Seattle Alaskan Way Viaduct Alternatives

AZheat · #1 Posted **Mar 17, 2007, 6:09 PM**

This is just a question to the Seattle forumers regarding the recent no/no vote on the Alaskan Way Viaduct proposals. I haven't lived in Seattle for quite a few years and I hadn't even realized that one alternative being proposed was to build a new and much larger replacement for the aging viaduct. I'm just wondering what the attitude of the public is in regard to this situation and what some of you might think. I've always thought the Alaskan Way Viaduct was the ugliest damn thing I've ever seen and it ruined the appearance of the waterfront area. I've always thought they should just tear it down and replace it with a broad boulevard along the waterfront which could be very attractive. It sounds like the tunnel alternative isn't very popular and the whole thing is in limbo after the vote this week. Building an even larger elevated roadway would be incredibly ugly even if it could carry more traffic. Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject?

seaskyfan · #2 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 12:06 AM**

The whole replacement process has been a mess.

It has to be replaced because it's considered likely it will fall over in the next big quake. The big question is by what. The gov and the speaker of the house (who's from Seattle) have been pushing a replacement viaduct because of money and safety issues. It would be larger not because it would necessarily be built to carry more traffic but because it would be built to modern standards (so wider curves and added breakdown lanes, etc.) The mayor and a majority of the city council wanted the tunnel, which started at as a two level six lane tunnel (3 each way) and then was reduced to a one level four lane tunnel (2 each way) before it went on the ballot (to knock a billion $ or so off the price tag). There are some other folks who are pushing a surface street option that would include more transit.

I think most of the folks in the NW Forum are supporting the tunnel or surface options. From the vote (which was lame - you didn't have to pick tunnel or rebuild, just yes or no on each) it looks like the general public hates the rebuild less than the tunnel, although the surface option wasn't on the ballot.

They're going ahead with fixing other sections of the viaduct - leaving the portion along the central waterfront for future discussions.

seaskyfan · #3 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 12:09 AM**

More info - one of the challenges is that the State DOT and the gov are insisting that the replacement maintain the same vehicle capacity as the current viaduct. Other folks are trying to shift that into people-moving capacity which will help with options that rely on increased transit.

Bet you don't miss the Seattle process!!

James Bond Agent 007 · #4 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 1:12 AM**

To people like us, the idea of rebuilding the viaduct seems like an atrocious idea, but there are a lot of people out there (even in Seattle) who don't venture downtown or to the waterfront too often, and therefore probably don't really care if there's a big ugly viaduct along the waterfront. So they'd rather save the money. Others might agree that the viaduct is ugly and so would a replacement, but they still don't want to spend the extra $$ anyway. This is probably why building a tunnel was the least popular alternative.

Just my 2 cents.

AZheat · #5 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 1:26 AM**

The problem I have with trying to maintain the same vehicle capacity (I think the current volume is about 110,000 cars a day and the surface street option would handle about 70,000) is the massive contruction that would cost a fortune, take years to complete, and if it's a new viaduct, would be the ugliest thing in Seattle. Seattle has the potential to have a waterfront that is spectacular. The monstrosity known as the Alaskan Way Viaduct has made the waterfront look like some kind of ugly industrial area for a half century and now there's a chance to change that. If people don't want to spend a fortune the surface street option is the cheapest and fastest by far. The money would be better spent on a realistic mass transit that is well planned and functional.

James Bond Agent 007 · #6 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 5:46 AM**

^
The pot of money for this is not an alternative, "We can use it for a highway or we can use it for transit" selection. It's a highway project, period. Transit comes from other pots of money.

I agree that the viaduct is awful, but obviously some people don't care about those things.

LostInTheZone · #7 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 3:35 PM**

It's often suggested that these elevated waterfront highways be replaced with surface boulevards. It might make for a better picture postcard view, but I think anyone pushing this idea should check out the West Side Highway "boulevard" in Manhattan. It's a pretty hostile environment for pedestrians, and it's pretty inefficient for traffic too. The instinct to pull the highway traffic off the surface is correct, and I think they should either go for a tunnel, or an elevated that's designed to be attractive. A surface boulevard just creates a different set of problems, IMO.

AZheat · #8 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 4:06 PM**

Quote:

It's a pretty hostile environment for pedestrians, and it's pretty inefficient for traffic too. The instinct to pull the highway traffic off the surface is correct, and I think they should either go for a tunnel, or an elevated that's designed to be attractive. A surface boulevard just creates a different set of problems, IMO.

I do see the logic in what you're saying but I don't believe an elevated highway can be attractive in this particular setting. I'm not sure why there was so much opposition to the tunnel option but I think about 70% voted against it in last weeks vote. I do think a surface boulevard could be designed that is pedestrian friendly. Why not design attractive pedestrian bridges in the turn of the century style that would blend in with Pioneer Square and the older buildings along the waterfront? It's just an idea but it could be done. I also don't see why the middle lanes couldn't be thru lanes without any traffic signals at all which would speed heavy traffic through the area at rush hour. The outer lanes could be used to exit the main highway and turn on to the streets downtown. It doesn't seem like all of the possibilities have been explored.

Robert Pence · #9 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 8:52 PM**

How about building it at surface level and then capping it with public spaces, sort of in the style of Chicago's Millennium Park over the South Shore and Illinois Central tracks? That would allow public space with a good view of the water, and an attractive view of the city from the waterfront, and they might even be able to include a level or two of parking between the thoroughfare and the surface.

seaskyfan · #10 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob_1412

How about building it at surface level and then capping it with public spaces, sort of in the style of Chicago's Millennium Park over the South Shore and Illinois Central tracks? That would allow public space with a good view of the water, and an attractive view of the city from the waterfront, and they might even be able to include a level or two of parking between the thoroughfare and the surface.

I think that was one idea they looked at and it still may be on the table. The challenge is that the this approach would stilll create a barrier between Downtown and the Waterfront along much of the route and would also create a wall between the activities on the west side of Alaskan Way (tourist activities at the old piers, the ferry terminal, etc.) and Downtown.

pdxstreetcar · #11 Posted **Mar 19, 2007, 3:08 AM**

Certainly the fact that the voters turned down the new elevated viaduct is encouraging since it was quick, easy and cheap solution.

I think the key to a surface alignment is that it handle the large volumes just that the traffic travel at slow speeds and have lots of medians and curb parking to provide safety and comfort for pedestrians.

I would say that just by the size, visability, location and noise of an elevated road, it would be quite difficult to make a waterfront elevated road attractive even if you brought in _______(insert your favorite architect/designer)_______ to design the roadway.

NYonward · #12 Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 3:26 PM**

Having lived in Seattle and seeing this debate from the outside, I have to put my two cents in.

I think its absolutely insane not to build a tunnel for this, or just buck up and rebuild it as-is. The opportunity to take back the waterfront is a once-in-a-lifetime event here. Money is the issue of course, but I find it crazy not to get this done.

The idea of making this a regular "street" is just as insane. Where are all those people in their cars going to go? On buses? Not bloody likely. On the newly parking-lot-ized I5.

That's what was so frustrating about seattle for me. Consensus is the feel-good goal but its ultimately impossible.

LostInTheZone · #13 Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZheat

I also don't see why the middle lanes couldn't be thru lanes without any traffic signals at all which would speed heavy traffic through the area at rush hour. The outer lanes could be used to exit the main highway and turn on to the streets downtown. It doesn't seem like all of the possibilities have been explored.

thru lanes with no traffic signals- wouldn't that be a grade-separated highway? And how are pedestrians supposed to cross, without traffic signals? You see the problem? A surface boulevard can't replace a highway.

What I always wonder is why the south part of Park Avenue in NYC isn't taken as a model- a wide boulevard where just the center lanes dive into a tunnel. No complicated underground offramps or interchanges or anything, just a bypass for through traffic. I think San Francisco could do this with Van Ness too. There are ways to improve traffic flow without making everything interstate-grade.

AZheat · #14 Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

A surface boulevard can't replace a highway.

That's probably true but remember that after Alaskan Way goes through the tunnel to the north it eventually becomes a regular surface street with stoplights, intersection, etc. so this wouldn't be much different. It's not like it's an Interstate freeway like I5. Also, pedestrian bridges could be used to cross along the waterfront area. It would take some careful planning but I think much better ideas could be presented than building a replacement viaduct. That's the worst idea of all. I was looking at Google Earth along that whole stretch of the Viaduct. The downtown waterfront portion with the existing surface street is actually very wide and I would think that it would accomodate a very large stretch of surface level replacement. The area along the far southern stretch of the Viaduct doesn't appear to have as much room for expansion. I'm just throwing out an idea but I wonder if the southern part which is in a more industrial area anyway could be replaced with a tunnel or even a replacement viaduct but have it become a surface street when it approaches the wider area to the north. Afterall, it's the Pioneer Square, downtown waterfront that's the major concern, not necessarily the entire length of the viaduct. Anyway, it's just a thought.

seaskyfan · #15 Posted **Mar 20, 2007, 8:32 PM**

Here's a link to a graphic from The Seattle Times that shows the different portions of the viaduct and what is currently going on with each portion.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/new...tfuture15.html

It looks like it may wind up being all on the surface south of King Street (southern portion of Pioneer Square).

itsdenis · #16 Posted **Apr 18, 2007, 9:25 PM**

Why are Seattlites so stuck on their waterfront looking pretty to the point of gigantic impractibility. Replacing the viaduct with a surface street is completely insane. How do they expect to reduce the traffic handling capacity by half and still have everything rolling smoothely? It's stupidity. The only rational option is to build a tunnel. And if they were smart at all, they would build it with extra copacity to prepare for future growth.

Some people around there say that a surface street would work with extra transit capacity. That arguement is bogus becasue Seattlites, as a whole, don't like public transportation. There's no way in hell that enough people there would untilize the transortation system enough for it to make a difference in the traffic flow.

seaskyfan · #17 Posted **Apr 18, 2007, 10:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsdenis

Why are Seattlites so stuck on their waterfront looking pretty to the point of gigantic impractibility. Replacing the viaduct with a surface street is completely insane. How do they expect to reduce the traffic handling capacity by half and still have everything rolling smoothely? It's stupidity. The only rational option is to build a tunnel. And if they were smart at all, they would build it with extra copacity to prepare for future growth.

Some people around there say that a surface street would work with extra transit capacity. That arguement is bogus becasue Seattlites, as a whole, don't like public transportation. There's no way in hell that enough people there would untilize the transortation system enough for it to make a difference in the traffic flow.

What's with the Seattle bashing?