8 responses so far ↓

• 1 ellen // Feb 13, 2009 at 1:28 am

  I was at the meeting and I was troubled by the rude crowd. I understand that people are concerned about the tunnel but there is no reason to be unkind to the people from the city and county who were trying to explain it. Chill out everyone.

  I got the feeling that the group tonight thought the viaduct plan should have been made with Magnolia as the number one concern.

  C’mon people, this is the best option for the entire city, and it sounds like it might work OK in some ways for Magnolia too.

  If you decide to live in Magnolia, you know that you will not have the best access to the main arterials. That is the trade off. It is also what has kept our neighborhood from becoming too crowded like Queen Anne.

  Based on what I heard tonight (and I actually listened instead of yelling at the officials) it sounds like there are some ways this will be better for Magnolia and some ways it will be worse.

  That’s life.

• 2 Athenamous // Feb 13, 2009 at 10:18 am

  The lack of access to the tunnel does not just affect magnolia, but also Ballard. I currently drive surface streets from Magnolia to downtown and can’t imagine how those roads will look once all the traffic heading south will be rerouted along those roads - combine that with a Mariners game, summer tourists, and now with several large crusie ships docking in Magnolia attracting more traffic from the airport to our area and it will be a huge mess.

  I’m nto saying it shouldn’t be built, but I do think the issue should be fully identified and alternatives, including an additional access point seriously considered.

• 3 MagnoliaRez // Feb 13, 2009 at 10:52 am

  A few Magnolia residents need to learn some manners. Last night’s meeting was embarrassing.

  In case there is any confusion, this is how you don’t want to act: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rude

• 4 Steve // Feb 13, 2009 at 2:57 pm

  I was at the meeting last night. I live in Magnolia. Here are my observations, in no particular order, for what it’s worth:

  • We (the audience) tended to repeat the same issues over and over again… which helped to convey some of the level of frustration involved, but after a while, it was counterproductive.
  • It seemed to me that there were two big sources of friction and frustration, which made it hard to have a meaningful discussion: the fact that this new bored tunnel alternative came out of nowhere, and the fact that previous efforts by some/all of these gov’t agencies have left us less than trusting regarding their intentions, or confident in their competence. The 15th Ave BAT lanes were brought up again and again as an example of both… so how can we trust that plans/estimates that the surface option for heading South, along the waterfront, won’t suffer from the same stumbles? I think they heard this clearly last night (and presumably not for the first or last time).
  • It is clear that travel times will increase, whether you’re traveling South via surface streets or the new Tunnel, or East, via a newly-configured Mercer corridor. Elsewhere, gov’t officials have stated repeatedly that they will readily trade increased car transit times if it means improved rapid transit capacity or trip times. While I sympathize with those who have lived in Magnolia for 30-50 years and who avoid I-5 as much as possible… the times are a-changing. We have already seen this with the BAT lanes on 15th. The same tradeoffs will be made elsewhere.
  • Larry Philips said it best when he said that this Bored Tunnel approach is a win, considering just how far the “Surface Street Only” proposal had gone. We would be truly screwed if that plan had progressed any farther along.
  • Someone in the audience summed up well, in my opinion, some of the dissonance we were hearing about the Surface Streets option for heading North/South: we want a world-class waterfront, but we also want 4+ lanes of fast-moving traffic. “This is not the Embarcadero.”
  • I was surprised that no one from the Port was in attendance (at least, not that I could tell)… the Port represents a big user of, and stakeholder in, this part of our transportation system. For instance, the new Cruise terminal will generate quite a bit of traffic…
  • When I arrived at the meeting, I was undecided. I left the meeting mostly in favor of the tunnel, simply because of the rock/hard place situation we’re all in when it comes to the Viaduct. The bored tunnel plan is a reasonable compromise that causes the least disruption and delivers the most good for the greatest percentage of the entire region. I still have serious doubts about how competently all this will be executed, of course (see BAT Lanes comment above).
  • I definitely got the impression that Magnolia, as one of the least dense and most isolated parts of the city, will always get the short end of transportation planning considerations… our numbers just don’t show up on their car or transit planning radar, as compared to Queen Anne, even. I was surprised to hear, for instance, that there’s no timeline for funding for the Magnolia Bridge.
  • My biggest lingering fear revolves around this question: how safe would the Bored Tunnel be in a major earthquake… Maybe that’s a topic for a separate meeting.

  My final takeaway was that we should accept this new plan, but work in a focused and diligent manner to make the most of it… the details here will matter. Let’s get specific concessions and plans that reflect our needs. Examples:
  - Let’s make sure that Mercer is ‘fixed’ all of the way to Elliot (although, this morning, as I took the left from Elliot to Mercer Place (is that a two minute light now??), that narrow hill climb that leads to Mercer Street, it wasn’t clear to me just how that stretch could be expanded to 4 lanes without significant impact to that neighborhood…).
  - Let’s push for improvements to the heavily-traveled 15th/Elliot corridor, for cars, busses, bikes alike.
  - Let’s get the city and Port to actually coordinate on their respective traffic-generating development dreams (all of the new development along Elliot, Cruise Ships, ‘North Bay’, Jail, etc).
  - How about more park space near Terminal 91?

  We can’t ask the city to not grow up and become more dense, but we can focus on the key things that are most important to us to preserve as much of what we like about our little island while ensuring that we don’t go nuts commuting to/from our jobs and other obligations.

• 5 Thomas W // Feb 15, 2009 at 7:42 pm

  It’s good to see magnolia residents doing something positive about the viaduct problem.

  This tunnel should not be built.

  It’s the wrong solution for solving the traffic problems of Ballard, and Seattle in general.

• 6 Ballard Guy // Feb 20, 2009 at 9:49 am

  Hey Thomas, got anything to back that up?

  Or are you just spouting off?

  I live in Ballard (west of 15th), and accessing the tunnel via 99 will not be any different than how I currently access the viaduct via 99.

• 7 magpie // Feb 20, 2009 at 10:29 am

  Ballard Guy,
  I was at the meeting and based on the info we got, you will no longer access the tunnell in the same way you do now. You will have to take 15th to the new four lane Alaskan Way surface street…then access the tunnel at Royal Brougham.
  They admit that it will take more time. That is what most of the fuss is about. You wont have an exit from the tunnel like we do at Western either.
  I support this tunnel option but it is definitely going to be more challenging for those of us who live in Magnolia and Ballard areas.

• 8 Ballard Guy // Feb 20, 2009 at 5:11 pm

  So when you are traveling northbound in the tunnel, where will it emerge?

  Thanks for actually reading my post before responding, by the way.

Leave a Comment (read our comment rules)