Nickels backs "tunnel lite"

[James Bond Agent 007]

Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Nickels backs "tunnel lite"
By Susan Gilmore, Bob Young and Andrew Garber
Seattle Times staff reporters

In an attempt to keep hopes for a new waterfront tunnel alive, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is proposing a smaller, less expensive underground replacement for the aging Alaskan Way Viaduct.

A four-lane tunnel would shave $1.2 billion from the $4.6 billion estimated cost of the previously proposed six-lane tunnel but it still could carry as much traffic, the city said.

The larger tunnel had been backed by Nickels and the Seattle City Council to replace the existing six-lane elevated highway.

Nickels said he expects the City Council this week to authorize a ballot measure allowing voters to pick between the smaller tunnel and a new elevated highway.

But it's not clear if the new proposal — called "tunnel lite" by some people — will win over opponents in the state Legislature.

It's also not clear if it would satisfy Gov. Christine Gregoire's ultimatum calling for a voters to choose between a new viaduct or the larger six-lane tunnel.

But Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said Tuesday that both of those options are dead. "Neither will get built, an elevated or a six-lane tunnel," he said, in unveiling the mayor's new plan for what he calls a surface/tunnel hybrid.

"This has no fatal flaws," he said. "This is something that has legs."

The Mayor's Office briefed legislators on the proposal last Friday and also has been briefing members of the Seattle City Council.

He said the concern he keeps hearing is cost.

"Obviously we've addressed that very directly," Nickels said. "This is truly a once-in-100-years decision and it's probably the biggest chance this generation will have to change the face of the city, and we can't miss that opportunity."

Convincing skeptical lawmakers won't be easy.

House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, has said repeatedly that he opposes replacing the viaduct with a tunnel — any tunnel.

In an interview earlier this week, Chopp said it's unlikely the city will come up with a ballot measure for a tunnel that would address his concerns regarding cost, design and capacity.

"Based on what they've told me so far, they are not even close," he said.

House Transportation Chairwoman Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, said she would not go along with the city's new tunnel proposal even if voters approved it. "My concerns are grave enough that I would not consider that the right choice," she said, noting she's concerned about the cost of the project and its capacity to carry traffic.

Gregoire's position on the new alternative wasn't clear Tuesday. She's expected to meet today with city officials and others about the matter, said Marty Brown, Gregoire's legislative liaison.

Governor's warning

The governor warned Seattle recently that the state would move ahead with replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with an elevated highway if the city fails to let voters decide the project's future before lawmakers leave town in April.

Ceis said the hybrid tunnel evolved from meetings between the city and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) in an attempt to reduce costs. But Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald said this is the city's proposal, not the state's.

"There has been some work by the city, working with WSDOT, trying to develop tunnel lite," MacDonald said. "But for the last several days we have not been particularly working with the city."

What's crucial, MacDonald said, is that any viaduct replacement maintain the highway's traffic capacity. Beyond that, he said he couldn't comment on the city's plans because he hadn't seen them yet.

An expert panel appointed by Gregoire to review viaduct proposals sent a letter to Ceis Tuesday supporting, in concept, the smaller tunnel.

"We believe the city and WSDOT can save money by adopting a hybrid design using a narrower tunnel and more transit and traffic improvements on the surface," wrote Jane Garvey, chairwoman of the panel.

"Instead of stacking the roadways in a deep dig, you can save money and reduce risk by putting them side by side in a shallower tunnel. These design changes alone could save hundreds of millions of dollars," she wrote.

According to the city's proposal:

• The state would build a tunnel with four lanes on the same level with 14-foot shoulders that could provide an extra lane each way during rush hour. Whether it would be dedicated to HOV traffic hasn't been determined.

• Cars entering and exiting on Elliott and Western avenues would have a dedicated lane, along with metered ramps and synchronized traffic signals on Western Avenue, to keep traffic from backing up onto the highway as it does today.

• Third Avenue would become a permanent transit corridor, as it is temporarily with the bus tunnel closed. Ceis said that when the bus tunnel reopens in September, he's hoping Metro can afford to add additional buses on Third Avenue.

Bob Powers, director of major projects for the city's Department of Transportation, said the smaller tunnel would save $500 million in construction costs, about $270 million in risk costs, and $400 million in inflation costs and debt service. The project could be finished about 18 months sooner than the larger tunnel, he said.

Ceis said the smaller tunnel could be built without money from the regional tax increase expected to be on the ballot this fall, or from tolls.

Regional money

Without that money, he said, there would be about $3.75 billion available for tunnel construction. That includes $2.2 billion from the state, $500 million from the city for utility relocation, $250 million from a planned local-improvement district on the waterfront, $200 million from the Port of Seattle, along with other sources of funding.

Nickels said he's confident a majority of the council will vote this week to put the new tunnel proposal on the ballot. Councilwoman Jan Drago, a tunnel proponent and chairwoman of the council's transportation committee, agreed.

MacDonald said, "It is a political chess game involving some of the most important political people in the state at this point. This deals with political issues, not engineering issues."

[Black Box]

The Viaduct Merry-Go-Round, the 520 Waterslide.....

[mhays]

I've been an advocate of Tunnel Lite for a long time.

[mSeattle]

Still not guarenteed to float, but nice chest-move. Need more details and full financing cost estimates, all parts as was required for monorail.

[seaskyfan]

I'm glad to see him embracing this. I think it's the only way a tunnel works (politically/financially/etc.).

[MrVandelay]

I don't know, I would still rather see a higher capacity 6 lane option. if ANYTHING, you would then be able to in the future remove a lane or two and add a light rail line if ever needed, see plans for I-90 floating bridge/case and point.

[seaskyfan]

^ That's an interesting idea.

I don't thing the proposed route would make a great light rail corridor due to the distance from the main pedestrian traffic centers Downtown and the topography.

[WonderlandPark]

Please, Seattle, do the tunnel, I don't care what version, lite is fine, just DON'T rebuild a viaduct along the waterfront. This is an opportunity of a century, think ahead 50 or 100 years. Boston will be thrilled that they put up with the Big Dig and Seattle will be similarly happy it took that thing down, put the traffic underground, laid LRT or BRT at street level. Gawd I hope you can pull it off.

[PacificNW]

mSeattle? chest-move or chess move? Either one fits for the mayor..

[James Bond Agent 007]

Breaking news. This doesn't sound good.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Tunnel to replace viaduct appears dead
Seattle Times staff

OLYMPIA — Mayor Greg Nickels' plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel appears dead — at least for now — following a three-hour meeting between the state and Seattle city officials this afternoon.

Nickels on Wednesday unveiled a new, smaller viaduct proposal that he said would shave $1.2 billion from the $4.6 billion estimated cost of the previously proposed six-lane tunnel.

After a meeting between Nickels, Gov. Christine Gregoire, House Speaker Frank Chopp and other officials, the governor released a statement saying the proposal doesn't meet her timeline for a Seattle vote on viaduct replacement options. She has said the vote must occur before the Legislature adjourns April 22.

The statement also said the assumptions contained in Nickels' new tunnel plan hadn't been verified the state Department of Transportation.

As a result, the statement said, the state will either move forward with replacing the viaduct with another elevated highway or will move money dedicated to the project to replacing the Highway 520 bridge.

"I don't see how the tunnel can be revived given that there was unanimous opposition to the mayor's plan by all the House and Senate leaders," said Seattle City Council president Nick Licata, who attended the meeting. "I think Seattle residents are in the position of just trying to hold on to the money for the viaduct before it slips away into other projects."

The four-lane tunnel, called "tunnel lite" by some, would have included 14-foot shoulders, so the northbound shoulder would serve as a lane in the morning rush hour for cars exiting to Western Avenue. The highway could handle slightly more traffic than the Viaduct does now, the city contends. Also, some waterfront stretches would be open-air instead of covered, to reduce concrete and ventilation fans.

An expert panel appointed by Gregoire to review viaduct replacement options warmed to the concept last week, after a briefing with city and Department of Transportation staff.

"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.

But that option appears moot today.

Here is the complete statement from the governor:

"We all understand that we need to move forward. No action is not an option. Mayor Nickels and Seattle Transportation Chair Jan Drago believe that the city could place a ballot before voters April 24 on a new hybrid tunnel design and finance plan.

"Legislative leaders, transportation chairs and the governor rejected that timeline because it is beyond the scheduled Legislature adjournment. They are also concerned about the assumptions that have not yet been validated by the state Department of Transportation.

"This leaves us with a very difficult decision. There are two remaining options:

"-- move forward with an elevated viaduct replacement

"-- or reprogram funding to the 520 replacement project.

"We thank all parties for a candid discussion."

[Seasun]

I drove on the viaduct this past weekend (northbound exited at Seneca) and it's amazing there aren't accidents every day in the 4 lane northbound section just south of the Seneca off-ramp. The lanes are barely as wide as a small parking space.
The concept of the 14-foot shoulder acting as HOV lane or express lane of some kind is backwards - decent shoulders are needed for break-downs during rush hour especially!

[WonderlandPark]

^^^ If those are the options, than reprogram the funds to the 520. Bring down the viaduct and lay 4 lanes of street traffic there, computerize the signals and call it done.

The 520 is such an important transit link, the viaduct can come down to street level, but the 520 is SO essential to commerce and commuting in the Puget Sound region.

[blackc5]

^^ Have to agree with that sentiment. Tunnel or surface. The city should never allow another viaduct to be built.

Although not the best comparisons because of differences in topography, both San Fran and Vancouver do quite well without a freeway through downtown, and Seattle already has I-5 (which does admittedly need a lot of help itself).

[blackc5]

I have to add - I am surprised to see the state shoot down 'tunnel lite' so fast...

[NW Mike]

I agree Take down the Viaduct and put the money to 520!
After people get sick of dealing with the new problems then they will want the tunnel in a few years.
I thought Gov Gregoire would have liked tunnel lite.

[James Bond Agent 007]

I'm with everyone else. I'd rather have the $$ transferred to 520 and not do anything to the viaduct (or just make it a ground-level street) than to build a new viaduct.

[seaskyfan]

I'm ok with a replacement viaduct. A tunnel would have been nice. Maybe if Greg had gotten over the six lane tunnel earlier it would still be a possibility.

One idea I read about was extending Steinbreuck Park to cover the elevated viaduct - I'd be ok with that.

[mSeattle]

I've always said that 520 was immensely more important and options more limited (water vs. land) than the viaduct corridor. It's just sad/vexing how much time has been eaten up in all this.

PacificNW,

[Black Box]

Oh the drama!

[Dr. Smoke]

Oh man.

Well, I tried.
(no rebuild, put the money to light-rail buildout NOW)