City Report: Tunnel Will Have Major Impact on Downtown Traffic

Duh.

This isn’t a problem with a new elevated, a problem with a tunnel (think of it as a road diet). Those are the options.

Rearranging the deck chairs, are ya?

38,000 a day? highways work great when first built, linking relatively low density spots, at relatively low cost. I mean the initial cost seems high, but it’s really screaming low, as the highway then provides a platform for growth with bacially zero marginal cost for every car added to it for 3 or 6 decades or so.
Then it’s full. Then, earthquake standards have “improved” (that is highway engineers decree it has to be twice as bulky if rebuilt) — more $$. And, the whole city has now progressed a few decades such that the darn right of way is now tightly constricted with properties, and isntead of rebuilding the darn highway wider — you have to rebuild it at much higher expense — to be narrow! and carry LESS flow. IOW, the highways work so well they have the seeds of their own doom, or to be more precise their nonscalability. what initially was a good investment then isn’t. THEN throw on TOP of all that concerns about emisions and planetary climate change the need for density and transit simply to not only save earth but, you know, it’s kind of expensive to move a 3000 hunk of metal thru a downtown every time you want to move a 150 lb. person — just pure inefficiency– and the value of rapid transit emerges. What other cities figure out. Multiline, exclusive right of way, FAST rapid transit. (See? it’s rapid transit not mass transit. We have mass transit now, it’s too slow). But in Seattle? Wow, we’re so freakin’ green we’re bulding a bypass highway in the year 2012 to — get this !!! — “solve congestion”. Wow, let’s add less than the ballard bridge, for more than the cost of a whole train line in this corridor.

So supposing the study comes out with some airtight projections and figures that build off the summary’s pretty grim figures and basically casts the whole project into doubt, what could the city do without looking quixotic in the face of pretty solid numbers? Well, for one, the City Council could direct the City Attorney’s office to suspend its court challenge under the guise of cost concerns with crossed-fingered hopeful statements about “we think the tunnel will win”. Then the pressure is off them. … but enough of my own belief in the city council being rational at all times, I had an idea in the case we back off the tunnel and cries of “WHERE’S YOUR SOLUTION” begin:

HOV lanes from West Seattle to tie into these proposed transit improvements. Why the heck not? There are plenty of “last mile” HOV facilities in the country, why not a multimodal HOV setup for West Seattle citizens to allow them to get to where they’re going faster? I mean, WSDOT is bridge-happy in SODO right now and such improvements would get gas tax easily. Make it a 3-lane job with a pair of 2+ HOV and a third transit lane that could later be bought out by the City of Seattle with enough room for grade separation in case they want to put light rail up there, or split the improvement between the upper and lower bridges.

It’s a pat on the butt for West Seattle, transit wonks and pavement lovers everywhere.

P.S., if the plan is scuttled we won’t have to listen to the Seattle Times’ headline screaming “MORE TUNNEL PROBLEMS? IS DEEP BORE TUNNEL BECOMING THE ‘BIG DIG’ WEST?” and such for any little TBM hiccup. Silver lining, folks.

As a generally pro-tunnel person, this is what really got me thinking…the second to last paragraph of the executive summary:

“The question at hand is whether tolling changes the calculus of decision making completed to date.”

After reading the executive summary, I’ve definitely softened my position a bit.

the efficacy and the over all cost have always been of concern to my pro-tunnel mindset…unfortunately, no other option has really been put forward in detail…no one wants to rebuild the viaduct, or mostly no one…and the surface/transit hasn’t been promoted other than as an idea/alternative to the tunnel — it exists more for contrast than a fleshed out idea…and I still think surface only would dump a lot more cars downtown than having a tunnel to carry most of the load. but it is food for thought…thing is, for better or for worse, we as a city need to do something rather than endlessly debate the damn thing.

As General Patton said “A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future.”

So I agree in principle with your last sentence, yes we do need to move on. The question is, is the tunnel a ‘good plan’? I personally don’t think so. However I am just one person, I say we let the city vote as soon as possible on it, and if it gets voted up, we move ahead and try to get as many mitigations programed in, and if it gets voted down we need to abandon it and move on to a new plan.

Then doesn’t that make the problems even more stark in comparison? That the metrics used by the report for comparison, a simple hodgepodge of projections, still managed to be competitive on numerous levels with the tunnel?

If a report like this can take a bunch of common sense options and painstakingly walk through the results, one by one, without a fully fleshed out idea, then it’s not impossible that, like I-35W in Minnesota, WSDOT can take all the pieces and put them together in a short timeframe. A little pain at the onset of closure, but hey, we can start opening improvements and rolling out transit ASAP so by the time the necessary parts are in place we’re gold.

The tolling required by the tunnel plan is necessary, it’s required and it’s not going to go away. The structural deficiencies highlighted by this report, absent some magic pool of money, will remain regardless of what level of design the surface option gets to because the tolling requirement is essential. This is one reason why outright dismissal of surface/transit is irrational. I think the report touches on the other reasons.

I would be more inclined to put it to a vote if it were actually a vote to do something, not a vote Not to do something. if the vote were, which of the three do you want: surface/transit, rebuild, tunnel? and the one with the highest percentage was the one the city commited to was the result, that would be one thing…but as it is, it simply will be a vote on the tunnel and if somehow the result were against the tunnel and somehow the legislature had to listen (neither of which is a certain) then the result would be surface/transit be default because the state would pull all its money except for getting rid of the viaduct. how then the surface/transit would be a democratic solution is beyond me, since the vote wouldnt have been for that, but that would be the result.

in any case, if the tunnel were somehow shelved, we’d be back to square one and it would take another two decades before anything was done.

and just think, if we hadn’t put transit to a vote 40 years ago, we’d have a world class system now.

I would be more inclined to put it to a vote if it were actually a vote to do something, not a vote Not to do something. if the vote were, which of the three do you want: surface/transit, rebuild, tunnel? and the one with the highest percentage was the one the city commited to was the result, that would be one thing…but as it is, it simply will be a vote on the tunnel and if somehow the result were against the tunnel and somehow the legislature had to listen (neither of which is a certain) then the result would be surface/transit be default because the state would pull all its money except for getting rid of the viaduct. how then the surface/transit would be a democratic solution is beyond me, since the vote wouldnt have been for that, but that would be the result.

in any case, if the tunnel were somehow shelved, we’d be back to square one and it would take another two decades before anything was done.

and just think, if we hadn’t put transit to a vote 40 years ago, we’d have a world class system now.

I’d say that the magnitude of the risks associated with the tunnel and the cost overrun provisions set the DBT in a class by itself. While I’d prefer surface/transit/I5 over a rebuilt viaduct I’m much more comfortable with either one.

As to Forward Thrust, didn’t Transit win, but just not by the supermajority required? I don’t think the DBT will have to jump that hurdle.

Why WAS a supermajority required, btw? Can anyone explain it to me?

The “we might as well do what’s on paper” suggestion just doesn’t wash, the final EIS isn’t complete and the tunneling partners know that. They understand the built-in risk.

As far as solutions, this game changing report points out that a blanket solution isn’t entirely necessary and that a quilt is probably just as good — and that’s just from a summary. The process they used to untangle the hodgepodge of a surface/transit/I-5 plan is more or less the route one would take to pull out all the individual projects, from I-5 to surface to multimodal priority lanes in the core to create a solution. I can’t imagine it would take long — look at I-35W in MPLS — and I think many of the projects could get on paper independent of the larger goals fast enough to start getting workers behind those shovels.

Minor complaint, but couldn’t they get a newer photo of Seattle? And preferably with sunny blue skies?

Or were they setting the tone with that photo?

“Why WAS a supermajority required, btw? Can anyone explain it to me?”

The Forward Thrust bonds required a supermajority. But hey, we got the Kingdome out of it, so it’s not all bad.

Nope, still pointing out the obvious.

It is under, or over. The current policy is under, and most likely solution.

All solutions require transit, making the street grid function better with a greater population.

Nope, still pointing out the obvious.

It is under, or over. The current policy is under, and most likely solution.

All solutions require transit, making the street grid function better with a greater population.

Still inventing what-if scenarios where imagined facts fit your opinions?

Still inventing what-if scenarios where imagined facts fit your opinions?

Speak for yourself.

How does a new 6-lane viaduct require transit?

Every poll shows that more people want to rebuild the viaduct than want to build a tunnel or do the “surface/transit option.” A viaduct is the most popular option with Seattle voters.

Another 2 decades of using the current viaduct would be an excellent result.

Silver linings at the edge of seattle’s dark cloud are brighter than usual cloud form, speaking of Seattle’s ‘renown’ transport/transit planners who don’t do the best work and won’t take advice from outside and more successful of our engineering departments. I suspect the Righties won’t listen to Liberals whose plans however are succeeding. Hm, and they also build highways fer a livin. S’mazing beeuteeful countree.

This outsider thinks you’re all crazy-if-unable to see how badly the bored tunnel conceptually falls apart. It’s amazing. “Hey, let’s use twice as much new concrete and recycle less of the old fer this here tunnely-thingy. That be fishent nuf fer ya?

Good news finally got here. Experts agree. Bad Design dbt. Thanx to ALL & help is welcome round here.
Thank you’s Mike & Mike. And thank you good engineers who always knew the dbt must not be built. It’s absurd. I hate to say it. You’ve got to admit it — the mayor is right — Surface Boulevard +Transit + Fixes to I-5 plan is best. Whatta guy. You done it !! Good for you, MIKE !! and for us here nearby, which I’m now believing a suit could be drawn up on national grounds which validates my outside appeals and articulate understanding about route designs and technologies. Some of you know I’m good. The ending the dbt nonsense is nye. The sooner the better. The DBT is OVER or at least DOWN for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th? time and counting. 1.2.3.4.5 — We’re past 5 on count of red flags — 6, 7 — we’re at 8 or 9 on this count now. I say ONE more count to go. Not long…

“The current policy” isn’t always the best policy, there are more than a few state laws on the books we can point at to prove that one and that sort of status quo “eff the planet” expedience is leading many young environmentalists to turn to LGBT activists for advice on how to deal with a hostile push to undo or circumvent environmental protections and law: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53346.html

It’s the sort of thing where, say, LGBT activists show a general social preference (support for DADT repeal vs. support for reducing dependence on cars and fossil fuels), studies come out (Palm Center Study vs. the aforementioned report here), but the boosters of the status quo still just put up their fingers and go “we’ll do what we want, you lose”.

But that’s a little too big picture for you, I suppose. Let’s keep it to this situation, specifically.

When your reaction to contradictory analysis and facts is “well, it doesn’t matter they’re doing what I prefer anyway”, then you don’t really have any kind of ground to stand on. I suppose that’s why you’re attempting to burrow underneath, eh?

When informed with factual and well-supported evidence, voters are generally more willing to move away from the status quo.

How much did we City taxpayers pay for this report that WSDOT will ignore, and did the City know that they would ignore it when the Council authorized the expenditure for the report? If so, WHY did they commission the report?

I think a better title for the article would have been “Tolling the Tunnel will have a Major Impact on Downtown Seattle”. The focus of the report is that the severe tolling scenarios would result in huge amounts of diverted traffic. This isn’t exacly news, as WSDOT provided McGinn with this information over 6 months ago (and McGinn has been beating his drum about it for nearly that long – remember him comparing the DBT to the Ballard Bridge?).

The Exec. summary takes us back through the process that ultimately led the City, County and State to recommend the deep-bore tunnel, and acurately states that at that time, there was minimal study done regarding the effects of tolling.

Its unfortunate that the Legislature stuck the AWV program with $400 million in tolling requirements. I have seen posts (incorrectly) stating that the $400 million tolling requirement is needed to supplement the available budget to pay for the project, that wasn’t always true.

In 2010, the Legislature shifted $400 million of in-hand funding from the AWV program over to the SR 520 program, specifically to fund the SR 520 Eastside, and Floating Bridge and Landings design-build projects.

Some have speculated that this was done out of frustration towards the City of Seattle in response to the difficulties in reaching consensus along the central waterfront, and more specifically the Montlake interchange, and westside improvements related to the SR 520 project.

Either way, the AWV project must toll the tunnel to raise the $400 million in tolling, which will result in diverted traffic that now becomes the City’s problem.

Already there are posts (just above), acting as if this information is somehow new, or relavatory, when its not. That said it would be a huge plus if it results in a milder tolling strategy, or having the Legislature reconsider their actions in saddling the project with that burden.

Good news finally got here. Engineers agree. The DBT is too badly designed to not oppose. Thanx to ALL. Thank you’s to Mike & Mike. Thank you’s to good engineers who always knew the dbt was a rotter and not to be built. You’ve got to admit it — The mayor is right, his Surface Boulevard +Transit + Fixes to I-5 plan is BEST. Hurray!
Whatta guy. You done it !! Good for you, MIKE !! and good also everyone. A suit could be drawn up on inter-state grounds that validates my outside appeal and analysis of transit route designs and vehicle technologies.

The ending of the dbt nonsense is nye. Sooner the better. The DBT is OVER! or, at least DOWN for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th? Time & Counting. 1.2.3.4.5 — past 5 on red flags — 6, 7 — we’re at 8 or 9 on the count.
ONE more count to go. Not long…til partee thyme.

This outsider thinks you’re all crazy-if-unable to SEE how badly the bored tunnel concept falls apart. Ack!
It’s embarrassing. “Hey, let’s use twice as much new concrete and recycle less of the old fer this here tunnely-thingy. That be fishent nuf fer ya? Wut old billdings? Twaffic? Where? Wut? Sheesh!
Bye bye DBT. I wasn’t good to know ya.

Also a Do Nothing option on the ballot…it will win….so much for voting. Heh heh.

This is exactly what a majority of Seattle voters want…therefore put it on the ballot & research a Retrofit to the BEDROCK.

This is exactly what a majority of Seattle voters want…therefore put it on the ballot & research a Retrofit to the BEDROCK.

Let’s vote on the Surface Plan….20% support…..oh,OOPS neverrrrr mind!!!

That’s why Bush had 2 terms…

Smug & condescending…typical of this faction.

Smug & condescending…typical of this faction.

The report was commissioned by the Mayor. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Council authorizes expenditures at a level so small as to include a probably $100,000 report. If they approved every $100,000 as specific line items the $1B annual budget would be even more difficult to understand than it already is.

Yes, you are.

Yes, you’re right. For example he lied about the war. When new reports came out, he and his supporters immediately started to throw dust in the air.

This is why reports like the above which highlight the deficiencies in the existing Gregoire/Council-forced plan are necessary. Reports like this are the “there were no WMDs” of the tunneling flap. Of course, like Bush, Gregoire and the Council are just gonna pull a honey badger and not care.

There, I made your reference make sense.

That would require informing the electorate on the reality of the project instead of state-funded lies and half-truths. I don’t think truth is your friend, though.

you made that statement up. wishful thinking from an arrogant carless, under-30 on The Hill

Maybe I’m a little over-excited about the report. My intention is to celebrate on behalf of everyone without being smug or condescending. The bored tunnel is such a terrible mistake. Mercer West and the new Alaskan Way designs are likewise poorly arranged. The community of engineers has always been divided on the DBT, alone enough evidence of its fatal flaws. The professionals can’t be ignored as many bored tunnel proponents do in smug and condescending ways. When I’m smug and offensive, I try to make it obvious to reflect the same attitude coming from the pro-tunnel camp. I’m happy about this new report validating many concerns that add up against the bored tunnel. Whatever.

Maybe I’m a little over-excited about the report. My intention is to celebrate on behalf of everyone without being smug or condescending. The bored tunnel is such a terrible mistake. Mercer West and the new Alaskan Way designs are likewise poorly arranged. The community of engineers has always been divided on the DBT, alone enough evidence of its fatal flaws. The professionals can’t be ignored as many bored tunnel proponents do in smug and condescending ways. When I’m smug and offensive, I try to make it obvious to reflect the same attitude coming from the pro-tunnel camp. I’m happy about this new report validating many concerns that add up against the bored tunnel. Whatever.

the alternative you seek is a grade separated rapid transit line sky train light rail if separated monorail trirail the rails don’t fucking matter but the grade separation DOES this is the only thing that moves you FAST thru and to downtown at ruch hour or from w seattle to ballard and this is the only option that synergizes with the other light rail line. about 300 cities have figured out that urban mobility is provided if you have multiline rail system. Seattle is soooo behind the curve building a DBT for billions for two mils to move 38K people a bit faster, helping add their cars to congestion, just doesn’t serve efficiently as a mobility tool. Rail does.

the alternative you seek is a grade separated rapid transit line sky train light rail if separated monorail trirail the rails don’t fucking matter but the grade separation DOES this is the only thing that moves you FAST thru and to downtown at ruch hour or from w seattle to ballard and this is the only option that synergizes with the other light rail line. about 300 cities have figured out that urban mobility is provided if you have multiline rail system. Seattle is soooo behind the curve building a DBT for billions for two mils to move 38K people a bit faster, helping add their cars to congestion, just doesn’t serve efficiently as a mobility tool. Rail does.

like I said — “do nothing + assumption of risk.”

1. do nothing.
2. pass a law saying nobody can sue anybody when AWV falls down.
3. put signs up saying etner and be close to AWV at your own risk.

Voila! Problem solved. oh wait –
4. take the billions saved and conduct quake inspections on 350K private homes and brick buildsin in seattle and build neighborhood medical centers so after the earthquake comes we won’t have to swim across the ship canal with the two limbs we still have to get to harborview, I will want my morphine and my doctor to be here in my neighborhood!

like I said — “do nothing + assumption of risk.”

1. do nothing.
2. pass a law saying nobody can sue anybody when AWV falls down.
3. put signs up saying etner and be close to AWV at your own risk.

Voila! Problem solved. oh wait –
4. take the billions saved and conduct quake inspections on 350K private homes and brick buildsin in seattle and build neighborhood medical centers so after the earthquake comes we won’t have to swim across the ship canal with the two limbs we still have to get to harborview, I will want my morphine and my doctor to be here in my neighborhood!

yeah but “more people” means just 40 percent so in a democracy you lose buddy.

IF you had a rebuild that wasn’t twice as bulky and twice as ugly you might get over 50%.

yeah but “more people” means just 40 percent so in a democracy you lose buddy.

IF you had a rebuild that wasn’t twice as bulky and twice as ugly you might get over 50%.

an odd absence of pro tunnel commenting on this thread. Once people get over their emotional anger at mcginn — their scornfulness is really quite odd considering he’s just asking solid questions like who the fuck pays, and what good does this do — maybe they’re starting to realize…..

you can’t build your way out of congestion, not even with a four lane two mile tolled bypass highway that costs billiosn of dollars, duuuuuuhhhhhhhhfreakingduuuuuuh.

What are we, LA in 1955?

And, in this case, all the factual and well-supported evidence shows the viaduct is far and away the best transportation option. Which is why it gets the most voter support.

And, in this case, all the factual and well-supported evidence shows the viaduct is far and away the best transportation option. Which is why it gets the most voter support.

The surface transit gets only about 20% support. So surface/transit loses worse, buddy. And tunnel also loses worse.

The rebuild is not twice as bulky. That is just one of the many lies of the car-haters in thise town.

All of which leads us back to: just leave the current viaduct.

The legislature wasn’t “frustrated” with the City of Seattle; they just hate Seattle.

I think a lot of people, on either side of the issue, are just getting tired of it — getting tired of the shrill attacks from both sides, of reports that go back and forth, of indecision…and are dropping out of the discussion. Furthermore, I don’t understand why surface/transit thinks stopping the tunnel means building surface/transit when surface/transit, by a large margin, has the least support. If the tunnel doesn’t get built, they will rebuild the viaduct, according to “democracy rules” and putting the decision to the people.

maybe they “hate” seattle because seattle “frustrates” them so much.

A few points –
The alternative you describe is not going to be paid for with AWV funding (which is State-collected gas-taxes). The provisions for collecting the money (which were approved by voters back in the late 1990′s) won’t allow it.

The City of Seattle isn’t “behind the curve” building the DBT. First of all, the City isn’t building the DBT, WSDOT is. Its a State facility.

Seattle understands the benefits of grade-separated transit – we built a tunnel for transit through downtown Seattle back in the 1980′s. Additionally, Sound Transit routes commuter rail through another, separate tunnel beneath downtown Seattle. The current, and proposed light rail system is largely grade-separated through the City – in more tunnels (which is much more costly, but has far greater capacity).

Lastly, saying the DBT will move 38k has nothing to do with the tunnel itself, and instead the policy in regards to pricing. Same thing applies to transit – if the prices are too high, ridership suffers. That “worst case” (38k trips) may or may never happen. The City can do its part to influence that through its design of the arterials that serve the portal areas – build them big, and funnel traffic through the City, keep them narrow, and more traffic will shift over to the tunnel.

Your post isn’t relevent in that it describes an option (inner-city mass transit improvements) that has no funding plan. McGinn know this, which is why he has been stumping for a new West Link (Ballard to West Seattle) study.

I understand the need for, and support expansion and enhancemnt of the Seattle transit network as well.

I agree a new West Link would greatly enhance the transit network in the City. I support it. I also realize that to make it work, another tunnel will need to be constructed through downtown (not deep bore, but ideally, adjacent to the existing transit tunnel – for efficient interconnect). This would be very costly, but neccessary. Those who think the existing tunnel can accomodate new West Link traffic aren’t thinking ahead. To make the transit system effective we need to have more than 1 NB and 1 SB track through downtown (added trains from East, North and South Link will result in the existing tunnel reaching capacity once all are online).

What I won’t do is simply point to WSDOT AWV funding (State gas tax collections), and think that by exalting the benefits of mass transit, those monies will be re-allocated to funding Seattle mass transit improvements. It would be illegal, and State government won’t let it happen.

If you want to try and stop the tunnel, that’s up to you, but doing that won’t get us any closer to having mass transit in Seattle.

totally agree…

…esp. about excessive tolling being the real issue. resolve that (lower tolls, longer period?) and resolve a lot of the complaints (or reasons for obstruction to hang their hats on)…other than from those who will never be satisfied with anything other than deconstruction of car culture…which would be nice someday, but until then, you need to keep up with infrastructure. build out different systems concurrently as you shift people over to other modes of transportation.

The viaduct is not congested for almost all hours of the day. So, for the majority of people who use it, the viaduct, has, indeed, eliminated congestion on their trips past the central business district.

Oops. There goes your stupid theory.

“City Report: Tunnel Will Have Major Impact on Downtown Traffic”

Public’s Report: Surface/Transit WIll Have Major Impact on Downtown Traffic!!

Voter’s Report: 6-lane Viaduct Will Have No Impact on Downtown Traffic!!

So what is the “Surface Plan” anyway? A specific one, not just a “the tunnel is bad, surface+transit is the way to go” proclamation. Are these plans available? Do they exist?

I say that as someone who would like to read them – to be better educated, ya know – not a booster of one of the 43 options being tossed around.

So what is the “Surface Plan” anyway? A specific one, not just a “the tunnel is bad, surface+transit is the way to go” proclamation. Are these plans available? Do they exist?

I say that as someone who would like to read them – to be better educated, ya know – not a booster of one of the 43 options being tossed around.

We live in a representative democracy. Can you imagine if we the people had to vote on every single law (the argument to “throw it on the ballot”, every time our elected leaders make any decision) – nothing would ever get done. Yet Seattle folks seem to want it to work that way: welcome to the “Seattle Process”.

I love it when a pro-tunnel person is called an idiot or told they don’t know what they’re talking, that they’re stupid for thinking it could work.

I personally lean more towards the tunnel side only because McGinn and Co’s arguments for road diets and road changes throughout the rest of the city jive perfectly with the DBT. Suddenly, though, there is the argument that the tunnel “will hold FEWER cars”. And that’s bad, suddenly.

I get confused listening to him and his peeps.

totes mcgotes

insane but here’s your reply.
1. stopping a megabiollions bad thing makes a billions good thing more possible.
2. if you support transit you’re crazy to waste billions on DBT.
3. nobody said stopping DBT magically makes the money shift with univorn magic.
4. the 38K distinction you raise is stupid as the tolling is part of the plan, duh.
5. if you think “largely grade separated” means grade separated, please, think again.
6. Seattle alone in major cities in major regions of its size has NO plan for multline grade separated, the sounder is too infrequent to count, a bus tunnel isn’t rapid transit so yes seattle is waaaay behind the curve. because it is “seattle” becuase right now official council policy is DBT so “Seattle” is pro DBT.

Your points amount to conceding the broader point that transit is good then throwing up your hands in subservience to the stupidty enacted into law known as the 18th amendment. Like many, you have the foggy notion that seattle can be both protransit/super green, and be building a megabypass highway. this is profoundly ignorant defeatist and shallow.

so now your arguement is “it’s too tiring to respond to arguments of one side”?

wow pretty lazy way to spend billions.

btw rebuild has 60% against not going to happen. you all keep threatening that. it amounts to admitting the DBT doesn’t really work if you shift to that argument.

“Nothing That Any Of You Say Will Have Any Impact On What The State Does”

Because this is the state’s call, not yours.

tired of and too tiring are two different things.

not threatening anything…still pro-tunnel. just saying, surface/transit is in last place in public opinion but act as though “the people” are on their side. delusional.

Have you informed Tim Eyman of this fact?

Back at ya..
1. …and makes funding of more highways in other areas of the State more likely –
2. Clearly, you’re not one to judge. I support transit. ’nuff said.
3. Your first point says as much.
4. No, tolling is a policy (which is mutable). The tunnel is infrastructure.
5. Its grade-separated through the densest areas of the City. No its not the same thing, but far better than all surface.
6. You say we don’t have multiline grade-separated because “Sounder is too infrequent”, and bus (sic) transit tunnel “isn’t rapid”. Those are two (multi-line – correct?) facilities. Sounder being infrequent isn’t related to not having the tunnel. Transit tunnel “isn’t rapid” because it has stations. You would prefer we bypass the CBD?

Your last statement simply emphasizes your cognative constraints – Good day.

Yes, it’s made it very easy to run up and grab some lutefisk to enjoy with your movie at the Admiral.

So easy that thousands upon thousands of people make this round trip every day.

Must get awfully smelly in that theater.

so in other words: magically come up with hundreds of millions of dollars so we don’t need to toll, magically engineer nearly impossible downtown exits in a way that doesn’t cost a cent more, and maybe more than one third of current users will use it?

I don’t know about other tunnel opponents, but I don’t understand why proponents think this will come in on budget. This is practically no hope of this. No one has been able to provide an example of a similar project in scope dealing with type of risks tunneling under Seattle presents. Its as if everyone is just sick of the debate put blinders on and said “lalalalalalala”. While effective for making you feel good, it won’t feel good when the state has a $1B+ overrun on the project which is more in line with most tunnel projects of this complexity. That isn’t chump change, especially for a state in trouble like we are fiscally. Where is that going to come from? Whether state voters or city voters get to pay for that overrun its really academic. Someone will pay and city voters will incur a loss of services as a result because no ones going to vote for a tax increase that doesn’t impact other services negatively. We have an opportunity to prevent the big dig of the west coast, but most seattleites seem ok with that or ignorant of what a mess that was.

I don’t care what the alternatives are, because with this risk profile, this project seems like a loser under these conditions. find more independent funding for the project through higher gas taxes or something, but make sure the fiscal side is shored up before pushing this crap proposal forward. Sometimes the compromises we need to make to avoid making stupid decisions involve a reduction in service (not great car transport) and that can be an ok or good thing compared to a boondoggle like this seems destine for.

yes, but there is still no majority for any option…rebuild the viaduct comes in first (which is sad, in my opinion since we lose the once in a lifetime opportunity to get the waterfront back), tunnel is second and surface/transit is a distant third…which is weird, since the surface/transit followers are the ones kicking up the most dirt…you’d think they had the most popular option but due to politics are being shafted…rather, its the viaduct rebuilders who are getting shafted but they don’t make as much noise.

that’s not a good argument…the surface/transit plans should have been put out there long ago for people to digest. Saying voters need to educated on what to think would work for or against any plan put forward. just depends on who is telling it, the emphasis being placed, and the facts being chosen…what’s that called again? inclusion bias or something?

In talking about the “risk profile”, you don’t mention that the risk is shared, or allocated between the design-builder and the contract holder (WSDOT).

The project is design-build, and there is a considerable risk being assumed by the design-builder.

The tunnel contract shifts risk to the design-builder (and away from the State) to the degree that, it caused firms to not bid on the project, and one firm (Kiewit) to drop out during their bid preparation.

If the project was guaranteed to produce overuns that are the responsibility of WSDOT, design-build firms would have been much more interested in this project as it would have been seen as a sure way to pad profits.

As it is, the risk is shared between the two parties – the design-builder and the Owner (WSDOT).

Do you have the qualifications to estimate the risk on the project, or understand design-build contracts?

The Big Dig was a design-bid-build (traditional) contract, which shifted nearly all risks onto the Owner (State of MA). Additionally, that project was much larger in scale, with far greater complexity.

Warning of a “$1B+ overrun”, and that “city voters will incur a loss of services” and comparing the project to the “Big Dig of the west coast” amounts to lazy fear mongering.

Not a Lie. In order to conform to CURRENT safety and earthquake standards (even considering very little to nothing survives past an 8.0), it would indeed need to have a footprint 50 percent larger, and sides so high you would need to be in a semitruck cab to see over it.

This is not a secret, and is in the proposed WASDOT public proposal, buddy.

Which leads us back to developing a feasible and sensible Surface proposal.

Not a Lie. In order to conform to CURRENT safety and earthquake standards (even considering very little to nothing survives past an 8.0), it would indeed need to have a footprint 50 percent larger, and sides so high you would need to be in a semitruck cab to see over it.

This is not a secret, and is in the proposed WASDOT public proposal, buddy.

Which leads us back to developing a feasible and sensible Surface proposal.

“The project is design-build, and there is a considerable risk being assumed by the design-builder.”

Are you an Ed Murray or Rassmussen staffer? That claim did not hold water at the Publicola debate, and it does not now. The constractor’s liability is indeed limitied, and there was even extra money allowcated from the contingency to cover the contractor’s ass. That’s the only way they could get the two remaining contractors to keep their lowball bids in the ring. This has unprecidented risk, and the contractor’s know that, design-build or not.

risk is shared! except for the company that can just fold up shop of the whole thing goes south. And the voters get stuck with the tab for whatever fixes are needed.

How many un-dug holes, and foreclosed homes destroy your shared risk assessment of business transactions?

The cognitive dissonance required to argue this is staggering.

“except for the company that can just fold up shop…”?

Know that the “company” you are referring to: lead contractor ACS (Actividades de Construcción y Servicios) – owned Dragados, has an annual operating revenue of over $15 billion.

The DBT is a large contract for them, but one of many, and certainly not one that would cause the company to “fold up shop”.

There is no contractural mechanism that will result in the “voters get stuck with the tab..” The contract is between WSDOT and Dragados. My guess is that you haven’t read (or don’t understand) the legalling binding contract that exists between those two parties.

The leap that you make in your arguement from a company defaulting on its contract with WSDOT to foreclosed homes is quite staggering in itself.

Jakers, I appreciate the rational approach you seem to take here…i.e. reconsidering once-held views in light of new information. As a generally pro-surface/transit person, I’ve been seeking to do this as well as I’ve learned more about potential benefits of the DBT. So, thanks for the honesty.

If only more pro-tunnel people in this debate took this tone instead of screaming… You’re exactly right that surface/transit hasn’t been fleshed out. But to me that’s a reason to do some out-fleshing, not to get rid of it yet.

That said, you (and Anc below) are right that at some point, we gotta choose and be done with it.