Editor's note: This letter from the Ballard District Council is addressed to Ron Paananen, Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program Administrator for the state department of transportation, and was also copied to the Ballard News-Tribune.

Dear Mr. Pannanen: 

The Ballard District Council leadership has identified a number of concerns related to the process and proposals for the Deep Bored Tunnel project’s North Portal.  The District Council is composed of representatives from 26 member community organizations in the Ballard district.   

Process 

1. To date, neither the district council nor its executive board has had any contact with the “Ballard Representative."  Though I’m sure she’s well qualified, this situation could have been avoided had the professional staff on the North Portal project contacted the council before appointing a representative to ensure that the representative had long-term connections to the community.  If representatives are to be chosen by staff, it is incumbent on the staff to ensure that communication with community leadership is occurring.
 
2. The project schedule is unclear to us. Are you developing plans in order to define the environmental impact statement scoping process? Are you in that writing process?
 
3. The design alternatives for the North Portal still do not address the needs of residents living in the Northwest quadrant of the city who need to access the tunnel as a bypass to traveling through the downtown or using I-5.
 
Comments on the Proposal 

1. Freight and truck routes should be established and clearly shown in the engineering design drawings.  The routes need to be designated and vetted during the design review process.  The routes should include east-west truck movements from the Ballard/Interbay and Fremont areas, and other parts of Seattle to access locations for the North Portal and Highway 99.
 
2. A detailed project traffic analysis, not programmatic analysis, needs to be completed as part of the supplemental environmental impact statement from Shoreline to Burien. This should include the traffic analysis based on existing and forecast traffic data for the engineering work for the waterfront boulevard and a plan for the amount of new traffic that will use the waterfront instead of the tunnel.
 
3. There is no access from Mercer Street or Denny Way to the tunnel, which is an oversight.  Direct on and off-ramp access should be provided from these streets.  That will be a major difference in all three concepts provided to the committee.
 
4. A plan to address the viability of the existing viaduct during the estimated five years of construction should be discussed as part of the overall planning and design work for the tunnel.  
 
We appreciate the level of effort expended to develop a recommendation for the North Portal by the end of 2009, but we anticipate that additional time will be required due to engineering design review and consideration of comment on the Supplemental environmental impact statement.  


Respectfully, 

Steven Cohn, president, Ballard District Council