Tunnel, Retrofit, Surface Streets or new Viaduct?

[Yurt]

I have studied, albiet fleetingly, Seattle history and have been very curious about the developments surrounding highway 99.

I will start with my opinion:

Having seen the thing first hand, it is ugly and a "fence" between downtown and the waterfront. When I go to Pike's with my aunt, she won't even go down to the water front because of the viaduct.

Boston was bad, but this ain't boston. A tunnel is the best idea and can be done safely and environmentally with modern technology. Retrofit is like painting a rusting car and not sanding it down to the metal, because to do that with the viaduct would essentially be rebuilding it. Surface streets are dumb, there is barely enough freeway room as it is. A new viaduct will still keep downtown apart from the waterfront and thus keep the city drastically different than it would with access to its waterfront. I can't imagine a large city cutting off its waterfront like that.

I am sure there are many counterarguments, one I see, which I have seen no news agency report on (does not mean that have not) is the tracks. That is still a "fence."

Thoughts?

[Yurt]

I know you seattleites are out there. Anyone else is kindly asked to join this, as it could apply to many cities.

[5stringJeff]

You need some type of major roadway, so surface streets isn't an option.

I agree with you re: the retrofit. That leaves the tunnel and the new viaduct options.

The tunnel provides 4 lanes at a cost of $2.5B (IIRC), whereas the viaduct is 6 lanes at about $1.5B. Obviously, from that perspective, the new viaduct is better.

As far as being a fence, I don't really see that as a big issue. I've been to downtown Seattle many times, and there are lots more things wrong with it than a viaduct near the waterfront. Many of the piers, including the ferry station, are on the waterfront where the viaduct is near, and it doesn't hamper people from getting from one side to the other.

I say the new viaduct option is the best. It's the most lanes of traffic through the city at the least cost while maintaining safety. The tunnel is an absolute waste of money.

[Yurt]

You need some type of major roadway, so surface streets isn't an option.

I agree with you re: the retrofit. That leaves the tunnel and the new viaduct options.

The tunnel provides 4 lanes at a cost of $2.5B (IIRC), whereas the viaduct is 6 lanes at about $1.5B. Obviously, from that perspective, the new viaduct is better.

As far as being a fence, I don't really see that as a big issue. I've been to downtown Seattle many times, and there are lots more things wrong with it than a viaduct near the waterfront. Many of the piers, including the ferry station, are on the waterfront where the viaduct is near, and it doesn't hamper people from getting from one side to the other.

I say the new viaduct option is the best. It's the most lanes of traffic through the city at the least cost while maintaining safety. The tunnel is an absolute waste of money.

As you know the $$ are not set in stone yet, and there is much hoopla over actual $$ and who is biased or not. However, let us assume your figures:

We are talking a billion dollar difference. When you were there, did you happen to ask yourself what Pikes/downtown would be like with no viaduct? I have and it is amazing.

The problem remains though, the railroad tracks. If we have the tunnel, the tracks are still there. Thus we still have a fence, but not one as big or onerous. I think the benefit to the city will be enormous, property values will skyrocket, more people/businesses will move downtown without the viaduct. There are the tracks, but they aren't the "fence" like the freeway. I think Seattle should pony up the bucks, because they will get the benefit back, no doubt.

IMHO

[Yurt]

Just saw this:

"Tunnel Lite" could work, panel says

Outside experts say that if the state wants to solve political congestion, transportation officials should quit treating the Alaskan Way waterfront corridor like a freeway.

The state could allow lower speed limits, so that a narrow tunnel or viaduct could operate safely -- and be built at a much cheaper cost, says the panel of experts.

The eight-person panel, appointed last year by the state to study the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Highway 520 replacement projects, aired its views Friday in a letter to Gov. Christine Gregoire.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...tpanel24m.html

[5stringJeff]

Tunnel Lite is still significantly more expensive than the new viaduct.

And I understand what you're saying about the fence effect. I just don't see it being a big deal. Half of the downtown area where the viaduct is right on the water is South Downtown (SoDo) which is almost all industrial. It's not until you get near Safeco Field/Qwest Field that downtown starts to turn into a place where people would go normally.

[Yurt]

Tunnel Lite is still significantly more expensive than the new viaduct.

And I understand what you're saying about the fence effect. I just don't see it being a big deal. Half of the downtown area where the viaduct is right on the water is South Downtown (SoDo) which is almost all industrial. It's not until you get near Safeco Field/Qwest Field that downtown starts to turn into a place where people would go normally.

Could change with no freeway...