Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel

[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

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.

California would be the perfect place for this new concrete.  Even the largest San Andreas quakes fall below the 9.0 threshold.  I still have memories of the collapsed section of SR 14 just north of I-5 from the 1971 quake.  A CHP officer died from that. 

Just north of the McCullough Bridge here is one called the Haynes Inlet Bridge.  It has a 200 year lifespan and no need for maintenance.  I have no idea what was done to make such a durable bridge but if one wanted to place bridges in areas exposed to maritime air, this would be a design to copy. 

Rick

[Bickendan]

Uh, wasn't the officer killed from the 94 Northridge quake?

[nexus73]

Uh, wasn't the officer killed from the 94 Northridge quake?

Maybe there was one in '94 but I do remember a CHP death from 1971. 

Rick

[jakeroot]

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.

You seem to be implying that the roadway is absorbing trips that were not occurring before. How can anyone be sure of this? How do we know the new drivers weren't previously taking another mode of transport?

what makes car travel special that this argument applies selectively to it?

To be fair, it highly depends on the area in which the discussion is occurring. Any mode of transport will fill up if there's enough demand for it (there is "induced demand" for all modes of transportation, technically), but its really up to the cities to decide what mode of transport they want to create demand for. Places like Seattle have begun focusing on buses and light rail instead of road, because they'd rather create demand for that mode of transport. Why? Various reasons, the biggest usually being the high cost of road improvements relative to how much capacity would be needed for everyone to own and drive a car (efficiently). That's not the case in every city, especially in those with low land costs.

There are other issues, too: driving is a fairly dangerous activity, particularly when someone is 'under the influence' of a narcotic (often the case in cities, when out late). The WMATA metro has somehow proven that you can be killed riding the subway, but public transit is overall much safer.

EDIT: to answer your question more directly, I think "induced demand" is often correlated with roads and vehicles, because those who tout widening and freeway expansion often cite "congestion relief" as a reason for the widening, despite the fact that congestion relief, in and of itself, rarely occurs, at least not long term. The same thing occurs on trains and buses, of course (those relief buses will eventually fill up), but then the cost factors come into play, which I addressed above.

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.

There's a high cost in "checking all the boxes". Cities and states that somehow have the money to invest in both mega-huge transit networks and roadway capacity improvements are certainly hard to come by, if they exist at all. Given that most places don't have the luxury to let people decide between 70mph freeways and 70mph trains, they have to invest where they think they'll get their money's worth. In dense places with expensive land, you're probably going to see more transit. Not necessarily super-fast transit, but certainly more of it than new lanes. In areas with cheap land and low density, you'll probably see more road widening projects. Of course, these situations can occur within the same metro area, but both will be the result of long-term budgetary decisions.

I would like to point out that light rail and metro trains can typically achieve their top speeds 24/7, unlike roads, which can be affected by an insane number of factors, not to mention, the drivers themselves!

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...

I would say that Google has largely taken the place of wandering around looking for something, but I would agree that tract housing is not exactly making wandering easier, should someone want to do that (which they should, IMO, as its part of what makes the city a wonderful place).

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

You seem to be implying that the roadway is absorbing trips that were not occurring before. How can anyone be sure of this? How do we know the new drivers weren't previously taking another mode of transport?

what makes car travel special that this argument applies selectively to it?

To be fair, it highly depends on the area in which the discussion is occurring. Any mode of transport will fill up if there's enough demand for it, but its really up to the cities to decide what mode of transport they want to create demand for. Places like Seattle have begun focusing on buses and light rail instead of road, because they'd rather create demand for that mode of transport. Why? Various reasons, the biggest usually being the high cost of road improvements relative to how much capacity would be needed for everyone to own and drive a car (efficiently). That's not the case in every city, especially in those with low land costs.

There are other issues, too: driving is a fairly dangerous activity, particularly when someone is 'under the influence' of a narcotic (often the case in cities, when out late). The WMATA metro has somehow proven that you can be killed riding the subway, but public transit is overall much safer.

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.

There's a high cost in "checking all the boxes". Cities and states that somehow have the money to invest in both mega-huge transit networks and roadway capacity improvements are certainly hard to come by, if they exist at all. Given that most places don't have the luxury to let people decide between 70mph freeways and 70mph trains, they have to invest where they think they'll get their money's worth. In dense places with expensive land, you're probably going to see more transit. Not necessarily super-fast transit, but certainly more of it than new lanes. In areas with cheap land and low density, you'll probably see more road widening projects. Of course, these situations can occur within the same metro area, but both will be the result of long-term budgetary decisions.

I would like to point out that light rail and metro trains can typically achieve their top speeds 24/7, unlike roads, which can be affected by an insane number of factors, not to mention, the drivers themselves!

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...

I would say that Google has largely taken the place of wandering around looking for something, but I would agree that tract housing is not exactly making wandering easier, should someone want to do that (which they should, IMO, as its part of what makes the city a wonderful place).

"You seem to be implying that the roadway is absorbing trips that were not occurring before. How can anyone be sure of this? How do we know the new drivers weren't previously taking another mode of transport?"

https://www.bts.gov/content/commute-mode-share-2015

I think this shows it is more likely the roadway is absorbing other existing drivers and NOT people switching from transit. If anyone does switch from transit: that is an example of good government providing options for people to make their decision.

[jakeroot]

(please consolidate your quote a bit...makes it easier to see what you're responding to)

"You seem to be implying that the roadway is absorbing trips that were not occurring before. How can anyone be sure of this? How do we know the new drivers weren't previously taking another mode of transport?"

https://www.bts.gov/content/commute-mode-share-2015

I think this shows it is more likely the roadway is absorbing other existing drivers and NOT people switching from transit. If anyone does switch from transit: that is an example of good government providing options for people to make their decision.

I don't know what you're trying to prove with that table. I do know those percentages vary substantially from city to city.

Seattle, which continues to invest heavily in transit, is (surprise, surprise) seeing massive increase in transit ridership...you could say they've "induced demand" for transit:

https://seattle.curbed.com/2018/2/28/17060470/seattle-transit-ridership-crowding-service

Though the entire city of Seattle is closer to 50% drive-alone rate, downtown Seattle is only 25% (due to the confluence of many transit networks in the area).

[Plutonic Panda]

That's the city. There is more traffic than just traffic originating in the city. Add up traffic counts from roads and freeways and it comes to a hefty amount. More than likely a new person using a road they didn't came from another road vs. another mode of transit.

[jakeroot]

That's the city. There is more traffic than just traffic originating in the city. Add up traffic counts from roads and freeways and it comes to a hefty amount. More than likely a new person using a road they didn't came from another road vs. another mode of transit.

Huh? That's data for everyone that works in Seattle, not lives in Seattle: https://commuteseattle.com/modesplit-2017/

[Plutonic Panda]

That's the city. There is more traffic than just traffic originating in the city. Add up traffic counts from roads and freeways and it comes to a hefty amount. More than likely a new person using a road they didn't came from another road vs. another mode of transit.

Huh? That's data for everyone that works in Seattle, not lives in Seattle: https://commuteseattle.com/modesplit-2017/

Traffic that uses a street includes more people than those that just work in a certain. That's what we're talking about. Why would we only measure people that work in a certain area to gauge the amount of traffic in that area?

[jakeroot]

That's the city. There is more traffic than just traffic originating in the city. Add up traffic counts from roads and freeways and it comes to a hefty amount. More than likely a new person using a road they didn't came from another road vs. another mode of transit.

Huh? That's data for everyone that works in Seattle, not lives in Seattle: https://commuteseattle.com/modesplit-2017/

Traffic that uses a street includes more people than those that just work in a certain. That's what we're talking about. Why would we only measure people that work in a certain area to gauge the amount of traffic in that area?

We don't study the movements of people who don't commute. They're not the one's putting a strain on our transport network. It's the day-in-day-out 9-5 commuters who push our networks to the max.

[nexus73]

We don't study the movements of people who don't commute. They're not the one's putting a strain on our transport network. It's the day-in-day-out 9-5 commuters who push our networks to the max.

It is in breaking the 9 to 5 up that traffic is allowed to flow.  During the 1984 Olympics, LA worked with those who employed large amounts of workers to spread out the demand.  It succeeded!  If only we could so such everywhere where peak demand can overwhelm the ground transportation networks.

Rick

[jakeroot]

We don't study the movements of people who don't commute. They're not the one's putting a strain on our transport network. It's the day-in-day-out 9-5 commuters who push our networks to the max.

It is in breaking the 9 to 5 up that traffic is allowed to flow.  During the 1984 Olympics, LA worked with those who employed large amounts of workers to spread out the demand.  It succeeded!  If only we could so such everywhere where peak demand can overwhelm the ground transportation networks.

I think there's a practical limit, in the sense that people generally sleep between 11-5. Plus, there's only so many options for staggered shifts amongst white-collar workers. There's also an HR issue if we require people to constantly change schedules to "be fair".

I think tele-commuting is probably the better option for reducing our network strains, but there's something to be said about in-person collaboration. Probably the reason you don't see too many staggered shifts. Better to have people working roughly the same hours so that company-to-company relations remain in good standing.

[mgk920]

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.

Also the fairly recent reroutes of I-40 in Oklahoma City, OK, I-30 in downtown Fort Worth, TX, I-190 in Providence, RI, etc.  They took threadbare, obsolete old freeways and made them light-years better.

Mike

[mgk920]

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:

I would have loved to have been around when this was first being built.

Columbia Street ramp

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

That is an interesting perspective.  When it was first built, that was likely regarded as a 'waste' view.

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).

Definitely making much more sense once all of the old stuff is out of the way.  Without checking that link, that shoulder is also available for use by 'breakdowns', correct?

Thanx for the images.



Mike

[jakeroot]

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.

Also the fairly recent reroutes of I-40 in Oklahoma City, OK, I-30 in downtown Fort Worth, TX, I-195 in Providence, RI, etc.  They took threadbare, obsolete old freeways and made them light-years better.

Ahh yes, indeed. I only got to see the original I-40 of those three, but man was I happy to see that thing go. What an eye-sore.

Of course, if these re-routed freeways require the expropriation of dozens or hundreds of homes, something more drastic than simply "moving" the freeway may be required.

Definitely making much more sense once all of the old stuff is out of the way.  Without checking that link, that shoulder is also available for use by 'breakdowns', correct?

I believe using the term "shoulder" to describe the lane is probably not a wise call on WSDOT's part. It really should be marked as a bus lane, since it probably would permit emergency stops as-is.

[nexus73]

If you have a genuine emergency, do whatever you must to in order to preserve life and limb.  After that you might have to explain yourself but at least you will be around to do so!

Rick

[jakeroot]

If you have a genuine emergency, do whatever you must to in order to preserve life and limb.  After that you might have to explain yourself but at least you will be around to do so!

Absolutely, though this is an off-ramp, which usually don't have large shoulders anyway (if there's one at all).

[Bruce]

The Columbia Street ramp is pretty much gone.

https://twitter.com/dongho_chang/status/1102418889944621058

[jakeroot]

That seems like it was quick! Though it has already been a few weeks since closure.

[ErmineNotyours]

Finally stopped by the demolition today for the first time since it started.



Part of the viaduct by the Pike Place Market is made up of steel support as it crosses the railroad tracks just north of the Great Northern Tunnel, so it appears they want to pick it up and off rather than trying to close off the railroad or put up some barrier between.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone know what has become of the Alaskan Way Viaduct's US 99 sign? I'd hate to see it reduced to scrap metal.

[silverback1065]

Does anyone know what has become of the Alaskan Way Viaduct's US 99 sign? I'd hate to see it reduced to scrap metal.

either the contractor has it, the DOT has it, or they trashed it. 

[Bruce]

The Marion Street Bridge, which connects to the ferry terminal, will close over the weekend while the viaduct section above is removed. A temporary shuttele bus will run from the terminal to 1st Avenue. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/library/advisories-and-updates/marion-street-pedestrian-bridge-will-close-march-30-31

[ErmineNotyours]

Does anyone know what has become of the Alaskan Way Viaduct's US 99 sign? I'd hate to see it reduced to scrap metal.

I think I read the contractor is keeping it in his office.

[Henry]

Even though I'm not a native, seeing the viaduct getting torn down is both a happy and sad time for me. Happy because that eyesore divided the waterfront from the rest of downtown, and sad because of its sentimental value to the very few who had to drive on it for their daily commutes.