Seattle Area Traffic and Roads Thread

[meku]

From what I understand, the surface option will open up quite a bit of space (104 foot wide promenade). Do we really need that much open space there ? I'd much rather see the Alaskan Way pushed back closer to waterfront and the open space developed into some nice mixed-use condos/hotels with retail and bars/clubs. Plus an extra small park here and there. That would at least add some density and move the city closer to the water.

I know that 104 is far from a standard city block but that could generate some creative architecture.

The other option would be to build up the open space by waterfront in similar fashion to SF's waterfront but that always seemed a little bit cheesy to me.

[CityView Jim]

I think the open space will lend itself to more sidewalk dining, more street performance (silver painted human statues! Yeah, baby!), kiosks, and an overall more vibrant waterfront. Imagine an open air Pike Place Market! Fresh flowers, arts & crafts, and the like.

Let's hope they do it right.

[Seattlelife]

meku, one thing to consider is the location of that 100 ft. It's on the strip of land that divides downtown Seattle and the waterfront. If it is planned correctly, and without another elevated structure, then we could have an amazing new park and walkway to help connect Seattle to the waterfront and on a north-south path too.

[BoulderGrad]

Hhhhheeerre we go again:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...iaduct31m.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...viaduct31.html

[Bond James Bond]

^
It never ends.

[CrazyAboutCities]

Sighs... They need to stop wasting their times and get their act together about that issue. I do like deep bored tunnel option but where can we find money to fund this project? Reality, we can't afford it. Surface-Transit option works better and something we can afford it and good for downtown Seattle in long run. I hope they won't pick elevated highway option. It will be bad for Seattle again just like Alaskan Viaduct and will become problem again within future from now. We can't afford to rebuild elevated highway again and over again.

[AzChristopher]

Originally Posted by CrazyAboutCities

Sighs... They need to stop wasting their times and get their act together about that issue. I do like deep bored tunnel option but where can we find money to fund this project? Reality, we can't afford it. Surface-Transit option works better and something we can afford it and good for downtown Seattle in long run. I hope they won't pick elevated highway option. It will be bad for Seattle again just like Alaskan Viaduct and will become problem again within future from now. We can't afford to rebuild elevated highway again and over again.

The tunnel is a lot less expensive that the anti-tunnel crowd wants you to believe. I'll let the below comment, from a Crosscut.com article, do the talking.

Originally Posted by kpedraja

Posted Fri, Jan 2, 3:10 p.m. inappropriate

As someone who lived in Boston during the planning stages for the Big Dig, I am constantly irritated by the comparison between that project and the tunnel option to replace the Viaduct in Seattle. Yes, the Big Dig was poorly managed and went grossly over budget. But, to paraphrase "Pulp Fiction," the two projects aren't in the same ballpark, they're not in the same league, they're not even the same sport.

The Big Dig created tunnels for TWO interstate freeways and a 4 lane, high-speed surface street, an underwater tunnel to the airport AND a major overwater bridge. The engineering challenges were so extreme, including the requirement to tunnel under an existing subway line, that they make the issues facing a waterfront tunnel in Seattle seem trivial by comparison. We're talking about a single straight tube here, people, with very little in the way of exotic obstacles or requirements. Does that mean the tunnel won't go over its projected budget? Probably not since nearly every major construction project ever conceived has. But it's simply a red herring to cite the Big Dig as a reason not to build a tunnel in Seattle.

And what you never hear in the nightmare scenarios presented by the BigDig-o-phobes is the reality that the resulting open space created an incredibly popular and successful zone for business and residential development in the heart of downtown Boston. It has also cut down travel time by 62% and saves commuters an average of $166 million every year. That's not chicken feed.

Neither the surface street option or viaduct replacement option in Seattle offers anything like that. Both are penny-wise and pound foolish when weighed against the potential for creating a world-class waterfront zone for this city.

— kpedraja

[BoulderGrad]

From the sounds of it, Gregoire has painted herself into a corner. They will do a new study that magically shows the tunnel is cheaper than originally thought, and that will be the final choice.

[CrazyAboutCities]

Originally Posted by AzChristopher

The tunnel is a lot less expensive that the anti-tunnel crowd wants you to believe. I'll let the below comment, from a Crosscut.com article, do the talking.

True. Good point. One more thing we should keep that in mind that Sound Transit 3 is proposing possible extend downtown tunnel for light rail to Ballard. I still unsure how it will work with both downtown tunnel extension and proposed tunnel for Alaskan Viaduct replacement. It will be costly. Please do not take this in wrong way, I like tunnel idea but only concern I have is how can we fund this project. If we do then go for it.

[Capitol Hill]

I don't understand why the business community is so strong for the tunnel option. There will be no exit from the stadiums until after the Battery St. tunnel exit, and they wanted quick access to the Interbay area. Odd.

[Bond James Bond]

OMG I don't believe it - they're going for a tunnel!
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/s...ves/159234.asp

[Bond James Bond]

^
OK I was just wondering this: The route of the tunnel will not actually go under the current route, it'll go beneath 1st Ave.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...iaduct12m.html

[ratbear]

yes, yes, YES!!

[Bond James Bond]

I don't believe it, we may actually get a real waterfront.

[jessejb]

First light rail, now this! Seattle is making decisions! I can't believe it.

[pwalker]

Originally Posted by jessejb

First light rail, now this! Seattle is making decisions! I can't believe it.

Well it seems like Seattle is making decisions, and I hope this one comes true. But I expect the whining and complaining will continue as it always seems to.

My theory is the original options chosen were the most unpopular, so it forced it back to the tunnel option, which is what many in Olympia and Seattle wanted all along.

[Aaron W]

I'm thrilled Seattle will be reclaiming its waterfront. This is a one time opportunity -- rebuilding the viaduct would have just meant continued isolation of downtown from the water. And while it's going to be costly, in the long run a tunnel would seem likely to better benefit the city by opening up downtown to beautiful Elliott Bay/Puget Sound. If we were talking short term, yes it's probably better to go a cheaper route. But this project has long term impacts on generations to come and it sounds like they've chosen the right option!

[BoulderGrad]

Originally Posted by BoulderGrad

From the sounds of it, Gregoire has painted herself into a corner. They will do a new study that magically shows the tunnel is cheaper than originally thought, and that will be the final choice.

Just want to point out... I fucking called it!

[Ginkgo]

I support the tunnel option, but if Frank "the little dictator" Chopp decides to oppose it, all bets are off .

[mhays]

I'm beyond thrilled by this.

Yes it'll take some additional money. But the construction process will be easier on the city, and the end product will be the best by a huge margin.