In 2006, the Congress for New Urbanism released a report that is still the most important piece of literature on the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement project – a study that found major flaws in WSDOT’s work and suggested the surface/transit option was a good choice even from a traffic congestion perspective.
Chapters of this organization, such as Cascadia (not to be confused with Discovery Institute’s Cascadia), bring discussions like this local. Architects, urban planners, designers and more are all represented. This year, their summit (PDF) is in Portland, and focuses on how to bring urbanism to the forefront of the sustainability discussion.
CNU Cascadia has two great speakers lined up, Kingston Heath and Steve Mouzon – both write about sustainable placemaking, each with different focuses. They’ll also have a streetcar tour showcasing good design and urban planning – projects we can learn from here, especially in South Lake Union today and on Capitol and First hills in the next few years. Tickets are only $35, and it’s a good excuse for a trip on Amtrak Cascades.
I went to their event in Seabrook two years ago, and it was fascinating to hear firsthand from professional architects and urban planners why things work the way they do.
Perhaps the most memorable experience were the 1:1 interactions with professional folks. I still remember an architect who did work in Portland and Seattle explaining over lunch that, yes, they really do lower quality architecture/building design in Seattle compared to Portland — he then went on to explain all the processes in Seattle vs. Portland government they experience that lead to that outcome.
Eli,
Can you remember some of those processes? And did the man give you any ideas what we could do to fix them?
Thanks,
Mark Dublin
“In 2006, the Congress for New Urbanism released a report that is still the most important piece of literature on the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement project – a study that found major flaws in WSDOT’s work and suggested the surface/transit option was a good choice even from a traffic congestion perspective.”
This 2006 report is absolutely full of flaws. It is utterly useless. Here is the link:
http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/SmartMobilityReport.pdf
You need read no further than pages 2 and 3 to see just how full of errors this report is. This report claims that the great majority of viaduct traffic is vehicles going to or from downtown, while SDOT claims most viaduct traffic is bypassing downtown. SDOT is correct. This report is wrong.
Here is what this report bases that claim on: “1 Traffic counts on northbound downtown ramps: 1200 vehicles per hour at 1st Avenue South, 500 vehicles per hour
at Western/Battery, 1470 vehicles per hour at Denny Way, and 700 vehicles at SLU.” This is during the pm peak hour.
First of all, the 1st Ave S. ramp is not downtown — it is in SODO, which is SOUTH of downtown. Furthermore, the northbound onramps at Denny and SLU never even use the viaduct! They are both NORTH of the Battery Street tunnel. Even the Western/Batter onramp does not use the viaduct — it leads directly into the Battery Street tunnel.
SDOT counts the 110,000 vehicles per day which use the viaduct at a point between the 1st Ave S. onramp, and the Seneca Street offramp. So, the vehicles this report counts at Western/Battery, Denny, and SLU are not even part of the 110,000 vehicles per day which SDOT counts as using the viaduct. So, those 2,670 vehicles per hour which use those 3 onramps are not even part of the Alaskan Way viaduct vehicle count. So, why is this report even including those vehicles which don’t even use the viaduct?
This is literally how bad the “Congress for New Urbanism” report is — the authors don’t even know where the viaduct begins and ends or where downtown begins and ends!
Oh Norman. Where would we be without you?
The vast majority of the 1st Ave S. exit users are going downtown from that exit.
You didn’t even comprehend my post.
And even the point you made is absolutely incorrect. The vast majority of 1sr Ave. S. exit users are not going downtown. They continue south on 1st Ave, or turn left on Edgar Martinez Place to go to I-90 or to go south on 4th Ave. I use that viaduct exit all the time, and I see where that traffic goes. What are you basing your claim on?
But, what about the thousands of vehicles using northbound onramps to SR99 from Denny, SLU and Western/Battery? They are not even using the viaduct at all! Yet the Congress for New Urbanism report counts those vehicles as viaduct users. lol Flaws do not get more blatant than that, do they?
The report does not say “downtown,” it says “central Seattle.” Read it again, maybe you’ll understand it this time. The CNU is making the claim that most traffic on SR-99 in central Seattle is coming from or going to the city, not long-distance through trips as WSDOT claims in the DEIS. The traffic counts in the DEIS back up CNU’s conclusion, not WSDOT’s.
The report does not just say “downtown,”
Well, I could see including SODO in “central Seattle,” though that interpretation would make their report not so much a refutation of WSDOT’s or SDOT’s claims, as Ben presents it, as talking past them. And I’m not sure why central Seattle is the relevant area — if you look at the congestion points they list in the study, all of them are north of the 1st Ave ramps.
Their percentage is still way off due to bad math. Also, I wouldn’t consider Ballard or Interbay to be part of central Seattle.
I don’t normally agree with Norman, but he’s right about this report. It’s one of the worst pieces of analysis I’ve ever seen, and I frequently argue with climate deniers.
The errors get even worse than Norman noticed if you try to reproduce the calculation they did. To get a percentage, you need to compute (total number using viaduct to get downtown) / (total number using viaduct). But, for the denominator, instead of using the traffic between the 1st ave ramps and Seneca/Columbia (everyone who drives on the viaduct at any point is on it at that point), they use numbers from other segments that exclude either West Seattle or Elliot/Western traffic for their totals. This basic math error alone inflates the percentage by about a factor of 2, and that’s before you get to their expansive definitions of downtown and the viaduct.
So for example, if you drive from West Seattle to Ballard, using the Elliot/Western ramps, you are counted as someone who used the viaduct to go to downtown (an error in and of itself), but you are not one of the total number of people who drove on the viaduct! Yes, their definition of downtown is very expansive as Norman notes — the 1st ave ramps certainly aren’t designed to send people downtown, you have to do a U-turn, and though I’d imagine some people do that especially to get to the ferries, I doubt the percentage is anywhere close to 100%. Elliot/Western is the primary access point for the whole Ballard/Interbay/Magnolia corridor and probably for Queen Anne and Seattle Center too, but that’s considered downtown in the CNU study. On top of that, they point to people getting off Aurora at Denny who never get on the Alaskan Way Viaduct as part of their case that people use the viaduct to get to downtown.
They also don’t know which streets go all the way through downtown, but I can forgive that error next to all the others.
You are both missing the premise of their argument. The point is not how many cars are using the viaduct, the point is where are the cars going that are using SR99 in central Seattle, as the tunnel does not offer the same connectivity as the viaduct due to it’s lack of ramps downtown and at Western/Elliot. WSDOT contends that a limited-access bypass tunnel is necessary because the cars currently using the viaduct are long-distance through trips, as in not going anywhere near central Seattle however you choose to define it. Anyone who has driven the viaduct knows this is not the case, as both you and Norman have pointed out through anecdote.
I don’t think that was the premise of their argument. This report predates the current tunnel proposal; the previous tunnel proposal did have Elliot/Western ramps. And both proposals have downtown ramps, just not as centrally located as on the current viaduct. Seriously, a report calling the 1st Ave S ramps downtown ramps would not be written to make the case that the tunnel should have downtown ramps.
And regardless of what the premise of their argument is, the numbers they use to make it are wrong, and not by a small amount. I think you miss that I’m not here to make an argument about the tunnel or what alternative we should choose. I just think we shouldn’t be misinforming ourselves with such sloppy analysis.
My hasty reply might have been poorly worded, but semantics aside, the point remains that most traffic currently using the viaduct is coming from or headed to city streets, which goes against WSDOT’s long-standing argument that the viaduct is mostly used as a bypass for long-distance trips and that Seattle streets couldn’t handle the additional traffic that the no-replacement option would generate. It can clearly be seen just by looking at the traffic counts in the DEIS that most traffic using the viaduct has destinations or origins within the central city; SODO, downtown, Queen Anne/Ballard and SLU.
“And both proposals have downtown ramps, just not as centrally located as on the current viaduct. Seriously, a report calling the 1st Ave S ramps downtown ramps would not be written to make the case that the tunnel should have downtown ramps.”
Huh? The currently proposed tunnel’s downtown ramps are outside of the area that you criticize the report’s authors for calling downtown. :-)
Zed, this report has nothing to do with the tunnel. It is about the surface option. And the vehicles which use the northbound onramps to SR99 at Denny and SLU do NOT use the viaduct! They would not be impacted at all by tearing down the viaduct, because they do not use the viaduct!
So, why does this report count those vehicles as currently using the viaduct, when they don’t? This report is just an untterly useless piece of garbage, and Ben calls it “still the most important piece of literature on the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement project.”
This report is total garbage. It does not even get the obvious facts right, let alone analyze them correctly.
Of the 110,000 vehicles per day which currently use the viaduct, the vast majority bypass downtown. This is what SDOT says, and it is correct. This 2006 report calls the SDOT finding a “myth”, but the SDOT report is correct. It is the Congress for New Urbanism report which is a “myth.” That report is nothing but complete B.S. And it is the only report that Cary Moon and her ilk ever refer to as finding that the “surface option” would work.
If the “vast majority” (nice tautology BTW) of cars are bypassing central Seattle why do WSDOT themselves say that only 40,000 of them are likely to use the tunnel? Are you going to use the tunnel? You say you use the viaduct all the time. Will the tunnel make your trips harder or easier?
And where in the report does it say that cars entering northbound SR99 north of Denny are using the viaduct? It doesn’t. They are including those numbers in order to calculate through versus local traffic because the screenline used for northbound traffic is north of SLU. You’re so fixated on the small picture of the viaduct that you’re missing the big picture of the entire corridor and missing the point of the report.
Zed, can you point to any instances of WSDOT making the claim you believe the CNU was debunking? What I’ve heard them claim is that most people on the viaduct are bypassing downtown. That is true. I’ve also heard that most trips on the viaduct are within the city of Seattle. If that’s all you’re claiming, there’s no point in having an argument with me about it. The CNU, however, made quantitative claims which are based on seriously bad math. There are a very large number of people in the numerator of their percentage that is not in the denominator. That is not valid no matter what your definition of central Seattle is.
Huh? The currently proposed tunnel’s downtown ramps are outside of the area that you criticize the report’s authors for calling downtown.
The question is where are they going to/from. Ramps to/from the north serve a completely different market than ramps to/from the south. I do believe people who want to get from West Seattle will get off on ramps that lead them to Alaskan Way, bring them right to the edge of downtown and direct them in the direction of downtown, though they’ll probably grumble that they have to drive a few blocks further on surface streets. Those people probably favor a rebuild of the elevated viaduct as it is the only option with the Seneca/Columbia ramps they use today. I do not believe there are very many people from Greenwood who take the viaduct all the way through and past downtown to get off on ramps that direct them away from downtown to find a place to turn around to go downtown. Downtown is not the primary destination for that exit.
Zed, you don’t understand the report at all. Do you at least get now that it has nothing to do with the tunnel? Notice the title:
“Alaskan Way Viaduct
Analysis of No-replacement Option”
Get it now?
Your fist question is easy to answer: because of tolls. The viaduct is free. The tunnel would be tolled. SDOT figures that a lot of people who use the viaduct for free would not pay to use the tunnel, and I think they are correct. A lot of people who now use the viaduct to bypass downtown will just drive on surface streets through downtown instead of paying to use the tunnel.
I would probably not pay to use the tunnel, at least not at $2 or so each way. If it were 50 cents or less, I might use the tunnel. But probably not at the cost they are talking about.
Here are a couple of examples of how I use the viaduct:
1) From Queen Anne to the airport, I take the viaduct to bypass downtown. I would probably not pay a toll to use the deep bored tunnel, I would just use I-5, increasing congestion on I-5.
1) From Queen Anne to Costco on 4th Ave, I use the viaduct to bypass downtown. I would not pay to use the tunnel, I would just drive down 2nd Ave all the way through downtown, thus increasing congestion on 2nd Ave between Denny and King Street.
But, again, this report is not about the tunnel — it is about the suface (“no-replacement”) option.
Here is where it says that vehicles entering SR99 at Denny Way and SLU are using the viaduct: “An analysis of traffic counts along the downtown portion of the Alaskan Way Viaduct indicates that most
of the traffic is accessing the downtown area, not traveling through downtown.” They use northbound vehicles entering SR 99 at Battery Street, Denny Way and SLU as part of the “traffic counts along the donwtown portion of the Alaskan Way Viaduct.” Are vehicles entering SR 99 northbound at Denny and and SLU “along the downtown portion of the Alaskan Way Viaduct”? No. They are not on the viaduct, at all, are they?
This report is about traffic which uses the downtown portion of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Northbound vehicles which enter SR99 north of Denny Way are not using the viaduct at all, so they should obviously not be included in counts of traffic which uses the viaduct to acess downtown. Right?
Zed, they are assuming that people bypassing downtown to get to the Ballard/Interbay area (about a third of today’s traffic) will use surface streets instead of the tunnel. Add that to the 40,000 and you do get most of the traffic.
Y’all missing the point.
Denny/SLU onramps to the north volumes DO matter. They matter because they show that a majority of NB traffic is NOT coming from the Viaduct in SoDo. It’s traffic from the business district.
These numbers show, basically, that on/off activity through the project area is significantly bigger than the through-traffic activity. WSDOT’s later, more detailed traffic studies backed this up; the vast majority of the traffic that’s on 99 at Holgate is off of it by Mercer. Conversely, most of the traffic headed north from Mercer is not traffic from SoDo, it’s traffic that’s been picked up through Downtown and SLU.
The Viaduct isn’t functioning as a thruway. It’s functioning as a collector-distributor – which is not how it was designed.
Based on this, the argument was made that what’s needed in that section is NOT a freeway, but rather a good connection to some city arterials that can collect and distribute the traffic more effectively. And thus the Western/Alaskan couplet was born. WSDOT agreed with most of it, too. If you look at the 1st plan for the DBT, it only had ONE general-purpose lane in each direction – their engineers thought it didn’t NEED any more capacity than that, because it’d been shown that the volume of traffic completely bypassing the city center was so low. Most of the traffic would be using the new surface couplet.
This is where CNU’s opinion differed from WSDOT’s. Where WSDOT looked at the low thru-traffic volumes and said “well, we can just build a low-capacity bypass for THAT level of traffic”, CNU said “That level of traffic can just deal with the street grid.”
While the couplet should do wonders for vehicle traffic, I’m seriously concerned about its effect on walkablity near the waterfront. Not that my concerns matter; it’s in every option now, SDOT is going to build it even if WSDOT doesn’t.
Lack Thereof: You are the one who is totally missing the point. Have you ever driven on the viaduct in your life?
SDOT’s analysis shows that the majority of trips on the viaduct are trips that bypass downtown. And that is true. When I use the viaduct to go from SeaTac airport to Queen Anne, I exit the viaduct at Battery Street. From your flawed “analysis” I am “accessing downtown” because I exited “south of Mercer Street”. But I never go downtown from that exit — I continue on Western and then up Queen Anne Hill. I am bypassing downtown by using the viaduct! I do not drive through downtown on 1st or 4th or some other surface street — I use the viaduct to get past downtown. The vast majority of northbound viaduct users exiting at Battery Street are going to Queen Anne, Magnolia, Ballard, etc. — they are not going downtown.
Likewise, the vast majority of vehicles entering the viaduct northbound at 1st Ave S. in SODO are not coming from downtown — they are coming from SODO, or places further south. So, those vehicles are not using the viaduct to get somewhere from downtown.
The only northbound traffic on the viaduct which is largely using the viaduct to “access downtown” is the traffic which exits at Seneca, and that is far less than half the vehicles which use the viaduct northbound.
The vehicles which enter SR99 north of Denny never use the viaduct, so they obviously should never even be counted as vehicles using the viaduct to “access downtown.” That is just a very ignorant mistake by the people who did this report.
So, to put some numbers to this from the report itself, in the pm peak hour, northbound traffic on the viaduct just north of the 1st Ave. S. onramp is 4,500, virtually none of which are coming from downtown. Of this 4,500 vehicles, only 650 exit at Seneca, where they are accessing downtown. The other 3,850 continue north on the viaduct, and are bypassing downtown! That comes to only 14.4% of viaduct traffic northbound which is using the viaduct to access downtown. Now, a small percentage of traffic entering the viaduct at 1st Ave. S. is coming from downtown, and a small percentage of traffic exiting at Battery St. is going downtown, so the actual percentage using the viaduct to access downtown is somewhat over 14.4%. But it is far less than 50%.
So basically, you guys don’t actually disagree about any of the real points here, you just want to fight over details?
Lack Thereof,
Certainly anyone who doesn’t drive on the actual Alaskan Way Viaduct does not use the Alaskan Way Viaduct to bypass downtown. So 110,000 people/day drive on the AWV and most of them are bypassing downtown. If you count everyone driving on any part of SR99, the number is much greater and the percentage bypassing downtown is much smaller. I’m not sure why you care about percentage here as it is the absolute number that matters, and the percentage is meaningless if you don’t know what the total is, but yes by increasing the number of total SR99 drivers you consider you can decrease the percentage who bypass downtown on the viaduct. I can’t tell you what percentage, but I can tell you the CNU did not calculate a valid percentage no matter what claim they are trying to make. If there is some variation of the claim “[fill in percentage]% of the people who drive on the [some section of SR99] are not bypassing [some region of Seattle]” where the percentage is close to CNU’s claim, that is an accident.
Ben,
I think we agree on a lot by now, although I’d be curious to hear from the CNU defenders where they differ.
Points I think we agree on:
1. Most of the traffic driving on the Alaskan Way Viaduct is bypassing downtown. For this purpose, downtown is south of Denny Way and north of Jackson street. Or maybe it should really stop at Stewart street.
2. Generally traffic on SR99, even those using the Viaduct, is making shorter trips than is typical of I-5 traffic.
3. The CNU study relied on an expansive definition of downtown or central Seattle, and also used the Viaduct to mean more than just the Viaduct, and this explains a significant part of the discrepency between their numbers and those of WSDOT and SDOT.
Points I think we ought to agree on but I haven’t heard CNU defenders claim they agree on:
3. The CNU did not find “major flaws” in WSDOT’s work as you claim. See 1. WSDOT’s claim is perfectly valid. Whether CNU has a different valid point to make is a separate issue.
4. The CNU sucks at math, and this explains a significant part of the discrepency between their numbers and WSDOT’s and SDOT’s numbers. Specifically, they use the wrong denominator. For example, a person driving from West Seattle to Ballard is included in their calculation as a person using the Viaduct to get to downtown, but is not included in their calculation as among the total number of people who use the viaduct.
Points I don’t think we will agree on:
5. What the CNU meant to claim. Norman quoted them as saying “An analysis of traffic counts along the downtown portion of the Alaskan Way Viaduct indicates that most
of the traffic is accessing the downtown area, not traveling through downtown.” That to me is a claim in contradiction with point 1, but Zed and Lack Thereof think they were talking about a larger area than just downtown and that it’s valid for them to use “Alaskan Way Viaduct” to mean more than just the “Alaskan Way Viaduct.” At this point this has become mostly an argument about what CNU meant rather than what the facts are, and there is little point in continuing that argument.
So is that where we stand?
We agree that the authors of the Congress for New Urbanism report have no idea what they were writing about, and that the report is fatally flawed, and therefore utterly useless.
I’m pretty sure we don’t agree on that at all.
People who are just using the elevated stretch of 99, the physical viaduct, between Holgate and Battery will have their trips adequately served by the new waterfront couplet under every current plan. Many will have better trips, because the increased number of access points will result it less backtracking, and less severe bottlenecking at each access point. Most of the traffic is off before the highway goes into the Battery Street Tunnel. Because of the high number of on-off traffic (yes, INCLUDING western/denny, because that’s traffic from the area), the current limited-access freeway is a square peg in a round hole for that section, and that a pair of wide, one way streets with multiple access points will serve traffic much better. Walkability will suffer.
WSDOT was never, not even in the 50’s, designing a highway to get people from 1st & Royal Brougham to Western & Battery. To them, that traffic is absolutely local, and nothing that a state DOT should be concerned with. The purpose of this project, this stretch of 99, is to get vehicles from the Viaduct at Spokane to Aurora at Mercer, and everything else is just incidental local access.
The viaduct structure was the trigger for this project, but the scope goes far beyond it, so the Viaduct project is actually a complete redesign of the 99 corridor surrounding the actual viaduct structure. That’s why traffic through the Battery Street Tunnel, at Denny, at SLU matters. It’s part of the project. And to anyone who doesn’t live in Seattle proper, that IS downtown. Our local neighborhood delineations are not something they’ll pay attention to. As far as they’re concerned, the whole project is in downtown Seattle, and all the ramps are downtown ramps.
“As far as they’re concerned, the whole project is in downtown Seattle, and all the ramps are downtown ramps.”
But, of course, they are wrong.
Highways are always built to carry short trips as well as long trips. Do you think I-90 was not expected to carry a lot of trips just between Mercer Island and downtown Seattle? You think I-5 was not expected to carry a lot of trips just between UW and downtown? These short, local trips are part of what highways are designed for.
The viaduct was designed to take a lot of traffic off of surface streets in downtown Seattle. If you are going only from Queen Anne to Qwest Field, and use the viaduct, that takes your car off of surface streets in downtown Seattle, just as surely as if you were traveling on SR 99 between Everett and SeaTac airport.
Do you believe that SR 99 north of the Battery Street tunnel (Aurora Ave. N.) was designed only for “long-distance trips”?
The viaduct takes about 110,000 vehicles per day off of surface streets. This improves traffic on surface streets between King St. and Battery Streets tremendously, including bus traffic.
“People who are just using the elevated stretch of 99, the physical viaduct, between Holgate and Battery will have their trips adequately served by the new waterfront couplet under every current plan.”
People who will be using U-Link just between downtown and UW, currently have their trips adequately served by the existing surface streets. So, why build U-Link?
Lackthereof, if you want to know what it was designed to do just look at how the number of lanes changes at each exit and also how the number of lanes on the West Seattle Bridge, 1st Ave S, and Elliot/Western change when they meet the viaduct. Clearly sending traffic to these roads was part of the design. What the next version should be and what traffic it should be designed to serve isn’t something I’m here to argue, though Norman might be interested in arguing about that. I am curious if you agree with my summary of the state of the argument, or if you can point to exactly which points you disagree on?
Eric: I agree with most everything. The disagreement is basically the definition of downtown. I’m trying to look at things from WSDOT’s perspective, as it’s their project. By the City’s own definition of downtown, the Elliott/Western ramps are in downtown, as well as the 1st ave S ramps. The Denny ramps are right on the borderline. WSDOT considers “downtown Seattle” to be even more expansive, basically all the dense parts, including the CBD, Belltown, SoDo, even parts of lower Queen Anne and SLU. Holding up the numbers for the Columbia/Seneca ramps as the only downtown traffic is completely wrong-headed. “Bypassing downtown” to me, CNU and the people actually doing the project, means traveling between somewhere south of Royal Brougham and somewhere north of Mercer.
And you’ve gotta look at all of the ramps. Otherwise you just see a highway that’s moving 85k cars/day on the north side of the project, and 87k on the south side of the project, and assume you can just build a freeway to connect the two ends directly. But you can’t. When you look closer, and see the huge ramp volumes, you realize that building something with good local access through this stretch is more important then bypassing it.
Saying that the Elliott/Western ramp traffic is mostly headed up to Ballard is probably true, and I think everyone agrees with that. Last time I checked, though, there’s still no state highways going through Interbay. So even though their destination might be Ballard, they’re still exiting downtown and getting on city streets; at that point the traffic stops being WSDOT’s problem and starts being SDOT’s problem. Ballard-bound traffic, then, is not bypass traffic.
I agree that CNU’s math is sloppy and their numbers questionable. I think WSDOT’s own numbers and graphic(page 74, exhibit 4-7) paint the picture much clearer, but I still get to the same conclusion. There’s not a lot of through traffic. The traffic volumes on the downtown offramps dwarf the traffic volumes that go through the battery street tunnel to continue on 99.
At this point, I hope they rip it down in the middle of the night and build a giant light rail line down the street. Plus put a toll on every road in and out of Seattle paying for this said light rail line. (this way fares are free) Maybe, just maybe we will finally keep Norman out of Seattle.
I attend many of the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board meetings and attended a particular one at which WSDOT presented some information on the very topic that much of the above discussion covers. The meeting was on 4/1/09 and my summary can be found here (I do take editorial license if I am not quoting or summarizing a presenter directly):
http://westseattleblog.com/forum/topic/viaducts-038-bicycle-routing
The speaker was “John White (JW) is the Program Director of the Viaduct Replacement Project and he spoke to SBAB along with several other members of the VRP…”
“…JW stated that MOST traffic originating from the South (including WS) take the first exit, Seneca, off the viaduct, then Western, and then the minority continue through the Battery Street Tunnel (isn’t this the opposite of what we’ve been told?). Referring to Seneca/Columbia ramps, “LOTS of traffic funnels off there” and is “heaviest for southbound” area. The tunnel is for “steadier throughput” for “economic vitality accommodating freight.” This tunnel is for the freight industry, not the people of the area…”
“It was stated that the Southwest Corridor portion of the tunnel area (including surface approaches) are focused on “throughput” rather than getting people downtown – in spite of the fact that JW had stated that MOST traffic from the south area in fact uses the viaduct to get TO downtown, not past it. The tunnel speakers stressed that neighborhoods will rely on transit and surface streets to access downtown, esp. the new Alaskan Blvd.”
“…It was stated that the Southwest Corridor portion of the tunnel area (including surface approaches) are focused on “throughput” rather than getting people downtown – in spite of the fact that JW had stated that MOST traffic from the south area in fact uses the viaduct to get TO downtown, not past it. The tunnel speakers stressed that neighborhoods will rely on transit and surface streets to access downtown, esp. the new Alaskan Blvd…”
Whoops, double paragraph post above, sorry. To continue…
“…The south and north entry/exit for the tunnel will be cut and cover. The south portion will be improved for better access to downtown, reconnecting the street grid. Alaskan/Marginal approach to downtown (25,000 autos per day are expected to use the new Alaskan Blvd) will be built to maintain trips through downtown. This is another contradiction – it was my understanding that this route would be our connection TO downtown, not facilitate trips THROUGH downtown.”
I love how they “improve for better access to downtown” by putting a ten lane interchange next to a historic pedestrian district.
The whole project is a clusterfuck for walkablity. Every option except the original, dead, cut/cover tunnel involves wider roads and more vehicle surface traffic.
It’s not a contradiction. The Atlantic street interchange (tunnel south portal) is going to be both a connection to downtown and past downtown. Alaskan and Western are going to be reworked and widened to provide a direct, high capacity connection north to Elliott, while maintaining their current East-West connections to the downtown street grid. Travel speeds for Elliott-bound through-traffic will drop slightly, but total capacity is being maintained through the rebuild of Western/Alaskan.
What will trip times on the surface street between King St. and Battery St. be? On the viaduct, at most times of the day, you can drive that stretch at 50 mph with no stoplights. What will the situation be on the surface streets when the viaduct is down? If they maintain their current east-west connections to the downtown street grid, how many traffic lights does that mean on Alaskan and Western?
When there’s no congestion there’ll be slower speeds, more stoplights, and longer travel times. Too bad, so sad.
Under congestion, though, service on a surface couplet degrades much more gracefully, than everyone trying to cram down the same 1 lane offramp. Do keep in mind that AM rush hour average speeds on the viaduct NOW are 18 MPH. Traffic queued up in the right lanes, bound for the Western ramp, is even further below that average speed. Under congestion, the surface couplet will easily match or beat the viaduct’s King-to-battery travel times.