Seattle Viaduct/Tunnel Transition Info. January, 2019. (condos, property taxes, parking)

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by Botev1912

If more people took the bus/light rail to Seattle in the morning, that wouldn't have been such a problem. Downtown streets are even more congested than the freeways because so many people drive to their jobs.

I usually take the bus 3-4 days a week, and already changes in the route to accommodate construction for light rail in the Rainier Ave area have added 10 minutes to the afternoon trip. This tunnel transition is likely to add another 20-30 minutes since the buses will be mixed up with the cars. Because I have a 20 minute walk from my office to the nearest bus stop, this makes driving even faster to get home than today even with the additional traffic. The buses to the eastside are pretty much standing room only already and cannot handle more passengers, though they are supposedly going to add some for this transition period.

[Beernik]

I’m really not looking forward to trying to get from the West Seattle Bridge to I-5 North for these 3 weeks.

[CharlesRamon]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

That's the problem, there are many and it will be split up, making all of them a mess:


1st Avenue
2nd Avenue
4th Ave S

Alaskan Way

I5 to I90
5th Ave to Dearborn to Rainier


I will take I90 and get off at 4th Ave S, go down to Westlake and then into my Belltown/waterfront office in the morning, probably not any problem at 5-6am.


Going home at 2-2:30 I will try the various routes, maybe even I5 North and pay the 520 toll bridge in the afternoons instead of using I90, if it turns out to be faster. I live between Redmond and Issaquah so either bridge works.

Thanks! That’s very helpful. I don’t use the tunnel so I don’t know what other routes people would take.

[ndcairngorm]

Don't quite understand, even after reading all the posts. Is the new tunnel to REPLACE the old viaduct, or will it be an alternative to it? Will the old road along the water still be there or is that where the tunnel is going to be? I'm a bit north of Seattle so am not too familiar with all the downtown roads.

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by ndcairngorm

Don't quite understand, even after reading all the posts. Is the new tunnel to REPLACE the old viaduct, or will it be an alternative to it? Will the old road along the water still be there or is that where the tunnel is going to be? I'm a bit north of Seattle so am not too familiar with all the downtown roads.

The new tunnel replaces the viaduct which will be taken down in 2019-20. The biggest problem is the tunnel has no exits, get on by the stadiums, and you cannot get off until S Lake Union. Yes, Alaskan Way along the waterfront will be open, but with the ferry terminal and the waterfront renovation project it will be a slow way to go for several years, and then still slow with a lot of signal lights, and pedestrians crossing, especially in summer.

[ndcairngorm]

So it sounds like the whole idea was to get the waterfront more accessible to people, not cars, and to route the cars quickly through the downtown area. People who want to drive through the area will probably suffer until they find a better route to take.

But it's not a bad thing to open the waterfront area to people, is it? We did all that "put the freeway by the water" in such places as Seattle, Boston, and a few other cities that had nice waterfronts and ruined them for people. Most of them have done the same thing as Seattle is now doing. I hope it works out well.

[Beernik]

I think it will be good for the city. But it’s going to make traffic on I-5 from the West Seattle Bridge to Northgate a lot worse. I’ll probably end up paying the toll on the new tunnel because of it.

[Jiff]

Removing the viaduct doesn't make the waterfront more accessible. You just walked under it. Now there'll be a traffic choked boulevard with a wider footprint than the viaduct, reducing space for parking and a park.

The viaduct blocks almost no views from public places, and provided excellent views for those driving it. Viaduct noise could have been dealt with a lowered speed limit and sound deadening materials. The new boulevard-tunnel scenario will make congestion worse than the viaduct scenario.

[pnwguy2]

Originally Posted by Jiff

Removing the viaduct doesn't make the waterfront more accessible. You just walked under it. Now there'll be a traffic choked boulevard with a wider footprint than the viaduct, reducing space for parking and a park.

The viaduct blocks almost no views from public places, and provided excellent views for those driving it. Viaduct noise could have been dealt with a lowered speed limit and sound deadening materials. The new boulevard-tunnel scenario will make congestion worse than the viaduct scenario.

A lowered speed limit on 99 Alaskan Viaduct would never have worked.

Yes, I have said the new tunnel will not reduce congestion. However, it will offer an alternative route through downtown if you are willing to pay the toll.

The Viaduct destruction won't offer a tremendous new view, except for perhaps those on the bottom rung of buildings just east. They are not many, however.

The new street is not a "thru" street. It will be constructed as a "tourist street", with plenty of turn lanes and collector lanes to parking lots. This whole project is about replacing the earthquake-risk viaduct with a tourist road. The tunnel makes it acceptable to some extent.

[CharlesRamon]

It doesn’t seem like the purpose of this is to divert traffic through the tunnel and onto the streets but to discourage driving through Downtown altogether and driving in general, and of course to make a lot of money for the people involved in the project.