Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« College Paper Apologizes | Dead Lovers »

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Governor to Endorse New, Larger Viaduct

posted by on February 13 at 12:35 PM

Sources say Gov. Christine Gregoire is preparing to endorse a larger new elevated viaduct regardless of what Seattle voters choose in a March 13 vote. Gregoire’s explicit endorsement of a new Alaskan Way Viaduct highlights what we’ve said all along: This vote, which is merely advisory anyway, is rigged to force a massive new viaduct down Seattle’s throat.

The news comes on the heels of an announcement by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) that the mayor’s four-lane “surface/hybrid” tunnel is unacceptable from a financial and safety viewpoint. WSDOT’s rushed analysis of the tunnel, released earlier today, found that the four-lane tunnel (with shoulders that could be converted to travel lanes at rush hour) would result in “unacceptable sight distances” and “does not meet the state’s safety standards.” Additionally, the four-lane tunnel would not “maintain vehicle capacity needs in 2030,” WSDOT’s overriding concern. (Because investing in transit instead is just a kooky pipe dream, y’know?) The analysis was done without the assistance of the state’s own expert review panel, whose members bowed out after announcing they didn’t have enough time to do an adequate analysis, or the city, which WSDOT kicked out of the process. WSDOT also declined today to release a new cost estimate for the tunnel, because, transportation secretary Doug MacDonald said in a letter to Gregoire, “the task of providing a new estimate would be [too large] because fundamental changes in design are embraced by the new proposal.”

RSS icon Comments

1

Hi,

Can someone tell me why they can't build a tunnel and sell the land above it to developers? Given that it's prime waterfront property that can be zoned for mixed-use (with green zone requirements), I would imagine that it could generate more than enough to cover the cost of a tunnel underneath.

Posted by Roger | February 13, 2007 12:48 PM
2

Wow the Stranger is finally writing about the God DAMN NASCAR TRACK in KITSAP proposal that KING COUNTY LEGISLATORS ARE VOTING FOR! That is awesome! Oh wait it is article # 1569 about the Viaduct.

Posted by Jake of 8bitjoystick.com | February 13, 2007 12:49 PM
3

Jacob,

NASCAR isn't nearly as pertinent to Seattleite's lives as the future of our waterfront. Excuse us for not caring about it as much.

Posted by Willis | February 13, 2007 1:05 PM
4

Erica, your contention that this vote is rigged to force a rebuild is ludicrous. The vote was designed by the Mayor and six City Councilmembers who support a tunnel. They rejected an up or down tunnel vs. rebuild vote, because polls show they would lose. So they designed the unprecedented two-ballot vote, and added “surface” to the tunnel to attempt to gain the vote of the 10-15% of Seattle residents who support a tunnel, despite there being no real “surface” element to this plan at all. At the same time, they did not add the term “retrofit” to the elevated option—despite there being some truth to that—so that retrofit supporters would vote “no” and “no”. Look at Peter Sherwin and David Sucher—the stratagem is working to perfection.

Don’t even get me started about the all-mail vote, which is designed to disenfranchise older voters.

Posted by N | February 13, 2007 1:14 PM
5

N: Erica, your contention that this vote is rigged to force a rebuild is ludicrous. The vote was designed by the Mayor and six City Councilmembers who support a tunnel.

I agree to some extent. The ballot was arranged as it was to give the tunnel the best shot but -- more important -- to give the rebuild the worst shot. For that, I'm pretty darn grateful to the City Council.

But N, I don't get what issue you have with the rebuild not being paired with a retrofit. Building a new, larger viaduct and fixing the existing one are mutually exclusive options. Either you do one or you do the other. And WSDOT has always been determined to build a new, bigger highway, not to fix the existing highway.

Posted by cressona | February 13, 2007 1:23 PM
6

I'm sorry, what did you think would happen? It is a state highway and no one has proposed a realistic alternative to keep it connected.

I'll say it again, the city and county should be working on mass transit ANYWAY - light rail, bus lanes, bike lanes - and not worry about the viaduct. And I just love how you bitch about the elevated roadway when you all wanted a 14 mile elevated monorail. What a waste.

Again, when was the last time any of you went down to the "waterfront". Mmm I love Red Robin with a view. Oh, and @1, I don't think that is what folks think of when they want to "reclaim the waterfront".

Until all of you get your asses over to West Seattle and the South end and then try to get to the north end without using congested I-5, I can't listen to any of you with a straight face. Try waking a mile in someone elses shoes, ok?

Posted by wsp | February 13, 2007 1:30 PM
7

The aerial impact (visual, noise and pollution) of a monorail (or skytrain or elevated modern lighrail) is an order of magnitude less than a 6-lane elevated highway.

I love the idea of calling it the Christine Memorial Elevated Monstrosity. Why can't we have a ballot initiative for that.

Posted by golob | February 13, 2007 1:38 PM
8

If we get a Rebuild, you will be partly to blame, Erica.

You (and others) were taken in by the "convenient lie" that the Viaduct could not be Repaired. Worse, you were so in love with the so-called but non-existent Surface/Transit option that you couldn't consider other options such as the cable-stayed bridge.

As a function of lack of media scrutiny, the range of options which WSDOT fairly examined was limited to the Unaffordable (Tunnel) and the Monstrous (Rebuild.)

But now you still have the opportunity to redeem yourself by supporting the Steinbrueck & Sherwin option of "Repair & Prepare."

Posted by David Sucher | February 13, 2007 1:42 PM
9

Cressona, my point is this: pairing “surface” and “tunnel” was mere propaganda. Pairing “elevated” and “retrofit” would also be propaganda, with the difference that the elevated option includes some retrofitting from the Battery Street Tunnel to Pine. So there would have at least been a grain of truth to it.

Posted by N | February 13, 2007 1:43 PM
10

Well Willis it is some of YOUR DAMN legislators that are trying to force it on us.

Posted by Jake of 8bitjoystick.com | February 13, 2007 1:55 PM
11

And the Dailies are STILL using the discredited traffic volume of 110,000 cars/day to bolster their case for a viaduct rebuild.


As for Commenter 6: if it gets harder for West Seattle folks to travel into town, they'll stay in West Seattle and build a more interesting community where they already live. (See "Bellevue" or even "Tacoma.") Big cities have several commercial and cultural centers; that's what makes them vibrant.

Posted by Ronald | February 13, 2007 1:57 PM
12

At least we won't have to pay for the cost overruns from Seattle-only taxes, as we would with the Tunnel-lite. That's anywhere from $1 billion to $6 billion - a lot of cash for our small city.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 13, 2007 1:58 PM
13

DAVID SUCHER Wrote:
"But now you still have the opportunity to redeem yourself by supporting the Steinbrueck & Sherwin option of "Repair & Prepare."

And make a thorough study of the cable stayed bay bridge proposal.

---Jensen

Posted by Jensen Interceptor | February 13, 2007 1:58 PM
14

Golob, the aerial impact of a 60 ft tall monorail going down 2 miles of California Ave, which has almost no buildings taller than 4 stories and is two lanes (plus a center turn lane) is significant. It would have put it 12 feet from certain buildings, would have taken out all the trees on one side of the street. That, too, I find significant.

Posted by wsp | February 13, 2007 1:59 PM
15

and I agree - why aren't they working on more transit? they talk about global warming - but do zilch about it.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 13, 2007 2:01 PM
16

@14 - oh quit whining - your building will still get torn down if they build the Tunnel, and you know it.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 13, 2007 2:02 PM
17

I didn't say insignificant, just much less that that of an elevated highway on every possible point of evaluation.

Even the tunnel's impact would be quite nasty, given that it would dump out right by Pike Place Market.

Any form of transportation causes disruption. The question is how many people can be moved given a fixed amount of impact (and cost). Rapid mass transit easily wins when one does that calculation.

Posted by golob | February 13, 2007 2:03 PM
18

Will @ 16 - what are you talking about? what building? I live in West Seattle.

Ronald @11 - yes, there is actually no reason for me to leave West Seattle, except for work. If only I had mass transit to count on.....

And Golob @ 17 - I still don't see how a 14 mile elevated monorail has less impact than a mile or two of a repaired Viaduct.

The tunnel is ridiculous. Give us some goddamn light rail and our little West Seattle ferry year round.

Posted by wsp | February 13, 2007 2:09 PM
19

wsp,

I am completely with you on light rail and a year-round West Seattle passenger ferry.

Even a teeny tiny spur line from the SODO station, across the bridge and to the junction would be absurdly more useful to W. Seattle residents. We could even hopefully re-use some of the engineering and environmental impact statements from the monorail project.

Posted by golob | February 13, 2007 2:16 PM
20

WAIT: Isn't Gregoire the one said she wanted a vote in the first place?

Posted by mirror | February 13, 2007 2:22 PM
21

Yes on a spur line! During the whole monorail thing I thought that it really could just end there in the Junction with buses serving the rest of West Seattle, thereby avoiding the monorail going down California Ave. Which I noticed did not go north on California, to the more tony Admiral District. Hmmmm....

You know, they just recently completed road work in the Junction, pulling up the old rail tracks. The more things change....

Posted by wsp | February 13, 2007 2:28 PM
22

So, Wsp, let's do something about it (beyond posting on SLOG). I'll write an actual paper letter to the Seattle Times, every city council rep, Ron Sims, the Mayor and the Gov proposing a spur be built from SODO to the Junction rather than the tunnel or rebuild.

If a quarter of the like-minded people on Slog did the same, we'd actually accomplish something.

Posted by golob | February 13, 2007 2:45 PM
23

To everyone:

Tunnel supporters: we don't have the money.

Rebuild supporters: We don't have the money, a new viaduct would be twice as ugly as the current one, and moving cars is not the same thing as moving people and freight.

Bridge supporters (all three of you): Elliott Bay is too small to support a bridge of the necessary scale.

Jake: No one in Seattle cares about Kitsap County. If you don't like NASCAR, complain to your own legislators, not the Slog.

That leaves: short-term repair of the viaduct, 59 short-term transit fixes, surface improvements, a light rail spur to West Seattle within the next ten years, and a demo of the viaduct as soon as light rail is in place.

To get that: stonewall any WSDOT proposals for highway expansion, do what can be done in the short-term locally, and get local officials on the Sound Transit board to push the full board to create a spur-line plan and ballot proposal for West Seattle. It's probably not too late to roll it into ST2 planning.

Posted by Cascadian | February 13, 2007 3:08 PM
24

Can we get a light rail route North to Ballard too? Because I really want to be able to go to the Tractor and drink and not have to find parking. And I think Ron Sims and the Mayor can understand that.

But where does the spur go? Over the bridge? Under? Down the 1st Ave ramp? Make a new ramp to 4th Ave - 4th goes thru, right? And it avoids getting stuck in game traffic...

Maybe it can go up 4th - have a few downtown stops - then hit Battery Street, does that work?, and meet up with 99 again, crossing Denny.

One can only dream... After attending a county council meeting, I feel like it's a surprise we accomplish anything.

Posted by wsp | February 13, 2007 3:08 PM
25

Instead of light rail, West Seattle is going to get bus rapid transit along the old Monorail route, via the Spokane St. Viaduct and the SoDo Busway, as part of the _already approved_ "Transit Now."

http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/transitnow/index.stm

Posted by asdf | February 13, 2007 3:29 PM
26

wsp @ 24:

Use the Green Line plans (pp. 16-38) to identify the appropriate route and stops for a light-rail line.

Posted by Cascadian | February 13, 2007 3:33 PM
27

Bus Rapid Transit isn't high capacity rapid mass transit. Slower than driving at rush hour: not rapid transit.

We *should* ask our politicians to leverage the light rail line that is already under construction. There is funding and hard plans to get at least to Husky stadium from the airport. This is by far the most technically difficult stretch of any city-wide light rail system, tunneling through beacon hill, downtown and across the cut. Any extensions from here could be relatively cheap and easy.

As far as Ballard, why not have another spur north of the water, Pacific St, NE 34th st through Freemont, up Leary to 15th and then north to 85th st.

Yes, I know sound transit funding will go to the Eastside for a while. If the city is going to pony up billions in transportation dollars, wouldn't this be a better way to spend it?

Posted by golob | February 13, 2007 3:47 PM
28

Yes, I'm afraid that Bus Rapid Transit is not only not high capacity enough, but an oxymoron. Where are your bus only lanes? There is only one eastbound on the West Seattle Bridge, not one westbound.

Posted by wsp | February 13, 2007 4:14 PM
29

Cascadian let me break it down real simple like. Some of your King and Snohomish County legislators have signed on to vote to waste your taxes on a God damn NASCAR track in my county that we don’t want. Our legislators are united against this and we are being screwed over by mostly pro-builder legislators in YOUR PART OF THE STATE. We here in Kitsap get to tell our legislators how to vote on the God Damn viaduct and it counts just as much are your guy in Olympia.

Posted by Jake of 8bitjoystick.com | February 13, 2007 4:23 PM
30


CASCADIAN Wrote:
"Elliott Bay is too small to support a bridge of the necessary scale."

Utter nonsense. To date, there has not been any peer reviewed engineering and design review that suggests Elliott Bay is “too small” for a cable stayed bridge.

I am continually amazed at the lack of perception and recognition that the cable stayed Bay Bridge proposal
continues to be a viable and good compromise among the current proposals being tabled. Unfortunately,
political burnout and hubris seem to have a ignored reasonable and studied approach to this and other proposals such as Repair and Prepare.

As late as Nov. 2005 WSDOT was noting a cable-stayed bridge proposal as being cost effective, and a peer review
in a January 2007 WSDOT feasibility study indicate there are “no extreme technological challenges” to the design and construction of a cable-stayed bay bridge.

A cable-stayed bridge would reclaim more usable space within the Alaska Way corridor than any other proposal.
This means more space for future mass transit,housing, business, parks and waterfront access. Overall, it should
contribute to reduced noise and traffic in the city.

A cable stayed bay bridge can be built while leaving the Alaska Way corridor in place and functioning during
bridge construction. This means your livelihood and daily comings and goings if you live in West Seattle, Downtown
North Seattle or Sea-Tac, or work at locations whose business is dependent on the Alaska Way corridor will not be
impacted.

A cable stayed bridge project would mean seawall reconstruction can continue without delay which would enhance the current structural stability of viaduct.

Cable stayed bridges, in general, don’t require long build out times and a three years would not be an unreasonable expectation.

Lastly, I would like to point out there are at least six of us on the Slog currently who, after study, think the bay bridge deserves further consideration…..you miscounted.

---Jensen

Posted by Jensen Interceptor | February 13, 2007 4:25 PM
31

i'm just waiting for the hover cars...that would solve all our problems AND drive NASCAR out of business...

jet packs would be nice, too...

and those tubes, like in Futurama...

but not Bachelor Chow; shit sounds nasty...

Posted by michael strangeways | February 13, 2007 4:48 PM
32

Jensen:

Through the magic of Google Maps, compare the size of Elliott Bay with that of San Francisco Bay. On the linked satellite view, Elliott Bay is a barely visible notch in the land, while SF Bay is a rather large body of water.

The Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge work there because the surrounding waterway is huge. The bridges dominate their nearby environment, but they work aesthetically and practically because they do not block the entire seaside length of the city, but only intersect at right angles to the city. A bridge in Elliott Bay would be a wall between the Sound and Seattle no matter how or where it was placed.

Posted by Cascadian | February 13, 2007 4:54 PM
33

Short version of my last post: it makes no sense to build a bridge linking two points on the same side of the same body of water.

Posted by Cascadian | February 13, 2007 4:59 PM
34

Cascadian, you are attempting to compare an orange with watermelons if you are attempting to compare a cable stayed Elliott Bay bridge with the Bay Bridge, a double-decked suspension, truss & cantilever bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge, a suspension bridge. Please note that suspension bridges and cable stayed bridges are completely different animals. If your point of reference are these Bay bridges, then I understand why you in having trouble processing this. Structurally, the Golden Gate and, in particular, the Bay, are massive.

Cable stayed bridge decking and cable supports are much "thinner" than those of a suspension bridge. Liken it to the arm of small child compared to that of a full grown man. From a distance, cable stayed bridge cables are difficult to discern compared to those of a suspension bridge. The towers on a cable stayed bridge are generally taller that those of suspension bridge, however tower height can most likely be mitigated in the case of an Elliott Bay cable stayed bridge.

I won't argue that a cable stayed bridge might impact the view across Elliott Bay and the West Seattle hill. I would argue it could be one of the most beautiful and functional pieces of engineering if designed by the right hand. The tower lights reflecting on the cables would be an impressive and beautiful view at night regardless if you lived in West Seattle or Seattle.

What's important is that a cable stayed bridge is a good compromise that won't damage or disrupt our current infrastructure and enconomy, and it will accomplish it while being asthetically pleasing and functional.

---Jensen

Posted by Jensen Interceptor | February 13, 2007 5:36 PM
35

Wouldn't the grade up to the junction be too steep for light rail?

I still say they need to tear that schitt down.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | February 13, 2007 7:07 PM
36

Jensen.
I thought that the image of the cable bridge in the WSDOT report looked pretty interesting.

Posted by David Sucher | February 13, 2007 8:55 PM
37

wczfr dvwc njfyarmzo okpnch tgoqi oiqlpjsr ycrbx

Posted by fouxbr kryid | February 28, 2007 2:13 AM
38

wczfr dvwc njfyarmzo okpnch tgoqi oiqlpjsr ycrbx

Posted by fouxbr kryid | February 28, 2007 2:13 AM
39

xcmzg tqysgujl acuw ckfwasqn kery lykm flsuryiaz http://www.ufhdjplv.pfatrd.com

Posted by lerwugs vlyajgdqf | February 28, 2007 2:14 AM
40

zkmwanlot gjxvekqyn ufhmniq vgzts ufcsamh htmezagi bypqvd

Posted by dsworizfc nmgzwq | March 2, 2007 12:23 AM
41

ozgmth lockhgywq yjqkcz evbywrhu hicmkz dqwenzm wuvaq http://www.fxyrbia.lyufdtceg.com

Posted by fznsamqyv rcqpeiw | March 2, 2007 12:24 AM
42

rjdokmu erybfk dlog fmxy wukjq nipumh dtueyp nqxfhmwg ofurk

Posted by hwqftl qjgsmuytw | March 2, 2007 12:24 AM
43

rjdokmu erybfk dlog fmxy wukjq nipumh dtueyp nqxfhmwg ofurk

Posted by hwqftl qjgsmuytw | March 2, 2007 12:25 AM
44

rjdokmu erybfk dlog fmxy wukjq nipumh dtueyp nqxfhmwg ofurk

Posted by hwqftl qjgsmuytw | March 2, 2007 12:26 AM
45

xewpho banqtfyd znhpy xlprzdiku eyum osry kptg [URL=http://www.gsjr.xyglzhekb.com]kecmxh rdsxhm[/URL]

Posted by mvzduxhin yrtzx | March 2, 2007 12:26 AM
46

jgaxebmkr xtauh ghzx xyjvacei ircqw iyqhzu ruozthlkv [URL]http://www.bsfrg.rscvxeyp.com[/URL] tebqkw svikgdha

Posted by yriuqbm haxnrjoe | March 2, 2007 12:28 AM
47

jgaxebmkr xtauh ghzx xyjvacei ircqw iyqhzu ruozthlkv [URL]http://www.bsfrg.rscvxeyp.com[/URL] tebqkw svikgdha

Posted by yriuqbm haxnrjoe | March 2, 2007 12:28 AM
48

jgaxebmkr xtauh ghzx xyjvacei ircqw iyqhzu ruozthlkv [URL]http://www.bsfrg.rscvxeyp.com[/URL] tebqkw svikgdha

Posted by yriuqbm haxnrjoe | March 2, 2007 12:29 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).