North Waterfront – Pine Street to Broad Street Sample Clauses

North Waterfront – Pine Street to Broad Street. The locations of the parks, recreation facilities, and public shoreline access points in the north waterfront section are shown on Exhibits 4‐2 and 4‐3. Pier 62/63 Park: This facility is owned by the Seattle Parks Department and consists of a large unobstructed deck with views of the water, Olympic Mountains, and downtown skyline. From 1991 through 2004, Pier 62/63 Park was used for a series of 18 to 20 concerts during summer evenings. For the 2005 summer season, the concert series was relocated to South Lake Union Park due to structural problems with the pier. Future plans include relocation of some or all of the functions of the Waterfront Park at Pier 57/59 to this area when the Seattle Aquarium expands to the south of Pier 59. The Pier 62/63 Park is currently accessible to the public. Concepts presented by the Seattle Parks Department to the Seattle City Council on June 24, 2005, are integrated with plans for SR 99 and include the following (Seattle Parks Department 2005a): • The Aqua Link alternative features a north‐south pedestrian connection along the water’s edge around the aquarium, alleviating sidewalk congestion and providing the maximum circulation to the water. It places the aquarium in a setting of public spaces. It also includes a long, publicly accessible beach. • The Connector alternative emphasizes linking the Pike Place Market and downtown to the waterfront through a set of elevated ramps and crossings with a variety of uses on the perimeter. Aquarium expansion would be primarily to the south, allowing for open space and an entry on the north. It includes a pedestrian bridge to link the lid and the water, a transparent pavilion for everyday activities and special events, and a footbridge connecting the aquarium to a small Pier 63 deck. • The Multipurpose Pier alternative relocates Pier 62/63 to the south for better integration with the open space on the north side of the aquarium. The new pier would include provision for a temporary cover, so events could be staged in the spring and fall. It would be accessed by an at‐grade crossing at Pine Street. • The Improvement of Existing Park Spaces alternative would identify improvements that could be made to Waterfront Park to enhance the marine habitat beneath and overall improvements that would make the park more attractive. Pier 62/63 would be maintained, and improvements would be identified which could be made to the structure to enhance the marine habitat beneath and to make the park more ...

North Waterfront – Pine Street to Broad Street. The effects of the updated Tunnel Alternative would be different from the effects of the Tunnel Alternative discussed in the Draft EIS for the following parks and recreation facilities in the north waterfront.

North Waterfront – Pine Street to Broad Street. Impacts of the Elevated Structure Alternative north of Pine Street are likely to be very similar to those of the Aerial Alternative in the Draft EIS because the SR 99 route would leave the Alaskan Way right‐of‐way at about Pine Street and continue to the north on a separate right‐of‐way to connect with the Battery Street Tunnel. The effects of replacement of the seawall would be the same as described for the Aerial Alternative in the Draft EIS.

North Waterfront – Pine Street to Broad Street. The existing Alaskan Way surface street would be rebuilt in its existing footprint in the north waterfront section of the Elevated Structure Alternative. A bicycle lane would be provided on both sides of Alaskan Way surface street, and two sets of waterfront streetcar tracks would extend north to Broad Street. Peak traffic congestion is forecasted to be similar to current conditions considering that the ramps to and from the viaduct would be similar to existing conditions. Available parking spaces would increase by an estimated 85 spaces. Pedestrian access would be similar to existing conditions. Furthermore, long‐term use of this roadway is expected to be very similar to current use. General access to community facilities, religious and cultural/social institutions, social and employment services, and government institutions would generally be very similar to current access. Neighborhood cohesion in this section of the project area is not expected to change. No adverse effects on social resources are expected. The new bicycle lanes, waterfront streetcar service, and some increase in on‐street parking spaces would generally benefit mobility in the adjacent neighborhood.