Friday, November 21, 2008
City The Surface Options: For Comparison
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:30 PM
People seemed to think I was being unfair in posting an aerial view of Frank Chopp's elevated waterfront tunnel proposal. Commenters suggested that the surface/transit options under consideration would look just as bad from the perspective, with—as one put it—"a gigantic uncrossable highway instead of storefronts." First, let me reiterate that the "storefronts" aren't part of Chopp's proposal. ALL his plan pays for is a concrete wall. Chopp's proposal assumes that businesses are going to want to pay extra taxes for the privilege of moving under a freeway away from the city's retail core—taxes that would, after many years, eventually pay for some of the improvements Chopp envisions.
Second, it's true that I didn't include an aerial perspective of the four-lane surface/transit option. So here it is, along with the aerial view of the Chopp option for comparison.
Surface:
Chopp's elevated tunnel:
Let's look at them from the street level, too, just for kicks.
Here's the surface option, viewed from the Seattle Aquarium.
And here's Chopp's proposal (note: facade shown here would not be funded):
Here's the view from Pier 54 and Madison (Remember, again, that the flower boxes and big, open windows would be paid for by Chopp's extra tax on retail under the viaduct; all his plan builds is a concrete wall.)
Surface:
And Chopp's:
Finally, just for the hell of it, here are the views from Columbia Street (you'll have to erase all the facades, plantings, windows, and signage with your imagination, since Chopp's proposal wouldn't pay for any of them).
Surface:
Chopp's:
Fair enough?
Share via
1
I once photoshopped a picture of me riding a $60,000 Ducati Desmosedici 16RR. It's was fun to dream of something I could never afford.
2
Yes. :) Thanks!
I don't see a big highway (or "boulevard") and surface parking lots are preferable to retail and pedestrian space, unless you're an extreme fiscal conservative.
I don't see a big highway (or "boulevard") and surface parking lots are preferable to retail and pedestrian space, unless you're an extreme fiscal conservative.
3
The surface street is the best.
The future of Seattle is to de-densify.
It has to be normalized so it can participate as an equal in the ring exurbs -- linked by rail -- that circle Lake Washington.
The future of Seattle is to de-densify.
It has to be normalized so it can participate as an equal in the ring exurbs -- linked by rail -- that circle Lake Washington.
5
Shouldn't there be, oh, I don't know, 20 times more cars on that road?
Oh my bad, they took Rainier Ave. I guess we can look forward to more posts from ECB complaining that her bus is late.
Oh my bad, they took Rainier Ave. I guess we can look forward to more posts from ECB complaining that her bus is late.
6
Close to fair enough. You just forgot to add the permanent traffic jam and the homeless drunkards.
7
Surface ALL THE WAY. The buildings just look like something that's going to be torn down in the next 20 years anyway. Feng shui this city NOW and let the connection between the water, the mountains, and the urban landscape exist unfettered.
8
Maintaining a natural path to the waterfront is going to be key here, and while the surface street option on the table is better than the highway monolith, I think it's still a little pedestrian unfriendly.
Then again, tourists love walking by the water no matter how hard it is to get there.
Then again, tourists love walking by the water no matter how hard it is to get there.
9
Surface is the best - By the way, am I delusional or didn't we (the voters) reject a tunnel and elevated rebuild? I am having strange flashbacks of Gregoire and Nickels saying "the voters have spoken" blah blah blah...
Maybe it was just a dream?
Maybe it was just a dream?
10
The boulevard option is light years better, but honestly, who fucking cares if a bunch of hick tourists can see our 1980s office towers from the industrial waterfront?
What actual Seattle resident ever uses the waterfront (or would ever use it) south of Myrtle Edwards to stroll, chat and shop? That's what QA, Cap Hill, U Dist, Fremont, Ballard, Alki, etc. are for.
Why does the Stranger care about this so much?? You're all far away from this mess. Let the Belltown nouveau riche and stinky homeless people worry about aesthetics on the Frank Chop wall.
What actual Seattle resident ever uses the waterfront (or would ever use it) south of Myrtle Edwards to stroll, chat and shop? That's what QA, Cap Hill, U Dist, Fremont, Ballard, Alki, etc. are for.
Why does the Stranger care about this so much?? You're all far away from this mess. Let the Belltown nouveau riche and stinky homeless people worry about aesthetics on the Frank Chop wall.
11
Don't forget to include the ugly buildings (Seattle Steam Plant and Pike Market Parking Garage) and traffic jams (ferry terminal, cruise terminal and railroad cross by Myrtle Edwards) in those pretty pictures.
12
@5 and @6: Agreed. The surface option presents the potential for major traffic miasma -- after all, we'd be taking a two-lane highway out of the picture and essentially replacing it with the current Alaska Way, stoplights, tourists horse-buggies and all.
Erica: No, not fair enough. MSPaint a few hundred SUVs and buses on the surface option.
Erica: No, not fair enough. MSPaint a few hundred SUVs and buses on the surface option.
13
Oh yeah, I can totally see myself walking six feet away from traffic whizzing by belching exhaust, as portrayed in that surface option. Next time please illustrate with the goal of realism, like putting in a shitload of buses, end to end, stretching out of sight. Because given how many people use the Viaduct now, that's what it would look like if we chose a surface/transit option.
16
Are people going to sell their SUVs while they are building the new freeway, then go buy new ones when it opens back up after 8 years?
17
Come on everyone. The buildings won't look like that. Erica said there will be money to beautify the buildings with taxes from the shops and restaurants in the new buildings (and yes, there will be plenty of tenants -- it's free tourist money at the very least).
@7, if you're looking for that kind of "feng shui," can I suggest one of Seattle's many fine exurbs? Surface highways and surface parking lots as far as the eye can see.
@7, if you're looking for that kind of "feng shui," can I suggest one of Seattle's many fine exurbs? Surface highways and surface parking lots as far as the eye can see.
18
Surface option depicted grossly underestimates the number of cars on the road. Makes it look even idyllic, I dare say.
20
does the surface option include any parking? there's already parking under the viaduct at present...
21
1/What are all those people doing, admiring the sidewalks? There's nothing to do there.
You need cafes, shops, restaurants, etc. Bars. Places to people watch.
Views -- mainly blocked by piers, duh. This won't be any Brooklyn promenade type deal. You can't see the mountains or the water when there is a huge Pier building in your face.
Myrtle Edwards has more of a view and it's usually empty due to lackfo cafes, bars, beers, or activity nodes like at the Bethesda fountain in Central Park.
2. need to put in the buldings like they will look in the future -- huge towers with condos for the ultra rich -- not the kind of lower wharehousey buliding that are there now.
3. what, no homeless and no drug dealers?
You need cafes, shops, restaurants, etc. Bars. Places to people watch.
Views -- mainly blocked by piers, duh. This won't be any Brooklyn promenade type deal. You can't see the mountains or the water when there is a huge Pier building in your face.
Myrtle Edwards has more of a view and it's usually empty due to lackfo cafes, bars, beers, or activity nodes like at the Bethesda fountain in Central Park.
2. need to put in the buldings like they will look in the future -- huge towers with condos for the ultra rich -- not the kind of lower wharehousey buliding that are there now.
3. what, no homeless and no drug dealers?
22
I'm reminded of the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco. It, too, was a disgusting elevated highway, and when an earthquake damaged it, the city was divided over whether to rebuild or do something else. Sound familiar? Eventually, the boulevard option won over, and I think that's the route we should take here in Seattle. San Francisco didn't suffer, what's to say we will?
23
Of the two visions presented, the surface road looks better. But what happened to the underground tunnel with the giant park on top? I know it's too expensive, but if we are going to fantasize, let's fantasize about something idyllic.
24
Haven't any of you whiny naysaying bitches ever been to Chicago? Lake Shore Drive SLOWS DOWN as it passes through the Loop. The surface solution would have 99 do the same. "Whizzing by" is not what happens at 30 mph.
25
Pike Place Market can't even pay for itself, it gets tons of tourists every year, and it's an already established building/landmark. Chopp's fantasy of using rent to pay for the park and pretty exterior for his concrete wall is just that, a fantasy.
...there will be money to beautify the buildings with taxes from the shops and restaurants in the new buildings (and yes, there will be plenty of tenants -- it's free tourist money at the very least).
Pike Place Market can't even pay for itself, it gets tons of tourists every year, and it's an already established building/landmark. Chopp's fantasy of using rent to pay for the park and pretty exterior for his concrete wall is just that, a fantasy.
26
I use the viaduct every day in my commute. There's no way in hell I'd get to work on time with the surface option.
Can you imagine trying to drive along there on a sunny summer day?! Dear God man!
I hate both the options. Yes, of course the street option looks MUCH nicer, but it would be torture on our traffic.
Can you imagine trying to drive along there on a sunny summer day?! Dear God man!
I hate both the options. Yes, of course the street option looks MUCH nicer, but it would be torture on our traffic.
27
so why not charge tolls for people to use the viaduct tunnel since it's completely ludicrous to assume that you could accrue 3.5 Billion in revenue from renting out that space in this economic climate.
28
The written explanation for the surface option states there will be two lanes in each direction, bike lanes, and parking on Alaskan Way. The surface view at the Aquarium has three total lanes. And nothing else. Is this picture accurate?
29
@22, The elevated Embarcadero sucked, but the new surface replacement is hardly ideal. It's about equivalent to our Aurora.
http://tinyurl.com/6ryb4a
http://tinyurl.com/6ryb4a
30
a toll is not a bad idea. maybe the buildings "under" the viaduct could be a little more sparse... i don't know. i want as much transit as possible, but this is a main thoroughfare NS through seattle.... it seems the surface/transit option isn't really a compromise. if the tunnel isn't doable, then chop's idea seems the right direction of what's most viable: a compromise.
31
keshmeshi@25, we're talking about taxes paying to make Choppville PRETTY, not to modernize 100-year old buildings like Pike Place Market. The same funding sources would build Choppville or the tunnel or the surface highway, but Choppville tax dollars would be used to make it prettier than the pictures above.
33
Wow, I really like Chopp's proposal! The surface one is a joke. It would NEVER look that nice. It would look like Aurora between the ship canal bridge and the Battery Street Tunnel, and would be just as easy to cross.
34
#22 and #24 are right on. Chicago has the same sort of scenario with 4 lanes, and it functions just fine. San Francisco saw a gigantic improvement and a financially viable expansion of the city. Additionally, with the ground level scenario, obviously traffic would be slowed down and some people will be frustrated, but will that not make taking mass transit more attractive! That alone seems like a win/win situation to me. We are all going to have to adjust to some discomfort to reduce our pollution, global warming, and energy consumption problems - just maybe slowing down will make us all a little healthier and happier!
35
@31,
The tax would be imposed on those businesses that move in there. That supposes two things: either the state pays for it upfront and assumes it gets the money back, which is not guaranteed, or those businesses are willing to move in before the concrete wall is made pretty.
The first option is more expensive and, again, there's no guarantee that enough businesses would want to move in there. No matter how pretty they'll supposedly make this thing those businesses will still be housed under a fucking freeway. If businesses are clamoring for space under freeways, why do we only have surface parking and homeless people under the current viaduct? There's also a matter of perceived risk. Businesses might worry about the impact of a serious accident on the freeway above them. They might worry about the possibility of a terrorist attack. What could be a juicier target than a busy freeway/shopping mall?
The second option would be completely infeasible. No business would be willing to operate out of something that ugly and unappealing, even if it will be corrected at some future time.
The tax would be imposed on those businesses that move in there. That supposes two things: either the state pays for it upfront and assumes it gets the money back, which is not guaranteed, or those businesses are willing to move in before the concrete wall is made pretty.
The first option is more expensive and, again, there's no guarantee that enough businesses would want to move in there. No matter how pretty they'll supposedly make this thing those businesses will still be housed under a fucking freeway. If businesses are clamoring for space under freeways, why do we only have surface parking and homeless people under the current viaduct? There's also a matter of perceived risk. Businesses might worry about the impact of a serious accident on the freeway above them. They might worry about the possibility of a terrorist attack. What could be a juicier target than a busy freeway/shopping mall?
The second option would be completely infeasible. No business would be willing to operate out of something that ugly and unappealing, even if it will be corrected at some future time.
36
It's odd. I hear the people making the argument, "The traffic Armageddon of a surface route is going to ruin your lovely waterfront." And these seem to be the same people who, by and large, absolutely could not care less about a lovely waterfront. In fact, these are the same people who see the waterfront as the permanent dominion of tourists, upper-class types, and the homeless--and wouldn't mind leaving these "others" with a waterfront that is as unlovely as possible.
Actually, in the waning moments of an earlier viaduct thread, Mr. X and I (normally polar opposites on such issues) arrived independently at what we both considered a fair compromise: a six-lane boulevard.
Me:
Mr. X:
Anyway, for the full context, read the full comments. Me:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Mr. X (just following):
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
More...
Actually, in the waning moments of an earlier viaduct thread, Mr. X and I (normally polar opposites on such issues) arrived independently at what we both considered a fair compromise: a six-lane boulevard.
Me:
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:
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).
Anyway, for the full context, read the full comments. Me:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Mr. X (just following):
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
37
What @5 and @6 said. Also, please tell me how busses turn left into downtown without a permanent clusterfuck.
Right, forgot all the busses will be Magic Busses!
Oh, and where did the port traffic go?
Keep smokin' that hipstercrack, Erica!
Right, forgot all the busses will be Magic Busses!
Oh, and where did the port traffic go?
Keep smokin' that hipstercrack, Erica!
38
And to those who believe Chicago's LSD = Alaskan Way... Nope, you're wrong. LSD is in no way a lazy touristy boulevard, it is all business. If you believe otherwise, please feel free to cross out of Grant Park against the light, and see what happens.
39
Two points:
1) We have surface streets there NOW. Two, in each direction (except where a northbound one becomes the turn lane at the ferry terminal). So the difference is... fewer lights? Well, then, this proposal should cost about $100,000, unless I'm missing something - which is likely since I like to look at pictures rather than reading.
2) People complain that the (hideous) Viaduct "cuts the waterfront off from downtown." You know what else cuts it off? An enormous cliff. The market is seven stories above it. Seneca is four. Sure, you could see the waterfront better without the viaduct, but the natural pedestrian flow won't change. Pedestrians on 1st will still be cut off from the waterfront.
1) We have surface streets there NOW. Two, in each direction (except where a northbound one becomes the turn lane at the ferry terminal). So the difference is... fewer lights? Well, then, this proposal should cost about $100,000, unless I'm missing something - which is likely since I like to look at pictures rather than reading.
2) People complain that the (hideous) Viaduct "cuts the waterfront off from downtown." You know what else cuts it off? An enormous cliff. The market is seven stories above it. Seneca is four. Sure, you could see the waterfront better without the viaduct, but the natural pedestrian flow won't change. Pedestrians on 1st will still be cut off from the waterfront.
40
San Francisco's Embarcadero is a terrible comparison. It's certainly nothing that any city in its right mind would want to emulate at the most important section of its downtown. It's a windswept WASTELAND, and so is this stupid boulevard.
Where are the trains going to go? If you don't have a solution for the freight rail into the port, you don't have a solution at all. Where are the ferry cars going to go? Where are the buses going to go?
The boulevard pictures are RIDICULOUS. You're going to destroy the city to please a few tourists, and you're going to fail even at that -- because what tourist wants to stroll a "boulevard" with nothing but heavy traffic on one side? If you don't think shops and eateries can be enticed into that space, you're crazy; of course they can. Go look at Sydney: giant viaduct right along the most exciting harbor in the world, and it's full of shops.
The LAST thing this city needs from a "vibrancy" perspective is a giant empty space in its economic center. And from a transportation perspective, this is going to drive West Seattle and Ballard AWAY from the center, and drive economic power to the suburbs.
Where are the trains going to go? If you don't have a solution for the freight rail into the port, you don't have a solution at all. Where are the ferry cars going to go? Where are the buses going to go?
The boulevard pictures are RIDICULOUS. You're going to destroy the city to please a few tourists, and you're going to fail even at that -- because what tourist wants to stroll a "boulevard" with nothing but heavy traffic on one side? If you don't think shops and eateries can be enticed into that space, you're crazy; of course they can. Go look at Sydney: giant viaduct right along the most exciting harbor in the world, and it's full of shops.
The LAST thing this city needs from a "vibrancy" perspective is a giant empty space in its economic center. And from a transportation perspective, this is going to drive West Seattle and Ballard AWAY from the center, and drive economic power to the suburbs.
41
We will somehow live without a freeway for 8 1/2 years (we know it will get done on time, for sure) right? Why not just live without it?
44
Fnarf @40: And from a transportation perspective, this is going to drive West Seattle and Ballard AWAY from the center, and drive economic power to the suburbs.
Fnarf, I usually think you're pretty reasonable, albeit hyperbolic, but there's something about this viaduct issue that seems to strike a nerve in you that makes you start ranting and spinning in this almost Orwellian way. So we have to ram a massive elevated freeway through the downtown waterfront otherwise we're going to drive power to the suburbs? If you have that low an opinion of cities and downtowns, then all the power's driving to the suburbs regardless.
And why do you keep bringing up the misleading, Rovian spin about the fucking Cahill Expressway in Sydney? The Australians I've heard from hate it. Here's an earlier Slog rebuttal to one of your numerous attempts to cite the Cahill as some kind of role model of urban planning:
http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/11/to_s…
And the Embarcadero in San Francisco is a wasteland?! Seriously?! Then why the hell do thousands of pedestrians flock there every day? The scary thing is I think you actually believe this. I'm afraid you've become so caught up in this issue that you actually do believe the Embarcadero is a wasteland, the way some religious fundamentalists believe dinosaurs are a hoax, the way 9/11 truthers believe whatever the hell it is they believe.
Fnarf, I usually think you're pretty reasonable, albeit hyperbolic, but there's something about this viaduct issue that seems to strike a nerve in you that makes you start ranting and spinning in this almost Orwellian way. So we have to ram a massive elevated freeway through the downtown waterfront otherwise we're going to drive power to the suburbs? If you have that low an opinion of cities and downtowns, then all the power's driving to the suburbs regardless.
And why do you keep bringing up the misleading, Rovian spin about the fucking Cahill Expressway in Sydney? The Australians I've heard from hate it. Here's an earlier Slog rebuttal to one of your numerous attempts to cite the Cahill as some kind of role model of urban planning:
http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/11/to_s…
And the Embarcadero in San Francisco is a wasteland?! Seriously?! Then why the hell do thousands of pedestrians flock there every day? The scary thing is I think you actually believe this. I'm afraid you've become so caught up in this issue that you actually do believe the Embarcadero is a wasteland, the way some religious fundamentalists believe dinosaurs are a hoax, the way 9/11 truthers believe whatever the hell it is they believe.
45
Cressona,
Have you ever been to the Embarcadero? FNARF hit the nail on the head with his description, and it has been largely vacant every time I've been there. Heck, even our much maligned waterfront has a whole lot more foot traffic, AWV notwithstanding.
@38, LSD (my favorite acronym) is an elevated highway ala the AWV as it goes by Navy Pier, which apparently means that Chicago must not have a world-class waterfront.
If the piddling and woefully inadequate little street shown in these illustrations is what supporters of the so-called "Surface/Transit" option think is a sufficient replacement to meet the needs of SR 99 and the 110,000 trips per day that rely on it, they're just wrong. Categorically and catastrophically wrong.
Have you ever been to the Embarcadero? FNARF hit the nail on the head with his description, and it has been largely vacant every time I've been there. Heck, even our much maligned waterfront has a whole lot more foot traffic, AWV notwithstanding.
@38, LSD (my favorite acronym) is an elevated highway ala the AWV as it goes by Navy Pier, which apparently means that Chicago must not have a world-class waterfront.
If the piddling and woefully inadequate little street shown in these illustrations is what supporters of the so-called "Surface/Transit" option think is a sufficient replacement to meet the needs of SR 99 and the 110,000 trips per day that rely on it, they're just wrong. Categorically and catastrophically wrong.
46
I say that about the Embarcadero, Cressona, because I've actually been there. Have you? It IS a wasteland. Look at it on Google Street View: THERE'S NOBODY THERE. Well, there are people there, but they're all in their cars. And, unlike our viaduct, the freeway that ran there didn't actually connect anything to anything; it was basically a really long on-ramp. That's not an interesting stretch of San Francisco waterfront, and it isn't the center of their downtown like our waterfront is. It's a nothing. Windswept, cold most days of the year, with nothing of interest on either side.
This isn't fundamentalism, it's just the truth. On a list of interesting things to see in San Francisco, this boulevard isn't in the top 1000. SF is one of the great pedestrian cities in the country; there are thousands of places with more foot traffic than there.
Look closely at that street view. Follow it all the way along. See how much nothing there is? See how few places there are of any interest? You can SEE the interesting part from it, tantalizingly close, up into the city, but you're far away from them. Your inclination is to head that way, not further along the most boring place in the entire city.
I guess joggers like it.
As for the Cahill, sure, there are some people who hate it. The point isn't that it is NECESSARY for a vibrant waterfront; it's that it is POSSIBLE to have both. Sydney has a waterfront Seattle could never even dream of having -- and yet, they've got this hulking monster right there. Oh no! How is that possible? Cary Moon says it could never be!
The current viaduct serves two functions: it's a vital transportation artery, and it connects the city with the waterfront. Yes, I said CONNECTS. You can easily walk under it without getting run over, because it lifts the traffic up overhead -- much like the monorail would have. Remember? Grade separation is a good thing. A thousand yards of boulevard to cross is quite the opposite.
More...
This isn't fundamentalism, it's just the truth. On a list of interesting things to see in San Francisco, this boulevard isn't in the top 1000. SF is one of the great pedestrian cities in the country; there are thousands of places with more foot traffic than there.
Look closely at that street view. Follow it all the way along. See how much nothing there is? See how few places there are of any interest? You can SEE the interesting part from it, tantalizingly close, up into the city, but you're far away from them. Your inclination is to head that way, not further along the most boring place in the entire city.
I guess joggers like it.
As for the Cahill, sure, there are some people who hate it. The point isn't that it is NECESSARY for a vibrant waterfront; it's that it is POSSIBLE to have both. Sydney has a waterfront Seattle could never even dream of having -- and yet, they've got this hulking monster right there. Oh no! How is that possible? Cary Moon says it could never be!
The current viaduct serves two functions: it's a vital transportation artery, and it connects the city with the waterfront. Yes, I said CONNECTS. You can easily walk under it without getting run over, because it lifts the traffic up overhead -- much like the monorail would have. Remember? Grade separation is a good thing. A thousand yards of boulevard to cross is quite the opposite.
47
BA @43: you probably don't. My #1 option has always been refit the current viaduct. I don't think Chopp's plan stands a chance in the current budget situation.
48
See the Embarcadero now on Google Streets.
(I don't know what this proves. But. Technology! System! Profit!)
(I don't know what this proves. But. Technology! System! Profit!)
49
Ooh. Lake Shore Drive. And the cluster f*ck, free motorcycle parking under the viaduct. Until it falls on your bike.
50
@ 40, seriously, FNARF, have you actually looked at the scenarios for the Central Waterfront Viaduct Replacement Project? If you did, you'd realize that it doesn't affect rail. We have a tunnel for the major north-south freight lines and the rest of the port rail yards are almost completely outside of the bounds of this project (just in case you are confused, there are three Viaduct projects happening. I think you might have grouped it all together into one big replacement project. Just in case that is what you've done, here's the link to the Viaduct Project that affects the Port: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct….). So, please, stop thinking that a surface option is going to "kill" the Port. It's a non-issue on the grounds you fear.
As for your concern that Ballard is somehow connected to Downtown because of the Viaduct, look at any map, which shows that there is no way to go from Ballard via the Viaduct to get to Downtown. SODO? Yes, but not Downtown. Same thing West Seattle, which will still have highway access (you like those, don't you?) to the south side of Downtown. Seneca, no, but even the tunnel scenarios don't keep the Seneca exit. Hence your whole Downtown losing connectivity to Ballard and W. Seattle is a bit of a red herring.
Finally, I'm trying to figure out how the current Viaduct isn't an empty hole of wasted space sitting on some of the most expensive real estate in Seattle. Right now it's a parking lot that is dark and dreary. If that's your idea of an economic engine, then I encourage you to go help improve the economic situation for Seattle's competitors. Seattle will surely benefit from your poor analysis and advice to Bellevue, et al.
As for your concern that Ballard is somehow connected to Downtown because of the Viaduct, look at any map, which shows that there is no way to go from Ballard via the Viaduct to get to Downtown. SODO? Yes, but not Downtown. Same thing West Seattle, which will still have highway access (you like those, don't you?) to the south side of Downtown. Seneca, no, but even the tunnel scenarios don't keep the Seneca exit. Hence your whole Downtown losing connectivity to Ballard and W. Seattle is a bit of a red herring.
Finally, I'm trying to figure out how the current Viaduct isn't an empty hole of wasted space sitting on some of the most expensive real estate in Seattle. Right now it's a parking lot that is dark and dreary. If that's your idea of an economic engine, then I encourage you to go help improve the economic situation for Seattle's competitors. Seattle will surely benefit from your poor analysis and advice to Bellevue, et al.
52
When I drive from Ballard to Pioneer Square, I take 65th east over Phinney Ridge and around Greenlake, and then hop on the I-5 at Ravenna, hopefully catching the express lane. Either way, I get off at James and go to Yesler. That's the fastest way.
The second fastest way doesn't use the viaduct either. The third fastest way goes along the waterfront, but not on the viaduct.
The second fastest way doesn't use the viaduct either. The third fastest way goes along the waterfront, but not on the viaduct.
53
@50,
Gee, I guess that the Port of Seattle and all of those trucking companies who share FNARF's concerns about the non-viability of the so-called "Surface/Transit" option for freight don't understand their business nearly as well as you do. They certainly don't think it's a "non issue."
Speaking of red herrings, talking around the whole problem of how to get THROUGH downtown without actually addressing it is the reddest of herrings. The "Surface/Transit" Taliban like to pretend that they can wish away the whole problem of getting from Royal Brougham to Denny, but that is the essential role that the AWV now fills, and that any replacement MUST address.
There are a couple of hundred thousand people on the west side of Seattle and its immediate neighbors to the north and south who need to get from point A to point B in a reasonably efficient manner. The grade-separated existing Viaduct does that admirably, and tearing it down without a meaningful replacement (hint - 4 lanes with lots of traffic lights ain't gonna cut it) simply will not.
I call that infrastructure, not "wasted space."
Gee, I guess that the Port of Seattle and all of those trucking companies who share FNARF's concerns about the non-viability of the so-called "Surface/Transit" option for freight don't understand their business nearly as well as you do. They certainly don't think it's a "non issue."
Speaking of red herrings, talking around the whole problem of how to get THROUGH downtown without actually addressing it is the reddest of herrings. The "Surface/Transit" Taliban like to pretend that they can wish away the whole problem of getting from Royal Brougham to Denny, but that is the essential role that the AWV now fills, and that any replacement MUST address.
There are a couple of hundred thousand people on the west side of Seattle and its immediate neighbors to the north and south who need to get from point A to point B in a reasonably efficient manner. The grade-separated existing Viaduct does that admirably, and tearing it down without a meaningful replacement (hint - 4 lanes with lots of traffic lights ain't gonna cut it) simply will not.
I call that infrastructure, not "wasted space."
54
@52,
I challenge you to a route test during afternoon rush hour on that.
Assuming there isn't a game at one of the stadia, we can start at the same point in Ballard (I'm guessing you're trip originates north of 65th), I'll take Elliott, the AWV (or maybe Alaskan Way) and get off on 1st Ave. S. On a typical day, I'd be willing to bet I'll beat you by close to 10 minutes.
Heck, even taking 65th, you'd still make better time by jumping onto Aurora Ave than going all the way over to I-5....
I challenge you to a route test during afternoon rush hour on that.
Assuming there isn't a game at one of the stadia, we can start at the same point in Ballard (I'm guessing you're trip originates north of 65th), I'll take Elliott, the AWV (or maybe Alaskan Way) and get off on 1st Ave. S. On a typical day, I'd be willing to bet I'll beat you by close to 10 minutes.
Heck, even taking 65th, you'd still make better time by jumping onto Aurora Ave than going all the way over to I-5....
56
...ahh, you're talking about an AM peak trip, as you can't take the Express Lanes south after about 12PM or so...
58
Just kidding. If it's during rush hour then I must have the baby in the car and I won't speed. You're on. Ballard High School to the Smith Tower.
I'm at elenchos at google's email dot com. I'm free any day, so let me know when.
(It's nice to be able to take the express lanes in the morning, but not necessary. Morning or afternoon, the viaduct is no help.)
I'm at elenchos at google's email dot com. I'm free any day, so let me know when.
(It's nice to be able to take the express lanes in the morning, but not necessary. Morning or afternoon, the viaduct is no help.)
59
I could beat you too on that route, but I would also point out that the route today is not the same as any route after the viaduct is removed. The viaduct is quite free-flowing most of the time, unlike the freeway; but no viaduct means both Aurora and 15th become parking lots -- just like the freeway.
60
Will Chopp let us name the highway/wall after him if it gets built? It is helpful when one is confronted with some massive piece of civic vandalism, to know who is responsible for it. But if he believes in what he is doing, and that he will not be hated for it, I gotta cut him respect.
Frank?
Frank?
61
@53, Taliban? Is that a joke? I sure hope so...
If you would have read me better, you would have seen that the "non-issue" I was referring to FNARF's concern about the end of rail service for the Port. If you want to get to it, container traffic from the Port does not go through the Central Waterfront corridor, it is generally trucked over to I-5 or I-90 and hauled outta here, or moved over to the railyards and put on a train. Of course this isn't the whole picture as there is significant local freight to be carried around, but the scenarios do address freight (and delays will occur, but I believe we're talking minutes, not hours). In short, the majority of Port activities will work, and there is a lot of mitigation being done (esp. with the S Viaduct Project, Spokane St Viaduct, and SR 519) to actually improve freight mobility so that it will actually be better than the status quo, regardless of whatever Central Viaduct solution we have.
As for the through route, times won't be as fast, but get over it. You live in a city and a pretty agreeable one at that. If the point of cities would be to get from point A to point B really, really fast, then I suggest we put freeways everywhere! Why don't we plow a 6-laner from Ballard straight through Fremont and drive it right across all those nice craftsmans in Wallingford? Why not? Because it would destroy the quality of the city. People are willing to wait a little longer to go cross town because they know Seattle is a great place to be. So why would we stand for a huge freeway in what could be one of the best places in the city? Why? Because some folks in the 1950s thought it was a great idea to build a highway to get "there" faster. In short, there are more important things in a city than to getting someplace "fast."
This conversation about the future of the Central Waterfront is largely about considering what this City's priorities are. Hopefully we can expand the metrics of project success to include not only transit time, but also affordability (cars cost a lot; so do new elevated options and tunnels), urban form, livability, low impact development (hello, saving Puget Sound), multi-modal options (bus, rail, bikes, and walking), and trips traveled (freight and people, not just vehicles). When we expand the metrics of what is important for our transport corridors, the opportunities and the solutions begin to look very different.
More...
If you would have read me better, you would have seen that the "non-issue" I was referring to FNARF's concern about the end of rail service for the Port. If you want to get to it, container traffic from the Port does not go through the Central Waterfront corridor, it is generally trucked over to I-5 or I-90 and hauled outta here, or moved over to the railyards and put on a train. Of course this isn't the whole picture as there is significant local freight to be carried around, but the scenarios do address freight (and delays will occur, but I believe we're talking minutes, not hours). In short, the majority of Port activities will work, and there is a lot of mitigation being done (esp. with the S Viaduct Project, Spokane St Viaduct, and SR 519) to actually improve freight mobility so that it will actually be better than the status quo, regardless of whatever Central Viaduct solution we have.
As for the through route, times won't be as fast, but get over it. You live in a city and a pretty agreeable one at that. If the point of cities would be to get from point A to point B really, really fast, then I suggest we put freeways everywhere! Why don't we plow a 6-laner from Ballard straight through Fremont and drive it right across all those nice craftsmans in Wallingford? Why not? Because it would destroy the quality of the city. People are willing to wait a little longer to go cross town because they know Seattle is a great place to be. So why would we stand for a huge freeway in what could be one of the best places in the city? Why? Because some folks in the 1950s thought it was a great idea to build a highway to get "there" faster. In short, there are more important things in a city than to getting someplace "fast."
This conversation about the future of the Central Waterfront is largely about considering what this City's priorities are. Hopefully we can expand the metrics of project success to include not only transit time, but also affordability (cars cost a lot; so do new elevated options and tunnels), urban form, livability, low impact development (hello, saving Puget Sound), multi-modal options (bus, rail, bikes, and walking), and trips traveled (freight and people, not just vehicles). When we expand the metrics of what is important for our transport corridors, the opportunities and the solutions begin to look very different.
62
Okie dokie. Ballard High School to the Smith Tower. Any time, any day. You on your viaduct, me not. Any takers? You know how to reach me.
Even if patterns will change without the viaduct, it's important to address the claim that the current viaduct is useful for connecting the neighborhoods to downtown. It isn't. It's there for those who want to avoid downtown altogether, which is a different kind of issue.
The viaduct will be gone for five to eight years, plus delays, so we're going to get pretty used to not having it no matter what. Yet we also can't live without it?
Even if patterns will change without the viaduct, it's important to address the claim that the current viaduct is useful for connecting the neighborhoods to downtown. It isn't. It's there for those who want to avoid downtown altogether, which is a different kind of issue.
The viaduct will be gone for five to eight years, plus delays, so we're going to get pretty used to not having it no matter what. Yet we also can't live without it?
64
Connecting neighborhoods to downtown is part of the story. Connecting neighborhoods to each other is another.
65
Fnarf @64: Connecting neighborhoods to each other is another.
Damn straight, Fnarf. And screw anything that lies in that path.
It's amazing. A few Seattleites treat the viaduct like it's Eretz Israel handed down to them by God. And all for the sake of saving--what?--a goddam five or seven minutes on a drive?
The viaduct must be the fifth or sixth most-used traffic corridor in this region. Think of I-5, I-405, 520, I-90--they all get more traffic than the viaduct. Maybe even 167. And yet here are people determined to spend who knows how many dollars in excess of a billion to preserve their precious travel times. Get a little perspective people. It's not even the Holy Land, and we don't have money to burn to preserve your little mistake by the lake that nobody in their right mind would even dream of building from scratch today.
Damn straight, Fnarf. And screw anything that lies in that path.
It's amazing. A few Seattleites treat the viaduct like it's Eretz Israel handed down to them by God. And all for the sake of saving--what?--a goddam five or seven minutes on a drive?
The viaduct must be the fifth or sixth most-used traffic corridor in this region. Think of I-5, I-405, 520, I-90--they all get more traffic than the viaduct. Maybe even 167. And yet here are people determined to spend who knows how many dollars in excess of a billion to preserve their precious travel times. Get a little perspective people. It's not even the Holy Land, and we don't have money to burn to preserve your little mistake by the lake that nobody in their right mind would even dream of building from scratch today.
66
@61,
It was a joke, albeit not one of my best. I get that you were going after a narrower point regarding the specific location of the Great Northern Tunnel and the rest of the rail lines, but my point was that you were missing the larger picture that the freight community has real problems with eliminating the AWV.
This discussion is not just the potential future of the waterfront, but also the future of a neighborhood like West Seattle that is the home to 80,000+ people, and whose entire pattern of development is substantially based on the existence of a functional SR 99.
@62,
You're on, I'll email you. Gotta say, though, that without an alternative route through downtown both of our trips are going to get a whole lot slower.
It was a joke, albeit not one of my best. I get that you were going after a narrower point regarding the specific location of the Great Northern Tunnel and the rest of the rail lines, but my point was that you were missing the larger picture that the freight community has real problems with eliminating the AWV.
This discussion is not just the potential future of the waterfront, but also the future of a neighborhood like West Seattle that is the home to 80,000+ people, and whose entire pattern of development is substantially based on the existence of a functional SR 99.
@62,
You're on, I'll email you. Gotta say, though, that without an alternative route through downtown both of our trips are going to get a whole lot slower.
67
Fnarf and Mr. X @ 66
I live in West Seattle. Do you? Based on past posts, I think not. While your concern for us westsiders is touching, you are not educated on what is happening with the West Seattle commute.
Work has already begun on two important projects. The Spokane Street Viaduct will be enlarged by a lane each direction for buses and HOV. There will be a new off ramp to northbound 4th Avenue, an underused and huge arterial into downtown.
Also, the viaduct project itself has been broken into two parts, south and central. The state has already approved and begun utility relocation on the southern section. From the WSDOT website:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct…
"Many people only think of the viaduct along the central waterfront, but the double-deck structure extends to S. Holgate Street past Safeco Field. This south end section of the viaduct accounts for about 40 percent of the entire structure.
With the S. Holgate Street to S. King Street Viaduct Replacement Project, we will:
* Replace the viaduct's south end with a new side-by-side surface roadway that connects to the existing viaduct.
* Provide new SR 99 on- and off-ramps near S. King Street, improving access to downtown.
* Create an underpass for freight coming to and from the Port of Seattle.
* Build new bicycle/pedestrian paths on the east and west sides of SR 99.
The new south end has been designed to work with whatever solution is chosen to replace the viaduct along the central waterfront."
That's right Mr. X--a big interchange for us West Seattle folk to get off into downtown!
So, what we are really talking about at the end of the day is ONE MILE. A mile at 60 mph takes a minute, a mile at 30 mph takes two minutes. Add a few lights on the waterfront and maybe you get to six minutes longer. I travel the viaduct or through SODO every day. Both routes are equally fast already.
I am willing to stretch my commute a few minutes. If people have a problem with doing that, than I might suggest they have a few other problems with their lifestyle. The fact is, we are really just talking about rush hour here. Most of the day the commute won't be affected much by any option. We are building for the next 100 years, not the last 100. We need to build more transit, not invest in a future that is wedded to the automobile. Mature cities get away from that model because there simply isn't the space for all that parking and all those freeways. Seattle is now at the point East Coast cities faced decades ago.
More...
I live in West Seattle. Do you? Based on past posts, I think not. While your concern for us westsiders is touching, you are not educated on what is happening with the West Seattle commute.
Work has already begun on two important projects. The Spokane Street Viaduct will be enlarged by a lane each direction for buses and HOV. There will be a new off ramp to northbound 4th Avenue, an underused and huge arterial into downtown.
Also, the viaduct project itself has been broken into two parts, south and central. The state has already approved and begun utility relocation on the southern section. From the WSDOT website:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct…
"Many people only think of the viaduct along the central waterfront, but the double-deck structure extends to S. Holgate Street past Safeco Field. This south end section of the viaduct accounts for about 40 percent of the entire structure.
With the S. Holgate Street to S. King Street Viaduct Replacement Project, we will:
* Replace the viaduct's south end with a new side-by-side surface roadway that connects to the existing viaduct.
* Provide new SR 99 on- and off-ramps near S. King Street, improving access to downtown.
* Create an underpass for freight coming to and from the Port of Seattle.
* Build new bicycle/pedestrian paths on the east and west sides of SR 99.
The new south end has been designed to work with whatever solution is chosen to replace the viaduct along the central waterfront."
That's right Mr. X--a big interchange for us West Seattle folk to get off into downtown!
So, what we are really talking about at the end of the day is ONE MILE. A mile at 60 mph takes a minute, a mile at 30 mph takes two minutes. Add a few lights on the waterfront and maybe you get to six minutes longer. I travel the viaduct or through SODO every day. Both routes are equally fast already.
I am willing to stretch my commute a few minutes. If people have a problem with doing that, than I might suggest they have a few other problems with their lifestyle. The fact is, we are really just talking about rush hour here. Most of the day the commute won't be affected much by any option. We are building for the next 100 years, not the last 100. We need to build more transit, not invest in a future that is wedded to the automobile. Mature cities get away from that model because there simply isn't the space for all that parking and all those freeways. Seattle is now at the point East Coast cities faced decades ago.
68
Just eliminate all traffic from the waterfront. Stop thinking about replacing the viaduct, think about eliminating the concept of traffic completely. Create something amazing on the waterfront in Seattle that has nothing to do with traffic.
69
@67,
I don't live in West Seattle now, but did in the past, and I go there about 3-5 times a week.
I know all about the current "Holgate to King Street" part of the project, which is ducky if you want a northbound exit to the stadiums, and otherwise almost completely irrelevant if you're trying to deal with the seismic issues that were used to justify the gas tax increase that was supposed to fix the scary, scary AWV...
Long before the Nisqually Quake, WSDOT had decided to replace the AWV for a toll tunnel (which, fortunately, then-State Senator Mike Heavey killed in the legislature), and waterfront development and money rather than safety and efficacy has been driving this bus for a long, long time....
Do a poll or ask around, Westside, and you'll find that your view is a minority opinion among West Seattleites. As in, somewhere in the high teens/low twenties at best...
I don't live in West Seattle now, but did in the past, and I go there about 3-5 times a week.
I know all about the current "Holgate to King Street" part of the project, which is ducky if you want a northbound exit to the stadiums, and otherwise almost completely irrelevant if you're trying to deal with the seismic issues that were used to justify the gas tax increase that was supposed to fix the scary, scary AWV...
Long before the Nisqually Quake, WSDOT had decided to replace the AWV for a toll tunnel (which, fortunately, then-State Senator Mike Heavey killed in the legislature), and waterfront development and money rather than safety and efficacy has been driving this bus for a long, long time....
Do a poll or ask around, Westside, and you'll find that your view is a minority opinion among West Seattleites. As in, somewhere in the high teens/low twenties at best...
70
@65,
Those 5-7 minutes (which is an absurdly optimistic figure, try driving through downtown on 2nd or 4th sometime at 5PM) add up to an hour a week for a typical commuter.
Those 5-7 minutes (which is an absurdly optimistic figure, try driving through downtown on 2nd or 4th sometime at 5PM) add up to an hour a week for a typical commuter.
71
tear the fucker down.
i thought that when you tear down freeways, all those trips just ... disappear? right? people just figure out a different way of doing: combine their trips, call off that shopping excursion for a day, take a bus, ride a bike?
and the other side of that coin: when you build a freeway, it just attracts traffic. people start making MORE trips? right?
i mean, i grew up in LA and they have lots and lots and lots of freeways, going everywhere, and it's still 100% fucked. they keep building more, and by the time they finish, it's already too late. over-capacity. but i guess LA ain't seattle by a long shot.
maybe all these whiney one person per car commuters should get a fucking life and figure something else out?
too harsh?
i thought that when you tear down freeways, all those trips just ... disappear? right? people just figure out a different way of doing: combine their trips, call off that shopping excursion for a day, take a bus, ride a bike?
and the other side of that coin: when you build a freeway, it just attracts traffic. people start making MORE trips? right?
i mean, i grew up in LA and they have lots and lots and lots of freeways, going everywhere, and it's still 100% fucked. they keep building more, and by the time they finish, it's already too late. over-capacity. but i guess LA ain't seattle by a long shot.
maybe all these whiney one person per car commuters should get a fucking life and figure something else out?
too harsh?
73
Either way, it appears we have a future to look forward to in which our society has no traffic jams, no rain, and is populated mainly with zombies and avatars.
74
@72,
Yeah, but as I told elenchos today, I did manage to hit pretty much every green light en route - so I think the results could easily have been reversed.
It was a worthy exercise, though, and it was a real pleasure meeting someone I spar occasionally with here on the Slog in person and getting to put a face to a name (and can I say again that the Ducati is way sweet?)
@71,
No, most of those trips don't just "disappear".
Yeah, but as I told elenchos today, I did manage to hit pretty much every green light en route - so I think the results could easily have been reversed.
It was a worthy exercise, though, and it was a real pleasure meeting someone I spar occasionally with here on the Slog in person and getting to put a face to a name (and can I say again that the Ducati is way sweet?)
@71,
No, most of those trips don't just "disappear".
75
Hey, why don't we put some kind of elevated rapid transit in this corridor! Say 15 miles worth for about $2 billion. We could get 100000 trips a day.
And Ballard High School to Smith Tower would be a 17 minute trip, every 8 minutes, all day long!
OMG can't do that -- we are too poor!
OK, let's rebuild some highways for about $4 billion. We can easily afford that. Then we can have 100000 trips a day AND get all extra carbon, runoff and congestion benefits, too!
And Ballard High School to Smith Tower would be a 17 minute trip, every 8 minutes, all day long!
OMG can't do that -- we are too poor!
OK, let's rebuild some highways for about $4 billion. We can easily afford that. Then we can have 100000 trips a day AND get all extra carbon, runoff and congestion benefits, too!
Most Commented on Slog
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
How's That Hopey, Changey Stuff Working Out For Childhood Obesity? by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
The Green Police Super Bowl Commercial by Charles Mudede
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (76) RSS