You are hereBlogs / bgtothen's blog / Viaduct Proposal Visualizations
Viaduct Proposal Visualizations
WSDOT just uploaded images that show how each of the 8 alternatives will look in real life. First off I want to say how amazing these images are. WSDOT is trying very hard to make sure that the public understands how these alternatives will look.
Second look at alternatives A through C. Just imagine it! These alternatives will completely change downtown seattle. This street will be lined by cafes and restaurants that spill out into the sidewalk. It will be filled with Seattlites strolling and just enjoying themselves. We will wonder why we even contemplated keeping the viaduct. And look at this disaster. I would not want to be one of those people. They make alternative E look okay but I think the ends of the "integrated" structure will look awkward not to mention cutting off the rest of the city from the water. Lets not forget this is a freeway.
From a vehicle movement perspective alternative C is probably the best acceptable solution. I could do a calculation using the HCM to figure out the difference in vehicle throughput but I can't find my copy of the HCM right now.
From an urban planning perspective A and B are the best alternatives. A is a low capital option of B which is good to consider, but alternative B is a knock out! Read the description.
"Scenario B is similar to Scenario A, but it has more capital investments and more aggressive transit improvements.
Alaskan Way would be two-lanes in each direction north of Yesler Way, with bike lanes and parking. There would be signalized intersections along the waterfront. The east/west streets north of the Battery Street Tunnel would be reconnected with new signalized intersections on Aurora Avenue.
In this scenario the streetcar system would be extended, with lines to Fremont/Ballard, University District, central downtown, and Capitol Hill/First Hill. The bus rapid transit system would be extended with lines for Delridge and Lake City Way and from Ballard to the University District. This service would be in addition to planned new lines serving Ballard, West Seattle and Aurora Avenue.
There would also be more extensive I-5 improvements than with Scenario A. An additional northbound lane on I-5 would start near Cherry Street and go north to SR 520.
This scenario would offer open space of 76-86 feet along the waterfront."
The one down side of this alternative is that the pedestrian promenade along the water will be narrower and in alternative C. Maybe a hybrid of B and C could be used to increase the size of the promenade while maintaing the same vehicle throughput.
UPDATE
Daily transit trips to, from and within the city center will dramatically increase, from 196,000 to as many as 305,000 by 2015 if one surface option replaces the viaduct.
WOW!
- bgtothen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Unrelated to the viaduct, I noticed something strange in the background at Queen Anne Hill. Look at all those buildings!
The integrated option creates a huge wall that'll block views of the waterfront uphill from downtown. Remember all the fuss that was made about the Green line Monorail blocking views? The green looks nice from the sky but on the ground it's terrible.
Want to get a feel of what Alternative D will be like? Try standing under the West Seattle Bridge. Though the twin viaduct structure has less bulk, unfortunately it's still a dominating feature of grey. They completely eliminated the "just rebuild the viaduct, bigger and badder" option.
If alternative B is chosen, does that mean there will be a new funding source for the streetcar network in addition to the LIDs?
I'm not sure but I bet city officials are eyeing the 2.39 Billion dollars. You can do a lot with that if you're not spending it on a new structure. Now that WSDOTs mandate is not to move the most cars but the most people I think that is a possibility.
They also had the Waterfront Streetcar in these simulations. Could funding for that come from the viaduct?
And also, I think the 76 feet of promenade space is enough. You don't want to make it too wide, or it'll just seem empty when not that many people are there.
I just sent an e-mail to Rob Johnson. I'll let you know when he gets back to me.
So he said yes. WSDOT would at least fund the waterfront streetcar.
Well, as usual, anything connected with cars is already taking a severe toll on the Western Washington intellect. WSDOT, displaying their usual brilliance in bringing out old ideas to plan for the past, wanted to build a new freeway on the waterfront. Local Democrats, heavily swayed by a "costs of congestion" argument, had largely signed on. And then, at the 11th hour, came scarcely veiled threats from Nickels that permits for a new freeway might be hard to get.
In one sense all of the figuring that produced these drawings and scenarios is a valuable attempt to quantify proposed outcomes- although I am, frankly, baffled by the calculation of trip times for Greenwood-to-SeaTac trips. Surely the number of people going from Greenwood to SeaTac, at any time, is a trivial component of Puget Sound traffic.
In another sense this is just so much frosting to dip your fingers in and taste while we wait for the actual cutting of the cake. One of two things will happen, new freeway or not new freeway, and I'm guessing cost-benefit can be adjusted after the decision to make it look right.
Like a black hole, this has become an unstable vortex that can suck lesser intellects over the edge. Art Skolnik has done his reputation no good by demanding that the Viaduct be protected under the rubric of historical preservation.
At the bottom line this is illustrating the critical importance of streetcars. It's a big thing that the Seattle DOT has been studying possible routes and can offer them as alternate forms of transportation. People naturally want to see something a little more concrete than a vague promise of more buses sometime, and this applies to policy-makers as well as the man in the street. After all, who would know better how vague and unfulfilled a promise of more buses could be than Ron Sims?
It might appear obvious that tearing down elevated roadways on pricey waterfront only makes sense, but in this case that sentiment is going head-to-head with the most primal instinct in Western Washington- Build More Freeways! It's a battle of the titans.
A combination between B and C would be perfect, though I'd even just B would be fine. I'm really glad they seem to be seriously considering these options and that Seattle came up with a streetcar plan.
What they should do is just keep the off ramp at Spring St. and turn it into a little promenade/overlook. That will provide a little park space, maintain viewpoints and also keep a little of the historical structure intact which would be kind of cool.