Of all the political hot potatoes in Seattle right now, none is hotter—or has been baking longer—than the proposed deep-bore tunnel under downtown. But the members of the Seattle City Council just can’t seem to get the sucker out of their hands.
They tried last summer, but buckled under political pressure that was telling them to wait. (The wait was for the state to select a primary tunnel contractor, which happened in December when officials chose Seattle Tunneling Partners for $1.1 billion.) The next attempt to unload the burning spud comes on Monday, February 7, when council members plan to approve three contracts with the state to begin digging. That could effectively end debate at the city level on the controversial project (controversial because state law and lawmakers say Seattle taxpayers must pay for any cost overruns, and because traffic projections show most traffic that currently uses the Alaskan Way Viaduct won’t use the tunnel). Finally closing the deal would let five council incumbents escape the debate as their reelection campaigns are heating up.
Unfortunately for them, that’s not going to happen.
Recently, the council’s eight tunnel advocates ran up against a tangle of delays: environmental protection laws, an uncooperative mayor, the threat of a public referendum, and an anti-tunnel initiative that appears to have enough signatures to make the ballot this fall.
All four draw out the debate:
First, the council tripped over the State Environmental Policy Act, which prevents the city from approving contracts before impact studies are complete. In this case, the state won’t complete an environmental impact study on the tunnel until this summer, which means, yeah, the council can go ahead and vote on February 7 to approve the tunnel contracts, but it will then have to vote again in June—or later—once the environmental review is complete.
It gets worse for them, which brings us to Council Problem No. 2: They will actually have to vote a third time. Mayor Mike McGinn vowed on February 1 to veto the council’s contracts. When that happens, the council will need to stage an override vote.
Problems No. 3 and 4: The public wants a vote, too. A SurveyUSA poll conducted last year found that 58 percent of Seattleites supported a referendum on the tunnel, and the group Move Seattle Smarter is aiming to provide them with one—it’s considering running a referendum to put the entire tunnel deal on the ballot this fall.
The council, predictably, doesn’t want the public to weigh in.
Even if those referendum-blocking moves were to succeed, there’s another public tunnel vote in the works. Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel (called “SCAT” for short, if you can believe it) submitted roughly 26,000 signatures on February 1 for a city initiative this fall that would try to negate contracts for the tunnel after they’re signed this summer. That’s a long shot, for sure, as are the mayoral veto strategy and a potential Move Seattle Smarter referendum. But the fact remains: The city council won’t be able to get this steaming, unwanted spud off its plate anytime soon. 
Fun to read as always, but its premise makes no sense:
There’s no escaping the debate, whether things are signed or not, before both initiatives make it to the ballot or not, then pass on election day or not. It just doesn’t matter.
Even if the project is killed, the ultimate payoff for councilmembers that support the project makes cents.
The “public” is only considered the City of Seattle. It is a state highway. The initiative is as stupid as Eyman allowing the state to vote on Sound Transit.
@3: I’ll tell you this much: if you can convince Seattle voters that the State of Washington is acting against them, you might as well hand McKenna the keys to the Governor’s office right now.
Heck, let me write the script for the Washington GOP: “Seattle, we’re willing to listen. Your concerns about a massively expensive project you don’t want when so many in this state go without even the most basic of services are not falling on deaf ears. We may disagree from time to time, but trust us when we say this to you — the Washington State GOP will not leave you with a bill you cannot pay, we will not attack your duly elected mayor, and we WILL respect the will of the people as voiced through Initiatives 101 and 102.”
Darn I dropped it. Where’s that hot potato going to tunnel to now?!
@4, you describe one awful possible consequence of the relentless McGinn campaign to “convince Seattle voters that the State of Washington is acting against them”.
But the mayor’s team seems comfortable risking that in order to keep his base stirred up. That suggests they don’t believe your scenario is terribly likely. I hope they’re right.
@4, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. If Gregoire dropped her pants and took a shit on the Space Needle it still wouldn’t be enough to swing Seattle to the GOP.
Like Eyman, the Mayor is a horse’s ass. Just get out of the way of the construction equipment.
@8: Right! Construction equipment! That reminds me of yet another hurdle: the possibility of environmental or otherwise anti-tunnel activists (maybe just Edward Abbey fans?) continually sabotaging the construction equipment if the project ever is actually approved. Seattle’s lousy with the like-to-fuck-up-construction-equipment sort of hippies, no? (Please do not construe this statement as in any way encouraging or condoning this activity; I mean only to acknowledge the possibility.)
@4:
Your presumption that the majority of seattle does not want this tunnel is wrong. Most of the opposition is found right here in this echo chamber, led in cheer by Dominic. I acutally hope it does go up for vote, so that we can get this frickin thing done.
And your “duly elected Mayor” ran on a platform of not impeding this project. So your duly elected mayor is a liar.
Ever notice what happens when streets with embedded rail lines are paved over with asphalt? The rail line eventually protrudes and breaks the surface. WarshDOT doesn’t want the peanut gallery to worry about the bored tunnel doing the same thing while its auspicious directors and department head worry about their paychecks. The main difference in the two scenarios is that a broken surface street poses little danger and can be cheaply repaved, but downtown buildings with permanently compromised foundations cannot be simply rebuilt or reinforced. Ask not for whom the bell tolls.
I have lived in the D.C. area, and dealt with the transit issues there for many years.
Having lived here in the Seattle Metro area for 15 years, I must say that while everything continualy stalls in committee, our infrastructure is crumbling all around us. Pothole brigades? Monorail tax? SLU(T)SC? Come on…
I thought the movie Singles was hilarious when Tom Skerritt shot down the transit train, because everybody loves their cars. That movie was in 1991, and the fact that the transit issue was incorporated into a movie about a segment of Seattle’s culutre proves to reflect that this issue has been festering for at least two decades now.
There is no excuse for the lack of immediacy that this topic demands.
When I first moved here Seattle was considered such a forward thinking, green conscious, clean, liberal, and a self-renewing city. Portland wanted to be like Seattle, and now Portland is becoming what Seattle should have been moving toward since the ’70’s.
I guess if we need to put in a new exit off the highway, we need to build a stadium first. 4th Ave., Atlantic St., and Edgar Martinez, all incorporated in the stadium complex.
Seattle is finally addressing the Mercer mess, but with the B&G Gates Foundation and Amazon down there now, I suppose special interests prevail.
Come on Seattle DOT and WA DOT let’s get it the F%*K together for once. We should be the shining star of the PNW!!!
Watch out for that tunneling potato. It’s wrapped in foil so it should be easy to spot if it ever surfaces.
Monorail!
I’m gonna say one last time.
My charges against the bored tunnel are alarmist and so I’m compelled to press the issue harshly. The DBT offers no way of avoiding maximum risk AND produces “poor results” traffic-wise & impact-wise.
It’s a mistake & I am pissed & blame leaders, supposed experts, who literally ignore simpler, better road and tunnel designs. I AM appalled and blame principle leaders for specific failures, including now the CRC with WsDOT taking the heat for the rejected design.
Confidence in WashDOT is not merited. Sorry to have to be so blunt, but the risks and results should be admitted as totally unacceptable.
Mayor Mcginn is perfectly correct to support the surface/transit option first. You idiots! Use your heads! Sacrifice your damn driving monster. Surface/transit/fixes to I-5 first then simpler cut/cover as the only sensible tunnel option. Thanks, Mayor Mcginn.
What would work best is if they just banned cars within city limits and let everybody who didn’t like it move the fuck out already. Why should we have to pander to the lazy and fat every single day? That’s what the midwest is for.
Seeds… Not everyone lives in a metropolis. Some people actually have to farm that organic food and transport it to the city. I’m sure you look fabulous in your downtown studio though, and thanks for recycling your eggshells and coffee grounds into your paintings.
Personally, I’m split. Wells has a point but I don’t think you can use evidence of cost-cutting as a negative against this project. The roads get the money they need, and not more. It would be nice to have perfectly paved roads 12 months a year but there are other considerations.
Lets stick to the facts. We don’t need to make this issue any more complicated than it is by making up new pork projects to enrage people or disaster-scenarios to poke at our base instincts such as fear. The traffic projections show that this tunnel is not ideal as planned. Even if the tunnel was used (you cannot project the shift of traffic), 1.1 billion is not going to cover the cost of such a incredibly complex, risky and colossal project. There are all sorts of other costs involved, including water-works, and other infrastructure systems that will have to work around this tunnel. This has largely been ignored, probably to help keep the plebeians from pissing and shitting themselves. Not that WA cannot afford it (it can) but if we’re going to go through with this, we CAN’T RUSH it. It must be planned and calculated with all the accuracy and consideration of a space shuttle launch.
neuroelectronic.. What has the status quo done for you lately? Your smug assumptions about my personal lifestyle just paint a picture of a black and white world that doesn’t exist. Guess what.. I’m one of the people who actually has to farm that organic food, and it would be less of a hassle to ride a bike to a park&ride at city limits to meet my carpool to the eastside than it is to have to tolerate car addiction culture on a daily basis. In the meantime the chickens and goat, worm bin and veggie garden in my backyard (guess what – there’s more to Seattle than the downtown core) mean I’m less dependent on transportation reliant services. If cars were made illegal in city limits, it would be a hardship on some. Those people should leave.
“If cars were made illegal in city limits, it would be a hardship on some. Those people should leave.”
You want to live in a modern world then you get to live with cars. Deal with it.
If you can’t deal with it then it’s time for you to move out of the city to someplace where you can live in your own special little bubble and not have to worry about what other people do. That’s what the midwest is for.
You’ll be plenty at home amongst the political extremists too. Enjoy!
The broadbased and grassroots opposition to the tunnel is real and it is real for a very simple reason:
The tunnel, as currently proposed, is a piss-poor replacement for the viaduct. It doesn’t carry as much volume and it doesn’t have downtown on-ramps or off-ramps.
I acknowledge that without the downtown ramps a full third of the folks who now drive on the viaduct won’t find any use in the tunnel so the tunnel volume can be a third smaller, but that presents two new questions that aren’t easily answered:
1) Where will that downtown traffic drive instead?
2) Why would anyone going through downtown without starting or stopping there take the tunnel instead of I-5? Certainly not for the views (a feature of the viaduct). And I can’t imagine why they would PAY for the privilege when they could take the freeway for free.
The widespread opposition to the tunnel – and it is widespread – is based in the fact that the tunnel is an exceptionally bad idea. It doesn’t work for anyone. It doesn’t work for people going to or from downtown and it doesn’t work for people who wish to bypass downtown. It puts thousands of cars onto surface streets between SoDo and Interbay and it puts thousands more onto I-5 at the worst possible location – from Spokane Street to Mercer where the through lanes squeeze down to just two.
Seriously. What moron thinks this is a good idea?
You guys need to get your story straight.
You complain about the tunnel not being able to hold as many cars and all the traffic that’s going to pour onto the surface streets and yet are banking on millions of dollars in projects that specifically aims to get cars off the road.
So if you get your way and Seattle becomes the biking and busing utopia that you all dream of that means there will be less traffic through the tunnel, right?
The overwhelming majority of dissent about the tunnel comes from people who simply don’t want to spend that much money on a project that caters to cars. Is McGinn and his neverending supply of thirty something yes men willing to admit this? Are they willing to be honest with the people of Seattle about what they really think? Nope. They just keep coming up with obstructionist nonsense – throwing every objection against the wall possible in hopes that one of them will stick with the voters.
Cost overruns the problem? Then why won’t McGinn actually work on getting that problem solved with the state rather than alienating them completely just so he can have a talking point against the project that doesn’t make him sound like a left wing wacko? Oh wait, I just answered my own question.
If the tunnel really is such a horrendous idea maybe you should consider that people aren’t morons because they aren’t foaming at the mouth in opposition to the project but perhaps consider that the people leading the charge against it are so completely oblivious to the political realities of this situation that they can’t even manage to educate the public without sounding like complete morons themselves.
I will tell you one thing. With more and more congestion and shutting downtown Seattle downtown for the next 15 plus years while the state runs over budget and has to dig secondary holes where building and parking are when the bore machine gets stuck.. etc, etc. You know where I will be…. I love this state and hate to say it but, I will not be stuck in hight tax land with an already congested and lack of hindsight to public transportation that should have been the first thing in sight to be address and provided to accommodate such a large project in the first place. Now we are having this tunnel pushed down our necks when tolls are going up and the price of the bus is also. What do we really pay for…? I am leaving if the tunnel starts and I am sure others will also. I want seasons and access to my music scene and all the other culture that is my state. I can barley afford to make it to those things now as is. If you think this tunnel will not also destroy the economic situation in WA that is already behind budget and people and commerce will not be effected while everything is shut down for 15+!!!! years and people can barley afford to get to work now… no longer worth it. I will donate to KEXP stream from another state and enjoy a real summer thank you.
One more thing due to the comment above me. I do not want to cater to the project when the public aspect has not been considered. You are looking at making Seattle a hole for as long as the tunnel project take… 15+ more then likely and have not even dealt with the simplest of tasks… public transport. If we could get a combined intuitive to include some real change then OK. But the fact remains. The left over that will fall to the tax payers is going to be a harder burden when you shut down commerce and no one goes out to spend and the money lost from people coming in to see us when you cut everything off or add hours to normal commute. Money falling back on tax payers will not be available when no one is spending or able to get where they need to go. Seattle is dreary enough without turning it into a construction hole and want tax payers to pay when they are not even considered. I see a projected loss in jobs and revenue.
Thanks Charlie Mas, Nueroelectronic and Sure Okay for strong argument. I’m frazzled myself with the figuring out of engineering aspects. Some who think I sound like a moron, don’t understand or I suspect don’t want others to discuss my points. Critical questions lately about subsurface hydrology aren’t being answered. Too much wrong with the bored tunnel. Mayor Mike’s surface-transit plan does not rule out an eventual and way better cut-cover tunnel, plus the strongest seawall, possibly needed for sea-rise and storms. Mayor Mike is gonna save seattle’s ass from its asses.
@21 Solar System. You wrote: “The overwhelming majority of dissent about the tunnel comes from people who simply don’t want to spend that much money on a project that caters to cars.“
That’s simply not true. I drive a car to and from work everyday. I have nothing against cars at all. I’m opposed to the tunnel because it will cost a godawful fortune and no one will drive through it. Instead, it will just push a lot of traffic onto the freeway and onto surface streets that can’t handle it. It may not be anti-car, but the tunnel sure as hell is anti-driver.
And what will be the solution? To make it so miserable to drive on the freeway that the stoopid tunnel will begin to appear attractive.
How is that pro-car or pro-traffic? It isn’t.
For the cost of this deep bore tunnel we could have two cut and cover tunnels, each plenty wide. One could run southbound under Alaskan Way and provide a replacement seawall. The other could run northbound under Western. They should each have on and off-ramps at Virginia/Stewart and at Madison in addition to access points at the Battery Street tunnel and by Qwest Field.
Oh! And how about a REAL interchange at Spokane Street so people can get on the 99 from westbound Spokane Street without making a loop on Harbor Island or get on 99 South from eastbound Spokane Street.
And who would it kill to enable people to get on and off the 99 at Massachusetts, just south of Safeco Field?
Now THAT would be car-friendly.
Oh, and the reason that people aren’t “foaming at the mouth in opposition to the tunnel” is mostly because people have completely given up on having any influence on tranportation decisions at all and have completely given up on the dream that those decisions will make any sense at all. There’s no point fighting when you can’t win.
With so many hurdles and challenges via voting on the tunnel the total bid will no longer be $1.1B but $1.5B with a cost overrun of $15M. Bids are timely and are withdrawn in a couple of months. They will void out if construction does not start in a timely manner as the costs are going up every day. When signed and the contractor orders construction equipment we are stuck with those fees even if we vote out the tunnel. Anyone ever look up the cost of renting a tunnel boring machine with its crew? Not including the cost of bringing it to Seattle and back.
May as well give up. Tear down the viaduct, put in two traffic lanes and two bicycle lanes, plant a green belt down the middle with jogging path. No truck lane, no express car pool lane, no bells and no whistels and no parking areas…