This op/ed was written by city council president Richard Conlin, and does not represent the views of PubliCola’s editorial board, whose members do not support the deep-bore tunnel. Today’s Seattle Times op/ed by Mayor McGinn raising concerns about cost overruns is here, and this week’s Stranger feature story elaborating on McGinn’s concerns is here.
Rarely does a major US city have the opportunity to radically transform a space as significant as Seattle’s downtown waterfront. The tunnel replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct creates the opportunity to create an extraordinary waterfront park, improve a major transportation corridor, and prevent a potential seismic disaster—all at the same time—with billions of gas tax dollars from the State of Washington.
If you’ve ever visited New York City, San Francisco, Boston, or Chicago, you’ve experienced the positive impact such a waterfront space can have. This is no small event in our municipal history.
That’s why the Seattle City Council is working closely with the Port of Seattle, local community, environmental, labor, and business leaders, King County, the federal government, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and Gov. Chris Gregoire to complete what is now an 11-year regional collaboration. The process has been exhaustive and the hard work ahead is about doing things well, not deciding what to do.
In a time of economic hardship, the viaduct replacement will create jobs and new opportunities for local businesses. Construction workers can get to work replacing an unsafe and aging structure, upgrading an important regional mobility corridor, and improving pedestrian and bicycle experiences. Freight that travels north and south through the city will have a secure corridor and will not have to depend on surface streets. Waterfront businesses will have the chance to thrive in a whole new environment as the viaduct comes down and the waterfront park is developed.
By removing the 110,000 cars that travel through Seattle on SR 99 from our waterfront, we also create the opportunity for better connections between downtown and the waterfront, integrate those two neighborhoods, and open up the waterfront to better public access. That’s good for tourism, our business community, and residents seeking a more livable city.
Much ado has been made about a state legislative provision saying that costs in excess of $2.8 billion will be paid by “property owners in the Seattle area”. No city council member supports a policy shift that would force Seattle property owners or local municipalities to pay cost overruns on a project managed by the state.
The Seattle City Attorney and legal professionals have clearly stated that this vague and unprecedented language is legally unenforceable. The legislature would have to take additional steps that have no precedent in state history to actually figure out how to charge a local government or property owners. Such steps would be vigorously opposed by all local governments around the state—and the work that the council is doing to develop regional and statewide partnerships positions us well to work effectively with these allies. Frankly, the issue serves only as a way to alarm and divide Seattleites.
Let’s remember, State Route 99 (SR99) is a state highway. Governor Gregoire and state legislators acknowledge that the tunnel will be paid for by the state. In fact, the state has invested $2.4 billion in gas tax money, plans to invest $400 million from tolls, and has included $415 million of contingency, risk, and escalation allowance in their project budget to cover any potential problems.
No one can with a straight face assure you that any project is guaranteed to come in on budget. However, WSDOT’s nationally recognized cost estimating process has proven that it can accurately project costs. Between March 1, 2009 and February 28, 2010, WSDOT awarded a total of 172 projects. The average amount below the estimate for these 172 projects was 23.8 percent. With design-build projects added in, there were 177 projects that came in a total of 27.3% below estimates.. The successful bidder for the southern portion of the viaduct replacement came in 25% under the engineering estimate.
Similarly, the Sound Transit tunnel from downtown to the University District – twice as long as the SR 99 tunnel and crossing of the Ship Canal – came in 20% below the $395 million engineering estimate. The assumption that this project will exceed its budget has no foundation in fact.
The type of contract provides further assurances. The tunneling contract is a “design-build” contract, which involves the contractor at the earliest stages of design, thereby preventing costly miscommunications later. This might have prevented some of the complications with King County’s Brightwater project, which went over budget when the county moved the location of the facility. The tunnel contract will also include provisions that make the contractor responsible for completing the project within the initial bid price.
Finally, the winning contractor will be required to carry seven different kinds of commercial liability insurance and to post an ample performance bond, used to ensure that the state can finish the job even if the contractor should go bankrupt before work is completed. The $500 million performance bond is sized based on an analysis done by WSDOT and approved by the State Office of Financial Management, which concluded that it will cover 100% of the risk on the project.
The city of Seattle is also working to protect the collective interests of residents and taxpayers and has its own set of measures. We are now reviewing the agreements between WSDOT and Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle City Light, and Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) that delineate responsibilities for the relocation of utilities and the use of Seattle rights-of-way. Council staff and our consultants are working through several issues to strengthen the agreements and ensure that the city’s interests are protected. The council has also hired legal, transportation, and engineering consultants to enhance our own review of the agreements between WSDOT and the city. The council is meeting on a weekly basis to monitor progress of those negotiations and will begin our consideration of legislation formalizing those agreements in mid-July.
It takes two parties to agree to a contract, and we are currently working closely with WSDOT to find language that protects the city and is workable for the state.
In addition, the council has formed or is participating in a number of oversight bodies, including:
• Special Committee on the Alaskan Way Viaduct Seawall Replacement Project and Central Waterfront Planning (Council oversight)
• Central Waterfront Partnerships Committee (Citizen involvement)
• Governor’s Project Oversight Committee (Technical and regional monitoring)
• Three working groups specifically focused on technical issues around the North Portal, South Portal, and Central Waterfront
Additional information about these entities, their roles, and meetings can be found here.
I’m personally looking forward to the day when we are collectively focused on the design of our new waterfront and the benefits that a $2.8 billion state investment will provide to the center of our city – a revitalized waterfront, improved transportation infrastructure, better connections for bikes and pedestrians between the waterfront and downtown, and new businesses and points of interest for residents to visit.
Until then, the council and the region have a lot of work ahead in our collaboration with the state to complete this project. As your city council, we are making it our first priority to protect the interests we all share as citizens and taxpayers in Seattle. We will continue our due diligence and oversight for the best possible outcome for Seattle. The results will be a safe corridor, environmental improvements, a bustling economy, and a magnificent Seattle waterfront for all.
Tweet
But wait: the ST U-link tunnel hasn't been built yet! In fact, the tunneling portion hasn't even been started. So what if the low bids were below the engineering estimates?
Just yesterday the Seattle Times reported that the Brightwater tunnels are $200+ over budget. That's a figure that does NOT factor in the re-alignment. If you factor in the re-alignment, which happened at a very early stage, the project has ballooned from something like $880 million (when it was first approved) to $1,880 million and counting, where it is today.
That's $200 MILLION for Brightwater. My bad.
cf. Tea Pot Dome:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAteapot.htm
If an overun is so unlikely, why won't the State of Washington take responsibility for it? I'll bet that the State Legislature refuses to do so precisely because they believe it will overrun the budget.
If you're so sure that the language is unenforceable, why are you so unwilling to codify on the local level that the Council actively rejects Seattle being on the hook, in formal–Council–process?
What are you afraid of, beside getting re-elected?
This might have prevented some of the complications with King County’s Brightwater project, which went over budget when the county moved the location of the facility. .
Gee I thought the two boring machines breaking down and the sink holes had something to do with it.
The average amount below the estimate for these 172 projects was 23.8 percent. With design-build projects added in, there were 177 projects that came in a total of 27.3% below estimates...
How many of these projects included a tunnel that is the biggest ever bored?
Such steps would be vigorously opposed by all local governments around the state—and the work that the council is doing to develop regional and statewide partnerships positions us well to work effectively with these allies. .
I forgot how much everybody around the state loves us.
The tunneling contract is a “design-build” contract, which involves the contractor at the earliest stages of design, thereby preventing costly miscommunications later. .
Really, the earliest stages? So who is the contractor? They must be chosen because we already have final numbers.
I don't seem to remember you thinking DB was such a good deal when the monorail used it.
By the way, how's that legally-required BEFORE a solution is chosen Environmental Impact Study going, Mr. Conlin? You do realize that without it, the Campbell woman is going to successfully sue the pants off your Council and the City.
The same way one little Magnolia community group obliterated the City and Tom Carr in court when you guys failed to do that same Environmental Impact Study about the low-income housing in Fort Lawton. Do you remember that one? I'm sure that you do.
Precedent, sir. It's already against you, and even you can't bull rush your way through our legal system. You're as much of a nobody there as the rest of us are, in the discussion as you've tried unsuccessfully to frame it so far.
The answer to your question is simple (and seldom uttered): Frank Chopp. He doesn't want the tunnel. He wants the “great wall of Chopp” (or sometimes called the Choppoduct). The whole (cost) overrun thing is a trick planted by those that don't want Seattle to have nice things. The mayor, who only wants things for Seattle that have to do with bikes, has happily picked up on this Chopp trick too.
Why attack political people with the old “are you afraid of losing your job”. The answer is yes. Do you have a job? Are you afraid of losing it? ..bloody well should be.
OK that aside, what *exactly* do you mean by “codify”? A “resolution” perhaps? …it's as legally pointless as the cost overrun provision is. Might as such a resolution look politically good? I suppose it might, but then the tunnelophobes/mayor would just shift the fight. Peter Holmes, who is a proper legal force in this, says that the overrun trick isn't enforceable. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2...) Is that enough for you? …no, I suspected not.
Because short of doing every little thing — including spreading every little iota of dissension about them to work against their re-election — constituents have no other resource. That's how the political system works. They serve at our pleasure, etc.
And yes, a local law that opposes it would be enough. Anything. I support and like Conlin so far except for this issue. A binding resolution that the city would fight (including legal recourse) to ensure that city residents aren't on the hook. Any city resident willing to live with that albatross around our necks is a fool.
It's good to see that Publicola Urbanists,are much better versed on the law and representing the city then the city attorney himself. Hell, why have a city attorney at all, that being the case? We could do civic engineering using consensus process and co-counseling while were at it.
Mr. Conlin:
This…”Between March 1, 2009 and February 28, 2010, WSDOT awarded a total of 172 projects. The average amount below the estimate for these 172 projects was 23.8 percent. With design-build projects added in, there were 177 projects that came in a total of 27.3% below estimates.. The successful bidder for the southern portion of the viaduct replacement came in 25% under the engineering estimate.”
…has nothing to do with a deep bore tunnel through liquefaction-prone soils, on a utility-entangled waterfront, under 25 feet of fresh/saltwater transition zone aquifer. Clearly you know little or nothing about the hydrodynamics of these soils. I cannot believe how it is that petty bureaucrats are actually given free reign to pass on the costs of inane boondoggles to homeowners that are barely able to pay their property taxes as it is.
Mark my words here…this project will come in at $8 billion when all is said and done.
This project will make Boston's BigDig look like a piggybank robbery. Spend the 8 billion that this project will really cost on repairing I-5.
Blah blah wah wah wah. Conlin is dead on. The City of Seattle is not liable for cost overruns for a state project under any coherent legal analysis. It does not take and should not require any action by the city council or the legislature to affirm this. McGinn's reliance on this single note just makes him look disingenuous. Heck, let's call it what it is, he is lying to people of Seattle.
Thank you for your leadership Mr. Conlin.
Perhaps you should read Dominic's article over at the Stranger. Forget about the stupid provision in the bill. The provision is one of only about a dozen ways that the city can end up on the hook for cost overruns, and the state will have plenty of ability to leverage dollars out of Seattle after we sign on the dotted line. That's the real worry.
I just read Dominic's article. His article contains many clever turns of phrase, but mostly appears to be drug induced fantasy masking as actual reporting.
I realize some people like that. Free country. I suppose we could all pretend it is credible.
That is one hellofa disclaimer, Josh.
Maybe you should adopt what SeaTimes did with McSandbag and just say “guest”.
After reading this, the op-ed, and the Stranger:
A)I am tired of tunnels
B) I think Conlin sounds out of touch.
I want the tunnel, but I don't want the overruns…WHY CAN'T HE SAY THAT. Why is a Senator from Puyallup being more honest with Seattle than our city council???
Leadership towards what? A bankrupt city? Complete auto-dependency in an era where gas prices continue to rise (along with our sea levels)? A transportation system that only works for those who can afford it? A 12 lane freeway dumping tens of thousands of cars into Pioneer Square and clogging the waterfront with traffic (yes, WSDOT's studies show the DBT will put MORE traffic on the water front than the I-5-Surface-Transit alternative)?
Clever turns of phrase like, “By removing the 110,000 cars that travel through Seattle on SR 99 from our waterfront, we also create the opportunity for better connections between downtown and the waterfront, integrate those two neighborhoods, and open up the waterfront to better public access.” WSDOT's own studies show that because of diversion from the tolls on the tunnel the DBT will put MORE cars on the waterfront than the I-5-Surface-Transit alternative. Please stop using the “it will open up the waterfront” argument; it's one giant lie.
You could just as easily be describing the Surface option.
I think assuming that the law is not actually the law is a good way to go about budgeting, too. I say throw caution to the wind! I'll open my wallet and pour it all over the boring machines once they get stuck…who will join me?
The interesting thing is that Conlin was one of the original group that proposed the surface option that McGinn continues to push. To his credit he accepted that despite all efforts, this alternative was simply unworkable.
Publicola continues to be clubhouse of those who still believe the world is flat, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Mr Conlin's assurances make me more nervous. First, he uses a very brief period of time when talking about bids coming in below estimates. The time frame he uses is when the bottom has fallen out of the construction industry, and companies are desperate for work. So they cut their prices and also material prices have dropped.
Second, he ignores the soil issues.
Third, he ignores the contingency plan concerns.
Fourth, there's no discussion of mobility for people who want to go into downtown, not just through it. He talks about opening up the waterfront, but where are the corridors for people who currently exit at Western and at Seneca, and who enter at Western and Columbia? Some of those trips will no longer be made: people will go to a local farmer market instead of Pike Place Market, they will go to a mall instead of downtown to shop, their business will relocate, etc. But what about everyone else?
The soils issue is a very big one. The Brightwater tunnel is a good example because it is being dug in very similar soil. In that project two of 4 machines got stuck and one is still stuck. The bonding for the waterfront tunnel doesn't cover the extra digging required to dig up a stuck tunnelling machine and fix it. And clearly it should. That means the contractor could go broke and we the people of Washington (state or city) will be left with the tab to fix it.
Still digging a 2 to 4 to 8 Billion dollar tunnel is a poor use of limited funds. In case anyone has noticed we are in a major recession/depression. Putting people to work is a good idea, but lets build something that will move our city into a post oil dependent world. Build out more LINK lines to Ballard and West Seattle. Tear down the viaduct, replace the sea wall. If that still isn't enough transportation, then dig the d*m tunnel. But I bet after we do the smart things first, we won't want this tunnel anymore.
That's bullshit. The fact is that Seattle is very unpopular in the State Legislature. While it is true that Speaker Chopp did not want the tunnel, those who felt it was in the best interest of not only the city, but the region, had to find a way to get votes. Rep. Clibborn knew that, in order to get the votes on the floor, something would need to be done to make it seem that Seattle would be on the hook, hence the unenforceable language.
This allowed legislators in rural districts, and districts that have a dislike of Seattle, and believe we get all kinds of state money, to vote for this project.
It's called politics, plain and simple.
If that happens, then the legislature may very well go back and kill the whole project, and then we're stuck with a viaduct that is poised to fall down.
I forgot how much everybody around the state loves us.
On this particular issue, the support wouldn't be because everyone loves us, but because no local government wants precedent set that the State can push State project overruns on local governments.
“State Office of Financial Management, which concluded that it will cover 100% of the risk on the project” Really? That directly contridicts the Stranger piece, which went into fine detail about each piece of what the bond would cover. Can you give us a reference telling us exactly who at the OFM said it would cover “100% of the risk”? I'd love to ask them for their figures.
The viaduct has to come down anyway.
We're CURRENTLY stuck with a viaduct that is poised to fall down… and the bored tunnel proposal is not the only workable solution for replacing it.
You're right. There are two options. A new viaduct, or the tunnel. A new viaduct would increase capacity, and do little to nothing to encourage other transit options. A tunnel reduces capacity, and encourages, through $15mm/year in increased transit funding from the County, alternatives to driving.
Here is another inaccuracy to add to the mix. The oversight bodies he names are not what he portrays. The Central Waterfront Partnership Committee is specifically NOT about the tunnel. One of the ground rules of the group is that we do not talk about the tunnel project. Our scope is planning of the City's waterfront. Not WSDOT's tunnel. Claiming we're doing tunnel oversight is wild.
Second, the three groups doing oversight of the north portal, south portal, and central section? They are lay people, not experts. Questions about impacts to Seattle are stifled, challenges are put off; the communication is generally one-way and highly filtered.
It doesn't actually matter if this particular provision is legally enforceable, though, does it?
The problem is that the Legislature has been very clear that they don't want to pay for cost overruns. And we can barely get them to agree on anything important.
These are the folks we have to work with to get other legislative priorities passed in the city's favor. These are the folks we have to work with to get funding approved for other projects in Seattle.
It is simply not good leadership to throw up one's hands and hope that it will all be resolved, that there won't be any cost overruns, or that we're engaged in some elaborate poker game and the Legislature is bluffing.
Whether or not the overrun clause is enforceable is not the point. The state will make Seattle pay one way or another. See Nick Licata's cogent summary at http://licata.seattle.gov/2010/06/07/tunnel-costs/ (Synopsis–Huge overrun, Seattle refuses to pay, clause not enforceable, state takes money out of other pieces of project, like wonderful waterfront “park” or reconnection of grid around Mercer.)
The quality of the people doing the design makes one hell of a difference on the actually quality of the product – and the folks that use it.
FWIW, the “String of Pearls” effort at preserving access to Lake Washington makes that a much more desirable waterfront than Downtown Seattle could ever be given it's current political dynamic.
Not only were the involved individuals orders of magnitude better people than the downtown crew, they work one hell of a lot cheaper!
I'm just glad we have a complete statement from the source and not pieced together quotes out of context by people looking to bury your side of the story. Thanks for the input, Mr. Conlin!
His measured leadership beats the hell out of routine histrionics like your response.
I am confused on the background to this. In 2007, in a direct democratic action, Seattle voters clearly said 'no' to both a tunnel and a Viaduct refurbishment. Can anyone tell me what happened in between that said our representatives should support something clearly not endorsed by the people? I just don't know, so I'd like somebody to give me the facts.
Also, it's interesting that the people again voted in a similar direction by electing somebody who at first didn't want the tunnel and then secondly tried his damnedest to at least deliberate on it (and yes, one could view that as stalling) and Mr. Conlin wants to evade and fortune-tell. Ultimately, perhaps the tunnel is the best option–even though I find that hard to believe when it eliminates exits to downtown–but saying that we should not deliberate cost-overruns on an experimental and expensive construction project is just as alarming and dividing.
Can we quit citing a single ill-fated tunneling project several counties away like it represents all tunneling projects and like it's the exact same thing as the two projects here in Seattle? If you're going to attack tunnel projects in general, try citing a few different examples (well, besides the obvious Big Dig) instead of just one. You've certainly got multiple references out there. This is just a lazy, tired rebuttal.
I know MM but I was referring more to “the council is doing to develop regional and statewide partnerships positions us well to work effectively with these allies.
Maybe they will work with us because of your argument but they aren't our allies.
I'm sick of the bull he slings.
OK–if we are stopping giant lies, lets stop pretending that there is a snowball's chance in hell that there would ever be ongoing state funding for transit in a so-called surface/transit option.
ooooh, that's right. Snohomish is a TOTALLY different county. That makes me feel a lot better. There must be a giant, cost-overun-prevention cloud that stops at the county line.
So, what about the peer-reviewed study the Mayor often points to, which examined dozens of mega projects and found that 90% went over? Were those all in other counties, too?
Call Steve Pool, it's a fiscal convergence zone!
There are more options than just viaduct 2.0 and the tunnel. Some are even more economical and better long-term for the region.
The tunnel vote was advisory and therefore (debatably) not legally binding. To make the tunnel look like it was supported by the people a “stakeholder” committee was convened that approved of it. But in the end, unless and until we vote out the tunnel lovers they have the power to make whatever decisions they wish on our behalf (such is the nature of representative democracy).
In imaginationland, sure. But there is going to be a highway there, and that means either an elevated structure, four lanes in each direction, or a tunnel, two lanes in each direction.
As has been stated, ad naseum, this is a State highway, and the State, through legislators in the region, has no interest whatsoever in the surface street “option”. It has been made very clear by the State Legislature and the Governor's office that the State will not pay for anything that has to do with the surface street “option”.
The tunnel gives us the re-connection of downtown and the waterfront, a more transit friendly and encouraging highway, and, almost as important (if not more so) funding of the project from the State.
The surface street option would put Seattle on the hook for billions of dollars. The tunnel puts Seattle on the hook for $900mm. It's clear which one is better for Seattle taxpayers.
Ahhh, different parts of the sentence
.
I do hope, however, that Council President Conlin, and the rest of the City Council, are really following through and working to create alliances and partnerships with other cities and governments. We've been in our own little bubble for so long, it's no wonder Olympia isn't our best friend.
I will say that I have seen positive signs very recently. I can't recall specifics, but something about Seattle working with Shoreline on something that's mutually beneficial, but not in the “Seattle is super smart and we know everything so listen to us” way.
I hope we can keep that up.
I especially loved the “…editorial board, who's members do not support the deep-bore tunnel.” Two person “boards” are the best!
not “debatably”. It was not legally binding at all.
And that was a completely different tunnel. That was the cut-and-cover, which included a major, years-long shutdown of the highway. Comparing the current tunnel proposal to the one that was voted down by the advisory vote is comparing apples to oranges.
“It's clear which one is better for Seattle taxpayers. “
The one where the cost is evenly distributed at the state level, with nothing that's the equivalent of a bill of attainder on one single community.
Seattle has 617,000+ residents. Washington state has 6,660,000+ residents. All six million are due the burden, not just us, the same as it is for any state route. Or why should I pay for cost overruns on a state route project through the mountains, way down south?
And on your second point – McGinn came out opposed to the tunnel. Then, in late October, stated that he wouldn't try to stop it.
Conlin and Bagshaw both were staunch supporters during the campaign, and both won by ginormous margins.
Ok. Thanks both for the response–makes a little more sense now. I am not an expert, but why is DBT so different than cut-and-cover. Aren't they both tunnels? And it seems like this particular deep bore is quite experimental–as in never been done before. I understand that advisory votes are not legally binding but I'd be interested to see how that 70% margin changed in the past 3 years.
No its more like comparing sweet basil to Genovese basil, the vast majority of people have no idea what the difference is, or was.
The viaduct rebuild received way more votes than the tunnel and the poll taken right after showed that surface/transit (ha ha, what transit) was a distant third.
[michael] If the state isn't interested in a highway there, they can take their highway and go home. In that case they are absolutely obligated to remove the existing viaduct and provide money to repair the damage left. Sure, we don't get their tunnel money. But that's like being sad that someone is no longer going to give you a free appendectomy even though you're perfectly healthy.
Or with the tunnel option, for that matter.
“not 'debatably'.” It's like you're new here. Everything's debatable. In this case, I think there's a great argument that whether or not you call a bill “advisory” you're still measuring the will of the people. That logically trumps a weaker connection to an issue such as a voting in a representative. I'd love to see this argument in court.
Regarding the old apples-to-oranges point, the “deep bore” was created, along with the stake holder committee, to muddy the debate waters. Next time it won't be a deep-bore but a really deep-bore, and they'll paint it blue.
The fact is that if it's oh-so-different then there should have been another public vote, up or down. Not doing so undermines our democracy.
I don't think Publicola supports any option to the viaduct replacement.
This is Frankencola. “Cars, bad! Errr!”
Since the mid-60's, Seattle's been the Rip Van Winkle of West Coast cities. It's last on every list.
Let's get this great adventure started. Let's make Seattle exceptional again
I'm sure whatever polling that was is just as good as polling. Why do we even bother with elections when we have KING 5 news?
It wasn't a bill, nor advertised as a bill. It was always advertised as an advisory vote with no legal authority whatsoever. It was, IMO, one of the most boneheaded things I have ever seen a government do – waste money on a vote for no particular reason. Unitarian much?
As for whether there should have been another vote – I would disagree. We, as citizens, vote when we send lawmakers to Olympia. This is the State's highway, and we as a City cannot keep voting to tell the State how to behave. Perhaps if an initiative to the people were done, but advisory votes are pointless, and elected officials such as Judy Clibborn and Mary Margaret Haugen don't give a rat's ass how people who don't vote for them “advise”.
Of course, the alternative is for people who really hate this thing to go out and work for candidates outside of Seattle, make friendly with the neighbors, and build up support in the suburbs for their point of view. Otherwise, it's just complaining without working towards a solution.
A cut and cover tunnel is similar to the Big Dig. With a C/C, a huge trench is basically dug, the tunnel made, and then covered with fill. To do this, the entire waterfront would have to be torn up, the viaduct would come down, and we would be in a state of constant construction for years.
The deep bore is similar to what was done for the Sound Transit tunnel under Beacon Hill (and what is going to be done for the tunnel under Capitol Hill). I think the original transit tunnels under 3rd were also DBT, so it has been done through downtown before. Basically, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, the boring machine digs completely underground, negating the disruption at the surface.
Additionally, my understanding is that the DBT will be going under 1st Ave, which is more stable than going under Alaskan Way.
The political issues are ongoing. As I am sure you are aware, this all started when the Nisqually earthquake damaged the Alaskan Way Viaduct (AWV), which is part of a State Highway.
A lot of the volleying on the issue of Surface Street “option” vs. Tunnel vs. Rebuild has centered on Seattle's preference vs. the State's preference. The State has made clear that there will be a highway, and that the surface street “option” is not an option they are willing to consider.
So, the question arises of whether we do a four lane in each direction viaduct to replace the existing viaduct, or go with the DBT. (there are some, of course, who still think the surface option is viable, but there are also people who think 9/11 was an inside job).
The major benefit with the DBT, IMO (it's all opinion from here on out), is that we reduce capacity, increase transit (the county has pledged $15 million per year in new transit from West Seattle and Ballard), and reconnect Downtown with the waterfront. It will also be one of two highways in Seattle to introduce tolls, which, with any luck, will lead to more acceptance of tolls, and a real toll network throughout the City.
The other big fight, of course, is over a line that was inserted into the funding plan by Transportation Chair in the House, Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-41). This is contradictory with state law that makes clear that local governments can not be held responsible for overruns on state projects. Judy Clibborn has came out publicly admitting that this is unenforceable. It was put into the bill to ensure support from enough folks in the House to get the $2.4 billion funding through the State House.
And there is no way in hell that provision is going to be removed.
The reality is that delaying the project will lead to overruns. The funding and estimates happened during economic good times. We're in a position to get low bids for the project because of the bummed out economy.
In the event there are significant cost overruns, above and beyond the $415 million that has been set aside as a contingency, the likelihood is that the State would step in to pay, because there are going to be a lot of jobs created to build the tunnel.
There is also a good chance that we would be able to get some pork from the feds, thanks to the seniority of Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and our U.S. House delegation.
Of course, we could just have a new double-decker highway built, that would be wider than the current structure. Because that would be awesome.
“This is the State's highway, and we as a City cannot keep voting to tell the State how to behave.” Sure we can. It's the State's highway on the city's land. We allowed them to build it here, and that permission can be revoked.
Sorry I called it a bill – I meant vote. But it still represents the will of the people as much as any other vote. We all spent time learning about issues and expressed our opinions. In a democracy that means a lot (everything, in fact).
(Matt)
I'm pretty sure the State can supercede the City to get their highway built.
The rebuild received 42% of the vote. The tunnel received 30% of the vote. In Publicola speak, the viaduct received 40% more support than the tunnel. The polling showed these results accurately and showed that the no highway option would receive about 25% of the vote, max.
I'd welcome a vote with the highest percentage winning.
But that's like asking if people would rather see Spain, the Netherlands, or Turkey win the world cup. Everyone walked into that voting booth with their preference in mind in the context of the vote before them. Not many had even heard of the surface option at the time.
The current Mayor received less votes in August than the viaduct option in the 2007 vote, yet he is still the Mayor now because there were more than two options. The same can be said for the 2007 vote and it didn't even include two of the current options.
Seattle voted to replace the viaduct with a viaduct. Instead we are moving rapidly to Mayor Nickels' billion dollar Waterfront Park.
just curious:
Conlin: “the viaduct replacement will create jobs and new opportunities for local businesses”
how much of this money actually comes to Seattle residents – or are we just supporting businesses and people outside of the city?
“It will also be one of two highways in Seattle to introduce tolls, which, with any luck, will lead to more acceptance of tolls, and a real toll network throughout the City. “
There are also people who think 9/11 was an inside job.
Except for the part about “More traffic and congestion than the Surface option.” Oh, and the part about “less transit than the Surface option.”
I said “with any luck”. I <3 tolls on major roadways into the City
Right, and every single tunnel mankind will ever build from now on is exactly like Brightwater. Thanks for the clarification!
Also, the Mayor like any agenda-driven politician cherry-picked his data, as did those who conducted that “peer-reviewed” study.
Microsoft, Boeing and Starbucks were all dead last onto the wagon in their respective fields. We're the last city to build out bike infrastructure and the last to ever build a regional rail transit line. Right.
I can't imagine a more risky tunnel than the deep bore. It's a giant hole beneath and near the foundations of 132 downtown buildings and a stretch of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Its segmented concrete walls are glued together and way below sea level where water tables are likely to seep in during construction and ever afterwards.
The cut/cover tunnel on the other hand is cast as a single piece, no segments, thick-walled and double-walled on the seawall side like a swimming pool or hydroelectric dam, undoubtedly a better technology in this application.
Oh, but you don't want to hear about these concerns and considerations. It doesn't pass through your reality filter. Your team has prettier uniforms and prays to jesus, so everybody else is going to hell anyway.