Where is everyone falling on the viaduct issue these days. General concensus in the Urban Studies, and I think Urban Planning, classes are in favor of the tunnel as a compromise between transportation needs and urban/pedestrian concerns-costs be damned. Lately there have been a lot of letters in the PI from people living in the suburbs and exurbs of western Washington arguing that this is not a Seattle only issue and that their voices should be heard and considered. Should we bury it, keep it raised or put the cars on surface streets? You all know the parameters of the discussion taking place so I won't bother defining the issue any further. I am sure this has been discussed at length before but I haven't seen anything recently and the debate is getting heated.

Tunnel, I think we need the capacity, that option is less than widening I5 even if it ain't cheap.

So I've been reading up a lot on the subject (kindof become a small obsession), and all I've really been able to settle on is that I feel very jerked around. There's been a real contentious debate between people who seem to want very similar things.

As far as the options go:

In all honesty, the tunnel is dead. Those who were voting against it before are most likely still unconvinced, and those who supported it have mostly jumped ship to the surface + transit option due to doubts about the safety and costs (whether those doubts are warranted or not is also contentiously debated, but they have definitely killed the tunnel's support).

One thing I've noticed is that no one is really gung ho for the elevated viaduct (even the people who support measure 2). They more view it as a necessary evil. They realize its pretty unattractive, but they feel it is more important to preserve capacity. They feel the tunnel is an unsafe luxury we can't afford, and that the surface+transit option is a hippie pipe dream or a yuppie property booster that will clog the city with traffic, keeping people from getting to their jobs and freight getting where it needs to go. So they are willing to live with the eyesore as long as it keeps the city working.

The surface+transit people counter with the idea that the city will still work without the viaduct, it will just work differently. They look at cities near by like Vancouver, Portland, and San Fran who have torn down or refused to build similar freeways, and who's traffic seems to be doing fine. They see it as a way to open up the waterfront for business, housing and people, and transform Seattle into the destination of the west.

Most of these differences arise from different interpretations of how 99 is and will be used.


How commuters use it:
Viaduct proponents say most people use it to get THRU the city and that getting rid of it will dump too much traffic onto I-5 and already overcrowded downtown streets.

Surface proponents on the other hand say most commuters use it to get TO downtown, that the city has much untapped capacity downtown, and that transit improvements will prevent extra traffic from clogging I-5.


How Freight uses it:
WSDOT says 99 is a major freight corridor and that getting rid of the viaduct will cripple Seattle industry by making freight trips too long and difficult.

Surface proponents say that the percentage of freight using the viaduct is very low compared to commuters, and that most freight goes down I-5 or I-90. Thus, removing the viaduct will have little to no impact on industry.


How pedestrians will use it:
WSDOT says a surface 99 will be like living next to a freeway, that it will be very unpleasant for people living, working, and walking near it.

S.P. of course say it will be a great place in the city to go, and that very simple design elements will make it very pedestrian friendly, with parks, bike lanes, shops, restaurants, and waterfront vistas for all.


Transit effectiveness:
WSDOT says that even with planned transit improvements, there will still be increasing traffic on the viaduct.

Surface proponents say that of course traffic will go down if more people start using transit.


Surface proponents imagine Seattle becoming like New York, where no one has or really needs a car, everyone walks or takes the bus/train, and everyone lives in or very close to downtown.

WSDOT pictures Seattle becoming like, well..., New York... With endless and very angry traffic, cars honking, no one in a car really gets anywhere, and pedestrians get run over left and right.


So which is it?

Tunnel, I realllllllly want to see the water front become something.

The surface+transit people counter with the idea that the city will still work without the viaduct, it will just work differently. They look at cities near by like Vancouver, Portland, and San Fran who have torn down or refused to build similar freeways, and who's traffic seems to be doing fine. They see it as a way to open up the waterfront for business, housing and people, and transform Seattle into the destination of the west.

This is the best argument in the whole debate, using real life examples as models to demonstrate that it can be done, wouldn't you say?

I don't know if that's a good example. Vancouver I don't know. San Francisco the freeway connected I80 and the 101 going to Marin county. Marin doesn't have that many commuters. Nothing like the kind of north south traffic you have on I5. Same with Portland.

Excellent summary, BoulderGrad, and I've heard many.

Oddly enough the advisory vote is key to the next move. IMHO, the key is the % of votes garnered by the rebuild. I'd predict it will get between 40-50%. If it comes back at 55%-60%, then its a matter of how hard people like Steinbrueck will be willing to push to stop it. Noth that it couldn't be stopped through litigation and enviro review, but the poltical pressure to get out of the way will be immense. There will be a fracture in the transit coalition and some will look at the viaduct rebuild as the price of poker if we have any chance of passing RTID/ST II this November. The die hards will assert that if we have a rebuild, they'll vote no on RTID/ST II, which might be the case and cause it to fail.

But...if the rebuild gets less than 50%, the mayor and council will have a mandate drive the State into some "third" way, be it a mediation, summit, etc Less than 40%, IMHO, would almost assure us of no rebuild... Once Frank Chopp realizes that further delay will hurt his coalition in the legislature, he'll opt for a reexamination of Surface+Transit, which will run into first place in terms of preferred options. At which point all the rebuild people who are hell bent on freight capacity will come aboard for some thru option for trucks, which would bring some kind of hybrid, maybe 4 lane tunnel into first place.

I don't know if that's a good example. Vancouver I don't know. San Francisco the freeway connected I80 and the 101 going to Marin county. Marin doesn't have that many commuters. Nothing like the kind of north south traffic you have on I5. Same with Portland.

Vancouver doesn't have any freeways running downtown, thank god for that. There were plans to build some back in the early 70's, but it was so heavily opposed by area residents and city council, likely after seeing Seattle as the model of post-freeway construction, that it never got off the ground.

This is the best argument in the whole debate, using real life examples as models to demonstrate that it can be done, wouldn't you say?

I don't know if that's a good example. Vancouver I don't know. San Francisco the freeway connected I80 and the 101 going to Marin county. Marin doesn't have that many commuters. Nothing like the kind of north south traffic you have on I5. Same with Portland.

To be fair to the pro viaduct people, portland and san fran do not have as strong a similarities as the surface people will have you believe. The Embarcadero and the portland waterfront freeway carried far fewer cars than the AWV (Embarcadero was the closest with something like 60,000 cars per day, compared to the AWV's 110,000).

BUT it does fit pretty well that the cities tore down freeways, and replaced them with surface streets with lower capacity, and had little to no adverse effect on traffic flow.

Vancouver is a good example because it has NO freeways to speak of. If a city can stay mobile with no freeways, I think that is the best real world example to cite.

I voted double no, which puts me in the surface-transit option. What that means exactly, I do not know, but anything is preferable than an elevated rebuild.

One question I haven't really seen much of an answer for with the surface or tunnel options is what they plan to do with the bit of the viaduct right after it comes out of the battery street tunnel.

I know if they chose elevated, they're probably just going to retrofit that same bit, but how do they get it underground or down to ground level? Are they just going to continue the battery street tunnel further? Is there going to be an intersection at Western Ave? Will they build mini bridges over top of it?

How many of you have sent in your ballots?

How many of you have sent in your ballots?

Double no sent in about two weeks ago. Strangest ballot I've ever voted on the way it was set-up with two questions.

^Yeah, the language was bizarre, but it felt better to vote against the rebuild than the tunnel.

I voted yes on tunnel and no on elevated highway. Recently, I wish that I could change my vote to say no to both to support surface/transit. Oh well... :ohno:

^At least you voted against the elevated rebuild. So long as more votes are cast against the rebuild, the better. The Governor, oh the Governor, I cannot seem to stop pointing my finger at her, but if the rebuild goes, it will put Seattle at a significant disadvantage, economically. Ten whole years of construction would hurt downtown. What a ridiculous situation to be in. I'm truly nerve wrecked at the possibility of a rebuild.

^^ Agreed. I really hope it won't get rebuild!

My feeling is, and I hope, that most Seattle voters will at least cast a no against the elevated and considering that the tunnel should no longer be considered, that a new 3rd way comes from all of this. A 3rd way could mean that we pursue the surface-transit option. It's almost Tuesday, so, I guess I'm getting a little nervous.

You're right! I didn't realized that deadline of election is soon! Let's keep ours fingers crossed that won't get rebuild!

98,000 votes counted so far.

Elevated Viaduct:
45% Yes
55% No

Tunnel Surface Hybrid (4 lane tunnel):
30% Yes
70% No

Sound defeat for both proposals, but a nice walloping for the tunnel. I still think most people who voted for the elevated viaduct would agree they see it more as a necessary evil to keep the city moving rather than the ideal solution.

^^ Wow... Elevated highway is almost tie. I hope it will fail.

98,000 votes counted so far.

Elevated Viaduct:
45% Yes
55% No

Tunnel Surface Hybrid (4 lane tunnel):
30% Yes
70% No

Sound defeat for both proposals, but a nice walloping for the tunnel. I still think most people who voted for the elevated viaduct would agree they see it more as a necessary evil to keep the city moving rather than the ideal solution.

Though I am from Seattle, I am pissed that people from outside of Seattle were not able to vote on this topic. This defines Seattle as a small city, very small.

^^ Well they would support for new elevated highway for sure. :ohno:

^^ Well they would support for new elevated highway for sure. :ohno:

Hmmm...not sure what you are talking about but I respect popular opinion. Send this city to hell!!!!!!!!

Hmmm...not sure what you are talking about but I respect popular opinion. Send this city to hell!!!!!!!!

I mean not many people who lives outside of downtown area would support tunnel or surface/transit because they wants to keep the views by having that elevated highway to get rebuilt. People who lives in the downtown are more likely to support tunnel or surface/transit. I went to Ballard last week ago and I seen many vehicles has banner that said "I <3 Vicduat" or "Go for rebuilt elevated" and "No on tunnel" I heard it from my friends who live in West Seattle and they seen these vehicle banners too. Obviously outside of downtown area doesn't support tunnel or surface/transit at all.

The winning option ... wasn't even on the ballot. After Mayor Nickels's tunnel netted a paltry 30 percent of the vote ... and the state's elevated highway option got barely 45 percent ..., the clear winner was the surface/transit option. (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=175202) Earlier in the evening, starting at around 7:00 p.m., an increasingly rowdy crowd that would eventually grow to 300 jammed into the stifling Alki meeting room at the Edgewater Hotel anxiously awaiting the results of the two nonbinding up-or-down ballot measures.... After both freeways were defeated, the establishment figures on hand, like the Downtown Seattle Association's Kate Joncas, mainstream environmentalists like Aaron Ostrom from FutureWise, and Jessyn Farrell and Rob Johnson from the Transportation Choices Coalition (TCC), got busy re-tooling their raps to align themselves with the surface/transit option.

As Ostrom announced the results and the mayor entered the room followed by his entourage, one staffer began clapping loudly, but the room was slow to comply. Indeed, the mayor's show was put on hold while a TV reporter finished interviewing long-time surface/transit fan City Council Member Peter Steinbrueck in front of the mayor's podium—almost literally stealing Nickels's spotlight. Off to the side, Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis hugged surface/transit leader Cary Moon and told her quietly, "We'll be talking more soon."

The speeches began with TCC's Farrell who told the audience, "We have spent the last 50 years [building roads] and it has resulted in gridlock, it has resulted in climate change, and it has resulted in sprawl." Then Nickels, surprisingly for one of the most stubborn supporters of a tunnel freeway on the waterfront, echoed Farrell. "What [voters] said... is we do not want a freeway on our waterfront." Nickels alluded to conversations in recent days with County Executive Ron Sims (who was out of town, but supports the surface/transit option) and Gov. Christine Gregoire (who supports a rebuilt viaduct), and all but endorsed the surface/transit alternative.

Asked later, after Nickels scurried out dramatically, followed by a pack of cameras, what Nickels had meant by "not another freeway," Ceis was direct: "A big, ugly thing where cars go 50 to 60 miles per hour. The voters don't have to hit us on the head for us to get it." Then he gestured toward Moon with his glass of red wine. "There's your story. She's your storyline tonight." Moon, a dogged activist for the transit option for three years now, is a political novice, but her longstanding prediction that her option would emerge as the compromise solution was indeed the story of the night.

Over at the Spitfire on Fourth Avenue, the surface/transit supporters were still celebrating at 9:00 p.m. when Moon made her entrance after leaving the dwindling party at the Edgewater. She walked into the room to loud applause and said she hoped the mayor would "support the will of the voters and get onboard with the surface/transit plan" instead of considering other options that were beginning to circulate again, including a deep-bore waterfront tunnel. (The rejected tunnel was a cut-and-cover tunnel.) ...

On Wednesday, ... the governor and mayor were expected to sit down again and attempt to hash out a solution. The speculation Tuesday night was that they would agree to begin work on the portions of the roadway south of King Street—the portions that are the same under any plan—and, possibly, to begin implementing the surface/transit option as a "stopgap" until a new plan can be devised. Simultaneously, Steinbrueck said he would introduce legislation freezing all city money for the viaduct in this year's budget (about $8 million) and allocating $500,000 to begin a joint city/county study of the surface/transit option, the council and mayor's official "backup" plan. But Tuesday night's clear victor, any way you look at it, was Cary Moon and her surface/transit option.

I'm very looking forward to see the details of surface/transit plan. I hope it will become reality asap.

After the drubbing both choices received (currently 57-43 for the elevated, and 70-30 for the tunnel and counting), WSDOT and SDOT decided it would be a good idea to get started on a few projects that any replacement option will need. They include, but are not limited to:

-Tearing down the viaduct and constructing a surface street between Royal Brougham Way and S Holgate Street due to the seismicly unstable soil. (construction 2009-2012)

-Repairing and Retrofitting damaged support columns at Washington Street as well as increasing inspections (construction 2007-2008).

-Upgrades to Battery Street tunnel including: Seismic upgrades, lighting upgrades, and fire suppression upgrades. (Construction 2008-2010)

-Strengthening of steel structures to seismic soundness between Battery Street tunnel and Lenora street (Construction 2008-2010)

-Various transit improvements including upgraded arterials, bus lanes, signals, trip info, TDM programs, and other transit projects to reduce traffic impact during construction. (construction on-going)

More info:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/Viaduct/

Something to watch carefully, as this is a major interstate connector that collapsed (160,000 cars per day). Could be another case study for the viaduct?


From the NY Times

OAKLAND, Calif., April 30 — A day after a fiery tanker crash melted and collapsed a critical highway interchange near the Bay Bridge, rush hour commuters in the Bay Area enjoyed a relatively painless morning, as drivers avoided the roads and the expected nightmare largely failed to materialize.

Free and more frequent trains were running on Bay Area Rapid Transit lines, the region’s light rail system, and additional ferries plowed the waters between San Francisco and the cities on the eastern side of San Francisco Bay. But by and large, vehicle traffic around the site of the collapse was light and fluid during the morning commute, as the combination of telecommuting, absenteeism and mass transit apparently combined to keep many workers off the roads.

“This morning was one of the easiest commutes I’ve ever had,” said Jared Hirsch, associate production manager for American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco, who drives to work from Oakland. “I think people assuming that this evening’s would be one of the worst commutes ever everyone elected to either take public or stay at home.”

Indeed, many officials remained fearful of the evening rush hour, when many commuters from San Francisco and Silicon Valley would be heading east across the Bay Bridge, confronting the collapsed eastbound overpass of Interstate 580, which fell on of a portion of Interstate 880, a north-south corridor which connects San Jose with cities like Berkeley. The two roadways, in the heart of a tangle of freeways known as the MacArthur Maze, are used by an estimated 160,000 cars daily.

“There’s backup where the detour is coming into the maze, but I wouldn’t call it excessive,” said Sgt. Les Bishop of the California Highway Patrol. “You are going to have motorists that are relearning the roadways, but I would assume that’s going to smooth out as everybody figures out what the new flow is.”

The highway patrol believes that the driver of the tanker, James Mosqueda, 51, was speeding with a full-loaded tanker at about 3:42 a.m. when he lost control on a curve, hit a guardrail, and flipped the vehicle onto its side. The resulting fire, which shot tendrils of flame high into the early morning sky, buckled a concrete and steel overpass above, sending it crashing onto the highway. Mr. Mosqueda, of Woodland, Calif., near Sacramento, remains hospitalized in San Francisco with second degree burns. No other injuries were reported.

The curve where the accident occurred has been the site of several previous truck accidents, the highway patrol said, as drivers leave Interstate 80, which is five lanes, to enter I-880 via a two-lane interchange.

Demolition crews worked through the night into early this morning picking at the collapsed portion of I-580 with backhoes and cranes, working to remove some 700 feet of concrete off the highway below. The crews were visited late Sunday night by a collection of public officials, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who authorized $2.5 million in state emergency funds to pay for a day of free public transit on Monday.

It seemed that many people, however, opted not to even try to come into office. Nathaniel P. Ford Sr., executive director of the Municipal Transportation Agency in San Francisco, said that anecdotal accounts were that trains, buses, and ferries were all only lightly used.

Margena Wade, a spokeswoman for CalTrans, the state transportation agency, said that ample media coverage — some local television committed several hours of continuous, live coverage to the fire and collapse — had helped keep road volume down.

“I suspect people heard the message,” said Ms. Wade, standing near a pile of rubble amid the steady hammering of demolition crews.

Ms. Wade would not speculate on either the cost of rebuilding or how long repairs might take. But she conceded that the demolition, debris removal and design of a new overpass wouldn’t be quick. “For a while the public will be looking at empty field of freeway,” she said.

Aaron McClear, a spokesman for Gov. Schwarzenegger, said the state would be asking the Federal Highway Administration for financial help for rebuilding. The free rides on public transit will end on Tuesday, though Mr. McClear said the state government does plan to help pay for whatever additional mass transit is needed.

Officials in San Francisco and Oakland — the two cities connected by the Bay Bridge — were also anticipating a wide variety of ancillary problems stemming from bad traffic. San Francisco police and parking control officers, for example, were being stationed at entrances to the bridge to help guide drivers and discourage road rage.

Busier waterways were also expected around the city, with four times the normal number of ferries running between San Francisco and the East Bay in a bid to ease auto traffic. And in a politically active city, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco said he was also girding for additional traffic problems associated with a May Day protest over federal immigration raids.

Carolyn Marshall and Anahad O’Connor contributed reporting.

^^ I saw the news about that last night. Its scary! I hope City of Seattle and Puget Sound will learn from this and able to do something to avoid it from happening around here.

Well, we need to keep this in mind for all of our transportation planning decisions. You could really mess things up if you had something happen under the convention center, at the I-5/I-90 intersection, viaduct, I-5/Spokane Street interchange, things could get very ugly, very easily here.

Stay clear of the tankers when you're driving folks.

Over the past few months, Gov. Christine Gregoire has become more open to considering a surface-and-transit future for the Seattle waterfront, instead of replacing the old Alaskan Way Viaduct with another highway.

Gregoire said she has begun to think broadly about mobility and about Seattle's future as an "international city" — marked by population growth, a leading seaport and increased tourism — that needs a hospitable waterfront.

"If this is to be an international city, we'll have to look at the entire system. Once you do that, the surface option becomes an open question," she said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

The state Department of Transportation (DOT), King County and Seattle announced a new phase Tuesday in what has been a tortured history of viaduct planning. Rather than focus on serving 111,000 cars and trucks that now make weekday trips on the highway, agencies will study mobility improvements within a broader area, from North 85th Street to South Spokane Street.

"There is no one option on the table at this point," Gregoire said.

The viaduct, built in 1953, is undergoing emergency strengthening of four support columns; DOT is preparing to rebuild the south segment from Qwest Field to the West Seattle Bridge. But the layout between downtown and Elliott Bay remains in dispute. State funds are available for a $2.8 billion elevated highway, but many Seattle residents and leaders consider it a monstrosity and instead support expanded buses, rail, ridesharing, ferries and street changes.

Earlier this year, Gregoire was skeptical of surface travel as an alternative:

• Feb. 13, she denounced as unsafe a four-lane tunnel proposal by Mayor Greg Nickels: "Today we need to move forward with the one option that meets safety standards and is fiscally responsible: the elevated structure."

• March 14, she said she doubted a surface option would work: "I can't see just tearing it down and letting it go and creating a parking lot on I-5. I think the citizens would be appalled."

Gregoire said she still thinks that simply dumping cars on waterfront streets is not a solution.

Future light rail would add north-south capacity, said Ron Paananen, a state DOT project manager. Another key issue is Interstate 5, where DOT will look at changing the express lanes, rerouting certain exit lanes, adding regional tolls or enacting variable speed limits. Elevated, tunnel and surface ideas for the waterfront — or a mixture — will be considered, he said.

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com

Green Line Light Rail!!! lol

The (now removed) Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco was somewhat similar, however because it was never completed around the north side of the city to the GG bridge, it was never possible to use it to bypass the downtown entirely, so was not comparable in that respect to the Alaskan Way viaduct. The waterfront is certainly a lot nicer without it; it's surprising that it took San Franciscans a year of hand-wringing to reach a decision to tear it down after it was damaged.

I still say a surface solution is the ONLY solution. Tear it down. Add a lane in each direction to Alaskan Way, remove all traffic lights and build pedestrian lids over it where appropriate.

Isnt Alaskan Way built over pilings? Could it support another lane and lids? Or would it collapse into Elliott Bay?? :nuts:

Isnt Alaskan Way built over pilings? Could it support another lane and lids? Or would it collapse into Elliott Bay?? :nuts:

The mayor specifically wants to avoid a freeway on the waterfront, so we are looking at a boulevard with a landscaped/pedestrian median.

Why not build Light Rail?

Why not build Light Rail?

OMG no!!! especially not when the opportunity is being handed to us on a silver platter. no effing way.

Why not build Light Rail?

I know the plan is to at least rebuild the waterfront trolley line. Would be kinda cool to have Light rail in there as well. It would be a good excuse to get the "green line" started.

I am so sick of hearing about the viaduct; no one can seem to come up with a idea that will work (in any situation). I used to be for the tunnel, but when I learned about the cost and construction timeline, I was shocked. Sure a tunnel would be great long-term, but think of the chaos when it's under construction. And what would happen if there was an accident in the tunnel? A new viaduct would just be inhumane period.

I think the best way to go is surface-transit. When population growth warrants it, we could build a light rail line along Aurora/99 from 85th to West Seattle; that would take care of additional capacity. For now, I think a streetcar fits the waterfront better; plus it would connect with future streetcar lines to Ballard and the Central Area.

I also think SR 99 should be turned to a multi-way boulevard. Here's an introduction from the City of Bothell's website:
Crucial among catalyst projects is a proposed multi-way Boulevard along the existing SR 527. This project will be a first of its kind in the state. It provides an innovative solution that knits the existing downtown shopping district together with new development areas, creating a pedestrian-centric street while moving traffic swiftly through its center lanes. This project was conceived in the last year and has not yet been introduced into the City’s Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). City Council endorsed the Boulevard concept in June 2007 to move forward project design. Minimum heights along the Boulevard provide opportunities for the development of additional office and residential space, and features side access lanes with parking to support businesses. It will also include street trees and wide sidewalks to make driving through or visiting Bothell a more memorable experience.

What do you guys think?

What do you guys think?


"minimum heights" I love the sound of that! Embracing density!

Uhm can anyone say light rail through 99 to West Seattle or streetcar revival on Alaska Way down to Sodo??????

I always like the Tunnel option but the cost is high. Lets rip that crappy viaduct out and put in a Boulevard. Seattle is to important for the waterfront to be blocked by a wall. Its incredible how much that wall does psychologically to the mind when you see it. Its gotta go!


http://aycu36.webshots.com/image/37075/2005749657299413050_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005749657299413050)

I have a better quote: Watch me blow up the viaduct (jk)!

From the P-I:

Gregoire: 'Watch me' tear down the viaduct
Governor tells the city she won't let issue be pushed to back burner
By CHRIS McGANN
P-I CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT

OLYMPIA-- With or without Seattle's approval, the state will tear down the earthquake-damaged Alaskan Way Viaduct in 2012, Gov. Chris Gregoire said Thursday.

"It's coming down in 2012. I'm taking it down -- the middle," she said, referring to the elevated portion of the span that runs roughly from Battery Street Tunnel to Pioneer Square, which has been the most vexing and controversial piece of the transportation puzzle.

"That's the timeline. I'm not going to fudge on it. And if we don't have some alternative by then, boy are we going to have a mess on our hands because it's coming down."

Asked if she, as governor, could trump the state's largest city and county and unilaterally tear down a highway that carries more than 100,000 vehicles a day through the heart of Seattle, Gregoire said:

"Yeah, watch me."

The governor set a hard deadline after a tortured and unsuccessful attempt to resolve the issue last year. At that time Seattle, King County and the state fought and floundered in their attempts to produce a viable option for replacing or rebuilding the viaduct.

Instead of a new $2.8 billion elevated highway similar to the current viaduct the state wanted, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels fought for a more expensive tunnel and King County Executive Ron Sims wanted a street-level solution that would have included much more transit.

Last year Gregoire twisted arms and issued her recommendation but ultimately deferred the decision to Seattle voters, who rejected both a proposed elevated rebuild and a more expensive tunnel along the waterfront. The surface option was not on the ballot.

In the end, elected leaders agreed to a truce and opted to begin demolition and utility relocation on the south end of the roadway.

That gave everyone until 2012 to agree about how to replace the double-decker section through the heart of the city.

Now Gregoire said she's not letting the issue get pushed to a political back burner.

Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said setting an inflexible deadline is unrealistic.

"This is not just an issue for the city of Seattle to ensure that the system functions when it comes down, this is an issue for the entire state of Washington, because this is the economic center for the state," he said.

If the statement was intended to be a threat, Ceis said, it would be out of character to Gregoire.

"I find it hard to believe that she is issuing a threat right now because we are all working so well together. ... It's everybody's objective to get the viaduct down as soon as is possible and practical. But in order to do that, you have to ensure that projects have been funded and completed that allow the transportation system to continue to function if you cut off that corridor."

He said the city and the state are making good progress toward crafting a workable solution the people will agree on.

"No matter what, the state has to be a constructive partner in this project," Ceis said. "The state has the funding and we need to be able to make those fixes to the rest of the system in order for the viaduct to come down by 2012."

Ceis said the timeline was not, in itself, impossible, "but it's going to take a real push by all parties involved."

As for the sticky question of how to pay for the project, Gregoire said the state would keep its commitment to provide $2.8 billion. Any more would have to come from other sources.

Although she plans to team up with other governors to appeal to the federal government for increased investments in state infrastructure projects, Gregoire said that money would not be secured in time for the viaduct replacement.

Sims applauded the governor's hard deadline and her openness to addressing the problem with a much more comprehensive solution.

"The viaduct has to come down. It's not safe," Sims said. "I support (Gregoire's) position on that. It is a tough decision to make ... but it's the smart thing to do."

In the past, Gregoire opposed a surface option, but in recent months she has said she's now open to the idea.

In last year's debate, Speaker of the House Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, was unbending about his desire to rebuild an elevated viaduct.

"I'm comfortable with her statement," he said. "That project has got to get resolved; it cannot just go on forever."

He said Gregoire had already made her deadline clear.

"I remember her telling me that a long time ago because obviously, it's a safety issue," he said.

As the discussion continues about a surface option, leaders are careful to explain they aren't simply talking about a ground-level highway along the waterfront.

The viaduct traffic would have to be dispersed and otherwise addressed through a wide swath of Seattle.

"What Greg (Nickels) and Ron (Sims) and I have talked about is: 'Let's stop thinking about replacement of the Alaska Way Viaduct and start thinking about how do we do transportation in all of Seattle from I-5 to the waterfront,' " Gregoire said.

"We really are fundamentally not efficient and effective now. Our offramps from I-5 are not efficient to the flow of traffic. What international city do we know of that would have two-way traffic in downtown? What international city do we know of that would have street parking in the middle of downtown?

"We have not stepped back, collectively ... and said, 'How can we make this a user-friendly, international city?'

"That's why a 'surface option' is on the table now," Gregoire said. "If we simply say replace the viaduct, and if that's all we do, the surface option won't work. I still stand by that. I've looked at it, the ramifications to the waterfront are terrible. We won't have any legitimate freight mobility. ... The surface option works only (and I don't know if it does) but only if you look at the totality."

I say props to Gov. Gregoire for using some force on this. All Seattle legislators seem to do is discuss, study, discuss, study, discuss for eternity. It's about time some said it WILL be done. I want this done right but I'm not waiting 10 more years for every tiny argument and study to be made.

Thank you Gregoire, I appreciate your firmness on the issue.

Now, can you do this about the Sonics?

As for my stance, I think the tunnel is the best option. A new viaduct is obviously a terrible choice, especially with how large it would be. I'm not so high on a boulevard either because I feel like a major road there would be just as much of a barrier as an elevated highway. This isn't a 2 lane road we're talking about, this is highway 99. Can you imagine all that traffic trying to flow on a surface street there? I don't see how that's connecting downtown with the waterfront any better at all.

I agree that costs should be considered. The reason it's not a concern for me on this issue is because this is downtown Seattle and the downtown waterfront we're talking about here. This is potentially the most valuable land and the land with the most potential in our state. If we were having this discussion about Magnolia or Burien then of course it wouldn't be worth the cost for a tunnel, but this is DOWNTOWN SEATTLE. Let's do this right and make downtown Seattle the envy every other downtown area in this country!

If Vancouver had the viaduct

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/vannmann/Van%20Highways/148348492_6ce1a1cbb0_o.jpg

In reality though, I imagine it would be a lot uglier than that, and instead of all those nice apartment buildings in the back, you've have a bunch of dilapidated old buildings and warehouses and a lot of people living on the streets.

Please don't ever show that picture again.

I think that the viaduct should just be torn down and replaced with a surface boulevard (maybe with several bypass overpasses at appropriate places) and more mass transit. We don't need the viaduct; look at Vancouver and Portland, they turned out fine without highways running through their city. We don't need to waste billions on the viaduct. Spending that money on I-5 is more important.

As for my stance, I think the tunnel is the best option. A new viaduct is obviously a terrible choice, especially with how large it would be. I'm not so high on a boulevard either because I feel like a major road there would be just as much of a barrier as an elevated highway. This isn't a 2 lane road we're talking about, this is highway 99. Can you imagine all that traffic trying to flow on a surface street there? I don't see how that's connecting downtown with the waterfront any better at all.

I agree that costs should be considered. The reason it's not a concern for me on this issue is because this is downtown Seattle and the downtown waterfront we're talking about here. This is potentially the most valuable land and the land with the most potential in our state. If we were having this discussion about Magnolia or Burien then of course it wouldn't be worth the cost for a tunnel, but this is DOWNTOWN SEATTLE. Let's do this right and make downtown Seattle the envy every other downtown area in this country!
Tunnel in the future - surface street NOW!! We've waited long enough. And as I've preached, the surface solution will not be a highway bisecting the waterfront from downtown. Most likely it would be lidded in several places to allow pedestrian traffic to cross. Might even cut down on the noise. Ever realize how loud the viaduct is to waterfront tourists?

Note also that the traffic solution includes dispersing drivers from Aurora and 15th Ave to several options, not just along the waterfront.

Please don't ever show that picture again.

Is there something particularly offensive about it?

Is there something particularly offensive about it?

It was kind of a joke; no one wants to see an ugly viaduct in such a beautiful area.

I don't know if that's a good example. Vancouver I don't know. San Francisco the freeway connected I80 and the 101 going to Marin county. Marin doesn't have that many commuters. Nothing like the kind of north south traffic you have on I5. Same with Portland.

The Embarcadero had almost EXACTLY the same traffic volumes and schedule as the AWV.

I think Seattle commuters are resilient. They'd all find a way or change their habits. The REAL concern is moving freight and goods who are not nearly so saavy with alternate routes. Clog the streets and we may lose business or trade.

for sure-

look familiar?

http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/EmbarcaderoAerialView.jpg

here are some great before and after shots

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/tiexp/Phs/Fry_Bldn.jpg http://www.roughlydrafted.com/tiexp/Phs/DSCN0790.jpg

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/tiexp/Phs/Bayside.jpg http://www.roughlydrafted.com/tiexp/Phs/DSCN0788.jpg

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/tiexp/Phs/Howard.jpg http://www.roughlydrafted.com/tiexp/Phs/DSCN0787.jpg

and to further light the fire imagine this taking place in seattle-

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/planning/central_waterfront/window/b.jpg

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/planning/central_waterfront/window/a.jpg

personally, i'm pretty well sold on leveling the thing.

I think Seattle commuters are resilient. They'd all find a way or change their habits. The REAL concern is moving freight and goods who are not nearly so saavy with alternate routes. Clog the streets and we may lose business or trade.

Does freight really use the Alaskan Way Viaduct? I would think they would use I-5 or a major freeway for a direct link out of state (or at least out of the city).

I'm sure commuters will find a new way to get in the city; again, look at the August I-5 closure. If we can close a few lanes, then we can close an entire freeway and put that capacity into buses, commuter trains, light rail, and all the works.

All this excitement makes me wish Gregoire would tear down that concrete son-of-a-bitch sooner (maybe by 2009).

Does freight really use the Alaskan Way Viaduct? I would think they would use I-5 or a major freeway for a direct link out of state (or at least out of the city).

I'm sure commuters will find a new way to get in the city; again, look at the August I-5 closure. If we can close a few lanes, then we can close an entire freeway and put that capacity into buses, commuter trains, light rail, and all the works.

All this excitement makes me wish Gregoire would tear down that concrete son-of-a-bitch sooner (maybe by 2009).

Hear, hear.

Does freight really use the Alaskan Way Viaduct? I would think they would use I-5 or a major freeway for a direct link out of state (or at least out of the city).

I'm sure commuters will find a new way to get in the city; again, look at the August I-5 closure. If we can close a few lanes, then we can close an entire freeway and put that capacity into buses, commuter trains, light rail, and all the works.

All this excitement makes me wish Gregoire would tear down that concrete son-of-a-bitch sooner (maybe by 2009).
How better to connect Pier 90/91 with the rest of the Port of Seattle?

All this excitement makes me wish Gregoire would tear down that concrete son-of-a-bitch sooner (maybe by 2009).

I was thinking the exact same thing :cheers:

How better to connect Pier 90/91 with the rest of the Port of Seattle?

Do we generally need to transfer freight between those points? If so, what's the volume? Why not a rail siding?

Does freight really use the Alaskan Way Viaduct? I would think they would use I-5 or a major freeway for a direct link out of state (or at least out of the city).

The people's waterfront coalition (original surface boulevard backers) quote data that says the vast majority of freight going to/thru the city use I-5 and I-90 rather than the viaduct. Although my quickie search hasn't revealed the data again.

..and then Mayor Nickels said

"We will tear down the viaduct and build a beautiful wide boulevard lined with the 24-hour vitality of illuminated trees, world-class shopping, parks and cafes to rival the greatest cities in the world."

...and then I woke up. :nuts:

..and then Mayor Nickels said

"We will tear down the viaduct and build a beautiful wide boulevard lined with the 24-hour vitality of illuminated trees, world-class shopping, parks and cafes to rival the greatest cities in the world."

...and then I woke up. :nuts:

World-class shopping? Maybe they should rename Alaskan Way to:

(drumroll)

RENAISSANCE BOULEVARD OF SEATTLE

Just imagine, a really long, fancy name for Seattle's new premier roadway. :nuts:

World-class shopping? Maybe they should rename Alaskan Way to:

(drumroll)

RENAISSANCE BOULEVARD OF SEATTLE

Just imagine, a really long, fancy name for Seattle's new premier roadway. :nuts:



Naw.."Champs de L'E-Bay"

Do we generally need to transfer freight between those points? If so, what's the volume? Why not a rail siding?
Freight mobility is a BIG problem with the Puget Sound area. If I'm remembering right, big tax incentives had to be offered Boeing to keep the 787 assembly here. Boeing initially wanted it moved due to transfer issues in the region.

But more specifically to the downtown area - in 1998 we lost Nissan as an industrial tenant for more than 20 years that used to deliver their cars from Japan to Piers 90/91. That pier pretty much sits dead since awaiting a new cruise terminal.

Port of Seattle seems to lose more and more business each year to LA, even Tacoma because of this issue.

Port of Seattle seems to lose more and more business each year to LA, even Tacoma because of this issue.

Instead of competing with each other, why don't the Seattle and Tacoma port authorities combine to form a greater Puget Sound port authority, since they're so close together? That would benefit the overall region better, don't you think?

Totally agree. Strange how LA and Long Beach which I think are even closer to each other still manage to compete.

Instead of competing with each other, why don't the Seattle and Tacoma port authorities combine to form a greater Puget Sound port authority, since they're so close together? That would benefit the overall region better, don't you think?

I've always wondered the same thing.

Freight mobility is a BIG problem with the Puget Sound area. If I'm remembering right, big tax incentives had to be offered Boeing to keep the 787 assembly here. Boeing initially wanted it moved due to transfer issues in the region.

But more specifically to the downtown area - in 1998 we lost Nissan as an industrial tenant for more than 20 years that used to deliver their cars from Japan to Piers 90/91. That pier pretty much sits dead since awaiting a new cruise terminal.

Even if a new freeway was constructed, how would that really improve freight travel? The only route that makes sense for travel between the main Port terminals and the piers is using the Viaduct, then exiting out onto Western Avenue, which becomes 15th Avenue West, and you get the rest.

But I rarely see any freight along that route, and doesn't the SR 99 overpass over Western Avenue have a height limit? And if that area is pretty much dead, does freight even serve that area anymore?

And I don't think JUST tearing down the Viaduct will have a negative effect on freight mobility. If anything, it should improve freight mobility with the new South End interchange, and coupled with transit improvements, should take off cars from congested freeways and allow freight to move through the region quickly.

Instead of competing with each other, why don't the Seattle and Tacoma port authorities combine to form a greater Puget Sound port authority, since they're so close together? That would benefit the overall region better, don't you think?

Maybe not necessarily. They are constantly trying to outdo each other to attract business and that is probably much better in the long run for the port economy than a possibility of mild efficiency gains from combining the two.

Even if a new freeway was constructed, how would that really improve freight travel? The only route that makes sense for travel between the main Port terminals and the piers is using the Viaduct, then exiting out onto Western Avenue, which becomes 15th Avenue West, and you get the rest.

But I rarely see any freight along that route, and doesn't the SR 99 overpass over Western Avenue have a height limit? And if that area is pretty much dead, does freight even serve that area anymore?

And I don't think JUST tearing down the Viaduct will have a negative effect on freight mobility. If anything, it should improve freight mobility with the new South End interchange, and coupled with transit improvements, should take off cars from congested freeways and allow freight to move through the region quickly.
I wasn't saying that tearing down the viaduct would harm freight mobility. But if we keep making it harder to move about, it will hurt local industry.

You don't see AS MUCH truck traffic on 15th and the viaduct since we lost the business once occupying Pier 90/91. My point is that I wouldn't want Seattle to lose any more like we did 10 years ago.

I also don't think we can replace the viaduct with a pleasant pedestrian oriented esplanade. What surface option replaces it will have to be a working solution geared towards vehicle traffic first, and pedestrian traffic second.

I'm thinking something like they did with Mercer Island in the late 80s. A highway covered by several pedestrian lids to offer downtown access to the waterfront. At the same time, there should be limited access (like the current viaduct) to this highway to keep traffic moving through downtown.

Make sense?

Instead of competing with each other, why don't the Seattle and Tacoma port authorities combine to form a greater Puget Sound port authority, since they're so close together? That would benefit the overall region better, don't you think?

Both Port CEOs want this, and I've heard them give lectures on this topic at UW. the unions and the bureacracies of each port want the status quo.

Both Port CEOs want this, and I've heard them give lectures on this topic at UW. the unions and the bureacracies of each port want the status quo.

Sounds like DOUBLE the red tape...:ohno:......


I wasn't saying that tearing down the viaduct would harm freight mobility. But if we keep making it harder to move about, it will hurt local industry.

You don't see AS MUCH truck traffic on 15th and the viaduct since we lost the business once occupying Pier 90/91. My point is that I wouldn't want Seattle to lose any more like we did 10 years ago.

I also don't think we can replace the viaduct with a pleasant pedestrian oriented esplanade. What surface option replaces it will have to be a working solution geared towards vehicle traffic first, and pedestrian traffic second.

I'm thinking something like they did with Mercer Island in the late 80s. A highway covered by several pedestrian lids to offer downtown access to the waterfront. At the same time, there should be limited access (like the current viaduct) to this highway to keep traffic moving through downtown.

Make sense?

Okay, I get your point.

But about the limited access highway + lids; i'm wondering if you mean like a highway in original path of the viaduct on a surface route with dips in it to accomodate lids, or a highway completely below grade, but open with occasional lids?

I'm not sure the span. It would probably be a 3 and 3 lane thing. What I picture (and I've said before) is something along the lines of Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. A busy commuter route that gives good access to the lakefront to pedestrians.

I guess the foot print would be 3 lanes on either side of the railroad tracks assuming the tracks can't be moved. Imagine that. The streetcar could run down the middle with stops at each of the pedestrian lids.

Freight mobility is a BIG problem with the Puget Sound area. If I'm remembering right, big tax incentives had to be offered Boeing to keep the 787 assembly here. Boeing initially wanted it moved due to transfer issues in the region.

But more specifically to the downtown area - in 1998 we lost Nissan as an industrial tenant for more than 20 years that used to deliver their cars from Japan to Piers 90/91. That pier pretty much sits dead since awaiting a new cruise terminal.

Port of Seattle seems to lose more and more business each year to LA, even Tacoma because of this issue.

It seems to me that if Pier 90/91 are dead, we could repurpose them and not have the cross-town freight traffic issue.

And yeah, we have congestion issues, of course... we only have highways. We can't fix that by building more highways.

I wasn't saying that tearing down the viaduct would harm freight mobility. But if we keep making it harder to move about, it will hurt local industry.

You don't see AS MUCH truck traffic on 15th and the viaduct since we lost the business once occupying Pier 90/91. My point is that I wouldn't want Seattle to lose any more like we did 10 years ago.

I also don't think we can replace the viaduct with a pleasant pedestrian oriented esplanade. What surface option replaces it will have to be a working solution geared towards vehicle traffic first, and pedestrian traffic second.

I'm thinking something like they did with Mercer Island in the late 80s. A highway covered by several pedestrian lids to offer downtown access to the waterfront. At the same time, there should be limited access (like the current viaduct) to this highway to keep traffic moving through downtown.

Make sense?

I don't see that a surface solution would "make it harder to move about". There really isn't any evidence supporting this. Common sense does *not* apply to traffic mobility.

Never said the surface solution would make it harder to move about. As long as that surface solution is to improve the waterfront corridor and not just tear down the viaduct.

Haven't heard anything recently, but Pier 90/91 is supposed to be converted to a cruise terminal. Ships docking at Pier 30 would move up there. But when?

The remaining unused 'yard' at a time was going to be redeveloped into midrise office and condos. Last I heard, the local industrials barked that Seattle is already losing too much industrial space each year to downtown moving south bit by bit.

Which "Family" do you belong to?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004381499_webviaduct29m.html


Alaskan Way Viaduct options expands to 10

By Susan Gilmore

Seattle Times staff reporter

Just a year ago, Seattle voters were casting ballots on whether the Alaskan Way Viaduct should be replaced by a tunnel or another aerial bridge.

What a difference a year makes.

Seattle voters rejected both options and today the state is juggling 10 options — what it calls "families" — to replace the one-mile stretch of the viaduct along Seattle's central waterfront.

The 10 options include three tunnels, three surface plans and four aerial proposals.

The state has convened a group of 30 "stakeholders," who have been meeting to reach some consensus on what a new viaduct or other options should look like.

The state hopes to narrow the options to a handful by August and make a recommendation by Dec. 1. Gov. Christine Gregoire is scheduled to choose one by the end of the year.

Back on the table are both a retrofit of the existing viaduct, and building an Elliott Bay bridge, a high bridge that would cross the water. The state Department of Transportation had already dismissed both of those ideas.

Another idea is to build a partially covered viaduct that would be flanked by businesses and would have a park on the roof.

Also in the mix is a deep-bore tunnel, with traffic going in one direction under Western Avenue and in the other direction under First Avenue.

Three surface alternatives also are under consideration, but still in the mix is whether it should be four, six or eight lanes.

The three surface alternatives:

• A boulevard such as the existing one on Alaskan Way.

• A system where Alaskan Way would carry traffic in one direction and Western Avenue would carry traffic in the opposite direction.

• An Alaskan Way expressway, in which there would be fewer stoplights with four northbound lanes and three southbound lanes.

Then there is a proposal to rebuild the viaduct, either as a stacked roadway as it is today or a single-level, side-by-side road for northbound and southbound traffic with four lanes.

One tunnel idea is what engineers call a "depressed roadway," where the road would be below ground with an intermittent lid covering it.

There are no price tags on any of the alternatives.

"This is our attempt to lay on the table everything we can do on the Highway 99 corridor," said project manager Ron Paananen, adding that whatever choice the state makes will require another environmental-impact statement.

The state already has spent $21 million on an environmental study for a viaduct replacement. While that study is technically dead, Paananen said information contained in it can still be used in a new document.

The state already is working on shoring up viaduct columns and replacing the noncontroversial south end of the viaduct. Taking down and replacing the southern end of the viaduct is scheduled to start in fall 2009.

State engineers have been walking around with Legos pieces in their pockets, which they assemble to see what a viaduct replacement might look like.

Because most options will affect traffic on Interstate 5, the state will be looking at how to better manage the freeway, including the possibility of closing some of I-5 entrances and exits. , Or creating a northbound transit-only shoulder during peak hours from Olive Way to Highway 520.

Other options would be to require three passengers in a car to use the HOV lanes, that some lanes be tolled, and that a northbound lane be added between Seneca Street and Highway 520.

Other ideas under consideration include:

• Creating a two-way Mercer Street. This has long been on the list of city improvements, and was part of a failed bond package last November. The Mercer improvement could be part of the viaduct funding package.

• Lanes could be added to Second and Fourth avenues by removing parking on those streets. First Avenue South would have two lanes in each direction, and there would be a two-way Eighth Avenue connection to existing I-5 overpasses.

• Third Avenue would be restricted to transit-only all day (now it's restricted only during rush hour), while Second and Fourth avenues would be transit only during peak periods. Fourth Avenue South would have transit-only lanes.

Susan Gilmore: 206-464-2054 or sgilmore@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

The Viaduct urgently needs to be replaced for two reasons: (1) to make us ever more World Class, something we have been striving for since "New York bye-and-bye," November 1851, and (2) between 0 and 10,000 years from now an earthquake will knock it down anyway and kill 0 to a couple dozen likely yet unborn people.

Over the same period, we can predict for certain how many people will be killed on Highways 2 and 18 every single year. Of course there are no expensive condos overlooking those miserable stretches of roadway. No world classness either.

The best choices-

1. Bored tunnel
2. Cut-and-cover tunnel
3. Alaskan Way boulevard

Acceptable choices-

1. Depressed lidded roadway
2. Viaduct retrofit
3. Integrated roadway built into development

Bad choices-

1. Alaskan Way/Western Avenue
2. Alaskan Way surface expressway
3. Elevated roadway

Absolutely out of the question-

1. Elliott Bay Bridge

We should bite the bullet and build a tunnel. Move Alaskan Way back to where the viaduct used to be and build a park where Alaskan Way used to be. That is the best possible outcome of all this. Shipping continues unhindered, and Ballard/West Seattle residents are happy.

Best of all we get what downtown Seattle has always needed- a central park.

The boulevard option is OK as long as there isn't too much traffic and we get more park space by the waterfront.

The depressed roadway and the integrated roadway both have promise. I'd have to see more about what they would plan to do with it though.

If all else fails just retrofit the damn thing. We've had it for so long that it's almost nostalgic. If we are to have an elevated roadway I'd want Seattle's Viaduct. Not some crappy, cheap, modern structure.

A surface expressway would ruin the waterfront, the Alaskan Way/Western Ave sounds like a disaster, and a new elevated structure would just be plain old depressing and most likely ugly.


I truly can't think of a worse way to ruin Seattle than to build a gigantic bridge in front of it.

http://www.elliottbaybridge.com/

no.

The surface freeway aka the 'bull'evard is an unacceptable option.

The best option is the tunnel plan which leases the development rights above the tunnel to help pay for the sucker.

Sorry to disagree with those so far. The most practical solution is a surface boulevard. I wouldn't rule out a cut and cover tunnel, but think something similar to that could be done at grade with wide pedestrian park-like crossovers connecting the waterfront to the rest of downtown.

Tunnels at this time are just too expensive and will take too long. We've been dicking around with this far too long. Do something NOW!! It doesn't mean we can't do a tunnel in the future.

I second the surface boulevard. If its a question of it handling the car volume, look at the Champs Elysses. Do that!

Three lanes north. Three lanes south. No parking, peds, or lights and then lid it where necessary for pedestrian ONLY traffic.

Could be done before the end of Gregoire's next term (Sorry Dino!).

The only options I don't like is any aerial freeway proposals.

Seems like they'll come up with anything these days. I actually kind of like the idea of an Ellioit Bay Bridge, but I understand that'll destroy the views of Downtown.

I guess I prefer either expressway, boulevard, or a depressed-lidded roadway.

The PI ruffling those Viaduct feathers again. "The Trench" sounds like an awful idea, and I hope that dies a quick death. They made the elevated options smaller, but they still sound... blah.... Still hoping for the surface one.

Cool things about a lot of these plans is they all seem to include other improvements, like actually shifting lanes around on I-5, widening mercer all the way through, and making 5th ave two way. Can't wait ti'll August!





8 viaduct options detailed

One replacement proposal even includes a 'trench'

Last updated June 26, 2008 11:48 p.m. PT

By LARRY LANGE
P-I REPORTER

There were eight new variations on some older themes Thursday, and more questions than answers, as officials publicly revealed their thinking about replacing Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct.

City, state and county officials said they're considering two elevated highway replacements, two tunnels, three options dispersing viaduct traffic onto surface roadways and one option referred to as "the trench."

Members of a committee representing neighborhoods and other viaduct interests were full of questions about how much the eight designs would cost, how they'd accommodate traffic and how they'd affect travel times. Answers aren't expected until more analysis is finished in August.

"We need the rest of the detail," said Bob Donegan, manager of Ivar's Acres of Clams and one of 30 members on the committee.

The options being studied are:

# A four-lane viaduct extending from South King Street to Bell Street, where it would rise above ground and connect to the Battery Street Tunnel through an elevated interchange similar to the current one. It would be smaller than the current viaduct. The concept assumes handling some trips on a reopened waterfront streetcar line and a new streetcar route to First Hill and Capitol Hill. It also would add bus lanes on eight downtown streets and adding a northbound lane and a "managed lane" -- possibly tolled -- on Interstate 5. Estimated top speed: 50 mph.

# A four-lane viaduct extending from South King Street to about Lenora Street, where it would drop to street level and connect on the surface to the tunnel via Elliott and Western. The idea assumes streetcar lines connecting the International District to Seattle Center as well as to First Hill and Capitol Hill. The structure would have one level for traffic, have a park on top and space below for offices or retail, to pay part of the cost. Estimated top speed: 40 mph.

Both elevated options assume conversion of Mercer Street to two-way traffic between I-5 and Seattle Center.

# A four-lane, two-mile tunnel bored underground between South Royal Brougham Way and Harrison Street, first carrying traffic under Western Avenue and Post Alley. The alternative assumes streetcar lines on the waterfront and to First Hill and Capitol Hill, a northbound transit lane on I-5. Surface traffic would follow Western Avenue and the former viaduct corridor. Estimated speed 50 mph.

# A shorter four-lane tunnel, dug from above ground between South King and Pike streets, connecting to the Battery Street tunnel under Western and Elliott. This assumes expansion of a park and ride facility in Lake Forest Park, 10-minute "Rapid Ride" Metro bus service to Lake City, added lane capacity on I-5, transit lanes on nine streets and streetcar lines to First Hill and Capitol Hill and to Seattle Center via First Avenue.

# A "surface" traffic option shifting traffic onto Alaskan Way and improving capacity of several downtown streets in addition to streetcar service to the waterfront and First Hill and Capitol Hill. The option would add 16 new traffic signals on Alaskan Way, four more on Western and Elliott near the connection to the Battery Street Tunnel and five on Aurora Avenue north of Denny Way. It assumes a "managed" lane on I-5 and two-way traffic on Fifth Avenue downtown and on Mercer traffic to Seattle Center. Estimated speed: 30 mph.

# A second "surface" option, similar to the first but with a two-block elevated section between Stewart and Lenora as well as two new streetcar lines. It assumes capacity on two more lanes of I-5, more transit service on downtown streets, expanding vehicle capacity on nine downtown streets and two-way traffic on Fifth Avenue downtown and on Mercer traffic to Seattle Center. Estimated speed: 30 mph.

# A third "surface" option similar to the second but with waterfront traffic handled using six lanes on Alaskan Way and Western Avenue. Estimated speed: 30 mph. With all three "surface" Third Avenue would be restricted to transit traffic downtown and 10-minute Metro "Rapid Ride" service is assumed on Aurora Avenue, West Mercer and from West Seattle.

# A partially lidded trench dug from above ground between Yesler Way and Union Street that would distribute traffic to and from the Battery Street Tunnel on the surface on Elliott and Western avenues and through several signals. It would provide four lanes of traffic in each direction on two levels and would have walls along open portions. The highway would be elevated between Stewart and Blanchard streets. It also assumes two new streetcar lines, two-way Mercer traffic to Seattle Center and more transit service on eight downtown streets as well as new lane capacity on I-5. Estimated speed: 40 mph.

All eight concepts envision closing Broad Street between Roy and Thomas streets. The three entities have rejected proposals for a cross-Elliott Bay bridge, a six-lane Alaskan Way "Expressway" on the surface and proposals to retrofit the existing viaduct to better withstand earthquakes. They said the retrofit would require a virtual rebuild of the entire structure. Officials said the designs weren't worked out enough to provide cost estimates, through the bored tunnel appeared to be potentially the most costly.

ON THE WEB

For more information, go to alaskanwayviaduct.org.

I watched this and now I'm addicted to the idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P91H-l9QCfU

We need to level the thing, create a new park, and create a new thoroughfare underground for industry and for people who would otherwise be zooming through our city streets. It's well worth the premium so we don't have trucks and commuters clogging our waterfront and ruining the pedestrian experience.

Also- yes streetcars, yes transit lane on I-5 and yes RapidRide to Lake City.

WHICHEVER option is selected and ultimately whittled down to save money, then built ... our grandchildren will have to tear it down and do it right for about 11 Trillion Dollars. That's the Seattle way.

This may sound stupid, but what the hell?

If gas is going to be $5.00+ a gallon, won't there be less traffic on the Viaduct, making the boulevard idea a bit more palatable?

This thing just so reminds me of the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco. Everyone thought that thing was irreplaceable, and now it's not really missed.Although, to be fair, the Viaduct is a more vital transportation artery.

I say tear it down! And leave it that way!

At first I preferred the tunnel option; it would open up space and keep the freeway capacity. However, i've driven around places without major freeways and/or a mass transit system (mainly Vancouver), and I realize a city can seriously do without freeways.

What's the worse that could happen?

People will have gotten used to life without a viaduct for the 10+ years it's under construction and they will have found other means of getting to their destination (surface street, public transport, different time of day). Everything will be fine. The sad part is when the new viaduct opens... it'll just be a mess like it is today.

^ That's something I've often wondered. Regardless of what replaces it, we'll have to go without anything for awhile during the time when the tunnel/new viaduct/whatever is being built. Part of me wonders what it would be like to simply tear it down, see what happens, and then determine whether something huge like a tunnel or a new elevated freeway is really necessary.

How many roads are there between Portland, OR and Vancouver, BC? What about Olympia and Bellingham? SR 99 is more than just Seattle, it is a vital transportation artery for the region.

The surface freeway is an inane idea. We need less cars downtown, not more. Build the tunnel and lease the development rights above the sucker to pay for it.

Have you guys looked at the options?

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/solution.htm

The trench has all the benefits of the tunnel but may be cheaper because a smaller sewall is needed and less digging in water (I'd guess)

How many roads are there between Portland, OR and Vancouver, BC? What about Olympia and Bellingham? SR 99 is more than just Seattle, it is a vital transportation artery for the region.
They can choose between the I-5 and 405. 99 just serves a local population.

Build an LRT spur to Ballard and West Seattle instead.

Have you guys looked at the options?

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/solution.htm

The trench has all the benefits of the tunnel but may be cheaper because a smaller sewall is needed and less digging in water (I'd guess)

After reviewing these PDFs I have a different opinion about the options.

I used to be pretty gung-ho about a tunnel, but the couplet of Alaskan/Western is starting to look like some great bang for the buck.

For me the options are now as follows-

1) Bored tunnel (Option F) Fastest tunnel, no elevated structure in Belltown, tons of new open space on the waterfront. Winner.

2) Couplet (Option C) A very good option if we don't have the cash for a tunnel. No costly tunnel, no oppressive elevated structure, it makes good use of the under-utilized Western ave, it frees up more money for other improvements to the system as a whole, and it contains as much open space as the bored tunnel. Only shitty part is the elevated structure through Belltown.

3) Surface (Option B) This is a pretty good option. Plenty of improvements system wide and no expensive, oppressive elevated structure except in Belltown.

4) Cut and cover tunnel (Option G) Expensive, lower speed than the bored tunnel, ends up elevated through Belltown anyway. Not many improvements systemwide.

5) Lidded trench (Option H) This seems almost as oppressive as an elevated structure and for a lot of money they are only improving speeds to 40 mph... At least it provides an option to bypass downtown. Same downsides as cut and cover tunnel.

6) Surface (Option A) Nothing to bypass downtown AND minimal system wide improvements? No thanks.

7) Elevated (option D) All of the oppression of the viaduct without the historical charm. Expensive and ugly... at least you can go 50 on it.

8) Integrated elevated (Option E) this option fails on so many levels: oppressive, expensive, the least amount of open space on the waterfront, only 40 mph for this monstrosity, no bike trails... FAIL.

They can choose between the I-5 and 405. 99 just serves a local population.

Is Olympia local? I use SR99 through downtown regularly. Heck, was on it Wednesday night.

As for the options, I am against the surface option. Keep cars and people seperate. The tunnel does this, the viaduct does this. I'd rather have the waterfront walled off by a viaduct than by heavy auto traffic. The tunnel is the best of both worlds, but they need to lease the development rights above the sucker and forget about the open space. To afford the tunnel, we need to give up that imaginary open space, but what is wrong with bringing more people and businesses near the waterfront?

I've been looking over these a bunch the last couple days, and I have a few thoughts about some things:

#1: The trench idea still looks stupid to me. If you're going to do that, why not just cover that last little bit in the center and do a cut and cover tunnel? Its the same practicality with all the uglyness we're trying to avoid

#2: The elevated structure looks even worse than before. Now its 2 ugly (but albeit smaller) freeways suspended over the waterfront.

#3: Almost all the alternatives have a bit of a clunky interchange just after the Battery street tunnel. It concentrates all traffic from Aurora that didnt get off before the tunnel into singal soup in Belltown. This is okay if Battery street is no longer the main through way, but for all the surface alternatives it is.

#4: I like the idea of the smaller bored tunnels diverting all through traffic under the city (about %50 of traffic that uses the viaduct, if I remember the Wsdot study right), leaving the waterfront for all in-city traffic (what sounder touched on). I would make just one tweak that leads me to #5:

#5: In the bored tunnel scenario, the battery street tunnel/waterfront bits are now inner city distributers rather than thru ways. So why do we still need the battery street tunnel in that scenario? Fill the fucker in and make Battery street and wall street your distributor coming off of Aurora? Of course I'm sure it all comes down to Money, and that would be quite the construction project to demolish the battery street tunnel and then build the Aurora Ave tunnel, but hey, we're already doing it to Broad street?

#6: Another tweak of the tunnel idea is that it is decidedly lacking in transit improvements. No matter what option is chosen, there should be transit lanes added to most streets downtown, and 3rd ave should be bus only since we'd be losing the transit tunnel once light rail starts ramping up.

#7: Any way we can do the same thing for I-5 as well :D... hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

Also wanted to add: Any way we can change the name of this threat to "alaskan way viaduct discussion"?

Before you go supporting a tunnel, look at Boston and the "Big Dig". Getting rid of the elevated highways has been great for the city, but the tunnels were took forever to build, the city was a disaster for years, the costs were WAY over budget, and they have had problems with the build quality of the tunnels.

As for the options, I am against the surface option. Keep cars and people seperate. The tunnel does this, the viaduct does this. I'd rather have the waterfront walled off by a viaduct than by heavy auto traffic. The tunnel is the best of both worlds, but they need to lease the development rights above the sucker and forget about the open space. To afford the tunnel, we need to give up that imaginary open space, but what is wrong with bringing more people and businesses near the waterfront?

I say lease the development rights in Belltown from Union to Battery street, which is quite a significant amount of land. However, from King Street to Union, there should be a park where Alaskan Way is. This is Downtown Seattle's best and possibly last chance at a Central or Commons.

Something truly amazing could happen where Alaskan Way now stands; Seattle could have one of the most dynamic and breathtaking waterfront parks in the country. It would be one of the most vital spaces in Seattle as it would connect Pioneer Square to Pike Place Market via all our wonderful waterfront attractions. It would be the green space our urban core sorely needs. It could have a bike lane, a jogging trail, gardens, places to sit, a water feature, a basketball court, large swaths of lawn and of course, plenty of trees. Such a park would get traffic from the downtown office crowd, condo dwellers, tourists, convention visitors and families from all over the region. In such a central location it could even be populated round the clock provided it's well lit, it's patrolled, and offers late night activities. Seattle could have an urban park that would truly be unique, world class, and we could leave behind a legacy that many generations would be grateful for.

Such a park would cement urban living in Downtown Seattle, Pioneer Square and SODO as viable, desirable, and vital for a long time. A green place that's close to home where one can sit, excersize in, or just meander though goes a long way in making a place truly amazing. This is the last great opportunity for a large park in Downtown Seattle.

Before you go supporting a tunnel, look at Boston and the "Big Dig". Getting rid of the elevated highways has been great for the city, but the tunnels were took forever to build, the city was a disaster for years, the costs were WAY over budget, and they have had problems with the build quality of the tunnels.

A couple things relating the big dig to a Seattle tunnel


#1: A lot of the difficulty with the big dig was that they were trying to maintain function of all the freeways above it. Because the bored tunnel follows a different route, it can be constructed while people still use the viaduct, making the transition between the two a little easier.

#2: The big dig tunnels were quite a bit bigger. Just from the pictures on Wikipedia, the freeways are 5 lanes. The Seattle tunnel would only be 2 lanes wide.

#3: Yes, fraud, and poor quality construction materials do put costs up a bit. But I don't think most big construction projects start with a budget that includes "possible fraud, and repairs to substandard materials." (Do they mhays?)

All that being said, I'd venture a guess that this will be one of the more expensive options with the most unknowns associated with it. People that know a lot more about this than I do are looking at it and I'm excited to see their decision (Unless its "the trench"... then I'm moving to Portland...).

citruspastels,

I would love the open space, however if the choice is tunnel with no open space vs. the surface freeway with open space, then the choice is an easy one. The dream of open space shouldn't kill the best plan, the tunnel. The tunnel is expensive, and that land is valuble, which could help bring in the neccessary revenue to pull this project off. Open space takes away this potential revenue stream.

I have always been fond of the tunnel option myself. This isn't some minor residential road in the suburbs, this is connecting downtown Seattle with its waterfront. If this is done correctly then that property reclaimed by a tunnel could be some of the most valuable on the West Coast and it transforms downtown in a way that people can't seed to imagine.

Do we really need to continue discussing the tunnel as an option?! It just won't happen!! I'm torn between a surface route or worst case, the cut/cover.

We just need to look at SFs emarcadero waterfront where once a viaduct lived. Nothing replaced it and life moved on (in other directions). The waterfront looks better than ever now.

Do we really need to continue discussing the tunnel as an option?!

Yes, it is by far the best option. The key is paying for the sucker, and one of the Gov. candidates has a good plan.

We just need to look at SFs emarcadero waterfront where once a viaduct lived. Nothing replaced it and life moved on (in other directions). The waterfront looks better than ever now.

SF isn't located on the main west coast north-south corridor like Seattle is. 99 is a vital artery for the region. If you want the better looking waterfront, push for the tunnel or we get another viaduct or a wall of traffic with the surface freeway option.

Look at Seattle history: we always build something because we want it NOW, then have to tear it down (or it falls down) and we do it right the second time. I'm afraid the Viaduct is headed for the same, and staggeringly expensive, scenario. Eventually the roadway well be undergrounded; no question but Citrus' description will prevail. Question is will we waste the intervening time building and removing another mistake? My answer: Yes. Because every politician wants a legacy.

Renderings are out for the 8 viaduct options. The only bit of info that has been released so far is that a new elevated viaduct would allow for the fastest travel through town. Cost estimates and other info are supposed to come out on Thursday.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008389297_viaduct14m.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpages/local/alaskanwayviaduct.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/387831_viaduct14.html

A couple observations:

-I guess I'm a complete convert now. Reading about it, I dismissed the lidded trench as a retarded idea. Now that I've seen renderings, it actually seems like a pretty cool idea and isn't at all what I thought it would be. Its basically just a tunnel with vent holes. It also seems to have the best transitions with the battery street tunnel and the south end expressway (No turns for through traffic, no elevated uglyness). It also seems to do a great job of accomidating and segregating both inter and intra downtown traffic. We'll see how the costs stack up compared to the tunnels.

-The elevated idea is definitely an improvement over the huge double-decker monstrosity that was voted on last year, but it still just looks like a freeway running through the waterfront. It looks like the only reason it wins the "quickness" title is because this is the one plan that has zero downtown street grid integration, which is very bad because a little is sorely needed (Anyone else ever ended up at West Seattle or Boeing Field because you missed your turn for pioneer square?). Also, does that style just look eerily similar to the freeway that collapsed in Japan during the Kobe Earthquake?

http://www.ce.washington.edu/~liquefaction/selectpiclique/kobe95/expressway.jpg

-I don't know what the fuck Frank Chopp is smoking.... Every view I look at for the "integrated elevated" is just awful. Just about everything I can think of that's bad about the other proposals is present in this one design.... It completely walls off the waterfront from the rest of the city (and vice versa), It requires elevated sections and ramps everywhere (under which we see things like from the vomit and cry story in the main development page), and I don't see how this eases waterfront access for anything. just.... eww.... I will personally set fire to every building along the road if they build this piece of shit (whos with me?!)

My new rankings:

1: Lidded Trench
2: Alaskan Way + Western Couplet
3: Bored Tunnel
4+5: Surface Boulevard 1&2
6: Cut and Cover Tunnel
7: Elevated Viaduct
8:
9:
10:
11:
....
100:Integrated Elevated

So it looks likes even if they do dig a tunnel they're still gonna stick a fatty avenue on top of it. the only proposal that would actually offer park and development space is the Chopp proposal, and it cuts off the waterfront even more than it is already.

So it looks likes even if they do dig a tunnel they're still gonna stick a fatty avenue on top of it. the only proposal that would actually offer park and development space is the Chopp proposal, and it cuts off the waterfront even more than it is already.

Not necessarily, The bored tunnel would also use the Western+Alaskan way couplet for surface traffic as well. Both of those proposals allow for the most non road surface room of the bunch.

I was under the impression that the reclaimed space was going to more about parks and less about roads. something like this.

http://www.bostoncondogroup.com/blog/uploaded_images/greenway2-784567.gif

I was under the impression that the reclaimed space was going to more about parks and less about roads. something like this.

http://www.bostoncondogroup.com/blog/uploaded_images/greenway2-784567.gif

I wouldn't say I was under that impression. But I was certainly hoping that was the case.

wasn't the tunnel supposed to negate the need for a wide avenue? I thought it was one or the other, with the tunnel being preferred as it was a faster commute.

I think the biggest issue is that the option that is picked needs to be able to funnel people through downtown in a quick manner. The tunnel options basically act as an express and therefore they would need something up above for local traffic.

I actually kind of like Chopp's idea. It would create a park with a great view and give our waterfront a whole lot more life with new cafe and retail opportunities. Also if done right it could create retail on both sides of the viaduct which would connect the waterfront and downtown.

Yesterday the mayors of Phoenix, Atlanta, and another large city sent a letter to Washington DC asking that 50 of the 700 billion dollar package be spent on infrastructure improvements that would create jobs fast in the major cities of the US. With that possibility and Obama wanting to do even more on a national level when he enters office, I wonder if this could end up being a large federally funded project as the viaduct does need to go before it does collapse.

Taking all the expenses out of the equation, thanks to federal funding, a tunnel would really create a lot of jobs. Would be a weird change of fate if the same economy that is causing so much job loss could get this project funded and finished before the bridge falls on itself.

I actually like Frank Chopp's proposal a lot for some reasons. I really like the idea to having huge park at the top. City of Seattle really need more open space and parks really bad. This is great opportunity. I also like the fact that it includes retail/restaurant spaces for people to open their stores and restaurants along Waterfront. They would get rid of sea of parking lots under Alaskan Viaduct. Lastly, I love the fact that they would hide eyesore highway by covered it up and make it look like modern buildings.

Tunnel or surface-transit options are fine with me too.

I don't want to see ugly elevated highway option to get built. Its look very fragile to me. It will collapse in next earthquake anyway. Los Angeles had exactly type of elevated highway structures and had it collapsed in 1994 Northridge earthquakes. I lived in San Diego at that time when it happend and saw nearby every elevated highways like this collapsed when I was on way to Bakersfield, California to visit my relatives just a week after Northridge earthquake. Los Angeles rebuilt exactly same type of elevated highways. Stupid! That gives me bad flashback. I hope Seattle will never build this elevated highway like this ever again!

^^ Yes, it has a park, but that park is only accessible from either end and no where in between. Whats the point of open space if you can't get to it?

Yes it has retail, but that reatail is in one huge "Great Wall of Chopp." It doesn't connect the waterfront to the city, it blocks it off (flip back and forth between all the scenarios in view 2 and view 4 on the seattle times and see what I mean).

As for the fragility of the Elevated option, Anything built now will of course have to be built to modern earthquake codes. So I'd feel much safer on that than the current viaduct. But really anything built off the ground still has a chance of not being above ground after an earthquake.

^^ Yes, it has a park, but that park is only accessible from either end and no where in between. Whats the point of open space if you can't get to it?

I am sure they included stairways/elevators to the park at rooftop from waterfront at the inside of highway/buildings which you don't see it at the renderings of it.


Yes it has retail, but that reatail is in one huge "Great Wall of Chopp." It doesn't connect the waterfront to the city, it blocks it off (flip back and forth between all the scenarios in view 2 and view 4 on the seattle times and see what I mean).

Yes that what I had in my mind when I first saw it. After few minutes of looking at it, it grows on me. If that is only we can afford, this is only design I would willing to live with it since it included park/open space, retail/restaurant space, and covered up highway. This is better than plain elevated highways.


As for the fragility of the Elevated option, Anything built now will of course have to be built to modern earthquake codes. So I'd feel much safer on that than the current viaduct. But really anything built off the ground still has a chance of not being above ground after an earthquake.

Yes it would be little safer than Alaskan Viaduct but I am still don't convinced it will be safer for next earthquake. If you compare Los Angeles elevated highways that was destroyed by Northridge earthquake, they're exactly same type of structure. I don't care if engineers says it is 100% safe for massive earthquake. That is what they said when they built ones in Los Angeles before earthquakes. I hope they will drop this option.

I think I like option G best.

I’m definitely leaning towards the couplet of Alaskan/Western (Option ‘C’).

This could very well be our last chance to have any sort of central park in downtown. This gives the waterfront the most open space. Plus, it has more lanes than the surface boulevard options (A&B) and spreads the traffic out which would reduce congestion and noise on the waterfront.

Second choice would be the cut and cover tunnel (option ‘G’). This opens up a huge amount of open space in Belltown, which is almost as good as open space on the waterfront. Plus, it provides the bypass our overly-subsidized port so clamors for.

Third would be option ‘B’ for the excellent transit improvements. Although, I can’t for the life of me see why they wouldn’t include those with ‘C’.

^^They have a lot of set pieces they included with some options, but not with others that could really use them, which is kindof weird...

I’m definitely leaning towards the couplet of Alaskan/Western (Option ‘C’).

This could very well be our last chance to have any sort of central park in downtown. This gives the waterfront the most open space. Plus, it has more lanes than the surface boulevard options (A&B) and spreads the traffic out which would reduce congestion and noise on the waterfront.

Second choice would be the cut and cover tunnel (option ‘G’). This opens up a huge amount of open space in Belltown, which is almost as good as open space on the waterfront. Plus, it provides the bypass our overly-subsidized port so clamors for.

Third would be option ‘B’ for the excellent transit improvements. Although, I can’t for the life of me see why they wouldn’t include those with ‘C’.
Agreed! This also looks like the fastest to complete.

Cost estimates are out. Big surprise, the surface options are by far the cheapest and the tunnels are the most expensive. A and B came out the same price ($800mil), which begs the question, why not combine the 2, and fix I-5 along with improving transit downtown for a slightly higher sum?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008415714_webviaductcosts20m.html

I prefer C for surface options and H for tunnel options. Personally I'd rather cough up the extra billion and have H.

Ah, just noticed they added projected construction times as well. Again, Surface options get built the quickest (around 5 years), tunnels take the longest (up to 9.5 years for the bored tunnel).

I think it's safe to say the bored tunnel is out. Did anyone else see the cost estimates for the 520 tunnel o.O !!!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/388717_520costs21.html

I stand by my original statement after seeing the costs.

Interesting. I know the UW doesn't want the K option, because it eliminates even more Husky Stadium parking(in addition to light rail's doings) and adds a bridge over the vista there.

A's a little cheaper, but I'm guessing Montlake doesn't want that one...

I prefer C for surface options and H for tunnel options. Personally I'd rather cough up the extra billion and have H.

The extra billion would buy us more sprawl. C would help anchor downtown as our business center by making it harder to live on one side of the city and work on another (without using transit).