West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

1. Al
   Member Profile

   http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/04/21/impact-of-deep-bore-tunnel/#more-24327

   For your reference. No matter what your position on the tunnel, this is interesting.

   Posted 1 year ago #         

2. JoB
   Member Profile

   Al..
   i think they are stating the obvious...
   at least what is obvious to anyone who actually looks at what is likely to happen..

   but again.. what are the alternatives?
   they say there is no tunnel without a toll
   and if no tunnel then 100% of that traffic diverts to city streets...

   Posted 1 year ago #         

3. Al
   Member Profile

   Alternatives? There are no alternatives.
   WSDOT is dictating this thing and it will be drawn out for years. We'll have new approaches but I don't see anything (tunnel or not) happening in the near future which is ridiculous.

   Posted 1 year ago #         

4. DP
   Member Profile

   

   Think this through to another level, folks.

   Yes, the immediate impact of tolling will be diversion. But don't panic! After the spit hits the fan, thru-drivers who get off downtown trying to beat the fare will eventually get tired of sitting in traffic. They'll scratch their heads and go: "Cripes! I don't care if it DOES cost me a buck or two. I'd rather pay it than sit here in front of the stadium all day. I'm missing my lunch date in Ballard!"

   Gradually, people will get it.

   Posted 1 year ago #         

5. maplesyrup
   Member Profile

   

   Perfect is the enemy of good.

   Posted 1 year ago #         

6. hammerhead
   Member Profile

   

   BLAH BLAH BLAH, DP I will never get it. LOL

   Posted 1 year ago #         

7. metrognome
   Member Profile

   The Times analyzed McGinn's claim and found it to be half true:

   "... "Tunnel plus tolls causes the most traffic congestion of any option, including any type of transit-surface option." He went on to name a state report from which he drew that conclusion.

   "We took a look at the same numbers, and the state does predict its tunnel plan would mean more car traffic in the area, which the anti-tunnel McGinn points to as more congestion. But the state's research also says drivers would reach their destinations sooner compared with the surface-transit option McGinn favors. Because of that, we find McGinn's statement half true."

   http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014802262_needle18m.html

   DP -- you make a good point. With all of the surface road improvements underway in addition to the tunnel, along with the removal of the Seneca St off-ramp from the NB viaduct, traffic patterns will change dramatically. It may take a while from the completion of all these changes, or at least until the seawall and Alaskan Way street level is rebuilt, for the changes to manifest themselves. Just like when the Viaduct was built ... Or when the 520 bridge was built ... Or when I-5 was built ...

   Al -- not sure what you think WSDOT is 'dictating' but it is a state highway, after all.

   Posted 1 year ago #         

8. redblack
   Member Profile

   

   seattle times:

   But the state's research also says drivers would reach their destinations sooner compared with the surface-transit option McGinn favors.

   the times is obviously not qualified to talk about half-truths when they set up straw-man arguments, then knock them down as proof that the mayor is wrong.

   the state has a cap on revenues from tolling. it is $400 million, and (without looking it up right now) i believe it has a sunset date. they are obviously looking to fill that revenue hole on the backs of seattle homeowners, regardless of who pays the toll.

   mcginn is right to point that out.

   not only does the state have a revenue problem, it also has a logistics problem with 99, and mcginn is right to point that out, as well.

   but the fact is that the mayor and WSDOT are both wrong when it comes to replacing 99 through downtown. saying that one is more wrong than the other is not good civic discourse, and it is less-than-journalism on the times' part.

   for the record, i'm guilty of it, as well. while i support mcginn's challenge to WSDOT, and i've backed his play in these fora, i feel that he prematurely gave up on other options - simply because the stakeholders' committee said other options weren't viable. so after a cut-and-cover tunnel failed at the polls in 2007, he decided to back a surface-transit alternative. in my humble opinion, he should have stuck to his guns - and he should have known that big money was behind DBT.

   then again, in 2006, the stakeholders' committee called DBT the least viable and most expensive of all possible replacement options.

   look. there are at least eight ways to skin this cat. discussing only two of them - because WSDOT, the times, the cascadia foundation, and the downtown seattle association won't tolerate any further discussion on the issue - is just plain sh%t stupid.

   if there is an afterlife, the guy who wrote sons of the profits is laughing his ass off.

   Al -- not sure what you think WSDOT is 'dictating' but it is a state highway, after all.

   so is 520.

   Posted 1 year ago #         

9. Al
   Member Profile

   I suppose "dictating" is a wrong choice of words so a bit of clarification. I have sat in on several meetings in which SDOT has presented information regarding transit options and bike/pedestrian plans for the street grids surrounding both the north and south tunnel portals.

   Based on those meetings along with (reluctant) confirmation from those SDOT reps it was clear that WSDOT was calling the shots for not only the tunnel replacement but requesting certain traffic revisions to the surrounding streets even though they are providing no funding to the city for these revisions. One example was in the South Lake Union area in which WSDOT requested that a street that had been designated as a pedestrian/green street by SDOT be re-designed to accomodate heavy traffic in spite of the fact that the two adjacent streets had been designed to do just that - those meeting notes can be found in my posts about "bicycling and viaduct routing."

   A similar situation was encountered in another meeting when SDOT/WSDOT was presenting about the 520 plans that would effect not only the freeway but the surrounding neighborhoods and those that *gasp* do not drive every day.

   Posted 1 year ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.