King County Executive Constantine: Surface Option “Wouldn’t Work”

“arguing that the tunnel was the only option that won’t result in downtown gridlock. ”

Exactly how would a new or rebuilt viaduct result in “downtown gridlock”?

Can he (or anyone) please point to “years of study” on Surface Transit? As far as I can tell, it was excluded from the EIS as one of the alternatives, meaning it was not fully studied.

What the studies that were done show is that due to tunnels and tolls, the tunnel sends just as much traffic into the street as Surface Transit.

If I’m wrong, send links to data or studies. Don’t tell me, “It’s a done deal!” or “Social engineering!” or “It’s one of two north-south corridors, idiot!” Show me some of the “years of studies” he’s referring to.

Can he (or anyone) please point to “years of study” on Surface Transit? As far as I can tell, it was excluded from the EIS as one of the alternatives, meaning it was not fully studied.

What the studies that were done show is that due to tunnels and tolls, the tunnel sends just as much traffic into the street as Surface Transit.

If I’m wrong, send links to data or studies. Don’t tell me, “It’s a done deal!” or “Social engineering!” or “It’s one of two north-south corridors, idiot!” Show me some of the “years of studies” he’s referring to.

I don’t need to see any studies. Anyone who prefers the surface option to a viaduct or tunnel is a dipshit.

I think they mean gridlock while it’s closed.
That’s why the DBT looks so good to some; the viaduct could stay open until tunnel is complete.

But you knew that.

Conlin, Gregoire and Constantine all failed to convince me, but with just one line Lewielew has converted me and inspired me to recant all my past dipshitted notions. Touche and bravo, Lewielew.

…. It’s going to be a long election season…

I also know that SDOT has a plan to build a new viaduct around the current one while keeping traffic on the viaduct during construction.

I also know that rebuilding the current viaduct would not require taking all traffic off of it during construction.

But you didn’t know that.

Looks like Gregoire is succesfully twisting everyone’s arm. I sure would love to hear what she’s saying to Richard, Nick, and Dow to make them stand up for what’s pretty obviously dumb.

Way to stand up for what’s right, Dow!

Here is the KUOW broadcast of Weekday from 3/17/2011 when Dow Constantine was the guest and this story was actual news.

http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=22864

If you really want to know what he thinks you should listen to the radio interview. The “C” is for Cliff Notes version is not in a medium that lends itself to detailed responses. (but you knew that)

No, I didn’t.

It’s all a conspiracy of course. Dow, like everybody who has stared at the surface option crystal long enough, has been possessed by subterranean life forms who decided that Seattle will be the site of a Deep Breeder Tunnel (DBT) from which they will colonize the planet, turning it into a car manufacturing satellite.

The state created the “Surface” option as a straw man foil to the other expensive options. The Surface Option is not a very serious transit option. Any plan that does not give transit dedicated right-of-way to get through downtown is an exercise in burying one’s head in the sand.

That plan doesn’t exist in any permutation. You’re asking for something that won’t be. Sorry.

So true, just three short years ago I was a Surface supporter.
The current bad situation made worse: 1. Chopp is too late.
2. The solution explores the worst of all solutions and then covers it in ocular platitudes. A viaduct, a park up in the sky, a sink pipe in rain city, wrapped in retail shopping. Did he run out of crap to include?
3. What is the return on investment for the tax payer?
4. How about we just building a broad road, with a few (timed) stop lights, and crosswalks. Why does it have to be 40 feet in the air, or 150 feet under ground under the train tunnel?
5. The fact that Chopp has enough power to do something this elaborate, and stupid, is the most terrible detail of all.

— Mr Baker
http://crosscut.com/2008/09/25/alaskan-way-viaduct/18025/Frank-Chopp-s-megaduct-comes-out-of-hiding/

Then the width of the boulevard required to handle that kind of capacity just made the Surface pointless.

Then cut and cover went away and replaced by a state funded tunnel (the molemen then spoke to me).

Well, then, Selma, please answer my long-standing question:

What will happen with the 70-80,000 daily trips that use the viaduct and aren’t projected to use the tunnel?

What would you do to deal with those trips?

Well, then, Selma, please answer my long-standing question:

What will happen with the 70-80,000 daily trips that use the viaduct and aren’t projected to use the tunnel?

What would you do to deal with those trips?

Dow participated in the stakeholder meetings. He said that they all came to it with different perspectives but after looking over the options over the course of 16 meetings all 29 of them, including Carey Moon, agreed that the tunnel was the only workable option. This has nothing to do with pressure from the governor or anyone else, and you are a fucking idiot. Dow has never had a problem for standing up for what’s right. Why don’t you listen to the broadcast Mr Baker has linked below before shooting your mouth off.

That’s true that rebuilding the viaduct would cause enormous gridlock and business loss, but that’s not what he meant. He doesn’t even consider the rebuild or retrofit to be worth discussing. He said he entered the stakeholder process not really caring whether they did surface or cut and cover, just as long as they got rid of that monstrosity.

That’s true that rebuilding the viaduct would cause enormous gridlock and business loss, but that’s not what he meant. He doesn’t even consider the rebuild or retrofit to be worth discussing. He said he entered the stakeholder process not really caring whether they did surface or cut and cover, just as long as they got rid of that monstrosity.

Actually the tolling study showed that essentially all through traffic would take the tunnel during the critical rush hour periods. Only when traffic is very light on the surface streets anyway would people think it worth their while to try to save money by avoiding the tunnel.

If you are that interested you should have participated in the stakeholder meetings instead of whining about it after the fact.

I keep forgetting to ask: can you say where you read that “70-80,000″ number you keep mentioning? O’Brien’s own consultant from NelsonNygaard testified that ordinary planning in the interim would make it unlikely we’d ever see even the highest number WSDOT came up with for daily diversions to the downtown grid under the worst tolling, the figure WSDOT said would certainly be unacceptable: that was 40,000. So you say we should be thinking 70-80,000 instead and I wonder how that figure came to be. Thanks.

“I also know that SDOT has a plan to build a new viaduct around the current one while keeping traffic on the viaduct during construction.”

What spacetime will that magic viaduct occupy considering the current viaduct is inches from Western and Pike Place Market and working office buildings on the east side of it, and looms over Alaskan Way on the west side of it? Is this new viaduct like Doctor Who’s TARDIS, bigger on the inside than out?

How should I know? If there were light rail, maybe they’d use that. Too bad that ain’t gonna happen…yet. Fortunately, west side light rail would need to be funded by a completely different source than the tunnel and will be studied by Sound Transit for inclusion in ST3, so we actually can have our cake and eat it too. It’ll just take time and patience.

Nuking the tunnel won’t make it happen any sooner, by the way.

Do you mean “he” as in Dow? (not Grover)

I personally have lost track of who wants what and why, and I will likely use whatever comes of it, and not very often. But I have picked up some serious vibes from each tribe. I like them all.
1. Surface+transit is backed by progressive, environmental types. I like them.
2. A rebuild is backed by “why screw with a good thing” types. I like that.
3. A cut and cover tunnel is backed by…Wells. I like his determination.
4. A DBT is backed by Big Project types and Future Seattle types and It’s Decided types. Something to be liked there, too. The Seattle Times kicked it off early on with a big spread in Pacific Northwest mag post-quake, about the history of the viaduct. HISTORY was the word in that article, and they do still have a lot of pull on Sunday morning in Seattle.

Maybe we should build the tunnel now, with the state’s money. Don’t open it, don’t even talk about it, until the viaduct comes down on its own. Then when and if things start getting clogged up surface-wise, open that sucker up, everyone hand in hand, mayor, gov, exec. Fireworks! Head butts. Fist bumps.

And if something goes wrong while building it, nobody needs to know about it.
No overruns for something that never happened. Just kick some dirt over the openings and move on.

There will be some efficiency in simply separating people by the purpose of their travel. Just as deticated bus and train (and bike) lanes allow through travel to move quickly when unimpeded so to will the traffic that is just passing through. It is the Nickerson road diet, through traffic has purpose, turning traffic has space for that purpose, and somehow it moves enough vehicles.

I just do not see how dumping 100,000 vehicles with mixed purpose is a practical idea. The argument you are using is absurd, 70% segregated traffic is bad, 100% mixed purpose traffic on the street grid is somehow good.

This from the Seattle Transit Blog covering the tunnel debate, and I watch it, too:

“David Freiboth (King County Labor Council) and Cary Moon (People’s Waterfront Coalition) argued about what the stakeholder committee actually agreed to, David saying it was the tunnel and Cary saying it was the I-5/Surface/Transit.”

And just to clear one thing up:

Your name is a joke, right? I mean, fine if it isn’t.
But when I was around 13 years old there was a standard joke that went something like “Yellow Rivers, by I.P. Freely” (one of many along those same lines. I can’t remember them all).

I always assumed, when you were using that shortened version, that it was a joke.

Now you know.

You’re welcome.

It goes up directly around the current viaduct. It occupies slightly more space than the current viaduct.

WSDOT has nice drawings showing how it would be done. Even you might be able to comprehend it. But, possibly not.

I think this is that 2002 article from Pacific Northwest.
It is worth a look.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2002/0407/cover.html

But you must have read, Grover, that WSDOT noted the plan you’re talking about wasn’t all smooth sailing. The Elevated Structure Alternative, as it’s known in the DSEIS, would require closing 99 completely for six months and require substantial lane closures and lane restrictions for up to five years. The DBT came in at three weeks’ worth of total workday closures plus a few nights and weekends. No lane closures or restrictions.

Cut and cover came in worst: closing SR 99 for 27 to 42 months, plus up to 3 more years of substantial lane restriction and lane closures.

It’s all on page 201 of Chapter 8, “Comparison of Alternatives”. PDF is at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0444D45B-E456-46F7-A883-89A9831046DC/0/08_Chapter8SDEIS2010.pdf

But you must have read, Grover, that WSDOT noted the plan you’re talking about wasn’t all smooth sailing. The Elevated Structure Alternative, as it’s known in the DSEIS, would require closing 99 completely for six months and require substantial lane closures and lane restrictions for up to five years. The DBT came in at three weeks’ worth of total workday closures plus a few nights and weekends. No lane closures or restrictions.

Cut and cover came in worst: closing SR 99 for 27 to 42 months, plus up to 3 more years of substantial lane restriction and lane closures.

It’s all on page 201 of Chapter 8, “Comparison of Alternatives”. PDF is at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0444D45B-E456-46F7-A883-89A9831046DC/0/08_Chapter8SDEIS2010.pdf

Agreed. And as you mention that figure (40,000) is for the “worst” tolling conditions, which both WSDOT and SDOT think that is unlikely. Those diverted from the tunnel will enter the street grid both at both portals.

At the south portal, in the morning, most traffic will travel along the new Alaskan Way surface street, then bleed off onto the E-W streets depending on their destination. That means the new Alaskan Way has to be wide up until Marion Street (at Coleman Dock). The width has the potential to be flexible due to the peak imbalance, meaning that morning transit only lanes could be evening ferry queueing, etc… North of Coleman Dock, the roadway could be narrowed, and will provide for a huge improvement along the waterfront when compared to the existing arterial, plus the loud AWV.

Today, the 100,000+ trips per day on the AWV are only at the mid-section, along the central waterfront. Some of those trips are from the ramps on 1st Avenue, in front of Qwest Field (which will be gone with the DBT). I can’t say for sure, but many of those trips are bound for destinations north of the central waterfront, and would be candidates to use the tunnel (tolls notwithstanding)

Today, traffic pours into the downtown at Seneca, or leaves at Columbia. These create “point loads” of traffc, which I don’t think this is something that we want to replacate, or retain. I would posit that having traffic manifold into the City grid along multiple street connections would have less concentrated impact. This is what Dow is refering to as the “porosity” of the street grid.

The missing piece of this is unfortunately, transit. The biggest challenge to that is the County budget. They are not bringing any money to the project. While its easy to point to WSDOT to expect them to pay for that, the gas taxes collected can’t legally be used for transit spending, and transit is a clear responsibility of either KC Metro (busses), Sound Transit (Express Busses, Sounder, LRT), or the City (Street Car).

Yes, “he ” was referring to Dow. If I’d meant Grover it would have been “it”.

She says that now, but she says a lot of things. She says the heads of wsdot, sdot and the port recommended surface. (Dow’s response to that was “That’s not true. Why would she say that?”)

Perhaps she was only grudgingly going along with it, but I’m quite certain I heard Dow say that despite the fact that the 29 came into it with every different idea possible (maybe except for the mag-lev guy, whatever happened to him?) by the end everyone, including Cary Moon (he said with emphasis), agreed that the tunnel was the way to go.

Here’s her quote from a Times article back then titled Viaduct group wants tunnel option on table: “We need to move forward with something we can afford now, but leave the door open (for the tunnel),” said stakeholder Cary Moon, with the People’s Waterfront Coalition, a supporter of a surface-street viaduct replacement. “We need to continue to study the tunnel if funding becomes available.” http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008537898_viaduct19m.html

So that’s not quite a smoking gun, but she was possibly telling the Times something different than what she was agreeing to at the meetings with peer pressure and all.

Dow did say she’s not the nutjob people try to make her out to be. He said she’s always been very reasonable with him, just not always right.

I’m proud of my name, and yes, I got to hear that joke plenty of times in 7th grade.

So Cary has been beaten down.

Tunnel it is.

So Cary has been beaten down.

Tunnel it is.

The best argument for the tunnel is that unlike the odious viaduct, Kingdome, EMP and Space Needle, the tunnel will not be visible. Other than that, all the answers will be revealed in time. Can it be built without huge cost overruns? Will people pay $3 to use the tunnel if they can’t charge it to the boss or a customer? Will 70,000 additional vehicles be dumped on to Seattle streets with no mitigation or will it be only 55,000? If the Russel Investment/SAM building collapse into a sinkhole will the City Council be strung up from light poles? All these and more questions will be answered in the coming years, everything else is just speculation.

@ratcity……we can’t see it! kinda like the monorail. We just pay for it.

If “Gridlock” were a viable motivation to get people out of autos and trucks out of downtown, it may take a bit of time, but that constitutes a vision of the future takes into account the amount of damage that these increased projections of traffic and container units will bring with them. We don’t have to repeat the past as an approach to the future right? We know what transit and freight has done to the livibility and wildlife habitats already…..must we repeat it x10? as the only route for this city to move into the future.

I say use “Gridlock” as the tool. We have Gridlock, Ride the bus, travel at off peak hours. Think about your drive before you drive, leave 15 minutes early, don’t tail-gate. Now there is a vision.

“Substantial lane closures for up to five years.”

The DBT has “substantial lane closures” forever. As in there are only 4 lanes total in the DBT compared to 6 on the viaduct. If we can live with 2 fewer lanes for the rest of time, I think we can live with a couple fewer lanes during a few years of constructing a new viaduct. Right?

The payoff is that, after the new viaduct is built, we have far more capacity, plus on and off-ramps into the CBD, which we would not have with the DBT.

It claims it actually attended school?

You are right; there has been no study of the surface option. Constantine is either lying or daft or both.

Thanks so much for your well reasoned and clearly presented insights. Your level of discourse reaffirms the rational replacement option to be a surface boulevard with many on/off ramp and pedestrian over passes serving the downtown area. Thanks again for your efforts in supporting the surface option.

Pro tunnel cabal is rapidly approaching a criminal conspiracy to disenfranchise voters, funnel public money to unions and corridor land owners; and thereby political war chests. A 4 billion dollar hole enriching it’s supporters only to be filled by tsunami slurry when the quake hits.

Notice how the entire debate is free of numbrs? Look, Dow is right in that we’re screwed with “congestion” downtown. Hello! Every major city is and NOTHING that can be built gets rid of it. Not highways that go downtown not highways that bypass downtown not trains not busses. Big cities have congestion, this is the flip side of having tons of jobs, friends, and the choice of a store that actually sells the EXACT type of Brazilian samba music you like. Or the exact programmer dude you need. Jacobs. Check it out. That being a given, WHAT is the benefit and cost of this or that? Well the DBT barely relieves or provides alternative to congestion if it only has 4 lanes and only carries 44K trips a day. That’s 22K drivers! For a few billion dollars! Hello, one train line (number of rails not relevant btw) can carry 125K trips a day! Entire trips from home to work, no car needed! So clearly that’s a better investment. And Hello! rebuilding a viaduct where it will be twice as bulky and still cost immensely …just not worth it. And either project will be twice the estimated cost you can be sure of that if light rail monorail brightwater the fire stations the police stations or any thing else is a guide. So the concrete solutions for autos just don’t pencil out as mobility investments.

If you “really” wanted to “solve” congestion ..in the form of building an alternative to sitting in traffic…HELLO!!!! the solution is fairly obvious al over the world, build a grade separated rail line…heck put it in a tunnel allow an intercity high speed line AND a local line to west seattle and ballard and VOILA now our OTHER light rail line provides a 20 minutes trip from roosevelt to ballard (hell! you transfer duh!) and a 19 minute trip from the junction to othello (again: transer, it’s called) and this changes the entire mobility framework of living in seattle in general as ALMOST ALL trips can now be done fast, on trains….this in turn makes car fee living (and I mean without one or with one garaged most of the time) possible enhancing the density choices the nubmer of jobs and people and shops per square mile….accessible without cars…this in turn draws more people into Seattle ON A TRAIN whether the sounder or the new high speed intercity which can be used for commuters from lakewood or tacoma or vancouver travellers, too…you change the basic dynamics of mobility. But billions on a two mile stretch of highway accessibel only to 22K a day who can pay a toll? wtf, what a scam, tax the many to help the few, what a auto oriented misbegotten planning failure it’s as if it’s 1955 and Ozzie and Harriet all over again putting all the marbles into a two ile stretch of highway. Look it was a good investment for the payoff and cost in the 1950s….doesn’t mean rebuilding it is the best investment today. And look at the lies needed to build it! “There will be no overruns!” “They don’t really mean seattle will pay overruns!” ” Don’t worry, they do, but I will be here to veto the legislation sticking seattle with overruns!” and all in a context of declining commuting miles driven and falling gas tax revenue…my god they have to put on mroe driver license fees just to support the ferries, they are lacking gas tax just to maintain what we have already got. CARS are not the answer. HIGHWAYS are not what we are lacking, relatively. What we are lacking is more 75K-125K a day urban RAIL lines that’s what really MOVES YOU FAST thru or under the congestion. How else are you going to get from Morgan Junction to visit your pals in Roosevelt at 7 pm for beers? After the DBT that drive will take an hour and busses will take longer than the hour they take today….so you ain’t gonna have urban mobility…..the DBT is not a good mobility tool…we need a train system.

You mean I get a chunk of the $4 billion?? When??

cheaper alternative: “do nothing + assumption of risk!”

this definitely maximizes the throughflow of traffic at least until a certain point in time.

Nice how you say rail “can” carry 125k trips. How about I say that the DBT “can” carry 110k trips per day? Afterall, like the SR 520 bridge, its 4-lane roadway (which carries 110k trips a day). But ceiling capacity isn’t the issue. The DBT won’t get near its theoretical capacity due to its proximity (beneath downtown), and policy (tolls).

Central link between downtown and the U-district (via Cap. Hill) will potentially reach 125k per day, but no other line is forecasted to reach near that level in the next 20-30 years.

You lament that the City doesn’t have a better mass transit system, but sadly, the system you are envisioning currently has three large obstacles.

1) WSDOT isn’t a transit agency, and they have $1.4 billion dedicated to construct the DBT.
2) No transit agency exists with any plans of funding for such an inter-city mass transit system.
3) Even if by some drastic change in policy, WSDOT could give all its monies allocated to the DBT over to transit, it would not come close to funding what you are envisioning.

And supporting your case by the need to meet friends for beers accross the City is not what will generate support for a system that would be in the $10 billion range.

I believe one of the most depressing moments in this City’s history is when people voted down the Forward Thrust fuding for mass transit. It would have begun to build the type of system you are describing.

If we are going to start funding a system like that, it would need to come from other sources than WSDOT state-collected gas tax dedicated to replacing the vulnerable AWV.

Use your energy to help build a coalition to raise local funding for such a system, I would back you 100%.

Good luck

okay, amend my post to say “can and would.” Wow, wasn’t that implied?
1. WSDOT isn’t a transit agency — 2. no plans exist and 3. exiting political powers haven’t yet adopted this solution — well duh! Those are hardly arguments against it. Friends for beers is an example amigo. It could be you need to get to community college in WS to get training or you need to get to a job. Or your third job. You know, when you’re too poor to pay a $7 in tolls to go back and forth on a new DBT to get to your third job for 2.5 hours or to go take your class at the community college? Which is why the DBT doesn’t work too well.
You it would be great to build the kind of system I am describing. And if we’re to do it it comes from other funding sources. Well duh. but committing to DBT kinda sucks up the tax pool….you say in the end (wow surprise!) I’m right and get on it. Well here’s the deal. We can’t get on it till there’s more support, and there isn’t going to be more support till people understand (a) the point is mobility and (b) rail provides it highways don’t and (c) we get people off this DBT fiasco. We actually do not have another 50 years to get this right and just becuase we fucked it up in the past is NOT a reason to passively accept screwing the pooch again. And yes, actually we do need the State to get into transit building. Washignton State has the popuation and product of Switzerland or Sweden yet we can’t find a way to build a few train lines? Hello? What are we, Sweden or Mississippi, locked into benighted ignorance just about roads instead of race? I reall wonder. Anyone who things spending billions on a two mile stretch of anything is a good mobiltiy investment just isn’t tthinking and in response to Dow — no, the DBT will NOT work for most of us as a way to solve or provide an alternative to congestion. It sucks as a mobility tool and it sucks as a highway. It’s got the likely volume of freaking 45th street. It adds a street sized flow capacity — but costs like a megahighway. Even putting aside a single environmental concern, it’s a crappy plan and in fact any major expenditure on a highway thru downtown at any level simply does not provide mobility the way building a coordinated other train line or lines would actually provide. Trains work, we know this all over the world, why are we not building some train lines here? Are we too dumb?

This GloomyGus post is questionable: “Cut-cover tunnel came in worst for impact on SR99 traffic; closing SR99 for 27 to 42 months, plus up to 3 years of lane restriction and closures. The Elevated was worst for impacts on existing waterfront business, hitting them hard for the whole ten years it would take on that one.”

The current Cut-cover can be built while the AWV remains in place. It’s a ‘stacked’ 6-lane version that’s narrow enough do that. And being ‘stacked’ should line up nicely with current Sodo SR99 work that also leads to the ‘stacked’ bored tunnel. Earlier Cut-cover versions required more AWV closure and traffic detour.

Wsdot’s proposed construction process for the current Cut-cover is highly questionable. Wsdot proposes to start with a huge 6-block trench between Spring and Main, followed by two similarly huge trenches to the portals at Pike and King. Starting in the middle like this means all excavation must be lifted to the surface and trucked away. The more sensible construction process would be to start at the south portal and work in shorter block segments north. Excavation debris would be removed via completed segments to the south and the surface above returned to use.

In other words, Wsdot “intentionally” rigged their study of Cut-cover tunnel construction to lengthen duration and worsen disruption. For that matter, Wsdot “intentionally” rigged their studies of surface boulevard options. Bored tunnel supporters don’t mind if their friends at Wsdot are corrupt.

The current Cut-cover can be built while the AWV remains in place. It’s a ‘stacked’ 6-lane version that’s narrow enough do that. Being ‘stacked’ should line up well with current Sodo SR99 work that leads to the ‘stacked’ bored tunnel. Earlier Cut-cover versions required more AWV closure and traffic detour.

Wsdot’s proposed construction process for the current Cut-cover is questionable. Wsdot proposes to start with a huge 6-block trench between Spring and Main, followed by two similarly huge trenches to the portals at Pike and King. Starting in the middle like this means all excavation must be lifted to the surface, raising tons of dust, and fumes as it trucked away. The more sensible construction process would be to start at the south portal and work in shorter block segments north. Excavation debris would be removed underground via completed segments to the south and the surface above returned to use.

In other words, Wsdot “intentionally” rigged their study of Cut-cover tunnel construction to lengthen duration and worsen disruption. For that matter, Wsdot “intentionally” likewise rigged their studies of surface boulevard options to include more stoplights than necessary. As few as 13 stoplights is possible, but Wsdot elected to study options that averaged twice that number. Walaah! Surface Boulevard gridlock! SDOT contributed to the falsification of study results. The current designs for Mercer West and the new Alaskan Way are terrible in terms of managing traffic.

Guys, guys…

Wells, that wasn’t something I made up, it’s literally on the page I linked to. And while I appreciate your being convinced there is a WSDOT corrupt cover-up conspiracy, I hope you understand that you just saying that over and over isn’t the same as leading us to understand how you came to believe their behavior has been as bad as that.

And Grover, I was just pointing out that your suggestion that building a replacement viaduct “wouldn’t require taking all traffic off of it” isn’t supported by the plans you pointed Joe to. Bear in mind, the doc I linked to doesn’t claim the DBT doesn’t have drawbacks of its own, either, just that on balance they don’t appear as insolubly harmful as the drawbacks that go with the other options.

Honestly, you guys like to say you have the perfect solution for replacing this crumbling highway, as if there is one. But my layman’s read on everything so far convinces me the best we can ever do is figuring out the least-bad one and then solving the attendant problems as they arise. And I think that’s what we’ve got with the DBT.

Well that was a couple years ago, clearly she’s changed her mind. Dow said she was also a big fan of the south portal interchange that she’s now convinced herself will destroy Pioneer Square.

I.P. on you.

Gus, I gave examples of Wsdot shenanigans:

“Wsdot proposes to start with a huge 6-block trench between Spring and Main, followed by two similarly huge trenches to the portals at Pike and King. Starting in the middle like this means all excavation must be lifted to the surface (raising tons of dust and diesel fumes) as it is trucked away. The more sensible construction process would be to start at the south portal and work in shorter block segments north.”

More shenanigans: Wsdot offered Surface Boulevard options with 4,5 or 8 stoplight intersections through Lower Belltown. Wsdot studied a boulevard design with 2 stoplights there, but only offered it with Scenario ‘H’ Trench Cut/cover. Wsdot studied Sodo with 5 stoplights when they knew 1 or 2 was possible and pulled the same shenanigan with 5 Aurora stoplight intersections when none was possible.

Your assertion that the DBT is the ‘least bad’ option is nonsense. The DBT has the most potential to fail during construction and indefinitely thereafter due to the unstable soils it passes through, incidentally posing insane risks to buildings above.

I’m pretty sure the north and south portals to the tunnel will be quite visible. Have you seen the renderings?

We just opened trains in South Lake Union and from downtown to the airport. In three years, we’ll open a train from downtown through the ID to First Hill and Capitol Hill. Three years after that, a train to Capitol Hill and UW. And five or so years after train, trains to Redmond and Northgate.

You haven’t made any case that stopping the DBT would have any bearing on our ability to add mass transit to Seattle. Stopping the DBT does not mean that WSDOT hands over the money to the City to build transit. Or can you make that case?

I get it, you don’t like the DBT, but how does stopping the DBT further our transit goals?

Saying that the DBT “kinda sucks up the tax pool” indicates that you don’t really understand where the money is coming from, or what it can be used for.

Asking “why are we not building some train lines here” indicates that you are either you are not aware that we have plans and funding in place for (East Link, South Link, U-Link, and North Link LRT, 1st Hill Street Car and Rapid Ride) or you are dissmissing these improvements as indequate. If the latter is true, how can you dismiss them?

Your arguments are passionate, but don’t provide any realistic avenues for putting the type of transit system you envision in place.

Wells,

I still don’t understand how you can claim WSDOT’s approach of starting in the middle of the trench, and then proceeding with two teams (one heading north, and one heading south) will “lengthen the duration..” of construction when compared to the approach you suggest.

You suggest that an approach that has a single team, starting from the south end, and working incrementally north along the alignment would be faster than having two teams working simultainously? You also are suggesting the team would work in “shorter block segments”. This would add time for necessary mob/de-mob for each workzone.

Please explain.

yes in just about 50 years after starting, we’ll have two train lines for in city use in seattle; in this period vancouver will go from about 3 to its current 5 to about 10.

there’s such a thing as going too slow.

nicerheotrical questions. “”I don’t need to address your arguments, becuase you have not provided me with certainty that this fight has a path to succeed.” So I have to explain to you that money is money, that u link and north link and south link are really just one line? really? that we are more likely to build a good train system if we don’t waste 4 billion on a dBT for autos? Here let me make it simple. We do not have unlimited funds. We spend it on one DBT for cars, we don’t have enough for a big old DBT for trains. That’s right — underground trains, the transit solution adopted all over the world. We should be building a DBT for trains with one being high speed intercity (well, hi speed for USA I mean) (this would bring vast numbers from fed way tacoma everett and other places) and another line being the famous “we promise you one day” light rail line from ballard to west seattle which no one can figure out where to put it to actually build the darn thing through downtown. But hey, if the plan is build a second DBT under Seattle, sure, great plan, I am sure we will be able to afford that real soon, like in 2090, have patience, blah blah blah.

A DBT for trains… hmm, don’t we already have a train tunnel beneath downtown (BNSF built it nearly 100 years ago), plus we also have a tunnel for busses and light rail under downtown. If we ever build light rail between West Seattle and Ballard (West Link), we would need to add another (third) tunnel to accomodate those trains (current tunnel will reach capacity).

That tunnel will not be paid for by money for the DBT, but rather Sound Transit, or some local transit entity.

Funny how you feel the need to explain about underground trains, when its you that seems to need the education.

blah, blah, blah…

Constantine is a mouth piece for Gregoire, who has everything at stake delivering billions of taxpayer money to her cronies for little or no value to the public.

It is sad that the once well thought of King County Government, home to services that even a conservative could like such as the original Metro would play host to this paper thin politician.

Yeah, I know. And there are those big ugly towers for emitting the auto pollution. It is just snark.

Yawn.

sorry that is just Dow’s Opinion.

http://www.cnu.org/highways/freewayswithoutfutures Old story but pertinent.

We should just close the viaduct for a month to see how bad the traffic jam really is.

Starting a cut/cover trench in the middle (between Spring and Main) means the excavation has to be lifted to the surface; and that takes more time, smart alec, than starting at the south portal and proceeding north. Dump trucks enter/exit the trench and remove debris mor than twice as fast, raise less dust and emit less diesel pollution. Working in 1- or 2-block segments finishes them faster and returns the surface street above to normal use, mostly for detouring Alaskan Way traffic around a smaller trench. It’s not that hard to understand.

We did, a few weekends ago. It was a mess, even though ti was only a weekend. But you’d have to leave Capitol Hill to actually see it.

The Burlington Northern tunnel is further east through bedrock at its south portal, all the way to its north portal. It was built at a time when buildings above were non-existent, unlike the bored tunnel. And it doesn’t pass through watery and unstable fill soils like the proposed bored tunnel. Seatowner has no credibility.

Sure. There’s also such a thing as not biting off your nose to spite your face. You can all or nothing the viaduct replacement hoping for light rail instead of a tunnel, but that’s simply not going to happen — there’s no way that will be a result.

What you can do is build a coalition for next time. And next time might be sooner than you think!

Of course it’s his opinion, but it’s an extremely well informed one. Considering Constantine has a Masters in Urban Planning, participated in Stakeholder Meetings, and has been involved in this process since it started 10 years ago, he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the viaduct replacement issue–unlike most of the people mouthing off about this. He is one of many progressive voices in Seattle who recognize the current plans for a surface option will not work and that there is no money for new transit, making the tunnel the best current option.

That simply is not true. I have been represented by him in West Seattle for 6 years and I have seen him speak at many events and have talked to him myself on a few occasions. He will say what he believes on an issue – even when it is not popular. I think he is doing a great job as a thoughtful and focused leader at a time when our region and state definitely need that.

@ Wells,
You might want to read the post first before accusing anyone of a lack of credibility. I was pointing out the existence of the BNSF tunnel and 3rd Avenue transit tunnel as an example of current infrastructure that is used for transit (LRT, and Sounder).

I find it humorous and flattering that you feel the need to attempt to discredit me. I’ll let my posts speak for themselves.

Wells,
Your theory isn’t hard to understand, its just flawed.

You support having a single construction team starting at one end, as opposed to two teams beginning in the middle, and working simultaineously towards both portals. You make the statement that by starting in the middle “.. the excavation has to be lifted to the surface; and that takes more time.”

You are implying that soil excavation and removal is somehow a critical-path construction activity. Why?

What about utility re-location and shoring prior to excavation? What about the 100′s of support piles to be driven? What about steel-work and concrete pours of the floor and walls once excavation has been completed?

Having two independent teams working on all these activities simultaineously in two different areas is obviously more productive than having a single team working in one.

Stick to the subjects you know, Wells. By your response, its clear construction isn’t one of them.

I’m glad Dow studied hard in planning school, but there’s plenty of disagreement among planning types about what the best option is. Waving his credentials around suggests that there’s more to his position than politics. And since he’s a politician, I’d hardly expect him to treat it like anything other than a political problem.

I don’t quite see how the case for the tunnel could be called “progressive,” but that might just be my definition. To me, a progressive approach implies a certain degree of environmental concern. Environmentalism suggests a degree of concern with reducing air pollution. And if you want to reduce air pollution, you don’t make it easier to drive.

Building the tunnel–or even worse, wringing your hands that there’s no money for transit while giving a green light to spending $3 billion on the tunnel–isn’t progressive in the least. Pragmatic, sure. Unimaginative, definitely.

But progressive? About as progressive as a bike rack on your SUV.

That’s one of the big talking points for the surface nutjobs–that the tunnel is going to increase our carbon footprint and cause global warming. It turns out that it’s the surface option that does that. As Nick Licata has written on his blog, when he was a big surface fan he got the council to hire a consultant to look into that further. The consultant found that the surface plan is the one that would increase pollution because cars would be sitting there idling on a big waterfront parking lot. So if that’s what you think should be driving the debate your in the wrong camp.

I believe Elise’s comment was not trying to say that the tunnel was or was not progressive, but that he is one of many progressives that are pragmatic enough to recognize that the tunnel is the best solution. The most progressive solution would probably be a solar powered mag-lev train, so the surface plan isn’t progressive either. Since he’s down in the trenches he knows that not spending 3 billion on the tunnel will do absolutely nothing to increase the likelihood of getting more money for transit in Seattle. It’s state highway money, it would free up that money to buy freeways in Eastern Washington is what it would do.

The tunnel is progressive though in that it is the only option that doesn’t fuck up the waterfront with either an elevated freeway or a surface level stop and go freeway. That’s why progressives like the Allied Arts folks are so big on the tunnel–it’s good urban design, it gives us a great waterfront that’s a part of downtown.

And incidentely, most of the people in his home district of West Seattle, as well as NW Seattle, want a new viaduct, so you might expect him to treat it as a political problem but you’d be wrong–he’s clearly treating it as an urban design issue if you listen to what he’s said on this.

Posts like this one are an example of why “progressive” has become a meaningless and useless term. Everyone has their own definition of it, and each person’s definition is different from everyone else’s.

Nice post, and all true. But there’s going to be a “big waterfront parking lot” anyway because they insist on tolling the tunnel.

The only winners in this whole sorry mess are the esthetes and the culture vultures and the parasites in the “design community,” who will cut a fat hog off new development, and will no longer get the vapors from looking at that horrid viaduct. They will be able to brag to their out-of-town friends that at last we have a “world-class” waterfront, and feel all smug about themselves.

The rest of us, who are just trying to get from place to place? We can just go fuck ourselves, or we can stay home if we don’t like it. We’re just plebs, and we’re not “world-class,” so we don’t count.

SeaTowner: “Wells, your theory isn’t hard to understand, its just flawed. Having two (independent?) teams working on these (activities?) simultaneously in two different areas is more productive than a single team working in one area. Stick to the subjects you know. By your response, its clear construction isn’t one of them.”

I worked in construction through the 1980′s and 90′s. I live in the Pearl District and have watched many full-block towers rise from multi-level underground parking structures. I know construction. SeaTowner doesn’t.

SeaTowner: “You support having a single construction team start at the sound end, as opposed to two teams begin in the middle and work towards both portals. You imply that soil excavation and removal is a (critical-path?) construction activity. Why?”

Lifting soil to the surface takes more time than dumping directly to dump trucks at below ground level. It takes more surface space for dozens of dump trucks to turn around, line-up, fill, depart and return. Dumped soils raise dust at the surface amidst diesel fumes. It’s simpler to manage the construction process of 1- or 2-block trenches than the proposed 6-block trenches.

SeaTowner: “What about utility relocation and shoring prior to excavation? What about support piles to be driven? What about steel-work and concrete pours of the floor and walls once excavation has been completed?

The AWV remains in place and utility relocation begins after the cut/cover is completed. The new seawall and the opposite wall ARE the support piles. Shoring them is conducted during excavation. The bottom floor of the cut/cover reaches compacted soils. All concrete and steel reinforcement work is simpler when access does not require workers descending into the trench from the surface. SeaTowner, you have no frickin idea what the hell you’re talking about.

The bored tunnel redirects displaced AWV traffic onto the “Mercer Mess” through Lake Union and through “residential” and similarly pedestrian-oriented Queen Anne to Elliott. Phase One Mercer reduces lanes from 4 to 3, plus adds 3 lanes of westbound traffic, plus left-turn lanes. Widening Mercer creates a new traffic pattern between I-5 and Elliott, adding more traffic to the new definition of Mercer Mess. The bored tunnel, plus Mercer West, adds traffic from two new sources and is bound to make the Mercer Mess worse. Wsdot and sdot don’t want the public (including councilmembers) to know what’s coming down the pike.

The surface boulevard alternative keeps displaced traffic on Alaskan Way and the Elliott/Western corridor, boulevards that have the capacity, have fewer sidestreets and sidestreet traffic, are straighter and shorter, have fewer stoplights and less hillclimb and are more appropriately commercial than Mercer. In other words, the truth is, the surface boulevard option actually manages surface traffic BETTER than the bored tunnel.

The surface boulevard alternative also keeps the Battery Street Tunnel, where about 5,000 vehicles daily drive between Lake Union and Lower Belltown, traffic that would be displaced to Denny Way, another Mess of traffic already. It is possible and desirable to keep the Broad Street Underpass. Mercer Phase One will use it and Phase Two (a Mercer West option) could use it to access the Battery Street Tunnel BETTER than by widening Mercer. Finally, the proposed grid reconnection of Aurora at John, Thomas and Harrison Streets is possible while keeping the Battery Street Tunnel and the Broad Street Underpass. Wsdot conservatives are on a vendetta to punish Seattle liberals. Hey, some liberals are total idiots, but some conservatives are total bastards.

that’s yuppie “progressivism.” It’s very expensive. It does not add mobility for most people. IT adds tolled mobility which helps the better off, not the strugglers who need two jobs and who need to get to that community college class ofr that second job across town without paying $7 in tolls. They don’t have $7 a day for tolls to get to the second job paying $8 an hour for 3 hours.

It does help on the waterfront a bit — though really you can have the same waterfront by NOT putting a big “surface level stop and go freeway.” Just take down AWV and build rail in a tunnel.

Your entire argument rests on the passive, defeatest notion that “becaue we live in a conservative rural state and have this gas tax fountain of money, which we can’t do anything about, instead of raising our voices to fight for true progressivism [infrastrcuture that works, in this case, by actually moving people around] we should settle for spending billions to get a nicer park on the waterfront where this will help rich yuppies and a few ordinary citizens …see, we have this gas tax money to waste, so we should waste it.”

The falseness inherent in that position, the cynical defeatism, is perhaps the most regressive thing about it. The reality is that if progressives in Seattle had some, they’d be pushign their reps in olympia to be a damn hard core liberal caucus and with a solid lump of a third the democrats it should not be that hard to change things in olympis, but instead all the seattle liberals including many so called enviros settle for the possibel in an act of intellectual suicide or stockholm syndrome and don’t even demand a vaguely progressive solution. You are for taxing hte many to build a huge concrete highway structure that will be limited by tolls to the few….wasting billions on a vanity project for a nicer waterfront…when what people actually need is a way to get around. So go ahead build the tunnel make pretty little park for the rich condo owners. The working class people get the shaft but you get to claim to be progressive. What a yuppie faux progressive cluster. Next thing you’ll be telling us the waterfront park will be perfect for pea patches that grow organic arrugula, and THAT”S why it’s “progressive.” Spending billions for something that just isn’t a good mobility tool or good infrastructure embodies the worst form of faux liberalism. Tax the many, enhance condos for a few, enhance driving for a few, claim to be environmental, get reelected with donations engendered, woo hoo, meanhile the poor single mom looking for a second job can’t fucking get from West Seattle to the hospital in Ballard for a second shift because we are not building real transit system. So you console her with the “benefit” that on weekends …well she doesn’t have days off, so let’s say on days when she’s out of work….she can stop by a downtown waterfront park? because it’s not enough to have alki and lincoln and schmitz? I am all for waterfrotn park downtown but not by spending bazillions on DBT car tunnel, at some point the cost of things and their benefit has to enter into the discussion and the claim Dow makes that this “works” is false because it only works if you can pay the tolls and too many can’t. It’s hard for folks to pay for lunch, child care, taxes, parking already it’s hard to make a living with that second job but I guess for you all worrying about real people with real jobs and real mobility needs isn’t what progressivism is about, it’s about having a nicer park downtown. Symphony, EMP, mariners stadium, football stadium, and now an elite park, woo hoo, we are sooo progressive. Tax the many and get nice stuff downtown. Don’t built a transit ssystem, it’s just not possible, so please stop talking about it. Live within the 18th amendment. Know your place. Shut up. Yes, that’s very progressive.

Serious question – do you think anyone read your last paragraph?

I did! That was a magnificent snarling jumble.

That makes me wonder if it isn’t high time the word “retrogressive” made a comeback too. If someone could put put it and “progressive” together in a single sentence, that would give them the highest of high horses to ride to purely rhetorical victory!

Strident as ever, Wells, but you’re down in the weeds, and missing the point.

Compared to the DBT, the surface option creates 3 distinct disadvantages:
-Adds more vehiclular traffic to the city streets (even with tolls, vehicles that use the tunnel are off the grid).
-Adds more traffic to I-5, at the point where it is at its narrowest (through downtown).
-Adds more vehicluar traffic to Alaskan Way, where the City is trying to create an area not so inundated with vehicle traffic, and is more pedestrian-oriented.

Unless you can refute any of the above statements, you have a tough sell.

Strident as ever, Wells, but you’re down in the weeds, and missing the point.

Compared to the DBT, the surface option creates 3 distinct disadvantages:
-Adds more vehiclular traffic to the city streets (even with tolls, vehicles that use the tunnel are off the grid).
-Adds more traffic to I-5, at the point where it is at its narrowest (through downtown).
-Adds more vehicluar traffic to Alaskan Way, where the City is trying to create an area not so inundated with vehicle traffic, and is more pedestrian-oriented.

Unless you can refute any of the above statements, you have a tough sell.

Realize that you are not only arguing with me, but the construction experts that WSDOT hired to create a construction staging plan for the cut/cover.

Your answer are revealing – and doen’t change my opinion in the least. As not to bore myself, or anyone bothering to read this somewhat pathetic exchange, I’ll focus on one of your more egregious statements.

“Utility relocation begins after the cut/cover is completed” Excuse me?

All the utilities that currently are functioning in the area where the cut/cover tunnel would be excavated would need to be re-located prior to excavation. The waterfront is at the base of a huge hill, there are dozens of CSO outfall pipes that currently dump storm water into Puget Sound during heavy storms. They go right through where you would be digging, and would obviously need to be re-located before construction.

I think we are beating a dead-horse here. Cut and Cover isn’t happening.

The whole point of my original post was that you believe that WSDOT intentionally chose a longer construction sequence, and then you suggested that you knew of a better approach, implying that if WSDOT had chosen your approach, then the cut/cover would be more viable.

I see the advantage of what WDSOT has proposed from a construction standpoint, and in looking at yours, you only present half-baked ideas that are fundamentally flawed. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Actually it wasn’t a mess at all. I monitored the WADOT maps and there was hardly any blockage most of the time.

And if you add in a surface street with a fantail exit it would be way better than with either a tunnel or an elevated.

Actually it wasn’t a mess at all. I monitored the WADOT maps and there was hardly any blockage most of the time.

And if you add in a surface street with a fantail exit it would be way better than with either a tunnel or an elevated.

6 years ago is like 60 years ago…I’m sure he’s a “nice guy” but clearly all he wants to do is draft behind the big guns like Gregoire and not get his precious fingernails dirty with making hard decisions that benefit locals.

6 years ago is like 60 years ago…I’m sure he’s a “nice guy” but clearly all he wants to do is draft behind the big guns like Gregoire and not get his precious fingernails dirty with making hard decisions that benefit locals.

You should’ve quit while you were ahead. You’re right on the utility relocation. I was thinking only of electric utilities. You’re wrong though about the surface traffic. Mercer and Denny Way can’t handle more traffic. Alaskan Way and Elliott/Western can. The DBT will triple traffic on Alaskan Way to 35,000+ vehicles daily. Gehl architects draws a line at 25,000 for ideal pedestrian-orientation. Whoops. The cut/cover dumps the least traffic onto Alaskan Way, but you won’t admit it because it kills your argument. I-5 should be improved regardless to increase capacity and carry some displaced traffic. Removing the Seneca exit isn’t a bad idea to reduce traffic on steep hills downtown.

“At the south portal, morning traffic will travel along the new Alaskan Way, then bleed off to E-W streets. Alaskan Way has to be wide up until Marion at Coleman Dock. The width can be flexible due to peak imbalance; morning transit-only lanes could be evening ferry queueing. North of Coleman Dock, the roadway could be narrowed…,” says you. I don’t believe you’ve thought it through. You’re just siding with the official decree. I haven’t seen the official traffic management plan for Alaskan Way. There’s just the talk at this point of 6-lanes wide from Coleman Dock south, probably from Spring St rather than Marion.

You should’ve quit while you were ahead. You’re right on the utility relocation. I was thinking only of electric utilities. You’re wrong though about the surface traffic. Mercer and Denny Way can’t handle more traffic. Alaskan Way and Elliott/Western can. The DBT will triple traffic on Alaskan Way to 35,000+ vehicles daily. Gehl architects draws a line at 25,000 for ideal pedestrian-orientation. Whoops. The cut/cover dumps the least traffic onto Alaskan Way, but you won’t admit it because it kills your argument. I-5 should be improved regardless to increase capacity and carry some displaced traffic. Removing the Seneca exit isn’t a bad idea to reduce traffic on steep hills downtown.

“At the south portal, morning traffic will travel along the new Alaskan Way, then bleed off to E-W streets. Alaskan Way has to be wide up until Marion at Coleman Dock. The width can be flexible due to peak imbalance; morning transit-only lanes could be evening ferry queueing. North of Coleman Dock, the roadway could be narrowed…,” says you. I don’t believe you’ve thought it through. You’re just siding with the official decree. I haven’t seen the official traffic management plan for Alaskan Way. There’s just the talk at this point of 6-lanes wide from Coleman Dock south, probably from Spring St rather than Marion.

SeaTowner, I fully realize that you are obstinate and snobbish. Since I challenge your position, you act entitled to demean my position as inferior. The experts at Wsdot have delayed this project willfully as I claim, first to favor the elevated replacement and now the bored tunnel. If you’re okay with that, screw you.

As for utility relocation, I was speaking about electric utities. You are correct though about temporary or permanent CSO relocation. Big deal. The cut/cover displaces the LEAST traffic onto Alaskan Way, so your argument against it must keep that in mind. It is dishonest of you to ignore the fact. The cut-cover does indeed have a chance of happening. It’s the more sensible tunnel, if one is to be built. Less risk, better engineering.

SeaTowner: “You believe that WSDOT intentionally chose a longer construction sequence, then you suggested a better approach implying that if WSDOT had chosen your approach, the cut/cover would be more viable.”

That’s true. However, in response to SeaTowners: ” I see the advantage of WDSOT’s process from a construction standpoint, and you only present half-baked ideas that are fundamentally flawed,” I say, that is BS. SeaTowner can’t call my suggested approach for constructing the cut-cover “half-baked” nor “fundamentally flawed” and be honest about it. I’ve shown how the construction process can be sped up, its disruption reduced and air pollutants minimized. SeaTowner can’t simply ignore those advantages. There’s going to be a lot of construction on the waterfront regardless, and I just don’t believe Wsdot has any intention whatsoever of minimizing the impacts.

I read it and have felt that same sort of outrage many show toward Seattle’s supposedly progressive elite.
If Seattle can be called one of the most educated cities, we as a nation are in big trouble. Educated my ass.

Wells is pretty much the blog equivalent of religious nutjobs holding “Repent – the End is Near” signs.

I’m guessing that the reason you post here so much is that they’ve run you out of Portland on a rail.

Yeah right. Go to hell, X.

X takes the square.

I appreciate your nearly historonic-free post.

Lets not forget that I have never debated you about the merits of the cut and cover tunnel. I supported that option.

Where we differ is that I believe WSDOT when they say that the cost of the cut/cover tunnel was beyond their budget, while you have doubts about how the costs were estimated, and have intimated that WSDOT has been dishonest in its work to assess those cost.

There has been much dialogue about this point between you and I, so I will simply refer to our prevoius “discussions” and let others decide for themselves. I’ve made my points, you yours. Moving on (I hope).

As for traffic along Alaskan Way, I don’t debate that the segment between the south portal and Coleman dock will have a lot to accomodate. You have ferry queuing, transit to/from West Seattle, freight and general purpose traffic (plus bikes and pedestrians).

From the ferry teminal, north to the Olympic sculpture park, is where the benefits of the DBT are most realized on the waterfront – with ADT more in-line with the Gehl recommendations for pedestrian experience.

You could ask the WSDOT yourself.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/contact/

Like Cary Moon, STB only hears and sees what they want to, whatever furthers their respective agendas.

You think WSDOT hasn’t put a significant amount of time, thought and effort into answering that very question? They probably know what the city’s going to have to deal with and realize the ramifications of not thoroughly addressing it.

when the “hole” stops “enriching it is supporters”

Only as pertinent as your typical agendaic propaganda.

There isn’t even money for present day transit. Isn’t Metro millions in the hole and facing a shit-ton of service cuts if they don’t find more money? How do you expand transit service when you can’t even afford to keep the current (and increasingly spotty) service going?

There isn’t even money for present day transit. Isn’t Metro millions in the hole and facing a shit-ton of service cuts if they don’t find more money? How do you expand transit service when you can’t even afford to keep the current (and increasingly spotty) service going?

Well I’m glad TLjr, with his internet-certified Master’s in Civil Engineering and Public Policy with specialization in Urbanist Agendas, chimed in to set us all straight.

Uh huh, sure. Wsdot takes 10 years to supposedly study at least 70 replacement designs, many with questionable engineering, terrible impacts and inflated costs. Yet despite this wasted time and effort, snobbish SeaTowner still trusts Wsdot. The word is “histrionic.” It refers to stage acting. Actors, like authority figures, can become quite snobbish defending their roles played. Defensiveness is forgiveable in actors but not in authority figures who have a responsibility to answer public concerns.

Thanks for the spell check, “histrionic” it is..

Don’t misinterpret my statements. I said “I believe WSDOT when they say that the cost of the cut/cover tunnel was beyond their budget”. That statement is very specific.

Except that WE’RE paying or it! Money that could be used for more useful things or not spent at all.