Viaduct Q&A with Council President Licata

Trying to figure out how to mark your Seattle viaduct ballot? City Council President Nick Licata, who favors building a new viaduct, answered a selection of your questions

Will the new viaduct be the same height or taller? Will the columns/posts near walking areas be similar in size?

— Jane H.

Council President Licata: The new viaduct in all likelihood will be both higher and wider, with columns greater in diameter and spaced about twice the distance as the current ones. That said, there has been about 5% design work, so there is still a lot of design work left to be done. In particular , many of the ideas that have been floated for the new proposed hybrid tunnel could also be applied to a new viaduct, dramatically reducing the current proposed width of the structure. That is the option that I would prefer to see built.

If a tunnel light is OK, then why aren't we looking at a viaduct light to lessen its impact?

— Peter L.

Council President Licata: Dear Peter, You have hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the point I have been making. Unfortunately, the City has spent over $20 million on design costs around the tunnel option and barely a percent of that for the elevated alternative. The most recent Expert Review Panel memo to the City in fact said that the same design concepts being applied to the hybrid tunnel could be applied to the elevated. I would insist that the State pursue these new design elements to slim down the proposed new elevated structure.

How long will construction of a new viaduct take and what is the plan for re-routing traffic? If traffic can be re-routed during an extended consturction period (years) without gridlock, why is a surface option for replacing the viaduct not being seriously considered?

— Richard S.

Council President Licata: Dear Richard, I believe the construction period for the new viaduct will stretch out about three years longer than that for the tunnel, which I think would make it about 11 years. However, the State has estimated that the total closure of the Alaskan Way Corridor will only be about 3 months, while the tunnel construction will close down this corridor close to 3 years. Good question about re-routing the traffic during the construction period. I have not seen a plan from either the State or the City on how they plan to avoid gridlock. I think this is surely the weak link in all the options, including a surface option. No matter what option is chosen, the City must work with the County to increase bus service and hopefully along dedicated street lanes. I think we may also need to consider taking some significant ventures into traffic management, such as limiting auto access into downtown on certain days or during certain hours. The construction period may find us pursuing options like these that we would not have considered otherwise.

How does building a massive new highway and increasing vehicular capacity line up with Seattle's stated commitment of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

— Joe

Council President Licata: Dear Joe,We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I believe a new elevated viaduct does that better than a tunnel or a surface option for the following reasons.

First, the viaduct is not a new highway. The highway already exists, just like I-5. Soon we will have to resurface I-5, I don't think it would be wise to argue to shut down I-5 because it would eliminate a highway and therefore would eliminate cars. We need to keep a minimum flow of traffic through the city, in order to avoid an increase in traffic congestion.

That brings me to the second reason, both a tunnel and a surface option will result in more traffic congestion, which means greater tailpipe emissions since the traffic will be traveling slower. This is because they throw more traffic on the waterfront surface moving at a slow speed, something that the elevated does not.

Lastly, the viaduct is a means to channel traffic, just like surface highway or a tunnel. The traffic capacity of each is determined by the dimensions of those structures. I support a viaduct that would be slimmer than the one that is being currently proposed, using many of the same design principles that the hybrid tunnel uses.

Why not get both sides of this issue together on a new plan? We can have have the viaduct, open space and views. All we need to do is build a pedestrian-only park on top of the new viaduct. The views will be marvelous. People who work downtown will have a place to go for sun and fresh air at lunch. And it would let those who live or work there walk, jog or bike from one end of downtown to the other without crossing a single street of traffic. Best of all the value of the retail space for sidewalk cafes and little stores it creates should more than cover the added cost. Seattle should quit haggling and think creatively.

— Mike P.

Council President Licata: Dear Mike, The proposal for a park lid on a new viaduct is creative and one that House Speaker Frank Chopp has been promoting. I think it deserves a fair and thorough review. I'm not sure if the visual blockage of the structure would be an acceptable trade-off to the public, but the gain of a spectacular view from a new downtown park might make it acceptable. To date, this option just has not been vetted enough.

The main reason I oppose the tunnel is safety. Between the seawall issue and the earthquake issue, I have trouble believing a tunnel in this particular situation can survive an earthquake. Mayor Nickels compares it to BART in San Francisco which survived an earthquake well. Is he comparing apples with apples or is our situation different? Thanks

— Mel W.

Council President Licata: Dear Mel, You raise a good question about comparing the Seattle tunnel to the BART tunnel. And quite honestly I have not looked into this comparison. So I do not know how they might compare in light of a possible earthquake.

Hi, Question: Would a no-no vote bring the retrofit back to the table? My first choice has been retrofit, provided it could be done economically and in an aesthetically satisfactory way. It has the virtue of not putting up anything bigger while preserving existing capacity and functions. My second choice has been rebuild, preferably "bulked down" from the current proposal. I understand that the estimated costs on the retrofit are controversial, but both it and the rebuild are affordable and the money is already secured. Thanks for your consideration of the question.

— John S.

Council President Licata: Dear John, A retrofit was my first choice as well. In fact, I brought up an engineer from California to meet with our State engineers to explore this idea a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, the State engineers keep objecting to the feasibility of this approach. I'm not an engineer and I find myself listening to those with engineering training disagreeing as to the feasibility of a retrofit. I think the only way such an approach will get approval by the State will be for the Governor to require a more thorough investigation. And I believe that may just happen if either the elevated passes and the City refuses to issue permits or if both measures fail on the ballot.

If Seattle voters indicate their desire for a tunnel, will you follow the public's wishes or your own?

— Robert K.

Council President Licata: Dear Robert, I think the current ballot options are not accurate of the choices we face. The tunnel hybrid option was presented to the public three days before the Council placed it on the ballot. The elevated option is the old design, one that the City has consistently opposed and one that it has refused to do any design work on.

So is an election with phony choices an election? Or is it an exercise in trying to shape public opinion through denying the public adequate information?

Hi I am a tunnel supporter who shares the Mayor's view that this is strategic to Seattle's future quality of life as a waterfront city (eg: create more pleasant area to visit instead of looking at a very industrial viaduct/highway). To be perfectly candid, I'm not certain why there is so much passionate opposition to creating this vision. Can you help me understand the opposing point of view and why it generates such strong opposition? Thanks.

— Eddie

Council President Licata: Dear Eddie, I believe there is such strong opposition to the tunnel for a number of reasons. I believe the most significant one is the inevitable cost that will have to be shouldered by Seattle ratepayers and residents, through increased utility rates and potential new property taxes, for a gain that is perceived to benefit only a small portion of the population.

The cost estimate for the tunnel has not been vetted by the State. The State "report" that the City says vindicates their hybrid tunnel option was a 4 day rush job. And the first page of that report says that the Project Team, in which staff from the City and State staff both participated, could not reach a conclusion as to the cost or the feasibility of the hybrid tunnel plan. The first Expert Review Panel said that the former tunnel plan, that was vetted by the State, was also under budgeted because the inflation rate was about a third of what has been occuring on mega projects around the country in the last ten years. Basically, the tunnel option's costs have been low balled. Even so, the Mayor has said that ratepayers, even assuming the current assumptions, will have to pay an additional half billion in utility rates to build the tunnel.

I also believe that many Seattle residents use the viaduct and enjoy the view of the Puget Sound from it. With a tunnel, they will be looking at walls and paying for the experience.

I don't understand why you are calling this an election when there will be no winner. This is an "advisory" vote only, totally non-binding outcome. I see this as a another giant waste of money by the City of Seattle. What is the point?? The opinion's of the citizens could well be determined without trying to pretend they actually have something to gain by mailing in these ballots. It is clear Greg Nichols will continue to try to bulldoze his way to what he wants with no regard to what the citizens or can afford. This is also a matter that clearly needs to be resolved by engineers not politicians and the general public.

— Lisa J.

Council President Licata: Dear Lisa, I agree with you. I was one of only three Council Members who voted against having this wasteful advisory vote. It will cost us $1 million and the State political leadership told us in advance that unless it provided accurate information, they would discount the results. They subsequently said that the hybrid tunnel should not have been on the ballot because it was never vetted by the State and its cost estimates may be off by as much as a billion dollars.

With the new viaduct, will drivers still have the same wonderful views of Elliot Bay and the mountains that they enjoy now?

— Barbara N.

Council President Licata: Dear Barbara, The short answer is yes. The current railing on the viaduct is at 36 inches and the new barrier will be about 4 inches below that, so the views of the mountains and the Sound will still be accessible.

Going along with Richard's question - what will happen to the construction-related increased bus service after the structure is rebuilt? Again, if we can get along without a structure for 11 years, why rebuild it?

— Lindsey

Council President Licata: Dear Lindsey, It is not at all clear how well we will be able to get along during construction. Our goal should be to try to minimize the immense disruption that will occur rather than planning on having it go on indefinately.

Increased bus service is absolutely needed both during construction and afterwards. And ideally new rail transit will be available to also provide alternative modes of travel into downtown. But rail is years off and even when it is finally constructed, the expected job growth in this region and in downtown in particular is expected to consume whatever excess capacity we have on our current streets. Consequently a viaduct is needed to avoid having our streets and I-5 being clogged with through traffic, which would slow down not only auto and truck traffic but also bus transit.

Will the outcome of the special election have any effect in the final decision for viaduct replacement? If not, why should I vote?

— Karen D.

Council President Licata: Dear Karen, From the polls I've seen a good number of people are asking your question and trying to decide the relative value of a thirty-nine cent stamp against the value of their advisory vote. It may be a close call.

I think this is an election of negatives. The pro-tunnel campaign is primarliy an anti-elevtated campaign. They hope to drive the support for the viaduct to a level that is below that of the pro-tunnel vote, therefore they can declare victory, even if both options receive less than 50% of the vote. And since they are spending about a half a million dollars and the pro-elevated campaign is spending less than a tenth of that, I suspect that they may succeed.

A new elevated viaduct will be just as noisy, smelly, and ugly as the old one - if not more so. How will this attract more people to live and play downtown?

— Dana

Council President Licata: Dear Dana, According to a discussion I had with a lead state acoustic engineer, with the new construction materials available, the noise of the new viaduct should be reduced from the current one by about 10 decibels, which means it will be cut in half, or about the same noise level of traffic noise being heard on the sidewalk next to the current Alaskan Way street.

As for smells, I don't know. But as for ugly, like I've said before there has been only one design that has been vetted, I believe a slimmer one can be built and I believe that many of the design priniciples that are being applied to the hybrid tunnel could be applied to a new viaduct.

Please also keep in mind, that even with the current viaduct, as unattractive as it is, there are still over 10 million people visiting the downtown waterfront each year. That is a lot of folks and the projection is that number will increase even with the current viaduct.

WSDOT's original recommendation was for a tunnel based on extensive studies by competent engineers and planners. Now, under the new oversight of the governor, WDOT has changed its tune. Seems to me another example of politicians meddling where they don't belong. Why aren't your efforts focused on trying to find creative ways of funding this, or getting more federal or state funding for the project instead of fighting a tunnel?

— Judy

Council President Licata: Dear Judy, In an ideal world, the Federal Government would pay for this tunnel. They picked up 80% of the cost for Boston's tunnel and as they did for many other projects around the country a number of years ago. Unfortunately, the federal government now picks up at most 20% and in the case of the viaduct it is even less. State Government leaders have repeatedly said that they will not pay for more than the rebuild option. I think the Mayor has done the best he can in identifying new revenue sources. Unfortunately, they rely on more local taxes and utility rate increases. And even after doing that, the cost estimates of the tunnel are woefully short of what it is likely to cost given all the information we know about mega projects like this one, which have averaged 30% to 40% overruns across the country.