But there is a small, beautiful compromise in the viaductduring its construction, in 1953, three inches of the guardrail on the southbound side were cut away to accommodate a brick building standing at Bell and Western. Those few inches of brick, gently pushing into the viaduct, are preciousa cease-fire zone between the libertines and the scolds, a place where Seattle stops arguing with itself.
I hadn’t noticed this before. But there it is, plain as day:
The plan is set. In a few years, the tunnel will be under construction. Assuming we can dig really deep for funding, around 2018 the state will have a new car bypass past Seattle. After that, the viaduct will be taken down. Many dislike this decision. I agree. And Dan Bertolet at hugeasscity has put into words exactly why this is such a terrible idea.
So what do we do about it? The die is cast, the decision is made. But wait, that’s a long time from now. What if we can convince Seattle and our state that the Viaduct isn’t needed. San Francisco did this with the Embarcadero – they tore it down with the plan of building a tunnel, but then things worked out so well they decided not to build a tunnel.
My proposal: Let’s tear the Viaduct down now. If we can build enough support, couldn’t we convince the city or state to close the Viaduct? It is terribly unsafe, after all. Yes, there will be many complaints about slowing down traffic, but we can make the argument that it’s only a short-term decision. We’ll have a tunnel soon, don’t worry.
After the Viaduct is gone we’ll be able to see if it really affects the city, and to what extent. If it grinds things to a halt, then we’ll have a new way through soon enough. But if not… we could save $4 billion to be used on something more useful.
From this, we can see that the tunnel will, indeed, be “deep,” as it runs under the BNSF tunnel and the bus tunnel through downtown. What we don’t see here is what will be the most controversial part — the northern end of the tunnel, where the tunnel, Western Ave, Pike Market, and the Battery Street tunnel all converge.
We’ll know more in the morning, but here are some things to keep in mind in tunnel discussions. I’ve spent a lot of time in the last few hours perusing the Discovery Institute’s website, as the bored tunnel was their idea, and we have to assume that they’re the go-to resource until we get more information from WSDOT. Discovery has reprinted several op-eds on the tunnel, including a West Seattle Herald piece from Vlad Oustimovitch, the oft-quoted West Seattle architect on the advisory committee, an op-ed from KC Councilman Larry Phillips, and a PSBJ article.
From these, several things emerge:
The viaduct would stay in place until the boring is complete, which could be five years or more.
There would be no downtown exits
There would be no connection for traffic coming from Ballard on Elliot/Western. That traffic would get pushed on to Alaskan Way. Which might be a good thing for Ballard companies like Ballard Oil, since…
Hazardous materials won’t be allowed
Some other questions:
Where is the money for transit in all this?
Will buses be routed through the tunnel? If so, why no HOV lanes? Right now I can’t think of any bus route that goes through downtown without making any stops, and I can’t see why you’d want one.
Will Ballard traffic start taking Leary > N 39th St > Aurora Ave. > Tunnel? That’s how I’d go to get to the Airport and points South.
But even more importantly: when this tunnel finally opens (say, 2020?) it will — at a cost of $4B — reduced the capacity through downtown from 6 lanes to 4. It will also surely be the only 21st century urban highway built without HOV lanes or the room to add them. 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?
A Unique Community Planning Process
Mayor Paul Schell and Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald have convened a volunteer leadership team of civic, business, freight, and neighborhood representatives to serve as a sounding board in an expedited process. This process will develop and refine engineering and design solutions for the corridor in parallel with preparation of an environmental impact statement.
…
Public Involvement
The viaduct planning process involves many opportunities for public participation. This includes public meetings and workshops, community briefings, information materials, and this website. If you would like to schedule a presentation or share your ideas with us, please contact us.
I came across this while doing some research on the bypass tunnel. I had a hazy memory of the bypass tunnel being proposed and discarded several years ago, and indeed it was, part of the 2004 EIS. That version wasn’t “bored,” it was “cut and cover,” but otherwise it was basically the same.
Well I’m just a tad surprised to say the least. Where is the money going to come from? Does this mean the viaduct will be open till the tunnel is open? What will the waterfront look like? What is the project phasing, ie will they build the surface option then build the tunnel later? What kind of transit improvements if any will be include. How will this affect CO2 emissions? These are just a few of my questions.
We better get some clarification soon.
UPDATE: via the Times
“That work is peeling off more than $1 billion of the $2.8 billion set aside by the Washington Legislature, leaving some people to question whether the remaining money is enough to build tunnel. However, the governor’s office says it expects the tunnel can be dug for $1.6 to $1.8 billion.”
Really? A tunnel for 1.8 billion? I have a very had time believing that.
It looks like Gov. Gregoire has delayed a decision on the Alaskan Way Viaduct:
“We are at a political stalemate and must find a path forward to replace the viaduct,” Gregoire said in a statement. “I don’t believe that, without a vote, either option will move forward. We need to hear directly from the people for whom this decision has the most impact.“
Oh wait, I’m sorry. That was when she delayed a decision over two years ago and called for a public vote. The vote happened, two years went by, and now she wants to delay yet again:
“As a result of the continued overwhelming response and input on replacement options from stakeholders, we have asked our respective transportation teams to continue their review. Once this information is in hand, and working closely together, a final recommendation will be made to the state Legislature in January,” they wrote in the joint letter.
I held out a faint hope that, with reelection out of the way, the Governor would start governing again. But I guess she’s going to just lay low for the next four years so that big mean scary Dino Rossi won’t have anything to hang on her in 2012. Hell, it worked last time!
Meanwhile, the Timessays that the tunnel is “back in play.” What part of the 70-30 “no tunnel” vote in 2007 do these people not understand?
Joel Connelly, on why the surface/transit alternative for the viaduct is flawed:
A guy from the state Department of Transportation called in, with ready reassurances. The waterfront lights would be synchronized. Traffic that currently drives the viaduct would “disperse” onto city streets, causing less racket on Western Avenue.
Heard that once before, in West Seattle, at a 34th District Democrats’ meeting. A leader of the People’s Waterfront Coalition leader pooh-poohed predictions of congestion on Interstate 5, and forecast that 25 percent less traffic would travel the path of a torn-down viaduct.
No evidence was given. The DOT guy who called in Friday based his prediction on “models” that the department had studied.
The truth is: You can’t forecast the future.
Next week: why global warming and evolution are just “theories.”
We certainly can forecast the future. We can’t always predict it, of course. But that hardly proves anything. Infrastructure projects are usually built based on the best evidence we have at the time. (If we knew in 1953 that Redmond, WA was going to explode into a huge job center, we might have added a lane or two to 520!) Right now the overwhelming evidence says that congestion is elastic. You build it, they will come. You don’t build it, they’ll find another way around.
Why did traffic volumes on I-5 drop so significantly last August during the construction? People carpooled or took transit. They found a way. Some of them liked it so much, they kept doing it long after I-5 reopened.
I almost want to say Boo Ya but I won’t because there is one last alternative to the surface transit alternative. I really commend the state for throwing out all of the alternatives that should obviously not be advanced. Chopp’s alternative didn’t solve any problems (and just created more), and no matter how nice the tunnel sounds there simply is no money for it and if there is no money it will not happen. So the state made the hard choices and threw them out as it should have.
I would like to point out how the so called “grand compromise” was simply a political stunt by those that don’t want a surface alternative. They knew they had lost so they tried to circumvent the process at the last minute. The state rightly shut them down before they could even get momentum.
We should know what the governors choice is by the end of the year. I would be shocked if it isn’t the surface alternative. Now the major choices will be where transit money is spent and where is comes from.
The Alaskan Way Viaduct stakeholders committee is getting the sneaking suspicion that it’s being railroaded:
“I’m really, really unhappy the way this is coming to an end,” said stakeholder Vlad Oustimovitch, an architect from West Seattle. “Stage managing is going on to make [the stakeholder group] irrelevant. I’m uncomfortable sitting at this table.”
Last week, the stakeholders were briefed on the economic implications of the eight viaduct plans. The problem is there was no plan for them to review: The economist hadn’t released it.
I don’t have any direct knowledge of what’s going on here, but stakeholder committees are difficult to coordinate. They can be used to genuinely shape a solution, or they can be used as political props to provide cover. Either way, the agencies involved have to really want to include them, and have to bend over backwards to make sure they’re engaged.
If anyone has had direct involvement in the process, I’d love to hear from you, anonymity guaranteed.
Sound Transit Latest News
Recent Comments