The environmental case against the waterfront tunnel for Seattle
Six prominent environmentalists argue against the proposed deep-bore tunnel under downtown Seattle. They maintain that a streets/transit/I-5 solution creates more jobs, addresses our mobility needs more quickly and cheaply, and sets us on the path to a livable, post-carbon future.
WSDOT
Four of our friends and environmental colleagues recently made a case for tunneling under downtown Seattle to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. They, along with many of our friends in the labor and business communities, have concluded that the tunnel is the only viable path forward. It pains us to disagree, because we respect them and value the relationships and accomplishments that our work together has brought.
As a citywide vote on the deep-bore tunnel approaches, however, we cannot remain silent. Like many, we are frustrated by the seemingly endless delays and squabbles that have surrounded this issue. We empathize with the cries to “Just do something! Anything!” But we can’t go along with that “anything” when the chosen path—the deep-bore tunnel—is demonstrably inferior to the leading alternative.
The advantages of the package of smart investments called streets/transit/I-5 (“ST5”) are overwhelming. Compared with the tunnel, ST5 creates construction jobs for local workers more quickly, improves traffic flow downtown, yields the same beautiful waterfront, is faster to build, aligns with our civic values and climate goals, and saves us about $1 billion.
The new, 7,351-page Environmental Impact Statement gets us past the claims and counterclaims with a comprehensive analysis that clearly shows the tunnel’s failings. It shows, for example, that the tolled tunnel will put almost as much traffic on the streets of downtown Seattle as would just closing the viaduct and walking away. Repeat: spending billions on a tolled tunnel is barely better for downtown streets than letting the viaduct fall down.
By comparison, the major elements of the ST5 plan are straightforward and workable: reconfiguring I-5 ramps and restriping the freeway to add a new northbound lane in the existing right of way; wiring I-5 with smart traffic-flow management signs; adding transit service in key corridors; opening new freight and passenger capacity by removing bottlenecks in the existing street grid, especially at the north and south ends of downtown; and upgrading the infrastructure for walking and cycling.
ST5 developed over years, in city agencies and community meetings. In 2008, it emerged a winner from the joint decision-making process convened by the city, county, and state after city voters famously rejected both the elevated viaduct rebuild and the cut-and-cover tunnel. But the state pushed ahead with the deep-bore tunnel. At the time, the tunnel wasn’t much more than a napkin sketch with no known price tag. Perhaps without benefit of analysis, it seemed like a reasonable compromise. Now we know better.
ST5’s targeted, smart, decentralized investments deliver better mobility, according to several different analyses (editor's note: separate links for the studies are here, here, here, here, and here), and do it for just three quarters of the cost. ST5 puts fewer cars on downtown streets than the tolled tunnel and improves their flow, while eliminating traffic bottlenecks and prioritizing access for transit and freight. It also creates construction jobs for local workers more quickly than does the tunnel, because it’s easier to stage lots of small projects than one underground behemoth. ST5 is fairer to working families, because it expands transit service and avoids the pocketbook pinch of $5 tolls.
ST5’s pragmatic approach to simple, low-risk transportation investments is among its key virtues. Some $300-$700 million of tunnel funding is still not secured, and already, before the design and planning are done, escalating costs have eaten deeply into the state’s contingency fund. There’s a grave risk that the tunnel will cost more than budgeted, as do most tunnel projects near and far. As just one example, tunneling failure is a real danger. The tunnel will be dug by a 56-foot-wide boring machine with no reverse gear that can only be removed vertically, that is, up through a massive hole in downtown. Unlikely? Two of the tunneling machines working on King County’s Brightwater sewage treatment plant have broken down, triggering layoffs of more than 100 workers during repairs.
The tunnel has no financial guarantor, just an ongoing dispute between city and state about who must pay cost overruns. This situation ought to give Seattleites dry mouth, because state law assigns the bill for all tunnel overruns to city tax payers. Key state legislators are bound and determined to make sure that Seattle residents pick up what could be a blank check for a money pit.
Tunnel advocates argue that creating a spectacular waterfront requires putting traffic underground. We share their excitement for the waterfront vision. Indeed, many of us have devoted years to developing and fighting for it. The tunnel, however, is not essential to that vision. ST5 can deliver exactly the same waterfront design as the tunnel: the same four-lane Alaskan Way, the same parks and bike paths, the same reintegration of city and bay, and – above all – the same eradication of the elevated highway that has blighted our shoreline for half a century and more. The state’s Environmental Impact Statement predicts traffic on the central waterfront with a tolled tunnel or with a viaduct that’s suddenly closed. The difference in car numbers? Two percent or less. Other studies show a similar range of traffic outcomes (links: here and here) on the waterfront. The main lesson, however, is that traffic choosing Alaskan Way will be the result of city decisions about the roadway’s design and lane width, not state decisions about the tunnel.
At the end of the day, this multi-billion dollar project isn’t just about our waterfront or downtown traffic flow. It’s about our city’s future and identity.
At our best, we in Seattle invent new solutions that others copy, from airplanes to online retailing; we pioneer decentralized, green solutions that set an example for the world.
Three decades ago, Seattle said “No!” to WPPSS’ nuclear power, instead making ourselves world leaders in energy efficiency in our homes, offices, and factories. Two decades ago, we said “No!” to a massive burner to incinerate our garbage and showed the country how to make every kitchen and workplace a recycling center. One decade ago, after the California electricity crisis, we said “No!” to coal and natural gas plants; we turned to the wind and, again, efficiency. In fact, we made City Light the country’s premier carbon-neutral utility. We’ve also made some big mistakes. Four decades ago, for example, we turned our backs on federal transit funding that would have given us, by now, a world class light-rail system.
We now confront another pivotal decision.
ST5 not only delivers better transportation more cheaply, it also speeds us along the path to a livable, post-carbon future. Seattle is a leader for sustainable prosperity: a way of living well and durably on our only planet. We are moving toward that vision -- in fits and starts, yes, and often too slowly. Still, we are moving forward. Building a bypass freeway downtown would be a lurch backward, undercutting much of the progress we’ve made. Spending billions to bury it would do little to hide that tragic reversal.
We’ve already begun breaking our oil addiction by investing in new mass transit, calming traffic, and making room for bikes on our roadways. Block by block, we’re rebuilding our city, transforming our neighborhoods into complete, compact communities. Already, we’re driving less. Per-capita gasoline consumption has dropped since 1998 to the levels of the late 1960s, and traffic on Seattle’s freeways has been flat or declining for eight years or more. It’s a good—no, a great start! We are poised to step into the ranks of the world’s most innovative cities: places from Seoul to San Francisco that have demolished urban highways (links: here, here, here, and here) and replaced them with transit, better street connections, and thriving neighborhoods.
Some proponents candidly acknowledge the tunnel’s drawbacks. They support it because they feel the need to do something, and they see the tunnel as the only politically viable path. That is self-fulfilling defeatism. What our community needs now, in these dark economic and political times, is a brave and pragmatic, “Hell, yes! We can do better than a buried highway.”
Join us in rejecting the tunnel, by rejecting Referendum 1 on Aug. 16.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 2:29 p.m. Inappropriate
Awesome piece.
Seattle is a city of science. A city of innovation. Saying "just stop talking and put in a freeway" runs contrary to those values.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 2:30 p.m. Inappropriate
Finally, thoughtful analysis that puts this whole fight into context.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 2:38 p.m. Inappropriate
The EIS also says that people taking the tunnel will spend 19 minutes less each way getting through Downtown Seattle. 40 minutes a day isn't chickenfeed to the third of Seattle's population that lives west of SR99 (and for whom the world doesn't revolve around the grandiose waterfront visions of the New Urbanist swells who dominate the local blogs).
Put the so-called "ST5" option on the ballot - it'll get clobbered by a margin that makes the 2007 advisory votes against a tunnel and/or elevated replacement look like mandates in comparison.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 3:01 p.m. Inappropriate
The 19 minutes "savings" makes a lot of assumptions and is highly conditional. Touting little more than the potential for (but not promise of) a slightly faster commute that will not effect more than 5% of the population is hardly a benefit. And say more folks did use it? Then those savings evaporate immediately.
Remember: before the pushback and intense lobbying for a tunnel by big business, the ST5 option enjoyed the greatest popular support post-2007 vote. Money talks. It seems to be the climate now. Just as everyone agrees caring for the health of neighbors is important, a whole lot of cash turned the tide and now people hiss "obamacare" and spit at the other for wanting them to care about the bigger picture. Even those that otherwise say a healthy nation is a working one.
"Gimme gimme"
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 3:05 p.m. Inappropriate
Alexjon,
On what planet has ST5 EVER enjoyed the greatest popular support? Its polling numbers have ALWAYS been well below those for the tunnel - and they'll plummet further when more folks realize that this particular scheme also eliminates two downtown ramps from I-5.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 3:14 p.m. Inappropriate
bubblebrain - On planet earth, in 2008, the ST5 plan "emerged a winner from the joint decision-making process convened by the city, county, and state after city voters famously rejected both the elevated viaduct rebuild and the cut-and-cover tunnel." I can see that reading and critically examining the opposing view hurts your little bubblebrain. Next you'll undoubtedly write a silly screed in all caps about some alleged "war on cars" so please spare us all and just go away. Your type is all to predictable and serve no purpose but to disrupt intelligent conversation.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 3:18 p.m. Inappropriate
thematch,
Name a poll where that option hasn't been clobbered by a far greater margin than the tunnel or a rebuild.
You can't, because there isn't one. It has been polled frequently (though never put to a vote, because its supporters know it would be crushed by the public if they had an opportunity to weigh in), and it always comes in dead last. Always.
But by all means, call me names - it doesn't change the FACT that the so-called S/T option has the least support of any of the various options for the viaduct.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 3:24 p.m. Inappropriate
A "winner" usually has to have funding associated with it, yes? And opponents to the tunnel love to rant about the tunnel's "shaky financing scheme." Let's see, a billion $$ for surface improvements, half-billion $$ for utility relocation, half-billion $$ on transit (oops, can't use gas tax $$ for that one), three-quarters billion $$ for I-5 widening with 4 less exits into downtown (another knock on the tunnel??). I'm sorry, but how are you going to get the legislature to approve this mess....not likely!
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 3:26 p.m. Inappropriate
bubbleator's argument appears to be that because ST5 doesn't have as much support in a poll, we should instead approve a deeply flawed tunnel that will cause significant damage to the environment.
There have been many national polls showing majority support for more offshore oil drilling. Should we then allow it to occur off our coastline?
A bad idea is a bad idea, and if a project will cause harm to the environment, as we know the tunnel will, shouldn't we stop it from happening?
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 3:35 p.m. Inappropriate
The writers fail to mention that a S/T project can't be done faster without funding - and the state has not agreed, and will not agree, to fund their favored project. What then? The writers are also not looking for ways to make the deep-bore tunnel successful. How about a downtown congestion toll that matches the tunnel toll? That way, the tunnel would be used to capacity. Street parking fees could and private parking taxes could be eliminated. For a more detailed analysis of tunnel politics, see www.davidforseattle.com and click tunnel.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 3:56 p.m. Inappropriate
The problem with the "where are you going to get funding" argument is that it also applies to cost overruns. Suggesting in one breath that the state will shut its purse but suggesting in another that they will write a blank check for any financial failures is hypocrisy.
Otherwise the whole suggestion is ethically shaky. You can't duck into your shell and insist the state will screw over Seattle if they don't get their way. They rely on our votes, contributions and endorsements.
My absolute prediction on what would happen in a rout of the tunnel is simple: the state will advance a shutdown timeline, begin beneficial shovel-ready projects and, in a pace similar to that of the I-35W bridge replacement and well in advance of the tunnel's planned opening date, commit to paper and funding a plan that works within our budget and one that can't be as politically damaging as simply plopping down a freeway just because you don't care what Seattle says.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 3:56 p.m. Inappropriate
Just for the record, here are the results of the latest Elway poll (3/2011)
"All were asked which option they'd prefer if they were to vote:
• 38 percent favored a new or repaired viaduct;
• 35 percent favored a tunnel;
• 21 percent favored new and improved surface streets;
• 6 percent had no opinion."
"Greatest popular support" my keister.
You want a mandate? Over 70% of Seattle voters want the Viaduct replaced. THAT's a mandate.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 4:30 p.m. Inappropriate
The critical flaw in the ST5 plan is the notion that I-5 can absorb the added north-south traffic flow from the surface-only option with better signs, ramps and a limited upgrade to capacity. That's just nonsense, as anyone who has spent time on I-5 can attest. It is already a parking lot on most days, weekends included. Those improvements might meet current traffic and organic growth, and that's about it. Moreover, the proposed transit options are unfunded; in fact KC Metro is about to wield a heavy axe on existing bus routes (as in double-digit percentage cuts) due to cuts in funding. In other words, transit spending would need to increase to cover recent cuts with additional funding to support the ST5 plan. That's just not going to happen.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 4:32 p.m. Inappropriate
And yet, bubbleator, it confirms that you can shift public sentiment by hurling money at it. Strange that they can only manage to buy a stalemate, though.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 4:37 p.m. Inappropriate
how many times have we voted against something and the powers that be build it anyway?
wake up folks
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 4:37 p.m. Inappropriate
how many times have we voted against something and the powers that be build it anyway?
wake up folks
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 4:37 p.m. Inappropriate
how many times have we voted against something and the powers that be build it anyway?
wake up folks
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 4:37 p.m. Inappropriate
how many times have we voted against something and the powers that be build it anyway?
wake up folks
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 4:39 p.m. Inappropriate
should i repeat it?
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 4:51 p.m. Inappropriate
The surface option is the most astounding of the alternatives for the waterfront because it has always been the least plausible. It only exists today because of its usefulness in obfuscating the issues and avoiding any honest comparison between a tunnel or an elevated. Tunnel proponents have known throughout the entire process that an elevated solution was preferred by the voters. Jan Drago stated it right here in Crosscut in an article in 2009 by C.R. Douglas about the phony referendum she concocted to confuse the issues. She says, “Had it been a single vote, tunnel vs. elevated, we [tunnel supporters] would have been dead on arrival.” Read it again here: http://crosscut.com/2009/12/27/seattle-city-hall/18780/Best-of-2009:-How-Jan-Drago-dragooned-a-Viaduct-solution/ And the punch line is that this little trick cost tax payers a million dollars. Reminds me again of that old joke…what do you get when you cross a hyena with a slot machine..? You get something that takes your money and laughs at you.
Trust me on this one…replace the viaduct.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 5:15 p.m. Inappropriate
Oh, and alexjon's "absolute prediction" on what will occur if the tunnel is defeated is about as delusional as his repeated assertion that the so-called "ST5" scheme has the greatest popular support of any of the proposed AWV options.
Dude, you need to get out of the Publicola echo chamber more often. A lot more often.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 5:27 p.m. Inappropriate
I'm for the tunnel,but I do live in Magnolia and need to get to the airport on time. In fact, we should have two tunnels. We already have one--the Battery Street subway. Whose idea was it to decommission this valuable arterial? It would remain a perfectly good, quick route to Belltown, The Pike Place Market, and the stunning new-old waterfront the city will inherit when the present viaduct is torn down, or falls down, perhaps in 2025, after several more lawsuits, initiatives, referendums, mayors, and legislatures.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 5:29 p.m. Inappropriate
Again it bears repeating that the vast majority of traffic on the Viaduct is going through Seattle, not within Seattle. That traffic can't just disappear into buses and bike lanes. It will move to I-5, I-405 and the ferry system. Money will need to be spent upgrading those, or people will spend billions of dollars a year in their lost time sitting in more traffic jams than even today (and just because the expense of wasted personal time isn't being paid by the government, it doesn't mean that it isn't being paid by the taxpayers). Just because the ersatz "surface option" costs less than retrofitting the Viaduct (best 50-year solution) or building a tunnel (best plausible solution) to implement it doesn't mean that it will save money, or bring more prosperity to Seattle.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 5:50 p.m. Inappropriate
If the deep tunnel gets the go ahead it seems the most likely outcome is failure, just like with the crazy decision to put Brightwater miles away from Puget Sound. Expect Seattle property taxes to go parabolic. I think it will be time to sell up and get away while the gettin's still good if it goes ahead.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 6:09 p.m. Inappropriate
A post-carbon world does not mean a post-individual, personal transportation (cars powered by something other than fossil fuels) world. Cary Moon's social engineered world where one can only travel as far as he can walk, ride a bicycle or take public transportation isn't going to happen.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 6:24 p.m. Inappropriate
So long as we kill the unwise and pollution/traffic increasing Deeply Tolled Tunnel any of the remaining choices would be far better.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 6:37 p.m. Inappropriate
Some of the reasoning in the studies that support the ST5 option seems flawed to me. For example, one says that congestion on city streets isn't as bad as congestion on I-5, because you can always go around to another street. Having often taken 30 minutes to get through downtown, I know this is not true - if 4th Avenue is jammed, then 3rd and 5th Avenues are also jammed, as are the side streets. Nor do I buy the argument that "the capacity of the street grid to the west of I-5 is about twice the capacity of the Alaskan Way Viaduct."
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 6:38 p.m. Inappropriate
It only bears repeating that the traffic goes through and not into Seattle because that is the only way a lie gets to become truth. Keep saying it over and over again until it sticks, as they say.
For the record, the original viaduct lacked downtown access. This proved disastrous. ... so we paid for exits. We being the voters, of course. A bypass with ends that are within the actual core of a city is going to snarl core traffic either way. And even more so than otherwise planned since it's a corral and a snare and a barricade all at once.
Bubbleator insists my suggestion -- completing planned-for projects and producing a more working scheme in the interim -- is delusion. And yet he claims to absolute nerveless frustration that there has certainly been this silent majority against any non-freeway option this entire time. That's been demonstrably false and we have unbuilt proof in the Arboretum.
You can claim we can't stop things, that we're agin' somethin' and not fer' it, but in reality, Bubbleator, public sentiment can be bought. It has been. Another harsh reality, Bubbleator, is that in the past, Seattle voters have decided that freeways were not the solution. And in the past they expressed comfort and ease with a non-freeway solution. The numbers agreed with that sentiment back then, and in spite of heavy tweaking, they still somewhat agree with that assessment.
And in spite of heavy tweaking in the PR realm, Seattle voters will eventually, again, come to realize that Seattle's shared heritage is one where freeways are not the answer.
Innovation is the answer.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 6:42 p.m. Inappropriate
Baldly asserting that the state isn't going to replace SR99 with another limited access roadway is indeed delusional.
Wish in one hand, you-know-what in the other....
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 9:40 p.m. Inappropriate
Been driving on the RL Thompson freeway lately? Me neither, no one has because it's never been built. Life didn't end then either.
Also remember that it was a long time before I-5 joined to I-90. Life didn't stop then either. And all that time we saved by not getting off onto Dearborn and driving a bit through town to get to one or the other, oh yeah, I don't know what I do with all that extra time I have during the day.
Freeways are not the future. I'm pro business but not business as usual.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 10:17 p.m. Inappropriate
Great article. I'm glad to see well respected green voices in this city take a stand against this expensive waste of money.
I'm always astounded how people just take for granted that the oil will be avialable to drive the cars to fill the highways of the future. Or that electric cars will be affordable to people living on a planet 30 years from now with depleted oceans, fossil fuels, rare-earth metals, expensive food and energy, yada-yada. There is an assumption that human technology will always push back the limits presented by the finiteness of natural materials or the capacity of the biosphere to absorb our poisons. I would suggest that the last decade shows this not to be the case.
The window where we can afford to have millions of people driving around in thousand(s) pound private vehicles is rapidly closing and we don't seem to be able to be honest with ourselves about that. It goes beyond climate change... we just cant afford the expense of cars.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 10:19 p.m. Inappropriate
If you folks want to frame the upcoming vote as a choice between the Tunnel and Surface/Tarnsit, I believe that you will lose big-time.
You are walking into a trap if you push S/T at this point.
Wait until the Tunnel is trashed, as it should be.
Posted Tue, Jul 19, 10:22 p.m. Inappropriate
There's no comparison to the one mile of road underground that these 7 people are mad about and the earlier efforts to kill WPPSS and a coal fired future.
These people lose credibility by aligning their campaign with the same vile anti-toll campaign Tim Eyman is promoting.
Tolling is 100 times more meaningful for hundreds of miles of roads when it comes to climate than any opposition is to one mile of road underground, which appears to be the only clear path to opening Seattle's waterfront and focusing growth where it ought to go.
The tunnel is the only real antidote to the freeway running over the waterfront now, or a big traffic jam blocking the waterfront from the city.
It is not business as usual.
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 8:47 a.m. Inappropriate
Let's end this interminable dithering.
Build the tunnel ... or ...
put forward an election that offers a true comparison where all the options are put one ballot for voters to select *one* that they prefer. The options? (a) tunnel, (b) rebuild the viaduct, (c) ST5.
I'll bet the end result of that would be proceed with the tunnel, ST5 would be the least favored.
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 9:16 a.m. Inappropriate
"A bad idea is a bad idea, and if a project will cause harm to the environment, as we know the tunnel will, shouldn't we stop it from happening?"
These things "cause harm to the environment":
births
immigration
home building
electricity generation
water diversions
wastewater generation
pet ownership
etcetera
Should we stop them ALL from "happening"?
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 9:23 a.m. Inappropriate
The bored tunnel length is almost 2 miles, Jan. The Cut/cover in the EIS is half that length, requires less concrete and recycles more, makes the strongest seawall, and its 6 lanes maintains SR99 capacity and traffic speed. The debate over which tunnel option makes more sense, DBT vs C/c, conclusively favors Wsdot's (suspiciously last) design for a Cut/cover.
The deep bore tunnel's insanely high risk of failure is absolutely unacceptable. The Mercer West proposal is likewise atrocious. Mercer East looks good, but adding more traffic with Mercer West will resusitate and extend the Mercer mess through residential Queen Anne.
The current design for Alaskan Way is bogus. Neither SDOT nor Wsdot dare to admit it. Doing so would mean numerous and deserved department head firings, starting with Ms Hammond. Incompetence and unaccountability on this project cannot be tolerated. Environmentalists must reconsider their grandiose delusion of a waterfront playground next to the major thoroughfare highway. Once again, the Post-seawall & Pre-AWV historical era should be formally considered rather than officially ignored. Mike Mcginn for Governor!
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 9:46 a.m. Inappropriate
Shades of 1976. The same arguments about slowing growth on the eastside of Lake Washington by limiting transit options on the bridges, are being raised again. A vision of a people-focused waterfront is a front for mis-placed and luddite environmenalism that conveniently forgets the transportation options of north and west Seattle. And no, I don't live in either sector of the city.
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 12:21 p.m. Inappropriate
What's the big deal about the waterfront without a grade separated road? The property owners will win the lottery at the taxpayer and citizens expense. The view, which is currently owned by the public in the form of driving on the viaduct, is about to be given away to the private realm.
Rebuild the viaduct, not in its current form. Let's see twenty different solutions, I'm sure there's a winner in there somewhere. Or B, build an elevated light rail or monorail where the viaduct is. Why not enjoy the waterfront floating along above it in public transit for all to enjoy? The public owns the view up to the top of the current viaduct. That is one of the key assets of the waterfront which should not be taken from the public.
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 2:26 p.m. Inappropriate
For no particular reason I was staring at that WSDOT sketch of the Seattle waterfront that accompanies this piece and I tried to imagine what I would think of it if I had just come for a visit from somewhere else. I thought it looked boring. Even if I had come from the midwest, it still looked kind of boring... sort of flat, plain, generic. Tourist-trapish. I realized for the first time that I guess I like a little grit, a few obstacles adds to the adventure, something different happening besides the same-ol' same-ol' "entertainment". Some little nooks where you can watch a working waterfront seems a lot more interesting. Hmmm, I guess I'm leaning toward a viaduct replacement.
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 2:35 p.m. Inappropriate
toughbretts: What you've said is one of the reasons for keeping the Viaduct structure in tact no matter what happens. If the tunnel project can't be stopped, then perhaps the Viaduct could be turned into a highrise park as per the much-touted High Line in New York City. I prefer keeping the Viaduct as a roadway (through retrofitting); but if that option cannot be achieved, then the park idea would be my second choice. Either way, I think demolishing it would amount to wasting a valuable public resource.
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 2:48 p.m. Inappropriate
The Advisory vote in 2007? Tunnel voted down. What's changed?
Another sign of Seattle amnesia? Early on the first tunnel debate, there was a symposium with 4+ teams, each containing City planners, environmentalists, artists, Land Use committee and community members to design and propose no-Viaduct, no-tunnel options. As a former Chicagoan who admires the Outer Drive, I was thrilled to see creative, plausible Surface options being discussed for Seattle. The final presentation was shown on the City's cable station, but unsure of date.
These teams had worked for months on these Surface options and none resemble the one favored by McGinn. People have not been given enough choices other than the Tunnel or McGinn's. Could the original members of those teams resurrect those options/plans?
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 2:56 p.m. Inappropriate
a couple more years of litigation and the only thing the state will be able to afford is to just demolish the viaduct. Add an anti-tolling referendum and the money really goes away even faster.
Posted Thu, Jul 21, 11:18 a.m. Inappropriate
Drill Baby Drill!
Although I have to admit, "just stop talking and build a freeway" has a certain ring to it. Enough with this nonsense.
Look, the State is Building a Tunnel. Get over it. The question that I can't for the life of me answer is why, with the THROUGH Seattle question answered, why all you tree huggers and spandex clad bicyle warriors aren't getting to work on the TO Seattle Question? How about, oh, I don't know, starting to argue for your beloved Surface and Transit improvements AS WELL? Hello?! How does a new Tunnel under the city prevent the surface improvements you're looking for? How does that tunnel prevent the transit improvements you're looking for? Move on already and start planning for a Seattle that includes a Tunnel AND Surface improvements AND Transit improvements. Good Lord, is that so hard?
Posted Thu, Jul 21, 1:42 p.m. Inappropriate
And now, an artbreak. Crosscut needs more of these, IMHO.
Anthem, by Leonard Cohen.
"The birds they sang at the break of day
Start again I heard them say
Don't dwell on whathas passed away
or what is yet to be.
Ah the wars they will be fought again
The holy dove She will be caught again
bought and sold and bought again
the dove is never free.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.
We asked for signs
the signs were sent:
the birth betrayed
the marriage spent
Yeah the widowhood
of every government --
signs for all to see.
I can't run no more with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.
Ring the bells that still can ring ...
You can add up the parts but you won't have the sum
You can strike up the march, there is no drum
Every heart, every heart to love will come
but like a refugee.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in."
Posted Thu, Jul 21, 8:53 p.m. Inappropriate
To answer Martin's Dumb Baby Dumb question about surface street and transit improvements for Seattle:
How about some nice new concrete sidewalks and curb extensions? Sorry, most of the pure riverbed sand turned into concrete is poured an underground highway.
How about PAYING for transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure? Sorry, the State department of Transportation plans only highways and spends gas tax money only on roads somehow inconsequentially bordering sidewalks where walkers, transit users and bicyclists risk their lives trying to cross or ride alongside automobiles and trucks.
The bored tunnel reroutes more than 20,000+ cars and heavy trucks through residential Queen Anne on Mercer Street from Elliott to its north portal and adds more traffic from there to I-5. Mercer West will make the current Mercer Mess worse. The 'spillover' secondary route for this much more traffic is Denny Way, but because the Battery Street Tunnel is closed, the 5,000 vehicles that now use it daily between Lake Union and Lower Belltown increase traffic congestion on Denny Way and Broad. These major thoroughfares are currently overwhelmed with traffic.
The current design for Alaskan Way can't handle the traffic predicted with the bored tunnel, nor make crossing it nor bicycling alongside the traffic safer. State and City DOTs responsible for their halfass design won't admit it.
The bored tunnel increases air & water pollution, noise, gridlock, traffic accidents, fatalities, injury and pollution sickness. Why is it so hard for bored tunnel stooges to comprehend or admit how the bored tunnel and its inextricably related street reconfigurations create extremely severe impediments for walkers, transit users and bicyclists?
And let's not shut the F up about the nightmarish potential catastrophe of a major earthquake or carbomb detonating in WARshdot's DBT.
Posted Fri, Jul 22, 10:40 a.m. Inappropriate
With the talk of tolling, why not let private industry build the tunnel and collect tolls?
Answer:
A.because it's a bad idea
B.private industry won't make as much if the City foots the bill
C.too many "what ifs"
D.All of the above
With the need to stabilize the Viaduct and repair the seawall, what makes more sense to the average taxpayer?
A.Sell rights to build Condo's, apartments under the Viaduct with conditions to repair seawall
B.leave the viaduct as is
C.reinforce the Viaduct
D.Allow the taxpayer to pay for a tunnel, while developers benefit from new waterfront property
Posted Fri, Jul 22, 11:23 a.m. Inappropriate
Excellent piece on the Tunnel over at "The Stranger"
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/its-official-downtown-traffic-after-the-multibillion-dollar-tunnel-would-be-nearly-identical-to-shutting-down-the-viaduct-and-doing-nothing/Content?oid=9125286
"It's Official: Downtown Traffic After the Multibillion-Dollar Tunnel Would Be Nearly Identical to Shutting Down the Viaduct and Doing Nothing"
Posted Fri, Jul 22, 5:14 p.m. Inappropriate
@GaryP: I showed that article to a co-worker who is a tunnel supporter. After reading, she said, "there's no downtown exits?". She is no longer a tunnel supporter.
The more people learn about the DBT, the less they like it.
Posted Sat, Jul 23, 12:01 a.m. Inappropriate
A few of us long ago asked, "Why not compromise? Build a surface replacement of the viaduct and cover it?" In bumpersticker that's, JUST COVER! Or JC Blesses the Emerald City! To my knowledge, none of the many "players" responded or discussed such a compromise. There are several obvious benefits besides the likely much lower costs: 1. All the contenders get something. Given the egos engaged, just putting down the war clubs might provide all with a gracious exit (no pun). 2. Vehicles get a high speed limited access road. 3. Downtown interests, workers, residents and visitors keep the view or, most of it. 4. We all get, maybe, waterfront open space with room for pedestrians, bikes, & other forms of no motor locomotion.
Kurmudgeon
Posted Sat, Jul 23, 10:17 a.m. Inappropriate
A year after the 2007 voter slap-down, WARshdot presented their tunnel Scenarios 'G' & 'H', a cut/cover and a shallow "covered trench" like Kurmudgeon suggests. They were both 4-lane tunnels that required demolition of the AWV to complete. The "covered trench" had 6' tall, approx 40' long (view blocking) ventilation ports in the median of every block of Alaskan Way.
Either Scenario 'G' or 'H' could be built after the AWV is down and a functioning surface boulevard in place. However, the Cut/cover design in the EIS (suspiciously presented LAST) could be constructed with the AWV in place, or built after the AWV is down with least construction disruption. Moreover, it's a 6-lane tunnel, far safer in an accident than any 4-lane tunnel, especially the INSANELY STUPID DBT which is a mile longer than cut/cover tunnels.
When WARshdot spokespersons say public safety is a priority, they're lying.
WARshdot is in fact jeapardizing public health and safety intentionally, malevolently. The question is, How much abuse can Seattle liberals take before they file charges against Department of Highway Robbery lawbreakers?
Posted Sat, Jul 23, 1:03 p.m. Inappropriate
In many ways, the proposed downtown Seattle tunnel mirror the bankrupt 2.1 km long Cross City Tunnel in Sydney, Australia. Both cities are located on the water. The purpose of both sets of tunnels is to bypass the city's central business district. Both tunnels relied upon a degree of tolling to fund the projects.
Sydney's Cross City Tunnel though was financed by private equity, whereas, our tunnel will be financed through state issued bonds. As of 2006, the Cross City Tunnel was financially insolvent with debts of $500 million.
Here is how one observer describes the Cross City Tunnel:
"One criticism of the tunnel plan is that while it works well for traffic wanting to go under the central city between eastern and western suburbs it serves poorly downtown office workers with corporate basement parking who live in the inner eastern suburbs. There are no direct ramps into the central city streets such as Elizabeth Street which might have attracted more use by highly paid people in the city's office towers. ... For motorists traveling the length of the tunnel and going beyond the CBD it bypasses 16 traffic signals westbound and 18 signals eastbound for 2 or 3 minute trips compared to 10 to 20 minutes on surface William Street."
Reference: http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/1742
The failure of the Cross City Tunnel is a warning to those how rely on optimistic projections of toll revenues. For the Cross City Tunnel, projections were the 85,000 vehicles/day would use the tunnel. When actual use at full fair resulted in only 26,000-27,000 vehicles/day, owners attempted to increase use by cutting fairs in half which only increased use to 32,000-36,000 vehicles per day.
Such results might have been anticipated had the planners properly accounted for the reluctance of users to pay tolls when surface street alternatives are available.
The financiers of the Cross City Tunnel also relied upon projected traffic and thus did not account for an observed trend worldwide in a reduction or plateauing of urban vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Recent research indicates a worldwide trend in major cities of an overall reduction in VMT becoming evident in 2004. Researchers Newman and Kenworthy (Curtin University, Perth, Australia) quote the following statistics:
"In the twenty-six cities that comprise the 1995-2005 percentage increase in car vkt per capita we are beginning to see some cities that have actually declined. Some European cities show this pattern: London
has declined 1.2%, Stockholm 3.7%, Vienna 7.6%, Zurich 4.7%. In the US, Atlanta went down 10.1%, Houston 15.2% (both from extraordinarily high levels of car use in 1995), Los Angeles declined 2.0% and San
Francisco 4.8%.
Peak car use appears to be happening. It is a major historical discontinuity that was largely unpredicted by most urban professionals and academics."
The authors identify six causes:
1. The Marchetti Wall (e.g. congestion) - People are only willing to spend one-hour of average travel time
2. Revival of public transit (e.g. Sound Transit, downtown bus tunnel, Sounder commuter)
3. Reversal of urban sprawl
4. Aging of cities - Established cities with older populations require lower degree of mobility
5. Culture of Urbanism (example of television shows "Friends" vs "Father Knows Best")
6. Price of Oil/Car Ownership
The Bureau of Transit Statistics has data to substantiate these trends they show urban VMT per lane-mile having reached a plateau value of ~860 (thousands) between 1999 and 2006. The most recent data from 2009 has urban VMT per lane-mile declining to 818 (thousands) which is similar to levels last seen in 1996.
To summarize, Washington State traffic planners by bypassing the downtown core appear to be following the same tunnel architecture decisions that resulted in the financial failure of Sydney's Cross City tunnel. Furthermore, planners and tunnel advocates also appear to be focused on outdated expectations of urban mobility that are counter to worldwide observed trends. Should tunnel toll revenue fail to materialize as happened in Sydney, the result would be either default or state taxpayers' picking the cost. As such, the evidence suggests the either a tunnel or viaduct are poor public investments that will not best serve Washington State taxpayers or Seattle residents. Thus, this discussion should not be an environmental one but one of fiscal responsibility.
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_City_Tunnel
Google maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q;=cross+city+tunnel&bav;=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw;=1280&bih;=872&um;=1&ie;=UTF-8&sa;=N&tab;=wl
"Peak Car Use’: Understanding the Demise of Automobile Dependence" Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy:
http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp17.2.pdf
Bureau of Transit statistics:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_36.html
Posted Sat, Jul 23, 2:29 p.m. Inappropriate
Anti-tunnel campaign apologizes for attack on pro-tunnel environmentalists
Still, Goldman said, it was "totally inappropriate" to challenge the credentials and environmental experience of tunnel backers because they disagreed about the project.
The environmental community has been sharply divided over the $2 billion tunnel. The Sierra Club, Sightline Institute and Earth Day co-founder Denis Hayes have all blasted the project for encouraging driving, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and squandering transportation dollars that could be better spent on less-polluting alternatives.
But other environmentalists, including Fletcher and Goldman, argue that removal of the viaduct allows for the creation of an appealing green space along the waterfront, restoration of shoreline habitat, reduction of auto emissions and storm-water runoff, and the elimination of a huge source of noise pollution.
"There's an honest difference of opinion whether this is the best environmental solution," said Goldman.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2015696969_anti-tunnel_campaign_apologize.html
Posted Sat, Jul 23, 3:17 p.m. Inappropriate
"There's an honest difference of opinion whether this is the best environmental solution," said Goldman.
If Goldman understood how the grand plaza will most likely include makeshift and probably permanent parking lots, honest disagreement over the environmental benefits of the bored tunnel would be respectable. There are many reasons to conclude environmental impact is harsh on the Waterfront and Pioneer Square, on Mercer and Denny through Lake Union and Queen Anne, but some self-professed environmentalists have been deluded into believing a waterfront playground is possible alongside heavy traffic passing through as fast as possible on Alaskan Way. Wsdot is engineering another traffic monstrosity like everywhere else downtown. Don't trust Wsdot.
Posted Sun, Jul 24, 5:37 p.m. Inappropriate
Tunnels and viaducts create not alleviate congestion. Congestion is a problem exacerbated by autos and trucks with constricted on and off ramps, you slow the flow to get off and it backs up traffic...right, we have all seen it.
There has never been a time in recorded history when improving, widening or adding a highway reduced congestion - never. Up until the mid 1900's, building the amazing national roadway system that connected the country militarily, commercially and communally was a top priority. But since then, and specifically with what we learned with massive roadway expansions that destroyed neighborhoods and cities in the 60's and 70's, we know that roadways are not the drivers of efficient, livable and sustainable communities and that movement of goods and services within cities is an urban planning and design problem not roadway building. Building a tunnel for trucks and automobiles is subsidizing and investing in that old economic model, if that is not where Seattle wants to be then under no circumstance should that investment be made.
Amory Lovins points out in his TED lecture, 1% of the energy used in an automobile is for the movement of the passenger, 1%! Do we really want to invest in a system that wastes 99% of our limited non-renewable fuels while impacting health, fitness and family time?
And do roadway additions or expansions work? A study done for the expansion of 405 through Bellevue said, in part, that after the expansion of the roadway was opened, the best the commuter could expect is a reduction of 5 minutes to their average commute and that would only be for the first 6 months after opening - after that, returning to much wider "parking lot". The same is true of the tunnel but worse in that there is no access to remove derelict cars - not to mention the obvious disconnect of building a tunnel thru a fault line...yikes who comes up with these ideas?
And while we are discussing these critical big steps to Seattle's next 100 years - and thanks Cary and all for putting this conversation out to the community - lets look at 520 as an opportunity.
A regional systems-approach would be to take a billion or two dollars from the proposed 520-construction budget and use it to buy land along the MLK corridor. On this more affordable land, build mixed use housing for the would-have-to-be additional commuters - where there already is transit. This win-win solution adds new residents that are living and working in Seattle and not stuck on 520 and because they are not on 520 - it no longer needs to be expanded. Investing in the continuous gift of land owned by the taxpayer giving back every year, forever, increases the value of our city and improves the Standard and Poor index.
Efficient movement of people: pedestrians, bicyclists, cars and buses, in trucks and in various transit modes start with an systems-integrated plan or the taxpayer will pay dearly for inefficiency and expensive non-fixes like the 520 widening. A simple, logical, and efficient process is to start off with regional planning that is informed by the needs of people and businesses within the communities and region. Those needs inform the patterns and changes that our city must do to remain competitive while an additional 400,000 new neighbors arrive by 2040. If DOT continues to promote road expansions to solve congestion they will subsidize sprawl and degrade the lives of the region's children for the next 100 years and add to congestion. Nobody wants that and we should not support it.
The Obama administration is focused on connecting community, transportation and environmental issues, that is why Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood; HUD Secretary, Shaun Donovan; and EPA Director, Lisa Jackson are traveling the country as a team to illustrate the administrations desire to see things connected and resolved in a manner that provides sustainable solutions. And yes, the reason we are still, thankfully, talking about this after many years is that they started by sizing roads rather than building community.
Posted Tue, Jul 26, 12:49 a.m. Inappropriate
Not living in Seattle, I'll admit I don't know enough about this issue to add a completely informed opinion, but I thought this statement odd:
...a comprehensive analysis that clearly shows the tunnel’s failings. It shows, for example, that the tolled tunnel will put almost as much traffic on the streets of downtown Seattle as would just closing the viaduct and walking away. Repeat: spending billions on a tolled tunnel is barely better for downtown streets than letting the viaduct fall down.
The author seems to suggest that putting additional traffic on the streets of downtown Seattle would be a bad thing, and that less traffic would be "better." That is truly bizarre.
The notion that congestion is a problem, or that less traffic would be better is a suburban paradigm. It generally holds true in suburbs, and their enablers, limited access highways. Commenters kpedraja and dbreneman concerns about the additional traffic on I-5 are valid, but fortunately also easily ameliorated. Like all resources, whether it be beer, caviar, or space on freeways, the solution to scarcity is to market pricing. Currently driving on I-5 is free, and so it is over consumed. Could you imagine if beer or caviar was free? You would never find any; markets and restaurants would always be out.
Without knowing all the ins and outs, after reading this article and a few others related, my sense is that Seattle should just let the viaduct fall down and perhaps replace it with a beautiful park. Especially if that is the option that would most increase downtown congestion. But the ST5 plan seems like a decent enough option, especially if the boulevard is well-designed, adding beauty and (hopefully) increasing congestion.
The important thing to remember in this entire debate is that in cities, congestion is a good thing. It is what you want. Cities are in the business of congestion.
Posted Tue, Jul 26, 10:09 a.m. Inappropriate
This was not a environmental article, it was a political one. If it had been about the environment, one of the authors would have mentioned the fact that when the big tunnel machines 'breach' the salt water and fresh water membranes, it will contaminate the fresh water supply, forever. Or, about tsunamis or earthquakes. Reasons why, to not build the tunnel.
Posted Tue, Jul 26, 12:58 p.m. Inappropriate
CORRECTION: The important thing to remember in this entire debate is that congestion for the community at large is a BAD thing. But, if downtown core areas really are in the business of congestion then they must provide commuters of the region a bypass allowing them to pass through it.
Replace the viaduct…still time to do the right thing.
Posted Tue, Jul 26, 11:42 p.m. Inappropriate
But why? Why 'must' downtown Seattle provide commuters with a bypass? Cities should be doing what is in their best interests. Cities need to be much less concerned with the community at large. They have far too many forces already aligned against them not to do so. The last half-century project of attempting to reduce congestion has been a dismal failure. It is something that could only come from the mind of a planner circa 1952. Could you imagine a business person saying, 'You know, what we'd really like is less people here, at our store, at our business. We need to find a way for people to pass us by quickly without even considering us. We need to reduce the congestion at our store?" Ridiculous right? And yet, this is exactly what cities do when they make it easy for people to bypass them.
Do not rebuild the viaduct, or replace it with a tunnel! Neither creates nearly enough congestion to be worth the cost.
Posted Wed, Jul 27, 10:55 a.m. Inappropriate
Somehow your posts have a certain, “Do you have Prince Albert in a can?” quality, but I’ll take one more chance that you’re serious.
Do you not have a visual understanding of the fabric of the city as it exists on a horizontal flat plane? This wonderland that you defend is essentially the core area of downtown, perhaps 2 or 3 neighborhoods in a city of over 90. Most of the people who live here seldom go downtown, but must pass through the area to do their business and make their living. For example, some must pass from south of downtown to a work destination north of downtown. Are you proposing that if I’m a plumber and I have job on the other side of downtown, that I just give up on it because of “congestion” and spend the afternoon drinking beer downtown?
Anyway…party on dude…
Posted Fri, Jul 29, 10:52 a.m. Inappropriate
@jmrolls: when has a new freeway ever reduced congestion over the long term?
Posted Fri, Jul 29, 1:48 p.m. Inappropriate
"The state estimates a measly 47,000 vehicles per day will use the tunnel. That’s $42,000 per daily tunnel user."
http://seattlebikeblog.com/2011/07/29/after-remaining-neutral-until-now-cascade-comes-out-against-the-tunnel/
Posted Fri, Jul 29, 1:50 p.m. Inappropriate
@jmrolls Roads cause congestion:
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/05/31/study-building-roads-to-cure-congestion-is-an-exercise-in-futility/
Posted Tue, Aug 9, 9:05 a.m. Inappropriate
It's a work in progress -andy...ask me in a hundred years.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.