Don't let these cars end up on downtown surface streets.

I’m very pleased to see that my post about the future of Highway 99 through downtown Seattle (tunnel vs. surface streets) has engendered so much interesting debate and commentary.

While recent events have toned down the civic debate about the tunnel – mayoral candidate Mike McGinn conceded he won’t try to block it if elected, while his opponent, Joe Mallahan, has supported the tunnel all along — it’s still not yet a resolved issue.  And I have become ever more convinced that if no tunnel were dug that the virtual elimination of this important highway corridor through our city would be disastrous.

My two main areas of greatest concern relate to economic vitality and the street-level environment.

Historically and globally speaking, all major economic powerhouses are located at key crossroads or transportation convergence points, be they waterways, railroads, highways or a combination.  Seattle is a textbook example of this phenomenon.  No one can deny that the roots of Seattle’s historic economic success story lie in its pivotal location.  Whether going back to 1851 when the founders realized that Elliott Bay was a potentially new “New York Harbor” for the West Coast, or returning to 2009 with Seattle as the midpoint of a north-south, over 100-mile-long metropolitan area, our city’s location has been a preeminent determinant in making it the center of one of the most prosperous and economically viable metropolitan areas in the country.

In short, transportation is a key attribute to any economically viable region, yet our region’s traffic congestion has begun to hinder our economic viability.  Seattle-area traffic congestion ranked ninth worst in the nation last year, while we ranked only 15th in population.  Freight mobility has become a key issue for the region’s industrial sector..

Let’s face it.  No one has a crystal ball here – neither the dyed-in-the-wool surface-streets supporters, nor the diehard tunnel supporters.  Those in favor a streets-only solution believe that the consequent reduced capacity and increased congestion will somehow naturally regulate the traffic flow, weeding out that percentage of current motorists who could switch to transit and/or choose alternative routes or times.  Those of us in favor of the tunnel worry that the resulting traffic congestion and increased travel times may severely hamper our economic vitality.  The questions that occur to me as I contemplate the notion of severing one of our region’s transportation lifelines at the downtown Seattle choke point are the following:

·  If surface-street traffic congestion were to reach day-long gridlock conditions, as I fear, what ultimate effect would that have on freight mobility and the general movement of goods and services that serve our economic vitality?

·  In the face of a future of endless gridlock along the erstwhile Highway 99 corridor, would businesses related to the Port of Seattle and downtown Seattle locations, especially, seek other locations to base and/or conduct their business?  Would they accelerate the tide of industrial business loss from Seattle to the suburbs?

·  Would we gain the dubious distinction of becoming one the top-five worst metros for regional traffic congestion?

As an economic development professional, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve fielded inquiries from folks about the region’s infamous traffic congestion, so I can’t even imagine the perception we’d receive with even worse traffic.

And lastly, even if the city’s or region’s economic vitality would not be at any peril, the urban designer in me shivers at the potential future of downtown’s pedestrian environment with the majority of Highway 99’s vehicle traffic dumped onto our surface streets.  Today, especially in the p.m. peak hour(s), First, Fourth and Fifth avenues are at virtual gridlock.  And some of the steep side streets (especially where the larger office buildings are located) are even worse. It’s not uncommon to see vehicles wait through several full traffic-light cycles before advancing through a single intersection. Does anyone really think these streets can handle the majority of the existing Highway 99 traffic volumes?

I do not profess to know of all of the potential “enhancements” contemplated to accommodate this additional vehicle traffic, but the list may include the following: elimination of parking lanes, greater use of left (and even right) turn prohibitions, reduction in general-purpose lanes, and even, as Mayor Giuliani did in New York, prohibition of pedestrian crossings at key right-turn locations for vehicle traffic.

Even if these “enhancements” could somehow accommodate Highway 99’s traffic, my greatest fear would be the impact to pedestrians, including valuable shoppers, visitors and tourists!

Without curbside parking, pedestrians would no longer be “sheltered” from the impacts of passing vehicles (fumes, noise, splashing, even wind and vibration from larger trucks and buses). With multihour-long gridlock conditions, the cacophony of horns, screeching brakes, together with the fumes and odors of idling vehicles (especially diesel vehicles), would sharply sour the pedestrian’s street-side experience.  Pedestrian street crossing could be hampered.  Increased pedestrian-vehicle and pedestrian-bicycle collisions could ensue.  In summary, I’m quite worried that downtown Seattle would increasingly be shunned by any discretionary visitors (shoppers, tourists, day trippers), losing both its charm, character and economic vitality.

The tunnel opponents don’t want increased traffic on our streets either. But they are willing to risk the potential traffic and pedestrian impacts that I and others fear as a hedge against their greater fear of the tunnel’s cost and potential cost overruns.

We tunnel supporters, fully recognizing that the current proposal is not perfect, fear the impacts to our environment and our economy more than we fear the cost and potential cost overruns.  In fact, I would posit that the potential, permanent adverse economic impacts related to lost business if we do not build a tunnel would more than outstrip the one-time costs of the tunnel.

I just posted about a phenomenon called job blackmail on Sightline’s Daily Score. Job blackmail happens when businesses threaten to leave the state or city because of environmental legislation. But megaprojects like the waterfront tunnel replacement for the viaduct also become the focus of what could be called megaproject blackmail. The blackmail machine was humming along the other day when Port of Seattle Commissioner Bill Bryant said that a s

Build more highway capacity? Not when our policies might finally be catching up to our rhetoric about saving the planet.

urface option without a tunnel would be “municipal suicide.” Wow. Fail to build the tunnel and Seattle will die.

So now Patrick Doherty, right here on SeattleScape, has offered yet another arm-waving warning that borders on what could be called “throughput blackmail.” If you don’t build the tunnel we’ll have to build another freeway somewhere else to handle all the traffic. Things will be even worse for climate change and there will be even more cars. Don’t build the tunnel and we’ll be destroying the environment. We’ll have to build even more highways. He writes:

If north-south circulation through the metro area is even further complicated by the removal of one of the region’s vital north-south highways, the I-605 promoters would essentially be offered more fuel for their fire. Constant gridlock on I-5 and the downtown Seattle streets, coupled with the congestion already on I-405, could lead to a ready-made argument in favor of efforts to pursue an I-605.

First of all, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and gasoline consumption are down, a fact that defies classic transporation planning. Part of this is attributable to last year’s wild increases in gasoline prices but it is also because people are making different choices that result in less driving. And gasoline prices are still volatile, causing people to get off the fossil-fuel rollercoaster.

Second, Doherty is comparing apples to oranges. Traffic volumes on the viaduct are nowhere near what they are on highways like I-5 and I-405. Those are interstate highways while the viaduct is a state highway. Why would we build a new high-capacity interstate freeway to deal with whatever capacity issues are created by a surface option? And remember, whatever problems with capacity that are created by a surface option are only periodic in nature, not constant.

Finally, our policies might finally be catching up to our high-flying rhetoric about saving the planet and being responsible stewards of our resources. If Mike McGinn is elected mayor of Seattle, for example, there is really a chance that the tail will stop wagging the dog. Like Portland and Seattle in the past, we might just resist the urge to spend billions of dollars on a new highway — one that has no exits downtown for all this throughput that Doherty is concerned about. And if Doherty is right about stoking the fires of I-605 there is no reason to believe we won’t be able to resist that too.

Want to comment on a blog post? You can now! Thanks to those who let us know the site wasn’t working properly.

Replacing the viaduct with the surface-and-transit option could stall traffic downtown and encourage highway construction elsewhere.

The current mayoral race has placed the viaduct-replacement issue squarely back into the public limelight after most of us thought the issue had been put to bed, what with the governor’s and Legislature’s approval of the deep-bore tunnel option, as well as the accompanying funding commitments.

Both mayoral candidates have raised the issue of the viaduct replacement, with one issuing renewed and strident calls to reconsider the surface-and-transit option.

While the surface-and-transit option seems to be readily embraced by the nominally environmentally conscious activists, I’ve been wondering recently if their concerns may not be both overly simplistic and somewhat shortsighted, as well as possibly self-defeating.

We have heard and read much discussion in the media about the relative validity of arguments on both sides of the issue of whether the throughput of the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct can reasonably be reduced and/or otherwise accommodated by surface streets.  Activists promote the notion that greater and more attractive transit options will remove a certain amount of the vehicle traffic, leaving the remainder to be accommodated by an enhanced network of the existing surface streets.  Detractors protest that most of the throughput traffic is not transit-compatible and that diverting a huge volume of additional traffic onto the surface streets will create gridlock all day long on virtually all downtown Seattle streets.  These issues have been volleyed back and forth in the public debate ad nauseam, but there’s one additional concern that I have been discussing lately that I have not yet seen much coverage on.

Sharing the concern that simply cutting off one of our region’s major north-south highways will reduce downtown Seattle’s streets to a virtual standstill during most daylight hours, I wonder what impact the sharply exacerbated choke point of downtown Seattle within the Puget Sound area’s north-south regional transportation corridor would have on the pressure to consider future road-building in suburbia and exurbia?

You may remember that every few years pro-development forces on the Eastside raise the issue of the “Foothills Freeway,” or I-605, that would consist of a more distant loop around the easternmost edge of our metropolitan area.  If north-south circulation through the metro area is even further complicated by the removal of one of the region’s vital north-south highways, the I-605 promoters would essentially be offered more fuel for their fire.  Constant gridlock on I-5 and the downtown Seattle streets, coupled with the congestion already on I-405, could lead to a ready-made argument in favor of efforts to pursue an I-605.

And we need to ask: Even if some magical combination of street improvements and synchronized traffic signals could accommodate the existing Highway 99 flow through downtown (which I do not believe is possible), what about future growth?  Do the streets-and-transit promoters think the region will stop growing?

Now, in addition to the already oft-mentioned litany of environmental impacts from potentially gridlocked downtown Seattle streets (i.e., substantially increased vehicle idling and resulting air pollution, increased noise, and a markedly diminished pedestrian environment), we could add the potential consequence that the loss of the Highway 99 corridor through downtown Seattle could lead to the development of I-605.  Any environmentally conscious individual knows that the construction of a major new freeway in any metropolitan area literally paves the way to urbanization in its path.  Is that what we want virtually on the slopes of the Cascades?

Mayor Nickels, Gov. Gregoire and the state Legislature all recognized, and thankfully so, that the viaduct should not be replaced with a new modern-age monstrosity along our waterfront.  They also recognized that the vital transportation corridor that Highway 99 plays not only in Seattle, but in our entire region,  must be preserved.  The tunnel was and is the only option that accomplishes both noble objectives.  Environmental activists need to look beyond their Seattle-centric view of the world and see that Highway 99 is not just a Seattle problem, but a regionwide problem.  And the potential, long-term environmental impacts of the streets-and-transit option are far greater than the theoretical, short-term reduction of vehicle trips that that option is purported to create.

Drivers do a better job sharing the road with cyclists than they used to, but there's room for improvement.

It’s impressive how far we’ve come. Bike trails and bike lanes cross the metro. New lanes have been painted on important routes, particularly inside Seattle.  Drivers are more polite, not only skipping the shouted complaints of the ’80s, but often carefully waiting for bicyclists to pass before turning right. There’s plenty left to do, but still.

I took today off work and went for a ride, enjoying the scenery, the infrastructure (isn’t that an emotive word?), the unusual number of friendly nods from other bicyclists (a weekday thing?), and the clouds and trees that kept things comfortable, at least for the first couple hours before it got hot. A great day.

Except there was an incident at the Fremont Bridge. Probably good people forgetting to use good judgment.

As I headed over the bridge around lunchtime, 90 percent of the bike/pedestrian path was blocked by a City pickup and a pizza delivery car (delivering to the operator’s tower) parked side-by-side, leaving just enough room for a bike to edge through along the curb, and hopefully not fall into traffic in the process. The two drivers and presumably the operator were all outside. I yelled at them, they clearly saw the error, the pickup was moved immediately… and here we are.

How often does this happen?  If it’s more than ”never again,” something has to change. It may be too much to expect safe parking by the Domino’s driver. But the City staff… do they really think delivery drivers all think about public access or safety? The solution is that nobody should park on the bridge except City staff that will do it right. As for lunch, if Fremont is too far and nobody will deliver on foot, brown-bag it.

This isn’t the worst incident I’ve had on a drawbridge. About 15 years ago, the Ballard Bridge started to go up while I was walking across. Ever since then I’ve always looked for handholds, just in case.

Today is a good reminder that our City’s well-meaning plans and people who are generally good public servants aren’t enough. Infrastructure isn’t enough. You also have to look at practices, including how the bridge operator gets lunch.

It was interesting to watch. On June 18 at the Central Library, civic leaders Gordon Price of Vancouver and Peter Steinbrueck of Seattle debated the merits of the two cities’ built environments, each arguing as mandated for the other’s city. CR Douglas, possibly the smartest person on Seattle TV, moderated. There was good audience Q&A at the end. You can follow what happened here, including a parallel event in Vancouver on June 16.

It’s not easy being Seattle! Rather than being compared with North American cities in general, where frankly the bar isn’t very high in our size range, we’re constantly getting compared with Vancouver, Portland, and San Francisco, each of which has plenty to be jealous of from an urbanist perspective, whether density (Vancouver and SF), narrow walkable streets (all), cultural diversity (SF and Vancouver), rail transit systems (all), or long history of smart planning decisions (all). Why can’t we go up against Houston?!

Price said lots of nice things about Seattle, noting that our topography helps give our neighborhoods identities, our waterfronts still have function rather than just looking pretty, and we have a strong cadre of rich donors to support civic causes. But as Steinbrueck correctly pointed out, few of those were about HOW we’ve built our city, particularly how we did it until recent years.

Steinbrueck has long used Vancouver as an example of how downtowns can attract families via measures such as inclusionary zoning, but he had a serious misconception and was corrected by Price. Steinbrueck claimed that Vancouver requires family-sized homes in new downtown highrises. Price corrected this, noting that only two megaprojects have this requirement, and the family-sized units are far too expensive for most families. (Edit: the negotiated zoning system does result in a lot of two-bedroom units.) Price noted that one reason for the large number of kids in downtown Vancouver is that many have moved from Hong Kong, where it is common for a family to live in a small apartment, and that these families tend to move out of Downtown when their incomes grow enough. In a different context, he also pointed out that the West End, which was mostly developed decades ago, is now a middle-low income area, which I suspect is related to the number of kids living there, along with the fact many of its streets are quiet and residential-only.

My opinion is that having more kids in Greater Downtown Seattle would be a good thing, but it’s not necessary for a fantastic downtown, and there’s no reason to mandate new family size units in new buildings, which has been discussed locally. We already mandate retail that the market doesn’t need, which is often vacant or rents at a loss. Rather than foisting these costs on the occupants of new buildings, why shouldn’t ALL of us pay to address civic problems? I suggest inclusionary zoning is based in part on cowardice by leaders who would rather ask a tiny number of people to pay, rather than ask the whole electorate.

Ah, retail. That didn’t come up. Vancouver has fantastic retail streets, including some in the West End. Why? Not just because their neighborhoods are denser, but because they concentrate retail on fewer streets. My own neighborhood of Belltown is the poster child of spreading retail to every avenue, meaning it’s far too diluted for a critical mass on any one avenue.

About Steinbrueck’s point that replicating Vancouver’s success will take Seattle a few decades, and that this gives us license to slow down … I don’t know what to think. On one hand he’s right that some development is poorly done. But adding process (at least temporarily) and construction costs (permanently, depending on the new requirements) has two side effects: the city becomes more expensive to live in, and development goes where it’s easier and cheaper, adding to sprawl. We can sacrifice the good in pursuit of the great. Still, I can’t argue for the worst examples of six-pack townhouses that wall themselves from the street and face interior driveway courtyards. Below-grade parking will add cost but perhaps it’s worth it.

There was a vote by applause at the end, which CR declared a win for Price’s defense of Seattle. (Steinbrueck won the Vancouver vote.) I wasn’t clear whether to vote for the city or the guy, or whether to vote for my city or the denser one, and clapped for both.

Early this year I wrote a post based on a quote from John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of the last century. Keynes had an idea about filling a hole with bottles filled with money, covering the hole over with dirt and then selling permits to dig out the bottles. His argument was that during an economic downturn the best thing was to spend, even if the spending seemed to contradict common sense.

Last week I wrote about the falling rate of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the United States and the Northwest. The post goes into a bit of detail about the numbers and asks the question, “Why invest huge dollars in capital infrastructure for new ways to carry cars?”

It’s far from certain what the downturn in VMT means. Part of it is attributable to last year’s price spike in oil and gas prices. But when you look at gasoline consumption (down), VMT (down) and car sales (down) you can’t help but wonder why we’re digging a big hole along the waterfront and filling it with cars. Does a tunnel that will cost billions of dollars still make sense?

Could the possibility that we are significantly changing our driving habits make Keynes’ idea more attractive?

Do what you say you’ll do. Whatever your business, there’s a good starting point for success. I’ve had two stark lessons in this as a retail customer recently.

In both cases, the businesses are large, respected Downtown establishments I want to support and have been loyal to for many years. In both cases, their failure to meet promises means they’ll lose my business.

What an excellent parallel for those of us in the A/E/C/RE world. Do your customers care about your basic integrity and follow-through as much as your skills?

The first was a new bed. The sales guy said eight weeks. With no word at 10 weeks, the rep said 12. With no word at 14 weeks, the rep said “it’s almost in the warehouse.” With no word at 18 weeks, it was “in the warehouse” but couldn’t be delivered the following weekend. Guessing it wasn’t really “in the warehouse,” I cancelled. Three weeks later they called and asked why I wasn’t home to take delivery, as if this had been scheduled. At that point, I still wanted the bed and could have taken delivery that very day. But after 22 weeks (incompetence? honest error? lies? poorly-managed supply chain? all of the above? who cares), I didn’t act in my own interest. Instead I punished the store by reiterating my cancellation. 

The second was my longtime barber. He’s always done a good job, with excellent service. But four straight times the wait was 20-30 minutes after the appointment. On the last occasion I didn’t say anything, but apparently the ice was obvious, because afterward the cashier cut the price in half. It’s admirable that he acknowledged the error. But the gesture was way too little and too late.  My decision not to go back was made in the waiting room. More importantly, once the impression exists that someone isn’t reliable, that impression sticks. 

At your business, you might assume loyal customers will give you the benefit of the doubt when you screw up. That’s probably true at first in many cases, due to the strength of your relationships, the customers’ inertia, and their human aversion to starting an argument. But eventually it works against you. A loyal customer expects service in return, and can take it personally and deeply when you don’t live up.

Much of it is about being honest when setting expectations. For the barber it might mean more time between appointments. For the bed seller, a realistic due date would have been a start, and a correction would have helped if a shipping error had been made.

In the A/E/C/RE world, that means living up to what you’re selling. Are you?

I have accepted a research associate position with the Sightline Institute. This is a wonderful opportunity for me and was made possible, in part, by writing here on SeattleScape and for the DJC’s opinion page for the past year.

It has been an amazing year for anyone watching the economy, and interested in housing, development and future growth in Seattle. I have written a fair amount here about the way we define and measure key aspects of growth in Seattle.

Time for a new dream?

The fundamental battle lines on growth were drawn 20 years ago with the passage of the Growth Management Act and the City of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan. The decision then was to avoid sprawl by putting growth in cities, and more specifically in urban villages. Some resisted this planning effort as social engineering aimed at foisting a social agenda on single family neighborhoods.

Others argued that in order to limit and prevent further environmental degradation, enhance mass transit options and support a more sustainable approach to infrastructure, concentrating growth in the cities would be essential.

Does this sound familiar? Today we are taking a piecemeal approach to growth, arguing lot by lot, parcel by parcel, and neighborhood by neighborhood. When will we finally get on with what we decided to do 20 years ago?

More than 60 percent of Seattle is still zoned single family. And any project that increases density, even when supported by underlying zoning, faces a gauntlet.

Strolling Seattle by serakatie

Increasingly, the debate has been cast as a class conflict pitting growth management against the sacredness of the single family home, which for decades has been the organizing economic principle in America and the Northwest.

This year’s election provides the city with a huge opportunity to consciously settle this question. Will candidates for city office embrace the practices we know will reduce climate change, improve the health of the Puget Sound and support less use of the automobile? Compact communities that are safe to walk in with public open space and easy access to transit are what we must have.

The most important question for the candidates is “how will you get us there?” The question for Seattlites is “are we willing to go?”

The Architecture Billings Index was up two points in February after a slight dip in January. But billings were down slightly in the West, still the country’s strongest region.

Break out the graphite?

The index is compiled by the American Institute of Architects, based on a monthly survey of firms across the country. A score above 50 means billings were up over the previous month; below 50 means they were down.

The American Institute of Architects February index was 35.3, up from the 33.3 mark in January. Reported billings were again worst in the Northeast, with 32.3, and best in the West, with 36.4. But those western billings were down from the 38.3 reported last month. The new projects inquiry score was 49.5.

AIA Chief Economist Kermit Baker said in a statement that there will likely be light demand for construction projects through much of 2009. He said the small uptick provides hope that some stalled projects will move forward in the near future.