Seattle Area Traffic and Roads Thread

[G5man]

Hopefully with the Obama administration, some funds can be obtained to do some necessary improvements to I-5 and perhaps Link will help with SR 99 traffic. Maybe start a bus rapid transit line from the bus tunnel all the way down the 99 corridor to connect to the new Community Transit Swift BRT?

[NW Mike]

Originally Posted by Seattlelife

What exactly is being done to 522 from Kenmore to 405? I hate driving it right now with all the cones and temporary lanes, especially when it rains.

They are improving it, with an off ramp to UW Bothell and taking some of the big corners out and Getting rid of the intersection at 522 and Main St in Bothell.

[Seasun]

More info on the 522 project: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr522/uw/

[Seattlelife]

Thanks to both of you! Wow, it's not expected to finish for another year.

[Bond James Bond]

Looks like no tunnel. *sigh* Oh well.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...iaduct11m.html

[CityView Jim]

It's only reasonable at this time. I'm sure tunnels will happen when the state coffers are busting at the seams and nothing else becomes a priority.

[PDXPaul]

Yay couplet option!

[jessejb]

Do u guys think the elevated stucture has a chance? Its so ugly...what a joke.

[Capitol Hill]

I think the elevated structure is ghastly. However, that appears to be what the business community wants. I don't know, this looks like it can get ugly.

[CrazyAboutCities]

I really hope elevated highway will never get built!

[taiwanesedrummer36]

Originally Posted by Bond James Bond

Looks like no tunnel. *sigh* Oh well.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...iaduct11m.html

However, there could be a bored tunnel (in the long-long-long run)

[uwhuskies]

Originally Posted by Bond James Bond

Looks like no tunnel. *sigh* Oh well.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...iaduct11m.html

Bond, any ideas why "cut and cover" would not work? I understand tunneling would be very expensive, but why would a cement bathtub (due to the water table) cost billions?

[CrazyAboutCities]

I think it is too much of work and will hurt waterfront businesses more compared other options.

[AzChristopher]

I have a question for everyone to think about. Do you think the traffic in Seattle bad during rush hour?

Did you come with an answer?

If your answer was no then you can skip the rest of this post.

If you currently think it is then you should be completely dreading the surface option. Seattle is basically stating that it wants to turn the waterfront into a parking lot at least 6 hours a day during the week. Not to mention the streets away from the waterfront that will have to take the added traffic.

It isn't as if Seattle is filled with unmovable objects called buildings. You think it is bad for bikes and walk ability now just wait until all those cars taking the viaduct are added to the rest of the street level traffic. I guess Seattle could build a bunch of bridges for pedestrians like Las Vegas has now.

And no the cars and trucks won't just take I-5. That is driving extremely out of the way just to end up in more bumper to bumper traffic.

[CityView Jim]

I think people make do with the situations presented. If the 'parking lot' (and I don't think that will happen) is unbearable, they will find another way, move, quit, etc.

I back this up with how well Seattleites did when faced with recent challenges of bridge closures, I-5 closure, 405 closures, and the like. We make do. I say shut the viaduct for a week and see what happens. We seem to handle it well enough on the weekends for the inspections. Let's see how it goes during the work week.

I'm sure you'd be surprised.

[Bond James Bond]

Originally Posted by uwhuskies

Bond, any ideas why "cut and cover" would not work? I understand tunneling would be very expensive, but why would a cement bathtub (due to the water table) cost billions?

Not a clue. Maybe you could send an email to someone at WSDOT.

[Seattlelife]

Originally Posted by CityView Jim

It's only reasonable at this time. I'm sure tunnels will happen when the state coffers are busting at the seams and nothing else becomes a priority.

I really wish this weren't the case. Just think of the possibilities with that land... oh well...

[CrazyAboutCities]

Originally Posted by CityView Jim

I think people make do with the situations presented. If the 'parking lot' (and I don't think that will happen) is unbearable, they will find another way, move, quit, etc.

I back this up with how well Seattleites did when faced with recent challenges of bridge closures, I-5 closure, 405 closures, and the like. We make do. I say shut the viaduct for a week and see what happens. We seem to handle it well enough on the weekends for the inspections. Let's see how it goes during the work week.

I'm sure you'd be surprised.

I would suggest close it for two weeks to a month. It will help commuters to change their habits. That also will help Seattleites change their perspective on the replacement of Alaskan Viaduct. Maybe they will realize that surface-transit possibly will work well for Seattle too.

[BoulderGrad]

Originally Posted by AzChristopher

I have a question for everyone to think about. Do you think the traffic in Seattle bad during rush hour?

Did you come with an answer?

If your answer was no then you can skip the rest of this post.

If you currently think it is then you should be completely dreading the surface option. Seattle is basically stating that it wants to turn the waterfront into a parking lot at least 6 hours a day during the week. Not to mention the streets away from the waterfront that will have to take the added traffic.

It isn't as if Seattle is filled with unmovable objects called buildings. You think it is bad for bikes and walk ability now just wait until all those cars taking the viaduct are added to the rest of the street level traffic. I guess Seattle could build a bunch of bridges for pedestrians like Las Vegas has now.

And no the cars and trucks won't just take I-5. That is driving extremely out of the way just to end up in more bumper to bumper traffic.

The big difference for the 2 viaduct options is how 99 will relate to the rest of the Seattle street grid, and thus how traffic gets distributed downtown.

The elevated option will be business as usual. It will have one on/off ramp in Belltown, one in Pioneer square. It will still be divided highway through SLU/LQA, and will have no new signals at any cross streets. Basically treating it like a limited access freeway that it is today. Once you're on it, you're pretty much set until you get through town. In that case, traffic will not change.

The surface option does a lot more to integrate 99 into the downtown street grid. There will be several signals along the SLU/LQA section, as well as signals all along the waterfront. This definitely does slow traffic down, but not to a "parking lot" and it also allows for massive redistribution of traffic. Since you're no longer stuck on or off of 99 all through downtown, you can use a number of other streets to get through/to downtown just as easily.

Many people had the same worry about the Embarcadero in San Fran, but it has proven to be a vast improvement for San Frans waterfront with no noticable increase in congestion. If people know its coming, they can do something about it before it becomes a parking lot.

[jessejb]

Originally Posted by AzChristopher

You think it is bad for bikes and walk ability now just wait until all those cars taking the viaduct are added to the rest of the street level traffic. I guess Seattle could build a bunch of bridges for pedestrians like Las Vegas has now.

I dont think pedestrians care if cars are backed up on downtown streets. Personally, I prefer it when cars arent barrelling down 5th Avenue at 45 miles an hour, nearly punting 3 year olds 100 feet down the street.

Screw the drivers.