Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, November 18, 2008
City Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:48 PM
In this week's In the Hall, I'll be writing about the prospects for Frank Chopp's vision for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Although you'll have to wait with bated breath for that one, here's a bit of intel about last week's mobility study that I couldn't quite fit into the column:
Last week, state, city, and county transportation officials released a "mobility study" revealing how travel times would compare between the eight remaining options for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Proponents of the “surface/transit” option were encouraged by the results, which showed that all the options, including two surface options, kept people moving through the city. An elevated viaduct produced the fastest travel times, followed by a tunnel and the surface alternatives.
Critics have pointed, however, to one major flaw in the modeling—a flaw that could lead planners to drastically overestimate downtown traffic levels in the future. In estimating how each option would effect travel times, transportation officials assumed that car trips will keep going up, up, up—by 20 percent in the next seven years. That’s in direct contradiction to the state’s stated commitment of reducing car trips—known as “vehicle miles traveled”—by 50 percent in the next 40 years. And it reflects a fundamentally flawed view of how people make their travel decisions.
Say you need to drive to the grocery store. If it’s rush hour, and you have some flexibility, you’re may decide to make your trip at another time, combine it with other errands later in the day, shop online, or take a different route. That’s because you’re human, and humans adjust their behavior to fit changing circumstances. The state’s viaduct planning model, however, assumes they never do that. Ron Paananen, the state’s viaduct project director, says state planners will “start talking about changes in demand” when they do projections for 2030—but had they considered the way people actually behave this time around, their estimates for travel times would probably have been much lower. If hurrying up traffic is no longer the most important consideration, the surface/transit option starts to look even more appealing.
1
Once again, you are comparing unrelated statistics, and forgetting the important one: "surface/transit" leads to massive pedestrian/motorist unrest downtown. Thankfully, there is no "surface/transit" option, but go ahead and keep running your fat yap.
3
If being a good person is no longer the most important option, the pillory option starts to look even more appealing.
4
There is absolutely zero chance that the state or anyone else is going to reduce vehicle miles traveled by 50 percent, ever.
5
If we make Seattle into Hell on Earth, then everyone will magically stop driving and we'll then become Paradise!
6
I'll pile on - the latest set of transportation time figures is completely at odds with all of the previous work done in the EIS process, and would appear to seriously understate the increase in travel time with the so-called "Surface/Transit" option by several orders of magnitude.
Here's a simple test - try getting through downtown at rush hour on 4th Ave (northbound) or 2nd Ave (southbound) instead of using the Viaduct and you'll add AT LEAST 20 minutes to your trip - and that's with the AWV still in operation.
Here's a simple test - try getting through downtown at rush hour on 4th Ave (northbound) or 2nd Ave (southbound) instead of using the Viaduct and you'll add AT LEAST 20 minutes to your trip - and that's with the AWV still in operation.
8
Dammit, I wish it were 2009 so I could get new glasses so I wouldn't read headlines like "Viagra Predictions Ignore Human Behavior."
9
I found this on the internet:
Do you ride the bus to buy gas for your leaf blower?
A 2000 report by the California EPA determined that the average residential leaf blower produces 145 times more hydrocarbons, 7.5 times more carbon monoxide, and 11 times more particulate matter in one hour than a 1999-2000 light duty vehicle driven at 30 mph, getting 15 miles to the gallon. The hydrocarbon emissions produced from one-half hour of residential leaf blower operation are equal to the emissions produced from driving 2200 miles, comparable to a round trip from Denver to San Diego. Commercial leaf blowers with more horse power are even more polluting.
Do you ride the bus to buy gas for your leaf blower?
10
yes but i cannot adjust MY JOB and when and where i have to go for MY JOB.
if anyone who hates the viaduct so much wants to try and commute from phinney ridge to renton 5x a week and show me an easier way to do it than driving i welcome suggestions...but carpooling is the best that i've been able to do without adding at least 2.5 hours to my daily commute time.
if anyone who hates the viaduct so much wants to try and commute from phinney ridge to renton 5x a week and show me an easier way to do it than driving i welcome suggestions...but carpooling is the best that i've been able to do without adding at least 2.5 hours to my daily commute time.
11
yeah, human behavior adjusts only when it supports your position. when it doesn't people are immutable pieces of rock.
12
@10: go over to i-5 like everyone else, myself included.
regardless of the option selected, that bitch is coming down for construction. what will you do then?
regardless of the option selected, that bitch is coming down for construction. what will you do then?
13
Speaking on behalf of the people who do not commute on the viaduct, but do appreciate the waterfront, I hope they tear the shit down.
16
Can we please get some viaduct commentary from a writer who actually understands viaduct users? How about someone who lives in West Seattle? Or someone who realizes that cutting off 1 of only 2 major N/S arterials when the other (I-5) is f**ked cannot POSSIBLY be a good idea!
Erika, the more you write the more obvious it becomes that you don't have a clue!
Slog, please get some balance here!
Erika, the more you write the more obvious it becomes that you don't have a clue!
Slog, please get some balance here!
17
West Seattle wants Seattle to buy them a new viaduct. We get what you're saying.
The answer is no. Go to college if you don't like living in West Seattle or working in Renton.
The answer is no. Go to college if you don't like living in West Seattle or working in Renton.
18
Yes: reduce capacity and make it harder to travel, people will take fewer trips.
Now: zero stoplights on Aurora and the Viaduct.
Surface-transit: up to 28 stoplights on Aurora and Alaskan.
Chances anyone from north Seattle will visit West Seattle? Zero.
Now: zero stoplights on Aurora and the Viaduct.
Surface-transit: up to 28 stoplights on Aurora and Alaskan.
Chances anyone from north Seattle will visit West Seattle? Zero.
19
@18,
Um, there are these funny things called jobs and residences in both locations. Lots of them, in fact.
Um, there are these funny things called jobs and residences in both locations. Lots of them, in fact.
21
Wow, all you folks who are absolutely hell-bent on keeping your elevated freeway along Seattle's waterfront--your approach to the politics of this issue reminds me of the line from Gerard Butler's Spartan character in 300: "Give them nothing. But take from them everything."
Of course, in this respect you're just being typical Americans. And this is why I shudder at what will happen when Obama has to descend from the platitudes and start offering this nation some hard choices.
Of course, in this respect you're just being typical Americans. And this is why I shudder at what will happen when Obama has to descend from the platitudes and start offering this nation some hard choices.
22
They may not run on internal combustion engines, but cars will be with us for the rest of our natural lives, Cressona. As much as it may offend your sensibilities, you may want to try getting used to the notion, because that's the reality of the situation.
Screw the waterfront (which, by the way, is still one of Seattle's top tourist destinations even with the AWV in place) - there are 80,000 + people in West Seattle who need to get from point A to point B, and a similar number on the northwest side of the City, and there is absolutely nothing planned to address their long-term mobility needs in any way, shape, or form.
Hell, Jan Drago wants to put a new streetcar down 1st Avenue, which will do quite a job on the absurdly optimistic modeling numbers WSDOT just released for the so-called "Surface/Transit" option comparing travel times - and the real punchline to that is that there are no plans at all to use the existing track for the Waterfront Trolley - a route that actually could be extended to West Seattle to compensate for work on the AWV.
So yeah, those of us who need to get around the western half of Seattle definitely need an elevated highway on the waterfront a lot more than we need an upscale row of exclusive waterfront new condos in its place. By about 1000 orders of magnitude, in fact.
Screw the waterfront (which, by the way, is still one of Seattle's top tourist destinations even with the AWV in place) - there are 80,000 + people in West Seattle who need to get from point A to point B, and a similar number on the northwest side of the City, and there is absolutely nothing planned to address their long-term mobility needs in any way, shape, or form.
Hell, Jan Drago wants to put a new streetcar down 1st Avenue, which will do quite a job on the absurdly optimistic modeling numbers WSDOT just released for the so-called "Surface/Transit" option comparing travel times - and the real punchline to that is that there are no plans at all to use the existing track for the Waterfront Trolley - a route that actually could be extended to West Seattle to compensate for work on the AWV.
So yeah, those of us who need to get around the western half of Seattle definitely need an elevated highway on the waterfront a lot more than we need an upscale row of exclusive waterfront new condos in its place. By about 1000 orders of magnitude, in fact.
23
@21
You mean hard choices like campaigning against Prop 8 or winning the Presidency? I think we've had a taste, thanks.
You mean hard choices like campaigning against Prop 8 or winning the Presidency? I think we've had a taste, thanks.
24
Mr. X, you're right that the internal combustion engine is seriously on the decline, you're right that cars are here to stay regardless. But here's the distinction you miss, and it has nothing to do with my sensibilities.
Nothing that's out there to replace oil and the internal combustion engine (and at the same time address climate change) is anywhere near as affordable and scalable as what we've got. Yes, automotive technology will improve and keep improving, but if you're waiting for that technological panacea that's right around the corner, you're going to keep waiting and waiting.
The late Walt Crowley captured this nuance far better than I could with this op-ed in the Times last year:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/op…
The viaduct was built at a time when we could afford to be utterly dependent on automotive transportation and we could afford to be oblivious of urban planning. We no longer live in that time, any more than we no longer live in a time when there are millions of buffalo roaming the Great Plains and white men could whip out their semiautomatic weapons and just blast away at the herd.
Mr. X @22:
They may not run on internal combustion engines, but cars will be with us for the rest of our natural lives, Cressona. As much as it may offend your sensibilities, you may want to try getting used to the notion, because that's the reality of the situation.
Mr. X, you're right that the internal combustion engine is seriously on the decline, you're right that cars are here to stay regardless. But here's the distinction you miss, and it has nothing to do with my sensibilities.
Nothing that's out there to replace oil and the internal combustion engine (and at the same time address climate change) is anywhere near as affordable and scalable as what we've got. Yes, automotive technology will improve and keep improving, but if you're waiting for that technological panacea that's right around the corner, you're going to keep waiting and waiting.
The late Walt Crowley captured this nuance far better than I could with this op-ed in the Times last year:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/op…
The viaduct was built at a time when we could afford to be utterly dependent on automotive transportation and we could afford to be oblivious of urban planning. We no longer live in that time, any more than we no longer live in a time when there are millions of buffalo roaming the Great Plains and white men could whip out their semiautomatic weapons and just blast away at the herd.
25
ellenchos @17, I dare you to find a more educated, enlightened and caring community than West Seattle. Again, your comments, as those of the original articles author, showcase your ignorance.
The viaduct is a vital transit route for not only West Seattle but Burien, White Center, Queen Anne, Greenlake, Greenwood...
It is a much needed and (can you ignore 119,000) much used N/S corridor, allowing an alternative to I-5 congestion that simply CANNOT take more traffic.
I don't care if it's another viaduct, a tunnel, a hybrid – anything but surface streets - but to hear you imply that development for the ultra-wealthy should take precedent over the sustainability of the whole west side of the city (not to mention port traffic) you are giving a very clear picture of what kind of person you are – selfish, ignorant, and rude.
The viaduct is a vital transit route for not only West Seattle but Burien, White Center, Queen Anne, Greenlake, Greenwood...
It is a much needed and (can you ignore 119,000) much used N/S corridor, allowing an alternative to I-5 congestion that simply CANNOT take more traffic.
I don't care if it's another viaduct, a tunnel, a hybrid – anything but surface streets - but to hear you imply that development for the ultra-wealthy should take precedent over the sustainability of the whole west side of the city (not to mention port traffic) you are giving a very clear picture of what kind of person you are – selfish, ignorant, and rude.
26
It's a joke.
See, this one time, a West Seattlite was demanding to be told a "way out of West Seattle" without the viaduct. Answer: stay in school.
Hilarious. At least in Seattle we get it.
The thing is, if all those neighborhoods really couldn't live without it, then a majority of Seattle residents would be willing to pay for it. In fact, we see time and again, it is the residents of only one neighborhood who want to buy this thing, and the rest of the city doesn't see anything in it for themselves. It's expensive and it benefits only a few.
See, this one time, a West Seattlite was demanding to be told a "way out of West Seattle" without the viaduct. Answer: stay in school.
Hilarious. At least in Seattle we get it.
The thing is, if all those neighborhoods really couldn't live without it, then a majority of Seattle residents would be willing to pay for it. In fact, we see time and again, it is the residents of only one neighborhood who want to buy this thing, and the rest of the city doesn't see anything in it for themselves. It's expensive and it benefits only a few.
28
@26,
Well, it benefits a whole lot more people (and a whole lot more of the local economy) than turning Mercer Street into Paul Allen Parkway will, but a majority of our City Council is apparently willing to pay a whole lot more for that per square yard for that than keeping SR 99 functioning ever will.
I don't use the South Park or Magnolia Bridges, but I think they need to be replaced, too, and have no problem with my tax dollars being used for that.
Well, it benefits a whole lot more people (and a whole lot more of the local economy) than turning Mercer Street into Paul Allen Parkway will, but a majority of our City Council is apparently willing to pay a whole lot more for that per square yard for that than keeping SR 99 functioning ever will.
I don't use the South Park or Magnolia Bridges, but I think they need to be replaced, too, and have no problem with my tax dollars being used for that.
29
@24,
Read my post. The western half of Seattle isn't slated to get any meaningful alternatives to cars any time in the next 20 years, at least.
The kind of vague notion of "urban planning" that you advocate leaves them high and dry well into the foreseeable future, and that's not a fact that vague notions of downtown density can wish away. Period.
(And heck, if we put those GM bailout dollars into Neil Young's suggestion that we make them retool to retrofit existing vehicles for electric or other motors - which is a lot more immediately viable than you are apparently willing to acknowledge - we might just start getting somewhere on that problem, too).
Read my post. The western half of Seattle isn't slated to get any meaningful alternatives to cars any time in the next 20 years, at least.
The kind of vague notion of "urban planning" that you advocate leaves them high and dry well into the foreseeable future, and that's not a fact that vague notions of downtown density can wish away. Period.
(And heck, if we put those GM bailout dollars into Neil Young's suggestion that we make them retool to retrofit existing vehicles for electric or other motors - which is a lot more immediately viable than you are apparently willing to acknowledge - we might just start getting somewhere on that problem, too).
30
Wow, guys... I live in West Seattle, and I'm on the Viaduct every day.
And, believe it or not, I DON'T want a new elevated highway -- or to keep the old one. Maybe that's because I'm not old enough to remember when it was built!
I ride the bus. And the bus will be just as fast with or without an elevated highway!
And considering the majority of traffic on the Viaduct is coming from West Seattle and points SW into Downtown or from Ballard and points NW into Downtown, you'd think we could come up with better solutions than a frakking highway.
@10, I honestly do sympathize with your commute... but you're not the norm for a Viaduct traveler.
And, believe it or not, I DON'T want a new elevated highway -- or to keep the old one. Maybe that's because I'm not old enough to remember when it was built!
I ride the bus. And the bus will be just as fast with or without an elevated highway!
And considering the majority of traffic on the Viaduct is coming from West Seattle and points SW into Downtown or from Ballard and points NW into Downtown, you'd think we could come up with better solutions than a frakking highway.
@10, I honestly do sympathize with your commute... but you're not the norm for a Viaduct traveler.
31
@29, And Mr. X, we HAD an opportunity for meaningful alternatives to cars on the west side of the City. It was called a monorail. And some of us tried to warn everyone that if they voted down the plan there was nothing to replace it for 25+ years.
But folks didn't listen. And they told us we were crazy that gas would cost more than $4 a gallon. And they told us we were crazy to think that people would pay $2 or $2.25 to ride a monorail if buses only cost $1.50 at peak.
Oh, wait... *FROWN*
But folks didn't listen. And they told us we were crazy that gas would cost more than $4 a gallon. And they told us we were crazy to think that people would pay $2 or $2.25 to ride a monorail if buses only cost $1.50 at peak.
Oh, wait... *FROWN*
32
Mr. X @29:
Yeah, Mr. X, and preserving viaduct drivers' speedy, straight-shot downtown bypass is the only criterion here, never mind how many billions it will cost, never mind how totally out of sync it is with the current economic and environmental realities.
"Give them nothing, but take from them everything." That really seems to be your motto.
Instead of trying to anticipate some realistic compromise, you and Gene Hoglund can't imagine any choice but absolute victory or absolute defeat. (Now, Gene Hoglund in a loincloth brandishing a sword and a shield. That's a mental image I really don't want to have this morning.)
Read my post. The western half of Seattle isn't slated to get any meaningful alternatives to cars any time in the next 20 years, at least.
Yeah, Mr. X, and preserving viaduct drivers' speedy, straight-shot downtown bypass is the only criterion here, never mind how many billions it will cost, never mind how totally out of sync it is with the current economic and environmental realities.
"Give them nothing, but take from them everything." That really seems to be your motto.
Instead of trying to anticipate some realistic compromise, you and Gene Hoglund can't imagine any choice but absolute victory or absolute defeat. (Now, Gene Hoglund in a loincloth brandishing a sword and a shield. That's a mental image I really don't want to have this morning.)
33
@30,
Um, exactly which bus will be as fast without a grade-separated Viaduct (or tunnel, for that matter)? Certainly not the 54 or 55.
@31,
Who said I opposed the Monorail?
@33,
Actually, the most realistic compromise would be to retrofit the existing structure and develop a meaningful grade-separated mass-transit system that serves the west side of the City.
Um, exactly which bus will be as fast without a grade-separated Viaduct (or tunnel, for that matter)? Certainly not the 54 or 55.
@31,
Who said I opposed the Monorail?
@33,
Actually, the most realistic compromise would be to retrofit the existing structure and develop a meaningful grade-separated mass-transit system that serves the west side of the City.
34
If anyone is still reading...
Mr. X, me personally, I'd be tickled pink to see the viaduct retrofitted to last another, say, 10 years together with a revival of the Green Line, whether as monorail or light rail.
Well, I've just introduced "ain't gonna happen" on top of "ain't gonna happen," so this is totally academic.
When I speak of a compromise, I'm really speaking of something like a six-lane surface boulevard. And the reason I see it as a compromise is that it by and large preserves the number of lanes, just going at a slower speed. Viaduct drivers still have their route, just not as fast. On the other hand, you don't get a bucolic waterfront free of motor vehicle traffic. But for anyone who's seen the boulevard that replaced the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco, that still seems to work.
Mr. X, me personally, I'd be tickled pink to see the viaduct retrofitted to last another, say, 10 years together with a revival of the Green Line, whether as monorail or light rail.
Well, I've just introduced "ain't gonna happen" on top of "ain't gonna happen," so this is totally academic.
When I speak of a compromise, I'm really speaking of something like a six-lane surface boulevard. And the reason I see it as a compromise is that it by and large preserves the number of lanes, just going at a slower speed. Viaduct drivers still have their route, just not as fast. On the other hand, you don't get a bucolic waterfront free of motor vehicle traffic. But for anyone who's seen the boulevard that replaced the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco, that still seems to work.
35
Cressona,
OK, you actually read my mind. I got busy with work, but was going to do a subsequent post suggesting that a six-lane boulevard would be a reasonable compromise, albeit with the proviso that it needs to have as few stoplights as possible (which suggests ped/bike overpasses leading to a much slower waterfront-friendly north/south through route along the water, but I haven't spent a lot of time thinking at that level of detail).
I'd be interested to know if it is feasible to reuse the Waterfront Streetcar infrastructure, and whether it would be possible to do a branch line to West Seattle along Alaskan Way or near the other BNSF right-of-way there.
Every rendition I've seen of a surface route was of a much slower street, and a lot of my objections are based on the very slow 2 or 4 lane street in the visuals I've seen.
BTW - the real through-traffic problem in SF isn't the Embarcadero boulevard segment, it's the interminable crawl down Lombard St. when you get off of the 101 heading into the city.
OK, you actually read my mind. I got busy with work, but was going to do a subsequent post suggesting that a six-lane boulevard would be a reasonable compromise, albeit with the proviso that it needs to have as few stoplights as possible (which suggests ped/bike overpasses leading to a much slower waterfront-friendly north/south through route along the water, but I haven't spent a lot of time thinking at that level of detail).
I'd be interested to know if it is feasible to reuse the Waterfront Streetcar infrastructure, and whether it would be possible to do a branch line to West Seattle along Alaskan Way or near the other BNSF right-of-way there.
Every rendition I've seen of a surface route was of a much slower street, and a lot of my objections are based on the very slow 2 or 4 lane street in the visuals I've seen.
BTW - the real through-traffic problem in SF isn't the Embarcadero boulevard segment, it's the interminable crawl down Lombard St. when you get off of the 101 heading into the city.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Liveblogging the Washington State House Debate and Vote
onIN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE by Eli Sanders -
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
It's Not Over Until We Say It's Over by Dan Savage
-
Jeff Bezos' Racist, Pro-Life, Anti-Evolution, Rape-Apologist Search Engine by Goldy
-
Yesterday's Best Arguments Against Gay Marriage by Eli Sanders
-
SL Letter of the Day: Tower of Label by Dan Savage
-
Which Kind of Bus Person Are You? by Megan Seling
-
Santorum Wins Colorado by Paul Constant
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (35) RSS