[NW Mike]

http://aycu21.webshots.com/image/9420/2000048139103363443_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2000048139103363443)

http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/8543/2005715569937013445_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005715569937013445)

Today in the Seattle Times

"Seattle voters will weigh March 13 whether to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with an elevated highway or a four-lane tunnel.

The Seattle City Council voted 6-3 this afternoon to put two alternatives on the advisory ballot. Council members seemed unsure what would happen if both measures passed.

Although the ballot wording has not been finalized, council members did agree to list $3.41 billion as the cost for the four-lane tunnel, a trimmed-down tunnel alternative that Mayor Greg Nickels began promoting this week. The measure asking voters if they support a new elevated structure would indicate that most of the funding for its $2.8 billion cost has been secured.

Council President Nick Licata and members David Della and Peter Steinbrueck voted against putting the measures on the ballot."
By Seattle Times staff

By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times staff reporter

"At first, the pitch sounds like snake oil: a four-lane waterfront tunnel that can carry as many cars as a tunnel with six lanes and save $1.2 billion.

But just a few days ago, a panel of experts said Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' last-ditch proposal for a narrower tunnel deserved a closer look by the state.

Gov. Christine Gregoire, however, said enough was enough. She ordered an end to the discussion. Either the state will build a cheaper elevated replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, or more than $2 billion in state aid would be shifted to the equally needy Highway 520 floating bridge.

Nickels and other pro-tunnel city leaders aren't ready to take no for an answer.

They hope a city advisory election would give the tunnel another chance.

Even assuming Olympia cares, the city first has to convince voters that the plan Nickels is now promoting is credible.

Q. How can four lanes carry as many cars as six?

A. During rush hours, the safety shoulders would become exit-only lanes, effectively widening the roadway from four lanes to six. In the morning commute northbound, the right shoulder would become an exit-only lane to Western Avenue. The speed limit would be reduced at peak times.

In off-peak times, the shoulders would serve as break-down lanes, and cars would exit the highway from the usual right lane, leaving two through-lanes in each direction. "The best engineering judgment tells you it would work, but you have to go back and do the analysis," said panel member Don Forbes, a former Oregon state transportation director. The panel was appointed by Gregoire and legislative leaders.

Q. Would traffic become clogged if a car stalls at rush hour?

A. Quite likely.

The city would need to station tow trucks nearby, to clear fender-benders and breakdowns, said Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis. Stalls are rare enough that the occasional tie-up seems a reasonable tradeoff for a possible billion-dollar savings, Forbes said.

At off-peak times, when traffic is moving fastest, there would be a full-sized shoulder, where stalled cars could pull over.

Q. Would a narrower tunnel save money?

A. The city, after seeking data from the state Department of Transportation and engineering consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff and other members of the viaduct design team, produced a cost figure of $3.4 billion. The DOT would not discuss the figure this week.

A four-lane tunnel, with lanes built side by side, would require a shallower trench than the stacked six-lane tunnel. A smaller tunnel would use less concrete. Construction could be finished by July 2013, or 1 ½ years sooner than the big tunnel, the city says.

Q. If this tunnel is so great, why didn't the city propose it sooner?

A. City staffers say they looked at a leaner structure after a price shock Sept. 20, when DOT estimates for the six-lane tunnel increased $1 billion.

Until that point, the city thought a six-lane tunnel was affordable. "Until September 20, we were dealing with a $3.6 billion project," said mayoral spokeswoman Marianne Bichsel.

On Oct. 30, Nickels told KUOW radio a four-lane tunnel might save money.

In mid-December, Gregoire issued a finding that the mayor's funding plan on the original $4.6 billion, six-lane tunnel fell short. She called for Seattle voters to choose between an elevated or tunneled highway — and bear the extra cost of a tunnel.

The city says it recently devised a cheaper four-lane version that connects at Western Avenue — solving an earlier problem that doomed an earlier four-lane alternative.

Q. Did Gregoire act in haste ?

A. The city says it briefed DOT on the four-lane tunnel Jan. 5, kicking off a week of study that included a day of reports to the panel.

But DOT told the panel six days later to halt its review.

"I've been working in infrastructure over 30 years, and I've never seen data on a good idea suppressed in this way," complained a city consultant, Doug Hurley.

In a letter to Ceis and Gregoire this week, the panel says the latest four-lane concept "shows promise."

The panel suggests an independent cost review, before any citywide vote on the future of the highway."


:yes:

[James Bond Agent 007]

Such drama!

OK, now you folks living in Seattle need to get out the pro-tunnel vote!

[bgwah]

Don't get your hopes up.

[seaskyfan]

This just seems so pointless.

[Urban Zombie®]

Tear down the piece of shit viaduct and don't rebuild anything--except for the waterfront which is currently being oppressed by this monster. Let's face it, commuters are going to have become accustomed to new routes during the lengthy construction period anyways, so let's just be done with it for good and use the funds else where. What better chance will any city have to start building a sustainable city away from the clutches of 20 million cars and rapidly dwindling foreign oil? After the Embarcadero departed this dimension, San Fransisco did not suck itself into a black hole--on the contrary, it became even more livable. I'm sure the same would be true in Seattle. Perhaps we should write a few letters to the major papers in Seattle, supporting the "build nothing" plan?

[seaskyfan]

The build nothing plan isn't going to happen. Much as folks would like this to be an option, it isn't. It's a state highway that is one of the major north-south connectors through the region and the State isn't going to let the City or anyone else take away the central potion of it.

[Black Box]

I do not see how this will make anything more clear. It'll continue the round and round and process and debate and well, if you're from Seattle, you know what I mean. It's an advisory vote. The Governor does not have to heed any of this, clearly she is putting weight behind the re-build. We're not even close to solving this issue. Also, what are anyone's thoughts as to how this will affect this year's RTID vote? Also, we have to consider that the Feds still have to cough up some dough and yes, Patty Murray is the chairperson of the Transportation and Housing subcommittee, but she's got to be looking at all of this and wondering what the worth or reliability a Seattle project has to offer. EARTHQUAKE!

[Black Box]

Oh, and the Governor and the Mayor were both at the opening ceremony for the Olympic Sculpture Park earlier today. I'm going down there in a few hours. At least there is something new and interesting opening on the waterfront today.

[mhays]

I'm voting for the tunnel.

Narrower is just fine. Some traffic (downtown desinations) can be moved to surface streets. I just don't want the through traffic to be on the streets.

If there's no tunnel, let it stand until it falls.

[PDXPaul]

I'm voting for the tunnel also. But somehow I fear we'll get the aerial option.

[Dr. Smoke]

NO REBUILD. Take that money and instead build out light-rail. It would take copious traffic off the road. Use the viaduct until it falls down.

I have got to think that the governor knows a new viaduct is stupid. So she has some other agenda.

I've run the numbers, and the tunnel contractors have packed on over 30%, needless to say because they are the only ones big enough to do this. So I think the guv is trying to force their hand.

Fsck them. NO REBUILD!

[mhays]

There's no contractor yet. Also, there are plenty of companies and consortia capable of building either option -- there should be enough to ensure competition.

Cost estimates are being prepared by the DOT, their design consultants, and probably a third-party cost consultant. If you want to allege dishonesty, it would be with DOT and at the elected level. I don't think this is happening.

[Black Box]

If the tunnel and the re-build are the only options, then I go with the tunnel, but really, that's not going to happen, I wish our leaders could think a bit more outside of the two. On a lighter note, the OSP is beautiful and the views are AMAZING. Great things happen in Seattle, I just wish our transportation scenario had the same things going for it.

[Dr. Smoke]

There's more to it than that Matt. When projects get this large, everybody loses perspective; the out-of-control Pentagon is a great example.

DOT prepares a budget based on preliminary proposals by what they consider to be the top contenders for the project, which in this case is about two companies. Sure, lots of companies can do the project, but governments are very risk-adverse and will consider only those who they feel are absolutely bolt-sure to finish the job, without a doubt and no thinking allowed. No competition causes project inflation, which in this case I believe is over 200%. And yes a flaming helluvalot of that is to grease the skids. It is unavoidable on this scale, although the brazenness of them in this one is surprising. The projected cost has more than doubled since it was first proposed, and it was not due to political 'misunderestimating'.

As evidence I submit the Swiss Gotthard Base Tunnel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel). US$6.428bb / 95 miles = $67.663mm/mi. For our ~2 mile State 99 tunnel this gives a linear cost of $135.326mm... not $4.5bb! OK, so the proportion of fixed costs would be higher in our case, so say we were doing a bore rather than a cut 'n cover. Add two boring machines for ~$40mm, plus supporting equipment and services for another $10mm. Let's allow $20mm for utility relo and another $10mm for politicians. Plus $40mm for developer profit and $50mm for unexpected costs, overruns, slush funds, lawsuits, and the CEO's new custom Bentley.

That gives a total projected cost of $306mm for the whole project plus corruption, not to consider that we are boring through soil and the Swiss are boring through solid granite! Think the cost of labor is more here than in CH? Nah.

How is it that Madrid could afford to tunnel virtually all of their downtown streets underground? Because they didn't have the outrageous raping and pillaging that the Mafia does to us here. The Guv just put a thumb in their eye... good for her. Wonder how long she'll live?

I'm just sayin'...

{nervously looks over shoulder}

[seaskyfan]

There's more to it than that Matt. When projects get this large, everybody loses perspective; the out-of-control Pentagon is a great example.

DOT prepares a budget based on preliminary proposals by what they consider to be the top contenders for the project, which in this case is about two companies. Sure, lots of companies can do the project, but governments are very risk-adverse and will consider only those who they feel are absolutely bolt-sure to finish the job, without a doubt and no thinking allowed. No competition causes project inflation, which in this case I believe is over 200%. And yes a flaming helluvalot of that is to grease the skids. It is unavoidable on this scale, although the brazenness of them in this one is surprising. The projected cost has more than doubled since it was first proposed, and it was not due to political 'misunderestimating'.

As evidence I submit the Swiss Gotthard Base Tunnel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel). US$6.428bb / 95 miles = $67.663mm/mi. For our ~2 mile State 99 tunnel this gives a linear cost of $135.326mm... not $4.5bb! OK, so the proportion of fixed costs would be higher in our case, so say we were doing a bore rather than a cut 'n cover. Add two boring machines for ~$40mm, plus supporting equipment and services for another $10mm. Let's allow $20mm for utility relo and another $10mm for politicians. Plus $40mm for developer profit and $50mm for unexpected costs, overruns, slush funds, lawsuits, and the CEO's new custom Bentley.

That gives a total projected cost of $306mm for the whole project plus corruption, not to consider that we are boring through soil and the Swiss are boring through solid granite! Think the cost of labor is more here than in CH? Nah.

How is it that Madrid could afford to tunnel virtually all of their downtown streets underground? Because they didn't have the outrageous raping and pillaging that the Mafia does to us here. The Guv just put a thumb in their eye... good for her. Wonder how long she'll live?

I'm just sayin'...

{nervously looks over shoulder}

... and we never landed on the moon.

Seriously guy, this seems a bit over the top. The WA DOT does a pretty good job with this sort of estimating (especially since the current secretary took over) and there are a lot of folks with a vested interest in checking the estimates (folks who are pro-tunnel, pro-surface option, etc.).

I've found government in Washington State to be remarkably free of corruption. I worked for the City of Seattle years ago in the planning/permitting department (usually a hotbed of corruption in many places) and it was squeaky clean.

[Dr. Smoke]

Was there something wrong with my math?

I'm just trying to tell ya...

You don't have to believe me. :no:

[Bear]

After reading this board, I appreciate the following article from the Sunday Times even more:

Our kind of town

By Tim Dillon

Special to The Times

Today, a tour from some big shoulders

I have lived here for the better part of 20 years, coming from the Chicago area.

Growing up in Chicago and moving here, you realize that we do nothing the same.

Politicians in Chicago know how to get things done. It all starts with electing officials and giving them the faith in doing their jobs. Here in Seattle, we rely heavily on the initiative process. I cannot begin to tell you what a failure it is. We vote on things one day and, due to public opinion, change our mind and vote it down.

We need only to look at the monorail vote, Alaskan Way Viaduct, light rail, vehicle license-tabs tax, the 520 bridge, funding education, and many more initiatives.

Now we all think we are far more advanced than the average Midwesterner. We should, however, spend some time in the Windy City to learn how generations of hardworking Americans have built a way of life second to none. I know many will say "Chicago! You have to be kidding me. That place is a frozen tundra with absolutely no culture." But before you judge, you have to visit.

Those people know how to build things to last. You need only drive down the lakefront to experience the wonders. You start on the South Side heading west along Lake Michigan. You quickly realize that the people who did the planning there were visionaries. You can drive 20 miles along Lake Shore Drive and experience the natural wonders of the lake. You will drive by parks, beaches and some of the best museums in the world.

You then approach the city and hit Solider Field. This place is where history has been made. From there, you can see the rest of Chicago and how they have built up their infrastructure. They build power lines underground. They do not allow trees to grow over lines and wait for them to fall. They plan for the weather. When it snows, the mayor and other politicians live and die by how efficiently they can get the people to work. They lay down salt to melt away the ice so that their drivers are safe.

In essence, they are held accountable for planning and providing for their citizens. I cannot say the same for our elected officials.

Now I am not going to carp too hard on what I have seen [in the Puget Sound] over the past month, but will say that you need to take in Chicago, not only for its great food and sports, but also for the lessons it has to offer in how to run a government and a city.

Tim Dillon lives in Yarrow Point.

[Bear]

How is it that Madrid could afford to tunnel virtually all of their downtown streets underground? Because they didn't have the outrageous raping and pillaging that the Mafia does to us here. The Guv just put a thumb in their eye... good for her. Wonder how long she'll live?

I'm just sayin'...

{nervously looks over shoulder}

Yeah - Madrid - a model of incorruptibility - you know your shit

[seaskyfan]

I don't think the locals here would put up with Chicago-style corruption for a minute. A lot of the "good government" policies that make create more process are a direct reaction to machine politics.

[seapug]

in terms of government i'd take chicagos "corruption" over seattles overly pc listen to everybodies bullshit way of doing stuff. the people that want the viaduct because they like the view they have on it when they drive by on their way to work should have absolutely no say. the people who have the viaduct 8 ft out there bedroom window should be the ones to decide.

[Dr. Smoke]

Yeah - Madrid - a model of incorruptibility - you know your shit
I do know my shit.

But you confuse the fact that Madrid has actually tunneled most of their downtown streets, with the urban corruption which always exists. Theirs is just at a non-astronomical level; because you'll notice I never claimed that Madrid is without corruption. That would be stupid.

As long as we willfully remain blind to a problem, and endeavor to relax and be too confused to hold public officials accountable, we will get our treasury drained time and time again. I like Nickels and the government here, and I think he has the right approach, but the way you get things done is little different than anywhere else. The main difference is what I'd describe as a 'lack of self-security'.

Just to make my point more clear for you, Bear: Madrid --eh, which is in Spain, one of the poorer EU nations-- has managed to afford to tunnel most of their downtown streets underground, making for a cleaner, quieter, and safer downtown. Can you imagine what a massive project?! How could they afford it, when we can't manage a two mile, straight-line stretch of freeway for less than $4bb?


Look man, I am not saying that the PacNW is far more corrupt than elsewhere; I love it here, and compared with Dallas or Chicago it is a sweet piece of cherry pie. I am just trying to organize peoples' thoughts around the real issues, and trying to lend some perspective. On big projects, people always lose perspective, and that's why they are the biggest moneymakers, when they should be proportionately the smallest!

[pwright1]

I'm definately voting for a tunnel though I'd rather see nothing built, just torn down. The connection between downtown and the waterfront would be so awesome. The viaduct is the most hideous thing in the pacific northwest.

[Black Box]

Read more articles about this and it is confusing. Will the Governor care if the elevated re-build goes down in defeat? I do not think that this ballot will make things more clear on what we really want. I understand what my vote would mean on paper, but what does it mean in the real world of trying to solve our transportation issues? I have more to say later, but I must go.

[NW Mike]

The Viaduct is the worst thing about Seattle...Structure wise. If they could Build the tunnel it would only take a short time to see the vision of the waterfront. There is so many possibilitys with such a beautiful city. San Francisco, Chicago, NewYork, Madrid, Amsterdam so on and so on...The list is very long on where the city can look to for guidance. But the sad fact is the greater number of people voting for this have no clue to what the possibilitys are for this great city. I was down at the Olympic Sculpture Park and the Gov was so happy to have such a wonderful park for the people...Because she did not have to find the money to fund it...But she did say " Enjoy the free park but come spend your money in the city"...Duuhhhhh!! What do you think the waterfront would bring Governor?....Money, tourism and Locals coming down to enjoy. They could make this waterfront part of OSP..Make it something that no other city has. VOTE Tunnel!! We need the public to know this. The Governor approved the 3 mile Tunnel extension of the Light Rail to the U dist...."No problem we will find the money"
No one is crying over the spending of the Light Rail which is great but we all need to understand this is for the greater cause...

"Tunnel it and they will come."

[mSeattle]

Someone should do a rendering of an artistic structure going along the waterfront. An elevated structure could actually be designed as art (downtown library?).

[NW Mike]

OLYMPIA — Gov. Christine Gregoire this morning left the door open to replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel.

Without committing herself to a course of action, the governor said she wants to hear what voters say in a March 13 election in Seattle on the viaduct.

"There is no question that the next big issue is what do the voters say," Gregoire said at a news conference today.

The Seattle City Council voted 6-3 Friday to put two questions on an advisory ballot. One asks voters if they prefer to replace the viaduct with a $2.8 billion elevated highway; the other asks if they want to replace the viaduct with a $3.4 billion tunnel.

"We're pleased that the governor appears to be willing to listen to what the voters of Seattle say about this." said Marianne Bichsel, spokeswoman for Mayor Greg Nickels. She said the mayor today sent a letter to the governor asking her to reconvene the viaduct Expert Review Panel "to do an independent politics-free analysis of this proposal."

Gregoire's position also was cheered by City Councilwoman Jan Drago, chair of the Transportation Committee. "This issue is highly emotional. This is absolutely positive news. It's a great opportunity for us."

The proposed four-lane tunnel is an alternative to a $4.6 billion six-lane model that had been on the table. However, the new tunnel proposal has not been fully vetted. Gregoire said there are many unanswered questions. She wants to get as many of them answered as possible before it goes to a vote.

After that, it's not clear what will happen.

"The end of the legislative session is the final say because we're moving forward with one of the two options we had in December (the elevated highway or the $4.6 billion tunnel) or whatever the Legislature may choose alternatively," Gregoire said.

Seattle Times staff reporter Susan Gilmore contributed to this report

:worship:
All Hail The Gov.

[blackc5]

$3.4 billion for the tunnel vs. $2.8 for a replacement eyesore. This seems like a no brainer to me. Thats 20% extra for a massively better solution. Over the life of say 75 years for the project, that is only $8 million per year more!

You simply can't argue that a tunnel with a vastly improved waterfront as a result wouldn't bring in at least $8 million/year in tourism, shopping, waterfront dining and taxes. Not to mention the better environmental appeal and overall improved quality of living for Seattle residents and so many visitors.

[NW Mike]

$3.4 billion for the tunnel vs. $2.8 for a replacement eyesore. This seems like a no brainer to me. Thats 20% extra for a massively better solution. Over the life of say 75 years for the project, that is only $8 million per year more!

You simply can't argue that a tunnel with a vastly improved waterfront as a result wouldn't bring in at least $8 million/year in tourism, shopping, waterfront dining and taxes. Not to mention the better environmental appeal and overall improved quality of living for Seattle residents and so many visitors.

This is very true...Amen!!

[pdxstreetcar]

Wouldnt the best option be NO on both the tunnel and elevated options which would likely be interpreted as a pro-surface boulevard option?

[mSeattle]

^Interesting thought. A vastly improved waterfront and save $4 billion (10s of billions financing).

[Dr. Smoke]

:previous: This is how I'm voting, although few others will think of this.

No Rebuild, and put that money to light-rail buildout NOW.

(And mSeattle, thanks for the Redress link)

[Capitol Hill]

However the $$$ is earmarked currently for Viaduct. The no rebuild option, while a nice idea, wouldn't work as well here as tearing down the Embarcadero. The E was a tail end highway, the Viaduct is a throughway.

What nobody is mentioning right now is that the concrete on I-5 needs to be replaced, as well. It is reaching the end of its useful life. This was a hot topic of discussion amongst many DOT people before the Nisqually earthquake, and since then, nada.

Now how's that for a scary scenario, we start construction of the viaduct, and ALSO have to close lanes of I-5 for reconstruction.

We blew it when we didn't fully fund transit.

[NW Mike]

Now is the time to fully fund these projects and stop dinkering around with what to do. Some one needs to make some tuff decisions before we are truly screwed. I-5 is not enough for this region.I-405 is very busy and they can not build lanes quick enough. Light Rail needs to be built out over the entire region...From Marysville to Olympia and everywhere in between.Millions of people will keep moving here. Who blames them, its the best place in the country to work or play.

[Dr. Smoke]

For that, NW Mike, we need to knock the stuffing out of these major GC's. Use creative methods, like bypassing them in favor of segmenting work amongst smaller GC's who may not have such a depth of work with government.

Cut out the abusers!

[mcbaby]

if i lived in seattle, i would vote for the tunnel simply because it would open up the waterfront. this alone would make seattle that much more attractive to visitors and residents alike. in portland, we tore up a highway that cut downtown off from the river. we didn't just build another ugly highway. we built a park (tom mccall waterfront park). now we have festivals, concerts, fireworks, and throngs of people biking, walking, roller blading or just congregating along the river. even though there were cost issues and worry about where the traffic would go, it was never regretted. seattle should just take a chance and stop worrying about the short term cost and look at the big picture. beautiful waterfront. world class city. tourist dollars and investment. and just plain enjoyment.

[mSeattle]

You can do that by voting "No" to both and making sure that the state changes its bias (which favors roads over transit) in "transportation" development in the most urban part of the state.

[Black Box]

I'm also wondering what this all means for the vote on RTID later this year. Even if the Viaduct funds are reallocated for 520, if the RTID is defeated this year, 520 will also go down due to the lack of complete funding. 520 needs the RTID to pass and if Seattle residents are dissatisfied with the Governor's actions, well, maybe Seattle voters will reject the RTID, possibly causing these projects to be put on hold and maybe it will force the leadership to come up with yet another way to approach our transportation dilemma(s). This is soap-operatic. I'm still deciding if I should even participate in the March vote , but if I were voting on the RTID today, I'd cast a NO vote. The March vote is not a be-all-end-all of the Viaduct issue if the debate over our region's transportation issues become so poisoned that the RTID measure fails for all of the other projects to end up back at square one. Further light-rail phases are put off and planned road projects come to a halt. This very successful region in so many other ways, will once again be at the drawing board of what to do about traffic and mobility as it continues to fall behind once more.

[Dr. Smoke]

Let's look at a 'new viaduct':

The existing viaduct was built in 1957 for $8mm.

Inflation 1957 to 2007 ~25X (using real estate as the index), which gives gives ~$200mm.

Maybe the new structure is 1.5 X more expensive for earthquake and increased traffic flow. Remember, all the costs of relocating services and utilities, and traffic mitigation were faced for the first viaduct, so this is not new, so ~$300mm. Add in a factor for increased paperwork for enviro, say 1.5x.

Now we are at $450mm.

But wait. Modern construction methods and higher worker productivity should make this job cheaper than 1957, so add in a productivity factor of say 0.80

And we are back to $360mm, not $2.5bb!!

We need an independent auditor to look into the numbers before the vote. Some way is needed to bust open this horrifyingly abusive heist. We are behaving like an African country!

[seaskyfan]

BALLOT LANGUAGE

Here's the current ballot language (from this morning's P-I). They've done a good job of explaining the cost breakdown.

Advisory Measure 1

Seattle Advisory Measure Number 1 concerns replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a Surface-Tunnel Hybrid Alternative. This measure is advisory only. If you vote yes, you are stating that you prefer that the Alaskan Way Viaduct be replaced with a four-lane tunnel with wide shoulders that could be used for peak-period travel, in addition to surface-street and transit improvements. The estimated cost is $3,410,000,000, to be potentially funded with $2,800,000,000 in state and federal funds, $500,000,000 in city utility funds for utility relocation made necessary by the project and $250,000,000 from a localized tax on specially benefitted landowners. The Governor has said state and federal funds might not be available above $2,800,000,000.

Yes, I prefer the Surface/Tunnel Hybrid Alternative
No, I do not prefer the Surface/Tunnel Hybrid Alternative

Advisory Measure 2

Seattle Advisory Ballot Measure Number 2 concerns replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with an Elevated Structure Alternative. This measure is advisory only. If you vote yes, you are stating that you prefer that the Alaskan Way Viaduct be replaced with a six-lane elevated structure, increased to four lanes in each direction between South King Street and new ramps at Seneca and Columbia Streets. The estimated cost is $2,800,000,000 to be potentially funded with $2,800,000,000 in state and federal funds.

Yes, I prefer the Elevated Structure Alternative
No, I do not prefer the Elevated Structure Alternative

[seaskyfan]

I'm also wondering what this all means for the vote on RTID later this year. Even if the Viaduct funds are reallocated for 520, if the RTID is defeated this year, 520 will also go down due to the lack of complete funding. 520 needs the RTID to pass and if Seattle residents are dissatisfied with the Governor's actions, well, maybe Seattle voters will reject the RTID, possibly causing these projects to be put on hold and maybe it will force the leadership to come up with yet another way to approach our transportation dilemma(s). This is soap-operatic. I'm still deciding if I should even participate in the March vote , but if I were voting on the RTID today, I'd cast a NO vote. The March vote is not a be-all-end-all of the Viaduct issue if the debate over our region's transportation issues become so poisoned that the RTID measure fails for all of the other projects to end up back at square one. Further light-rail phases are put off and planned road projects come to a halt. This very successful region in so many other ways, will once again be at the drawing board of what to do about traffic and mobility as it continues to fall behind once more.

I'm leaning yes on RTID because of the link to Sound Transit 2. My understanding is that we'll see one up or down vote on both.

[Black Box]

Yes, I am aware of that. I am a HUGE supporter of light-rail and mass transit, but this whole new debacle has left me feeling weary of the WSDOT.

[NW Mike]

Story in the Seattle Times Lets see how much more screwed up it can get.

$800M for tunnel option shifted to other projects
By Mike Lindblom

Seattle Times staff reporter

A ballot measure for regional highways was overhauled Friday, shifting $800 million once meant for an Alaskan Way Tunnel toward Seattle-area streets and a new Highway 520 bridge.

The cash became available -- at least in theory, assuming voters approve higher taxes in November -- because Seattle recently abandoned plans for a six-lane tunnel that required regional help, its most expensive option for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Instead, the state is considering a six-lane elevated highway to replace the aging viaduct; the city now desires a four-lane tunnel, in which shoulders would become exit lanes at rush hour. Those two choices are on a March 13 citywide advisory ballot.

With the six-lane tunnel dead, the regional plan can earmark $800 million to: rebuild Seattle's Mercer Street, South Lander Street and Spokane Street Viaduct; add ramps from Interstate 5 to the Sodo busway; replace the South Park Bridge; build bus lanes on Aurora Avenue North in Shoreline; and help fund the new floating bridge across Lake Washington.

Council members from Snohomish, King and Pierce counties, acting as the Regional Transportation Investment District, reshuffled the money Friday, as they worked toward a final plan by spring.

In other changes Friday, the panel added a $380 million high-occupancy-vehicle ramp project in Renton, linking Highway 167 to Interstate 405.

And in south Pierce County, the panel increased funds to $477 million for a new Cross-Base Highway, from I-5 to the booming Spanaway area, despite complaints it would damage marshes and oak prairies.

The share for the 520 bridge increased Friday from $800 million to $1.1 billion, as the group added $200 million in former tunnel funds and $100 million by canceling a Coal Creek Parkway interchange along I-405. Tolls could supply another $700 million. The total $1.8 billion would cover less than half the cost of a six-lane span, but local officials hope Friday's boost will inspire the Legislature and Gov. Christine Gregoire to supply the rest.

Rising concrete, steel and labor prices have wreaked havoc on highway budgets. In December, new state estimates for the regional plan's largest projects were 31 percent above previous forecasts.

To cope with higher costs, officials are reducing the scope of some of the projects and planning to sell bonds. The new regional plan assumes $4.7 billion in debt payments, on top of the $8.7 billion list of projects plus $934 million for inflation and cash reserves, for a total $14.3 billion.

The regional highway plan will be paired on the ballot with a Sound Transit measure to extend light-rail tracks to Lynnwood, Bellevue and the Port of Tacoma. The measures are linked -- both must pass or both fail.

The roads portion would cost a typical household $107 a year in new car-tab and sales taxes, while the Sound Transit measure would increase sales taxes $125.

Next, the group hopes to convince lawmakers that the state should back the bonds for the regional projects, to help the new RTID agency reduce its interest rates and save money. That way, Chairman Shawn Bunney said, another $300 million could be put toward the floating bridge.

[NW Mike]

Now that a $4.6 billion, six-lane waterfront tunnel in Seattle has been dropped in favor of cheaper options, politicians are changing a November regional highway ballot measure to move the tunnel's $800 million share to these projects:
Highway 520: Boost of $200 million toward a new floating bridge.

Mercer Street: Rebuild for two-way travel, pedestrian use, and better links to Aurora Avenue North, $150 million.

South Lander Street: Overpasses to move container trucks and other traffic over railroad tracks, $70 million.

Spokane Street Viaduct: Transit ramps to Sodo busway, wider lanes, safety improvements, $130 million.

Interstate 5 bus ramps: Ramps from HOV lanes to Sodo, for faster express-bus travel, $100 million.

South Park Bridge: Replace failing span that serves industrial area and low-income neighborhood, $110 million.

Aurora Avenue North: New lanes in Shoreline for bus rapid transit and business access, $40 million.


Source: Regional Transportation Investment District. More details at www.rtid.org.

[NW Mike]

Reported in the Everett Herald 1-27-07

SEATTLE - The state's largest-ever road and transit tax measure - nearly $20 billion - cleared a key hurdle Friday and is closer to appearing on the November ballot.

A panel of Snohomish, King and Pierce county council officials signed off on tax district boundaries and an $8.5 billion project list for voters to consider.

If approved, the measure would create a Regional Transportation Investment District to collect sales taxes and car tab fees for the roadwork.

The measure is intended to appear alongside a Sound Transit Phase 2 measure for the three counties. The estimated cost is $11.1 billion - without inflation - for 40 miles of light rail extensions, commuter trains and more buses.

An estimated 1.2 million voters in the cities and urban areas of the three counties will be asked to cast ballots on the measure.

"It's a package that I think will be very attractive to voters," County Council chairman Dave Gossett said.

If approved, higher sales taxes and car tab fees will be spent on the work over 20 years. Officials plan to borrow money and collect taxes to pay it back over 30 years.

"It's not a perfect plan, but it's a pretty darn good one," said King County Councilman Reagan Dunn, who led a push to spend $1.1 billion on a wider Highway 520 bridge.

Snohomish County wants to spend $1 billion of the money to widen Highway 9, build ramps for the future expansion of the U.S. 2 trestle, and build a better I-5 interchange at 128th Street SW.

Without the tax measure the state highway department has no money for the projects.

The proposal is "the most promising avenue for improving capacity and eliminating choke points," said David Hopkins, state transportation department regional coordinator.

The measure targets improvements in the three most populous and congested counties in the state.

"This is the single largest request for investment ever made in this region," King County Councilwoman Julia Patterson said. "We are making investments for our future, for our kids."

Snohomish County focused projects and taxing district boundaries on the congested urban areas of the county along I-5, Highway 9 and Monroe.

An estimated 84 percent of Snohomish County voters, or 278,000 people, will see the road ballot measure. Because of a difference in tax district boundaries, only 200,000 of those will see the Sound Transit measure.

"The proof will be in November this year if we have the right mix of projects and boundaries," Pierce County Councilman Shawn Bunney said.

Snohomish County Councilman Gary Nelson lobbied for the road ballot to go to all 332,000 Snohomish County voters. To do otherwise disenfranchises those voters.

Gossett said rural voters are in part to blame for failed transportation measures in Snohomish County history.

"There are voters who have told us they aren't interested," Gossett said. "We ought to listen to them."

Setting tax district boundaries to include urban areas where voters can address their own gridlock is a strategy for success, he said.

"I ran for office because I wanted to get things done," he said.

Three-county plan

The Regional Transportation Investment District and Sound Transit - billed as Roads and Transit - plan joint public forums this spring for feedback on $19.6 billion in ballot proposals.
ROADS
Cost: $8.5 billion total
Snohomish County: $2 billion
King: $4.4 billion
Pierce: $2.1 billion
Sales tax: additional 0.1 percent, or one penny on a $10 purchase
Car tabs: additional 0.8 percent motor vehicle excise tax, or $80 on every $10,000 value of a vehicle
SOUND TRANSIT
Cost: $11.1 billion
Sales tax: additional 0.5 percent, or 5 cents on a $10 purchase


Reporter Jeff Switzer:

[NW Mike]

Today in Seattle Times
Seattle Times staff reporter

"Tunnel proponents are challenging the proposed text in the voters pamphlet for the upcoming Seattle advisory election on the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Pro-tunnel groups want to strike part of the Seattle City Attorney's Office "explanatory statement" that would appear in election guides mailed to all city voters.

Specifically, they want to delete a portion of City Attorney Tom Carr's statement that it's "uncertain whether" state and federal funding secured for a new elevated highway to replace the viaduct also would be available for a tunnel.

Voters in the all-mail election will be asked two questions: Question 1 asks for a yes or no vote on a four-lane tunnel. Question 2 asks yes or no on a six-lane elevated highway. Ballots must be postmarked by March 13.

The legal challenge, filed Monday with the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, says Carr exceeded his authority by speculating about the availability of state and federal money for a tunnel. Under city law, the city attorney's explanatory statement must concern "the law as it presently exists" and the "effect of the measure if approved."

"The explanatory statement must not be reduced to fuzzy hypotheticals, but instead should inform the public of legal reality," says the challenge by two pro-tunnel groups — Friends for a Better Waterfront and Not Another Elevated Viaduct — and John Taylor, policy director for Downtown Seattle Association, a group of business and property owners.

Carr said he based his "carefully chosen" language on a recent report by Gov. Christine Gregoire saying city voters should choose between a new $2.8 billion elevated highway and a $4.6 billion six-lane tunnel the state has studied. The City Council decided instead to ask voters if they prefer an elevated highway or a $3.4 billion four-lane tunnel proposal, which state experts have not vetted.

Carr said he wanted to note that there is some question about funding for the new smaller tunnel or else "we might make the numbers sound firmer than they are in reality."

The elections commission is scheduled to hold a hearing Thursday to deal with the challenge. Under city law, the commission will have final say on the matter.

For the viaduct election, voters will receive a 12-page pamphlet, including explanatory statements, arguments for and against the proposals, and full text of the legislation authorizing the ballot measures, said Wayne Barnett, the commission's executive director."

[NW Mike]

An Article from the Seattle Times staff reporters
"Gov. Christine Gregoire got so frustrated trying to broker a compromise between Mayor Greg Nickels and House Speaker Frank Chopp on the Alaskan Way Viaduct that she turned to a Republican wise man for advice.

"She called ... and said, 'I've got a big problem,' " said former Gov. Dan Evans. Gregoire and her staff felt stuck between Nickels' dream of a tunnel and Chopp's demand for a new elevated highway along Seattle's waterfront. "They were kind of at wits' end," he said.

Evans, in the conversation late last year, urged Gregoire to back replacing the viaduct with a multibillion-dollar tunnel. Instead, Gregoire tried to do what she's done many times before: force a compromise through personal, private, one-on-one diplomacy.

It didn't work. Instead of a victory to add to her list of successful peace agreements, she exacerbated an increasingly bitter dispute.

Gregoire misread Seattle politics, according to people involved in the viaduct planning, and while trying to find a compromise, came closer to Chopp's hard-line position than Nickels' — choosing the politician she has to deal with daily rather than the one who leads the state's largest city.

"She wants to be a broker, but I'm not sure there's much to broker," said City Council President Nick Licata. "You've got two intransigent politicians, Frank and Greg."

That may be in part because Chopp worked so hard behind the scenes to sink the tunnel plan.

Publicly he wasn't saying much. But at a reception at the governor's mansion, in meetings in his private office, or any time he got wind that the state might be leaning the city's way, Chopp did what he could to stop the tunnel.

To be sure, Nickels worked hard to promote the tunnel. But state officials say there was a difference.

"Chopp has used the back channel to convey his position, and the mayor has been on the front channel," Department of Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald said.
It created such an untenable situation that MacDonald one morning in January left a voice-mail message for a top Chopp aide urging the speaker to be more clear about his intentions.

"This is crazy, the goings-on around the city/state negotiations," MacDonald told Jim Richards, a Chopp aide. MacDonald wanted to assure Chopp that the Department of Transportation was no longer doing anything to help the city. But clearly a chasm had opened up within Gregoire's administration.

"I want to check in with you just to tell you that we aren't doing any work on this right now, but I'm not sure nobody else is. I don't have any confidence, whatsoever, whether or not the city might be talking with the governor's office about some kind of a tunnel-lite," MacDonald said, according to a transcript Richards made of the call.
:koko:
Viaduct becomes a distraction
Though Chopp had inside connections he used well, Nickels' position is backed by most of the city's establishment, including the Downtown Seattle Association, the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, environmental groups and many transportation and labor organizations.

They see a tunnel as a once-in-a-generation chance to reunite downtown Seattle with its waterfront and get rid of what they consider a noisy, ugly highway that has divided the city for more than 50 years.

For the past few days, Nickels has been dealing with a family matter and wasn't available to comment for this story.

Engineers say the viaduct must be replaced soon because the 2001 Nisqually earthquake caused major cracks in the aging structure. It could collapse in the next earthquake.

The fight over how to replace it will likely get uglier as Seattle approaches a March 13 advisory election on the issue.

Voters will choose between a $3.4 billion tunnel being pushed by the city and a $2.8 billion elevated highway mainly supported by Chopp and House Democrats.

Election Day can't come soon enough for Gregoire. She sternly told reporters at a news conference last week that she didn't want to answer any more questions about the viaduct.

"I'm done. You know what? I want to talk about education. I want to talk about health care. I want to talk about jobs ... ," she said. "I am not going to get distracted."

Too late. She's distracted, and the 2007 legislative session will likely be best remembered for how the governor deals with the viaduct.

Two very different politicians

To understand Gregoire's challenge you need to first understand Nickels and Chopp.

Nickels, 51, is in his second term as mayor and seems more eager each day to exercise all the power he has as Washington's big-city mayor.

He sees a tunnel as a way to open the city to the water, essentially turning downtown around to face the sea.

Nickels likes big transportation projects. He was an enthusiastic backer of Sound Transit even through its dark days when the agency's first light-rail proposal had a $1 billion cost overrun. He also supported the ill-fated monorail until the day its political backing crumbled.

He's backed not only by most of Seattle's establishment, but also by Evans and by Gregoire's predecessor, former Democratic Gov. Gary Locke.

Chopp, 53, has represented the 43rd District — which covers a swath of Seattle neighborhoods including Capitol Hill, Montlake, Wallingford and parts of Fremont — since 1994. He became leader of the House Democrats in 1998.

It's a distinctly liberal district. But Chopp was born in Bremerton and likes to refer to himself as a "Bremerton Democrat" — a more blue-collar, less lattelike Democrat.

Licata, who stands with Chopp on calling for a new elevated freeway, contends that he and Chopp represent "grumpy Seattle," which he says is the city's silent majority.
Since Chopp became House Democratic leader, his caucus has picked up 20 seats, giving the party an overwhelming majority. Chopp, seen as the architect of that resurgence, has tremendous clout as a result. He can stop deals cold.
Why does he oppose the tunnel so vehemently?

"The monorail. Need I say more?" he said. "That was a local city thing. They asked for the authority and we gave it to them. Then they came back with something that was totally unaffordable. Then you look at the Sound Transit proposal for light rail ... . Sorry, I'm just not going to take the risk on it."

In 2001, Chopp held up approval of a new Tacoma Narrows Bridge because he opposed the plan to have a private company finance and build it. Instead, he wanted public financing, which he argued would be cheaper, and he stood up to Congressman Norm Dicks, legislative transportation leaders and others to get his way.

"I said you can't do the Narrows bridge unless you do public financing, which saved $1.2 billion," he said in a recent interview. He lifted himself from his chair and leaned into a reporter's tape recorder to say loudly and clearly: "You hear that? $1.2 billion with a B."
No compromise this time
Gregoire was put in the middle of the viaduct debate by the state Legislature in early 2006. Lawmakers asked her to examine reports from an expert-review panel on two options — a $4.6 billion, six-lane tunnel or a $2.8 billion elevated highway — and decide whether each financing plan was feasible.
Many hoped she would pick a project. But Gregoire tried to live up to her reputation as someone who could negotiate a compromise where everyone else has failed.
She met one on one with the mayor, with no staff allowed, and did the same with Chopp. She also met with them together, again with no staff in the room. In the end, finding that Chopp and Nickels wouldn't budge, she punted.

The governor issued lengthy findings in December that boiled down to this: Seattle voters should choose between a tunnel and an elevated roadway before the Legislature is scheduled to adjourn April 22.

"When the governor issued her findings she tried but couldn't find a way to bring a common path between the mayor and the speaker and she couldn't see any way to resolve it without a vote," said Tom Fitzsimmons, Gregoire's chief of staff.

Nickels saw Gregoire's decision as an opportunity to try a new tack.

He contacted her office in early January to float the idea of cutting the tunnel's cost. He proposed trimming the tunnel from six lanes to four, which, along with other changes, he said would save $1.2 billion.

Gregoire's staff was told to help the city refine the proposal, Fitzsimmons said.
Chopp was unhappy about that when he ran into MacDonald at a reception at the Governor's Mansion after Gregoire's Jan. 9 state-of-the-state address.
MacDonald said Chopp was alarmed because he thought it looked like the Department of Transportation was becoming pro-tunnel.

A few days later, Chopp met with MacDonald and a top transportation official, David Dye, in his office to discuss what they were doing.

When MacDonald said he had been told to assist the city with the new tunnel proposal, Chopp interrupted to say that was not what the governor told him, according to a memo prepared by Chopp's staff after the meeting. (Those documents and others were given by the speaker's office to city officials. The city released the documents in response to a public-records request.)

Chopp was right. The governor's office decided to stop working on the city's tunnel plan, saying it was too big of a change to consider. When Deputy Seattle Mayor Tim Ceis asked Fitzsimmons for a meeting to discuss the city's plan, Fitzsimmons said it wouldn't make any difference.

"I called him and said there's no point in coming down because we're not going to get there," Fitzsimmons said.
Chopp's staff prepared a memo outlining the "worst-case" scenario: The city would develop a less expensive tunnel plan, agree to cover all additional costs, and win support from Gregoire and a majority of the Legislature.
If that happened, Chopp was advised to try to "take the ballot off the table" and stop the vote, giving him "time to refute numbers/discredit plan."

The memo also said Chopp could "remind the governor of her promise to jointly approve ballot language" or "announce opposition to ballot language as phony and not binding on Legislature."

Chopp says he doesn't recall reading the memo and certainly didn't act on it.

Gregoire says tunnel off table
The machinations came to a head when Gregoire called a meeting between all the principal players on Jan. 17.
Given that the state had already ended its cooperative role with the city, Ceis said, "We kind of smelled a setup."
At the meeting, Nickels pitched the city's proposal to put a smaller, less expensive tunnel on the ballot April 24, two days after the Legislature's scheduled adjournment.

The mayor was the lone tunnel supporter in the governor's office. He was surrounded by Chopp, Licata, the House and Senate transportation committee chairs, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown and the governor.

The governor told Nickels the tunnel was off the table, Licata said. Nickels was told the city's cost estimates were unproven and that the ballot date did not meet her earlier demand for a vote before lawmakers left town.

Gregoire, Chopp and other legislative leaders prepared a statement saying that either the viaduct would be replaced with an elevated highway or the state would take the money away and use it to help replace the Highway 520 bridge.

Nickels left the governor's office without commenting to reporters.
"He was outgunned and he was totally pissed off when he left," Licata said.
City puts tunnel on ballot
The next day, Nickels upped the stakes and pushed to put the new tunnel on the ballot in March, more than a month before Gregoire's earlier deadline.

The Seattle City Council agreed and on Jan. 19 voted to put two measures on the ballot, one asking for an up or down vote on the tunnel, and another for the elevated highway.
The governor and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate appeared dumbfounded by the move.
Gregoire issued a statement saying "We must move forward," but it wasn't clear if she still supported a Seattle vote or wanted to simply move ahead with an elevated highway.
She seemed to refine her position over the weekend and held a press conference on Jan. 22, saying that although she still had concerns about Nickels' tunnel proposal, "I will never, ever say that a vote of the people is a waste."
In other words, the tunnel was alive.
For some, the troublesome path was evidence that Gregoire did not fully understand how Seattle works.

"She really on a couple of occasions misunderstood Seattle politics," Licata said, noting that Gregoire overestimated his power as City Council president and underestimated the extent to which Nickels' views were backed by the city's power structure.

In addition to business, labor and environmental groups, the mayor has the backing of people who have held Gregoire's job.

Locke said that at one point he'd collected the signatures of all living former governors except Republican John Spellman on a letter to Gregoire opposing any elevated structure to replace the viaduct. The letter was never sent because events moved too fast, he said.
Even Chopp's two Democratic seatmates in Seattle's 43rd District, Sen. Ed Murray and rookie Rep. Jamie Pedersen, oppose an elevated highway.
Suzanne Burke, a prominent North Seattle property owner, backs Chopp. Chopp, she said, "is solid on this for a damn good reason. He knows where the economics are. He knows where the jobs are. He's always been a basic jobs guy. He isn't quite so fooled by the 'vision.' "
Chopp shrugs off questions about his backing in Seattle, or in his district. He also dismisses talk about Gregoire being stuck between him and the mayor.
"This notion about it being a disagreement between public officials is not relevant," he said.
"It's not just politics. We're talking about billions of dollars here of taxpayers' money. I have a responsibility to stand up for the taxpayers of this state and the people in my district and say, 'My God, this is not feasible and way too expensive and way too risky.' "

Last week, Gregoire and legislative leaders restarted the on-again, off-again, Department of Transportation review of Nickels' tunnel plan. A letter they sent said "voters should have the opportunity to, as much as possible, make an informed decision."

Chopp saw the letter as another tool to dismantle Nickels' tunnel.

"The idea," he said, "is to point out the ... inconsistencies of the tunnel-lite plan."

[mSeattle]

He [Nickels] sees a tunnel as a way to open the city to the water, essentially turning downtown around to face the sea.

:no: It's nit picking but, downtown already faces the sea, Q.Anne, Lake Union, Cap./First/Beacon Hill/SODO/West Seattle... :D

[JiminyCricket II]

Let's look at a 'new viaduct':

The existing viaduct was built in 1957 for $8mm.

Inflation 1957 to 2007 ~25X (using real estate as the index), which gives gives ~$200mm.

Maybe the new structure is 1.5 X more expensive for earthquake and increased traffic flow. Remember, all the costs of relocating services and utilities, and traffic mitigation were faced for the first viaduct, so this is not new, so ~$300mm. Add in a factor for increased paperwork for enviro, say 1.5x.

Now we are at $450mm.

But wait. Modern construction methods and higher worker productivity should make this job cheaper than 1957, so add in a productivity factor of say 0.80

And we are back to $360mm, not $2.5bb!!

We need an independent auditor to look into the numbers before the vote. Some way is needed to bust open this horrifyingly abusive heist. We are behaving like an African country!

you're not factoring in far higher insurance, union labor, and extremely higher concrete/steel prices. as well as other intangibles. not all of that fits neatly into "inflation."

[bgwah]

Let's look at a 'new viaduct':

The existing viaduct was built in 1957 for $8mm.

Inflation 1957 to 2007 ~25X (using real estate as the index), which gives gives ~$200mm.

Maybe the new structure is 1.5 X more expensive for earthquake and increased traffic flow. Remember, all the costs of relocating services and utilities, and traffic mitigation were faced for the first viaduct, so this is not new, so ~$300mm. Add in a factor for increased paperwork for enviro, say 1.5x.

Now we are at $450mm.

But wait. Modern construction methods and higher worker productivity should make this job cheaper than 1957, so add in a productivity factor of say 0.80

And we are back to $360mm, not $2.5bb!!

We need an independent auditor to look into the numbers before the vote. Some way is needed to bust open this horrifyingly abusive heist. We are behaving like an African country!

It's a liberal conspiracy.

[Dr. Smoke]

you're not factoring in far higher insurance, union labor, and extremely higher concrete/steel prices. as well as other intangibles. not all of that fits neatly into "inflation."
So those things will increase the costs by TEN TIMES?!

Nah.

And remember, this is calculating the numbers an alternate way to my first approach (for the tunnel), and it basically confirms the principle. The developers (and I am a developer) are the real problem here. I should know.


It's a liberal conspiracy.
Actually, the Leftist (me :notacrook:) is busting the conservative (Big Developer) conspiracy, who are trying to mercilessly rape our municipal governments and taxpayers.

NO BUILD! Take that money and build out light-rail NOW. Use the viaduct until it falls down. Vote against both options in the election.

[Bear]

The build nothing plan isn't going to happen. Much as folks would like this to be an option, it isn't. It's a state highway that is one of the major north-south connectors through the region and the State isn't going to let the City or anyone else take away the central potion of it.

This whole major connector connection through the region is a bit of a lark. I mean, once you get to green lake, you have to deal with light after light - seem to me, the primary thing it serves to do is bring people to downtown from the surrounding neighborhoods and close in suburbs. So, if Seattle is the destination, why not tear it down and allow for more points of entry and egress into the street grid, than the few streets where you can access it. Of the 110,000 cars using the viaduct, how many of them use it without stopping downtown. We are only talking about tearing down about a mile. If the majority of people are going to the city, what is the big deal?

[JiminyCricket II]

looks like the improved surface streets/improved transit is now back on the table:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003562086_viaduct08.html

Viaduct surface option eyed

By Andrew Garber
Seattle Times staff reporter

OLYMPIA — House Speaker Frank Chopp — a key advocate for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with an elevated highway — says he's open to the idea of tearing down the structure and improving surface streets and transit instead.

Chopp, D-Seattle, on Wednesday said it could be a second choice if the elevated highway doesn't fly.

His statement marks an unusual moment in which the speaker and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels appear to agree on something concerning the viaduct. The city considers the surface street and transit option its second choice.

The two sides have been battling for months. The city wants to replace the viaduct with a $3.4 billion tunnel. Chopp has argued for a $2.8 billion elevated highway. The fight has created a political impasse.

Chopp's comments came after King County Executive Ron Sims said Wednesday that he opposes both a tunnel and another elevated highway. Sims proposes improving surface streets and beefing up public transit. Details weren't available Wednesday.

Sims has met with the speaker to discuss the idea. Chopp said he told Sims: "Sounds great to me. Why don't you develop a proposal that we can go to the governor with and say, 'How can that be independently analyzed in terms of does that work or not?' "

Chopp said he was very open to Sims' idea, but he's concerned that a surface alternative couldn't carry enough traffic.

"I've got to tell you, the governor has looked at it and doesn't like it at all. Neither do a lot of other people. How do you deal with that traffic if it's backed up on I-5?" he said.

The viaduct, built in 1953, carries 110,000 cars a day and is downtown Seattle's only major north-south alternative to already overloaded Interstate 5. The viaduct needs to be replaced because the 2001 Nisqually earthquake caused major cracks in the aging structure.

Holly Armstrong, a spokeswoman for Gov. Christine Gregoire, said she doesn't expect the governor's position to change. The surface option was studied "and proven not feasible," she said.

Sims contends the surface alternative is the only politically realistic option. The past few weeks have made that clear, he said. "There's far more discussion of it than we've ever had before," he said.

Senate Transportation Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, and Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, could not be reached for comment.

Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said that although a surface option is the city's second choice, the city is still focused on replacing the viaduct with a tunnel. Voters need a chance to weigh in March 13, he said.

That's when Seattle residents will vote on the tunnel option and the elevated-highway proposal.

Ceis said the surface alternative could cost around $2 billion. "It's not free," he said. For example, he said, any viaduct-replacement plan must include a new seawall along the waterfront.

Talk of the surface option comes as the state Department of Transportation is studying the city's tunnel proposal and a new elevated-highway configuration.

The research is being done at Gregoire's request.

To make an "apples to apples" comparison, said David Dye, a state Department of Transportation administrator, the state is looking at a four-lane elevated structure with a wide shoulder for rush-hour traffic — similar to what the city is proposing for a four-lane tunnel.

Meanwhile, members of an expert review panel appointed by Gregoire are already getting a look at the state study. Earlier this week, panelists were told they could not review the tunnel plan until after the state study is completed next week.

Staff reporter Susan Gilmore contributed to this report.

Andrew Garber: 360-236-8268 or agarber@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

[Black Box]

Oh, that Gregoire, if only she could think outside of two measley options. I'm no/no on next month's vote

[seapug]

well fellow democrats i think it's time we all admit that we cheated one hell of a punk bitch into office.

[mSeattle]

Chopp said he was very open to Sims' idea, but he's concerned that a surface alternative couldn't carry enough traffic.

This is the flawed thinking at the root of all this. Instead of carrying "traffic" they should have been trying to carry "people" which I hope is where this is finally headed.

[AZchristopher]

Of course if they took the 2 billion dollars and spent it on city infrastructure it wouldn't improve the situation at all. Seriously they need to understand that they have to close it down for years to put in a tunnel or new bridge anyway. Just keep the damn thing down.

[NW Mike]

Well once the vote is done and the Rebuild or tunnel is picked then they will tear down the old viaduct and years will pass while they rebuild the sea wall and start building what ever option they decide and all the while people will be finding other options to get around the Alaska Way Hell. Then when they are nearly done, people will start realizing that they did not need this stupid thing in the first place. But it will be to late and cost overruns will continue and continue and we all will pay for it. :haha: :D

[seaskyfan]

Just saw this on the P-I site:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/303179_viaduct09ww.html

Friday, February 9, 2007 · Last updated 7:06 p.m. PT
Panel: Time too short on tunnel review

By CHRIS McGANN
P-I REPORTER

OLYMPIA -- There's not enough time to provide Seattle voters with a "meaningful" review of cost and risk estimates for the modified tunnel proposed by the city of Seattle to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, an expert review panel commissioned by the state said Friday.

"We understand the importance of providing good information to the voters and we regret not being able to contribute to this effort," panel chairwoman Jane Garvey said in a letter to Gov. Chris Gregoire.

Gregoire had convened the panel at the city's request in hopes of providing voters with as much information as possible about the feasibility of building a tunnel to replace the viaduct as compared rebuilding the elevated waterfront highway.

The governor had not seen the panel's letter as of Friday evening, said her spokeswoman Holly Armstrong.

Gregg Hirakawa, spokesman for the City of Seattle Department of Transportation said without the expert review, Seattle voters will not have objective numbers to use when they weigh in on a $2.8 billion elevated viaduct rebuild and the tunnel the city says would cost $3.4 billion.

The state maintains that voters didn't have objective estimates about the city's tunnel plan to begin with because the estimates were based on unverfied assumptions provided by the city.

Hirakawa said the Washington Department of Transportation, which is now in charge of reviewing the city's assumptions, has shown bias toward the elevated structure, he said.

"WashDOT will do what it wants to do and we can't confirm their numbers and we won't have a meaningful review of what they've done by anyone," Hirakawa said.

"It's just outrageous that they are doing a secretive process. I think they are getting a lot of pressure to come out with some predetermined results."

Armstrong objected to that assertion. She said the Gregoire's concern has always been about safety and getting something done. "She never had a preference," Armstrong said.

[seaskyfan]

Here's a link to a pro-tunnel ad on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhmkuT7AyuE

[mSeattle]

:no: It's so sad that Nickels/City Council/Downtown Assoc. and Co. killed so much time trying to push the 6-lane tunnel, throwing this up at the last minute.

[NW Mike]

Seattle Times reports
"A state-appointed panel of outside experts, called into Seattle this week to study a four-lane Alaskan Way tunnel and other highway options along the waterfront, dissolved itself Friday, saying there's not enough time to do the job right.

Legislative leaders and Gov. Christine Gregoire recently reconvened the review panel and gave it a deadline of Tuesday to address several questions, including whether the public can rely on the city government's cost estimate of $3.4 billion for a four-lane tunnel.

"We decided that time is too short for us to do anything meaningful," said panelist Don Forbes, a former Oregon transportation director.

In two weeks, city voters will receive their ballots for an all-mail election; they must be postmarked by March 13. Two advisory measures will ask voters whether they endorse replacing the aging Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel or a cheaper elevated structure.

Mayor Greg Nickels' staff says that a four-lane tunnel would save $1.2 billion, compared to an earlier six-lane tunnel option. The mayor and City Council oppose any new elevated highway.

Four of the eight panelists met with the state Department of Transportation's project team this week, but Forbes said there was little or no new information since January, when the state halted its brief review of the so-called "Tunnel Lite."

However, Forbes said the DOT is looking not just at the four-lane tunnel, but also a narrower version of the politically abandoned six-lane tunnel. The lanes and shoulders would be slimmer than national highway standards, but wider than many U.S. tunnels.

Forbes said he saw no information about a rumored four-lane "Elevated Lite."

Last month, the panel said the city's four-lane tunnel concept, with shoulders used as exit lanes during rush hour, "shows promise" and deserves more study.

Marianne Bichsel, a spokeswoman for Nickels, said Friday that without oversight from the panel, any upcoming reports by the DOT lack credibility. She said the DOT is caving to political pressure by anti-tunnel House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, and others.
"Clearly, they're scrambling. I hope they will acknowledge this process has fallen apart," she said.

The governor's spokespersons and DOT managers could not immediately be reached for comment."

Link http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003565674_viaduct10m.html

[Dr. Smoke]

well fellow democrats i think it's time we all admit that we cheated one hell of a punk bitch into office.
seapug, you ain't no Democrat. I could prove it, if the damned Search function worked here.

[JiminyCricket II]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003570046_webviaduct13.html

Tunnel option is dead, say state leaders

By Susan Gilmore, Mike Lindblom and Andrew Garber
Seattle Times staff reporters

State legislative leaders today said Seattle's tunnel proposal is dead.

The state, they said, has "no choice but to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with an elevated structure."

The prepared statement came in response to a state Department of Transportation letter that concluded Seattle's proposal for a four-lane Alaskan Way tunnel should be dropped from further consideration. The DOT letter, released this morning, said there are "serious operational and safety problems found during our technical review."

"It makes absolutely no sense to replace an unsafe Viaduct with an unsafe tunnel," Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee, said in a joint statement.

The legislative response was from Haugen and House Transportation Chairwoman Rep. Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, as well as the ranking GOP members of both committees.

Gov. Christine Gregoire has not responded to the DOT report yet.

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said that even if Seattle voters overwhelming voted in favor of the city's tunnel proposal, she can't see the state abiding by their decision.
SURVEY

Do you think Seattle should still hold the advisory election?

Yes - 29%


No - 52%


Who cares - 19%


Total votes: 1,034
Disclaimer



"It's hard to see how the state can proceed based on our own Department of Transportation saying this isn't safe and this doesn't meet our capacity needs. I don't see how we'd proceed with that, if there were a resounding vote in favor of that in Seattle," Brown said.

Brown said the only option on the table now, that's been fully vetted, is the proposal for an elevated highway. However, she said the idea of tearing down the viaduct and going with a surface option hasn't been ruled out. "I don't think the door has been completely closed," she said.

King County Executive Ron Sims has pushed the idea of tearing down the viaduct and improving surface streets and transit instead. House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, has said he's open to that approach if the elevated highway doesn't move ahead.

A spokeswoman for Mayor Greg Nickels said the DOT's report today confirms the city's worries that the agency would skew its research to favor an elevated structure, and put a four-lane tunnel in the worst possible light.

"I think this clearly shows WSDOT's bias," said Marianne Bichsel. "So the voters need to decide whether they're going to allow Olympia to shove a bigger elevated structure onto Seattle's waterfront without their say. The voters of Seattle need to step up, and express their opinions on that."

Bichsel said Nickels would not make any comment today, and would wait until his regularly scheduled media briefing Wednesday morning.

In spite of the state report and legislative leaders' comments that any hope of a tunnel is gone, Bichsel said it is still important for voters to take part in the upcoming advisory election — and vote for the tunnel.

In the all-mail election — for which ballots must be postmarked by March 13 — Seattle voters will be asked to vote "yes" or "no" on whether they prefer an elevated or a tunnel.

"If the state is to save face on the flawed process, they (state leaders) will give the voters a chance to express their opinions," Bichsel said. "I cannot imagine why legislative leaders or the governor would not pay attention to what the voters of Seattle say about their waterfront."

However, Seattle City Council President Nick Licata, who supports rebuilding the viaduct, said he has made a call to King County Elections to see how the city could cancel the March 13 election.

"I think it makes this election superfluous," Licata said. "How can we ask voters to vote for something we know is seen as worthless by state legislators."

He said he wants to see if the election could be stopped "because we'd be wasting $1 million. I think it's a wasted effort."

Meanwhile, State Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald said he was sympathetic to what the city is trying to do on the waterfront. "The goals are good goals."

But, he added, "We didn't trust the tunnel. It's limitations were revealed by our review."

Nickels has argued that a tunnel would open up the waterfront, and that his proposed four-lane tunnel could carry nearly as much traffic as the six-lane tunnel he and the state proposed earlier.

The four-lane version would use safety shoulders as exit lanes during rush hour. The concept was meant to save up to $1.2 billion compared to the six-lane, $4.6 billion tunnel.

Today's DOT letter, which summarizes a nine-day study, was meant to answer questions posed by Gov. Christine Gregoire and state lawmakers.

Without a place to pull over, safety would be hampered if disabled cars blocked the highway, the letter says, adding that emergency crews would take longer to arrive.

Seattle officials have said that a reduced, 35 mph speed limit would allow safe operation in heavy traffic, and that police and fire departments would work with the state on design features.

The state DOT was asked to also study whether the $3.4 billion cost estimate for the narrower tunnel was credible. Officials said today there was not enough time to do so. But David Dye, who helped lead the DOT review, said he believed the actual cost of the city's tunnel would likely fall between $3.4 billion and $4.6 billion.

The city has bitterly complained about being excluded from the state DOT studies conducted over the past several days — while a panel of outside experts, which earlier said the narrower tunnel "shows promise," disbanded last week. Panel members said there was not enough time for them to give a meaningful opinion.

The existing Alaskan Way Viaduct, built in 1953, was damaged in the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake.

The response from legislative leaders today argued that an elevated highway is the only practical solution because it's the only proposal that has been vetted and shown to be safe and affordable.

Still, MacDonald said it's clear now, after issuing his report, that an option to just tear down the viaduct and replace it with a surface boulevard needs more study. "It's unlikely we're going to get to the end without being pressed harder on the surface," he said.

The problem, he said, is that a surface road would reduce capacity and governor has insisted that any viaduct replacement accommodate the same number of cars that now drive the viaduct.

MacDonald said he didn't know whether the DOT will be asked to do a further study on the surface plan. "The surface discussion is coming like a freight train," he said.

Cary Moon, co-founder of the group that is pushing the surface option, said the report, "brings the battle to a head."

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

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

[JiminyCricket II]

alright, let's go surface! *clap* *clap* *clapclapclap*

[NW Mike]

Gov. Christine Gregoire does not make the final call. She sure likes to flex her muscles does'nt she? She may only advise WSDOT. There was a big article about it earlier this month. But she does not care. She feels that she is stuck in a hard spot, that is why she will not stand up and say it out loud which one she favors. But when she was down at the Olympic Sculpture Park she told Nickels she would like to see Seattle have its waterfront back. We will not hear her say that on tv. No she instead says people are not informed, people are not educated about the options.But the state is worried about upsetting a few people that will coming up for Re-election, so they want to tread softly on this....Would'nt want to upset the masses. The rebuild is a joke! The tunnel is the better of the two evils, but the surface option is the best. :whip: TEAR DOWN THE BERLIN WALL!! :whip:

[James Bond Agent 007]

This is starting to drive me nuts.

If they re-build the viaduct I'll scream. A surface boulevard is far preferable.

[mSeattle]

I'm happy that the surface/transit option is getting some support from Sims and some in Olympia. Too bad city hall isn't doing the same.

[mhays]

At this point I'd take a surface option. But it's scary to think of half of that traffic being added to surface streets, with the City ratcheting pedestrians down in priority to add car capacity.

[Urban Zombie®]

^If they go the surface street route, hopefully they'd build a few pedestrian skybridges over it to connect DT to the waterfront...it'd make for safe crossing and boast some nice views as well.

[seaskyfan]

Interesting to hear Nick Licata talking about cancelling the vote. I wonder if he'll get the rest (or at least a majority) of the Council to go along with it?

[herb]

Good to see more and more people into the surface idea.

Commutes and traffic patterns will be disrupted no matter what is done. After two or three years people will have found alternatives. Mass transit, bicycles, carpooling, and schedule modifications will become more attractive to those who can use them. I think many of these car trips will simply disappear for a while, maybe for good if we don't encourage them to return.

Though I love driving over the viaduct too but I'll be happy to trade those brief moments for a more car-free waterfront. Perhaps we could build a gondola/chair lift type ride above the trolley down there so people could enjoy their old view and actually have enough time to take it all in. It wouldn't have to be tacky or overly hideous looking. I'd ride that shit all the time.

[mSeattle]

Some city in Spain or Portugal has something like that. Can't remember the name.

[PacificNW]

I can't imagine the interplay with peds and tractor/trailer rigs sharing the same spaces next to the waterfront. People think it is dangerous for peds trying to cross Burnside in Portland. Burnside is considered a surface barrier between the Portland CBD and the Pearl/Northwest districts. I think the surface route will still be somewhat of a barrier to the waterfront. How many lanes of traffic each direction are they planning?

[MitchE]

Is there a campaign advocating a double NO for both measures? I think it would be advantages get people into the mindset that a double NO is a way to vote for "we want a surface option". That way if it happens Olympia will get the message loud and clear as to what the voters are intending.

[Urban Zombie®]

I can't imagine the interplay with peds and tractor/trailer rigs sharing the same spaces next to the waterfront.

Now now...people from Clark County rarely make it up to Seattle.

[pdxstreetcar]

Viaduct fight: Could streets be the answer?
By Mike Lindblom - Seattle Times staff reporter
February 15, 2007


With Gov. Christine Gregoire saying a tunnel cannot replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels vowing a new viaduct will never mar the landscape, the state transportation secretary says he's expecting pressure for a third option.

Long talked about, but never given a political chance, the idea of just tearing down the viaduct and making improvements to streets and transit is gaining momentum.

Maybe it would be smart to turn Alaskan Way into a boulevard, some say.

Run more buses and water taxis. Encourage car pools and bicycling to work. Build ramps for freight.

A so-called "surface plus transit" option is the City Council's official backup choice, if the tunnel is truly dead.

King County Executive Ron Sims is already taking up the cause: talking to state leaders, writing an op-ed piece, conducting studies of the costs and traffic impact. This week, he talked up the surface option with Gregoire, who has long opposed the idea of removing one of only two main north-south highways serving Seattle.

After the tunnel's political meltdown, MacDonald says, "The surface discussion is coming like a freight train."

Gregoire wants new viaduct

Anti-viaduct activists face long odds, after Gregoire declared Tuesday that she supports a new six-lane, $2.8 billion viaduct to replace the one built in 1953.

Seattle's city government sought a $3.4 billion, four-lane tunnel, whose shoulders would be converted to exit lanes at rush hour. That would have saved money compared to an earlier six-lane tunnel plan, but the state Department of Transportation said this week the narrower version is too dangerous to warrant further study.

Nickels hasn't surrendered. He promises to campaign for the tunnel in the run-up to an all-mail advisory vote, in which Seattle citizens will be asked to support a tunnel, or an elevated highway.

Previously, at least three surface concepts were aired:

• Put traffic onto a new surface-level highway on Alaskan Way, and remove the viaduct. This option was repudiated by the state DOT, because cars would move at a dispiriting 8 mph from heavy traffic and stop lights.

• Create a six-lane boulevard resembling the Embarcadero in San Francisco. Suggested by City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, this would be a street lined by trees and trails. It could handle 40,000 to 70,000 trips a day and still be pleasant for pedestrians, he said. Currently, 120,000 vehicles a day use the viaduct and the surface street below.

• The People's Waterfront Coalition's "Surface plus Transit" concept calls for wholesale changes in travel patterns. For $1.6 billion or less, the group says, there could be express bus service, a big interchange for freight and cars near Qwest Field, street overpasses, a wider surface street at Alaskan Way, and parks along the shoreline.

Coalition co-founder Cary Moon says that for now, "we don't have enough details for anyone to argue with." The idea is that people agree to use transit and existing streets.

The state DOT says it is not studying surface proposals.

"I would say emphatically no," said David Dye, the agency's urban-corridors administrator. "We're taking our lead from the statements of legislative leadership and the governor's office. We're focusing on working on the elevated design."

But DOT itself has temporarily reassigned staffer David Hopkins, who was helping craft a regional highway package, to gather information about surface and transit ideas that Sims and King County transportation staffers are developing.

The county will soon hire consultants to help study cost estimates and traffic effects of a surface option, and release a technical report, said Harold Taniguchi, the county's transportation director.

"We are open to being wrong," Sims said. "We are not saying we have the answer, we are putting the effort into it ... to have a transportation system that works on behalf of citizens of King County. We want to reduce our impact on global warming."

In published comments this month by Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, and House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, "neither one of them quashed it," Sims points out.

"49 things"

What might a surface option look like?

King County has suggested "49 things" that could be tried, mostly to improve bus travel -- either without a highway, or if the viaduct is closed during construction of a new highway. These range from adding trolley wires for Lower Queen Anne to adding a second bus lane on Second Avenue -- so buses can "leapfrog" each other when one pulls over to pick up riders.

Steinbrueck's idea includes a bus rapid-transit system that would have to be built, with its own lanes near the waterfront.

Third Avenue would become a permanent bus corridor, Moon said, something the city has considered anyway. Just north of downtown, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Westlake avenues are underused and can take some incoming traffic, she said.

She accuses the Legislature of a "monomaniacal focus on car capacity," as opposed to moving people.

Strain on transit

Questions remain about whether removing the viaduct would hurt transit by pouring excess traffic into downtown and Interstate 5.

If more than 35,000 cars a day are diverted, that "would negatively impact bus transit, and require significantly higher investments in high-capacity transit" to preserve mobility, said a study for the Seattle City Council by DKS Associates.

Last fall, local voters approved more taxes for street projects and buses, which might help, while an upcoming regional ballot measure includes millions for nearby Mercer, South Lander and South Spokane streets, plus suburban rail extensions.

Two leading elevated-highway supporters, Ballard Oil owner Warren Aakervik and retiree Gene Hoglund, say a viaduct is the only option that Seattle's maritime industries can endure, because some highway lanes can stay open during construction.

"All of the transit that can be done -- can be done with the elevated, too," Hoglund said. "Those things all need to be done."

Times staff reporters Susan Gilmore and Andrew Garber contributed to this report.

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

[pdxstreetcar]

Guest columnist
Create a vibrant urban center by rejecting both viaduct options
By William Weis-Special to The Times
February 13, 2007

Let's see, what would be better for Seattle: Contaminate the water supply with rat poison? Or plant land mines on city sidewalks? Think about it — because we have to vote "yes" or "no" on both proposals.

In essence, these are the choices given us by the Washington Department of Transportation, Gov. Christine Gregoire and the Seattle City Council. Why must we vote on two outmoded transportation alternatives, an unsightly viaduct and a partial tunnel, when neither choice serves the economic or transportation needs of Seattle?

Consider:

By the time a new viaduct or new tunnel is built — 2015 at the earliest and 2020 at the likeliest — the cost of gasoline will exceed $10 per gallon. This is not wild speculation; it's a best-case prediction. Maintaining Highway 99 as a downtown motor throughway is contraindicated by every current trend in energy sourcing and utilization.

Even at today's traffic levels, a high-pressure weather pattern lasting as few as five days can spike the level of toxic particulate contamination into and beyond the danger zone. By 2015, pollution from cars will diminish and even preclude their feasibility as a significant mode of moving people around the city.

If appropriate steps are taken to increase population density, to implement high-speed mass transit, to remove throughways from the city and to expand and beautify public spaces, traffic congestion will become a memory of the late 20th and early 21st centuries — not a contemporary issue.

The key agents of urban vitality — population density, effective mass transit and attractive public spaces — are all either missing or marginally developed in cities that have throughways passing through the middle of their downtowns. Cities such as Vancouver, at three times the population density of Seattle and 3-½ times the population, have no inner-city throughways, and no comparable transportation problems.

This may be our last chance to take actions that will put Seattle on the road to becoming one of the world's truly great urban centers. We've squandered our chances in the past by failing to build the excellent Forward Thrust mass-transit system in 1970; by blotching the Westlake Mall site; by backing away from a green space linking the city center to South Lake Union (Seattle Commons); by erecting professional sports venues instead of high-density residential campuses; by being permanently scarred by an interstate highway that should never have seen the west side of Lake Washington; by repeatedly voting on, rather than building, an intracity monorail; and by standing by while the central city developed willy-nilly at the capriciousness of builders instead of by the design of farsighted urban planners.

This time, let's do it right. Remove the viaduct before someone gets hurt. Improve access to and from downtown Seattle by redirecting traffic to surface streets at Denny Way to the north and Spokane Street to the south. This could be accomplished with access ramp "deltas" — like the tributaries of a river delta — at these two points. Expand and improve public transportation options — moving toward a comprehensive mass-transit system with high-speed rail as its foundation. Provide incentives to triple population density in the downtown and its periphery.

These actions will make it easier and faster to move into and out of the city, will eliminate our preoccupation with traffic congestion, will invigorate the commercial core, and will move Seattle toward becoming North America's most vibrant city.

This time, let's vote "no" on both the rat poison and the land mines.

William L. Weis is professor of management and director of the MBA Program at Seattle University's Albers School of Business and Economics.
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=weis13&date=20070213&query=viaduct

[mSeattle]

In essence, these are the choices given us by the Washington Department of Transportation, Gov. Christine Gregoire and the Seattle City Council. Why must we vote on two outmoded transportation alternatives, an unsightly viaduct and a partial tunnel, when neither choice serves the economic or transportation needs of Seattle?

Greg Nickels? Is there a mayor in this town? How did the mayor, the leader, chief of the tunnelites, Bush-little, (reduce greenhouse emissions through BILLION-dollar emissions machineways) escape mention? This is an example of volumes being said by what isn't said. Would his mayorialness and his mayorialness' posse not respond litely? And then there's that egalitarian progressive rapid mass transit supporting (not) Downtown Seattle Association...

Then again, what if all this is a show and Nickels really doesn't want a road at all above or below the waterfront? Has he stirred up enough support to back his true wish? Stay tuned.

Otherwise, the guy has some good points in his article. I question the I-5 thing though. Seattle would be a smaller city and Bellevue a larger one if the freeway had been built on the eastside, unless Seattle had at the same time built rapid mass transit and high density districts.

[PDXPaul]

Go surface options!

[Bear]

But the sad fact is the greater number of people voting for this have no clue to what the possibilitys are for this great city.


The greater number of people who vote to rebuild are remarkably parochial and tie their experience of the city to driving a car. I just got back from Asia and they run tunnels for miles without all this chirping from the rabble

[mSeattle]

The greater number of people who vote to rebuild are remarkably parochial and tie their experience of the city to driving a car. I just got back from Asia and they run tunnels for miles without all this chirping from the rabble

Are these road tunnels?

[NW Mike]

Seattle Times Story By Nicole Brodeur
Seattle Times staff columnist

"In this corner, Mayor Greg "Tunnel Vision" Nickels, :haha: the man intent on replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a four-lane, underground roadway.

And in this corner, Gov. Christine "Purse Strings" Gregoire, :P who would rather eat nails than support a tunnel that the state Department of Transportation now says would endanger drivers. The Wrangle for the Waterfront is on!

And, as always, you and I can only watch as our wallets are opened and emptied, like Dagwood Bumstead when Blondie got a wild hair.

Of course, that's how politics are played in this town: high stakes, high prices and so much rhetoric we could all be dead before it's over.

We have options there, too. Be crushed in an instant by the ever-vulnerable viaduct, or slowly suffocated by the political posturing. So far, the only decision they've made is to let us decide for them in an advisory, all-mail election. Oh, and they're letting us pick up the $1 million tab for the privilege.

Seattle voters will be asked two questions: Do you support a tunnel? Or do you support another elevated structure? Ballots must be postmarked by March 13.:deal:

:hell: Nickels is putting everything he has behind the tunnel. On Wednesday he said he would spend every possible moment campaigning against a new viaduct.

He wants this thing come hell or high water.

But if we vote for the tunnel, we're likely to get a bit of both from Olympia.

Gregoire, along with members of the state House and Senate, sees the tunnel plan as too dangerous. Moving forward with the project "would simply be irresponsible," she said.
In other words, we can vote all we want. But the only opinion that really matters here is Gregoire's.

Without her support and that of the Legislature, we'll likely be digging ourselves in deep for that tunnel — an estimated $3.4 billion.

In that sense, Gregoire:koko: is like the parent standing in the driveway while a stubborn teenager sits behind the wheel of a car he insists on taking.

Go ahead, she's saying, knock yourself out. You won't get far without gas money.

Shame on them both — Gregoire,:koko: for demanding we hold an election, then putting a curse on the tunnel option with a quick-and-dirty review by the DOT.

And shame on Nickels for pushing the tunnel so hard for so long, and then coming back from San Francisco the other day to say the Embarcadero was lovely. So is he saying that a surface-street option is his Plan B?

What took him so long?

And why is it that the best option — knocking down the viaduct and using existing surface streets, with improved transit service — is still being treated like an also-ran?

I suspect Nickels and Gregoire love a good fight. And neither wants to blink first.

So there's little for us to do amid this Clash of the Titans than wait for something to hit the ground — hard.:daz:

Pray it isn't the viaduct first.":help:

[James Bond Agent 007]

Seattle Times
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Replacing viaduct with surface streets could cost city the most
By Andrew Garber
Seattle Times Olympia bureau

OLYMPIA — The cheapest option being discussed to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct could prove the most expensive for Seattle.

If the viaduct is torn down and replaced with surface streets and transit, the state might contribute just over $1 billion for construction work, said Senate Transportation Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island.

That's less than half of what the state has pledged for replacing the viaduct with another elevated highway, and could leave the city on the hook for nearly $1 billion to complete a surface-street project, based on some projections.

House Transportation Chairwoman Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, said she hasn't run the numbers for a surface alternative, but that Haugen's figure was a good starting point. The problem with the surface option is it doesn't carry enough traffic, she said.

"We have to be aware of what we're buying," Clibborn said. "If we're not buying the capacity, if we're not buying the corridor, then we have other uses for that money."

The viaduct carries 110,000 cars a day and is downtown Seattle's only major north-south alternative to already overloaded Interstate 5. One surface option, a six-lane boulevard resembling the Embarcadero in San Francisco, could handle 40,000 to 70,000 cars a day.

The idea of tearing down the earthquake-damaged viaduct and improving surface streets and transit has gained momentum since the state's political leaders killed Mayor Greg Nickels' proposal for a four-lane tunnel earlier this week, calling it unsafe and too expensive.

Gov. Christine Gregoire has said the surface option wouldn't carry enough traffic to be worthwhile, but other political leaders, including King County Executive Ron Sims, are pushing the idea as the only politically viable alternative.

Gregoire and leaders in the state House and Senate are pushing for a $2.8 billion elevated highway to replace the one built in 1953. Gregoire has argued the state should bear the entire cost of that project.

Under Nickels' tunnel proposal, the city would have picked up the difference in cost between a new viaduct and the proposed $3.4 billion, four-lane tunnel.

So, if the Legislature budgeted only $1 billion for a surface alternative, that could make it the most expensive choice for Seattle.

Haugen doesn't see Seattle getting all the money the state has set aside, if the city demands a surface alternative.

"We'd never do that," she said. "We figure around a little over $1 billion, by the time you took it [the viaduct] down. We've looked at those numbers. They'd want to negotiate, but the fact is that our responsibility would not be necessarily at the same level as it is today."

One option being looked at is having the state pay for demolition of the viaduct, some surface restoration, work on an interchange at the south end and additional work in and around the Battery Street Tunnel.

But close to $1 billion worth of work, including replacing the seawall and relocating utilities, could be left up to the city to pay for.

Haugen said she'd probably want to use the state money left over to help replace the Highway 520 bridge over Lake Washington.

"And there's a whole line of people all across the state with really good safety projects looking for funding," she said.

The governor's office had no comment Friday. Gregoire has ruled out past proposals for a surface route because of concerns it could not carry enough traffic.

Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said the city still believes a tunnel is viable. However, if the city ended up with a surface alternative, the state should pay for it, he said.

It's still a state highway, he said, "and they have an obligation to participate fully. I would expect we would not have a change. That the money that's been set aside would be available for that project."

Ceis said he expects that a surface alternative would cost around $2.1 billion.

"I don't know how you end up with the state arbitrarily telling us they're only going to put up $1 billion to solve a problem that is of their making," he said. "If we're going to move forward in a third way, I'd hope the state would do it without dictating terms from Olympia."

[NW Mike]

"I don't know how you end up with the state arbitrarily telling us they're only going to put up $1 billion to solve a problem that is of their making," he said. "If we're going to move forward in a third way, I'd hope the state would do it without dictating terms from Olympia."
I agree with Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis on this point.
Do not try to get out of this one Gov. Christine Gregoire!

[mSeattle]

As I mentioned at SSC, Olympia should fund a surface option just as much or at least more than half as much of the cost, as they would do with an elevated road. After that, Olympia/King Co/Seattle should agree to turn it into a true BRT/freight ROW. The more cars removed the easier it will be to move buses and freight.

[seaskyfan]

The greater number of people who vote to rebuild are remarkably parochial and tie their experience of the city to driving a car. I just got back from Asia and they run tunnels for miles without all this chirping from the rabble

By "rabble" do you mean the voters/taxpayers?

[NW Mike]

SeattlePi article
"Gregoire says 'no' to surface option
Viaduct will be rebuilt, governor asserts

OLYMPIA -- Calls to reconsider a surface street and transit option for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct have not swayed Gov. Chris Gregoire, who on Monday refused to back away from her position that the state must commence the new elevated highway.

"Today, there is no viable option other than an elevated structure," Gregoire said. "I know people don't necessarily like the elevated structure, I appreciate and respect that, but the fact of the matter is we cannot do nothing."

Gregoire said the so-called surface option has been studied extensively and the results are clear: it would divert too much traffic onto Interstate 5 and downtown Seattle -- even if transit options are expanded.

She said she is working with King County Executive Ron Sims to try to identify ways to improve transit but as far as the rebuild goes, elevated is the only option that works. She said safety is the imperative and the state should not delay.

Last week Seattle senators signed a letter recommending the state reconsider the surface option. Many other leaders have said they see it as the obvious fallback position in light of the state Department of Transportation determination last week that the tunnel option proposed by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels would not work.

When Gregoire and state leaders announced that they would proceed with the $2.8 billion elevated road, opponents dug in their heels and vowed to fight back. Seattle voters will weigh in on the issue in a March 13 election."

[mSeattle]

The only way I could vote for elevated would be if they took out two lanes and turned them into elevated rail. I cannot and will not vote for an auto-only elevated structure in the 21st Century.

[James Bond Agent 007]

^
Agreed.

But I have a feeling we're gonna be stuck with it.

[Black Box]

^ I strongly concur with the both of you. I am upset with Governor Gregoire's firm "NO" to a surface-transit option. We do not even have the total amount of funds to do a rebuild. The cost estimates continue to rise. I cannot understand the Governor's logic. It will be interesting to see what next month's vote will tell (or not tell) us. If Gary Locke were still in office, the surface-transit option would be on the table. Again, another transportation related setback for the city. Our current leadership is awful and this whole matter is a load of muck. The merry-go-round continues.....

[James Bond Agent 007]

I think Gregoire's thinking is that, if she left all these other options open, nothing would ever get done due to the complexities and costs of a tunnel and the theoretical inadequacy of a surface street. So I think she's being "mean" because she probably thinks that's the only way anything will ever get done - limit everyone to just one choice, and that eliminates the opportunities for more bickering.

[mSeattle]

But that isn't fair. There were assumptions in place from the gas tax vote that limite options to begin with. And the WSDOT is *not* a department of transportation. It is a department of roads and a few boats. It has the biggest wallet and biggest potential to guide urban development in this state which in word is supposed to be "growth management" but it has a few teeth missing kicked out by a few elephants and donkeys alike.

[James Bond Agent 007]

^
mSeattle, you do have to remember that the Alaska Way Viaduct *is* part of Highway 99, not part of a transit system. They're not gonna build something that would require people driving north on Highway 99 to suddenly get out of their cars, get on a train, and then get back on their cars again once they hit Aurora Ave.

But anyway, as I was saying about Gregiore deliberately restricting the choice . . .

Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Gregoire firm on viaduct plan
Elevated waterfront route the only way to go, governor says

By CHRIS McGANN
P-I REPORTER

OLYMPIA-- Plan A is to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a new elevated highway. There is no Plan B, Gov. Chris Gregoire asserted Monday.

Despite growing calls to further explore a surface street and transit option, Gregoire refused to back away from her position.

"Today, there is no viable option other than an elevated structure," Gregoire said. "I know people don't necessarily like the elevated structure, I appreciate and respect that, but the fact of the matter is we cannot do nothing."

Concerns about accomplishing nothing are, in large part, the impetus for growing support of the surface plan now that the state has essentially killed the tunnel option proposed by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. Opponents of the elevated structure have vowed lawsuits to stop it.

And moving ahead with the $2.8 billion rebuild puts Gregoire at odds with the city of Seattle, King County, the Seattle delegation in the state Senate and a slew of Seattle power brokers who hate the idea of a new highway blocking the waterfront.

Seattle voters will weigh in on the issue in a March 13 election.

The so-called surface option is widely seen as the obvious fallback position that could prevent a protracted legal battle and an all-out political meltdown

But not by Gregoire. "I have yet to see any surface option that works," she said.

Gregoire has said the surface option would jam the region's already overloaded transportation system.

She said the surface option has been studied extensively and the results are clear: It would divert too much traffic onto Interstate 5 and downtown Seattle -- even if transit options are expanded.

"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. "They want congestion relief. If what we're going to do is cause them just the opposite, I think they will be very unhappy, and rightfully so."

She said she is working with County Executive Ron Sims to try to identify ways to improve transit, but elevated is the only option that works. She said safety is imperative and the state should not delay.

Sims opposes building an elevated viaduct and disagrees with Gregoire's determination.

The state's study should not be seen as conclusive on anything, Sims spokesman Sandeep Kaushik said.

"The state made a very cursory examination of a pretty rudimentary surface solution to the viaduct," he said. "It was basically slapping six lanes down on the surface."

Instead, Sims wants policymakers to rethink the problem using a different notion of how the corridor needs to function, Kaushik said.

"Capacity is defined by moving X number of cars per day along Y route," he said. "What we are saying is that there is a different way we can start talking about capacity with not just moving automobiles, but it's about how many people we can move through a particular region."

Sims acknowledges that he does not have the data to prove the presumption that buses, trains and surface streets could move just as many people as a highway full of cars, Kaushik said.

"We don't know for sure that we can make it work," he said. "What (Sims) has said all along is that we need a serious study of surface and transit to see whether we can make it work."

Sims thinks he can.

David Dye, the state transportation department's lead viaduct administrator, is pessimistic.

Dye said a 2004 study looked at "a very robust" surface alternative consisting of a six-lane surface street that could carry 74,000 vehicles per day.

Dye said the estimated demand is closer to 136,000 vehicles per day.

"What happens in the surface is 50,000 to 60,000 vehicles are immediately looking for a place to go," Dye said. "Twenty-two thousand of those vehicles try to get over on I-5."

In addition, 25,000 vehicles would choke downtown streets, according to the state study.

"You take congestion and make it about a nine- or 10-hour-a-day proposition throughout downtown," he said. "Along the waterfront ... where you are trying to create an active, good place for people to go, you end up with 77,000 vehicles a day whizzing past this supposed people place."

Dye said the surface option also would require an elevated structure to connect the waterfront boulevard to the Battery Street Tunnel.

All told, the surface option evaluated by the state would cost more than $2 billion, he said.

Transit also would be affected.

Current projections already presume one in every three trips through the corridor will be on transit, Dye said. That amounts to 44,000 more transit trips than today.

"One of the things about congesting downtown city streets will actually impact the ability of transit services to function effectively," he said.

Gregoire said expanded transit options would be an element to any viaduct project.

"All the way along, the belief was, you're never going to be able to have everybody sit in their car and drive through a tunnel or an elevated, we're just not," she said. "We need to be as aggressive as we possibly can with regard to transit and Metro."

[mSeattle]

Keep Alaskan Way for freight, transit only, Steinbrueck says
http://www.djc.com/news/ae/11186747.html (membership)

http://www.djc.com/stories/images/20070220/PeterSteinbrueck_web.jpg

He says the surface option will work if we discourage driving downtown, make street and transit improvements, and get cars off Alaskan Way.

[James Bond Agent 007]

^
Ah, Peter Steinbrueck. I wouldn't expect anything less from him.

[mSeattle]

Ron Sims says the same thing, even more in the article you posted.

[James Bond Agent 007]

^
In the article, Sims is being somewhat vague.

I doubt Sims wants to replace the viaduct with a rapid transit line, if that's what you were thinking of. We've already got one of those under construction downtown.

[mSeattle]

^
In the article, Sims is being somewhat vague.

I doubt Sims wants to replace the viaduct with a rapid transit line, if that's what you were thinking of. We've already got one of those under construction downtown.

No that isn't what I was thinking. That's isn't what Sims seems to be saying in the article either. He does say surface but even more, reframing our thinking of the issue which is the foundational problem to begin with.

My comment was about state policy and so-called department of transportation in the age of growth management and environmental policy in the entire state... bigger than just the viaduct issue but including it.

[James Bond Agent 007]

^
Oh I see.

Transit is more of a regional/metro issue while roads and highways *do* in fact go to every part of the state. That's probably why WSDOT is a roads/ferries agency while transit things are covered by local or regional agencies (like Metro and Sound Transit). Even the ferries travel to a fairly wide part of the state throughout Puget Sound (all the way up to Bellingham, etc.). It makes sense to have things which go to the entire state be governed by the entire state, and things which only go to points within a metro be governed locally.

[mSeattle]

I have no problem with the WSDOT managing roads and some boats. The problem I have is that the state does does not work with alternate transportation systems in the most urban areas to make the transportation non-road based. Further, the state can be in the business of transporting people in Puget Sound by rails. There is nothing to stop them from deciding to address transportation in new ways, except if a sweetheart legislation (to auto/sprawl industry) exists that prohibits them.