Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel

[jakeroot]

Our long national nightmare is over.

The viaduct re-opens tomorrow morning.

With, in my opinion, one of the biggest hurdles out of the way, the debate has turned to Alaskan Way itself. The road is currently planned to be eight lanes, but there's discussions to bring that down to six. As long as they maintain bus-only lanes, I'm happy.

http://goo.gl/BtXUe2

Here's the dilemma at hand: Alaskan Way will need to accommodate ferry queue lanes, some freight traffic since the port is so close, as well as tens of thousands of bus passengers coming into downtown each day.

As part of the study to build the new Alaskan Way, Foster and his team looked at what taking the road down from a maximum of 8 to 6 lanes would mean.

"What we find happens — because there are so many buses coming in and out of downtown - is that we get a queue that backs up and it could from our analysis — back up as much as a mile and a half...8,000 feet onto SR 99,"  Foster said. "Getting buses in and out of downtown takes twice as long in that part of the corridor. I want to make it really plan that based on that type of information, it is our strong preference ... the city's preference ... is to have the dedicated transit lanes. We think it makes all the Roads move more effectively."

[Bruce]

Bertha reached its planned maintenance stop...and is digging past it.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/bertha-drills-on-as-rest-stop-is-delayed/

Either Seattle Tunnel Partners is overconfident or they've found the proposed stop point to be too risky (stalls and whatnot).

[jakeroot]

FREEWAY ENTRANCE signs, signals, and pavement markings are all being installed this month and next month in and around the north portal.

My question is: was this all supposed to be finished before boring was complete? Or did the boring take so long, the finishing work superseded its surfacing?

Also happy to see flashing yellow arrows at the 6 Ave/Harrison junction, though it looks like the left turn onto 99 from the future 6 Ave alignment is a three-section head. Why the inconsistency, I'll never know. Maybe I'll wait until this project is finished before I judge.

Photos credit: WSDOT Flickr

[kkt]

Thanks for the photos!

[The Ghostbuster]

Does this mean the tunnel will open soon? And if so, how long before the old double-decked elevated viaduct is demolished?

[jakeroot]

Thanks for the photos!

Yeah, about that....WSDOT took them. No idea if this places them in the public domain or not. But they were on their flickr page.

I updated my post above to give credit.

[jakeroot]

Does this mean the tunnel will open soon? And if so, how long before the old double-decked elevated viaduct is demolished?

The tunnel, and all its connecting bits, won't be open until 2018. The boring is proceeding at about 450-500 feet per month, placing the boring completion somewhere around late spring (ahead of their July 2017 estimate).

The viaduct won't come down until the tunnel is fully operational. I assume demolition will begin a few weeks after that point.

[kkt]

Thanks for the photos!

Yeah, about that....WSDOT took them. No idea if this places them in the public domain or not. But they were on their flickr page.

I updated my post above to give credit.

Well, then, thank you for reposting the WashDOT photos. 

[The Ghostbuster]

I have a feeling once the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel is complete, that will be the end of freeway tunnel building in the United States. Although I would love to see more freeway tunnels constructed, that seems to be the perception I am getting.

[Plutonic Panda]

I have a feeling once the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel is complete, that will be the end of freeway tunnel building in the United States. Although I would love to see more freeway tunnels constructed, that seems to be the perception I am getting.

I hope not. Though it has been a bitch, hopefully people will see the benefits of tunnels though more costly, they are worth the price.

[jakeroot]

I have a feeling once the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel is complete, that will be the end of freeway tunnel building in the United States. Although I would love to see more freeway tunnels constructed, that seems to be the perception I am getting.

There's nothing wrong with tunnels. The issue with the viaduct replacement tunnel (worst. name. ever) was the management.

If anything, I expect more tunnels to be built in the future. They allow traffic to move through an environment without disturbing it. That's the main issue with freeways as-is: they are physical and mental barriers between communities. If there's no freeway in the way, such a barrier wouldn't exist.

[compdude787]

I have a feeling once the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel is complete, that will be the end of freeway tunnel building in the United States. Although I would love to see more freeway tunnels constructed, that seems to be the perception I am getting.

There's nothing wrong with tunnels. The issue with the viaduct replacement tunnel (worst. name. ever) was the management.

If anything, I expect more tunnels to be built in the future. They allow traffic to move through an environment without disturbing it. That's the main issue with freeways as-is: they are physical and mental barriers between communities. If there's no freeway in the way, such a barrier wouldn't exist.

I agree. I really do hope more tunnels are built to expand urban freeway networks. We sure as heck need it! And regarding the name of the tunnel, I'm pretty sure most people will end up calling it the "Alaskan Way Tunnel."

[Duke87]

I have a feeling once the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel is complete, that will be the end of freeway tunnel building in the United States. Although I would love to see more freeway tunnels constructed, that seems to be the perception I am getting.

Everyone said after the Big Dig it'd never be done again, and yet here we are.

Tunnels are getting proposed as alternatives in urban freeway reconstruction projects all over the country. So long as that keeps happening, it will end up being the selected alternative somewhere. All it takes is a few well-connected entities favoring it and the money will be found.

[Bruce]

Plenty of other tunnels being built just fine in Seattle...   

I do think Bertha might jeopardize any proposal to rebuild Interstate 5 in a constructive manner (crazy ideas notwithstanding), which would obviously include burying the entire thing through downtown. The rebuild (which will have to happen soon) will be a mess from conception to opening, and I look forward to being in the thick of it.

[compdude787]

Plenty of other tunnels being built just fine in Seattle...   

(crazy ideas notwithstanding)

Lol, can't believe people are seriously considering removing I-5 completely. I-405 cannot handle any long distance traffic; it's barely adequate as it currently stands.

[jakeroot]

Plenty of other tunnels being built just fine in Seattle...

I was going to make this argument as well, but they did specify freeways:

...that will be the end of freeway tunnel building in the United States.

[Bickendan]

Plenty of other tunnels being built just fine in Seattle...   

(crazy ideas notwithstanding)

Lol, can't believe people are seriously considering removing I-5 completely. I-405 cannot handle any long distance traffic; it's barely adequate as it currently stands.

Then-Mayor Vera Katz and the Portland City Council proposed removing I-5 on the Willamette's east bank in Portland, so that's not unique to Seattle. The commission put together to study the proposal concluded I-5 was too important to both local and inter-regional uses and said we should probably tunnel it under the river to near Rose Quarter.
What were the alternatives... Do Nothing
Shitcan the Eastbank and let the Stadium (I-405) take up the slack (haha, holy shit they hated this idea)
Turn the Stadium and Eastbank Freeways into the world's largest traffic circle (interesting idea, I'll give it that)
Tunnel the Stadium from SW Park to the river, tunnel the Baldock (I-5 going south from Portland) from just north of exit 299A, then tunnel the freeway across the river and roughly to SE/NE 7th Ave, then back toward the Fremont Stack, leaving the Marquam Bridge for local use, and modify the current Banfield-Morrison Bridge/Rose Quarter interchanges to suit.

...At least ODOT and PBOT are FINALLY starting to address the Rose Quarter bottleneck on the Eastbank.

[The Ghostbuster]

Some tunnel ideas haven't panned out, of course. The Gowanus Tunnel was canceled in 2011, the Interstate 710 tunnel is probably going to be canceled as well. In addition, I doubt the Interstate 84 tunnel proposal in Hartford will be constructed. Wasn't there briefly a proposal to tunnel some of Interstate 95 in Philadelphia? I believe there was a thread about it on Aaroads.

[jakeroot]

Some tunnel ideas haven't panned out, of course. The Gowanus Tunnel was canceled in 2011, the Interstate 710 tunnel is probably going to be canceled as well. In addition, I doubt the Interstate 84 tunnel proposal in Hartford will be constructed. Wasn't there briefly a proposal to tunnel some of Interstate 95 in Philadelphia? I believe there was a thread about it on Aaroads.

Tunnels are generally rejected because of their high expense. Which is a legitimate concern, of course. But that doesn't detract from the effectiveness of tunnels as a whole.

[Henry]

I have a feeling once the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel is complete, that will be the end of freeway tunnel building in the United States. Although I would love to see more freeway tunnels constructed, that seems to be the perception I am getting.

Everyone said after the Big Dig it'd never be done again, and yet here we are.

Tunnels are getting proposed as alternatives in urban freeway reconstruction projects all over the country. So long as that keeps happening, it will end up being the selected alternative somewhere. All it takes is a few well-connected entities favoring it and the money will be found.

Some tunnel ideas haven't panned out, of course. The Gowanus Tunnel was canceled in 2011, the Interstate 710 tunnel is probably going to be canceled as well. In addition, I doubt the Interstate 84 tunnel proposal in Hartford will be constructed. Wasn't there briefly a proposal to tunnel some of Interstate 95 in Philadelphia? I believe there was a thread about it on Aaroads.

Tunnels are generally rejected because of their high expense. Which is a legitimate concern, of course. But that doesn't detract from the effectiveness of tunnels as a whole.

Soon they will begin relocating I-70 in Denver underground, so building freeway tunnels isn't over by a longshot. And we also know about the tunnel proposals in Atlanta for I-75/I-85 and the I-675 extension, but it is very likely that neither will actually be built.

[kkt]

Soon they will begin relocating I-70 in Denver underground, so building freeway tunnels isn't over by a longshot. And we also know about the tunnel proposals in Atlanta for I-75/I-85 and the I-675 extension, but it is very likely that neither will actually be built.

Is there funding identified to relocate I-70 to a tunnel?

[jakeroot]

WSDOT posted another rendering on their Flickr page. I'm certain a render similar to this has popped up before, but nonetheless, I think it's a cool visualisation of what we can sort-of expect when the tunnel is finished.

My two cents: Alaskan Way should be designed around ferry access, medium/heavy goods vehicle access, and transit. Especially given how lightly-used present-day Alaskan Way is, I'm not sure why there's so much emphasis on personal vehicles on the future Alaskan Way. Seattle has already, very publicly, given up on the car. I think one-lane in each direction is satisfactory (as much as it may sound like it wouldn't be). Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that Alaskan Way shouldn't allow personal vehicles at all. Truck, transit, and ferry only!

Don't get me wrong: I love my car, especially because I live in the suburbs, and transit access is poor (Pierce Transit pales in comparison to Metro and Community transit). But cities aren't right for cars. Pardon me for using an oft-hated word, but too many GP lanes along Alaskan Way will induce demand, demand that, at least from what I can tell off-hand, downtown Seattle's one-way system should be able to handle (as busy at it may already be). Alaskan Way certainly shouldn't be designed around through-traffic, especially when you consider the tunnel below it that's supposed to serve that purpose anyway.

[compdude787]

I think it's fine to leave Alaskan Way four lanes as it is. I personally am sick and tired of seeing road capacity being reduced in Seattle even though . And personally, I don't agree with the whole induced demand thing being a counterargument to expanding road capacity. There is a certain point at which a certain capacity will be adequate. The only reason why it will one day become inadequate is because population increases. The reason why I-5 in Everett, which was widened in 2008 and is already getting clogged again in the afternoons, is because it's only three lanes across the Snohomish River delta, and there's a chokepoint just north of the US 2 interchange where the freeway goes from 4 lanes to three lanes. The reason why that's getting congested is because the north part of Snohomish County is rapidly growing.

Also, if personal vehicles are completely banned from Alaskan Way, that will impact businesses along the waterfront because people can't get to them.

[Bruce]

There's nothing to agree with in regards to induced demand. It's a known and documented phenomenon that needs to be considered when you have a limited amount of money to fix transportation problems. The Everett situation is a perfect example of induced demand, as the newly expanded road filled right back up, though now there's a HOV bypass for those who are smart enough to buddy-up for a commute.

As for capacity in Seattle, the problem isn't reduction or expansion, but rather unbalanced capacity. I-5 waxes and wanes in lane count, which leads to merging and bottlenecks.

There's not many Alaskan Way businesses that rely on personal car traffic in the first place. Tourist attractions will be easy enough to walk to without a giant freeway in the way (and especially with new options like the 1st Avenue streetcar opening in 2020 or so), and actual working industries will use trucks that could be given special access (seen in places like Manchester, UK where there is a network of bollards guarding truck/bus zones).

The only potential problem I see is with taxis at the Cruise Ship Terminal, but we could easily enable them to use the new Alaskan Way. Or run shuttle buses. Or restore the Waterfront Streetcar.

[Plutonic Panda]

I think it's fine to leave Alaskan Way four lanes as it is. I personally am sick and tired of seeing road capacity being reduced in Seattle even though . And personally, I don't agree with the whole induced demand thing being a counterargument to expanding road capacity. There is a certain point at which a certain capacity will be adequate. The only reason why it will one day become inadequate is because population increases. The reason why I-5 in Everett, which was widened in 2008 and is already getting clogged again in the afternoons, is because it's only three lanes across the Snohomish River delta, and there's a chokepoint just north of the US 2 interchange where the freeway goes from 4 lanes to three lanes. The reason why that's getting congested is because the north part of Snohomish County is rapidly growing.

Also, if personal vehicles are completely banned from Alaskan Way, that will impact businesses along the waterfront because people can't get to them.

i agree man