Whereas politicians like Jean Godden are such servants of the public that they inhabit a "no spin zone" where their every utterance is disconnected from the world of self-promotion, policy advocacy, and, heaven forbid, electoral politics. Because they are objective like journalists. Ha!

The term F.U.D. is usually used when there actually is no fear, uncertainty or doubt. F.U.D. is used to create doubt when there normally would not be any.

Are you saying there is no reason to have any real fear, uncertainty or doubt about the deep bore tunnel?

Good analysis Jean. The mayor is basically W. Bush, except the legislative branch isn't keeling over. He uses whatever arguements are convenient.

Well, either Bush or a lawyer. A lawyer presents his side, without attempting to be impartial. He hires "expert witnesses" to make pre-determined points. The goal is to win the case, not to clarify the issue.

I don't know whether he's truly unintelligent or just dishonest. Either way, he's unfit for office. I say that despite agreeing with probably half of his general ideas on other topics.

Let’s turn the tables.

---

It just chaps my hide how Jean Godden and other propagandists are trying to sell this megaproject:

Simplicity and repetition. Make the issue something easy to grasp and repeat it over and over. In time, it will be accepted by your audience. In other words, act as if you have the only answer. Jean’s call to action here fits the bill: “it's time to put an end to all this fearmongering and begin the task of creating a waterfront for all.”

Selection. Present one side of the picture only. Don’t mention the deep bore tunneling machines stuck in the glacial till on the King/Snohomish county border, or the sinkholes and cost overruns on ST’s Beacon Hill deep bore tunneling.

Assertion. Make bold statements. Jean’s great at this: “now it's time to move on and to focus our energies on moving the project forward and providing a corridor that works for the city, region, and state. . . . We must take advantage of the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to unite Seattle with the sweetest deepwater harbor in the world.”

Find a scapegoat. Convince people that the Mayor is to blame. Refuse to debate him so the flimsy pretexts you rely on won’t be revealed for all to see. Call anyone raising questions “provincial” and “stuck in the past”.

The Big Lie. Claim there’s no way the cost-shifting statute could be used against property owners. Have your allies opine it isn’t effective to compel new “taxes”, while refusing to acknowledge it provides an immediate means for directing local government LID assessment revenues to be obtained from thousands of Seattle property owners and then handed over to WSDOT to cover all the construction, demolition, and mitigation costs it can rack up over the $2.8 billion spending cap. That’s a lawyerly distinction you can pretend you didn’t understand.

Ignore or discredit conflicting evidence. Pretend you have no idea that statutory cost-shifting provision from Chopp targets thousands of Seattle property owners for LID assessments, and refuse to debate anyone about it if that issue comes up.

---

The special interests Jean and most of city council represent are thrilled about the extent to which THEIR politicians are pumping out “the message” about this proposed megaproject, such as in this piece.

There’s been plenty of BS slinging about this issue. But it shouldn’t confuse the fact that most voters still believe that the tunnel is a terrible idea. The council and the mayor are fighting about the MOST expensive, LEAST efficient solutions for the purpose of enhancing some real estate at the tax payer’s expense. They seem to have forgotten that the AWV project is about TRANSPORTATION.

I still have my fingers crossed that the Discovery Institute will receive a last-minute call from the Almighty telling them to, “Stop screwing around and refurbish the viaduct.”

Re Crossrip's comment: in "selection" one could add:

--ignore the differences between tunneling under the water table, which was not done for any of the tunnels Councilmember Godden cites.
--ignore a very experienced bidder, Kiewit, dropping out.
--ignore the decision by Sound Transit to not tunnel under First Hill for light rail because of the soil conditions
--ignore the decision by the state to not grant taxing authority for the transit needed to get people into downtown, which the tunnel does not enable because there are no exits
--ignore the lack of an insurance policy to pay for damage to buildings if they sink in holes that develop as a result of the deep bore tunnel.

Crossrip, great job! I was thinking of doing the same thing but I couldn't figure out whether the statement, "There will be no cost overruns" best fits in simplicity, repetition, assertion, The Big Lie, or ignoring/discrediting conflicting evidence.

Jean, I think you're a genuine public servant but on this project I'd rather drink the FUD than the Kool Aid. Will you be announcing your retirement soon?

It has, indeed, been interesting to witness. Our very own demagogue, spouting lies that are slavishly echoed by his followers and a headline hungry local media, none of whom can be bothered to look up the actual facts of the matter- or perhaps find the facts inconvenient for their party line.

There is, in fact, no reason to shrink in fear, uncertainty, and doubt from boring a two-mile tunnel under Seattle, a tunnel that is (gasp!!) a whole four feet wider than any previously attempted by this method. Sound Transit just bored a tunnel under Beacon Hill, took note of some problems with subsidence, and has introduced measures to prevent these problems in the tunnel they are currently boring under Capital Hill.

One of the saddest things about the tunnel opponents is their willingness to sacrifice parks and improvement to their desire for some kind of revenge- revenge for what, I do not know, but this emotion was plentifully illustrated by the Seattle Commons debate.

In that debate, Paul Allen was cast as the bad guy, and the opponents painted themselves as the vibrant life-giving source that would revitalize the South Lake Union neighborhood without any evil parks. After defeating that proposal, they returned to whatever it is they do, which obviously did not include revitalizing South Lake Union, until they were roused to fury by the opening of the SLU Streetcar, which they claimed would take lives and end bicycling in Seattle.

Now the tunnel opponents are willing to see the viaduct replaced by a six-lane highway on the waterfront, ending all chances of building a nice park and encouraging public pedestrian use. And they're not worried about the costs to Seattleites, in lost trade and commerce, if their goals are achieved- if they've managed to stop something, their work is done, and, in their eyes at least, 'they done good'.

Well, it seems like every November we get our chance to vote, and replace our electeds if they displease us. Maybe the tunnel opponents can persuade us we need fewer capable legislators like the ones we have, and more like Mike McGinn. Be careful what you wish for- you just might get it.

Unfortunately crap like this article will be de rigeur in Seattle **until** the media bears some of the responsibility for frauds perpetrated under their self-deluded world.

The State is simply telling Seattle to grow up and take financial responsibility for its **wants**.

Ms. Godden looks like she never will grow up, along with her generation of sociopathic cohorts called the downtown Seattle Elite the most honest of which are the escort services - for which at least their out of city 'customers' do get something out of the screwing...

Good column, Jean. There will never be a perfect option or a 100% risk-free option. But I'm satisfied that the issue has been studied to death and that tunnel emerged as the consensus choice. I care less what my fellow Seattle citizens think because (1) they haven't studied the issue in detail; (2) they are more vulnerable than council members to the McGinn propaganda machine; and (3) it is the role of our elected city council members to wade through all of those details and exercise judgement in a way that represents citizens' interests. I'm an informed citizen, but I don't have the time to wade through expert analysis, environment impact statements, soil analysis, and engineering reviews.

During the campaign I watch McGinn flip-flop from opposition to the tunnel (his signature campaign issue) to saying he wouldn't block tunnel approval (a way to troll for moderate votes in a close race). I hoped he would keep his promise. Now that he's shown he never had any intention of honoring it, he has zero credibility with me. Just another say-anything-to-get-elected politician.

The efforts to sabotage the tunnel remind me of Tim Eyman's repeated efforts to sink light rail at the ballot. Had Eyman succeeded (and he nearly did), our region would be back at Square 1 with no measurable progress on transit to speak of. Let's move forward with the tunnel and avoid another 15 years of squabbling.

Seriously? This is the best Godden and the other pro-tunnel folks can do??

This isn't hard to figure out. It's simply common sense to assume that cost estimates on a major project like this could be wrong -- just like bringing a contractor or plumber into your home. I'd have much more respect for Councilmembers Godden, Conlin, and others if they'd just admit this.

And arguments over whether or not the Legislature's cost overruns bill is "enforceable" or not are beside the point. It's simply due diligence to discuss what happens under the possibility that this project goes overbudget. A majority of state legislators can't agree on much in Washington lately, but they managed to agree that they won't provide any more state funds beyond their cap.

So, really... It's very easy to hoist McGinn on his own petard. Admit that there might be overruns, and tell Seattle residents how those overruns will be paid for. Then you can move forward as you wish in governing our city.

The fact that none of you seem to be willing to do this is what should scare everyone in Seattle.

Right on crossrip.

It would be nice if the public discourse would be about the facts.

The issue has been "studied to death" and the Surface/I-5 option was recommended. The deep bore tunnel + sea wall + transit was an "intelligent design" that was somehow "agreed upon" and we must move forward right now...

Oh, but they dropped the transit part of the plan.

Oh, and the Port dropped its contribution.

Oh, and Seattle has to pay cost overruns.

Oh, and the viaduct was to come down by 2012.

Oh, and the tunnel only carries 40,000 out of the current 110,000 cars a day.

Oh, but that figure does not include the ~$7.00 round trip toll, which will force many of that 40,000 onto the city streets.

This is pure poppycock, Jean. And frankly I find it disconcerting that you would characterize the raising of doubts over a problematic (and in my opinion completely insane) megaproject as fear mongering.

It's like she just doesn't get that we, the Citizens of Seattle, are the Masters, and they, the Council, are our servants.

We said NO TUNNEL.

We meant it.

And every day, in every way, our voice grows stronger and our numbers grow larger.

Mr. Council President, TEAR DOWN THIS VIADUCT. If you want a replacement, we need a MAJORITY public vote of the Citizens of Seattle if you want us to pay for it.

Did you see what happened near LA?

The same thing could happen to you.

I see the Legislature's tunnel funding as similar to the G.W. Bush tax cuts: a cynical attempt to say that the future doesn't matter. The policy is specified to "sunset" and undo itself at a certain point if the costs become too great.

If these are such good policies, why are they not worth funding in full?

This Discovery Institute tunnel is merely a head-fake by Gregoire and several former elected officials. The funding was never provided by the state, nor do I think it will be. Funding that magically wishes away the future is no funding at all.

I'm no McGinn fan, but this piece is a joke, and does just about every bad thing it accuses McGinn of doing.

Why are we letting the Discovery Institute run Seattle? It is just the weirdest thing ever.

At the risk of restating the obvious:

Discovery Institute brought us "intelligent Design" http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
Cascadia Center is a division of Discovery Institute http://www.cascadiacenter.org/
Cascadia Center gave us the deep bore tunnel idea.

Do we really want a faith-based auto only tunnel?

State Route 99 is not a local Seattle city street. It is a state highway. It is the property of all the taxpayers of Washington. The mayor and the Seattle city council should be aware that as far as those of us in The Rest of the State are concerned, this Seattle vanity circus is pretty damned irrelevant. The tunnel was proposed to mollify the Seattle "Waterfront Disneyland" agitators. If Seattle doesn't want a tunnel, the state should rebuild the viaduct. Just get on with it!

The vanity circus of dbreneman's need to bypass seattle via a tunnel is pretty damned irrelevant to me.

The "Just get on with it!" line is pretty strange. I think you might get cut from the high school debate time with that line of "reasoning"

It isn't just dbreneman's need for a downtown bypass - it's also for the tens of thousands of Seattle residents who live west of SR99, or need to get to points west of SR99.

We've spent 10+ years debating what to do about the AWV, and while I've been staunchly opposed to a tunnel since it was first seriously proposed in the mid 1990's, the "just get on with it" sentiment strikes me as a lot more serious and grounded in fact than McGinn's (and the Stranger's) fantasy world that we can tear it down and not replace it.

•Selection. Present one side of the picture only. Don't talk about successful tunnels such as San Francisco's Bart, the Third Avenue Transit Tunnel, or the 100-year-old railway tunnel under Seattle's downtown.

Jean picked some FABULOUS examples.

* Third Avenue Transit Tunnel cost 56% more than early estimates.
* The cost of BART's Transbay Tube rose to $180 million from an original estimate of $133 million. (http://www.bart.gov/about/history/history.aspx)
* I can't find much about Seattle's Great Northern Tunnel, but considering Upton Sinclair only published The Jungle in 1906 (two years after the tunnel was completed), something tells me that labor laws of the time were pretty lax. I'm positive that the number of men killed or crippled, whether or not the project was brought in on-time and on-budget or not, was greater than one. Not something to crow about, I think.

So, Jean, if the tunnel costs more than the state has budgeted, who will pay for that overrun?

I wonder who wrote that article for you....hmmm, we could find out with the freedom of information act! At any rate, you are listening to people other than your constituents. Whether we like the tunnel or not, we know that we will bear the burden if the state runs out of money.

I will absolutely not vote for you again, and will tell my friends to vote for your opponent... or are you planning to retire to a job provided by those people you are listening to?

So, Jean, if the tunnel costs more than the state has budgeted, who will pay for that overrun?

I wonder who wrote that article for you....hmmm, we could find out with the freedom of information act! At any rate, you are listening to people other than your constituents. Whether we like the tunnel or not, we know that we will bear the burden if the state runs out of money.

I will absolutely not vote for you again, and will tell my friends to vote for your opponent... or are you planning to retire to a job provided by those people you are listening to?

Reading the comments before the Godden's opinion piece, I nearly gagged at Mhays comparison of Mayor McGinn to George W Bush. Ridiculous, yet, Godden's first paragraph brought back the grotesque memory of Duh-bya overturning furniture in the White House looking for those pesky WMDs. Godden only heightened my alarm with McGinn's mission to "blow up" the tunnel. Talk about using scare tactics.

There should be no fear that another elevated viaduct will be constructed. That replacement option poses the most disruption to SR99 traffic and the stakeholders' greatest fear is this 'inconvenience' to business as usual.

As for the very real fear that the AWV could collapse, the cut/cover Tunnelite closes the AWV at least 2 years ahead of the DBT. Incidentally, the DBT passes beneath and near about 1000' of AWV pilings and could actually cause a collapse. Whooops.

There is some justification to fear a cost overrun, but greater fears, uncertainties and doubts with the DBT and Mercer West and the current design for Alaskan Way are legion.

The environmental impact of displacing so much traffic onto surface streets is fearful. Motorists dread routine travel time increases, reroutes up steep hills, more stoplights and traffic gridlock. Pedestrians and merchants dread rerouting traffic through residential neighborhoods and popular entertainment districts.

Ms Godden reminds me of Bush Jr's wife Laura bravely standing beside her idiot husband facing worldwide opposition to their invasion of Iraq, smiling, assured in her role of obedient wifey. I fear WSDOT is a rogue agency, out of control, bullying its demands, raiding the treasury.

Gee, just when you thought that the body politic was taking a little breather from this whole tunnel debate, out charges Jean Godden to take another whack at it. Isn't there a skybridge somewhere that she could be jousting at? Or some strip club parking stalls? Or maybe this is really the opening salvo in her 2011 re-election campaign? If she ignores the kind advice of some previous posters that she retire, then she'll certainly need to bone up on her pro-tunnel rhetoric for the coming campaign. I'd lend her a book on debate techniques, but I see that she already has it.

Thank you Jean. McGinn is playing the same divisive game that turned California into such a political quagmire. We don't need this kind of cynical fear monger in this city.

Ahhhh...Jean Godden the expert on tunneling in unconsolidated soils. Let me paint you a picture. Imagine a large-bore tunneling machine stuck in the muck under soils that are prone to liquefaction. It sits there, trapped for several years, while bankruptcy hearings for the prime contractor are sorted out in Federal Court. Meanwhile, the poor slob homeowners living in Seattle's burbs are seeing a sudden and unexpected increase in property taxes to pay for JEAN GODDEN's project to provide a windfall profit to real estate developers who are stakeholders along the viaduct. If you are sucker enough to buy into this moronic pipe dream then you should sign on to pay for the four billion dollar cost overrun that more rational minds are expecting for this project.

Hey, I have an idea...fix the I-5 mess that we created when it was built. Spend the eight billion on something that will actually move traffic/rapid transit through the downtown core. But, never let politicians who have never been in a mine shaft tell you they are going to prospect at your expense. This tunnel project is the moral equivalent of a "wildcat" oil well. Sign up the suckers, commit their money, and "drill baby drill."

Please kill the tunnel Seattle. Give the rest of the state the money to buy more important transportation improvements.

No other proposed configuration for the AWV matches the existing viaduct in any transportation related category. The rights of ways already exist. The configuration already can handle 110,000 vehicles a day. It already provides a bypass for downtown and off ramps for the core, Ballard and West Seattle. It already meets the demands for commercial vehicles. It can incorporate modern seismic protections and other enhancements for noise abatement, bikes, pedestrians and aesthetics. It acknowledges the fact that rubber-tired, multi-passenger vehicles are still the choice of over 90% of us. And its 2 billion dollars cheaper than this present aberration under consideration.

I assume that the councilperson and her colleagues all know this. The refurbished viaduct was the solution expected by the voters and the WSDOT up until 2008 when the spin cycle was switched to HIGH.

Seattle has about 90 officially designated neighborhoods. People are tired of just one neighborhood sucking the resources and the attention away from the rest of the city.

Ex-mayor Nickel's demise was more about his position on the viaduct than his mishandling of the snowstorm. So, who's coming up for re-election..?

Still time to do the right thing.

Jean,
You sure know how to write opinion. Why waste your talent in politics? Have you thought about editorial writing?

--Casey

Gee, just when I thought it could not get lower than the state Rep. who did not write that clause doing a poor imiitation of saying red is blue, and Conlin making an absolute fool of himself, Godden comes out with this. The hits just keep on coming. Next up, Not to be outdone, Bagshaw is going to write a manifesto on the DBT.

Judging from the vast majority of comments on all the sites, this is going to backfire badly for her, AND the DBT. As if the other loose ends, false equivilences, and bait and switch going on were not enough to kill this potiential fiasco on their own. Good job Jean. Things don't work like they did when you went to college today. I will say you learned Propaganda 101 very well, it's just the timing and the subject was a tad bit off.

Enjoy your retirement with a cushy Board gig with those boosters, er, stakeholders, who put you up to this. If you don't retire, you are going to hear the phase "Godden must Go!" a lot more often over the next few years.

Councilmember Godden was a journalist and an expert on language. Why has she used such sloppy mud slinging?

Perhaps the deep bore debate uses the term cost over runs too much. WSDOT has a preliminary estimate. When the bidders actually bid, WSDOT will have a project budget. There will be several bids for different aspects of this mega project.

What we have for sure is an unprecedented cap on state expenditure of $2.8 billion for the several aspects of the deep bore, including the tunnel. no one knows who will pay for costs above the cap. Today, it is illegal for WSDOT to spend more than the cap. Mayor McGinn just asks: who pays? No one answers.

Godden asserts it is time to get on with the deep bore project and open up the Seattle waterfront. But the waterfront would be opened with either the deep bore or the surface, I-5, and transit options. Under each alternative, a large arterial would be constructed near the waterfront. Under the deep bore, a six lane arterial would connect the south portal and the waterfront. Under the surface option, state funds would have built some of the arterials that Seattle will have to build under the deep bore agreement and the state would have improved I-5 and that is not funded under the deep bore. The deep bore will leave the noisy AWV standing longer. How does that help open the waterfront?

The January 2009 agreement between the three executives included a one percent MVET for Metro Transit. The Legislature and Governor have not provided that revenue, so the agreement has already been abandoned. And the cap remains.

How would Godden have Seattle pay for the surface streets and seawall? Rather than insult McGinn, she could get on with proposing revenue. How about a tax vote in 2011?

Councilman Gooden goes to great scholastic lengths to discredit her opponent on this, citing widely her argument and obfuscating the issue.

Mayor McGinn would have a hard time convincing people that he's not using fear. uncertainty and doubt to an unreasonable extent to fuel his campaign against the tunnel.

That's a fine way to run a campaign. It's just a lousy way to run a City.

We have yet to have the Mayor lay out a reasonable alternative and a path to get there.

Given his single focused obsession on opposing the tunnel with world class legal hairsplitting, perhaps he can focus next on presenting a reasonable alternative and a game plan for people to mull over.

He'll have until January or so. In the meantime, let's hope he can please find some time to shore up the huge credibility hole he's dug. The city needs a Mayor who is capable of actually doing something other than riding an anti-tunnel campaign that seems to be a cover story for a deeply flawed overall administration.

Even if McGinn set up a dress code that everyone wears overalls, he's right to oppose the dreadful deep bore tunnel fiasco-rama.

McGinn says there's a chance of cost overruns. I say there's a chance McGinn will hire his friends for $100,000 a year and pass out $40,000 consulting fees when he wants to hear an opinion that echoes his own.

Oops, been there, done that.

Call me crazy, but I'm going to trust the long drawn-out public process instead of McGinn and people who still trust him.

I'm for whatever's best. Having said that....wouldn't any project have cost overruns? What exactly is the distinction between tunnel cost overruns as compared to replacement viaduct cost overrun? (yes...I'm assuming the answer will be something like; "less money will be wasted with a replacement viaduct")

Ok then, if that's the prevailing mentality, then why did we trash a perfectly good Kingdome in order for two separate stadiums?

Now can we have some of your pie, Aunt Bea?

I must say her opening paragraph is really vile. We all understand the connotation Jean and the George Bush's joking about WMDs.

From her article:
I went home the other night and looked under the bed. Then I looked in the closet and the alcove by the fireplace. Nothing. Not one single "cost overrun." Not even a stray "legislative intent."

To joke about the fraudulent, illegal war, which has resulted in thousands
of dead soldiers and perhaps millions of dead Iraqis is unbelievable.

Here's the old Jean Godden back in 2004 when she was engaged in 'textbook manipulation' about the monorail opponents.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/monorail-routs-opponents/Content?oid=19060

Back when the monorail recall campaign was underway, Jean Godden was quite concerned about the cost to the city, just to put the monorail recall initiative out to a vote.

From the Stranger article:
Jean Godden had this to say: "I think we need a lot of questions answered--including, what about the $850,000 it would cost to put this on the ballot?"

Richard B. My previous post starts with "Godden's first paragraph brought back the grotesque memory of Duh-bya overturning furniture in the White House looking for those pesky WMDs." What the hell was she thinking?

I still believe the monorail dream and have amended "The Sirkulat Circulator" route, following logic, of course. The single-track loop on the downtown side goes south on 4th, turns west on Dilling Way, then south on 3rd Ave past King Station through the parking lots to a station atop Exhibition hall. Then the line turns north up Railroad Way, Alaskan Way on islands, up the SR99 corridor onto Battery Street, left on any street north to KOMO Plaza and reconnect. The north loop around Seattle Center is unchanged. Don't give up. I like Mike.

My Waterfront Streetcar Line proposal has also morphed. With the proposed bridge over the RR tracks at Broad Street, that may accommodate tracks, from there run both directions on Elliott, then 3rd Ave to Thomas or Harrison, then to Queen Anne/1st Ave couplet and a turnaround at Mercer. Imagine this Seattle Center Trolley to the Waterfront. 1st Ave already has electric buses.

Wells -

Monorail will always be a dream, at least for Seattle. I used to half-believe in monorail. But after I found out the reality, I didn't. Face it Wells, elevated rail transit in a dense urban core is a nonstarter. It's massive, it's bulky, it's ugly, it's expensive. What are you thinking????????

I was thinking 'single-track' instead of 'double-track' through downtown. Single-track minimizes physical and visual impact, makes station siting simpler, and reduces all costs. The Circulator Monorail was only 4 miles of single-track added to the existing track in 2 loops; an expansion 1/4 the Greenline, yet with more ridership potential. Double-track extensions from this inner-city Circulator to West Seattle/Seatac or separately to Ballard/Northgate are possible. My thinking was start small, end big. I repeated the message over and over but bigger heads were busy buzzing over bogus ideas that bombed.

A single track system of any type is nonstarter. Come on, seriously! It's like putting in a 1 lane highway or 1 lane street. I would never support such a cheapened, unreliable system and neither would any other serious transit advocate in Seattle.

I keep forgetting Seattle is filled with knee-jerk obstructionists.

The single-track design reduced costs and impacts, simplified construction, and produced more ridership than the much larger, more expensive Greenline. The Circulator's latest alignment uses only 4 cars to run every 5-minutes between 12 stations: 4 stations for Seattle Center; 1 double-track station at KOMO Plaza to make transferring within the Center simple; stations at Belltown, 2 stations on the waterfront to access Pike Place Market and Coleman Dock, Exhibition Hall, International District, Central Library and Westlake Center. This destination index assures around-the-clock ridership instead of heavy commute hours ridership with weak reverse-commute and off-rush hours ridership of the Greenline.

If you supported the Greenline, Borkowski, blame yourself for its rejection. It was low ridership, high environmental impact, high cost engineering from end to end. It's not enough to say A single-track system is a non-starter. You have to show how it won't work.

I'm so happy Mike McGinn is mayor and not Ms. Godden.

Dear Jean,

You're not likely to find cost overruns under the bed. Nor in the closet and the alcove by the fireplace. They are more likely to be found in megaprojects.
Keep looking,