Tunnel backers’ briefing: It’s not a $4 billion tunnel, it’s $2 billion

Five prominent supporters of the plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bored tunnel and other road/transit projects summoned reporters to Ivar’s Acres of Clams on the downtown waterfront today, saying they needed to correct “falsehoods,” “confusion” and “mis-impressions” that they say are circulating. They blame the “falsehoods” in particular on some political campaigns, specifically citing the campaigns of two anti-tunnel candidates, mayoral hopeful Mike McGinn (who calls the tunnel “unnecessary”) and council hopeful Mike O’Brien (whose tunnel concerns are detailed here). First, the group pointed to the numbers in the graphic you see above: While opponents refer to it as a “$4 billion tunnel,” they note the tunnel itself will cost about half of that total transportation package. State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, a sponsor of the legislation that made the tunnel plan law, says there’s a “sizable built-in contingency” for the estimated $1.9-$2.2 billion tunnel cost “so cost overruns will be very unlikely and if any minimal.”

She also reiterated that the controversial amendment saying Seattle property owners would have to pay for overruns would almost certainly not hold up in court, if there was any attempt to apply it. And she stressed it was “not an easy feat” to get the tunnel plan through the Legislature in the first place. Briefing participants also stressed that they believe this is the only plan that will “keep traffic flowing” while it’s built. We asked about some West Seattleites’ concerns that accessibility will be hampered by the fact there are no downtown exits in the tunnel:

That question was fielded by Vlad Oustimovitch, the West Seattleite who’s been involved in both the Stakeholder Advisory Group that met for more than a year, pre-tunnel decision, and the South Portal Working Group that’s discussing those accessibility questions now:

(Vlad Oustimovitch at center, flanked by Bob Donegan of Ivar’s and State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles)
He says that while The Viaduct has two downtown “solutions” for West Seattleites, the comprehensive plan around its replacement has more like “a dozen” and will relieve the existing Seneca “chokepoint” – “as people come from the south, they will be able to access a surface road that in turn access a multitude of points,” which he believes “will significantly relieve the congestion.”

After Oustimovitch’s reply, Ivar’s president Bob Donegan also recapped what the South Portal Working Group’s West Seattle reps — which also include Pete Spalding and Jerome Cohen — had accomplished recently: Taking a look at a rendering that would have broken the connection between Alaskan Way and East Marginal Way and objecting, which led to the creation of a new solution that keeps the connection in place. (Here’s the newest proposal.)

Earlier in the Q/A period, asked why the group was bothering to hold this briefing since the tunnel seemed to be a “done deal,” Oustimovitch said, “In Seattle, nothing’s a done deal.” (The word “monorail” wasn’t uttered but it certainly must have come to many minds around the room.)

But Sen. Kohl-Welles chimed in, “It IS a done deal in terms of state law … we have an appropriation of $2.4 billion including taking down The Viaduct [set to happen in 2016] and authority for (some) tolling.” Donegan added, “Three funding steps are left to complete the process,” including the county and city finalizing their commitments.

Also participating in the briefing were labor rep Dave Freiboth, and Dave Gering, who leads the Manufacturing Industrial Council and mentioned a tunnel article in the latest edition of his group’s magazine. Gering ended the briefing on a reflective note: “I love The Viaduct – I use it every day. I hope my working life will be over before they tear it down. (But) it’s going to be a different world … we don’t get to hold onto what we have. It’s going to be a different city (with a tunnel) … that we will be able to enjoy.”

Side note: The South Portal Working Group, which is focused on accessibility issues for this side of the city, is not expected to meet again till fall. But if you want to dive into great detail on what’s been discussed so far, the library of meeting materials that’s on the Viaduct website is a rich source – in particular, this package of graphics from the group’s last meeting lays out the projected construction timelines all the way through 2017.

ADDED 4:27 PM: From a discussion in the comment section, here is the graphic provided by WSDOT earlier this year regarding how traffic will flow from West Seattle to downtown. This does not include every detail, as some are still being worked out, but these are the basics:

In other developments, the McGinn mayoral campaign has published a reaction of sorts to today’s briefing; see it here. And Mayor Nickels‘ campaign has announced he’ll reveal his agenda for the next four years at a briefing tomorrow.

31 Replies to "Tunnel backers' briefing: It's not a $4 billion tunnel, it's $2 billion"

  • yeahhh.... July 14, 2009 (2:03 pm)

    so we’re saying that 2 billion is an ok amount to spend to bury cars and continue an autocentric way of building cities that will continue to harm the environment and the health of seattle’s citizens for generations to come.

    the tunnel, regardless of monetary cost, has such inequities built into it that it is too high of a cost for our community. and 2 billion is laughable.

    reminds me of joel horn trying to spin the monorail financing. i say good on mcginn and obrien. this is like detroit trying to fight CAFE standards.

  • Stacy July 14, 2009 (2:28 pm)

    Wow, looks like McGinn and O’Brien have the political establishment pretty worried. If it were truly a done deal than this group would never have even bothered to get together; and if “cost overruns will be very unlikely and if any minimal.” then why did the State deem it necessary to put Seattle tax payers on the hook? Maybe because almost every major construction project, especially one’s that are at 1% design, have cost overruns? Also, take a look at the graph showing where the money’s supposed to come from: the King County MVET money, never going to happen thanks to the Governor; $930 million from the City of Seattle, and we have NO IDEA where that money is going to come from (but we do know that it won’t leave much for more bike facilities, sidewalks, or any other priorities); and that money from the State – the state that had to solve a budget deficit in the billions – do we really think that the State wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to save a billion or two by not building a tunnel through Seattle if the Mayor gave them a cheaper alternative? The tunnel is wrong for both or fiscal and environmental future, kudos to McGinn and O’Brien for making it an issue.

  • Michael July 14, 2009 (2:44 pm)

    The opposition to this has been very disingenuous and self-interested. They’re throwing everything including the kitchen sink at it, when the reality is that they’re merely perpetuating the “culture of no” that Seattle is famous for – and that got us INTO our transportation mess.
    .
    The fact is, if a throughway isn’t built, auto-based problems will get WORSE, not better. Twice the travel time through the city equals MORE pollution, not less.
    .
    You can’t replace a high-speed transportation corridor with NOTHING and expect it will make problems go away. People who think having us all drive surface streets instead would be somehow better for the environment aren’t thinking..
    .
    And anyone who gives lip service to the environment while simultaneously slapping down the monorail – hmm, SOMEONE voted for it three times, funny no one here did – thanks for revealing how environmentally “friendly” you really are.

  • Ballardino July 14, 2009 (2:58 pm)

    With respect to my Senator’s opinion, she and her friends are missing the point here.

    She insists that the tunnel is a done deal according to State Law. Well, State Law (RCW 47.01 Sec 8) also says that the State of Washington will “adopt broad statewide goals” to reduce vehicle miles traveled by “eighteen percent by 2020”, “thirty percent by 2035” and “fifty percent by 2050”.

    A $4.2 Billion project to bury a two-mile-long tailpipe under downtown does not meet the definition of a broad, statewide goal to reduce vehicle miles traveled.

    But the monetary argument is really just the icing on the cake. It doesn’t matter which proportion of the money goes to the tunnel itself, it’s still $4.2 Billion and it’s still too much money for a “plan” that will be obsolete the moment it’s finished and won’t accomplish its intended goal anyway.

    The bigger point is that we don’t want it, we voted against it, and we don’t need it. There was a year-long process in which 29 stakeholders from business, labor, freight, environmental groups, and the affected neighborhoods all got together to hammer out a solution, and the solution they came up with was the surface/transit/I-5 option. That’s the solution McGinn is pushing. The vetted one. The one WSDOT says will work. The one we chose.

    The plan that Sen. Kohl-Welles and her friends are speaking for is the plan that the State and City Governments forced on us less than six weeks after the citizen’s committee made their recommendation. The one the Discovery Institute came up with. The one Drago pushed. The one Nickels championed. The one we all think is too expensive. The one we didn’t chose.

    The voters have spoken. The stakeholders have spoken. They don’t want this, and Mike McGinn is the only guy standing up for them.

  • Stacy July 14, 2009 (3:00 pm)

    Actually, there are examples from all over the world (Portland, San Fran, Seoul and more) that show you can solve your congestion problems by not building freeways; and no one’s proposing doing nothing. McGinn and O’Brien are proposing to do what WSDOT and SDOT agreed would work for traffic, and half the money, the surface-transit alternative. Also, increased travel times DO NOT increase pollution, increased vehicle miles traveled DO; every study shows this obvious fact and trying to say that allowing cars to go really fast will reduce pollution is wrong and completely upside down. This isn’t a culture of no, this is a culture of “let’s do this right.”

  • JBL July 14, 2009 (3:04 pm)

    Ooooh….ooonly 2 mil instead of 4 mil?! Well, then that’s okay! ‘Cuz if it was 4 mil, well…I don’t think I’d like that. But 2 is ok because there are never any cost over runs or anything RIGHT?

  • Ballardino July 14, 2009 (3:04 pm)

    *Hmm, that should’ve been RCW 47.01 Sec 8. Sorry for the ill-placed and inadvertent emoticon.

  • wseye July 14, 2009 (3:23 pm)

    The problem with McGinn and O’Brian is that they are calling the tunnel a $4.2 billion dollar project, when the portion of the project allocated to the tunnel is only $1.9 billion (the rest is going to transit and other improvements including enviro-friendly railroad freight movement). That makes their statements factually incorrect by $2.3 billion dollars… don’t we deserve leaders with better arithmetic skills than that?

  • Ballardino July 14, 2009 (3:43 pm)

    Michael,

    That’s not fair. If I were self-interested I would support a rebuild which let me zip from my house in Ballard to my friend’s in West Seattle in my little pollution-mobile with a lovely view of the city I like to look at but don’t actually want to walk around in.

    Seattle’s “culture of no” has definitely had its part in killing transit, I agree. I’m not part of that culture, and neither is McGinn. The ‘transportation mess’ we’re in has a lot more to do with the “culture of car”, however.

    You cannot build your way out of a congestion problem. Highways are like the Field of Dreams: if you build them, cars will come. People who would not otherwise have driven will chose to drive. Likewise, if you tear down a freeway, many people will chose not to drive or will chose to combine their trips.

    Finally, nobody’s suggesting we replace the viaduct with nothing. Go to wsdot’s website and have a look at the Stakeholder Advisory Committee’s report on the subject. They didn’t just slap something together, they spent a year working on this. Improving I-5 to remove the downtown bottleneck and improving surface streets and transit, these things can handle all of the traffic currently on the viaduct, get us our waterfront back, and do it for a billion or two less.

    Oh, and about the doubling of the travel time through downtown. Actually, the estimates are more like 3-4 minutes more on a West Seattle to Ballard one-way trip, or a few minutes more during peak time. So I understand that for some people that would kind of suck, adding ten or fifteen minutes a day to their commute. But it’s $4.2 Billion, and there aren’t that many people who commute from one end of town to the other on 99 compared with the region’s population and the overall cost of the project. We’re talking $2500 per adult Seattleite here. Is your eight minutes so valuable that you’ll shell out $2500? If so, make your check out to “City of Seattle” and mail it in.

    I apologize for the semi-rant, but I really and truly hate it when people accuse me of taking a self-interested position and I really hate it when people presume that I haven’t thought my positions through. Let’s keep it civil, shall we? This isn’t the comment thread at SeattleTimes.com.

  • WSB July 14, 2009 (3:48 pm)

    No, it’s not, thank heavens, nor seattlepi.com, nor horsesass.org, nor slog … all sites that have their merits in terms of the actual CONTENT, but generally let their comment sections run low and wild, unfortunately. Gives the rest of us a bad name. Anyway — our civility rules, for newcomers, are: Critique the comment, not the commenter. You can tell someone their opinion is idiotic but don’t call them an idiot. Etc. – TR

  • wseye July 14, 2009 (3:57 pm)

    Ballardino: The commute times to/from West Seattle to the downtown doubled with the “surface” (no rebuild) option, for both transit and personal vehicles. The current proposal keeps things more or less at status quo, and in a balanced fashion – with transit as well as the tunnel to keep some north south capacity. Without this project you can count on a major exodus of industrial jobs and workers to the outer suburbs, creating the most environentally destructive alternative possible: sprawl. The best possible environmental solution for our city is to make our urban core functional and keep the popuation density within that core.

  • Becky S July 14, 2009 (4:04 pm)

    To highlight:
    Go to wsdot’s website and have a look at the Stakeholder Advisory Committee’s report on the subject. They didn’t just slap something together, they spent a year working on this. Improving I-5 to remove the downtown bottleneck and improving surface streets and transit, these things can handle all of the traffic currently on the viaduct, get us our waterfront back, and do it for a billion or two less.

    We cannot continue to invest in toxic tailpipes.

  • Sage July 14, 2009 (4:07 pm)

    If they really want to cut the cost as shown on a chart, they can probably lower the tunnel down to <$1 billion by only counting the actual boring of the hole through the dirt as the “bored tunnel” line item. Pouring concrete to shore up the hole can be another line item, reinforcing can be a third, and on and on. Lower costs for all by dividing all costs into their smallest atomic units!
    .
    That’s pretty much what they’re doing here. Utterly disingenuous — and most days I’m actually a tunnel-supporter.

  • WSB July 14, 2009 (4:08 pm)

    Since two people have mentioned it now. I am assuming you mean the two options that were presented at the end of the SAC’s process? as covered here:
    https://westseattleblog.com/blog/?p=12550

    If not, you CAN post links in our comments. You don’t even need html. As long as the link starts with the http etc., just cut and paste the entire link directly into a post and it will hotlink automatically.

    -TR

  • KBear July 14, 2009 (4:12 pm)

    Cars stuck in stop and go traffic jams DO pollute more than freely moving cars. More air pollution, more noise pollution, more wear and tear on their parts (more frequent repairs=even more pollution).

    Not building the tunnel does not eliminate the need to get from here to there. We got no monorail; Light rail will NEVER come to West Seattle–they’re not even talking about it. Bikes and water taxis are great for those who are able to use them, but the only other way off the rock is in a bus or a car.

    wseye is right about lost jobs, too. Remember that company where everyone used to work–the one that made airplanes? They warned us over and over to fix our transportation mess before they finally moved their HQ to Chicago. Guess we still haven’t learned.

    We live in a big city. We need to get used to paying for the required big-city infrastructure.

  • KT July 14, 2009 (4:13 pm)

    He says that while The Viaduct has two downtown “solutions” for West Seattleites, the comprehensive plan around its replacement has more like “a dozen” and will relieve the existing Seneca “chokepoint” – “as people come from the south, they will be able to access a surface road that in turn access a multitude of points,” which he believes “will significantly relieve the congestion.”

    COULD YOU BE A LITTLE MORE VAGUE??? You see what happens to WS every time the viaduct closes. Exactly how is it going to improve, how do I get downtown, how long will it REALLY take me?

  • WSB July 14, 2009 (4:19 pm)

    Most of that has been reported before.
    In fact, there is a “West Seattle Traffic Flow” graphic/chart/map we have published, which I am off to dig up now and will post here as soon as I find it.

  • WSB July 14, 2009 (4:21 pm)

    Here’s the story in which they appeared:
    https://westseattleblog.com/blog/?p=14379

    Both a graphic of the chart showing West Seattle traffic flow to downtown and a link to the three pages of a PDF that shows it in detail. I will add it to the report above as well, as a postscript.

  • JAT July 14, 2009 (4:28 pm)

    I find it curious that Mayor Nickels has taken such a strong position on lowering the City’s carbon footprint and yet also essentially said any non-tunnel plan would go forward over his dead body.

    The reason it’s so essential to take steps regarding global climate change is because it’s already happening, not because we can hope to head it off, but because our actions now – at this much too late date – dictate just how screwed our children and grandchildren will be.

    The Alaskan Way Viaduct is now 56 years old. most scientists expect the current rising sea levels to accelerate to at least 88 cm higher in the next century, though with caveats such as that the entire Antarctic ice sheet holds enough water to raise global sea levels by 62 meters.

    How quickly? Not overnight, obviously, but a deep bore tunnel seems like the wrong choice for 2009.

  • JBL July 14, 2009 (5:24 pm)

    Thank you WSB for that link! I am actually very excited for the tunnel option. Finally a decison was made on replacing the Viaduct. This will be great for our city & for West Seattle. We all live in a big city and it’s about time we started acting like it. Pony up the money where it counts. We have known this has been coming for a long time. I just wish this project could have been started years ago.

  • fatcat1111 July 14, 2009 (5:48 pm)

    Just for comparison, I created a graph comparing the cost of the tunnel ($4.2 billion – it’s disingenuous to deduct things like the sea wall from its cost when that’s an integral part of the tunnel) versus the school board’s budget gap ($20 million). Here, have a look: http://imgur.com/24YvT.png.

  • M. July 14, 2009 (5:51 pm)

    Oooh. Is that the story now?

  • CandrewB July 14, 2009 (6:01 pm)

    If Boeing moved to Chicago because of bad traffic in Seattle, then they made a more ridiculous decision than outsourcing 787 production. I think they moved because the execs didn’t like being harassed by the rank and file every time they went to the park or store. Also, the automobile will always be with us so we might as well stop pretending it will not. Gas-powered automobiles won’t be around, but we will still be driving electric, algae, or whatever powered cars. There really isn’t another way to get to Crystal, Wine Country, the Olympics, etc… The whole reason why we live here…

  • JBL July 14, 2009 (6:26 pm)

    Schools are NEVER going to get enough money (Whether it’s needed or not)! I am so tired of people bringing up how “schools could really use that money! Why are we spending on X, Y, and Z?”! Yes, everyone gets it. Schools are under funded and always will be. So, back to roads….bring on the tunnel! Yea!

  • mc July 14, 2009 (6:34 pm)

    Not all West Seattle residents have a downtown “9-5” career or have the luxury of working from home. Furthermore, many of us work in South Lake Union, U-district, Ballard, or points north. Metro bus from West Sea to beyond downtown, requires one-or-more transfers and geared toward the “9-5”, thus driving may be a more viable option for many commutes. Travel from West Sea to Lake Union via the viaduct is generally around 15 minutes ANY time of day. The I-5, with it’s Senaca bottleneck (4-to-2 lanes: Seriously, who designed this?!?) would NEVER be able to handle the capacity without an ALTERNATIVE such as the current viaduct OR proposed tunnel.
    This is just one example of many. Bottom line: capacity for moving THROUGH Seattle, from one end to the another, should not be reduced. C’mon people, this project is about the viability of this city.

  • Jozef Goj July 14, 2009 (10:12 pm)

    It’s a simple question, would you like to cross town in peak traffic and never stop at a single intersection and do so faster and safer.

    With the intersection designs we have used in the last 141 years it will never be achieved.
    They contradict the reason they are placed into the major arterial roads.
    Starting with traffic lights that have the distinction of stopping traffic flow in its tracks on the red all others slow flow rates in peak traffic.
    Simply put they cannot cope with the number of vehicles that use them.

    The intersections on the website work the opposite way, they do not limit flow rates and vehicles never stop.

    If you have intersections where no one stops and traffic never stops regardless of incidents that today create gridlock you will eliminate the stop start, reduce the fuel used to get to and from your destination.
    Address the root cause of congestion and you resolve the problems.
    It is not the number of vehicles on the roads it is whether they can transit from point A to point B and to do so without stopping.
    Today we negotiate Traffic lights, Diamond intersections, Roundabouts and many other intersection designs that all succeed in doing one thing and one thing only, particularly in peak times.
    The more there are the slower traffic speeds become.
    Apply restrictive speed limits and any extra lane becomes quickly jammed with vehicles.
    Liquid Flow Traffic intersections resolve the issues. Placed into the major arterial roads they allow all drivers at all times to drive across town and never stop at a single intersection.
    It’s the 21st century solution that cannot and will never be bettered.

  • Paul in Gatewood July 15, 2009 (9:23 am)

    Surface plus transit will equal gridlock. We need two major north-south arterials through downtown (without stoplights) – even if one of them is a tunnel that doesn’t have the capacity that the viaduct has. My bus takes surface streets through downtown (1st Ave, to be exact) before getting on the viaduct and believe me, any additional amount of traffice on top of the usual rush hour (like a ball game) just brings things to a screeching halt. I can’t imagine how downtown would be at rush hour if highway 99 were not there.

  • JoB July 15, 2009 (10:23 am)

    just ask yourself why you travel on hwy 99 now?
    i do it for the view…
    but more than that i do it to avoid the I-5 gridlock through downtown Seattle.
    that gridlock exists now…

  • Paul in Gatewood July 15, 2009 (1:51 pm)

    Highway 99 is the most functional road in the whole city of Seattle, in my opinion.

  • Mickymse July 15, 2009 (3:51 pm)

    I always think it’s funny when folks say that we must have a tunnel or new viaduct or we’ll simply have gridlock.

    Don’t you think the Surface+Transit plan looked into that? Dozens and dozens of people studied and analyzed these things, debated alternatives, etc. We’re not snake oil salesmen.

    The proposed tunnel, in fact, is already implementing parts of the Surface plan, which is what allows it to only carry ~60% of the existing capacity.

    And, please, just look to San Francisco and other cities here in America and around the world who replaced waterfront highways with beautiful boulevards and have great public areas and no gridlock.

  • mc July 15, 2009 (5:07 pm)

    PLEASE do not compare Seattle to San Francisco in reference to the viaduct. Geographically, San Fran and Seattle are extremely different – peninsula versus isthmus. The former Embarcadero of San Fran did not move traffic THROUGH the city, as does our viaduct. Instead, think of it this way: removal of the viaduct and forcing more traffic to I-5/surface in Seattle is more comparable to removing the Golden Gate bridge and leaving the Bay bridge the only option out of San Francisco.

Sorry, comment time is over.