The surface level option makes me want to vomit. I use the viaduct to get from my home to the airport on a regular basis. I can't imagine what that will be like when the already congested viaduct traffic merges with the unseemly downtown/marketplace/belltown traffic. I don't care if the viaduct is ugly, at least it gets you from point a to point b with no traffic lights and pedestrians interfering. Perhaps the viaduct isn't pretty to look at, but when you're driving northbound at night with an unobstructed view of the Sound, it's a sight to behold. I lost faith in this city's government and the rationality of it's people a long time ago. I suppose now is as good a time as any to get out of dodge.
jan - 15 years ago
I heard the project manager for SDOT on KUOW this morning stating that the surface and transit option is adequate for present and future traffic because it will disperse traffic to other streets and decrease thereby decrease the load on the western/alaskan surface option. That is absurd. Every street downtown is already jammed and this will make it much worse. Can you imagine it taking 30 minutes to get from the Waterfront to I-5? If you can't take the viaduct to get to and from belltown, south lake, queene anne, green lake, phinney, greenwood, ballard and points north, what do you think is going to happen to traffic on I-5?
Granted, the viaduct is ugly, unless you're driving on it northbound, but traffic is much more ugly. If it comes down, how much more useable will the waterfront be? It won't be. we'll have a few parks that no one will be able to access and jam packed arteials. This is crazy!
Jim - 15 years ago
As long as they properly time the traffic lights it'll be fine. We need to sloooow down anyway. Need to get somewhere? Take I-5.
WestSeattleCommuter - 15 years ago
Anyone who uses the viaduct for their daily commute would be insane to choose the surface street option. If they go ahead and go with the surface street option anyone in West Seattle who commutes on the viaduct will either have to move or leave their house at 4:30am to avoid the gridlock. I'm so angry the city seems to ignore the complaints of people who actually use the viaduct. I agree with TARseattle that this poll must be swayed by people who don't use the viaduct on a daily basis. I thought that the surface option would be one of the first options to go but apparently I underestimated the utter stupidity of elected officials. The city too often picks the cheaper route without looking at the long term effects. What a shame...
Bill - 15 years ago
It's finally happened, our elected leadership have gone completely insane.
Go to the Market any weekday evening and look out at the viaduct, 3 lanes packed in each direction and the northbound lanes backed up nearly a mile. Also note Alaskan Way is full - 2 lanes each way. Now imagine dumping all 10 lanes of that traffic onto 6 lanes of Alaskan and Western (surface option) - or removing a viaduct lane in each direction (elevated option). Does any person with common sense think that'll work, even with "mitigation"?
If you're an environmentalist, why would you support the greatly increased emissions added by the surface option's 28 stoplights? For a given distance, cars and trucks emit far far more particulates when stopping, starting and idling then when running a consistent speed. Not to mention ruining the market area experience with a continuous 3-lane stream of cars and trucks.
I run frequently from the north end to SODO and back with project gear and materials, using the viaduct regularly. The bus isn't an option, nor is I-5. Changing a free-flowing freeway to a 28-stoplight crawl will be a nightmare for anyone doing business in the North End. Does the mayor care? During the Ballard Railway/trail debate his office all but admitted they hope those pesky businesses will go away (along with their living-wage jobs). Meanwhile the Port and State spend billions on SODO freight mobility? Where's the planning consistency???
The right solution for the city, the state, residents, workers, visitors and the environment is blindingly obvious: a tunnel or trench. It's not the Big Dig, which was vastly larger, far more complex technically, and fraught with Boston's notorious construction corruption. We don't have enough money yet, but we don't have it for 520 yet either, which hasn't stopped the governor from advocating that project.
The mayor, council and governor need to SHOW LEADERSHIP - commit to the right solution, and begin fighting for the money TODAY as you're doing with 520.
[One last thought, which helped bring me to the conclusion above: all options cost at least 3.5 billion, and the waterfront will be torn up for years for the seawall project anyway. How sad would it be that after years of construction pain and billions of dollars we end up nothing better than we have today? Or worse?]
Dawn - 15 years ago
It amazes me, even though it shouldn't, that rather than listen to the transportation engineers paid for by state tax money our government is going to limit the possible outcomes for the politicians best benefit. The right answer for downtown Seattle is a tunnel. It may be expensive but, it removes traffic from the surface streets in the area and removes the unsightly and structurally unsound viaduct while limiting the structural vulnerability of the new roadway.
Traci - 15 years ago
For some silly reason, the idea of 'becoming a world class city' has truly tarnished the common sense of the majority of Seattle's current leadership. Seattle is and has always been a working city and the working waterfront is part of its 'worldclass' heritage. The idea that the surface streets can possibly function as a reasonable alternative is completely crazy. The ferry access and egress alone needs improved options and the truck traffic freezes up much of what is a surface street today. Hundreds of families crossover (walking) those busy waterfront streets everyday as well. So... why would impacting hundreds of commuters, every day in a city where they are the ones paying the bills, be a good thing for Seattle. It would not and people around the world are not sitting around saying to themselves..." I wish Seattle would get rid of that elevated highway... they would be such a cooler city...". They see cities for who they are, their cultural and historical heritage and Seattle already has that - lets not take it away for some silly dreamy ideas of opening up the waterfront for what we 'could' be.
It will paralyze the north south throughput and likely harm the east west traffic as well. I was not a fan of the tunnel and am very pleased to see some improved ways of looking at the elevated structure - it can be done with class and with function and all efforts should stay on that track. We are already a world class city, which includes that funny looking - yet functional elevated structure. I happen to love and use that structure over I5 anyday - as an HOV, SOV or to just access the inner city, without the headaches of I5 and jammed up exits. I also use it to access West Seattle, Ballard and the airport - managing to keep my HOV or SOV off of I5 95% of the time.
Can't wait to see all those cars lock up the city, trying to get to I5 because of a locked up 30 mph waterfront. Now I5 would be locked up and the world class visitors would simply say - what knucklehead came up with this idea?
John - 15 years ago
100,000 more cars on the streets of Seattle will not open up anything, anywhere and it will absolutely gridlock this city. What great city willingly chooses to gridlock itself? I use the viaduct every day and you're insane if you think the surface street option will only add 5 or 10 minutes to your commute. Go back and read the article and count the number of street lights that will be added to your commute.
blee - 15 years ago
In response to TARSeattle, I do use the viaduct everyday to commute from Ballard to SODO, and I did vote for the surface street option. I can't believe anyone can justify maintaining that eyesore. It was a mistake when it was first built, and to make the same mistake a second time would be horrendous. What great city has a elevated highway running along it's waterfront? This will definitely impact my commute, but the idea of putting my interests aside for the betterment of the city far exceeds the 5-10 minutes the viaduct saves me everyday. I hope people will look at the future of Seattle (and mass transit), rather than the future of their commute in single occupancy vehicles.
TARSeattle - 15 years ago
I think a poll like this needs to somehow show what percentage of those voting for each particular option, actually use the present viaduct. I can't believe that anyone who regularly uses the viaduct (daily or every few days) for North-South transit through Seattle would vote for any surface option that would have street lights or pedestrian crossings. I would bet money that over 75% of those interested in a surface option do not use the present viaduct on a regular basis to transit Seattle. To many, a REAL alternative to I-5 through downtown is critical to both our business and personal lives. Think about who the surface option will benefit the most - City (greater property tax revenue), Downtown land owners near viaduct (increased property values/revenue). This is all about those with power and wealth, getting even more power and wealth. If lucky enough to sell my Queen Anne home for anywhere near its assessed value, I will find a much better place to live if the surface option is chosen.
The surface level option makes me want to vomit. I use the viaduct to get from my home to the airport on a regular basis. I can't imagine what that will be like when the already congested viaduct traffic merges with the unseemly downtown/marketplace/belltown traffic. I don't care if the viaduct is ugly, at least it gets you from point a to point b with no traffic lights and pedestrians interfering. Perhaps the viaduct isn't pretty to look at, but when you're driving northbound at night with an unobstructed view of the Sound, it's a sight to behold. I lost faith in this city's government and the rationality of it's people a long time ago. I suppose now is as good a time as any to get out of dodge.
I heard the project manager for SDOT on KUOW this morning stating that the surface and transit option is adequate for present and future traffic because it will disperse traffic to other streets and decrease thereby decrease the load on the western/alaskan surface option. That is absurd. Every street downtown is already jammed and this will make it much worse. Can you imagine it taking 30 minutes to get from the Waterfront to I-5? If you can't take the viaduct to get to and from belltown, south lake, queene anne, green lake, phinney, greenwood, ballard and points north, what do you think is going to happen to traffic on I-5?
Granted, the viaduct is ugly, unless you're driving on it northbound, but traffic is much more ugly. If it comes down, how much more useable will the waterfront be? It won't be. we'll have a few parks that no one will be able to access and jam packed arteials. This is crazy!
As long as they properly time the traffic lights it'll be fine. We need to sloooow down anyway. Need to get somewhere? Take I-5.
Anyone who uses the viaduct for their daily commute would be insane to choose the surface street option. If they go ahead and go with the surface street option anyone in West Seattle who commutes on the viaduct will either have to move or leave their house at 4:30am to avoid the gridlock. I'm so angry the city seems to ignore the complaints of people who actually use the viaduct. I agree with TARseattle that this poll must be swayed by people who don't use the viaduct on a daily basis. I thought that the surface option would be one of the first options to go but apparently I underestimated the utter stupidity of elected officials. The city too often picks the cheaper route without looking at the long term effects. What a shame...
It's finally happened, our elected leadership have gone completely insane.
Go to the Market any weekday evening and look out at the viaduct, 3 lanes packed in each direction and the northbound lanes backed up nearly a mile. Also note Alaskan Way is full - 2 lanes each way. Now imagine dumping all 10 lanes of that traffic onto 6 lanes of Alaskan and Western (surface option) - or removing a viaduct lane in each direction (elevated option). Does any person with common sense think that'll work, even with "mitigation"?
If you're an environmentalist, why would you support the greatly increased emissions added by the surface option's 28 stoplights? For a given distance, cars and trucks emit far far more particulates when stopping, starting and idling then when running a consistent speed. Not to mention ruining the market area experience with a continuous 3-lane stream of cars and trucks.
I run frequently from the north end to SODO and back with project gear and materials, using the viaduct regularly. The bus isn't an option, nor is I-5. Changing a free-flowing freeway to a 28-stoplight crawl will be a nightmare for anyone doing business in the North End. Does the mayor care? During the Ballard Railway/trail debate his office all but admitted they hope those pesky businesses will go away (along with their living-wage jobs). Meanwhile the Port and State spend billions on SODO freight mobility? Where's the planning consistency???
The right solution for the city, the state, residents, workers, visitors and the environment is blindingly obvious: a tunnel or trench. It's not the Big Dig, which was vastly larger, far more complex technically, and fraught with Boston's notorious construction corruption. We don't have enough money yet, but we don't have it for 520 yet either, which hasn't stopped the governor from advocating that project.
The mayor, council and governor need to SHOW LEADERSHIP - commit to the right solution, and begin fighting for the money TODAY as you're doing with 520.
[One last thought, which helped bring me to the conclusion above: all options cost at least 3.5 billion, and the waterfront will be torn up for years for the seawall project anyway. How sad would it be that after years of construction pain and billions of dollars we end up nothing better than we have today? Or worse?]
It amazes me, even though it shouldn't, that rather than listen to the transportation engineers paid for by state tax money our government is going to limit the possible outcomes for the politicians best benefit. The right answer for downtown Seattle is a tunnel. It may be expensive but, it removes traffic from the surface streets in the area and removes the unsightly and structurally unsound viaduct while limiting the structural vulnerability of the new roadway.
For some silly reason, the idea of 'becoming a world class city' has truly tarnished the common sense of the majority of Seattle's current leadership. Seattle is and has always been a working city and the working waterfront is part of its 'worldclass' heritage. The idea that the surface streets can possibly function as a reasonable alternative is completely crazy. The ferry access and egress alone needs improved options and the truck traffic freezes up much of what is a surface street today. Hundreds of families crossover (walking) those busy waterfront streets everyday as well. So... why would impacting hundreds of commuters, every day in a city where they are the ones paying the bills, be a good thing for Seattle. It would not and people around the world are not sitting around saying to themselves..." I wish Seattle would get rid of that elevated highway... they would be such a cooler city...". They see cities for who they are, their cultural and historical heritage and Seattle already has that - lets not take it away for some silly dreamy ideas of opening up the waterfront for what we 'could' be.
It will paralyze the north south throughput and likely harm the east west traffic as well. I was not a fan of the tunnel and am very pleased to see some improved ways of looking at the elevated structure - it can be done with class and with function and all efforts should stay on that track. We are already a world class city, which includes that funny looking - yet functional elevated structure. I happen to love and use that structure over I5 anyday - as an HOV, SOV or to just access the inner city, without the headaches of I5 and jammed up exits. I also use it to access West Seattle, Ballard and the airport - managing to keep my HOV or SOV off of I5 95% of the time.
Can't wait to see all those cars lock up the city, trying to get to I5 because of a locked up 30 mph waterfront. Now I5 would be locked up and the world class visitors would simply say - what knucklehead came up with this idea?
100,000 more cars on the streets of Seattle will not open up anything, anywhere and it will absolutely gridlock this city. What great city willingly chooses to gridlock itself? I use the viaduct every day and you're insane if you think the surface street option will only add 5 or 10 minutes to your commute. Go back and read the article and count the number of street lights that will be added to your commute.
In response to TARSeattle, I do use the viaduct everyday to commute from Ballard to SODO, and I did vote for the surface street option. I can't believe anyone can justify maintaining that eyesore. It was a mistake when it was first built, and to make the same mistake a second time would be horrendous. What great city has a elevated highway running along it's waterfront? This will definitely impact my commute, but the idea of putting my interests aside for the betterment of the city far exceeds the 5-10 minutes the viaduct saves me everyday. I hope people will look at the future of Seattle (and mass transit), rather than the future of their commute in single occupancy vehicles.
I think a poll like this needs to somehow show what percentage of those voting for each particular option, actually use the present viaduct. I can't believe that anyone who regularly uses the viaduct (daily or every few days) for North-South transit through Seattle would vote for any surface option that would have street lights or pedestrian crossings. I would bet money that over 75% of those interested in a surface option do not use the present viaduct on a regular basis to transit Seattle. To many, a REAL alternative to I-5 through downtown is critical to both our business and personal lives. Think about who the surface option will benefit the most - City (greater property tax revenue), Downtown land owners near viaduct (increased property values/revenue). This is all about those with power and wealth, getting even more power and wealth. If lucky enough to sell my Queen Anne home for anywhere near its assessed value, I will find a much better place to live if the surface option is chosen.