Seattle: Alaskan Way Viaduct

[BoulderGrad]

Locals should know the project well. Highway 99, the second main north-south route through the city after Interstate 5, becomes a double decker elevated structure along the waterfront of downtown.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/E8DE85CC-EB79-48E3-81C1-B464884C8D78/0/SCENIC_SODO_AWV.jpg

The original structure was built 50 years ago, and is in bad need of an update. The expressway is only 2 lanes wide at some points, has no breakdown lanes, and engineers say it was critically damaged in the 2001 Nisquilly Earthquake.

There has been a very heated political debate about what to do with this project. Both sides have put their might behind two main proposals that would build an earthquake sound structure capable of handling the traffic flow through downtown.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/298691_viaduct06.html
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/animations.htm

The first main proposal, which is supported by the mayor of Seattle and much of the city council is to replace the elevated highway with a cut and cover tunnel. The pros of the tunnel are that it re-opens downtown to the waterfront, and kills two birds with one stone by replacing the Elliott Bay Sea Wall. The cons being that it is projected to cost twice as much as the 2.4 Billion earmarked for the project, and that it would close of numerous surface streets for up to 3-1/2 years until the project is completed.

The second main proposal, which is supported by the governor (in a manner of speaking) and much of the state legislature is to essentially to replace the viaduct with an updated viaduct. The structure would be wider to handle more lanes of traffic and have larger support columns to meet earthquake code. The pros being that its cost is much closer to the $2.4 billion, and wouldn't require as drastic a road closure. The cons being an even bigger barrier between down town and the waterfront.

There have been numerous other proposals such as a suspension bridge, demolishing the viaduct all together and re-routing traffic onto surface roads, and simply just repairing the old viaduct. The new tunnel and viaduct are the only ones being seriously considered by WSDOT.

SO what do people think about this project? Let's hear some Seattleites opinions on the political mess, and some outside opinions on the project itself.

[newyorkrunaway1]

I like the tunnel idea. It opens up so much space for the waterfront.

[Swordwiz]

From Seattle here, I also like the tunnel idea.

[sharpie20]

I used to live in San Diego and i guess that the Tunnel Idea would be best too, espeically from an economic standpoint. But it also gets rid of the barrier that the viaduct provides against the elements.

[BoulderGrad]

Anyone have any info on the other proposals besides the new viaduct and alaskan way tunnel? I saw news bits on a western ave tunnel, I heard talk of a bridge over elliott bay, I heard talk of doing "a thousand little things" and just tearing the viaduct down and not rebuilding, etc. What else has been proposed?

[spongeg]

edit: oops i was gonna start a new thread sorry if i put it in here

[BoulderGrad]

A new third proposal, being referred to as "tunnel light" is gaining support in the city council. It involves a 4 lane, side by side tunnel, with two 14' breakdown lanes that could be used for traffic during rush hour. The shallower tunnel is said to reduce cost to the point that the city might be able to afford it without a city wide tax increase. Next step is winning support from the govenor.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003528295_viaduct17m0.html

[JoshYent]

They have been talking about this for so long

i know with projects such as these there are huge issues involving funding

but what i dont understand is this:

obviously there is a HUGE price tag...

but the benefits seem to out weigh the cost...

burying the highway would give access to the entire waterfront area along downtown, this would open it up for developments parks, new condo's some new highrises etc.....

wouldnt the LONG term effects of the more expensive option be better for the city instead of just rebuilding the viaduct which is the exact thing they are trying to remove from the area?

[BoulderGrad]

Well, it sounds like its a moot point anyways:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003529552_webtunnel17.html

[kub86]

Well, when the viaduct's closed for SIX years during construction....the city will obviously adjust its commute patterns to accommodate the change, right? After six years, people will get used to it. Traffic will have gotten normal maybe after a few months. And then the newer, bigger, uglier viaduct will open back up and traffic will get worse again. Ugh. Am I the only one who seems to think this way?!

So my opinion is to not build anything! Maybe a surface street if it comes to that---but that's what Alaskan Way is for??

I was optimistic about the 4-lane tunnel....but why build a 4-lane tunnel when you can build a 4-lane boulevard for less?!!

[BoulderGrad]

I liked the idea of "a thousand little things" as well, but the big fear is that the city loses north-south capacity for freight and commuters. Maybe the better strategy would be to let them go ahead with the 520 replacement, and just tear down the viaduct.

[BoulderGrad]

Discussion started over in "subways and urban rail" just trying to consolidate:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=394270

[greg_christine]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003532645_webviaduct19.html

Voters to get say on elevated highway and four-lane tunnel
By Susan Gilmore and Mike Lindblom

Seattle Times staff reporters

Seattle voters will weigh in March 13 on whether to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with an elevated highway or a four-lane tunnel.

The Seattle City Council voted 6-3 this afternoon to put two alternatives on the advisory ballot. Council members seemed unsure what would happen if both measures pass or fail. One will be an up-or-down vote on the elevated viaduct and the other, also an up-or-down measure, will ask if voters favor a four-lane tunnel.

The council has not yet finalized the ballot wording, but members did agree to list $3.41 billion as the cost for the four-lane tunnel, a trimmed-down tunnel alternative that Mayor Greg Nickels began promoting this week. The measure asking voters if they support a new elevated structure will indicate that most of the funding for its $2.8 billion cost has been secured.

The city is asking King County to have an all-mail election. The cost has been estimated at $1 million. Replacement of the viaduct would be the only issue on the special-election ballot.

The March 13 vote represents a last-ditch effort by the city to gather support for a tunnel, which, big or small, would be pricier than a new elevated structure.

The council action also caps a tumultuous week over how replace the 1953 viaduct.

Nickels on Tuesday began championing the four-lane tunnel as a good alternative to the $4.6 billion, six-lane tunnel he had wanted for so long. The four-lane tunnel would carry just as many cars as a six-lane tunnel, he said, and cut $1.2 billion from the price.

The next day, Gov. Christine Gregoire and legislative leaders said the four-lane tunnel was not an option, and the state will either replace the viaduct with an elevated highway or shift more than $2 billion from the viaduct to the Highway 520 floating bridge.

In December, Gregoire had been expected to announce whether a six-lane tunnel or an elevated highway would be built along the Seattle waterfront. Instead, she called on Seattle voters to decide the issue, saying it was the only way to break a political stalemate over the two options. She was criticized for punting, but this week took a harder stand after hearing that Seattle might not hold a vote until after the Legislature adjourned -- if it held a vote at all.

Her announcement prompted Nickels and council members to work toward the March advisory vote.

"We've been coerced" by the state to hold the election, said council member Peter Steinbrueck, who voted no with David Della and council President Nick Licata. "I see this as political tyranny, the choices have been rigged for us."

The four-lane tunnel idea, called the "hybrid tunnel" by the city, has been intensively studied only since Jan. 5 — at the city's request — by the state Department of Transportation, project consultants, and an expert review panel appointed last year to look at the viaduct and Highway 520 bridge. The panel said the smaller tunnel "showed promise" and could save hundreds of millions of dollars.

But DOT officials ceased work on the issue Jan. 11 and said the state would not fund further viaduct study by the panel.

State Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald said today he couldn't comment on whether the city's $3.41 billion figure is credible.

"We are not going to say anything about a number that we haven't had a chance to examine," he said.

Councilwoman Jan Drago, head of the council's transportation committee, said after today's vote that if the DOT didn't study the new tunnel costs, the city would hire an independent firm the council hopes will validate the numbers.

Drago, who supports the four-lane tunnel, said a vote was the only way to avoid having an elevated highway forced on the city.

"We don't need Olympia dictating to Seattle," she said. "We can speak for ourselves.

Susan Gilmore: sgilmore@seattletimes.com or 206-464-2054. Mike Lindblom: mlindblom@seattletimes.com or 206-515-5631.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/01/19/2003532148.gif

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003531672_tunnelcapacity19m.html

Q&A | Can a four-lane tunnel do the work of six lanes?
By Mike Lindblom

Seattle Times staff reporter

At first, the pitch sounds like snake oil: a four-lane waterfront tunnel that can carry as many cars as a tunnel with six lanes and save $1.2 billion.

But just a few days ago, a panel of experts said Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' last-ditch proposal for a narrower tunnel deserved a closer look by the state.

Gov. Christine Gregoire, however, said enough was enough. She ordered an end to the discussion. Either the state will build a cheaper elevated replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, or more than $2 billion in state aid would be shifted to the equally needy Highway 520 floating bridge.

Nickels and other pro-tunnel city leaders aren't ready to take no for an answer.

They hope a city advisory election would give the tunnel another chance.

Even assuming Olympia cares, the city first has to convince voters that the plan Nickels is now promoting is credible.

Q. How can four lanes carry as many cars as six?

A. During rush hours, the safety shoulders would become exit-only lanes, effectively widening the roadway from four lanes to six. In the morning commute northbound, the right shoulder would become an exit-only lane to Western Avenue. The speed limit would be reduced at peak times.

In off-peak times, the shoulders would serve as break-down lanes, and cars would exit the highway from the usual right lane, leaving two through-lanes in each direction. "The best engineering judgment tells you it would work, but you have to go back and do the analysis," said panel member Don Forbes, a former Oregon state transportation director. The panel was appointed by Gregoire and legislative leaders.

Q. Would traffic become clogged if a car stalls at rush hour?

A. Quite likely.

The city would need to station tow trucks nearby, to clear fender-benders and breakdowns, said Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis. Stalls are rare enough that the occasional tie-up seems a reasonable tradeoff for a possible billion-dollar savings, Forbes said.

At off-peak times, when traffic is moving fastest, there would be a full-sized shoulder, where stalled cars could pull over.

Q. Would a narrower tunnel save money?

A. The city, after seeking data from the state Department of Transportation and engineering consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff and other members of the viaduct design team, produced a cost figure of $3.4 billion. The DOT would not discuss the figure this week.

A four-lane tunnel, with lanes built side by side, would require a shallower trench than the stacked six-lane tunnel. A smaller tunnel would use less concrete. Construction could be finished by July 2013, or 1 ½ years sooner than the big tunnel, the city says.

Q. If this tunnel is so great, why didn't the city propose it sooner?

A. City staffers say they looked at a leaner structure after a price shock Sept. 20, when DOT estimates for the six-lane tunnel increased $1 billion.

Until that point, the city thought a six-lane tunnel was affordable. "Until September 20, we were dealing with a $3.6 billion project," said mayoral spokeswoman Marianne Bichsel.

On Oct. 30, Nickels told KUOW radio a four-lane tunnel might save money.

In mid-December, Gregoire issued a finding that the mayor's funding plan on the original $4.6 billion, six-lane tunnel fell short. She called for Seattle voters to choose between an elevated or tunneled highway — and bear the extra cost of a tunnel.

The city says it recently devised a cheaper four-lane version that connects at Western Avenue — solving an earlier problem that doomed an earlier four-lane alternative.

Q. Did Gregoire act in haste ?

A. The city says it briefed DOT on the four-lane tunnel Jan. 5, kicking off a week of study that included a day of reports to the panel.

But DOT told the panel six days later to halt its review.

"I've been working in infrastructure over 30 years, and I've never seen data on a good idea suppressed in this way," complained a city consultant, Doug Hurley.

In a letter to Ceis and Gregoire this week, the panel says the latest four-lane concept "shows promise."

The panel suggests an independent cost review, before any citywide vote on the future of the highway.

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

[Haber]

Seattle is making a big mistake with replacing this thing. Just get rid of it, replace it with a normal street at a much lower cost. Car drivers can suck it up or choose to use other alternatives.

[greg_christine]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003536907_viaduct23m.html

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - Page updated at 11:17 AM

Gregoire says viaduct vote still matters
By Andrew Garber

Seattle Times staff reporter

OLYMPIA — Gov. Christine Gregoire, who seemingly dismissed the idea of replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel last week, now says she wants to hear what Seattle voters have to say on March 13.

"I will never, ever say that a vote of the people is a waste," the governor said in a news conference Monday, later adding, "That's just fundamentally wrong. I, as an elected official, do not believe that."

Yet the governor wouldn't say what she would do if voters opt for a four-lane tunnel that Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and a majority of the Seattle City Council say would be much cheaper than the six-lane version the state has proposed.

"I can't answer," she said, noting there are too many unknowns.

Gregoire said there are serious, unanswered questions about the narrower tunnel, such as how much would it cost, how much traffic it would carry and "who is going to pay for the shutdown of the waterfront to those businesses that will probably be out of business for 27 months?"

"I refuse to end up with a Big Dig, to end with a project that starts out at $2 billion and ends up at $14 billion," she said, referring to Boston's $14.6 billion tunnel project plagued by massive cost overruns and faulty construction.

Gregoire said it is the responsibility of the city, the Legislature and herself to address as many of those questions as possible before the Seattle vote.

Marianne Bichsel, a spokeswoman for Nickels, said "we're pleased that the governor appears to be willing to listen to what the voters of Seattle say about this."

Nickels sent a letter to Gregoire on Monday asking her to authorize the state Department of Transportation and an expert review panel to study the new tunnel proposal.

The governor's office said Gregoire had not made a decision about the request.

Seattle City Council president Nick Licata said the governor's statement "left not only the door open for the tunnel, but a very wide door."

However, Licata, a tunnel opponent, said Gregoire "made the statement before she saw the ballot title, which as I feared came back without any cost figures."

The governor and legislative leaders have said the proposal going to voters in March should contain cost estimates for both replacing the viaduct with a tunnel and building a new elevated highway.

That isn't going to happen.

"We're left with a simple design choice; that really puts the debate in a situation ... where we will see a pro-tunnel vote," Licata said.

City attorney Tom Carr said he dropped the cost estimates from the ballot title because, with a 75-word limit, there wasn't room to explain where the numbers came from. He added that cost estimates will be part of the election campaign.

Gregoire's comments Monday represent the latest twist in an ongoing squabble over replacement of the aging viaduct, which carries Highway 99 along the downtown waterfront.

State House leaders want to build another overhead highway, while city officials want a tunnel that would open the downtown waterfront to redevelopment.

Last month, Gregoire issued her findings on the viaduct options, saying the state could afford a $2.8 billion elevated highway but that the finance plan for a $4.6 billion, six-lane tunnel didn't pencil out.

Acknowledging the political stalemate, she called on city leaders to put the options on the ballot before the legislative session ends April 22 — or else the state would move ahead with the elevated structure.

Instead, Nickels came back with a new, smaller tunnel proposal that he said would cost $3.4 billion — $1.2 billion less than the larger one.

He met with the governor and Democratic legislative leaders to pitch the idea. They didn't like it and said the state would either build an elevated highway or spend the billions set aside for the project on a new Highway 520 bridge.

The Seattle City Council decided to put the new tunnel on the ballot anyway, along with a measure asking voters if they want to replace the viaduct with an elevated highway.

Although Gregoire's comments left the tunnel option open for now, the project still appears to be at a political standstill.

Democratic leaders in the state House on Monday said nothing has changed for them. They plan to move ahead with an elevated highway, no matter what the outcome of the advisory vote in Seattle, said House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam.

Nickels and a majority of City Council still seem intent on building the tunnel.

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said she supports the governor's position.

"We have two very passionate views on what should be done here," Gregoire said. "You have a situation where the Legislature could choose not to appropriate the funds. The city could say we're not going to give you any permits so you're not going to build an elevated structure.

"It is time for us to come together with a common vision. I hope the city of Seattle is able to do that, and I hope they are able to bring the legislative leadership along with whatever it is they want by way of an outcome. The impasse is real, and it's difficult."

Staff reporters Susan Gilmore and Mike Lindblom contributed to this report.

Andrew Garber: 360-943-9882 or agarber@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

[Jaxom92]

A good way to get the latest news on the viaduct and other Seattle issues is by going to www.seattlechannel.org.

[BoulderGrad]

The language for the ballot that will decide the fate of the Alaskan way Viaduct (well... not really decide, it will show the governor what "Seattleites think of the project" as she put it) has been settled. The ballot will list a yes/no choice for the viaduct, and a yes/no choice for the "tunnel lite" proposal. So in other words, the city could vote that it doesn't want either of the two choices.... After some pressure from governor, the ballot questions will also mention the projected cost of each choice.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003540259_viaduct25m0.html

Another minor development; due to the rise of the "tunnel lite" proposal, a few officials have begun to ask why there is no "viaduct lite" proposal. But doesn't sound like anyones paying much attention to that idea (probably a good thing).


It's just my feeling that this whole process is getting a little embarrassing for the city and state in general. Instead of spending the money to get a group of transportation engineers together with Seattle city planners to properly study all the possible solutions to this problem, they're spending the money on votes that might not matter and lawsuits that might not get filed. Instead of trying to get a smart well thought out decision by people who know what they're doing, they're letting a single city decide what to do with state money, and only letting them pick between two alternatives that obviously (despite all the posturing) don't address all concerns. This is what frustrates me about this country nowadays. Every important but complicated decision turns into a political/PR bitchfest.

[BoulderGrad]

A few of the (gag) special interest groups that have popped up in the wake of the vote announcement:

Not another elevated Viaduct:
http://www.noelevated.org/index.html

Friends for a better waterfront
(couldn't find a website for these guys)

No Tunnel Alliance:
http://www.notunnelalliance.com/

Peoples waterfront Coalition:
http://www.peopleswaterfront.org/

[BoulderGrad]

From the People's waterfront Coalition (made me chuckle):

For the cost of a tunnel we could:

* Purchase 10,000 helicopters, one for every dozen Viaduct commuters and fly them downtown instead
* Build six more pairs of stadiums
* Write every Viaduct commuter a check for $50,000

[Smelser]

A few of the (gag) special interest groups that have popped up in the wake of the vote announcement:



How are these "special interest" groups? What financial benefit do these people stand to gain by defeating the proposal?

[hossoso]

This has been a hot topic at UW lately, especially in the Urban Studies/Planning classes. The general feeling is that the tunnel would not be so positive for traffic flow but good for the city, especially as we are trying to move away from car culture. Most of the reasoning is based on the "open spaces" theory popularized in the 1980's. I think it should be built (or dug), it is a good project. The Governor and the Mayor should show some backbone on this. It will make the city a better place.

[Mr. Fusion]

How are these "special interest" groups? What financial benefit do these people stand to gain by defeating the proposal?
Is it not obvious? They want their $50,000 check and a helicopter! :yes:

[rantanamo]

If this is a major shipping route, then trucks can't just suck it up. Has to be done in some way shape or form. Long term investment would win out in the tunnel option. Rebuild the viaduct and you're gonna still be wishing for what you could be doing now.

[BoulderGrad]

If this is a major shipping route, then trucks can't just suck it up. Has to be done in some way shape or form. Long term investment would win out in the tunnel option. Rebuild the viaduct and you're gonna still be wishing for what you could be doing now.

According to the No Build people (so take it for what its worth) the "frieght" that goes on the Viaduct is just stuff destined for downtown, and makes up only about 4% of the traffic on the viaduct. Most of the container cargo from the port of Seattle goes to either I-5 or I-90.

[BoulderGrad]

Noticed 2 articles on the subject today in the Seattle Times. One talking about how both Chopp and Nickels say they would take the surface street option as their second choice (agreement, yay!). And another about a local structural engineer proposing a "much cheaper" (ONLY $1.2 Billion) retrofit of the existing viaduct that would make it earthquake sound. Meanwhile the state is studying the 4 lane tunnel and now a 4 lane elevated highway.


Surface Street Agreement:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003562086_viaduct08.html

Existing Viaduct Retrofit:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003563083_webviaduct08m.html

I'm hoping the agreement between chopp and nickels persuades the governor to look at the surface street option and they bag the whole vote thing. It worked in San Francisco and Portland, it can work here.

[BoulderGrad]

WSDOT has declared the tunnel suffers from several fatal safety flaws and have declared the tunnel option dead. But apparently ballots for the advisory vote on the two options is still going through? Here's hoping the city starts promoting the no build option.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003570046_webviaduct13.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_XGR_Seattle_Viaduct.html

[greg_christine]

Seattle Newspaper Endorsements

Seattle Times
Question 1 - Build the Tunnel: No
Question 2 - Build the Viaduct: Yes
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003586359_elevated25.html

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Question 1 - Build the Tunnel: No
Question 2 - Build the Viaduct: No
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/304790_viaducted.html

The Stranger
Question 1 - Build the Tunnel: No
Question 2 - Build the Viaduct: Hell No
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=161447

Seattle Weekly
Cancel the election.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2007-02-21/news/1-million-on-a-viaduct-vote-why-not-just-take-a-poll.php

[Chicagoago]

That sucks about the tunnel :( i was hoping it wouldn't die just from funding.

We can spend $400,000,000,000 on a war, but we can't shell out 1% of that on an amazing proposal to open up the waterfront of benefit one of our premier cities...

I'll never understand WHY we can't fund more transportation/mass transit options in the country that seem to cost VASTLY less than what we spend on other issues that get NO opposition or delays...

It's our country!!! We're slowly rotting from the inside to propel ourselves farther on the outside.

Hello? Roman Empire?

[BoulderGrad]

That sucks about the tunnel :( i was hoping it wouldn't die just from funding.

We can spend $400,000,000,000 on a war, but we can't shell out 1% of that on an amazing proposal to open up the waterfront of benefit one of our premier cities...


The tunnel would have been more trouble than it was worth. Even with the open space above it, thats all it would ever be is open space. Because of weight restrictions on the roof of the tunnel, they would even have to weigh any trees that would be planted above it. I think the surface boulevard is a much more versatile, simple, elegant solution to the problem.

From the Stranger article. First artist's conception I've seen of the surface boulevard:
http://www.thestranger.com/docs/viaduct_options.pdf

[BoulderGrad]

Has everyone mailed in their ballot yet?

[hmmwv]

I work in downtown and used to commute from Seatac, but I've moved to Mountlake Terrace now so I don't have to worry about backups during construction. With all the hypes about the replacement plan, does the city have a detailed plan to detour the viaduct traffic during construction? I mean, after all there are a lot of vehicles use the viaduct everyday.

[BoulderGrad]

98,000 votes counted as of tonight

Elevated Viaduct
45% Yes
55% No

Tunnel Lite
30% Yes
70% No

[Jaxom92]

It's interesting to see both measures be voted down. I think it would have been much more informative to add the surface option and the original tunnel option to the ballot. No - No could mean a few different things here.

[hmmwv]

So....surface street? Anyone?
If the vote is just a non binding resolution, why bother in the first place?

[Zanovijetalo]

Huhm, tunel, what else. And it should be built asap so the folks from Grey's Anatomy can get to work in time... To save lives you know...:D :D

[Jaxom92]

If the vote is just a non binding resolution, why bother in the first place?

Precisely. The various opinions have not been changed and everybody thinks they have won through this vote. The whole situation is a ridiculous political circus.

What should have been on the ballot in order to correctly gauge public opinion was a multiple-choice, not a yes-no question. And the choices should have included a surface option, as well as the original six-lane tunnel option. A, B, C, D. Simple.

However, due to the political games between the state and the city and the governor's insistence on a vote before April 23rd, we ended up with the pointless yes-no vote.

The No-No could mean quite a few things: A protest against the way the whole thing was handled, support for an option not included on the ballot, and my personal favorite: Seattle doesn't actually have a majority opinion (how quaint).

[pwalker]

If anyone understands Seattle and Washington State politics they know that this (and most other large projects) are argued about for years, sometimes decades, before they are eventually built at five times the original cost.
Example: I-90 across Lake Washington & Mercer Island. First planned in the 1960's, eventually opened in the late 80's, and then a 1990 storm destroyed the old bridge to hasten final completion.

[smartlake]

I think that rebuilding the current structure is best. I say this because there are a dozen other major projects in Washington that are already "ready" so to speak (compared to the viaduct, where no decision has been made...and probably won't be made for another 4 years).

[pwalker]

The problem with Seattle is that they always seem to down-size projects with little understanding that the population here will continue to grow. Example: Hwy 520 (north floating bridge across Lake Washington), was built for early 1960's population and no forward thinking of increased population. Now, the replacement is being planned at the same early 60's capacity! Just doesn't make sense. I understand there are problems with the neighborhoods around the road, but why not build for the future, not the past? The new 520 and the new Alaska Viaduct need to be built for INCREASED capacity, not current capacity. Nobody can seem to get this done, but from a realistic, sensible standpoint, I truely believe this is the way to proceed.

[kub86]

^^Increasing capacity simply increases unnecessary traffic.

I found this quote from a siegel article on ssp:

"Manhattan's West Side Highway, an elevated freeway along the Hudson River, collapsed and was closed in 1973. When it was closed, 53 percent of the traffic that had used this freeway simply disappeared. The political establishment took it for granted that they had to replace it with a bigger and better freeway, but citizen resistance delayed the replacement for two decades, and finally even the politicians saw that the city was getting along quite well without any freeway here. Instead of replacing the freeway, the city simply added new medians, a waterfront park, and a bicycle path to the surface street here."

It's a phenomenon called "disappearing traffic" when freeways are torn down. EVERYBODY expects crazy traffic jams, but in reality the opposite happens. Why? Because people's driving habits change. Everybody assumes that driving habits will remain the same before and after the viaduct.

We're not going to have a viaduct for 10 years anyway while we tear it down/rebuild it; people are going to realize that the city's doing just fine without one as people adjust to the new environment. Just tear it down for pete's sake!!

[Jaxom92]

With the political bullcrap running around this project, I think an earthquake will destroy the thing for us before we can decide on what to do with it.

[pwalker]

^^Increasing capacity simply increases unnecessary traffic.

I found this quote from a siegel article on ssp:

"Manhattan's West Side Highway, an elevated freeway along the Hudson River, collapsed and was closed in 1973. When it was closed, 53 percent of the traffic that had used this freeway simply disappeared. The political establishment took it for granted that they had to replace it with a bigger and better freeway, but citizen resistance delayed the replacement for two decades, and finally even the politicians saw that the city was getting along quite well without any freeway here. Instead of replacing the freeway, the city simply added new medians, a waterfront park, and a bicycle path to the surface street here."

It's a phenomenon called "disappearing traffic" when freeways are torn down. EVERYBODY expects crazy traffic jams, but in reality the opposite happens. Why? Because people's driving habits change. Everybody assumes that driving habits will remain the same before and after the viaduct.

We're not going to have a viaduct for 10 years anyway while we tear it down/rebuild it; people are going to realize that the city's doing just fine without one as people adjust to the new environment. Just tear it down for pete's sake!!

Well, I have heard that argument, we have different philosophies about this. I also don't think you can compare Manhattan and Seattle. NY has a huge transit system, Seattle has Metro busses. The percentage of New Yorkers using public transit is much higher than in Seattle, where they are still in love with their cars. If Seattle doesn't increase capacity things will get worse, just the way they have by coincidentally "not increasing capacity" the past 35 years!

[Jaxom92]

You have a good point. There are enough other options within New York that the displaced drivers are disseminated in a non-intrusive manner throughout the rest of the system, highways and transit. The structure of Seattle's built environment, roads and communting patterns, prevent such a displacement from having as little affect as it would in New York. We have only two other major freeways and an assortment of city roads that'll take up the excess traffic. People will still have to get to where they want to go. Not to mention east-west cross overs between our north-south routes are limited due mainly to geography. Oftentimes, people will take a particular north-south route because it get's them closest to their destination without having to go too far east or west. Losing 1/3 of our north-south capacity will have severe impacts.

Essentially, both statements are true, but inherently specific to the environment from which they orginated.

In any case, the viaduct needs attention, and whatever attention it gets, be it rebuild or tunnel or surface option or what have you, we'll be dealing with the displaced traffic.

[sojourner truth ™]

Why did they build the viaduct in the first place, the rest of the road it's on other than the viaduct isn't even access controlled, just the viaduct and tunnel section are!

Just get rid of that road next to the viaduct and the viaduct itself and turn it into a Santa Monica Blvd-looking avenue.

[pwalker]

Why did they build the viaduct in the first place, the rest of the road it's on other than the viaduct isn't even access controlled, just the viaduct and tunnel section are!

Just get rid of that road next to the viaduct and the viaduct itself and turn it into a Santa Monica Blvd-looking avenue.

Why did they build the viaduct in the first place? Because prior to it being built in the early 1950's, there was no main north-south route through the city except city streets. Before the viaduct was built Highway 99 connected up with 4th Avenue near Boeing Field, and up Aurora to Green Lake, (then the north city limits), and continued on its current course up to Everett. Even back then, this route was cumbersome and slow. The growth in the city demanded a better, high speed route, and the viaduct was built.

It can be argued whether it was built at the proper location, but it needed to connect with Highway 99, and the 4th avenue route wasn't far from where the viaduct eventually was built. I am guessing the thinking at the time was the waterfront would disrupt the least amount of businesses and homes. Later, I-5 took a further east route, (and destroyed thousands of businesses and homes) and to this day, the viaduct and I-5 are the only main north-south routes through the city. Tearing it down with no replacement, in my opinion, would be a disaster. But many in Seattle are argueing about it, and that is slowing everything down.

[sojourner truth ™]

Thanks for the explanation!
It clears up a lot, but still, wouldn't a nice-looking blvd still be an acceptable solution? Maybe they can put two/four-lane underpasses in the middle of the boulevard at major intersections, so the traffic wouldn't be too snarled.

[kub86]

yeah, the viaduct is just an elevated road without stoplights for a mile. That's why the cars come in spurts and the traffic never gets heavy except during peak for about an hour. Otherwise, the viaduct is virtually empty. To increase capacity just to alleviate rush hour congestion is stupid. I also hate the argument that people want to rebuild it simply because they like the views and to impress the out-of-towners. The new viaduct will have giant WALLS so only truck drivers would get a glimpse of something. Most would see a concrete barrier out your window. Gosh, when will people realize this?? :ohno:

Just turn it into a 6-lane landscaped boulevard. Add transit. People's driving habits will change. Everything will be just fine.....as everyone will find out when the city's functioning perfectly when the viaduct's closed for rebuilding or whatever.

[pwalker]

Well, I've never advocated rebuilding the viaduct "just for the views"...Views are a bonus from highway design, but shouldn't be a justification for highway design.

I believe Seattle needs to improve its north-south corridors, both with I-5 and the waterfront. Anyone familiar with I-5 through Seattle knows that about 80% of the time it is a bottleneck. There needs to be a total redesign there, but unfortunately, other projects (520, and the Viaduct), have priority. I believe that shutting down the viaduct (either temporarily or permanently) will just divert more traffic to an already clogged I-5. What is truely needed is an expanded I-5, (with fewer lane endings/restrictions, etc.), combined with an expanded Viaduct-99, frankly tunnel or elevated doesn't matter to me (although the cost will be higher with tunnel). Bottom line is you need these N-S routes in a very narrow land-mass.

[BoulderGrad]

I'm curious to see what effect light rail will have on traffic. It itself will basically become a main north south route, and once the UW link is complete, thats 70,000 fewer drivers on either I-5 or 99.

Also, I don't get the whole traffic apocalypse theory of taking out the viaduct, and why everyone assumes it needs to be replaced with a 50 mph freeway. It's 1 mile long.... time to travel 1 mile at 50mph: 1.2 min, at 35 mph: 1.7 min. Maybe add 5 minutes for waiting at signals? your "commute" just went from 1.2 minutes to 6.7 minutes... oh drat... thats 5.5 minutes of my life I want back. I'm not saying it will be perfect, but I think a little inconvenience is worth getting that ugly piece of crap off the waterfront.

[Jaxom92]

Well, I've never advocated rebuilding the viaduct "just for the views"...Views are a bonus from highway design, but shouldn't be a justification for highway design.

I believe Seattle needs to improve its north-south corridors, both with I-5 and the waterfront. Anyone familiar with I-5 through Seattle knows that about 80% of the time it is a bottleneck. There needs to be a total redesign there, but unfortunately, other projects (520, and the Viaduct), have priority. I believe that shutting down the viaduct (either temporarily or permanently) will just divert more traffic to an already clogged I-5. What is truely needed is an expanded I-5, (with fewer lane endings/restrictions, etc.), combined with an expanded Viaduct-99, frankly tunnel or elevated doesn't matter to me (although the cost will be higher with tunnel). Bottom line is you need these N-S routes in a very narrow land-mass.

I agree with you about I-5. Unfortunately, if we thought replacing the viaduct was expensive, a total redesign of I-5 would be even more so. I have absolutely no experience in financing highway projects, so this is just a random ballpark figure, but 8 billion seems about right to me for something of that scale.

[pwalker]

I agree with you about I-5. Unfortunately, if we thought replacing the viaduct was expensive, a total redesign of I-5 would be even more so. I have absolutely no experience in financing highway projects, so this is just a random ballpark figure, but 8 billion seems about right to me for something of that scale.

I'm not sure either, but to do it right will be expensive. In my opinion I-5 needs to be rebuilt from 520 south to Dearborn, starting with a new flyover from 520 to the right side of I-5. It would probably make sense to do a SB flyover to 520 at the same time. The I-90 exit needs to be simplified, and NB needs more lanes through downtown. Doubt this this will happen in the next decade or two...perhaps someday.

[OneRinconHill]

I would never want to drive on this viaduct. It was designed in the same fashion as the Embarcadero freeway and the Cypress Structure. I'm surprised that it survived Nisqually, but I don't think it'll withstand another earthquake. They need to hurry up and put something else there. It might also be good for Seattle to open up the waterfront.