Search Results for: viaduct

A final decision due this week on replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct has been postponed, so that transportation officials can reconsider the option of a deep-bore tunnel.

“I think the governor would say that if we could make the numbers work, that is probably the most viable option,” Judd said. “But that option is going to mean that there has to be a real meaningful partnership with the city and county and Port [of Seattle] to make it happen.”

Meaningful partnership? In other words, Seattle taxpayers are going to be asked to pony up the extra bucks needed to pay the extra cost of a tunnel over the less expensive surface/transit option… which I suppose would be fair, if Seattle taxpayers actually preferred the tunnel… which they don’t.  Whether the money comes from the county, the city or the port, it still comes from us taxpayers, and I betcha if you put the two options on the ballot with the cost to local taxpayers clearly stated, the pricier tunnel option gets buried in a landslide.  That’s why, if chosen, you won’t see this on a ballot.

Oh, but wait… the Discovery Institute’s Bruce Agnew, the main advocate of The Big Bore, says the tunnel would actually cost less than engineers have previously estimated:

“We’ve always felt that, given the advances in deep-bore tunnels and the ability to build a deep-bore tunnel without interfering with the economy downtown and, given the experience we have in the region with deep-bore tunnel, specifically Beacon Hill, it would be a real tragedy to take it prematurely out of the running.”

Yeah, but then again, these are folks who don’t believe in evolution, so forgive me for taking their claimed scientific and technical expertise with a grain of salt.  As I wrote on this subject over a year ago:

In a city where completion of a 1.3 mile vanity trolley line is feted like some transportation miracle, the very notion that local voters might commit more than a half billion dollars a mile to an untested technology is a dramatic tribute to Discovery’s primary mission of promoting the exercise of faith over reason.

Of course, what Discovery really has faith in is the invisible hand of God—ie, the divine power of the free market to make gobs of money for themselves and their well-heeled friends—and buried along with their tunnel proposal is the notion that the extra cost will be paid for via some sort of “public-private” partnership… you know, taxpayer money heavily subsidizing a for-profit venture.  So now that we’re seriously talking about a deep-bore tunnel, get ready for the talk about privatizing it.

The Seattle P-I editorial board doesn’t want to cut off talk of a tunnel option to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct:

We fear that eliminating any talk of a tunnel will lead to a political confrontation in Olympia that will favor another elevated monstrosity. Potentially, that would even reinvigorate the possibilities for House Speaker Frank Chopp’s overwrought, multistory highway-park-stores- and-offices mega structure, which the planners rightly intend to eliminate from further consideration.

[…]

Major surface and transit improvements must be in place when the current viaduct comes down, no matter what permanent plan is pursued. And, even with impressive recent enhancements for Interstate 5, the surface option is the cheapest. So, we hope Gov. Chris Gregoire, King County Executive Ron Sims and Mayor Greg Nickels will agree on the surface solution as their basic strategy.

We also believe, however, that the three leaders should reopen the idea of a compromise embracing the surface option with some sort of a commitment to studying a tunnel. The compromise wouldn’t have to be exactly the “hybrid” proposal favored by business groups. But it should include at least some traffic speed and volume metrics that would provoke a tunnel study if the surface streets and enhanced transit capacity prove less effective than supporters expect. After all, we think a surface-and-transit solution will work quite well for traffic, the environment and the economy, but we don’t know for sure.

I’m not sure how building the surface/transit alternative eliminates the possibility of a future deep bore tunnel, should technology improvements make it affordable and traffic demand it.  But I see no harm in building in a committment to explore the possibility at some point in the future.  After all, talk is cheap; it’s actual action for which our region has trouble coughing up the cash.

Seriously, shaddup:

The decision by transportation planners to possibly map a replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct along Western Avenue worries those at the Pike Place Market who fear it could damage the Market’s historic character.

“We’re disappointed this was chosen,” said Carol Binder, executive director of the Market. “We’re going to have to change and look at some of the ways we operate.”

Apparently, the folks at the Market would rather have an elevated freeway in their front yard than an arterial street. Huh.

If you’re not 100% clued in to why they’d be upset with the surface “couplet” option, here’s the skinny:

Instead of a viaduct freeway through downtown Seattle, the “couplet” would send traffic north and south on a reconfigured street grid, using Alaskan Way’s southbound lanes and Western Avenue’s northbound lanes as replacements, knitting together the street grid without building a limited access freeway through the neighborhood.

Western currently comes to a four-way stop at the north end of the Market, near Victor Steinbrueck Park. The plan would be to lid Western near the park, sending traffic under the Market instead of through it.

There is all sorts of hyperventilating over this whole viaduct mess. The Pike Place Market has nothing to worry about. On an issue where so many can disagree, everyone involved agrees that the Market is something worth protecting.

An advisory panel has narrowed the replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct down to two options, and surprise… neither is state House Speaker Frank Chopp’s mile long Suicide Park Mall.

One is an elevated-bypass hybrid that would run along the waterfront on two independent bridge structures side by side with two lanes in each direction. It would connect to the Battery Street tunnel on the north and a new intersection on the south near Qwest and Safeco fields. Alaskan Way would be placed under the elevated structures. The cost estimate is $2.3 billion. When construction costs, traffic mitigation and related projects are added, the cost would be $3.5 billion.

The other option is a surface/transit scenario, which would create a pair of north and southbound streets along the waterfront. Alaskan Way would become a one-way southbound street with three lanes and a bike lane. Western Avenue would become a one-way northbound street with three lanes and a bike lane. The cost is estimated at $2.2 billion. With construction and traffic mitigation and related projects, the cost would be $3.3 billion.

An “elevated-bypass hybrid,” huh.  Back in the 1950’s, I think they called that a “viaduct.” 

If I were a betting man, I’d bet on the surface/transit option.

The Downtown Seattle Association, along with a who’s who of the city’s most prominent retail and residential real estate developers, has sent a letter to various state and local officials, all but laughing at the economic viability of “Option E,” state House Speaker Frank Chopp’s preferred alternative to replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct.

“This alternative relies on an economic premise that we believe is fundamentally flawed — that there is a market for nearly a mile of new retail development under the highway structure.”

No shit, Sherlock.

Chopp’s plan would call for a mile long, triple decker structure with a retail mall on the ground level and a four-lane sorta elevated tunnel above, capped with a pedestrian park.  The “genius” of Chopp’s plan is that above the basic cost of building the freeway, rents and development rights would pay for the park, the retail construction and other promised amenities.  Talk about a great deal.

Well, not so much, according to the folks who actually do this kinda stuff for a living, the very developers  Chopp is counting on to make Suicide Park Mall a reality.  Amongst the problems envisioned is the lack of demand for 600,000 square feet of new retail space, particularly at this location… you know, with all that “noise, lack of parking, and stigma of being under a freeway.”  One developer commented that the project would be too risky in a boom economy, let alone our current economic bust.

The developers also cited “engineering uncertainties” that make the project “unfeasible from a yield to cost perspective” (translation: impossible to make a profit), including the challenge of placing below-grade foundations within the highway right of way and the waterfront’s “well documented geotechnical conditions,” as well as the need to physically isolate the retail construction from the highway in order to minimize noise and vibration.

“Failure to accomplish this isolation would render the space below unacceptable for commercial occupancy.”

Given these and other inherent risks, the developers make it clear that the estimated rental income simply doesn’t offer a reasonable return on investment.

“It is our firm conviction that this scenario does not offer the commercially attractive or viable opportunities that are essential for funding the amenities that are suggested.  We strongly believe this scenario should be dropped from further analysis and consideration.”

And that’s not just some dumb blogger or activist (or mayor) talking; that’s the opinion of the chief officers of eight of the region’s most prominent developers.  Chopp can argue with the developers if he wants, but considering his project is entirely predicated on their investment, it’s the firmness of their conviction that counts, not its accuracy.

I know that given the political necessity of securing the Speaker’s cooperation whatever alternative is ultimately selected, everybody is afraid to criticize Option E as the utterly ridiculous “impractical and unachievable” fantasy it truly is, but criticizing Chopp and criticizing Chopp’s plan are not the same thing.

Chopp has done an admirable job building and maintaining a large Democratic majority in the House (using it, well, we’ll see how the coming session goes), and with a few notable exceptions he’s proven himself an effective and progressive (if sometimes too pragmatic) Speaker.  But Option E… it’s kinda crazy… economically, architecturally and politically… and it’s time somebody Chopp trusts tells him so.  All this polite beating around the bush… you’re not doing Frank any favors.

So now that the people with money have given everybody a little political cover, it is time for some prominent elected officials—including members of Chopp’s own caucus—to thank the Speaker for his creativity, but offer a very firm “no thank you” to a mile long mall that simply isn’t viable.  Otherwise, we’ll all just continue to fritter away time, money… and Speaker Chopp’s credibility.

Speaker of the House Rep. Frank Chopp (D-43, Capitol Hill, U-Disrtict, Wallingford) is getting away with murder. Other members of the House aren’t willing to go on record against Chopp’s loopy great wall on the waterfront plan because, well, Chopp’s the Speaker of the House. Erica interviewed a bunch of legislators last week for her column in the Stranger and Chopp’s House colleague’s were predictably vague.    

This is frustrating because of course, we know that off-the-record, lots of legislators think Chopp’s plan is a cockamamie idea. But without any of these elected officials coming out against Chopp’s $2.2 billion elevated freeway plan—knock knock are you there Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D-43, where 73% of voters came out against an elevated in March 2007)— we’re stuck with the political illusion that Chopp’s plan has political support. 

Well, let’s flip this around on Chopp and put that assumption to the test.

Let’s start asking a different question.

Sure no one is coming out against the Speaker’s plan. But are there any House members (or any elected officials at all, for that matter) who publicly support Chopp’s plan?

For those of you annoyed at Mayor Greg Nickels’ proposed buck an hour increase at Seattle parking meters, I say enjoy even that bargain while you can, for if the Viaduct is ultimately replaced by the “surface and transit” option, parking will be removed entirely from many of the downtown’s north/south streets.

While I’m told that having cars speeding along the curb poses an increased hazard to pedestrians, eliminating street parking is really a pretty simple and inexpensive means of adding more lanes, and thus more capacity to city streets.  Perhaps one safety solution might be to buffer pedestrians with a narrow bike lane, since urban bikers are already committed to putting their lives at risk in the service of less auto-centric transportation policies?

I’m no great fan of Barack Obama. His election will be historic, and he will provide both an inspiration and a desperately new face for America to the world. And he’s smart and competent. That said, he’s proven his corporate centrism on far too many issues (including, most recently, his enthusiastic backing of a $700 billion that I suspect we’ll soon come to widely acknowledge as a criminal looting of the treasury) for me to be much impressed. And Joe Biden, from his whoring for credit card companies to his war on drugs mania to his disastrous plan to partition Iraq, is a neat encapsulation of what is vile about many Senate Democrats.

But it doesn’t matter. In Washington state, our electoral votes are a foregone conclusion. The presidential race is strictly a spectator sport here. And, as Darryl has been demonstrating nightly, one with a pretty much foregone conclusion.

Similarly, I’m not all that worked up about this blog’s special obsession over the past two years, Burner/Reichert. Darcy would make a great Congressperson, and Reichert is a lousy one; I really hope she wins. But it’s not my district.

Where I (and most of us) will be most affected and can make a difference is in the race that concerns me most right now: the race for governor.

Four years ago, I did not support Christine Gregoire. I found Dino Rossi repellant, but after eight years of the execrable Gary Locke, I also had no love for yet another do-nothing centrist Democrat. I wound up voting for (and publicly endorsing) the Libertarian candidate, Ruth Bennett.

Once the election dust settled (without the help of my vote), though, a funny and very rare thing happened: I was won over by a politician who did a much, much better job than I expected.

Mind you, there’s still quite a bit I don’t agree with Christine Gregoire on. (And sorry, but if we can mock Sarah Palin’s faux-folksiness, I’m also not on board with the calculated effort to rebrand “Christine” as “Chris.”) In particular, Gregoire’s handling of the Alaskan Way Viaduct controversy has been both ham-fisted and wrong. But generally, Gregoire has been exactly what Locke was not: a leader who gets things done. She’s brought the legislature to the table and helped hammer out compromises on several key contentious issues. Her fiscal and executive management of the state, contrary to Rossi’s propaganda, has been exemplary. She balanced the budget, got voter-mandated education monies funded (unlike Locke, who simply ignored the voters); she used economic good times to invest in needed expenditures that had been slashed under Locke; and she also set aside money for the inevitable slow times that are now upon us. Does anyone doubt that, if elected, Rossi would have done none of this, electing instead — just like his party’s national leaders — to use the economic good times to simply give tax breaks to the wealthy?

Gregoire also deserves credit for respecting voters — not only by getting education funded, but also (much as it galls me) by pushing for enactment of Tim Eyman’s successful measures. The contrast couldn’t be clearer: Dino Rossi has shown time and again his contempt for voters, from his flagrant violation of campaign finance laws and his idiotic party label (“prefers GOP”) deception and his cynical effort to exploit Obama’s coattails to his fantastic (in the literal sense of the word) transportation plan to his consistent efforts to avoid fessing up to policy stances, especially on social issues, that are wildly out of step with this state’s electorate.

Even so, Rossi would not be making this race close if Gregoire’s story had been told effectively. Instead, she has proven herself in two campaigns now to be as bad a CEO for her campaign as she is good as a CEO for the state. Over the last 18 months I was repeatedly assured, by people who should know, that Gregoire’s people understood that they’d run a dreadful campaign in 2004, and that it would be fixed this time. Instead. Rossi — with an able assist from this state’s ever-pliant media — has skated by on his deceptions and a blizzard of negative ads that, until recently, have mostly gone unrefuted in any meaningful sense. Rossi has been allowed to define Gregoire and set the agenda for this campaign, an almost inconceivable feat given that Gregoire’s the incumbent. Even though Rossi is, if anything, even more repellant and dishonest than he was in 2004, Gregoire’s campaign incompetence could easily cost her the election, and us a very good governor.

But every poll shows this race within polling’s margin of error — which it certainly was in 2004 — and so even though many of us have already voted, this is one race where the next 24 hours could make all the difference. Get out the vote. Talk up the governor’s race among your friends, co-workers, relatives. Don’t let Dino Rossi’s dishonest and illegal campaigning carry the day. If it does, it not only establishes an awful precedent for how statewide campaigns are to be run, but it sets us up for a long four years in our state, years in which many people will needlessly suffer from Rossi’s budget priorities. And it will cost us the best governor we’ve had in ages.

WADOT has released sketches of “Option E” (formerly “Plan 9”), state House Speaker Frank Chopp’s pet alternative for replacing the Viaduct.

Imagine a milelong building, filled with office and retail, 90 feet wide and 55 feet tall, stretching from King Street to Victor Steinbrueck Park.

And on top of that would be a massive park.

Or as Will likes to call it, “Suicide Park.”

I guess the artist’s rendering is pretty and all, but imagine the view from the other side.  The side shrouded in darkness for all but a couple hours each day around noon.  We’re talking about a 90 feet wide, 55 feet tall, milelong wall separating Seattle’s waterfront from the rest of the downtown… and if you think that’s gonna happen, I’ve got an eight-lane 520 bridge to sell you.

UPDATE:
A reader emails me with another image of what the “Viaduct Mall” might look like:

Oooh… purty.

I began this week serving on Jury duty at the King County Superior court in downtown Seattle. At lunch time, I made a beeline to Ivars on the waterfront for some fast, delicious, and artery clogging seafood as only Ivars can make it.

To get there from the courthouse, I have to pass under the monstrosity known as the Alaska Way Viaduct—a noisy, ugly mass of concrete and steel that sits just east of the waterfront. On this beautiful Monday I ate my fish and chips in a little park a couple of blocks due south of Ivars, while enjoying the spectacular view and, of course, bathed in the deafening sound of traffic on the Viaduct.

I don’t spend a lot of time in downtown Seattle, so maybe I just don’t “get it.” But to me, the Viaduct completely and utterly destroyed any sense of beauty and serenity that might otherwise be found on the spectacular Seattle waterfront. Really…it stinks.

Apparently not everyone shares my opinion:

The 2.2-mile viaduct is viewed by many as an aging waterfront misfit but was considered unique and “very clever” as a structure and a highway bypass when it was opened in 1953. That makes it ‘historically significant,’ ” said Art Skolnik, a land use consultant.

Skolnik, a longtime advocate of repairing and preserving the viaduct, said he’ll ask the Governor’s Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation to on Friday nominate the viaduct for placement on the National Register of Historic Places.

Historically significant my ass! It’s an ugly, dirty, noisy blemish on the landscape. In fact, it’s hard to imagine anything more disturbingly invasive, or more destructive of the potential for the Seattle waterfront, aside from, say, using the space to store dead bodies or nuclear waste (maybe…I mean, nuclear waste is much quieter).

At the time it was opened “it was a big solution to a difficult problem,” Skolnik said. “Back then it was cheered.”

…until people actually thought about being pedestrians on the waterfront!

We can learn from our mistakes. Tear the fucking thing down! And vow to never, EVER make that mistake again!

Far be it from me to offer advice I rarely follow myself, but I think the editors at Crosscut might want to actually read Crosscut before slapping on headlines. Take for example Knute Berger’s latest Mossback, whose teaser scolds:

Seattle’s mayor waves the flag of secession. In so doing, he may have waved goodbye to a future in state politics.

… but whose closing paragraph acknowledges:

One thing we can be certain of: Greg Nickels’ ambitions do not include running for governor. Being Seattle mayor has long been a dubious Olympia springboard.

So… Nickels has, uh, waved goodbye to a future in state politics he’s never had? Um… huh?

In fact, Nickels destroyed any chance he might have had for statewide office the minute he was elected Seattle’s mayor, because the rest of the state fucking hates us, a cold reality implicitly (if politely) acknowledged in Berger’s closer. Which brings us back to subject of Nickels’ little rant.

Nickels criticized the Legislature and regional governance. He said he was tired of rural legislators weighing in on issues like the Alaskan Way Viaduct and gun control. He was frustrated that Seattle was being held back by the rest of the state and said that it was time to consider secession.

Berger dismisses Nickels’ assertion that his call for secession was “tongue-in-cheek” because apparently, journalists are much more capable of climbing inside the heads of their subjects than their subjects themselves, and no politician could ever be subtle enough to deliberately suggest an absurdity purely for dramatic effect. But absurd as secession is, there is a truth at the heart of Nickels’ complaint that deserves more scrutiny than our state’s holier-than-thou editorialists are willing to proffer.

The fact is, Nickels isn’t the only Seattleite who is sick and tired of the rest of the state interfering in our business. We’re tired of being told by voters elsewhere that we’re not allowed to tax ourselves locally to build the local transit we want. We’re tired of being told that we shouldn’t have a say in whether a massive double-decker freeway continues to mar our waterfront, or whether the 520 bridge should have six or eight lanes. We’re tired of being told how much we can spend on our schools or on our roads, and having our hands tied behind our backs by the legislature when it comes to options for raising tax dollars. And we’re goddamn sick and tired of sending our tax dollars out of city and over the mountains, only to be abused and reviled under the deliberately perpetrated false impression that money flows in the other direction:

The Yakima Herald-Republic called Nickels’ secession call “absurd” and wondered where Seattle would get its food if it lopped off its agricultural arm. Looking on the bright side, they opined that at least “we’ll get out of our share of the billions needed to fix Puget Sound’s traffic problems.”

A) We’d get our food the way we’ve always gotten it: we’d buy it! And B) Where the fuck do they think the billions needed to fix our traffic problems is coming from? It sure as hell ain’t coming from Yakima. If Seattle were to secede, Yakima’s share of its state’s transportation budget would be a helluva lot less than it’s getting now, so have fun maintaining all those roads we built.

What galls me about the reaction to Nickels’ comments is how incredibly one-sided the discourse in this state has become. Politicians and columnists throughout the state have free reign to dream up paranoid fantasies about big bad Seattle—Dino Rossi wades in it; Mike McGavick ran on it—but heaven forfend if a Seattle politician responds in kind. Do Nickels’ comments help tear down the Cascade curtain? Hell no, but at least they add a little balance to the popular fiction that Seattle is a drain on the rest of the state’s tax coffers, rather than the other way around.

I’ve been reading through Dino Rossi’s transportation “plan,” trying to figure it out, and for the life of me I just can’t make his numbers add up. Wider bridges cost less than narrower bridges? Tunnels are now suddenly cheaper than elevated viaducts? We can divert $10 billion out of the state general fund to transportation, without raising taxes or cutting services, and still balance the budget?

You gotta give Dino credit though for listening to voters. Polling conducted in the wake of Prop 1’s defeat showed that voters want a transportation plan that does more but cost taxpayers less — and that’s exactly what Dino is promising. Too bad the only way for him to deliver on these promises is to print the money to pay for them.

UPDATE:
It looks like I’m not the only one who can’t figure out Dino’s new math…

“Mark Hallenbeck, director of the Washington state Transportation Center at the University of Washington, said Rossi’s numbers are ’completely divorced from reality.’ […] ‘He lowballs almost all the estimates and never says where all the funds are going to come from. It’s a political statement. It’s complete silliness,’ Hallenbeck said.
— Seattle Times, 4/16/08

“The Republican candidate for Washington’s governor outlined a number of spending initiatives, from an expensive tunnel replacing Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct to a north-south freeway in Spokane. But when it came to paying for them, he punted. Actually, faked is more like it. […] it’s another something-for-nothing scheme…”
— Lewiston Tribune, 4/17/08

“Can Dino Rossi’s freshly unveiled transportation plan solve our traffic mess? Doubtful. Many of the cost figures cited in it appear to be based more on wishful thinking than thoughtful analysis.”
— Everett Herald, 4/17/08

“…the particulars of his proposal seem a little delusional.”
— The Stranger, 4/16/08

“Of course, his plan to use all that state money has only a snowball’s chance in hell…”
— Tacoma News Tribune, 4/15/08

“Rossi’s ideas run counter to local public opinion…”
— Seattle P-I, 4/16/08

“Further criticism came from the Director of the Washington State Transportation Center, who said in the Seattle Times that Rossi lowballed all of his estimates.”
— KXLY, 4/16/08

Over on Slog, Josh Feit reports that the Waterfront Trolley is dead.

[Deputy Mayor Tim] Cies told me tonight that the waterfront trolley idea “no longer fit into the city’s transportation plan.”

He also cited the fact that plans to revamp the viaduct had thrown the waterfront trolley plans into limbo. Also: too expensive.

“It’s not in our plans, and we’re moving ahead,” Ceis says, saying the new priorities were servicing the transportation grid around the viaduct and around light rail through Capitol Hill.

I dunno, just seems kinda silly that we  spent all this money laying down tracks for the SLUT, with City Hall talking ambitious plans to build a half dozen other trolley lines throughout the city, but we’re just not interested in using the tracks we already have.