To Viaduct, Or Not To Viaduct
Let's talk a little bit about the Viaduct. Everybody knows that it's falling apart and could basically come crashing down at any moment—at least that's the scary story we were told last year when I-912 was on the ballot. Since that election the terrified shrieks have toned town a bit and the story has been revised from "could fall any time" to "will fall in the next earthquake." That story would sound a lot more reasonable, but if it's really that dangerous, why is it still open? Furthermore, why haven't the powers that be even made a decision on how to replace it yet? These are pretty sensible questions, I think.
As far as replacement goes, the Mayor certainly has the prettiest option , and he's definitely the loudest one in the discussion, but one group, the People's Waterfront Coalition, wants people to ask the question: what if we just tear down the Viaduct—and don't replace it ?
This approach is gaining currency because it has been successful in cities both around the world and as close to home as Portland. Research into actual cases where highway capacity was reduced in a city finds an average decrease of 25% in the number of car trips, while road planners' computer predictions of mass gridlock have not been borne out in the real world. At the end of an era dominated by abundant, cheap energy, city planners worldwide are shifting away from urban highways designed for the personal automobile to models of dense, walkable and well connected communities with effective transit.Given all the other anti-car activity going on in our city, I'm actually surprised that the Mayor isn't pushing for this option himself. Personally the best option to me is the one that strikes the best balance of simplicity, low-cost, and moving automobiles. A tunnel would be neither simple nor low-cost, and would move fewer cars than the current structure. The no-replacement option would certainly be the most simple and lowest cost, but simply move automobiles onto other already stressed roadways. Direct replacement would however be simple, reasonable cost, and move at least as many cars as the current roadway. It just makes the most sense to me. If I-5 were to see some major improvements (including having more than 2 stinking lanes through the center of towntown) then a "highway-free shore" would sound pretty good. But as it is, I just don't think I can get behind something that actually reduces the miles of roads in Seattle.
(Dan Gonsiorowski, Seattleest, 03.13.2006)
(Susan Gilmore, Seattle Times , 03.26.2006)
(Larry Lange, Seattle P-I, 03.29.2006)
3 comments:
Replacing the viaduct would be the best option. Imagine adding bicycle lanes to it. The tunnel option would allow developers to cram condos in squeezing out the public view. I took my parents on a tour of downtown and the thing they talked most about for years afterward was the view from the viaduct. (I took them on I-90 to the eastside and they didn't like the tunnel because the view was just concrete)
If I-5 were to see some major improvements (including having more than 2 stinking lanes through the center of towntown)
I'm not sure if that would even be possible, with the convention center where it is.
Research into actual cases where highway capacity was reduced in a city finds an average decrease of 25% in the number of car trips, while road planners' computer predictions of mass gridlock have not been borne out in the real world.
I would imagine that this is very reliant on whether there's a transportation alternative like light rail or subways. I'm not sure what would happen here. There's no real alternative to someone who commutes along that road. I used to, from north Queen Anne to Boeing Field. If I had to do that commute without a highway, I'd probably just move. Gridlock is not always the end result, sometimes it's a shifting of property value due to convenience.
Post a Comment