Viaduct Q&A with Mayor Nickels

Seattle voters: Trying to figure out how to mark your viaduct ballot? Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, who wants to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel, answered your questions today.

Council President Nick Licata, who favors building a new viaduct, will answer your e-mails Wednesday from noon to 1 p.m.

Mr Mayor, Youve just said the throughput of traffic across downtown is necessary for freight. How is that so? How much freight must go north-south (vs. south from the terminals to I-5? The idea we must have unimpeded transfer across the densest part of the city is flawed.

— Gordon

Mayor Nickels: Access is hardly unimpeded. We have 120,000 manufacturing and maritime jobs in our city. Important family wage jobs. north south movement is an essential part of keeping those jobs.

How will we pay for the tunnel given the limited taxing options for the city? How can you ensure that low-income populations are not over-burdened?

— Andrea

Mayor Nickels: Most of the City's cost would be in relocationg the utilities ($500M) like the City Light lines that now hang from the bottom of the Viaduct. That would cost the average ratepayer $5.50/month. $250M would come from downtown property owners who directly benefit.

I heard Ron Simms say he was voting "no" for both and wants the traffic to run on surface streets. What will downtown look like with this solution?

— Sylvia

Mayor Nickels: There are great challenges in trying to accommodate all the 110,000 vehicles that use the Viaduct today.

Why the special election? Why all the debate? Why can't the politicians do their job--find the best solution and do it? Waffling just gives the "surface street" kooks a chance.

— Christopher

Mayor Nickels: The Governor and Legislature demanded an advisory ballot at the end of the last session.

I believe strongly that avoiding the mistake of rebuilding a bigger viaduct is the most important urban planning issue facing the city today. However, considering the concern that many people have that removing the viaduct will just benefit wealthy downtown condo owners, can you comment on incorporating affordable housing into the new waterfront plan?

— Gabriel

Mayor Nickels: We are providinging a lot of affordable housing downtown in large part thanks to the voter approval of the Seattle housing levy in 2002. Some workforce housing is being produced as well. Affordable housing, along with great schools and transportation remain our most difficult challenges. I do think the property owners directly benefiting from removal of the Viaduct should contribute $250M through an LID assessment to the cost of the project.

Why are cities like Porland so far ahead in transportation? Why can't we tear down the viaduct and either replace it with a MAX train like Portland or surface streets? You will still have your views when you build. Wouldn't surface streets help us become more of a "green" city that you proclaim will happen.

— Jenny

Mayor Nickels: We are building a light rail system like MAX -- ours is LINK. I have been working on it since 1988. It shouldn't take this long but it has. Growth should not be accommodated by new freeway lanes but by transit, biking and walking.

I have always considered the viaduct one of the most beautiful drives in the country. I understand the need for something new due to the earthquake risk, but I would vote for a replacement rather than a tunnel. Is it true that the replacement option would be a viaduct with higher railings, thus limiting the view?

— Liz

Mayor Nickels: Yes the view would be obscurred by railings. More importantly, we shouldn't strive to be a drive-by city. Stop, get out of your vehicle (or leave it behind) and show your company the nation's best waterfront!

I lived in Boston through the Big Dig and Seattle's I.D. with the bus tunnel closed. Yes, a tunnel is more expensive, but if we do it right the first time we'll avoid re-living such mishaps. However, I'm concerned about the tunnel not having any entrances or exits in downtown. Why is that not an option?

— Michelle

Mayor Nickels: There would be access points on the north and south ends of downtown. The mid-town ramps would cost $1B and take a huge amount of land.

How can you say $600 million is a small amount of money when we are closing our schools? Explain how this is good for the people of Seattle.

— Elsa

Mayor Nickels: The school district is closing schools because they are losing students to the suburbs and to private schools. The district built enough schools to house 100,000 kids and now they have 44,000. Let's attract those families with kids back with great schools and then we can argue over building and renovating new schools!
The difference between the $2.8B bigger, uglier elevated rebuild and the $3.4B for the hybrid tunnel is (relatively) small when compared with the value of opening up the City to its waterfront.

What percentage of the 110,000 vehicles that currently use the viaduct are not using it to get downtown, and how will those trips be addressed if we end up with the transit/surface only solution that some are suggesting?

— Joe

Mayor Nickels: I don't know those numbers off the top of my head.
It is the need for that throughput, especially for freight movement that lead to my support for a tunnel rather than no-build alternative.

Is WSDOT's position of the project the same as the governor's? I thought WSDOT did not support an above ground structure. Is there another option on the table if we can't get state funding for a tunnel?

— Judy

Mayor Nickels: The Washington State Department of Transportation endorsed the tunnel option as its preferred alternative. However the Legislature transferred responsibility for oversight of WSDOT from the State Transportation Commission to to the Governor. Since then the WSDOT position has changed.

The current viaduct is so close to many historic buildings I wonder if a much larger viaduct means demolitions. Do you know how many, if any, buildings will have to be torn down if the larger elevated rebuild goes ahead?

— Gene

Mayor Nickels: Some buildings might have to be condemned for a larger elevated structure. Certainly a large portion of the current space between the Viaduct and the Water would be taken or severely impacted.

Why is no one advocating tolls to pay the additional cost of the tunnel?

— Greg

Mayor Nickels: The City believes that all financing options should be on the table. The Governor has indicated that tolls are not on the table -- I don't know why.

How will the failing seawall be addressed? It appears the wall will not withstand another earthquake and the city would lose the area up to first avenue. If an elevated structure is built, who or how will the seawall be repaired?

— Brian

Mayor Nickels: The Seawall will be replaced as part of the project. In the hybrid cut and cover tunnel it forms the western wall of the tunnel.

This region has a history of being unable to deliver on huge capital projects - witness Sound Transit's huge cost overruns, the Monorail debacle, etc. What makes you think the cost figures for the tunnel are anywhere near reality?

— John

Mayor Nickels: The light rail project is under construction and will open to the airport in 2009. It wasn't easy but it is happening. The Viaduct needs to be replaced. It won't be easy, but we must do the very best we can.
That's why I proposed an approach that lowers the cost -- by $1.2B.

Will this vote, whether for or against a tunnel, be the final, final word? It seems like transportation issues around here take forever to finally be settled (e.g., the monorail).

— Laura

Mayor Nickels: Great question! I have said I will live with the result. Will the Governor and Legislature -- I hope so!

As a new homeowner in West Seattle (Westwood) I have had many conversations with neighbors who are concerned that their home values will decline due to the inability to commute from West Seattle to areas outside of downtown Seattle. Has the city evaluated how developing neighborhoods such as Westwood, White Center and other areas in West Seattle will be affected by the final Viaduct solution? On a side note, I also commute from West Seattle to Fishermans terminal, in Magnolia, and see that my future ability to stay, pay taxes and enjoy West Seattle life being directly linked to the final Viaduct solution. Thanks in advance for your response and consideration for those of us living in West Seattle.

— Blake

Mayor Nickels: Welcome to West Seattle! It is a great neighborhood celebrating its 100th year since annexation to Seattle. It is also my long time home. The planning for alternative routes for West Seattle as well as Ballard, Magnolia and other neighborhoods is very important.

In an earlier answer I listed a number of ideas that are being pursued to make it work during the disruption of construction.

Is "tunnel-lite" designed to, potentially, be expandable in the future should funds become available?

— Randall

Mayor Nickels: No. Growth should not be in accommodating more vehicles. It should be in transit, in bicycling and walking. Expanding the streetcar, expanding light rail to Northgate, giving buses priority on 3rd Avenue, attracting more residents to the Center City to live near work, that's how we will handle growth.

Mr Mayor, You have said that you don't want a new viaduct because you want to connect downtown with the waterfront. Doesn't the elevation change between 1st Ave and Alaskan Way do that all on its own, regardless of the presence/absence of a viaduct? How do you envision connecting Pike Place Market and the waterfront?

— Robert

Mayor Nickels: The opportunity to make a great new connection between the 100 year old Pike Market and the Waterfront is one of the exciting benefits. I see a lid over the ramp connecting the tunnel with the Battery Street tunnel being a walkway connecting down to the Aquarium and a new Waterfront park. Ideally the walkway could be lined be small shops or stalls, continuing the Market along the way. Other streets could be reconnected -- much like the University street stairs do now.

Why does the ballot not contain the surface street option? It seems like the vote will be skewed without all options on the table.

— Merisa

Mayor Nickels: When the Governor and Legislature first required a vote at the end of last session they established the ground rules as being a choice between those two options -- which they had determined to be "viable".

If Seattle voters decide against the tunnel and for a new elevated structure, will you and the city take the elected outcome to court? And vice versa, will the Governor and the state go to court to see that its favored choice is built? Will the voice of the people via the ballot be upheld, or will the competing sides ultimately use the courts to force their view and interests upon the people?

— Bryan

Mayor Nickels: I have said I will live with the outcome. The Governor and Legislature, who demanded the vote in the first place should make the same pledge.

I understand that the Legislature passed a law requiring WSDOT to only study replacement options that maintain existing "vehicle" capacity. If that law were changed, could the City and State consider a smaller more affordable tunnel that would keep the cars and trucks off of the waterfront?

— David

Mayor Nickels: We are testing that assumption with the hybrid tunnel which provides the peak capacity we need a few hours a day without building a huge facility which would be more than needed most hours of the day.

Considering no matter which choice I choose there will still be a four lane road and a series of piers and buildings between and along the water front. Could you please clearly explain how building a tunnel will open up the water front to those of us who do not own a highrise building there?

— Curtis

Mayor Nickels: Think about the Olympic Sculpture Park which replaced the old fuel tank farm. Think about Chicago's Millenium Park that replaced a rail yard creating an amazing place for people. Moving the surface Alaskan Way to the space under the current Viaduct structure creates a 75 foot wide promenade along the water. Water features, sculptures, coffee shops and cafes, use you imagination as to how great a space we can create. The people own the current Waterfront Park and Aquarium, we can do so much to remake it and even make place for people to be able to touch the water. No new private buildings would be allowed on the water side, only people and activities for people.

What steps are being taken to ensure tunnel safety during an earthquake or tsunami?

— Milton

Mayor Nickels: Remember the 1989 San Francisco quake? It damaged the Bay Freeway, the Nimitz Expessway, the Cypress and the Embarcadaro. People were killed on these elevated highways. The BART tunnel, on the other hand, reopened 45 minutes after a post quake inspection. Tunnels are safe.

How does making Downtown an attractive place to live help the rest of the city and the region?

— Patrick

Mayor Nickels: To beat Global Warming we need to burn less fossil fuel (read drive cars less). That means attracting more people to live in cities (including ours) near work, school & recreation. Taking full advantage of our amazing physical surroundings -- Puget Sound and the mountains -- will attract more people to the city. This will reduce the 20, 30, 40 mile suburban commutes that drive the demand for ever more freeway lanes. Making Seattle a better place to live benefits Seattle and the region.

Mayor Nickels, What is going to be done to make sure that Seattle will not be following in Boston's big dig footsteps if a tunnel is going to be built so close to the water?

— Ross

Mayor Nickels: Great question and one which requires great care. The planning must be done and complete before a spade of dirt is turned. The project should seek to reduce costs when possible -- as the City has proposed with the hybrid tunnel (reducing the estimate by $1.2B). The Governor's Expert Panel said that we should not use a Freeway standard in such an urban area -- those standards can drive huge costs.

Mr. Mayor, If the residents of Seattle vote overwhelmingly against both the tunnel and viaduct options, will you stand with your constituents and push instead for a surface and transit improvement option that will, in fact, be more environmentally friendly snd put the city in line with the Kyoto Protocol you pledged to adhere to?

— Jonathan

Mayor Nickels: I could go on for a long time about all the actions we are taking to meet our Kyoto pledge but time is limited, I have said I will live with the results of the vote and look for solutions.

If the voters vote down Measure 2, what happens if the state wants to proceed with an Elevated Viaduct?

— Kelly

Mayor Nickels:

I work for the people of Seattle. If the voters express their opposition to a new, bigger, uglier elevated alternative I will fight it with everything within my power.

I am willing to live with the results of the people's vote. I hope the Governor and Legislature -- who are the ones who demanded this vote -- would pledge to do the same.

Greg, Have you gone through NYC's 4 lane Holland tunnel lately? It's gigantic mess on both ends. How will your 4 lane option not become that same mess?

— Chris

Mayor Nickels:

I have gone through the Holland tunnel although it has been some time. I have also used the Battery Street tunnel, the Mt. Baker I-90 eastbound tube and the tunnel going under the Frasier River on the way to Vancouver, BC

In addition remember the current Viaduct has no shoulders.

The new hybrid tunnel would have large shoulders 17 hours a day and during the Peak hours the shoulders would be used as managed lanes -- much like parking lanes in every neighborhood are used today when parking is prohibited from 7 - 9 or 4 - 6.

Advocates for a new elevated viaduct talk about it as the "financially responsible" choice, and this seems to be the centerpiece of their argument. I believe that the economic benefits of a tunnel (including tax revenues to the state and city) would more than make up for the cost difference between the tunnel and new elevated options. Do you have any financial data that could back this argument?

— Robert

Mayor Nickels: First the cost difference is much smaller than with the previous much larger tunnel -- about $600 ($2.8B vs. $3.4B). Yes the Downtown Seattle Association has calculated a significant economic benefit as a result of removing the Viaduct. That's one reason I would ask adjoining property owners to contribute $250M through an LID assessment.
I believe the conclusion was that the extra cost would be repaid in less than ten years.

Regardless of the chosen option, what are the planned mitigation measures for handling traffic to/from West Seattle? Is that information posted anywhere the public can access it?

— Russell

Mayor Nickels: How we manage traffic during construction will be very important, doubly so if a surface option is chosen. Among the measures from the south would be a new exit from Spokane Street Viaduct (eastbound) at 4th Avenue for buses to access the busway and improve express service, a new overpass of the BNSF mainline at Lander Street, expanded Water Taxi service and keeping 3rd Avenue for West Seattle and Ballard buses during peak hours (as is the case now during the renovation of the downtown transit tunnel ).
(Info available at www.seattle.gov/transportation)

I am concerned about Seattle turning into a playground for the wealthy. Won't the tunnel contribute to the gentrification of Pioneer Square and surrounding areas by raising property values and rents?

— Gregg

Mayor Nickels:

Thanks for your question!

Having a great waterfront for all will give everyone a benefit -- as a youngster growing up in Seattle my Dad took us to the waterfront, Alki and other great spots frequently. As more people call Seattle home these places will be more important than ever. Owners of property which receives a special benefit from removing the Viaduct would pay a special assessment through a Local Improvement District (LID) to help pay for the hybrid tunnel. I do hope we get some additional housing in Pioneer Square, it will make for a better balanced neighborhood.