Seattle.gov Home Page
Link to Mayor McGinn Blog Home Link to Mayor McGinn Web Site Home Page Link to Mayor McGinn About Us Page Contact Us



City of Seattle

Alaskan Way Viaduct Seawall Replacment Program Recommended Funding Plan

Mayor Mike McGinn today briefed the press on his recommended funding plan to finance the city’s responsibilities in the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program. The presentation, in .PDF format, can be viewed HERE.

    Posted by: Aaron Pickus, Assistant Communications Director

    Comments

    Comment from Art
    Time June 10, 2010 at 10:18 am

    Mayor Mike. For Alaskan Way, the current design should go back to the drawing board.

    The 4-lane boulevard is not enough. Early designs, pre-Crunican, incorporated a 2-lane frontage road on the eastside with islands between it and 4-lane Alaskan Way. This frontage road is necessary to divide thru-traffic from motorists looking to park. Without it, frustrated motorists will be forced back into Alaskan Way thru-traffic creating dangerous altercations between cars and cars and pedestrians. With the frontage road, the streetcar line can be reinstalled, east/west bus lines near Coleman Dock become possible and a better bikeway. Sure, the Wide Plaza is narrowed, but respected architects consider it disproportionate, and the AWV is the waterfront’s main detraction.

    Mercer West is a huge mistake and is not fixable. Don’t do it. The 1st Phase Mercer project looks good. Keeping the Broad Street Underpass to direct thru-traffic onto Broad and Denny Way which are more suitable than Lower Queen Anne for this traffic.

    Mercer Place Hill is NOT, I repeat, NOT a feasible route for traffic from the DBT north portal to Elliott. It’s only 2 lanes and a steep hilclimb. Mercer West even adds traffic to Mercer east of Aurora, commonly known as the Mercer Mess.

    Mercer West is one more reason among many reasons why the DBT is a lousy idea. For Alaskan Way, the least traffic for that district is achieved with some version of the cut/cover Tunnelite. Don’t tell people the decision’s been made so shut up like the others have. The people were never allowed an honest consideration about Tunnelite.

    Comment from Scotty Mack
    Time June 19, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    My initial thought was tolls for those who actually use the viaduct would be the sensible way of generating additional funding. That is, until i discovered that the Legislators placed a cap on the amount that could be funded through the toll system (why?)

    I also don’t understand why so much has already been done on the project before this funding gap has been rectified!

    Write a comment