Alaskan Way Viaduct = Tunnel? State House says “yes,” 53-43

ORIGINAL 9:59 PM REPORT: Thanks to Vlad Oustimovitch (who was on the Stakeholders Committee) for the tip – SB 5768 (full legislation here), the bill that would pave the way for a tunnel to replace the Central Waterfront section of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, is being debated in the state House right now. Watch live on TVW, via cable or online here. We’ll report the results here when the vote happens.

10:14 PM UPDATE: The vote’s in — 53 yes, 43 no. Those voting “yes” included both of West Seattle’s State Representatives, Eileen Cody and Sharon Nelson. The bill passed the State Senate 43-6 on March 4th. Checking now on next steps and amendments.

ADDED 10:30 PM: As noted in comments, the most notable amendment to be adopted before the vote is one by Eastside Rep. Judy Clibborn that has the following effect, per the documentation (which you can read in its entirety here):

(1) Establishes that the state’s contribution to the Alaskan Way viaduct replacement project shall not exceed $2.4 billion.

(2) Provides that if costs exceed $2.4 billion, no more than $400 million must be financed with toll revenue.

(3) Establishes that any costs in excess of $2.8 billion must be borne by property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacing the existing viaduct with the tunnel.

ADDED 10:41 PM: Governor Gregoire just issued this statement:

“I congratulate the House on their decision to support the bored tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct. I particularly want to commend Transportation committee chairperson, Judy Clibborn for her leadership and Speaker Frank Chopp for his willingness to advance the option that best meets the needs of our state.

“I must also applaud the extraordinary amount of hard work put in by a variety of elected, labor and business leaders, neighborhood groups and key stakeholders that reviewed years of research, analysis and creative approaches and garnered support for the bored tunnel option.

“Lawmakers can be proud of this decision to improve public safety, keep a route open for traffic during construction, and generate thousands of new family-wage jobs in the Puget Sound region.

“This viaduct replacement legislation accomplishes one of two important go-home transportation issues. I now encourage the Senate and House to pass the bond legislation needed to ensure funding to replace the aging state Route 520 bridge. Building a deep bored tunnel and upgrading SR 520 will support a strong economy today and in the future.”

It’s been 3 months since we sat in the front row of a packed room at Bell Harbor Conference Center on the waterfront as the governor, Mayor Nickels, and County Executive Ron Sims first announced the tunnel plan (WSB coverage here and, with video added later, here). Vlad Oustimovitch was among those whose comments we captured on video that day; tonight, asked for post-vote comment, he told WSB, “I was recently stopped on the street by a gentleman named Bob, who somehow knew about my involvement with the viaduct. He thanked me, but I think the most important thing he said is that on this project, the ‘Seattle Process’ worked. I couldn’t say it any better.”

clark5080 April 22, 2009 (10:15 pm)

Oh great it passed and we Seattleites are on the hook for all the cost overruns

Thanks April 22, 2009 (11:04 pm)

Yes—a great solution….a little short term pain, for a lot of gain. And we get our waterfront back…

Huindekmi April 23, 2009 (5:41 am)

Next, the gov signs this into law. Then come the lawsuits and yearly voter initiatives until this project is killed or the cost doubled from all the legal fees.

old timer April 23, 2009 (7:33 am)

“(3) Establishes that any costs in excess of $2.8 billion must be borne by property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacing the existing viaduct with the tunnel.”

Has the perimeter for these beneficiaries been established yet?

beef April 23, 2009 (7:42 am)

the amendment is totally crap. no other city in the state has ever had that kind of attachment put upon a project for a state road/feature.

this project benefits everyone as things get in and out of seattle easier.

Downtown commuter April 23, 2009 (7:52 am)

NOT a great solution! Not even a good one.

Why are Eileen Cody and Sharon Nelson voting for this when, with its reduced capacity and lack of downtown exits, it adds to rather than reduces the commutes of West Seattle residents? Way to represent your constituency!

And if you visit the stretch of waterfront from the Aquarium to Myrtle Edwards (where the viaduct turns inland toward the Battery St. tunnel) and its hideous 80’s SoCal stucco architecture…how exactly is this going to “improve the waterfront” for anyone but developers? As usual, they get what they want.

We’ve been hosed!

CB April 23, 2009 (8:02 am)

Get ready for your property taxes to triple. Who ever heard of a highway project that did not go way over budget? I hope the same terms will be applied to highway projects in Spokane and Aberdeen. If they won’t share the burden, why should the people of Seattle (who contribute significantly to the tax base of this state) cover their cost overruns?

vlado April 23, 2009 (8:40 am)

The standards used for estimating the cost of the bored tunnel were very conservative, some say too conservative, so I think there is a good possibility that it might actually come in under budget. Judy Clibborn’s amendment was a way to bring in additional votes from representatives from around the State who were concerned about potential overruns, but did not reflect her own concerns. She deserves great credit for getting the project funding through the House, and having gone though a lengthy stakeholder process, I can say that West Seattle is VERY fortunate to get this project approved. It means we retain our critical SR 99 connection, even during construction, because this solution allows the existing Viaduct to stay in place – as long as there isn’t a major earthquake between now and then, of course!

John April 23, 2009 (9:01 am)

Can WSB verify if W. Seattle property owners are impacted with taxes? I’ve seen this reported in the media as “downtown property owners” and also Seattle area property owners.

WSB April 23, 2009 (9:07 am)

The full text is linked above and there is nothing in it clearer than the paragraph I excerpted, with the line about “Seattle area property owners who benefit …” Will check further but it would be hard to argue IMO that West Seattle property owners “benefit” – TR

vlado April 23, 2009 (9:17 am)

John: I can answer that question. There is no additional assessment of taxes to the citizens of West Seattle for this project. The funding that was voted for yesterday was out of State transportation money which primarily comes from gas tax paid by the entire State (including us, of course). There is a plan for a LID (Local Improvement District) or some other financial device that will tax a large area of the downtown to pay for improvements to the waterfront and other things related to the project, however. That seems appropriate, given the benefits of a removed viaduct to the downtown. But no additional taxes for us West Seattleites.

Gene April 23, 2009 (9:34 am)

Vlado: No additional taxes for West Seattlites even in the case of cost overruns? You’re sure about that?

vlado April 23, 2009 (10:21 am)

Gene: If there are cost overruns they will of course have to be paid by somebody, and there is an amendment for the City of Seattle to be responsible for cost overruns, although the language isn’t very strong. In fact, a couple of the vehemently opposed legislators lambasted Clibborn that the way her amendment was written, saying it would make financial responsibility practically voluntary. Having said that, I believe that the project will get delivered on time and on budget, in large part due to the economic climate that we are in. Construction firms will be glad to get awarded this project even with virtually zero profit, and their best workers will be available to work on it. Construction costs are down 20-25% over what they were two years ago, we are in a deflationary period in construction, so the sooner we get this going, the better.

Dis April 23, 2009 (10:33 am)

Get our waterfront back? ha ha ha Actually it’s goodbye waterfront! In case you haven’t noticed, Seattle is a Port town. Our waterfront is a working waterfront. Does someone have a vision of strolling out of downtown to dip your toes in the salty seawater? This tunnel removes the waterfront from the view of most people who can enjoy it today.

villagegreen April 23, 2009 (11:30 am)

This is awesome news! I just have to chuckle at all the people who are whining. This solution is by far the best case scenario for West Seattleites. There was never a chance in hell of a replacement viaduct being built (we’d be the laughing stock of the nation). If you want a view, try getting our of your car and taking a walk. It’s free and quite enjoyable.

Timothy April 23, 2009 (11:35 am)

This is a terrible bill. It is terrible for Seattle, and terrible for West Seattle and Ballard.

As you mentioned, we did see that charade of a Press Conference on January 13th in which the so-called agreement was trotted out as a great solution. At the time (I was in the audience) I thought, well, OK. There are positives. We did get our Waterfront back. We were going to get a significant increase in transit options. And, Seattle was walled off from cost overruns on the project, even though we are on the hook for nearly a billion dollars in costs for the Seawall and other imrpovements. THAT was to be born by the LID tax.

Now? No transit (this was Ron Sims main point for agreement). The cost overruns are to be born by the City? So much for Gov. Gregoire’s portion of that January agreement in which she stated otherwise. Mayor Nickles seems to be rolling over for this one, which is really negligent on his part regarding his oversight on behalf of the City.

…and West Seattle, Wake UP! This agreement actually reduces your options for travel into and through the City.

I’d expect better reporting of this from this blog.

Al April 23, 2009 (11:45 am)

Best case scenario for West Seattleites? Let’s see, we loose two high-utlized exits for direct downtown access – both for transit and SOVs. The waterfront 6-lane roadway will also be built with routing through downtown the priority. That construction won’t begin until roughtly 2014 when the tunnel is complete. West Seattleites will therefore get to use either 1st Ave or 4th Ave to get to downtown – both transit and autos. SDOT & WSDOT have both said our commutes will be longer with the tunnel. Metro is going to *maybe* add one RapidRide bus route, or two. But there will be no dedicated bus lane. It’s fairly clear how we get to downtown, but there’s no information about how we get home (only the 1st Ave entrance to the West Seattle Bridge or the lower bridge; no tunnel access from downtown).

That is great! Yes, I can’t wait! If, if, if WSDOT & SDOT were planning a more integrated waterfront with increased transit options and downtown access, I may be more likely to say, ok maybe it will work. But from the last meeting I sat in where the Tunnel project managers spoke = lack of hope.

Al April 23, 2009 (11:47 am)

To clarify, the 6-lane waterfront roadway through downtown; meaning to BYPASS downtown.

WSB April 23, 2009 (11:49 am)

Here’s our archive of Alaskan Way Viaduct coverage – every step of the way through review of the various options over the past year, including another controversial amendment that did NOT go through, tying Viaduct funding to Spokane Street.
.

https://wsb.blackfin.biz/blog/?cat=76
.
Let me know what “better reporting” you are looking for – we don’t editorialize, so as for whether it is a “terrible option” or a “good” option, that is for you and anyone else interested in commenting to decide. The fact there’s no mid-downtown offramp was noted from the very first introduction of this – the project leaders continue to contend that with Spokane Street Viaduct’s ramp changes and with the south-of-downtown ramps on 99, accessibility won’t be worse, just different. That, we won’t know till we get there – TR

WSB April 23, 2009 (3:17 pm)

Update from Publicola:
http://publicola.net/?p=5028
The amendment yes votes included Nelson and Cody. The State Senate is not expected to keep the amendment. So a call to your senator – Sen. Joe McDermott – may be in order.
http://sdc.wa.gov/senators/mcdermott/

Nulu April 23, 2009 (6:01 pm)

Now that the tunnel has been re-invented and passed, how about some sketches of what our reclaimed waterfront will look like?
Downtown business interests should sense this as a great opportunity.
Seattleites like myself are weary of the whole long process – campaigns, propaganda, meetings & votes. Stadiums, Monorail, now this, all to no avail.
We are too fatigued and disheartened to renew the fight when the ballyhooed waterfront reclamation quietly disappears to be replaced by suddenly active commercial interests with deep pockets and political clout.
Our waterfront will be gone.

WSB April 23, 2009 (6:07 pm)

Hi – we ran those all before or at least linked to the WSDOT gallery – still trying to find the link again.

Al April 24, 2009 (8:41 am)

https://wsb.blackfin.biz/blog/forum/topic.php?id=1824

See my post about the SBAB meeting 4/1/09. There were pictures at the meeting and the waterfront was one HUGE roadway (6 lanes!!!) – no dedicated transit (buses will have to be in traffic). No trolley depicted. They did state it was going to be published very soon, but I haven’t seen it posted yet. It is very different from the Alaskan/Western split that was talked up.

Timothy April 24, 2009 (9:38 am)

WSB…sorry I called you out for your reporting yesterday. You’re right and are reporting the story per your standards.

Carry on the good work. :-)

WSB April 24, 2009 (9:50 am)

I am still waiting to hear from Sen. McDermott btw re: his position on the amendment – TR

KT April 24, 2009 (9:53 am)

The cost over runs won’t mean West Seattle will pay more …..Establishes that any costs in excess of $2.8 billion must be borne by property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacing the existing viaduct with the tunnel…what’s the benefit to West Seattle from replacing the viaduct with the tunnel???

Al April 24, 2009 (10:33 am)

Exactly, KT. What is the benefit? Who decides what is the benefit? And where are the boundaries surrounding those who benefit? The meeting I attended described the benefit to West Seattle and those south of SODO as a better road system overall, better “connectivity” to the waterfront and to the new tunnel (in spite of actually increased commute times and virtually no transit connectivity improvement). You bet we could be included in those who “benefit” from the tunnel. I do understand it’s being framed in terms of downtown at this point, but I won’t bet on it staying that way.

Sorry, comment time is over.