The north portal of the proposed deep-bore tunnel Credit: WSDOT
The north portal of the proposed deep-bore tunnel
  • WSDOT
  • The north portal of the proposed deep-bore tunnel

This guest Slog post is by Cary Moon, director of the People’s Waterfront Coalition, which advocates a surface/transit alternative to the Alaskan Way Viaduct instead of a tunnel.

OK, Seattle! Listen up. Now is the time to do your second most important civic duty, after voting: Tell the Washington State Department of Transportation what you think of the proposed deep-bore tunnel project. Because for a brief moment, until December 13, they are listening because state law requires them to.

The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) is available here, and most the facts of this project are finally visible. It’s a bit grueling to read, yes—but if you care about Seattle, you should try diving in. Certain politicians have been shilling for this project for years: “It’s going to be MAGIC when the cars disappear! We won’t even notice it’s being built!” But 30 minutes with this SDEIS will separate reality from fantasy (for example, see chapter 9 on tolling and its diversion to downtown streets that shows nearly two-thirds of the viaduct traffic won’t use the tunnel). You will be furious/deeply cynical/depressed at how the tunnel has been misrepresented.

Here are some of the state’s bleak findings:

• Boring a cavernous hole under buildings might cause two historic buildings to fail or collapse, and cause significant damage to twelve historic buildings. Including some of our loveliest buildings along First Avenue.

• Pioneer Square buildings are at risk in general—ground settlement might damage foundations, or altered ground water flows might submerge sub-surface structures or flood basements. Not just during construction, but anytime. (That would make the Underground Tour super fun.)

• The tunnel alternative doesn’t even try to replace access into downtown. This is crazy, considering this is the primary function of the viaduct, and downtown is our state’s core economic engine, and a huge job center.

• There are currently seven on and off ramps from the stadiums to Belltown with the viaduct, but the tunnel condenses them into one highway interchange next to Pioneer Square. Attracting 50,000 vehicles per day on narrow, calm streets. Without telling us what they will do to “improve” these streets.

• With $4 tolls, WSDOT admits half of the daily trips on the existing viaduct will divert to surface streets.

• There is NO transit included in this project at all, despite the governor’s promises in 2009.

• The whole project is justified by WSDOT’s predictions that demand for car travel is growing, which ignores some basic facts. Most notable: Use of the viaduct has been flat for 12 years; lots of analysis predicts people will continue to drive less, not more; and the city and state policies directing agencies to reduce vehicle miles traveled, not increase it. And bonus: During the entire 4.5 years of construction, portions of the viaduct will operate at two-thirds capacity and 25 to 40 mph speeds; THAT volume of traffic will be the new normal. Advocates of the tunnel act as though we can’t live with that reduced capacity, but we’re going to adjust to that condition throughout construction. It’s further evidence—provided by this document—that the tunnel isn’t the boon we’ve been promised.

So you have till December 13 to write WSDOT a letter. You can also attend one of the public meetings held <a href=”http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/Calendar.htm
“>tonight, tomorrow, and Thursday (where you can leave your comments with a court reporter). Point out the flaws in their preferred alternative as the EIS describes it, demand the project include access to downtown, and demand solutions to the havoc this designs would create around Pioneer Square. Point out that it would be prudent to have a viable back-up plan in the EIS that keeps the same four-lane street on the waterfront, in case the tunnel proves infeasible.

Make clear to WSDOT that if they want to build their tunnel, they have to (a) do it without destroying Pioneer Square, (b) provide good access into Seattle (hint: transit would be mighty helpful), and (c) show how they can fully pay for all the protection against and mitigation for the messes their project creates for Seattle.

In fact, you can click here to send your email to WSDOT and the mayor, SDOT, and the City Council members, too.

14 replies on “Here’s Your One Chance to Tell the State What You Think About the Deep-Bore Tunnel”

  1. I suggest they increase the diameter times 4 and let all of downtown sink into it.

    Then, turn the Seattle Peninsula into a Wild Life Wetland preserve, with luxury hotels on the brand new waterfront (the one created by the vortex in the Earth).

  3. Bet you 20$ that if some billionaire steps in and says “Ya know, I’ll pay for the cost overruns, even sign a paper to that effect. No really, ill put up the money in escrow if you want”, then all the safety issues are tossed out the window.

    This all started with money and as long as someone else pays for it, nobody cares if any local, state, federal laws are violated.

    Once this is done, the mayor will shut his face hole and move onto obstructing other road projects.

  4. Talk about grabing at straws.

    *Might cause two historic buildings to fail or collapse.
    Didnt have a problem digging two seperate deep bore tunnels.

    *Pioneer Square buildings are at risk in general.
    Didnt have a problem when the Kingdome was blown up., sending shockwaves for miles. Didnt have a problem when they dug TWO seperate deep bore tunnels under it. Beacon Hill tunnell caused one sinkhole (might be a 2nd).

    * Tolls
    By all means, if you dont like tolls, then lets jack up the sales tax to pay for it. Or better still, force cyclists to carry a license and tabs, then jack up ALL road related fee’s 300%.

    * No Transit
    Not a problem, just remove the bike lanes to make room for light rail. To say that buses wont be allowed in the tunnel is kinda silly. Or are you complaining about how light rail wont be allowed in the tunnel, similar how its not allowed on the viaduct?

    I agree that they need to provide access points to allow exit onto 1st ave or elsewhere along its route, but all that does is raise the costs even more. It is possible that this might be added decades later. Right now, where would you put the off ramps? Currently its elevated, so to go from 1st ave to elevated viaduct is kinda easy. Going from 50′ below the surface, to surface on 1st ave, isnt going to be easy as its a steep incline. You’ll basically have a large hole in the street with a ramp going from tunnel to surface and would do more in creating gridlock on 1st ave. One could always exit west to the waterfront, but at a sub level, your exit would go right through a building.

  5. Kinison, I usually don’t respond to a comment that’s all rant, but your last two paragraphs need something.

    First, transit is not in the tunnel because there is no demand for transit that bypasses downtown. All the demand around downtown is for transit that goes to and from downtown, not for transit that avoids downtown.

    Second, the critical missing ramps don’t go to 1st Avenue, they go to Western and Elliott to provide freight connections within the Ballard/Interbay/SODO industrial corridor. Without those ramps, the tunnel is pretty near useless for local freight mobility.

    And it’s useless to speculate about how future ramps could be designed to fit the current tunnel profile. The current tunnel was designed the way it is because ramps were purposely excluded. If ramps were part of the picture, now or in the future, we would be looking today at a much different tunnel.

  8. I should point out the $4 tolls are recommendations only.

    More likely to be in the $5 to $10 each way range for a one-way trip.

    Just contact them and say – GET REAL!

  10. @Citizen R

    Ramps were purposesly excluded because one is going from elevated roadway to deep bore tunnel. Even if it were possible, its expensive and thats the main reason people dont want the tunnel in the first place.

    Were going with the tunnel plan, because city council and mayor spent 8 years deciding and ultimately could not make a decision on how to replace the viaduct so the state made the decision for us. The state decided on the deep bore tunnel because it was the only option that did not fully disrupt commerce on the waterfront.

    So keep complaining, keep draging the whole decision process another 6-8 years, nitpicking every little thing and LONG after the viaduct is torn down, no matter what option we go with, nobody is going to be completely 100% happy with the results. Its just going to be this big bowl of suck.

    Eat all you want, wont change a thing. If you want a better option, it should have been brought up YEARS ago and not as were about to break ground. If there was a better option, a cheaper option, one that made this so much worth while, it would have indeed been brought up YEARS ago and we wouldnt be in this mess right now.

    So again, eveyone gets a bowl of suck to eat, so dig in! If you dont want to eat it, dont worry, its not like you have a choice in the matter.

  11. @5, your point about no through transit demand isn’t correct. There’s a TON of pent up transit demand for trips in northern neighborhoods to southern, eastern, and western ones, and vice-versa, that pretty much have to go through downtown because that’s the obvious transfer point. But one of the reasons people drive is because the only way to get from a place like Ballard or Queen Anne to a place like West Seattle or Columbia City or Leschi is to go downtown first and change. That change means that in many cases a fifteen-minute car trip takes as much as two hours by bus.

  13. @11: I think @5 was saying that there’s relatively little transit demand to approach downtown and then skip it entirely, invalidating any downtown purpose to the route and all transfer potential.

    And you know, having lived in real cities, that our downtown transfer time penalty is only prohibitive because our transit is shit coming from Ballard, is shit heading to Leschi, is shit entering and exiting downtown, and is shit crossing downtown.

    A transit trip that takes twice the time of a car trip tends to be a reasonable trade-off (costs less, relieves you of the need to find parking). A transit trip that takes 3x, 4x, or (in the evening) 8x as long is never a reasonable proposition.

    Real transit works for through trips not by bypassing downtown, but by passing through quickly enough not to be a deterrent. Brooklyn to Midtown via Lower Manhattan: yes. PDX airport to Beaverton via excruciatingly slow downtown Portland alignment: no. Columbia City to Capitol Hill via this-train-is-stuck-behind-a-bus-loading-a-wheelchair-plus-some-moron-is-having-trouble-with-the-bike-rack: god, I hope not.

    The deep bore tunnel’s worst drain on through-transit potential will be the billions wasted building it. We should be sinking our energies and money into eliminating the 8x transit penalty you describe.

  14. “Didnt have a problem when they dug TWO seperate deep bore tunnels under it. Beacon Hill tunnell caused one sinkhole (might be a 2nd). “

    Kinison, the ground where the DBT would be dug is not necessarily similar to either the ground further east where the transit tunnel was dug, or the ground underneath Beacon Hill.

Comments are closed.