--(  Bored Tunnel Elliott Bay Highway Elliot Bay Floating Bridge Alaska Way Viaduct Replacement Renton to Bothell Tunnel Lake WA Tunnel  )--

WE ON THE WEST COAST OF UNITED STATES, CANADA, & MEXICO:

To end gridlock thru Puget Sound Country of Washington State:

 

 

 NEED TEN LANES LOCAL TO GET PEOPLE OFF OF INTERSTATE

Suggest  advocated here Elliott Bay Floating Highway

 

AND SIX LANES THRU NEW VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CAPACITY

Suggest 18 mile tunnel under Lk WA:

 

 SR 167 Renton (Bryn Maur) Rainer Ave to SR 104 Sheridan Heights

or SR 167 Renton (Bryn Maur) Rainer Ave to greatly improved SR 527 Bothell

 

 

ADVOCACY HISTORY SINCE 1961  FOR:

 

ALASKA WAY VIADUCT

REPLACEMENT

WITH

10 (or two 5) LANE ELLIOT BAY FLOATING BRIDGE'S

from North End Harbor Island to Battery & Wall Streets

 

Expensive to build but less expensive because no rights of way or temporary detour routing.

 Could be completed during term(s) of most elected officials.

 I was in hearing (27 then 75 now) resulted in ramps to nowhere for this or parallel viaduct until first Kingdome built.

with almost no disruption of entire or any part of existing traffic system during construction

anything else might cause I-5, I-405, US-99 grid lock

Note map images can be enlarged by use of IE capability (click little down arrow right of %) in lower right

 

First of three one third parts of excerpts of Oct 10, 2009 interview

Not to be considered a endorsement by TCTV just journalism

 

 

also

 

ADVOCACY HISTORY SINCE SEPT. 18, 2009 FOR;

 

NEW IDEA

I-5 & I-405

BYPASS

WITH

6 (+ or -) LANE UNDER LAKE WASHINGTON BORED  (or underwater caisson) TUNNEL(S)

 

from SR 167 Renton to SR 104 Sheridan Heights (18 miles)

Good tie to but would require improvement to both SR 99 & 1 5 toward Everett 

or

from SR 167 Renton to South end of if highly improved SR 527 Bothell (18.1 miles)

 

Also, Expensive construction cost but cost less to build because no rights of way costs or temporary detour routing and  simple PS&E

Could be completed during term(s) of office of most elected officials

More likely to be considered and funded as a part of Pan American Interstate Highway System

But if not local. Could be built as toll road

with almost no disruption of entire or any part of existing traffic system during construction

anything else might cause I-5, I-405, US-99 grid lock

 

If approved might convince Boeing  not to move some production to Carolinas

They don't have grid lock in Charleston, S. Carolina (at least not yet

Not all union contracts, taxation & workman's compensation etc. 

Note map images can be enlarged by use of IE capability (click little down arrow right of %) in lower right

 

SECOND NEW IDEA

after build Elliott Bay Floating Highway

ADVOCATE CONVERT VIADUCT FOR TOP DECK PARKING

LOWER DECK WALLED&GLASSED IN PROMENADE FOR SIGHT SEEING PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES

Why waste city and $17 M state money for new facilities to solve parking problems for uptown and waterfront pier customers

There will be no view over piers for ourselves or tourists when viaduct down

Save the high cost of demolition 

Could be made even more beautiful than it already is like one long greenhouse for instance

Built to highway load  standards it is far more seismic resistant than any buildings per UBC in seismic zone 3

If torn down because of seismic risk you better demolish half of downtown Seattle

The Late Retired Dean of College of CE at UW that taught most of my colleagues said Viaduct not at risk in 2003

 However I went to WSC & WSU 

The simulation by WSDOT showing Viaduct collapse and SR520 Bridge Column's failure is a almost criminal political lie

 and insult to engineers that designed them. See further discussion on SR520 columns about CESL MIT analysis below

A seismic event big enough might damage any structure but not specifically these any more than others

However, I believe might be true a fuel tank truck went over the side of the viaduct, burst into flames and heated the rebar in two spans.

Concrete only takes compression loads but I'm still looking for journalism proof. Even if this true doesn't justify tearing down whole viaduct.

The consulting firm should be reported for bad ethics for making a biased study so they can get PS&E

I would ask if the firm has never designed a freeway structure above or below ground in Seismic zone 3

 

There isn't a building or parking garage structure built any where that can hold up a fully loaded semi-truck like viaduct can.

 

revised for no longer endorsement of 2 mile long

Bored Tunnel along Seattle's Waterfront

 

Second of three one third parts of Oct 10, 2009 Interview 

 

 

 

 

   

 

SO NOW WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE PLAN TO HANDLE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

Expensive but most likely should be paid for by Federal, State, County, All benefited Western WA, & Puget Sound Cities 

Not that much more total cost than other ideas when consider gain 16 lanes thru Puget Sound

Consider advantage to Boeing logistics between Renton/Auburn and Everett Plants  

Third of three one third parts of excerpts from Oct 10, 2009 interview

 

My apologies for mention King County Exec candidate Susan Hutchinson but not mention Dow Constantine in above interview

 

IF YOU WANT TO SEND SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE PRO OR CON COME BACK HERE AND

 

CLICK HERE TO CONTACT THE DEMOCRAT MEMBERS OF WA ST HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

 

CLICK HERE TO CONTACT THE DEMOCRAT MEMBERS OF WA ST SENATE 

 

I regret that I still don't know how to provide individual contacts like above for Republicans yet

But Republican Minority Leaders Contact info at bottom of pages linked to above

 

BIG MISUNDERSTANDING I THOUGHT IT WAS ON AND OFF I-5

IF I HAVE INFLUENCED ANY POLITICIANS MY APOLOGIES 

Especially if I influenced the  Governor's Office

WE ON THE WEST COAST OF UNITED STATES, CANADA, & MEXICO:

 

 NEED TEN LANES LOCAL TO GET PEOPLE OFF OF INTERSTATE

Suggest  advocated here Elliott Bay Floating Highway

AND SIX LANES THRU NEW VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CAPACITY

suggest advocated here 18 mile tunnel under Lk WA SR 167 Renton SR 104 Bothell

IN AND AROUND SEATTLE AND KING COUNTY

 

 

 

For fun: Come on folks let's get open minded at least I'm not trying to relocate the Duwamish River. Click below link

 http://images.google.com/images?q=waterbridge+in+germany&hl=en&rlz=1R2GGLL_en&sa=X&um=1 

After your amazed by above bit of humor please don't forget to use your back arrow scroll back here and maybe give serious consideration to the over 30 pages presented below in support  of above.

Including why Ramps that went nowhere (15 years) until first Kingdome were built 

 

             

                 

 

Kingsley Hall as one of 200 invited guests to witness Governors signing bill facilitating

pontoon construction per below DOT document.

She may or may not agree with any of the contents of this web page

I am non-partisan but admire her efforts on these issues so far

 

 

 

Thanks for everyone's support.

PLEASE NO MORE CONTRIBUTIONS I CAN'T AFFORD TO CONTINUE MAILING THEM BACK

 My dream since 1961 (I-5 ramps that went nowhere) might happen, I even was invited some years ago by the late Mac McWhorter then Grays Harbor  Port Commissioner (also active in my theater) & testified at public law 405 hearing advocating improvement to Westport turning basin for from Valdez Alaska oil tankers (never so used) saying might be needed for pontoons

 

 

 

This web site originated to successfully advocate;

 

Alaska Way Viaduct Replacement/Bypass  with Elliot Bay Floating Bridge  or Emergency Stored Pontoons

by initiative 964 to get on 2008 ballot see content last half and map on 2nd to last page of this document 

 but

 

now is  NOT amended to also support a;

 

 Waterfront  two mile Bored tunnel

 

(not to be confused with the four lane waterfront/seawall tunnel previously proposed)

 

under downtown Seattle Whoops! Alaska Way

 

or new idea of a bored tunnel under Lake Washington

 

Whoops! had a misunderstanding below I thought the bored tunnel was to exit off of

 I-5 and back on to I-5. (Although I must confess I didn't have a clue where)

I do not approve any tunnel under Alaska Way along the Waterfront 

What part of NO to waterfront tunnel do our politicians not understand.

 

Remember the Yes No - Yes No

No to both (over 70% No on tunnel)

votes on ballots on election demanded by the Governor

 

A waterfront tunnel would not have all the accesses nor the increase to 10 lanes for local traffic (per 1961 needs by 1982 study) (without prior knowledge of since then ((Smith Tower, IBM, Sea First Black Box "it came in")) new downtown buildings)  that something like my Elliot Bay Floating Bridge would have. That can be built elsewhere and floated in so logistics (concrete trucks even lights etc.) not disrupt downtown

 

Replacement of a six lane inadequate traffic capacity viaduct (with  beautiful views of Elliot Bay over the piers) with a very expensive no gain inadequate four to six lane tunnel from which no view of waterfront by visitors is unacceptable.

 

Trucks carrying hazardous materials would have to not be allowed in a tunnel this long  

 

Even after such a tunnel was built it would be absurd for Seattle to spend money to tear down the beautiful viaduct (more earthquake resistant than any downtown building) that could be used for parking and public market and bicycle paths  

 

The rest of us in the State of Washington do not want to pay 3.1 billion dollars of WA State funds for a SR-99 tunnel that does nothing to increase the vehicular traffic capacity thru the Puget Sound region. Neither should the Federal Highway Administration waste Federal tax dollars for Seattle grants for the same reason.

The City of Seattle should not be allowed to build  a cosmetic improvement like this with inadequate future vehicular traffic capacity even if they paid for all of it. Unless something like the proposed 10 lanes floating Highway is built first.

 

  AGAIN

 

WE ON THE WEST COAST OF UNITED STATES, CANADA, & MEXICO

 NEED TEN LANES LOCAL TO GET PEOPLE OFF OF OUR INTERSTATE

AND SIX LANES THRU NEW INTERSTATE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CAPACITY

IN AND AROUND SEATTLE AND KING COUNTY

 

 

 

BOTH AS A STATE & FEDERAL TAX PAYER THIS IS A ABSURD WASTE OF MONEY FOR A

 COSMETIC PROJECT

 AND WHY SOME  FOLKS SUPPORT THINGS LIKE INITIATIVE 1033 WHICH WOULD BADLY HINDER  PROGRESS FOR LEGITIMATE IMPROVEMENTS

 

Hope the Democrats in the legislature and our great Governor doesn't commit political suicide and do change their mind as I have about support of 2 mile bored tunnel.

 She brilliantly asked for and got a;

 Yes No (73% NO TO WATERFRONT TUNNEL),

Yes No (57%? NO TEAR DOWN VIADUCT)

unless something with more traffic capacity in place

 (thence maybe use top for parking, glass in bay side lower for bicycles - why spend even more of our none Seattle resident state tax money to tear it down. It's strong enough for semi trucks hence more seismic (UBC Zone 3) resistant than most of the buildings downtown.)

 WHY WE JUST GOT RID OF MAYOR NICHOLS

that probably other wise a great public servant 

AND

DID NOT VOTE FOR ROSSI

what was he thinking supporting for when:

 73% voted NO to H2O front tunnel,57% leave viaduct

l

 

 

 

Why should the WA State Taxpayers pay any of;

 $290 M, for Seattle Surface Streets which will cause more traffic on our I-5

$17 M for Seattle's Parking problems at expense of same problem we have at our homes

$30 M for extra transit at expense of same problems we really suffer from at our homes

 

I'm not a conservative.

 In fact I don't think we are spending enough for progress but this is ridiculous.

I admit what I advocate costs  even more

 but it would be closer to getting  the job done

 for all the citizens of West Coast of North America.

 

The City of Seattle should be ashamed.

 

This is not just a Seattle Street

I wonder if we can eliminate the freeway that bisects our town in two

and get the state taxpayers to help pay do it

 

LOOK OUT FOR INITIATIVE 1033

 

 So, on the other hand it is the responsibilities for the Federal and State Government's taxpayers

 to pay a great share but only for the least expensive improvements

that aid them in getting thru or around the Puget Sound region 

Not for anything cosmetic that reduces or does not have increased thru vehicular traffic capacity 

 

 

 

 

 

But, We do need to consider a 18 mile long bored or caisson tunnel under Lake Washington from SR 167 extended on Rainer Ave to Bryn Mawr (Renton) to South end of SR 104 in Sheridan Beach (or 18.1 mi to maybe highly improved SR 527 Bothell). This would be less than  9 times the cost of the now proposed bored tunnel under Alaska Way but would improve thru auto & bus vehicular traffic nightmares on I- 5, I-405, N. end SR-167, Lake City Way, Bothell Way and local municipal street congestion in Bothell, Lake City Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland and US99-Aurora Ave. It should be designated I-205 and paid for entirely by the FHA since it would be a no local access part of the Interstate Highway System. There is a new branch of the FHA trying to figure out nationally ways to separate thru and local interstate traffic. Or it could be a toll road to pay back bonds therefore not a burden on taxpayers. Perhaps,  If it was kept limited with no on or off ramps (except emergency at N. Mercer Island & Sand Point)) auto & bus access people would no doubt be willing to pay. Others not willing or affording to pay and hazardous material carrying tucks could still go around on I-5 & I-405 were most of them going in and out of town would want to go anyway.

 

The highest part of the cost in large diameter underground boring is that part related to getting the boring machinery in place and removed after completion along with construction of approaches. Thus I conclude since that cost amortized thru length of the project this advocacy for eighteen miles would be something less than nine times the two mile tunnel  advocated along Seattle's waterfront

 

 

Only preliminary engineering challenge during feasibility studies might have been determination of what it takes not to compromise the many existing bored Metro sewage tunnels under/around  Lake Washington.

 

But

After review of the maps in the below link along with unofficial conversations with their. staff it would appear that there aren't  any reasons to consider any conflicts with existing or planned sewage appurtenances'.
 
Only minor consideration would be that;
 
There is a concrete pipe on piling along the waterfront in the north end however – the Kenmore interceptor.  ("Otherwise sounds good, no major conflicts with King County sewers") that the extension of SR-104  would probably have to go over before the proposed under the Lake Washington tunnel entrance. Or some other coordinated engineering solution
 

http://your.kingcounty.gov/gis/vmc/Utilities.htm#WTDserviceareamaps has several maps; at least one of which would be useful for you I believe, although they are intended to print out at 11x17.  I test printed one at 8x11 and it was ok.  Great talking to you!

 

 I advocate emergency exits only at Sand Point & North Mercer Island. If you want to really ruin the (Interstate concept) idea a diamond interchange could be added at I-90. And to make it worse with a little bend a interchange with one end of the SR-520 bridge route could be added. In my opinion such a improvement to the intent of this idea would be detrimental. Except if accidents on either East or West halves of SR 520 or I-90 such interchanges could facilitate detours.

If kept simple would cost much less than 9 times cost of proposed 2 mile bored tunnel because big expense moving in and out boring equipment and typical for it's entire length. No complex Engineering, Plans, Specifications or Estimates except at ends.

Probability of cost over run or force account over bid less likely. Metro consultants already have  a lot of Lake Washington vertical test boring information and are experienced to gather more though I doubt necessary unless prime boring contractor  demanded 

 

Below are two different maps showing the same proposal  

 

 

above map showing proposed tunnel route shows neighborhood streets

 

 

 above map showing proposed tunnel route shows interstate highways and ramps (exits)

Comments Pro and Con and Replies about 18 mile tunnel as received will be posted below if permission granted

 kingsleyhall_elmatheater@hotmail.com 

left click above e-mail address and let me know what you think. Suggestions appreciated

please state if you want posted, and with full name, first name or anonymous 

 

9/25/2009

Kingsley:

A positively brilliant idea. An underwater tunnel that length would be an obvious engineering marvel.

Another idea would be to construct a N/S floating bridge from Renton to Bothell. Anchor points would be on Mercer Island where you could bore another tunnel through the middle of Mercer Island. If you do both projects, you would more than double the available traffic capacity by what would obviously be an analogue to the double deck Alaskan Way Viaduct - one on the water and one under the water. Crossing of the existing and projected E/W floating bridges could alternatively be accomplished by a never before seen "Floating Overpass" structure. How's that for an idea? Better contact the Governor and get this idea on the books before someone else steals it from us.

Randy Chun

 

9/26/2009

Thanks Randy,

 

But, I think as a pleasure boat owner and sometimes Sea plane passenger I think Lake Washington is too small to be divided length wise by  floating  structures. It's not as big as Puget Sound and Elliot Bay and a composite bored and floating facility could not be engineered & constructed as easily and quickly. Note the 18 mile as proposed above would be a straight shot with vertical curves only at the ends. One beauty of both the Elliot Bay Floating Bridge and 18 mile Lake WA tunnel .projects is they are both within the ability of and can both be engineered and constructed by local WA State firms

 

Kingsley

 

 Again Below was a mistake

At first I was horrified by the idea of a bored tunnel under Seattle instead of my advocated floating bridge but after getting over my bruised ego I realize what a great idea it is and wish I had thought of it.  (Now I did think about this one under Lake WA) The bored tunnel is needed to take care of definitely (since 1961-1981 I-5 PS&E needs study I worked on Note my web link below) increased non-stop thru traffic caused by the increase of the Western part of our state's, and British Columbia, Oregon and California and maybe even Mexico population.

 

I assume the bored tunnel will be down deep enough to be in some form of soils not bothered by Denny Regrade fills and other existing appurtenances. (This written when I thought on & Off I-5) I must admit as a engineer and CBO (certified building official) (first a former plans examiner) I am nervous about tunnels this long in Seismic zone three but I also realize that any structure except floating (which has the least potential impact) has it's risk. When we look at the success of the Great Northern Railway Tunnel under downtown Seattle that has survived seismic events since 1904 and the vibrations from huge very heavy steam locomotives of the past as described in below link. (Note built by 350 men with pick axes & wheelbarrows) I am convinced there is no reason to fear a tunnel any more than freeway structures that collapse.

 

 http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=4029 

 

 

Above Revision of January 16, 2009 (WAS) in support of A (which I did not realize was along Alaska Way Waterfront) Bored Tunnel but still advocate Elliott Bay Floating bridge as well.

 

But, the bored tunnel will not take care of this thru traffic alone without removing the existing EXIT ONLY Seneca Left hand off ramp from the thru  Northbound lanes of I-5 which is still an embarrassment. People wanting to go into Seattle should be forced to exit via the Northbound Collector Distributor on right side. George Andrews, William Bugge and Ed Johnson (my Boss of HNT&B) are probably still rolling over in their graves when we decided to yield to politics over sensible engineering. by including that ramp which by forcing people going thru Seattle, (on four lane Northbound) when Reversible lanes closed to Northbound, effectively from four lanes to two. I'm considering making a YouTube video looking south from Madison, Spring or Seneca Over crossings showing how this blocks the highway and causes by motorists forced into unsuspecting weaving potential accidents.

 

And of course it's obvious the limited access bored tunnel (though great idea and needed long ago somewhere) will not replace the functions of the Alaska Way Viaduct (nor will my 18 mile long tunnel idea ) because local traffic will not have and should not have adequate access. So, I still advocate building the floating bridge to facilitate solution of that problem by it's provision of access between and to Western Ave-Magnolia, Aurora Avenue, Madison-Spring-Hospitals, Royal Brougham Way- Sports & Train Station, New Ferry Terminal, Beacon Avenue to Beacon Hill, and Harbor Island-West Seattle. Thereby relieving local traffic jams now blocking I-5 which it will continue to do after bored tunnel built because I-5 was never designed by us to carry local traffic. As I have stated (in below web site) we assumed that it would be mandated by law only busses and trucks crossing State lines would be allowed on Interstate Highways and ramps in municipalities would be kept to a minimum. Floating Bridges in Elliot Bay will be easier to add even more parallel or multiple deck lanes for more in the more future hassles in the next twenty or more years after now planned and constructed  improvements 

 

When you consider we prepared the PS&E (Plans, Specifications & Estimates) for constructions of I-5 in 1961 (with those limited access rules) (to also facilitate moving missiles around in case the cold war turned hot) when the only tall buildings downtown were the IBM Building, The Seattle First Building ("Black Box IBM Building Came In") and Smith Tower you can understand why we have the local traffic problem. Though we knew I-90 would be improved and provided for same under the now curved 12th Ave S. bridge (which I drew the TS&L drawings of) at Connecticut Street Interchange we had no idea Eastside of Lake Washington development would put the traffic load as high as it is now on I-5 between I-90 & later SR-520 on and off ramps. But we did anticipate somewhat from I-90 by providing the ramps that went nowhere until the first Kingdome that were intended for a double deck tie  to either a parallel (for proposed total ten lane) Alaska Way Viaduct or ten lane Elliott Bay Floating Bridge. You can see this on a rendering  over a 1961 before any freeway construction aerial photo below on this web site.

 

WHAT PART OF NO (to both waterfront tunnel & viaduct replacement) DO OR DID DINO ROSSI, GREG NICHOLS otherwise a great public servant and mayor, THE SEATTLE PI NOT UNDERSTAND

 

Above Revision also written January 16, 2009 in support (but changed my mind) of (Alaska Way) Bored Tunnel but to as stated still advocate Elliott Bay Floating bridge as well.

 

THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH WRITTEN IN REBUTTAL OF THE E-MAILS POSTED IN BLUE UNDER IT

 

There are some folks, anxious to tear down the viaduct, that advocate against any replacement of the viaduct and/or (probably any anywhere including the  18  mile tunnel advocated below ) bored tunnel except with the "surface option" transportation improvements including widening I-5 to accomplish part of such improvements. In my opinion that's what we had before we were forced to build the viaduct. I'm 75 years old and I remember as child prior viaduct and when US99 was 2 lane brick pavement thru Fort Lewis. These folks are unaware of how the walls I helped design are built on the Eastside of the freeway. The decorated walls you see are just a facade hung on the front of the functional structures which consist of a row of between 10 & 20 ft. diameter concrete columns with slots in their adjacent sides wherein horizontal Steel I beams are stacked. Because the NB, NBCD, SB, SBCD freeway is depressed under; Madison, Spring, Seneca X bridge etc. overpasses and the reversible lanes are  under them the visible part of this wall is over 75 feet high. But, the columns go down until at least 25 feet of bedrock or more if no bedrock found. I understand there is going to be a effort to penetrate this wall with a tunnel for eastbound light rail. I can only speculate how difficult but not impossible this will be. I suspect they will have to do what we did by building similar column walls on the North & South side of their tunnel before they penetrate the freeway wall. Spring street is named Spring Street because there is a underground spring there which creates fluid soil pressures all the way between Madison and the X bridge. If they don't do this first the structural integrity of the entire freeway wall could be compromised. Widening of I-5  is cost and inconvenience to the public prohibitive and may be impossible.

 

Besides it is exactly one block wide between frontage streets on both sides 

 

We need 10 lanes (for local) (possible floating) and 6 lanes (for thru) (possible not on waterfront bored tunnel) not a former shoulder we can drive on

 

FOR EXAMPLE; The following e-mails in this color below

 

Hi Kingsley,

Thank you for your suggestion.  Mike supports a modified version of
WSDOT's 2007 surface plan, which would be able to carry all existing
and all expected traffic in Seattle. The plan's details can be found
on their website, but it includes widening I-5, for example, and
improving bus efficiency. If you have any specific questions about the
surface option, please let us know.

Thanks for your message, and feel free to write back with any questions,

-McGinn for Mayor

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Kingsley
Hall<kingsleyhall_elmatheater@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Subject: "Alaska Way Viaduct Replacement" Political Advice
> Dear Mike McGinn;
>
> Congratulations on your success in the primary.
>
> Please be advised I have had over 1.6 million hits on the below web site
> since original posted in 1967. I came within 6,000 signatures of getting on
> the 2007 ballot. Although I could not vote for you since I now live in Elma.
> WA most of the people that signed the petitions that almost were enough to
> get the Initiative on the ballet at least voted against Greg Nickels or Dino
> Rossi and will continue to vote against anyone advocating tunnel/seawall or
> viaduct replacement. Neither of which will provide at least 10 lanes for
> local traffic unless something else for vehicular traffic is in place and
> proving working before the viaduct is torn down first.
>
> The negative comments in below may have helped influence voters to cause
> Greg Nickels to take third place in the primary.
>
> http://www.elmatheater.org/Alaska%20Way%20Viaduct%20Replacement%203rd%20Option.htm
>
> Please be advised I'm 74 years old and have no financial or egotistical
> reason for above advocacy. But, It might be in your interest to state
> publicly you might consider such a plan as it could be accomplished
> within your term of office Where else within the 13 block wide (minus one
> for existing I-5) hour glass figure of Seattle can you put 10 lanes for
> local traffic and return I-5 to it's original intent as a through Interstate
> facility instead of a parking lot inconvenience for everyone in the Western
> Hemisphere. Shame on Seattle. Thank God for your new leadership.
>
> In my opinion both the Bored tunnel hopefully without much local access (For
> interstate traffic) and the Ten lane Elliot Bay Floating Highway (For local
> SW WA traffic) along Alaska Way should not be built before if ever the present Alaska Way Viaduct
> torn down to facilitate replacement of itself.

 

I wrote this before I realized it was not going in and out of I-5 or for supplemental to existing viaduct traffic capacity
>
> It  is not a Seattle street. It's 1/3 of the Pan American way thru
> Seattle. I-405 no longer a Interstate bypass. After communication with the
> Mayor of Vancouver, BC he asked and Their Prime Minister sent messages to
> our President asking viaduct be left alone until at least after their
> Olympics-Fair etc are over
>
> On the other hand if the floating pontoons are to be built and stored
> secretly for catastrophic or terrorist attack (against say the 4 3,000 foot
> long I-5 bridges you can park under above Sea City Hall & KC Courthouse) a
> low profile of this information may be in order.
>
> Thanks for your time
>
> Regards
>
> Kingsley
>
> Kingsley Hall Jr.
> cc: To your opponent

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

REVISED I HAD HOPED BY:; Another pair of nice (temporarily, I hope , lost)  e-mail, communications  between myself and a Mr. David Levinger, of  Mr. McGinn's campaign,  Note; as will be shown below.. He stated that he was in charge of advising  and was spokesman for Mr. McGinn on stated positions regarding transportation. When I read this reply  e-mail, I thought, in contradiction to above unsigned e-mail it  implied some serious consideration of the proposals as outlined on this page might happen. So, I called on the phone to thank him only to find out  that that was not true and that their position was as stated in first unsigned e-mail above. Not only that, he was emphatic about being opposed to the bored tunnel which he emphasized in his opinion was not a "Done Deal" or a  in progress effort. He implied that they were going to do everything possible to stop the bored tunnel project

 

Oh! I finally found paper copies of them so here they are scanned and inserted below in black 

 

  ______________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I  HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANSWERS TO FOLLOWING E-MAIL SENT TO

SUSAN HUTCHISON

 

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________  

 

 

WHAT PART OF NO BY SEATTLE VOTERS (to both waterfront seawall/tunnel (NOW I HATE TO ADMIT IT MYSELF ON BORED UNDER A. WAY)  viaduct replacement) DO OR DID DINO ROSSI, GREG NICHOLS ( Maybe a great public servant and Seattle Mayor except on this issue), AND DARN IT ME TOO did not realize under A. Way!!!, THE SEATTLE POST INTELLIGENCER with no coverage of Initiative 964 and or any other info on this page   UNLESS THE SEATTLE TIMES  STARTS CARRYING NEWS REGARDLESS OF RELATIVE AMOUNTS OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR ADS they might not survive either-  (Please note almost corrupt non-coverage of below Initiative 964 information), ALL BUT PUBLIC TV NEWS (Thank God for NPR, public TV, and the internet) NOT UNDERSTAND. Ron Simms at least eventually agreed that the viaduct (six out of eighteen lanes thru Seattle) should not come down until something else in place successfully carrying vehicular traffic during and after construction Too bad we lost one of our best to Washington D.C. New open minded leadership of Seattle & King County fills all of us with great anticipation. I urge we not support ANY Politician (S) that are too stupid to realize how important to our economy and even survival solutions to these local vehicular traffic problems may be. For instance, Boeing may be moving out some of their manufacturing efforts because they can't (with both their vendors or their own fleet of trucks and buses) handle their logistics around the Seattle area. These decisions should not be decided based on campaign funds or DOT consultants trying or competing to get PS&E contracts. Note, I don't want or need any. But, I, with respect of course, (personally by contribution or whatever) may decide to support, not support or oppose any entities that will not at least consider my or other people's ideas. (including Victor Gray's save the viaduct philosophy. Those folks advocating a surface solution should realize that's what was there before the viaduct resulting in conditions such that the viaduct was built in the first place. At least save $$$ by not tearing  it down. Built to highway loading standards it's less seismic risk than any multistory garage including at SeaTac  airport. There isn't a building built than you can park a fully loaded semi-truck in. Great parking lot & glassed in lower deck bicycle path) It's not that I think I'm absolutely correct that my Elliott Bay Floating Highway is the only answer it's just that at that time I wanted it looked at. I ask too. How else are you going to add ten lanes around downtown Seattle's hour glass figure (between Lake. WA and Elliot. Bay) to fix the local vehicular traffic problem?

 

IT'S OK THAT A POLITICIAN OR MEDIA DOES NOT ENDORSE MY IDEAS

 

THE GOVERNORS OFFICE HAS NEITHER ENDORSED MY ELLIOT BAY FLOATING HIGHWAY OR DISMISSED THE IDEA YET BUT I KNOW THEY HAVE CONSIDERED THE ONGOING REVISIONS TO THE CONTENT OF THIS WEB PAGE (that is all I ask)

 

I  so appreciate when any elected official takes the time  when they are as busy as Representative Ross Hunter, House Finance Committee Chairman to respond per Below e-mail.

As I say such actions restore my faith in our democracy. I don't ask anyone to agree I just want the information looked at. Maybe someone else after looking will get a better idea.

  

---

From: Hunter.Ross@leg.wa.gov
To: kingsleyhall_elmatheater@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:18:38 -0700
Subject: RE: Uder Lk WA bored tunnel & Elliot Bay Floating Highway

 

 

---

From: Kessler.Lynn@leg.wa.gov
To: kingsleyhall_elmatheater@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:18:45 -0800
Subject: FW: Instead of 2 mi B. T. use funds for 18 mi B. T. under Lk WA SR167 to SR104 & El Bay Fl Hiway

 

 

Below e-mails before I realized bored tunnel along Alaska Way instead of in and out of I-5

 

Below from the Governors Office. They listen too. Too bad I misunderstood and endorsed the 2 mile bored tunnel along the Alaska Way Waterfront. I am truly embarrassed that I was so stupid. I have no idea if they know what a terrible mistake I claim I made as a person that tries to be as professional as a planner as possible. These matters should not be decided by amount of campaign dollars or party politics. Both as a disgrace to democracy (73% voted against a waterfront tunnel) and technically we are not making any progress solving the economic loss and misery of grid lock (by building a cosmetic 2 mile tunnel) when I think we could. But, What do you expect when often more people vote for American Idol than President of US, or political personalities personal ideology than how they will deal with the issues they would actually have control of if elected,  The public's choice was not heard on this issue in this last election. Very poor journalism except Public Television bought out by campaign dollars. A DOT that pays unethical consultants for studies (including fear video presentations not based on fact) they prepare that are biased in hopes they will get the big multi million dollar fee for preparation of PS&E based on a percentage of total construction cost regardless if project in best interest of the public. Obviously, they aren't motivated to come up with the least expensive best solution. It would be a amazing day if in the US some consulting firm said leave some structure alone or do a minor fix. What a insult to our fathers that designed the Alaska Way Viaduct to replace what was then if it had not been built be a today described "surface option".    

 

 

THANKS TO VARIOUS BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS AND CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE THAT HAVE ENCOURAGED ME

 

FOR EXAMPLE; The following e-mail correspondence in this color below

 

Matthew,

Thank you for your detailed response.  I can’t say I agree in a few areas though.  

 

There would be far less disruption of businesses with the floating bridge than likely ANY other option, and with a boardwalk, could dramatically increase business, tourism, and walking public access.  It also would dramatically reduce wave action on the shoreline thus preserving the sea wall and making shoreline walking drier and safer.  Also, traffic would be unimpeded through existing routes until the floating bridge was completed.  Then the Viaduct could be torn down or used as a gardened walkway or other activity.

 

Environmentally, there should be little impact with a floating bridge because it has little or no contact with the seabed.  And there won’t be the huge volume of downtown construction trucks and equipment for years, which certainly would create an unhealthy noise and dust problem for workers, tourists, and residents. 

 

As for ships, the floating bridge, acting as a breakwater, can provide for marinas and would have some raised areas for smaller boats to passage under.  As the plan details, the cruise ship terminal would have to be relocated outside the bridge but I understand it has little expansion space in its current location, so that might be good.  And the plan details how an opening would allow for container ships to pass through.

 

It is expected the biggest disadvantage probably be political from the construction contractors who may not get much of the work.  They I believe will fight it tooth and nail.  Fortunately WSDOT is above such things.

 

 

Mr. Dutton,

 

Thank you for your interest in the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program.

 

The State of Washington , King County and the City of Seattle are working together to find a solution for the viaduct’s central waterfront section. Governor Christine Gregoire, King County Executive Ron Sims and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels directed their three transportation departments to begin evaluating options with the public so that a recommendation can be made by the end of 2008.

 

The agencies have expanded the project corridor. Rather than focus on replacing SR 99, they are now looking at the entire transportation system from Lake Washington to Elliott Bay , and from NE 85th Street to the city’s southern limits. We are reviewing a number of options for SR 99, including above-ground, surface, and below-ground concepts, including an Elliott Bay crossing.

 

While a bridge over Elliott Bay would provide some benefits, we know it would also present several engineering challenges. For example, it would be extremely difficult to obtain environmental permits, as the plan would entail significant impacts to the fish and wildlife, including endangered species that live in Elliott Bay . Because of this plan’s wide ‘footprint’ on the waterfront and across Puget Sound , it would also displace businesses and impede navigation of container ships, cruise ships and ferries.

 

The benefits and drawbacks of a bridge over Elliott Bay and other possible solutions will be assessed. Any solution will also include improvements to I-5, transit service, and surface streets. You can review all of the SR 99 options at:

www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/viaduct/library-meetingmaterials.htm 

 

In regards to your concerns about cost, we are committed to finding a fiscally responsible solution. Any solution to the Alaskan Way Viaduct will be grounded in the state, county, and city’s recognition of, commitment to, and integration across a set of six guiding principles:

 

• Improve public safety.
• Provide efficient movement of people and goods.
• Maintain or improve downtown Seattle , regional, the port and state economies.
• Enhance Seattle ’s waterfront, downtown and adjacent neighborhoods as a place for people.
• Create solutions that are fiscally responsible.
• Improve the health of the environment.

A stakeholder advisory committee of local community and business representatives has been appointed to provide feedback on potential central waterfront solutions. A copy of your comments was submitted to the committee for their May 22 meeting.

 

Thank you again for your interest in the program.

 

Matthew D. Preedy, P.E.

Deputy Program Director

From: Randy Dutton [mailto: randydutton@centurytel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:53 PM
To: Aldridge, Jo
Cc: RandyDutton@centurytel.net
Subject: Elliot Bay Floating Bridge proposal

 

            Can you please explain to me why the Elliot Bay Floating Bridge proposal, previously submitted by Mr. Kingsley Hall, a civil engineer with considerable experience in Seattle highway design, is not included on your ten alternative Viaduct options?  While I might admit his proposal wasn’t dressed up in the most elegant and formal style, the basics of his proposal seem very sound, and much more economical, safe, and flexible than most of the projects thus submitted.  I rewrote some of his basic points in a manner that illustrates some of the floating bridge advantages, and added some ideas that may make it more attractive to the residents of Seattle .

            My military career involved government contracting, and project financial review, so I am no stranger to engineering proposals.  As a legislative candidate, I want to ensure that highway money is spent in the most economic and forward thinking process with all viable options considered.  

 

Regards,

Randy Dutton

Republican Candidate

Washington State Rep 24^th District, Position 2

Montesano , WA

360-249-5833

 

AND OTHER REPUBLICAN EFFORTS

 

 

 

Hip, hip, hooray!!!!

 

The truth shall set them free!  (of traffic!)

 

I hope this gets things going. 

 

Have a terrific week!

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Below Revision of November 1, 2008 Advocating Temporary Floating Bridge

 

 

Temporary Elliott Bay Bridge aka; Elliot Bay Bridge aka; Alaska Way Replacement

Please read info below old You-Tube excerpt from public television broadcast and see map on last page or at bottom.

Thank God for Public TV, The Internet, and everyone involved within same with forwarded e-mails and blogs.

 

Click on the lower left arrow of you-tube rather than center arrow

           

   

 Alaska Way Viaduct Replacement  with a  Elliott Bay Floating Bridge spelled aka/ Elliot Bay Floating Bridge

 

Above YouTube a excerpt out of 30 minute after May 3rd 2007 TCTV Interview that was broadcast on  various public TV stations.

 

Another YouTube excerpt of a recent interview recorded October 3&4, 2009 will appear above (now there in three parts) soon after when permission allows which will be granted after broadcast

 

 

Consider having this web page in browser favorites or bookmarks

Thence See updates including this video at later date

 

 

IN RESPONSE TO WSDOT U-TUBE; click on postage stamp of their presentation to right of my first youtube above

I'm not sure I agree with the WA State DOT implied opinion that the event causing columns shown failing in their seismic failure simulation are any more or less likely to occur than any other freeway already built or could be built to replace them with today's  most modern technology. I did not work on the SR 520 bridge but I did work on design of SR-520 from the bridge to Redmond and I/we gave unofficial  suggestions to our friends working for Mr. Korpf(Sp?) (PE in charge of SR-520 bridge design team). that those columns be studied by computer calculations at the CESL (Civil Engineering Systems Laboratory) and simulation vibration burst tests both at Lincoln Laboratory of  MIT. I was told they did. It was determined that hollow columns with spiral steel reinforcement in the walls acting somewhat like a DMRSF (ductile moment resisting space frame building or aircraft wing. A 707 wing is flexible enough that the tips deflect 12 feet on takeoff.. It's amazing how much top floors of buildings (i.e. DMRSFs move in wind storms. I was told the theory is don't make structures that are experiencing cyclic loading brittle. Also like a beam the strength is in the extreme fibers. Additionally the attempted movement of the mass of the materials in a solid core are detrimental to the ability of the column to withstand either constant vibration or that of seismic activity. There' s always a lot of shaking going on. Jack Kopets (alsoSp?) of HNT&B pioneered single column ramp bridges on Interstate throughout the US came to the same conclusion 20 years previously.

 

If I am correct I think we should not subject the public to the agony of replacement of the existing SR-520 bridge but instead build another floating bridge across Lake Washington with  improved diamond interchange on I-5 at 92nd Street where there is already a overpass. Thence Northgate Way to new .bridge.  Improvement to Eastside approaches there would be easier due to topography. Such a alignment would serve people from Eastside wanting to get to N. Seattle & Northgate (without having to get on I-405) and N. Seattle folks going to Bellevue Kirkland, Microsoft (without having to get on I-5). But regardless we need to build pontoons now for either location. Indeed this route might be the fastest temporary fix like the concept of a WW II Bailey bridge. 

 

 

PLEASE READ BELOW REVISION OF NOV 1, 2008 TO THIS PAGE IN RED GREEN AND BLUE

 

PLEASE NOTE I AM RETIRED FROM CIVIL ENGINEERING AND DO NOT REPRESENT ANY ENGINEERING OR CONTRACTOR FIRMS AND DO NOT WANT ANY CONTRIBUTIONS. I HAVE SPENT ONLY THE $5.00 FILE FEE AND ABOUT $30.00 FOR GASOLINE FOR THE FUN OF PRESENTATION OF THIS IDEA AT PUBLIC MEETINGS. THANKS TO ALL YOU FOLKS THAT HELPED.  WE SPENT SO LITTLE AND ALMOST GOT ON BALLOT SO THE IDEA MUST HAVE SOME MERIT. I HOPE  A NON-PARTISAN EFFORT WILL RESULT AFTER NOVEMBER 2008 ELECTIONS. WE STILL HOPE OUR GOVERNMENT WILL NOT TEAR DOWN THE ALASKA WAY VIADUCT UNTIL SOMETHING ELSE IN PLACE FOR ONE THIRD OF OUR NATIONS NORTH-SOUTH VEHICULAR TRAFFIC THRU SEATTLE. THIS WAS FORMER US-99. IT WAS BUILT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS. IT IS NOT A SEATTLE STREET.

 

New Search You searched for: "Kingsley Hall"AND"Elliott Bay" Displaying 1-1 of 1 result(s) found. Elma man files initiative on Seattle viaduct issue Elma — An Elma man has filed an initiative calling for the state to examine replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle with a bridge that would float in Elliott Bay. “It demands that the Legislature demand that this idea be... 2.4K - Mar. 27, 2007; scored 1000.0   Copyright © 2009 The Daily World.

Search Archives: Click here to search by

 

The text of this document is an accurate copy of what was filed by the initiative proponent with the Secretary of State for assignment of a serial number. The accuracy of code in

amendatory sections has not been verified.

 

INITIATIVE XXX

Number 964 now assigned by Secretary of States Office

For possible inclusion on the PAST November 2007 ballot

 

I am considering  filing a new initiative for inclusion on sometime

 after Nov 2008 ballots advocating building and using this bridge

 during  whatever revisions of Alaska Way are being built.

Like the concept of Army Bailey Bridges during World War II

 

Thence maybe

 

Then removing tension cables etc. and moving pontoons thru ship canal

 and use on a new parallel to 520 bridge and I-5 interchange at Northgate and/or improvements to or replacement of existing 520 bridge when and if deemed necessary

 

Outside of my concern as a citizen of SW WA State but if I lived in Seattle or had business downtown anymore I would advocate in the future leaving the Elliot Bay Floating Bridge and saving and turning the viaduct into a combination parking lot for downtown so it could compete with malls on top deck, promenade and bicycle path with glassed walls on lower deck on bayside and more public market on opposite side but with height restriction so people could still see thru from existing adjacent buildings. The viaducts design for highway loads far exceeds any seismic risks for any buildings built under old ICBO (International Conference of Building Codes) Seismic zone three requirements. Which includes the majority of downtown structures? So, if you tear it down on that basis you better consider demolition of most of downtown

 

I, Sam Reed, Secretary of State of the State of Washington and

custodian of its seal hereby certify that, according to the records on

file in my office, the attached copy of Initiative Measure No. XXX to

the People is a true and correct copy as it was received by this

office.

 

An act forcing the building of  “The Third Option Alaska Way Viaduct Replacement Plan including a Floating Highway” or The Elliott Bay Floating Highway Project.

 

     AN ACT Relating to all funding by state Government related to replacement or improving (except maintenance to last five years) any appurtenances that are a part of the present Alaska Way Viaduct and it’s associated vehicular transportation system; deleting RCW XX.XXX.XXX; amending RCW XX.XXX.XXX, XX.XXX.XXX, and XX.XXX.XX; adding a new section to chapter XX.XXX RCW; adding new sections to chapter XXX.XX RCW; creating new sections; and providing an effective date(s). These deletions, amendments, and additions resulting in concentration of all such future expenditures along with additional appropriations from the general fund as necessary on efforts immediately after the effective date of this act resulting in The Washington State Department of Transportation or their time of the essence contracted consultants meeting requirements of National and as amended by Washington State Environmental Protection Acts, Washington State Shorelines Management Act, and Public Law 405 (regarding navigable waters and as related to small amounts of rights of way from The Port of Seattle) conformance and hearings simultaneously preparing to retain main consultants within one year of effective date for preparation of engineering PS&E, (plans specifications and estimate) to all the same standards that applied to the Hood Canal Bridge and utilizing as much of the same details as possible from the Hood Canal Bridge, to be completed within the next year, allowing the next ten  months for construction contract letting, and the next three years for construction of some two parallel five and some ten lane floating bridge style structure(s) about one mile out in Elliot Bay from the North Tip of Harbor Island (on west edge of East Waterway) to Battery Street Tunnel & Wall Street and include restrictions on The Governor of Washington State, The Washington State Department of Transportation, The City of Seattle, and The Port of Seattle to do otherwise per attached map. All to be completed within five years after effective date of this act with higher priority than any other major new Washington State Department of Transportation project. Generally referred to as “The Third Alaska Way Viaduct Replacement Plan including a Floating Highway” or Elliott Bay Floating Highway Project.

Above has been since revised by Code Revisers Office. Law would be changed to have DOT study this option and report to Governor within one year. Please Search on

 

  “Elliot Bay Floating Bridge”

 

 to find revised info on Secretary of State’s Web easily. Note they misspelled Elliot with one t instead of two.

 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

 

INTENT

 

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. Washington State Government has spent a lot of money and other resources investigating options as relate to this act.. The people have clearly and consistently illustrated their ongoing and passionate desire to ensure that state wide taxpayers are protected but also realize that all state residents have interest that the problems related to these expenditures result in the best possible solution for the most local and statewide taxpaying users of the thru Seattle US-99 transportation system along with it’s impact on Interstate I-5 or other users and visitors to the waterfront area as possible. The people find that even without raising taxes, the government consistently receives revenue growth many times higher than the rate of inflation every year. With this measure, the people intend to protect taxpayers by creating as immediate a stop as possible to further expenditures for studies of any other option except that as outlined hereafter and herein as Option Three. Hopefully wider agreement in support of 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.

 

THE ABOVE TO BE REVISED ( Mostly shortened and with RCW numbers included) BY CODE REVISERS AND ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICES

 

Above has been since revised by Code Revisers Office. Law would be changed to require DOT to study this option and report to Governor within one year. Please Search on

 

“Elliot Bay Floating Bridge”

 

 to find revised info on Secretary of State’s Web easily. Note they misspelled Elliot with one t instead of two. Attorney General’s Office has provided

 

FOLLOWING INFORMATION WILL NOT APPEAR ON THE INITIATIVE SIGNATURE FORMS OR BALLOT

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

Front cover of 1961 report showing proposed double deck tie to proposed parallel Alaska Way Viaduct or floating bridge

This document justified Building Ramps that were unused until first King Dome built

Note this is a rendering showing future freeway Note 12 Ave S shown straight – Ended up curved (Up left corner picture)

 

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 11^th)   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 because 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.

 

NOW THEREFORE THE FOLLOWING CODE REVISIONS:

 

 

THIS AREA WILL BE COMPLETED BY CODE REVISERS AND POSTED HERE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEE MAP SHOWING APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT

 

 

 

 

 RELATIVE COSTS (approximate consider without unnecessary  expensive  PS&E (plans, specifications & estimate by engineering firms)

 

 

Third Option Alaska Way Viaduct Replacement  P. O. Box 1454    Elma, WA 98541

See  http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/Alternatives.htm   for cost of other two alternates (4 lane tunnel (not the Governor’s new not good "Whoops! Changed my mind" bored tunnel idea) or 6 lane replacement)

 

Above link no longer available directly from Washington State Department of Transportation

So for a scanned from a as typed paper copy of above info with info added with a pen by “Save The Existing Viaduct” proponents

 See    http://www.elmatheater.org/AlaskaWayViaductReplacementComparitiveCosts.htm 

 

The A new bored tunnel idea is a absolutely needed improvement for thru Seattle traffic .But not on the waterfront. Suggest under Lake WA Renton to Bothell  But,(though may even require higher priority) will not replace the function of the existing viaduct for getting local traffic but Lk. WA some more off of I-5

 

 

This Proposed Elliot Bay Floating Bridge (10 lane Highway)(w/3 floating  connecting side streets) should not cost more than 4 or 5 times   Hood Canal Bridge (5 times millions (but admit with inflation more) instead of billions)

See  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hood_Canal_Bridge

 

Possible to save Demolition Costs of the Alaska Way Viaduct  because  not necessary and may be used for other purposes like top level downtown parking and lower level promenade, bicycle route /open market

 

Like Father....Like Son

 

Below about Kingsley S. Hall Sr., 1885-1971,  Retired Technical Director of Chicago Planning Commission

This above web site by Kingsley S. Hall Jr., 1934- now 75 years old, Retired CEO of what was:

 Kingsley Hall Associates, (Urban and City Planning Consultants) 1219 Smith Tower, Seattle, Washington

and

Kingsley Hall Jr.  dba /TeleComputer Services Company that in 1969 was the first to use large (2,000 point) COGO* database technology on facilitating over five freeway PS&E and construction supervision survey using portable ASR-33 teletypes.

* Developed by Lincoln Laboratory of MIT, Puerto Rican Highway Dept. and some folks I think from Wash. District of C 

Involved with several hundred other such projects on West Coast

http://elmatheater.org/TCS1969brochurepage1.htm 

 

 

 

Kingsley Hall's sister just passed away and this was found in her belongings. This is one of several articles like this on this subject and the creation of Capitol Lake in Olympia, WA 

 

I can be contacted by phone 24/7 @ 1-360-482-4810 for the fun of:  debate, answer questions, arrange interviews, or speaking engagements.

Thanks for your consideration

 

Kingsley

Kingsley S. Hall Jr.

 kingsleyhall_elmatheater@hotmail.com 

 

 Thanks to everyone that helped gathering petitions 

Thanks to Elma Theater for use of their web space and their expertise to facilitate this web. Thanks to a small group of my actors gathering, counting and bundling into packages of 50 the signed petitions. See below linked info about them and KS Hall Jr.

 

 http://www.elmatheater.org/