54 Developing the Alternatives

Leadership Group Tour

Leadership Group Meeting

Community Leaders discuss public needs, concerns and viewpoints.

Exhibit 4-1

1 How were the Alternatives developed?

Very few people question why the project is needed�we need a roadway and seawall that will be strongenough to withstand earthquakes and last another 50to 100 years. The best way to do this is, however, achallenging question. The alternatives for replacingthe Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall have beendeveloped by the lead agencies (City, WSDOT, andFHWA) by evaluating information on transportation,urban design, engineering, and constructability. Asthe alternatives have evolved, the lead agencies haveconsulted with the public, citizen groups, elected offi-cials, and other government agencies

The alternatives were developed based on conceptsthat emerged from existing knowledge regarding thecondition of the viaduct and seawall and a variety ofwidely held public opinions about the shape the proj-ect might take. Available engineering and technicalinformation was applied to create early design andconstruction concepts. More study and new informa-tion led to discarding some ideas, looking for refine-ments in others, and opening the process to newideas altogether. A community leadership group hasmet many times to review and comment on alterna-tives as they emerged. The urgency of the project andhigh level of public interest naturally led to manyopportunities for citizens to be involved. Primarily,this has been at open houses, but an extensive pro-gram of outreach and involvement to the public at-large has also been undertaken.

Throughout the process of developing the alterna-tives, the lead agencies have exercised professionalengineering and planning judgment with the supportof consulting experts. At times, screening tools have

been applied to ensure careful, methodical evaluationof the ideas and possibilities suggested.

2 How have the public and other interested agenciesbeen involved in developing the Alternatives?

In the early stages of the project, the Seattle Mayorand WSDOT Secretary of Transportation formed aLeadership Group of civic and business leaders toserve as a sounding board during project develop-ment. The volunteer group was invited to engage inan ongoing series of briefings and discussions aboutthe project. The project team has shared with the

Leadership Group details on the deteriorated condi-tion of the viaduct and seawall. Many LeadershipGroup members have toured the viaduct and seawallto see close-up the poor condition of both facilities.The Leadership Group has helped the project teamdetermine critical needs that must be met by the proj-ect and identify potential opportunities for improve-ment. In formal meetings and many informal conver-sations, members of the Leadership Group have madesubstantial contributions to the lead agencies' under-standing of public needs, concerns, and viewpoints. Inturn, the lead agencies have explained the engineer-ing and construction considerations that must betaken into account in the project.

Since the Nisqually earthquake, the public has taken akeen interest in the project. Hundreds have con-tributed valuable ideas and feedback as the alterna-tives have been developed. Public meetings and openhouses have been conducted as ideas for the projecthave evolved. Each has given people interested in theproject a chance to see the latest information, ask

CHAPTER 4 - DEVELOPING THE ALTERNATIVES

Regarding SR 99

“This is a critical state road. Delay in replacingit puts our economy and public safety at risk.The viaduct is moving with or without ourhelp. The only question is which will movenext, the legislature or the viaduct.”

- Greg NickelsSeattle Mayor

Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 55

56 Developing the Alternatives

questions of agency and project staff, and offer theiropinions and ideas. The meetings have been wellattended and marked by lively discussion.

Members of the public were invited to:

� Participate in initial EIS project scoping (June2001).

� Provide feedback on the project scope, potentialimpacts, and possible design concepts (November2001).

� Discuss the preliminary design concepts(February/March 2002).

� Discuss urban design issues related to the surfacestreet designs for the central waterfront area(June 2002).

� Learn about the alternatives and costs (July 2002).

� Learn about the updated alternatives and costs(September/October 2003).

The project team has also met with business andneighborhood groups such as the Downtown SeattleAssociation (DSA), Chamber of Commerce, SouthDowntown (SODO) business group, and freight inter-ests from the Ballard and Interbay areas. Each seriesof meetings had specific purposes-to introduce peo-ple to the need for improvements, to review engi-neering designs or concepts, and to gather feedbackon possible alternatives.

As the alternatives have evolved, project staff mem-bers have sought out organizations and agencies thatserve low-income, homeless, and minority communi-ties along the corridor. In meetings with homelessshelters, food banks, job services, and clinics, staffmembers have shared information about the projectand looked for ways to avoid or reduce impacts tothese communities. These discussions will continue asplanning and design move ahead.

This project will require a variety of environmentalresource permits and approvals from local, state, andfederal agencies. Time spent obtaining approvals canbe lengthy and have the potential to affect the projectschedule. The Resource Agency Leadership Forum(RALF) was organized in November 2001 to involveresource agencies in the project. The lead agencieshost regular meetings with this group to facilitate col-

laboration on several complex environmental issues.These resource agencies have contributed substantialeffort and made many helpful suggestions. They werealso specifically involved in concurring with thePurpose and Need Statement, screening criteria, andthe alternatives to be evaluated in this Draft EIS. Inthe future, this group will help approve permits forthe project.

3 How did ideas from the public and interested agencies shape the Alternatives?

As the project has progressed, the alternatives havebeen shaped by community concerns identifiedthrough public meetings and comments, informationlearned about the condition of the viaduct and sea-wall, feasible engineering solutions, potential projecteffects, and funding constraints.

For example, in July 2002, the first round of alterna-tives and their costs were presented to the public andcommunity leaders. An early concept for a full corri-dor tunnel from the waterfront through Belltownoffered a new vision for the central waterfront, butwas too expensive. As a result, the lead agenciesscaled the alternatives back to reuse Battery StreetTunnel with some shorter tunnels just along thewaterfront. Comments from the Port of Seattle andBurlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad led to thedevelopment of new concepts in the south that do abetter job of balancing needs of vehicles and freightand rail operations. In addition, the SurfaceAlternative was added to see how transportation and

other needs might be met without large, new struc-tures and at lower construction costs.

4 What ideas were considered but are not analyzedin the Draft EIS?

Early analysis by the project team and discussion withthe community generated a wide range of ideas. Atotal of 76 initial viaduct replacement design con-cepts and seven seawall concepts were gathered andorganized into six groups.

� Viaduct Improvements from S. Holgate to theBattery Street Tunnel

� Battery Street Tunnel improvements

� Roadway improvements outside of the corridor

� Multi-modal solutions (transit, bike, and pedestri-an opportunities)

� Related improvements

� Seawall Improvements

Then, the best ideas from these six groups wereshaped into the five alternatives evaluated in thisDraft EIS. Ideas that would not work or could notmeet the needs of the project were dropped from fur-ther consideration.

Viaduct Improvements From S. Holgate Street tothe Battery Street Tunnel

A range of viaduct repair and replacement designconcepts were considered, including retrofitting theexisting viaduct; rebuilding the viaduct; or replacingthe viaduct with an aerial structure, tunnel, surfaceboulevard, or a combination of structure types.

Components of these design concepts have beenincluded in the alternatives being evaluated in thisDraft EIS. However, there are some design concepts,

1Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2002 and 2003.

Retrofitting vs. Rebuild

How is retrofitting the Viaduct different from

rebuilding it?

To “retrofit” the viaduct, the existing structural memberssuch as columns and foundation supports are strength-ened. To “rebuild” the viaduct, most of the existingviaduct components would be replaced

“A surface plan should be included in the EIS so that if the viaduct fell today, or was nolonger usable, a plan where everyone is onthe surface should be in place. We need toknow what will happen in the worst-case scenario.”

- Leadership Group Comment24 July 2003

“The Boomtown Café appreciates the effortsof the project team in reaching out to organi-zations such as ours. The AWV project becamemuch more manageable and real to us afterwe met with project team members. We arelooking forward to working together through-out the life of the project. There is a strongsense that the AWV team does want to workwith Boomtown to make this process assmooth as possible.”

- Bob KubiniecExecutive Director, Boomtown Cafe

The Screening Process

Where can I find out more information about the con-

cepts considered but not analyzed in this Draft EIS?

Detailed information about the screening process is incor-porated by reference and contained in documents titledFinal Revised Screening of Design Concepts and FinalRevised Screening of Seawall Concepts, Parametrix, 2003aand 2003b.

Public Participation

How has the public been involved with this Project?

� 15 public meetings and community open houses

� Two workshops to discuss flexible transporta-tion concepts

� Discussions with community groups at more than 140 community meetings and community interviews

� Meetings with businesses along the corridor

� Newsletters and brochures, including project factsheets translated into four languages

� Press releases

� Project website

� Email list and project hotline

� Information displays at libraries and commu-nity centers

Additional information about public outreach is containedin Appendix A, Agency and Public Coordination.

such as retrofit and tunnel, which are only feasible incertain locations of the project area.

For example, engineers closely examined the possibili-ty of retrofitting the entire viaduct instead of rebuild-ing it. Their research demonstrated that rebuildingthe double-level viaduct is superior to retrofitting itwhen seismic performance, aesthetics, cost, and riskare balanced.1 Conversely, the engineers' analysis ofthe viaduct's single-level section between the BatteryStreet Tunnel and Stewart Street revealed that retro-fitting these structures might be more cost-effectivethan rebuilding them. Therefore, retrofitting the dou-ble-level viaduct sections from S. Holgate Street toPike Street was judged infeasible and is not be consid-ered in this Draft EIS. However, retrofitting some sec-tions of the viaduct, such as the connection to theBattery Street Tunnel and the ramps into downtown,is feasible so it is evaluated in this Draft EIS.

Another design concept that is only feasible in cer-tain locations is replacing the viaduct with a tunnel.Engineers determined that a tunnel is not a reason-able alternative in the south end of the project areabecause of poor soil conditions1. Between S. SpokaneStreet and S. King Street, the soil is composed ofdeep, unstable silt washed down from the DuwamishRiver. There is no cost-effective way to stabilize a tun-nel in these silty liquefiable soils. However, the soilnorth of S. King Street is less silty, making a tunnelfeasible. Therefore, a tunnel is not proposed in thesouth end of the project area, but two tunnel alterna-tives are evaluated in this Draft EIS along the water-front north of S. King Street.

Battery Street Tunnel Improvements

Two main concepts were proposed for improving theBattery Street Tunnel. One idea was to completelyreplace it with a new, larger tunnel and the other wasto upgrade it to meet existing safety requirements.The cost of replacing the existing tunnel with a new,larger tunnel was very high, making this option tech-nically feasible but financially unrealistic. Therefore,replacing the Battery Street Tunnel with a new tunnelis not evaluated in this Draft EIS, but improving the

tunnel to better meet fire and life safety require-ments is evaluated.

Related Improvements

The lead agencies investigated several relatedimprovements. Some ideas, such as improving ferryconnections and enhancing vehicle, pedestrian, andbicycle access within the corridor, are incorporated

into the proposed alternatives. Other ideas weredropped and are not considered. Ideas that are notconsidered in this Draft EIS include concepts such asadding ramps at specific locations (like S. SpokaneStreet to Fourth or Sixth Avenues), extending theAWV Corridor to I-5 or SR 520, and providing gradeseparation in specific areas. These ideas are not eval-uated in this Draft EIS because many of them could

Or

Exhibit 4-2

Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 57

The Alternative and Options Chartshows the five alternatives and their proposed options. The alternative

components are shown in rows, and the options are shown in smallerboxes below the rows.

58 Developing the Alternatives

be built as separate projects or they are marginallyrelated to the purpose of this project and thereforecould not be logically included.

Multi-Modal Solutions - Improving Transit

All of the alternatives evaluated in this Draft EISincorporate measures to improve transit, reduce vehi-cle trips, and provide alternatives to driving single-occupant vehicles. Together, these measures arecalled the flexible transportation package. The flexi-ble transportation package will help move peoplethrough the project area during construction, andsome of the approaches may also provide long-termbenefits to the area. More information on flexibletransportation can be found in Chapter 10 andAppendix C.

High-capacity transit is not included as part of thisproject for several reasons. One is because there arealready plans to build light rail and monorail linesthrough downtown. However, they are included inthe transportation modeling. Also, to be effective,high-capacity transit needs to run through the densecommercial core of the city. That's a big part of whythe monorail and light rail lines will follow Secondand Third Avenues. In contrast, the viaduct runsalong the edge of downtown and in many areas isseparated from workplace destinations by a steepgrade.

Roadway Improvements Outside of the Corridor

The project team investigated several possible road-way improvements outside of the existing corridor.One of these concepts included building a tunnel toreplace the viaduct in another downtown location,such as Western Avenue or First Avenue. While build-ing a tunnel in a different downtown location mightbe feasible, it would probably need to be a deeper,longer, and more expensive tunnel than the tunnelproposed along the waterfront in this Draft EIS. Inaddition, a deeper tunnel would be riskier to con-struct, so these ideas were not pursued. In addition,building a tunnel elsewhere in the city would notreplace the seawall. To fix the deficiencies of the sea-wall, a separate construction project would be need-

ed. Conversely, a tunnel under the Alaskan Way sur-face street would serve as a travel route for viaducttraffic and it would replace the seawall. Therefore,other locations for a tunnel are not considered.

Other ideas that are not evaluated in this Draft EISinclude replacing the viaduct with a bridge acrossElliott Bay, a floating tunnel, or an expanded I-5.Replacing the viaduct with a bridge or floating tunnelis not being considered because it would negativelyaffect Seattle's shipping industry, scenic views, andaqua-tic habitat. Expanding I-5 is not considered as areplacement for the viaduct because it would notmeet the purpose and need of the project. In addi-tion, these concepts would not replace the seawall, so a separate seawall construction project would stillbe needed.

Seawall Improvements

The project's fundamental purpose requires repairingor replacing the seawall near its present location. Theproject team originally investigated seven seawalldesign concepts, and five of them were dropped.Three of the concepts assumed the relieving platformwould not need to be replaced. When project engi-neers discovered that the relieving platform had beenextensively damaged by gribbles and is in need ofreplacement, the three concepts that relied on futureuse of the existing platform were dropped.

Two of the remaining seawall design concepts weredropped because they would not allow sufficient roomto relocate utilities currently located under theAlaskan Way surface street. The remaining two con-cepts, rebuilding the seawall or replacing it with aframe, are evaluated in this Draft EIS.

5 What alternatives are being studied in this Draft EIS?

Five alternatives in addition to the No BuildAlternative (often called the No Action Alternative)are analyzed in this Draft EIS. The five alternatives allinclude building replacement structures for both theAlaskan Way Viaduct and the Alaskan Way Seawall.Each alternative is named according to the type of

roadway proposed through the central waterfront.The five alternatives are Rebuild, Aerial, Tunnel,Bypass Tunnel and Surface.

There are several possible options within the five pro-posed alternatives. The options provide differentchoices that can be mixed and matched with the pro-posed alternatives. Exhibit 4-2, the Alternatives andOptions Chart, shows the five alternatives and theirproposed options. The alternative components areshown in rows, and the options are shown in smallerboxes below the rows.

6 What is the difference between alternatives and options?

For the purposes of analyzing the project impacts, thealternatives and options have been organized asshown on the Alternatives and Options Chart. Analternative is defined as the primary plan. Optionsare defined as different choices that could be mixedand matched with the proposed alternative.

Both alternatives and options are evaluated in thisDraft EIS. Alternatives are evaluated in detail withmeasurements, calculations, and complete descrip-tions. Options are evaluated with written descriptionsand in comparison to an alternative. Systemwideimpacts and direct impacts are evaluated for eachalternative, whereas systemwide impacts are not eval-uated for the options since they can be mixed andmatched in different ways.

Further analysis of systemwide impacts of options willbe evaluated in the Final EIS if any of the options areselected as part of the preferred alternative.

7 What is the No Build Alternative?

On most projects, it's fairly easy to say what will hap-pen if none of the alternatives are built. For theviaduct and the seawall, however, doing nothingleaves both structures vulnerable to an earthquakeand failure due to old age. Since we don't know whenor how strong the next earthquake will be, it's hard topredict the consequences of doing nothing. To illus-trate what could happen, three scenarios are evaluat-ed as part of the No Build Alternative (often referred

“The five plans give us real choices about thefuture replacement of the viaduct. It's crucialfor WSDOT, FHWA, and the City to keep mov-ing and for the public to let us know whatthey think about these possibilities.”

- Doug MacDonaldWSDOT Secretary of Transportation

to as the No Action Alternative).2 These scenariosinclude:

� Scenario 1 - Continued operation of the viaductand seawall with continued maintenance.

� Scenario 2 - Sudden unplanned loss of theviaduct and/or seawall but without major col-lapse or injury.

� Scenario 3 - Catastrophic failure and collapse ofthe viaduct and/or seawall.

Scenario 1 - Continued operation of the viaductand seawall with continued maintenance as practi-cable

Under Scenario 1, the viaduct and seawall would con-tinue to operate, and maintenance activities wouldcontinue to increase. The current roadway restric-tions imposed on the viaduct, including speed reduc-tions and lane restrictions for large vehicles, wouldremain in place. Additional roadway restrictionswould be put in place, when needed, as the viaductand seawall age. Viaduct and seawall repairs would bemade as necessary to keep the facilities open; howev-er, maintenance would become more difficult andexpensive as the structures continue to age, and atsome point in the future, likely before 2030, theycould be closed.

Environmental effects of this No Build scenario wouldbe similar to what they are today. As the structure con-tinues to age, further traffic restrictions will berequired, which would substantially increase traveltimes over existing conditions. This could also gener-ate congestion on other roadways. When additionalloading restrictions are needed, freight and bus tran-sit might be limited or required to use other routes.Construction of viaduct and seawall repairs would becompleted as needed, which might require temporaryclosures of the viaduct or Alaskan Way surface street.Seawall repairs would require in-water work to replaceriprap and the face of the seawall. The costs of main-taining the existing viaduct and seawall will escalatehigher and higher as the structure nears the end of itsuseful life. Eventually, parts of both facilities could beclosed, which would result in unknown changes overexisting conditions.

Scenario 2 - Sudden unplanned loss of the viaductand/or seawall but without major collapse orinjury

Under Scenario 2, an event such as a moderate earth-quake, like the Nisqually, would cause a suddenunplanned closure of the viaduct and/or damage tothe seawall. The viaduct would be out of service foran unknown period of time, but would be repairable.With this scenario, the damaged area of the viaductwould be repaired and the facilities would eventuallybe replaced. If the seawall were damaged, sectionswould likely have to be replaced. Damage to theAlaskan Way surface street and utilities would also berepaired if needed.

Environmental effects of this scenario would dependentirely upon what damage was sustained to theviaduct, seawall, or both. Similar to the day followingthe Nisqually earthquake, severe travel delays wouldbe experienced until the damage could be fixed. Thetime needed to make repairs could be from only afew weeks to many months. Even after these repairs,the viaduct will still be near the end of its useful life,and maintenance costs will climb higher and higher.

An event such as an earthquake would likely causeproperty damage to cars and possibly buildings orpiers near the structures. A sudden unplanned eventcould also cause injuries if people were struck bydebris. If small sections of the seawall fail, it couldcause a release of sediment and debris to Elliott Bay.In addition, utilities on the viaduct or under theAlaskan Way surface street could be damaged andrequire repairs. A temporary loss of services such aselectricity might result if utilities were damaged.Utility damage could also cause spills from sewer orgas pipes. Utility and seawall repair would causemore traffic disruptions along the waterfront.Making all of these repairs could take weeks, months,or years. Further damage to the viaduct from a sud-den event would likely require further restrictionsrelated to vehicle speeds and weight. Eventually, partsof the viaduct and seawall could be closed orreplaced, likely before 2030, which would result inunknown changes over existing conditions.

Scenario 3 - Catastrophic failure and collapse ofthe viaduct and/or seawall

Scenario 3 of the No Build Alternative considers theeffects of catastrophic failure and collapse of theviaduct and/or seawall. A seismic event with greatermagnitude than the Nisqually earthquake could trig-ger failure of large portions of the viaduct and/orseawall. This event would likely cause damage or col-lapse of piers and buildings near the seawall due tomovement of liquefiable soils that extend as far eastas Western Avenue. The anticipated movementscould disrupt utilities, including power, sanitary andstorm sewer, natural gas, oil, steam, and fiber optics,and would likely cause settlement of the Alaskan Waysurface street.

This scenario would have the greatest effect on peopleand the environment. Catastrophic failure or collapseof the viaduct, seawall, or both would cause substan-tial property damage to cars, adjacent buildings, andpiers. Failure of either structure would cause injuriesand could even cause death to people traveling on ornear the viaduct or seawall. Traffic impacts would besevere and prolonged, which might require improve-ments on other city streets to help alleviate trafficuntil a viaduct and seawall replacement could be built.Spills of sediment, debris, sewage, and possibly gas toElliott Bay would be anticipated if sections of the sea-wall failed. In addition, many utilities (such as power,water, communication lines, sewer, and gas) would bedamaged, which would cause a lengthy disruption toservice for large parts of Seattle until repairs could bemade. The extent of damage, the environmentaleffects, and the length of time it would take to repair(and obtain funds for repair) are unknown, but theeffects would be severe.

“The images of the freeway that collapsed on itself 13 years ago in Oakland, Californiadurring the earthquake that occurred in theSan Francisco Bay area are burned into mymind and I am sure those same images areburned into your mind as well. From the studies that have been done by structuralengineers, the Alaskan Way Viaduct wouldsuffer the same fate as well in the next major earthquake.”

- Ryan HayesCitizen comment

Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 59

2The No Build Alternative is required to help pro-vide a baseline for comparing the alternatives.More detailed environmental effects from the NoBuild Alternative are contained in the technicalmemoranda and discipline reports located in the appendices.