Seattle Area Traffic and Roads Thread - Page 15

jam5 · September 7th, 2009, 05:07 PM

Why are they using wood instead of steel and concrete to build this thing? Is it a normal part of the process?

jam5 · September 7th, 2009, 05:55 PM

Also, I have been looking at the I-90 project on soundtransit.org, and I can't help wondering what the status is on stages two and three. Did the legislature agree to fund them? What happened here?

Seattlelife · September 7th, 2009, 06:17 PM

Awesome updates again Vashon both here and in the midrise thread. I haven't been to Safeco in a year so that looks really different to me.

Seattlelife · September 7th, 2009, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jam5

Why are they using wood instead of steel and concrete to build this thing? Is it a normal part of the process?

I assumed it was a mold for pouring concrete, but then again I don't know much about construction.

CrazyAboutCities · September 7th, 2009, 07:07 PM

Nice progress. I am not really big fan of this project. After looking at these pictures... It looks like numerous of spaces being wasted just to build it and nothing can use it under it. I hope I am wrong about it. What will they plan to use that "wasted" spaces under elevated roadways? Parking lots? Homeless shelters?

mhays · September 8th, 2009, 02:23 AM

The wood is temporary shoring and also concrete formwork.

Vashon118 · September 15th, 2009, 11:57 PM

Group sues in federal court to stop Alaskan Way tunnel

http://blog.seattlepi.com/transporta...ves/179276.asp

Seattlelife · September 16th, 2009, 10:47 PM

Implementation of 520 bridge tolls delayed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...0tolls16m.html

What's crazy is all the comments about how wrong the tolls are. It's as if these people have never been outside of Seattle.

bgwah · September 17th, 2009, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seattlelife

Implementation of 520 bridge tolls delayed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...0tolls16m.html

What's crazy is all the comments about how wrong the tolls are. It's as if these people have never been outside of Seattle.

The comment threads on the Times website just might be the largest congregation of stupid people on the planet. Almost all of the "discussions" are an absolute train wreck.

What really irks me is when there is an article about some new development, and everyone will be whining about how developers are evil and destroying Seattle, etc...

BellevueGuy · September 17th, 2009, 11:39 AM

Well I don't support tolling 520. A lot of the bridge users are finding it unfair... why should they be tolled while users of other expensive projects like the new 99 tunnel won't?

Seattlelife · September 17th, 2009, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BellevueGuy

Well I don't support tolling 520. A lot of the bridge users are finding it unfair... why should they be tolled while users of other expensive projects like the new 99 tunnel won't?

Tolling is an excellent way to fund the new bridge. I don't see how someone can be against it. If you use the bridge you're helping rebuild it. How is that unfair? Sure the tunnel hasn't been tolled but that doesn't mean tolling should never happen.

I've always favored toll roads. Seattle and Portland are the only large US cities I've been to that don't toll its roads and bridges.

RMacherat · September 17th, 2009, 08:44 PM

The whole 520 issue is beyond me. Couple of $billion to add an HOV lane? (Yeah, I know. Like everything else, it's about to fall down.) Then there's the tolling. They are studying payment strategies for the hourly, daily, weekend, weekly, monthly, quarterly, Apple Cup and State Fair users, but what about people who cross about once every 46 years? And $16 a month to maintain each transponder? I want in on that franchise!

520 regulars are probably the most aggressive and obnoxious drivers around here, so if the state can come up with a preposterous rubegoldbergian system just for them, well that's how it will have to be.

Ruffhauser · September 17th, 2009, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMacherat

And $16 a month to maintain each transponder? I want in on that franchise!

The best way to invest in the state is to buy yourself a Senator.

CityView Jim · September 18th, 2009, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BellevueGuy

Well I don't support tolling 520. A lot of the bridge users are finding it unfair... why should they be tolled while users of other expensive projects like the new 99 tunnel won't?

Who said the 99 tunnel won't be tolled? There is still a bit of a funding gap.

pwalker · September 18th, 2009, 04:59 AM

Two thoughts...

First, I agree, this span should be 4 lanes in each direction to project future growth. Not building this way now is just short-sided, pure and simple.

Second, don't forget 520 was tolled from its beginning to 1979. There is a precedent to tolling at this location.

mhays · September 18th, 2009, 07:16 AM

By "project future growth" I assume you mean "induce more driving". I don't want more cars coming into town.

pwalker · September 18th, 2009, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

By "project future growth" I assume you mean "induce more driving". I don't want more cars coming into town.

Your assumption is incorrect. Seattle can keep building infrastructure that is woefully inadequete for even the current flow, and it can continue to have bumper to bumper traffic. That is not my future transportation vision. And I have heard the argument that more lanes will fill up just as fast. I don't buy it. To me, it makes no sense to build an all-new 520 with an HOV lane the only capacity increase. Tangled traffic creates more pollution, discourages growth, slows productivity, and takes more time out of our lives.

mhays · September 19th, 2009, 12:41 AM

You know your opinion. But induced travel is mainstream concept. Further, with that in mind, the pollution argument doesn't make sense.

We should design a transportation system that's efficient in its use of land, fuel, etc., as we're doing with rail, buses, highway replacements, and occasional widenings. If people insist on inefficient means, they can live with the consequences.

BellevueGuy · September 19th, 2009, 01:24 AM

I vaguely remember they were saying that a 8-lane will be a lot more expensive than 6-lane bridge. And the 6-lane has a wide shoulder which can be expanded to 8 lanes if congestion gets crazy. So I am kinda at peace with that design.

What I don't get is the sheer amount of NIMBYness around Montlake. They still have no final design yet and the local residents obviously want a tunnel that will cost more than the bridge itself.

"What the hell?" is my question. Is the lakeview with one highway so much better than the lakeview with one expanded highway? Who are going to pay for the extra $2 billion?

pwalker · September 19th, 2009, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

You know your opinion. But induced travel is mainstream concept. Further, with that in mind, the pollution argument doesn't make sense.

We should design a transportation system that's efficient in its use of land, fuel, etc., as we're doing with rail, buses, highway replacements, and occasional widenings. If people insist on inefficient means, they can live with the consequences.

I agree, transportation infrastructure needs to be balanced. I just don't understand replacing 520 with basically the same type of structure. There is an opportunity to build for inevitable growth. To pass on that opportunity borders on lunacy IMO.

I understand Seattle is anti-highway, always has been...atleast since the mid-60's. The reality is Seattle was slow to produce any meaningful mass transit, other than busses, the past 40 years. Light rail is a good start, but we need highways to balance it. Even in light rail-happy Portland, it has not prevented congestion on the freeways.

I am pro-light rail, pro-busses, and pro-highways. All must co-exist to maintain a smooth transportation system.

September 7th, 2009, 06:17 PM	#283
Seattlelife Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Location: Seattle/Brooklyn Posts: 3,382 Likes (Received): 59	Awesome updates again Vashon both here and in the midrise thread. I haven't been to Safeco in a year so that looks really different to me. __________________ Supersonics Belong in Seattle Sonicsgate, a must see! Just click and watch. http://www.sonicsgate.org/

September 16th, 2009, 10:47 PM	#288
Seattlelife Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Location: Seattle/Brooklyn Posts: 3,382 Likes (Received): 59	Implementation of 520 bridge tolls delayed. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...0tolls16m.html What's crazy is all the comments about how wrong the tolls are. It's as if these people have never been outside of Seattle. __________________ Supersonics Belong in Seattle Sonicsgate, a must see! Just click and watch. http://www.sonicsgate.org/

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

September 7th, 2009, 05:07 PM	#281
jam5 Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 470 Likes (Received): 3	Why are they using wood instead of steel and concrete to build this thing? Is it a normal part of the process?

September 7th, 2009, 05:55 PM	#282
jam5 Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 470 Likes (Received): 3	Also, I have been looking at the I-90 project on soundtransit.org, and I can't help wondering what the status is on stages two and three. Did the legislature agree to fund them? What happened here?

September 7th, 2009, 07:07 PM	#285
CrazyAboutCities Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Seattle, Washington Posts: 8,328 Likes (Received): 15	Nice progress. I am not really big fan of this project. After looking at these pictures... It looks like numerous of spaces being wasted just to build it and nothing can use it under it. I hope I am wrong about it. What will they plan to use that "wasted" spaces under elevated roadways? Parking lots? Homeless shelters?

September 8th, 2009, 02:23 AM	#286
mhays Journeyman Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 8,359 Likes (Received): 116	The wood is temporary shoring and also concrete formwork.

September 15th, 2009, 11:57 PM	#287
Vashon118 Bus & ferry dude Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Vashon Island Posts: 707 Likes (Received): 100	Group sues in federal court to stop Alaskan Way tunnel http://blog.seattlepi.com/transporta...ves/179276.asp

September 17th, 2009, 11:39 AM	#290
BellevueGuy Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 398 Likes (Received): 0	Well I don't support tolling 520. A lot of the bridge users are finding it unfair... why should they be tolled while users of other expensive projects like the new 99 tunnel won't?

September 17th, 2009, 08:44 PM	#292
RMacherat Buy used books Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,710 Likes (Received): 80	The whole 520 issue is beyond me. Couple of $billion to add an HOV lane? (Yeah, I know. Like everything else, it's about to fall down.) Then there's the tolling. They are studying payment strategies for the hourly, daily, weekend, weekly, monthly, quarterly, Apple Cup and State Fair users, but what about people who cross about once every 46 years? And $16 a month to maintain each transponder? I want in on that franchise! 520 regulars are probably the most aggressive and obnoxious drivers around here, so if the state can come up with a preposterous rubegoldbergian system just for them, well that's how it will have to be.

September 18th, 2009, 04:59 AM	#295
pwalker Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Native Seattleite Posts: 1,257 Likes (Received): 3	Two thoughts... First, I agree, this span should be 4 lanes in each direction to project future growth. Not building this way now is just short-sided, pure and simple. Second, don't forget 520 was tolled from its beginning to 1979. There is a precedent to tolling at this location.

September 18th, 2009, 07:16 AM	#296
mhays Journeyman Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 8,359 Likes (Received): 116	By "project future growth" I assume you mean "induce more driving". I don't want more cars coming into town.

September 19th, 2009, 12:41 AM	#298
mhays Journeyman Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 8,359 Likes (Received): 116	You know your opinion. But induced travel is mainstream concept. Further, with that in mind, the pollution argument doesn't make sense. We should design a transportation system that's efficient in its use of land, fuel, etc., as we're doing with rail, buses, highway replacements, and occasional widenings. If people insist on inefficient means, they can live with the consequences.

September 19th, 2009, 01:24 AM	#299
BellevueGuy Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 398 Likes (Received): 0	I vaguely remember they were saying that a 8-lane will be a lot more expensive than 6-lane bridge. And the 6-lane has a wide shoulder which can be expanded to 8 lanes if congestion gets crazy. So I am kinda at peace with that design. What I don't get is the sheer amount of NIMBYness around Montlake. They still have no final design yet and the local residents obviously want a tunnel that will cost more than the bridge itself. "What the hell?" is my question. Is the lakeview with one highway so much better than the lakeview with one expanded highway? Who are going to pay for the extra $2 billion?