Slog
News & ArtsMonday, July 11, 2011
Transportation Traffic Downtown Nearly Identical if We Build $3.1 Billion Tunnel or Shut Down the Viaduct and Build Nothing
Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:24 PM
The state released its Final Environmental Impact Statement on the deep-bore tunnel last week. I've been wading through the thousands of pages—the report’s body is thicker than a Bible and sits on top of appendices A through X, including some appendices that come with over 250 exhibits—and so has Clark Williams-Derry over at the Sightline Institute. I'm working on a longer a piece about it. Meanwhile, Williams-Derry plugged a few of the traffic estimates into a nifty bar graph to compare traffic volumes downtown if we build the tunnel or if we shut down the viaduct and do nothing at all:
- Sightline Institute
- CLICK TO ENLARGE
Sightline keyed in on the same problem we predicted the report would reveal. Because so many cars would exit Highway 99 to avoid the tolls, most of the downtown grid, the central waterfront, and I-5 is no different with a tunnel or if we just shut down the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
But there are a few marginal benefits, says Williams-Derry:
As you can see, compared with an earthquake that closes the Viaduct, the state says that the tolled bored tunnel would modestly reduce traffic volumes in lower Queen Anne, on streets in the downtown core, and reduce them a bit more in Alaskan Way through Sodo.
But the bored tunnel would make traffic a little worse in South Lake Union. And it’s basically the same as an earthquake for the waterfront, First Hill and Capitol Hill, and traffic crossing between Sodo and the ID/Pioneer Square... I-5 tells a similar story: the state’s models show that tolls on a new SR-99 facility will divert significant amounts of traffic onto I-5.
The tunnel's great advantage is that it facilitates an additional 40,000 vehicles a day under downtown (or 57,000 vehicles by 2030, if WSDOT's prediction of increasing traffic holds true, despite reports that traffic is actually declining). Bypassing downtown in the tunnel would save drivers—that is, those who can pay the $5 tolls one direction—from the snarl of traffic up above. However, as Williams-Derry writes, "in terms of center city traffic delays, the tolled bored tunnel is actually one of worst performers among the options studied."
Here's why this information should inform the debate around the project: The tunnel backers insists that failing to build the tunnel will result in a "stalled city," "gridlock," and a "parking lot on I-5." The problem with that argument: For most of downtown is that a tunnel also creates "stalled city," "gridlock," and a "parking lot on I-5."
1
The arts and heritage community needs to wake-up to the impacts on Pioneer Square. For well over a year, WSDOT has recognized that the volume of traffic rerouted into Pioneer Square “would not be acceptable,” but they offer no alternatives.
The amount of traffic – combined with the scale of the southern interchange itself – will permanently alter the character of Pioneer Square. In addition to the giant portal, likely changes include constant streams of traffic on previously quiet streets, no street parking, elimination and damage to trees, damage to buildings from traffic vibration, etc. Plus the potential loss of historic buildings - the 619 is the tip of the iceberg.
Many Seattleites are dreaming of an open waterfront, so it's important to acknowledge that the same 4-lane road is being planned along the waterfront with –OR- without the tunnel. We can restore the waterfront AND preserve Pioneer Square.
Here's a quote from Knute Berger's March article "My picks for this year's list of the "most endangered" historic properties in Washington"
"The Square is in transition, and as WSDOT's approach to the 691 Building demonstrates, proposed trade-offs need to be zealously watchdogged . . . and public awareness raised about potential threats and the importance of the fabric of the district, not simply its individual buildings. The city must also ensure that WSDOT adheres strictly to the letter and spirit of federal and state preservation laws and requirements."
Here's the link to the full article:
http://crosscut.com/2011/03/02/mossback/…
If you care about the Pioneer Square cultural district, please "like" Save Our Soul {SOS} Seattle on FB: https://www.facebook.com/SOSSeattle
More...
The amount of traffic – combined with the scale of the southern interchange itself – will permanently alter the character of Pioneer Square. In addition to the giant portal, likely changes include constant streams of traffic on previously quiet streets, no street parking, elimination and damage to trees, damage to buildings from traffic vibration, etc. Plus the potential loss of historic buildings - the 619 is the tip of the iceberg.
Many Seattleites are dreaming of an open waterfront, so it's important to acknowledge that the same 4-lane road is being planned along the waterfront with –OR- without the tunnel. We can restore the waterfront AND preserve Pioneer Square.
Here's a quote from Knute Berger's March article "My picks for this year's list of the "most endangered" historic properties in Washington"
"The Square is in transition, and as WSDOT's approach to the 691 Building demonstrates, proposed trade-offs need to be zealously watchdogged . . . and public awareness raised about potential threats and the importance of the fabric of the district, not simply its individual buildings. The city must also ensure that WSDOT adheres strictly to the letter and spirit of federal and state preservation laws and requirements."
Here's the link to the full article:
http://crosscut.com/2011/03/02/mossback/…
If you care about the Pioneer Square cultural district, please "like" Save Our Soul {SOS} Seattle on FB: https://www.facebook.com/SOSSeattle
2
No, Dominic, tunnel supporters say, "We have stalled streets downtown during rush hour no matter what, but with a tunnel at least people traveling from one end of the city to the other THROUGH downtown could pay a modest toll to avoid that!"
In fact, as the report thoroughly covers* use of the tunnel is projected to go up substantially during times when downtown traffic is its worst exactly because that's when the benefits of quick route past the clusterfuck of downtown surface streets will most outweight the costs of any toll.
(It's also, btw, why variable toll rates at peak times are suggested as a way of reducing "toll avoidance" traffic impacts during non-peak hours.)
*see: Appendices V (FHWA and WSDOT Response to Additional Review of the Impacts of Deep Bored Tunnel Tolling Diversion on City Streets; Identification of Mitigation) and X (Tolling Re-evaluation Memo)
In fact, as the report thoroughly covers* use of the tunnel is projected to go up substantially during times when downtown traffic is its worst exactly because that's when the benefits of quick route past the clusterfuck of downtown surface streets will most outweight the costs of any toll.
(It's also, btw, why variable toll rates at peak times are suggested as a way of reducing "toll avoidance" traffic impacts during non-peak hours.)
*see: Appendices V (FHWA and WSDOT Response to Additional Review of the Impacts of Deep Bored Tunnel Tolling Diversion on City Streets; Identification of Mitigation) and X (Tolling Re-evaluation Memo)
3
@2, but the tolls pay only a fraction of the total cost. Should we be subsidizing those who want to bypass downtown Seattle? When the tunnel does nothing for the people on the other routes?
The tolls are variable, but they aren't about demand management they are necessary to fund the project. Tolls that are proposed to pay for a project, when multiple free parallel routes exist, are moronic.
Talk about region wide tolling of all routes and you'll have my ear. Until then, this project does nothing but burn money while benefiting people who can afford to pay $8 each day to shave 6 minutes off their rush hour commutes.
The tolls are variable, but they aren't about demand management they are necessary to fund the project. Tolls that are proposed to pay for a project, when multiple free parallel routes exist, are moronic.
Talk about region wide tolling of all routes and you'll have my ear. Until then, this project does nothing but burn money while benefiting people who can afford to pay $8 each day to shave 6 minutes off their rush hour commutes.
4
i've worked as an analyst for years. decision makers don't care about evidence. when they are sure of something (wo/ any supporting evidence), my experience has been that you have to demonstrate the failure of their ideas for months, if not years on end to stimulate change. we're getting this disaster of a tunnel, because evidence is irrelevant to the decision making process.
5
The truth is that this city is much more robust than many tunnel supporters give it credit. Our transportation system is multi-modal and multi-path and can adjust to even extreme events like shutdown of the viaduct. The biggest risk to the city isn't what we do with the viaduct but what we're prevented from doing in the rest of the city by overspending on this one particular transportation link.
6
This basically kills the argument that a surface option would be better and that a tunnel would make things worse.
Nobody in management or planning cares about tolls. You pay tolls for 20-30 years, then its paid off, followed by 80-100 years of toll-free use. Im sure the same complaints came up when they built the 520 bridge. Complaints that nobody cared about, because the tolls had a sunset clause.
Nobody in management or planning cares about tolls. You pay tolls for 20-30 years, then its paid off, followed by 80-100 years of toll-free use. Im sure the same complaints came up when they built the 520 bridge. Complaints that nobody cared about, because the tolls had a sunset clause.
8
I have lived here now for almost 10 years. I moved out from Texas for work. People will use the tollways. They are a way of life in Texas. To say that people will take surface streets once this is built to avoid paying tolls is absurd. Tolltags or "good to go" passes make it a piece of cake and actually super convenient. The mentality here is mind blowing - just build the damn streets, bridges, tunnels, light rail, streetcar, insert any transportation project you want here "______." The length of time Seattle takes to get going on these projects is a joke. Just like Bellevue doesn't want the light rail because they are not the "one's riding it." They will in fact embrace it over time. Dallas is a great example of this. Let's move forward people!
9
How's this for a novel solution to the tunnel/viaduct controversy: a citywide congestion charge. If the problem is traffic from toll avoidance, then don't just toll 99. Toll I-5, toll the Ship Canal bridges, toll the Duwamish bridges, toll every choke point into the city. A congestion charge would fund road maintenance and construction and manage traffic volumes. We might not even need a tunnel with a congestion charge, but if we did, it would be paid for. And the toll could be a lot lower, and higher during peak periods (though at a fixed rate citywide so there is no incentive to drive across town seeking a cheaper toll.)
12
Btw, are you ready for my next round of straight-to-the-actual-voter slogans?
I learned everything I need to know about FUD from Microsoft.
I learned everything I need to know about FUD from Microsoft.
14
@6, tolls have a way of sticking around much longer than intended, going higher than ever predicted, or even coming back once they've been eliminated. Also, as for the Golden Gate Bridge, maintenance costs have a way of increasing enough to require the continuation of tolls. From the Wikipedia articles on the Golden Gate Bridge and the Coronado Bridge [San Diego], respectively:
...The last of the construction bonds were retired in 1971, with $35 million in principal and nearly $39 million in interest raised entirely from bridge tolls... On September 2, 2008, the auto cash toll for all southbound motor vehicles was raised from $5 to $6...
...Although the bridge was supposed to become "toll-free" once the original bridge bond was paid (which occurred in 1986), the tolls continued for sixteen additional years. In 2002, it became the last toll bridge in Southern California to discontinue tolls... Though tolls are no longer collected, beginning February 19, 2009 there was talk of resuming westbound toll collection.
15
@13, both existing floating bridges were tolled the first ten years or so to help pay for them. Nothing new about tolling schemes. We're not Dallas, nor will be.
17
This is exactly the same argument that anti-transit people make. That spending billions of dollars on transit will not relieve congestion one little bit. And you know what? They're right! We'll never relieve congestion. This is a city. The point is, will there be alternatives to congestion? In New York, you can wait an hour to cross the Brooklyn Bridge into Manhattan for free. Or you can pay to go through the tunnel. It's a lot faster to go through the tunnel, so it may be worth it. The tunnel didn't make traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge go away. But without the tunnel, you'd have no alternative but to wait on the bridge for an hour.
And I'm talking mostly about business and industrial traffic here. Mighty hard to move steel and cement on transit.
That's why, with no tunnel alternative, industry will flee the city, and we'll have a hollowed out area that is excellent for nightclubs (assuming you don't get shot), but sucks if you're trying to earn a family wage with a high school education.
And I'm talking mostly about business and industrial traffic here. Mighty hard to move steel and cement on transit.
That's why, with no tunnel alternative, industry will flee the city, and we'll have a hollowed out area that is excellent for nightclubs (assuming you don't get shot), but sucks if you're trying to earn a family wage with a high school education.
18
@6: "This basically kills the argument that a surface option would be better and that a tunnel would make things worse. "
Spoken like a typical "fiscal conservative" doesn't care about all the money he wants to waste on a solution he's pushing for no goddamned reason other than the "hippies" hate it. Because it's needless.
Spoken like a typical "fiscal conservative" doesn't care about all the money he wants to waste on a solution he's pushing for no goddamned reason other than the "hippies" hate it. Because it's needless.
19
People should just live closer to where they work. Why do we make this so complicated?
I have a 40 minute commute and I'm bitter as hell, don't mind me. I used to commute three minutes by foot. Where did I go wrong in life?
Seriously, this tunnel is a waste of money. How about cleaning up Lake Union and putting beaches in at Gasworks Park? Why are Seattleites so focused on having cool new billion dollar highways when their "so called" best civic park is separated from the water by blackberry bushes and concrete bunkers? What would it take to fix this, like $30m? How much is this tunnel going to cost?
Respect to Washington for having a state government that isn't careening toward bankruptcy like half of the country.
I have a 40 minute commute and I'm bitter as hell, don't mind me. I used to commute three minutes by foot. Where did I go wrong in life?
Seriously, this tunnel is a waste of money. How about cleaning up Lake Union and putting beaches in at Gasworks Park? Why are Seattleites so focused on having cool new billion dollar highways when their "so called" best civic park is separated from the water by blackberry bushes and concrete bunkers? What would it take to fix this, like $30m? How much is this tunnel going to cost?
Respect to Washington for having a state government that isn't careening toward bankruptcy like half of the country.
20
@19: "People should just live closer to where they work. Why do we make this so complicated?"
There is so much class-privilege in this answer, it's ridiculous.
There is so much class-privilege in this answer, it's ridiculous.
21
Exactly, the Millionaires and Billionaires want the rest of us to pay for their toll-enabled pollution-doubling GHG-doubling Gold Plated Deeply Boorrowed Tunnel instead of any of the more reasonable lower-polluting cheaper car-friendly alternatives.
23
Excellent. Now that the truth is out, it should be fun to watch the council/overlords spin it into a disaster.
24
Spending $3 billion on a tunnel, yet cutting bus transportation. Forgot the tunnel, just put the money towards more quality buses (i.e. Sound Transit) which will improve the situation now.
“If Metro does not receive additional revenue for the 2012-2013 budget, it must begin cutting service as soon as February 2012. Without more funds, a total of 600,000 hours of transit service would need to be eliminated over the next two years. This is about 17 percent of Metro’s entire system, but it would affect up to 80 percent of bus riders. That means as many as four out of five people will have to walk further, wait longer, make an extra transfer, stand in the aisle, or stand on the curb and see fullyloaded buses pass them by. And it will force tens of thousands of people back into cars, worsening congestion for everyone.”
http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/future/PD…
http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/future/
“If Metro does not receive additional revenue for the 2012-2013 budget, it must begin cutting service as soon as February 2012. Without more funds, a total of 600,000 hours of transit service would need to be eliminated over the next two years. This is about 17 percent of Metro’s entire system, but it would affect up to 80 percent of bus riders. That means as many as four out of five people will have to walk further, wait longer, make an extra transfer, stand in the aisle, or stand on the curb and see fullyloaded buses pass them by. And it will force tens of thousands of people back into cars, worsening congestion for everyone.”
http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/future/PD…
http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/future/
25
@24: " Forgot the tunnel, just put the money towards more quality buses "
Like any of the tunnel proponents give a fuck about public transpo.
Like any of the tunnel proponents give a fuck about public transpo.
26
@25:
"Like any of the other counties in the state would give a fuck about putting money towards King Co's public transpo,"
Fixed it.
"Like any of the other counties in the state would give a fuck about putting money towards King Co's public transpo,"
Fixed it.
27
I completely agree with KylemBelltown. Dallas is an excellent example of a city with multple free routes along with revenue/profit generating permanent tollroads. Surely Seattle is sophisticated enough to appreciate real-life examples from some of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. The Dallas/Fort Worth/Denton metroplex supports over 7 billion people. That's more than the entire state of Washington. The comparison isn't to insinuate Seattle to become Dallas, but for Seattle to learn and take from Dallas (or any other large metropolitan area) what can be beneficial for Seattle's population. Seattle examining Boston's problem with the "Big Dig" is another perfect situation for us to benefit from another city's experience without spending Millions of dollars one way or another to learn what that city has learned.
Kyle's point is that time is precious to commuters - Dallasites & Seattlites alike. A toll road from QA to Sodo would shave more than 6 minutes off someone's 99 commute. You can't even get over to and on I5 from 99 in 6 minutes during rush hour let alone make it past I90 (heading southbound from QA) or SR520 (heading northbound from Sodo) in 6 minutes.
To think that drivers wouldn't use this tollroad for a matter of convenience is absurd. Drivers will prefer using it because their daily schedule would become adjusted around the shorter commute time without the stress of navigating through the I5 exchanges with 90 & 520. Yeah, we're talking about those who can afford the toll. That's the point isn't it? Let the wealthy fund the cost. At least it'll keep them off the highways that the rest would be commuting on regardless. For those who are considering cost, think about the cost of gas while sitting on I5 not to mention the extra pollution it contributes to the area. A gallon of gas burned in congestion is 3-5 bucks out of your pocket and now in the air we all breath. That's no different than the way people in Dallas feels about class distinction, privileges for the rich, or the environment and smog reduction.
Heavy congestion is a nuisance and a reality here. No one single project can solve all of it. Preventing other projects for another, instead of prioritizing them, is like putting out a house fire in just one room while ignoring the rest. It takes attention, planning, and corrective action (a multifaceted approach) to solve our region's traffic issue. Not considering or utilizing the cost free knowledge available from an existing example like Dallas where they too have bus, light rail, and parallel Freeways/tollways would be shortsighted, close-minded, and very unSeattle-like. Seattlites would naturally want to embrace another city's success and failure to help make an informed decision that's customized to uniquely address our region's needs.
I personally vote for Seattle to consider an open top 99 tunnel which can be referred to as canyonizing the highway. Dallas's Central Expressway was remodeled in this fashion. Seattle could still have service lanes or a boulevard directly over the open 99 highway by them overlapping each side of top as a lip. This allows for Seattle to have a highway, assist in repairing part of the seawall (I remember hearing as a concern), continue to provide surface auxillary streets/cross streets above, open up the Seattle waterfront, and still provide the future opportunity to build a cap or lid over parts in the future for a park, plaza, etc when money permits and allows under a different project with different priorities (more localized and funded.) It would lso provide a great place for Seattle to host their downtown parades with everyone safely watching the parade in the canyonized 99 from the service roads and cross street bridges above while being adjacent to the waterfront. Businesses could still watch from the building windows. Downtown street traffic and metro routes would be minimally impacted or not at all.
More...
Kyle's point is that time is precious to commuters - Dallasites & Seattlites alike. A toll road from QA to Sodo would shave more than 6 minutes off someone's 99 commute. You can't even get over to and on I5 from 99 in 6 minutes during rush hour let alone make it past I90 (heading southbound from QA) or SR520 (heading northbound from Sodo) in 6 minutes.
To think that drivers wouldn't use this tollroad for a matter of convenience is absurd. Drivers will prefer using it because their daily schedule would become adjusted around the shorter commute time without the stress of navigating through the I5 exchanges with 90 & 520. Yeah, we're talking about those who can afford the toll. That's the point isn't it? Let the wealthy fund the cost. At least it'll keep them off the highways that the rest would be commuting on regardless. For those who are considering cost, think about the cost of gas while sitting on I5 not to mention the extra pollution it contributes to the area. A gallon of gas burned in congestion is 3-5 bucks out of your pocket and now in the air we all breath. That's no different than the way people in Dallas feels about class distinction, privileges for the rich, or the environment and smog reduction.
Heavy congestion is a nuisance and a reality here. No one single project can solve all of it. Preventing other projects for another, instead of prioritizing them, is like putting out a house fire in just one room while ignoring the rest. It takes attention, planning, and corrective action (a multifaceted approach) to solve our region's traffic issue. Not considering or utilizing the cost free knowledge available from an existing example like Dallas where they too have bus, light rail, and parallel Freeways/tollways would be shortsighted, close-minded, and very unSeattle-like. Seattlites would naturally want to embrace another city's success and failure to help make an informed decision that's customized to uniquely address our region's needs.
I personally vote for Seattle to consider an open top 99 tunnel which can be referred to as canyonizing the highway. Dallas's Central Expressway was remodeled in this fashion. Seattle could still have service lanes or a boulevard directly over the open 99 highway by them overlapping each side of top as a lip. This allows for Seattle to have a highway, assist in repairing part of the seawall (I remember hearing as a concern), continue to provide surface auxillary streets/cross streets above, open up the Seattle waterfront, and still provide the future opportunity to build a cap or lid over parts in the future for a park, plaza, etc when money permits and allows under a different project with different priorities (more localized and funded.) It would lso provide a great place for Seattle to host their downtown parades with everyone safely watching the parade in the canyonized 99 from the service roads and cross street bridges above while being adjacent to the waterfront. Businesses could still watch from the building windows. Downtown street traffic and metro routes would be minimally impacted or not at all.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Today in the Surveillance State: The "War on Reality" by Brendan Kiley
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
The Full Text of David Guterson's Controversial Commencement Speech by Dominic Holden
-
Egyptian Theatre to Close at the End of This Month by Paul Constant
-
The Monday Morning News by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (27) RSS