Federal judge tosses viaduct tunnel lawsuit

[metrognome]

Per the P-I:

“A federal judge in Seattle dismissed a lawsuit Friday aimed at stopping construction of a tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

“Judge John Coughenour said the people who brought the suit in September hadn’t established their standing. In his ruling he said they hadn’t specified how they’d be damaged by the lack of a full environmental-impact statement on all of the viaduct construction projects.

“As a result, the court “lacks jurisdiction” to grant the temporary restraining order …

“The judge’s ruling clears the way for construction of the new south mile, which is scheduled to begin in July. A groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon near the construction site. The south-end work will cost an estimated $482 million when utility relocation work is included. The plan is to connect the new segment to a four-lane tunnel to be bored under downtown. Complete replacement is estimated to cost $4.2 billion, including $1.96-billion for the tunnel.”

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/422395_viaduct25.html

Bore, baby, bore!

Share This

[au]

Here’s an email I received the other day from the founder of seattle citizen’s against the tunnel, Elizabeth Campbell.

She says it well.

The next meeting will be on 20th Jul @ 1:00pm, next to the Ballard Library.

Posted by beth2000 at 6/26/2010 7:40 a.m.

http://www.scatnow.com Next meeting, Wednesday, June 30th, Ballard Community Center, 1:00 PM Conference Room

Far from being deterred SCAT and its members are happy that we have had the opportunity to try these two venues out, state and federal, to get our opponents’ legal tactics out in the open, to see the response the courts have had to the lawsuits.

Of course we are disappointed, but at the same time we feel immensely stronger now, because we know where we need to tighten up our approach, where the vulnerabilities are, who and what to target.

There are critical agreements that the City Council is going to pass shortly, is their really any doubt about that, and once that is done SCAT and individual members will pursue legal redress again.

The thing is, all three levels are acting illegally – the City, the State, and the Feds. Every one of them is proceeding with the bored tunnel, the southend project they are starting is the bored tunnel, and all this without the environmental reviews being done, they are supposed to inform the decision, not the reverse. How does it make sense to proceed with this without knowing its impacts and whether they can be mitigated even, and even if they could be “mitigated” do we still want to proceed?

Now if you think it is okay to break the law b/c you just want the tunnel, that’s fine, but someday there may be something you don’t want the government to do that is very much against your interest(s), then how well do you think you will be able to stop the government then when it has become enboldened by its lawlessness, been given approbation by a short sighted public?

This isn’t just “about the tunnel” – it is about rule of law, it is about economic realities, it is about safety, it is about environmental protection.

Conservatively, $30 Million a year of new City of Seattle debt service to pay for tunnel related construction; 5 major highway safety deviations, SeaFireDept has already reduced level of fire safety for tunnel, multiple SDOT approvals of diminished highway road standards; 8,000 hopper train car loads of contaminated and mined materials dumped somewhere; 75 Million gallons of contaminated water that has to be “treated” and relased into the Sound.

Think about it, your government “abiding by the law” and “protecting you”. http://www.scatnow.com Next meeting, Wednesday, June 30th, Ballard Community Center, 1:00 PM Conference Room

Share This

[JoB]

what i am thinking about is all the money we are spending to fight these lawsuits:(

Share This

[JanS]

I so agree. But that doesn’t seem to bother SCAT, now, does it? Who is paying for all of this? Them? Us tax payers? I feel, if you want to bring law suits like this over and over, you get to foot the bill. Unfortunately, you can’t pay the judge. And that’s costing me money.

My other question. If somehow you get to do what you want to do, stop the tunnel, do you have an alternate plan all ready to submit, with designs and costs, paid for by you…or do you just want to send it back to the “powers that be”, have them spend a ton more of the tax payers money, and have this put off for however long? These are questions that I have a feeling quite a few would like answered.

I’m not saying I agree or disagree with you…but..it brings up a lot of questions, doesn’t it?

Share This

[au]

JoB and JanS,

What are you saying anyway? That if one sees elected officials and corporate entities engaging in illegal and possibly criminal activity I should shut up because you can’t afford it?

Justice for all, what a joke, it’s more like justice for all who can afford it.

Check out the facts, check out the facts, check out the facts of the tunnel and their consequences.

I will provide one fact for you, appoximately 75 million gallons of contaminated water pumped into Puget Sound.

Oh yes, there is a more efficient (economical, environmental and aesthetic) way to solve the viaduct dilema but it’s being shoved aside for the tunnel because, baby, somebody stands to make a whole bunch of money from the contracts.

This is how to legally proceed with a project

1) Environmental Review (National and State)

2) Record of Decision

3) Best option gets built

The problem with the tunnel process is that steps 1 and 2 have not been done and step 3 will only be what gets built not the best option because no options are being considered.

IT’S ILLEGAL.

And, it is grossly damaging to the environment. And,it will make traffic worse. And,it will Not improve the waterfront, not by a long

shot. And, it will be massively expensive for that tax payers of Seattle.

It’s irresponsible.

The costs far outweight the perceived benefits.

Don’t believe the hype. (or me, for that matter)

Research the Facts.

Share This

[metrognome]

Really Autumn? — ‘illegal and possible criminal activity’ — REALLY? Cite specifics, incl. sources if you have them. 75 million gallons of contaminated water — Really? Cite your source (a credible one, please.) Metro didn’t do that when the downtown tunnel was bored; Sound Transit didn’t do that when boring Link tunnels. King County didn’t do it when boring the Brightwater sewage treatment tunnels. Why is this tunnel different?

So, what is this other more efficient, economical, environmental and aesthetic option that you mention but don’t identify?

How about the fact that the Deep Bore Tunnel is the only viable option that allows traffic to flow pretty much uninterupted during construction(and, sorry, retrofitting the viaduct is not a viable option.)

Here’s another fact — someone ALWAYS makes money off public construction contracts. It’s called ‘profit.’ Someone will make money whether the viaduct is torn down and rebuilt, whether it is retrofitted or whether it collapses in the next earthquake causing gridlock for years.

BTW, the judge’s opinion was pretty much a slap in the face to whoever wrote the plaintiff’s lawsuit.

So, Autumn, I’m curious — do you live in W Seattle or are you using the Blog as a political forum?

Share This

[JanS]

I want to know what you perceive as the more efficient, economical, environmental and aesthetic way to solve the problem.

Also, why would Judge Coughenour dismiss this lawsuit if things being done are so illegal.

And, for the record. I never, ever said “That if one sees elected officials and corporate entities engaging in illegal and possibly criminal activity I should shut up because you can’t afford it?”

I merely asked, who is paying for all the lawsuits? They do cost money…and if you want to post “facts”…post that one. K?

Share This

[au]

Why is this tunnel so different?

Yeah, not much different than the Cologne, Germany Tunnel.

It will be the widest ever attempted.

Brightwater isn’t working out to well is it?

I’ll get the water source for ya.

Someone will be making A Lot of money no matter the outcome. Profit for a job well done, no problem, profit for a disaster, big problem.

Specifics, Not following the law by not having an environmental impact statement first. I said that already.

And your facts that the deep bore tunnel is the only viable option?

I don’t know why judges make poor judgements sometimes, why are innocent people in prison?

But when you know your right you keep at it.

Share This

[au]

Oh, Elevated Structure.

Gosh do I need to live in W Sea in order to comment on this forum about a state route that affects W Sea?

Share This

[JanS]

a new elevated structure? is that what you’re saying? And how do we know that you, specifically, are right?

and who is paying for the lawsuits? we want facts, just like everyone else…not “opinion”, not what you think”….give us links, give us good solid info. Give us price for a new elevated structure if that’s what you’re suggesting. We all can come up with that answer, but is it doable, is it cost effective? You give us none of that.

I guess I’m simply tired of people pulling things out of a hat, stating it like it’s fact, and not giving us solid well thought out plans, answers.

What I’m seeing here is a lot of opinion, and not a lot of fact.

Share This

[waterworld]

I took a look at Judge Coughenour’s opinion. As the newspapers reported, the case was dismissed because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they have legal “standing” to sue. The idea of standing may sound like one of those “technicalities,” but under our constitution, a person must have standing in order to seek redress in a federal court. In the tunnel case, the plaintiffs said they were “concerned citizens” who were seeking “answers that have been withheld from the public at large.” The judge said, correctly I think, that this is a generalized grievance, not a case where the plaintiffs are claiming an injury that the court can remedy. So he threw the case out. The plaintiffs can reopen the case by filing a complaint that meets the requirement of standing.

I think it’s also worth noting that there was an environmental impact statement issued in 2004, and a supplemental EIS in 2006, covering the viaduct replacement project and a range of alternative building options. Those documents are available on the WSDOT web page. The issue that is raised in the lawsuit is that the specific type of tunnel that’s planned now (a deep-bore tube) was not addressed in the original EIS or the supplement. In the past year, the National Highway Administration singled out the stretch of the project that would be the deep-bore tunnel and issued a finding of “no significant impact” on the environment, which effectively ends the EIS process. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that this was procedurally improper. That’s where the claim that the project is “illegal” is coming from, so far as I can tell.

I am not in a position to know what the right legal answer is regarding the EIS process for the deep-bore tunnel. But I do think it’s an overstatement to say there is no EIS.

Share This

[Huindekmi]

Tis the Seattle way. Just keep bringing lawsuit after lawsuit, initiative after initiative, driving up the cost of any public works project until NOTHING ever gets done. This area could have had light rail decades ago. It could have had grade separated monorail. It could have had improvements to freeways. Instead it has a dangerous, aging structure and a dangerous floating bridge that are both key transportation corridors. And both are going to be with us a long long time if the obstructionists get their way as usual.

Cost overruns? We’ll make sure you get some cost overruns, and at the same time we’ll try to drain the city’s legal budget by filing essentially the same complaint repeatedly.

For the benefit of all, we need to just pick a solution and do it.

Share This

[metrognome]

Waterworld — thanks for your assessment of Judge Coughenor’s decision as it clarified some of the history of the project. Links to the DEIS, EIS, etc. can be found at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/.

Also, there are several related projects in the SODO/stadium area that are designed to help redistribute and improve traffic flow. The one that will help WS most significantly is the S Spokane St Viaduct widening project.

Thanks to Google News Archive, I was able to find the 1988 P-I article about Vladimir Khazak, the Metro bus tunnel engineer, which included one of his most famous quotes:

“Had Khazak been involved in the tunnel design, he would have argued for a broader vision of the city’s future.

“”If it would be up to me to plan it, I would try and convince people that it be (a) bigger project than it is now,” he says, “bigger in the sense it should be more flexible for the future use . . . “

“Pam Hoppes, Metro’s right-of-way supervisor who has been involved in complex negotiations with property owners whose business were altered, destroyed or affected by the bus tunnel, recalls an early meeting with Khazak.

“”He looked at me,” and asked, ‘Why are we building only one tunnel?’ ” she says. ” ‘Why don’t we drill two on top of each [other] and move the Alaskan Way Viaduct under the bus tunnel?'”

http://www.seattlepi.com/archives/1988/8801130570.asp

My guess is that in 20 years, removing the viaduct will be viewed as a landmark decision in the city’s history (as was the decision to build it) and that downtown and the waterfront will be vastly improved as a result.

Share This

[acemotel]

Huindekmi, great post! It makes me cry to think of all we could have had, but not for the OBSTRUCTIONISTS. and that’s what they are. they get some kind of psychological gratification by saying no to every friggin thing. The topic doesn’t matter. The location doesn’t matter. It’s always the same. And often the same people. I have to laugh about the retired attorney who writes reams of legalese protesting every potential project in Seattle. again and again, over and over, for years and years.

I am a child of the 60s and I know protest has a very important and valuable place. But some of the protesters I am afraid have lost all credibility.

Share This

[JoB]

autumn…

someone will make a lot of taxpayer money if we do nothing and the viaduct tumbles… unfortunately, they will have to lose the lives of those they love to do so.

i lived in St Paul when the freeway bridge fell. Trust me.. it isn’t something we want to see happen here.

I was close enough to being on that bridge that day to make the hair stand up on the back of my neck…

I may have missed being on the bridge but i did watch property prices in my neighborhood fall because of the hole in commuter access to downtown Minneapolis…

We didn’t lose anyone we loved to the bridge that day.. but we did lose 50 thousand plus when we sold our house to move here :(

I will miss the viaduct.. driving it is one of my greatest pleasures.. but the other day i looked down and realized how much it cuts the waterfront off from the city. Seattle can’t become a walkable city as long as it stands….

Regardless of what we do, it won’t stand for long. The question is .. do we take it down safely with a replacement option or does it fall?

Share This

[DP]

Waterworld, thanks for your post. Based on your comments, I would say that the EIS issue is not a valid one on which to challenge the tunnel. However, I’m still a bit troubled by the way Judge Coughenour handled the case. Seems like he was taking the coward’s way out, dismissing it on a technicality.

I suppose that “showing harm” has its purpose in some cases, but really, why should a plaintiff have to show harm in cases where plaintiff claims a law relating to protecting the enviroment has been broken? If it’s determined that the law has indeed been broken, then I think the harm can be assumed.

The way I see it, as long as plaintiff lives in the Puget Sound region, it stands to reason that they will be harmed as a result of an EIS not being done, even if they can’t produce any dead fish to prove it.

Once a law is on the books, citizens should not have to go to great lengths to get government to enforce that law, should they? Otherwise, what’s the point of having the law? If the law requires the government to do an EIS for a project, and some citizens group challenges whether the requirement has been met, then all it should take is a quick phone call to get the matter settled Or an administrative hearing at most.

But it definitely shouldn’t take a lawsuit.

Perhaps this requirement to “show harm” before bringing suit is why we have such a culture of lawlessness among big-time criminals generally these days. You know, there are laws already on the books that should have prevented the BP oil spill. There are also laws on the books that should have prevented the failure of Goldman Sachs, Enron, and the rest.

Why weren’t those laws enforced? Maybe some citizens group did try to make government enforce them, but then, when the case got to court, some judge tossed it out, saying, “Show me the harm . . . “

I have to be honest with you. Considering what I’ve seen coming out of our courts lately, I don’t have a helluva a lot of faith in our legal system these days.

–David

Share This

[waterworld]

David: I don’t disagree with all of what you are saying about standing. The doctrine dates from the early twentieth century and prior to that it was easier to challenge activities that appeared to be illegal, even if you weren’t the one being hurt. I think part of the idea behind requiring plaintiffs to show some form of direct harm is to limit the courts’ reach into matters that are not necessarily causing any true controversy, and to ensure that when there is a legal fight, it will be between parties who each have something at stake. On this last point, imagine that the government was planning to eliminate all the bison in Yellowstone Park. In theory, the people in the best position to make the case about the harm that would do are people who use the park or who are involved directly in issues related to the park’s bison, as opposed to, say, an animal rights group based in Washington DC. I agree, though, that there might be more challenges to unlawful business activities if it were easier to take corporate giants to court. The bigger obstacle is always money — it costs a lot to fund those fights.

More interesting to me, in this case, though, is that the plaintiffs could have easily demonstrated standing just by framing the case a little differently. Instead of saying they have been denied “answers” and information, they could have said that aspects of the project as planned were likely to cause environmental harm of a sort that directly affect them — things like fouling the water or the air — and that the . The 2006 EIS did not address the issues. That’s what plaintiffs in most of these kinds of cases do (meaning cases challenging government action based on environmental harms), and it was surprising that these plaintiffs didn’t do that.

Finally, FWIW, Coughenour is no coward. For example, he’s one of the few judges in this country who’s had the guts to speak up about the Bush administration’s degradation of civil rights and the illegality of detention without trial in Guantanamo. My guess is that, here, the City (or County or whoever it is) raised this issue of standing, so he addressed it. Given that the plaintiff could not show standing, it would have been unconstitutional for the court to hear the case on the merits.

That nutty constitution of ours — full of technicalities!

Share This

[au]

DP (and others),

I only read your first paragraph because you said

“Waterworld…. Based on your comments, I would say that the EIS issue is not a valid one on which to challenge the tunnel.” You’re basing your opinion on someones comments and not the facts.

This is not a project to fast track. I was reading last night about tunnel fires. Horrendous.

My words can’t even say how horrible, check it out. I will never agree to and will fight to stop the tunnel project before it starts. The tunnel is a death trap. Or maybe you believe the lucrative fire safety corporations.

When are you people going to get it? Problems are created so big business’ can come in with a ‘solution’? This isn’t a new phenomenon. And it’s coming soon to Seattle.

The tunnel is NOT a solution. Doing nothing is NOT a solution. Either a elevated roadway or a surface option. Let’s get together and design and build what we really need.

Share This

[JanS]

autumn…you have offered no solutions, no plans, no links to where you get your information. So…we just take you at your word that what you say is true? Really?

And while they’re building a new elevated roadway, or just getting rid of the viaduct entirely, and putting all that traffic on surface streets…where exactly do you propose the cars go? Metro? Any environmental statements regarding the pollution from all that traffic? Where are your answers? Your solid plans?

Seems that you’re just as guilty as what you’re accusing everyone else of…it’s simply your opinion. We can disagree with something all we want, but we have to offer a planned out alternative, not some pie in the sky wish.

Share This

[au]

Tunnel fires is not an opinion. You can google tunnel fires and start reading for yourself. How many times to I have to say, don’t believe me but find out for yourself.

In case your stuck and aren’t sure where to look you could google WSDOT 2006 and onward for timeline on how this preferred option came about. Also, check out the Govn’s website 2006 and onward.

Go to http://www.publicpurpose.com and see how well

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, the main WSDOT consultants for the AWViaduct have done with other projects.

Read the article in TBM:Tunnel Business Magazine by By Gary Brierley and Thom Neff April 2010 entitled Bullshit as Applied to Tunneling projects. (not in reference to any one tunnel project)

Check out the website TunnelFacts.com.

And here’s a good site that talks about financial costs, http://www.sightline.org/research/…tunnel-projects/tunnel_report.pdf.

There is a lot of information out there but you must look beyond WSDOT’s 2010 website.

And your absolutely correct in that a planned out alternative must be offered that isn’t just some pie in the sky wish.

Share This

[JanS]

and..you understand, since you seem so vocal on this, that inquiring minds want to know what your planned out alternative is. I don’t mean just saying a surface option or an elevated option. I mean give a plan, costs, etc. – something well thought out.

I’m from the east coast, have traveled in the Holland Tunnel many, many times…I’m not scared of a tunnel. I may not be happy with them, since I’m a bit claustrophobic, but that’s another story. What does bother me is another 10 years of dickering and lawsuits, while the viaduct sits, crumbling. Can we afford to not move on with something RIGHT NOW? Can we afford the lives lost, the lawsuits to follow, if we have a quake big enough for that viaduct to fall down? Can we afford lawsuit after lawsuit until someone rules the way you want? Oh, yeah…back to my original question from quite some time ago…who is paying for these lawsuits? I certainly hope I’m not.

Share This

[DP]

autumn:

I’m afraid you haven’t helped your credibility with the Web references you included in your last post.

The first site you mentioned (publicpurpose.com) has dozens of pages, but I couldn’t find any specific references to the contractor you mentioned. I must say that I wasn’t impressed by what I found on that site generally, but if you want to get back to us with the specific page reference, I’ll read it and give you my take on it.

The second reference you listed (sightline.org) seems to be out of service.

Wanna try again? Here’s your chance.

–David

Share This

[au]

DP,

My apologies for not reading your whole post,(post #16, that is) lesson learned.

I am unbelievably frustrated by the flack dished out for wanting our government (local and state) to follow the rules of the law.

Thanks for putting it so eloquently.

Share This

[JanS]

DP…doesn’t seem like answers are forthcoming.

Yes, credibility is important.

Share This

[au]

David,

Weird. I followed the publicpurpose.com through the scatnow.com website and the sightline.org one I found when searching for tunnel info. I’ll try to find it again for you.

Okay, found it. sightline.org and then in the search, enter cost overruns….

It’s a downloadable report.

Autumn

Share This

[Author]

Posts