Those attending the Alaskan Way Viaduct Stakeholder Advisory Meeting on August 28, 2008 saw the "Origin and

Destination Information" presentation indicating where vehicles using the viaduct were licensed. More than half of viaduct vehicles had addresses outside of Seattle city limits.

Why then was so much influence placed on the Mayor Nickels and the majority of the Seattle City Council formulated

Seattle-only advisory vote of March 2007 rather than encouraging a state wide vote which included the five options

that Washington State Department of Transportation studied plus an "other" choice? There were only two outcomes of this Seattle-only vote that could have validity, 1) majority of Seattle voters wanted tunnel, and 2) majority of Seattle voters wanted rebuild. Any other outcome was meaningless as to what Seattle voters wanted for (the) Alaskan Way Viaduct), State Route 99, replacement. Neither majority happened. So, that vote could be used to support any position one wanted. Using this "advisory vote" by Seattle-only residents is not only an injustice to folks living in Seattle city limits but also to others in the state who use this vital transportation corridor.

At the Sept. 18 public information meeting in Ballard about the scenarios still being considered for the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement, Seattle Department of Transportation representative Wentz claimed that as a result of the March 2007 vote, any double-deck viaduct was rejected. The vote was 45 percent for rebuild and only 30 percent for a tunnel. If 45 percent is enough to eliminate consideration of any double-deck solution, why then is not 30 percent enough to eliminate any tunnel including Scenarios F, G, H? Aside from the over or under Elliot Bay schemes, the only other design that the tri-department of transportation combine has eliminated is the elevated double-decked solution. Furthermore, none of the D: through H: scenarios have the Seneca Street or Columbia Street ramps included. I guess the mayor thinks that West Seattle and people living south of Seattle are not important to the regional economy.

Before the viaduct is demolished, I think (the) Washington State Department of Transportation and the governor's office should return to the stance of February 2007, before the unfair Seattle vote which they claim took an elevated double-decked solution (but not a tunnel) from consideration. My main reasons are that 1) the state should not give up the space over the current Alaskan Way Viaduct footprint; 2) knocking down the viaduct steals fantastic views from the public - the

view traveling north is worthy of U. N. Heritage Drive designation; 3) the western part of the state needs this transportation corridor (given the origin and destination information), not just neighborhoods in the western part of the city of Seattle; 4) the hilliness and hour-glass shape of the city precludes putting another highway through downtown without condemning more property via eminent domain, while other proposed solutions seem unreasonable; 5) it is most likely the least costly in terms of money spent, street level fossil fuel pollution and, if done right, disruption of current transportation flow.

Public comments on the Washington State Department of Transportation Alaskan Way Viaduct project are available at

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/library-meetingmaterials.htm

Those of July 17th - Aug 15th have, amongst the many, interesting ones by me, by someone quoting the brilliant University of Washington geography professor Richard Morrill, and one by an oldster who remembered how people looked forward to the viaduct because it would finally connect the city to the waterfront.

Maintain an elevated double-deck solution.

Harvey Friedman

Ballard