The Washington State Department of Transportation—getting it, as usual, exactly backwards—plans to build a temporary elevated structure to accommodate traffic along the waterfront while a bored tunnel is being dug to replace the viaduct. Once the tunnel’s finished, the state will take down the temporary viaduct, and only then will it turn its attention to the downtown street grid and the waterfront.
The new structure, which will be on the south end of the current viaduct, will connect waterfront traffic to a new section of the viaduct WSDOT plans to build in SoDo. Somewhat astonishingly, this new quasi-viaduct will actually have more lanes than the existing stacked viaduct (six instead of four), all on a single level. According to the Daily Journal of Commerce (sorry, subscription only) the structure will be part of a $300 million contract to replace the south end of the viaduct.
For years now, surface/transit supporters have been advocating the opposite approach (no matter what the city and state ultimately decide to do about the viaduct). Fix the waterfront first, they’ve argued, then tear down the viaduct, and only then think about replacing it. As we saw during the 2001 earthquake, people are adaptable; they have the ability to change in response to changing circumstances. (When traffic gets bad on Road X, some people take Road Y, ride public transit, rearrange their schedules, etc.—and traffic gets better). Tear down the viaduct, reconnect the street grid downtown and in South Lake Union, and people will figure out new ways to get through and around downtown—something we’ll have to do anyway if the city and state can’t come up with enough money to pay for the tunnel. Build a new, wider temporary viaduct, and people will never learn to adapt. By putting off waterfront improvements until the very end of planning, WSDOT is setting downtown surface streets up for failure—and ensuring that Seattle will continue to be car-dependent and cut off from its waterfront for decades to come.
“As we saw during the 2001 earthquake, people are adaptable; they have the ability to change in response to changing circumstances.”
Agreed (and emphasis added).
“Build a new, wider temporary viaduct, and people will never learn to adapt.”
Wait, what?
“Fix the waterfront” by removing everything of value or interest from it, so that it becomes the permanent residence of homeless encampments, skateboarders, and ferry traffic. Sounds like a plan!
I am not sure the post earthquake period was quite as easy as you make it out to be. I seem to remember a lot of people whose commutes got a lot worse.
Speaking of “cut off from the waterfront”, what exactly do you suppose would happen if the viaduct just went away? “People will figure out new ways to get through and around downtown”. Don’t you suppose Western/Alaskan would have to be widened/reconfigured/retimed as pseudo highways, creating an Aurora-like obstacle for pedestrians?
Oh my bad, that actually WAS the surface/transit “plan”, except in the artists’ renderings they only drew about 5 cars on the roads. Cute!
I am new to slog and wondered why people has such animosity about ECB. I guess this is an example of her ranting about something without providing all the facts.
zzzzzzzzzzzzomg, city cut off, mass transit, viaduct, too many carszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The best way to cut off access to the waterfront is to remove the easy pedestrian access one has to it now for the entire length of the viaduct and replacing it with a giant boulevard.
“….plans to build a temporary elevated structure to accommodate traffic along the waterfront while a bored tunnel is being dug to replace the viaduct.”
I would think this should pretty much sum up WSDOT’s condemnation of a surface street only plan. Unfortunate as the surface plan and other proposed elevated plans would be less intrusive
to existing business and activities, easier and quicker to build, and more importantly, much, much cheaper.
Now we know it will only come down by an act of god.
OK, let me get this straight. WSDOT is building a new viaduct for SODO, which presumably is necessary no matter what replaces the existing Alaskan Way viaduct.
WSDOT also needs to build a temporary structure between the new SODO viaduct and the Alaskan Way viaduct, because presumably the SODO viaduct is going to be built with a tunnel in mind and so will terminate at some point before it reaches the AW viaduct. Why exactly is this a bad thing?
@10 because in ECB fundamentalist mind anything that is not a bike path or transit is inherently bad. Its basically how the Rev Phelps feels about teh gays.
4 lanes + 4 lanes = 8 lanes.
8 > 6
Can someone just crash a semi into a viaduct support (when no one’s on it) and get this City/State to grow up? I couldn’t believe they’re spending millions on a “temporary” viaduct connection…
Seriously why the fuck does anyone in Seattle actually care about the waterfront. It’s a tourist trap, a good spot for a bike lane a good spot for an ugly highway and that’s all it needs to be. If you want to see the water why don’t you go to one of the dozens of waterfront parks. If you work downtown and the viaduct blocks your view get another job.
I’d rather see that $300 mil go to transit and leave the current structure. Unfortunately they say they can’t retrofit it anymore and if you only grants for big ugly highways.
@14—This long ago ceased being a rational transportation project that benefits regional transportation and commercial infrastructure.
It has digressed over the years into an attempt to benefit a few at the expense of many.
Erica,
Don’t you EVER get tired of beating this drum?
The recession has diminished traffic — that’s another form of “adapt.”
Poor little people, they are so dumb. Erica will lead us.
Wine! bitch.
WSDOT got it right. ECB’s head bored a new tunnel into her ass, as usual.
There will be no temporary viaduct. The current one will stay until the tunnel is completed. Where the hell to you get this temporary viaduct bullshit? This is totally inaccurate.
Dudes!
You’re getting a Billionaires Tunnel!
AND an Elevated Viaduct!
oh, and by temporary – they mean until 2050 at the EARLIEST.
(roflmao)
At this point, I say blow it all up and start over.
Doesn’t it make you wonder who’s making money off the tunnel plan? I think most of the voters wanted a replacement viaduct that wouldn’t cost so much, but we are getting a temporary viaduct and a tunnel. I’m voting out Nickel and most of the City Council next time around. I’m for a new permanent viaduct. Somebody wants that land that tearing down the viaduct will provide. There must be millions to be made that we’re just not seeing yet.