Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

x close
The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Tunnel Environmental Study Fails to Address Issues With Previous Version

City Hall, Politics, This Washington   October 29, 2010 at 12:42 pm Erica C. Barnett

The latest version of the state’s supplemental draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS) for the deep-bore tunnel fails to address concerns raised by tunnel opponents about the environmental study’s emphasis on moving cars, the fact that the tunnel would increase greenhouse gas emissions, and the fact that the state projects an  increase in congestion downtown once the tunnel is built.

Moreover, while one chapter of the study does consider the impact of tolling, the study itself assumes that the tunnel would not be tolled. (According to the state, tolls are supposed to pay for $400 million of the project’s total cost). With tolls, the study found, downtown Seattle would see as many as 45,000 more cars on city streets every day. Put another way, that means that more than half the people (86,000, according to WSDOT’s estimate) who would use a free tunnel would move onto city streets if the tunnel is tolled—raising the obvious question: Why build a multi-billion-dollar tunnel that only about 40,000 people will use per day?

“It’s worse than the numbers we were given earlier,” says city council member Mike O’Brien, an opponent of the tunnel. Additionally, O’Brien points to estimates in the environmental study showing the tunnel will increase the state’s greenhouse-gas emissions—in direct contradiction to the state’s adopted goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 50 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. “We’re spending billions of dollars to make [the state's emissions] worse,” O’Brien says.

Also, as we reported earlier, the state has reduced its contingency fund for the tunnel—the fund that will pay for things that go wrong—to just over $100 million. In addition to the $230 million in concessions announced earlier this month (the state agreed to shift funding from the tunnel contingency fund to cover inflation, bonds, and insurance on construction), WSDOT has now agreed to fund incentives for the contractor to finish the project early; funding for maintenance on the tunnel-boring machine; and funding to repair buildings that settle due to tunnel construction in Pioneer Square. Once all those additional incentives are factored in to the contract, the state has just over $100 million left in “pure contingency” funds for unexpected events (like a boulder in the path of the tunnel boring machine).




  • alexjon

    I e-mailed WSDOT a question about which intersections referenced in the chapter on tolling would see emissions rise and to what extent.

  • alexjon

    I e-mailed WSDOT a question about which intersections referenced in the chapter on tolling would see emissions rise and to what extent.

  • alexjon

    Also note the conspicuous absence of details on non-historic structures in appendices I and J. They purposely shift the entirety of the Market out of full consideration due to their status by saying “well, it’s not NRHP” and then they go on to delete consideration from Section 4(f) by saying “as planned” — i.e. no contingencies — it should be fine and so they shouldn’t have to worry about it.

    They do hint in Appendix I and the 4(f) draft that any misfires or schedule slipping could put the market in a money crunch. But that’s okay, they’re totally awesome at staying on track, right?

  • alexjon

    Also note the conspicuous absence of details on non-historic structures in appendices I and J. They purposely shift the entirety of the Market out of full consideration due to their status by saying “well, it’s not NRHP” and then they go on to delete consideration from Section 4(f) by saying “as planned” — i.e. no contingencies — it should be fine and so they shouldn’t have to worry about it.

    They do hint in Appendix I and the 4(f) draft that any misfires or schedule slipping could put the market in a money crunch. But that’s okay, they’re totally awesome at staying on track, right?

  • alexjon

    Also note the conspicuous absence of details on non-historic structures in appendices I and J. They purposely shift the entirety of the Market out of full consideration due to their status by saying “well, it’s not NRHP” and then they go on to delete consideration from Section 4(f) by saying “as planned” — i.e. no contingencies — it should be fine and so they shouldn’t have to worry about it.

    They do hint in Appendix I and the 4(f) draft that any misfires or schedule slipping could put the market in a money crunch. But that’s okay, they’re totally awesome at staying on track, right?

  • Rob

    No need to worry about these details. Our wise leaders have everything figured out.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s change the subject, says ECB. Those bids for the tunnel coming in on target is just too upsetting…

  • alexjon

    You seem to be upset whenever someone points out that the project also includes elements not related to money. For example, in response to transit, you go on about “BUT 25% INCREASE IN INVESTMENT!” when it’s only returning a 1% increase in ridership.

    It’s a shame that people actually consider the whole project and not just the price tag.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Wait, did they seriously say Pike Place Market is not NRHP? NRHP Reference #: 70000644, and it’s even a full US Historic District!!

  • no fossil foolery

    broader conclusions:

    freeways are cost effective new “platforms” for mobility when you put the first freeways in in the state. it goes through many undeveloped areas, so costs are lower. then, additional cars can be added to the freeway from, oh I dunno say 1962 through say oh I dunno 1990 or thereabouts. But by then, the population in the area is more or let’s say the driving is more, there’s 4x more trips per day, and density has built up all around the freeway. And in the meantime btw we’ve beefed up earthquake standards quite a bit, and added real costs we used to ignore like those little things called environmental impacts which policitally now you have to pay more attention to, mitigate etc. etc.

    So building an original freeway may produce a lot of mobility bang for the buck. Especially in being a platform with zero marginal cost per added automobile for decades. Thn, damn it all, it’s so successful it gets full! Now every added car does have a marginal cost in that it adds to the delays suffered by other cars, this is called “congestion” and the facility’s performance starts to deteriorate as travel time is slowed…..I remember zipping out to MS on 520 20 years ago in 23 minutes from seattle, you can’t do that any more and sometimes it’s 1.5 hours a a huge traffic jam on the bridge. Anyhoo, the MARGINAL RETURN or the BANG FOR THE BUCK in (a) rebuilding the highway corridor or (b) ohmygod widening it in the last 60 years has gone up by a factor of about 15 if not 50. In fact, it’s gone up so much, you now can’t even build a viaduct above ground, too bulky and ugly so ohmygod now you gotta put it in a tunnel deep undergroud, HUGELY expensive. Then this means it’s only 4 lanes not 6, don’t even think about making it MORE lanes.

    Bottom line: um, building the first freeway could be rational economics wise whereas building the replacement freeway just is all outof kilter in terms of billions spent/ in this case only 40,000 trips a day on the DBT thing.

    Think about it. It’s four billion dollars. It’s 40,000 cars a day. IOW we are providing a capital facility worth $100,000 for each one of those users.

    We are taxing the entire public, so that 40,000 people can benefit from their $100,000 capital share of the DBT so that they can have car trip that is what, 30 minutes and not 38 minutes from Morgan Junction to Green Lake? And this is only for the 40,000 able and willing to pay the high daily tolls which add an annual cost per user of a few hundred dollars. What is it $3 each way, $6 a day or times 200 days an extra $1200 a year per car? IOW this is taxing the poor to help the rich and helping kill the planet while not even expanding mobility for the general public.

    New designer highways for the rich at huge public expense and small ridership benefit — they’re just not worth it anymore even when viewed simply as mobility benefit for mobility costs and not even counting the planetary effects of yet another multibillion crazy subsidy for fossil fueled foolery.

  • guest

    Speaking of designer transit at huge public expense with only 40,000 trips a day, how many trips a day does the light rail have?

  • Anonymous

    Careful, your analysis applied to light rail would yield similar results.

  • fount

    I actually scrolled to comments thinking, “How will tvguide spin this?” Didn’t have to scroll to far to find it.

    changing the subject? Isn’t the subject the costs and benefits of the tunnel?

    Here you’ve got the state’s official study saying that more than 50% of current users won’t be using the tunnel, but instead will be using surface streets. Is this not germane?

    Calling out that the bids came in (just) under budget (after hundreds of millions in giveaways) is actually changing the subject.

  • Anonymous

    I should be flattered. The Draft EIS is actually a complex document, I’m in the process of reviewing it myself and have barely scraped the surface of information contained in it. ECB, who is completely unqualified to comprehend the technical information contained, looks at it and comes to conclusions based on a very superficial interpretation.

    The irony in all of this is, of course, that the same people (like ECB) who wanted to drastically limit capacity in the SR99 corridor, are now saying that the tunnel is bad because it will cause congestion. Their surface solution would be oh so much worse, but no – the tunnel is the issue.

    The irony is melting my computer screen.

  • Dick Burkhart

    Remember, our current light rail is already only a starter line and already it has 23,000 riders a day. With no green house gas emissions, no fossil fuels, and far cheaper for the non-car owning public.

  • Anonymous

    “Your analysis applied to light rail would yield similar results.”

    Wrong. Light rail has more potential, more than highways, more than express buses and the Sounder to reduce the need for cross-county commuting while providing premium transit alternative for commuters and general cross-county travel. Light rail has the most potential to affect long-standing and obviously obsolete land-use and development patterns that leave all citizens with no choice but to drive for most purposes.

    That said, I’m not all that impressed with Sound Transit planning. According to the planning philosophy I’m trying to convey, extending south to Federal Way should be a priority for Link.

  • guest

    No GHG? No fossil fuels? So hydro power is completely sustainable?

    23,000 riders a day because Metro killed the 194.

  • seandr

    “It’s 40,000 cars a day. IOW we are providing a capital facility worth $100,000 for each one of those users.”

    You’d be correct if the lifespan of the tunnel was only one day. Assuming a lifespan of 60 years, you get a figure more like $3 or $4 per trip. (Which is still pretty high if you ask me.)

    Of course, all that money spent doesn’t just vanish into thin air, it is pumped back into the economy.