Why you should comment on the newest Viaduct/Tunnel report

(WSDOT’s newest animation showing the tunnel plan and other area components)
In the Alaskan Way Viaduct project offices downtown this morning, project leader Ron Paananen led a media briefing meant to underscore the point in our headline – why you should take the time to comment on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the tunnel, officially released a week ago. Much of the discussion centered on the fact project managers believe the tunnel has to carry a toll to raise hundreds of millions of dollars – but, as the SDEIS points out, if the tunnel is tolled, there will be almost as many drivers avoiding it as drivers using it – about 45,000 daily for each. And, according to the summaries handed out at this morning’s briefing, that would affect West Seattle drivers: Not just the obvious effect, the fact that West Seattleites going downtown won’t use the tunnel because it has no exits, but the fact that the “diversion” (tunnel avoidance) will put enough traffic on other streets that it’ll increase the travel time. This morning’s presentation included:

With a tolled bored tunnel, the West Seattle to downtown and Woodland Park to downtown trips’ travel times could be 3 to 4 minutes longer than without tolls.

“No toll” is apparently not an option, but the new report does study three levels of tolling (ranging between $1 and $5 “in 2015 dollars), including one option that would only raise about a fourth of the money. It also notes that the tunnel still puts more traffic on city streets than they carry today, since it is not designed for as much capacity as the current Alaskan Way Viaduct carries – two lines in each direction compared to the current three. So if so many people would avoid the tunnel, how will gridlock be averted? The “potential tools for traffic management” listed at the briefing include:

Fine-tune toll-rate structure throughout the day
City street operations
Transit priority into and through downtown
Pedestrian and bicycle improvements
Manage parking on downtown streets
Seek additional transit funding
Active Traffic Management (ATM)

The state has started to dabble in the latter – variable speed limits, among other things. Meantime, it was asked whether tolls would continue after the loans were paid off; “That’s up to the Legislature to decide,” Paananen replied. Tolling and traffic are just part of what the SDEIS looks at; it also discusses tunnel-construction effects, such as five and a half years of 24/7 construction work with “17 potential staging areas.” But the biggest direct West Seattle effects are those travel times; you will be able to comment, and ask questions, at the public hearing/open house coming up at Madison Middle School, 6:30 pm November 16, and you can also have your say all these different ways. (The links to the entire document, including an “executive summary,” are here.)

34 Replies to "Why you should comment on the newest Viaduct/Tunnel report"

  • WS Steve November 4, 2010 (2:39 pm)

    I don’t think this should be tolled at all since it impacts traffic in the whole core of the city. Tolling will just make it worse for everyone, not just people that normally use the viaduct. We don’t toll people for other state road projects do we?

  • JAR November 4, 2010 (2:44 pm)

    how can we comment on this proposal if we cannot attend the public hearings? I am required to drive my car for my government job and have not choice, I use the viaduct and think it is really lame that there will be no way to get off in the city. That is why I thought replacement was a better option.

  • what gives? November 4, 2010 (3:09 pm)

    Thank you for reporting on this.

    Please review the SDEIS on page 17 Exhibit 2-8. You will notice that without any tolls, the travel time for West Seattle to Downtown in the morning peak period is 4 minutes worse than it would be with the existing viaduct. This is mostly a result of the removal of the Seneca / Downtown ramp that will force West Seattle commuters (including buses) to enter downtown near Quest Field, or much farther North near Mercer.

    Why exactly are we spending all this money to make things worse?

  • squareeyes November 4, 2010 (3:28 pm)

    I don’t think any bridge or tunnel should have more than $1 toll. Seriously, if 45,000 cars go through the tunnel daily at $1 per car, wouldn’t that be about $10.8M annual revenue (not including weekends)?

  • vincent November 4, 2010 (3:47 pm)

    I see basic math reigns supreme on the WSB again.

    billion = 1000 million

    tunnel before overruns is supposed to cost > 2 billion, most real estimates are double so 4 billion

    At $1 per trip the loan, because we have zero money in the bank to pay for this foolish project, affectionatly called the billionaires tunnel, without interest would take 90 years to repay. Since bonds with bad credit ratings, which this project has a horrible one, have to pay out higher, its easy to forecast a dollar toll taking more than 100 years to pay out.

    None of this accounts for what it costs to create a toll system and the new bureaucracy to run it.

    6-9 dollars a trip is much more likely. Especially given what tolls nationally look like.

  • JunctionMonkey November 4, 2010 (3:53 pm)

    SOOOOO….. with a project cost of 2.16 Billion dollars and a $1/car toll providing 10.8 Million dollars/year…… it will take only…..drum roll please…..

    200 YEARS to pay off the construction!!

    • WSB November 4, 2010 (3:56 pm)

      To be clear, the toll is only supposed to cover a particular chunk, I believe $400 million. The rest is being covered through other sources of funding.

  • CB November 4, 2010 (4:04 pm)

    I just don’t understand how the city can build something that will make traffic worse, have less lanes, and no exits to downtown. It doesn’t make sense to me.

  • ltfd November 4, 2010 (4:29 pm)

    There was an article/link a few weeks ago (on either seattletimes or seattlepi’s website) from an architecture firm hired by the City, estimating downtown street car/pedestrian traffic after the Tunnel’s implementation.
    .
    The report from the firm basically stated that in all four envisioned scenarios, the pedestrian experience at street level in downtown (including the highly touted new “Boardwalk”) will be poor-to-bad. This is primarily due to the number of predicted vehicles that will transit the various roadways- Alaskan Way, Western Ave, 1st/2nd/3rd Avenues, etc. This report covered all four scenarios for various configurations/tolls/traffic control mechanisms.
    .
    The most depressing part of the report was the statement that ambient noise along the new waterfront (due to passing vehicles) will preclude normal conversation levels, and will severely impact pedestrian movement to the waterfront. Oh well. Like Camelot, it was a good dream.

  • michael November 4, 2010 (4:41 pm)

    another project to make some corporation very rich !!

  • Vanessa November 4, 2010 (5:26 pm)

    Are you serious? No exits to go to downtown Seattle? Did some of the pages fall out of the engineers plans? Seriously?

  • velo_nut November 4, 2010 (5:48 pm)

    Are you all retarded? I always hear… ” no exits downtown?”

    the exits are right BEFORE downtown each direction. This reduces downtown congestion and speeds flow through the tunnel.

    Dig baby… DIG!!!!

    Mayor McMumbles needs to get out of the way so this thing can happen.

    SEATTLE NEEDS THE TUNNEL!!!!!!

    • WSB November 4, 2010 (6:30 pm)

      also, it should be noted (and we have noted this multiple times before) that the 4th Avenue exit from the eastbound Spokane Street Viaduct, the entirety of which is being widened, is meant to replace some of the capacity and provide a different way to get downtown, albeit from the south. – TR

  • JayDee November 4, 2010 (6:30 pm)

    Before anyone else dismisses the idea of no-toll, consider this: Every non-bridge transportation project was built and paid for without tolls. Like the idea that ferries or buses have to “pay their way”…why? I-5 or I-405 don’t pay their way yet they were funded, built and maintained (sort of). Tolling works when there are limited options available, rendering the tolls semi-palatable like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and the original 520 span (which I suspect was paid for before I-90 was the behemoth it is now). Nothing says it can’t be done because it has.

  • k November 4, 2010 (7:28 pm)

    no tunnel for me. i will avoid it.

  • gee November 4, 2010 (7:53 pm)

    So to sum it all up West Seattle residents will be the primary payers of the tolls. What a gift to the rest of the city. The tunnel is ridiculous. It was voted down and then shoved down our throats and now look where we are holding the bag. Watch West Seattle housing drop even more as we all flee this mess.

  • AlkiResident November 4, 2010 (8:00 pm)

    I (still) think a tunnel is a terrible idea. I can’t believe someone thinks it makes sense to build something with a lower car capacity than what is currently in use. I am pretty sure Seattle will continue to grow (therefore increasing the number of cars on the road)…and no, public transportation is not the answer.

  • I. Ponder November 4, 2010 (8:35 pm)

    Build it already. The animation looks great. Tolls on a major thruway are ridiculous, but I suppose that’s what America’s coming to. Pay as you go on everything. That’s part of our declining standard of living.

    I did notice the new 4th ave. s. exit. Nicely done advance work in anticipation of the viaduct being torn down.

  • tk November 4, 2010 (9:42 pm)

    In the tolling report that came out earlier this year, there was a pie chart showing how much of our toll dollars would go to paying off the $400M and how much would go towards toll collection infrastructure, overhead, technology, etc. If I recall right it was only close to 5O cents on the dollar…why bother? There must be a more efficient way of paying off the debt than wasting so much. I definitely can’t afford $10/day to drive to Ballard or Freemont and busses will take all day (with the 40,000 extra cars on the roads avoiding the tunnel fees).

  • redblack November 5, 2010 (6:09 am)

    the pedestrian experience answer on the waterfront is simple. anyone attending these meetings should suggest that the council adopt noise level restrictions on alaskan way by using recycled tires as aggregate in the pavement.
    .
    they should also plan for a lidded utility corridor under sidewalks or green space – not roadways – to avoid traffic disruptions if utility maintenance needs to be done.
    .
    another idea would be to build lots of pedestrian overpasses to connect downtown walkers with the waterfront instead of peppering alaskan way with crosswalks and traffic lights. parking should all take place east of the roadway.
    .
    colman dock traffic should overpass alaskan way, but be able to enter the flow of north/south traffic at speed with entrance ramps.
    .
    just my $.02. sorry i don’t have a fancy computer movie.
    .
    as far as the tunnel goes, go ahead and toll yourselves; i’ll pay the taxes, but i won’t pay the tolls. i’m going around. good luck getting a tow truck to the scene of your accident.

  • redblack November 5, 2010 (7:34 am)

    oh, and also, too, alaskan way should have light rail running down the center. maybe use some of those pedestrian overpasses for access to the train stops.

  • ellenater November 5, 2010 (9:19 am)

    Thanks for the ongoing tunnel reports, WSB.

    The more I read about it, the more I am 100% convinced the tunnel is completely and totally asinine. We MUST really stop this thing. Despite the new exits and widening, etc., we are *decreasing* our ability to deal with traffic while growth is happening population wise. Is this WISE? I just have yet to see a lot of transportation wisdom happening around these parts. I just keep going back to whoever decided to route I-5 under the convention center. Now look at it! I don’t think it’s wise to sit back and let this tunnel happen and I’m sick of all the fake math: viaduct desperately needing to be replaced does not equal tunnel. It’s all smoke and mirrors. I feel certain there is a better option. And I really doubt the public is going to see that waterfront property. It’s going to be condos and commercial developments and we will get a token 2 acre park. Yippee. As for emergency vehicles in the tunnel, I do think there has to be a lane on the side (doesn’t there!) and I think that was in the video. There are also emergency ped. exits. STILL a bad idea. You cannot re-dispurse traffic on the surface streets. Look at all the ‘options’ for traffic management. Those aren’t options! It’s just terminology!!! I get the frustration over voting for something and for how long it takes, etc., but don’t go for this stupid tunnel for those reasons. What we need to do is have a design contest and get some newcomers to come in with fresh ideas and then vote on THOSE.

    NO TUNNEL, PERIOD!

  • Kilowog November 5, 2010 (9:21 am)

    The only reason the tunnel is being proposed is to line the pockets of rich developers. They want to litter the waterfront with more ugly luxury condo ghettos. All this talk of “reclaiming the waterfront for future generations” and “safety” is garbage.

  • Rower November 5, 2010 (9:40 am)

    These comments on the blog are great, but the intent of the story is to encourage you to send your comments to WSDOT on this EIS. They are not reading your comments here.

  • ellenater November 5, 2010 (1:27 pm)

    good point!!!

  • Fiwa Jcbbb November 5, 2010 (2:06 pm)

    What the hell? What’s wrong with them? I’ll bet the ones doing their jobs are reading forums like this, it’s where the people are.

  • PSPS November 5, 2010 (5:09 pm)

    Scuttle the tunnel and do the retrofit. It will cost a tiny fraction of any other option, plus it has virtually no impact on traffic while it’s done. The end result is a safe viaduct with no reduction in traffic capacity.

  • redblack November 6, 2010 (6:11 am)

    rower: and the purpose of the “comments” section is to comment on the stories. and just because i make comments here doesn’t mean that it’s the only place i make comments.
    .
    we’re a community. we discuss things.

  • Judy November 6, 2010 (1:27 pm)

    BRING it ON!!! We need to improve the waterfront and get rid of our annoying automobile ‘first rights” attitude. Maybe people will rethink the BUS or carpool, or water taxi or…even using the light rail from SoDo. Give me a break..let’s not be so short sighted, folks! TUNNEL, ABSOLUTELY!

  • tk November 6, 2010 (1:52 pm)

    I just checked the Jan. 2010 Cost & Tolling Report. Under the heading, “What expenses would be paid out of the gross toll revenue?”:
    The pie chart shows only 63% of your toll will go toward paying off the $400M (toll part of the debt).
    Here’s where the 37% rest of your toll fees will go:
    3% Credit card fees
    3% Uncollectable Accounts
    15% Toll Collection costs
    …and then, here’s the kicker…
    13% Tunnel Operating & Maintenace costs ($5 Million/year)!!!
    …and also…
    3% Tunnel Insurance Premium ($2 Million a year)!!!

    So that’s a cool $7 Million/year operational costs tucked under the tolling expenses page- does that mean tolling will have to continue forever to keep paying for the annual $7M operational expenses? I thought tolling was to pay off only construction costs and be finished, not for the WA State highway’s ongoing operating costs!

    BTW, they don’t list it, but the 15% Toll Collection costs would be approx. $5.8 Million/year!

  • I. Ponder November 6, 2010 (6:42 pm)

    Did someone say DESIGN CONTEST? How about some kind of luge flume that utilizes the existing storm sewer system?
    Let’s harness our conveniently located natural water resources!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flume

  • redblack November 7, 2010 (6:07 am)

    i.ponder, that’s the method WSDOT will use to clear the tunnel of traffic accidents or stalls, not the tunnel itself.
    .
    i won’t go down there, and i won’t pay the toll.
    .
    have fun, CHUD.

  • Blue Collar Enviro November 13, 2010 (7:39 am)

    I pay $2 to take the bus downtown. If you can’t afford a $1 toll, how can you afford a car?

    Why should those of us who have made the environmentally conscientious choice to ride transit downtown have to help pay for a tunnel we don’t really need (and voted against), so whiny drivers can have freeways everywhere without tolls?

    We’ve voted numerous times at the ballot box to replace the personal trips on the viaduct with light rail, more buses, bike lanes, sidewalks, and RapidRide buses. Instead, the state is forcing another “free”way down our throats. The end of our transit-hating governor’s political career can’t come soon enough.

  • europeancardriver November 15, 2010 (10:03 pm)

    The tunnel is going to happen. The machines are in Seattle and the materials are piling up in Seattle.

Sorry, comment time is over.