By Matt the Engineer on December 5, 2008
Well, maybe not “suck”, but the Seattle Times story we had already figured this out. Their other major point was that we need fewer cars on the road.
So what’s the solution to this “too wide” problem? Dan Bertolet suggests a new line of buildings on the east side of the plaza, which I think is a good idea. Does anyone have access to this report? Maybe they have recommendations.
Posted in Eastside
By Frank on December 2, 2008
The city council is going to endorse the Surface/Transit option for the Viaduct, says the P-I. Theoretically this is one reason why they had to approve the streetcars this week, as the streetcars are important to downtown mobility during and after construction.
Here’s something that just occurred to me today, but which is kind of obvious in retrospect. Traffic improvements are relative to what existed before. Which means that traffic will suck down on the waterfront for 5 years, while they take the viaduct down, rebuild the seawall, and build new surface boulevards (including, possibly the mini-tunnel under Pike Market).
During that time, people will adjust their commuting patterns. Then, construction will end and the situation will improve. And since we’ll have had 5 years to adjust, the result will be a net gain in mobility.
Posted in Eastside
By Frank on November 26, 2008
Did the big dig actually ease traffic in downtown Boston? Maybe not:
Despite being a national embarrassment, advocates say the Big Dig has achieved its goal of alleviating traffic in Boston, and they’re right. In 1994, getting from one end of Boston to the other using the Central Artery took 15 minutes — today it can usually be done in three minutes or less. Back in the day, traffic jams on the the artery could last up to 14 hours a day. Today, the Big Dig tunnels are almost always clog free.
But move out from the center of Boston, and things don’t look quite as rosy. After examining scores of state highways records, the Globe concluded that at points north and south of the city, congestion has gotten worse since the opening of the Big Dig, sometimes quite a bit worse. At one 11 mile strip just north of the city, evening commute time has more than doubled, from 12 minutes to 25. Similar increases can be seen at other points outside Boston on the roads leading into the tunnels.
Why? Because with such a sleek, streamlined new highway in place, more and more suburbanites now choose to commute into Boston by car. That would be ok if the highways leading into the city from the North and South had been expanded in conjunction with Big Dig construction, but they weren’t. Prior to the Big Dig the main road into Boston worked like an hourglass — a wide pathway that narrowed as you approached the city, and then opened up on the other side. But now the shape has changed, with the road underneath Boston wide open, narrowing as you move north or south away from the city.
This is what we call “induced demand,” folks.
Posted in Eastside, taxes
By Frank on November 20, 2008
The numbers for the Viaduct:
Three possible replacement options disbursing viaduct traffic onto city streets would cost $800 million to $900 million, according to estimates from engineers. One elevated highway design, assuming one new streetcar line and new traffic-flow improvements on Interstate 5, would cost an estimated $1.6 billion. Another elevated design, including a park on top and office and retail spaces and pedestrian access points, is estimated at $2.2 billion.
This is one of those situations where the transit-friendly approach is also the least expensive in the short term. And when the state’s facing a $5B potential budget shortfall next year, cheap is good.
The new 520 bridge, however, is not going to be cheap:
Least expensive at $4.6 billion to $4.8 billion, Plan A features a second bascule bridge alternative, which removes the Lake Washington Boulevard ramps to south Montlake, the arboretum and Madison Park. It urges a public switch from single-occupancy vehicles to transit.
Plan K, or the Parkway Plan, would cost between $6.6 billion and $6.7 billion. It features a tunnel beneath the Montlake Cut and a bermed stretch of highway at Foster Island, lidded to restore arboretum connections. Madison Park, North Capitol Hill, Portage Bay, Roanoke, Montlake and Laurelhurst, as well as the boating, arboretum and bicycling communities, support the Parkway alternative.
Tolling will almost certainly help mitigate these costs, but it’s still going to be a whopper for the state budget.
Posted in Eastside, real time bus information
By bgtothen on November 20, 2008
via LostCarPark
Well the cost estimates are out. As Hugeasscity had a little bird tell him it looks like everyone is leaning towards Alternative C. It is a good balance between vehicle capacity and making the waterfront a great place to be. As pointed out in previous entries these different alternatives are not mutually exclusive rather just a mixture of different elements, many of these elements can be applied to most or all of the alternatives.
In order to make any of the surface alternatives viable there must also be a significant investment in transit including streetcars, rapid trolleys (anyone know what that is?), and rapidride. For a comparison I’m picking what most people in this blog and STB would pick. So…. let build a viaduct replacement.
Hybrid B/C: Capital/Operating (cost in millions)
Central Waterfront: Couplet – 900
I-5: Medium – 346
Surface: Medium – 291
Streetcars: High – 641/26
Transit: High – 476/60
Policies and Management: High – 24/36
Capital Cost – 2,678
Operating Cost – 122
Already Committed Costs – 1,100
Total Cost – 3,778
Funding + 2,390
Balance = 1,388
Below are the minimum cost for the other alternatives. As you can see the surface option with all the transit goodies is a good amount more expensive that the elevated option and falls mid-range in comparison to the underground/trenched alternatives. So if Hybrid B/C is to be built a compromise will probably have to be made. With Hybrid B/C the road improvement cost comes out to 2,346 million, roughly 400-900 million less than the elevated options. Although the elevated alternatives aren’t where this region or its leaders want to go I think this will limit how many transit goodies can be added on top. If they all cost 2,778 million we could justify coming up with the extra money and spending it on transit. My guess is that both Rapidride and the streetcars will be scaled back with the streetcars taking a larger hit unless alternative funding (federal, LID, etc) can be found.
Elevated Alternatives Minimum Cost = 2,700 to 3,200.
Underground/Trenched Alternatives Minimum Cost = 3,000 to 4,600
A huge thing that wasn’t factored in was tolls. Everyone is thinking about them. If tolling on I-90 and SR-520 start in 2010 and they improve traffic, which the models show they will, this region might move ahead with region wide tolling faster than expected… I think???
Posted in calculation, Eastside, gregnickels, newyork, Taken For A Ride, You
By Frank on November 19, 2008
Looks like someone made off with the credit card parking stations under the Viaduct. Obviously the public policy lesson to be drawn here is that elevated urban roadways are a threat to parking meter safety and thus should be torn down immediately.
Posted in Eastside
By Frank on November 19, 2008
hugeasscity says that Option C is “the horse to beat.” Good to know. Option C is pretty fantastic from where I sit. Instead of trying to get 6 N/S lanes on Alaskan Way, they’ve routed Northbound traffic onto Western Avenue. I like taking Western Avenue when I’m leaving Pioneer Square and heading North. The challenge is that intersection right in front of Steinbrueck Park, where pedestrians are streaming back and forth between the park and the Market:
The solution? Tunnel under it! This has the advantage of opening up that whole area between the Park and the Market to pedestrians. Similarly, it would potentially make driving on Pike Place much less useful (Drivers would enter at 1st and Pike, and drive two blocks and have to loop back out at 1st and Virginia). This might make it possible to close Pike Place to vehicular traffic altogether (except maybe deliveries), which is an added bonus.
Posted in Eastside
By bgtothen on November 13, 2008
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!
Posted in Data, Eastside, kingcounty, newyork, tunnel, You
By Frank on October 20, 2008
Today, a piece of the Alaskan Way Viaduct fell off and crashed onto the street below.
Also today, America’s civil engineers gave America’s infrastructure a grade of “D”.
Weaving these two pieces of information into a brief, entertaining blog post is left as an exercise for the reader.
Posted in Eastside
By Frank on September 27, 2008
Oy vey. And they accuse us rail fans of being obsessed?
I’ve had a couple long sessions with Chopp, hearing his passionate commitment to his idea. He recalls growing up in Bremerton, looking out his bedroom window at the Olympics, and wanting all citizens to have that inspiring view. He talks about an example in Paris, the Promenade Plantee, 4.5 kilometers of the “Green Stream” atop a defunct railway viaduct, or the Highline in New York City, a 22-block park projects on top of an abandoned rail deck. Chopp has hired an architect, Kevin Peterson, to refine his ideas. He’s hiring public relations counsel. He’s got some business leaders to make his case with leading politicians. He’s also famously stubborn and shows no signs of conceding.
I appreciate the outside-the-box thinking, but seriously, this thing is a disaster. This is the kind of massive, neighborhood ripping project that went out of style in the 60s. One thing we’ve learned since then is to be a little more humble with the changes we make in the urban fabric.
Posted in Eastside
Sound Transit Latest News
Recent Comments