Read it, then have your say: Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel report

(Newly released WSDOT video)
As reported when we covered the Alaskan Way Viaduct South Portal Working Group meeting last week (story here), this week is concluding with two milestones for the proposal to replace its Central Waterfront section with a tunnel: First, the two remaining potential design-build teams presented their proposals yesterday – and Governor Gregoire promises to go public later today with more information on those proposals. Second, the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement is officially published, and the state wants to hear what you think. “Environmental impact” means a lot more than “ecological” impact – it includes an assessment of potential traffic effects and much, much more. You can see the report here; you can ask questions and offer comments in person during the West Seattle open house on November 16th; or you can offer your thoughts any of the ways listed here, till December. ADDED 10:43 AM: The governor has announced that both tunnel proposals are within budget. Here’s the WSDOT announcement.

42 Replies to "Read it, then have your say: Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel report"

  • Robert2715 October 29, 2010 (9:43 am)

    Noticed the state just released a new YouTube video a tunnel similation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwSPmJw8JxY

    • WSB October 29, 2010 (10:10 am)

      Robert, you so rock. I have added that atop this. Can’t watch the whole thing with the connection I’m on at the moment but I notice it includes identification of for example the portal areas (we’ve been following the South Portal meetings/discussions, because that’s what affects West Seattle the most) – TR

  • at first review... October 29, 2010 (9:56 am)

    Folks in West Seattle need to really pay attention here. The preferred alternative (Deep Bore tunnel) impacts West Seattle far more than any other neighborhood. For all the billions of $, and all the disruption during construction, we are rewarded with worse travel times to downtown during the AM Peak period commute (see Executive Summary figure 2-8), mostly as a result of the removal of the Seneca off ramps to downtown. Drivers and buses will be getting off of the new SR99 facility at King Street, leaving everyone to travel downtown via 1st Ave or other roads. In figure 2-12 they also don’t seem to think that any of those downtown intersections (such as 1st Ave) will be considered “congested”, even though by their estimates, more than 30,000 vehicles will be diverted onto city streets.

    If it doesn’t actually improve our commute, why would West Seattle support it?

  • GoGo October 29, 2010 (10:26 am)

    I agree with At First Review’s comments above and there is no reason West Seattle should support this ill conceived idea. To not have a downtown exit AND to charge people to use the tunnel is simply ridiculous. Seattle amazes me in how it can’t seem to do anything in any way that makes sense and doesn’t take way too long and way too much money. Why can’t we be like Portland?

  • Delridge Denizen October 29, 2010 (10:29 am)

    I love how these videos always have about 8 cars on the roads. Just like your average, post-apocalypse Sunday morning commute in Seattle.

  • HolyKow October 29, 2010 (10:36 am)

    Show me a sim that has a reflective commuter traffic volume and I will show you gridlock in the SoDo to Downtown core transition area that will frighten the bejebus out of anyone approaching sea from the south. And we get to PAY FOR IT!!!!

    YES! (which is to say NOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH!!!!!!)

    Sorry Olympia, DC and Mayor McCheese, this Kow is not blinded by your slick deceiving “Moving Model” of inaccuracy!

    hk

  • AJL October 29, 2010 (10:49 am)

    Don’t forget about the commute back home to WS, especially if there is an event at one of the stadiums. That will be bad too.

    And where exactly are the ferry hold lanes going to be? Oh, there are none?

  • KBear October 29, 2010 (11:12 am)

    All these traffic flow issues have already been studied. That’s why the tunnel is now the preferred option. It’s not cost-effective to fix the viaduct, and we’re not getting another one. That leaves surface streets or tunnel. Do you really think replacing the viaduct with NOTHING would provide better traffic flow than a tunnel? The tunnel DOES connect to downtown at the north and south ends. There are also other routes into downtown. Why can’t we be like Portland? Because we can’t build anything here without discussing it to death and then changing the plan. We’d be riding our monorail already and the tunnel wouldn’t be nearly as critical if we were more like Portland. The Nisqually Earthquake was almost a decade ago. It is shameful that we haven’t replaced the viaduct yet.

  • JanS October 29, 2010 (11:15 am)

    Just think back to how long your commute was the other day when part of the railing on the viaduct caused it to be closed during rush hour. It took some people, from what I’ve heard, 2 hours to get from Fremont to WS. Now…tell me what’s good about any of this? I realize that something needs to be done…the viaduct is settling more and more. But I’m not sure I like the ideas that are being given right now. Not meaning to rub it in, but I sure am glad I work at home.

  • metrognome October 29, 2010 (11:45 am)

    y’all may want to broaden your perspective beyond just the ‘tunnel’ and include all the surface street improvements such as the new 4th Ave off-ramp from EB Spokane Street Viaduct (as required by WSB law: that connects the WS Bridge to I-5) and all the work along Alaskan Way street level and Royal Brougham/4th Ave. The tunnel isn’t expected to carry all the traffic; anyone who has used the Viaduct when the Mariners are losing, I mean playing, knows that you gridlock immediately at Seneca and First, you gridlock going south on First because of the Columbia St on-ramp, you gridlock when SB because of the Columbia on-ramp/Stadium off-ramp and all the impatient me-firsters changing lanes every 20feet and you can’t get on the Viaduct from the Safe to go home to WS. When there is something at the Center, you gridlock at the Mercer off-ramp and at Seneca and First. Have you ever tried to get anywhere when the viaduct is closed for inspection?? That’s what will happen for several years if the viaduct is replaced with an elevated structure.

  • ellenater October 29, 2010 (12:28 pm)

    lmao @ Delridge Denizon!

    No tunnel please, thanks.

    Let’s replace the viaduct with a viable option, and have trains like Portland.

    Are you proponents of the tunnel plan (as is) going for that simply because it’s not the viaduct? I have a super hard time believing there are no other working options.

    The naysayers have real points. It’s not just complaining.

    tunnel=no way man! third option, please.

  • west by southwest October 29, 2010 (1:07 pm)

    To those that want another elevated structure: that would come with 5 year 100% shutdown of SR99. The tunnel lets the viaduct stay upo during construction, the big plus for this alternative.
    .
    To those who think that viaduct traffic can be routed onto surface streets: did you miss the Nisqually earthquake shutdown of SR99? Gridlock. Even with major transit and surface street improvemts, commute times would double. That is reality.

  • KBear October 29, 2010 (1:38 pm)

    Gridlock is your third option.

  • wspuncher October 29, 2010 (1:41 pm)

    TUNNEL! We have a chance to create a place in Seattle that will be enjoyed for generations. People who come to our beautiful city will visit the water front and talk about the beautiful prominade. (Not to mention all the shopping they did while they were here.)

    Yes we need a train too! We should have monorail by now but because of the rediculous Seattle voting processes we don’t have monorail and if we are not careful we wont have a tunnel, or a viaduct, or any way to get downtown at all.

  • nmb October 29, 2010 (1:42 pm)

    OH NO! This plan includes bike paths! Quick, let’s all start ranting about taxing cyclists! But as @GoGo notes, charging motorists to use the tunnel is just ridiculous. Go figure.

    RE: no downtown exit. There is one — you exit 99 before entering the tunnel. What? This doesn’t deliver you directly into the heart of downtown? Life is so hard for you…

  • JBL October 29, 2010 (1:45 pm)

    Yea!!! GO TUNNEL!! Love it!

  • JA October 29, 2010 (1:57 pm)

    I second JBL. Yea!!! GO TUNNEL!! Love it!
    But seriously, I live in West Seattle and work on the waterfront. I actually look at the Viaduct out of my office window. The viaduct is terrible for the waterfront. Seattle will be a better city when it is removed. The surface street alternative is no alternative at all. It will create grid lock for drivers and an impassible street for pedestrians. The tunnel is the only pragmatic option.

  • HolyKow October 29, 2010 (2:02 pm)

    .

  • AJL October 29, 2010 (2:13 pm)

    I have sat through meetings about the tunnel design and design of the new street grid. The new street grid is predicted to handle 25,000 cars per day along the new waterfront. That is a huge amount of vehicles – not including those that are waiting for the ferry (I have still not seen any plans for the ferry traffic. As of now SDOT/WADOT are planning on that traffic to simply “mix” with the new street traffic.).

    The new street grid is enormous and is built to move traffic North/South rather than East/West. There is little planning done regarding East/West traffic volumes; this includes bus routing and bicycle/pedestrian routing.

    If the tunnel was not built that funding could conceivably be used to improve the current street grid (new roadway surfaces, new two-way streets, upgraded intersections, etc.) and add, GASP, TRANSIT options (bus, rail)! Think of how much easier it would be to not take a car if transit was frequent, reliable, easy and faster than a single occupancy vehicle. It would improve the commute for those who would still have to drive as those who wouldn’t have to drive would actually have great commute options.

  • k October 29, 2010 (2:19 pm)

    who wants to pay a toll to go to queen anne? surface streets will remain packed after the tunnel is opened. such a mess.

  • metrognome October 29, 2010 (2:30 pm)

    no, ellenator, there are no other viable alternatives; the deep bore tunnel is the only option that can be built with the current viaduct still standing (keep your fingers and toes crossed that we don’t have a major earthquake). With the retrofit, the replacement viaduct or the cut-and-cover tunnel options, the entire downtown area as well as the only north-south freeway on the west side of Lake WA will be completely gridlocked for five years (do you really want to drive from WS to SeaTac to get on 405 to get to Northgate via 520?) With the ‘tear it down and build nothing’ option, we will be gridlocked for eternity. We have light rail into downtown from the south; soon there will be light rail from the north. We have commuter rail. The problem is neither carries cars or freight. There is only so much public transportation can do. With the on-going improvements to the SODO/downtown street network, traffic will be much more evenly distributed. We are not in Kansas anymore; we have to build something into the existing downtown/waterfront area unless you want to pave over Elliott Bay by sluicing Capitol Hill and Beacon Hill into Puget Sound. Putting the viaduct underground also allows for improvements to Alaskan Way (street level) to better manage the massive flow of traffic into downtown whenever a ferry arrives.

  • SM October 29, 2010 (2:38 pm)

    Big thumbs up here for tunnel+surface street improvements+reinforced seawall+ improved access to downtown from Spokae St viaduct (the current plan) vs these phantom “better solutions” folks are hankering for here. Yes, better would be better, but I haven’t seen anyone define better yet.

    Start digging already!

  • NOTUNNELFORME October 29, 2010 (2:41 pm)

    One thing of key note here everyone..and it’s evident in the above tunnel video. If this stupid deep bore tunnel is built..we’re going from THREE lanes Northbound & THREE lanes Southbound to TWO each way..WITH NO ALLOWANCE for wrecks or car breakdowns. Even with three lanes each way as it is, whenever there’s a wreck or breakdown the viaduct gets backed up. Just imagine the back up when something happens within the bowels of the tunnel? There’s only two lanes..how’s emergency equipment supposed to get through with little or no shoulder. I agree something needs to be done to fix our poor aging viaduct, but the deep bore tunnel is NOT the answer..stupid money grubbing land developers just want to turn the downtown waterfront into Miami Beach..ICK!

  • Gatewood Too October 29, 2010 (3:07 pm)

    Even though I like the overall concept, I’m still amazed that it reduces a 3 lane thoroughfare (each way) that is nearly stopped during rush hour / game nights, down to 2 lanes each way. No matter how much surrounding surface street improvement takes place, I can’t imagine surface streets would be as effective at moving large traffic volumes during rush hour.
    .
    My only other “hmm” is… calculate the amount of new taxes the city will earn from the multitudes of very high value condos and commercial development that will be constructed on the newly available real estate. Pity that won’t go towards the project……….

  • Babs October 29, 2010 (3:53 pm)

    I hate the tunnel. Mistake. Why can’t we built one of those slick high rise bridges you see back east. One that starts mid way before the viaduct rises and have it go across the sound and exit into where the tunnel goes under now or even a new entry.

  • nmb October 29, 2010 (3:59 pm)

    I don’t believe that the land made available by removing the viaduct will suddenly be up for sale. It will most likely remain public right-of-way (need to verify that). Vacating public rights-of-way, even when they occur on steep hillsides that could never be developed into streets, is not only an *extremely* difficult process, but happens very rarely.
    .
    Even on the off-chance that the ROW land was sold and started generating new taxes for the City, those taxes *would* help pay for the tunnel. That’s part of what property taxes do — they help fund SDOT.

    — @notunnelforme: “stupid money grubbing land developers just want to turn the downtown waterfront into Miami Beach..ICK!”

    That’s the most insightful comment I’ve read on here all day! Not.

  • AJL October 29, 2010 (4:30 pm)

    metrognome, you cite only one rail line from the south. And the pending line for the north. And you think that is justification for not building any more rail or more transit options whatsoever? Again, the good goal of transit is to provide a viable option for drivers (frequent, easy, fast) to get them out of their cars. This then hopefully gets the traffic that needs to be on the streets (delivery people, trucks, etc) moving a bit better.

    And if you think the tunnel is the option for Port/shipping traffic you are sorely mistaken. The Port has made it clear that trucks will not be using the tunnel. They will be routed N/S on the new 6-lane Alaska Way Boulevard. This has been stated in those pesky meetings I’ve sat in on.

  • TonyT October 29, 2010 (4:31 pm)

    Right on KBear. Yes please let’s discuss, analyze, start, have a referendum, stop, and end up with nothing. Except an aging and decaying structure with a bright a cheery future.

    So many complaints and very few reasonable/build-able suggestions. I like the transit idea, wouldn’t it be swell if we had a monorail….oh wait.

  • michael October 29, 2010 (5:00 pm)

    must build the tunnel so rich people can build on
    the waterfront !!!

  • DK October 29, 2010 (6:54 pm)

    There are issues with ALL options but we NEED to start doing something instead of arguing – if the viaduct collapses while we’re fighting about what should or should not be there, we’re frankly ALL screwed. I hate to mention this project as I’m sure it will get a stream of “see what a mess this will be!” comments, but if you’ve had the chance to see the “before” and “after” of the Big Dig in Boston, the benefits of “after” are very apparent, IMO. That project certainly was not a “model” road project by anyone’s description: many, many issues during and after construction, and yes, it was a cost overrun nightmare, but now that it is done it’s quite amazing on many levels: the tunnel is far more functional than the bridge that was there; traffic, while still busy as it is a major city & that never goes away, flows much better as it improves access to many parts of the city; finally, the open space (yes, mostly open space, not real estate) created by tearing down 93 is wonderful — downtown opened up to the North End & the waterfront for the first time in 40+/- years, it’s really a different city without the bridge in a very good way. So, to agree with SM, start digging already! We will all benefit when the smoke clears.

  • JoB October 29, 2010 (7:21 pm)

    you guys think small…
    we need a bridge from West Seattle to Ballard…
    yeah.. that would be the ticket. preserve the view and route traffic around the downtown core…

    let’s see.. we could put the entrace just about where the old luna park was ….

    that idea ought to get some panties in a real bunch:)

    failing that… the tunnel is the only viable option Seattle voters haven’t yet rejected that will keep us living in West Seattle while hubby works in Fremont.

    After sitting in the parking lot that downtown became the other day.. he might even be willing to pay the toll to keep our quality of life.

  • Bill Reiswig October 29, 2010 (7:34 pm)

    The tunnel, if we build it will be seen as a huge mis-allocation of capital. With our collective national debt we need to make smart decisions, and I don’t think this is one.

    Its a poor decision because,

    1) as noted, it does not exit downtown, and will be (potentially) difficult to clear in an emergency or accident.

    2) for all sorts of reasons, the construction of this tunnel, with a the boring machine through unstable soils and under our city is frought with alot of risk. The Stranger already covered this quite professionally (sadly, in much more detail than our shell of a newspaper the Seattle Times seems to be able to muster). If you can find they’re expose on this I suggest you read it.

    3) it has little chance of being on budget and there is a good chance that Olympia, in an era of bare-bones budgets will stick Seattlites with the bill. McGinn is doing well to watch for our interests here.

    4) this tunnel really does not re-think transportation in any type of 21st century way. For a Seattle City Council who’s stated goal is to be zero carbon in 2030 I say “hypocrites”! We need to be honest with ourselves that the acidification of the oceans, the melting of the artic, and the droughts and floods we see now are going to get worse unless we are fully behind large scale rail, bike, and bus systems. We need to find a way to run our economies on less transportation and more localized agriculture and commerce that is dramatically less car-dependent.

    and-relatedly, 5) I hear nothing about the very real disappearance of oil the next 20-30 years and what it means for a project like this. Peak Oil is not only soon, but it will be much sooner for the USA. We now import 70% of our oil, as it is used up around the world, exporters will hold on to it more. I know everyone ASSUMES that we will just replace these cars with electric vehicles, but this is unlikely because these cars necessitate a huge investment by the populace, because we will need to invest trillions in charging stations, electrical infrastructure, and new electricity generation that we may or may not have the collective wealth to produce. There are numerous materials in electric cars such as lithium and rare-earth metals where there is great doubt that we will produce 100’s of millions of such cars economically.

    Infrastructure like this represents our captivity to past ways of thinking and not being honest with the situation we have been dealt. The many billions being allocated for this should be used for different forms of future investment. The surface option that was proposed would have been our best option.

  • PSPS October 29, 2010 (8:58 pm)

    KBear, you say, “It’s not cost-effective to fix the viaduct.” Actually, a retrofit of the existing viaduct is both the most cost-effective (by far the least expensive option,) and the least disruptive of all the proposals.

  • JN October 29, 2010 (9:40 pm)

    This tunnel is a great idea! And regarding the comments made regarding congestion, even if you expanded SR-99 to four lanes each way, all that would happen is that there would be FOUR lanes of extreme congestion at peak hours! This has been proved everywhere that more lanes are added to highways. They just fill up again! And I think that it is a great idea to add a bike lane to this project (as long as it is separated from traffic AND pedestrians, which is not made clear in this animation)

  • L October 30, 2010 (12:14 am)

    I want to move…. I think I will. If not, my life will be governed by a commute from hell.

  • PRM October 30, 2010 (8:50 am)

    2 items people seem to be forgetting:

    1. All replcement options that were proposed had only 2 lanes for traffic.

    2. All only had downtown exits north & south of downtown.

    The tunnel was the best choice mainly because it wouldn’t close access to downtown from WS for 5 years (as other plans proposed)

    All of these issues were discussed at tons of community meetings 2 years ago. I attended some. Instead of complaigning, get involved.

    I believe all options had to be 2 lanes because of new building codes for roads in the space allowed. I don’t remember why there were only the 2 downtown exits. That does suck.

  • Jo Parsons October 30, 2010 (10:17 am)

    I support the tunnel option as the best solution to a very complex and difficult problem. I have concerns about the lack of a downtown exit. It seems that West Seattle folks are often forgotten. Perhaps it has to do with the failure of the monorail project which I strongly supported. No plan is perfect.

  • Blue Collar Enviro October 30, 2010 (1:20 pm)

    I guess someone has to mention that the bids didn’t really come in under budget.

    Rather, $210 million was just slid over this week from the Contingency Fund into the budget, leaving about $200 million in the contingency fund. (Has it been mentioned lately that the politicians still haven’t sorted out who will be paying for the cost overruns?)

    Apparently, some insider dealing went on this week to give the state a hint that the bids were about to come in $210 million over budget.

  • 2cent October 30, 2010 (3:17 pm)

    Are people actually using ” it only has two lanes” to argue against the tunnel. Have they even been on sr99. Have they ever left the safety of their home in West Seattle? The Battery Tunnel right now, right now, only has TWO lanes!

  • Alex October 30, 2010 (8:34 pm)

    Please don’t stop the tunnel project. We definitely need to build SOMETHING. Anything is better than tearing down the viaduct and not replacing it! Going from 3 lanes to 2 is bad enough, but if we go from 3 highway lanes to zero, west seattle will become and island. Total gridlock every day at rush hour.

  • grr October 30, 2010 (10:56 pm)

    I support the tunnel because it’s pretty.

  • redblack November 1, 2010 (6:08 am)

    did someone really ask where peds are going to walk in the tunnel? interesting.
    .
    when the tunnel backs up from an accident or a stall, we can just plunge it out, or run a giant pipe cleaner through. or maybe they can install trap doors, and just drop the offending motorists out of the way.
    .
    jo, if i recall correctly, i voted “no” on a deep bore tunnel, and i won. so did you when you voted “no” on a new elevated structure.
    .
    to everyone who cries doom if the tunnel isn’t bored: i’ll take that bet. i’ll suffer through the WS commute to/from ballard rather than pay for the tunnel. the city will grow around the scar left by the viaduct.
    .
    for example, i have been known to join my homies from beacon hill’s commute to get home from ballard when other routes are plugged. drops me right on the SSV.
    .
    there are thousands of ways to skin this cat.

Sorry, comment time is over.