I'm geeting very sick of these biased articles, be they Pro Tunnel or Con...like this one. It's like the repubs & dems in Congress. One wonders whether anyone is concerned about seemotions lecting an activity by a deadline, in order to address the coming earthquake. The problem is there is no alternative supported by a majority of citizens.Yet emotions erupt over different opinions.If a large enough group of citizens can't decide on a single constructive proposal,office holders must ethically make a selection for the general good, utilizing their best judgement by which they were chosen to hold office.Perhaps a majority would like to do nothing but maintain the existing Viaduct,yet no one will survey that choice by putting it up for a sacred vote! Enough tantrums please,time for constructive consensus...such as the Deep Bore Tunnel or---though it would be a sad lost oppurtunity---a Retrofit down to bedrock.

Getting* and selecting*...(sorry)

The views in Seattle should be as sacred as the Pike Place Market. The viaduct view is arguably the greatest drive view in the world. Whether the viaduct remains as a car structure or is turned into a park there's a treasurte there that must be saved. Once a view is gone, it's gone forever.
Save the viaduct, let the people vote.

Mr. Bricklin,

I like you have hope that we live in a republic, where every citizen is protected by existing laws and the state constitution. Unfortunately I've learned on multiple occasions that is NOT the case. ----------

In education "The Billionaire Boys" determine what will be done. State Legislators, just like the Seattle School Board serve as a rubber stamp for the oligarchs. Note the complete abandonment of educationally disadvantaged learners and many others by the ongoing failure to observe article IX of the WA Constitution. ----------

So it will be with the tunnel ... laws will be violated ... in the interest in doing what the "Big Money" wants done. ------------

Web ..... has a problem with biased articles ... Me I have a problem with every party or politician that violates either the law or the State Constitution .... Unfortunately our current judicial system does not have a problem with such violations. ---------

==> http://www.school-truth.com/dorn.html

--- Dan Dempsey

chapala21,

You have that right. The viaduct view is arguably the greatest drive view in the world.

Especially in often dark rainy Seattle, the Viaduct sure beats anything else ( a tunnel ??). On a sunny day truly amazing..... Instead of Safeco or Quest.. we will be getting the dark KingDome.... My Oh My .. what a purchase.

Funny how Bricklin and some others in the environmental community are fighting to give us a new viaduct.

(Of course he doesn't want a new viaduct, but he's being myopic if he doesn't know that's the more likely outcome if we hash out an alternate plan in two years....)

Agree with this article's ironclad logic!

There are several other elephants in the room as well. For example the EIS is not being prepared in an honest fashion, in that the latest draft assumes that the tunnel has no toll. Meanwhile back in reality, massive toll revenue is included in the (incomplete) financing plan for the tunnel.

"Orwellian word games to avoid true compliance with SEPA" speaks concisely to my experience with WSDOT consultants during section 106 (of the National Historic Preservation Act) review of the mammoth SR 520 project. The six Seattle communities along the bridges--not just Montlake--have trudged through draft after draft after draft of reports--thousands of pages--that conclude there would be no adverse impacts from the project on their homes. We're looking at seven years of construction and at bridges more than twice as wide and in the case of the bigger, better Floating Bridge, another viaduct, this time on the water.

While purporting to lead us through the section 106 process, a good number of the $400 millions' worth of consultants in WSDOT's hire have obfuscated as much as they could. They couldn't give us a straight answer if their lives instead of ours depended on it. We, too, have been told that the decision has been made as we all wait for the FEIS to be released. If the FEIS is like the SDEIS and the DEIS before it, profound local effects on air quality, wildlife ecosystems, geology and soils, parklands, boating and other kinds of recreation and from hazardous materials, vibration and noise will be buried in findings of "no net loss" in regionwide study areas. Increased traffic congestion on I-5 from the loss of an express lane to the 520 project and from traffic diverted away from tunnel construction along with backups along our city's arterials and in the neighborhoods is a prospective result of the project that doesn't get mentioned, let alone addressed. It is sad, and if you are trying to work with these laws and regulations in good faith, anguishing, to see measures and processes meant to protect our precious, unique resources from real harm be so subverted. We have only one Lake Washington, only one Portage Bay, only one Arboretum. The decisions to build willy-nilly in the first place were made in an unenlightened time, we like to think, before NEPA and SEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act. But until these processes and regulations are implemented by independent experts, they will always be biased in favor of the transportation departments who pay for them.

Iron-clad logic for sure. Only trouble is the policy decision that has already been made is really quite limited: Shall the City have an agreement with WSDOT about utility easements, street use, etc? The ordinance in question only carries out that decision. On the question if the government has made a policy decision without the benefit of complete environment review? That one comes up later this year when you and the gridlock gang will appeal the adequacy of the project FEIS. Sorry, you only get one bite of the apple on that quesion.

A refurbished viaduct with contemporary seismic protections and other amenities should be reconsidered. It is the choice of the voters and if an honest vote had ever been conducted between a tunnel and an elevated solution in any of the last ten years the elevated roadway would have been chosen.

This entire devious process has been, from the beginning, an orchestrated effort to subvert the will of the voters for the benefit of a few special interests. Just add it to the growing list of things that are ruining the country that, “may be legal…but it’s not right.”

Still time to do the right thing.

Long term, we need much better transit in the viaduct corridor to absorb the growing population of the city. Whether we build a tunnel, keep the current viaduct for a while, build a new one, or put everything on surface streets, we won't have the capacity for all the new people to drive. And we have major bottlenecks thanks to the limited access across Aurora north of Denny, and the places where the viaduct prevents streets from reaching the waterfront. We need to open most of these barriers to create better east-west movement, even if it means slowing the north-south traffic in the corridor. I-5 also has problems that need to be fixed through downtown.

In short, we need surface and transit improvements no matter what we do about the viaduct, and most of those changes need to happen as soon as possible. And making those changes increases our options.

I think we should reinforce the viaduct for another ten years or so--not for the indefinite future, but for long enough to make the necessary surface and transit changes without dumping traffic on the streets first nor relying on a structure that's on the verge of collapse. At minimum we need transit-only lanes, more frequent bus service, and more east-west crossings, plus changes to I-5 to enable it to carry more traffic faster through downtown.

But we should consider building a second downtown transit tunnel as a first priority before replacing the viaduct with a car tunnel. This tunnel would enable us to extend Link light rail to the west side of the city without compromising frequency of service in the current tunnel. It would reach neighborhoods like Belltown and Lower Queen Anne that are not served currently. The trains could emerge from the new tunnel near the stadiums and could then take an elevated course to West Seattle. North of downtown, the tunnel could surface in the Interbay area on the way to Ballard, or you could split it so that there's a tunnel under Queen Anne, then under the Ship Canal to Fremont, surfacing eventually on Aurora.

Once that's in place (or, in a less ambitious move, the surface and transit improvements), the retrofit life of the viaduct will be coming to an end and we can try the experiment of what happens when we remove it, knowing that alternatives are in place. If traffic is a disaster and the new transit doesn't handle the trips, then we build a replacament viaduct or tunnel. But if we do the hard work of getting the transit and surface changes we'll need anyway, we might just find we don't need the viaduct.

Let's also not forget that no other proposed configuration for the Alaska Way corridor matches the existing viaduct in any transportation related category. The rights of ways already exist. The configuration already can handle 110,000 vehicles a day. It already provides a bypass for downtown and off ramps for the core, Ballard and West Seattle. It already meets the demands for commercial vehicles. It can incorporate modern seismic protections and other enhancements for noise abatement, bikes, pedestrians and aesthetics. It provides the only effective way to modulate traffic in the core. And it’s 2 billion dollars cheaper than this present tunnel/surface mistake in the making.

"The way most of the tunnel proponents talk, you would think the decision is already made — which means the EIS must be done, right? Wrong."

Policy been set?
That is yes, the Washington State Legislature passed a bill, the Governor signed it, the City of Seattle passed an Ordinance stating its policy. Could the EIS force the state to change the established policy? Yes.
Will it? Nobody knows. Should we wait for every EIS to complete before establishing policy that is actually needed to make the EIS and project move forward? Maybe, but the representative government chose not to wait. The risk having their policy changed by the result of the EIS.

The Policy has been made, the decision to be able to move forward with any part is a different question that depends on many things, including the results of the EIS, comets falling from the sky, or molemen rising from the earth to claim rights to underground Seattle.

Good article and I am sick about the Tunnel. I do hope we see a vote but I am concerned that the only alternative, as Mr. Bricklin implies, is posed as Surface/Transit.

Here's my fear about the election:

• Anti-Tunnel people think that the vote -- if it happens -- will be about the tunnel — "YES" or "NO" e.g. Eli Sanders was articulate on that issue on KUOW recently.

• But pro-Tunnel people will frame the issue -- over and over -- "Well what's the alternative to the Tunnel?"

• Mayor McGinn offers no other alternative than Surface/Transit. I heard him asked that recently and frankly his answer -- Surface/Transit -- was lame and unconvincing.

• There is no way that a majority of the people of Seattle will (in effect) vote for Surface/Transit. They've said that pretty convincingly in vote and polls.

• So as it is now, if Surface/Transit is framed as only alternative, as Conlin & Company will surely attempt, pro-tunnel wins.

• The Tunnel would be a disaster.

• McGinn should create room for discussion of a long-term plan along the lines of "Repair (now) and Prepare (to eventually tear down the Viaduct.)"

Retrofitting the viaduct will win, as it should.

I think the important thing is to realize that there are a lot of independent decisions here that have been muddled together in the debate.

What happens to improve transit and the surface is an interesting and necessary question regardless of what happens to the viaduct.

Whether the viaduct is repaired or torn down is a separate question. Once torn down, whether it is replaced is a separate question. If it's replaced, the form of replacement (tunnel or new viaduct) is a separate question. How to redevelop the waterfront is a separate question that is affected by some of these questions but can wait until the other questions are answered.

Seawall replacement isn't so much a question as something that needs to happen no matter how any of these questions are answered.

We should answer these questions one by one, but to do that we need time. A short term repair buys time to make a series of decisions one after the other.

Repair the viaduct. Do everything we can agree on first. Narrow down the remaining issues to those that are truly contentious and ask what to do about them (or not do) one by one in isolation. And then do what we decide, with the time that we've bought by the repair.

David Sucher has it right. Repair and Prepare. It's the thoughtful way to proceed.

Somehow the notion that the viaduct is repairable persists in spite of a lack of serious analysis that would support that idea. An ASCE study estimated the cost of repairing the viaduct at $2.3 Billion (see link below). Critics will probably say that ASCE and WSDOT cooked the estimate and, for all I know, that could be true but I have certainly not seen any analytical response to the ASCE estimate. Even if it exaggerates repair costs by $1 Billion (and I see no reason to think that it does) the repair idea is not worth considering.

http://seattleasce.org/committees/urbandevelop_transportation_wasdot.html

Before they were jerked off the table when the tunnel/park PR spin cycle fired up, there were two DOT solutions for an elevated refurbished viaduct and a plan from an outside third party engineer...all with costs less than half of the final tunnel plan and projections of serviceability for between 25 and 40 years. The T.Y. Lin study has been spun a dozen different ways, but the main point is that it concluded that the viaduct could be made safe to contemporary standards…and for a cost less than half of this tunnel/park plan.

Hold that thought…

Now, consider that there is no other proposed configuration for the Alaska Way corridor matches the existing viaduct in any transportation related category. The rights of ways already exist. The configuration already can handle 110,000 vehicles a day. It already provides a bypass for downtown and off ramps for the core, Ballard and West Seattle. It already meets the demands for commercial vehicles. It can incorporate modern seismic protections and other enhancements for noise abatement, bikes, pedestrians and aesthetics. It provides the only effective way to modulate traffic in the core. And it’s two billion dollars cheaper than this present tunnel/surface mistake in the making. Less cost…more capacity….move more things from one place to the other. Transportation, eh?

Still time to do the right thing.

Flash! The Democrats decided to face reality and sunset SEPA, retroactive to just prior to Conlin OKing that DEIS. The idea started perking after Dave dropped the beans in the Stranger about this pickle being a "slam dunk." Hunter just explained on KTVW how we can no longer afford to waste time and money pretending to control things we have no intention of controlling, e.g. liquor, hazards to life and limb, runaway growth. The social net and public employment for far far, more important. Don't you think? Brilliant!

The hearing will be held tomorrow night, somewhere in the Capitol building right after they lock in the protesters. Republicans are a little nonplussed, but as long as the Growth Management Act is kept so they can go on amending it to the opposite they are willing to go along.

So take that Dave, you and your ilk!
;-)

Clearly the powers-that-be have been acting illegally, abusing their power.

It is also clear that the current mess was caused by Jan Drago, with collusion from Tim Ceis, who deceitfully designed the wacky vote questions to which Seattleites responded "No" to an elevated structure (57%) and "No!" to a tunnel (70%). As Drago confessed in a December 2009 Crosscut article, “Had it been a single vote, tunnel vs. elevated,” she now says, “we [tunnel supporters] would have been dead on arrival.”

What many do not seem to realize is that if the viaduct were removed, the eastward view would consist of old brick warehouses with dirty, broken windows. What a tourist attraction, eh?

And what should be clear from the tunneling experiences at Brightwater, the Boston Big Dig et al. is that they are risky and unreasonably costly. Governor Gregoire said in Jan./Feb. 2007 that "We cannot afford a tunnel." So, with today's economic situation, now we can???

Again, what may not be well-known is that the DBT is being intentionally designed to substandard criteria: flaunting both Federal and State laws, this thing cuts corners on lane width, ceiling height, gradient and--most egregiously--shoulder width, with only two feet on the righthand side northbound. Good luck if you're in a wheelchair trying to deploy into a space one-fourth of what you need. In a word, it's dangerous.

The DBT also has these negative aspects: it won't handle nearly as much traffic volume as the AWV; it removes downtown access from West Seattle and other neighborhoods currently provided by the Viaduct; it depends on tolls that surveys show will not be there; it doesn't yet have solid commitment from the Port for $300 million needed to build it (which, with normal debt servicing is a total burden of just over one billion dollars, and which will triple your Port taxes); it doesn't have permission from the U.S. Government to dig under the Federal Building; its pumps and fans will require spending $1.4 million annually for electrical power to run them; and more.

The best solution of which I am aware is called a 'cable-stayed' bridge, which is nearly transparent, far more aesthetic than, say, the Golden Gate or the Oakland Bay bridge, fully functional in every way that the DBT is not--with virtually zero risk and costing FAR less. And it creates ironworker et al. jobs without sending our money to Germany, Italy, Spain, BC and New Jersey as the DBT does.

Finally, all of us should insist that the Protect Seattle Now referendum and SCAT's Initiative 101 are on the next ballot...and don't buy the red herring that says that they don't apply to an "admin." issue--no sirree, these are POLICY issues, if for no other reason than the fact that the Legislature signed up for a conforming tunnel, not one with half a dozen design deviations.

Ham

David Bricklin comes across as s sore loser with a law degree.

And another attorney seeking to draw attention - to himself.

It is ridiculous to assert that the environmental impacts of the tunnel have not been adequately studied.

The surface option died years ago. The Viaduct is already coming down (which means the retrofit dream has also died.)

No judge is going to waste tens of millions in delay on such an enormous public safety risk that has been studied for over a decade.

The trick will be to figure out how to turn sour grapes into a next stage debate about how to shape the city - around a stunning new waterfront.

jmrolls, I admit to ignorance about the two DOT studies or the T Y Lin study. Are they findable on the web? the two DOT studies do not show up in my search.

kieth, WSDOT has all seventeen retrofit studies online at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/libraryalternatives.htm. Be sure to read the American Society of Civil Engineers Review of the Lin report - I think that's what jmrolls is calling "spin".

(sorry, kieth, I hadn't noticed you'd already linked in an earlier comment to the ASCE report. Still, I think you'll enjoy reading the Lin report in its own right to see what ASCE meant. As for precisely which two other studies jmrolls was talking about, I'm guessing they were somewhere among those reviewed in the last item on the library links list, the 2008 Stakeholder Advisory Committee Retrofit Presentation by KPFF.)

Excerpt from the referenced KPFF Presentation:

"The costs of all retrofit schemes proposed to date are high relative to the cost of completely replacing the viaduct with a new elevated structure. According to WSDOT estimates, the damping retrofit scheme proposed by the Viaduct Preservation Group, and designed through schematic level by T.Y. Lin International (Document 11), would cost approximately 80 percent of the cost of replacing the viaduct (Documents 12 and 14). A retrofitted structure would still have inadequate lane widths, no emergency
shoulders, and substandard acceleration and deceleration lanes. A new elevated structure would have a somewhat higher initial cost than a retrofit, but would address the existing functional problems, would provide a structure designed to current AASHTO and WSDOT seismic standards, and would have
an expected life of 75 to 100 years. .....

Advocates of seismic retrofit options for the viaduct have often stated that a seismic retrofit could be constructed with minimal disruption to the flow of traffic on the existing viaduct. In fact, this is not the case."

I don't see any "spin" in this; the 25 year lifespan is, in itself, enough to discredit the plan. I was unable to see any serious plan to stabilize the 2nd deck. It may be there (a lot of pages) but it does not show up in Victor Grey's scheme. I do acknowledge that the proposed tunnel shares some of the "corner cutting" of the existing Viaduct.

I must correct an 'Editors Pick' from David Sucher who is "concerned that the only alternative is Surface/Transit." The truth is, the surface/transit option does NOT rule out an 'eventual' cut/cover tunnel nor a replacement viaduct.

Picture Lower Belltown with the surface boulevard option devised in Wsdot's Scenario 'H' Trench cut/cover. Instead of the 4,5 or 8 stoplights offered with Wsdot's Surface Boulevard options, Lower Belltown needs only 2 stoplights! Those two intersections would leave the Battery Street Tunnel in its current configuration (no lowering, no new walls, reduced cost). And the new boulevard leading to the waterfront could one day lead to either a cut/cover tunnel (Scenarios 'H' and 'G') or to a new viaduct (Scenario 'D').

In the meantime, the surface boulevard option leads to fixes for I-5 and investment in transit which downtown Seattle desperately needs.

Here summarized are Sucher's fears about the election:

• Anti-Tunnel people think the vote will be about the tunnel, YES or NO.
• Pro-Tunnel people will frame the issue as "What's the alternative?"
• Mayor McGinn offers no other alternative than Surface/Transit.
• A majority of Seattlers will not vote for Surface/Transit.
• If Surface/Transit is framed as the only alternative, pro-tunnel wins.
• The Tunnel would be a disaster! (exclamation point added)
• McGinn should create a long-term plan of "Repair and Prepare" to eventually tear down the AWV.

Actually, the Surface/Transit option tears down the AWV and rebuilds the equally dangerous seawall soonest.

Wells.
In a straight-across election, which wins: Tunnel or Surface/Transit?
Just your honest best guess?

The 30-member Alaska Way Viaduct Advisory Committee convened by state, county and city transportation leaders spent most of 2008 hearing from experts on the condition of the viaduct, and a variety of alternatives proposed to replace it. This includes city, county and state-sponsored experts, and staff.

They conclusion was that the current viaduct is safe for travel, is within state and federal compliance standards for structures of its use and age, and can be repaired and brought to acceptable higher seismic standards for approximately $1 billion dollars. This is according to the state's own research.

The reference to Mr. Jugesh Kapur’s claim that the cost to retrofit the viaduct would be "80% of the cost of replacement" and thus in excess of the 50% that is the state standard for making the replacement vs. repair criteria for projects is a stretch. Mr. Kapur's figures compare the cost to repair the current structure with initial estimates for replacement considered before the selection of a Tunnel + Transit replacement whose tunnel component alone is estimated to cost $2+ billion dollars. Further, repairing the existing structure allowed for the continued use of the existing street grid with some exceptions.

And of course it remains the best transportation solution for commuters with its capacities and access, while saving billions of dollars for other transportation projects that would be under-funded or unfunded if the current proposal moves forward.

The refurbish / repair option for the viaduct is clearly the most cost-effective solution it just depends on whether you believe it be a transportation project…or a parks and recreation project.

jmrolls, " thirty member Alaskan Way Viaduct Committee", do you have a link to that report? thanks.

That these plans were made "long ago" is ever more the reason to re-evaluate them!

The Washington and Seattle of pre-2007 is nothing like the Seattle and Washington of post-2007.

This is a different world...a de-leveraged world...one where we may actually be building a true sprawling middle class, rather than a concentrated pool of a few billionaires calling the shots.

From Moclips to Richland, from Bellingham to Centralia, we are a sprawling sea of equal partners...we no longer answer to the drum call from the very few Insiders who want to control and command.

The freedom of the Web Democracy lets us challenge all the master planning that went on in closeted backrooms.

The proposed vote is not a public vote. It is a select vote of only Seattle voters. These people do not represent the sole taxpayers of the bored tunnel nor the sole beneficiaries of the tunnel. Do we want only want San Juan County voters to decide funding for ferries or should Gig Harbor voters have been the sole deciders on whether or not to build the Narrows Bridge?

We might as well invite Joe Francis to be governor for this latest installment of Voters Gone Wild.

David Sucher. As you figure perfectly well, in a straight-across election, (Bored Tunnel vs Surface/Transit), Bored Tunnel would win; not because the bored tunnel is the better option, but because the public is being misled to believe it.

The surface/transit option actually manages displaced street traffic better than the bored tunnel. Mercer cannot handle any more traffic, nor is it appropriate for displaced traffic to be redirected through residential Queen Anne. Alaskan Way and the Elliott/Western corridor have the capacity and are more appropriate than Mercer and Denny Way which is likewise overloaded with terrible traffic. This fiasco is a disgrace for Seattle. Everyone I speak to here about it shakes their head in agreement that Seattle transportation planning is idiotic.

In general, Wells, I think we are on accord.

I was just telling a friend about the crazy Republicans in Congress and the image of our local elected officials touting the Tunnel -- all Democrats -- came to mind and I didn't feel quite so smug.

If we ever needed an intervention from God, we in America need one now. Really looks quite grim.

The bored tunnel redirects displaced AWV traffic onto the "Mercer Mess" through Lake Union and through "residential" and similarly pedestrian-oriented Queen Anne to Elliott. Phase One Mercer reduces lanes from 4 to 3, plus adds 3 lanes of westbound traffic, plus left-turn lanes. Widening Mercer (further west) creates a new traffic pattern between I-5 and Elliott, adding more traffic to the new definition of Mercer Mess. The bored tunnel, plus Mercer West, adds traffic from two new sources and is bound to make the Mercer Mess worse. Wsdot and sdot don't want the public (probably including councilmembers) to know what's coming down the pike.

The surface boulevard alternative keeps displaced traffic on Alaskan Way and the Elliott/Western corridor, boulevards that have the capacity, have fewer sidestreets and sidestreet traffic, are straighter and shorter, have fewer stoplights and less hillclimb and are more appropriately commercial than Mercer. In other words, the truth is, the surface boulevard option actually manages surface traffic BETTER than the bored tunnel.

The surface boulevard alternative also keeps the Battery Street Tunnel, where about 5,000 vehicles daily drive between Lake Union and Lower Belltown, traffic that would be displaced to Denny Way, another Mess of traffic already. It is also possible and desirable to keep the Broad Street Underpass. Mercer Phase One will use it and Phase Two (a Mercer West option) could use it to access the Battery Street Tunnel BETTER than by widening Mercer.

Finally, the proposed grid reconnection of Aurora at John, Thomas and Harrison Streets is possible while keeping the Battery Street Tunnel and the Broad Street Underpass. Wsdot conservatives are on a vendetta to punish Seattle liberals. Hey, some liberals are total idiots, but some conservatives are total bastards.

God expects us to work out our problems ourselves. He's busy slingshotting sinners from paradise on Jupiter across the expanse of outer space into the hellfires of the sun. Gnashing of teeth, wailing, all that. Him and Jesus have a contest scoring points with sinner darts that hit nearest the sun's bullseye. During the months of being flung across space, some sinners bump into each other and cling together for comfort til they get fried crispy critters....
...yeah right.

Wells, I hate to tell you this, but I think the Discovery Institute got an assist from the Almighty when he phoned in the news about new tunneling machines in late 2008. It was just in time for the viaduct committee to lobby the tunnel back on the table after the WSDOT, and everyone else, had passed on it. A miracle...?

Amen

Isn't it funny how so many "progressives" suddenly turn conservative when the question of democracy comes up? That elitest "the people are too stupid to decide these things so let us handle it" attitude creeps in when your favorite politician snaps his or her fingers. How do "progressives" maintain "civil discourse"? By not having any discourse at all!

I don't have time to do my own EIS and investigate all the options. I do expect "my" government to explore all viable options and allow me to have a voice in the decision, especially since I'm paying for it and the billionaires and corporations who own the State Legislature aren't. But, alas, we do not live in a democracy. We live in Seattle.