News
SDOT Director Addresses Conflicting Tunnel Claims
PubliCola talked to city transportation department director Peter Hahn this afternoon about conflicting claims over the impact the surface/transit alternative would have on traffic downtown. A report issued earlier this week by city consultant Nelson/Nygaard concluded that the tunnel would result in slightly higher traffic on city streets downtown---around 158,000 cars, compared to around 155,000 with the surface/transit option, and that that gap would narrow over time. By 2030, the report concludes, the tunnel would result in about 169,000 cars downtown, compared to around 167,000 with the surface/transit alternative.
However, the pro-tunnel campaign, Let's Move Forward, countered that Nelson/Nygaard also concluded that the surface/transit option would dump twice as many cars on city streets as the tunnel alternative. Yesterday, the group issued a scathing press release titled "Mayor's Consultant: Surface Street Option Equals Gridlock."
Why the discrepancy? Hahn says the confusion resulted from somewhat misleading comments made by Nelson/Nygaard consultant Tim Payne to the city council in January. At a council committee meeting, Payne told council members that the total number of cars diverted onto city streets would be twice as large---100,000---under the surface/transit option as under the tunnel option, which would divert just 50,000 cars onto city streets.
The problem, Hahn explained this afternoon, is that the "double the diversion" number fails to take into account the other improvements the surface option includes, including $363 million in new transit investment, an extra lane on I-5, and improvements to surface streets downtown. Once all those are taken into account, the total number of cars on downtown city streets is actually lower under the surface alternative, because many of those trips are absorbed by transit, I-5, and other alternatives to driving on downtown streets alone.The ultimate difference? About 3,000 cars a day more under the tolled tunnel alternative.
"You don't have to be a math genius to figure out that [a 3,000-car difference] is nothing like twice the traffic," Hahn said.
As for emails in which Hahn appeared to be concerned that Payne's analysis made the surface option look bad, Hahn said, "I told Tim, 'You've got to explain that better. Someone could easily reach the wrong conclusion. And, in fact, they did."
However, the pro-tunnel campaign, Let's Move Forward, countered that Nelson/Nygaard also concluded that the surface/transit option would dump twice as many cars on city streets as the tunnel alternative. Yesterday, the group issued a scathing press release titled "Mayor's Consultant: Surface Street Option Equals Gridlock."
Why the discrepancy? Hahn says the confusion resulted from somewhat misleading comments made by Nelson/Nygaard consultant Tim Payne to the city council in January. At a council committee meeting, Payne told council members that the total number of cars diverted onto city streets would be twice as large---100,000---under the surface/transit option as under the tunnel option, which would divert just 50,000 cars onto city streets.
The problem, Hahn explained this afternoon, is that the "double the diversion" number fails to take into account the other improvements the surface option includes, including $363 million in new transit investment, an extra lane on I-5, and improvements to surface streets downtown. Once all those are taken into account, the total number of cars on downtown city streets is actually lower under the surface alternative, because many of those trips are absorbed by transit, I-5, and other alternatives to driving on downtown streets alone.The ultimate difference? About 3,000 cars a day more under the tolled tunnel alternative.
"You don't have to be a math genius to figure out that [a 3,000-car difference] is nothing like twice the traffic," Hahn said.
As for emails in which Hahn appeared to be concerned that Payne's analysis made the surface option look bad, Hahn said, "I told Tim, 'You've got to explain that better. Someone could easily reach the wrong conclusion. And, in fact, they did."
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
