Today's Seattle Times hits the nail on the head on the topic of the Viaduct mess:
With Gov. Christine Gregoire saying a tunnel cannot replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels vowing a new viaduct will never mar the landscape, the state transportation secretary says he's expecting pressure for a third option.Long talked about, but never given a political chance, the idea of just tearing down the viaduct and making improvements to streets and transit is gaining momentum.
Astute political observers have long since realized the potential for such a trend. House Speaker Frank Chopp, State Senator Ed Murray, and King County Executive Rom Sims all either support the surface street option or are willing to seriously consider it (credit to Josh Feit at the Stranger for being out in front on this story). Former Governor Gary Locke has also expressed support for the idea in the face of diminishing hopes for the tunnel. Even Goldy and I agree on the issue.
The oddity is the surface street is a lot of people's second choice. Given the intractable divisiveness of the rebuild v. tunnel debate, one might have presumed Governor Gregoire would have shown true leadership by pushing all sides toward the surface street option. Instead we have a visibly messy process that disturbs even the P-I.
Such public squabbles can only serve to harm Gregoire. Voters inevitably blanch when they witness the sometimes gory details of difficult policy-making. And Democrats in Seattle should be rightly enraged if Gregoire continues down her swerving path of forcing the heinous rebuild down the City's throat. It doesn't take a political genius to realize angering your base is a bad choice on the heels of winning an agonizingly close, disputed election.
Yes, there are drawbacks to the surface street option as well. But as Danny Westneat opined back in December, the leadership void on this issue is jarring. Gregoire doesn't seem to be seizing the opportunity; who will step up and fill it?
Posted by Eric Earling at February 15, 2007 08:27 AM | Email ThisBut you can't do the surface option cold turkey -- you need an interim Repair while you Prepare the infrastructure.
That's what the surface folks refuse to consider.
Repair & Prepare
Posted by: David Sucher on February 15, 2007 08:25 AMBut it we vote (and I'm against a vote because it will tell us nothing and cost a lot), how would I show I wanted a street option? By voting against both options on the ballot? A no vote on both options tells Nickels, the Legislature, Gregoire, what? That they should go back to the drawing board? That I want a street option?
I am so disgusted by all of it. The Monorail saga has left me with a lot of mistrust for how this will all come out in the end. Nickels is practically staking his political life on this (hmmm, maybe this unhappy story will have a partial happy ending) and will twist the voting outcome to say people want a tunnel.
I saw in the PI where Ed Murray says that if a rebuild is in the future that they would lawsuit it to death. Ed does that mean voters get death by an earthquake because we didn't do something or just death by a thousand papercuts? Just asking.
Posted by: westello on February 15, 2007 08:30 AMIf they simply remove North South flow altogether to make the surface option more ped friendly, you can be prepared for grid lock on I-5 for many years to come.
Perhaps this was a bit of political calculation by environmentalists. Eric, you are WAY wrong on this one. I'm looking forward to Stefan's post on the subject.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 15, 2007 08:36 AMI and the other commuters take the viaduct because I-5 is literally a parking lot during rush hour and now the weekends
Washington officials need to show some leadership and just retrofit the viaduct
Posted by: Green Lake Mark on February 15, 2007 08:57 AMI strongly suspect the real reason we're being steered into this false either/or choice between a rebuild and a tunnel is because WSDOT and Gregoire are in the pocket of the construction lobby - follow the money.
99 is a surface street both south and north of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel is only 4 lanes anyhow.
Posted by: noandno on February 15, 2007 09:06 AMI do wish there was a "free lunch" where we could put the viaduct money into 520, but I would hope a lot of very tough questions are asked first. Maybe we should have a "test closure" for a month. Try the surface alternatives, try the transit / water taxi etc that would be implemented, and see what happens. This would give us much better info on which to make a long-term decision.
Posted by: stuart jenner on February 15, 2007 09:31 AMThey've been living the urban fantasy of abolishing-cars-while-denying-equal-or-better-mobility-to-citizens for so long that they are like crystal-gazers. Visualize urban-planner heaven on the waterfront. Oh rapture. But let the 100,000 daily users of that road eat cake? What next, barricade your local streets to prevent drivers from exercising their own choice of alternate routes?
The Steinbruek-Nickels dream world is a naked assault on citizen mobility. It's also telling that voters are never presented with a clear choice of auto-vs-public transportation alternatives by the planning commissars. Should that dream be implemented, they might find that frustrated citizens vote in great numbers for the 'wrong' choices.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on February 15, 2007 09:50 AMWhat I would like to see on the table is the bridge option. It can be built before the viaduct needs to be torn down, the surface streets can get new landscaping, and best of all it can be at least 6 lanes (8 would be better, but politicians have trouble grasping the concept of planning for future capacity). The whiny condo owners will still have to put up with a partially obstructed view, but tough crunchies.
Posted by: Burdabee on February 15, 2007 09:51 AMI still think the repair option is the way to go. David Sucher is right on. We need more realistic thinkers, though.
Posted by: swatter on February 15, 2007 10:26 AMPersonally I prefer a partial retrofit (I'm just guessing they could reduce the viaduct's most glaring safety risks at much less cost than the full, expensive retrofit -- maybe I'm totally wrong) while we look at options and try to reach consensus on a long-term solution.
Posted by: Bruce on February 15, 2007 10:31 AMThe surface street option would introduce many more stoppages to the traffic flow and make it virtually impossible to "flow" from north to south.
I-5 is a joke and it doesn't even appear on the radar of funding needs. In December, I took the express lanes several times to get through the city because I had to drive to Tacoma, Olympia and points south. Four lanes crammed down to one thru-lane with all the others backed up because of traffic trying to get off and into the city - this is with a functional, 160,000 vehicles a day, limited access viaduct crossing the major downtown section.
Shifting current traffic over to I-5 during many years of construction will not solve any gridlock.
Seattle is NOT the center of the universe. Not everyone has the need or a reason to go into the city. Major roads that allow the rest of us to move past the city should not be held hostage by the city.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 15, 2007 11:14 AMFor the surface option to be meaningful it needs to be limited access and free of pedestrian crossings except by overpass. Even then it would not have near the capacity if the existing viaduct. I am confident that the waterfront druids would never tolerate this configuration of surface roads along the waterfront.
The intolerable consequences from the surface option is that I-5 and 405 would be totally saturated day and night. Parallel streets in Seattle and the Eastside will be clogged.
The surface option exports much of Seattle's congestion to the Eastside. Businesses in Seattle dependent upon good roads without congestion will leave in droves. No thanks.
There are only two viable options, repair the existing viaduct or build a new one. Anything else will produce chaos on the roads.
Posted by: Paddy on February 15, 2007 11:16 AMLet's break it down for you:
More people on buses = Less single occupancy drivers
Less single occupancy drivers = Less Traffic
Less traffic = More business
More business = More revenue/jobs
More jobs = More people on buses
Given you do not like the people's choice, which people do you want to force on the busses? And how do you want to do it? A big tax? That, of course, would clear the roads of poor people and leave the roads wide open for the rich in their SUVs. That would go over well!
Or maybe even/odd license plates? That of course would have the same effect - the rich, multiple car families would drive anyway.
So what non-elitist solution do you have when all the people want - rich and poor - is more capacity for everyone for the transportation they want in this still free society.
Posted by: Right said Fred on February 15, 2007 12:10 PMThose who want the surface option place congestion 3rd or 4rth on the list of most important outcomes in making a change to the viaduct. They simply don't care about congestion. Arguing that the idea of a street is a bad idea carries no water with them because they've placed aesthetics, land values and an "image" of the waterfront ahead of mobility/congestion.
The other side obviously sees the congestion/mobility as the #1 factor that is trailed by expense at #2. I think what needs to be fleshed out in detail is what will the backup consequences to I-5 be with a 4 lane surface option. How ugly will downtown become and what will happen to times on 405. The hidden and ambiguous consequences will in fact be business/people moving away from downtown to places where their employees, products and inventory and distribute with ease. It's the reality of the hangover of losing the viaduct and having a surface option that might wake enough of the Seattle voters into acting pragmatically.
The idea of a transit based lifestyle is great. If we could build the I-5 corridor today from scratch with out all those pesky homes, businesses, roads, bridges etc we might be able to put together an interesting grid providing appropriate proximities to everything we each need, food, services, employment, government etc all within reach of a simple, brief and convenient transit ride. Unfortunately we are trying to superimpose that sur-ideal over top of an existing infrastructure and Seattle and its surrounds are going to pay a mighty price now for aesthetics and ideals that aren't grounded in reality.
I'm with the lefties on this one. Choose the cheapest (surface street) option and improve transit. If you don't want to take the bus, then find a different job closer to home. I was working in downtown and chose that option and never looked back.
Posted by: Palouse on February 15, 2007 02:27 PM"The central issue addressed in these findings is how to move forward with
the project after having considered and weighed all the complex and often
competing issues. These include protection of the safety of the traveling
public in the near term and the long term; transportation capacity that
facilitates the economic vitality of the City of Seattle, the Puget Sound
region, and Washington state and meets the intent to maintain SR 99
capacity;..."
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/DFBC4208-FC7C-4486-AD5C-A6D84BBD4A9F/0/GovFindingsAWV520.pdf
"The DKS analysis also reaches some very specific conclusions regarding the impacts the surface option would have on transit capacity. The more vehicles added to the roadway, the less capacity
there is for transit. Simply adding more buses degrades the overall capacity, since several modes of travel are competing for the same limited space. Transferring significantly more vehicles from the Alaskan Way Viaduct to the downtown grid limits the City's ability to provide expanded transit service and erodes the performance of the existing service."
A reduced capacity reduces all seattle capacity as nothing has happened to eliminate cars or make roaways any more efficient at moving busses. The isses of congestion congest transit EQUALLY to cars. It's a false assumtion that the delays A. will only affect car motorists and B. force enough of them into busses to avoid the congestion nightmare. Desire is a horrible way to make decisions. One may desire fewer cars but a street car named desire will be just as stuck in traffic as the suv.
Posted by: Cecil on February 15, 2007 02:55 PMStill, of the two mega-projects in the region on the way, I'd rather the money be spent on 520, so that's why I would support surface streets.
Posted by: Palouse on February 15, 2007 03:00 PMA gridlocked I-5 and a surface street repalcement for the viaduct will make it even more difficult for the people (and businesses) that need to transit the Seattle area without pulling over for a visit.
A surface street solution would only introduce more traffic jams - this time due to lights, cross traffic, etc. - and any current complaints about congestion in that corridor would be like discussing "the good old days".
Besides, without the viaduct - with either the tunnel or surface street options - where would some of the homeless set up their domiciles?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 15, 2007 08:52 PMIf the ferry terminal could be moved north of pier 67 and install a number of overhead walkways from the seawall to Second Avenue then a surface street might work, especially if it was Eight Lanes, including long left turn lanes with limited access.
Regardless of what is done, whether it is a new viaduct, a tunnel or a large boulevard it is going to cost several or more billion dollars. I thought Seattle liked to think of themselves as a progressive city, however with all this talk of only a four lane tunnel or a three lane viadut or merely adding an additional lane to the existing steet, IMHO, appears like they are going backwards instead of forward.
Highway 99 (Alaskan Way Viaduct) needs to be four lanes each direction and once they are done with that I-5 from NE 45th Street to south of the West Seattle Bridge area needs to be completly redone. I-5 should be five lanes each direction with a minimum of three lanes for thru traffic. Those that designed it and approved it should have their names posted publicly. That area is a complete mess. If there was a major disaster, everyone in that area would be sitting ducks. There is not enought major North/South routes to evacuate the city or East bound routes.
Whatever happened to the plans for a third bridge across Lake Washington and where was it planned? IMHO, a bridge across Lake Washington from NE 65th/Magnuson Park area to Kirkland and a bridge across Lake Washington from Orcas Street/Morgan Street area to Pioneer Park area to SE 64th Street/Newport Hills area would improve the East/West traffic flow.
The potential for the third Lake Washington bridge is somewhere just slightly above the "lost by 1 vote in the Legislature" proposal to build a floating bridge (a la Hood Canal span) from West Seattle to Vashon to Kitsap.
The engineering plans exist, deep in the archives, but, it "ain't gonna' happen. Ever". Neither is a 3rd bridge across Lake SayWA?
Not before our grandkids are buried, after dying of old age, anyway.
Posted by: FT on February 16, 2007 05:17 AMBut it really matters not. The forgone conclusion here is already a replacement viaduct. The city will fight it, but eventually will capitulate when they face losing the money to the 520 project. I think 520 will end up being a $10 billion+ project before all is said and done. The fight over that project has barely begun.
Posted by: Palouse on February 16, 2007 07:49 AM