Friday, December 19, 2008
City A Tunnel? Sure, Why Not?
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:20 AM
The Alaskan Way Viaduct Stakeholders Group appears to be coalescing around the idea of keeping a deep-bore tunnel option "on the table," with the caveat that current cost estimates put the tunnel at $3.5 billion. That's the most expensive option of all the ones the group considered, but tunnel proponents—among them the Discovery Institute and city council transportation chair Jan Drago—are skeptical that it will really cost that much, pointing out that Sound Transit's deep-bore tunnel cost only about $300 million.
Never mind that Sound Transit's tunnels, at 21 feet in diameter, are about half the size a tunnel replacing the viaduct would need to be; or that a roadway tunnel has to meet much stricter life-safety and ventilation standards than a light-rail tunnel; or, for that matter, that it takes a lot more concrete and steel to carry tens of thousands of cars and trucks than it does to hold a light rail train.
As long as leaving the tunnel "on the table" (i.e., putting it off until the indefinite future) ends discussion of all the elevated freeway options, surface/transit proponents should let the deep-bore fans have their fantasy. Tear down the viaduct, build a new surface street, and get moving on transit improvements now. By the time it becomes obvious that a 50-foot-wide tunnel underneath downtown actually would be as expensive as state and city transportation engineers say it would be, the surface street will be up and running, and the most damaging options—a rebuilt viaduct, or Frank Chopp's walled-off mall/freeway in the sky—will be off the table.
Share via
1
I've always considered the notion of the Surface option as a standby. You can always add to a surface option (dig under it, hopefully, but it's possible to build over it), but if you put up two California Sunkillers or the Alaskan Rape Viaduct, you're stuck with it for 50 years. Seattle has gone without a clear waterfront for decades-- let's give that a chance for, say, 5 years. If life as we know it is strangled in downtown Seattle, then fine, let West Seattle have their toy.
Either way, West Seattle will get hours and hours and hours of new service on BRT, which is just pretty enough to scrape a few more people onto buses. Heck within that 50 years of sunless sorrow on the waterfront, we could build a full LRT or light metro between West Seattle and Ballard ten-- er, 5-- times over.
Either way, West Seattle will get hours and hours and hours of new service on BRT, which is just pretty enough to scrape a few more people onto buses. Heck within that 50 years of sunless sorrow on the waterfront, we could build a full LRT or light metro between West Seattle and Ballard ten-- er, 5-- times over.
2
Why not, indeed. The longer we blather about a tunnel there is no funding for, the more likely a retrofit of the existing structure occurs by default.
Study away, people!
Study away, people!
3
Oh, and if you want a waterfront park so badly you're willing to screw 80,000 West Seattleites and a similar number of people in Seattle's northwest neighborhoods, you could try going a few blocks north to Myrtle Edwards instead.
5
Have Drago and the Discovery Institute not heard a thing concerning Boston's "Big Dig" tunnel--its cost overruns, its lethal falling tiles and liabilities?
6
Can someone explain to me why there even is an Alaska Way Viaduct Skateboarders Group? Suffering the whining of every single special interest is why nothing ever gets done in Seattle.
Attention skaters: not everything is about you.
Attention skaters: not everything is about you.
7
@3: Switching to I-5 adds about 2 minutes to the standard commute. Considering the fact that the viaduct is under 2 miles, I think 2 minutes is acceptable.
If you're "screwed" by changing up under 2 miles of road, then perhaps you should move. I hear Spanaway is pretty traffic-free.
If you're "screwed" by changing up under 2 miles of road, then perhaps you should move. I hear Spanaway is pretty traffic-free.
10
@3,
If you think that using I-5 only adds 2 minutes to the average commute I've got Jan Drago and the Discovery Institute's brand new and unbelievably cheap tunnel to sell you.
Try at least 20 additional minutes during peak hour (and yeah, I know what the most recent "studies" say - I also know they're at odds with every other EIS and environmental document that has been done studying travel times since the mid 1990's).
If you think that using I-5 only adds 2 minutes to the average commute I've got Jan Drago and the Discovery Institute's brand new and unbelievably cheap tunnel to sell you.
Try at least 20 additional minutes during peak hour (and yeah, I know what the most recent "studies" say - I also know they're at odds with every other EIS and environmental document that has been done studying travel times since the mid 1990's).
11
@10
I thought we proved exactly that. And all the times I've tried it during the work week, the viaduct comes out worse than I-5.
I thought we proved exactly that. And all the times I've tried it during the work week, the viaduct comes out worse than I-5.
13
...to put a finer point on that, going from West Seattle to the north, getting from WS to I-5 during peak hour adds about 10 minutes to the trip if you use Corson/Michigan or the Spokane Street Viaduct (and often more - those are some SLOW routes).
And since the new Spokane Street Viaduct will still narrow down to one lane getting on I-5 northbound, don't look for that figure to change much.
And since the new Spokane Street Viaduct will still narrow down to one lane getting on I-5 northbound, don't look for that figure to change much.
14
@3: What exactly will a tunnel or new viaduct do for you West Seattle folks? In case you didn't get the memo, regardless of the option you will still not get an exit off of Seneca into the heart of downtown. Your choices for downtown access will actually be the same or worse than the surface option: (1) entering around Pioneer Square (just as you would the surface option), or (2) at or past Belltown (and for the case of the deep bore tunnel your options are diminished as it will let you out in South Lake Union). Is that the mobility you're asking for?
It seems to me that a surface option that encourages more I-5 mobility and that improves the downtown street grid (with a lot of transit alternatives on top of that) is actually a better solution for West Seattle.
So again, how are you getting "screwed"?
It seems to me that a surface option that encourages more I-5 mobility and that improves the downtown street grid (with a lot of transit alternatives on top of that) is actually a better solution for West Seattle.
So again, how are you getting "screwed"?
15
I-5 is a parking lot already, and will be doubly so if you add the traffic that now uses the AWV to it.
Unless you live in West Seattle or go there as frequently as I do, please don't try and tell us you're doing us any favors.
The fact that they are eliminating the midtown exits under the current proposals (a very bad idea, I would add) doesn't obviate the fact that lots of people need to get through downtown, and nothing that is proposed for I-5 is going to make that one iota easier (and, in fact, the two-way Mercer nonsense being pushed as a solution will actually make going east to I-5 take longer than it does now)
Unless you live in West Seattle or go there as frequently as I do, please don't try and tell us you're doing us any favors.
The fact that they are eliminating the midtown exits under the current proposals (a very bad idea, I would add) doesn't obviate the fact that lots of people need to get through downtown, and nothing that is proposed for I-5 is going to make that one iota easier (and, in fact, the two-way Mercer nonsense being pushed as a solution will actually make going east to I-5 take longer than it does now)
16
@14, West Seattle gets screwed because the folks currently using the Viaduct to get through (not to) downtown Seattle will create a backup on the surface street, leading to delays getting off at Pioneer Square (for instance).
17
You've looked at the surface option, right? You realize that it turns Western into a northbound one-way? Explain to me how that "improves the downtown street grid". Explain to me how it doesn't kill all the businesses along Western.
What the surface option does is actually create a dead zone at the western edge of downtown -- one that is MORE dedicated to the automobile than the current viaduct, not less.
Suggestions to "just use I-5 instead" are about as apropos as a suggestion to just use 405 would be. I-5 AIN'T THERE. Elenchos, I don't know what your routes look like, but I can tell you that at NO time of day or night is 5 a better option for me than Aurora, for ANYTHING, north or south, except getting to the 520 bridge. The viaduct is pretty free-flowing almost all of the time, while I-5 is completely clogged almost all of the time.
That said, the surface option is better than the rebuilt twin-viaduct plan, which appears to have been designed by a viaduct opponent. One wonders if the cost of it includes the dozens and dozens of buildings that would have to be bought up to make room for it -- many of them historic and protected. Honestly, looking at it, I can't see how they're going to get it around the Market.
Retrofit is the only option that makes sense. A tunnel would work, though the group proposing it doesn't give me much confidence -- "no way it would cost that much" is not exactly engineering.
What the surface option does is actually create a dead zone at the western edge of downtown -- one that is MORE dedicated to the automobile than the current viaduct, not less.
Suggestions to "just use I-5 instead" are about as apropos as a suggestion to just use 405 would be. I-5 AIN'T THERE. Elenchos, I don't know what your routes look like, but I can tell you that at NO time of day or night is 5 a better option for me than Aurora, for ANYTHING, north or south, except getting to the 520 bridge. The viaduct is pretty free-flowing almost all of the time, while I-5 is completely clogged almost all of the time.
That said, the surface option is better than the rebuilt twin-viaduct plan, which appears to have been designed by a viaduct opponent. One wonders if the cost of it includes the dozens and dozens of buildings that would have to be bought up to make room for it -- many of them historic and protected. Honestly, looking at it, I can't see how they're going to get it around the Market.
Retrofit is the only option that makes sense. A tunnel would work, though the group proposing it doesn't give me much confidence -- "no way it would cost that much" is not exactly engineering.
18
Nothing will make everyone happy, but the tunnel comes closest to that. Or to put it another way, it makes the most people the least unhappy. It's worth the money.
19
I'm with Fnarf. Retrofit the sucker, build mass transit infrastructure, and revisit the issue in 25 years.
21
When the I-5 HI-WI (high and wide) project wraps in '13 I'll be mergeblocking tumbleweeds on the Westernbahn and humming along to flapping of my mutt's ears.
22
(17 nails it)
I keep thinking the surface option is some kind of sadistic joke, but no, they're serious. At least it adds lanes, I'll give them that. Snarled surface lanes with crosswalks and traffic lights, but it's something (question to those who propose S/T isn't a sadistic joke: how do you figure turning elevated right of way into surface blvd a la Aurora north of denny is going to improve traffic *or* waterfront access?).
Last I checked the elevated rebuild was just going to replace the existing four lanes, which is just utter FAIL.
The only viable solution that appeases the open pavement-hungry crowd and the waterfront park pipe dream crowd is the tunnel or maybe lidded trench, and we should have started a long time ago.
I keep thinking the surface option is some kind of sadistic joke, but no, they're serious. At least it adds lanes, I'll give them that. Snarled surface lanes with crosswalks and traffic lights, but it's something (question to those who propose S/T isn't a sadistic joke: how do you figure turning elevated right of way into surface blvd a la Aurora north of denny is going to improve traffic *or* waterfront access?).
Last I checked the elevated rebuild was just going to replace the existing four lanes, which is just utter FAIL.
The only viable solution that appeases the open pavement-hungry crowd and the waterfront park pipe dream crowd is the tunnel or maybe lidded trench, and we should have started a long time ago.
23
@ 17 (and a lot of you other folks):
I know anecdote and your own experience counts, but you might have wanted to look at the extensive studies conducted on the retrofit option. The conclusion was simply that a retrofit is not practical for the structure as already it is too far gone. Yes, it is possible, but the cost and practicality (they would still have to close it and everyone would still have to adapt to a Viaduct-less 99 corridor for a painful amount of time) makes it a foolish option to pursue. I'm sure all you retrofit backers have a lot of experience in retrofitting structures, so the extensive studies conducted this year on the Viaduct in question probably doesn't count. Moving on.
Also, to the point that Western will be a dead-zone, there are ways to mitigate the traffic issues that you highlight. I still go back other close analogues: Broadway (NY), the West Side Highway, the Champs Elysse. The road design is important, so too is the adjacent land use. To that point, look at the Embarcadero in SF. The part near the end of Market Street is nice because there’s a lot of public space and destinations. The part further away from Market Street is a no man’s land because there aren’t any pedestrian or bike trip generators, destinations, etc. Point is, it can be done around the Central Waterfront, too.
As for the street grid, the plan opens up 4th (a very underutilized road right now) and also improves north-south connectivity through the downtown core. There are actually new connections that will be made with the surface option, including around the waterfront, along with between Uptown and South Lake Union. Point being, this option helps the City absorb a lot of the traffic that folks are concerned with.
Finally, I want to point out to everyone that things change, people adapt, and we can't assume everything will be static. Same goes for Seattle and its transportation network. I think whatever happens will be painful, but the surface option is the quickest, most cost efficient, and provides the most opportunities for Seattle to reconsider how it wants to move. As one person said, this option still leaves the tunnel and (god forbid) the elevated option, if folks really think it's necessary for future generations (I think the studies indicate that neither is necessary).
More...
I know anecdote and your own experience counts, but you might have wanted to look at the extensive studies conducted on the retrofit option. The conclusion was simply that a retrofit is not practical for the structure as already it is too far gone. Yes, it is possible, but the cost and practicality (they would still have to close it and everyone would still have to adapt to a Viaduct-less 99 corridor for a painful amount of time) makes it a foolish option to pursue. I'm sure all you retrofit backers have a lot of experience in retrofitting structures, so the extensive studies conducted this year on the Viaduct in question probably doesn't count. Moving on.
Also, to the point that Western will be a dead-zone, there are ways to mitigate the traffic issues that you highlight. I still go back other close analogues: Broadway (NY), the West Side Highway, the Champs Elysse. The road design is important, so too is the adjacent land use. To that point, look at the Embarcadero in SF. The part near the end of Market Street is nice because there’s a lot of public space and destinations. The part further away from Market Street is a no man’s land because there aren’t any pedestrian or bike trip generators, destinations, etc. Point is, it can be done around the Central Waterfront, too.
As for the street grid, the plan opens up 4th (a very underutilized road right now) and also improves north-south connectivity through the downtown core. There are actually new connections that will be made with the surface option, including around the waterfront, along with between Uptown and South Lake Union. Point being, this option helps the City absorb a lot of the traffic that folks are concerned with.
Finally, I want to point out to everyone that things change, people adapt, and we can't assume everything will be static. Same goes for Seattle and its transportation network. I think whatever happens will be painful, but the surface option is the quickest, most cost efficient, and provides the most opportunities for Seattle to reconsider how it wants to move. As one person said, this option still leaves the tunnel and (god forbid) the elevated option, if folks really think it's necessary for future generations (I think the studies indicate that neither is necessary).
24
Billions of dollars on a tunnel, tens of millions on a streetcar to nowhere, and even more for 2 way Mercer that will reduce traffic congestion by less than 5 percent. Meanwhile, the city's DOT can't even keep its main arterials safe for driving in a modest snowstorm.
What is Drago doing as chair of the Transportation committee again?
What is Drago doing as chair of the Transportation committee again?
25
I'm all for going ahead with the surface route but still leaving the tunnel as an option for the future. Sort of like marrying your girlfriend, but leaving open the option of hooking up with Adriana Lima should she ever become available.
26
@23,
Victor Grey has more than a little experience in building and retrofitting structures as the former lead engineer for the State Highway Department, and he's made a convincing case that retrofitting the AWV is perfectly viable.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/op…
The problem is, the downtown development crowd that has had a hard-on to redevelop the waterfront doesn't get rich that way, so WSDOT manipulated the criteria from simply surviving the next earthquake to being functional after a 500-year seismic event to eliminate the retrofit from consideration.
Victor Grey has more than a little experience in building and retrofitting structures as the former lead engineer for the State Highway Department, and he's made a convincing case that retrofitting the AWV is perfectly viable.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/op…
The problem is, the downtown development crowd that has had a hard-on to redevelop the waterfront doesn't get rich that way, so WSDOT manipulated the criteria from simply surviving the next earthquake to being functional after a 500-year seismic event to eliminate the retrofit from consideration.
27
How the hell can a tunnel come in at $3.5 billion when the surface route and the rebuild are themselves over $3 billion? It's a bit like saying you can have a Lexus RX 300 or 400 SUV for just a thousand dollars more than a Toyota RAV4.
It strikes me that there's a certain contingent of tunnel supporters who are just so stupid and so used to getting their way that they cannot fathom that they have lost. They think they can get away with digging in their heels and stomping their feet like spoiled children and just pulling random, arbitrary cost estimates out of their asses. It's like they think everyone else out there is apparently as stupid as they are.
I can think of a lot of smart, savvy tunnel supporters--Greg Nickels for one--who have moved on because they don't have the luxury of being delusional on this issue.
Who is there to tell Jan Drago, "Jan, we love you, but sorry, you're really sounding like an idiot with this."
It strikes me that there's a certain contingent of tunnel supporters who are just so stupid and so used to getting their way that they cannot fathom that they have lost. They think they can get away with digging in their heels and stomping their feet like spoiled children and just pulling random, arbitrary cost estimates out of their asses. It's like they think everyone else out there is apparently as stupid as they are.
I can think of a lot of smart, savvy tunnel supporters--Greg Nickels for one--who have moved on because they don't have the luxury of being delusional on this issue.
Who is there to tell Jan Drago, "Jan, we love you, but sorry, you're really sounding like an idiot with this."
28
Fnarf @17:
My first thought when I heard about the new surface route proposal was, isn't it going to hurt all those businesses on Western? Don't all those furniture stores rely on on-street parking? Will that parking still be there and will it still be accessible?
If the proponents of this new surface plan can address that one concern, I can see how it would be an improvement over the surface proposals we've been hearing about. I'd be curious to hear what all the businesses on Western think about this.
You've looked at the surface option, right? You realize that it turns Western into a northbound one-way? Explain to me how that "improves the downtown street grid". Explain to me how it doesn't kill all the businesses along Western.
My first thought when I heard about the new surface route proposal was, isn't it going to hurt all those businesses on Western? Don't all those furniture stores rely on on-street parking? Will that parking still be there and will it still be accessible?
If the proponents of this new surface plan can address that one concern, I can see how it would be an improvement over the surface proposals we've been hearing about. I'd be curious to hear what all the businesses on Western think about this.
29
@26:
Here's the July 2008 WSDOT analysis of the retrofit option: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AC2…
The WSDOT analysis was completed by an engineer who really, really likes retrofits, but ultimately concluded that a Viaduct retrofit was not a practical option for moving forward.
Conclusion? It costs 80% of just rebuilding it, it will still be an unsafe structure that is not up to current driving standards, and it will still take 7-8 years to retrofit along with significant traffic disruption during this process (surface takes about half the time). All for a structure that will only last about 50 years. So again, what's the benefit of that?
Here's the July 2008 WSDOT analysis of the retrofit option: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AC2…
The WSDOT analysis was completed by an engineer who really, really likes retrofits, but ultimately concluded that a Viaduct retrofit was not a practical option for moving forward.
Conclusion? It costs 80% of just rebuilding it, it will still be an unsafe structure that is not up to current driving standards, and it will still take 7-8 years to retrofit along with significant traffic disruption during this process (surface takes about half the time). All for a structure that will only last about 50 years. So again, what's the benefit of that?
30
A most telling item in the study you cite is the allegation that a retrofit doesn't fit lane width criteria and the subsequent statement that this is a seriously disqualifying factor for a retrofit.
Oddly enough, SDOT just narrowed the lanes on the West Seattle Bridge to the same size as those on the AWV in order to install the bus-only lane, and WSDOT has indicated that something similar could be in the cards for a new SR 520 bridge (after they cited the benefit of wider new lanes as a rationale for going forward with a design that will impose a massive footprint over Foster Island, etc).
You'll have to forgive me if I tend to believe that the WSDOT analysis is a classic example of G.I.G.O and using a false set of criteria to arrive at a forgeone conclusion - particularly if you read the link I provided in which Victor Grey takes apart the YI Lin retrofit study cited in the most recent WSDOT analysis.
Oddly enough, SDOT just narrowed the lanes on the West Seattle Bridge to the same size as those on the AWV in order to install the bus-only lane, and WSDOT has indicated that something similar could be in the cards for a new SR 520 bridge (after they cited the benefit of wider new lanes as a rationale for going forward with a design that will impose a massive footprint over Foster Island, etc).
You'll have to forgive me if I tend to believe that the WSDOT analysis is a classic example of G.I.G.O and using a false set of criteria to arrive at a forgeone conclusion - particularly if you read the link I provided in which Victor Grey takes apart the YI Lin retrofit study cited in the most recent WSDOT analysis.
31
@30:
You're probably right that lane widths aren't the most amazing thing to cite, but the criteria used to evaluate the viaduct scenarios are pretty good. The criteria in question were jointly developed by the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, KC DOT, SDOT, and WSDOT. It's the same set of criteria that have been used to review all of the scenarios. I'm really impressed by (the eight criteria are: Improve public safety, Provide efficient movement of people and goods now and in the future, Maintain or improve downtown Seattle, regional, the port and state economies, Enhance Seattle’s waterfront, downtown and adjacent neighborhoods as a place for people, Create solutions that are fiscally responsible, and Improve the health of the environment).
Regardless, I find it hard to support retrofitting a structure that is unsightly, noisy, and already severely attenuated due to saltwater and other problems (something that those other bridges he cites aren't as subject to). And doing so for a very high cost both to the state's coffers and to the urban and transport fabric of the city.
On top of that, I have a hard time buying Mr. Grey's analysis over WSDOT's (just as I suspect the Cascadia Center's tunnel analysis. For that, please see ECB's doubts, which mirror mine). After this process especially, which has gone to considerable effort to reevaluate ALL options, I can't really determine what nefarious reasons that WSDOT has to avoid a retrofit if it's cost effective and practical. Afterall, surface proponents were probably saying the same things Grey was a couple years ago (about being ignored, etc.), but somehow WSDOT came around to surface as a credible scenario? Why? Because it makes more sense, is more cost-effective, and meets the criteria set up by the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and the supporting DOTs.
No major city in the past couple decades has put up a freeway across their waterfront, so why would Seattle want to keep one up, or for that matter build a new one?
More...
You're probably right that lane widths aren't the most amazing thing to cite, but the criteria used to evaluate the viaduct scenarios are pretty good. The criteria in question were jointly developed by the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, KC DOT, SDOT, and WSDOT. It's the same set of criteria that have been used to review all of the scenarios. I'm really impressed by (the eight criteria are: Improve public safety, Provide efficient movement of people and goods now and in the future, Maintain or improve downtown Seattle, regional, the port and state economies, Enhance Seattle’s waterfront, downtown and adjacent neighborhoods as a place for people, Create solutions that are fiscally responsible, and Improve the health of the environment).
Regardless, I find it hard to support retrofitting a structure that is unsightly, noisy, and already severely attenuated due to saltwater and other problems (something that those other bridges he cites aren't as subject to). And doing so for a very high cost both to the state's coffers and to the urban and transport fabric of the city.
On top of that, I have a hard time buying Mr. Grey's analysis over WSDOT's (just as I suspect the Cascadia Center's tunnel analysis. For that, please see ECB's doubts, which mirror mine). After this process especially, which has gone to considerable effort to reevaluate ALL options, I can't really determine what nefarious reasons that WSDOT has to avoid a retrofit if it's cost effective and practical. Afterall, surface proponents were probably saying the same things Grey was a couple years ago (about being ignored, etc.), but somehow WSDOT came around to surface as a credible scenario? Why? Because it makes more sense, is more cost-effective, and meets the criteria set up by the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and the supporting DOTs.
No major city in the past couple decades has put up a freeway across their waterfront, so why would Seattle want to keep one up, or for that matter build a new one?
32
I'm underwhelmed by at least half of the criteria the new stakeholders group used in this most recent round (most notably "Maintain or improve downtown Seattle, regional, the port and state economies, Enhance Seattle’s waterfront, downtown and adjacent neighborhoods as a place for people") - as these are the very embodiment of setting the criteria to justify a foregone conclusion.
For just one example of how bogus this is - there was NO analysis of the economic effects on West Seattle outside of the Nucor plant, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm not dazzled by the bona-fides of the current round of studies (and you can add to that the fact that they have arrived at radically different cost figures and traffic analysis than have resulted from the last 15 or so years of EIS's and other reviews).
Vic Grey used to be the lead engineer for WSDOT, so he knows what he's talking about with regard to these proposals, and has no current poliitical axe to grind or patrons to answer to. To compare him to Matt Rosenberg and/or someone else from the Discovery Institute is way off base.
WSDOT and the City of Seattle decided to get rid of the AWV back in the early to mid 1990's - long before the Nisqually Quake. Gas taxes were raised to fix this because it was supposed to be such an emergency, and here we sit 7 years (and one election) later with a brand new set of criteria because the facts on the ground don't support the so-called "Surface/Transit" alternative by any stretch of the imagination.
The Northwest doesn't begin and end with Downtown Seattle, and there are hundreds of thousands of reasons - as in people - who rely on the presence of a second functioning corridor through the narrow choke point that is Downtown Seattle.
As I said before - we have a waterfront park at Myrtle Edwards a few short blocks north, and given the history of Westlake Mall (which was originally proposed to be a downtown park), you'd have to be incredibly naive and/or disingenuous to think anything but a wall of new buildings will result from the removal of the AWV.
Add in 28+ traffic lights and 110,000 cars on I-5 and downtown streets, and those of us who actually rely on SR 99 have lots of good reasons to support keeping a functioning State Highway where one has been for the last 50+ years.
This whole "build a waterfront for people not cars" ignores the inconvenient fact that there are PEOPLE in those cars. Lots and lots of them - and they need to get from point A to point B a whole lot more than we need to indulge some urban planner's misguided wet dream of a "world class" waterfront (and on that note, the waterfront is already a major tourist destination with the AWV as it stands today).
More...
For just one example of how bogus this is - there was NO analysis of the economic effects on West Seattle outside of the Nucor plant, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm not dazzled by the bona-fides of the current round of studies (and you can add to that the fact that they have arrived at radically different cost figures and traffic analysis than have resulted from the last 15 or so years of EIS's and other reviews).
Vic Grey used to be the lead engineer for WSDOT, so he knows what he's talking about with regard to these proposals, and has no current poliitical axe to grind or patrons to answer to. To compare him to Matt Rosenberg and/or someone else from the Discovery Institute is way off base.
WSDOT and the City of Seattle decided to get rid of the AWV back in the early to mid 1990's - long before the Nisqually Quake. Gas taxes were raised to fix this because it was supposed to be such an emergency, and here we sit 7 years (and one election) later with a brand new set of criteria because the facts on the ground don't support the so-called "Surface/Transit" alternative by any stretch of the imagination.
The Northwest doesn't begin and end with Downtown Seattle, and there are hundreds of thousands of reasons - as in people - who rely on the presence of a second functioning corridor through the narrow choke point that is Downtown Seattle.
As I said before - we have a waterfront park at Myrtle Edwards a few short blocks north, and given the history of Westlake Mall (which was originally proposed to be a downtown park), you'd have to be incredibly naive and/or disingenuous to think anything but a wall of new buildings will result from the removal of the AWV.
Add in 28+ traffic lights and 110,000 cars on I-5 and downtown streets, and those of us who actually rely on SR 99 have lots of good reasons to support keeping a functioning State Highway where one has been for the last 50+ years.
This whole "build a waterfront for people not cars" ignores the inconvenient fact that there are PEOPLE in those cars. Lots and lots of them - and they need to get from point A to point B a whole lot more than we need to indulge some urban planner's misguided wet dream of a "world class" waterfront (and on that note, the waterfront is already a major tourist destination with the AWV as it stands today).
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (32) RSS