deep-bore tunnel

McGinn deserves support for his opposition to the tunnel cost overruns

patr — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:33:14 +0000

patr Wed, 10/27/2010 - 7:33am

It seems like a lot of officials and politicians want a tunnel to replace the Alaska Way Viaduct. But not our Mayor Mike Mcginn. Well,bless his courageous heart.

His underlying view is that Seattle residents should not get stuck with the inevitable millions of cost overruns resulting from the tunnel project.

It's funny how things happen in Seattle, even with the consent of the voters who end up picking up the tab, but who get a dubious benefit for their money. The light rail project that connects downtown to the airport is a good example. This expensive project feathers the nest of some downtown business interests. But it does very little to address transportation problems in the region.

Most of the Seattle City Council members love the tunnel idea, too.

Is it possible that McGinn is standing firm because he truly believes what he says. We agree with him.

Lately we have not heard much about the cost overruns. The group SCAT (Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel) thinks the cost will be 8 to 10 billion! SCAT arrived at the high figure by adding imputed interest on the bonds that would be sold to finance the tunnel. And that is before cost overruns. Like buying a house, the list price you pay is far less than the cost over time. The Washington State Department of Transportation sent us their 150 page PDF in which they estimate the cost at $1.8 billion. But that PDF is out of date.

There are other concerns, too. Elliott Bay shoreline has unstable wet sand and gravel and fill material that could give way above the tunnel, especially while the boring takes place because there is nothing solid to hold it in place to stabilize the circumference. This is not like tunnels in other U.S. cities (New York) where a tunnel was bored through granite.

Construction trades bosses want it because it will create jobs. But so would alternatives to the tunnel.

Gov. Gregoire thinks traffic will keep flowing on the viaduct during tunnel construction over a five-year span. This contradicts her view that the viaduct must come down because it is vulnerable anytime to an earthquake. She also has to keep her Eastern Washington constituents happy and asking them to help pay for a Seattle Tunnel takes a lot of hugs and kisses.

Mike McGinn stands as a lone voice for fiscal responsibility against a madding crowd of sanguine tunnelers. Critics have pounded the mayor with since the day he took office.

We think McGinn is a resolute leader to go it alone and that he deserves respect for his position.

deep-bore tunnel

Seattle

Robinson Papers

Ballardites ready to accept imperfect viaduct solution

Guest — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:59:14 +0000

Guest (not verified) Mon, 08/09/2010 - 12:59pm

The plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bore tunnel has been met with a wide array of opinions from politicians, residents and citizen groups.

Courtesy of Washington State Department of Transportation

Warren Aakervick notes that there are only three major truck routes running north to south in the city of Seattle: I-5, SR-99 and 15th Avenue Northwest. But for the owner of Ballard Oil, gridlock traffic is not just a commuter inconvenience, it is a threat to the maritime industry.

“The largest fishing industry in this nation works out of Seattle," Aakervick said. "Most of the people in that industry live in the Seattle area. It’s billions of dollars to our economy each year. And, nobody can do the things we do or move the amount of fuel that we move."

The debate surrounding replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct project began nine years ago when the structure was damaged in the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake. After scores of exhaustive meetings and hundreds of questions raised, the Seattle City Council selected a north-south tunnel as the preferred option in October of 2009.

Alternatives included a surface route or repairing the current viaduct. But, city officials feared further congestion and even greater expenses down the line.

The tunnel would move traffic under downtown Seattle and is estimated by WSDOT to cost $1.96 million (or $3.1 billion for the entire replacement project). A final decision has been postponed until more accurate appraisals are received early next year.

While construction will be restricted to downtown Seattle, the benefits and potential consequences will be felt statewide. On the positive side, Ballardites expect the project to help businesses, connect the north corridor with the south and provide alternative routes for freight.

“The entire fishing industry and now the cruise industry is north of downtown," said Aakervick. "And, all of our supplies and everything we need is south of downtown.”

An elevated structure would have been the best possible outcome, he said. The large freight trucks used to transport his company’s petroleum products will not have access to an underground tunnel because of their hazardous content and combustibility.

But, Aakervick is facing the reality of broad political support for the tunnel.

“If I can’t have an elevated structure from my world, at least give us a tunnel that would get the traffic off the streets so it’s staggered and not all on the surface.”

Despite $300 million of proposed funding by the Port of Seattle and Gov. Chris Gregoire’s reassurance that cost overruns will not become the taxpayer’s burden, there is always the possibility that the project will go over budget.

“From my perspective, the state has an obligation to put in a transportation corridor to alleviate the congestion," Aakervick said. "Whatever the cost is, [the state] should do it.”

For Kevin Carrabine, a member of the Sunset Hill Community Association, the project arouses memories of the monorail tug-of-war. The Ballard resident is not a strong proponent of any of the three options, but he said he shares Mayor Mike McGinn’s concerns about cost overruns.

“I have two minds because I understand on the one hand the risk in delaying and the potential for the bidding climate to change and costs to go up," Carrabine said. "It’s one thing to say we think we’ll get [funding] here. But, for a project of this magnitude and knowing the evidence that 40 percent of projects like this are over budget, it makes sense to sort out where the money is coming from.”

Like Aakervick, 36th District Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson didn’t initially support the tunnel option, but she said postponing the project would cost the city more money.

“I don’t think we can afford to do much bickering now about should it really be the tunnel or should it be something else," Dickerson said. "If the cost projections come in similar to the ones that we’ve seen before, then we should go ahead with the tunnel.”

It's important to move forward because SR-99 and the Alaskan Way Viaduct is a highway of regional importance, she said.

In the meantime, Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel filed an initiative with the city July 29 that would force a public vote on the viaduct replacement plan.

McGinn's skepticism on tunnel is warranted

michaelh — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:40:53 +0000

michaelh Fri, 07/02/2010 - 12:40pm

Michael Harthorne

When Gov. Chris Gregoire stepped into the ring with Mayor Mike McGinn June 3 to spar over tunnel costs, the smart money was already on the Gov. Her many previous bouts gave her the advantage, and she slugged away at the new mayor while hardly breaking a sweat.

When she showed up for the fight, she already had the backing of the big money in downtown Seattle. McGinn, in office only half a year, may have underestimated the punch the diminutive governor packed.

McGinn's best shot was his objection to who would pay for cost overruns on the tunnel to replace the Alaska Way Viaduct. The city, already strapped for cash, was at risk because of the clause in legislation that bound Seattle taxpayers for overruns, McGinn said.

Gregoire was all swagger and bluster at the meeting, knowing she had both the backing of the Washington State Legislature and the Seattle City Council and was facing a rookie politician. She told the mayor that if he didn't like the Frank Chopp-inspired clause, to take it up with the legislature.

Still, McGinn stayed on his feet and took the blows. For that, we applaud the mayor for his courage in the face of considerable odds. McGinn is a man of principle who believes strongly that his constituents should not be stuck with the bill for the inevitable cost overruns of the tunnel project.

Last week, an article in the Seattle Times revealed that tunnels and bridges overrun their estimates by 34 percent. Surely, state officials and members of the legislature and the city council are aware of this. Yet they are plowing ahead in support of sticking Seattle with the bill that is sure to come.

The mayor's announcement June 25 that he has hired an independent consultant to look for pitfalls in the state plan is perfectly in keeping with his approach to the big dig. Remember, he inherited the projected from two politicians who are no longer on the local stage: Greg Nickels and Ron Sims.

He should be skeptical. And, comments from Councilmember Tom Rasmussen suggest a certain competitiveness for attention. He said the mayor should be content with the analysis from the Washington State Department of Transportation.

Really? Is it possible the state department has felt some pressure from Gregoire over the project and feels duty-bound to present the project in a certain light? Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.

Another article in the Times featured a cheery interview of the man whose company makes the drilling machine that is now stuck in the tunnel. The fact that it is costing thousands of dollars a day while the drill is stuck and that the contractor does not know how to get it unstuck seems to be a footnote in the tunnel saga.

We think McGinn has the best interests of the taxpayers in mind in his objection. Hiring a consultant to study the studies might be the the best money spent on the project.

Ken Robinson is editor of the Ballard News-Tribune.

Deep-bore tunnel not a done deal, group insists

Guest — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:03:13 +0000

Guest (not verified) Tue, 06/15/2010 - 11:03am

Ballard activist Ed Plute with StopTheTunnel.com and Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel wants an elevated viaduct option.

Steve Shay

The buzz around the deep-bore tunnel project has not been, well, boring. Is the project, which would cost the city, county, state, port and, of course, taxpayers between $1.9 billion and $8 billion, a fait accompli?

"No!" said Ballard activist Ed Plute, with StopTheTunnel.com and Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel or SCAT.

The groups' leaders meet in a conference room at the Ballard Neighborhood Service Center. Others include West Seattle retired general contractor Bud Shasteen, Port Townsend retired civil engineer Victor Gray and wife Paula, political activists Elizabeth Campbell from Magnolia and Dorli Rainey from Queen Anne, and retired Seattle civil engineer Christopher Brown.

SCAT comes up with the $8 billion figure by adding in bond issues' interest. With cost overruns, it's $10 billion. The $1.9 billion figure is the tunnel alone and not the cost of I-5 improvements, viaduct demolition, the seawall replacement, etc.

"Our slogan is, 'The tunnel is not a done deal,'" said Shasteen, a University of Washington graduate and general contractor for 35 years in Hawaii. "Most people think the way they're ramrodding this through it's a done deal, but it isn't by any means. People don't realize how big a fiasco this is going to be. As we'd say in Hawaii, it's a 'shibai,' or boondoggle.

"The mayor is somewhat on our side," he said. "He's questioning the tunnel, and saying 'unless you protect Seattle voters from cost overruns, I'm against it.' He is somewhat of an ally. We want to stop this damn tunnel then discuss his buying us all bicycles or whatever."

SCAT's concerns are about cost overruns like Boston's Big Dig that began at $2.6 billion but totaled $14.5 billion and the tunnel's safety.

They are skeptical with the Washington State Department of Transportation in charge of most of the project's moveable parts. They cite the Brightwater tunnel, where two of four boring machines broke down and residents experienced cracked pavement.

The 13-mile, 14-foot-diameter tunnel is for pipes to carry after-treatment wastewater from the new plant near Woodinville. One machine is still stuck in the tunnel.

"The hole under the city will be 56-feet wide, not 14 like Brightwater, and will go under some of the biggest buildings downtown," Shasteen said. "Of the 157 buildings the tunnel will be near, there will be 37 buildings in danger."

"The tunnel project will bankrupt us and cause major building collapses," Plute said. "That boring machine is going to be a billion dollar toothache."

Gray supplied photos of the subway tunnel collapse in Cologne March 2009, 1,000 feet from the Rhine River with shallow ground water. Campbell's photos showed a collapsed 13-story apartment building in Shanghai January 2009 due to a weakened foundation by the piling of excavated soil and digging an underground garage.

"Taxpayers will pay for building damage," Shasteen warned. "They keep referring to the viaduct as dangerous. If anything is dangerous it's the tunnel. A tsunami could flood the tunnel. And, we hear fires are dangerous in tunnels.

SCAT wants an elevated viaduct option. Some want a new viaduct, others, a retrofit.

"They always mention the Nisqually earthquake," Shasteen said. "The total damage to the viaduct was two columns that ran 60 and 70 feet apart with 4.5-inch settling. As a contractor, I know that's minor. It will take $1.3 billion to repair the viaduct and fix the seawall to give 30 to 50 years of service, if maintained. The viaduct is built like a brick s**thouse. Supposedly our politicians believe in democracy. We voted on this. They didn't even put the retrofit on the ballot and still 70 percent didn't want the tunnel."

Most of the Seattle City Council is in favor of the deep-bore tunnel. But, Councilmember Mike O'Brien said the city, while facing significant transportation challenges, needs to fully understand the cost implications before proceeding with the tunnel.

"Until the state removes language capping the amount the state will pay on the project at $2.8 billion, it is unclear who, if anybody, will pay to complete the project if it goes over budget," O'Brien said. "I don’t believe the city should commit to building the tunnel until this issue is resolved.”

Councilmember Tom Rasmussen chairs the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Project and Central Waterfront Planning.

"The existing structure has a risk of collapsing in an earthquake," Rasmussen said. "The deep-bore tunnel would best fit the needs of the area. The viaduct will remain in place while the tunnel is constructed. One of the things the city council will be doing is hiring our own independent consultants before entering into any agreements with the state. They will carefully revue state documents including the technical data. We are very mindful of risks and concerns that have been raised. We have open public meetings every two weeks and have a lot of information on our city and state Web sites."

SCAT questions the Port of Seattle's $300 million portion.

"The interest cost alone on the bond issues will be $8.8 million a year," Campbell said. "I don't see a direct benefit to the Port by having a tunnel."

"Our container terminal and cruise terminal facilities are dependent on transportation to move people quickly," said Charla Skaggs, Port of Seattle corporate media officer. "Our commissioner said we want our investment to come at the tail end of the (financing of the) project in 2015, and since 2009 we have been putting money into a transportation reserve account for the tunnel.

"We will refinance some of our existing debt and have bonds payed off earlier than planned," Skaggs said. (SCAT's) figures assume we will issue bonds to finance the entire $300 million. However, we have not made any decisions on 100-percent financing."

The viaduct will stay up while the tunnel is built.

"We would lose cargo coming into our competing ports without traffic flow and can't afford to risk having gridlock while replacing or repairing the viaduct," Skaggs said. "If it does not work efficiently, the entire area is in chaos. Port Metro Vancouver just signed a new supply agreement with Canadian National Railroad to get goods to the American Midwest. We're in this dogfight for cargo to the north and for keeping jobs here. Shippers will go where it's fastest."

The Washington State Department of Transportation and the city are careful to avoid officially stating that the deal is done.

A motion was filed by SCAT in King County claiming the city has taken final action to OK the tunnel despite publication of the required environmental impact statement and a judicial review under the State Environmental Policy Act.

In an order denying the motion entered by SCAT, the King County Superior Court states, "While many steps have been taken to prepare for the possibility of construction of the deep-bored tunnel, none of these actions constitute a final decision on the deep-bored tunnel option. It is reasonable to expect that a project as complex as the viaduct replacement would require some coordinate planning."

"This is a legal semantics game," said Campbell. "The city was exceeding the bounds under SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act). The Battery to Spokane tunnel was one project originally. The project was chopped into three then five or six. This is a way to sneak through environmental variances in small steps. They should revue the whole project together to know the accumulative environmental effects. Everything is about 'fast-tracking' and 'streamlining.'"

Who pays for tunnel cost overruns?

michaelh — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 18:05:48 +0000

michaelh Tue, 06/08/2010 - 11:05am

Courtesy of Seattle City Council

By Nick Licata, Seattle City Council

Ed. Note: This piece originally appeared in Nick Licata's newsletter, "Urban Politics."

The question that has dominated the discussion of the deep-bore tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct has been: who will pay for any cost overruns?

The answer is the state with regards to the contract for the tunnel. The reason is that the contractor that wins the design-build contract for the tunnel will be signing a contract with the State of Washington not the City of Seattle.

The contract will oblige the Washington State Department of Transportation to cover risks associated with the tunnel. The City of Seattle will not be contractually obligated to cover cost overruns for the tunnel.

Think about it for a moment – the contractor could care less who pays the bill as long as they get paid. They are not going to sign a contract in which this is left in doubt.

Since the city is not a party to the contract, there would be no legal standing for either the Washington State Department of Transportation or the contractor to look to the city to cover any of the bill spelled out in the contract.

That said, what does the $2.8 billion cap that the state legislature set on the entire tunnel project mean? The cap is real in the sense that the governor cannot spend more state money than the legislature has approved.

So, let's assume that the $1.96 billion tunnel goes over budget. The state is on the hook, not the contractor. The state could pay them and still be under the $2.8 billion cap.

However, what happens to the other parts of the overall tunnel project?

The most important project element for Seattle is taking down the current viaduct to free up the waterfront to pedestrians.

The state funding toward viaduct removal and rebuilding Alaskan Way is $290 million, but the state could use this money to cover any additional tunnel costs.

The city could argue that the state was still obligated to do the project, but if the money isn't there, the Washington State Legislature would have to approve funding, which would put Seattle in a weak position.

This problem could be solved by the state and the city agreeing in advance to put aside the money for the waterfront, thus creating a separate locked box for it.

Another major part of the tunnel project, to be tackled after the tunnel is completed, is to reconnect Thomas, Harrison and Republican streets across Aurora Avenue, to "reconnect" the street grid between Queen Anne and South Lake Union.

It is a critical engineering task, necessary to avoid congestion problems on Mercer and facilitate access to the tunnel.

The same approach of separate funding should be undertaken with this project as with the waterfront. In a worst-case scenario, this is the portion of the tunnel project that could be sacrificed – it would be the most difficult one to convince the state legislature to fund if this money is used for the tunnel.

Seattle and the state are negotiating agreements to allow the tunnel and related projects to proceed. Hopefully they will protect funds for the waterfront and reconnecting the grid. We will need to see what is included before knowing how well or whether this is addressed.

State approves tunnel and amendment that could cost citizens

Guest — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:19:48 +0000

Guest (not verified) Sat, 04/25/2009 - 2:19pm

Courtesy Washington Department of Transportation

State lawmakers Friday approved the plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bored tunnel.

The Senate voted 39-9 to accept a controversial House amendment that was added Wednesday that would require Seattle property owners to pay for any cost overruns on the tunnel construction, a $4.3 billion project.

The bill now goes to Gov. Chris Gregoire for approval.

The amendment would require property owners in Seattle to pay for any excess expenses beyond the $2.8 billion dollars that the state receives from taxes and tolling.

In a failed vote on Wednesday, the amendment squeaked by with a 49-47 roll call vote.

However, Mayor Greg Nickels along, with Seattle lawmakers, senators and council members, found the amendment to be unclear on how to differentiate who would actually be required to pay and how. Because the state will be in charge of the construction contracts for the tunnel it is still in question on how private property owners will be taken into account for overrun charges.

However, Seattle voters will get to vote on any city-wide property taxes before they are enacted.

The seattlepi.com reported that taxing districts are prohibited from increasing bills by more than 1 percent annually without asking for permission.

Alaskan Way Viaduct

Mayor Greg Nickels

Washington State Legislature

Viaduct forum Monday at Ballard High

Guest — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:18:26 +0000

Guest (not verified) Wed, 03/18/2009 - 4:18pm

The Ballard and Queen Anne District Councils along with the Ballard Interbay Northend Manufacturing and Industrial Center Action Committee are co-sponsoring a community forum Monday, March 23, to discuss how the deep bored tunnel option to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct will impact and serve the northwest Seattle neighborhoods.

The forum takes place from 7 to 9 p.m. in the Ballard High School Auditorium.

In December 2008, Gov. Chris Gregoire, King County Executive Ron Sims and Mayor Greg Nickels proposed to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep bored tunnel. The proposal calls for a deep bored tunnel, and improvements to surface streets and to transit to move people and goods through Seattle.

Questions that will be discussed at Monday's forum include:

How will we access south end destinations as well as downtown Seattle?
What kind of access will we have to the northern entrance of the tunnel?
Will trucks be able to use the tunnel or will they use surface streets?
How will travel times through the corridor be affected?
Why is an economic impact study so important to decisions affecting the Alaskan Way Viaduct?

Audience members will be invited to ask questions of public policymakers making the decisions and private sector representatives with technical expertise.

Panelists will include reps from the state department of transportation, the City of Seattle, King County, and those in the field of tunnel construction, economics and traffic engineering.

The Seattle Channel will videotape this event for later broadcast on channel 21.

Those who drive to the event are asked to use the parking lot entrance located off Northwest 67th just east of 15th Northwest.

Senate approves tunnel plan

Guest — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:40:15 +0000

Guest (not verified) Thu, 03/05/2009 - 1:40pm

The Senate has approved a plan to replace the Viaduct with a tunnel. The proposed tunnel would have two lanes in each direction, stacked, and extend from about Royal Brougham Way South to Harrison Street.

Washington State Department of Transportation

The Senate Wednesday approved the plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bored tunnel, which is expected to cost $4.2 billion.

The Senate passed the measure 43 to 6 but it will also have to be approved by the state House of Representatives.

Mayor Greg Nickels, King County Executive Ron Sims and Gov. Christine Gregoire announced the tunnel as their preferred option last month.

The plan calls for the tunnel to connect the stadium area with Aurora Avenue with exits near Royal Brougham Way South and north of the existing Battery Street Tunnel. Some traffic would also have the option of traveling north or south bound on Alaskan Way.

Gregoire also said there will be investments in improved bus service, east-west city streets, a new seawall, relocated utilities, and an upgraded waterfront.   The bored tunnel will be approximately two miles long and carry four lanes of traffic with 50 mile-per-hour speeds. Drivers will bypass downtown by entering the tunnel near the sports stadiums in the south and connect to Aurora Avenue North near the existing Battery Street Tunnel.

There are currently three lanes in each direction on the viaduct. The new plan does not include an exit, as it currently exits, from Western Avenue to access downtown, Interbay and Ballard.

At a recent open house, alternatives for reaching the Ballard and West Seattle neighborhoods were presented to those worried about the closure of the Western Avenue exit off the viaduct toward Northwest Seattle if the tunnel is built and access to parts of Southwest Seattle.

For people in the north end, access to the tunnel would be from Aurora Avenue North, which would transition from a surface highway to the bored tunnel between Mercer Street and Denny Way, replacing the current route via the Battery Street Tunnel and the Alaskan Way Viaduct. At the Mercer Corridor, access to Aurora Avenue North and the bored tunnel would be provided in all directions.

For those in West Seattle, transit officials are telling residents that by taking SR 99, drivers could continue north through the new deep bored tunnel to emerge just south of Mercer Street. For better access to Downtown Seattle, they could exit SR 99 at Royal Brougham and travel along the new Alaskan Way six-lane boulevard from Columbia Street to King Street as well as the new four-lane boulevard along the Central Waterfront.

I-5 will continue to provide another alternative for drivers traveling north, transit officials said.

The bill that passed Wednesday supports the tunnel plan and also calls for a study of a use of tolls.

Fix it when it ain't broke

Guest — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:28:27 +0000

Guest (not verified) Wed, 02/11/2009 - 3:28pm

Shame on you, Gov. Gregoire, for agreeing to set aside state money ($2.8 billion) to help pay for a deep-bore tunnel to replace a perfectly working and fixable Alaskan Way Viaduct. Shame on you, Mayor Nickels, for agreeing to set aside city money ($1.4 billion) to help pay for a deep-bore tunnel to replace a perfectly working and fixable Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Shame on you, King County Executive Ron Sims, for smiling at the publicity cameras to show your agreement to this "only 1 percent planned for deep-bore tunnel." And shame on us, Seattle citizens, for lying down like frightened sheep while the above mentioned, arrogant leaders trample over our tax-paying lives.

We deserve to write the checks and to make the monetary payments our fattened real estate taxes, utility bills, parking meters, bus fares, car tolls will demand of us to pay for a deep-bore tunnel. And please don't pay attention to leaders whose priorities put building an unnecessary tunnel above allocating money for the necessary social programs our city and state so badly need.

And above all, don't pay attention to the stupid leaders who ignore the respected, engineering experts who say the Alaskan Way Viaduct can be permanently and safely fixed as it is: but who, instead, have sought out their own engineering experts who agreed to back their plans. Throughout the ages, common sense has always said: Don't Fix It If It Ain't Broke. But our current, boob-headed leaders have changed the words!! The banner they fly reads: Fix It When It Ain't Broke.

Beverly Barsy
Seattle

City/County Initiatives

State Government

Robinson Papers

Tunnel a bad choice

Guest — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:25:09 +0000

Guest (not verified) Wed, 02/11/2009 - 3:25pm

Now that we have had some time to consider the decision of the governor, the county executive, and the mayor to dig a deep bore tunnel to replace the Alaska Way Viaduct, it becomes even clearer that this tunnel option makes as little sense as the surface street alternative some people proposed to replace the Viaduct.

First, a tunnel was roundly rejected by 70 percent of Seattle's voters. A deep bore tunnel is still a tunnel. The voters did not want a tunnel and clearly expressed their views on that point.

Second, the proposed tunnel will handle 85,000 of the current 110,000 daily trips on SR 99. Thus, by the proponents' own admission, a tunnel is inadequate to handle the existing daily trips on SR 99, let alone the daily trips on SR 99 when the tunnel is finally completed.

Once the tunnel is used, there is also no potential for its future expansion. This hardly makes any sense. The proponents apparently believe that 25,000 daily vehicle and truck trips through the SR 99 corridor will magically disappear. Wishful thinking does not replace true planning. The three executives are making an unstated policy choice - they want to make auto traffic as congested as possible in Seattle, hoping to force people into public transportation.

Third, a tunnel will cost at least $4.25 billion. This too is likely wishful thinking as construction costs very seldom resemble the actual costs of a project. The State has committed $2.4 billion to the Viaduct replacement. This means local taxpayers will have to make up the difference, paying tolls, property taxes, motor vehicle excise taxes, and any other taxes within the imagination of the Mayor and City Council to make up the difference.

Finally, there are safety and environmental issues associated with a tunnel. Tunneling creates significant air pollution. Safety is also a question associated with a tunnel. If a single truck jack knifes in the tunnel, all traffic will back up and cannot be re-routed. One need only look at the problems encountered with the Big Dig in Boston to understand how tunnels are problematic. A deep bore tunnel will be severely tested by seismic issues in our region. Personally, I would feel uncomfortable driving through a tunnel in a seismic event.

The tunnel option seems to be born of political expedience, a non-solution to SR 99 traffic, crafted by three executives who have been embarrassed by their inability to resolve the SR 99-Alaskan Way Viaduct question. There are better alternatives. This proposal does not answer the problems and creates so many of its own that the citizens of Seattle and our region should reject it.

Philip A. Talmadge
Tukwila

City/County Initiatives

State Government

Robinson Papers