Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Deep Bore Tunnel and Surface Street on Alaskan Way
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 20, 2011 at 5:11 pm #599418
WorldCitizenParticipantI know there are many sides to this argument and all very passionate about the merits and shortcomings of every option. Obviously there is no magic bullet here to slay the problem.
People seem so concerned about the lack of exits to downtown from the proposed tunnel. Every rendering of the tunnel I’ve seen seems to have bypass lanes heading down to a refurbished and multi-lane Alaskan Way surface street. Would it not be safe to assume this street would have many access points to downtown and be a viable option for people commuting to downtown? It seems this would give more exits to the area then the current Seneca and Western options. I’m probably missing something here, but it never seems the refurbished Alaskan Way is brought up by the anti-tunnel crowd. Why is this?
Also (and this might be too much to get into on one thread) wouldn’t the DBT allow for Expansion of the light rail system to West Seattle sometime in the (probably very distant) future?
Fo the record, I’m neither pro nor anti-tunnel yet as I have seen no unbiased information on the subject.
June 20, 2011 at 5:15 pm #727160
chrismaParticipantThere is no such thing as unbiased information.
June 20, 2011 at 5:59 pm #727161
KBearParticipantYou’re right, WorldCitizen, there ARE exits to downtown. There are also many people from north and south who use 99 to get PAST downtown.
June 20, 2011 at 8:43 pm #727162
metrognomeParticipantthe city’s Alaskan Way project probably won’t be done for a while after the deep-bore tunnel is finished, but I couldn’t find a timeline or budget. But yes, the tunnel will result in very different traffic patterns downtown. For one thing, the Seneca St off-ramp goes away, so traffic on First and Second should flow more easily, esp. on game days/nights at the stadii. Same is true for removal of the Columbia St on-ramp. Having worked in north Pioneer Square for over 20 years, I saw major traffic jams spread thru downtown because of these ramps and idiots blocking the intersections.
And, there will be new on/off ramps from both directions of 99 at the stadii. The 4th Ave off-ramp from the WS Bridge was intended to provide access to an entire other arterial. The new 1st Ave on/off ramps to the WSB are scheduled to open this fall, providing yet another option.
And no, most emphatically no, the DBT will do nothing to further the quest for light rail to WS — NOTHING will ever do anything to get light rail to WS. Not enough demand to spend billions. Unless Paul Allen moves here …
June 21, 2011 at 12:22 am #727163
Genesee HillParticipantOddly enough, there already is rail to West Seattle. I suggest utilizing the existing (former Northern Pacific) draw span over the Duwamish, perhaps raise it a few feet to minimize boat traffic,; perhaps replace it with a double track span,and voila, it can be used for passenger traffic as well as the occasional freight train.
Please note, the tracks CURRENTLY reach nearly to Salty’s. Build a branch from the NUCCOR steel mill up Avalon (where the original streetcar line ran years ago) to the Junction. From there to Lincoln Park via California/Fauntleroy. From Salty’s continue towards the Lighthouse on the point. All of these areas had light rail up until the 30s.
I want to re-iterate: rail NOW exists to West Seattle. Think outside the box.
June 22, 2011 at 3:36 am #727164
redblackParticipantgenesee: great point. i’ve never seen the train trestle lowered, let alone freight passing over the duwamish on that route.
at the risk of sounding lazy and not googling for minutiae, do you know who currently owns the trestle and/or leases its right-of-way?
June 22, 2011 at 9:05 am #727165
nighthawkParticipantOutside of Leipzig Germany, the deutsche bahn cut the rail service to a bunch of small villages. Many of these really depended on the rail though due to legacies of East Germany, many didn’t drive at all.
They banded together and now have one of the coolest systems. They have very small trains that are generally two cars long, engine part of the car.
They then run the route from all the villages and then run through all of Leipzig. Now granted Leipzig already has a street car system so they have the tracks. But having them run from the country tracks and straight into the city is unique.
The final destination is the main shopping district in the heart of Leipzig.
I know, comparing apples and oranges. However a lot of countries have working, efficient commuter rail systems, we could probably learn a thing or two from them.
Unlike the rail outside Leipzig, the rail in W. Seattle is very active freight so running passenger on it would not work well. But it’s definitely a good thought. We need some creative solutions.
June 22, 2011 at 6:29 pm #727166
metrognomeParticipantFor a partial history of streetcar service in WS:
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8725
June 23, 2011 at 2:14 am #727167
Genesee HillParticipantredblack, my friend!
Yes, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe currently owns the right of way. It is also used by the Union Pacific Railroad. The BNSF also owns the track that the commuter trains (Sounder) to Tacoma and Everett currently use. They have been accomodating to dual freight/passenger use. Of course there is a cost involved.
BNSF is now owned by Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffett). Mr. Buffett is a train “nut” like I am and I would imagine management would be somewhat receptive to utilizing this somewhat underused line for passenger service. Perhaps wishful thinking on my part, but it is worth exploring.
As I have stated earlier, we used to have quite good light rail to West Seattle. I believe the increasing population density of the junction areas are conducive to light rail. Especially since the rail lines are basically in place to West Seattle. I cannot emphasize enough that the hills to the junction(s) are NOT a hindrance. They were not in the 20s and would not be now, quite obviously.
Nighthawk: The lines currently used for commuter rail from Seattle to Everett and Tacoma are EXCEPTIONALLY high volume freight routes. The line to West Seattle pales BIGTIME in comparison.
June 23, 2011 at 5:01 am #727168
WorldCitizenParticipantThanks for the ideas on rail already existing to West Seattle!! Anything like that which can stay in the public’s consciousness is so valuable when it comes time to revisit the ideas of expanding public transportation opportunities to West Seattle (or any part of the city for that matter).
The AWV solution may never have a best answer, but any answer that improves the chances of a fixed rail system to our backyard will get my attention when I head to the voting booth.
June 23, 2011 at 7:22 am #727169
metrognomeParticipantGenHill — there is at least one problem with your fantasy train system; freight rails are for ‘heavy rail’ (i.e. Sound Transit’s Sounder service) … light rail (i.e. ST’s Link) requires different rails and streetcars (i.e. Seattle’s South Lake Union Streetcar) run on even different rails. You can’t run light rail on the existing tracks and I don’t think anyone wants BN-style diesel locomotives running up Avalon or along Alki.
Also, as we have become so car-centric, there is also no room in the right-of-way unless you want to ban all parking (good luck with that.)
I would dispute your assumption that current light rail technology wouldn’t have a problem with the hills, but I don’t feel like doing the research. Warren Wing was one of the noted local streetcar/rail history experts, so if you are interested in his books, I believe the Seattle library carries them. I do recall stories of passengers having to get out and ‘assist’ rail cars up steeper hills in downtown.
WorldCitizen — there is no solution to AWV that will do anything to get fixed rail to WS; it is a hiway project. Sound Transit is already in Phase 2 of its voter-approved plan and WS ain’t in it. I doubt it will be in #3 or #4 or … WS simply does not have the population density, nor does it have a big enough destination to attract incoming riders; on top of that, it is a dead-end as there is nowhere for rail to go once it is here.
Now I’m going to go bang my head against a brick wall …
June 23, 2011 at 10:01 am #727170
WorldCitizenParticipantBang away. It’s your head.
Am I correct in thinking you’re one of the people who think government should be run like a business? Not everything should be done because it makes sense on a business level.
“WS simply does not have the population density, nor does it have a big enough destination to attract incoming riders”. Sounds like a classic supply vs. demand argument to me.
You can actually invest in city projects without trying to make an immediate profit. You can plan projects with an eye on the future. Maybe some projects that benefit the city as a whole can be subsidized by other means. The FACT of the matter is, there will be more people living in the city as time marches on. Density will inevitably increase. By failing to address the needs of a city’s infrastructure now, Seattle will suffer in the long run. We are already behind the curve with regard to public transit.
And seriously, “ban all parking”? A little dramatic, don’t you think? A small loss in parking along the route is a small price to pay for the good of the entire community.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but isn’t West Seattle one of the largest, most populated areas of Seattle? I think a constant link to the city is a logical thing to ask for.
June 23, 2011 at 12:17 pm #727171
metrognomeParticipantThere are things govt can learn from business and vice versa, but no, I don’t think government should be run like a business; they are two completely different animals.
It would cost BILLIONS to get light rail to WS; do you really want the population density it would take to make that investment feasible? The only real argument I’ve heard for light rail is that the bridge gets clogged up once in a while and the buses get stuck. That and the *potential* for slower trips once the tunnel replaces the viaduct.
And where would light rail go once it got here? A stub line that dead ends in WS will never recoup its capital investment and will run at an operational loss as well until it dies, which is what happened to the earlier streetcars. The only real reason there were streetcars to WS in the first half of last century was real estate speculation; the lines were built to get people out to this under-populated area so that they would buy the relatively cheap land.
There is fantasy and there is reality. There is not a single political leader, except McGinn, who is giving light rail to WS a serious second thought, and McGinn is finally facing reality. The city does not make these decisions by itself. Unless a project is funded entirely without federal funds (an impossibility these days), it has to go through the mandated planning process coordinated by Puget Sound Regional Council (the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Puget Sound; see http://psrc.org/transportation/t2040.) Light rail to WS would never pass the first technical review.
As far as a streetcar, the City has already mapped out where it wants its streetcar $$ to go and WS isn’t on the short list.
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/streetcarnetwork.htm
And, no, WS may be large, but it isn’t that densely populated. Small pieces of WS are densely populated but are too scattered. You can wander around the city’s census data if you want details:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/Population_
Demographics/Overview/default.asp
And yes, if you want to run light rail down the middle of Avalon and still have one auto travel lane in each direction, you would need to remove all parking. You would also have no way to get to the Junction except to go up Fauntleroy and Alaska streets, which would reduce them to one lane in each direction with no parking. You should have heard the screaming about what the Monorail would have done to parking … and it was elevated.
June 23, 2011 at 12:48 pm #727172
metrognomeParticipantbtw, that RR bridge across the Duwamish is ‘closed to all traffic.’
http://bridgehunter.com/wa/king/bh48614/
if that bridge were to be used for light rail service, it crosses a navigable waterway under the Coast Guard’s control.
June 23, 2011 at 1:53 pm #727173
redblackParticipantthere was demand for a monorail; there is demand for light rail.
“stub route?” like the one to the airport? :)
why not run it through white center and all the way to burien? or des moines? or back to the airport?
regarding that rail drawspan, if it’s closed to all traffic, we should look at changing the gauge of track across it. or razing it and building a higher span in its place.
oh, and yes, light rail can climb hills. link does so from southcenter to seatac.
June 23, 2011 at 3:22 pm #727174
metrognomeParticipantno, actually, there was no ‘demand’ for the monorail. The monorail escaped any scrutiny by the feds or PSRC because it had no federal funding. The monorail folks could make up any numbers they wanted.
In transportation talk, the airport is considered a ‘destination.’ It attracts a lot of riders because of people flying in and out and because of the number of jobs in the area. ST also has plans to continue Link to Highline; it would have gone to FedWay but the tanked economy took that extension with it.
Tell me how you would route surface rail out of WS to any of those locations; be specific. You can’t do it for any reasonable amount of money as you are going through residential neighborhoods and there are too many hills and dales and other obstacles in the way.
Try looking at Google maps in the area around that bridge; where will light rail come from to the east and how will you route it to Avalon? Light rail doesn’t make 90 deg turns without a lot of room.
There isn’t any point in continuing this flight of fancy; you’re just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. So far, nothing.
June 23, 2011 at 4:09 pm #727175
redblackParticipantdemand is what started the monorail in the first place. four elections prove it.
as far as flights of fancy, you’re right. i’m not a transportation planner, and the way across the duwamish into and through SODO is a difficult route. but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
yes, i have opinions – even fantastic ones – about how we should seek to solve traffic congestion and a paucity of reliable, low-emission transit, especially to and from the place where i live.
and, by the way, surface rail is just as bad as metro. the best rail systems in the world are grade-separated. the seattle street car system will get stuck in the same traffic as cars and will be impeded by the same obstacles as roads. bad idea, in my opinion.
the point of continuing this flight of fancy? i’m sick of the “we can’t do anything meaningful because it’s too hard or too expensive” attitude that prevents anything but more funding for roads in this city. it’s so pervasive that any friendly neighborhood discussion of alternate modes of transit is met with derision and scorn by curmudgeonly luddites.
and because of that attitude, i get to watch my city turn into an embarrassment of an iron-age relic when it comes to transportation, and that pisses me off.
June 23, 2011 at 4:18 pm #727176
JoBParticipantredblack..
well said.
You don’t need to have existing demand to justify urban transit…
both Portland, Or and Denver, Co are great examples of demand following completion of systems.
What is left out of the demand equations for West Seattle is the fact that West Seattle is a destination.
Try circumventing Alki in the summer if you don’t think so.
June 23, 2011 at 11:15 pm #727177
WorldCitizenParticipantYeah, amazing how Portland does it, huh?
June 24, 2011 at 12:46 am #727178
JayDeeParticipantI voted FOR the monorail until it died because monorail could’ve climbed hills. I gave more than $2K bucks in car tabs until it died, so I was committed.
–
Steel wheels on steel tracks have maximum grades they can accommodate regardless of one’s desire and I suspect the SeaTac-Duwamish grade is close to the max. Ditto a street car named Desire coming up to the Junction.
–
Transit in this City/County/Region is a balkanized mish-mash of competing interests. For instance, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a great idea–no rails, perhaps grade separation in dense areas, dedicated lanes or elevated roads and one can shift buses between routes. Here? Yeah, right – Imagine Sound Transit giving up Link Light Rail to the eastside in lieu of BRT. The Rapid Ride buses are wishful thinking — keeping the buses in the grid only enmeshes them in the gridlock. I suppose with Seattle Process (imagine a Kitchen-Aid) there is literally no way a rational solution can be crafted. My two cents (or in the case of the monorail, 200K).
June 24, 2011 at 1:26 am #727179
JoBParticipantfor portland the first step was to create a regional transit authority that coordinated both resources and services….
June 24, 2011 at 1:53 pm #727180
redblackParticipantkinf of like sound transit, only with actual authority. and money.
June 28, 2011 at 9:12 pm #727181
kootchmanMemberI am still not convinced Portland light rail did in fact achieve it’s stated purpose. Because of light rail, the commuter boundry extended out. If you look at the linear development of low density housing that extended the suburbs it is a mixed result. IMHO. It is a great people mover, a well run system, but has became the NW version of a suburban feeder line. The end result of the Boston Big Dig achieved the result. When the NTSB got in the fray after the fatal ceiling collapse..their critique was, Parson Brinkerhoff and Bechtel were not “supervised” , the various agencies did not have the expertise to represent the taxpayer. A 3.4 billion estimate ballooned to 16 billion. Look at WASHDOT NOW! So far the state has pissed away 14 million on the 520 Bridge…and can’t get a simple toll scan system operating. Not only have we paid the TX company, we have lost 1 million a week in revenues for 3 months. Look to Brightwater..a tunnel fiasco. Now.. Bremerton tunnel was on budget, completed ahead of schedule…why so? A simple cut and cover system that the state could supervise and local contractors who had the skillset. So far WASHDOT is not looking very capable. The cut and cover option was cheaper. Tunnel boring is the highest risk type of construction for cost overruns. Beware…in this case the mayor is dead on in seeking taxpayer safeguards. Also note in Brightwater…only Coluccio (local) successfully completed their portion…the foreigh contractor has not and can’t. Colluccio will make a fortune fixing others mistakes and ommissions.
June 28, 2011 at 9:20 pm #727182
kootchmanMemberIt’s like a post for electric cars… sounds good, sounds green… ooop…55% of all electricity is produced by high sulphur content coal. Add in high tower transmission lines… ya got increased acid rain, sulphuric acid rain, millions of tons of CO2, mercury and other heavy metal toxins, exposure to radiation, and good heavens…more mountain top removal for the coal industry. We do not have a green method of generating additional the capacity. Interim, more fuel efficient vehicles and LNG are ecologically less damaging,
June 28, 2011 at 9:46 pm #727183
kootchmanMemberAs to building before demand…. Ms. JoB… IF Seattle rezoned WS in almost it’s entirety from a few scattered “Residential Villages” and L5,6,7 to a more intense “commercial neighborhood”.. then lightrail is a viable transportation method. But, WS is resistant to altering the the very low density, single family dominant zoning ordnances and has been so for years. If you want big city infrastructure, you zone like a big city and encourage density. Look at the city zoning map…WS is the least dense area of Seattle. In short, WS has yet to come to terms with the fact that it is part of a city… not a residential enclave.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.