October 2016 - Waterfront Seattle FEIS

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
Alaskan Way, Promenade,
and Overlook Walk
October 2016
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alaskan Way, Promenade, and Overlook Walk
Prepared for
Seattle Department of Transportation

Seattle, Washington
October 2016
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information

Materials can be provided in alternative formatslarge print, Braille, or on computer disk for people
with disabilities by contacting 206-499-8040. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may make
requests for alternative formats through the Washington Relay Service at 7-1-1.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI Statement to the Public

The City of Seattle Department of Transportation hereby gives public notice that it is the policy of
the department to assure full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil
Rights Restoration Act of 1987, and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities.
Title VI requires that no person in the United States of America shall, on the grounds of race, color,
sex, nation origin, disability, or age, be excluded from the participation in, be denied benefits of, or
be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the department
receives federal financial assistance. Persons wishing information may call the City of Seattle
Office of Civil Rights at (206) 684-4500.
City of Seattle
Edward B. Murray, Mayor
Department of Transportation
Scott Kubly, Director
October 31, 2016

Dear Affected Tribes, Interested Agencies, and Members of the Public,
The City of Seattle proposes to construct a series of contiguous projects, known as the Alaskan
Way, Promenade, and Overlook Walk (AWPOW), which are the most substantial of a series of
infrastructure improvement projects planned along the Seattle Waterfront in response to the
opportunities, transportation needs, and related public objectives created by the removal of the
Alaskan Way Viaduct. AWPOW would create a new transportation corridor between S. King
Street and Battery Street, construct new public open space along Elliott Bay, provide a major
new pedestrian connection between the waterfront and Pike Place Market, and improve east-west
connections between the waterfront and downtown Seattle.
On June 29, 2015, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), acting as lead agency
under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), issued a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for AWPOW. The Draft EIS evaluated a No Action Alternative
and an Action Alternative. In response to public comments on the Draft EIS and in order to
coordinate more closely with current planning for the Seattle Aquarium, SDOT issued a
Supplemental Draft EIS for AWPOW on April 18, 2016, which evaluated two additional
alternatives, referred to as Main Corridor Alternative 2 and Overlook Walk Alternative 2.
SDOT is now issuing this Final EIS to document the final evaluation of A WPOW under SEPA to
assist decision-makers and permit authorities in assessing the environmental effects associated
with the Preferred Alternative, which was generally developed from blending the Action
Alternative and the Overlook Walk 2 Alternative. The Final EIS discusses potential effects
(adverse and beneficial) as well as mitigation measures for constructing and operating the
Preferred Alternative.
This Final EIS has been prepared and is being circulated in compliance with SEPA. No action
will be taken based on this document for at least seven days in accordance with SEPA and the
City of Seattle Municipal Code. Thank you for your continued interest in this project.
Scott Kubly, Dire r

Seattle Depart ent of Transportation
Seattle Municipal Tower
700 5th Avenue
Suite 3800
PO Box 34996
Seattle, Washington 98124-4996
Marshall Foster, Director

Seattle Office of the Waterfront
Tel (206) 684-ROAD / (206) 684-5000

Fax: (206) 684-5180
Hearing Impaired use the Washington Relay Service (7-1-1)
,, ,, ,, .scattle.go\'/transportation
Fact Sheet
Project Name
AlaskanWay,Promenade,andOverlookWalk
Proposed Action
TheCityofSeattleisproposinganumberofinfrastructureimprovementprojects(collectivelyreferred
toasWaterfrontSeattle)alongtheSeattlewaterfront.Theseimprovementsareproposedinresponse
totheopportunities,transportationneeds,andrelatedpublicobjectivescreatedbythereplacementof
theAlaskanWayViaductwithanewStateRoute(SR)99tunnel.
Themostsubstantialoftheplannedimprovementsarefourcontiguousprojectsthatwouldcreatea
newtransportationcorridorbetweenS.KingStreetandBatteryStreet,constructnewpublicopenspace
alongElliottBayadjacenttothenewAlaskanWay,provideamajornewpedestrianconnectionbetween
thewaterfrontandPikePlaceMarket,andimproveeastwestconnectionsbetweenthewaterfrontand
downtownSeattle.Thefourprojectsarereferredtocollectivelyinthisenvironmentalimpactstatement
(EIS)astheAlaskanWay,Promenade,andOverlookWalk,abbreviatedasAWPOW.Theprojectsare:
TheMainCorridor:AnewAlaskanWaycorridorfromS.KingStreettoPineStreet,andanewElliott
WaycorridorfromPineStreettoBatteryStreetwithimprovementsforgeneralpurposetraffic,
transit,freight,andpedestrianandbicyclefacilities
ThePromenade:Acontinuouspublicopenspacealongthewaterfront
TheOverlookWalk:Anewstructureprovidingopenspace,viewopportunities,andpedestrian
connectionsbetweenthewaterfrontandPikePlaceMarket
TheEastWestConnections:ImprovementstoportionsofS.Main,S.Washington,Union,andBell
StreetsadjacenttotheMainCorridortoprovidebetterconnectionsbetweenthewaterfrontand
downtownSeattleandtoenhancethepedestrianexperience
Project Proponent and SEPA Lead Agency

CityofSeattleDepartmentofTransportation
700FifthAvenue,Suite3900
POBox34996
Seattle,WA981244996
SEPA Responsible Official
ScottKubly,Director
CityofSeattle,DepartmentofTransportation
Contact Information
AWPOW
c/oMarkMazzola,EnvironmentalManager
SeattleDepartmentofTransportation
POBox34996
Seattle,WA981244996
Email:info@waterfrontseattle.org
OCTOBER 2016 | FINAL EIS
Document Availability and Cost

The Final EIS is available online at: waterfrontseattle.org/environmental
Printed copies of the Final EIS and technical appendices are available for review for no cost at:
Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections Public Resource Center
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98124
Seattle Public Library, Central Library
1000 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104
The Executive Summary, which includes a CD of the Final EIS and technical appendices, is also available
for review at the University of Washington Suzzalo Library, all City Neighborhood Service Centers, and all
Seattle Public Libraries.
Printed copies of the Executive Summary are available to the public at no charge and printed copies of
the Final EIS and technical appendices are available for purchase by calling 206-499-8040. Prices for
printed volumes are:
Final EIS $40.00
Technical Appendices $50.00
Permits and Approvals
Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction
Stormwater General Permit (Washington State Department of Ecology)
Major Public Projects Construction Noise Variance (City of Seattle)
Seattle Landmarks Board Approval (City of Seattle)
Pioneer Square Preservation Board Certificate of Approval (City of Seattle)
Pike Place Market Historical Commission Certificate of Approval (City of Seattle)
Master Use Permit for Shoreline Substantial Development (City of Seattle)
Street Use Permit (City of Seattle)
Authors and Principal Contributors

The List of Preparers can be found at the end of this Final EIS.
Date of Issuance for the Final EIS
October 31, 2016
Environmental Review
The City published the Alaskan Way, Promenade, and Overlook Walk Draft EIS on June 29, 2015. The
Draft EIS public comment period was held from June 29, 2015 to August 26, 2015 and included a public
open house on July 22, 2015. In response to public comments on the Draft EIS and in order to coordinate
more closely with current planning for the Seattle Aquarium, the City developed an additional alternative
for both the Main Corridor project and the Overlook Walk project. This analysis was presented in the
Supplemental Draft EIS published on April 18, 2016. The City provided another public comment period on
the Supplemental Draft EIS from April 18, 2016 to May 18, 2016, and hosted a public open house on
May 10, 2016. Input received on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS has been incorporated into the
Final EIS as appropriate.
ii
FACT SHEET
Publication of this Final EIS completes the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental
documentation process for the AWPOW projects. Final design and permitting are expected to be
completed between 2017 and 2019. Construction would begin no earlier than 2019.
Related Documents
Background data and materials used for this Final EIS are listed in the References. Key documents used
in this analysis include:
Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program environmental documentation, including the Draft,
two Supplemental Drafts, and Final EISs with associated discipline reports
Elliott Bay Seawall Project Draft, Final, and Supplemental Final EISs with associated discipline
reports
iii
Contents
Section
Page
FactSheet.............................................................................................................................................i
Acronyms..........................................................................................................................................xvii
ExecutiveSummary.........................................................................................................................ES1
Introduction................................................................................................................................ES1
Community,Agency,andTribalInvolvement.............................................................................ES3
SummaryofPublicCommentsontheDraftandSupplementalDraftEISs................................ES3
ObjectivesoftheAWPOWProjects............................................................................................ES4
MainCorridor.................................................................................................................ES4
Promenade.....................................................................................................................ES4
OverlookWalk................................................................................................................ES5
EastWestConnections..................................................................................................ES5
AlternativesEvaluated................................................................................................................ES6
DevelopmentofAlternatives.........................................................................................ES6
NoActionAlternative....................................................................................................ES6
PreferredAlternative.....................................................................................................ES7
ConstructionImpactsandMitigation.......................................................................................ES11
Transportation.............................................................................................................ES12
Parking.........................................................................................................................ES13
LandUse.......................................................................................................................ES13
Aesthetics.....................................................................................................................ES14
Noise............................................................................................................................ES14
HazardousMaterials....................................................................................................ES14
PublicServicesandUtilities.........................................................................................ES15
HistoricResources........................................................................................................ES15
ArchaeologicalResources............................................................................................ES16
WaterQuality...............................................................................................................ES16
VegetationandWildlife...............................................................................................ES16
EnergyResources.........................................................................................................ES17
AirQuality....................................................................................................................ES17
OperationalImpactsandMitigation.........................................................................................ES17
Transportation.............................................................................................................ES18
Parking.........................................................................................................................ES18
LandUse.......................................................................................................................ES19
Aesthetics.....................................................................................................................ES19
Noise............................................................................................................................ES21
HazardousMaterials....................................................................................................ES21
PublicServicesandUtilities.........................................................................................ES21
HistoricResources........................................................................................................ES21
ArchaeologicalResources............................................................................................ES22
WaterQuality...............................................................................................................ES22
VegetationandWildlife...............................................................................................ES22
EnergyResources.........................................................................................................ES22
AirQuality....................................................................................................................ES22
CumulativeImpactsandMitigation..........................................................................................ES23
NextSteps.................................................................................................................................ES23
1
IntroductionandObjectivesoftheProject...........................................................................11
1.1
IntroductiontotheProject..............................................................................................11
1.2
Background......................................................................................................................14

Section
1.3
vi
Page
ObjectivesoftheAWPOWProjects.................................................................................15
1.3.1
MainCorridor..................................................................................................15
1.3.2
Promenade......................................................................................................16
1.3.3
OverlookWalk.................................................................................................16
1.3.4
EastWestConnections....................................................................................17
1.4
CommentsontheDraftEISandSupplementalDraftEIS................................................17
1.4.1
DraftEIS...........................................................................................................17
1.4.2
SupplementalDraftEIS....................................................................................18
1.5
SEPAComplianceandLeadAgency.................................................................................19
ProjectAlternatives..............................................................................................................21
2.1
DevelopmentofAlternatives...........................................................................................21
2.1.1
SeattleWaterfrontPlanning............................................................................21
2.1.2
LimitationsonReasonableAlternatives..........................................................22
2.1.3
IdentificationofAlternativesforAWPOWEISAnalysis...................................25
2.1.4
IdentificationofthePreferredAlternative....................................................212
2.2
NoActionAlternative....................................................................................................213
2.2.1
MainCorridor................................................................................................213
2.2.2
Bicycle,Pedestrian,andTransitFacilities......................................................213
2.3
PreferredAlternative.....................................................................................................215
2.3.1
MainCorridor................................................................................................215
2.3.2
Promenade....................................................................................................221
2.3.3
OverlookWalk...............................................................................................223
2.3.4
EastWestConnections..................................................................................226
2.3.5
RightofWayAcquisition...............................................................................228
2.3.6
Utilities...........................................................................................................228
2.4
PreferredAlternativeMainCorridorFeaturesbySegment.........................................229
2.4.1
S.KingStreettoYeslerWay..........................................................................229
2.4.2
YeslerWaytoSpringStreet...........................................................................234
2.4.3
SpringStreettoUnionStreet........................................................................235
2.4.4
UnionStreettoPineStreet...........................................................................235
2.4.5
PineStreettoLenoraStreet..........................................................................236
2.4.6
LenoraStreettoBatteryStreet.....................................................................236
2.5
ConstructionMethodsforthePreferredAlternative....................................................237
2.5.1
ConstructionSequencing...............................................................................237
2.5.2
ConstructionActivities...................................................................................239
2.5.3
ConstructionStaging.....................................................................................241
2.5.4
ConstructionTimingandRoadClosures........................................................241
2.5.5
WorkerParkingandAccess...........................................................................242
2.5.6
ConstructionTrafficandHaulRoutes............................................................242
TransportationandParking..................................................................................................31
Transportation......................................................................................................................31
3.1
OverviewoftheTransportationAnalysis........................................................................31
3.2
AffectedEnvironmentforTransportation.......................................................................32
3.2.1
TransportationStudyAreaandRoadwayNetwork.........................................32
3.2.2
TrafficVolumes................................................................................................34
3.2.3
TrafficOperations............................................................................................34
3.2.4
Freight..............................................................................................................39
3.2.5
PedestrianFacilities.........................................................................................39
3.2.6
BicycleFacilities.............................................................................................310
3.2.7
PublicTransportation....................................................................................311
CONTENTS
Section
Page
3.2.8
WaterTransportationServices......................................................................311
3.2.9
FreightandPassengerRail.............................................................................313
3.2.10 EmergencyServices.......................................................................................314
3.3
ConstructionImpactsforTransportation......................................................................314
3.3.1
ConstructionImpactsoftheNoActionAlternative......................................314
3.3.2
ConstructionImpactsofthePreferredAlternative.......................................314
3.4
OperationalImpactsforTransportation........................................................................317
3.4.1
OperationalImpactsoftheNoActionAlternative........................................317
3.4.2
OperationalImpactsofthePreferredAlternative........................................324
Parking...............................................................................................................................334
3.5
AffectedEnvironmentforParking.................................................................................334
3.5.1
ParkingStudyArea........................................................................................334
3.5.2
ParkingSupply...............................................................................................335
3.5.3
ParkingUtilization..........................................................................................338
3.5.4
AvailableParkingSupply................................................................................340
3.5.5
CityPlansandPoliciesApplicabletoParking................................................341
3.6
ConstructionImpactsforParking..................................................................................341
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.7
OperationalImpactsforParking....................................................................................342
3.7.1
3.7.2
LandUse...............................................................................................................................41
4.1
AffectedEnvironment......................................................................................................41
4.1.1
ExistingLandUse.............................................................................................41
4.1.2
ExistingZoning.................................................................................................44
4.1.3
ShorelineDesignations....................................................................................44
4.1.4
SpecialDistricts................................................................................................44
4.1.5
ParksandRecreationalFacilities.....................................................................46
4.1.6
ApplicableLawsandPlans...............................................................................46
4.2
ConstructionImpacts.....................................................................................................411
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.3
OperationalImpacts......................................................................................................414
4.3.1
4.3.2
Aesthetics.............................................................................................................................51
5.1
5.1.1
PioneerSquareLandscapeUnit.......................................................................51
5.1.2
WaterfrontLandscapeUnit.............................................................................55
5.1.3
DowntownLandscapeUnit.............................................................................56
5.1.4
PikePlaceBelltownLandscapeUnit...............................................................57
5.1.5
ElliottBayLandscapeUnit...............................................................................58
5.1.6
DesignatedViewpoints,ScenicViewRoutes,andViewCorridors..................59
5.2
ConstructionImpacts.......................................................................................................59
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
vii

Section
Page
6
Noise....................................................................................................................................61
6.1
6.1.1
MeasurementandPerceptionofSound.........................................................61
6.1.2
StudyArea.......................................................................................................62
6.1.3
2017ExistingConditions.................................................................................62
6.2
6.2.1
ConstructionImpactsoftheNoActionAlternative........................................67
6.2.2
ConstructionImpactsofthePreferredAlternative.........................................67
6.3
OperationalImpacts........................................................................................................68
6.3.1
OperationalImpactsoftheNoActionAlternative..........................................68
6.3.2
OperationalImpactsofthePreferredAlternative..........................................69
7
HazardousMaterials.............................................................................................................71
7.1
7.1.1
HazardousMaterialsRiskandControl............................................................71
7.1.2
StudyArea.......................................................................................................71
7.1.3
2017ExistingConditions.................................................................................73
7.2
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.3
7.3.1
7.3.2
8
PublicServicesandUtilities..................................................................................................81
8.1
8.1.1
PublicServices.................................................................................................81
8.1.2
Utilities.............................................................................................................83
8.2
8.2.1
8.2.2
8.3
8.3.1
8.3.2
9
HistoricResources................................................................................................................91
9.1
9.2
9.2.1
9.2.2
9.3
9.3.1
9.3.2
10
ArchaeologicalResources...................................................................................................101
10.1 AffectedEnvironment....................................................................................................101
10.1.1 CulturalandHistoricalSetting.......................................................................101
10.1.2 PhysicalSettingandPreviousInvestigations.................................................104
10.2 ConstructionImpacts.....................................................................................................105
10.2.1 ConstructionImpactsoftheNoActionAlternative......................................105
10.2.2 ConstructionImpactsofthePreferredAlternative.......................................105
10.3 OperationalImpacts......................................................................................................106
10.3.1 OperationalImpactsoftheNoActionAlternative........................................106
10.3.2 OperationalImpactsofthePreferredAlternative........................................106
viii
CONTENTS
Section
Page
11
WaterQuality.....................................................................................................................111
11.1.1 ExistingDrainageSystem...............................................................................111
11.1.2 WaterQualityConditions..............................................................................111
12
VegetationandWildlife......................................................................................................121
12.1.1 Vegetation.....................................................................................................121
12.1.2 Wildlife...........................................................................................................122
13
EnergyResources................................................................................................................131
13.1.1 EnergyUse.....................................................................................................131
13.1.2 GreenhouseGasEmissions............................................................................131
14
AirQuality..........................................................................................................................141
14.1.1 AirPollutantsandAirQualityStandards.......................................................141
14.1.2 ClimateConditionsandLocalAirQuality......................................................142
15
CumulativeImpactsandMitigationMeasures....................................................................151
15.1 HowCumulativeImpactsWereEvaluatedforAWPOW................................................151
15.2 ReasonablyForeseeableActions...................................................................................152
15.3 TransportationandParking...........................................................................................152
15.3.1 StudyAreaandTimeFrame..........................................................................152
15.3.2 CurrentHealthandHistoricalContext..........................................................158
15.3.3 ProjectRelatedConstructionandOperationalImpacts...............................158
15.3.4 OtherReasonablyForeseeableActionsthatMayAffecttheResource........159
15.3.5 PotentialCumulativeImpactstoTransportationandParking......................159
15.3.6 MitigationMeasuresforCumulativeImpacts.............................................1510
ix

Section
15.4
Page
LandUse.......................................................................................................................1511
15.4.1 StudyAreaandTimeFrame........................................................................1511
15.4.2 CurrentHealthandHistoricalContext........................................................1511
15.4.3 ProjectRelatedConstructionandOperationalImpacts.............................1512
15.4.4 OtherReasonablyForeseeableActionsthatMayAffecttheResource......1512
15.4.5 PotentialCumulativeImpactsforLandUse................................................1513
15.5 Aesthetics.....................................................................................................................1514
15.5.5 PotentialCumulativeImpactsforAesthetics..............................................1515
15.6 Noise............................................................................................................................1516
15.6.4 OtherReasonablyForeseeableActionsThatMayAffecttheResource......1517
15.6.5 PotentialCumulativeImpactsforNoise......................................................1517
15.7 HazardousMaterials....................................................................................................1518
15.7.5 PotentialCumulativeImpactsforHazardousMaterials..............................1519
15.8 PublicServicesandUtilities.........................................................................................1520
15.8.5 PotentialCumulativeImpactsforPublicServicesandUtilities...................1521
15.9 HistoricResources........................................................................................................1522
15.9.5 PotentialCumulativeImpactstoHistoricResources..................................1523
15.10 ArchaeologicalResources............................................................................................1523
15.10.5 PotentialCumulativeImpactstoArchaeologicalResources.......................1524
CONTENTS
Section
Page
15.11 WaterQuality...............................................................................................................1525
15.11.5 PotentialCumulativeImpactstoWaterQuality..........................................1526
15.12 VegetationandWildlife...............................................................................................1526
15.12.5 PotentialCumulativeImpactstoVegetationandWildlife..........................1527
15.13 EnergyResources.........................................................................................................1528
15.13.5 PotentialCumulativeImpactstoEnergyResources....................................1529
15.14 AirQuality....................................................................................................................1530
15.14.5 PotentialCumulativeImpactstoAirQuality...............................................1531
16
ConstructionandOperationalAvoidance,Minimization,andMitigationMeasures............161
16.1 Transportation...............................................................................................................161
16.1.1 ConstructionAvoidance,Minimization,andMitigationMeasuresforthe
PreferredAlternative.....................................................................................161
16.1.2 OperationalAvoidance,Minimization,andMitigationMeasuresforthe
16.2 Parking...........................................................................................................................162
16.3 LandUse.........................................................................................................................163
16.4 Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................163
xi

Section
16.5
16.6
16.7
16.8
16.9
16.10
16.11
16.12
16.13
Page
Noise..............................................................................................................................164
HazardousMaterials......................................................................................................165
PublicServicesandUtilities...........................................................................................167
HistoricResources..........................................................................................................168
ArchaeologicalResources..............................................................................................169
WaterQuality.................................................................................................................169
PreferredAlternative...................................................................................1610
VegetationandWildlife...............................................................................................1610
EnergyResources.........................................................................................................1611
AirQuality....................................................................................................................1611
References
ListofPreparers
DistributionList
xii
CONTENTS
Section
ListofAppendices
A
B
C
D
ListofTables
Page
TransportationDisciplineReport
ParkingDisciplineReport
DisciplineReportErrataSheets
DraftEISandSupplementalDraftEISCommentsandResponses
TableES1.
TableES2.
Table21.
Table22.
Table23.
Table24.
Table31.
PotentialConstructionImpacts..........................................................................ES12
OperationalImpactsandBenefits.....................................................................ES17
AlternativesandConceptsEvaluatedfortheMainCorridor.................................25
AlternativesandConceptsEvaluatedforthePromenade...................................210
AlternativesandConceptsEvaluatedfortheOverlookWalk..............................211
TypicalConstructionEquipmentandUses..........................................................240
2017ExistingConditionsPMPeakHourIntersectionLevelof
ServiceandDelay...................................................................................................37
Table32. 2017ExistingConditionsTravelTimes(Minutes:Seconds)....................................37
Table33. NoActionAlternativePMPeakHourIntersectionLevelofService
andDelay.............................................................................................................319
Table34. 2017ExistingandNoActionAlternativeTravelTimesduringthe
PMPeakHour(Minutes:Seconds).......................................................................321
Table35. PMPeakHourIntersectionLevelofServiceandDelayfor
NoActionandPreferredAlternatives.................................................................326
Table36. PMPeakTravelTimesforNoActionandPreferredAlternatives
(Minutes:Seconds)...............................................................................................329
Table37. ParkingSupply......................................................................................................337
Table38. LoadingZoneSpacesinStudyArea......................................................................338
Table39. OverallOnStreetParkingUtilization...................................................................339
Table310. OffStreetParkingUtilization...............................................................................339
Table311. AvailableParkingSupply......................................................................................340
Table312.NoActionAlternativeParkingSupply......................................................................342
Table313. OnStreetandOffStreetParkingSupplyundertheNoActionand
PreferredAlternatives..........................................................................................343
Table314. OnStreetLoadingZoneSpacesundertheNoActionand
PreferredAlternatives..........................................................................................345
Table41. SummaryofthePrimaryGoalsofAdoptedLandUseLawsand
Plans.......................................................................................................................48
Table42. FullandPartialPropertyAcquisitionsunderthe
PreferredAlternative...........................................................................................412
Table43. SummaryofProjectConsistencywithAdoptedLandUsePlan
PrimaryGoals.......................................................................................................416
Table51. KeyViewpoints.......................................................................................................54
Table52. DefinitionsofVisualQualityLevels........................................................................54
Table53. SummaryofVisualQualityfor2017ExistingConditions.......................................54
Table54. ExplanationofImpactRatings...............................................................................59
Table55. SummaryofConstructionVisualQualityLevelsandImpactsfor
thePreferredAlternative.....................................................................................512
xiii

Section
Table56.
Table57.
Table61.
Table62.
Table63.
Table71.
Table72.
Table73.
Table74.
Table75.
Table91.
Table92.
Table111.
Table112.
Table141.
Table151.
Table161.
Table162.
ListofFigures
FigureES1.
Figure11.
Figure12.
Figure21.
Figure22.
Figure23.
Figure24.
Figure25.
Figure26.
Figure27.
Figure28.
Figure29.
Figure210.
Figure211.
Figure212.
Figure213.
Figure214.
Figure215.
xiv
Page
SummaryofOperationalVisualQualityLevelsforthe
PreferredAlternative...........................................................................................522
ComparisonofOverallOperationalVisualQualityLevelsand
ImpactRatingsfortheNoActionandPreferredAlternatives.............................523
SoundLevelsofTypicalNoiseSources...................................................................61
TypicalNoiseLevelsfromConstructionEquipment..............................................67
NoiseLevelsforTypicalConstructionActivities....................................................68
HistoricalLandUsesIdentifiedintheVicinityoftheProject
FootprintandPotentialContaminantTypes..........................................................74
HistoricalLandUseSiteswithHighPotentialImpactRanking..............................75
NumberofHazardousMaterialsSitesIdentifiedonRegulatory
Databases...............................................................................................................77
HazardousMaterialsSiteswiththeHighestPotentialtoImpact
theProject..............................................................................................................78
AWPOWRightofWayAcquisition.........................................................................79
HistoricDistrictsandLandmarksintheStudyArea...............................................93
AreawaysintheProjectFootprint.........................................................................95
ChangesinLandCoverwithintheProjectFootprint...........................................115
ChangestoElliottBayPollutantLoadsinProjectStormwater
Runoff1.................................................................................................................116
National,State,andLocalAmbientAirQualityStandards..................................141
ReasonablyForeseeableActionsConsideredintheCumulative
ImpactsAnalysis...................................................................................................153
HazardousMaterialsConstructionImpactsand
MitigationMeasures............................................................................................166
OperationalImpactsandMitigationMeasures...................................................167
PreferredAlternativeOverview...........................................................................ES2
VicinityMap...........................................................................................................12
OverviewofAWPOWProjects...............................................................................13
NoActionAlternative...........................................................................................214
ProjectFootprint..................................................................................................216
PreferredAlternativeS.KingStreettoSpringStreet........................................217
PreferredAlternativeSpringStreettoPineStreet...........................................218
PreferredAlternativePineStreettoBatteryStreet..........................................219
OverlookWalkConceptualDesignandCrossSectionwiththe
AquariumPavilionBuildingEnvelope..................................................................224
OverlookWalkConceptualDesignandCrossSectionwithoutthe
AquariumPavilionBuildingEnvelope..................................................................225
Crosssection1AlaskanWaySouthofS.JacksonStreet..................................230
Crosssection2AlaskanWayNorthS.WashingtonStreetat
Crosswalk.............................................................................................................230
Crosssection3AlaskanWayNorthS.WashingtonStreet...............................231
Crosssection4AlaskanWaySouthofMadisonStreet....................................231
Crosssection5AlaskanWayNorthofUniversityStreet..................................232
Crosssection6AlaskanWaySouthofPineStreet...........................................232
Crosssection7ElliottWaySouthofLenoraStreet..........................................233
Crosssection8ElliottWayatBlanchardStreet................................................233
CONTENTS
Section
Page
Figure216. PreferredAlternativeWorkZonesandPotentialConstruction
StagingAreas........................................................................................................238
Figure31. TransportationStudyAreaandIntersections........................................................33
Figure32. 2017LaneConfigurationsandVolumes(PMPeakHour)......................................35
Figure33. 2017ExistingConditionsIntersectionOperations(PMPeakHour)......................36
Figure34. 2017ExistingConditionsTravelTimes(PMPeakHour)........................................38
Figure35. NoActionAlternativeLaneConfigurationandTrafficVolumes(PM
PeakHour)............................................................................................................318
Figure36. 2030IntersectionOperations(PMPeakHour)....................................................320
Figure37. 2030TravelTimes(PMPeakHour)......................................................................322
Figure38. PreferredAlternativeLaneConfigurationandTrafficVolumes(PM
PeakHour)............................................................................................................328
Figure39. ParkingStudyArea...............................................................................................336
Figure41. LandUseStudyArea..............................................................................................42
Figure42. ExistingLandUse....................................................................................................43
Figure43. ExistingZoning.......................................................................................................45
Figure44. ParksandRecreationalFacilities............................................................................47
Figure45. AcquisitionsandTemporaryConstructionEasements........................................413
Figure51. ProjectViewshedandViewpoints.........................................................................52
Figure52. ProjectLandscapeUnits.........................................................................................53
Figure53. SEPADesignatedParkswithProtectedViewpointsandScenic
ViewRoutes,andLandUseCodeViewCorridors................................................510
Figure54. VisualizationatViewpoint1:SouthMainStreet,looking
northwest.............................................................................................................516
Figure55. VisualizationatViewpoint2:MarionStreetPedestrianBridge,
lookingnorthwest................................................................................................517
Figure56. VisualizationatViewpoint3:UnionStreetPier(WaterfrontPark),
lookingsoutheast.................................................................................................518
Figure57. VisualizationatViewpoint4:UnionStreetPier(WaterfrontPark),
lookingnorth........................................................................................................519
Figure58. VisualizationatViewpoint5:Pier62/63,lookingeast
towarddowntown...............................................................................................520
Figure59. VisualizationatViewpoint6:VictorSteinbrueckPark,
lookingsouth........................................................................................................521
Figure61. NoiseAnalysisStudyArea......................................................................................63
Figure62. ComparisonofModeledNoiseLevels....................................................................64
Figure71. HazardousMaterialsStudyArea............................................................................72
Figure72. AffectedEnvironmentalConditionsintheStudyArea..........................................76
Figure81. PublicServicesandUtilitiesStudyArea.................................................................82
Figure91. HistoricResourceswithintheStudyArea..............................................................92
Figure101. 1875HistoricShorelineneartheArchaeologicalResourcesStudy
Area......................................................................................................................102
Figure102. PreferredAlternativeDepthofConstruction......................................................103
Figure111. WaterQualityStudyAreaandAnalysisElements...............................................112
Figure112. DrainageAreaModifications...............................................................................113
Figure131 GrossGreenhouseGasEmissionsbySectorinWashingtonand
theUnitedStatesin2005.....................................................................................132
Figure151. ReasonablyForeseeableActionsintheProjectVicinity......................................157
xv
Acronyms
Term
Meaning
ADA
Americans with Disabilities Act
AWPOW
AWVRP
Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project
bgs
below ground surface
BMP
best management practice
BPA
Bonneville Power Administration
Btu
British thermal unit
CERCLIS
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Information System
CESCL
Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead
CESQG
conditionally exempt small quantity generator
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
City
City of Seattle
CO
carbon monoxide
CORRACTS
Corrective Action Sites
CSCSL
Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List
CSCSL-NFA
Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List-No Further Action
CSO
combined sewer overflow
DAHP
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
dB
decibel
dBA
A-weighted decibel
EBSP
Elliott Bay Seawall Project
Ecology
Washington State Department of Ecology
EIS
environmental impact statement
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERNS
Emergency Response Notification System
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
GHG
greenhouse gas
GIS
geographic information system
HOV
high-occupancy vehicle
I-5
Interstate 5
I-90
Interstate 90
ICR
Independent Cleanup Report
IP
intermediate pressure
xvii
kV
kilovolt
Leq
equivalent sound pressure level
Lmax
maximum noise level
LOS
level of service
LPS
light-penetrating surface
LQG
large quantity generator
LUST
leaking underground storage tank
g/m3
microgram per cubic meter
mph
mile per hour
MarketFront
Pike Place MarketFront
MSAT
mobile source air toxic
MTCA
Model Toxics Control Act
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAC
noise abatement criteria
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NFA
No Further Action
NFRAP
No Further Remedial Action Planned
NOX
nitrogen oxides
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPGIS
non-pollution-generating impervious surfaces
NPL
National Priorities List
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
NS
no standard established
PAH
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB
polychlorinated biphenyl
PCE
perchloroethylene, also known as tetrachloroethylene
PGIS
pollution-generating impervious surfaces
PM10
particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5
particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter
ppm
part per million
PPMHD
Pike Place Market Historic District
PSCAA
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
PSE
Puget Sound Energy
PSPD
Pioneer Square Preservation District
PSRC
Puget Sound Regional Council
RAATS
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
xviii
ACRONYMS
RCW
Revised Code of Washington
SCL
Seattle City Light
SDOT
Seattle Department of Transportation
SEPA
State Environmental Policy Act
SFD
Seattle Fire Department
SL
Seattle Landmark
SMA
Shoreline Management Act
SMC
Seattle Municipal Code
SMP
Shoreline Master Program
SO2
sulfur dioxide
SODO
south of downtown Seattle
Sound Transit
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority
SPD
Seattle Police Department
SPU
Seattle Public Utilities
SQG
small quantity generator
SR
State Route
TCE
temporary construction easement
TNM
Traffic Noise Model
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UST
underground storage tank
VCP
Voluntary Cleanup Program
VOC
volatile organic compound
WAC
Washington Administrative Code
Waste Management
Waste Management of Washington, Inc.
WDFW
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WRIA
Water Resource Inventory Area
WSDOT
Washington State Department of Transportation
WSF
Washington State Ferries
xix
Executive Summary
Introduction
The City of Seattle (City) is proposing a number of infrastructure improvement projects (collectively
referred to as Waterfront Seattle) along the Seattle waterfront. The improvements are proposed in
response to the opportunities, transportation needs, and related public objectives created by the
replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a new State Route (SR) 99 tunnel. These opportunities,
needs, and objectives for the waterfront are articulated in the Waterfront Seattle Guiding Principles,
which affirm the following goals:
Create a waterfront for all
Put the shoreline and innovative, sustainable design at the forefront
Reconnect the city to its waterfront
Embrace and celebrate Seattle's past, present, and future
Improve access and mobility (for people and goods)
Create a bold vision that is adaptable over time
Develop consistent leadership from concept to operations
In June 2015, the City published the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Alaskan Way,
Promenade, and Overlook Walk (AWPOW) projects, which are part of a larger group of infrastructure
projects known as Waterfront Seattle. The Draft EIS evaluated two alternativesthe No Action Alternative
and the Action Alternativefor each of the four projects that form the components of AWPOW:
The Main Corridor
The Promenade
The Overlook Walk
The East-West Connections
In response to public comments on the Draft EIS and in order to coordinate more closely with current
planning for the Seattle Aquarium, the City developed an additional alternative for both the Main
Corridor project and the Overlook Walk project. These alternatives, Main Corridor Alternative 2 and
Overlook Walk Alternative 2, were analyzed in a Supplemental Draft EIS published in April 2016. After
considering the public comments and environmental analyses, the City combined components of the
Supplemental Draft EIS alternatives with the Draft EIS Action Alternative to form the
Preferred Alternative that is presented in this Final EIS.
Because of the complementary nature of the four AWPOW projects, and the fact that they represent the
most substantial of the planned Waterfront Seattle improvements, the City is evaluating them together
in this EIS, as authorized by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) under Washington Administrative
Code (WAC) 197-11-060(3)(c) and the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 25.05.060C.3. The four projects are
referred to collectively in this EIS as the Alaskan Way, Promenade, and Overlook Walk, abbreviated as
AWPOW, and are also referred to as the Preferred Alternative and the project. Figure ES-1 shows the
footprint and general location of the AWPOW projects.
Although elements of the environment that are not significantly affected do not need to be discussed in
the EIS (WAC 197-11-440(6)(a)), the City is providing the analysis that was completed for elements
where no significant impacts were found. These elements of the environment are included in the EIS
because the City believes the information is helpful for decisionmakers and the public.
ES-1
E lliot t B ay
AL
AS
KA
SKA
ALA
NW
Pier 48
AY
S
ONT
ST
IN
GS
T
KS
AIN
ST
AC
SJ
SM
YE
SLR
EW
R AW
YA
Y
L ST
SW
AS
HIN
ST
SK
VINE
BEL
D ST
East-West Connections
A ST
Overlook Walk
ST
Source: SDOT
Promenade
AVE
AVE
3RD
AVE
6TH
5TH AVE
Main Corridor
2ND
AVE
5TH
A E
4TH AV
Potential Construction Staging Area
AVE
AVE
4TH
3R D AV
A E
Project Footprint
INIA
ST
Feet
800
ART
400
W
ST E
PINE ST
PIKE ST
2ND AV
A E
UNION ST
Y ST
UNIVERSITY
SENECA ST
T
SPRING ST
MADISON ST
MAR ION ST
I ST
UMB A
A E
1ST AV
S
T
CHERRY ST
AV
E
AWPOW Projects
1ST
POST AVE
ID
EN
TA
L
TERRACE ST
AV
ES
CCEE
PLAA
OR
LLEEN
PIKE
AR
NCCH
N
BBLLAA
WESTE RN AVE
JAMES ST
2N
DA
VE
R
STE
WEW
VIRG
OC
C
E E
N AV
ALASKA WAY
ALASKAN
1S
TA
VE
ST
ERY
Pier 55
Seattle
eattle
Aquarium
T
BAT
Pier 54
4
Colman Dock
Waterf
Waterfront
Pa
ark
LS
WAAL
W
Pie
er 57
Pier 56
6
AY
VE
EL
er 6
PiePier 63
6
62/63
AY S
WA
RAILROAD W
5T
H
NW
Parcel Boundary
Building Footprint
Figure ES-1
Project Overview
Alaskan Way, Promenade, and
Overlook Walk Final EIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community, Agency, and Tribal Involvement

WaterfrontSeattleplanninghasinvolvedsubstantialparticipationbyelectedofficials,stakeholders,and
communitymembers.Since2011,theCityspublicoutreachprogramforWaterfrontSeattlehas
includedover300communityeventsincludingpublicmeetings,fairs,festivals,briefings,forums,and
workshops.Allplanninganddesigneffortshavetakenplaceinpartnershipwithaseriesofcommittees
establishedbytheSeattleCityCouncil.TheCentralWaterfrontPartnershipsCommittee,establishedin
November2009,developedtheWaterfrontSeattleGuidingPrinciples,whichtheSeattleCityCouncil
affirmedbyresolutioninJanuary2011.TheCentralWaterfrontCommitteereplacedtheCentral
WaterfrontPartnershipsCommitteeinJanuary2011,andconsistedofawiderangeofvolunteer
communityrepresentativesandleadersappointedbytheSeattleCityCouncil.Thecommitteedeveloped
documentsinitsroleasthebroadoverseerofthedesign,financing,publicengagement,longterm
operations,andmaintenanceofWaterfrontSeattle.ThesedocumentsincludedtheFrameworkPlan,the
ConceptDesign,andtheStrategicPlan,whichwereallpublishedinJuly2012andsupportedbythe
SeattleCityCouncilinAugust2012.Theyprovideguidance,goals,andstrategiesforimplementationof
WaterfrontSeattle.InOctober2014,theCentralWaterfrontSteeringCommitteereplacedtheCentral
WaterfrontCommitteeinordertoadvisetheCityonimplementingtheCentralWaterfrontConcept
DesignandStrategicPlan.
TheCitybeganpublicscopingfortheAWPOWEISincompliancewithSEPAinsummer2013.Scopingis
thefirststepintheEISprocess;itspurposeistonarrowthefocusoftheEIStosignificantenvironmental
issues,toeliminateinsignificantimpactsfromdetailedstudy,andtoidentifyalternativestobeanalyzed
intheEIS.ScopingalsoprovidesnoticetothepublicandotheragenciesthatanEISisbeingprepared,
andinitiatestheirinvolvementintheprocess.Thepublicwasinvitedtosubmitcommentsbymail,
email,anonlinecommentform,orinpersonatapublicscopingmeeting,whichwasheldatSeattleCity
HallonSeptember9,2013.
TheCityreceivedover200commentsduringthescopingperiod.Mostofthecommentscamefrom
individuals.Theremainderwerefromagencies;community,business,andlabororganizations;andthe
SuquamishTribe.Somemainthemesinthecommentspertainedtothewidthandnumberoflaneson
AlaskanWay,localwaterfronttransitoptions,impactsonnearbyresidentialproperties,bicycleand
pedestrianfacilitiesandsafety,andparking.OthercommentsrequestedthattheEISaddressfish,
wildlife,andtheirhabitats;stormwaterandwaterquality;andhazardousmaterials.Thesecomments
assistedinshapingthescopeandanalysisfoundinthisEIS.TheDraftEISAppendixN,ScopingSummary,
containsmoreinformationonthecommentsreceivedduringthescopingprocess.
AftertheDraftEISwaspublishedinJune2015,theSeattleCityCouncilapprovedtheSeattle
AquariumsMasterPlanforExpansion(SeattleAquarium2015)forthepurposeofallowingfurther
reviewofaproposaltolocatetheSeattleAquariumOceanPavilion(AquariumPavilion)where
BuildingCwasproposed.FollowingpassageofResolution31603,theCityandtheAquariumhave
workedtogethertocoordinatethetwoprojects.TheCityhasalsocontinuedtomeetwithother
stakeholdersandprojectpartnerstocoordinateonprojectdesignandtoprovideinformationabout
theprojectfollowingthepublicationoftheDraftandSupplementalDraftEISs.
Summary of Public Comments on the Draft and

Supplemental Draft EISs
FollowingpublicationoftheDraftEIS,theCityheldapubliccommentperiodfromJune29,2015to
August26,2015andhostedapublicopenhouseonJuly22,2015.TheCityreceived107piecesof
correspondence(letters,emails,andsubmittalsfromthepublicopenhouse)withcommentsontheDraft
EISfromtribes,agencies,businesses,organizations,andmembersofthepublic.AftertheSupplemental
DraftEISwaspublished,theCityprovidedanotherpubliccommentperiodfromApril18,2016to
ES-3
May18,2016,andhostedapublicopenhouseonMay10,2016.TheCityreceived168piecesof
correspondencewithcommentsontheSupplementalDraftEIS.
Thetwotopicsthatreceivedthemostcommentsweretransportationandalternatives,followedby
parkingandconstruction.Transportationtopicsincludedpedestrian,bicycle,transit,freight,access,
andgeneraltrafficrelatedcomments.Commentsonalternativesanddesignrelatedcomponents
tendedtofocusontheOverlookWalkandtheportionoftheMainCorridorsouthofColmanDock.
Severalcommentersexpressedconcernfortheamountofparkinglostasaresultoftheprojectand
suggestedthatmitigationshouldbeprovided.Commentsonconstructionwerevaried,butmany
expressedconcernsaboutconstructionrelatedimpactsonlocalbusinessesandresidents,suchas
trafficandnoise.
BriefsummariesofcommentsreceivedduringthepubliccommentperiodsfortheAWPOWprojects
areprovidedinSection1.4,CommentsontheDraftEISandSupplementalDraftEIS.Individual
responsestoeachpieceofcorrespondencearecontainedinFinalEISAppendixD,DraftEISand
SupplementalDraftEISCommentsandResponses.
Objectives of the AWPOW Projects

EachofthefourprojectswithinAWPOWhasitsowndistinctpurpose,whichisbasedonasetof
identifiedneedsandpolicydecisions,andisconsistentwiththeWaterfrontSeattleGuidingPrinciples.
Theobjectives,orpurposeandneed(thetermusedintheDraftEIS),ofeachprojectaresummarized
below;moreinformationisprovidedinChapter1ofthisEIS.
Main Corridor
Purposeoftheaction:Accommodatesafe,efficient,andreliabletravelbetweenthesouth
downtownareaandBelltownforgeneralpurposetraffic,regionaltransit,freight,ferrytraffic,
pedestrians,andbicycles.
Needfortheaction:AWPOWresponds,inpart,totransportationneedscreatedbytheWashington
StateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)replacementoftheAlaskanWayViaductwithatunnel.
Becauseoftheeliminationoftheviaduct,AlaskanWaywillberequiredtoserveadditionaltraffic
demandandreplacetheviaductssurfaceconnectiontoBelltown.ThenewAlaskanWaywill
accommodateincreaseddemandbyvehicles,freight,pedestrians,bicyclists,andtransitusers,and
complywithSeattlescompletestreetpolicypromotingsafeoperationsforallusers.Thisnew
roadwayrequiresacorridorwithspeed
limitssimilartothoseofother
downtownstreets,signalized
intersectionsthatprovidesafeand
convenientplacestocross,generous
sidewalks,andastreetwidthasnarrow
aspossible,giventhetrafficfunctions
thattheroadwaymustaccommodate.
Promenade
Purposeoftheaction:Provide
significantpublicopenspaceadjacent
totheElliottBayshorelinein
downtownSeattletoaccommodate
pedestriandemand,createpublic
amenities,andstrengthenthe
connectionbetweenthecityandits
waterfront.
ES-4
LookingsouthonAlaskanWaynearUnionStreet
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Need for the action: Currently, the waterfront is difficult to access and provides little space to
accommodate pedestrian movement and gathering. Visual and physical connections to the shoreline are
limited. The quality of the existing pedestrian environment is compromised by the Alaskan Way Viaduct,
and will also be compromised in the future by the location of the restored Alaskan Way after
construction of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project (EBSP) is completed. Collectively, these factors have
resulted in a wide zone dominated by motor vehicles immediately adjacent to the citys most visited
shoreline. The Citys Pedestrian Master Plan identifies substantial opportunities along Alaskan Way to
improve pedestrian linkages, roadway crossings, and the quality of the pedestrian environment.
Overlook Walk
Purpose of the action: Provide a grade-separated
pedestrian crossing, view opportunities, and
public open space between the waterfront and
Pike Place Market.
Need for the action: Access between the Pike
Place Market and the waterfront, two of Seattles
most popular attractions, is impeded by steep
topography and at-grade street crossings; open
space in this area is limited, and there are few
opportunities for views. The existing viaduct
provides expansive views for motorists, but these
views will be eliminated when the viaduct is
demolished. The heavy use of this area by the
public warrants the provision of additional open
space that facilitates pedestrian movement while
providing opportunities for people to gather and
enjoy scenic vistas.
Purpose of the action: Improve key east-west
streets adjacent to the Main Corridor to provide
better connections between the waterfront and
downtown Seattle and to enhance the pedestrian
experience.
Need for the action: There is currently a lack of
strong pedestrian connections between the
waterfront area and the downtown Seattle street
grid. At the southern end of the Main Corridor,
access from Alaskan Way to Pioneer Square is
Alaskan Way looking north from Yesler Way in 2003
hindered by uneven sidewalks, high curbs, and
lack of facilities on east-west streets built to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The central portion of the Main Corridor, from
Seneca Street to the Pike Street Hillclimb, affords no east-west access for people with limited mobility
between the waterfront and First Avenue. In the northern portion of the Main Corridor, the elimination
of the viaduct and decommissioning of the Battery Street Tunnel provide opportunities to reconnect and
enhance portions of the east-west street grid for pedestrian and bicycle use. Improvements to east-west
streets in these areas would strongly support the Waterfront Seattle Guiding Principles, as well as the
policies and recommendations of the City's Pedestrian Master Plan (SDOT 2014).
ES-5
Alternatives Evaluated
Development of Alternatives
The opportunity to reconfigure the downtown waterfront was made possible by a 2009 decision by the
State of Washington, the City of Seattle, and King County to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct (SR 99)
with a tunnel and improve the Alaskan Way surface street. The viaduct stands on City right of way,
which will become available for reuse once the structure has been demolished. Together with the
existing Alaskan Way surface street, this right of way creates a swath of contiguous City property along
the Elliott Bay shoreline that can be used for transportation, open space, and key east-west connections,
in accordance with AWPOW's objectives.
While removal of the viaduct opens up opportunities for use of the City right of way underneath, there
are several constraints on how the space can be used, including existing topography, right of way
(property) boundaries, historic features, shoreline law, roadway facilities, and pedestrian and bicycle
facility goals. Given these constraints, only the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative were
evaluated in the Draft EIS. However, in response to public comments on the Draft EIS and in order to
coordinate more closely with current planning for the Seattle Aquarium, the City developed an additional
alternative for both the Main Corridor project and the Overlook Walk project. These alternatives were
analyzed in the Supplemental Draft EIS.
After considering the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS analyses and public input, the City combined
elements of the Supplemental Draft EIS alternatives with the Draft EIS Action Alternative to form the
Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative are summarized below.
More information on alternatives development is provided in Chapter 2 of this EIS.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the AWPOW projects would not be built. However, as a result of several
ongoing projects that are separate from AWPOW, conditions in the area would be different from those
that existed at the time of publication of the Draft, Supplemental Draft, and Final EISs in 2015 and 2016.
Major changes assumed to be in place under the No Action Alternative are:
The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project (AWVRP) will be complete, with the viaduct
eliminated and the SR 99 tunnel in operation. Parking that existed beneath the viaduct prior to the
start of AWVRP construction is assumed to have been restored.
The EBSP will be complete, and will include a new sidewalk inset with light-penetrating surface
(LPS).
The Pike Place MarketFront (MarketFront) Project1 will be complete.
The analysis for the No Action Alternative is based on the expected conditions in 2030, which is the
project design year (the year used for the assessment of future conditions). The No Action Alternative
serves as the baseline against which the potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative are evaluated.
Upon completion of the portion of the EBSP south of Pine Street, it is assumed that Alaskan Way
between S. King Street and Pine Street will be restored to the alignment that it occupied before
construction began on the AWVRP and EBSP, immediately west of and generally parallel to the present
alignment of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. The roadway will have two lanes serving general-purpose traffic
in each direction, with an additional northbound lane to serve ferry traffic between S. King and S. Main
Streets and two left-turn lanes between S. Main Street and Yesler Way. The east-west streets will
generally connect to the restored roadway as they did before EBSP construction started, although the
This project was previously called the Pike Place Market Waterfront Entrance (PPMWE) in the Draft EIS. Because the name
evolved during EIS development, this Final EIS has been updated to use the current nameMarketFront.
ES-6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
intersections of Alaskan Way with Columbia and Seneca Streets will be modified after removal of the
Alaskan Way Viaduct ramps. There will be traffic signals at all intersections. Alaskan Way will not have a
direct connection to Western Avenue or Elliott Avenue in Belltown. Vehicles traveling north will need to
use Wall, Vine, or Broad Streets to cross the BNSF rail line and access Belltown.
Under the No Action Alternative, the City-owned right of way beneath the Alaskan Way Viaduct is
assumed to be restored to its original configuration in 2010, before construction of AWVRP and EBSP
began. This configuration included parking spaces with pay stations as well as business and parking
access lanes. Approximately the same number of parking spaces is assumed to be provided as were in
place in 2010.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are assumed to generally match those existing in the corridor before EBSP
construction began, but with improvements to meet ADA requirements. A sidewalk with a continuous
band of LPS to improve aquatic habitat conditions will run along the western edge of the restored Alaskan
Way. On the east side of Alaskan Way, an 8- to 10-foot-wide path will provide through access for bicycles
and pedestrians.
Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative would be implemented after the AWVRP, EBSP, and MarketFront projects
have been constructed. This alternative consists of the Main Corridor (which includes a new Alaskan
Way with new connections to Elliott and Western Avenues), the Promenade, the Overlook Walk, and the
East-West Connections. Each project is briefly described below; more detailed information on their
design is provided in Chapter 2.
The Preferred Alternative for AWPOW includes the following projects:
Main Corridor: A new Alaskan Way corridor from S. King Street to Pine Street, and a new Elliott
Way corridor from Pine Street to Battery Street with improvements for general-purpose traffic,
transit, freight, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as generally evaluated under the Action
Alternative in the Draft EIS and Main Corridor Alternative 1 in the Supplemental Draft EIS.
Promenade: A continuous public open space along the waterfront, as evaluated under the
Action Alternative in the Draft EIS.
Overlook Walk: A new structure providing open space, pedestrian connections, and view
opportunities between the waterfront and Pike Place Market, evaluated in the Supplemental Draft
EIS as Overlook Walk Alternative 2. This configuration would accommodate the Seattle Aquariums
plans for expansion.
East-West Connections: Improvements to portions of S. Main, S. Washington, Union, and Bell

Streets adjacent to the Main Corridor to provide better connections between the waterfront and
downtown Seattle and to enhance the pedestrian experience, as evaluated under the Action
Alternative in the Draft EIS.
These four projects would serve a wide variety of people and uses. The waterfront is one of the Citys
most visited tourist destinations, is often used by local residents and workers for recreation or as part of
their commute, and is designated as a Major Truck Street. The different types of users include
pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, cars, and freight trucks.
Main Corridor
The Main Corridor would operate as part of the regional transportation system, serving some of the
functions that will no longer be provided by SR 99 after the Alaskan Way Viaduct is replaced with a tunnel.
It would serve both local and regional transportation needs for a wide array of users, providing access
between SR 99 and downtown Seattle as well as direct access to northwest Seattle. In addition to
passenger, transit, and freight vehicles, it would accommodate high levels of pedestrian and bicycle traffic
ES-7
andwouldimproveconnectionsbetweenthewaterfrontanddowntownSeattle.Theproposed
improvementswouldconsistof:
ConstructionofthenewAlaskanWaybetweenS.KingStreetandPineStreet,alongtheeastsideof
therightofway
Constructionofanewarterialconnection,calledElliottWay,whichwouldfollowthepathofthe
existingAlaskanWayViaductfromAlaskanWayatPineStreetupthehillintoBelltown,whereit
wouldconnectwithElliottandWesternAvenues
AnewintersectionatPineStreet(referredtoasthePineStreetextension)thatwouldconnectthe
newAlaskanWayandnewElliottWaywiththeexistingAlaskanWaynorthofPier62/63
AdedicatedtransitlaneineachdirectionalongAlaskanWaybetweenS.KingStreetandColumbia
StreetandonColumbiaStreetbetweenAlaskanWayandFirstAvenue
NorthboundferryqueuinglanesbetweenS.KingStreetandYeslerWay,whichincludedouble
leftturnlanesbetweenS.MainStreetandYeslerWayontoColmanDock
Onstreetparkingandloadingzoneslocatedalongthecurbsidewherespaceisavailable
Improvementsforpedestrianswouldincludewidersidewalksalongtheeastandwestsidesofthenew
AlaskanWay.SidewalkswouldcontinuealongbothsidesofElliottWay,allowingpedestrianstowalk
fromthewaterfronttoBelltown.Signalizedpedestriancrossingswouldbeprovidedatallintersections
onAlaskanWay.Otherpedestrianimprovementswouldinclude:
RebuildingtheportionoftheMarionStreetpedestrianbridgeoverAlaskanWay,whichconnectsto
theSeattleFerryTerminal
Reconstructingthestairs,sidewalk,andparkingatSenecaStreetbetweenAlaskanWayand
WesternAvenue
ReconnectingtheLenoraStreetpedestrianbridgetothenewElliottWay
ConstructingorreconstructingsidewalksandconnectionsonS.MainandS.WashingtonStreets,
UnionStreet,andBellStreetaspartoftheEastWestConnectionsproject(seeEastWest
Connectionssectionbelow)
Acontinuous,protectedtwowaybicyclefacilitywouldrunalongthewestsideofthenewAlaskanWay.
ThefacilitywouldbeginatS.KingStreetandcontinuenorthonthewestsideofAlaskanWaytoabout
VirginiaStreet,whereitwouldcrosstheroadtojointheexistingpathontheeastsideoftheroadway.
AtthenewintersectionwithElliottWay,thebicyclefacilitywouldtransitiontoseparatenorthbound
andsouthboundpathsthatwouldconnectwithexistingbicyclelanesonElliottandWesternAvenuesin
Belltown.AlongAlaskanWay,thebicyclefacilitywouldbeseparatedfromtheroadwayandpedestrian
areasbylandscapingandothermeanstolimitpotentialconflictsbetweenpedestrians,bicyclists,and
motorvehicles.
Asnotedabove,theMainCorridorwouldincludededicatedtransitlanesthatwouldallowregionaltransit
vehiclestotravelbetweendowntownandsouthwestSeattleviaAlaskanWayandColumbiaStreet.In
addition,accommodationswouldbeprovidedforfuturelocalwaterfronttransitservicethatcouldprovide
connectionstowaterfrontareadestinationsforrecreationalvisitors,localemployees,andresidents.The
MainCorridorwouldbedesignedinsuchawaythat,iftraveldemanddeclinedinthefutureandthefull
widthofthecorridorwasnotneededinordertoachievetheproject'sobjective,thenportionsofthe
roadwaycouldbeconvertedeasilyandatlowcosttoprovideonstreetparkingandloading,andtowiden
sidewalksatintersectionstonarrowthepedestriancrossingdistance.
Improvementsforfreightwouldincludedesignofthecorridorsoverheadandsideclearances,structural
capacityofbridges,andturningradiitoaccommodatelargefreightvehicles.AlaskanWaywould
continuetobedesignatedasaMajorTruckStreet,meaningthatitwouldaccommodatesignificant
ES-8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
freight movement through the city, to and from major freight traffic generators. This includes the ability
to accommodate over-dimension and over-weight vehicles, as well as vehicles transporting flammable
and other hazardous materials.
Promenade
The Promenade would be a continuous public open space along the west side of the new Main Corridor
from King Street to Virginia Street that would be designed for walking, sitting, gathering, and viewing
the waterfront. Design features and landscaping along its length would create a series of different
environments, or places, that would reflect the character of the surrounding areas. These places are:
Colman Dock Transit Hub This area would support the regional transit hub in front of the Seattle
Ferry Terminal. It would accommodate the heavy pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle traffic coming
through the Yesler Way, Columbia Street, and Marion Street intersections. The areas primary
design features would be a grouping of trees, seating, and bicycle parking and rental facilities. The
curb zones along Alaskan Way near the Colman Dock Transit Hub would be designed to
accommodate general-purpose vehicle, transit, taxi, and ADA drop-offs and pick-ups.
Historic Piers 54 through 59 This area of the Promenade would be a wide open space along the
front of the piers. Along its east edge, the Promenade would have a narrow path that would
traverse planted terraces with integrated seating. These areas would provide social and gathering
spaces. The lower terraces would be designed to collect stormwater runoff from portions of the
street and from the Promenade. Kiosks would be located in this area of the Promenade near
Spring, Seneca, University, and Union Streets.
Aquarium Plaza This area would be a broad public gathering area where the Overlook Walk
stairs meet the Promenade between the Seattle Aquarium and the Pike Street Hillclimb. In this
location, the Promenade would widen because of Alaskan Ways eastward shift to transition
into Elliott Way. The Aquarium Plaza would connect the Aquariums existing buildings with the
new Overlook Walk, Pier 62/63, and pedestrian facilities to the north. Public amenities could
include elements such as bench seating, recreational features, and a caf area with movable
tables and chairs.
The westernmost portion of the Promenade would include the band of LPS, cantilevered over Elliott Bay,
which will be built as part of the EBSP. New, permanent railings would replace the temporary railings
installed by the EBSP at the western edge of the overhang. The remainder of the Promenade would be
constructed of an architectural concrete surface with decorative elements.
A linear canopy of trees would provide a buffer between the Promenade and the street. Kiosks would
be located on the Promenade near the intersections of Alaskan Way with Spring, Seneca, University,
and Union Streets, which would provide focal points for wayfinding, programs, and other services.
Lighting along the Promenade would be designed in a layered pattern to provide visual interest and
wayfinding clarity.
Overlook Walk
The Overlook Walk would occupy existing and new public space south of Victor Steinbrueck Park, west
of Pike Place Market, and northeast of the existing Seattle Aquarium. The Overlook Walk would include
one building (Building B), a lid, staircases, and two elevators. The sloping lid would include pedestrian
pathways, open space, and landscaping that would extend southwest from the Pike Place Market
across the new Elliott Way, where the lid would be approximately 40 feet above the Promenade. Space
for park operations and maintenance, as well as public restrooms, would be provided under
the staircases.
The Preferred Alternative modifies the Draft EIS Overlook Walk design to accommodate the Seattle
Aquariums plans for expansion in a separate but coordinated project. This separate project will design
and construct a new building called the Aquarium Pavilion that would be owned by the City and managed
ES-9
by the Seattle Aquarium Society as a public facility, similar to the existing Aquarium. Although the Final
EIS generally evaluates the impacts of a conceptual plan, location, and building envelope for the
Aquarium Pavilion, the buildings uses, functions, size, and form will be evaluated by the Seattle
Aquarium in a separate environmental document. The Aquariums conceptual plans propose
approximately 48,000 square feet of above-ground interior space for the Aquarium Pavilion with a
potential loading zone on the southeast corner of the building. The height of the building would be
approximately the same as that of the Overlook Walk lid, about 40 feet above the Promenade, with
public open space and a view area on the roof that would be contiguous with and accessible from the
Overlook Walk. The height of the Aquarium Pavilion and Overlook Walk structures would comply with
applicable height restrictions.
On the west side of Alaskan Way, near the southwest corner of the Overlook Walk, a wide external
staircase and an elevator would connect down approximately 40 vertical feet to the Promenade near the
Seattle Aquarium. The stairs would be oriented north-south, and people walking down the stairs would
have a view of the piers to the south. A crosswalk just south of this staircase would connect to the Pike
Street Hillclimb and the Fix/Madore buildings. Near the northwest corner of the Overlook Walk there
would be another set of stairs adjacent to the Pine Street extension on the north side of the proposed
Aquarium Pavilion; pedestrians walking down this flight of stairs would have views over Pier 62/63. On
the east side of the Elliott Way-Pine Street intersection, a set of stairs and an elevator would connect the
northern part of the Overlook Walk to Elliott Way.
The Overlook Walk would include approximately an acre of public open space, provide active gathering
spaces and elevated scenic viewing opportunities, create a robust and accessible pedestrian connection
with multiple ways to travel between Pike Place Market and the waterfront, and provide opportunities to
enhance the pedestrian experience and revitalize the area. The Seattle Aquariums construction of the
Aquarium Pavilion would create approximately 0.3 acre of additional public open space on the rooftop as
an extension west of the Overlook Walk. The Overlook Walk would tie into the new MarketFront, which
is currently under construction, at its easternmost end.
The Overlook Walk lid would include views of Elliott Bay to the west and the piers to the south as well as
city views from several vantage points. The lid would be public open space that would include
landscaping and tables and benches to provide seating at various points.
The configuration of the Overlook Walk against the hillside would provide an opportunity to create a
new building, known as Building B. (The former Building A is now the MarketFront, which is a separate
project.) Building B would be used for public uses and to serve transportation functions, as well as for
incidental private uses. Located on the east side of Elliott Way, the building would rise above the east
edge of the Overlook Walk lid, with windows facing onto the lids main pedestrian ramp and landscaped
areas. Building B would contain approximately 23,000 square feet of interior space, with elevator access
provided to the Overlook Walk lid, Elliott Way, and the interior of the building.
The East-West Connections are improvements to portions of S. Main, S. Washington, Union, and Bell
Streets adjacent to the Main Corridor to provide better connections between the waterfront and
downtown Seattle and to enhance the pedestrian experience. The S. Main and S. Washington Street
Improvements would replace the roadway pavement and reconstruct the sidewalks to create more
pedestrian-friendly links between the waterfront and Pioneer Square. The Union Street Pedestrian
Connection would construct two elevated pedestrian walkways and associated elevators and stairs
along the south side of Union Street to serve as an accessible pedestrian link between the new
waterfront and downtown. The Bell Street Park Extension would continue the shared street (roadway
and public park space) between Elliott and First Avenues, creating a better pedestrian connection
towards Elliott Way and the waterfront.
ES-10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Construction Impacts and Mitigation

ConstructionofthePreferredAlternativeisexpectedtoconsistofthefollowinggeneralactivities:
Utilityremoval,replacement,orrelocation
DemolitionoftheexistingroadwayandappurtenancesonAlaskanWay,andS.Main,
S.Washington,Union,andBellStreets
DemolitionofexistingstairsandreinforcementandrepairoftheretainingwallsatUnionStreet
Groundimprovement,wherenecessary,tostabilizesoilsforsupport
Dewateringofexcavationsbelowthewatertable(generallyabout5feetbelowgroundsurface
[bgs]alongthewaterfront)toprovideadryworkarea,wherenecessary
Useofbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)toprotectwaterqualityandreduceerosion;thesemay
includeinstallationofsiltfencing,coveringofstockpiledsoil,andcollectionandtreatmentof
constructionstormwaterrunoff
DrillingandvibratorypiledrivingfordeepshaftstosupporttheOverlookWalkandElliottWay
bridgestructures
DrillingshaftsandplacingfoundationstosupporttheMarionStreetpedestrianbridgeover
AlaskanWay
VibratorypiledrivingandmicropiledrivingtosupporttheUnionStreetpedestrianstructures
Micropiledrivingtosupportstructuressuchasthekiosks
Earthwork(excavationandfilling)forthePineStreetextensionandthesectionofElliottWay
betweenLenoraStreetandthebridgeovertheBNSFtunnel
PlacementoffoundationandpavementforthenewAlaskanWayandElliottWayroadways,and
bicycleandpedestrianfacilities
Excavation,formworkconstruction,andconcretepumpingandpouringfortheUnionStreet
pedestrianstructures
PlacementofroadwayfoundationandpavementforS.Main,S.Washington,Union,and
BellStreets
InstallationofPromenadeelementsincludingpaving,benches,kiosks,andlandscaping
Installationofstreetlighting,signalpoles,andsignage
Itisanticipatedthatconstructionactivitieswouldbeginwithearlyutilityworkin2019andbecompleted
in2022.TheconstructiontimeframecouldshiftdependingonwhentheAWVRPiscompleted.
ConstructionwouldbesequencedtobuildthenewElliottWayconnectionandtheColumbiaStreet
improvementsfirsttoprovideanefficientconnectiontoBelltownandimprovedtransitconnectionsin
andthroughthecorridor.ThenewAlaskanWaysurfacestreetwouldlikelybeconstructedinsegments.
DuringconstructionofthePineStreetextensionandthewesternportionoftheOverlookWalk,Alaskan
WayinthevicinityofPineStreetwouldbeclosedforashortperiod(assumedtobeupto4monthsfor
thepurposesofanalysis);however,ElliottWaywouldbeopentoprovideaccesstodestinationson
AlaskanWaynorthofPineStreet.
TableES1providesaqualitativeassessmentofimpactsbydiscipline,whichsummarizesimpactlevels
acrossseveralcategoriesofanalysis.Theseimpactsaredescribedinmoredetailbelow.Implementing
mitigationmeasuresandadheringtopermitconditionswouldminimizeoravoidthepotentialfor
adverseimpactsduringconstructionofthePreferredAlternative.TheNoActionAlternativewouldnot
haveanyconstructionactivitiesorimpacts.
ES-11
Table ES-1. Potential Construction Impacts

Discipline
Transportation
None
Moderate Adverse Impact
Parking
None
Land Use
None
Aesthetics
None
Noise
None
Hazardous Materials
None
Minor Adverse Impact
Public Services and Utilities
None
Historic Resources
None
Archaeological Resources
None
Water Quality
None
Vegetation and Wildlife
None
Energy Resources
None
Air Quality
None
Transportation
Construction of the Preferred Alternative could affect transportation along Alaskan Way and the eastwest cross streets in the corridor by increasing congestion and modifying local access to and from
downtown Seattle. During the midday and non-peak commute periods, generally up to one lane in each
direction could be closed periodically. However, it is anticipated that impacts on traffic operations would
be relatively minor because roads would remain open for the majority of the construction period and
closures would occur during periods of lower traffic volumes. Construction truck trips are not expected
to substantially increase traffic volumes and delays because the number of anticipated truck trips is
small in the context of overall truck use in the area.
The largest construction impact for the Preferred Alternative would be the closure of Alaskan Way in the
vicinity of Pine Street while the Pine Street extension is built. For purposes of this analysis, the closure is
assumed to last up to approximately 4 months. During this time, all non-emergency traffic from the south
would access the waterfront north of Pine Street by traveling along the newly constructed Elliott Way to
reach the northern portion of Alaskan Way via east-west streets. Southbound vehicles on Elliott Avenue
would continue to access the northern segment of Alaskan Way via Wall, Vine, Clay, or Broad Streets;
vehicles destined for Alaskan Way south of Pine Street would continue along Elliott Way to the waterfront.
This closure of Alaskan Way could result in delay and congestion when trains are using the at-grade
crossings on these streets. Emergency vehicles would be able to cross the construction zone using the
sidewalk along Elliott Bay to reach the northern portion of Alaskan Way without the need to cross the
tracks. The City would work closely with emergency service providers to put in place appropriate
measures for emergency access to and travel through construction areas to minimize impacts on
response times.
Access to businesses would be maintained to the extent feasible throughout construction; any blockages
would be temporary. Pedestrians and bicyclists would be rerouted around active construction zones;
sidewalks that meet minimum ADA requirements would be provided during construction on at least one
side of the street in all work zones, and the existing path on the east side of Alaskan Way would remain
open, with detours as necessary. The Lenora Street pedestrian bridge would be closed for approximately
18 to 24 months while the new Elliott Way roadway is constructed, and the eastern end of the bridge
would be modified to connect to the new Elliott Way. During construction of this connection,
pedestrians would be directed to use other routes, such as Bell Street. Transit routes would run on
interim pathways, which would likely be similar to where they were rerouted during construction of
ES-12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EBSP and AWVRP. Construction is not expected to impact service or sailing schedules for ferries, cruise
ships, or sightseeing boats.
The City would develop a Traffic Control Plan to reduce impacts on traffic operations and to protect and
control motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic during all phases of construction. The plan would
be developed in accordance with City construction specifications and would be updated as appropriate
for each construction phase.
Parking
Construction activities for the Preferred Alternative would temporarily impact on-street parking
throughout the study area. The amount of on-street parking affected would vary by construction stage
and segment and would be determined once construction and staging plans are finalized. Some
businesses could have access routes or loading zones temporarily blocked, but this would only occur
intermittently.
To construct the new Alaskan Way, Pine Street extension, and Overlook Walk, a surface parking lot with
approximately 60 spaces would be acquired and removed. These parking spaces are included in the total
number of off-street spaces that would be permanently removed by the Preferred Alternative (as
described below under Operational Impacts and Mitigation). These off-street spaces represent less than
1 percent of the off-street parking supply in the area. Off-street parking outside of the project footprint
would not be affected, except for minor temporary changes in access to build the improvements.
While AWPOW would reduce the overall parking supply in the project footprint, the City would maintain
parking availability to the extent feasible during construction. Once construction and staging plans have
been developed, the City would develop practices to manage parking during construction to ensure, to
the extent feasible, that parking is convenient and accessible to waterfront businesses and their patrons.
In addition, the City would continue enforcement of short-term parking limits and the use of e-Park,
which provides real-time off-street parking availability information, to make the most efficient use
possible of the supply of short-term parking within the project footprint.
Land Use
Construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in temporary impacts to most or all land uses in
and adjacent to the project footprint. Impacts would be due to noise, dust, congestion, loss of parking,
and temporary access changes associated with construction that could negatively affect residences,
recreational users, and businesses.
The Preferred Alternative would require the acquisition of two full parcels: a commercial surface parking
lot with approximately 60 parking spaces, and a small two-story office building (the Harborscape
Professional Building) with one business. Both of these uses would be displaced. In addition, one parcel
would be partially acquired for the Preferred Alternative, converting a total of less than 0.1 acre to new
City right of way. The partial acquisition would not alter or preclude the current use of the property.
Temporary construction easements would also be needed for several properties adjacent to Alaskan
Way. For these easements, the property would generally be restored to its previous condition before
being returned to the property owner.
Mitigation measures and BMPs would address the construction impacts. For increased noise, traffic
congestion, and aesthetic impacts, the City would implement measures as described for those
disciplines. The City would work closely with property owners, businesses, and residents on
communication and coordination to reduce the level of impact. The City would compensate the owners
of properties acquired for right of way in accordance with Washingtons relocation and property
acquisition law and regulations (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 8.26) and the Citys relocation
assistance policy (SMC 20.84). Fair compensation for all acquisitions and easements would be
determined by a qualified appraiser.
ES-13
Aesthetics
Short-term construction impacts on aesthetics would result from the presence and movement of
construction equipment, stockpiled construction materials and debris, screening and safety fences, and
nighttime illumination. Because work would be done in segments, views would be affected for only a
portion of the overall construction period. Long-distance views from Victor Steinbreuck Park of visual
resources such as the Olympic Mountains to the west would not be affected. Construction on east-west
streets would occur in one- to two-block segments and would primarily be visible only to viewers in the
immediate vicinity. Construction of the new elevator shafts at Union Street could potentially affect longdistance views from locations on Union Street east of Post Alley for a portion of the construction period.
Local visual impacts could be reduced by minimizing construction-related light and glare and developing
strategies to maintain views when locating and maintaining safety fencing and screening.
Noise
Construction noise would result from the operation of heavy equipment needed to construct various
project features and structures, such as bridges, retaining walls, roads, and pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. The contractor would be required to comply with the requirements of the City of Seattle Noise
Control Ordinance; construction activities outside normal daytime hours would require a noise variance
from the City. Maximum typical construction noise levels could reach as high as 88 dBA at the closest
receiver locations.
The City would minimize construction noise at nearby noise receptors by complying with the Seattle
Noise Ordinance and any variances to the ordinance that are obtained for the project.
Hazardous Materials
The Preferred Alternative has the potential to encounter contaminated materials such as petroleum
products and metals during construction. Within the project footprint (specifically beneath Alaskan
Way), there is documented soil and groundwater contamination that varies widely from location to
location due to the large amount of fill material present and the areas history of industrial uses. In
addition to this general contamination, nine specific sites with hazardous materials that are being
overseen by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) were identified that have the
potential to impact the project. Also, one of the acquired properties for the Preferred Alternative
includes a building that would need to be demolished. The building could contain hazardous materials
such as lead-based paint or asbestos-containing materials that might need to be abated before
demolition begins. As a result of these conditions and the use of hazardous materials during project
construction, potential construction impacts could include the exposure of workers or the public to:
Contaminated materials contained in soil and groundwater
Hazardous materials contained in underground storage tanks
Hazardous materials in structures to be demolished
Construction-related spills or releases
Impacts may also include the potential for the City to acquire hazardous materials-related liability as
part of project-related property acquisition.
Mitigation for construction impacts includes the preparation and implementation of the following plans,
programs, and procedures:
Health and Safety Plan
Hazardous Building Materials Survey and Abatement Program
Monitoring Well Decommissioning and Protection Procedures
Underground Storage Tank Decommissioning and Protection Procedures
Contaminated Media Management Plan
ES-14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Public services could be adversely affected by traffic congestion and detours during construction of
the Preferred Alternative. Periodic closures and restrictions on east-west streets and the approximately
4-month closure of Alaskan Way for construction of the Pine Street extension would affect access for
service providers. Emergency vehicles would be able to cross the construction zone using the sidewalk
along Elliott Bay to reach the northern portion of Alaskan Way without the need to cross the tracks. The
City would work closely with emergency service providers to put in place appropriate measures for
emergency access to and travel through construction areas to minimize impacts on response times. In
addition, timely communications would be provided to all service providers with details about detours,
utility disruptions, and other critical activities. The City would also:
Coordinate with solid waste service providers to minimize impacts on solid waste collection and
recycling activities
Notify the Seattle School District of construction detours that may affect school bus routings to
and through the study area
Notify the United States Postal Service of construction detours and access changes that may affect
postal deliveries and its facility at S. Jackson Street
Utility relocations would be planned in coordination with construction activities for Alaskan Way, the
Promenade, and the Overlook Walk. Impacts on utilities during construction of the Preferred Alternative
would vary depending on the depth of the utilities below grade, their material composition, and the
construction excavation limits. Potential utility outages would affect business and residential customers
as well as public services. The project design would comply with current City of Seattle and State of
Washington regulatory requirements; the City would work closely with utility providers to ensure
appropriate space planning and construction sequencing to minimize overall risks, costs, and impacts.
The City would also:
Work with utility providers to provide maintenance and emergency access to all utilities
throughout construction
Ensure that outages are minimized and that critical utilities, such as power, water, and
telecommunications for emergency response and public safety, are maintained
Contact the utility provider immediately if any inadvertent damage to the utility occurs
Historic Resources
The Preferred Alternatives footprint includes portions of the Pioneer Square Preservation District and is
adjacent to the Pike Place Market Historical District. Nineteen individual Seattle Landmarks outside of
the historic districts are also located near the project footprint. During construction, reduced access and
parking, as well as construction-related noise and dust, would make it more difficult for people to
patronize businesses in historic buildings and districts. However, because construction work would be
conducted in segments, each historic property would be affected for a relatively short period. While
these short-term impacts would inconvenience residents, customers, and employees who use the
historic properties, the ability of owners to maintain the historic integrity of their properties is not
expected to be affected.
Potential mitigation measures implemented for transportation, parking, noise, public services, and
water quality during construction would help protect the historic and physical integrity of the structures
and the economic viability of the properties and districts. Before constructing the Preferred Alternative,
the City would obtain the required Certificates of Approval for work within historic districts and any
alterations, even temporary ones, to landmarked buildings. Such Certificates of Approval would be
needed from the Pioneer Square Preservation Board, the Pike Place Market Historical Commission, and
the Seattle Landmark Preservation Board. The City would repair any damage that occurs to historic
ES-15
buildings as a result of AWPOW construction in accordance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 67).
Five archaeological sites have been recorded within the Preferred Alternatives footprint. Three of the
sites have been mitigated through recordation, and have been at least partially removed by previous
projects that disturbed these sites. The other two archaeological sites are:
Ballast Island, a site near Pier 48 that was formerly used as a Native American encampment and
meeting place, which could be disturbed by construction of the sidewalk and bicycle facility
A site near Union Street and Western Avenue, where a historic buried concrete wall could be
affected by the pedestrian improvements at Union Street
Undetected sites may still be present in portions of the project footprint that have not been investigated
for cultural resources. The greatest likelihood of encountering such materials is in the area between Pike
Street and Blanchard Street, where construction depths could reach 80 feet below ground surface.
Although regrading in this area has removed some of the native soils, the historic fill is thinner than it is
along the shoreline, and deeper areas of excavation could intersect older deposits that have the
potential to contain pre-contact materials. Construction activities on Union Street would be 40 to 60
feet deep due to the drilled shafts required for the pedestrian walkway connections; therefore, older
archaeological deposits could also be encountered in this area.
To address the potential for project construction to impact currently undetected archaeological sites,
the City would prepare an Inadvertent Discovery Plan before project construction begins. The City would
also develop a plan in consultation with the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP) and affected Native American tribes to conduct archaeological monitoring during
construction activities affecting Ballast Island, and potentially in other areas having a high potential for
encountering undetected archaeological resources.
Water Quality
Construction and associated staging activities such as earthwork, stockpiling, material transport,
concrete work and paving, storm drain utility work, use of construction machinery, and dewatering have
the potential to affect water quality in Elliott Bay. These pollutants can increase turbidity, change pH,
and reduce available oxygen in the water. The impacts would be temporary, would vary in intensity and
duration depending on the type of construction occurring, and would be mitigated through required
preventative measures. The City would prepare and implement plans pursuant to the City of Seattle
Stormwater Code, Stormwater Manual, and the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit that
describe BMPs to prevent pollution, control stormwater flows, and protect Elliott Bay during
construction and staging activities.

During construction of the Preferred Alternative, human activity and noise from construction equipment
could disturb wildlife. However, wildlife species that use habitats in the study area are already adapted to
high levels of noise and human activity, and construction noise and activity would not constitute a
substantial increase in disturbance compared to the No Action Alternative. A Tree, Vegetation, and Soil
Protection Plan would be developed to ensure the selection of appropriate protective measures during
construction. These measures would identify protective measures for trees and other vegetation to be
retained as well as for soil surfaces to guard against compaction and erosion. They would also include
appropriate measures to minimize the risk of introduction and spread of noxious and invasive species.
The City would restore and landscape the project footprint as soon as practicable during construction and
would implement appropriate conservation measures and BMPs to minimize potential impacts on
wildlife. No adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife are expected as a result of construction activities.
ES-16
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Energy Resources
Constructionactivitieswouldconsumeenergytomanufacturematerials,transportmaterials,and
operateconstructionequipment.Constructionwouldalsocontributetogreenhousegas(GHG)
emissionsthroughtheburningoffossilfuelstooperateconstructionmachineryandtransportworkers.
Inadditiontoconstructionactivities,GHGemissionswouldoriginatefromtheproductionofconcrete
andsteelfortheprojectandfromtheprojectsuseofelectricalenergygeneratedbyfossilfuels.
TheamountofenergyusedforAWPOW,althoughsubstantial,wouldbeasmallfractionofoverall
energyconsumptioninSeattleandisnotexpectedtohaveasubstantialimpactonenergyresources.
Similarly,AWPOWisnotexpectedtocontributesignificantlytooverallGHGemissionsortohinder
compliancewithGHGreductiontargetsinSeattleorthestate.BMPs,suchaslimitingidlingof
equipment,wouldcontributetoimprovedenergyefficiencyduringconstruction.
Air Quality
DuringconstructionofthePreferredAlternative,soildisturbingactivities,operationofheavyduty
equipment,commutingworkers,andtheplacementofconcreteandasphaltmaygenerateemissions
thatwouldtemporarilyaffectairquality.Thetotalemissionsandthetimingoftheseemissionswould
varydependingonfactorssuchasconstructionphasingandthetypesofequipmentused.
Statelawrequiresthatconstructionsiteownersandoperatorstakereasonableprecautionstoprevent
fugitivedustfrombecomingairborne.Dustmaybecomeairborneduringdemolition,materialtransport,
grading,vehicleandmachineryoperationsonandofftheworksite,andwindevents.Controlling
fugitivedustemissionscouldinvolveBMPssuchassprayingexposedsoilwithwater,coveringmaterials,
andschedulingconstructionactivitiestokeepdisturbedareastoaminimum.
Operational Impacts and Mitigation

TableES2providesaqualitativeassessmentofimpactsbydiscipline,whichsummarizesimpactlevels
acrossseveralcategoriesofanalysis.Theseimpactsaredescribedinmoredetailbelow.TheAWVRP,
EBSP,andMarketFrontprojectswillbecompletedbeforeAWPOWbeginsandarethereforeassumedto
bepartofthefutureconditionsforboththeNoActionandPreferredalternatives.Theprojectwouldbe
designedtominimizeoravoidthepotentialforadverseimpacts;inaddition,implementingmitigation
measuresandadheringtopermitconditionswouldminimizeoravoidthepotentialforadverseimpacts.
Table ES-2. Operational Impacts and Benefits
Discipline
Minor to Moderate
Adverse Impact
Moderate Benefit
No Impact
Land Use
Moderate Benefit
Aesthetics
No Impact
Moderate Benefit
Transportation
Parking
Noise
No Impact
Minor Adverse Impact (public services)

No impact (utilities)
Minor Benefit (public services)

No Impact to Minor Benefit (utilities)
Historic Resources
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
Water Quality
No Impact
Minor Benefit
Hazardous Materials
No Impact
Minor Benefit
Energy Resources
Minor Benefit
Air Quality
Minor Benefit
ES-17
Transportation
The transportation analysis for both alternatives reflects the future conditions in 2030, the project
design year, and accounts for population and employment changes and transportation improvements
anticipated by that time. Under the No Action Alternative, traffic volumes are generally expected to
increase by approximately 5 to 10 percent between 2017 and 2030 due to regional population and
employment growth. The restored Alaskan Way roadway would not have sufficient capacity to
accommodate this future travel demand. As a result, general-purpose and freight traffic would
experience more congestion and delays at intersections. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities under the
No Action Alternative would remain the same as in 2017; the stairs at Seneca and Union Streets would
not meet ADA standards.
The primary operational impact of the Preferred Alternative would be to provide improved or additional
facilities for motor vehicles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians in the study area. This would improve
overall traffic operations, transit reliability, emergency service response, and pedestrian and bicyclist
comfort and safety. Levels of service would improve at most intersections compared to the No Action
Alternative, which would reduce delays for vehicle and freight traffic. Travel times under the
Preferred Alternative would also improve or remain similar to the No Action Alternative. Along the east
side of the new Alaskan Way, properties that currently use the City of Seattle right of way to access
parking or loading areas would experience changes in access. Freight access to businesses would be
accommodated with on-street parking and loading zones along Alaskan Way, side streets, and alleys, but
with modifications in some locations. Regional transit would benefit from improved traffic operations
and dedicated transit facilities in the study area. Water transportation services and rail would not be
disrupted by the Preferred Alternative and would likely experience safety and congestion improvements
because of improved roadway operations and levels of service.
At the north end of the project footprint, the extension of Bell Street Park between Elliott and First
Avenues would change the roadway configuration to become a one-way shared street (roadway and
public park space). This would have a minor impact on the roadway operations on Bell Street and the
adjacent roadways.
Parking
The parking supply under the No Action Alternative is expected to
remain the same as under 2017 existing conditions with the
addition of the MarketFront development, which would add 250
new off-street parking spaces.2 Population and employment
growth would likely increase the demand for parking by 2030, the
projects design year.
The Preferred Alternative would permanently remove
approximately 57 on-street parking spaces along Alaskan Way,
377 parking spaces that existed in the Alaskan Way Viaduct
footprint, 15 on-street spaces on Bell Street, 3 spaces on Union
Street, and 1 space on S. Main Street. This loss of 453 on-street
parking spaces represents approximately 25 percent of the onstreet parking supply in the study area. The Preferred Alternative
would also permanently remove 189 off-street parking spaces in
the study area. The total project-related parking loss of
approximately 642 parking spaces represents approximately
Existing Conditions
In the Draft EIS, the term 2017
existing conditions is used to refer
to the future condition of the study
area after the AWVRP, EBSP, and the
MarketFront have been constructed.
The viaduct needs to be demolished
before the AWPOW projects can be
constructed. Because of AWVRP
tunneling delays, the time frame for
viaduct demolition has shifted from
2017 to 2019. This does not affect
the overall AWPOW EIS analysis
because the assumptions for future
existing conditions remain the same.
To keep the terminology consistent
with the prior environmental
documentation, the Final EIS
continues to use 2017 existing
conditions as the baseline.
The 250 off-street parking spaces that are currently under construction as part of the Pike Place MarketFront (MarketFront)
development are expected to be completed in 2017. As a result, they were not counted in the existing parking supply counts
obtained in 2013 and are therefore not included in the existing conditions (2017) parking supply inventory.
ES-18
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6 percent of all on- and off-street parking supply in the study area. The City would address this loss by
modifying on-street parking policies and practices, improving enforcement of short-term parking limits,
continuing the use of e-Park, and increasing awareness and encouraging use of alternative modes of
transportation. Enhanced facilities for nonmotorized transportation and transit would help minimize the
impact of parking loss for the Preferred Alternative and provide travel options to and from the
waterfront, reducing the overall demand for parking.
It is expected that demand for both on-street and off-street parking would increase in conjunction with
population and employment growth in Seattles central business district. Because parking supply would
decrease under the Preferred Alternative, this increase in demand for parking, coupled with the
decrease in parking supply, is expected to increase the on-street and off-street parking utilization rates
across all parking zones and time periods studied.
The proposed removal of on-street parking is consistent with applicable policies in Seattles
Comprehensive Plan (2005). The City is currently in the process of a plan update, which is scheduled for
completion in 2016. The updated Comprehensive Plans policies are largely similar to those of the 2005
adopted version. The removal of on-street parking spaces, in conjunction with the enhanced
nonmotorized and transit facilities that are part of the Preferred Alternative, supports overall City
planning goals for reducing dependency on single-occupant vehicles in the downtown area.
Land Use
Compared to the Preferred Alternative, operation of the No Action Alternative would result in higher
traffic congestion and less potential for beneficial redevelopment in accordance with adopted land use
plans. Because Alaskan Way would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate increased travel
demand in 2030, the resulting congestion could affect business patronage, and would not address City
land use goals of increased connectivity and mobility. The No Action Alternative would maintain the
existing non-accessible and indirect pedestrian connections between the Pike Place Market and the
waterfront. It would not support local land use plans that envision a downtown waterfront with
enhanced connection to the shoreline, increased public gathering space, and improved accommodations
for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.
The operational impacts of the Preferred Alternative on land use are expected to be positive because
the project would result in a more accessible waterfront and increase the desirability of the area for
public use and general development. Positive operational impacts are expected because the new public
facilities associated with this project would enhance traffic operations, support increased walking and
bicycling, improve multimodal connectivity and mobility, provide new open space and recreation
opportunities, and support economic development. Although the project would not change existing
zoning or land use designations, increased activity and public amenities along the waterfront could
encourage beneficial redevelopment of adjacent areas in accordance with applicable zoning and
development standards. The Preferred Alternative is expected to support the goals of state, regional,
and local land use plans, many of which call for improvements along the waterfront.
Aesthetics
There would be no visual impacts or benefits under the No Action Alternative because it would be
identical to the 2017 existing conditions. Operational impacts of the Preferred Alternative would be
generally positive because the streetscape and pedestrian spaces would replace paved areas currently
dedicated to parking and vehicle traffic. Elements that are expected to enhance visual quality include
trees and shrubs, gathering areas with seating, and custom paving patterns and lighting. With these
landscaping and urban design elements, the Preferred Alternative streetscape and pedestrian spaces
would generally be considered an aesthetic enhancement compared to the No Action Alternative.
The new kiosk structures along the Promenade would be prominent in the historic pier section of the
waterfront. At their proposed height, the kiosks could impact views along designated view corridors at
Seneca, Spring, Union, and University Streets. Along the Main Corridor, the Preferred Alternative could
ES-19
result in negative impacts if the kiosk structures or tree canopies were to block or interfere with scenic
views along the waterfront or toward Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. Depending on the final
design, the kiosks and tree canopies could be perceived to have either a positive or a negative visual
impact, depending on the viewer.
The Overlook Walk and Building B would be new structures in views from the waterfront and from Pike
Place Market. This change to the visual landscape could also be perceived to have either a positive or a
negative impact, depending on the viewer.
The Overlook Walk would accommodate the Aquarium Pavilion, which would be a large, prominent
structure that may block private views from the southern end of the Waterfront Landings Condominium
building. Views from the southern units of the building presently include an office building, driveway,
parking, loading zone, and Alaskan Way, as well as limited water and pier views from some units. The
Pavilion would not obstruct views from any locations where views are protected by the Citys SEPA
ordinance (SMC 25.05.675.P). In addition, new public viewing areas would be provided from the
Pavilions roof. The actual view impacts may vary from those generally described in this Final EIS
because they would be dependent upon the final design of the Aquariums building.
If the Overlook Walk were constructed without the Aquarium Pavilion, it could detract from the overall
visual quality of the waterfront. The structural elements supporting the upper section of the Overlook
Walk would be prominent in views from the waterfront areas near the Aquarium Plaza and historic
piers, and the Overlook Walk would not screen Alaskan Way from the Aquarium Plaza.
The Union Street Pedestrian Connection would include walkways with new public viewpoints that
would provide very high-quality views of the waterfront and Elliott Bay. The new pedestrian connection
would also include elevator towers that would be compatible with existing nearby development,
although the towers would partially alter the views of Elliott Bay currently provided at Union Street just
east of Post Alley.
Visualization of the Preferred Alternative from Victor Steinbrueck Park, looking south
ES-20
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Noise
Noise levels in the study area are currently dominated by traffic. Modeled future noise levels, calculated
as A-weighted decibels expressed in terms of average sound levels (abbreviated as dBA Leq), were
compared to the Federal Highway Administration's noise abatement criteria (NAC). In 2017, after the
AWVRP is complete, 1,136 noise receivers in the study area are predicted to be at or above the NAC for
residential land uses, with noise levels ranging from 61 to 73 dBA Leq. Under the 2030 No Action
Alternative, the number of units at or above the NAC would be the same as under the 2017 existing
conditions, and traffic noise levels are predicted to range from 62 to 74 dBA Leq.
Under the Preferred Alternative, 1,211 residential units are predicted to be at or above the NAC; noise
levels would range from 58 to 72 dBA Leq during peak hours in 2030. Noise levels would increase in
some locations and decrease at others because of changes in the roadway alignment compared to
No Action. Overall, traffic noise levels are expected to increase by up to 5 dBA in some locations
(primarily in the northern portion of the study area), and decrease by 5 to 6 dBA in other locations
compared to the No Action Alternative.
Several types of mitigation measures were reviewed for their potential to reduce noise impacts where
the Preferred Alternative would cause noise levels to increase above the NAC. All of the measures
reviewed were determined to be infeasible, in conflict with project objectives, or not cost effective.
Although there are no clear, reasonable, and feasible methods of reducing noise in this area, it is
important to note that the overall noise levels in the corridor would be up to 12 dBA lower than the
noise levels with the viaduct in operation.
Hazardous Materials
Potential operational impacts under the No Action and Preferred alternatives include spills or releases
from vehicles traveling in the corridor, the potential to create contaminant migration corridors through
the installation of utilities, and exposure of workers to contamination during maintenance activities. The
potential for such impacts would be minimized or mitigated through the use of BMPs and compliance
with regulations governing the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials.

The No Action Alternative would not construct the proposed connection between Alaskan Way and Elliott
Way; as a result, it would take public service providers longer to reach destinations between Belltown and
Alaskan Way than under the Preferred Alternative. The operational impacts on public services as a result
of the Preferred Alternative would therefore be positive. The improved roadway capacity and connection
to Belltown should reduce the time required to provide public services and respond to emergencies
The Preferred Alternatives impacts on utility operation and maintenance are expected to be minimal,
and new facilities would provide a benefit. The Preferred Alternative would be designed to provide
maintenance access to underground utilities that meets the standard access criteria and associated
vehicle loading. Therefore, no mitigation for operational impacts would be necessary.
Historic Resources
The No Action Alternative would have minimal or no impact on historic resources. The
Preferred Alternative would have minimal adverse impacts on historic resources and could have slight
benefits. The primary potential impact of the Preferred Alternative would be alterations to the historic
character of the waterfront, which could lessen the sense of connection between the waterfront and
the buildings and neighborhoods east of Alaskan Way. Proposed improvements on S. Main and S.
Washington Streets could potentially have permanent impacts on some areaways. The type and extent
of alterations to historic resources would be determined during final design.
ES-21
The City would obtain Certificates of Approval and undergo Landmarks Adjacency Reviews, as
appropriate, for all permanent impacts the Preferred Alternative would have on historic resources.
Certificates of Approval would be needed from the Pioneer Square Preservation Board, the Pike Place
Market Historical Commission, and the Seattle Landmarks Board. The Seattle Department of
Neighborhoods would conduct Landmarks Adjacency Reviews for project elements located next to or
across the street from designated City landmarks. These approvals and reviews would consider the
compatibility of project elements, materials, and designs with the areas historic character. The City
would also use urban design and place-making approaches such as landscaping, interpretation, and
reuse of historical elements (seawall railing, ship's wheel ornamentation, etc.) to enhance the sense of
historical connection among the waterfront structures, the roadway, and buildings on the east side of
Alaskan Way.
No operational impacts on archaeological sites are anticipated as a result of either the No Action
Alternative or the Preferred Alternative.
Water Quality
The No Action Alternative would not result in any operational impacts or benefits to water quality. The
operational impacts of the Preferred Alternative are expected to be beneficial. The project would reduce
flow volumes to the combined sewer by diverting a portion of the stormwater runoff area from the
combined sewer system to the separated storm drain system. In addition, the project would reduce the
overall quantity of pollutants in stormwater runoff by converting portions of the existing pollutiongenerating impervious surfaces (PGIS) to non-pollution-generating impervious surfaces (NPGIS) in the
footprint. Also, the project would improve the quality of discharges to Elliott Bay by treating runoff from
PGIS that was previously untreated.

The No Action Alternative is not expected to affect vegetation or wildlife. The operational impacts of the
Preferred Alternative on vegetation and wildlife would be minimal. The primary effect would be a slight
increase in native vegetation and the availability of habitat for native wildlife, as well as natural
recruitment of native vegetation. This could lead to some increase in the populations and densities of
wildlife in the study area. Because no adverse impacts are anticipated, no mitigation measures are
proposed for vegetation and wildlife.
Energy Resources
Vehicles are expected to operate more efficiently and overall energy consumption is expected to decline
slightly under the Preferred Alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. Because the project
would improve traffic operations and travel times, as well as reduce the number of vehicle miles
traveled in the corridor, the Preferred Alternative is also expected to slightly reduce GHG emissions
compared to the No Action Alternative. No adverse effects on energy resources and GHG emissions are
expected from the operation of the Preferred Alternative.
Air Quality
Under the No Action Alternative, congestion on Alaskan Way and east-west cross streets would result in
increased emissions of air pollutants. Congestion would be reduced by the improvements under the
Preferred Alternative. Because air emissions are directly correlated to traffic volumes and congestion,
the Preferred Alternative is expected to result in a slight reduction in emissions of air pollutants within
the study area; therefore, no mitigation is required.
ES-22
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation

Cumulative impacts are project-related environmental impacts in combination with the impacts of other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity. In other words, they are the combined
individual impacts of multiple projects over time. SEPA requires the evaluation of cumulative impacts as
part of the EIS analysis.
AWPOW would be constructed once the SR 99 tunnel is in operation and the viaduct is removed.
Construction would occur in the midst of a busy waterfront at the same time as other capital projects,
including the Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock Project. The construction-related impacts of
AWPOW would add to the temporary adverse construction-related impacts of those other projects.
Construction-related noise, dust, and traffic congestion would be greater with all of the projects
together than if only one were constructed at a time. Therefore, AWPOW would contribute to an
adverse cumulative impact during construction. Mitigation would consist of measures to reduce the
overall impacts of construction by coordinating with other projects and agencies to verify the
effectiveness of BMPs and ensure that residents, employees, and visitors can navigate efficiently and
safely through the construction area.
The operational impacts of AWPOW, combined with those of other reasonably foreseeable projects,
would result in long-term improvements to transportation, aesthetics, and water quality, and would
further the goals of regional and local land use and transportation plans. Overall, project operation
would not contribute to adverse cumulative impacts, and no mitigation would be necessary.
Next Steps
After the Final EIS is issued, final design and permitting are expected to be completed between 2017 and
2019. Construction would begin no earlier than 2019.
ES-23
1 Introduction and Objectives of the Project

1.1
Introduction to the Project
TheCityofSeattleisproposinganumberofinfrastructureimprovementprojects(collectivelyreferredtoas
WaterfrontSeattle)alongtheSeattlewaterfront.Theimprovementsareproposedinresponsetothe
opportunities,transportationneeds,andrelatedpublicobjectivescreatedbythereplacementofthe
AlaskanWayViaductwithanewStateRoute(SR)99tunnel.Theseopportunities,needs,andobjectivesfor
thewaterfrontarearticulatedintheWaterfrontSeattleGuidingPrinciples,whichaffirmthefollowinggoals:
Createawaterfrontforall
Puttheshorelineandinnovative,sustainabledesignattheforefront
Reconnectthecitytoitswaterfront
EmbraceandcelebrateSeattle'spast,present,andfuture
Improveaccessandmobility(forpeopleandgoods)
Createaboldvisionthatisadaptableovertime
Developconsistentleadershipfromconcepttooperations
InJune2015,theCitypublishedtheDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)fortheAlaskanWay,
Promenade,andOverlookWalk(AWPOWortheproject).AWPOWconsistsoffourprojectsthatarepart
ofalargergroupofinfrastructureprojectsknownasWaterfrontSeattle.TheDraftEISevaluatedtwo
alternativestheNoActionAlternativeandtheActionAlternativeforeachofthefourprojects:
TheMainCorridor
ThePromenade
TheOverlookWalk
TheEastWestConnections
Figure11showsthelocationofAWPOWincontextofdowntownSeattleandFigure12showsthe
locationsofthefourprojectswithintheAWPOWfootprint.
InresponsetopubliccommentsontheDraftEISandinordertocoordinatemorecloselywithcurrent
planningfortheSeattleAquarium,theCitydevelopedanadditionalalternativeforboththeMain
CorridorprojectandtheOverlookWalkproject.Thesealternatives,MainCorridorAlternative2and
OverlookWalkAlternative2,wereanalyzedinaSupplementalDraftEISpublishedinApril2016.After
consideringthepubliccommentsandenvironmentalanalysesfromboththeDraftEISandSupplemental
DraftEIS,theCitycombinedcomponentsofthealternativesevaluatedinthesereportstoformthe
PreferredAlternative.ThePreferredAlternativeandtheNoActionAlternativearedescribedindetailin
Chapter2ofthisFinalEIS.
BecauseofthecomplementarynatureofthefourAWPOWprojects,andthefactthattheyrepresentthe
mostsubstantialoftheplannedWaterfrontSeattleimprovements,theCityisevaluatingthemtogether
inthisEIS,asauthorizedbytheStateEnvironmentalPolicyAct(SEPA)underWashingtonAdministrative
Code(WAC)19711060(3)(c)andtheSeattleMunicipalCode(SMC)25.05.060C.3.
1-1
G reen
Lake
99
Puget
Sound
520
Lake
Union
Regional Locator
Everett
S N OH OMI S H C OU N T Y
K I N G C OU N T Y
Seattle
Seattle
Elliot t
Bay
Tacoma
Olympia
519
90
0.5
Miles
Figure 1-1
Vicinity Map
E lliot t B ay
AL
AS
KA
SKA
ALA
NW
Pier 48
AY
S
ONT
ST
IN
GS
T
KS
AIN
ST
AC
SJ
SM
YE
SLR
EW
R AW
YA
Y
L ST
SW
AS
HIN
ST
SK
VINE
BEL
D ST
A ST
Overlook Walk
ST
Source: SDOT
Promenade
AVE
AVE
3RD
AVE
6TH
5TH AVE
Main Corridor
2ND
AVE
5TH
A E
4TH AV
AVE
AVE
4TH
3R D AV
A E
Project Footprint
INIA
ST
Feet
800
ART
400
W
ST E
PINE ST
PIKE ST
2ND AV
A E
UNION ST
Y ST
UNIVERSITY
SENECA ST
T
SPRING ST
MADISON ST
MAR ION ST
I ST
UMB A
A E
1ST AV
S
T
CHERRY ST
AV
E
AWPOW Projects
1ST
POST AVE
ID
EN
TA
L
TERRACE ST
AV
ES
CCEE
PLAA
OR
LLEEN
PIKE
AR
NCCH
N
BBLLAA
WESTE RN AVE
JAMES ST
2N
DA
VE
R
STE
WEW
VIRG
OC
C
E E
N AV
ALASKA WAY
ALASKAN
1S
TA
VE
ST
ERY
Pier 55
Seattle
eattle
Aquarium
T
BAT
Pier 54
4
Colman Dock
Waterf
Waterfront
Pa
ark
LS
WAAL
W
Pie
er 57
Pier 56
6
AY
VE
EL
er 6
PiePier 63
6
62/63
AY S
WA
RAILROAD W
5T
H
NW
Parcel Boundary
Building Footprint
Figure 1-2
Project Overview
1.2
Background
TheopportunitytoimproveSeattlesdowntownwaterfrontarosefromadecisionbytheWashington
StateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)toreplacetheAlaskanWayViaductfollowingthe2001
Nisquallyearthquake.WSDOTsprimarygoalsinreplacingtheviaductweretoprotectpublicsafetyand
replaceessentialvehiclecapacitytoandthroughdowntownSeattle.However,removingtheviaduct
structurealsoenabledtheCitytoconsidersolutionsfortheurbandesignandconnectivityproblems
causedbytheviaduct,whosesizeandproximitytotheshorelinehascreatedabarrierthatlimitsthe
Citysoptionsforimprovingconditionsforpedestriansandbicyclists,creatingwaterfrontamenities,and
improvingeastwestconnections.
In2001,theFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)andWSDOT,withtheCityasacoleadagency,began
developingtheAlaskanWayViaductReplacementProject(AWVRP).TheAWVRPDraftEIS,publishedin
2004,andaSupplementalEIS,publishedin2006,evaluatedseveralalternativesforreplacingtheviaduct
thatwouldmeettheneedsofbothlocalandthroughtrafficcurrentlyservedbythefacility.These
alternativesincludedanelevatedstructuresimilartothepresentviaduct;alargersurfacestreetinthe
generalvicinityofpresentdayAlaskanWaywithaconnectiontoElliottAvenue;andseveraltypesof
tunnels.AllofthealternativesassumedimprovementstoAlaskanWay,withamenitiesthatincludeda
landscapedmedian,abroaderwaterfrontpromenade,andbicyclefacilities.
InJanuary2009,thegovernoroftheStateofWashington,theKingCountyExecutive,andthemayorof
SeattleagreedtoreplacethecentralportionoftheAlaskanWayViaductwithasingle,largediameter
boredtunnelandseveralseparateinfrastructureimprovements(StateofWashington,KingCounty,and
CityofSeattle2009).Theimprovementsincludedanewwaterfrontsurfacestreetwithconnectionstothe
downtowngrid,anewconnectionfromthewaterfronttoWesternandElliottAvenues,awaterfront
promenade,andtransitenhancements.Theseseparateinfrastructureimprovementswerepartofthe
cumulativeeffectsanalysisforthepreferredBoredTunnelAlternativeevaluatedinthesecond
SupplementalDraftEISandFinalEISfortheAWVRP,publishedin2010and2011,respectively.WSDOT
agreedtofundthedesignandconstructionofanewAlaskanWayandElliottWayfromapproximately
S.KingStreettoBatteryStreet,inpart,becausethenewwaterfrontsurfacestreetwouldcarrysomeof
thetrafficthatwouldpreviouslyhaveusedtheviaduct.The2009agreementandtheAWVRPFinalEIS
togetherestablishedthebasicAWPOWprojectsandmarkedthestartoftheCitysplanningprocessfor
WaterfrontSeattle.
WaterfrontSeattleplanninghasinvolvedsubstantialparticipationbyelectedofficials,stakeholders,and
communitymembers.Since2011,theCityspublicoutreachprogramforWaterfrontSeattlehas
includedover300communityeventsincludingpublicmeetings,fairs,festivals,briefings,forums,and
workshops.Allplanninganddesigneffortshavetakenplaceinpartnershipwithaseriesofcommittees
establishedbytheSeattleCityCouncil.TheCentralWaterfrontPartnershipsCommittee,establishedin
November2009,developedtheSeattleWaterfrontGuidingPrinciples,whichtheSeattleCityCouncil
affirmedbyresolutioninJanuary2011.TheCentralWaterfrontCommitteereplacedtheCentral
WaterfrontPartnershipsCommitteeinJanuary2011,andconsistedofawiderangeofvolunteer
communityrepresentativesandleadersappointedbytheSeattleCityCouncil.Thecommitteedeveloped
documentsinitsroleasthebroadoverseerofthedesign,financing,publicengagement,longterm
operations,andmaintenanceofWaterfrontSeattle.ThesedocumentsincludedtheFrameworkPlan,the
ConceptDesign,andtheStrategicPlan,whichwerepublishedinJuly2012andsupportedbytheSeattle
CityCouncilinAugust2012.Theyprovideguidance,goals,andstrategiesforimplementationof
WaterfrontSeattle.InOctober2014,theCentralWaterfrontSteeringCommitteereplacedtheCentral
WaterfrontCommitteeinordertoadvisetheCityonimplementingtheCentralWaterfrontConcept
DesignandStrategicPlan.
WaterfrontSeattleencompassesthefourAWPOWprojectsandafewadditionalindependentprojects.
TheseadditionalprojectsincludeimprovementstoUnionStreetPierandPier62/63,bothownedbythe
1-4
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT
SeattleParksandRecreationDepartment(SeattleParks),andthenewElliottBaySeawall,nowunder
construction.Eachoftheseprojectshasundergone,orwillundergo,separatereviewunderSEPA.
1.3
Objectives of the AWPOW Projects
AsnotedinSection1.1,AWPOWconsistsoffourcomplementaryprojects:theMainCorridor,the
Promenade,theOverlookWalk,andtheEastWestConnections.Eachhasitsowndistinctpurpose,
whichisbasedonasetofidentifiedneedsandpolicydecisions,andisconsistentwiththeWaterfront
SeattleGuidingPrinciples.Theobjectivesofeachproject,orpurposeandneed(thetermusedinthe
DraftEIS),aredescribedbelow.
1.3.1
Main Corridor
Purposeoftheaction:Accommodatesafe,efficient,andreliabletravelbetweenthesouthdowntown
areaandBelltownforgeneralpurposetraffic,
regionaltransit,freight,ferrytraffic,pedestrians,
andbicycles.
Needfortheaction:AWPOWresponds,inpart,to
transportationneedscreatedbyWSDOTs
replacementoftheAlaskanWayViaductwitha
tunnel.Becausetheviaductwillbeeliminated,
AlaskanWaywillberequiredtoserveadditional
trafficdemandandreplacetheviaductssurface
connectiontoBelltown.AsdescribedinSection
1.2above,anewwaterfrontsurfacestreetwith
connectionstoElliottandWesternAvenuesmust
fillthetransportationneedsremainingafterthe
AWVRP.Becausethetunnelwillnothaveexitsin
downtownSeattleastheviaductdoestoday,
AlaskanWaywillneedtocarrymuchmorelocal
trafficinthefuturethanitscurrentcapacitywill
allow.Inaddition,theprojectmustrestoreaccess
toBelltownandpointsnorththattheviaduct
closurewilleliminate.Theseneedsareinaddition
tothecurrentfunctionsofAlaskanWayserving
waterfrontvisitors,movingfreighttoandfrom
PortofSeattlefacilities,providingqueuingspace
forvehiclesboundfortheferryatColmanDock,
andaccommodatingcruiseshipsatPier66.Asa
resultofthesefactors,trafficonAlaskanWayat
YeslerWayisexpectedtoincreasesubstantially
between2010and2030.
AlaskanWaylookingnorthfromYeslerWayin2003
Inadditiontogeneralpurposeandfreightneeds,
AlaskanWaymustalsoservemultimodalneeds.ManybicyclistsusetheAlaskanWaycorridorfor
commutingorrecreation,butthemultimodalpathontheeastsideoftheroadwayhasnumerousstreet
crossingsandissharedwithpedestrians.IntheCitysBicycleMasterPlan,AlaskanWayisshownasa
gapintheexistingbicyclenetwork;therefore,aseparatedbicyclefacilityisrecommendedaspartofan
overallstrategytoimproveconnectionstoandwithinthecentercity.TheAlaskanWaycorridorisalso
deficientintransitservice.AlthoughonetransitrouteexistedonAlaskanWaypriortoAWVRPandthe
ElliottBaySeawallProject(EBSP)constructionandcouldpotentiallybereinstated,notransitroutes
currentlyrunalongAlaskanWay,andtransitusersmusttraversethesteepeastweststreetstoreach
busroutesonFirst,Second,andThirdAvenues.TheCitysTransitMasterPlanidentifiesColmanDockas
1-5
animportanthubfortransit,butnotesthatimpedimentstotransferbetweentravelmodesin
particular,thedifficultyoftransferringfromferriestodowntownbusrouteslimititspotentialasan
intermodalconnectionandmaydiscouragewalkonferrypassengers.Thesedeficienciesdirectlyconflict
withCitypoliciesthatencouragebicyclingandtransitusetoimprovepublichealthandtheenvironment
andtoreducerelianceonautomobiles.
PedestrianmovementandsafetyareanotherimportantneedintheAlaskanWaycorridor.TheCityhas
acompletestreetpolicyrequiringthateverystreetbedesignedtoaccommodatepedestrians.This
requiresacorridorwithspeedlimitssimilartothoseofotherdowntownstreets,signalizedintersections
thatprovidesafeandconvenientplacestocross,generoussidewalks,andastreetwidthasnarrowas
possible,giventhetrafficfunctionsthattheroadwaymustaccommodate.
1.3.2
Promenade
Purposeoftheaction:ProvidesignificantpublicopenspaceadjacenttotheElliottBayshorelinein
downtownSeattletoaccommodatepedestriandemand,createpublicamenities,andstrengthenthe
connectionbetweenthecityanditswaterfront.
Needfortheaction:Currently,thewaterfrontisdifficulttoaccessandprovideslittlespaceto
accommodatepedestrianmovementandgathering.Visualandphysicalconnectionstotheshorelineare
limited.ThequalityoftheexistingpedestrianenvironmentiscompromisedbytheAlaskanWayViaduct,
andwillalsobecompromisedinthefuturebythelocationoftherestoredAlaskanWayafterEBSP
constructioniscompleted.
Onatypicaldayduringthesummermonths,asmanyas30,000peoplevisitthedowntownwaterfront.
Whilethewaterfrontsviewsandattractionsmakeitapopulardestination,theviaducthasresultedina
lossofconnectionbetweenthewaterfrontandtherestofthecitythatwillremainaftertheviaductis
demolished.Thewidespacewherethestructureiscurrentlylocated,historicallyusedforparkingand
ferryqueuing,willcontinuetophysicallyseparatethewaterfrontfromdowntown.Mostbuildingson
theeastsideofAlaskanWayhaveturnedtheirbackstotheshoreline,withtheirwesternfaades
consistingprimarilyofloadingdocks,storage,andgarbageandrecyclingcollectionareas.
AlaskanWayslocationandconfigurationhavealsoaffectedopenspaceandpedestrianaccessalongthe
waterfront.ThepresenceofAlaskanWayimmediatelyadjacenttotheshorelineallowsforonlya
narrowsidewalkalongtheseawall,whichbecomescongestedduringpeaktouristperiods.Trafficnoise
fromAlaskanWayadverselyaffectsthepedestrianenvironment.Ontheeastsideofthestreet,
pedestriansandbicyclistsshareanarrowpaththathaslittleornoprotectionfromtraffic.Collectively,
thesefactorshaveresultedinawidezonedominatedbymotorvehiclesimmediatelyadjacenttothe
citysmostvisitedshoreline.TheCitysPedestrianMasterPlanidentifiessubstantialopportunitiesalong
AlaskanWaytoimprovepedestrianlinkages,roadwaycrossings,andqualityofthepedestrian
environment.
1.3.3
Overlook Walk
Purposeoftheaction:Provideagradeseparatedpedestriancrossing,viewopportunities,andpublic
openspacebetweenthewaterfrontandPikePlaceMarket.
Needfortheaction:AccessbetweenthePikePlaceMarketandthewaterfront,twoofSeattlesmost
popularattractions,isimpededbysteeptopographyandatgradestreetcrossings;openspaceinthis
areaislimited,andtherearefewopportunitiesforviews.
Almost4millionpeoplevisittheSeattlewaterfronteachyear,andthePikePlaceMarketreceivesas
manyas10millionannualvisitors.Theseattractionsareseparatedbyonlytwocityblocks.However,
becauseofthesteepgradeinthisarea,opportunitiesforpedestrianstomovedirectlybetweenthe
marketandthewaterfrontarelimitedtothreeoptions:thePikeStreetHillclimb;astaircaseascending
theundevelopedslopewestofthemarketinthePineStreetrightofway;andelevatorsandstairsinthe
PublicMarketGarage.Thestairwaysaresteepanddifficulttoclimbanddonotprovidefullaccessfor
1-6
peoplewithdisabilities.AlltheroutesrequireatgradecrossingsofAlaskanWaytoreachthe
waterfront.Inparticular,thewidecrosswalkatthebaseoftheHillclimbisoftenusedtodaybydozensof
pedestriansoneachtrafficsignalcycle.Connectingthelargenumbersofpedestriansusingthis
connectiondirectlytothewaterfrontpromenade,withoutanatgradecrossingofAlaskanWay,will
improvethequalityofthepedestrianexperience.
Inadditiontothepooraccommodationforpedestriantravel,theareabetweenthemarketandthe
waterfrontisunderutilizedandislackinginviewsandpublicopenspace.VictorSteinbrueckPark,with
itssweepingviewstowardthewater,isfrequentlyverycrowded,whiletheareainthePineStreetright
ofwayisseldomused.Theexistingviaductprovidesexpansiveviewsformotorists,buttheseviewswill
beeliminatedwhentheviaductisdemolished.Theheavyuseofthisareabythepublicwarrantsthe
provisionofadditionalopenspacethatfacilitatespedestrianmovementwhileprovidingopportunities
forpeopletogatherandenjoyscenicvistas.
1.3.4
Purposeoftheaction:ImprovekeyeastweststreetsadjacenttotheMainCorridortoprovidebetter
connectionsbetweenthewaterfrontanddowntownSeattleandenhancethepedestrianexperience.
Needfortheaction:Thereiscurrentlyalackofstrongpedestrianconnectionsbetweenthewaterfront
areaandthedowntownSeattlestreetgrid.AtthesouthendoftheMainCorridor,accessfromAlaskan
WaytoPioneerSquareishinderedbyunevensidewalks,highcurbs,andlackoffacilitiesincompliance
withtheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA)oneastweststreets;therearenovisualorurbandesign
cueslinkingthehistoricdistricttothewaterfrontarea.ThecentralportionoftheMainCorridor,from
SenecaStreettothePikeStreetHillclimb,affordsnoeastwestaccessforpeoplewithlimitedmobility
betweenthewaterfrontandFirstAvenue.InthenorthernportionoftheMainCorridor,theelimination
oftheviaductanddecommissioningoftheBatteryStreetTunnelprovidesopportunitiestoreconnect
andenhanceportionsoftheeastweststreetgridforpedestrianandbicycleuse.Improvementstoeast
weststreetsintheseareaswouldstronglysupporttheWaterfrontSeattleGuidingPrinciplesof
reconnectingthecitytoitswaterfrontandimprovingaccessandmobility,aswellasthepoliciesand
recommendationsoftheCity'sPedestrianMasterPlan(SDOT2014).
1.4
Comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental

Draft EIS
FollowingpublicationoftheDraftEIS,theCityheldapubliccommentperiodfromJune29,2015to
August26,2015andhostedapublicopenhouseonJuly22,2015.TheCityreceived107piecesof
correspondence(letters,emails,andsubmittalsfromthepublicopenhouse)withcommentsontheDraft
EISfromtribes,agencies,businesses,organizations,andmembersofthepublic.AftertheSupplemental
DraftEISwaspublished,theCityprovidedanotherpubliccommentperiodfromApril18,2016toMay18,
2016,andhostedapublicopenhouseonMay10,2016.TheCityreceived168piecesofcorrespondence
withcommentsontheSupplementalDraftEIS.Responsestoeachpieceofcorrespondencearecontained
inAppendixD,DraftEISandSupplementalDraftEISCommentsandResponses.
1.4.1
Draft EIS
The107piecesofcorrespondencereceivedontheDraftEIScontained453individualcomments.The
twotopicsthatreceivedthemostcommentsweretransportationandalternatives,followedby
parkingandconstruction.Abriefsummaryofeachofthesefourtopicsisprovidedbelow.Several
othertopics,suchaspublicservices,utilities,andlanduse,receivedasmallernumberofcomments.
AllcommentsarerespondedtoindividuallyinAppendixD,DraftEISandSupplementalDraftEIS
CommentsandResponses.
1-7
Transportation
Approximatelyonethirdoftheindividualcommentswereontransportationtopics,whichincluded
pedestrian,bicycle,transit,freight,access,andgeneraltrafficrelatedcomments.Commentson
pedestrianfacilitiesincludedconcernsaboutsafetyincrossingthebicyclefacilityandAlaskanWay,
ADAaccess,andsuggestionsforadditionalpedestrianspace.Commentsonbicyclefacilitiesgenerally
expressedsupportfortheseparatedbicyclefacilityonthewestsideofAlaskanWay;therewerealso
requestsfortheCitytoaddressconnectionstonearbybicyclefacilitiesandsafetyconcernsat
intersectionswhereconflictswithpedestriansandvehiclescouldoccur.Commentsonfreightpointed
outthatAlaskanWayisaMajorTruckStreetandthattheMainCorridorwouldneedtobedesignedto
accommodatefreightoperations.
Alternatives
CommentsonalternativesanddesignrelatedcomponentstendedtofocusontheOverlookWalkand
theportionoftheMainCorridorsouthofColmanDock.ManycommentsontheMainCorridorproject
suggestedthattheCityshouldfurtherevaluateconfigurationsthatwouldreducethecorridors
proposedwidthintheareasouthofColumbiaStreet.CommentsontheOverlookWalkprojectwere
morevaried;someexpressedconcernwithimpactsonnearbyproperties,whileothersurgedtheCity
tocoordinateitsdesignwiththeAquariumPavilionidentifiedintheSeattleAquariumMasterPlan.In
responsetopubliccommentsontheDraftEISandinordertocoordinatemorecloselywithcurrent
planningfortheSeattleAquarium,theCitydevelopedanadditionalalternativeforboththeMain
CorridorprojectandtheOverlookWalkproject.Thesealternatives,MainCorridorAlternative2and
OverlookWalkAlternative2,wereanalyzedinaSupplementalDraftEISpublishedinApril2016.
Parking
Severalcommentersexpressedconcernfortheamountofparkinglostasaresultoftheprojectand
suggestedthatmitigationshouldbeprovided.
Construction
Commentsonconstructionwerevaried,buthighlightedtrafficandnoiseinthewaterfront,andthe
factthatconstructionfortheAWVRPandEBSPhavebeenongoingforthelastseveralyears.Manyof
thesecommentsmentionedthechallengesthatconstructioncreatesforlocalbusinessesand
residents,aswellasforpeopleandgoodstravelingthroughthewaterfrontarea.
1.4.2
Supplemental Draft EIS
Inthe168piecesofcorrespondencereceivedontheSupplementalDraftEIS,therewere308individual
comments.ApproximatelyhalfofthecommentspertainedtotheMainCorridorandOverlookWalk
alternatives.Transportationandparkingwasanothercommontopicofcomments.Commentsonthe
majortopicsaresummarizedbelow;individualresponsestoeachpieceofcorrespondenceare
containedinAppendixD,DraftEISandSupplementalDraftEISCommentsandResponses.
Main Corridor and Overlook Walk Alternatives

ManycommentersexpressedapreferenceforoneoftheMainCorridorandOverlookWalkalternatives.
Therewasarangeofopinionsonbothsetsofalternatives.Forexample,manycommentersexpressed
supportforthetransitonlylanesthatwerepartofMainCorridorAlternative1,whileothercommenters
eithersupportedthenarrowingproposedinMainCorridorAlternative2orsuggestedotherwaysto
narrowtheroadwaysouthofColumbiaStreet.CommentsontheOverlookWalkalternativesincluded
expressionsofsupportforcoordinatingplanningeffortswiththeSeattleAquariumunderOverlookWalk
Alternative2,andexpressionsofpreferenceforthedesignaspectsofonealternativeortheother.Some
commentersexpressedconcernregardingthesizeandpotentialviewimpactsoftheAquariumPavilion
asshownintheconceptualgraphicspresentedintheSupplementalDraftEIS.
1-8
Transportation and Parking

SimilartotheDraftEIS,thesubjectoftransportationincludedpedestrian,bicycle,transit,freight,
access,andgeneraltrafficrelatedcomments.Manycommentsaffirmedtheimportanceofsafeand
efficienttravelforallusers.SomecommentsmentionedtheimportanceofconnectingAWPOWs
separatedbicyclefacilitytoothernearbybicyclefacilities.AswiththeDraftEIS,severalcommenters
againexpressedconcernfortheamountofparkinglostalongthewaterfront.
1.5
SEPA Compliance and Lead Agency
TheanalysisintheDraftEIS,SupplementalDraftEIS,andFinalEISwasconductedtosatisfySEPA
requirements,whichareimplementedbytheCitythroughSMCChapter25.05.SEPArequiresaproject's
leadagencytoconsiderenvironmentalinformation(includingprojectalternatives,environmental
impacts,andmitigation)beforedecidingwhethertoproceedwiththeproject.TheCity,astheSEPAlead
agency,isresponsibleforcarryingoutSEPAsproceduralrequirements,includingcompilingand
assessinginformationonthepotentiallysignificantadverseenvironmentalaspectsofAWPOW.
TheCityissuedaDeterminationofSignificancefortheMainCorridor,Promenade,andOverlookWalk
onAugust9,2013.PublicscopingwasconductedfromAugust9toSeptember25,2013,andapublic
scopingmeetingwasheldonSeptember9,2013.
ThisisaprojectlevelEISthatencompassesalloftheregulatory,transactional,andotheractions
necessarytocompletethefourAWPOWprojects.AsauthorizedbyWAC19711060(3)(c)and
SMC25.05.060C.3,theCityhaselectedtoanalyzeAWPOWsfoursimilaractionsinthissingleEIS.
1-9
Project Alternatives
Thischapterexplainstheconceptsthatwereconsideredandalternativesthatwereevaluatedduringthe
EISprocess,describestheNoActionandPreferredalternatives,andpresentsanoverviewofhowthe
improvementsincludedinthePreferredAlternativewouldbeconstructed.
2.1
Development of Alternatives
ThedowntownSeattlewaterfrontcontainsacomplexmosaicofinfrastructuremanagedbyawide
varietyoffederal,state,andlocalagencies,aswellasprivateentities.Asaresult,anyproposedproject
requiresahighdegreeofplanningandcoordinationinorderforallcomponentsofthisinfrastructureto
worktogethersmoothly.Newfacilitiesmustavoidorbeintegratedwithexistingfacilities;moreover,
constraintscausedbyrightofwaylimits,topography,andprotectedfeaturesoftheenvironmentcan
narrowthepossiblerangeofoptionsfordevelopmentorredevelopment.
ThesefactorshaveinfluencedtherangeofalternativesfortheAWPOWprojects.Previousanalysesand
interagencyagreementshavedefinedmuchofwhattheAWPOWprojectsneedtoaccomplishand
eliminatedsomepotentialoptions;physicalconstraintslimittheremainingchoices.Asaresult,despite
overadecadeofplanningandanalysis,therangeofalternativesthatcouldfeasiblyattainor
approximate[the]proposalsobjectives,butatalowerenvironmentalcostordecreasedlevelof
environmentaldegradation(WAC19711786)wasquitenarrow.
ThissectionoftheFinalEISsummarizesthediscussionofalternativesdevelopmentcontainedinChapter2
oftheSupplementalDraftEIS.Section2.1inthatdocumentsummarizedtheplanningeffortsthathave
occurredfortheSeattlewaterfrontsincethe2001Nisquallyearthquake.Theseefforts,undertaken
collaborativelybymultipleagenciesandstakeholders,havedefinedtheobjectivesthattheAWPOW
projectsmustmeet.Section2.2discussedthephysicalandplanningfactorsthatconstraintherangeof
reasonablealternatives.Section2.3describedtheconceptsandalternativesidentifiedforeachproject
andexplainedwhytheywereorwerenotcarriedforwardforfurtheranalysisinthisEISprocess,aswellas
addressingalternativesthatwereidentifiedfollowingtheissuanceoftheDraftEISinJune2015.
2.1.1
Seattle Waterfront Planning
Alaskan Way Viaduct Planning and Design Process

WhilesomeearlyplanningeffortsforreplacementoftheAlaskanWayViaductbeganinthelate1990s,
the2001Nisquallyearthquakemadeviaductreplacementahighpriority.Theviaduct,aportionof
SR99,isamainnorthsouthtransportationarteryforgeneralpurposevehicles,freight,andtransit.In
additiontospurringconsiderationofreplacingtheviaductitself,theearthquakesimpactsfocused
concernontheconditionoftheCitysagingseawall,locatedjustwestoftheviaduct.Theprospectof
rebuildingtheseawallandalteringorremovingtheviaductprovidedanimpetustoplanfor
transportationandlanduseinthedowntownwaterfrontareaasawhole.
From2001to2009,planningforthepostviaductSeattlewaterfronttookplaceprimarilyunderthe
auspicesofWSDOTsAlaskanWayViaductReplacementProject(AWVRP).TheCitywasacoleadagency
fortheAWVRP.InJanuary2009,theexecutivesofthethreeleadagenciesWashingtonGovernor
ChristineGregoire,KingCountyExecutiveRonSims,andSeattleMayorGregNickelssignedaletterof
agreementthatrecommendedreplacingthecentralwaterfrontportionoftheAlaskanWayViaductwith
alargediameter,singleboretunnel.Recognizingtheopportunitiesthatwouldbecreatedbyremovalof
theviaduct,theCitybeganenvisioningagroupofinfrastructureprojects,collectivelyreferredtoas
WaterfrontSeattle,toaddressmobility,connectivity,andurbandesignissuesinthedowntown
waterfrontarea.
2-1
TheAWVRPplanningprocessinvestigatedalternativesforreplacingtheviaductthroughan
environmentalreviewprocessundertheNationalandStateEnvironmentalPolicyActs(NEPAandSEPA).
SomeofthesealternativesincludedconceptsforreplacingtheAlaskanWaysurfacestreet.TheAlaskan
WayViaductReplacementProjectHistoryReport,publishedinSeptember2009,summarizedthe
alternativesconsideredaspartofAWVRPplanningandtheprocessbywhichtheywereevaluated
(FHWAetal.2009).TheNEPAandSEPAreviewoftheAWVRPwaspublishedinaseriesofdocuments
thatisdescribedinSection2.1.1oftheSupplementalDraftEIS(FHWAetal.2004,2006,2010,
and2011).
WhentheboredtunnelbecamethepreferredalternativefortheAWVRP,theleadagenciesrecognized
thatitwouldprimarilyserveregionaltrafficneeds.Thetunnelwouldhavenoonorofframpswithin
downtownSeattle,astheviaductdoestoday,andthereforewouldnotprovidethesamelevelofaccess
forconnectingdowntown,southwestSeattle,andBelltownfortransit,freight,orgeneralpurpose
traffic.ToaddresstheneedsthatwouldnotbemetbytheBoredTunnelAlternative,the2011AWVRP
FinalEISidentifiedsixindependentprojectsthatcomplementedtheboredtunnel.Thefirstthreeof
theseprojectsAlaskanWaysurfacestreetimprovements,theElliottandWesternConnector(now
ElliottWay),andtheAlaskanWayPromenadebecamepartofAWPOWandareevaluatedinthisEIS.
TheotherthreeprojectstheElliottBaySeawallProject,transitenhancementstoimproveconnections
forsouthwestSeattle,andevaluationofaFirstAvenuestreetcarwereundertakenseparatelybythe
CityandKingCountyMetro,andarediscussedinSection2.1.3oftheSupplementalDraftEIS.
Waterfront Seattle Planning and Design Process

TheCitysplanningprocessforWaterfrontSeattlebeganfollowingthe2009agreementamongtheState
ofWashington,theCityofSeattle,andKingCounty.Theprocesshasbeenguidedbyseveralcommittees
establishedbytheSeattleCityCouncil,beginningwiththeCentralWaterfrontPartnershipsCommittee,
whichwasformedinNovember2009.Thiscommitteedistilledasetofprinciplestoguidethedesignof
WaterfrontSeattle,asdescribedinChapter1ofthisFinalEIS.TheCentralWaterfrontCommittee,3
whichreplacedtheCentralWaterfrontPartnershipsCommittee,developedanumberofdocumentsto
provideguidance,goals,andstrategiesforimplementingWaterfrontSeattle.Theyincludethe
FrameworkPlan,theConceptDesign,andtheStrategicPlan,whichwerepublishedinJuly2012and
supportedbytheSeattleCityCouncilinAugust2012(Resolution31399).
IndevelopingplansanddesignconceptsforWaterfrontSeattle,stakeholdercommitteesandstafffrom
theCityofSeattlesOfficeoftheWaterfront4consideredavarietyofapproachestoaddressingthebasic
requirementsestablishedinthe2009agreementandthe2011AWVRPFinalEIS.Theconceptsthey
evaluatedaspartoftheplanningprocessaredescribedlaterinthischapter.
2.1.2
Limitations on Reasonable Alternatives
SEPAdirectsprojectproponents,whenpreparinganEIS,toevaluatereasonablealternativestothe
proposalthatcouldfeasiblyattainorapproximateaproposalsobjectives,butatalower
environmentalcostordecreasedlevelofenvironmentaldegradation(WAC19711786).Theplanning
effortsthatestablishedtheobjectivesfortheAWPOWprojectswereaddressedintheprevioussection.
ThissectionsummarizeshowAWPOWsuniquelocationandobjectivesrestricttherangeofalternatives
thatcouldattainorapproximatetheprojectobjectivesatalowerenvironmentalcost.
The Central Waterfront Committee was replaced in October 2014 by the Central Waterfront Steering Committee
(Resolution 31543), which advises the City on implementing the Concept Design and Strategic Plan.
This Office was established by Mayor Ed Murray in 2014 and brings together key staff from the Mayor's Office and the City's
Departments of Transportation, Planning and Development, Parks and Recreation, and others to manage the Waterfront Seattle
program as an integrated team.
2-2
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Topography
TheElliottBayshorelineliesonanarrowbandofrelativelyflatlandthatwascreatedbyhistoricfillingof
thearealandwardoftheseawall.EastofWesternAvenueandnorthofSenecaStreet,thelandrisesina
steepbluffcreatingapproximately100feetofgradechangebetweenthewaterfrontandPikePlace
Market.ThedifficultyoftraversingthisslopeisoneofthekeychallengesinreconnectingSeattletoits
waterfront,afundamentalpurposeoftheproject.BetweenSpringStreetandWallStreet(adistanceof
overamile),theslopepreventsdirecteastwestconnectionsforvehiclesbetweenFirstAvenueandthe
waterfront,andrequiresasteepascentforpedestrians,currentlybyonlylimitedconnections(primarily
stairways).Thistopographylimitedtherangeofreasonablealternatives.
Right of Way Boundaries

TheCitysexistingrightofwayalongtheAlaskanWaycorridorisgenerallyboundedbyElliottBayto
thewestandbydenseurbandevelopmentalongsideAlaskanWayandSR99totheeast.Atthe
southernendoftheprojectfootprint,theCitysrightofwayiscontinuousfromapproximatelyS.King
StreettoPikeStreetandfromtheedgeoftheseawalltothepropertyboundariesontheeastsideof
theAlaskanWayViaduct.AtapproximatelyPikeStreet,therightofwaysplitsintotwobranches,with
onebranchanglingnortheastupthebluffintoBelltownundertheexistingviaductandtheother
branchcontinuingalongtheshorelineonAlaskanWay.Thishascreatedirregularpropertyboundaries
thatnarrowlyskirttheedgesofseveralofficeandresidentialbuildings,mostofwhichwere
constructedaftertheviaductwasinplace.MovingthelocationoftheAlaskanWaycorridorwould
thereforeresultinsubstantialimpactsonprivatepropertiesalongtherightofway.Asaresult,theonly
reasonablealternativeconsideredbytheCitywastokeepAWPOWwithintheexistingrightofwayto
thegreatestextentfeasible.
Historic Features
Theprojectfootprintpassesthroughonehistoricdistrict,isadjacenttoasecondhistoricdistrict,and
abutsalargenumberofbuildingsthataredesignatedasSeattleLandmarks,listedintheNational
RegisterofHistoricPlaces,orboth.Federal,state,andlocalregulationsprotectthesebuildingsand
restrictdevelopmentwithinhistoricdistricts.Asaresult,theprojectmustadheretothedesign
standardsandrulesthatprotecttheseresources.Theprojectfootprintssouthernendcrossesthe
PioneerSquarePreservationDistrictandrunsnexttoseveralhistoricstructureslocatedalongAlaskan
Way,includingPiers54through59onthewestshorelineandseveralbuildingstotheeast.Asthe
projectfootprinttraversestheslopebeneaththePikePlaceMarket,itisadjacenttothePikePlace
MarketHistoricalDistricttotheeast.OtherhistoricbuildingsarelocatedalongBlanchardandBell
Streetsnearthenorthernendoftheprojectfootprint.BecauselocatingAWPOWoutsideofthe
currentCityrightofwaywouldhavepotentialadditionalimpactsonhistoricresources,theexistence
ofhistoricfeaturesrestrictsthedevelopmentofreasonablealternatives.
Shoreline Location
TheprojectfootprintissubstantiallylocatedinWashingtonsshorelandsandtheCitysShoreline
District,regulatedbytheStateShorelineManagementAct(SMA,RevisedCodeofWashington[RCW]
90.58)andtheCitysShorelineMasterProgram(SMP)(SMCTitle23.60A).TheSMAencouragesthe
useoftheshorelineforincreasedpublicaccesstopubliclyownedareasoftheshorelineandfor
increasedrecreationalopportunitiesforthepublic.TheSMArequiresthatpermittedusesinthe
shorelinebedesignedandconductedinamannertominimizeanyinterferencewiththepublicsuse
ofthewater.
Similarly,theSMPencouragesdevelopmentoftheshorelinetoprovideformaximumpublicuseand
enjoymentoftheshorelinesandtopreserve,enhance,andincreaseaccesstothewater.TheSMPalso
specificallyprovidesthat,wherepermitted,newstreetsintheshorelinebelocatedasfarfromthe
ordinaryhighwatermarkasreasonable.Whereallowed,anyneworrelocatedstreetmustbelocated
2-3
anddesignedtoimprovepublicvisualandphysicalaccesstotheshorelineandprovidemeansforthe
publictoovercomethephysicalbarriercreatedbythenewstreets.
Thus,locatingthenewAlaskanWayontheeast(inland)sideoftheexistingrightofwayandtheprimary
pedestrianandbicyclefacilities,aswellasprovidingopenspaceonthewestside(shorelinesideofthe
rightofway),istheconfigurationfortheMainCorridorandPromenadethatbestcomplieswiththeSMA
andSMP.
Roadway Function
AsdiscussedinSection2.1,anewAlaskanWaysurfacestreetwithconnectionstoWesternandElliott
Avenueswaspartofalargersystemofimprovementsidentifiedinthe2009agreementamongWSDOT,
theCity,andKingCountyforreplacingtheAlaskanWayViaduct.Theseseparateinfrastructure
improvementswereidentifiedinconnectionwiththeBoredTunnelAlternativeevaluatedinthesecond
SupplementalDraftEISandFinalEISfortheAWVRP,publishedin2010and2011,respectively.Whilethe
tunnelwillprovideanefficientbypassofdowntownSeattleforregionaltraffic,itisanticipatedthat
driverswhowouldpreviouslyhaveusedtheAlaskanWayViaducttoaccessdowntownandnorthwest
Seattlewill,inthefuture,primarilyuseAlaskanWayanditsconnectionstoaccessdowntown,Elliottand
WesternAvenues,andnorthwestSeattle.ThiswillresultinAlaskanWayaccommodatingincreased
trafficcomparedtothetrafficitcurrentlyaccommodatesin2016.ThenewAlaskanWaysurfacestreet
mustservethefollowingusers:
GeneralpurposetraffictravelingbetweennorthwestSeattleandsouthboundSR99nearthe
stadiums,alongwithotherdestinationssouthofdowntown
TraffictravelingtoandfromdowntownSeattlefromthesouththatwouldhavepreviouslyusedthe
ColumbiaStreetandSenecaStreetrampsonSR99
FreighttraffictravelingbetweentheDuwamishindustrialareaandtheBallardInterbayNorthend
ManufacturingandIndustrialCenter
FerryrelatedtrafficaccessingtheSeattleFerryTerminal(AlaskanWaybetweenS.AtlanticStreet
andYeslerWayisdesignatedasSR519andisoperatedbyWSDOTformanagingtraffictoandfrom
theferryterminal)
TrafficaccessingothermarinevesselssuchascruiseshipsandtheVictoriaClipper
TransitservingroutesthatlinkdowntownSeattlewithsouthwestSeattleandKingCounty(known
astheSouthwestTransitPathway)
Deliveriesandpublicservices(suchaswasteandrecyclingservices)topropertiesthatfront
AlaskanWay
BasedontheobjectivesidentifiedfortheAlaskanWaysurfacestreet,thealternativesproposedinthe
DraftEISandSupplementalDraftEISrepresentthefullrangeofreasonablealternatives.
Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Open Space Facilities

InadditiontothelimitationsimposedbytheSMAandSMPdiscussedabove,thepedestrian,bicycle,and
openspacefacilitieswereshapedbytheCitysoverallgoalforthesefacilitiestobesafe,inviting,and
appealingtothebroadestpossiblerangeofusers,asexpressedinthePedestrianMasterPlanand
BicycleMasterPlan.OneoftheprimarypurposesoftheAWPOWprojectsistocreatesafe,efficient,and
reliabletravelforpedestriansandbicyclists.Therefore,theWaterfrontSeattleplanningprocess
determinedthatcreatingseparatefacilitiesforvarioustypesofusersinthisarea,withdedicatedspace
forbicycleandpedestriantravelaswellasplacesforpeopletogatherandenjoythescenery,wasthe
onlyreasonablealternative.Locatingthemainpublicgatheringareasandthebicycleandpedestrian
travelcorridorsalongtheshorelinealsoreducesthepotentialforconflictswithvehiclesatthe
intersectionswitheastweststreetsalongtheeastsideofthecorridor.
2-4
SouthofPikeStreet,pedestrianconnectionstotheexistingeastweststreetgridcanbeimproved,after
theviaducthasbeenremoved,byenhancedpedestriantreatments,wayfinding,andmeasuresto
addressthechangeingrade.BetweenPikeStreetandLenoraStreet,opportunitiesforpedestriansto
movebetweendowntownandthewaterfrontarecurrentlylimitedtothePikeStreetHillclimbanda
staircasealongasteep,undevelopedslopewestofthePikePlaceMarket.Bothstairwaysaresteepand
difficulttoclimb,andofferlimitedtonoopportunitiesforviews.Theslopewestofthemarketpresents
theopportunityforawide,slopingpedestrianwalkway,gradeseparatedoverthenewAlaskanWayand
ElliottWay,thatwouldconnecttwooftheCitysmostvisiteddestinationsthePikePlaceMarketand
thewaterfrontwhileprovidingnewpublicopenspacewithviewsofthewaterfront.Nootherlocation
orconfigurationoftheOverlookWalkwasidentifiedtomeettheprojectspurposeofcreatinga
pedestrianconnection,publicopenspace,andviewopportunitiesatalowerenvironmentalcost.
2.1.3
Identification of Alternatives for AWPOW EIS Analysis
ThealternativesevaluationconductedfortheAWVRPEISestablishedthebasicframeworkanddefined
theobjectivesfortheAWPOWprojects,whichwerememorializedinthe2009agreementbytheState
ofWashington,KingCounty,andtheCity.Oncethisframeworkwasinplace,Citydesignengineersand
analystsconsideredvariousconceptsthatmightachieveAWPOWsobjectiveswhilereducing
environmentalimpactsandaddressingtheconstraintsdescribedintheprevioussection.Thissection
summarizesalternativesandconceptsfortheAWPOWprojectsthatwereidentifiedduringtheAWVRP
EIS,aspartofWaterfrontSeattleplanningforAWPOW,andafterpublicationoftheAWPOWDraftEIS.
Chapter2oftheSupplementalDraftEIScontainsadditionalinformation.
Main Corridor Concepts

Table21providesasummaryofthealternativesandconceptsevaluatedfortheMainCorridor.
SeparatealternativesandconceptswereidentifiedfortheAlaskanWaysurfacestreet,transitfacilities,
andbicycleandpedestrianfacilities.
Table 2-1.
Alternatives and Concepts Evaluated for the Main Corridor
Alternative or
Concept
SurfaceStreet
MainCorridor
Alternative1
(partoftheDraftEIS
ActionAlternative)
Source:AWVRP,
WaterfrontSeattle
MainCorridor
Alternative2
Source:Waterfront
Seattle,DraftEIS
comments
Carried
into EIS?
Description
Findings of Evaluation
ConstructionofanewAlaskanWaybetween
S.KingandPineStreetsalongeastsideof
existingrightofway;newarterial(Elliott
Way)inAlaskanWayViaductrightofway
betweenPineStreetandBelltown;dedicated
transitlaneineachdirectionalongAlaskan
WaybetweenS.KingandColumbiaStreets
andonColumbiaStreetbetweenAlaskan
WayandFirstAvenue;andnorthboundferry
queuinglanesbetweenS.KingStreetand
YeslerWaywithtwoleftturnpocketsfrom
AlaskanWayintoColmanDockatYeslerWay.
SimilartoMainCorridorAlternative1,but
thisalternativewouldreducethewidthof
AlaskanWaysouthofColumbiaStreetby
eliminatingthededicatedtransitlaneson
AlaskanWay.Transitwouldoperatein
generalpurposelanes,butwouldbegiven
priorityviaqueuejumpsatintersections.
Alternativewouldmaintainorimprovetraffic
flowatmostintersectionsinstudyareawhile
accommodatingadditionaltrafficresulting
fromclosureoftheAlaskanWayViaduct.
Roadwayalignmentwasdesignedto
accommodateallmodesandmaximize
pedestriantrafficadjacenttoPioneerSquare
andElliottBay.Transitlaneswouldincrease
reliabilityandimprovetransittraveltimes
whileallowingefficientflowofgeneral
purpose,ferry,andfreighttraffic.
Yes
Removalofthetransitlaneswouldcause
trafficoperationstodeterioratecomparedto
MainCorridorAlternative1.However,this
alternativewouldresultinanarrowerstreet
width,slightlyimprovingpedestrian
connectionsbetweenPioneerSquareandthe
waterfront,andprovidingforawider
Promenadealongthesouthernportionof
AlaskanWay.
Yes
2-5
Table 2-1.
Alternative or
Concept
Carried
into EIS?
Description
MainCorridorNoAction
Alternative
TheAWPOWprojectswouldnotbebuilt.The
AWVRPwouldbecomplete,withtheviaduct
eliminatedandtheSR99tunnelinoperation.
Parkingthatexistedbeneaththeviaductprior
tothestartofAWVRPconstructionwouldbe
restored.TheEBSPwouldbecompleted,with
AlaskanWayrestoredtoitsoriginallocation
justwestofthesidewalkalongElliottBay.
AlthoughNoActionwouldprovidemore
parkingforwaterfrontbusinessesthanMain
CorridorAlternatives1and2,thespaceused
byparkingwouldgreatlyreducetheavailable
areaforpedestrianandbicycleuseandthe
amountofpublicopenspace.Thealignmentof
AlaskanWaywouldconflictwiththecreation
ofawaterfrontPromenadeaswellasthe
gradeseparatedcrossingprovidedbythe
OverlookWalk.Asaresult,thisalternative
wouldnotmeettheprojectobjectives,butitis
evaluatedasabaselinecondition.
Yes
MainCorridor
Alternative2withone
leftturnpocketat
YeslerWayeliminated
Source:Waterfront
Seattle,DraftEIS
comments
thisconceptwouldalsoeliminateoneofthe
twonorthboundleftturnpocketsfromthe
AlaskanWayferryqueuinglanesintoColman
DockatYeslerWay.
No
Flexlanesbetween
S.KingStreetand
YeslerWay
Source:Waterfront
Seattle
wouldprovidetwogeneralpurposelanesin
bothdirectionswhilevaryingotherelements
(parking,transit,ferry)bytimeofday.The
outersouthboundlanewouldbetransitonly
duringtheAMandPMpeakperiodsandthe
outernorthboundlanewouldbetransitonly
duringtheAMpeakperiod;twoferrylanes
wouldbeprovidednorthboundduringthePM
peakperiodandonelaneduringtheAMpeak
period.Duringoffpeakperiods,thecurbside
lanewouldbeusedforparkingandloading.
Roadwaywouldconsistofonegeneral
purposelaneandonededicatedtransitlane
ineachdirection,plusnorthboundferry
queuinglanesbetweenS.KingStreetand
YeslerWaywithtwoleftturnpocketsfrom
AlaskanWayintoColmanDockatYeslerWay.
Roadwaywidthwouldbereducedslightly
morethanunderMainCorridorAlternative2,
buttrafficwoulddeterioratesubstantially
comparedtoMainCorridorAlternative2,with
a17percentdecreaseinnorthbound
throughputatKingStreet,andanadditional2
milesofqueuedvehicles.Asaresult,this
configurationwouldnotmeettheproject
objectives.
Thisdesigndidnotadequatelyaccommodate
thevarioususesatalltimesofday.The
conceptwouldresultinunacceptable
reductionsintransitspeedandreliability;
therefore,itwouldnotmeettheproject
objectives.
Theremovalofgeneralpurposetrafficcapacity
wouldresultinextremelycongestedconditions
alongAlaskanWaycomparedtoMainCorridor
Alternatives1and2.Thisconceptwouldfailto
meetprojectobjectivesbecauseitwouldnot
accommodatethetraveldemandforgeneral
purposeandfreighttrafficresultingfrom
closureoftheAlaskanWayViaduct.Itwould
particularlyreduceaccessintodowntownfor
peopleinWestSeattle.Thisconceptwould
causelongqueuesonSR99southof
downtownSeattleandnorthofPikeStreet;
manytripscouldnotbeaccommodated.
ThecoupletwouldnarrowthenewAlaskan
Waycrosssectionandincreasetrafficcapacity
comparedtotheexistingAlaskanWayalone.
However,itwouldsignificantlyalterthe
characterofWesternAvenueandroute
substantialadditionaltrafficthroughthePike
PlaceMarket.Thisconceptwasnotevaluated
furtherbecausetheAWVRPboredtunnelplus
AlaskanWayimprovementsprovidedsimilar
trafficoperationswithfewerimpacts.
No
Reducedgeneralpurpose
laneconceptwithone
dedicatedtransitlaneand
onegeneralpurposelane
southofColumbiaStreet
Source:DraftEIS
comments
Onewaycouplet
Source:AWVRP
2-6
Aonewaycoupletwouldcarrysouthbound
trafficonAlaskanWayandnorthboundtraffic
onWesternAvenue;thisconceptwas
consideredforreplacementofboththe
viaductandAlaskanWayaswellasfor
AlaskanWayalone.
No
No
CHAPTER 2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 2-1.
Alternative or
Concept
Description
Westernalignmentof
AlaskanWay
Source:AWVRP,
WaterfrontSeattle
TheAlaskanWaysurfacestreetwouldbe
rebuiltinasimilarconfigurationtoMain
CorridorAlternative1,butclosertoits
existingalignmentalongthewesternedgeof
theAlaskanWayrightofway.Publicopen
spacewouldbelocatedintheeasternportion
oftheexistingrightofway,nexttothe
buildingsimmediatelyeastofAlaskanWay
(seePromenadealignmenttotheeastofthe
newAlaskanWayinTable22).
AlaskanWaygrade
separationnearBroad
Street
Source:AWVRP
Underpassesandoverpassesinseveral
locationswerestudiedtoallowAlaskanWay
toconnecttotheBelltownstreetnetwork
withoutanatgradecrossingoftheBNSF
tracksatBroadStreet.
PikeStreetconnection
fromAlaskanWayto
ElliottWay
Source:AWVRP,
WaterfrontSeattle
ConnectionbetweenthenewAlaskanWay
andthenewElliottWaywouldbemadeat
PikeStreet,oneblocksouthofthePineStreet
connectionproposedforMainCorridor
Alternatives1and2.
Thisdesigncouldallowforadditionalonstreet
parking,butwouldnotmeettheproject
objectivesbecauseitwouldnotprovidepublic
amenitiesalongtheshoreline.Inaddition,
morenonmotorizedactivityinopenspaceeast
oftheroadwaycouldimpedetraffic
operations.Openspaceeastoftheroadway
wouldbediscontinuousbecauseofeastwest
streetscuttingthroughit,anditwouldhave
lessamenityvaluethanspacewestofthe
roadway.
Alloptionsstudiedhadseveredesign
deficiencies(e.g.,gradestoosteepforfreight
vehicles),majorimpactsonpublicopenspaces
orviews,orsubstantialtrafficdelaysresulting
fromconflictswithcruiseshiploading.These
optionswerenotevaluatedbecauseMain
CorridorAlternative1accomplishedsimilaror
betterresultswithlowerimpactsandcosts.
Asouthernshiftwouldcreatealarge
intersectionatthebaseofthePikeStreet
Hillclimbthatwouldbeelevatedapproximately
5feetabovegroundlevel,andextenda
retainingwallofincreasingheightbetween
PikeandPineStreetstosupportAlaskanWay
asitrosetocleartheBNSFtracksnorthofPine
Street.Theintersectionwouldneedtobe
expandedtoaccommodatePortofSeattle
freightvehiclesturningfromsouthtowestdue
totheacuteangleoftheintersection.This
wouldresultinlongercrosswalksfor
pedestrianstravelingnorthsouthacrossPike
StreetwhencomparedtothePineStreet
location.Forexample,thewestcrosswalk
wouldincreaseinlengthfromapproximately
70feetatPineStreetto90feetatPikeStreet.
Thisconfigurationwouldnotmeetproject
objectivesfortheOverlookWalk(seeTable23
below).
Carried
into EIS?
No
No
No
2-7
Table 2-1.
Alternative or
Concept
AlaskanWaySurface
Alternative
Source:AWVRP
DemandManagement
andLowCapital
Source:AWVRP
SurfaceBoulevardand
Transit
Source:AWVRP
AlaskanWaySurface
Expressway
Source:AWVRP
Carried
into EIS?
Description
The2004AWVRPDraftEISconsidered
replacingtheSR99viaductwithanatgrade
roadwaythatwouldhavefourlanesineach
directionsouthofYeslerWay,threelanesin
eachdirectionbetweenYeslerWayandPike
Street,andtwolanesineachdirectionnorth
ofPikeStreet.Inaddition,itwouldhavea
servicelane,parking,andbikelane,leaving
approximately25feetofspacealongthewest
sideoftheroadwayforasidewalkor
promenade.
Thisscenario,evaluatedaspartoftheAWVRP
PartnershipProcess,consideredreplacingSR
99withanimprovedAlaskanWaysurface
boulevardthatwouldbetwolanesineach
directionnorthofYeslerWay,withbicycle
lanesandparking.Italsoincludedother
streetconnectionsandaddedtransitlanesin
variouslocationsinthedowntownarea.
Tollingwasevaluatedasademand
managementmeasure.
Thisconcept,evaluatedaspartoftheAWVRP
PartnershipProcess,wassimilartothe
DemandManagementandLowCapital
conceptabove,butalsoincludedexpansionof
thestreetcarandRapidRidenetworks,
additionaldedicatedtransitlanes,andanew
arterialconnectingSecondAvenuetoAirport
WayviathenorthparkinglotofCenturyLink
Field.
Thisconcept,evaluatedaspartoftheAWVRP
PartnershipProcess,consideredasixlane
highspeedfacilitywithpedestrianoverpasses
andafrontageroadforaccesstothepiers.
No
Becauseofitswidthandthetrafficvolumes
thattheroadwaywouldneedtocarryoncethe
viaductwasdemolished,thisalternativewould
havesignificantimpactsonthepedestrian
environmentandwouldsubstantiallyreduce
theamountofopenspaceavailableonthe
waterfront.Asaresult,itwouldnotmeetthe
projectobjectives.Therefore,itwasnotcarried
forwardintheSupplementalandFinalEIS
evaluationsfortheAWVRP.
Thisscenariowouldnotmeetproject
objectivesbecauseitwouldfailtoprovide
adequatemobilitytomeettheanticipated
futureneedfortripspassingthrough
downtownSeattle;asaresult,itcouldhave
adverseimpactsonthelocaleconomy.
Therefore,itwasnotevaluatedinthe
SupplementalandFinalEISevaluationsforthe
AWVRP.
No
Thisscenariowouldnotmeetproject
objectivesbecauseitwouldfailtoprovide
adequatemobilitytomeettheanticipated
futureneedfortripspassingthrough
downtownSeattle;asaresult,itcouldhave
adverseimpactsonthelocaleconomy.
Therefore,itwasnotevaluatedinthe
SupplementalandFinalEISevaluationsforthe
AWVRP.
Thisscenariohadlimitedpossibilitiesforpublic
openspaceonthewaterfront,wouldpresenta
greaterbarrierforpeopleaccessingthe
waterfrontthantheexistingviaduct,and
wouldlikelycausesubstantialnegativeeffects
suchasincreasednoise,visualimpacts,and
constructionimpacts.Asaresult,itwouldnot
meettheprojectobjectives.Therefore,itwas
notevaluatedintheSupplementalandFinal
EISevaluationsfortheAWVRP.
No
No
TransitFacilities
NewstreetcarlineonFirst
AvenuebetweenPioneer
SquareandSeattleCenter
Source:AWVRP
Localwaterfronttransit
busfacilities
Source:Waterfront
Seattle
2-8
IdentifiedintheAWVRPFinalEISasaroute
thatwouldoperateinlieuoftheprevious
waterfrontstreetcarandavoidsteepgrades
byconnectingexistingandplannedtransit
routes.
Facilitiesfornewbusrouteconnecting
communityandtouristdestinationsalong
AlaskanWayfromPioneerSquaretoOlympic
SculpturePark,operatingwithinsharedtravel
lanesonAlaskanWay.
Thislinewouldimprovetransitlinkagesvia
connectionswithexistingandplannedtransit
routesonFirst,Second,Third,andFourth
Avenues;Linklightrail;theFirstHillStreetcar;
theSouthLakeUnionStreetcar;andtheplanned
Madisonbusrapidtransitroute.Ithas
independentutilityfromAWPOW.
Thisscenariowouldenhancelocalconnectivity
withouttheneedforsubstantialnew
infrastructure.
No;
evaluatedas
aseparate
project
Yes
CHAPTER 2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 2-1.
Alternative or
Concept
Description
Localwaterfronttransit
streetcarfacilities
Facilitiesfornewstreetcarrouteconnecting
communityandtouristdestinationsalong
AlaskanWayfromPioneerSquaretothe
Source:WaterfrontSeattle
OlympicSculpturePark,operatingwithin
sharedtravellanesonAlaskanWay.
Accommodationof
regionaltransitto/from
southwestKingCountyvia
SR99andAlaskanWay
Source:MetroDowntown
SouthendTransitStudy
Accommodationof
regionaltransitto/from
southwestKingCountyvia
othernorthsouthroutes
Source:MetroDowntown
SouthendTransitStudy
TransitroutesconnectingWestSeattle,
Delridge,andBurientodowntownSeattle
wouldtraveltoandfromdowntownviaSR99
andAlaskanWay.AlaskanWayandThird
Avenuewouldbeconnectedviaoneoffour
routes:onewaytransitcoupletsonMainand
WashingtonStreets;twowaytransittravelon
MainStreet;onewaytransitcoupletson
ColumbiaandMarionStreets;ortwoway
travelonColumbiaStreet.
TransitroutesconnectingWestSeattle,
Delridge,andBurientodowntownSeattle
wouldtraveltoandfromdowntownviathe
SpokaneStreetViaduct,FirstAvenue,Fourth
Avenue,theE3Busway,AirportWay,orI5.
Carried
into EIS?
No
Thisscenariowouldprovidelocalconnectivity
benefitssimilartothoseprovidedbyalocal
waterfrontbusroute,butwithgreater
infrastructurerequirementsandconstruction
impacts.Potentialforincreasedroadwidth
requirementscouldreducepublicopenspace,
conflictingwiththeprojectobjectives.
ConnectionstodowntownSeattleviaAlaskan
Yes
Waywouldbefasterandmorereliablethan
thoseusingothernorthsouthroutes(described
below).Twowayprioritytransitaccesson
ColumbiaStreetwouldprovideshortertravel
timesthanothereastwestroutesandwould
servethemajortransithubatColmanDock.The
MainStreetandWashingtonStreetroutes
wouldhavegreaterimpactsthanColumbia
Streetbecausetheywouldaddtraffictoquiet,
nonarterialstreetsthatthePioneerSquare
neighborhoodhasprioritizedforpedestrian
enhancements.Routinginboundtransittraffic
viaMarionStreetwouldresultinincreased
congestionrelatedtoferryterminaltraffic.
Traveltimesfortheseroutesweresubstantially No
longerthanfortheSR99/AlaskanWayroute
andwouldrequireadditionalinfrastructuresuch
asrampsorbridges,whichcouldincrease
environmentalimpactscomparedtousing
AlaskanWayandSR99.
BicycleandPedestrianFacilities
Atwoway,exclusivebicyclefacility(also
knownasacycletrack),physicallyseparated
fromvehicleandpedestriantraffic,alongthe
newAlaskanWayand/orElliottWay.
OneWayBicycleFacility
Twoonewayexclusivebicyclefacilities(also
knownascycletracks),oneineachdirection,
Source:WFS
alongthenewAlaskanWayand/orElliott
Way.
TwoWayBicycleFacility
OffStreetMultiUsePath
Anoffstreetpavedmultiusepath,sharedby
bicyclistsandpedestrians,alongthenew
AlaskanWayandElliottWay;thispathwould
besimilartotheexistingmultiusepathway.
BikeLanesandReduced
Markedonstreetlanesexclusivelyforbicycle
OffStreetPath
travelalongthenewAlaskanWayandElliott
Way,plusanarroweroffstreetpathintended
forpedestriansandslowermovingbicyclists.
Thetwowayfacilitywouldminimizeconflicts
withbothpedestriansandvehicles,andwould
attractandservethewidestrangeofcyclists.
Yes
(AlaskanWay)
Thisoptionwouldhaveahigherpotentialfor
pedestrianandvehicleconflictsonAlaskan
Waythanthetwowayfacility,butwouldbe
appropriateonElliottWayandwouldconnect
tosimilarfacilitiesinBelltown.
Potentialforbicyclepedestrianconflictswould
reducesafetycomparedtothetwowaycycle
trackoption.
Yes
(ElliottWay)
Theonstreetbikelanesandnarroweroff
streetpathwouldhaveahigherpotentialfor
bicyclepedestrianandbicyclevehicleconflicts
thantheexclusivebicyclefacility.
No
No
AWVRP:DenotesanalternativeorconceptstudiedaspartoftheAlaskanWayViaductReplacementProject.
WaterfrontSeattle:DenotesanalternativeorconceptstudiedaspartoftheWaterfrontSeattleplanningprocess.
DraftEIScomment:DenotesanalternativeorconceptproposedbyoneormorecommentersontheDraftEIS.
MetroDowntownSouthendTransitStudy:DenotesanalternativepresentedintheAugust2012MetroDowntown
SouthendTransitStudy(KingCountyMetro2012).
2-9
Promenade Concepts
The2011AWVRPFinalEISandthe2009LetterofAgreementstatedthattheCityofSeattlewouldbe
responsibleforprovidingapromenadealongthecentralwaterfrontthatconsistsofanewpublicopen
spacebetweenS.KingStreetandPikeStreet,whichisapproximately70to80feetwidebetween
MarionandPikeStreetsandservesPiers48through59.TheCityevaluatedconceptsforlocatingthis
newopenspacebotheastandwestofAlaskanWay,asshowninTable22.Sitingthenewopenspace
directlyalongthewaterfrontwasdeterminedtobemoreconsistentwiththeWaterfrontSeattleGuiding
Principles,theSeattleSMP,andtheprojectobjectivesforthePromenade.Thisconfigurationwouldalso
reducethepotentialforconflictsbetweenmotorizedandnonmotorizedtravelmodes,thereby
increasingsafety.
Table 2-2.
Alternatives and Concepts Evaluated for the Promenade
Alternative or
Concept
PromenadeAction
Alternative(partof
theDraftEISAction
Alternative)
Source:Waterfront
Seattle
Promenade
alignmenttothe
eastofthenew
AlaskanWay
Source:Waterfront
Seattle
Carried
Into EIS?
Description
Continuouspublicopenspacealongthe
west(waterward)sideofthenewMain
CorridorfromS.KingStreettoVirginia
Streetthatwouldbedesignedfor
walking,sitting,gathering,andviewing.
Drivewaystoaccesswaterfrontlanduses
wouldbealignedmidblockratherthanat
streetends.
SimilartothePromenadeAction
Alternative,butopenspacewouldbe
locatedeast,orupland,ofthenewMain
Corridorroadway.Eastwestroadways
wouldcrossthepublicopenspaceto
intersectwithAlaskanWay(see
WesternalignmentofAlaskanWayin
Table21).
Theadditionofsubstantialpublicspace
directlyalongthewaterfrontwould
supporttheprojectobjectivesandfurther
thegoalsoftheSMP.
Yes
Thisdesignwouldconflictwithpublic
accesspoliciesintheSMP.Openspace
eastoftheroadwaywouldbe
discontinuousbecauseofeastwest
streetscuttingthroughit,anditwould
havelessamenityvaluethanspacewest
oftheroadway.Inaddition,more
nonmotorizedactivityintheopenspace
eastoftheroadwaywouldcreatethe
potentialforvehicleconflictswith
pedestriansandbicycles.
No
Overlook Walk Concepts

The2011AWVRPFinalEISidentifiedthetriangularspacenorthofPikeStreetandeastofAlaskanWayas
potentialpublicopenspacethatcouldprovideadirect,safe,andhumanscaledroutewithopenspace
andviewopportunitiesbetweenPikePlaceMarketandthewaterfront.Inestablishingthelocationfor
theOverlookWalk,CityengineersandanalystsdeterminedthattheslopebetweenPikePlaceMarket
andthewaterfrontwouldaffordtheopportunitytoprovideactivegatheringspacesandelevatedscenic
viewinglocations,createarobustandaccessiblepedestrianconnectionwithmultiplewaystotravel
betweenPikePlaceMarketandthewaterfront,andprovideopportunitiestoenhancethepedestrian
experienceandrevitalizethearea.OncetheAlaskanWayViaductisdemolished,thislocationwillbe
uniqueinhavingthemostspacepredominantlywithincurrentlyexistingCitypropertytoaccommodate
astructureprovidingtheintendedpedestrianconnectionandopenspace.Locationsfarthernorthor
southwouldbeconstrainedinwidthbynarrowerrightsofway;wideningtheseareasaspedestrian
corridorswouldrequiresubstantialdisplacementsorextensivepedestrianbridgesthatwouldblock
viewsandreducethevitalityofthestreet,resultinginafailuretomeetprojectobjectives.Forexample,
modifyingtheOverlookWalkbyconnectingAlaskanWaywithElliottWayatPikeStreetratherthan
PineStreetwouldnotmeettheprojectobjectiveofprovidingagradeseparatedconnectionfromthe
PikePlaceMarkettothewaterfront.Table23summarizesthefindingsoftheCitysevaluationof
alternativesandconceptsfortheOverlookWalk.
2-10
Table 2-3.
Alternatives and Concepts Evaluated for the Overlook Walk
Alternative or
Concept
OverlookWalk
Alternative1(part
oftheDraftEIS
ActionAlternative)
Source:Waterfront
Seattle
OverlookWalk
Alternative2
Source:Waterfront
Seattle,Seattle
AquariumMaster
Plan
Largerlidconcepts
Source:Waterfront
Seattle
ShiftinOverlook
Walkpedestrian
connectionifPike
Streetprovides
vehicleaccessfrom
AlaskanWayto
ElliottAvenue
Source:AWVRP,
WaterfrontSeattle
Description
Thisalternativewouldbecomposedof
twobuildings(BandC)andaslopinglid
extendingfromthePikePlaceMarket,
acrossthenewElliottWay,anddownto
thewaterfrontneartheSeattle
AquariumandPier62/63.
Thisalternativewouldincludeoveranacre
ofpublicopenspace,providegathering
andviewingopportunities,andcreatean
accessiblepedestrianconnectionbetween
thePikePlaceMarketandthewaterfront.
Thislocationwouldprovidesufficient
space,primarilywithintheexistingCity
rightofway,toconnectthesemajor
attractionswhileincorporatingviews,open
space,andpublicamenities.
Thisalternativewouldhavefeatures
Thisalternativewouldhavesimilarfeatures
similartoOverlookWalkAlternative1,
tothoseofOverlookWalkAlternative1,
butwouldaccommodatetheSeattle
butwouldprovidepublicgatheringspace
AquariumsproposedAquariumPavilion. andwaterfrontviewingopportunitiesfrom
thesouthandwestendsoftheOverlook
Walk.Ifthestairwayswereconstructed
priortothePavilion,thenviewswouldbe
availablefromtheeasternportionofthe
OverlookWalkuntilsuchtimeasthe
Pavilionwasconstructed.Thestairwaysin
thisalternativewouldprovidepedestrian
connectionsbetweenthePikePlace
Marketandthewaterfront.
TheCityevaluatedconceptsproviding
Althoughconceptsthatmaximizetheareal
varyingamountsofopenspaceand
extentoftheOverlookWalklidwould
incorporatingbuildingsofdifferent
providethemostopenspace,theirscale
shapesandsizes.
wouldresultingreaterconstruction
impacts,andtheirviewimpactswouldbe
moresubstantialthanthoseofOverlook
WalkAlternatives1and2.
ThenewAlaskanWayandthenewElliott Asouthernshiftwouldresultinthe
WaywouldconnectatPikeStreet,one
OverlookWalkconnectingtoaconcrete
blocksouthofthePineStreetconnection islandsurroundedbyroadwaysrather
proposedforMainCorridorAlternatives thandirectlytothewaterfrontand
Promenade.Theconfigurationwouldfailto
1and2.TheOverlookWalkwouldbein
meettheprojectobjectivesbyeliminating
thesamelocationbutwouldbe
theopportunitytocreateasubstantial
separatedfromthePromenadebythe
publicopenspacenearthewaterfront,and
newAlaskanWayandPikeStreet
wouldseverelyconstrainthedesignof
connection(seePikeStreetconnection
fromAlaskanWaytoElliottWayin
pedestrianandbicyclefacilitiesinthe
Table21).
northernportionofthePromenade.It
wouldalsofailtoconnectpedestrians
directlyfromthePikePlaceMarkettothe
Promenadewithoutanatgradecrossingof
AlaskanWay.
Carried
Into EIS?
Yes
Yes
No
No
2-11
Alternative or
Concept
Reductioninscale
ofOverlookWalk
andexpansionof
othereastwest
connections
Source:DraftEIS
comments
Carried
Into EIS?
Description
Enhancedeastwestcrossingswouldbe
providedeithernorthorsouthofthe
proposedOverlookWalklocation(such
asatUnionStreet),andthelidnorthof
PikeStreetwouldbereducedinsize.
WhileAWPOWincludesenhancedeast
No
westconnectionsatUnionandLenora
Streets,theseconnectionsdonotmeetthe
projectobjectivesofconnectingthePike
PlaceMarketwiththewaterfront,and
providingpublicopenspace.Rightsofway
inothereastwestcorridorsare
constrainedbysurroundinglanduses,and
substantialdisplacementswouldbe
requiredtomakedirectatgrade
connectionstothePikePlaceMarket
and/orprovidenewopenspace.In
addition,reducingthescaleoftheOverlook
Walkwouldlimitthepublicopenspaceand
viewopportunitiesprovided,andtherefore
wouldnotmeettheseprojectobjectivesas
wellasOverlookWalkAlternatives1and2.
SeattleAquariumMasterPlan:DenotesaconceptpresentedintheSeattleAquariumMasterPlan(SeattleAquarium2015).
TheMasterPlanincludesplansforrenovatingPier59,expandingPier60,andcreatinganewexhibitbuilding.
AWVRP:DenotesanalternativeorconceptstudiedaspartoftheAlaskanWayViaductReplacementProject.
DraftEIScomment:DenotesanalternativeorconceptproposedbyoneormorecommentersontheDraftEIS.
2.1.4
Identification of the Preferred Alternative
AfterconsideringtheDraftandSupplementalDraftEISanalysesandpublicinput,theCitycombined
elementsoftheSupplementalDraftEISalternativeswiththeDraftEISActionAlternativetoformthe
PreferredAlternativeanalyzedinthisFinalEIS.ThePreferredAlternativeincludes:
MainCorridorAlternative1asgenerallyevaluatedintheDraftandSupplementalDraftEISs
PromenadeasevaluatedintheDraftEIS
OverlookWalkAlternative2asevaluatedintheSupplementalDraftEIS
EastWestConnectionsasevaluatedintheDraftEIS
MainCorridorAlternative1wasselectedaspartofthePreferredAlternativebecauseitwouldmaintain
orimprovetrafficflowatmostintersectionsinthestudyareawhileaccommodatingadditionaltraffic
resultingfromclosureoftheAlaskanWayViaduct.Theroadwayalignmentisdesignedtoaccommodate
alltravelmodesandtomaximizepedestrianaccessadjacenttoPioneerSquareandElliottBay.Transit
laneswouldincreasereliabilityandimprovetransittraveltimeswhileallowingefficientflowof
generalpurpose,ferry,andfreighttraffic.AlthoughMainCorridorAlternative2wouldprovidea
narrowerroadwaywithshorterpedestrianconnectionsfromsomepartsofPioneerSquaretothe
waterfrontandprovideforawiderPromenadealongthesouthernportionofAlaskanWay,removalof
thetransitlaneswouldcausetrafficoperationstodeterioratenoticeablycomparedtoMainCorridor
Alternative1.ManycommentersontheSupplementalDraftEISexpressedsupportformaintainingthe
transitlanestofacilitatetheuseoftransitandimproveoveralltrafficflow.
OverlookWalkAlternative2wasselectedaspartofthePreferredAlternativebecauseitwouldsupport
implementationoftheSeattleAquariumMasterPlanandfulfilltheprojectobjectives.Somecommenters
expressedconcernregardingthebulkandscaleandpotentialviewimpactsoftheAquariumPavilionas
shownintheconceptualgraphicspresentedintheSupplementalDraftEIS.However,thegraphicsinthe
SupplementalDraftEISandFinalEISonlyshowthepotentialbuildingenvelopeandanticipatedlocationof
thePavilion,anddonotdepictanactualbuildingdesign.ThePavilionisintheearlystagesofdesignand
willundergoseparateprojectlevelenvironmentalreview,includingopportunitiesforpubliccomment.
2-12
2.2
UndertheNoActionAlternative,theAWPOWprojectswouldnotbebuilt.However,conditionsinthearea
wouldbedifferentfromthosethatexistedin2015and2016whentheDraft,SupplementalDraft,and
FinalEISswerepublished.MajorchangesassumedtobeinplaceundertheNoActionAlternativeare:
TheAWVRPwillbecomplete,withtheviaducteliminatedandtheSR99tunnelinoperation.
ParkingthatexistedbeneaththeviaductpriortothestartofAWVRPconstructionisassumedto
havebeenrestored.
TheEBSPwillbecomplete,andwillincludeanewsidewalkinsetwithalightpenetratingsurface
(LPS).AspartofEBSPcompletion,AlaskanWaywillberestoredtoitsoriginallocationjusteastof
thesidewalkalongElliottBay.
ThePikePlaceMarketFrontwillbecomplete.
TheanalysisfortheNoActionAlternativeisbasedontheexpectedconditionsin2030,whichistheproject
designyear(theyearusedfortheassessmentoffutureconditions).TheNoActionAlternativeservesas
thebaselineagainstwhichthepotentialimpactsofthePreferredAlternativewillbeevaluated.Figure21
depictstheNoActionAlternative.
2.2.1
Main Corridor
UponcompletionoftheEBSP(anticipatedin2017),AlaskanWaywillberestoredtothealignmentthatit
occupieduntilconstructionbeganontheAWVRPandEBSP,immediatelywestofandgenerallyparallelto
thepresentalignmentoftheAlaskanWayViaduct.Theroadwaywillhavetwolanesservinggeneral
purposetrafficineachdirection.AlaskanWaybetweenS.KingStreetandYeslerWay,whichisdesignated
asSR519atthislocation,willincludeanadditionalnorthboundlanetoserveferrytrafficbetweenS.King
andS.MainStreetsandtwoleftturnlanesbetweenS.MainStreetandYeslerWay.Theeastweststreets
willgenerallyconnecttotherestoredroadwayastheydidbeforeEBSPconstructionstarted,althoughthe
intersectionsofAlaskanWaywithColumbiaandSenecaStreetswillbemodifiedafterremovaloftheAlaska
WayViaductramps.ThreeintersectionsalongAlaskanWaywillremainunsignalized,andthreeadditional
intersectionswillcontinuetohavepedestrianhalfsignals.AswasthecasebeforeEBSPandAWVRPwork
began,therestoredAlaskanWaywillnothaveadirectconnectiontoWesternAvenueorElliottAvenuein
Belltown.VehiclestravelingnorthontherestoredAlaskanWaywillneedtouseWall,Vine,orBroadStreets
tocrosstheBNSFraillineandaccessBelltown.
TheCityownedrightofwaybeneaththeAlaskanWayViaductwillberestoredtotheconfigurationithad
in2010,beforeEBSPandAWVRPconstructionbegan.Thisconfigurationincludesparkingspaceswithpay
stationsaswellasbusinessandparkingaccesslanes.Approximatelythesamenumberofparkingspacesis
assumedtobeprovidedaswereinplacein2010.Utilitieswillremaininthesamelocationstheywill
occupyaftercompletionoftheEBSPandAWVRP.
2.2.2
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities
UponcompletionoftheEBSP,bicycleandpedestrianfacilitieswillgenerallymatchthoseexistinginthe
corridorbeforeEBSPconstructionbeganin2013,butwithimprovementstomeetrequirementsofthe
AmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA).AsidewalkwillrunalongthewesternedgeoftherestoredAlaskan
Way.ThesidewalkwillcontainacontinuousbandofLPStoimprovehabitatconditionsformigrating
salmon.OntheeastsideoftherestoredAlaskanWay,an8to10footwidepathwillprovidethrough
accessforbicyclesandpedestrians.ThesegmentoftheMarionStreetpedestrianbridgeoverAlaskanWay
thatconnectstotheSeattleFerryTerminalwillbereplaced.AccessfromPikePlaceMarkettothe
waterfrontwillremainlimitedtothePikeStreetHillclimbandthesteepstairsalongtheundevelopedslope
westofthemarket.AnelevatorlocatedjustnorthofthePikeStreetHillclimbatthePublicMarketGarage
(1531WesternAvenue)willcontinuetoprovideaccessbetweenAlaskanWayandWesternAvenue.
2-13
Elliott Bay
Waterfront
Park
N
SK A
AL A
N
TE R
WES
SM
AIN
ST
AC
KS
ON
SJ
WA
Y
YE
SL
E
ST
GT
ON
IN
SW
AS
H
L ST
Pike Place MarketFront
2N D
AVE
ST
Existing Viaduct Removed
A RD
New Seawall Face
Multi-Use Path
N CH
Sidewalks
BL A
Source: King County, City of Seattle
Building Footprint
ST
Feet
Alaskan Way (Restored)
ORA
800
Parcel Boundary
UN IVERSITY ST
400
L EN
TERRACE ST
5TH AVE
5TH AVE
AVE
1ST
ST
4TH AVE
T
RT S
4TH AVE
PINE ST
3RD AVE
PIKE ST
2ND AVE
3RD AVE
E
LA C
IA
GIN
VI R
1ST AVE
UN ION ST
UN IVERSITY ST
SENECA ST
SPRIN G ST
MADISON ST
2ND AVE
MARION ST
AV
E
COLUMBIA ST
3R
D
AV
E
EP
POST AVE
CHERRY ST
D AV ET S
JAMES ST
2N
TA
LA
VE
1S
TA
VE
PI K
WA
STE
OC
CI
DE
N
WESTERN AVE
WESTERN AVE
AVE
1ST
AVE
BEL
ST
ALASKAN WAY (RESTORED)
1S
TA
VE
S
ST
Pier 56
LL
WA
Pier 55
D)
ORE
EST
Y (R
WA
ST
Pier 54
Colman Dock
Seattle
Aquarium
AVE
IOTT
EL L
Y
TER
Pier 57
Pier 48
F
NS
AD
RO
BAT
Pier 62/63
IL
RA
3 RD
AVE
4 TH
AVE
5 TH
AVE
6 TH
AVE
Figure 2-1
OncetheAWVRPiscompleted,transitroutesthatwerepreviouslyontheviaductwillbereroutedonto
surfacestreets.BusstopsalongAlaskanWaythatexistedpriortoAWVRPandEBSPconstructionwillbe
restored.
2.3
Asdescribedabove,theCitycombinedcomponentsoftheSupplementalDraftEISalternativeswiththe
DraftEISActionAlternativetoformthePreferredAlternativethatispresentedinthisFinalEIS.The
PreferredAlternativewouldbeimplementedaftertheAWVRP,EBSP,andMarketFrontprojectshave
beenconstructed.ThePreferredAlternativeconsistsoffourprojects:theMainCorridor(whichincludesa
newAlaskanWaywithnewconnectionstoElliottandWesternAvenues),thePromenade,theOverlook
Walk,andtheEastWestConnections.ThefootprintoftheAWPOWprojectsisshowninFigure22.
Thefourprojectswouldserveawidevarietyofpeopleanduses.ThewaterfrontisoneoftheCitysmost
visitedtouristdestinationsandisusedbylocalresidentsandworkersforrecreationoraspartoftheir
commute.AlaskanWay(themainroadwayalongthewaterfront)isalsodesignatedasaMajorTruckStreet,
andthenewAlaskanWayElliottWaycorridorwouldalsohavethisdesignation.UsersoftheAWPOW
projectswouldincludepeoplewhowalk,bicycle,ridetransit,anddrivecars,trucks,andtaxis.Eachproject
isdescribedbelow,alongwithrightofwayacquisitionneedsandutilitymodifications.Figures23through
25showthePreferredAlternative.
2.3.1
Main Corridor
TheMainCorridorwouldoperateaspartoftheregionaltransportationsystem,servingsomeofthe
functionsthatwillnolongerbeprovidedbySR99aftertheAlaskanWayViaductisreplacedwithatunnel.
TheMainCorridorwouldservebothlocalandregionaltransportationneedsforawidearrayofusers,
providingaccessbetweenSR99anddowntownSeattleaswellasdirectaccesstonorthwestSeattle.In
additiontopassenger,transit,andfreightvehicles,theMainCorridorwouldaccommodatehighlevelsof
pedestrianandbicycletrafficandwouldimproveconnectionsbetweenthewaterfrontanddowntown
Seattle.AlaskanWaywouldcontinuetobedesignatedasaMajorTruckStreet,accommodatingover
dimensionandoverweightvehicles.Themajorfeaturesofthecorridoraresummarizedbelow,with
segmentbysegmentdescriptionsprovidedinSection2.4.
New Alaskan Way with Connections to Elliott and Western Avenues

TheprojectwouldbuildanewAlaskanWaycorridortoaccommodategeneralpurposetraffic,regional
transit,andfreighttraffic;allowsafe,efficientturningmovementsandpedestriancrossings;provide
areasforloadingandaccess;andimproveconnectionstobetterlinkthewaterfrontwithdowntown
SeattleandBelltown.Theproposedimprovementsconsistof:
ConstructionofthenewAlaskanWaybetweenS.KingStreetandPineStreet,alongtheeastsideof
theAlaskanWayrightofway
Constructionofanewarterialconnection,calledElliottWay,whichwouldfollowthepathofthe
existingAlaskanWayViaductfromAlaskanWayatPineStreetupthehillintoBelltown,whereit
wouldconnectwithElliottandWesternAvenues
AnewintersectionatPineStreet(referredtoasthePineStreetextension)thatwouldconnectthe
newAlaskanWayandnewElliottWaywiththeexistingAlaskanWaynorthofPier62/63
AdedicatedtransitlaneineachdirectionalongAlaskanWaybetweenS.KingStreetandColumbia
StreetandalongColumbiaStreetbetweenAlaskanWayandFirstAvenue
NorthboundferryqueuinglanesbetweenS.KingStreetandYeslerWay,whichincludedouble
leftturnlanesbetweenS.MainStreetandYeslerWay
Onstreetparkingandloadingzoneslocatedalongthecurbsidewherespaceisavailable
2-15
Elliott Bay
AL
AS
KA
SKA
ALA
NW
Pier 48
AY
S
Pier 62/63
RAILROAD WAY S
IN
GS
T
ST
SO
N
AC
K
SM
AIN
ST
SJ
YE
SL
ER
WA
Y
ST
GT
ON
AS
HIN
SW
ST
SK
VINE
ST
2ND
ST
S
OR A
LE N
Building Footprint
AVE
L
BE L
1ST
ST
Parcel Boundary
ST
5TH AVE
ART
4TH AVE
W
ST E
3RD AVE
PIKE ST
2ND AVE
UNION ST
UNIVERSITY ST
SENECA ST
SPRING ST
Source: SDOT
MADISON ST
MARION ST
COLUMB A IST
PINE ST
1ST AVE
CHERRY ST
AV
E
Project Footprint
Feet
CE
PLA
POST AVE
ID
EN
TA
L
800
E
PIK
IN IA
VIRG
OC
C
WESTERN AVE
TERRACE ST
AV
ES
400
E
N AV
T ER
WE S
ST
ARD
NCH
BLA
1S
TA
VE
JAMES ST
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
HE
RN
PA
CIF
IC
RR
Waterfront
Park
ALASKAN WAY
2N
DA
VE
5T
H
Pier 56
Pier 55
AVE
IOTT
EL L
D
OA
ILR
RA
Y ST
T ER
BAT
Pier 54
Colman Dock
SF
BN
Seattle
Aquarium
AY
L
WAL
Pier 57
NW
AVE
AVE
3RD
AVE
4TH
AVE
5TH
AVE
6TH
Figure 2-2
Project Footprint
Elliott Bay
Port of Seattle
<P
OR
TS
IDE
TR
AIL
>
Connection to
Port Side Trail
<C
Pier 48
SID
IL
>
Connection to
City Side Trail
AS
KA
Tra
ns
it S
top
WA
Y
SK
IN
GS
AL
ST
ON
KS
Washington St.
Boat Landing
ST
Fire Station
Habitat Bench
(Planned Project)
Entry Building
(Planned Project)
AIN
AV
E
Pier 54
Tra
ns
it S
top
AC
ST
SM
Colman Dock
Transit Hub
ST
S Main St.
Improvements
NG
TO
N
Transit Stop
WA
Y
ER
S Washington St.
Improvements
COLUMBIA ST
AV
E
SL
NT
AL
YE
DE
Kiosk
Marion St.
Pedestrian
Bridge
ALASKAN WAY
HI
CI
SW
AS
OC
Colman Dock
(Planned Project)
SJ
FIR
Terminal Building
(Planned Project)
Passenger Only
Ferry Terminal
(Planned Project)
Transit Stop
SPRING ST
RA
MADISON ST
ET
MARION ST
ITY
WESTERN AVE
Occidental Park
POST AVE
FIRST AVE
xxx Project Elements

0 25 50 100
FEET
Project Footprint
xxx Existing or Future Facilities
x
Cross-Section
Figure 2-3
S. King Street to Spring Street
Elliott Bay
Pier 62/63
(Phase 2)
Seattle
Great Wheel
Floating
Dock
Pier 62/63
(Phase 1)
(Planned Project)
Pier 59
Seattle
Aquarium
Pier 56
Fire Station
Waterfront
Park
Aquarium
Plaza
Public
Restrooms
Kiosk
Public
Restroom
Public
Restroom
Overlook
Walk
Y
ELLIOTT WA
Kiosk
Kiosk
Kiosk
Aquarium
Pavilion
PINE
Pier 55
ST
Pier 57
Argosy
Tours
Pier 54
Public
Restroom
UNION ST
Pike Place
MarketFront
Pike St. Hill

Climb
WES
Pike Place
Market
TER
N AV
PIKE
CE
PLA
INIA
STE
SENECA ST
ST
WESTERN AVE
UNIVERSITY ST
SPRING ST
Seneca
Walk
Union St.
Elevator + Stairs
VIRG
MADISON ST
ALASKAN WAY
T ST
WAR
POST ALLEY

0 25 50 100
FEET
Project Footprint
x
Cross-Section
Elevator
T AV
PINE ST
FIRST AVE
PIKE ST
FIRS
Figure 2-4
Spring Street to Pine Street
Bell Harbor
Conference Center
Elliott Bay
Bell Harbor
Marina
Bell St. Bridge
Pier 62/63
(Phase 2)
ELL
Pier 62/63
(Phase 1)
Floating
Dock
(Planned Project)
Pier 59
Seattle
Aquarium
ALA
<E
SKA
NW
AY
R
AY T
TT B
LLIO
AIL>
AVE
IOTT
Bell St. Park

Extension
Lenora St.
Pedestrian Bridge
Improvements
ST
PINE
Y
ELLIOTT WA
Victor
Steinbrueck
Park
BLA
ST
ST
AC E
VIRG
PL
PIKE
ARD
N AV
NCH
TER
ORA
WES
INIA
Pike Place
Market
Bell St. Park
LEN
Pike Place
MarketFront
Pike St. Hill

Climb
Battery Street
Tunnel Portal Interim
Open Space
Improvements
L ST
Overlook
Walk
Y ST
Public
Restrooms
N AV
TER
BNS
TER
BAT
Aquarium
Pavilion
WES
OA D
BEL
Aquarium
Plaza
ILR
F RA
ST
FIRS
T AV
STE
T
WAR
ST
PIKE ST
PINE ST
FIRS

0 25 50 100
FEET
Project Footprint
x
Cross-Section
Elevator
T AV
OND
SEC
AVE
Figure 2-5
Pine Street to Battery Street
TheMainCorridorwouldbedesignedinsuchawaythat,iftraveldemanddeclinedinthefutureandthe
fullwidthofthecorridorwasnotneededinordertoachievetheproject'sobjective,thenportionsofthe
roadwaycouldbeconvertedeasilyandatlowcosttoprovideonstreetparkingandloading,andtowiden
sidewalksatintersectionstonarrowthepedestriancrossingdistance.
Freight
Improvementsforfreightwouldincludedesignofthecorridorsoverheadandsideclearances,structural
capacityofbridges,andturningradiitoaccommodatelargefreightvehicles.Thecorridorwould
continuetobedesignatedasaMajorTruckStreet,meaningthatitwouldaccommodatesignificant
freightmovementthroughthecity,toandfrommajorfreighttrafficgenerators.Thisincludestheability
toaccommodateoverdimensionandoverweightvehiclesaswellasvehiclestransportingflammable
andotherhazardousmaterials.
Pedestrian Facilities
WhilethePromenadeandOverlookWalk(describedinseparatesectionsbelow)aremajorpedestrian
facilitiesintheirownright,thenewAlaskanWayandthenewElliottWayconnectionwouldalsoinclude
substantialimprovementsforpedestrians.An8to18footwidesidewalkwouldabutthewestedgeof
thenewAlaskanWay.OntheeastsideofthenewAlaskanWay,thesidewalkwouldbeapproximately
20to35feetwidebetweenS.KingStreetandYeslerWay,includinga5footbuffer.Thesesidewalks
wouldsupportpedestrianmovementslinkingthestadiums,PioneerSquare,andColmanDock.Northof
YeslerWay,thesidewalkontheeastsidewouldbe12to25feetwide,includingabufferofvarying
widths.ThebufferswouldbelandscapedtoseparatethesidewalksfromAlaskanWay.Thesidewalk
wouldprovideimprovedconnectionswithintersectingstreets,andwouldallowgreaterpublicexposure
forbusinessesinbuildingsontheeastsideofAlaskanWay.Sidewalkswouldbebuiltalongbothsidesof
thenewElliottWay,allowingpedestrianstowalkfromAlaskanWaytoBelltown.Signalizedpedestrian
crossingswouldbeprovidedatallintersections.
Inadditiontothepedestrianimprovementslistedabove,theprojectwouldrebuildtheportionofthe
MarionStreetpedestrianbridgeoverAlaskanWaythatconnectstotheSeattleFerryTerminal.The
UnionStreetPedestrianConnection,describedbelowundertheEastWestConnectionssection,would
constructtwoelevatedpedestrianwalkwaysandassociatedelevatorsandstairsintherightofway
alongthesouthsideofUnionStreet.TheLenoraStreetpedestrianbridgewouldremainlargelyintact,
withjusttheeastendofthestructurebeingrebuilttoconnecttothenewElliottWay.Apedestrian
plazaareawouldalsobeconstructedatthewestendofBlanchardStreet.
Bicycle Facilities
Acontinuous,protectedtwowaybicyclefacilitywouldrunalongthenewAlaskanWayandcontinueup
ElliottWay.(TheCitydesignatesfacilitiesofthistypeasprotectedbikelanes;theyarereferredtoas
"protectedbicyclefacilities"orbicyclefacilitiesinthisFinalEIS.)The12footwidebicyclefacility
wouldbeginonthewestsideoftheroadatS.KingStreetwhereitwouldprovideconnectionstothe
southviathePortsideTrail.ThebicyclefacilitywouldrunonthewestsideofAlaskanWayfromS.King
StreettoaboutVirginiaStreet,whereitwouldcrosstheroadtojointheexistingpathontheeastsideof
theroadway.AtthenewElliottWayPineStreetintersection,thebicyclefacilitywouldbranchwestward
torunalongthePineStreetextensionaswellascontinuingnorthonElliottWay.OnElliottWay,north
oftheintersection,thefacilitywouldtransitiontotwoseparate6footwidebicyclelanes,withthelane
ontheeastsideofElliottWaycarryingnorthboundbicyclesandthelaneonthewestsideofthestreet
carryingsouthboundbicycles.NorthofBellStreet,thesebicyclelaneswouldconnectwithexistinglanes
onElliottandWesternAvenuesinBelltown.
AlongthenewAlaskanWay,thebicyclefacilitywouldbeseparatedfromtheroadwayandpedestrian
areasbylandscapingandothermeanstolimitpotentialconflictsamongpedestrians,bicyclists,and
motorvehicles.Pedestrianswouldbepermittedtocrossthebicyclepathatspecificlocations,including
2-20
crosswalks,transitstops,andloadingzones.Standardandspecializedsignalswouldregulatebicycle
crossingsatintersectionsalongAlaskanWay.
Columbia and Seneca Street Improvements

TheprojectwouldincludeimprovementstoColumbiaandSenecaStreetstohelpconnectthewaterfront
withdowntownSeattle.AlongwiththepresenceoftheviaductrampsonColumbiaandSenecaStreets,
thesteepgradientbetweenthewaterfrontandtheareastotheeasthashistoricallybeenanimpediment
toeastwesttravel.TheremovaloftheviaductrampsbytheAWVRPwillcreatespacefortheCityto
reconstructColumbiaStreetwithurbandesignfeaturesthatprovideavisualconnectionfromAlaskan
WaytoFirstAvenue.TheCitywouldalsoinstalltwowaytransitlanesonColumbiaStreetbetween
AlaskanWayandFirstAvenue,alongwithonewestboundgeneralpurposelanebetweenAlaskanWay
andWesternAvenue,andtwowestboundgeneralpurposelanesbetweenWesternandFirstAvenues.At
SenecaStreet,theprojectwouldreconstructtheblockbetweenAlaskanWayandWesternAvenue
primarilyforpedestrianandparkinguse.Thestreetwouldcontinuetodeadendattheretainingwallon
thewestsideofFirstAvenue;theexistingstairsatthislocationwouldremain.
Local Waterfront Transit Facilities

Theprojectwouldbuildaccommodationstosupportnewlocalbusservicealongthewaterfront,
includingcurbspaceforbusstopsalongAlaskanWay.AlthoughtransitserviceisnotpartofAWPOW,
anynewtransitserviceswouldcomplementothertransitservicesplannedtoserveAlaskanWay,such
asKingCountyMetrosRapidRidebusrapidtransitservice;theproposedMadisonStreetCorridorbus
rapidtransitrouteconnectingthewaterfrontareatoFirstHill;thenewFirstHillstreetcarline,which
terminatesinPioneerSquare;andtheproposedCityCenterConnectorstreetcarlineonFirstAvenue.
ThelocalbusservicealongAlaskanWaynorthofColumbiaStreetwouldsharetheoutsideorcurblane
withgeneralpurposetraffic,andallstopswouldbeatthecurbside.
2.3.2
Promenade
ThePromenadewouldbeacontinuouspublicopenspacealongthewestsideofthenewMainCorridor
fromS.WashingtonStreettoPineStreetthatwouldbedesignedforwalking,sitting,gathering,and
viewingthewaterfront.ThesouthernendofthePromenadewouldbeadjacenttotheWashington
StreetBoatLandingandPioneerSquare.Designfeaturesandlandscapingwouldcreateaseriesofthree
differentenvironments,orplaces,inspecificsegmentsofthePromenadethatwouldreflectthe
characterofthesurroundingareas.Fromsouthtonorth,theseplacesare:
ColmanDockTransitHubThisareawouldsupporttheregionaltransithubinfrontoftheSeattle
FerryTerminal.Itwouldaccommodatetheheavypedestrian,bicycle,andvehicletrafficcoming
throughtheYeslerWay,ColumbiaStreet,andMarionStreetintersections.Theareasprimary
designfeatureswouldbeagroupingoftrees,seating,andbicycleparkingandrentalfacilities.The
curbzonesalongAlaskanWayneartheColmanDockTransitHubwouldbedesignedto
accommodategeneralpurposevehicles,transit,taxi,andADAdropoffsandpickups.
HistoricPiers54through59ThisareaofthePromenadewouldbeawideopenspacealongthe
frontofthepiers.Alongitseastedge,thePromenadewouldhaveanarrowpaththatwould
traverseplantedterraceswithintegratedseating.Theseareaswouldprovidesocialandgathering
spaces.Thelowerterraceswouldbedesignedtocollectstormwaterrunofffromportionsofthe
streetandfromthePromenade.KioskswouldbelocatedinthisareaofthePromenadenear
Spring,Seneca,University,andUnionStreets.
AquariumPlazaThisareawouldbeabroadpublicgatheringareawheretheOverlookWalkstairs
meetthePromenadebetweentheSeattleAquariumandthePikeStreetHillclimb.Inthislocation,
thePromenadewouldwidenbecauseofAlaskanWayseastwardshifttotransitionintoElliottWay.
TheAquariumPlazawouldconnecttheAquariumsexistingbuildingswiththenewOverlookWalk,
Pier62/63,andpedestrianfacilitiestothenorth.Publicamenitiescouldincludeelementssuchas
benchseating,recreationalfeatures,andacafareawithmovabletablesandchairs.
2-21
Artworkisanticipatedtobeinstalledinseverallocations,primarilyalongthePromenade.Theplanning
anddesigneffortsforartworkinstallationsarebeingledbytheSeattleDesignCommission.
ThewesternmostportionofthePromenadewouldincludeabandofLPS,cantileveredoverElliottBay,
whichwillbebuiltaspartoftheEBSP.New,permanentrailingswouldreplacethetemporaryrailings
installedbytheEBSPatthewesternedgeoftheoverhang.TheremainderofthePromenadewouldbe
constructedofanarchitecturalconcretesurfacethatwouldfeatureexposedaggregate,grooved
concrete,andmetalinlays.
AlinearcanopyoftreeswouldprovideabufferbetweenthePromenade,bicyclefacility,andAlaskan
Wayalongthemajorityofthestreet.Thespeciesmixwouldcombinenativeplantswithnonnative,
noninvasive,andsalttolerantspecies.Manyareashavebeenidentifiedasopenplantingareas,which
wouldbecompletelypervious.Wherepavingisrequiredadjacenttoplantingzones,asupported
pavementsystemwouldprovidetreerootswithaccesstosoilunderneaththeadjacentpavement.
KioskswouldbelocatedonthePromenadeinfrontofthehistoricpierbuildings,attheintersectionsof
AlaskanWaywithSpring,Seneca,University,andUnionStreets.Atypicalkioskfootprintwouldbe16
feetby16feet,andthestructureswouldbeapproximately45feethigh.Thekioskswouldbedesigned
tobeopenduringthedayandsecurelyclosedatnightorwhennotinuse.Theywouldprovidefocal
pointsforwayfindingandotherservices,andareintendedtobebeaconsthatareimmediately
recognizable.Intheircurrentpreliminarydesign,theupperfaadeofatypicalkioskwouldbemadeof
reflectivematerialsarrayedinflatplanesatdifferentangles,likeafacetedtower.Thisdesignwould
reflecttheskyandwatertothepeopleonthePromenade.Thereflectivematerialswouldnotbeused
ontheeastfacingsideofthekiosktoavoidreflectionsthatcouldaffectmotoristsonAlaskanWay.The
kioskswouldbeusedtoprovideavarietyofamenitiesforthepublic,whichcouldincludeatourist
informationcenterandspaceforfoodandbeveragesales.
LightingalongthePromenadewouldbedesignedinalayeredpatterntoprovidevisualinterestand
wayfindingclarity.ThePromenadewouldincludepedestrianscalecolumnluminaires,integratedinto
seatingwherepossible.Insomelocations,LEDlightsourceswouldprovidelowlevelilluminationof
benches,handrails,andtrees.Linearingroundaccentlightingmaybeinstalledtoprovidevisual
accents,suchasatplaceswheremultipleboardwalksectionsintersect.
VisualizationofthePromenade,lookingsouthfromUnionStreetPier(WaterfrontPark)
2-22
2.3.3
Overlook Walk
TheOverlookWalkwouldoccupyexistingandnewpublicspacesouthofVictorSteinbrueckPark,west
ofPikePlaceMarket,andnortheastoftheexistingSeattleAquarium,asshowninFigures26and27.
TheOverlookWalkwouldincludeonebuilding(BuildingB),alid,staircases,andtwoelevators.The
slopinglidwouldincludepedestrianpathways,openspace,andlandscapingthatwouldextend
southwestfromthePikePlaceMarketacrossthenewElliottWay,wherethelidwouldbeapproximately
40feetabovethePromenade.Spaceforparkoperationsandmaintenance,aswellaspublicrestrooms,
wouldbeprovidedunderthestaircases.
ThePreferredAlternativemodifiestheDraftEISOverlookWalkdesigntoaccommodatetheSeattle
Aquariumsplansforexpansioninaseparatebutcoordinatedproject.Thisseparateprojectwilldesign
andconstructanewbuildingcalledtheAquariumPavilionthatwouldbeownedbytheCityandmanaged
bytheSeattleAquariumSocietyasapublicfacility,similartotheexistingAquarium.AlthoughtheFinal
EISgenerallyevaluatestheimpactsofaconceptualplan,location,andbuildingenvelopeforthe
AquariumPavilion,thebuildingsuses,functions,size,andformwillbeevaluatedbytheSeattle
Aquariuminaseparateenvironmentaldocument.TheAquariumsconceptualplanspropose
approximately48,000squarefeetofabovegroundinteriorspacefortheAquariumPavilionwitha
potentialloadingzoneonthesoutheastcornerofthebuilding.Theheightofthebuildingwouldbe
approximatelythesameasthatoftheOverlookWalklid,about40feetabovethePromenade,with
publicopenspaceandaviewareaontheroofthatwouldbecontiguouswithandaccessiblefromthe
OverlookWalk.TheheightoftheAquariumPavilionandOverlookWalkstructureswouldcomplywith
applicableheightrestrictions.
OnthewestsideofAlaskanWay,nearthesouthwestcorneroftheOverlookWalk,awideexternal
staircaseandanelevatorwouldconnectdownapproximately40verticalfeettothePromenadenearthe
SeattleAquarium.Thestairswouldbeorientednorthsouth,andpeoplewalkingdownthestairswould
haveaviewofthepierstothesouth.AcrosswalkjustsouthofthisstaircasewouldconnecttothePike
StreetHillclimbandtheFix/Madorebuildings.NearthenorthwestcorneroftheOverlookWalkthere
wouldbeanothersetofstairsadjacenttothePineStreetextensiononthenorthsideoftheproposed
AquariumPavilion;pedestrianswalkingdownthisflightofstairswouldhaveviewsoverPier62/63.On
theeastsideoftheElliottWayPineStreetintersection,asetofstairsandanelevatorwouldconnectthe
northernpartoftheOverlookWalktoElliottWay.
TheOverlookWalklidwouldincludeapproximatelyanacreofpublicopenspacethatwouldprovide
publicgatheringspaceswithopportunitiesforscenicviews.Thelidalsowouldcreateawideand
accessiblepedestrianpathwaywithmanyconnectionsbetweenPikePlaceMarketandthewaterfront,
therebyprovidingopportunitiestoenhancethepedestrianexperienceandrevitalizethearea.Views
fromthelidwouldincludeElliottBaytothewestandthepierstothesouthaswellascityviewsfrom
severalvantagepoints.Thepublicopenspacewouldincludelandscaping,tables,andbenchesto
provideseatingatvariouspoints.
TheSeattleAquariumsconstructionoftheAquariumPavilionwouldcreateapproximately0.3acreof
additionalpublicopenspaceontherooftopasanextensionwestoftheOverlookWalk.TheOverlook
WalkwouldtieintothenewMarketFront,whichiscurrentlyunderconstruction,atitseasternmostend.
TheconfigurationoftheOverlookWalkagainstthehillsidewouldprovideanopportunitytocreatea
newbuilding,knownasBuildingB.(TheformerBuildingAisnowtheMarketFront,whichisaseparate
project.)BuildingBwouldbeusedforpublicusesandtoservetransportationfunctions,aswellasfor
incidentalprivateuses.LocatedontheeastsideofElliottWay,thebuildingwouldriseabovetheeast
edgeoftheOverlookWalklid,withwindowsfacingontothelidsmainpedestrianrampandlandscaped
areas.BuildingBwouldcontainapproximately23,000squarefeetofinteriorspace,withelevatoraccess
providedtotheOverlookWalklid,ElliottWay,andtheinteriorofthebuilding.
2-23
Figure 2-6.
Overlook Walk Conceptual Design and
Cross Section with the Aquarium Pavilion
Building Envelope
Figure 2-7.
Overlook Walk Conceptual Design and
Cross Section without the Aquarium Pavilion
Building Envelope
ThemajorityoftheOverlookWalkisanticipatedtobecompletedpriortotheproposedAquarium
Pavilionconstruction.However,thestairsadjacenttothePineStreetextensionmaybecoordinatedand
constructedatthesametimeastheAquariumPaviliontoprovideadditionalspacefortheSeattle
Aquariumtoconstructitsfacilities.Totheextentfeasible,theCityandtheSeattleAquariumcould
coordinatetoallowearlyworkontheAquariumPavilion,suchasutilitiesandfoundations,tooccur
simultaneouslywithconstructionoftheOverlookWalk.
2.3.4
S. Main and S. Washington Street Improvements

TheS.MainandS.WashingtonStreetImprovementswouldreplacetheroadwaypavementand
reconstructthesidewalkstocreatemorepedestrianfriendlylinksbetweenthewaterfrontandPioneer
Square.SidewalksonS.WashingtonStreetbetweenFirstAvenueS.andOccidentalAvenueS.,andon
S.MainStreetbetweenAlaskanWayS.andOccidentalAvenueS.,wouldbewidenedbyabout4feeton
eachsideofthestreet.ThesidewalksonS.WashingtonStreetbetweenAlaskanWayandFirstAvenueS.
werewidenedbyapreviousprojectbutwouldbereplacedbecausetheyareinpoorcondition.
ReconstructingthesesidewalkswouldaddressADAdeficiencies,aswellasprovidecurbextensionsand
spacetoplanttrees.Thenewtreeswouldbeplantedinthewidenedspaceoutsidethefootprintofthe
areaway(thespaceunderneaththeexistingsidewalkadjacenttothebuildingsalongtheroadway).
BecausethisarealieswithinthePioneerSquarePreservationDistrict,improvementswouldbemadein
accordancewiththePreservationDistrictguidelines.
TheroadwaypavementonS.MainandS.WashingtonStreetswouldbefullyreplacedbecauseitis
deteriorating.ThepavementreplacementwouldallowthereconstructedsidewalkstohaveADA
compliantgradesandslopes.Thestreetswouldhaveonelaneoftrafficineachdirectionandparking
lanesonbothsidesofthestreet.The1980serastreetcarplatformandrailsbetweenAlaskanWayS.
andOccidentalAvenueS.,whicharenothistoricresources,wouldberemoved.Therewouldbeminor
relocationsandadjustmentstoutilitiesanddrainstoconformtothenewcurblinesandsurfacestreet.
Theexistinglightpoleswouldbeprotectedinplace.
Union Street Pedestrian Connection

TheUnionStreetPedestrianConnection,
locatedonUnionStreetfromAlaskanWayto
justeastofPostAlley,wouldserveasa
universallyaccessiblepedestrianlinkbetween
thenewwaterfrontanddowntown.Thistwo
blockportionofUnionStreetcurrentlyhas
accessproblemsstemmingfromapproximately
60verticalfeetofgradechangeacrosstwo
retainingwallsthataretraversedbytwosteep,
hardtofindstaircases.
TheUnionStreetPedestrianConnectionwould
constructtwoelevatedpedestrianwalkways
andassociatedelevatorsandstairsintheright
ofwayalongthesouthsideofUnionStreet.One
walkwaywouldbeginatthetopoftheretaining
UnionStreetPedestrianConnectionSchematicDesign
betweenAlaskanWayandWesternAvenue
walljusteastofPostAlleyandextendoverPost
Alleytoadualbankofelevatorstobeinstalled
atthesoutheastcornerofUnionStreetandWesternAvenue.Thiselevatorbankwouldbeadjacentto
anexistingEnwaveSeattle(formerlytheSeattleSteamCompany)facilitylocatedatthiscorner.
PedestrianactivatedsignalswouldbeinstalledattheUnionStreetandWesternAvenueintersection.
ThesecondwalkwaywouldextendfromthesouthwestcorneroftheUnionStreetandWesternAvenue
2-26
intersectiontoasingleelevatortobeinstalledontheeasternsideofAlaskanWay,adjacenttothe
existingPublicStoragebuilding.
Stairswouldbeintegratedintothetwoelevatedpedestrianwalkways.Thewalkwayswouldvaryin
widthfromabout8feettoabout24feet,providingspaceforsocialgatheringsandlookouts.The
improvementsincludelightingthatwouldoperateduringnighttimehourstoilluminatethepathway.
Theelevatortowerswouldbeilluminatedtoprovidewayfindingforindividualsatnight.
TheUnionStreetroadwaywouldbereconstructedfromAlaskanWaytotheretainingwallonthewest
sideofWesternAvenue,andfromWesternAvenuetoPostAlley.Thereconstructionwouldincorporate
streetlevelpedestrianimprovements,includingportionsofwidenedandrebuiltsidewalks.Atthe
intersectionofUnionStreetandWesternAvenue,theWesternAvenueparkinglaneswouldbereplaced
withcurbextensionstocreateashorterpedestriancrossing.Curbrampswouldalsoreplacetheexisting
curbreturns,andtheelevationofWesternAvenuewouldberaisedslightlythroughtheintersectionto
reducecurbheightsandthesizeofadjacentcurbramps.Thiswouldcreateasmoothertransitionfor
pedestrianscrossingtheintersection.
Bell Street Park Extension

TheCityofSeattleconstructedBellStreetParkbetweenFifthandFirstAvenuesin2013and2014.The
BellStreetParkExtensionwouldcontinuethissharedstreet(roadwayandpublicparkspace)twoblocks
fartherwest,betweenElliottandFirstAvenues.Ontheseblocks,BellStreetwouldbeconvertedto
includeawidepublicspacewithlandscapingandtreesonbothsidesofthestreet.Thestreetwouldbe
rebuiltwithoutcurbs,andvehicularareaswouldbepavedatthesamegradeaspedestrianareas.The
publicspacewouldfeaturegatheringandseatingareas.Streetlightswouldbeinstalledtoincreasethe
nighttimeambientlightingaswellastoprovideimprovedpedestrianlightingalongthestreet.
BellStreetitselfwouldhaveonelaneoftraffic.ThetrafficlanewouldbewestboundbetweenFirstand
WesternAvenues.BetweenWesternAvenueandElliottAvenue,thetrafficlanecouldbeeither
eastboundorwestbound,dependingonhowtheCityofSeattleadjuststhestreetgridfollowing
completionoftheAWVRP.TrafficonBellStreetwouldnotbeabletocrossWesternAvenue.
NorthsideofBellStreetPark,lookingeastfromthecorner
ofBellStreetandThirdAvenue
SouthsideofBellStreetPark,lookingeastfromthecorner
ofBellStreetandSecondAvenue
2-27
TrafficonWesternAvenuewouldcontinuetobenorthboundonly.Vehicleswouldnotbeabletoturn
rightontoBellStreetbutmightbeabletoturnleftontoBellStreet,dependingonthedirectionoftravel
selectedforBellStreetbetweenWesternandElliottAvenues.Trafficcontrolmeasureswouldlikelybe
installedattheBellStreetandWesternAvenueintersectiontoallowpedestrianstosafelycrossWestern
Avenue.Crosswalkswouldbelocatedateachintersectioncorner.
SimilartotheexistingBellStreetPark,therewouldbelimitedparkingandloadingzonesalongBell
Streettohelpcreateaparklikesetting.
2.3.5
Right of Way Acquisition
TheprojectdesignforAWPOWwasdevelopedtokeeptheproposednewfeatureswithinexistingCity
propertyandrightsofwaytothegreatestextentfeasible.However,theprojectwouldrequirethe
partialacquisitionofonepropertyandfullacquisitionoftwoproperties.Thetwofullacquisitionsarea
commercialbuildingat1528AlaskanWayandasmallpublicoffstreetparkinglotat1529AlaskanWay.
TheCitywouldalsoneedtoacquireeasementstotemporarilyuseprivatepropertyduringproject
construction.Useofsuchtemporaryconstructioneasementswouldnotremoveexistingbuildingsor
loadingdocks,althoughaccesstosomeloadingdocksmightbetemporarilymodifiedasaresultof
theeasements.
2.3.6
Utilities
AWPOWwouldrelocate,construct,ormodifyseveralmajorutilityfacilitieswithintheprojectfootprint.
NumerousutilitiescurrentlyrunalongAlaskanWay,eitherundergroundorsupportedontheAlaskan
WayViaduct,includingelectricaltransmissionlines,gasmains,watermains,sewermains,
telecommunicationslines,andasteamline.Anumberoftheseutilitieswillberelocatedaspartofthe
AWVRPandEBSP.TheworktobeperformedonmajorutilityfacilitiesaspartofAWPOWwouldinclude:
2-28
RelocatingtheportionofSeattleCityLights(SCL)eastern13.8kilovolt(kV)distributionductbank
alongAlaskanWaybetweenS.WashingtonStreetandPineStreet
RelocatingtheportionofSCLsTransmissionLine4thatrunsbeneaththeAlaskanWayViaduct
footprintbetweenUnionandBlanchardStreets
ConstructingajointtelecommunicationsductbankalongAlaskanWaysothatexisting
communicationslinescanberelocatedundergroundandtheexistingtimberpolescanberemoved;
thenewjointductbankwouldhavespaceforothercompaniestoaddfacilitiesalongAlaskanWay
ConstructingorreconstructingsomeofPugetSoundEnergys(PSE)gasdistributionlinesandservices
RelocatingfirehydrantstolocationscompatiblewithAWPOWsMainCorridor
ConstructinganewwatermainalongElliottWay
ConstructingnewwaterdistributionlinestoserveAWPOWelementssuchasirrigationsystems,
kiosks,andwaterfountains
ConstructingsewersystemupgradesalongAlaskanWay
Constructingacompletestormdraincollectionsystemofpipesandcatchbasinsinthe
MainCorridorandaspartofthePromenadeandOverlookWalk;someoftheexistingstormwater
mainsmaybeincorporatedintothissystem
Relocatinga30inchstormdrainnearAlaskanWayandWesternAvenue
2.4
Preferred Alternative Main Corridor Features

by Segment
ThissectiondescribestheproposedMainCorridorconfigurationinsixsegments,movingfromsouthto
north,betweenS.KingStreetandBatteryStreet.Figures28through215showrepresentativecross
sectionsoftheMainCorridorthatincludethewidthofthelanes,sidewalks,bicyclefacility,and
medians.Thewidthofthesidewalk(theareabetweenthecurbandadjacentpropertyline)typically
includesabufferthatcontainslandscapingorotherfeaturessuchaslightingorabusshelter.
2.4.1
S. King Street to Yesler Way
ThissegmentoftheproposedMainCorridormustaccommodatetraffictoandfromSR99,regional
transitservingcommunitiessouthofdowntownSeattle,throughtraffic,accesstoPortofSeattle
facilities,andferryqueuing.Asaresult,thewidthoftheroadwayfromcurbtocurbintheS.KingStreet
toYeslerWaysegmentwouldbeapproximately100feet,whichiswiderthansegmentsfarthernorth.
Typically,acentermedianisprovidedtoenhancepedestriansafety.
ThenewAlaskanWaysurfacestreetwouldtieintotheexistingAlaskanWayatS.KingStreet.Between
S.KingStreetandS.MainStreet,thetypicalcrosssectionwouldhavefournorthboundlanesandthree
southboundlanes,withalandscapedcentermedian(seeFigure28).Theoutertravellaneineach
directionwouldbededicatedtoregionaltransit,andtwoinnertravellaneswouldcarrygeneralpurpose
traffic.InthenorthbounddirectionofAlaskanWay,theadditionalinnerlanewouldbededicatedto
ferrytrafficqueuing.
SouthboundtrafficonAlaskanWaywouldhaveleftturnlanesatS.JacksonStreetandS.KingStreet.
WestboundgeneralpurposetrafficonS.KingStreetandS.JacksonStreetwouldbeabletoturnleftor
rightontoAlaskanWay.WestboundtrafficonS.MainStreetandS.WashingtonStreetwouldonlybe
abletoturnrightfornorthboundtravelonAlaskanWay.ServicevehiclesonS.KingStreetandS.Jackson
StreetwouldbeallowedtotravelstraightthroughtheintersectiontoaccessthePortofSeattlefacilities
andTerminal48onthewestsideofAlaskanWay.AleftturnpocketisincludedonnorthboundAlaskan
WayatS.KingStreetforvehiclesaccessingthePortofSeattlefacilities.
BetweenS.MainStreetandYeslerWay,thetravellaneswouldbethesameasdescribedabove,buta
secondnorthboundlanewouldbeaddedforferryqueuingnexttothefirstqueuinglane(seeFigures29
and210).ThetwoferryholdinglaneswouldtransitiontobeleftturnlanesintotheSeattleFerry
TerminalatYeslerWay.WestboundvehiclesonS.WashingtonStreetandYeslerWaywouldonlybeable
toturnrightfornorthboundtravelonAlaskanWay.VehiclesexitingtheferriesatYeslerWaywouldbe
routedsouthboundonAlaskanWay.
Thewidthofthecentermedianwouldvaryfromapproximately10feetatS.JacksonStreet,wherea
southboundleftturnpocketislocated,to25feetatS.MainStreetand13feetatS.WashingtonStreet.
Thesemedianswouldallowsufficientspaceforalandscapedrefugeareaatpedestriancrossings.The
medianwouldnarrowtoapproximately3feetonthesouthsideoftheintersectionwithYeslerWayto
accommodatetravel,transit,ferryqueuing,andturnlanes;however,therewouldnotbeacrosswalkon
thislegoftheintersection.
BetweenS.KingStreetandYeslerWay,thesidewalksonAlaskanWaywouldbeapproximately20to35
feetwide(measuredfromcurbtopropertyline)ontheeastsideofthestreetandapproximately8to18
feetwideonthewestsideofthestreet.Thegreaterwidthofthesidewalkontheeastreflectsthecurb
bulbsatintersectionsandthefactthatPioneerSquareistheprimarypedestrianattractioninthis
portionofthecorridor.Inadditiontothesidewalkonthewestsideofthestreet,thePromenadewould
provideacontinuouspublicopenspacealongthewestsideofthenewMainCorridornorthof
S.WashingtonStreet.Therelativelywidesidewalksandlandscapedbuffersinthisareawouldhelpto
visuallyoffsetthewidthoftheroadwaybybufferingpedestriansandbicyclistsfromtraffic.
2-29
10
BUFFER
6
BUFFER
TERMINAL
46
VARIES
12
BUFFER
BIKE
FACILITY
18
SIDEWALK
11
11
11
17
10
11
11
12
10
REGIONAL
TRANSIT
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
MEDIAN
FERRY
QUEUING
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
REGIONAL
TRANSIT
PARKING/
LOADING
ZONE
22
SIDEWALK
LEGEND
GENERAL PURPOSE
FERRY QUEUING LANE
REGIONAL TRANSIT
PARKING/LOADING
Figure 2-8
Cross Section 1
Alaskan Way South of S. Jackson Street
BUFFER
WASHINGTON STREET
BOAT LANDING
20
12
10
11
11
11
PROMENADE
BIKE
FACILITY
PEDESTRIAN
LANDING
REGIONAL
TRANSIT
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
13
PEDESTRIAN
LANDING
11
11
11
11
12
FERRY
QUEUING
FERRY
QUEUING
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
REGIONAL
TRANSIT
10
CURB
BULB
8
BUFFER
36
SIDEWALK
LEGEND
GENERAL PURPOSE
FERRY QUEUING LANE
REGIONAL TRANSIT
Figure 2-9
Cross Section 2
Alaskan Way North of S. Washington Street
at Crosswalk
8
BUFFER
18
10
12
11
11
11
12
11
11
11
11
12
10
22
PROMENADE
BUFFER
BIKE
FACILITY
BUFFER
REGIONAL
TRANSIT
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
MEDIAN
FERRY
QUEUING
FERRY
QUEUING
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
REGIONAL
TRANSIT
PARKING/
LOADING
ZONE
SIDEWALK
LEGEND
GENERAL PURPOSE
FERRY QUEUING LANE
REGIONAL TRANSIT
PARKING/LOADING
Figure 2-10
Cross Section 3
Alaskan Way North of S. Washington Street
8
BUFFER
40
16
12
PROMENADE
BUFFER
BIKE
FACILITY
BUFFER
12
SIDEWALK
10
PARKING/
LOADING
ZONE
12
WATERFRONT
TRANSIT +
GENERAL
PURPOSE
11
GENERAL
PURPOSE
12
TURN
POCKET
11
GENERAL
PURPOSE
12
WATERFRONT
TRANSIT +
GENERAL
PURPOSE
10
PARKING/
LOADING
ZONE
18
SIDEWALK
LEGEND
GENERAL PURPOSE
WATERFRONT TRANSIT
PARKING/LOADING
Figure 2-11
Cross Section 4
Alaskan Way South of Madison Street
4
BUFFER
PROMENADE
HISTORIC
PIERS
6
BUFFER
40
12
10
1O
12
11
11
12
1O
14
BUFFER
BIKE
FACILITY
SIDEWALK
PARKING/
LOADING
WATERFRONT
TRANSIT +
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
WATERFRONT
TRANSIT +
GENERAL
PURPOSE
PARKING/
LOADING
ZONE
SIDEWALK
LEGEND
GENERAL PURPOSE
WATERFRONT TRANSIT
PARKING/LOADING
Figure 2-12
Cross Section 5
Alaskan Way North of University Street
OVERLOOK WALK LID
20 MIN.
4
BUFFER
PROPOSED
AQUARIUM
PAVILION
LEGEND
3
BUFFER
16
12
12
11
10
11
12
10
14
SIDEWALK
BIKE
FACILITY
WATERFRONT
TRANSIT +
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
TURN
POCKET
GENERAL
PURPOSE
WATERFRONT
TRANSIT +
GENERAL
PURPOSE
PARKING/
LOADING
ZONE
SIDEWALK
BUILDING B
GENERAL PURPOSE
WATERFRONT TRANSIT
PARKING/LOADING
Figure 2-13
Cross Section 6
Alaskan Way South of Pine Street
5
BUFFER
3
BUFFER
LENORA ST. PED. BRIDGE
(NORTH OF CROSSSECTION)
16
12
10
10
12
SIDEWALK +
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
LANDING
BIKE
FACILITY
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
BIKE
SIDEWALK PLANTING
FACILITY
LEGEND
GENERAL PURPOSE
Figure 2-14
Cross Section 7
Elliott Way South of Lenora Street
2
BUFFER
5
BUFFER
2
BUFFER
16
12
11
VARIES
11
12
18
SIDEWALK
BIKE
FACILITY
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
MEDIAN
GENERAL
PURPOSE
GENERAL
PURPOSE
BIKE
FACILITY
SIDEWALK
LEGEND
GENERAL PURPOSE
Figure 2-15
Cross Section 8
Elliott Way at Blanchard Street
SouthofS.WashingtonStreet,thewestsideofAlaskanWaywouldhavelandscapingelements,butnot
thefulldesignfeaturesorgatheringspacesassociatedwiththePromenade,becausethisareais
borderedbyafencedPortofSeattleproperty.Avegetatedbufferwouldseparatethewestsidewalk
fromtheprotectedbicyclefacilitytoitswest.
OntheeastsideofAlaskanWay,thethreeblocksbetweenS.KingandS.JacksonStreetsandbetween
S.MainStreetandYeslerWaywouldalsohavecurbspaceprovidingtheequivalentof31onstreet
parkingspaces.Thiscurbspacewouldbeusedforparking,loading,andotheractivities(seeFigures28
and210).
2.4.2
Yesler Way to Spring Street
BetweenYeslerWayandColumbiaStreet,AlaskanWaywouldbegintonarrow.Theferryqueuingand
accesslaneswouldendatYeslerWay,turningleftintothevehiclewaitingareafortheSeattleFerry
Terminal.Therewouldbetwogeneralpurposetravellanesandonetransitonlylaneineachdirection.
Whereamedianispresent,thewidthwouldvaryfrom8to12feet.Aregionaltransitstopwouldbe
locatedontheeastsideofAlaskanWayjustsouthofColumbiaStreet.Noparkingorloadingwouldbe
permittedinthisblock.Thesidewalkswouldrangebetween16and20feetwideontheeastsideand
wouldbe12feetwideonthewestside.Toincreasesafetyandmaintainefficientferrytraffic
operations,pedestrianswouldonlybeabletocrossAlaskanWayonthenorthsideoftheYesler
WayAlaskanWayintersection.Thiswouldreduceconflictbetweenpedestriansandvehiclesenteringor
exitingColmanDock.WhentheSeattleMultimodalTerminalatColmanDockProjectiscompleted,
vehiclesexitingColmanDockatYeslerWaywouldberequiredtoturnright(i.e.,southboundonto
AlaskanWay).TrafficleavingtheferrydockatMarionStreetwouldbeabletotraveleastboundacross
AlaskanWayontoMarionStreet,orturnnorthboundorsouthboundontoAlaskanWay.TheMarion
Streetpedestrianbridgewouldbereplacedwithanew,widerbridgeoverAlaskanWay.
TheregionaltransitlanesalongAlaskanWaywouldturneastwardontoColumbiaStreettoconnectto
othertransitroutesthatusetheThirdAvenuetransitcorridor.AftertheAWVRPremovestheviaduct
offramp,AWPOWwouldrebuildColumbiaStreetbetweenAlaskanWayandFirstAvenuetocontinue
servingregionaltransit.Therebuiltstreetwouldconsistofthreelanes,landscapedwithtrees.Thetwo
outerlaneswouldbeusedbybuses.Generalpurposevehicleswouldbelimitedtowestboundtravelin
thecenterlane,butwouldbeallowedtoenterthewestboundtransitlanetomakerighthandturns.
BetweenColumbiaStreetandSpringStreet,thenewAlaskanWaywouldhavetwogeneralpurpose
travellanesineachdirectionanda12footwidelandscapedmedian,whichwouldnarrowatsome
locationstoprovideturnpockets.TheroadwaywouldalsoincludeloadinglanesoneachsideofAlaskan
WaybetweenColumbiaStreetandMarionStreettofacilitateferrypassengerdropoffandpickup
withoutimpedingtraffic.BetweenMadisonStreetandSpringStreet,theselaneswouldbeusedforboth
parkingandloading.Sidewalkswouldbe16to20feetwideontheeastsideofAlaskanWayand8to
12feetwideonthewestside.Aplantedbufferwestofthewesternsidewalkwouldseparatethe
roadwayfromthebicyclefacility.Figure211showsthemidblockcrosssectionnearMadisonStreet,
whichwouldbetypicalforAlaskanWaybetweenColumbiaandSpringStreets.Aleftturnpocketon
southboundAlaskanWaywouldbeprovidedforaccesstoMarionStreet;westboundtrafficfrom
MadisonStreetwouldbeabletoturnleftorrightontoAlaskanWay.
2-34
2.4.3
Spring Street to Union Street
SpringStreettoUnionStreetwouldbethenarrowestsegmentofthenewAlaskanWay,roughly
matchingthewidthofthestreet(curbtocurb)priortoAWVRPandEBSPconstruction.Thenarrower
widthreflectsthefactthattrafficvolumesareloweronthispartofAlaskanWayandfewerturnpockets
arerequired.Thiscreatesanopportunityforincreasedpublicopenspacealongtheshoreline.Alaskan
Waywouldhavetwogeneralpurposelanes,withfulltimeparkingandloadingspacesonbothsidesof
thestreet(seeFigure212).TherewouldbealeftturnpocketfromsouthboundAlaskanWayonto
SpringStreetandacentermedianwithinthesoutherncrosswalkoftheSenecaStreetintersection.
NorthofSenecaStreet,therewouldbenoturnpocketsandnomedian.WestboundtrafficonSeneca
StreetandUniversityStreetwouldbeabletoturnleftorrightontoAlaskanWay.Sidewalksonthis
sectionofAlaskanWaywouldrangefrom14to20feetwideontheeastsideandwouldbe10feetwide
onthewestside.ThesidewalkandPromenadewouldincludeaplantedbufferseparatingthespaces
fromthebicyclefacility.Curbcutswouldallowservicevehiclestoaccessthepiersonthewestsideof
AlaskanWay.
BetweenWesternAvenueandAlaskanWay,SenecaStreetwouldbecomeapedestrianorientedzone,
althoughonstreetparkingwouldbemaintainedandservicevehicleaccesswouldbeallowedviacurb
cutsoneitherendoftheblock.Thestreetwouldbelandscapedwithtreesandmayhavedecorative
pavementtreatments.
2.4.4
Union Street to Pine Street
Inthissegment,thenewAlaskanWaywouldturneastwardfromitscurrentalignmentandrisein
elevationtobeginitstransitiontothenewElliottWay.BetweenUnionandPikeStreets,therewouldbe
twothroughtravellanesineachdirectionandanarrowlandscapedmedian,withparkingandloadingon
thewestsideofAlaskanWayjustsouthofPineStreet(seeFigure213)andaloadingzoneontheeast
sideofthestreetinfrontoftheSeattleAquarium.Themedianwouldendabouthalfablocknorthof
PikeStreet,whereanatgradepedestriancrossingwouldbebuiltatthebaseofthePikeStreetHillclimb.
Northofthislocation,theroadwaywouldriseatagradeoflessthan7percentasitcrossesbeneaththe
newOverlookWalk(describedindetailbelow).TheOverlookWalkwouldmaintaina20footminimum
verticalclearanceabovethetravellanestoaccommodateoversizedvehicles.NorthofthenewPine
Streetextension,thesidewalkalongthewestsideofElliottWaywouldbeapproximately16feetwide,
whichwouldincludea4footwideplantedbuffer,andthesidewalkalongtheeastsideofthestreet
wouldbeapproximately14feetwide(seeFigure213).Thebicyclefacilitywouldcontinueonthewest
sideoftheroadundertheOverlookWalkuntilPineStreet.
BeneaththenorthernendoftheOverlookWalk,thenewElliottWaywouldintersectwithanew
westwardextensionofPineStreet,whichwouldcurvetoconnecttotheexistingAlaskanWaynorthof
Pier62/63.ThenewPineStreetintersectionwouldbeapproximately20feethigherinelevationthan
thenewAlaskanWaysouthofPineStreet,duetotheneedforthenewElliottWaytopassoverthe
BNSFraillinedirectlynorthofPineStreet.ThePineStreetextensionwouldhaveageneralpurposelane
ineachdirection,andwouldbedesignedtoallowlargetrucksboundforthecruiseshipterminalto
navigatethecurve.ThebicyclefacilitywouldfollowthesouthsideofthenewPineStreetextensionto
thewestsideoftheexistingAlaskanWay,crossingattheexistingAlaskanWayataboutVirginiaStreet
toconnecttotheexistingpathontheeastsideofAlaskanWay.Anapproximately12footwide
sidewalk,whichwouldincludea4footwideplantedbuffer,wouldbeconstructedonthenorthsideof
thenewPineStreetextension.
AccesstothePublicMarketGaragefromAlaskanWaywouldbemaintainedonthewestsideofthe
buildingbutwouldberelocatedfromitscurrentlocationtothesecondfloorofthegarage.Western
Avenueaccesstothegaragewouldnotbeaffected.
2-35
2.4.5
Pine Street to Lenora Street
NorthofthenewPineStreetextensionandeastoftheWaterfrontLandingsCondominiums,thenew
ElliottWaywouldbebuiltonanelevatedstructuretocrossovertheBNSFraillinewithaminimum
verticalclearanceof23.5feetabovethetracks.Theroadwaywouldcloselyfollowtheexistingalignment
oftheAlaskanWayViaduct,butwouldbeapproximately15to20feetlower;thiselevationdifferenceis
anticipatedtorequiremodificationstoportionsofBNSFsretainingwallseastoftherailline.Fromthis
point,ElliottWaywouldcontinueupandslightlyeastwardtobenchintothehillsidealongthe
southwestsideofVictorSteinbrueckPark.Theroadwaywouldthencontinueatanelevationtomatch
intotheexistingLenoraStreet.
ThisentiresectionofthenewElliottWaywouldhavetwolanesineachdirection,withaoneway
protectedbicyclefacilityoneithersideoftheroad(seeFigure214).Therewouldalsobeasidewalkand
plantedbufferoneithersideoftheroad,withawidthofupto12feetontheeastsideofElliottWay
andapproximately6to10feetonthewestside.
AccesstotheWaterfrontLandingsCondominiumswouldbeprovidedfromtheexistingAlaskanWayjust
northofthenewPineStreetextension,andwouldconnectintotheexistingsurfaceroadonthesouth
sideofthecondominiums.Accesswouldbepreservedtothecondominiumgarageonthesouthsideof
thebuilding,tobuildingentrancesandloadingareasontheeastsideofthebuilding,andtotheBNSF
tunnelportaleastofthebuilding.Toallowaccessforemergencyvehiclesinthisarea,therewouldbeat
leasta14footverticalclearancebetweenthenewElliottWayandthepavementbelow.
2.4.6
Lenora Street to Battery Street
AftercrossingtheBNSFrailline,thenewElliottWaywouldintersectatgradewithLenoraStreet(see
Figure214).Atthislocation,LenoraStreetrisessteeplytotheeast;tothewest,itbecomesa
pedestrianbridgethatcrossesovertheBNSFlineandconnectstotheexistingAlaskanWayviaan
elevatorandstairway.TheeasternspanoftheLenoraStreetpedestrianbridge,whichisapproximately
5feetlowerthantheproposedElliottWay,wouldbemodifiedtointersectwithElliottWayviaanew
stairandrampconnection.CoordinationwiththePortofSeattle,whichownsthepedestrianbridge,
wouldbeneededtodevelopadetaileddesignforthebridgemodificationsorpartialreplacement.
IntheareabetweenLenoraandBellStreets,thenewElliottWaywouldtieintotheexistingstreetgrid.At
anewintersectioninthevicinityofBlanchardStreet,thenorthboundlanesofElliottWaywouldtransition
intonorthboundWesternAvenue,whilemostofthesouthboundlanesofElliottAvenuewouldtransition
intothesouthboundlanesofElliottWay(seeFigure215).
SidewalkswouldbecomenarrowerbetweenLenoraandBatteryStreets,reflectingthepedestrian
environmentschangeinfocusfromthewaterfronttodestinationsinBelltown.IntheBelltownarea,
sidewalkwidthswouldvarybutwouldgenerallybe9feetwideontheeastsideand6feetwideonthe
westsideofElliottWay.OnbothsidesofElliottWay,5footwidebicyclefacilitieswouldbeprovided
andconnectwithexistingbicyclelanesonElliottandWesternAvenuesnorthoftheBlanchardStreet
intersection.Thebicyclefacilitiesandsidewalkswouldbeseparatedfromthestreetbya5footwide
plantedbuffer.SidewalkswouldwidenattheBlanchardStreetintersectiontobeapproximately18feet
wideontheeastsideand16feetwideonthewestsideofElliottWay(seeFigure215).
2-36
2.5
Construction Methods for the

ThissectiondescribestheconstructionmethodsthattheCitycurrentlyanticipatesusingforthe
PreferredAlternative.Becauseofthedynamicnatureofconstruction,thesequencing,extent,and
timingofconstructionactivitieswouldvarytosomedegreefromwhataredescribedhere.However,this
descriptionrepresentsareasonablescenariothatallowsanunderstandingoftherangeofpotential
methodsthatcouldbeusedastheprojectisbeingbuilt.
Constructionwouldbetimedandsequencedtominimizeimpactsonnearbyresidentsandbusinesses
wherepossible.Ingeneral,twolanesineachdirectionofAlaskanWaywouldbeopenduringmorning
andafternoonpeaktraffichours,althoughoneormorelanescouldbetemporarilyclosedattimesto
provideaccessforconstructionequipmentandutilityinstallations.Theexceptionwouldbethatan
approximatelyoneblocksegmentofAlaskanWaywouldbeclosedtogeneralpurposetrafficandfreight
forapproximately4monthstoconstructthenewPineStreetextension.ThisfullclosureofAlaskanWay
wouldextendapproximatelyoneblockbetweentheSeattleAquariumandPier62/63,andwouldoccur
afterElliottWayisconstructed.Duringthisclosure,thenewElliottWaywouldbeopenduringmorning
andafternoonpeaktraffichourstoprovideanorthsouthroute.
Clearlysigneddetourrouteswouldbeprovidedaroundconstructionareas.Trafficsignalswouldbe
providedatintersectionsonAlaskanWaywhereappropriateduringconstruction.Dependingonthe
interimroadwayconfiguration,constructionstagingactivities,andavailablerightofway,temporary
parkingmaybeaddedwithintheprojectfootprintoutsideactiveconstructionareas.
Throughoutconstruction,theCitywouldmaintainaccesstoprivatepropertytothemaximumextent
feasible,andwouldnotifypropertyownersinadvanceofactivitiesthatmighttemporarilylimitaccess.
Inaddition,theCitywouldcoordinatewithaffectedpropertyownersandsupportoutreachactivitiesto
minimizethepotentialimpactsofconstruction.
2.5.1
Construction Sequencing
Constructionisplannedtobeginwithutilitywork,whichcouldbeginbeforetheAlaskanWayViaductis
demolishedin2019.Otherconstructionactivitieswouldbegininanygivenareaoncetheviaduct
demolitioniscomplete.ConstructionofAWPOWisanticipatedtobecompletedbyaboutmid2022.The
constructiontimeframecouldshiftdependingonwhentheAWVRPiscompleted.Constructionactivities
wouldbesequencedtoachievetwoprimaryearlygoals:
CompletethenewElliottWayconnectiontoallowtraffictotravelbetweenAlaskanWayandElliott
andWesternAvenues.ThisconnectioniscurrentlyprovidedbytheAlaskanWayViaduct;restoring
itassoonaspossibleafterthisportionoftheviaductisdemolishedwouldhelpalleviatetraffic
congestion.
CreatetheinterimtransitpathwayonColumbiaStreetbetweenAlaskanWayandFirstAvenueto
providereliabletransitconnectionsduringconstruction.
AWPOWconstructionisanticipatedtobedividedintofourzones,identifiedasWorkZonesI,II,III,
andIV.Thesezoneswouldapplytomostconstructionactivities,bututilityworkwouldbeindependent
ofthem.TheapproximateboundariesofthesezonesaredescribedbelowandshowninFigure216.
WorkZoneIwouldextendfromthesouthernprojectlimitstoMadisonStreet.Workinthiszone
wouldincludeconstructionofthenewAlaskanWay,thePromenade,theS.Mainand
S.WashingtonStreetImprovements,ColumbiaStreetimprovements,andreplacementofthe
sectionoftheMarionStreetpedestrianbridgethatcrossesAlaskanWay.
WorkZoneIIwouldextendfromtheMadisonStreetintersectiontoPikeStreet,andwouldinclude
constructionofthenewAlaskanWay,thePromenade,SenecaStreet,andtheUnionStreet
PedestrianConnection.
2-37
Elliott Bay
Work Zone
I
AL
AS
KA
NW
Work Zone
III
Work Zone
II
Pier 48
AY
S
SKA
ALA
Pier 62/63
RAILROAD WAY S
IN
GS
T
ST
AIN
ST
SO
N
AC
K
SM
SJ
YE
SL
ER
WA
Y
ST
GT
ON
AS
HIN
ST
SW
ST
SK
VINE
2ND
ST
S
OR A
LE N
IN IA
VIRG
Note: Construction staging will also occur within the project footprint.
ST
ART
Building Footprint
AVE
ST
1ST
L
BE L
CE
PLA
W
ST E
Parcel Boundary
PIKE ST
5TH AVE
UNION ST
UNIVERSITY ST
SENECA ST
Source: SDOT
SPRING ST
4TH AVE
Project Footprint
800
2ND AVE
3RD AVE
Feet
MADISON ST
MARION ST
PINE ST
1ST AVE
COLUMB AI ST
AV
E
TERRACE ST
AV
ES
E
PIK
ST
ARD
NCH
BLA
WESTERN AVE
POST AVE
ID
EN
TA
L
AVE
IOTT
EL L
D
OA
ILR
RA
E
N AV
T ER
WE S
CHERRY ST
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
HE
RN
PA
CIF
IC
RR
1S
TA
VE
JAMES ST
2N
DA
VE
400
Waterfront
Park
ALASKAN WAY
OC
C
Pier 56
Pier 55
AY
Y ST
T ER
BAT
Pier 54
Colman Dock
SF
BN
Seattle
Aquarium
NW
L
WAL
Pier 57
5T
H
Work Zone
IV
AVE
AVE
3RD
AVE
4TH
AVE
5TH
AVE
6TH
Figure 2-16
Preferred Alternative Work Zones
and Potential Construction
Staging Areas
WorkZoneIIIwouldextendfromPikeStreetnorthwardtotheendofthebridgeovertheBNSFrail
line,aboutablocksouthofLenoraStreet.ThiszonewouldincludeconstructionofthenewAlaskan
WayasitclimbsfromPikeStreettoPineStreet;thePromenade;thePineStreetextensiontothe
west;BuildingB;theOverlookWalklid;andtheportionofElliottWayfromPineStreetoverthe
BNSFraillineonanewbridge.
WorkZoneIVwouldextendfromtheendofthebridgeovertheBNSFraillinetothenorthern
projectlimits.WorkinthiszonewouldincludeconstructionofElliottWayfromthenorthsideof
theBNSFraillinetowhereitintersectsElliottandWesternAvenues.Workwouldalsoinclude
reconstructionoftheeastendofthepedestrianbridgeatLenoraStreet,constructionoftheBell
StreetParkExtension,andrestripingWesternAvenueuptoBatteryStreet.
Thesequenceofconstructionactivitieshasnotyetbeenfinalizedduetothedynamicnatureofother
projectsintheareaandbecauseprojectdesignisnotyetcomplete.Thecurrentlypreferred
constructionsequenceistosimultaneouslybeginbuildingtheportionofElliottWaythatcrossesthe
BNSFrailline(inWorkZoneIII)andbeginworktobuildthetransitconnectionstoColumbiaStreet(in
WorkZoneI).ConstructionwouldthengenerallyproceednorthfromS.KingStreetinWorkZoneIand
northfromwhereElliottWaycrossestheBNSFraillineinWorkZoneIV.Thisconstructionsequence
wouldallowearlytrafficconnectionsbetweenWesternandElliottAvenuesandAlaskanWayviathe
newElliottWay,aswellastransitconnectionsbetweenColumbiaStreetandAlaskanWay.
ThemajorityoftheOverlookWalkisanticipatedtobecompletedpriortotheproposedAquarium
Pavilionconstruction.However,thestairsadjacenttothePineStreetextensionconnectingtothe
OverlookWalklidmaybecoordinatedandconstructedatthesametimeastheAquariumPavilionto
provideadditionalspacefortheSeattleAquariumtoconstructitsfacilities.Totheextentfeasible,the
CityandtheSeattleAquariumcouldcoordinatetoallowearlyworkontheAquariumPavilion,suchas
utilitiesandfoundations,tooccursimultaneouslywiththeOverlookWalk.
TheEastWestConnectionsdonotdependontheconstructionsequencingalongAlaskanWayand
ElliottWay,andcouldbebuiltatanytimeduringtheoverallconstructiontimeframe.TheUnionStreet
PedestrianConnectionmightbeconstructedinphases.
2.5.2
Construction Activities
AWPOWconstructionisexpectedtoconsistofthefollowinggeneralactivities:
Utilityremoval,replacement,orrelocation
DemolitionoftheexistingroadwayandappurtenancesonAlaskanWay,andS.Main,
S.Washington,Union,andBellStreets
DemolitionofexistingstairsandreinforcementandrepairoftheretainingwallsatUnionStreet
Groundimprovement,wherenecessary,tostabilizesoilsforsupport
Dewateringofexcavationsbelowthewatertable(generallyabout5feetbelowgroundsurface
[bgs]alongthewaterfront)toprovideadryworkarea,wherenecessary
Useofbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)toprotectwaterqualityandreduceerosion;thesemay
includeinstallationofsiltfencing,coveringofstockpiledsoil,andcollectionandtreatmentof
constructionstormwaterrunoff
DrillingandvibratorypiledrivingfordeepshaftstosupporttheOverlookWalkandElliottWay
bridgestructures
DrillingshaftsandplacingfoundationstosupporttheMarionStreetpedestrianbridgeover
AlaskanWay
VibratorypiledrivingandmicropiledrivingtosupporttheUnionStreetpedestrianstructures
Micropiledrivingtosupportstructuressuchasthekiosks
2-39
Earthwork(excavationandfilling)forthePineStreetextensionandthesectionofElliottWay
betweenLenoraStreetandthebridgeovertheBNSFtunnel
PlacementoffoundationandpavementforthenewAlaskanWayandElliottWayroadways,and
bicycleandpedestrianfacilities,formworkconstruction,andconcretepumpingandpouringforthe
UnionStreetpedestrianstructures
PlacementofroadwayfoundationandpavementforS.Main,S.Washington,Union,andBell
Streets
InstallationofPromenadeelementsincludingpaving,benches,kiosks,andlandscaping
Installationofstreetlighting,signalpoles,andsignage
Table24liststypicalconstructionequipmentandthetypesofactivitiesinwhichtheequipmentisused.
Impactpiledriving,whichcancausehighervibrationlevels,isnotcurrentlyanticipated.However,if
unpredictablesoilconditionsareencountered,impactpiledrivingmaybeconsideredtoaddressa
specificcircumstance.
TheconstructionofthenewAlaskanWaycorridorwithinWorkZonesIandIIcouldoccurinsections
rangingfromonetoseveralblocksinlength.Withineachsection,thenewAlaskanWaywouldbebuilt
first,andtrafficwouldthenbetransferredfromtherestoredAlaskanWaytothenewAlaskanWay.
WorkwouldthenbeginonthesectionofthePromenadeadjacenttothenewlyconstructedsectionof
AlaskanWay.Meanwhile,roadwayconstructionwouldbeginonthenextsectiontothenorth.
ConstructionoftheS.MainandS.WashingtonStreetImprovementsandtheUnionStreetPedestrian
Connectionwouldoccurinoneblocktotwoblocksections.InWorkZoneI,constructionactivities
associatedwiththeremovalandrepavingofsidewalksandstreetsfortheS.MainandS.Washington
StreetImprovementsareprimarilyexpectedtobewithinabout3feetofthesurface.Ifareawaysare
foundtoneedrehabilitation,thecontractorwouldfillorrehabilitatetheareawaysinaccordancewith
theCityofSeattlesdirectionandthePioneerSquarePreservationDistrictsrequirements.Construction
activitiesassociatedwithfillingorrehabilitatingareawayscouldextendasmuchas10feetbelowthe
surface,butthiswoulddependonthedepthoftheaffectedareaway.
Table 2-4.
Typical Construction Equipment and Uses

Equipment
Air compressor
Backhoe
Concrete pump
Concrete saw
Crane
Excavator
Forklift
Generator
Haul truck
Jackhammer
Loader
Paver
Pump
Pneumatic tools
Service truck
Tractor trailer truck
Utility truck
Vibratory equipment
Typical Use
Pneumatic tool power and general maintenance
General construction
Placement of concrete
Concrete removal and utility access
Materials handling, removal, and replacement
General construction and materials handling
Staging area work and hauling of materials
General construction work
Materials delivery and transport of fill and excess soil
Pavement removal
Roadway paving
General construction use and excavation dewatering
Miscellaneous construction work
Repair and maintenance of equipment
Material removal and delivery
General project work
Slope stabilization and installation of support piles
2-40
InWorkZoneII,constructionactivitiesfortheUnionStreetPedestrianConnectionwouldincludeuseof
heavyequipmentforexcavation,drillingshafts,vibratorypiledriving,formwork,andconcretepouring
toconstructfoundations.Foundationsforthewalkways,elevators,andstairswouldbeneededbecause
thesoilnearthesurfaceisloosesoftfill.Drilledshaftsarebeingconsideredtosupportthewalkways
andstairwells.Micropilescouldbeusedtosupporttheelevatorshaftsandkiosks.Thesefoundations
couldbeupto60feetdeep.Cranes,hoists,andliftswouldbeusedtosupportconstructionoftheUnion
Streetpedestrianstructures.Inaddition,minorexcavation,grading,andfoundationworkwouldbe
neededforthenewroadway,landscaping,kiosks,lightinginstallations,anddrainage.
WorkinZonesIIIandIVwouldincludeconstructionofbridgestructures(piers,columns,girders,and
concretedeck)andretainingwallstosupportthenewroadway.Also,abutmentssupportingthenorth
sideofthebridgeovertheBNSFraillinewouldbeconstructed,aswellasearthfillandretainingwalls
forthePineStreetextension.Supportfortheselargestructureswouldbeprovidedbydrilledshafts,
whichcouldbeupto80feetdeepinsomeareas.Whereshaftscannotbeinstalledbydrilling,vibratory
methodscouldbeused.
WorkinZoneIIIwouldbeginwithgroundimprovementtoprovideastablefoundationforthenewpiers
andwalls.Thegeneralworksequencewouldthenbetoconstructtheelevatedroadway,including
bridgegirdersanddecks;completethefoundationofBuildingB;constructtheOverlookWalklid;open
ElliottWay;andcompletethePineStreetextension.WorkonthePromenadenorthofPineStreetwould
beginoncethePineStreetextensionisopentotraffic.
WorkinZoneIValongElliottWayandElliottandWesternAvenueswouldincludestreetrestoration,
restriping,sidewalkconstruction,bicyclefacilityconstruction,andinstallationofstreetlightingandsignal
poles.OnElliottAvenuenearBellStreet,workwouldincludechangesinchannelizationofthebicycle
facility.ConstructionactivitiesonBellStreetwouldgenerallybewithin3to5feetofthesurfaceforminor
excavationandgradingassociatedwiththenewroadway,landscaping,lightinginstallations,anddrainage.
2.5.3
Construction Staging
Theprojectwouldgenerallyuseareaswithinorneartheprojectfootprintforconstructionstagingand
storingmaterialsandequipment.Temporaryconstructionoffices,suchastrailers,couldalsobeusedin
theseareas.Mostconstructionstagingwouldoccurwithinthemainpartoftheprojectfootprint.For
example,constructionactivitiesandstagingfortheOverlookWalkwouldoccurinthespacewherethe
AquariumPavilionwouldsubsequentlybebuilt.TheCityisalsoexploringtheuseofotherareasfor
constructionstagingtohelpensurethatsufficientspacewillbeavailabletocoverallanticipatedstaging
needs.ThesepotentialconstructionstagingareasareshowninFigure216.Theremaybeinterestin
usingPier48andPier62/63aspotentialconstructionstagingareasduetotheirproximitytoproject
constructionactivities.Pier48isownedbyWSDOTandcannotbeusedforstagingwithoutWSDOTs
permission.Pier62/63isownedbytheCityofSeattle,butitspotentialuseasastagingareamaybe
limitedduetostructuralconcerns.Allstagingareasthatareusedwouldgenerallyberestored,if
necessary,totheirpreconstructionconditionorbetter.
2.5.4
Construction Timing and Road Closures
Constructionwouldoccuryearroundandislikelytoincludemultipleshifts,especiallyinWorkZoneIII
whereconstructionactivitiesaremostcomplex.ThecontractorwouldneedtocomplywiththeCitys
noiseregulationsandobtainanynecessaryvariancesfromtheCityduringconstruction.
Ingeneral,twolanesineachdirectiononAlaskanWaywouldbeopenduringmorningandafternoon
peaktraffichoursduringconstruction,althoughoneormorelanescouldbetemporarilyclosedattimes
toprovideaccessforconstructionequipmentandutilityinstallations.OnceElliottWayiscompleted,
twolanesoftrafficineachdirectionwouldgenerallybeopenonthenewroadway.However,temporary
laneclosureswouldallowaccessforconstructionequipmentandactivitiessuchasutilityinstallations.
2-41
ApproximatelyoneblockofAlaskanWaybetweentheSeattleAquariumandPier62/63wouldbeclosed
fortheperiodnecessary(approximately4months)toconstructthenewPineStreetextensionandthe
westernportionoftheOverlookWalk.NorthboundtrafficonAlaskanWaydestinedforpointsnorthof
theclosurewouldneedtodetourontoElliottWayandthenuseaneastweststreettoaccesstheportion
ofAlaskanWaynorthoftheclosure.Aftertheclosure,pointsonAlaskanWaynorthofPineStreetwould
beaccessibleviathenewPineStreetextension.TheCitywouldworkwiththePortofSeattletoidentify
adequatetimeframesforthisworktominimizeimpactsduringthecruiseshipseason.
2.5.5
Worker Parking and Access
Thecontractorisexpectedtoestablishajobsiteoffice,whichcouldbelocatedinexistingofficespace
alongthewaterfrontorelsewherewithintheprojectfootprint.Whilealimitednumberofconstruction
workerswouldparkatthejobsiteoffice,otherconstructionworkersmayusetransittoaccessthework
siteormayparkwithinorneartheconstructionfootprint.Section3.6ofthisFinalEISprovidesmore
informationonanticipatedparkingconditionsduringAWPOWconstruction.
2.5.6
Construction Traffic and Haul Routes
Constructionwouldgeneratetraffictotransportmaterialsandequipmenttotheworksiteandto
removedemolitiondebrisandexcesssoil.ThemajorityofmaterialtransportforAWPOWconstruction
wouldbebytruck,augmentedbythepossibleoccasionaluseofbarges.Thecontractorwilldetermine
thebestconstructionmethods,aspermittedbytheCityandinconformancewiththeproject
constructionplans.Preliminaryestimatesindicatethat,onaverage,therewouldbe7to27roundtrip
trucktripsperworkzoneperworkday,withapeakof66dailyroundtripsatthepeakofconstructionin
WorkZoneIII.BecauseAlaskanWayisamajorfreightcorridor,thisisnotexpectedtoconstituteamajor
increaseintrucktraffic.CitystreetsthatcouldbeusedashaulroutesincludeAlaskanWay,Elliott
Avenue,WesternAvenue,MercerStreet,BroadStreet,EdgarMartinezDrive,andEastMarginalWay.
2-42
This chapter describes the existing transportation network and parking conditions in the vicinity of the
project footprint and analyzes the potential impacts AWPOW would have on these conditions. This
analysis evaluates the potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative in comparison to the No Action
Alternative. The transportation elements evaluated are traffic, freight, pedestrian and bicycle facilities,
public transportation, water transportation services, rail, and emergency services. The parking analysis
evaluates parking supply and utilization for existing and future conditions with and without AWPOW.
Potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that have been identified for transportation
and parking construction and operational impacts are presented in Chapter 16 of this Final EIS.
Additional information about the study methodology, data collection, analysis, and conclusions
supporting the information presented in this chapter is provided in the Draft EIS documents, the
Supplemental Draft EIS, and Final EIS Appendix A (Transportation Discipline Report) and Appendix B
(Parking Discipline Report).
Transportation
3.1
Overview of the Transportation Analysis
The methodology for this transportation analysis was approved by a multi-agency review committee
facilitated by the City of Seattle that consisted of the City, WSDOT, Washington State Ferries (WSF),
King County Metro, and the Port of Seattle. After establishing the limits of the transportation study area
(described in Section 3.2.1) and gathering data about existing conditions, transportation analysts
developed forecasts of how traffic volumes are likely to change in the future by using computerized
travel demand models. These models account for population and employment changes and
transportation improvements that are expected to be in place by 2030, the AWPOW design year.
Analysts then input the forecasted traffic volumes into traffic operations models and ran those models
to predict how traffic would operate on specific streets or intersections in 2030 with and without the
project improvements.
This transportation analysis uses two quantitative metrics to evaluate traffic operations: level of service
(LOS) and travel time. LOS is measured on a scale ranging from A to F, in which A represents freely
flowing traffic and F represents severe congestion. LOS ratings are based on the ratio of actual traffic
volumes to the traffic capacity of the roadway or intersection being studied; LOS deteriorates as
facilities approach or exceed their capacity. Each LOS level corresponds to a certain range of delay
(the average time that vehicles are slowed down or stopped at an intersection). The City of Seattle
defines LOS E as the lowest acceptable LOS on arterial streets. Travel time measures the level of
congestion in the study area by taking into account the delay travelers experience over a distance longer
than a single block.
The transportation analysis qualitatively evaluates several other transportation elements, which include
freight, pedestrians and bicyclists, public transportation, water transportation services, rail, and
emergency services. After impacts had been assessed, analysts considered the appropriateness of
potential mitigation measures.
3-1
3.2
Affected Environment for Transportation
The affected environment consists of the transportation

conditions that are expected to exist in the study area in 2017,
when the AWVRP, EBSP, and MarketFront projects are complete
and before AWPOW construction begins. This is referred to as the
2017 existing conditions. The 2017 existing conditions serve as the
basis against which conditions projected for 2030, the project
design year, will be compared.
3.2.1
Transportation Study Area and

Roadway Network
The transportation study area identified for this analysis is shown

on Figure 3-1. It consists generally of the project footprint
extended south along Alaskan Way to S. Dearborn Street, north
along Alaskan Way to Broad Street, and east between Columbia
and University Streets to Western Avenue. The eastern study area
boundary as a whole was not extended to include First Avenue
because the project is not expected to increase traffic volumes on
First Avenue compared to the No Action Alternative.
Existing Conditions
In the Draft EIS, the term 2017
existing conditions is used to refer
to the future condition of the study
area after the AWVRP, EBSP, and the
MarketFront have been constructed.
The viaduct needs to be demolished
before the AWPOW projects can be
constructed. Because of AWVRP
tunneling delays, the time frame for
viaduct demolition has shifted from
2017 to 2019. This does not affect
the overall AWPOW EIS analysis
because the assumptions for future
existing conditions remain the same.
To keep the terminology consistent
with the prior environmental
documentation, the Final EIS
continues to use 2017 existing
conditions as the baseline.
Fifteen intersections were evaluated as part of the 2017 existing

conditions analysis, as shown in Figure 3-1. Three of the
intersections, intersections 6, 8, and 19, are controlled only by stop signs; these are referred to as
unsignalized intersections. Intersections 7, 10, and 11 have pedestrian-actuated signals (referred to as
pedestrian half signals), which remain green for traffic on the major street until a pedestrian presses the
Walk signal button; the minor streets are stop-sign controlled. The remaining nine intersections have full
signals and are referred to as signalized intersections.
By 2017, when AWPOW construction is expected to begin, the roadway network within the study area
will consist of the southern access to the SR 99 tunnel, principal and minor arterial streets, and local
streets. The majority of the roadway network in the transportation study area will consist of arterial
roadways. Arterial roadways are the foundation of the citys transportation network, designated as the
major thoroughfares for trucks, automobiles, and transit vehicles. Many of the roadways, including
Alaskan Way, Elliott Avenue, Western Avenue, Columbia Street, and S. Jackson Street, are defined as
principal arterials, meaning that they serve as primary routes for vehicle trips between urban centers
and as connections to the regional transportation network. Other roadways in the study area are
defined as minor arterials, which distribute traffic from the principal arterials to local streets. Minor
arterials in the study area include Spring Street and Yesler Way.
Alaskan Way, in conjunction with the SR 99 tunnel, is planned to replace the functions of the Alaskan
Way Viaduct after the viaduct is demolished. SR 99 is an important local and regional highway that
provides an alternative route to Interstate 5 (I-5); after the AWVRP is complete, SR 99 will be located in
a bored tunnel under the study area. Some local traffic diversion from the SR 99 tunnel to Alaskan Way
is anticipated because the tunnel will not provide access to and from the downtown area. The new
Alaskan Way is intended to operate as part of a system, providing transportation functions that the
tunnel cannot provide, such as access to the downtown core and northwest Seattle. Between S. King
Street and Yesler Way, Alaskan Way in 2017 will have two northbound through lanes, one northbound
ferry holding lane, and two southbound through lanes. At Yesler Way there will also be a transit-only
southbound left-turn lane. From Yesler Way to Madison Street, Alaskan Way will have two northbound
and two southbound lanes. A path for bicyclists and pedestrians will follow the east side of the roadway.
3-2
2017 Existing Conditions and No Action Alternative
OU
GH
AM
WA
Y
E lliot t B ay
SR
OY
AL
BR
1S
T
OC
C ID
EN
AV
E
TA
AL
AS
K
LA
VE
AN
WA
Y
ST
G
IN
MA
IN
JA
ST
CK
SO
N
ST
SK
ST
Y ST
ST
ST
ST
AV E
3R D
AVE
AV E
4T H
SD
EA
RB
PA
CI
AY
RR
ST
AD
CLA
AR
E ST
LL
WA
ST
RD
A ST
2N D
ST
AVE
CH A
OR
LEN
IN IA
T ST
OR
IO TT
L ST
AVE
1ST
WAR
IC
PL AC
2ND AVE
2ND AV ET S
CIF
ELL
E
N AV
TE R
VIRG
1ST AVE
PINE ST
PA
PI KE
ST E
RN
WES
PIKE ST
AV
E
HE
AD
WESTERN AVE
UNION ST
RT
UNIVERSITY ST
SPRING ST
LA
VE
MADISON ST
TA
24
MARIO N ST
EN
S
NO
5T
H
ID
JAMES ST
AV
E
AV
E
25
10
CHERRY ST
2N
D
COLUMBIA ST
OC
C
4T
H
PO ST AVE
12
SENECA ST
11
13
Y
TER
BAT
14
15
BEL
AV
E
Seattle
Aquarium
IL
BL AN
1S
T
Colman Dock
Pier 57
Waterfront
Park
Pier 56
RA
VI N
17
Pier 54
Pier 55
F
NS
WAY
CED
18
Pier 62/63
SK AN
BRO
19
RAILROAD WAY S
ALA
Pier 48
OU
GH
AM
WA
E lliot t B ay
SR
OY
AL
BR
1S
T
OC
C ID
EN
AV
E
TA
20
AL
AS
K
LA
VE
AN
WA
Y
ST
G
IN
ST
SO
N
ST
CK
IN
JA
MA
S
ST
ST
ST
ST
SK
AD
Y ST
CLA
AR
E ST
LL
WA
Y
TER
BAT
L ST
CH A
RD
2N D
AV E
ST
1,000
Project Footprint
Feet
GIS Source: King County, City of Seattle
Data Source: Elliot Bay Seawall Project, Parametrix
A ST
Transportation Discipline Study Area

500
2ND AVE
AVE
1ST
AVE
3R D
AVE
RR
0
E
N AV
TE R
IO TT
OR
LEN
IC
ELL
ST
2ND AV ET S
CIF
1ST AVE
PL AC
IN IA
PA
PI KE
VIRG
RN
WESTERN AVE
T ST
HE
21
AD
WES
WAR
RT
22
PINE ST
NO
23
BN
ST E
24
PIKE ST
25
UNION ST
LA
VE
26
UNIVERSITY ST
TA
SPRING ST
EN
10
MADISON ST
ID
11
MARIO N ST
JAMES ST
AV
E
AV
E
12
CHERRY ST
2N
D
13
COLUMBIA ST
OC
C
4T
H
PO ST AVE
14
SENECA ST
15
27
Seattle
Aquarium
BEL
AV
E
16
Pier 57
Waterfront
Park
IL
BL AN
1S
T
Colman Dock
Pier 56
RA
VI N
17
Pier 54
Pier 55
SF
WAY
CED
18
Pier 62/63
SK AN
BRO
19
RAILROAD WAY S
ALA
Pier 48
# Study Intersections
Not Analyzed In This Alternative
Parcel Boundary
Building Footprint
Note:
There is a different number of intersections analyzed in the 2017 Existing Conditions
and 2030 No Action Alternative compared to the 2030 Preferred Alternative because
the Existing Conditions and No Action Alternative were developed to analyze the impacts
from the EBSP and did not include the new and reconfigured intersections north of Pike Place
Market (intersections 1-5 in the Preferred Alternative) or the revised and impacted intersections
in the south end of the study area (intersections 16 and 20). In addition, in order to analyze
all of the AWPOW related impacts along Western Avenue, the Preferred Alternative analyzed five
additional intersections along Western Avenue compared to the number of intersections
that were analyzed for the EBSP along Western Avenue.
Figure 3-1
Transportation Study Area
and Intersections
3.2.2
Traffic Volumes
This transportation analysis presents traffic volumes for the PM peak hour (the time period when traffic
is highest on Alaskan Way, between approximately 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.) and for average daily traffic.
The 2017 traffic volumes used in this analysis are the same as those reported in Appendix A of the EBSP
Transportation Discipline Report (SDOT 2012) for Preferred Alternative C in 2017. As described in the
EBSP Transportation Discipline Report, the analysis used summer conditions, when traffic is highest, to
provide a conservative analysis. Traffic volumes and lane channelization used in the 2017 existing
conditions analysis are shown in Figure 3-2.
During the PM peak hour, traffic volumes on Alaskan Way are considerably higher southbound than
northbound. Between S. King Street and S. Jackson Street, southbound volumes are more than twice
those traveling northbound (approximately 2,430 vehicles southbound compared to 1,100 vehicles
northbound). Between Pike and Pine Streets, there are approximately 1,420 southbound vehicles and
approximately 1,100 northbound vehicles during the PM peak hour.
Daily traffic volumes in 2017 will be higher in the southern part of the study area than those in the
northern portion. This is because of the major transportation hub at Colman Dock, as well as the fact
that Alaskan Way will become the primary route into downtown Seattle from the southern portal of the
SR 99 tunnel. Average daily volumes are estimated using PM peak hour volumes. Volumes are estimated
to be approximately 23,000 vehicles between Pine and Pike Streets and approximately 32,000 vehicles
between S. Jackson Street and S. King Street.
3.2.3
Traffic Operations
Intersection Operations
Figure 3-3 and Table 3-1 show the anticipated PM peak hour LOS and delay for each of the
15 intersections evaluated for 2017 conditions. The following three intersections are expected to
operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour:
Alaskan Way and Pine Street
Alaskan Way and Spring Street
Alaskan Way and Columbia Street
East-west traffic approaching many of the signalized intersections on Alaskan Way is expected to
experience greater delays than those shown for the overall intersection LOS because the overall
intersection delay is the weighted average delay of all the individual movements (SDOT 2012).
Therefore, some side street approaches may experience substantial delays even if the intersection LOS
does not indicate congestion. However, because traffic volumes are higher on Alaskan Way than on any
of the side streets, only a relatively small percentage of vehicles would experience these greater delays.
The traffic operations model suggests that there would be substantial queuing in the southbound lanes
at the intersection of Alaskan Way and Spring Street. This intersection includes a pre-timed (i.e., not
pedestrian actuated) half signal for pedestrians crossing Alaskan Way, which results in substantial delays
(LOS F) for southbound vehicles, but little delay (LOS A) for northbound vehicles. The model estimates
that the resulting southbound queuing and stop-and-go traffic along Alaskan Way could extend as far
north as Lenora Street. This congestion would limit the ability of vehicles to access Alaskan Way,
meaning that some would need to use alternative routes. The traffic operations model determined that
approximately 20 percent of the vehicles would not be able to access the corridor and would use routes
outside of the study area to reach their destinations. Because of this diversion, overall LOS and delay on
Alaskan Way appear better than they would if all of the vehicles that wanted to enter the corridor were
able to do so. The stop-controlled movements along Pine Street are forecast to have substantial delays
due to the limited gaps in traffic along Alaskan Way. The signal-controlled intersection of Alaskan Way at
Columbia Street is forecast to operate at LOS F overall.
3-4
1840
1677
22
22
15
Seneca
10
287
207
5
15
18
2047
214
702
1114
176
1550
1350
198
22
15
Pine
S Washington St /
0
0
0
28
2047
1550
1417
1151
1055
17
Spring
1092
285
10
Yesler Way
200
79
385
346
Madison
1013
1763
2428
1088
1463
133
13
Marion
57
70
47
128
1
1006
1870
63
317
13
165
1072
Alaskan Way
55
General Purpose Traffic

Ferry Only
Data Source:
Transit Only
Pedestrian Crossing
Not Analyzed
182
41
S King St
987
Columbia
86
2132
300
1055
1500
35
Alaskan Way
12
922
17
S Jackson St
7
3
4
13
Alaskan Way
Union
University
11
S Main St
979
84
911
Pike
Figure 3-2
2017 Lane Configurations
and Volumes (PM Peak Hour)
Final EIS
OU
GH
AM
WA
E lliot t B ay
SR
OY
AL
BR
1S
T
OC
C ID
EN
AV
E
TA
AL
AS
K
LA
VE
AN
WA
Y
ST
G
IN
MA
IN
JA
ST
CK
SO
N
ST
SK
AY
W
R
4T H
LE
3RD AVE
5T H
4TH AVE
TERRACE ST
ST
N
GT
O
HIN
AS
SW
AV E
AV E
6T H
AV E
5TH AVE
MA
IN
ST
AVE
YE
S
ST
N
EA
RB
OR
ST
ST
ST
ST
SD
AD
Y ST
CLA
AR
E ST
LL
WA
Y
TER
BAT
L ST
AV E
ST
2N D
3R D
2ND AVE
AVE
RD
RR
IO TT
CH A
IC
WE
ST

500
ST
CIF
0
A
OR
AV
E
LEN
AV
E
PA
ELL
ST
IN IA
AR
AVE
1ST
VIRG
RN
AD
E
N AV
TE R
T ST
HE
PL AC
WAR
7T
H
RT
1ST AVE
PINE ST
MA
YN
AV
E
NO
ST E
6T
H
AV
E
BN
WES
PIKE ST
2ND AV ET S
5T
H
PI KE
UNION ST
A
WESTERN AVE
UNIVERSITY ST
F
SPRING ST
LA
VE
C
MADISON ST
TA
B
MARIO N ST
EN
CHERRY ST
AV
E
ID
JAMES ST
4T
H
AV
E
PO ST AVE
SENECA ST
COLUMBIA ST
OC
C
2N
D
Seattle
Aquarium
BEL
AV
E
Pier 57
Waterfront
Park
IL
BL AN
1S
T
Colman Dock
Pier 56
RA
VI N
Pier 54
Pier 55
SF
WAY
CED
Pier 62/63
SK AN
BRO
RAILROAD WAY S
ALA
Pier 48
1,000
Project Footprint
Feet
Signalized Intersection

Data Source: Elliott Bay Seawall Project
Unsignalized Intersection
LOS A-B
LOS C-D
LOS E
LOS F or Worse
LAK
EA
VE
Parcel Boundary
Building Footprint
Note:
and 2030 No Action Alternative compared to the 2030 Preferred Alternative because
the Existing Conditions and No Action Alternative were developed to analyze the impacts
from the EBSP and did not include the new and reconfigured intersections north of Pike Place
Market (intersections 1-5 in the Preferred Alternative) or the revised and impacted intersections
in the south end of the study area (intersections 16 and 20). In addition, in order to analyze all of the
AWPOW related impacts along Western Avenue, the Preferred Alternative analyzed five
that were analyzed for the EBSP along Western Avenue.
Figure 3-3
2017 Existing Conditions
(PM Peak Hour)
CHAPTER 3 TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING
Table 3-1.
2017 Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service and Delay
PM Peak Hour
ID1
Intersection
Traffic Control
LOS
Delay
(seconds)2
Unsignalized
142
Alaskan Way and Pike Street
Pedestrian Half Signal
Alaskan Way and Union Street
Unsignalized
Alaskan Way and University Street
Signalized
17
10
Alaskan Way and Seneca Street
16
11
>200
12
Alaskan Way and Madison Street
Signalized
54
13
Alaskan Way and Marion Street
Signalized
27
14
Signalized
83
15
Alaskan Way and Yesler Way
Signalized
18
17
Alaskan Way and S. Main Street
Signalized
10
18
Alaskan Way and S. Jackson Street
Signalized
19
Alaskan Way and S. King Street
Unsignalized
10
24
Western Avenue and Madison Street
Signalized
23
25
Western Avenue and Marion Street
Signalized
17
The intersections in this table are not numbered consecutively because they are a subset of the intersections modeled for 2030 conditions.
For more information, please see Figure 3-1 and the traffic operations discussion in Section 3.4.2.
The average delay for all vehicles is reported for signalized intersections. The delay of the worst stop-controlled approach is reported for
unsignalized intersections.
Source: SDOT 2012
Travel Time Analysis

The anticipated 2017 PM peak hour travel times along Alaskan Way are shown on Figure 3-4 and in
Table 3-2. Northbound travel times between Yesler Way and Pike Street are expected to be considerably
shorter than southbound travel times for the same roadway segment. This difference is largely
attributed to the substantial delay and queuing of southbound vehicles caused by the pedestrian half
signal at the Alaskan Way and Spring Street intersection.
Table 3-2.
2017 Existing Conditions Travel Times (Minutes:Seconds)
Roadway Segment
2017 PM Peak Hour Travel Time
Southbound
Pike Street to Yesler Way
7:45
Yesler Way to S. Royal Brougham Way
1:17
Northbound
Yesler Way to Pike Street
1:43
S. Royal Brougham Way to Yesler Way
1:42
Source: SDOT 2012
3-7
Total
Southbound
Time
E lliot t B ay
9:02
WA
Total
Northbound
Time
M
OC
C ID
EN
AV
E
TA
AL
AS
K
LA
VE
AN
3:25
1:17
HA
UG
SR
OY
AL
BO
1S
T
WA
Y
Pier 48
7:45
RAILROAD WAY S
AD
ELL
IO TT
AVE
BRO
BN
IL
ST
G
IN
MA
IN
JA
ST
CK
SO
N
ST
SK
AY
AVE
4T H
3RD AVE
LE
ST
ST
YE
S
AV E
5T H
TERRACE ST
AV E
6T H
AV E
5TH AVE
MA
IN
ST
AD
ST
E ST
LL
WA
L ST
RR
ST
BEL
ST
IC
RD
A ST
AV
E
CH A
OR
LEN
AV E
3R D
2ND AVE
4TH AVE
AR
2N D
ST
CIF
WE
ST

500
IN IA
PA
0
VIRG
RN
T ST
AV
E
HE
AVE
1ST
WAR
7T
H
RT
PINE ST
MA
YN
AV
E
NO
PL AC
ST E
6T
H
AV
E
1ST AVE
PIKE ST
5T
H
1:43
PI KE
UNION ST
2ND AV ET S
WESTERN AVE
UNIVERSITY ST
SPRING ST
LA
VE
MADISON ST
TA
MARIO N ST
EN
CHERRY ST
AV
E
ID
JAMES ST
4T
H
AV
E
COLUMBIA ST
OC
C
2N
D
PO ST AVE
SENECA ST
BL AN
AV
E
E
N AV
TE R
Y
TER
BAT
WES
1S
T
CL AY
Seattle
Aquarium
RA
ST
Pier 57
Waterfront
Park
SF
WAY
AR
CED
Colman Dock
Pier 56
Pier 62/63
SK AN
VI N
1:42
Pier 54
Pier 55
ALA
1,000
Feet
Project Footprint
Southbound
Northbound
x:xx Travel Time
LAK
EA
VE
Parcel Boundary
Building Footprint
Note:
There are different travel time segments analyzed in the 2017 Existing Conditions
and 2030 No Action alternatives compared to the 2030 Preferred Alternative because
the Existing Conditions and No Action alternatives were developed to analyze the
impacts from the EBSP and used separate termini to understand impacts. There is
also an additional travel time segment for the 2030 Preferred Alternative in the north
portion of the study area to address travel time impacts to the new or reconfigured
intersections on Elliott Way.
Figure 3-4
Travel Times
(PM Peak Hour)
3.2.4
Freight
The City of Seattles Freight Mobility Strategic Action Plan (SDOT 2005) and Freight Master Plan (SDOT
2016a) identify Alaskan Way as a Major Truck Street, which indicates that it accommodates a significant
amount of freight movement. Alaskan Way provides connections from Port of Seattle shipping and
intermodal facilities south of and within the study area to Terminal 91 and other Port facilities north of
the study area. Alaskan Way is the dedicated route for oversized and overweight vehicles between
SODO and the Ballard/Interbay Northend Manufacturing and Industrial Center. Alaskan Way is also the
only route for flammable and hazardous materials through downtown Seattle west of I-5. Freight traffic
on Alaskan Way includes regional truck trips and local commercial truck trips in addition to Port-related
truck trips. Major Truck Streets providing east-west connections to Alaskan Way include S. Royal
Brougham Way to the south and Broad Street to the north.
The Freight Mobility Strategic Action Plan describes all arterial streets in the city as freight routes,
although arterials are not subject to the same criteria for street design, traffic management, and
pavement design and repair as Major Truck Streets. Columbia and S. Jackson Streets are considered
principal arterials and would be expected to accommodate some east-west freight traffic. Minor
east-west arterials, such as Yesler Way, Marion Street, Madison Street, and Spring Street, would likely
carry minimal amounts of freight traffic.
Freight truck traffic is expected to comprise approximately 4 percent of the total daily traffic on Alaskan
Way in 2017. During the PM peak hour, freight traffic is typically lower because shippers attempt to
schedule trips outside of peak travel periods. Travel time and intersection delay on Alaskan Way,
Western Avenue, and east-west streets in the study area are anticipated to be the same for freight
traffic as for general-purpose traffic.
3.2.5
Pedestrian facilities in the study area in 2017 will consist of:
A sidewalk approximately 8.5 to 20 feet wide on the west side of Alaskan Way for the entire length
of the waterfront (SDOT 2012). Sidewalks would be widest between Yesler Way and Pike Street and
narrowest south of Yesler Way and north of Pike Street.
A sidewalk approximately 9 to 18 feet wide on the east side of Alaskan Way between Pike and
Virginia Streets.
A path approximately 8 to 10 feet wide on the east side of Alaskan Way that allows for two-way
off-street travel by all types of nonmotorized users. South of the study area, the path transitions to
a sidewalk and bicycle lanes that extend to S. Spokane Street. North of the study area, the Elliott
Bay Trail extends from the Olympic Sculpture Park to Myrtle Edwards Park and allows for two-way
travel by all types of nonmotorized users.
The following east-west pedestrian connections:

-
At-grade, ADA-accessible, signalized crossings of Alaskan Way; crossing widths across

Alaskan Way would average approximately 48 feet, increasing to approximately 56 feet
south of Yesler Way.
Sidewalks along S. Main and S. Washington Streets, which have ADA deficiencies.
The Marion Street pedestrian bridge, which extends from First Avenue, over Western
Avenue and Alaskan Way, to the Seattle Ferry Terminal.
Steps at Seneca Street, located between First Avenue and Post Alley, which connect the
waterfront area with the higher-elevation downtown area.
Steps at University Street, located between Western Avenue and First Avenue, which
connect the waterfront area with the higher-elevation downtown area.
3-9
Stairs at Union Street, consisting of two separate stairways located between Alaskan Way
and First Avenue that connect the waterfront area with the higher-elevation downtown area.
The Pike Street Hillclimba set of stairs that connects the Pike Place Market and the
waterfront at Pike Street, and includes an elevator between Western Avenue and Alaskan Way.
The Lenora Street elevator and stairs, which connect Alaskan Way with Lenora Street just
west of Western Avenue.
Sidewalks along Bell Street between Elliott and First Avenues.
Pedestrian volumes in the study area in 2017 are expected to be highest during the summer months and
higher on weekend days than on weekdays. Based on counts taken in 2012, north-south pedestrian activity
is anticipated to be highest near Piers 54, 55, and 56, with between 17,500 and 19,200 pedestrians per
weekday (City of Seattle 2012). Between Pier 57 and Pike Street at Pier 59 (Seattle Aquarium), weekday
pedestrian volumes are expected to be between 14,500 and 15,500 (City of Seattle 2012). North of the
intersection of Pike Street and Alaskan Way (where the Pike Street Hillclimb is located), pedestrian activity
is expected to be less than the areas farther south, with slightly over 7,000 pedestrians per weekday (City
of Seattle 2012).
During summer weekend days, pedestrian activity is expected to be significantly higher than on summer
weekdays, with between 32,500 and 34,500 pedestrians using the area between Pier 54 and Pier 59 at
the Pike Street crossing (City of Seattle 2012). North of Pier 59, it is anticipated that 22,250 pedestrians
would travel along the waterfront (City of Seattle 2012). For both weekdays and weekends, the majority
(80 percent) of pedestrian activity along the waterfront is anticipated to occur during daytime hours
(6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.).
3.2.6
Bicycle Facilities
City regulations permit bicycles to share the roadway with motorized vehicles and to use sidewalks
along Alaskan Way. Bicycle facilities that are expected to be available in the study area in 2017 are:
Roadways within the study area
Sharrows (shared-lane markings) on Yesler Way between Western Avenue and Alaskan Way and on
Western Avenue between Yesler Way and Bell Street
A bicycle lane on Western Avenue between University Street and Bell Street
Sidewalks that will exist along the west side of Alaskan Way and along east-west streets
The path on the east side of Alaskan Way
Portside Trail south of S. King Street
Bicycle use of these facilities in 2017 is expected to be similar to what it was in 2010 and 2012, when the
City collected data on the use of bicycles in the waterfront area. The data indicate that many bicyclists
use the study area for commuting and recreation, especially during the summer. Bicyclists travel in the
roadway and on the path along the east side of Alaskan Way. Bicycle volumes on the path are higher
than those on Alaskan Way (City of Seattle 2012). A large number of bicyclists use east-west crossings of
Alaskan Way at Spring Street (between 1,000 and 1,500 bicyclists per day), University Street (450 to
1,100 bicyclists per day), and Union Street (750 to 1,000 bicyclists per day).
The path along the east side of Alaskan Way allows for two-way, off-street use by all types of
nonmotorized users. The diversity of user types can result in variable speeds and unpredictable
movements, which increases the risk of conflicts between different users of the path. In addition, the
path crosses 13 street intersections on the east side of Alaskan Way. Intersection crossings result in
more opportunities for conflicts between automobiles and bicyclists due to increased exposure.
3-10
Data from 2010 and 2012 suggest that many bicyclists using Alaskan Way are commuting to and from
work. Accordingly, bicycle volumes are higher during the week than the weekend, and AM and PM
bicycle volumes during the week are similarly high (City of Seattle 2012; SDOT 2012). Conditions in 2017
are expected to follow similar patterns.
3.2.7
Public Transportation
The following three King County Metro transit routes are assumed to operate on Alaskan Way in 2017:
Route 16, providing connections between Northgate Mall and King Street Station with a stop on
Alaskan Way at Marion Street near Colman Dock
Route 66, connecting Northgate Mall, the University District, and the King Street Station with a stop
on Alaskan Way at Marion Street near Colman Dock
Route 99, providing connections between the Olympic Sculpture Park and the International District
via Alaskan Way with stops near Colman Dock, the Seattle Aquarium, and the cruise ship terminal
Other nearby transit services outside of the study area that provide service in downtown Seattle include
streetcar, commuter train, light rail, monorail, and additional bus routes. These transit services provide
both local and regional connections between Seattle and other areas of the Puget Sound region.
Third Avenue is the primary transit spine through downtown, with both local and regional bus routes
operating on the surface street; the City is currently planning to make enhancements to the Third
Avenue transit corridor to improve transit mobility and create a more welcoming urban environment.
Improvements include adding new bus stops, enhancing existing bus stops, adding a bus-only signal, and
improving sidewalks, street signs, and crosswalk markings throughout the corridor. The First Hill
Streetcar service, provided by Sound Transit, terminates just outside the study area at First Avenue S.
and S. Jackson Street. The First Hill Streetcar provides connections to the International District, First Hill,
and Capitol Hill in Seattle. Light rail services are also provided by Sound Transit just outside the study
area, with stations located in the bus tunnel beneath Third Avenue at James, Seneca, and University
Streets, as well as service to the University of Washington, Capitol Hill, southeast Seattle, Tukwila, and
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Commuter rail service provided by Sound Transit is accessed at
King Street Station, just outside of the study area at S. Jackson Street and Third Avenue.
3.2.8
Water Transportation Services
In 2017, Washington State ferries, the King County Water Taxi, tour and area travel vessels, and cruise
ships are expected to operate similarly to today.

WSF operates two ferry routes from the Seattle Ferry Terminal at Colman Dock at Pier 52, located along
Alaskan Way between Madison Street and Yesler Way. The main entrance to Colman Dock for vehicles
and bicyclists is through the tollbooth at Yesler Way. A pedestrian bridge from First Avenue and Marion
Street leads directly into the ferry passenger terminal, and pedestrians can also enter the terminal from
Alaskan Way between Marion Street and Columbia Street. Colman Dock can hold approximately 540
vehicles in its staging area, which is equivalent to approximately two boatloads of Bainbridge Island
vehicles and one boatload of Bremerton vehicles. Public parking is not available at Colman Dock, but
there are passenger loading areas and taxi stands on Alaskan Way in front of the pier. Off-site private
parking is also available. King County Metro Routes 16, 66, and 99 would provide service to or near
Colman Dock.
The Bainbridge Island ferry route has 23 dockings each weekday and 22 dockings each Saturday and
Sunday; the Bremerton route has 15 daily dockings. The Bainbridge Island route had a total of 6,361,927
riders in 2015, with 1,957,700 vehicles, 1,311,211 vehicle passengers, and 3,093,016 foot passengers.
The Bremerton route had a total of 2,659,813 riders in 2015, with 670,688 vehicles, 323,491 vehicles
passengers, and 1,665,634 foot passengers.
3-11
Vehicles exit the Seattle Ferry Terminal at both Marion Street and Yesler Way. If two ferries are docked
at the same time, vehicles from the Bremerton ferry are directed to the Yesler Way exit and vehicles
from the Bainbridge Island ferry are directed to the Marion Street exit. Two ferries dock at the same
time approximately 10 times per day, as reported by WSF staff. When one ferry is present, drivers are
usually allowed to choose which exit to use. Because the Marion Street exit provides less storage area
than the Yesler Way exit (approximately 300 feet at the Marion Street exit and approximately 1,000 feet
at the Yesler Way exit), ferry personnel direct vehicles to Yesler Way if ferry unloading operations are
delayed at the Marion Street exit. Vehicles exiting at Marion Street have direct access into downtown
Seattle, while the Yesler Way exit only allows a right turn onto southbound Alaskan Way. If vehicles are
only allowed to exit at Yesler Way, many motorists will make the first available left turn at S. King Street.
Following the completion of AWVRP and EBSP, one lane dedicated to ferry queuing will be provided
from S. Jackson Street to Yesler Way on northbound Alaskan Way. As summarized above, the modeled
LOS in 2017 during the PM peak hour is LOS B (18 seconds delay) at the intersection of Alaskan Way and
Yesler Way, and LOS C (27 seconds delay) at the intersection of Alaskan Way and Marion Street.
At the intersection of Alaskan Way and Marion Street, pedestrian volumes crossing Alaskan Way in 2017
would be 300 per hour on the north side of the intersection and 300 per hour on the south side of the
intersection. Pedestrian volumes crossing Marion Street would be 800 per hour on the west side of the
intersection and 400 per hour on the east side of the intersection. At the intersection of Alaskan Way
and Columbia Street, pedestrian volumes crossing Alaskan Way would be 300 per hour on the north side
of the intersection and 200 per hour on the south side of the intersection. Pedestrian volumes crossing
Columbia Street would be 300 per hour on the west side of the intersection (Columbia Street does not
extend to the west side of the intersection). At the intersection of Alaskan Way and Yesler Way,
pedestrian volumes crossing Alaskan Way would be approximately 400 per hour on the north side of the
intersection; no pedestrian crossing would be provided on the south side of the intersection. Pedestrian
volumes crossing Yesler Way would be approximately 500 per hour on the west side of the intersection
and approximately 100 on the east side of the intersection. Pedestrian volumes were obtained from the
AWVRP VISSIM model (FHWA et al. 2011). The pedestrian crossing numbers represent PM peak hour
totals, and represent the equivalent of approximately 5 to 10 pedestrians crossing per signal cycle.
These pedestrian volumes were included in the traffic operations analysis and have been accounted for
when calculating the intersection LOS.
King County Water Taxi

King County operates water taxi service and facilities from downtown Seattle to West Seattle and
Vashon Island. The service is based on Pier 50, which is adjacent to Colman Dock at Yesler Way. No
parking is provided at the pier, but there will continue to be loading zones nearby for dropping off and
picking up passengers in front of Colman Dock.
The water taxi vessels carry up to 278 passengers and 26 bicycles (KCDOT 2015, 2016). The water taxi to
Vashon Island runs only on weekdays, with three round trips in the morning and three in the afternoon.
The water taxi to West Seattle generally operates 7 days a week from April through October, with 19
round trips on weekdays and 12 on weekends; weekday peak period service operates year-round.
Additional trips are provided on Fridays only in the evenings and for special events.
Victoria Clipper
The Victoria Clipper service, operated by Clipper Navigation, is located on Pier 69, on Alaskan Way
between Clay and Vine Streets. The passenger-only route operates year-round with service to Victoria,
British Columbia. The number of trips depends on the time of year and ranges from one round trip in the
winter to three round trips in the summer. From May through September, Clipper Navigation also
operates one round trip daily to the San Juan Islands. The boat used on the San Juan Islands route holds
239 passengers, and the boats used on the Victoria route hold from 293 to 330 passengers (SDOT 2012).
There are multiple nearby parking structures as well as taxi loading zones in front of Pier 69.
3-12
Argosy Cruises
Argosy Cruises operates from Piers 55 and 56, located on Alaskan Way between Spring Street and
Seneca Street. Four boats moor at Piers 55 and 56. Cruise operations are most active from June to
August with up to 15 cruises per day, from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. From April to May and September to
October there are approximately seven cruises on each weekday and nine trips on weekend days.
During the winter months (November to March), there are two cruises on weekdays, three on Sundays,
and four on Saturdays. Winter operations start at noon and operate until 2:30 p.m. on weekdays, 9 p.m.
on Saturdays, and 4 p.m. on Sundays. There are a number of nearby parking lots, and loading zones are
provided for passengers in front of the pier.
Bell Street Pier Cruise Terminal

The Port of Seattles Bell Street Pier Cruise Terminal is located at Pier 66. The terminal has one cruise
ship berth, which serves the Norwegian Cruise Line and Oceania Cruises, and a two-story building for
passengers. The Bell Street Pier garage, located across the street at Alaskan Way and Wall Street,
provides secure parking with 1,511 spaces for public use. The garage provides complimentary shuttle
service to the terminal, but passengers also walk from the garage to the terminal by using the Bell Street
pedestrian bridge and crossing to the west side of Alaskan Way. The terminal also serves as the point of
landside access for freight provisioning of cruise ships (i.e., supplying the ships with food, drinks, and
equipment).
Pier 66 and Pier 91 served an estimated 898,000 passengers in 2015, as the Port of Seattle reported in
its online Cruise Seattle 2016 Fact Sheet (Port of Seattle 2016). The majority of sailings occur on
Saturday or Sunday, but Oceania Cruises sail periodically with 7-, 10-, and 14-day itineraries. In addition
to these sailings, Pier 66 occasionally hosts cruise ships from other cruise lines that have Seattle as a
port of call; these dockings can occur any day of the week.
3.2.9
Freight and Passenger Rail
The study area serves both freight and passenger rail. BNSF operates the main railroad line through
Seattle. The rail line enters a 1-mile tunnel just north of King Street Station, emerging at approximately
Virginia Street between Alaskan Way and Western Avenue. North of the tunnel, at-grade crossings are
located east of Alaskan Way at Wall, Vine, Clay, and Broad Streets. An average of approximately 30
freight trains per day operate on the BNSF line, traveling at speeds up to 30 miles per hour (mph)
(WSDOT 2014). The number of freight trains that travel through the study area on any given day may
fluctuate depending on BNSF train scheduling. East-west traffic approaching at-grade rail crossings
within the corridor experience periodic delays as a result of freight and passenger rail movements.
At-grade crossings within the corridor are located east of Alaskan Way at Wall, Vine, Clay, and Broad
Streets. The longest vehicle queues caused by railroad crossing events typically occur during the
shoulder periods of the evening commute, around 2 p.m., and then again just before 6 p.m. At the
Broad Street crossing, gate-closure times can range from approximately 1.1 to 11.6 minutes, with an
average gate-closure time of approximately 3.3 minutes per train. Train crossing events are spread
throughout the day.
Passenger rail service includes two Amtrak routes along the BNSF rail line, resulting in six passenger
trains operating along the BNSF line daily in both directions.
Sounder commuter rail service, operated by Sound Transit and Amtrak, also uses the BNSF rail line in the
study area. Sound Transits Seattle to Everett route operates four round trips on weekdays (southbound
service to Seattle in the morning and northbound service to Everett in the evening) and provides
weekend service for events at Safeco Field and CenturyLink Field.
3-13
3.2.10
Emergency Services
Emergency services in the study area are expected to operate similarly in 2017 as under current
conditions. Seattle Fire Station 5, located on Pier 53 just north of Colman Dock, is the primary station
serving the study area. It provides service to both the downtown core as well as to boats in Elliott Bay.
Other emergency service vehicles, such as ambulances, also serve the waterfront. The restored Alaskan
Way will be wide enough to allow sufficient through movements for emergency vehicles, as reported in
the EBSP Transportation Discipline Report (SDOT 2012). However, it is anticipated that substantial traffic
at some intersections in 2017 may create congestion on Alaskan Way that could adversely affect
emergency response times.
3.3
Construction Impacts for Transportation
3.3.1
Construction Impacts of the No Action Alternative
No construction activities would occur under the No Action Alternative; therefore, this alternative would
have no construction impacts on transportation.
3.3.2
Construction Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
As described in Section 2.5.1, AWPOW construction would be sequenced to achieve the two primary
early goals of completing the new Elliott Way and creating the interim transit pathway on Columbia
Street. Construction is then expected to proceed in segments of two to five blocks in length. In each
segment, utilities would generally be constructed first, followed by the new roadway and then the
Promenade, with traffic being routed from the restored Alaskan Way roadway to the newly constructed
roadway before Promenade construction begins in the same segment. Construction of several such
segments could occur simultaneously. Construction of improvements on the east-west streets such as
S. Main, S. Washington, Union, and Bell Streets could occur independently of the construction on
Alaskan Way, and could occur simultaneously or at different times.
Traffic Volumes
General-purpose traffic volumes during construction are expected to be similar to 2017 existing
conditions. The estimated AWPOW-related construction truck trips (up to 27 daily trips on average and
up to 66 daily trips during peak construction periods) are not expected to substantially increase traffic
volumes and delays because the number of anticipated truck trips is small in the context of overall truck
use in the area. In addition, construction truck trips are likely to be scheduled primarily during off-peak
hours (midday, evenings, and weekends).
Traffic Operations
The largest construction impact for AWPOW would be the closure of Alaskan Way in the vicinity of Pine
Street while the Pine Street extension is built. For purposes of this analysis, the closure is assumed to
last approximately 4 months. During this time, vehicles accessing the waterfront north of Pine Street
from the south would be required to travel along the newly constructed Elliott Way to Wall, Vine, Clay,
or Broad Streets to reach the northern portion of Alaskan Way. Southbound vehicles on Elliott Avenue
would continue to access the northern segment of Alaskan Way via Wall, Vine, Clay, or Broad Streets;
vehicles destined for Alaskan Way south of Pine Street would continue along Elliott Way to the
waterfront.
This closure of Alaskan Way could create congestion and delay on east-west streets that allow access to
the northern portion of Alaskan Way because of increased traffic from vehicles that would otherwise
have used Alaskan Way to access the northern portion of Alaskan Way from the south. This impact
would increase when trains (particularly long freight trains) use the at-grade rail crossings at Wall, Vine,
Clay, and Broad Streets. As noted above, gate closures for freight trains at the at-grade crossings
typically last between 1 and 11.6 minutes, with an average gate-closure time of approximately
3-14
3.3 minutes per train. Trains blocking these east-west streets would increase travel times, including for
emergency vehicles, to the northern segment of Alaskan Way because these east-west connections
would be the only access points for this area during the closure.
During construction of the main portion of the new Alaskan Way, as each new roadway segment is
completed, traffic would be rerouted from the restored roadway to the newly constructed Alaskan Way,
and back onto the restored roadway in the next segment. Minor delays could occur as a result of
reduced speeds as vehicles move between the restored and new Alaskan Way. However, utility and
other underground installations may impact the ability to maintain this approach throughout
construction. During the midday and non-peak commute periods, up to one lane in each direction could
be closed periodically. Lane closures are anticipated to increase congestion and travel times, but these
impacts would occur during periods of lower traffic volumes.
Temporary roadway closures during AWPOW construction could occur in other locations in the study
area, such as on Seneca Street during the construction of pedestrian improvements. These closures
would likely occur in the evenings or on weekends to minimize impacts on traffic. During closures, travel
time and delay at intersections could increase, but impacts would be lower during off-peak periods than
peak period closures due to lower vehicle volumes.
Additional sources of potential traffic delay during construction include:
Visual distraction from construction activities
Traffic diversion from Alaskan Way and east-west connections, such as Columbia, Seneca, and
Marion Streets, to surface streets in the central business district
Construction trucks entering and leaving the work zone and staging areas
Access to businesses would be maintained throughout construction. While localized construction

activities could temporarily block access, this would occur only intermittently and for short periods of
time. During these times, the use of side streets may be required to assist the movement of freight and
supplies to local businesses. Access to waterfront businesses would remain open but would require
some out-of-direction travel. The detours via Elliott Way and east-west streets would add travel time to
vehicle trips accessing the waterfront north of Pine Street from the south.
Freight
AWPOWs impacts on freight movement would be similar to those described for general-purpose traffic.
During the road closure near the Pine Street extension, freight vehicles needing to access the northern
segment of Alaskan Way would be required to detour around the closure. This could increase travel
times and congestion on Elliott Way and on Broad Street, which is designated as a Major Truck Street,
during the closure.
In other parts of the study area, there could be limited closures of the roadway during construction.
Access to businesses would be maintained on side streets to assist movement of freight and supplies to
local businesses, which would minimize impacts on freight vehicles. During closures or lane reductions,
travel time and delay could increase for freight vehicles. Trucks with oversized loads require an escort
and typically travel between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., during the time that road closures for AWPOW
could occur. During road closures, a commercial vehicle enforcement officer and City of Seattle Traffic
Control would need to coordinate to schedule the movement of oversized loads.
Access to the Port of Seattles Terminal 46 is located on Alaskan Way at S. Jackson and S. King Streets.
Construction of Alaskan Way and driveway accesses could require intermittent detours in this area or
brief closures of entrance points to Terminal 46. This could cause an increase in delays for freight
vehicles accessing this location, but it is anticipated that such delays would be limited. Construction
activities near Terminal 46 would be coordinated with the Port to minimize impacts on freight
transportation and distribution.
3-15
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

When necessary during construction, pedestrians would be rerouted around active construction zones,
which could lengthen pedestrian trips and travel times. However, the impact would be minor in any one
location because construction is expected to occur in segments along the project footprint.
The path on the east side of Alaskan Way would remain open during construction. The path would be
rerouted away from active construction zones, which could affect pedestrian and bicycle travel times;
again, the short segments in which construction would occur would minimize this impact.
During the closure of Alaskan Way to construct the new Pine Street extension, pedestrians and bicyclists
would be able to use the 16-foot-wide sidewalk along the west side of Alaskan Way. This would reduce
impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists during the closure. The protected bicycle facility on Elliott Way
that is proposed as part of AWPOW would be completed before the closure of Alaskan Way, allowing
bicyclists an alternative route to bypass the closure area.
During replacement of the Marion Street pedestrian bridge, pedestrian impacts would be minimal.
Pedestrians may be rerouted to a temporary pedestrian bridge directly adjacent to the permanent
bridge, but they would have direct access over Alaskan Way into Colman Dock throughout construction.
During construction on S. Main, S. Washington, Union, and Bell Streets, sidewalks that meet minimum
ADA requirements would generally be provided on at least one side of the street. Pedestrians would be
rerouted around active construction areas if necessary. During construction of the Union Street
Pedestrian Connection, pedestrians wishing to travel between the waterfront and east of Post Alley
would be rerouted one block south to the Harbor Steps at University Street or one block north to
connections through Pike Place Market. Such rerouting could lengthen pedestrian trips and travel times.
The Lenora Street pedestrian bridge would be closed for approximately 18 to 24 months while the new
Elliott Way roadway is constructed, and the eastern end of the bridge would be modified to connect to
the new Elliott Way. During construction of this connection, pedestrians would be directed to use other
routes such as Bell Street.
During AWPOW construction, transit routes would run on interim pathways, which would likely be
similar to where they were rerouted during construction of EBSP and AWVRP. King County Metro Routes
16, 66, and 99 would operate on First Avenue. Construction could increase transit travel times and
change or complicate access to transit stops. Transit routes could experience some delay if construction
caused traffic from Alaskan Way to divert onto nearby streets; however, substantial diversion is not
anticipated because Alaskan Way (or Alaskan Way and Elliott Way) would remain open to generalpurpose traffic throughout construction. Transit service provided by King County Metro could be
rerouted onto the new Alaskan Way after completion of the new transit lanes at the southern end of the
project footprint, and the improvements to Columbia Street, where the permanent pathway for King
County Metro routes serving West Seattle, Ballard, and southwest King County will be located.

AWPOW construction is not expected to affect service or sailing schedules for Washington State ferries,
the King County Water Taxi, or Argosy Cruises. Access to these facilities would be maintained
throughout construction. As each new roadway segment is completed, traffic would be rerouted from
the restored roadway to the newly constructed Alaskan Way, and back onto the restored roadway in the
next segment, which would allow ferry storage lanes to be maintained throughout construction.
Dockings and operations of the Victoria Clipper at Pier 69 and the Bell Street Pier Cruise Terminal would
not change as a result of AWPOW construction. However, access to these facilities from the south would
be affected by the closure of Alaskan Way at Pine Street to construct the Pine Street extension.
Northbound traffic on Alaskan Way bound for the cruise ship terminal would be required to detour
north around the closure and would likely use Wall Street to connect back to Alaskan Way near Pier 69.
3-16
Increased traffic volumes caused by this diversion could create additional congestion and delay on
east-west streets that allow access to the northern portion of Alaskan Way; this could increase travel
times for vehicles destined for the terminals and parking garages.
Rail
AWPOW construction is not expected to affect rail services or facilities. BNSF restricts construction in
the railroad right of way to prearranged track closure windows. Construction near the BNSF rail line
would occur only during these pre-arranged time periods.
Emergency Services
During construction, emergency vehicles may experience delays in response time as they travel through
or detour around active construction areas. Road closures or lane reductions would increase congestion
and delay in the study area, and therefore would affect response times. During the closure of Alaskan
Way between Pike and Pine Streets for construction of the Pine Street extension, emergency services
from the south would be able to cross the construction zone using the sidewalk along Elliott Bay to
reach the northern portion of Alaskan Way without the need to cross the tracks. The City would work
closely with emergency service providers to put in place appropriate measures for emergency access
and travel through construction areas to minimize impacts on response times. Emergency services
would also have access from the north during the closure, but would still be subject to intermittent
blockage by at-grade train crossings. As mentioned above, these crossings can last from 1.1 to
11.6 minutes, with an average gate-closure time of approximately 3.3 minutes per train.
3.4
Operational Impacts for Transportation
This section compares how the transportation system would operate under both the No Action and
Preferred alternatives in order to identify project-related impacts and any needed mitigation measures.
The analysis for both alternatives reflects future conditions in 2030, the project design year. As with 2017
existing conditions, quantitative traffic analyses for 2030 were developed only for the PM peak hour
because this period has the highest traffic volumes in the corridor. To provide a conservative estimate,
traffic volume forecasts were based on summer conditions when traffic is expected to be highest.
3.4.1
Operational Impacts of the No Action Alternative
Roadway Network
The roadway configuration and the 15 study area intersections for the No Action Alternative would be
the same as the 2017 existing conditions described in Section 3.2.1. Figure 3-1 above shows the study
intersections for the No Action Alternative.
Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes in the study area are generally expected to increase by approximately 5 to 10 percent
between 2017 and 2030 due to regional population and employment growth. The anticipated 2030
lane configuration and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the No Action Alternative are shown in
Figure 3-5.
As in 2017, PM peak hour traffic volumes on Alaskan Way in 2030 under the No Action Alternative
are expected to be considerably higher southbound than northbound. Approximately 2,540 vehicles
would travel southbound on Alaskan Way between S. King Street and S. Jackson Street compared to
1,250 vehicles northbound. Southbound traffic volumes in the PM peak hour would also be higher in
the northern portion of the study area, with approximately 1,515 southbound vehicles and 1,180
northbound vehicles using Alaskan Way between Pike Street and Pine Street.
3-17
1923
1826
22
22
15
Seneca
387
285
10
Yesler Way
207
18
224
845
2130
1673
1440
1260
176
198
37
33
Pine
S Washington St /
0
0
0
28
2130
1673
1515
1298
1160
18
Spring
1245
200
79
408
357
Madison
1166
1897
2534
1202
1615
13
133
14
33
Marion
61
83
47
128
1
1159
1944
63
366
22
165
1207
Alaskan Way
55

Ferry Only
Data Source:
Transit Only
Pedestrian Crossing
Not Analyzed
183
44
S King St
1130
Columbia
86
2238
300
1192
1653
35
Alaskan Way
12
1065
17
S Jackson St
7
3
4
13
Alaskan Way
Union
University
11
S Main St
1126
84
1063
Pike
Figure 3-5
Lane Configuration and
Traffic Volumes (PM Peak Hour)
Final EIS
Daily traffic volumes in the southern end of the study area would be higher than those in the northern
end because of two reasons: 1) the existing traffic-generating facilities in this area (e.g., Colman Dock),
and 2) because Alaskan Way will become the primary route into downtown Seattle from the southern
portal of the SR 99 tunnel. Average daily volumes are estimated to be approximately 34,000 vehicles
between S. Jackson and S. King Streets and approximately 24,000 vehicles between Pike and
Pine Streets.
Traffic Operations
Figure 3-6 and Table 3-3 show the PM peak hour intersection operations in 2030 under the No Action
Alternative. For comparison purposes, Table 3-3 also shows the corresponding intersection
operations for 2017 existing conditions. The study area is expected to experience more congestion in
2030 than in 2017 as a result of regional population and employment growth. The same three
intersections that would operate at LOS F in 2017 (Alaskan Way at Columbia, Spring, and Pine
Streets) are expected to operate at LOS F in 2030, but they would experience substantially more
delays because of the higher traffic volumes.
Table 3-3.
No Action Alternative PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service and Delay

2017 Existing
Conditions
PM Peak Hour
ID1
Intersection
2030 No Action
Alternative
PM Peak Hour
Traffic Control
LOS
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Delay
(sec)2
Unsignalized
142
>200
Alaskan Way and Pike Street
Alaskan Way and Union Street
Unsignalized
Alaskan Way and University Street
Signalized
17
31
10
Alaskan Way and Seneca Street
16
31
11
>200
>200
12
Alaskan Way and Madison Street
Signalized
54
57
13
Alaskan Way and Marion Street
Signalized
27
27
14
Signalized
83
132
15
Alaskan Way and Yesler Way
Signalized
18
21
17
Alaskan Way and S. Main Street
Signalized
10
10
18
Alaskan Way and S. Jackson Street
Signalized
19
Alaskan Way and S. King Street
Unsignalized
10
12
24
Western Avenue and Madison Street
Signalized
23
23
25
Western Avenue and Marion Street
Signalized
17
17
The intersections in this table are not numbered consecutively because they are a subset of the intersections modeled for 2030 conditions.
For more information, please see Figure 3-1 and the traffic operations discussion in Section 3.4.2.
2 The
average delay for all vehicles is reported for signalized intersections. For unsignalized intersections, delay is reported for the worstoperating stopped approach.
sec = seconds
Source: SDOT 2012
3-19
OU
GH
AM
WA
Y
Elliott Bay
SR
OY
AL
BR
1S
T
OC
C ID
EN
AV
E
TA
AL
AS
K
LA
VE
AN
WA
Y
ST
G
IN
ST
SO
N
ST
CK
IN
JA
ST
IN IA
ST
VIRG
A
OR
RD
LEN
CH A
MA
AV E
2N D
ST
AVE
3R D
2ND AVE
AY
W
ST
ST
SK
AD
Y ST
CLA
AR
E ST
ST
ST
L ST
AVE
1ST
T ST
AVE
E
N AV
TE R
WAR
RN
PINE ST
HE
PL AC
ST E
AV
E
1ST AVE
PIKE ST
5T
H
WES
PI KE
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
IO TT
WESTERN AVE
UNION ST
UNIVERSITY ST
SPRING ST
LA
VE
MADISON ST
TA
MARIO N ST
EN
CHERRY ST
AV
E
ID
JAMES ST
4T
H
AV
E
COLUMBIA ST
OC
C
2N
D
PO ST AVE
SENECA ST
ELL
LL
WA
SF
AD
Y
TER
BAT
BN
BEL
AV
E
Seattle
Aquarium
BL AN
1S
T
Pier 54
Pier 55
Colman Dock
Pier 57
Waterfront
Park
IL
VI N
Pier 56
RA
WAY
CED
Pier 62/63
SK AN
BRO
RAILROAD WAY S
ALA
Pier 48
VE
E lliot t B ay
OU
GH
AM
WA
Elliott Bay
SR
OY
AL
BR
1S
T
OC
C ID
EN
AV
E
TA
D
S
LA
VE
AL
AS
K
AN
WA
Y
ST
G
IN
ST
SO
N
ST
CK
IN
JA
MA
ST
SK
AD
Y ST
CLA
S
AR
E ST
AVE
AY
3R D
4T H

Project Footprint
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
LOS A-B
LOS C-D
LOS E
LOS F or Worse
ST
AV E
ST

Data Source: Elliott Bay Seawall Project, Parametrix
ST
Feet
A
OR
1,000
RD
LEN
500
2N D
ST
IN IA
PA
CI
2ND AVE
VIRG
RN
AVE
1ST
T ST
HE
PL AC
WAR
1ST AVE
PINE ST
AV
E
PI KE
ST E
5T
H
WESTERN AVE
PIKE ST
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
LL
WA
E
N AV
TE R
ST
AVE
WES
IO TT
L ST
ELL
CH A
UNION ST
UNIVERSITY ST
SPRING ST
LA
VE
MADISON ST
TA
MARIO N ST
EN
CHERRY ST
AV
E
ID
JAMES ST
4T
H
AV
E
COLUMBIA ST
OC
C
2N
D
PO ST AVE
SENECA ST
SF
AD
Y
TER
BAT
D
F
BN
BEL
AV
E
Seattle
Aquarium
BL AN
1S
T
Pier 54
Pier 55
Colman Dock
Pier 57
Waterfront
Park
IL
VI N
Pier 56
RA
WAY
CED
Pier 62/63
SK AN
BRO
RAILROAD WAY S
ALA
Pier 48
Parcel Boundary
Building Footprint
Note:
the Existing Conditions and No Action alternatives were developed to analyze the impacts
from the EBSP and did not include the new/reconfigured intersections north of Pike Place
Market (intersections 1-5 in the Preferred Alternative) or the revised/impacted intersections
in the south end of the study area (intersections 16 and 20). In addition, to analyze all of the
AWPOW related impacts along Western Avenue, the Preferred Alternative analyzed five
that were analyzed for the EBSP along Western and 1st Avenue.
AV E
Figure 3-6
2030 Intersection Operations
(PM Peak Hour)
Similar to 2017 conditions, the traffic operations model suggests that in 2030 under the No Action
Alternative, there would be substantial queuing in the southbound lanes at the intersection of Alaskan
Way and Spring Street as a result of the pre-timed half signal for pedestrians crossing Alaskan Way. This
signal would cause substantial delays (LOS F) for southbound vehicles, but little delay (LOS A) for
northbound vehicles, leading to southbound queuing and stop-and-go traffic along Alaskan Way that
could extend as far north as Lenora Street. As under 2017 conditions, this queuing would limit vehicles
from accessing Alaskan Way, and cause some to take alternative routes. Approximately 30 percent of
the vehicles expected to use Alaskan Way would not be able to access the corridor, compared to
20 percent of vehicles under 2017 existing conditions. Because of this diversion, intersection operations
on Alaskan Way appear better than they would if all of the vehicles were able to enter the corridor.

Figure 3-7 and Table 3-4 show the anticipated PM peak hour travel times along Alaskan Way in 2030
under the No Action Alternative. For comparison purposes, Table 3-4 also shows the corresponding travel
times for 2017 existing conditions. Travel times under the No Action Alternative would be similar to or
longer than travel times estimated for 2017 because of traffic volume increases between 2017 and 2030.
The most substantial delay would be for southbound travel between Pike Street and Yesler Way, which
would take about 50 seconds longer under the No Action Alternative than in 2017. As in 2017,
northbound travel times between Yesler Way and Pike Street are expected to be shorter than
southbound travel times for the same roadway segment. The difference is largely attributed to the delay
and queuing of southbound vehicles caused by the pedestrian half signal at Alaskan Way and Spring
Street, as described above (SDOT 2012).
Table 3-4.
2017 Existing and No Action Alternative Travel Times during the PM Peak Hour
(Minutes:Seconds)
PM Peak Hour
2030 No Action Alternative

PM Peak Hour
7:45
8:35
1:17
1:17
1:43
1:45
1:42
1:46
Roadway Segment
Southbound
Northbound
Source: SDOT 2012
Freight
Under the No Action Alternative, Alaskan Way would continue to serve as a key freight corridor through
downtown Seattle. However, its efficiency for moving freight would be adversely affected by increased
surface street congestion. Freight vehicles would experience the same increased southbound travel times
as general-purpose vehicles in the southern portion of the study area during the PM peak hour. This
impact would be lessened to some degree because freight traffic is often scheduled for non-peak periods.
Access to local businesses and loading docks is anticipated to be similar to 2017 existing conditions.
Pedestrian facilities under the No Action Alternative along Alaskan Way would be the same as under the
2017 existing conditions, with sidewalks on both sides of Alaskan Way and a path along the east side.
Crosswalks would be provided along Alaskan Way; the average crossing width would be approximately
48 feet, with the maximum crossing width of 56 feet located south of Yesler Way.
3-21
9:52 Total
Southbound
Time
BR
OU
GH
AM
WA
Y
3:31 Total
Northbound
SR
OY
AL
1S
T
OC
C ID
EN
AV
E
TA
AL
AS
K
LA
VE
1:17
AN
WA
Y
Time
Pier 48
8:35
RAILROAD WAY S
IL
AD
ELL
IO TT
AVE
BRO
BN
RA
ST
G
IN
MA
IN
JA
ST
CK
SO
N
ST
SK
AM
AY
W
R
WA
Time
2:12
GH
OU
BR
AL
OY
SR
AN
WA
Y
Pier 48
RA
IL
AD
ELL
IO TT
AVE
BRO
ST
G
IN
ST
SO
N
ST
CK
IN
JA
MA
ST
ST
SK
ST
Y ST
AR
E ST
LL
WA
L ST
CH A
ST
2N D
AV E
ST
A
OR
RD
LEN
3R D
AVE
AY
2ND AVE
4T H
ER

Project Footprint
Southbound
Northbound
x:xx Travel Time
ST
BEL
AVE
1ST
ST

Data Source: Elliott Bay Seawall
Project, Parametrix
IN IA
Feet
VIRG
1,000
T ST
500
1:18
WAR
0
PINE ST
PA
C IF
PL AC
ST E
RN
1ST AVE
PIKE ST
2:06
PI KE
UNION ST
AV
E
HE
WESTERN AVE
UNIVERSITY ST
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
SPRING ST
CHERRY ST
LA
VE
MADISON ST
TA
MARIO N ST
EN
COLUMBIA ST
ID
JAMES ST
AV
E
PO ST AVE
SENECA ST
BL AN
AV
E
E
N AV
TE R
Y
TER
BAT
WES
1S
T
AD
Seattle
Aquarium
CED
Pier 57
Waterfront
Park
S
BN
WAY
CLA
Pier 56
Pier 62/63
SK AN
VI N
Pier 54
Pier 55
ALA
3:24
4:48
Colman Dock
2N
D
5T
H
ST
5:06 Total
Northbound
OC
C
AV
E
AD
AV E
1:42
4T
H
AVE
4T H
RAILROAD WAY S
RS
LA
VE
E ST
TA
ST
EN
LL
WA
ST
OC
C ID
AL
AS
K
AV E
3R D
Time
AV
E
ST
2N D
2ND AVE
10:24 Total
Southbound
1S
T
L ST
RD
A ST
IN IA
PA
CI
ST
BEL
CH A
OR
LEN
VIRG
T ST
RN
AVE
1ST
WAR
HE
PINE ST
AV
E
PL AC
ST E
5T
H
1ST AVE
PIKE ST
1:45
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
PI KE
UNION ST
WESTERN AVE
UNIVERSITY ST
SPRING ST
LA
VE
MADISON ST
TA
MARIO N ST
EN
CHERRY ST
AV
E
ID
JAMES ST
4T
H
AV
E
COLUMBIA ST
OC
C
2N
D
PO ST AVE
SENECA ST
BL AN
AV
E
E
N AV
TE R
Y
TER
BAT
WES
1S
T
Y ST
CLA
Seattle
Aquarium
SF
WAY
A
CED
Colman Dock
Pier 57
Waterfront
Park
Pier 56
Pier 62/63
SK AN
VI N
1:46
Pier 54
Pier 55
ALA
Parcel Boundary
Building Footprint
Note:
There are different travel time segments analyzed in the 2017 Existing Conditions
the Existing Conditions and No Action alternatives were developed to analyze the
impacts from the EBSP and used separate termini to understand impacts. There is
also an additional travel time segment for the 2030 Preferred Alternative in the north
portion of the study area to address travel time impacts to the new or reconfigured
intersections on Elliott Way.
AV E
Figure 3-7
2030 Travel Times
(PM Peak Hour)
As under 2017 existing conditions, pedestrian connections north of Seneca Street between the
waterfront and the higher elevation areas of downtown Seattle would be provided at the Pike Street
Hillclimb, the steps at University Street and Union Street, and the Lenora Street elevator and staircase.
The steps at Seneca Street, at-grade connections to downtown Seattle south of Seneca Street, and the
Marion Street pedestrian bridge would all remain the same as under 2017 existing conditions. The
Seneca Street stairs and the Union Street stairs would not meet ADA standards.
Pedestrian activity along the waterfront is expected to be somewhat higher under the No Action
Alternative than under 2017 existing conditions because of population and employment growth in the
downtown Seattle area. The sidewalk on the west side of Alaskan Way would likely experience
additional pedestrian congestion during the summer months and during special events or festivals along
the waterfront.
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities under the No Action Alternative would be the same as under the 2017 existing
conditions. As with pedestrian traffic, it is expected that bicycle use in the study area would increase
from 2017 existing conditions as a function of population and employment growth. The projected
increase in both traffic volumes and nonmotorized use on the waterfront could result in the potential
for increased conflicts between nonmotorized users and vehicular traffic within the study area,
particularly for bicyclists on the path along the east side of Alaskan Way with its 13 street intersection
crossings.
The No Action Alternative would include public transit service similar to that under the 2017 existing
conditions. It is anticipated that the demand for transit services in the study area would increase
because of population and employment growth in downtown Seattle. This increase could result in the
need for service expansion in the study area.
Traffic conditions in the corridor under the No Action Alternative would adversely affect public
transportation because transit service would operate in general-purpose lanes. Intersections would have
higher traffic volumes in 2030 than in 2017, and would therefore experience more congestion, which
would affect both transit service and general-purpose traffic. As a result of the congestion, travel times for
transit and general-purpose traffic would increase under the No Action Alternative compared to 2017
existing conditions.

Access to all water transportation services would be similar in 2030 to conditions in 2017. The primary
difference between 2017 existing conditions and the No Action Alternative would be the increase in
congestion on Alaskan Way. This congestion would result in slightly more delays to intersection
operations near Colman Dock, although the LOS at Yesler Way and Marion Street would remain at
acceptable levels during the PM peak hour. Similarly, King County Water Taxi passengers could
experience some delay in accessing the terminal. Operations for the Victoria Clipper, Argosy Cruises, and
the Bell Street Cruise Terminal would be the same as under 2017 existing conditions; however,
additional congestion on Alaskan Way would result in less available capacity to accept the influx of
traffic associated with embarking and disembarking passengers at these facilities.
Rail
The No Action Alternative would not change the operation of passenger or freight rail in the study area.
Emergency Services
Access to and parking at Fire Station 5 would be the same as anticipated for 2017. However, the
projected increases in traffic volumes, intersection delays, and travel times would result in some degree
of adverse impact on emergency response times within the study area.
3-23
3.4.2
Operational Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
Roadway Network
The Preferred Alternative would build a new Alaskan Way corridor primarily in the right of way that is
vacated by the viaduct removal, with new connections to Elliott and Western Avenues, improved
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and enhanced connections to existing east-west streets. Compared to
the No Action Alternative, the improvements would provide additional traffic capacity in the southern
portion of the study area and better connectivity with Belltown and points to the north. Figure 3-1
displays the study intersections evaluated for the Preferred Alternative. A total of 27 intersections (12
more intersections than the No Action Alternative) were evaluated to account for the
Preferred Alternatives changes to the roadway design and to determine the potential for traffic
congestion on nearby streets, including Western Avenue.
The new Alaskan Way would be three, four, or five lanes northbound and three lanes southbound
between S. King Street and Columbia Street. The northbound lanes would consist of two general-purpose
lanes, one or two ferry queuing lanes, and one transit-only lane; the southbound lanes would consist of
two general-purpose lanes and one transit-only lane. North of Columbia Street, Alaskan Way would
consist of four general-purpose lanes. Left- and right-turn lanes would be provided at some intersections,
including S. King Street, S. Jackson Street, Yesler Way, Marion Street, and Spring Street. Elliott Way, a new
connection to Belltown and areas north of downtown Seattle, would have two general-purpose lanes
northbound and southbound. All intersections along the new Alaskan Way would be signalized according
to Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) standards.
The East-West Connections would primarily improve pedestrian connections and facilities but would not
change traffic operations. The exception is the extension of Bell Street Park between Elliott and First
Avenues. These two blocks would become one-way with a shared street (roadway and public park space).
This would have a minor impact on the roadway operations on Bell Street and the adjacent roadways. As
with the 2017 existing conditions, traffic on Bell Street would be required to turn at each intersection.
Traffic on this local access roadway would not be able to cross Western Avenue.
King County Metros plan for serving transit after the Alaskan Way Viaduct is demolished designates
Columbia Street as a through connection for transit between the waterfront and downtown Seattle.
Currently, all lanes on Columbia Street are westbound. After removal of the viaduct, Columbia Street is
planned to be reconfigured to include one eastbound transit-only lane and one westbound transit-only
lane between Alaskan Way and Third Avenue. In addition, there would be one westbound generalpurpose lane between Alaskan Way and Western Avenue and two westbound general-purpose lanes
between Western Avenue and Third Avenue. The City would build the two-way transit-only and the
general-purpose lanes on Columbia Street between Alaskan Way and First Avenue as part of AWPOW;
the section between First and Third Avenues would be built as part of a separate project.
On Seneca Street, the block between Alaskan Way and Western Avenue would be reconstructed primarily
for pedestrian use as part of the Preferred Alternative. The existing stairway to First Avenue would
remain. Vehicles could still access the block via curb cuts on both Alaskan Way and Western Avenue.
Emergency, freight, delivery, garbage, and recycling vehicles would have direct east-west access to the
waterfront piers via the Promenade. These vehicles would be able to travel across the Promenade to
reach the piers at any time, but any loading directly on or off the Promenade would be prohibited during
peak pedestrian times to maintain safety.
Traffic Volumes
This section describes the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes forecasted for 2030 under the
Preferred Alternative. As with the 2017 existing conditions and the No Action Alternative, the forecasts
were based on summer conditions, when traffic is expected to be highest. The 27 intersections studied
3-24
for the Preferred Alternative in 2030 are shown on Figure 3-1. The lane configuration and PM peak hour
traffic volumes that are expected to exist in 2030 for the Preferred Alternative are shown in Figure 3-8.
Under the Preferred Alternative, traffic volumes on Alaskan Way during the PM peak hour would be
similar northbound and southbound; this is a change from 2017 existing conditions and the No Action
Alternative, where southbound volumes would be higher. The change would occur because the new
Elliott Way connection would allow a more direct route between the waterfront and areas to the north,
which would alter traffic distribution in the area. Between S. King and S. Jackson Streets, approximately
1,900 vehicles would travel southbound during the PM peak hour, and approximately 1,810 vehicles
would travel northbound. Between Pike and Pine Streets, there would be approximately 1,365
southbound vehicles and approximately 1,345 northbound vehicles during the PM peak hour.
As under the No Action Alternative, daily traffic volumes in the southern portion of the study area would
be higher than in the northern portion for two reasons: 1) the existing traffic-generating facilities in this
area (e.g., Colman Dock), and 2) because Alaskan Way will become the primary route into downtown
Seattle from the southern portal of the SR 99 tunnel. Average daily volumes between S. Jackson and
S. King Streets are estimated to be approximately 34,000 vehicles, which is the same as under the
No Action Alternative. Between Pike and Pine Streets, the average is estimated to be approximately
25,000 vehicles, which is slightly higher than under the No Action Alternative because of the direct
connection available to the north via Elliott Way.
Traffic Operations
Figure 3-8 and Table 3-5 show the PM peak hour intersection operations for the 2030 No Action and
Preferred alternatives. The number of intersections evaluated differs between the No Action
Alternative and the Preferred Alternative because the No Action Alternative LOS results were based on
analysis done for the EBSP, which evaluated only 15 of the 27 intersections studied for AWPOW. The
additional intersections studied for AWPOW and shown on Figure 3-1 are:
The new or reconfigured intersections that AWPOW would create north of Pike Place Market
(intersections 1 to 5)
Intersections 16 and 20 in the southern end of the study area, which either did not provide a direct
connection in the EBSP configuration (intersection 16) or were outside the EBSP study area
(intersection 20)
Five additional intersections along Western Avenue (intersections 21, 22, 23, 26, and 27), which
were evaluated to obtain a more complete understanding of how AWPOW would affect traffic
operations in the study area
Under the Preferred Alternative, all intersections on Alaskan Way would be fully signalized. This is a
substantial change from the No Action Alternative, where three intersections along Alaskan Way were
unsignalized and three additional intersections had only pedestrian half signals. Signalizing all of the
intersections along Alaskan Way and adding left-turn storage lanes would improve operations at most
intersections along Alaskan Way compared to the No Action Alternative. Four intersections along Western
Avenue (intersections 2, 21, 22, and 27) were assumed to remain unsignalized.
The northern portion of Alaskan Way is forecast to operate acceptably (LOS E or better) under the
Preferred Alternative, while the southern portion would still experience some congestion (see
Figure 3-8). As under 2017 existing conditions and the No Action Alternative, operations in the southern
portion of the study area are affected by traffic accessing and exiting Colman Dock. Two of the
intersections on Alaskan Way that were forecast to operate at LOS F under the No Action Alternative
(Spring and Pine Streets) would improve under the Preferred Alternative to LOS B and C, respectively.
The intersection of Alaskan Way and Columbia Street would operate at LOS F under both alternatives,
although the Preferred Alternative would reduce the delay at this location. The two unsignalized
3-25
intersections along Western Avenue in the southern portion of the study area are also forecast to
operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Because these intersections were not modeled for the
No Action Alternative, it is not possible to determine whether these LOS results are due to AWPOWs
impacts.
Table 3-5. PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service and Delay for No Action and
Preferred Alternatives
Intersection
No Action
Alternative Traffic
Control
Preferred Alte
rnative Traffic
Control
2030 No Action
Alternative
PM Peak Hour2
LOS
2030 Preferred
Alternative
PM Peak Hour3
Delay
(sec)4
LOS
Delay
(sec)4
Elliott Avenue and Bell

Street
Not evaluated for

No Action
Alternative.
Signalized
Not evaluated for

No Action Alternative.
Western Avenue and

Bell Street
Not evaluated for

No Action
Alternative.
Unsignalized
Not evaluated for

30
Elliott Avenue,
Western Avenue, and
Blanchard Street
Not evaluated for

No Action
Alternative.
Signalized
Not evaluated for

12
Elliott Avenue and

Lenora Street
Not evaluated for

No Action
Alternative.
Signalized
Not evaluated for

Western Avenue and

Lenora Street
Not evaluated for

No Action
Alternative.
Signalized
Not evaluated for

31
Alaskan Way and Pine

Street
Unsignalized
Signalized
>200
30
Alaskan Way and Pike

Street
Pedestrian Half
Signal
Signalized
Alaskan Way and

Union Street
Unsignalized
Signalized
Alaskan Way and

University Street
Signalized
Signalized
31
10
Alaskan Way and

Seneca Street
Pedestrian Half
Signal
Signalized
31
11
Alaskan Way and

Spring Street
Pedestrian Half
Signal
Signalized
>200
14
12
Alaskan Way and

Madison Street
Signalized
Signalized
57
21
13
Alaskan Way and

Marion Street
Signalized
Signalized
27
37
14
Alaskan Way and

Columbia Street
Signalized
Signalized
132
100
15
Alaskan Way and

Yesler Way
Signalized
Signalized
21
47
16
Alaskan Way and S.

Washington Street
Not evaluated
because No Action
Alternative roadway
design did not provide
direct access from
S. Washington Street
to Alaskan Way.
Signalized
36
17
Alaskan Way and S.

Main Street
Signalized
Signalized
49
3-26
Not evaluated
because No Action
Alternative roadway
design did not provide
direct access from
to Alaskan Way.
B
10
Table 3-5. PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service and Delay for No Action and
Intersection
2030 No Action
Alternative
PM Peak Hour2
2030 Preferred
Alternative
PM Peak Hour3
No Action
Alternative Traffic
Control
Preferred Alte
rnative Traffic
Control
LOS
Delay
(sec)4
LOS
Delay
(sec)4
18
Alaskan Way and S.

Jackson Street
Signalized
Signalized
60
19
Alaskan Way and S.

King Street
Unsignalized
Signalized
12
162
20
Alaskan Way and S.

Dearborn Street
Not evaluated for

No Action
Alternative.
Signalized
Not evaluated for

52
21
Western Avenue and

University Street
Not evaluated for

No Action
Alternative.
Unsignalized
Not evaluated for

45
22
Western Avenue and

Seneca Street
Not evaluated for

No Action
Alternative.
Unsignalized
Not evaluated for

131
23
Western Avenue and

Spring Street
Not evaluated for

No Action
Alternative.
Signalized
Not evaluated for

14
24
Western Avenue and

Madison Street
Signalized
Signalized
23
23
25
Western Avenue and

Marion Street
Signalized
Signalized
17
20
26
Western Avenue and

Columbia Street
Not evaluated for

No Action
Alternative.
Signalized
Not evaluated for

22
27
Western Avenue and

Yesler Way
Not evaluated for

No Action
Alternative; included
in the
to document all
impacts from
AWPOW.
Unsignalized
Not evaluated for

No Action Alternative;
included in the
to document all
impacts from
AWPOW.
87
The number of intersections evaluated differs between the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative because the No Action
Alternative LOS results were based on analysis done for the EBSP, which only evaluated 15 of the 27 intersections studied for AWPOW. See
Final EIS Appendix A for more information.
2 SDOT 2012
3 Parametrix analysis
4 The average delay for all vehicles is reported for signalized intersections. For unsignalized intersections, delay is reported for the worstoperating stopped approach.
sec = seconds
3-27
1360
5
25
35
125
25
0
39
20
Yesler Way
205
20
0
Western A
ve
20
25
30
1995
145
5
65
1315
Madison
5
0
5
10
270
370 1030
130
5
335
12
Marion
Alaskan Way
60
85
45
50
1360
150
1190
Pedestrian Crossing
Right Turn Only

Except Transit
13
Alaskan Way
50
Transit Only
1755
Bell Street One-Way

Direction to be Determined
1740
S King St
5
15
10
100
200
225
S Jackson St
10
30
190
Data Source: Parametrix
15
10
195
18
30
1490
Ferry Only
1870
50
1760
1250
1390
17
S Main St
11
1340
5
50
1965
1330
160
5
1095
0
Pike
Seneca
S Washington St 16
1340
10 20
330
220
1255
75
5
15
Spring
25
45
15
Pine
565
1995
10
5 20
345
Lenora
15
20
1350
1450
5
25
1790
125
115
270
245
35
10
40
20
355
1070
1000
University
Blanchard
3
29 0
0
40
40
30
75
15
20
Elliott Wa
y
1020
14
1340
1380
1305
10
Columbia
10
5
1365
Bell
285
70
10
5
5
5
275
200
210
20
235
19
Alaskan Way
1370
Union
1535
15
5
15
40
125
1605
Figure 3-8
Preferred Alternative Lane Configuration
and Traffic Volumes (PM Peak Hour)
Final EIS
The only signalized intersection where LOS under the Preferred Alternative would fall to unacceptable
levels compared to the No Action Alternative is at Alaskan Way and S. King Street, where the LOS is
predicted to drop from B to F. The different LOS results between the No Action and Preferred
alternatives at this intersection are due to variances between the traffic operations model inputs used
for the two alternatives. The pedestrian half signal at Spring Street that resulted in congestion and
queuing for southbound vehicles under the No Action Alternative would be replaced in the
Preferred Alternative by a full signal. As described under traffic operations in Section 3.4.1, the
congestion caused by the pedestrian half signal would divert approximately 30 percent of southbound
traffic from Alaskan Way, causing other intersections in the corridor to appear to operate better than
would be the case if all vehicles were able to enter the corridor. As a result, it is more likely that, under
actual conditions, the Alaskan Way and S. King Street intersection would have a similar level of
congestion under both the No Action and Preferred alternatives.

Figure 3-7 and Table 3-6 show the anticipated PM peak hour travel times along Alaskan Way in 2030
under the No Action and Preferred alternatives. The roadway segments used to evaluate travel time are
different between the alternatives because the No Action Alternative analysis is based on the EBSP EIS.
The southernmost travel time segment for the Preferred Alternative ends at S. Dearborn Street, while
the corresponding segment for the No Action Alternative ends at S. Royal Brougham Way,
approximately mile farther south. As a result, these travel time segments cannot be directly
compared. However, both alternatives use the same travel time segment between Yesler Way and Pike
Street. A third segment was added for the Preferred Alternative in the northern portion of the study
area to provide travel time information for the new Elliott Way connection.
Southbound travel times between Pike Street and Yesler Way are expected to be substantially reduced
under the Preferred Alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. This is largely because the
Preferred Alternative would remove the southbound bottleneck located along Alaskan Way at Spring
Street. Northbound travel times in 2030 would be similar between the No Action and Preferred
alternatives.
Table 3-6.
PM Peak Travel Times for No Action and Preferred Alternatives (Minutes:Seconds)

2030 No Action
Alternative2
2030 Preferred
Alternative3
Bell Street to Pike Street
3:24
8:35
4:48
1:17
2:12
Roadway Segment1
Southbound
Yesler Way to S. Dearborn Street

Northbound
1:46
1:42
1:45
2:06
Pike Street to Bell Street
1:18
S. Dearborn Street to Yesler Way
Different travel time segments were studied for the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative in some locations.
SDOT 2012
3 Parametrix analysis
2
3-29
Freight
Freight mobility along Alaskan Way is expected to improve under the Preferred Alternative compared to
the No Action Alternative. Improved LOS at several intersections and faster southbound travel times
along Alaskan Way would allow truck traffic to move more efficiently. The additional lanes in each
direction for ferry and transit traffic south of Columbia Street would allow freight vehicles to avoid
interruptions from bus stops and ferry queuing in this part of the corridor. These improvements would
benefit freight transport to, from, and between the manufacturing and industrial centers in
Ballard/Interbay and Duwamish, along with Port of Seattle facilities and local businesses within the study
area. In addition to Alaskan Way, creating the grade-separated connection to Elliott Way would also
provide access to and from the manufacturing and industrial centers and locations in Belltown, along
with other neighborhoods in northwest Seattle.
Over-dimension and over-weight vehicles, as well as vehicles transporting flammable and other
hazardous materials, would be accommodated under the Preferred Alternative as they are under 2017
existing conditions, because Alaskan Way is designated as a Major Truck Street. The overhead and side
clearances, structural capacity of bridges, and turning radii of the corridor would be designed to
accommodate freight vehicles.
Loading zones would be provided on both sides of Alaskan Way between Marion Street and Pike Street,
as well as on Marion and Madison Streets, to accommodate freight loading and unloading to nearby
businesses. North of Columbia Street, freight traffic would use loading and parking zones to access
businesses. South of Columbia Street, freight loading and unloading could potentially be accommodated
on three blocks on the east side of Alaskan Way between S. King and S. Jackson Streets and between S.
Main Street and Yesler Way. There would be a median along much of Alaskan Way between S. King
Street and Pine Street, which could affect how freight vehicles access businesses, because Alaskan Way
would restrict left-turn movements for large vehicles.
Curb space along the east side of Alaskan Way will be approximately 10 feet wide, which is typical for
the city of Seattle, and would accommodate most vehicle widths. In instances where vehicles are parked
along Alaskan Way that are wider than 10 feet, through traffic would be required to go around, as it
does now throughout the city. Because the Preferred Alternative proposes two general-purpose lanes in
each direction, this should not present significant delays for through vehicles, freight, or other modes.
Freight access to some private properties would change because a sidewalk would be constructed
within the Citys right of way along the east side of Alaskan Way. Some properties that previously used
or crossed the City right of way mid-block to access parking or loading docks on their property would
need to alter their access to either the north or south ends of the block. The change in access could
potentially change how private property owners use the space between their buildings and the Citys
right of way. Some businesses may not be able to accommodate as many vehicles on their property
because of the access changes. Freight access to properties on the west side of Alaskan Way would be
maintained under the Preferred Alternative. Emergency, freight, delivery, garbage, and recycling
vehicles would have direct east-west access to the waterfront piers via the Promenade. These vehicles
would be able to travel across the Promenade to reach the piers at any time, but any loading directly on
or off the Promenade would be prohibited during peak pedestrian times to maintain safety.
Freight access to some private properties on Bell Street between Elliott and First Avenues may also
change slightly because of the streets conversion to a one-way roadway. However, impacts on freight
would be minor because Bell Street does not currently serve a high volume of traffic due to its
configuration as a non-through street. The improvements made as part of the Bell Street Park Extension
would not result in significant changes to traffic operations through the corridor.
3-30
The improvements planned as part of the Preferred Alternative are expected to increase pedestrian
traffic in the study area. These increases would be accommodated by the addition of the Promenade,
with its open expanse for gathering along the waterfront and pedestrian pathway, as well as by the
substantially wider sidewalk on the east side of Alaskan Way. Crosswalks would be provided on each leg
of all intersections in the study area except Yesler Way, which would not have a crossing on its south leg.
Pedestrian crossing distances would vary between 46 feet and 96 feet along the corridor depending on
the width of Alaskan Way. Crossing distances would be longer than under the No Action Alternative in
the portion of the study area south of Spring Street because of transit, ferry queuing, and turn lanes in
this area. The median between S. King Street and Pine Street would help address this increase by
providing a refuge area for pedestrians. North of Spring Street, crossing distances would be similar to
those under the No Action Alternative.
All pedestrian crossings would be clearly delineated to improve pedestrian safety and comfort.
Additional pedestrian safety and comfort improvements would include curb treatments, signage,
wayfinding, and lighting. The design of the Preferred Alternative bicycle facilities (discussed in the
following section) would also improve pedestrian safety by reducing the risk of bicycle and pedestrian
conflicts as compared to the No Action Alternative. Pedestrians would be protected by signalized
crosswalks and separated pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Pedestrians would have mid-block crossings
of the bicycle facility in front of Colman Dock to connect the passenger load/unload zone with the ferry
terminal.
In addition to the proposed facilities along the new Alaskan Way, several improvements would be made
on east-west streets to support increased pedestrian traffic. New or enhanced pedestrian connections
between the waterfront and downtown Seattle at some of the steeper and currently less accessible
cross streets would include:
Constructing a new Marion Street pedestrian bridge
Constructing two new elevated walkways with associated stairs and elevators on Union Street
between Alaskan Way and Western Avenue, and between Western Avenue and Post Alley
Constructing a new grade-separated connection between the waterfront and the Pike Place Market
at the Overlook Walk
Modify the Lenora Street pedestrian bridge to connect to the new Elliott Way
The Overlook Walk would include a lid, staircases, and two elevators to allow pedestrians to negotiate
the elevation change between the waterfront and Pike Place Market. The lids pedestrian pathways
would have a maximum 5 percent grade for ADA accessibility. The stairs and elevators would provide
access to different levels of the Overlook Walk between Pike Place Market and the Aquarium Plaza.
As part of the S. Main and S. Washington Street Improvements, the reconstructed sidewalks, curb
extensions, and allocated space to plant trees would provide a wider area for pedestrians and address
ADA deficiencies. Also, new roadway pavement would allow the reconstructed sidewalks to have
ADA-compliant grades and slopes.
The walkways, stairs, pedestrian-actuated signals, and elevators included in the Union Street
Pedestrian Connection would improve the pedestrian connection between downtown Seattle and the
waterfront and provide space for social gatherings and lookouts. Reconstruction of the Union Street
roadway and the intersection of Union Street and Western Avenue would incorporate street-level
pedestrian improvements, including some widened and rebuilt sidewalks, pedestrian-actuated signals,
curb ramps, and curb extensions, which would provide more walking space and create shorter, safer
pedestrian crossings.
3-31
The extension of the Bell Street Park would improve the pedestrian environment with more room to
walk and sit, new lighting, and safer street crossings. Traffic control measures would likely be installed at
the Bell Street and Western Avenue intersection to allow pedestrians to safely cross Western Avenue.
The inclusion of continuous level pavement, one lane of traffic, and non-linear vehicle travel in the Bell
Street Park Extension would create a slower, safer environment for bicyclists and encourage
pedestrians, cyclists, and automobiles to share the space.
Bicycle Facilities
It is anticipated that bicycle activity, similar to pedestrian activity, would increase along the waterfront
as a result of AWPOW. The Preferred Alternative would provide a dedicated, two-way protected bicycle
facility on the west side of Alaskan Way and one-way protected bicycle facilities along Elliott Way. The
facilities would be designed to enhance safety for bicyclists by minimizing conflicts with vehicles and
pedestrians. Safety features would include a sidewalk and landscape buffer, raised planters and other
features separating bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and the use of traffic signals (including bicyclespecific signals), signage, and road markings.
Compared to the path along the east side of Alaskan Way in the No Action Alternative, the new facility
would increase safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicles. There would be fewer
bicycle-vehicle conflicts because the bicycle facility would be located on the west side of Alaskan Way,
which would reduce the number of intersection crossings from 13 to 2. The two intersection crossings
would be located at Yesler Way and Marion Street. The bicycle facility would also cross two driveways
that serve Terminal 46 at S. Jackson Street and S. King Street. These crossings would be signalized for
bicyclists. There would also be fewer bicycle-pedestrian conflicts because the facility would provide
physical separation between modes through the use of designated signalized crosswalks, raised
planters, and other features. It is possible that some bicyclists would choose to use the roadway
instead of the designated bicycle facility, but the majority of riders are expected to use the designated
facility because it would be safer and more convenient for commuters as well as recreational riders.
The East-West Connections would also provide improved facilities for bicyclists in the study area. New
roadway pavement as part of the S. Main and S. Washington Street Improvements would improve
bicycling conditions on these streets. In addition, the inclusion of continuous level pavement, one lane
of traffic, and non-linear vehicle travel in the Bell Street Park Extension would create a slower, safer
environment for bicyclists and encourage pedestrians, cyclists, and automobiles to share the space.
In addition to the likely increase in demand for transit services in the study area because of population
and employment growth, demand is expected to increase as a result of AWPOW and other planned
improvements on the waterfront. The Preferred Alternative would provide northbound and southbound
transit-only lanes on Alaskan Way from the southern end of the study area to Columbia Street, along
with two-way transit-only lanes on Columbia Street between Alaskan Way and First Avenue. These
facilities would improve transit operations for King County Metro bus routes serving West Seattle and
southwest King County. New bus stops on Alaskan Way and Columbia Street and a multimodal hub at
Colman Dock would also be included as part of AWPOW, and would improve the experience of transit
users in the study area.
The Alaskan Way roadway design would provide accommodations for a future local bus transit service
for the waterfront. Although such service is not part of the project and has not been formally proposed,
it could serve points between the Olympic Sculpture Park and Pioneer Square, with potential
connections to Seattle Center. If implemented, this service would complement other transit services
planned in and near the study area, such as the proposed Madison Street rapid trolley bus route, the
new First Hill Streetcar line, the proposed City Center Connector streetcar line on First Avenue, and the
proposed Third Avenue Transit Corridor improvements.
3-32

The Preferred Alternative would include two dedicated lanes for ferry queuing on northbound Alaskan
Way between S. Washington Street and the main entrance to Colman Dock at Yesler Way. One
dedicated lane would be provided between S. King Street and S. Washington Street. This configuration
would be an improvement over the No Action Alternative, which provides only one dedicated lane for
ferry traffic between S. Jackson Street and Yesler Way. The added lane capacity would increase overall
holding capacity for ferry vehicles and improve operations on Alaskan Way during times when ferry
traffic is high. The intersections of Alaskan Way with Yesler Way and Marion Street would continue to
operate at acceptable levels.
Pedestrians and bicyclists would access the King County Water Taxi terminal and the Seattle Ferry
Terminal from Alaskan Way or by using the new pedestrian bridge from First Avenue along Marion
Street. Access to the terminals would improve under the Preferred Alternative because of AWPOWs
improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Curbside space for taxis and passenger drop-off and
pick-up would continue to be provided on Alaskan Way in front of the ferry terminal building. Drop-off
and pick-up would also improve under the Preferred Alternative compared to the No Action Alternative
because of reduced travel times and roadway congestion.
Access to the Argosy Cruises terminal by all modes would improve under the Preferred Alternative
compared to the No Action Alternative. Congestion and delay at nearby intersections would be reduced,
and improvements to nonmotorized facilities would also improve pedestrian safety and comfort for
passengers accessing the Argosy terminal.
The new Elliott Way connection would allow through traffic to bypass the section of Alaskan Way that
serves the Victoria Clipper terminal and the Bell Street Pier Cruise Ship Terminal. This would reduce
congestion in the northern portion of Alaskan Way, which would be beneficial for traffic bound for the
terminals and would help alleviate traffic congestion caused by cruise ship dockings, which occur
primarily on Saturdays. Operations at the new intersection of Alaskan Way and Pine Street would be
slightly worse during cruise ship dockings (LOS C) than when cruise ships are not docked (LOS B), but are
still expected to remain at acceptable levels. Appendix A of this Final EIS includes more information on
this analysis.
Rail
The addition of the Elliott Way connection is expected to reduce the number of vehicles, pedestrians,
and bicyclists using at-grade rail crossings compared to the No Action Alternative. Elliott Way would
provide a grade-separated crossing for all of these modes, eliminating the need for through traffic to
cross the rail line at-grade between Wall Street and Broad Street.
Emergency Services
The center medians along Alaskan Way under the Preferred Alternative could affect emergency vehicle
access and operations. Emergency response vehicles would need to make U-turns along the corridor to
reach destinations on the opposite side of the street. Emergency vehicles, such as the Fire Departments
ladder trucks, would be able to make U-turns at most intersections. A planted median would prevent
vehicles from making U-turns at S. Main, S. Washington, and Blanchard Streets; therefore, emergency
vehicles may have to travel one block farther north or south past these intersections to make a U-turn.
Emergency access to properties on the west side of Alaskan Way would be maintained under the
Preferred Alternative. Emergency vehicles would have direct east-west access to the waterfront piers via
the Promenade at any time.
Roadway operations and intersection LOS on Alaskan Way would generally improve under the
Preferred Alternative; therefore, emergency vehicles would likely experience shorter response times as
a result of AWPOW. Access and parking at Fire Station 5 would be the same under both the Preferred
and No Action alternatives.
3-33
Parking
ThissectionofChapter3documentsthestudyofparkingresourcesthatwasconductedforAWPOW.
3.5
Affected Environment for Parking
Theaffectedenvironmentconsistsoftheparkingsupply,demand,andutilizationthatareexpectedto
existinthestudyareain2017,whentheAWVRP,EBSP,andMarketFrontprojectshavebeencompleted
andbeforeAWPOWconstructionbegins.Thisisreferredtoasthe2017existingconditions.The
MarketFrontprojectiscurrentlyunderconstruction(2016).AsdescribedinSection3.5.2,fortheparking
analysisthesespaceswerenotcountedintheexistingoffstreetparkingsupplycountsobtainedin2013.
Thesenewoffstreetparkingspacesareincorporatedintheoperationalimpactsdiscussionin
Section3.7.
Theparkingsupplycomprisesallpubliclyavailableonstreetandoffstreetparkingspacesinthestudy
areadescribedbelow,whetherpubliclyorprivatelyownedandavailableatnocostorforafee.Parking
demandisdefinedasthenumberofparkingspacesthatareoccupiedatagiventime.Parkingutilization
isdefinedasthepercentageofparkingspacesthatareoccupiedinadefinedarea.
BecauseAWVRPandEBSPconstructionhaseliminatedsomeonstreetparkingspacesinthestudyarea,
thedescriptionofthe2017existingconditionsforonstreetparkingsupplyintheaffectedareaswas
basedondatagatheredinAugust2010.Atthattime,allofthepublicparkingspaceslocatedonAlaskan
WayandundertheAlaskanWayViaductwerestillinplace.Thisapproachprovidesareasonableanalysis
ofAWPOWsparkingimpactsindependentofotherongoingprojects.Forallremainingstreetswithinthe
studyarea,the2017existingconditionsdescriptionforonstreetparkingsupplywasbasedondata
gatheredinspring2014.Fortheoffstreetparkinganalysis,thePugetSoundRegionalCouncil(PSRC)
parkingsurveyconductedin2013wasthemostcomprehensiveoffstreetparkingdataavailableatthe
timetheDraftEISwasprepared.
Offstreetparkingsupplyinthestudyareachangesovertimeasaresultofdevelopmentandmarket
conditions.Becauseofthedynamicnatureofthesechanges,comprehensiveparkinginventoriessuchas
PSRCsareconsideredtobeareliablebaselineforassessingimpacts.Analystsrevieweddatafrom
recentoffstreetparkingsurveysconductedbytheCitytoevaluatewhethertherehadbeenany
substantialchangesinparkingsupply,demand,orutilizationsincethePSRCstudyin2013.These
includedaSupplyandDemandSurveyconductedinJune2014(Heffron2014)andJune2016(Heffron
2016)aspartofSDOTsCenterCityParkingProgram.TheSDOToffstreetparkingsurveysincludedthree
neighborhoodareaswithinthecommercialcoreandeightneighborhoodareasoutsidethecommercial
core.AlthoughtheseSDOTneighborhoodareasdidnotmatchtheAWPOWstudyareaboundariesor
parkingzones,theywereusefulforidentifyingtrendsinoffstreetparkingsupply,demand,and
utilizationinthegeneralvicinity.
Analystsalsoreviewedresultsfromannualsurveysofoffstreetparking,whichareconductedbyWSDOT
andSDOTtomonitorparkingduringconstructionoftheAWVRPboredtunnelandtoassessthe
effectivenessofitsparkingmitigationprogram.Inaddition,analystsconductedareviewoflanduse
applicationswithintheAWPOWparkingstudyareaonJuly8,2016toprovideasnapshotofthe
developmentenvironmentinthestudyareaandthepotentialforassociatedchangesinoffstreet
parking(SDOT2016b).TheevaluationofoffstreetparkingtrendsispresentedinSection3.5.4and
indicatesthatthe2013offstreetparkingdatarepresentareasonableestimateofparkingsupply,
demand,andutilizationfor2017withinthestudyarea.
3.5.1
Parking Study Area
ThestudyareaselectedfortheAWPOWparkinganalysisistheareaboundedbyS.KingStreettothe
south,SecondAvenuetotheeast,WallStreettothenorth,andAlaskanWaytothewest.Figure39
3-34
shows the boundary of the parking study area. This area, which ranges between about of a mile
(660 feet) and mile (1,320 feet) from the project footprint, is the distance most people would be
willing to walk to their destinations after parking, accounting for such factors as the trip purpose,
topography, the walking environment, and available time. Although people are often willing to walk
farther for special events than they are for more common activities, the study area boundaries were
established for the most typical and predominant daily activities for the area, such as patronizing
restaurants and visiting waterfront attractions, rather than considering well-attended but less frequent
events, such as concerts or sporting events.
On-street parking spaces on both sides of S. King Street, Second Avenue, Wall Street, and Alaskan Way
were included in the study area. For the off-street parking, only the off-street parking lots and garages
fully within the study area boundary were included.
Because the study area contains a wide range of land uses, including business, residential, and
recreational land uses, parking demand and utilization vary among different parts of the study area. To
develop a more detailed analysis of parking supply, demand, and utilization, the study area was divided
into five sub-areas (zones). These zones, numbered 1 through 5 from south to north, are shown in
Figure 3-9. Their boundaries are based on the parking zone boundaries used in the EBSP analysis (SDOT
2012), but have been expanded to the east to include the entire AWPOW parking study area.
3.5.2
Parking Supply
The parking supply for 2017 existing conditions consists of parking spaces within the study area that are
of the following types:
On-street spaces along Alaskan Way and in the Alaskan Way Viaduct footprint (these spaces are
assumed to have been replaced after the viaducts demolition and before AWPOW construction
begins)
All other on-street spaces within the study area
Off-street parking spaces available for public use
On-street passenger and commercial loading spaces identified within each zone
The parking spaces in the Alaskan Way Viaduct footprint that are considered part of the 2017 existing
conditions are City-owned pay spaces reserved for short-term parking. In some instances, unstriped
areas of right of way located within the Alaskan Way Viaduct footprint have historically been used for
parking and loading by private businesses; these areas will no longer be available for such use. Access to
some of these unstriped areas is achievable under existing conditions because there is no sidewalk in
many places within the Alaskan Way Viaduct footprint.
Elsewhere in the study area, on-street parking varies from short-term paid parking with 15-minute limits
to unmetered spaces with no time limits (i.e., south of S. Jackson Street). Users of off-street lots
available for public use are generally required to pay lot-specific rates; time limits and rates are posted
at each lot.
3-35
Elliott Bay
BN
RR
AL
AS
KA
WA
Y
8
Pier 48
er 62/6
Pie
63
RA IL RO AD W AY S
ST
SO
ST
ST
NG
SL
TO
N
ER
ST
WA
Y
JA
MA
IN
CK
KI
S
YE
HI
NG
WA
S
ST
IN
MA
S
ST
ST
ST
Parking Study Area

Data Source: Parametrix
AV E
6T H
ST
LA
K
EA
VE
AV E
7T H
AV E
AV E
8T H
TO R
Feet
ST
5T H
WE
1,000
ST
AVE
AV E
4T H
5T H AV E
YS
A RD
TER
N CH
LL
WA
BAT
T
LS
BE L
BL A
ST
A VE
3R D
4T H AV E
6T H AV E
500
RA
AV
E
0
2N D
3R D AVE
ES
LLEC
I5 SB CO
AV E
1S T
O
LE N
AV
E
N AV
ST
T ER
CE
A
IN IIA
RG IN
VIIR
AV
E
AR
W ES
ST
7T
H
YN
T
ST
I NE S
PINE
P
MA
AV
E
LA
EP
RT
WA
ST E
AV
E
VE
AVE
ND A
2ND
2
T
ST
I KE S
PIKE
P
6T
H
TERRACE ST
5T
H
ST
N ION ST
UN
UNION
4T
H
AV
N IV ER S IT Y ST
UNIVERSITY
U
RR
3R
D
S
E NE C A ST
SENECA
S
AV
E
IK
PIK
VE
AV
1S T A
1ST
SPRING ST
I FI
2N D AV ET S
ST
AD IS ON ST
MADISON
M
PA
C
AV
E
MARIIO N ST
MARION
RN
AVE
ES T ER N AVE
W ESTERN
PO ST AV E
NT
AL
OL U M BI ST
COLUMBIA
C
HE
C ID
ID
E
2
HERRY ST
CHERRY
C
RT
2N
D
OC
T
ST
A ME S S
JA
JAMES
NO
AV
E
AV E
AY
NW
W Y
WA
LASKAN WAY
ALASKAN
A
1S
T
IO TT
AD
SKA
EL L
BR O
AL A
AD
T
YS
CL A
Seattle
eattle
Aquarium
AR
Pier 55
Piier 57
7
Water
Waterfront
Par
ark
R
IL
E
VIN
Colman Dock
6
Piier 56
RA
CE D
Piier 54
4
F
NS
Project Footprint
Parking Study Zones
Parcel Boundary
Building Footprint
Figure 3-9
Parking Study Area
On-street and Off-street Parking

There are a total of approximately 1,829 on-street parking spaces and 8,917 off-street parking spaces
available for public use in the study area. Table 3-7 summarizes the parking supply by zone. The parking
zones cover the following areas:
Zone 1 includes the southern portion of Pioneer Square and is in proximity to Colman Dock and the
sports stadiums. This zone has the smallest parking supply (805 spaces) and is the only zone with
more on-street parking spaces than off-street parking spaces.
Zone 2 includes the northern portion of Pioneer Square and Colman Dock, and starts the transition
into the waterfront area. It has the largest parking supply of the five zones, with 2,915 spaces. The
majority (89 percent) of parking spaces in Zone 2 are off-street parking spaces.
Zone 3 includes the area at the heart of Seattles waterfront, including Piers 54 through 57 and the
Seattle Aquarium. This area is heavily used by tourists, recreational users, and commuters. Zone 3
has 2,364 total parking spaces, including the largest supply of parking in the Alaskan Way Viaduct
footprint, but overall has a relatively small supply of on-street parking (255 spaces).
Zone 4 includes a number of prominent destinations, including the Seattle Aquarium and Pike Place
Market. Parking in this area is used by both local residents and tourists. There are 2,731 parking
spaces in Zone 4, including the largest supply of parking spaces on Alaskan Way, as well as overall
on-street parking (593 parking spaces).
Zone 5 covers Belltown and includes fewer tourist-oriented uses than the other zones. There are
1,931 parking spaces in Zone 5; this zone has the smallest supply of on-street parking (225 spaces).
Table 3-7. Parking Supply

On-Street Parking Supply
Zone
Alaskan
Way1
Viaduct
Footprint1
All Other
On-Street
Supply2
Total
On-Street
Supply
Off-Street
Parking Supply3
Total Parking
Supply
34
131
256
421
384
805
13
104
218
335
2,580
2,915
142
104
255
2,109
2,364
86
507
593
2,138
2,731
214
204
225
1,706
1,931
163
377
1,289
1,829
8,917
10,746
1.5%
3.5%
12.0%
17.0%
83.0%
Total
Percent of
Total
1 SDOT
2012
2 SDOT
2014a
3 PSRC
2013
Parking supply counts from the EBSP were scaled to account for the difference in zone-boundary size between the EBSP and
this parking analysis.
The Pike Place MarketFront building is currently (2016) under construction by the Pike Place Market
Preservation Authority in partnership with the City of Seattle. The City conveyed the property for the
building at no cost to the Pike Place Market Preservation Authority, and also contributed $34 million
from local sources for its construction. The MarketFront building will include approximately 250 new offstreet parking spaces5. As a result, and pursuant to a covenant with the City, the Pike Place Market
5 For this analysis, the MarketFront development was estimated to have approximately 310 new parking spaces, replacing a lot that
had approximately 60 parking spaces. This results in a net gain of approximately 250 new parking spaces.
3-37
Preservation Authority will operate the approximately 250 new parking spaces in the building for shortterm public parking at current on-street parking rates. Construction is not expected to be completed
until 2017; as a result, these 250 parking spaces were not included in the existing parking supply counts
obtained in 2013 and are therefore not included in the existing conditions parking supply. The
MarketFront building is one example of how parking conditions can change as parking lots are added or
removed as part of new developments.
Loading Zone Spaces

Table 3-8 summarizes the existing loading zone spaces in the study area. A total of approximately 167
loading zone spaces are available in the study area, and are relatively evenly distributed throughout the
five parking study zones. There are a limited number of loading zone spaces on Alaskan Way; most
loading zone spaces (83 percent) are located on other streets. Throughout the study area, loading zone
spaces are used for various purposes including commercial loading, passenger drop-off, and taxi loading.
Table 3-8.
Loading Zone Spaces in Study Area

On-Street Loading Zone Spaces
Zone
Alaskan Way1
All Other Streets2
Total Loading Zone Spaces
35
35
29
35
18
23
38
43
123
19
31
Total
28
139
167
1 SDOT
2012
2 SDOT
2014a
Visual inspection confirmed that all 12 loading zone spaces included in EBSPs Zone 5 supply were located within this parking studys
Zone 5 boundary.
3.5.3
Parking Utilization
Tables 3-9 and 3-10 summarize the on-street and off-street parking utilization observed in Zones 1
through 5 across the time periods studied for the 2017 existing conditions. Final EIS Appendix B, Parking
Discipline Report, provides more detailed discussions of utilization for each parking type and by time
period. SDOT sets an on-street target utilization range of 70 to 85 percent; at higher levels of utilization,
it generally becomes difficult for a motorist to find an on-street parking space. This range is consistent
with Seattle Municipal Code requirements to manage paid parking areas so that one or two parking
spaces are available per block face. If the threshold of 85 percent for on-street parking utilization is
exceeded, it is assumed that the motorists who would otherwise park on-street in that parking study
area zone would either use on-street parking in an adjacent study area parking zone, search further for
an on-street parking space in the same parking study area zone, or use off-street parking.
3-38
Table 3-9.
Overall On-Street Parking Utilization
Zone
Parking
Spaces
12 p.m.
2 p.m.
4 p.m.
6 p.m.
Average
10 a.m.
12 p.m.
2 p.m.
4 p.m.
6 p.m.
Average
Weekend Utilization (%)
10 a.m.
Weekday Utilization (%)
421
52
70
69
56
53
60
35
39
49
62
99
57
335
55
72
65
56
62
62
24
66
72
56
67
57
255
29
85
90
80
87
74
26
91
91
90
90
78
593
67
75
63
62
55
64
91
85
74
74
64
77
225
21
49
43
62
76
50
26
48
39
60
59
46
Total
1,829
51
74
70
61
64
64
49
67
66
68
76
65
Note: The utilization number shown in the Total row is the total number of parking spaces used in all zones for the given time period.
Sources: SDOT 2012, 2014b
Table 3-10. Off-Street Parking Utilization

Weekday Utilization (%)1
Weekend Utilization (%)2
Zone
Parking
Spaces
Morning
Peak
(8:30 a.m.
to 11:30
a.m.)
384
78
87
83
48
80
64
2,580
62
70
66
32
81
57
2,109
57
65
61
41
67
54
2,138
56
68
62
41
75
58
1,706
46
62
54
42
36
39
Total
8,917
57
68
63
39
69
54
Afternoon
Peak
(1:00 p.m. to
3:30 p.m.)
Average
Morning
Peak
(8:30 a.m. to
11:30 a.m.)
Afternoon
Peak
(1:00 p.m. to
3:30 p.m.)
Average
Note: The utilization number shown in the Total row is the total number of parking spaces used in all zones for the given time period.
Sources:
1 PSRC
2013
2 Weekend
utilization calculations derived from PSRC (2013) and SDOT (2012) data
As shown in Table 3-9, the total average utilization for on-street parking is similar on weekdays and
weekends. On weekdays, total parking utilization is higher during the middle of the day than in the
morning or evening; on weekends, it is higher during the evening than in the morning. Specific findings
by zone are as follows:
Parking in Zone 1 is moderately utilized during all of the observed time periods except at 6 p.m. on
the weekend, when utilization is 99 percent.
Parking utilization in Zone 2 is highest at 12 p.m. during weekdays and 2 p.m. on the weekend
(72 percent) and lowest on the weekend at 10 a.m. (24 percent). The high utilization at 2 p.m. on
the weekend in Zone 2 reflects the high demand for tourist and recreational ferry travel.
Parking utilization in Zone 3 is low at 10 a.m. on both weekdays and weekends, but ranges between
80 percent and 91 percent during the rest of the day on both weekdays and weekends. Zone 3s
high utilization rate likely reflects the mix of tourist, recreational, and business-related parking that
exists in this area.
3-39
Parking utilization in Zone 4 ranges between 55 and 75 percent on weekdays and between 64 and
91 percent on weekends, with the highest parking utilization occurring at 10 a.m. on weekends.
The high utilization of parking in Zone 4 on the weekend likely reflects that the parking spaces in
this area serve a number of popular tourist destinations.
Parking utilization in Zone 5 is low to moderate across all time periods on weekdays and weekends,
with the exception of weekdays at 6 p.m., when utilization is at 76 percent. This lower level of
utilization likely reflects the limited number of tourist-oriented destinations in Zone 5.
Table 3-10 above summarizes weekday and weekend off-street parking utilization within the study area.
Average utilization by zone ranges from 54 to 83 percent on weekdays and from 39 to 64 percent on
weekends. During weekdays and weekends, total parking utilization for all zones is higher during the
afternoon peak period than the morning peak period. The average utilization for off-street parking is
highest in Zone 1, although the off-street parking supply is much lower in Zone 1 than in all other zones.
3.5.4
Available Parking Supply
Table 3-11 shows the available parking supply, which is the number of parking spaces in the study area
that are unused on weekdays and weekends during the morning and afternoon time periods. These time
periods were selected because data existed for both on-street and off-street parking during these time
frames. The morning peak includes on-street data that were collected at 10 a.m. and off-street data that
were collected between 8:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. The afternoon peak includes on-street data that were
collected at 2 p.m. and off-street data that were collected between 1:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. A minimum
of 590 on-street spaces and 2,880 off-street spaces were available during each time period. Overall,
Zone 1 had the smallest supply of available parking spaces, which is mainly because it had the smallest
supply of off-street parking spaces.
Table 3-11. Available Parking Supply
Weekday Morning
Zone
Weekday Afternoon
Weekend Morning
On-Street1 Off-Street2 On-Street1 Off-Street2 On-Street1 Off-Street2
Weekend Afternoon
OnStreet1
Off-Street2
206
83
131
51
278
202
219
78
154
986
117
765
258
1,745
90
489
201
897
15
731
201
1,249
15
701
267
939
213
694
130
1,265
130
542
178
922
131
643
158
989
137
1,095
1,006
3,827
607
2,884
1,025
5,450
592
2,904
Total
Sources:
1 SDOT
2
2012, 2014a, 2014b
PSRC 2013
As described in Section 3.5, analysts reviewed data from recent off-street parking surveys conducted by
the City to evaluate whether there had been any substantial changes in parking supply, demand, or
utilization since the PSRC off-street study in 2013. While none of these surveys study areas matched
those used for the AWPOW parking study, they can be used to compare trends. The SDOT off-street
supply and demand surveys conducted in 2014 and 2016 showed similar trends in off-street parking
utilization in the general vicinity of the AWPOW study area to those identified by the PSRC inventory.
The most recent AWVRP bored tunnel parking survey, which was completed in August 2015, also shows
similar trends in off-street parking utilization in the general waterfront area.
To provide a snapshot of the development environment in the study area and the potential for
associated changes in off-street parking, a review of land use applications within the AWPOW parking
study area was conducted on July 8, 2016 (SDOT 2016b). This review found 17 active project
applications that included a total of approximately 3,100 above- and below-ground parking spaces. It is
3-40
unknown how many of these future off-street parking spaces would be available to the public upon
project completion or what the net gain or loss of currently available public parking spaces would be as
a result of these developments.
3.5.5
City Plans and Policies Applicable to Parking
Various City plans and their associated policies provide a framework for how parking supply is managed
in Seattle. These plans and policies are implemented by City regulations that govern parking
requirements and rates. The Seattle Comprehensive Plan is the central document that establishes the
Citys policies regarding parking as an aspect of overall land use. The Final EIS Appendix B, Parking
Discipline Report, provides a detailed discussion of plans, policies, and regulations related to parking;
key City policies pertaining to parking are described below.
The Transportation Element of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan highlights the Citys goal of promoting
safe and convenient access and travel for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and
people of all abilities, as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers. Some policies in the Transportation
Element are designed to achieve increased travel choices through the development of strategies to
manage both transportation and parking demand. The plan highlights how parking spaces should be
prioritized in comparison with other curb-space uses. In business and commercial areas, transit stops
have the highest priority, followed by passenger and commercial vehicle loading, and then by parking
and vehicle capacity. Goal TG18 of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan notes that mobility is the primary
purpose of the street system, while Policy T42 directs the City to: During construction or
implementation of new transportation projects, consider replacing short-term parking only when the
project results in a concentrated and substantial amount of on-street parking loss.
The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan also describes how off-street parking reforms fit into
the vision for the City's access and travel goals. The City has determined that the quantity, design, and
location of parking supply influence the scale, shape, and cost of development; therefore, the City
regulates the size, design, and location of parking facilities in an effort to encourage the use of
alternative modes of transportation. Because off-street parking is generally provided by the private
sector, the City can affect off-street parking through modifications to its Land Use Code. Some of the
parking-related reforms outlined in the Land Use Element include:
Removing minimum parking requirements and setting the maximum amount of parking in
designated urban centers, such as downtown Seattle
Reducing off-street parking requirements for new developments to encourage more use of transit
and nonmotorized modes, as well as reduce reliance on automobiles
Regulating the location of off-street parking and imposing size restrictions on parking facilities,
including private off-street lots (City of Seattle 1999)
Supporting alternative modes of transportation that reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles
3.6
3.6.1
Construction Impacts for Parking

No construction activities for AWPOW would occur under the No Action Alternative; therefore, there
would be no construction impacts on parking.
3.6.2
Construction activities for the Preferred Alternative would temporarily impact on-street parking
throughout the study area. The amount of on-street parking affected would vary by construction stage
and segment and would be determined once construction and staging plans are finalized. Some
businesses could have access routes or loading zones blocked, but this would only occur intermittently.
3-41
To construct the new Alaskan Way, Pine Street extension, and Overlook Walk, a surface parking lot with
approximately 60 spaces would be acquired and removed. These parking spaces are included in the total
number of off-street spaces permanently removed by the Preferred Alternative (Section 3.7.2). This
property is located where the Overlook Walk would be constructed, just south of the Pine Street
extension. These off-street parking spaces represent less than 1 percent of the off-street parking supply
in the area. Further details about this property are provided in Section 4.2.2 and the Draft EIS Appendix
C, Land Use Discipline Report. Off-street parking spaces outside of the project footprint would not be
affected, except for minor temporary changes in access to build the improvements.
3.7
Operational Impacts for Parking
3.7.1
Parking Supply
The parking supply in the study area under the No Action Alternative is assumed to remain the same as
the 2017 existing conditions, with the exception of the MarketFront development, which would add 250
new off-street parking spaces to Zone 46. As described in Section 3.5.2, construction of the MarketFront
is expected to be completed in 2017, and therefore these 250 new off-street spaces were not included in
the existing off-street parking supply, which was based on the 2013 PSRC counts. Table 3-12 summarizes
the assumed No Action Alternative parking supply.
Table 3-12. No Action Alternative Parking Supply
On-Street Parking Supply
Zone
Alaskan
Way1
Viaduct
Footprint1
All Other On-Street

Supply2
Total OnStreet
Supply
Off-Street
Parking Supply3
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Percent of Total
34
13
9
86
21
163
1.5%
131
104
142
0
0
377
3.4%
256
218
104
507
204
1,289
11.7%
421
335
255
593
225
1,829
16.6%
384
2,580
2,109
2,388
1,706
9,167
83.4%
Total
Parking
Supply
805
2,915
2,364
2,981
1,931
10,996
Sources:
1
SDOT 2012
2
SDOT 2014a
3
PSRC 2013
Another factor that is expected to change between 2017 and 2030 is the cost of off-street parking. Offstreet parking in the study area is currently subsidized by WSDOT as part of mitigation for construction
impacts of the AWVRP. These subsidies will end when AWVRP construction is complete, which will
change the availability of on-street and off-street parking. Off-street parking pricing will be determined
by the building owners, and parking utilization may change in response to new off-street parking pricing.
Because market factors will drive the cost of off-street parking, the degree or direction of potential price
change and the associated effects on utilization are not possible to predict.
Demand for both on-street and off-street parking within the study area is generally expected to increase
by 2030 in conjunction with population and employment growth in Seattles central business district.
Because parking supply would remain constant under the No Action Alternative, this increase in demand
is expected to also increase the on-street parking utilization rates across all zones and time periods in the
6 For this analysis, the MarketFront development was estimated to have approximately 310 new parking spaces, replacing a lot that
had approximately 60 parking spaces. This results in a net gain of approximately 250 new parking spaces.
3-42
studyarea.Therearenocurrentpredictionsforthescaleofthisincreasedonstreetparkingdemandor
utilizationrates.
Loading Zone Spaces

TheNoActionAlternativewouldnotchangetheexisting(2017)passengerandcommercialloadingzone
spaces,whichareshownaboveinTable38.
3.7.2
Parking Supply
ThePreferredAlternativewouldpermanentlyremoveallparkingthatexistedintheAlaskanWayViaduct
footprint(377spaces)andmuchoftheonstreetparkingonAlaskanWay(57spaces).Inaddition,
approximately15onstreetspacesonBellStreet,3spacesonUnionStreet,and1spaceonS.MainStreet
wouldberemovedtoaccommodatepedestrianimprovements.Thisresultsinatotalonstreetparkingloss
of453spaces.TheseonstreetparkingspaceswouldbereplacedbythenewAlaskanWayroadway,loading
zones,sidewalks,bicyclefacilities,Promenade,andplantings.Manyofthesespacesarecurrently(asof
2016)notavailableforuse,becauseconstructionoftheAWVRPandEBSPprojectshasreducedthenumber
ofparkingspacesalongAlaskanWayandremovedmanyofthespacesunderneaththeviaduct.While
AWPOWassumesresponsibilityforthepermanentremovalofthesespaces,itisimportanttonotethat
muchofthisparkingdoesnotexisttoday.
ThePreferredAlternativewouldalsopermanentlyremove189offstreetparkingspacesinthestudyarea.
Thechangesinoffstreetparking,comparedto2017,thatweredescribedabovefortheNoAction
Alternative(additionof250newparkingspacesintheMarketFrontbuildingandcessationofparking
subsidiescurrentlyinplaceforAWVRP)wouldalsooccurunderthePreferredAlternative.Inaddition,two
parkinglotslocatedintheAlaskanWayViaductfootprintbetweenLenoraandBellStreetswouldbe
removed.Table313summarizestheparkingsupplyforthePreferredAlternativeandtheNoAction
Alternative,andthenetchangebetweenthetwo.
Table 3-13. On-Street and Off-Street Parking Supply under the No Action and
Total
Viaduct Footprint1
All Other On-Street2
Total On-Street
Viaduct Footprint1
Total On-Street
Total Off-Street3
Total
131
256
421
384
805
31
255
286
384
670
-3
-131
-1
-135
-135
13
104
218
335
2,580
2,915
17
218
235
2,580
2,815
-104
-100
-100
142
104
255
2,109
2,364
35
101
136
2,109
2,245
26
-142
-3
-119
2,708
-84
-84
-189
-15
-15
-15
-377
-19
-453
-189
-642
Total
Alaskan Way1
Total Off-Street3
34
Total Off-Street3
Total On-Street
Alaskan Way1
Zone
Net Change
Viaduct Footprint1
Alaskan Way1
86
507
593
2,388
2,981
507
509
2,199
21
204
225
1,706
1,931
21
189
210
1,706
1,916
10,996 106
8,978
10,354 -57
Total 163
377 1,289 1,829 9,167
1,270 1,376
-119
4
-273
Note:Negativenumbersindicateinstancesinwhichthereisalossinparkingsupply.
Sources:
1
SDOT2012
2
SDOT2014a
3
PSRC2013
4
Thetwoparkinglotsundertheviaduct,locatedfromLenoratoBlanchardandBlanchardtoBellStreets,wereincludedintheoffstreetinventory.
Therefore,whenremovedaspartofthePreferredAlternative,theselotsareincludedasareductioninthetotaloffstreetparkingsupply.
3-43
The on-street parking spaces that existed in the Alaskan Way Viaduct footprint would be replaced by the
new Alaskan Way roadway, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, Promenade, and plantings. The
Preferred Alternative would provide the equivalent of 31 on-street parking spaces on three blocks on
the east side of Alaskan Way between S. King and S. Jackson Streets and between S. Main Street and
Yesler Way. This curb space would be used for parking, loading, and other activities. Between Yesler
Way and Columbia Street, Alaskan Way would have no on-street parking in order to accommodate
transit-only lanes and a northbound transit stop. Between Columbia Street and Pike Street, much of the
on-street curb space along Alaskan Way would be designated as loading zones for buses, taxis, and
passenger pick-ups and drop-offs at Colman Dock and Piers 55 through 59; additional curb space would
be designated for loading zones to provide freight access to businesses on Alaskan Way.
All zones in the study area would lose on-street parking spaces. Overall, the loss of 453 on-street parking
spaces represents approximately 25 percent of the on-street parking supply in the study area. These
spaces, added to the 189 parking spaces the City would acquire from private off-street lots, result in a
total project-related loss of 642 parking spaces, which represents approximately 6 percent of the total
parking supply (on-street and off-street) in the study area. It is anticipated that demand for both onstreet and off-street parking within the study area would generally increase by 2030 in conjunction with
population and employment growth. Because the parking supply would decrease under the
Preferred Alternative, this increase in parking demand, coupled with the decrease in parking supply, is
expected to increase the on-street and off-street parking utilization rates across all zones and time
periods in the study area. As on-street parking spaces are removed, it is likely that utilization rates at offstreet garages would increase as demand is shifted from on-street to off-street parking. This removal of
parking supply would adversely affect some users. Impacts by zone are summarized below.
Zone 1 would lose 135 on-street parking spaces, the highest for any zone. Because of the limited
supply of off-street parking in this zone, motorists seeking parking during the midday peak period,
when demand is highest, may need to travel farther to find available parking within this zone or a
neighboring zone.
Zone 2 would lose 100 on-street parking spaces. During weekday and weekend midday periods,
when demand is at its peak in this zone, motorists may need to park off-street within this zone or
travel farther to find available on-street or off-street parking.
Zone 3 would lose 119 on-street parking spaces. As with Zone 2, it experiences the highest demand
during midday periods, and the loss of on-street parking might require motorists to park off-street
within this zone or travel farther to find available on-street or off-street parking.
Zone 4 would lose 84 on-street parking spaces and 189 off-street parking spaces, for a total of 273
lost parking spaces. The off-street parking loss would come from the Citys acquisition of an existing
parking lot just south of the Pine Street extension where the Overlook Walk would be constructed,
and two parking lots currently under the viaduct footprint from Lenora to Blanchard and Blanchard
to Bell Streets. The off-street parking spaces that would be removed represent approximately 2
percent of the total off-street parking supply in the study area. On weekend mornings, when
demand is highest in this zone, motorists may need to park off-street or travel farther to find
available on-street or off-street parking.
Zone 5 would lose approximately 15 on-street parking spaces, which would have a minimal impact
on Zone 5 utilization rates. However, as on-street parking spaces are removed from adjacent zones,
it is likely that utilization rates for on-street and off-street spaces in Zone 5 would increase.
In addition to the loss of off-street and on-street spaces described above, the sidewalk constructed
within the Citys right of way along the new Alaskan Way would change how some private properties
access their parking. Some properties along the east side of Alaskan Way that previously crossed the City
right of way mid-block to access parking or loading docks on their property would need to alter their
access to either the north or south ends of the block. The access modification could potentially change
how private property owners use the space between their buildings and the Citys right of way. Some
3-44
businessesmaynotbeabletoaccommodateasmanyvehiclesontheirpropertybecauseoftheaccess
changes.Also,informalparkingintheCityrightofwayalongtheeastsideofAlaskanWaywouldno
longerbepossibleoncethesidewalkisconstructed.
Loading Zone Spaces

Table314summarizesthenetchangeinloadingzonespacesbetweentheNoActionAlternativeand
thePreferredAlternativebystudyareazone.ThePreferredAlternativewouldshiftthelocationsof
loadingzonespacesalongAlaskanWay.Zones2and3wouldgainloadingzonespaces,whileZones1,4,
and5wouldmaintainthesamenumberofloadingzonespacesonAlaskanWay.Onsidestreets,the
numberofloadingzonespaceswouldremainthesameinZones1,2,4,and5.InZone3,oneloading
zoneonUnionStreetwouldbedisplaced.
Table 3-14. On-Street Loading Zone Spaces under the No Action and Preferred Alternatives
Net Change
Zone
Alaskan
Way1
All Other
OnStreet2
Total
OnStreet
Alaskan
Way1
All Other
OnStreet2
Total
OnStreet
Alaskan
Way1
All Other
OnStreet2
Total
OnStreet
41
41
41
41
29
35
29
36
21
26
18
20
38
13
-1
12
39
44
39
44
123
20
32
12
20
32
Total
28
150
178
42
149
191
14
-1
13
Note:Negativenumbersindicateinstancesinwhichthereisalossinparkingsupply.
Sources:
1
SDOT2012
2
SDOT2014a
3
Visualinspectionconfirmedthatall12loadingzonespacesincludedinEBSPsZone5supplywerelocatedwithinthisparkingstudysZone5
boundary.
Impacts on Parking during High Attendance Events

Duringhighattendanceevents,suchasfestivalsoreventsinthestudyareaoratthenearbystadiums,
parkingdemandwouldincrease,andfindingavailableparkingmaybemorechallengingormaycostmore
thanundernormalconditions.Peopleareoftenwillingtowalkfartherforspecialevents;therefore,
parkingsupplyinthestudyareacouldbesupplementedbymajorparkingfacilitieslocatedjustbeyond
thestudyarea,includingtheSafecoFieldGarage,CenturyLinkEventCenterGarage,UnionStation
Garage,NorthLot(CenturyLinkField),ImparkParking,HomePlateParking,andothers.Eventattendees
wouldalsobeencouragedtousebusandrailserviceandtocarpooltothestudyareaduringevents.
Thepotentialalsoexistsforsomehighattendanceeventsatthestadiumstogeneratemoreparking
demandthancanbeaccommodatednearby.Thiscouldresultinstadiumattendeesparkinginthestudy
area,whichwouldreduceparkingsupply,particularlyinZones1and2.Duringthesetimes,waterfront
visitorsmayneedtoparkfartherfromtheirdestinationsorcouldspendadditionaltimesearchingfor
parking.However,thesesituationsareexpectedtooccurinfrequently.
Influences on Parking Demand by Other Modes

ThePreferredAlternativewouldprovideimprovednonmotorizedfacilities,includingsubstantial
pedestrianandbicyclefacilitiessuchasthePromenadeandOverlookWalk.Itwouldalsoincludetransit
lanesthatwouldsupporttransitroutesinthestudyarea.Theenhancednonmotorizedfacilitiesunder
thePreferredAlternativeandavailabilityoftransitintheareacouldsupportwaterfrontvisitorsin
choosingdifferentmodesoftraveltothestudyarea.Inaddition,serviceincreasesbytransitproviders
3-45
expands (Sound Transit 2016). This could result in changes to the relative use of vehicle, transit, and
nonmotorized modes of travel. A shift to transit and nonmotorized modes would reduce parking
demand in the study area, thereby minimizing the impacts of parking loss associated with the
Consistency with City of Seattle Parking Policies

Current City plans and policies include strategies to encourage the use of transit and nonmotorized
modes of travel, and to discourage the use of single-occupant vehicles. This emphasis is reflected in City
policies that prioritize other uses of street space over parking, and a movement in policy direction
toward imposing maximum (rather than minimum) parking requirements on new development. As
discussed above, Goal TG18 of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan notes that mobility is the primary
purpose of the arterial street system, and Policy T42 of the Seattle Comprehensive Plans Transportation
Element states that it is the Citys general policy to replace short-term parking only when the project
results in a concentrated and substantial amount of on-street parking loss. The removal of parking that
would occur under AWPOW, in conjunction with enhanced nonmotorized and transit facilities that are
included in the project, is consistent with this policy direction and supports overall City planning goals
for reducing dependency on single-occupant vehicles in the downtown area.
3-46
Land Use
This chapter identifies existing land uses and zoning in the vicinity of the project footprint and provides
an overview of the plans and policies that guide current and future development. This is followed by a
discussion of AWPOWs potential impacts during construction and operation, including an evaluation of
property acquisitions needed for the project, the potential impacts on nearby properties during
construction and operation, and consistency with adopted plans and policies. Potential avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures that have been identified for construction and operational
impacts are presented in Chapter 16 of this Final EIS. Additional land use information is provided in the
Draft EIS documents and in Final EIS Appendix C, Discipline Report Errata Sheets.
4.1
Affected Environment
The affected environment consists of the land use patterns and zoning that will exist within the study
area in 2017, when the AWVRP, EBSP, and MarketFront projects are complete and before AWPOW
construction begins. This is referred to as the 2017 existing conditions. The area studied for this land use
analysis covers an area large enough to encompass expected project construction and operational
impacts, which transects five neighborhood plan areas (as shown in Figure 4-1):
Greater Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center
Pioneer Square Neighborhood
Commercial Core Neighborhood
Belltown Neighborhood
Downtown Urban Center Neighborhood (contains the Pioneer Square, Commercial Core, and
Belltown Neighborhood planning areas within its larger urban center planning area)
The land use patterns and zoning that exist today in the study area are expected to remain generally the
same in 2017. Although the Alaskan Way Viaduct will have been removed, the land upon which it stood
will still be owned by the City and designated for transportation use. Accordingly, this section describes
the current land use conditions and zoning classifications that apply to land in the AWPOW study area
and specifies applicable land use policies.
4.1.1
Existing Land Use
As shown in Figure 4-2, the study area contains a variety of land uses. Along the west side of Alaskan Way
at the waterfront, land uses include Port of Seattle facilities (Terminal 46); a vacant pier (Pier 48); the
Seattle Ferry Terminal at Colman Dock; King County Water Taxi; tourism-related retail, restaurants, and
recreational facilities (the Seattle Great Wheel at Pier 57, Waterfront Park, Seattle Aquarium, and Pier
62/63); and the Bell Harbor Marina. The land uses for the study area parcels on the east side of Alaskan
Way are a mix of parking, condominiums, apartments, community services, office buildings, vacant land
(one parcel), commercial uses, and industrial uses. South of Yesler Way, Alaskan Way is SR 519, a state
facility that connects Interstate 90 (I-90) to the Port of Seattle and Colman Dock. Parking is also a land use
within the study area but it is discussed separately in Sections 3.5 through 3.7 of this Final EIS.
4-1
E lliot t B ay
N
SKA
AL A
Pier 48
WA
YS
RAILROAD WAY S
ST
ST
ST
WA
Y
AVE
2ND
T
RA S
YE
SL
ER
S
VINE
SM
AIN
R ST
SK
IN
G
A
CED
ST
SJ
AC
KS
ON
AVE
ST
L ST
BEL
O
LEN
S
INIA
VI RG
T
RT S
PINE ST
S
ARD
NCH
BLA
AVE
1ST
ACE
WA
STE
PIKE ST
AV
3RD
AVE
4TH
AV
5TH
4TH AVE
AV
6TH
5TH AVE
WE
STL
AKE
AVE
JO
HN
ST
UNION ST
Feet
UNIVERSITY ST
1000
AVE
3RD AVE
Project Footprint
500
2ND AVE
6TH AVE
SENECA ST
MA
YN
AR
DA
VE
SPRING ST
MADISON ST
AV
E
AV
ES
MARION ST
6T
H
E PL
PIK
1ST AVE
TERRACE ST
5T
HA
VE
WESTERN AVE
POST AVE
COLUMBIA ST
2N
DA
VE
NO 2ND AV ET S
RT
HE
RN
PA
CIF
IC
RR
7T
H
AV
ES
OC
CI
DE
NT
AL
AV
ES
CHERRY ST
AV
E
N
TER
WES
1S
T
JAMES ST
4T
H
ALASKAN WAY
IOTT
ELL
D
OA
ILR
RA
L
WAL
Colman Dock
SF
BN
ERY
BATT
Seattle
Pier Pier Pier 56 Pier 57 Aquarium
54 55
Waterfront
Park
Pier 62/63
Y
WA
Y ST
CLA
AL
AS
KA
N
S
VINE
1S
TA
VE
S
OC
CI
DE
NT
AL
AV
ES

Neighborhoods in the Study Area
Greater Duwamish
Pioneer Square
Commercial Core
Belltown
Note: Only a small portion of the
Greater Duwamish Neighborhood is shown on this figure.
Parcel Boundary
Study Area
Figure 4-1
Land Use Study Area
and Overlook Walk Final EIS
Elliott Bay
Terminal 46
AL
AS
KA
NW
AY
S
Pier 62/63
ST
SM
AIN
ST
WA
Y
YE
SL
ER
ST
VINE
SJ
AC
KS
ON
ST
SK
IN
G
L ST
WAL
L ST
BEL
AV
4TH
3RD AVE
AVE
5TH
4TH AVE
AVE
6TH
5TH AVE
Feet
AVE
2ND
AVE
3RD
ES
800
ST
ARD
NCH
BLA
ST
ORA
LEN
ST
INIA
VIRG
T ST
WAR
STE
PINE ST
PIKE ST
UNIVERSITY ST
SENECA ST
SPRING ST
MADISON ST
MARION ST
MA
YN
AR
DA
VE
S
2ND AVE
UNION ST
1ST AVE
COLUMBIA ST
AV
ES
AV
1ST
POST AVE
CHERRY ST
OC
CID
EN
TA
L
ACE
E PL
PIK
WESTERN AVE
TERRACE ST
AV
ES
6T
HA
VE
S
400
Waterfront
Park
N AV
TER
WES
1S
TA
VE
S
JAMES ST
NO 2ND AV ET S
RT
HE
RN
PA
CIF
IC
RR
SF
BN
Seattle
Aquarium
ALASKAN WAY
2N
DA
VE
S
5T
H
Pier 57
Y ST
TER
BAT
Pier
54 Pier
55
Colman Dock
Pier 56
VE
TT A
ELL IO
D
OA
ILR
RA
ST
VINE
King County
Water Taxi
RAILROAD WAY S
AY
NW
SKA
ALA
Bell Harbor
Marina
Pier 48
Apartment
Church/Religious Services
Project Footprint
Condominium
Governmental Services
Hotel/Motel
Community Services
Study Area
Commercial
Historic Property
Parcel Boundary
Office Building
Park/Open Space
Industrial
Sport Facility
Parking
Vacant
Art Gallery/Museum
Education
TLA
KE
AVE
Figure 4-2
Existing Land Use
4.1.2
Existing Zoning
The types of land uses allowed in a given area are determined by the parcel zoning classification
established by the City. The zoning classification of parcels in the study area is shown in Figure 4-3.
North of Columbia Street, the land along Alaskan Way is zoned Downtown Harborfront 1 or 2. The
upland areas adjacent to Alaskan Way are mostly zoned Downtown Mixed Commercial or Downtown
Mixed Residential. Farther east are the Downtown Office Core and Downtown Retail Core designations.
Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market each have their own mixed-use zoning designations, with land
uses subject to approval by the Pike Place Market Historical Commission and the Pioneer Square
Preservation Board, respectively. A small portion of property at the south end of the study area is zoned
for industrial or industrial commercial development.
4.1.3
Shoreline Designations
A substantial portion of the study area is within the Shoreline District, which is an overlay district that
applies its own development standards in addition to those of the underlying zoning designations. The
Shoreline District implements the Seattle Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which is described in more
detail in the Draft EIS Appendix C, Land Use Discipline Report. The SMP designates a number of
shoreline environments within the Shoreline District, each with its own allowable uses and
development standards. As shown in Figure 4-3, the majority of the shoreline in the study area is
designated Urban Harborfront, with a small area designated Urban Industrial at the south end. Piers 54
through 59 (the Seattle Aquarium) are within the Urban Harborfront Historic Character Area, a sub-area
within the Urban Harborfront, which regulates development on these historic piers. In the case of
irreconcilable conflicts between the regulations of the Shoreline District and the underlying zoning
designations, the shoreline regulations will apply, with some exceptions (SMC 23.60.14B.1).
4.1.4
Special Districts
Special districts are established by the Land Use Code to conserve and enhance Seattles unique setting,
preserve areas of historical or architectural merit, and accomplish the Citys policy objectives, among
other goals (SMC 23.59.010). They impose additional development standards as an overlay to the
underlying zoning. The districts applicable to AWPOW, as shown in Figure 4-3, are:
4-4
Pioneer Square Preservation District (SMC 23.66)The Pioneer Square Preservation District was
established as both a national historic district and a local preservation district in 1970. The local
preservation district is protected by an ordinance and design guidelines focused on preserving its
unique historic and architectural character. A Certificate of Approval from the Pioneer Square
Preservation Board is required for new business or service, and for physical changes to buildings,
landscape, and public rights of way within the district.
Pike Place Market Historical District (SMC 25.24)The citizens of Seattle voted to establish the Pike
Place Market Historical District in 1971 to preserve the markets physical and social character. The
Market Historical Commission manages design and use changes within the District in accordance
with the Pike Place Market Historical Commission Revised Guidelines; a Certificate of Approval
from the Commission is required for such changes.
Stadium Transition Area Overlay District (SMC 23.74)The Stadium Transition Area Overlay District
includes CenturyLink Field and Safeco Field and the area around these sports facilities. The District
is intended to contribute to a safer pedestrian environment for those attending events and
permits a mix of uses, supporting the pedestrian-oriented character of the area as well as the
surrounding industrial zone, while minimizing conflicts with industrial uses (SMC 23.73.002).
E l l i ott B ay
AL
AS
KA
NW
AY
S
AY
NW
SKA
ALA
Pier 48
Pier 62/63
City of Seattle Zoning
SM
AIN
ST
SJ
AC
KS
ON
ST
SK
IN
G
ST
WA
Y
YE
SL
ER
Urban Harborfront
Downtown Harborfront 1
Urban Industrial
Study Area
Urban Harborfront Historic Character Area
Downtown Mixed Commercial
Special District
ST
VINE
Source: City of Seattle
L ST
WAL
AVE
6TH
Project Footprint
Parcel Boundary
L ST
BEL
Feet
AVE
5TH
5TH AVE
Shoreline Environment
AV
4TH
3RD AVE
4TH AVE
800
AVE
2ND
AV
3RD
WE
S
MA
YN
AR
DA
VE
S
ST
ARD
NCH
BLA
ST
ORA
LEN
ST
INIA
VIRG
T ST
WAR
STE
PINE ST
PIKE ST
UNIVERSITY ST
SENECA ST
SPRING ST
MADISON ST
MARION ST
2ND AVE
UNION ST
1ST AVE
COLUMBIA ST
AV
ES
AV
1ST
POST AVE
CHERRY ST
OC
CID
EN
TA
L
ACE
E PL
PIK
WESTERN AVE
TERRACE ST
AV
ES
6T
HA
VE
S
400
Waterfront
Park
N AV
TER
WES
1S
TA
VE
S
JAMES ST
NO 2ND AV ET S
RT
HE
RN
PA
CIF
IC
RR
SF
BN
ALASKAN WAY
2N
DA
VE
S
5T
H
Pier 57
Y ST
TER
BAT
Pier
54 Pier
55
Colman Dock
Pier 56
Seattle
Aquarium
ST
VINE
RAILROAD WAY S
VE
TT A
ELL IO
D
OA
ILR
RA
Downtown Mixed Residential

Downtown Office Core 1
Stadium Area Transition Overlay District
Downtown Office Core 2
Pioneer Square Preservation District
Downtown Retail Core
Pike Place Public Market Historical District
General Industrial 1
Industrial Commercial
International District Mixed
International District Residential
Pike Market Mixed
Pioneer Square Mixed
TLA
KE
AVE
Figure 4-3
Existing Zoning
4.1.5
Parks and Recreational Facilities
The study area contains a number of parks and recreational facilities that are appreciated by visitors
to Pioneer Square, the waterfront, and Pike Place Market. The facilities shown on Figure 4-4 are:
Occidental Square Park
Washington Street Boat Landing
Pioneer Square Park
Argosy Cruises
Waterfront Park
Seattle Aquarium
Pike Street Hillclimb
Pier 62/63 Park
Path on the east side of Alaskan Way
Victor Steinbrueck Park
Lenora Street pedestrian bridge
Bell Harbor Marina
Bell Street Pier Cruise Terminal at Pier 66
Bell Street Park
Regrade Park (dog park)
Belltown Cottage Park
4.1.6
Applicable Laws and Plans
Land use and development in the study area are guided by a number of state, regional, and City land use
laws and plans. These documents establish the planning framework used to manage growth and ensure
that individual projects are consistent with an overall vision. This section provides an overview of the
laws and plans applicable to AWPOW. Table 4-1 provides a list of the documents that outline land use
planning goals and their general goals. Draft EIS Appendix C, Land Use Discipline Report, provides more
detailed information, including specific policies relevant to AWPOW.
State Laws and Plans

The Shoreline Management Act (SMA; Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 90.58.020), which addresses
shoreline land use, focuses on shoreline use, environmental protection, and public access. The City of
Seattle implements the SMA through its SMP, discussed below.
Washingtons Relocation Assistance law (RCW 8.26) establishes a uniform policy for the fair and
equitable treatment of persons displaced as a direct result of public works programs of the state and
local governments. AWPOW must comply with this policy when acquiring property for the project.
Regional Plans
PSRC is engaged in regional transportation, economic development, and growth management planning
for central Puget Sound through the long-range strategy envisioned in VISION 2040 (PSRC 2008) and a
30-year transportation action plan outlined in Transportation 2040 (PSRC 2010). VISION 2040 provides a
regional framework for long-range transportation planning that integrates freight, ferries, highways,
local roads, transit, bicycles, and walking. The plans focus is to contain growth, concentrate new
employment into urban centers, and link the centers with a high-quality multimodal transportation
system. Transportation 2040 is an action plan for transportation in the central Puget Sound region that
is designed to support the implementation of VISION 2040. The plan outlines a long-term template for
how this region should invest in transportation to accommodate rising travel demand.
4-6
Elliott Bay
Occidental
Square Park
AL
AS
KA
NW
AY
S
Pier 48
Argosy Cruises
ST
SM
AIN
ST
SJ
AC
KS
ON
ST
SK
IN
G
Feet
Source: City of Seattle
WA
Y
YE
SL
ER
Regrade
Park
AV
4TH
AVE
5TH
4TH AVE
AVE
6TH
TLA
KE
AVE
Figure 4-4

Study Area
Parcel Boundary
Parks
Recreational Facilities
Path on east side of Alaskan Way
ST
VINE
AV
3RD
5TH AVE
Project Footprint
L ST
WAL
ST
INIA
VIRG
T ST
WAR
STE
PINE ST
PIKE ST
UNIVERSITY ST
SENECA ST
SPRING ST
MADISON ST
Pioneer
Square Park
Bell Street
Park
AVE
2ND
3RD AVE
800
L ST
BEL
AV
1ST
ST
ARD
NCH
BLA
Victor
Steinbrueck
Park
ST
ORA
LEN
Pike Street
Hillclimb
ACE
E PL
PIK
WE
S
MA
YN
AR
DA
VE
S
400
2ND AVE
UNION ST
1ST AVE
MARION ST
AV
ES
COLUMBIA ST
6T
HA
VE
S
POST AVE
TERRACE ST
AV
ES
N AV
TER
WES
WESTERN AVE
CHERRY ST
OC
CID
EN
TA
L
VE
TT A
ELL IO
D
OA
ILR
RA
Pier
55
1S
TA
VE
S
JAMES ST
NO 2ND AV ET S
RT
HE
RN
PA
CIF
IC
RR
SF
BN
Pier 56 Pier 57
ALASKAN WAY
2N
DA
VE
S
5T
H
Lenora Street
Pedestrian
Bridge
Seattle
Waterfront Aquarium
Park
Y ST
TER
BAT
Pier
54
Colman Dock
AY
NW
SKA
ALA
ST
VINE
Washington Street
Public Boat Landing
RAILROAD WAY S
Bell Harbor
Marina
Pier 62/63
Park
Belltown
Cottage
Park
Bell Street Pier

Cruise Terminal
at Pier 66

Table 4-1. Summary of the Primary Goals of Adopted Land Use Laws and Plans
Primary Goals of Land Use Plans
Increased
Multimodal
Connectivity
and Mobility
Economic
Development
Management
of Urban
Growth
Environmental
Protection
Public
Access to
the
Shoreline
Open Space
and
Recreation
Adequate
Public
Facilities and
Services
State Laws and Plans

X
Washington State Shoreline Management Act

Regional Plans
PSRC VISION 2040
PSRC Transportation 2040
X
X
City of Seattle Plans
Seattle Comprehensive Plan
Seattle Land Use Code
Seattle Shoreline Master Program
Seattle Environmentally Critical Areas Code
X
X
SDOT Transportation Strategic Plan
City of Seattle Center City Circulation Report and

Center City Access Strategy
Seattle Transit Master Plan
Seattle Freight Mobility Strategic Action Plan
Seattle 2014 Bicycle Master Plan
Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan
X
X
Neighborhood Plans
Greater Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center Plan
Pioneer Square Neighborhood Plan
Commercial Core Neighborhood Plan
Belltown Neighborhood Plan
Downtown Urban Center Neighborhood Plan
Note: The Waterfront Seattle Guiding Principles, Framework Plan, Concept Design, and Strategic Plan are being used to develop AWPOW so that the project is consistent with adopted land use laws and plans.
4-8
CHAPTER 4 LAND USE
City of Seattle Plans

The City of Seattle Comprehensive PlanToward a Sustainable Seattle is a 20-year plan that provides
the framework for how Seattle should grow (City of Seattle 2005). The City is currently updating the
Comprehensive Plan; the Seattle City Council is expected to adopt the updated plan in fall 2016. The
Seattle Comprehensive Plans Land Use, Transportation, and Economic Development, and Container
Port Elements contain goals and policies that are relevant to AWPOW. Regulations for the Land Use
Code (SMC Title 23) and Street and Sidewalk Use (SMC Title 15) would ensure that AWPOW projects are
consistent with allowable uses and implement the Citys Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Citys
Environmentally Critical Areas Code (SMC 25.09) governs areas of Seattle that provide critical
environmental functions, such as shoreline habitat and geologic hazard areas, to protect these areas and
ensure public safety while allowing for reasonable development.
The City of Seattle SMP (SMC 23.60) guides and regulates development of the shorelines in order to
protect the ecosystems of the shoreline areas; encourage water-dependent uses; provide for maximum
public use and enjoyment of the city shorelines; and preserve, enhance, and increase views of the water
and access to the water. The City is currently in the process of updating the SMP.
The City also has a variety of plans related to various modes of transportation that affect the AWPOW
study area. These include:
SDOT Transportation Strategic Plan: Describes the actions SDOT will take in this 20-year functional
work plan to accomplish the goals and policies of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan.
City of Seattle Center City Circulation Report and Access Strategy: Reviews the major transportation
projects planned for downtown Seattle, provides recommendations for how they can work
together as an integrated system, and develops projects to fill identified gaps in the system; the
goal is to create a vibrant and inviting city core.
Seattle Transit Master Plan: Identifies key corridors linking urban villages and establishes
performance standards for transit service, including various modes (rail and streetcar, rapid bus
service, and standard bus service) and facilities (station design and capital infrastructure, including
enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit).
Seattle Freight Mobility Strategic Action Plan: Recommends a list of actions that the City will
implement to maintain efficient freight movement in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the Transportation Strategic Plan, including grade separations, signage, and street
improvements.
Seattle Bicycle Master Plan: Seeks to facilitate the use of bicycles as a safe, convenient, and
attractive option for a large number of people by increasing ridership, improving safety, creating a
network of bicycle facilities, providing access for all, and creating a welcoming environment for
bicyclists.
Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan: Contains policies, programs, projects, and design criteria to
enhance pedestrian safety, comfort, and access in support of a vision to help Seattle become the
most walkable city in the nation.
Neighborhood Plans
Neighborhood plans are strategic plans to address growth within each neighborhood while maintaining
the neighborhoods character and livability, and providing open space and affordable housing to
residents. AWPOW is located in five neighborhood planning areas, each with a distinct land use
composition and character. These planning areas are the Greater Duwamish Manufacturing and
Industrial Center, Pioneer Square, Commercial Core, Downtown Urban Center, and Belltown. The plans
for each neighborhood set out a vision and planning objectives to guide future development. Draft EIS
Appendix C, Land Use Discipline Report, contains more detail on the neighborhood plans.
4-9
Waterfront SeattleGuiding Principles, Framework Plan, Concept Design, and

Strategic Plan
WaterfrontSeattleisthenamefortheCityofSeattlesvisionforanumberofinfrastructure
improvementprojectsalongSeattlesdowntownwaterfront.Itcovers26cityblocksfromPioneer
SquaretoBelltownindowntownSeattle,andincludestheimprovementsproposedforAWPOW.Several
committeesestablishedbytheSeattleCityCouncilhaveguidedthewaterfrontplanningprocesssince
2009.First,theCentralWaterfrontPartnershipsCommitteedevelopedtheWaterfrontSeattleGuiding
Principles,whichwereaffirmedbytheSeattleCityCouncilin2011(Resolution31264).Theseprinciples,
whichapplytoAWPOW,are:
Createawaterfrontforall
Puttheshorelineandinnovative,sustainabledesignattheforefront
Reconnectthecitytoitswaterfront
EmbraceandcelebrateSeattle'spast,present,andfuture
Improveaccessandmobility(forpeopleandgoods)
Createaboldvisionthatisadaptableovertime
Developconsistentleadershipfromconcepttooperations
AfterthedevelopmentoftheGuidingPrinciples,theCentralWaterfrontCommittee(whichreplacedthe
CentralWaterfrontPartnershipsCommittee)developeddocumentsinitsroleasthebroadoverseerof
thedesign,financing,publicengagement,longtermoperations,andmaintenanceoftheproject.These
documentsincludedtheFrameworkPlan,theConceptDesign,andtheStrategicPlan,whichwere
publishedinJuly2012andsupportedbytheSeattleCityCouncilinAugust2012(Resolution31399).
Thesedocuments,describedbelow,provideguidance,goals,andstrategiesforimplementationof
WaterfrontSeattle.
InOctober2014,theCentralWaterfrontCommitteewasreplacedbytheCentralWaterfrontSteering
Committee(Resolution31543).TheCentralWaterfrontSteeringCommitteewasestablishedtoadvise
theCityonimplementingtheCentralWaterfrontConceptDesignandStrategicPlan.
FrameworkPlan
TheWaterfrontSeattleFrameworkPlanoutlinedthestrategiesandconceptsusedtodevelopthe
WaterfrontSeattleConceptDesign(CityofSeattle2012a).Itestablishedthevisionforthefutureof
SeattlescentralwaterfrontfromthebroaderCityscaletothesitespecificWaterfrontscale.Itsthree
mainconceptswere:
1. RecenteringSeattlearoundElliottBay(Cityscale)
2. Reconnectingneighborhoodstothewaterfront(CenterCityscale)
3. Creatingcompellingdestinationsandjourneysalongthewatersedge(Waterfrontscale)
TheplansconceptsguidedtheplanninganddesigndevelopmentoftheAWPOWprojects.Theplan
proposedacontinuouspublicwaterfront,whichincludesanewsurfacestreet,pedestrianpromenade,
bicyclepath,andaseriesofopenspacesforthepublic(CityofSeattle2012a).
ConceptDesign
TheWaterfrontSeattleConceptDesigndevelopedandillustratedthedesignconceptsforthe
waterfront,includingAWPOW,anddescribedthewaysinwhichthenewwaterfrontwillbeused(Cityof
Seattle2012b).
4-10
CHAPTER 4 LAND USE
Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan for Realizing the Waterfront Seattle Vision presented an Action Plana series of steps
and a timeline to implement Waterfront Seattle from 2012 through 2018. The plan proposed actions
related to AWPOW, such as Action #22, Construct new Alaskan Way, Elliott Way, pedestrian
promenade, parks and open spaces, scheduled to be implemented between 2016 and 2018 (City of
Seattle 2012c).
4.2
4.2.1
Construction Impacts
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no construction activity and, therefore, no construction
impacts on land use.
4.2.2
AWPOW construction could impact most or all land uses in the study area in different ways. The
following potential construction impacts could affect land use as well as other disciplines:
Businesses that rely on drive-by or walk-up access, and businesses that rely on the traffic of
passersby, would be temporarily affected by changes in access caused by construction.
Changes in access to residences would cause an inconvenience during the period in which those
properties are affected, although access in some form would be provided at all times.
An increase in traffic congestion around work zones, road closures, traffic diversions, and detour
routes could disrupt deliveries, movement of freight, and customer access to businesses.
Construction equipment, fencing, or scaffolding could affect the visibility of businesses in the active
construction area, and the clutter of construction could make the area less appealing to potential
visitors.
Noise levels in areas of active construction could be intermittently high, resulting in higher ambient
noise levels for land uses in proximity to the construction zone. In general, the loudest construction
activities would be limited to daylight hours.
Brief interruptions in utility service associated with construction could occur, both scheduled and
accidental, which could affect business operations in the study area.
These impacts are discussed in Chapters 3 (Transportation and Parking), 5 (Aesthetics), 6 (Noise), and
8 (Public Services and Utilities). Specific construction-related land use impacts are discussed below,
including impacts related to property acquisition, easements and staging areas, parks and recreational
facilities, and economic activity.
Property Acquisitions, Displacements, and Relocations

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would redevelop approximately 36 acres of land, most of
which is City right of way that is currently used for transportation functions. AWPOW would require the
full acquisition of two parcels:
Parcel 54 is a commercial surface parking lot with approximately 60 parking spaces.
Parcel 55 contains a small two-story office building, called the Harborscape Professional Building,
with one business.
These parcels are listed in Table 4-2 and also shown in Figure 4-5. Both of these uses would be
displaced. No other businesses and no residences would be displaced as a result of construction.
4-11
Table 4-2.
Full and Partial Property Acquisitions under the Preferred Alternative
Project Parcel
Number
King County
Parcel Number
Partial (P) or
Full (F)
Acquisition
24
266620-2565
Pioneer Square Mixed
0.1
54
766620-2380
100
55
766620-2381
100
Existing Zoning
Percentage of
Parcel Acquired
The commercial parking lot (Parcel #54) may not find a comparable place to relocate near its current
location. The construction impact of the loss of the parking spaces is discussed in Section 3.6.2 and the
Final EIS Appendix B, Parking Discipline Report.
The Harborscape Professional Building (Parcel #55) has 6,460 square feet of office space and was built in
1947. According to the King County Assessors data, the office building classification is Class C. It is
expected that the businesses displaced from this building would find comparable office space within
Seattle, if not within the same neighborhood. Online office market research for the Seattle central
business district in the second quarter of 2014 found that there were 131 Class C office buildings with
231,171 square feet of vacant office space (Colliers International 2014).
As listed in Table 4-2, one partial parcel acquisition also would be needed for the Preferred Alternative.
The size of the acquisition for the project would represent a very small percentage of the total parcel
size and would not impact the building located on the parcel.
Temporary Construction Easements and Staging Areas

The project would require a number of temporary construction easements (TCEs) and staging areas. A
TCE is a right acquired from the owner of real property to temporarily use or control that real property
for the purpose of construction. Many of the TCEs would consist of strips of private property along
Alaskan Way to accommodate construction of the roadway, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities. Once
construction is complete, the easements would end and the property would return to the owner. The
largest potential staging areas would be located on Pier 48 in the southern part of the study area and
Pier 62/63 in the northern end; although the City has not determined whether these areas would be
used for staging, their large size and open space are conducive to this purpose. There would also be
smaller staging areas throughout the project footprint. The TCEs and potential staging areas are shown
in Figure 4-5. When construction activities are taking place, the TCEs and the staging areas within the
project footprint would experience construction-related impacts, such as noise, dust, and disrupted
access to property. The potential staging areas located on the piers are separated from other land uses
by Alaskan Way or by water, and would be less likely to disrupt nearby land uses. However, for visitors
to the waterfront, staging areas on the piers would be conspicuous and would result in constructionrelated nuisances such as noise, dust, and views of construction materials and equipment.

Parks and recreational facilities that are near construction areas would be impacted by construction
activities; such impacts could be noise, dust, access restrictions, and visual intrusions. Construction
impacts may result in decreased enjoyment or inconvenience for those visiting a park or recreational
facility when construction is underway, but these impacts would be temporary. AWPOW would not
close any parks or recreational facilities for the entire construction period, but it is possible that access
could be limited for short durations. In particular, the path on the east side of Alaskan Way would likely
be rerouted away from the active construction area.
4-12
Elliott Bay
AL
AS
KA
N
Pier 48
ST
ST
YE
SL
ER
WA
Y
SM
AIN
ST
AC
KS
ON
SK
IN
GS
T
SJ
SW
AS
HI
NG
TO
N
AVE
3RD
AVE
4TH
AVE
5TH
AVE
6TH
Figure 4-5
Acquisitions and Temporary
Construction Easements
Full Parcel Acquisition

Partial Parcel Acquisition
Parcels with Potential Temporary Construction Easements
Parcel Boundary
ST
VINE
AVE
2ND
T
RD S
CHA
ST
ORA
LEN
ST
INIA
VIRG
5TH AVE
T ST
WAR
STE
4 H AV
4T
AVE
PINE ST
3RD AVE
LS T
BEL
AVE
1ST
N
BL A
CE
PLA
PIKE
PIKE ST
2ND AV
AVE
UNION ST
RS
SITYST
UNIVER
SENECA ST
ST
SPRINGS
MADISON ST
MARION ST
COLUMBIA ST
RY
Y ST
CHERR
Feet
AVE
TERN
WES
55
AVE
1ST AV
Project Footprint
800
AY
NW
SKA
ALA
POST AVE
JAMES ST
OC
CID
EN
TA
LA
VE
S
400
Waterfront
Park
WESTERN AVE
TERRACE ST
6T
HA
VE
S
Seattle
Aquarium
54
1S
TA
VE
S
2N
NO
DA
RT
VE
HE
S
RN
PA
O S
ND AV
AVE EX
EXTENSION
CIF 2N
3
RD
IC
R
AV
4T R
ES
HA
VE
S
Pier 57
ALASKAN WAY
24
5T
HA
VE
S
Pier 56
AVE
OTT
ELLI
Y ST
TER
BAT
Pier
54 Pier
55
Colman Dock
D
OA
LR
AI
R
SF
BN
Pier 62/63
AILROAD WA
RA
R
WAY S
L ST
WAL
WA
YS

Economic Activity
AWPOW construction could have a beneficial impact on the local economy if local contractors are
awarded construction contracts or if the project contractors purchase local goods and services for
construction. Also, the wages paid to workers in construction trades and supporting industries could be
spent on other goods and services in the Seattle area during the construction period, thereby positively
contributing to the local economy.
Construction activity also could result in negative impacts on businesses adjacent to the immediate
construction area. Constructing AWPOW would alter access to some businesses, remove on-street
parking and loading zones, cause traffic delays, and reroute traffic, which could increase travel times and
make access to some locations difficult (see Chapter 3). When roadway construction is occurring
adjacent to businesses, their access may be temporarily altered and parking and loading zones may be
removed during that time to accommodate construction activities. Construction also would require
detours to eliminate traffic from the sections of road being built. Detours could create inconvenient
routes to businesses, which would make a visit for patrons less appealing or eliminate the opportunity
for drive-by customers during the duration of the detour. In addition, patrons of the local businesses
may choose to avoid the study area altogether due to the perceived or real inconvenience caused by
project construction. While some businesses would suffer little or no adverse effect, others might
experience a decline in sales or a decrease in efficiency.
For purposes of this analysis, Alaskan Way is assumed to be closed at Pine Street for approximately
4 months to construct the Pine Street extension. During this time, access to the portion of Alaskan Way
north of the closure would be provided via Elliott Way and the east-west streets from Wall Street north.
The detour would make access to businesses on this part of Alaskan Way more circuitous and potentially
more congested; this may result in some level of economic impact. Some businesses may suffer little or
no adverse effect, while others might experience a decline in sales or a decrease in efficiency during this
4-month period.
This project would result in two full property acquisitions. These properties contain businesses that
currently pay property and other taxes to the City. The project would convert the two privately owned
parcels to public right of way. Subsequently, they would no longer be part of the Citys property tax
base. However, because of the way that taxes are levied there is not a reduction in property taxes
received by the City. Each year, the overall property tax amount is set first then apportioned among the
properties in the city according to value. An additional complicating factor is that the Citys tax base is
constantly shifting due to fluctuations in property values and the addition of new development.
4.3
Operational Impacts
This section discusses the potential operational impacts on land use under the No Action and Preferred
alternatives.
4.3.1
AWPOW would not be built under the No Action Alternative. There would be no property acquisitions,
displacements, or relocations associated with this alternative. Parks and recreational facilities would
remain as they are. Land use and zoning designations would reflect the conditions that would be in
place after completion of AWVRP and EBSP. Replacement of the seawall by EBSP and removal of the
viaduct by AWVRP will improve public safety, enhance aquatic and riparian conditions at the shoreline,
and visually and structurally open up Seattles waterfront. These public investments will likely lead to
some redevelopment along the corridor; however, compared to the Preferred Alternative, the
investment and the corresponding level of improvement and redevelopment is expected to be smaller.
4-14
CHAPTER 4 LAND USE
Under the No Action Alternative, Alaskan Way would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate
travel demand, which is expected to be higher in the design year of 2030 than under 2017 existing
conditions; see Chapter 3, Transportation and Parking, for more details. The resulting traffic congestion
would affect mobility and could thereby affect business patronage. The No Action Alternative would
maintain the existing poor pedestrian connections between the Pike Place Market and the waterfront.
Consistency with Adopted Land Use Plans

The No Action Alternative would be generally consistent with state and regional land use plans, but local
land use plans envision a downtown waterfront that is different from existing conditions. As a result,
some plans describe specific recommendations that the No Action Alternative would not realize. For
instance, plans with goals about improving mobility, creating better connections between
neighborhoods, and providing more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities would not be supported by
the No Action Alternative. This alternative would not be consistent with those plans in which the goals
include a transportation system that supports local and regional economic growth, because the restored
Alaskan Way would not be an improvement over existing conditions. The No Action Alternative would
be inconsistent with elements of the following adopted land use plans:
Transportation 2040
Seattle Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Strategic Plan
Neighborhood plans for Greater Duwamish Manufacturing and Industrial Center,

Pioneer Square, Commercial Core, and Belltown
Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan
Seattle Bicycle Master Plan
Waterfront Seattle Guiding Principles
Draft EIS Appendix C, Land Use Discipline Report, contains specific information about how the No Action
Alternative would be inconsistent with these adopted land use plans. Table 4-3 summarizes the
No Action Alternatives consistency with the overarching goals promoted by the land use laws and plans
that apply to the study area, and compares these findings with the Preferred Alternative.
4.3.2
The Citys investment in AWPOW is designed to encourage more use of the waterfront, and to improve
connections between the waterfront and downtown Seattle. Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle traffic in
the study area would all increase as a result of the project. AWPOW would have a beneficial impact on
the Greater Duwamish industrial area because it would improve the freight connection between that
area and northwest Seattle, where the Ballard Interbay Northend Manufacturing and Industrial Center is
located. A busier waterfront could increase traffic along Alaskan Way and on the surrounding streets,
but the Preferred Alternative is designed to accommodate additional traffic and would have better
traffic operations than the No Action Alternative.
The Promenade would create a wide, continuous pathway between Pioneer Square and the Seattle
Aquarium, allowing more people to access and enjoy the waterfront than the narrow sidewalk that would
continue to exist under the No Action Alternative. Kiosks located along the Promenade would be used to
provide a variety of amenities for the public, which could include a tourist information center and space
for food and beverage sales. These structures are anticipated to be 45 feet tall, which would comply with
height restrictions for the Downtown Harborfront 1 zoning. The Promenade may attract new businesses
and patrons to the waterfront, but it would not result in new land uses in the area.
4-15
Table 4-3.
Summary of Project Consistency with Adopted Land Use Plan Primary Goals
Primary Goals of Land Use Plans
Increased
Multimodal
Connectivity and
Mobility
Economic
Development
Urban Growth
Environmental
Protection
Public Access
to the
Shoreline
Open Space and

Recreation
Adequate Public
Facilities and Services
No Action
Alternative
Decrease in
connectivity for
northwest Seattle
without viaduct.
No adverse impact
on existing
businesses, and no
support for future
economic
development.
Provides
adequate public
services for the
current population
in the downtown
and waterfront
areas.
No changes related
to environmental
protection or
enhancement.
No change in
shoreline
access.
No change in
open space and
recreation
opportunities.
No change in public
facilities and services.
Preferred Al
ternative
Greatly improves
bicycle and pedestrian
connections through
the waterfront. Design
accommodates the
potential for a future
waterfront bus transit
service1. Improves
vehicle connection
between SODO and
Belltown.
Displaces one
business and a
parking lot, creates
construction jobs,
and provides
substantial
investment in
infrastructure that
support tourist
destinations and
small businesses in
the area.
Encourages and
supports planned
growth in the
downtown and
waterfront areas.
Promotes
nonmotorized
transportation
through construction
of the Promenade
and bicycle facility.
Incorporates planted
and landscaped
areas.
Provides public
spaces near or
with views of
the waterfront.
Creates public
open space and
recreation
opportunities
along the
Promenade and
Overlook Walk.
Improves access
between the waterfront
and adjacent downtown
neighborhoods for
emergency responders;
improves utility capacity
and maintenance
access; and includes
other public service
amenities such as public
restrooms and
accommodations for
transit enhancements.
This transit service has not been proposed as part of AWPOW. Accommodations for this transit service that would be constructed as part of AWPOW include curb extensions at bus stops and transit shelter
elements such as foundations and electrical conduits.
4-16
CHAPTER 4 LAND USE
The Overlook Walk would include one building (Building B), a lid, staircases, and two elevators. Building
B, located between Elliott Way and the Pike Place Market, would be used for public purposes and
transportation functions, as well as incidental private uses. The sloping lid, with public gathering space
and viewing areas, would extend westward from the Pike Place Market and across the new Elliott Way.
A set of stairs and an elevator would connect the northern part of the Overlook Walk to Elliott Way on
the east side of the Elliott Way-Pine Street intersection. On the west side of Alaskan Way, near the
southwest corner of the Overlook Walk lid, stairs and an elevator would connect down more than 40
vertical feet to the waterfront to the Aquarium Plaza and the Promenade. Another set of stairs would be
located adjacent to the Pine Street extension on the north side of the proposed Aquarium Pavilion.
Space for park operations and maintenance, as well as public restrooms, would be provided under the
stairways. The Overlook Walk would also accommodate the proposed Aquarium Pavilion, a publicly
owned building consisting of approximately 48,000 square feet of interior space, which would be built
by the Seattle Aquarium.
The Overlook Walk would transform a steep, underutilized existing public right of way into an active
pedestrian facility and public open space connecting the Pike Place Market with the waterfront. By
providing a grade-separated crossing over the BNSF tracks and Elliott Way with walkways, stairs, and
elevators, the Overlook Walk would make the waterfront much more accessible from the Pike Place
Market and Belltown than under the No Action Alternative. The Overlook Walk would also provide new
view opportunities up and down the waterfront and out across Elliott Bay.
The East-West Connections would improve pedestrian access between the waterfront and downtown
Seattle. Sidewalk improvements on S. Main and S. Washington Streets would address ADA deficiencies and
enhance the connection between the waterfront and Pioneer Square. Constructing new pedestrian
walkways, stairs, and elevators on Union Street between Alaskan Way and Post Alley would provide an
ADA-accessible route and a viewpoint to the waterfront across this steep slope. In the north end of the study
area, Bell Street Park would be extended to create a wider public space between Elliott and First Avenues.
Improving the accessibility and connection to the waterfront could increase pedestrian traffic adjacent to
businesses on S. Main, S. Washington, Union, and Bell Streets, supporting the land uses in this area.
As discussed in Section 3.7.2, the Preferred Alternative would remove parking spaces primarily along
Alaskan Way and in the current Alaskan Way Viaduct right of way. A few spaces would also be removed
on east-west streets. Parking patterns may shift, as motorists accustomed to parking on the street in a
particular location may have to travel farther to find available parking. Sufficient off-street parking is
expected to be available in all zones to absorb this demand under the Preferred Alternative. As a result,
the loss of parking is not anticipated to affect land uses in the study area.
Property Acquisitions, Displacements, and Relocations

The two parcels that would be fully acquired (as discussed above in Section 4.2.2) would be permanently
changed from parking and office space to transportation and incidental private uses. In addition, the one
partial parcel acquisition would permanently convert about 130 square feet to new City right of way.
This conversion of land use, at such a small scale in relation to the study area as a whole, is not expected
to have permanent impacts on land use trends or development activity in the study area.

AWPOW would improve the bicycle and pedestrian environment along Alaskan Way, enhancing access
to the recreational facilities within the study area. The new protected bicycle facility and the greater
pedestrian capacity along the Promenade would make the entrances of Waterfront Park and Pier 62/63
more inviting, and would integrate with the proposed improvements to both of these facilities, if they
are built. The bicycle facility and Promenade would also enhance connections between parks and
recreational facilities in the study area and facilitate access to others nearby, such as Myrtle Edwards
Park and the Olympic Sculpture Park.
4-17
Economic Activity
Operation of AWPOW is expected to attract more visitors to the study area. A busier waterfront would
result in busier nearby attractions, especially those that would be better connected to the waterfront,
such as businesses in Pioneer Square, the western portion of the commercial core, and the Pike Place
Market. Businesses in these areas may experience increased patronage as more people visit the
waterfront area and make use of improved east-west connections. Similarly, the resulting pedestrianand business-friendly active waterfront could encourage commercial and residential development on
the east side of Alaskan Way in underutilized areas. Increased use and visibility of the area are expected
to increase its desirability for businesses, especially those that rely on walk-by and drive-by traffic.
However, this benefit would not materially change the land use in the area because all new
development and redevelopment would be required to comply with the applicable standards for zoning
designations. Although the potential economic impact of these changes cannot be quantified, it is
expected to be positive.
Consistency with Adopted Land Use Plans

AWPOW would be consistent with the adopted land use plans listed above with which the No Action
Alternative would be inconsistent; see Table 4-3. The Preferred Alternative is expected to be consistent
with the Citys Land Use Code and SMP; however, final confirmation of the projects consistency with
applicable shoreline use and development standards would occur during the permit review process.
AWPOWs consistency with specific adopted land use plans is discussed in detail in the Draft EIS
Appendix C, Land Use Discipline Report.
The Preferred Alternative would implement a substantial portion of Waterfront Seattles vision for
revitalizing the waterfront. It also would support the broader goals of state, regional, and local plans and
policies by:
4-18
Increasing multimodal connectivity and mobility
Supporting economic development and urban growth
Supporting environmental protection measures
Providing opportunities for public access to the shoreline, open space, and recreation
Providing adequate public facilities and services
Aesthetics
Seattle's downtown waterfront is one of the citys most visited tourist and recreation areas because of the
scenic views, historic buildings and districts, and access to water-oriented transportation. The aesthetics
analysis presented in this chapter identifies existing conditions and discusses AWPOWs potential impacts
during construction and operation. The term aesthetics refers to the visual character of a place and its
degree of visual quality, which is the value people attach to that character. The aesthetics assessment is
based on a combination of factors and data that affect pedestrian or motorist experience, including the
presence of panoramic or scenic views and the visual character and quality of the area. The analysis
includes an evaluation of light and glare impacts. Potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures that have been identified for construction and operational impacts are presented in Chapter 16
of this Final EIS. Additional information is provided in the Draft EIS documents and the Final EIS Appendix C,
Discipline Report Errata Sheets.
5.1
The affected environment is defined as the conditions that will exist within the study area in 2017 before
AWPOW construction begins. These conditions, referred to as the 2017 existing conditions, are expected to
be the same as they are today except that AWVRP, EBSP, and MarketFront construction will be complete.
The study area for the aesthetics analysis is the project viewshed and landscape units. The project
viewshed is defined as all the views both toward the project and from the project, while the landscape
units are smaller subareas within the viewshed. Figure 5-1 shows the projects viewsheds and viewpoint
locations, which are discussed in Section 5.3 below, and Table 5-1 describes the direction and view at
the viewpoint locations. Figure 5-2 identifies the five landscape unit boundaries defined for AWPOW:
Pioneer Square, Waterfront, Downtown, Pike PlaceBelltown, and Elliott Bay.
The FHWAs visual quality assessment methodology, a tested standard that is widely applied to major
projects, was used to evaluate AWPOWs impacts. In this methodology, visual quality is the overall
aesthetic value of a view or aggregate views based on an assessment of vividness, unity, and intactness.
These terms are defined as follows:
Vividness is the level of the memorability or distinctiveness of the landscape.
Unity is the level to which the landscape is in harmony with or sensitive to the existing setting.
Intactness is the level to which the landscape is free of eyesores or elements that are not
compatible with the overall setting.
Table 5-2 shows the range of potential visual quality levels for each of these three qualities, which are
rated on a scale from low to high. Table 5-3 shows the ratings for each visual quality component for
each landscape unit.
5.1.1
Pioneer Square Landscape Unit
The Pioneer Square landscape unit includes portions of the Pioneer Square Preservation Districta Seattle
landmark and historic district with distinctive buildings and urban design character that is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. The landscape unit also contains Pier 48 and part of the Port of
Seattles Terminal 46. The project footprint extends into the landscape unit along east-west streets
perpendicular to Alaskan Way. The landscape unit is bordered by S. King Street on the south and by Cherry
Street on the north, where the transition from historic mid-rise to modern high-rise buildings begins. To
the east, the landscape unit is bounded by First Avenue S. or Second Avenue S., where the project
footprint on Alaskan Way becomes less visible, and on the west by pedestrian and parking zones in front
of the Pioneer Square buildings that front Alaskan Way. Views of the project footprint are primarily from
sidewalks and west-facing windows along Alaskan Way and east-west streets that end at Alaskan Way.
5-1
Elliott Bay
AL
AS
KA
NW
Pier 48
AY
S
Pier 62/63
RAILROAD WAY S
IN
GS
T
ST
AIN
ST
SO
N
AC
K
SM
SJ
YE
SL
ER
WA
Y
ST
GT
ON
AS
HIN
SW
ST
SK
VINE
ST
2ND
ST
Note:
Viewshed extends westward to the horizon.
S
OR A
LE N
Outer Harbor Line
ST
Viewpoint
ST
Project Viewshed
Building Footprint
ART
Parcel Boundary
AVE
L
BE L
1ST
ST
ARD
NCH
BLA
CE
PLA
W
ST E
5TH AVE
PIKE ST
4TH AVE
UNION ST
UNIVERSITY ST
SENECA ST
SPRING ST
Feet
Source: SDOT
800
2ND AVE
3RD AVE
Project Footprint
400
MADISON ST
PINE ST
1ST AVE
MARION ST
AV
E
0
E
PIK
AVE
IOTT
EL L
D
OA
ILR
RA
E
N AV
T ER
WE S
POST AVE
ID
EN
TA
L
COLUMB AI ST
AV
ES
WESTERN AVE
TERRACE ST
5T
H
CHERRY ST
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
HE
RN
PA
CIF
IC
RR
Waterfront
Park
ALASKAN WAY
JAMES ST
2N
DA
VE
Pier 56
Pier 55
IN IA
VIRG
OC
C
Pier 54
Colman Dock
AY
Y ST
T ER
BAT
SF
BN
NW
L
WAL
Seattle
Aquarium
Pier 57
1S
TA
VE
SKA
ALA
Bell Harbor
AVE
AVE
3RD
AVE
4TH
AVE
5TH
AVE
6TH
Figure 5-1
Project Viewshed
and Viewpoints
Elliott Bay
AL
AS
KA
NW
Pier 48
AY
S
Pier 62/63
RAILROAD WAY S
IN
GS
T
ST
AIN
ST
SO
N
AC
K
SM
SJ
YE
SL
ER
WA
Y
ST
GT
ON
AS
HIN
SW
ST
SK
VINE
Note:
Elliott Bay landscape unit extends
0.5 mile west of the shoreline.
ST
Elliott Bay Landscape Unit
2ND
ST
Pike Place / Belltown Landscape Unit
Downtown Landscape Unit
S
OR A
LE N
Waterfront Landscape Unit
ST
IN IA
VIRG
Outer Harbor Line
ST
ART
Project Footprint
Building Footprint
AVE
L
BE L
1ST
ST
ARD
NCH
BLA
CE
PLA
W
ST E
Parcel Boundary
PINE ST
5TH AVE
PIKE ST
4TH AVE
UNION ST
UNIVERSITY ST
SENECA ST
Source: SDOT
SPRING ST
Feet
800
2ND AVE
3RD AVE
400
MADISON ST
MARION ST
TERRACE ST
AV
ES
E
PIK
1ST AVE
I ST
COLUMB A
AV
E
CHERRY ST
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
HE
RN
PA
CIF
IC
RR
WESTERN AVE
POST AVE
ID
EN
TA
L
AVE
IOTT
EL L
D
OA
ILR
RA
E
N AV
T ER
WE S
JAMES ST
2N
DA
VE
Waterfront
Park
ALASKAN WAY
OC
C
5T
H
Pier 56
Pier 55
AY
Y ST
T ER
BAT
Pier 54
Colman Dock
SF
BN
Seattle
Aquarium
NW
L
WAL
Pier 57
1S
TA
VE
SKA
ALA
Bell Harbor
AVE
AVE
3RD
AVE
4TH
AVE
5TH
AVE
6TH
Figure 5-2
Project Landscape Units
Table 5-1.
Key Viewpoints
Viewpoint Viewpoint Location

1
2
S. Main Street
Marion Street
pedestrian bridge
Union Street Pier at
end of Union Street
Waterfront Park*
Pier 62/63
Victor Steinbrueck*
Park
Direction
View
Northwest toward Colman Dock

Northwest toward historic piers
Seattle downtown skyline

Piers 54 and 55
Southeast toward historic piers

and Pioneer Square
North toward Pike Place Market
and Belltown
East toward downtown Seattle
Pier 57, sports stadium arches
South along the waterfront
Seattle skyline
Seattle skyline and buildings fronting east
side of Alaskan Way
Elliott Bay, Puget Sound, Olympic Mountains,
historic buildings and piers, and Port of Seattle
gantries
*Scenic view locations designated in the City of Seattle SEPA ordinance
Table 5-2.
Definitions of Visual Quality Levels
Rank
Vividness
Intactness
Unity
Low
Low vividness indicates a

landscape that is mundane or
nondescript.
Low intactness indicates the loss

of large portions of a landscape
from the view or the prevalence
of elements having incompatible
scales, colors, or massing.
Low unity indicates that the built

features of a landscape were
placed and built without
sensitivity to the natural or
existing setting.
Medium
Medium vividness indicates the

presence of some features that
have striking and attractive
textures, colors, shapes, or
sizes.
Medium intactness indicates the

presence of some features that
are not compatible with the
existing landscape or a loss of
part of the landscape.
Medium unity indicates that built

features are somewhat
responsive to the natural or
existing setting.
High
High vividness indicates the

presence of a dominant feature
or a collection of features that
is distinctive and memorable.
High intactness indicates that the

landscape is not broken up by
features that are out of place.
High unity indicates that the

natural and built components of a
landscape are in balance and
harmony with each other.
Source: Adapted from FHWA 1988
Table 5-3.
Summary of Visual Quality for 2017 Existing Conditions
Landscape Unit
Vividness
Intactness
Overall Visual
Quality Level
Unity
Pioneer Square
Southern end of
project footprint
MediumHigh
Medium
MediumHigh
Historic buildings
and street trees are
striking and
attractive.
West edge parking

and loading areas are
out of place with the
whole.
Structures are of similar

scale and design, but
parking areas are not
harmonious with the
whole.
Waterfront
All of the Alaskan
Way corridor along
the waters edge
MediumHigh
Medium
Medium
Memorable and
distinctive elements,
scenic setting.
Alaskan Way corridor

detracts from the
recreational and
historic character.
Alaskan Way is very

different in scale and
design from the
waterfront.
5-4
MediumHigh
Medium
CHAPTER 5 AESTHETICS
Table 5-3.
Summary of Visual Quality for 2017 Existing Conditions
Landscape Unit
Vividness
Intactness
Unity
Downtown
Eastern border of
the project footprint
MediumHigh
Medium
Medium
Architectural styles
are memorable.
West edge parking

and loading areas are
out of place with the
whole.
Architectural styles and

forms are an eclectic mix,
but the character of the
western edge is not
harmonious with the
whole.
Pike Place
Belltown
Northern end of the
project footprint
High
Medium
Medium
Memorable and
distinctive elements,
scenic setting.
Viaduct gap and

railroad divide the
landscape unit in two.
Viaduct gap and uses are

not harmonious with the
character of the
landscape unit.
Elliott Bay
Open water to the
west of the harbor
piers
High
High
High
Memorable
elements, scenic
setting.
No intrusive or out-ofplace features, or loss

of the waterscape.
No built elements.
Overall Visual
Quality Level
Medium
Medium
High
Note: Landscape units are shown in Figure 5-2.
The visual character of this landscape unit is defined by its regular and continuous urban development,
which is composed of late 19th century mid-rise buildings (typically 5 to 10 stories) of red brick or stone.
Each building has its own unique architectural detailing, which creates an interesting and appealing
street character. The uniformity of building scale and materials creates a high level of continuity, while
the architectural details of each building contribute to an interesting and pleasing diversity. While there
is no one dominant feature, the overall character is distinctly harmonious and memorable. Although
they are not part of the Pioneer Square landscape unit, the presence of the parking and loading areas on
the Alaskan Way corridor detract from the character of Pioneer Square.
Many of the views within the Pioneer Square landscape unit, such as those on S. Main and
S. Washington Streets, are interior, focused on the historic buildings, trees, and public spaces. In the
western portion of the landscape unit, some views include Elliott Bay, West Seattle, and the Olympic
Mountains, but others are blocked by structures on Piers 46 and 48 and the Seattle Ferry Terminal. The
viewer population includes shoppers, club and restaurant patrons, sightseers, commuters, workers, and
residents of Pioneer Square.
The overall visual quality level of the Pioneer Square landscape unit under 2017 existing conditions is
mediumhigh. The high level of visual quality in the interior of the landscape unit is diminished by the
undistinguished swath of pavement and parking places along the historic buildings fronting the east side
of Alaskan Way. Vividness is mediumhigh because the historic buildings and street trees are attractive
and memorable. Intactness is medium because the parking and loading areas are at odds with the
character of the historic buildings and streetscapes of Pioneer Square. Unity is mediumhigh because
the parking and loading areas associated with the buildings on the east side of Alaskan Way are not
harmonious with the overall character of the landscape unit.
5.1.2
The Waterfront landscape unit is the largest and most complex of all units within the viewshed. It is a
regional destination for recreation and tourism, various modes of land- and water-borne transportation,
and commerce. This landscape unit contains most of the project footprint along the Alaskan Way
corridor; permanent structures along the piers, including the Seattle Ferry Terminal, historic Piers 54 to
59, Waterfront Park, Pier 62/63, and the Bell Harbor complex; and the Waterfront Landings
5-5
Condominiums across from Bell Harbor. The landscape unit is bordered by S. King Street on the south;
by Battery Street on the north, the point at which the project footprint is no longer visible; by the outer
harbor line on the west, which encompasses the harbor structures; and by the east edge of the Alaskan
Way Viaduct footprint, where there is a transition to different development, pedestrian, and traffic
patterns. Views of the project footprint are available from everywhere within this landscape unit.
The visual character of this landscape unit is defined by the harbor, which includes the seawall and
adjacent sidewalk, and the Alaskan Way corridor, which includes the restored roadway and the area
vacated by the viaduct. Marine- and land-based traffic is a defining feature of the Waterfront landscape
unit. Development in the area consists of large piers, historic warehouses, ferry terminal facilities for
vehicles and pedestrians, two city parks, a fire station, and small pavilions and plazas. The scale and
footprint of the buildings are generally similar, resulting in a high degree of coherence and continuity
among the different eras and uses. The historic piers are visually attractive as individual buildings, but
their more important contribution to the visual character of the waterfront is as an assemblage. The
Waterfront Landings Condominiums on the east side of Alaskan Way have modulated faades and
setbacks that echo the ins-and-outs of the harbor buildings.
The angle of the pier buildings relative to Alaskan Way and the flat topography of this landscape unit
result in public views that are, for the most part, framed or channeled. Panoramic views are available
from Pier 57, Waterfront Park (Pier 58), and Pier 62/63, where pedestrians can walk to the ends of the
piers for views that extend the full length of the waterfront. Views that include the monumental
structures of the Seattle Great Wheel, the Ports gantry cranes, and the arches of the sports stadiums
are spectacular and highly memorable. The movement of ships, ferries, and sailboats and the
movement, colors, and textures of water and clouds are an important and interesting component of
these vistas. Views to the east and south include the tiers of high-rise buildings in downtown Seattle, a
portion of the Pioneer Square skyline, and the arches of CenturyLink Field. Viewer groups comprise local
and visiting diners, shoppers, walkers, joggers, tourists, commuters, and workers.
The overall visual quality of the Waterfront landscape unit under 2017 existing conditions is medium.
Overall vividness is mediumhigh because of the scenic setting and the many memorable and distinctive
elements in the landscape unit. However, the Alaskan Way corridor is large and prominent, and detracts
from the visual quality of the waterfront as a whole. Intactness and unity are medium because the wide
expanse of Alaskan Way is generally out of scale and character with the recreational and historic
waterfront components; the roadway causes a loss of landscape for pedestrian and recreational purposes;
and the alignment of this transportation facility reduces the overall integrity of the landscape unit.
5.1.3
The Downtown landscape unit is a dense urban landscape with a wide range of commercial, residential,
recreation, and entertainment uses. The project footprint extends into this landscape unit short
distances up the streets perpendicular to Alaskan Way. The landscape unit is bordered on the south by
Cherry Street, where modern high-rise development ends; on the east by First Avenue, where the
project footprint becomes less noticeable; on the north by Pike Street, where modern high-rise
development becomes less dense; and on the west by the pedestrian and parking zones in front of the
downtown buildings that abut the east edge of Alaskan Way. Views of the project footprint are available
from pedestrian overlooks and stairs, upper-level windows, and many east-west view corridors.
The visual character of the Downtown landscape unit is defined by its sloping topography and its
terraced, continuous development on a street grid. The topography rises from near sea level at Cherry
Street to roughly 100 feet above sea level around Pike Street. Development is terraced along this slope
and consists of modern high-rise buildings, primarily on the upper elevations, and historic mid-rise
buildings, primarily on the lower elevations. Pedestrian connections between different elevations are
made by stairs and small landscaped terraces that also act as informal public viewpoints. Development
comprises a mixture of architectural styles and ages interspersed with parking lots and structures.
5-6
Parking and loading areas in front of the buildings along Alaskan Way and the Alaskan Way corridor
itself, while not a part of this landscape unit, detract from the urban character of this landscape unit.
The combination of terraced development, the increase in building height from west to east, the street
grid, and the sharp change in topography produces a wide range of view locations and view quality.
Public views to the west from the upper levels of the Pike Street Hillclimb and from Union Street east of
Western Avenue are panoramic and include the waterfront in the near ground, open water and
Bainbridge Island in the middle distance, and the Kitsap Peninsula and the Olympic Mountains in the far
distance. The project footprint is visible in these views; however, the Union Street Pedestrian
Connection and Alaskan Way itself are typically a minor element of the view because it is framed and
below viewers eye levels. From the east side of Alaskan Way, the roadway and the pier buildings are
dominant near-ground features, with views of Elliott Bay beyond. The viewer population includes
workers, commuters, tourists, locals seeking recreation, and residents.
The overall visual quality of the Downtown landscape unit under 2017 existing conditions is medium.
Overall vividness is mediumhigh because the collective styles and forms of the historic and modern
architecture result in a visually rich and distinctive urban character and skyline that are memorable.
The Seattle skyline is identified in the Seattle code as a valued visual resource. Intactness and unity are
medium because the amount of pavement, staircases, blank walls, and parking places among the
buildings fronting the east side of Alaskan Way diminishes this important transitional area.
5.1.4
Pike PlaceBelltown Landscape Unit
The Pike PlaceBelltown landscape unit includes the Pike Place Market Historical District, which is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. The District encompasses the Pike Place Market, Victor
Steinbrueck Park, and the Pike Place Hillclimb. The landscape unit also includes part of the Belltown
neighborhood and the steep slope between Alaskan Way and Western Avenue, known as the Belltown
bluff. The landscape unit is bordered on the south by Pike Street, which is the beginning of the Pike
Place Market area; on the east by First Avenue (except at Bell Street where it is a half block farther east);
on the north by Battery Street; and on the west by the BNSF rail line that divides Alaskan Way and the
waterfront from Belltown. At Pike Street, the AWPOW footprint is below the level of Pike Place Market
and Victor Steinbrueck Park; farther north, the footprint rises to meet the existing terrain at Bell and
Battery Streets. Because of the rising terrain and existing buildings, Bell Street Park is only visible from
the project footprint near the First Avenue and Bell Street intersection.
The visual character of this landscape unit is defined by its mixed use, low and mid-rise urban
development, and the steep topography on which this development is situated. Architectural styles,
forms, and materials are very diverse, resulting in a high level of visual complexity and interest. Many
lots and buildings are wedge-shaped because of the irregular angles between streets at Pike Place
Market and along the former route of the viaduct. This angularity and the high diversity of architectural
forms and styles create an unexpected and interesting street experience. Pedestrian and vehicle traffic,
especially near Pike Place Market, add to the generally festive atmosphere. Pedestrian connections
between the upper and lower elevations are made by stairs and elevators that also act as public
viewpoints; these include the Pike Street Hillclimb, the pedestrian bridge and overlook at the west end
of Lenora Street, and the Bell Street pedestrian bridge. The gap created by removal of the viaduct is a
physical and visual barrier between the upper and lower parts of the landscape unit.
Large changes in topography, coupled with irregular sightlines along angled streets, result in public views
that are narrowly framed by structures or are only available from elevated viewpoints, such as the west
edge of Victor Steinbrueck Park, or the views that are anticipated to be available from the public spaces
associated with the MarketFront. Views from Lenora, Blanchard, Bell, and Battery Streets are framed by
buildings and include the project footprint in lower parts of the views and scenic resources in the
distance. Views from Victor Steinbrueck Park include the full extent of the waterfront and harbor, as well
as the Seattle skyline. The faade of the Public Market Parking Garage and the large wall on the east side
5-7
of the Waterfront Landings Condominiums will be exposed after the viaduct is removed, and will
dominate the near-ground view. The viewer population is similar to that of the Downtown landscape unit
and includes workers, tourists, and locals seeking entertainment, as well as commuters and residents.
The overall visual quality of the Pike PlaceBelltown landscape unit under 2017 existing conditions is
medium. Overall vividness is high because of the historic signs and buildings of Pike Place Market, the
memorable views from Victor Steinbrueck Park, and the unusual street pattern. The mix of historic and
modern architectural styles in and near Pike Place Market adds richness and distinctiveness that are
memorable and stimulating. Unity is medium because the dominant components of the landscape (Pike
Place Market, Belltown buildings, railroad tracks, and tall walls of the viaduct canyon) are not in balance
or harmony with each other. Intactness is medium because the gap left by removal of the viaduct is a
loss of a large portion of the landscape, which has an impact on views.
5.1.5
The Elliott Bay landscape unit is the open water of eastern Elliott Bay that lies within mile of Seattles
outer harbor line. Inside the -mile limit, in clear weather, trees and objects in the project footprint are
identifiable from certain angles, especially south of Colman Dock. Farther than the -mile limit, objects
within the project footprint are not distinguishable behind and amid other waterfront elements.
The visual character of this landscape unit is defined by the open water of Elliott Bay and the high
volumes of marine traffic. This traffic includes international and national cargo ships heading to the Port
of Seattle, cruise ships docking at Bell Harbor, Washington State ferries bringing commuters and tourists
across Puget Sound, and regional tour boats making day trips. The bay is also a destination for
recreational boating. The variety of ships and boats, their movements, and the varying weather, water
textures, and colors create dramatic and interesting visual character.
All viewpoints within this unit contain unobstructed, 360-degree views of major regional visual
resources: the Seattle waterfront and skyline, West Seattle, Bainbridge Island, Puget Sound, the hills of
Kitsap County, and the Olympic Mountains. Water-borne vessels of all shapes and sizes are temporary
elements in views that add interest, movement, and scale. Views are highly changeable due to the
dynamics of Seattle weather, but this adds variety and different types of vividness. The Seattle skyline
dominates views to the east because the rise in elevation creates a natural amphitheater that allows the
buildings farther east behind the waterfront to show and makes the skyline appear taller and more
varied. Architectural styles, forms, colors, materials, and details are highly diverse, which make the
skyline very attractive and memorable. Views of the city lights at night are highly memorable, including
the Seattle Great Wheel at the northern end and the arches of the stadiums at the southern end. The
viewer population in this landscape unit includes workers on cargo ships, ferries, and tour boats; tourists
and commuters riding the ferries and tour boats; and recreational boaters.
The overall visual quality of the Elliott Bay landscape unit under 2017 existing conditions is high.
Vividness is high because the expanse of water is dominant and highly memorable, and because the
setting has great natural beauty and grandeur. The colors and textures of the water vary with weather
conditions; as a result, the open water is always interesting to look at and observe due to its variations.
Unity is high because the landscape unit is an integral part of the regional Puget Sound system and is
harmonious and continuous with its surroundings. Intactness is high because there are no permanent
large and noticeable objects in the landscape unit. Cargo ships, cruise ships, and other vessels moor in
the bay for varied lengths of time, but not permanently, and they are interesting elements to watch that
add scale and variety to views.
5-8
5.1.6
Designated Viewpoints, Scenic View Routes, and View

Corridors
CityofSeattleregulations(SMC25.05.675.P)establishtheCityspolicyforprotectingpublicviewsof
valuednaturalandmanmadefeaturesfromspecifiedviewpoints,parks,viewcorridors,andscenicview
routes.TheCitysenvironmentalpoliciesdescribedinSMC25.05.675.Pareintendedtoprotectviewsof
distinctivefeatures,includingMountRainier,theOlympicMountains,thedowntownskyline,andPuget
Sound,asseenfrompublicviewinglocationssuchasdesignatedparks,viewpoints,andscenicroutes.In
additiontoSEPAdesignatedviewpointsandscenicviewroutes,
theCityofSeattleLandUseCode(SMC23.49.024)establishes
Viewshedisthesumofwhatcanbe
viewcorridorsondesignatedstreets(generallyorientedeast
seenfromanindividualsposition
(viewpoint).Theviewsheddefines
west)whereadjacentbuildingsarerequiredtohavesetbacksto
theprimarystudyareafor
maintainopenviews.Whentheterm"viewcorridor"isusedin
aestheticsandisacompositeofall
thisFinalEIS,itreferstotheviewcorridorsestablishedinthe
theviewsbothtowardtheproject
LandUseCode.
TheSEPAdesignatedviewpointsandscenicviewroutesandthe
LandUseCodeviewcorridorsareshownonFigure53.
DesignatedviewinglocationswithintheAWPOWstudyarea
include:
WaterfrontPark
VictorSteinbrueckPark
AlaskanWay
ElliottAvenue
YeslerWay
S.JacksonStreet
FifthAvenue
I5
DennyWay
AportionofBroadStreet
5.2
andfromtheproject.
Viewpointsandscenicviewroutes
arelocationsandroadwayswhere
viewsofimportantnaturaland
manmadefeaturescanbeseen.
TheseplacesaredesignatedbyCity
SEPApolicy(SMC25.05.675.P).
Viewcorridorsaredesignated
streets(generallyorientedeast
west)whereadjacentlanduseis
regulatedtomaintainopenviews
(SMC23.49.024).
TheconstructionimpactsforthePreferredandNoActionalternativesweredeterminedbyassessingthe
differencebetweenthevisualqualityratingoftheaffectedenvironment(2017existingconditions)and
thevisualqualityratingduringtheconstructionphaseforbothalternatives.Impactswereratedas
minor,moderate,orsubstantialinaccordancewiththecriteriainTable54.
Table 5-4.
Explanation of Impact Ratings

Minor
Moderate
Substantial
No or few physical changes result from

the project.
Changes in qualities of vividness,

intactness, or unity are noticeable.
Changes in qualities of vividness,

intactness, or unity are obvious.
Important views are not affected.
Important views may be affected but are

still available.
Important views are disrupted or

blocked.
Viewers are not likely to notice visual

changes.
Viewers are aware of visual changes.
Viewers see and are sensitive to

visual change.
Changes in shadow or light levels and

glare may occur, but are not noticeable.
Changes in shadow levels or light and

glare are noticeable, but not conspicuous.
Changes in shadow levels or

light and glare are pronounced.
Source:AdaptedfromFHWA1988
5-9
VI
SB
O
FF
RP
BAY
EL LI
OR
TH
O
8T
H
RR
RR
N
ST
N
ST
N
IS
O
IS
O
9T H
AV E
9T H
R
TE R
9T H
R
TE R
9T H
R
TE R
BO R
EN
AV E
M IN
OR
AV E
M IN
E
YAL
CO U
AV E
9T H
R
TE R
BO R
OR
EN
E
Y AV
AV E
AV E
AV E
RT
ST
SO
ST
ST
NG
JA
MA
IN
CK
ST
WA
Y
KI
SL
YE
HI
NG
S
E
8T H AV
AV E
VE
YA
WA
S
AV E
AV E
VE
YA
TO
N
ER
8T H
AV E
E
Y AV
AV
E
AV
E
ST
HA
RR
IS
O
OR
RE
BO
IS
O
MA
AV
E
HA
RR
ST
AV
MIN
HA
TH
O
HA
MA
AV
E
ST
MA
AV
E
MA
S
TH
O
TH
O
ST
YA
L
AV
E
ST
OR
RY
ST
MA
AS
AV
E
VE
RE
TH
O
SA
BO
ST
YA
L
MIN
IU
ST
ST
PR
JO
H
RT
WA
ST E
EX
NT
TH
O
ST
ST
AV
E
AV
E
ST
AV
E
JO
HN
PO
TE
R
JO
H
OR
AV
E
MA
JO
H
RE
T
MIN
RY
TH
O
BO
9T
H
ST
ST
IA S
I5
E
AV
E
6T
H
AV
E
ST
AD
AV
E
AV
BR O
AV
RA
AV
E
ST
AV
E
5T
H
ST
ER
TH
TA
YL
RO
AV
E
AD
JO
H
ST
TE
R
HN
G IN
IV
VE
ST
AV
AV
E
BR O
PL
BLV
LE
AT T
SE
DS
IN
RN
AV
E
ST
AV
E
HI
LL
AD
OR
4T
H
BR O
MA
STE
WA
Y
WE
NN
Y
ST
DE
LE
JO
JO
H
JO
ST
VIR
OL
VE
W
AY
YW
AY
PL
VE
SA
AV
E
IU
OR
NN
ST
9T
H
NT
DE
RT
WA
MIN
AV
E
JO
H
WA
Y
RA
AV
E
AV
E
ST
DE
XT
ST
8T
H
ST
O
LE N
RY
AV
E
HN
ST
WA
Y
NN
ST
EA
JO
H
DE
RA
IA S
RE
9T
H
2N
D
D
WA
Y
VINE
NY
DE
ST
WA
Y
WA
R
ST
ST
AV
E
ST
AV
E
PL
EN
N
AR
LL
WA
T
LS
BE L
6T
H
A RD
G IN
NN
OS
O
LE N
VIR
BO
FA
IR
PO
DE
AW
ST E
IV
ST
CR
OL
IV
E
AV
E
LR
ST
OL
IT
EL L
MM
ME
ST
SU
HO W
I5
PR
S B P IK
TE
R
VI
and
EW
AV
Overlook Walk FinalE EIS
RT
WA
EX
I5
ST E
R
YALE AVE
I5
AV
E
AV
PI
N
VE
MINOR AVE
PL
NT
ST
FF
RD
EA
EL L
VU
OS
HO W
LL
E
FO
ST
W
LR
OLIVE WAY OLIVE WAY
VE
LI
AW
RP
TU NN EL
I5 BUS
PINE ST
BE
IT
LM
O
MM
PIKE ST E PIKE ST
SU
CR
BE
PL
I5
PIKE ST
VE
AV
E
OLIVE WAY OLIVE WAY
RD
ME
TA
YL
AV
E
Figure 5-3
SEPA-Designated Parks with
Protected Viewpoints and Scenic View Routes,
and Land Use Code View Corridors
LL
WE
TA
PINE ST
I5
FO
VU
BOREN AVE
5T
H
AU
AV E
8T H
HO
PL
AV
LL
E
AV
E
N CH
ST
ST
OLIVE WAY
UNION ST
ST
ON
NT
MINOR AVE
9TH AVE
NO
4T
H
AV E
5T H
BL A
IN IA
RT
WA
O
TI
S
9TH AVE 9TH AVE
UNION ST
SENECA ST
SPRING ST SPRING ST
MADISON ST
MARION ST
LM
O
AW
MI
PINE ST
EN
UNION ST
ES
CE D
T
ES
AV E
4T H
AV E
7T H
EA
VE
ST
VIN
ST
G
VIR
ST E
LA
K
RE
AD
T
YS
CL A
T
LS
BE L
VE
ST
ST
PIKE ST
Building Footprint
CHERRY ST
YL
PL
JAMES ST
SUMMIT AVE SU
M
BO
PR
BB
EL I5 N
LP B
L
TERRY AVE
BE
CR
BOYLSTON AVE
BOREN AVE
MINOR AVE
BE
HU
BOREN AVE
BOREN AVE BOREN AVE BOREN AVE
MINOR AVE MINOR AVE MINOR AVE
I5
TERRY AVE
TERRY AVE
Parcel
8TH AVE
AVE
8THBoundary
8TH AVE
9TH AVE 9TH AVE
View Corridor / Direction of View Outside the Project Area

Parks with Protected Views
L
EL
COLUMBIA ST
Extent
of View Corridor / Direction of View
TERRY AVE
BB
9TH AVE
I5
HU
Scenic View Routes
MADISON ST
Potential
Construction
Staging Area
9TH AVE
9TH AVE 9TH AVE
9TH AVE
9TH AVE
AVE
8TH AVE
8TH AVE
8TH AVE
SENECA ST
8TH AVE
SPRING ST SPRING ST SPRING ST
8TH AVE
MARION ST MARION ST MARION ST MARION ST
9TH
COLUMBIA ST
8TH AVE
Project Footprint
JEFFERSON ST
TERRACE ST
ALDER ST
EC TO
CO LL
I5 N B
9TH AVE
CHERRY ST
9TH AVE
8TH AVE
JAMES ST JAMES ST
1,000
ALDER ST
AV
E
8TH AVE
JEFFERSON ST
WA
Y
Feet
8T
H
A RD
ST
IN IA
RT
WA
6TH AVE
PINE ST
ES
ER
500
N CH
RA
G
VIR
ST E
PINE ST
6TH AVE
6TH AVE
AV
ST
SL
AVE
AV E
6T H
YE
AV
E
AVE
AV E
5T H
WE
8T
H
2N D
5TH AVE
PIKE ST
PIKE ST
AV
E
AR
A
3R D
AV E
4T H
UNION ST
7T
H
YN
5TH AVE
UNIVERSITY ST
MA
AV
2N D
3R D
4TH AVE
SENECA ST
AV
E
AV
E
AV
E
SPRING ST
8T
H
7T
H
6T
H
MADISON ST
AL
AL
4TH AVE
MARION ST
AV
E
3RD AVE
CHERRY ST
AV
E
AR
JAMES ST
7T
H
ON
AV
E
AV E
1S T
N AV
AV E
1S T
CE
2ND AVE
3RD AVE
TERRACE ST
NT
5T
H
UNION ST
ST
NG
AV
E
MA
YN
KI
COLUMBIA ST
AR
2ND AVE
AV
UNIVERSITY ST
SENECA ST
AV
E
AV
E
AV
LA
EP
1ST AVE
SPRING ST
6T
H
RR
4T
H
3R
D
AV
E
AV
E
MADISON ST
2ND AV ET S
TA
L
MARION ST
I FI
EN
1S
T
PIK
POST AVE
COLUMBIA ST
PA
C
8T
H
RN
ST
CA
HE
ER
AV
E
RT
EL
L
MA
YN
2N
D
AV
E
NO
TH
AV
E
C ID
WESTERN AVE
CHERRY ST
5T
H
AV
E
OC
JAMES ST
4T
H
AV
E
T ER
BL A
1S
T
W ES
O
LE N
AV
E
Victor Steinbrueck
Park
WA
R
EA G
AY
NW
ALASKAN WAY
4T
H
AV E
IO TT
BR O
SKA
EL L
ST
AL A
AD
Waterfront
Park
VE
YS
Pier 56
Pier 55
Seattle
Aquarium
Pier 57
R
IL
TER
Pier 54
Colman Dock
BN
RA
SF
BAT
Pier 62/63
ST
Pier 48
RAILROAD WAY S
NA
ST
WA
Y
T ER
W ES
ST
BAY
KA
ST
AS
AD
AL
LL
WA
AV
E
BR O
AV
E
AR
TA
L
E
VIN
EN
CE D
C ID
RR
T
YS
CL A
1S
T
OC
ST
Elliott Bay
BN
5.2.1
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no construction activity and therefore no construction
impacts on aesthetics.
5.2.2
Construction activities for the Preferred Alternative would result in temporary impacts on aesthetics
within the project viewshed. The construction of the new Alaskan Way-Elliott Way corridor would occur
in sections ranging from one block to several blocks in length. Because the work would be done in
segments, most views would be affected for only a portion of the overall construction period, and longdistance views of visual resources to the west from higher vantage points would generally not be
affected. Construction of the East-West Connections on S. Main, S. Washington, Union, and Bell Streets
would occur in one-block to two-block segments for approximately 1 year during the overall
construction period. Construction activities would primarily be visible only to viewers in the immediate
vicinity. However, construction of the new elevator shafts at Union Street could potentially affect longdistance views for a short period from locations on Union Street east of Post Alley. Visual quality would
be degraded for all of the land-based landscape units during construction as a result of:
Presence and movement of construction vehicles and equipment
Staging areas and stored construction materials
Temporary work structures for construction of the Elliott Way bridge over the railroad tracks and
for construction of the Union Street Pedestrian Connection
Safety and erosion control devices such as high visibility or screening fences
Exposed soils, dust, exhaust, and airborne debris in areas of active construction
Temporary lighting for night construction (if needed)
Disruption to traffic, which would change the normal habits of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists
and require detour signage
Construction impacts on each landscape unit, and the resulting visual quality levels, are discussed in the
following sections. Table 5-5 provides a summary of the visual quality levels for each landscape unit
during construction. Taken as a whole, adverse construction impacts for the project viewshed would be
moderate because construction activities are not expected to be present throughout the entire project
footprint at any point in time; rather, they will be temporary and transitory in nature.
5-11
Table 5-5. Summary of Construction Visual Quality Levels and Impacts for the
Landscape
Unit
Pioneer
Square
Southern end
of project
footprint
Waterfront
All of the
Alaskan Way
corridor along
the waters
edge, portions
of the Overlook
Walk, and the
location of the
Aquarium
Pavilion
Downtown
Eastern border
of the project
footprint
Pike Place
Belltown
Northern end of
the project
footprint
Elliott Bay
Open water to
the west of the
harbor piers
Medium
Overall
Visual
Quality
Level
Medium
Construction
Period
Impact
Rating
Moderate
Low
Substantial
Low
Substantial
Medium
Moderate
High
Minor
Vividness
Medium
Intactness
Medium
Unity
Disrupted and
cluttered views at
western edge.
Temporary loss
of the western
edge of the
landscape.
Low
Low
Equipment and
activities are out of
scale and character at
western edge and on
S. Main and
S. Washington
Streets.
Low
Construction would
not directly impact
features that
primarily contribute
to visual quality, but
would detract from
the setting and
affect views from
scenic view routes.
Temporary
impacts to
large parts of
the landscape.
Equipment and
materials are out of
scale and character
with context.
Medium
Low
Low
Disrupted and
degraded views of
scenic resources
from the western
edge and on Union
Street east of Post
Alley.
High
Temporary
impacts to
large parts of
the landscape.
Equipment and
material are out of
scale and character
with context.
Medium-Low
Medium-Low
Construction would
not directly impact
features that
to visual quality.
High
Temporary loss
of small part of
landscape.
Equipment and
material are out of
scale and character
with context.
High
High
Construction
partially visible but
would not directly
impact features that
to visual quality.
No loss of any
part of
landscape.
Construction partially
visible; equipment
and material are out
of scale and character
with context.
Note: Landscape units are shown in Figure 5-2.

In this landscape unit, construction equipment and activities would be present in restricted locations
along the front of buildings that define the west edge of the landscape unit and on some of the eastwest streets, particularly S. Main and S. Washington Streets. Along the west edge of this landscape unit,
the existing road and sidewalks would be excavated and rebuilt, utilities re-installed, and new
landscaping installed. The staging area on Pier 48, if used, would be visible; however, the pier is being
used for staging during construction of the SR 99 tunnel and therefore it would not be a noticeable
change in use or character.
5-12
Impacts on views from the Seattle view corridors would be moderate because these views are narrowly
framed by buildings and screened by tree canopies. Impacts on views from the west edge of Pioneer
Square would be substantial because construction materials would be present in all views. All viewer
groups would be sensitive to these impacts, in particular residents, commuters, and workers who would
have regular or continuous exposure to the construction. Tourists and locals seeking entertainment may
be less affected because they can choose to avoid the construction areas.
Overall, the visual quality of the Pioneer Square landscape unit would be medium during construction.
Most of the construction activity would be at the perimeter of the landscape unit and on S. Main and S.
Washington Streets. Vividness would be medium because construction activities would disrupt and
clutter views. Unity and intactness would be medium because the integrity of the landscape would be
disturbed by the prevalence of equipment and activities, as well as by the temporary loss of access to a
portion of the landscape unit.

Construction equipment and activities would be present and visible throughout the landscape unit as
the existing roads and sidewalks are excavated, utilities and new landscaping installed, and the new
roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities built. Impacts in this landscape unit would be greater than in
the other landscape units due to extensive reconstruction of the roadway and pedestrian facilities, and
construction of the Overlook Walk lid; Building B; and the Marion Street pedestrian bridge. Construction
activities for the Overlook Walk and the proposed Aquarium Pavilion would be prominent elements of
the view in this landscape unit, likely requiring heavy excavation equipment, pile drivers, cranes, staging
areas, and other visual elements of the construction process. The staging area on Pier 62/63, if used,
would be prominent and would look very different from the existing open deck.
Impacts on views along Alaskan Way, a scenic view route, and inland from Waterfront Park, a scenic
viewpoint, would be substantial, especially during construction of the Overlook Walk, which would be
visible as far south as the southern end of the project footprint at Pioneer Square. Westward views
across Alaskan Way toward regional scenic vistas would be affected to the degree that the foreground
would include construction materials, which would clutter and disrupt the view. In the event that safety
fencing is used, views from street level may be blocked. However, views westward from Waterfront Park
and along the seawall would not be impacted because construction elements would be behind the
viewer and viewpoint.
All viewer groups would be sensitive to these impacts, especially residents, commuters, and workers in
the area who would have regular or continuous exposure to views of construction. Residents of the
Waterfront Landings Condominiums would have construction of Alaskan Way in the foreground of their
west-facing views. This impact would be greatest for street-level views. South-facing units in the
southernmost building would experience the highest impacts during construction of the Overlook Walk,
which would dominate the foreground of those views.
Adverse construction impacts on the visual quality of the Waterfront landscape unit would be
temporary, but substantial. The visual quality rating for this landscape unit would be low during
construction. Vividness would be low because all viewpoints in the Waterfront landscape unit would at
one time or another include construction activities as dominant and distracting elements. Unity and
intactness would be low because construction equipment and activities would result in the temporary
loss of large portions of the landscape, would disrupt its integrity, and would not be compatible with
the setting.

Construction equipment and activities would be present along the front of buildings that define the west
edge of the Downtown landscape unit and in restricted locations on some of the Seattle east-west view
corridors and north-south avenues. Along the west edge, the existing road and sidewalks would be
5-13
excavated and rebuilt, utilities re-installed, and new landscaping installed. AWPOW would also
reconstruct the portion of the Marion Street pedestrian bridge over Alaskan Way.
Impacts on views from the Seattle view corridors (Columbia, Marion, Madison, Spring, Seneca,
University, and Union Streets) would be noticeable but not prominent because these views are narrowly
framed by buildings and screened by tree canopies. Construction impacts on the Union Street view
corridor looking westward would be more substantial than those in the other view corridors due to the
construction of the new pedestrian connection. Impacts on views from the west edge of downtown
would be substantial because of the proximity and scale of construction activities and the high quantity
of viewers. All viewer groups would be sensitive to these impacts, but especially residents, commuters,
and workers who would have regular or continuous exposure to the construction. Tourists and locals
seeking entertainment could be less affected because they can choose to avoid the construction areas.
Adverse construction impacts on the visual quality of the Downtown landscape unit would be
temporary, but substantial. The overall visual quality rating would be low during construction. Vividness
would be reduced to medium because construction activities would disrupt and clutter views from the
west edge of the landscape unit and near the staging areas. Intactness and unity would be reduced to
low because the integrity of the landscape would be disturbed by the prevalence of equipment and
activities, as well as by the loss of the western portion of the landscape unit.

Construction equipment and activities would be present in restricted locations in the Pike Place
Belltown landscape unit, but not visible from most places because of the hilly terrain. Construction
activities would involve building the structures along Elliott Way, including the intersection with Pine
Street; building new local street connections; installing new landscaping; and extending Bell Street Park.
Impacts on views from the Seattle view corridors (Lenora, Blanchard, Bell, and Battery Streets) would be
noticeable but not prominent, because these views are limited by buildings and tree canopies.
Construction impacts on the view from the edge of Victor Steinbrueck Park would disrupt the
foreground view and detract from the quality of middle or distant views. Because of the topography and
surrounding urban development, views from Bell Street Park towards the west are not likely to be
impacted by construction on Bell Street between First and Elliott Avenues. Accordingly, most views in
this landscape unit, including the Seattle view corridors, would not be appreciably affected because
construction would, for the most part, be screened by buildings or be below grade and therefore not
generally visible. All viewer groups are expected to be somewhat sensitive to these impacts, but because
the views are not widely available, most viewers would not be affected.
Adverse construction impacts on the visual quality of the Pike PlaceBelltown landscape unit would be
moderate. Overall existing visual quality for the landscape unit is medium. As described above,
construction activities would be extensive within the landscape unit, but would be partially screened by
topography and existing structures from the majority of viewers. The most important character-defining
elements of the landscape unit, including views of Puget Sound, Mount Rainier, and historic buildings,
would generally not be affected by construction. These elements are important contributors to the
vividness of the landscape unit; therefore, the rating for vividness would remain high. Construction
equipment and activities would temporarily impact the intactness and unity of the landscape unit,
although the construction period impacts would be moderate. The ratings for intactness and unity of
visual quality would likely be reduced from medium to medium-low.

The visual quality of Elliott Bay would not be impacted by construction because most views of project
work would be blocked by existing mid-rise buildings along the harbor. Construction would be most
visible from boats and ships docking at Colman Dock or the Bell Harbor Marina. The occasional,
temporary presence of barges would have little impact on views. As a result, there would be no changes
5-14
in vividness, intactness, or unity, which would remain high, and the overall visual quality also would
remain high.
Designated Viewpoints, Scenic View Routes, and View Corridors

Waterfront Park, Alaskan Way at Union Street
Construction impacts on the overall visual quality of westward views of the harbor and Puget Sound
from Waterfront Park would be minor, provided the views did not include construction equipment or
activity. Although occasional barges used for construction support are unlikely to have a substantial
impact on the overall visual quality of the waterfront area or Elliott Bay, their presence could have
substantial short-term impacts on specific views from Waterfront Park if they are located directly
adjacent to the park.
Construction impacts on the visual quality of views to the east of Waterfront Park would be moderate.
The presence of equipment and activity on Union Street during the construction of the new pedestrian
connection would last for approximately 12 months. Construction impacts on vividness, intactness, and
unity of views toward the downtown skyline and Alaskan Way would be temporary, but substantial,
because the proximity of construction activity and equipment would disrupt the landscape and would
not be compatible with the surrounding development.
Victor Steinbrueck Park, Virginia Street at Western Avenue

Construction impacts on the setting of Victor Steinbrueck Park and its views to the west and south
would be moderate. Vividness would be mediumhigh because construction would not affect views of
scenic resources. Intactness and unity would be reduced to low because the proximity of construction
activity and equipment would disrupt near- and middle-ground landscapes, and would not be
compatible with the surrounding development.
Scenic View Routes

Long-distance views of scenic resources from scenic view routes would be affected by objects in the
near-ground field of view. Alaskan Way, S. Jackson Street, and Yesler Way are identified as Seattle scenic
view routes that have views of Puget Sound, the Kitsap Peninsula, and the Olympic Mountains. Views
westward along S. Jackson Street and Yesler Way are screened by street trees and partially blocked by
structures on Colman Dock, but could include some construction activity where the street intersects
with Alaskan Way when activities are occurring in that location.
View Corridors
Construction impacts on the view corridors would be moderate to substantial, depending on how far the
construction work extends up the view corridor and whether there is a construction staging area nearby.
Impacts would be moderate for construction work that takes place in the Alaskan Way corridor because
it would be less visible from the view corridors, where tree canopies would screen some of the activities.
5.3
Operational Impacts
This section discusses visual impacts of the Preferred Alternative compared to the No Action Alternative.
Figures 5-4 through 5-9 show visualizations of the No Action and Preferred alternatives along with
photographs showing the same views as they are today. These visualizations are from the six key
viewpoints listed in Table 5-1 and shown on Figure 5-1. Impacts were determined by assessing the
difference between the visual quality level for the 2017 existing conditions, summarized in Table 5-3,
and the visual quality level following completion of construction for the Preferred Alternative,
summarized in Table 5-6. The differences between the 2017 existing conditions (the No Action
Alternative) and the Preferred Alternative were rated. Impacts were rated as minor, moderate, or
substantial in accordance with the criteria in Table 5-4, and are summarized in Table 5-7.
5-15
Figure 5-4.
Visualization at Viewpoint 1:
South Main Street,
looking northwest
5-16
Figure 5-5.
Marion Street Pedestrian Bridge,
looking northwest
5-17
Figure 5-6.
Union Street Pier (Waterfront Park),
looking southeast
5-18
Figure 5-7.
Union Street Pier (Waterfront Park),
looking north
5-19
Figure 5-8.
Pier 62/63, looking east
toward downtown
5-20
Figure 5-9.
Victor Steinbrueck Park,
looking south
5-21
Table 5-6.
Summary of Operational Visual Quality Levels for the Preferred Alternative
Landscape Unit1
Pioneer Square
Southern end of
project footprint
Vividness
High
Improved setting for
memorable historic
buildings on west
edge.
Waterfront
All of the Alaskan
Way corridor along
the waters edge,
portions of the
Overlook Walk,
and the location of
the Aquarium
Pavilion
High
Improved views and
setting of historic
buildings and
memorable elements.
Some project
elements could block
or intrude on valued
views.
Downtown
Eastern border of
the project footprint
High
Improved setting for
downtown architecture
and views.
Pike Place
Belltown
Northern end of the
project footprint
High
Improved views and
setting for historic
buildings and
memorable elements.
Elliott Bay
Open water to the
west of the harbor
piers
High
No impacts from
Intactness
High
Urban design features
would make visual
character of west edge
more in keeping with the
urban character.
MediumHigh
Landscaping and urban
design features would
unify the traffic corridor
with the waterfront.
Major project elements
would interrupt the
linear footprint of the
landscape unit and
scenic view route.
High
Urban design features
would make the visual
character of the west
edge integral with
downtowns urban
character.
MediumHigh
Project features would
make part of the
landscape more
consistent, but not yet
integrated with the
setting.
High
No impacts from
Overall Visual
Unity
Quality Level
High
MediumHigh
Sidewalk and street
improvements would be
more harmonious with
the historic character of
Pioneer Square.
MediumHigh
MediumHigh
Landscaping and
urban design features
would be harmonious
with the existing
setting; scale and
contemporary
character of some new
structures would
contrast with the
existing historic
setting.
High
High
Scale and contemporary
character of new
elements would be
harmonious with the
whole landscape unit.
MediumHigh
Development would be
responsive to the
topography and
setting. Sidewalk and
street improvements
would be more
harmonious with the
landscape unit.
High
No impacts from
Medium-High
High
Landscape units are shown on Figure 5-2.
5.3.1
There would be no visual impacts or benefits under the No Action Alternative because it would be
identical to the 2017 existing conditions.
5.3.2
Operational impacts of the Preferred Alternative would generally be positive because the streetscape
and pedestrian spaces would be considered an aesthetic enhancement compared to the No Action
Alternative. These impacts are described below by landscape unit. Elements of the Preferred Alternative
that are expected to enhance visual quality include trees and shrubs in planters; gathering areas with
seating; and custom paving patterns and lighting. They also include several large landscaped open
spaces: the area adjacent to Colman Dock, the Aquarium Plaza, and the Overlook Walk lid. These
additions would improve the overall setting of the scenic viewpoints and view corridors. The
5-22
PreferredAlternativestreetscapeandpedestrianspaceswouldgenerallybeconsideredanaesthetic
enhancementcomparedtotheNoActionAlternative.However,negativeimpactsfromtheAction
Alternativecouldariseiftreecanopiesandkiosktowersweretoblockorinterferewithscenicviews
alongthewaterfrontortowardPugetSoundandtheOlympicMountains.Table56summarizesthe
visualqualitylevelsforeachlandscapeunit.ThePreferredAlternative,comparedtotheNoAction
Alternative,wouldproducehighlynoticeableandgenerallypositivechangesinthevisualcharacterof
theprojectfootprint(seeTable57).Adverseimpactsaregenerallyexpectedtobeminor.Thelargest
changesinvisualcharacterandqualitywouldresultfrom:
Anewsystemofpedestrianandbicyclefacilitiesthatwouldimprovethevisualconsistencyofthe
Waterfrontlandscapeunit.
TheOverlookWalk,BuildingB,andtheproposedAquariumPavilion,whichwouldbenew
dominantstructuresinviewsfromtheWaterfrontandPikePlaceBelltownlandscapeunits.
Trees,shrubs,andgroundcoversinmediansandplantersthatwouldcontributecolor,texture,and
rhythmtothelandscapeandwouldalsoreducetheapparentscaleofthecorridorbydefiningthe
narrowertravelwayswithinit.Insomelocations,theseelementscouldblockorimpededesirable
views.
Newkioskstructuresthatwouldbeprominentinthehistoricpiersectionofthewaterfront
(Piers54to59).ThekioskscouldimpactviewsalongdesignatedviewcorridorsatSeneca,Spring,
Union,andUniversityStreets.
Table 5-7.
Comparison of Overall Operational Visual Quality Levels and Impact Ratings for the
No Action and Preferred Alternatives
Landscape Unit1
Pioneer Square
Southern end of project footprint
Waterfront
All of the Alaskan Way corridor
along the waters edge
Downtown
Eastern border of the project
footprint
Pike PlaceBelltown
Northern end of the project footprint
Elliott Bay
Open water to the west of the
harbor piers
Overall Visual Quality Level

No Action
Preferred
Alternative
Alternative
MediumHigh
High
Impacts Compared to
No Action Alternative1
Moderate to substantial benefits; minor
adverse impact (view blockage by trees)
Medium
MediumHigh
Medium
High
Medium
MediumHigh
Moderate benefits; no adverse impacts
High
High
Minor or no benefits or adverse impacts
Substantial benefits; moderate adverse

impact (view blockage and changes in
form, texture, and materials)
Moderate benefits; minor adverse
impacts (shadow and shade)
1Impactswereratedasminor,moderate,orsubstantialinaccordancewiththecriteriainTable54.

ThePreferredAlternativewouldimprovevisualqualityinthePioneerSquarelandscapeunitbyaddinga
new20to30footwidesidewalk,pavement,andcurbstodelineateparkingandpedestrianzones,
parkingspacestriping,andlandscapingonAlaskanWay(seeViewpoint1,shownonFigures51and54).
ThenewconfigurationandlandscapingwouldbufferthebuildingsandsidewalkfromtrafficonAlaskan
Way.Deciduousstreettreesaddedbytheprojectwouldmakethisareamoreinkeepingwiththeoverall
characterofPioneerSquareandtietheedgeoftheprojectfootprintmoredistinctlytothislandscape
unit.StreettreesinmediansandplantersonAlaskanWaywouldcontinuethelandscapingwestward,
makingtheentireareafeellikeaunifiedlandscape.Inaddition,thesidewalkwideningandadditionof
streettreesalongS.MainandS.WashingtonStreetswouldcontinuetheunifiedlandscapeintoPioneer
Square.Intotal,viewersarelikelytorespondpositivelytothesechanges.
5-23
Adverseoperationalimpactsareexpectedtobeminor,resultingfromblockedorobscuredscenicviews
duetothedensetreecanopiesalongviewcorridorsandAlaskanWay.Thetreecanopiescouldobscure
viewsofdistantscenicresourcesfromSeattleviewcorridors(YeslerWay),viewroutes(S.JacksonStreet
andYeslerWay),andeastweststreets(S.King,S.Main,andS.WashingtonStreets),buttheseviewsare
alreadyaffectedbyexistingtreecanopies.
ComparedtotheNoActionAlternative,thePreferredAlternativewouldhavemoderatetosubstantial
benefitsthatwouldraisethevisualqualitylevelofthePioneerSquarearea.AWPOWwouldreplacethe
undistinguishedswathofpavementandparkingplacesoftheNoActionAlternativewithattractive
urbandesignfeatures.Whilethecontemporarycharacteroftheproposedimprovementswould
contrastwiththemorehistoricallyfocuseddetailinginthePioneerSquarelandscapeunitingeneral,
theywouldbeaestheticallypositivecontributionsthatwouldconnectthisedgeofthePioneerSquare
unittotheunifiedwaterfrontlandscape.VividnessforthePreferredAlternativewouldbehighbecause
theimprovementswouldenhancethesettingofthesedistinctivearchitecturalstylesandviews.
Intactnesswouldbehighbecausethenewlandscapedsidewalkwouldbringtheformerparkingareas
intoalignmentwiththecharacterofPioneerSquare.Unitywouldbemediumhighbecausethenew
landscapedsidewalkwouldbeconsistentandinbalancewiththescaleandcharacterofthesetting.The
overallvisualqualitylevelofthislandscapeunitunderthePreferredAlternativewouldbehigh,
comparedtotheNoActionAlternativesratingofmediumhigh.

Thislandscapeunitwouldundergothemostpronouncedchangesinvisualcharacterandqualityofall
thelandscapeunits.ComparedtotheNoActionAlternative,thePreferredAlternativewouldhave
substantialbenefitsthatwouldimprovevisualqualityinanumberofways.Plantedmedians,buffers,
andwidersidewalksonbothsidesofAlaskanWaywouldscreenbicyclistsandpedestriansfromtraffic
andreducetheapparentscaleoftheroadway.Newgatheringareaswithlandscapingandseatingwould
actasfocalpointswithinthelargerlandscapecontext.TheOverlookWalklidwouldprovidenewaccess
toviewsofthewaterfrontanditsscenicsettingandwouldcreatealarge,landscapedpublicopenspace.
BecausetheOverlookWalkwouldaccommodatetheSeattleAquariumsproposedAquariumPavilion,
thepotentialbuildingenvelopeofthatseparateprojectisalsoconsideredinthislandscapeunit;as
discussedinChapter2,thebuildingsuses,functions,size,andformwillbeevaluatedbytheSeattle
Aquariuminaseparateenvironmentaldocument.Specificimpactsoffeatureswithinthislandscapeunit
aresummarizedbelow.
5-24
Thelandscaping,consistentmaterials,anddesignapproachalongthePromenadeandthenew,
widersidewalksontheeastsideofAlaskanWaywouldcreateaestheticcontinuityalongthe
waterfront,whichwouldimproveintactnessandunityforthelandscapeunitasawhole.Linear
bandsoftreesandshrubswouldprovidevisualdemarcationtodifferentiateAlaskanWay,the
bicycleandpedestrianfacilities,andthePromenade;bufferthesepathsandlanesfromeachother;
andreducetheperceivedwidthofAlaskanWay.Thecontinuityandlinearityofthelandscaping
wouldunifythecorridorandgiveitaparkwaycharacter.Theoveralleffectwouldenhancethe
experienceoftravelingthroughthewaterfrontandcreateaninvitingpublicopenspacefor
walking,sitting,cycling,andviewing.However,thedenseplantingsmayscreenorblocksome
desirableviewsinthislandscapeunit,increaseshadowandshade,anddiminishtheexpansiveness
ofskyandwaterviewsthatarekeycomponentsofvisualqualityalongthewaterfront.
ThenewgatheringareasnearColmanDock,infrontofthehistoricpiers,andattheAquariumPlaza
wouldincludeshelters,seating,bicycleparking,andformalandinformalclustersoftreesin
terracesoratgradeplanters(seeViewpoint4,shownonFigures51and57).Thesegathering
spaceswouldhelpcreateawelcomingandattractivepublicspacebyenhancingcohesiveness
throughoutthePromenade.Theimprovedcohesivenessandpleasingvisualcharacterwould
improveunityandintactness,therebyimprovingoverallvisualquality.
KioskswouldbelocatedonthePromenadeinfrontofthehistoricpierbuildings,atthe
intersectionsofAlaskanWaywithSpring,Seneca,University,andUnionStreets(seeViewpoints3
and4,shownonFigures51,56,and57),allofwhichareviewcorridors.Atypicalkioskfootprint
wouldbe16feetby16feet,andthestructurewouldbeapproximately45feethigh.Inthecurrent
preliminarydesign,theupperpartofatypicalkioskwouldbeofreflectivematerialsarrayedinflat
planesatdifferentangles,likeafacetedtower.Theheightofthekioskswouldmakethemalmost
astallasthehistoricpiersheds.Thereflectivematerialsoftheupperstructurewouldcontrastwith
thematerialsandcolorsofthehistoricbuildingsand,dependingonfinaldesign,maybeperceived
bysomeviewersasreducingtheunityandintactnessofthelandscape.Thereflectivesurfaces
couldbenewsourcesofglare.
TheOverlookWalkwouldcreateanewstructureinthelandscapethatwouldofferscenicviewsof
thenewAlaskanWaylandscape,thewaterfront,ElliottBay,PugetSound,andtheOlympic
Mountains.Thenewstructurewouldprovideaccesstotheseviewsfromitslidandstairs.Because
theOverlookWalkwouldbelocatedjustnorthofwhereAlaskanWaybendswestwardtofollow
theshoreline,thenewstructure,alongwiththechangestothealignmentofAlaskanWayand
constructionofanewsegmentofPineStreet,woulddividetheAlaskanWaycorridorvisuallyand
physicallyintoseparatenorthandsouthsegments(seeViewpoint6,shownonFigures51and59),
andwouldserveasthenewvisualterminusforviewsfromAlaskanWay(seeViewpoint5,shown
onFigures51and58).Thiswouldresultinasubstantialchangetothecharacterandaestheticsof
thenorthernhalfoftheWaterfrontlandscapeunitandamoderatechangetoviewsfromother
landscapeunits.Theimpactstopublicviewswouldincludeareductionintheoverallsenseof
opennessandlossofmoredistantviewsalongthewaterfront;however,thenewstructureswould
notimpactviewstoElliottBay,theOlympicMountains,ordowntown.Someoftheseimpacts
wouldlikelybeoffsetbytheaestheticbenefitsofthePreferredAlternative.Manyviewersarelikely
tofindtheOverlookWalkattractiveinitselfasanaestheticenhancementtothewaterfront,and
thenewviewopportunitiesfromelevatedportionsofthestructurewouldcontributetotheoverall
enjoymentofthescenicsetting.Thecomplexityandcontemporaryarchitecturalcharacterofthe
OverlookWalkandBuildingBwouldbeverydifferentfromthepredominantlyolderandsimpler
structuresthatcontributetothevisualcharacteroftheareanearthehistoricpiersintheNoAction
Alternative.
TheAquariumPavilionwouldextendtheviewscreatedbytheOverlookWalkbyprovidingan
additional0.3acreofpublicopenspaceonitsroofthatwouldbeaccessiblefromtheOverlook
Walklid.TheseviewswouldbeclosertothewaterthanthosefromtheOverlookWalk.The
AquariumPavilionwouldhaveasimilarfootprintasthepublicstaircaseandBuildingCforthe
ActionAlternativeintheDraftEIS,butitwouldbealargerstructureinthisprominentlocationand
wouldaddtothechangeinthecharacterandaestheticsoftheWaterfrontlandscapeunit
describedabovefortheOverlookWalk.Thestructurecouldpotentiallyblockviewsfromsome
publicareasforexample,somelimitedviewstowarddowntownfromthenorthsideofthe
AquariumPlaza.However,thebuildingsproposedsetting,withitsstructuretuckedagainstthe
structureoftheOverlookWalk,wouldlimitboththeareasfromwhichviewswouldbeaffectedand
theviewsthatcouldbeblocked.Theactualviewimpactsmayvaryfromthosegenerallydescribed
inthisFinalEISbecausetheywouldbedependentuponthefinaldesignoftheAquariumsbuilding.
ThepotentialbuildingenvelopefortheAquariumPavilionisnotexpectedtodirectlyaffectany
publicviewsspecificallyregulatedunderSeattlecodes.
AdverseoperationalimpactsfromthePreferredAlternativeontheWaterfrontlandscapeunitare
expectedtobemoderate.Adverseimpactscouldresultfromlimitedblockedorobscuredlongdistance
viewstoPugetSound,theOlympicMountains,andtheSeattleskylinewhenviewedfromafew
locationswithinorneartheprojectarea.Mostpublicandprivateviewswouldnotbeaffected.
Designatedviewcorridors,viewpoints,andthemajorityofscenicviewrouteswouldnotbeaffected.
SomeviewsalongAlaskanWay,adesignatedscenicviewroute,wouldbemodifiedbytherealignment
5-25
oftheroadwayandnewprojectelements;however,viewstoElliottBay,thedowntownskyline,andthe
Olympicsarenotlikelytobeaffected.Similarly,proposeddesignelementswouldbeprominentinviews
fromVictorSteinbrueckParkandWaterfrontPark;however,viewstoElliottBay,thedowntownskyline,
andtheOlympicswouldnotlikelybeaffected.Theprimarycontributorstopotentialimpactswouldbe
theOverlookWalk,kiosks,andnewstreettrees.ThebuildingenvelopeoftheAquariumPavilion,as
currentlydesigned,wouldalsocontributetopotentialimpacts.
Thescaleandproximityoftheproposedkioskstothehistoricpiershedscouldbeperceivedbysome
viewersasreducingthequalityoftheviewstothisassemblageofbuildings,withpotentialimpactson
theunityofthevisualenvironmentinthissectionofthelandscapeunit.
OnthenorthernsideofthePineStreetextension,therewouldbemoderateimpactstosouthand
southeastwardviewsfromthesouthernendoftheWaterfrontLandingsCondominiums.Althoughviews
fromprivatepropertyarenotprotectedundertheCityofSeattlesSEPAordinanceorLandUseCode,
viewsfromtheseunitswouldbeaffected.Theseviewscurrentlyincludeasmallofficebuilding,
driveway,parkingarea,loadingzone,andAlaskanWay,aswellaslimitedwaterandpierviewsforsome
units.ThesmallofficebuildingwouldbereplacedbythePineStreetextension,whichwouldbe
supportedbyaretainingwallasitrisestowardElliottWay.Theretainingwall,OverlookWalknorth
stairway,andtheOverlookWalklidoverAlaskanWaywouldbeprominentinviewsfromthesouth
facingcondominiums.Fromthelowerfloorsofthesouthernmostportionofthecondominiumbuilding,
theviewsdescribedabovemaybepartiallyorentirelyblockedbytheretainingwall.Somelowerfloor
unitsonthesouthsidemayexperienceincreasedshadingasaresultoftheretainingwall.TheAquarium
Pavilionwouldalsobevisiblefromtheseunitsandwouldblocksomeexistingviews.Usersofthe
OverlookWalkstairwaymayalsobeabletoseeintosouthfacingwindowsofthecondominiums,
creatingprivacyconcerns.
IftheOverlookWalkwereconstructedbeforetheAquariumPavilion,itcoulddetractfromtheoverall
visualqualityofthewaterfront.ThestructuralelementssupportingtheuppersectionoftheOverlook
WalkwouldbeprominentinviewsfromthewaterfrontareasneartheAquariumPlazaandhistoric
piers,andtherewouldnotbeabuildingscreeningAlaskanWayfromtheAquariumPlaza.
Streettreesgenerallyenhanceaesthetics,butalsoscreenviewsandcreateasenseofenclosure.The
treesproposedunderthePreferredAlternativewouldhavethebenefitofreducingtheapparentscale
oftheroadwayandprovidingtheirownintrinsicaestheticbenefit.Streettreeswouldalsopartially
screenviewstoElliottBay,downtown,andthehistoricpiershedsfromsomeviewinglocations.
Overall,thePreferredAlternativewouldimprovethevisualqualityleveloftheWaterfrontlandscape
unitcomparedtotheNoActionAlternative.NewelementsaddedbyAWPOWwould,forthemostpart,
enhanceandunifythevisualcharacterofthelandscape.Vividnesswouldremainhighbecausethenew
urbandesignandlandscapeelementswouldmaintainorenhancetheoverallsettingandforegroundof
valuedviews.Intactnesswouldbemediumhighbecausenewpaths,landscaping,andamenitieswould
tiethelandscapetogethertoreadandfunctionasawhole,buttheOverlookWalk,BuildingB,andthe
kioskswouldintroducecontrastingarchitecturalelementsthatcouldbeperceivedbysomeviewersas
detractingfromtheexistingsetting.TheAquariumPavilion,asalargenewstructure,wouldaddanother
elementofcontrast.Unitywouldbemediumhighbecausethenewlandscapingandbuiltcomponents
wouldbeinternallyconsistentthroughoutthelandscapeunit,buttheircontemporarycharacterwould
contrastwithmanyoftheolderexistingelementsthatdefinethesetting.Protectedviewsfrom
designatedviewinglocationsandscenicviewroutestovisualresourcesincludingElliottBay,the
Olympics,MountRainier,anddowntownSeattlewouldnotlikelybeaffectedbythe
PreferredAlternative.Basedontheaboveassessment,theoverallvisualqualitylevelofthe
PreferredAlternativewouldbemediumhigh,comparedtotheNoActionAlternativesmediumrating.
5-26

Inthislandscapeunit,AWPOWwouldprovidesidewalkimprovements,landscaping,pavement,and
curbsthatwouldmoreclearlydelineatevehicleandpedestrianzonesalongtheeastsideofAlaskanWay
(seeViewpoint2,shownonFigures51and55).Newstreettreeswouldbufferandrefinethe
pedestrianareaandimprovetheoverallstreetcharacter,althoughtheycouldobscureviewsnorthward
andwestwardfromadjacentbuildings.StreettreesinmediansandplantersonAlaskanWaywouldhelp
reducetheperceivedwidthofthecorridorbybreakingtheexpanseofpavementintonarrowerbands.
TheimprovementswouldmaintainviewsofscenicvistasfromtheprotectedviewcorridorsatColumbia,
Marion,Madison,Spring,andSenecaStreets,andwouldbeanattractiveforegroundelementinviews
fromoverlookssuchastheHarborSteps,whicharelocatedonUniversityStreetbetweenWesternand
FirstAvenues.TheUnionStreetPedestrianConnectionwouldincludewalkwayswithnewpublic
viewpointsthatwouldprovidehighqualityviewsofthewaterfrontandElliottBay.Thenewpedestrian
connectionwouldalsoincludeelevatortowersthatwouldbecompatiblewithexistingnearby
development,althoughthetowerswouldpartiallyaltertheviewsofElliottBaycurrentlyprovidedat
UnionStreetjusteastofPostAlley.
Viewersarelikelytohavepositiveresponsestothechanges;residentsandworkersonupperlevels
wouldcontinuetohaveexpansiveviewsofopenwaterandsky;andthecorridorwouldlooklikeagreen
parkway.Adverseoperationalimpactswouldonlyincludeblockageofviewsbytheelevatortoweron
thesoutheastcornerofUnionStreetandWesternAvenue,andshadowsinsomeareasfromthenew
streettrees.
ComparedtotheNoActionAlternative,thePreferredAlternativewouldmoderatelyimprovethevisual
qualityoftheDowntownlandscapeunit.Projectimprovementswouldreplacetheundistinguishedswath
ofpavementandparkingplacesundertheNoActionAlternativewithurbandesignfeaturesandallow
pedestrianstoappreciatethearchitecturalcharacterofthebuildingsonthewestedgeofthedowntown
area.VividnessunderthePreferredAlternativewouldbehighbecauseAWPOWwouldenhancethe
distinctivenessofthearchitecturestylesandviews.Intactnesswouldbehighbecausethenewdesign
wouldcontributetoagreatervisualcoherenceandwouldnotaddelementsthatareoutofplace.Unity
wouldalsobehighbecausethenewlandscapingandbuiltcomponentswouldimproveuponandbein
balancewiththescaleandcharacterofthesetting.Asaresult,overallvisualqualityforthe
PreferredAlternativeinthislandscapeunitwouldbehighcomparedtotheNoActionAlternatives
mediumrating.

AWPOWwouldraisethevisualqualityinthislandscapeunitbyimprovingthecharacterofthearea
betweenPikePlaceMarketandlowerBelltown,whichunderthe2017existingconditionswillbe
occupiedbytheAlaskanWayrightofwaywheretheviaductformerlystood.Mostofthe
PreferredAlternativesimprovementswouldnotbevisiblefromthePikePlaceMarketbecausethe
existingmarketbuildingsandthenewMarketFrontstructurewouldblockthoseviews.ElliottWayand
theOverlookWalkwouldbeprominentinviewsfromthewestedgeofVictorSteinbrueckParkandthe
upperfloorwindowsofnearbybuildings(seeViewpoint6,shownonFigures51and59),butwouldnot
affectlongdistanceviewsfromtheselocations.ThenewintersectionatBlanchardStreet,whereElliott
WaytiesintoElliottandWesternAvenues,wouldbeasubstantialchangefromthevacantrightofway
thatwouldbepresentundertheNoActionAlternative;however,landscaping,pedestriancrossingsand
sidewalks,andbicyclepathswouldmakethescaleandappearanceoftheintersectionconsistentwith
thevisualcharacteroftheBelltownbusinessandresidentialarea.ExtendingBellStreetParkbetween
ElliottandFirstAvenueswouldalsochangetheaestheticsofthissectionofBellStreet,makingitsscale
andappearanceconsistentwiththevisualcharactereastofFirstAvenue.Viewersarelikelytohave
positiveresponsestothechanges.Noadverseoperationalimpactsareanticipatedasaresultofthe
PreferredAlternativeinthislandscapeunit.
5-27
ComparedtotheNoActionAlternative,thePreferredAlternativewouldmoderatelyimprovethevisual
qualityofalimitedareaofthePikePlaceBelltownlandscapeunitthatisnotgenerallyvisibleto
viewers.ThequalityofprotectedviewsfromthewestedgeofVictorSteinbrueckParkwouldbe
dominatedbytheOverlookWalk.However,overallvividnesswouldbehighbecauselongdistanceviews
ofthewaterfront,harbor,andPugetSoundwouldnotbeaffected.Intactnessandunitywouldbe
mediumhighbecausethenewfacilitieswouldbeconsistentwiththeurbancharacterofBelltown,but
outofscalerelativetothesurroundingnetworkofstreets.Theoverallvisualqualitylevelofthe
PreferredAlternativewouldbemediumhighcomparedtotheNoActionAlternativesmediumvisual
qualitylevel.

ThePreferredAlternativewouldnotchangetheoverallvisualqualityoftheElliottBaylandscapeunit,
andviewsfromtheunitwouldnotbeadverselyaffected.Theadditionoflandscapingalongthe
waterfrontwouldonlybenoticeablefromcertainviewanglesbecauseoftheexistingbuildingsalongthe
harbor.Fromviewpointsneartheouterharborline,suchasfromferries,theOverlookWalkcouldbea
noticeableadditiontothebackdropofbuildingsatthefootofdowntowndevelopment,butitprobably
wouldappearsomewhatconsistentandinharmonywiththeexistingbuildings.AlthoughBuildingB
couldbeanewsourceofglare,itwouldnotbenoticeablydifferentfromexistingsourcesofglarealong
theshoreline.Similarly,newandadditionallightingalongtheMainCorridorandPromenadeisnot
expectedtomakethewaterfrontsubstantiallymorevisibleinnighttimeviewsofthecityfromElliott
Bay.MostviewersintheElliottBaylandscapeunitarenotlikelytonoticethechanges.
ComparedtotheNoActionAlternative,thePreferredAlternativecouldhaveaminoradverseimpact
duetotheOverlookWalk.However,vividness,intactness,andunitywouldnotbeaffectedbythe
PreferredAlternativeandwouldremainunchangedfromtheiroriginalhighlevels.Overallvisualquality
ofthePreferredAlternativeandtheNoActionAlternativewouldbehigh.
Designated Viewpoints, Scenic View Routes, and View Corridors

WaterfrontPark,AlaskanWayatUnionStreet
AdverseimpactsonviewsfromWaterfrontParkwouldbemoderateoverall.Lookingnorthwardfrom
WaterfrontPark,theOverlookWalkandAquariumPavilionwouldbeprominentinmostviews.
However,westwardviewsoftheharborandPugetSoundwouldnotbeaffected.Southeastfacingviews
towardthedowntownskylineandAlaskanWaycouldbescreenedbystreettreesorblockedbythe
kiosks(seeViewpoints3and4,shownonFigures51,56,and57).However,vividness,intactness,and
unitywouldbehighoverall.
VictorSteinbrueckPark,VirginiaStreetatWesternAvenue
AWPOWsviewimpactsonVictorSteinbrueckParkwouldbeminor.ElliottWayandtheOverlookWalk
wouldbeprominentinsoutheastwardviewsfromthewestedgeofthepark(seeFigure59),butthey
wouldbeconsistentwiththeurbancharacterofthePikePlaceBelltownlandscapeunit.Westward
viewsofthewaterfront,harbor,andPugetSoundwouldnotbeaffected.TheAquariumPavilionwould
bevisiblefromthepark,butwouldnotblockviewstoElliottBay,thehistoricpiersheds,theOlympics,
orMountRainier.
ScenicViewRoutes
ViewsalongAlaskanWaywouldbesubstantiallyaffectedduetothelossoftheportionofAlaskanWay
inwhichtheOverlookWalkandAquariumPavilionwouldbeconstructed,andcouldbefurtheraffected
bythedensityofstreettreesinthecorridor.ThechangeinalignmentforAlaskanWaywouldresultin
changestothecharacterofviewsfromtheroad,andtheAquariumPavilionwouldbeaprominent
elementintheviewlookingtowardthesouthfromthenorthernsectionoftheroadway.However,the
changeinalignmentandpresenceoftheAquariumPavilionwouldnotblockviewsfromAlaskanWayto
5-28
anyoftheviewsspecificallyidentifiedintheCityofSeattlesSEPAordinance,includingElliottBay,the
OlympicMountains,downtown,orMountRainier.
ViewsofdistantscenicresourcesfromtheSeattlescenicviewroutesatYeslerWayandS.JacksonStreet
couldbeobscuredbythenewAlaskanWaystreettreeswhenthecanopiesbecomedenseand
continuous;however,theseviewsarealreadyaffectedbyexistingtreecanopies.
ViewCorridors
AWPOWwouldhaveminoradverseoperationalimpactsonviewsalongsomeSeattleviewcorridors,
butwouldnotaffectothers.Potentialimpactsarenotedbecauseoftherecognizedvaluesofviews
alongthesecorridors;however,noneoftheproposedprojectelementsarethetypesofbuilding
projectsthatwouldbesubjecttospecificsetbackrequirements.NearthePioneerSquarelandscape
unit,viewsalongS.King,S.Main,S.Jackson,andS.WashingtonStreets,includingYeslerWay,are,for
themostpart,currentlyblockedbystructuresonPiers46and48andColmanDock.Theseviewsarealso
seasonallyscreenedbyexistingtreecanopiesthatdisruptviewsofdistantscenicresources.AWPOW
couldresultinadditionalscreeningbecauseofthedensityoftheAlaskanWaystreettrees.
IntheWaterfrontlandscapeunit,theproposedkioskswouldbesimilartotheheightoftheexisting
historicpiersheds.Dependingonthefinaldesign,thekioskscouldpotentiallyblockviewsofthepiers
fromtheviewcorridorsonSpring,Seneca,andUniversityStreets,althoughimpactswouldbeminor
becauseviewsaretothesidesofthehistoricpiersheds,ratherthantheirfrontfaces.Attheircurrent
proposedheight,thekiosksarenotexpectedtointerferewithviewsofPugetSoundortheOlympic
Mountains.
NeartheDowntownlandscapeunit,viewsalongColumbia,Marion,Madison,Spring,andSenecaStreets
areforthemostpartcurrentlyblockedbyharborbuildingsandthereforewouldnotbeaffectedby
AWPOW.Similarly,theprojectwouldnotaffectviewsalongPine,Stewart,orVirginiaStreets.Viewsof
distantvisualresourcesareavailableatoverlooksatUniversityandUnionStreetsalongFirstAvenue.
ThesewestwardviewswouldnotbeaffectedbytheAlaskanWaylandscapingbecausethetreecanopies
wouldbebelowthelineofsightfromtheseoverlooks.TheAlaskanWaylandscapewouldbean
attractiveforegroundelementinviewsfromoverlookssuchastheHarborSteps.
NearthePikePlaceBelltownlandscapeunit,viewsalongLenora,Blanchard,andBatteryStreetswould
notbeaffectedbyAWPOWbecausetheseviewsarecurrentlylimitedbybuildingsandtreecanopies;
moreover,mostoftheprojectelementsarebelowthelevelofthesestreets.
5-29
Noise
This chapter provides a summary of the existing noise levels in the study area and evaluates how
AWPOW-related noise will affect local residences, businesses, and visitors in the corridor. The analysis
summarizes the results of noise monitoring and modeling that were performed to identify potential
impacts. Potential measures that have been identified to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those impacts are
presented in Chapter 16 of this Final EIS. Additional information about acoustics and noise modeling are
provided in the Draft EIS documents and the Final EIS Appendix C, Discipline Report Errata Sheets.
6.1
6.1.1
Measurement and Perception of Sound
Sound is measured in terms of both loudness and frequency. The unit used to measure loudness is called
a decibel (dB). A range from 0 to 120 dB is the typical range of human hearing. To account for the human
ears sensitivity to frequencies, an adjustment is made to the dB measurement scale. The adjusted scale,
referred to as the A-weighted decibel scale, provides a more accurate measure of what the human ear
can actually hear. When the A-weighted scale is used, the decibel levels are designated as dBA.
Normal human conversation ranges between 44 and 65 dBA when people are about 3 to 6 feet apart.
Very slight changes in noise levels, up or down, are generally not detectable by the human ear. The
smallest change in noise level that a human ear can readily perceive is about 3 dBA, while increases of
5 dBA or more are clearly noticeable. For most people, a 10-dBA increase in noise levels is judged as a
doubling of sound level, while a 10-dBA decrease in noise levels is perceived to be half as loud. Noise
levels during the day in a noisy urban area are frequently as high as 70 to 80 dBA. Table 6-1 shows sound
levels from some common noise sources.
Table 6-1.
Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources

Sound Level
(dBA)
Subjective Impression
Jet aircraft takeoff from carrier (50 feet)
140
Threshold of pain
50-horse-power siren (100 feet)
130
Loud rock concert near stage;

jet takeoff (200 feet)
120
Float plane takeoff (100 feet)
110
Jet takeoff (2,000 feet)
100
Heavy truck or motorcycle (25 feet)
90
Garbage disposal; food blender (2 feet);

pneumatic drill (50 feet)
80
Noise Source or Activity
Uncomfortably loud
Very loud
Moderately loud
Vacuum cleaner (10 feet);

passenger car at 65 mph (25 feet)
70
Large store air-conditioning unit (20 feet)
60
Light automobile traffic (100 feet)
50
Bedroom or quiet living room;

bird calls
40
Quiet library; soft whisper (15 feet)
30
High-quality recording studio
20
Acoustic test chamber
10
Just audible
Threshold of hearing
Quiet
Very quiet
Sources: Beranek 1988; EPA 1971
6-1
Noise levels from most sources tend to vary with time. For example, noise levels increase when a car
approaches, reach a peak as it passes, and decrease as the car moves farther away. To account for the
variance in loudness over time, a common noise measurement is the equivalent sound pressure level
(Leq). Leq is defined as the average noise energy level, in dBA, for a specific time period (for example,
1 minute). Leq is the designated noise metric for many local and federal agencies, including FHWA and
the City of Seattle. Noise measurements taken using the Leq are denoted dBA Leq.
6.1.2
Study Area
In general, the noise study area extends approximately one full block beyond the project footprint.
Beyond one block, existing structures block the sound transmission and noise levels become dominated
by traffic noise on that block. The noise environment in the study area was separated into three
sections:
1. Southern Section: extends from S. King Street to Cherry Street
2. Central Section: extends from Cherry Street to Pine Street
3. Northern Section: extends from Pine Street to the vicinity of Wall Street
These three sections and the study area for noise are shown in Figure 6-1.
6.1.3
The affected environment for this analysis is defined as the conditions that will exist within the study
area in 2017 when the AWVRP, EBSP, and MarketFront projects have been completed and before
AWPOW construction begins. Because traffic noise dominates the study area and because the Alaskan
Way Viaduct is still in place as of the writing of this Final EIS, peak-hour traffic noise levels for the 2017
existing conditions were calculated using the FHWAs Traffic Noise Model, version 2.5 (TNM). Input to
the model included peak-hour traffic volumes for passenger vehicles, delivery trucks, and heavy trucks,
along with posted speed limits and area topographical conditions. Noise measurements taken at 41 sites
during analyses completed for the AWVRP and EBSP were used to verify the traffic noise modeling
results. Existing (year 2017) modeled traffic noise levels for these 41 modeling sites are shown on
Figure 6-2.
The range of modeled existing conditions (2017) for peak-hour traffic noise levels in each study area
section are:
Southern section61 dBA to 73 dBA Leq
Central section62 to 72 dBA Leq
Northern section62 to 68 dBA Leq
The 2017 model results were then compared to FHWAs noise abatement criteria (NAC), which establish
noise threshold levels for different land uses. The criteria are defined in terms of exterior Leq measured
at the property line. Land uses in 2017 are expected to be the same as the land uses that currently exist
in the study area, which are primarily commercial and residential, including apartments, condominiums,
hotels, and motels. Many visitors, residents, and commuters also walk and cycle to destinations on the
waterfront, along Alaskan Way, or west of Alaskan Way. Existing land uses are described below by study
area section. No highly sensitive uses such as recording studios, broadcast studios, or medical facilities
were identified in the study area.
6-2
Elliott Bay
South
AL
AS
KA
NW
Central
North
Pier 48
AY
S
Pier 62/63
RAILROAD WAY S
IN
GS
T
ST
SO
N
AC
K
SJ
AIN
ST
SM
YE
SL
ER
WA
Y
ST
GT
ON
AS
HIN
SW
ST
SK
VINE
ST
S
OR A
LE N
2ND
ST
AVE
L
BE L
1ST
ST
ST
Section Boundries
ART
Noise Study Area
Building Footprint
W
ST E
Parcel Boundary
PIKE ST
5TH AVE
UNION ST
UNIVERSITY ST
Source: SDOT
Google Earth Pro, Licensed to
Michael Minor & Associates
SENECA ST
Feet
SPRING ST
4TH AVE
Project Footprint
800
2ND AVE
3RD AVE
400
MADISON ST
MARION ST
COLUMB A IST
PINE ST
1ST AVE
CHERRY ST
AV
E
TERRACE ST
AV
ES
CE
PLA
POST AVE
ID
EN
TA
L
JAMES ST
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
HE
RN
PA
CIF
IC
RR
E
PIK
IN IA
VIRG
OC
C
WESTERN AVE
ST
ARD
NCH
BLA
1S
TA
VE
AVE
IOTT
EL L
D
OA
ILR
RA
E
N AV
T ER
WE S
ALASKAN WAY
2N
DA
VE
Waterfront
Park
Pier 56
Pier 55
AY
Y ST
T ER
BAT
Pier 54
Colman Dock
SF
BN
Seattle
Aquarium
NW
L
WAL
Pier 57
5T
H
SKA
ALA
AVE
AVE
3RD
AVE
4TH
AVE
5TH
AVE
6TH
Figure 6-1
Noise Analysis
Study Area

Elliott Bay
Central
North
UG
HA
M
WA
Y
South
EN
TA
AL
AS
K
ALA
WA
Y
62
G
IN
ST
SO
N
ST
CK
MA
IN
JA
S
SK
A
MW
E ST
ST
VI N
ST
ST
RD
ST
2N D
ST
A
OR
IN IA
AV E
ST
3R D
2ND AVE
AY
AVE
VE
Y
TER
BAT
L ST
CH A
LEN
VIRG
RN
64
E
N AV
TE R
T ST
HE
PL AC
WAR
AV
E
PIKE ST
5T
H
PINE ST
1ST AVE
63 64
BL AN
PI KE
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
WES
AVE
1ST
ST E
67
AVE
65
63
WESTERN AVE
UNION ST
68 66
66
UNIVERSITY ST
66
IO TT
63
64
62
SENECA ST
LA
VE
65
67
SPRING ST
TA
MADISON ST
EN
MARIO N ST
ID
PO ST AVE
66
CHERRY ST
AV
E
65
61
66
68
JAMES ST
4T
H
AV
E
AV
E
COLUMBIA ST
61
OC
C
2N
D
1S
T
66
67
68
66
69
SF
ELL
BEL
68
72
BN
AD
LL
WA
73
68
67
66
6663
ST
Colman Dock
73
Seattle
Aquarium
CL AY
66
68
Waterfront
Park
IL
AR
CED
69
69
RA
WAY
GHA
70
RAILROAD WAY S
SK AN
BOU
LA
VE
AN
ST
OC
C ID
AV
E
L
OYA
SR
SR
OY
AL
BO
1S
T
No Action Alternative (2030)

Elliott Bay
Central
North
UG
HA
WA
South
EN
TA
AL
AS
K
ALA
WA
Y
62
G
IN
ST
SO
N
ST
CK
CH A
MA
IN
JA
RD
2N D
AV E
ST
AY
ST
SK
A
MW
ST
E ST
ST
Y
TER
BAT
L ST
BL AN
ST
Feet
A
OR
1,000
LEN
500
65
ST
3R D
AVE
VE
Project Footprint
IN IA
VIRG
RN
2ND AVE
64
E
N AV
TE R
T ST
HE
PL AC
WAR
AV
E
1ST AVE
PINE ST
5T
H
PI KE
PIKE ST
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
WES
AVE
1ST
ST E
67
WESTERN AVE
UNION ST
68 67
66
UNIVERSITY ST
66
AVE
65
63
62
SENECA ST
LA
VE
65
68
SPRING ST
TA
MADISON ST
EN
PO ST AVE
66
MARIO N ST
ID
67
68
CHERRY ST
AV
E
65
62
JAMES ST
4T
H
AV
E
AV
E
COLUMBIA ST
62
OC
C
2N
D
1S
T
IO TT
63 64
BEL
68
66
67
68
66
69
SF
64
ELL
VI N
72
BN
AD
LL
WA
73
68
67
66
6763
ST
Colman Dock
74
Seattle
Aquarium
CL AY
67
68
Waterfront
Park
IL
AR
CED
69
69
RA
WAY
GHA
71
RAILROAD WAY S
SK AN
BOU
LA
VE
AN
ST
OC
C ID
AV
E
L
OYA
SR
SR
OY
AL
BO
1S
T
Parcel Boundary
Building Footprint
Note:
The modeled noise levels represent the peak hour traffic noise level (dBA Leq)
from the FHWA Traffic Noise Model under given conditions.
Noise levels in red meet or exceed the NAC for residential use.
Figure 6-2
Comparison of Modeled Noise Levels
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Preferred Alternative (2030)

Elliott Bay
Central
North
UG
HA
M
WA
Y
South
EN
TA
AL
AS
K
ALA
WA
Y
58
ST
3R D
G
IN
MA
S
IN
JA
ST
CK
SO
N
ST
SK
AY
AVE
VE
South
AV E
2ND AVE
Difference in Traffic Noise Level of

Preferred Alternative (2030)
compared to the
No Action Alternative (2030)
Elliott Bay
Central
North
UG
HA
WA
A
MW
E ST
ST
VI N
ST
ST
ST
IN IA
2N D
ST
A
OR
RD
LEN
VIRG
Y
TER
BAT
L ST
T ST
RN
64
E
N AV
TE R
AVE
1ST
WAR
HE
PL AC
PINE ST
AV
E
PIKE ST
5T
H
WES
CH A
PI KE
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
64 64
BL AN
WESTERN AVE
1ST AVE
AVE
65
66
ST E
68
66
UNION ST
69 67
66
UNIVERSITY ST
63
6268
IO TT
65
67
65
SENECA ST
LA
VE
66
68
SPRING ST
TA
MADISON ST
EN
MARIO N ST
ID
PO ST AVE
69
CHERRY ST
AV
E
66
62
72
69
JAMES ST
4T
H
AV
E
AV
E
COLUMBIA ST
62
OC
C
2N
D
1S
T
64
65
66
71
66
SF
ELL
BEL
68
67
BN
AD
LL
WA
68
62
61
ST
Colman Dock
71
Seattle
Aquarium
CL AY
67
68
Waterfront
Park
IL
AR
CED
69
69
RA
WAY
GHA
69
RAILROAD WAY S
SK AN
BOU
LA
VE
AN
ST
OC
C ID
AV
E
L
OYA
SR
SR
OY
AL
BO
1S
T
EN
TA
AL
AS
K
ALA
WA
Y
ST
SO
N
MA
IN
ST
CK
JA
S
RD
2N D
AV E
ST
ST
AY
IN
A
MW
SK
GHA
ST
ST
L ST
CH A
A
OR
Feet
-1
ST
1,000
IN IA
500
2ND AVE
VIRG
3R D
AVE
VE
Project Footprint
T ST
PL AC
AVE
1ST
WAR
RN
1ST AVE
PINE ST
HE
PI KE
PIKE ST
AV
E
E
N AV
TE R
BL AN
WESTERN AVE
UNION ST
5T
H
WES
LEN
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
0
3
ST E
UNIVERSITY ST
-3
-55
3
SENECA ST
1
S
0
SPRING ST
LA
VE
MADISON ST
TA
MARIO N ST
EN
PO ST AVE
CHERRY ST
AV
E
ID
JAMES ST
4T
H
AV
E
AV
E
COLUMBIA ST
OC
C
2N
D
1S
T
1
3 1 0
BEL
-2
-2
AVE
Y
TER
BAT
-2
5
-3
IO TT
ST
-5
SF
ELL
ST
Colman Dock
BN
AD
E ST
-5
-6
-6
LL
WA
-3
Seattle
Aquarium
VI N
Waterfront
Park
IL
CL AY
RA
WAY
AR
CED
0
0
-4
-2
RAILROAD WAY S
SK AN
BOU
LA
VE
AN
ST
OC
C ID
AV
E
L
OYA
SR
SR
OY
AL
BO
1S
T
Parcel Boundary
Building Footprint
Note:
The modeled noise levels represent the peak hour traffic noise level (dBA Leq)
from the FHWA Traffic Noise Model under given conditions.
Noise levels in red meet or exceed the NAC for residential use.
Figure 6-2
Comparison of Modeled Noise Levels
(Sheet 2 of 2)
Southern Section
Land use in the southern section is primarily commercial. However, a large condominium complex is
located just south of S. King Street on First Avenue S., and several other residential uses were identified
in buildings between S. Jackson Street and Yesler Way, including the Best Western Plus Pioneer Square
Hotel. All of the residential uses identified are located on the upper floors of multi-floor buildings. Two
city parks are within this section of the study area: Occidental Park, between S. Washington Street and
S. Main Street, and Pioneer Square Park, north of Yesler Way on First Avenue.
Central Section
The central section of the study area also includes commercial and residential land uses, with the latter
including apartments, condominiums, hotels, and motels. Fire Station 5, located on the west side of
Alaskan Way at Madison Street, is also considered a residential use because it houses firefighters. The
central section also includes Colman Dock, Waterfront Park, the Seattle Aquarium, several large parking
lots, and numerous visitor attractions on Piers 54 through 57. Three schools were identified within the
central section: Kids Center Preschool on Spring Street between Western Avenue and First Avenue; a
daycare at the intersection of First Avenue and Seneca Street; and the Pike Place Market Child Care and
Preschool just south of Pine Street. The only other noise-sensitive use within the central section is the
Seattle Art Museum at 1300 First Avenue.
Northern Section
Beginning at Pine Street and continuing to the north, land uses include several condominiums and
apartments and the Pike Place Market. A large condominium complex (Waterfront Landings) and the
Seattle Marriott Waterfront Hotel are located on Alaskan Way between Pine Street and Blanchard
Street. East of SR 99, Victor Steinbrueck Park is located near Virginia Street. Several apartments and
condominiums are located within the northern section, along Elliott, Western, First, and Second
Avenues from Stewart Street to Wall Street. A laboratory facility that is part of the University of
Washington School of Medicine is located between the BNSF rail line and Elliott Avenue, south of
Bell Street.
Modeling of 2017 Existing Conditions

The peak-hour traffic noise levels that were predicted for the 41 exterior noise modeled locations are
shown on Figure 6-2. Many of the 41 sites are near or above the NAC for residential uses. Residences
with noise levels at or above the NAC are not uncommon for dense urban residential areas in a
metropolitan area with a major freeway nearby. In addition to the 41 exterior sites, one interior site was
used to predict the noise level inside a typical unit at the Waterfront Landings Condominiums. Based on
measured exterior-to-interior noise reduction, the peak-hour traffic noise levels inside a unit at this
complex for 2017 existing conditions were predicted to be 37 dBA Leq.
Based on the modeled 2017 existing conditions, exterior noise levels at 1,136 residential units (including
hotel rooms) are predicted to meet or exceed the NAC. In the southern section of the study area, noise
levels are predicted to meet or exceed the NAC at 360 residential units and in Pioneer Square Park. In
the central section, 446 residential units and Waterfront Park would exceed the NAC levels. In the
northern section, 327 residential units and Pier 62/63 would be at or above the NAC.
6.2
Construction noise would result from the operation of heavy equipment needed to construct various project
features and structures. The FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006) was used to provide
an estimate of noise levels from typical construction activities. The results of this analysis are summarized
below. As with all construction projects, the contractor would be required to comply with the requirements
of the City of Seattle Noise Control Ordinance; construction activities outside normal weekday daytime
hours, or activities that exceed the ordinance, would require a noise variance from the City.
6-6
CHAPTER 6 NOISE
6.2.1
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no construction activity and therefore no constructionrelated noise impacts.
6.2.2
The construction noise analysis considered the temporary noise impacts that construction would cause
in the study area. These impacts would be localized in areas of active construction and would end when
project construction is completed. Noise related to construction would result from the operation of
heavy equipment needed to construct project features and structures, such as bridges, retaining walls,
roads, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Equipment required to complete the project would include construction equipment typically used for
transportation projects. Table 6-2 lists the typical construction equipment used for this type of project,
the activities the equipment would be used for, and the corresponding maximum noise levels that
would be produced when measured at 50 feet from the noise source under normal conditions.
Table 6-2.
Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment
Equipment
Expected Project Use
Lmax1, 2 (dBA)
Air compressors
Pneumatic tools and general maintenance (all phases)
70 to 76
Backhoe
General construction and yard work
78 to 82
Concrete pump
Pumping concrete
78 to 82
Concrete saws
Concrete removal and utilities access
75 to 80
Crane
Materials handling: removal and replacement
78 to 84
Drill rigs
Support piles
82 to 88
Excavator
82 to 88
Forklifts
Staging area work and hauling materials
72
Haul trucks
Materials handling: general hauling
86
Jackhammers
Pavement removal
Loader
86
Pavers
Roadway paving
88
Power plants
General construction use: nighttime work
72
Pumps
General construction use: water removal
Pneumatic tools
Miscellaneous construction work
Tractor trailers
Material removal and delivery
86
Utility trucks
72
Vibratory equipment
Shoring up hillside to prevent slides and soil compacting
Welders
74 to 82
62
78 to 86
82 to 88
76
Typical maximum noise level under normal operation as measured at 50 feet from the noise source.
Noise levels presented are based on measured data from several construction projects and other measured data, as well as U.S.
Department of Transportation construction noise documentation and other construction noise sources.
Estimated Construction Noise Levels by Activity

The FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006) also was used to predict the maximum
noise levels for different types of construction activities. The noise analysis assumes the worst-case
average and maximum noise levels when making projections. The analysis also assumes that
construction would begin simultaneously in two areas: at Columbia Street, and on the portion of
Elliott Way that crosses the BNSF rail line. In general, construction activities would be completed in
increments of one to several blocks.
6-7
Table 6-3 summarizes the worst-case average (Leq) and maximum (Lmax) noise levels by activity, based
on the equipment typically used during each activity. The actual noise levels experienced during
construction would generally be lower than those described in Table 6-3 because these maximum noise
levels would occur only for a limited period. Typical equipment used for drilling and vibratory pile driving
has an Lmax of 88 dBA. Typical average noise levels from most construction activities would frequently be
10 to 15 dB lower.
Table 6-3.
Noise Levels for Typical Construction Activities
Scenario1,2
Equipment3
Lmax4
Leq5
Demolition, site preparation,

and utilities relocation
Air compressors, backhoes, concrete pumps, cranes,

excavators, forklifts, haul trucks, loaders, pumps, power
plants, service trucks, tractor trailers, utility trucks, and
vibratory equipment
88
87
Structure construction and

paving activities
Air compressors, backhoes, cement mixers, concrete pumps,

cranes, forklifts, haul trucks, loaders, pavers, pumps, power
plants, service trucks, tractor trailers, utility trucks, vibratory
equipment, and welders
88
88
Miscellaneous activities
Air compressors, backhoes, cranes, forklifts, haul trucks,

loaders, pumps, service trucks, tractor trailers, utility trucks,
and welders
86
83
1 Combined
worst-case noise levels for all equipment at a distance of 50 feet from work site
Operational conditions under which the noise levels are projected

3 Normal equipment in operation under the given scenario
4
Lmax (dBA) is the highest maximum noise level for the construction equipment listed under the given scenario.
Leq (dBA) is a 1-hour energy average noise emission for construction equipment operating under the given scenario.
Some construction activities might be required during nighttime hours to avoid daytime traffic impacts
or impacts on adjacent land uses. If nighttime construction is deemed necessary, a temporary noise
variance or a construction noise variance for large public projects would be required from the Citys
Department of Planning and Development. The variance process would include placing limits on noise
levels during nighttime hours and also specifying construction noise mitigation measures to help reduce
the impacts of nighttime construction.
Potential for Vibration during Construction Activities

Vibration impacts during construction are expected to be minimal. Drilling and vibratory pile driving for
deep shafts to support the Overlook Walk and Elliott Way bridge structures could result in minor
temporary vibration impacts; however, this vibration is not expected to reach levels that would cause
damage to any buildings or utilities. Impact pile driving is not currently anticipated for AWPOW.
6.3
6.3.1
Operational Impacts
Under the No Action Alternative, traffic would continue to be the predominant noise source in the study
area. Traffic volumes in 2030 are expected to be about 5 to 10 percent higher in the study area than in
2017 because of regional population and employment growth. Because the SR 99 tunnel would provide
less access into downtown Seattle from the south than the Alaskan Way Viaduct did, traffic bypassing
downtown would use the tunnel, while vehicles needing access to the downtown area would use
Alaskan Way. Overall, 2030 traffic noise levels in the study area are predicted to range from 62 to
74 dBA Leq, compared with 61 to 73 dBA Leq under 2017 existing conditions. This represents an overall
increase of 0 to 1 dBA at the modeling locations used in this analysis, with most sites having the same
noise levels as presented for the 2017 existing conditions in Section 6.1.3.
6-8
CHAPTER 6 NOISE
In the southern section of the study area, noise levels with the No Action Alternative are predicted to
range from 62 to 74 dBA Leq, with an average level of 68 dBA. Noise levels in the central section are
predicted to range from 62 to 72 dBA Leq, with an average level of 67 dBA Leq, while the noise levels in
the northern section are predicted to range from 62 to 68 dBA Leq with an average Leq of 65 dBA.
In 2030 without the project, 1,136 units would meet or exceed the NAC, which is the same as under the
2017 existing conditions. Of the 1,136 units, 1,133 are residences, one is a daycare, and two are parks.
No hotel rooms are predicted to meet or exceed the NAC. Figure 6-2 shows the peak hour modeled
traffic noise levels for the No Action Alternative in 2030.
6.3.2
Compared to the Action Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, the Preferred Alternative would include
minor modifications primarily in the southern section of the Main Corridor. Modifications include slight
adjustments to lane widths and the addition of parking and loading spaces on three blocks on the east
side of Alaskan Way between S. King and S. Jackson Streets and between S. Main Street and Yesler Way.
The nearest travel lane would be in approximately the same location as evaluated under the Draft EIS
Action Alternative. Traffic speeds and volumes would not change compared to the Draft EIS Action
Alternative. Therefore, traffic noise levels under the Preferred Alternative are expected to be the same
as analyzed for the Draft EIS Action Alternative.
The Preferred Alternative would modify the Draft EIS Overlook Walk design to accommodate the
Aquarium Pavilion. Although relocation and revisions to the staircase and structures would change
pedestrian routes slightly, they would not alter road alignments or traffic speeds and volumes compared
to the Preferred Alternative, and therefore are expected to have little, if any, effect on the transmission
of noise compared to the Action Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS.
Traffic noise would continue to be the predominant noise source under the Preferred Alternative
because of the increased traffic volumes on Alaskan Way following the closure of the viaduct. Noise
levels across the study area would range from 58 to 72 dBA Leq during peak hours in 2030 for the
Preferred Alternative. The average overall noise level for all receivers modeled under each condition are:
2017 existing conditions66 dBA Leq
No Action Alternative67 dBA Leq
Preferred Alternative66 dBA Leq
Compared to the No Action Alternative, traffic noise levels with the Preferred Alternative would increase
in some areas by up to 5 dBA, while other areas would decrease by up to 6 dBA. Overall, noise levels are
predicted to be at or above the NAC at 1,211 units under the Preferred Alternative, compared to 1,136
under the No Action Alternative. Figure 6-2 shows the peak-hour modeled traffic noise levels for the
Preferred Alternative in 2030 and the difference in noise levels between the Preferred and No Action
alternatives in 2030.
In the southern section of the study area, peak-hour traffic noise levels under the Preferred Alternative in
2030 are predicted to range from 62 to 71 dBA Leq. Under the Preferred Alternative, all but two of the
modeled sites would have noise levels that are within 2 dB of the No Action noise levels. Those two sites
would have noise reductions of -3 and -5 dB, respectively. Overall noise impacts in the southern section
would be slightly higher than under the No Action Alternative, with 18 new residential impacts at receivers
between S. Washington Street and Yesler Way because of the reduced distance between Alaskan Way and
these receivers. This would bring the total number of potential noise impacts in the southern section to
378 residences and one park.
In the central section of the study area, peak-hour traffic noise levels under the Preferred Alternative in
2030 would range from 64 to 72 dBA Leq. Two of the modeled sites would have noise levels 3 to 5 dB
lower than under the No Action Alternative due to the northbound lanes of Alaskan Way being farther
away from these sites. In contrast, four of the modeled sites would have noise increases of 3 to 5 dB,
6-9
due to roadway widening or the new intersection at Alaskan Way and Pine Street. Modeled sites in the
central section that would be at or above the NAC under the Preferred Alternative include 611
residential units and a daycare. This is an increase in the number of units over the NAC under the No
Action Alternative, which consist of 446 residential units and Waterfront Park. The 165 new residential
noise impacts are located along Post Avenue between Spring and Seneca Streets.
In the northern section of the study area, peak-hour traffic noise levels under the Preferred Alternative
in 2030 would range from 58 to 68 dBA Leq. Traffic noise levels in 2030 would be lower at half of the
modeling sites in the northern section, with reductions as high as 6 dB when compared to the No Action
Alternative. Conversely, some of the modeled sites would have slight increases in traffic noise levels of
3 to 5 dBA due to the alignment of Elliott Way north of Pine Street. The largest noise reduction would be
at the modeled sites along Alaskan Way, north of the new intersection at Pine Street, due to lower
traffic volumes predicted with the Preferred Alternative.
Under the Preferred Alternative in 2030, an estimated 219 residential units in the northern section are
predicted to have noise levels at or above the NAC. This is a reduction of 108 units compared to the
No Action Alternative. Some of the reduction in impacts would occur at the Seattle Marriott Hotel as a
result of the reduced traffic on Alaskan Way north of Pine Street. At the Waterfront Landings
Condominiums, noise levels would be lower in units facing the water. Units at this complex with eastern
noise exposure are expected to see an increase in impacts due to the new connection to Elliott Avenue.
Although none of the units in this complex face directly east, there are units on the north and south
ends of the complex and some upper floor units that have exposure to traffic noise from the east. For
this analysis, it was assumed that up to 77 units could have exposure to traffic noise from roads to the
east of the complex. An additional 64 new impacts are predicted at the Elliott Point Apartments, due in
part to the new connection of Elliott Way to Elliott Avenue and Western Avenue. Under the
Preferred Alternative in 2030, noise levels at Victor Steinbrueck Park are also predicted to be at or above
the NAC, but would be just below the criteria with the No Action Alternative.
In a broader perspective, it is important to note that the overall noise levels under the
Preferred Alternative would be up to 12 dBA lower than the current noise levels with the viaduct in
operation. The noise level reductions resulting from removal of the Alaskan Way Viaduct are not
attributable to AWPOW, but would form an important part of the future noise environment within
which AWPOW would operate.
6-10
Hazardous Materials
The hazardous materials analysis presented in this chapter identifies known hazardous materials-related
conditions in the study area and discusses the potential for impacts if hazardous materials are encountered
or released during construction. It also discusses the potential for impacts if hazardous materials are
released during project operation. For purposes of this analysis, hazardous materials includes hazardous
substances, hazardous wastes, and contaminated soil and groundwater. Potential avoidance, minimization,
and mitigation measures that have been identified for construction and operational impacts are presented
in Chapter 16 of this Final EIS. Additional information is provided in the Draft EIS documents and in Final EIS
Appendix C, Discipline Report Errata Sheets.
7.1
7.1.1
Hazardous Materials Risk and Control
Hazardous materials can affect human health and the environment during construction and operation of
facilities, especially facilities that are located in areas with a long industrial history. The area in which
AWPOW would be built has such a history, with industrial use dating back over a century. Encountering
unexpected hazardous materials-related conditions can lead to the release of hazardous materials that
can affect worker health and safety, as well as pose an environmental hazard. Identifying the location
and type of potential hazardous materials-related conditions can mitigate the risks of release and
provide the basis for ensuring the proper management, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials.
In the State of Washington, the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) is the primary law requiring and
governing cleanup of sites contaminated by hazardous materials. MTCA provides standards to
determine whether a contaminated site may pose a risk to human health and the environment and
drives the determination of how contaminated media, such as soil and groundwater, will be managed
and disposed of if encountered during construction.
7.1.2
Study Area
A -mile distance around the project footprint was selected as the study area for this hazardous
materials analysis. This distance, shown in Figure 7-1, was selected based on two general factors. The
first factor, which is discussed below, is the potential for hazardous materials released to the
environment to migrate to the project footprint. This potential is assessed based on the topographic,
geologic, and hydrologic conditions in the vicinity of the project footprint. The second factor is
information regarding historical land uses and hazardous materials-related conditions known to exist in
the vicinity of the project footprint, which are discussed in Section 7.1.3, 2017 Existing Conditions.
The project footprint is located in a generally flat area between Elliott Bay to the west and ridges to the
north and east. Topography generally slopes from northeast to southwest, toward Elliott Bay. The
southern portion of the project footprint is relatively flat and approximately 20 feet in elevation; near
Spring Street, the land east of Alaskan Way begins to slope upward, toward the northeast. At University
Street, the topography becomes steeper, rising in elevation toward Western Avenue, and continues to
slope upward to an elevation of approximately 120 feet near the Pike Place Market (USGS 2005).
7-1
Elliot Bay
DE
NT
AL
WA
YS
Pier 62/63
RAILROAD WAY S
ST
ST
N
ST
KS
O
AIN
AC
SM
WA
Y
YE
SL
ER
E ST
VIN
SJ
SK
IN
G
S
AR
CED
L ST
WAL
L ST
BEL
ST
Feet
ARD
800
AVE
NCH
A ST
AVE
AVE
AVE
5TH
6TH
ST
LA
KE
AV
E
AVE
JO
BLA
OR
LEN
IA S
GIN
T ST
WAR
STE
6TH AVE
AVE
4TH
5TH AVE
Project Footprint
400
2ND
4TH AVE
AR
DA
VE
AVE
3RD
WE
MA
YN
3RD AVE
0
PINE ST
PIKE ST
HA
VE
RR
2ND AVE
UNION ST
6T
TERRACE ST
AV
E
1ST AVE
SENECA ST
AV
E
UNIVERSITY ST
NT
AL
SPRING ST
PA
C
IFI
5T
H
ELL
N AV
1ST
PIK
VIR
DE
MADISON ST
RN
E
LA C
EP
WESTERN AVE
MARION ST
HE
TER
WES
POST AVE
CI
2ND AV ET S
RT
AV
E
COLUMBIA ST
DA
VE
NO
HA
VE
S
OC
2N
7T
1S
T
JAMES ST
AV
E
Waterfront
Park
SF
BN
Seattle
Aquarium
ALASKAN WAY
CHERRY ST
4T
H
Pier 57
IOTT
D
OA
ILR
RA
Y ST
TER
BAT
Pier 54
Pier 55
Colman Dock
Pier 56
WAY
E ST
VIN
AV
E
N
SKA
ALA
Pier 48
ST
CI
AS
KA
N
HN
OC
AL
S
Y ST
CLA
1S
TA
VE

Study Area
Figure 7-1
Hazardous Materials
Study Area
CHAPTER 7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Geologic conditions in the area have been influenced by repeated glaciations. These glaciations have left
successive layers of sediments that vary in thickness and permeability, creating complex subsurface
conditions. In the project vicinity, approximately 1,500 feet of glacial and non-glacial sediments overlie
bedrock (Troost et al. 2005). Adding to the complexity of shallow geologic conditions, the project vicinity
has undergone extensive modification over the last 150 years. Historic photographs indicate that the
shoreline was originally located near the current-day First Avenue, which is approximately one city block
east of the project footprint. Alaskan Way is located almost entirely on fill material that was placed east of
the Elliott Bay Seawall. Prior to construction of the seawall, there were timber trestle-supported railroads,
roadways, and wharfs in this area. In addition to earthen fill, which is generally believed to be sourced from
the regrading of Seattles hills, the material landward of the seawall contains various types of debris from
early settlement of the area, including garbage and construction debris. Information obtained from borings
conducted along the seawall indicates that soils within and near the southern portion of the project
footprint consist of fill material to depths between 10 and 50 feet bgs, underlain by native silts, sands, and
cobbles (FHWA et al. 2011).
In the northern portion of the project footprint as it moves upslope, shallow soils are expected to
consist predominantly of native soils with some surface grading. These shallow soils are soft and
susceptible to landslides. Deeper native soils in this area are expected to be composed of till and finegrained deposits, both of which have low permeability. The soil structure tends to be complex due to
the repeated glaciation in the region.
Groundwater flow in the project vicinity is primarily from the east-northeast to west-southwest towards
Elliott Bay. Near the seawall, the groundwater gradient within the project footprint can be highly
variable due to tidal influences; these influences greatly decrease as the project footprint moves uphill
and east. In general, the shallow groundwater gradient is relatively high to the east of the project
footprint, and flattens significantly near the seawall. Based on groundwater sampling conducted for the
EBSP, groundwater is very shallow within and near the project footprint, lying at approximately 6 to
12 feet bgs (SDOT 2014). Groundwater depth increases to the east and is expected to be approximately
70 to 80 feet bgs at the northern end of the project footprint.
Soil properties and the presence of groundwater influence the mobility and migration of
contaminants. While contaminants migrate in soil and groundwater in different ways, in general, there
is more movement when groundwater is present and when soils are more porous, such as gravels and
sands. Because the fill material behind the seawall is relatively unconsolidated, contaminants in
shallow groundwater may migrate through it more freely than through denser native soil, especially
because of the tidally influenced groundwater flows. However, the area within which this more active
contaminant could migrate is relatively narrow, confined by the native soils of the bluff that rises east
of Western Avenue. Within this narrow band of land (which may range from approximately 200 to
more than 400 feet wide in the waterfront area), contaminants are likely to move from east to west
with the flow of groundwater.
7.1.3
The existing conditions for this analysis are defined as the conditions that will exist within the study area
in 2017, when the AWVRP, EBSP, and MarketFront projects are complete and before AWPOW
construction begins. The 2017 existing conditions relevant to this portion of the analysis are the
historical land uses and hazardous materials-related conditions known to exist in the study area.
Historical Land Uses

The study area has been occupied by many industrial and commercial land uses since development
began in the mid-19th century. Such historical land uses have often been associated with the release of
hazardous materials into the environment. Accordingly, project analysts consulted historical land use
information sources, including Sanborn maps and city directories, to identify previous land uses in the
vicinity of the project footprint and subsequently develop a list of contaminants typically associated with
7-3
those uses. The types of land uses identified in the vicinity and the potential contaminants associated
with those uses are shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1.
Historical Land Uses Identified in the Vicinity of the Project Footprint and
Potential Contaminant Types
Historical Land Uses
Potential Contaminant Types
Automotive repair, wrecking
Petroleum hydrocarbons, including fuels and oils

Solvents, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Service stations

Solvents, including VOCs
PAHs
Metals (specifically lead)
Dry cleaners and laundry
Perchloroethylene (PCE)
Trichloroethylene
Machine shop

Metals
Foundry

Metals
Plating facilities
Metals
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Printers and painters

Metals
Steam plant

PAHs
Historic buildings (general)
Petroleum hydrocarbons (heating oil)

Asbestos
PCBs
Mercury
All of the contaminants shown in Table 7-1 will travel with groundwater flow, although metals, PAHs,
and PCBs have a greater capacity to bond to soil, which can slow the migration process. Some solvents
(PCE and trichloroethylene) have a higher capacity for migration, particularly vertical migration within
groundwater zones because those solvents are heavier than water and tend to sink away from their
source. Therefore, any of these contaminants that may have been released as a result of past land uses
are likely to have migrated at least some distance from the site where they were originally used.
The project analysts further reviewed the historical land uses to identify specific businesses or
properties that have the potential to have released contaminants. The businesses and properties were
then qualitatively ranked as high, medium, or low based on their potential to have an impact on the
project footprint. Analysts assigned a ranking of highto 24 sites. Each of these sites was given a unique
identification (A through X) and is summarized in Table 7-2 and shown on Figure 7-2.
7-4
Table 7-2.
Site
ID
Historical Land Use Sites with High Potential Impact Ranking

Potential
Contaminants
Name
Address
Source
Site Use
Haines Oyster Co.
221 Alaskan Way,

Pier 47
Sanborn 1969
Carpenter shop,
refrigerator repair
Metals, petroleum
including fuels and oils
Unknown
2300 Block
Western Avenue
Sanborn 1969,
CD 1981
Electrical
transformer yard
PCBs
Unknown
2200 Block
Western Avenue
Sanborn 1969
Automotive sales
and service, body
shop
Petroleum including
fuels and oils, VOCs
Unknown
221 Alaskan
Way S.
Sanborn 1950
Service station
Petroleum including
fuels and oils, PAHs,
VOCs, and metals
Unknown
1420 Alaskan Way
Sanborn 1950
Service station
Petroleum including
Unknown
1500-1502
Alaskan Way
Sanborn 1950
Automotive repair
Petroleum including
Hal Thompson's
Prkg. & Auto
Repair
1524 Alaskan Way
Sanborn 1950
Automotive repair
Petroleum including
Unknown
88 Jackson Street
Sanborn 1916
Machine shop,
painting
Metals, solvents
including VOCs, oils
Pioneer Graphics;
Silver Image
Gallery
92 S. Washington
Street
CD 1996,
1981
Printing
Solvents including
VOCs, metals
Perfection
Machinery Co.
2218 Western
Avenue
CD 1981,
1976
Machine shop
Metals, solvents
including VOCs, oils
Impressions
Printing
628 Alaskan Way
CD 1966,
1961
Printing
Solvents including
VOCs, metals
Smith-Silliston
Machine Shop
1528 Alaskan Way
CD 1966
Machine shop
Metals, oils, solvents

including VOCs
Unknown
Pier 62
CD 1966
Transport, wood
storage
Methane (from wood

chips)
Kelly Printing
90 S. Washington
Street
CD 1966,
1961
Printing
Solvents including
VOCs, metals
Unknown
Railroad Avenue
and Virginia Street
Sanborn 1905
Coal bin
Oils, coal
Unknown
Elliott Avenue and

Virginia Street
Sanborn 1905
Concrete mixing
plant
Fuel, oil
Paint warehouse
Railroad Avenue
south of Pike
Street
Sanborn 1905
Warehouse
Solvents including
VOCs, metals
Unknown
Railroad Way and

Pike Street
Sanborn 1905
Boiler, forge
Oil, metals, petroleum

including fuels and oils
Unknown
C Railroad
Avenue
Sanborn 1905
Tin shop
Metals, oils
Unknown
M Railroad
Avenue
Sanborn 1905
Machine shop
Metals, oils
Moran Brothers
Foundry
Unknown
Sanborn 1888
Foundry
Petroleum including
fuels and oils, metals
Mechanics Mill
Unknown
Sanborn 1888
Machine shop
Metals, oils
Enwave Seattle
(formerly Seattle
Steam Company)
1311-1321
Western Avenue
Sanborn 1969,
CD 1976
1996
Steam plant
Grease, oil, coal,

asbestos
Pacific Marine
Supply Co.
1213-1223
Western Avenue
Sanborn 1969,
CD 1976
Machine shop
Metals, oils, solvents

including VOCs
Sanborn = Sanborn Maps; CD = city directory

7-5
E l li ot t B a y
Site ID: 154a

WSDOT King & Alaskan Way S
(Unknown Parcel)
Site ID: 128a
Seattle Port Term 48
Pier 48
Pier 56 Pier 57
D
AV
E
ST
RW
AY
LE
YE
S
HI
NG
TO
N
SW
AS
0-20 Ft
40-60 Ft
60-80 Ft
UST Locations, Based on City Data

Contaminated Areas Exceeding MTCA Cleanup Levels*
Partial or Full Acquisition Area
*Other locations along the Waterfront and Alaskan Way

have also had contaminant concentrations exceeding
MTCA cleanup levels, but these areas were limited.
BAT
Depth of Construction
AVE
AVE
AVE
4TH
AV
4TH
AVE
4TH
ST
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,

i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, swisstopo,
and the GIS User Community
3R D
L
BEL
Feet
Historical Land Use Sites with High Potential

Impact Ranking (See Table 7-2)
ST
800
AVE
T
RD S
3R D
2N D
AVE
3R D
400
Project Footprint
Parcel Boundary
Hazardous Materials Sites with Highest Potential

to Impact the Project Footprint (See Table 7-4)
AVE
I
VIRG
2N D
ST
ST
3R D AV E
3R D AV E
AVE
1ST
AVE
2N D
ST
3R D AV E
3R D AV E
Site ID: 90
1S
AVE
1ST Elliott Bay Bicycles
NIA
2N D AV E
VE
RN A
ST
Site ID: 123b

Immunex Corporation 51 U
2N D AV E
PINE ST
Site ID: 128c

2N D AV E
Seattle Steam Co Post Av
VE
TT A
B
CH A
SM
A IN
TE
WES
Site ID: 123c

AV E
1STWestern
Seattle Steam Co
Av
PIKE ST
ST
T
WAR
STE
1ST AV E
1ST AV E
IO
EL L
C
PL A
L
BEL
ON
OA
LR
N
BLA
KS
E
PIK
UNION ST
2N D AV E
S KA
OR A
Site ID: 128b

Commuter Centre Parking
POST AV E
AV
E
UNIVERSITY ST
WESTER N AVE
SENECA ST
AL A
WESTER N AVE
SPRING ST
AV
E
I
VIRG
1S
T
Waterfront
Park
Pier 55
WAY
LE N
SJ
AC
Pier 54
Pier 53
MADISON ST
TA
L
MARION ST
ST
COLUMBIA ST
EN
AV
E
CHERRY ST
1S
T
JAMES ST
AV
E
AV
E
ALASKAN WAY
OC
CI D
2N
D
3R
D
Colman Dock
V
ST
1S
T
Seattle
Aquarium
SF
BN
I
RA
Y ST
T ER
BAT
Pier 62/63
L
WAL
Site ID: 123a

Central Seattle Waterfront
(Various Parcels)
Site ID: 137

WSDOT Colman Dock Pier 52
O
MON
R AIL
5T
AVE
5TH
Figure 7-2
Affected Environmental
Conditions in the Study Area
Known Hazardous Materials-Related Conditions

In addition to assessing the types of potential contamination that may have resulted from past land
uses, analysts identified known hazardous materials sites by researching regulatory databases and
reports. The databases, maintained by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), identify the location, contaminant types, and cleanup
status for a wide variety of hazardous materials sites, including underground storage tank (UST) sites,
spill areas, and facilities with a documented history of contamination. The data were augmented with
updated information from the City regarding known or suspected USTs, contamination data obtained
from EBSP, and information obtained from a reconnaissance of the project area.
A search of Ecology and EPA databases identified over 400 unique hazardous materials sites within the
study area. Table 7-3 lists the number of various types of sites that were identified in the most relevant
databases, both within the project footprint and within the study area. Some of the sites are listed on
multiple databases; therefore, the total number of sites shown in Table 7-3 is greater than the total
number of unique sites within the study area.
Table 7-3.
Number of Hazardous Materials Sites Identified on Regulatory Databases
Database
Within Project Footprint
Within Study Area1
Washington State Department of Ecology Databases

LUST
70
UST
141
CSCSL
124
CSCSL-NFA
53
Spills
38
VCP
49
Brownfields
ICR
93
NPL
Delisted NPL
CERCLIS
CERCLIS-NFRAP
CORRACTS
RAATS
RCRA (LQG, SQG, CESQG)
16
ERNS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Databases
The number shown for study area includes sites within the project footprint.
Following the database search and review of other reports, analysts conducted other evaluations to
identify the hazardous materials sites that are of the highest potential concern, by ranking the sites from
1 to 5, with 1 reflecting a low likelihood of adversely affecting the project and 5 reflecting a high
likelihood of adversely affecting the project. Table 7-4 lists the nine sites that received a ranking of 4 or
5, which are the hazardous materials sites with the highest potential to impact the project. Table 7-4
also lists the types of contaminants associated with those sites. These sites are shown on Figure 7-2.
7-7
Table 7-4.
Hazardous Materials Sites with the Highest Potential to Impact the Project
Ecology
Cleanup
Site ID#
Map
ID
Site Name (Historical

Name)
90
Elliott Bay Bicycles

(Armory Garage)
2114 Western
Avenue
197720540
3458
Petroleum hydrocarbons
123a
Central Seattle
Waterfront
Piers 53-58,
Alaskan Way
Various parcels
2545
Metals, petroleum, PCBs,

PAHs, phenols
123b
Immunex Corporation
51 University
Street
766620-2477
11818
Petroleum hydrocarbons,
PAHs
123c
Seattle Steam1
Western Avenue
1319 Western
Avenue
197620-0070 and
766620-2445
5075
PAHs, asbestos-wrapped
piping
128a
Port of Seattle
Terminal 48
101 Alaskan Way

W., Terminal 48
766620-2632
1076
Metals
128b
Commuter Centre
Parking
801, 807, 809

Western Avenue
766620-2560
11129
Petroleum hydrocarbons
128c
Seattle Steam1 Post

Avenue
619 Post Avenue
859140-0100
1330
metals, PCBs, PAHs
137
Colman Dock
Pier 52
801 Alaskan Way
766620-2612 and
766620-2620
2448
Metals, petroleum, PCBs,

PAHs
154a
WSDOT S. King
Street & Alaskan Way
S. King Street and

Alaskan Way S.
Unknown
264
PAHs
Address
Parcel Number
Potential Contaminant
Seattle Steam Company was acquired by Enwave Seattle in 2014.
In addition to the UST site information obtained from Ecology and EPA and summarized in Table 7-3,
analysts evaluated UST information from the City of Seattles geographic information system (GIS) data
layer as well as from SDOT. It is not known with certainty if the USTs shown in the GIS data layer and
identified in information from SDOT were removed or are still active. Sixteen of the USTs shown in the
GIS layer, associated with the following eight locations, appear to be in or near the project footprint.
One UST along S. Jackson Street, between Alaskan Way and First Avenue
One UST on Alaskan Way, between Yesler Way and S. Washington Street
Up to six USTs along Western Avenue, between Marion and Columbia Streets
Two USTs along Western Avenue, between Bell and Blanchard Streets
One UST near the intersection of First Avenue and Columbia Street
One UST near the intersection of Western Avenue and Yesler Way
One UST near the intersection of Western Avenue and Union Street
Up to three USTs to the south of Union Street between Western Avenue and First Avenue
Information from the SDOT UST data revealed the location of 11 additional USTs that might be in or near
the project footprint. The 27 USTs and UST locations (16 USTs identified through the Citys GIS data layer
and 11 locations revealed by SDOT UST information) in or near the project footprint are shown in
Figure 7-2. These USTs and UST locations revealed a potential hazardous materials-related condition
that is considered in the construction analysis in Section 7.2.
Based on the historical uses, known sites, and other available data for the study area, including data
obtained as part of EBSP, shallow soil and groundwater contamination is expected to be widespread
throughout the project footprint, but appears to be at levels less than the MTCA cleanup levels in all but
a few locations (SDOT 2012). The main contaminant types are petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, and
metals. Three areas of more defined or concentrated (significant) groundwater and soil contamination
are known to exist in the project footprint. A plume of groundwater contaminated with diesel is
centered on Alaskan Way near Madison Street and extends from Columbia Street almost to Spring
7-8
Street.AplumeofgroundwatercontaminatedwithBunkerC,apetroleumhydrocarbon,extendsinto
AlaskanWayfromtheSeattleSteamCompanysite(MapID123c,nowknownasEnwaveSeattle).
Finally,anareaofsoilsignificantlycontaminatedwithdieselexistswithinthegroundwaterplume
centeredonAlaskanWaynearMadisonStreet.Thelocationsofthegroundwaterplumesareshownon
Figure72.
Areconnaissanceoftheareawithinandinthevicinityoftheprojectfootprintrevealedthepresenceofa
numberofmonitoringwells.ThesewellsmayhavebeeninstalledtomonitorgroundwaterlevelsforEBSP
andAWVRP,tomonitorgroundwatercontaminantsassociatedwiththeSeattleSteamsite(MapID123c),
andtomonitorgroundwatercontaminationassociatedwithothersites.
7.2
7.2.1
TheNoActionAlternativewouldnotinvolveanypropertyacquisition,structuredemolition,orsoilor
groundwaterdisturbanceandthereforewouldhavenoimpactonhazardousmaterialsrelated
conditions.Anyexistinghazardousmaterialsrelatedconditionswouldremainunlessaddressedby
actionsunrelatedtoAWPOW.
7.2.2
Thereleaseofhazardousmaterialsorencounteringexistingcontaminationduringconstructioncan
resultinrisktohumanhealthortheenvironment,createpotentialliability,increaseprojectcosts,and
causescheduledelays.ThetypesofpotentialimpactsthatcouldoccurasaresultofAWPOW
constructionarediscussedbelow.
Impacts Related to Property Acquisition and Building Demolition

TheCityanticipatesacquiringallorpartofthreepropertiesaspartofAWPOW.Thesepropertiesare
listedinTable75,andtheirlocationsareshownonFigure72.Acquisitionofpropertycanexposethe
partyacquiringthepropertytoliabilityforhazardousmaterialsrelatedconditionsassociatedwiththe
propertyandanobligationtotakeactionwithrespecttothoseconditions.Noneoftheproperties
plannedforacquisitionarelistedhazardousmaterialssites;however,contaminationcouldstillbe
present,giventhestudyareashistoryofindustrialuse.
Table 7-5.
AWPOW Right of Way Acquisition
King County Parcel

Number
Owner
Full/Partial
Acquisition
Percentage of
Parcel Acquired
766620-2565
Mayers
Partial
0.3
766620-2380
1524 Alaskan Way Assoc.
Full
100
766620-2381
Pumpkin & Big Man, LLC
Full
100
ThecurrentprojectdesignrequirestheCityofSeattletoacquireParcel7666202381,listedinTable75.
Thispropertyincludesabuildingthatwouldberemovedtoallowforprojectconstruction.Thebuilding
wasconstructedinthe1940sandmayhaveleadbasedpaintorasbestoscontainingmaterials,which
mightneedtobeabatedbeforebuildingdemolition.
7-9
Impacts from Contaminated Soil, Contaminated Groundwater, and

Subsurface Features
The sites and areas within the study area that have the greatest potential to affect construction are
shown in Figure 7-2. Contaminants known or suspected to exist on these sites and areas could be found
in soil and groundwater and include petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, and metals.
Contaminated soils would likely be encountered during the excavation and subsurface drilling
anticipated during AWPOW construction. South of Union Street, comparatively small amounts of soil are
anticipated to be removed for installation of utilities, signal foundations, light poles, and other fixtures.
Between Union Street and Bell Street, the earthwork needed to construct Elliott Way, the Pine Street
extension, and the Overlook Walk would require approximately 12,000 to 15,000 cubic yards of soil to
be removed and 40,000 to 45,000 cubic yards of fill to be placed. The fill would be a combination of
materials including mineral aggregate, granular backfill, select backfill, and low-density cellular concrete.
Potential impacts from encountering contaminated soil generally consist of exposure to and spreading
of the contamination. In general, site construction workers are most likely to be exposed to
contaminants, but under certain unmitigated circumstances people passing through the area,
neighborhood residents, and employees of nearby businesses could also be exposed. Potential exposure
routes include skin contact, accidental ingestion of contaminated soil and water, and inhalation of
contaminated vapors or particulates. Health effects are dependent on the type of contaminants present,
the exposure route and duration of exposure, the dosage, and the individuals age. Spread of
contamination can occur if the contaminated soil is placed or allowed to fall or blow onto clean soil or
into surface water or groundwater, whether on or off the construction site. Contaminated groundwater
would also likely be encountered during AWPOW-related excavation and subsurface drilling.
Encountering contaminated groundwater could create potential exposure and contaminant migration
similar to those described for encountering contaminated soil.
Groundwater exists at shallow depths in the AWPOW footprint and generally migrates from east to
west. Construction in areas of existing contamination extending to or below the water table could cause
contaminants to migrate through groundwater along drilling or excavation pathways, including utility
corridors or conduits. Contaminants could also enter groundwater from contact with exposed soils or
contaminated stormwater.
The potential impacts described above could vary depending on the depth of construction activities. As
shown on Figure 7-2, project construction depths are expected to range from about 20 to 80 feet bgs.
Fill materials exist to varying depths in the project footprint. Because fill is expected to be more porous
than native soil and because some of the fill could have been contaminated before it was placed, the
potential to encounter contaminated soil and groundwater is expected to be higher in the fill than in
native soil. In general, this means that construction activities occurring deeper beneath the ground
surface, closer to and below the fill-native soil interface, could have a lower likelihood of encountering
contaminated soil or groundwater.
Although most of the USTs identified in the project footprint appear to have been removed, the
potential exists that some remain in place and that additional undocumented USTs may be encountered
during construction. Damage to a UST whose contents have not been completely removed could result
in a release of hazardous materials.
Steam pipes associated with the Enwave Seattle facility may include pipes that are wrapped in asbestos.
In addition, abandoned pipelines may be present within the project footprint. There is potential that
these subsurface features may be encountered during construction, which could result in exposure or
release of hazardous materials.
Based on the number of monitoring wells located within and near the project footprint, there is a high
potential for encountering monitoring wells during construction. Monitoring wells, particularly those
7-10
associated with hazardous materials sites, may need to be decommissioned or replaced. This process
may require coordination with the site owner or Ecology.
Impacts from Dewatering

Groundwater levels near the shoreline of Elliott Bay are very close to the ground surface and are
influenced by tidal action. Within the project footprint, groundwater is expected to be approximately
6 to 12 feet bgs. As a result, excavations in this area are likely to require dewatering (removal of excess
water from excavated areas). The specific locations of dewatering activities and the volumes of water
likely to be removed are not known at this time; however, the potential exists for dewatering to be
required in most areas of excavation, and in areas of deep excavation, such as the piles supporting the
Overlook Walk and Elliott Way structures. Figure 7-2 shows the approximate depths of potential
construction activities.
Water generated by the dewatering process needs to be handled, stored, and disposed of in a manner
consistent with applicable regulations. Because of the potentially widespread groundwater
contamination in the study area, particularly the significant diesel concentrations observed near the
intersection of Alaskan Way and Madison Street, dewatering activities would likely need to include
treatment options. This assumption is corroborated by the fact that groundwater contamination has
been identified during dewatering activities conducted as part of the EBSP, with the extracted water
requiring treatment or off-site disposal.
In areas where substantial dewatering takes place, pumping of water from the construction excavation
may change the direction of local groundwater flows, which could result in pulling a contaminant
plume into a formerly uncontaminated (or less contaminated) area. This could occur if extensive
dewatering were required in areas close to, but not currently within, the diesel plume identified near the
intersection of Alaskan Way and Madison Street. It is difficult to determine the likelihood of this impact
because neither the exact location of the plume nor the locations of dewatering activities are known.
Impacts from Spills or Other Releases due to Construction

The potential exists for hazardous materials to be released into the environment by construction
equipment and materials. This generally occurs from the improper transfer of fuel or from spills.
Pollutants, such as paints, acids for cleaning masonry, solvents, raw concrete, and concrete-curing
compounds, are present at construction sites and may enter the environment if not managed correctly.
Construction equipment could potentially track and spread contaminated soils off site, unless properly
managed. Spreading of contaminants can also occur in the event of damaged water or sewer lines
during construction in contaminated areas. In addition to affecting public health, spills could enter the
ecologically sensitive waters of Elliott Bay.
Impacts from Construction Staging

Construction staging areas are not expected to be excavated; as a result, subsurface contamination in
those areas would not be disturbed. However, these areas could be used for the storage and handling of
fuels, oils, and other construction-related products, and for operation and storage of heavy equipment.
This usage creates the potential for releases through spills, as discussed in the previous section. The
potential construction staging areas located on the upland portion of Pier 48 and on Pier 62/63 present a
greater potential for impacts to surface water in the event of a spill because the piers are directly over
Elliott Bay.
7.3
7.3.1
Operational Impacts
Hazardous materials contamination in the soil and groundwater throughout the study area would not be
disturbed under the No Action Alternative; therefore, it would not be different from 2017 existing
conditions. The existing contamination would remain in place except where active cleanup operations
7-11
are underway. Future maintenance in the project footprint, especially of underground utilities, could be
negatively affected by the presence of contamination.
7.3.2
Potential operational impacts of AWPOW include spills or releases from vehicles traveling on the
completed Alaskan Way-Elliott Way corridor, the potential for underground utilities to create
contaminant migration corridors, and exposure of workers to contamination during maintenance
activities.
Operational Impacts from Hazardous Materials

Operation of AWPOWs aboveground and roadway elements is not expected to affect existing
hazardous materials in the soil and groundwater. However, the operation of new facilities installed
underground, such as utilities, could have impacts on future cleanup efforts. New pipelines, duct banks,
or conduits could physically impede future cleanup of soil or groundwater, requiring either that the
contamination be left in place or that the cleanup operation take extra measures to protect and support
the utilities. Linear underground utilities can also act as conduits for the movement of soil or
groundwater contamination due to the typical use of porous fill materials as backfill for utility trenches.
This practice could lead to the transport of existing contamination to less contaminated areas, with the
result that future projects or cleanup efforts could encounter contaminants in unexpected places or at
higher than expected levels.
Contaminated soils and groundwater could also affect maintenance activities for the completed
project. Where maintenance activities require excavation, existing soil or groundwater contamination
can continue to create hazardous conditions for workers. Additionally, the buildup of dangerous gases,
such as benzene or methane, in confined spaces can be dangerous for workers maintaining utility
vaults and stormwater systems. This is primarily of concern along Alaskan Way, where methane
buildups have occurred in the past in areas where wood waste material was historically used as fill.
However, there have been issues with methane gas and other dangerous gas buildups throughout the
Seattle downtown area. Additionally, benzene may be of concern in areas where petroleum releases
have occurred. Benzene is a volatile component of petroleum hydrocarbons, particularly in light-end
fuels such as gasoline.
Impacts from Operation and Maintenance

Operation of transportation corridors may result in the release of hazardous materials into the
environment from accidental spills. Such releases would primarily be related to vehicular accidents, as
well as spills during maintenance work involving hazardous materials. Fuel or hazardous materials, if
accidentally released, could migrate to surface water or groundwater and affect properties outside of
the right of way. Impacts could include road closures and delays, cleanup costs, and regulatory fines.
Stormwater can carry these materials from the highway to surface water or to the water table, where
they can persist and accumulate for long periods and cause harm to species and their habitats. However,
because the Preferred Alternative would improve traffic operations and reduce congestion compared to
the No Action Alternative, fewer accidents are expected and therefore less risk of spills. The potential
for spills can be further reduced through the development of emergency response plans and BMPs,
which would be incorporated as part of the project. No long-term effects are anticipated.
7-12
This chapter describes the existing conditions for public services and utilities and discusses the projects
potential impacts during construction and operation. Public services discussed are law enforcement, fire
suppression, emergency response services and hospitals, emergency management, solid waste
collection and recycling, public schools and school bus service, and mail delivery and post offices.
Utilities discussed are water, stormwater collection, sewer (wastewater), electricity, natural gas, steam,
and telecommunications services. Potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that have
been identified for construction and operational impacts are presented in Chapter 16 of this Final EIS.
Additional information is contained in the Draft EIS and in Final EIS Appendix C, Discipline Report Errata
Sheets. Public transportation services are addressed in Chapter 3 and Appendix A, Transportation
Discipline Report, of this Final EIS.
8.1
The affected environment is defined as the conditions that will exist within the study area in 2017, when
the AWVRP, EBSP, and MarketFront projects are complete and before AWPOW construction begins. This
is referred to as the 2017 existing conditions. The study area for public services and utilities is bounded
by S. King Street to the south, Elliott Bay to the west, Occidental Avenue S. and First Avenue to the east,
and Battery Street to the north. The public services and utilities study area extends from the
easternmost edge of the project footprint to Elliott Bay, as shown in Figure 8-1.
8.1.1
Public Services
The public services in the study area are law enforcement, fire suppression, emergency response
services and hospitals, emergency management (including disaster preparedness), solid waste collection
and recycling services, public schools and school bus service, and mail delivery and post offices. The
primary providers of these public services are:
Seattle Police Department (SPD)
Seattle Fire Department (SFD)
Seattle Office of Emergency Management
Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) Solid Waste Division
Waste Management and CleanScapes
Seattle School District
United States Postal Service
King County
Washington State Ferries (WSF)
Port of Seattle
Law Enforcement
SPD provides law enforcement and responds to 911 emergency calls throughout Seattle. The study area
lies within SPDs West Precinct, which includes Belltown, the central business district, the ChinatownInternational District, and Pioneer Square. The Port of Seattle has its own police department that patrols
the waterfront and responds to incidents within the Ports jurisdiction.
8-1
E l li ot t B a y
AL
AS
KA
N
AY
NW
SKA
ALA
Pier 48
WA
YS
Pier 62
6 /63
RAILROAD WAY S
ST
SM
AIN
ST
AC
KS
ON
SJ
SK
IN
GS
T
ST
YE
SL
ER
WA
Y
SW
AS
HIN
GT
ON
T
RD S
CHA
AVE
2ND
ST
INE
VIN
L ST
BEL
N
BL A
ST
ORA
LEN
ST
T ST
WAR
STE
PINE ST
5TH AVE
PIKE ST
4T
TH AVE
UNION ST
UNIVERSITY ST
SENECA ST
SPRING ST
MADISON ST
MARION ST
COLUMBIA ST
CHERRY ST
3RD AVE
Project Footprint
Source: SDOT
AVE
2ND AV
IN IA
VI RG
1ST AVE
800
AVE
1ST
POST AVE
TERRACE ST
5T
HA
VE
S
ACE
E PL
PIK
WESTERN AVE
JAMES ST
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
HE
RN
PA
CIF
IC
RR
Feet
E
N AV
TER
WES
1S
TA
VE
S
2N
DA
VE
S
400
rfron
fr t
Wat
Wa
W
a erf
errf
er
Pa
P
ark
Y
AY
A
WAY
WA
NW
AN
KA
KA
SKAN
AS
A
LA
L
ALAS
ALA
ALAS
OC
CID
EN
TA
LA
VE
S
Pier 56
Pier 55
Y ST
TER
BAT
Pier 54
a Do
oc
ck
C lm
Col
man
ma
k
SF
BN
ea
e
attl
ttlle
ttl
Se
Aqu
A
Aq
q
quari
arrriium
um
L ST
WAL
Pie
er 57
AVE
IOTT
EL L
D
OA
ILR
RA
AVE
3RD
AVE
4TH
AVE
5TH
AVE
6TH
Figure 8-1
Study Area
Study Area

CHAPTER 8 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Fire Suppression and Emergency Medical Services

The SFD provides fire suppression and emergency medical services to Seattle residents. Fire Station 5,
the only fire station within the study area, is located north of Colman Dock at 925 Alaskan Way. This
station houses an engine company, a medical unit, and two fireboats. Its service area extends roughly
from Broad Street to Spokane Street, including the Port of Seattle properties immediately south of
the study area. Fire Station 5 is the primary station for first response to fire and medical emergencies
within the study area.
There are no hospitals or clinics within the study area. However, several hospitals provide emergency
care for people transported from locations within the study area, either by SFD Medic One units or by a
private ambulance service.
Emergency Management
Disaster planning efforts for the City of Seattle are regional, involving various partners that include
multiple City departments, King County, and state and federal agencies. The City of Seattle Office of
Emergency Management is an emergency-preparedness bureau of SPD that is devoted to citywide
disaster preparedness, recovery, response, and mitigation. The Port of Seattle, WSF, and King County
also collaborate on disaster preparedness in the study area and provide services in the event of an
emergency situation or disaster, such as a bomb threat or earthquake. If a catastrophic or major
regional event were to occur, the Seattle Ferry Terminal would act as a regional transportation center.
The Washington State Patrol Homeland Security Division provides vessel and terminal security for the
entire WSF fleet (Washington State Patrol 2014).
Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Services

The City of Seattle currently contracts with CleanScapes, Inc. and Waste Management of Washington,
Inc. (Waste Management) for garbage, recycling, and food and yard waste collection services. Waste
Management covers northwest and south Seattle, and CleanScapes covers northeast and central
Seattle, including the study area. Commercial garbage generated in the city, as well as construction,
demolition, and land-clearing waste, is generally delivered to two private transfer stations: Waste
Managements Eastmont Station (located in the South Park area near the Citys South Recycling and
Disposal station) and a Rabanco-owned station at Third Avenue S. and S. Lander Street. Waste
Management also handles contaminated soils.
Public Schools
There are no public schools in the study area. Public facilities in the study area, such as Colman Dock and
the Seattle Aquarium, are often destination points for students from the region on education field trips.
Approximately three to five school buses per day use Alaskan Way to access these facilities when school
is in session.
Postal Service
There are two United States post offices in the study area. They are located at 217 First Avenue S., near
Pioneer Square, and at 909 First Avenue in the Federal Building. Numerous other businesses throughout
the city, including bank branches and retail stores, are designated Approved Postal Providers, meaning
that they provide some postal services. The United States Postal Service makes regular mail deliveries
throughout the study area.
8.1.2
Utilities
The conditions described below for utilities are expected to exist when AWPOW construction begins in
2017, and reflect utility work that will have been completed by that time as part of the EBSP and
AWVRP. Municipal agencies and private companies provide a number of utilities within the study area,
8-3
particularlywater,stormwatercollection,andsewer(wastewater),aswellaselectricity,naturalgas,
steam,andtelecommunicationsservices.Theprimarypublicutilityprovidersinthestudyareaare:
SPUforwater,wastewater,andstormwatersystems
KingCountyforwastewaterandcombinedseweroverflow(CSO)facilities
SCLforelectricalpower
PSEfornaturalgas
EnwaveSeattleforsteamusedtoheatdowntownbuildings
CenturyLink(formerlyQwest)fortelecommunications
Comcastforcabletelevision
Otherprivatecommunicationscompanies
Water
SPUsupplieswaterto1.4millionpeopleandbusinessesintheSeattleareafromtwowatersheds:theCedar
RiverWatershedandtheSouthForkToltRiverWatershed,bothlocatedineasternKingCounty(SPU2014).
Thestudyareaissuppliedwithfreshwaterfrombothofthesewatersheds.
Watermainswithinthestudyareaprovideservicetocommercialandresidentialpropertyonbothsides
ofAlaskanWay,aswellassupplyingwaterforfireresponse.MainsrunalongthewestsideofAlaskan
WaybetweenS.WashingtonStreetandColumbiaStreet,andontheeastsideofAlaskanWaybetween
ColumbiaStreetandBatteryStreet.AspartoftheEBSP,anewwatermainwillbeconstructedinthe
restoredAlaskanWayroadwayfromYeslerWaytoVirginiaStreet,andanewmainwillbeinstalledfrom
S.KingStreettoYeslerWayaspartoftheAWVRP.ThewatermainsconnecttodowntownSeattles
watersupplysystematBroadStreet,MadisonStreet,YeslerWay,andS.WashingtonStreet.
Thewaterdistributionmainswithinthestudyareawerebuiltatdifferenttimesoverthelast100years.
Consequently,variousconstructiontechniques,materials,andstandardswereused.Watermains
constructedpriortothemid1950sweretypicallyinstalledusingcastironorsteelpipewithleadjoints
(FHWAetal.2006).Newerwatermainsareductileironpipe.
Stormwater
TheexistingstormwaterdrainagesystemisdiscussedinChapter11,WaterQuality,ofthisFinalEIS.In
thestudyarea,thesystemcollectsstormwateranddischargesiteithertothecombinedsewersystem
(wheresanitarysewageandstormwaterarecommingled)ortoseparatestormdrainagefacilitiesthat
dischargetoElliottBay.
Sewer
Inthestudyarea,sanitarysewageiscollectedbyanetworkofconveyancepipesownedandoperated
bySPUandtheKingCountyDepartmentofNaturalResourcesWastewaterTreatmentDivision.This
networkconsistsoftheseparatesanitarysewersystemandthecombinedsewersystem.Bothsystems
flowtotheWestPointTreatmentPlant,withthecombinedsewersystemconveyingsanitarysewageas
wellasstormwatertothetreatmentplant.Flowstothetreatmentplantaretreatedanddischargedinto
PugetSound.Duringheavyrainfall,stormwaterrunoffdrainingtothecombinedsewersometimes
overwhelmspipecapacitiesand,alongwithotherfactors,canresultinoverflowsofthecombinedsewer
intoElliottBay.ThesecombinedseweroverflowsorCSOsandthecombinedsewersystemarediscussed
inChapter11,WaterQuality,ofthisFinalEIS.
8-4
Electrical Power
SCL supplies electrical power to customers in Seattle, including those in the study area. The system that
SCL owns and operates includes both 115-kV transmission lines and 13.8-kV distribution lines. Overhead
and underground distribution lines are located along many streets in the study area. A number of the
existing distribution lines along Alaskan Way will be removed or replaced by the EBSP.
SCLs transmission system includes several high-voltage transmission lines in the study area. These
transmission lines run between electrical substations, which lower the voltage of the electricity before
transferring it to the distribution lines. The Union Street Substation, located on Union Street between
Western Avenue and Post Alley, is the only electrical substation within the study area. Substations
outside of the study area that serve transmission lines within the study area include the Massachusetts
Substation at Colorado Avenue and Massachusetts Street, and the Broad Substation at Sixth Avenue and
Broad Street.
Four transmission lines emanate from the Massachusetts Substation, running north through the study
area. Three of these lines (Transmission Lines 1, 2, and 3) terminate at the Union Substation. The fourth
line, Transmission Line 4, acts as a regional line between the Massachusetts Substation and the Broad
Substation, serving both SCL customers and the regional Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) grid.
Natural Gas
PSE provides natural gas service in the study area, with a service network consisting of transmission lines
(high-pressure gas main lines), distribution lines (including intermediate pressure [IP] distribution lines),
pressure controls, meters, and service lines. Within the study area, a PSE high-pressure gas main line is
located between Madison Street and Blanchard Street within the Alaskan Way right of way. This line
provides natural gas to the Enwave Seattle plant on Union Street and other businesses along Alaskan
Way as well as all of western King County. IP lines distribute natural gas to customers throughout the
study area.
As part of the EBSP, PSE will remove portions of the existing IP distribution lines serving the businesses
along Alaskan Way and construct a new IP distribution line from Blanchard Street to Pike Street. EBSP
will also construct a new IP distribution line from University Street to Madison Street to serve Piers 54
through 57. The EBSP work will leave two gaps in the new IP system: one from Pike Street to University
Street, and one from Madison Street to Columbia Street. These gap portions are planned to be
completed as part of AWPOW.
Steam
The privately held Enwave Seattle provides steam service in the study area under a franchise agreement
with the City. The main plant, located on Western Avenue between University and Union Streets, pumps
steam from four main boilers through a system of underground pipes. Enwave Seattle has historically
provided steam service to many buildings in the study area through underground steam mains in
Western Avenue near the steam plant and on other streets in the study area. However, the company
recently decided to abandon all service to the piers, with the exception of Colman Dock. Service to
Colman Dock will be provided from Western Avenue via a steam line that crosses Alaskan Way at
Marion Street. All other piers formerly served by Enwave Seattle have recently been converted to
natural gas service provided by PSE. Enwave Seattle maintains a gravity drain from the plant, across
Alaskan Way, and through the seawall. This outfall is covered by the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit originally obtained by the Seattle Steam Company.
Telecommunications
The communications infrastructure in the study area is located both aerially and underground. These
systems use fiber optic, coaxial, and copper-cable materials, and have associated conduits, risers, vaults,
manholes, and other appurtenances. Underground lines have been direct-buried, installed in open-cut
trenches, or directionally drilled; others have been pulled through pipelines formerly used for other
8-5
utility purposes, such as gas and water (FHWA et al. 2004). Telecommunications providers in the study
area include:
CenturyLink
Comcast
Wave Broadband
Seattle Department of Information Technology (DoIT)
Sprint
ELI-Integra
Verizon
8.2
8.2.1
The No Action Alternative would not involve construction and therefore would not have construction
impacts on public services and utilities. However, other planned utility improvements in the study area
would still take place.
8.2.2
Public Services
Construction impacts on public services are primarily related to the potential for traffic congestion or
access disruption. In general, two lanes in each direction on Alaskan Way would be open during morning
and afternoon peak traffic hours throughout construction, although one or more lanes could be
temporarily closed at other times to provide access for construction equipment and utility installations.
The temporary closures on Alaskan Way, restrictions on east-west streets, and construction of the Pine
Street extension could impact circulation at times. In addition, construction directly in front of buildings,
parking lots, and other land uses could affect service to those properties. Such construction-related
impacts on transportation and parking are described in greater detail in Chapter 3 (Transportation and
Parking) of this Final EIS.
Emergency Services (Fire, Police, and Disaster Preparedness)

Traffic congestion during construction, as well as construction-related detours, could have an impact
on fire, police, and disaster response services. During peak hours when congestion is greater, travel
times for emergency calls could increase in areas near construction. The potential for delays would be
higher during the closure of Alaskan Way for approximately 4 months to construct the Pine Street
extension. Depending on the location of the roadway construction, response times from Fire Station 5
could increase. Emergency vehicles would be able to cross the construction zone using the sidewalk
along Elliott Bay to reach the northern portion of Alaskan Way without the need to cross the tracks.
The City would work closely with emergency service providers to put in place appropriate measures for
emergency access to and travel through construction areas to minimize impacts on response times.
Access would be maintained to properties and structures along Alaskan Way and adjacent to
construction areas as required for emergency responders. Work occurring in the immediate area of the
properties from which temporary construction easements would be obtained could restrict or change
how vehicle or pedestrian traffic accesses those properties. These changes may result in increased
emergency service response times to those properties and could complicate access, especially for large
fire department vehicles such as ladder trucks. Access from and to Fire Station 5 could be affected by
project construction when roadway or Promenade work is occurring directly in front of the station.
Station access must be provided at all times because the station provides support for its engine
company as well as the fireboats.
8-6
Therecouldbeanincreaseinthedemandforemergencyresponseduetospillsofhazardous
substances,suchasfuelandotherflammableliquids,duringconstruction.However,thelikelihoodof
sucheventsoccurringisexpectedtobeminimal.
SolidWaste
Solidwastehaulerscouldexperiencetemporarydelaysordisruptionsincollectionroutesduring
constructionactivities,especiallyalongroutesectionsthatincludecurbs,driveways,orothercollection
pointsthatcouldbeclosedordifficulttoaccess.Accesstothewaterfrontpiers,inparticular,couldbemore
difficultwhenconstructionisoccurring,whichcouldresultinmoretimeconsumingcollections.Temporary
wastecollectionlocationsmayneedtobeestablishedtoprovidenecessaryservicestobusinesses.
Inaddition,wasteanddebrisgeneratedduringconstructionwouldneedtobecollectedfordisposal.
Materialsremovedfromtheconstructionzoneareanticipatedtobehauledawayintruckstoa
predetermineddisposalsite.
PublicSchools
SchoolbusesthatuseAlaskanWayforfieldtripscouldexperiencesometrafficdelaysduringconstruction.
Loading,unloading,andparkingcouldbemoredifficultandfartherawayfromdesireddestinations,
especiallywhenconstructionworkisoccurringneartheSeattleAquariumorthehistoricpiers.
PostalService
ProjectconstructionwouldhaveimpactsontheUnitedStatesPostOfficeonS.JacksonStreet,particularly
becausevehicularexitfromthepostofficeisontoAlaskanWay.Accesswouldremainavailableatalltimes
duringthefacilityshoursofoperation.Postaldeliveriescouldbesubjecttosomedelaysduring
construction,particularlythosealongAlaskanWay.
Utilities
Constructionimpactsonutilitiesareprimarilyrelatedtothedepthsoftheutilitiesbelowgrade,material
composition,constructionexcavationlimits,andthelocationofthecorridoralignmentandassociated
foundationsrelativetothelocationofutilities.Theexactlocationsanddepthsofcriticalutilitieswould
bedeterminedandverifiedwithutilityprovidersduringthefinaldesignprocess.Utilityworkrelatedto
AWPOWmaybeperformedbyvariousCitydepartments,otheragencies,orprivateutilities.
Constructionisplannedtobeginwithutilitywork,butthesequenceofconstructionhasnotyetbeen
finalizedduetothedynamicnatureofotherprojectsinthearea.
Water
Propertiesandbusinessesinandneartheprojectfootprintmayexperienceimpactstotheirwater
distributionasaresultofplannedoutageswhenswitchoversoccur.Theseoutageswouldaffectboth
potablewatersupplyandwaterforfiresuppression.Maintainingfireflowsandwatersupplypressureis
essentialtoprotectlifeandpropertyduringconstruction;servicelinesandlateralsmayhavetobe
relocatedtomaintaincontinuousserviceandfireprotection.Inadditiontotheimpactsofconstruction
onexistingservice,anewwaterlinemaybeinstalledinElliottWayfromPikeStreettoLenoraStreetto
serveBuildingB.
Stormwater
ConstructionactivitiesforAWPOWwouldincludestormdrainutilitywork,includingrelocatinga30inch
stormdrainnearAlaskanWayandUnionStreettomakeroomforsupportshaftsassociatedwiththe
UnionStreetPedestrianConnection.ProjectimpactsonstormwaterarediscussedinChapter11,Water
Quality,ofthisFinalEIS.
Sewer
DuringAWPOWconstruction,SPUplanstoreplaceanewsanitarysewerlinewithcontrolstructures
alongthenewAlaskanWayfromS.KingStreettoUniversityStreet.Theseplannedsewerinfrastructure
improvementswillundergoaseparateenvironmentalreview.Temporaryfacilitieswouldbeprovidedto
8-7
maintain service to adjacent properties during construction. New side sewers constructed during the
EBSP would be connected to the new sewer.
Electrical Power
Uninterrupted operation of the network transmission and distribution system is critical to maintaining
electrical service to downtown Seattle, including electrical power essential to fire and life safety
systems. All network electrical relocation work would require construction sequencing to maintain
electrical service reliability.
As part of AWPOW construction, new duct banks and vaults would be built on the east side or center of
the Alaskan Way right of way from Yesler Way to Pine Street. From Pine Street, the new duct bank
would extend west to connect to an existing distribution system in the Alaskan Way right of way near
the seawall. Once the new ducts and vaults are energized, SCL would de-energize and abandon in place
the duct bank that is currently located in the area where the Promenade would be built. SCL would
replace the electrical system without service disruptions, but individual service connections from the
network would require scheduled service interruptions.
On the south side of Union Street, between Western Avenue and Post Alley, there is an SCL substation.
The foundations for the columns needed to support the elevated walkway for the new pedestrian
connection between Post Alley and Western Avenue may encroach on SCL utility tunnels that are in the
Union Street right of way. The exact locations and depths of the utility tunnels would be determined and
verified with SCL during the final walkway design process. The foundations for the columns at Union
Street would be designed to avoid the SCL utility tunnels and prevent service disruptions.
Portions of Transmission Line 4 would be relocated due to horizontal and vertical conflicts with Elliott
Way and Building B. This line is a high-pressure fluid-filled cable and must be replaced in full runs from
vault to vault rather than by cutting and splicing. Consequently, several thousand feet of the line must
be relocated. Because this line is a regional power transmission line serving both SCL customers and the
regional BPA grid, its relocation would require a scheduled shutdown, necessitating advance notice and
coordination with BPA.
Service lines, vaults, and meters would be moved or constructed as a result of the new Alaskan Way
roadway alignment, requiring customer notification of scheduled service interruptions. It is anticipated
that new connections would be provided and that the existing and new connections would be sequenced
and protected during construction to provide service with as few outages as possible. Facilities must be
accessible for SCL trucks and equipment at all times for maintenance during and after construction.
Natural Gas
Construction of gas transmission and distribution lines in and across Alaskan Way could affect
pedestrian and vehicle access, depending on how the crossing of the roadways is constructed. Some
service connections could be disrupted during construction. New connections would be provided where
necessary; the existing and new connections would be sequenced and protected during construction to
provide service with as few interruptions as possible. Facilities must be accessible for trucks and
equipment to allow maintenance during and after construction. As part of AWPOW, PSE plans to build a
new district regulator pressure-reducing facility on Elliott Way near either Blanchard Street or Lenora
Street; construction of this facility could require detours for pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
Steam
No steam facilities would be affected by the project because Enwave Seattle would have completed all
changes to steam service, including installation of the new steam line serving Colman Dock and the
abandonment of service to other customers, prior to AWPOW construction.
Telecommunications
As part of AWPOW, a shared telecommunications duct bank would be built along the new Alaskan Way
from S. Washington Street to Pine Street, along the Pine Street extension, and along Elliott Way. The
8-8
installation of this facility along the west side of the Main Corridor could temporarily affect pedestrian
access. Short detours may be put in place to safely route pedestrians around the section being constructed.
Some of the telecommunications systems in the study area provide regional services, while others
provide local distribution and include lateral and service lines to customers. In general, all of the active
systems are essential. Except during planned cutovers required to switch service to the relocated lines,
the project would not take telecommunication lines out of service during construction. Each
communications provider would need to consider operational impacts on their systems during the
design phase.
8.3
8.3.1
Operational Impacts
Under the No Action Alternative, the new seawall would be in place, the viaduct would be removed, and
the Alaskan Way surface street would be restored to its configuration before the start of AWVRP
construction. Most public services would operate in a manner similar to what exists today. In addition to
the utility upgrades included as part of AWVRP and EBSP, other upgrades may take place to meet future
development demands or comply with future regulations.
Routine maintenance activities would continue and could result in periodic sidewalk or lane closures.
These short-duration lane closures may have some impact on emergency response times; however,
emergency providers would be informed in advance of such closures. Demand for emergency services is
expected to remain relatively constant. Overall, impacts on the provision of public services and utilities
from the No Action Alternative are expected to be minimal.
8.3.2
Public Services
The projects long-term impacts on public services would be mostly positive. The new Alaskan Way and
Elliott Way improvements are expected to benefit all service providers and expedite emergency
response compared to the No Action Alternative.
Fire, Police, and Emergency Services

The new Alaskan Way and Elliott Way would have more traffic capacity than under the No Action
Alternative, and would also provide a more direct connection to Belltown via Western and Elliott
Avenues. The Preferred Alternative would remove the southbound bottleneck at Alaskan Way and
Spring Street, improving southbound emergency response times along the corridor by nearly 4 minutes
compared to the No Action Alternative. Northbound travel times along Alaskan Way would be similar
between the Preferred and No Action alternatives.
Because AWPOW would provide new public amenities, the project is expected to attract more visitors to
the study area compared to the No Action Alternative. This increased use could also increase the
demand for emergency services in the area. However, it is not expected that the project would result in
a substantial increase in emergency calls, and such calls are likely to be sporadic events that would not
require increases in staffing for emergency service providers.
Emergency response vehicles, such as the Seattle Fire Departments ladder trucks, would be required to
make U-turns along the corridor to reach destinations on the opposite side of the street. These vehicles
would be able to make U-turns at most intersections. A planted median would prevent vehicles from
making U-turns at S. Main, S. Washington, and Blanchard Streets; therefore, emergency vehicles may
have to travel one block farther north or south past these intersections to make a U-turn. Because
roadway operations on Alaskan Way would generally improve under the Preferred Alternative,
emergency vehicles would likely experience shorter response times as a result of the project.
8-9
South of Pine Street, the relocation of Alaskan Way to the east would increase the distance that
emergency service providers would need to cover to reach a fire on one of the piers or an incident along
the Promenade. The increased distance would be greatest in the vicinity of the Seattle Aquarium, where
there would be up to 75 additional feet between the roadway and the Aquarium. Intervening features
such as plantings, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and kiosks could also complicate access. However,
these types of features are typical of urban areas and are not expected to result in substantial delays for
service providers compared to the No Action Alternative. The installation of new water connections to
adjacent buildings would improve the reliability of water flow for fire response.
Solid Waste
Impacts on solid waste and recycling activities under the Preferred Alternative are expected to be minor.
Collection service and frequency would not change. However, access to buildings along Alaskan Way
would be affected. Some buildings on the east side of the street would need to relocate dumpsters or
use trash cans or other receptacles instead. The Preferred Alternative would maintain the existing
access locations for service functions to the piers on the west side of Alaskan Way, although the
distances from the curb to the building face would be greater. This could require garbage and recycling
trucks to cross the Promenade for collection. Litter and refuse receptacles would be installed at the
kiosks and at Building B.
Public Schools
There are no anticipated operational impacts on public schools or school bus routes as a result of
the project.
Postal Service
There are no anticipated operational impacts on postal service branches or on postal deliveries as a
result of the project.
Utilities
The projects impacts on utility operation and maintenance are expected to be minimal. New facilities
would provide a benefit; however, access to utilities may be more restricted in some cases.
Water
The operation of AWPOW is not expected to impact overall water supply or demand in the study area.
Operation of the water system, including fire flows, would not be adversely affected and may be
enhanced in some areas by new facilities installed as part of the project. Access to valves, fire hydrants,
and other appurtenances for operation of the system would be maintained. The irrigation system for
landscape elements in the medians would be separated from the main pipelines with backflow
protection devices.
Stormwater
Project impacts on stormwater are discussed in Chapter 11, Water Quality, of this Final EIS.
Sewer
New sanitary sewer lines would be connected to Building B, the restroom facilities, and to the kiosks.
During operation of the Preferred Alternative, maintenance of these sewer lines would occur as needed,
but would not be expected to have any noticeable changes or impacts. Access to maintenance holes
would be maintained.
Electrical Power
Operation of the electrical system in the study area would remain the same after project completion.
New distribution facilities would improve the networks capacity and reliability. Relocation of
Transmission Line 4 would also result in increased system reliability both locally and regionally.
8-10
Natural Gas and Steam

Operation of the natural gas and steam systems is not anticipated to change substantially as a
consequence of the project. Once construction is complete, the function of the systems would not be
affected. New natural gas facilities would provide improved reliability, and the new steam service to
Colman Dock would improve service reliability at that location.
8-11
Historic Resources
This chapter identifies the existing historic resources in the study area and discusses AWPOWs potential
impacts on these resources during construction and operation. Each historic resource within the study
area was evaluated to determine whether the project would alter its historic character or use. Potential
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that have been identified for construction and
operational impacts are presented in Chapter 16 of this Final EIS. Additional details about the analysis
are provided in the Draft EIS and in Final EIS Appendix C, Discipline Report Errata Sheets.
A historic resource is defined for this analysis as any building or structure that is a designated City of
Seattle landmark, a contributing or non-contributing property in a City of Seattle-designated historic
district, or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
9.1
The affected environment is defined as the conditions that will exist within the study area in 2017 when
the AWVRP, EBSP, and MarketFront projects have been completed and before AWPOW construction
begins. The historic resources study area extends about one-half to one block beyond the project
footprint, based on the type, extent, and intensity of project activities, and to accommodate the City
Historic Preservation Officers adjacency review of potential impacts on City landmarks. The study area,
shown in Figure 9-1, is generally bounded by Railroad Way S. to the south; First, Second, and Western
Avenues to the east; Wall Street to the north; and Alaskan Way and Elliott Bay to the west.
Seattle's downtown waterfront is the birthplace of the city, the place where settlers arrived, and where
a regional and, later, a worldwide commercial center developed. The study area contains portions of
two City of Seattle-designated historic districts: the Pioneer Square Preservation District and the
Pike Place Market Historical District. In addition to the landmarks in the historic districts, there are
19 designated Seattle landmarks in the study area. Eight of these city landmarks are also listed in the
NRHP. One additional property listed on the NRHP is not a City of Seattle landmark. These landmarks
date predominantly from the late 19th and early 20th centuries and reflect the areas history as a
working waterfront, as well as the commercial and transportation activities characteristic of the early
days of the city. Table 9-1 lists all the historic resources in the study area, indicating the historic status of
each one. Figure 9-1 shows the locations of the individual landmarks and the boundaries of the local
historic districts. Almost all the buildings within the districts are historic (contributing resources to the
district); for greater clarity, only the district boundaries are shown.
In the Pioneer Square Preservation District, buildings on S. Main and S. Washington Streets are among
the city's oldest, and many have adjoining areaways. An areaway is a space directly below the sidewalk,
between the building wall and the street wall. In some older Pioneer Square buildings, the areaways
were created when the City raised the level of the streets during rebuilding after the Great Fire of 1889.
Most areaways provide an important structural function by supporting the sidewalk and street wall.
Many of them are also historically significant and are contributing features to the Pioneer Square
Preservation District, specifically protected by the district rules. Draft EIS Appendix L, East-West
Connections Environmental Review, contains additional information on areaways, and Table 9-2 lists the
areaways that are along S. Main and S. Washington Streets within the project footprint.
Seattles original business district (the area now known as Pioneer Square) sat on a narrow spit of land
surrounded by tidelands. Filling these tidelands was the best way to accommodate new rail yards and
industrial uses. The growth of trade and shipping included development of the piers and wharfs along
the downtown Seattle waterfront. Railroad Avenue (where Alaskan Way is today) originally consisted
primarily of railroad trestles and planked roadways set on pilings with open water in between.
9-1
Elliott Bay
AL
AS
KA
SKA
ALA
NW
Pier 48
AY
S
RAILROAD WAY S
SF
BN
Pier 59
AIN
ST
IN
GS
T
SM
SK
ST
SO
N
AC
K
YE
SL
ER
WA
Y
ST
GT
ON
AS
HIN
SW
SJ
2ND
ST
S
OR A
LE N
Pike Place Market

Historic District
AVE
ST
ARD
NCH
BLA
1ST
ST
ST
Historic Properties
ART
Historic District
Building Footprint
W
ST E
Parcel Boundary
PINE ST
4TH AVE
PIKE ST
2ND AVE
5TH AVE
Project Footprint
CE
PLA
57
UNION ST
Source: SDOT
UNIVERSITY ST
Feet
800
51
Pioneer Square
Preservation District
Historic Resources Study Area

400
52
E
PIK
1ST AVE
3RD AVE
50
SENECA ST
43 44
SPRING ST
AV
ES
TERRACE ST
5T
H
41
MADISON ST
42
55
54
48
MARION ST
COLUMB AI ST
2ND AV ET S
AV
E
CHERRY ST
POST AVE
JAMES ST
2N
DA
VE
ID
EN
TA
L
WESTERN AVE
L
BE L
45
S
IN IA
VIRG
OC
C
60
E
N AV
T ER
WE S
ALASKAN WAY
1S
TA
VE
61
ST
Waterfront
Park
Pier 62/63
VINE
Pier 56
Seattle
Aquarium
ST
Pier 54 Pier 55
Colman Dock
58
Pier 57
AVE
IOTT
EL L
D
OA
ILR
RA
L
WAL
47
56
53
AY
Y ST
T ER
BAT
46
49
NW
AVE
AVE
3RD
AVE
4TH
AVE
5TH
AVE
6TH
Figure 9-1
Historic Resources
within the Study Area
CHAPTER 9 HISTORIC RESOURCES
Table 9-1.
Historic Districts and Landmarks in the Study Area
ID
Number
Popular Name
(Historic Name)
Location
Designation
Alaskan Way to Fourth Avenue,

between Royal Brougham Way S. and
Columbia and Cherry Streets (roughly)
Pioneer Square Preservation District1
Local district,
NRHP
district
SR 99 to First Avenue between Pike

and Virginia Streets (roughly)
Pike Place Market Historical District2
Local district,
NRHP
district
01
Foot of S. Washington Street
Washington Street Boat Landing
PSPD, NRHP
02
83 S. King Street
83 King Street and garage

(Seattle Hardware Co.)
PSPD
03
410 Alaskan Way S.
Merrill Place Garage
PSPD
04
419 First Avenue S.
Merrill Place
(Hambach Building)
PSPD
05
411 First Avenue S.
Merrill Place
(Seller Building)
PSPD
06
401 First Avenue S.
Merrill Place
(Schwabacher Hardware Co.)
PSPD
07
79 S. Jackson Street
Merrill Place
PSPD
08
80 S. Jackson Street
80 S. Jackson Condo
(Steinberg Building)
PSPD
09
316 Alaskan Way S.
Old Seattle Parking Garage
PSPD
10
304 Alaskan Way S.
C&H Company
(Otto Sturham & Sons)
PSPD
11
313 First Avenue S.
Crown Hotel
PSPD
12
309 First Avenue S.
Maud Building
PSPD
13
301 First Avenue S.
Bread of Life Mission

(Matilda Winehill Block)
PSPD
14
75 S. Main Street
Our Home Hotel
PSPD
15
76 S. Main Street
Boston Hotel
PSPD
16
80 S. Main Street
New construction
(formerly Argens Safe & Lock Co.)
PSPD
17
212 Alaskan Way S.
OK Hotel
PSPD
18
210 Alaskan Way S.
Compass Center Addition
PSPD
19
77 S. Washington Street
Lutheran Compass Center

(Pacific Coast Company)
PSPD
20
St. Charles Hotel
PSPD
21
Washington Park Building

(Lowman & Hanford)
PSPD
22
217-19 First Avenue S.
New England Hotel
PSPD
23
213 First Avenue S.
Branagan-Smith Building
PSPD
24
211 First Avenue S.
Lucky Hotel
PSPD
25
209 First Avenue S.
Marathon Building
PSPD
26
207 First Avenue S.
Skagit Hotel
PSPD
27
J&M Hotel & Caf
PSPD
28
114 Alaskan Way S.
Prudential Building
PSPD
29
117 First Avenue S.
Maynard Building
PSPD
30
Terry-Denny Lofts
(Northern Hotel)
PSPD
9-3
Table 9-1.
ID
Number
Popular Name
(Historic Name)
Location
Designation
31
1 Yesler Way
1 Yesler Building
(Bedford Hotel)
PSPD
32
77 Yesler Way
Pioneer Square Hotel

(Yesler Hotel)
PSPD
33
90 Yesler Way
(Post Hotel)
PSPD
34
95 Yesler Way
Yesler Building
(Bank of Commerce)
PSPD
35
93 Yesler Way/103-107 First Avenue S.
Schwabacher Building
PSPD
36
619 Post Alley
Enwave Seattle (Seattle Steam)
PSPD
37
619 Western Avenue
Western Building
PSPD
38
61 Columbia Street
Polson Building
PSPD
39
83 Columbia Street
Journal Building
PSPD
40
701-23 First Avenue
All-Rite Parking Garage/US Bank
PSPD
41
801-821 First Avenue
Colman Building
SL, NRHP
42
801 Second Avenue
Norton Building
SL
43
815 Second Avenue
Key Bank (Bank of California)
SL
44
821 Second Avenue
Exchange Building
SL
45
909 First Avenue
Federal Office Building
NRHP
46
925 Alaskan Way
Fire Station 5
SL
47
1001 Alaskan Way
Pier 54
SL
48
1000-1024 Western Avenue
National Building
SL, NRHP
49
1101 Alaskan Way
Pier 55
SL
50
1107 First Avenue

(94-96 Spring Street)
Watermark Tower
(Colman Building)
SL
51
1115-1117 First Avenue
Grand Pacific Hotel
SL, NRHP
52
1123 First Avenue
Colonial Hotel
SL, NRHP
53
1201 Alaskan Way
Pier 56
SL
54
1203-1207 Western Avenue
(Olympic Warehouse)
SL, NRHP
55
51 University Street
Pacific Net & Twine Building
SL
56
1301 Alaskan Way
Pier 57
SL
57
84 Union Street
(1400 Western)
Marketside Flats
(U.S. Immigration Building)
SL, NRHP
58
1483 Alaskan Way
Pier 59
SL
59
1531 Western Avenue
PC-1 South Condominium/

Heritage House/garage
PPMHD
60
2200 Western Avenue
Union Livery Stable
SL, NRHP
61
66 Bell Street/2307 Western Avenue
Belltown Lofts
(Seattle Empire Laundry)
SL
62
314 First Avenue S.
Nord Building
PSPD
63
310 First Avenue S.
Globe Building
PSPD
64
210 First Avenue S.
Grand Central Building
PSPD
65
206 First Avenue S.
City Loan Building
PSPD
66
200 First Avenue S.
Buttnick Building
PSPD
67
Delmar Building
(Terry and Kittinger Building)
PSPD
9-4
Table 9-1.
ID
Number
Popular Name
(Historic Name)
Location
Designation
68
114 First Avenue S.
State Hotel
PSPD
69
117 S. Main Street
Union Trust Annex
PSPD
70
119 S. Main Street
Union Trust Building
PSPD
71
Laguna Pottery
(Scandinavian Hotel and Clancy Building)
PSPD
72
The Source
(Scandinavian Hotel and Clancy Building)
PSPD
73
Hotel Interurban
PSPD
74
115 Occidental Avenue S.
Casco Antiguo
PSPD
75
State Building
PSPD
76
305 Second Avenue S.
Fire Station #2
PSPD
77
Weyerhaeuser Building
PSPD
78
Casey Waterfall Park
PSPD
79
Lucknow Building
PSPD
80
Leroy Hotel
PSPD
81
McCoy's Tavern
PSPD
82
Barneys Loans
(Nugent Block and Considine Block)
PSPD
1 The
2
NRHP district has a slightly different name, the Pioneer Square-Skid Road Historic District, and different boundaries.
The NRHP district has a slightly different name, the Pike Place Public Market Historical District, and different boundaries.
NRHP = National Register of Historic Places

PPMHD = Pike Place Market Historic District
PSPD = Pioneer Square Preservation District
SL = Seattle Landmark
Table 9-2.
Areaways in the Project Footprint
ID Number
Popular Name
Status of Areaways
S. Main Street
13
Bread of Life Mission
Substantially intact
22
New England Hotel
63
Globe Building
64
Grand Central Building
Substantially altered
69
Union Trust Annex
Slightly altered
70
Union Trust Building
Slightly altered
21
Lowman & Hanford
27
J & M Hotel & Cafe
29
Maynard Building
66
Buttnick Building
Slightly altered
67
Delmar Building
Significantly altered (Filled)
71
Laguna Pottery
Slightly altered (Filled with remaining features)
72
The Source
Slightly altered (Filled with remaining features)
73
Interurban Hotel
Source: SDOT 2003; City of Seattle 2008

9-5
Washington Street Boat Landing, 1921

Courtesy of Seattle Municipal Archives, 2705
Railroad Avenue looking north
from University Street, 1935
Courtesy of Seattle Municipal
Archives, 9532
Railroad Avenue looking south from Bell Street, 1930

Courtesy of Seattle Municipal Archives, 4100
The trestles and planked roadways were not only inefficient and unsafe, but the pilings were being
attacked by woodboring worms known as teredos. To provide some level of protection from Elliott Bay,
between 1911 and 1917, the City built a concrete seawall along the west side of Railroad Avenue from
S. Washington Street to Madison Street. The area to the east of this first section of seawall was then
gradually backfilled. This seawall and subsequent seawall construction from 1934 to 1936 established
the present shoreline. Draft EIS Appendix H, Historic Resources Discipline Report, contains additional
information about the history of early settlement and growth along the Seattle waterfront.
World War II brought significant changes to the waterfront, with increasing activity due to population
growth, the booming factories and shipyards nearby, and the U.S. Navy facilities in Bremerton. Pier 36
became a major Port of Embarkation for the U.S. Army and is now the district headquarters for the
U.S. Coast Guard.
By the late 1950s, shippers began consolidating cargo in larger shipping containers, revolutionizing the
work and the design of the piers. Fewer workers were needed; large cranes were used to move freight
directly onto rail cars or trucks. Freight sheds and warehouses on the piers were no longer needed
because cargo, secure in containers, could be moved more quickly by truck or rail. To the south of Pier 48,
the Terminal 37/46 complex was created by filling and joining several piers (Hershman et al. 1981).
9-6
The other transformative change after World War II was the dominance of the automobile. Air travel
replaced the coastal and ocean-going steamers. The opening of the Alaskan Way Viaduct on April 4,
1953 symbolized the final transition of the post-war world from water and rail transportation to
automobiles and trucks. The Battery Street Tunnel was completed in June 1954, connecting the new
viaduct to Aurora Avenue. The viaduct dramatically altered the character of the waterfront and its
buildings, turning the citys back on what had once been its gateway.
By the early 1960s, the changes in shipping and transportation reduced traditional uses on the
waterfront, and recreation and tourism became more significant factors. In the 1970s, a new round of
regional civic improvements recognized the change along the waterfront by replacing Pier 58 with
Waterfront Park and building an aquarium at Pier 59. Just north of the aquarium, the pier sheds on
Pier 62/63 were demolished because of their dilapidated condition in the 1980s.
In the early 1990s, Pier 69, which had been used as a warehouse for the nearby American Can Company
factory, was completely remodeled into the Ports headquarters building. The large factory building on
the east side of Alaskan Way had been closed in the 1970s and was remodeled into a trade center in the
1980s and, later, into offices. In the mid-1990s, more dramatic changes occurred with the Port of
Seattles Central Waterfront Project. Piers 64, 65, and 66 were replaced by a small boat marina, a cruise
ship terminal, and the Bell Harbor conference center and restaurant complex. Pedestrian bridges at Bell
and Lenora Streets connected Belltown to the waterfront. The upland area directly across Alaskan Way
from Pier 66, also owned by the Port of Seattle, was privately developed as condominiums, office
buildings, and a large hotel.
Today, work is underway to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel. Demolishing the viaduct will
reverse some of the changes that have occurred since the 1950s and remove a large visual and physical
barrier between the waterfront and areas farther east. The removal of the viaduct will reduce noise and
pollution, leading to a more pleasant atmosphere for waterfront visitors. Pioneer Square and the Pike
Place Market will have the same level of access to the waterfront as they do today, and will also benefit
from the removal of the viaduct and its negative impacts. The EBSP is replacing the original seawall,
which will help to protect the historic structures along and near the waterfront. By 2017, when AWPOW
construction is planned to start, the new seawall will be completed, the Alaskan Way Viaduct will be
gone, the SR 99 tunnel will be in operation, and Alaskan Way would be restored to its original condition.
The restored Alaskan Way would have the same width as in 2010, and would continue to provide access
to the businesses in the historic piers; generally, the same amount of parking would be available.
9.2
9.2.1
The No Action Alternative does not involve any construction activities and therefore would not have any
construction impacts on historic resources.
9.2.2
The most important factors in determining potential construction impacts of the Preferred Alternative
are its construction methods (the type and intensity of activities), the location of the construction work,
and the duration of the activities. As currently planned, AWPOWs construction activities are expected
to have only minor impacts on historic resources in the study area. These impacts would be typical of
roadway projects, such as noise, vibration, dust, and tracking of dirt and mud. There would also be
short-term access limitations, traffic congestion, and reduced parking in the study area. Because work
would be done in segments (each one block to several blocks long), each historic property would be
affected for a relatively short period. Construction of the Overlook Walk and Elliott Way would take
longer, but the work duration would still be relatively short term. Structural foundations such as pier
shafts are expected to be drilled or vibrated into place. Impact pile driving, which can cause higher
vibration levels, is not anticipated. As a result, construction-related vibration is expected to be of
9-7
insufficient magnitude to adversely affect historic resources. While these short-term impacts may
inconvenience residents, customers, and employees who use the historic properties, the ability of
owners to maintain the historic integrity of their properties is not anticipated to be affected.
Temporary construction easements would be sought from many historic buildings, primarily to
temporarily modify access and to change how some loading docks are used. The City does not anticipate
any removal of loading docks or other physical impacts or alterations to these buildings.
Main Corridor and East-West Connections

The following historic resources would experience the types of impacts described above as a result of
the construction of street improvements, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or transit facilities along the
Alaskan Way-Elliott Way corridor and adjacent east-west streets:
Construction of the new Alaskan Way from S. King Street to Pine Street would cause short-term
construction impacts to the historic piers (Piers 54 to 59, ID Numbers 47, 49, 53, 56, and 58); to
Fire Station 5 (ID Number 46); to buildings on the east side of Alaskan Way on the western edge of
the Pioneer Square Preservation District; and to other buildings on the east side of Alaskan Way
(ID Numbers 54, 55, 57, and 59). The short-term access limitations, traffic congestion, and reduced
parking could affect all of the historic resources (such as ID Numbers 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 50, and 51).
Construction of wider sidewalks and repaving of the roadway along S. Main and S. Washington
Streets would cause short-term impacts for the numerous adjoining buildings in the Pioneer Square
Preservation District.
Construction of urban design and landscape improvements on Columbia and Seneca Streets would
cause short-term impacts for the adjoining historic buildings: the Polson (ID Number 38), Journal
(ID Number 39), and Colman (ID Number 41) buildings on Columbia Street; and the Colonial
(ID Number 52) and 1201 Western (ID Number 54) buildings on Seneca Street.
Construction of the pedestrian bridge at Marion Street could cause short-term impacts for the
adjoining historic Colman Building (ID Number 41).
Construction of wider sidewalks on the east side of Alaskan Way would have short-term
construction impacts on the adjacent buildings, including temporary alteration of pedestrian routes
and vehicle access.
Construction of bicycle and transit facilities along the new Alaskan Way would have minimal
impacts because these facilities would be located some distance from historic buildings.
Construction of walkways, elevators, and urban design improvements on Union Street would cause
short-term impacts for the adjoining U.S. Immigration Building (Marketside Flats, ID Number 57).
Construction of the Pine Street extension would have little or no impact on historic resources
because there are no such resources in the vicinity.
Construction of Elliott Way between Lenora and Bell Streets could have short-term impacts on
two historic buildings that are in the general vicinity: the Union Livery Stable at Blanchard Street
(ID Number 60) and the Empire Laundry (Belltown Lofts, ID Number 61) at Bell Street.
Construction of urban design and landscape improvements to extend Bell Street Park would cause
short-term impacts for the adjoining Empire Laundry (Belltown Lofts building, ID Number 61).
None of the potential construction impacts on historic resources are considered significant because
none would alter the character or use of historic resources.
9-8
Promenade
Construction of the Promenade on the west side of Alaskan Way would cause short-term impacts for
Fire Station 5 (ID Number 46) and the historic piers (Piers 54 to 59; ID Numbers 47, 49, 53, 56, and 58),
including temporary limitations on pedestrian and vehicle access. However, these potential impacts on
historic resources are not considered significant because they would not alter the character or use of
the resources.
Overlook Walk
The Overlook Walk would involve the construction of one building west of and below the Pike Place
Market and a sloping lid descending to the waterfront. This large-scale construction would lead to
short-term impacts for Pier 59 (ID Number 58) at the Seattle Aquarium, including temporary limitations
on pedestrian and vehicle access. The Pike Place Market would also be affected by changes to access
from the waterfront during construction of the Overlook Walk. However, these potential impacts on
historic resources are not considered significant because they would not alter the character or use of
historic resources.
9.3
Operational Impacts
Operational impacts occur once a project is completed and functioning. Important factors to consider in
determining these impacts on historic resources are whether or not there would be a permanent change
to a historic property (such as demolition or physical alteration), whether the propertys historic context
and setting would change, and what effect the project would have on the use and viability of the property.
9.3.1
This alternative would have minimal or no impact on historic resources; conditions would be similar to
those in 2017 after completion of the AWVRP, EBSP, and MarketFront projects.
9.3.2
Main Corridor and East-West Connections

The operation of street improvements along the Main Corridor and east-west connections would have
minimal impacts on and could have slight benefits to historic resources, with the possible exception of
the improvements on S. Main and S. Washington Streets, as described below.
The new Alaskan Way and Elliott Way would improve access between historic resources along the
waterfront and the Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market historic districts compared to the No
Action Alternative.
The width of the new Alaskan Way would be the same as that of the paved area that existed before
AWPOW construction, because it would be entirely within the combined footprint of the existing
Alaskan Way and the parking area beneath the viaduct.
The removal of parking that would occur under AWPOW, in conjunction with enhanced
nonmotorized and transit facilities that are included in the project, is consistent with City policy
direction and supports overall City planning goals for reducing dependency on single-occupant
vehicles in the downtown area.
Loading zone and parking spaces would be provided on the east side of the new Alaskan Way
between S. King and S. Jackson Streets, and between S. Main Street and Yesler Way in the Pioneer
Square area. These spaces would improve access and loading for businesses on the east side of
Alaskan Way.
Wider sidewalks on the east side of Alaskan Way would enhance the pedestrian environment and
would support the viability of the businesses in the historic buildings. Between S. King Street and
Yesler Way (in the Pioneer Square Preservation District), east side sidewalks would be about 20 to
9-9
30 feet wide. North of Yesler Way (partially in the historic district and adjacent to other
landmarked buildings), the sidewalks would be about 14 to 20 feet wide. These improvements
would encourage appropriate new uses and more pedestrian-oriented activities. Any alterations
would have to be approved by the appropriate historic review board.
All intersections on Alaskan Way would be signalized; this would control traffic speeds and reduce
the sense of a barrier between the historic districts and the waterfront. The signalized intersections
would enable pedestrians to cross easily from Pioneer Square to the waterfront, maintaining the
historical connections between these areas.
Provisions for regional transit and local waterfront bus transit would have a minimal impact on
historic resources because bus stops would not abut historic buildings in the Pioneer Square
Preservation District or Pike Place Market Historic District and would be separated from the historic
piers by the Promenade. The improved access and connections would benefit businesses and
residents in Pioneer Square and along the waterfront.
Bicycle facilities are also unlikely to impact historic resources because they would generally be
located west of Alaskan Way, not close to historic buildings.
The Elliott Way connection would have little or no impact on historic resources. The two historic
buildings in the general vicinity (Union Livery Stable, ID Number 60, and the Empire Laundry
[Belltown Lofts], ID Number 61) would not be impacted.
The Pine Street extension would have little or no impact on historic resources because there are no
such resources in the vicinity.
Urban design and landscape improvements to Seneca and Columbia Streets would have minimal
impacts on historic resources. A very small amount of right of way (54 square feet) would be
acquired from the Polson Building parcel (ID Number 38). The south side of Columbia Street is
within the Pioneer Square Preservation District, and several other historic buildings (the Colman [ID
Number 41], Colonial [ID Number 52], and 1203 Western [ID Number 54] buildings) are located on
these two streets. The specific changes would be determined during final design and the Certificate
of Approval process.
The proposed improvements on S. Main and S. Washington Streets could potentially have
permanent impacts on some areaways. Constructing sidewalk improvements often requires that
nearby areaways be modified. This may significantly alter character-defining features of some of
these historic spaces. The type and extent of alterations would depend on the specific
characteristics of each areaway and would be determined during final design and the Certificate of
Approval process.
The Union Street Pedestrian Connection would have minimal operational impacts on the
U.S. Immigration Building (Marketside Flats, ID Number 57). Although the pedestrian walkways and
elevators would change the area around the building, and may affect views of the building from
some vantage points, the impact would not be significant and would not affect the buildings
historical, physical, or economic integrity. The enhanced access from First Avenue and the Pike
Place Market could improve the economic viability of the building and its businesses.
The Bell Street Park Extension would have little or no operational impact on the Empire Laundry
(Belltown Lofts, ID Number 61). Although the urban design improvements would alter the
buildings setting, the impact would not be significant and would not affect the buildings historical,
physical, or economic integrity. The improvements, however, could potentially improve the
economic viability of the building.
With the possible exception of the improvements on S. Main and S. Washington Streets, none of these
potential impacts are considered significant because they would not alter the character or use of historic
resources.
9-10
Promenade
The Promenade would be located on the west side of Alaskan Way, adjacent to the historic piers and the
Washington Street Boat Landing. It would include kiosks, a new railing, planted terraces, and numerous
trees. In their current preliminary design, the proposed kiosks are about the same height as the pier
sheds and modernist in character, massing, and materials, which would make the structures inconsistent
with the adjoining historic buildings. The Promenade, particularly the kiosks, would alter the setting of
the historic piers and the boat landing. Depending on the final design, these additions could be perceived
to reduce the sense of connection relating to the waterfront structures, roadway, and the buildings on
the east side of Alaskan Way, to which they were historically connected through use and association.
These impacts could be minimized by using the types of measures identified in Section 16.8.2.
Overlook Walk
The new Overlook Walk could potentially alter the setting, character, and usage of parts of the Pike
Place Market. The sloping lid of the Overlook Walk would provide grade-separated pedestrian access
between the Pike Place Market and the waterfront, connecting to the Promenade near the Seattle
Aquarium. It would improve the connections between two historic areasthe Pike Place Market and the
historic piers. These improvements would potentially benefit both areas by making it easier for visitors
to access and visit them. The open space on the lid, and potential activities associated with Building B,
could encourage more visitors and longer visits. These visitors may also patronize the businesses in the
historic buildings, enhancing the commercial viability of the historic areas and the ability of the owners
to maintain the historic features of their properties.
9-11
10 Archaeological Resources
This chapter discusses the potential for encountering archaeological resources during construction of
AWPOW and the impacts that could result if such resources were encountered. The description of how
any required avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures would be developed in consultation
with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and concerned tribes is located
in Chapter 16 of this Final EIS. Additional details about the analysis are provided in the Draft EIS and in
Final EIS Appendix C, Discipline Report Errata Sheets.
10.1 Affected Environment

begins. Figure 10-1 shows the horizontal boundary of the study area against the original 19th century
shoreline of Elliott Bay before this filling occurred. The horizontal boundary for the study area is the same
as the project footprint. The vertical boundary of the archaeological resources study area is the depth of
construction, as shown in Figure 10-2.
10.1.1
Cultural and Historical Setting
The study area is within the traditional territory of the Duwamish, a people in the Lushootseed language
group who inhabited winter villages and temporary camps along the shorelines of Elliott Bay, Lake
Washington, Lake Union, and the Duwamish, Black, and Cedar Rivers (Petite 1954; United States Court of
Claims 1927; Waterman 1922). Today, many Duwamish descendants have chosen to become members of
federally recognized tribes, including the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, Suquamish
Tribe, and the Tulalip Tribes, while others continue to seek independent Duwamish tribal status.
The Duwamish, Muckleshoot, and Suquamish peoples likely shared the shoreline of Elliott Bay and the
Duwamish River (Lane 1987). As was the case with many Puget Sound peoples, salmon was a staple food
in a diet based on a larger seasonal round that exploited a wide range of resources as they became
available. The tidal flats and the adjacent shorelines provided habitat for multiple varieties of
invertebrates, mollusks, and crustaceans as well as waterfowl. The bays open water supported many of
the same fish and sea mammals found there today, including varieties of salmon, steelhead trout, cod,
flounder, and other rockfish (Suttles and Lane 1990).
In spring and summer, people dispersed from winter villages of cedar plank houses to live in temporary
camps to fish, hunt land and sea mammals, and collect roots, berries, and other plants. In winter,
preserved forms of these foods supported the village while important ceremonial work was completed.
Winter was also important for establishing and maintaining social relationships. Heads of households
hosted public events marking changes in status, such as naming, puberty, marriage, or death. The more
important the family, the more guests were welcomed, representing ties of marriage, adoption, trade, and
social obligation (Miller 1999).
The Lushootseed names of places remembered by former inhabitants dot the margin of Elliott Bay, the
Duwamish delta, and adjacent lakes and waterways. They represent the memory of a people intimately
familiar with the local landscape; they refer to resource locations, encampments, events, and places of
myth or are simply descriptive. At the south end of the study area were villages near Djidjill3lltc, the
crossing-over place. At the north end of the study area was Babakwob, or prairie, a series of open
spaces. These open spaces were crossed by Ctcaqwcd, a trail between Elliott Bay and Lake Union that
originated on the waterfront (Waterman 2001).
10-1
AWPOW Study Area
Figure 10-1
1875 Historic Shoreline
Near the Archaeological Resources Study Area
E lliot t B ay
AL
AS
KA
SKA
ALA
NW
Pier 48
AY
S
Pier 62/63
RAILROAD WAY S
IN
GS
T
SM
SJ
AC
K
AIN
ST
SO
N
ST
SK
YE
SL
ER
WA
Y
ST
GT
ON
AS
HIN
SW
ST
60-80 ft
VINE
40-60 ft
ST
0-20 ft
Note:
The horizontal boundary of the study area for construction
and operational impacts is the same as the project footprint.
The vertical study area boundary is the depth of construction
within the project footprint.
2ND
ST
S
OR A
LE N
Building Footprint
ST
Project Footprint
Parcel Boundary
AVE
L
BE L
1ST
IN IA
VIRG
5TH AVE
ST
4TH AVE
ART
3RD AVE
W
ST E
PIKE ST
2ND AVE
UNION ST
UNIVERSITY ST
SENECA ST
SPRING ST
Source: SDOT
MADISON ST
PINE ST
1ST AVE
MARION ST
AV
E
COLUMB AI ST
Feet
CE
PLA
POST AVE
ID
EN
TA
L
800
E
PIK
ST
ARD
NCH
BLA
WESTERN AVE
TERRACE ST
AV
ES
400
E
N AV
T ER
WE S
CHERRY ST
2ND AV ET S
NO
RT
HE
RN
PA
CIF
IC
RR
1S
TA
VE
JAMES ST
2N
DA
VE
Waterfront
Park
ALASKAN WAY
OC
C
5T
H
Pier 56
Pier 55
AVE
IOTT
EL L
D
OA
ILR
RA
Y ST
T ER
BAT
Pier 54
Colman Dock
SF
BN
Seattle
Aquarium
AY
L
WAL
Pier 57
NW
AVE
AVE
3RD
AVE
4TH
AVE
5TH
AVE
6TH
Figure
Information on encampments, cemeteries, and work areas has been gleaned from historical accounts,
records, and photographs (FHWA, WSDOT, and City of Seattle 2011). Several of these occur within the
study area, many along the shoreline in former beach or tideland areas. These residential locations
represent three periods of historical Native American presence: existing villages and longhouses
observed by the earliest American settlers; areas occupied by Indians displaced from traditional sites, but
still living in the city and providing important labor and subsistence to the new residents; and temporary
camps occupied by transient traders and hop pickers later in the 19th century after exclusionary laws
were passed by the City. The use of Elliott Bay by Indians continued, with canoes drawn up and tents
pitched for temporary camps on the newly filled tidelands (FHWA, WSDOT, and City of Seattle 2011). The
early historical record also includes descriptions of Native American burial sites and cemeteries in and
near the study area.
In the late 19th century, commercial development along the Seattle waterfront led to increased ship
traffic. Ships arriving in the harbor released their ballast, often stones and other heavy debris, to take on
lumber, coal, and other products. One location favored for ship ballast disposal was at the foot of
S. Washington and S. Main Streets. The deposition of ballast in this location created an island that rose
above the tide flats, first appearing on historic maps between 1878 and 1884 (Glover 1878; Wellge 1884).
As it expanded, Ballast Island became a gathering spot for Native Americans because it was one of the few
places they were permitted to camp within the city. After the City of Seattle passed an ordinance in 1865
restricting Indian encampments to the most outlying regions of the area, often next to muddy tide flats,
Ballast Island provided a usable space for Native Americans to establish encampments freely and without
fear of expulsion (Dorpat 1984; Watt 1959). Although it was initially used out of necessity, the island
evolved into an important place for Native Americans throughout the region and served as both a
rendezvous point and a refuge (Elder 2014).
As Seattle grew, Ballast Island eventually became attractive to developers. With the waterfronts land
typically consisting of swampy and unstable tide flats, the firm, rocky base of the island had good
development potential, especially considering the ever-increasing scarcity of undeveloped land (Elder
2014). Sometime between 1900 and 1904, development of the waterfront extended to and covered
Ballast Island, making it no longer available for Indian encampment. In its place, the Pacific Coast
Companys Pier A was built. This pier was later replaced with the Pacific Coast Pier No. 48, which remains
today, minus the standing structures it originally held, as shown on Sanborn insurance maps of 1904,
1916, and 1944 (Elder 2014).
10.1.2
Physical Setting and Previous Investigations
Various geological events, including glaciation and seismic activity, have changed the location of the
shoreline over time and created complex subsurface layers that have varying potential to contain
archaeological deposits. In the late 19th century, the shoreline was subject to extensive grading and filling
in efforts to improve waterfront access, hold back the tidal Elliott Bay, and raise the level of the city
streets above high tide. As can be seen in Figure 10-1, most of the study area was under water prior to the
filling; however, it intersects several features of the historic shoreline. Between S. King Street and Yesler
Way, the study area extends over a former tidal marsh and lagoon; north of Yesler Way, it is entirely west
of the historic shoreline until approximately Pike Street. North of Pine Street, the study area is mostly
landward of the historic shoreline, running along former beach areas and up the steep bluff to the east
(FHWA et al. 2004).
In general, areas located on native soils have the potential to contain pre-contact (prior to 1850) cultural
resources, while those located in fill areas have the potential to contain historic-era (post-1950)
resources. However, in the westernmost 20 to 40 feet of the AWPOW footprint south of Pine Street,
construction of the EBSP will remove and replace soils landward of the existing seawall to a depth of
about 15 feet before the start of AWPOW construction. Soils below this level will be stabilized with jet
grouta cement-based mixture that solidifies underground to provide structural support. As a result, this
10-4
CHAPTER 10 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
area will contain little or no original subsurface material and therefore is expected to have very low
potential for cultural resource deposits.
Numerous cultural resource studies and investigations have been conducted for other projects in the
vicinity of the study area and are noted in Draft EIS Appendix I, Archaeological Resources Discipline
Report, and Draft EIS Appendix L, East-West Connections Environmental Review. Fifteen archaeological
sites have been previously recorded in or adjacent to the study area. Of these 15 sites, five are within
the AWPOW footprint. Three of the five sites within the footprint have been mitigated through
recordation and excavation and at least partially removed. The other two sites are Ballast Island and a
historic buried concrete wall.
Because Ballast Island is no longer visible, estimates of its horizontal extent are based on a combination
of historic documentary research and limited subsurface investigations. The most recent investigations,
conducted as part of WSDOTs investigation and monitoring activities for the AWVRP, indicate that
ballast deposits, consisting of angular sandstone and granite along with pebbles, cobbles, and boulders,
are present at depths between 2.5 and 14 feet bgs (Elder 2014; Manetas 2016). Although occasional
historic-era items such as bricks, nails, wood, glass, and ceramic fragments have been found, no artifacts
have been identified that can be clearly connected to Native American occupation. While the
boundaries of the site have not been fully defined, recent information provided by WSDOT based on
monitoring done for the AWVRP indicates that the deposits extend from S. Main to S. Washington
Streets and from beneath Pier 48 to near Alaskan Way (Manetas 2016).
The historic buried concrete wall site, adjacent to the proposed Union Street Pedestrian Connection,
may extend north across Union Street. It was recorded in 2012 when discovered during construction
activities. The wall has been impacted by previous construction episodes, including the 2012
10.2 Construction Impacts

10.2.1
The No Action Alternative would not involve any construction or other ground-disturbing activities and
therefore would not impact archaeological resources.
10.2.2
Impacts to Known Archaeological Sites

Construction of AWPOW would intersect with the boundaries of Ballast Island that were identified as
part of the AWVRP cultural resource investigations and subsequent monitoring, described above in
Section 10.1.2. As noted, the site was identified as having deposits between 2.5 and 14 feet bgs that
extend from S. Main to S. Washington Streets and as far east as Alaskan Way. Therefore, AWPOW
construction occurring at depths greater than 2.5 feet could encounter and disturb Ballast Island
deposits. Based on current design plans, project elements with the potential to exceed this depth in the
vicinity of the known deposits are a light pole, telecommunications lines under the bicycle facility, and
root zones for trees.
Construction will also take place near the historic buried concrete wall near Union Street and Western
Avenue that is a recorded archaeological site. Based on the current design plans, it is not expected that
this site would be disturbed.
The other three known archaeological sites within the study area have been recorded and at least
partially removed. These sites would not be impacted during AWPOW construction; however, the areas
around the sites remain high-probability areas for encountering additional cultural resources.
10-5
Potential for Impacts to Undiscovered Archaeological Sites

Because of the past uses of the area, construction of AWPOW has the potential to encounter previously
undiscovered cultural resources. This potential varies by the type of soils in which construction takes
place (native or fill) and by the depth of construction. In general, native soils have greater potential to
contain pre-contact archaeological resources, while fill soils are most likely to contain historic-era
resources. Because of historic alteration in the study area, deeper excavations are more likely to
intersect with native soils than shallower excavations. Figure 10-2 above shows the expected depths of
excavation for AWPOW construction.
As shown in Figure 10-2, construction of the Main Corridor and Promenade would generally be at
relatively shallow depths (20 feet or less) below the current ground surface, within areas that were filled
during the historic regrading of downtown Seattle. Construction in this area would therefore be most
likely to encounter historic-era archaeological sites. Artifacts from this era could include lumber,
sawdust, bottles, wire, brick, cans, foundations, walls, industrial equipment, and wood, iron, and steel
associated with railroads. If any of these materials are discovered in association with intact identifiable
and datable artifacts or features, or with stratified deposits, they could provide information about the
chronology of the developing shoreline. However, given the history of filling in this area, it is more likely
that these materials would be discovered in mixed fill, with no intact context, and would therefore not
be considered significant resources. Construction of the EBSP would likely remove any sites or artifacts
in the westernmost 20 to 40 feet of the AWPOW footprint along Alaskan Way south of Pine Street;
therefore, the potential for impacts in this area is minimal.
The potential for discovering pre-contact archaeological deposits in the study area is generally low
because of the geologic events that have changed the location of the Elliott Bay shoreline over time.
Most of the intertidal zones and beaches that might have been used by Native Americans in pre-contact
times are now inundated by Elliott Bay. In addition, beach backshore areas that underlie much of the
study area were subject to erosion during high-water periods and as a result are considered unlikely
locations for significant pre-contact archaeological materials (SDOT 2013). The greatest likelihood of
encountering such materials is in the area between Pike Street and Blanchard Street, where
construction depths could reach 80 feet bgs. Although regrading in this area has removed some of the
native soils, the historic fill is thinner than it is along the shoreline, and deeper areas of excavation could
intersect older deposits that have the potential to contain pre-contact materials. Construction activities
on Union Street would be 40 to 60 feet deep due to the drilled shafts required for the pedestrian
walkway connections, and therefore could also encounter older archaeological deposits. In addition,
there is an area of shallow historic fill near S. Washington Street where beach deposits could be present
at depths as shallow as 23.5 feet bgs. Construction in this area would be near the boundary where precontact archaeological deposits could be present (SDOT 2013).
10.3 Operational Impacts

10.3.1
No impacts are anticipated from operation of the No Action Alternative because no ground-disturbing
activities would take place in the study area.
10.3.2
The operation of AWPOW would not involve any ground-disturbing activities that could affect
archaeological resources; as a result, no impacts are anticipated.
10-6
11 Water Quality
ThischapterdescribesthewaterqualityanalysisconductedforAWPOW.Analystsfirstidentifiedthe
drainagesystemandnaturalwaterbodyconditionsthatareexpectedtoexistin2017afterthe
completionofAWVRP,EBSP,andMarketFront.These2017existingconditionsareknownastheaffected
environment.AnalyststhenevaluatedthechangesthattheproposedPreferredAlternativewouldhave
relativetotheNoActionAlternativeonthestormwaterdrainagesystemandnaturalwaterbody
conditions.ChangesarisingfromoperationofthePreferredAlternativeweregenerallyidentifiedthrough
aquantitativeevaluationofpollutiongeneratingimpervioussurfacesandthepollutantsthesesurfaces
areexpectedtodischargetoElliottBay.Potentialconstructionrelatedimpactswerequalitatively
assessed.Potentialavoidance,minimization,andmitigationmeasuresthathavebeenidentifiedfor
constructionandoperationalimpactsarepresentedinChapter16ofthisFinalEIS.Additionaldetails
abouttheanalysisareprovidedintheDraftEISAppendixJ,WaterQualityDisciplineReport,andinFinal
EISAppendixC,DisciplineReportErrataSheets.Wastewatercollectionandtreatmentarediscussedin
Chapter8,PublicServicesandUtilities,ofthisFinalEIS.

11.1.1
Existing Drainage System
Theprojectfootprintislocatedatthedownstreamendofalargeareathatdrainsstormwaterrunofftoa
complicatedsystemofpipes,pumps,anddiversionstructures.Thisdrainagesystemhasbeenmodified
overtimesinceitwasoriginallybuiltandincludesareasthatdraintoseparatedstorm,combinedsewer,
andlowflowdiversionfacilities(whichtypicallydraintothecombinedsewer).Allthreetypesoffacilities
arepresentwithintheprojectfootprint(WSDOT2007).Thestudyareaforthewaterqualityanalysis
comprisesthefullextentofthesubbasins(smalldrainageareasthatalldischargetothesamewater
body)inwhichtheprojectfootprintislocated,theoutfallsofthosesubbasins,andElliottBay.
Figure111showsthewaterqualityanalysisstudyareaandthesubbasinsinthestudyarea.Figure112
showsthestormwatersubbasintypeforeachportionoftheprojectfootprint.Bothfiguresshowoutfalls
withinandinthevicinityoftheprojectfootprint.
Mostofthestormwaterrunofffromtheprojectfootprintdischargesthroughseparatedstormdrain
subbasinsdirectlytoElliottBay(Figure112).Thecombinedsewersubbasinswithintheproject
footprint,whichincludecomponentsthatwereconstructedasearlyas1934,conveyflowstotheKing
CountyWestPointTreatmentPlant(locatednorthwestofdowntownSeattleinDiscoveryPark)priorto
dischargingintoPugetSound.Inthestudyarea,theseparatedstormdrainsystemdischarges
stormwaterrunofftoElliottBaythroughsixmajorseparatedstormdrainoutfallsandanumberofminor
(individual)separatedstormdrainoutfalls,whichareshowninFigure112.Someoftheseparated
stormdrainsubbasinssharetheiroutfallstructureswithcombinedseweroverflowstructures,butare
independentofthecombinedsewersystem.
11.1.2
Water Quality Conditions
TheprojectfootprintlieswithinoneoftheoldestandmosturbanizedpartsofSeattle,wherelandcover
ispredominantlypollutiongeneratingimpervioussurfaces(PGIS)consistingofroadwaysandparking
areas.Thesmallamountsofnonpollutiongeneratingimpervioussurfaces(NPGIS)presentwithinthe
projectfootprintincludesidewalks,bicyclelanes,andperviouslandscapedareas.Nostreams,wetlands,
orsurfacewatersotherthanElliottBayarepresentinthearea.ThebayispartofPugetSoundthe
secondlargestestuaryintheUnitedStatesandhometohundredsofdifferentspeciesoffish,birds,and
marinemammals.
11-1
N
e
Av
ie
w
Fa
irv
ar
tS
St
ew
ve
Westlake A
#
*
Denny Way
Bellevue Ave E
9th Ave N
WRIA 8
Cedar-Sammamish
St
Mercer St
Br
oa
d
ve
tt A
Queen Anne Ave N
lio
El
#
*
99
Roy St
3rd Ave W
#
*
#
*
V
U
2nd Ave W
WRIA 9
Duwamish-Green
#
*
Pin
Elliott Bay
eS
Pik
eS
!
(
!
#
*
!
!
#
*
#
*
Yesler Way
!!
(
!
#
*
S King St
#
*
#
*
V
U
99
4th Ave S
1st Ave S
#
*
WRIA 9
Duwamish-Green
Study Area
Project Footprint
0
0.25
0.5
Miles
Source:
King County, City of Seattle,
WSDOT, Ecology
WRIA 9
Duwamish-Green
WRIA 9
DuwamishGreen
!
!
!
Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA)
Drainage Sub-Basin Boundary
Major CSO Outfall
Major Storm and CSO Outfall
Major Storm Outfall
Sub-Basin Type
Combined Sewer
Low-flow Diversion
Separated Storm
Water Quality Exceedances
#
*
#
*
#
*
#
*
Bacteria
Bioassay
Toxins
Bioassay, Metals, Toxins
Figure 11-1
Water Quality
Study Area
and Overlook Walk
Final EIS
2017 Existing Conditions and No Action Alternative
ST
ST
ON
KS
SM
AI
AC
!
.
!
.
ST
AV E
ST
AV E
A RD
IA S
ST
G IN
T
T
WA R
2ND
ST
1S T
RA
VIR
STE
ST
PINE ST
PIKE ST
1S T AV E
Western Diversion
Vine
CE
University
E
N AV
L
BE L
P LA
AVE
Y ST
T ER
E
PIK
IO TT
EL L
Pine
WE S
WESTERN AVE
SF
N CH
BN
AD
BL A
AI
.
!
Vine
RO
TE R
ST
Pier 62/63
L
AI
AY
NW
BAT
Waterfront
Park
Seattle
Aquarium
O
LE N
SM
!
.
!
.
. ALASKA
!
!
.
!
.
ON
KS
Y ST
ST
IA S
ST
AV E
A RD
SJ
TE R
N CH
O RA
G IN
2ND
L ST
BE L
BL A
AV E
1S T
ST
AVE
BAT
Western Diversion
LE N
VIR
T
WA R
Pier 57
UNION ST
Madison
IO TT
EL L
2ND AV E
..!
!
AC
RA
AY
NW
E
N AV
CE
STE
PINE ST
SJ
!
.
!
.
P LA
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
.
!.!
PIKE ST
UNION ST
Minor Storm Outfall
.
!
UNIVERSITY S
! Major CSO Outfall

.
. Major Storm and CSO Outfall
!
. Major Storm Outfall
!
SENECA ST
King
!
.
..!
!
..!
!
T ER
WE S
E
PIK
F
NS
AD
Pine
Seneca
SPRING ST
500
Feet
.
!
MADISON ST
250
Pier 55
.
!
..!
!
AV
E
MARION ST
PO S T AV E
NT
AL
CHERRY ST
DE
COLUMBIA ST
JAMES ST
AV
E
CI
1S T AV E
Pier 56
Pier 54
Colman Dock
..!
!
OC
!
.
..!
!
2N
EBI
University
Madison
AV
E
.
!
.!
University
Pier 48
.
!
1S
T
.
!
.!
!
.
Vine
RO
IL
Elliott Bay
Washington
EBI
.
.!
! !
..
.!
!
. !
. !
WE ST ERN AVE
UNIVERSITY S
SENECA ST
King
Seattle
Aquarium
Pier 62/63
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
!.!.!
.
!
.
!
. !.
. !
. !.!
Seneca
S
Waterfront
Park
Pier 55
!.!
.
SPRING ST
AV
E
MADISON ST
PO S T AV E
NT
AL
!
.
!
.
!..!!
.
DE
CHERRY ST
AV
E
CI
MARION ST
OC
COLUMBIA ST
JAMES ST
2N
D
TA
VE
.!. !.
!
!
.
!.!
.
Madison
1S
Pier 54
Colman Dock
.
!
Pier 57
Pier 56
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
Washington
EBI
Individual Outfall
Sub-basins
Individual Outfall
Sub-basins
Pier 48
. ALASKA
!
Individual Outfall
Sub-basins
!
.
!
.
..!
!
Elliott Bay
2ND AV E
Project Footprint
Drainage Sub-Basin Boundary
Sub-Basin Type
Combined Sewer
Low-flow Diversion
Separated Storm
Figure 11-2
Drainage Area Modifications
Ecology is the agency with primary responsibility for regulating water quality in Washington. Ecology
oversees water quality within large-scale watersheds known as Water Resource Inventory Areas
(WRIAs); the Elliott Bay tributary area is located within WRIA 9. The agency has established standards for
water quality in fresh and marine waters, and maintains a list of water bodies that do not meet these
standards. Ecology has assigned stringent water quality standards to Elliott Bay (WAC 173201A612),
and the bay has been identified as exceeding water quality criteria for fecal coliform bacteria and
several types of toxins (Ecology 2012). The WRIA 9 boundary and water quality exceedance listings in
the study area are shown on Figure 11-1.
Most of the stormwater that flows into Elliott Bay from the project footprint is currently untreated. In
portions of the project footprint (primarily along Alaskan Way), stormwater that will drain to the
separated storm drain system after completion of the EBSP will receive treatment through media filters
installed by EBSP. The remaining stormwater runoff that drains from the project footprint to the
separated storm drain system will continue to discharge to Elliott Bay without treatment.
Stormwater runoff from the project footprint that does not drain to the separated storm drain system
drains to the combined sewer system, which is a large network of sewage pipelines, pump stations,
control facilities, and outfalls (SPU 2014), some parts of which were installed over a century ago. Under
normal circumstances, the combined sewer system conveys flows to King Countys West Point
Treatment Plant for treatment. During periods of heavy rainfall, however, stormwater runoff draining to
the combined sewer sometimes overwhelms pipe capacities (WSDOT 2007). The interaction of the high
stormwater volumes with many other components of the combined sewer system can exacerbate the
possibility of the discharge of an untreated stormwater-sewage mix, known as a combined sewer
overflow or CSO, into Elliott Bay. The City of Seattle has entered into a Consent Decree with EPA and
Ecology regarding the discharge of CSOs into Elliott Bay (EPA 2013). Under the terms of the Consent
Decree, SPU plans to install a new sanitary sewer line along Alaskan Way that would provide storage to
help address CSOs into Elliott Bay.

11.2.1
The No Action Alternative would not involve any construction or alteration of land cover or drainage
basin boundaries from the 2017 existing conditions. Therefore, no construction impacts on water quality
would result from the No Action Alternative.
11.2.2
Construction and associated staging activities under the Preferred Alternative have the potential to
affect water quality in Elliott Bay. Earthwork, trench work, stockpiling, and material transport can
expose soils or stockpile material, which can be carried by water or wind into adjacent stormwater
drains and natural receiving waters and increase turbidity. If stormwater runoff comes into contact with
process water or slurry from curing concrete, the pH in nearby surface water can increase to levels
harmful to fish and wildlife. Construction or staging adjacent to Elliott Bay could pose a direct impact on
water quality through pollutant spills, sediment transport, or wind deposition of stockpiled materials.
Uncontained leaks or spills from construction equipment could result in pollutant discharges to Elliott
Bay. Contaminated groundwater (discussed in the Draft EIS Appendix F, Hazardous Materials Discipline
Report), which could be encountered during construction dewatering, could mix with stormwater runoff
and be conveyed into Elliott Bay if not contained and disposed of properly. The potential water quality
impacts that could result from the Preferred Alternative would be similar across the entire construction
and staging area because construction equipment and techniques would be similar. Construction and
staging impacts would be temporary and would vary in intensity and duration depending on the type of
construction occurring.
11-4
CHAPTER 11 WATER QUALITY

AWPOW would result in changes in land cover and impervious surface area within the project footprint.
The project would also change the boundaries of some sub-basins within the study area. These changes
would affect the potential quantities of pollutants (pollutant loads) carried in stormwater runoff.
Pollutants that are typically found in urban stormwater include suspended solids and various metals,
such as copper and zinc.
To determine whether AWPOW would result in water quality impacts, analysts compared the land cover
changes and the associated pollutant load changes within the project footprint. The analysts
quantitatively evaluated the land cover and sub-basin boundaries for the 2017 existing conditions, No
Action Alternative, and Preferred Alternative for all of the project footprint except the East-West
Connections. Changes in land cover were qualitatively evaluated for the East-West Connections because
no changes to sub-basin boundaries were identified and no changes to water quality treatment
discharges are expected. The results of the analyses are presented below.
11.3.1
Land cover, drainage areas, and associated pollutant loads under the No Action Alternative are
considered to be identical to those under the 2017 existing conditions. Therefore, the No Action
Alternative would not result in impacts to water quality.
11.3.2
The Preferred Alternative would have less total PGIS than the No Action Alternative. Land cover for the
Preferred Alternative is summarized in Table 11-1. In addition, the Preferred Alternative would reduce
the volume of stormwater runoff draining to the combined sewer by diverting approximately 12 acres of
stormwater runoff area to the separated storm drain system, which drains to Elliott Bay (Figure 11-2 and
Table 11-1).
Table 11-1. Changes in Land Cover within the Project Footprint
Drainage Area

and No Action Alternative (acres)
Pervious
NPGIS
PGIS
Total
Preferred Alternative (acres)

Pervious
NPGIS
PGIS
Total
Combined Sewer
0.63
0.64
15.12
16.39
0.05
0.54
3.81
4.40
Elliott Bay
1.39
3.18
14.91
19.48
4.59
10.49
16.39
31.47
Total Project
Footprint
2.02
3.82
30.03
35.87
4.64
11.02
20.21
35.87
The Preferred Alternative would also provide water quality treatment to all PGIS within the project
footprint, including areas not treated under the No Action Alternative. Stormwater runoff from PGIS
that would not be diverted away from the combined sewer would continue to receive off-site water
quality treatment at King Countys West Point Treatment Plant; therefore, the overall pollutant load
from these areas is expected to be the same as the 2017 existing conditions and No Action Alternative.
Diverted stormwater runoff from PGIS that previously drained to the combined sewer system would
continue to receive treatment via the on-site stormwater facilities provided within the separated storm
drain system. In addition, the Preferred Alternative would improve the quality of discharges to Elliott
Bay by treating runoff from PGIS that was previously untreated.
Table 11-2 summarizes predicted changes to Elliott Bay pollutant loads between the No Action
Alternative and the Preferred Alternative, which include load reductions resulting from the diversion of
PGIS from the combined sewer system. The quantities shown in the table are based on the Draft EIS
Action Alternative, which had a slightly larger area of PGIS than the Preferred Alternative; therefore;
pollutant load estimates using these land cover areas are considered conservative (see Draft EIS
11-5
Appendix J, Water Quality Discipline Report, and Final EIS Appendix C, Discipline Report Errata Sheets,
for additional information on pollutant load calculations).
Table 11-2. Changes to Elliott Bay Pollutant Loads in Project Stormwater Runoff1
2017 Existing
Conditions and
No Action
Alternative
Area and Pollutant
PGIS (acres)
Preferred Alternative2
Difference
(influent)
14.91
(effluent)
14.91
(influent)
16.52
(effluent)
16.52
(influent)
1.61
(effluent)
1.61
Total Suspended Solids (lbs/yr)
996
677
1,104
218
108
-460
Total Copper (lbs/yr)
0.35
0.26
0.39
0.12
0.04
-0.14
Dissolved Copper (lbs/yr)
0.11
0.10
0.12
0.10
0.01
0.00
Total Zinc (lbs/yr)
2.01
1.39
2.23
0.44
0.22
-0.95
Dissolved Zinc (lbs/yr)
1.03
1.03
0.71
0.60
-0.33
-0.43
Columns labeled influent show pollutant loads in water entering the stormwater collection system; those labeled effluent show
the corresponding pollutant loads following treatment.
Pollutant load values in this table were calculated based on the Draft EIS Action Alternative, which would have resulted in a larger
extent of pollution-generating areas compared to those expected in the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the pollutant load
estimates in this table are considered conservative for the Preferred Alternative.
Main Corridor
The Main Corridor of the Preferred Alternative would include pervious vegetated landscaping along the
roadway in many locations throughout the project footprint. Although the total area of landscaping is
relatively small in the context of the overall footprint, introducing vegetation and decreasing the
amount of impervious surface within the study area would help to increase rainfall interception and
could slightly reduce the volume of surface runoff discharged to the combined sewer. The roadway
components of the Preferred Alternative would also divert a large amount of tributary area from the
combined sewer system to the separated storm drain system (see Figure 11-2). Drainage from the
roadway would constitute the major source of pollutant loads from the Preferred Alternative to Elliott
Bay (see Table 11-2).
The pedestrian and bicycle facilities included in the Preferred Alternative are considered NPGIS, and
would contribute to an overall reduction of approximately 9.49 acres of PGIS under the
Preferred Alternative, as shown in Table 11-1. This reduction in PGIS would reduce the overall pollutant
load discharging to Elliott Bay from the project footprint compared to the 2017 existing conditions and
No Action Alternative (see Table 11-2).
Transit service facilities, such as curb extensions and transit shelter foundations, would not include
additional PGIS and therefore would not affect water quality.
Promenade
Stormwater runoff from the Promenade would discharge to Elliott Bay under the Preferred Alternative,
just as the area would under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, this runoff would not change the
volume of flows in the combined sewer system. However, the Promenade would contribute to the
overall reduction of 9.49 acres of PGIS because it would replace existing PGIS with NPGIS sidewalk and
pervious landscaping. This would reduce the pollutant load discharging to Elliott Bay compared to the
2017 existing conditions and No Action Alternative (see Table 11-2).
Overlook Walk
The Overlook Walk would divert stormwater runoff from the combined sewer system to the separated
storm drain system. The sloping lid of the Overlook Walk would cover an area of pollution-generating
roadway along the new Alaskan Way. However, due to the potential for wind-blown rain under the lid,
11-6
CHAPTER 11 WATER QUALITY
as well as vehicles tracking in stormwater, the coverage of Alaskan Way provided by the Overlook Walk
was not considered in the land cover and pollutant load analyses in order to conservatively estimate the
PGIS changes.
The East-West Connections are expected to improve water quality compared to the 2017 existing
conditions and the No Action Alternative, mainly due to the conversion of PGIS to NPGIS. The East-West
Connections would replace PGIS with widened sidewalks, public space, tree planters, and other
landscaping. Sidewalks and landscaping are not considered to be a significant source of pollutants in
stormwater runoff. Therefore, the reduction in PGIS would reduce the overall pollutant load discharging
from the project footprint compared to the 2017 existing conditions and the No Action Alternative. Also,
although the area would be relatively small in the context of the overall footprint, the addition of
vegetation could slightly reduce the volume of stormwater runoff draining to the combined sewer system.
11-7
12 Vegetation and Wildlife

This chapter describes the existing conditions of terrestrial vegetation and wildlife within and
surrounding the AWPOW footprint, and analyzes the potential for construction and operation to impact
these resources. Aquatic birds and mammals that may use surface waters adjacent to the project
footprint are also included in the analysis. Potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures
that have been identified for construction and operational impacts are presented in Chapter 16 of this
Final EIS. Additional details about the analysis are provided in the Draft EIS documents.

begins. This is referred to as the 2017 existing conditions. The study area for vegetation and wildlife
extends 500 feet from the project footprint, including the waterward area over Elliott Bay because
AWPOW construction and operational noise could disturb animals on the surface of the bay. Plants or
animals present below the surface of Elliott Bay (e.g., seaweeds, fish, and marine mammals) are not
addressed because the project would not involve in-water work, any over-water work would be
incidental, and noise impacts from AWPOW construction and operation would not extend beneath the
surface of Elliott Bay.
12.1.1
Vegetation
The heavily urbanized habitats in the study area include streets, parking lots, commercial and industrial
properties, high-density residential buildings, and railroad rights of way. Over the last 150 years, urban
development has eliminated nearly all of the native
vegetation. Existing vegetation consists primarily of
street trees and related streetscape vegetation in the
right of way, which have been installed and are
maintained by the Citys Urban Forestry section or by
private development projects under permit from
SDOT. Volunteer invasive species are also present in
unmaintained areas.
Non-native species planted for landscaping, such as
maples and geraniums, are the dominant vegetation
in much of the study area (SDOT 2012). Non-native
invasive species, such as English ivy and Himalayan
blackberry, are present in the study area. These
invasive species are well adapted to urban
environments and out-compete native plant species
(SDOT 2012). However, native species, such as
western brackenfern and swordfern, can grow
opportunistically in the study area, although they are
less commonly found where conditions favor invasive
species (SDOT 2012). Non-vascular plants, such as
mosses and lichens, grow on a variety of hard surfaces
such as concrete, treated wood, and occasionally
metal in the study area (SDOT 2012).
Taken by Parametrix 2013
Vegetation on the Belltown bluff above the BNSF

tracks behind the Waterfront
LandingscoCondominiums
As part of AWVRP and EBSP, a diverse mix of native and hybrid trees, shrubs, and groundcover will have
been selected and planted along Alaskan Way before AWPOW construction begins. Trees planted could
include red alder, Pacific madrone, and shore pine. The beach riparian area for the EBSP, located
12-1
between Pier 48 and Colman Dock, has a small overlap with AWPOW, and those plantings will also
include primarily native species.
The largest contiguous area of vegetation in the AWPOW footprint is found on the Belltown bluff, which
is the steep slope immediately east of the BNSF rail line between the Pine Street extension and
Blanchard Street. Vegetation in this area is dominated by invasive non-native species, such as English ivy
and Himalayan blackberry, with some native trees, such as red alder and western redcedar. The AWVRP
would remove or disturb some of the vegetation in this area during the viaducts demolition. Once
demolition is complete, vegetation in the disturbed area would be restored. As a result, the conditions
in 2017 in the AWPOW study area will likely consist of a mix of impervious surfaces, invasive species,
and replanted native and non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcover.
No populations of threatened or endangered plants have been documented within 3 miles of the project
footprint (WDFW 2014a).
12.1.2
Wildlife
Wildlife species in the study area are generally limited to those well adapted to living in a highly altered
urban landscape. Examples include birds and mammals that tolerate or benefit from human
disturbance, urban habitat features, and trash.
Birds
Some of the most common birds in the study area are non-native species such as the house sparrow,
European starling, and rock pigeon (USACE 2008; Seattle Audubon Society 2013). Some native species
are commonly found along the waterfront, including American crow, Northwestern crow, and Brewers
blackbird. Black-capped chickadees, another native species, commonly nest in landscape trees planted
along Alaskan Way (FHWA et al. 2004; USACE 2008; Seattle Audubon Society 2013). Purple martin nest
at the north and south ends of Elliott Bay, but their nesting areas are well outside the project footprint
(WDFW 2014a).
Raptor species regularly seen in the study area include bald eagle, peregrine falcon, osprey, and redtailed hawk (USACE 2008; Seattle Audubon Society 2013). Bald eagles are commonly seen along the
waterfront at any time of year; nesting territories have been documented at two locations along Elliott
Bay more than 1 mile from the project footprint. Peregrine falcons nest on tall buildings and other
structures in downtown Seattle and along the waterfront, preying on birds in the study area (WDFW
2014a). No osprey or red-tailed hawk nests have been documented in or near the project footprint, but
both species are likely to use the study area for hunting (FHWA et al. 2004; Buchanan 2006).
Many species of waterfowl and seabirds use habitats in and around Elliott Bay. Some of the most
common species include herring gulls, California gulls, and ring-billed gulls (USACE 2008; Seattle
Audubon Society 2013). These species are usually found perched on piers or floating on the water
surface. Other common species that occasionally use habitats near the AWPOW footprint are described
in the Draft EIS Appendix K, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report.
Mammals
Very few species of mammals are present within the urbanized and disturbed habitat of the study area.
Commonly present species include non-native species such as the black rat, Norway rat, house mouse,
and eastern gray squirrel (SDOT 2012). Domesticated animals such as dogs and cats are also likely to be
present as feral or human companion animals (SDOT 2012). Native species that may occasionally be
present in the study area include opossum, raccoon, and coyote. These species most likely frequent
nearby parks but may also venture into more urbanized areas to seek food or while traveling between
patches of suitable habitat (SDOT 2012). Native bat species occasionally roost in buildings or other
structures and forage in the study area. FHWA et al. (2004) identified several species of bats that may
occur in the area; the most common are big brown bats and four species of the genus Myotis.
12-2
CHAPTER 12 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
Various marine and aquatic mammals are known to use the waters of Elliott Bay adjacent to the study
area and may be infrequent visitors in the study area; however, only the species that may use surface
waters are described here. Harbor seals and California sea lions inhabit nearshore habitats in Puget
Sound and are commonly seen near piers along the waterfront (Steiger and Calambokidis 1986; Osborne
et al. 1988; USACE 2008; Anchor QEA 2011). WDFW has identified several locations in the southern
portion of Elliott Bay as sites where sea lions haul out to bask and sleep (WDFW 2014a). Northern river
otters are known to frequent nearshore areas in Elliott Bay (King County 1999). Steller sea lions, a
species removed from the list of threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2013,
may also be an infrequent visitor to Elliott Bay.
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

Based on their habitat requirements and known distribution, no ESA-listed species that may occur in
King County are expected to be present in the study area, and the study area contains no designated
critical habitat for any ESA-listed wildlife species (USFWS 2014). However, it is possible that marbled
murrelets could forage in Elliott Bay because it is within their known range and they feed on small fish
and invertebrates, which are common in marine waters such as bays or sounds (Carter 1984). However,
their nearest nesting habitat is in the Cascade Mountains, approximately 30 miles from the study area
(USFWS 2014). Aerial surveys by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), conducted in
cooperation with the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, tracked sightings of marbled murrelets
throughout Puget Sound from 1992 through 1999. No marbled murrelets were observed in Elliott Bay
during these surveys (WDFW 2005); the potential for their occurrence in the study area is therefore low.
Bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and common loon are state-listed as sensitive species and may be present
in or near the study area (WDFW 2014b). Although bald eagles are no longer listed under the ESA, they
receive protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

12.2.1
Under the No Action Alternative, AWPOW would not be constructed and there would be no
construction-related impacts on vegetation and wildlife.
12.2.2
Overall, impacts on vegetation and wildlife from construction of the Preferred Alternative are not likely
to be substantial because the study area is urban and already degraded. Impacts specific to vegetation
and wildlife are described below.
Vegetation
Construction activities would remove existing planters, landscaping, and street trees along the majority
of the Alaskan Way corridor. Most of vegetation impacted by the Preferred Alternative would be for the
construction of Elliott Way. Approximately 1.5 acres of vegetation on the bluff would be removed, which
is anticipated to include invasive species, replanted native and non-native trees, shrubs, and
groundcover between the BNSF tunnel entrance and Blanchard Street.
Following completion of the AWVRP and the EBSP, it is likely that much of the vegetation in the study
area would consist of a mix of impervious surfaces and replanted native and non-native trees, shrubs,
and groundcover. There would be planters and street trees along the median and east side of the
restored Alaskan Way that would need to be removed or relocated during construction of the new
Alaskan Way.
12-3
Wildlife
AWPOW construction activities would generate noise from heavy equipment, such as jackhammers,
concrete saws, pavement breakers, hoe rams, auger drills, bulldozers, backhoe excavators, loaders, and
haul trucks. The potential for construction noise to impact wildlife is higher with the Preferred Alternative
than the No Action Alternative, which would not have any construction-related impacts.
Construction-related noise, light, and the shifting location of construction activities through the study
area could disrupt wildlife activities, such as feeding and breeding. The disruption could be sufficient to
displace some animals, potentially leading to competition for resources, such as food and breeding sites,
with individuals in other parts of the study area. General construction activities that are carried out in
areas where current levels of human activity are comparatively low, such as the Belltown bluff, also
could result in a level of disturbance sufficient to affect some species. As discussed above, the species
affected would be mostly non-native species that are adapted to urban conditions, although some
native species could also be affected.
Because wildlife species in the study area have already adapted to high levels of noise, temporary
increases in noise from construction-related activities are not likely to cause animals to modify their
behavior. However, especially loud equipment (e.g., jackhammers and concrete saws) could affect the
behavior of some waterfowl and seabird species (including marbled murrelets, although their presence
is unlikely).
AWPOW construction may require some nighttime work and associated lighting of the construction
area. The urban setting of the study area includes extensive lighting; therefore, species sensitive to
nighttime light probably already avoid the area. Additional lighting for construction is not expected to
disturb wildlife or habitat use in the study area.
Other anticipated construction-related disturbance to wildlife includes vegetation clearing, the possible
use of barges, and general construction activities. Vegetation clearing during the breeding season
(spring and summer) may damage or destroy bird nests, possibly resulting in temporary, local reductions
in the reproductive success of some species, including species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. Any such impacts would likely be limited to the breeding season during which the construction
activities occur, and would not be expected to result in any long-term changes in species composition or
population in the study area.
The contractor may use barges occasionally for delivery of construction materials to specific access
points. Barges may temporarily disturb waterfowl, seabirds (including marbled murrelets, if present),
and marine mammals on the water surface in Elliott Bay.
AWPOW construction work would occur year-round and would extend over several years. As a result,
construction-related activities could affect species that breed in the study area as well as those
(primarily birds) that are present only during winter or while migrating. Construction work would
generally be short in duration in any one area along Alaskan Way, resulting in any impacts being
generally localized and temporary (except for construction of Elliott Way and the Overlook Walk, which
would be ongoing in the same general area during much of the construction period). Construction for
each of the East-West Connections would take approximately 1 year and could occur at any time during
the overall AWPOW construction time frame. These temporary disturbances in an environment that is
already highly disturbed are unlikely to cause adverse impacts on wildlife populations in the study area.

12.3.1
Under the No Action Alternative, AWPOW would not be constructed. The only operational impacts
associated with the No Action Alternative would be from maintenance and repairs of the restored
Alaskan Way, path, and sidewalk. The condition of vegetation and wildlife in the study area would likely
12-4
CHAPTER 12 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
remain as described in Section 12.1.1. Land cover would continue to be dominated by streets, parking
lots, industrial and commercial properties, high-density residential buildings, and railroad rights of way,
including the paved area that would be left after removal of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. The most
common plants in the study area would be non-native trees and shrubs, invasive species, and a mix of
appropriate native and non-native trees and understory vegetation planted following completion of the
AWVRP and EBSP.
Structures and vegetation in the study area would continue to provide habitat for wildlife, particularly
species that tolerate or benefit from human disturbance, urban habitat features, and refuse. Newly
planted vegetation from AWVRP and EBSP could provide additional urban habitat and potentially
increase the number of animals in the study area. Increased wildlife populations in the study area could
lead to a higher potential for contact between animals and humans. Such impacts would likely be
limited to window and car strikes, depredation from domestic pets, attraction of wildlife to humangenerated trash, and the feeding of wildlife by humans (SDOT 2012).
The use and maintenance of the restored Alaskan Way under the No Action Alternative are not expected
to affect wildlife that inhabit Elliott Bay.
12.3.2
Vegetation
Following construction of the Main Corridor, Promenade, and Overlook Walk, most areas not covered by
impervious surface would be planted with diverse species, resulting in more vegetated areas than under
the No Action Alternative. Planting would comply with the City of Seattles Urban Forest Stewardship
Plan, which aims to restore the declining urban forest in Seattle and develop long-term management
plans for Seattles trees (City of Seattle 2007, 2013a). The majority of the vegetation would be planted
along the Promenade; however, some sections on the east side of the Main Corridor as well as some
medians within the corridor would also be planted. The species mix would be an enhanced native
palette, combining native plants with non-native, non-invasive, and salt-tolerant species. Connectivity
between planted areas would be promoted as much as possible, with the intention of creating a system
of habitats along the waterfront that connects to the more natural settings along the Elliott Bay Trail
north of the study area (City of Seattle 2013b).
Wildlife
AWPOWs primary operational impact on wildlife would be an increase in the availability of habitat for
both native and non-native species. The greater variety of plant species and structures would be
expected to increase the capacity of the area to support wildlife populations. For example, the increased
availability of trees and shrubs could result in increased nesting opportunities for birds such as the
American robin and American goldfinch. The Belltown bluff would be revegetated with a mix of trees,
shrubs, and ground cover, with a heavy emphasis on native species. This larger vegetated area, in
particular, may attract more wildlife. Because of the highly urbanized condition of the study area and its
location in the city core, land cover would continue to be dominated by streets, parking lots, and
buildings. Increased numbers of animals in the study area could lead to a slightly higher potential for
window and car strikes, depredation from domestic pets, attraction of wildlife to refuse, and the feeding
of wildlife by humans (SDOT 2012). However, this is not expected to constitute a significant adverse
impact on wildlife in the study area.
Use and maintenance of the Main Corridor, Promenade, and Overlook Walk would not be expected to
affect wildlife that use Elliott Bay. The installation of interpretive signage and related components would
provide environmental educational opportunities for users of the Promenade and Overlook Walk, with
potential benefits to wildlife in Elliott Bay and throughout the study area.
12-5
13 Energy Resources
ThischapterdiscussesAWPOWsenergyuseandgreenhousegas(GHG)emissionsduringconstruction
andoperation.Energyuseduringconstructionisestimatedquantitatively,usingstandardrelationships
betweenconstructioncostandenergyconsumption;energyuseduringprojectoperationisdiscussed
qualitatively.GHGemissionsduringconstructionarediscussedasafunctionofestimatedenergy
consumption.GHGemissionsduringprojectoperationarediscussedqualitativelyasacomparison
betweenthePreferredandNoActionalternatives.Potentialavoidance,minimization,andmitigation
measuresthathavebeenidentifiedforconstructionandoperationalimpactsarepresentedin
Chapter16ofthisFinalEIS.

Theaffectedenvironmentisdefinedastheconditionsthatwillexistwithinthestudyareain2017when
theAWVRP,EBSP,andMarketFrontprojectshavebeencompletedandbeforeAWPOWconstruction
begins.BecauseAWPOWsprimarycontributorstoenergyconsumptionandGHGemissionsarerelated
totransportation,thestudyareaforenergyandGHGsisthesameasthestudyareafortransportation,
whichisdescribedinChapter3ofthisFinalEIS.
13.1.1
Energy Use
Avarietyofenergytypesareusedwithinthestudyarea.Theprimaryformsofenergyusedinthearea
aredescribedbelow.
Energygeneratedfromfossilfuelcombustionisusedtopowermostvehiclesthatusestudyarea
roadways.WhileSeattleisanationalleaderinelectricandhybridvehicleuse,thesevehiclesrepresent
onlyasmallpercentageofallvehiclesusingtheroads.IntheSeattlemetropolitanarea,whichranked
thirdintheUnitedStatesinelectriccarusein2013,lessthan2percentofallvehiclespurchasedduring
thattimeperiodwereelectric(WallStreetJournal2014).Thevastmajorityofvehiclesburngasolineor
dieselfuelininternalcombustionengines,withfuelefficiencyforlightvehiclesaveraging24.1milesper
gallonasof2013(USDOT2014).Fossilfuelsarealsousedtopowersomeindustrialfacilitiessuchasthe
EnwaveSeattlegeneratingfacility,discussedbelow.
ElectricalenergyisconsumedbyresidentialandcommercialcustomersofSCL,theelectricalservice
providerforthestudyarea.In2012,SCLprovided9,466,642megawatthoursofpowerto403,000retail
customers(SCL2013).SCLshydroelectricprojectsontheSkagitandPendOreilleRiversprovideabout
halfofthepowercustomersneed.Theremaindercomesfromamixofpowersources,includinglong
termcontractswithBPAandothers.In2005,SCLbecamethefirstelectricutilityinthecountryto
achievezeronetgreenhousegasemissions,andhassincemaintainedthatcarbonneutralstatus
(http://www.seattle.gov/light/greenest/cleanhydro.htm).
Steamenergyisbothgeneratedandusedinthestudyarea.EnwaveSeattleproducessteamthroughthe
combustionofnaturalgas,dieseloil,andrecycledwood.Thissteamisusedtoheatbuildingsinthe
centralbusinessdistrict,includinganumberofbuildingsinthestudyarea,andonFirstHill.
13.1.2
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Naturallyoccurringandhumanmadegasesthattrapheatintheearthsatmospherearecommonly
referredtoasgreenhousegasesorGHGs.SomeGHGs,suchascarbondioxide,occurnaturallyandare
emittedthroughbothnaturalprocessesandhumanactivities.OtherGHGsarecreatedandemitted
solelythroughhumanactivities,suchastheburningoffossilfuels.ManyGHGsremaininthe
atmosphereforalongtimerangingfromdecadestocenturies.TheprincipalGHGsthatenterthe
atmospherebecauseofhumanactivitiesarecarbondioxide,methane,nitrousoxide,andfluorinated
gases(hydrofluorocarbons,perfluorocarbons,andsulfurhexafluoride).
13-1
As shown in Figure 13-1, transportation, consumption-based electricity use, and residential, commercial,
and industrial fossil fuel combustion are Washingtons principal sources of GHG emissions, while
agriculture, waste, and industrial process emissions contribute marginal amounts. Because Washington
uses hydropower for much of its electricity (nearly three-fourths of the states electricity generation), the
electricity sector is less significant compared to the national average. The transportation sector is
Washingtons most significant contributor of GHGs as opposed to electricity consumption at the national
level (Center for Climate Strategies 2007). Seattles GHG emissions are produced from three main sources:
transportation, buildings, and industry. At 62 percent, the transportation sector is the largest source of
emissions, and fully two-thirds of transportation emissions are from cars and trucks on Seattle streets.
Although the State of Washington has developed reduction targets for emissions resulting from state
agency activities and requires the evaluation of GHG emissions under SEPA, there are currently no
national or local standards regulating emissions of GHGs. In contrast to broad-scale actions, such as
actions involving an entire industry sector or very large geographic areas, it is difficult to isolate and
understand the GHG emission impacts for a particular transportation project. Furthermore, there is
currently no scientific methodology for attributing specific climatological changes to a particular
transportation projects emissions. Therefore, impacts from GHGs at the project level are generally
assessed in a qualitative manner.
Sources: Center for Climate Strategies 2007; SDOT 2012
Figure 13-1
Gross Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
in Washington and the United States in 2005

13.2.1
The No Action Alternative would not involve any construction activities. Therefore, it would not
consume energy during construction and would not result in construction-related GHG emissions.
13.2.2
Energy Consumption
Construction energy would constitute most of the overall project-related energy use. Energy would be
consumed during construction to manufacture materials, transport materials, and operate construction
equipment. Most of the energy consumed during construction would be produced by fossil fuel
consumption from construction vehicles and equipment powered by gas or diesel engines. There would
13-2
CHAPTER 13 ENERGY RESOURCES
also be some incidental use of electrical energy from construction lighting and electric-powered
equipment. No steam energy would be used as a result of project construction.
On-site energy and fuel consumption depends on many factors, such as the type of construction activity,
net working days, the acreage subject to disturbance, the type and amount of equipment, the hours of
equipment use, and the number of construction truck and worker trips to and from the work site. To
allow for a simplified estimate of energy use for complex projects, analysts typically calculate energy
consumption during construction by applying a construction energy consumption factor to the
estimated total project cost.
The California Department of Transportation derived energy consumption factors for different roadway
facilities in the 1983 report Energy and Transportation Systems; these factors are still widely used today.
For this analysis, the energy consumption factors for urban roadways and bridges were used to estimate
the energy consumed during the project. The consumption factors are expressed as thousands of British
thermal units (MBtu) per thousand dollars of construction spending. Based on these factors, the energy
expected to be consumed during the construction of AWPOW is approximately 5 million MBtu. For
comparison, this is less than one-fiftieth of 1 percent of the total energy output of SCL in 2012.

Project construction would contribute to GHG emissions through the burning of fossil fuels to operate
construction machinery and transport workers. In addition to the construction activities, GHG emissions
would originate from producing concrete and steel for the project. GHG emissions would also result
from the use of electrical energy during construction because some of SCLs purchased power comes
from fossil fuels. However, SCL offsets all of its GHG emissions by mitigation programs to achieve
equivalent emission reductions.
Because the primary source of energy during construction would be the combustion of fossil fuels,
GHG emissions for AWPOW are expected to be proportional to overall energy use. The amount of
energy used for AWPOW, and hence the total GHG emissions, would be a small fraction of overall
energy consumption in Seattle. This usage is not expected to contribute significantly to overall
GHG emissions or to hinder compliance with GHG reduction targets in Seattle or the state.

Energy consumption during project operation would vary primarily with the degree of traffic congestion
in the study area. Traffic congestion reduces fuel efficiency; excessive idling and stop-and-go traffic
conditions substantially reduce fuel economy compared to free-flow conditions. Emissions of carbon
dioxide are also dependent on congestion and can be reduced by alleviating stop-and-go traffic
conditions and allowing traffic to flow at better speeds (Barth and Boriboonsomsin 2009). Hence,
improvements in traffic operations reduce both energy consumption and GHG emissions.
13.3.1
Energy
Under 2030 No Action conditions in the Alaskan Way corridor, the increased traffic volumes resulting from
vehicles that would otherwise have used the Alaskan Way Viaduct would cause substantial congestion and
queuing in the corridor. Chapter 3 of this Final EIS describes these congested conditions, which would
result in long delays during which traffic would idle at traffic signals with failing levels of service. Up to
30 percent of vehicles would be diverted from the Alaskan Way corridor, resulting in more circuitous
routes to reach their destinations with a corresponding increase in energy consumption. Overall, these
conditions would result in higher consumption of energy than under 2017 existing conditions.
Consumption of electrical energy and steam energy would not change under the No Action Alternative.
13-3

Because GHG emissions are proportional to overall energy use by vehicles, these emissions are also
expected to increase between the 2017 existing conditions and 2030 No Action Alternative. Stop-and-go
traffic and an increase in the number of vehicle miles traveled as a result of diversion would contribute
to GHG emissions in the study area.
13.3.2
Energy
As described in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS, although the Preferred Alternative would have similar traffic
volumes to the No Action Alternative, it would reduce congestion and result in more efficient operation
of the study area transportation system. The number of intersections on Alaskan Way operating at LOS F
would decrease from three to two. As a result, vehicles are expected to operate more efficiently, and
overall consumption of energy from fossil fuel combustion is expected to decline slightly compared to
the No Action Alternative. In addition, AWPOW improvements to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities could encourage alternative forms of transportation to single-occupant vehicles, thus reducing
consumption of fossil fuels.
Street lighting and pedestrian signal systems would consume energy in the form of electricity in
amounts approximately the same as consumed today. While the Main Corridor and Promenade would
have more lighting than under the No Action Alternative, the new lighting would be energy efficient.
The existing electricity grid is expected to have sufficient capacity for the operational electricity
demand. Therefore, no adverse impacts on energy demand are anticipated during operation. Steam
energy consumption would not change as a result of the Preferred Alternative.
The public amenities associated with AWPOW could prompt an increase in both tourism and local
visitation to the waterfront, thereby resulting in minor increases in traffic and associated GHG
emissions. However, the effects of potential increased visitation on energy resources are expected
to be minor.

Because AWPOW would improve traffic operations and travel times and reduce the number of vehicle
miles traveled in the study area, the Preferred Alternative is expected to slightly reduce GHG emissions
13-4
14 Air Quality
This chapter discusses existing air quality conditions in the study area and describes the potential for
project-related impacts during construction and operation. Potential avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation measures that have been identified for construction and operational impacts are presented in
Chapter 16 of this Final EIS.

The affected environment is defined as the conditions that will exist within the study area in 2017 when the
AWVRP, EBSP, and MarketFront projects have been completed and before AWPOW construction begins. The
study area for air quality is between S. King Street and Battery Street from the waterfront to I-5.
14.1.1
Air Pollutants and Air Quality Standards
The State of Washington is subject to air quality regulations issued by EPA, Ecology, and the Puget Sound
Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). EPAs National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set limits on
concentration levels of criteria pollutants, which are defined as carbon monoxide (CO), particulate
matter (PM), ozone, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (NOX). Lead and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) are also criteria pollutants, but since the introduction of unleaded fuel and ultra-low sulfur
fuel, lead and SO2 are no longer pollutants of concern for transportation projects. Concentration levels
of the criteria pollutants must not exceed the NAAQS over specified time periods. Ecology and PSCAA
monitor air quality in the Puget Sound region by measuring the levels of criteria pollutants found in the
atmosphere and comparing them with the NAAQS. Areas that meet the limits set by the NAAQS are
referred to as attainment areas, and areas that exceed the limits for one or more pollutants are
referred to as non-attainment areas. When an area is designated as non-attainment, measures must
be taken to bring the area into compliance; after a non-attainment area achieves compliance, it
becomes a maintenance area.
The NAAQS consist of two sets of standards: primary standards that are intended to protect public
health and secondary standards that are intended to protect the natural environment. In addition to
these standards, Ecology and PSCAA have adopted state and local ambient air quality standards.
Table 14-1 lists the national, state, and local air quality standards in effect for criteria pollutants (except
for VOCs) in the state of Washington.
Table 14-1. National, State, and Local Ambient Air Quality Standards
National (NAAQS)
Primary
Secondary
Washington
State
Puget Sound
Region
Annual Average (ppm)
0.053
0.053
0.05
0.05
1-Hour Average (ppm)
0.100
0.100
NS
NS
NS
35
NS
35
35
0.075
0.075
NS
NS
0.15
0.15
NS
1.5
Pollutant
Nitrogen Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Ozone
Lead
Maximum Arithmetic Mean (g/m3)
(averaged over rolling 3 months)
14-1
Table 14-1. National, State, and Local Ambient Air Quality Standards
National (NAAQS)
Primary
Secondary
Washington
State
Puget Sound
Region
Annual Arithmetic Average (ppm)
NS
NS
0.02
0.02
NS
NS
0.10
0.10
NS
0.5
NS
NS
0.075
NS
0.40
0.40
150
150
150
150
12
15
NS
NS
35
35
NS
NS
Pollutant
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulate Matter (PM10)

24-Hour Average (g/m3)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Annual Arithmetic Average (g/m3)
24-Hour Average
(g/m3)
Source: Air and Radiation: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html (EPA 2013)
g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NS = no standard established
PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter
PM10 = particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter
ppm = parts per million
Transportation is a significant source of many criteria pollutants, including CO, PM, VOCs, and NOx.
Emissions of these pollutants are greatest under congested conditions, when vehicles are idling during
long periods of delay at traffic signals. In addition to criteria pollutants, vehicles also emit mobile source
air toxics (MSATs); these are compounds that can negatively affect human health. MSATs are released
primarily by diesel-powered vehicles, such as trucks and buses, as well as non-road diesel-powered
equipment. Currently, there are no standards establishing allowable concentrations of MSAT emissions
in the air.
14.1.2
Climate Conditions and Local Air Quality
The Puget Sound region has a relatively mild, marine climate with cool summers and mild, wet, and
cloudy winters. Within the study area, weather conditions such as temperature, fog, rain, and snowfall
can vary within short distances, influenced by such factors as the distance from Puget Sound, the rolling
terrain, and air from the ocean moving inland.
Although the region contains some of the most densely populated and industrialized areas in
Washington, there is sufficient wind most of the year to disperse air pollutants released into the
atmosphere. Air pollution is usually most noticeable in the late fall and winter, under conditions of clear
skies, light wind, and a sharp temperature inversion. Temperature inversions occur when cold air is
trapped under warm air, preventing vertical mixing in the atmosphere. Inversions can last several days
and can prevent pollutants from being dispersed by the wind. Inversions are most likely to occur during
January, February, October, November, and December. If poor dispersion persists for more than
24 hours, PSCAA can declare an "air pollution episode" or local "impaired air quality."
The Puget Sound region is currently in attainment or unclassified for all criteria pollutants except for CO;
EPA designated the region as being in maintenance status for CO in 1996. Ecology also designates
Seattle and King County as being in maintenance status for ozone. The project footprint is just north of
the Seattle Duwamish maintenance area for PM10. Within the study area, transportation is the primary
source of CO and PM10. Emission projections and ongoing monitoring throughout the Puget Sound
14-2
CHAPTER 14 AIR QUALITY
region over the past decade indicate that the ambient air pollution concentrations for CO have been
decreasing. The decline of CO is due primarily to improvements made to emission controls on motor
vehicles and the retirement of older, higher polluting vehicles. Attainment status is not expected to
change by 2017, when construction is planned to begin on AWPOW.

14.2.1
The No Action Alternative would not involve any construction, and therefore would have no
construction-related impacts on air quality.
14.2.2
During construction of AWPOW, soil-disturbing activities, operations of heavy-duty equipment,

commuting workers, and the placement of concrete and asphalt may generate emissions that would
temporarily affect air quality. The total emissions and the timing of the emissions from these sources
would vary depending on the phasing of the project and options chosen for the project.
Typical sources of emissions when transportation projects are under construction include:
Fugitive dust generated during excavation, grading, and loading and unloading activities
Dust generated during demolition of structures and pavement
Engine exhaust emissions from construction vehicles, worker vehicles, and construction equipment
using diesel as fuel
Increased motor vehicle emissions associated with increased traffic congestion during construction
VOCs and odorous compounds emitted during asphalt paving
The regulated pollutants of concern for the first two source types (dust) are particulate matter smaller
than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) and PM10. Engine and motor vehicle exhaust would result in
emissions of VOCs, NOx, PM2.5, PM10, air toxics, and GHGs.

14.3.1
As described in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS, traffic volumes under the No Action Alternative are generally
expected to increase by approximately 5 to 10 percent between 2017 and 2030 due to regional
population and employment growth. This growth would result in higher levels of traffic congestion,
which contributes to higher pollutant emissions. Three intersections (Alaskan Way at Columbia, Spring,
and Pine Streets) are expected to operate at LOS F in 2030 under the No Action Alternative. These
intersections would experience considerable delay, which would result in increased emissions of CO and
PM compared to 2017 levels.
14.3.2
Daily traffic volumes in 2030 under the Preferred Alternative would be essentially the same as those for
the No Action Alternative. However, congestion would be reduced by AWPOWs improvements. As
described in Chapter 3, LOS is expected to improve in the study area under the Preferred Alternative.
Because air emissions are directly correlated to traffic volumes and congestion, the
Preferred Alternative is expected to result in a slight reduction in emissions of CO and PM within the
study area. The Preferred Alternatives reduced congestion would also contribute to decreased
emissions of MSATs by reducing vehicle-miles traveled.
14-3
15 Cumulative Impacts and

Mitigation Measures
This chapter describes how the environmental impacts of AWPOW may contribute to the impacts of
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions to affect resources in the study area. AWPOWs
improvements would be built in the midst of a dynamic, working waterfront that has a rich history,
several projects are currently under construction, and more projects are planned in the future. The
cumulative impacts analysis evaluates the impacts that could result from the combination of these
multiple activities over time. Its purpose is to identify the potential for incremental changes to a given
resource which could, if left unmitigated, reach significant proportions. The analysis is also helpful for
decision makers in evaluating how sustainable a proposed project is likely to be in the future and how it
might interact with other projects that are foreseeable, but have not yet been built.
SEPA requires that cumulative impacts be considered in an EIS (WAC 197-11-792). Although SEPA does
not specifically define cumulative impacts, the term is defined under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what
agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor
but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. (40 Code of Federal Regulations
[CFR] 1508.7).
15.1 How Cumulative Impacts Were Evaluated for

AWPOW
The cumulative impacts and mitigation measures analysis for AWPOW
was performed in accordance with WAC 197-11-792 and WAC
197-11-330. Although it is not required by SEPA, analysts used the
eight-step guidance developed jointly by WSDOT, FHWA, and EPA,
which is generally used for NEPA projects (WSDOT 2008).
The City completed Step 1 of the guidance by determining that all of
the resources evaluated in discipline reports for this EIS would be
analyzed for cumulative impacts. Project analysts identified
appropriate study areas and time frames in which to evaluate
cumulative impacts for their resources (Step 2), evaluated the current
status and historical context for each resource (Step 3), and
characterized the construction and operational impacts of AWPOW
that might contribute to cumulative impacts (Step 4). The City
completed Step 5 by compiling a list of reasonably foreseeable actions
that might have impacts within the combined study areas of all the
disciplines. Based on this list, analysts determined whether the
combination of AWPOWs impacts and those of other projects would
result in cumulative impacts (Step 6) and assessed the need for
mitigation measures (Step 8). This chapter, and the cumulative
impacts chapters in each discipline report, constitute Step 7,
documentation of the results.
The cumulative impacts analysis assumes that the AWVRP, EBSP, and
MarketFront projects have been completed before AWPOW
construction begins and are part of the 2017 existing conditions.
The eight steps outlined in the

joint guidance on preparing
cumulative impact analysis are:
Step 1: Identify the resources to
consider in the analysis
Step 2: Define the study area for
each resource
Step 3: Describe the current
status/viability and historical
context for each resource
Step 4: Identify direct and indirect
impacts of the project that might
contribute to a cumulative impact
Step 5: Identify other current and
reasonably foreseeable actions
Step 6: Identify and assess
cumulative impacts
Step 7: Document the results
Step 8: Assess the need for
mitigation
15-1
15.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

To identify reasonably foreseeable actions that might have impacts within the combined study area of
all disciplines and that could, in combination with AWPOW, contribute to cumulative impacts, the City
has reviewed comprehensive land use planning documents, long-range transportation plans, and agency
websites in order to obtain publicly available information. The City also contacted staff from other City
departments to obtain information on upcoming planned and permitted development within the
cumulative impact study area.
Table 15-1 and Figure 15-1 show the reasonably foreseeable actions identified through this process.
Future actions that are not numbered are plans that cover a larger area and projects located more than
mile from the project footprint. Most of the actions shown are individual projects that the City
believes have a reasonable expectation of being implemented before the AWPOW design year of 2030.
Also shown are several plans that include multiple actions, such as the Bicycle Master Plan. In these
cases, the City determined that the implementation of actions in the plan, in combination with AWPOW,
could contribute to cumulative impacts on some resources. The potential cumulative impacts for the
actions checked in Table 15-1 are discussed by resource in Sections 15.3 through 15.14.
In a number of cases, construction of the reasonably foreseeable actions could overlap in space and
time with the construction of AWPOW. This chapter discusses the potential cumulative impacts of such
concurrent construction along with those of project operation. Reasonably forseeable actions near the
AWPOW project footprint whose current schedules overlap with the planned construction time frame
for AWPOW (currently estimated from 2019 through mid-2022) are:
Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock Projectanticipated 2017 to 2022
Union Street Pier Replacementanticipated 2019
Seattle Aquarium Expansionanticipated 2020 or later
Pier 62/63 Replacement (Phase 1)anticipated 2017 to 2019
South Lander Street Grade Separation Projectanticipated 2018 to 2020
Private development projects in downtown Seattle and Belltownanticipated 2016 and ongoing
Two-Way Columbia Street Pathway Projectanticipated 2019
Center City Connector Streetcar Projectanticipated 2017 to 2019
Madison Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Projectanticipated 2018 to 2020In some cases, coordination with
adjacent construction project could provide a benefit by potentially reducing the amount of
construction time in an area where multiple projects may occur. For example, to the extent feasible, the
City and the Seattle Aquarium could coordinate to allow early work on the Aquarium Pavilion, such as
utilities and foundations, to occur simultaneously with AWPOW.
15.3 Transportation and Parking

15.3.1
Study Area and Time Frame
The study area for cumulative impacts on transportation and parking is based on consideration of
potential impacts on these resources. Accordingly, the study area for cumulative impacts is defined
generally as the downtown Seattle area, bordered by the West Seattle Bridge to the south, I-5 to the
east (including I-5 through downtown Seattle), Elliott Bay to the west, and South Lake Union to the
north. The time frame for the cumulative impacts assessment is the period from approximately 1953
(when the Alaskan Way Viaduct was completed) until 2030, the design year for the project.
15-2
CHAPTER 15 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 15-1. Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Potential Cumulative Impacts
Estimated
Construction
Time Frame
Description
Transportation
Parking
Land Use
Aesthetics
Noise
Hazardous
Materials
Public
Services and
Utilities
Historic
Resources
Archaeological
Resources
Water
Quality
Vegetation and
Wildlife
Actions in the Project Vicinity

1
Terminal 46 Dock
Rehabilitation, Crane Rail
Extension, and Paving
20152020
Central Waterfront
Combined Sewer Overflow
Project
20162018
Seattle Multimodal
Terminal at Colman Dock
Project
20172022
Repair deteriorated container berth pile caps

and deck panels; repair terminal apron and
container yard to address safety concerns; and
extend dock crane rail to allow an additional
100-foot gauge crane.
Provide increased storage capacity within the
combined sewer system. The study area
currently includes five CSO outfalls, located at
King, Washington, University, Pine, and Vine
Streets.
Replace aging and seismically vulnerable
components of Colman Dock, including the
timber portion of the dock, vehicle and overhead
loading structures on slip 3, and the main
terminal building. The project will add about
5,200 square feet of new overwater coverage.
Union Street Pier

Replacement
2019
Replace the current Waterfront Park with a new

park on a rebuilt Union Street Pier.
Seattle Aquarium
Expansion
2020
Expand the aquarium to accommodate new

exhibits and programs.
Pier 62/63 Replacement
2017-2019
(Phase 1)
Replace the existing Pier 62/63 with a

reconfigured pier to be used for recreation,
including temporary boat moorage. In Phase 1,
Pier 62 would be rebuilt and Pier 63 would
remain in place.
2018-2020
Several street improvements on Alaskan Way in

front of Pier 66 (constructing a vehicle pullout,
removing trolley tracks and station, relocating a
crosswalk, and restriping traffic marking), as
well as interior improvements to the Pier 66
terminal and upgrading of the piers electrical
system to allow cruise ships to plug into shore
power during calls.
Pier 66 Upgrade and

Improvement Projects
Elliott Bay Seawall Project,

Phase 2 (North Seawall)
2018 or
later
Battery Street Portal Park
20182020
10
Alaskan Way Promenade,

Phase 2
2018 or
later
Develop the open space created by closure of

the north portal of the Battery Street Tunnel.
Rebuild the seawall from Virginia Street to

Broad Street to resist storm and seismic events.
Extend the Promenade north from the Overlook

Walk to Broad Street following the North
Seawall replacement.
15-3
Estimated
Construction
Time Frame
Description
Transportation
Parking
Land Use
Aesthetics
Noise
Hazardous
Materials
Public
Services and
Utilities
Historic
Resources
Archaeological
Resources
Water
Quality
Vegetation and
Wildlife
Development in Downtown Seattle

11
Union Street Gondola
Unknown
Construct a gondola linking the Washington

State Convention & Trade Center with the
Seattle waterfront via Union Street.
12
Pike-Pine Renaissance
Unknown
Improve the Pike-Pine corridors in downtown

Seattle from First Avenue to I-5 by providing
higher-quality, more consistent pedestrian
space by upgrading the standards for sidewalks
and intersections.
South Lander Street Grade

Separation Project
2018-2020
Construct a grade-separated crossing over the

BNSF railroad tracks at South Lander Street to
improve local traffic circulation and safety.
South Downtown Rezone

(Livable South Downtown)
2011
ongoing
Provide for increased densities in areas south of

downtown Seattle, including Pioneer Square
and the stadium area.
SODO Arena
Unknown
Construct a new stadium in the South

Downtown (SODO) area for professional
basketball and hockey.
Private development
projects in downtown
Seattle (including Pike
Place Market) and Belltown
2016
ongoing
Develop new residential and commercial space

in downtown Seattle comprising an estimated
development of 4,500 residential units; 2,500
hotel rooms; 2 million square feet of office
space; and 65,000 square feet of ground-floor
retail.
Local and Regional Transportation Improvements (Bus, Streetcar, Light Rail)

13
Two-Way Columbia Street

Pathway Project
2019
Reroute bus routes from Southwest Seattle onto

Alaskan Way and Columbia Street up to Third
Avenue after AWPOW is complete.
14
Center City Connector

Streetcar Project
2017-2019
Develop a new streetcar route generally along

First Avenue and Stewart Street that will link the
South Lake Union and First Hill Streetcars.
15
Madison Corridor Bus

Rapid Transit Project
20182020
Implement bus rapid transit service on Madison

Street between Colman Dock and 23rd Avenue
East in Madison Park.
Roosevelt to Downtown
Project
2020
Provide a new high-capacity transit route for

improved service between the University District
and downtown Seattle via Eastlake Avenue
East.
University Link Extension
Completed
in 2016
Build a 3.15mile light rail extension that will run

in twin bored tunnels from downtown Seattle
north to the University of Washington, with
stations in Capitol Hill and on the University of
Washington campus near Husky Stadium.
In
construction
through
2021
Build a 4.3mile light rail extension from the

University of Washington Station to Northgate
Station with two stations in between (Brooklyn
and Roosevelt).
Northgate Link Extension
15-4
Estimated
Construction
Time Frame
Description
Transportation
Parking
Land Use
Aesthetics
Noise
Hazardous
Materials
Public
Services and
Utilities
Historic
Resources
Archaeological
Resources
Water
Quality
Lynnwood Link Extension
20182023
Build an 8.5-mile light rail extension from

Northgate to Lynnwood with 4 to 6 new stations.
East Link Extension
20152022
Provide light rail service linking Redmond and

Bellevue with downtown Seattle across Lake
Washington.
Pedestrian Master Plan

Implementation
2009
ongoing
Improve pedestrian facilities in downtown

Seattle, including connections to other parts of
the city; AWPOW pedestrian facilities are
included in the plan.
Bicycle Master Plan

Implementation
2014
ongoing
Improve the bicycle network in downtown

Seattle, including connections to other parts of
the city; AWPOW bicycle facility is included in
the plan.
SR 520, I-5 to Medina

Bridge Replacement and
HOV Project
Ongoing
completion
by 2020
Replace the existing SR 520 corridor from I-5 to

Medina, including the Evergreen Point floating
bridge, with two generalpurpose lanes and one
high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each
direction. The floating bridge was completed in
2016. Construction of the roadway between I-5
and the floating bridge is ongoing.
Vegetation and
Wildlife
Note: The locations of the numbered projects (1 to 15) are shown on Figure 15-1. Future actions that are not numbered are plans that cover a larger area and projects located more than mile from the project footprint that could impact the downtown transportation system
15-5
E lliot t B ay
BN
RR
AL
AS
AL A
WA
Y
Pier 48
8
Pie
63
er 62/6
ST
SO
ST
ST
NG
SL
TO
N
ER
ST
WA
Y
JA
MA
IN
CK
KI
S
YE
HI
NG
WA
S
ST
ST
IN
A RD
ST
MA
ST
ST
T
ES
ST
YS
N CH
RA
AD
T
YS
CL A
AR
VIN
LL
WA
TER
T
LS
BE L
BL A
O
LE N
T
ST
LA
K
EA
VE
AV E
7T H
AV E
AV E
8T H
Project Footprint
AV E
6T H
5T H AV E
TO R
Feet
AVE
5T H
4T H AV E
WE
1,000
AVE
AV E
4T H
15
AV E
IO TT
3R D
12
6T H AV E
500
2N D
3R D AVE
ES
LLEC
I5 SB CO
IA S
G IN
AV
AV
E
EL L
AV E
1S T
VIR
AV
E
AV
E
AD
N AV
ST
AR
RT
WA
AV
E
PINE ST
YN
6T
H
2N D AVE
T ER
CE
ST E
MA
TERRACE ST
5T
H
AV
LA
EP
11
PIKE ST
4T
H
1S T AV E
PIK
UNION ST
RR
AV
14
UNIVERSITY ST
3R
D
AV
E
SENECA ST
2N D AVE S
TA
L
SPRING ST
EN
MADISON ST
I FI
W ES T ER N AVE
PO ST AV E
MARION ST
PA
C
C ID
AL A
Y
WA
W ES
13
COLUMBIA ST
2N
D
RN
OC
N
SKA
ALASKAN WAY
CHERRY ST
HE
AV
E
JAMES ST
RT
1S
T
Seattle
eattle
Aquarium
R
IL
BAT
Pier 57
Pie
er 56
6
Waterfront
Waterf
Pier 55
P
Park
4
RA
CE D
4
Piier 54
BN
SF
BR O
3
Colman Dock
NO
WAY
7
KA
RA IL RO AD W AY S
7T
H
10
N
SKA
Parcel Boundary
Building Footprint

Note:
Table 15-1 lists the future actions considered in the cumulative impacts analysis.
Future actions that are not numbered on this figure are plans that cover a larger area
and projects located more than 0.25 mile from the project footprint that could impact
the downtown transportation system.
Figure 15-1
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions
in the Project Vicinity
15.3.2
Current Health and Historical Context
Growth and development in Seattle and the Puget Sound region have resulted in increased traffic
volumes and congestion for many decades. The Alaskan Way Viaduct was constructed and completed in
1953 to relieve congestion in downtown Seattle and to provide a north-south regional connection
through the Seattle area. The Alaskan Way Viaduct carried approximately 19,000 vehicles per day, and
now carries approximately 110,000 vehicles per day (Ott 2011; FHWA et al. 2009). The viaduct provides
an important north-south connection, but creates a barrier between the waterfront and downtown
Seattle and became structurally unstable after the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake. Plans to replace the
viaduct began shortly after the Nisqually Earthquake, and a bored tunnel alternative was selected as the
preferred alternative. Increased use of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and services over the
past several decades has also created the need and opportunity for improved facilities to support
changing transportation trends in the Seattle area.
In 2017, the restored Alaskan Way roadway will provide transit, freight, and general-purpose travel
lanes; emergency vehicle access; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Other transportation resources in
the study area include public transportation services operated by King County Metro; water
transportation services operated by WSF, King County Water Taxi, and cruise ship service; and freight
and passenger rail service, which operates in a tunnel for the majority of the study area. The existing
resources are adequate to serve demand in 2017, with the exception of some intersections that are
expected to operate at unacceptable levels in the PM peak hour. However, the transportation system
would not improve the connection between the waterfront and downtown Seattle or add new facilities
and amenities for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic.
From the 1930s to the late 20th century, Seattle and the Puget Sound regionincluding the study
areawere developed in a manner that assumed and supported the use of personal automobiles. As a
result, large supplies of parking were developed, such as those that existed in the study area before the
beginning of AWVRP construction. Much of the areas parking has been in place since the 1970s, when
the waterfront began to transition from industrial and commercial use to recreational and tourist use.
Since the early 2000s, Seattles population has reversed the historical trend, shifting from automobile
dependency toward higher levels of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel. During this time, the number
of parking spaces along the waterfront began to level off in accordance with demand. The construction
of the AWVRP and the EBSP, starting in 2011, removed a large number of parking spaces under and near
the existing viaduct and along Alaskan Way. To address the parking loss resulting from AWVRP, WSDOT,
SDOT, and other AWVRP partners implemented a parking mitigation program that identified specific
strategies to mitigate the loss of parking in Pioneer Square and the waterfront.
The current parking resources in the study area include a number of off-street parking lots as well as onstreet public parking along Alaskan Way and side streets. The parking resources that will exist in 2017,
prior to the start of AWPOW construction, are adequate to serve the existing demand. Loading zones
will continue to be important along Alaskan Way for freight and deliveries that do not have the
opportunity to shift modes.
15.3.3
Project-Related Construction and Operational Impacts
The analysis in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS shows that AWPOW would have the following impacts on
transportation resources:
15-8
The primary construction impact would occur during the road closure at Pike Street on Alaskan
Way, which would require vehicles to use the new Elliott Way to detour around the road closure
to access the northern portion of Alaskan Way. This could increase travel times and congestion
at Wall, Vine, Clay, and Broad Streets. Other construction impacts would be short term and
could be avoided or minimized by BMPs, public communication, and coordination with
transportation service providers.
Operational impacts on business access could occur due to the new location of Alaskan Way,
which would alter existing access to businesses. Impacts would be minimized by providing
sufficient on-street loading and parking zones near affected businesses and coordinating with
businesses to develop alternative access routes for freight.
AWPOW would have the following impacts on parking:
Construction activities for AWPOW would impact parking throughout the study area by
temporarily or permanently eliminating on-street parking spaces in the active construction area.
To construct the Preferred Alternative, SDOT would acquire a surface parking lot with
approximately 60 off-street spaces and convert it to right of way.
Operational impacts on parking would consist of the removal of 57 on-street parking spaces
along Alaskan Way, 377 parking spaces that existed under the Alaskan Way Viaduct,
15 on-street spaces on Bell Street, 3 spaces on Union Street, and 1 space on S. Main Street. The
removal of this parking supply would adversely affect some users. The overall loss of on-street
parking supply represents approximately 25 percent of on-street parking and approximately
6 percent of all parking in the study area.
15.3.4
Other Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that May Affect

the Resource
The projects with check marks in the Transportation and Parking column of Table 15-1 are those that
may result in construction or operational impacts on transportation in the study area. Chapter 8 of Final
EIS Appendix A, Transportation Discipline Report, and Appendix B, Parking Discipline Report, provide
detailed information on the impacts of each checked project.
Projects that may be under construction simultaneously with AWPOW are identified in Section 15.2. All
of these projects are likely to result in varying degrees of traffic congestion and diversion during
construction because of detours, lane closures, and additional truck traffic. Most would also result in
some disruption to on-street parking and loading spaces, although there is generally sufficient off-street
parking to accommodate these temporary reductions. Transit and freight vehicles, as well as generalpurpose traffic, would experience these impacts. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic would also experience
some delays resulting from the need to detour around the active construction area.
The operation of the transportation improvements checked in Table 15-1 would benefit all modes of
transportation in the study area, reducing congestion and supporting a wider variety of travel choices.
Implementation of the Pedestrian Master Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan would establish new facilities
and connections between existing facilities so that nonmotorized travelers could safely reach a wider
variety of destinations. Planned streetcar and bus rapid transit projects, along with Sound Transit light
rail extensions, would substantially enhance transit service in the study area. Although the creation of
new bicycle and transit lanes may affect a small amount of parking, enhancing facilities for
nonmotorized transportation would provide travel options that could reduce the overall parking
demand. Regional improvements such as the SR 520 bridge replacement would improve overall traffic
flow throughout the study area. Although proposed development projects along the waterfront and
nearby (such as the SODO arena) would generate additional vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic in the
study area, the reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements would provide the multimodal
capacity needed to accommodate the increased demand while also reducing the need for parking.
15.3.5
Potential Cumulative Impacts to Transportation and Parking
Cumulative impacts could result if the construction of AWPOW occurs simultaneously with that of any of
the projects checked in Table 15-1. Impacts from simultaneous construction with other reasonably
foreseeable projects could include additional traffic diversion to other streets, temporary closures of
transportation facilities such as sidewalks or bicycle facilities, and increased travel time and delay for all
modes of transportation. Although many off-street parking spaces and garages are available in the area,
15-9
simultaneous construction would result in a temporary reduction of available on-street parking spaces in
the study area. If AWPOW and several reasonably foreseeable projects (such as the Center City
Connector Streetcar Project, the Two-Way Columbia Street Pathway Project, and private development
projects) are constructed at the same time, together these projects could result in an adverse impact on
parking resources during construction.
Operational impacts of AWPOW and the other reasonably foreseeable projects could increase the
volumes of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists in the study area. An increase in nonmotorized
traffic in the study area would not have a significant adverse impact because several of these projects,
including AWPOW, would provide new nonmotorized facilities that would have enough capacity to
accommodate additional users. The new nonmotorized facilities would be designed to current standards
to maintain user safety and comfort even with more users. As a result, cumulative impacts on
nonmotorized transportation are expected to be beneficial.
Operation of AWPOW would remove approximately 6 percent of all parking in the study area. Most of
the projects checked in Table 15-1 could affect at least a small number of parking spaces, primarily due to
additional transit stops or bicycle lanes. The Center City Connector Streetcar Project would result in the
loss of approximately 150 on-street parking and loading spaces on First Avenue in AWPOW parking study
area Zones 1, 2, 3, and 4 (SDOT et al. 2016). This represents a loss of approximately 8 percent of the onstreet parking supply and 1 percent of the total on- and off-street supply in the AWPOW study area, in
addition to the loss attributable to AWPOW itself. Private development projects that are underway or in
the permitting pipeline have the potential to either increase or decrease the supply of off-street
parking in the study area; some of the projects would also generate additional parking demand. Some
projects, like AWPOW and the Center City Connector, would enhance facilities for nonmotorized
transportation and transit, thereby providing travel options to and from the waterfront and collectively
reducing the overall demand for parking in a manner consistent with City policies. However, the AWPOW
projects, in combination with the impacts of other reasonably foreseeable actions or projects in the study
area, could result in an adverse impact on the status or condition of parking.
AWPOW and the reasonably foreseeable projects would improve roadway facilities and expand the
transit system. Along with the improvements included in AWPOW, improvements to key roadway
facilities (such as the SR 520, I-5 to Medina Bridge Replacement and HOV Project, and the AWVRP when
it is complete) will enhance the overall capacity and operation of the regional transportation system.
Even more substantial improvements are proposed to the transit system in the study area, such as
proposed new light rail and streetcar service and the shift of King County Metro bus service to the
permanent pathway on Columbia Street. These transit enhancements, in combination with AWPOWs
proposed improvements to nonmotorized modes and transit facilities, are likely to result in some degree
of mode shift from single-occupant vehicles to transit over time. Overall, the combined operational
impacts of AWPOW and reasonably foreseeable future projects are not expected to adversely impact
the status or condition of transportation resources, and could provide a modest degree of benefit to
regional transportation.
15.3.6
Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Impacts
During construction of AWPOW and the reasonably foreseeable actions that may affect transportation,
the City and other proponents should coordinate closely to minimize closures, detours, and delays for all
travel modes. Coordination between the City and other agencies such as WSF and King County Metro
will be particularly important. Coordination with other projects proposed in or near the AWPOW
footprint, such as the Center City Connector Streetcar Project, Seattle Aquarium expansion, the TwoWay Columbia Street Pathway Project, and private development projects, would all require coordination
with their respective proponents if they were constructed concurrently with AWPOW. The City and
other project proponents could implement measures similar to those presented in Section 16.1.1 and
Section 16.1.2 to minimize the effect of construction-related and operational-related cumulative
impacts related to transportation.
15-10
Simultaneous construction of AWPOW and reasonably foreseeable actions are anticipated to result in
losses of on-street parking spaces. The City and other project proponents could implement measures
similar to those presented in Section 16.2.1 to minimize the effect of construction-related cumulative
impacts on parking. In addition, the City would continue enforcement of short-term parking limits and
the use of e-Park, which provides real-time off-street parking availability, to make the most efficient use
Because AWPOW operation would not adversely affect travel modes, no mitigation measures for
cumulative operational impacts for transportation are suggested. AWPOW and a number of reasonably
foreseeable actions are anticipated to result in losses of on-street parking spaces. As described in
Section 3.7.2 (Consistency with City of Seattle Parking Policies) and Section 16.2 of this Final EIS, the loss
of parking is consistent with the reduced priority that City policies specify for on-street parking, and no
SEPA authority is provided to mitigate them. However, the City and other project proponents could
implement measures similar to those presented in Section 16.2.2 to minimize the effect of cumulative
impacts on parking. Such measures could modify and enforce on-street parking policies and practices,
provide real-time information on parking availability, provide wayfinding to existing off-street parking,
and work to increase awareness and use of alternative modes of transportation.
15.4 Land Use

15.4.1
The study area for the analysis of cumulative land use impacts is the same as for the construction and
operational impacts analysis described in Chapter 4the area inside a two-block radius from the edge
of the project footprint. The past temporal boundary for the analysis is approximately 1850, when EuroAmerican settlers came to the Seattle area (City of Seattle 2014). Prior to the arrival of Euro-American
settlers, there likely were Native American settlements above the original Elliott Bay waterfront, but
Native American uses, although significant, did not result in the type of urban development that EuroAmerican settlers brought. The future temporal boundary is the project design year of 2030.
15.4.2
The land in the study area is highly developed, and has been occupied by urban land uses for about
150 years. Although Euro-American settlers came to Seattle around 1850, population growth was
modest, with an estimated 2,000 residents living in the city when it incorporated in 1869. It was not
until the 1880s when Seattle saw significant population growth after connecting with the Northern
Pacific railroad line, and with the growth of the lumber and coal industries, fishing, wholesale trade, and
ship building. Estimates for the growth in population in 1889 had 1,000 new residents entering Seattle
per month. The fire of 1889, which destroyed buildings on 116 acres in the business district, provided
the city leaders an opportunity for municipal improvements, such as wider and regraded streets,
reconstructed wharfs, and municipal water works. The 1897 discovery of gold along the Klondike River
made Seattle a boom town. By 1909, the population was approaching 240,000, and the once small
logging town became a small city with a developed waterfront and downtown (City of Seattle 2014).
The gold rush led to an influx of immigrants to Seattle, and the downtown area developed to
accommodate this growth. During this time, many of Seattles neighborhoods got their start, with
streetcars providing transportation to the new neighborhoods outside of the downtown area. The first
decade or so of the 1900s also saw the city undertake a major effort to level the steep hills to the north
and south of the downtown area. The spoils from the Denny Regrade and regrading of S. Jackson Street
were used to fill areas along the waterfront. The fill and construction of the seawall established much of
the present-day waterfront land in the study area. The regrading also encouraged development around
the downtown core. World War I brought success to Seattles shipbuilding industry, but that success
ended with the war and ushered in the Great Depression. During and after World War II, the success of
Boeing led an economic growth period that lasted until 1970. During this period, the interstate highways
15-11
(I-5 and I-90) were built, along with the Alaskan Way Viaduct. In 1979, Microsoft was established,
beginning a trend of technology-related businesses influencing growth in Seattle. During the 1970s,
the citys waterfront also began to transition from commercial and industrial use to uses related to
recreation and tourism.
In recent decades, the City has focused on increasing residential and commercial density in the
downtown commercial core with new mixed-use buildings and condominiums. Adjacent neighborhoods
also have seen an increase in development to address the growing population. Given the presence of
several Fortune 500 companies (e.g., Boeing, Amazon, Microsoft, Google) and smaller successful
technology firms (gaming, software) in the area, Seattle is poised for continued growth.
15.4.3
Construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in noise, dust, glare, traffic, access disruption,
detours, and other impacts associated with construction work on adjacent land uses. These impacts
would be temporary and would vary in intensity and duration, depending on the type of
construction occurring.
Operational impacts of the Preferred Alternative would be positive because the project would support
land use plans that call for planned density, increased transportation capacity and mobility for all
modes, and increased economic vitality in downtown Seattle. These plans are in place to guide
development within Seattle so that it produces desired results, such as urban density, walkable
neighborhoods, adequate public facilities, and economic vitality. The study area is already a dense,
urban area; therefore, this project would not cause growth, but rather support the present and future
community. AWPOW may increase the desirability of the waterfront area for businesses or residences,
resulting in new development that may occur in underutilized areas, but this would not change the land
use in the study area.
AWPOW would rebuild Alaskan Way to accommodate general-purpose, regional transit, and freight
traffic. It would also accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists and provide improved east-west
connections from downtown Seattle to the waterfront. These connectivity and mobility improvements
address goals in Transportation 2040 (congestion and mobility), Seattle Comprehensive Plan (urban
village, land use, and transportation elements), and the various transportation-related plans (e.g.,
Transportation Strategic Plan, City of Seattle Center City Circulation Report, Pedestrian Master Plan, and
Bicycle Master Plan). The Promenade and Overlook Walk would also provide new open space and
opportunities for businesses, both of which support goals found in the Citys land use plans.
15.4.4

the Resource
The projects checked in the Land Use column of Table 15-1 are those that may result in construction or
operational impacts on land use in the study area. Chapter 8 of the Draft EIS Appendix C, Land Use
Discipline Report, provides more information on the impacts of each checked project.
The projects checked in Table 15-1 are governed by the adopted land use and transportation plans for
the city and the region. In general, these projects support the Citys land use goals for the waterfront
and downtown areas and would have positive operational impacts on land use. During construction
there could be temporary negative cumulative impacts on nearby land uses, such as increased noise,
traffic congestion, and aesthetic impacts. However, the completion of these projects would contribute
to positive cumulative impacts on land use in the form of enhanced bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
facilities; growth in neighborhoods designated for higher-density development; and more access to
better public services and facilities.
Actions in the project vicinity (Union Street Pier Replacement, Seattle Aquarium Expansion, Pier 62/63
Replacement, Battery Street Portal Park, and Phase 2 of the Alaskan Way Promenade) would result in
long-term impacts during their operation, including an improved pedestrian environment, larger and
15-12
more usable open spaces, and improved recreational opportunities in the study area. All of these longterm impacts would strongly support regional and local land use planning.
Development in downtown Seattle (Union Street Gondola, Pike-Pine Renaissance, South Downtown
Rezone, SODO arena, and various private development projects) would result, over the long term, in
greater density in Seattles downtown core and enhancements to nonmotorized transit in key
pedestrian corridors (specifically the gondola and the Pike-Pine Renaissance improvements). These
changes would be consistent with regional and City goals for concentrating growth in urban centers and
improving the quality of the pedestrian environment.
Local and regional transportation improvements (Two-Way Columbia Street Pathway Project, Center
City Connector Streetcar Project, Madison Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project, and implementation of the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans) would result in long-term beneficial impacts during their operation.
The three transit projects would create new and enhanced transit routes linking the study area to other
parts of Seattle, supporting the Transit Master Plan and other plans that encourage multimodal
transportation in the city. Implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan and the Pedestrian Master Plan
would create improved pedestrian and bicycle connections that would promote alternative modes of
transportation, increasing Seattles vibrancy and sustainability and supporting the goals of many
elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
15.4.5
Potential Cumulative Impacts for Land Use
During AWPOWs construction, there could be temporary adverse cumulative impacts on land use if
other reasonably foreseeable projects are under construction concurrently near the project footprint.
Projects whose construction schedules may overlap with AWPOWs are identified in Section 15.2. The
cumulative impacts of concurrent construction schedules for AWPOW and the projects shown in
Section 15.2 would result in more intense construction-related impacts, such as noise, dust, vibration,
visual intrusions, and traffic congestion, than would have been experienced if only one project was under
construction in the area. For example, construction cumulative impacts on land use could be a detour
that is in place longer than it would have been, thereby affecting the patronage of the businesses that it
bypasses or makes it inconvenient to access; noise that is louder at adjacent land uses; or more dust and
trucks on the roads to contribute to congestion, thereby potentially impacting the desirability of the
waterfront during this time, as well as negatively impacting the land uses that are accessed by vehicles.
During project operation, AWPOWs improvements would integrate with the other improvements
planned along the waterfront to support the Citys land use planning goals for the study area. These
projects, taken together, would create a better environment for all who use the waterfront: vehicles,
pedestrians, bicyclists, local businesses, ferry patrons, residents, and visitors. Collectively, AWPOW and
the projects checked in Table 15-1 would support planned density, increased transportation capacity
and mobility for all modes, adequate public facilities, and increased economic vitality in downtown
Seattle. Capacity and mobility improvements would address goals in Transportation 2040 and the
Seattle Comprehensive Plans Transportation Element to reduce congestion and increase mobility. New
pedestrian and bicycle facilities created by AWPOW and other projects that implement the Bicycle
Master Plan and the Pedestrian Master Plan will support Seattles overarching land use goals of
increased multimodal connections and recreational opportunities. Also, the projects with
transportation, bicycle, pedestrian, and open space or recreational elements would all positively address
the goal of adequate public facilities and services, resulting in benefits for those visiting, working, or
living in the waterfront area.
Many of the new development projects in downtown Seattle, including AWPOW, would support the
Citys economic development goals. Kiosks included in the project could provide new business
opportunities, such as space for the sale of food and beverages. The planned private developments in
downtown Seattle would also bring economic opportunities to downtown. Projects that facilitate or
concentrate urban growth in areas designated by the land use plans (such as the South Downtown
15-13
Rezone,downtownprivatedevelopmentprojects,andthePikePineRenaissance)wouldallresultin
beneficialcumulativeimpactsduetotheirconsistencywithlandusegoals.
15.4.6
Mitigationmeasuresforpotentialconstructionrelatedcumulativeimpactsonlandusewouldbesimilar
tothosediscussedinSection16.3.1.BecauseAWPOWoperationwouldnotadverselyaffectlanduse,no
mitigationmeasuresforcumulativeoperationalimpactsaresuggested.
15.5 Aesthetics
15.5.1
ThestudyareafortheanalysisofcumulativeimpactsonaestheticsistheAWPOWviewshedandits
landscapeunits,asdescribedinChapter5ofthisFinalEIS.Theevaluationtimeframebeginsin1953,the
yeartheAlaskanWayViaductopened,becausethiseventinfluencedthedevelopmentandviewsalong
thewaterfrontoverthepast60years.Thefuturetemporalboundaryistheprojectdesignyearof2030.
15.5.2
AsdescribedintheDraftEISAppendixH,HistoricResourcesDisciplineReport,wharfbuildingbegansoon
afterSeattlewasfirstplattedin1853,withsuccessivewavesofconstructionintheshorelinearea
creatingtheurbanlandscapethatexiststoday.Steadyurbandevelopmenthaschangedaharborand
waterfrontthatwaslargelydevotedtoshippingintoonethatisdevotedtotourismandcommuter
orientedtravel.Fromthemid20thcenturyon,theaestheticsoftheprojectviewshedhavebeenstrongly
influencedbythepresenceoftheAlaskanWayViaduct,whichbecameadominantfeaturefrommany
vantagepointsandaffectedtheurbanformofareas(suchasportionsofBelltown)thatdevelopedor
redevelopedaroundit.Theeliminationoftheviaduct,whichwillbecompletedbeforeAWPOW
constructionbegins,hasthepotentialtostartapositiveaesthetictrendbyremovingastructure
generallyconsideredaneyesoreandallowingtheareatoregainitshistoricorientationtowardthewater.
Theaestheticcharacterandqualityofthestudyareaunderthe2017existingconditionsishighdueto
thescenicnaturalsetting,vividurbanskyline,historicbuildings,monumentalstructuressuchasthe
gantrycranesalongthewaterfront,andpanoramicviewsacrossPugetSoundtotheOlympicMountains
onthehorizon.
15.5.3
AWPOWwouldhavegenerallyadverseaestheticimpactsduringconstructionandgenerallybeneficial
impactsduringoperation.Constructionimpactswouldconsistprimarilyofvisualclutterfrom
equipment,fencing,temporarystructures,andstockpiledmaterials.Theseimpactswouldbe
temporaryandwouldvaryinintensityanddurationdependingonthetypeofconstructionoccurring
anditslocation.
TheoperationalimpactsofAWPOWwouldbepredominantlypositivebecausetheprojectwouldcreatea
farmorevisuallyunifiedandpleasingenvironmentthanthatwhichwouldexistundertheNoAction
Alternative.Newlandscaping,bicycle,andpedestrianfacilitieswouldcreateastrongphysicalandvisual
connectionbetweenthewaterfrontanddowntownSeattle.ThePreferredAlternativewouldsupport
urbandesignandneighborhoodplansthatcallforhighlevelsofdesignandaesthetics.Thenewfeatures
ofthePreferredAlternativewouldincreasethevividness,intactness,andunityofthewaterfrontarea.
However,theOverlookWalk,asthemostuniqueanddominantstructureintheproject,couldpotentially
beexperiencedaseitheranegativeorpositiveimpact,dependingontheperspectiveoftheobserver.
Theproposedkioskscouldalsobeperceivedashavingeitheranegativeorpositiveimpact,dependingon
theviewer.
15-14
15.5.4

the Resource
TheprojectscheckedintheAestheticscolumnofTable151arethosethatmayresultinconstructionor
operationalimpactsonaestheticsinthestudyarea.Chapter8oftheDraftEISAppendixD,Aesthetics
DisciplineReport,providesmoreinformationontheimpactsofeachcheckedproject.
AlloftheprojectscheckedinTable151wouldcausesomedegreeofaestheticimpactduring
construction.SuchimpactswouldbesimilartothosedescribedaboveforAWPOW,consistingprimarily
ofvisualclutterofvarioustypes.Theseimpactswouldbetemporaryandwouldendwithrestorationof
thestudyareaatthecloseoftheconstructionperiod.Duringtheiroperation,however,mostofthe
checkedprojectswouldresultinaestheticbenefitswithinthestudyarea.Inparticular,theother
improvementsthatarepartofWaterfrontSeattletheUnionStreetPierReplacement,thePier62/63
ReplacementProject,theBatteryStreetPortalPark,andPhase2ofthePromenadewouldinclude
urbandesignandlandscapingelementsthatwouldbecoordinatedwithoneanotherandwithAWPOW
toformavisuallycohesivewhole.
TheproposedUnionStreetGondolawouldhaveapotentiallyadverseimpactonviews.Thegondola
wouldlookdifferentfromanyexistingstructurecrossingAlaskanWay;thecableswouldbeminor
impacts,butstanchionsthatwerenotincorporatedintoanexistinglargebuildingorstructurewouldbe
highlynoticeable.Ifbuilt,suchstructurescoulddetractfromtheaestheticsofthecorridorandimpede
viewsfromelsewhereinthestudyarea.
15.5.5
Potential Cumulative Impacts for Aesthetics
ProjectscheckedinTable151couldhavetemporary,negative,constructionrelatedcumulativeimpacts
onaestheticsiftheprojectsareneareachotherandbuiltatthesametime.AWPOW'sexpected
constructiondurationisfrom2019throughmid2022;constructionofseveralofthecheckedprojectsis
expectedtooccurnearbyduringthistimeframe.Othercheckedprojectscouldalsobebuilt
concurrentlywitheachother.ThiscouldresultinthewaterfrontareaofdowntownSeattlehaving
multipleprojectsunderconstructionforasmuchas10years.Thecumulativeimpactsofsuch
concurrentconstructionwouldbemoreintensevisualintrusionsthanwouldbeexperiencedifonlyone
projectatatimewereunderconstruction.
ThedemolitionoftheAlaskanWayViaduct,whilenotattributabletoAWPOW,wouldremoveaphysical
andvisualbarrier.Removaloftheviaductwillexposethebuildingsalongtheeastsideofthestructure,
whichwillbecomedominantinneargroundviewsfromthewaterfronttowarddowntownSeattle.Views
fromprotectedSeattleviewcorridorsaftertheviaductisgonewillbeunobstructedandwillextendfrom
thewaterfronttothehorizon.
AlthoughsomeelementsinAWPOWandtheprojectscheckedinTable151couldpotentiallybe
experiencedaseitheranegativeorpositiveimpact,dependingontheperspectiveoftheobserver,these
projectswouldgenerallycontributetobeneficialcumulativeimpactsonaestheticsinthestudyarea.The
projectsinTable151,exceptfortheUnionStreetGondola,wouldsupporttheCitysaestheticsand
urbandesigngoalsforthewaterfrontanddowntownareas.Completionoftheseprojectswould
contributetopositivecumulativeimpacts(benefits)intheformofenhancementorprotectionofpublic
viewsofscenicandhistoricresources;coherentlandscapingthatmakesthewaterfrontareaappearasan
understandableandunifiedlocale;welcomingandsafegatheringandwalkingareasnearimportant
recreationandtouristattractions;andstrongervisualconnectionsbetweenthedowntown,PikePlace
Belltown,andPioneerSquareneighborhoodsandthewaterfront.Thefutureactionsandtheirimpacts
arepartofasteadytrendinimprovingandincreasingpedestrianandbicyclistconnections,enhancing
urbanstreetscapes,andupgrading,maintaining,orrefurbishingoldorhistoricstructures.
15-15
15.5.6
AWPOW and the reasonably foreseeable actions that could have construction-related impacts on the
visual environment would implement project-appropriate mitigation measures similar to those
discussed in Section 16.4.1, such as reducing the amount of construction-related light and glare, adding
attractive design elements to the public side of construction screening, and providing windows or other
viewpoints into the active construction area.
Most of the reasonably foreseeable actions analyzed should, like AWPOW, have positive operational
impacts on aesthetics. Proponents of reasonably foreseeable actions that could cause adverse
operational cumulative impacts on aesthetics would likely mitigate those impacts by designing features
to respect the historical and scenic context of the area while supporting the development of a coherent
urban aesthetic character.
15.6 Noise
15.6.1
The study area for cumulative impacts on noise is the same as the study area described in Chapter 6.
The past temporal boundary selected for the project was 1953, the year the Alaskan Way Viaduct
opened. The future temporal boundary selected was the project design year of 2030.
15.6.2
Although little information exists on historical noise levels in the study area, it is evident that noise
levels have risen over time as a result of increasing traffic volumes and the growth of Seattles
downtown core. Currently, the study area is heavily urbanized, and traffic noise dominates the
environment, with many areas near or above the NAC for residential uses. The land uses in the study
area are primarily commercial and residential, including apartments, condominiums, hotels, and motels.
Many visitors, residents, and commuters walk and cycle to destinations on the waterfront, along Alaskan
Way, or west of Alaskan Way.
As described in Chapter 6, traffic noise will be substantially lower in some areas once the Alaskan Way
Viaduct is removed as part of the AWVRP. The viaduct structure, which has influenced noise and
development in the study area, is anticipated to be demolished in 2018 or 2019. However, traffic will
continue to be the predominant noise source in the study area because of vehicles using the dense
arterial street grid. Noise levels in the southern portion of the study area are not expected to change
substantially after the viaduct is removed because of the high traffic volumes on surface streets in this
area, which will increase after the viaduct closure.
15.6.3
As described in Chapter 6, construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in noise impacts
associated with construction work, with maximum noise levels of up to 88 dBA at the nearest residences
during the most intense construction activities. These impacts would be temporary, and would vary in
intensity and duration depending on the type of construction activity in progress.
During operation of the Preferred Alternative, traffic noise levels across the study area would range
from 58 to 72 dBA Leq during peak hours. Compared to the No Action Alternative, noise levels would
increase in some areas by up to 5 dBA, while other areas would decrease by up to 6 dBA. Overall, noise
levels are predicted to be at or above the NAC at 1,211 units under the Preferred Alternative, compared
to 1,136 under the No Action Alternative. Noise levels would remain similar in the southern and central
sections of the Main Corridor, and would increase slightly near the connection of the new Elliott Way to
Alaskan Way at Pine Street. The study area would continue to have noise levels consistent with those in
a typical city environment.
15-16
15.6.4
Other Reasonably Foreseeable Actions That May Affect

the Resource
TheprojectscheckedintheNoisecolumnofTable151arethosethatmayresultinconstructionor
operationalimpactsonnoiseinthestudyarea.Constructionofallthecheckedprojectswouldresultin
temporarynoiseimpactsinandneartheconstructionarea.Ingeneral,theseimpactswouldbewithin
therangeofconstructionnoiseimpactsdiscussedaboveforAWPOW,rangingupto88dBAatthe
nearestresidencesduringperiodsofintenseactivity.However,anumberoftheseprojectsmayrequire
theuseofimpactpiledriving,whichcouldresultinnoiselevelsinexcessof100dBAat50feet.Without
detailedinformationondesignandgeotechnicalconditions,itisnotpossibletodeterminewhich
projectsmayneedtouseimpactpiledrivingasaconstructiontechnique.Inaddition,itislikelythat
someprojectswouldneedtoconductconstructionactivitiesduringnighttimehours.
OperationoftheprojectscheckedinTable151couldresultinnoiseimpactsifthoseprojectsincluded
noisegeneratingequipment,suchaspumpsandmotors,oriftheyresultedinadditionaltraffic.
Streetcars,trains,andbusesusedfortransitprojectswouldgenerateengineormotornoise,butsuch
noisewouldconformtoapplicablestandardsandisnotexpectedtoaddsubstantiallytoambientnoise
levels.Projectsthatwouldattractvisitorstothestudyarea,suchastheUnionStreetPierReplacement,
theSeattleAquariumexpansion,andthePier62/63replacement,havethepotentialtoresultin
increasedtraffic.However,itisimportanttonotethat,inorderfornoiselevelstoincreasebya
perceptibleamount(3dBAormore),eithertrafficvolumeswouldhavetodoubleorvehiclespeeds
increaseby10mph.Basedontheseacousticalproperties,itisunlikelythatthesereasonablyforeseeable
futureprojectswouldcauseanoticeablechangeintheoperationalnoiselevelsinthestudyarea.
15.6.5
Potential Cumulative Impacts for Noise
AsdiscussedinSection15.2,severaloftheprojectscheckedinTable151couldbeconstructed
concurrentlywithportionsofAWPOW,andcouldthereforeinteractwithAWPOWtoresultin
cumulativeconstructionnoiseimpacts.Thedegreeofpotentialcumulativenoiseimpactsfrom
concurrentconstructionisnotpossibletopredictintheabsenceofdetailedconstructionschedulesfor
eachproject.However,overallconstructionnoiselevelscanbeexpectedtobeslightlyhigherinareas
wheretwoormoreprojectsarebeingconstructedsimultaneouslywithinthesamevicinity.
Theoverallnoiselevelsinthestudyareawouldbeupto12dBloweroncetheAWVRPandEBSPare
completed.ThenoiselevelreductionsresultingfromremovaloftheAlaskanWayViaductarenot
attributabletoAWPOW,butwouldformanimportantpartofthefuturenoiseenvironmentwithin
whichAWPOWwouldoperate.Theremovaloftheviaduct,restorationofthecorridor,andreduced
speedswouldallcombinetomakethecorridormorelivableforresidents.
CumulativeoperationalnoiseimpactscouldresultfromtheoperationofAWPOWandtheprojects
checkedinTable151.AWPOWwouldincreasenoiselevelsslightlynearthenewPineStreet
intersectionwithAlaskanWayandElliottWaycomparedtotheNoActionAlternative.Becauseambient
noiselevelsinthestudyareaaredominatedbytrafficnoise,onlythoseprojectsthatwouldchange
trafficvolumesorspeedswouldhavethepotentialtoresultincumulativeimpacts.Trafficvolumes
wouldhavetodoubleorvehiclespeedswouldhavetoincreaseby10mphfornoiselevelstoincreaseby
aperceptibleamount(3dBAormore).NoneoftheprojectscheckedinTable151isexpectedtoresult
inadoublingoftrafficoranincreaseof10mphinvehiclespeeds,andalloftheseprojectswere
includedinthetrafficnoiseanalysisforboththeNoActionAlternativeandthePreferredAlternative.
Accordingly,cumulativeoperationaltrafficnoiselevelsareexpectedtorangefrom58to72dBALeq
acrossthestudyareaduringpeakhours.Theselevelsareconsistentwiththosetypicallyfoundin
denselydevelopedmetropolitanareas.
15-17
15.6.6
AWPOWandanumberofreasonablyforeseeableactionscouldresultinconstructionnoiseimpacts.The
CityandotherprojectproponentscouldimplementmeasuressimilartothosepresentedinSection16.5.1
tominimizetheeffectofconstructionrelatedcumulativeimpacts.Constructionactivitieswouldbe
requiredtocomplywiththeSeattleNoiseOrdinance.Anyconstructionactivitiesthatcannotmeetthe
SeattleNoiseOrdinance,orthatoccuroutsidetheallowablehoursforconstruction,wouldberequiredto
obtainandcomplywithanynecessarynoisevariances.
OperationalnoiseimpactsresultingfromAWPOWandotherforeseeableprojectswouldberequired
tomitigatenoiseimpactsinaccordancewiththeapplicablenoiseregulationsandordinancesfor
thoseprojects.OperationalmeasuresevaluatedforpotentialnoiseimpactsresultingfromAWPOWare
presentedinSection16.5.2.
15.7 Hazardous Materials

15.7.1
ThecumulativeimpactsstudyareaforhazardousmaterialsisthesameasdescribedinChapter7,which
extendsmilefromtheprojectfootprint.Thetopographic,geologic,andgroundwatercharacteristics
thatinformedthestudyareaboundaries,aswellastheareashistoricalindustrialandbusinesspractices,
provideacoherentandconsistentcontextfortheconsiderationofcumulativeimpacts.Analystsalsotook
thenumberofhazardousmaterialssitesinthevicinityintoconsiderationwhendeterminingthestudy
areaboundaries.Thetemporalboundaryextendsfromapproximately1900(thepeakofintensive
developmentofthewaterfrontareaandindustrialactivities)to2030(theprojectdesignyear).
15.7.2
IndustrialuseoftheAWPOWstudyareabeganover100yearsago,andhasresultedinwidespread
contaminationoftheareawithavarietyofhazardousmaterials.Contaminationlikelypeakedinthe
mid20thcentury.However,currentregulations,passedprimarilyinthe1970sand1980s,requirethat
whencontaminatedsoilandgroundwaterareencounteredduringconstruction,theareamustbe
cleaneduporotherwisemitigatedtomeetminimumstandardsthataredesignedtoprotecthuman
healthandtheenvironment.Specificsiteswithhighlevelsofcontaminationhavealsoundergone
cleanupactivitiestocomplywithstateandfederalregulations.Theseeffortshaveresultedina
checkerboardoflesscontaminatedareaswherecleanupactivitieshavetakenplace,butoverallhave
provedtobeanincrementalbenefittotheenvironment.
15.7.3
TheprimarypotentialforhazardousmaterialsrelatedconstructionimpactsfromAWPOWwouldresult
fromthefollowingactivities:
Propertyacquisitionliability
Buildingdemolitionandabatement
Disruptionofmonitoringwells
EncounteringUSTs
Constructionrelatedspillsandreleases
Disturbance,removal,orexacerbationofcontaminatedsoilandgroundwaterduringconstruction
Theprimarypotentialoperationalimpactsduetohazardousmaterialsinclude:
15-18
Hinderingfuturecleanupactivitiesorcreatingconduitsofcontaminationthroughthepresence
ofnewundergroundutilities
Encounteringcontaminantsduringroadwayorutilitymaintenance
Managingspillsofhazardousmaterialsduetovehicularaccidentsormaintenanceactivities
15.7.4

the Resource
The projects checked in the Hazardous Materials column of Table 15-1 are those that may result in
hazardous materials-related impacts in the study area. Hazardous materials-related impacts from these
reasonably foreseeable actions can be grouped into two main categories:
Disturbance, removal, and potential exacerbation of existing contaminated soil and

groundwater during construction and operation
Potential for spills or releases during construction or operation

As shown in Table 15-1 and Figure 15-1, a number of reasonably foreseeable actions are located within
or immediately adjacent to the AWPOW footprint and are likely to contain similar types of subsurface
contamination. These projects are in various stages of planning and design. It is expected that some
excavation could occur as part of construction during each of these projects.
15.7.5
Potential Cumulative Impacts for Hazardous Materials
A review of the available information suggests that two of the projects checked in Table 15-1 appear to
have construction components that could be in proximity to the two groundwater plumes previously
identified within the project footprint (the Alaskan Way/Madison Street area and near the Enwave
Seattle Plant; see Figure 7-2). These projects are the Central Waterfront Combined Sewer Overflow
project and the Union Street Pier Replacement. This would result in an increased cumulative potential
for spills and releases of hazardous materials in the project footprint during construction. However, all
of these projects would be required to comply with hazardous materials laws and regulations. This
makes it unlikely that construction of the projects would have a cumulative adverse impact on
hazardous materials conditions.
Operation of AWPOW and the projects checked in Table 15-1 would likely involve some use and
handling of hazardous materials, and would be required to comply with hazardous materials laws and
regulations. Therefore, these projects would likely implement programs to manage hazardous materials
handling, use, and disposal, such as spill response plans to address accidental releases. Over the long
term, AWPOW and the other projects are likely to improve conditions due to the removal and disposal
of some contaminated soils and groundwater. As a result, no adverse cumulative impacts to hazardous
materials are expected from the operation of AWPOW and the projects checked in Table 15-1.
15.7.6
AWPOW and a number of reasonably foreseeable actions may have some adverse impacts on hazardous
materials and be adversely affected by hazardous materials during construction and operation.
Project proponents should mitigate construction-related cumulative impacts from hazardous materials,
for example, by implementing measures such as those presented in Section 16.6.1. Such measures could
include conducting due diligence before potentially contaminated property is acquired; surveying for
and abating hazardous building materials before structures are demolished; appropriately addressing
monitoring wells and USTs in the project footprint; and developing and implementing plans to protect
worker health and safety, address contaminated materials discovered during construction, and prevent
and control spills and stormwater contamination.
Project proponents should mitigate operational cumulative impacts from hazardous materials by
implementing measures such as those presented in Section 16.6.2. Such measures could include training
and informing maintenance personnel regarding hazardous materials and hazardous materials-related
conditions that would exist or could be encountered during maintenance work. These measures could
also include developing protocols for maintenance work regarding spill response and agency notification.
15-19
15.8 Public Services and Utilities

15.8.1
The study area for cumulative impacts on public services and utilities is the same as the study area for
the construction and operational impacts analysis described in Chapter 8. The past temporal boundary
for the evaluation is 1936, the year the seawall was completed. The seawall allowed Alaskan Way to be
constructed, increasing the need for public services in the area as the waterfront developed, and
allowing utilities to be placed in the Alaskan Way right of way. The future temporal boundary is the
project design year of 2030.
15.8.2
Public Services
Because of AWPOWs proximity to Seattles central business district, the Port of Seattle, waterfront
businesses, and the sports stadiums, there is full coverage of public services and fast response from
emergency services. Public service facilities and equipment are readily available and in good condition to
serve the study area.
Utilities
Utility systems in the study area were originally installed after the seawall was completed in the 1930s,
but have been maintained and replaced over the years and are therefore of varying ages. Construction
of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which opened in 1953, has influenced the location of the utilities and access
routes for public services along the waterfront over the past 60 years. The condition of utilities within
the area is generally good. Many utilities, including water, electrical power, natural gas, steam, and
telecommunications, have been or will be relocated and upgraded in conjunction with construction of
the AWVRP and EBSP, improving service and reliability.
15.8.3
Public Services
Project construction is likely to increase response times for fire, police, and emergency response
services, and could intermittently impede access for all service providers during this period. During
project operation, service providers would have to travel slightly longer distances to provide service to
businesses along the west side of Alaskan Way, although this is not expected to reduce the overall
quality of service.
Utilities
A number of utilities would be replaced or relocated during construction, resulting in the potential for
intermittent service outages. During project operation, utility service would be similar to or better than
under the No Action Alternative, although relocated utilities may have different or more complex
access requirements.
15.8.4

the Resource
The projects checked in the Public Services and Utilities column of Table 15-1 are those that may result
in construction or operational impacts on these resources in the study area. Chapter 8 of the Draft EIS
Appendix G, Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report, provides more information on the impacts of
each checked project.
During their construction, all of the projects checked in Table 15-1 would result in the disturbance of
utilities, added congestion, or both within the study area. These impacts would be localized in and near
the active construction area. With the possible exception of Phase 2 of the EBSP, they are not expected
to cause major disruptions in the provision of public services and utilities.
15-20
Operation of the projects checked in Table 15-1 would either not affect public services and utilities or
provide some degree of long-term benefit. In particular, the Central Waterfront Combined Sewer
Overflow Project would reduce the frequency of overflows into Elliott Bay, resulting in overall long-term
improvement to water quality. The Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock Project would have a
beneficial impact on public services by improving pedestrian and vehicle passenger safety, connections to
public transit, accessibility for the physically disabled, and environmental conditions in the shoreline area
(WSDOT 2013). Projects such as the Seattle Aquarium expansion and private development projects in
downtown Seattle and Belltown could increase the demand for public services and utilities by attracting
more residents and visitors to the study area, but these demands are expected to be within the existing
service capacity of the providers. All new development would comply with existing utility codes.
15.8.5
Potential Cumulative Impacts for Public Services and Utilities
Public Services
During construction, AWPOW would contribute slightly to cumulative increased demands on public
service providers. Collectively, the number of major projects planned sequentially or simultaneously for
construction in the study area could increase the demand for fire, police, and emergency services during
construction of the projects. The potential exists for emergency response times to increase if additional
staffing is not provided. Non-emergency service providers would likely find access further complicated
by the presence of multiple construction sites within their service areas.
Operation of AWPOW and the other reasonably foreseeable actions would likely contribute to an overall
increase in demand for public services as more people live in, work in, and visit the study area. However,
these increases are expected to be within the capacity of the service providers to address, and response
times would be facilitated by improvements to the transportation system. Therefore, no operational
cumulative impacts on public services are anticipated.
Utilities
The construction of AWPOW, in combination with other major projects in the study area with
potentially overlapping construction dates (as listed in Section 15.2), has the potential to result in
cumulative impacts on utility service. Although the relocation and construction of utilities are being
coordinated carefully among the respective utilities so as not to relocate any utility twice, disturbance
by simultaneous or successive projects is likely to result in increased disruptions of service during the
construction period.
During project operation, AWPOW is expected to contribute to a minor beneficial cumulative impact.
Access to utilities for maintenance could be more restricted in some cases. However, many of the
reasonably foreseeable actions evaluated would result in some degree of upgrade to the adjacent
portions of the utility system. The installation of new pipes or lines would be an upgrade to the current
infrastructure and would improve service reliability for utilities such as sewer system, electrical power,
and natural gas. In addition, all new development would meet current codes, which are more stringent
than the older codes to which many study area utilities were constructed. These improvements would
collectively enhance the reliability of utility service and (in the case of sewer system improvements) the
water quality of Elliott Bay.
15.8.6
During construction of AWPOW and the reasonably foreseeable actions that may affect public services or
utilities, the City and other proponents should work closely with utility providers to coordinate project
design and construction activities. Coordinating construction activities would help to minimize
disruptions and the potential for lengthy or multiple impacts. The City and other proponents should
implement measures similar to those presented in Section 16.7.1 such as:
Notifying public service and utility providers of detours and other construction activities likely
to affect service provision
15-21
Addressing the potential heightened demand for public services and utilities as a result of
concurrent construction of projects
Because AWPOW operation would not adversely affect public services or utilities, no mitigation
measures for cumulative operational impacts are suggested.
15.9 Historic Resources

15.9.1
The study area for cumulative impacts on historic resources is defined generally as the area west of
Second Avenue from S. King Street north to Broad Street. The time frame for the cumulative impacts
assessment is the period from approximately 1900 (when most of the existing central waterfront piers
were built) until 2030, the project design year.
15.9.2
Historic resources are generally properties that are more than 50 years old, which have retained their
integrity and have historical significance. Over time, some of these resources have been lost through fire,
earthquake, or other disaster; due to demolition for redevelopment; or because of neglect and lack of
maintenance. A number of historically significant buildings in the study area were razed before
preservation laws were put in place. The current condition is that legislation over the past 50 years has
significantly decreased the loss of historic resources, particularly reducing losses due to redevelopment.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires reviews of the historical significance of properties
affected by federal projects. The Seattle Landmarks Preservation Ordinance of 1973 and subsequent
national, state, and local laws and programs provide a variety of controls and incentives for preservation.
In addition, Seattle's SEPA rules require that most buildings over 50 years old be reviewed for landmark
eligibility before they can be razed or significantly altered.
Currently, as a result of these laws and regulations, most of the significant buildings within the cumulative
impacts study area are now protected through the two historic districts or as individual designated
landmarks. Each year, as more buildings meet the 50-year age threshold for historical significance, reviews
will result in more buildings being designated as historic resources. Counteracting this preservation trend,
however, is the increased pressure for redevelopment of older buildings within the cumulative impacts
study area as property values increase.
15.9.3
The analysis in Chapter 9 shows that AWPOW would have the following impacts on historic resources:
Construction impacts would consist of short-term changes to the access or setting of historic
properties and can be avoided or minimized by using BMPs and providing adequate access and
parking so that businesses can operate successfully during construction.
The most likely operational impact is alteration of the historic setting of Piers 54 through 59 due to
construction of the Promenade. The Overlook Walk may, to a lesser extent, alter the historic
character, setting, and usage of the Pike Place Market.
15.9.4

the Resource
The projects checked in the Historic Resources column of Table 15-1 have the potential to impact
historic resources. Chapter 8 of Draft EIS Appendix H, Historic Resources Discipline Report, provides
information on the impacts of each project.
Construction of the checked projects is likely to have localized, temporary impacts on nearby historic
properties. These impacts would be similar to those described above for AWPOW and would consist of
short-term changes to access or historic setting.
15-22
Operation of several of the reasonably foreseeable actions would involve changes in the streetscape,
primarily in Pioneer Square, or could lead to increased traffic in the vicinity of that area. It is unlikely that
these actions would directly impact historic buildings. Compliance with federal and state regulations,
local review, and approval processes would minimize operational impacts. The impacts of reasonably
foreseeable future actions that require federal permits would be subject to review under Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act, which would minimize and mitigate impacts for those projects.
Projects that are within the Pioneer Square Preservation District would have to be approved by the
Pioneer Square Preservation Board. Projects with the potential to affect Seattle Landmarks would
undergo City adjacency review and design review to ensure compatibility with the landmarked resources.
15.9.5
Potential Cumulative Impacts to Historic Resources
Projects that may be under construction concurrently with AWPOW are noted in Section 15.2. Of those,
the projects that could affect historic resources are the Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock
Project, the Union Street Pier Replacement, Seattle Aquarium expansion, and the Center City Connector
Streetcar Project. If these projects and AWPOW are under construction at the same time, they may
result in temporary cumulative impacts on the access and setting of historic properties.
During operation, the impacts of AWPOW, in combination with the impacts of other concurrent and
reasonably foreseeable actions or projects in the study area, are not expected to significantly affect the
status or condition of historic resources. Some minor changes may take place, but they are not
anticipated to significantly alter the character or use of historic resources. As noted in Section 15.9.4,
existing regulations and processes require detailed review of potential project impacts on historic
resources so that impacts can be avoided or minimized.
15.9.6
Mitigation measures for potential cumulative impacts on historic resources would be similar to those
discussed in Sections 16.8.1 and 16.8.2.To avoid and minimize cumulative impacts on historic
resources, the City and other proponents of reasonably foreseeable actions would obtain Certificates of
Approval, and undergo Landmarks Adjacency Reviews, as appropriate. In addition, projects may require
DAHP review during project planning. The historic and physical integrity and the economic viability of
historic structures, properties, and districts would be protected through temporary constructionrelated measures as well as permanent operations-related avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures. Any damage that occurs to historic buildings as a result of project construction would be
repaired by that project in accordance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67).
15.10 Archaeological Resources

15.10.1 Study Area and Time Frame
The cumulative impacts study area for archaeological resources is the portion of the waterfront
bordered by S. King Street to the south, Second Avenue to the east, and Broad Street to the north. The
time frame ranges from the mid-20th century (when archaeological sites in this area began to be
recorded) to 2030, the AWPOW design year.
15.10.2 Current Health and Historical Context

Pre-contact era archaeological sites are finite in number and have become fewer over time. Prior to the
passage of modern environmental regulations beginning in the 1960s and 70s, sites and artifacts
encountered in excavations during development were not protected and were often discarded,
destroyed, or stolen. Mitigating the impacts of modern-day development projects on those
archaeological sites ameliorates their loss, but still results in a net reduction of that finite number of
sites, if not the information they contain.
15-23
Most losses of pre-contact sites in the study area occurred long ago, during the period when Seattles
downtown was being developed. In recent decades, the unmitigated destruction of archaeological sites
has been slowed by the implementation of local, state, and federal laws designed to protect these
resources. These same laws aid in the detection of archaeological resources, allowing recovery to occur
from pre-contact sites and contributing to the increase in archaeological knowledge. It is impossible to
know if, or how many, archaeological sites might have been destroyed prior to the advent of
professional archaeological site records. Seattle may well have contained and may yet contain many
more archaeological sites, but cumulative effects can only be measured on the basis of known
quantities. When detected by permitted projects, archaeological sites are mitigated or avoided,
resulting in no net loss. It may be argued that the number of known resources actually increases with
permitted projects because current law requires the recordation of previously unknown archaeological
sites detected only through project studies.
15.10.3 Project-Related Construction and Operational Impacts

Two archaeological sites, Ballast Island and a buried concrete wall, are below the surface of the AWPOW
footprint. AWPOW is expected to avoid impacts to these sites. No other known archaeological sites
would be impacted by construction or operation of AWPOW. The potential remains for construction to
encounter previously undetected historic-era or pre-contact sites.
15.10.4 Other Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that May Affect

the Resource
The projects checked in the Archaeological Resources column of Table 15-1 have the potential to impact
archaeological resources in the study area. Because downtown Seattle has a complex geological profile
and an equally complex history of human occupation, subsurface archaeological resources could be
present throughout the study area. In general, identified archaeological resources encountered during
development are recorded and removed during construction. Therefore, impacts in the study area are
most likely to occur at previously undiscovered sites. The projects checked in Table 15-1 are considered
to have the potential to affect archaeological resources because they are likely to involve excavation or
other ground-disturbing activity during construction, and could therefore encounter or harm
archaeological resources. While the extent of any such impacts is not possible to estimate, regulations
would require that all impacts of these projects be mitigated so as to result in no net loss of
archaeological sites. Operation of these projects is not anticipated to result in cumulative impacts.
15.10.5 Potential Cumulative Impacts to Archaeological Resources

AWPOW is expected to avoid the two sites that intersect the project footprint, Ballast Island and the
buried concrete wall; however, if avoidance is not possible, disturbance of a site would contribute to
a cumulative impact.
Although the impacts of the other projects in the cumulative impacts study area are not yet known,
the potential for the presence of archaeological resources in the study area makes it possible that
one or more of these projects could encounter undiscovered archaeological resources during its
construction. Any sites or artifacts that were encountered would be appropriately recorded before
being either avoided or mitigated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. However,
recordation and removal of archaeological sites would result in a further reduction in the finite
number of such sites within the study area.
15.10.6 Mitigation Measures for Cumulative Impacts

During construction of AWPOW and the reasonably foreseeable actions that may affect archaeological
resources, the City and other proponents would comply with applicable local, state, and national
archaeological regulations and policies, as described in Section 16.9.1. During operation, AWPOW would
not adversely affect archaeological resources. Therefore, no mitigation measures for cumulative
operational impacts are suggested.
15-24
15.11 Water Quality

The cumulative impacts study area for water quality is the same as the study area used to evaluate
construction and operational impacts in Chapter 11. The time frame for the cumulative evaluation
begins in the 1850s when Seattle was settled and urban development began. The evaluation time frame
extends into the future to the project design year of 2030.

Prior to the first settlement of Seattle, the landscape within the study area and rainfall runoff patterns
were governed by the native forest cover. Stormwater pollution sources were minimal and Elliott Bay
water quality was likely very high. During the early settlement of Seattle, logging, lumber milling, coal
mining, fishing, shipbuilding, and other local industries are likely to have affected water quality in
Elliott Bay. Ongoing logging, population growth, increased industrial activities, and other changes to the
landscape have resulted in a complete loss of native land cover (vegetation) within the study area,
increased stormwater runoff, and higher pollutant loads. Over time, discharges of municipal sewage,
untreated stormwater runoff, industrial wastes, and pesticides and fertilizers used on landscaped areas
have entered the bays waters. Within the study area, Elliott Bay has been identified on Ecologys
303(d) water quality list for exceeding criteria for fecal coliform bacteria and several types of toxins
(Ecology 2012).

Project construction activities such as earthwork, trench work, stockpiling, material transport, concrete
work and paving, storm drain utility work, use of construction machinery, and dewatering have the
potential to impact water quality in Elliott Bay. Entrained pollutants can increase turbidity, change pH,
and reduce available oxygen in the water. These impacts would be temporary and would vary in
intensity and duration depending on the type of construction occurring.
Operational impacts are expected to be beneficial because the project would divert stormwater runoff
from the combined sewer system to the separated storm drain system. In addition, the project would
reduce the overall amount of pollutants in stormwater runoff by converting much of the existing PGIS to
NPGIS in the footprint.
15.11.4 Other Reasonably Foreseeable Actions That May Affect

the Resource
The projects checked in the Water Quality column of Table 15-1 are those that could contribute to the
cumulative impacts on water quality in the study area. The following discussion summarizes the
potential impacts of these projects. Chapter 8 of the Draft EIS Appendix J, Water Quality Discipline
Report, provides more information on the impacts of each checked project.
Construction of the reasonably foreseeable projects would have the potential to increase pollutant
loadings into Elliott Bay. These potential cumulative impacts would be similar across all projects.
Pollutants could be contained in stormwater runoff, in process water generated during concrete
placement, or in groundwater removed during construction dewatering. All projects would be required
to follow state and City requirements for water quality protection, including (as applicable) preparation
of a construction stormwater and erosion control plan and a construction stormwater pollution
prevention plan. Complying with these requirements would minimize the potential for pollutants to
enter Elliott Bay; however, collectively the projects may result in a small increase in pollutant discharge.
The operation of all the checked projects in Table 15-1 would include stormwater management and
treatment facilities that would comply with applicable state and City requirements. As a result, they are
expected to collectively improve water quality in Elliott Bay. A subset of the projects checked in
15-25
Table151alsohavethepotentialtoaffectstormwaterrunoffdrainingtothecombinedsewersystem,
ortochangetheareaofPGIScontributingrunofftotheseparatedstormdrainsystem.Projectsthatmay
includechangestoPGISare:
Terminal46DockRehabilitation,CraneRailExtension,andPaving
SeattleMultimodalTerminalatColmanDockProject
BatteryStreetPortalPark
AlaskanWayPromenade,Phase2
Projectsthatmayincludechangestotherunoffvolumesdrainingtothecombinedsewersystemare:
AlaskanWayPromenade,Phase2
CentralWaterfrontCombinedSewerOverflowProject
15.11.5 Potential Cumulative Impacts to Water Quality

AWPOWwouldbeconstructedfromapproximately2019throughmid2022,whichwouldcoincidewith
severalothermajorconstructionprojectsinthestudyarea.TheseprojectsarenotedinSection15.2.
Constructionofsomeoralloftheseprojectsatthesametimecouldincreasetheoverallpotentialfor
pollutantsfromconstructionareastobecarriedintoElliottBay.However,theseimpactswouldbe
temporary,andwouldbeminimizedbytheimplementationofconstructionBMPsincompliancewith
stateandCityregulations.
TheoperationofAWPOWandalltheprojectscheckedinTable151wouldcomplywithstateandCity
stormwatermanagementandtreatmentrequirements.Althoughthedesignformostoftheprojectsin
Table151hasnotyetbeenestablished,complyingwiththeregulationswouldresultintheadditionof
stormwatertreatmentfacilitiestocurrentlyuntreatedareasand,insomecases,reductionsinPGISorin
stormwaterdischargestothecombinedsewersystem.Allofthesechangesareexpectedtoresultin
incrementalreductionsovertimetopollutantloadsinElliottBay.

Mitigationmeasuresforpotentialconstructionrelatedcumulativeimpactsonwaterqualitywouldbe
similartothosediscussedinSection16.10.1.DuringconstructionofAWPOWandthereasonably
foreseeableactionsthatmayaffectwaterquality,theCityandotherproponentswouldberequiredto
prepareandimplementplanspursuanttotheSeattleStormwaterCode,theSeattleStormwaterManual,
andtheNPDESConstructionStormwaterGeneralPermit,asapplicable.TheplanswoulddescribeBMPs
topreventpollution,controlstormwaterflows,andprotectElliottBayduringconstruction.Because
AWPOWoperationwouldnotadverselyaffectwaterquality,nomitigationmeasuresforcumulative
operationalimpactsaresuggested.
15.12 Vegetation and Wildlife

Thestudyareaforcumulativeimpactsonvegetationandwildlifeisthesameasthestudyareadescribed
inChapter12,whichextends500feetbeyondtheprojectfootprint.Thetimeframefortheevaluationis
approximately1850,whenEuroAmericansettlementbeganintheSeattlearea,until2030,theproject
designyear.

Therehavebeendramaticchangesinvegetationandwildlifeinthestudyareasincethe1850s,withan
almostcompletelossofnativehabitatandwildlifespeciesduetothedevelopmentofSeattle.The
currentwaterfrontislocatedonwhatwasoncetidelands,dominatedbymarineandintertidal
vegetation(e.g.,eelgrass)andwildlife(e.g.,salmon,clams,andwaterfowl).Fartherinland,theareawas
15-26
dominated by upland vegetation, likely forested, with associated wildlife. This area was developed,
leveled, and filled over many years, with the seawall being completed in 1936 (SDOT 2012). EuroAmerican settlement also brought vegetation and wildlife that would become invasive. By the early to
mid-1900s, the study area had been completely transformed and most native vegetation and wildlife
extirpated. Although development has continued since then, the majority of impacts had already
occurred by this time.
The study area has heavily urbanized habitats such as streets, parking lots, commercial and industrial
properties, high-density residential buildings, and railroad rights of way. Existing vegetation in 2017 will
include street trees and other native and non-native vegetation installed in the right of way as part of
the AWVRP and EBSP, as well as invasive species in some areas. Wildlife consists of species well adapted
to or benefiting from the urban environment.

Construction of AWPOW may result in temporary impacts on vegetation and wildlife. Vegetation would
be removed to accommodate construction activities, and wildlife may be displaced due to loss of habitat
or noise. However, given the urban nature of the study area, construction impacts on vegetation and
wildlife would be minimal.
The primary operational impacts of the project on vegetation and wildlife would be an increase in the
availability of habitat for both native and non-native species. The greater variety of plant species and
structures is expected to increase the capacity of the area to support wildlife populations. Overall, this
change is expected to be positive. Although increased wildlife populations in the study area could lead
to a higher potential for contact between animals and humans, this is not expected to result in
significant adverse impacts on wildlife in the study area.

the Resource
The projects checked in the Vegetation and Wildlife column of Table 15-1 are those that may result in
construction or operational impacts on vegetation and wildlife in the study area. Because all of these
projects are located in a dense urban environment, their impacts are expected to be similar. During
construction, the projects would result in noise that could disturb wildlife in the construction area,
potentially causing them to relocate to other areas during construction. Construction activities could
also remove a limited amount of vegetation, primarily street trees and planted or potted shrubs. In
addition to these impacts on land-based species, projects that involved in-water work could create noise
and stir up sediment, affecting aquatic habitat. Following construction, plantings and habitat are likely to
be restored or enhanced; therefore, operational impacts are expected to be generally beneficial.
15.12.5 Potential Cumulative Impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife

Construction of AWPOW and the reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in temporary
impacts on vegetation and wildlife. Vegetation would be removed to accommodate construction
activities, and wildlife may be displaced due to loss of habitat or noise. However, these impacts would
be temporary and, given the urban nature of the study area, minimal. Most of the impacts of these
projects would be limited to the construction period, and areas where vegetation is removed would be
revegetated with appropriate species.
Operation of AWPOW and the reasonably foreseeable future projects could contribute to a minor
beneficial cumulative impact on vegetation and wildlife in the study area. These reasonably foreseeable
projects, although still in development, are assumed to include planting plans that would increase
vegetation types suitable for use as habitat. Combined with the vegetation added by AWPOW, this
would increase the amount of habitat in the study area that is suitable for native wildlife. However,
these positive impacts would be small, because the study area would remain urbanized and dominated
by paved surfaces. Increased wildlife populations may lead to a slight increase in contact between
15-27
animals and humans, but this increase is expected to be minor. Where these projects have operational
impacts, such as increased overwater coverage, resource agencies would require compensatory
mitigation. As a result, the implementation of these other projects is not expected to result in changes
to the long-term trends affecting the existing urbanized environment of the study area.

AWPOW is unlikely to adversely affect vegetation and wildlife. As a result, no mitigation measures
are suggested.
15.13 Energy Resources

The cumulative impacts study area for energy resources is the greater Seattle area. The time frame for
the evaluation begins in 1910, when SCL was established, and extends to 2030, the project design year.

Original providers of energy to the study area were SCL and Enwave Seattle. The energy supplied by
these providers facilitated commercial and industrial development in the area and supplied a growing
demand for energy as the city expanded. Although hydropower has always been an important source of
energy in the area, many early electrical generating facilities were powered by fossil fuels such as oil and
coal. With the advent of the personal automobile, fossil fuel consumption increased, and public
infrastructure such as highways became more extensive and robust.
Todays demand for energy in the study area is largely influenced by transportation needs that are met
by fossil fuels. Beginning in the 1970s, fuel efficiency standards and policies, as well as growth
management strategies such as VISION 2040 and Transportation 2040, have contributed to general
reductions in energy consumption trends. Because Washington uses hydropower for much of its
electricity supply, the electricity sector in the study area contributes a lower percentage of GHG
emissions than the national average. However, the transportation sector contributes more than the
national average to GHG emissions in both the state and Seattle itself.
GHG emissions have declined in Seattle in recent years, primarily as a result of increased energy
efficiency. Between 1990 and 2012, Seattles population grew roughly 23 percent, but total emissions
(after accounting for offsets) dropped by 4 percent. The combination of population growth and
emissions reductions means that on a per-person basis, emissions declined by 22 percent between
1990 and 2012 and by 6 percent between 2008 and 2012. Emissions from road transportation increased
by 9 percent between 1990 and 2012, primarily due to Seattles increasing population and economic
activity and the associated increase in overall vehicle travel. However vehicle emissions per person
declined by 11 percent, as residents drove cleaner cars fewer miles (Seattle Office of Sustainability and
Environment 2014).

Energy would be consumed during construction to manufacture materials, transport materials, and
operate construction equipment. Based on project cost and typical energy consumption factors, the
energy expected to be consumed during the construction of AWPOW is approximately 5 million MBtu.
Project construction would contribute to GHG emissions through the burning of fossil fuels to operate
construction machinery and transport workers. In addition to the construction activities, GHG emissions
would occur in the production of concrete and steel for the project. GHG emissions for AWPOW are
expected to be proportional to overall energy use. The amount of energy used for AWPOW, and hence
the total GHG emissions, would be a small fraction of overall energy consumption in Seattle, and is not
expected to contribute significantly to overall GHG emissions or to hinder compliance with City or state
GHG reduction targets.
15-28
During project operation, the Preferred Alternative would have similar traffic volumes to the No Action
Alternative, but it would reduce congestion and result in more efficient operation of the study area
transportation system. The number of intersections on Alaskan Way operating at LOS F would decrease
from three to two, and traffic speeds would improve. As a result, vehicles are expected to operate more
efficiently, and overall energy consumption is expected to decline slightly compared to the No Action
Alternative. Because AWPOW would improve traffic operations and travel times and reduce vehicle
miles traveled in the study area, the Preferred Alternative is expected to result in a slight reduction in
GHG emissions compared to the No Action Alternative.

the Resource
The projects checked in the Energy column of Table 15-1 are those that may result in construction or
operational impacts on energy in the study area. Construction of all the checked projects would
consume energy, primarily fossil fuels, and would also result in GHG emissions as a result of fossil fuel
combustion. In general, the level of energy use and GHG emissions would be proportional to the project
size. Large regional transportation projects, such as the SR 520, I-5 to Medina Bridge Replacement and
HOV Project and the Link light rail extensions, would have the largest impacts. However, all of these
impacts would be temporary and are not expected to create demand that would exceed the available
energy supply. Although their carbon emissions could be substantial, they are not expected to affect
compliance with state and City GHG reduction targets.
During operation, all of the checked projects in Table 15-1 would result in some level of energy
consumption. Development projects, such as new residential and office buildings and expanded public
facilities like the Seattle Aquarium, would result in increased demand for energy for heating, cooling,
and lighting. Transportation projects, such as the SR 520, I-5 to Medina Bridge Replacement and HOV
Project, the Link light rail extensions, and the Citys streetcar and rapid bus projects, would result in
energy consumption by vehicles. In all cases, current requirements for energy efficiency in building
codes and vehicle design mean that these new facilities would consume less and emit fewer GHGs than
under less stringent historical standards. In addition, projects that enhance transit or moderate traffic
demand through tolling will result in more people traveling in fewer vehicles, reducing energy use and
GHG emissions. Nevertheless, the growth that is served by these projects is likely to require increased
use of energy and associated emissions of GHGs.
15.13.5 Potential Cumulative Impacts to Energy Resources

Construction of AWPOW and the projects checked in Table 15-1 would create additional demand for
energy and result in additional emissions of GHGs, resulting in a slight cumulative impact compared to
No Action. During project operations, AWPOW would slightly reduce energy use and GHG emissions
compared to No Action, and therefore would not contribute to the potential incremental increase in
energy demand and GHG emissions created by the reasonably foreseeable actions shown in Table 15-1.

AWPOW and the proponents of the projects checked in Table 15-1, would contribute to improved
energy efficiency during construction by implementing measures similar to those described in Section
16.12.1. These could include:
Limiting idling of equipment
Encouraging carpooling of construction workers
Locating staging areas near work sites
15-29
15.14 Air Quality

The study area for air quality is the area within 1,000 feet of the project footprint. The time frame for
the evaluation begins in 1953, when the Alaskan Way Viaduct was constructed, and extends through
2030, the project design year.

Although widespread air quality monitoring was not established until after passage of the Clean Air Act
in 1970, emissions of criteria pollutants in the study area before that time likely followed a similar
trajectory to the areas development as a commercial and industrial area. Before the Clean Air Acts
requirements for emission controls and fuel efficiency, industrial activities were major contributors of
particulate matter, VOCs, NOx, and CO. Vehicle emissions included all of these pollutants as well as lead,
but were a particularly high source of CO. Emissions from these sources probably peaked in the late
1960s, before the waterfront had begun its transition to tourist-oriented uses and after the Alaskan Way
Viaduct and I-5 were in full operation. Industrial development in the Duwamish industrial corridor
starting in the 1950s also added to air pollution in the area.
After passage of the Clean Air Act, the study area was classified as non-attainment for CO and
particulate matter. This resulted in a variety of actions to improve air quality. These actions, along with a
general tightening of emissions standards and permitting requirements for air pollution sources,
gradually reduced levels of pollution in the study area. The Puget Sound region is currently in attainment
or unclassified for all criteria pollutants except for CO; EPA designated the region as being in
maintenance status for CO in 1996. The AWPOW footprint is also just north of the Seattle Duwamish
maintenance area for PM10. Within the study area, transportation is the primary source of both
pollutants. Emission projections and ongoing monitoring throughout the Puget Sound region over the
past decade indicate that the ambient air pollution concentrations for CO have been decreasing. The
decline of CO is due primarily to improvements made to emission controls on motor vehicles and the
retirement of older, higher-polluting vehicles. Attainment status is not expected to change by 2017,
when AWPOW is planned to begin construction.

During construction of AWPOW, soil-disturbing activities, operations of heavy-duty equipment,
commuting workers, and the placement of concrete and asphalt may generate emissions that would
temporarily affect air quality. Fugitive dust would be generated during excavation, grading, loading and
unloading activities, and demolition of structures and equipment; also, increased engine exhaust
emissions would result from traffic congestion and the use of construction vehicles and equipment.
These impacts would be localized and temporary.
Air emissions during project operation would result from traffic on the Main Corridor. Because
AWPOWs improvements would reduce congestion compared to the No Action Alternative, these
emissions are not expected to increase but may decrease slightly. Emissions of air toxics would decrease
proportionally to emissions of CO and other criteria pollutants.

the Resource
The projects checked in the Air Quality column of Table 15-1 are those that may result in construction or
operational impacts on air quality in the study area. Construction of all the checked projects would result
in air pollutant emissions as a result of construction disturbance and fossil fuel combustion. In general,
the level of emissions would be proportional to the project size. All of these impacts would be temporary
and are not expected to affect the study areas attainment status for CO or particulate matter.
15-30
During operation, the checked transportation projects in Table 15-1 would result in some level of air
quality emissions. Roadway projects, such as the SR 520, I-5 to Medina Project, and bus transit projects
such as the Madison Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project, would result in vehicle emissions of CO.
Streetcar and light rail projects in the study area, although operating under electrical power, would
likely consume some power generated by fossil fuels whose combustion would cause air emissions.
However, because these projects would improve the efficiency of the transportation system and provide
alternatives to single-occupant vehicles, their implementation is expected to contribute to long-term
reductions in air pollutant emissions over time.
15.14.5 Potential Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality

During construction, AWPOW and the projects being constructed concurrently (listed in Section 15.2)
would have a slight adverse cumulative impact on air quality in the study area. This would be due to dust
generated by construction activities and emissions resulting from traffic congestion and the operation of
construction vehicles and equipment. During project operation, the cumulative impact of AWPOW and
the projects checked in Table 15-1 is expected to be positive, with overall air pollutant emissions showing
a slight decline through enhanced efficiency of the transportation system in the study area.

Mitigation measures for potential construction-related cumulative impacts on air quality would be
similar to those discussed in Section 16.13.1. For temporary impacts during construction, state law
requires that construction site owners and operators take reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive
dust from becoming airborne. Fugitive dust may become airborne during demolition, material transport,
grading, driving of vehicles and machinery on and off the site, and wind events. Implementing these
measures for AWPOW and all reasonably foreseeable actions would reduce the level of impact. Because
cumulative impacts during project operation would be positive, no mitigation is required.
15-31
16 Construction and Operational

Avoidance, Minimization, and
Mitigation Measures
This chapter describes the measures proposed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impact of the AWPOW
projects. Measures for construction and operation are discussed under each discipline.
16.1 Transportation
16.1.1
Construction Avoidance, Minimization, and

Mitigation Measures for the Preferred Alternative
The City would develop a Traffic Control Plan to reduce impacts on traffic operations and to protect and
control motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic during all phases of construction. The plan would be
developed in accordance with City construction specifications and would be updated as appropriate for each
construction phase. The plan would outline specific impact-reducing measures, including the following:
Clearly marked detours for motor vehicles, developed in coordination with other agencies and
adjacent construction projects, to provide alternative routes for access to the waterfront and to
avoid active construction areas.
Accommodations for vehicles that require loading zone access to properties for services such as
business deliveries, taxi and bus service, and garbage pickup.
Use of flaggers, uniformed police officers, barricades, signing, or other traffic control devices.
Designated construction haul routes to minimize impacts of construction traffic on other roadways.
Accommodations for oversized freight vehicles to travel through construction zones, if necessary,
during road closures.
Clearly marked pedestrian and bicycle access routes as well as proposed locations of detour
signage and other wayfinding elements; accessible routes to be within a reasonable distance of
temporarily closed trails, bridges, and other pathways.
Transit stop closures, alternative transit stop locations, and interim transit routes developed and
publicized in coordination with King County Metro.
Arrangements for access, including passenger drop-off and pick-up (including ADA-accessible
locations), and deliveries to Colman Dock, King County Water Taxi, Victoria Clipper, Argosy Cruises,
and the Bell Street Cruise Terminal. The distance between ADA-accessible drop-off/pick-up
locations and ferry facilities would be minimized to the extent feasible.
Arrangements for emergency access to and travel through construction areas to minimize impacts
on emergency response times, developed in coordination with emergency response providers.
The City would maintain access to private property to the maximum extent feasible, and would notify
property owners in advance of activities that might temporarily limit access. In addition, the City would
coordinate with businesses affected by construction to provide wayfinding information for customers
and support other outreach activities to minimize the potential adverse impacts of construction.
Because freight often travels during off-peak periods, the City will coordinate with freight interests, the
Port, and the contractor to minimize the impact of midday closures as part of the Traffic Control Plan.
The City would monitor traffic as part of the Traffic Control Plan and could make changes as feasible.
Because AWPOW construction would not impact rail services, no mitigation measures would be
necessary with respect to those services.
16-1
16.1.2
Operational Avoidance, Minimization, and

This section describes the potential mitigation measures that were considered for transportation impacts
resulting from operation of the Preferred Alternative. Because the analysis did not identify any adverse
impacts for freight, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, public transportation, water transportation, rail,
or emergency services, mitigation measures were considered only for traffic operations.
The new Alaskan Way was designed to balance the demands for all modes of travel (passenger vehicles,
freight, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit) while minimizing impacts on each mode to the highest extent
possible. Operations at most intersections would remain at acceptable levels under the
Preferred Alternative, even with higher volumes of traffic. Intersections that would operate at LOS F
under the Preferred Alternative would only experience these levels of congestion during the peak
periods of the day; vehicles traveling during off-peak hours would experience less congestion. Additional
lanes to improve LOS at these intersections were considered, but would have caused additional impacts
on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities by eliminating these resources, reducing them to an
unacceptable size, or increasing pedestrian crossing times and distances to unacceptable levels. Because
the Main Corridor has been designed to achieve an optimum balance among different modes of travel,
no other avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are proposed.
16.2 Parking
16.2.1

While AWPOW would reduce the overall parking supply in the project footprint, the City would maintain
parking availability to the extent feasible during construction. Once construction and staging plans have
been developed, the City would develop practices to manage parking during construction to ensure, to
the extent feasible, that parking is convenient and accessible to waterfront businesses and their patrons.
In addition, the City would continue enforcement of short-term parking limits and the use of e-Park,
which provides real-time off-street parking availability information, to make the most efficient use
16.2.2

AWPOW would eliminate 453 on-street parking spaces and 189 off-street parking spaces, resulting in a
total project-related parking loss of 642 spaces. This represents a loss of approximately 25 percent of all
on-street parking supply and 6 percent of all on- and off-street parking supply in the study area.
Under the Citys SEPA code (SMC 25.05.675M.2.b.1), no SEPA authority is provided to mitigate the
impact of development on parking availability in the Downtown urban center. This reflects the policy
direction described in Sections 3.5.5 (City Plans and Policies Applicable to Parking) and 3.7.2
(Consistency with City of Seattle Parking Policies). However, the City could consider the following
measures to help minimize the parking loss impact:
16-2
Modifying on-street parking policies and practices, such as varying rates by time of day, to make
parking more consistently available for short-term users
Providing enforcement of short-term parking limits to make the most efficient use of the supply of
short-term parking for customers of study area businesses
Continuing the use of e-Park, which is an electronic guidance system displaying real-time parking
availability information, and providing wayfinding to nearby off-street parking spaces
Working with transit agencies to increase awareness of transit routes and facilities in the area and
to encourage visitors to use alternative modes of transportation
CHAPTER 16 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
16.3 Land Use

16.3.1

The City would compensate the owners of properties acquired for right of way in accordance with
Washingtons relocation and property acquisition law and regulations (RCW 8.26) and the Citys
relocation assistance policy (SMC 20.84). The intent of these policies is to minimize the hardships of
displacement on households and businesses that result from City projects and programs. The City would
provide relocation assistance to displaced businesses in accordance with these laws.
In accordance with SMC 20.84 and RCW 8.26, the City would provide just compensation, as determined
by a qualified appraiser, to the owners of properties for which the City acquires TCEs. The City would
generally restore TCE areas to their pre-construction condition as a requirement for acquiring the TCEs.
The City would regularly communicate with residents, businesses, and other stakeholders to minimize
the level of construction impacts, particularly those concerning utility disruptions, roadway detours, and
changes to property and pedestrian access and parking availability. The City would maintain access to
private property to the maximum extent feasible, and would notify property owners in advance of
activities that might temporarily limit access. In addition, the City would coordinate with businesses
affected by construction to provide wayfinding information for customers and support other outreach
activities to minimize the potential adverse impacts of construction.
Mitigation measures for additional potential construction impacts on nearby land uses are presented in
Sections 16.1 (Transportation), 16.2 (Parking), 16.4 (Aesthetics), 16.5 (Noise), and 16.7 (Public Services
and Utilities).
16.3.2

The City expects this project to be consistent with the adopted land use plans. No adverse operational
impacts are expected. Accordingly, no operational mitigation measures are necessary.
16.4 Aesthetics
16.4.1

Mitigation measures addressing construction-related disruption of the visual environment are typically
limited in their effectiveness. Measures to mitigate such construction impacts could include:
Minimizing the amount of construction-related light and glare, particularly during work near
residences, through such means as directional lighting or light barriers
Adding attractive design elements to the public side of construction screening, including graphics
and explanatory signs
Providing windows or other viewpoints into the active construction area, where feasible, because
many people find construction interesting and want to follow a projects progress
16.4.2

The Preferred Alternative design has been developed with early input from waterfront stakeholders and
the public at large. The intent of the design is to develop operational improvements of high aesthetic
quality, appropriate to their setting. Design standards have been developed that address a number of
visual, design, architectural, signage, and lighting parameters for the project. Adherence to these design
16-3
standards would provide a consistent visual palette for the project and help ensure that the visual
composition of corridor improvements would be internally consistent and still respect the character of
the existing built elements and the surrounding streetscape.
Because the design of the Preferred Alternative has been developed to enhance the aesthetic
experience of traveling through Seattle along the waterfront, measures to avoid and minimize the
potential adverse impacts of project-related changes were incorporated into the design as it evolved.
The final design might include additional measures to minimize impacts if it is determined that public
views and sightlines would be affected by the presence, size, or location of AWPOW structures.
Mitigation measures could include changing the location, height, profile, or bulk of the more prominent
structures. The final design might also include additional measures to minimize any light and glare
impacts by limiting the amount and reflective qualities of glare-producing materials and by reducing the
intensity, location, or angle of illumination.
16.5 Noise
16.5.1

The City would minimize construction noise at nearby noise receptors by complying with the Seattle
Noise Ordinance and any variances to the ordinance that are obtained for the project. Mitigation
measures that could be recommended or required include the following:
Using the least intrusive broadband type of backup warning devices or backup observers as
permitted by law
Minimizing the use of generators or using generators with extreme silencers (quiet mufflers) to
power equipment
Installing high-grade engine exhaust silencers and engine-casing sound insulation
Using low-noise emission equipment, when available
Monitoring and maintaining equipment to meet noise limits
Using lined or covered storage bins, conveyors, and chutes with sound-deadening material
Implementing noise-deadening measures for truck loading and operations, such as lining the truck
beds with acoustical material and using proper loading techniques for concrete blocks
Limiting or avoiding high noise activities, such as loading concrete blocks and conducting
demolition, saw cutting, and soil compacting, during nighttime hours
Monitoring vibration levels could occur at structures susceptible to vibration damage that are in
proximity to construction activities that may produce vibration levels close to the maximum level
established by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
16.5.2

Because AWPOW would result in increased noise impacts at some locations compared to the No Action
Alternative, the City evaluated three general forms of noise abatement: mitigation at the source,
mitigation in the path of the noise between source and receiver, and mitigation at the receiver. The
evaluation was done in accordance with applicable guidance for highway noise impact mitigation as well
as other potentially applicable standards. The following measures were evaluated:
16-4
Mitigation at the sourceMeasures evaluated include traffic management, such as modifying

speed limits and restricting truck traffic, and roadway design measures, which have been
incorporated into the project design as applicable. The use of special noise-reducing pavement was
considered,butwasnotincludedintheprojectdesignbecauseofthelimitedlifespanandlow
costeffectivenessofthismethodwhenusedinWesternWashington.
MitigationinthepathofthenoisebetweensourceandreceiverNoisebarriers,suchasnoise
wallsandberms,wereevaluated,butweredeterminedtobeinfeasibleinthestudyareabecause
ofthelimitedrightofway,denseurbandevelopment,andtheneedforpropertyaccessatfrequent
intervals.Alloftheseconstraintswouldmakenoisewallseitherimpossibletobuildwithout
additionalpropertyacquisitionorineffectiveinnoisereduction.
MitigationatthereceiverTheCitycouldconsiderrequiringsoundreducingelementsforallnew
residentialconstruction,andsoundinsulationupgradesforexistingbuildings.However,imposing
suchrequirementsonexistingdevelopment,especiallyinareaswherenoiselevelshavehistorically
beenhigh,wouldbeinconsistentwithfederal,state,andlocalnoiseregulationsandpolicies.This
typeofmitigationforprivatepropertiesistypicallytheresponsibilityofthehomeowners.
ForthePreferredAlternative,trafficnoiselevelscouldincreasebyupto5dBAinsomelocations,and
conversely,coulddecreaseby5to6dBAinotherlocationscomparedtotheNoActionAlternative.
Noisesourcecontrolmeasures,includingtrafficmanagement,speed,androadwaydesign,havebeen
incorporatedintothedesignasapplicable.Applyinganyadditionalminimizationormitigationmeasures
wouldbedifficultorinfeasibleduetotheexistingconstraintsinthiscorridor.
Inabroaderperspective,itisimportanttonotethattheoverallnoiselevelsunderthe
PreferredAlternativewouldbeupto12dBAlowerthanthecurrentnoiselevelswiththeviaductin
operation.ThenoiselevelreductionsresultingfromremovaloftheAlaskanWayViaductarenot
attributabletoAWPOW,butwouldformanimportantpartofthefuturenoiseenvironmentwithin
whichAWPOWwouldoperate.ThecumulativenoiseimpactsforAWPOWandotherprojectsinthe
noisestudyareaaredescribedinSection15.7ofthisFinalEIS.
16.6 Hazardous Materials

16.6.1

Hazardousmaterialsrelatedconditionsexistthroughouttheprojectfootprint.AWPOWconstruction
activitiesarelikelytoencounteratleastsomeofthoseconditions.Hazardousmaterialsrelated
conditionsthatareencounteredwouldbemitigatedbyimplementingappropriatemeasures,suchas
thoserecommendedinTable161.
16-5
Table 16-1.
Hazardous Materials Construction Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Identified Construction
Impacts
Impact or Issue
Location
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Property
acquisition
Specific
locations (see
Figure 7-2)
Acquisition liability in the

event of acquiring a
hazardous materials site or
property impacted by a
hazardous material site.
Conduct appropriate due diligence

investigations before acquiring
potentially contaminated property.
Building or
structure
demolition
One identified
location
(Parcel
766620-2381)
Buildings can include

hazardous materials such as
asbestos-containing
materials, lead-based paint,
PCBs, or mercury.
Conduct a hazardous building

materials survey before demolition.
Implement a hazardous building
materials abatement program, as
necessary, prior to demolition.
Disruption of
existing
monitoring wells
Project-wide
Monitoring wells may have to

be maintained. In the event of
decommissioning,
coordination with agency or
well owner is required.
Develop a plan or approach for

decommissioning and protecting
monitoring wells.
Potential for
encountering
USTs
Project-wide
This can include previously

abandoned or
decommissioned USTs within
the project footprint.
Before construction begins,

decommission, remove, or develop
plans for protecting USTs known to
exist within the project footprint.
Develop a protocol in the event

unknown USTs are encountered
during project construction, including
protocols for communications with the
regulatory agency and others;
protocols should be developed for
decommissioning responsibilities and
for sampling, storage, and disposal of
contaminated soil and groundwater
encountered during UST
decommissioning or removal.
Encountering
contaminated soil
or groundwater
during
construction
Project-wide;
highest in
areas shown
in Figure 7-2
Spreading or improperly
handling soil or groundwater
contaminated with known or
suspected petroleum
products, metals, PCBs, and
PAHs.
Develop and implement a site-specific

contaminated media management
plan for identifying, testing, storing,
handling, and disposing of soil and
groundwater known or suspected of
being contaminated.
Spills of
hazardous
materials during
construction or
staging activities
Project-wide
Potential for accidental spill of

hazardous materials during

Spill Plan to address the use, storage,
and disposal, as well as the
prevention and response to potential
releases, of hazardous materials used
or encountered during project staging
and construction.
Construction Stormwater and Erosion
Control Plan to prevent or minimize
the potential for stormwater to carry
contaminated soil and sediment into
surface water.
16-6
16.6.2

Operation of the Preferred Alternative could lead to encountering hazardous materials during
maintenance as well as spills of hazardous materials. These events could be mitigated by implementing
the measures recommended in Table 16-2.
Table 16-2. Operational Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Location
Maintenance
of roadways
and
stormwater
and utility
systems
Throughout
project footprint
Identified Operational Impacts

Contaminants could be
encountered during
maintenance of roadways and
stormwater and utility systems.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Spills of
hazardous
materials
Throughout
project footprint
Vehicular accidents could result

in spills on or near the roadway.
Spills could occur as a result of
maintenance work utilizing
hazardous materials.
Inform maintenance personnel of

known hazardous materials-related
conditions they might encounter.
Train personnel in appropriate
protection measures for hazardous
materials-related conditions.
For work in areas known to be
contaminated, use personnel who
have received the appropriate level
of hazardous waste operations
training.
Develop protocols for appropriate
coordination with and reporting to
oversight agencies regarding
encountered hazardous materials.
For worker safety, train
maintenance personnel that might
use hazardous materials in the
globally harmonized system for
hazard communication.
Implement BMPs to prevent or
minimize the effects of spills.
Train maintenance personnel in the
use of spill kits for responding to
spills of hazardous materials used
for maintenance work.
Develop protocols for responding to
hazardous materials spills too large
to be managed by spill kits.
Develop protocols for appropriate
coordination with and reporting to
oversight agencies regarding
spilled hazardous materials.
16.7 Public Services and Utilities

16.7.1

Public Services
The City would coordinate with public service providers as construction plans are developed. The City
would work closely with emergency service providers, such as SPD and SFD, to put in place appropriate
measures for emergency access to and travel through construction areas to minimize impacts on
response times. As construction activities proceed, the City would provide timely communications to all
16-7
service providers with details about detours, utility disruptions, and other critical activities. The City
would also:
Coordinate with solid waste service providers to minimize impacts on solid waste collection and
recycling activities
Notify the Seattle School District of construction detours that may affect school bus routings to
and through the study area
Notify the United States Postal Service of construction detours and access changes that may affect
postal deliveries; access would be maintained to all buildings along the construction route for
postal deliveries
Utilities
The City would work closely with utility providers to ensure appropriate space planning and construction
sequencing to minimize overall risks, costs, and impacts. The City would also:
Work with utility providers to provide maintenance and emergency access to all utilities
throughout construction
Ensure that outages are minimized and that critical utilities, such as power, water, natural gas,
and telecommunications for emergency response and public safety, are maintained
Perform utility work during off-peak time periods, if possible
Contact the utility provider immediately if any inadvertent damage to the utility occurs
16.7.2

No adverse operational impacts on public services or utilities have been identified. The
Preferred Alternative will be designed to provide maintenance access to underground utilities that
meets the standard access criteria and associated vehicle loading. Therefore, no additional avoidance,
minimization, or mitigation measures are necessary.
16.8 Historic Resources

16.8.1

Before constructing the Preferred Alternative, the City would obtain the required Certificates of
Approval for work within historic districts and any alterations, even temporary ones, to landmarked
buildings. Such Certificates of Approval would be needed from the Pioneer Square Preservation Board,
the Pike Place Market Historical Commission, and the Seattle Landmark Preservation Board.
During construction, the City would protect the historic and physical integrity and the economic viability
of historic structures, properties, and districts through the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures proposed for other elements of the environment, particularly noise, water quality,
transportation, parking, public services, and land use. Such potential mitigation measures could include:
16-8
Using BMPs to control noise, vibration, dust, and mud
Maintaining access to businesses and residences to the maximum extent feasible, and notifying
property owners in advance of activities that might temporarily limit access
Using measures identified in the Traffic Control Plan to minimize congestion in and around
construction zones, and developing practices to manage parking during construction
Communicating information about construction to residents, businesses, and the public regularly
Coordinating with affected businesses to provide wayfinding information for customers and
support other outreach activities to minimize the potential adverse impacts of construction
The City would repair any damage that occurs to historic buildings as a result of AWPOW construction in
accordance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation (36 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] 67).
16.8.2

The City would obtain Certificates of Approval and undergo Landmarks Adjacency Reviews, as
appropriate, for all permanent impacts the Preferred Alternative would have on historic resources.
Certificates of Approval would be needed from the Pioneer Square Preservation Board, the Pike Place
Market Historical Commission, and the Seattle Landmarks Board. The Seattle Department of
Neighborhoods would conduct Landmarks Adjacency Reviews for project elements located next to or
across the street from designated City landmarks. These approvals and reviews would consider the
compatibility of project elements, materials, and designs with the areas historic character. The City
would also use urban design and place-making approaches such as landscaping, interpretation, and
reuse of historical elements (seawall railing, ship's wheel ornamentation, etc.) to enhance the sense of
historical connection among the waterfront structures, the roadway, and buildings on the east side of
Alaskan Way.
16.9 Archaeological Resources

16.9.1

Based on the locations of known Ballast Island deposits and the uncertainty of the sites boundaries, it is
likely that construction reaching depths below 2.5 feet may encounter deposits from the site.
Accordingly, the City would conduct archaeological monitoring of ground-disturbing construction in this
area to identify any potential Ballast Island deposits. The monitoring would be conducted under the
direct supervision of an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualification
Standards for Archaeology. If impacts cannot be avoided, the City would work with DAHP and affected
tribes to develop appropriate mitigation.
To address the potential for project construction to affect currently undetected archaeological sites, the
City would prepare an Inadvertent Discovery Plan before project construction begins. The plan would
identify actions to be taken if archaeological resources are discovered during construction. The City might
also, in consultation with DAHP and the affected tribes, develop archaeological monitoring plans for
ground-disturbing construction in areas identified as having a high probability for archaeological resources.
16.9.2

Because AWPOW operation would not adversely affect archaeological resources, no mitigation
measures are necessary.
16.10 Water Quality

16.10.1 Construction Avoidance, Minimization, and
The City would prepare and implement plans pursuant to the City of Seattle Stormwater Code,
Stormwater Manual, and the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit that describe BMPs to
prevent pollution, control stormwater flows, and protect Elliott Bay during construction and associated
staging. BMPs could include the following:
Minimizing the amount of cleared and cut pavement areas at any one time to the
extent feasible
16-9
Stabilizing construction entrances and internal haul roads using quarry spalls
Washing truck tires at construction site exits, as necessary
Cleaning construction site track-out from public roads, as necessary
Constructing silt fences downslope from exposed soil
Protecting catch basins from sediment
Installing temporary ditches or asphalt berms to route runoff around or through construction
sites, with periodic check dams to slow and settle runoff, as necessary
Placing temporary plastic or mulch to cover soil stockpiles and exposed soil
Using temporary erosion control blankets or mulch on exposed steep slopes to minimize
erosion before vegetation or other permanent cover is established
Constructing temporary sedimentation ponds or cells to remove solids from concentrated

runoff and dewatering the ponds or cells before the runoff is discharged
Providing secondary containment for all potential sources of leaks and spills
Conducting vehicle fueling and maintenance activities no closer than 100 feet from a
water body
Washing concrete work equipment in designated contained areas
A Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) would be assigned to conduct compliance
inspections. If discharge of treated construction or process water to a sanitary sewer is proposed,
approval would be obtained from both the King County Industrial Waste Division and the City of Seattle,
and applicable water quality requirements would be met.
16.10.2 Operational Avoidance, Minimization, and

The design of the Preferred Alternative incorporates BMPs that are considered to be avoidance and
minimization measures. These BMPs prevent operational impacts on water quality and include treating
stormwater runoff from most of the PGIS in the project footprint. Treatment would be provided via onsite facilities meeting basic treatment requirements of the Citys Stormwater Code and through
discharging this treated water to the separated storm drain system.
The remaining stormwater runoff from the project footprints PGIS would drain to the combined sewer
system and receive treatment at the King County West Point Treatment Plant. As a result of these design
BMPs, no adverse operational impacts on water quality are expected from the Preferred Alternative;
therefore, no additional mitigation measures are necessary.
16.11 Vegetation and Wildlife

Vegetation
A Tree, Vegetation, and Soil Protection Plan would be developed to ensure the selection of appropriate
protective measures during construction. These measures would identify protective measures for trees
and other vegetation to be retained as well as for soil surfaces to guard against compaction and erosion.
In accordance with federal, state, and local requirements and guidance, the City of Seattle would
implement appropriate measures to minimize the risk of introduction and spread of noxious and
invasive species. The City would restore and landscape the project footprint as soon as practicable
during construction.
16-10
Wildlife
Conservation measures and BMPs would be implemented before or during construction to minimize the
potential impacts on wildlife. The contractor would be required to adhere to the requirements of the
City of Seattle Noise Control Ordinance.

Landscaping and water treatment measures are incorporated in the design of the Preferred Alternative.
These measures would be compatible with the City of Seattle Urban Forest Stewardship Plan and would
expand the vegetated areas in the corridor. By restoring and planting native tree species and understory
vegetation, these measures would increase wildlife habitat. Because these design measures would
provide a positive impact on both vegetation and wildlife, no additional avoidance, minimization, or
mitigation measures beyond those listed in Section 16.11.1 are necessary.
16.12 Energy Resources

Based on the magnitude of the estimated construction energy consumption, and on GHG emissions
compared to applicable GHG emission targets, the Preferred Alternative would not have a significant
effect on energy resources and would not require mitigation. However, the following measures, if
implemented by the City, would contribute to improved energy efficiency during construction:
Limiting idling of equipment
Encouraging carpooling of construction workers
Locating staging areas near work sites

No adverse effects on energy resources and GHG emissions within the study area are expected from the
operation of AWPOW; therefore, no mitigation would be necessary.
16.13 Air Quality

For temporary impacts during construction, state law requires that construction site owners and
operators take reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive dust from becoming airborne. Fugitive dust
may become airborne during demolition, material transport, grading, vehicle and machinery operations
on and off the work site, and wind events. Controlling fugitive dust emissions would involve
implementing measures such as:
Spraying exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions and deposition of
particulate matter
Phasing construction activities to keep disturbed areas to a minimum
Using wind fencing to reduce disturbance to soils
Minimizing dust emissions during transport of fill material or soil by wetting down or by ensuring
adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck container) on trucks
Cleaning up spills of transported material on public roads promptly
16-11
Scheduling work tasks to minimize disruption of the existing vehicle traffic on streets
Restricting traffic on site to reduce soil upheaval and the transport of material to roadways
Locating construction equipment and truck staging areas away from sensitive receptors, to the
extent practicable, and in consideration of potential impacts on other resources
Providing wheel washers to remove particulate matter that would otherwise be carried off site by
vehicles to decrease deposition of particulate matter on area roadways
Covering dirt, gravel, and debris piles as needed to reduce dust and wind-blown debris
Minimizing odors on site by covering loads of hot asphalt
Requiring contractors to keep machinery in good mechanical condition, reduce idling time, and use
equipment with emission controls, where feasible, to minimize exhaust emissions

Because no impacts are expected to result from operation of the Preferred Alternative, no mitigation
is required.
16-12
References
Executive Summary
SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2014. Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan Website.
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/pedestrian_masterplan/.
Seattle Aquarium. 2015. A Master Plan for Expansion. Available at:
http://www.seattleaquarium.org/planning. July 2015.
Chapter 1 Introduction and Purpose of the Projects

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2014. Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan Website.
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/pedestrian_masterplan/.
State of Washington, King County, and City of Seattle. 2009. Letter of Agreement Between the State of
Washington, King County, and City of Seattle, January 13, 2009, Consensus on the Recommended
Alternative for Replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall.
Chapter 2 Project Alternatives

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation),
and City of Seattle. 2004. SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Project Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Seattle, Washington. March 2004.
FHWA, WSDOT, and City of Seattle. 2006. SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Project
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. Seattle,
Washington. July 2006.
FHWA, WSDOT, and City of Seattle. 2010. Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project 2010 Supplemental
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. Seattle, Washington.
October 2010.
FHWA, WSDOT, and City of Seattle. 2011. Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. Seattle, Washington. July 2011.
FHWA, WSDOT, King County, and City of Seattle. 2009. Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project
History Report. Available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/viaduct/Media/Default/
Documents/Reports/AWVProjectHistoryReport_Sept09.pdf. Seattle, Washington. September 2009.
King County Metro. 2012. King County Metro Downtown Southend Transit Study. Prepared by
Parametrix. August 2012.
Seattle Aquarium. 2015. A Master Plan for Expansion. Available at:
http://www.seattleaquarium.org/planning. July 2015.
Chapter 3 Transportation and Parking

City of Seattle. 1999. Downtown Urban Center Neighborhood Plan. Prepared by the Downtown Urban
Center Planning Group, Seattle, Washington. April 12, 1999.
City of Seattle. 2012. Piers 54-59 Vehicle and Pedestrian Data. Prepared by CH2M HILL, Seattle,
Washington. Submitted to City of Seattle Central Waterfront Project Team.
Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. Seattle, Washington. July 2011.
Heffron (Heffron Transportation, Inc.). 2014. Supply and Demand Survey. In: June 2014 Technical
Memorandum. Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/Downtown
R-1
%20Off-Street%20Parking%20Survey%20-%20Final%20093014.pdf. Seattle, Washington.

September 30, 2014.
Heffron (Heffron Transportation, Inc.). 2016. Supply and Demand Survey. In: June 2016 Technical
Memorandum. Prepared for the Seattle Department of Transportation. Seattle, Washington.
KCDOT (King County Department of Transportation), 2015. 2015 King County Water Taxi Facts and
Figures. Available at: http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/WaterTaxi/~/
media/transportation/kcdot/WaterTaxi/water-taxi-facts-2015.ashx. Accessed: July 21, 2016.
KCDOT (King County Department of Transportation). 2016. Rider information. Available at:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/WaterTaxi/RiderInfo.aspx.
Accessed: July 21, 2016.
Port of Seattle. 2016. Cruise Seattle Fact Sheet. Seattle, Washington. March 30, 2016.
PSRC (Puget Sound Regional Council). 2013. Parking Inventory. Seattle, Washington.
SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2005. Transportation Strategic Plan. Seattle, Washington.
October.
SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2012. Elliott Bay Seawall Project Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Appendix C, Transportation Discipline Report Final. Prepared by Tetra Tech,
Inc. and Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants. Available at: http://waterfrontseattle.org/
Media/Default/pdfs/deis/12_AppendixC_Transporation_FINAL.pdf. Accessed June 2014. Seattle,
Washington. October.
SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2014a. Curbspace Metadata, Hansen Asset Management
System. Seattle, Washington.
SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2014b. 2014 Annual Paid Parking Survey. Seattle,
Washington.
SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2016a. Freight Master Plan. Available at:
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/freight_fmp.htm. September 7, 2016.
SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2016b. Information on current developments with
parking. Compiled by SDOT from https://www.seattleinprogress.com/, http://web6.seattle.gov/
SDOT/ConstructionMap/, http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/shapingseattle/map.aspx, and
http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/maps/. July 8, 2016.
Sound Transit. 2016. Sound Transit Operations May 2016 Service Performance Report. Available at:
http://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/20160714-may-2016-service-performancereport.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2016.
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2014. Washington State Rail Plan: Integrated
Freight and Passenger Rail Plan 2013-2035. Available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/
NR/rdonlyres/F67D73E5-2F2D-40F2-9795-736131D98106/0/StateRailPlanFinal201403.pdf.
Prepared by Cambridge Systematics. March 2014.
Chapter 4 Land Use

City of Seattle. 2005. City of Seattle Comprehensive PlanToward a Sustainable Seattle. Department of
Planning and Development, Seattle, Washington. Published January 2005, amended 2013.
City of Seattle. 2012a. Waterfront Seattle Framework Plan. Seattle, Washington. July 2012.
City of Seattle. 2012b. Waterfront Seattle Concept Design. Seattle, Washington. July 2012.
R-2
REFERENCES
City of Seattle. 2012c. Strategic Plan for Realizing the Waterfront Seattle Vision. Prepared for the Mayor
of Seattle and the Seattle City Council by the Central Waterfront Committee. Seattle, Washington.
July 2012.
Colliers International. 2014. Puget Sound Region Research & Forecast Report: Q2 2014. Accessed at:
www.colliers.com/pugetsound.
PSRC (Puget Sound Regional Council). 2008. VISION 2040: An Integrated Growth Management,
Environmental, Economic, and Transportation Strategy. Seattle, Washington. April 2008.
PSRC (Puget Sound Regional Council). 2010. Transportation 2040: Executive Summary. Seattle,
Washington. May 20, 2010.
Chapter 5 Aesthetics
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects;
U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Publication HI-88-054. Washington, D.C. Available at:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/Roadside/fhwavia.pdf. Accessed June 18, 2014.
Chapter 6 Noise
Beranek, L.L. 1988. Noise and Vibration Control. Revised edition. Institute of Noise Control Engineering,
Reston, Virginia.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations,
Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Washington, D.C.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model Users Guide.
FHWA-HEP-05-054. January 2006.
Chapter 7 Hazardous Materials

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), WSDOT, and City of Seattle. 2011. Alaskan Way Viaduct
Replacement Project Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation, Appendix
Q, Hazardous Materials Discipline Report. Washington State Department of Transportation, Urban
Corridors Office, Seattle, Washington. July 2011.
Impact Statement, Appendix N, Geology and Soils Discipline Report Final. Submitted by Tetra
Tech, Inc. Prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Seattle, Washington. October 2012.
SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2014. ArcGIS 10.1, Seattle Tools HazMat Layers City
Permitted Underground Storage Tanks data layer, accessed August 4, 2014.
Troost, K.G., D.B. Booth, A.P. Wisher, and S.A. Shimel. 2005. The Geologic Map of SeattleA Progress
Report. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1252, Version 1.0. Prepared in cooperation
with the City of Seattle and the Pacific Northwest Center for Geologic Mapping Studies at the
Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2005. Elevations and Distances in the United States; Online Edition
Booklet. Table: Elevation of the 50 Largest Cities. April 29, 2005.
Chapter 8 Public Services and Utilities

Environmental Impact Statement. Washington State Department of Transportation, Urban
Corridors Office, Seattle, Washington. March 2004.
R-3
FHWA, WSDOT, and City of Seattle. 2006. SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Project
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. Seattle,
Washington. July 2006.
SPU (Seattle Public Utilities).2014. Our Watersheds. Available at:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/EnvironmentConservation/OurWatersheds/index.htm. Accessed
August 22, 2014.
Washington State Patrol. 2014. Washington State Patrol Homeland Security. Available at:
http://www.wsp.wa.gov/crime/homeland.htm.
Chapter 9 Historic Resources

City of Seattle. 2008. Pioneer Square Historic Areaways District Areaways Survey Map. Updated
December 30, 2008.
Hershman, M.J., S. Heikkala, and C. Tobin. 1981. Seattles Waterfront: The Walkers Guide to the History
of Elliott Bay. Waterfront Awareness, Seattle, Washington.
SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2003. Pioneer Square Historic District Areaways Hazard
Mitigation Study. Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff and Sheridan Consulting Group. Seattle,
Washington. March 2003.
Chapter 10 Archaeological Resources

Elder, J.T. 2014. Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45KI01189. On file, Washington State
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation WISAARD.
Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix M: Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural
Places Technical Memorandum. Prepared by Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services
Limited. Submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, Washington.
March 2004.
Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. Appendix I, Historic, Cultural, and
Archaeological Resources Discipline Report. Seattle, Washington. July 2011.
Glover, E.S. 1878. Birds Eye View of the City of Seattle, Puget Sound, Washington Territory. A.L.
Bancroft & Co., Lithographers, San Francisco, California.
Lane, B. 1987. Indian Fisheries in Elliott Bay in the Mid-nineteenth Century. Preliminary Report. On file at
the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Auburn, Washington.
Manetas, C. 2016. Personal communication from Cassandra Manetas, Cultural Resources Specialist,
WSDOT ESO MegaProjects, Seattle, Washington, to Jill Czarnecki, Environmental Planner,
Parametrix, Seattle, Washington, regarding Ballast Island deposits. July 14, 2016.
Miller, J. 1999. Lushootseed Culture and the Shamanic Odyssey, An Anchored Radiance. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, pp. 2021.
Petite, I. 1954. Old Indian Village Sites of Seattle and Vicinity. The Seattle Times, 10 January: 10.
Sanborn Map Company. 1904. Insurance Maps of Seattle, Washington. Volume I. ProQuest Information
and Learning Company. Electronic map files, Seattle Public Library, Seattle, Washington.
R-4
REFERENCES
SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2013. Elliott Bay Seawall Project Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Appendix F Cultural Resources Assessment. Prepared by SWCA Environmental
Consultants, authors L. Hudson, B. Rinck, S. Boswell, M. Sheridan, and J. Marcotte, Seattle,
Washington.
Suttles, W., and B. Lane. 1990. Environment. In: Northwest Coast. Edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 16-29.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
United States Court of Claims. 1927. Number of Duwamish villages on Duwamish River and Lake
Washington. In: Court of Claims of the United States, The Duwamish, et al. Tribes of Indians v. the
United States of America, Claimants Exhibit W-2, filed October 3, 1927. Records Group 123.
Records of the U.S. Court of Claims No. F-275. On file, National Archives and Records
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Waterman, T.T. ca. 1922. Puget Sound Geography. Unpublished manuscript on file, Pacific Northwest.
Geographic Names Used by Indians of the Pacific Coast. Geographical Review 12:175-194.
Waterman, T.T. 2001. Puget Sound Geography. Edited with additional material from Vi Hilbert, Jay
Miller, and Zalmai Zahir. Zahir Consulting Services/Lushootseed Press, Federal Way, Washington.
Watt, R.F. 1959. Four Wagons West. Binford and Mort Publishing, Portland, Oregon.
Wellge, Henry. 1884. Bird's Eye View of the City of Seattle, WT. J.J. Stoner, Madison, Wisconsin.
Chapter 11 Water Quality

Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012. Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html. Approved by EPA on December 21, 2012.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. United States of America and the State of
Washington v. the City of Seattle, Washington. Consent Decree Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-678.
March 2013.
SPU (Seattle Public Utilities). 2014. Plan to Protect Seattle's Waterways, Volumes 1 through 4. City of
Seattle, Seattle Public Utilities. May 2014.
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2007. Combined Sewer System Analysis
Study. Submitted by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc., Black & Veatch, and
Cosmopolitan Engineering Group, Inc. Seattle, Washington. April 2007.
Chapter 12 Vegetation and Wildlife

Anchor QEA. 2011. Survey of Aquatic Habitats and Biological Communities along the Elliott Bay Seawall.
Submitted to City of Seattle Department of Transportation. Submitted by Tetra Tech, Inc., Seattle,
Washington. March. Document No. 02ENVAQECO-RPT002F-B1.
Buchanan, J.B. 2006. Nearshore Birds in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report
number 2006-05. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington.
Available at: http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/technical_reports.html.
City of Seattle. 2007. Urban Forest Management Plan, Seattle, Washington. City of Seattle, Washington.
Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/trees/management.htm.
City of Seattle. 2013a. Urban Forest Stewardship Plan, Seattle, Washington. City of Seattle, Washington.
Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/trees/management.htm.
R-5
City of Seattle. 2013b. Waterfront Seattle Schematic Design, Main Corridor. Prepared for the Central
Waterfront Committee, Seattle Department of Transportation, Department of Planning and
Development. Prepared by james corner field operations, CH2M HILL, Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc.,
Berger Partnership, Enviroissues, Parametrix, Parsons Brinckerhoff, and Schematic Architects.
Seattle, Washington. October 2013.
and SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2004. SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall
Replacement Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix R: Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Habitat Discipline Report. Washington State Department of Transportation, Urban Corridors Office,
Seattle, Washington. March 2004.
King County. 1999. King County Combined Sewer Overflow Water Quality Assessment for the Duwamish
River and Elliott Bay. Appendix C: Issue Papers. Prepared by the Duwamish River and Elliott Bay
Water Quality Assessment Team. February. Available at:
http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/wastewater/cso/docs/WQA/C.pdf.
Osborne, R., J. Calambokidis, and E.M. Dorsey. 1988. A Guide to Marine Mammals of Greater Puget
Sound. Island Publishers, Anacortes, Washington.
Impact Statement, Appendix L: Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation Discipline Report Final. Prepared by
Tetra Tech, Inc. Seattle, Washington. October 2012.
Seattle Audubon Society. 2013. BirdWeb: Seattle Audubon's Guide to the Birds of Washington State.
Accessed on December 17, 2013. Available at: http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/.
Steiger, G.H., and J. Calambokidis. 1986. California and northern sea lions in southern Puget Sound,
Washington. The Murrelet 67(3):9396.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. Revised Preliminary Existing Conditions Report. Alaskan
Way Seawall Replacement Project Feasibility Study. Environmental Impact StatementExisting
Conditions. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. March. Available at:
http://waterfrontseattle.org/pdfs/usace_seawall_existing_conditions_report.pdf.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Critical Habitat Mapper.
Accessed June 23, 2014. Available at: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2005. Report of Marine Bird and Marine Mammal
Component, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, for July 1992 to December 1999 Period.
2005. WDFW, Olympia, Washington.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014a. PHS on the Web: An interactive map of
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species information for project review. Accessed June 23, 2014.
Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/.
WDFW. 2014b. Washington State Species of Concern Lists. Accessed July 22, 2014. Available at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/All/.
Chapter 13 Energy Resources

Barth, M., and K. Boriboonsomsin. 2009. Traffic Congestion and Greenhouse Gases. Access, Volume 35,
fall 2009.
Center for Climate Strategies. 2007. Washington State Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case
Projections, 1990-2020. Prepared in collaboration with the Washington State Department of
Ecology and the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economics. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/docs/WA_GHGInventoryReferenceCaseProjections_19902020.pdf. December 2007.
R-6
REFERENCES
SCL (Seattle City Light). 2013. Seattle City Light Annual Report 2012. Available at:
http://www.seattle.gov/light/pubs/annualrpts.asp.
Impact Statement. November 2012.
USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation), Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2014. Average Fuel
Efficiency of Light-Duty Vehicles. Available at:
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/
publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html.
Wall Street Journal. 2014. Why Electric Cars Click for Atlanta. June 4, 2014.
Chapter 14 Air Quality

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.
Chapter 15 Cumulative Impacts

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2008. Guidance on Preparing Cumulative
Impact Analyses. Washington State Department of Transportation. Olympia, Washington.
February 2008.
Transportation
King County, and City of Seattle. 2009. Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project History Report.
Seattle, Washington. September.
Ott, J. 2011. Alaskan Way Viaduct, Part 4: Replacing the Viaduct. HistoryLink.org. History Link,
19 December 2011. Accessed at:
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9983.
Parking
SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation), U.S. Department of Transportation, and Federal Transit
Administration. 2016. Seattle Center City Connector Environmental Evaluation: Transportation
Technical Report. Prepared by Nelson Nygaard, in association with CH2M HILL, John Parker
Consulting, LTK, and URS. Seattle, Washington. March 2016.
Land Use
City of Seattle. 2014. Brief History of Seattle. In: Seattle Municipal Archives (cityarchives). Available at:
http://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/seattle-facts/brief-history-of-seattle. Accessed
August 14, 2014.
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2013. Seattle Multimodal Terminal at
Colman Dock ProjectProject Library: General Project Materials. Available at:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Ferries/ColmanMultimodalTerminal/Library#GeneralProjectM
aterials. Accessed December 2013.
Water
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012. Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html. Approved by EPA on December 21, 2012.
R-7
Vegetation
Impact Statement. Appendix L: Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation Discipline Report. Prepared by Tetra
Tech, Inc. Seattle, Washington. October 2012.
Energy
Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment. 2014. Seattle Climate Action Plan: 2012 Seattle
Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. April 2014. Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/
Documents/Departments/OSE/2012%20GHG%20inventory%20report_final.pdf. April 2014.
R-8
List of Preparers
Name and Employer
Degree and Relevant Licenses
Years of Relevant
Experience
CITY OF SEATTLE
Katherine Chesick
NEPA/SEPA & Permits
Coordinator
B.S. Geology
J.D. with Environmental Law Certificate
Member, California and Washington State Bar
Associations
29
Mark Mazzola
Environmental Manager
B.S. Biology
M.S. Community and Regional Planning
18
Jenifer Young
Project Manager and EIS Author
CH2M HILL
B.A. English
M.P.A., Public Administration
29
Jill Czarnecki
Assistant Project Manager and
EIS Author
Parametrix
B.S. Geology
Certificate in Technical Writing and Editing
18
Curt Warber
Aesthetics Reviewer
Parametrix
M.L.A. Landscape Architecture

Registered Landscape Architect,
Washington State
26
Susan Wessman
Aesthetics Author
Parametrix
M.L.A. Landscape Architecture

Registered Landscape Architect,
Washington State
16
Robin McClintock
Co-Author
CH2M HILL
B.S. Anthropology
26
Doug McFarland
Reviewer
CH2M HILL
B.S. Anthropology
M.S. (Cultural) Resource Management
Registered Professional Archaeologist
18
Julie Wilt
Co-Author
CH2M HILL
M.A. Anthropology and Geography
26
Rick Wadsworth, P.E.

Hazardous Materials
Parametrix
B.S. Environmental Engineering

M.S. Environmental Engineering
P.E. Oregon
20
Richard Roch, LHG,

Hazardous Materials Reviewer
Parametrix
B.S. Geology
M.S. Geology
Licensed Hydrogeologist Washington
30
CONSULTANT TEAM
Aesthetics
Hazardous Materials
L-1
Name and Employer
Years of Relevant
Experience
Historic Resources
Mimi Sheridan, AICP
Historic Resources Author
Sheridan Consulting Group
B.A. History
M.U.P. Historic Preservation
20
Connie Walker Gray

Historic Resources Reviewer
Gray Lane Preservation &
Planning
B.A. History
M.U.P. Historic Preservation
14
B.A. Government and Legal Studies

M.P.A. Public Administration
11
Ginette Lalonde
Noise Reviewer
Parsons Brinckerhoff
B.S. Civil Engineering
17
Michael Minor
Noise Author
Michael Minor & Associates, Inc.
B.A. Physics
B.A. Mathematics
27

P.E. Washington & Oregon
17
Land Use
Maya Hunnewell
Land Use Author
Parametrix
Noise

Ryan LeProwse, P.E.
Author
Parametrix
Brian Macik
Transportation and Parking,
Co-author
B.A. Environmental Studies/Political Science

M.U.P. Urban Planning
10
Parametrix
John Perlic, P.E.
Reviewer
Parametrix

M.S. Civil Engineering
P.E. Washington
33
Erinn Walter
Co-author
Parametrix
B.A. Geography
M.U.P. Urban Planning
B.A. Mathematics
B.A. Physics
M.S. Civil Engineering
11
Brian Woodburn
Transportation and Parking,
Analysis
Parametrix
L-2
LIST OF PREPARERS
Name and Employer
Years of Relevant
Experience

Scott Goss
Reviewer
SG3 Strategies, LLC
B.S. Forest Management
27
Eric Haupt
Reviewer
CH2M HILL
B.S. Geography/Cartography
33
Jan Rosholt, P.E.

Author
Parametrix

P.E. Washington
40
Julie Brandt, P.E.

Water Quality Author
Parametrix

P.E. Washington & Oregon
18
Paul Fendt, P.E.

Water Quality Reviewer
Parametrix
B.S. Geological Engineering

P.E. Washington & Florida
32
Claire Hoffman
Vegetation and Wildlife Author
Parametrix
M.S. Environmental ScienceEcology
14
Colin Worsley
Vegetation and Wildlife Reviewer
Parametrix
B.S. Botany
Professional Wetland Scientist, SWS
15
Water Quality
L-3
Distribution List
The City of Seattle has distributed the Supplemental Draft EIS either as a hard copy or electronic link to
the following tribes, elected officials, state agencies, local, City departments and committees, libraries,
and partner groups, organizations, and stakeholders. In addition, the electronic link was sent by email to
over 6,000 members of the projects listserv and by postcard to over 5,600 addresses.
Tribes
Duwamish Tribe
Suquamish Tribal Council
Nisqually Tribal Council
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
Muckleshoot Tribal Council
Tulalip Board of Directors
Stillaguamish Board of Directors
United Indians of All Tribes Foundation
Snoqualmie Tribal Council
Yakama Tribal Council
Elected Officials
City of Seattle Mayor Edward B. Murray
City Council Position 5 Debora Juarez
City Council Position 1 Lisa Herbold
City Council Position 6 Mike O'Brien
City Council Position 2 Bruce Harrell
City Council Position 7 Sally Bagshaw
City Council Position 3 Kshama Sawant
City Council Position 8 Tim Burgess
City Council Position 4 Rob Johnson
City Council Position 9 Lorena Gonzalez
State Agencies
Washington State Department of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation
Washington State Department of Natural

Resources
Washington State Department of Ecology
Washington State Department of

Transportation
Washington State Department of Fish and

Wildlife
Local Agencies
King County
King County Water Taxi
King County Metro
King County Wastewater Treatment Division
City of Seattle Departments and Committees

City of Seattle, Budget Office
Seattle City Light
City of Seattle, Finance and Administrative

Services
Seattle Fire Department
Department of Planning and Development
Seattle Police Department
Office of Intergovernmental Relations
Seattle Public Utilities
Seattle Center
Waterfront Steering Committee
Seattle Parks and Recreation
Seattle City Attorneys Office
D-1
Neighborhood Service Centers

Ballard Neighborhood Service Center
Southeast Neighborhood Service Center
Central Neighborhood Service Center
Southwest Neighborhood Service Center
Lake City Neighborhood Service Center
University Neighborhood Service Center
Libraries
UW Suzzalo Library
Seattle Public Libraries
Ballard Branch
Madrona-Sally Goldmark Branch
Beacon Hill Branch
Magnolia Branch
Broadview Branch
Montlake Branch
Capitol Hill Branch
New Holly Branch
Central Library
Northeast Branch
Columbia Branch
Northgate Branch
Delridge Branch
Queen Anne Branch
Douglass-Truth Branch
Rainier Beach Branch
Fremont Branch
South Park Branch
Green Lake Branch
Southwest Branch
Greenwood Branch
University Branch
High Point Branch
Wallingford Branch
International District/Chinatown Branch
West Seattle Branch
Lake City Branch
Partner Groups, Organizations, and Stakeholders

Alliance for Pioneer Square
Belltown Community Council
Building Owners and Managers Association/
CA Stanford Consulting
Seattle Chinatown International District

Preservation and Development Authority
(SCIDpda)
Seattle Aquarium
Cascade Bicycle Club
Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board
Downtown Seattle Association
Seattle Commission for People with Disabilities
Feet First
Seattle Design Commission
Friends of Waterfront Seattle
Seattle Freight Advisory Board
Historic South Downtown
Seattle Mariners
Historic Waterfront Association
Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Pike Place Market
Seattle Pedestrian Advisory Board
Port of Seattle
Transportation Choices Coalition
Pioneer Square Preservation Board
Washington State Public Stadium Authority
D-2

October 2016 - Waterfront Seattle FEIS

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

October 2016 - Waterfront Seattle FEIS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

October 2016 - Waterfront Seattle FEIS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alaskan Way, Promenade, and Overlook Walk

Seattle Department of Transportation

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI Statement to the Public

Edward B. Murray, Mayor

October 31, 2016

Scott Kubly, Dire r

Marshall Foster, Director

Tel (206) 684-ROAD / (206) 684-5000

Project Proponent and SEPA Lead Agency

OCTOBER 2016 | FINAL EIS

Document Availability and Cost

Major Public Projects Construction Noise Variance (City of Seattle)

Seattle Landmarks Board Approval (City of Seattle)

Pioneer Square Preservation Board Certificate of Approval (City of Seattle)

Pike Place Market Historical Commission Certificate of Approval (City of Seattle)

Master Use Permit for Shoreline Substantial Development (City of Seattle)

Street Use Permit (City of Seattle)

Authors and Principal Contributors

OCTOBER 2016 | FINAL EIS

OCTOBER 2016 | FINAL EIS

OCTOBER 2016 | FINAL EIS

OCTOBER 2016 | FINAL EIS

OCTOBER 2016 | FINAL EIS

OCTOBER 2016 | FINAL EIS

OCTOBER 2016 | FINAL EIS

OCTOBER 2016 | FINAL EIS

OCTOBER 2016 | FINAL EIS

Americans with Disabilities Act

Alaskan Way, Promenade, and Overlook Walk

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project

below ground surface

best management practice

Bonneville Power Administration

British thermal unit

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead

conditionally exempt small quantity generator

Code of Federal Regulations

Corrective Action Sites

Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List

Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List-No Further Action

combined sewer overflow

Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation

Elliott Bay Seawall Project

Washington State Department of Ecology

environmental impact statement

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Emergency Response Notification System

Endangered Species Act

Federal Highway Administration

geographic information system

Independent Cleanup Report

OCTOBER 2016 | FINAL EIS

equivalent sound pressure level

maximum noise level