‘1st piece of The Viaduct to be demolished’ soon to come down


(Screengrab from clickable online simulation of south-end construction, step by step)
We’re at the Sound Transit board room on the south side of downtown, where the Alaskan Way Viaduct South Portal Working Group has just wrapped up its first meeting in 3 1/2 months. This is the group charged with keeping updated on what’s planned for, and happening in, the SODO-to-West Seattle area, as the various components of the project continue. West Seattle members of the working group (full roster here) who were at today’s meeting included Jerome Cohen and Vlad Oustimovitch.

Most WS-relevant part of today’s discussion: Updates on the progress of the “south-end replacement” project – aka Holgate to King Street – which is well under way, and not dependent on what happens with the ongoing tunnel controversy. The project is headed by WSDOT’s Matt Preedy (a West Seattleite), who briefed the working group. Key points ahead: A frontage road to take pressure off 1st Avenue South will be open “in about a week”; between Atlantic and Holgate, foundations are being built for the new southbound bridge – the replacement will be side-by-side elevated sections, not the current doubledecker style – that’s why you’re seeing several large cranes; Preedy says they’ll be there for months.

Biggest of all: Over the Presidents Day weekend, according to Preedy, the first actual piece of Alaskan Way Viaduct to be demolished – the northbound 1st Avenue onramp to 99 – will come down. All lanes of 1st Avenue South will be closed between Royal Brougham and King for that work. Then up to six weeks of work are ahead while a new northbound onramp is connected. Before that, WSDOT is also working to realign the southbound offramp from 99 to the stadium area; that will be done over Valentine’s Day weekend, and when it’s complete – by the morning of Monday, Feb. 14th – you’ll exit onto Royal Brougham instead of 1st Avenue South.

Preedy also asked the working group if they have advice on whether information about the project is getting out efficiently and promptly. He mentioned one key tool – the weekly construction update (see it here if you haven’t seen it before). One group member said it might be helpful for a billboard to be up along the route with key dates; the project team noted that 99 will soon have the Intelligent Transportation Systems messaging that you’ve been seeing elsewhere (the lighted boards). West Seattle rep Oustimovitch mentioned that he’s concerned GPS systems aren’t keeping up with all the detouring and rerouting that’s just begun – he mentioned an out-of-town visitor “going in circles” trying to figure out how to get from Point A to Point B. 99 project leader Ron Paananen said a “highway advisory” radio station might be helpful. Summarized Oustimovitch – “You almost need a sign that says, ‘Ignore your GPS’!”

Back to the construction timetable – you can see the latest version by going here.

The second half of the meeting featured a presentation by the company that has won the contract to continue designing – and then, if environmental reviews are passed, to build – the deep-bore tunnel that is the state’s “preferred alternative” for replacing the central waterfront section of The Viaduct. It was mostly a recap of what’s happened in the months since the working group last happened; during Q/A, the state team was asked, what if one or both of the two anti-tunnel initiatives makes it to the ballot? WSDOT’s Paananen said he’s been tasked with proceeding with the project, and noted that, even if there is a vote in November, assuming the tunnel passes environment review and becomes the official plan in August, “We’ll be under construction by then.”

The South End Working Group’s next meeting will be sometime this spring; you can watch this page in the next few days for materials from today’s meeting.

37 Replies to "'1st piece of The Viaduct to be demolished' soon to come down"

  • Jeremiah February 2, 2011 (6:58 pm)

    I’m amazed at how quickly this section of work is progressing. Makes the timetable for the Spokane St. viaduct’s EB 4th Ave off-ramp look that more ridiculous.

  • TinkerinWS February 2, 2011 (6:58 pm)

    This is great news!

  • Two Wheels a-Go-Go February 2, 2011 (8:45 pm)

    I can’t wait for the viaduct to finally come down! That will be a great day for Seattle!

  • DM February 2, 2011 (9:25 pm)

    “The second half of the meeting featured a presentation by the company that has won the contract to continue designing – and then, if environmental reviews are passed, to build – the deep-bore tunnel that is the state’s “preferred alternative” for replacing the central waterfront section of The Viaduct”.

    You’d think the “environmental reviews” would have been concluded first, so the state could knowledably determine what was needed, from a team that could “continue” to design a deep bore tunnel…

    This is sounding like “WPPSS” or “Whoops”. I’ve been in Seattle for 30 years. Look it up. I have a very bad feeling about all of this.

  • DM February 2, 2011 (9:43 pm)

    Oops. “Foaming at the mouth me” really meant “knowledgably”. Thank you.

  • redblack February 2, 2011 (10:46 pm)

    DM: i watched the mayor on seattle tv last weekend. he said the same thing, essentially.
    .
    to paraphrase, projects of this scale aren’t typically designed, promoted, and funded before the impact studies are completed.
    .
    it seems like someone – someone with a lot of public money – is in an awful hurry to bore through downtown seattle’s glacial till and shaky bedrock.

  • DM February 3, 2011 (12:20 am)

    Hey Redblack, Did you happen to notice that the first few responses to this thread were strangely impersonal?

  • metrognome February 3, 2011 (12:31 am)

    DM — I believe the preferred alternative is always picked before the final environmental reviews are done (there is also a draft review; I don’t think the PA is determined yet.) While the reviews focus on the PA, all options under consideration are reviewed, incl. a ‘do nothing’ option. The review covers a wide variety of topics, some of which are unrelated to the physical environment (I think there is a ‘social justice’ category that looks at disparate impact on a variety of groups.)

    Here is the federal NEPA website; I’m sure if you take a minute to look on WSB, you will find a link to the state’s info on this specific project.

    http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/

  • DM February 3, 2011 (1:26 am)

    As I suspected, we’re being monitored. Heads up folks. Be aware.

  • metrognome February 3, 2011 (1:43 am)

    Redblack — as usual, the mayor knows not of what he speaks, if your paraphrase is accurate. I doubt he has ever actually been involved in a major construction project, except to go to court to try to stop it.

    Is that personal enough for you guys?

  • CandrewB February 3, 2011 (6:07 am)

    It’s coming down whether they build the tunnel or not.

  • Genesee Hill February 3, 2011 (7:15 am)

    I am happy that piece of junk is coming down soon. I hope the rest of the dangerous, ugly monstrosity is replaced by the DBT. I hope it happens in my lifetime, but I am beginning to have my doubts.

  • austin February 3, 2011 (7:47 am)

    “Did you happen to notice that the first few responses to this thread were strangely impersonal?”
    .
    ..More underhanded accusing people of being paid off by business interests when their opinion doesn’t match somebody’s black and white point of view. Why not just be a total internet cliche and go straight to the nazi comparisons?

  • NotMe February 3, 2011 (7:51 am)

    It’s funny how people start to insinuate that some sort of doomsday is coming if “they” build that tunnel. It’s also a good thing that all of the world’s foremost experts are on THIS blog to solve the issues, too.

  • AJL February 3, 2011 (8:54 am)

    “doomsday” is not the same thing as thinking “boondoggle.”

  • notunnel February 3, 2011 (9:06 am)

    While we’re talking about removing our very effective viaduct to make us “pretty”, lets get rid of the ugly bridges crossing beautiful lake washington. They litter our lake and delay my boating cause I gotta go around. Lets move the space needle too, about 300 ft south, it blocks my view of mt. baker.

  • redblack February 3, 2011 (9:11 am)

    mg: doesn’t it make sense to find out if a project is feasible before you ram it down everyone’s throats and dream of ways to scam seattle taxpayers into funding it?
    .
    and, you know, i’ve never been involved in planning the feasibility of a major construction project, either. does that make me unqualified to observe that someone is getting the shaft? pun intended.
    .
    and how is getting seattle off of the hook for cost overruns stopping this project? if the WSDOT and city council think this thing is so damned wonderful, why are they acting as if cost overruns are a certainty? i detect the faint odor of b.s., and mcginn is right to ask those questions.
    .
    DM: no, it wouldn’t surprise me if the big-money, pro-tunnel forces were planting seeds by posing as average citizens.

  • villagegreen February 3, 2011 (9:33 am)

    Great ideas, notunnel! No, seriously. Except the Space Needle one – that one’s weak.

  • WS commuter February 3, 2011 (9:56 am)

    Yes, by all means, lets go with the conspiracy theories … in the absence of truth, do, let’s start speaking about “big money, pro-tunnel” Darth Vader like forces, ’cause, really, that’s what this all is … the black helicopters can’t be far behind (and did you know that Obama is really a Kenyan Muslim?!)

    For anyone interested in some hard facts about the DBT and construction risks, check out Wed.’s Daily Journal of Commerce. An article worth a read.

  • Genesee Hill February 3, 2011 (10:45 am)

    notunnel:

    Our very effective viaduct is one good earthquake from falling down, in case you forgot…

  • Ex-Westwood Resident February 3, 2011 (11:08 am)

    There were five choices for the Viaduct:
    1) “Cut and Cover” Tunnel.
    2) Surface street (no viaduct/tunnel)
    3) DBT
    4) Repair/Refurbish
    5) Do nothing.
    #1 and #2 were the WORST choices because it would remove the vital link/bypass of downtown and turn I-5 into a parking lot 24 hours a day. 120,000 vehicle trips a day and loss of parking would have choked downtown and the waterfront into irrelevance.
    And, come on, does ANYONE really believe that if #1 was chosen they would finish it once the Viaduct was down?
    #4 and #5 were the least expensive, but also had the lowest longevity and safety margin.
    #3 Is the most expensive, but allows the Viaduct to remain operational for 90% of its construction.
    I do have a good imagination, but I can’t think of any other solutions that were feasible (yes I know if the “pie-in-the-sky” suspension bridge that some promoted).
    Something had to be done.
    The DBT (of which I’m not a fan of), though expensive, is a good choice. Just wish that it had at least three lanes in each direction, with shoulders (for later expansion if required) instead of just two.
    All I hear from Mayor McIdiot is NO NO NO NO to the DBT. I have never heard (and if I’m wrong please show me) a viable alternative from him.
    The transportation budget needs to be re-aligned from spending 70%-80% on mass transit/bicycles (that 7%-10% use) to 70%-80% on roads and their maintenance and construction and congestion relief. That accomplishes two things. Auto traffic moves better and faster, which in turn opens up the routes for faster bus service.
    Oh and good GPS systems have a feature that will allow corrections to be uploaded to their database by the users GPS unit. So maps can be updated.

  • AJL February 3, 2011 (11:55 am)

    I have been attending meetings and doing my reading on the tunnel since the start. The tunnel will not absorb as much traffic as proponents would like to think since there is no downtown exit coming from either end. What was the last estimation of motor vehicles routing off the viaduct to the new (6-lane!) “boulevard” that will replace the current 4-lane Alaskan way…in April 2009 they were saying that 25,000 vehicle per day would be using the new waterfront as a pass-through. That doesn’t include those using downtown and the estimate was prior to the tolling scenario. It doesn’t include “holding lanes” for the ferry dock either. It’s still unclear where those waiting for the ferry will sit, but it appears to be on the new boulevard.

    Buses will not be faster. It’s been documented by Metro that bus service from West Seattle will, in fact, be about 10 minutes slower. No dedicated transit lanes are planned so far, just dedicated off/on-ramps that shuttle buses right into the standard street grid. The RapidRide line will provide more frequent service so long as traffic is not backed up.

    WSDOT is a SOV focused group (from what I’ve heard from them at the meetings; disregarding “green” pedestrian street planning that SDOT completed years ago is just one example, as well as complete lack of planning for pedestrian/bike routes over the new 520 cut and cover grid). WSDOT does not want to invest in city streets or planning for local transit; this reflects blinders regarding what really gets people moving and makes a city liveable. This is why there is only the tunnel option – WSDOT has not accepted any alternatives.

    Please show studies that show that we can build our way out of congenstion. And show me where 70%-80% of the budget (what budget?) is spent on transit/bicycle options.

  • CurlyQ February 3, 2011 (12:30 pm)

    Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

  • AJL February 3, 2011 (12:42 pm)

    Oh, here’s the Seattle proposed budget from 2010…

    http://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/10proposedbudget/UTILITIES_AND_TRANSPORTATION.pdf

    2010 budget 310,908,963; Cycle specific 6,875,000; Transit and HOV specific (hey, this includes HOV lanes for cars!) 12,533,000; heck, let’s throw in the 1st Hill Streetcar even though it wasn’t spent 3,080,000. Adds up to 22,488,000, or 7% of the total transportation budget. Yes, most transit spending is spent on those darn crazy ideas like mass transit and bicycling.

  • Genesee Hill February 3, 2011 (6:26 pm)

    AJL:

    I like mass transit spending.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident February 3, 2011 (6:41 pm)

    Did you add in the susdies for metro, light rail…etc?
    I think not.
    When a trip on the link light rail ACTUALLY costs $23.00 per person, but you only pay $2.75, THAT is where alot of the money is going.

  • redblack February 4, 2011 (6:06 am)

    WS “commuter”: care to address any of the points i made? or do you just shill?
    .
    ex-westwood: you obviously don’t read much news, then. stop listening to john carlson. the mayor has said that the tunnel is most likely going to be built, but that he wants seattle taxpayers off of the hook for cost overruns.
    .
    sounds good to me.
    .
    and here’s an option you forgot to mention:
    .

    The public debate so far has focused on the deep bore tunnel’s financial risk to Seattle taxpayers. Of the $900 million City contribution for tunnel-related projects the Mayor has criticized, $500 million is for the Seawall and utility relocation-costs the state would have picked up for an elevated replacement. It’s ironic that some opponents of the elevated option now criticize this spending, when many urged a no vote on the elevated option in 2007 which would have had these costs paid for by the state. The elevated also didn’t put extra traffic onto city streets, because it had six lanes and tolls weren’t needed, another key objection of tunnel critics. In addition, the Governor agreed the state would pay the replacement cost for an elevated, removing the issue of cost overruns. — urban politics (by nick licata) #303, nov. 2010

    .
    elevated sounds better to me, but it’s too late for that now. so the city undergoes pains when the viaduct comes down. bigger cities have suffered far worse and survived.
    .
    if replacing the viaduct with elevated isn’t an option, i think replacing it with nothing is second- best.

  • Al February 4, 2011 (9:52 am)

    Feel free to add in the “cost” of mass transit ex-westwood. Then don’t forget adjust for the cost savings difference between someone using mass transit rather than putting another SOV on the roadway.

    You really think that roadways are 100% paid for by drivers? Please do some research. Here’s a good link for you, it’s a study on how the federal roadways are funded: http://publicola.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves_-wUS.pdf

    “…user fees paid for only 51
    percent of highway costs, down 10 percent
    over the course of a single decade.48
    Even if all “user fee” revenues were
    devoted to highways, they would still pay
    less than two-thirds of the nation’s highway
    bill…”

    As of right now, maybe light rail isn’t as busy as expected (gee, avoiding the huge MALL may have been a bad idea) but it gets people off the road. And less people off the road = more room for you, no? I pay taxes, I pay for the road that we all use, even if I use it less than you.

  • WS commuter February 4, 2011 (10:24 am)

    redblack – with all due respect, you aren’t making points; you’re just launching ad hominem attacks one usually associates with right wing talk radio. So, really, not much to respond to.

    How does my being a W. Seattle commuter make me a shill for ??? (not sure who you think are the sinister forces at play here … WSDOT?).

    Here’s reality. We have to have a highway through that zone. Building another viaduct – which btw, would be 50% larger than the existing one (read the draft EIS – modern highway stds would require it) would not be that much cheaper than what we’re going to build with the tunnel. Perhaps $400M. At most. What’s lost in the ignorant ranting about the DBT is that the actual tunnel construction costs are about $1.2B; the rest of the $2B budget is for other stuff (seawall, King-Holgate, etc.) that has to be built no matter which option is selected.

    The substantive drawback to the DBT is the loss of downtown exit/entrances we have now. Not a huge deal, however, with the mitigation designed. The complaints about only two lanes through misses the truth that we currently only have two lanes through … its called the Battery St. tunnel. Through capacity is unaffected (and actually improved, with better/wider lanes and a shoulder).

    redblack – we can agree to disagree about values choices – I’d rather spend more money and get the waterfront opened up for the City’s entire benefit. And end up with a seismicly better structure to boot (the DBT will be just about the safest place to be in an earthquake – again, don’t believe me, look it up). You want to go cheaper and less safe … you’re right to think so. But it would benefit this discussion if you actually knew what you were talking about, instead of just ranting. Not impressed and certainly not persuaded.

  • Al February 4, 2011 (1:43 pm)

    WS Commuter, please expand on what “mitigation design” is planned. And the Battery Street tunnel traffic is lighter than the traffic entering onto the hi-rise portion of the Viaduct, no? More than 1/2 the traffic from the southend exits the Viaduct prior to the Battery Street tunnel. This was documented in one of the studies published in the past year or year and a half. So that traffic will likely not be using the tunnel. So sure, 2 lanes in each direction in the tunnel may be enough for the through traffic. And is a hi-way “necessary?” Not all of us are convinced. Many people also advocate a tear down into an improved street grid with mass transit options rather than a new bridge…it could be done.

  • redblack February 4, 2011 (7:54 pm)

    ws commuter: first of all, thanks for responding with facts this time – instead of accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist for pointing out that the “yeah! me too!” crowd was pretty quick to jump in on the comments. sorry, but i don’t believe that the tunnel is a very popular replacement option, and it wouldn’t be the first time that a neighborhood forum was used as a propaganda tool for someone’s agenda.
    .

    so, as i asked in previous posts, why is the state fighting so hard against the cost overrun issue if the tunnel is such a great idea? and why are seattleites – who typically won’t fund anything if given a choice to debate until the cows come home – so quick to pick up an extra $400-500 million tab this time?
    .
    (btw, the state is picking up most of the cost. care to ask the people in lewis county how they feel about that? those people wouldn’t even fund medicaid if given a choice.)
    .
    frankly, i think that the tunnel is the most popular option among people who want to benefit from prime real estate development. period. big money talks; we, the people, pick up the tab. (see: safeco field. see also: qwest field.)
    .
    regarding throughput, the tunnel is most certainly not the most practical option. the only reason that battery street tunnel is able to handle a northbound lane reduction is because of the seneca and western exits – because most people who use 99 are heading into downtown. southbound is the same story: dexter, denny, and the queen anne side streets take pressure off of battery street tunnel. so the new tunnel, as proposed, is only going to serve the fraction of hwy 99 commuters who currently use it as a route through downtown.
    .
    the work currently being performed by the stadiums handles that issue for the northbound direction. once battery street tunnel is closed and the new mercer st interchange is finished, the southbound-to-downtown issue will be solved.
    .
    regarding funding, WSDOT would have paid for the entire cost of an elevated structure, negating the issue of seattle having to pay for a state highway. as proposed, if the state built a new viaduct, seattle was only responsible for $900 million – most of which covers seawall replacement and utility relocation.
    .
    so, if your numbers are accurate, where does the other roughly $1.9 billion – plus cost overruns – go?
    .
    mike mcginn is spot on, and i have let him know that i support him in attempting to defray the cost of this boondoggle being foisted on seattle.
    .
    btw, care to address the tolling issue? could it be that not enough people are really going to use this big, fancy piano?
    .
    i’m sorry i can’t pore over political screeds and construction documents all day long trying to figure out how to morally support – and fund – a project that i oppose. i smell b.s. and a con job. (see: the iraq war.) someone is trying to convince me to buy something that i don’t want or need.
    .
    the first time that boring machine strays or gets stuck, i’m going to be laughing my ass off as i drive across beacon hill to get to ballard. (see: brightwater.)
    .
    i’m all for public funding of projects that make sense. light rail? hell, yes! monorail? voted for it four times! but if we have the rare opportunity to use a combination of city, state, and federal funds for a monumental project, and we’re going to squander it on two lanes under downtown – for two to four times the cost of any other option? and it will still be tolled.
    .
    no. san francisco got over the loss of the embarcadero freeway. (“but! but! but it’s the only way to get from the 101 to I-80!”) i think we’ll get over this. let’s spend the money more wisely.
    .
    and, yeah, i am ranting. so are you. this is a neighborhood forum, not a televised political debate.

  • redblack February 4, 2011 (8:04 pm)

    btw, west seattle freeway has 3 lanes each direction, it has a small footprint, it has a lot of exits and entrances, and it handles a metric $%&*@-ton of cars every day.
    .
    and it’s a beautiful structure.

  • WS commuter February 7, 2011 (5:04 pm)

    redblack … Don’t have time for a long response. I’d point out that I don’t much care if the DBT is a popular choice. By definition, what’s popular (such as Justin Bieber or most commercial TV) has nothing necessarily to do with what’s good or right. In other words, I don’t much care if the majority doesn’t want it. The vast majority of Seattlites simply are uninformed about why the DBT is the best choice. This isn’t to say there aren’t well-informed people opposed to the DBT – there surely are. But they are a very small number. Most people oppose it out of ignorance. Just the truth. God forbid we ever start letting the ignorant majority decide complex issues that aren’t easily reduced to black and white decisions. The idea of voting yes/no on the DBT is such similar stupidity. We’re supposed to elect leaders to become informed and make such decisions. When we fail to do so, we end up with the Tim Eyman’s of the world screwing everything up.

    I respect – but disagree – with those who think the solution is a ground-level option. The hard reality is that I-5 is a choke point through downtown, and notwithstanding McGinn’s pixie-dust fantasy (that somehow we could rip up all the buildings along I-5 to widen the interstate), that isn’t going to happen. We have to have two more lanes for the through-traffic and that is what SR 99 is now and must continue to be. Mass transit (which I greatly support, and wish we’d built the monorail) is simply not going to address the problem. Just a fantasy to think so.

    The state isn’t “fighting” McGinn’s contrived cost-overrun issue; if one is paying attention to the decision-makers in Oly., one hears loud and clear that they just are refusing to take McGinn’s bait. Our foolish mayor is childishly setting up straw-man arguments guised as concerns about cost overruns, when in truth, he wants to kill the DBT and have everyone ride bikes or take the bus.

    Your question about the rest of the budget – it is for the other work which will be done regardless of whether we build the DBT or not. Holgate to King; the seawall, surface modifications at the south end of downtown/SoDo, etc. Read the draft EIS – its all there, on the web, for anyone who wants to understand.

    BTW – again, if one reads the details, even if the Brightwater nightmare happens (stuck TBM), that cost is already accounted for in the current budget, including the delay costs and extraction costs. See last week’s Daily Journal of Commerce. Not saying this is a risk-free proposition; just saying that DOT has apparently done its homework to keep the risks managed and acceptable. Could we get screwed? Possible. Life is a risk. But I’ll take my chances with this option.

    I live in W. Sea. I enjoy riding in on the viaduct for the view. I work in an office downtwown well away from the waterfront and have no axe to grind one way or another. But geez people, argue on facts, not wishful thinking or paranoid conspiracies.

  • redblack February 7, 2011 (11:01 pm)

    The vast majority of Seattlites simply are uninformed about why the DBT is the best choice. This isn’t to say there aren’t well-informed people opposed to the DBT – there surely are. But they are a very small number. Most people oppose it out of ignorance. Just the truth.

    .
    wow. talk about arrogant and condescending ad hominem attacks…
    .
    i guess i’ll just be one of the 45,000 ignorant SOB’s who takes surface streets between 23rd ave east and the waterfront to avoid the tolled tunnel every day. good luck paying for it.
    .
    btw, why is it going to be tolled? the state has a bid, right? is there a budget shortfall?
    .
    if so, why not ask martin selig to help pay for it?
    .

    Our foolish mayor is childishly setting up straw-man arguments guised as concerns about cost overruns, when in truth, he wants to kill the DBT and have everyone ride bikes or take the bus.

    .
    heh. nice hyperbole. do you seriously expect me to believe you support funding mass transit? or anything else that benefits more than just SOV drivers and roads funding?
    .
    no matter: this fool-hearty boondoggle is pretty much a done deal anyway. WSDOT owns the highway, and WSDOT wants a tunnel.
    .
    so do the AWV stakeholders. is it a paranoid conspiracy to think that wealthy land owners are pushing for redevelopment of the waterfront at the state’s expense and a new seawall and utility relocation at the city’s expense?
    .
    those are the facts. i sure hope the final EIS – due out in june – doesn’t hold any nasty surprises for you tunnel cheerleaders.

  • WS commuter February 9, 2011 (1:59 pm)

    Not arrogant – just accurate. The vast majority of citizens will not educate themselves about a very complicated issue and intelligently vote – in a democracy, this is why we elect people to do the homework and make those decisions for us. I don’t mean to insult you, but your own apparent misinformed understanding of this project is proof of my point.

    If you were paying attention, you would know that the tolling has always been part of the deal (even if we re-build the viaduct); the only “no-tolling” options were either do nothing (and wait for the earthquake) or surface-only option. No conspiracy there … just reality (just like tolling about to begin on 520, or already in place on Tacoma Narrows/SR16). Facts are pesky things.

    While I feel badly for the Beacon Hill folks who will no doubt be subjected to increased traffic from those fleeing tolls, I’ll appreciate the easier time in traffic you and all those other toll-avoiders will provide – thank you.

    As for the rest of your angry diatribe … in truth, I don’t much care what you believe. To answer your question (“is it a paranoid conspiracy to think that wealthy land owners are pushing for redevelopment of the waterfront at the state’s expense and a new seawall and utility relocation at the city’s expense?”) … in a word, yes, it is paranoid. By all means – provide some hard data/facts to back up your paranoia and I’ll believe you. I’m not going to hold my breath for that to happen More to the point, however, do you not understand that the seawall is already in failure?

    I’m certainly not going to persuade you – you are knee deep in your conspiracy ideas about wealthy developers and apparently deluded by our mayor’s silly fantasies. By all means, believe those things.

  • redblack February 9, 2011 (8:34 pm)

    like i said, it’s a done deal. but thank you, nonetheless, for running the state into greater debt for something that amounts to – oh, say – montlake blvd between u village and the draw bridge. i was stuck on that route for almost an hour yesterday because two morons didn’t have sense enough to pull their fender bender to the shoulder.
    .
    so, in short, you’re absolutely welcome. good show, man. well played.
    .
    the funny thing is that i’m going to capitalize off of this debacle. when you’re stuck in the tunnel – due to a minor fender bender – i’ll come cruising by on a bicycle selling cold water and wet-naps.

  • WS commuter February 14, 2011 (4:20 pm)

    Surrender accepted. Enjoy your bike.

Sorry, comment time is over.