By: Steve Wilhelm
Puget Sound Business Journal
January 9, 2009
Link to article
The idea of a deep-bore tunnel to replace Seattle’s elevated waterfront viaduct is drawing support from some sectors of the industrial community - the very groups that vehemently opposed an earlier tunnel proposal.
One key aspect that manufacturing and freight interests like is that they’d be able to continue operating trucks on the Alaskan Way Viaduct during most of the construction period. Other proposals, including a new viaduct, the original “cut-and-cover” waterfront tunnel and the surface street options, would create significant traffic congestion during construction.
“I think people are starting to see that this might be a way forward,” said Dave Gering, executive director of the Manufacturing Industrial Council of Seattle, which represents interests in the Sodo and Duwamish areas south of the city’s downtown.
Gering said he’d been “very concerned” about the probability of traffic disruption during construction of earlier proposals. The deep-bore option “is going to be expensive, but it provides you with an incredible benefit, if it can be done without disrupting the region,” he said.
Members of industrial groups in Ballard and the city’s north end who formerly supported an elevated structure said they also are opening to the possibility of a deep-bore tunnel.
The viaduct replacement debate took a new turn last month after city, county and state transportation officials narrowed the options under consideration to two: a new, larger elevated structure, or surface streets operated as one-way corridors, combined with transit. The deep bore wasn’t among the finalists, nor was the cut-and-cover tunnel proposal. But strong support from stakeholders for the deep-bore option has prompted rethinking.
Gov. Chris Gregoire was due to pick one of the two options by Dec. 31, but delayed that to study the deep-bore tunnel, and is now expected to decide this month. The issue still faces debate in the Legislature, which would need to fund construction.
Ron Judd, senior adviser to the governor on the viaduct, and former director of the King County Labor Council, said he believes that negotiations between the state, city, King County and the Port of Seattle will result in financial participation that will bridge the gap between the $2.1 billion cost just to drill the tunnel, before additional costs are counted, and the $2.8 billion the state has available for the whole project.
“When we announce a decision, I believe this will be accomplished, and our partners, the city, ports and county, will partner in a way that will make a unique solution happen,” Judd said.
The most supportive industrial group is the Manufacturing Industrial Council of Seattle. It sent a Dec. 18 letter to Gregoire, which said in part:
“It appears the deep bore tunnel might provide adequate through-capacity both during construction and upon completion, because of the potential to preserve the existing SR 99/I-5 corridor while the tunnel is being built.”
Other groups are less convinced. John Kane, chair of the Ballard Interbay Northend Manufacturing & Industrial Center, or BINMIC, said that some members still think rebuilding the viaduct is a “viable option.” But he added that the tunnel needs to be looked at.
“Bottom line for everyone is during construction and after construction, capacity is still there,” he said. “There’s a lot of concern that if during construction things get bogged down, that will be a significant impact for us.”
Warren Aakervik, a member of the Seattle Manufacturing Industrial Council board and owner of fuel distributor Ballard Oil, said he liked the minimal impact from construction, too, though he has other reservations about access.
Ron Paananen, urban corridors deputy administrator for the Washington state Department of Transportation, is leading a small army of 170 consultants and staff who are trying to nail down the details of the three proposals for the governor in the next weeks. Gregoire has promised to make a choice by the end of January.
Paananen agrees that the lack of disruption during construction has become a big draw for the bored tunnel, which only emerged as a serious contender in the last month.
“That is what the proponents of the tunnel really like, you could dig a launching pit on the southern end, and launch the tunnel boring machine, and for several years while the tunnel is being drilled, the viaduct could remain in service,” he said.
The proposal is to bore a tunnel about 54 feet in diameter deep beneath First Avenue and part of Belltown, running roughly between Qwest Field and State Route 99.
Whether or not the option chosen can serve the needs of the freight community has been a major factor in the downfall of earlier proposals, most notably the proposed cut-and-cover tunnel under the current Alaskan Way, which was turned down by city voters.
On Dec. 15 the Seattle Port Commission passed a motion indicating preference for the deep tunnel option, contending that the surface street option would not provide enough capacity, while the elevated option would create “significant construction impacts.”
But there’s one freight-related downside with the bored-tunnel proposal, and it’s a big one.
As proposed, the tunnel won’t connect directly with Elliott and Western avenues in the north end of downtown. While trucks from Seattle’s Ballard areas now can get on and off the current viaduct there, under the current tunnel concept those trucks would instead have to descend a slope from Elliott and Western down to Alaskan Way at about Pine Street, where they would continue on the surface.
This doesn’t sit well with some industrial users.
“My position is if you put all that traffic on the waterfront, and I’m fighting for access with 50,000 cars, there’s no use in building that corridor,” said Aakervik of the Seattle Manufacturing Industrial Council.
But trying to add direct connections to the tunnel from Elliott and Western, referred to as “tunnel spurs,” would probably be too expensive for the current project budget, Paananen said.
He contends that the tunnel option would still handle most of the auto and truck traffic on State Route 99, a large reduction in impact compared with the huge volume of traffic that would travel along the waterfront with the surface-street option.
Analysis shows that currently about one-third of the vehicles on the viaduct, or about 30,000 a day, get on or off at the Western/Elliott interchange. Paananen said he expects that many of those vehicles would take other routes if the ramps were not there, including getting in the tunnel north of the current Battery Street entrance.
Travel through the section of Alaskan Way south of Pine Street, about 1.5 miles, would be on the “order of minutes,” he added.
Removing the viaduct, meanwhile, would allow planners to broaden Alaskan Way to four full lanes, he said. It currently is limited to two lanes in some places such as near the ferry terminal.
swilhelm@bizjournals.com | 206.876.5427
