Richard Conlin was being heckled. The Seattle City Council president knew the crowd would be hostile and he came prepared. It was February 28 at City Hall, and the council intended to pass a bill that would commit Seattle to replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bore tunnel. Even after the public comment period, when citizens in sweaters and button-up shirts spoke two to one against the project, the crowd remained vocal, many holding signs reading “Let us vote!” or “Our Project, Our Vote” or “Stop the Tunnel.”
As the crowd rumbled, Conlin asked to suspend parliamentary rules to show a Power-
Point presentation. Did he seize the chance to show that the tunnel is worth $4.2 billion or that it moves traffic better than less-
expensive alternatives?
No, he didn’t do that. He can’t do that.
Instead, Conlin projected a photo of Oakland’s Cypress Street Viaduct after a 1989 earthquake. Forty-two people died on the freeway that day, crushed to death between collapsed concrete. Seattle’s waterfront viaduct faces the same risk in an earthquake, and, he argued, the tunnel is our only option to avoid that risk.
“These pictures remind us that we are talking about people’s lives,” Conlin intoned.
The crowd groaned at this stunt.
Then the council approved the tunnel contracts with the state by an 8–1 vote (with Mike O’Brien dissenting). Now the viaduct—a human juicer in a seismically volatile region—will be left standing for at least five more years. But the council and the state don’t even know if the tunnel is feasible yet, because the impact studies won’t be done until this summer.
Conlin’s grandstanding—his willingness to exploit tragedy to score a political point—wasn’t just patronizing, it was dishonest. Building the tunnel means that the viaduct remains up longer. Demolition had been planned for next year—in 2012—but the tunnel plan delays demolition until 2016 (or later, if the project runs behind schedule, as projects like these often do).
“The city council has chosen the option that leaves the existing viaduct up the longest,” says Mayor Mike McGinn.
Meanwhile, the governor, highway officials, and eight members of the city council all say that the decision to build a deep-bore tunnel is a done deal. That a tunnel is the best option for the waterfront. That the region’s economy depends on a tunnel. That we have no other option.
They’re lying to us.
On every metric you could use to gauge a transportation project—cost, liability, impact—the tunnel project fails. Replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct by optimizing surface streets and transit is cheaper and more effective. Countless cities—San Francisco, Portland, New York, Seoul, and many others—have torn down urban freeways without creating economic havoc or gridlock. Seattle can and should do the same thing. In fact, Seattle voters already rejected plans to rebuild Highway 99 as a tunnel or a new viaduct in 2007: After voters shot down a cut-and-cover tunnel, the governor, the mayor at the time, and the county executive at the time got together and decided on a deep-bore tunnel without asking voters.
Now the state is trying to shut down debate on the deep-bore tunnel—highway officials and the governor literally refuse to participate in debates—because, on its merits, the tunnel is indefensible.
For instance, we’ve been told that the tunnel will “open up the waterfront” while a surface option would clog it with traffic. But the Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) own research found that the tunnel and a surface/transit option produce identical traffic flows along the waterfront: 11,000 vehicles over three hours during the peak evening rush hour. And the state’s estimate was based on the assumption that the tunnel would have no tolls. But a 2009 state law requires that $400 million for the project be raised by tolls. According to a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) released last October, 64,000 vehicles a day that currently use the viaduct would divert onto surface streets because the tunnel has zero exits and to avoid having to pay tolls. What does this mean for the waterfront? WSDOT reports, “The number of vehicles traveling on Alaskan Way each day is projected to increase by 6,000 to 7,000
vehicles” above the levels without tolls.
So it’s the tunnel that would clog the waterfront with traffic.
Before we spend $4.2 billion (including $930 million from Seattle and $300 million from the Port of Seattle) on a tunnel we don’t need, Seattle voters deserve a chance to weigh in. We deserve a real debate, an honest debate about whether the tunnel moves enough vehicles, whether it’s worth the money.
There is only one way to do that honestly: put the tunnel on the ballot. Protect Seattle Now, a campaign launched the same day the council voted to approve the tunnel, has until March 28 to gather approximately 16,500 signatures to put the tunnel contracts on the August ballot. That’s a lot of signatures to gather in a short amount of time. Protect Seattle Now is going to have to pay professional signature gatherers if it wants to make the deadline, which means it needs to raise money, too—quickly. If you can help, go to www.protectseattlenow.org.
Meanwhile, here’s why you should care.
Travel Worse
Governor Chris Gregoire insists that the only way to maintain traffic flow downtown and protect streets from a flood of cars that currently use the viaduct is by building the tunnel. “The bored tunnel preserves capacity,” she argues.
But the state’s own estimates contradict her. Nearly two-thirds of the 110,000 vehicles a day that currently use the viaduct won’t take the tunnel. Tolls of $4 one direction and $3.50 the other direction would cause most drivers to avoid the tunnel. (The other reason drivers will avoid the 1.7-mile tunnel is the lack of exits—more on that in a minute.) Without tolls, the state simply can’t pay for its share of the project; with tolls, most people won’t use it. Most drivers will exit before getting to the 10-lane tunnel portal, clogging the streets of Pioneer Square.
“To build a giant, suburban-
scale interchange next to a historic district with narrow, fragile pedestrian streets—knowing that this causes traffic mayhem, but not putting any money toward solving the problem—is absurd,” says People’s Waterfront Coalition director Cary Moon.
The state calls this “unworkable.” The SDEIS says, “Slower vehicle times are modeled because vehicle volumes are expected to increase on these streets.” (Yes, the project designed to move traffic through the city causes slower travel.)
Asked at a briefing in November how the state would manage the increase in traffic on city streets, Ron Paananen, project manager for the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project at the Washington State Department of Transportation, punted: “The City of Seattle has more power over city streets.” Asked if the state had any money to mitigate this looming traffic disaster, Paananen answered, “No.”
The state said this is the city’s problem. So what’s the city’s plan to deal with the traffic pouring onto downtown streets?
City council Transportation Committee chair Tom Rasmussen hopes the state can help—the same state that says this is the city’s problem.
“I think we will be working with the state, King County Metro, Port of Seattle, and any other entities that have a role in transportation to reduce the amount of traffic on those streets that could be caused by tolling,” Rasmussen has said.
The city certainly doesn’t have the money to mitigate the traffic diversion. Seattle is running annual deficits around $60 million and already has a $930 million commitment to the project (to pay for utility relocation, building a new seawall, and helping rebuild the waterfront). The state, county, and port will be no help: A 2009 law prohibits the state from chipping in any more money than the $2.8 billion it already committed, the Port of Seattle still hasn’t found a way to pay its pledged $300 million, and King County Metro is running a budget deficit and has nothing to chip in. Not one of these entities has a way to manage downtown street traffic if the tunnel is built.
“The issues, left unaddressed, will impact accessibility to and the character of the Center City, particularly in the vicinity of Pioneer Square and the Seattle Center/South Lake Union areas,” says a briefing paper presented to council members on January 25. The report, by transportation consultant Nelson\Nygaard, also finds that the uptick in traffic may result in longer travel times for transit and “will increase conflict between automobiles and vulnerable road users.” (In other words, frustrated drivers confronted with clogged downtown streets and longer commutes are likely to run down more cyclists and pedestrians.)
“We are spending billions of dollars to make traffic worse and doing nothing for transit service,” says Craig Benjamin, a transit advocate with the group Streets for All Seattle. The city would have to spend huge sums on improving surface streets—rerouting surface roads, adding lanes on I-5, timing lights—to mitigate this flood of traffic “or this is not going to work.” But the city and state won’t have the dough to do that because they will have spent it all on the tunnel.
What about freight and connecting the port to the rest of the region? Tunnel supporters argue that freight mobility is vital to a port city like Seattle. But the viaduct isn’t a particularly well-used freight route. Medium to heavy trucks make up less than 4 percent of viaduct trips currently (4,000 out of 110,000 per day), according to the Urban Mobility Plan drafted for the city by Nelson\Nygaard in 2008. And three-fifths of that truck traffic begins or ends downtown. So the tunnel, which has no exits in downtown Seattle, wouldn’t help with freight: It actually forces most of the freight traffic currently served by the viaduct onto city streets.
Seattle doesn’t require a downtown bypass; it needs access into downtown. Consider the way we currently use Highway 99. Drivers take the viaduct—which has exits and on-ramps—to enter and exit downtown Seattle. According to WSDOT data from 2007, traffic rises sharply on the viaduct in the morning and evening commuting hours. Northbound traffic on the viaduct currently peaks 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., with 4,500 trips per hour, dropping to about 2,200 trips an hour through midday, and then rising to 3,500 during the evening rush hour. Southbound volumes reflect a similar pattern, but with less traffic overall; traffic peaks in the morning with 2,500 trips per hour and lulls midday until the evening rush hour around 5:00 p.m., diving by 7:00 p.m. This is the pattern of a morning and evening commute into the employment core of downtown Seattle.
Smart Mobility, a New England transportation engineering firm, studied traffic patterns on the viaduct and issued a report called “Alaskan Way Viaduct Analysis of No-Replacement Option.” It found that 90
percent of the northbound Highway 99 traffic enters from downtown on-ramps. Likewise, 77 percent of southbound traffic gets on Highway 99 downtown. The report says, “Most of the viaduct traffic during peak traffic periods gets on or off SR 99 in central Seattle, and is not through traffic.” What drivers need from Highway 99—what they use it for—isn’t a bypass mechanism, but a downtown delivery system.
Despite this evidence, WSDOT has insisted, “The Alaskan Way Viaduct is a major regional highway corridor carrying long-
distance trips through downtown.” That’s a lie and WSDOT knows it. WSDOT’s own data proves it.
The project’s total cost is estimated at $4.2 billion, assuming that it doesn’t run over budget. But 9 out of 10 megaprojects do run over budget, and tunnel and bridge projects are particularly vulnerable to unexpected costs—running an average of 34 percent over budget, according to an analysis of 258 massive transportation projects by Bent Flyvbjerg, one of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject.
The four-tunnel Brightwater sewage treatment facility in north King County that was supposed to be done in 2010 now won’t be done until 2012 or 2013, and it’s 24 percent over budget. Two of the tunnel-digging machines got stuck. If that happens to the downtown tunnel, the unsafe viaduct would be left standing until 2018, two additional years.
If Seattle’s tunnel runs over budget, someone will have to pay. It’s the state’s project, with the city serving as a colead. But the state is facing a $5 billion biennial deficit and state lawmakers say they won’t pay.
“Will Seattle voters be on the hook for [tunnel] cost overruns?” asked KIRO reporter Essex Porter at a luncheon at the Washington Athletic Club on January 7. Onstage were Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, Senate Minority Leader Mike Hewitt, Representative Larry Springer, and Representative Bruce Dammeier. Each of them had signs that said “Yes,” “No,” or “Waffle.” They all laughed at Porter’s question and lifted their “Yes” signs.
A state law passed in 2009 specifically states that any costs beyond $2.8 billion “shall be borne by property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing viaduct with the deep-bore tunnel.” The law also says, unequivocally, that the state won’t pay more than $2.8 billion. If the tunnel exceeds those costs, the legislature has to act or leave the project unfinished. They can tap the state budget, which has been running multibillion-dollar deficits with no end in sight. Or they can do what they said they would do: collect from Seattle.
“I will be among those who make damn sure that deal stands in place,” state representative Larry Seaquist told Seattlepi.com. Likewise, Democrat Jim Kastama said last summer, “I will try my best, as will a number of other legislators, to live up to the law that we passed that held Seattle to these cost overruns.”
Representative Judy Clibborn, who chairs the house Transportation Committee, introduced the language that puts Seattle taxpayers on the hook. Clibborn says the intent was that “people who benefited from the facility would help pay for cost overruns.” But Clibborn now says the state lacks a mechanism to collect from taxpayers in a specific geography or compel a city to pay. If there are overruns, she adds, the state “will pay for the cost overruns.”
It’s a legal gray area. If the state legislature, traditionally hostile to Seattle, can pin the overrun costs on Seattle, our city’s taxpayers will have a $1 billion bill if the state’s $2.8 billion portion of the project runs the average 34 percent over budget.
Governor Gregoire has said she’d veto a bill that makes Seattle pay—but she isn’t running for reelection and will be long gone in 2013, 2014, or 2015 when cost overruns crop up. It may be Republican governor Rob McKenna by then, and don’t bank on him to come running to Seattle’s rescue.
Even if the project somehow doesn’t run over budget, parts of the funding may not come through. For instance, the $400 million from tolls assumes that drivers will actually pay to use the tunnel instead of the free surface streets. That’s not always what happens. The Australian reported a few weeks ago that RiverCity Motorway, a private tunnel and highway builder in Brisbane, had financially collapsed after construction was done on a recent project because too many users simply refused to pay the tolls. “River-
City’s initial traffic forecasts predicted the road would carry 60,000 vehicles a day and that this could increase to 100,000 within 18 months. But traffic volumes are closer to 20,000 vehicles, despite initial moves to discount the toll by as much as 50 percent to encourage motorists,” the newspaper reported.
Right now, the state and eight members of the city council all assume the tunnel will be free of cost overruns and that every driver we expect to pay a toll will pay. That is insanity.
The state has been clear that it will dig the tunnel. “This project that we have been discussing for a decade will begin turning dirt next year,” said Governor Gregoire at a press conference to announce the winning construction bidders. “Ladies and gentlemen,” she added, “let’s get ‘er built.” Ron Judd, project outreach director for WSDOT, told the Seattle Times, “The debate about whether or not we’re going to do a tunnel is over.”
Sounds like a done deal, eh?
But the law is clear: You can’t actually decide to build until an environmental review is complete. Until the state “issues a final determination of nonsignificance or final environmental impact statement, no action concerning the proposal shall be taken by a governmental agency that would… limit the choice of reasonable alternatives,” says the Washington Administrative Code.
The environmental impact statement on the deep-bore tunnel isn’t completed. It’s “expected this summer,” says WSDOT’s Paananen. So how can the debate be over?
“The state is trampling on our state’s premier environmental law,” says David Bricklin, an environmental attorney who represents cases under the State Environmental Policy Act. “We are throwing away our money on a document that is not going to be used to help make a decision, but instead to justify the decision that is already made. That is flatly illegal. Ron Judd should know better. The governor, who ran the Department of Ecology and the attorney general’s office, certainly should know better.”
Bricklin adds, “For the governor in a huge project to flout the law is—I am just almost speechless. I am amazed that the state would do this.”
The state’s actions so far—picking a construction conglomerate, signing contracts, refusing to study a surface/transit alternative—have predisposed the state to pick one option.
“A lawsuit that argues that this EIS process is a sham and that WSDOT has to change the way it analyzes environmental issues and change the way it makes decisions, I think that would be a very strong lawsuit, a very strong claim,” says Bricklin.
There is a better option. Seattle can maintain its capacity to move people and goods through the city just as we do today—without a dangerous viaduct, an ugly replacement viaduct, or an insane tunnel.
The city hired consultant Nelson\Nygaard in 2008 to explore maximizing surface streets, optimizing lanes on I-5, and improving certain transit corridors through downtown. It concluded that it would cost $3.3 billion—almost a billion dollars less than the tunnel project—and would performs as well as, and in some cases better than, the tunnel.
The most compelling evidence for I-5/surface/transit is buried in the state’s own SDEIS. In an appendix of a transportation discipline report, WSDOT cites the miles of travel, hours of travel, and hours of delay that would exist if we built the I-5/surface/transit option. To compare that data to the tunnel, The Stranger filed a records request with the City of Seattle to obtain the most recent data the state is using to forecast miles traveled, hours traveled, and hours of delay on the tolled deep-bore tunnel.
The data shows surface/transit performing slightly better in the downtown system overall, with fewer miles traveled, fewer hours traveled, and less delay. Specifically, hours of delay would drop from 37,500 hours with a tolled tunnel program to 36,700 hours with a surface option. Hours of overall travel drop from 106,600 to 103,600, and miles traveled drops from 2.5 million to 2.4 million.
Granted, these aren’t huge differences. But this data proves something very important: The much more expensive tunnel doesn’t perform any better than I-5/surface/transit.
That flies in the face of Governor Gregoire and other tunnel advocates who have insisted the I-5/surface/transit option won’t work. When I asked about the traffic impacts of the tunnel at a press conference on October 29, Gregoire said, “The alternative [to the tunnel] is taking 110,000 cars and putting them on I-5 and the streets of Seattle. You want to see a stalled city, you take those 110,000 cars.” But the state’s own data shows that downtown is actually more “stalled” with a tunnel.
Here’s how surface/transit would work: adding a new northbound lane on I-5 in the space already available between Seneca Street and the State Route 520 interchange (this alone provides capacity for an estimated 30,000 additional vehicles a day); converting Alaskan Way along the waterfront to a six-lane road south of Columbia Street and a four-lane road north of Columbia Street; placing timed traffic lights at intersections along the waterfront to maximize mobility while allowing drivers to turn east into the downtown core; making improvements for cyclists and pedestrians, such as redesigning certain sidewalks and clearly marking bike lanes; funding more bus routes; and establishing transit priority through Pike and Pine Streets, Madison and Marion Streets, and through Stewart Street and Olive Way. Meanwhile, Spokane Street and Mercer Street improvements would increase freight access to I-5.
The savings compared to the tunnel: $500 million to $700 million for the state and $200 million for the city, according to an analysis of city and state data by the People’s Waterfront Coalition.
Simply tearing down the viaduct doesn’t appear to have serious ramifications. Three University of Washington professors issued a technical report in 2009 titled “Assessing Uncertainty About the Benefits of Transportation Infrastructure Projects Using Bayesian Melding: Application to Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct.” In it, Professors Hana Sevcikova, Adrian E. Raftery, and Paul A. Waddell studied the effect of viaduct removal on 22 routes through Seattle—14 routes didn’t use the viaduct and 8 did. For the first 14, they wrote, “There is no indication that removing the viaduct would increase commute times for these routes.” For the routes that did use the viaduct, they stated, “There is not strong statistical support for the conclusion that removing the viaduct would lead to any increase in travel times.” They noted, however, that drivers who use the viaduct as a “core component” of their commute “may [experience] some measurable increase in travel time.” The analysis refutes tunnel cheerleaders’ predictions of “gridlock.”
And while the state repeatedly insists the tunnel is necessary because its forecasts presume traffic is rising, they’re wrong. Seattle traffic is dropping.
Congestion in Seattle has dropped by 32 percent since 2006, according to the 2010 annual report released this month by the
Kirkland-based traffic-analysis company
INRIX. Seattle’s automobile trips are down, too. On February 18, Congress for the New Urbanism reported: “Trips [in Seattle] by automobile have declined by 6 percent from 2000 to 2009, while at the same time the population increased by nearly 10 percent. That equates to 14 percent fewer trips per capita.”
Even if we did need to increase capacity in the city, a freeway wouldn’t necessarily
help. Freeways are designed to move people long distances very quickly. That’s not what we need to do in the middle of the city. As mentioned earlier, lots of cities have gotten rid of their freeways: Harbor Drive in Portland, the Embarcadero and Central Freeway in San Francisco, and the Cheonggye Expressway in Seoul were all torn down and resulted in more vibrant downtown cores. In Seoul—which eliminated a freeway and an expressway and replaced them with a stream and park in 2005—”traffic has improved,” the Korea Times reports.
Where would the viaduct’s traffic go? Estimates show 30 percent diverting to Alaskan Way, 25 percent to north/south arterials, 17 percent to I-5, and 28 percent “disappears.” This last category is the area of the greatest controversy. The knee-jerk refrain is that these trips are an indicator of less economic activity. But that argument is rebuffed in “Alaskan Way Viaduct Analysis of No-Replacement Option,” which says, “[Some] people shop and use services closer to where they live,” which is good for neighborhoods.
“It’s also better for downtown, because you’re actually providing access, options, and connectivity,” says People’s Waterfront Coalition’s Moon. “And that’s what urban traffic systems depend on.”
City council member Nick Licata was having a rage attack. We’re back to February 28, minutes before the council voted to approve three tunnel agreements with the state—the same meeting where Conlin tried to shut up the angry crowd by showing the collapsed freeway in Oakland. Licata was tripping over his words, flailing his arms, not making any case for why the tunnel was a good idea. His arguments were against surface/transit and they were purely political. “I don’t know of any elected officials out there arguing for it,” he said. “You have the risk that the tunnel may go over [budget], we don’t know. We do know that we have $2.2 billion. We have zero—we have zero—for the transit and surface options.”
Licata is wrong.
There are elected officials (including O’Brien, sitting a few feet to Licata’s left) arguing for surface/transit. If Licata, who is opposed to light rail and supports rebuilding a wider viaduct, says we need a better tunnel alternative, he should be blaming himself and the rest of the council, who made the insane decision to pursue a tunnel.
And the surface/transit option does have money.
The state has already committed hundreds of millions of dollars to various parts of what could become a surface/transit project. Tearing down the old viaduct between South Holgate Street to South King Street and rebuilding a new road in its place has already begun, and that’s covered by $476 million in gas tax and federal money, says WSDOT project manager Paananen.
“Some parts of the surface/transit/I-5 alternative—particularly the transit piece—could not be paid for with gas-tax funds,” Paananen says.
But managing the soon-to-close Battery Street Tunnel, electrical line relocation, and other nearby work account for approximately
$181 million, and the state must also tear down the viaduct (budgeted out of state funds at $290 million)—these elements represent roughly $1 billion in the state’s commitment to the tunnel, and they would need to occur to build surface/transit, too.
“People say the state takes its $2.2 billion and walks,” says O’Brien. But in addition to what’s already committed, he argues, “Voters passed the gas tax, and that money was dedicated to this corridor. And if it needs to get moved over a few hundred yards in one direction or the other, then let’s do that. Let’s put it into I-5. I think you start taking state funds to other projects in the city and use them immediately.” For instance, increasing capacity on I-5, the state’s responsibility, would cost approximately $500 million. “That’s a lot easier than building a deep-bore tunnel,” O’Brien says.
If the tunnel failed and surface/transit were selected, would the state take all the remaining money?
It could, technically, but probably wouldn’t. After all, the governor, legislature, and port have been braying for years about the need to maintain the capacity of the viaduct.
“I would fight to keep funding in Seattle to make that corridor work,” says state senator Ed Murray, asked what he would do if the tunnel was nixed.
Where would transit funding come from? That’s more difficult to answer. But on March 10, state senator Scott White introduced a bill that would give voters in local jurisdictions four mechanisms to fund transit, including vehicle excise taxes, licensing fees, tax rewards for efficient vehicles, and applying the sales tax to gasoline.
And some tunnel supporters could be won over. After all, many of the same people who now support the tunnel have supported
surface/transit in the past. An e-mail chain from December 2008 includes the key players in a stakeholders group of labor, business, and environmental leaders who were united in pushing for a surface/transit option (before the governor began pushing for a tunnel).
“The S&T (including I-5) project should start today. It will give us the best shot at increasing the capacity of I-5 and transit, which we know will help the region,” wrote Robert Sexton, the regional vice president of Seattle commercial banking for Wells Fargo and board member of the Downtown Seattle Association. Likewise, Jon Scholes, policy director of the Downtown Seattle Association, proposed a recommendation that called to “move forward with the Surface/Transit Hybrid alternative, including improvements to I-5.” Scholes argued: “It is an affordable alternative. It has one of the shortest construction schedules, resulting in very limited closure of SR 99.” Another benefit of this option: “Remove the viaduct by 2012.”
Politically speaking, another charge is that the tunnel is a boon for employment (“We will create jobs building the tunnel now,” Gregoire told a room of hard-hat-wearing supporters on December 9). But the truth is the tunnel doesn’t do much: It creates 480 jobs interspersed across four years, according to the state’s October study, which isn’t a lot for the $3.1 billion the state is spending.
So much for the “jobs” argument.
I‘m standing under the viaduct during the morning commute. Streets in its shadow are mostly empty. From down here, you can see the cracks under the lanes and across the concrete buttresses. The 2001 Nisqually earthquake caused most of the damage; a recent federal safety inspection gave the viaduct, out of 100 possible points, a rating of only 9 in its weakest spots.
“It’s coming down in 2012. I’m taking it down,” Governor Gregoire said in 2008. “That’s the timeline. I’m not going to fudge on it.”
It’s now been three years since Gregoire said that. It’s been two weeks since the council approved a tunnel plan that lets the viaduct stand four years longer, until 2016. It’s been a matter of days since a 9.0 earthquake struck Japan.
Could we nix the tunnel and bring this thing down sooner? Yes.
Surface/transit could be two-thirds complete within three years, says Moon, including viaduct demolition. And surface/transit lacks the engineering complexity associated with the planned deep-bore tunnel (at 58 feet in diameter, the widest deep-bore tunnel ever attempted). The city has studied ways to close the viaduct in an emergency, and the reports show that closing the viaduct doesn’t lead to gridlock.
So if this is about bringing the viaduct down sooner rather than later, we should build surface/transit. If it’s about spending money wisely, we should build surface/
transit. If it’s about the waterfront or bringing shoppers to downtown businesses, we should build surface/transit. If it’s about saving lives, we should build surface/transit.
Now is Seattle’s chance to stop a freeway it doesn’t need. The city did that once before in 1969, when thousands of citizens protested the R. H. Thomson Expressway being built through the Arboretum. Officials kept up construction, but the protesters prevailed. Shortly thereafter, the mayor, several members of the city council, and downtown groups were committed to demolishing the Pike Place Market and building a commercial development in its place. It was a done deal. But citizens put Initiative 1 on the ballot in 1971, and voters saved the market by a three-to-two majority.
When it comes to the downtown freeway, the city council is trying to stop your voice from being heard. Council Member O’Brien introduced a resolution in February that would have allowed you to vote, but eight members of the council voted against it. Why?
They’re afraid of losing.
A poll conducted last year by SurveyUSA found that 58 percent of Seattleites supported a referendum on the tunnel and 63 percent said that construction should wait until the state agrees to pay for cost overruns.
Is there a majority for any option (tunnel, new viaduct, surface/transit)? No. Voters have been divided for years. But part of the reason is that people—like the governor—have been overstating the tunnel’s efficacy while untruthfully downplaying surface/
transit. And most of the council refuses to have a real debate.
“The folks who are making the decisions, the nine of us on the council, the mayor, the governor—we are not the ones who have to pay for the consequences of these decisions,” says O’Brien. “This is a project that city and state taxpayers will be paying for in years to come and they deserve to have a say. I am convinced that a couple years from now, we will look back and this project will be going sideways, gas prices will be higher than they are today, and people will say, ‘Why did we do this? Who decided to do this?’ And the folks supporting the tunnel will be disappointed in themselves for putting us on this path.”
What is the referendum on the tunnel, exactly? At issue is the paperwork that the city has drafted with the state. It addresses right-of-way to build the tunnel and two utility agreements, overall addressing who pays for what and assigning liability. Supporters on the council argue that these agreements protect Seattle’s interests. But when the city tried to include language in the state contracts that explicitly said that the state would pay for cost overruns, the state refused (that would be illegal because of the state law that says Seattle taxpayers must shoulder cost overruns).
Tunnel supporters argue that if Seattle doesn’t approve these contracts, the state will declare eminent domain and build a tunnel anyway, without the contracts. They further claim that if voters reject the tunnel contract, the state would build it anyway. “It’s hard for me to believe that the state will spend billions of dollars on a project that the city doesn’t even want,” says O’Brien. And history shows that Seattle can stop a freeway it doesn’t want.
Moreover, the state can’t complete the project without Seattle, which needs to pay $930 million of the $4.2 billion bill. It also seems politically unfeasible that the state would send a tunnel-boring machine under downtown Seattle when voters have told them not to. Another tunnel was on the ballot once, and voters said no way. The only way to stop the city council from making this mistake is to let voters have their say again.
And the only way to let voters have their say again is to get Protect Seattle Now’s tunnel referendum on the ballot. The newly founded coalition of organizations running that referendum (organizations that include Real Change newspaper, the Sierra Club, and Friends of Seattle) formed with only 30 days to gather signatures. They have less than two weeks left. At their own expense, they’ve inserted petitions into copies of this week’s Stranger in some of the densest neighborhoods in the city. “People should sign it, get some friends to sign it, and then send it back to us immediately,” says campaign manager Ainsley Close. The deadline to mail in signatures is March 25 (Protect Seattle Now, PO Box 17385, Seattle, WA 98127). The 16,503 signatures needed are within reach, but time is limited. You can contribute money to the cause online (www.protectseattlenow.org/donate) or help out by calling 257-2252. Editors and the publisher of this paper even donated to the campaign.
They need your help.
It has come to this. Stop the insanity. 
Frickin’ right on Dominic. We definitely should be moving way beyond 1950’s car culture thinking. If Portland, San Franciso, Cincinatti and New York can remove urban freeways, why not Seattle? The answer is WE CAN.
Seattle stopped the Bay and the RH Thomson: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?Dis…
We can stop this.
FINALLY! I’ve already got 15 signatures.
The State controls this project. Seattle can vote on the issue as much as they want to, their local vote will not be binding on a state hiway project. Useless “vanity” votes just cost taxpayer money that would be better used to help the needy.
If we keep obstructing this project we will end up with many dead under the collapsed viaduct and hiway 99 back in it’s original location – 4th avenue.
Someone in the state and/or local govt. is clearly on the take here. Politicians are not the smartest bunch in the world, but they’re not dumb enough to be blind to the absurdity of this plan. Someone is getting paid under the table to get this tunnel rammed through the city…literally
Someone in the state and/or local govt. is clearly on the take here. Politicians are not the brightest bunch around, but even they are not so dumb as to be blind to the absurdity of this plan. Someone in their ranks is getting paid to ram the tunnel through Seattle…literally. And @4, don’t underestimate the power of the popular will, particularly with the considerable number of people in the Seattle area willing to do something to make a difference when critical issues such as this arise…this is too big to roll over for!
My wife signed the petition, but even she agrees that not having off ramps from the tunnel into 1st ave or the waterfront, who ares, it doesnt matter, the whole point is to bypass the downtown area. So she’ll sign it, allow a vote for it, but probably vote in favor of the tunnel.
Safety concerns are meaningless because as long as some billionare steps in to say “I’ll pay for the cost overruns!”, then the mayor drops all obstacles and signs off on the project.
@4: There’s a lot of wrong in your statement, but let’s unpack it:
1) “The State controls this project. Seattle can vote on the issue as much as they want to, their local vote will not be binding on a state hiway project.” False — voters have led to the cancellation of road projects in the past and have even trumped the feds. More than that, the democratic power structure in this state is funded and run from Seattle. Reading between the lines isn’t too difficult.
2) “Useless “vanity” votes just cost taxpayer money that would be better used to help the needy.” False — opponents to the referendum have grossly overstated the cost of the actual process (actuals are in the thousands, not millions). They’ve also presented costs as coming out of the funding stream for programs for the needy while simultaneously decrying CM O’Brien’s references to spending billions when we’re cutting Basic Health and other programs.
3) “If we keep obstructing this project we will end up with many dead under the collapsed viaduct” False — many opponents to the 99 tunnel have advocated for near-immediate shutdown. Indeed, part of the opposition to the tunnel is the fact that the viaduct will be open for several more years beyond both the engineer-suggested shutdown period (late 00s/early 10s) and the defiant promise of Governor Gregoire, who later flip-flopped. The tunnel is the plan that keeps the viaduct up the longest and presents the least mitigation for near-term collapse. If anything, the tunnel has a catastrophic cost risk far greater than any of the fear-based and unbacked-by-science traffic scenarios proposed by tunnel supporters.
4) ” hiway 99 back in it’s original location – 4th avenue” False — SR 99 was originally a corridor that ran the length of First Avenue from its southern reaches to the current mini-expressway on 15th Ave.
As I have said a couple dozen times before- Seattle already voted on this, y’all wanted a tunnel. So you’ve changed your minds because it is going to be as expensive as we all knew it was going to be. In the mean time you’ve squandered 8 years.
This is what we back home call ‘Coward Conservatism’ – unwilling to put their money on the line for the big ticket items that cities like Seattle actually need. This puts off infrastructure projects and makes them WAY more expensive when they become unavoidable.
My guess is the surface & transit folks will eventually win this one. If you have real estate in West Seattle, I’d sell it, ’cause commutes from there are going to be come nearly impossible.
@9 Seattle rejected the tunnel with a 70% vote. Seattle also rejected a viaduct replacement with about a 55% vote.
Facts are stupid things.
@9: Seattle voters opposed a 4-lane tunnel with upgrades to the surface street system, also known as the Surface-Tunnel Hybrid. It was the least popular: http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/200…
The state opposed it because it only had 2 full-time lanes (and they wanted 3) and narrow shoulders. This was part of the reason it lost: http://www.seattlepi.com/transportation/…
Unfortunately, the current DBT includes only 2 full-time lanes and only one shoulder that is designed to later be repurposed into a peak hour travel lane. The reason this one is being pushed, in spite of essentially matching the Surface-Tunnel Hybrid, is because it was moved into the more dense core and will not shut down the viaduct early, keeping traffic on the earthquake-damaged structure for many many MANY more months.
So no, Seattle voters didn’t want a tunnel. We also voted for two anti-tunnel candidates. Don’t believe anyone who says “but McGinn’s flip-flop is the only reason he won” — nobody believed him and the rhetoric in that time, especially in the MSM, was that he was a liar and that he would still oppose the tunnel if elected.
@12: I’m definitely with you there. McGinn was pretty obviously elected on the assumption he’d block the tunnel and stall the SR-520 bridge replacement.
The assumption seems to be that you can get people out of cars and into buses if you just make driving miserable enough. But having done both, sitting in a car in stop-and-go traffic is often less unpleasant than sitting in a bus stuck in that same traffic. Especially since Metro’s commuter buses are rarely air-conditioned.
There’s a terrible lost opportunity in all this political energy being expended to purportedly stop the tunnel by having yet another advisory vote.
Those 64K vehicle trips a day being diverted mean that the tunnel gives us an opportunity to convert a sizable number of those trips to transit. But the only way to do that is to expend some serious political capital pushing changes that won’t happen on their own. I’m talking changes like dedicated transit lanes and extending the range of the Highway 99 tolling–changes that the consulting firm NelsonNygaard has already suggested to the city council. In a vain attempt to kill the tunnel (and I mean both meanings of “vain”), the feel-good tunnel opposition has the potential to leave us with a worst-case tunnel, one where we’ve done nothing to account for all the spillover trips.
I wasn’t engaged in the discussion over the cut and cover option. What was the objection for most people? (in a nutshell if you must).
As far as the tunnel, I like big cool projects like this. Engineering awesomeness that is not only cool in how it is created, but the creation itself! Take me to the fucking moon now!
But this tunnel is as stupid as the viaduct was in the first place. Opening up the waterfront is good of course (which is why I don’t understand the objection to cut and cover). And without the viaduct monstrosity, and 4 lanes with turnouts, some dips for low pedestrian over passes (as few traffic lights as possible), some parking and I think surface transit is the way to go.
@15: I think the problem with a cut-and-cover tunnel is it would mean tearing up a large stretch of the waterfront for a long time. It was basically the most disruptive option to businesses and traffic.
It just boggles my mind that such a stupid plan is going forward and that so many people buy into it. I really think it’s as simple as people loving their cars more than they love the city. That’s just sad.
@13: “The assumption seems to be that you can get people out of cars and into buses if you just make driving miserable enough”, that’s called poisoning the well and is blatantly dishonest on your part.
The goal of this and most transit projects is to make all transportation better, not to make driving worse. Assuming in any part that devoting X amount of time/money/lanes to transit and not cars will cause X amount of deterioration is nowhere near a rational argument, but the emotion behind it is powerful. And it’s wrong. Transportation choices — the name of our regional transportation advocacy outfit, too — benefit everyone by offering just that, choices. You can’t say cars are being vilified when doing the same to transit.
@14: You know for a fact, and have pointed it out when it was expedient, that even when pressured the state will block or prevent advances in transit funding. You also should immediately recognize the city council’s willingness to stall grander transit studies. This “terrible lost opportunity” has been shaken repeatedly, but it hasn’t got us one piece of fruit.
If we build the tunnel, we won’t get more transit, we won’t get a wiser use of our existing thousands of in-city lane miles, we will get a tunnel, tolls, and noting else. It’s foolish to say “stop opposing the tunnel and work for transit” because it won’t happen.
@18: I’m not against transit. In fact, I take the bus on a regular basis. That’s why I don’t want to see lane capacity reduced; if traffic gets worse for cars, it gets worse for buses, too. And I’ll be honest; if I find my choice is between being stuck in traffic sitting in my air-conditioned car, or being stuck in traffic standing up in a hot, crowded bus, I’m probably going to choose the former.
I have a love/hate relationship with transit, to be honest. I love the money it saves me, but I hate the hour of my free time that it steals every day I take it.
@19: Again, you’re basically arguing on the worst aspects of transit with little more than a token nod to the money you’re saved — while still saying, flat out, that you’re more than ready to throw transit under the bus for relative comfort.
Decreasing lane capacity doesn’t always make traffic worse, like data has shown on Nickerson: here.
Moreover, presenting something that seems like it’s ostensibly a traffic obstruction like bus bulbs can actually increase speeds: TCRP study here
Assuming that forging ahead with a plan that has fewer outright benefits to cars (it doesn’t have as much capacity or more stop lights, for example) is akin to basically forcing SOV drivers into the transportation ghetto is the sort of wrongheaded assumption of modern transportation that leads us to knee-jerk cries of “WAR ON CARS”. It’s a diversion from advances that can make car usage more efficient and transit and other choices more accessible and less stigmatized.
Assuming we need to replace 1 mile of road with 1 or more miles of road in every case is not progress.
1) A ramp connecting I-5 and the viaduct to the West Seattle is needed in both directions, North & South.
2) The I-5 bottleneck at Lake City Way reducing traffic to only 3 lanes needs new lanes added.
@18: “I have a love/hate relationship with transit, to be honest. I love the money it saves me, but I hate the hour of my free time that it steals every day I take it.”
You have a love/hate relationship with shitty transit. Which is the only kind that Metro currently offers, and is all you’ll ever get out of any cheap, afterthought “mitigations” that could get tacked onto the Deep Boondoggle.
Do you have any idea the kind of transit improvements that $4.2 billion dollars could buy this city? How many more people it could move (faster and more easily) than would ever use the Deep Bore tunnel?
Baconcat @18 responding to me:
Baconcat, I’d love to have a real dialogue here, but you only seem willing to respond to me when you can craft a response that is nothing but anti-tunnel talking points, when you feel you can score some points against me. It’s one of the sad realities of comment boards–that some people are simply not interested in any kind of discussion, no matter how unproductive the jousting they prefer is. But hey, start sharpening your snappy comeback. I’m sure you’ll show me.
Listen, if the state and the City Council are so thoroughly anti-transit as you say, then what’s the point in fighting for any transit? We might as well be hunkering down and saying no to everything.
I’m not just talking about transit funding that the state can block, such as the governor has vetoed before. I’m talking about establishing dedicated transit lanes within the city limits. This is something the City Council has expressed an openness toward, but the only way they can get away with doing it is if they’ve got constituencies pushing them to.
And when it comes to actual transit funding, state legislators like Scott White and Marko Liias are putting forward some solid legislation to provide additional funding for the likes of Metro. I don’t know where those bills are now, but wouldn’t it be great if there was enough pressure applied on the governor so she wouldn’t think of vetoing those bills?
Baconcat, you would agree that, if there is to be a new tunnel, then there’s a huge difference between mitigating its presence in a way that promotes transit and, well, not doing so?
(That’s for @19, not @18. Obviously.)
More Baconcat @18:
Here’s the thing I don’t quite understand, Baconcat, and maybe you can help me out here. Let’s suppose that, if we build the tunnel, the City Council will take as anti-transit a tack as you say–that the worst possible tunnel mitigation will be a natural outgrowth of the tunnel. So if the City Council is that anti-transit, then how are they going to behave any differently to mitigate a surface route?
The same goes for the state legislature. I notice this ongoing conceit that, if we go with the tunnel, our elected officials will be a bunch of Mitch McConnells. But then the only way for the surface alternative to work is for those same elected officials to suddenly turn into a bunch of Daves.
Of course, I realize that a no campaign never has to be intellectually consistent or present viable alternatives or even engage in a real discussion, so feel free to shout me down if necessary.
@22: Your choice of words speaks volumes when you talk about “…the kind of transit improvements that $4.2 billion dollars could buy THIS CITY.” (Emphasis mine.) I don’t live in the city, but I commute to it, and Seattle transit advocates seem largely disinterested in making transit any better for me. In fact, they routinely argue that funding for transit outside the city limits should be *cut* in favor of more transit in the city.
I don’t trust that I will see any benefits from this pot of money you’re talking about. The S&T plan offers me no upside, just the promise of a more difficult commute.
@23: I would argue, cressona, that tunnel advocates put their money with their mouth is. Instead of saying transit advocates need to work to keep tunnel advocates from destroying transit funding, tunnel advocates need to work to keep transit advocates on board by, I dunno, funding transit directly tied to this project? Reconnecting the corridor lost to putting it into a tunnel?
Saying “oh, you aren’t interested in real discourse” is more or less sticking your fingers in your ears. We’ve had it demonstrated, from vetoes from the governor to lack of movement from those who make the claim that they support transit, it’s not happening. I don’t know what you don’t get about that, you’ve decried piss-poor transit funding in this state before.
If they would be so heinous to not push transit forward unless tunnel opponents come around — a “compromise” — then they don’t actually support transit. You can’t promise me a pony and then hand me a bottle of glue, acting surprised when I’m upset.
@1: SPOT ON!!!!!!
@20: You’re right, it’s a token nod, because it’s largely a token amount. I’ve done the math; I save about $10 in gas and parking fees every day I take the bus instead of driving. That’s not completely insignificant, but it’s also not hard to argue that my time is worth more than $10/hour.
@23: Legislation is being advanced that permits local jurisdictions to levy previously impermissible fees and taxes on itself to fund transit.
That’s very different from Olympia voting to “provide additional funding” for transit.
The latter, by the way, happens all the time in states that realize the value of keeping their major metropolitan areas flowing smoothly and that don’t have a malignant political habit of beating up upon their primary economic engines.
@25: Now you see why the vote is important. And the upcoming primaries and election. 🙂
@26: That’s a red herring, most transit advocates in the area comprehend subarea equity well enough to know that you can’t simply cut suburban service unless it’s simply not used at all — in which case the benefit would be to, well, you. In fact, if you knew much about the transit you suggest you use, you’d know that we can’t simply cut transit and direct it to Seattle. But god forbid we spend in-city money in-city the way it’s preferred in-city.
BTW, it should be noted that the leadership in the suburbs seem completely disinterested in improving transit, from suing over I-90 light rail, Tukwila blocking light rail for some time, opposition from Shoreline and Lynnwood, Bel-Red corridor going apoplectic and so on. A high capacity rail line to the main urban cores would go far to improving commutes and circulation, but who’s blocking it? Oh, right.
Can someone post a few links stating precisely what this referendum would do, like what would be the legally binding outcome? Can it nullify the contracts the city is signing with the state?
Yet again, @29, you have “a love/hate relationship” with the shitty transit we have, and not with transit as a concept.
Unfortunately, your attempt to tie negligible transit improvements into a massive auto project will do nothing to rectify that.
Americans want the luxury to drive their cars anywhere, and park their cars anywhere and not have to pay for it.
They don’t want mass transit, they don’t want to car pool. They want to drive their gas guzzling SUV anywhere they like no matter the cost to them or the taxpayers.
The city population is on the raise. Let’s not encourage more driving by buildingexpanding freeways through the city. Obviously, high gas prices isn’t going to keep people from driving their cars so what will?
@1 – you’re spot on.
And to add to your comment, the 2010’s have much more of a driving culture than in the 50’s where there was only 1 car per household.
Car drivers are such an annoying, dominate and ruling class of people and they don’t seem willing to share the road with bikers, buses, people walking, etc. We’ve got to get out of this 50’s mentality of driving everywhere and modernize like the rest of the world.
Whoops, Orv. Missed your reply @26…
@29: Most folks’ time is worth more than $10/hour, especially in this region. The 545 is full of pretty well-paid engineers, and the ones lucky enough to grab a seat often do work en route or read or check their internet, or… well, the possibilities are endless. So you aren’t the only one with time worth more than $10/hour. So what’s your point?
@13: Man if that’s not the truth. I own a car for that very reason… if I’m gonna be stuck in traffic, I’d rather not be stuck in traffic with a bunch of other sweaty people in a stuffy, vibrating, dirt encrusted bus, and lots of other people think exactly the same way. You don’t have to like it, but it’s reality.
As a driver, I say let’s tear the viaduct down this year, retime the lights on Alaskan way to let it handle more traffic for the time being, and solve the longer-term question about what to do once we have traffic data on how people move without the viaduct as an option. We can probably get away with a much cheaper option than we think we can.
The tolling study actually concluded that people would pay the toll during high traffic times, the spillover onto surface streets would only occur during low traffic times, when there’s you know, less traffic on the streets anyway. The surface option would be dumping more cars onto surface streets at all times, including rush hour. That’s why some people hold the insane belief that somehow that might cause gridlock.
Adding another lane to I-5 and removing the Seneca exit is expanding urban freeways and removing downtown exits, 2 things that that the anti-tunnel crowd go ballistic over with the tunnel. The tunnel is taking a 6 lane hiway, reducing it to 4 and putting it underground, so that’s a lot different from adding a new freeway, which I agree is generally bad when done in areas that aren’t already built up such as the exurbs, where it causes sprawl. West Seattle and Ballard aren’t going to sprawl anymore, they’re already developed.
Baconcat @27:
OK, so suppose as you say the state is never going to lift a finger to fund transit or allow King County to fund transit. Then if that’s the dagger in the heart of the tunnel option, it’s just as much the dagger in the heart of the surface option.
Baconcat: @25: Now you see why the vote is important. And the upcoming primaries and election. 🙂
So you’re saying your pro-transit vote counts, but only when the vote is being used in the context of the tunnel being killed. If the tunnel survives, then we’re never going to have another opportunity to elect pro-transit leaders?
@26: I don’t know where you live, but the frustration among urban transit advocates — including myself — stems from a system so dysfunctional that it’s often faster to get to Lynnwood or Issaquah than it is to get to Ballard. Hell, I’ve had rides 1.5 miles up Capitol Hill that took longer than the boat to Bainbridge! (This may not be true precisely where you live, although you might be able to drive and switch to a very fast service of the sort that doesn’t exist, for the most part, in the city.)
That doesn’t mean we want to dump on you and cut your service out of spite. It does mean that we recognize, which Metro/the City Council/the County Council/Olympia don’t seem to, that a well-integrated and highly functional transport system even helps those from the suburbs who may commute to Seattle but not have downtown as their only or final destination. (Hey, that even includes the Deep Bore’s target through-market!)
My point is that you phrased the trade-off in terms of the value of your time. But any system that makes commute trips 3x longer, trips anywhere but downtown 6x longer, and evening outings 17x longer is shitty, shitty transit and does not represent the inherent properties and potential of public transit (as you seem to presume).
I also don’t buy that when push comes to shove many people will suffer through 27 stoplights in order to save $3.50. They might say that before hand, but when their looking at crawling through downtown they’ll open up their wallet.
Dominic, great article, except you have to cite the atrocious Smart Mobility report. The numbers they come up with are just plain bad math. If you drive from West Seattle to Ballard, because you get off at Western they say you drove to downtown, but they don’t include you in the total number of Viaduct users that they divide by to get the percentage — only people who were already on the Viaduct before the West Seattle Bridge are part of the total. Same problem for southbound.
If you want to argue about it we’re having a discussion about that very report over at the Seattle Transit Blog:
http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/03/15…
Good find on the waterfront traffic count and the total travel times. I’d be curious what the travel time difference is for someone who can use the tunnel. I suspect that is the only number the state is looking at. Their attitude seems to be that SR99 is their highway and they won’t have any option that does not maintain a highway between Aurora and Marginal Way, but Seattle streets and the Elliot/Western corridor aren’t their concern and if the city of Seattle would rather support that traffic with a surface solution that’s fine with them.
“And did you know that Conlin decriminalized the possession of itty-bitty goats for personal use in Seattle? He did! Vote Conlin!”
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/2009-…
I’m still laughing about the fact that I voted against this doofus based upon his “bag tax” proposal and the best you could come up with is that he saved goats.
Well, Seattle, you wanted a power-hungry jerk and you got one. I can no longer find his quote of “The Seattle Voters only ‘advise’ the City Council” when we voted against his “bag tax,” but once I can find it again, I’ll be sure to post the link to that, as well.
I’ll vote against him, again. But my little vote doesn’t seem to count with The Stranger endorsing him… over “saving itty-bitty goats.”
@26 Every time there’s a transit investment in an urban area, it makes it a lot faster for suburbanites like yourself to get around. Transit isn’t as cost effective in suburbia, so we should invest transit in city areas get the most bang for the buck right at the choke point.
@39: You seem to imagine that this is some sort of endgame for me. It’s not.
The opposition lining up against the DBT represents a lot of what I love about Seattle: progressive liberals (not fauxgressives!), environmentalists, social justice activists and transportation choice proponents. If this tunnel goes forward, you will be answering to all of them, not just me. Not just the favorite scapegoat, Mayor McGinn. All of them.
We can talk about how this tunnel is a sure thing, but that’s irresponsible. It’s dumping all our eggs into a single basket and creating this end game that raises the stakes for only one party: tunnel supporters. If it’s built — if — it will create problems that that same coalition rising up against the tunnel will be working to fix. If it’s not built, then what? You’re required to compromise. With us. Those wacky greeny “obstructionists” that floated ideas like solving the issue with science and transit. We will continue to push for transit, for sensible use of our thousands of existing lane miles, for emissions reduction, for sensible management of the 1/3rd of Seattle’s land area that’s devoted to cars and to combat the “let them eat cake” attitude of Olympia that shrugs and says “we can’t use gas tax for those social services we’re cutting, but look at this gorgeous tunnel plan!”
As far as elections go, the council’s stance is increasingly troublesome. For them. They’ve shown the backbone of a squid on this matter, punting issues like transit and saying “if you want transit, YOU work for it”, they’ve ignored the cost overrun provision saying they’re working on it, they’ve refused to explain under what circumstances they could conceive Seattle paying for the road and how they think the state would pay for it. Most troubling, however, is what they would do if the referendum gets to the ballot and voters reject the tunnel.
That pushes the stakes incredibly high. In essence, if they wait until the results come in, they’re flip-flopping or they’re willfully ignoring a vote of the people. If they wait until this qualifies for the ballot, or for the first polls, they’re pretending that nothing is happening.
CM Licata’s reaction to being told we’d elect people to lead us was telling, a furious “THEN DO IT! THEN DO IT! THEN DO IT!” with a pointed finger. It was almost symbolic of his unwillingness to buck the status quo, to simply accept what the state will do. That’s unacceptable to all of us. Taking the status quo is not functional in a liberal city like Seattle.
We are a progressive city, we demand progress. Adding lane miles to the existing corridor (far more lane miles are built with the DBT than with the S+T plan) is not in any way progressive or environmentally forward thinking. It’s status quo. It’s the same “build roads, wait, build roads” plan we’ve always had (by the way: the DBT has the ability to add a lane in each direction and the surface configuration on the waterfront can add several lanes).
So don’t ask me what I’ll do when I lose as though it’s a sure thing, don’t assume I’ll give up and NEVER predict my failure or loss before it’s happened.
That’s a mistake, I promise you.
@42: In that thread, the regulars shut you down for a variety of flawed claims and generally slingshotting your argument off of Norman’s.
When they say “Downtown Seattle”, they refer largely to the literal delineation, which encompasses Denny to the I-90 Interchange and east to First Hill (not I-5/Waterfront/Jackson/Denny as you profess, excluding tens of thousands of employees and residents). They also refer to the psychologically charged definition that generally also includes lower Cap Hill, SLU and parts of LQA.
You and Norman also insist — wrongly — that the corridor breadth will remain the same. It won’t. The access points are further north and south and expand exclusion and further limit access. The access issues cited by the Smart Mobility report, as STB regulars pointed out, are exacerbated by the changed configuration.
Moreover, what you missed was that exiting at Western has a chain reaction on traffic in the core. You ARE exiting downtown, you ARE exiting in the driving radius and you DO have an appreciable effect on mobility in Downtown.
But more importantly, you basically agreed with Norman. That’s pretty much anathema on STB. Even Bailo disagrees with Norman.
All this talk about cost and transit and blah blah is a bunch of horse…..(not to insult horses). The experience of driving the Viaduct is a one of a kind visual knockout and should be preserved as a valued architectural feature that displays the beauty of the Sound/Seattle environment like no other view here. Traveling through that view and it’s elevation are part of that gestalt. Granted the Viaduct needs to be rebuilt. I must say that the people that designed the original should be prosecuted for attempted homicide. (Could they be the same people as those who designed Highway 5?)
Of course the main proponents of the tunnel are the owners of the downtown commercial core. They are powerful enough to have the city council (save for O’Brien and mayor McGinn) as their lackies. They don’t give a damn about a waterfront that (100,000 drivers every day!)enjoy. Their main objective is Seattle-Cashcow. Needless to say the views from those highrise offices will impress clients even more without a surly old Viaduct waddling across the screen.
And while we’re at it the same people who designed the original Viaduct are probably the same as those who wrote the rediculous ballot of 2007 that gave three choices that could be voted on yea or nea. What the hell kind of ballot is that?! (Obscurist?) The ballot should be: vote for one of the three choices; the winner has to win by 20%, or there is a run off between the top two. If there is another ballot it will be very important that it is legible and conclusive.
The STRANGER has its head up its ass..
@41 – So basically your argument is, “When the tunnel tolls make traffic bad enough, people will pay the toll.”
I agree with you completely. But this will be a daily decision, not a lifetime commitment; people will look at the traffic report on their phone or whatnot and decide then. Would you pay the toll if you knew I-5 to be wide open? No – almost no one would (assuming that, if traffic-free, both routes are equal).
Which means everyone who is the slightest bit cash-conscious will avoid the tunnel each day UNTIL the alternative gets gridlocked. This collective strategy will guarantee that non-tunnel traffic is gridlocked every day. The only variable is at what time. And eventually, each day, this strategy will balance things out, but only long after the daily damage is done.
In case anyone missed it in the sidebar above, the petition can be downloaded from http://www.protectseattlenow.org/sign-th…