Comments on: Seattle Can Learn From Other Cities on the Viaduct http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/12/27/seattle-can-learn-from-other-cities-on-the-viaduct/ Transit in the Greater Seattle Area Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:21:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: serial catowner http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/12/27/seattle-can-learn-from-other-cities-on-the-viaduct/#comment-1160 serial catowner Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:25:00 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/12/27/seattle-can-learn-from-other-cities-on-the-viaduct/#comment-1160 Probably more silliness has been written about the Big Dig than any other project in our history.<br/><br/>The Big Dig was not just burying a highway. It included- <br/>A new rail freight line.<br/>A new transit line to the airport.<br/>New crossings of the river.<br/>A new railroad station.<br/>Creation of hundreds of acres of parkland in downtown Boston.<br/>And, of course, the building of what was essentially a new highway.<br/>All done with no disruption of existing traffic.<br/><br/>A rough Seattle equivalent of the Big Dig would include-<br/>A new freight rail tunnel from Balmer to the Interbay yards.<br/>New transit lines extending north and south along the 99 spine.<br/>A new freeway the size of I-5.<br/>A new transit station for transfers from buses to light rail and streetcars.<br/>All buried to create a vast park behind the waterfront, and all built without any pause in existing bus and road use.<br/><br/>Of course the Seattle project would never approach in size the Boston project because Seattle is essentially a small city without, for example, a half dozen rail transit lines to keep in operation while the project proceeds.<br/><br/>The real question is whether the state DOT should be allowed to build a new elevated freeway on the waterfront, and the answer is plainly no.
Probably more silliness has been written about the Big Dig than any other project in our history.

The Big Dig was not just burying a highway. It included-
A new rail freight line.
A new transit line to the airport.
New crossings of the river.
A new railroad station.
Creation of hundreds of acres of parkland in downtown Boston.
And, of course, the building of what was essentially a new highway.
All done with no disruption of existing traffic.

A rough Seattle equivalent of the Big Dig would include-
A new freight rail tunnel from Balmer to the Interbay yards.
New transit lines extending north and south along the 99 spine.
A new freeway the size of I-5.
A new transit station for transfers from buses to light rail and streetcars.
All buried to create a vast park behind the waterfront, and all built without any pause in existing bus and road use.

Of course the Seattle project would never approach in size the Boston project because Seattle is essentially a small city without, for example, a half dozen rail transit lines to keep in operation while the project proceeds.

The real question is whether the state DOT should be allowed to build a new elevated freeway on the waterfront, and the answer is plainly no.

]]> By: Pantograph Trolleypole http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/12/27/seattle-can-learn-from-other-cities-on-the-viaduct/#comment-1156 Pantograph Trolleypole Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:04:00 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/12/27/seattle-can-learn-from-other-cities-on-the-viaduct/#comment-1156 Both of these instances are actually transit related. The Embarcadero was replaced with a surface street that now has a dedicated lane Streetcar and Boston's Big Dig still has to expand transit because of a deal that was made to offset the environmental impacts of the project.
Both of these instances are actually transit related. The Embarcadero was replaced with a surface street that now has a dedicated lane Streetcar and Boston’s Big Dig still has to expand transit because of a deal that was made to offset the environmental impacts of the project.

]]> By: ncbarnard http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/12/27/seattle-can-learn-from-other-cities-on-the-viaduct/#comment-1155 ncbarnard Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:04:00 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/12/27/seattle-can-learn-from-other-cities-on-the-viaduct/#comment-1155 Another reasonable example that is between the two is Cincinnati's reworking of Fort Washington Way. (FWW) The original carried I-71 in downtown and connected I-75 to I-471 via I-71. (Its a complex little interchange) Originally it was generally a mess and bifurcated the downtown from the riverfront. The reworked FWW has streets with broad sidewalks that connect downtown with the riverfront. Additionally there when reconstructing FWW the planners installed the piers to cover the interstate with a park in the future. (i.e. a cut and cover tunnel, the cut is done, it just hasn't been covered.) Also smartly there the skeleton of an underground transit center installed. (albeit currently it is mostly unused.)<br/><br/>For more info and pictures:<br/>http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/fww.html<br/>http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/fww-2000.html<br/><br/>So you can see why I'm biased towards a tunnel for the Seattle Viaduct replacement. Although I'm a seattle newbie, seattle should claim its waterfront and connect it to downtown.<br/><br/>(After that we can worry about connecting Capital Hill to downtown by burying I-5, but thats a different story!)
Another reasonable example that is between the two is Cincinnati’s reworking of Fort Washington Way. (FWW) The original carried I-71 in downtown and connected I-75 to I-471 via I-71. (Its a complex little interchange) Originally it was generally a mess and bifurcated the downtown from the riverfront. The reworked FWW has streets with broad sidewalks that connect downtown with the riverfront. Additionally there when reconstructing FWW the planners installed the piers to cover the interstate with a park in the future. (i.e. a cut and cover tunnel, the cut is done, it just hasn’t been covered.) Also smartly there the skeleton of an underground transit center installed. (albeit currently it is mostly unused.)

For more info and pictures:
http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/fww.html
http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/fww-2000.html

So you can see why I’m biased towards a tunnel for the Seattle Viaduct replacement. Although I’m a seattle newbie, seattle should claim its waterfront and connect it to downtown.

(After that we can worry about connecting Capital Hill to downtown by burying I-5, but thats a different story!)

]]>