Trail

The New Mercer Street

By Frank on August 17, 2007

One infrastructure upgrade that’s going to have a big impact is the Mercer Corridor Project, which I’m reminded of in reading this Crosscut piece on the new South Lake Union park.

The goal of the Mercer project is to make Mercer a two-way street and thus avoid the traffic snarl of cars trying to get off of I-5 headed to Seattle Center. The project will come in two phases: in the first, Mercer will be come two-way only in South Lake Union. This will happen in the next two years and basically make Valley Street near the park more pedestrian-friendly (and, some have argued, add appease Vulcan, whose properties abut the park). The city’s currently buying back land from Vulcan to complete this phase.

Later, while the Viaduct is being replaced, the section of Aurora Avenue just north of Denny Way will be lowered, re-connecting the street grid between South Lake Union and Seattle Center. (As someone who walks between these areas frequently, it can’t happen soon enough. Walking between Seattle Center and SLU, no matter which route you take, is an awful blend of car exhaust, concrete, and noise. And not the good, I-live-in-a-city kinda noise. The belching-of-truck-engines-roaring-past-you-and-the-iPod-can’t-go-loud-enough kinda noise. )

Unfortunately, what’s going to happen, it seems, is that it’s going to get worse before it gets better. Making Mercer two-way without the added street-grid connections between it and Denny will probably just end up putting more congestion onto Mercer itself. We won’t see the benefits of the new arrangement until… well, until we figure out what do do with the Viaduct, and then do it. In other words, not for a while.

Posted in ,

Street Signs!

By Frank on July 15, 2007

As SDOT replaces their aging and hard-to-read street signs with bigger, shinier versions, they’re selling the old signs fo $5 or $10 a pop, depending on condition.

The list of available signs includes some big guns like Dexter Ave N and Rainier Ave S, but nothing truly iconic like Pike or Denny or Yesler. I’d hold out for Greenwood Ave or Ballard Ave, near where I used to love.

Anyone else have a favorite street name in Seattle?

Posted in

The P-I Talks to Steinbrueck

By Frank on June 8, 2007

The P-I’s Opinion Leaders Podcast had an episode from May 22 with Peter Steinbrueck on the future of the Alaskan Way corridor that I’m just now listening to. Steinbrueck does a great job of moving the conversation from moving cars to moving people, which is a much-needed paradigm shift.

He laments the carbon emissions of cars, using the familiar greenhouse gas argument for transit. In response, David Horsey cites a Schwarzenegger speech (possibly this one) about electric cars of the future that won’t pollute. Doesn’t the greenhouse gas argument disappear, Horsey wonders?

Steinbrueck’s response isn’t great. But this is a really, really critical point. So let me help him make his case!

Steinbrueck makes two basic points in response to Horsey: (a) he thinks combustion engines are going to be around for a long time, and (b) even biofuels have environmental problems. Both of those things are true, but neither is the best rebuttal to Horsey. The best rebuttal is that the electricity for those cars has to come from someplace, and currently that place is carbon-belching coal plants (in most of the U.S.). Even hydrogen-powered cars need electricity to electrolyze the hydrogen in the first place.

In other words, there’s simply no getting around the fact that it takes a large amount of energy to move a single person and their 2,500-lb car around the city. By switching to electric cars, you haven’t gotten rid of the problem, you’ve just moved the carbon emissions from the tailpipe to the smokestack. Finally, you’ve still got congestion. If electric cars push the cost of driving towards zero, they’ll end up increasing congestion because people will drive more.

All that said, I still think there’s a benefit in moving to electric cars. Electric cars can be ligher, and, more importantly, they can be recharged at night when the grid has excess capacity. But they’re not reason enough to abandon transit-oriented development.

Posted in , ,

TTI Report on Seattle Mobility

By Frank on June 7, 2007

This is the 2005 version Texas Transportation Institute’s urban mobility study for Seattle.

Posted in

Surface-Transit Gains Momentum

By Frank on May 29, 2007

Erica Barnett reports that the Surface-Transit option has just been “officially endorsed” by the City Council, which just approved spending $8.1M to formally study it:

The council approved the measure unanimously–a seismic shift from the days when only Peter Steinbrueck supported the surface/transit proposal, and a sign that the council is taking seriously last March’s “no/no” vote on two new waterfront freeway options.

“[The plan] focuses our energies on the substance of the solution rather than design of the solution, which is what got us sidetracked” previously, council president Nick Licata said. Licata, once the council’s staunchest supporter of rebuilding the viaduct, cosponsored the resolution.

You can view the surface-transit option in our new “Hot Docs” section.

Update: The P-I provides some more context: the report will be done by July 2008.

Posted in ,

Seattle Urban Mobility Plan

By Frank on May 29, 2007

Peter Steinbrueck’s $8.1M urban mobility study for replacing the Alaskan Way Viadcut. This is the closest thing to a formal study of the so-called “surface-transit option.”

Posted in ,

Fremont Bridge Reopens

By Frank on May 22, 2007

Excellent.

No more debating about whether it’s worthwhile to double back up the hill to pick up Aurora because the Fremont Bridge is down to one lane and it’s backed halfway up Fremont Ave.

Posted in , ,

Reading Tea Leaves Inside the Viaduct Timeline

By Frank on May 9, 2007

Even if we don’t know what we’re going to do with the main section, work is starting on the rest of the structure. Here’s the plan, courtesy of the P-I:

Closing parts of the Battery Street Tunnel from mid-2008 to 2010 for seismic strengthening, a new ventilation system and possibly to lower its floor for greater vertical clearance. Detours may be needed. John Pehrson of the Belltown Neighborhood Association said new ventilation towers may block views of Elliott Bay.

Retrofitting a 3.5-block segment of the structure, between Lenora Street and the tunnel, which planners intend to connect to whatever replaces the 1-mile viaduct segment along the central waterfront. Todd Vogel of the Allied Arts Waterfront Committee said the retrofit could prevent burying viaduct lanes under Elliott and Western Avenues to reduce noise.

A $545 million removal of the old viaduct between Holgate and King streets, from 2009 to 2012, and building a new intersection between the sports stadiums.

Part retrofit, part rebuild, and part… wait-and-see. But here’s the interesting thing for surface-transit supporters. You’ll recall that Governor Gregoire said the day after the vote that the time frame for deciding the fate of the viaduct is “two years, before the state’s next biennium budget is approved.”

The surface-transit option’s best hope is that the Viaduct is closed for a significant portion of those two years, to prove that we can live without it before a decision is made. It should go without saying that no one wants to see the road destroyed in an earthquake or an Oakland-style disaster. But a construction closure, like the one being planned between Holgate and King, would be just the ticket to prove that we can, in fact, live without it.

But the timeline doesn’t work: the state budget will be passed in 2009, probably before the Holgate-King section gets closed. Why not start tearing it down sooner? It’s risky to close the thing down for construction without a final plan, but if we’re serious about what it’s going to

Either way, it’s going to be close: the 2008-9 budget will get approved any day now. So assuming the 2010-1 budget is similarly approved in May of 2009 — and assuming the viaduct doesn’t get hashed out in the final, frenzied days of the approval process — the fate of the viaduct will likely be decided before it closes for reconstruction. If you’re a rebuild supporter, that’s a good thing.

On the other hand, if you’re Greg Nickels, and you don’t want to see another viaduct, this is your only chance:

Early next year state crews also will begin moving Seattle City Light power lines from the 1953-vintage viaduct and burying them underground.

Gee, Mayor Nickels. . . It sure would be a shame if Seattle City Light had to close the viaduct down while it moves the power lines, wouldn’t it? I mean, if the public utility decided that, hey, in the interest of public safety, the viaduct had to close for a few months and people had to find another way to get around. That wouldn’t help your argument at all, would it? (wink, wink)

Posted in , ,

Mobility Plan Passes Council

By Frank on May 8, 2007

The City Council is moving forward:

Seattle will spend $8.1 million to develop a new “mobility plan” in hopes of finding an alternative to building another elevated Alaskan Way Viaduct.

City Council members voted unanimously Monday to create the plan, which may call for more transit, changes in surface streets, trip reduction, and vehicle tolls.

The surface-street option was rejected by WSDOT early on, but many have argued that that study was flawed because it simply removed the highway and didn’t think holistically about trip reduction, increased bus service, etc. This new study would presumably take all of those factors into consideration.

I’m optimistic. This is the first sign of genuine political movement toward a third way. However, it’s important to remember the lessons of the failed monorail project: if an idea doesn’t have the backing of the political establishment, it can easily be killed. Councilman Steinbrueck has made great progress in shepherding this through, but we’re still a long way away from anything approaching a political consensus.

Posted in ,

Getting On The Bus

By Frank on May 7, 2007

One thing I’ve noticed in the past year or so is that it’s gotten much more difficult to park downtown. Through a combination of factors — more electronic meters, fewer free parking areas — the city has really changed my personal calculus: I think twice before driving downtown, even on a Saturday. And I’m much more likely to take the bus.

Some folks aren’t so happy about the changes:

Some neighborhood activists complain that the city’s goals are unrealistic, at least until there’s more convenient public transportation in Seattle.

“The city’s living in a planner’s fantasy that … if you make it hard to park people will magically walk or ride their bike,” said Matt Fox, a longtime activist in the University District, where the city has substantially reduced free parking.

“Until the transit alternatives are in place, I think this is a punitive approach that’s going to make people’s lives really miserable.”

Well, I have a hard time believing it’s going to make anyone’s life truly “miserable” (there are far worse things happening in the world), but I can see where he’s coming from. However, we’re in a bit of a Catch-22 with waiting “until the transit alternatives are in place.” Adding more bus service will be easier when there’s more demand, and there’ll be more demand when there’s more service. In the meantime, Metro’s Transit Now initiative will help.

But my instinct is that the barriers to entry are still too high for many people. The bus system is darn confusing if you don’t have a route that you know and use frequently. It’s reminiscent of the Simpsons episode where Lisa tries to take the bus to the museum and finds herself deposited out in the boonies. When she asks the bus driver why the bus didn’t stop at the museum, he replies “that’s the No. 22. On Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, this is the 22A.” It’s funny because it’s true.

It surprises me that a city with this many information workers can’t come up with a more intuitive way of communicating bus routes. Use colors, use shapes. Have more intuitive bus maps. Identify, say, 8 major routes and make them stand out from the pack somehow. We’re sort of getting there with the BRT component of Transit Now, but so much more could be done for what’s basically peanuts compared to the cost of, say, laying a mile of rail.

Posted in , , ,

« PreviousNext »