Another Viaduct voice: City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen

In the four days since first word of the two “scenarios” for Alaskan Way Viaduct Central Waterfront replacement — one, a “couplet” of surface streets; the other, a new single-deck viaduct, 2 side-by-side structures — WSB has brought you comments and commentary from: The two West Seattleites on the Stakeholders Advisory Committee, Vlad Oustimovitch of Gatewood (read his thoughts here) and Pete Spalding of Pigeon Point (read his, here), former West Seattle Herald editor Jack Mayne (read his guest editorial here), and the West Seattle Chamber of Commerce. We also asked West Seattle-residing (but entire-city-representing) City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen if he would share his thoughts; here they are:

As a resident of West Seattle I find the viaduct incredibly convenient to travel between home and downtown and to most areas west of I-5. Often, other routes are slower and less direct. For this reason the elevated options are attractive.

However, I believe we have to look at numerous factors as we make a decision we will live with for the next century. For historical context, your readers may recall the decisions made by the city nearly twenty-five years ago to build the high and low level West Seattle bridges were very contentious and controversial. The high level bridge was opposed in large part because it cost more than a low level drawbridge. The high level bridge was selected because it would meet current and future transportation needs.

The low level swing bridge was controversial because it employed a unique technology and replaced a four lane bridge with a two lane bridge which allowed the construction of shoulders, pedestrian and bicycle lanes and a clear shipping channel for future maritime needs. The low level swing bridge was more costly than other options but was selected because it too would meet current and future transportation needs.

Like the West Seattle Bridge decisions, I hope the option selected by the state to replace the viaduct will be one which will best serve the City for many generations and that speed and costs are not the only criteria. For the long term benefit of the City I believe that we need to consider a number of factors. Speed, convenience, number of vehicles served are important but are not the only criteria. We should also consider the environmental and economic benefits and how we can improve conditions on our waterfront to make it more attractive to all of us including visitors and businesses.

The options that I favor are those which would remove the elevated structure and replace it with a combination of surface street and transit improvements without creating highway-like conditions on the waterfront. The options that I would support should meet our needs now and preserve the ability to construct a cut-and-cover or deep bored tunnel if required to meet any need in the future for additional non-stop transportation through the City. We can select an option today that preserves future options which are complimentary to the investment we would make now.

I want Seattle to support our current businesses and successfully compete for international trade and business. I meet with local business leaders and with executives who are traveling to Seattle to explore opportunities. Last week I met with executives of French-owned companies that have major businesses here and who are seeking new opportunities. It was interesting how often the beauty of the setting of our City is mentioned as being attractive to them. On more than one occasion individuals told me how they hope that Seattle does create a great waterfront. Other cities are doing this and I am confident we can too while meeting our transportation needs.

Tom Rasmussen

Last reminder, tonight is a major opportunity to voice your opinion “in person” — the public forum at Town Hall downtown, starting at 5 pm (here’s a map/directions to TH).
All WSB Alaskan Way Viaduct coverage is archived here, newest to oldest; project information is at alaskanwayviaduct.org. To read what citywide news sources are reporting about the Viaduct, see the latest links on the WSB “More” page (which also automatically picks up citywide media coverage of West Seattle).

22 Replies to "Another Viaduct voice: City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen"

  • DALYDBL December 15, 2008 (12:54 pm)

    All West-Seattlites know that the surface street option means we will suffer. Politicians are interested in payola from the project bid winners. I am not optimistic that citizens will get what we NEED.

  • chas redmond December 15, 2008 (1:39 pm)

    Hey Tom, how about an option which unites Seattle neighborhoods instead of creating a Balkan situation where it takes an hour or more to get from West Seattle to the U or Wedgwood to SoDo. I’m all in favor of long-range solutions which increase our recreational space, which reduce carbon loads on the planet, which allow folks a choice in modes. I’m not in favor of solutions which increase the transit time between neighborhoods (almost all the original 8 options do that, these two in particular do that). I’m not in favor of solutions which will cause individuals north of the Ship Canal to choose never to go south of that canal or individuals west of the Duwamish to never wish to go east of the river. These two solutions are heading us toward a seriously disenfranchised city. I cannot believe that Tom Rasmussen thinks these two are even close to an acceptable solution for city-wide mobility. If it takes longer to use transit with one of the options, how is General Principal Number Two – moving people and goods efficiently – met? It isn’t and that’s the fundamental issue with all 8 of these solutions. None of them provide the efficient movement of people and goods that the existing Viaduct provides. Until a solution actually matches the current efficiency, it’s not a good solution. Time for the brains at WSDOT, SDOT and KCDOT to actually come up with something which moves people and goods efficiently. I don’t care what it is but the existing choices are not “it.”

  • Michael December 15, 2008 (2:42 pm)

    The problem is that without the “highway-like conditions” we’ll see gridlock. (Then comes the eventual necessity of a $10B+ Elliott Bay bridge in 2025, and, well, let’s say we’ve seen this before. Of course, by then this council won’t be around to have to clean up that mess.
    .
    Seattle is nowhere NEAR San Francisco, transit-wise, so people should stop any and all comparisons to the single example of “traffic absorption” they keep dragging out (i.e., Embarcadero) until we have trains traveling, say, between West Seattle, downtown and Ballard (hmm, that sounds awfully familiar…).
    .
    And did you mention to those French businessmen that the Mayor has this little tunnel thing he’d like to get financed?

  • Vlad December 15, 2008 (3:00 pm)

    Unfortunately Tom, the “surface and transit” option will mean a doubling of travel times for people from West Seattle. That is the reality of a plan that shouldn’t have “transit” in the title, since transit improvements are minimal, with no real improvement for WS over the current Metro bus system. You shouldn’t judge the book by the cover, take the time to meet with Pete and me so we can give you our 12 months of experience with reviewing the DOT information. Far from progressive and green, the surface option may well be the opposite. My conclusion is that it would not only damage the pedestrian quality of the downtown, it would also ultimately cause more sprawl in our region as established manufacturing and industrial jobs are forced to the outer suburbs.

  • Mario December 15, 2008 (3:18 pm)

    I want to join the resistance! Please, someone form one. All 8 proposals will cripple West Seattle. Property values will fall on low demand. Who will want to live here when there is a 45 minute commute to get to downtown? You might as well live on the East Side. Businesses will dry up and West Seattle will morph into White Center, crime and all. I can’t believe the city/State would pay to reduce capacity. What are they thinking?! And who cares what the French think, we should be helping our own West side businesses thrive.

  • beef December 15, 2008 (4:02 pm)

    i highly doubt west seattle will dry up. an interesting benefit of isolating west seattle may be in making it more insular. more business may be apt to open up in west seattle as nobody will want to go anywhere north of downtown and prefer to do most of their business in west seattle.

    My option is going to be to drive to the Passenger Ferry on alki and then walk to work from there if the bus times are really stretched.

    @ Tom – You’re lying to yourself and everyone esle if you believe a tunnel could be built at a later date if the surface/transit doesn’t do enough to move people through downtown. If it isn;t done now or specifically linked with some hard conditions that would mandate its construction, it will never be done in Seattle. I’ve lived here 11 years and I already know that is the case.

    More bus transit does not really help West Seattle if there are limited roads for it to travel on.

  • JimmyG December 15, 2008 (5:01 pm)

    Yo Tom!
    I WANT highway like conditions to get me from one part of the city to another.

  • Brentut5 December 15, 2008 (5:34 pm)

    Tom, Tom,

    I’ve been wracking my mind trying to figure out why anyone would even talk about the surface street option since there’s no real transit improvements included. Not to mention it takes out one of two, over utilized freeway type North/South arterials. Currently at either rush hour, both I-5 and HWY99 are locked solid. If you make 99 a surface street you are locking up the entire city!

    But I found the clue to why people are looking at these options. As you said…

    “…preserve the ability to construct a cut-and-cover or deep bored tunnel if required to meet any need in the future…”

    Since we can’t afford a tunnel now (since it’s a stupid idea and way, way too expensive) we’ll just do something until we have to do a tunnel.

    Why don’t we do the planning now. Stop making decisions that are short-term instead of long term. We look pretty stupid now that we had the chance to do the monorail and let it slip by. That would have taken a HUGE amount of traffic off the viaduct and may have made a surface option realistic. But it didn’t look good short term, so we didn’t do it. We’ve been talking about light rail since I moved here in 1989 and it’s still not completed and how many people need to go to the airport every day? We already have a train that goes up and down I-5. Let’s look at options that help 405, or Seattle to Redmond or any of the other gridlock areas around the Sound.

    No, we’re going to create a new one. Traffic isn’t insane enough around here, let’s make a new bottleneck. I would think that being in West Seattle you would want to support housing values, and quality of life here. I can’t tell you how many people that I’ve talked to that have stated that once the viaduct repairs start and if it isn’t a realistic option, they’re selling there house here and looking elsewhere in the area.

    We have to start solving our transportation problems, from Union Hill Road in Redmond, to I-405 X-curve, and now West Seattle to anywhere North…

  • PSPS December 15, 2008 (5:45 pm)

    This Rasmussen is quite a piece of work, isn’t he?
    ~
    He thinks it’s worthwhile to destroy the livability, property values and business climate of the entire area just to please “executives of French-owned companies that have major businesses here and who are seeking new opportunities.”
    ~
    In other words, he’s on their payroll.
    ~
    What a schmuck.

  • JayDee December 15, 2008 (6:28 pm)

    Dear Tom:

    One of the reasons I voted for you because of your West Seattle credentials. I think WS gets the short end of the stick despite housing (I have heard) 25% to 33% of the city’s population. I have lived here 12 years, and voted for the Monorail (yes) 4 times.

    I wasn’t here for the bridge debate, but comparing the high/low bridge to this situation seems a stretch. Using the analogy correctly in comparison to the surface option, the low bridge would be one of the singular rope bridges popular in the Andes, while the high bridge would be be one of those fancy-schmancy log bridges swaying in the wind. Both would do exactly what the surface traffic option would do for the viaduct replacement–reduce capacity. We’d be greener (no lack of hemp around here, and trees are still the favored vegetation).

    I like Ballard, and try to visit it every couple months hence my votes on the monorail. The downtown city establishment hated the monorail, and looked at the financing package boondoggle as a godsend instead of saying, “let’s make this work–lets amend the package…it is clear the citizens have spoken in support of this three times.”

    Now West Seattle is being told: “Hear hear poor thing, take this, you’ll feel better and greener too.” The tottering viaduct, despite it’s age spots, works. Get it? We aren’t sick, we know the viaduct works, but we will cure the problem by replacing it with a surface street with 28 stoplights?

    Seattle’s vibrant yet endangered manufacturing base will wither if the viaduct is replaced by the surface option, yet you would rather our working city be replaced by a Disneyland version like that aging tarted-up whore (San Francisco). I’d much rather keep what works than try and experiment when you know the “bored tunnel” option will never again see the light of day if the surface option happens.

    Just the opinion of one of your constituents who votes. I am sure I have company. – John

  • J December 15, 2008 (6:59 pm)

    Tom, where were you when we needed your support on the monorail? Now do you see why we need it????

  • mellaw6565 December 15, 2008 (8:28 pm)

    Tom – your response is exactly why we desperately need a change in the makeup of the City Council. Represent W. Seattle in your views? Hardly!!

    Here’s what I get when I read between the lines:

    TOM – “I hope the option selected by the state to replace the viaduct will be one which will best serve the City for many generations and that speed and costs are not the only criteria”

    TRANSLATION: “Developers – my pockets are empty – come line them in exchange for the nice waterfront view and other perks I’ll give you when I tear down the road!! Not to mention all the people that will be forced to slow down and look at your stores and condos that they really can’t afford to shop in or buy but look good to outsiders. After all – looking good is what we’re all about here!”

    TOM: “We should also consider the environmental and economic benefits and how we can improve conditions on our waterfront to make it more attractive to all of us including visitors and businesses”.

    TRANSLATION: “Developers – my pockets are empty – so come line them in exchange for the lax environmental and energy policies this city establishes so that you don’t have to pay for your share of clean-ups or conservation. Never mind the smog from the cars that are idling away in 30 mph traffic and the jams from the ferry lines – the drivers will be happy just oohing & aahing at your windows and buildings while the pedestrians will be gagging from the fumes and will come in to breathe better air!”

    TOM: “I want Seattle to support our current businesses and successfully compete for international trade and business…. Last week I met with executives of French-owned companies that have major businesses here and who are seeking new opportunities.”

    TRANSLATION: “Developers – my pockets are empty – so come line them in exchange for creating more spaces on the waterfront for you to develop into private spaces that are for the use of you and your cronies. Don’t worry about the loss of public spaces for the enjoyment of all and the loss of a quick and easy way for traffic to flow into the city from surrounding neighbors – if you build it they will come (slowly, but they will come)and pay your ridiculous retail and real estate prices to get the view and convenience that they enjoy now with cheaper, elevated highway-like conditions.”

    OK Tom – I realize that attraction of businesses and creating a vibrant and viable downtown area are important goals of any city administration. But in this instance you, the Mayor and the City Council are not fooling anybody!! Your coddling of businesses and developers at the expense of the basic infrastructures that make a city accessible and usable by all leaves a clear impression that you are more concerned about benefitting yourself and the monied interests than you are at responding to the needs of your citizens. WE WANT QUICK AND EASY TRANSPORTATION DOWNTOWN AND THROUGH THE CITY NORTH/SOUTH!! Do you really think a surface option at 30 mph and eliminating a higher speed State Highway thruway is going to help both the suburbs and downtown?? I think just the opposite will happen – communities and neighborhoods will become more isolated from each other as people turn down fights with traffic conditions just to get downtown or elsewhere. No more jaunts up to Greenlake, Northgate, Wallingford, Ballard or vice versa southbound; no more trips down to PP market for Wed/Sunday organic farmers because the trip will take more than a couple of hours on the surface streets plus limited street parking…. GET THE PICTURE?

    You and the entire City Council have lost my vote – “Beam me up Scotty! There’s no intelligent life down here!”

  • B-squared December 15, 2008 (9:18 pm)

    Tom-
    This is a transportation corridor! it moves people and goods to and around downtown. I use it to travel to Ballard, Fremont, Wallingford and frequently (when i can clearly see that I-5 isn’t moving) north seattle.

    In your thoughts above, i have to say that it really chaps my hide that you want to…” improve conditions on our waterfront to make it more attractive to all of us including visitors and businesses”. The city council and the mayor seem to have made this the priority, with transportation as a distant second.

    – This is about creating a cutesy retail area that the cruise ships can empty out into.

    – This is about improving the area for all the new and future condo residents.

    – This is about improving the views thus driving up land value on the waterfront.

    – This is about handing it all over for more development.

    This isn’t about transportation. but it should be.

  • DALYDBL December 15, 2008 (11:14 pm)

    Can the light rail extend into the junction?

  • J December 16, 2008 (3:50 pm)

    DALYDBL: Take a look at the light rail construction schedule on Sound Transit’s website. There was money in the November vote to study West Seattle. Any extension to the Junction is decades in the future, alas. Not that we shouldn’t start advocating, now. But it won’t help, short-term. This is what those of us who supported the monorail (which would already have been operating a year at this point) kept pointing out.

  • Tom Rasmussen December 17, 2008 (11:01 am)

    Because the viaduct issue is so important to the people of West Seattle and over a dozen people responded to my message in the Blog, I would like to meet with anyone who would like to discuss this issue in person this Saturday morning. I will be at the Uptown Espresso, 4301 SW Edmunds St. (California & Edmunds) between 8:30 – 10:30 a.m. this Saturday, December 20th. I would welcome the opportunity to meet informally to hear people’s comments and recommendations on the viaduct and to exchange views on this important issue or any other Seattle issue of concern.

  • d December 17, 2008 (12:46 pm)

    Mr. Rasmussen –

    That’s terrific! Thanks. Personally, I look forward to attending. I KNOW I will have mostly just questions as I am (like many other West Seattlites, I’m sure) just trying to catch up on complex transportation issues. But I will put aside my Sat AM schedule to come and learn and find the insight I am seeking as to what is REALLY best for WS AND the rest of the public who stand to be impacted.

    Thanks for the opportunity…I look forward to hearing your pov, as well as those of Vlad and Peter and Chas, and all of my other concerned and informed neighbors whom I hope will be able to stop by.

  • no likey December 17, 2008 (1:51 pm)

    For the record… as another West Seattle home owner, and person who likes to get from here to there without having to take a cooler with extra food and water along for the duration…and doesn’t want to have to wear Depends in the car to make it to my destination… I don’t like the suface street option either.

  • tim stelling December 17, 2008 (6:16 pm)

    Tom, THE VIADUCT IS A MAJOR ARTERY. I have lived in West Seattle for 14 years, and love it here. I have also lived in every major metropolitan area on the West Coast. I think Seattle is the only city on the west coast where I5 drop down to three in each direction–and I believe that northbound they actually drop to two. Further most of the other metro areas have several major arteries. What are you thinking? Perchance Seattle only needs one?

  • wdar December 17, 2008 (7:19 pm)

    How about more and improved Water Taxi sevice??

  • Magpie December 17, 2008 (7:25 pm)

    Well, I guess I know who I’ll be voting against next election. Doesn’t seem that the westseattlite is concerned about us in West Seattle. Maybe we need to look for some new blood that is concerned about us and our commute. And in a green world, aren’t there more carbon emissions in gridlock?

  • William December 18, 2008 (6:01 pm)

    Tom, your plan for surface street improvements is tantamount to moving my West Seattle Home to Federal Way. By doubling my travel time to downtown, I might as well move south 10 miles!

    I travel to San Francisco regularly on business and spend considerable time in and around the Embarcadero on San Francisco’s waterfront. It is choked with traffic – especially in the afternoon. I’ve crossed it as a pedestrian many times – dodging cars and electric trams whizzing by. Certainly not the model its been made out to be by people that never travel there much.

    The big disappointment is how West Seattle has lost so much political juice. The “Viaduct” dollars are moving to the 520 bridge and 405 projects. The State legislature is not too worried about West Seattle – its those cats in Bellevue that are getting the gas tax dollars.

Sorry, comment time is over.