Two groups have filed appeals against the City of Seattle’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Alaskan Way, Promenade, and Overlook Walk (AWPOW). The Alliance for Pioneer Square, a group dedicated to preservation efforts of the neighborhood’s historic district, and Seattle Historic Waterfront Association, which represents waterfront businesses and property owners, filed the appeals in opposition to the City’s recently released FEIS that details a preferred alternative for redesigning right-of-way along Alaskan Way once the Viaduct is removed.

The proposed roadway design could include up to eight or nine lanes to accommodate queuing near the Colman Ferry Dock, on-street parking, bus lanes, and general purpose lanes, in addition to the associated waterfront promenade and public open space improvements. Many urban advocates have argued against such a wide streetscape for vehicles and instead for a larger public realm dedicated to open space or other uses.

Alaskan Way south of Washington Street. (City of Seattle)
Alaskan Way south of Washington Street. (City of Seattle)

In a statement, the Alliance for Pioneer Square said:

The current proposal replaces the Viaduct with an eight to nine-lane highway, with 600 buses per day. The approach guarantees gridlock that will permanently cut off much of Seattle’s historic Pioneer Square neighborhood from Seattle’s waterfront and creates an unfriendly environment for pedestrians and cyclists. The Alliance advocates for the waterfront project’s original goals, two of which are, “create a waterfront for all” and “reconnect the city to its waterfront.”

The Alliance for Pioneer Square; on behalf of residents, workers, and visitors; urges the city, county, and state to seriously consider alternatives that will reduce bus volume and the number of lanes on the new Alaskan Way south of Columbia Way. Taking action, such as redirecting buses heading into downtown Seattle to the Lander Street overpass or implementing tolling technology to reduce ferry queuing needs, would have a direct positive impact on the functionality of the street.

“We want to be clear. We are not trying to delay the new waterfront park and regret having to take this step,” said Leslie Smith, Executive Director of the Alliance for Pioneer Square. “But we must ensure that this really is a waterfront for all. It is unfortunate that the current design gives Pioneer Square an eight lane highway and will create less access to the waterfront than we have today.

“We have one chance to get this right,” Smith said. “The current plan puts an undue burden on the residents, businesses, and visitors to Seattle’s historic first neighborhood. An alternative that shifts traffic to other parts of the city would create some needed balance and truly allow us to have a waterfront that is accessible to all.”

Environmental documents are required to lay out an analysis of reasonable alternatives and to identify mitigation to reduce the adverse impact of the projects. However; the FEIS failed to do either. Once completed, the new Alaskan Way must serve a variety of users: Metro transit, ferry traffic, freight accessing the Port of Seattle, general purpose drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists.

Meanwhile, the Seattle Historic Waterfront Association focused mostly on parking issues and accessibility for visitors in their objection to the proposal.

Seattle Historic Waterfront Association Challenges Waterfront EIS 11-15-16 by The Urbanist on Scribd

We hope you loved this article. If so, please consider subscribing or donating. The Urbanist is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that depends on donations from readers like you.

Stephen is an urban planner with a passion for sustainable, livable, and diverse cities. He is especially interested in how policies, regulations, and programs can promote positive outcomes for communities. Stephen lives in Kenmore and primarily covers land use and transportation issues for The Urbanist.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Awwwww, poor Leslie… As if there weren’t any activists back when we were debating the tunnel vs other alternatives who asked her how the Alliance could possibly support the tunnel. As if we didn’t repeatedly point out how it would unleash all sorts of traffic into the neighborhood, presumably onto streets that can’t be expanded. And NOW they’re suddenly worried about impacts to parking and the like? Well, it’s a little too late for that. Good luck with that appeal.


The picture inserted looks pretty reasonable – is that the preferred alternative or something else?

“We have one chance to get this right” – can’t we rebuild the street in the future? It’s not like we can’t remove a parking lane and expand the promenade in the future. For example, if car ferries get removed from Colman Dock in a few decades, the ROW for those queuing lanes can be reallocated.

“eight lane highway” – only 2 GP lanes each way. Relax people…. there is literally something for everyone – GP lanes, bus lanes, bike lanes, broad promenade, tree buffers.


Eight lanes is eight lanes. It doesn’t matter to a pedestrian crossing the street how many are “GP lanes” or lanes for other uses. It’s the same width either way.

Mike Carr

More parking would be great!

Dan Ryan

Aren’t the appellants, particularly the Waterfront Association, just looking to swap transit lanes for more parking?


The City is proposing to double the number of visitors to the waterfront while eliminating most all parking and public transportation along the central waterfront. It will not work and this is too important a project to let that happen,”

Appears so. What public transit is being eliminated?


Read the Waterfront Association release….under the City’s current plan, there’s no transit on the new Alaska Way on the waterfront.

Dan Ryan

Not clear what the Waterfront Association means by that. Taken literally, it’s absolutely not true. There will be several hundred buses a day on the waterfront. That’s what the transit lanes are for.