Seattle's AWV: opinion piece by Seattle Sierra Club political committee Chairman Kevin Fullerton
dougwi...@yahoo.com
political committee's Chairman Kevin Fullerton against a tunnel
replacement for Seattle's Alaska Way Viaduct and for placing its
traffic upon surafce streets with traffic lights.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/252675_focus25.html
Check out the message board at
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=252675
Douglas A. Willinger
Takoma Park Highway Design Studio
http://www.HighwaysAndComunities.com
Stephen Dailey
> Here's a December 25, 2005 opinion piece by the Seattle Sierra Club
> political committee's Chairman Kevin Fullerton against a tunnel
> replacement for Seattle's Alaska Way Viaduct and for placing its
> traffic upon surafce streets with traffic lights.
>
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/252675_focus25.html
> [snip]
I read that piece. I noticed that Mr. Fullerton offered no explanation
how the majority of the traffic that currently uses SR99 would get through
downtown. It sure won't be on surface streets. If you think I-5 through
downtown is bad now, just wait until SR99 traffic is added to the mix.
Also, that much more traffic on I-5 would play havoc with bus timetables.
===
Steve
Shoreline, Washington USA
smda...@seanet.com
25 Dec 2005, 2213 PST
Robert Cruickshank
> Here's a December 25, 2005 opinion piece by the Seattle Sierra Club
> political committee's Chairman Kevin Fullerton against a tunnel
> replacement for Seattle's Alaska Way Viaduct and for placing its
> traffic upon surafce streets with traffic lights.
>
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/252675_focus25.html
>
> Check out the message board at
>
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=252675
This debate has been steadily percolating since 2003 or so, when a group
called the Peoples Waterfront Coalition unveiled a plan to tear down the
current viaduct and replace it with a surface arterial. It will only
increase in visibility and intensity over the next few years.
http://www.peopleswaterfront.org
The model for this is San Francisco's Embarcadero. A key difference is
that the Embarcadero did not serve the connective purpose in the road
network that the Alaskan Way Viaduct does, but exactly how crucial the
Viaduct is, in terms of numbers and how much those numbers can be
redistributed, will remain a matter of debate.
In November several Seattle City Council members went to SF to study the
post-freeway Embarcadero. One of Seattle's alt-weeklies had an
informative article on the trip and the various reactions to, and
criticisms of, the San Francisco model and its applicability to Seattle:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=25634
In the end this will come down to money, like all other transportation
projects. I believe that in the process of doling out scare dollars in
the Puget Sound region, the Viaduct will eventually get the short end of
the deal. Although the corridor is quite important regionally, there is
a perception in the region that it's Seattle's problem. And while WSDOT
would be perfectly happy to tear down and rebuild the viaduct, Seattle
Mayor Greg Nickels prefers to push for a cut-and-cover tunnel, despite
the fact that Sen. Patty Murray has told him in no uncertain terms that
he is delusional if he thinks he can get federal money for it.
The combination of factors - lack of federal dollars, regional
perception that the Viaduct is Seattle's problem, Seattle's inability to
fund such a massive project itself - leads me to believe a tunnel is
very unlikely to ever happen. The question then comes down to a viaduct
rebuild, which nobody really wants, and the PWC surface street plan. How
that turns out is hard to say, and I think there is a very real
possibility that a viaduct rebuild will get tossed out as part of a
regional spending compromise.
--
Robert I. Cruickshank
roadgeek, historian, progressive
big...@yahoo.com
referenced SF's Embarcadero Freeway and Portland's Harbor Freeway.
Robert correctly pointed out why the Embarcadero isn't comparable to
AWV. Portland's example is also not comparable. I'm not sure about
the exact sequence of events in Portland, but the old Harbor Freeway
was essentially replaced with a better freeway, the Stadium Freeway
(I-405), several blocks to the west. Since 405 connects to I-5 on both
ends and gives grade-separated connections to US 26 and US 30, it is a
much better facility than the situation which existed when the Harbor
Freeway was around, since it only connected to I-5 directly on the
southern end with indirect connections to the north, and US 26 and 30
traffic was required to take surface streets through downtown. So the
Harbor Freeway could be replaced with Waterfront Park because they had
built (or were building) a superior FREEWAY replacement for it. This
is not what the author is advocating for Seattle.
The core argument in Seattle (and Louisville is aesthetic), and here I
also find the Portland comparison a mixed bag. I don't remember the
Harbor Freeway being elevated or really blocking the views of the
Willamette or of downtown Portland. I will admit, my memory's hazy
here, because it was removed when I was pretty young. Even if it did
block the view, all you'd see anyway is Portland's rather unattractive
east side with I-5 right next to the water. There was a proposal by
the mayor years ago to relocate I-5 a few blocks east and spruce up the
east bank, but this was to the tune of $5 billion, and that was
considered too prohibitive.
Furthermore, you've got to be pretty hard up for green space to find
Waterfront Park attractive. There's always some festival clogging it
with tents/booths/vehicles, which consequently trashes the lawns, so it
never really looks that good even when it's open. It's also fairly
narrow in most places (as you would expect, being on the footprint of a
4-lane freeway) and has few trees. Its best feature is its proximity
to downtown, but that's about it. I will concede that if I actually
lived in downtown Portland and Waterfront Park was my best option for
nearby open space, I might feel differently.
I'm getting off my main point, though: that comparing the Harbor
Freeway to the AWV isn't smart. It would reinforce the idea that the
WA 99 freeway needs to be replaced with a another freeway, not with an
urban boulevard.
Chris
Chris
Robert Cruickshank
> The proponents of removing the freeways from downtown Louisville also
> referenced SF's Embarcadero Freeway and Portland's Harbor Freeway.
> Robert correctly pointed out why the Embarcadero isn't comparable to
> AWV.
I think they *are* comparable - and similar. What I noted is that there
is a "key difference" between the Embarcadero Freeway and the Alaskan
Way Viaduct, namely that the Viaduct is an important connector in a
regional road network, linking the WA-99/509 freeway corridor south of
downtown to the Aurora Ave corridor north of downtown. The Embarcadero
Freeway by contrast was simply a long offramp (although it was planned
to be the kind of key connector that the Viaduct is).
How important is this "key difference"? That is difficult to say. I
agree that it means Seattle cannot expect to replicate SF's experience
exactly. The Stranger's article noted several other factors why SF and
Seattle's waterfront corridors were different, but I think the main one
for Seattle is this: can the traffic that currently uses the viaduct be
handled with a surface-street replacement? That's what it comes down to.
Construction of the monorail alongside that corridor would have been
very useful, but that's no longer an option.
> Portland's example is also not comparable. I'm not sure about
> the exact sequence of events in Portland, but the old Harbor Freeway
> was essentially replaced with a better freeway, the Stadium Freeway
> (I-405), several blocks to the west. Since 405 connects to I-5 on both
> ends and gives grade-separated connections to US 26 and US 30, it is a
> much better facility than the situation which existed when the Harbor
> Freeway was around, since it only connected to I-5 directly on the
> southern end with indirect connections to the north, and US 26 and 30
> traffic was required to take surface streets through downtown. So the
> Harbor Freeway could be replaced with Waterfront Park because they had
> built (or were building) a superior FREEWAY replacement for it. This
> is not what the author is advocating for Seattle.
I don't know enough about Portland's example to comment, but it is worth
noting that Portland today has two freeways serving the downtown area on
a N-S axis (if you count I-5 along the east bank of the Willamette as
serving the downtown area). If you remove the Viaduct as a freeway,
you're only left with I-5. Maybe it can be managed, maybe it can't.
> The core argument in Seattle (and Louisville is aesthetic), and here I
> also find the Portland comparison a mixed bag. I don't remember the
> Harbor Freeway being elevated or really blocking the views of the
> Willamette or of downtown Portland. I will admit, my memory's hazy
> here, because it was removed when I was pretty young. Even if it did
> block the view, all you'd see anyway is Portland's rather unattractive
> east side with I-5 right next to the water. There was a proposal by
> the mayor years ago to relocate I-5 a few blocks east and spruce up the
> east bank, but this was to the tune of $5 billion, and that was
> considered too prohibitive.
>
> Furthermore, you've got to be pretty hard up for green space to find
> Waterfront Park attractive. There's always some festival clogging it
> with tents/booths/vehicles, which consequently trashes the lawns, so it
> never really looks that good even when it's open.
But that's part of the point to Waterfront Park - festivals bring people
into downtown, who spend dollars at downtown business as well as at the
festival. And maybe this is a matter of personal taste, but I find the
park to be perfectly attractive - it's the views of the Willamette that
make it work.
I would suggest though that this isn't what would happen in Seattle -
the comparison to SF's Embarcadero is more apt. Some have argued that
removal of the Embarcadero Freeway allowed for better integration of the
waterfront with the rest of the city, and certainly the restoration of
the Ferry Building is an example of that. But there isn't much on the
Seattle waterfront that would be impacted by removing the Viaduct, at
least not developmentally - it's already got a lot of the tourist type
stuff. Maybe the goal is to bring more of a resident population to the
waterfront, but I'm not seeing that shift happening soon regardless of
what's done with the Viaduct.
> It's also fairly
> narrow in most places (as you would expect, being on the footprint of a
> 4-lane freeway) and has few trees. Its best feature is its proximity
> to downtown, but that's about it. I will concede that if I actually
> lived in downtown Portland and Waterfront Park was my best option for
> nearby open space, I might feel differently.
>
> I'm getting off my main point, though: that comparing the Harbor
> Freeway to the AWV isn't smart. It would reinforce the idea that the
> WA 99 freeway needs to be replaced with a another freeway, not with an
> urban boulevard.
Comparisons are inevitable, and can be useful. But the main factors will
remain these: 1) how much traffic really uses the Viaduct, and how much
of it can be reassigned; and 2) will there be the money for a rebuild?
Paul DeRocco
> I don't know enough about Portland's example to comment, but it is worth
> noting that Portland today has two freeways serving the downtown area on
> a N-S axis (if you count I-5 along the east bank of the Willamette as
> serving the downtown area). If you remove the Viaduct as a freeway,
> you're only left with I-5. Maybe it can be managed, maybe it can't.
The difference between Portland and Seattle is that when they built the new
park on the east side of the Willamette, they didn't tear down I-5. It's
still there, big and ugly as ever. (Too bad they didn't route I-5 a little
further east, where Grand and MLK are; the riverfront would have been a much
more valuable resource to preserve.)
The suggestion was that redeveloping the Seattle waterfront, and connecting
it to Pike Place, Pioneer Square, etc., would be worth the loss of the
highway through there. As much as I love that area, I don't think it would
be worth it.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pder...@ix.netcom.com
Malarky
I found some planning documents at the library for the Stadium Freeway
(I-405), and it had a map of the downtown with the Harbour on it-- it
had a couple at grade connections to the downtown streets.
Christopher Steig
big...@yahoo.com
east to remove it from the waterfront, but the estimated price tage was
$5 billion, and that put an end to that dream.
On the AWV: y'know, you can walk under it pretty easily. It doesn't
really divide anything in a physical sense. I agree with the article's
author that it is kind of an eyesore. But I agree with you that the
traffic woes would make removing it too painful. Sadly, Seattle has
put itself in a damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't position on the AWV.
Anyone know where the suggested tunnel would be located? The article
implies prety much where the Viaduct now stands, but it isn't specific.
Chris
big...@yahoo.com
barely remember the Harbor "Freeway" myself. We used Front Ave. and it
to bypass US 30's then-routing on city streets; back then, there was no
Fremont Bridge to carry us over that. But I can't remember if there
were signals or intersections on it. I just pulled out my 1966 Orego
Highway map and it doesn't show this as freeway; the route is labeled
"SW Harbor Drive" (and, of course, US 99W).
By the way, Christopher, do you know where OR 99W officially ends in
Portland? Signage on the ground is confusing, and the latest Oregon
Highway map shows the old 99W routing in red up Front Ave., across the
Steel Bridge, and to the Fremont Bridge, but then the road is colored
black from that point north. That would be a strange place for the
designation to end, as there is no interchange with either I-5 or I-405
there; about the only intersection of note is Greeley Ave. to Swan
Island. There are no OR 99W markers anywhere north of the southern
crossing of I-405, and the few along Barbur Blvd south of there are
inconsistent and hazy. OR 99W isn't really marked well at all until
Tigard. Apparently, OR 10 duplexes with 99W into downtown, but it's
not clear where it ends, either. Anybody know much about this?
Chris
Baxter
of road.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Malarky" <Malarky....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135827885.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Robert Cruickshank
> Several years ago, Portland's mayor suggested moving I-5 about 5 blocks
> east to remove it from the waterfront, but the estimated price tage was
> $5 billion, and that put an end to that dream.
>
> On the AWV: y'know, you can walk under it pretty easily. It doesn't
> really divide anything in a physical sense. I agree with the article's
> author that it is kind of an eyesore. But I agree with you that the
> traffic woes would make removing it too painful. Sadly, Seattle has
> put itself in a damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't position on the AWV.
Not so sure I agree with the last part...the state has to do something
about it, and there IS money to at least rebuild the viaduct. It's right
now a question of which of the 3 options - tunnel, rebuild, or surface
street - will be chosen.
> Anyone know where the suggested tunnel would be located? The article
> implies prety much where the Viaduct now stands, but it isn't specific.
The tunnel would go directly underneath the current location of the
viaduct. It would be a cut and cover tunnel and its construction would
include a rebuilding of the Elliott Bay Seawall, something which
definitely has to happen. Obviously the viaduct would have to be torn
down first, but that's true of all 3 options.
big...@yahoo.com
sensitivities of the Sieera Club author: issue of rebuilding an eyesore
vs. eliminating it an causing traffic headaches. Personally, I'd say
rebuild the viaduct.
Robert, when you say the seawall definitely has to be rebuilt, do you
mean in all 3 options or just the tunnel? Is there a danger of the
seawall failing in an earthquake due to its age or construction?
Chris
Andrew Tompkins
news:1135842315....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
From the ODOT road inventories:
OR-99W appears to end at the Multnomah/Washington county line where
the on-ramps to I-5 (exit 294) break off from Pacific Hwy West which
is MP 7.61 on the Pacific Hwy West.
The inventory for Pacific Hwy West continues NB on Barbur Blvd and
Naito Pkwy to MP 0.85 (the intersection of Naito Pkwy and Market St
[US-26]). There are 2 additional disjoint sections for Pacific Hwy
West on the inventory. One is from MP -0.29 to MP -0.44 which covers
the Steel Bridge. The other is from MP -4.75 to MP -5.76 which covers
the part from the north end of Interstate Ave (at its crossing with
Denver Ave at the Paul Bunyan statue) to the ramps onto/from I-5 at
Delta Park (exit 306B).
--Andy
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Tompkins
Software Engineer
Beaverton, OR
http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways
--------------------------------------------------
big...@yahoo.com
one reference on northbound Naito Parkway: an overhead signed with both
US 26 and OR 99W. Interestingly, this is one block after reassurance
shields for US 26 and OR 10. This led me to speculate that OR 10 and
99W continue up Naito Parkway triplexed with US 26 to where US 26 turns
west on Clay; this is also where the ramp from I-405 junctions with the
routes. This is just speculation on my part, as there is no shield
assembly showing all three routes. Southbound on Naito Parkway, there
are two overheads approaching and at the off-ramp for eastbound US 26
(and SB OR 43) which sign OR 10/99W as the through routes; Carl Rogers
has pictures of these on his site (calrog.com). Further south, after
you transition onto Barbur Blvd, there was one set of reassurance
shields for OR 10/99W (you can find my picture of these also on
calrog.com), but as of November this year these shields were gone.
There were never any signs for 99W on Barbur Blvd at or south of the
split with OR 10 until after the last crossing of I-5 at exit 294.
However, eastbound on Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy (OR 10) where Bertha Blvd
splits off there are two guide signs mentioning I-5 and OR 99W; I
believe there is also one on a side street near the Terwiliger exit off
I-5 where Bertha Blvd meets Barbur Blvd.
Thus, there are some signs north of the Washington-Multnomah County
line which hint that 99W continues north of there; hence, my confusion.
I guess it's important to remember that, in Oregon, the ROUTE 99W may
not be exactly the same as the Pacific HIGHWAY #1W. It's possible ODOT
considers the route to continue north from there, but on Portland
city-maintained streets, and the city doesn't sign the route very well.
There are other instances of this in the state, especially in Douglas
County in the south.
Your info on Pacific Hwy may explain why that road is still highlighted
in red on the state map, but the logs don't match the map exactly. In
that case, though, I would take the highway logs, being the official
source, as being more credible than the map. I like the negative
mileposts, by the way. Does the actual inventory really give those?
Thanks for that info, Andy.
Chris
Andrew Tompkins
There are a couple of other things that contribute to this. One is
that some of those signs are OLD. The other is that ODOT uses the
'TO' banner very sparingly (i.e. OR-99E off I-5 SB at the Morrison
Bridge, US-26 off I-405 SB at 6th Ave).
>
> Your info on Pacific Hwy may explain why that road is still
highlighted
> in red on the state map, but the logs don't match the map exactly.
In
> that case, though, I would take the highway logs, being the official
> source, as being more credible than the map. I like the negative
> mileposts, by the way. Does the actual inventory really give those?
>
I believe that the 0 point is on Naito Pkwy near the Burnside Bridge
if not directly underneath (it isn't marked).
Try it for yourself.
http://www.odot.state.or.us/transview/highwayreports/aml_summary_parms_by_route_no.cfm
Don't use the 'Search by Signed Route' section (99W will only take you
to the end point that I gave you above around MP 6). Use the 'Search
by Highway' section. Select 'Highway #' 091 or 'Highway Name' Pacific
Highway West. Change the 'Ending Mile Point' to 10 (otherwise you'll
have to go through 20 or 30 pages of stuff). Then hit the yellow
'Search' triangle. You should get 2 pages of stuff. The negative
numbers start at about 1/3 of the way down the second page (hit the
'NEXT' link at the bottom of the first page).
This is the highway summary listing. For other types of highway
information (lane, grade, curve, pavement, etc) go to:
http://www.odot.state.or.us/transview/highwayreports/. Have fun ;-)
>
> Thanks for that info, Andy.
>
> Chris
>
--Andy
Robert Cruickshank
The Elliott Bay Seawall was built in 1934, and due to both its age and
its construction - some of the wood pilings are rotting - it is not
expected to fare well in an earthquake. Questions remain about how it'd
fare in a tsunami as well. It definitely needs to be replaced and the
city of Seattle and WSDOT are working on plans for this. Senator Patty
Murray has secured some introductory funding for it, but we're looking
at least at a $500 million project.
WSDOT says it's easier to replace the seawall if you build a tunnel as
well. But each of their project alternatives includes a reconstruction
of the seawall. A comparison of the 5 alternatives can be seen in this
WSDOT PDF (URL broken after rdonlyres/):
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/
95D33837-7E6D-430F-882E-776A1DBAEEB4/0/2004_09_07_ProjectAtaGlance.pdf