Comments on Viaduct Numbers Inflated
OR, it's just Greg's way to try to convince us to build a smaller underwater tunnel by fudging the numbers to make it look like such a farce could actually handle the traffic.
Think. Then write.
"a surface road should be more than enough to accommodate 75,000 cars."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Bullshit. I defy you to name a single surface street in Seattle that carries even 1/3 of that number.
Erica Barnett writes: Nickels, following the council’s lead, has said he’ll support the surface/transit option as a “backup” if both the tunnel and the rebuild are rejected.
Erica, this is a patent misrepresentation. The position of the City Council (to be precise, seven of its members) has been Plan A. tunnel and Plan B. surface -- in other words, emphatically anything but another viaduct. And I recall reading in one of the dailies that Nickels had loosened up to the surface option as a backup solely for the tunnel. Erica, what statement has Nickels or one of his staff or any of the majority councilmembers made that indicates that the surface route is only a Plan C behind the rebuild?
OK, just posting to eat my words. Montlake Blvd carries over 62,000 cars per day and NE 45th moves about 38,500 cars/day - they just don't move very quickly.
Nevertheless, 75,000 more cars (if not more) on already gridlocked downtown streets and I-5 is going to be a real clusterfuck.
I'll support the Surface Option if you buy me a helicopter.
What is truly pathetic is that the excuse for all this nonsense is a supposed emergency with the structural stability of the Viaduct. (I suspect they hired the same guys who said there were WMD in Iraq.)
At any rate, granting for the sake of discussion that there is "an emergency," I just read a letter from Jean Godden in which she blithely supports the insanity of the tunnel by stating that there is plenty of time to get the money because we won't be starting construction for at least three years. Some emergency.
Obviously, this 75K number is wonderful news for the PWC. And it's some pretty great reporting on Erica's part too. These facts are strong enough, I wish she wouldn't muddy them by throwing in misleading and false accounts of the mayor's and City Council's positions.
Anyway, I hope this gets picked up by the other local media. And I hope it creates a bit of a firestorm. If this new number pans out, it indicates that this massive project is being founded on a lie. It may not be a lie on the order of WMD or a Quaeda link, but it's enough of a lie that the public should at least feel, well, lied to.
Not only is it odd that we should spend billions of dollars to essentially preserve (and expand) something that we would never do today from scratch -- but it's odd that we should spend billions of dollars on a thoroughfare that is at best a distance fifth in terms of regional importance behind:
Hey, SR 167 might even be more heavily used.
Lloyd Clydesdale: I'll support the Surface Option if you buy me a helicopter.
To answer a wise-ass comment with another wise-ass comment... I'll support spending billions of dollars on a downtown waterfront highway if you buy a helicopter for everybody who has to get across 520.
I never quite understood how the viaduct has gotten funding priority over the 520 rebuild, even though 520 is obviously far more heavily used and far more important to the regional economy. Can anyone explain how this came to be? For all the progress and relative agreement there have been on the 520 plans, there's always the caveat, "But we don't have the money."
Even so, with the viaduct replacement, even the surface route is not a freebie. Not only is there the blvd. itself but the seawall has to be rebuilt, and there has to be some broader accommodation of transit for West Seattle. But if there's only so much money in the pot, you have to prioritize one or the other whether you want to or not. No?
I didn't, before Steinbrueck said it, that one could be "consernated," let alone "quite consternated." Poor guy. But I'm also consternated. We should tear down the viaduct and fix up transit and the surface streets. And I use the viaduct several times a week. It's not worth saving.
Mr. X: OK, just posting to eat my words. Montlake Blvd carries over 62,000 cars per day and NE 45th moves about 38,500 cars/day - they just don't move very quickly.
Actually, think in terms of supply and latent demand. If little, old Montlake Blvd. carries only 17% less traffic than the big, honkin' viaduct as things are now, then obviously the Montlake corridor is more important. The viaduct is infinitely easier to take, and still Montlake Blvd. gets almost as much traffic.
Maybe a higher priority vs. replacing the viaduct with another freeway should be to build a north-south freeway to UW.
The viaduct lies entirely within the city of seattle. Fixing 520 would take the state being involved.
also, traffic counts are done by stoned college kids interning with the WSDOT, so don't put too much faith in them.
Cressona,
Regarding the idea that SR 520 should be a higher funding priority than the AWV, for once I actually agree with you 100%.
Of course, I think the reason the AWV has gotten all the attention (and the reason WSDOT has refused to seriously look at Retrofit), is that the downtown development community has been licking its chops over the new waterfront property that would result from removing the AWV, so we probably differ on their motives for wanting to replace it with a toll tunnel (which WSDOT first proposed back in 1994 or so).
By the way, I'm also pretty sure that "little old Montlake Blvd" is actually 6 lanes across for much of its length.
This was a good point to bring up, Erica, and you were getting somewhere and then you said this.
A surface street, combined with improvements to the street grid and transit downtown, could more than accommodate 75,000 cars.
Ha hahahahahahhaahahhahaha right. Keep pipe dreaming, and spend some time in Pioneer Square and on 1st and 4th Avenues South for a change, watch the cars and the buses, and get back to us on that.
Actually, Montlake does a good job of carrying those 62,000 cars, it just has the misfortune of meeting Pacific Ave just before a four lane drawbridge bottleneck, along with ramp backups for a four lane floating bridge bottleneck.
If the Pacific alternative is built, Montlake will probably hit 74,000 easy, with the widening to six lanes. No reason a waterfront boulevard couldn't do the same. You might not like the aesthetics of such a boulevard, but it isnt credible to argue it couldnt handle the traffic.
Where exactly was this sensor? Because if it was just south of the Pioneer Square ramps to/from 1st Avenue S, I can totally "imagine traffic increasing by 32 percent between the south and north end of Pioneer Square." I take that ramp frequently and it contributes a large part of the viaduct traffic.
The City of Seattle's annual traffic count maps for 1996-2005 are at: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/tfdmaps.htm .
On the waterfront portion of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, they show a daily average ranging from 102,500 in 1996 to 105,800 in 2005 (see Grid 5 of the yearly maps), some years a little above that.
On the south part of the viaduct (non-waterfront, south of Royal Brougham), the numbers are around 84,000. The map lists 60,000 or so in the area of SR 99 just south of the West Seattle Bridge at Spokane St (see Grid 8).
On the map, the portion of SR 99 from Royal Brougham to Spokane is simultaneously labeled "Alaskan Way Viaduct" and "East Marginal Way." The portion from the Battery Street Tunnel to Royal Brougham has no label.
So for the purposes of data collection, if this map is any guide, the “Alaskan Way Viaduct” may be the area from Spokane Street to the Battery Street Tunnel (or perhaps even from Spokane Street to Royal Brougham). This sample area yields annual traffic counts from roughly 60,000 to 108,000 (or 60,000 to 84,000 if Royal Brougham is the northern endpoint).
So the exact location of where this sample was taken is critical. As you can see in the maps, Royal Brougham, Columbia, Western, etc. all impact traffic counts.
The sample from Spokane St. may be iffy for including here—however, the Battery Street Tunnel has a figure of 60,000, so the overall point holds.
For some portions of the road—south end or Battery Street Tunnel, according to this map, 74,700 would be well above the listed average. At some locations, it would be more or less what the maps indicate.
Mr. X writes: Regarding the idea that SR 520 should be a higher funding priority than the AWV, for once I actually agree with you 100%.
Of course, I think the reason the AWV has gotten all the attention (and the reason WSDOT has refused to seriously look at Retrofit), is that the downtown development community has been licking its chops over the new waterfront property that would result from removing the AWV, so we probably differ on their motives for wanting to replace it with a toll tunnel (which WSDOT first proposed back in 1994 or so).
Mr. X, I'll one-up you when it comes to agreeing for once. Obviously, I'm no judge as to whether WSDOT is fudging about the viability of the retrofit. But suppose the retrofit together with repairing the seawall proves a relative bargain (however the heck you define that). I actually don't think that would be the end of the world, if only because it means tabling the downtown waterfront issue for someone to deal with another day.
For me as a transit supporter, there is one huge issue looming besides preventing a new and expanded viaduct from getting built, and that's seeing that phase two of Sound Transit's light rail pass next year. Now that Chris Gregoire and the legislature have handcuffed the RTID to ST2, it's overwhelmingly in the interest of activists like me that: (A) the RTID pass, and (B) the RTID be something sane that is worth passing. Even though I support the tunnel over the rebuild, it's hard not to admit that its presence on the RTID could be radioactive and drag everything else down with it.
In other words, even though I am sure Seattle would be a much more desirable city with the tunnel than the retrofit, in practical political terms the retrofit (if it's even possible) might be more what the doctor ordered. There are two finite resources we're dealing with here: dollars and political capital.
Remember, in politics, the most self-defeating thing you can do is to overreach. Strictly in callous political terms, the Democratic Party should be grateful to George W. Bush for (A) the Iraq War and (B) Donald Rumsfeld. I really don't want to see Greg Nickels hand light-rail foes a similar gift next year. (By the way, to carry on the war analogy, 520 is very much the Afghanistan here -- the fight just about everyone agrees we can and should take on.)
@8: Cressona -- Don't belittle my daydream of a owning a helicopter. Imagine it: Thumpthumpthumpthumpthumpthump.
What I'm saying is this: Surface Option is for Hourly. Me? You guessed it: Salary. Drive for work.
Molasass Optioners have posited that if you still want to go fast, you can just take I-5. Ok. Then if 520 sinks, one can simply drive down, uh, I-5 and take I-90. That's money in the bank, Ted.
I have nothing valuable to contribute to the conversation; I would just like to point out that you said "However, it’s hard to imagine traffic increasing by 32 percent between the south and north end of Pioneer Square.". Not to be a math Nazi, but the actual increase would be 47%, not 32%.
Little old Montlake Blvd is a 4-lane road, not a 6-lane road. Various portions bulge to 3 lanes in one direction (northbound where it splits just before 45th, southbound south of the bridge) and even 4 lanes in one direction (northbound at Pacific), but east of the main campus is 4 lanes. The bottleneck is, of course, the Montlake Bridge, which is only 4 lanes across.
Erica
For christ sakes could you branch out a bit on your reporting. You've been writing the same three stories for two years. You're Joni Balter with short hair.
1. Road projects suck (aka RTID)
2. The suburbs suck (In the hall this week)
3. A rebuild of the viaduct/tunnel sucks
Your reporting sucks. It is stale and predictable.
Erica--there is no surface/transit option. That is a lie. There is a surface option with no available extra dollars for transit. You know that there are state laws and political realities that make spending roads dollars for transit impossible in this state, yet you continue to use that misleading tag.
As to traffic flow, A's post gives good info, but here is where the numbers are...approximately 30% get on the viaduct at Royal Brougham, and about 30% get off at Seneca. That is the pinch point.
Build a tunnel, or do the surface option. But don't pretend you are striking a blow for transit. All you are doing is directing more roads dollars out of Seattle to support sprawl inducing freeways so someone can get home to Maple Valley faster.
Dear Everybody,
No one is talking about a surface option. Everyone agrees that a surface option doesn't work. WSDOT, PWC, the Mayor, the City Council, Erica, you, me.
It's a surfact PLUS TRANSIT. Preferably dedicated, rapid transit. The kind that gets you to work in 14 minutes, every time, no matter what the traffic is.
This should just be called the f**king TRANSIT OPTION because that's what's going to be needed if it's to work. So Everybody, please stop short-cutting the name of this promising option.
Thank you.
Love,
Me
P.S.
West Seattlites are just as bad as Eastsiders when it comes to commuting. It's either commute by car or NOTHING.
Steve observes: "You've been writing the same three stories for two years."
Actually, there is a fourth story Erica likes to recycle:
4. Male sexuality and the women who cater to it suck.
(No pun intended.) Anyway, thank you for also noticing how lame Erica's "reporting" is.
Hey says: "No one is talking about a surface option....It's a surfact PLUS TRANSIT."
I've yet to hear anyone include a increased transit in the surface proposal. If they did, the price would approach that of tunnel, and the proposal would go the way of the monorail.
The mroe votes the surface option gets, the more likely the rebuild option will win. Like the Green party, it's a spoiler option.
Re #8: Transit advocates don't want 520 to get done, either. They're afraid improving the SR-520 bridge will result in more single-occupancy vehicle traffic.
Why is it that people are so willing to pour billions into roads but think dedicated rapid transit, which is safer, faster, and costs less to the environment (ergo our own health) is too expensive?
Yawn.
"...the seawall has to be rebuilt..."
And we have to stop Saddam Hussein from using all his WMDs.
No, you'll see how quickly the seawall recovers once the politicians realize that there is no realistic alternative to the Retrofit.
Governments lie, to get more money. The daily papers enable those lies (it pays off for them). Get over it.
Hey, maybe if it a Surface PLUS OMG TRANSIT option, Erica can describe to us in detail where the money for this transit will come from and how exactly this expansion of transit will be implemented, and how it will fully compensate for the loss in viaduct capacity, and how it can be done in timely enough fashion to avert the depression that would result from permanent gridlock after the viaduct's closure.
Oh, she can't. Oh, and neither can the PWC. Nevermind. I guess it's a bunch of bullcrap then.
Geez, Gomez, do you wake up on the wrong side of the bed *every* day?
I call bullshit when I see it, especially when most people adamantly refuse to.
Gomez writes: I call bullshit when I see it, especially when most people adamantly refuse to.
Gomez, you're a veritable teller-of-truth-to-power, right up there with Lou Dobbs. I especially like your use of the terms "depression" and "permanent gridlock" to describe the surface-route option's impact. Heck, why not mention a "mushroom cloud" too while you're at it? Nothing like a bit of hyperbole to get your point across.
The broader truth here is that no option is painless. Every option has its losers. And that's why you have little things like planning and mitigation. But if the overriding arbiter for this region's transportation and land-use vision becomes avoiding pain, then you inevitably end up with no vision at all -- and more pain in the long term.
Anyway, about that WMD and Quaeda link analogy, I guess the real comparison comes not so much with the possibly inflated traffic count but with the seawall issue (City Comforts' point) and the viability/cost of a retrofit. Unfortunately, while the WMD and al Quaeda claims obviously proved to be utter lies, there's no straightforward way to tell about WSDOT's claims. Ultimately, it's an engineering question.
Hi, yes, double-checking WSDOT engineering claims is very hard to do unless you're an engineer. What is interesting though is to look at the numbers of vehicles exiting and entering at various points. 110K might include cars that are only on for a short distance, say southbound through battery street tunnel but then exiting at that first exit (I think it is Western).
One thing that would be helpful is to have a graph of the total number of vehicles on the viaduct at any given week day, the number entering and exiting at each entry point, and then also, have the same data for the weekends, and finally, have a breakout by hour.
Also interesting would be the destination of vehicles exiting. When vehicles exit at Seneca, how many are going just a few more blocks? How many are going through Seattle, perhaps to I5? The destination plays a huge role in assessing what transit, if any, would be helpful during viaduct construction or with a surface and transit option.
Also, it would be interesting to know what the number of vehicles is that's been used to forecast any type of toll revenue. Hypothetically, if 1/3 of the vehicles are just exiting at the first exit in either direction, these vehicles may be very unlikely to use a tolled structure. The elasticity of demand for tolling doesn't just depend on the price, it may also depend on whether people are exiting , or whether they are driving through. People driving through may be willing to pay a lot more for any type of replacement structure (viaduct, tunnel, bridge, etc).
Erica-
What is the basis of your assertion that the surface streets can more than handle 75,000 additional cars? Have ANYTHING to back that up?
Why do you find it hard to imagine traffic increasing 32% between Pioneer square and the N. side of the Viaduct? Isn’t that where everyone leaving downtown to go north at the end of the day would do so?
Try doing a little research next time, instead of just jumping on some exciting 'fact' for the 'scoop'.
Everyone is questioning your journalistic capabilities as it is, keep this up, and we'll be asking for your head. Because, when this city is saddled with total gridlock because you sold a bunch of people on it, the mob will know where to go with it's torches.
Again, why don’t you spend an afternoon driving through downtown and trying to visualize 75,000 MORE cars on those streets? Do you ever leave Capitol Hill?
Got so wrapped up in the hyperbole, I forgot to say:
-The seawall does need to be repaired, but is there any engineering reason why that can't be done while retrofitting the Viaduct?
Because retrofitting is the smart move, save our treasure for other projects rather than a tunnel boondogle.
Besides, the tunnel is likely to hand over the waterfront to a bunch of high end condo developers...
cressona, you've brought up a great point.
I forgot to include armaggeddon. OMG 4 LANE SURFACE STREET APOCALYPSE.
No option is painless, but some options are much, much more destructive than others.
Well, ultimately it doesn't matter. This is Seattle, so we'll just talk the issue to death until an earthquake hits and the Viaduct pancakes.
The AWV is unlikely to pancake - the more likely event is a section or two falling over (of course, simply fixing the seawall would largely address that, but nobody gets rich that way).
If I´m not mistaken, Lloyd could have his helicopter - in fact, you could buy every one of the families who ´need´the viaduct a helicopter for the price of the tunnel. People: there will never, never be enough roads to eliminate traffic. Build transit, duuhhhhhhh.....
"The figure has appeared for at least four years in local newspapers and on the web sites of the city and state transportation departments"
Why only provide links to others that disseminated the misinformation?
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Hi guys its me again. Can you look
Please do not hesitate to choose. This
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Please do not hesitate to choose. This
Och beautifull site below too
If you have a minute check this.
Please do not hesitate to choose. This
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Nice but look below
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Be so kind and click
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Be so kind and click
Nice but this too
Do not be angry please
I am looking for better life
Be so kind and click
I agree please revange
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
I am looking for better life
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Please do not hesitate to choose. This
Nice but this too
Nice but look below
Be so kind and click
Be so kind and click
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
I am looking for better life
Check this places please.
Nice but this too
Please do not hesitate to choose. This
Please do not hesitate to choose. This
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Dont be angry please
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Check this places please.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).