Tunnel tussle: City Council votes 8-1 to override mayor’s veto

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Story now includes video of mayor’s reaction post-override, as well as other updates including the new referendum effort)

(Council meeting video from Seattle Channel updated 4:08 pm)
9:38 AM: Live now on the Seattle Channel (cable 21, online at www.seattlechannel.org), the City Council’s special meeting to consider overriding the mayor’s veto of tunnel-related bills. It’s starting with 30 minutes of public comments. First up: West Seattle Chamber of Commerce CEO Patti Mullen. The Chamber is on the record as supporting the tunnel, which she called “the best solution for Seattle … and for West Seattle.” Second up, also from West Seattle, Vlad Oustimovitch, presenting the letter you first read here 2 weeks ago, signed by him and other Stakeholders Advisory Group members from the original process that ended with the tunnel being announced as the “preferred alternative.” More to come; we’ll add notes of interest along the way, along with the vote when it happens.

9:49 AM: Council President Richard Conlin had noted that they had double the number of signups from tunnel opponents wanting to speak than from tunnel supporters, so supporters got 10 minutes, and tunnel opponents are now starting their 20 minutes. They include both elevated and surface supporters, as well as those who favor retrofitting the existing viaduct.

10:12 AM: Public comment’s over. Councilmembers are commenting, starting with President Conlin. “I understand some people don’t like the tunnel. It wasn’t my choice, for a long time,” he begins, going on to note that the contracts the mayor has vetoed “are in the best interest of the people of Seattle” and should be supported even by tunnel opponents because “they provide legal protections for the people of Seattle.” Councilmember Sally Clark says for her, it’s also about “protecting” the citizens, even as she acknowledges the city remains split on the subject of the tunnel itself. Councilmember Mike O’Brien is next to speak: “On this project, I am still baffled as to why all of you still support this.” He says the project itself will lead to increased “greenhouse-gas emissions,” even as a state law requires they be reduced in the years ahead. He then addresses the topic of jobs, which many speakers on both sides brought up: “This project isn’t the answer … 480 jobs for a $2 billion project.” He says money would be better spent on other projects including I-5 work. He then says he’s disturbed by a “lack of outrage” over “priorities on what we are spending our money on” and mentions state cuts in education and health-care funding. And he calls for a public vote, saying that it would cost $50,000-$100,000 to add a tunnel question onto the August ballot. He plans to introduce a measure later today asking for that vote and pleads for the five votes he says he needs for it to move on.

10:24 AM: Now, West Seattle-residing Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, who says he appreciates that Councilmember O’Brien has been against the tunnel from the start, and clear about it; he then pokes at the mayor for allegedly not being consistent. For some, it’s jobs, says Rasmussen, but “on this 10th anniversary of the earthquake, it’s about lives … we have a responsibility to protect people’s lives,” regarding replacing the viaduct. He mentions the new automated-closure gates on viaduct entries, saying, “This viaduct is fragile and we can only prop it up for so long.” After him, Councilmember Nick Licata, saying that those who support the surface option “don’t have any leaders” and accusing them of subterfuge for not being clear that’s what they’re backing. “Yeah, (the tunnel) may go over, we don’t know, but we do have $2.2 billion (for it) … but we have zero (state dollars) for the surface and transit option. … It’s easy to be against this. It’s hard to be FOR something.” (He is the most fiery speaker we’ve seen yet.) He concludes, “If you think cutting off our nose to spite our face is a good strategy … it is a stupid strategy!” (PHOTO CREDIT: Erika Schultz/Seattle Times) The gallery gets heated, and then Councilmember Bruce Harrell stands up and chides, “Look at us with our signs disrespecting one another … This is not Seattle at its best.” He insists the city “is not liable” for overruns. “I would never support anything that would put us on the hook for cost overruns.” Harrell restates that he respects those who oppose the tunnel, but hopes they will know that regarding the council’s vote, “We’re doing it with conviction, integrity, and a (belief) that long after we are dust, we’re leaving something better for our children and grandchildren.”

10:38 AM: Councilmember Jean Godden says, after noting the longrunning debate, “Now we have had the Seattle Process and it’s time to make a decision.” Council President Conlin follows with the stats on that “process” – 700 public meetings, 15,000 public comments (after showing photos of the collapsed elevated freeway from the 1989 Bay Area quake, and AWV damage after the 2001 Nisqually quake). “The region has been engaged in a passionate debate … for 10 years. … We have come to a common solution, and the (city) has crafted a set of agreements that protect our residents and work for our state and regional partners. … As the anniversary of the Nisqually quake reminds us, this is not just a transportation project, this is about safety. … We were elected to make decisions … as stewards (of the city).”

10:46 AM: Veto overridden, 8-1 (O’Brien the dissenter). To read the full legislation – go here.

3:11 PM: The mayor is speaking with reporters now – watch it live here. He insists the public should be able to vote on the tunnel – either through the proposal that Councilmember Mike O’Brien is introducing this afternoon, or through the referendum announced to gather signatures to put today’s council vote on the ballot. (We’ll add video of the mayor’s Q/A event here when it’s available for embedding. Added – here’s the video:)

3:48 PM: The new “Protect Seattle” coalition of anti-tunnel groups that wants to put the council-approved agreements on the ballot as a referendum have posted their announcement online, here.

4:54 PM: West Seattle tunnel supporters Vlad Oustimovitch, who was the 2nd speaker before the council this morning (as noted above), and Pete Spalding co-wrote a pro-override editorial in today’s Seattle Times (WSB partner) – here’s the link. Also, here’s a written copy of Oustimovitch’s testimony for the meeting.

90 Replies to "Tunnel tussle: City Council votes 8-1 to override mayor's veto"

  • Mrs. Thompson February 28, 2011 (10:00 am)

    I would really like to hear from a tunnel supporter, their reasons for thinking the tunnel is a good idea.

  • WS Citizen February 28, 2011 (10:38 am)

    Very interesting, eloquent and passionate remarks made by anti-tunnel commenters. It was high theater, with one man choked up with emotion, and another literally taping his mouth shut to represent what he believes the council is about to do.

    This was followed by *fireworks* as the Councilmembers started making their statements (ongoing as I post this comment).

    Ten thousand times more entertaining than last night’s Oscars…

    Tune in now http://www.seattle.gov/councillive/

    I encourage everyone who missed watching the live Council to watch it on the Seattle Channel when the video is posted later.

    • WSB February 28, 2011 (10:55 am)

      WS Citizen, the link we had above (Seattle Channel) also went to the live coverage. We will add the archived video here as soon as Seattle Channel (or anyone else) turns it around for embedding – thanks! – TR

  • natinstl February 28, 2011 (10:39 am)

    I was not a tunnel supporter in the beginning, but now I see this as a safety issue and I’m tired of people holding things up. At this point, I would rather we progress so we don’t have a major catastrophe on our hands. I take 10 trips a week on the viaduct and I’m forever hoping that it doesn’t fall down while I’m on it.

  • old timer February 28, 2011 (10:40 am)

    The one thing I’d like to see is the pensions and benefits of those council members voting for this tunnel to be tied to the cost overruns.
    If cost overruns are billed to the city,
    then the ‘tunnel/yes’ voters on the council lose their pensions/benefits.
    .
    I still can’t believe that the state, with all it’s financial
    difficulties, is still trying to pour money it does not have into this hole.

  • orcmid February 28, 2011 (10:42 am)

    I am not sure about “good idea.” We’ve been considering the matter for years now. When there was one of those sentiment-of-the-people referenda, we showed mixed preferences. But the then-mayor didn’t like the leading choice, and we even turned down an offer of full State funding. Then we got to the tunnel this time and we are farther along than ever before, despite our tendency to reconsider forever. (Remember the monorail?)

    Meanwhile, the viaduct is unsafe with regard to earthquake endurance and something must be done. We are tempting fate the longer we leave the current viaduct standing.

    With regard to the risk of budget over-runs, what alternative is there that isn’t going to have such risks and will cost Seattle even more if we keep biting the State’s hand?

    I say that McGinn’s job is to stop hand-wringing about risks and coming up with ways to manage the risk, ensure that we have early warnings of over-run situations, and time to mitigate those risks that arise. That’s his job. That’s every executive’s job. Manage for a successful outcome in the face of anticipatable risks and the unexpected as well. His foot-dragging is turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy and we deserve better from our elected city executive.

    And we should get on with the parts of the job that are Seattle’s responsibility with regard to the sea wall.

    I don’t know that the tunnel was the best choice, but I don’t see that it is a bad choice except that we always seem to think that the road not taken is always better. It is the only alternative that has gotten this far and has shovels actually at work. There is no without-risk approach here in terms of cost over-run fears, and the clock is still ticking.

    I think O’Brien’s objections about other uses of the funds are meaningless, since I am sure the State can come up with other uses for their significant part, but who says that will be in aid of Seattle, and then what do we and/or the State do about the viaduct?

  • orcmid February 28, 2011 (10:48 am)

    PS: I also don’t know whether the State funds are dedicated for construction projects of this sort and could not be applied to non-transportation projects in any case. Does anyone have information about that? Are stimulus funds involved?

  • Skeeter February 28, 2011 (10:48 am)

    I could never figure it out. If there are cost overruns, is the city on the hook? Or the state?

    Is there are FINAL answer to that question?

  • Dave February 28, 2011 (10:53 am)

    Good, now let’s have nine more votes, three vetoes, take it back to the public in 2012 and 2014 and construction on the elevated/tunnel/viaduct/spaceport will begin in 2045, when i’m dead.

  • MLJ February 28, 2011 (10:57 am)

    Someone needs to put an initiative on the ballot to demolish the Seattle Process.

  • Anne February 28, 2011 (11:03 am)

    I was living in San Francisco in 1989, and saw the crushed cars, knew people who barely escaped the cypress Street Viaduct and the Nimitz Freeway over in Oakland. I remember the news reports of searching for survivors, and then for the bodies, of those on the viaduct when it failed. I avoid our viaduct now whenever possible.

    Going back to San Francisco over the years, I am amazed at how wonderful the waterfront is without the elevated highways. The area is busy, thriving, where once there was nothing but concrete. Seattle could benefit from a similar opportunity!

    Look at this picture of the Cypress Street Viaduct. This is what REALLY happened.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:022srUSGSCyprusVia.jpg

  • nulu February 28, 2011 (11:13 am)

    I am not a tunnel supporter, but it is the only option besides the Mayors’ destruction of the city through chaos and gridlock.
    West Seattleites will lose car access as we know it to downtown either way.
    Nobody can answer who will pay for cost overruns before the lawsuits that will be filed and settled. And only if there are disputed cost overruns.
    If no cost overruns, why do opponents continue?
    Why do the opponents offer no alternative to the proposed plan?
    Will the mayor step up and take responsibility for deaths and injuries if the viaduct collapses during his delaying tactics?
    No matter what the outcome, this has been another egregious example of the “Seattle Process” paralyzing the city.
    The compromises made will haunt us as we look back at opportunities squandered.

  • Genesee Hill February 28, 2011 (11:13 am)

    Good!

  • KBear February 28, 2011 (11:18 am)

    But the Seattle Process is the most effective way to ensure there will be cost overruns!

  • GenHillOne February 28, 2011 (11:26 am)

    KBear, agreed – self-fulfilling prophecy!

  • OP February 28, 2011 (11:55 am)

    Good. Not a huge fan of the tunnel, but Mayor McGinn’s idea is positively horrible and unrealistic.

  • james February 28, 2011 (11:58 am)

    Seattle built a tunnel underneath downtown in 1904. Nearly 110 years ago. At the time of its construction, it was the tallest and widest tunnel in the entire world. That tunnel still carries rail traffic to this day. The tunnel took one year of digging by 400 laborers to complete. ONE YEAR!! The location isn’t that far from where the planned tunnel is to be located. Why, other than trying to scare people, is the anti-tunnel crowd so convinced this project will surely end in utter failure?

  • Paul February 28, 2011 (12:00 pm)

    Next time vote for smarter leaders

  • redblack February 28, 2011 (12:19 pm)

    orcmid and skeeter: there’s a big budget hole that the state plans on filling with tolls. the state’s contingency fund for the project is 15%.
    .
    as a tunnel opponent, i find it funny – well, actually it’s kind of alarming – that people in one breath will talk about how unstable and dangerous AWV is; then, in the next, they’ll advocate for leaving it open for 5 more years while the tunnel is built.
    .
    the two are mutually exclusive.
    .
    knock the sucker down already, let’s get the seawall rebuilt, and let the chips fall where they may.

  • CandrewB February 28, 2011 (12:24 pm)

    Apparently digging a tunnel is now impossible and best left for Europeans and Asians to accomplish.

  • Alex February 28, 2011 (12:32 pm)

    Paul, “Next time vote for smarter leaders” ???
    .

    You’re right that we sort of brought this on ourselves, but let’s not forget… Just as now we have to choose between two bad options (the tunnel is a step down from what we have now, but having nothing instead would be an even worse option), we had to choose between bad options in the mayoral race too.
    .
    Nickels was on the way out, so we only had McGinn (who even then made it clear he would attempt to paralyze car-commuting in this city), and that T-Mobile executive. Literally, a choice between a hippy and a corporate stooge. The question was what’s worst: stupidity or evil?

    I’m unhappy with McGinn, but I feel no satisfaction from the fact that “I voted for the other guy.” He probably wouldn’t have been any better.

  • Alki Area February 28, 2011 (12:32 pm)

    STOP! GROW UP! We elected the people we did. If you wanted a different outcome, too bad. It’s NOT like we haven’t discussed this. For GODS SAKE we’ve talked about this for 10 years, had literally hundreds of meetings, several votes, etc. You will NEVER have everyone happy with the choice. Choose the tunnel you’ll have angry protesters. Choose surface streets you’ll have angry protesters. Choose rebuilding the viaduct you’ll have angry protesters. GROW UP! Make a bloody decision and stick to it like grown ups. We’ve discussed this to DEATH! There is NOT one perfect solution. They all have pro/cons, they all have risks, liabilities and limitations.

  • Steph in WS February 28, 2011 (12:37 pm)

    It’s not the ‘fear’ of the tunnel that makes the anti-tunnel hate the tunnel. It’s the lack of exits for the down town area. I take it a lot to get to down town as a lot of people from WS do and not having those exits would make me not want to do business as much as possible down there. It’s not just for a leisurely shopping day for me either so taking a bus would not be an option.

  • james February 28, 2011 (12:52 pm)

    Steph in WS… I’m having trouble following your logic. The alternative to no exit downtown is no highway at all. Do you think surface streets will be quicker than exiting at SODO/Pioneer Square or South Lake Union?

  • sw February 28, 2011 (12:56 pm)

    One thing that no one has mentioned is the utter chaos that would occur if we pursued the cut/cover tunnel or replacement viaduct. Both of those options (which were voted down on the meaningless “advisory” ballot) would have eliminated the current viaduct as a transportation corridor for 5-6 years. The deep bore tunnel is the only option we have to preserve mobility while the replacement is built – which is a huge consideration. There is no perfect solution – any option chosen would come with compromise (and yes – tolls).

  • bsmomma February 28, 2011 (1:08 pm)

    Am I correct in thinking that I heard they would be tolling the tunnel as well? If that is true, I just don’t think a tolled tunnel with ZERO exits to Downtown is a smart decision. Just like a monterail from WS to Ballard with no downtown stops was NOT a great idea. As a clausterphobic water that I cannot see the bottom of fearing citizen, I would not use or even have use for the tunnel. I’d rather have the Viaduct re-built. Tear down the current one and re-build it. So we have to figure out some new routes……we’d have to do it anyways if it fell down on it’s own, right?

  • Mean Dean February 28, 2011 (1:31 pm)

    At one time Seattle was ready to move forward on one of two solutions – either of which would have been by far the BEST solution. We were on the verge of going for the retrofit or replace options. These were the obviously most cost/effort efficient solutions. But nothing can stop the force of big money, back room dealings.

    .

    We were about to vote for these obvious options and at the last minute Mayor Nickels changed the ballot to a three way split choice. There was NO WAY any option -even the best – would come away a clear winner so his “tunnel” option survived the 3 way vote. Chris Gregiore eventually was “persuaded” to side with the “tunnelers” and WA-la, thanks to a corrupt process we are stuck with the coming boondoggle aka “big dig west.”

    .

    Corruption is the true “Seattle process.”

  • WS commuter February 28, 2011 (1:33 pm)

    The one thought I agree with in this thread – and many have said this – is that how we get downtown will change. My bias – I’m all for the DBT, and currently, I daily use the Seneca St. off-ramp to go to work and the Columbia on-ramp to come home – so I understand what the complaining is about.

    But at some point, we do what’s best for our community; not what’s best for our selves individually. The tunnel is, in my view, the best option from both a safety and economic point of view. To my understanding, re-vamping the viaduct, or building a new one, still gets us a seismically vulnerable structure. The “tear it down and let the chips fall where they may” crowd of McGinn, etc. are either really ignorant, or really stupid – to lose a north-south highway corrider would cripple the city, and as a consequence, our economy.

    Likewise, I don’t understand the people who (probably accurately) predict cost overruns. Most big infrastructure projects end up costing more than predicted. So perhaps/probably this will too. But do we only build stuff if we’re sure it won’t cost more? I think the argument about who is going to pay for overruns is appropriate … but what I’ve read from the Senate and House leaders is that they acknowledge that the State will be on the hook and not the City.

    Likewise, the complaining about tolls … I don’t get it. If you don’t want to pay the toll, don’t use the tunnel. Just like if you don’t want pay the toll to cross the Tacoma Narrows, then drive around. Same with 520. Same with riding the ferries. Its called a “user fee” – a tool by which part of the cost of a system is directly borne by the people who use it. Seems like a lot of complaining by people who want something for nothing.

  • redblack February 28, 2011 (1:36 pm)

    bsmomma: yes, it will be tolled, and it’s probably a done deal at this point. at least mcginn and o’brien made the council promise on the cost overruns in front of the cameras. it’s something to hold WSDOT to later when the state blows the 15% contingency.
    .
    and i’m sorry to say that the tunnel can’t have downtown exits. for one thing, it’s 150 feet down by the time it gets to seneca street and they’d have to bore another tube… and it would be like 90 degrees straight up to get into downtown.
    .
    point of clarification, though: the monorail would not have by-passed downtown, and it was actually designed with something like 18 stops between morgan junction and crown hill, including a few on second avenue.
    .
    so for those of you going downtown, you’ll have plenty of options into downtown. 99 to king street; east marginal/alaskan way; first avenue; fourth avenue; airport way/sixth avenue; and I-5.
    .
    i’m resolved to it. it’s “the seattle way,” indeed. business says, “we want this,” and seattle says, “how high?”
    .
    but i don’t envy the proponents the heat they’re going to feel in the next 10 years.

  • sw February 28, 2011 (2:01 pm)

    Well said, redblack.

    For anyone not familiar with “Seattle Process” and transportation issues, I’d recommend a google search of the following:

    – Forward Thrust
    – RH Thompson Expressway
    – Seattle Bay Freeway
    – I-605

    Historylink.org is also a great reference tool for these. See if you can figure out how Atlanta got the Federal funds for their MARTA rail system.

    Our beloved burg has had a love/hate relationship with all things transportation for decades.

  • rw February 28, 2011 (2:19 pm)

    “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”–Voltaire

    I’ve been reflecting on this quote a lot lately, at work, counseling a friend on her challenges finishing essays and stories, etc.

    Face it, a perfect solution to Seattle traffic and the viaduct replacement does not exist. We have a solution (the tunnel) that will improve the waterfront experience and someone (the state) willing to share a large portion of the cost.

    The Council did the right thing today.

  • caspar babypants February 28, 2011 (2:26 pm)

    I am most sad to loose the experience of driving along the waterfront in the morning and SEEING the mountains and the city I LOVE from that amazing vantage point of the viaduct. I wish we could just rebuild it and continue to get that thrill of the best seat in the house as you drive north or south. Nobody talks about that part of the QUALITY OF LIFE issue for the waterfront…

  • My two cents ... February 28, 2011 (2:35 pm)

    Is the tunnel a perfect solution? No. Is it the most practical and pragmatic solution? Yes.

    Re: greenhouse gas reduction? Cars are not the sole source of this … We should not take the myopic view that equates the car to Satan. Should we have more transit options? Yes. A balance is a realistic solution – one that supports the needs of both transit and car.

    Re:neglected leaders? They are our voices, the ones who researched these issues. Disagree with them? Use your vote.

    Re: State. Unless something has changed, this is “SR-99” so unless something has changed, they have a stake in this.

    BTW – great point about the rail tunnel running under the city. Has the bus tunnel turned out to a bad option for Seattle? No.

  • redblack February 28, 2011 (2:48 pm)

    wow. there are 8 ways to skin this cat, and i get called names again for pointing out that DBT is the most expensive – and least funded – option. anyone who thinks that we have to pin our hopes on the DBT simply because it keeps the dangerous menace that is the AWV standing for another 5 years is either ignorant or stupid?
    .
    well-argued, mr. selig.

  • My two cents ... February 28, 2011 (2:57 pm)

    From the Seattle PI:  “O’Brien said he was “baffled” as to why his colleagues support the tunnel project. He said it was bad for the environment, increased greenhouse gas emissions and was money ill spent in these troubled times. “I know I’m not going to convince any of you to change your vote…(but) the people of Seattle have a right to vote on it.”

    Wasn’t Mr. O’Brien elected as a voice of the people, the elected representative?  Geez he isn’t sounding that far off from being a Tim Eyeman clone.  How has his vote by consensus on everything worked?  These are complex decisions – we have to trust in the system of representative democracy to make these.  Are they always right?  No are they always wrong?  No.  In this case we have had 10 years of pros and cons over various options – this is where we stand. Getting back to Mr. O’Brien – If he is unwilling to make the decision the voters have entrusted him with, I’m sure someone will gladly take his place on the Council.

    • WSB February 28, 2011 (3:02 pm)

      for those interested, the mayor is having a media avail here any moment – live streaming video at http://mayor.seattle.gov

  • redblack February 28, 2011 (3:08 pm)

    my two cents: well, that’s good news. i guess that means you and other tunnel proponents will support raising tax money for running light rail to ballard and west seattle.
    .
    it’s about time we agree on something sensible and beneficial to the city.

  • Genesee Hill February 28, 2011 (4:15 pm)

    redblack:

    I will happily vote for a tax increase to bring any kind of rail back to West Seattle.

    I agree with you on darn near everything. The tunnel is the exception. I am happy the viaduct will come down. Surface would have been my first choice. The tunnel my second choice. A rebuilt viaduct never.

  • wsjeep February 28, 2011 (4:49 pm)

    No more Voting. This city will get nothing done by voting and voting and voting.

  • autumn February 28, 2011 (4:52 pm)

    There is much misinformation floating around on here. First, this hasn’t been debated for 10 years. All tunnel options were deemed infeasable, too risky, too costly. In 2008 we were told the preferred option would be a deep bore tunnel. And that’s what were getting come hell or high water.
    It hasn’t been debated; it hasn’t been voted upon. Some democratic process we have here.

    Do you people realize if that vehicle that caught on fire on 1-5 had been in this ‘beloved tunnel’ you all seem to want so badly, then a significant amount people in the cars on 1-5 would be dead now. A tunnel is an extremely dangerous place to be in a fire.
    The tunnel is a horrible choice for our infrastructure.

  • My two cents ... February 28, 2011 (5:05 pm)

    @Autumn “Do you people realize if that vehicle that caught on fire on 1-5 had been in this ‘beloved tunnel’ you all seem to want so badly, then a significant amount people in the cars on 1-5 would be dead now. A tunnel is an extremely dangerous place to be in a fire.”

    Are you some form of fire/emergency expert? Do you have knowledge of the safety (or lack of) systems that are in place for this tunnel? What is your source of reference for your statements? Hysteria and hyperbole will only detract from your rationale for opposing the tunnel.

  • redblack February 28, 2011 (5:14 pm)

    GH: i hope the city isn’t soured on funding for further transportation projects after this is all said and done.
    .
    autumn is right about the lack of public vetting of this project. everyone sat on their butts for over 5 years until gregoire declared she was going to take down AWV by 2012. then it was two emphatic no’s by the voters on a badly-written ballot, a “stakeholder’s board” miraculously appears to save the day, and suddenly we’re getting shafted. literally.
    .
    like i said, i’m resolved that it will probably happen, but that doesn’t mean i have to like it.

  • Genesee Hill February 28, 2011 (5:28 pm)

    autumn:

    So I imagine you drive around Lake Washington to avoid the Mt. Baker Tunnel. There are some incredibly long tunnels, even in Washington State. The RR tunnel (seven miles long) on Stevens Pass is nearly 80 or so years old. Stampede Pass tunnel is over 110 years old. And trains that go through them haul, gasp, fuel and dangerous chemicals of all sorts. Yes, you can die in a tunnel, just as you can die crossing the street. But, frankly, I don’t recall any firestorm in any tunnel in Washington State in my 59 years of existence. Does not mean it can’t or won’t happen, though. One of the great catastrophes was on Stevens Pass in 1910 when an avalanche swept an entire train down the side of the mountain; 96 dead. Probably would have been better if the train was stuck in a tunnel, eh?

    The downtown transit tunnel has been OK, safety-wise. How about the RR tunnel from King Street Station (under downtown Seattle) to the water front? Built in 1905. Wow, we are talking rocket science here, huh?

  • Carole February 28, 2011 (5:37 pm)

    Once that viaduct comes down, those grotty old buildings just east of it will come down as well. Whoever owns that property will make a fortune from selling it to developers, who will make THEIR fortunes developing it into waterfront condos (probably high-rise, of course; so much for opening the city to the waterfront). The newer housing at the north end of the viaduct will increase in value as well. Perhaps those who “benefit” directly from the viaduct removal – i.e., those who sell and those who develop, should be paying any cost overruns, or a goodly percentage of it. Plus the city will receive increased property taxes from the revalued property.

  • WS commuter February 28, 2011 (5:46 pm)

    Caspar – its about prioritizing. Yes, the view is stunning and like you, I’ll miss it. But the hard fact is that a raised viaduct built in a soft soil zone along the waterfront will always be vulnerable to a big earthquake. We will – at some point – have that earthquake. We can’t take that risk. If you doubt that, sit in your car waiting for the light to turn green on the Seneca offramp and see what happen if an articulated bus or dump truck enters the off-ramp. You can feel the structure sway.

    Autumn – you’re spreading misinformation. You are correct that the original tunnel idea discussed and (stupidly) voted on was the “cut and cover” option – the DBT wasn’t considered then. But we have spent ten years talking ad infinitum about what to do with the AWV – the DBT is just the final solution.

    My rant: the public shouldn’t – ever – be voting on technical issues like whether to build another viaduct or a tunnel or a street option. The public will vote mostly out of ignorance – about what “feels good”. The public should vote about the officials we elect to make these decisions and then let them do their job. And if you don’t like the decision, vote the politician out. But the public is – never – qualified to make the decision about what is sound engineering or traffic management or economically viable. Just sayin’ …

  • Kayleigh February 28, 2011 (6:13 pm)

    I will never understand the thinking of some “community minded” people who will argue something to death based on how it affects them directly, basically ensuring that NOTHING gets done in this stupid town. All the while patting themselves on the back for being involved citizens. This is why I don’t go to these community meetings—they are way too annoying.
    .
    The viaduct will fall down–literally—before we get a solution in place. All y’all happy now, citizen activists?

  • Darkseid February 28, 2011 (6:22 pm)

    As a last resort, always use fake concern for public safety as your platform. Also, for dramatic effect, hold your vote on the anniversary of an earthquake. Bonus points!

  • Amanda February 28, 2011 (7:10 pm)

    I am disappointed that there is so much strife within the Seattle City Council / Mayor’s office. If you look at the picture of the San Francisco Cypress Viaduct, it looks eerily like the AWV. I drive / bus this every day, at least. It scares me to be on it since you can see the cracking concrete. I am not a huge fan of the tunnel, surface streets or a new viaduct options. But if anything, a tunnel would make the most amount of sense. And to whomever commented about complaining about tolls on the tunnel… That means we are taxed twice. A “use” tax and a “sales” tax…. welcome to America. That’s what we do here.

  • WSJeep February 28, 2011 (7:39 pm)

    I come from the east coast (Baltimore) where we have a lot of tunnels for highways and they were all built before we have the technology today. Build the tunnel and it will be the best thing that has happen to this city in a long time.

  • 35this35mph February 28, 2011 (8:17 pm)

    Hey! Another Baltimoron ex-pat! How ’bout dem O’s hon?

    Oh yeah: Tunnel- bad, best of lame choices.

  • chadwick February 28, 2011 (8:32 pm)

    Actually, this tunnel will be the worst thing that has happened to this city in a long long time.

    If the then-Mayor and city council hadn’t doomed the monorail option by confusing the public and calling for vote after vote, it would be built by now and you’d be sailing into work with a killer view and no hassles.

    Do any of you know what exactly the plans for the bus routes from SW Seattle going in to the city are once the tunnel is built? Oh yeah, they’re aren’t any.

    So, instead of zipping to work on a sweet ass new monorail you’ll be spending 45 minutes on a crappy ass bus stopping at every light from SODO northbound.

    Also, please stop complaining about the “Seattle Process.” This happens in every city. People argue about stuff. It’s called democracy and it’s pretty annoying sometimes but it’s what works best. Chill.

  • Mike February 28, 2011 (8:56 pm)

    Chadwick, you realize the original tunnel talks started in the early 90s right?

    • WSB February 28, 2011 (9:21 pm)

      Re: The bus routes. Certainly an excellent question. One discussion to which I was party, last year – when the 4th Avenue South offramp from the eastbound Spokane Street Viaduct opened, and media were talking with project point people, Seattle Times transportation reporter Mike Lindblom (a West Seattleite) was asking about whether they might use the offramp for transit in the future – if you have ever driven it, you’ll notice it’s a lot wider than the one off-lane for which it’s currently used – and was told that’s certainly a possibility. So there may be some options that don’t currently exist, as well as the northbound exit right before – if it’s built – the tunnel, in the stadium/Pioneer Square zone … TR

  • JoB February 28, 2011 (9:02 pm)

    the road not taken goes no-where…
    and in the meantime businesses that have to be able to get people and products in and out of West Seattle are moving…
    we will be next.

  • WSJeep February 28, 2011 (9:45 pm)

    Im not sure why people are leaving West Seattle, I mean the West Seattle bridge is still going to be connected to the Spokane Street Viaduct which will still be connected to SR-99 and to I-5 as it is now.

  • Alki resident February 28, 2011 (10:42 pm)

    @My Two Cents _You are 100% right on the nose and what Ive been saying all alone.One vehicle fire in the new tunnel will kill many people.So scary and realistic and preventable.

  • autumn February 28, 2011 (10:59 pm)

    Switzerland, December 2, 2002

    Fourth International Cconference

    Description:

    Since the first conference in May 1999, there has been a number of serious fires in tunnels in Europe, which has given rise to an unprecedented level of investigation, research, and discussion on all fronts.
    Caldecott Tunnel Fire, Apr 1982…
    “However, due to the late hour of the accident, there were few other vehicles on the road…. five were killed by the smoke and fire and two were hospitalized for smoke inhalation. All others escaped unharmed.”
    I am not being hysterical merely bringing up a point. And my two cents, why so condensending?

    WScommute- I am not spreading misinformation.

    Read the governor’s finding from dec 15, 2006.

    4. A deep bored tunnel was a concept alternative reviewed early in
    the project’s design and environmental processes. The deep bored
    tunnel was eliminated based on constructability and cost.
    AWV-8
    The deep bored tunnel requires competent soil, which means the
    alignment would have to be moved eastward, deep under another
    city street or under other downtown properties. Risk of building
    settlement, extensive city street and utility impacts, and additional
    property costs would result. The depth to competent soil means
    a bored tunnel would necessarily be longer than a cut-and-cover
    tunnel along the waterfront, running from approximately the
    Stadiums to Seattle Center. The close proximity to the existing
    Burlington Northern Railroad Tunnel near the Pike Place Market
    would add further risks, which would further increase costs.
    Preliminary cost estimates in the range of $8-12 Billion were
    developed based on preliminary concept designs. The bored tunnel
    would still require significant disruptions to State Route 99 traffic
    at each end of the project, where connections into the existing
    roadway are required. In addition, the Seattle waterfront and
    downtown businesses would experience impacts due to seawall
    construction and the staging activities necessary to construct the
    tunnel bores and material excavation. Finally, the bored tunnel
    would not allow for a direct connection from the Ballard/Interbay
    area to downtown as ramps at Elliot and Western Avenue would
    not be possible.

    So how is it possible that this has now become our only option?

  • Gatewooder February 28, 2011 (11:02 pm)

    The tunnel will have a sophisticated fire suppression system built into it, probably making it the safest place to catch fire on any road in the whole city. Right now if you catch on fire on the viaduct, there isn’t anything in place to protect you except the fire truck that might eventually make it to you through all of the stalled traffic behind the accident.

  • autumn February 28, 2011 (11:24 pm)

    gatewooder-you can exist your vehicle and get away. You cannot do that in a tunnel.
    Are you serious when you say a tunnel is probably the most safest places to be in fire?
    Do you really want your safety to rely on a ‘sophisticated fire suppression system’ when without a tunnel we wouldn’t need that at all?
    And by the way are you aware of the electrical cost associated with running this fire suppression system? Low ball estimate $1.4 million a year. And no I am too tired to cite my sources at the moment but it’s something like 70 mega watts/hour 24/7. Research it yourself, I am not making it up.

    I am cranky and tired with all the bullsh#t that’s being spread. I won’t post anymore until I can sound more civil.

  • TB February 28, 2011 (11:28 pm)

    Bring on the tunnel and fix the seawall, all at once. Redo the waterfront and make Seattle new.

    WS Commuter says: My rant: the public shouldn’t – ever – be voting on technical issues like whether to build another viaduct or a tunnel or a street option. The public will vote mostly out of ignorance – about what “feels good”. The public should vote about the officials we elect to make these decisions and then let them do their job. And if you don’t like the decision, vote the politician out. But the public is – never – qualified to make the decision about what is sound engineering or traffic management or economically viable. Just sayin’ …

    I agree wholeheartedly. Well Put! The vote from elected officials is in, let it be!

    However, what I’d like to vote on is a call of No Confidence in the Mayor. Can we do that?

  • metrognome March 1, 2011 (12:09 am)

    how about some actual facts about tunnel safety systems:

    “Emergency exits and refuge areas
    “Safe and effective evacuation routes would be provided for motorists. Enclosed emergency walkways, which would have independent ventilation and fire control systems, would run parallel to both traffic levels in the tunnel. The walkways would be separated from the tunnel’s roadways by concrete walls and fire-rated doors.

    “Access to the walkways would be provided about every 650 feet. In an emergency, travelers would walk along the shoulders to reach an emergency doorway and a safe refuge area. A flight of stairs would connect the refuge area to the emergency exit walkway and the non-affected level of the tunnel.

    “Travelers unable to evacuate using the stairs would be protected by staying in the safe refuge areas, which would be equipped with fire-rated doors and lighting, ventilation and fire suppression systems. Refuge areas would also be monitored by cameras, provided with an emergency phone, and would be large enough to accommodate several people, including those with wheelchairs. Fire, police or WSDOT incident response vehicles would be dispatched to those waiting in the refuge areas.”

    source: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/boredtunnelsafety.htm

    There would also be gates at either end to prevent add’l traffic from entering the tunnel.

    BTW, citing a 30-year-old tunnel fire?? Really??

  • Poltergeist March 1, 2011 (7:01 am)

    With no downtown exits the main utility to West Seattle is the above-ground segment between the WS bridge and sodo. The professional sports teams benefit. It looks like a good wormhole connecting North Seattle with the stadia.

  • caspar babypants March 1, 2011 (8:14 am)

    good point! The soil is the issue really…that will not change…soak in the view now and suck it up for the future!

  • WS commuter March 1, 2011 (10:16 am)

    Autumn – where are you getting your numbers for the “preliminary cost estimates of $8-12B” … Surely you know the actual hard bid number is about $2B (apologize – I don’t know it precisely). If you’re citing to the 2006 study, you should also know that report was debunked by competent engineering folks. Read the draft EIS for better information.

    You are correct that there will be some degree of disruption for constructing the north and south portals for the tunnel – but – so what? Part of construction. We have disruption right now crossing the Spokane St. bridge with the widening project and the construction of the new on/off ramps. Does that mean we shouldn’t do the project? Yes, its a pain getting home from Costco, but I’ll live. And – btw – for all the nay-sayers, as of now, THAT project is both on time, and on budget.

  • autumn March 1, 2011 (10:59 am)

    WS commuter- what i copied and pasted was the governors report from dec 15(16?) 2006. These were the finding from the draft eis at the time. And now here we are going forward with that exact project.

    “If you’re citing to the 2006 study, you should also know that report was debunked by competent engineering folks” really? how so? what engineers? who hired them to ‘debunk the findings’?

    So, what you are now saying is that when the governor issues a report of findings it is not reliable information. The official government report was debunked? And we should now believe this new report? Connect the dots.

    metrognome – exactly! Can you see how amazingly complicated the fire suppression, escape exits, walkway, safety mechanisms and monitors and warnings ect. ect. ect. is? There is other infrastructure that can be build that will require none of this equipment and maintance and expense. The ongoing electrical consumption is not another bill that we should be adding to ourselves. We are creating something that will require more and more and more consumption. We want to create infrastructure that requires less not more. It is mandated that our state reduce it’s electrical consumption and with this tunnel up and running it will increase consumption and we will be required to reduce and it will be reduced somewhere, but never the tunnel because the electricity will always be needed for it’s operation. Is this really how we want to build our future?

  • WS commuter March 1, 2011 (11:14 am)

    Autumn – you use the operative phrase “at the time” … the EIS is an iterative document in its 4th version now, refined as more/better information is obtained. And yes, if you read the technical reviews, the concept (and it was only a concept at the time in 2006 and not a developed plan) was about a different and more expensive choice. Not the choice we’re going to build now. So how, exactly is your complaint about the current design choice relevant? Or is the thrust of your complaint just that “we can’t trust anyone?” If so, your right to believe so, but not terribly grounded in facts. Just like your complaint about this imagined fire risk. There are tunnels all over the world – they just finished building a 25 mile tunnel under the Alps … are we to believe that fire risk means that we shouldn’t build tunnels? Or what is your point? I have no idea of the magnitude of risk we’re talking about, but I’m pretty sure that it is a much, much smaller risk than just being in a fatal car crash. Should we ban driving altogether because something bad might happen? Please illuminate.

  • KBear March 1, 2011 (11:24 am)

    “what i copied and pasted was the governors report from dec 15(16?) 2006…And now here we are going forward with that exact project.”
    .
    NO IT IS NOT THE SAME PROJECT. The proposal for the current project came out in 2009. The cost estimate you cite is from a previous proposal. Different route, older drilling technology.
    .
    This demonstrates exactly why we should let our elected representatives make the decisions on projects like this.

  • maplesyrup March 1, 2011 (11:42 am)

    I’m so tired of this debate and I’m tired of our city’s inability to take a decision and live with it.

    Can we please move forward and get something done?

  • autumn March 1, 2011 (11:54 am)

    so we take a lousy concept and develop it into a plan?

    “I have no idea of the magnitude of risk we’re talking about, but I’m pretty sure… ”
    Are these the facts that you are basing your opinion upon?

    I wonder do you also mock those who are vocally concerned about this catastrophic earth quake that will happen at any moment and will come crashing down, killing multitudes?

    And KBear-“NO IT IS NOT THE SAME PROJECT.”
    Oh, it’s not a DBT going north south under the city somewhere along 2nd, 3rd ish? They are no longer using a TBM? It’s all different now?

    Cool. Because man for a minute there I thought we were all getting really screwed. Thanks for clearing it up for me everybody.

    Except, unfortunately it’s not cool and we are getting screwed.

    And to whoever said that the voters couldn’t be trusted to make an educated informed decision about technical issues. I say “You sure have got that right”.

    WS Commuter- Are you still sticking with the ‘fact’ that the 2006 report was ‘debunked’?

  • KBear March 1, 2011 (12:17 pm)

    Autumn, as others have pointed out, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Yes, the 2006 report was for a different project and had a different route. Believe it or not, tunneling technology has advanced since then. That is why the current cost estimate is much less than the earlier one.

  • redblack March 1, 2011 (1:15 pm)

    autumn: AWV’s structural integrity during the next earthquake is a red herring. it’s a scare tactic.
    .
    DBT is the only option for replacing AWV that leaves public enemy number one du jour standing for 4 – 5 years longer than any other replacement option. think about it: that will be at least 15 years after nisqually.
    .
    as higher life forms (debatable), we should control when and how AWV is taken down – and the sooner the better – rather than put life and property at risk from random acts of plate tectonics while hoping that a boring machine doesn’t get stuck, break down, or run astray.
    .
    and they may be right that voters shouldn’t have a say over engineering and route planning, but we sure as hell have a say over funding. especially when there’s a big shortfall.

  • autumn March 1, 2011 (4:39 pm)

    “Autumn, as others have pointed out, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

    Really? How so? Point out the misinformation that I have been posting.

    It seems to me that a main tactic used by pro tunnel proponents is ridicule and mocking,
    while ignoring the issues at hand.
    An example, I talk a bit about the added electrical costs associated with a DBT. Is everybody alright with this new annual bill being added to our budget?

  • WS commuter March 1, 2011 (5:02 pm)

    Autumn – yes the 2006 report was debunked. See the reports by Camp Dresser McKee and by Shannon & Wilson, referenced in subsequent EIS iterations. The technology has, in fact, changed, as Kbear correctly notes. The boring technology for our soils is the sea change. Just look it up.

    You’re opposed to the DBT. Fine; your right. Reasonable minds can disagree. But please deal in facts.

    And for the sake of clarity, please do share – what’s your solution if not a DBT? There are three options: (1)rebuild viaduct, (2) surface street option, with no highway, or (3) do nothing but band-aid the existing viaduct. Please share which option you think is the good solution. I suspect your answer will be revealing.

    redblack – what shortfall? Is this code for tolling? That’s not a shortfall – its a dedicated funding source. We do it all over the place elsewhere. And the beauty of tolling is that its voluntary – pay it if you want to; avoid that route if you don’t.

    Your point about taking down the AWV isn’t clear to me. Are you saying take it down immediately due to the seismic risk? If so, your underlying assumption is correct that we are playing Russian roulette with the gamble that we won’t have a major earthquake between now and 2016. It seems, however, that your real goal, not plainly stated, is to say that if no DBT, then we go to a surface-only option. Fine if that’s what you think. But it is irrational. We – our community – cannot function without the freeway that is SR99. It is simply delusional to think otherwise. But perhaps I’m not understanding your argument. Do correct me if I’m missing the point.

  • smw March 1, 2011 (6:13 pm)

    We just don’t have that many alternate routes, as many other cities do.

  • redblack March 1, 2011 (8:59 pm)

    no ulterior motive. all i’m saying is that any other option – surface/transit, elevated, lidded trench, cut and cover, elliott/western through route, waterfront boulevard – all of them (except retrofit) require demolition of the viaduct in order to begin. the DBT leaves the viaduct in place far longer than it should be without serious retrofitting. so using AWV safety as an excuse to bore the tunnel is disingenuous.
    .
    don’t forget that the seawall is crumbling, too, and it can’t be rebuilt until AWV is gone.
    .
    regarding funding, the state has $2.4 billion for the entire project.
    .
    $476 million is the latest estimate for the south end surface replacement.
    .
    $1.96 billion is the contract amount for the DBT, which includes $600 million for the not-yet-contracted north and south portals, according to WSDOT (bottom of the page).
    .
    so conservative estimate for the project is at $2.436 billion already. that doesn’t include $300 million to knock down AWV and clean up the surface underneath.
    .
    the state says it has a 15% contingency fund, which was lowered, mysteriously, from 25%. i’m sure that i’ll get piled on for citing this, but according to mcginn’s veto letter last week, overruns on projects like this are typically 35%. that figure seems low to me.
    .
    furthermore, despite the fact that tunnels are bored worldwide with great success, no one has ever attempted a project like this – under a highrise city built on a deep fault line. also consider, for example, that while the BNSF tunnel under downtown is correctly lauded as a marvel of labor and engineering, there is uncertainty about what will happen to it once the DBT passes under it.
    .
    i’m not saying it can’t be done, and successfully.
    .
    nonetheless, thank you for giving me permission to not think it’s the most feasible idea. argument? not so much. just discussing its merits, civilly, on a neighborhood blog full of people who will be affected. as i’ve said, it will probably get rammed through over many objections. people will cheer. people will weep.
    .
    what’s my preference? 4-6 lane lidded trench with waterfront park on top. and one exit downtown. it provides for a closer connection to battery street tunnel than cut and cover. (remember scenario H?)
    .
    what does traffic do in the meantime? i don’t know. as you like to point out, i’m not a traffic engineer. i’m just a “stakeholder” with an opinion. but i know that any options except DBT and retrofit close the (hated, scary death trap of a) viaduct first; and i know that other cities have endured the pain of having major arterial routes cut during construction.
    .
    maybe the best way is to drop AWV first, then figure out how to route 99 with the space that’s vacated. my reasonably well-informed opinion is that a lidded trench will accomplish what the DBT does at a fraction of the cost and in shorter time.

  • autumn March 1, 2011 (10:07 pm)

    Could you please link where the Dec 2006 findings report from the govenor was debunked? I searched and searched but couldn’t find anything.

    An elevated, a retro, or lastly the surface +.

    Boring technology for our soils is the sea change?
    Couldn’t find anything but articles about drilling in the sea.

    Where am I not dealing in facts?
    And how has tunneling technology changed in the past 5 years to be so great and wonderful now? These technological advances didn’t do much good for the brightwater tunnel.

  • KBear March 2, 2011 (12:08 am)

    Autumn, the 2006 report to which you refer has nothing to do with the current AWV replacement project. Let it go.
    .
    “Boring technology for our soils is the sea change? Couldn’t find anything but articles about drilling in the sea.”
    .
    ‘Sea change’ is a figure of speech, not a tunneling technology. Did you actually Google ‘sea change’ to look for tunneling articles?
    .
    “Where am I not dealing in facts?”
    .
    Hard to say. I can only refute the statements you’ve posted here.
    .
    “And how has tunneling technology changed in the past 5 years to be so great and wonderful now?”
    .
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008579379_boredtunnel01m.html
    .
    “These technological advances didn’t do much good for the brightwater tunnel.”
    .
    I’m not surprised that you’d bring up the Brightwater project, since you’ve been spewing so much rubbish. The main thing Brightwater has in common with the AWV replacement project is it’s underground. Different purpose, different size, different circumstances.

  • redblack March 2, 2011 (7:37 am)

    kbear: you’re right about brightwater being an apples-to-oranges comparison – except as a cautionary tale of how civil engineering projects projects can go horribly wrong and over budget.
    .
    who picks up the tab? customers do.
    .
    brightwater’s original estimate was $1.48 billion, and it’s $400 million over budget and counting (about 30%) and the tunnel part is still over a year away from completion. coluccio took it over last year as a time and materials contract, which is much more expensive, but helps guarantee that this albatross won’t drag coluccio’s business under.
    .
    don’t get wrong: i think brightwater is a necessary improvement, and a boon to local union jobs. but it is a cautionary tale about funding, contingency, and overruns.

  • autumn March 2, 2011 (8:59 am)

    “The main thing Brightwater has in common with the AWV replacement project is it’s underground. Different purpose, different size, different circumstances.”

    Different purpose, yes, BW a utility related tunnel, DBT a transit route. Different size, yes, BW 14′(or so) feet wide, DBT 54-56 ft wide. Different circumstances, not so much. Similar soils which got the TBM stuck at BW. Different that BW is under a more residential area and DBT is under high density urban core. Of course there are differences but it’s the similarities that we need to be concerned with.

    And why say crap like “I’m not surprised that you’d bring up the Brightwater project, since you’ve been spewing so much rubbish.”
    Is that how you refute statements? Not with facts but derogatory comments?

    And how about all the contaminated soil that will be dug out for the tunnel, how will that be treated and where will it go?

  • WS commuter March 2, 2011 (10:40 am)

    Autumn – just so we understand your perspective – what is your solution if not a DBT? Again, you have three choices: (1) do nothing and roll the dice on the existing AWV; (2) build a new viaduct; and (3) tear down the AWV and go with a surface street only and no SR 99 highway. Which do you choose?

  • redblack March 3, 2011 (7:08 am)

    i won’t answer for autumn, but why are those the only three choices?

  • Cascadianone March 3, 2011 (7:25 am)

    The tunnel might have been a good idea if it had somehow added entrances/exits to downtown and carried increased traffic volume- but it does the opposite.

    Who the hell is getting on the 99 to NOT go downtown?

    Remember to follow the money- this tunnel nonsense is being pushed on us by wealthy developers and corporations…

  • Mc March 3, 2011 (9:21 am)

    I’m one of the “hellions” that use sr99 to NOT go downtown. It makes getting to SLU (work) or points north of downtown a breeze, since the 5, with it’s pathetic design, is a regular bottleneck through the central city. (Wait till the 520 tolls begin and all the sheep begin clogging I-90).
    Those of you whining about “no downtown exits” for the DBT, are probably the same who drive around the parking lot waiting for a spot closest to the door.
    I fully agree with those who stated “no more voting…we voted the elected officials in office to make the decision…”
    The so called “process” that many people believe should be followed to make every public decision in this town is self-indulgent, passive-aggressive, immature, and ridiculous. If you want more of a “say” after the allotted public comment period, then RUN for public office.
    A decision has been made. Let’s grow up and move forward.

  • WS commuter March 3, 2011 (9:31 am)

    redblack – those are the choices that have had discussion/consideration in this decade long process, with the addition of the rejected cut and cover tunnel you prefer (recall that that option was more than twice the cost of the DBT). I’m not trying to limit choices – just to deal in reality. For all those posting here against the DBT – do tell: what would you do otherwise? And then justify that option with facts, please, not wishful thinking or rants againts imagined sinister forces.

    Cascadianone – Yes, I’m talkin to you. Please do reveal for us just who are these “wealthy developers and corporations” … and what “money” should we be following? Name some names please, with facts to back it up. Or are you just ranting because it feels good?

    Some of us in W. Seattle seem to ignorantly view SR99 as our private highway – as though it only exists for W. Sea residents to get to/from downtown. In truth, it carries 100,000 people a day, the majority of whom use it as a through highway – those of us (and I’m one of them) who just go to/from downtown are actually in the minority (albeit just barely). Again, read the EIS.

  • redblack March 3, 2011 (10:34 am)

    all tunnel options “substantially exceed” the state’s budget, according to the 2008 study of 8 scenarios.
    .
    note that cut-and-cover and lidded trench (my preference) are two different things, with different routes, and different approaches to the BST.
    .
    links to the drawings of the 8 scenarios are here, at the bottom of the page.

  • autumn March 3, 2011 (10:44 am)

    redblack, I am absolutely open to hearing about other awv replacement options. (note to others, because i am willing to listen to other ideas is in no way delaying the project, flattering but these words here on this board have zero power with wsdot)

    That said, I am posting here to share some information I have learned in my studies over the course of a year on this topic. And I have some questions that aren’t getting answered, relevant vital questions. For example ‘are we (as a society, city,people) okay with the fact that if this tunnel gets build on time within budget, with no problems, etc, we will have created an infrastructure that will consume a large amount of electricity. Ad infinitum. And if this thing gets built, olympia will have a new (approximately) $1.4 million bill to add to the budget. None of the other options would create a bill of this amount. And don’t mistake this for a small thing. It’s not! We have a atate mandate coming up in the near future to reduce our electrical consumption. Also, remember when someone posted about all the fancy sophisticated fire suppression equipment? That stuff is expensive to purchase, run and maintain. There are other options that do not consume such huge amounts of power and require some much reliance on technology and machinery for our safety. Are we willing to pick the worst of the choices? Is that what we want for our future? electrical power demand differences, 70,026 KWhrs vs. 113 KWhrs, a ratio of over 600 to 1 by the way, for the DBT versus the overhead structure option.
    Think about it, please.
    And one more thing, WS c., your last post wasn’t an arguement for the DBT, it was a diatribe for me.
    I’m not playing here anymore, you scratch.
    Bye, everybody. Try to be open and get information from other sources than the glossy colorful media propaganda of wsdot.
    A.

  • autumn March 3, 2011 (11:05 am)

    Oh, and if I was queen for awhile, I would stop all work on the DBT, allow the other three options one year to present their case and then hold a public official vote. I would use the run off method where people get to rate first, second or third choice for the three options and move forward from there.
    Too bad I’m not queen for awhile.

  • WS commuter March 3, 2011 (12:15 pm)

    Autumn – thanks goodness you aren’t … letting people vote on technically complex issues is moronic policy making.

    I’m not sure I track your intense focus on ongoing electical costs (I don’t have data to rebut yours, so I’ll assume you’re correct), but so what? Cost of doing business. Cost of maintaining a safe, viable freeway. Try the cost of doing nothing – it will make your “$1M/year” number less than pennies on the dollar.

    You avoid the central question – what is the solution if not DBT – you apparently don’t have one. Your suggestion as “queen” of giving the other three option-proponents a year to make their case somehow ignorantly and falsely assumes that they haven’t already. Jeez – McGinn and his ilk are at least honest – they want nothing built, just tear down the AWV and everyone ride buses and bikes. Silly, but at least honest. Please do the courtesy by offering that honesty here if you’re going to post.

  • redblack March 3, 2011 (4:52 pm)

    i’m your huckleberry.
    .

    …three option-proponents a year to make their case somehow ignorantly and falsely assumes that they haven’t already

    for one thing, the final EIS on the tunnel won’t be released to the public until fall. so it’s not a done deal yet.
    .
    for another, voters were presented – presumably by the stakeholders committee – with exactly two options. both failed.
    .
    by what stretch of the imagination has anything but elevated versus cut-and-cover been properly vetted?
    .
    i gave you links to the 8 scenarios that the stakeholders evaluated. all of them exceeded the state’s then-current commitment of $2.8 billion, with the bored tunnel “substantially exceed[ing]” that limit.
    .
    here’s how a bored tunnel was agreed upon, and who agreed to it:
    .

    WSDOT, King County, and the City of Seattle have completed a five month evaluation of the eight scenarios for the central waterfront section of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall. These results were used to assess how each scenario and the building blocks within them
    performed. Based on that assessment, hybrid alternatives will be prepared for further
    consideration by the three agencies prior to Governor Gregoire, King County Executive Sims,
    and Seattle Mayor Nickels making a recommendation at the end of December.

    what were you saying about fully vetting three proposals, and proponents having a chance to make their cases? neither seattle “decider” works here anymore.
    .
    but, to be fair, we’ll go with the 8 original scenarios, and i’ll spot you the two options that voters rejected. (integrated elevated and cut-and-cover). that leaves 5 possible alternatives to the DBT.
    .
    somehow, nickels, sims, and gregoire crunched the numbers down to fit the budget. the same could be done with any other option.
    .

    they want nothing built, just tear down the AWV and everyone ride buses and bikes.

    now who’s ignoring facts and making passionate pleas based on talking points and politics? the mayor’s first stated preference was cut-and-cover. he recently stated that he now prefers something between scenarios B and C: a surface/transit solution. “transit” is a key word that doesn’t necessarily mean “bus.”
    .
    if you have constructive answers to your neighbors’ legitimate questions, great! let’s hear ’em! but unless you can do that in a civil way, please stop tossing out words like moronic, ignorant, and stupid.

Sorry, comment time is over.