Why Now?

@55 I guess I expected more since my question was an honest one for anyone making the "it would gum up surface streets argument." Instead you deflect the issue and punt on the answer. Classic. Because this proposed version of the tunnel will, perversely, have the same exact effect on those surface streets.

I love that someone involved with the actual process comes in and tells it straight about how the process went, and of course the group attacks him for ignorance when he was the only one in this discussion actually involved in the actual evaluation process, and probably has far more to lose from the consequences of the viaduct project than all of us combined.

It says a lot about the movement and about all of you, really. When someone from the real world comes in and engages the group, they walk away shaking their heads at how disconnected from reality they are.

Folks I wish I could spend the day chatting with you, but I can't. The bottom line on the surface option (s) and the stakeholders group that studied it in great detail over the course of an entire year is that it simply didn't work. It is true that 6 of 30 stakeholders supported the idea, and quite frankly would have been happy if the entire city grid did get gummed up. But the other 24 of us did not.

It is one thing to have your own opinion, but to misrepresent the opinions of others is bad form.

Maybe Great City should send out a questionare, Mike McGinn can excuse himself from forming the actual questions, and from contacting himself.

Not saying you did that 52, but the political inbreeding presents its own barriers, and built in conflicts.
As an outsider, this is what it looks like to me, no matter how it really may be.

@52 -

You should really let the world know who you are, silly! Because here, it matters ;-)

And, for the record, I'm not opposed to O'Brien, I actually like him quite a bit, and have donated to his campaign.

I just don't like tolls (except on highways), and don't like the idea of paying to park at park and ride lots to ride into Seattle and keep traffic out of downtown.

@ 4, 11:

Michael, thanks for posting the link for the Transit Riders Union website...

For the record, yes, I have endorsed Mike McGinn for Mayor, and I am working with a few city council candidates in this election cycle.

This is why I excused myself from the group of steering committee members who created the candidate questionnaires, contacted the campaigns, and received the responses.

It just so happens that I know Erica and Josh, and was the one to contact Publicola as the Transit Riders Union reached out to the media about posting responses from the candidates.

It's not my fault one of them pulled my snarky comment from my e-mail, but it doesn't change the facts. :-)

By the way, we have told both the Mallahan and Hutchison campaigns that they are still free to submit a response.

@42 Timothy

The City and WSDOT will (and should) continue to look for ways to mitigate AWV structural and Seattle waterfront. Regular inspections and maintenance of the structure reduces the risk. Replacing the seawall will reduce the risk. There are likely other risk mitigation techniques with reasonable cost-benefit that might be employed.

The City and WSDOT should continue to educate the public regarding the earthquake and structural integrity risks for both the seawall and the viaduct.

I just realized my last post could be construed for a BM gone horribly awry. Ewww!!!

@48

Yeah, it does, up north of the Aurora Bridge, and they snarl traffic with a total load much lower than the AWV. The Surface option includes something like 22 stoplights through downtown Seattle.

@30 Vlado--"There just isn’t enough capacity in the few surface streets running through SODO to accommodate the 110,000 cars that use the viaduct without gumming up the whole street grid."

Presently the AWV has a pair of dowtown exits in each direction through downtown and the proposed tunnel has none. What with 40% of those 110K cars looking to leave SR99 for downtown, how in the world is the proposed tunnel NOT going to gum up those same SODO streets as well as those off SR99 just North of downtown? Personally, I have never had a problem with the idea of a tunnel, but I have to laugh when I read an elected talking about how the tunnel "benefits" Seattlites.

@43 Michael M--"They don’t want 99 through downtown to have stoplights." Why not? SR99 already has a few dozen stoplights north of downtown and a few more south of downtown. I just don't buy the idea that this proposed tunnel has any benefit for Seattle at all. If anything, it treats Seattle like an obstacle.

@46, how about north of SODO, in downtown?

Vlado @30, you state "There just isn’t enough capacity in the few surface streets running through SODO to accommodate the 110,000 cars that use the viaduct without gumming up the whole street grid."

Excuse me but the AWV "surface option" includes 6 lanes of 50 mph arterial south of King Street, that's already designed and under construction. THAT's where the AWV traffic will be in SODO, not off on the existing N/S arterial streets.

In the end, they will. They are a lot bigger than Seattle.

@43...except "they" is just a replacement for various elected officials. "They" have to follow laws, and have to pay for that which "they" want. If "they" don't adequately plan for what "they" want, then "they" might not get it.

@40 -

It doesn't matter how "viable" the surface hybrid is. The State of Washington wants a freeway to move traffic. It's a State highway. They don't want 99 through downtown to have stoplights. They win.

@37 Staceyx3...nice misdirection.

You claimed in your previous post that sensors and gates were "risk management" for the possibility of an Earthquake. That's ridiculous, and merely PR spin, not real risk managment.

As a Risk Management professional, is it your opinion that sensors and gates are an adequate management of the risk?

@39

http://www.transitriders.org/

I actually read some of the questionnaire responses, and O'Brien actually calls for making people pay to use Park and Ride lots. Ouch.

Other than that, and this tolling fiasco, he's solid on transit issues. Fortunately, just about everyone running is solid on transit issues.

@36 Vlado...

So, when you said this:

We looked at many surface options over the course of a whole year to see if they would work, and it didn’t. There just isn’t enough capacity in the few surface streets running through SODO to accommodate the 110,000 cars that use the viaduct without gumming up the whole street grid.

...you were quoting which study?

Because, in Decmeber of 2008, the three agencies put out a Statement piece that said this:

maintains the economic vitality of the city and region while reconnecting the city’s historic
waterfront with downtown. System-wide improvements maintain regional traffic flows even with
expected population growth. Source

So, the agencies, with input from the Stakeholder group, concluded that the Surface Hybrid was viable. Right? Can you dispute that? Can you show me anywhere that the agencies tasked with studying the Surface hybrid concluded that it wasn't viable?

You then state:

At that point there was a bit of revolt by the stakeholders, and almost all stated that the bored tunnel needed to remain on the table as an option.

...ah, but wait! That same document? The one I link to above? It says this:

The bored tunnel was not carried forward due to its high cost. However, it does have advantages associated with avoiding some of the construction on the central waterfront. The agencies will continue to investigate the costs of the bored tunnel as a future project that could be constructed if the I-5/surface/transit hybrid alternative is agreed upon.

So, it wasn't a revolt from the Stakeholders group, though I understand that Agnew and Cascadia did furious work behind the scenes. The Stakeholder group suggested further study.

So, to summarize:

1) WSDOT, SDOT & KCDOT decide to move forward with the Surface Hybrid or Elevated Hybrid, keeping the option to study the DBT as a backup option if the Surface option is chosen.

2) Less than 1-month later, a month that includes the Holiday season, that is all scrapped completely and the DBT becomes the preferred alternative.

3) At no time has any study concluded that the Surface Hybrid is not viable.

4) The Stakeholder group did not recommend the DBT, because the agencies concluded that the costs were prohibitive.

Right?

Does Transit Riders Union have a website?

I'm with the people who are saying that if the viaduct is so dangerous, we ought to tear it down right away. The tunnel will take too long to build, look at Brightwater with boring machines, stuck underground for who knows how long. That is not the way to go.

@29 Timothy

We're discussing risk management not PR. I make a pretty decent living actively managing primarily technology related risk.

Rarely is it possible to eliminate all risk, and even when you can the costs (tanglible, intangible, and opportunity) to eliminate risk are usually prohibitive.

If we close the AWV while there's replacement what's the economic opportunity cost? Is that cost of closing AWV reasonable in light of the probability and likely losses of an earthquake? (proably not) Is it worth finding less costly ways to reduce the risks even if it doesn't eliminate all of the risk? (yes)

Leaving my house today has inherent risks. The opportunity cost of my not going to work is considerably higher than the true cost of the risks (financial cost of adverse event x probability of that event). I can partially mitigate some of the financial aspects of some of the risks by buying insurance and modifying behavior but I can't fully eliminate it.

I manage to live my life anyway, even with the associated risk.

Nice try on your post Tim, but I think your logic is flawed.

@35 I'm not trying to spin anything, Timothy, I'm just explaining what really happened in the stakeholder process. You are correct that we were told in Dec. 2008 that the surface and elevated rebuild options were going to be the only two taken any further, with no explanation of why. At that point there was a bit of revolt by the stakeholders, and almost all stated that the bored tunnel needed to remain on the table as an option. In fact the bored tunnel option was never seriously considered until the stakeholders made a very strong endorsement to study it further. I'm not sure what the opposite of a "fix" is, but you could say that the bored tunnel was in that category. The Publicola piece that stated that it was there was a "fix" couldn't be more removed from reality. In fact is was a "third way" that emerged out of the stakeholder process.

@30 Vlado...

Trying to answer spin with spin? If you were a stakeholder, then you'd understand the stakeholder group didn't recommend anything (surface OR tunnel). The 3 transportation agencies made the recommendations.

Early in December of 2008, the three groups recommended either a the Surface hybrid or a rebuild. The bored tunnel was to be studied for potential use in the future if one of the preferred options wasn't viable; they clearly felt in early December 2008 that the bored tunnel was much too expensive.

So, if the three transportation agencies recommended a surface hybrid solution in December of 2008, when did they conclude that it wasn't viable?

@33 The Seattle Great City Initiative is a good idea, but it needs to get to a more sophisticated understanding of what a city is. The logo on the GC website (www.greatcity.org) shows a great big empty boulevard with lots of trees and happy people doing headstands etc in it. Where are the buildings, vehicles, industry that make the city work? Not there. GC needs to understand that a city is an incredibly complex organic assembly of component parts that make up the city, not just two or three precious pieces of the whole.

who needs facts when you have a (pipe) dream...

"density + livability = sustainability"
(Seattle Great City Initiative)

It could also fund replacement of the waterfront streetcar as mitigation for tearing out the existing track, as well as transit service during construction.

"Could", and "during construction"

Depends on the state agreeing, and temporary transit is temporary transit and not a perminent transit solution.
How about being honest about that perminent transit cost there. It is not going to be on the state's dime.

The state is obligated to ripping down the old and hauling it away, and building a replacement for the state's road, and that is it.
That might cost less under the surface option, but to assume you could use the rest is wishful thinking. 400 million of that derived from tolling, what would you toll? Is that everywhere?

@30

Since when have McGinniacs relied on facts? ;-)

@27 Transpo guy: Out of 30 stateholders, only 6 supported the surface option, and they did so because of ideological reasons. In fact it was the least supported option, after the bored tunnel + transit solution (which was the ultimate choice) and the rebuild option. I was one of the stakeholders, so I say this from having been in the middle of the long and informative public process. Please stop saying things that are simply not factual. We looked at many surface options over the course of a whole year to see if they would work, and it didn't. There just isn't enough capacity in the few surface streets running through SODO to accommodate the 110,000 cars that use the viaduct without gumming up the whole street grid.

@25 Staceyx3...

You think the risk of an earthquake will be "managed." :-)

You really think sensors and gates, etc, will be effective deterrents against an earthquake and the Viaduct? :-)

What about those cars that are already past the gates? :-)

What about the people under the viaduct? :-)

Can you point me to any system in the world that has been effective in predicting earthquakes? :-)

This "management" of the earthquake is PR at its very worst.

@22 Mr. Baker...

I refer here to 2 points.

1) $2.4 Billion could be better spent on more effective solutions to moving people and goods.

2) I'm in the camp that believes this project will cost more than $2.4 billion.

Choosing the most expensive and most complicated solution with the least bang for the buck is certainly an opportunity cost relative to how we could be spending the money.

The Viaduct stakeholder group majority recommended proceeding with surface/transit while studying a tunnel because of the need to tear down the existing structure as soon as possible to avoid this scenario in the video. The WSDOT/Gregoire/Mallahan tunnel plan delays tearing down the viaduct while we take forever building a tunnel like one never built anywhere in the world. In other words, the tunnel now plan is the most dangerous to Seattle residents and infrastructure.

Oh, and by the way, the state constitution would allow gas tax revenue to be used to tear down the Viaduct and rebuild the Alaska Way surface street. It could also fund replacement of the waterfront streetcar as mitigation for tearing out the existing track, as well as transit service during construction.

Is it normal for state agencies to release public disclosure requests as press releases?

Is it legal for WSDOT to be campaigning?

smelly.

@18 Timothy

What the video and the $15,000 average house cost per household have in common is that they're both worst case scenarios and neither is likely to happen. Over emphasizing either argument - the impending collapse of the viaduct/seawall or the impending astronomical cost overruns, is not intellectually honest.

Both represent risks that will be managed. An automated system of sensors, signs and gates that would allow the AWV to be closed quickly in the event of seismic activity is one example of steps to mitigate (reduce) earthquake related risk. Budgeting 30% contingencies is one example of steps to manage cost related risks.

I would think that WSDOT also gave that video to SCAT. Why didn't SCAT spoonfeed that to Erica too? Why not then, Josh?

@20/21

W.
T.
F.
?

The structure that has the highest amount of traffic that is in the worst shape is the AWV. Spokane Street is also shitty, but not as bad as AWV, and without the load of cars.

I haven't heard of any issues with the West Seattle Bridge, or with the Aurora Bridge, both of which are completely different structures, both newer (if memory serves, but I could be wrong re: Auroroa), and both on completely different types of earth.

As for buildings - there has been massive amounts of retrofitting older buildings that would not stand an earthquake of any significant magnitude (ie: Pioneer Square). However, any major earthquake is not going to turn Seattle into rubble. We're not Tehran.

@18,

Costs are costs, and if they aren’t being spent on the tunnel, they may be available for a myriad of other projects.

That is simply not true.

The State's tunnel is being paid for with the State's gas tax fund.
It can be used for a state road, that is it.

we need a video that would show the impact of the same earthquake on all of us all over Seattle. Yes, replace the seawall, of course, but if we are going to spend billions on "protecting ourselves if there is a big earthquake" I'd say we should build health clinics and staff them in all neighborhoods because really, it will be our Katrina, and the Earthquake God has made no promise to single out the AWV or the DBT at the focal point of any Big One.

What's the use of an intact highway if the rest of our city is rubble?

IF we have a big one and the Viaduct falls, so we need a DBT, you see, does this really make sense?

everything else will be rubble, we won't be able to drive TO the DBT, we will be dying in our diconnected neighborhoods.

So why is it so important to replace the Viaduct with earthquake proof DBT but NOT replace half of our buildings and replace the Aurora Bridge the Fremont Bridge the University Bridge the slabs o I5 that will be akilter the West Seattle Bridge....in general, we will all be trying to crawl off our hill to get to the hospitals but there will be no way to do it and having a DBT that's intact ain't gonna help you get from Mt. Baker or Queen Anne or WS or Ballard to Harborview. You might be able to crawl to the DBT for shelter and that's about it.

I had trouble with the first link, but found the simulation here (another link in the fizz):

http://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/

@15, Yes, without the smoke and fire this is a major catastrophe. The seawall collapse alone would be a major disaster.

But I'm not sure how this helps or hurts either mayoral candidate, except perhaps that Mallahan does repeat the need for the seawall replacement most times the viaduct is addressed in debates or forums. But both definitely acknowledge that the viaduct needs to be taken down as soon as possible.

I thought that Saturday's debate was a toss-up. Both had good and awkward moments. Superficially, they both are way unpolished. Mallahan has a knack for verbal snafus interspersed with well rehearsed talking points - when he's off script he's a little wild. McGinn's answers tend to drone on and he has an annoying habit of starting every remark with "umm".

@8 Staceyx3...

As you've pointed out, we're mostly insiders here at Publicola.

So, let's talk about the scare tactics a bit.

Isn't it true, outside the general perception that a vote for Mallahan is a vote to move forward on removing the viaduct, that the tunnel option is actually one of the most dangerous options, because it leaves the Viaduct standing and in use for the longest period of time?

As for knowing the costs of the tunnel replacement...that's a scare tactic? Costs are costs, and if they aren't being spent on the tunnel, they may be available for a myriad of other projects. Right now, nobody thinks they are paying for the tunnel. They all essentially think it's free, and that the costs will have no impact on them. I don't think it's a scare tactic to try to explain to voters what the tunnel will actually cost them. Do you have a better suggest on how to portray those costs?

If there's any truth at all in the WSDOT video of the Viaduct and seawall collapsing, then the only respondible thing is to close the Viaduct down RIGHT NOW.

I know I will never drive on it again, and will so advise my family.

The second I seen that "Viaduct comes down" film I thought to myself:

Well, the DOT really wants to make sure it gets it's money no matter what.

I think that video shows that it wouldn't be that bad. The viaduct was designed post 1960's earthquake with the specific purpose of if "the big one hits" only individual sections will come down. I think at the end of the video they grossly exaggerate how many would fall. Take the fire and smoke out and does it really look that bad?

I know Publicola is as biased in favor of its endorsed candidates as the Stranger, but I find it odd you have never reported how "all anyone should need in Seattle is a bus and a bike" candidate Mike O'Brien is 0-2 in endorsements from the Transit Union in this election. ATU went with Miller in the primary and Rosencrantz in the general.

@8

Full circle? Perhaps, but I didn't realize that WSDOT was authorized to campaign for Mallahan. That's not one of the traits I look for in a public agency.

Did you report on this:

The attorney for an injured former Seattle firefighter who won a $12.75 million jury verdict this week claims the city badly mishandled the case.

I believe this is the biggest verdict ever against the city but certainly the biggest in recent memory.

@4 - Yes, Michael is a McGinn supporter, and tunnel opponent, but he is actually a good guy, and would not say there was ample time to respond if there wasn't.

@6 - Exactly. And IMHO, Mallahan edged on debate three, and won debate two (McGinn was getting pissed at debate two). I haven't seen debate one, and have heard Mallahan sucked, and have heard it was a tie (which, again, IMO, is a win for McGinn).

@3 - Yes, agreed. That was certainly the case for me (and probably contributed to my comparison). What was interesting to me is that these people, while definitely "progressive", fell into the "undecided" category that will be deciding this election. I wonder how many of those undecideds are actually watching these debates...

@5,

Link working on this end ... ? Anyone else having trouble with the WSDOT link?

Will try to get those numbers. I've heard that too.

Now we have scare tactics being used on both sides of the AWV debate.

Those against moving forward with the current plan using the threat of astronomical cost overruns and warning Seattle homeowners to each expect an $15,000 bill (leaving the impression that it will be due upon receipt).

Those in favor of moving forward the current plan using the WSDOT video showing the effect of a quake on the AWV infrastructure before replacement.

The circle is complete.

I'm a bastard. I come down here to Seattle, and act like a jackass nine times out of ten, but in all reality, I consider my hometown to be Everett.

Sure, I was born at Group Health on Capitol Hill, but I use that as an excuse for the limp wrist.

To the point -

In Everett, we have Everett Transit that serves the city proper, and Community Transit that makes a stop here and there in the city (and used to make more, until a pissing match back in 2001ish), but otherwise serves the rest of Snohomish County. There is also Sound Transit, which predominately goes from Park and Ride lots to Downtown Seattle and the Eastside, as well as the Sounder trains.

There were more than a few occasions where people would call for a merger of Everett Transit and Community Transit. Why? Each agency had their own hierarchy of administration, most of which would be duplicated admin in a single agency, thus freeing up hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more) for more routes.

In addition, the two agencies don't really coordinate for shit, which led to duplicate bus lines for the longest time, and now has long waits for transfers between the two agencies.

There are two forces keeping this merger from happening. One - people in Everett like Everett Transit. They like to keep control over their routes, and fear decreased service were there to be a merger. There's also a minor tax issue, if memory serves, in that sales taxes in the city proper would rise by .1% if CT were to take over ET. (Everett is quirky, though - Rubatino Refuse Removal does garbage pickup in Everett, while Waste Management covers everything else in the County).

The other factor - Amalgamated Transit Union. There are two different contracts in effect (and I believe two different locals), and each one has things that are better than the other, and neither side wants to give up any of their perks.

Mr. Rosencrantz actually has a great idea here. We have, between Pierce, King, Snohomish and Kitsap Counties, NINE different (at least) transit agencies operating (CT, ET, Metro, ST, Pierce Transit, Kitsap Transit, WSF, SLUT and Monorail).

Focusing on the first seven (ie: the ones that actually do anything good) - that's seven different sets of overhead, and seven different agencies that suck at talking to each other. Focusing on the first five, that's five agencies that could and should be morphed into one agency, covering Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties.

That would allow for more buses, better connections, real coordination of transit alternatives in the three counties, and a better shot at actual communication between our transit agencies and WSF, so we could do a better job of moving passengers from the ferries to their jobs in Seattle.

That's just my opinion, of course. It makes fiscal sense, makes a more efficient system, and provides for additional bus service. YAY! for more buses and better connections!!!

We see what we want to see.

And Josh wins the thread by describing basically every piece of political commentary ever.

Your WSDOT link is bad.

Dow Constantine's campaign sent an email to supporters late last week stating that their most recent poll showed him ahead of Hutchison. Can you get the data on this?

The same Michael Taylor-Judd - Citizen Activist, Member, 34th District Democrats Executive Board
http://mcginnformayor.com/endorsements/

Did he spin around in his chair, or just the hat?

@2,

We see what we want to see. A carpool mate, a Mallahan voter, gave Mallahan the slight edge.

I haven't watched the debate yet.

Here's the Seattle Times' report.

I watched the debate with a group of people Saturday night, many of whom were undecided. After we turned off the TV, there was a moment of stunned silence. Then, one by one, they expressed their incredulity that Joe Mallahan was even a candidate. It was like watching karaoke at a bar - you've got one person who brings down the house with a Frank Sinatra tune (and was probably a professional singer at some point), and then some drunk gets up on stage and butchers "I Will Survive". The difference, of course, is that the drunk could be running our city. *shiver*

I understand that the viaduct video records request was part of the discovery in the lawsuit filed by Elizbeth Campbell.