Can it be? A Viaduct solution?
Will wonders never cease? We have agreement on a Viaduct solution, starring the late-arriving idea of a deep bored tunnel. But wonders may cease, if the idea does not hold together politically, financially, or in the Legislature.
Tuesday morning, Gov. Gregoire, Mayor Nickels, and Executive Sims will unveil the consensus plan. There will be no new (or repaired) Viaduct, which means the central waterfront will be dramatically opened up for a park and some redevelopment. Some of the SR 99 traffic will be diverted to downtown streets and one new lane, each way, on I-5; some will shift to some new transit routes, mostly bus rapid transit and trolleys. The rest will go in a bored tunnel angling from the Battery Street entrance down to First Avenue and emerging near the stadiums.
Gov. Gregoire, pushed by the Seattle Chamber of Commerce and Boeing, and other business interests (Microsoft is being cagey), was the first to get this last-minute religion of the tunnel. Next to join the consensus apparently was Mayor Nickels, who has less money than the state to put into the pot and therefore less leverage. Probably the least reliable convert to the tunnel scheme is Ron Sims, but he has a desperately broke King County to seek relief in Olympia and so is anxious to please.
The Greens are not on board, though they probably will go along if the tunnel is able to solve its financing and scheduling problems. (Scheduling is a big issue, since if Gov. Gregoire sticks by her promise to tear down the shaky Viaduct by 2012, that will mean five years or so of detouring that traffic while the tunnel is completed. I note that the 2012 date is not in the early reporting.) Pure-surface-and-transit advocates such as Mike O'Brien of the Sierra Club and Cary Moon of the People's Waterfront Coalition want to see more done to discourage auto transit, and they question all the cost and risk of the tunnel when national climate measures are probably going to drive down auto use.
Still, the political consensus will probably hold together, if unenthusiastically, hoping to impress the federal funders and to overcome House Speaker Frank Chopp's opposition. The problem is the finances, which is a complicated patchwork of Port money, new funding sources (such as license tabs to fund a "transportation benefit district"), and — unmentioned for now, due to political indigestion — regional tolling on bridges, I-5, and the new tunnel. We shall see.
Another political aspect of this breakthrough is whether it will lead to still more regional cohesion, particularly on the big remaining local issue, the "orphan highways" left behind when Proposition 1 (roads and transit) failed in 2007. Federal infrastructure spending will help, but only if the region can actually put aside its endless bickering among no-yield constituencies. For the Viaduct, at least for now, a peace treaty has been found.
Comments:
Posted Mon, Jan 12, 5:22 p.m. inappropriate
why is it that everytime we have a major project it's the most expensive option?
Posted Mon, Jan 12, 6:54 p.m. inappropriate
This tunnel connects Aurora Ave. to the viaduct corridor south of downtown, but with no ramps connecting to Western and Elliott, it does nothing for all that industrial traffic to/from Ballard and Interbay.
If this selection moves ahead in its present form, most all of that local freight and commercial traffic will be on surface waterfront streets, same as in the surface/transit alternative. Either that or find longer detour routes through Seattle neighborhoods to access onto Aurora. Is this what we really want?
Posted Mon, Jan 12, 8:51 p.m. inappropriate
R on Beacon Hill is absolutely correct. This is not what the affected neighborhoods -- such as Queen Anne and Magnolis -- want, obviously. But, just as obviously, the mayor does not care about any neighborhoods other than downtown.
I wonder if all the details in this story are correct. Licata was quoted in one of the papers as saying this plan did not include any improvements to I-5.
Does the $4.25 billion include a new seawall? Who pays for the new seawall, which is critical?
If there is a plan to raise car tabs, that will have to go to a public vote.
Tolls on bridges, the tunnel and I-5 to pay for a tunnel? When we can get a new elevated paid for with the current gas tax, and no tolls would be required? How will voters react to that, if this is true?
I am very interested to hear all the details, especially the cost and who is paying how much for what, and with what new revenues?
This looks like a enormous scam, to me. I wonder if the media will expose it, or go along with it.
Posted Mon, Jan 12, 9:22 p.m. inappropriate
Once again the City of Seattle forces its priorities on its vassals in The Rest Of The State. Replacing the damaged viaduct section and retrofitting the rest is obviously an insult to our Queen City overlords and the Governor they placed in office in 2004. Is anyone surprised? In the meantime, where are the measly few million dollars needed to repair the 11th Street Bridge in Tacoma, whose discraceful neglect has cut the city off from the revenue producing businesses on the tideflats? I hope there will be "Good To Go!" checkpoints set up at the entrances to this Big Dig to help compensate the miserable wretches who must toil for Seattle's utopian waterfront vanity. Yeah, right...
Posted Mon, Jan 12, 10:22 p.m. inappropriate
Lincoln you are correct this is a scam from what i understand 2.8 bil by state thru the gas tax 1 bil by the city and 1 bil by the county if anyone thinks this is going to come in on time or budget think again my prediction is two to four years late and 7 to 12 bil if you look at the states large projects in the past they are usually late and 25 to 40% over budget. think about this it took these idiots five years just to come up with a plan!!!
Posted Tue, Jan 13, 12:22 a.m. inappropriate
Good to see our political leaders finally putting forward a united front against the minority of loud, paranoid, do-nothings whose political vocabulary is limited to the word "no".
If the possibility of going over budget was reason enough to abandon a project, nothing would ever get built, and we'd all be living in mud huts surrounded by our own feces.
To the penny pinchers, sorry, but the cheapest solution is almost never the correct solution, and this issue needs to be solved correctly. If you want a return, you need to invest wisely, not miserly.
Along those lines, the tunnel should definitely provide access to/from Ballard/Magnolia.
Posted Tue, Jan 13, 7:43 a.m. inappropriate
Where's Frank Chopp on this "collaboration?"
How and when will Seattle and King County come up with their $1 billion each in order to be a "real participant?" Can we wait?
Can we allow the Viaduct to deteriorate for another decade while we wait for the new route?
Without a connection to Elloitt, it is no alternate route.
Where do the hazzardous trucks go? In the tunnel?
Without the on/off ramps into/out of downtown, this will put more traffic on downtown streets and I-5. Adding lanes to I-5 is needed without dumping SR99 traffic on it.
So, we open op the Central Waterfront for a mile and sacrifice other downtown streets through, Pioneer Square, International District, other Downtown streets, cause ing more traffic jams, pollution and noise.
Who pays for the cost overruns? No matter which governmaental agencies, the ciotizens all ways get it in the pocket.
Will this come up for votes in Seattle and King County before this can advance?
If the City and County can't come up with their contributions soon, what does the Sate do to resolve this problem?
Where is Frank Chopp on all this?
Art
Posted Tue, Jan 13, 7:51 a.m. inappropriate
I like the idea. First of all it removes the viaduct which has always been an eyesore and opens up the waterfront for redevelopment. It creates a hidden by bypass under the city for through traffic which still has access to Magnolia, Queen Anne, and Ballard along Aurora.
It also provides a surface street solution along the waterfront which will provide better access than most think for people who live in Magnolia, Queen Anne, and Ballard to the new interchange in SODO.
If you have been to San Francisco and have seen what they have done with the Embarcadero area when it comes to traffic and development you realize that this is probably the best avaialable solution
I like the fact that the Battery Street Tunnel will continue to exist as part of the system and will be repurposed to enhance the project.
Building a new Viaduct was the easiest and most cost effective solution. It was also the re-creation of a major eyesore that the city would have to live with another 100 years.
Opening up downtown to the waterfront on the other hand will have a positive economic impact that will last forever.
Posted Tue, Jan 13, 8:35 a.m. inappropriate
The timing suggests, IMO, that the momentary consensus hinges on potential stimulus funds, rather than the specific solution in question. This solution proved too expensive in flush times--politically and financially--and only the Hope of Obama showering free money across the 50 states sustains it. Hardly different from the desperate fool who sees the Lottery as a solution.
Posted Tue, Jan 13, 10:18 a.m. inappropriate
This is a project that will have an ultimate lifespan of anywhere from 50-70 years. Thinking about it purely in terms of the immediate cost is short-sighted. The tunnel offers the best solution for the development of a waterfront that is actually part of the city.
Posted Tue, Jan 13, 11:59 a.m. inappropriate
The fool who spends precious few dollars on lottery tickets ignores the immediate costs in favor of a fantasy beyond their means.
Posted Tue, Jan 13, 1:33 p.m. inappropriate
To Sean i built my own home recently and not only did i complete it on time but about 5% under budget.I think you missed the point I'm not against replacing the viaduct just not the most expensive way possible as for over budget issues think of it like this sound transit light rail cost is $40.000 per foot of track when the project was first voted on it was about 75% less than that and it is eight years late!!
Posted Tue, Jan 13, 2:55 p.m. inappropriate
R on Beacon Hill, the Battery Street Tunnel will still exist and will connect directly with Western and Elliott for local traffic. You can see the entrance to the new tunnel and to the Battery Street Tunnel on this mock-up from WSDOT.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/3027654349/sizes/m/in/set-72157609016191958/
Since the south end of the tunnel is at Royal Brougham, there is no reason that a freight truck would have to use surface streets unless they are delivering to downtown or Ballard.
Posted Tue, Jan 13, 4:31 p.m. inappropriate
The point is, there's still a fair amount of freight traffic to Interbay and Ballard. That will have to take surface streets, then? Or is the idea to send it through the new tunnel, then over to Dexter or Westlake and thence across the Fremont Bridge to Leary or west on Nickerson to the Ballard Bridge?