WSB Forum » Politics

(32 posts)

McGinn wants viaduct CLOSED by 2012!


  1. hopey
    Member Profile

    hopey

    Posting as FYI because I usually try really hard to stay out of the political stuff, but I wanted to make sure this piece of news got around. The further north you live in West Seattle, the more this affects you.
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2014493706_mayor_wants_viaduct_to_come_do.html

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  2. JoB
    Member Profile

    but no.. he's not obstructionist at all.
    sigh.....

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  3. Genesee Hill
    Member Profile

    Genesee Hill

    Looks like he will get his surface option, after all. Though, I really don't care much, anymore.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  4. Sue
    Member Profile

    Sue

    I just wish they'd do *something* - not just talk about it. I'm prepared that whatever they do will inconvenience West Seattle big-time during construction, and possibly longer. Just get it over with already.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  5. sna
    Member Profile

    Recall the mayor. It's time.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  6. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    jo: why do people equate viaduct demolition and tunnel construction? one has nothing to do with the other.

    sna: i couldn't agree less.

    the "hurry up and get something done" argument doesn't carry much weight with me. we've already wasted 10 years and only have half-hearted and half-baked consideration for AWV alternatives to show for it. we should think this one through pretty damned carefully, because we have one chance to get it right.

    if viaduct safety is as critical as people say it is, then mcginn is right. and so was gregoire in 2007. for 7 years after nisqually, WSDOT and seattle pussy-footed around, stroking their beards and muttering wisely about their pipe dreams. they were basically sitting on their hands, so gregoire said she would take AWV down by 2012 - and suddenly it's the eleventh hour and AWV is a menace and it's time to ram something down seattle's throat.

    the only thing that should be fast-tracked is finishing the southern mile (the end that benefits west seattle) and dropping the central waterfront section. after all, seattle's seawall is waiting on AWV demolition, too.

    having said that, if DBT is allowed to come to a vote this fall, i have a suggestion for what a real vote should look like:

    four options (elevated, shallow tunnel, DBT, surface/transit) rate your choices 1 through 4. winner takes it in an instant run-off. done and done. no more discussion. no crying. no take-backs. viaduct comes down, seawall and highway replacement begins forthwith. WSDOT has final say on design.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  7. lazybeard
    Member Profile

    lazybeard

    I've got to one of two conclusions regarding the Alaska Way Viaduct:

    1) It'll be torn down (due to safety concerns) with no replacement plan in place. At that point, surface streets will be created because it's the fastest solution (I don't know if it is the fastest, I'm just saying that off the top of my head).

    or

    2) It'll be torn down and city council and the mayor go to Rock/Paper/Scissors to setting the argument.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  8. JoB
    Member Profile

    lazybeard..

    at this point rock paper scissors would be an improvement...
    at least then we would get a decision..

    redblack...

    McGinn's plan from the bieginning was surface streets.. tearing down the viaduct sooner rather than later will accomplish that..

    that said... i agree.. the viaduct needs to come down.
    i just think it would be a good thing to have a solution in place when it does... and the d...d tunnel has funding. Nothing else does.

    i think you are dreaming as to the runoff options...
    the only thing that is likely to get a vote is the tunnel...
    and then we will be back to square one with a viaduct that needs to come down and no plan in place to replace it...

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  9. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    i'll just correct one thing, jo: mcginn has stated many times that he preferred the cut-and-cover option that failed so miserably at the ballot box. after the public rejected his first choice, he considered surface/transit to be the best second-place option.

    despite what folks say about him, he's consistent on wanting to offer seattle more and better options for public transportation, and i, for one, won't fault him for that.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  10. JoB
    Member Profile

    redblack...

    i don't fault him for wanting to offer more and better options...
    and I agree that cut and cover... though not the version on the ballot... was the best possible option for Seattle long term...

    but we don't have any more time for fooling around here...

    the tunnel isn't the best possible option
    it's just the only one that is currently politically and economically viable..

    it's on the table
    it has funding
    it could be completed in a reasonable amount of time with a minimum of disruption to Seattle traffic...

    i don't love it
    but it's better than nothing

    unfortunately..
    nothing is all i see on the table right now...
    and that's no solution at all.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  11. Al
    Member Profile

    Here’s some interesting information I found recently. It was not distributed or known widely apparently…http://www.cnu.org/node/112…it contains good information about WSDOT’s studies about traffic use of the area and makes the updated street grid plan possible; many would still agree. And it's good for those in West Seattle as it incorporates many questions we *still* have about N/S travel options.

    “Engineers conclude that adequate street capacity makes not rebuilding the viaduct a “viable option” and call for analysis to be corrected for Seattle to make an informed decision on its Alaskan Way options..."

    "...Traffic experts who have conducted a thorough review of the Washington State Department of Transportation’s analysis of the “no-replacement option” for the damaged Alaskan Way Viaduct have found significant flaws in that analysis, including the use of exaggerated estimates of future downtown street traffic and misleading conclusions about the amount of truck traffic on the viaduct….”

    "...The report has some strongly worded findings about WSDOT’s misuse of data to create myths that have distorted the debate over what to do with the Alaskan Way viaduct. 'In the debate on the Alaskan Way Viaduct, WSDOT has done the public a disservice by stressing in their communications simplistic and wrong-headed myths about the transportation system,' write Marshall and Gibson. 'The picture they put forward is that more than 100,000 vehicles use the AWV to pass through the downtown, that a large portion of these vehicles are trucks essential to the region’s economy, and that without replacement, these vehicles would all divert onto downtown streets and cause catastrophic congestion. In fact, WSDOT’s own data show that most current peak period AWV traffic is not through traffic, that few of the vehicles are trucks, and that most of the trucks are also accessing downtown. WSDOT has not bothered to seriously analyze downtown street capacity.'"

    "...In order for Seattle to make an informed choice, WSDOT needs to correct a number of flaws in its no-replacement proposal, says the report. The revised model should:
    • Use accurate downtown traffic volume projections instead of inflated volumes,
    • Provide a detailed surface Alaskan Way with desirable urban speed (30 m.p.h.) and design features,
    • include an improved distribution system to the north and south so that SR-99 traffic can smoothly reach parallel streets,
    • include the increases in transit service that Seattle will soon be experiencing, and
    • run the full model including the mode choice model to get proper transit forecasts."

    Found here as well http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/03/15/cascadia-congress-for-new-urbanism-summit-in-portland/

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  12. JoB
    Member Profile

    Al...

    and what surface street would be capable of a 502 mph speed limit?

    it's not as though the cars can't dump onto the streets as long as they can still get across bridges...

    it's that it will ad a good half hour to a 15 minute commute

    and.. destroy the walk-ability of the waterfront.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  13. metrognome
    Member Profile

    if you want a partial understanding of what closing the viaduct will do to traffic downtown, it will be closed this weekend for a 6-month check -- just try going anywhere downtown or through downtown, including I-5 ... I've given up and cancelled any appointments on these weekends. Now imagine it is a work day and add all those cars and buses and trucks to the mix.

    Yes, keeping the viaduct open is a calculated risk, but no one is forcing you to drive on or park under the viaduct. Metro has routes that go up First instead, if you are a bus rider.

    If McGinn wants the viaduct to come down right away, give him a sledge hammer and let him go to work.

    Al -- as much as I support more walkable cities, I think the CNU report you provided shows they had an agenda before they did their study; this page shows they are clearly aligned with Cary Moon and the surface alternative. Seattle is one of their three targeted 'Highways to Boulevards' cities; I think their bias is showing in this quote as no one else has this peculiar twist on the meaning of the outcome of the advisory vote:

    "In March 2007, the people of Seattle strongly voted against both options [cut-and-cover tunnel and replacement viaduct], welcoming in a surface transit option."

    http://www.cnu.org/highways/seattle

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  14. JanS
    Member Profile

    JanS

    Metrognome..the first thing I thought of when this came to surface was...maybe they should test this. Close the viaduct for inspection DURING THE WEEK for 2 days...not on the weekend. And let's just see how it affects West Seattle, the other traffic from the south, and the traffic from Aurora Ave. Weekend traffic is different than the weekday traffic, with people going other places than downtown to work. Bet that would show them the folly of their ways.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  15. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    jan: that's a great idea... but it should wait until the spokane street viaduct and highway 99 south end replacement roadway is in place.

    that would more accurately simulate what it would be like without the viaduct after 2013.

    i also think WSDOT is missing an opportunity by not installing the northbound king street exit until the DBT is bored. they should give commuters the option and spread traffic across the street grid while allowing use of the new roadway from holgate to king street - in case the central waterfront mile of AWV is compromised or closed for whatever reason.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  16. JayDee
    Member Profile

    McGinn just wants to delay the DBT in hopes of Seattle "processing" and is an active supporter of "one-more-vote" not because he really thinks we need to vote, but because we can negate anything if asked multiple times (4 times and the monorail died--though I admit the bond financing was strange). No decison cannot be second guessed multiple times. And the best way to destroy decision making is to offer four choices on the ballot--like trying to decide on a toothpaste at Bartells.

    Second, he doesn't care if taking down the AWV fubars downtown traffic or business--the pain will get the commuters who remain employed downtown to ride transit or their bikes (yeah, right). And if he can point (from retirement, most likely) and say "See it's not that bad". McGinn won't be too disturbed to turn downtown Seattle into a boutique for tourists and the destitute like San Francisco and drive away shipping, manufacturing, and downtown retail businesses away. That will help with the park-like atmosphere. And if you've been to SF you know what I mean.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  17. metrognome
    Member Profile

    redblack -- I'm not sure if this is the exit you're talking about, but it seems WSDOT will open the new interchange in 2013:

    2013
    - New SR 99 between S. Holgate and S. King streets complete.
    - S. Atlantic Street overcrossing complete.

    http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR99/HolgateToKing/

    also, have you watched any of the YT videos? Do they have any narration? They are silent when I play them (and I've checked that the sound on my laptop is working.) Seems weird that they didn't do a voiceover to explain the simulation.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  18. Al
    Member Profile

    I'm not necessarily advocating closing the viaduct with NO alternatives in place. Sure, this study has an agenda. As does SDOT, WSDOT, all the tunnel advocates and all the "re-build it" advocates.

    What is interesting is that *planning* the decommission of a structure like the viaduct is possible. Many cities have done it with great success. Re-configure the street grid; this doesn't mean new streets, but making the current grid function better, adding actual transit options, improving the pedestrian and bicyle routes, etc. It doesn't mean just saying "no more freeway" it means, "no more freeway can work very well if the surrounding infrastructure is also upgraded."

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  19. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    metrognome: the king street exit is part of DBT's south portal construction, which isn't even fully designed yet. the overcrossing is accessible only from alaskan way and atlantic street, to prevent freight from getting backed up by train car hookups in sodo.

    if you look closely at the interactive simulation (overhead view) in 2013, you'll see that the new roadway simply replaces the south end of the viaduct exactly as-is: no exits after west seattle bridge until seneca street.

    imho, 99N should exit at king as part of that south end replacement regardless of what replaces AWV's central mile. then, if anything happens to close the viaduct, traffic can be distributed across the street grid better; and it would help out the flow from 599, 509, and 1st ave south bridge.

    i'm with al: i sure as heck don't favor any kind of "do nothing" approach, and (be honest here, haters) neither does the mayor. like al said, we should be proactive about distributing traffic across the street grid and improving flow - starting 10 years ago.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  20. metrognome
    Member Profile

    and I've said exactly that in previous posts. Our street grid system was designed over 100 years ago, and thanks to our founding fathers, most of it was laid out incorrectly. On top of the commercial pier/truck/railroad traffic, we have added numerous skyscrapers filled with people, Colman Dock's periodic massive outpouring of cars as well as a gradual, equally massive influx of outbound cars and now two sports stadia attracting tons of people, seemingly all in separate cars. Given our geology and the fact that we can't add streets, the tunnel gives us exactly that opportunity as we can now use basically useless land under the viaduct. Many of the street projects from Spokane St south to downtown over the last 10 years are designed to help redistribute and separate various types of traffic.

    On top of that, we can reclaim the waterfront. I spent 20+ years working in N Pioneer Square and spent many nights walking on the waterfront ... and not talking to my companion until we were north by Anthony's, simply because we couldn't hear each other.

    Will the tunnel be a perfect solution? No, but it seems to offer the best oportunity to solve a lot of problems at once.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  21. Al
    Member Profile

    You are aware of the paradox that adding streets doesn't work very well? And even so, traffic may actually improve due to increased oil prices and such so that this type of massive infrastructure built (ostensibly for freight reasons) for the single occupancy vehicle is instantly outdated the second it's completed?

    And no one is advocating tearing down buildings to improve the street grid - I did not say "add more streets." But they are planning on tearing down a few buildings for the tunnel aren't they? Have you used the waterfront recently? Confusing one-way streets which are poorly marked (both by signage and street markings), disintegrating pavement, a huge viaduct that has a giant dark parking lot and alley-like street running under it which does nothing to make auto traffic flow at all, narrow streets, lack of any transit lanes whatsoever (and few transit options), confusing, dangerous and/or difficult access for pedestrians and cyclists, etc., etc., etc. That's what can be improved. I use the waterfront every day while commuting and it's a huge mess that needs desperate updating. It can be improved to facilitate the needs of everyone and solve a lot of problems at one time.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  22. JoB
    Member Profile

    Al..

    here's the deal..
    the only freeway bypassing downtown surface streets is already overloaded.
    It can't handle more capacity.
    and there is only so much surface street potential.

    let's say the viaduct is torn down...
    releasing the parking lot under it for a surface street...

    creating btw.. a restricted traffic .. not really a freeway ... but an immense pedestrian obstacle nevertheless between the downtown core and the waterfront

    where will the traffic from the viaduct go in the meantime?

    and that lessening demand you mentioned???
    No matter how expensive gas gets people still need to get from their homes to their jobs and commercial vehicles still have to pick up and deliver goods..

    the lessened demand you predict would only happen if the public transportation system was improved
    and that takes more time and money than we have.

    the cheapest public transportation option is more buses..
    but if you add them to surface streets where they share the road with private automobiles and commercial vehicles they aren't going to go anywhere very fast in the gridlock that will occur if you dump all that traffic on surface streets...
    so there will be little incentive to use them.

    Even the poorest of our citizens understand the balance between money and time and will buy time every time if they can find a way to do so.

    Have you even tried to bus from west seattle to downtown or back during game traffic?
    all those buses funneled past the stadium traffic is a really good example of exactly how well that is going to work.

    The tunnel wasn't the best option.
    Some form of cut and cover was...
    it solved the viaduct issue and the sea wall issue at the same time...
    but voters voted that down so it isn't one of our options any more...

    they voted down the monorail that would have connected West Seattle efficiently to downtown connections too...

    and if there had been a light rail vote for west seattle and magnolia and ballard and freemont that one would have failed too.

    the tunnel is now our only viable long term solution..
    and if we had any sense we would grab what is possible
    instead of holding out for some mythical perfect solution that will appear too late if it appears at all.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  23. metrognome
    Member Profile

    remember, the citizens' votes in 2007 were *advisory* only and neither the viaduct nor the cut-and-cover tunnel rec'd a majority. I won't even spend time on the monorail.

    Al, I don't know how we got to talking about tearing down buildings. My point was that in a lot of other cities, they could build or widen a street on the other side of downtown; we can't. As with the Metro bus tunnel, the DBT allows us to add a new street. Additionally, we can make better use of the land under the viaduct and we can reconnect downtown with the waterfront. One of the papers had a good simulation of possible waterfront designs, which I posted in another thread, but I can't find them.

    Also, I believe WSDOT is done tearing down bldgs; I think all they needed was staging area, which they now have.

    As I said, I worked in N Pioneer Sq for over 20 years and spent a lot of time on the waterfront. As I use a manual wheelchair, I can tell you where every cr*ppy road and sidewalk is down there because I either drove or wheeled on all of them. This is our chance to fix *some* of that.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  24. JoB
    Member Profile

    metrognome...

    this is our chance to fix most of that
    and to introduce some intelligent design

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  25. Al
    Member Profile

    Whatever your opinion on the matter (tunnel/no tunnel), it's all the same. Eventually the viaduct will come down, our world will not end, people will still be able to get around - with just a little more effort if you drive a SOV.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  26. JoB
    Member Profile

    Al..
    we won't die..
    but some of us
    including businesses
    will be forced to move

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  27. metrognome
    Member Profile

    ok, JoB, I'm bored ... why, specifically, would some people and businesses be 'forced' to move. Are you saying the government should never, ever do anything that some people overreact to and feel inconvenienced by?? Conversely, the gov't should never, ever NOT do something, for the same reason? Remember, specifics, not theory. [The caterer that pre-emtively moved to SoDo (in the middle of the construction zone ...) doesn't count as they did not support their claim of being forced to move because of the viaduct. I suspect SoDo is a much better all-around location for them for a number of reasons.]

    BTW, your beloved monorail would have displaced significantly more people and businesses as it was routed through an urban area -- darn good thing we killed it, huh?

    Al -- nicely put. I bet in 20 years people will marvel at what has been created.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  28. redblack
    Member Profile

    redblack

    regarding tearing down buildings, you have heard of 619 western, no? the state's going to have to pay to shore that up before boring begins. the EIS is in the process of finding whatever other impacts tunneling may have.

    metrognome: thanks for a good dose of common sense. all AWV replacement options will disrupt traffic. even the magic tunnel! have you seen the detour ramps? AWV access/exit will be reduced to one lane each way while the tunnel is bored. despite what the fancy flash pictures on WSDOT's web site show, i drove those ramps twice yesterday, and there's no way a car and a bus will fit side-by-side on either one. maybe two yugos...

    (which is why i think that king street exit should open sooner rather than later.)

    and, just for the record, i will counter that the monorail would have mostly displaced traffic with the supporting pylons. any space the city needed for stations had been acquired, or was in the process of being acquired.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  29. hammerhead
    Member Profile

    hammerhead

    when the viaduct is torn down, my business will be screwed, and my rescue will greatly be affected.

    SO i give up:(

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  30. JoB
    Member Profile

    metrognome...

    LOL.. you should have read the story about On Safari's move more closely...

    "[The caterer that pre-emtively moved to SoDo (in the middle of the construction zone ...) doesn't count as they did not support their claim of being forced to move because of the viaduct." ..

    One of the reasons stated was the lack of ability to guarantee timely arrival of their product.. aka.. the viaduct.

    they preemptively moved because it made sense to avoid the inevitable delivery issues.
    They found a kitchen in SoDo which in addition to increasing available space gave them more reliable delivery routes...

    Why would any business that depends on product delivery ... north beyond Seattle's downtown core ... choose to remain in a location where that delivery will become problematic?

    Hammerhead.. a local business owner said it more effectively than I could...

    "when the viaduct is torn down, my business will be screwed, and my rescue will greatly be affected."

    beyond businesses...

    Why would the young urban professionals who are fueling the restaurant and retail boom in West Seattle choose to live and dine in West Seattle if doing so will double or triple their commute.. on a good day?

    look at where the three big Seattle Metro software powerhouses are located and ask yourself if it wouldn't save them both time and money to relocate on the other side of the impending construction mess...

    especially with no start or end date in sight...
    nothing is worse than uncertainty.
    a little common sense sometimes goes a long way.

    Instead of fighting semantics...
    perhaps we should all be looking for a proactive solution?

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  31. JoB
    Member Profile

    metrognome...

    I don't want to re-write history...

    but didn't the monorail project that never happened jumpstart junction housing development?

    and leave behind it a trail of land purchases and business disruptions?

    edit: i see that redblack already mentioned that the land purchases for the monorail were already concluded or in process when it was defeated.

    And in hindsight..

    wouldn't it be better to have a dedicated public transportation corridor to downtown now?

    any dedicated public transportation corridor?

    "smart" people defeated the monorail project...
    which left us with a big fat nothing to replace it.

    maybe not so smart after all

    Posted 1 year ago #         

  32. Al
    Member Profile

    If I remember correctly, the people voted for the monorail, what, 4 times before the powers that be forced so many changes to the monorail plans that it was an impossibility to build it (to the extent of changing existing street codes to block it from running through downtown streets) and it was voted down? The trail of land purchases was not due to the monorail itself but the governmental chaos surrounding it. What's happening along the new light rail line and streetcar line? Lots of new business and residences. Good mass transit draws them.

    And yes, we NEED better mass transit options now. Isn't that what advocates have been saying all along? And WSDOT has refused to fund any transit improvements (SDOT has been the one to insist on the few dedicated bus entrance/exit lanes - not BRT lanes mind you!). Bus cutbacks due to government cutbacks are now endangering even general service.

    Improvements in mass transit should go hand in hand in whatever tunnel/no tunnel is built.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^