I agree with Ron Sims, I will vote NO on the tunnel and the Viaduct.

On the viaduct issue, I favor taking down the viaduct and having a surface mass-transit system built in its place. I oppose the tunnel and the new elevated structure. I oppose having a car-traffic corridor on the waterfront, and believe that car traffic should go on an improved I-5.

Remember the smoking ban? Plenty of people were against it. But now, a year later, the idea of going back to smoky restaurants and bowling alleys is unthinkable.
Same thing with the viaduct. If we tear it down and experience the waterfront without it for a year, the notion of building a new one would be unthinkable.
Tear down the viaduct! Don't build tunnel! Let's create a wonderful waterfront for all to enjoy.

After watching the debate regarding the viaduct options, my choice is still an elevated structure. The gentleman debating the tunnel option side stepped every direct question that was asked. Mr. Sims may have a good point regarding public transportation during construction, but as far as a street option, it would never work. There would be gridlock, on streets, idling diesel trucks, cars, and angry pedestrians. The tunnel option is dangerous, costly, and there are too many unknowns that we dont have years to correct or fix. SO all in all, the elevated structure is the only answer, the only way to go. Thank you..

FOR the new better viaduct.

the DOT engineers are FOR the viaduct.

The tunnel seems stupid, expensive and a lot of trouble. History has vindicated it is stupid.

Mercer island I-90 had a surface park on top of transit highway.
Perhaps we can put a surface on top of the viaduct.

the viaduct is porous to Seattle city street traffic ---- keep it that way.

seem the DOT needs for the 8-years needs invent a way to maintain traffic flow at the waterfront.
DOT should consider METROKC buses and nearby P&Rs so People can easily use Buses to visit the waterfront.

The argument that removing the viaduct, which even rebuilt will still only offer one on and off ramp into downtown, will enrich condo owners on the waterfront (who are not even living there at the moment) is ridiculous. Under that argument, we should not build any parks because people living nearby will be enriched.

Also, we should more closely analyze the 9 million people Councilman Licata claims have visited the waterfront. Excluding Ferry commuters and cruise ships, that off load by necessity, how many people truly visit the waterfront versus simply pass through it by necesssity. Certainly more Seattle residents would visit and linger at the waterfront if the viaduct was not there. Right now the environment is noisy and unpleasant and it would be truly unfortunate to pay to recreate that after several years without it.

There is a need to pass traffic both N-S and E-W. The N-S route is FAR longer than the sum of a few E-W over or underpasses. That is why I strongly favor the surface option.

I have lived in this area since 1979 and I continue to be amazed at the lack of forward planning that our government officials exercise. The area has double in population and we continue to wallow in "what do we do" or "don't do the wrong thing" strategies. The Seattle area officials have been seriously remiss in forward planning and now is the time we need to start moving forward, waiting too many years to affect solutions. Put the viaduct underground, expand the 520 bridge to accomodate what is a current traffic tragedy and let's move forward with mass transit agressivley. Fix the problems and stop talking.

Robert, your credibility as an objective journalist is at risk. There are only 2 ballot issues, Not three. The surface/transit is not on the table along with alternatives like the RETROFIT (which I support) and others. How dare you try to confuse the public by elevating the surface/transit idea to the same level as the two on the ballot. Now that you have opened that box, you must offer others, like myself, equal time to air their alternatives. Otherwise, you have prejudiced your report and tainted your good name. Shame on you! If you'd like to talk about this before the votes are in, call me at 206.669.5048.
I expected better from you,

Art

What would REALLY be good for the people of Seattle?

A THIRD LEVEL LID PARK.

1) Build elevated.
2) Lid it for sound suppression.
3) Put a park on top with the best view EVER.
4) Build access ramps from First Avenue.
5) Build access elevators from Alaska way.

a) A world class view of the harbor.
b) A marvelous walk.
c) A marvelouw picnic lunch.
d) A terrific tourist attraction.

Do it!
Anne Huey

A thorough, efficient surface street and transit plan is *required* no matter which long term viaduct option is chosen. And - we might be surprised at how well an efficient surface plan could work for the long term. I will vote No on both ballot options offered. No matter which viaduct replacement option is chosen, before we tear up any streets and proceed with any large construction plan, it makes sense to at least try out the surface and transit option for a year.

In the debate that was conducted on Sunday morning, the one most important point was overlooked by all of the members. That point is the existing seawall which is in great need of repair, and who will fund this project i.e. city/state. This project must be address because it is the foundation for any construction project. Without the proper seawall the results could be veiwed as what happen in San Franciso with in the marina area when the ground liqified and the building sunk into the earth.

What happens to the Battery St. tunnel repair??Is it correct that with the viaduct rebuild it will be repaired/updated in the cost?

I agree with Ron Sims that we need a surface transporation system in place prior to ANY building proposal is in put into place. Anyone who has dealt with large projects will tell you you need an alternate in place prior to building. If we do not then Seattle will be the laughing stock city seen around the world, and the I-5 corridor will be at a standstill for years, and business's locally and globally will have to consider their options on moving products and personnel through the State of Washington heading northbound or southbound. This will have a severe economic impact on our state.

There are enough projects that have been built overseas that can be considered before deciding to build a tunnel. If a tunnel is built it would free up landscape and real estate for a select few to make millions of dollars in real estate deals and building projects.

We do need an alternate to the I-5 corridor for our commerce. Let's look to the future for the best decision and not for the easiest or what's best for the real estate magnates and builders. However, if the real estate magnates want a tunnel so as to free up the waterfront for building, then make them pay for the best tunnel that can be built and not the taxpayers.

Sent to Dave Ross show:

Dave,

I caught the tail end of your interview with the mayor today on your show.

It is quite obvious that the mayor has had big business at heart since before he was elected. He was elected thanks to their efforts and is now under pressure to push their (his) agenda despite the public vote. He and his staff completely ignored the public’s wish for the monorail time and again.

His cut and cover idea for the viaduct replacement is replete with design flaws that cannot be resolved with any amount of money.

The tunnel grade will be below sea level. This opens a Pandora’s box for massive construction complications that could/will add hundreds of millions to the final cost. Even if these issues were to be resolved for construction, the maintenance for future generations will cause constant headaches. There is a strong possibility that the land under the existing viaduct is on Indian burial ground. We all know what happened to the staging area for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (2).

The Embarcadero comparison has been used for the surface street option. I have been there and there is no comparison between the two cities. San Francisco has several major thoroughfares that cut north/south through the city. Seattle has only two, 99 & I-5. The idea that the surface streets could handle even 25% percent of the traffic load lost by the destruction of the Viaduct is ludicrous. Over 100,000 vehicles use 99 every day. I am one of them. Since moving to West Seattle 15 years ago, 99 has been the pleasant alternative to the I-5 mess. Mayor Nickels lives in West Seattle and yet claims that the surface street option could handle the traffic. This illustrates his irrational approach to the project.

Even if all the funding could be found and the public agreed to another massive tax hike from various sources, you would still have no solution the biggest design flaw for which there is no solution: transitioning from below sea level to join the battery street tunnel some 75’ (my guess) above. I have read that the grade would be at least 6%. This kind of grade is completely unworkable and would create enough chaos to create gridlock from the south of town to this point each and every day. Picture this long climb in a tunnel. Drivers naturally do not react to a grade for several seconds or minutes (you have only to use cruise control ) to see the traffic slow and have a chain reaction down the line to where traffic a mile south of this point is not moving at all. Now, throw in the mix trucks with their heavy loads trying to pass one another. Any rational line of reasoning would come to the conclusion that this design cannot work under any circumstance.

Do not allow the voices of a few who plan to reap million from inflated property values to ram their agenda down the throats of the public with public money.

Thank you,

Bob Sylvester

Third generation Seattleite

I agree with Ron Simms in two areas - 1.We need to have in place better transit before we do anything. 2. If we want to reduce automobile travel WHY are we building anything with more capacity? Tear down the viaduct and replace it with a good surface street.

People would use transit more if it ran more often in both directions. Not just into town in the morning and out of town at night. Invest the money in transit and make it work for more people first.

I agree with no tunnel, it would be very costlty and who would want to be stuck inside that if there were to be an accident, and everyone knows there will be many the way people speed in this area. I like the elevated viaduct, What a fantastic view to look at as you drive past the waterfront. It needs to have more exits to the waterfront though. Construction could be more pleasing to the eye, rather than all that cement. Why can't NORTH bound be serface and SOUTH bound be elevated???????

I believe that comparing a tunnel in Seattle to a tunnel in any other city is absurd. We already have tunnels here. A tunnel is our best option; we can at least control the emissions and runoff at some point in the future because it is covered and we can filter the emissions where they are vented. Reduction of noise, creation of a park and allowing the use/reclamation of the land near the waterfront could be more attractive for urban living and more attractive to commerce in the area. Having parked my car for work near the viaduct, I’ve noticed at just how dirty it gets in one day. I can imagine what we are breathing from that. Executive Sims also had a great point. We do need to do something about transportation during construction. Since Seattle is such a pedestrian friendly city, it gridlocks downtown. Why can’t the signals be reprogrammed like they are at Pike & 1st? Stop pedestrians until the traffic is done, then stop all traffic and let the pedestrians walk in all directions. I would love to give up my car for transportation, but as it is now with unreliable buses and gridlocked streets, I waste more time sitting on a bus or waiting for a bus that I would sitting in my comfortable car sans urine smelling homeless person sitting beside me. I’ve been to many cities and many countries, by far light rail mass transit is the most efficient and cost effective means. Instead of adding more lanes of traffic on our freeways, let’s add one more lane of light rail instead.

This discussion did not change my mind. I am still going to vote on the viaduct structure because the tunnel option is too dangerous and the actual costs of building cannot be known until we are in the middle of it. I also do not consider the viaduct unsightly just as I don't consider I-5 unsightly nor the West Seattle Bridge. Would we consider going underground for them just because they intervere with our landscape view? I think not! Seattle, let's be reasonable and vote for something we can afford.

And another thing...
The idea that a tunnel would leave space for a waterfront park is bogus.

That area under the vaiduct is in a hole behind the buildings built on the piers. It has NO VIEW and little sense of water front.

Put the park UP HIGH where there IS a view.

Has anyone thought of a double-deck west seattle
bridge linking with a double-deck I-5 with
dedicated downtown links and dedicated thruways??
I-5 has to be redone anyway getting rid of the
silly Seneca exit/express? area northbound and
Mercer is being redone and could link to a reworked double-decked I-5 with the upper section
for thruway only....Then you wouldn't have to
worry about the viaduct/tunnel option !! Just
wondering why no-one has brought this up??....

Thanks Robert Mak for your excellent show ! jeff.

Does this mean that the estimated 100,000 vehicles per day that use the Viaduct will be added to the existing bottleneck of I-5 and the streets of Seattle?
Has anyone included the cost of the Seawall repair,
and the Spring Street Railway Tunnel to King Street Station? What about the Battery street Tunnel?
As a life long citizen of Seattle, it seems to me it's just another debacle by the City that doesn't know how.

Regards,

Mike Lanigan

With all this Blah Blah Blah from supporters of both sides of this debate there is no mention of a third option. The Millau Viaduct in France, a thing of beauty, designed by Lord Norman Robert Foster one of Grt Britain's leading Architects, could be constructed from West Seattle to Aurora Avenue with an exit into downtown before any demolition was done. My description could not possibly do justice to this wonderful bridge so please use this web site for the 483 pictures,
http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?id=s0000351
Owen L. L Clarke

Good Morning,

I am a 48 year old 5th generation rancher living on my family's ranch in North Central Washingon.

I attendended college in Seattle during
1977 - 1980 before returning home to
manage / operate our organic certified ranch.

Also, a lot of our family members have moved to western washington over the years as far back as 1900. I also had the privelage of driving semi-truck loads of apples over the mountain passes in the winter time for 5 years. I hauled to piers 90 and 91. My point is that I am very familiar with the downtown core of Seattle.

WHY, would anyone consider re-building an elevated
structure that has proven to be unsafe?

I have not heard any mention of the 1989 San Francisco waterfront disaster. Does this
sound familiar?:

The Loma Prieta earthquake occurred on Tuesday October 17, 1989, in the greater San Francisco Bay Area in California at 5:04 p.m. local time and measured 6.9 on the Richter scale (surface-wave magnitude 7.1). The earthquake lasted for 15 seconds. Its epicenter was at geographical coordinates 37.04° N 121.88° W south-southwest of Loma Prieta Peak in the unincorporated area of Aptos. This location, in the Santa Cruz Mountains' Forest of Nisene Marks State Park, is about ten miles (16 km) northeast of the city of Santa Cruz, California. The focus point was at a depth of 16 km, or 10 miles. [1]

The Loma Prieta was a major earthquake, and caused severe damage as far as 50 miles away from its epicenter, most notably in San Francisco, Oakland, the San Francisco Peninsula, and in areas closer to the Aptos epicenter in the communities of Santa Cruz, the Monterey Bay, Watsonville, and Los Gatos. Most of the major property damage in the more distant areas resulted from liquefaction of soil used over the years to fill in the waterfront and then built upon.

The earthquake occurred during the 1989 World Series, which happened to match up the Bay Area's two Major League Baseball teams, the Oakland Athletics against the San Francisco Giants. This earthquake was the first major earthquake in the U.S. to be broadcast on live television as it happened.

....... It is an easy jump to substitute Seattle
icons instead of SF icons in the aforementioned
waterfront disaster.

....... Why would anyone with any common sense
even consider such a ridiculous format as a raised freeway on the waterfront?

....... What is Bill Gates opinion in this matter and how will he vote?

....... Does anyone in Western Washington understand the frustrations of Eastern Washington
residents after another wasting of our tax dollars while the "elected body" fights over
basic, common sense matters such as the viaduct.

....... It appears as if "political clout"
will possibly prevent the citizens from choosing
all available options or, for that matter, even understanding ALL available information pertaining to the viaduct (i.e. surpressed reports).

....... I support (for what it matters) a
tunnel. If Native American (or any other)
artifacts are found, consider this common
sense (logical) opinion:

"It is better to have dug and found something then
to have never dug at all (thus NOT finding the precious artifacts from past civilations)"
Ron Lewis 2007.

....... Good Luck, we're all going to need it
if a logical decision is to be reached before
Washington spends our allocated funds on the
argument instead of the project!

Lewis Ranch

The problem with both the tunnel option, and the viaduct option is they don't take into consideration where the traffic leads to. Northbound they lead to surface roads with stop lights, intersections and conjested traffic. The surface option is the only option that recognizes that this roadway isn't a freeway or highway. It simply expedites traffic a few miles to slower surface roads. Half the time the traffic from North Aurora is backed up to the viaduct. The tunnel option argues in relation to economic development, but ignors there is no additional space picked up. The viaduct currently serves as a cover for parking and access from existing buildings that will continue to need the parking and access.

The 4 lane tunnel is NOT a viable option. The mini-tunnel would generate more pollution with vented tunnel fumes and more surface street emissions, noise, crowding and safety risks.

Replacing the viaduct is the best and most viable solution. It is economically & environmentally responsible. The elevated road option is funded & keeps existing waterfront businesses & tourism in place, and it is safe and quiet with new design features, and continues to leave the waterfront open to people, boats, bicycles and maritime recreation.

The viaduct is the fastest way to get to my office in Wallingford from the south end. I look forward to the northbound view of downtown buildings and Elliott Bay - rain or shine - it's a pleasure. I rarely use I-5.

Even so, the viaduct is an ugly scar on Seattle's face. A bigger, higher capacity viaduct would be worse - worse for bulk, shadowing, general ugliness and driver's views.

VOTE NO on a rebuild of the viaduct. Seattle deserves better. Executive Sims is on the right track.

A tunnel would be unsafe due to water seepage and outright leaks----it's too close to the above ground water, and there is water underground. It would cost close to a billion dollars to keep it dry over the next 30 years---not good for taxpayers----and think what an earthquake could do to tunnel built below ground!

The existing viaduct is too noisey---in fact the noise is deafening if you are trying to enjoy the waterfront.

Solution: (1) Redirect existing Viaduct traffic to the "fast lanes" down the middle of I-5. Turn those lanes into regular lanes of traffic, plus build a monorail down the middle with parking lots at each end (north & south), with only three commuter stops; Northgate, University District and one in downtown Seattle, and a stop at the parking lot at each end.

(2) Build a new above ground two-level Viaduct which will accomodate TAXPAYERS, NOT BUSINESS for bicycles, runners, walkers, electric (quiet) cars, electric transit buses-----make it a "green" Viaduct. For once in it's life Seattle could be the LEADER in transportation. Build a gate (like parking garage gates) that will only open long enough to let in an electric car or bus that is equipped with an electronic "chip" that can open the gate. Enact laws to the effect of $5,000 fine if any gas vehicle is caught on the Viaduct (each instance). That would discourage "cheaters". This would make taxpayers very, very happy as the cost would be greatly reduced, reduce noise along the waterfront about 500%. Other cities already have electric buses----why not Seattle? Thousands of people would love to ride their bikes to work or welcome a chance to walk along a 10 or 20 mile strip---there could be rest-rooms every 2 miles or so, and small coffee houses and small food areas. If it is two-levels, the bottom could still be used for walking and bikes even in the rain, and buses could be used in the winter-----or use the monorail down the middle of I-5. A monorail (on I-5) could go all the way to Burien or beyond. If you keep the GREEDY, the LAWYERS, and the opportunists out of the picture, the costs definitely can be kept down. TAXPAYERS ARE NOT STUPID---THEY WANT SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS THE PUBLIC----NOT GREEDY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. Linda

After 30 minutes composing a post, I lost my post (because it's so busy).

I'll vote no on the tunnel and yes on the new viaduct.

This is a change from my original view. I've changed my perspective since the governor (and the guy supporting the tunnel on your show) expressed their views.

Also, Linda has the right idea, but we need something REAL, now.

As a 50 year resident of Seattle, I eagerly watched the Up Front debate about the viaduct this morning. I was disappointed to see that there was no mention of an option that I believe is far better than anything that is usually talked about. A retrofit of the currant viaduct would take far less time to complete and would cost a fraction of the cost of a tunnel or rebuild. Another really good benefit of a retrofit is that the viaduct is not closed at any time during the construction process! Think of the chaos that was created when the viaduct was closed for part of one day when there was an accident. I would like to see the viaduct closed for a few days (as a test) to see how the city functions with out it. We are talking about many years of construction and you know that it will take longer than what is planned. By the same reasoning, the surface option doesn't seem realistic either. Sure, transit is important and should figure into any plan. Enhancing transit would certainly help but 110,000 trips per day is a lot of traffic for existing streets. I have talked to some business owners who have said that they would simply move out of the Seattle area if their trucks couldn't move easily through the city. At the least the retrofit would allow us to formulate a better plan that wouldn't cripple our region. I am voting NO and NO to sent a message to our leaders that there has to be a better plan!

Andy James,
fourth generation owner of Ye Olde Curiosity Shop

By the way, Linda, Seattle/King County does have electric buses. In fact, the second-longest system in the country (is that still true?).

By the way, Seattle/King County does have electric buses. In fact, the second-longest system in the country (is that still true?).

Executive Sims seemed to make the best case, however all of the local and state officials seem to be mired in a political quagmire that is effecting their vision. Viewed as an opportunity, this situation could be a catalyst to recreate transportation systems thru Seattle. Here are several points that I believe would help solve the crisis:

1. Cut the single passenger north/south traffic on I5 by establishing bus rapid transit on I5. Spend some some of the billions saved on replacing the viaduct to establish embarcation stations in the center medians along I5 at major crossings. Establish park and ride lots adjacent to the freeway where possible. The crossings should be serviced by buses at 10 minute intervals with contiuing east/west service via frequent and abreviated runs from the embarcation stations.

2. Replace a large portion of the viaduct capacity north & south by establishing two major surface streets (possibly 1st & 2nd) in an open through configuration, moderate speed )35 to 40 mph), one way only with no stop lights. Replace curb side parking with turn lanes to access parking garages, work with the business sector to establish pedestrian and bicycle friendly corridors along the roadway to keep business viable and thriving.

3. Move east/west traffic above or below the through ways. Use the savings from dropping the viaduct to build over or underpasses to prevent interuptions to flow on the through ways.

4. Provide a low speed water front surface street three lanes north and south with stop lights and pedestrian access.

5. Conduct as Ron Sims suggested, an audit and improvement of surface travel.

Using these ideas, the north/south commute would be drastically improved through Seattle. The water front would be given back to the city. The costs may not be less but the impact to the region would be far more significant than just providing six lanes through downtown Seattle. Think About It!!!!

Hey- let's go with mother nature's extremely possible scenario! Earthquake has demolished the viaduct. Traffic has no choice but to find alternate routes. Clean up the mess and need fastest way to recuperate. I feel it would be best to build a boulevard with light rail and mass transit. Elevated Monorail? It would definitely make for a more enviromentally friendly downtown. It would make all our arguing and postureing moot. I'm surprised our government officials and emergency preparedness groups have't already researched possibilities considering what happened in San Francisco.

Most of you people just don't get it. Going North-South in this town is a joke. There aren't enough lanes of limited access roads. This goes from arterials to freeways. The viaduct barely qualifies in this regard. Hwy 99 needs to be redesigned from the Aurora bridge all the way south to where the Michigan/Marginal Way interchange is. Next there has to be serious action to getting traffic from South of Tacoma to North of Everett with a limited number of exits. If this means tolls so be it. Personnally everyday I wake up and pray for a 9.9 earthquake for about 90 seconds, I figure that after that happens, we can quit talking about how to get things started and realize that half of the job just got done for nothing. 99 won't exist. 5 won't exist. 405 won't exist. This time when we plan out our highways we could do it right. The problem is Nickels would be in charge and I am still waiting for him to synchro the stop lights properly

As a 50 year resident of Seattle, I eagerly watched the Up Front debate about the viaduct this morning. I was disappointed to see that there was no mention of an option that I believe is far better than anything that is usually talked about. A retrofit of the currant viaduct would take far less time to complete and would cost a fraction of the cost of a tunnel or rebuild. Another really good benefit of a retrofit is that the viaduct is not closed at any time during the construction process! Think of the chaos that was created when the viaduct was closed for part of one day when there was an accident. I would like to see the viaduct closed for a few days (as a test) to see how the city functions with out it. We are talking about many years of construction and you know that it will take longer than what is planned. By the same reasoning, the surface option doesn't seem realistic either. Sure, transit is important and should figure into any plan. Enhancing transit would certainly help but 110,000 trips per day is a lot of traffic for existing streets. I have talked to some business owners who have said that they would simply move out of the Seattle area if their trucks couldn't move easily through the city. At the least the retrofit would allow us to formulate a better plan that wouldn't cripple our region. I am voting NO and NO to sent a message to our leaders that there has to be a better plan!

Andy James,
fourth generation owner of Ye Olde Curiosity Shop

i watched the show today and no one speaks of the fact that the tunnel would be built in a tide flat that was filled in. No one talks about how a tunnel will meet up with the Battery Street Tunnel or Aurora Avenue if they have to dig under Battery Street. No one talks about the cost of venting the tunnel with a fan system to remove bad air and pump fresh air into it for the rest of its life. No one talks about how an auto accident blocking the lanes or stop and go traffic will effect the Monoxide build up in the tunnel in the tunnel. the pro tunnel person on the panel talks like if there is a Tunnel there won't be any pollution. No one has addressed the mainline railroad track running out of the hillside of downtown and how they plan to work around that. No one has mentioned that the Aurora Bridge railings are no longer straight and it also may need a redo in the near future. When you have to close the Viaduct for emergencies, the traffic goes to surface streets they use Alaskan Way and 1st, 2nd and 4th Avenues. Very few would drive to the freeway as it takes longer to commute.

As a metro operator who drives the viaduct daily, the gridlock and traffic mess is horrible. I could not imagine a tunnel, with emissions, noise, flooding, and gridlock underground would be in anyway safe. There would be no exits, to Seneca street. A person would have to drive to the Aurora exit. I do not personally want to pay for Mr. Nickels tunnel legacy. If we chose the tunnel option, who knows what the end cost would be, not in just money, but living in West Seattle would be a disaster. I do believe the price for houses would plumet for 12 years. What about the sea wall? Mr. Nickels needs to know it is time to stop living his dream and to think about all the citizens of Seattle and what is best or us.

I believe the elevated structure is the only option. We need to get moving on it now and not waste any more valuable time debating it. Governor Gregoire is moving in the right direction, so lets give her our support and get it done.

Where is Nickels, and the majority of the city council's appology that they were prepared to ram down our throats the Big-Big-Dig without a plan to pay for it? Had the governor not stepped in after Nickels and the council refused a public vote on the Big-Big-Dig, the same people would have brought this unfunded monorail-esq plan to us. Called to put the Big-Big-Dig to voters, it vanishes and a mini-version appears. Where did Big-Big Dig go? It means they were telling us a Big-Dig Big-Story for a long time. Why believe them now?

Patch up the viaduct. It will outlive cars. Put the rest of the money into better mass transit.

This is our chance to take a first big step to being an environmentally responsible city by removing a conduit for cars and replacing it with an alternative, mass transit solution. I am against both the viaduct and the tunnel. I believe that neither are the solution for the future, a future that needs to be free of gridlock, highways and tunnels that emit toxic car fumes throughout our beautiful city. Our leaders should be spending their time (and the 3 billion dollars) on solutions that will make our city sustainable for future generations.

As a 50 year resident of Seattle, I eagerly watched the Up Front debate about the viaduct this morning. I was disappointed to see that there was no mention of an option that I believe is far better than anything that is usually talked about. A retrofit of the currant viaduct would take far less time to complete and would cost a fraction of the cost of a tunnel or rebuild. Another really good benefit of a retrofit is that the viaduct is not closed at any time during the construction process! Think of the chaos that was created when the viaduct was closed for part of one day when there was an accident. I would like to see the viaduct closed for a few days (as a test) to see how the city functions with out it. We are talking about many years of construction and you know that it will take longer than what is planned. By the same reasoning, the surface option doesn't seem realistic either. Sure, transit is important and should figure into any plan. Enhancing transit would certainly help but 110,000 trips per day is a lot of traffic for existing streets. I have talked to some business owners who have said that they would simply move out of the Seattle area if their trucks couldn't move easily through the city. At the least the retrofit would allow us to formulate a better plan that wouldn't cripple our region. I am voting NO and NO to sent a message to our leaders that there has to be a better plan!

Andy James,
fourth generation owner of Ye Olde Curiosity Shop

I believe that if the waterfront property owners want a tunnel, they should pay the entire costs. These costs should be attached to their property as a tax lien, so if they do not pony up, their property will be seized.

This includes the cost of purchasing sufficient bonding and insurance to protect the taxpayer from liability when (not if) the tunnel fails; for all failures ranging from leaks, to ventilation failures, to collapse.

All of this "environmental" nonsense is simply a smokescreen for wealthy property owners who stand to cash in big when their property gets a prettier view. They're welcome to lobby for a prettier view; what they are NOT welcome to do is to use our tax money for it.

NO to both! Demolishing the UGLY viaduct and building a mass transit corridor is the only answer. Buses, light rail, commerce only on Alaskan Way. Ferry access from E/W streets, N/S is mass transit only. Boston, New York are great examples of mass transit that works! You want to do the right thing, mass transit is IT!

What they really want is to herd us all into living downtown. Studies show that just providing bus options does not help glabal warming at all. Actually cars are slightly less polluting than buses because buses only average 9 passengers. Buses have to go both ways, and they are usually empty going against rush hour traffic. Also, buses are expensive. We subsidise buses about $3.50 per ride, so it costs the county $7.00 if I go shopping dwontown and back. Imagine increasing that to 100000 trips a day.

No Tunnel, Relocate the Elevated Roadway to 4th Avenue South . . .

First, the Viaduct serves a purpose very well . . . . Which is to move traffic to, through, and around the city on a fairly efficient roadway, helping out the already clogged I-5 Freeway(which has no way to make I-5 more efficient). But since the Viaduct’s structure is worrisome after the earthquake, it is being evaluated.

And the evaluators have lost sight of the main issue which is to move traffic to, through, and around the city on another roadway other than I-5. This is why there is so much opposition to the Tunnel proposal and cost.

The Tunnel simply does not accomplish this without a HUGH AMOUNT of money. Plus this tunnel is less than a mile long before it emerges to rejoin the elevated structure to the Battery Street Tunnel and over the Railroad Tunnel.

There is such a large disagreement between people because the main issue has not been solved. REALLY People just want to be able to arrive to work in a timely fashion and return home as quickly as possible, safe and sound. And the transit system only meets the needs of individuals who travel to a single destination for work for the entire day and who do not have children and all of their issues . . . meaning the ability to return home whenever need be, quickly, due to a child’s illness or injury or that the sitter/childcare has a crisis.

The suggestions below solve most issues including making the WATERFRONT more accessible and a bit less noisy. Please review and keep your mind open and not so narrow, only viewing the Waterfront as a cash cow.

• #1 – Relocate the Viaduct (a new elevated structure) over 4th Avenue South, beginning at the Michigan Street off-ramp at the 1st Avenue Bridge area, down to the Stadium area, and providing access to the I-5 Freeway and I-90 on-ramps. All over industrial and business areas that will never be residential.
• #2a - As far as the old Viaduct structure, remove it and locate the Alaskan Way directly (three lanes each direction) where the old Viaduct stood, making room for the very public Waterfront spaces between the new Alaskan Way and the water, featuring one-story service buildings only. Making sure that the current number of “by the hour, metered” parking spaces are maintained for the “public and visitors to utilize” (come and go as needed) at the Waterfront. Remember those parking spaces are utilized all the time for business, sporting events, and downtown events as well as waterfront events.
• #2b – Here is where the failing seawall issues could be addressed . . . while construction is going on for the new public Waterfront area.
• #3 - Make an off-ramp from the new 4th Avenue South elevated roadway near the new light rail location between 6th Avenue South and Airport Way, for people to commute from this locate into the city, leaving their autos outside the city and ride the train into the city.
• #4 – Plan for another elevated roadway over Airport Way to combat additional traffic in the coming years.
• #5 - There is nothing in the way along 4th Avenue South except the Spokane Bridge, which could be incorporated and revised to accommodate the new Viaduct. All working together with on- and off-ramps to the lower surface roadways.

See how easy that was . . . instead of building a tunnel that does not solve the traffic issue.

To all of you whom consider getting rid of the viaduct and having just surface streets because you hate those big bad cars. How will you same people get your baked goods, coffee, laundry, food, clothing, any goods for that matter. Yes you can dislike cars and want to move everyone to mass transit, but I as a delivery person would find it very difficult to move the goods on a bus or railsystem, the goods I move are not big semi-truck goods, they are just your every day small goods. A very small buisness that deliver's baked goods in jeorpardy again. WHY does Seattle hate small buisness sooooo!!!

I am getting rather tired of our leaders thinking that they will "Encourage" the populace to take public transportation by making our highways undrivable. I often wonder if the leaders ever take public transport or ever get stuck in the traffic created to "Encourage" it. The tunnel option WILL cost too much and WILL take too long to build, and WILL hit archeological sites, and WILL be too small the day they complete it, and WILL be under water as the waters rise due to global warming. A raised viaduct that actually has some quality designing behind it is a much better option, Cheaper, More flexible long term, Allows surface use, Not under water, and, Oh yeah, Blocks the views of all of the millionaire property owners that want the tunnel....

Has anyone considered the inherent danger of a 2 mile tunnel? What if there is a car fire, or worse a terrorist attack? Even the idiots who wanted to attack the Sears tower could pull that one off. A stalled vehicle would be a new experience in pain, and what about breathing Carbon Monoxide while you're stuck in the gridlock. I'm not sure I want to drive into that mess.

Mr. Simms is right. This city needs to Finally bite the bullet and go for Mass Public Transit. Spend the money, and get with the Practical logistical program. Get people OUT of their damn cars in a city that can no longer in Volume view afford by numbers, pollution or logistically now or with the expected growth. We have flip-flopped around for a couple of decades essentially being the LAST major (now a Destination) city to move to Mass public transit.

The Surface option is the One key option with factors ready for Rail & Bus allowing for Commerce/Trucking option Critical to our Port activity through the city.

The people who are advocating no cars downtown (i.e. the surface option), are trying to sell this as global warming friendly, but that is not the case. Herding everyone downtown and taking away their cars is, but why live in the northwest if you never get out and see it? According to U.S. government's "TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK" buses are actually less energy efficient than cars.

I believe Councilmember Nick Licata is right on with the new elevated replacement. The New quieter, safer viaduct will serve over 120,000 daily commuters, preserve our wonderful puget sound views, protect 37,000 maritime jobs and inprove transit into downtown. The cost of the new elevated will be paid entirely by the state.
Ron Sims surface option is not on the ballot and could cost Seattle taxpayers 1 to 2 billion dollars, I-5 corrodor will be in total grid-lock 14 hours a day along with all north/south streets in Seattle. I am against the Mayor's Big Dig.

On the viaduct debate I say yes to a tunnel becouse i used to go to work in the south end so i did not care about the looks of the Seattle water frunt. So i vote for a tunnel!!!

I believe the viaduct is a State structure and they and the Feds always will, and always want the CHEAPEST solution, so long as it is safe. They don't give a hoot about aesthetics or downtown Seattle's ambience! So if Seattle residents want the BEST solution (It's their town!), THEY will have to pay for any extras. So get over it and bite that bullet, and get on with designing the BEST for the city!

It may require some rapid transit be put in place first, so design that so it can be incorporated into perhaps a cut and cover tunnel, or via-tunnel, while that ugly and noisy two level viaduct is demolished forever!

It isn't as if you are building a tunnel under water into Elliott Bay for goodness sake! There has to be a safe and secure seawall replaced anyway! So what's the big deal having it alongside a vehicular tunnel? Just resolve for seattleites to pay for it along with whatever the CHEAPOS will contribute!

We, concerned citizens of the area, deserve a waterfront which is enjoyable. Give us a waterfront that is a place which families (and lovers!) can enjoy being. Cars must take a "back Seat" to families right to a clean, enjoyable living area.
Traffic is going to get worse, regardless. Let it get worse, or better, on it's own dime. If drivers and businesses want a through route on the waterfront, let them pay fully for a solution that does not diminish life in Seattle for all families who lovingly consider Seattle their home.

Why does the tunnel have to be put up against the waterfront? If you put a tunnel under 3rd Ave or 4th Ave, it eliminates the risk of the walls collapsing and the water leaks. You could then build the tunnel without disruption to the current viaduct, thus not creating the 8 year traffic nightmare. Then, when the tunnel is completed, the viaduct can come down, a surface street put in and the problems eliminated.

Why are the two sides so stuck on their own ideas as being "the only option" without looking at tweaking it a bit? Greg Nickels wants the tunnel along the waterfront so the city won't have to eat the cost of the repairs to the sea-wall, but that is the city's responsibility.

The new viaduct will be two times larger than the existing structure - check it out on the cover of the current issue of The Stranger and the cross sections at www.noelevated.org . Between earthquake bracing and new transport regulations, there's no way it will remain the same size as it is now. Talk about impacts...

A viaduct is quite the polluter, as those of us who live near it downtown know by the fine black dust that is all over our windowsills and homes. At least a tunnel can filter it, not to mention cut out the constant noise from the viaduct.

What's wrong with a "small" tunnel - you can't fit all those lanes on the new huge viaduct into the existing Battery Street tunnel anyway.

The viaduct not only blocks the waterfront - it keeps Seattle from becoming the world class city that it thinks it should be and still is not. Other major cities do not make decisions so short sighted. This is a rare opportunity to make things right - tear down the viaduct!

All the debate to date has treated the question of the Alaska Way viaduct in isolation of other transportation problems that the city of Seattle faces. The assumption that all parties have made in the debate is that it is necessary for SR99 to provide transit through the center of Seattle. A surface street option can be a viable alternative to the viaduct provided that the travel through downtown on I-5 can be improved to take the place of the capacity that is presently provided by the viaduct/battery street tunnel. The elements to do this would be to reduce the number of exits/entrances in the downtown, remove the cross-lane traffic from Mercer to 520, and improve the I-90 collector/distributor. In addition, consideration should be given to dedicated lanes for commercial trucking for which the port of Seattle is dependent upon.

I have a few questions.
1. The dollar amount for putting the tunnel in does not include the moving of utilities (sewer, power lines). Who is going to pay for this?
2. The tunnel is going to require huge fans that require for large amounts of electricity. Who will pay for that?
3. The angle coming south out of the Battery St. tunnel will force a large part of this roadway to be exposed - how will this problem be alleviated?
4. How will traffic keep moving w/out stopping and backsups during rush hour traffic - if the surface option is chosen.
5. The tunnel will be located in unsettled, fill area. How is this being taken into consideration during construction and for construction costs?
6. Shouldn't citizens of the state be involved in the decision (for a state highway) not just the city of Seattle?
7. Like all tunnels, like Boston's Big Dig, large amounts of water will need to be pumped out. Who and how will the cost for the pumps and exhaust fans be paid?

We already have stop and go surface streets along the waterfront. What, we need more slow stop and go lanes on the waterfront. It appears that Sims wants gridlock.

My Considerations

1. To be clear, no construction generates more or less air pollution, POLLUTION is made by the cars which use the tunnel, viaduct or surface streets.

2. A surface highway solution would disconnect our waterfront more than the viaduct ever did. Going today from downtown to waterfront– the street stops me, not the viaduct!

3. We expect “The Big One”: how save is a tunnel in the regrade-mud at a 9.5 quake on Richter Scale? Tsunami Danger, worst case: will the tunnel get filled up?

4. We should use sound household practices and only make what we are able to afford.

5. Many visitors and Seattleites consider the viaduct a Dream street of the World, like the101 and I wouldn’t like to miss this gorgeous view .

I WILL VOTE FOR THE VIADUCT.

Clawes

Repair the via duct and add a toll.No for sonics and nascar.YES for schools and health care.

Thank God for Ron Sims, the only one talking sense. Note that the tunnel proponent supported Sims much of the time. Curitiba, LA, and Boston are places where one can see how the surface transit option "rapid" bus service works. It's cheap and it gets people out of their cars. Why should such a thoughtful community as Seattle not embrace a more creative solution than the monstrous rebuild or the expensive tunnel. It's time for a sea change in the way we think about this issue.Ron Sims' idea seems sensible, cost-effective and liveable.

Taking a bird's eye view of the big picture, I believe that the root problem is the concentration of jobs in the downtown area. City
planners need to bite the bullet, admit that the proper architectural
model for the Seattle North-South geography is dilution of the concentration--and start the de-centralization program. Spreading
out the job centers would greatly reduce auto trip distance---and
save the commuters significant portions of their lives. More to the
point---viaduck vs tunnzilla. I have not done an analysis on the
following proposals---its just another possibility that could have
some merit.
1) the current viaduct is an important alternate route from Ballard/Magnolia/QA to W.Seattle/Burien/SeaTac. It could be very important if I-5 were temporarily incapacitated.
2) keep the lower level---use it as reversible lanes during the
new construction.
3) cut the upper level off in small bites---from 9pm til 4am
every night---even more on the weekends.
4) construct the new 6 lane/one level highway immediately
behind the demo of the old upper level.
5) consider incorporating more steel(plate girders) and less
concrete to reduce its mass for earthquake issues. Incorporate
noise control/deflectors into the architecture. Use low noise
level lane pavement material.
6) the lower level may need temporary bracing stabilizers when
the upper lever is removed.
7) lower lever could be removed at leisure--or used for bicycles/
motor scooters/parking lot/tourist viewing areas, etc

Did anyone ever put their mind to work on the obvious overlooked problems that are not being discussed? Things like the Battery street tunnel which still has 2 lanes each way; the fact that the dreaded Seattle FAULT LINE runs thru this area; or that if you go into the deep basements of many buildings on the east side of the viaduct you will find water that is a constant seepage from Elliott bay. So how do you expect to put a tunnel in a mud bog & keep it dry? Not to mention holding back the pressure of the Pacific ocean (yes they are connected).
Autos of today are built with crumple zones to absorb impact & protect occupants in a crash, they are not equiped with scuba gear for flooded tunnels. I would rather chance a crash in a collapse than a cirtain drowning in a flooded tube.
The view while passing over the viaduct is great if not stunning from any angle, it is a joy to visitors of our city.
Lets not forget that the Viaduct is a portion of a state highway that was built to move freight & as such should not be put onto a surface street in a downtown core where most cities have bypass routes for trucks.
And lastly, what the heck are we driving over it for if it's so dang unsafe?

I did watch the debate tonight. Thanks for giving time and blogspace to this issue.

We need to move away from the thought that driving as a single person in a huge car built for three or more passengers is a good way to commute back and forth on a regular basis. On any given day(and I have) I can walk on an highway overpass right beside the no hitchhiking sign, and begin counting the amount of cars with more than one passenger. Usually it's about 3 out of 100 autos that have more than one person in the car. This is an incredible waste of space and resources. A sense of community certainly doesn't happen in a car for most people anymore unless it's on the cell phone. We only talk about alternatives ,like carpooling or mass transit, when gasoline prices rise though. What a shame.

Furthermore ,I think creating a construction zone on the waterfront for a number of years to build whatever option is chosen will create a whole slew of pollution problems ,no? Deisel emmitting bulldozers,trucks, and other earth moving equipment create not only air pollution,but a huge amount noise pollution.
No matter which option is chosen,there has to be viable public transportation in place as Mr.Sims said. There will be gridlock and traffic problems no matter what, because the entire waterfront will be under construction.

The issues being talked about sound strictly political to me,and really don't take into account the public interest. Who will benefit the most from this ? What big interests will have their palms greased ? Let's debate on that. The governor has already said the tunnel is off the table and the viaduct will be built,so what the hell are we voting on ? There should really be other issues on the ballot,namely mass transit issues. Any city worth it's salt has a good train system in place.

And if we want to talk about the environment,lets think a lot smaller about that. If you are working in a place with noise and air pollution in your immediate vicinity for eight hours a day, well then that's your environment for eight hours a day. If you are in your car for eight hours a day,that's your environment for eight hours a day. I think we need to begin looking less at the environment as something "out there" ,when it is not. All the evidence about global climate change is staggering in the impact humans have made. Yes, our individual actions do affect things.

Seattle is a beautiful green city. Lets make it more so.

Gary Z.

My preference would be a rebuild of the existing. That likely wont happen. To make any of the other options acceptable it is clear we will need to accomodate the displaced north-south traffic whether it be for the multi year tunnel project, the loss of capacity associated with some of the other options and simply to meet the overall need of capacity. This could be accomplished at a reasonable cost with passenger rail using the soon to be abandoned BNSF rail line on the east side by allowing the many daily commuter an option to the often grid locked I-5, 405 corridors. This corridor actually extend norht to Blaine. Some of it is now used as trails, etc. Consider best use of the asset.
The problem with using this for transit is opposition. Simms wants it exclusively for trails and Don Mcdonald is definetly against it saying the existing trackage is in poor condition, etc. Were putting light rail to somewhere near the airport which had no existing rail. Also, he say there would be problems with grade crossings. They somehow got the airport line across I-5. Passenger rail in this corridor should actually be a more worthwhile line than those built to date and planned.
Back to the viaduct. Freeing up I-5 would give flexibility toward planning options for our waterfront.

I was surprised that Mr. Ostrom was given a seat, yet no retrofit position was given. Either you give the New Elevated vs. Tunnel position only (as proposed on the ballot), or you give Elevated, New Tunnel and 'other positions' a voice. Your objectivity is in question now, Robert. Should you desire to hear a rational, physical and economically feasible option, I can put you in touch with experts who can speak to it.

Peter Philips
President
Seattle Business Coalition
206-779-2746

Presidnet

I agree with Ron Sims, a surface-transit option. I live in Snohomish County and I certainly do not approve of seeing the taxes from the entire state funding a short stretch of freeway that at least 90% of the state will never drive in their lifetime. I believe the money for the viaduct could be used to improve Interstate 5, the lifeline of the Puget Sound region and Washington state. I use Interstate 5 all the time, when I have day-trips in Seattle, going to the airport, or going to Portland for vacation. I have never driven on the Alaskan Way viaduct. Why should we fund a freeway that most of us will never use? In my "Sonics" posting, I stated that the citizens of Washington should not pay taxes if we are not happy with the results of our taxes and our government. This applies to the viaduct: if you are not happy with the viaduct or the viaduct replacement, then you shouldn't be paying taxes. In fact we all shouldn't be paying taxes. Also, if we want to create a less car-dependent Seattle, we need to reduce the capacity of our roads to pressure people to use mass transit within the city. By building an alternative, we are just saying that we love cars, our taxes are going to nothing, and we love polluting our atmosphere so future generations will die of deadly gases. JUST TEAR DOWN THE VIADUCT!

To a tunnel No No a thousand times no. Remember the big dig in Boston, over budget, not done in a timely manner, coming apart and killing people. The same contractors that built it want to build our tunnel. As for a viaduct, until you can come up with a alternative that will handle the traffic and not pie in the sky, I say build it, or repair it, which ever is less costly.

Tunnel NO!
When wothless politicians will STOP talking and wasting millions just for opinions? START building viaduct NOW! Don't waste more time and money. We still paying for Kingdome roof!! I am sick and tired when attorneys making economical decisions and running government!

Tunnel NO!
When worthless politicians will STOP talking and wasting millions just for opinions? START building viaduct NOW! Don't waste more time and money. We still paying for Kingdome roof!! I am sick and tired when attorneys making economical decisions and running government!

The clam that the Seattle ballot measure was “putting the decision to the people” is grossly misleading. The viaduct carries a STATE road, which is a vital part of the STATE’s economy. Our state government had the good sense to budget for a replacement viaduct built to acceptable standards. The people of Seattle simply DO NOT have the sole decision making power over what gets built. If the voters of Seattle want an alternative structure THEY must pay the difference for a structure that meets the criteria the state has determined (no “tunnel light”). If Seattle voters don’t want to pay the difference for the six-lane tunnel then they should have to settle for the new viaduct!
My state tax dollars are funding Hwy 99 through downtown Seattle, when do I get to vote? Talk about taxation without representation!
The Seattle ballot measure was really just an underhanded way to pseudo-approve the no-build option. Mr. Mak, how does the non-binding No viaduct, No tunnel, outcome create a binding no-waterfront roadway outcome (as you reported on tonight’s newscast)? Your objectivity is questionable.

After the vote:
Lets keep it as is, make a good repair to keep it for the next 30 years. Repair is cheaper and the next generation Seattleites hopefully is more decisive by having more facts about consequences of climate change as rising sea level, limitation of private cars/driving, increasing public mass transportation.
Who knows what the future may bring, In 30 years maybe we regret to have invested so much in tunnel or other construction.
Better repair the damaged pert and use the rest for 520 bridge or other need.
Clawes.

I think the only wise solution to the viaduct is to repair or rebuild another viaduct freeway. We need a freeway, not a surface street which would accommodate less cars. The viaduct is vital to commuters, and will accommodate traffic now and can be built to accommodate even more vehicles in the future. This is the best solution and most economical. Don't waste our money on something extravagant and pretty that is impractical.