Orphan Road - viaduct - Comments

And there I thought this was

alexjonlin — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:28:08 -0800

And there I thought this was a transit blog. Option B builds the entire streetcar network and adds three more RapidRide lines. That's our one.

Hehe

bgtothen — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:04:20 -0800

Hehe

I wonder if that makes

Matt the Engineer — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:59:59 -0800

I wonder if that makes parking there free, or just incredibly inconvenient.

It's a bit sad that they'll pay to replace them, just to be torn out in a few years (I hope).

What they should do is just

JoshMahar — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:14:24 -0800

What they should do is just keep the off ramp at Spring St. and turn it into a little promenade/overlook. That will provide a little park space, maintain viewpoints and also keep a little of the historical structure intact which would be kind of cool.

So he said yes. WSDOT would

bgtothen — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:02:58 -0800

So he said yes. WSDOT would at least fund the waterfront streetcar.

A combination between B and

Matt the Engineer — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:54:00 -0800

A combination between B and C would be perfect, though I'd even just B would be fine. I'm really glad they seem to be seriously considering these options and that Seattle came up with a streetcar plan.

Well, as usual, anything

serial catowner — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:22:31 -0800

Well, as usual, anything connected with cars is already taking a severe toll on the Western Washington intellect. WSDOT, displaying their usual brilliance in bringing out old ideas to plan for the past, wanted to build a new freeway on the waterfront. Local Democrats, heavily swayed by a "costs of congestion" argument, had largely signed on. And then, at the 11th hour, came scarcely veiled threats from Nickels that permits for a new freeway might be hard to get.

In one sense all of the figuring that produced these drawings and scenarios is a valuable attempt to quantify proposed outcomes- although I am, frankly, baffled by the calculation of trip times for Greenwood-to-SeaTac trips. Surely the number of people going from Greenwood to SeaTac, at any time, is a trivial component of Puget Sound traffic.

In another sense this is just so much frosting to dip your fingers in and taste while we wait for the actual cutting of the cake. One of two things will happen, new freeway or not new freeway, and I'm guessing cost-benefit can be adjusted after the decision to make it look right.

Like a black hole, this has become an unstable vortex that can suck lesser intellects over the edge. Art Skolnik has done his reputation no good by demanding that the Viaduct be protected under the rubric of historical preservation.

At the bottom line this is illustrating the critical importance of streetcars. It's a big thing that the Seattle DOT has been studying possible routes and can offer them as alternate forms of transportation. People naturally want to see something a little more concrete than a vague promise of more buses sometime, and this applies to policy-makers as well as the man in the street. After all, who would know better how vague and unfulfilled a promise of more buses could be than Ron Sims?

It might appear obvious that tearing down elevated roadways on pricey waterfront only makes sense, but in this case that sentiment is going head-to-head with the most primal instinct in Western Washington- Build More Freeways! It's a battle of the titans.

I just sent an e-mail to Rob

bgtothen — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:41:39 -0800

I just sent an e-mail to Rob Johnson. I'll let you know when he gets back to me.

And also, I think the 76

alexjonlin — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:30:18 -0800

And also, I think the 76 feet of promenade space is enough. You don't want to make it too wide, or it'll just seem empty when not that many people are there.

They also had the Waterfront

alexjonlin — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:11:50 -0800

They also had the Waterfront Streetcar in these simulations. Could funding for that come from the viaduct?

I'm not sure but I bet city

bgtothen — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:36:18 -0800

I'm not sure but I bet city officials are eyeing the 2.39 Billion dollars. You can do a lot with that if you're not spending it on a new structure. Now that WSDOTs mandate is not to move the most cars but the most people I think that is a possibility.

Unrelated to the viaduct, I

Oran — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:22:57 -0800

Unrelated to the viaduct, I noticed something strange in the background at Queen Anne Hill. Look at all those buildings!

The integrated option creates a huge wall that'll block views of the waterfront uphill from downtown. Remember all the fuss that was made about the Green line Monorail blocking views? The green looks nice from the sky but on the ground it's terrible.

Want to get a feel of what Alternative D will be like? Try standing under the West Seattle Bridge. Though the twin viaduct structure has less bulk, unfortunately it's still a dominating feature of grey. They completely eliminated the "just rebuild the viaduct, bigger and badder" option.

If alternative B is chosen, does that mean there will be a new funding source for the streetcar network in addition to the LIDs?

I'd say this calls for the

Matt the Engineer — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:25:05 -0700

I'd say this calls for the immediate abandonment of the Viaduct. It's crumbling under our tires and the only way to ensure public safety is to stop the dangerous cars from the thing.

That should get us moving on a solution. Until then, the top level should be a dumping ground for excess dirt and opened as a public p-patch.

Unfortunately, this is more

serial catowner — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:29:28 -0700

Unfortunately, this is more of a lead-in to the love-it-or-leave-it post below. In a sprightly modern city like Portland or Vancouver BC, the actual crumbling of the viaduct would vindicate a general good sense that had already started construction of a light-rail alternative. In Seattle, not so much.

In fact (just kill me if I'm wrong) the "patch-it-up" crew will point out that it was just the outside that crumbled, that the outside should be wrapped and clad with fresh concrete, and then it would be good for another 50 years. The "build-a-new-freeway" crew will claim that this shows we should have started building two years ago, before our freeway-inspired house of cards started imploding. The "conspiracy" crew will start muttering about 'gentrifying' the waterfront by tearing down the viaduct and letting Paul Allen build condos where it stood. The Times will rumble importantly about belt-tightening when tax revenues fall, and Dino Rossi will promise to pull a Viaduct-rabbit out of his capacious top hat.

And the effete intellectual snobs of SAM will wonder if a viaduct-free waterfront might be an unwelcome competitor to the 'Sculpture Park', and if it might entail some decidedly un-artistic (nothing useful can be artistic) transit passing too close to their sanctified visions of enameled I-beams and ceramically glazed storage boxes.

But, hey, why not make a silk purse from this sows ear. The people should smash the viaduct and carry away pieces, as they did with the Berlin Wall. Piles of the rubble could become the southern annex of the SAM, and the resulting traffic jams could become not-so-kinetic art. Eventually Rem Koolhaus could design something both ugly and non-functional that would embellish his name further, and we could all take solace in unbridled lust, which, done properly, is at least free and not crumbly.

Or move to Portland. Whatever.

Well, maybe it only went out

leero — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:19:08 -0700

Well, maybe it only went out of style in the 70's. Check out the amazing ancestor of the Choppway:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlemunicipalarchives/2573494893/in/set-...