Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel

[Bruce]

A few shots last week at Columbia Street.







And from 76 stories above:

[Bruce]

The sign bridge at Victor Steinbrueck Park has been removed. https://twitter.com/BerthaDigsSR99/status/1116861058340118528

[jakeroot]

#byeaduct? fuck oooffff

[rte66man]

I know I'm stating the obvious to those who are from the area, but it didn't really hit me how much the Viaduct acted as a de facto wall between the waterfront and the rest of Seattle.  Good riddance to it.

[jakeroot]

I know I'm stating the obvious to those who are from the area, but it didn't really hit me how much the Viaduct acted as a de facto wall between the waterfront and the rest of Seattle.  Good riddance to it.

The worst part is that, to drivers, it's not at all obvious. It's only on-foot that it becomes clear. Perhaps this is why it was so hard to sell a non-rebuild alternative way-back-when. Drivers didn't really understand the whole psychological (and physical) effect that the viaduct played on downtown workers and visitors; all they see is a road, between A & B.

[Bruce]

I know I'm stating the obvious to those who are from the area, but it didn't really hit me how much the Viaduct acted as a de facto wall between the waterfront and the rest of Seattle.  Good riddance to it.

And then there's I-5 creating a wall between downtown and Capitol/First Hills. That one will take longer to repair, mostly with lids. "Downtown" once stretched all the way up to Boren!

[Henry]

Downtown is already starting to look different, now that more and more of the viaduct is being erased.

[jakeroot]

Downtown is already starting to look different, now that more and more of the viaduct is being erased.

The light levels seem to be the most jarring difference. At least to me. The viaduct never cast a shadow on the piers, but it was always dark beneath it, and it cast near-permanent shadows on the buildings to the east. With those two things now pretty well lit, it really makes the area immediately more enjoyable.

[The Ghostbuster]

Are commuters mainly using the new tunnel as a way to bypass downtown, while local traffic sticks to the surface streets?

[Bruce]

Are commuters mainly using the new tunnel as a way to bypass downtown, while local traffic sticks to the surface streets?

The new tunnel sees a few backups during rush hour, but is otherwise fairly empty. 1st Avenue is a total mess, so it looks like it's taking the brunt of the demand (and it's even worse during Mariners games).

[Plutonic Panda]

Are commuters mainly using the new tunnel as a way to bypass downtown, while local traffic sticks to the surface streets?

The new tunnel sees a few backups during rush hour, but is otherwise fairly empty. 1st Avenue is a total mess, so it looks like it's taking the brunt of the demand (and it's even worse during Mariners games).

So this tunnel is the same length that the Viaduct was? It also was not tolled and had more access points along its route through downtown? If that is the case I can understand the drop in traffic though if it is more dramatic I would guess that shows the Viaduct wasn't really used as a downtown bypass but rather a distributor of traffic. I hate to say it, but if that is the case then as much as I love tunnels, one could make an argument the tunnel wasn't worth it. I certainly am not going to say that as, again I love tunnels, and I think it's a good idea to have more infrastructure than less for various reasons.

I know this a pipe dream, especially in this current political climate, but it would be cool to see the tunnel expanded further north to connect with I-5 at some point to offer a tolled alternative. This would be further complimented with an extension of I-90 to connect to SR-99. These two projects could be built with a joint project to build light-rail along SR-99 going north. I bet that would bring a considerable uptick in ADTs in the existing tunnel.

[Bruce]

Are commuters mainly using the new tunnel as a way to bypass downtown, while local traffic sticks to the surface streets?

The new tunnel sees a few backups during rush hour, but is otherwise fairly empty. 1st Avenue is a total mess, so it looks like it's taking the brunt of the demand (and it's even worse during Mariners games).

So this tunnel is the same length that the Viaduct was? It also was not tolled and had more access points along its route through downtown? If that is the case I can understand the drop in traffic though if it is more dramatic I would guess that shows the Viaduct wasn't really used as a downtown bypass but rather a distributor of traffic. I hate to say it, but if that is the case then as much as I love tunnels, one could make an argument the tunnel wasn't worth it. I certainly am not going to say that as, again I love tunnels, and I think it's a good idea to have more infrastructure than less for various reasons.

I know this a pipe dream, especially in this current political climate, but it would be cool to see the tunnel expanded further north to connect with I-5 at some point to offer a tolled alternative. This would be further complimented with an extension of I-90 to connect to SR-99. These two projects could be built with a joint project to build light-rail along SR-99 going north. I bet that would bring a considerable uptick in ADTs in the existing tunnel.

The tunnel does not have downtown exits, hence why it's 99% useless for commuter's needs. The north portal in SLU is already a mess due to the backups from Mercer and Denny, while the south portal is a hard-to-navigate mess thanks to the waterfront and ferry terminal construction.

The tunnel would have to be extended all the way up to Northgate to provide a realistic alternative to I-5, at which point it would be more expensive than the border wall.

I do see light rail happening on Aurora (SR 99) someday, but it would require an elevated line in the median, or a road diet to fit trenches and at-grade stations. The street is unsafe and still lacks sidewalks in some areas (especially around the cemetery...did I mention it cuts through a cemetery?), which should be addressed first.

[Plutonic Panda]

Are commuters mainly using the new tunnel as a way to bypass downtown, while local traffic sticks to the surface streets?

The new tunnel sees a few backups during rush hour, but is otherwise fairly empty. 1st Avenue is a total mess, so it looks like it's taking the brunt of the demand (and it's even worse during Mariners games).

So this tunnel is the same length that the Viaduct was? It also was not tolled and had more access points along its route through downtown? If that is the case I can understand the drop in traffic though if it is more dramatic I would guess that shows the Viaduct wasn't really used as a downtown bypass but rather a distributor of traffic. I hate to say it, but if that is the case then as much as I love tunnels, one could make an argument the tunnel wasn't worth it. I certainly am not going to say that as, again I love tunnels, and I think it's a good idea to have more infrastructure than less for various reasons.

I know this a pipe dream, especially in this current political climate, but it would be cool to see the tunnel expanded further north to connect with I-5 at some point to offer a tolled alternative. This would be further complimented with an extension of I-90 to connect to SR-99. These two projects could be built with a joint project to build light-rail along SR-99 going north. I bet that would bring a considerable uptick in ADTs in the existing tunnel.

The tunnel does not have downtown exits, hence why it's 99% useless for commuter's needs. The north portal in SLU is already a mess due to the backups from Mercer and Denny, while the south portal is a hard-to-navigate mess thanks to the waterfront and ferry terminal construction.

The tunnel would have to be extended all the way up to Northgate to provide a realistic alternative to I-5, at which point it would be more expensive than the border wall.

I do see light rail happening on Aurora (SR 99) someday, but it would require an elevated line in the median, or a road diet to fit trenches and at-grade stations. The street is unsafe and still lacks sidewalks in some areas (especially around the cemetery...did I mention it cuts through a cemetery?), which should be addressed first.

I would like to see an elevated transit line which would facilitate an addition of dedicated protected bike lanes. I am not familiar with Seattle however so I am not sure if residents would be supportive of an elevated system.

I hold onto hope someday someone finds a real innovation in tunnel building methods to make it actually viable for cities to consider. It would likely need to be a mix of infrastructure reform laws and new methods which make building infrastructure cheaper. I am always fascinated by endeavors to use a new material in roadway surfaces that could offer a real alternative to asphalt or concrete which would be much cheaper. It seems like every time one is proposed there are just too many major issues with it. Sadly, for the foreseeable future, I don't see freeway tunnels happening in the U.S.

[Bruce]

According to The Times, viaduct demolition is trending behind schedule and might not be fully complete until August (with the main sections coming down by late June instead of the original June 1 target).

[jakeroot]

According to The Times, viaduct demolition is trending behind schedule and might not be fully complete until August (with the main sections coming down by late June instead of the original June 1 target).

I hope they aren't too worried about it keeping people away. The demolition seem to be quite the spectacle.

[Bruce]

Progress shot at Seneca Street:

[KEK Inc.]

I do see light rail happening on Aurora (SR 99) someday, but it would require an elevated line in the median, or a road diet to fit trenches and at-grade stations. The street is unsafe and still lacks sidewalks in some areas (especially around the cemetery...did I mention it cuts through a cemetery?), which should be addressed first.

I live in Greenlake/Wallingford/Fremont -- not too far from Aurora, so I'd appreciate a light rail line on Aurora.  However, I think the plan is to have it run on 15th Ave NW towards Ballard as a spur.   Anything north of Greenlake would be redundant of the Everett line that will primarily follow the I-5 corridor. 

Logistically, installing light rail on the GWM (aka Aurora) Bridge would be a nightmare.   I do think the Aurora Bridge should have 5 lanes with a center reversible lane depending on traffic flow (and maybe the center lane can be a dead lane on non-peak times). 

[Bruce]

I do see light rail happening on Aurora (SR 99) someday, but it would require an elevated line in the median, or a road diet to fit trenches and at-grade stations. The street is unsafe and still lacks sidewalks in some areas (especially around the cemetery...did I mention it cuts through a cemetery?), which should be addressed first.

I live in Greenlake/Wallingford/Fremont -- not too far from Aurora, so I'd appreciate a light rail line on Aurora.  However, I think the plan is to have it run on 15th Ave NW towards Ballard as a spur.   Anything north of Greenlake would be redundant of the Everett line that will primarily follow the I-5 corridor. 

Logistically, installing light rail on the GWM (aka Aurora) Bridge would be a nightmare.   I do think the Aurora Bridge should have 5 lanes with a center reversible lane depending on traffic flow (and maybe the center lane can be a dead lane on non-peak times). 

Yes, the Ballard Line (opening in 2035) will use 15th (or another nearby street), with a crossing of the Ship Canal that is either a tunnel, a fixed high bridge, or a movable bridge.

The Aurora Line would have to be funded by the city in a separate measure, or be part of the inevitable ST4 in 2024 or sometime later. It wouldn't be too redundant due to the time involved in getting east-west on transit and would replace the busiest bus route in the region, so it would be quite valuable.

Ideally, an Aurora light rail line would swing west into central Fremont and use an underground crossing, like Option D in the early Ballard concepts.

[jakeroot]

I love option D, as someone who wants nothing to do with movable bridges. But I worry about long-term growth of those stations. Will there be upzoning in Upper Queen Anne and Fremont? Focusing on improving transit in under-served communities seems more important than connecting existing neighborhoods that already have excellent bus-reliant transit options.

I see this city struggling with upzoning constantly, so my preference has been shifting to things like Options A or B (with a tunnel or high bridge), where there's room for growth.

Also, do my eyes deceive me? Are options C and E mostly at-grade?

[Bruce]

The options were from the 2014 pre-ballot analysis, and ultimately we're getting a mix of Options A and B, with elevated along 15th Avenue (cutting west to serve more of Interbay) and some sort of crossing.

There would have been little chance of Queen Anne upzoning the area around its station, even with pressure from the rest of the city. They are very, very stubborn about any kind of development, let alone the scale needed to support a subway station. It was just about what was convenient, as the Westlake corridor (between Mercer and the ship canal) has the population/job density to support rail, but not the topography.

[TEG24601]

I like the idea of an Aurora transit improvement, but unless it is grade separated (i.e. Elevated or subway), it better be at least 1 block west or east of the roadway.  I like the idea of a Monorail straddling 99, all the way up, then splitting to follow above the old Interurban ROW to Everett Mall (and maybe continuing all the way to downtown Everett.  There isn't anything to say that transit has to put all of its eggs in one modal basket.

[jakeroot]

There isn't anything to say that transit has to put all of its eggs in one modal basket.

As long as the benefit of the alternative doesn't outweigh the potential negatives. In terms of light rail vs monorail, this probably comes down to maintenance, versatility, etc. As long as Sound Transit is unwilling to construct open-gangway light rail vehicles because it harms versatility, they're probably not willing to invest in an entirely different technology. Never mind one that doesn't work on the current system.

As a comparison, Vancouver's Canada Line (SkyTrain) uses electric motors for power, rather than linear induction. As such, those trains will never work on the Expo or Millennium lines (and vice-versa). I don't know exactly why this decision was made, but I know the alignment of the Canada Line is such that extension would be unlikely to interfere with other lines, so it can use its own tech. Assuming the electric motor propulsion system was cheaper, this made the choice even easier to make.

I guess a rough comparison would be growing the monorail network north, under the Queen Anne Hill and towards Fremont, with extensions to UW or Ballard, or somewhere else. Its alignment wouldn't really require any non-stop transfers between those lines and the other Link lines, so it could use a different technology.

[Bruce]

The tunnel is now carrying 80K vehicles on some weekdays, which matches the average of the viaduct in its final years. Nowhere near the 100K+ before the start of the project in 2011.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/traffic-in-new-highway-99-tunnel-nearly-matches-last-years-viaduct-use/

[Bickendan]

Tolling to begin in late summer? Ok, time to plan my trip up to Seattle before then.

[jakeroot]

Tolling to begin in late summer? Ok, time to plan my trip up to Seattle before then.

You can pay by plate for $2 per use. No way to pay more than $4.25 (max charge is $2.25). Fluctuations in gas prices will probably have a bigger effect on your budget! It may actually be wise to wait a while, given current gas prices anyway.