Politics Viaduct in the House, Pt. 2
posted by on November 17 at 15:44 PM
One of the Democrats who’s up for the House Transportation Chair spot, Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-41, Mercer Is./Parts of Bellevue, Issaquah, Renton), got back to me about her position on the Viaduct.
She says her priorities are: 1) cost & 2) capacity. This, of course, is the mantra of the pro-rebuild contingent. The tunnel option is currently coming in at $3.6 to $5.5 billion while the re-build pencils in at about $2.2 billion to $3.3 billion. It would also maintain current capacity. (And in my opinion, keep us on the road to environmental doomsday.)
Clibborn says she’s been very up front about her preference for the re-build option, and in fact, signed a letter to Gov. Gregoire just yesterday coming out against the tunnel option, which she told me she considered “the Cadillac option.”
“If we were only dealing with the Viaduct, that would be one thing,” she said. “But there’s 520, which is in fact more dangerous. And there’s 405 which has worse traffic than I-5.”
When I asked her about the “surface/transit” option, she said Seattle is a thoroughfare for trucking and the surface street option would inhibit freight runs.
As for the anti-tunnel letter that Clibborn signed: It was also signed by South Central KC Rep. Geoff Simpson (D-47), the other local D who’s up for the Transportation Chair spot.
In fact, all five of the prospective transportation chairs except for one (Dennis Flannigan, D-27, Pierce County and Tacoma) signed the anti-tunnel letter. In addition to Clibborn and Simpson, Jeff Morris (D-40, San Juan County, Parts of Skagit and Whatcom Counties); and Bill Fromhold (D-49, Parts of Vancouver and Clark County) signed the letter.
The lead signature on the letter? Frank Chopp. (To read the whole letter click on the jump.)
November 16, 2006
The Honorable Christine Gregoire, Governor
State of Washington
Legislative Building
Olympia, Washington 98504
Dear Governor Gregoire:
As members of the House Democratic Caucus, we believe the revised cost estimates provided by the state Department of Transportation demonstrate that an above-ground solution is the only viable option to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
As you know, the estimated cost of the tunnel option rose by a minimum of $1 billion and perhaps as much as $2 billion. With the $2.4 billion already available to rebuild the Viaduct, tunnel proponents would have to find between $2.2 billion and $3.1 billion in additional funds to pay for the tunnel. This simply isn't feasible.
Tunnel projects around the country have demonstrated that cost overruns are much more likely — and much more expensive — on construction below-ground when compared to that above-ground. The Mayor has made it clear the City will not cover the cost of tunnel overruns, leaving that burden to the state.
The additional billions of dollars needed to build a tunnel will siphon resources away from the severely under-funded SR 520 Bridge replacement, as well as other critical projects throughout the state.
Simply put, the tunnel is a luxury the taxpayers of Washington cannot afford.
The vast majority of the money needed to replace the Viaduct with an above-ground option has already been secured and is available right now. We believe the state should remove the tunnel from consideration as a possible replacement, and begin planning and design on an above-ground solution.
Sincerely,
Frank Chopp Helen Sommers Mary Lou Dickerson
Speaker of the House State Representative State Representative
43rd Legislative District 36th Legislative District 36th Legislative District
Sherry Appleton Brian Blake Judy Clibborn
State Representative State Representative State Representative
23rd Legislative District 19th Legislative District 41st Legislative District
Jeannie Darneille Mark Ericks Bill Fromhold
State Representative State Representative State Representative
27th Legislative District 1st Legislative District 49th Legislative District
Bill Grant Sam Hunt Ruth Kagi
State Representative State Representative State Representative
16th Legislative District 22nd Legislative District 32nd Legislative District
Phyllis Kenney Lynn Kessler Steve Kirby
State Representative State Representative State Representative
46th Legislative District 24th Legislative District 29th Legislative District
Pat Lantz Kelli Linville John Lovick
State Representative State Representative State Representative
26th Legislative District 42nd Legislative District 44th Legislative District
Jeff Morris Al O'Brien Timm Ormsby
State Representative State Representative State Representative
40th Legislative District 1st Legislative District 3rd Legislative District
Mike Sells Geoff Simpson Brian Sullivan
State Representative State Representative State Representative
38th Legislative District 47th Legislative District 21st Legislative District
Pat Sullivan Dean Takko Dave Upthegrove
State Representative State Representative State Representative
47th Legislative District 19th Legislative District 33rd Legislative District
Deb Wallace Brendan Williams Alex Wood
State Representative State Representative State Representative
17th Legislative District 22nd Legislative District 3rd District
Good, let's hear it for rational, fiscally responsible Democrats who don't live in a Capitol Hill-centric fantasy world!
Three cheers of Kitsap's Pat Lantz and Sherry Appleton and Frank Chop who is originally straight out of B-Town.
Clibborn had a good point about the truck traffic. The viaduct does get quite a bit of it that goes through downtown without stopping. Potentially, it would be disasterous to put all of that truck traffic in the downtown surface streets.
"Seattle is a thoroughfare for trucking" Is that a direct quote? That's terrible! One of the most dynamic, livable, desirable cities in America is a thoroughfare for trucking?!
Jeebus.
Neo-R: Bingo.
I for one am quite thankful that we have such rational electeds who will ignore Greg's Pie Under The Water dreams.
Of course, I'm sure there are some rich developers who mostly gave to McGavick that will be screaming about it - tough.
"Trucking" wouldn't run through downtown on surface streets, it'd be on I-5. There's an on-ramp to both I-5 and I-90 right near the port.
I've advocated a surface option, but to be realistic, we are getting a rebuild. I think we need to move on making the aerial rebuild the best it can be.
There has been talk of a lid next to Steinbrueck Park to connect it to the waterfront, but it doesn't seem to be a priority. This could be a great asset. NYC is currently rehabilitating the High Line elevated railroad into a linear park. Why not do similarly and put a green roof on the new Viaduct? A promenade connecting the Market and the Stadium District could be a unique space.
The WSDOT showed concept drawings of a side by side viaduct with a park on top, to the apparent scorn of the council.
This would create a canyon underneath by extending almost to the water, but appropriate terraced redevelopment of the waterfront piers and parks could create a great waterfront park where the viaduct ends up virtually lidded as redevelopment pushes up next to the viaduct and connects additional public space to the park lid.
I also refer to this as an aerial + transit alternative. The park deck would support a streetcar track along the east edge. This would make the Allenville trolley a real transit system. From the current Westlake terminus, run track(s) down Virginia and onto the park deck. Stops at Seneca and Columbia connecting with walkways to 1st Ave.
Rebuild the existing ramp near Qwest field for the streetcar to connect up Occidental to the ID and on to Capitol/First Hill as will likely be funded in Sound Transit 2. This creates a useful Streetcar network connecting much of the center city.
So you have a linear park with great views, 40 feet up, terracing down to Waterfront Park(s) and Piers.
No traffic drawbacks, in fact it could increase capacity, since surface Alaskan way could be a wider boulevard with all the pedestrians, bikes and streetcars upstairs.
The additional cost to build a side by side viaduct with a top deck isn't going to be anywhere near the cost of building a tunnel. The waterfront component only needs rezoning to encourage appropriate development, ala Vancouver. ("Waterfront buildings must provide park acreage @ 40 ft") Sound Transit is already looking at funding the ID-Capitol Hill streetcar. A few extra miles creating a unified line would be a real addition to our transit system.
I think this option would achieve the goals of all parties: public parks and views, a vibrant waterfront, plus increased transit and traffic capacity. I'd like to know what people think.
Ah, but some trucks (gas/oil/hazmat) would have to run on the lower Alaskan Way to Broad Street, I think. I also think that you may be missing the whole Interbay side of the Port and all of the remaining industrial and other medium/heavy duty businesses in Ballard, which I-5 doesn't serve very well at all.
Besides that, even the most pedestrian-friendly cities on earth still rely on trucks to supply them.
Haha, I scroll down and read Frank Chopp was told a three level park-top design was unfeasible. That'll learn me to comment on Part 2 before looking at Part 1. The side-by-side option is a WSDOT concept, so it must be feasible.
I'd also heard that Rep. Deb Wallace from Vancouver (the current vice chair of the committee) is in the running for chair too. She's also on the letter.
How do you think stuff gets from "them" to you? Trucks. Seriously -- everything you use and have, unless you make it or grow it. The Viaduct is a part of the large-scale Port/Rail/Trucking equasion in the waterfront areas south of, and to a lesser extent, north of Downtown. Can't put that onto I-5. :(
DougSF, a lot of those trucks don't come from the port but come from other far off cities and states north and south of seattle. I-5 is enough of a parking lot during rush hour. Take all those trucks from the viaduct to I-5 and pedestrians will able to climb and walk car and truck roofs from tacoma to shoreline.
Frank makes a good observation. The whole problem here is that the state, and even a majority of city's own reps, see the viaduct as a thruway. Seattle is just something to get through.
We should be looking at the viaduct not as a means of getting through the city, but as a means of getting into and out of the city. That would favor the surface/transit option (including streetcar), along with improvements to the 509/99 interchange as well as the Battery St. to Mercer portion of 99.
It seems to me that if you could improve 99 as a route into and out of the city, that could prevent a lot of new traffic from entering the corridor. As the surface proponents have always argued, a healthy investment in transit on both corridors is critical to making this all work.
Thing is, Bill, people ARE using the viaduct to get through the city. If it was only a matter of getting people in and out, then this is not an issue. People from the South Side commute or travel to the north end and vice versa. The alternative is to sit in Downtown traffic or I-5, which as it stands is slow, stressful and quite packed.
When I first moved to Seattle in the mid 90's, I used to mock a friend of mine saying "you're always on Aurora"... but I came to learn that traffic flow on Aurora to points south was most of the time invariably faster as a result of the viaduct being there.
While I have seen plenty of statements that say "displaced" traffic will be "absorbed" or go away, I have neither seen a justification for it (other than a few saying that's what happened in SF when they tore down the Embarcadero Freeway, which isn't comparable for the most part) and I have not seen what the impact on I-5 will be.
I might feel differently if I-5 wasn't impacted. I'm certain it will be. PWC admits it will be. It's a parking lot for a lot of the day now in one direction or another.
If we had multiple routes through the city I would view things very differently. We don't. With only two routes taking one away will complicate a mess.
I see the money spent on a new throughfare (which is what I call either the rebuild or the tunnel) as actually saving money in a way. If we do the surface street option without any kind of transit option (which is what PWC proposes), we'll end up gridlocked and we'll then spend the money necessary to fix that. It will be the same thing as the rebuild of the bus tunnel- done half assed to begin with, and then when it's really needed it will be a lot more expensive.
Too bad I don't live in the 36th any more. I'd be giving Helen Sommers and Mary Lou Dickerson hell for signing something like that. I wonder if the 36th District Dems have had a say on this...
My only problem wioth Frank's letter is that he doesn't come right and say that the Retrofit needs to be put back on the table. He implies it of course with his general language about the wisdom of "an above-ground option."
But I would like to hear some elected official somewhere point out what is so unbelievably obvious; I can't understand why often-intelligent Stranger writers refuse to even say the word "Retrofit." Maybe they are scared of its commonsense.
It is good to know all the Dems are so forward thinking and progressive and want to move Seattle in a better dir... What? Oh, I misread. I see that they are still slaves to the automobile and as hypocritical to their positions (energy independence and stopping global warming) as ever.
16. Agree, Dave. Had they done this sort of thing in Vegas, where you've got a massive grid of north-south and east-west arterials, I'd be just fine with them ripping out a stretch of highway, and there would probably be significant agreement. And Vegas is far, far more carcentric than Seattle.
This is not a debate about carcentric vs transit, though the Stranger's trying desperately to frame it that way. This is about Seattle, and whether the Surface Option makes sense for Seattle. The Surface Option makes sense in many other cities where a comprehensive street grid gives citizens enough options that the road won't be missed.
We don't have that sort of layout in Seattle. There are a handful of travel corridors, and the viaduct is a major one. Losing its presence for good is a serious loss, whether or not you want to admit it.
I'm all about reversing global warming and getting people out of cars Andrew. But changing the viaduct to a surface option makes the problem worse in my opinion. I think the *gridlock* that is hurting people and the environment is the lack of leadership by those we put in charge. That gridlock over the past 30 years is why in part we are where we are.
If people are stuck in transportation gridlock, more pollution is often generated. There enviro point in having traffic move is that delay costs in economic and environmental terms.
I'm sure you like to turn on the lights Andrew as well as go places. There's a cost in doing that. We're all a little bit hypocritical in this country when it comes to energy policy. However, unless you're willing to live in a tent without heat or light, you're impacting the environment.
Check out this link: Transit has gotten worse in the last two years (Yeah duh.) Particularly I-5 during the rush hour.
http://www.kirotv.com/traffic/10346030/detail.html
Man, I wish we would just bite the bullet and build a serious right of way subway/light rail/monorail option going all over and screw the nimbys and the developers.
Stop being such a bunch of cheapskates and build the tunnel already.
Just a question, I'm not fishing or being rhetorical, but I hadn't seen it addressed:
Because they don't build no-shoulder highways anymore, how would a replacement viaduct meet the same capacity and include wider lanes and shoulders? Would it have to be built out to the West, perhaps, or would buildings on the downtown side have to be purchased/torn down in the name of "eminent domain"?
Same goes for downtown on/off ramps. Replacement ramps would have to be nearly twice the width of the current post-war standard ramps. More property purchases, or would they be moving the ramps and relaying out some surface streets? If yes, are any of these collateral costs included in the current rebuild estimate? These could add up big.
Doug,
That stuff has been accounted for in the Rebuild - hence the increased footprint and reduced access points (although the latter point was driven more by cost, I think)
Oops - should have said Tunnel cost, and the need to ensure that all of the alternatives look bad compared to the tunnel (ie - if they have to remove the Spring Street offramp and the Columbia and Western onramps from the tunnel plan to bring the cost down, they didn't want the rebuild to look better by comparison by preserving those access points).
Cynical? I prefer to say experienced.
Good to know Mr. X. I hadn't read anything that really made it clear whose ass they were going to take the extra 25 ft. out of for the rebuild option.
I notice none of the referenced signatures come from representatives in the 36th or 34th LDs - the districts most directly affected by whatever happens with the Viaduct.
Oh hell, I take that back. I didn't see the signatures of the 36th LD reps. What were they thinking?!
Can you see this. Do not hesitate to choose. Look
Hi guys its me again. Can you look
Please do not hesitate to choose. This
Good, let's hear it for rational, fiscally responsible Democrats who don't live in a Capitol Hill-centric fantasy world! I disagree go to http://www.apartments.waw.pl/
Please do not hesitate to choose. This
Och beautifull site below too
If you have a minute check this.
Please do not hesitate to choose. This
There will never be a rebuild of the Viaduct. It has nothing to do with the Mayor.
It has everything to do with Seattle's business/enviro/arts/politico establishment.
Any decision by the state for a rebuild will be met with lawsuits, Seattle politicians jumping over each other (most successfully) to eliminate blight and various other warfare. If the contest is between blight and a greener alternative, the greener alternative will ultimately prevail in Seattle. That means we'll get a surface structure after a protracted and costly freeway war.
The Governor will make a more sensible decision than proposed by Frank Chopp, who has obviously abandoned his City to curry favor with interests outside of it.
Chopp's $2 billion plus pitch for a more blighted waterfront will flop. We'll all eventually agree to build a scaled down shallow trench with a top on it. And Chopp's hysterical rantings in favor of a blighted city will be a sideshow.
Be so kind and click
I agree please revange
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Och beautifull site below too
I am looking for better life
Be so kind and click
Be so kind and click
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
I am looking for better life
Please do not hesitate to choose. This
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Be so kind and click
Nice but look below
Do not be angry please
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Please do not hesitate to choose. This
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Dont be angry please
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Nice but look below
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
It is very important for you to click below. Trust me
Sorry for that.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).