DOCSLIB.ORG

ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX B Alternatives Description and Construction Methods Submitted by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Prepared by: PARAMETRIX J U L Y 2 0 1 1 Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project Final EIS Alternatives Description and Construction Methods Discipline Report The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project is a joint effort between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City of Seattle. To conduct this project, WSDOT contracted with: Parsons Brinckerhoff 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98104 In association with: Coughlin Porter Lundeen, Inc. EnviroIssues, Inc. GHD, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc. Mimi Sheridan, AICP Parametrix, Inc. Power Engineers, Inc. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. William P. Ott Construction Consultants SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project July 2011 Alternatives Description and Construction Methods Discipline Report Final EIS This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Background ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Construction Plans, Durations, and Sequencing ............................................................................. 3 1.4 Build Alternatives Overview ....................................................................................................................... 3 1.4.1 Elements Common to All Build Alternatives .................................................................................... 4 1.4.2 Bored Tunnel Overview ................................................................................................................... 5 1.4.3 Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative Overview ................................................................................... 8 1.4.4 Elevated Structure Alternative Overview ....................................................................................... 10 1.5 List of Final EIS Appendices .................................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Viaduct Closed (No Build Alternative) ...................................................................................................... 13 2.1.1 Viaduct Closed (No Build Alternative) 2030 Scenario 1: Sudden Unplanned Loss of SR 99 ........ 13 2.1.2 Viaduct Closed (No Build Alternative) 2030 Scenario 2: Catastrophic Failure and Collapse of SR 99 ....................................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.3 2015 Existing Viaduct .................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Elements Common to All Build Alternatives ............................................................................................ 14 2.2.1 Utility Relocations .......................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Viaduct Removal ........................................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Bored Tunnel Alternative ......................................................................................................................... 16 2.3.1 South Portal Area .......................................................................................................................... 16 2.3.2 Bored Tunnel Alignment – Central ................................................................................................ 21 2.3.3 North Portal Area ........................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.4 Battery Street Tunnel Decommissioning ....................................................................................... 24 2.3.5 Program Elements ......................................................................................................................... 27 2.4 Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative ........................................................................................................... 29 2.4.1 South – S. Royal Brougham Way to S. King Street ....................................................................... 29 2.4.2 Central – S. King Street to South Portal of Battery Street Tunnel ................................................. 32 2.4.3 Battery Street Tunnel – Portal to Portal ......................................................................................... 35 2.4.4 North – Battery Street Tunnel to Aloha Street ............................................................................... 36 2.5 Elevated Structure Alternative ................................................................................................................. 38 2.5.1 South – S. Royal Brougham Way to S. King Street ....................................................................... 38 2.5.2 Central – S. King Street to South Portal of Battery Street Tunnel ................................................. 40 2.5.3 Battery Street Tunnel – Portal to Portal ......................................................................................... 43 2.5.4 North – Battery Street Tunnel to Aloha Street ............................................................................... 43 2.5.5 Pine Street to Broad Street ............................................................................................................ 44 Chapter 3 Construction Elements and Methods .............................................................................................. 45 3.1 Construction Elements Common to All Build Alternatives ....................................................................... 45 3.1.1 Construction Staging Areas ........................................................................................................... 45 3.1.2 Construction Work Shifts ............................................................................................................... 49 3.1.3 Construction Haul Routes .............................................................................................................. 49 3.1.4 Construction Equipment ................................................................................................................ 50 3.1.5 Utility Relocations .......................................................................................................................... 51 SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project July 2011 Alternatives Description and Construction Methods Discipline Report i Final EIS 3.1.6 Seattle Ferry Terminal Access During Construction ...................................................................... 52 3.2 Bored Tunnel Alternative – Construction Methods for Major Elements ................................................... 53 3.2.1 Construction Risks and Ground Improvement Methods ................................................................ 53 3.2.2 South Portal Area Construction ..................................................................................................... 59 3.2.3 Bored Tunnel Construction ............................................................................................................ 60 3.2.4 North Portal Area Construction ...................................................................................................... 67 3.2.5 Viaduct Demolition ........................................................................................................................ 68 3.2.6 Battery Street Tunnel Decommissioning ....................................................................................... 69 3.2.7 Surface Street Improvements and Restoration of Utilities ............................................................. 69 3.3 Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative Construction Methods ....................................................................... 70 3.3.1 South – S. Royal Brougham Way to S. King Street ....................................................................... 70 3.3.2 Central – S. King Street to South Portal of Battery Street Tunnel ................................................. 71 3.3.3 North – Battery Street Tunnel to Aloha Street ............................................................................... 72 3.4 Elevated Structure Alternative Construction Methods ............................................................................. 73 3.4.1 South – S. Royal Brougham Way to S. King Street ....................................................................... 74 3.4.2 Central – S. King Street to South Portal of Battery Street Tunnel ................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Blue Urbanism: Inviting Urban Play on Seattle's North Waterfront Scan L Design Master Studio, Autumn 2014 [Larch 501/Arch504]
    Blue Urbanism: Inviting Urban Play on Seattle's North Waterfront Scan l Design Master Studio, Autumn 2014 [Larch 501/Arch504] Instructors: Nancy Rottle (LA), Jim Nicholls (ARCH), and Leann Andrews (PhD BE) Teaching Assistant: VeraEve Giampietro (LA & UDP) With Gehl Architects/Cititek: Bianca Hermansen GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR SEATTLE'S CENTRAL WATERFRONT (adopted by City Council): • 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 construction to operations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Seattle's Central Waterfront is heralded as one of the most significant civic projects in the city's history. With imminent removal of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and current replacement of the aging Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle has begun to envision and enact a great "waterfront for all." Removal of the viaduct and rerouting of Alaskan Way along the waterfront will create abundant new and qualitatively different public space, while the seawall replacement will provide for a more ecologically functional edge. However, while the team led by James Corner Field Operations has proposed and designed a new waterfront between Piers 48 and 62/63, less attention has been paid to the waterfront segment between Piers 62/63 and the Olympic Sculpture Park. With the reconfiguration of Alaskan Way, this northern segment offers rich opportunities for better public, pedestrian, bicycle and ecological space along a less-traveled roadway.
    [Show full text]
  • SDOT 2018 Traffic Report
    Seattle Department of Transportation 2018 TRAFFIC REPORT *2017 data CONTENTS 5 Executive Summary 7 Traffic Volumes and Speeds 8 Motor Vehicle Volumes 11 Traffic Flow Map 13 Bicycle Volumes 18 Pedestrian Volumes 21 Motor Vehicle Speeds 23 Traffic Collisions 24 Citywide Collision Rate 25 Fatal and Serious Injury Collisions 27 Pedestrian Collision Rate 30 Bicycle Collision Rate 33 Supporting Data 33 Volume Data 44 Speed Data 48 Historical Collision Data 50 2016 All Collisions 54 2016 Pedestrian Collisions 63 2016 Bicycle Collisions 75 Glossary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents an end of year review of This report is prepared in compliance with Seattle the core data sets the Seattle Department of Municipal Code 11.16.220, which requires the Transportation (SDOT) collects and maintains City Traffic Engineer to present an annual traffic including volumes, speeds, and collisions. The report that includes information about traffic use of this data, guided by department plans and trends and traffic collisions on City of Seattle policies, serves as the foundation for making streets. Beyond this legal requirement, the informed decisions on nearly all work at SDOT report strives to serve as an accessible reference from safety improvements to repaving to grant of Seattle traffic data and trends for all. applications. It is fundamental to measuring project performance. The breadth and depth of In gathering and compiling the information the data collected allows objective discussion of in this report, the Seattle Department of project merits and results, be it a new crosswalk Transportation does not waive the limitations on or an entire safety corridor. As the demands and this information’s discoverability or admissibility complexity of Seattle’s transportation network under 23 U.S.C § 409.
    [Show full text]
  • ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement
    ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX R Energy Discipline Report Submitted by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Prepared by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF J U L Y 2 0 1 1 Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project Final EIS Energy Discipline Report The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project is a joint effort between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City of Seattle. To conduct this project, WSDOT contracted with: Parsons Brinckerhoff 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98104 In association with: Coughlin Porter Lundeen, Inc. EnviroIssues, Inc. GHD, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc. Mimi Sheridan, AICP Parametrix, Inc. Power Engineers, Inc. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. William P. Ott Construction Consultants SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project July 2011 Energy Discipline Report Final EIS This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary .................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Summary of Analysis .................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 2 Methodology
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to Be Constructed in the Next 10 Years Table of Contents
    DOWNTOWN ACCESS STRATEGY PHASE 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years September 25, 2013 Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 II. Review of Existing Plans, Projects, and Programs ......................................... 2 III. Potential Construction Concerns and Opportunities .................................. 3 A. Existing Construction Planning Tools 3 B. SDOT’s Construction Hub Coordination Program 4 C. Construction Mitigation Strategies Used by Other Cities 7 D. Potential Construction Conflicts and Opportunities 10 IV. Future Transportation Network Opportunities ......................................... 12 A. North Downtown 12 B. Denny Triangle / Westlake Hub 14 C. Pioneer Square / Chinatown-ID 15 D. Downtown Core and Waterfront 16 V. Future Phases of Downtown Access Strategy ............................................. 18 A. Framework for Phase 2 (2014 through 2016) 18 B. Framework for Phase 3 (Beyond 2016) 19 - i - September 25, 2013 Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years I. INTRODUCTION Many important and long planned transportation and development projects are scheduled for con- struction in Downtown Seattle in the coming years. While these investments are essential to support economic development and job growth and to enhance Downtown’s stature as the region’s premier location to live, work, shop and play, in the short-term they present complicated challenges for con- venient and reliable access to and through Downtown. The Downtown Seattle Association (DSA) and its partners, Historic South Downtown (HSD) and the Seat- tle Department of Transportation (SDOT), seek to ensure that Downtown Seattle survives and prospers during the extraordinarily high level of construction activity that will occur in the coming years.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program
    Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Program Central Waterfront 01.09 Learning, Listening, and Moving Ahead - Replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall A diverse group of elected offi cials, transportation “As I spoke with individuals and business leaders, fi ve objectives agencies and experts, interest groups, and the public have emerged that guided my decision making. First, the solution must worked over the last year on a solution for the Alaskan improve safety by removing the existing unsafe viaduct. Second, Way Viaduct and Seawall along the central waterfront. the solution must be affordable, and the state’s contribution to Six principles guided the evaluation of possible solutions and eight scenarios were evaluated. Each scenario included the solution must not be over $2.8 billion. Third, the solution investments to transit, city streets, I-5, SR 99, and demand must cause the least construction disruption to our maritime management strategies. What we learned provides a industry and central waterfront businesses. Fourth, the solution critical foundation for reaching a decision. must provide capacity and mobility now and in the future, for freight, vehicles, and transit users. And fi fth, the solution must The following is a summary of the six guiding principles: contribute to improving the health of our environment and open up Seattle’s waterfront. I have concluded that the bored tunnel • Improve public safety. hybrid alternative is the most balanced solution and best meets these objectives.” • Provide effi cient movement of people and –Governor Chris Gregoire goods now and in the future. • Maintain or improve downtown Seattle, “This agreement will improve our transportation system, improve regional, the port and state economies.
    [Show full text]
  • ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement
    ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX L Economics Discipline Report Submitted by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Prepared by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF J U L Y 2 0 1 1 Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project Final EIS Economics Discipline Report The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project is a joint effort between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City of Seattle. To conduct this project, WSDOT contracted with: Parsons Brinckerhoff 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98104 In association with: Coughlin Porter Lundeen, Inc. EnviroIssues, Inc. GHD, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc. Mimi Sheridan, AICP Parametrix, Inc. Power Engineers, Inc. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. William P. Ott Construction Consultants SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project July 2011 Economics Discipline Report Final EIS This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Build Alternatives Overview ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1 Overview of Bored Tunnel Alternative (Preferred) ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Questions for Seattle Mayoral Candidates – Magnolia Chamber of Commerce
    Questions for Seattle Mayoral Candidates – Magnolia Chamber of Commerce The Magnolia Chamber of Commerce believes that an educated, engaged electorate is one of the key aspects of a thriving community. To assist our members, the local business community, and Magnolia residents better understand our Seattle mayoral candidates, we are asking each candidate to please fill out the questionnaire covering topics important to the Magnolia neighborhood AND/OR be interviewed one-on-one by our executive director, relying on the techniques we have developed for our Chamber Chat series (see Chamber Chat interview with Councilmember Andrew Lewis) Each mayoral candidate will be asked the exact same questions. We will post your video and/or your written answers on our website and make available to our members via a special election newsletter that will go out before the primary election date. About the Magnolia Chamber of Commerce. The Magnolia Chamber represents just over 370 Magnolia businesses and family members. Our mission is to add to the vibrancy of our community by fostering connections between Magnolia’s businesses, residents, and community groups. Our purpose is to promote civic and commercial progress in our business districts and neighborhood. Learn more about the Magnolia Chamber by visiting https://discovermagnolia.org/ For questions and/or to set up a video interview, please contact Jason Thibeaux, Executive Director, Magnolia Chamber of Commerce. Seattle Mayoral Candidate Questions (these questions can be answered either by video with our Executive Director, Jason Thibeaux at 206-618-1589 or [email protected] and/or filled out and sent to the Magnolia Chamber, 3213 West Wheeler Street, #42, Seattle, WA 98199 Good Governance, Effective Leadership 1.
    [Show full text]
  • WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE CLOSURE Transit Action Plan FINAL
    WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE CLOSURE Transit Action Plan FINAL July 2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Transit Action Plan .................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction/Problem Statement ................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose of Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Mobility Planning for 2021 and Beyond ................................................................................................... 6 Goals & Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Challenges/Opportunities ......................................................................................................................... 7 Travel Markets .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Data Analytics ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Freeway Network Usage and Performance
    CentralPugetSound FREEWAY NETWORK USAGE AND PERFORMANCE Washington State Department of Transportation 1999 Update, Volume 1 Washington State Transportation Center Research Report Research Project T1803, Task 19 FLOW Evaluation Central Puget Sound FREEWAY NETWORK USAGE AND PERFORMANCE 1999 Update, Volume 1 by Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC) University of Washington, Box 354802 John M. Ishimaru University District Building Senior Research Engineer 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 535 Jennifer Nee Seattle, Washington 98105-4631 Research Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation Mark E. Hallenbeck Technical Monitor , David P. McCormick Director Regional Traffic Engineer Prepared for Washington State Transportation Commission Department of Transportation and in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Network Usage and Performance 1 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. WA-RD 493.1 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Central Puget Sound Freeway Network Usage and Performance, May 2001 1999 Update, Volume 1 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. John M. Ishimaru, Jennifer Nee, and Mark E. Hallenbeck 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC) University of Washington, Box 354802 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. University District Building; 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 535 Agreement T1803, Task 19 Seattle, Washington 98105-4631 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED Washington State Department of Transportation Research report Transportation Building, MS 7370 Olympia, Washington 98504-7370 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE Project Manager Gary Ray, 360-705-7975 15.
    [Show full text]
  • Digging Deep Into the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project
    “Digging Deeper into the Alaskan Way Viaduct OrganizationReplacement Program” DateTim Moore PE, SE WSDOT Mega Projects Bridge Manager June 12, 2017 Today’s FOCUS • Concrete Innovation • Holgate to King • South cut‐and‐cover • Bored tunnel • South Dearborn street off‐ramp • The path forward This is a SAFETY project The viaduct and neighboring seawall are vulnerable to earthquakes The viaduct in 1953 Geography vS. drivers Building a new SR 99 Corridor Today’s FOCUS • Why it matters • Holgate to King • South cut‐and‐cover • Bored tunnel • South Dearborn street off‐ramp • The path forward 12 PSG Spans 1900’ Length (200,000 sq ft) Stage 2: Holgate to King Building SOUTH ACCESS 4’-1” 6 ¼” ” WF74G to WF100G 8’-4 WF100G $250/sq ft Super GIRDERS Building SOUTH ACCESS $320/sq ft 65,000 sq ft Building SOUTH ACCESS R = 38’ R = 70’ Building SOUTH ACCESS Gateway to the SEATTLE TUNNEL Today’s FOCUS • Why it matters • Holgate to King • South cut‐and‐cover • Bored tunnel • South Dearborn street off‐ramp • The path forward Future SOUTH PORTAL South operations building Launch pit Cut and cover tunnel Building the SOUTH PORTAL South End Settlement Mitigation SESMP – 670 shafts South Cut & Cover – 1050 shafts King Main Jackson Washington Tunnel Alignment N Today’s FOCUS • Why it matters • Holgate to King • South cut‐and‐cover • Bored tunnel • South Dearborn street off‐ramp • The path forward 270’ max depth 150’ below WT Poor, unconsolidated soils Till deposits Cohesionless sand and gravel – regional aquifer Cohesionless silt and fine sand Cohesive clay and silt Till‐like deposits GEOLOGIC Profile This is available as an interactive map online at www.AlaskanWayViaduct.org and at Milepost 31.
    [Show full text]
  • WEST SEATTLE CORRIDOR BRIDGES REHABILITATION and STRENGTHENING Restoring Mobility, Economic Vitality, and Equity for the Puget Sound Region
    Seattle Department of Transportation WEST SEATTLE CORRIDOR BRIDGES REHABILITATION AND STRENGTHENING Restoring Mobility, Economic Vitality, and Equity for the Puget Sound Region Submitted to Submitted by Build America Bureau Office of the Secretary of Transportation, USDOT FY 2021 INFRA Grant Application WEST SEATTLE BRIDGES PROJECT Basic Project Information West Seattle Corridor Bridges Rehabilitation and What is the Project Name? Strengthening Who is the Project Sponsor? City of Seattle Was an INFRA application for this project No submitted previously? Project Costs INFRA Request Amount $21,600,000 Estimated Federal funding (excluding INFRA) $14,400,000 Estimated non-Federal funding anticipated to be $18.820,000 used in INFRA funded future project. Future Eligible Project Cost (Sum of previous three $54,820,000 rows) Previously incurred project costs (if applicable) $16.650,000 Total Project Cost (Sum of ‘previous incurred’ and $71,470,000 ‘future eligible’ Are matching funds restricted to a specific project No component? If so, which one? Project Eligibility Approximately how much of the estimated future Approximately $11.39 million (21% of estimated eligible project costs will be spent on components of future eligible project costs) will be spent on the project currently located on National Highway components of the project currently located on the Freight Network (NHFN)? NHFN. Approximately how much of the estimated future eligible project costs will be spent on components of All future eligible project costs will be spent on the project
    [Show full text]
  • ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement
    ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX M Air Discipline Report Submitted by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Prepared by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF J U L Y 2 0 1 1 Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project Final EIS Air Discipline Report The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project is a joint effort between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City of Seattle. To conduct this project, WSDOT contracted with: Parsons Brinckerhoff 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98104 In association with: Coughlin Porter Lundeen, Inc. EnviroIssues, Inc. GHD, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc. Mimi Sheridan, AICP Parametrix, Inc. Power Engineers, Inc. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. William P. Ott Construction Consultants SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project July 2011 Air Discipline Report Final EIS This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Summary ..............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Alternatives Considered .............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Build Alternatives Overview .......................................................................................................................2 1.2.1 Bored Tunnel Overview ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]