McGinn’s Main Complaint

That’s funny…I knew that McGinn was using the funding issue as a talking point, but he was also making clear he thought that the money involved should instead be used for the surface option, more light rail, and more (and presumably wider) bike lanes. (ftr – that wasn’t a tubby joke – the bike lanes should be wider, for the safety of cyclists, and my own personal not wanting to worry about hitting a damn cyclist). So, what I heard in the campaign was not “The main reason I don’t like it is the cost overrun provision”, but rather, “I don’t like it because I don’t like cars, I don’t like capital projects that aren’t light rail, I don’t like the plan for the Mercer Mess…oh, and there’s this little provision.” I mean, I could be wrong but…well…I don’t think I am.

But, to the poll – for one, this is SurveyUSA, and I generally have disdain for SurveyUSA’s methods. Robo-polls are lame-o. Also, as was pointed out in Slog, this isn’t just likely voters.

That being said, the $800 poll that McGinn ran was before there was really any opposition allowed to mount to the idea, so with more information being out there, I think it would be safe to say that, at this point, the likely voters who would support the measure falls between 53% and 70%.

Additionally, you properly cite that 57% of Seattleites don’t want the tunnel built if Seattle gets pegged with cost overruns (of which there is no way to tell how much they are or how they would be paid for if the City didn’t get the bill). You miss the other number – Support for the tunnel in and of itself is 53% (opposition 39%).

I’ve been seeing a lot of folks talking about the voters clearly not wanting the tunnel because they elected McGinn (even though one of the biggest proponents of the tunnel, Richard Conlin, was elected by a much larger margin), or that we already voted it down (which is also untrue – that was the cut-and-cover, and that was a waste of money advisory vote). However, the polling has regularly suggested that the bore tunnel has and maintains the most support of any of the options that are feasible (ie: there will be a highway, will it be bored, elevated, or cut and cover is the question).

So, McGinn may have changed his stance on the tunnel…sort of…and may be changing his why, but, in the end, he would do well to not attempt to obstruct the tunnel. A highway will be built, and the longer we take to make it “perfect”, the more expensive it will be.

That’s funny…I knew that McGinn was using the funding issue as a talking point, but he was also making clear he thought that the money involved should instead be used for the surface option, more light rail, and more (and presumably wider) bike lanes. (ftr – that wasn’t a tubby joke – the bike lanes should be wider, for the safety of cyclists, and my own personal not wanting to worry about hitting a damn cyclist). So, what I heard in the campaign was not “The main reason I don’t like it is the cost overrun provision”, but rather, “I don’t like it because I don’t like cars, I don’t like capital projects that aren’t light rail, I don’t like the plan for the Mercer Mess…oh, and there’s this little provision.” I mean, I could be wrong but…well…I don’t think I am.

But, to the poll – for one, this is SurveyUSA, and I generally have disdain for SurveyUSA’s methods. Robo-polls are lame-o. Also, as was pointed out in Slog, this isn’t just likely voters.

That being said, the $800 poll that McGinn ran was before there was really any opposition allowed to mount to the idea, so with more information being out there, I think it would be safe to say that, at this point, the likely voters who would support the measure falls between 53% and 70%.

Additionally, you properly cite that 57% of Seattleites don’t want the tunnel built if Seattle gets pegged with cost overruns (of which there is no way to tell how much they are or how they would be paid for if the City didn’t get the bill). You miss the other number – Support for the tunnel in and of itself is 53% (opposition 39%).

I’ve been seeing a lot of folks talking about the voters clearly not wanting the tunnel because they elected McGinn (even though one of the biggest proponents of the tunnel, Richard Conlin, was elected by a much larger margin), or that we already voted it down (which is also untrue – that was the cut-and-cover, and that was a waste of money advisory vote). However, the polling has regularly suggested that the bore tunnel has and maintains the most support of any of the options that are feasible (ie: there will be a highway, will it be bored, elevated, or cut and cover is the question).

So, McGinn may have changed his stance on the tunnel…sort of…and may be changing his why, but, in the end, he would do well to not attempt to obstruct the tunnel. A highway will be built, and the longer we take to make it “perfect”, the more expensive it will be.

The cost over run question was poorly worded. I reads more as asking “if there are cost over runs and Seattle has to pay” which is asking both do you support the tunnel even if there are cost over runs and do you support the tunnel if Seattle is on the hook for them. A better question would separate those out to see if the opposition is more to it going over budget, e.g. the tunnel is only worth it at 4.2b or Seattle having to pay more.

And Seattle is not necessarily on the hook for cost overruns, it is simply that the current state contribution to the project is limited. There are other options that do not involve Seattle tax payers being asked to kick in, such as higher tolls, more money from the port, or a future legislature blinking before Seattle does in a future battle.

The cost over run question was poorly worded. I reads more as asking “if there are cost over runs and Seattle has to pay” which is asking both do you support the tunnel even if there are cost over runs and do you support the tunnel if Seattle is on the hook for them. A better question would separate those out to see if the opposition is more to it going over budget, e.g. the tunnel is only worth it at 4.2b or Seattle having to pay more.

And Seattle is not necessarily on the hook for cost overruns, it is simply that the current state contribution to the project is limited. There are other options that do not involve Seattle tax payers being asked to kick in, such as higher tolls, more money from the port, or a future legislature blinking before Seattle does in a future battle.

Also the deep bore tunnel is the only one the state has promised funds for. Should it be scrapped we very likely would be footing the whole thing ourselves and even if not, the state portion is still going to be fixed.

They won’t be writing a blank check for the surface option(which most certainly costs the city more) either.

Also the deep bore tunnel is the only one the state has promised funds for. Should it be scrapped we very likely would be footing the whole thing ourselves and even if not, the state portion is still going to be fixed.

They won’t be writing a blank check for the surface option(which most certainly costs the city more) either.

Thank you Michael Maddux for admitting a cut-cover tunnel is a possible alternative. I’m tired of being the only one on Seattle forum boards making the case that it’s by far the better option. You’d think Seattle’s ‘green’ community would comprehend the environmental impact and detriment to public health of 40,000 more cars every day on Alaskan Way and Mercer Street.

Thank you Michael Maddux for admitting a cut-cover tunnel is a possible alternative. I’m tired of being the only one on Seattle forum boards making the case that it’s by far the better option. You’d think Seattle’s ‘green’ community would comprehend the environmental impact and detriment to public health of 40,000 more cars every day on Alaskan Way and Mercer Street.

A poll of Tom Rasmussen (he, polling at 90%) is the vote Mayor McSandbag has to worry about.

It is a real shame that the latest cost estimate did not support his argument.

A poll of Tom Rasmussen (he, polling at 90%) is the vote Mayor McSandbag has to worry about.

It is a real shame that the latest cost estimate did not support his argument.

@ Wells – ftr, I don’t support a C/C at all. I just readily admit that it is one of the three options that are actually realistic. As Giffy pointed out, if there’s not a highway, be it elevated or underground, there’s no state money.
-
@ Mr. Baker – I like Tom. I really do. But I don’t see him running for mayor. It does make me happy that he is really putting his foot down, and staking his claim on Transpo issues.

@ Wells – ftr, I don’t support a C/C at all. I just readily admit that it is one of the three options that are actually realistic. As Giffy pointed out, if there’s not a highway, be it elevated or underground, there’s no state money.
-
@ Mr. Baker – I like Tom. I really do. But I don’t see him running for mayor. It does make me happy that he is really putting his foot down, and staking his claim on Transpo issues.

OK Maddux, Why don’t you support a cut-cover? It seems the obvious choice to me, other than the pooh-pooh inconvenience to motorists during construction. A cut-cover does the job better by far, in every way, including avoiding inconveniece to motorists who’ll face bumper-to-bumper gridlock on Alaskan Way and Mercer after construction. Has no Seattler the cajones to analyze tunnel options and admit this obvious truth?

OK Maddux, Why don’t you support a cut-cover? It seems the obvious choice to me, other than the pooh-pooh inconvenience to motorists during construction. A cut-cover does the job better by far, in every way, including avoiding inconveniece to motorists who’ll face bumper-to-bumper gridlock on Alaskan Way and Mercer after construction. Has no Seattler the cajones to analyze tunnel options and admit this obvious truth?

If we’re going to vote on the sea wall, why don’t we vote on actual funding for the tunnel project?

The cut and cover lost by 70 to 30. Maybe that’s why no one else is promoting it. It only had 4 lanes unless you want to count the shoulder and had a huge problem getting up to 99. It also shut down the waterfront for years.

SurveyUSA polls I’ve followed have been as accurate as any. I prefer them as they are short and don’t have somebody from anywhere USA trying to pronounce local names.

If we’re going to vote on the sea wall, why don’t we vote on actual funding for the tunnel project?

The cut and cover lost by 70 to 30. Maybe that’s why no one else is promoting it. It only had 4 lanes unless you want to count the shoulder and had a huge problem getting up to 99. It also shut down the waterfront for years.

SurveyUSA polls I’ve followed have been as accurate as any. I prefer them as they are short and don’t have somebody from anywhere USA trying to pronounce local names.

It is almost impossible to pass 60% and its only in rare instances on a Presidential ballot with a superb campaign and overwhelming establishment support. That is why levy’s work. And McGinn and his people know that for a fact too, so why the special election, out of the blue, no support, tied to the tunnel etc. And he acts like a wounded puppy — ” i am just thinking of public safety here, not about politics” right. hey publicola, follow the emails.

It is almost impossible to pass 60% and its only in rare instances on a Presidential ballot with a superb campaign and overwhelming establishment support. That is why levy’s work. And McGinn and his people know that for a fact too, so why the special election, out of the blue, no support, tied to the tunnel etc. And he acts like a wounded puppy — ” i am just thinking of public safety here, not about politics” right. hey publicola, follow the emails.

@ Wells – For one, there is that inconvenience, for six years. Not just to motorists, but to business owners, tourists, buses, etc. Additionally, I see more risk in cost overruns with a c/c than a deep bore. I don’t want Seattle to have the next “big dig” fiasco.
-
Realistically, I actually prefer a rebuild because of the cost issue. I do believe we can spend our money better. However, I really like the idea of the waterfront re-joining downtown, and seeing the increase in property values along 1st Ave and Alaskan Way. So, my preference for a rebuild isn’t strong enough for me to be an opponent of a tunnel (I prefer a tunnel from every standpoint except the cost).

@ Wells – For one, there is that inconvenience, for six years. Not just to motorists, but to business owners, tourists, buses, etc. Additionally, I see more risk in cost overruns with a c/c than a deep bore. I don’t want Seattle to have the next “big dig” fiasco.
-
Realistically, I actually prefer a rebuild because of the cost issue. I do believe we can spend our money better. However, I really like the idea of the waterfront re-joining downtown, and seeing the increase in property values along 1st Ave and Alaskan Way. So, my preference for a rebuild isn’t strong enough for me to be an opponent of a tunnel (I prefer a tunnel from every standpoint except the cost).

@ Maddux: “That being said, the $800 poll that McGinn ran was before there was really any opposition allowed to mount to the idea, so with more information being out there, I think it would be safe to say that, at this point, the likely voters who would support the measure falls between 53% and 70%.”

Confirmation bias, at its best.

@ Maddux: “That being said, the $800 poll that McGinn ran was before there was really any opposition allowed to mount to the idea, so with more information being out there, I think it would be safe to say that, at this point, the likely voters who would support the measure falls between 53% and 70%.”

Confirmation bias, at its best.

@hmmmm
-
Duh. Although, I’m at least willing to admit that there may be more support than the 60% necessary. Would McGinn be willing to admit that there may be less?

@hmmmm
-
Duh. Although, I’m at least willing to admit that there may be more support than the 60% necessary. Would McGinn be willing to admit that there may be less?

And to further that, his poll was commissioned by him to find out what he wanted it to say. I haven’t seen what the questions asked were, or the crosstabs, which SurveyUSA does provide.
-
So, as far as polling on this issue goes, I would be more inclined to trust SurveyUSA than whoever did the McGinn poll, at least until I saw all of the questions that were asked in that one (and if they’re out and available in the interwebs, please point me in the direction).

And to further that, his poll was commissioned by him to find out what he wanted it to say. I haven’t seen what the questions asked were, or the crosstabs, which SurveyUSA does provide.
-
So, as far as polling on this issue goes, I would be more inclined to trust SurveyUSA than whoever did the McGinn poll, at least until I saw all of the questions that were asked in that one (and if they’re out and available in the interwebs, please point me in the direction).

Removing the AWV, rebuilding the seawall and Alaskan Way are unavoidable construction disruption and inconvenience, Maddux.

A cut/cover tunnel could be built in 2 or 3 years. Picture digging a cut/cover trench in 2-block segments from the south end. Normal Alaskan Way traffic is diverted around the trench, under the AWV, and retured to the surface above completed segments. Once the portal at Pike is completed, the AWV is closed and SR99 traffic diverted via Broad Street over the new bridge across the railroad tracks onto Alaskan Way and into the portal. Then, the AWV is removed, the Lower Belltown segment and Alaskan Way could be built in 2 years.

This construction process doesn’t sound so bad, does it? At any rate, once completed, a cut/cover handles the traffic SR99 does now, and that makes it the more sensible tunnel option.

The “Mercer West” project is dependent upon the Deep-bore, but it will make Mercer worse.

Furthermore, the current Alaskan Way design is nonsense. Early Alaskan Way designs (pre-Crunican) incorporated a 2-lane frontage road on the eastside to divide thru-traffic from motorists looking to park. Yes, it cuts down the Wide Plaza, but either traffic is managed, sensibly directed, or it will gridlock on those stoplights. The frontage road allows at least 3 of the 13 stoplights between Pike and King to be removed. Alaskan Way traffic to Interbay will use the Broad Street Bridge over the railroad tracks instead of Western/Elliott.

You’re right that this cut-cover has the possiblity of cost overruns, but no more than the Deep-bore. It certainly does the job of managing traffic better. It also makes for the strongest seawall and most stable Alaskan Way surface.

Removing the AWV, rebuilding the seawall and Alaskan Way are unavoidable construction disruption and inconvenience, Maddux.

A cut/cover tunnel could be built in 2 or 3 years. Picture digging a cut/cover trench in 2-block segments from the south end. Normal Alaskan Way traffic is diverted around the trench, under the AWV, and retured to the surface above completed segments. Once the portal at Pike is completed, the AWV is closed and SR99 traffic diverted via Broad Street over the new bridge across the railroad tracks onto Alaskan Way and into the portal. Then, the AWV is removed, the Lower Belltown segment and Alaskan Way could be built in 2 years.

This construction process doesn’t sound so bad, does it? At any rate, once completed, a cut/cover handles the traffic SR99 does now, and that makes it the more sensible tunnel option.

The “Mercer West” project is dependent upon the Deep-bore, but it will make Mercer worse.

Furthermore, the current Alaskan Way design is nonsense. Early Alaskan Way designs (pre-Crunican) incorporated a 2-lane frontage road on the eastside to divide thru-traffic from motorists looking to park. Yes, it cuts down the Wide Plaza, but either traffic is managed, sensibly directed, or it will gridlock on those stoplights. The frontage road allows at least 3 of the 13 stoplights between Pike and King to be removed. Alaskan Way traffic to Interbay will use the Broad Street Bridge over the railroad tracks instead of Western/Elliott.

You’re right that this cut-cover has the possiblity of cost overruns, but no more than the Deep-bore. It certainly does the job of managing traffic better. It also makes for the strongest seawall and most stable Alaskan Way surface.

Here are the crosstabs from SurveyUSA. King 5 linked to them.

I haven’t looked at them yet, but I suspect that both polls had serious flaws. That means 2 things:
1. Interpret with care.
2. Don’t make important decisions based on them.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=bab13676-9c53-485e-afc5-20860f280157&c=28

Here are the crosstabs from SurveyUSA. King 5 linked to them.

I haven’t looked at them yet, but I suspect that both polls had serious flaws. That means 2 things:
1. Interpret with care.
2. Don’t make important decisions based on them.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=bab13676-9c53-485e-afc5-20860f280157&c=28

—–The questions look pretty reasonable – not leading or double-barreled. I am concerned about them sampling the general public, regardless of their voting behavior. I have the opposite concern w/McGinn’s poll – the sampling may be better, but the questions are a bit leading. Thus the term ‘push poll’.

—–But so what? The reality is that the state is going to build the tunnel, Council is not going to put the seawall levy on the May ballot, and Council is going to stick to their belief that the State can’t legally make us pay for over-runs.

—–The questions look pretty reasonable – not leading or double-barreled. I am concerned about them sampling the general public, regardless of their voting behavior. I have the opposite concern w/McGinn’s poll – the sampling may be better, but the questions are a bit leading. Thus the term ‘push poll’.

—–But so what? The reality is that the state is going to build the tunnel, Council is not going to put the seawall levy on the May ballot, and Council is going to stick to their belief that the State can’t legally make us pay for over-runs.

@ Wells -
-
The reduce traffic capacity is, in my mind, a good thing. We can’t go all the way down to 0 (like the Mayor wanted at one point, but then didn’t, and now only cared about cost overruns, apparently), but part of the current plan includes $15mm/year in transit improvements (buses, scheduling, blah blah blah), and that is a good thing. Reduced capacity helps utilize that, and move towards less drivers (which is a good thing).
-
I could be wrong, but I do think that c/c has higher risk of massive overruns than a deep-bore. As for all the engineering stuff – I’m not an engineer, and all of what you just said went over my head (not really, it sounded like details…ewwww). Either way, a tunnel is superior in most fashions to an elevated structure (except cost), and all three are far superior to the craptastic idea of the surface street “option” (which the state has already ruled out as an option).
-
@Soapboxin’
-
Publicola was kind enough to include those crosstabs. It’s the ones from the mayor’s *cough*push*cough* poll that are unavailable (and I like to see all of the questions asked, even unrelated ones).

@ Wells -
-
The reduce traffic capacity is, in my mind, a good thing. We can’t go all the way down to 0 (like the Mayor wanted at one point, but then didn’t, and now only cared about cost overruns, apparently), but part of the current plan includes $15mm/year in transit improvements (buses, scheduling, blah blah blah), and that is a good thing. Reduced capacity helps utilize that, and move towards less drivers (which is a good thing).
-
I could be wrong, but I do think that c/c has higher risk of massive overruns than a deep-bore. As for all the engineering stuff – I’m not an engineer, and all of what you just said went over my head (not really, it sounded like details…ewwww). Either way, a tunnel is superior in most fashions to an elevated structure (except cost), and all three are far superior to the craptastic idea of the surface street “option” (which the state has already ruled out as an option).
-
@Soapboxin’
-
Publicola was kind enough to include those crosstabs. It’s the ones from the mayor’s *cough*push*cough* poll that are unavailable (and I like to see all of the questions asked, even unrelated ones).

The numbers on the poll are very negative for the passage of the sea wall bond. The yes vote is way too dependent on young voters.

The numbers on the poll are very negative for the passage of the sea wall bond. The yes vote is way too dependent on young voters.

Those weren’t details, they’re critically important considerations that the DOTs refuse to present to the public. If they had done so in 2007, Tunnelite might have passed. WSDOT was gambling their elevated replacement monstrosity would be approved. The surface boulevard/transit option does not preclude future construction of either cut/cover or deep-bore tunnel, and it takes the AWV down soonest.

Those weren’t details, they’re critically important considerations that the DOTs refuse to present to the public. If they had done so in 2007, Tunnelite might have passed. WSDOT was gambling their elevated replacement monstrosity would be approved. The surface boulevard/transit option does not preclude future construction of either cut/cover or deep-bore tunnel, and it takes the AWV down soonest.

This isn’t an appropriate place for this comment, but I can’t find anywhere else to put it.

There is an insane amount of white space on Publicola now, which means we have to keep clicking and clicking, sometimes just to find out what the last half of a sentence says. There’s more graphic stuff than words.

Please — consider going back to the Stranger-type setup, where we can just go down the page, find something we want to read, read it, and then click on the comments and easily get back to the main page. Just consecutive items. I notice there are less comments now, and that may be why.

This isn’t an appropriate place for this comment, but I can’t find anywhere else to put it.

There is an insane amount of white space on Publicola now, which means we have to keep clicking and clicking, sometimes just to find out what the last half of a sentence says. There’s more graphic stuff than words.

Please — consider going back to the Stranger-type setup, where we can just go down the page, find something we want to read, read it, and then click on the comments and easily get back to the main page. Just consecutive items. I notice there are less comments now, and that may be why.

Wells: Why don’t you give up on the cut an cover broken record? You don’t seem to understand the issue of construction impacts in your equation. Not only would a cut and cover completely shut down the SR99 corridor for a decade, it would result in a true “Big Dig” destruction of the whole waterfront during that time. Maybe to you a decade is insignificant, but for me that is a big chunk of life.

Wells: Why don’t you give up on the cut an cover broken record? You don’t seem to understand the issue of construction impacts in your equation. Not only would a cut and cover completely shut down the SR99 corridor for a decade, it would result in a true “Big Dig” destruction of the whole waterfront during that time. Maybe to you a decade is insignificant, but for me that is a big chunk of life.

A Cut-n-cover tunnel would leave the AWV in place during its construction. The north portal is at Pike Street. The south portal is the same as the deep-bore.

Diverting traffic via Railroad Ave entrance-exit ramps and 1st Ave would occur for perhaps 6 months to complete the south portal.

Diverting traffic at the north end then takes for about 2 years as the Lower Belltown segment is demolished and rebuilt. A permanent bridge over the railroad tracks at Broad Street is complete and ready to handle diverted SR99 traffic via ‘north’ Alaskan Way to the completed portal at Pike Street.

There’s no avoiding the construction disruption of removing the AWV, rebuilding the seawall and Alaskan Way. The cut-cover tunnel would be more construction disruption than the Deep-bore, but it fulfills the actual objective of building any tunnel – managing the traffic. The Deep-bore displaces onto Alaskan Way, Elliott/Western Aves and Mercer Street, 40,000 vehicles a day. The Cut-cover tunnel has no more chance for cost overruns than the Deep-bore. Why can’t Seattlers see that the Deep-bore tunnel is not a good plan?

A Cut-n-cover tunnel would leave the AWV in place during its construction. The north portal is at Pike Street. The south portal is the same as the deep-bore.

Diverting traffic via Railroad Ave entrance-exit ramps and 1st Ave would occur for perhaps 6 months to complete the south portal.

Diverting traffic at the north end then takes for about 2 years as the Lower Belltown segment is demolished and rebuilt. A permanent bridge over the railroad tracks at Broad Street is complete and ready to handle diverted SR99 traffic via ‘north’ Alaskan Way to the completed portal at Pike Street.

There’s no avoiding the construction disruption of removing the AWV, rebuilding the seawall and Alaskan Way. The cut-cover tunnel would be more construction disruption than the Deep-bore, but it fulfills the actual objective of building any tunnel – managing the traffic. The Deep-bore displaces onto Alaskan Way, Elliott/Western Aves and Mercer Street, 40,000 vehicles a day. The Cut-cover tunnel has no more chance for cost overruns than the Deep-bore. Why can’t Seattlers see that the Deep-bore tunnel is not a good plan?

A Cut-n-cover tunnel would leave the AWV in place during most of its construction. The north portal is at Pike Street. The south portal is the same as the deep-bore.
-
Diverting traffic to complete the south portal would occur for perhaps 6 months to connect the last segment south of King Street. SR99 traffic then is diverted via Railroad Ave entrance-exit ramps and 1st Ave.
-
Diverting traffic at the north end then occurs and takes about 2 years as the Lower Belltown segment is demolished and rebuilt. A permanent bridge over the railroad tracks at Broad Street is complete and ready to handle diverted SR99 traffic via ‘north’ Alaskan Way to the completed portal at Pike Street.
-
There’s no avoiding the construction disruption of removing the AWV, rebuilding the seawall and Alaskan Way. The cut-cover tunnel would be more construction disruption than the Deep-bore, but it fulfills the objective of building any tunnel – managing the traffic. The Deep-bore displaces onto Alaskan Way, Elliott and Western Avenues and Mercer Street, 40,000 vehicles a day.
-
The trench is dug in 2-block segments. Normal Alaskan Way traffic is diverted around the trench, under the functioning AWV, and returned to the surface above completed segments. The seawall is rebuilt at the same time.
-
The Cut-cover tunnel has no more risk for cost overruns than the Deep-bore. Why can’t Seattlers see that the Deep-bore tunnel is not a good plan? Laziness? Incompetence? Corruption? All of the above?

A Cut-n-cover tunnel would leave the AWV in place during most of its construction. The north portal is at Pike Street. The south portal is the same as the deep-bore.
-
Diverting traffic to complete the south portal would occur for perhaps 6 months to connect the last segment south of King Street. SR99 traffic then is diverted via Railroad Ave entrance-exit ramps and 1st Ave.
-
Diverting traffic at the north end then occurs and takes about 2 years as the Lower Belltown segment is demolished and rebuilt. A permanent bridge over the railroad tracks at Broad Street is complete and ready to handle diverted SR99 traffic via ‘north’ Alaskan Way to the completed portal at Pike Street.
-
There’s no avoiding the construction disruption of removing the AWV, rebuilding the seawall and Alaskan Way. The cut-cover tunnel would be more construction disruption than the Deep-bore, but it fulfills the objective of building any tunnel – managing the traffic. The Deep-bore displaces onto Alaskan Way, Elliott and Western Avenues and Mercer Street, 40,000 vehicles a day.
-
The trench is dug in 2-block segments. Normal Alaskan Way traffic is diverted around the trench, under the functioning AWV, and returned to the surface above completed segments. The seawall is rebuilt at the same time.
-
The Cut-cover tunnel has no more risk for cost overruns than the Deep-bore. Why can’t Seattlers see that the Deep-bore tunnel is not a good plan? Laziness? Incompetence? Corruption? All of the above?