, when all Hell breaks loose downtown. Featured Article to send off the viaduct in style? :P rootology (C)(T) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cutout

What does the caption of the last picture refer to? What is a cutout, and what exactly is that picture?InFairness (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, the viaduct didn't impact the building in any way because they made a cutout of the concrete (or whatever it is) to bypass the building. If they didn't make a cutout, the building would be impacted. CL — 17:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Split article

I propose splitting the discussion on the viaduct's replacement options to a new article and keeping a brief summary here. The discussion of the replacement has greatly dwarfed discussion on the structure itself.

Kuyabribri (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Image of construction

Commons:File:Seattle - Alaskan Way Viaduct under construction - 1951.jpg

Commons:File:Seattle - Alaskan Way Viaduct under construction - 1952.jpg

We already have about as many images as an article of this length deserves, but if the article grows, I believe we should add either Commons:File:Seattle - Alaskan Way Viaduct under construction - 1951.jpg or Commons:File:Seattle - Alaskan Way Viaduct under construction - 1952.jpg, which show the viaduct under construction in 1951-52. I'd prefer the latter, myself, because it shows so many now-gone waterfront buildings in the Pioneer Square area, but I'd be happy with either. - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)