Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, January 13, 2009
City Tunnel Reactions
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM
I've been busy with paper-putting-out responsibilities this afternoon, but I didn't want the day to pass without pointing you to some smart reactions to the Alaskan Way Viaduct news from the transit nerds of the world.
First up: The always thoughtful (if sometimes dead wrong) Seattle Transit Blog doesn't like it one bit—in part because it all but precludes future underground transit service, something I hadn't thought of. I'll let you read Andrew's post for all the wonky details. Also at STB, Ben Schiendelman takes issue with the misguided notion that slingshotting people past downtown—as a bypass tunnel would do—is good city planning:
First, it encourages businesses to sprawl, instead of staying in the accessible downtown core. This has always been the problem with highways - they break down the efficient hub and spoke structure of human settlement. When someone can take a trip from Ballard to West Seattle for work, that’s great for them, but then someone in Ravenna or Mount Baker can’t get to that job as easily as if it were in the core. Net mobility is lower. Multiply by a hundred thousand, and you create congested arterials all over town, as we have today.Second, these through trips the Viaduct generates are generally not replaceable with transit. Again, the only way it’s cost effective to build transit is in a hub and spoke layout, and for most of these trips, that means an uncompetitive downtown transfer.
Frank at Orphan Road points out that the proposed tunnel would surely be "the only 21st century urban highway built without HOV lanes or the room to add them," and notes, "since the Viaduct won't close until the tunnel opens, traffic won't have time to adapt to a new pattern. Will it fill up immediately with new trips?
In a statement, the People's Waterfront Coalition declared victory and loss, noting that a) At least there will be no highway on the waterfront, b) this could mean more transit and a better central waterfront. On the other hand, c) The state has proposed doing the project backwards, with the viaduct staying up until the new tunnel is built. That means d) that the governor will break her promise to close down the viaduct by 2012 (and, as noted above, that people won't be able to adapt to new traffic patterns that would be created by shutting the viaduct down).
And Dan at Hugeasscity is uncharacteristically succinct.
1
Just remember, any tunnel like this, by nature of its construction and the required 24/7/365 fans for ventilation, automatically has to create TWICE as much global warming emissions in comparison to any other solution such as an elevated solution or a surface plus transit solution.
Period.
Want Green?
This is NOT GREEN.
But it is a nice giveaway to Paul Allen and Bill Gates so they have a direct non-stop tunnel to Boeing Field from their EMP/SFM and Gates Foundation buildings (look at the map).
Wonder how much they had to pony up to get it?
Too bad they're not paying for the actual cost of it or the operation of it.
Period.
Want Green?
This is NOT GREEN.
But it is a nice giveaway to Paul Allen and Bill Gates so they have a direct non-stop tunnel to Boeing Field from their EMP/SFM and Gates Foundation buildings (look at the map).
Wonder how much they had to pony up to get it?
Too bad they're not paying for the actual cost of it or the operation of it.
2
Face it. Seattle is a rich man's game. There's 10 people calling the shots -- and 10,000 midgets yelling and screaming about what "should" be done.
Face it. Seattle is a rich man's game. There's 10 people calling the shots -- and 10,000 midgets yelling and screaming about what "should" be done.
3
The Viaduct replacement has always been a money hole, and this is the logical extension: a huge, inflexible, technically unfeasible money hole paid for with funds taken from the education of your children.
4
I hadn't heard that the viaduct would stay up during construction. That seems extremely stupid on several independent axes. Am I now rooting for the earthquake?
5
@2 - we call those voters or taxpayers. rich people don't pay taxes (at least not in a state with no income tax).
7
Thanks for the link!
I think the 2012 promise will be a talking point during the next Gubernatorial election, as well as the tunnel being overbudget. Despite the dropping costs of construction lately, we don't have a programmed funding source for the whole thing, much less mitigation.
I suspect this plan can be killed in court - no mitigation, no HOV, a reduction in capacity - it's great for getting people through downtown, but we shouldn't be pushing people through downtown.
I think the 2012 promise will be a talking point during the next Gubernatorial election, as well as the tunnel being overbudget. Despite the dropping costs of construction lately, we don't have a programmed funding source for the whole thing, much less mitigation.
I suspect this plan can be killed in court - no mitigation, no HOV, a reduction in capacity - it's great for getting people through downtown, but we shouldn't be pushing people through downtown.
10
@5, unless they own property or buy things other than food. Which most of them undoubtedly do.
I'd support this plan much more if it had better access from NW Seattle (15th Ave.). Ah, well, at least the waterfront will be less crowded.
I'd support this plan much more if it had better access from NW Seattle (15th Ave.). Ah, well, at least the waterfront will be less crowded.
12
Hey Erica, I'm curious as to what exactly in my post you think is "dead wrong"?
Are you not impressed by more recent parking ratios (such as Moda's, which is under San Francisco's .75 limit)? Do you not believe that some people continue to need a car, but will need it less so as Seattle transit expands and improves (e.g. with East and North Link)? Do you not think that parking maximums reduce the demand for housing in a certain area, and thus reduce the development therein? Do you not believe that decreasing ridership on a transit network has detrimental effects all along the line?
These are a few of my arguments, and I don't think that any one of them is particularly faulty.
I'm looking forward to something more than your contradictions.
Are you not impressed by more recent parking ratios (such as Moda's, which is under San Francisco's .75 limit)? Do you not believe that some people continue to need a car, but will need it less so as Seattle transit expands and improves (e.g. with East and North Link)? Do you not think that parking maximums reduce the demand for housing in a certain area, and thus reduce the development therein? Do you not believe that decreasing ridership on a transit network has detrimental effects all along the line?
These are a few of my arguments, and I don't think that any one of them is particularly faulty.
I'm looking forward to something more than your contradictions.
13
Despite this predictable, banal outcry, let's all ask ourselves one thing: is Seattle about punchy, blandly PC outcries for our current woes, or intently planning and focusing on what would best serve the city? Because as far as I'm concerned, that dreaded Earthquake WILL happen and will undoubtedly annihilate the ugly, wall-like Viaduct. And eliminating it by replacing it with a knee-jerk, vaguely urban-planned street-"scape" nightmare will only choke the area more. To me, it's obvious that Seattle's Big Dig is the best option available for a prophetic future, one that eliminates not only an unsightly, dangerous transportation route in one of this country's greatest cities, but it will provide a means to which to fight for something that has worked successfully in several other great American cities, Boston being the most obvious example. But apparently we all would rather bicker, complain, and ultimately form some ill-fated study groups to kill any amount of progress this city -- and state -- might initiate.
I say good luck. Way to become Tallahassee.
I say good luck. Way to become Tallahassee.
14
The Seattle process: invite everyone together for a year and talk, talk, talk. Then ask downtown business what they want, and do the deal quick.
At least now we know what Nickels was really doing during the snowstorm.
At least now we know what Nickels was really doing during the snowstorm.
15
Most pointless HOV lane ever if it were to be added...
The tunnel is probably a waste of money. I would love it if it had a solution for those industry trips that happen to Ballard/Interbay, so they don't end up on the massive one-ways being created by the waterfront.
Also, if we don't get a solution for replacing the Green Line monorail route soon, we are going to see subsidized car commutes from West Seattle/Ballard for a looong time because of this tunnel. However, the answer is not to make driving harder for those people, it's to make transit better. Let's make sure they design this tunnel with a second subway in mind.
And STB was right about not needing a parking max! Get rid of the minimum requirement, build better mass transit options and watch the market do its thing.
The tunnel is probably a waste of money. I would love it if it had a solution for those industry trips that happen to Ballard/Interbay, so they don't end up on the massive one-ways being created by the waterfront.
Also, if we don't get a solution for replacing the Green Line monorail route soon, we are going to see subsidized car commutes from West Seattle/Ballard for a looong time because of this tunnel. However, the answer is not to make driving harder for those people, it's to make transit better. Let's make sure they design this tunnel with a second subway in mind.
And STB was right about not needing a parking max! Get rid of the minimum requirement, build better mass transit options and watch the market do its thing.
16
@13: Your reading comprehension skills seem to have failed you since you didn't see the part where we get the same streetscape upgrades that we would have had under a surface/transit option.
The second I saw that the tunnel linked SLU/Gates Foundation with their amenities of Boeing Field, I was excited. This is the best news ever for giving the South Lake Union area a boost! I can't wait until we get a second skyline in SLU!
The second I saw that the tunnel linked SLU/Gates Foundation with their amenities of Boeing Field, I was excited. This is the best news ever for giving the South Lake Union area a boost! I can't wait until we get a second skyline in SLU!
18
@16.... Thank you very much; my reading skills are more than adequate. (I schooled outside of the Pacific Northwest, thank you.) With the tunnel there is at least an alternate to dual traffic fighting in both ways -- paired with continual stoplights and stop-and-go traffic... hell, why not just rebuild the Viaduct? The street level freeway would ultimately create an arterial suffocate and ultimately prove how much more successful the Viaduct was. At least a blighted waterfront has a chance to shine under its potential by burying a trafficked mess.
Next up: Let's bury I-5. (Although I'm certain we'll argue for the beauty that it's caused by separating Downtown from Capital Hill.)
Next up: Let's bury I-5. (Although I'm certain we'll argue for the beauty that it's caused by separating Downtown from Capital Hill.)
20
Wow, what an impressive assembly of progressive, green, forward thinking intellectuals you all are.
And to think I almost wrote you off as a bunch of losers who can't afford a car and hate everyone who can.
And to think I almost wrote you off as a bunch of losers who can't afford a car and hate everyone who can.
23
@16: I think @13/18 was saying that the surface option by itself was inadequate -- the tree-lined boulevard with tunnel is very different than the surface reconfiguration by itself. Having said that, I realize belittleing the person you're debating with can be a very effective when your argument is weak.
24
Bore that bitch already. Pass a some kind of unconstitutional law to shut the whiners up.
1) Lower mitigation costs. Since the tunnel is bored, it is out of sight and out of mind. Thus no massive sue-age from nearby landowners.
2) The viaduct can remain open during construction. No other plan had an option like this.
3) Yeah, tunnel boring sounds expensive, but honestly I'm not so sure it is the "most expensive" these days. Again, mitigation costs are like half of any public works project and I wonder how much of that cost was factored into other plans.
4) Again, out of sight, out of mind. While the thing is being built, business remains open. Build a new viaduct? Businesses get the shaft (see also, the lightrail along MLK). Bored tunnels? The only affected areas are the portals.
5) You can easily toll it. Dont want to pay a toll? Well then why are we building it... the viaduct is a luxury, sorry.
6) Really, you are lucky the damn thing is being replaced with anything. Count your blessings.
7) Out of sight, out of mind. You can't whine about it if you can't see it.
Blah. Local politics suck. At least this place isn't as infested with assholes like the forums on Seattle PI or Times. I have no clue where the posters on those sites come from. I hope to god they live far, far away from me though. Most. Asinine. Comments. Ever.
1) Lower mitigation costs. Since the tunnel is bored, it is out of sight and out of mind. Thus no massive sue-age from nearby landowners.
2) The viaduct can remain open during construction. No other plan had an option like this.
3) Yeah, tunnel boring sounds expensive, but honestly I'm not so sure it is the "most expensive" these days. Again, mitigation costs are like half of any public works project and I wonder how much of that cost was factored into other plans.
4) Again, out of sight, out of mind. While the thing is being built, business remains open. Build a new viaduct? Businesses get the shaft (see also, the lightrail along MLK). Bored tunnels? The only affected areas are the portals.
5) You can easily toll it. Dont want to pay a toll? Well then why are we building it... the viaduct is a luxury, sorry.
6) Really, you are lucky the damn thing is being replaced with anything. Count your blessings.
7) Out of sight, out of mind. You can't whine about it if you can't see it.
Blah. Local politics suck. At least this place isn't as infested with assholes like the forums on Seattle PI or Times. I have no clue where the posters on those sites come from. I hope to god they live far, far away from me though. Most. Asinine. Comments. Ever.
25
Seattle politics and Washington state process aside, the tunnel merely perpetuates our dependency on the automobile. We should have realized by now that a transportation system based upon the internal combustion engine is a dead end. No matter how many freeways we build, how many lanes we add, how many tunnels we bore, it will never be enough. We no longer have the energy (US oil production has been declining since the 1970s) to keep the system moving. The state cannot afford to maintain the roads it has and the users of the system refuse to pay for its true cost. Mention raising the gas taxes enough to actually pay for the road system and you could get lynched.
Our current transportation system is like Windows 3.1 and all the users of it think its the best system in the world. They can't envision anything better. You know, things like mobile phones with web browsers or streaming media from YouTube. Building the tunnel is the same as adding a new feature to the existing operating system. Eventually you have to completely start over and build something new. Given both the direct and indirect costs of our auto-centric transportation system, I think we can and should do better.
I'd like to blame this on our pathetic 'leadership' at both the state and local levels. However, as long as the cultural norm is to own/love/live in automobiles (hence quotes from @20 "losers who can't afford a car and hate everyone who can"), the system will perpetuate itself. As if owning a car is the one, true sign that someone is not a loser. Its like ridiculing the lone coworker that doesn't go out for the cigarette break as a 'loser' because he/she doesn't smoke.
For @20: How about an entire country that can no longer afford the car and the system its dependent on. (Bail out the automakers so we can drive more of their crappy cars down the deteriorated highway system of crumbing bridges and roadways). Now instead of a few losers without cars, we're an entire nation of losers. Chained to automobiles we can't afford to drive on roads we can't afford to maintain to jobs that may or may not exist in the new future.
More...
Our current transportation system is like Windows 3.1 and all the users of it think its the best system in the world. They can't envision anything better. You know, things like mobile phones with web browsers or streaming media from YouTube. Building the tunnel is the same as adding a new feature to the existing operating system. Eventually you have to completely start over and build something new. Given both the direct and indirect costs of our auto-centric transportation system, I think we can and should do better.
I'd like to blame this on our pathetic 'leadership' at both the state and local levels. However, as long as the cultural norm is to own/love/live in automobiles (hence quotes from @20 "losers who can't afford a car and hate everyone who can"), the system will perpetuate itself. As if owning a car is the one, true sign that someone is not a loser. Its like ridiculing the lone coworker that doesn't go out for the cigarette break as a 'loser' because he/she doesn't smoke.
For @20: How about an entire country that can no longer afford the car and the system its dependent on. (Bail out the automakers so we can drive more of their crappy cars down the deteriorated highway system of crumbing bridges and roadways). Now instead of a few losers without cars, we're an entire nation of losers. Chained to automobiles we can't afford to drive on roads we can't afford to maintain to jobs that may or may not exist in the new future.
26
I feel like there are a mass of Seattleites who want to make sure nothing ever happens and makes sure any decisions are held up in referendums, initiatives and law suits. They don't have a better solution, but they know all of the solutions available aren't good enough.
I don't know if it's a case of being both profoundly idealistic and unrealistic or an outgrowth of a small-town, anti-change mentality that Seattle still hasn't kicked, but either way it seems like there are people who delight in traffic, snowstorms, and anything that lets them pretend they live in a small, neighborhood-based village instead of a larger vibrant city.
I don't know if it's a case of being both profoundly idealistic and unrealistic or an outgrowth of a small-town, anti-change mentality that Seattle still hasn't kicked, but either way it seems like there are people who delight in traffic, snowstorms, and anything that lets them pretend they live in a small, neighborhood-based village instead of a larger vibrant city.
27
@8 - the main carbon impacts can be found in the scientific papers of construction project measurements - I'm basing this on ones in Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Japan and China.
It's a rough measure, but yes, any tunnel system that isn't open air and uses ventilation and below-sea-level water pumps will automatically have a rough global warming emission impact of double that of either a surface plus transit (which is something like 0.8 to the 2.2 of a tunnel) or elevated highway (works out to between 1.0 to 1.1 to the 2.2 of a tunnel).
Go ask the Sierra Club if you want the nice PR version.
It's a rough measure, but yes, any tunnel system that isn't open air and uses ventilation and below-sea-level water pumps will automatically have a rough global warming emission impact of double that of either a surface plus transit (which is something like 0.8 to the 2.2 of a tunnel) or elevated highway (works out to between 1.0 to 1.1 to the 2.2 of a tunnel).
Go ask the Sierra Club if you want the nice PR version.
28
the US is a car culture, and its not possible to legislate this fact away without a proper alternative. There are no proper alternatives proposed, nor can you haul gravel, fuel or trade goods on a city bus. This is the lowest impact solution, and will put many unemployed Washingtonians back to work.
If you believe otherwise, get to work on building those trains. Good luck buying right-of-way.
If you believe otherwise, get to work on building those trains. Good luck buying right-of-way.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS