A Humble Request of the Tunnel+Transit Coalition

I'm not even on the Tunnel+Transit Coalition and I'll support that amendment.

Now, on the other side, can you please explain, on behalf of the I-5/Surface/Transit option how more capacity is going to magically appear on I-5.

Thanks

Ask WSDOT:

Why is the 'Mercer Place' segment of the “Mercer West” project labelled TBD (to be determined)? Is there a problem they want to keep under wraps?

If Mercer Place won't work, on what streets will traffic be routed between Elliott and the DBT north portal? How much traffic and how much impact?

Could Broad Street Underpass accommodate access to the DBT, or to the Battery Street Tunnel for other AWV Replacement options?

Is rebuilding the Aurora bridge over a widened Mercer Street necessary?

How much traffic will the DBT add to Mercer Street between Aurora and I-5?

- – - –

Is the current 4-lane Alaskan Way design adequate to handle thru-traffic plus motorists and commercial vehicles trying to park?

Is a 6-lane Alaskan Way in the works?

Should the early design for a 2-lane frontage road on the east side with islands between it and a 4-lane Alaskan Way be reconsidered?

Should a permanent bridge be constructed over the RR tracks at Broad Street?

Could this bridge accommodate a Waterfront Streetcar Line extension to Seattle Center, say via Elliott, 3rd, Thomas, Queen Anne/1st Ave?

- – -

Would the cut/cover Tunnelite make the strongest seawall and most stable Alaskan Way?

Would Tunnelite close the AWV, finish the seawall and go into operation at least 2 years before the DBT?

Can a 'stacked' SIX-LANE Tunnelite be constructed while leaving the AWV in place?

Would Tunnelite be far less risky in terms of catastrophic accidents, to construct and operate than the DBT?

Does Tunnelite manage traffic best, thus incur the least environmental impact?

Would Tunnelite create more construction jobs than the DBT?

Is the prelimenary south portal work applicable to Tunnelite?

What's so hard to understand about these questions that WSDOT and DBT stakeholders will not discuss, let alone answer them?

this is from the WSDOT Surface/Transit Hybrid fact sheet (http://wadot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FAF9612A-D0D4-…)

Changes to I-5 would allow for more efficient operations through downtown. Northbound, a new lane would be created between Seneca Street and SR 520 using the existing shoulder of the highway. This new lane would be managed and the Cherry Street on-ramp would be closed at night. Other improvements include allowing general purpose traffic to use the southbound HOV lane between Mercer Street and S. Spokane Street during peak periods, automating the express lane switch-over, converting the Stewart Street express lane ramp to HOV only, converting the Cherry Street and Columbia Street express lane ramps to general purpose, and implementing additional active traffic management.

Ironically enough, the last paragraph in that document says:
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.

I am not part of the coalition, nor do I work for any of those businesses/organizations. So I'll assume your comment “you all believe” is not meant for me.

Amendment #1: Sure, good information is needed, but this same amendment should be added to all of the options, thus insuring that nothing would ever get done around here; not the surface/transit/I-5 options; not the tear it done option; not the leave it up and do nothing option (oh, wait, analysis has been done and this is not an option!!); etc. etc.

Amendment #2: King County already has the authority to raise taxes, just not in the way that they prefer: MVET. Somehow everyone claims that voters should have a say on the tunnel and its costs, but don't think that we should listen to the voters when they didn't want higher MVET, this option was already voted down (then ruled unconstitutional and finally enacted by the legislature to reflect the will of the people). Figure out how to tax people another way.

Amendment #3: Sounds fine, as long as it still goes forward if things are generally the same.

Amendment #4: Also important. And it might be the Port of Seattle that gets the bill for cost overruns because they would have more authority to implement a tax on Seattle AREA Property Owners than the city would (but I don't know how it would work, but it seems that they are better fit for the task; them or KC).

Amendment #5: The state has already made it pretty clear that they will ram this down our throats even if the city doesn't go along with it, so it would be better to be at the table during the construction phase and then figure out the cost overruns later, then not get a seat and then still be stuck with the cost overruns. I much prefer the FOS amendment Morning Fizz mentioned today.

While we're at it, can we also clarify what exactly the transit part of Surface/Transit is?

Is rebuilding the Aurora bridge over a widened Mercer Street necessary?
.

What are you talking about? Art, we know you are the expert on transportation from Honolulu to Washington D.C., but something seems to be off in this analysis.

Could Broad Street Underpass accommodate access to the DBT, or to the Battery Street Tunnel for other AWV Replacement options? .

Huh?

Could we also clarify what the surface part of S/T is?

The first three are great amendments, and I hope they are adopted in some form.

The fourth I'm a little iffy on. I read it to say that Seattle is telling the Port to spend money a certain way, while complaining that State is trying to tell Seattle to spend money a certain way. However, it would be good for all of the governments involved to have plans in place for their respective portions of the cost.

The last one is a non-starter, and I think everyone knows that. I'm glad that Mr. O'Brien separated out the amendments as he did, and hope that the fifth amendment doesn't tarnish the others, especially the first three, and ruin their chances at passage.

Just my opinion, of course.

“Transit improvements include more all-day service than the elevated hybrid scenario. This would include increased service on Metro’s RapidRide routes for Ballard/Uptown, Aurora Avenue and West Seattle and new RapidRide routes on Delridge Way and Lake City Way. The waterfront streetcar would be replaced with a new First Avenue line between King Street and Seattle Center. Park and rides would be expanded in Burien, White Center and Shoreline. The Rapid Trolleybus
Network would be expanded with new connections such as Madison Park to Colman Dock, Queen Anne to Capitol Hill, and Beacon Hill to Capitol Hill. Moderate investment would be made in other express and local routes in Seattle.”

Look at a map of the proposed Mercer Rebuild 1st Phase and you'll see Broad Street Underpass is utilized, the entrance at 8th Ave and Mercer. I'm favorably impressed with the overall design work, especially using the Broad St Underpass.

Next, look at a map of WSDOT's 'proposed conceptual design' for the DBT north portal (both versions – Aurora and 6th Ave). It's logical to merely add access to southbound DBT or Battery Street Tunnel from the Broad Street Underpass.

Using the Broad Street Underpass makes southbound access simpler, safer, 1 less stoplight, no merging left AND a left turn, saves $100s of millions, and routes thru-traffic to Denny Way which is a more suitable commercial corridor than via Mercer Street and Mercer Place. It can even make a straight shot onto 5th Ave into downtown if the westbound traffic is directed to Taylor instead of 6th Ave.

Oh I'm sorry. Did your brain go bye bye with all these big words?

Thanks. I read this as additional service hours on existing routes, and a First Ave Streetcar that I thought was already nixed?

I was hoping the Surface/Transit transit component would be more transit service on the Viaduct corridor, not an extra bus or two in Lake City.

Well, Candidate McGinn said bad things about the First Ave Streetcar, as did Mallahan. I think there's more support on the Council, but of course there's no money for anything.

But the city hasn't formally repudiated the ambition to build it.

Several of the listed improvements are directly in the 99 corridor, some other are designed to free up capacity downtown for cars that used to use the viaduct.

Thanks. I've read the fact sheet before. I just don't drink the Kool-Aid.

I don't think that active “management” and lane re-striping would even satisfactorily address the existing traffic load on I-5 – to say nothing of the increased traffic load that would be forced to migrate to I-5 if current Highway 99 traffic is routed to surface streets. The problem with I-5 from I-90 to SR 520 is that we are saddled with a very poorly engineered infrastructure for current (or increased) volumes.

Look at the map here: http://www.seattlepi.com/transportation/308511_…

I’d say most West Seattleites don’t drink the Kool-Aid either.

Again, I’m for the taxes to support the additional transit (even though West Seattle has been burned several times on transit promises; and the current plan for bus RR to West Seattle shows it using the Viaduct), I’m just not buying that there is a whole bunch of unused real estate on I-5 and I think that it is disingenuous of the I-5/Surface/Transit folks to claim there is.

This quote is from the Western/AW couplet plan that was DOA. Since the “plan” was put out KC took $100M of funds from the capital purchase fund and is facing huge operating shortfalls for the coming future.

Spending $200M on a 1st Ave. streetcar would be ridiculous and how are the operating costs going to maintained?

If the money is there for transit(bus, nothing wrong with buses), why don't we do it now. Viaduct, tunnel, or waterfront highway – more transit would be nice. Why should transit be hooked to the AW project?

I don't like the idea of allowing general purpose traffic in HOV lanes. Thats a bad precedent and not exactly in line with goals to reduce SOV use.

I think thats a fine idea.

There is little to no support for any streetcars that need to be paid for by the city and don't have another agency to pay the bulk of the O&M.

The current Streetcar is costing twice what a clean electric bus costs to operate.

Well the document is from Dec. 2008, a month before the s/t plan was ditched for the DBT.

Yes, in either scenario, more transit revenue is needed to pay for improvements. Of course, if the state puts gas tax money into the waterfront instead of deep underground, that frees up some city and county authority, doesn't it?

Why hooked to the AW project? Because in either scenario we're removing roadway capacity in that corridor.

Jakers: Amendment #2: King County already has the authority to raise taxes, just not in the way that they prefer: MVET. Somehow everyone claims that voters should have a say on the tunnel and its costs, but don't think that we should listen to the voters when they didn't want higher MVET, this option was already voted down (then ruled unconstitutional and finally enacted by the legislature to reflect the will of the people). Figure out how to tax people another way.

Jakers, you're using an unconstitutional Tim Eyman initiative that's more than a decade old and that was actually defeated in King County as an excuse to not say King County is up to self-determination on transit funding?! And the whole premise of your argument is that we should defer to the will of the voters when it looks like the last thing you want is for the voters to express their will on this project?! Now that's chutzpah.

I'd called you out on this before, and I'll keep calling you out on it again.

What have you got against funding transit as part of this project? What have you got against making the state live up to its commitments, one of which (on the part of the governor) was to give King County an additional right to tax itself, which King County has every right to blow off?

And you know full well that there's no other funding source out there for transit that's comparable to an MVET and still feasible.

Well, in December 2008 the City Council voted 6-3 to proceed with preliminary planning for a much larger system. That's far from a firm commitment, but that's also not “little or no support” for a project that you obviously think should be dismissed out of hand.

One yes and one no vote have since departed, making it 5-2. O'Brien and Bagshaw, AFAIK, haven't gone on the record about streetcars.

By the way, I'm speaking as someone who sincerely wants to see Seattle stand up for itself when it comes to this MVET for transit. There's a difference between inserting poison pills and using what leverage you have on behalf of your constituents. And I'd like to see our City Council actually use its leverage rather than get bowled over by the state on every possible turn. Instead of just using the rhetoric of standing up for Seattle, I want to see some binding measures where they do actually stand up for Seattle.

The couplet plan that the numbers are based on was DOA. The idea of half of an urban highway running up Western had no traction.

The gas tax money can only go to car orientated project pieces. I think the rest of the state might object to money going to city elements that they don't perceive to be part of a state highway system. That is money above and beyond what SDOT already receives for city streets. Perhaps if the new 99 ran along the waterfront, the sea wall could be considered part of the project. What elements were you alluding to?

If somehow the viaduct healed itself and we didn't need to do anything there, more transit would still be a good thing. More transit isn't just something we should add when we reduce road capacity.

I think he was referring to your use of the term “Aurora Bridge”, which most Seattleites think of as the bridge over the ship canal well north of the location of the proposed north portal.

You make some good points about the folly of abandoning the Broad Street Tunnel and doing what has commonly been referred to as the “lowered Aurora” work that has been linked to the Mercer Street boondoggle, but you might find a more receptive audience if you weren't such a dick in how you go about arguing your case.

Regarding the party addressed in this post, it should be obvious that the so-called Tunnel+Transit Coalition is constitutionally incapable of lifting one finger in support of transit as part of this project. Simply by virtue of choosing the phoniest, most Orwellian name possible and being an unwieldy coalition of business interests, living up to the one half of their name is not in their nature. They are what they are.

But this doesn't let our City Council or our local representives in Olympia off the hook. And frankly, I'd like to hear something on this matter from the other regional transit/land-use advocacy organizations besides Sierra Club.

If you have an alternate S/T document, I'm happy to look at it. I'm merely using the last serious work on this before WSDOT moved over to the DBT, which was the couplet plan. Otherwise we could debate infinitely fluid alternative S/T plans, which simply isn't productive.

That S/T plan puts about $700m into the couplet and $553m into I-5. You could peg the city for the seawall, surface streets, and the transit from the S/T plan, and you'd end up with about $950m, or about what the city's putting into the DBT project. AND you'd get a ton of transit.

The last Eyman tab initiative was in 2002, 7 1/2 years ago. It removed local MVETs. The Supreme Court ruled it valid. If it is still in effect, it would require a vote before KC could enact a new one.

A one percent rate would raise about $140-150M per year, if the evaluation system currently in place remains. The system is based on MSRP with reductions for age. It is very flawed and should be changed before any new MVET.

The governor can't make commitments of this nature. I wouldn't want the governor of KC Council to be able to enact that level of taxes without a vote, whether for the tunnel or transit.

Taking the shoulder away seems like a recipe for making things worse than they are now on I-5 –it's great until there is a fender-bender that it would be nice to park over there.

The rest of the I-5 improvements seem like re-arranging deck chairs. I-5 is already a nightmare if you are travelling in the direction that doesn't have the express lanes open.

When the vote was held and both the cut-and-cover and the rebuild were rejected, I had high hopes that the advisory group would come up with a legitimate Surface/transit plan. What they came up with was underwhelming to say the least. If the plan for S/T had been halfway decent, the DBT would have had a harder time getting support and momentum.

Cary Moon and others had their big chance after that vote to show that they could produce something besides platitudes, and they blew it.

It seems like we are increasingly faced with either going forward on the tunnel which, while risky, allows the viaduct to stay up during construction, or going back to the Chopp-A-Duct plan, which will crates years of contruction mess and leave us with a waterfront that is even less inviting than it is now.

At least this Kool-Aid has a more predictable price tag.

Martin,

Currently, there is little to no support for the $40 to $50M per mile costs of the streetcars. The O&M costs for SLU-T has come in significantly higher than predicted.

Drago/Vulcan (McGrady was her legislative aide) pushed through the SLU-T and Drago pushed the grander plan. The problems with costs ($2 from the general fund for O&M), the increase of lost bus hours (because of the higher O&M) now that Metro is footing 3/4 of the cost using Seattle bus hours and the problems with bicycles has soured much of the council.

One problem for S/T, IMO, is that not much is known about either side of it.

No argument there.

Couldn't possibly agree more.

A humble request for the backers of Surface/Transit…please outline your legislative strategy to get the state of Washington to fund an ongoing revenue stream for transit in the S/T plan. You will need more transit than the tunnel plan, so please address that as well.

Dan, why would anyone who backs the tunnel support any of O'Brien's amendments? His aim is simply to derail the tunnel project and his amendment or any City Council action can't authorize transit funding for King County. Only the Legislature can do that. And, the Tunnel + Transit Coalition folks will have a lot more ability to lobby their legislators than the Mike/Mike Obstructionist Brigade. O'Brien's amendments will all fail, as they should.

Yeah hah. It'll take more argument to get this analysis any respect and I'm sick and tired of having it spit on.

Mercer would still be converted to 2-way, but remain 4 lanes wide; enough width for local traffic to Lower Queen Anne. Thru-traffic is diverted to Denny Way, the current arrangement for westbound traffic off I-5. Broad Street from Taylor to Denny Way could still be depaved.

Seattle is stuck in a transportation quagmire attended by a multi-level bureaucracy that warrants public distrust. Tunnelite could act as a sort of penance for the ill will and civic discord.

1) RE: Funding of transit. There is more state funding for transit in the last surface/transit plan ($476 million) than in the tunnel plan ($0 million).

2) RE: Need for more transit. There is NOT more need for transit in the surface/transit plan than in the tunnel plan. The surface/transit plan has a six-lane highway, capacity improvements on I-5 and city streets that absorbs all or nearly all of the current viaduct traffic.

The tunnel plan has just a four-lane highway with $4 tolls one way that will carry less than half the current viaduct capacity (exact number has not been studied). There is far more need for transit in the tunnel plan than the surface plan.

3) RE: Ongoing revenue stream. Hint: The topic of this post is a county Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, which would be an ongoing revenue stream for transit. There is no need for state legislative action (except to allow the county to issue a MVET on county residents only).

I stand corrected on I-776. But while the governor can't singlehandedly pass legislation, she can make political commitments. And wasn't she the one who singlehandedly vetoed that political commitment she'd made, or am I not remembering that correctly either?

Oh, and I'm fine with seeing this MVET put up to a vote in King County, if need be. What I'm not fine with is the state (as represented by the governor) making a deal with the city and county and then reneging on whatever part of the deal it can get away with reneging on. This is the precisely the kind of behavior that the city should be doing everything it can to protect itself against with this tunnel project. Not through resolutions or rhetoric but through legal mechanisms that can't be subverted.

MVH on Mike O'Brien: His aim is simply to derail the tunnel project and his amendment or any City Council action can't authorize transit funding for King County.

MVH, I don't dispute you on O'Brien's motives, but the City Council could make the city's participation in the project contingent on the state authorizing transit funding for King County. No funding, no agreement. No?

And MVH, let me try to get a window into your opinion. Was it right for the governor to promise that the MVET authority would be made available and then fail to follow through? Should additional transit or transit infrastructure be funded as part of the tunnel project? If so, how?

PG – Hey, I'm not arguing in favor of Gov. G's honesty. I do believe that she vetoed the bill and have no idea why.

No matter what side of the issue one is on, the way Gregoire, Sims, and Nickels hatched it up in the back-room (now smokeless) stinks.

We did get a chance to vote on the gas tax increase that is partially funding the highway portion.

There was as much transit in the DBT at the same stage of planning.

Any idea where the money was to come from?

Hey, um, so, like, didin't McGinn say he was not going to interfere with the Tunnel decision? Its the elephant in the room, right next to the dead horse you guys have been flogging.

“didin't McGinn say he was not going to interfere with the Tunnel decision”

Ahh, the dark arts of politics. He never said he'd let it go forward completely unquestioned, but enough people who wanted to hear that heard that and voted for him.

It was brilliant. Won him the race.

The Governor can promise that MVET authority will be made available, but the Legislature actually has to authorize it.

O'Brien is proposing the transit funding amendment to delay the project. If I don't want to delay the project, why would I support him?

Who cares about how long it either of the initiative were voted one (I forgot completely about I-776). There haven't been new ones since, it's still the will of the people across the state. And I don't think that it matters what a specific county's opinion is on a state law, it still has to abide by it and state laws are the will of the people of the state. Bellevue is finding this out in regards to Sound Transit's placement of track.

Folks are mad at the Guv precisely because the legislature passed a bill for transit funding that she vetoed.

No. He didn't. Folks have posted a link to a Times article here many times quoting McGinn as saying he wouldn't stand in the way of Council approval of the tunnel contracts but that he would continue to ask questions about the cost overruns — which is exactly what he is doing.

There is no post-election flip-flop.

Oh, please. Parse all you want, but of course it's was a strategic campaign flip-flop. And if Mallahan's hadn't done his own pre-election flip-flop on the Mercer project, this whole thread might be a whole lot different.

The Tunnel + Transit folks might have more ability to lobby, but they won't. They've already proven themselves to be completely untrustworthy on earlier commitments re: transit funding. All they care about is roadway capacity. They should care about transit capacity, but they don't.

They've had plenty of opportunities to prove transit advocates wrong over the last two years. They could have persuaded Gregoire not to veto the 2009 transit funding bill. They could have persuaded Gregoire to include the MVET authority in the tunnel bill. They could have lobbied for the Marko Liias emergency transit funding bill from this year, but they did not lift a finger. These tunnel boosters, like the governor, are completely untrustworthy. This is why the city council needs to hold the tunnel agreement in abeyance until they can be sure both the governor and business community boosters will follow through on their earlier commitments.

MVH above: The Governor can promise that MVET authority will be made available, but the Legislature actually has to authorize it.

As Mickymse responded earlier, it was the governor herself who vetoed that funding authority. Are we wrong with this information?

MVH: O'Brien is proposing the transit funding amendment to delay the project. If I don't want to delay the project, why would I support him?

MVH, as I already said, I'm not disputing that O'Brien is being disingenuous in his intentions. But you sidestepped my questions, so let me ask again. Should additional transit or transit infrastructure be funded as part of the tunnel project? If so, how?

You say:

RE: Ongoing revenue stream. Hint: The topic of this post is a county Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, which would be an ongoing revenue stream for transit. There is no need for state legislative action (except to allow the county to issue a MVET on county residents only).

You act like that permission for a new MVET tax is a minor lift for McGinn. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most Olympia observers will tell you the likelihood of transit money as part of a tunnel package is more likely than transit after a divisive fight over S/T.

Y'know, I'd forgotten all about Geoff Simpson slipping that funding into a bill (and the Gov. vetoing it). I'd support that same funding authorization again, please, as the state has pledged to provide the authority and King County the transit service.

My original point doesn't necessarily address the substance of O'Brien's amendments, just the fact that he (a tunnel opponent) made them and crafted them as a delaying tactic. If you look at the top post today, you'll see that the Council tunnel supporters have proposed an amendment expressing support for transit funding. It isn't built around holding up the project, like most (all?) of O'Brien's proposals, so I support it.

Can a blogger really be humble?