Which city would you rather live in, bike in, work in, and vacation too?

Which city would you rather drive through?

Which is more important to you?

The New Viaduct

• 200 Million dollars more expensive option• 700 Million less dollars spent on I-5 expansion,

railcars, dedicated bus lanes, grid and freeway efficiency measures, bike paths and sidewalks.

• A large elevated structure blocking views, creating noise and overshadowing the waterfront.

• Strengthens our auto orientation. • Weakens our economy’s ability to support

commerce in the face of high cost energy.• Assumes what was good for us for the last 50

years will be good for us the next 50 years.

Surface Street/Transit Option

• 200 Million dollars less expensive• 700 Million more dollars spent on an I-5 expansion,

railcars, dedicated bus lanes, grid and freeway efficiency measures, bike paths and sidewalks.

• Reclaims the downtown waterfront from high speed auto traffic, new open spaces, enhances the aesthetic and noise appeal of the waterfront.

• Expands our transportation options • Strengthens our economy’s ability to support commerce

in the face of high cost energy.• Gain access to 100’s of millions of dollars of Land Value

which with redevelopment represent major tax revenue potential.

• Will create a new tourist attraction downtown

The most valuable Real Estate in all of Washington

• 80% of the northern prime waterfront is overshadowed by an elevated, noisy, freeway which primarily supports through traffic.

• Southern part of waterfront is dedicated to the port and industrial sector

• Downtown Seattle needs a connection to it’s waterfront

• Water is an asset the most popular cities around the world maximize.

• Recommendation: Remove the highway and keep the port

All for through Traffic

• Replacing the Viaduct is primarily an effort to support traffic passing through, not stopping, in downtown Seattle.

• Through traffic brings little social or economic benefit to Seattle.

• Despite public opinion, Ballard and other NW Seattle traffic heading downtown will be better served by the surface option than it will be by a viaduct that only has a King street exit.

• Traffic originating at the port should either head south on SR 99 or head north on I-5 via the I-90 interchange.

• Through traffic should take I-5 or I-405 not our waterfront

Surface/Transit: Better, but not Best

• 4 lane couplet is still a major division between downtown and the waterfront for pedestrians and bicycles.

• Major pedestrian overpasses and/or traffic calming techniques will be required.

• The less vehicles on Alaskan Way and the more transit, pedestrian, and bike access provided the greater the economic growth for Seattle.

• Consider strategies that make Alaskan way the slowest path available for driving through downtown Seattle.

• Consider strategies that make Alaskan way the fastest/safest way to bike through Seattle.

The Unseen Value –Increasing transit efficiency allows the

reclamation of surface parking lots and roads for higher social/economic purposes uses.

Examples from around the World

• Vancouver – No major highways transecting city center– Decreased urban sprawl– More transit use– High density, thriving city center

• San Francisco – Denied the permit’s for a waterfront state highway in the 50’s– Fisherman’s wharf has developed into a major attraction for tourists and

local residents

• Copenhagen – Shifted away from auto orientation in the 1950’s– Removed 6 downtown parking lots replacing them with public squares– Removed 1 lane in each direction from most downtown streets replacing

them with curb protected bike paths and wider sidewalks.– Re-timed streetlights making it faster to bike through than it is to drive

through downtown

For More Information or Discussion

Contact:

Greg Rock

Sustainability Engineer

gregrrock@gmail.com

(206) 979-1707

Energy Transitions Northwest