Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel

[Bruce]

The viaduct could have been demolished without the tunnel (which is going to cost quite a bit more than the $3.3B price due to the lawsuits), but the political will just wasn't there until it was too late. McGinn tried to stop the machine, and it just kept going.

[Plutonic Panda]

If the Big Dig wasn't enough; I'm hoping once the waterfront and boulevard portion opens, it can show cities that investments like this, though costly and prone to overruns/missed deadlines, are worth it in the end.

I think we've long come to the conclusion that the whole tunnel wasn't needed. Hopefully cities do learn that highway removal is easy and painless once you cut through all the psuedoscience.

I completely disagree.

[jakeroot]

If the Big Dig wasn't enough; I'm hoping once the waterfront and boulevard portion opens, it can show cities that investments like this, though costly and prone to overruns/missed deadlines, are worth it in the end.

I think we've long come to the conclusion that the whole tunnel wasn't needed. Hopefully cities do learn that highway removal is easy and painless once you cut through all the psuedoscience.

I completely disagree.

I can't really think of a freeway removal that had a permanent, noticeable effect on traffic. Looking at San Francisco, I don't think rebuilding the Embarcadero Fwy would relieve any issues, and Portland's Harbor Drive...I don't even know what that did for traffic to begin with.

Seattle's Hwy 99 is part of a larger important corridor than either of those freeway removals, but that's mostly because of the man-made infrastructure preceding it. Aurora could have easily been converted to at-grade status in South Lake Union, perhaps designed to lead directly into downtown one-way streets. In the south end, it should remain roughly as-is with all the railway crossings, but it could have been tied directly into Alaskan Way, which is being designed to lead into Western & Elliott, two important one-way streets.

[Plutonic Panda]

Kind of hard to judge those cities as traffic is already a nightmare. I'm sure you could count the number of freeway removals in the US with your hand and how many of those were just stubs? We aren't talking interstates and in Seattle's case this isn't a freeway removal per say but a redesign of the freeway.

Over 50k cars a day have been using it. It's easy to plan around a shutdown when you know it's temporary, but for better of everyone, where would those 50k cars a day go without it? If you want to say mass transit, well, this case is better as there are more options than being forced to use transit or use surface streets. It truly is better for everyone.

[Alps]

I think they're going to need to do some serious work near the north portal, if the backups towards Republican aren't reduced after the Dearborn exit opens. Miles-long backups within days of opening is not a good long-term indicator of its ability to handle traffic.

They replaced a two lane tunnel with a two lane tunnel. Is it that much worse than before? People could be staring at the new shiny for a little while perhaps.

[Kacie Jane]

They replaced a three-lane viaduct with access to/from either Western/Elliott or Aurora, with a two-lane tunnel with no access to Western/Elliott.

Your logic assumes that the two-lane Battery Street Tunnel was a bottleneck, but the amount of traffic exiting onto Western/entering from Elliott makes that not necessarily the case.

[Duke87]

I think people do have a tolerance for longer commutes by alternate modes, given that the time in transit can be used somewhat productively or leisurely (e.g. using your phone, which should be a big no-no for drivers).

I'd say this depends on the details. An hour long commute that's a single train on which I can reliably get a seat is a lot more tolerable than 10 minutes on a bus, get off, wait 5 minutes for a train, spend 20 minutes on the train, get off, wait 10 minutes for another bus, then spend 15 minutes on said bus before reaching final destination, on average needing to stand due to lack of open seats on 2 out of the 3 legs - even though both of these things take the same amount of time.

If the Big Dig wasn't enough; I'm hoping once the waterfront and boulevard portion opens, it can show cities that investments like this, though costly and prone to overruns/missed deadlines, are worth it in the end.

I think we've long come to the conclusion that the whole tunnel wasn't needed. Hopefully cities do learn that highway removal is easy and painless once you cut through all the psuedoscience.

I completely disagree.

I can't really think of a freeway removal that had a permanent, noticeable effect on traffic. Looking at San Francisco, I don't think rebuilding the Embarcadero Fwy would relieve any issues, and Portland's Harbor Drive...I don't even know what that did for traffic to begin with.

Harbor Drive was functionally replaced by I-5, so it wasn't removed so much as it was simply moved directly across the river.

The stub portion of the Embarcadero that was built didn't accomplish a whole lot on its own, which is part of why it was deemed not worth rebuilding after it got quaked. But it would have been considerably more consequential and useful if it were finished as originally planned and connected to the Golden Gate Bridge, and I do think that had that occurred prior to 1989, the damaged structure would have been repaired or rebuilt (and it would be regularly topping 21st century lists of freeways that urban activists want removed - but as a through route with no alternative, this would be a hard sell).


At any rate, "traffic" (meaning congestion) is the wrong metric to look at. Four lanes of traffic moving at 20 mph may not seem any better than two lanes of traffic moving at 20 mph since people on the road are experiencing the same level of delay either way, but you have to look at this from a broad perspective rather than an individually centered one - the four lane road is achieving twice the throughput and, therefore, contributing more to people's mobility than the two lane road is.

The best cases for freeway removal are cases like Rochester's Inner Loop, where there was very little traffic to begin with and the road just wasn't really that useful to very many people. If the road is well-utilized, a lack of horrendous congestion resulting from its removal should not be used to excuse it - this doesn't mean the road wasn't necessary, what it means is people are recognizing that they can't get there from here and rather than causing extra congestion trying are staying home or going elsewhere. This loss of mobility does have economic and quality of life implications even if it doesn't have visible impacts on congestion.

[compdude787]

^ Duke87 is spot on regarding the Embarcadero Freeway and Harbor Drive. The first was a glorified offramp and the second was replaced by two actual freeways (Harbor Drive was a crummy substandard 50s-era expressway at best). Also worth mentioning that the Cypress Street Viaduct got replaced with I-880 on a new alignment, although that was almost ten years after the 1989 quake.

Anyway, for those curious about what a drive through the new tunnel is like, here's the video for you:

[Alps]

They replaced a three-lane viaduct with access to/from either Western/Elliott or Aurora, with a two-lane tunnel with no access to Western/Elliott.

Your logic assumes that the two-lane Battery Street Tunnel was a bottleneck, but the amount of traffic exiting onto Western/entering from Elliott makes that not necessarily the case.

But where is that Western/Elliott traffic going? Are they all going up and getting on before the tunnel mouth? I don't see why, if they don't have access, there would be worse traffic into the tunnel.

[nexus73]

Wow, that tunnel is REALLY long!  What I wonder about is how did Big Bertha get steered to create the gentle curves of the tunnel? 

Rick

[jakeroot]

At any rate, "traffic" (meaning congestion) is the wrong metric to look at. Four lanes of traffic moving at 20 mph may not seem any better than two lanes of traffic moving at 20 mph since people on the road are experiencing the same level of delay either way, but you have to look at this from a broad perspective rather than an individually centered one - the four lane road is achieving twice the throughput and, therefore, contributing more to people's mobility than the two lane road is.

Aren't you just proving the existence of induced demand? If you double the capacity of a road, but it takes the same time to travel it, at a basic level, that means twice as many cars are using it as before. Why bother with the extra lanes if they're going to fill right up? Do all these extra trips have to be absorbed by the road system? The whole "mobility" metric seems odd to me, if the best a commuter can hope for is ten lanes all moving at 20mph.

Not to change the subject, but isn't it easier to reduce congestion by reducing the number of cars?

If the road is well-utilized, a lack of horrendous congestion resulting from its removal should not be used to excuse it - this doesn't mean the road wasn't necessary, what it means is people are recognizing that they can't get there from here and rather than causing extra congestion trying are staying home or going elsewhere. This loss of mobility does have economic and quality of life implications even if it doesn't have visible impacts on congestion.

But we don't know that for sure, yet. The only available data is that more cyclists were passing through various check-points than before the closure, and water-taxi ridership tripled. So, evidently, at least a few thousand people weren't able to avoid a commute. Certainly there were some that tele-worked, but there's no way that could be anywhere near the majority.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "loss of mobility". You mean to those who stayed home during the closure? Or to those who chose not to drive? In either case, I would not equate the "driveability" of one's regular commute with a languishing quality of life standard.

[Bruce]

Wow, that tunnel is REALLY long!  What I wonder about is how did Big Bertha get steered to create the gentle curves of the tunnel? 

Rick

The TBM was controlled by an operator in the back cab, who followed a preset path that is confirmed by a laser-guided system.

[jeffandnicole]

At any rate, "traffic" (meaning congestion) is the wrong metric to look at. Four lanes of traffic moving at 20 mph may not seem any better than two lanes of traffic moving at 20 mph since people on the road are experiencing the same level of delay either way, but you have to look at this from a broad perspective rather than an individually centered one - the four lane road is achieving twice the throughput and, therefore, contributing more to people's mobility than the two lane road is.

Aren't you just proving the existence of induced demand? If you double the capacity of a road, but it takes the same time to travel it, at a basic level, that means twice as many cars are using it as before. Why bother with the extra lanes if they're going to fill right up? Do all these extra trips have to be absorbed by the road system? The whole "mobility" metric seems odd to me, if the best a commuter can hope for is ten lanes all moving at 20mph.

Not to change the subject, but isn't it easier to reduce congestion by reducing the number of cars?

No.

You need to look at the region in general.  Let's say those 2 additional lanes filled up quickly.  But it took a lot of traffic off local residential roadways.  That's not induced demand.  That's removing traffic from the side streets...the streets that Waze is guiding people down to avoid traffic on the highways.  Place it on the highway where it belongs.

[silverback1065]

If the Big Dig wasn't enough; I'm hoping once the waterfront and boulevard portion opens, it can show cities that investments like this, though costly and prone to overruns/missed deadlines, are worth it in the end.

I think we've long come to the conclusion that the whole tunnel wasn't needed. Hopefully cities do learn that highway removal is easy and painless once you cut through all the psuedoscience.

I completely disagree.

I can't really think of a freeway removal that had a permanent, noticeable effect on traffic. Looking at San Francisco, I don't think rebuilding the Embarcadero Fwy would relieve any issues, and Portland's Harbor Drive...I don't even know what that did for traffic to begin with.

Seattle's Hwy 99 is part of a larger important corridor than either of those freeway removals, but that's mostly because of the man-made infrastructure preceding it. Aurora could have easily been converted to at-grade status in South Lake Union, perhaps designed to lead directly into downtown one-way streets. In the south end, it should remain roughly as-is with all the railway crossings, but it could have been tied directly into Alaskan Way, which is being designed to lead into Western & Elliott, two important one-way streets.

meaningless, none of those removals were through routes, they were all spurs.  come back with a through route removal not affecting anything. 

[jakeroot]

At any rate, "traffic" (meaning congestion) is the wrong metric to look at. Four lanes of traffic moving at 20 mph may not seem any better than two lanes of traffic moving at 20 mph since people on the road are experiencing the same level of delay either way, but you have to look at this from a broad perspective rather than an individually centered one - the four lane road is achieving twice the throughput and, therefore, contributing more to people's mobility than the two lane road is.

Aren't you just proving the existence of induced demand? If you double the capacity of a road, but it takes the same time to travel it, at a basic level, that means twice as many cars are using it as before. Why bother with the extra lanes if they're going to fill right up? Do all these extra trips have to be absorbed by the road system? The whole "mobility" metric seems odd to me, if the best a commuter can hope for is ten lanes all moving at 20mph.

Not to change the subject, but isn't it easier to reduce congestion by reducing the number of cars?

No.

You need to look at the region in general.  Let's say those 2 additional lanes filled up quickly.  But it took a lot of traffic off local residential roadways.  That's not induced demand.  That's removing traffic from the side streets...the streets that Waze is guiding people down to avoid traffic on the highways.  Place it on the highway where it belongs.

Are you implying that there are a maximum number of cars on the road? The data doesn't seem to support that, not least because there are ~40% more vehicle registrations in 2016 compared to 1990. That's easily explained by an increase in population since that time, but unless the population is going to decline or stagnate (the case for very few metro areas), why would the pattern change in the future?

Also, if traffic were detouring to the neighborhood streets because of the 20mph freeway drive, why would all of those neighborhood detouring vehicles suddenly choose the freeway when the freeway isn't any faster than it used to be? If all those cars switched over to the freeway, only to realize that the freeway is just as slow as it used to be, they're going to go right back to their old ways.

late edit: I cannot find any data on the matter, but I would love to see how many additional lane miles of public roads there are now, compared to 1990. For your sake, I hope it's not around 40%! Although, if it's significantly less than 40%, we probably need to reduce car ownership. More than 40%, and I suppose we're "staying ahead of congestion".

[jakeroot]

If the Big Dig wasn't enough; I'm hoping once the waterfront and boulevard portion opens, it can show cities that investments like this, though costly and prone to overruns/missed deadlines, are worth it in the end.

I think we've long come to the conclusion that the whole tunnel wasn't needed. Hopefully cities do learn that highway removal is easy and painless once you cut through all the psuedoscience.

I completely disagree.

I can't really think of a freeway removal that had a permanent, noticeable effect on traffic. Looking at San Francisco, I don't think rebuilding the Embarcadero Fwy would relieve any issues, and Portland's Harbor Drive...I don't even know what that did for traffic to begin with.

Seattle's Hwy 99 is part of a larger important corridor than either of those freeway removals, but that's mostly because of the man-made infrastructure preceding it. Aurora could have easily been converted to at-grade status in South Lake Union, perhaps designed to lead directly into downtown one-way streets. In the south end, it should remain roughly as-is with all the railway crossings, but it could have been tied directly into Alaskan Way, which is being designed to lead into Western & Elliott, two important one-way streets.

meaningless, none of those removals were through routes, they were all spurs.  come back with a through route removal not affecting anything.

As far as I know, there are no modern examples of "through" freeways being removed in the US, without being replaced by something else. The best parallel for Seattle would be Portland's Harbor Drive, which was replaced by I-5. It could have been possible, back in the 1970s, to tear down the Alaskan Way Viaduct, as it was no longer the *major* through route, with I-5 being built on the other side of downtown. Yes, there were major roads that led to the viaduct, but those roads led to downtown streets for decades before the viaduct.

[Duke87]

Aren't you just proving the existence of induced demand? If you double the capacity of a road, but it takes the same time to travel it, at a basic level, that means twice as many cars are using it as before. Why bother with the extra lanes if they're going to fill right up? Do all these extra trips have to be absorbed by the road system? The whole "mobility" metric seems odd to me, if the best a commuter can hope for is ten lanes all moving at 20mph.

Not induced demand, latent demand. The road expansion doesn't create the demand, it merely allows it to be realized whereas without the road it simply is not met.

At any rate, as for "Why bother with the extra lanes if they're going to fill right up?", this question makes about as much sense as asking "Why should I cook more food if it's just going to get eaten right away?". We don't build lanes with the idea they're going to sit there empty, we build them with the idea that people are going to use them. If they fill right up, that's good! That means people are using them. That's exactly what makes it worthwhile.

Not to change the subject, but isn't it easier to reduce congestion by reducing the number of cars?

In some cases. It depends on the specifics of the situation.

Also, road improvements and improvements for transit and other modes are not mutually exclusive. It is acceptable to do both.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "loss of mobility". You mean to those who stayed home during the closure? Or to those who chose not to drive? In either case, I would not equate the "driveability" of one's regular commute with a languishing quality of life standard.

I'm speaking more broadly than about the viaduct shutdown here. I'm also speaking more broadly than about people's regular commutes - I'm looking at mobility in terms of diversity of destinations available. Basically, how many different places can a person travel to within a certain timeframe. The higher this number is, the greater the number of employment opportunities are available to the person, the greater the number of destinations that can be used for social or leisure purposes, the easier people who's jobs involve making field visits are, etc.

It logically follows that anything which increases the number of destinations reachable improves a person's quality of life by increasing opportunities, while anything which decreases the number of destinations reachable negatively impacts a person'q quality of life by taking opportunities away from them, possibly even taking away the reachability of destinations they had grown to like or depend on.

[Bruce]

I went around the three main demolition sites yesterday to snag some pictures. Things looked pretty active at all three, though the equipment was mostly idle at two of them.

North end

The view from 1st Avenue and Battery Street at the north end of the viaduct:





And looking at a section crossing over Western Avenue at Bell Street (which include some barbed wire fencing):







Some of these machines have water hoses built in, so an extra worker to spray down the debris (and dust) isn't even needed:



Columbia Street ramp

Note the office of our favorite new source off to the left:







Alaskan Way & Pike-Pine







From MarketFront/Steinbrueck Park:



Dearborn Ramp

The new northbound offramp from SR 99 to Dearborn Street also opened yesterday, with a shoulder/bus lane. The ramp is designed to withstand a major earthquake with shape-memory alloy bars and flexible concrete (more details here).

[nexus73]

That flexible concrete will need to withstand more than 9.0 and then add in 6 minutes of shake and bake time.  If it is the last thing standing in Puget Sound after the Cascadia Subduction Zone breaks loose, then it will have proven itself.  Too bad the material is 90 times the cost of regular concrete and rebar.  I hope that production techniques take the same curve as they did for HDTV's so the price differential is reduced by an order of magnitude and then some.

Speaking of material returning to its shape, a story from the crashed alien craft in Roswell involved a small piece of metallic foil that when wadded up, would then return to its original flat shape.  Is the story true?  Who knows for sure?  I do like the idea of such a material though!

Rick

[jakeroot]

Aren't you just proving the existence of induced demand? If you double the capacity of a road, but it takes the same time to travel it, at a basic level, that means twice as many cars are using it as before. Why bother with the extra lanes if they're going to fill right up? Do all these extra trips have to be absorbed by the road system? The whole "mobility" metric seems odd to me, if the best a commuter can hope for is ten lanes all moving at 20mph.

Not induced demand, latent demand. The road expansion doesn't create the demand, it merely allows it to be realized whereas without the road it simply is not met.

At any rate, as for "Why bother with the extra lanes if they're going to fill right up?", this question makes about as much sense as asking "Why should I cook more food if it's just going to get eaten right away?". We don't build lanes with the idea they're going to sit there empty, we build them with the idea that people are going to use them. If they fill right up, that's good! That means people are using them. That's exactly what makes it worthwhile.

What's wrong with the roads drivers were already using? If the answer is, "they were local roads", what's going to stop drivers from using them again later on? Especially if the freeway ends up just as slow as before.

That seems like an apples-to-oranges comparison (with food being food, and driving being a sub-category of transportation), but I'll work past that. Obviously we aren't building extra lanes for no one. That would be a massive waste of time. But when we widen a road, who are we widening it for? The drivers detouring to other roads? The cars of the people that don't live in the area yet? Seems to me that we widen roads for cars, not people. That is not good planning.

Not to change the subject, but isn't it easier to reduce congestion by reducing the number of cars?

In some cases. It depends on the specifics of the situation.

Also, road improvements and improvements for transit and other modes are not mutually exclusive. It is acceptable to do both.

I see my statement has put you on the fence (for once)! It's acceptable to do both, of course. In fact, I would encourage this, since drivers are often a major source of income for alternative transport methods (and not pissing them off is pretty important, politically). But up to a point, it becomes too expensive to do both. I assume most drivers would be OK with bus lanes if, each time one was built, another general purpose lane was built. But adding just one lane can be extremely expensive. Adding two? 

I'm also not sure what you mean by "loss of mobility". You mean to those who stayed home during the closure? Or to those who chose not to drive? In either case, I would not equate the "driveability" of one's regular commute with a languishing quality of life standard.

I'm speaking more broadly than about the viaduct shutdown here. I'm also speaking more broadly than about people's regular commutes - I'm looking at mobility in terms of diversity of destinations available. Basically, how many different places can a person travel to within a certain timeframe. The higher this number is, the greater the number of employment opportunities are available to the person, the greater the number of destinations that can be used for social or leisure purposes, the easier people who's jobs involve making field visits are, etc.

It logically follows that anything which increases the number of destinations reachable improves a person's quality of life by increasing opportunities, while anything which decreases the number of destinations reachable negatively impacts a person's quality of life by taking opportunities away from them, possibly even taking away the reachability of destinations they had grown to like or depend on.

At what point does the literal cost of that freedom outweigh the benefits of all those destinations? Because if you're trying to imply that the car is the ultimate expression of freedom, of course I wouldn't disagree. But it's a very expensive display of that freedom. Being a 23-year-old college student, I know a lot of people who continually weigh this consideration. Personally, if I didn't have a car, I'd have an extra $600/month that I'd be able to spend on all sorts of things...rent on a more centrally-located apartment, for instance.

I also wouldn't say that, "more destinations = higher quality of life". Why not, "easy access to what a person wants = higher quality of life"?

[nexus73]

Jakeroot, when you mention $600 a month for individual vehicle ownership costs, you have hit the nail on the head for young people in these times.  Even if there were no smartphones, which have captured the attention of the younger generation, were the expenses this high it would be a genuine struggle to keep the wheels rolling.

Back in the day I bought cars that ran for as little as $10.  Insurance was not mandatory.  Gas was well under $1 a gallon.  State fees were a pittance.  On the other hand, electronic devices were costly.  Guess what?  We used to have young people in vehicles everywhere but not many were going to be set up well in consumer electronics.  Today is a reverse of the past.  Given how much I love vehicles and their operation, I sure feel sorry for the young of the present.  On the other hand I would have given my right and left nuts for something as great as the net and all things computerized back then!

If you live in a metro area, then by all means ditch the rig if you can set up your life that way.  There are many ways to get wheels going without owning them.  Once you figure out the mix which works for you, there will be your $600 savings. As a practical matter, this would be my solution if I was in your position.  It still makes me sad that you cannot enjoy with ease the fun that comes from owning a vehicle and using it like those of us in the past did. 

Rick

[jakeroot]

  right and left nuts hahaha you and a few others I'm sure!

I will say that, back when you were my age (1979 it seems), $600 was "only" ~$172 (adjusted for inflation), which doesn't make it sound as bad. But undoubtedly, fuel costs have risen, insurance rates have risen, basic cheap transport is harder to come by, no one knows how to work on cars which makes maintenance more expensive (having to rely on someone else)...this list goes on. Certainly most 16 year-old's in more car-reliant areas still push for their licence right-away, but those in more urban areas do seem less inclined, for the aforementioned reasons (cost primarily, but also access to public transit). Back in "the day", the push to get a licence seems to have been a thing for all teens, not just some.

[Plutonic Panda]

Aren't you just proving the existence of induced demand? If you double the capacity of a road, but it takes the same time to travel it, at a basic level, that means twice as many cars are using it as before. Why bother with the extra lanes if they're going to fill right up? Do all these extra trips have to be absorbed by the road system? The whole "mobility" metric seems odd to me, if the best a commuter can hope for is ten lanes all moving at 20mph.

Not induced demand, latent demand. The road expansion doesn't create the demand, it merely allows it to be realized whereas without the road it simply is not met.

At any rate, as for "Why bother with the extra lanes if they're going to fill right up?", this question makes about as much sense as asking "Why should I cook more food if it's just going to get eaten right away?". We don't build lanes with the idea they're going to sit there empty, we build them with the idea that people are going to use them. If they fill right up, that's good! That means people are using them. That's exactly what makes it worthwhile.

What's wrong with the roads drivers were already using? If the answer is, "they were local roads", what's going to stop drivers from using them again later on? Especially if the freeway ends up just as slow as before.

That seems like an apples-to-oranges comparison (with food being food, and driving being a sub-category of transportation), but I'll work past that. Obviously we aren't building extra lanes for no one. That would be a massive waste of time. But when we widen a road, who are we widening it for? The drivers detouring to other roads? The cars of the people that don't live in the area yet? Seems to me that we widen roads for cars, not people. That is not good planning.

Not to change the subject, but isn't it easier to reduce congestion by reducing the number of cars?

In some cases. It depends on the specifics of the situation.

Also, road improvements and improvements for transit and other modes are not mutually exclusive. It is acceptable to do both.

I see my statement has put you on the fence (for once)! It's acceptable to do both, of course. In fact, I would encourage this, since drivers are often a major source of income for alternative transport methods (and not pissing them off is pretty important, politically). But up to a point, it becomes too expensive to do both. I assume most drivers would be OK with bus lanes if, each time one was built, another general purpose lane was built. But adding just one lane can be extremely expensive. Adding two? 

I'm also not sure what you mean by "loss of mobility". You mean to those who stayed home during the closure? Or to those who chose not to drive? In either case, I would not equate the "driveability" of one's regular commute with a languishing quality of life standard.

I'm speaking more broadly than about the viaduct shutdown here. I'm also speaking more broadly than about people's regular commutes - I'm looking at mobility in terms of diversity of destinations available. Basically, how many different places can a person travel to within a certain timeframe. The higher this number is, the greater the number of employment opportunities are available to the person, the greater the number of destinations that can be used for social or leisure purposes, the easier people who's jobs involve making field visits are, etc.

It logically follows that anything which increases the number of destinations reachable improves a person's quality of life by increasing opportunities, while anything which decreases the number of destinations reachable negatively impacts a person's quality of life by taking opportunities away from them, possibly even taking away the reachability of destinations they had grown to like or depend on.

At what point does the literal cost of that freedom outweigh the benefits of all those destinations? Because if you're trying to imply that the car is the ultimate expression of freedom, of course I wouldn't disagree. But it's a very expensive display of that freedom. Being a 23-year-old college student, I know a lot of people who continually weigh this consideration. Personally, if I didn't have a car, I'd have an extra $600/month that I'd be able to spend on all sorts of things...rent on a more centrally-located apartment, for instance.

I also wouldn't say that, "more destinations = higher quality of life". Why not, "easy access to what a person wants = higher quality of life"?

My concern of adding lanes if for the suburb streets and freeways. Every freeway even in urban areas like downtown Seattle should have minimum of 14 lanes with Seattle's case probably more. There needs to be a way to do this without tearing down large urban fabric and other countries have found ways.

[Alps]

That flexible concrete will need to withstand more than 9.0 and then add in 6 minutes of shake and bake time.  If it is the last thing standing in Puget Sound after the Cascadia Subduction Zone breaks loose, then it will have proven itself.  Too bad the material is 90 times the cost of regular concrete and rebar.  I hope that production techniques take the same curve as they did for HDTV's so the price differential is reduced by an order of magnitude and then some.

Speaking of material returning to its shape, a story from the crashed alien craft in Roswell involved a small piece of metallic foil that when wadded up, would then return to its original flat shape.  Is the story true?  Who knows for sure?  I do like the idea of such a material though!

Rick

No it won't. Concrete isn't forever, but this is a great step forward. If it proves itself once, it'll start selling and costs will go down. Plenty of other earthquake areas around the world with freeways. I'm excited to see new alloy and reinforcement technology at play.

[Duke87]

What's wrong with the roads drivers were already using? If the answer is, "they were local roads", what's going to stop drivers from using them again later on? Especially if the freeway ends up just as slow as before.

The entire concept of latent demand is that those additional drivers weren't already using some other means of traveling in that corridor. They represent trips which previously were not happening because it wasn't feasible to make them. The new or wider road is creating new opportunities for travel that did not previously exist.

That seems like an apples-to-oranges comparison (with food being food, and driving being a sub-category of transportation), but I'll work past that. Obviously we aren't building extra lanes for no one. That would be a massive waste of time. But when we widen a road, who are we widening it for? The drivers detouring to other roads? The cars of the people that don't live in the area yet? Seems to me that we widen roads for cars, not people. That is not good planning.

Eh, it's not really apples to oranges, since the same logic could just as easily be applied to any mode.
"Why bother expanding bus service if the buses are just going to fill up with more riders?"
"Why bother widening the sidewalk if it's just going to fill up with more pedestrians?"
No one says this about these modes, what makes car travel special that this argument applies selectively to it?

Same goes for the statement "we widen roads for cars, not people". By the same logic, you could say "we build tracks for trains, not people" or "we build bike lanes for bikes, not people".
Again, what makes car travel special that this argument applies selectively to it?

I see my statement has put you on the fence (for once)!

Heh. I'm more in favor of "alternative" modes of transportation than the points I've been arguing here might imply.

But I do see this a bit differently from a lot of people in that I am not tolerant of the idea of encouraging the use of other modes by refusing to invest in good roads. We as a society can do better than reducing transportation to its lowest common denominator and should not be willing to settle for that. If faster or easier car travel makes transit less attractive in comparison, don't blame the roadway expansion for this. Make your transit service faster and more convenient so it can stay competitive. We build freeways for cars to go 70+ mph when they aren't congested, why do we settle for transit trunk lines that go 20-25 down streets when not stopped at red lights and 45-55 when grade separated? No reason the transit can't do 70+ too, if we design the infrastructure for it appropriately. But we don't, we cheap out on it.

I also wouldn't say that, "more destinations = higher quality of life". Why not, "easy access to what a person wants = higher quality of life"?

It is a lot easier to achieve the latter when you have the former.

Of course, it's also a lot easier to achieve the latter when you don't build square mile after square mile of residential monoculture development with all the houses on cul-de-sacs. You want to talk about bad planning...