[Last Chance]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003479547_webviaduct15.html

Gregoire calls for viaduct vote


Seattle Times staff

Gov. Christine Gregoire today said Seattle voters should decide whether to replace the Alaskan Way viaduct with another elevated structure or a tunnel.

In releasing her long-awaited decision on the viaduct, Gregoire said the financing plan for an elevated roadway is "feasible and sufficient" to complete the project, but the plan to pay for a tunnel is not.

She also said opponents would challenge either option through the Legislature or the permitting processes.

"We are at a political stalemate and must find a path forward to replace the viaduct," Gregoire said. "I don't believe that, without a vote, either option will move forward. We need to hear directly from the people for whom this decision has the most impact."

With the cost estimated at $2.8 billion, the elevated structure is a cheaper choice and would cause less disruption during construction than a tunnel.

The cost of the tunnel is estimated at $4.6 billion. Supporters say it would open up views of Elliott Bay and reconnect downtown to the waterfront.

[AZchristopher]

Fun. Another vote that were the decision will probably be revoted on several more times. Just like every other transportation vote the state goes through.

I wish they would just tear it down so something would have to be done.

[Seasun]

My two cents: I live near the viaduct and while it would be nice to hide the highway I'm far from comfortable with the idea of a tunnel. Keeping Puget Sound out of the tunnel forever seems unlikely at best. All the tunnel plans I've seen so far would require 24 hour lighting and mechanical ventilation - forever (not to mention the possibility of pumps keeping residual water out of the tunnel). If the tunnel was designed with a grating-type ceiling that allowed for some natural exhaust of fumes and incoming daylight I might find it reasonable. Listening to vehicles rumbling below grade would be better than hearing huge exhaust fans pushing air fumes out of the tunnel. Last I've heard trucking interests still have major concerns over fire suppression in the tunnel. To my knowledge flammable cargo (fuel trucks and similar) would not be allowed in the tunnel - the budget isn't allowing for a real fire suppression system like the I-90 tunnels. If highway 99 is supposed to still be an alternative to I-5 this is a real problem for some businesses. Maybe the same design solution that allows some daylight and ventilation into the tunnel could also allow fire trucks to extinguish fires from street level.

To summarize - the tunnel would be nice but the financial and environmental expense of hiding cars is really hard for me to justify. The amount of waterproofing plastic and energy (during construction and forever!) that it will take to build and maintain a tunnel really contradicts the Mayor's Kyoto agreement hyperbole. Before I'd vote for the tunnel I'd have to be assured we're not burdening future generations with something worse than the visual unpleasantness we have today.

[Urban Zombie®]

The best proposal (if it ever was one) is to tear down the viaduct and replace it with absolutely nothing.

[InlandEmpire]

The best proposal (if it ever was one) is to tear down the viaduct and replace it with absolutely nothing.


I totally agree! :tup: The tunnel, while aesthetically preferable to the viaduct, sounds like a disaster waiting to happen in my opinion. Is that part of the waterfront an earthquake liquification zone?? It seems like while it may be a bit of a headache for commuters, the safest thing would be to eliminate the roadway completely. Maybe some of the commuters would just give up and take public transit.

[mcbaby]

they should just tear it down and see if they can live without it.

[bgwah]

If we're lucky it will be closed off due to damage or something and an earthquake will just knock it over.

[Last Chance]

Since this is going back to the city of Seattle residents for a vote, I want to make sure that any tolls that end up on I-90 (and they will) go to replace 520 and don't go to the viaduct at all.

[SPOKANITE]

Since this is going back to the city of Seattle residents for a vote, I want to make sure that any tolls that end up on I-90 (and they will) go to replace 520 and don't go to the viaduct at all.

I've heard that Federal Law currently prohibits implementing tolls on existing Federal Highways. However, new highways like the N/S corridor in Spokane are strong candidates. Does anyone else know for certain?

[Black Box]

Wish the quake would have rattled it down to begin with and too bad that SR-520 made it through the storm. I do not see how this keeps the city from denying permits in the future or trying to figure out a way to stall it. This drama is suffocating and I do not see how the Governor's decision prevents the council from putting the surface-transit option on the ballot. Oddly enough, our own mayor seems to be the only one with a clear and boldly stated preference (that will not work). I do not agree with his TUNNEL! TUNNEL! campaign, but I respect his consistency and clarity on the matter. Oh, Seattle, for all of your accomplishments.....

[mSeattle]

Someone ask the state legistlators why the state can't transition a road into a rail coridor? Why do roads get special treatment? Roads can intrude or be imposed into every "transportation" plan but rail can't intrude into roads funding. What's up with that? Why can't we have a skytrain plan north to south on that route with a surface road in the downtown portion?

[Last Chance]

^ We can't even keep a rail corridor as a rail corridor. Shouldn't come as a surprise that we can't work rail into a road proposal. (Sarcasm)

There sure are a lot of questions regarding transportation issues to ask our elected officials. But it seems that the more questions that get asked, the longer it takes to get any answers. Now we just get the same question asked back to us. What a waste of time...

At least Greg Nickels is decisive. I don't always agree with him, but consistency and decisiveness are real positive attributes right now. Now if we could just find a way to pay for the decisiveness, we would be all set.