pontoon construction per below DOT document
Great! May even could be made to take care of concerns described in k) and n) below
At first I was horrified by the idea of a bored tunnel
under
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. I must admit as a engineer and CBO (certified building inspector) 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 risks.
Above Revision of January 16, 2009 in support of Governors Bored Tunnel
but still advocate
But,
It still 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
And
of course it's obvious the limited access bored tunnel (though great idea and
needed long ago) will not replace the functions of the Alaska Way Viaduct
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,
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
Below Revision of November 1, 2008 Advocating
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 ututbe rather than center arrow
Alaska
Way Viaduct Replacement with a
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
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
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
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
“
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
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
“
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
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
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
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
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
f) Note how
quickly PS&E (Plans, Specifications & Estimate by engineers) and
construction completed on the actual floating part of floating structures like
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
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
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;
Second Avenue South
Combine to 4th at
ABOVE ONLY STREETS LEFT THRU HOUR GLASS
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
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
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
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
NOW THEREFORE THE FOLLOWING CODE
REVISIONS:
THIS AREA WILL BE COMPLETED BY CODE
REVISORS AND POSTED HERE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE
SEE MAP SHOWING APPROXIMATE
ALIGNMENT
Third
See http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/Alternatives.htm for cost of other two alternates (4 lane tunnel (not the Governor’s new good 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 new bored tunnel idea is a
absolutely needed improvement for thru
But,(though may even require higher priority) will not replace the function of the existing viaduct for getting local traffic off of I-5
This
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hood_Canal_Bridge
Demolition Costs of the Alaska Way Viaduct saved because not necessary and may be used for other purposes like top level downtown parking and lower level promenade/open market
Thanks to