(This post is part of a series.)
It seems like state and city politicians are still dead set on spending billions of dollars on Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct. (And just to be clear: I was wrong to declare the tunnel dead last week; the governor tried to put a stake in its heart, but city officials resurrected it as a 4-lane “hybrid” tunnel. And so, the saga continues…proving, yet again, that I know nothing about reading the political tea leaves.)
But King County exec. Ron Sims seems to be looking for another way forward. He’s identified 49 fixes to downtown transit—everything from bus only lanes to curb bulbs for faster loading to extensions of electric bus wires—that could add capacity for about 35,000 extra transit trips through downtown Seattle each day. And as he points out, these kinds of transit improvements are going to be necessary, no matter what happens with the viaduct—whether it’s closed for construction, or simply demolished.
In case you’re counting, 35,000 extra transit trips could absorb about a third of the car trips taken each day on the Viaduct—at a fraction of the cost of a new highway, whether elevated or underground.
Which, of course, begs the question: if a few tens of millions in up-front infrastructure investments, plus another $10 million per year in transit operations, can absorb a full third of the trips from the Viaduct, what could you do with some real money?
Sims has lots of ideas, which he lays out in his op ed: bus passes for downtown workers; congestion pricing to ease traffic during rush hour; and parking policies that discourage driving. These, too, could be costly—but again, the price tag is way less than the cost of a new highway.
And, of course, there’s the bus/train tunnel, currently closed for repair and refurbishment. When that reopens, downtown transit capacity will leap by at least 5,000 passengers during the peak hour, at least according to this report (download the word document at the end of the page, and go to section 3.11—pre-closure, the tunnel handled 70 buses each way during peak hours.)
So it seems to me that, adding up the passenger capacity of …
- a revamped Alaskan way boulevard,
- a reopened bus/train tunnel, and
- Sims’s 49 transit fixes…
…the city comes mighty close to having all of the rush hour capacity it needs when the Viaduct is closed. Add in a little extra money for additional traffic and transit fixes, and I have a hard time seeing how closing the Viaduct could possibly doom downtown Seattle to decades of gridlock.
Arie v.
The question from the state would be can we reasonably guarantee that I-5 traffic will not increase as a result of no viaduct? Putting government and agency interests aside, I agree it would be instructive to do a strict cost/benefit analysis of what 2.8 – 3.4 billion dollars could do for Seattle transportation. I wouldn’t be willing to bet the viaduct would make the cut. This kind of outside-the-box thinking is to often absent in infrastructure debates. Sim’s 49 fixes show fresh thinking – though I wish he had 49 fixes in mind for rural KC.
burkholderr
A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we’re talking real money… once said about the federal budget but more and more applicable to our transportation system. Stepping back and looking at the big picture, isn’t it time that numbers like the $62 Billion 20 year shortfall for transportation in the Puget Sound start making us wonder whether we are investing in the right technology?In the Portland area, we are taking another look at what our transportation choices really cost us and what we really get out of them. Metro is currently updating our 20 year Regional Transportation Plan and we are asking basic questions that amazingly have never been asked, like, what are we getting for our money? and do we like it?Using basic “budgeting for outcomes” approach, we are looking to divorce transportation investment decisions from traffic analysis and look at how we improve the economy, get better land use, make our streets safer, etc. Check out our current progress at http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=18823If successful, we will be shifting the paradigm from endless expansion to network completion. Keep tuned.
RMC
Arie, I agree that this thinking is out of the box…I often fret about the false choices presented to the voters. For another example, notice that the transportation tax measure appearing on the ballot pairs transit funding with roads funding, so that a voter can’t choose one over the other. Both must pass or fail together. It is maddening as a voter to have to deal with these choices.As for the transit improvements, I’m all for Sims’ solutions. For this to work, a coalition needs to come together on a “no new elevated monster” idea. The problem is that users of the viaduct place value on certain aesthetic aspects (the view from on high), and the egalitarian nature of the viaduct (everyone who chooses to drive it sees that view), as well as the perceived convenience (all that “free” parking). I don’t know how to chip away anymore at that base of support for the viaduct, but the price tag of the new build options may do it.
eldan
I find absolutely maddening that something which is only accessible to people who have cars is regarded as egalitarian. I really think this is an angle we need to push: everyone can use a sidewalk, whereas not everyone gets to use the viaduct, so an approach that improves the sidewalk is the genuinely inclusive one.
david
In the case of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, I remember what happened when they closed it down for inspections after the Nisqually quake. From W. Seattle, walking was a faster option than driving. What is frustrating is that planners and politicians have been “studying” the problem for decades, and studies are using up money that could be used on solutions. Although it’s nice to have a plan and even smart, one could question is there a reasonable solution to the viaduct problem? Is there a solution that would solve all the needs in the 2.2 mile stretch of land the viaduct sits on. It seems to me there are a series of opinions about what should happen…with no solution in sight…and no plan offered except to spend millons more on studies. Meanwhile, public safety doesn’t seem to press for a solution anytime soon.
Gary Durning
Alright, they just need to choose one of the options the planners have come up with, choose the one that we can afford and makes most economic sense and expedite. Seattle has become stuck on this viaduct issue. Whatever the voters or/and the city decide, its not going to be perfect. However I beleive we do need increased road access on the waterfront if we don’t replace the viaduct or dig a tunnel. The biggest factor i dread when i get on a bus in seattle is the crazy people on the bus. I know some people like experiencing all different kinds of people on the bus, including ones that smell quite horribly and lack the proper manners while being in public. However, I don’t. But I understand that everyone needs access to the bus system. So my idea is to have the luxery version of the public buses. Pad the seats a little more, wrap them in a decent but not fancy leather/leatherette, add some sound insulation to the bus, keep it really clean and charge much more money for it. The bus fare is 1.25-1.50, for the new buses it should cost like 3-4 dollars. We of course would have to keep the economy buses but we could add the “luxery” buses to commuter routes. I know that idea really isn’t potically correct at all, but I think it would appeal to more commuters. The only downside is that my proposal might create kind of a class system on the bus, where the poor ride one bus, and the middle class ride another. But unless metro actually enforces a personal acountability system on the bus where people behave acceptably and are kicked off the bus when they are not, I think its the way to go. I have rode the bus a countless number of times when people are drunk, or laying in the walkway, yelling, rolling a joint, harrasing other passangers, using vulgar profanity reapeatedly etc. And the bus driver just lets it go, much to the chagrin of the other passangers. In order to get more people to ride the bus, those acitivitys must cease.