Goals

1. Open up the waterfront, without a massive viaduct structure, and with space for parks, promenades, etc.
2. Provide for capacity to handle the traffic current using the viaduct
3. Keep costs reasonable
4. Provide for the likelihood that automobile use will decline after a couple more decades
5. Provide for the possible future further improvement of the waterfront beyond current plans.
6. Avoid increasing traffic congestion on existing streets
7. Avoid increasing congestion on already-overloaded Interstate 5

Problems with Tunnel Option

1. The tunnel will be very expensive
2. Rising sea levels could pose a future threat
3. May not provide enough capacity
4. It is estimated that construction will last about seven years, during which business and tourism along the waterfront will be severely disrupted. Many businesses may fail.
5. During construction, there will be several years during which the viaduct will be closed and traffic diverted onto surface streets. Massive gridlock is anticipated.
6. If future traffic loads or alternative traffic plans reduce traffic in the tunnel, it is virtually impossible to scale back the size of the tunnel.
7. The tunnel would be just north of the Seattle Fault, which runs laterally to the direction of the tunnel. If the tunnel crosses a now-unknown fault parallel to the Seattle Fault, movement during an earthquake could shear the tunnel, permit massive amounts of water to pour in from Elliott Bay, and drown hundreds or thousands of people.

Problems with New Viaduct Option

1. Will hulk over the waterfront for more than 50 years, stifling efforts to improve the waterfront
2. Will be less expensive than tunnel, but still very expensive
3. If future traffic loads or alternative traffic plans reduce traffic on the viaduct, it is virtually impossible to scale back the size of the structure.
4. It is estimated that construction will last about ten years, during which business and tourism along the waterfront will be severely disrupted. Many businesses may fail.
5. During construction, there will be several years during which the viaduct will be closed and traffic diverted onto surface streets. Massive gridlock is anticipated.

My Suggestions

When somebody mentions a surface option, the first image that pops into most peoples mind is of a large freeway along the waterfront, with sufficient capacity to handle the load now carried by the viaduct. Or, there are thoughts of all of those cars jamming other Downtown streets.

I believe that it is practical to provide a combination of solutions, which when used together, will avoid those problems. My suggestions include reducing the number of cars by providing good alternative mass transit, along with providing improvement to certain key routes to provide for handling the diverted traffic.

Here are my suggestions:

1. First of all, the viaduct will remain open, avoiding most of the disruption to businesses and tourism.
2. Build a four-lane surface expressway from near Safeco Field to the Battery Street Tunnel. This expressway would be exclusively for through traffic, with no on/off ramps to the waterfront or Downtown between existing ramps near Safeco Field to the existing ramps between the viaduct and Western Avenue. Since the expressway would only handle through traffic, four lanes should be sufficient. Speed could be reduced to avoid too much noise along the waterfront.
3. Alaskan Way would be modernized into a beautiful boulevard parallel to the expressway. There would be vehicular access to the Alaskan Way Boulevard every few blocks by means of overpasses across the expressway.
4. There would be pedestrian overpasses about every block that would cross both the expressway and the boulevard, except at every few blocks where there is a vehicular crossing, in which case there could be crosswalks across the boulevard.
5. A new seawall would be built as part of this overall project.
6. Improved on/off ramps near, or south of, Safeco Field would permit efficient flow of traffic between SR99 to the south and Downtown.
7. Improved ramps near the west entrance to the Battery Street Tunnel would permit efficient flow of traffic between Western Avenue and Downtown.
8. Improvements to Wall Street, Second Avenue, Fourth Avenue, and Battery Street would provide efficient flow of traffic between Aurora Avenue North (SR99 from the north) and Downtown.
9. Improvements to the Spokane Street Freeway east of East Marginal Way South and Sixth Avenue South, along with a new high-capacity interchange with Fourth Avenue South, along with improvements to Fourth Avenue South, would provide efficient flow of traffic between West Seattle and Downtown. The existing ramps between the Spokane Street Freeway and First Avenue South would continue to provide an alternative, as would the ramps on SR99 near Safeco Field.
10. Major improvements to Fourth Avenue South between Airport Way South and East Marginal Way South would provide a new medium-capacity, medium-speed route between Downtown and the Sodo District on one hand, and West Seattle and SR99 to the south on the other hand. The improvements to Fourth Avenue South would include a four-lane medium-speed expressway down the center separated by Jersey barriers from two local lanes on each side. There would be no cross traffic except at key intersection such as S. Michigan St., S. Spokane St., S. Lander St., etc. Flyovers would carry the expressway over those key intersections except at Spokane Street, where I am sure the engineers can figure out how to contend with the expressway, the Spokane Street Freeway, surface traffic on both 4th Ave. S. and S. Spokane St. and interchanges between them all.
11. Improve the capacity of Interstate 5, especially between S. Spokane St. and Mercer St., and improve interchanges in those area. The interchange at S. Spokane St. should be expanded to two lanes from eastbound Spokane Street Freeway to northbound I-5, and southbound I-5 to westbound Spokane Street Freeway.
12. Build a high-speed mass transit line from West Seattle to Ballard via Downtown. Of course there are several options, but in my opinion a modified version of the Green Line monorail would be best. It would cost less than some options and provide faster, more acceptable service than other options. Much of the design work has already been done.
13. As the various projects are completed and surface capacity improves, traffic on the viaduct could be reduced to permit people to adjust to the changes.
14. Once most or all of the projects have been completed, the viaduct can be demolished.

If future traffic declines, the waterfront expressway and/or boulevard can be reduced in size. Or if need be, they can be increased in size. This is not practical with the viaduct or tunnel.

If in the future other street or transportation needs negate the need for a waterfront expressway, it can be torn up at moderate cost, compared to a viaduct or tunnel.

It would be important for the State to modify its current stance that a viduct replacement must have the capacity to carry the current load of the viaduct. Their attitude, or the law if applicable, should be changed to accept a situation where the load is spread over several routes, and to take into account a reduction in traffic load due to the use of a new high-speed mass transit line.

I remember when US Highway 99 followed the viaduct and an alternate route 99 followed 4th Ave. S. and 2nd and 4th Avenues, and Battery and Wall Streets Downtown. This can be done again, with both routes designated as SR99, with both routes funded by the State, probably for less money than a new viaduct.

Improvements to Interstate 5 would also be state-funded. I-5 is already heavily congested through Seattle and improvements are needed.