UPDATE: Since there has been much debate in comments below about the initiative filed by Elizabeth Campbell, we wanted to provide more information to add to the conversation. Here is the wording from Initiative 99 that was filed yesterday:
Initiative Measure Number 99 concerns prohibiting use of City property for a tunnel which replaces the Alaskan Way Viaduct. If enacted, this measure would prohibit the City from allowing City rights-of-way or City-owned property to be used for construction of a tunnel that would replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, or any facilities related to a tunnel that would replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Any authorization or support for use of City rights-of-way or City-owned property for such a tunnel or its related facilities would be revoked, and any ordinances that conflicted with the measure would be repealed.
The formal announcement by city and state officials was barely over when Elizabeth Campbell, one of the founders of the Magnolia Neighborhood Planning Council, filed an initiative to block construction of the proposed underground tunnel to replace the viaduct. She will need to submit at least 17,967 signatures within 180 days for the measure to be acted on by the City Council or submitted to a vote.
Gov. Chris Gregoire and city and state officials made their announcement today with a plan to replace the highway along Seattle’s central waterfront with a deep bored tunnel under downtown Seattle. The decision was widely reported yesterday.
After 13 months of multiple committee meetings and public hearings, Gregoire said lawmakers decided to go with the tunnel option to replace the 55-year-old, mile-long section of Highway 99 along Seattle’s waterfront. The elevated roadway carries 100,000 vehicles a day and experts say it could come down with another major quake.
The tunnel will likely be a stacked tube with two lanes in each direction, starting at Royal Brougham Way near QWest Field. It would emerge near Thomas Street, north of the Battery Street Tunnel close to the Seattle Center. There are concerns about how it will impact travel to and from the Magnolia area. Magnolia drivers may find themselves forced to use surface streets to commute to work or the airport because there are no entrance or exit points at Elliott or Western. This will mean using a new surface Alaskan Way or downtown streets.
30 responses so far ↓
1 big b // Jan 13, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I think we need a dedicated highway/overpass from Magnolia to Sea-Tac and downtown. And it should be restricted to residents only.
Seriously, where does this entitlement thinking come from?
It’s this behavior of “me first” that has created the traffic and infrastructure problems we have currently.
Ask yourself, “what is best for the city as a whole”?
Thank you and goodnight.
2 Sara // Jan 13, 2009 at 4:09 pm
As far as I can tell, Elizabeth Campbell fights against everything. Check out their website…what are they not mad about? Plus, I dont think there are actually many members of the so called Neighborhood Planning Council.
She seems to think she speaks on behalf of Magnolia but that is not true. I am in favor of the tunnel. I think it is the right choice and I dont think it will be too bad for drivers to and from Magnolia. She needs to chill!
3 Ryan // Jan 13, 2009 at 5:45 pm
What a moron this Ms. Campbell is. Typical Seattle “can’t do this, can’t do that, the sky is falling” mentality. It’s not from my doorway to my destination, I must sue or file an initiative.
Anyone who wants freeway access at their doorstep shouldn’t be living in Magnolia, that’s for sure.
4 js // Jan 13, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I agree with all the posters so far,Lets build the tunnel, create some good jobs for the community and quit complaining. This option seems to be the best. I live in ballard and use the viaduct often but all the other options would have created a decade of construction 0n the surface streets and a complete nughtmare.
5 Elizabeth // Jan 13, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Dear Sara and Ryan,
It isn’t a matter of being mad, it is called advocating for a number of things - many related to the long neglect of the City to provide funding for a number of improvements in our parks and streets, the City’s efforts to make Magnolia the patsy for development that other areas of the city are balking at, advocacy for a neighborhood plan for Magnolia, and as for the Viaduct, many people would disagree that it isn’t an important transportation corridor for Magnolia; it is and has been for decades.
In re to the Planning Council, perhaps you would like to get involved, we’re going to work on a study to convert the Mounger Pool into a year ’round pool, maybe you could get involved with that, and then you can meet some of the over 100 members we now have?
Thanks for your time,
Ms. Campbell
6 Maria // Jan 13, 2009 at 7:58 pm
More and more Seattlites grow weary of the ‘not in my backyard’ mentality of so many in Magnolia. All this lawsuit will do is add to the cost and delay a project that will go ahead. This sort of thing has already delayed years and cost millions.
7 Ryan // Jan 13, 2009 at 8:34 pm
With all due respect Ms. Campbell, it’s time to move on. This has been debated to death. Were you involved in the stakeholder discussions? If so, you voiced your opinions and the leaders of the region took that input and made a decision. If not, why weren’t you at the table when these decisions were being made?
8 Wendell // Jan 13, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Not sure just how I feel about the tunnel option. I use the viaduct just about every day. Twice a day actually, but I guess I would just switch to surface streets (or start using I-5). OTOH, I may just be retired by the time it’s done.
One other thing…hope we can keep it civil here. Hate to see it start getting like that /other/ Magnolia web site.
9 mac // Jan 13, 2009 at 11:11 pm
We are fortunate to have someone like Elizabeth Campbell who is willing to do the hard work of looking out for our neighborhood on a public policy level. She is simply following the established political process to fight for the best interest of our neighborhood. There is no shame in looking out for your own best interest. Of course it is easier for the political leaders to get out the scalpel and cut services to one segment of society in order to look good to the majority. For those of you who don’t think that we are entitled to have access to a major traffic corridor, and should be ashamed for asserting our best interest, think for a moment about what was involved in your decision to move to this neighborhood in the first place. Did you not consider many things, not the least of which was transportation? We do have a right to see that the existing network of transportation options continue to exist in the future. Many Magnolians depend on access to the viaduct and have accordingly made major decisions involving work, family, special interests, etc. with the idea in mind that a major north south corridor was easily accessible to them. We are entitled to continued access to this corridor. Just because you may not personally rely on this corridor doesn’t mean that other Magnolians don’t. Don’t be too eager to hang the “me first” badge of shame on Ms. Campbell, for it may be more appropriately hung on yourself.
10 Jane // Jan 13, 2009 at 11:40 pm
I think Ms. Campbell is right on the money with this. This 4 lane tunnel is a bad idea that will not alleviate traffic in the region. Ms. Campbell and her group have every right to make their voices heard. No one from the public was at the table when this decision was being made. That’s the problem. This tunnel came out of nowhere and is a complete surprise to everyone.
And I agree with Wendell. Let’s please keep THIS blog civil.
11 bw // Jan 13, 2009 at 11:47 pm
I totally disagree with the initiative that has been filed by Ms. Campbell. There is no good that will come of this.
Look how long it took for the city, state etc. to come up with a plan that works, why delay it more?
Ridiculous.
This is the best plan for everyone and even though we live in Magnolia, we need to have a wider perspective.
12 Jane // Jan 14, 2009 at 12:29 am
What wider perspective? This tunnel has less capacity than the current viaduct, will cost more than any other option, bypasses downtown, has 5-6% grades that will make it impossible for trucks hauling goods to maneuver through and leaves no room for growth in the region. As far as “opening up the waterfront,” the waterfront is as open as it will ever be. There’s already a park to the north and the viaduct will be replaced by high-rises, negating any “opening up” that they are trying to sell us. How is any of this good for the region?
13 Maria // Jan 14, 2009 at 5:21 am
‘Opening up’ the waterfront does not mean an open space. It means accessibility. The point here it not to make a giant park. We have more than enough parks in Seattle.
14 SeattleMom // Jan 14, 2009 at 10:26 am
There is no solution that everyone will be happy with. So which option best serves the needs of the majority of the people in the State?
Change is really difficult isn’t it? Spending money is too. Wasting money is the worst. The first two cannot be eliminated, so let’s deal with the third.
I’ve lived in Seattle for over 50 years and I support those who have a vision for Seattle’s future. I support bold plans, most major cities in the United States are faced with them, let’s learn. An example San Francisco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Embarcadero_(San_Francisco) It may not be the same, but can’t we have the same bold vision?
Having walked the waterfront from the Sculpture Garden to Pioneer square numerous times in the last six months, I see incredible potential. Will a tunnel, a viaduct or the lack of both impact me negatively in some ways. Yes. But stopping progress will impact me in a much worse way.
15 Joey // Jan 14, 2009 at 11:26 am
ALL OF THE REPLACEMENT OPTIONS HAVE REDUCED CAPACITY FROM THE CURRENT VIADUCT.
This is an irrelevent point that for some reason people CONTINUE to cite.
Mrs. Campbell is going to accomplish nothing except delay the project and cost us more money.
What exactly is her problem with this anyway?
I actually read the initiative, and its vague at best. Are you an attorney or just pretend to be one?
16 Tired // Jan 14, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I dont think there is any chance that she will collect the signatures needed for her initiative. I think this is someone who has made a career out of being a thorn in the side of government. And she seems to love the attention that comes with that.
While I support her right to do so, sometimes it is just tiring.
I think the Magnolia Community Club does a miuch better job representing our area….
17 Jane // Jan 14, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Reducing capacity in a growing city is NOT an irrelevant point. It is exactly the point. And please keep in mind that this is a port city and a working waterfront. We are not just talking about inconveniencing cars. Trucks will be directly impacted as well. Time is money when it comes to delivering the goods we need. More time to deliver means higher cost for everyone. This vision for Seattle is to make it so unpleasant to drive in and around that no one will want to do it. Something that is not good for business means it’s not good for the long term growth of Seattle. Refusing to increase capacity while bankrupting the city in the process hardly seems like progress I want to support.
18 Joey // Jan 14, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Again, all options on the table had reduced capacity.
19 evan // Jan 14, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I think the idea of last resort inititive attack is a real failure of our political process. For once the leaders that we elect have come up with a workable compromise - and someone files an attack initiative.
Who’s up for the “Ms. Gregoire - Tear Down This Viaduct” initiative? We could otulaw a new elevated structure and only allow Big Tough Trucks from Ballard to use the city streets.
20 Pet Lady // Jan 14, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Uh, what is it exactly that the community club has done for Magnolia? Oh, their petition about the bus lanes, forgot about that. Where have they been for years? What discernible thing have they produced? Did they protect the Village from development? No. Did they get any concessions for the expansion at Pier 91, the cruise terminal. No. What about the new zoning at Interbay, what benefit is that to Magnolia? None. How about Fort Lawton - 200 house development. What did the MCC do about that? Oh, another one of their “letters”, that did nothing.
Where are Magnolia’s, Ballard’s, QA’s rights in all this? Zip and nowhere! Thanks community club for nothing!
Thanks Ms. Campbell, for working with others on the planning council on Magnolia’s behalf!!
21 Jane // Jan 14, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I could be wrong but another elevated structure did not reduce capacity. And if they are going to reduce capacity then they most certainly should not be choosing the most expensive option to do it.
22 Blueben // Jan 14, 2009 at 3:09 pm
So, when are the elections for the Magnolia Neighborhood Planning Council? Surely any group that claims to be a representative of its neighborhood allows the members of that neighborhood to elect those who would represent them.
Otherwise, that would make the MNPC just another special interest group. 100 people who believe they know what’s best for thousands of their neighbors, and are willing to make noise to prove it.
23 Joey // Jan 14, 2009 at 3:12 pm
“Where are Magnolia’s, Ballard’s, QA’s rights in all this? Zip and nowhere! Thanks community club for nothing!”
Hey Pet Lady, come down from your tower.
You live in the neighborhood, thats it. That doesn’t give you any local control on what happens there.
The CITY is still what matters.
Maybe the Ms. Campbell could start a Magnolia secession movement?
24 Maria // Jan 14, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Jane the replacement viaduct had the same number of lanes as does the tunnel plan. As for traffic =working waterfront = congestion = low growth…have you ever driven in NYC. Seems NYC also has congestion, traffic and a working waterfront and they have managed to grow.
It’s gonna happen folks.
25 js // Jan 14, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I am a rebuild it in place guy, but this seems like the best option we have, and the economics of it make sense too, as it will create new well paying jobs , and as they say” if you build it they will come”
26 Jane // Jan 14, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Maria, you are correct that the elevated replacement only has two lanes which I don’t support. I simply don’t understand why we are so gung ho to CREATE traffic congestion by reducing capacity. And if we’re going to reduce capacity anyway then why do we have to bankrupt ourselves to do it? If you want to be gridlocked like New York and have a city that the middle class can’t afford to live or work in then this is the way to do it.
There’s plenty of waterfront on Alki, Shilshole, and all around Magnolia if you want a pretty view.
27 Not cranky // Jan 14, 2009 at 11:23 pm
It seems to me that putting 1/3 of current viaduct traffic onto surface streets, mainly Elliott Avenue along the waterfront, will negate the assumed benefits of opening up the waterfront. Between this new opening and the water will be a street as busy as Aurora Ave, crammed with trucks and cars. How nice is that going to be? Stroll along and listen to and smell the traffic between you and the water.
I think they are selling us a beautiful vision of a waterfront that the traffic will turn into an ugly and unutilized mess.
Are they really thinking this thru? And reducing capacity when the traffic problems in the city are huge and growing, hoping that by making travel so miserable we will all take mass transit is crazy.
28 Pet Lady // Jan 15, 2009 at 11:36 am
Joey, come down out of the clouds!
You have failed to notice that it has never been about “the city” on anything. It is factions and particular neighborhoods that hold sway in this town. The City plays them all beautifully off of each other, sprinkling favors and money here and there, the amount determined by who needs a little to shutup, who gets a lot because they are so compliant, and who gets nothing because they really are of no import.
20,000 people from our area - Magnolia, QA, Ballard, Crown Hill, Interbay use the Viaduct every day. In one fell swoop they have been made an afterthought. Oh, sure, they’ll make some nice little traffic light infested pathway for us down through the waterfront area; meanwhile we get to spend four billion dollars to bolster the real golden child in this city, Paul Allen’s South Lake Union enclave.
People that are opposed to this need to get on board, because their rights have been extinguished. Go look at how the Montlake, Laurelhurst, U District neighbors have been treated over there, regarding 520, by the City and the State. They are getting the red carpet treatment - they have mitigation, they have concessions being made, their throughput capacity is a consideration. Over here, forget it!
We’ve gotten mitigation for nothing - not for 15th, not for the cruise terminal, not for the Magnolia Bridge, not for the Viaduct, not for North Bay, not for Interbay, and not for the development at Discovery Park.
It’s all about expand and encroach on Magnolia, disrupt traffic, keep the place barely maintained and developed, they’re a non-entity, crumbs is what the City gives us, when they give us anything - the City and its agents know that we’re not organized, that our “club” has been co-opted by them, and the City fights tooth and nail to keep it that way.
Yeah, that’s really being up in a tower noticing all that.
We’re being taken for a ride big time by the City.
29 Thomas // Jan 16, 2009 at 10:05 am
Build the tunnel. it is best for the ENTIRE city of Seattle.
30 Cmom // Jan 26, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Please stop making personal attacks on Ms.. Campbell. Any debate should be sustained on intellectual merit, not personal potshots!
Please grow up
Leave a Comment (read our comment rules)