As-it-happened: West Seattle meeting for tunnel comments

If you come to the Madison Middle School commons before 8 tonight, you’ll find several ways to offer the Alaskan Way Viaduct project managers your opinion on the “preferred alternative” for replacing its Central Waterfront section – the bored tunnel. First thing you’ll see when you walk in is a sign-in table and an easel with 16 topics listed, asking you to place a red-dot sticker next to the one that interests you the most.

You can move around the room to more than a dozen stations offering information about different aspects of the project, and if you want to make your official comment while you’re here, your options include writing it out longhand, typing it into one of two available laptops, or saying it aloud while court reporter Linda Grotefendt types.

This is an official part of the process triggered when the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (about the tunnel project’s effects) was made public a few weeks ago; this is the only West Seattle meeting where you can come to ask questions, but there’s no presentation tonight – since it’s open-house format, you are welcome to stop in any time before the event ends at 8 pm. You may also find unofficial information about the “No Tunnel” campaign – as we walked to the top of the steps that lead to the Madison commons from the south parking lot, we were handed a flyer headed “Stop The Tunnel, It’s Not a Done Deal.”

Meantime, looked like a decent turnout in the early going – more than 20 people had signed in within the first 15 minutes. If you can’t get to the meeting – here are the other ways to comment; the deadline is December 13th.

Michael November 17, 2010 (1:27 am)

Re: “Stop the Tunnel”:
.
Anyone trying to stop a Viaduct replacement freeway in West Seattle should be tarred and feathered, for obvious reasons.
.
I do notice that the petitions they’ve left in the Junction are pretty much unsigned (although on a recent night I noticed one “Peter Rabbit” agreed with the petitioner!) and applaud my neighbors for not taking the bait.

Rower November 17, 2010 (8:47 am)

Well Michael, the people sponsoring the petition may indeed be crackpots, but if you look at the project, and particularly the EIS that they are soliciting comment for, you will notice that West Seattle gets the serious short end of the stick.

We will bear the brunt of construction delays during the multi-year construction period, we will get worse travel times to downtown, we will lose our downtown exits and on ramps, and if they choose to put a toll on it, we will be the ones expected to pay it the most.

Really not seeing the benefits for us here.

austin November 17, 2010 (9:09 am)

The benefits for us is that they knock down a dangerous and ugly road which if folks keep bickering about for years is going to fall down and kill a lot of people. Complaining about having to drive a couple extra blocks when people shouldn’t all think they’re entitled to quick and easy driving downtown in the first place or having to actually pay a fraction of the cost of the roads you use is absurd.

Rower November 17, 2010 (9:30 am)

” Complaining about having to drive a couple extra blocks when people shouldn’t all think they’re entitled to quick and easy driving downtown in the first place or having to actually pay a fraction of the cost of the roads you use is absurd.”

This will screw up your bus commute the same as it will for cars. Sit on one of the buses that runs on 1st ave some rainy afternoon at 5pm from the market to Safeco Field and see how fast you travel currently. Now add all those commuters (including) buses that would otherwise have gotten onto 99 and its pretty ugly, just sayin.

Also people aren’t going to pay the toll. Would you pay $3.50 to go from Spokane St to Qwest Field? I think the majority will not, creating even more unintended consequences.

All I am saying is West Seattle is getting the serious short end of this deal.

austin November 17, 2010 (10:27 am)

If you’re concerned about getting there on time your best bet is to leave a few minutes earlier than usual. Also the toll is for the tunnel. You won’t be using the tunnel if you’re going from Spokane street to the stadiums, it only will apply if you’re traveling north of downtown. Listening to complainers who have no concept of the problem or ideas for a solution beyond shouting about how wide freeways and enormous parking lots are rights that every car driver should have is a mistake.

Mickymse November 17, 2010 (2:19 pm)

Why anyone thinks it makes sense to spend billions of dollars to build a tunnel that moves 40-60% FEWER vehicles than the existing Viaduct currently does, with reduced access to Downtown, is beyond me…

Blue Collar Enviro November 17, 2010 (11:36 pm)

I’ll bet people will adjust (e.g. fill up the buses) if the viaduct is replaced with nothing.

Please don’t tell me the tunnel is designed to move freight. Trucks from Interbay will take the much shorter Alaskan Way route, and avoid the toll.

flynlo November 18, 2010 (9:48 am)

Austin – You might want to review Chapter 9 of the EIS regarding tolling. Toll option B involves a toll from Spokane St. to the South entrance of the tunnel. Option D involves a toll from the North entrance of the tunnel to the Aurora Bridge! It’s interesting that the EIS does an extensive analysis of the traffic impacts of tolling options A, C & E but is totally silent on the impacts of options B & D.

tk November 18, 2010 (5:28 pm)

Ch 9 of the EIS also refers to an earlier Jan. 2010 report on tolling. That report shows a pie chart that only 60% of the toll fee will go to paying off the debt (for 20 or 30 years) while the other roughly 40% goes to collecting the tolls (20%), and Operations & Maintenance of the tunnel ($5M/yr) plus insurance ($2M/yr). So while the toll is being collected, for 20-30 years the tunnel users also get to pay for $7M/year to run it and not the state, even though it is a state highway!

Sorry, comment time is over.