Alaska Way Viaduct:

Here’s a subject we’ve seen before – the viaduct is about to collapse, probably before Tuesday so we have to apply emergency measures. We don’t want Seattle to become another city in which hundreds of commuters are squished like bugs as an old elevated roadway falls down. Unless, ummm, no, I don’t think there are any scenarios where that would be OK.

Options for Replacement:
Almost exclusively everyone agrees that the viaduct has to be torn down. It’s been studied to death and it can’t be retrofitted. Besides a lot of people don’t like the looks of it so they support any plan that removes it, whether it’s a good plan or not.

So they came up with eight options in which the old structure is removed. Besides, Christine (who recently won re-election as our gov) is going to knock it down in 2012 so it’s kind of important that all options take this into account.

Basically there are three types of option with a few variations that flesh it out to eight. First is the replacement: take it down and build an earthquake proof elevated road. Second is a tunnel: this has a few versions, such as bore, cut and lid, and different ways to cut and cover. Third is surface streets: widen Western Avenue and Alaska Way to three lanes one way each so lots of traffic can get through the area. That one has a couple versions too.

The apparent issue is the wide range of costs. But that’s only an issue if they ask me to pay for it. If they ask, oh, say Oklahoma City to pay for it, then I say go for it.

The two finalists are the surface plan with a few elevated parts at the ends, just for nostalgia and a side by side elevated replacement.

One reason the surface option made the cut is the vastly understated cost. It only includes the price for removing the old structure and paving Alaska Way (as I understand the news story, anyway). The impact and subsequent cost of adding lanes to I-5 is huge. Blocking off waterfront businesses with a six lane traffic light infested boulevard would kill many of them. Right now there are ways to park and visit the waterfront shops, aquarium, and Ivar’s fairly easily. The other part of the cost is how in the world do you widen and upgrade Western Avenue for the other direction traffic? I think the surface option has enormous economic impacts that are completely ignored as part of the price.

The elevated replacement option was also selected for its price tag. Again, I’m not sure the real cost is being considered. As I mentioned one reason so many people are in favor of demolition is that they don’t want an elevated roadway along the waterfront. And even I have to admit it’s kind of ugly. I kind of like the upper deck drive and the view from there. But the real show-stopper on this option is that it reduces the road to two lanes each way. That’s because they want to make it side by side instead of a double deck like the existing viaduct. The existing road is three lanes each way with exit lanes.

OK, I’m tipping my hand with my opinions. I favor the tunnel bore. That’s because we have two major issues and one huge consideration. The issues are that we need to move a lot of traffic through the area without traffic lights or adding to the I-5 congestion AND we need to keep the waterfront as part of the city. So I can’t see a surface boulevard or a simple elevated solving these issues.

The huge consideration is the future: In 20 years it will be an enormous improvement in traffic management to get the thousands of cars through the city while leaving the waterfront surface open and uncongested. Included in this huge consideration is transit.

Waterfront Transit:
The Greater Newcastle Metropolitan Area is stumbling toward a working transit system. There are kinks and issues, but in general it’s possible to get around. As we build more transit and add more busses we’ll reach a usable system. One component of that system is a way to get into the city and out again from near where we live. Sounds kind of simple minded, but right now it’s a challenge.

If I get on a bus in Bellevue (Newcastle has a bus but it’s a local and takes forever to get anywhere) at a Park & Ride I can get into Seattle and transfer to another bus that goes where I might want to be. It’s just hard to figure out which bus, where to transfer, how much it costs, and what the heck is that person in row six eating???

As we add light rail and more Sound Transit busses with their own lanes we’ll get to a point where we can “catch a ride” without spending a couple of hours on the web trying to decipher the schedules. They have all kinds of asterisks and things that say “only operates second Tuesday of the week” and so on. Or “driver may be rooky so be prepared to help navigate.”

The points is once you eliminate the old elevated roadway and get all the through traffic into a tunnel then the surface is available for transit options. They already have a “trolley” that’s a historic icon and they could easily add light rail and frequent bus routes without the heavy traffic. If it’s a bumper to bumper boulevard busses are hard to maneuver. You’d have cross walks (with short “walk” lights) and all the other congestion on big streets. The only customers on the waterfront would be people who can dash across six lanes in 12 seconds or less. And they don’t have as much money as us older folks.

I want a tunnel! Christine, listen up!

And that's my opinion.

Al