Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, May 10, 2011
City UW Study: State Exaggerated Delays Caused by Surface Alternative to Viaduct
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:05 PM
- UW
- Eight of the routes that use the Alaskan Way Viaduct
This report clashes with the rhetoric of tunnel supporters who insist a surface alternative would turn downtown into a parking lot. King County Dow Constantine recently said a surface option "guarantees gridlock.” And Governor Chris Gregoire, flanked by tunnel backers on the Seattle City Council, has said it would create a "stalled city."
The UW professors used different traffic models from the Washington State Department of Transportation, which holds most of its experience building freeways in rural areas and suburbs. The UW researchers "added an urban land-use component that allows people and businesses to adapt over time."
Surface/Transit advocate Cary Moon, director of the People's Waterfront Coalition, says report shows that the state's highway modeling isn't founded in city traffic patterns, drivers are more adaptable than highway builders predict, and that viaduct users are particularly flexible because they have so many alternative routes.
I wrote about the UW study back in March, explaining that professors Hana Sevcikova, Adrian E. Raftery, and Paul A. Waddell studied the effect of viaduct removal on 22 routes through Seattle—14 routes didn't use the viaduct and 8 did. For the first 14, they wrote, "There is no indication that removing the viaduct would increase commute times for these routes." For the routes that did use the viaduct, "There is not strong statistical support for the conclusion that removing the viaduct would lead to any increase in travel times."
“This is a scientific assessment. People could well say that six minutes is a lot, and it’s worth whatever it takes [to avoid it],” says Raftery in a statement. “To some extent it comes down to a value judgment, factoring in the economic and environmental impacts.”
1
In fact, the Tunnel Of Terribleness would not only have less capacity and carry less freight for higher tolls, it literally would be slower than the two alternatives.
Only al-Qaeda would support this insane Deeply Borrowed Tunnel.
Only al-Qaeda would support this insane Deeply Borrowed Tunnel.
2
The statistical evidence of the numbers collated across multiple paradigm based data collection processes shows that people still won't respond to stuff like this.
7
There you go bringing facts into the argument again. The deep-bore-tunnel is the Iraq War of infrastructure projects. Those who support it will use whatever argument is convenient while demonizing the fact-based opposition as ignorant hippies. And sure, like the Iraq War the DBT debacle will eventually stabilize and supporters will try to claim they were right all along and look how great things are. But the more prudent course would be to listen to the skeptics.
8
"For the routes that did use the viaduct, "There is not strong statistical support for the conclusion that removing the viaduct would lead to any increase in travel times.""
While I'm sure that is likely the case for 4 or even 6 of the routes under study, I can say with solidity that the white center/west seattle commuter who takes the viaduct and exits into downtown or belltown will see a significant commute-time increase. That said, if my choice is between tearing down the viaduct and the tunnel, I'd rather we tear it down. But lucky me, I'm only directly impacted by the travel, not the cost, since I'm not in Seattle City Limits.
While I'm sure that is likely the case for 4 or even 6 of the routes under study, I can say with solidity that the white center/west seattle commuter who takes the viaduct and exits into downtown or belltown will see a significant commute-time increase. That said, if my choice is between tearing down the viaduct and the tunnel, I'd rather we tear it down. But lucky me, I'm only directly impacted by the travel, not the cost, since I'm not in Seattle City Limits.
10
@4
I agree they'll lie to suit their purposes. And their purposes are to collect billions from the tunnel project while taxpayers -- not those who knowingly underbid to get the consulting and construction contracts -- get stuck paying all the inevitable cost overruns.
I agree they'll lie to suit their purposes. And their purposes are to collect billions from the tunnel project while taxpayers -- not those who knowingly underbid to get the consulting and construction contracts -- get stuck paying all the inevitable cost overruns.
11
@4 for the insightful win.
Seattle Citizens for the Serfs For Billionaires And Millionaires loss.
Seattle Citizens for the Serfs For Billionaires And Millionaires loss.
12
[i]UW researchers say the average is closer to six minutes—and only for drivers who use the viaduct as a "core component" of their commute.[/i]
I'm not sure "tearing down the viaduct will mainly hurt people who use the viaduct" is exactly news.
[i]The UW researchers "added an urban land-use component that allows people and businesses to adapt over time."[/i]
Note that "adapt over time" here means they're forced to move, which has real costs.
I'm not sure "tearing down the viaduct will mainly hurt people who use the viaduct" is exactly news.
[i]The UW researchers "added an urban land-use component that allows people and businesses to adapt over time."[/i]
Note that "adapt over time" here means they're forced to move, which has real costs.
13
Ugh, I edited that comment to fix the markup, then when I logged in to post the edits disappeared.
14
@ DOMINIC HOLDEN, MAJOR SHOUTOUT:
There is a most interesting study, performed some time back in the UK by several researchers and mention is from this site (actual study appears to be reprinted, or at least written about, by the two researchers at the bottom link).
http://raisethehammer.org/article/1349
“A research team at University College, London, had analyzed – for London Transport and Britain’s Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions – sixty cases, worldwide, in which roads had been closed or their carrying capacity reduced. “
The study in question is S. Cairns, C. Hass-Klau, and P.B. Goodwin: Traffic Impact of Highway Capacity Reductions: Assessment of the Evidence. Landor Publications, London, 1998
In a 2002 follow-up, Dr. Cairns notes that the studies now include 72 cases in total:
“This research has recently been revisited, 12 new case studies have been added, and a survey of professional opinion has been undertaken, to see whether professionals were convinced by the earlier work. The main conclusion from the follow-up work is that the original results were robust – traffic levels can decrease as a result of well implemented schemes, not only because people may change how they choose to travel, but also because they make broader changes to their lifestyles (such as altering where they carry out activities and how often they make a journey, consolidating trips, occasionally working from home, car-sharing – right through to changing where they live or where they work). These changes, collectively, can result in reduced car use. The study also highlighted that patterns of travel are far more flexible than people traditionally assume. For example, according to surveys of peak-hour traffic on a major commuter route in Leeds, only about half of the cars are the same on two successive days.”
http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-…
(This was originally cited in Jane Jacobs' outstanding last work, Dark Age Ahead, truly a remarkable read and recommended, if they've yet to read it, to Dominic Holden, Cary Moon and Cienna Madrid.)
More...
There is a most interesting study, performed some time back in the UK by several researchers and mention is from this site (actual study appears to be reprinted, or at least written about, by the two researchers at the bottom link).
http://raisethehammer.org/article/1349
“A research team at University College, London, had analyzed – for London Transport and Britain’s Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions – sixty cases, worldwide, in which roads had been closed or their carrying capacity reduced. “
The study in question is S. Cairns, C. Hass-Klau, and P.B. Goodwin: Traffic Impact of Highway Capacity Reductions: Assessment of the Evidence. Landor Publications, London, 1998
In a 2002 follow-up, Dr. Cairns notes that the studies now include 72 cases in total:
“This research has recently been revisited, 12 new case studies have been added, and a survey of professional opinion has been undertaken, to see whether professionals were convinced by the earlier work. The main conclusion from the follow-up work is that the original results were robust – traffic levels can decrease as a result of well implemented schemes, not only because people may change how they choose to travel, but also because they make broader changes to their lifestyles (such as altering where they carry out activities and how often they make a journey, consolidating trips, occasionally working from home, car-sharing – right through to changing where they live or where they work). These changes, collectively, can result in reduced car use. The study also highlighted that patterns of travel are far more flexible than people traditionally assume. For example, according to surveys of peak-hour traffic on a major commuter route in Leeds, only about half of the cars are the same on two successive days.”
http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-…
(This was originally cited in Jane Jacobs' outstanding last work, Dark Age Ahead, truly a remarkable read and recommended, if they've yet to read it, to Dominic Holden, Cary Moon and Cienna Madrid.)
15
The tunnel psychology harks back 50 years to a time of prosperity and naive optimism. And a helluva lot less cars.
Knock down the ugly viaduct. Replace it with a modest surface thoroughfare, thoughtfully integrated with a public green with a great view and tourism draw - not tens of thousands of tons of concrete.
Use the substantial saved gas tax monies to fix existing, deficient infrastructure. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/…
"29% of Washington’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.... 33% of Washington’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition.... 29 ... dams are in need of rehabilitation."
We haven't even been fixing what we've got. We've got to do repairs, cut emissions and waste, and attend to our future. Even if it comes in at the projected cost, the traffic hole is an oatbag from another time.
Knock down the ugly viaduct. Replace it with a modest surface thoroughfare, thoughtfully integrated with a public green with a great view and tourism draw - not tens of thousands of tons of concrete.
Use the substantial saved gas tax monies to fix existing, deficient infrastructure. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/…
"29% of Washington’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.... 33% of Washington’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition.... 29 ... dams are in need of rehabilitation."
We haven't even been fixing what we've got. We've got to do repairs, cut emissions and waste, and attend to our future. Even if it comes in at the projected cost, the traffic hole is an oatbag from another time.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (15) RSS