New study advocates not replacing Seattle's viaduct
The state too quickly dismissed plans to tear down and not replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and for all the wrong reasons, according to a disputed new report issued earlier this week -- just before the Seattle City Council plans to make key decisions on the viaduct's future.
The study, by Vermont-based Smart Mobility, says the state overstated the amount of traffic downtown during the next 25 years and downplayed the role public transportation could play. It also says most viaduct traffic could be served better by local streets.
The report -- done for two Chicago-based groups, the Congress for the New Urbanism and the Center for Neighborhood Technology -- argues that Seattle has more capacity than the state Department of Transportation claims to absorb viaduct traffic. Both organizations support removal of urban highways.
"In the debate on the viaduct, WSDOT has done the public a disservice by stressing in (its) communications simplistic and wrong-headed myths about the transportation system," the report said.
The report's conclusions were strongly rejected by the state this week, but it's not clear how many minds it might change at City Hall. Mayor Greg Nickels still supports a tunnel and opposes the no-replacement idea, saying Thursday it wouldn't get federal or state financial support.
City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck on Thursday called the report a "strong indictment, I think, of the (state's) analysis of alternative," and hopes council members will consider it next week when they discuss a possible advisory-vote measure and a measure supporting the tunnel.
Council President Nick Licata said the report "sidesteps" the congestion that would come if viaduct traffic shifts to Interstate 5 downtown, and said he still opposes the no-replacement option.
"It's easy to punch holes in other people's work. It's much more difficult to come up with a solution," Licata said.
Continue reading this article from the Seattle P-I:
New study advocates not replacing viaduct
Please note that comments are not posted until approved by our site administrator, in order to prevent comment spam. We do not censor comments but ask that you do add value to the discussion and be respectful.
#20221 - Paul Tabayoyon
To whom it may concern;
I have not seen much information in the news about what the construction issues are with replacing the viaduct with an identical replacement. With the technologies we have today, those involved are trying to tell us that they can't rebuild a like structure? , or are they just skirting the realistic issue.
When was the last time they took a real count on the number of vehicles that use the viaduct, and if they want to see the result and prove a point, shut down the viaduct for a week or two, and simulate what the construction path for traffic would be. Common sense to prove real results.
#21365 - Gary Tripp
I have a solution for the Viaduct which is faster, costs less, removes the viaduct barrier to the waterfront, adds public access to the water and won’t disrupt traffic for five years. The solution is a Floating Tunnel.
I have PDF which explains the concept and I will send it to you if you will give me an email address