I    1
Port Commissions Pub"
MeetingMM
Port_
of Seattle"

February 2, 2010

TO:     Port of Seattle Commissioners

FROM:   Geri Poor, Regional Transportation
Mike Merritt, Local Government Relations
Sally del Fierro, Public Affairs

RE:      Viaduct Draft Memorandum of Agreement 
Community input received to date

A copy of the draft MOA was released to the community
on Thursday, January 28. To
date, the following letters and emails have been received; copies are attached. We will
keep you posted as additional input is received.

Letters received from:

1.  Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board
2. Magnolia Community Club (1/22/2010  Diana Dearmin, 2010 President)
3. Magnolia Community Club (1/22/2009  Randall Thomsen, 2009 President)
4. Queen Anne Community Council
5. Wenatchee Valley Trafc Association

E-mails received from:

1.  Rick Blackmore, Total Terminals Int'l
2. Ian Firth, West Seattle Resident
3. Scott Francis, Seattle Resident
4. Charles and Jean Gibbs, Bellevue Residents
wwwa  Ron Hildebrandt, Trident Seafoods Corporation
.  John C. Havekotte
F.N. Harvey
Kevin C. Austin, Bellevue
.  Charles M. Northrip, Central Waterfront Resident

(\  ,(wl..3:..

STATE .OF WASHINGTON
FREIGHT MOBILITY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT BOARD
1063 Capitol Way, Rm. 201 - PO Box 40965 '- Olympia, WA 98564-0965 3 (360) 586-9695 0 FAX (360} 586-9700


January 22, 2010
Patricia Otley,
Chair

Karen Schmidt,      Port of Seattle Commissioners
Executive Director
PO Box 1209
Seattle, WA 98111
Board Members
Dear Commission President Bryant:

CliffBenson
As the state's freight board charged with developing a comprehensive state
program to
facilitate freight movement, we recognize the importance ofthe replacement for the
Teresa Bemsten
SR99 Alaskan Way Viaduct in the form ofthe bored tunnel program and
John Creighton
complementary system improvements.
Dave Edler
The Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall are vital for freight mobility for the robust
Terry Finn         industrial and manufacturing businesses throughout our state. Specically, the corridor
is critical to the companies related to marine-cargo operations - and the 33,000 jobs
Rebecca Francik
and $2.8 billion in income supported by those operations.
Dave Gossett
The region must move forward and implement a replacement project without
Paula Hammond                                                          any more
delay. The current economic downtown makes it imperative that we get to work on
Steve Holtgeerts
projects that will enable our economy to grow.
Larry Paulson
Replacement of the Viaduct is an issue vital to Washington State, and the many
Brian Ziegler       businesses that depend on the Port as their gateway to world markets. AlSo supporting
the tunnel are other major Eastern Washington agricultural interests, including
Web Site        Anderson Hay and Grain of Ellensburg, the Wenatchee Valley Trafc Association and
www. (msz'b. wa. gov    the Yakima Valley Growers and Shippers Association.

We understand that you are contemplating participation in the funding package of this
major investment. We endorse such investment in recognition ofthe critical role
provided in this corridor. If the state hopes to retain and attract new business, the
transportation network must have capacity for growth. Without a strong transportation
system, we run the risk of losing jobs and economic opportunity to more competitive
communities.

January 22, 2010
Page 2


FMSIB has supported past priorities that the Port of Seattle has also endorsed:
0  Connectivity between the north and south industrial areas of Seattle   and
between Sea-Tac Airport and the new Smith Cove cruise terminal,
as the cruise
industry's expansion generates new jobs and more state and local taxes
0  Maintenance and expansion of capacity for businesses during their economic
recovery, and future economic growth
'
0  Minimal disruption to waterfront businesses during construction.

While we are not nancially involved in the viaduct, we are involved in other projects
feeding into this portion of the corridor to make a more comprehensive, coordinated
route for freight.

The board voted, at our January 22, 2010 meeting, to support the port in making this
commitment.

\Please feel free to contact our ofce ifyou have any questions.

Sincerely,

Patricia Otley
Chair

Magnolia Community Club
MAGNOLIA'S COMMUNITY COUNCIL

Est. 1924
January 22, 2010
OFFICERS
VIA U.S. MAIL & EMAIL
President
Diana Deannin
Mr. Bill Bryant, President             Mr. Tom Albro, Commissioner
Vice President
Port of Seattle Commissioners          Port of Seattle
Michele March]
PO. Box 1209                 PO. Box 1209
Treasurer            Seattle, WA 981 1 1                           Seattle, WA 98111
Rob Viison
Mr. John Creighton, Commissioner      Ms. Gael Tarleton, Commissioner
Recording Ofcer
Port of Seattle
Richard Piacentinl                                                           Port of Seattle
PO. Box 1209                 P.O. Box 1209
Membership Ofcer      Seattle, WA 98111                          Seattle, WA 98111
Scott Forster
Mr. Rob Holland, Commissioner
Past President
Randall Thomsen       Port of Seattle
PO. Box 1209
TRUSTEES
Seattle, WA 98111
Robert Bismuth
Becky Brauer
Bruce Carter                 Re:  Viaduct Replacement Project
Stephen DeForest
Gene Hogiund
Dear President and Commissioners:
Michele March?
Tom Tanner
I write on behalf of the Magnolia Community Club which represents the
approximately 24,000 residents of Magnolia. A year ago we wrote to the Port
Commissioners to request that the Port withhold mding support for the
Viaduct replacement project until the Port has received concrete
Magnolia                                                       assurances the
Community Club   proposed project will provide: (1) a northwest access point for communities to
PO. Box 99564   the north and (2) continued capacity to service existing and planned vehicle
Seattle, WA      trips through the Viaduct corridor.  Our representatives have also appeared
981 39-0564      before you on this issue as well. A copy of
our letter is provided for your easy
206.283.1 188
reference.

Although progress has been made on the Viaduct replacement program
and related projects, we believe there is insufcient evidence that the above-
suggested criteria for Port funding has been met. For example:

0  Trafc Congestion Is Worsening Along The 15th Avenue
WlElliott Avenue W Corridor. Backups along 15'11 Avenue W.


www.magnoiiaoommunityclub.org

January 22, 2010
Page 2
and Elliott Avenue W. have been made worse by the City's
implementation of the BAT lanes.  This congestion has been
further aggravated by trafc associated with the cruise ship
industry relocation to Pier 91. The Port's plans to increase the
number of cruises departing from Pier 91 will add more traffic to
the corridor.  While SDOT has made some limited attempts to
improve the trafc situation along the Corridor relating to the BAT
lane designation, its actions to date have been inadequate. While
the  Magnolia  Community  Club  has  suggested  additional
improvements, including converting the BAT lanes to HOV lanes,
SDOT does not appear willing to make these improvements.
Because congestion along this corridor impacts the Port,
particularly its service of Pier 91, we believe that the Port should
demand that SDOT meaningfully address this issue before
committing to fund the Viaduct replacement project.

The West Mercer Project Is Critical To Moving Freight And
Trafc. The West Mercer Project has the potential to signicantly
help move trafc coming from 15th Avenue W./Elliott Avenue W.
along Mercer to access the proposed North Portal and LS.
However, the design parameters for the West Mercer Project
remain undened and uncertain.  For instance, SDOT has not
committed to how it will address existing and future traic
congestion at the intersection of Elliott Avenue W and W. Mercer
Place. SDOT has not committed to ensuring there are sufcient
eastbound lanes going up the hill at W. Mercer Place to prevent the
stacking up of vehicles, especially trucks and buses, in the two
southbound left turn lanes on Elliott Avenue. As you may know,
Rapid Ride bus service is expected to begin in 2012 and the
proposed bus route is up W. Mercer Place. Even now, during rush
hour, vehicles oen extend beyond the leturn lanes into the
general-purpose lanes. SDOT asserts that the Mercer West Project
is intended to reduce traffic congestion and improve trafc ow.
To date, however, no creditable or independent technical report has
been produced to substantiate this claim or clarify how these
important goals will be achieved. Most importantly, the Mercer
West project funding is uncertain. There is no assurance that
funding will be found to implement this important link to a
successful Viaduct replacement program. Timely funding of this
project is essential so that all ofthe West Mercer improvements are
in place to ease access to the bored tunnel and 1-5 once the Viaduct
is removed and while the new Alaska Way or Central Conidor is
being constructed - a time period of some two to three years. We
believe that the Port should insist on denitive answers to the
above issues before committing any funding to the Viaduct
program.

January 22, 2010
Page 3

o  The New Central Corridor Is An Unknown. The new Alaska
Way/new Central Conidor has been shown in concept only. Many
ofthe critical design parameters that will determine how efciently
trafc will ow though this conidor are unknown. Moreover, the
impact of the proposed tolls on the new Central Corridor needs to
be fully understood before the Port agrees to contribute mds for
the project. Initial studies indicate that drivers will use alternative
routes, including the new Central Corridor, to avoid paying tolls to
use the tunnel, which would increase trafc on the new Central
Corridor.

The Magnolia Community Club reasserts and reminds both the new and
incumbent Commissioners of our request that the Port make no nancial
commitments to the Viaduct replacement program unless WSDOT and SDOT have
provided iron-clad assurances to the Port on the issues we have raised. At the end
ofthe day, it is critical that there be adequate vehicle-carrying capacity and mobility
to service existing and planned vehicle trips coming from the northwest (1) to
access the North portal via W. Mercer Place and (2) along the Central corridor for
residents living and working to the north, as well as 'eight, maritime and industrial
vehicles and cruise ship trafc associated with Pier 91.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
21m
DeanninW9"
President, 201 0
Enclosure

cc: Governor Christine Gregoire
Mayor Mike McGinn
Seattle City Council
King County Executive Dow Constantine
Larry Phillips, King County Council Environment and Transportation Chair
State Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
State Representative Reuven Carlyle
State Representative Mary Lou Dickerson
Mary Margaret Haugen, State Senate Transportation Chair
Judy Clibbom, State House Transportation Committee Chair
Tay Yoshitani, CEO Port of Seattle

Magnolia Community Club MAGNOLIA'S COMMUNITY COUNCIL
January 22! 2009
OFHOG'S
Mr. Bill Bryant, President             Mr. Lloyd Hara, Commissioner
President
Randall Thomson       Port of Seattle Commissioners              Port of Seattle
P.0. Box 1209                  PO. Box 1209
Vlce Presldent
Seattle, WA 98111               Seattle, WA 98111
Diana 09min

Treasurer            Mr. John Creighton, Commissioner          Ms. Gael Tarleton, Commissioner
Rob Wilson          Port of Seattle                              Port of Seattle
PO. Box 1209                 PO. Box 1209
Recording Ofcer
Seattle, WA 98111
Richard Piacanlini
Seattle, WA 98111

Membership Ofcer      Ms. Patricia Davis, Commissioner
Seen Forster
Port of Seattle
Past President
PO. Box 1209
Nancy Rogers        Seattle, WA 98111

TRUSTEES
Re: Viaduct Replacement Project
Chris Balka

Robert Bismh

Diana Deannln       Dear President and Commissioners:
Stephen DeForest
Gene Hoglund
I am writing on behalf of the Magnolia Community Club and am
Michele Marchi
Jose Montano
requesting that the Port of Seattle (Port) withhold funding support for the
Marianne Pails       recently announced "Deep Bored Tunnel" as the replacement for the Viaduct
Tom Tanror        until the Port has received assurances the proposed project will pro'vide: (I) a
northwest access point for communities to the north, and that (2) the
replacement project will provide continued capacity to service existing and
Magnolia      planned vehicle trips through the corridor.
Community Club
PO. Box 99564       The Magnolia Community Club has represented Magnolia neighborhood
Seattle. WA     interests since 1924, making it one of the oldest community councils in the City
98139-0564
of Seattle. As a neighborhood west of downtown Seattle, many of our residents
206.283.] 188
are dependent on the Alaskan Way Viaduct andlor northsouth city streets for
daily access to and through downtown Seattle. We also recognize that many of
our commercial goods travel these routes, and that the maritime commerce that
surrounds our neighborhood is dependent upon easy and efficient access
through the downtown corridor.


www.magnotiacommunityclub.org

Port of Seattle Commissioners
January 22,, 2009
Page 2

Our club was pleased to note that the Port's recent statement of January 13, 2009
related to the viaduct issued by Mr. Tay Yoshitani, in which he asserted interests similar
as those expressed by our organization. Specifically, the Port's statement states that the
"Commission called for a solution that ensures access to the Port's
cargo, cmise and
shing terminals in the waterfront, as well as Terminal 91 to the north." The Port's
statement also provides "we need strong connections for freight trafc between
Duwarnish, Interbay, and Ballar ." The Port also makes note of the new cruise terminal
at Terminal 91. The Port previously has advised that Terminal 91 will generate
approximately 5,000 vehicles per day using 15'h Avenue West to load and unload Cruise
ships. We were particularly heartened to read that the Port "will not short change our
cargo, shing, and cruise customers" in regards to the Viaduct replacement project.

The Magnolia Community Club's position, articulated a number of
years ago and
restated to our political leaders as late as 2008, is that
any Viaduct replacement project
must provide a northwest access point for our community and provide continued capacity
to service existing and planned trips through the corridor. We supported the Port's plans
to establish a cruise ship terminal at Terminal 91 on the presumption our expressed
interests would be met.

The recent public announcements regarding the proposed "Deep Boned Tunnel"
project do not adequately address our mutual interests of providing a northwest access
point. The announcements also do not specify how the proposed project will provide
continued capacity and mobility to service existing and planned vehicle trips through the
corridor. We are especially concerned that the current proposal does not account for the
Port's intended cruise ship terminal at Terminal 91 and the associated vehicle trafc that
will result.

We request that the Port of Seattle Commission make
no nancial commitments
to the proposed Viaduct replacement project until the Port receives firm commitments
that the project will provide: (1) a northwest access point for
our community as well as
maritime, shing, industrial and cruise industries to the north; and (2) continued capacity
and mobility to service existing and planned trips through the corridor. In particular, we
request you ensure trafc associated with the cruise ship terminal at Terminal 91 is
accommodated in a satisfying manner.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
.Zwa/xm
Randall Thomsen
President (2009)

Port of Seattle Commissioners
January 22, 2009
Page 3

CC:    Governor Christine Gregoire
Mayor Greg Nickels
Seattle City Council
Bxecmive Ron Sims
Larry Phillips, King County Council
State Senator Jeanne KohleelIes
State Representative Reuven Carlyle
State Representative Mary Lou Dickerson
Mary Margaret Haugen, State Senate Transportation Chair
Judy Clibborn, State House TransportatiOn Committee Chair
Tay Yoshitani '

Mailbox, Regional-Transeortation

From:            Ellen Monrad [elmonrad@gmail.com]
Sent:              Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:08 PM
To:               Mabox,Regbnmhansponaon
Subject:            viaduct replacement program
Attachments:        QACCviaductreplacementfunding10.doc

Dear Commissioners,

I have attached a letter from the Queen Anne Community Council
concerning our concerns with
your committing funds to the Viaduct Replacement.

Thank you

Ellen Monrad
chair, QACC


QUEEN ANNE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
1818 IST AVENUE W
SEATTLE, WA 98119
January 30, 2010
Dear President and Commissioners:

The Queen Anne Community Council requests that the Port of Seattle
withhold funding support for the Viaduct Replacement
program, until the
Port has received concrete assurances from the City of Seattle
on the West
Mercer element of the Mercer Corridor Project. Additionally, the recently
released tolling study raises concerns that the "diversion" of vehicle trafc
from the tunnel onto the new Alaska Way may cause the
new Central
Corridor not to mction as efciently as originally planned to carry
freight, all vehicular trafc and perform as part of a route to SeaTac
Airport from the Queen Anne neighb0rhoods. Both these issues should be
satisfactorily resolved before the Port commits nancial resources to the
Viaduct Program.

The Mercer West Project has the potential to significantly improve trafc
ow from 15th Avenue W/Elliot Avenue W. along Mercer to
access the
proposed North Portal and 1-5. This project is an essential and integral part
of making the North Portal access successful for the Queen Anne,
Magnolia, Interbay and Ballard communities as well as commerce,
maritime and industrial users to the north including from Pier 90/91.
Unfortunately, there is no commitment in place yet to fully fund this
project. The essential design parameters for the project have not yet been
made known to the public or the Port. Because of the lack of funding
support there is no commitment for timely completion of the Mercer West
project. It is important to recognize that timely completion of this project
is essential, so that all of the West Mercer improvements are in place to
ease access to the bored tunnel and 1-5 once the viaduct is removed and
while the new Alaskan Way is being constructed. We have heard an
estimate that there will be a two to three year period of downtime
on the
Central Waterfront right of way during Viaduct demolition and the
new
surface street construction.

WSDOT recently released their initial tolling study. The results of that
study raise serious concerns regarding the diversion of trafc from the
bored tunnel to the new Alaska Way. At the recent North Portal Working
Group meeting Port, City of Seattle, and WSDOT professional
transportation staff as well as industry, commerce and community
representatives all expressed concerns regarding the potential impacts of
these diversions on the new Alaskan Way. The impacts and
consequences

of these diversions and the means for mitigating these impacts
are not yet
understood.

We request the Port withhold funding support for the Viaduct
Replacement program until you have received: (1) satisfactory assurances
on the timely funding and completion of the Mercer West Project and (2)
until you understand and accept the consequences of tolling impacts
on the

new surface Alaskan Way and its capacity to support freight movements
and all other trafc. These two issues are critical to the successful
operations of the Port and are especially critical to your neighbors in the
Queen Anne, Magnolia, Interbay and Ballard communities.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Queen Anne Community Council

Wenatchee Valley Trafc Association
37 S. Wenatchee Ave - Suite B ~ Wenatchee, WA 98801
509-662-2138 ~ Fax 509-662-3127 ~ ctpwvtrafccom


To: Port of Seattle Commission:
RE: Alaska Way Viaduct and Seawall replacement
program
Bored Tunnel Alternative

I am writing to you today in support ofthe proposed Port 'of Seattle Memorandum of
Agreement with Washington State regarding the SR 99 Alaskan Way Viaduct. The
Wenatchee Valley Trafc Association is a tree fruit organization representing the
grower/shipper community in North Central Washington. Each year our members export
in excess of 15,000 truckloads of fresh apples,
pears, and cherries to markets throughout
the world. A majority ofthis product goes through Port of Seattle facilities. Our
member's competitiveness is directly impacted by the ability of
our regional ports to
move goods effectively and efciently.

Throughout last year's debate around which alternative was best for freight mobility in
the Puget Sound region, it was clear that the Seattle deep bore tunnel
was the most
practical solution in the near and long term. From our member's standpoint, it means that
the port will continue to function efciently as construction
occurs, and they can continue
to move their product without interruption through the port's terminals. This is essential
not only for our shippers but for any business that uses the Port of Seattle's facilities.

It is imperative that this Washington State transportation system continues to
support
eight movement, which in turn drives not only your local economy, but also the
businesses and economies of Central and Eastern Washington. I
urge you to vote for this
important piece of legislation.

Charles T. Pomianek
Executive Director

We,TPW
Wenatchee Valley Trafc Association


in;



,
._,-._
_-~,u
,4. ...
. 7..~__4._.4
4V 7"Mlg_ta.ww._
7
_,-_




-----Original Message---
From: Rick Blackmore  TTI [mailto:rickb@totalterminals.com]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2916 2:11 PM
To: Shultz, Mick
Cc: Wolf, Christine; Burke, Michael; Queen, Steve
Subject: RE: Alaskan Way Viaduct agreement

Mick,
While I certainly support what the
new viaduct brings to our area of the waterfront
(Atlantic
intersection), I do not have a strong preference related to tunnel or other options
as the
south end is already determined with only minor changes that could
occur depending on what
shakes out.  I can certainly voice my opinion
on the challenges we currently face and what
I
perceive will be an excellent final product when all complete.

Rick Blackmore

Total Terminals International, LLC.

Office 206382-8257

Cell 296 992 5699

www.ttisea.com


The substance of this message, including any attachments, is for the use of the intended
recipient and may contain privileged and confidential information of this Company
or its
affiliates.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from
reviewing, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing or using this information in
and are hereby requested to contact the sender                         any way,
by reply email and destroy all copies of the
original message.

a


Mailbox, Regional-Transportation

From:            lan Firth [firthi@comcast.net]
Sent:              Monday, February 01, 2010 1:01 PM
To:               Mailbox, Regional-Transportation
Subject:            Personal Input on the Funding of the Tunnel by the Port

| live in West Seattle. Through my taxes I support the Port of Seattle, the City of Seattle, King County
and the Sate of Washington. I along with a majority of voters rejected the tunnel for the following
reasons: cost, less accessible to north south traffic, unpredictability of cost
over-runs, and lack of
significant benefits for Seattle residents. The Port of Seattle in agreeing to help fund this project is
using my property taxes, so in effect they are committing money that they receive from me. This is
almost as galling as the Port raising my property taxes without my consent, which they have done in
the past.
In these times, prudence should be the order of the day, and above all, the Port of Seattle needs to
be responsive to the will of the people. The Port did the responsible thing in not raising
my taxes for
this year, and I expect this trend to continue with increased income only coming with increased value.
We are in tough times, and rosy forecasts of benefits and costs need to be studied further before
committing my money to bail this fiasco out.

Ian C. Firth
2349 Harbor Ave. SE
Seattle, WA 98126
Tel. 206 420 8853

Mailbox, Regional-Transportation

From:            Scott Francis [francisscott@comcast.net]
Sent:              Monday, February 01, 2010 11:07 AM
To:              Mailbox, Regional-Transportation
Subject:            Public Comment regarding viaduct replacement

Dear Port Commissioners,

As a long-term Seattle resident that regularly uses the Viaduct and visits the Seattle waterfront, I am against the tunnel
option for the following reasons:
1.  Costs are much higher than the Viaduct replacement option.
The potential for cost overrides are much higher for the tunnel option. This risk is too high.
9WPWP   The tunnel has restrictive access through downtown area.
The tunnel hinders movement of freight in/out of terminal areas.
The Viaduct is one of our nicest scenic drives. My family and I enjoy and appreciate the view from the Viaduct.
The tunnel provides a great benefit to adjacent property owners downtown that will have improved views and
less noise. However, the community as a whole is not benefited.

I strongly encourage the Port Commission to vote against the Tunnel Option and vote in favor of the Viaduct
Replacement option.

Best regards,

Scott Francis

Mailbox, Regional-Transportation

From:            tom gibbs [gibb361@msn.com]
Sent:              Thursday, January 28, 2010 4:46 PM
To:               Mailbox, Regional-Transportation
Subject:            POS contribution to Alaskan Way replacement

We believe that the Port of Seattle must meet its obligations under the MOA. At least $300 million from the
Port is
appropriate.

Charles Gibbs
Jean Gibbs

1708 Bellevue Way NE
Bellevue, WA 98004

Mailbox, Regional-Transportation

From:            Ron Hildebrandt [ronh@TridentSe'afoods.com]
Sent:              Saturday, January 30, 2010 1:32 AM
To:               MaHbox,Remonminansponaon
Cc:              del Fierro, Sally; Ron Hildebrandt
Subject:            Port of Seattle Contribution to the Viaduct Replacement

Friday, January 29, 2016

Port of Seattle Commission
PO Box 1209
Seattle, WA 98111

Re:    Port of Seattle Viaduct Replacement Contribution
Trident Seafoods Corporation supports the Port of Seattle contributing to the viaduct
replacement as long as the expenditure is connected firmly to a portion of the project that
directly benefits the ports primary customers.
The Port should directly earmark any funds to specific line item or items in the viaduct
replacement that improves access to and from existing Port property, and not be given until
proof that the designated project is completed.  We would suggest that the funds be sent
only on completion of those items.
It is vital that a suitable replacement solution be found that provides continuous access to
areas that support the maritime cluster located in the Ballard and Interbay areas.  Without

a clear plan that allows the flow of goods and services that support the fishing fleet and
supporting businesses, they will be forced to move, and the vital jobs that are the mission
of the Port will be lost.
Best Regards,
Ron Hildebrandt
Chief Logistics Officer
Trident Seafood's Corporation

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information in this message is intended only for the addressee or the addressee's
authorized agent. The message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or
otherwise exempt from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient
or the recipient's authorized agent, then you are notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please reply to the sender and then delete the message.

Mailbox, Regional-Transportation

From:            John "Hooper" Havekotte [4.hooper.4@comcast.net]
Sent:              Monday, February 01, 2010 10:51 AM
To:               Mailbox, Regional-Transportation
Subject:            Comments on Viaduct MOA

Dear Commissioners,

I think that you should withhold funding for this project, because I think that
the design is awed. The
present design does not address the need for access to this north/south corridor by businesses/folks
living
and working in the NW quadrant of the city. In addition,
current plans for tolls will focus the nancial
load on only the users of the tunnel rather than the beneciaries of the
tunnel (We all benet!) Lastly, the
current plan for responsibility for cost overruns to fall on the shoulders of Seattle
residents is completely
unacceptable. Please do not support the current design and plan!

John C Havekotte
Hooper The House Doctor
206-818-1867


Mailbox, Regional-Transportation

From:            fnharvey [fnharvey@zipcon.net]
Sent:              Monday, February 01, 2010 6:01 PM
To:               Mailbox, Regional-Transportation
Cc:              genensusan@comcast.net; campbell.beth@comcast.net
Subject:            public comment on viaduct

The Port Commission has responsibility for the Port of Seattle, a deep-water port requiring
no dredging compared to most others.  Why do you want to contribute funds to the ongoing
scam?  If you have enough money for the deep-bored tunnel boondoggle supposed replacement
for the elevated AWV section of State Route 99, then maybe you no longer need to levy taxes
on us and we can just give more to the city of Seattle (which we'll probably wind up doing
anyway).

Please read carefully what I've written below including going to the web sites that I've
indicated for important explanatory information.
Thank you.

A "done deal", spending public money for a less functional deep-bored tunnel to replace the
elevated Alaskan Way Viaduct section of State Route 99, based on alleged fraud and deception
should be re-examined and, if necessary, "undone".

Here is URL discussing reasons for elevated AWV,

htt :  www. src.or  assets 2556 item 8192. df

and,

Go to www.5catnow.com and scroll down to the report from professional engineer, Christopher
V. Brown, discussing why the proposed deep-bored tunnel would be unsafe as currently studied
and planned

There are several parts to the fraud and deception allegation.

1. That the majority supports the deep-bored tunnel is false.  The majority in Puget Sound
prefer an elevated SR99.

2. The Seattle Stakeholder Advisory Committee did not represent the stakeholders of SR99 but
mainly greedy Seattle interests.

3. After two months, WSDOT has still not answered the questions below about the TV and
youtube video showing the existing AWV collapsing:

Was this video tied to a computer simulation
with adjustable parameters, or was it just a
SCARY propaganda movie?

If it was based on a computer simulation,
how was it validated?  Was data from the 6.8
magnitude 2061 Nisqually earthquake used?

Where was the epicenter of the 7.6
earthquake referred to in the SCARY movie?

Were computer simulations done changing the
location (3dimensionally) of the epicenter,
and if so, what were the results?

Was a computer simulation done with the 7.9
at the same epicenter, considering a rebuilt
seawall and an AWV rebuild from South
Holgate to Battery Street to current federal
safety standards?  If so, what were the
results?  If not, why not?

Was a computer simulation done with a 9.0
earthquake at the same epicenter for a
rebuilt AWV and seawall?

If they were done at all, it is doubtful all these simulations showed AWV collapse.

4. That the EXISTING AWV would be unsafe in a big earthquake does not mean that no elevated
AWV could be built that would be safe.

5. That the AWV must be totally demolished before it can be rebuilt is false.  WSDOT
engineers have studied at least two different ways of having ongoing construction and
demolition while the AWV is still being used.

This "done deal" should be "undone".

Mailbox, Regional-Transportation

From:            Kevin C. Austin [AustinKC@Law.Aero]
Sent:              Monday, February 01, 2010 7:46 PM
To:               Mailbox, Regional-Transportation
Subject:            Viaduct MOA Comments

Dear Port of Seattle,

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Viaduct MOA.

I agree with the tenor of the MOA.

l have one concern: In both the recitals and in the main body of the agreement  the Port and
State identify the need to:

"ensure connectivity between the lnterbay, Ballard.
. .industrial areas and Seattle
Tacoma International Airport" or "ensure connectivity for freight and cruise-related
vehicles between lnterbay, Ballard
. . .  industrial areas, Interstate 5 and Interstate 90 and
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport."

However  it is not clear to me how the current bored-tunnel option supports this connection.
lnterbay, Magnolia, Pier 91, West Queen Anne and South Ballard and especially the Port,
appear
to lose their direct connection to both Seatac and the Duwamish industrial Areas, including
Boeing Field.

This will not only affect the citizens of those communities  removing a connection that is
historically ingrained and necessary and central to their transportation needs - but it will also
affect the Port in their business activities, including:

o  Eliminating a Direct Highway access for Port and Port related vehicles between the North
Waterfront (such as the grain terminal and Pier 91), the lnterbay Rail Yards, Fishermen's
Terminal, Ballard and Shilshole and the Duwamish Industrial Area and Airport.  The
proposed re-routing through or around already crowded Queen Anne (North and South)
will put trucks, busses and other equipment onto streets that are not designed for, nor in
the future capable of supporting, this type of traffic. Not only will the Port and related
vehicles be forced to compete with the existing commuter traffic, there will also be
increased traffic on these corridors from South Lake Union development and
rerouting of
commuters from the severed north-south ElliottWestern corridor.

The Port has spent many dollars over the years protecting the currently used corridor.

o  Adding  10's  of minutes of transit time for Ballard,  West Queen Anne,  lnterbay and
Magnolia residents to the airport.  This will provide an incentive for passenger and freight
air service at Paine Field  as the decision point (for both time and distance when
choosing between airports) moves southward. Currently, travel times to KPAE and KSEA
from these communities are substantially equal.

Regards,

Kevin Austin, Bellevue

Kevin C. Austin
Aero Law Group pllc

(425) 456-1800 Phone
(425) 456-1801 FAX
hQ://www.law.aero
+&++++++++++++++
PO. Box 50228
Bellevue, WA 98015-0228
Deliveries:
11120 - NE 2nd Street
Bellevue, WA 98004-8332

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure - To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the lRS, please be advised that
any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used
or relied upon, and cannot be used or
relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code,
or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
destroy all copies of the original message.

Mailbox, Regional-Transportation

From:            Charles M Northrip [c6northrip@gmail.com]
Sent:              Monday, February 01, 2010 11:23 PM
To:               Mailbox, Regional-Transportation
Cc:              pam@northrip.com
Subject:            MOA

Dear Port Commission,

I endorse and support the MOA that will help implement the bored tunnel alternative.  It is a
responsible, environmentally sensitive, and progressive way of solving the viaduct problem.
It is past time to finally move this project along.

Thanks for asking for comments.

Charles Northrip
1906 Alaskan Nay
Unit 306
Seattle, WA 98161
PHONE: +1 266 374 4366
MOBILE: +1 266 335 3433