captaindave...

i hope the 6th av tunnel in an expanded form with the freeway connectors and with the SoDo expressway is still on the drawing board for a comprehensive plan for a later date.

it is basically a good idea...

JoB, thanks.

CB.. sorry about that.. an excursion was followed by an impromptu nap:)

if i had to choose one of the tunnel options right now.. it would be the first av tunnel option...

either way i hope the governor's office overrules the task force recommendation for two 4 lane one ways with times lights in the middle of our biggest tourist districts...

that option would undo the work of the last decade to make the waterfront walkable...

JoB:

I am not clear why the Port of Seattle is really all that good for the local economy. The number of people they employ per ton of freight is declining every year. It only takes a fraction of the number of stevedores that was once required to unload a ship before containerized freight. The goods being unloaded are largely headed for other parts of the country. The port makes a tidy little profit on the handling costs, which they turn around and spend on expansion projects that employ people only for short periods of time during construction. The Port of Seattle is striving to do more with less labor to stay competitive.

There are many who believe we have concluded one of the longest stretches of escalating prosperity in modern times. The disparity between the US and third world countries who make our goods is closing. When we emerge from this economic downturn, the opportunities to exploit lower labor costs in foreign counties will most likely diminish. For those who believe in peak oil theory, shipping costs will be higher per ton as fuel costs increase. When the Mexican mega port in Punta Colonet opens in about 2013 , it will further reduce imports through US West Coast ports by providing a cheaper and faster freight route to the center of the US.

There are a lot of reasons why the Port of Seattle will not sustain the foreign shipping growth it has enjoyed in the past couple of decades. Nor will it be a reliable source of income for any significant number of residents working the docks since more and more of the container handling equipment is becoming automated. The expansion plans for the southern portion of the SR99 viaduct route are no longer valid and should be recast to fit reality now that the bubble has burst. - So, I belive that you may be dead wrong that things have not changed. - Things have changed with regard to the needs of the Port of Seattle.

I do agree with revitalizing the SoDo District. It has the ability to develop into something similar to the San Francisco SoMa district. I think either tunnel plan supports this objective as long as a peaceful surface street corridor from SoDo to the Waterfront and Pioneer Square is maintained. I believe that the upland 6th Ave route will have a slightly better chance of doing this as there would be less thru-traffic congestion around the ball parks.

Aurora like exchange: none of the plans are discussing the elimination of stop lights in the north and south sectors of Aurora Ave. as far as I know. As mentioned before, the SoDo Expressway plan would result in less traffic lights between the 1st Ave bridge than the old route.

When?: I would like to see the whole thing done at once, but I am not an expert on funding. There are smart people behind every solution offered for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct (except maybe Frank Chopp's waterfront strip mall). The surface street proponents say that there is enough roads leading in to the city. I personally don't think that is true. However, (worst case scenario) in the event the state doesn't find enough money, then it could happen that the upland tunnel route is the least costliest way to go when all is said and done due to the legalities and practicalities. I would much rather have a tunnel built that can be coupled an expressway later, then to maybe end up with a surface street plan and no tunnel because too many difficulties were discovered on the lowland route. I am convinced that a tunnel is the only real solution for Seattle (either bored tunnel route). Having multiple options is a good idea if we don't want to see it fail.

Reducing Trucks on I-5: For northbound traffic, we were not planning on moving any more truck traffic off I-5 than what already diverts at Tukwilla onto 599. However, we can move a bunch of Burien and West Seattle commuter traffic headed for the east side directly to I-90. Thus reducing I-5 Traffic. We think that truckers will prefer to take the Tube under the city to reach I-90 and Southbound I-5 rather than to use Mercer. Our plan is to use the existing Battery Street Tunnel as an on-and off-ramp (as mentioned earlier). However, it is not clear wether the rework project that SDOT has planned on Mercer Street will be more efficient for Ballard traffic too. Our plan is not requiring any specific work north of the Battery Street Tunnel entrance.

CB..

you know, i am conflicted....

i like the idea of a deep bore tunnel replacing the viaduct.. but i would want to know if a deep bore tunnel could go where they wanted to place the closed trench tunnel.. basically under watefront way...

thus reinforcing the sea wall and creating a replacement for the viaduct without seriously disrupting business along the waterfront..

gotta run.. i am late.. i will come back to this later... sorry.

Captain Dave...

Yes, there is less port traffic right now.. which makes it the perfect time to fix the road system servicing both the port and SoDo before it picks up again.. because it inevitably will.

Right now is a good time to do the work while there aren't so many complaints of it disrupting commerce.. and as a bonus.. we can get it done cheaper in the current economy...

Seattle has been a major port on the West Coast from it's inception... and the geographic location, deep harbor and access to both rail and truck transport have not changed.

Now is the perfect time to work on the infastructure that drives all commerce (including the light industry in SoDo and the retail warehouses) and thus jobs...

I often drive the route suggested from 509 to the train station area taking hubby to work... and am very familiar with that route...

so.. your high tech solution to the transportation system in Seattle is to bring traffic in on an aurora like exchange in the south.. and then dump it out at the other end in an aurora like exchange in the north?

All so that we get the benefit of two spots where exchanges to current freeways East can be made...

I know, you intend to fix that eventually with a SoDo expressway.. but when is eventually? My guess is that it is long after the exchanges feeding traffic in east metro are built...

And how exactly does that help people in Ballard get into town and around town?

how would this move truck and thru traffic off I-5 and thru Seattle?

the bonus of the viaduct is that at the north end a short surface option connects you right up to I-5 ...

the amount of truck and thru traffic on the viaduct is due in a large part to the easy ability to bypass the majority of the I-5 gridlock in downtown Seattle. I know, i have been using it for decades to do just that.

And if the WSDOT figures show the majority of the truck traffic on the viaduct hours is thru traffic.. why do the figures quoted by the Pike Place Market differ so much?

Could it be that WSDOT is counting total truck traffic including that which uses that route in the off business hours?

I am not against a sixth street deep bore tunnel as an I-5 bypass.. i think that is a great idea...

but as a fix to the viaduct and the traffic patterns off 99?

i am still not convinced...

JoB:

Yes, I have driven the the port lately. There is far less containers and shipping activity then there was two years ago. The port has had many upgrades in recent years to accommodate what was thought to be a never-ending growth of imports. Then the US dollar fell, ...then the ballon bursted. Now we have multi-million dollar cranes sitting idle most of the time just rusting in the wind. Tacoma has the same problem. My point is to reduce spending on port facilities when it comes to using transportation funds.

Tunnel grade: I was a truck driver for many years and can't tell you how pissed off people get at trucks on hills durring rush hour. Best example is to observe loaded trucks stop and start up on the South Center I-5 grade. They don't accelerate like cars. This has an amplified effect on rush hour traffic. You are absolutely wrong about most of the truck traffic exiting for downtown. There are statistics available through SDOT.

Offset from old 99 route: There is not a huge distance between 99 and first avenue when you look at how the majority of the traffic enters the corridor at the 1st Ave South Bridge. There is actually less stop lights between the 1st Ave South Bridge and the starting point of our proposed SoDo Express Way (at Diagonal St.) than there is on the original 99 route. There are also no railroad crossings either on 1st. Even without the SoDo Expressway, it is easy to get from the 1st Ave South Bridge to 4th via the Michigan St. Exit. - not that it is ideal. Also remember that SDOT is in process to adding a 2-lane west bound exit from the West Seattle Freeway to 4th Ave.

Freeway Integration: Our proposed SoDo Expressway does just that. It makes it easier for Ballard and West Seattle to reach I-90 without getting on I-5. - Thus reliving pressure on I-5. But also, by virtue of the I-90 interchange, it also makes it easier for Ballard to get to south bound I-5.

Money: I would like to have trust in our leaders to make prudent decisions balancing both the short term and long term needs of our city. It seems to me that Seattle has been plagued over the decade with short sighted decision making which has lead us to now having to contemplate such large scale projects. If the city had only kept some of its road and transit rail line right of ways that it had in the early part of the century, then these things would not be such a problem. We think the upland route can be more than just a fix for the viaduct, but rather an integrated solution to fixing a number of costly traffic problems that are suppressing our ability to effectively use the city.

JoB, I followed this thread in the early days, and have just now returned. I also missed the meeting and this is helpful to catch up. There's a lot of data to sift through and you have done much research. Just to base line me, which of the three alternatives do you support?

CaptainDave...

Have you driven the roadways connecting to our port area much lately? i did during the storm and have to agree that the area is in dire need of improvement.. and that need will only increase with the investment currently going into SoDo... investment that has little to do with our uber-competetive port...

and.. isn't that a moot point anyway? That work will be done regardless of which, (if any) option, is eventually built...

so what we are really looking at is cost above and beyond... not eliminating that cost with either plan...

as for the tunnel grade... is truck traffic during rush hour really going to be a huge issue there? my understanding is that the majority of the truck traffic on the viaduct now service the downtown core area which wouldn't be likely to be in tunnels that have no access to the core area...

and.. there is a huge distance between 6th av and hiway 99.. so something would have to be built to take traffic from the existing 99 to 6th to enter the tunnel...

from the standpoint of integration to the existing freeway network in Seattle, i can see why a 6th Av bore would make sense...

but any way you look at it, it looks like a lot more money by the time you build all of the connecting arterials that would make this plan make sense... and right now i am not so sure it is money well spent...

i have to wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to do a future plan for a tunnel that bypasses the downtown core area and connects to the other freeways (the 6th Av bore) ... actually relieving I-5 congestion..

instead of using the current need for a viaduct replacement to construct a bypass tunnel that connects up to aurora avenue....

because without substantial federal dollars.. any other use for that tunnel is a future projection that may well come to nothing...

and without public transit options... (or trains as you propose) those dollars seem less likely...

Length: While there is no information available that I have found regarding the exact locations of the tunnel portals on the lowland route, I am told that it is proposed to be aprox 2.2 miles. An Odometer reading of the 6th between the proposed portals is also about 2.2 miles.

I am not aware of core samples on the 6th Ave route. However, the depth of the tunnel may not be much deeper than the basements of some of the buildings on either side, so there is a fair amount of data available I am told due to the various construction projects over the years.

Tide Level: You are incorrect to state that the lower route is above tide level. The surface streets in the SoDo District are only about 4 feet above high tide. The 1903 rail tunnel under Seattle is also about 4 to 6 feet above sea level. For the lowland tunnel route to get below the first and second avenue street level and rail tunnel, it will need to be constructed well below sea level. A scientist specializing in urban coastlines, who attended our meeting last night, stated that coastal cities should not plan to build critical infrastructure near the shore due to the potential of sea level rise over the next 50 years. It is also not a comforting though that there is evidence the the Puget Sound has experienced 15 to 30 tsunamis from seismic events in the past. - which could flood a lowland tunnel.

Clay or rock? I am recently told that modern boring machines self adjust their cutters to accommodate a wide range of substrates and that the diameters that we are looking at move at about 35 ft per day regardless of substrates. Soft wet ground does still have more challenges however. As far as obstructions, there is more of a chance of running into some uncharted obstructions along the lower route. There is an unknown number of large iron ship hulls that were beached and buried in the vicinity of the SoDo District prior to the tide flats being filled in.

Agencies: I don't know specifically where the cut off is for the different agencies that deal with shoreline issues.

Modular: In this case, I believe it would be better for Seattle to build toward an integrated infrastructure then to patch things together based on a 60 year old layout. However, I agree that in plan view (without the SoDo Expressway) the First Avenue alignment would be better. However, It seems to me (based on the WSDOT elevation illustrations) that there may be some rather steep hills to contend with because of the depth of the lowland tunnel route. - This will be a problem for trucks especially at rush hour. With the SDOT updates to the West Seattle Freeway, there will be a lot more people heading into town along 4th avenue, so I do not believe that the miss alignment of the 6th Ave entrance would be all that dysfunctional of a situation since there are a number of large intersections between 4th and 6th. The city owns 100 ft of right-of-way down 6th so there is a lot that can be done there on the cheap if need be.

Tax payer money: There is always a need to monitor the balance between the costs of study vs. action. I wish I did not have to get involved in this as I would have wanted (and expected) our government to consider and weigh out all obvious corridor alignments instead of focusing so much energy on the congested waterfront for so long. The only reason I am involved is because I believe that our tax money is not being spent for the better interests of everyone who lives here. $1.1 billion of the $2.8 billion is already committed to reworking the stretch of roadway south of the viaduct. - mostly to benefit the Kingdom of the Port of Seattle. With the world economies in the tank, and imports drastically down, the last thing we need to do is expand our port facilities. You speak of wasting money? How about getting the Port of Seattle to work in conjunction with the Port of Tacoma so that washington tax payers did not have to fund the competitive battles they have with each other. Between the two ports, they now have excess capacity than what will be needed for years to come. Why should a bunch of the viaduct replacement money be used to expand port capability at this time? The plans were drafted at the top of an inflated market and have not been changed to accommodate current (and projected) economic conditions. This new port-centric infrastructure may become obsolete before it is ever needed.

Why it should be studied: It is critical to keep the main arterioles flowing efficiently for the people who work and live here.- now and in the future. A traffic system needs to be designed to support domestic business over foreign trade if we are going to have a sustainable local economy to fund social services and schools. According to some experts who have looked at our plan, it is possible that it offers a more balanced solution for the general population of Seattle.

CaptainDave..

Some aspects of this trouble me...

in the first place, it doesn't look like the two routes are equal in length.. and if they are it appears there must be some surface or elevated transport that has to be constructed with the 6th av route...

and while the 1st Av route has deep core samples existing for 70% of the route... you don't mention any existing core samples for the upper route... on which your supposition that it will be easier drilling should be based.

The lower route is above the tide level... though i don't know if it is deep enough to be in rock...

so is it easier to drill through clay or rock? certainly rock is easier to remove...

and doesn't it being above the tide level eliminate a few of those agencies that you say have to work together to get this thing built?

you asked me earlier why i assumed that the 6th av bore would be more difficult that the light rail bore... i base that assumption upon it's length, it's depth, and the increased number of subterranean obstacles in it's path.. it's proximity to other tunnels existing along parts of it's route and to the I-5 ditch next to it... not to mention the difficultly of isolating the tunnel bore sites and resulting construction traffic from the existing core area urban travel patterns...

as for your statement that your plan would be modular... isn't that another way of saying you are selling a plan that will be only partially funded by the cost analysis that is generated?

In a tunnel to tunnel comparison, the 6th Av tunnel might not look so good in comparison to the 1st Av tunnel without that SoDo expressway.. and as we know all too well, even with a mandate.. there is really no guarantee that would ever be built...

the monofail was a great idea... had a mandate... and didn't get built.

Let's look apples to apples.. because so far we have no guarantee that anyone is bringing caramel to the party to dip them in....

How much of my taxpayer money do you want to spend so that we can analyze the possibility of a system that will be only partially funded and may never connect up to West Seattle in any meaningful way at all?

You probably have enough clout to carry this at least that far.. as a marketer.. you are good.

But i am not convinced that it's in the public's best interests to be spending our very limited funds right now so that this project can get political bandwidth...

How much is that review going to cost us????

did you know that they have already cut funds for social services and schools... and are probably going to take a big bite out of the medical safety net that those under medicare age currently have? And that cuts in funding will only get worse as unemployment rises? Did you know Boeing is talking about laying off 2000 people this year?

It might be easy to write off the aged and socially disenfranchised..

but not fully funding schools is bankrupting our future human capital...

and we can't just build that later.

So explain to us again why it is good for us.. the working people of west seattle.. to fund the preliminary reports that will have to be done before this option can even be considered at this time....

JoB: the two proposed tunnel routes are actually roughly the same length. The upland route has less legal issues since it is within existing public right-of-way. It is also though ground that is high and dry above the sea level. The cost per mile estimate is based on research Cascadia had done for the lowland route. I do not know how much less it would be for the highland (6th Ave) route. - presumably, less difficulty will result in some cost savings. Cascadia explained last night at the meeting that they have been pretty conservative with estimates to ensure that they would be on the high side. That is why they were not pleased when WSDOT padded those estimates with even higher costs.

How to Pay for it? We are pushing to include both tunnel rouets into an EIS (Environmental Impact Study) so that it can go to the next step of being costed out by the DOT. Our plan can be modular. in other words, it is possible for the tunnel to be built and utilized before the SoDo Expressway portion is built.

captaindave..

you just gave a cogent argument for making sure that we get the most benefit for our dollar...

if we were to go for a deep bore tunnel.. the one along 1st is substantially shorter.. and still goes from point a to point b...

At 600 million per mile, one would think every inch counts...

and if it is the same size.. could still carry the same amount of traffic and trains...

so.. one has to ask.. what is the advantage of drilling further to run this under 6th?

i was hoping for a report the meeting.. my eyes were too inflamed to drive...

did you get answers to the million dollar question.. how will we pay for this?

JoB: The cost of getting it wrong would be devastating to the region. Seattle politicians have departed from the strategy of having a tax base reliant on self sustained industry to one that relies on escalating property values. I believe that this house of cards will fall when people can't get to work and businesses can't ship goods effectively.

CaptainDave...

yes, the numbers for the bored tunel option do include other costs.. like the 30% of the proposed route that has not yet had deep core sampling.. and the cost of the environmental statement.. and .. and..

and of course there are the costs incurred evaluating the project...

Since the taxpayer ends up paying for all of those costs in the final bill.. such as the costs we will incur if you convince people to put enough pressure on the governor to evaluate your plan before making a decision... it's only fair to include them in the tab...

i will try to make it to the market tonight but am struggling with an eye condition.. so we will see.

JoB:

I am told that $2 billion for the first avenue tunnel alignment is a wrong number for comparison since it includes a range of unrelated issues. Cascadia's experts conclude that tunneling is $600 million per mile for boring a tunnel. This is a number consistent around the world with other tunnel projects using the same equipment. The first avenue Tunnel proposed by Cascadia is estimated to cost $1.2 billion as with the 6th avenue route if we do only one tube.

Both alignments are talking about using same diameter bore. it's just that we would like to see six lanes + 2 rail lines rather than just 4 lanes. But that is up to the engineers to figure out. According to extensive research work done by Cascadia regarding cost, a bored tunnel option is within the cost range of the other options. Best way to get a reality check on bored tunnel costs is to spend an evening reviewing TunnelBuilder.com They list all the active tunnel projects and costs around the world.

There are some who would like people to believe that bored tunnels are more expensive then they really are. For example, Frank Chops today apparently made a number of blatantly wrong statements to the press regarding the bored tunnel option - saying that it was turned down by voters (implying that it was the same as the cut-n-cover tunnel) and that it would be much more expensive than his waterfront viaduct shopping mall idea.

Grace Architects has done the work so far on a pro bono basis.

Look forward to meeting you (and anyone else) for a lively discussion this evening at Pike Place Market!

CaptainDave..

My daughter has been technically employed by the US govt for the past 4 years since that is who funded her initial PhD grant at Virginia Tech.

She is now technically employed by the state of Virginia since that is who is now funding her PhD grant at Virginia Tech.

She is working on deep soil mixing... and that work is being done in connection with The US Army Corp of Engineers for the levies in New Orleans. She is also doing contract work for the corp on a levy project that i think is being done in Alabama.

Her goal for her PhD project is to create a new simplified tool for field engineers trying to calculate the properties of deep soil in their projects. (ok.. that's a really really simplified picture of what she is trying to do...)

I have not named the geotech engineering company she worked for here or the one she worked for in Denver who now have an office here i think or the other two geotech engineering firms she spoke very highly of to avoid any conflict of interest.

Her only connection to them at present is a deep and abiding mutual respect, the friendship that grew out of that and a continuing interest in the science that makes our homes, bridges, freeways and dams safer.

At present, it is far more likely that she would be employed by the University than by one of those firms when and if she returns to Seattle... but at this point any talk about possible employment is just a wild guesstimate.

Sorry.. but i wanted to be sure you had full disclosure...

i'd publish her name too because i am really proud of her accomplishments and she googles really well.. but that would disclose the name of the engineering firm she worked for here.

You can find them.. and the other good goetechnical firms in the Seattle area by looking for the companies employed to do analysis for the viaduct replacement by WSDOT and SDOT. I am not sure.. but i think they were even employed on the light rail project.. i don't remember if they got any of the tunnel work.

My bias towards good geotech work is a desire to drive over bridges and through tunnels without worrying what will happen to that structure if an earthquake hits while i am there....

so yes, you could say i have a vested interest... the same one shared by everyone who uses those structures.

My daughter's dinnertime conversation only served to educate me about both the complexity of the issues and the need to look at the big picture...

is that full disclosure? it's certainly far more than most of the people reading this thread wanted to know ;(

btw.. i did like how you phrased your disclosure.. that you did not currently have a paying client on this project:)

and i gotta ask.. who paid for all that work you just mentioned in post 45. did grace architects donate their work for that? somehow i think that the donations for this go beyond the cost of a website ;~>

so what does full disclosure mean to you?

it doesn't really matter because i am not engaged in a pissing contest but a search for the kind of information that would let people make informed decisions...

What this city lacks is a comprehensive transit plan which includes public transit and roads... and in this city.. waterways.

While your tunnel proposal may or may not be a good proposal on it's own... it certainly does not speak to the whole...

And we are still left asking the million dollar question.. who will pay for this?

The governor's budget is 2.8 billion... total... which won't cover the cost of the 6th av tunnel project...

so where is the money going to come from for the second project linking west seattle to I-90... or the one linking to 100... those interchanges marked as possible on your diagram...

and I am not entirely sure i see how they are an improvement on the current direct route from west seattle to I-5 to I-90 once they too fill with traffic.

the best case scenario for the cost of the bored tunnel along the 1st av corridor is 2 billion... and as you have pointed out to us that tunnel is not nearly the breadth or scope of the tunnel proposed along 6th...

while i admit that the layered rail access might well qualify your project for inclusion when it comes to federal dollars... it's no guarantee..

and the "sweetener" you are throwing in for West Seattle isn't part of that project at all.

Nor does your project address the waterfront issues... or the seawall... which are both pressing concerns for the City of Seattle.

anyone want to go to that meeting tonight with me?

this could be entertaining ;)))))

westseattledood: Here is a pdf of the overall Seattle Tube alignment scheme.

http://seattleTube.org/blogContent/seattle%20tube%20-%20draft2_small.pdf

We have done lots of detail drawings, measurements and overlays on various sections of the route as a fit check so to speak. But we don't want to put off engineers who have much more knowledge of the rules and regulations regarding traffic structures. Our job we feel is to provide a strong system concept, but to allow for as much latitude as possible for the traffic, transit, geotech and other civil engineers to work out the details. Our goal is to get this on the table for an Environmental Impact Study along with the other potential tunnel alignment suggested by Cascadia.

Hmmm..lots of details CaptainDave, but ya' know schematics would definitely help for folks such as I. Well, maybe just me - who knows.

Has anybody supporting this or at Grace stepped up and put drawings online? Surely in it's conceptualization, drawings were made, yes?

Or link and mark up a google map, or something, eh?

Our proposed SoDo Expressway would extend from an intersection on the First Avenue rail yard bridge at Diagonal St. to just south of the I-90 ramps where it would descend down to the tunnel entrance. It would span over the West Seattle freeway (like 99) and remain at the same elevation until it cleared the new transit rail bridge (roughly the same elevation as I-5. Between the Sound Transit bridge and the tunnel, it would be about the same elevation as the West Seattle Freeway. There is about 100 feet of city right of way down 6th avenue south which is plenty of room for a up to six lanes + emergency lanes in a side by side configuration. However, engineers may consider a double deck structure also. 6th Avenue South would remain available under the structure.

We envision a northbound onramp off the eastbound west seattle freeway at the new 4th avenue exit planed by SDOT and a southbound off-ramp to the westbound lanes of the West Seattle Freeway. There is an article on our blog (blog.seattletube.org) about how we propose to integrate with the new west Seattle Freeway project now underway. The west seattle ramp to the SoDo expressway would be a "fly-over" which will allow higher speeds then the existing 99 loop ramp.

We also are proposing a full interchange at I-90 for both north and southbound directions. This is one of the key advantages of our plan. it will allow for West Seattle and Ballard traffic to access I-90 without getting on I-5. This should have the effect of reducing the I-5 bottleneck and the Mercer Mess.

The SoDo Expressway can be constructed with a cost efficient functional design with less regard to aesthetics than the waterfront expressway idea since it is situated in an industrial area.

Of course traffic engineers will need to determine weather 4 lanes or 6 lanes are needed to carry through-town and I-90 bound traffic, but initial findings appear to indicate that there is enough room to do all this largely within public lands.

The south end alignment of the SoDo Expressway to first avenue south works better than the existing SR99 route because there are less lights and no railroad crossings.

More details available at tomorrows public forum at the Market.

CaptainDave:

Can you speak to the "Expressway" concept in detail so that folks are introduced to that piece of the 6th Ave. scenario? I think that is what it was called - the hi-speed freeway proposed over 6th Ave which is specifically addressing the WS and Valley commuters, yes?

Where might the tolls go in all of this?

It's not been explicitly mentioned here yet. Details would be good.

JoB: I have tried to answer your questions below, but best to come to the meeting tomorrow for better clarification:

Why hasn't this idea been considered until now? I don't know exactly why a 6th avenue tunnel alignment has not been discussed. It might simply be that WSDOT is a reactionary bureaucracy doing what they were told to do - that is replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. They or anyone else was not told to look for other alignment possibilities outside the box. Sometimes, it is easier for an outsider to see possibilities since they are not aware of the bureaucratic boundaries.

How can it be studied and built in less than 12 years? - The big delays occur when so many disagree. If we can solve 90% of everyone's issues, than I believe it will go rather quickly. Like the narrows bridge, sound transit system, Brightwater tunnel, etc. If we have a clear collective vision and desire, it will happen faster. Why do you think the conditions are more challenging than the Sound Transit Tunnel? I am told the substrate conditions are similar.

How do we pay for it? I am far from a funding expert. But because of our 6th avenue alignment and potential to reduce traffic on I-5 along with our proposal to carry a rail line under the car decks, we stand a chance of obtaining funds from federal sources more than the waterfront option does. There is also the option for the city to sell or lease some of the waterfront property to offset some costs. I hate the idea of toll though.

Suspicions: Again, I nor any of my family has any financial ties or employment with any government agency, contractor, tunneling company, downtown property owner, cruise line or any other major corporate entity that would immensely benefit from influencing the viaduct decision. However, I am private citizen and not a politician, so it really should not matter anyway. You say that your daughter is an expert and discusses the seawall issue with you frequently? Is she employed by someone who has anything to do with the seawall? If so, it may appear that you have your own agenda here. :)

Gridlock: we are proposing that the existing viaduct remains in use until construction is completed. As you might remember, studies and plans were done to look at what it would take to reinforce the existing viaduct with external steal structures at a fraction of the cost of new construction. I have had discussions with the folks who worked on that project and they have convinced me that the viaduct can be kept safe to use for quite some time if necessary. It does NOT have the design flaws of the ill fated Cypress Viaduct that fell in the San Francisco earthquake.

Simple is a relative term: I am told that seven different government agencies need to coordinate to do anything on the waterfront before a project even starts - that dose not include the utility companies and railroad who also has certain rights on the waterfront. Any transportation infrastructure adaptation of this magnitude is complex compared to smaller scale projects, but in relative terms, boring a tunnel under 6th avenue seems to be a cake walk compared to all the issues along the waterfront. Our sixth avenue route is through dry, stable public land on the entire route.

Earthquake: Again, our high and dry" route is well above the water table and sediment along the waterfront and is not in a liquefaction zone as indicated on the seismic maps.

Seawall: again it is not a transportation concern if we tunnel under 6th avenue, therefor the city does not have to spend as much on it to make it secure for things like a bicycle and foot traffic.

Two Tunnels: Yes, there are two different alignments being discussed. Cascadia is talking about more of a compromise that can be sort of worked in after the surface street option is bought off on. The Cascadia tunnel is a single tube, 2-lane in each direction with a alignment on first or 2nd Ave and a connection somehow with the existing viaduct route. The Seattle Tube is a complete 6 lane + rail reroute of SR99 onto the 6th ave. right of way that solves other transportation problems too. Think of the Cascadia Tunnel as the "happy meal", and ours as the "whole enchilada". Either tunnel is better than the two options on the table and both will be discussed at tomorrows meeting.

Huindekmi: The ultimate rendition of the Seattle Tube 6th avenue tunnel would have an egress in the middle of downtown near Seneca. You will have to come to the meeting to learn more about that, but it is a very cool discovery made by a survey done by Grace Architects.

westseattledood: Totally agree with improving the ferry district and a renewal of the old Mosquito fleet runs, but that is probably a subject for another thread. I think vancouver has an excellent balance of recreational, transit , and port facilities along its shoreline. It was largely the inspiration for to spend time re-thinking Seattle's situation.

About the downtown exit thing -

I saw one of the 1st Ave tunnel promoters on TV. He said not only will funding issues be addressed, but also that the exits can easily be reevaluated, paraphrasing his words. This was right after the decision, so don't hold me to verbatim.

Folks might want to envision the inclusion of our new Ferry District in any discussions of capacity and access to not just downtown but on the Eastside too. That would be amazing to see that level of cooperation and leadership operating, however, wouldn't it also be amazing to see the Demonstration Routes stepped up a few years ahead of their originally proposed debut?

I think it would be friggin' fantabulous to include ferries immediately in a new "surface" scenario. Heck, if this much money is going to be spent toward a vision of a spectacular waterfront, then let's just bloody go for it across the board. We've lost the Monorail, it seems, so let's supplant it with a mosquito fleet. Now. While the momentum is there.

Find the money, docks and whatever else is needed before the cruise ships growth absorbs all the "motorized" carrying capacity, if you will, for sustainable transportation on the Sound. Though it does seem to me that the cruise ships on the Sound seem to be doing a good job of not discharging in the sound, or even within State waters.

If you haven't heard enough already, here are a few other sites to check out:

http://www.portseattle.org/seaport/cruise/
http://kingcountyferries.org/

I linked the Vancouver BC water transportation agencies that I was aware of on the post above. Maybe take a gander at those, as well as the above.

I realize none of what I say here on the forum matters to the Big Deciders, but who knows what the tipping point of an idea is, really?

Huindekmi - that is exactly my understanding. None of the options have an exit at Seneca (or anywhere in the downtown core).

The tunnel proposal has just as much egress to downtown Seattle as the elevated replacement that made the "final two".

Somewhere along the way, the vetting committee determined that an exit/entrance in SODO and another on one side or the other of the Battery Street Tunnel is more than enough.

Regardless of the solution implemented, we are assured to have less capacity and reduced access to downtown. <_<

charlabob.. thanks for posting this link.. i just finished listening to the broadcast and can see why you came away favoring the tunnel...

but i had real moment of disconnect when they talked about where the proposed tunnel would go.

According to this broadcast.. the deep bore tunnel option that is still under consideration would basically go under 1st and 2nd.. starting around King St Station and ending the other side of battery tunnel... and it does not appear to include egress to downtown Seattle...

On that option all but 30% of the possible route has deep core samples already.... and is projected to cost around 2 billion... and would cause minimal disruption of current traffic patterns... and thus minimal disruption to current businesses...

in comparison to the open trench tunnel option which would have basically shut down the waterfront for 10 years...

in the meantime, improvements to I-5 (mainly non-construction changes if i understood them correctly.. but possibly including closing the senaca st exit...) were projected to divert about 30% of the current viaduct load...

if i read things correctly, it seems we may be discussing two different proposals here...

So Captain Dave.. what gives?

KUOW had an interesting discussion of tunnel options on Weekday this morning: http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=16672

I have to admit I haven't followed thid closely; I have trouble dealing with the compulsive inability of Seattleites to "disagree and commit" so I assume whatever they decide this month will be re- and un-done many times before I drive through a tunnel or down a street. Having said that, I came away from the broadcast favoring the tunnel. (Much to my surprise).

CaptainDave...

i don't know...

nor am i sure i would welcome this burr under your saddle if i were you:)

we will see how i feel tomorrow.. if i am up to it i may attend... if only to meet you:)

btw.. welcome to the West Seattle Blog Forum...

JoB: I have to go to work to pay the mortgage, but I will try to answer these questions sometime tonight to the best of my laymen's ability. Lots of good questions. Are you planning on coming to our public forum tomorrow night? We will have a couple of experts who can answer some of these questions better than I.

CaptainDave...

thanks for speaking to us as adults...

Your article in PugetSoundMagazine.. which i occassionally read btw.. was two years ago...

if this option were a cost effective option for the city, why has it only grown legs now?

We have been given a mandate to find a short term solution to the viaduct replacement...

how do you expect a bored tunnel at least three times the length of the one for the light rail and bored in much more challenging conditions to be investigated, approved and built within that time frame?

When you think it will take less than 12 years.. are you thinking just construction or actual process from beginning to end.. since the time required for the investigation and approval process often exceeds the time required for construction?

at best, all this option will do for the traffic gridlock during construction that you are throwing up as a reason for investigating this will be to postpone the traffic gridlock while this is fought out politically and is or isn't constructed.

and then there is that ugly question that everyone seems to want to avoid.. how will we pay for this?

One of the factors narrowing the current replacement options to two was the need to pay the difference between what the governor has budgeted and the actual costs..

That is where Cascadia and their connections to the company constructing the light rail bored tunnel come in, isn't it... and their answer is tolls.

Ask those who live in West Seattle if they would like to pay a toll to drive from here to downtown every day... or to access I-90 quickly and conveniently..

barring some money falling from the federal sky and our governor deciding to spend it on this transportation project.. that is what it is going to take to finance a bored tunnel option.

i don't count on the federal money not having public tansportation strings tied to it.. and public transit doesn't appear to be one of the features of this proposal... it's all about how to move individuals in cars more quickly and efficiently...

I am not a conspiracy theorist.. far from it... but i do follow the money.. that is the business interests.. and the talent... that appears to be you...

and have a deep suspicion of anyone offering "simple" solutions to complex problems.

in the current financial climate, i would be far more inclined to back a tunnel option that gave us the added benefit of reinforcing the sea wall than one which would still create the same gridlock problems and leave us with the cost of the reinforcing seawall.

and that's before any geotechnical considerations... which will have to be faced regardless of which viaduct alternative is built.

We live in an earthquake zone... and clay is at best a bowl full of jelly during an earthquake...

Now.. putting one of those bored tunnels under the bay.. as they mostly did in San Francisco... might get traction:)

Waterworld: The Seattle Tube route appears to be north of the Seattle Fault Zone and east of the waterfront liquefaction zones. Also, I suspect liquefaction zones may not be as troublesome for modern bored tunnels since they are closer to being neutrally buoyant than above ground structures. - In other words, they may have a tendency to float upward rather than sink if anything. But I am not a geotech engineer. However, just think of the jellow the SF BART tunnel runs through and it has survived several earthquakes.

Thank you for posting those links.

Here is a link to the original shoreline of Elliot Bay (It is also a large file - You have to select the dot on the map for Elliot Bay and wait a while): http://riverhistory.ess.washington.edu/tsheets/framedex.htm

JoB: Regarding the finance issue. It is all grass roots funding so far. Actual cash out of pocket is about six bucks per month for the web hosting for the last two years. All the programing photography and graphics I did myself except for the great work that Grace Architects has recently contributed at no charge. It really did not take a whole lot of marketing work to get this in the media. As mater of fact, it was KIRO who recently approached me in mid December asking if I would do an interview on the Dori Monson Show. There is no well connected PR firm or deep pocket ad agency behind this. People just want to see a better solution than what's on the table now.

I first publicized the idea in an article I wrote for PugetSoundMagazine.com two years ago for which I am an editor. Puget Sound Magazine is dedicated to covering water centric news and local travel information. The viaduct issue has a direct impact on the Seattle waterfront and Seattle's relationship with Puget Sound. What was originally intended to be an inspiring article, has now developed into a movement though the encouragement of friends, neighbors and a few astute media folks browsing Google. I, along with many others living around the city stand to benefit if the viaduct is replaced with a bored tunnel for all the reasons I mention on the Seattle Tube web site. As you have found, I have been involved with many kinds of businesses over the years providing unique solutions to complex problems. However, the Seattle Tube project I started does not have a paying client at this time. You should think about coming to our scheduled public meetings and meet the people involved to hopefully dispel your suspicions of our efforts.

So much has been posted here and in a related thread suggesting bias or a hidden financial agenda on the part of the Tube promoters. I think it's worth pointing out that one of the chief critics on the board, who comments that geotechnical information could easily be gotten from a local firm, has a family member in that business. My only point is that it's so easy to make these kinds of assumptions and so difficult to discern the reality.

Speaking for myself, I do have a lot of questions, and many concerns about costs, yet I nonetheless appreciate the addition of a completely different kind of option to the mix. If, as the promoters suggest, they lack answers to hard questions about costs and risks because they lack the funding to do the necessary studies, then time will (I hope quickly) help us vet the proposal.

A couple of things also seem clear. The seawall is a critical issue, regardless of what viaduct replacement option we adopt. While that can be budgeted elsewhere, the cost will not be eliminated by the Tube proposal. This is a neutral issue, though, since we pay for it regardless of what viaduct-replacement option we choose.

Also, I checked the USGS map of soils in the area, a huge file available at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1252/of2005-1252.pdf

as well as a kind of crappy Seattle map of liquefaction zones, available at

http://www.seattle.gov/emergency_mgt/pdf/Shiva_11_Liquefaction_and_Slide_Areas.pdf

and it appears from both that the Tube path may be through liquefaction zones. As others have already mentioned, though, there are already two or three tunnels in the downtown area through these same geologic zones. For all I know, the soils issues are more of cost problem than a safety problem.

I'm far from being on board, but I have an open mind about it.

The Battery St tunnel gets very deep puddles in it every time it rains. Deep enough to float a Volkswagen. If the city does not maintain that tunnel, I don't feel reassured that a deeper tunnel would be maintained.

TD West Seattle...

thanks for posting.. i am not trying to be dismissive...

i just think there is a whole lot of information that is being glossed over here that is really important to disclose...

all i did was go to the website and follow links from that website...

i have no doubt that there is no direct money making happening at this point.. but it wasn't too hard to find out where the marketing and political connections driving this come from with just a limited amount of research this afternoon.

And.. i have to say that i question the wisdom of spending more money and delaying the process further at the eleventh hour without some serious discussions of the implications of this that goes far beyond basic plumbing and century old engineering information.

I would guess that a breakdown on the geotechnical information you need to proceed could be had for a very limited amount of money from either of the top local geotechnical firms here in town since they have already studied most of the issues involved through working with other projects... and did work for the viaduct replacement assessments.

a less expensive option would be soliciting a volunteer.. i would bet that an advanced geotech engineering student at the University of Washington could do a search that would produce the basic information you need off public sources in a relatively small period of time...

This is a far more complicated issue than is being presented... And a far more expensive option as well.

Perhaps that is why the governor's office suggested a connection with Cascadia..

they have a plan in place that will pay for the work...

the marketing guy... Dave Petrick founder of Citizens for Seattle Tube...

now he IS interesting...

http://www.pdsinnovation.com/bio.php

Thank you so much TD West Seattle -

Appreciate you jumping in and clarifying. Really.

JoB (and others concerned):

I am one of the very few people currently involved with the Seattle Tube project and can tell you for certain that your concerns about where the initiative is coming from, its ability to generate press coverage, etc., while certainly understandable, are completely unfounded. We have been working for weeks on this simply because we're not convinced of the two 'short list' alternatives' success and decided we should do whatever we could to promote a better option. We have not received a dime for our time, nor has anyone else for theirs. As for PR, Dave set up the blog himself and you can credit the graphics to yours truly (glad to see they were noticed). We got media coverage by emailing various news groups with an alternative solution to a very hot topic, and they were interested.

I believe much of the confusion about the idea comes from the fact that our study is unfunded. We don't have the financial resources to self-fund a full study of all the issues involved (traffic, roadway interchanges, etc.), nor to hire a PR firm to assist in getting the public's attention, and as a result we have sought the input of Cascadia and others with experience in tunnel boring technology in order to assess the idea's viability. Their input has been minimal but helpful, and to date their main comment on it is that it should be studied to the level that the other major options were studied. That is our primary goal - to get the governor, mayor, and others to consider an alternative that doesn't doom us to a decade of downtown gridlock while we turn the viaduct into a lower-capacity bottleneck.

More on Cascadia if you're still concerned: The only reason this idea is being linked to any of Cascadia's earlier work in terms of the public forum is that we're trying to gain support for further study of a tunnel, and the governor recently commented about Cascadia's earlier ideas for bored tunnels being the preferred alternative if financially feasible. The Seattle Tube is a different way of looking at the tunnel, boring through more predictable subsurface conditions. Our open meeting on Friday will therefore allow time for Cascadia to talk about bored tunnel technology, financial implications as they see them, etc., and will also include a discussion of the Seattle Tube proposal in its current form. If you don't like tolls and you feel that is what Cascadia will propose, show up and tell them you don't like it. We expect that our tube idea will be modified by attendees' input (in fact we hope so) so that when we meet with Ron Judd, the governor's top aid for the viaduct issue, on the 19th we have a plan that has greater public support.

Let me repeat: no one is making any money off of this, in fact quite the opposite! We are looking for input ASAP. Open forums are being held all week this week at Grace Architects' office at 1927 Post Alley in the Market, and a larger forum is scheduled for this Friday at Top of the Market (meet at the pig at 7PM). If you're a West Seattlite like me and are upset with the limited options being seriously considered at this time for a viaduct replacement please show up or give Grace a call at 206.788.4603.

why talk about the seawall and insist that it be included when talking about cost?

by following the links from the website... http://blog.seattletube.org/

i easily accessed this WSDOT information...

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/viaductSeawall.htm

which makes it clear that regardless of whether we do work on the viaduct or we choose a bored tunnel option on the east side of downtown.. the seawall problem isn't going to solve itself...

so much for the reassuring info from the century old city plans that Captain Dave referred to when the subject came up...

in fact, one thing that isn't mentioned in that link is that the process of dismantling the viaduct is likely to create enough trauma to further destabilize the seawall... we're back to that bowl full of jelly thing.. and dropping the viaduct is likely to make it shake shake shake...

Maybe that isn't something we should just ignore...

and we haven't even mentioned the possible seismic impact of the boring process on the hill directly above that seawall....

geotechnical engineering much more than simple plumbing...

and we ignore it in an earthquake zone at our peril..

JT..... I have an issue with people who present an alternative plan without giving you all of the information you need to make a decision...

in fact, to access the real information even on the blog site.. "strategic initiatives" .. you need an access code... it's there on a need to know basis.. and john Q apparently doesn't have a need to know.

bingley...... there is a big difference between businesses and business organizations donating time and space to a project and characterizing those businesses and business organizations as just concerned citizens...

and it is evasive at best not to name those businesses when asked directly where the money for this promotion is coming from.

as for this being a big story.. someone did a remarkable job of promoting it starting the last week of december.. when all those news stories that are linked appeared.

and as intended.. that buzz seems to have created a postponment that gives the organization more time for an option that even Captain Dave admits needs a more thorough review.. pushing the entire project out how much longer?

having tried to attract media attention to public service events and issues myself, i can attest to the fact that it takes a lot more than a couple of phone calls by volunteers to get that kind of attention.. it takes professional marketing. word of mouth takes a little longer to create that kind of attention in that many sources that fast...

I have no doubt we will find that the expertise that created the news buzz was either donated or paid for as a donation from one of those listed businesses...

but that does put a different spin on this grass roots citizen thing that is being promoted here...

villagegreen.... do you really want this option enough to pay for it every time you use it?

Because in the first line of Captain Dave's first post you will find "Citizens for Seattle Tube and Cascadia plan"

and you should really follow the link to them i provided above... that prospectus is crucial to understanding the push for this plan...

if you don't think making this a toll option is in your best interests... you might not be so hot for this plan...

CaptainDave openly posted his blog link several days ago while trying to introduce this idea to us. He didn't get very far because he was immediately argued with, accused of having all sorts of nefarious motives, and told he didn't know what he was talking about. All around nice reception for a new poster.

****I have been promoting a bored tunnel for two years. Hence the web site and graphics are two years old. I don't have a lot of money to hire web designers to change it as plans are upgraded. However, you can see current info on our blog which is linked on the home page (or just go to http://blog.seattletube.org****

I don't understand why it's so difficult to simply listen and consider taking him at face value. At least he's attempting to contribute, unlike some of us sitting here passing judgment.

He also never claimed to have all the answers or all the figures. He is proposing this idea be evaluated to produce answers. And someone is always going to benefit with every plan. If you want to throw away ideas on that basis, might as well leave America.

I don't give a crap if this idea is coming from concerned citizens or companies standing to profit from it. Someone is going to profit from any option that is ultimately selected. That's how Capitalism works - nothing major gets done in this country unless someone stands to make money. Sometimes that sucks, but that's the way it is.

The only thing I care about is whether the tunnel will keep the current capacity and how it will affect people trying to get downtown from WS. Personally, since I don't work downtown, I'm much more interested in how easily I'll be able to get to Ballard or Green Lake. This seems like the best solution I've heard. Obviously, we'll need to know exactly how it will be paid for, but it doesn't seem to be that much more expensive than the other (non)options.

Guess I just don't understand all the dissmisive comments right off the bat. More answers need to be provided, but that goes for any solution as far as I'm concerned. I'm more interested in hearing what they have to say rather than trying to turn this post into some intellectual debunking exercise.

These ideas are coming from concerned citizens who are donating a lot of their time to this - not paying some firm to do it for them. If you check out the plan proposed by Seattle Tube - it links you to at least one firm involved that is donating its time and office space for public meetings. A lot of this is done word of mouth - the media involves itself in things that are interesting to their audience, and this is a hot topic.

wow JoB you da wo-man! You certainly know how and where to go after it. I'm a fan...really!

What we were linked to by Captain Dave...

http://www.seattletube.org/

the job opportunity these "concerned citizens" posted...

http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/wrg/962140832.html

Where i started following links... and where i think you should too if you want to be educated about this...

http://blog.seattletube.org/

now in all fairness,

i think CaptainDave did mention this blog somewhere in either a convestation here on the forum or on the Home page... when i mentioned my Geotech daughter.. but i haven't found his link to that blog...

If you follow those links like i did, you begin to wonder why Captain Dave chose to link us to a website that is little more than a marketing tool...

I am just saying that if we are going to have this conversation, we should look a little deeper to find out who stands to benefit... and how we will ultimately pay for this...

Thanks WestSeattleDood for making me curious enough to dig a little deeper....

this is definately not your average little neighborhood blog:)

westseattledood...

yes,, i think you are right.. this is like trying to wrestle an octopus... too much ink in the way to see what i really happening...

someone is spending a significant amount of money to publicize this option.. and from the amount of recent news coverage there is an advertising or marketing firm involved...

does this sound to you like the kind of financial investment a few good joes with tools in the back of their pickups trying to get from West Seattle to the other side of town would make?

somehow, i don't buy it.

villagegreen...

i didn't say the tunnel wouldn't be safe..

i said that using a tunnel engineered using differing standards from the one proposed to illustrate safety was not good science...

Nor is using the city planning docs on the sea wall good science..

something tells me that there is good science out there... and we don't need to rely on century old information...

so why are we being given such dated information in an aw shucks manner?

David Peprich, the founder of this organization is a designer and engineer. I suspect good information is available and he knows both how to interpret it and how to relay it... so i am sure that Captain Dave has access to current information.

Using century old information is just one way to play on our emotions.. to make this citizen initiative look like it actually comes from citizens..

not from a bunch of businesspeople with a financial investment in the outcome.

go through the links on their website... all that stuff on the right hand side is pretty interesting reading..

http://blog.seattletube.org/?cat=15

You know Captain Dave.. you shouldn't get a curious woman interested...

i started following links from your website.. i think maybe not the one you directed me to but the one i found by putting your organization in google.. to see who was backing this move...

this is what i found from the cascadia group...

http://www.cascadiaprospectus.org/2009/01/commissions_report_to_urge_tra.php

It seems that this group thinks the way to fund public infrastructure is to go back to a toll system.

so who likes the idea of a bored tunnel and direct access from West Seattle to I-90 with a toll system to pay for it?

and who likes that being the only alternative to getting through and around town other than I-5?

the best investigative advice i ever got was to follow the money... and the further i follow it the shakier this citizen initiative seems.

There is also a bored Third Avenue bus tunnel under downtown. That SHOULD have been light railed, but oops, somebody muffed that up royally back in the day. That was a fun bit of Seattle debacle history. As they say, anyhoooo...

There are two tunnels being tabled in these new rounds of developments which are DIFFERENT than what Seattle voters rejected as then costed and presented to them a couple of years ago, was it?

The 6th Ave is a two (maybe three) tunnel bore and the 1st Ave tunnel is a much cheaper, narrower bore.

Here's a link to an accurate article, from what I've been able to determine, from Dec. 31.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008575577_viaduct31m.html

This REALLY is getting momentum...I think in spite of the costs.

For me, it's been somewhat reassuring to note that the discussion the planners are having is also about tweaking access to downtown on the 1st Ave proposal. And, I THINK that applies to temporary route scenarios, as well as permanent.
But, I also think that is what they are furiously working on. Gregoire called a deadline of Jan 12, but let's hope that comes and goes till the hard-working peeps on this get it all together.

But, I REALLY wish we had a more extensive Ferry District already in place. Or, private companies would step it up and carpe the dang diem. If folks would just envision what Vancouver, BC has already successfully done and use that as our model to incorporate into capacity discussions, I think it would really be revolutionary as WELL as pragmatic.

Check these links out:
http://www.theaquabus.com/visitors.htm
http://www.granvilleislandferries.bc.ca/
http://www.translink.bc.ca/Transportation_Services/SeaBus/
http://www.hellobc.com/en-CA/TransportationMaps/TransportationModes/FerryTravel/Vancouver.htm

But, what do I know? Not so much. I could be mistaken...I've just been trying to get up to some level of being better informed since they announced the two crappy choices in Dec. It's like trying to wrassle an octopus just to grasp it all. I know I haven't.

JOB - So you're worried about the tunnel thru Beacon/Bacon Hill as well? No riding the light-rail for you?

Downtown is not built on fill and a deep bore tunnel under 6th Ave would be extremely safe. It would seem your chances of encountering a sudden demise are much greater each time you use the current viaduct (or cross California Ave at a cross-walk for that matter).