In the first four days following the announcement of two “hybrid scenarios” for “replacing” the Alaskan Way Viaduct‘s Central Waterfront “mile in the middle” section, we brought you four expanded reactions/commentaries (all archived here with the rest of our Viaduct coverage). The one that drew the most criticism — in posted comments, anyway — came from West Seattle-residing (entire-city-representing) City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen (read it here). Wondering what he thought about that reaction, and/or why his Viaduct view is what it is? You don’t have to wonder – you can talk to him yourself. According to a note from his office (and he himself has posted this in a comment), “he would like to meet with anyone who would like to discuss this issue in person this Saturday morning. Tom will be at Uptown Espresso, 4301 SW Edmunds (California & Edmunds; here’s a map) between 8:30 – 10:30 am this Saturday, December 20th. He 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.”

The state, county, and city officials who’ve been working on the future of the Alaskan Way Viaduct‘s Central Waterfront section always freely admit they have much more to study and figure out. But it was made clear at Monday night’s public forum — first comment opportunity since the unveiling of two “hybrid scenarios” — that one of the things they’re still figuring out is what the scenarios would mean to this side of the bay. Read on:Read More

On this day after the state, county, and city went public with the final two “scenarios” for an Alaskan Way Viaduct Central Waterfront replacement, we are continuing to publish expanded reactions to the proposals, starting with the West Seattleites who have been part of the Viaduct-vetting process as members of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee. This committee does not get to vote on what it wants to see – it’s been brought together from various groups and areas with a particular “stake” in this, and has been used as something of a sounding board, through a series of long and arduous meetings (for which they are not compensated). Late last night, we published the reaction of committee member Pete Spalding of Pigeon Point; this morning, here’s what we’ve received from committee member Vlad Oustimovitch of Gatewood:

As I’m sure everybody has already learned, the combined project team from the three Departments of Transportation (Washington State, King County and City of Seattle) announced two options for dealing with the damaged Alaskan Way Viaduct. Unfortunately, the two options selected, a new waterfront side-by-side viaduct with no downtown exits, and a surface option that simply boosts the capacity of existing surface streets without maintaining through capacity, are both options that will generate incredible opposition from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. The rebuilt viaduct option has been deemed unacceptable by both downtown and environmental interests, and the surface solution is unacceptable to both the business community as well as all of the commuters that depend on the Viaduct to get to their jobs. West Seattle, more than any other community, would be seriously impacted by the surface solution. Neither of the two options offer a solution that will garner support from a broad base of constituents, and will undoubtedly once again lead us into acrimonious debate, dividing the region and stalemating the process.

The good news is that at yesterday’s meeting the stakeholders took the initiative for a diplomatic solution, with 24 out of 25 stakeholders stating that it was important to avoid the battles that would ensue from the decision to limit the options to the two offered, and to work on a compromise solution. David Brewster wrote an excellent article in Crosscut
“A peace treaty for the Viaduct wars” that explains how we are trying to broker a solution that is acceptable for the greatest number of stakeholders. Not just the stakeholders on the committee, but to all the stakeholders in the region. This would include different components of surface improvements, as well as a bored tunnel that would allow through capacity similar to what it is today.

I realize that many people in West Seattle would like to see another elevated solution that maintains the drive with the best views in the region, but I think that we all recognize that the most important thing is to maintain our ability to get around. The bored tunnel offers us two things, first the potential to retain the existing viaduct during construction, which is not possible with a rebuild and secondly (but perhaps most importantly) a political alliance that allows the Viaduct issue to finally get settled. If we do not consider the interests of everybody in the political equation, then it is very possible that we will be left with the surface option, which to me is not an option at all. We need to maintain our transportation capacity. The bored tunnel, although slightly more costly than a rebuild is a good investment. Economic studies have shown potential losses to our regional economy of up $3.4 billion dollars a year during any closure of the Viaduct and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

We need a solution, not another impasse that could have disastrous consequences not only to West Seattle, but to the whole region. That is why I am working very hard with the other stakeholders to help craft a diplomatic solution to stave off the crisis that will certainly result from the selection of the two alternates announced yesterday by our political leaders. I am disappointed that after a year of working on this, our leaders have decided to pit us against each other. To me, that is not an option. We need to work together in these difficult times.

I read all the responses posted on the West Seattle Blog on the subject on the Viaduct, so please take the time to post a comment. It is very useful to me to get feedback.

Thanks to Vlad and Pete for agreeing to share their thoughts. In the pipeline for later today – a guest editorial from former West Seattle Herald editor Jack Mayne.

If you want to follow just our Alaskan Way Viaduct coverage, by the way, here is the direct link to all stories we’ve flagged for that category (newest to oldest) – if you read via RSS, find the WSB Categories list in the right sidebar, where you’ll note each category has its own RSS feed.

For all the project information, and links to send your thoughts directly to decisionmakers, there’s an ever-growing website at alaskanwayviaduct.org. For other coverage, you can also check the automated feed on the WSB “More” page – in addition to pulling links from regional media mentioning West Seattle, we also programmed that feed long ago to include Alaskan Way Viaduct mentions too.

After the two “final” Viaduct scenarios went public late today (WSB as-it-happened coverage here), they were presented to the Stakeholders Advisory Committee that was created as a sort of “sounding board” in the Alaskan Way Viaduct scenario-review process. Two West Seattleites are on that committee: Pete Spalding and Vlad Oustimovitch, both longtime community activists (Pete lives in Pigeon Point; Vlad, in Gatewood). We have asked both for their thoughts on what was announced today. First response in, from Pete:

I am still concerned about the long-term viability of citizens of West Seattle to have the ability to get out of or into our community. Most folks do not realize that 20% of the population of the city of Seattle lives on this side of the Duwamish River.

Under the I-5, Surface & Transit Hybrid Scenario

If you leave West Seattle and drive through downtown going to north Seattle you will encounter 28 stop lights, a 90 degree turn to proceed through the Battery Street tunnel and a 30 mile per hour speed limit. On top of this there is no mention of how the ferry traffic (entering or exiting Colman dock) will be figured into the traffic flow.

Elevated Bypass Hybrid Scenario

I am not convinced that another elevated option will solve our transportation needs 50+ years into the future. This is our opportunity to make Seattle a world class city with a world class waterfront. Building another elevated structure running along the waterfront does not help to accomplish that in my opinion.

_________________________________________________________________________

No matter what decision is made at the end of the day we have to have better transit service into and out of West Seattle. Not only for Delridge but for all of the peninsula. I pointed out that not everyone leaving West Seattle had downtown as their final destination. Our transit options must include destinations to the north, south and east without first having to connect to another bus somewhere in the downtown business district. Adding a new Rapid Ride line on Delridge is being proposed but has its own unique set of difficulties. Not the least of which is where do you come up with dedicated bus only lanes from Genesee to the bridge?

In conclusion I lean toward the hybrid solution that has been brought forward by the Seattle Chamber of Commerce (presented to the SAG on Monday) which was referred to tonight as the P3 hybrid option. I also encouraged the Executives to give a much stronger look at the deep bored tunnel option which was the final option taken off the table late today prior to the briefings beginning. This option needs more study as it would be the least disruptive to all of us here in West Seattle. I am not convinced that the cost estimates have been thoroughly vetted and are somewhat exaggerated in materials that we were presented.

Finally, just as reminder there is a public hearing on Monday, December 15th beginning at 5 pm at Town Hall. If you feel strongly about this issue please state your preference (opinion) at that time or go on line to the Viaduct website and do it there.

That site is at alaskanwayviaduct.org. Meantime, we’ll have more Viaduct views tomorrow, including Vlad’s thoughts.

Just combed through the latest report released as part of the ongoing drive to settle on a Central Waterfront Viaduct replacement by year’s end: the draft version of the Economic Analysis of Viaduct Scenarios. The only major West Seattle-specific mention is this look at how the project might affect Nucor in North Delridge:

Nucor, a major steel company, operates Seattle’s steel mill. The Nucor plant is located south of the West Seattle Bridge. It is a 660,000 square foot plant with 291 workers that can make about 800,000 tons of steel a year. The plant recently got new air quality permits that would allow it to make up to 1.1 million tons per year.

In theory, viaduct removal and construction could pose problems for the mill. Because of its location, Nucor has few options but to deal with traffic on I-5, and will be concerned that capacity reductions, both temporary and long-run in the SR 99 corridor, will affect I-5. Its customers are primarily construction projects located around the region where steel has to be delivered by truck during daylight hours. Because there are limited options for stockpiling steel mill products outside of the affected area, the company’s ability to deliver products to customers could be impaired during construction. Permanent closure, however, seems doubtful because permits for steel mills are difficult to obtain and the Seattle plant has no local competition for steel production. Nucor does not provide all of the steel needed for construction in the Seattle area; a major portion of it is imported or comes from steel from mills in Oregon. Construction impacts would also affect imported steel, however, leaving Nucor with no net competitive disadvantage. Indeed, the viaduct project itself could be a major customer for steel and may even help Nucor.

Overall, the report reached no clarion conclusion, with this among its final bulletpoints:

No single scenario emerges as the best or worst from an economic impact perspective. On the many dimensions we evaluated, we found no option that was consistently at the top or consistently at the bottom. That makes decisionmaking harder. For example, the bored bypass tunnel (F) probably reduces business impacts during construction, but it will likely cost more, take longer to build (so that the impacts it does have last longer), and have an unquantified but important cost of exposing Seattle to several additional years of risk of a catastrophic collapse in an earthquake if the viaduct remains until the bored tunnel opens to traffic.

Before the next Stakeholders Advisory Committee meeting this Thursday (4:30-8 pm, City Hall downtown), state, county, and city reps are scheduled to reveal the finalists — two or three “hybrid” scenarios ostensibly to be cobbled together from elements of the 8 original ‘scenarios’ (all shown here). One committee member has already come up with a hybrid of sorts, according to citywide newspaper reports today. Then, whatever emerges later this week as the list of finalists, you’re invited to speak out about them at a public meeting next Monday night (12/15), 5-7:30 pm, Town Hall downtown – 1119 8th Ave (map).

We’re back at the Alaskan Way Viaduct project HQ in the Wells Fargo building downtown for another of what’s become nearly weekly briefings on more data from ongoing analysis of the options under study for replacement of the Viaduct’s “Central Waterfront” section. A final scenario is supposed to be settled on by year’s end. The data that’s coming out today involves analysis of “open space” created by the various scenarios, and economic impacts. We’re reviewing the material handed out in advance of the briefing – the “open space” information includes significant analysis of the “integrated elevated” option, Scenario E (above), that’s gained a lot of buzz (in no small part because of support from State House Speaker Frank Chopp) – the handout says that option “is the least desirable option from an urban design and open space standpoint and, in some respects, is worse than the existing Viaduct. While (it) has the most open space overall, it provides a lower quality of public space and compromises the historic identity of the waterfront and access to it from the downtown.” That’s just part of what we’ll hear about shortly, when state, city and county reps join us media types for the briefing. We’ll add any major points as it continues, as well as links to these presentations when they are up on the Viaduct project website (alaskanwayviaduct.org) – meantime, here’s the “open space” presentation, from the media disc that’s just been provided, and here’s the “economics” presentation. All this comes out in advance of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee meeting later today (4 pm, City Hall). UPDATE: The presentations are all on the Viaduct website now too – under Dec. 4 meeting materials – find them here. Here’s the news release summarizing what’s being presented today:Read More

Next briefing: We’re at Seattle Center’s Center House, where the next sheaf of data in the search for the Alaskan Way Viaduct Central Waterfront solution is being released. One quick topline: The costliest in terms of time and money would be Scenario F, the “bored tunnel” — up to 9 and a half years of construction time, $3.5 billion cost. The numbers here are all described as “capital costs” — so that’s just the basic building costs for the “Highway 99 corridor” itself, not including additional components in the complete study area (which includes downtown) such as changes to I-5, changes to traffic, etc. Other “capital” dollar figures: Scenario A, “demand management/low capital,” $800 million; B, “surface boulevard,” $800 million; C, “surface couplet,” $900 million; D, “independent elevated,” $1.6 billion (shown in WSDOT rendering above); H, “lidded trench,” $1.9 billion; E, “integrated elevated,” $2.2 billion; G, “cut and cover tunnel,” $2.7 billion. The handouts here also break out the major components in terms of cost — relevant because the government leaders working on this have said that the three “finalist” options to be determined within a few weeks likely will be composites with elements of the current “scenarios,” rather than including any existing scenarios exactly as they have been considered up till now. WSDOT’s Ron Paananen stresses, these are “rough estimates.” ADDED 12:57 PM: Our previous links to briefing materials have vanished into the wireless ozone, so here they are again: For starters, all eight “scenarios” — pieces of which will be cobbled into the eventual “finalists” — have a new set of graphics that you can see by going to this Flickr collection set up by WSDOT. The handout with the full range of cost possibilities can be seen here; the handout with the full range of construction-time possibilities can be seen here. Later today, the Stakeholders’ Advisory Committee will be briefed on this information, 4 pm, Plymouth Congregational Church (downtown). The city and state officials who have been leading these briefings stressed again today, they are still on schedule for state/city/county leaders to arrive at a final recommended solution by year’s end. One interesting note from the briefing: SDOT’s Bob Powers said they’re realizing as they evaluate data that, regarding transit, “if we build it, the riders will come” – so there is a suggestion that before major construction starts, transit additions be made, including a second West Seattle RapidRide Metro bus route along Delridge (that previously was suggested as something that could be considered in the long run). ADDED THURSDAY EVENING: A downtown public forum is set for people to speak out on whatever the final options are revealed to be: 5-7:30 pm December 15, Town Hall (1119 8th, downtown). Also – all materials presented at today’s briefing, plus additional information unveiled at the Stakeholders Advisory Committee meeting later in the day, is now posted on the Viaduct website – look here, under November 20 meeting materials.

Left to right, that’s Steve Pierce from SDOT (city), Ron Paananen from WSDOT (state), and Ron Posthuma from King County, as they delivered the latest briefing on data available as the three levels of government race toward a recommendation on Alaskan Way Viaduct] Central Waterfront replacement by year’s end. (They confirmed today, the timetable hasn’t changed.) The cozy briefing room downtown was crammed with media – this gratuitous TV-photographer shot is on behalf of Time Capsule Day:

Now, back to the information. Lots presented. You can read it all here, under “meeting materials.” But the bottom line: The most significant findings released today (and being discussed tonight with the Viaduct Stakeholders Advisory Committee) had to do with potential travel times under the range of scenarios (all detailed here, on page 12 and 13 in particular) under consideration. Some West Seattle-specific breakouts were available: For vehicles, the fastest scenario northbound from WS to downtown in the morning would be the “four-lane surface” Option A, with “demand management” potentially including a “cordon toll” to get into the city. That is estimated to take 20 minutes (7 more than today), but the fastest route back the other way in the afternoon/evening would be “integrated elevated” Option E (20 minutes southbound in the PM, compared to 13 right now). For transit, they envision the current 21-minute average trip from West Seattle to downtown only increasing by a few minutes under any scenario (to 21 minutes in the morning; that was the only estimate provided) – and they pointed out that means transit and vehicle time will be much more comparable in the future, perhaps enticing more people to try transit. Overall, if you evaluated only in terms of travel time, the briefers acknowledged that an elevated replacement would be the closest to what we have now.

WHAT’S NEXT: One week from today, one major missing puzzle piece will be public – the cost analysis of the potential scenarios. Then on December 4th, components from these 8 scenarios, evaluated on six principles, will be cobbled into what’s expected to be three final options, from which the eventual choice would emerge. (As Paananen put it this afternoon, “In the end we’re going to take these 8 and boil it down to more like 3, but these three will represent the best of the 8, not an exact replica of any one.”) Right now, $2.8 billion is available for the project – a third of it already committed to work that’s under way – so funding for the eventual choice isn’t even a done deal yet.

As promised, we asked SDOT to explain why the “Alaskan Way Viaduct Closed When Flashing” warning lights didn’t go on till mid-afternoon Saturday, long after the long-planned shutdown began early Saturday morning. The answer, e-mailed by SDOT spokesperson Marybeth Turner — the lights didn’t malfunction, they just weren’t turned on:

In response to your inquiry, the “Viaduct Closed When Flashing” signs were mistakenly turned on late on Saturday. Although the road barricades and street closure signs were in place on time, the flashing lights warning drivers of the need to use other routes were not activated. We now have a procedure in place to ensure it won’t happen again.

Thanks to those who have e-mailed to point out that though the Alaskan Way Viaduct has been closed since 6 am and is scheduled to remain closed till 6 tomorrow night, the warning signs are NOT flashing, at least as of a short time ago. We spotchecked Admiral, Fauntleroy, and 35th (photo at left shows the sign next to West Seattle Stadium, around 12:15 pm) – all out. We’ll be checking with SDOT to see what the problem is. P.S. Just got a call from Scott C, who says traffic on The Bridge, eastbound, is running at a snail’s pace right now. 4:15 PM UPDATE: The lights are on now.