The deep-bore tunnel replacement for the AWV is a horrendous mistake even if completed on time and on budget. Simply put, it won't fulfill the objective of managing traffic. Instead, it redirects 40,000+ Interbay-bound vehicles onto surface streets - Lower Belltown and Alaskan Way with 20+ stoplights causing gridlock there, and Lower Queen Anne via Mercer or Thomas Street from Elliott to the Aurora north portal incurring public health impacts to this high-density neighborhood. The emporer wears no clothes. Reconsider some version of Tunnelite.

This is why the issue of cost-overruns for the proposed downtown Tunnel, to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, will be the fatal flaw.

Since the Tunnel option was a Seattle solution, the legislature wants Seattle to pay for any/all cost-overruns. The City's position has been that the State can't make that stick and that it's unconstitutional.

The Gov has said recently that "we are working very hard to make sure there aren't any cost-overruns."

The legislature, which has just been through a traumatic budget balancing session with more to come, will not authorize funding on the Tunnel without Seattle stepping up to cover cost-overruns. This is to say nothing about the legislature's Viaduct fatigue and just wants to get something done to eliminate the curent risk.

So, the bottom line is, noone wants to pay for the extras which kills the Tunnel.

After a decade of haggling, with the risk still real, the legislature will fund either a NEW viaduct or a much less costly Retrofit solution.

Since Seattle will oppose a wider and more intrusive new viaduct, by default, the Legislature will proceed with funding a sensitively done, quieter Retriofit, something that should have been accomplished immediately after the Quake in 2001.

Brightwater has been a important lesson on what will go wrong when it can. If we don't learn from this example, Seattle leaders, past and present,are to blame.

Afterall, this is first an emergency transportation project, not an urban design project for improving a mile of Seattle's waterfront.

Get real and do the right thing!

Nice article, for once a clear and concise story without all the hoopla that seems to go with this fiasco. A simple statement of facts is wonderful.

Now, I hope that everybody that reads this story will realize that every bore is different, some bores go exceedingly well, just because a segment of this bore went badly, it does not mean that every bore in Seattle will do the same. I have been involved in several bores in this town, (not this one thank God) and all of them have their issues, (never as large as this) but most of them just munch right along. Start one day and after a time they "hole out".

Let us not panic about another bore.

Love it, seattlelifer.

I was doing a Seattle Times archive search to remind myself how long this project has been going on, and to read up a little on the siting controversy. I came across this story -- http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20031210&slug;=sewage10n0 -- and found a mention of a "Washington Tea Party." Plus ça change!

From the story:

“[The contract for] the remedial work of finishing the excavation of the troubled tunnel section [includes] no fixed price, no firm completion date, not even a firm promise that the work can be done at all. The bottom line for the public: Hold your breath to see how this all comes out. Plan B may be the best way out, but it's not at all a comfortable place for the project or the politicians to be.”

That deplorable situation mirrors most aspects of Sound Transit’s projects.

ST’s capital spending plans of course are far larger. Like Brightwater though they don’t have fixed prices, completion dates, or requirements that the work be done at all. Even “subarea equity” is nothing but a policy the board can change via a resolution.

There’s one big difference between Brightwater and Sound Transit though – people have power over King County’s management. That’s why Doug MacDonald can say Plan B is “not at all a comfortable place for . . . the politicians”.

The members of Sound Transit’s board are very comfortable. They in fact are utterly unconcerned about the lack of any performance standards incumbent upon them. The reason? Sound Transit’s board is comprised of political appointees who are entirely unaccountable to people. The public possesses no means of selecting boardmembers or controlling the policies of that government. We can’t vote in smarter or more frugal leaders, we can’t vote on referendums to end bad policies, etc.

According to this story the Plan B contractors were able to obtain from King County the following terms:

"The Contractor does not guarantee or represent a maximum cost or time to complete all or any section of the Work, and the Contractor does not guarantee or represent it can be completed."

Sound Transit’s board members would happily and routinely grant extraordinary concessions to contractors like that. There’d be no potential downside to them. That’s a manifest flaw in ST’s form of government, and it stems from the fact that ST is not a representative democracy.

Any AWV solution with less capacity than the current viaduct is a giant mistake. Regardless of what happens financially with the proposed deep bore tunnel, the end result will be a backward step for the region.

Brings to mind that old Brooks and Dunn tune, “You’re Gonna Miss Me When I’m Gone.”

Replace or refurbish the viaduct. It remains the superior transportation solution, it is affordable and most of us still prefer it.

Very good article. As one who has chided this blog for its inability to see beyond the Seattle city limits, I am happy to report that this is precisely the kind of analysis that can make Crosscut into a genuine regional resource. Who better to lead us down into the Brightwater rabbit hole than a battle-scarred veteran of the Boston Big Dig?

An important question going forward seems to be this: can boring ever be boring? Has there ever been a major tunnel project that has been completed on schedule, within its budget and without major unanticipated engineering challenges? If so, what characterizes the successful projects? And finally, is, for example, the proposed viaduct replacement tunnel plan more akin to the successful or the unsuccessful proposal model? I would think that some sort of high level third-party engineering risk assessment needs to be an integral part of any tunnel proposal review.

Digging has always been and will always be a risky venture. The problem is that with our increasingly dense urban environment this kind of tunneling is the least impactive means of providing or improving our transportation infrastructure. The Downtown corridor is pinched geographically anyway and plowing up blocks of our city for more roads isn't even realistic.

The only way to improve our ability to get from one end of town to the other is to tunnel. This isn't just an observation about the AWV replacement either. Ultimately more tunnels will be needed for more light rail lines and the future heavy rail our region will someday need.

This cautionary tale demonstrates the problems of deep-bore tunneling and we should be aware of it. But we've already tunneled under Mt. Baker (I-90), Beacon Hill (light rail) and now Capitol Hill. Don't throw away the shovel because of this incident.

Regarding @woofer's question about similar projects and budget: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416529_VIADUCT16.html

A 6-lane 'stacked' cut/cover is possible while leaving the AWV in place and handling traffic, jmrolls. Either a 4-lane or 6-lane cut/cover are applicable with WSDOT's preliminary design work for the south portal. The big boys at the Ranier Club have only one concern: money. Some are betting a deep-bore tunnel will collapse beneath a skyscraper and provide a rich source of income for the funeral industry.

The AWV tunnel is a design for the past. Peak Oil is already past. Julian Phillips at Goldforecaster.com writes that Saudi Arabia, the major oil exporter, "exported more oil to China than to the United States last year." If this trend continues, the cost of oil could easily double. When gasoline hits $6/gal we won't be seeing the kind of traffic we see now on the Viaduct. So replacing this structure with equal capacity is dumb. We should be instead investing in infrastructure that does not depend on cheap oil. That's more Light rail for Seattle. In fact the Mayor has proposed that we fix the seawall now, and build light rail to Ballard and West Seattle.

If anyone bothered to watch the WDOT video, it's the seawall's failure during an earthquake that allows the earth to slide away from the Viaduct's support pillars that causes the catastrophic failure of the deck. Fixing the seawall could be 90% of the retrofix of the viaduct. That may give us another 20 years with the existing roadway, which is plenty of time to build out the people moving system of Light Rail. During which as oil prices rise (with or without a carbon tax) business will adjust and when it comes time to demolish the viaduct, no one will be calling for either a tunnel or a replacement deck.

Re: Viaduct.

Drill, Baby.

Drill.

Spare us the Palin-esque cheerleading for a deep-bore tunnel as idiotic as the Quitter from Wasilla.

The common thread here seems to be that big decisions are driven in large part by the real estate mafia. With the AWV, they want it out of there so as to enhance high priced downtown view properties. With (I would say creepily rather than cheerfully named) Brightwater, why does no one ever ask why it is located umpteen miles away from the Sound rather than at Point Wells where it should be? It seems the only answer is, once again, real estate interests. They wanted Point Wells for development.

Certainly from a construction and operational/engineering perspective it would have made far more sense to put a regional sewage plant at Point Wells. But it's too late now and we are stuck with yet another bad decision, and this tunnel boring debacle is but one symptom. Sure, it's great if you are one of the wealthy handful who will end up with a lovely piece of Point Wells, but the rest of us will be paying for it - forever.

P.S. - can we please lose the pull quotes?

The Seattle Waterfront is common public property open to all. Thus, removing the AWV benefits all, not just developers. The little developable property between King and Pike is constrained by the historical nature of the district. Most buildings facing the piers will be preserved, strenthened structurally and given facelifts. Nothing can be built on the lots upon which the AWV sits. There's only one full lot between Seneca and Spring and a couple 1/4 blocks elsewhere. The non-historic buildings between (Union and University?) may be razed and that lot redeveloped.

I'm sorry to be such a pain about this, but it's obvious to me that SDOT and WSDOT have abused their positions of authority, criminally. Until 2007, WSDOT only intended to replace the AWV with an elevated monstrosity while they deceived the public to believe otherwise. Previous SDOT directors and department heads went along with this fraud to produce the "Wide Plaza" concept, terrible for managing traffic and maintaining access, and the "Mercer West" project similarly terrible for Lower Queen Anne and Lake Union. Seattlers can't see how their confidence in these public DOTs is malevolently abused.

Snoqualman - wondering what is so bad about the pull quotes?

Nice piece by MacDonald and thanks to Crosscut for running it.

Hey Seneca! I've been posting that on all of these "OH NO! A Tunnel" threads too.

Drill Baby Drill!!!

And to remind everyone - the Viaduct replacement is a state project that is designed to move Freight and Other traffic - in THAT order - THROUGH Seattle. THROUGH - not TO. No proposed Viaduct replacement included a downtown exit. This project is about getting THROUGH Seattle with as little disruption as possible. This project is about moving Freight first and people second so that we actually keep the Port of Seattle in Seattle.

Drill Baby Drill!