Tunnelled Where the Sun Don't Shine
I've been vocally against but largely absent from the debate about Seattle's proposed replacement for the Alaska Way Viaduct, a bore tunnel right through the heart of downtown. Given the volume of the existing voices, I didn't think my voice was necessary, especially after voters rejected it and the only other proposed solution on that ballot, a straight viaduct replacement. For some reason, the ballot did not include an approve-or-disapprove vote on just tearing down the viaduct and making due with upgraded transit and surface streets (the so-called "surface option", which I support).
Well, now it seems the fix is in. The state and the city have both decided, despite all the evidence, that they will plunge ahead with the project. Check out this in-depth article covering the kerfuffle. Let's first dismiss one arguing point, regarding the argument that the tunnel will decrease downtown congestion:
For instance, we've been told that the tunnel will "open up the waterfront" while a surface option would clog it with traffic. But the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) own research found that the tunnel and a surface/transit option produce identical traffic flows along the waterfront: 11,000 vehicles over three hours during the peak evening rush hour. And the state's estimate was based on the assumption that the tunnel would have no tolls. But a 2009 state law requires that $400 million for the project be raised by tolls. According to a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) released last October, 64,000 vehicles a day that currently use the viaduct would divert onto surface streets because the tunnel has zero exits and to avoid having to pay tolls. What does this mean for the waterfront? WSDOT reports, "The number of vehicles traveling on Alaskan Way each day is projected to increase by 6,000 to 7,000 vehicles" above the levels without tolls.
So it's the tunnel that would clog the waterfront with traffic.
(I emboldened.)
That darker and more prominent lettering proves important. Seattle is stocked full of citizens with deep pockets . . . that boast amazingly short arms. Really, we would happily cut off our noses if someone found a way to charge for air. In fact, we have a new toll coming soon on SR-520. (It was supposed to go into effect at the end of this month, but that's up in the air now.) This toll will clog all three possible alternatives amazingly. Really, this will detour probably half of the 100,000 cars a day driven by the cheapskates (a tribe of which I proudly call myself a member, if not a chief).
I didn't set about to sharing this fine article just to inform the world about silly local politics. No, there's a darker motive swirling about. After you check out the wonderful Stranger article, keep reading into the comments section. Get to commenter #13, who says, "The assumption seems to be that you can get people out of cars and into buses if you just make driving miserable enough."
Despite the exhortation by commenter #18 that this assertion is "blatantly dishonest", I can tell you from reliable anecdotal information that that is exactly what transit and transportation officials in this area are trying to do. Here's the story in all its amusing-ness as told by Lenny.
Lenny was assigned to take a bus one day and drive some Sound Transit officials on the route the new Eastside rail would take from Seattle to Bellevue. They plan to use the most obvious route, using one of the two floating bridges across Lake Washington to run light rail. Lenny must have snorted loudly when one of them said that this would "improve" the commute across the lake. One of them asked Lenny if he had an opinion.
"You don't want to hear it," he replied.
The asker insisted. By virtue of his profession, after all, Lenny was intimately familiar with traffic area patterns in ways most mere humans are not.
Lenny pointed out the volume of cars that currently use the proposed right-of-way on the bridge would be forced onto the other bridge, already a crowded corridor. "How does that improve traffic?" he asked.
He looked back in his passenger mirror and saw many of his guests -- again, officials working for Sound Transit and planning this entire thing -- smiling.
"That's what I thought," he said in disgust.
Unlike Lenny, a car guy through and through, I find myself in admiration for those guys. What they are trying to do is get transit built; but as folks in California can attest, build it and it might be ignored. Unless transit is better than the alternative, who cares?
There's plenty of evidence to suggest this is the case. In the 1970s Amsterdam was flirting with the automobile, draining and dirt filling in some of their famed canals to convert them into main roadways. Simply because that city is far smaller, they found out far more quickly than we in the US that more roads equals more congestion. What did they do? They reversed policy. Road construction all but ceased. Speed limits came down. Traffic lights and stop signs went up. Bike lanes made bike transit faster than cars. Rail was increased and improved. What they can do in Europe that we can't do here in the States, though, is openly state that slowing cars is a good thing for everyone. There is simply too much money in the car and road building/maintaining business.
The more convenient it is to drive, the more people will drive, which leads to more traffic. I believe actor/singer Gene Autry noted that roads were like car breeders, that they were filled before the road was finished. That's almost always the case. If we ever want to improve our situation, we have to make car travel more difficult. Gas prices are going to do that soon enough, but it's not enough. They might come down again (after another mini-recession caused by high gas prices). We need our roads to be more expensive and more of a hassle to use.
Who knows, this push by the City Council and the Governor might be one way to force more traffic onto the surface. I doubt it. A billion plus bucks seems like a high price to pay for a silly PR campaign.
Well, now it seems the fix is in. The state and the city have both decided, despite all the evidence, that they will plunge ahead with the project. Check out this in-depth article covering the kerfuffle. Let's first dismiss one arguing point, regarding the argument that the tunnel will decrease downtown congestion:
For instance, we've been told that the tunnel will "open up the waterfront" while a surface option would clog it with traffic. But the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) own research found that the tunnel and a surface/transit option produce identical traffic flows along the waterfront: 11,000 vehicles over three hours during the peak evening rush hour. And the state's estimate was based on the assumption that the tunnel would have no tolls. But a 2009 state law requires that $400 million for the project be raised by tolls. According to a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) released last October, 64,000 vehicles a day that currently use the viaduct would divert onto surface streets because the tunnel has zero exits and to avoid having to pay tolls. What does this mean for the waterfront? WSDOT reports, "The number of vehicles traveling on Alaskan Way each day is projected to increase by 6,000 to 7,000 vehicles" above the levels without tolls.
So it's the tunnel that would clog the waterfront with traffic.
(I emboldened.)
That darker and more prominent lettering proves important. Seattle is stocked full of citizens with deep pockets . . . that boast amazingly short arms. Really, we would happily cut off our noses if someone found a way to charge for air. In fact, we have a new toll coming soon on SR-520. (It was supposed to go into effect at the end of this month, but that's up in the air now.) This toll will clog all three possible alternatives amazingly. Really, this will detour probably half of the 100,000 cars a day driven by the cheapskates (a tribe of which I proudly call myself a member, if not a chief).
I didn't set about to sharing this fine article just to inform the world about silly local politics. No, there's a darker motive swirling about. After you check out the wonderful Stranger article, keep reading into the comments section. Get to commenter #13, who says, "The assumption seems to be that you can get people out of cars and into buses if you just make driving miserable enough."
Despite the exhortation by commenter #18 that this assertion is "blatantly dishonest", I can tell you from reliable anecdotal information that that is exactly what transit and transportation officials in this area are trying to do. Here's the story in all its amusing-ness as told by Lenny.
Lenny was assigned to take a bus one day and drive some Sound Transit officials on the route the new Eastside rail would take from Seattle to Bellevue. They plan to use the most obvious route, using one of the two floating bridges across Lake Washington to run light rail. Lenny must have snorted loudly when one of them said that this would "improve" the commute across the lake. One of them asked Lenny if he had an opinion.
"You don't want to hear it," he replied.
The asker insisted. By virtue of his profession, after all, Lenny was intimately familiar with traffic area patterns in ways most mere humans are not.
Lenny pointed out the volume of cars that currently use the proposed right-of-way on the bridge would be forced onto the other bridge, already a crowded corridor. "How does that improve traffic?" he asked.
He looked back in his passenger mirror and saw many of his guests -- again, officials working for Sound Transit and planning this entire thing -- smiling.
"That's what I thought," he said in disgust.
Unlike Lenny, a car guy through and through, I find myself in admiration for those guys. What they are trying to do is get transit built; but as folks in California can attest, build it and it might be ignored. Unless transit is better than the alternative, who cares?
There's plenty of evidence to suggest this is the case. In the 1970s Amsterdam was flirting with the automobile, draining and dirt filling in some of their famed canals to convert them into main roadways. Simply because that city is far smaller, they found out far more quickly than we in the US that more roads equals more congestion. What did they do? They reversed policy. Road construction all but ceased. Speed limits came down. Traffic lights and stop signs went up. Bike lanes made bike transit faster than cars. Rail was increased and improved. What they can do in Europe that we can't do here in the States, though, is openly state that slowing cars is a good thing for everyone. There is simply too much money in the car and road building/maintaining business.
The more convenient it is to drive, the more people will drive, which leads to more traffic. I believe actor/singer Gene Autry noted that roads were like car breeders, that they were filled before the road was finished. That's almost always the case. If we ever want to improve our situation, we have to make car travel more difficult. Gas prices are going to do that soon enough, but it's not enough. They might come down again (after another mini-recession caused by high gas prices). We need our roads to be more expensive and more of a hassle to use.
Who knows, this push by the City Council and the Governor might be one way to force more traffic onto the surface. I doubt it. A billion plus bucks seems like a high price to pay for a silly PR campaign.