Print
Email
Note: the story has been updated with a quote from former Mayor Greg Nickels, highlighted below.
The debate over the Viaduct and the proposed deep-bore tunnel solution has reached what politicos call "saturation." The issues have been so thoroughly debated that voters are saturated with information and have plugged their ears. This explains, for example, why Mayor Mike McGinn's former key issue, the cost-overrun factor, has dropped from sight.
Instead, the final days of the campaign leading up to the August 16 vote on Seattle Referendum 1 (yes means go ahead with tunnel, no means tossing a modest monkey wrench into the juggernaut) will be aimed at pushing some simplistic buttons for the few remaining undecideds, and launching attacks that slice through the saturation.
For the opponents of the Big Bore, this means rallying Viaduct-rebuild advocates in West Seattle, Ballard, and Magnolia, tapping the strong local opposition to tolls (a tricky issue since greens favor tolls), disparaging the big-money interests behind the tunnel, appealing to fiscal conservatives who fear a Boston-style Big Dig, and summoning young greenies to strike a blow against cars and old-fogies transportation planning.
For proponents of the Big Bore, there are two big buttons to push. One is that, regardless of the merits of the plan, it's time to move forward, so let's stop all this dithering and plunge ahead with the one plan still standing, risky as it may be. (A corollary: if we scuttle the tunnel, we'll have another decade of debate to find a new "solution.") The second button/argument is that tunnel opponents are providing aid and comfort to Tim Eyman (now running an initiative against tolls and Sound Transit, though actually he tells me he's ambivalent about the tunnel) and "Mayor Gridlock."
One unspoken issue is Mayor McGinn's future political prospects. McGinn is lying low on the Big Bore, at least for now. He grasps that this issue is dragging down his popularity, so he's lately been talking about all kinds of new issues (coal trains, sex ads in Seattle Weekly, school levies) in a commendable effort to broaden his appeal and soften his obstructionist image. Similarly, the campaign against the tunnel knows that McGinn is a liability, and so it is also shunning the mayor. Not so the tunnel backers, who will try to make McGinn an issue by turning the race into a plebiscite on McGinn, weakening his chances of re-election.
Another looming issue is this: If the Big Bore is rejected decisively by the voters and the City Council and the state defiantly plunge ahead with the project, they risk the "Safeco Syndrome." That refers to the time when a large facility was constructed despite a narrow public vote against it — producing decades of voter anger.
So how did we get into such a Big War over what might otherwise be thought of as a complex engineering question modestly affecting a small part of the overall transportation system? To answer that we need to explore some recent civic history.
It might have been a simple saga. The earthquake in 2001 weakened the Viaduct enough to make the case, finally, that it had to be replaced or torn down. The legislature, surprisingly, was willing to fund a very expensive, very Seattle project (in part because SR 99 really is the blue-collar highway to industrial and Port-related jobs to the north and south of Seattle). But then it got very complicated.
The first complication arose around 2003 when the Seattle design community and downtown interests hatched (revived, really) plans for a grand waterfront park, leveraging state dollars to get this amenity. Speaker Frank Chopp was not pleased by this added expense, and seems to have gone into opposition early on. (One view of the infamous cost-overrun amendment, which Chopp may or may not have engineered, is that it was put in there to stop Seattle from loading on still more requests of this sort. At any rate, Chopp has been the bane of everyone's existence on this issue. )
The next complication was that Gov. Gregoire, who favored building a new viaduct, and Mayor Greg Nickels, who wanted a cut-and-cover tunnel with a park on top, could not resolve their differences and grew openly hostile to each other and more entrenched in their positions (Nickels wanting a park, Gregoire wanting a new viaduct).
A third complication was that Seattle progressives split, with the Coalitionists (led by Allied Arts) willing to keep the current through-put capacity for cars (the state's bottom line demand), while the Rejectionists, led by Cary Moon and later Mike McGinn, pressed their agenda for de-highwaying Seattle as old freeways crumble, thereby accelerating the shift to transit, bikes, and urban density.
The fourth complication was a split in the business community, with downtown interests led by the Downtown Seattle Association willing to trade off through-put capacity on SR-99 if that's what it took to get a waterfront park, and the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce (pressed by Boeing and the Port) insisting on preserving car and truck mobility.
So what looked at first like a dream political coalition — labor (wanting the construction jobs), business (wanting an urban amenity to stimulate development and tourism), design advocates wanting a world-class waterfront park, and environmentalists (restoring some of the waterfront to natural, salmon-happy conditions) — was in fact a great big dysfunctional, feuding family. Over the years, these internal wars bruised feelings and friendships, making compromise ever more elusive.
Many of these fractures eventually healed. Around 2007, the downtown interests and the regional business interests agreed to work together. Chopp was isolated after his tactical error of introducing an unpopular plan (the "Choppaduct") of his own. The same might be said of King County Executive Ron Sims, who marginalized himself by daring to oppose Sound Transit 2's bond issue. The left-liberal civil war just got worse (as usual). And the mayor and the governor grudgingly found a way to a common position.
The way to that compromise was a minefield, however. The first escalation of the war was an advisory vote in 2007, where voters rejected both the Nickels' cut-and-cover tunnel (70 percent against) and the governor's new-viaduct scheme (57 percent opposed). Gregoire was facing a re-election year in 2008, so wanted to avoid forcing the issue and offending some Seattle voters. An artful device was deployed where the city and the state departments of transportation decided to do elaborate (and often quite good) studies, and a broad-based stakeholders' group was enlisted to advise. Nickels and Gregoire agreed to shut up on the subject all during 2008, and to see if a solution would somehow emerge. Oddly enough, the solution did materialize, though not one to end the hostilities.
Gregoire always opposed the surface-transit solution (a plan calling for no viaduct and no tunnel but with new transit and various ways of diverting traffic to I-5 and downtown streets). Mayor Nickels, after seeing his cut-and-cover tunnel idea shot down by that 2007 vote, shifted toward the surface solution as seemingly the only alternative to building a new viaduct. Grace Crunican, the forceful director of the Seattle Department of Transportation, also became increasingly positive about the surface/transit/I-5 solution, while her planners also kept exploring a tunnel option. State continued to work on all options, and both parties interpreted the 2007 vote as taking the viaduct off the list and looking for options that were not on the ballot, namely surface and a tunnel that wasn’t built by cut and cover.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 3:54 a.m. Inappropriate
This analysis is comprehensive and right on. This is a fresh look at the political foibles that have needlessly complicated the whole Viaduct replacement debate.
Despite Ms. Crunican's arguments to the contrary, the fact is that the city's own EIS has also since shown that the traffic congestion downtown will be __the same__ after building the tunnel as after doing nothing. The tunnel is an expensive nonsolution to traffic, according to the EIS. The much cheaper surface option really never got a proper, direct airing in public votes or in politcal debates the way other options did (the surface option has really only ever been addressed indirectly in votes and political debates).
Also not to be overlooked is the huge PR mistake of the Seattle-pays-overruns provision the legislature added. Many Seattleites don't understand why we should pay overruns on a tunnel whose purpose is for traffic to bypass, and not come in and out of, Seattle. This provision I think is the main sticking point for many people (because no one believes the arguments that the provision is "unenforceable," as some claim). The tunnel will help Seattleites navigate their city exactly not at all: congestion downtown will be the same as if we didn't build the tunnel, according to the state's own EIS, and the tunnel won't make it easier to get into or out Seattle.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 6:41 a.m. Inappropriate
The issues have NOT been debated. Pertinent, critical questions are left unanswered. Behind closed doors, abject DOT failure is kept a private concern while department chiefs devise nauseating PR campaigns to save face for DOT employees less responsible for this monumental fiasco. The bored tunnel is a potentially catastrophic danger. Mercer West and Alaskan Way boulevard designs are an abominable rearrangement of traffic that poses a dire threat to public health and safety. Warshington State DOTs build bridges that blow down, floating bridges that sink, freeways that bottleneck and back up traffic miserably, obstruct and divide communities, obliterate wide expanses of fallow farmland and estuary, poison waterways and marine habitat. The Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement project has been a criminal dereliction of duty from the start. Answering these critical questions of competence and charges of corruption cannot be avoided with another flowery 'What me worry?' PR campaign. Washdot and SDOT have FAILED the good people of Seattle on this project.
People, do NOT let these jerks build the bored tunnel.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 7:22 a.m. Inappropriate
This is really interesting perspective. But it is really hard to be enthused about 2 lanes each way because when there's a problem in one lane on a two lane bridge, the backups quickly become really bad. Will it be any different in the tunnel?
The financial costs and potential overruns are very hard to assess and one wonders whether the numbers were arrived at based on what was needed, not what is realistic. When will the Port ever announce how it is going to come up with $300 Million?
One part of the "customers who pay", namely drivers using the tunnel as a bypass, may or may not value the time savings. In part this will depend on the answer to the question above about congestion inside the tunnel.
For the other customers, namely people getting into downtown, it is really hard to be enthusiastic. The thought of bottlenecks in the Pioneer Square area and north entrance, no entrance/exits in the Seneca / Western Ave area, and no increase in transit availability is just plain depressing. But many of the people who get to/from downtown don't even get to vote on this because they live outside of Seattle itself.
From the standpoint of decision makers, this approach may have been effective. From the standpoint of building popular support and trust, it has not been very good.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 8:16 a.m. Inappropriate
Terrific work, Mr. Brewster. So much great analysis here, and you're the first to have described for the public, in sufficient detail and without cant, the flows and eddies of the decisionmaking process. Really good reporting. If I were a member of the Pulitzer family I would award myself to you.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 8:47 a.m. Inappropriate
The surface option is NOT "much cheaper" for the citizens of Seattle. It is the most expensive option for Seattleites as the State has already said they will not fund a surface option.
Surface-mess proponents need to quit harping on the downtown exit thing because removing downtown exits is exactly their solution to I-5 congestion and part of the surface option plan.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 8:53 a.m. Inappropriate
Another brochure from Brewster promoting the tunnel. At least this time he included the link about Jan Drago's phony referendum designed to confuse issues and overrule the majority of voters and the WSDOT who preferred an elevated solution. This entire back-room scam happened in Dec. 2008 when a few tunnel advocates pulled enough strings to leverage it back onto the list of alternatives. The process had everything to do with power and influence and little to do with capacities and engineering. This small group of insiders even included the folks who gave us intelligent design.
Lest we forget…people still prefer the viaduct because no other proposed configuration matches it 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 and you can even use it to get out of the rain. And it’s billions of dollars cheaper than this present tunnel/surface street mistake in the making.
Still time to do the right thing. Amen.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 9:08 a.m. Inappropriate
Yet again, the people who favor an elevated solution, whether by refurbishing the existing viaduct, or by replacing it with some other soaring structure, are sidelined. The 43% who voted for a new viaduct in the 2007 advisory election must have somehow melted into the ground, along with those who either didn't vote or voted "No" because they favored a retrofit instead (which was not on the ballot). Seattle, according to this article, is now divided into 2 political camps; but somehow this 43% plus an unknown percentage of retrofit supporters don't fit the analysis and must therefore be ignored. This article purports to tell us something about why this debate has gotten some people hot under their collars. By failing to recognize a large group of participants in this debate, the article itself only adds fuel to the fire.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 9:11 a.m. Inappropriate
Like the popular but ill-fated Monorail, the Deep Bore Tunnel suffers from withheld information; about costs, about impact on transit; about tolls; to name a few. This is and has been from the start an attempt to get one past the voters and it is a big one. Plus it uses technology that has never been tested at this level in the path of a red zone for earthquakes. Myself i cant abide by the loss of the world-class views and favor turning the Viaduct into a stunning park, open to the elements on top, rain protected on the second level. It's already paid for and the positive impact will be immediate, not a decade or two down the line.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 10:24 a.m. Inappropriate
This article is both interesting and fundamentally misleading.
Interesting: It shows quite clearly how the public has been systematically shut out of this "debate." The pro-tunnel argument boils down to "aren't you tired of all the arguing?" But the arguing is done behind closed doors, among politicians and well-connected "stakeholders" and entirely without the public's participation. All efforts to let the public be involved have been stymied. The 2007 vote was merely "advisory" and when a tunnel was soundly rejected the voters were totally ignored. In 2009, when the mayoral election was turning into a referendum on the project, the Council rammed through a vote to "approve" the project before voters could stop them. And in 2011, the Council did everything they could to stop the public from voting on the tunnel agreements. So thank you, David, for making it clear that the tunnel "debate" has been one conducted without the public.
As to misleading: your close massively distorts the "divide" in Seattle. Most of us young urbanists like that Seattle has a diversified economy and want to preserve it. We want the city to be affordable for families and we understand that depending on single-family housing - which, guess what, isn't actually very affordable any more for most young families - isn't the way to provide it. We want a blend of what you set up as antithetical values and visions.
The difference is that we realize that whatever Seattle's future is, it doesn't require a tunnel to get there. In fact, if maintaining freight mobility is really the issue here, we realize it can be done without a tunnel. If more commuters are given choices that don't require them to drive, then you can open up more routes and capacity for trucks.
The true divide is between those who are ideologically convinced that driving a car is the greatest thing ever and that nobody will ever want to do anything else, and those who realize it's just one of a variety of options for getting around and that there might well be a better way depending on the time, the weather, the distance, and other conditions. We might as well give people a range of choices and let them do what they want, rather than forcing people to behave as if it's still 1960 when it isn't. Seattle had a diverse, affordable economy and a transportation system that got people and good where they needed to go before the Viaduct and it will have one after it is gone.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 10:51 a.m. Inappropriate
Interesting history that leaves out the bit that the parks are unfunded by the state. And the city hasn't shown that it has the money to build them leaving us with the possibility that the development rights will be sold of as soon as they can be in the name of "revenue enhancements".
Also, there are old urbanists out here as well. Those of us who recognize that the day of the personal automobile are ending and the rise of the bicycle & rapid transit are ascending. The tunnel is a massive misuse of dollars toward a city that needs to build for a future of much more expensive energy.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 11:57 a.m. Inappropriate
This was a very interesting piece, and it was useful to learn that there is more to this story than just a tale of single-issue dullards staggering towards a least-efficient solution. The one line I found fascinating was "...how unpopular Seattle is in Olympia...". That certainly isn't the impression one gets from the vantage point of The Rest of The State. Maybe there is cause for hope. :-)
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 12:05 p.m. Inappropriate
Gloomy Gus is right on. This excellent piece shows that Mr. Brewster has not lost his touch for making complexity understandable and accurately distributing both credit and blame. It reminds me of his best weekly analyses for The Argus over 30 years ago.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 12:18 p.m. Inappropriate
I have to admit that I am of the camp “we have diddled around enough, lets get on with it.” The article is well done, both sides have viable arguments but unlike utopia, there is no win-win. There will be a winner and a loser, now or 20 years from now when the 330th up or down vote on the tunnel takes place.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 12:28 p.m. Inappropriate
I don't like this idea that a city can't talk and that there's a definite cut-off point for discussing an issue. Issues persist, anyone that tells you to shut your mind off and let the issue go onward is simply not working in your favor, they're working in their own.
Seattle has done well for itself with all this talking. The market is still there, the RH Thomson and Bay aren't. The stadiums are there, but, finally, so is light rail. Socially, too, where Seattle's ongoing conversation about LGBT rights has led the way statewide -- and in the case of rejecting Initiative 13, nationwide.
We are a city of 600,000 with a high quality of life, unrivaled views and a well-protected ecological niche. We got there by talking.
Talking is how problems are solved. Recklessness or advocating silence on issues is how problems are created.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 1:27 p.m. Inappropriate
Top shelf journalism that provides a clear overview of the issue. Good stuff.
A quick aside here: The great majority of vehicles I see on the Viaduct are single-occupant; therefore, the argument that the view from the Viaduct should be preserved is moot -- those drivers should be focussed on driving, not distracted by taking in the sights.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 1:32 p.m. Inappropriate
A great piece of reporting, Mr. Brewster. Kudos and thank you.
Nathan Hambley
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 1:49 p.m. Inappropriate
Agree with cocktails42 that the 2007 vote was misleading because the retrofit was not on the ballot. I suspect that was by design. I was for the retrofit as the most cost-effective solution. Even if Seattle has a highly paid workforce, there remain those who either are not that highly paid, or if highly paid, do not wish to spend their money to travel underground at large cost in congested traffic. The current reduction in lanes on the viaduct is very inconvenient, and yet this is exactly what one will likely encounter in the tunnel, with the absence of light and fresh air. I appreciate the articulation of the political process behind this. I think it should be pointed out that the buildings which will soon "wall off" our waterfront from the city are already being erected. I drive the viaduct 4 mornings a week to my job in Tacoma and I've seen at least two of them that are complete or near complete on the outside and still being built inside. In my opinion, this is the piece we haven't heard yet--who will benefit from all the new buildings and how, when they are solid and stand taller than the viaduct, will they not cut the city off from its waterfront, unless by "the city" is meant the occupants of those buildings and their inevitable and soon to be built companions. Haven't we all heard enough about short funds and living within our means yet? This tunnel idea is the costliest alternative and has many drawbacks. In addition to the certain increase in street congestion as people take to the surface streets to avoid the tolls, we can look forward to increasing property and other taxes to make up the shortfall between projected revenues from tolls and the actual revenues that will not materialize.
Yes, this is a battle for the soul of the city. We have Manhattan and San Francisco and other similar high rise high density cities. Seattle, for once, doesn't have to slavishly imitate others, but can still choose to retain its own character and not surrender to life in cages, or tunnels.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 1:56 p.m. Inappropriate
Nice Article.
@junipero said most of the things I wanted to say and more eloquently.
A few additions:
1) The DBT tunnel plan did originate somewhere and this was not in the article. The idea was hatched in the Discovery/Cascadia Institute--the good people who brought us Intelligent Design.
2) The FTA sent a letter to WSDOT basically panning the DBT:
http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/08/02/fta-disappointed-with-dbt-has-adverse-impact-on-transit/
This is worth reading.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 2:46 p.m. Inappropriate
An idea that comes from an "institute" with unconcealed, shameless contacts with Republicans and others of that ilk. No wonder that particular genesis has not been trumpeted by tunnel advocates. Good article though.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 2:47 p.m. Inappropriate
Great piece! Thank you so much for this thoughtful, comprehensive, and fair piece. I learned a great deal.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 3:34 p.m. Inappropriate
Brewster's review is a terrific starting point to understand the whole twisted tale of our planned CBD bypass tunnel.
Another bit of good reading from the 2006 historical era of "a great big dysfunctional, feuding family" is the Glen Pascall economic analysis sponsored by Seattle Downtown Association, with interesting financial numbers from it reported by the P-I on August 16, 2006:
QUOTE:
A tunnel along the downtown Seattle waterfront would cost $3 billion to $3.6 billion -- at least $1 billion more than a new viaduct there, according to state estimates. But it would increase area property values by $450 million, stimulate $1 billion to $2 billion in development on "severely underbuilt" land and spur an extra $162 million to $325 million a year in tourism, according to the study, which economist Glenn Pascall presented at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center.
The [Seattle Downtown] association, which supports a tunnel, hired Pascall to review the effect of building one. Pointing to benefits that resulted from tearing down the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco and even from the construction of the notorious Big Dig in Boston, he said a tunnel would "create a magnet event."
The city could charge landowners $200 million toward the project, based on increased property value, would get $14 million to $28 million in sales taxes on new construction and would reap $32 million to $60 million a year in extra taxes related to increased property values and tourism and to new development, Pascall said. He said the tunnel would cover its extra cost in 10 to 20 years.
UNQUOTE
Read more from this P-I story at: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/transportation/article/Tunnel-is-well-worth-extra-money-study-says-1211894.php
The entire 2006 Pascall report in pdf is archived at http://tinyurl.com/3cxpp3h
The numbers make me wonder why the private sector interests that would benefit from our Big Dig aren't somehow wrapped into the financing of its construction from the git-go, instead of holding back on their direct participation until this precedent breaking project breaks its budget, a possibility.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 4:02 p.m. Inappropriate
"severely underbuilt land "
Otherwise known as fill dirt. And if the earthquake that is predicted to take out the viaduct forces us to take it down then none of these building should be built either. But somehow I don't think that was in Glenn's thinking.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 5:41 p.m. Inappropriate
Admirable attempt to outline the tactics and timeline. Mr. Brewster has forgotten that the Stakeholders actually recommended the ST5 option. And there is no transit in the package for the DBT when finished, if ever. Neither are these parks funded. It's all empty promises with nothing to back them up. Trust does not substitute for reality. Ceis is also talking out of the side of his mouth about the surface option.
No mention of the FEIS is a glaring omission here, as it's certainly affects and addresses the claims and assumptions of both sides.
So, overall, this appearance of neutrality seems a bit, forced, to say the least. The DBT was always a bad idea for everyone else except certian politicans. We can do better. And in far less time and expense, with the ST5.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 7:36 p.m. Inappropriate
Another 70% anti-tunnel vote is possible; then what? The viaduct is as strong and sturdy as any old Pioneer Square building; just because it is ugly (remember the Kingdome?) does not mean that it should be torn down. It could have been retrofit and adjacent roads, ramps, and side streets could have been fixed years ago at a bargain price. "Autophobic Tolling Derangement Syndrome" has been the driving force for years. Greens will not be satisfied until it costs a driver $50.00 a day extra in tolls just to get around the metro area. Vote "REJECT" and stop the madness.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 8:56 p.m. Inappropriate
Good sub-title:
"How the Viaduct issue has become such a high-stakes, unending, deeply meaningful battle over the future of Seattle."
Unfortunately the article totally misses the very biggest story of all: the unstated but tacit agreement by Tunnelists and S/Ters to ignore the Retrofit and to participate in our own local "big lie."
That is the big story: that the Retrofit was pushed off the table.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 9:28 p.m. Inappropriate
A few comments to the excellent comments above.
I did not discuss the Retrofit option, which clearly has its backers. For the record, the state and city view has been that, given the need to meet modern codes, lane widths, etc., the Retrofit would cost as much as a new Viaduct. Much contested, of course, and often historic preservation plans are brushed aside, unfairly, by consultants who come up with analyses that it would cost more.
I think it's fair to say that building (or retrofitting) a viaduct is basically a non-starter politically. All these years of working for a waterfront park and all the hostility to a Viaduct regardless of a park (noise, blight, view blockage, years of detours while you tear it down and replace it) have taken their toll. It's a goner.
As for the origins of the tunnel idea, it's not fair to say it's flawed because the Discovery Institute has Republicans in it and likes intelligent design. The transportation section, headed by Bruce Agnew, an experienced moderate politician, is a separate entity, and besides it doesn't discredit an idea to say you don't like its source. But of course the tunnel notion would have been thought of, was thought of, by many people, starting with the city's idea for a cut-and-cover tunnel, using the seawall as the western side of it. And cities all over the world are digging such things.
Finally, a point about the EIS and its damaging information about the tunnel solution. EIS studies are supposed to get all the adverse information out there for public officials to know in making their decision. If you leave it out, or sugar coat it, you get sued for inadequacy; it you put it in opponents say, "See!" The real question is whether some of these adverse factors can be addressed, as for instance by lowering tolls to get more folks into the tunnel.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 9:40 p.m. Inappropriate
I add my kudos to a fine analysis that helps me understand, at least partially, the issue on my ballot. Three points I would add. First, there are multiple legitimate stakeholders in this fray: bicyclists, the Port, salmon advocates, Ivar's, car drivers, transit advocates, state taxpayers, Waterfront Park advocates, West Seattlites, and, even the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce. To try and reduce all of this to a simple numerical metric of cars-through-Seattle is to simplistically misinterpret the nature of public policy. Public policy must always grapple with multiple legitimate interests (even if we don't like or agree with them) and hammer out some kind of compromise solution. It's ugly, but it's how policy happens.
Second, while I agree, gladly, that the era of the ICE is coming to an end, I'm not sure it's good public policy to try to punish people out of their cars (which might not eventually depend on the ICE). Incentives do matter, but I would argue that positive ones do more long-range good than negative ones. With an aging population bicycling and walking are less possible options.
Third, I agree with smacry that we need multiple transit options, so I'm not sure why the existence of the tunnel negates the ability to bike, take a bus, ride the Link, walk; those are all still on the table, in great part, as Brewster has pointed out, thanks to the work of Grace Crunican.
Thanks, Brewster, for a fine contribution to public policy debates.
Posted Tue, Aug 2, 11:51 p.m. Inappropriate
I'd say, in the present and foreseeable economic environment, the tunnel's finances look far more shaky and less likely to hold up than the viaduct's columns. To say, then, that the viaduct is a "goner" is just more wishful thinking on the part of an ardent tunnel advocate. (Besides, even if the viaduct should lose out as a public roadway, a new battle to retain it as a highrise park would get under way.) The Alaskan Way Viaduct may be a lot more sturdy than you think.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 1:14 a.m. Inappropriate
Very informative article. Let's remember that the U.S. is five percent of the world's population burning twenty five percent of its oil, paid for by little more than printing up things called dollars by the trillions. Not a situation likely to last much longer. Must we burn up the last of the cheap oil in building yet more automobile facilities?
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 8:07 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: Comments about comments
The proportional cost of the retrofit compared to the cost of a new viaduct is irrelevant when either cost is much less than the tunnel option. The statements about an elevated solution being a non-starter because of the passion of some urban hobbyists and developers is just silly given that it has been, and still is, the choice of the tax payers who will have to pay for it. The origin of this current plan didn't evolve out of some long search for truth by experts; it was a last minute, surprise end-run by a few insiders with the help of contract consultants and professional witnesses who happen to believe that the Grand Canyon is 8,000 year old. And while your assumptive close about the viaduct being a "goner" might be true, it won't be because there is a better solution.
Entertaining article though, I still look forward to a book by you some day explaining how all this REALLY went down.
In the mean time there is still time to do the right thing.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 8:35 a.m. Inappropriate
David, isn't it true, however, that the Discovery Institute has given itself and its clout over to initiatives by Michael Ennis and the WPC that start to pull at a variety of threads in our regional transportation policy? Their advocacy for the tunnel and subsequent ratification by civic leaders seems to fit in pretty well with some more agenda-driven initiatives.
For example, shifting the tunnel's focus over to "maintaining capacity" and in various cases outright exempting the project from both VMT reduction goals and GHG reduction goals seem to mesh well with Ennis' recommendations of fewer regulations on road building. Unsurprisingly, the AWB, beating the drum of the WPC has been a pretty major supporter of the tunnel and made it a pretty pointed issue in the debate between Gregoire and Rossi in 2008 at Semiahoo.
I'm not entirely sure that I believe this political backrub that there isn't something more to this project. It seems to be full of little coincidences and big consequences.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 8:52 a.m. Inappropriate
Describing this project in terms of what individual politicians said about it over the years ignores the forest for the trees. As with all megaprojects, you need to follow the money to understand what’s going on.
The $1.9 billion in expected capital costs will be covered (for the most part) by revenue the state obtains by selling bonds. Those bonds are secured by gas-tax revenues, and individuals (mostly) statewide are covering those costs. Part of the tunnel's costs will be paid by tolls. In big terms, it'll mostly be gas purchasers statewide and the local tunnel users who pay for this project.
Who are the financial beneficiaries? In the near term the winners will include the local and state political leadership - it will be doling out contracts. The engineering, construction, legal, and financing firms that obtain those contracts will be big winners as well. In the long term the big financial beneficiaries are the city and state governments, due to the increased real estate excise tax revenue streams.
Everything else is window-dressing.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 9:49 a.m. Inappropriate
I have an engineer friend who has done work around the globe, I also have 2 friends in heavy construction who are working on the Green River dam project and were involved in the Brightwater and light rail tunnels. They all came to the same number when I asked what it will really cost: $20 to $25 billion.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 10:01 a.m. Inappropriate
David Brewster writes: "As for the origins of the tunnel idea, it's not fair to say it's flawed because the Discovery Institute has Republicans in it and likes intelligent design."
Are we talking "intelligent design" as it relates to creationism or civil engineering?
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 10:41 a.m. Inappropriate
@David, You are correct that it is a fallacy to blame the source when debating an idea. Is this the Circumstantial ad hominem or the Genetic Fallacy?
But let's face it, the DBT design has not held up to a critical review. This is well documented in the EIS and the recent letter from the FTA to WSDOT. The primary argument remaining for the DBT is "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, this must be done.", which in itself is the Equivocation fallacy called the Politician's syllogism.
In light of this, it becomes interesting to find out how we got into this situation (which seems like the point of your article). One tool investigators commonly use is to "follow the money". @crossrip has a point in his comment, but I believe a city should always strive to make itself better and therefore increase property values. There are other dark alleys to investigate to identify the source of the money and why it was given. A very good starting point is the Discovery Institute.
Excuse me while I put on my tinfoil hat.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 12:09 p.m. Inappropriate
Thanks, David. I have appreciated your expository journalism on complex topics for over forty years.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 2:09 p.m. Inappropriate
Wonderful article.
The viaduct has certainly become the primary battle ground for Seattle's cultural war, although I'd argue there are three sides in the fight, not just two:
1) Old Seattle - mix of conservative old industry and populist working class. They want a rebuild.
2) Latte Liberals - educated professionals, parents. They lean towards the tunnel.
3) Lefties - 20-something apartment dwellers, idealists. They like S/T.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 3:04 p.m. Inappropriate
I'm pre-viaduct so definitely not a viaduct lover, don't like lattes and am not a lefty. Where does that leave me?
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 3:26 p.m. Inappropriate
Thanks, David Brewster, for illustrating my point: that a minority of people in Seattle made it impossible to consider the Retrofit in the form of the "big lie" that the Viaduct cannot be Rebuilt-in-Place. Both factions (Tunnel and S/T) joined a conspiracy of silence to make the Retrofit impossible to discuss.
As you said: "I think it's fair to say that building (or retrofitting) a viaduct is basically a non-starter politically. All these years of working for a waterfront park and all the hostility to a Viaduct regardless of a park (noise, blight, view blockage, years of detours while you tear it down and replace it) have taken their toll. It's a goner."
It's a "goner" (so you claim, my friend -- but the fat lady hasn't sung yet) not because it is impossible to efficiently Repair the Viaduct but simply because you and your associates prefer not to consider the Repair. Therein lies the Big Lie.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 6:45 p.m. Inappropriate
David Sucher, whatever a minority of people may have thought about the retrofit, a plurality of engineers concluded, and the legislature agreed, that it presented nowhere near enough certainty of long-term structural integrity per dollar per year of work. I can't help but notice that retrofit enthusiasts talk a lot about unfairness, but haven't been eager to fund engineering studies capable of calling that large existing body of work into question.
You may believe a retrofit is best, but belief doesn't guide public policy as much as you may think.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 7:34 p.m. Inappropriate
Hey Gloomy --
Go look at the Retrofit at Spokane Street Viaduct -- on time and on budget managed by our own SDOT -- and tell me that a Retrofit can' work. You have obviously also drunk the same kool-aid.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 7:36 p.m. Inappropriate
As to the notion that a private citizen is capable and able to finance counter-engineering studies to show that a Retrofit can work -- you are talking preposterous humor.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 8:11 p.m. Inappropriate
Hey Gloomy, my anonymous hide-behind friend:
The point is that Brewster himself has made it clear that the powers never took the Retrofit seriously -- Brewster states so explicitly: the politics for a Retrofit wasn't there -- so they never wanted the Retrofit to work.
Look we all know that consultants get the kind of answer you pay for. So it's childish -- infantile if I may be so bold -- to say that "Oh but the consultants said it wouldn't work." Good god, man, that's why some consultants get the job and others don't.
Do you know the expression GIGO? Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 9:46 p.m. Inappropriate
Gloomy - even Frank Chopp preferred a new viaduct, but decided to barter it away for a Disneyland termination for the 520 bridge in his Montlake neighborhood. In a March 26, 2009 Brewster article called, ”When Chopp Speaks Parse It Closely” right here in Crosscut he writes, “Chopp wants the very expensive solution to the 520 bridge, with a tunnel under the Montlake Cut and other amenities (this is his district, after all). For this he needs tolls, including on the I-90 bridge. Ah, but on the I-90 Bridge he most confront Rep. Judy Cliborn, chair of House Transportation Committee and defender of her district, Mercer Island, which does not want to pay tolls to help another bridge. And Cliborn favors the deep-bore tunnel for the Viaduct. Get it yet? Chopp gives Gov. Gregoire and Cliborn the tunnel plan for the Viaduct in exchange for the luxury model for 520 and tolls (a few years later) on the Mercer Island bridge.” Turning out just about as predicted too. Read it again here:
Http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/18899/When-Chopp-speaks%2C-parse-it-closely/
The goal since 2008 has been to tear down the viaduct to benefit a few special interests and worry about the resulting damage to the mobility of the region later.
Still time to do the right thing.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 10:13 p.m. Inappropriate
David S. You're exactly right that the fix was in for this project years ago. Or so they thought. All of the transportation agencies operate the same say, DOT, ST and the now defunct monorail agency. The monorail agency made the outrageous claim (lie) that they were special (magical) and that unlike every agency in the country that requires subsidies, they were going to be profitable. And guess what? Not a single elected official in the entire state would call the agency on this lie. Both the Seattle P-I as well as the Seattle Times reprinted and broadcast this false claim for years and years.
So it's no wonder that the public is unable to get behind any proposal. WSDOT dishonestly stacks the deck with pre-picked alternatives that makes the EIS process little more than a magic show. The elected officials all participate in a conspiracy of silence so they offer no real scrutiny.
In the end, there simply is not enough money to build this tunnel. Tolling this short facility is a joke and would fall far short of any projections. Plus, the next target of the Tea Partiers is the Highway Trust Fund and gas tax. So any federal funding anticipated will probably not be there.
Posted Wed, Aug 3, 10:22 p.m. Inappropriate
David Sucher, you're welcome to doubt my character all you like. But don't paint me as some disbeliever in retrofitting overall. Retrofitting is a great thing where it's appropriate, as on the Spokane Street retrofit over the last thirteen years. That's why I was sorry to read at WSDOT's online library the dozen or so reports over the last decade showing the viaduct isn't anywhere near as good a candidate as I'd hoped.
As for your dismissing all the engineering work that went into all the studies, you don't give any specific examples so I'll just let that go.
Posted Thu, Aug 4, 12:11 p.m. Inappropriate
Thanks David. We happen to be anti-tunnel activists, but your perspective is / will be helpful to everyone, both sides. You hold a mirror up to our political community, in-depth & over time.
Bob & Bev Corwin
Posted Thu, Aug 4, 2:58 p.m. Inappropriate
What about the gap in funding and the cost overruns? The Deep Bore may be nice but HOW DO WE KNOW WE CAN AFFORD IT, AND WHAT HAPPENS IF ITS COSTS ESCALATE?
Second, the people who want a more human-centered rather than car-centered city aren't just "an influx of newcomers". I've lived in Seattle since the early 70s, thank you.
Posted Thu, Aug 4, 4:52 p.m. Inappropriate
Re: A Retrofit. I was my understanding that when they did the shoring up after the 2001 quake, they did a very through job of analyzing the AWV's condition. Engineering professionals determined that the concrete is weakening at the molecular level, and a retrofit would be completely inadequate to just walk away and call it good. Since then, a retrofit has been off the table as a waste of time and money.
What they were able to do, only prevented the AWV from being closed and torn down almost immediately. Concrete made during the time the AWV was built is not the same as today. Indeed even a rebuild would require a 50% larger footprint and much higher sides than the current one. So much for the "view" and the "usable space" false assumptions.
Posted Thu, Aug 4, 5:03 p.m. Inappropriate
In response to Mr. Brewster's FEIS comments:
Yes, SOME of it is worse case scenario. I'm not inclined to be an optimist in the face of all the other risk and financial factors as well, when other better, cheaper, and more flexible options exist. It's never too late to cancel a bad idea. It is not flatering that this "solution" is political rather than responsible.
Besides, even if they do lower the tolls, that won't adress the other financial issues, overruns, and phyiscal risks still inherent in this project that have not been propertly vetted. Then how many more years are they going to extend those tolls in order to get the targeted amount? All that while interest on the bonds are piling up too. So it seems lowering the tolls will actually MISS the stated targets for revenues the longer it takes.
Where are they going to get the money to make up the difference? It does not exist now, and what other than pure unjustified, no-factual basis optimism tells you this is going to somehow all work out?
Posted Thu, Aug 4, 10:16 p.m. Inappropriate
The WSDOT's own consultant T.Y. Lin determined that a refurbished or new viaduct with current seismic standards and serviceability of 75 to 100 years could be built for less than the cost of the current tunnel/surface option. There were irrelevant criteria that allowed the state droids to shoot it down, but you would think that at least some of these tunnel zealots would have admitted this FACT.
Still time to choose an elevated solution and do the right thing.
Posted Fri, Aug 5, 10:04 a.m. Inappropriate
Mr Brewster is, as most, a little off on the purpose of the EIS process. While its purpose is to unveil information, both adverse and otherwise, it is supposed to be done prior to the completion of the decision making process so that it can inform the decision making process. In the current case, we have a slew of elected and appointed official who claim a final decision prior to the analysis. Once the project is underway, motivation to address impacts, especially with the tunnel’s contract model, is greatly reduced.
If this tunnel manages to get through the current political process and achieve funding despite the continuing recession, my money says that mitigation, like added bus service and downtown street-grid improvements will fall to the wayside.
Posted Fri, Aug 5, 5:06 p.m. Inappropriate
@climate consideraton: "...(EIS) is supposed to be done prior to the completion of the decision making process so that it can inform the decision making process"
Excellent point. Has this out of order process in a WSDOT project ever happened before?
Posted Fri, Aug 5, 6:52 p.m. Inappropriate
The EIS law still stands big as life: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.21C
But fading faster than landline phones are the days when elected officials the likes of Seattle Councilmember Jim Street took advantage of the EIS process to reach well vetted decisions (Seattle Center EIS ~1990).
The local scene is quite obvious but where the feds are on NEPA, I have not a clue. What I do know is that treating laws like "blue laws" spells trouble.
Posted Sun, Aug 7, 7:41 a.m. Inappropriate
None of these expensive abominations do what the majority of people (in Seattle and outside of Seattle) want.
Reduce congestion on I-5.
I-5 is the key...speedy personal transit is the desire.
Posted Sun, Aug 7, 2:01 p.m. Inappropriate
I've done a short review but intend to post after 6:30 tonight or tomorrow.
Whoever won't like it may be able to say it's at least not more of the same, I promise. Anyway, It's also kinda funny, sorta. The only word that can be called "Old" from me is "risk" used twice. Still, the post doesn't lead with nor use much computer ink on the issues of risk. This I hope will be a bigger, but kinder stick with humor as the carrot.
Thanks, Mayor McGinn, friends & foes of the dbt.
The cooperation was needed to stop the horrible thing.
Evidence against the dbt is mounting in our favor.
Take seriously my arguments against Mercer West & Alaskan Way (as proposed)
& make concessions for them as prudent, necessary elements to responsibly consider in public discussion forums.
That's a word - "responsibly".
You've heard of it?
Did the tea go sour this week or what?
Posted Sun, Aug 7, 10:47 p.m. Inappropriate
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/a-quick-and-dirty-guide-to-rejecting-the-tunnel/Content?oid=9323195
Post#37,8:40pm
DBT fanatics don't think.
Holden did the best reporting,
but this one needed an edit.
Call me a plaigerer, I'm still your better engineer.
Thanks agin, Mayor McGinn, friends, and foes of the dbt,
a too much could go wrong, risk not to take.