Comments on: Embarcadero Freeway != Alaskan Way Viaduct

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:56:24 +0000

I agree with Andrew on this one. There are other examples of freeways that were torn town without the predicted traffic nightmares ever coming to fruition. But the Embarcadero is special because it really is almost identical to the AWV.

By: Alexjon

Alexjon — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:44:10 +0000

The Embarcadero took a larger state road and pared it down as a localized bypass to get beyond downtown. It has its analog in the elevated portion (compare with AWV), high capacity avenue (compare with Aurora) and links to the state road system (compare 101 with SR99). It also included a link to I-80, similar to the southend links to 90/5. Traffic volume was similar as well, 100k+ a day.

The “bypass” argument falls flat, especially considering the lack of priority people give it. It’s sufficient if used to keep the AWV up through downtown for the 2-5min savings, but if we promoted an actual bypass in the form of a bridge or tunnel from West Seattle to Magnolia (doable, easily, and not all that expensive, considering), people would scream and whine about it.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:22:41 +0000

Not only was the embarcadero a bypass – it was meant to take people from north of the city to the bay bridge without routing them downtown- it connected to marina and bay street.

Any attempt that can be made to break the comparison is misguided. You can come up with a thousand reasons why the viaduct is special but you’re wrong on each one.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:18:41 +0000

How is an on-ramp to the bay bridge – which takes cars out of the city – not a bypass?

You don’t make a lot of sense.