For the Tunnel. Against Cost Overruns. Anyone?

“And she currently appears to be boring some on budget tunnels.”

Grammar ain't my strong suit, but I had to read this 5 times to figure out what this meant.

The first time I read it: “Who are these some that she's boring?”
The 4th time I read it: “What the heck is a budget tunnel?”

I think I hyphen in there somewhere might help.

Sorry, but honest leadership won't help because it is about issues that opinions are not easily changed. So we talk about the real financial issues and solve them, then McGinn will still be against it and those for it will only be that much more embolden. Comparing this to Sound Transit and the Monorail is not fair because both of those were screwed up by Seattle (yeah I know that Sound Transit is regional, but most of the big players were from Seattle) and this the tunnel project is WSDOT which is why it might be screwed up but not even close to what Seattle would do to it.

Sorry, but honest leadership won't help because it is about issues that opinions are not easily changed. So we talk about the real financial issues and solve them, then McGinn will still be against it and those for it will only be that much more embolden. Comparing this to Sound Transit and the Monorail is not fair because both of those were screwed up by Seattle (yeah I know that Sound Transit is regional, but most of the big players were from Seattle) and this the tunnel project is WSDOT which is why it might be screwed up but not even close to what Seattle would do to it.

Josh, three points.

One of the lessons of the monorail is that when opponents of a project raise financial issues, you should not dismiss them as “obstructionist NIMBY right about the potential for a financial fiasco.” Instead, it's legitimate to oppose projects and raise financial issues. Officials then need to answer the financial questions. Period.

Similarly it's legit to favor projects and raise financial issues, too, or support a project and answer financial questions. What's truly not legitimate is to say, like Conlin, there won't be any overruns, or it doesn't matter if there are overruns, we'll work it out then, or “pay no attention to that law there, it's an illegal law, pretend it doesn't exist and all those legislators who voted for it didn't know what they were doing.”

2d, You slam McGinn for using a “trick”, but come on , his positions are very well know. He's not “fooling” anyone, so there's no “trick.” Then you give Conlin a pass by saying he's in “denial limbo” — in fact, Conlin knows perfectly well there will be overruns. He's no Alfred E. Neuman. He's the one employing a trick — saying anything to avoid avoiding answering tough questions because the answers hurt him politically.

In this he's guilty of the same misfeasance that many monorail folks were guilty of: ignoring financial issues. How the wheel turns.

Third, the plea you make for bold leadership to come forward fails in that it assumes away the state law which embodies the finance plan, which is the plan to make Seattle pay for the overruns. Most legislators voting for the DBT have that plan. They admit and KNOW there will be overruns, and they have the plan to pay for them — make Seattle pay. Most of the reporting on the DBT is in denial limbo as it ignores this part of the pro DBT coalition.

That the pro-DBP coalition has this rift at its heart (Seattle won't have to pay/Seattle must pay). This is why the pro tunnel/Seattle should not pay politicians can't come forward with a real finance plan. Doing so means calling on the State to pay, and this blows up their pro DBT coalition, exposing the utter irresponsiblity of saying this pro DBT has been “decided” in the first place.

Sorry. Fixed it. I meant: ST is doing some tunnel boring projects right now, and they appear to be on budget.

“it’s bad for the environment (which it is)”

Josh: Can you back that statement up with facts? I don't think that there is anything apart from the opinion your little clique of like-minded dweebs.

It's a tunnel that's exclusively for cars—64,000 cars a day—no transit at all.

Great points. I couldn't have said it nearly that well. Like.

And that is the basis for your statement? Josh you are smarter than that, we deserve a better response. First of all, the agreement for the tunnel includes (eventually, hopefully when the viaduct comes down 2015/16) a billion dollars of transit improvements by Metro. Secondly, Gehl Architects, the pedestrian environment experts from Denmark that studied the different alternatives – found that the tunnel was the only solution that wouldn't have a catastrophic impact on the urban environment of the city. The surface option was the worst.

It saddens me that publicola, whose professed urbanism I support, is unable to get beyond the tight shackles of blind ideology.

agreed, all fine points.

Except for @Seattle pays = plan continues to mislead the public by stating that Seattle will have to pay. No where does it state that the City of Seattle or Seattle Taxpayers will be the ones to pay; it is Seattle landowners that benefit. It's a big difference and the misuse at best leads to confusion and at worst is used in anti-tunnel propaganda.

I'm pro-tunnel, but really, @tvguide, I think that it is pretty obvious that cars are bad for the environment. I don't think that the tunnel is worse than the current viaduct, or worse than simply tearing down the viaduct without a replacement. Needing to provide facts for such obvious statements is a waste of all of our time.

I guess what would be interesting to know is if the amount of pollution that would be created by worsening traffic flow and increase in transit in the I-5/surface/transit option would be offset by the number of people giving up their cars or moving closer to work or working closer to home. The I-5/surface/transit option is only 'greener' if there are long-term substantial behavioral changes to they way that we commute/live/work.

Why not a pro-tunnel; pro-use-it-for-public-passenger-rail-lines position?

True high-speed rail will have to find its way under downtown Seattle somewhere. Why not in this tunnel?

Maybe, as a compromise, use the upper level for freight only — and point it back at Interbay, where the tunnel should have been directed in the first place.

Cars are bad for the environment Jakers no question, but somehow I fail to understand how Josh thinks that having a reduction from 110,000 cars down to 64,000 on SR99 would not be an improvement in that regard. This city can't change overnight. Josh & Co. are creationist ideologues, they call it intelligent design, of course… but still a dangerous god-complex that is counterproductive to their own (and my) objectives.

tvguide, Name any transit improvements that are being funded by gas tax revenue relative to the tunnel agreements. What transit was actually going to happen that wasn't already going to happen without the tunnel?

As far as I can see, the only thing the tunnel does for transit is compete for ridership with Link.

and the State's plan on funding $1 billion in Metro improvements is…?? And anyone is supposed to trust the same State that took away the $190 million that was in the original DBT “agreement” because…??

Yes, the DBT is designed for motor vehicles. Presumably, some of those vehicles will included buses, car pools, van pools, taxis and other forms of transit.

Additionally, the DBT collects those auto emissions and scrubs them, rather than allowing them to spew unfettered into the air, as the current Viaduct and the surface option would have done.

The anti-car zealots continue to believe in a fantasy world where those autos would simply evaporate if the DBT didn't exist. Instead, those 64,000 vehicles would be stuck in traffic, idling for hours every day.

Many have tried to compare the DBT to the monorail. The monorail would have “rose above it all”; the DBT will “go below”. It's all about grade separation.

Since PC decided that it wasn't sufficient to have one anti-tunnel diatribe today, the discussion has moved to the more recent diatribe: http://www.publicola.net/2010/07/12/lets-get-on…

There won't be any buses in the tunnel, and likely few van pools. It skips downtown.

“Additionally, the DBT collects those auto emissions and scrubs them” Ah, we're doing CCS now? Fancy.

“Instead, those 64,000 vehicles would be stuck in traffic, idling for hours every day.” Nah. People have a low tollerance for traffic. If you can't find another way to work you move or change jobs (given enough time).

Problem is: the billion dollars for transit is illusory, ie., bullshit. The legislature has allocated what may, or may not, be enough money for the tunnel. But, it hasn't appropriated or provided for any of the promised transit money.

“Nah. People have a low tollerance for traffic. If you can't find another way to work you move or change jobs (given enough time).”

What are you talking about? What lala land do you live in? Have you not seen the suburbs expanding?? People will spend hours in traffic to have a nicer home and not live like rats in the city.

That's odd, I could have sworn that the city of Seattle is indeed on the hook for cost overruns. In a situation where the city faces a nasty budget shortfall, it is sound public policy to push back strongly against a plan that sticks Seattle alone with higher costs, and lets the state escape the burden.

Josh's editorial here seems to favor compromise for its' own sake instead of getting the policy right. McGinn is doing this exactly the right way, going along with a tunnel he doesn't like but standing up for the financial health of the city he was elected to lead.

In 2001 the cost estimate for the Capitol Hill tunnel was $728M – that was a bid from contractors – it was at a more advanced stage then this tunnel. The current budget for it is over twice that “bid”. The original budget was about $550 million coming from the PB – the state's consultant for this tunnel as well.

So if we “vote” to go forward on the tunnel and then the bids come in way high, we wait for an extra 10 years and they double the budget will you say they are on budget?

Surely that transit money wouldn't be one of the first places they look to pay for tunnel cost overruns….

Sorry, “low” wasn't the right word. People have a fixed tollerance for traffic. The surburbs expand as we build and expand roads, making it easier for them to get out to cheap housing. Build 2 more lanes on I-5 and you'll see new housing pop up like crazy north and south, as people will be able to live further away without increasing their commute time. Remove 2 lanes and you'll see people move back in toward the city to shave their commute time. We don't see as much of this latter case because, well, when was the last time we removed a single lane of any highway or freeway?

The comedy here is that somehow the legislature will follow through on surface/transit where they didn't on the tunnel/transit plan.
And somehow the legislature that tagged Seattle area people with bad legislation will not repeat that legislation if the mayor grinds this to a halt.

Ummmm, where's “a billion dollars of transit improvements” coming from?

Maybe if you're counting having a new roadway that existing buses can run on. But that's not new service; and that's not more efficient service either.

Why are you using an 80's picture of cocaine lines for this article?

My plan is this:

Get the 100 wealthiest people in the world and offer to sell them all of downtown Seattle (it's not really usable by normal folk anyway).

We would plow down all the current structures and build 100 mansions with scenic views. This would reduce traffic across the peninsula to nearly nothing.

Real jobs and people would all move to the exurbs. Seattle downtown would only be a cross roads where nothing would stop — like those “special floors” that are not marked on elevators.

no problem them. “Seattle” doesn't have to pay, just some ill-defined number of its citizens. Totally different. That makes me feel better. Just start boring now.

64,000 is the number of cars going *through* the tunnel, not the total number of cars. There is a difference because there are not downtown exits. All modeling shows that vehicle volumes will go up with a tunnel, while modeling for the I-5/surface/transit alternative shows a huge jump in transit ridership and a substantial reduction in auto traffic.

Don't change the topic. The one major transit concession, new taxing authority for Metro, has already been reneged on by the governor. As Josh already discussed tunnel supporters have to be more intellectually honest about this debate.

It's not as if those vehicles would not be on the road at all if not for the tunnel. Virtually all of them are going to hit the road regardless of whether it's built or not.

No, McGinn is hamstrung into going with the tunnel since his Council has near-unanimously confirmed it, and is using the cost overruns as political leverage to somehow try and stop the project. Let's not act like McGinn's position is about anything else.

Morning has it right.

The original Sound Transit Plan (Sound Move), approved by voters in 1996, called for a downtown to NE 45th tunnel in the $500 million range. The low bid (2000) was in accord with Morning's report, $700+ million. The current project is more expensive even than that. Yes, like Josh Feit says, it's on budget–that is, the latest budget. Also, the current tunnel project goes only as far as Husky Stadium, a mile or so short of NE 45th. Plus, the First Hill station has been omitted, saving $350 million, according to Sound Transit. The one on NE 45th has been delayed, leaving only two stations.

Sound Transit's Beacon Hill tunnel far exceeded the original plans, and then markedly exceeded even Sound Transit's updated Fall 2001 budget–which overall was a reasonable admission of how much higher the actual costs would be than those set before voters. The claim that Link light rail line from Sea-Tac to downtown came in “on budget” is true only if one accepts the latest updated budget, not the one used to select and justify the project. It vastly exceeded the costs presented to voters in 1996, and it vastly exceeded the costs Joni Earl claimed earlier in 2001–even after absorbing the first $1 billion dollar cost overrun for Central Link light rail.

What's more, as late as September 2000 Sound Transit claimed Link light rail would serve 125,000 average daily boardings in 2010. It's fallen short, around 20,000.

“Living like rats,” eh? I fear for people who actually think like this.

LOL! Oh John….