Very good analysis. However, someone should point out that Governor Christine "Hanford-Killer" Gregoire could easily reach out and crush the underwater tunnel and then laugh in the faces of the insane city council members (only 7 of the 9) and Mayor.

State law trumps city whining. Lower level governments can't impose restrictions on higher level governments.

But, yes, this should be regarded - potentially - as a victory for the Surface Plus Transit advocates, since they have the only choice which currently is within budget.

If not, there's always recall petitions to sign ... cause No Vote means No Council/Mayor in my books.

I will again say that the Surface+Transit plan will be a *huge* win for Washington State taxpayers - we'll get an open waterfront, a reintegrated street grid, most of the capacity of a highway, with the rest disbursed along the grid and moved into transit. Plus, freight mobility planning. Plus, in line with Kyoto and all our stated enviro and trip reduction goals. Plus, money for transit and 520, and the jillion other projects out there that need money.

I know that replacing a highway with a street is counterintuitive, and scary, but it will be the smartest thing Seattle has ever done.

You're high on dope if you think "surface option" means "open waterfront". It means CLOSED waterfront, far more so than it is now, when you can easily walk there with minimal traffic interruption, since the traffic is grade-separated. The surface option means the waterfront and the city will forever be separated by a vast wasteland of speeding cars and flat featureless pavement. Hurrah.

But what about replacing the very old sea wall? I'm alarmed that this still isn't part of the discussion...

"The real news, however, is that there are still two viaduct-replacement options—the tunnel and the surface/transit option, which has gradually emerged as a viable possibility"

There is one additional possibility that you, the media and politicians continually ignore: cable stay bridge over Elliott Bay. It is the only option that addresses most everyone's concerns, and it can be done far cheaper than either a rebuild or a tunnel.

It is the perfect compromise.

The bridge seems interesting in concept, but just exactly how would it work? How, for example, would it hook up w/the Battery Street Tunnel? Where would you get on/off of it? How far out into the water would it be?

As a daily AWV driver, I do not see how it would possibly work - which is not to say that I don't wish it could.

What's Licata's position again?

The most accurate measure for both the old numbers and the new numbers would be what they actually represent. The new $4.6 B number equals 60% of the range. Therefore, to use the 60% number, the old number was more like $3.4 B, rather than the $3.6 high number.

It is interesting that monorail boosters like the Stranger who have talked about the horrors of at grade transit seem totally okay with Aurora on the waterfront. Good on ya, Fnarf.

All three plans include replacing the sea wall. That's why noone talks about it.

If you want an underwater tunnel, tax some other people for it, cause Seattle taxpayers won't pay for some rich developers party schemes.

Licata's good for either a rebuilt Viaduct or a Surface Plus Transit option. Ain't noone talking about recalling him - just a lot of Tunnel whiners on the city council and the Mayor.

"The bridge seems interesting in concept, but just exactly how would it work? How, for example, would it hook up w/the Battery Street Tunnel? Where would you get on/off of it? How far out into the water would it be?"

It would ramp in/out just south of the Battery Street Tunnel. It's first
pier would be located in the vacinity
south of the Pier 66 boat transit harbor; another pier would might be located south and west of Coleman
Dock. Depth is an issue as setting cassions in deep water is a difficult engineering job.

Exits and onramps to downtown would have to be confined to their current locations except those that currently service central downtown. Those would obviouly be gone and this is a point of compromise with a cable stay bridge. However since most trips on the AWV bypass downtown exits, surface streets can take up that residual traffic.

What's nice about the cable stay is you can leave the AWV in place until
you join-up roadways to the bridge.
This will minimise frieght and traffic distruption and allow waterfront business to operate as normal.

Ths costs wouldn't be anywhere near
those of a tunnel or AWV rebuild.
It is inexpensive technology used
everywhere in the world but here.

it's going to be an uphill battle to get the state folks to open their minds and consider the new data on the surface option. especially when they know their campaign coffers are supported by labor. i think it's why they were so quick to jump to assumptions about surface street.

In our newly globalized world, maybe we should contract out to some Chinese firm to build the tunnel.

They could probably do it for a lot less than whatever US construction firms we're getting these cost estimates from.

After all, they built the railroad back in the day.

This country's rapidly becoming fiscally unable to do anything anymore - except fight imperialist wars.

It's as I predicted - viaduct dependent drivers would lose if they put all their bets on the rebuild.

The needed to get behind the tunnel sooner, and stop alienating people who want a revitalized waterfront.

Now they'll be stuck with the surface option they deserve.

And the rest of us will get a much less pedestrian- and bike-friendly city, all around.

"we'll get an open waterfront, a reintegrated street grid, most of the capacity of a highway, with the rest disbursed along the grid and moved into transit."

Into transit! Transit that will be STUCK IN TRAFFIC if we're talking more buses. What about people commuting from West Seattle to downtown? We're going to be totally screwed by the loss of a rapid means of ingress into the downtown area as was the case after the earthquake in 2001. Only this time the traffic jam malaise will be enjoyed by anybody travelling north-south.

"Plus, money for transit and 520, and the jillion other projects out there that need money."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the money for one of the options specific to to the project, with no excess to be used for something like light rail?

New Urbanism,

Don't rule out retrofit yet - especially when voters kill RTID next year. And don't be surprised if a surface option turns out meaning a surface replacement, which I doubt you'd much like (6 lanes of limited access roadway at ground level along the waterfront).

Princess, a bridge with no downtown exits is pretty much useless for many AWV drivers (and from what you describe, the south entrance/exit would be at Spokane Street or so).

Sorry, but this idea is going nowhere fast.

Licata supports a rebuild, and has twice helped convince WSDOT to examine retrofit options.

He proposed an up or down vote on the tunnel, so that we could move on to less expensive options.

He also proposed legislation in support of an agreement with the state saying who would pay for funding shortfalls or cost overruns. That legislation is being held until Monday.

As Council President he did authorize spending for a Council study on the surface option, but he does not support that option politically.

Hear hear, Neo Realist. West Seattle, oops, going nowhere fast on the surface option. Imagine having to go all the way out to I-5 to go to Queen Anne! Extrapolate that to anyone who lives off of/uses 509, The Airport, Burien, White Center, DesMoines Mem Hwy, South Park, E Marginal, Michigan St, Belltown, Battery St. Tunnel, 15th/Elliot, Magnolia, Ballard, Queen Anne, Freemont, Denny/Dexter, and Aurora. I shoulda bought a house in Brier.
If the Mayor wants the tunnel -- which is the best Transportation Option -- he better quickly get to sweetening the deal for the citizenry and making something enjoyable for the the wipes that are going to pay for it -- a park, fnarf, not more business highrises and richy rich condos and tully's -- on top of it.

Is there actual renderings for the tunnel option posted anywhere? It's hard foor me to imagine the entire elevated span of the viaduct being put underground - so correct me if I'm wrong - either option (tunnel or surface, not retrofit) will mean a lot of surface street driving for West Seattle to Downtown commuters.

What's gonna happen: Gregoire and the WSDOT will step in at year's end and tell the city they're doing a rebuild. The city will protest and take legal action. Both sides will squabble until the next earthquake knocks the viaduct down and kills the very people who use it, thus eliminating the demand and enabling PWC's surface option.

HOORAY EVERYONE WINS :P or... wait....

Doug: even better, there are animations, here, among the "More Videos" box on the right:
http://www.seattlechannel.org/issues/viaduct.asp

'Princess, a bridge with no downtown exits is pretty much useless for many AWV drivers (and from what you describe, the south entrance/exit would be at Spokane Street or so).
Sorry, but this idea is going nowhere fast.""

Bullshit, X. Most AWV trips are north-south thru trips that do not utilise central downtown entrance and exit ramps, and yes, as I pointed out, the compromise of utilzing this technology is not having central downtown exits.

What you will get is:

1) A signature piece of engineering art framing the city harbor
2) Replaced capacity with transit
potential
3) Reconnection of downtown to waterfront
4) Additional property taxes once the AWV is dismanteled
5) Minimal disruption of traffic, freight and business while constuction
is underway. Much of the construction can be accomplished off site and ferried into place.
6) Short construction turnaround. The build outs of cable stayed bridges,
on record, usually have short durations...2-3 years.
7) They are inexpensive to build! This is predicated on current and recent
construction of cable stay bridges around the globe. Comparable sized
cable stayed bridges are being built
in the area of around US$800 million.

No single proposal is going to be perfect, X. This, however, would address almost all of issues and concerns the city and state would have. It is a good compromise and worthy of significant review. Unfortunately we live in a state and city dominated by not very imaginative
thinking.

Hopefully the events that transpired last week will once again open up the dialogue on proposals outside of an in-situ rebuild and an 80 foot deep tunnel.

Actually, doing a no-exit bridge would spillover all the cars who use AWV to get Downtown (which would roughly be half of those who use it), onto the surface streets and I-5, which would lead to the same problems.

"Actually, doing a no-exit bridge would spillover all the cars who use AWV to get Downtown (which would roughly be half of those who use it)"

Please cite your sources, Gomez. I believe your roughly 50% figure is completely incorrect.

Traffic will be able to enter and exit downtown from a cable stayed bridge at the northern and southern downtown approaches.

Regardless, absolutely NO proposal is perfect, however do understand that no other proposal accomplishes as much as a cable stayed bridge.

I don't know what the specific percentages are (though the teardown and don't replace folks said most AWV trips are less than 5 miles, which I view as actually undermining their own argument, as it shows that Seattle voters/taxpayers rely on the thing), but enough folks do use the AWV midtown exit and battery street on/off ramps that they're well worth keeping (and the fact that you lost the Spring St exit and Western on-ramp are two of the things - beside price - that make the tunnel suck in a big way).

Assuming a bridge could connect at the BST (which I do believe is a dubious assumption, given the angle of entry related to the waterfront, etc), where would the south link actually be? Holgate, Atlantic Street, Royal Brougham, or further north or south of that - and what part of the street grid do you propose linking to?

Of course, this is all irrelevent - the bridge is going nowhere.

You wouldn't lose the Western on-ramp. I haven't studied the bridge approach at the southern end of the BST,however I would expect it would connect to the bridge about 70-100 meters south
of the Western on ramp and would enter Elliott Bay just south of the transient boat harbor at Pier 66. The southern link should be easier to
configure and construct and my idea was to bring it to the Holgate area, however others who have supported this proposal have different ideas. Some would like to see it link up further south to the West Seattle Freeway/Hwy 99 interchange at Spokane.

As far as street grid at the southern end, I'd likely utilize E. Marginal, expand and reconfigure Utah, and utilize 1st, 4th and 6th.

Look, this won't happen if people are neither aware of the technolgy nor have an intellectual curiousity in examining its feasibily. Both have been sadly lacking on the part of the city government, WSDOT, and the state government.

It is worth investigating and it provides a real alternative to the poloarized, unfeasible choices we currently find ourselves with. It would utterly insane to pay in excess of $5 billion to contruct a tunnel when a cable stay bridge could be built for less than $1 billion. Why would you or anyone support something that would cost so much does so little when there is a much cheaper and reasonable alternative?

Frankly, I'd rather see Allied Arts engaged in an international design competition for a cable stay bridge fronting the city rather than trying to have a say on the exterior design of the massive air intake and exhaust systems which will be a focus of the waterfront landscape once a tunnel is in place.

How about watching the on and off ramps, Caroline?

I'm shocked how people in Seattle dismiss first hand observations and ask for a bibliography instead. WTF?

Anecdotal observations are rarely, if ever accurate, Gomez. If you are going to watch the on and off ramps, you'll also have to count the southbound traffic entering the BST and northbound traffic entering AWV from the south. Any legitimate engineering study requires a bibliography. Where's yours?

Gomez, this is an opportunity to intelligently fix a problem at an affordable cost. Unfortunately, the city council, WSDOT and the state would apparently desire to waste our very limited capital resources rather than investigate a potentially very feasible proposal. That is really fucked up.

Here's an idea, then, similar to the 'close the viaduct for a week and see what happens' idea: close the viaduct offramps for a week, and see what happens. See who uses the highway and how the spillover affects Downtown and I-5.

That would correct the both of us.

"close the viaduct offramps for a week, and see what happens."

Wouldn't it just be easier to cite your data and source, Gomez? If you look hard enough you'll see the city and WSDOT have already done the studies. It's only takes a telephone call or e-mail. The sooner the better so you too will realize this is a very reasonable alternative.

Thanks for the link, Nionk. Couldn't get the thing to load, I'll try again later. In all the plans I have seen, I still don't know in detail what will happen to traffic once it exits the southern end of the tunnel. The tunnel will only be half the length of the current viaduct, does the traffic flow onto a surface street extension of 99?

Caroline,

Since you apparently think you know that the ramps are unused, and also post like you have the info to prove it - I ask you, then: what are the ramp counts for the exits you consider negligible with regard to downtown-bound AWV traffic - ie:

1) the northbound onramp by the Stadia off of 1st Ave

2) the northbound offramp at Spring St

3) the northbound exit at Western (which does remain under current scenarios, unlike the aforementioned connections), but is seems to me to be an exit route split about evenly btwn people going to Downtown/Belltown/Lower QA and those going north on Elliot)

4) the southbound onramp at Western

5) and, yes, the southbound entrance you cite at the BST (which I would measure against the ramp counts for the Western Ave Exit where NW traffic gets off to go to downtown (and in that case, pretty much downtown only, as southbound traffic bound for SLU, lower QA, and points west and north of the downtown core pretty much gets off now at Dexter or Denny)

I ask because I think the volume of traffic (and resulting backups) I see from all of these access/egress points strongly suggests - gasp, anecdotally - that there are indeed a shitload of downtown bound vehicles on the AWV.

As a daily AWV driver who has been closely following this debate since the first toll tunnel was proposed in 1993/94 - I don't think you really have answers to those specific questions with regard to a new bridge (the early AWV EIS appendices probably have specific vehicle counts for all of those locations, but I was focused more on all of the wasted money subsidizing Hallivulcan's Mercer/Lower Aurora plans when I reviewed that stuff and their net negative effect on traffic when I was reviewing those documents)

"the early AWV EIS appendices probably have specific vehicle counts for all of those locations, but I was focused more"

Yes they do, X, and I have already consulted them. Since you have already studied these in regard to your review of public policy towards Allentown, you might once again dig them out yourself to confirm that I am not trying to deceive you and Gomez. I think you will be surprised at the percentage of traffic that is thru only. In addition, if you want a post of the traffic counts, do it yourself.

Remember, with the cable stay bridge you'll lose the southbound stadium district exit, however this would be replaced by a discussed and possibly much more efficient Holgate off-ramp with a 1st Ave/Utah St/E. Marginal Wy feeders.

You will lose two ramps; the central downtown southbound onramp and northbound offramp at Spring. That's it. Everthing else stays or is reconfigured in the case of a Holgate scenario. It is a pretty small compromise in light of everything.

Wrap your mind around a cable stay bridge, X. It's cheaper, allows for most of the options of the tunnel at the fraction of the cost, rids us of the AWV, opens up the waterfront and
allows for future transit options.It doesn't shut down traffic or slow freight mobility while being constructed, and waterfront business can remain open.

It is the perfect compromise, X.

Actually, Caroline, the single most accurate way to answer questions IS to shut them down for a week. It tells you things a bunch of spreadsheets cannot.

There's a reason graduates walk out of college with all that book learning in their heads, and are immediately lost once they enter the actual workplace.