- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 8, 2011 at 6:26 am #731095
metrognomeParticipantjohnnyb — you might want to get to work inventing a practical, working helicopter-car, cuz that’s about the only way to get a car out of a deep-bore tunnel when downtown is so far above the waterfront. The tunnel will follow a different alignment than the Viaduct. It will be 120′ under First at Seneca where the existing off-ramp is. We will be much better off without the gridlock caused by the Seneca off-ramp and the Columbia on-ramp. The traffic will redistribute itself just fine once Alaskan Way street level is rebuilt.
The cut-and-cover was never a good option, at best, it was the ‘least worst’ option and would have brought downtown, the waterfront and through traffic to a standstill for 4 – 5 years:
“How is the bored tunnel different from the tunnel that was rejected in 2007?
“The tunnel proposed to Seattle voters in 2007 was a cut-and-cover tunnel, which would have been constructed by excavating a 60-foot deep trench along the central waterfront. It would have required closure of the viaduct for several years, causing disruption to traffic and businesses.
“The proposed bored tunnel would be located beneath downtown and Belltown and be up to 200 feet below the surface, minimizing impacts on businesses and traffic. Traffic would be able to stay on the viaduct through most of the bored tunnel’s construction.”
August 8, 2011 at 12:23 pm #731096
redblackParticipantif it really is this or nothing
are you really willing to deal with the consequences of nothing?
i don’t think so.
when did i ever advocate for “this or nothing?”
where does this threat come from that if we don’t bore the tunnel, the state will yank all funding to replace the state highway?
August 8, 2011 at 1:14 pm #731097
redblackParticipantbeen going through the EIS as time allows – it’s a meaty tome. dry reading.
the first thing that jumps out at me is that completion time for DBT: 5.5 years, as opposed to 8.7 years for the cut and cover/integrated seawall, and 10 years for an elevated structure.
what i don’t see is the state’s plan for dropping the viaduct after the tunnel is bored, or any mention that the seawall will be replaced afterwards. in other words, no mention that the entire DBT project time will be longer than 5.5 years when disruptions to alaskan way to remove the viaduct and replace the seawall are included. the other two replacement options will accomplish those jobs at the same time, and when the jobs are done, they’re done.
(yes, i understand that those aren’t in the scope of the state’s project under the DBT plan; but they’re integral to the two other replacement options.)
i also don’t understand why the state is twisting itself in knots creating all of these alternate routes to keep alaskan way open during all three options. the bottom line is that all three options are going to seriously fubar traffic on the waterfront. with DBT, the whole “keep the viaduct open” thing is like some kind of sick joke. that thing will be seriously compromised as a through route by construction.
better to put it out of its misery.
this is interesting, too:
The Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a six-lane cut-and-cover tunnel (three lanes in each direction) from approximately Railroad Way S. to Pine Street. The outer wall of the tunnel would serve as the new seawall from S. Washington Street to Union Street. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by Pine Street, SR 99, and the Alaskan Way surface street. Between Pine Street and Virginia Street, a new aerial structure would be built, and SR 99 would
connect to the Battery Street Tunnel by traveling under Elliott and Western Avenues, where the existing Elliott Avenue on-ramp and Western Avenue off-ramp would be replaced. Because SR 99 would cross under Elliott and Western Avenues, Bell Street could be connected across Western Avenue.
Above the aerial structure from Pine to Virginia Streets, a lid would provide new open space and a pedestrian linkage between Victor Steinbrueck Park and Pike Place Market to the waterfront.
Alaskan Way would be replaced east of the existing
roadway with at least two lanes in each direction and two waterfront streetcar tracks running in the center travel lanes. The center lane would have alternating turn pockets and streetcar stops. Between Railroad Way S. and Yesler Way, Alaskan Way would have three lanes in each direction. Alaskan Way would be lined with expanded open space, a wide waterfront promenade, broad sidewalks on both sides of the surface street, bicycle lanes, and parking including ADA-compliant spaces. Between Union Street and Broad Street the existing seawall would be replaced.
Like the Bored Tunnel Alternative, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets would not be provided. Unlike the Bored Tunnel Alternative, ramps to and from Elliott and Western Avenues would be provided. The existing pedestrian bridge at Marion Street from First Avenue to Colman Dock would be removed and replaced with a new ADA-compliant structure.
With the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, the Battery Street Tunnel would be retrofitted for improved seismic safety. The existing tunnel safety systems and facilities would be updated with a fire suppression system, ventilation, and new emergency egress structures near Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Avenues. The south portal of the Battery Street Tunnel would be widened to accommodate the connection from the new SR 99 roadway. Tunnel maintenance and ventilation buildings would be built at each end of the Battery Street Tunnel to house ventilation, electrical, mechanical, and communications systems.
why did we reject this option?
3 lanes each direction from battery street to spokane street. surface street improvements. 2 tracks down the center of a new alaskan way. new lids and park spaces. integrated new seawall, for which the city and state would obviously partner. no central downtown exits, but elliott and western exits would be rebuilt. new ADA-compliant ferry access from first ave.
all included.
sounds like more improvement for the money.
and, yes, i know that this option would close 99 as a through route for as many as 42 months, as opposed to 5-7 months for elevated, and the vague “several weeks” for DBT.
August 8, 2011 at 1:29 pm #731098
metrognomeParticipantone more time: the cut-and-cover tunnel was dropped because the viaduct would have had to come down first, so there would be no SR-99 for five years. We couldn’t survive for even 3 days when the viaduct was closed after the Nisqually Earthquake. The majority of the deep bore tunnel can be completed with the viaduct open. If you were here in the 80’s when the bus tunnel was being built, it’s the difference between 3rd Ave (deep bore) and Pine St (cut-and-cover).
with the bored tunnel, the seawall replacement was dropped from WSDOT’s project list and is now a City of Seattle project as it is the city’s seawall. It was only part of the viaduct replacement project when the c&c tunnel was being considered because of the proximity of the tunnel to the seawall. The DBT alignment is very different and doesn’t affect the seawall.
http://www.seattle.gov/Transportation/seawall.htm
The other two related projects that are under city control are Spokane St and Mercer St. The Port is also working on related projects.
The tunnel is estimated to be completed in 2015 and the viaduct is scheduled to come down in 2016.
August 8, 2011 at 1:32 pm #731099
redblackParticipantregarding the claim by the “yes on 1” camp that there’s $190 million for metro funding in the tunnel package…
false.
http://publicola.com/2011/07/21/king-county-dot-on-tunnel-project-transit-funding-not-there/
looks like BuRT will run through the tunnel, though, so that answers part of that question.
August 8, 2011 at 1:32 pm #731100
anonymeParticipantRB, I’d never heard about “Option H” until you mentioned it – shallower, trench tunnel with combined seawall. This sounds like the best option to me, by far.
August 8, 2011 at 1:57 pm #731101
JoBParticipantanonyme..
it was the best engineering option
and the best cost over-run option for Seattle since it included a new waterfront.
and it guaranteed a waterfront park
but that option isn’t on the table any longer
redblack..
i am pretty sure both the state and federal funding for the DBT are project specific
that isn’t to say that there can’t be more funding allocated later for another project
but it’s not to say that there will be either
a bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush
i only wish that family hadn’t made that old saying so germane
August 8, 2011 at 2:12 pm #731102
redblackParticipantanonyme: there were 8 scenarios considered by the AWV stakeholders’ committee. scenario F was a bored tunnel, scenario G was cut and cover/integrated seawall. scenario H was actually something altogether different: a lidded trench – no integrated seawall – and it would be in the footprint of the current viaduct. the state would dig the trench, the city would rebuild the seawall. scenario H is no longer an option, short of a whole new EIS.
the EIS considers 3 of the 8 scenarios: bored tunnel, cut-and-cover, and independent elevated structure.
it also discusses the ramifications of simply closing and abandoning the viaduct if a major earthquake hits downtown or if the city and state decide to do nothing. (if it doesn’t fall down first, that is.) it’s the backup plan for all scenarios in case of a disaster, natural or man-made.
[edit: scenario G, the cut-and-cover/integrated seawall is the one that went down in flmes at the ballot box in ’07.]
August 8, 2011 at 2:20 pm #731103
redblackParticipantjo: as i understand it, $80 million in federal funds was available for the spokane street and mercer street projects, since they are integral to improving the 99 corridor. i read somewhere that the tunnel agreement fubared that money somehow.
the state is still committed to $2.4 billion in funds to replace AWV, no matter what option is ultimately pursued. and, as i’m sure someone will point out, mcginn is to be blamed for $400 million of the original $2.8 billion being shifted to SR520 – also a state highway that serves king county pretty much exclusively.
August 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm #731104
redblackParticipantthis guy sums up the EIS – and the entire debate – far better than i can:
or
if we’re going to have a tunnel, we need surface/transit/I-5 (ST5) – which WSDOT promised ron sims, then retracted. unfortunately, there’s no state money to mitigate traffic diverted by tunnel tolls or the lack of access to downtown.
stay tuned…
August 8, 2011 at 9:12 pm #731105
DPMemberredblack, you’ve made some good points on this issue, and I’m sure you’re sincere in your opposition to the tunnel. However, isn’t it also true that you, personally, will be severely impacted by the tunnel toll? I believe you once said a tunnel toll will give you a huge owie, since you often take Hwy 99 to work.
I’m not saying your opinion should be discounted on that basis. Hell, if the tunnel is going to hit you in the pocketbook or slow your commute, it’s perfectly understandable that you’d be against it. But I sometimes wonder whether your personal interest in this isn’t coloring your judgment of the tunnel overall.
And while we’re having this little heart-to-heart, let me share something with you. I like the tunnel primarily for the same selfish reasons I suspect you of disliking it. As a work-at-home guy, it actually looks pretty good to me. After all, I won’t be paying any tolls, but I will be benefitting (on the few days I go downtown every year) from a much-improved view of the waterfront.
And I’ll concede you another point, r/b. I, like you, suspect the tunnel’s official proponents are not being honest with us on the carrying capacity issue. Yass! No!! —Methinks the tunnel will ultimately carry less traffic than the viaduct does. It will almost certainly lengthen the time to downtown for a large number of West Seattle-ites. So in that sense, it’s probably going to be a net loss for many West Seattleites. I wish the pro-tunnel folks would just own up to that and move on.
Finally, I’ll admit to you that my tunnel fetishism is based largely on my antipathy to cars, which I consider to be obnoxious in the extreme. In fact, if someone proposed to dig an even bigger hole under the city and bury every last car within it, I would probably support that. I just wouldn’t call it a “transportation solution” or anything of the kind, because that would be disingenuous.
Rather like the brouhaha over cat driving.
Â
August 9, 2011 at 4:23 am #731106
miwsParticipantAugust 9, 2011 at 4:41 am #731107
redblackParticipantDP: i guess you’ll have to take me at my word that i think that our city and state truly deserve better than a half-baked idea.
if surface/transit/I-5 (ST5) isn’t the baseline for improvements to traffic flow through downtown, then we really have nothing to benefit by spending all of that capital.
in other words, the tunnel might be a good idea if – and only if – the following conditions are met:
– funding, funding, funding, and maybe some extra funding.
– allowances for rapid transit to and through downtown (preferably grade-separated rail.)
– improvements to surface flow… because you have to face the fact that at least once a week, someone is going to do something stupid in that tunnel, jam his car sideways, and back shit up to lynnwood or seatac, depending on which rush hour in which he chooses to be an anxious idiot.
my objection to tolling isn’t personal so much as it is fundamental: i can afford it. grudgingly. if i have to. on bad days. the state, however, has automatically relied on the maximum amount of tolling permitted by statute in order to simply fund the damned thing.
then there’s the fact that WSDOT is proving inept at tolling SR-520. why should i trust them to be adept at tolling the DBT? and at the risk of sounding like tim eyman, who’s to say they won’t get to the $400 million cap and decide to propose legislation to keep tolling anyway?
and, as the EIS admits (if you care to read until your eyes bleed) there is no funding for “mitigation” caused by either congestion or toll avoidance.
then there’s this: the DBT budget doesn’t allow for the cost of dismantling and removing AWV.
like i said, it’s half-baked and less-than-complete. we deserve and should fully fund bigger and better ideas.
and, umm… while i appreciate the sentiment regarding burying cars in a watery grave, they’re a fact of american life. but we should give ourselves more and better options before we start an all-out assault on single occupant vehicles.
August 9, 2011 at 5:08 am #731108
redblackParticipant[double-take] dude. is that cat in space?
i’ve driven that road. i think it’s somewhere in the willapa hills, around raymond.
August 9, 2011 at 6:28 pm #731109
DPMemberredblack: I will take you at your word when you opine that the tunnel is a half-baked idea. However, I can’t agree with worry worts who say that the tunnel will lead to massive downtown traffic jams. At first, yeah, maybe. But when drivers figure out that it’s in their own interest to pay the toll and take the tunnel, trust me, they will. —Just like smart commuters kept riding Metro, even after the fares went way up.
It’s hard for me to imagine a $30-an-hour manager opting to stew in downtown traffic for an hour, just so she can weasel out of a $5 toll.
***************************************************************************************
P.S. metrognome has ventured that downtown viaduct exits are actually a cause of traffic congestion and that losing them will be a net gain for commuters. That may well be true.
August 10, 2011 at 12:42 am #731110
johnnyblegsMemberDP – Most people, buses included, take the seneca exit downtown via the viaduct. Saying that people will just pay the toll is ludicrousness. You see how jammed the WS Bridge is NOW? Fast forward to IF the tunnel gets built and you’ll see lines backed up 35th and fauntleroy just to take the 4th ave or 1st ave off ramp, because that’s what it’s going to take to get commuters from the west side downtown to their jobs or other bus connections. Take I-5 instead? Then you’re battling everyone coming from the south end.
August 10, 2011 at 2:27 am #731111
DPMemberIt’s possible that I’m being ludicrous without knowing it . . . again.
I can’t speak to the effect the tunnel will have on bridge traffic, but consider this. At the NB tunnel entrance, through traffic will come out of the mix. So north of about Royal Brougham (the grey box in the first illustration below) traffic flow should be lighter, both for through traffic and for those going downtown.
Â
Same illustration, without labels:
Â
Source (WSDOT):
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/boredtunnelportals.htm
August 10, 2011 at 3:58 am #731112
redblackParticipantwow! look at how few cars there are! i was wrong all along! the tunnel is magic!
seriously, though, DP, let’s not get whimsical here, and let’s actually think about the arguments that we’re making:
a manger who makes $30 per hour works downtown, so that person won’t be taking the DBT from west seattle to ballard, anyway.
and it’s hard to take anything metrognome says regarding DBT seriously – outside of its occasionally-specious opinions on bus transit – because all empirical evidence tells me that most people using AWV are heading to downtown, belltown, west queen anne, magnolia, or ballard.
and most of the traffic that does continue through battery street tunnel immediately tries to merge right to get to mercer/dexter/aloha.
furthermore, as metrognome has pointed out, there are only two of us who regularly commute from west seattle to ballard, and that explains why metro has no through-routes on 99.
all teasing and kidding aside, the biggest northbound morning rush-hour jams are at the seneca and western ave exits. are they not?
oh, yeah. i forgot. you don’t have a dog in this fight either way.
August 10, 2011 at 4:06 am #731113
redblackParticipantmetrognome has ventured that downtown viaduct exits are actually a cause of traffic congestion and that losing them will be a net gain for commuters.
all snarkiness aside, that’s circular logic.
the exits at seneca and western are crowded precisely because people use 99 to get to those points.
sure. take those exits away and no one will use 99.
and this is what passes for transportation planning in western washington?
August 17, 2011 at 1:48 pm #731114
redblackParticipantlet the cost overruns begin! maybe lake union will get its very own stray boring machine.
anyway, i wonder if the tunnel vote was split along conservative/liberal lines, or if it was… different.
any opinions on the vote breakdown? (you know, without revisiting the argument for/against.)
August 17, 2011 at 2:38 pm #731115
mightymoParticipantI’m most curious about who is against a $20 congestion/transit funding/etc. car tab fee but voted for this project to proceed.
I realize that they’re different issues — county vs. city/state/port, car tab fees vs. tolls and unknown taxes/budget priorities to pay for overruns, two years vs. no clear end to paying for the project, etc. But I’m curious about who would be for the tunnel but against the car tabs, and why.
August 17, 2011 at 2:59 pm #731116
JoBParticipantmightymo
it is interesting isn’t it…
i once bought the idea that Seattle obstructionism was born of the pursuit of the perfect solution…
but i am not so sure any more
August 17, 2011 at 5:46 pm #731117
DennitoMemberMo: I voted for the tunnel but oppose the car tab fee. As was stated more intelligently in a Seattle Times guest editorial, KC Metro was already looking at cut-backs as a means to operate the bus system more efficiently. Do we really need a free ride zone in downtown? I frequently see busses with fewer than 10 passengers. Public transit is a wonderful thing but the burden should not fall on those who choose private transportation. I’m weary of the continual “tax the cars” mentality. I will not vote for the city car tab increase because I’m tired of McGinn’s bicycle obsession. Enough already. I’m a bicyclist, but I’m not voting for anything with more funding for bicycles attached to it. Riding a bicycle in traffic is dangerous regardless of how the streets are painted.
August 17, 2011 at 8:29 pm #731118
metrognomeParticipantDennito — the Seattle Times editorial against the fee was based on the work of Michael Ennis a hatchet man who works for a right-wing think tank whose goal is to get rid of public transportation completely. His ‘work’ is full of inaccuracies and is complete hogwash. I’m guessing the editorial you are referring to is the one Ennis wrote.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2015688938_guest22ennis.html
Here is the rebuttal from Metro:
http://metrofutureblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/debunking-myths-about-metro%E2%80%99s-efficiency/
Buses sometimes run with few people because you have to get the bus from its end point back to its start point. In the morning, for example, the 54 into WS is pretty empty; but you have to get the bus back to WS to start another trip into town when it will be stuffed to the gills.
And those buses sometimes appear more empty because an artic is running when a 40 footer will do; however, because the buses are out of the base for 12 – 15 hours or more, it is not cost-effective to drive replacements out. Since the majority of the operating cost is the driver, the incremental operating cost of an artic over a 40 ft is minimal.
The efficiencies Metro is considering have been on the table for some time and have to do with the equity distribution formula to ‘subareas’ of King County. The system is considered by some to be ‘Seattle-centric’ and that the burbs don’t get enough service for the taxes they pay.
August 17, 2011 at 8:40 pm #731119
metrognomeParticipantredblack — when I finally read your comments in post 69, I laughed so hard I snorted MexiFries and hot sauce out my nose. If you want to read about circular logic, try R.D. Laing’s ‘Knots.’
As you missed my point entirely, I won’t bother refuting your statements. I’ll just suggest you should pick a few days when the Mariners are trying to play and spend those evenings in North Pioneer Square where you can see the effects of the jams on First at Seneca and Columbia (there are a couple of establishments between Marion and Columbia with outdoor seating.) Then, I’ll see you at First and Seneca for the Mariner’s opening game in 10 years and we’ll see what’s what.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.