Hand me a sledgehammer
WSDOT
The viaduct has to be closed. Aesthetic concerns aside, it’s just not safe. I know I don’t want to drive on it anymore. I don’t want to be there when the thing falls down.
The question is, what happens then? According to WSDOT, there are two options: either rebuild the viaduct or replace it with a tunnel. But support is building for a third way. The People’s Waterfront Coalition (interview at Seattlest here) says we should just tear it down, period. No replacement. No tunnel.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
You must be hitting the crack pipe too much.
Yeah while the rest of us commute from South/West Seattle would love to drive along the waterfront or through downtown every morning. Or adding more traffic to the already clogged 1-5.
Or I could ride the monorail…oh wait…people thought that would be a BAD idea to build.
Gee, thanks for bringing such a classy tone to the debate, Steven.
Building new highways just isn’t a traffic solution. We should have learned that by now. I think we should stop pouring money into building more road surface, and start thinking about real solutions.
A salient argument of the People’s Waterfront Coalition is that the thing’s going to be closed and not functioning for 3 years while construction occurs anyway. If we can do without it for 3 years, how can it be indispensable? The adjustment won’t be easy, but, once made, couldn’t we live with it?
I do wish Steven, and the rest of us, would have had the monorail as an alternative.
With only 2 northbound lanes on I-5 as you go into downtown… I think no replacement is a viable option.
I’d be interested to hear what you think is a real solution is Sarah.
There are well over 80,000 people in West Seattle who either commute via the Viaduct or already jampacked West Seattle Bridge. With no light rail or monorail, those are our only options unless we all hop on the water taxi.
Well, Adam, I think that the real solutions – that is, the sustainable ones – would all have to involve getting cars off the road. Sorry. History shows that increasing capacity doesn’t work: build more highways, and we’ll eventually fill them up.
Inconvenient and difficult as it may sound, real solutions are things like improved mass transit and ridesharing and increased density of development. Oh, and whatever else all those ingenious West Seattle commuters (what’s your source for the 80,000, John?) come up with during those years while the viaduct is shut down.
Phil highlights an important point: we’re going to have to live without the viaduct, for an extended period of time, no matter what option the city goes with. Do you really think the city is going to come to a grinding halt? Or do you think we’ll find ways to cope?
80,000 is accurate — more people live in West Seattle than the rest of us think… http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/webtowns/census.asp?WTID=21
Actually I lived there myself for 1.5 years and found the bus commute from Admiral to downtown & the U-District painless and quick. I also rode the water taxi a few times and was amazed at its efficiency. I honestly don’t think that removing the viaduct would affect commutes all that much, as long as Alaskan Way remains a sufficiently wide thoroughfare. (I assume that it would still be 99, just with stoplights, like the rest of 99.) So tear the viaduct down! Seriously: it is a good idea. I’m thinking about donating to the People’s Waterfront Coalition.
Here’s an idea, let’s build only 20% more roads for double the population, keep gas really cheap($2.50/gallon today is the same as $.50/Gallon in 1970), make cars far more reliable, comfortable, and cheaper, then stand around wondering why nobody wants to ride an inefficient transit system!
Of course building a new road here or there fills up, it’s called pent-up demand!
Just because we can do without something, does that neccesarily mean that we shouldn’t have it? (just playing devil’s advocate here) Yes we can probably get around not having the Viaduct, but how much longer would that add to a West Seattlite’s commute? Is it worth the extra time sitting in the car going nowhere and still polluting?
Look, transportation isn’t going anywhere, so to me cutting out roads doesn’t make sense. We should all be using our brains to come up with something that actually works for all parties. I can’t believe that the same amount of cars on the road only now sitting there for at least 30 minutes longer instead of parked is going to make a very good impact on the air quality around downtown.
I live in West Seattle, I don’t commute everyday, and I am pro rapid transit. I’ll miss driving/riding over the Viaduct (for the view and the convenience of not having to drive on the shark tank that is I5) but I know it has to come down.
When it does come down, it’s going to effect everyone in Seattle. West Seattleites are not the only ones who use it. The Viaduct is frequently packed in the North bound lanes during the evening commute as well. Add those displaced commuters to I5, plus folks attending sporting events, and we will have a big ugly cloud of funk in the air from cars stuck in traffic on I5, from Everett to Tacoma.
Whether or not it is replaced, I hope that “the planners” are going to include extensive additional busing options for THE REGION in the equation. It’s unfortunate, but most folks live far from where they work. Perhaps employers could be given a significant tax break for creating high use van pools that truly serve the region, and mandate regional bus options for big events.
I wish that was already happening, but I know it frequently takes a crisis for anyone to act. Since we don’t have a RT system like Chicago or the Bay Area, I do wonder how people are going to cope. Will we become accustomed to mega traffic jams and smog, or will it force us as individuals to change and create/demand options, or leave the area…
tony, we aren’t that smart or energized to actually make change until the situation gets shitty. people will continue to take the easy way out (sitting on their asses in a car because it’s the most economical/functional transporation solution) until it starts becoming less economical/functional.