Don't be quick to compare the Cal bridge collapse with Seattle
Traffic was just fine after a fire caused a Bay Area freeway interchange to collapse. So does that prove we don't need a replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct?
By O. Casey Corr
May 02, 2007.
The blogs are alive with news from the Bay Area that traffic got better following a fire that collapsed an interchange serving Interstate 880.
Some are taking this as support for the argument that Seattle does not need another highway to replace the aging Alaskan Way Viaduct. Improved transit and a surface road will be sufficient to keep Seattle moving, they say. Take away roads and people use transit or give up "unnecessary trips."
That may be wishful thinking.
For starters, the eased commute along that corridor could reflect a number of conditions: the availability of other routes in the Bay Area, BART's decision to offer free service during the crisis, and people deciding to stay home or not move freight in the first week after the fire.
Long term, commuter patterns may adjust and show that the I-80 to Interstate 880 interchange is less critical than assumed for the larger Bay Area traffic pattern. That certainly would be a victory for transit advocates.
A similar claim was made here about closure of Seattle's bus tunnel under Third Avenue. Buses actually move through downtown faster than they did in the tunnel. But that happened because an entire downtown street was reserved for buses during peak hours.
The zeal for improved transit and the war on the automobile may cause us to disregard an inescapable fact about Seattle's geography.
Skinny in the middle, Seattle has just two major north-south corridors, Interstate 5 and Highway 99 (the Viaduct). No amount of transit, carpooling, telecommuting, etc., can change that.
No one knows what's ahead for the Viaduct, which today carries 100,000 cars and trucks a day. The state and the city publicly pledged to end their war and work toward a compromise where none seemed possible before. Some are suggesting a compromise involving a four-lane "slowway" similar to Granville Avenue in Vancouver, B.C., that would carry far fewer cars.
This is not intended as a comment on elevated or tunnel, just the notion that some are considering a scenario that would effectively diminish the only alternative to I-5, itself an aging elevated structure that got some seismic upgrades in recent years.
It's not unimaginable that a truck carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline could crash on I-5. Then what? The road system that serves our region is aleady choked, so stressed that a minor accident in one part of the city creates backups elsewhere. Yes, let's keep moving on making transit better, but the idea of reducing our city to one major corridor is a big risk that got lost in the elevated-versus-tunnel debate.
Maybe that Bay Area fire will cast some light up here.
Update: We got yet another reminder of the fragility of our transportation network. On Wednesday, water not fire caused a closure of Seattle's University Bridge, disrupting transit service and vehicle traffic along the Ship Canal.
Quoting a report from the Seattle Times:
More than 31,400 vehicles use that route every day, and the closure snarled the other bridges over the Ship Canal at the Montlake Cut, and in Fremont and Ballard.
Update #2: The bridge reopened late afternoon Thursday, May 3, 2007.
Comments:
Posted Wed, May 2, 2:49 p.m. Inappropriate
In the event of a major emergency closing I-5, a good chunk of N-S through traffic could be diverted to our shiny, new 405. No?
Also -- while it's important to keep these kinds of mega-disasters in mind, you have to also consider how rare they are. If a tanker truck blows up on I-5, sure, we'll be screwed. But what's the opportunity cost of planning to prevent that? I'm not sure that it's worth the tradeoff.
Posted Wed, May 2, 10:25 p.m. Inappropriate
The new person to head WSDOT will be able to claim that it is being "Rebuilt" (to save face) but that's because we will all agree to redefine the words.
Posted Thu, May 3, 10:32 a.m. Inappropriate
corr and bus tunnel closure: Corr misstated the results of the transit tunnel closure mitigation. Buses that had operated in the tunnel before September 2005 ran about 10 minutes slower through dowtown. But, on average, all the downtown Seattle buses ran about the same as before. There were only 70 buses per peak hour per direction in the tunnel, while there are several hundred buses per hour in total. the changes made on 3rd Avenue were a success.
Posted Thu, May 3, 1:32 p.m. Inappropriate
//For starters, the eased commute along that corridor could reflect a number of conditions: the availability of other routes in the Bay Area, BART's decision to offer free service during the crisis, and people deciding to stay home or not move freight in the first week after the fire.//
1. "other routes" The Bay Area media was in a frenzy over this for good reasons - this particular stretch of road was very heavily used as it's the only direct route between major freeways. The only "other routes" are more or less city streets.
2. "free service" Lasted exactly one day. Yet the traffic still hasn't started to be an issue nearly a week later.
3. "people deciding to stay home" Sure, for perhaps a day. Are you trying to tell us that people can afford to take an entire week off of work because of a little traffic? Surely these same people watched the news on Monday (or Tuesday, or Wednesday) and realized they're using their vacation time for nothing.
4. "move freight" Freight is not a large factor in commute-hour traffic. Except for highly time-sensitive goods, it makes more sense to move freight off-hours.
To quote Sightline:
//The city of Seoul, Korea just tore down a massive urban highway carrying 160,000 cars a day. And the result was an absolute catastrophe: the city's economy soured, drivers were stranded in gridlock all day, and puppies and small children shed tears of remorse and longing for their lost highway.
Just kidding. Really, the results were beautiful, everything went just swimmingly, and the project has gotten rave reviews from residents.//
Although I certainly can't gurantee that things would go so swimmingly in Seattle, I think you'll find that in just about any freeway-removal project things have gone pretty well.
Posted Mon, May 7, 8:40 a.m. Inappropriate
I predict the next Secretary of Transportation will be a tunnelhead, but I REALLY hope I'm wrong here. The governor has seen the light, since the unions have leaned on her, and she will be behind the tunnel enthusiastically. And I don't expect her to be re-elected if she follows this path, even with union support, and even if the advice she is getting is optimistic.
Remember, retrofit was priced at $2.3b, vs $2.8b for all new and similar traffic disruption during construction. Now tell me, what is $500m between friends?
Unless that amount is to be used for nasty overrun surprises associated with the rebuild, OR transferred to 520 ... Hmmm, that is a possiblity.
But for now, I see a waterfront tunnel in the fast lane. All except for how to pay for it, which may be ... TOLLS!!!
Posted Mon, May 7, 8:57 a.m. Inappropriate
That is a big IF. There is a very good chance that the Sound Transit and RTID measures will be a case of taxpayer MAD - mutually assured destruction. Dont tie SR99 to this inferno.
In the event of a major emergency closing I-5, a good chunk of N-S through traffic could be diverted to our shiny, new 405. No?
No. The I-405 expansion is to accomodate existing traffic on that maxed-out highway. And on top of the SR99 traffic if that becomes a boulevard? I expect that by the time it finally happens, that 405 expansion will already be obsolete, since there still will not be an effective rapid transit option available to commuters and others, and this region is still growing.
Also -- while it's important to keep these kinds of mega-disasters in mind, you have to also consider how rare they are. If a tanker truck blows up on I-5, sure, we'll be screwed. But what's the opportunity cost of planning to prevent that? I'm not sure that it's worth the tradeoff.
I suspect that you are not a regular freeway commuter on any of our highways during morning and afternoon peak times. Therefore, your opinion may not have the weight of those who depend on these roads.
Opportunity cost is part of risk analysis. Planners MUST account for as many potential disasters as possible, and this is always part of highway planning. Remember, your 'We' includes a few million people in our region who depend on our traffic arteries. Transportation must be a priority for our region, or any economically active region, and must be carefully planned.
Someday, when we don't depend on cars and trucks for transport, we can let our roads go to seed, and just stay home when there is a highway collapse. That probably won't happen in my lifetime, or yours.
Posted Mon, May 7, 9:32 a.m. Inappropriate
Portland has a freeway loop on both sides of the Willamette River, I-5 to the east, and I-405 to the west. (There is also an external ring road, I-205, akin to our I-405, which connects near downtown by I-84, but set that aside for now.) In other words, Portland has backup freeways near/through its central core, in the event that there is a catastrophe on one road or the other.
This was not the primary reason for this highway configuration, but it is a fortunate side-effect of this sort of planning strategy. Green Portland has its rush hour nightmares like we do, sometimes worse, but at least drivers there have alternatives, even more than Seattle drivers do now.
Both cities have water constraints. Seattle is confined by the lake and sound, and Portland straddles a river, so the comparison isn't all onions/onions. But for the moment at least, Seattle has a plan B if I-5 is impassable for some reason, or if SR99 has a problem. That may not be true in the future.
A final note: An article in the P-I Saturday describes plans to extend SR509 to I-5 south of SeaTac. The address is here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/
transportation/314479_509hwy05.html
(As usual, paste the two address halves in tandem into your address bar.)
To remind readers, this freeway link will divert traffic from I-5 directly to Burien, avoiding the Southcenter/405/518 bottleneck junction. From Burien, traffic then proceeds north to the First Ave South Bridge, then to East Marginal Way, and then to ...
The Alaskan Way Viaduct, and points north.
And the converse, of course, for southbound traffic.
This is an evolving freeway plan. The SR99 SODO interchange for the stadia is also planned for a freeway. Everything is set up for freeways, except ...
A waterfront park/boulevard? A tunnel/lidded trench? Or a backup freeway past the waterfront to SR99 north of downtown?
Still waiting for the answer to that one.
Posted Mon, May 7, 10:02 a.m. Inappropriate
Here's the address:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/
local/314667_bridge07.html
I love the Seattle process. What would I do with my time otherwise?
Posted Tue, Feb 19, 11:04 p.m. Inappropriate
adderall no prescription
adderall without a prescription
bontril without prescription
buy hgh without a prescription
buy oxycontin no prescription
buy oxycontin online without a prescription
buy percocet online without a prescription
buy vicodin without a prescription
cialis without prescription
codiene no prescription