So says Mayor Nickels, or at least he says it costs less for Seattle. McGinn apparently has no response.
Sound Transit Latest News
- Tacoma Link to run on extended hours Saturday
- Metro & Sound Transit to conduct transit tunnel travel-time test next Tuesday between 4-6 p.m.
- Changes ahead for I-90 Express Lanes
- Sound Transit train, bus riders reminded to prepare for snow
- Sound Transit train, bus schedules for Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
Your Metro Commute
- Metro’s Friday PM commute wrap-up, plus upcoming events that may impact service
- Metro’s Friday PM commute begins quietly, plus upcoming events that may impact service
- Metro’s Friday AM commute wrap-up, plus upcoming events that may impact service
- Metro’s Friday AM commute begins quietly, plus upcoming events that may impact service
- Metro’s Thursday PM commute wrap-up, plus upcoming events that may impact service
Does it really matter if the tunnel costs less than the surface option if the surface options improves life for people in the city rather than just being a pass through for people that don’t live there?
The surface option is likely to be more expensive without the tunnel because 40-60% of the existing Viaduct traffic will still want to just get by Seattle. With the surface options they perform this ‘getting past Seattle’ by driving on surface streets.
In case it is no clear, SR 99 is a state highway. In a move that is certainly to be deplored, but seemed like a good idea at the time, the City of Seattle allowed/encouraged the state to build the Viaduct.
The “people who don’t live there” are largely state residents using a state highway.
It might be “more expensive” to the City of Seattle, but there is no chance the surface option would be more expensive overall. Remember, we pay state taxes as well as city taxes.
I actually like the idea that getting past downtown Seattle would require me to see what it is I’m going through, rather than the walls of a tunnel. Tunnels are great–for punching under hills.
So, uh, the city is supposed to absorb all the pollution and congestion because you like the idea that the surface option would “require” you to see the town?
So much wrong here, starting with the fact that retailers used to believe this (probably some in Bremerton still do) and demand that through-traffic drive past their showroom windows. As anyone who exited the Bremerton boat before the tunnel could tell you, you’d be lucky to see anything other than blue lights in your mirror as you tried to navigate the traffic.
But you know what? Even if the Seattle tunnel was built, you could still drive through on the surface. I lived there 28 years and never used the I-5.
Well, I’ll put a leash on my ‘attack dog’ mode and try to gently suggest that you rethink that last bit there.
Something people may not realize is that the state provides funds for city streets under the rubric “urban arterial”. When Seattle applies for this kind of funding, it is common to discover that the standards have been “improved” to move more cars more safely. This often means widening the lanes or even the street. The planning process is not a pedestrian-friendly environment.
This is a most likely outcome of the surface options- several streets remodeled to move very large amounts of additional traffic at the highest possible speeds. Be careful what you wish for.
I am extremely ambivalent about the tunnel and the surface options, in the morning I support the surface option and in the afternoon I think it would be crazy to dump all those cars on the streets that I enjoy walking. Lets face it cars and pedestrians don’t mix that well.
Some times I believe we need to envision the future we want and do everything we can to make it happen, then a switch flips and I think we need to make the best of the situation we are in right now.
It would be wonderful if half the vehicle trips disappeared but if you combine the 9,000 Alaskan way trips, the 103,000 viaduct trips and then throw in the 1st Ave trips, we have a big problem on surface streets. If I was a property owner in the waterfront corridor the surface option would make me very nervous.
At this point I really wish the Monorail had not been quashed, it would have fit very nicely with the surface option giving the folks in Ballard and West Seattle a true alternative to driving downtown.
When the city, county state are all in a budgetary crisis, spending 4 billion dollars on a hiway seems wrong; Guad Dam $#ckin cars. See I am torn and ambivalent.
I’m with you on that. I really don’t think all of those trips will materialize into surface street trips. For instance, it’s currently about a little more effort to take the bus downtown than to deal with parking. Maybe all that’s needed is to make driving a little less convenient.
What I’d really like to see is a surface plan without new fat streets. Tear the thing down and put in paths and trolley cars. Let there be car traffic until people find other ways around – they will eventually. Of course, politics doesn’t work like this and my big fear with the surface plan is the new fat roads.
Of course, even with the tunnel they’ll build big fat roads downtown. I recently received an email from SDOT confirming this. Hey, time for a new post…