At a Monday night forum at Town Hall, dozens of Seattle
residents—mostly men, mostly middle-aged—lined up to gripe
about the two remaining options for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
Their main complaints centered on downtown access under one scenario
(what good is a new viaduct if it doesn’t include any downtown Seattle
exits?) and on speed under the other (how dare the state propose new
speed limits and stop signs on the surface option?).
Notably absent from the discussion was any mention of one of the six
options that were rejected: state house Speaker Frank Chopp’s elevated
tunnel, also known as the “integrated elevated” proposal. That
option—an elevated highway enclosed by a wall on the waterfront,
under which Chopp believes businesses would move—is no longer
among the official proposals, but it’s far from off the table. Sources
who’ve met with Chopp say his current line is: “The executives are
making a recommendation, the legislature is making the decision.”
In other words, this week’s “final decision” was anything but.
The Great Wall of Chopp can still be beaten, but only if the people
who oppose it—that would be just about everyone—can get
together behind an option instead of bickering among themselves. And
that’s a big if—currently, opponents of the Chopp option are
widely divided, with some (like King County executive Ron Sims)
supporting a surface option and others (like King County Council member
Larry Phillips) apparently still favoring a tunnel, which viaduct
planners rejected as prohibitively expensive.
Unbeknownst to most outside the county, Phillips, who plans to
challenge Sims this year, inserted an item in the county budget that
allocates $250,000 to an “expert review panel” (yes, another one) to “develop an independent analysis” of the various viaduct
replacement options. “This analysis shall evaluate the mobility impacts
of the options and the county’s ability to provide transit services
assumed in each option”—a clear slap at the surface/
transit
proposal, which assumes a much greater increase in transit service than
the elevated and tunnel options. Originally, in fact, Phillips’s
proposal would only have taken effect if the surface/transit option
were chosen as the preferred alternative.
At a Monday morning county council meeting, Phillips expressed
skepticism that the
surface/transit option could work, noting that
it would carry fewer cars than the current viaduct and asking
rhetorically how the county was supposed to pay for all the extra
transit assumed in the surface/transit proposal. He also raised the
idea of digging a deep-bore tunnel through downtown—an idea the
agencies that evaluated the proposals rejected. Sound Transit, Phillips
noted, is building a bored tunnel for $1.5 billion. “I’m still trying
to figure out why this is so much more expensive,” Phillips said.
(There’s a complicated engineering answer for
that one.)
The problem isn’t so much that concerns remain about the surface
option, as it is that the time for expressing concerns is drawing to a
close. The more dissent is sown, the more viable Chopp’s elevated
tunnel becomes. And that’s a prospect even surface/
transit
discontents like Phillips should be able to agree is the worst of all
possible worlds. 
Wow. Pitiful.
Yep, the Chopp “tunnel in the sky” could well become reality if we don’t come together with an alternative that works for as many people as possible. Even the evil car people.
Imagine coming in on a ferry every day and facing a Berlin Wall of empty retail and office space that was built and never fleshed out. Empty graffiti strewn storefronts on Broadway and University Way are bad enough.
Face it, the surface option screws over a lot of people who, directly and indirectly, depend on the viaduct. These people will vote for anything other than the surface plan, including Chopp’s plan if that’s their only alternative.
The only way to unify opposition against Chopp’s plan is for the surface zealots to throw these people a bone and open their minds to the tunnel.
If that doesn’t happen, it’s a total crapshoot as to which option, if any, will ultimately be built.
You all act like you actually get a vote on this.
News flash – you don’t.
It will be decided at the state legislature and then we’ll qualify for double match federal funds from the Obama Rebuilding America Infrastructure plan.
Which, quite frankly, is why the tunnel options are dead dead dead – they can’t be completed in time for the double match of fed dollars, and everyone knows it.
It seems obvious that WsDOT only intends to build the elevated replacement, to hell with Blue Seattle’s Waterfront. What’s even more bizarre it SDOT’s apparent cooperation toward that end.
SDOT chief Grace Crunican left a poor record on inner-city highway planning as ODOT chief, making conscious effort to downgrade pedestrian mobility.
Every single surface design for Alaskan Way is ridiculous. From putting the streetcar in the middle of the wide plaza, the wide plaza itself, putting bicyclers in painted lanes in traffic, the excessive number stoplights, and stoplights at points which are obvious hazards, Grace Crunican is either a monstrously incompetent failure or a success at making surface options impossible.
I believe the Lidded Trench, Scenario ‘H’ is the best option. It’s the least expensive tunnel technology. Its ventilator openings make a fine median for pedestrian crossing. That said, it should be located closer to the Seawall.
The wide plaza isn’t a good idea. The Waterfront District economy cannot function with too little road access (separate from Alaskan Way) and surface parking. It’s likely the plaza would be converted to several parking lots. Oh yes it would.
Early designs showed a frontage road with surface parking on the east side. This should be remain an option. People, you’re being messed with by powerful business interests in control of transportation planning departments. Erika Barnett is one of them.
Thanks for sharing the view from Portland, Wells.
There is a lot of incompetency going on up here in Seattle. But it’s not coming out of SDOT or the Mayor’s office.
The road to hell is always paved to Olympia.
I’AM SOOOOOOOOO SICK AND TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT THIS ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT ISSUE I CAN’T STAND IT ANY MORE. PEOPLE “WAKE UP”, OF COURSE THERE GOING TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON THIS DEAD HORSE ISSUE ALTHOUGH NOT RIGHT, $250.000 NOW AND THEN ANOTHER $250.000 LATER, SO ON AND SO ON.NO MATTER WHAT IS SAID, WRITTEN, OR TALKED ABOUT, NO ONE IS HAPPY WITH ANYTHING THAT ANYONE COMES UP WITH.SO JUST SHUT THE HELL UP AND HANG ON FOR THE “LONG RIDE” BECAUSE SOONER OR LATER REGUARDLESS HOW MUCH MONEY IS SPENT,IT ” WILL ” COME.
Howdy everyone,
Here’s an idea. Let’s say that we are in a liquidity trap and Obama decides to plow money (a la Keynes) into massive capital projects. What else is he going to do with another $800 billion.
Suddenly the tunnel makes sense and isn’t so expensive. Especially if the Fed starts printing more money. Hell, I’ll grab a shovel and start digging for $30 an hour.
The exchange is NO SURFACE replacement. All the cars go in the tunnel. And yes it will be clogged and worthless for traffic in 10 years. Another win.
Let’s revive the tunnel option with NO SURFACE.
Grab a freakin’ shovel! Let’s start digging for America’s future.
I heard they are going to replace the viaduct with an basketball arena to lure back the OKC Thunder.
Произошло знаменательное событие-открылся новый сайт с абсолютно бесплатным видео для взрослых в avi формате. Адрес портала это руководство к действию http://rukablud.ru
Only one person is keeping talk of Chopp’s wall alive, and that is the ignorant, incompetent twat named Erica C. Barnett.
Disgusting. We can not have a cement wall between our core and the bay.
A major city with effectively two lanes of freeway to pass through it’s heart is an absurd idea. Tearing down the viaduct in favor of pushing more traffic onto surface streets is equally absurd. We need to build a big-ass elevated replacement. End of story.
Ride your bike somewhere else.