By bgtothen on January 12, 2009
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.
Posted in construction activity seattle, Eastside, Inauguration, mass transit, newyork, schools
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 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 Matt the Engineer on April 14, 2008
I’m going to propose a theory of what may be in the heads of our civic leaders. Tell me if I’m an insane dreamer.
Observations:
* The city killed the waterfront trolley.
* The city killed the waterfront trolley again.
* The mayor may want a city tax for in-city transit.
* The city has proposed a streetcar system.
* This streetcar system oddly lacks a waterfront streetcar.
* There’s been a proposal to not replace the Viaduct, but instead move people using a “thousand little fixes”.
* We could really use West Seattle transit to the city.
* We could really use transit from Ballard to the city.
* They’re reinforcing the highway 99 tunnel to withstand earthquakes.
Theory:
What if they replaced the viaduct… with a streetcar? Perhaps they’ve already made the decision to do this, but don’t want to tell anyone about it until they gather support for reducing/removing car traffic on this part of 99.
It could run from scenic Alki, through the tourist filled waterfront, into the tunnel and past the Seattle Center and Queen Anne over the Aurora Bridge and down the hill to eclectic Fremont, ending in Ballard. It would connect many of the tourist-attracting areas of Seattle with one line, solve transportation issues, connect to downtown, stop at all of the cruise and ferry piers, and could even be traffic-separated for a long portion of its journey.
It wouldn’t be for commuters (though it could be used as such). It would be for travelling around in our city in an enjoyable and scenic way.
Posted in Eastside, lightrail, newyork
By serial catowner on April 12, 2008
If for no other reason, the current end of the Waterfront Streetcar will be remembered for the stunning pile of absurdities that have accumulated to do it in.
The beginning of this story is reported now as the need of the Sculpture Park for the land the carbarn stood on- when in fact, the arty types simply objected to the appearance of the carbarn. Let that soak in a minute- people who buy ‘modern art’ complaining about the appearance of the carbarn.
When this story broke, business types a few miles north offered space for the carbarn and money to extend the tracks, to the new labs and businesses near Interbay. This was turned down. Apparently the Waterfront Trolley “no longer fit into the city’s transportation plan”. That’s right, the same city that works overtime to attract cruise ships can’t see the role of a heritage trolley line running past the point where the passengers get off the cruise ships (not to mention the ferries).
So, what is the plan? That’s right- there isn’t any. They don’t know if the Viaduct will be rebuilt or replaced with a “surface option”, and they intend to “service the transportation grid around the viaduct”. Nickels said they would even be looking at streetcars as a way to carry the load during viaduct construction.
Gee, Mayor Nickels, you mean a streetcar like the one that used to be part of the transportation grid around the viaduct?
This is all doubletalk, and the reason they’re trying to snow us is that they’re ashamed of their real motives and their lack of ability to think or plan constructively for the future. Don’t expect a happy ending from this crowd- in spite of their cocktail party appreciation of art, they simply don’t get the big picture.
Posted in gregnickels, maps, newyork, Trail
King County News
Recent Comments