Invest in the Alaskan Way Tunnel
The future of the Alaskan Way Viaduct is one of the hottest regional topics right now - as it should be. With the defeat of Initiative 912, the funding allocated by the Legislature remains intact, and planning can move forward.
Mayor Greg Nickels has staked out a very firm position on the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct: it needs to be be replaced with a tunnel.
We agree, very strongly, with that position.
We fully understand and appreciate that the tunnel option is a billion dollars greater or perhaps more, then the viaduct rebuild option. But we think it's an investment that is worth making.
We look at these issues from more than just a financial perspective.
It's the same problem we have with solar energy. It's much more expensive to build a "green" home - a home that takes advantage of renewable energy sources like solar power. The startup cost is just higher.
But once you look beyond the startup cost, you see the benefits. Once your solar powered home is built, you have free electricity for years.
If there was no benefit to building a tunnel, we wouldn't advocate for the construction of a tunnel. But the fact is, there are many reasons to build a tunnel.
The number one reason to build a tunnel is not to create an unobstructed waterfront. It's public safety.
Let's start with earthquake safety:
What about fire safety?
But that's not all:
It's imperative that we replace the current crumbling viaduct with the safest alternative possible. The tunnel is the safest option.
Simply tearing the viaduct down and leaving nothing in its place is really not an option. Now, I've spoken out before against the idea of adding additional capacity because it does not solve congestion. But this project doesn't add new capacity. It just makes an existing arterial much, much safer.
If we take away the viaduct, we shift all the commercial traffic and all the buses that currently use the viaduct to Interstate 5 or city streets. It's better to have two arterials than just one. Would we support the creation of a third arterial? Of course not.
Other reasons for building a tunnel: Building a tunnel provides necessary access for freight and Seattle neighborhoods and takes advantage of a 100-year opportunity to open up Seattle's waterfront.
Opening up the waterfront would make Seattle a much more attractive destination for new businesses and tourists. That would help the regional economy.
Plus, we also get to tackle another problem: the tunnel replaces the viaduct; and along the central waterfront, the tunnel's west wall replaces the seawall.
Now, on to criticism of the tunnel. Wingnuts hate the tunnel option. In fact, hate isn't a strong enough word. They can't stand the idea, mostly because they grumble about the possibility of cost overrurns, delays, and other problems.
They assert it will become (using their words) a fiasco, boondoggle, or the next "Big Dig".
But WSDOT's record indicates that the project will be successful:
WSDOT has also recently constructed the I-90 Mercer Island Tunnel. Additionally, WSDOT has this to say about cost overruns:
Oh, and by the way, the Tunnel Alternative is expected to have noticeably lower noise levels in the central waterfront compared to today, making the area more pleasant for pedestrians, residents, and nearby businesses.
The tunnel has so many benefits, and the final hurdle is ultimately the cost. The Port of Seattle has just committed $200 million towards construction of the tunnel, but more money will be needed. Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis explains where additional funds may come from:
But David Goldstein of HorsesAss has thought up another idea: why not a "Special Taxing District" encompassing the surrounding neighborhoods. David argues that if local property owners will benefit from skyrocketing property values as a result of tunnel construction, they should help pay for the project.
We may not know where all the funding is coming from, but there is one thing we do know: we need to invest in the Alaskan Way Tunnel. It's safer, it's cleaner, it's more environmentally friendly, it allows us to tackle the seawall problem at the same time, and it will open up the waterfront.
(See this page where WSDOT answers more of your questions).
Mayor Greg Nickels has staked out a very firm position on the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct: it needs to be be replaced with a tunnel.
We agree, very strongly, with that position.
We fully understand and appreciate that the tunnel option is a billion dollars greater or perhaps more, then the viaduct rebuild option. But we think it's an investment that is worth making.
We look at these issues from more than just a financial perspective.
It's the same problem we have with solar energy. It's much more expensive to build a "green" home - a home that takes advantage of renewable energy sources like solar power. The startup cost is just higher.
But once you look beyond the startup cost, you see the benefits. Once your solar powered home is built, you have free electricity for years.
If there was no benefit to building a tunnel, we wouldn't advocate for the construction of a tunnel. But the fact is, there are many reasons to build a tunnel.
The number one reason to build a tunnel is not to create an unobstructed waterfront. It's public safety.
Let's start with earthquake safety:
Contary to what you might think, structural engineers agree that tunnels are one of the safest places to be during an earthquake because the tunnel moves with the earth. Tunnels are inherently strong – for example, no Seattle area tunnels were damaged during the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. These include the I-90 tunnels (Mt. Baker and Mercer Island), Battery Street Tunnel, 3rd Avenue Bus Tunnel and the Burlington Northern Tunnel.We're going to keep repeating this excerpt for months to drive the point home. A tunnel is more expensive, but it is an investment in public safety. It will last longer and it will not break down if an earthquake strikes.
Another example is how well the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) tunnel fared during the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 [We've showed you pictures from this quake several times]. The system withstood the earthquake forces and resumed service within hours to serve as a key transportation “lifeline” during the time that the Bay Bridge and Cypress Freeway were shut down and undergoing extensive repairs. Similarly, the Los Angeles subway was back in service within 24 hours following the 1994 Northridge earthquake while nearby bridges were out of service for months.
What about fire safety?
The new Alaskan Way Tunnel will be equipped with a state-of-the-art fire suppressant system which combats fire using non-toxic AFFF foam sprinklers. Additional fire safety features include an emergency air ventilation system, emergency access and exits, telephones and 24-hour surveillance by WSDOT traffic engineers and radio operators.That sounds excellent. Not only will the tunnel be a safe place to be if an earthquake strikes, but it'll be protected from fires as well.
But that's not all:
Traffic Communications - Electronic message signs will be installed throughout the tunnel to keep travelers aware of traffic and safety situations ahead.Simply put, the new Alaskan Way Tunnel will be exceptionally safe.
Full Shoulders, Lane Widths and Emergency Access - Stringent federal and state standards for roadway design require adequate sight-distances, shoulders for accidents or broken-down cars, adequate lane widths and emergency access. These same standards will apply to the new tunnel.
It's imperative that we replace the current crumbling viaduct with the safest alternative possible. The tunnel is the safest option.
Simply tearing the viaduct down and leaving nothing in its place is really not an option. Now, I've spoken out before against the idea of adding additional capacity because it does not solve congestion. But this project doesn't add new capacity. It just makes an existing arterial much, much safer.
If we take away the viaduct, we shift all the commercial traffic and all the buses that currently use the viaduct to Interstate 5 or city streets. It's better to have two arterials than just one. Would we support the creation of a third arterial? Of course not.
Other reasons for building a tunnel: Building a tunnel provides necessary access for freight and Seattle neighborhoods and takes advantage of a 100-year opportunity to open up Seattle's waterfront.
Opening up the waterfront would make Seattle a much more attractive destination for new businesses and tourists. That would help the regional economy.
Plus, we also get to tackle another problem: the tunnel replaces the viaduct; and along the central waterfront, the tunnel's west wall replaces the seawall.
Now, on to criticism of the tunnel. Wingnuts hate the tunnel option. In fact, hate isn't a strong enough word. They can't stand the idea, mostly because they grumble about the possibility of cost overrurns, delays, and other problems.
They assert it will become (using their words) a fiasco, boondoggle, or the next "Big Dig".
But WSDOT's record indicates that the project will be successful:
What experience does WSDOT have with building tunnels?I actually went on a tour of the Mount Baker Tunnel - back during the mid nineties, as a matter of fact, not long after it had opened. It is an extremely impressive structure, soundly engineered to the highest safety standards. I recall being amazed at hearing the engineers and WSDOT tour guides tell us how safe the tunnel was and how they'd want to be in it during an earthquake.
WSDOT has experience building tunnels. In the Puget Sound region, WSDOT constructed the I-90 Mount Baker Tunnel, a remarkable structure for both the material it was driven through (clay) and the form it took (twin bore). The tunnel ranks as the world's largest diameter soft earth tunnel. The tunnel’s inside diameter is 63 feet and allows for five through lanes plus pedestrian and bike lanes. This tunnel also has complete ventilation and life safety systems. The construction of the tunnel was completed on time and on budget in 1991.
WSDOT has also recently constructed the I-90 Mercer Island Tunnel. Additionally, WSDOT has this to say about cost overruns:
What has been done to ensure the project does not go over budget?A good reason to stay on the current timeline and move forward with viaduct replacement and tunnel construction.
Cost estimate ranges for the project have taken into account the hard costs (i.e., concrete, steel) scope, as well as the risks, cost of money, and schedule factors that will affect the ultimate cost of the project. Delays in obtaining funding to complete design and construction are major factors that could add to the cost. Each year of delay after 2009 adds $120M of inflation to the project cost.
Oh, and by the way, the Tunnel Alternative is expected to have noticeably lower noise levels in the central waterfront compared to today, making the area more pleasant for pedestrians, residents, and nearby businesses.
The tunnel has so many benefits, and the final hurdle is ultimately the cost. The Port of Seattle has just committed $200 million towards construction of the tunnel, but more money will be needed. Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis explains where additional funds may come from:
Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis is confident the city can come up with the extra money, and said it includes up to $300 million from city utilities for the relocation of utility lines, up to $200 million from the city’s own transportation fund, up to $250 million from the Army Corps of Engineers for replacing the seawall, and money from a regional tax package yet to be placed on the ballot.That last part is very critical. The 2006 ballot will likely include a regional tax package which will have to provide the remaining funds required to construct a tunnel.
But David Goldstein of HorsesAss has thought up another idea: why not a "Special Taxing District" encompassing the surrounding neighborhoods. David argues that if local property owners will benefit from skyrocketing property values as a result of tunnel construction, they should help pay for the project.
We may not know where all the funding is coming from, but there is one thing we do know: we need to invest in the Alaskan Way Tunnel. It's safer, it's cleaner, it's more environmentally friendly, it allows us to tackle the seawall problem at the same time, and it will open up the waterfront.
(See this page where WSDOT answers more of your questions).
