Opinion is shifting

Tunnel vision on viaduct ignores simpler, better retrofit.

Let's not spend billions on a tunnel or an entirely new viaduct when the present structure can be brought up to modern safety and seismic standards and be serviceable for many, many years.

Comments

[Matt]

Having followed this project since a toll tunnel was first proposed in the early/mid 1990's, I think Mr. Hansen's opinion on a retrofit is a real breath of fresh air.

The WSDOT party line has always been that retrofitting the existing structure is infeasible, but if you were Parsons-Brinkerhoff and had been given the job of studying the project, what would your report look like? The one that WSDOT and area politicians want to see come out - and which ensures your firm a 10-year (at least!) gravy train, or the politically unpopular one that shows the job can be done for less?

I drive the Viaduct twice a day, and I have no worries that a typical 35-year seismic event will bring it down if a resonable retrofit is done (now, the 500-year subduction quake is a whole other matter, and if a 9 point earthquake hits Seattle, everything from the I-5 Ship Canal bridge on down will probably be destroyed, but there ain't much we can do to ameliorate this relatively low risk at a reasonable cost, so I'm not going to spend my nights up worried about it).

Remember all those would-be Viaduct killers who said the next earthquake was going to bring it down? It didn't.

[Randy Byers]

I'd like to know more of the details of what a retrofit would entail/accomplish. I'm also having a hard time imagining the beautiful park area under the viaduct that's tossed off at the end of the article. Or did he mean beautiful *parking* area? Other than that, the price tag sure looks nice, although it doesn't include the cost of shoring up the sea wall.

[David Sucher]

I agree with Randy that it's not likely we can have a "park" under the viaduct. But we can certainly do better than we do now. I have a new post on the "Promenade Plantee" in Paris which shows an old viaduct which shelters retail at street grade. No doubt there are other interesting things to do in our Seattle situation.

As to the seawall, is it possible that the extent of damage is grossly over-claimed? Google "seawall" on this site -- I have blogged on the issue sveral times over the past few years.

[Matt]

David,

Note that the whole northern portion of the Seawall project has been deferred under the Mayor's latest proposal to lowball the initial cost of the tunnel - I guess it's not a life safety emergency anymore.

A stand alone option for the Seawall ought to be on the table.

BTW - I played a gig in Milan a few years back that was in a building was one of several strutures that had been built below a city block's length of elevated train. Oddly enough, you could barely hear the trains above (even when we weren't putting out 100+ db). That said, I'm pretty skeptical about what can be accomplished below the Viaduct beyond some additional landscaping.

[David Sucher]

Matt,
Why are you skeptical about improvements to the area below the viaduct? is it a question of noise?

[Matt]

I think the technical problems are eclipsed by the financial ones - since the frugal option is unlikely to be chosen, there will be a push to maximize buildable land (and hence tax revenues) and minimize costs (eg - do the landscaping on the cheap).

But I'm not cynical, really...

[Cary]

I love the vibe of this piece: the man cares for his city, he wants to find the practical and sensible solution, he respects the work of some very smart very experienced professionals, he isn't letting a bureaucracy like WSDOT get away with dismissing them. But there are major flaws.

First, no megaproject managed by WSDOT is going to cost that little. Maybe 30 years ago, when things were simpler, but all the niceties of contemporary business (insurance, contracts, mitigation, public disclosure + environmental review + community outreach requirements, more contracts, more insurance, lawsuits, debt service, working in a very busy and very constrained site, etc) make any construction project way more expensive than the original engineers ever could imagine.

Second, maybe PB is filtering /editing the data so this looks impractical, but every reasonable professional and decision maker (even Nick Licata!) have given up on this idea upon closer inspection. It would be good to know why.

Third, the "we can landscape it; come on, it'll be nice" point is just loony. The place where the Hillclimb Steps cross under the viaduct is the best that can be done in this kind of space, and it's god-awful. The noise precludes conversation. It's dark and dirty because highways are dirty. No business wants to be located there. No people want to be there except the ever-hopeful tourists who don't know better. On the days the viaduct is closed, it's miraculously better: without the relentless assault of traffic noise, it's like all your senses come alive again. You can hear your kids talking to you, you can smell better, you can feel the salty sea air.

Fourth, I believe WSDOT isn't allowed to spend public money on a project that doesn't meet current safety standards. The lanes are too narrow, there are no shoulders, the ramp geometries are too abrupt, the side barriers are too feeble. Any upgrade is going to morph into a rebuild, no matter what the initial intentions.

[Seattle Man]

Cary,
It seems to me that there are a lot of interests which are inclined to find reasons why the existing Viaduct cannot be rehabilitated. I would include the Allied Arts pro-tunnel faction and I would also include --and let's be objective here -- the PWC. People with a certain vision of the waterfront find that it does not forward their agendas if we can rehab the existing viaduct for the kind of dollars suggested by Neil Twelker and Victor Gray, two senior and well-respected engineers. (Geotechnical and structural, respectively.) The institutional interests of the WSDOT as well favor large rather than smaller projects. It's all human nature, not conspiracy.
So while you raise fair points, I am afraid that the evidence is not in on the feasibility/cost of rehabbing the Viaduct.

[cary]

Right, we're not unbiased. But only because, as citizens of Seattle, we see this decision is much larger than what kind of highway to build. It's our responsibility -- all of us -- to figure out the smartest use of some of Seattle's most valuable public land, given the larger goals to become a denser and less car-dependent city. It's our responsibility to figure out if and how we can create a functional shore ecology on this stretch of intertidal habitat and important salmon migration route. And figure out how to achieve the Kyoto protocol, which will necessitate some degree of reducing vehicle miles traveled. The freeing of this land offers us a huge opportunity for making progress on several of our goals and dreams as a city. To ignore the larger possibilities by insisting the highway must stay here is artificial and shortsighted -- especially given the solid evidence of benefits other cities have realized through reclaiming shore lands from traffic.

[David Sucher]

Cary,
You suggest that tearing down the Viaduct helps us toward the goal of a "functional shore ecology on this stretch of intertidal habitat and important salmon migration route." Right? It seems to me that they are independent issues. Could you please explain the connection?

[cary]

Check out the PWC's proposal for what to do with this land if the traffic is moved elsewhere:
http://www.peopleswaterfront.org/ecology_solution.html

The gist is that the tunnel forces the seawall to be vertical and hard-armored, which is one of the biggest causes of trouble for Puget Sound's marine ecology. With no tunnel, there are 3 places where beaches and a softer edge can be created between piers; more intertidal habitat is one of the primary goals for salmon recovery. And with WSDOT out of the picture, we have a huge opportunity to invent an urban ecological landscape on the whole width of the available land so it functions as a shore ecology should. Rainwater collected on site, filtered in small streams which feed the new beaches, small craft and land recreation, etc.

We shouldn't be building any more vertical seawalls when we don't have to.

[David Sucher]

Cary,
I think that the tunnel is a dead-letter. So using it as a reference point doesn't comport with my sense of reality. As well, from my reasoning, the powers-that-be will never allow the Viaduct to come down completely because then we'll have the "Westlake Park" phenomenon: i.e. once people see how nice it is to have no Viaduct, and that we can get by without it, there will be a political force impossible to resist which will prevent a new Viaduct from being built. The only option I see as politically realistic is to rebuild the existing Viaduct in place.

I still don't get how you connect all these issues. We can retrofit the Viaduct and also reestablish the shoreline ecology. At any rate, why not rebuild the shoreline outboard of the seawall?

[Kingsley S Hall]

Initiative 964
Kingsley S. Hall Jr.
P. O. Box 1454
Elma, Washington 98541-1454
360-482-4355 % Elma Theater
360-590-2054 cell
Tuesday February 20, 2007

Reference: Initiative 964 filed Washngton Secretary of State
Subject: Replace Alaska Way Viaduct w/Elliott Bay Floating Bridge


Port of Seattle
Commissioner's Office

Attn: Ms. M. Hernandez

Port of Seattle
Public Affairs Division Office

Attn: Ms. Christine Wolf

Port of Seattle
Government & Legislative Relations

Attn: Mr Terry Finn

Ladies & Gentlemen;

Please be advised about Referenced and subject matters

http://secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=2007

Hopefully this act will result before state government takes more of the people's money for studies of the two current proposals under consideration that have no consensus.

WHEREAS:

Option Three; Have two parallel 5 lane floating structure(s) about one mile out in Elliot Bay instead of a Alaska Way Viaduct, Depressed Roads, or Tunnel which would be a lot cheaper per lane to and faster to build and less painful for all state citizens while being built. THEREBY COMPLETING SYSTEM SO PRESENT TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON I-5 AND MANY DOWNTOWN STREETS FINISHED AS CONTEMPLATED AND PLANNED FOR IN 1961. Origin & destination studies even then indicated a minimum of ten lanes required for local traffic to be provided outside interstate system by Seattle

Forty six years ago there was a meeting with Bill Bugge PE, Dir WSHD; Squeege Glaze (Sp?),WS Dir Hiway Planning Dept.; George Andrews PE, at that time WSHD Dist 7 (Seattle Freeway) Engineer, Ed Johnson PE, Office Manager HNT&B, A couple of gentlemen from The City of Seattle Planning & Engineering Depts. & Bernie Hoskins of Pacific NW Bell Planning and Kingsley Hall (in charge of all research of existing & PS&E preparation of all utilities relocations between Seneca St & Connecticut St Interchange i.e. I-90) to discuss details of locating ramps @ interchanges to provide ties between principle local then present and future North-South non thru traffic facilities. At that time The Interstate Highway was mandated by law not to be designed nor was it funded to handle local traffic and of course every metropolitan area argued for more ramps etc. which upset the freeways intended purposes especially as a defense system for moving missiles around during a all out Cold war turned Hot. All present agreed we needed 5 more thru downtown lanes with no more room within I-5 R/W. The delegates from Seattle at that time were considering a parallel Alaska Way Viaduct but they admitted that probably wouldn't happen because of efforts to save the public market and Paul Thirey's effort to put a lid over the whole freeway system. Then a concept of a floating structure (Like the Hood Canal or Lake Wash. Bridges) one mile out was presented by Mr. Johnson & Mr. Hall. The meeting was concluded when determined that indeed the ramps that were constructed ending in mid-air for so long should be and were built for connecting I-5 into a parallel viaduct or floating structure(s). We also agreed to add in the Northbound left lane off ramp to Seneca that would be removed after the Alaska Way improvement accomplished. That mistake has been an embarrassment ever since. Anything beyond that decision was beyond the scope of work to design the interstate highway which was supposed to not serve or solve local traffic problems. The fact that Seattle never did build the additional proposed 5 or more lane parallel AWV along with the westbound ramp coming off SR 520 bridge over crossing I-5 that still forces people to merge across 5 lanes of traffic in a couple blocks in order to exit on Mercer to Seattle Center was beyond them. But HNT&B remained silent because they wanted and got PS&E contracts for Spokane Street Improvements etc. which became higher priority (and may be where the funding went) because a ship hit the bridge over the Duwamish River and the I-5 principle drainage system goes down Spokane St.

Reasons for advocating another look at this 46 year old never really investigated idea are;

a) Seismic end product concerns of building another elevated North South structure when already the downtown section of I-5 has four parallel 3,000 foot long elevated longitudinal structures.(just uphill from King County & Seattle City Hall buildings.) With Seattle's hour glass figure between Lake Washington & Elliot Bay the results of a catastrophic earthquake or enemy attack leaving only city streets left between North & South Seattle would be hard to imagine.

b) There are those people throughout the world that are striving to improve utilization of municipal waterfronts and associated views The Seattle waterfront with it's streetcars, piers and public markets are among Seattle's greatest attractions. Or perhaps additional waterfront parks to be enjoyed by the much greater number of employees stuck in high rise skyscrapers. With a floating structure the existing AWV could be removed and never replaced or forgetting all this could be replaced after the floating structure in place.

c) Washington State DOT says 110,000 vehicles per day presently using the AWV But, more interesting perhaps; Most Freeway or Expressway Design manuals for traffic analysis assume a lane of traffic at a design speed of 60-65 mph can carry 2,980 cars per lane per hour.(directly proportional to design speed) Lets round that to 3,000 max DHV (daily hour volume) then present 5 lanes carries about 15,000 cars per hour during peak. If you remove the AWV during construction of either a depressed, tunnel, or elevated structure a loss of 15,000 cars North-South capacity is about 5/17ths (Downtown I-5 12 lanes wide + or - ) That's too close to half for a reasonable thing to have happen for several years. Proponents of a tunnel say construction start in 2010 and take ten years to complete. Replacing elevated structure start 2010 and take seven years to complete It will take until 2010 to relocate all the utilities necessary for the tunnel and almost as long for the replaced elevated structure.

e) Building a elevated seismic event resistant (everyday there's a little shaking going on) structure requires a lot of good aggregates (gravel) for high strength concrete. When you dig a hole in your backyard for a swimming pool or septic tank you run into the water table just a few feet down. After you get it built and are enjoying it you decide to pump it out for some reason you might be surprised when the pool or tank floats up out of the ground like a boat. Parts of I-5 have concrete over 7 feet thick as ballast to keep it from floating up out of the ground (there's a reason Spring St is so named and the transit tunnel so expensive. Because of urban development all around Puget Sound we have a shortage of places we can surface mine these materials. (Basalt brown rock not usable)(Only place still some in some river beds. A floating highway would be built elsewhere including even the lights consider how much less construction traffic downtown not having to deal with receiving these logistics.

f) Note how quickly PS&E (Plans, Specifications & Estimate by engineers) and construction completed on the actual floating part of floating structures like Hood Canal and Lake. Washington bridges. Environmental Impact Statement would be fun to write but at least you don't have a lot of rights of way issues except at both ends and even those are mostly on public r/w.

g) Famous rule of thumb on Public Works projects. Don't try to relocate a railroad line. Note the one right alongside & under the existing AWV. Not to be confused with streetcar track. And they certainly are essential to the piers in our port.

h) In the future if you need more parallel lanes over the water you build them without having to acquire more rights of way over land except maybe at the ends. That is sure to happen. Ferry terminal expansion could be on West side of Floating structure w/added parking. This would be impossible where ferry terminal is now. Floating helicopter pad to airport to get really futuristic

i) Anchoring such a structure would probably be easier than a floating bridge between shores as floating roads as extensions of streets could be built that would act in compression or tension to help hold the structure in place.

j) In addition to “slide in opening pontoon assemblies” the center section of the long floating structure and each of the two street extensions would have to have non opening medium rise openings for pleasure craft. These could be four standard pontoons with steel or concrete over channel bridges but with pontoon continued under them with thru cable compression thru and under the channel with top deep enough for shallow draft pleasure craft. Note that some places within the breakwater produced by the floating highway could be developed as an additional marina the rents from which could be used to help fund maintenance etc

That portion of the curved south end of the main floating bridge structure within the North end of Harbor Island (thence thru the East Waterway) would be floating within a just a few feet wider sheet pile canal (requiring tidal ramps for SW Florida and 11th) and the portion thru the East Waterway would consist in part of one of the five “slide in opening pontoon assemblies” which are exact copies of the same devices as used on the Hood Canal Bridge. Thence typical land to floating bridge structures. If fundable structures should be built to go up and over Marginal Way, US-99, and railroad yard tracks and on to Holgate St. to tie in to Beacon Avenue. Otherwise the South end of project would be at Marginal or 99 freeway. Two of the other four “slide in opening pontoon assemblies to be installed in one each of the center sections of the two main parallel floating highway. One each of the remaining two would be installed in the center of the floating street extensions that are in compression or tension to help the anchors hold the main floating highway in place and probably should not both be opened at the same time. These five “slide in opening pontoon assemblies” should be standard as built for the Hood Canal Bridge facilitating; faster PS&E, faster to build since mass production, and more routine maintenance including spare part inventory.

k) Back to (a) above. It’s believed it's easier to replace one or more standardized sections of a floating structure than a structure on land in case of terrorist sabotage or seismic event ecause not so much debris in the way. One or more of which could be stored somewhere secretly

I) A large part of the floating structure could be built in The State of Washington. The State of Washington has pioneered this kind of endeavor

m) Note energy required for ventilation or 24/7 bright adaptive lighting as would be required for tunnel

n) NOTE: MAY BE ALMOST CRIMINAL NOT TO CONSIDER EVENTUAL IMPACT OF MAJOR EARTHQUAKE ON SEATTLE

In event of existing four 3,000 foot long I-5 longitudinal structures (N Bound, N Bound Collector Distributor, S Bound, S Bound Collector Distributor)(above City Hall & KC Courthouse)and Alaska Way proposed or existing Alaska Way elevated or tunnel structure collapse the only North-South Seattle City Streets crossing Yesler Way (This is the narrowest constriction of the hourglass figure of Seattle between Lake Washington and Elliott Bay) are;

First Ave South

Second Avenue South

Combine to 4th at King St

Fourth Avenue South Fifth Avenue South-Airport Way

ABOVE ONLY STREETS LEFT THRU HOUR GLASS

Sixth Avenue South Probably blocked by parts of parallel collapsed I-5 falling on it above KC Courthouse

Boren Avenue and 14th and Rainier Ave I-90 crossing them at Atlantic might collapse

Twelfth Ave South It's curved bridge over I-90 probable collapse Hospital very unstable there

23rd Avenue South Over crossing at I-90 at Atlantic might collapse

Martin Luther King Jr. Way S " " " " ".

Lake Washington Blvd " " " " "

Lake Side Way S

Due to the flexibility of floating structures because they are already designed to withstand tidal, large ship 30 foot bow waves (such as ships going to Bremerton thru Hood Canal Bridge) or natural wave action a parallel bridge structure would be more reliable to continue to function after earthquakes. Expert witness at Senate Alaska Way hearing predicted maximum of 30 tsunami wave from local Puget Sound fault earthquakes.

o) It was assumed in 1961 that a minimum of a additional five for a total of ten lanes other than I-5 was necessary for local traffic either at Alaska Way, Thompson Expressway (Proposed through arboretum which was dropped) Or floating. There is not any other place except over or under water within the hour glass for enough Rights of way to accomplish this

NOTE: ONE FLAW IN THIS IS CONSTRICTION THRU BATTERY STREET TUNNEL.. Perhaps one of the parallel floating structure(s) could be built first to go thru existing Battery St Tunnel then second later on or under Wall St both thence to depressed limited access ultimately 10 lane improved Aurora Ave.

IT IS ABSURD TO REPLACE A INADEQUATE STRUCTURE WITH ANOTHER INADEQUATE OR EVEN LESS ADEQUATE STRUCTURE WHICH FORCES A INTERSTATE HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO FUNCTION IN A MANNER IT WAS NEVER INTENDED. The failure of the City of Seattle to build the Thompson Expressway which agreed would have been bad should have forced this solution long ago.

The previous proposed elevated structure will not have over six thru lanes Latest tunnel plan only four lanes.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WILL NEVER SOLVE THE NEED FOR AT LEAST A REASONABLE HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Three thru N-S streets and a maximum additional six lane replaced elevated highway to serve the local population of the greater Seattle area is not acceptable.

Note:
A) No disturbance of Alaska Way during construction. Present viaduct and street usable during all construction
B) No utilities relocation before begin
C) Ten lanes as needed now and in future Not 4 as tunnel nor 6 as elevated for less money
D) No Rights of Way except from Port of Seattle at ends
E) Bridge acts as breakwater for many options such as; marina or even a beach on waterfront
F) No Construction Equipment like concrete trucks, even logistics for street lights etc, downtown
G) Soon to be needed expansion for ferry terminal impossible in present location easy outside west of proposed structure
H) Could be built two parallel 5 lane stages within funds available from city alone, or state alone. All ten lane by funds from both City & State,
I) Would not want to be in tunnel built in seismic zone three within Uniform Building Code that close to a body of water. OK in Boston They don't have earthquakes there
J) Why replace a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure with a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure that is also a earthquake risk.

ALSO SEE BELOW MAP SHOWING APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT IN PDF FORMAT AS ATTACHMENT ON SECRETARY OF STATE WEB

The signature form will be pasted up on large paper ( law says has to be 11 x 14 or bigger). Reduced to 8 1/2 x 11 for e-mail as a attachment to all interested. Anyone interested in helping may then please download and print one 8 1/2 x 11 copy of each of both sides. Take that to Kinkos, Staples or where ever and have both sides enlarged to 11 x 14 on good enough paper for people to gather signatures. I am funding this on my retirement income and do not want any contributions from anyone or any organization. Follow the directions for folding etc. on the signature form for mailing. Your expence and effort for printing and mailing is the only contribution that should be necessary by anyone. There are some actors in my theater here that said they will help unfold them and bundle them in packages of 50 as required to hand deliver to the Secretary of State's Office. Since this is a Statewide initiative I can't figure out any other way we can afford to do this. At least it's not costing me (except $5 and some gasoline), the people, the Governors Office, The DOT, or the legislatue anything to find out if the idea is respected enough to consider further.

To request e-mail of 8 1/2 x 11 copies of both sides of the signature form as two attachments on a e-mail reply please do not reply to this e-mail but rather to below address

kingofelma@yahoo.com

for any other reason for contact please e-mail below

kingsleyhall_elmatheater@hotmail.com

I am currently receiving about 50 to 75 e-mails per hour responding to above by requesting the signature form.

Please give this matter some consideration. While at first glance I'm sure the impact on Port Properties and Operations to this proposal would bring very negative response. But, I have skippered vessels over a block long from Seattle to Emmonak & Kotsebue for five summers and other vessels thru The Hood Canal Bridge. Taking a vessel into dock inside a breakwater could have it's advantages. The marina discussed by Allied Arts in the Northmost lagoon and operated by The Port of Seattle would be creatable by this proposal. Vehicular traffic advantages for trucks and Cruise Ship autos during the next ten or twelve years of utility relocation and actual construction would be realized. Rents to the Port of Seattle in the Piers for Alaska Way would be uninterupted. It's my understanding from listening at The Senate hearing on AWV Replacement that all these businesses would have to be bought out if either tunnel and/or maybe even viaduct replacement proceeds.

Thanks for letting me present this long winded communication to you for your concerns and comments.

Kingsley
Kingsley S. Hall Jr.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Please send to:
Third Option Alaska Way Viaduct Replacement

P. O. Box 1454

Elma, Wa 98541

cc: Offices of Governor Christine Gregoire Attn Jenifer Zeigler &/or Jill Satran

Offices of City of Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels Attn: Larry Evans

Initiative 964
Kingsley S. Hall Jr.
P. O. Box 1454
Elma, Washington 98541-1454
360-482-4355 % Elma Theater
360-590-2054 cell
Tuesday February 20, 2007

Reference: Initiative 964 filed Washngton Secretary of State
Subject: Replace Alaska Way Viaduct w/Elliott Bay Floating Bridge


Port of Seattle
Commissioner's Office

Attn: Ms. M. Hernandez

Port of Seattle
Public Affairs Division Office

Attn: Ms. Christine Wolf

Port of Seattle
Government & Legislative Relations

Attn: Mr Terry Finn

Ladies & Gentlemen;

Please be advised about Referenced and subject matters

http://secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=2007

Hopefully this act will result before state government takes more of the people's money for studies of the two current proposals under consideration that have no consensus.

WHEREAS:

Option Three; Have two parallel 5 lane floating structure(s) about one mile out in Elliot Bay instead of a Alaska Way Viaduct, Depressed Roads, or Tunnel which would be a lot cheaper per lane to and faster to build and less painful for all state citizens while being built. THEREBY COMPLETING SYSTEM SO PRESENT TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON I-5 AND MANY DOWNTOWN STREETS FINISHED AS CONTEMPLATED AND PLANNED FOR IN 1961. Origin & destination studies even then indicated a minimum of ten lanes required for local traffic to be provided outside interstate system by Seattle

Forty six years ago there was a meeting with Bill Bugge PE, Dir WSHD; Squeege Glaze (Sp?),WS Dir Hiway Planning Dept.; George Andrews PE, at that time WSHD Dist 7 (Seattle Freeway) Engineer, Ed Johnson PE, Office Manager HNT&B, A couple of gentlemen from The City of Seattle Planning & Engineering Depts. & Bernie Hoskins of Pacific NW Bell Planning and Kingsley Hall (in charge of all research of existing & PS&E preparation of all utilities relocations between Seneca St & Connecticut St Interchange i.e. I-90) to discuss details of locating ramps @ interchanges to provide ties between principle local then present and future North-South non thru traffic facilities. At that time The Interstate Highway was mandated by law not to be designed nor was it funded to handle local traffic and of course every metropolitan area argued for more ramps etc. which upset the freeways intended purposes especially as a defense system for moving missiles around during a all out Cold war turned Hot. All present agreed we needed 5 more thru downtown lanes with no more room within I-5 R/W. The delegates from Seattle at that time were considering a parallel Alaska Way Viaduct but they admitted that probably wouldn't happen because of efforts to save the public market and Paul Thirey's effort to put a lid over the whole freeway system. Then a concept of a floating structure (Like the Hood Canal or Lake Wash. Bridges) one mile out was presented by Mr. Johnson & Mr. Hall. The meeting was concluded when determined that indeed the ramps that were constructed ending in mid-air for so long should be and were built for connecting I-5 into a parallel viaduct or floating structure(s). We also agreed to add in the Northbound left lane off ramp to Seneca that would be removed after the Alaska Way improvement accomplished. That mistake has been an embarrassment ever since. Anything beyond that decision was beyond the scope of work to design the interstate highway which was supposed to not serve or solve local traffic problems. The fact that Seattle never did build the additional proposed 5 or more lane parallel AWV along with the westbound ramp coming off SR 520 bridge over crossing I-5 that still forces people to merge across 5 lanes of traffic in a couple blocks in order to exit on Mercer to Seattle Center was beyond them. But HNT&B remained silent because they wanted and got PS&E contracts for Spokane Street Improvements etc. which became higher priority (and may be where the funding went) because a ship hit the bridge over the Duwamish River and the I-5 principle drainage system goes down Spokane St.

Reasons for advocating another look at this 46 year old never really investigated idea are;

a) Seismic end product concerns of building another elevated North South structure when already the downtown section of I-5 has four parallel 3,000 foot long elevated longitudinal structures.(just uphill from King County & Seattle City Hall buildings.) With Seattle's hour glass figure between Lake Washington & Elliot Bay the results of a catastrophic earthquake or enemy attack leaving only city streets left between North & South Seattle would be hard to imagine.

b) There are those people throughout the world that are striving to improve utilization of municipal waterfronts and associated views The Seattle waterfront with it's streetcars, piers and public markets are among Seattle's greatest attractions. Or perhaps additional waterfront parks to be enjoyed by the much greater number of employees stuck in high rise skyscrapers. With a floating structure the existing AWV could be removed and never replaced or forgetting all this could be replaced after the floating structure in place.

c) Washington State DOT says 110,000 vehicles per day presently using the AWV But, more interesting perhaps; Most Freeway or Expressway Design manuals for traffic analysis assume a lane of traffic at a design speed of 60-65 mph can carry 2,980 cars per lane per hour.(directly proportional to design speed) Lets round that to 3,000 max DHV (daily hour volume) then present 5 lanes carries about 15,000 cars per hour during peak. If you remove the AWV during construction of either a depressed, tunnel, or elevated structure a loss of 15,000 cars North-South capacity is about 5/17ths (Downtown I-5 12 lanes wide + or - ) That's too close to half for a reasonable thing to have happen for several years. Proponents of a tunnel say construction start in 2010 and take ten years to complete. Replacing elevated structure start 2010 and take seven years to complete It will take until 2010 to relocate all the utilities necessary for the tunnel and almost as long for the replaced elevated structure.

e) Building a elevated seismic event resistant (everyday there's a little shaking going on) structure requires a lot of good aggregates (gravel) for high strength concrete. When you dig a hole in your backyard for a swimming pool or septic tank you run into the water table just a few feet down. After you get it built and are enjoying it you decide to pump it out for some reason you might be surprised when the pool or tank floats up out of the ground like a boat. Parts of I-5 have concrete over 7 feet thick as ballast to keep it from floating up out of the ground (there's a reason Spring St is so named and the transit tunnel so expensive. Because of urban development all around Puget Sound we have a shortage of places we can surface mine these materials. (Basalt brown rock not usable)(Only place still some in some river beds. A floating highway would be built elsewhere including even the lights consider how much less construction traffic downtown not having to deal with receiving these logistics.

f) Note how quickly PS&E (Plans, Specifications & Estimate by engineers) and construction completed on the actual floating part of floating structures like Hood Canal and Lake. Washington bridges. Environmental Impact Statement would be fun to write but at least you don't have a lot of rights of way issues except at both ends and even those are mostly on public r/w.

g) Famous rule of thumb on Public Works projects. Don't try to relocate a railroad line. Note the one right alongside & under the existing AWV. Not to be confused with streetcar track. And they certainly are essential to the piers in our port.

h) In the future if you need more parallel lanes over the water you build them without having to acquire more rights of way over land except maybe at the ends. That is sure to happen. Ferry terminal expansion could be on West side of Floating structure w/added parking. This would be impossible where ferry terminal is now. Floating helicopter pad to airport to get really futuristic

i) Anchoring such a structure would probably be easier than a floating bridge between shores as floating roads as extensions of streets could be built that would act in compression or tension to help hold the structure in place.

j) In addition to “slide in opening pontoon assemblies” the center section of the long floating structure and each of the two street extensions would have to have non opening medium rise openings for pleasure craft. These could be four standard pontoons with steel or concrete over channel bridges but with pontoon continued under them with thru cable compression thru and under the channel with top deep enough for shallow draft pleasure craft. Note that some places within the breakwater produced by the floating highway could be developed as an additional marina the rents from which could be used to help fund maintenance etc

That portion of the curved south end of the main floating bridge structure within the North end of Harbor Island (thence thru the East Waterway) would be floating within a just a few feet wider sheet pile canal (requiring tidal ramps for SW Florida and 11th) and the portion thru the East Waterway would consist in part of one of the five “slide in opening pontoon assemblies” which are exact copies of the same devices as used on the Hood Canal Bridge. Thence typical land to floating bridge structures. If fundable structures should be built to go up and over Marginal Way, US-99, and railroad yard tracks and on to Holgate St. to tie in to Beacon Avenue. Otherwise the South end of project would be at Marginal or 99 freeway. Two of the other four “slide in opening pontoon assemblies to be installed in one each of the center sections of the two main parallel floating highway. One each of the remaining two would be installed in the center of the floating street extensions that are in compression or tension to help the anchors hold the main floating highway in place and probably should not both be opened at the same time. These five “slide in opening pontoon assemblies” should be standard as built for the Hood Canal Bridge facilitating; faster PS&E, faster to build since mass production, and more routine maintenance including spare part inventory.

k) Back to (a) above. It’s believed it's easier to replace one or more standardized sections of a floating structure than a structure on land in case of terrorist sabotage or seismic event ecause not so much debris in the way. One or more of which could be stored somewhere secretly

I) A large part of the floating structure could be built in The State of Washington. The State of Washington has pioneered this kind of endeavor

m) Note energy required for ventilation or 24/7 bright adaptive lighting as would be required for tunnel

n) NOTE: MAY BE ALMOST CRIMINAL NOT TO CONSIDER EVENTUAL IMPACT OF MAJOR EARTHQUAKE ON SEATTLE

In event of existing four 3,000 foot long I-5 longitudinal structures (N Bound, N Bound Collector Distributor, S Bound, S Bound Collector Distributor)(above City Hall & KC Courthouse)and Alaska Way proposed or existing Alaska Way elevated or tunnel structure collapse the only North-South Seattle City Streets crossing Yesler Way (This is the narrowest constriction of the hourglass figure of Seattle between Lake Washington and Elliott Bay) are;

First Ave South

Second Avenue South

Combine to 4th at King St

Fourth Avenue South Fifth Avenue South-Airport Way

ABOVE ONLY STREETS LEFT THRU HOUR GLASS

Sixth Avenue South Probably blocked by parts of parallel collapsed I-5 falling on it above KC Courthouse

Boren Avenue and 14th and Rainier Ave I-90 crossing them at Atlantic might collapse

Twelfth Ave South It's curved bridge over I-90 probable collapse Hospital very unstable there

23rd Avenue South Over crossing at I-90 at Atlantic might collapse

Martin Luther King Jr. Way S " " " " ".

Lake Washington Blvd " " " " "

Lake Side Way S

Due to the flexibility of floating structures because they are already designed to withstand tidal, large ship 30 foot bow waves (such as ships going to Bremerton thru Hood Canal Bridge) or natural wave action a parallel bridge structure would be more reliable to continue to function after earthquakes. Expert witness at Senate Alaska Way hearing predicted maximum of 30 tsunami wave from local Puget Sound fault earthquakes.

o) It was assumed in 1961 that a minimum of a additional five for a total of ten lanes other than I-5 was necessary for local traffic either at Alaska Way, Thompson Expressway (Proposed through arboretum which was dropped) Or floating. There is not any other place except over or under water within the hour glass for enough Rights of way to accomplish this

NOTE: ONE FLAW IN THIS IS CONSTRICTION THRU BATTERY STREET TUNNEL.. Perhaps one of the parallel floating structure(s) could be built first to go thru existing Battery St Tunnel then second later on or under Wall St both thence to depressed limited access ultimately 10 lane improved Aurora Ave.

IT IS ABSURD TO REPLACE A INADEQUATE STRUCTURE WITH ANOTHER INADEQUATE OR EVEN LESS ADEQUATE STRUCTURE WHICH FORCES A INTERSTATE HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO FUNCTION IN A MANNER IT WAS NEVER INTENDED. The failure of the City of Seattle to build the Thompson Expressway which agreed would have been bad should have forced this solution long ago.

The previous proposed elevated structure will not have over six thru lanes Latest tunnel plan only four lanes.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WILL NEVER SOLVE THE NEED FOR AT LEAST A REASONABLE HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Three thru N-S streets and a maximum additional six lane replaced elevated highway to serve the local population of the greater Seattle area is not acceptable.

Note:
A) No disturbance of Alaska Way during construction. Present viaduct and street usable during all construction
B) No utilities relocation before begin
C) Ten lanes as needed now and in future Not 4 as tunnel nor 6 as elevated for less money
D) No Rights of Way except from Port of Seattle at ends
E) Bridge acts as breakwater for many options such as; marina or even a beach on waterfront
F) No Construction Equipment like concrete trucks, even logistics for street lights etc, downtown
G) Soon to be needed expansion for ferry terminal impossible in present location easy outside west of proposed structure
H) Could be built two parallel 5 lane stages within funds available from city alone, or state alone. All ten lane by funds from both City & State,
I) Would not want to be in tunnel built in seismic zone three within Uniform Building Code that close to a body of water. OK in Boston They don't have earthquakes there
J) Why replace a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure with a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure that is also a earthquake risk.

ALSO SEE BELOW MAP SHOWING APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT IN PDF FORMAT AS ATTACHMENT ON SECRETARY OF STATE WEB

The signature form will be pasted up on large paper ( law says has to be 11 x 14 or bigger). Reduced to 8 1/2 x 11 for e-mail as a attachment to all interested. Anyone interested in helping may then please download and print one 8 1/2 x 11 copy of each of both sides. Take that to Kinkos, Staples or where ever and have both sides enlarged to 11 x 14 on good enough paper for people to gather signatures. I am funding this on my retirement income and do not want any contributions from anyone or any organization. Follow the directions for folding etc. on the signature form for mailing. Your expence and effort for printing and mailing is the only contribution that should be necessary by anyone. There are some actors in my theater here that said they will help unfold them and bundle them in packages of 50 as required to hand deliver to the Secretary of State's Office. Since this is a Statewide initiative I can't figure out any other way we can afford to do this. At least it's not costing me (except $5 and some gasoline), the people, the Governors Office, The DOT, or the legislatue anything to find out if the idea is respected enough to consider further.

To request e-mail of 8 1/2 x 11 copies of both sides of the signature form as two attachments on a e-mail reply please do not reply to this e-mail but rather to below address

kingofelma@yahoo.com

for any other reason for contact please e-mail below

kingsleyhall_elmatheater@hotmail.com

I am currently receiving about 50 to 75 e-mails per hour responding to above by requesting the signature form.

Please give this matter some consideration. While at first glance I'm sure the impact on Port Properties and Operations to this proposal would bring very negative response. But, I have skippered vessels over a block long from Seattle to Emmonak & Kotsebue for five summers and other vessels thru The Hood Canal Bridge. Taking a vessel into dock inside a breakwater could have it's advantages. The marina discussed by Allied Arts in the Northmost lagoon and operated by The Port of Seattle would be creatable by this proposal. Vehicular traffic advantages for trucks and Cruise Ship autos during the next ten or twelve years of utility relocation and actual construction would be realized. Rents to the Port of Seattle in the Piers for Alaska Way would be uninterupted. It's my understanding from listening at The Senate hearing on AWV Replacement that all these businesses would have to be bought out if either tunnel and/or maybe even viaduct replacement proceeds.

Thanks for letting me present this long winded communication to you for your concerns and comments.

Kingsley
Kingsley S. Hall Jr.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Please send to:
Third Option Alaska Way Viaduct Replacement

P. O. Box 1454

Elma, Wa 98541

cc: Offices of Governor Christine Gregoire Attn Jenifer Zeigler &/or Jill Satran

Offices of City of Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels Attn: Larry Evans

Initiative 964
Kingsley S. Hall Jr.
P. O. Box 1454
Elma, Washington 98541-1454
360-482-4355 % Elma Theater
360-590-2054 cell
Tuesday February 20, 2007

Reference: Initiative 964 filed Washngton Secretary of State
Subject: Replace Alaska Way Viaduct w/Elliott Bay Floating Bridge


Port of Seattle
Commissioner's Office

Attn: Ms. M. Hernandez

Port of Seattle
Public Affairs Division Office

Attn: Ms. Christine Wolf

Port of Seattle
Government & Legislative Relations

Attn: Mr Terry Finn

Ladies & Gentlemen;

Please be advised about Referenced and subject matters

http://secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=2007

Hopefully this act will result before state government takes more of the people's money for studies of the two current proposals under consideration that have no consensus.

WHEREAS:

Option Three; Have two parallel 5 lane floating structure(s) about one mile out in Elliot Bay instead of a Alaska Way Viaduct, Depressed Roads, or Tunnel which would be a lot cheaper per lane to and faster to build and less painful for all state citizens while being built. THEREBY COMPLETING SYSTEM SO PRESENT TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON I-5 AND MANY DOWNTOWN STREETS FINISHED AS CONTEMPLATED AND PLANNED FOR IN 1961. Origin & destination studies even then indicated a minimum of ten lanes required for local traffic to be provided outside interstate system by Seattle

Forty six years ago there was a meeting with Bill Bugge PE, Dir WSHD; Squeege Glaze (Sp?),WS Dir Hiway Planning Dept.; George Andrews PE, at that time WSHD Dist 7 (Seattle Freeway) Engineer, Ed Johnson PE, Office Manager HNT&B, A couple of gentlemen from The City of Seattle Planning & Engineering Depts. & Bernie Hoskins of Pacific NW Bell Planning and Kingsley Hall (in charge of all research of existing & PS&E preparation of all utilities relocations between Seneca St & Connecticut St Interchange i.e. I-90) to discuss details of locating ramps @ interchanges to provide ties between principle local then present and future North-South non thru traffic facilities. At that time The Interstate Highway was mandated by law not to be designed nor was it funded to handle local traffic and of course every metropolitan area argued for more ramps etc. which upset the freeways intended purposes especially as a defense system for moving missiles around during a all out Cold war turned Hot. All present agreed we needed 5 more thru downtown lanes with no more room within I-5 R/W. The delegates from Seattle at that time were considering a parallel Alaska Way Viaduct but they admitted that probably wouldn't happen because of efforts to save the public market and Paul Thirey's effort to put a lid over the whole freeway system. Then a concept of a floating structure (Like the Hood Canal or Lake Wash. Bridges) one mile out was presented by Mr. Johnson & Mr. Hall. The meeting was concluded when determined that indeed the ramps that were constructed ending in mid-air for so long should be and were built for connecting I-5 into a parallel viaduct or floating structure(s). We also agreed to add in the Northbound left lane off ramp to Seneca that would be removed after the Alaska Way improvement accomplished. That mistake has been an embarrassment ever since. Anything beyond that decision was beyond the scope of work to design the interstate highway which was supposed to not serve or solve local traffic problems. The fact that Seattle never did build the additional proposed 5 or more lane parallel AWV along with the westbound ramp coming off SR 520 bridge over crossing I-5 that still forces people to merge across 5 lanes of traffic in a couple blocks in order to exit on Mercer to Seattle Center was beyond them. But HNT&B remained silent because they wanted and got PS&E contracts for Spokane Street Improvements etc. which became higher priority (and may be where the funding went) because a ship hit the bridge over the Duwamish River and the I-5 principle drainage system goes down Spokane St.

Reasons for advocating another look at this 46 year old never really investigated idea are;

a) Seismic end product concerns of building another elevated North South structure when already the downtown section of I-5 has four parallel 3,000 foot long elevated longitudinal structures.(just uphill from King County & Seattle City Hall buildings.) With Seattle's hour glass figure between Lake Washington & Elliot Bay the results of a catastrophic earthquake or enemy attack leaving only city streets left between North & South Seattle would be hard to imagine.

b) There are those people throughout the world that are striving to improve utilization of municipal waterfronts and associated views The Seattle waterfront with it's streetcars, piers and public markets are among Seattle's greatest attractions. Or perhaps additional waterfront parks to be enjoyed by the much greater number of employees stuck in high rise skyscrapers. With a floating structure the existing AWV could be removed and never replaced or forgetting all this could be replaced after the floating structure in place.

c) Washington State DOT says 110,000 vehicles per day presently using the AWV But, more interesting perhaps; Most Freeway or Expressway Design manuals for traffic analysis assume a lane of traffic at a design speed of 60-65 mph can carry 2,980 cars per lane per hour.(directly proportional to design speed) Lets round that to 3,000 max DHV (daily hour volume) then present 5 lanes carries about 15,000 cars per hour during peak. If you remove the AWV during construction of either a depressed, tunnel, or elevated structure a loss of 15,000 cars North-South capacity is about 5/17ths (Downtown I-5 12 lanes wide + or - ) That's too close to half for a reasonable thing to have happen for several years. Proponents of a tunnel say construction start in 2010 and take ten years to complete. Replacing elevated structure start 2010 and take seven years to complete It will take until 2010 to relocate all the utilities necessary for the tunnel and almost as long for the replaced elevated structure.

e) Building a elevated seismic event resistant (everyday there's a little shaking going on) structure requires a lot of good aggregates (gravel) for high strength concrete. When you dig a hole in your backyard for a swimming pool or septic tank you run into the water table just a few feet down. After you get it built and are enjoying it you decide to pump it out for some reason you might be surprised when the pool or tank floats up out of the ground like a boat. Parts of I-5 have concrete over 7 feet thick as ballast to keep it from floating up out of the ground (there's a reason Spring St is so named and the transit tunnel so expensive. Because of urban development all around Puget Sound we have a shortage of places we can surface mine these materials. (Basalt brown rock not usable)(Only place still some in some river beds. A floating highway would be built elsewhere including even the lights consider how much less construction traffic downtown not having to deal with receiving these logistics.

f) Note how quickly PS&E (Plans, Specifications & Estimate by engineers) and construction completed on the actual floating part of floating structures like Hood Canal and Lake. Washington bridges. Environmental Impact Statement would be fun to write but at least you don't have a lot of rights of way issues except at both ends and even those are mostly on public r/w.

g) Famous rule of thumb on Public Works projects. Don't try to relocate a railroad line. Note the one right alongside & under the existing AWV. Not to be confused with streetcar track. And they certainly are essential to the piers in our port.

h) In the future if you need more parallel lanes over the water you build them without having to acquire more rights of way over land except maybe at the ends. That is sure to happen. Ferry terminal expansion could be on West side of Floating structure w/added parking. This would be impossible where ferry terminal is now. Floating helicopter pad to airport to get really futuristic

i) Anchoring such a structure would probably be easier than a floating bridge between shores as floating roads as extensions of streets could be built that would act in compression or tension to help hold the structure in place.

j) In addition to “slide in opening pontoon assemblies” the center section of the long floating structure and each of the two street extensions would have to have non opening medium rise openings for pleasure craft. These could be four standard pontoons with steel or concrete over channel bridges but with pontoon continued under them with thru cable compression thru and under the channel with top deep enough for shallow draft pleasure craft. Note that some places within the breakwater produced by the floating highway could be developed as an additional marina the rents from which could be used to help fund maintenance etc

That portion of the curved south end of the main floating bridge structure within the North end of Harbor Island (thence thru the East Waterway) would be floating within a just a few feet wider sheet pile canal (requiring tidal ramps for SW Florida and 11th) and the portion thru the East Waterway would consist in part of one of the five “slide in opening pontoon assemblies” which are exact copies of the same devices as used on the Hood Canal Bridge. Thence typical land to floating bridge structures. If fundable structures should be built to go up and over Marginal Way, US-99, and railroad yard tracks and on to Holgate St. to tie in to Beacon Avenue. Otherwise the South end of project would be at Marginal or 99 freeway. Two of the other four “slide in opening pontoon assemblies to be installed in one each of the center sections of the two main parallel floating highway. One each of the remaining two would be installed in the center of the floating street extensions that are in compression or tension to help the anchors hold the main floating highway in place and probably should not both be opened at the same time. These five “slide in opening pontoon assemblies” should be standard as built for the Hood Canal Bridge facilitating; faster PS&E, faster to build since mass production, and more routine maintenance including spare part inventory.

k) Back to (a) above. It’s believed it's easier to replace one or more standardized sections of a floating structure than a structure on land in case of terrorist sabotage or seismic event ecause not so much debris in the way. One or more of which could be stored somewhere secretly

I) A large part of the floating structure could be built in The State of Washington. The State of Washington has pioneered this kind of endeavor

m) Note energy required for ventilation or 24/7 bright adaptive lighting as would be required for tunnel

n) NOTE: MAY BE ALMOST CRIMINAL NOT TO CONSIDER EVENTUAL IMPACT OF MAJOR EARTHQUAKE ON SEATTLE

In event of existing four 3,000 foot long I-5 longitudinal structures (N Bound, N Bound Collector Distributor, S Bound, S Bound Collector Distributor)(above City Hall & KC Courthouse)and Alaska Way proposed or existing Alaska Way elevated or tunnel structure collapse the only North-South Seattle City Streets crossing Yesler Way (This is the narrowest constriction of the hourglass figure of Seattle between Lake Washington and Elliott Bay) are;

First Ave South

Second Avenue South

Combine to 4th at King St

Fourth Avenue South Fifth Avenue South-Airport Way

ABOVE ONLY STREETS LEFT THRU HOUR GLASS

Sixth Avenue South Probably blocked by parts of parallel collapsed I-5 falling on it above KC Courthouse

Boren Avenue and 14th and Rainier Ave I-90 crossing them at Atlantic might collapse

Twelfth Ave South It's curved bridge over I-90 probable collapse Hospital very unstable there

23rd Avenue South Over crossing at I-90 at Atlantic might collapse

Martin Luther King Jr. Way S " " " " ".

Lake Washington Blvd " " " " "

Lake Side Way S

Due to the flexibility of floating structures because they are already designed to withstand tidal, large ship 30 foot bow waves (such as ships going to Bremerton thru Hood Canal Bridge) or natural wave action a parallel bridge structure would be more reliable to continue to function after earthquakes. Expert witness at Senate Alaska Way hearing predicted maximum of 30 tsunami wave from local Puget Sound fault earthquakes.

o) It was assumed in 1961 that a minimum of a additional five for a total of ten lanes other than I-5 was necessary for local traffic either at Alaska Way, Thompson Expressway (Proposed through arboretum which was dropped) Or floating. There is not any other place except over or under water within the hour glass for enough Rights of way to accomplish this

NOTE: ONE FLAW IN THIS IS CONSTRICTION THRU BATTERY STREET TUNNEL.. Perhaps one of the parallel floating structure(s) could be built first to go thru existing Battery St Tunnel then second later on or under Wall St both thence to depressed limited access ultimately 10 lane improved Aurora Ave.

IT IS ABSURD TO REPLACE A INADEQUATE STRUCTURE WITH ANOTHER INADEQUATE OR EVEN LESS ADEQUATE STRUCTURE WHICH FORCES A INTERSTATE HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO FUNCTION IN A MANNER IT WAS NEVER INTENDED. The failure of the City of Seattle to build the Thompson Expressway which agreed would have been bad should have forced this solution long ago.

The previous proposed elevated structure will not have over six thru lanes Latest tunnel plan only four lanes.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WILL NEVER SOLVE THE NEED FOR AT LEAST A REASONABLE HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Three thru N-S streets and a maximum additional six lane replaced elevated highway to serve the local population of the greater Seattle area is not acceptable.

Note:
A) No disturbance of Alaska Way during construction. Present viaduct and street usable during all construction
B) No utilities relocation before begin
C) Ten lanes as needed now and in future Not 4 as tunnel nor 6 as elevated for less money
D) No Rights of Way except from Port of Seattle at ends
E) Bridge acts as breakwater for many options such as; marina or even a beach on waterfront
F) No Construction Equipment like concrete trucks, even logistics for street lights etc, downtown
G) Soon to be needed expansion for ferry terminal impossible in present location easy outside west of proposed structure
H) Could be built two parallel 5 lane stages within funds available from city alone, or state alone. All ten lane by funds from both City & State,
I) Would not want to be in tunnel built in seismic zone three within Uniform Building Code that close to a body of water. OK in Boston They don't have earthquakes there
J) Why replace a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure with a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure that is also a earthquake risk.

NOTE: ALSO SEE BELOW MAP SHOWING APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT IN PDF FORMAT AS ATTACHMENT ON SECRETARY OF STATE WEB IF IT IS NOT VISABLE RIGHT HERE AFTER THIS NOTE

The signature form will be pasted up on large paper ( law says has to be 11 x 14 or bigger). Reduced to 8 1/2 x 11 for e-mail as a attachment to all interested. Anyone interested in helping may then please download and print one 8 1/2 x 11 copy of each of both sides. Take that to Kinkos, Staples or where ever and have both sides enlarged to 11 x 14 on good enough paper for people to gather signatures. I am funding this on my retirement income and do not want any contributions from anyone or any organization. Follow the directions for folding etc. on the signature form for mailing. Your expence and effort for printing and mailing is the only contribution that should be necessary by anyone. There are some actors in my theater here that said they will help unfold them and bundle them in packages of 50 as required to hand deliver to the Secretary of State's Office. Since this is a Statewide initiative I can't figure out any other way we can afford to do this. At least it's not costing me (except $5 and some gasoline), the people, the Governors Office, The DOT, or the legislatue anything to find out if the idea is respected enough to consider further.

To request e-mail of 8 1/2 x 11 copies of both sides of the signature form as two attachments on a e-mail reply please do not reply to this e-mail but rather to below address

kingofelma@yahoo.com

for any other reason for contact please e-mail below

kingsleyhall_elmatheater@hotmail.com

I am currently receiving about 50 to 75 e-mails per hour responding to above by requesting the signature form.

Please give this matter some consideration. While at first glance I'm sure the impact on Port Properties and Operations to this proposal would bring very negative response. But, I have skippered vessels over a block long from Seattle to Emmonak & Kotsebue for five summers and other vessels thru The Hood Canal Bridge. Taking a vessel into dock inside a breakwater could have it's advantages. The marina discussed by Allied Arts in the Northmost lagoon and operated by The Port of Seattle would be creatable by this proposal. Vehicular traffic advantages for trucks and Cruise Ship autos during the next ten or twelve years of utility relocation and actual construction would be realized. Rents to the Port of Seattle in the Piers for Alaska Way would be uninterupted. It's my understanding from listening at The Senate hearing on AWV Replacement that all these businesses would have to be bought out if either tunnel and/or maybe even viaduct replacement proceeds.

Thanks for letting me present this long winded communication to you for your concerns and comments.

Kingsley
Kingsley S. Hall Jr.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Please send to:
Third Option Alaska Way Viaduct Replacement

P. O. Box 1454

Elma, Wa 98541

cc: Offices of Governor Christine Gregoire Attn Jenifer Zeigler &/or Jill Satran

Offices of City of Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels Attn: Larry Evans