Posted by someguy at 2/13/07 1:15 p.m.

It's a shame Dan and his crew don't keep their opinions restricted to their expertise, Astroglide -vs- KY, That appears to be the only legitimate point of view that's worth listening to.

Oh., unless you want tips on licking doors knobs or smuggling firearms and drugs into the mayors office.

Posted by Will in Seattle at 2/13/07 1:54 p.m.

Chris - dude - I hate to tell you this, but it's probably more than just the Stranger. Heck, when I've talked among people at KCDCC or the 43rd Dems, more people are in the Surface Plus Transit camp than the Viaduct Rebuild (next largest) or Tunnel-lite (smallest, but more in politico circles) camps.

Me, I'm a pro-Rebuild guy, but even I have to admit the Surface Plus Transit would be ok too.

Posted by unregistered user at 2/13/07 1:57 p.m.

Let's see, what do we want from our transportation systems?

1) Open waterfront -- check, surface/transit has that covered
2) Low cost -- check, surface/transit is by far the cheapest option
3) Less traffic congestion -- check, tearing down urban freeways has always decreased traffic (see: San Francisco, Milwaukee, Seoul)
4) More transit options -- check, surface/transit is the only solution that provides more than one transportation option

Not to mention that we're getting the SURFACE option no matter what, until at the very least 2012 or so. Mammoth viaducts don't build themselves overnight. We just won't be getting the improved surface streets or increased transit options unless surface/transit is chosen.

There is absolutely NO legitimate reason for any option besides surface/transit. (Giving billions of dollars to the DOT and construction contractors is not a legitimate reason.)

Posted by thatguy at 2/13/07 2:39 p.m.

The monorail failed because it became obscenely expensive and was a mismanaged project. It didn't fail because it was a bad idea (although I personally prefer one high speed, integrated mass transit option (ie, light rail OR monorail), not two distinct options (ie, light rail AND monorail). Anyway, surface/transit cannot "fail" in the same manner because it is by far the cheapest option that would be extremely hard to mismanage (versus building a double-decker highway or a tunnel next to Puget Sound).

I prefer a rebuild. However, surface/transit seems to be most people's second choice, and may very likely win in the long run. The Gov may change her mind when the upcoming vote comes out NO/NO.

Posted by Playboy Buddy at 2/13/07 2:42 p.m.

Noticed on Seattle Weekly's blog they point out that the surface option is the dreamchild of Cary Moon and the People's Waterfront Coalition; they in fact were pushing this long before the Stranger folks hopped aboard.

Posted by Joshmati at 2/14/07 9:43 a.m.

Thanks, Playboy Buddy, for pointing out what Chris would have known if he'd done a modicum of searching. Cary Moon and the PWC have been at the forefront of this proposal for well over a year. Their proposal, while not as well flushed out as it should be (due to lack of funds for studies) seems to me both practical and visionary. Numerous cities have faced similar situations (Milwaukee, New York, San Francisco, Portland, Seoul, to name just a few) and gone with surface boulevards. Despite fear that these changes would result in decreased capacity, little impact was felt, unless you could the very positive impact of a beautified city. It's sad that there is not more vision at the state level. This has turned into a serious debacle with what may be a very sad ending.

Posted by Kingsley S.Hall at 2/24/07 8:59 p.m.

Lets consider Replace Alaska Way Viaduct with Elliot Bay Floating Bridge
Please pardon the informality of this communication by my forwarding the information in the below format. Hopefully however it will save a lot of both you readers and my time. This way you can study using the links within as much or as little as may be desired of a very long winded subject. Most of all I just want you aware of all this. The Governor's Policy Advisors, Speaker of The House, Senate & House Transportation Committees, Port of Seattle Commissioners, Ron Sims, Gary Locke, The Mayor of Seattle's Office, Both Democratic & Republican Caucasus have known about this since January. At least nothing negative either by communication or media has been said yet. See part of communication below for example. We have communicated with almost every city councilperson and mayor of every member in the Washington State Assn of Cities and now sending to Washington State Association of County Officials

Initiative 964
P. O. Box 1454
Elma, Washington 98541-1454
1-360-482-4810 %Elma,Theater
Reference: Initiative 964 as filed with Washington Secretary of State
Subject: Replace Alaska Way Viaduct with a Elliott Bay Floating Bridge

Dear Ron Sims, King County Executive;

I forward this as hopefully the fastest way to get information directly to you on these matters as might pertain to your stated opinions as heard on last night's KING-5 news .which I really respect regarding the Alaska Way Viaduct. I live all the way down here in Elma, Washington and have many interests in this controversy or I certainly wouldn't have bothered to attempt to get this initiative on the statewide ballot. You would not believe the response I have (50-75 e-mails per hour) from even Eastern Washington. The resurrection of this old 1961 idea may be a way to get some consensus. We need to have Seattle realize that their continued use of the Interstate I-90 to handle local vehicular traffic that should be their responsibility must stop. The Interstate was mandated by law to be designed not to handle local traffic. In fact at one time it was considered to make it illegal to allow non-interstate busses. Farfetched as this may seem there are those in the FHA (see their new Web) considering encouragement of this attitude Nationwide. They may have a point when I see the criminal negligence of the City of Seattle forcing the misery on those of us that want to go non-stop all the way thru downtown Seattle some on a daily basis by not providing a minimum of the 10 lanes they agreed to in 1961. Certainly this has to be the case for many more King County residents. Therefore I'm glad you are I assume even more concerned than all the rest of us in The State of Washington.

Kingsley
Kingsley S. Hall Jr.

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYONE IN SEATTLE AREA THAT WANTS TO RECLAIM THE SEATTLE WATERFRONT AND HAVE THE NEEDED TEN LANES TO CARRY LOCAL TRAFFIC FOR LESS COST AND DISRUPTION FOR THE NEXT TEN OR TWELVE YEARS..

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYONE IN EASTERN WASHINGTON THAT WOULD RATHER PAY FOR THIS IN MILLIONS (five lane)(about 1 .1 billion if they build it all at once) INSTEAD OF THE OTHER TWO OPTIONS BEING CONSIDERED THAT ARE 4.8 BILLION (FOR TUNNEL) OR 2.8 BILLION (FOR REPLACING WITH ANOTHER INADEQUATE STRUCTURE). IF YOU ARE A TAXPAYER OUT SIDE SEATTLE DEFINATELY GO FOR TRYING TO GET THIS ON THE STATEWIDE BALLOT.

Dear Folks;
Whether you favor my Initiative 964 or not. Please click on below url and post a blog comment. I just want it considered. Please start your comments with the exact words Elliott Bay Floating Bridge is a good (or bad) idea because--------

http://blogs.king5.com/upfront/archives/2007/01/your_vote_viadu.html

Where it asks for your url shade below blue, right click on the blue, select copy, (That puts it in your clip board), put your curser in the beginning of the slot where they ask you to input your url, then hit control v on your keyboard . And Lo and Behold the below url is installed there which takes them to how it is finally filed with The Secretary of State on their Web. NOW THAT YOU KNOW HOW ADD YOUR COMMENTS TO ANY OTHER BLOGS OR SEND A MESSAGE TO STATE & CITY OF SEATTLE POLITICIANS

http://secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=2007

If you don't have any idea what I'm talking about; ;;;The below url takes you to my original filing with The Secretary of State. I backed down from the strong writing of this original to the above (the ACT part) on advise of Code Revisers & Attorney Generals Offices (in order to get approval as to form and to better stand up in the courts if necessary). It is included below to give those of you new to this the background before I went to file the initiative and a lot of other pertinent info and arguments. If you don't have time to read all this you may want to go directly to the map on page six.

http://www.elmatheater.org/Alaska%20Way%20Viaduct%20Replacement%203rd%20Option.htm

Thanks for your time.
Kingsley

PS: Please forward to anyone you might think would be interested in the cause. Advocates of Tunnel have $244,000 and advocates for the Replaced Viaduct have $144,000 in campaign funds (according to last night's news). I wonder where all that came from. I don't have any and don't want any. And I suspect that's why no media coverage. So the Blog is the only way for now. See how I'm (not)funded but hope to pull it off below.

The signature form will be pasted up on large paper ( law says has to be 11 x 14 or bigger). Reduced to 8 1/2 x 11 for e-mail as a attachment to all interested. Anyone interested in helping may then please download and print one 8 1/2 x 11 copy of each of both sides. Take that to Kinkos, Staples or where ever and have both sides enlarged to 11 x 16 on good enough paper for people to gather signatures. Make yourself cute and gather signatures. I am funding this on my retirement income and do not want any contributions from anyone or any organization. Follow the directions for folding etc. on the signature form for mailing. Your expense and effort for printing and mailing is the only contribution that should be necessary by anyone. There are some actors in my theater here that said they will help unfold them and bundle them in packages of 50 as required to hand deliver to the Secretary of State's Office. Since this is a Statewide initiative I can't figure out any other way we can afford to do this. At least it's not costing me (except $5 and some gasoline), the people, the Governors Office, The DOT, or the legislature anything to find out if the idea is respected enough to consider further.

To request e-mail of 8 1/2 x 11 copies of both sides of the signature form as two attachments on a e-mail reply please do not reply to this e-mail but rather to below address

kingofelma@yahoo.com

for any other reason for contact please e-mail below

kingsleyhall_elmatheater@hotmail.com

I am currently receiving about 50 to 75 e-mails per hour responding to above by requesting the signature form. I just might get enough to get it on the ballot. Oh! yeah don't forget to request same. If your not registered to vote. Do so quick so you can sign.

Posted by Kingsley S.Hall at 2/27/07 3:41 p.m.

Note: A additional synopsis in favor of Elliot Bay Floating Bridge Option
A) No disturbance of Alaska Way during construction. Present viaduct and street usable during all construction
B) No utilities relocation before begin
C) Ten lanes as needed now and in future Not 4 as tunnel nor 6 as elevated for less money
D) No Rights of Way except from Port of Seattle at ends
E) Bridge acts as breakwater for many options such as; marina or even a beach on waterfront
F) No Construction Equipment like concrete trucks, even logistics for street lights etc, downtown
G) Soon to be needed expansion for ferry terminal impossible in present location easy outside west of proposed structure
H) Could be built two parallel 5 lane stages within funds available from city alone, or state alone. All ten lane by funds from both City & State,
I) Would not want to be in tunnel built in seismic zone three within Uniform Building Code that close to a body of water. OK in Boston They don't have earthquakes there
J) Why replace a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure with a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure not approvable for hazard material hauling vehicles that is also a earthquake risk. (Hazard not OK Battery St Tunnel but Wall St could be made OK)
K) Both Tunnel & Replaced Viaduct will contribute to downtown air pollution from vehicular exhausts. This option will too but considerable less because it will have a average of a mile to dissipate up if no wind or wind from West. I suspect no such pollution if wind from East.
L) Last but not least this is a lot less expensive to build. About 5 times the Hood Canal Bridge. About say 1.8 billion for all ten lanes. Or for starter of five or six lanes. (could be built in less than six years) Then second stage parallel 5 or 6 lanes for millions not billions

Posted by Charlie Beyer at 3/21/07 11:06 p.m.

I have been reading with some amusement and some despair of the difficulties of coming up with a solution to the Alaskan Way Viaduct, maintaining the traffic corridor, eliminating the danger and eyesore of the concrete monster, and re-creating our city's waterfront in a humanistic manner, rather than an automotive one.

I have read of the tunnel under the street which has been vetoed, monorails, transits, and floating bridges, and now if I see this correctly, even restoration funds for the Viaduct have been shelved. That is a good idea, as it opens a door to more innovative and enduring design that will still be effective in 50 years.

I propose to run a tunnel underwater in Eliot Bay from Battery and Western to just south of the Coast Guard Pier. The tunnel would be of pre-cast concrete sections, some few hundred feet each, and bolt together with flexible gaskets and flanges just as any pipe would. The system could be in place in short order for less than what is in the coffers for the project at this time. Likely for less than 1.5 billion.

The advantages of the system are many ….

Being modular, the installation, and repair is a snap. Literally.

Eliot bay would remain an esthetic and visual wonder

Ferries and shipping traffic would pass unnoticed over head.

No environmental shore line issues would be involved

The maze of onshore utilities, power, sewer, water, drainage, and communications would all be left untouched to sort out piece meal as is usually the case.

The Waterfront would become available for urban re-newal

Being underwater, there would be no storm forces on the system

The tunnel would be Flexible in an earth quake, both in the vertical as well as the horizontal axes.

Because it is modular, the costs will be lower.

The pressures of the bay are puny compared to underground systems. The water pressure can be designed to flexibly seal the water out of the tunnel.

The concept uses existing technology as applied in the DC metro and other cities

It would eliminate the perilous viaduct concern

The structure it's self would become a habitat for marine life, promoting ecological balance back into the bay.

The general engineering of the thing would be as previously stated, the fastening of sections together with flexible but water tight seals. The tunnel would be anchored to the seafloor by means of augured holes, filled with reinforced concrete, sufficient to counteract the buoyancy factors. Other methods of compensating for the buoyancy are likely numerous. Walls of the tunnel will be of a cast beam grid as is used in modern metros and large span floors. Beneath the 6 lanes of driving traffic, sumps to monitor, catch and treat leakage will be effected.

The two end of the tunnel would have a gentle 2% berm of a large span, such that Seattle rain water could not run down in to the structure.

Beyond this obvious design, I propose a convection tower of a few hundred feet on the upper Western Street end. The heat generated in the tunnel will set up a 10 to 20 MPH wind racing from the southern end to the north, using natural ventilation to flush noxious gas build up from the tunnel. Prevailing winds from the south would assist this. The tower will be similar to a skinny nuclear cooling tower, with a hyperbolic design and constriction near the top to accelerate convection. For a number of floors at it's base, Shops and offices could be integrated on the circular structure. An elevator would take sightseers to an observation platform near the top. High efficiency wind turbines in this up draft could produce enough electricity to light the tunnel.

Posted by unregistered user at 4/4/07 3:54 p.m.

Charlie Beyer's above idea of a underwater tunnel is fantastic. However, I would like to suggest seeing his ideas expanded to include at least by providing for needed present and future expansion to ten lanes of traffic capacity. Also, to go all the way to Harbor Island & Holgate-Beacon Ave and Royal Brougham Way for a direct I-90 connection). This also takes traffic from North Seattle off of both I-5 and West Seattle Freeways. Still, I'd be even happier yet if it would be feasable (which is likely) to get access in and out of his underwater tunnel to Marion & Madison to downtown and thence up to hospitals etc. I guess what I'm trying to say is Mr. Beyer's underwater tunnel idea is great. But like mine his alignment ideas may need a lot of improvement. But his concept is great. Perhaps it's a toss up between wanting the thousands (estimate at least 200,000 per day) of different people on my proposed 10 lane floating bridge to see beautiful views of both the city and Elliott Bay or protect the rights of the people on or visiting the close to shore waterfront to see Elliott Bay without my proposed bridge in it. The height of existing or likely new buildings on the East side of Alaska Way prohibits people looking out windows on the East side of those buildings or anyone else downtown from seeing the waterfront anyway. The Pontoons of the Hood Canal Bridge stick up about nine feet and when I'm about a mile away in my boat the bridge is hardly visable. The floating bridge would act as a breakwater for a possible marina, maybe even a beach, and seawall protection. But, I agree with Mr Beyer's concept as there isn't anywhere else left in the hour glass figure of Seattle to get the necessary increase of vehicular traffic capacity except over, under, or on Elliott Bay. We definately need Western Washington wide transit (But not yet rapid transit) Still, When gasoline gets to ten dollars a gallon I will still be forced to take at least three round trips a week with more than I can carry between SW Wahington to NW Washington and my time will still be worth more than I can afford to waste on public transportation. Transit will never replace at least a reasonable vehicular highway system. It will be a cold day in hell before I will carry two gallons of milk and a bag of groceries on a bus. The monorail should be torn down if traffic capacity is the only consideration. (Maybe OK if it is still supposed to be a amuzement park ride)I helped design it for the Worlds Fair and we assumed it would be torn down after the fair. The lanes it's supports are in would carry between 1,000 & 1,500 cars per hour platooned at 30 mph by traffic lights. Does anybody think the monorail carries that many or more than two bus loads each way. I take the bus between downtown and Seattle Center because it's faster,less expensive, and I don't have to carry stuff up to a elevated structure. Light Rail is great for Sea-Tac Airport traffic but I hope everyone understands it will not help our situation on the I-5 parking lots created by traffic jams. The City of Seattle has not ever done anything to solve it's traffic problems. When I worked on I-5 the three only tall downtown office buildings were Smith Tower, IBM Building, and (then) Seattle First Building. Just look at all the downtown buildings that have populations over 50,000 people built since then and note the City of Seattle has done nothing to improve their vehicular traffic situation. The Interstate Highway System was mandated by Law to be designed not to carry local traffic. The Alaska Way Viaduct SR-99 is a State Highway (formerly US-99) not a Seattle street. We have a freeway that goes thru Elma, WA (we have one stop light and 3,000 people population). If we had Seattle's attitude we would demand that the four lane freeway through our town would be reduced to a two lane tunnel so we could see the pastoral farm land on the other side of our village. Bless you Mr. Beyer for trying to come up with something that might work. Shame on those of us who find fault with our dedicated political and DOT staff people unless we have truly got something to suggest that just might work.