Comments on: A New Viaduct And No Transit

By: The Tunnel, Again - Seattle Transit Blog

The Tunnel, Again - Seattle Transit Blog — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:21:03 +0000

[...] Sims originally agreed to. The Governor agreed to a substantial increase in transit funding that didn’t materialize. There’s also the infamous overrun provision. Electing a candidate that hasn’t [...]

By: McGinn for Mayor - Seattle Transit Blog

McGinn for Mayor - Seattle Transit Blog — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:15:39 +0000

[...] the State has already reneged on several key elements of the original tunnel deal, such as expanded transit funding and the notorious cost overrun provision. The City should not accept these unilateral changes [...]

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Thu, 14 May 2009 07:21:01 +0000

I think that we already know they won’t work. If you’re using a solid, you’re even less energy dense…

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:34:00 +0000

Well, obviously, letting them build a road tunnel and then converting it to rail is far from ideal. However, the road tunnel is being built for the traffic that wants to bypass downtown. That portion of that traffic which is commuters will still want to bypass downtown after they give up their cars.

Then there’s the fact that the Sounder trains run on freight rails. If we get harsh on the truckers and say the containers have to leave the port on railroad cars, that’s so much more traffic on those freight rails. With the LINK essentially running a local service a faster longer-distance commuter service with fewer stops on the 99 alignment might be desirable.

And the south entrance to the proposed tunnel is pretty close to the present station stop for Sounder, which AFAIK does not otherwise stop within Seattle city limits.

In any case, the really expensive parts of building a tunnel are boring the tunnel and installing the lining. Transit systems rebuild stations all the time for far less expense.

By: marcus

marcus — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:06:47 +0000

A station could be built later if they decided to do this. I imagine a new SR99 underground station that will serve as a connector to the current downtown transit tunnel. This could become a major transfer point. I believe this will eventually happen.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:38:33 +0000

Your idea of just waiting until the auto traffic dies down and then putting a subway in the viaduct is intriguing, except for the station issue. One, there will be another subway two blocks away. Two, if it’s used for the Ballard-to-West-Seattle rail (or even continuing up Aurora), how many people really want to go from south Seattle to north Seattle without stopping downtown? The majority of riders will want to stop downtown, either because that’s their destination or to transfer to another line.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:28:27 +0000

Probably because the biggest cost to the transit system is running those peak-only routes. One because they go places other buses don’t and get disproportionately stuck in traffic (because they’re peak hour). Two because they’re empty on the return trip, whereas normal buses have passengers both directions.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:17:28 +0000

Never mind that DC has the most effective metro system and largest number of urban villages in the country, give or take NYC. It is stunning that people who live a European-style life themselves don’t think it’s feasable for the rest of the country.

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:24:54 +0000

Exactly- the money belongs to the project. And if the project is killed, it’s back to the drawing board. With Gregoire swearing to herself she’s not going to make that mistake twice.

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:20:39 +0000

Gosh, it would be nice if the forward-looking people here could come up with a master plan so every cent spent could build efficient mass-transit for the future.

But wait! What am I saying! The forward-looking people here have been presented with a plan to build a tunnel under Seattle- a tunnel that could in the future carry express transit under Seattle instead of through it- and they’re turning thumbs down. So much for that crystal ball.

In fact, if you said that light-rail could run through the tunnel and continue north and south on the Highway 99 ROW, these same tunnel-haters would immediately point out that cars and trucks use 99 and we couldn’t possibly convert it to a rail line. You don’t need a tunnel to have tunnel-vision.

The future is not a straight-line projection of the past. Building the tunnel will not encourage suburban sprawl or even mean it will be used as a highway for the next 50 years. Times change, and with maybe 30 years left to curb runaway AGW, they’re going to change a lot faster than we are accustomed to.

You might end up being glad they built that tunnel back when they thought they had the money to do it.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:33:42 +0000

Also,to make an assumption that the viaduct will come 2012 just because of its current conditions is not very cunning.

I don’t have time to search through the budget right now but my understanding is that the removal is already funded. Construction (destruction?) has already begun at the south end. Work is proceeding with the assumption that this is the start of tunnel construction. Quick, build it before the voters say NO (again).

By: marcus

marcus — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:22:53 +0000

“The whole point is that we don’t want anything to get done” and that’s the whole problem with our city planning process, nothing ever gets done! Also,to make an assumption that the viaduct will come 2012 just because of its current conditions is not very cunning. If it was that simple then why not just bring it down now? or even next year? It time to put the Never Ending Story to rest and move forward.

By: marcus

marcus — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:54:11 +0000

After all these costly studies, it time to move on. Btw, I’m sure you already know, the governor sign the bill yesterday afternoon. No, I’m not rolling over,but I understand it time to move forward with a plan. NO MORE DELAYS!

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:16:40 +0000

I don’t think so. I know one of the ploys for the deep pockets tunnel is that they could leave the viaduct in place but I believe it is coming down in 2012 no matter what. Unless of course it falls down before then. The State is tired of the maintenance and afraid of the liability. I think it’s also an attempt to force a resolution and eliminate a seismic retrofit which could leave it in place for another 20 years.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:05:42 +0000

What?

Go read the studies. Congestion is similar between the different options. Much of the viaduct traffic simply disappears.

Here’s a study you should read:
http://www.cnu.org/highways/seattle
(bottom left)

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:02:30 +0000

Too late for what?

The whole point is that we don’t want anything to get done. We want to just let them tear down the current viaduct.

By the way? Under the surface plans, the current viaduct goes down in 2012. Under the tunnel plan, they keep it up for years longer.

By: Mike Skehan

Mike Skehan — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:47:41 +0000

As I read all the comments, and Bens original post again, it’s clear that we mostly agree that Darwin will win out in the long term.
It’s the transition from Oil, to Coal, to Hydrogen, to Nuclear, to …??? that concerns me the most.
We can’t continue to print money forever. Any Econ101 student gets that question right on the final exam.
If we continue to blow our ecconimic resources on things like the AWV tunnel, and shortchange alternatives that do effect our global condition (like electric bikes for example), or transit, then our species will look dramatically different in decades to come — fewer of us, clustered in sustainable outposts, on higher ground in some scenerios.
HSR from PDX to SEA can be electrified. Plug in jets are problematic! That’s just one example of what I think Ben is getting at. Get ahead of the curve, and the consequeses of transition from A to B to C is acceptable.
Hang on to the old ways of doing things till the bitter end, just wastes time and resources with a dramatically different outcome.
Just one opinion.

By: marcus

marcus — Wed, 13 May 2009 07:33:03 +0000

Yes, because of this one word. GRIDLOCK. It’s either tunnel or new elevated. They’ve determined through many studies already that surface-transit can only help resolve a small portion of the total problem. I believe something in their studies trigger them not to go with surface-transit. Probably, because the fear of overload on I-5 and gridlock on the waterfront it may create. I like surface-transit but looking at all the different possibilities and outcomes I think they made a good judgment with the tunnel.

By: Nate Silver: The End of Car Culture - Seattle Transit Blog

Nate Silver: The End of Car Culture - Seattle Transit Blog — Wed, 13 May 2009 07:32:01 +0000

[...] percent fewer (according to WSDOT) car trips that would be taken with a surface option to replace to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Would those vehicle miles traveled just disappear anyway? Looks like it, [...]

By: geekgirl

geekgirl — Wed, 13 May 2009 06:29:20 +0000

For the current technology that we have working prototypes of, yes. I think some of the newer solid-phase proposed models might be quite a bit better, but I don’t know the exact numbers. (I’m actually more of a biochemist!) Leakage and flammability aren’t an issue if you’re working with a solid that slowly releases the gas as it’s needed. Cost I have really no idea about right now. Most of the newest technology with the most potential is incredibly expensive now, but some of those costs would scale down with mass production. Some of them wouldn’t. I’ve seen solids that bind Hydrogen using the transition metal Rhodium. They have some interesting properties, but would be far too insanely expensive to mass-produce. Others using boron are lighter and cheaper.

My point isn’t really that fuel cells are the salvation of the car. They might work; they might not. It’s that we have to persuade people that it’s more important to build transit infrastructure now than to hope for some miracle ‘green car’. Because there’s probably always going to be some technology that looks like it might be the answer, even if this one doesn’t pan out.