Forget Tunnels, It's Bridge Time

It seems like every other story I post is about the Viaduct, but I just have to mention this Seattle Times editorial by guest columnist Earl J. Bell. If you thought you had heard all of the Viaduct replacement options (tunnel, rebuilt, tear-down, retrofit), you were wrong. Try this on for size: build a bridge over Elliott Bay.

Restricting the viaduct alternatives to two, equally unsatisfactory, options — rebuilding an elevated structure in the existing right-of-way, or digging a tunnel — is unnecessarily narrow and destined to produce a foregone conclusion. The expert panel should look at other alternatives, including a bridge over Elliott Bay.

In a classic decision-making approach, the alternatives would be weighed against something like the following criteria:

• Costs should fall within "assured funding" limitations;
• No damage should be done to existing businesses (they are extremely sensitive to disruptions);
• Any "improvement" should open the waterfront.

The first criterion, in the absence of greater assured funding, would exclude the tunnel, while the third would exclude rebuilding the elevated highway structure; the second would preclude both a rebuild and the tunnel.

Evidently, neither of these two alternatives is "achievable" if the above criteria are to be met simultaneously. It is not sufficient for an alternative to meet only one or two. Thus, "achievability" would require relaxing, modifying, or removing one or more criteria.

The only way to comply with these criteria simultaneously is to include one or more additional alternatives. Truly viable alternatives have not been included and thoroughly explored. We are bogged down in a phony dichotomy of "tunnel vs. rebuild." In the classic problem-solving scenario, the objective would be to find the least-cost alternative among those that are "achievable."

Many of us believe that there is but one way to meet all the criteria — a bridge over water. A new class of bridges, "cable-stayed," has surfaced in a variety of places to provide a potential solution. Cables are used not to suspend the bridge but to provide additional structural stability, where needed, to assure the bridge's integrity during high wind or seismic activity.

Costs less, doesn't disrupt traffic, looks cool... I have to say, Mr. Bell's idea is the best plan I've heard yet. Which of course probably means that the chances of it being implemented are somewhere between zero and "when Hell freezes over."

In other Viaduct news, the tunnel is apparently unpopular enough that a coalition of citizens has formed with the sole purpose of preventing a tunnel.

A group of citizens began organizing Thursday night to fight a tunnel-replacement proposal and demand an up-or-down public vote on it.

The vote must be agreed to by Seattle City Council members, who haven't yet declared themselves on the issue. Thursday, a group of about 50 people, most of them appearing critical of the $3.6 billion tunnel proposal, decided to form a committee to push for a tunnel vote this fall after a panel of experts reviews a plan for replacing the 53-year-old structure.

The critics said the tunnel was too costly, its construction would be too disruptive to waterfront business, and not enough thought was being put into less expensive alternatives as Mayor Greg Nickels continues his tunnel campaign.

"Seattle has a history of things that people didn't want and they got them shoved down their throat anyway," said Chip Marshall, a developer and longtime political activist. "Other solutions are dismissed."

I don't see why we can't have a public vote on all the viable options. Put the following choices on a ballot:

• do nothing
• retrofit
• rebuild
• tear down
• tunnel
• bridge Elliott Bay

Let the people decide. How hard is that?

(Earl J. Bell, Seattle Times, 07.26.2006)

(Not So) Cycle Friendly Seattle

As someone who cycles to work 60% or more of the time, this article in the Seattle Weekly about the state of cycling in the Seattle area was fairly interesting.

...suddenly you're noticing all those people who are commuting to work on their bikes these days—and it seems that there are a lot more of them. And you notice that a lot of them nowadays are just normal schlubs like yourself.

Suddenly, riding a bike to work seems to make a lot of sense.

After all, Seattle has a national reputation as a bike-friendly city. It should be fun and easy, right?

Well, um . . . yes and no.
...
In other words, the Seattle area's oft-touted bicycling system is actually a happenstance, an often broken network that doesn't function particularly well, especially when it comes to providing a complete infrastructure that could encourage people to take up bike commuting.

Andrew Galbraith, who moved here last year from the San Francisco Bay Area—where he also used to commute by bike—has found, in his year of commuting from Fremont to Pioneer Square, that Seattle's bike-friendly reputation isn't everything it's cracked up to be. "I think that it probably got that reputation because people look at things like the Burke- Gilman trail or Green Lake and think, 'Oh, there's bike paths,' because that's what the city is promoting, but the reality of actually commuting is different," he says. "It's one thing for people like myself who are avid bicyclists, but certainly somebody who doesn't bike much and thinks it might be a new way to commute, they might find it frightening. Especially downtown."

I'm quite fortunate in that I live just 2 blocks from the Burke-Gilman / Sammamish River trail, and my work is less than a mile off the trail, making my 13.6 mile commute roughly 90% trail. Whenever I ride other places though, I do find myself wondering how Seattle ever got a reputation for being "cycle friendly." Are other cities just absolutely awful for cycling, or does the Burke-Gilman trail all by itself make us deserving of the title?

This bit of the article also quite amused me:

"The challenge we have is convincing people," says Kirste Johnson, a transportation planner for the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), "because we see these really small percentages of commute trips from census data [the average in King County has for years been about 2 percent to 3 percent]. When it comes to divvying up pots of money for transportation projects, it's like, 'Why should we spend any more than, say, 3 percent? Why should we put more money towards this when nobody's doing it?'

Let's apply that same logic to, say... transit. Maybe 10% of commute trips are on transit, so why spend more than 10% of transportation revenue on transit? I can't locate actual figures (if anyone reading this knows where to get such numbers, please let me know), but I've got a feeling that more than 10% of transportation dollars are spent on busses, rail, and ferrys. If there are people making such an argument against spending money for bicycle improvements, it's bogus. More trails & dedicated bike lanes = more bicycles on the road. More bicycles on the road = less cars, less smog, and more money in the pocket of the cyclists that aren't paying through the teeth for gasoline. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

(David Neiwert, Seattle Weekly, 07.26.2006)

NewsFlash: Living Close To Work Not A Priority

Here's a shocker for you: most people in the Seattle area don't live all that close to where they work.

Despite the dramatic surge of new jobs in suburbia over the past three decades, most people in this and other metropolitan areas don't work in the same communities in which they live.
...
A commute that crosses city limits isn't necessarily lengthy. Still, census estimates, based on information collected in 2000, help explain why traffic in the Central Puget Sound area can be such a mess.
...
Seattle is one of just three cities and unincorporated "census designated places" in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties where a majority of residents live and work in the same community. The other two are military bases.

The geographic divide between home and work is most pronounced in bedroom communities where there simply aren't many jobs.
...
In the 1980s, a concept called "jobs-housing balance" arose in urban-planning circles.

If government policies promoted building new houses, condos and apartments close to offices, stores and factories, the thinking went, people would commute shorter distances and be more likely to walk, bike or take the bus to work.

Traffic and air quality would improve. Energy consumption would plummet.

The census estimates for places like Redmond and Issaquah suggest "there are limits to that notion, and they should be recognized," says Dan Carlson, a senior lecturer at the University of Washington's Evans School of Public Affairs who studies transportation and land use.

It's a nice thought, isn't it? The truth is, I bet most people would still drive even if they lived less than two miles from work. People are just that attached to their cars. When it comes to the decision about where to live, I think "length of commute" is an mostly an afterthought. All the planning in the world is unlikely to change the perception that certain neighborhoods are "desirable," while others are what you settle for if you can't get into the nice places.

Forget big freeways, bus frequency, and light rail. As long as people continue choosing to live far from where they work, we're going to have crappy traffic.

More thoughts at Seattle Bubble.

(Eric Pryne, Seattle Times, 07.22.2006)

City Council Trims Mayor's Tax Proposal

Remember the Mayor's big fat tax package that I've mentioned here a couple of times? Apparently the City Council wants to put it on a diet. The tax package, that is.

Seattle City Council members are poised to cut Mayor Greg Nickels' $1.8 billion transportation improvement package by 23 percent in hopes that the slimmed-down proposal will be more acceptable to voters.

The council on Monday will discuss the counterproposal, which would trim the mayor's 20-year spending plan for major road projects and street and sidewalk repairs by more than $15 million annually.

The taxes to finance the work also would be shaved under the council proposal. It would retain the $25 annual per-employee tax on businesses in the mayor's plan, but would reduce its property tax, which would need voter approval, by 26 percent.

The council plan also would cut the mayor's proposed 10 percent parking tax to 8 percent while phasing it in over three years, instead of imposing it immediately, and would add some exemptions.

The council proposal also calls for an oversight committee to conduct an evaluation — most likely after the first six years of the program — of how well the money is being spent and possibly to recommend whether the taxes should be continued.

The changes reflect discomfort among council members with the original size of the mayor's proposal and a strong lobbying effort by the parking industry against the parking tax Nickels proposed.

"Our concern was voter fatigue," said Councilman Richard McIver, who said he supports almost all of the revised package. "I think (the change) gets it down to a cost I think is reasonable to the taxpayer."
...
Nickels' staff has said in the past that to cut the mayor's package would mean the backlog couldn't be eliminated.

Is there any doubt that the line will be "pass this huge tax package or watch the roads crumble"? That's pretty much the usual mode of operations around here lately, right? It hurts my head to think of how many new transportation taxes we'll be blessed with here in the next few years. It's not that I'm against transportation improvements/maintenance, it's just that I'm still not convinced that the 1.4 billion dollars they're already collecting is being well spent, so why should we trust them with billions more?

(Larry Lange, Seattle P-I, 07.15.2006)

City Ignores People, Selects Own Worst Roads

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels recently ran a publicity-stunt public poll, allegedly to allow the public to have a say in which city roads are most in need of repair. Last week, he held a press conference to announce that the people's voice has been heard. Twelve road improvement projects were named... one of which was actually identified by a large number of people in the survey.

Of more than 700 people who responded to a city survey last month, 50 named North 45th as one of the worst traffic blots in the city, more than any other location.

So that's where Mayor Greg Nickels held a news conference Wednesday to announce the "dirty dozen" — 12 sore spots on the city's streets, bike trails and sidewalks that he pledged to fix within the next year for about $20 million. The survey was far from scientific — nominations were sought online or by snail mail — and seemed ripe for manipulation by organized neighborhood groups.

Given that, the mayor's dirty dozen didn't correspond exactly with the people's picks.

Other than North 45th, the other 11 projects were among those identified in the survey but were not necessarily the top vote-getters, said Gregg Hirakawa, a spokesman for the city Department of Transportation.

Instead, the projects were those for which money was available or that were on the city's priority list for street repairs already, he said. Wednesday's announcement, with a carefully selected fall timeline for some of the work, had the feel of a campaign stop.

Until I learned that 11 out of the 12 announced projects were in fact chosen without any regard to the survey, I was quite confused at how Mercer Street next to I-5 could have possibly not been in the top 12. Taking a public poll to determine the worst roads was a good plan. On the other hand, ignoring the poll and choosing projects arbitrarily seems like a slap in the face from our public "servants."

Maybe it's just me, though. Oh well. Given how infrequently I actually visit the city proper, it's not as though I have much skin in the game anyway.

(Mary Andom, Seattle P-I, 07.13.2006)

Light Rail For Everyone!

Here's a real shocker for you: Sound Transit board votes to send light rail across the lake. I bet you totally didn't see that one coming.

Light rail is the best way to connect Seattle and Eastside communities, Sound Transit's board of directors agreed unanimously Thursday, adding momentum to a $3.9 billion project that would include the world's first transit rails on a floating bridge.

Board members said the electric trains would attract more travelers and move them faster than another option they dropped — a "bus-rapid-transit" system that travels on its own lanes and overpasses.

The Eastside line, crossing Lake Washington on the Interstate 90 floating bridge to Bellevue, the Microsoft campus and downtown Redmond, is the biggest piece of a huge regional transit package that voters will be asked to approve in 2007 — which also could extend light rail north to Lynnwood and south to the outskirts of Tacoma.
...
Voters may be asked to double their current Sound Transit taxes. The transit board voted to drop its do-nothing and low-cost options, ensuring the request will be at least $75 a year for a typical household, or $125 per year if the full plan is approved.

If $30 tabs round 3 passes this November, does that mean that the $75-$125 will be collected through things like gas taxes or road use fees? I really hope so, because taxing someone who drives 20,000 miles per year the same as someone who drives 5,000 miles per year through yearly vehicle registration fees is pretty bogus, in my opinion. I actually make an effort to live close to where I work, and to get my butt around with something other than a car. So why should I be paying just as much to subsidize transit as someone who commutes 30 miles both ways from Everett to Seattle, just so they can own their 2,500 square foot home on a cul-de-sac?

I'm not against transit, but I am against foisting the cost of transit on people that make wise decisions to avoid being part of the traffic problem and don't want or need transit.

(Lisa Chiu & Mike Lindblom, Seattle Times, 07.14.2006)

Like It Or Not, I-90 Transit Coming

I've seen a couple of stories in the last week touting the big important decision that's going to be made tomorrow regarding transit options across the I-90 bridge:

Just a week before Sound Transit's board of directors meets to determine whether it prefers a Seattle-to-Redmond light-rail line or bus rapid-transit system that can convert to light rail in the future, Eastside residents and community leaders are debating the merits of both.
...
By the end of the year, after community input, the Sound Transit board will decide on a more detailed plan and funding package that will go before voters in November 2007.

The fast-paced growth of the region has spurred many on the Eastside to consider alternatives to alleviate traffic.

It's estimated that by 2030, the area's biggest job and housing centers will be Bellevue, Redmond and Seattle, according to the Puget Sound Regional Council.

Also by 2030, the number of vehicles that cross Lake Washington on both bridges will grow from 250,000 a day to 330,000, said Sound Transit CEO Joni Earl.

Both a light-rail system and a bus rapid-transit convertible system would take up an exclusive right of way across Interstate 90 from Seattle to Bellevue and then connect to the Highway 520 corridor to Redmond.
...
Both proposals would alleviate traffic, increase commuter reliability and provide alternative modes of transportation for special events, Sound Transit officials say.

Hang on a minute. In the next 25 years, the number of cars crossing Lake Washington is predicted to go up by nearly a third. The 520 bridge is scheduled to be replaced with a new span that will include—at most—two additional lanes. The I-90 bridge, on the other hand, will lose a lane to rapid transit. So we're looking at 32% more traffic being carried on one additional lane? And eliminating an existing lane across I-90 will alleviate traffic? Sorry, something doesn't jive.

Here's what I would do with transportation across Lake Washington if I were in charge:

• Replace 520 with an 8-lane (all for cars) bridge.
• Include an additional two lanes for bi-directional "rapid transit" across 520.
• Add a two-lane dedicated transit bridge alongside I-90.
• Institute tolls on both bridges for all vehicles.

What would your plan be?

(Lisa Chiu, Seattle Times, 07.06.2006)

Viaduct Tunnel: Who Should Pay?

Ever since the Mayor began pushing the tunnel option for the Viaduct, I've been saying (in conversations with people, not publicly on this blog) that if they want to build a tunnel instead of one of the more economical (sane) solutions, the people that would benefit from a tunnel should pay for it. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that they're actually considering (partially) doing just that!

Last week, the city projected that downtown property values would increase by $400 million to $600 million if the viaduct comes down. The big increase — as much as 25 percent for some properties — reflects the fact that land next to a roaring highway hasn't historically been the city's most desirable.

Hoping to close a roughly $1 billion gap between the cost of building another elevated highway and a more expensive tunnel, Mayor Greg Nickels is considering a special assessment on property owners who would benefit from better views, more parks and less noise, vibration and pollution. That could yield up to $250 million for the tunnel project, city officials have estimated.

Granted, that's only 25% of the price difference, but at least it's a step in the right direction. For the vast majority of Seattle area residents, an elevated freeway is a perfectly adequate solution. A very small minority stand to benefit both monetarily and aesthetically if the viaduct is torn down and left down. Since there exist viable alternatives that cost far less money, that small minority should be the ones to pay if the more expensive option is the one that is selected. It only makes sense.

(Jennifer Langston, Seattle P-I, 07.03.2006)