Remove the viaduct? Honestly, I have no opinion at this time; but I do have one question

Remove the viaduct? Honestly, I have no opinion at this time; appealing in theory as it might be, in fact I am skeptical that such a plan makes sense, as the conventional opinion also seems to hold:

Study shows effects of no viaduct

"Seattle and state officials yesterday rejected a proposal to tear down the city's aging Alaskan Way Viaduct without replacing it with any new roadways, saying the idea would wreak havoc on local streets."

Traffic "gridlock" if viaduct torn down, study says

"If the Alaskan Way Viaduct were torn down and not replaced, traffic along Alaskan Way would more than quadruple and the number of cars on downtown streets would grow as much as 50 percent, according to a new study released yesterday by the state Department of Transportation."

But I do have one question

It seems to me that there is a piece of the story missing: what happens during construction? With a +6 year construction period, the reality is that the Viaduct WILL be down for a while...What happens then?

Or, of vastly greater concern — What is the contingency plan if and when (so we are assured) an earthquake takes down the viaduct? Certainly there must be a contingency plan? What is it? How does it deal with the traffic in the case of a forced but predictable event?

Opposition to the People's Waterfront Coalition Plan to tear down the viaduct — and leave it down forever — is based on the idea that it wouldn't work, that there would be civil chaos, that we need that traffic corridor etc etc All well and good; I happen to buy that argument at first blush; chaos may indeed be the result. But if so how are things going to work during the 5-6 year period it will take to rebuild the viaduct if it is destroyed in an earthquake? Such a situation sets the boundaries of the tolerable, possible and likely.

Just to make sure you understand: if taking down the viaduct permamently (voluntarily) will unleash chaos, then taking it down semi-permananetly (by act of nature) should also be a pretty scary situation. So what is the contingency plan? How do we handle the situation for the years -- not forever but still a pretty significant time -- it will take to rebuild the viaduct?

Just curious.

(Photo credit: People's Waterfront Coalition.)

Comments

[Adam Krom]

The question of freeway removal is always interesting to me. I could only find a summary paper on the WSDOT web site, which may be the source of the statistics in the news paper.

Scanning the WSDOT paper, the effect of traffic attrition, that is, trips not made or unaccounted for when a road is closed, is given little attention. I wonder if WSDOT assumes all trips will be "diverted" from the Alaskan Way Viaduct to other streets?

It does seem reasonable to assert that it would be more difficult to skirt downtown without the AWV. But I often wonder, what if it hadn't been built in the first place?

Consider San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway, a road very similar to the AWV. Because of citizen protest that elevated freeway along the waterfront was never really finished -- thus it remained a stub instead of a through connection, limiting its overall utility. When earthquake damage led to demolition, the surrounding street grid worked just fine.

What if the Embarcadero Freeway had been finished? It's overall utility for through trips would have been higher. One could argue it would have become essential to regional travel, and would require replacement -- after all, Caltrans fought to keep the viaduct even in its half-completed form. If it had been rebuilt, California would be out hundreds of millions of dollars and/or a fantastic waterfront.

I hope you see my point. If the viaduct had never been built or completed, Seattle almost certainly wouldn't build it today, and chances are that the region would function about the same without it, and perhaps even better, although regional trips, especially freight trips, are an issue. However, because the viaduct exists, it has a strong constituency, including the engineers, who will work to keep its function in place.

[Adam Krom]

PS: It has been written that "earthquake damage" was just a convenient excuse to finally tear down the elevated Embarcadero Freeway. Comdemnation for safety provided cover to politicians and made the cost of keeping the road seem financially restrictive. Don't know if it's true, but seems plausible.

[David Sucher]

The only thing I'd ask,Adam, is where that unfinished Embaracadero 'stub' would have gone? Would it actually have connected places in the way that the AWV connects Tacoma and Everett? i.e. that the AWV truly is an element of a regional grid and it is not a stub at all.

[Adam Krom]

David,

You can see a map of the proposed San Francisco freeway system here:
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/sanfran.html

The Embarcadero Freeway would have been I-480, connecting the Bay Bridge to the Golden Gate Bridge, skirting downtown, definitely a proposed regional artery. I think SF made the right choice to cancel the project and eventually to demolish the elevated waterfront freeway. Do you agree?

From the site:
"Part of the 1951 Trafficways plan, a short section of I-480 north of the Bay Bridge approach was designed in 1953 and opened in 1959. The intent was to connect it with the Golden Gate Bridge approaches, but this Golden Gate Freeway, following Lombard and 101, was rejected in 1966. (I-480 had been withdrawn from the Interstate highway system in 1965; the existing road was simply CA 480.) [9] In 1968, the S. F. Board of Supervisors voted 6-5 to stop building the freeway, resisting pressure from Sacramento.

"In 1973, the Board declined to take part in another Golden Gate Freeway study, calling the proposal too similar to the 1966 plan. At that point, the city was already talking about tearing it down. In June, Sen. Alan Cranston talked to FHWA, who said: 1) If SF tore down 480, it would not have to pay back any federal funds used in building it; 2) SF could use federal funds to build a replacement on the ground or below; and 3) SF could not use federal money to simply tear it down without replacing it with another road. In September, FHWA clarified number 3, saying that 'a sound transportation system,' without a specific replacement, could suffice. The 1974 report proposed bringing the 480 ramps down to earth at Embarcadero and Howard.

"On Nov. 5, 1985, the Board voted to tear down what was there. The Loma Prieta quake damaged the road enough to close it. A rainy February 27, 1991, saw the 'groundbreaking' of the Embarcadero demolition. Mayor Art Agnos remarked, 'This is a good day for a rainfall... and it's a great day to take down a freeway.'"