The Governor does a tunnel-dance
She has a very good day, for a change. The tumult and the shouting over the waterfront tunnel won't go away, for political reasons, but the Great Viaduct Debate seems close to having been settled.
Something about the Seattle waterfront tunnel brings out the formidable feistiness in Gov. Chris Gregoire. Thursday afternoon at Union Station, before a packed crowd of onlookers and tunnel-backing politicians, the state picked the apparent winning team, Seattle Tunnel Partners, for the job. No one knew the winner until the points were announced for each team's design and schedule bonus points, and these were matched against the sealed bid prices. Both bids came in just a hair below the $1.09 billion price limit.
"Faster, cheaper, wider!" glowed Seattle Councilwoman Jean Godden, offering her headline to the media.
Once the team was picked, Gregoire went into some justifiable gloating. She crowed that the winning bid would promise to finish the job nearly a year before the state requires; that the tunnel would be 58 feet wide, wider than planned and so enabling full 8-foot shoulders, and that design changes in the south end would narrow the impact. The governor had high praise for her state department of transportation, the Seattle City Council, King County Executive Dow Constantine, legislative leaders, labor unions, and the Port. Mayor Mike McGinn, her nemesis on the tunnel, went unmentioned. The governor slapped down media questions, going into her law-professor mode. Hard hats grunted a loud approval. Chamber of Commerce suits and swarms of consultants smiled very broadly.
The governor also crowed about two other bits of good economic news, before heading back to Olympia to help compel the caucuses into a special session on Saturday. She announced that the state had just got $161 million more for planning high speed rail along the Vancouver, B.C. to Portland corridor, thanks to Ohio and Wisconsin turning aside the money after electing stingy Republican governors. And that the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz would be homeporting in Everett, shifting all those dollars up the coast from San Diego. Not a bad day on the economic front, for once.
Tunnel opponents usually try to rain quickly on Gregoire's parade, and this time they did it by filing a new initiative by a coalition including the Sierra Club that will try to prevent the City Council from signing land-use and other agreements with the state unless the legislature agrees to protect local taxpayers from cost overruns. But the agreements are likely to be signed well before the initiative is even voted on next fall. And the tunnel contract could be signed, pending appeals by the losing party, Seattle Tunneling Group, in a few months, taking away the danger of a legislative raid of Seattle funds.
It's not that tunnel politics will go away at least for another year. The Sierra Club initiative, largely symbolic, is helpful in rallying the anti-tunnel vote in next fall's city council races, where McGinn might want to help elect a few councilmembers more to his liking. The opponents will also be able to raise objections based on the final EIS documents, but are not likely to prevail in the view of most observers. (EIS documents, meant to spell out problems and tradeoffs, make good debating points but the more honest they are about problems, the more legally sound they are.)
Another reason the tunnel debate won't fade away, even as opponents run out of trump cards, is that highway debates are some of the best ways to polarize voters and score cultural points, at least in Seattle. The battles began with the R.H. Thomson Expressway, cutting through the Arboretum and therefore radicalizing Montlake (seemingly forever), continued with the I-90 wars (solved by vast shipments of federal dollars), the blocking of the Bay Freeway in South Lake Union, and now, since 2001, the waterfront replacement for SR-99. In the early wars, the issue was sprawl and suburbanization, rather than costs (since the feds were paying so much of the bill). The new thematics concern cars versus transit, climate change, and costs.
One reason the debate is so hot and personal is that it is a fraternal and generational war among Seattle liberals. At the outset, a coalition of moderate environmentalists, urban design groups (such as Allied Arts), labor unions, and downtown property interests (looking for enhanced land values) pretty much agreed on the goal of a spacious waterfront park, knocking down the Viaduct, and putting the new road in a trench or a tunnel alongside a new seawall. A younger and more radical group of greens, led by Cary Moon of the People's Waterfront Coalition, then split the coalition by making the case for "de-highwayization" — getting rid of any replacemtn for the Viaduct by dispersing the traffic through downtown and adding new transit.
Faced with a greener-than-thou group, Seattle's liberal consensus had a long nervous breakdown that infuriated Olympia, spawned all manner of new configurations, and divided Mayor Greg Nickels (who tried to placate both liberal groups) from Gregoire. Vast efforts at finding consensus ensued, until finally Gregoire put her foot down and made a decision for the deep-bore tunnel.
An unknown political candidate, Mike McGinn, then realized how the issue could carry him from obscurity to the mayor's office. Part of the appeal of the issue is the radical imperative of climate change. There's also the charge that "We was robbed" hovering over the peremptory way Gregoire cut short the endless debate among stakeholders. And McGinn has understood polls that show the public is very alarmed, given its distrust of government and the example of Boston's "Big Dig," over the cost-overrun provision inserted by the legislature in order to get the remaining last votes. One theory about that mischievous, unenforceable, but politically very useful amendment is that it was put there to prevent Seattle from loading up the project with still more non-highway goodies such as the park, beaches, salmon runs, and the like — a most reasonable concern — and in this regard the amendment has worked.
The issue, in my view, is mostly settled, but it remains politically salient and journalistically juicy.
One paradox in all this is that the "faster, cheaper, wider" outcome is partially owing to Mayor McGinn. His shrewd and often maddening opposition has put all the tunnel forces on alert, spurred the City Council into unwonted coherence, turned mild-mannered Tom Rasmussen, the council transportation committee chair, into a most unlikely tiger, and rallied the Seattle establishment into one mighty last hurrah. It has also given Gov. Gregoire what will probably be her most visible, lasting, and hard-fought legacy.
It is unlikely that Mayor McGinn is amused by this paradox. But that clever rascal might be.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Dec 10, 9 a.m. Inappropriate
Yes, quite a good day yesterday.
Speaking as a construction guy (buildings, not tunnels), I'm impressed that things are coming along so smoothly. The cost estimates have been vindicated, appropriate design changes have been made, we got fantastic talent (design-build is way better than low-bid in this regard), and the process has caused innovation that will result in a better project. Design-build also puts more of the cost risk on the design-builder's side...the general contractor can't charge extra for what the design team missed, which is a big problem with low-bid.
The stauncher opponents will never like the tunnel. But their arguments are dropping like flies. Cost risk still exists, but the major factor of "what will the bids be" is gone. The schedule is a major advantage. Lack of disruption is a major advantage. There's still a lot of misinformation about vibration among the public (the tunneling should cause dramatically less vibration than, say, tearing down a neighboring building, as I sat through a few years ago at work), and we're hiring a great team that's done the same thing before.
There's some urgency to move forward and save cost. Prices are starting to rise again. Any alternate plan would almost certainly cost hundreds of millions higher in three or four years vs. what the same thing would cost today.
Posted Fri, Dec 10, 9:41 a.m. Inappropriate
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 provides the only effective way to modulate traffic in the core. It also acknowledges the fact that rubber-tired, multi-passenger vehicles are still the choice of over 90% of us. And it’s billions of dollars cheaper than this present mistake in the making.
Bad ideas don't get better over time. We'll be paying 2.5 billion dollars to create a park and an enormous traffic jam. It's a shame that Seattle has no honest news source for unbiased information about these giant projects. The tunnel may be desirable for a lot of reasons, mostly aesthetics for one neighborhood, but it won't be for providing an improved transportation solution for the region.
Posted Fri, Dec 10, 9:51 a.m. Inappropriate
Same ol same old jmrolls. Between the tunnel and the widened Alaskan Way, including the new roadway from Alaskan to Elliott/Western, the through-traffic capacity will be preserved. Others will exit a bit sooner. (I'll let you get the last word on this unless any new points come up!)
Posted Fri, Dec 10, 10:06 a.m. Inappropriate
I'd just settle for some answers to the original questions. There's a reason why the people responsible for all this avoided any kind of a comparative analysis between an elevated and a tunnel solution and you
know it.
A new brochure or a sound bite from the governor doesn't do anything for me.
Posted Fri, Dec 10, 10:31 a.m. Inappropriate
It's going to be her legacy all right. Fiscal disaster when the inevitable cost overruns destroy the Seattle taxpayer. Why do we need a park along that section of waterfront? Take a walk in either Elliott Bay Park or Myrtle Edwards Park at any time of day and it's comfortably devoid of people. Seattle citizens just don't flock to the waterfront the way the fat cats want us to think. This is about fat cats, real estate values, and in the end, the taxpayer will be on the hook. Washington State is the number 3 worst state when comparing the budget gap to the overall budget. Way to go--this'll make us No. 1! World-class all right--but of what?
Posted Fri, Dec 10, 11:19 a.m. Inappropriate
Does anyone out there know much about this bidding process? Is there supposed to be behind the scenes negotiation between the state and the bidders?
I read some O'Brian remarks and am worried there is some hanky-panky going on with the bidding.
Here are the O'Brian remarks from Publicola:
City council member Mike O’Brien, a tunnel skeptic (he’s speaking for that side of the debate at our forum December 16), expressed alarm at the fact that both bids came in just under budget. “After we gave away a couple hundred million in contingency money, and with these bids coming in right under budget, there’s not a lot of wiggle room for this project going forward,” O’Brien said. “It would have been nice to see them come in a couple hundred million under budget, but it’s pretty clear that WSDOT knew exactly how much money they had to give away.” In October, the state offered the bidders $230 million in incentives, shrinking the contingency fund for the project by half.
Posted Fri, Dec 10, 12:14 p.m. Inappropriate
rorric, do you think the near total lack of access to Elliott Bay / Myrtle Edwards Parks has anything to do with their lack of people? And at the north end, maybe their distance from potential users? On its slowest days, our Central Waterfront is more heavily used than they are. On the bright side for EB/MEP, they're supposed to get a skybridge over the tracks soon, which will give thousands of people the access they've always lacked.
Posted Fri, Dec 10, 3:16 p.m. Inappropriate
"close to having been settled."
Just like the monorail after the first three elections, full speed ahead.
Posted Sat, Dec 11, 9:59 a.m. Inappropriate
Stop! PAY ATTENTION TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. It is a DRAFT. Final comments, RECOGNIZING THE SERIOUS CONCERNS IT DOES LIST, are due Monday, 12/13/10. David Brewster says "EIS documents, meant to spell out problems, MAKE GOOD DEBATING POINTS" but only for those who bother to read them. Where is the link to WSDOT's 260+ page document in your article, Mr. Brewster?
Here is just one of the debating points to consider:
The Executive Summary of the DEIS, which is 42 glitzy pages, tells us that taking out the AWV will improve the views from Pioneer Square and
...have an adverse effect on one or more resources [buildings,
etc] that are on or are eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places [p23, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY].
The 260+ pages document uses different words:
possible damage to 12 historic buildings [Ch 2, p31 DEIS] and
possible collapse or dramatic damage to 2 buildings because of
difficulty controlling soil loss or preventing over-excavation
or sink holes [Ch6, p142 DEIS].
Mitigation measures to protect the buildings may not prevent the
need for demolition to avoid collapse [Ch 6, p148 DEIS].
The Executive Summary seriously minimizes almost every concern listed in the complete document. Those of us who were not among the cheerleaders at the Governor's event have been and will continue to monitor the inconvenient details of buildings in Pioneer Square, and all the rest of the "honest about problems" listed in those 260+ pages, even after the digging/boring begins. Please don't let us play the game of "I TOLD YOU SO."
jwinans
Posted Sun, Dec 12, 8:26 p.m. Inappropriate
The actual cost overruns and complications and such are still in the future. Let's see how it goes before we call the tunnel a success -- I'm still fully expecting it to be our own Big Dig fiscal disaster.
Posted Sun, Dec 12, 8:32 p.m. Inappropriate
The big was several times as complex as the 99 tunnel. I wish people understood that better.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.