Updated: The Viaduct issue looms in Seattle races
Is the Viaduct issue, long a hot-button concern in Seattle politics, alive or dead in this race? Evidence that it's still out there growling comes from a poll taken in late May by Constituent Dynamics. For starters, the poll found voters opposing the deep-bore tunnel idea by 55-37 percent, while they narrowly favored (40-31 percent) the defeated alternative, pushed by greens, of a surface-only solution with enhanced transit.
The poll tested how the Viaduct issue plays in the Seattle Mayor's race. At the outset it asked the poll takers who they planned to vote for in that race, getting these results: Nickels 20%, Jan Drago 19, James Donaldson 11, Mike McGinn 10, and Joe Mallahan 7. Then it explained, negatively, the Viaduct issue, particularly the city's being on the hook for cost over-runs, and pointed out that only McGinn opposes the tunnel option. Knowing that, the pollster says, now how would you vote in the Mayor's race. The results changed dramatically: McGinn 29, Nickels 21, Drago 12, Donaldson 6, Mallahan 4.
Those figures help explain why McGinn works the Viaduct issue and its financial liability into nearly every remark, and why Drago can't really tout one of her signal achievements and differences with Nickels. Drago, alone on the City Council, favored the deep-bore tunnel idea years before it seemed a plausible alternative to the streets-only solution or building a new viaduct; and she was an effective negotiator to get the idea enacted once cost estimates had dropped enough to make it a contender.
Evidence that voters may be tired of the issue, or figure it's too late to relitigate the whole matter, comes from the tone taken by Mike O'Brien, a City Council candidate. O'Brien, for the past three years chair of the local Sierra Club chapter, fought for the surface solution while on the Waterfront Stakeholders group advising the transportation departments examining Viaduct alternatives, and he opposes the ultimate tunnel choice just enacted in the Legislature and pushed through by Gov. Chris Gregoire.
But asked about the issue in a session with Crosscut writers yesterday, he downplayed any role he might play in overturning the decision, agreeing that the horse is pretty much out of the barn. He still thinks the tunnel option might fall apart from its own high costs, as the monorail plan did. But he was certainly not saying that by electing him to the Council voters could expect him to work to reverse the decision. McGinn would face the same dilemma if he survives the primary on August 18 and runs against Nickels in the November election. Voters oppose the decision but probably want to "move on."
UPDATE: Candidate O'Brien disputes my characterization of his views on the Viaduct/tunnel in a post in the comments below (scroll way down to a starred pick). I made the remark about the horse being out of the barn, and thought I detected a nod of approval from O'Brien or at least a kind of shrug in his answer. He explains his views below, which suggest he's going to make much more of this issue in the campaign than I thought.









Comments:
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 8:04 a.m. inappropriate
That poll is highly contrived. How many people would vote for McGinn if they knew that he supported tearing the viaduct down and replaceing it with... NOTHING? Our city streets, already overloaded, would get another 110,000 vehicles per day to deal with. Pedestrians, public transportation and bicycles would all be fighting for the limited surface streets we have in our geographically constrained urban area.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 8:13 a.m. inappropriate
It’s unfortunate that the poll didn’t also offer the retrofit or replacement option for consideration. I think it would show that most voters would choose to retain the viaduct with upgrades and provisions for bike/pedestrian traffic, noise abatement, seismic issues and aesthetics. This option was never fairly considered during the process in spite of the common sense inquiries made by the public every step of the way. The simple truth is that it saves billions and retains one of the few north/south arterials that we have that really works.
The poll apparently does show that most local politicians may not be as clever is they would like to believe, and may not be returned to office because of the sleazy way they connived and bullied this through.
It is irresponsible to keep pretending that personal vehicles aren’t the choice of over 90% of us who must drive to function is this city. And by city I don’t mean just downtown.
The current viaduct proposal is a giant step backward for Seattle.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 8:30 a.m. inappropriate
Everyone should be holding their breath until January, 2010, when the Legislature convenes and gets to see the research done by WSDOT as delineated in the "Amendment" to the State's Bill, that all supporters of the Tunnel lobbyed for and got, reluctently.
While Nickels and Drago have rebuffed the provision that says Seattle will cover any cost overruns as uninforceable, it shows that their is suspicion that there WILL BE overruns, which is what Chopp and other legislators see as the fatal flaw of the Tunnel option, which is already the most expensive solution to date and growing.
Then, couple that with the reality of the Southern portion between King and Holgate being demolished this year,long before the Tunnel is useable (if it gets that far), shows that the leadership lied outright when saying there will be NO traffic disruption until the Tunnel is useable conflicting with their key provision that there will be NO disruption until the Tunnel is useable.
The emporer has no clothes.
The downtown interests have once again put forward a proposal that benefits them and screws the rest of the city functionally and financially. Smoke and mirrors are still a good tactic to use when one has dumbed-down the citizenry.
Meanwhile the Viaduct is approaching 9 years since the Earthquake that started all this lying, and it still provides better and more convenient service that any other proposal considered, except the retrofitting of the Viaduct itself.
And the way things have gone and are likely to continue, we all should be demanding that the Viaduct be Retrofitted immediately as a safe holding action in order to protect the lives of those who continue to use it nd walk under it.
Compared to the Tunnel, Retrofitting is still the least costly option and protects the access and volumes of traffic currently enjoyed.
But thats not all. Once WSDOT demolishes the Southern portion without a Tunnel to use, Traffic on I-5 will unimaginely grind to a dead stop due to the detouring of effected traffic. DA!
So, we need to Retrofit the WHOLE Viaduct (no demolitions) and see what finally pops out of the coming legislative response to WSDOT's data on cost, tolls, access copncerns, etc. are examined by the Legislature and locking in Seattle's commitment to pay cost overruns. HA!
If we Retrofit the Viaduct,I suspect that after all this fuss, we will still have an improved, quieter Viaduct with protected traffic volumes and access/egress points that will extend into the distant future. And that's the way it should be!
Do the right thing!
Art
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 8:36 a.m. inappropriate
Speaking as a "green" who doesn't have a license, let alone a car, the surface option doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Naive ideas about cars mysteriously going away (as if the driving public wouldn't get major concessions), ignoring the new viaduct up to the existing tunnel (yes, a viaduct), and years of massive disruption. Years of lost business that turn the cost comparison in the other direction. Permanentlhy turning Downtown into a series of highways rather than streets and avenues.
Many people are grumbling, but they often don't understand very basic aspects of the proposals, and they often appear completely unaware that their visions of candy and light (Surface people) will become something very different in reality.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 8:39 a.m. inappropriate
Agreed on the poll - without having an elevated replacement or retrofit as possibilities the purported 40% support for tearing the AWV down without replacing it is statistically meaningless at best. Even with that, it still also falls short of the 42.65% who supported replacing the AWV with a new elevated structure in the 2007 vote (notwithstanding how Jan Drago proudly rigged that particular election to keep the so-called "surface/transit" option off of the ballot and to avoid giving the voters a direct choice between a tunnel and an elevated replacement).
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 8:40 a.m. inappropriate
Mhays - for once I agree with you completely:)
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 8:55 a.m. inappropriate
I would love to see the whole poll mentioned here, and the wording of the questions. The media, this article included, is sharing this as an objective poll, but the questions seem very leading and biased. And I'd be curious to know who paid for the poll.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 9:04 a.m. inappropriate
David, your feeble and transparent efforts to use a push poll to create a buzz for McGinn don't even reveal his true position. I actually wrangled out of him at a candidate interview, in front of witnesses, the admission that given a choice between a tunnel and a retrofit, he would prefer a retrofit.
He qualified it later by saying he didn't like a retrofit -- hell, we all knew that -- and regarded it only as a temporary solution -- no one ever regarded it as anything but -- and only as the last alternative to the tunnel, and only because he thought a tunnel would bankrupt Seattle.
The "surface option" is a greenie wet dream that *will* bankrupt the city, if you regard people's time as money. I just can't take seriously anyone who thinks this is any kind of solution.
The mayor and the tunnel advocates are steadfast in their belief that there will be (1) no cost overruns and (2) no liability to Seattle taxpayers if there are. I can't decide whether to feel pity or contempt for anyone who buys that. We simply can't know at this point.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 9:16 a.m. inappropriate
Here's the Seattle Times article on the poll, including a link to the questions: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2009314997_mcginn_poll_voters_agree_with.html
This is a question of values and we all need to remember that this is a 75-100 year infrastructure investment (not a 6-year plan). Do we want to invest $4.2 billion (likely significantly more) in a tunnel that speeds cars under downtown and does nothing to help solve the real problems of the 21st century like climate change, energy scarcity (and continually rising gas prices), the declining health of Puget Sound and increasing population pressure? In the face of crippling budget deficits that are forcing us to lay off teachers, close libraries, slash social services and health care coverage, neglect our parks and drastically cut transit service; should we be spending Billions on an infrastructure investment that does little to improve our mobility and will make it nearly impossible to fund things that really matter?
No, cars are not going to disappear tomorrow, and yes 90% of us still rely on cars to get around; but that's because we spend hundreds of billions of dollars (trillions actually when you factor in our military budget to secure oil supplies across the globe) at the federal, state and local level subsidizing and promoting their use! Let's think long-term with this issue and begin putting the pieces in place to reduce our oil dependency, decrease our impact on climate change while improving our adaptability, help clean up Puget Sound and provide people with more options for getting around.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 9:34 a.m. inappropriate
It's encouraging that the last two Sound Transit tunnel bids came in 1/4 below estimates, both this year. That's roughly in line with bids on other projects such as schools right now. It's not evidence of what the 99 tunnel bids will be in a couple years...but it is evidence that today's estimating practices are better than the older practices.
McGinn's push poll doesn't tell us much. The results changed dramatically as they "pushed" a few opinions...respondents were highly impressionable, but when they are, they tend to be impressionable both ways. Let someone else do a push poll and the results might be very different.
Two notables about the poll:
1. After self-identifying as the only no-tunnel mayoral candidate, his own push poll (post-push) showed McGinn still 29-43 (if I recall) behind the other four candidates if you combine their numbers. My combination of those numbers is misleading, but the takeaway is that even after the push questions, and with clear differentiation between him and the other candidates, only 29% preferred McGinn. Since push questions tend to slant results more momentarily and less permanently, that doesn't suggest strength for McGinn, and doesn't suggest depth of feeling against the tunnel.
2. The poll was Seattle-only. The viaduct is a State issue. I'd guess that Shoreline, Edmonds, SeaTac, and Burien residents are interested in having a bypass of some kind, and avoiding a lengthy period of construction disruption. The deep bore tunnel has obvious major advantages for them.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 9:45 a.m. inappropriate
Benjamincm, I share your dreams about fewer cars and less driving in the future. However, realistic projections for reductions in per-capita driving tend to be pretty low even in a peak-oil scenario...and this region is still growing about 1% or 1.5% per year, offsetting those reductions. If anything, driving miles will probably stabilize locally.
Even the surface option costs huge amounts of money...it still calls for a viaduct up to the existing tunnel, and other massive road infrastructure, including turning Downtown streets into throughways focused on car capacity rather than people. So you turn tens of thousands more cars per day loose on Downtown, while still spending most of the construction cost.
If you truly compare the cost of each option, including secondary costs, the deep bore is probably cheapest.
Either way, I view the deep bore tunnel as saving Downtown from a permanent tidal wave of through-traffic. It gets the cars out of the way, while allowing Downtown to be a job center served by transit.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 9:49 a.m. inappropriate
Politics is about getting elected, and the way to do that is grab a wedge issue to distinguish oneself from the mob. That said, McGinn's opposition to the tunnel seems to be his only claim to fame at this point. Even Steinbreuck, who would certainly be allied with McGinn on this particular issue, has said that McGinn needs to show that he's more than a one-trick pony.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 9:51 a.m. inappropriate
The only mayoral candidate that is opposed to the tunnel and that is for retaining the capacity of the present Viaduct and Alaskan Way corridor is Elizabeth Campbell, www.c4seattlemayor.com I have been a consistent leader against the tunnel and for the solution that retains the capacity of the Viaduct. That is a huge distinction between every other candidate, including McGinn.
I came late to this race because my long time companion broke two hips within 10 days, and I had to take the time to handle his injury, however, just because I am behind in fundraising makes me no less of a viable candidate in this race, and truth be told, except for Drago and Nickels, no other candidate can one, express with any degree of authority their opinions or vision about the city or the City government - because they have between zero and very little experience with any local issue, in contrast to myself - I have worked extensively with many neighborhood issues, I put together the current I-99 No Tunnel initiative drive, the group I founded and chaired, MNPC, we successfully sued and won our lawsuit against the City of Seattle in March this year, stopping the housing development at Fort Lawton because it did not comply with environmental regulations.
There is more, but as a candidate I deserve one, the recognition and respect that I am a bona fide mayoral candidate just as much as any other candidate, and two, on my own merits my record and positions should be noted and honestly reported. Pretending I am not there does not make it so -
I am against the tunnel and support a position that is more beneficial and reasonable than any other candidate in this race.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 10:15 a.m. inappropriate
Quotes from a March interview with Elizabeth Campbell in the Seattle Courant:
"I think there should be a moratorium on the urban mobility and bicycle plans and in its place a panel," OK, she's against mobility.
"She spoke of the Rainer neighborhood, and said the city is not making an effort to bring viable business to the area. Campbell said it might be a good idea to bring a Walmart into the neighborhood, to show other businesses that there is good industry in the neighborhood." Wow, she's for a Wal-Mart in SE Seattle, that would really help all of those struggling small businesses. Pretty clear why no one's paying attention to Ms. Campbell.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 11:42 a.m. inappropriate
Ben,
The urban mobility and bicycle plans were wrought without the input of and consideration of the commuters and other motor vehicle operators of our city. They are the product of special interest groups and City policy makers which have an agenda that seeks to eliminate as much as possible motor vehicle usage. The moratorium I am suggesting would be to take that opportunity to consider the plans further with the input of commuters, drivers, and businesses, who compose over 95% of the users of our streets. That is a reasonable plan.
In regards to WalMart - WalMart serves a useful purpose, it is the leading source for people, poor people, fixed income people, people that are very budget concious, to acquire the products and goods they need at a reasonable price.
There is a reason it is one of the world's largest retailers - it fulfills the purchasing needs of a very large number of people. In regards to the oft cited tropes about being bad for small businesses, a number of studies have shown that WalMart rather than contributing to their decline can serve as an anchor that helps to revitalize an area. SE Seattle rather than having so many struggling businesses, was strangled into further decline by the light rail project. A quick drive up and down the main arterials reveals plenty of vacant business properties at this point, a number of which could host such a development. It needs a boost, as could Seattle use an alternative to the pervasive number of retail stores that make living in Seattle quite expensive.
The demonizing of WalMart and blaming it for the decline of any number of small business sectors has become more tradition than fact-based at this point. The market for anything is predominately driven by consumers, and they have resoundingly indicated that price is of paramount concern to them.
In addition, much of urban planning at this point relies and thrives upon some conception that there were these cheery scenes of downtowns or neighborhoods of yore, that consisted of perfect mixes of uses and users, all contributing to some common sense of neighborliness and community. Realistically, even if the presumptions were true, the world has moved on, and a city must consider all its occupants even those which a small contingent of elites and their accolytes believe should be displaced or dispossesed of their right to survive.
Furthermore, why "WalMart"? Why not Nordstroms, or Macy's, or Old Navy? What about the Safeway's, or the QFC's of the world? How about Starbucks? They too are keeping some would-be or trying-to-be grocer, barista, or clothier from existence under the terms of this argument.
The point is, there is a place for such sellers, there is a need to consider a broad range of people's interests and choices, and what it is they have indicated through their purchases best serves their needs.
Thanks Ben for giving me an opportunity to clarify those things - EAC
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 12:03 p.m. inappropriate
Elizabeth Campbell is for "retaining the capacity of the present Viaduct and Alaskan Way corridor", except of course for the minimum five years it will take to demolish and rebuild the mammoth structure. Five years of absolute hell where even the surface roadway will be completely closed. You've got to expand your mind into time as well as space, Liz, or you will continue to embarrass yourself. The bored tunnel is a practical solution that keeps us moving during construction.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 12:33 p.m. inappropriate
The T.Y. Lin report requested by the DOT in 2006 stated that the viaduct could be retrofitted to meet current seismic standards as described by engineer Victor Gray, who has recommended this many times during the process. The report was not officially released (gee, wonder why?) but was obtained by the Seattle Times. Most of the work focused on supplementing footings and pilings much of which could be achieved without closing the structure. It was a fraction of the cost the present plan.
Less cost. Less time out of service. It was shouted down along with everything else that wasn't a tunnel.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 2:27 p.m. inappropriate
This is absolutely fantastic. A Mayoral candidate who believes that light-rail is bad for revitalizing a neighborhood; that Wal-Mart is good for revitalizing a neighborhood (and good for people and our planet - any wonder why they're goods are so cheap? See walmartwatch.com); that our city is waging a war on cars; and sued the city to stop low-income housing from coming into her neighborhood (under the guise of non-compliance with environmental regulations). Good luck on the campaign trail, I'm sure people will love your "vision" for our City.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 3:16 p.m. inappropriate
Elizabeth sounds like quite the candidate....for suburban Dallas.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 3:36 p.m. inappropriate
I've never pasted an article before, and probably never will again, particularly if it's from the Daily Journal of Commerce where I'm a "Seattlescape" blogger. But here's a 2006 DJC article that conflicts with the jmrolls post:
December 6, 2006
WSDOT pans plan to retrofit viaduct
By JOHN C. RYAN
Journal Staff Reporter
Retrofitting the Alaskan Way Viaduct to modern seismic standards would cost $2.3 billion, nearly as much as replacing the structure, according to a new estimate released by the Washington State Department of Transportation. WSDOT puts the “most likely” cost of replacing the viaduct with an aerial highway at $2.8 billion, though it could cost as much as $3.3 billion.
“It's not a cost-effective solution to spend 80 percent of the money and get only a quarter to a third of the life of a new structure,” said viaduct project manager Ron Paananen of WSDOT.
The retired structural engineers of the Viaduct Preservation Group claim the viaduct could be repaired for less than $1 billion, making a retrofit the cheapest of all options for the aging structure. The group says the viaduct could be fixed without replacing the downtown seawall and without the massive disruption of demolishing and rebuilding a highway in downtown Seattle.
WSDOT contracted T.Y. Lin International to evaluate the group's proposal. The engineering firm found the proposal to add cross braces, fluid dampers and ground beams would not improve the structure's durability enough to meet modern seismic standards.
T.Y. Lin beefed up the retrofit design, most notably strengthening the viaduct's foundations and including seawall repairs, to enable the structure to survive a 2,500-year earthquake.
A committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers, asked by WSDOT to evaluate the beefed-up retrofit proposal, called it “not a viable option” largely because it would cost nearly as much as replacing the structure.
WSDOT's bridge preservation office, T.Y. Lin and the ASCE committee concluded that even a well-retrofitted viaduct would only gain 25 years of additional lifespan.
“The reinforcing steel out there is over 50 years old,” said Paananen. “Experience tells us it's going to start corroding with time.”
The ASCE committee said it was not necessary to design a retrofit to a 2,500-year earthquake standard. Most new bridges in Washington state are being built to 500-year earthquake standards, though the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and Sound Transit's light-rail bridges are being built to the 2,500-year standard.
Building to a lower seismic standard would lower the cost of a retrofit or a rebuild.
Architect Art Skolnik of the Viaduct Preservation Group questioned WSDOT's retrofit estimate and accused it of ignoring the true cost of replacing the viaduct and disrupting downtown Seattle for the better part of a decade.
“We agreed that additional piling was needed [to strengthen the foundation],” Skolnik said, “(but) it isn't a billion and a half worth of piling.”
Skolnik said WSDOT has failed to provide the calculations necessary to respond to or evaluate statements made in its press releases.
“If you're going to come out with these numbers, show us the spreadsheet,” he said, “and show us how you got 25 years.”
The Viaduct Preservation Group maintains a retrofit could last a minimum of 50 years.
“It's an engineering mentality that says ‘out with the old and in with the new,' ‘bigger is better,'” Skolnik said.
A tunneled highway, the alternative preferred by Mayor Greg Nickels and the Seattle City Council, would cost the most, with recently revised estimates ranging from $3.6 billion to $5.5 billion.
The People's Waterfront Coalition estimates its proposal to tear down the viaduct and add transit service but not a new highway downtown would cost $1.6 billion.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 4:09 p.m. inappropriate
I want to take a moment to add some clarity to the discussion about the deep-bore tunnel, which was one of many topics that David and I touched on when we met yesterday. While I strongly agree with his assessment that this is an important issue for voters, I couldn’t disagree more with his characterization that the “horse is pretty much out of the barn” when it comes to the decision to spend $4 billion to replace the viaduct with a deep-bore tunnel.
In fact, I think the question of whether we should commit $4 billion to build a deep-bore tunnel that has no on- or off-ramps to downtown and doesn’t serve the city’s transit needs is very much alive. The mayor has committed the city to spend more than $900 million on the project and the state insists that the city must cover all cost overruns on top of that. But no one is talking about how the city will pay for all that. And no one is addressing the critical transit and traffic issues that are left unanswered by the deep-bore tunnel plan.
Instead, our current political leaders hope voters think the horse is already out of the barn so they will stop asking hard questions about why they’ve chosen this plan and how it meets the city’s needs.
In today’s blog, David writes that I “downplayed any role [I] might play in overturning the decision.” The truth is, as city council member I will fight to ensure that essential services are not cut to fund a deep-bore tunnel. Instead I’ll focus on finishing sidewalks throughout Seattle, keeping libraries open, and making our transit system more effective rather than spending city money on the largest deep-bore tunnel project in the world.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 4:38 p.m. inappropriate
It's not the "largest deep bore tunnel project in the world." Not even close. Perhaps you're thinking of diameter rather than overall magnitude.
Even then, the I-90 tunnel is 63' in diameter, at least according to wikipedia. That's substantially more than 99 would be.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 5:04 p.m. inappropriate
What some people don't seem to understand, and what the press frequently misses, is that the tunnel option has a whole other transit/street grid piece to it, of over $1 billion. This includes contributions from the State, King County, the Port AND the City of Seattle. It's not like they're going to put a tunnel through the city and say "hey good luck with the rest of it."
Here's the link to the project.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/Viaduct/
And by the way, the state was never going to pay to just take down the Viaduct. Like it or not, for them it's a roadway where capacity is key. We weren't going to get that money for something else, and much of it is gas tax $$ so by law it has to go to major major transportaton projects. It's not going to go to sidewalks or schools or health care. Sorry, but it's true. So without the State's investment, we are left to put EVERYONE on transit and expand the roads using Seattle and King County money. I don't want to see Aurora & 85th on my waterfront - it's as ped- and bike-unfriendly as can be.
A tunnel allows a bypass for people who aren't headed into or out of Downtown. Transit and street grid improvements make it easier for everyone else. Why isn't this a good solution? The City would pay the same either way, truly. So it's not about the money. And any uber-lefties who've got green colored glasses and picture a beautiful boulevard with transit, bike lanes, and peds - it's time to get real about what 110,000 people/day on a street truly looks like.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 5:17 p.m. inappropriate
You’re right mhays, I incorrectly described the amended T.Y. Lin beefed up Gray design with the increased foundation and seawall work as their first report. This was deemed too costly by the DOT. But so what? I believe Art Skolniks responses described in the last third of your DJOC article questioning the cost of this foundation work and how long it would take are correct. The responses from the DOT were lacking numbers and relevant information. This entire process has been a study in spin, from Jan Drago’s million dollar nonsense referendum to the divine PR from the Discovery Institute. The sad thing is that the viaduct is a tremendous transportation asset that is being sacrificed to create real estate.
Eliminating the viaduct is a colossal mistake.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 7:43 p.m. inappropriate
As I recall, way back in 1996 or 1997, WSDOT changed the criteria for any Viaduct proposal from surviving a 500-year seismic event to being usable after a 2500-year one.
A much cheaper retrofit of the Viaduct that would keep it in service for the construction period and likely keep it usable after a typical 35-year seismic event such as the Nisqually Quake two similar ones that preceded it, or that would survive (ie - not fall over, but probably not be usable after) a 500 year quake makes a good deal of sense.
That is, unless you're WSDOT and the City of Seattle, and still haven't given up on your decision to tear down the AWV no matter what the cost to everyone who actually uses it (or who will eventually pay for it).
So they massaged the criteria to get the anti-retrofit result they wanted (does anyone remember the so-called "Stadium Renovation Taskforce" who determined the the Kingdome couldn't be re-used because information was deliberately withheld from them?).
Color me shocked.
Posted Wed, Jun 17, 7:55 p.m. inappropriate
Create real estate? The public right of way remains public by and large. If you mean "create public open space" you'd be correct. I suppose a spot or two around Lenora and Western might be usable by something else...a park perhaps? Otherwise, the area along Alaskan Way is slated for a wider "boulevard," probably new trolley tracks, and a little green space along with a wider waterfront sidewalk.
Posted Thu, Jun 18, 12:26 a.m. inappropriate
Brewster meant to write O'Brien, not McGinn in his update.
Art is correct about the cost estimate: it is not due until the end of the year. Suppose it comes in higher than the $2.8 billion WSDOT has in allocated gas tax revenue and tolls?
It would not really be a cost over run, as there is only a crude estimate now, not a budget.
The three executives agreed in eary January on the deep bore. They left it for the three legislative branches to do the heavy lifting: raising the funds to pay for the projects. Mayor Nickels says Seattle will pay for $930 million (e.g., seawall, surface streets, utility relocation, transit improvements, and the Central Line Streetcar). Governor Gregoire and the Legislature say they will $2.8 billion of the deep bore cost; what if it is more than that? What are "Seattle area" property tax payers who benefit from the deep bore? Seattle MSA (multiple counties), Seattle city limits, downtown Seattle?? What is the taxing mechanism? Executive Sims was excited by the one percent MVET to fill the Metro Transit fiscal hole. That notion died in the early weeks of the Session. One of the partners is broke. Does the deal stil stand?
The construction of the deep bore portals will be quite disruptive. Eggs will be broken to make this omelet. The deep bore is expected to open in 2015. There will be viaduct domolition and surface street construction after that. It will be a long haul.
The Legislature should begin tolling all the limited access highways soon, both to control congestion and to raise funds for maintenance.
McGinn and O'Brien are asking if the deep bore is the correct project to spend the state funds on, given that all its necessary complementry parts are not yet funded. Who will do that fiscal lifting?
Posted Thu, Jun 18, 6:08 a.m. inappropriate
"Elizabeth sounds like quite the candidate....for suburban Dallas." In fact, Campbell lives here and does not represent a radical minority point of view. The attempt to marginalize her by painting her as an outsider is an example of the parochial thinking in this town. Intellectual chauvinism is endemic in Seattle. Embrace a little diversity. I don't find much choice among the candidates for mayor. Campbell, if nothing else, points that out.
Posted Thu, Jun 18, 8:52 a.m. inappropriate
Mikos -- Who said she doesn't live here?
As for marginalizing her, that's the opposite of what I want. I'd love for her to do well in the primary and do a Craswell in the general.
Posted Fri, Jun 19, 5:48 a.m. inappropriate
eddiew says:
"The Legislature should begin tolling all the limited access highways soon, both to control congestion and to raise funds for maintenance."
Any legislator who votes for that will be replaced. Stick your tolls where the sun don't shine.
Posted Fri, Jun 19, 10:31 a.m. inappropriate
Irrespective of where the money comes from, if 4 billion dollars is spent to build a tunnel under Seattle rather than build one connecting Ballard (Market Street) to University Village (Montlake Blvd/Sand Point Way) the negative karma (for lack of a better term) that will be created will be so terrible - so abysmal - that the cosmic scales will be shifted and Seattle will literally deserve to be destroyed. And the countdown begins the moment they break ground on the downtown tunnel. This is why I have vacated the Pacific Northwest and have urged relatives and close associates to begin working diligently towards that goal as well - at least leave downtown Seattle and and area directly east (nuclear fallout). The only solace to be had is the thought that perhaps whatever unfolds is meant to be, as sick as that may sound.
Posted Sat, Jun 20, 9:07 a.m. inappropriate
Leo, you hypocrite, you lost your opinion expressing privileges the moment you left Seattle. Plus, the things you say tend to be absurd, so it would probably be in your best interest to keep your thoughts to yourself no matter where you happen to live.
Posted Fri, Jun 26, 12:21 p.m. inappropriate
The viaduct is ugly and unsafe. It cuts off the city from the water. A Retrofit is not going to happen. If the current viaduct is not torn down, it will likely be condemned and vacated. That's if it doesn't fall down first.
There was never any option on the table that would have provided a downtown exit. Not from a New Viaduct. Not from a Tunnel. No matter what form it takes, State Highway 99 is going to go THROUGH Downtown. Deal.
The improvements to 4th avenue, Alaskan Way and Western Avenue will help folks get TO Downtown.
MOVING ON......... (please, Dear God, let's move on)
Any option, aside from a Tunnel, requires years without the north south traffic capacity the Current Viaduct temporarily provides. The results on I-5 would be disastrous. Rendering an I-5 rushhour impassible would NOT force people onto busses or light rail or heavy rail (convenient scheduling and routing does that) but would force people and businesses and then more people and then more businesses to leave Seattle.
This is NOT Boston. We don't have the soil issues, the Tunnel won't be underwater, and our Baseball team isn't near as good.
The Greg Nickels Memorial Tunnel - I can dig it!
Posted Sun, Jul 5, 1:09 p.m. inappropriate
Tunnel, tunnel, tunnel.
It will literally transform the city in a GREAT way for generations to come.
Gregoire and her cheap-out replacement of the viaduct- lame.
Let's get it started.
Good for Nickels to stick to his guns when no one else would.
The state Senators/Congresspeople elected to represent Seattle need to be held accountable for lobbying Olympia for $$ for transportation. It's not primarily the mayor's job.
Gregoire needs to remember not to take Seattle votes for granted when pandering to Eastern WA with stimulus money.
MOST of the population is in King County.