The Alaskan Way Viaduct: Also A Congestion Problem
Maybe they should try explaining that line of thinking to the residents of Kobe, Japan.
In 1995 the city was hit by a devastating 7.2 earthquake that killed thousands. The Hansin Expressway collapsed (see photo) resulting in the loss of an artery that carried 40% of traffic between Osaka and Kobe. It took almost 2 years for the span to be reopened. Absorbing the traffic onto other roadways created nightmare commutes during that time.
In 2001 the 6.8 Nisqually quake damaged the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Experts agree that a slightly longer quake, or a more powerful one would have pancaked the structure. The roadway carries almost 33% of Seattle's north-south traffic. Estimates are that during rush hour over 800 people could be on the structure in their vehicles at any given moment.
Were the Viaduct to collapse, just as happened in Kobe, there is a significant chance hundreds of people could die on the roadway alone, hence the dire need to address the Viaduct as a safety hazard. Furthermore, again just like in Kobe, it would be a long while before a replacement structure is ready to take up traffic. In the interim, that traffic would have to flow through Seattle by other means, most likely via I-5, and the snarl would be awful - and that's assuming I-5 is not also damaged by the same quake.
So it is quite clear that while first and foremost the Viaduct is a safety issue, it is also a very big traffic congestion issue, and a structure that we need to replace in a manner and at a time of our own choosing, not Mother Nature's. To dismiss this point in support of I-912 is to be blind to the reality of the problems, and why the gas tax is so desperately important to pay for the cost of replacement roads and bridges that are in vital need of repair, not the least of which is the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
Posted at 10/18/2005 10:52:00 PM PT
Permanent Link
6 Comment(s):
Or we could solve the safety problem in one easy step by removing the Alaska Way Viaduct completely. The congestion can be dealt with by spending a far smaller amount on improving transit and circulation through the urban core and prioritizing freight from the Port of Seattle so that our economy continues to function smoothly.
The big reason that sudden roadway closures (caused by natural disasters) cause chaos is that they are unplanned, not because those roads are somehow vital to our continued existence. If we plan to remove the viaduct the city will adapt and our downtown and waterfront massively improved.
For more information on the benefits of Viaduct removal, visit the People's Waterfront Coalition website.
Nothing says that the Viaduct must be replaced. Portland and San Francisco have both removed waterfront expressways, and found that traffic, property values, and quality of life all improved. Seattle can do the same.
Vote for I-912 and against the $5 billion boondoggle known as Alaska Way Viaduct replacement.
Roy - Get real. The traffic that flows through the AWV artery is far greater than any comparably priced transit solution can absorb.
Furthermore, last I checked you couldn't fit a semi in a bus or monorail car, or on the back of a bike for that matter.
I will agree with you that being able to plan for the (temporary) loss of the roadway is desirable, versus the alternative.
As for your math, it is just as bad as that from the right wing supporters of I-912. The Viaduct replacement projects that have been considered range from $2 to $4 billion.
The irony of your position and that of your friends is that rather than save Seattle money, it may possibly convince leaders to spend more as they choose to replace the AWV with a tunnel so you have your waterfront lifestyle.
>>>The traffic that flows through the AWV artery is far greater than any comparably priced transit solution can absorb.<<<
Yeah, but if you remove the roadway, an awful lot of those trips will go away as people find alternatives to making those trips. This happens whenever a road is closed and is a phenomenon transportation planners are (or at least should be) familiar with.
>>>Furthermore, last I checked you couldn't fit a semi in a bus or monorail car, or on the back of a bike for that matter.<<<
We can make arrangements for the smooth flow of freight to and from the port without having to also subsidize 90,000 SOV trips per day.
>>>I will agree with you that being able to plan for the (temporary) loss of the roadway is desirable, versus the alternative.<<<
So, if we can make downtown work without the viaduct for the 5-7 years it will take to build a replacement, why can't that be a permanent solution, and not spend the money rebuilding the viaduct?
>>>As for your math, it is just as bad as that from the right wing supporters of I-912. The Viaduct replacement projects that have been considered range from $2 to $4 billion.<<<
So no cost overruns? Are you familiar with Boston's Central Artery Project? I wish I was that optimistic.
>>>The irony of your position and that of your friends is that rather than save Seattle money, it may possibly convince leaders to spend more as they choose to replace the AWV with a tunnel so you have your waterfront lifestyle.<<<
No, people in city government are already conceding that the tunnel is probably dead if I-912 passes and that in that event, removing the viaduct completely is an option that will need to be considered.
If you remove the roadway, an awful lot of those trips will go away as people find alternatives to making those trips.
Which moves traffic onto I-5 which would become a parking lot. Either that or it moves traffic through city streets which is not a solution.
We can make arrangements for the smooth flow of freight to and from the port without having to also subsidize 90,000 SOV trips per day.
AWV freight traffic is not merely to and from the port. It is also traffic that accesses other parts of the city, or passes through. This isn't a matter of "subsidizing" drivers, it is recognizing the flow of traffic, of all kinds, that use the artery.
So, if we can make downtown work without the viaduct for the 5-7 years it will take to build a replacement, why can't that be a permanent solution, and not spend the money rebuilding the viaduct?
Because Seattle is a city that is in growth, whether you like that fact or not. It cannot afford to eliminate the few natural arteries for traffic flow that it has. We have geographic concerns that limit what those are. These need to be maximized, not minimized, so that the rest of the city can flourish as we would all want it to do.
People in city government are already conceding that the tunnel is probably dead if I-912 passes and that in that event, removing the viaduct completely is an option that will need to be considered.
The tunnel project would indeed be a long shot if you eliminate the money the gas tax provides. That shouldn't be something you support. There is no way that the artery will be eliminated, so you can fully expect that if a tunnel is not the solution, a new double decker roadway similar to what we have now will be the top alternative. And if that's what is built you can thank yourself for making that the case if you vote for I-912.
I cannot, cannot, cannot believe that eliminating the Viaduct without some means of replacement is the way to go. There is too much traffic for it.
As it stands right now there are two 'high speed' ways to get around the standard congestion and slow traffic that comes with any downtown corridor in our fair city: I-5 and the Viaduct. As someone who lived south of Downtown and worked/attended classes north of the Montlake Cut, I usually used I-5 but when congestion got bad there was always the alternative I-99 route. To have only I-5 (a roadway that begins to get congested at 2:30 in the afternoon and stays congested until 7 or even later some days) would be a disaster.
During Mariners (and presumably Seahawks) games, the Viaduct gets very crowded - it becomes a main route for people trying to get to the Stadiums. Just one more traffic snarl the Viaduct helps alleviate... imagine if all of those vehicles were navigating through downtown Seattle instead.
Then there is traffic to and from the Port. The Viaduct is a major route for such traffic - and as much as it can be still is a route for those trucks, though there are the ubiquitous weight limitations after the quake to deal with.
I for one prefer a tunnel over a new viaduct. Standing in the middle of downtown, the only thing to make me think I'm only a few short blocks away from the water is the scent that once in a while manages to waft its way through the concrete jungle. Seattle is a city known for its water. Water defines our city - it is one of the reasons we HAVE such traffic problems - and a tunnel breaks down the barrier between downtown and the waterfront. There is also the time element: projections show a quicker build period for the tunnel than a new raised structure...
Replacement of Alaska Way Viaduct with a Elliot Bay Floating Bridge Initiative 964
http://secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=2007
I am a retired 72 year old engineer, two generation planner (my father KS Hall Sr was Tech. Dir. Chicago Plan Commission for over 10 years), computer scientist now with all my second childhood a vocational interests as a owner/artistic director of a live performing arts theater without any personal, financial, even egotistical professional interest in what I have to say here except I hate to see a political party or politicians put in a spot that no matter what decision is made they can be made to look bad in the future.
Forty six years ago when I was a 27 year old engineer (the only local educated) employee of Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff I was in a meeting with Bill Bugge PE, Dir WSHD; Squeege Glaze (Sp?),WS Dir Hiway Planning Dept.; George Andrews PE, at that time WSHD Dist 7 (Seattle Freeway) Engineer, Ed Johnson PE, Office Manager HNT&B, A couple of gentlemen from The City of Seattle Planning & Engineering Depts. & Bernie Hoskins of Pacific NW Bell Planning and Myself (in charge of all research of existing & PS&E preparation of all utilities relocations between Seneca St & Connecticut St Interchange i.e. I-90) to discuss details of locating ramps @ interchanges to provide ties between principle local then present and future North-South non thru traffic facilities. At that time The Interstate Highway was mandated by law not to be designed nor was it funded to handle local traffic and of course every metropolitan area argued for more ramps etc. which upset the freeways intended purposes especially as a defense system for moving missiles around during a all out Cold war turned Hot. All present agreed we needed 5 more thru downtown lanes with no more room within I-5 R/W. The delegates from Seattle at that time were considering a parallel Alaska Way Viaduct but they admitted that probably wouldn't happen because of efforts to save the public market and Paul Thirey's effort to put a lid over the whole freeway system. Then a concept of a floating structure (Like the Hood Canal or Lake Wash. Bridges) one mile out was presented by Mr. Johnson & myself. The meeting was concluded when determined that indeed the ramps that were constructed ending in mid-air for so long should be and were built for connecting I-5 into a parallel viaduct or floating structure(s). Anything beyond that decision was beyond the scope of work to design the interstate highway which as I said was supposed to not serve or solve local traffic problems. The fact that Seattle never did build the additional proposed 5 or more lane parallel AWV along with the westbound ramp coming off SR 520 bridge over crossing I-5 that still forces people to merge across 5 lanes of traffic in a couple blocks in order to exit on Mercer to Seattle Center was beyond us (I heard they were both funded together?). But HNT&B remained silent because they wanted and got PS&E contracts for Spokane Street Improvements etc. which became higher priority (and may be where the funding went) because a ship hit the bridge over the Duwamish River and the I-5 principle drainage system goes down Spokane St. So, To make this getting long story a little shorter the Floating Structure Idea died because among other priorities and considerations I guess I'm the only one still alive that can relate this. I still have some 1961 renderings where the proposed freeway and related appurtenances were drawn over aerial photos including a parallel AWV. The floating structure was never drawn on renderings because we only needed to justify the ramps generally within our scope of work.
My reasons for advocating another look at this 46 year old never really investigated idea are;
a) Seismic end product concerns of building another elevated North South structure when already the downtown section of I-5 has four parallel 3,000 foot long elevated longitudinal structures.(just uphill from King County & Seattle City Hall bldgs.) With Seattle's hour glass figure between Lake Washington & Elliot Bay the results of a catastrophic earthquake or enemy attack leaving only city streets left between North & South Seattle would be hard to imagine.
b) There are those people throughout the world that are striving to improve utilization of municipal waterfronts and associated views The Seattle waterfront with it's streetcars, piers and public markets are among Seattle's greatest attractions. Or perhaps additional waterfront parks to be enjoyed by the much greater number of employees stuck in high rise skyscrapers. With a floating structure the existing AWV could be removed and never replaced or forgetting all this could be replaced after the floating structure in place.
c) The newspaper article says 110,000 vehicles per day presently using the AWV ( I assume this is a correct count). But, more interesting perhaps; Most Freeway or Expressway Design manuals for traffic analysis assume a lane of traffic at a design speed of 60-65 mph can carry 2,980 cars per lane per hour.(directly proportional to design speed) Lets round that to 3,000 max DHV (daily hour volume) then present 5 lanes carries about 15,000 cars per hour during peak. If you remove the AWV during construction of either a depressed, tunnel, or elevated structure a loss of 15,000 cars North-South capacity is about 5/17ths (Downtown I-5 12 lanes wide + or - ) That's too close to half for a reasonable thing to have happen for several years.
e) Building a elevated seismic event resistant (everyday there's a little shaking going on) structure requires a lot of good aggregates (gravel) for high strength concrete. When you dig a hole in your backyard for a swimming pool or septic tank you run into the water table just a few feet down. After you get it built and are enjoying it you decide to pump it out for some reason you might be surprised when the pool or tank floats up out of the ground like a boat. Parts of I-5 have concrete over 7 feet thick as ballast to keep it from floating up out of the ground (there's a reason Spring St is so named and the transit tunnel so expensive. Because of urban development all around Puget Sound we have a shortage of places we can surface mine these materials. (Basalt brown rock not usable)(Only place still some in some river beds Oh! those salmon fishermen will be upset).
f) Note how quickly PS&E (Plans, Specifications & Estimate by engineers) and construction completed on the actual floating part of floating structures like Hood Canal and Lake. Washington bridges. Environmental Impact Statement would be fun to write but at least you don't have a lot of rights of way issues except at both ends and even those are mostly on public r/w.
g) Famous rule of thumb on Public Works projects. Don't try to relocate a railroad line. Note the one right alongside & under the existing AWV. Not to be confused with streetcar track. And they certainly are essential to the piers in our port.
h) In the future if you need more parallel lanes over the water you build them without having to acquire more rights of way over land except maybe at the ends. That is sure to happen. Ferry terminal expansion could be on West side of Floating structure w/added parking. This would be impossible where ferry terminal is now. Floating helicopter pad to airport to get really futuristic
i) Anchoring such a structure would probably be easier than a floating bridge between shores as floating roads as extensions of streets like perhaps University/Seneca &/or Yesler but not necessarily exactly there where I quickly with little thought drew them could be built that would act in compression or tension to help hold the structure in place.
j) Obviously the long floating structure and street extensions would have to have high rise for ocean going vessels. But some places within the breakwater produced by the floating highway could be developed as an additional marina the rents from which could be used to help fund maintenance etc.
k) Back to (a) above. I believe it's easier to replace one or more standardized sections of a floating structure than a structure on land in case of terrorist sabotage because not so much debris in the way. One or more of which could be stored somewhere secretly
I) A large part of the floating structure could be built in The State of Washington. The State of Washington has pioneered this kind of endeavor
m) Note energy required for ventilation or 24/7 bright adaptive lighting as would be required for tunnel
n) NOTE: MAY BE ALMOST CRIMINAL NOT TO CONSIDER EVENTUAL IMPACT OF MAJOR EARTHQUAKE ON SEATTLE
In event of existing four 3,000 foot long I-5 longitudinal structures (N Bound, N Bound Collector Distributor, S Bound, S Bound Collector Distributor)(above City Hall & KC Courthouse)and Alaska Way proposed or existing Alaska Way elevated or tunnel structure collapse the only North-South Seattle City Streets crossing Yesler Way (This is the narrowest constriction of the hourglass figure of Seattle between Lake Washington and Elliott Bay) are;
First Ave South
Second Avenue South
Combine to 4th at King St
Fourth Avenue South Fifth Avenue South-Airport Way
ABOVE ONLY STREETS LEFT THRU HOUR GLASS
Sixth Avenue South Probably blocked by parts of parallel collapsed I-5 falling on it above KC Courthouse
Boren Avenue and 14th and Rainier Ave I-90 crossing them at Atlantic might collapse
Twelfth Ave South It's curved bridge over I-90 probable collapse Hospital very unstable there
23rd Avenue South Over crossing at I-90 at Atlantic might collapse
Martin Luther King Jr Way S " " " " ".
Lake Washington Blvd " " " " "
Lake Side Way S
Due to the flexibility of floating structures because they are already designed to withstand tidal, large ship bow waves (such as ships going to Bremerton thru Hood Canal Bridge) or natural wave action a parallel bridge structure would be more reliable to continue to function after earthquakes.
o) It was assumed in 1961 that a minimum of a additional five for a total of ten lanes other than I-5 was necessary for local traffic either at Alaska Way, Thompson Expressway (Proposed through arboretum which was dropped) Or floating. There is not any other place except over or under water within the hour glass for enough Rights of way to accomplish this
NOTE: ONE FLAW IN THIS IS CONSTRICTION THRU BATTERY STREET TUNNEL. SEE POSSIBLE SKETCHED CURE. Perhaps one of the parallel floating structure(s) could be built first to go thru existing Battery St Tunnel then second later on or under Wall St both thence to depressed limited access ultimately 10 lane improved Aurora Ave.
IT IS ABSURD TO REPLACE A INADEQUATE STRUCTURE WITH ANOTHER INADEQUATE OR EVEN LESS ADEQUATE STRUCTURE WHICH FORCES A INTERSTATE HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO FUNCTION IN A MANNER IT WAS NEVER INTENDED. The failure of the City of Seattle to build the Thompson Expressway which I agree would have been bad should have forced this solution long ago.
I t is my understanding that the proposed elevated structure will not have over six thru lanes
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WILL NEVER SOLVE THE NEED FOR AT LEAST A REASONABLE HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Three thru N-S streets and a six lane highway to serve the local population of the greater Seattle area is a joke.
At Least follow the wisdom of Ron Sims, King County Executive to vote no to both tunnel and replaced viaduct until something like this or a surface transportation system in place and actually successfully removing enough traffic off the Interstate first otherwise for the ten to twelve year construction period the city will be paralyzed and even then continue to be unimproved.
The resurrection of this old 1961 idea may be a way to get some consensus. We need to have Seattle realize that their continued use of the Interstate I-90 to handle local vehicular traffic that should be their responsibility must stop. The Interstate was mandated by law to be designed not to handle local traffic. In fact at one time it was considered to make it illegal to allow non-interstate busses. Farfetched as this may seem there are those in the FHA (see their new Web) considering encouragement of this attitude Nationwide. They may have a point when I see the criminal negligence of the City of Seattle forcing the misery on those of us that want to go non-stop all the way thru downtown Seattle some on a daily basis by not providing a minimum of the 10 lanes they agreed to in 1961. Certainly this has to be the case for many more King County residents.
Some of us (Particularly truckers) are considering a class action lawsuit against the City of Seattle for causing damages incurred by continued and now maybe further trespassing on the Interstate System
While at first glance I'm sure the impact on Port Properties and Operations to this proposal would bring very negative response. But, I have skippered vessels over a block long from Seattle to Emmonak & Kotzebue for five summers and other vessels thru The Hood Canal Bridge. Taking a vessel into dock inside a breakwater could have it's advantages. The marina discussed by Allied Arts in the North most lagoon and operated by The Port of Seattle would be creatable by this proposal. Vehicular traffic advantages for trucks and Cruise Ship autos during the next ten or twelve years of utility relocation and actual construction would be realized. Rents to the Port of Seattle in the Piers for Alaska Way would be uninterrupted. It's my understanding from listening at The Senate hearing on AWV Replacement that all these businesses would have to be bought out if either tunnel and/or maybe even viaduct replacement proceeds.
IN CONCLUSION
A) No disturbance of Alaska Way during construction. Present viaduct and street usable during all construction
B) No utilities relocation before begin
C) Ten lanes as needed now and in future Not 4 as tunnel nor 6 as elevated for less money
D) No Rights of Way except from Port of Seattle at ends
E) Bridge acts as breakwater for many options such as; marina or even a beach on waterfront
F) No Construction Equipment like concrete trucks, even logistics for street lights etc, downtown
G) Soon to be needed expansion for ferry terminal impossible in present location easy outside west of proposed structure
H) Could be built two parallel 5 lane stages within funds available from city alone, or state alone. All ten lane by funds from both City & State,
I) Would not want to be in tunnel built in seismic zone three within Uniform Building Code that close to a body of water. OK in Boston They don't have earthquakes there
J) Why replace a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure with a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure that is also a earthquake risk.
K) Downtown Vehicular Air pollution from tunnel, replaced viaduct, or increased Alaska Way surface traffic would be decreased because a large part of the Floating highway would be almost a mile out in Elliot Bay and have at least a partial chance of dissipation
HOW I’M TRYING TP PULL THIS OFF WIITHOUT ANY CONTRIBUTIONS
The original signature form will be pasted up on large paper ( law says has to be 11 x 14 or bigger). Reduced to 8 1/2 x 11 for e-mail as a attachment to all interested. Anyone interested in helping may then please download and print one 8 1/2 x 11 copy of each of both sides. Take that to Kinkos, Staples or where ever and have both sides enlarged to 11 x 16 on good enough paper for people to gather signatures. I am funding this on my retirement income and do not want any contributions from anyone or any organization. Follow the directions for folding etc. on the signature form for mailing. Your expense and effort for printing and mailing is the only contribution that should be necessary by anyone. There are some actors in my theater here that said they will help unfold them and bundle them in packages of 50 as required to hand deliver to the Secretary of State's Office. Since this is a Statewide initiative I can't figure out any other way we can afford to do this. At least it's not costing me (except $5 and some gasoline), the other people, the Governors Office, The DOT, or the legislature anything to find out if the idea is respected enough to consider further.
To request e-mail of 8 1/2 x 11 copies of both sides of the signature form as two attachments on a e-mail reply please do not reply to this e-mail but rather to below address
kingofelma@yahoo.com
for any other reason for contact please e-mail below
kingsleyhall_elmatheater@hotmail.com
I am currently receiving about 50 to 75 e-mails per hour responding to above by requesting the signature form.
Post a Comment
All comments are welcome, however, rather than posting an Anonymous comment please consider selecting Other and providing your name or nickname so others know who you are. Thanks.
Links to this post:
Create a Link