|
Yes Viaduct!, “Yes Viaduct”, and “Seattle Viaduct” are trademarks of the Yes Viaduct! organization. Copyright 2006 Yes Viaduct! No part of this website can be linked to or reproduced without the permission of Yes Viaduct! and without including an acknowledgement and/or attribution that denotes Yes Viaduct! as the source. To obtain permission contact elizabeth.campbell@yesviaduct.com |
|
Initiative - 99 Headquarters |
|
A roadway Seattle can use, enjoy, and afford! |
|
Website Last Updated on: 8/2/2009 8:10:39 AM |
|
Three Ways to Get a Petition: (only registered Seattle voters may sign the petition)
1. Request petition, send an email and we’ll mail you one (or more) · Bes sure to send us your name, address, and how many petitions you want
2. Download and Print Petition* (see important printing instructions below)
3. Petitions are available to sign a petition at the following locations:
(CHECK BACK: locations pending, to be announced and updated daily )
Other Ways to Help:
Already signed a petition, or not a Seattle voter? Here’s how you can help:
* NEW: PRINTING INSTRUCTIONS: *
· Petitions must be printed on 8 1/2” x 11” paper - letter size
· The initiative front and back should be on one piece of paper, signature page on one side, petition narrative on the other side; however, each side may be on its own sheet of paper, however when the initiative is presented to signers, both pages must be firmly attached to each other—stapled together! **
** 100% of contributions will go to campaign expenses. We need money for printing, postage, legal services, and signature gathering. |
|
* New 2-26-08 *
Amendment to Comp Plan Proposed That Would Allow an Aerial Viaduct Replacement Structure
· Read the proposed amendments to the Comp Plan here · Read what the goals of the proposed amendments are · Read the amendment application here
On February 25, 2008, Elizabeth Campbell , organizer of Yes Viaduct! submitted to the City of Seattle a proposed amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), proposing that it be amended to include an aerial roadway as a possible replacement option for the Viaduct.
In 2006 the City Council amended the Comp Plan in order to make it more difficult for an aerial structure to be considered as a possible replacement for the Viaduct. The Council’s amendments instead tipped the Comp Plan in favor of either a tunnel to replace the Viaduct, or some sort of surface street alternative.
Citing a change in scope, economic, safety, and design and engineering factors, Campbell’s amendment is aimed at bringing the Comp Plan more into line with the realities of the Viaduct replacement circumstances today, as opposed to being instead mainly a reflection of the politics of 2006.
“Many prior considerations about this project have changed, including that two more replacement alternatives have been vetted and shown to be viable options, the retrofit and the cable-stayed bridge designs.” said Campbell. “In addition, the economic realities are that the City is not able to raise the money it would take to build a tunnel. A tunnel that could match the through-put of the existing Viaduct is not even within the realm of money that has been discussed to date, it would cost another one and a half to two billion dollars to build the kind of tunnel that would be needed, and that isn’t even considering whether all the engineering and public interest issues could all be addressed.”
Campbell believes that an aerial solution is the best option to replace the Viaduct, and in particular a cable-stayed bridge, which she is quick to add, “that is in the right-of-way of the existing Viaduct.”. Noting that there have been prior proposals to build such a bridge across Elliott Bay, Campbell wants to be sure there is no such confusion about what it is she believes is the best of all worlds - a land-based bridge structure, built in the right-of-way of the exiting Viaduct. “A bridge is economically feasible, it could be less costly to build than another Viaduct, and it is less costly than a tunnel. It would require fewer years of construction time in comparison to a tunnel, it would meet and exceed the through-put capacity of the present Viaduct, and it would open up the waterfront for the development that so many people are interested in” said Campbell. Campbell also points out that a cable-stayed bridge would become an iconic, signature landmark for Seattle, much the same as the Space Needle.
WSDOT has studied such a bridge, in a report from 2005 that was prepared for WSDOT by one of the world’s premier bridge designers and engineers, T.Y. Lin, Lin concluded that replacing the Viaduct with a cable-stayed bridge was “a significant architectural improvement over other dual level structures”, that it would open up the streetscape along Alaskan Way, that its construction would be an economical engineering solution for the site, and that it would have a “limited impact on the operations of the current Viaduct...addressing the needs for maintaining traffic” flows during construction.”
The above report was never released to the public, Campbell states that she only got a copy of the report because someone within the City knew of her interest in the bridge option and so gave her a copy of WSDOT’s report. The report is marked “Not for Public Release”.
|
|
“No” to tunnel option
An initiative petition to prohibit the construction of a tunnel as a replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct was submitted Tuesday, January 13th to the Seattle City Clerk’s office.
The initiative petition if passed would prevent the City from using any public property or right-of-way, above or under the ground, to construct a tunnel.
The City leaders have a history of unilaterally pursuing and setting in place initiatives and projects that they and a select group of special interests want, exclusive of any public sentiment to the contrary or public desire to exercise fiscal restraint. The Mayor, the King County Executive, and the Governor by their decree that a deep-bored tunnel should be built have demonstrated their contempt for the public at large, and all public processes, including even their own process concoction, the Alaskan Way Viaduct Stakeholder Advisory Committee. They have delegitimized the stakeholders that participated in it and the work that they produced with the selection of the deep-bore tunnel option.
From the outset the Mayor and City Council as a whole have let it be known that they prefer a tunnel for replacing the Viaduct. Overwhelmingly a small, vocal group of individuals and organizations that support the elimination of the Viaduct have been given preferential access to the City’s decision-makers in this matter.
This tunnel option is not a transportation tunnel, it is a toy tunnel, a niche roadway that will serve mainly the north and south through-traffic that bypasses Downtown now. It is also a feeder roadway to South Lake Union, meant to funnel traffic to and from Paul Allen’s mini-metropolis.
The tunnel eliminates connections for the commuters and business drivers from Crown Hill, Ballard, Magnolia, and certain parts of Queen Anne. Over time, due to the tunnel’s design and traffic carrying constraints, over half of the now 115,000 people that use the Viaduct will no longer traverse through this portion of Seattle – something that is very likely intentional.
Supporters of the Initiative will be required to submit within 180 days, by July 20th, at least 17,967 signatures in order for it to be acted upon, either by the City Council or for it to be submitted for public vote. The number of signatures required is 10% of the “the total number of votes cast for the office of Mayor at the last preceding municipal election” (Seattle City Charter, Article IV, Section 1. B.a). |
|
** Excerpt from SMC 2.08.030 Specifications for petition: “….in lieu of being printed on the reverse side of the petition, such proposed measure may be printed on sheets of paper of like size and quality as the petition and firmly fastened thereto.” |
|
Visit our blog - get updates on the campaign, post your comments, be part of the Viaduct replacement conversation.
|
|
As per WSDOT, Cost to Replace Viaduct is $450 Million
With the Governor poised to sign into law a financing plan of $4.3 Billion to bore a tunnel to replace the Viaduct, it is more important than ever to mobilize as a group in order to raise funds and signatures in the effort to stop this scandalous waste of money.
Recently disclosed information from WSDOT shows that not only had WSDOT fully developed an elevated bridge model to replace the Viaduct (in the right of way of the present Viaduct) but most importantly is this - WSDOT engineers conservatively estimated that the cost of such a structure was $450,000,000. Yes, you read that right, $450 Million, not billion!
That is just 10% of the cost of the deep-bored tunnel that is being rammed down our throat right now!
When the cost for on and off ramps is added in, along with the utility relocation that is required, this Viaduct replacement project, the bridge, barely breaks the $1 Billion mark!
Are the people of Washington so rich, or foolish, that they are willing to turn a blind eye to this folly and spend four and a half times that money for a project that almost halves the trip capacity of the existing Viaduct, relegates some 40,000 commuters and business travelers a day to what back roads and byways they can ferret out to get through Seattle, and turns Alaskan Way into another Aurora Avenue, not to mention, will saddle Seattle residents with even more taxes to pay for the tunnel.
Read the report sent to WSDOT by internationally renowned engineering firm T.Y.Lin International, designer and builder of mega projects, including bridges, airports, ports, and railways; the report lays out clearly and specifically the configuration of the proposed replacement bridge structure for the Viaduct, the construction methods that would be utilized to build it, a timeline for the construction, but most importantly it establishes the cost of such a structure - $450,000,000.
Please join with us to stop the deep-bored tunnel project, to demand accountability from the legislature, the City of Seattle, the State of Washington, and the Governor. The deep-bored tunnel plan is a corrupt project that has been wrought through deceit and a cynical manipulation of the public. It is a waste of the public’s money through and through!
Say no to the legion of developers, contractors, and consultants that stand to benefit off this project, at your expense. No one can sit back and smugly say it doesn’t matter to them—it does matter as you will pay for it in either lost time, lost mobility, lost economic opportunity, or the dollars lost to fund this money pit in the ground.
What you can do:
· Gather Signatures
· Contribute to the No Tunnel Legal Fund
|