EIS Shows Tunnel Congestion Worse Than Surface/Transit Congestion

Makes sense, unless you factor in S/T/5 proponents’ refusal to even try to sway the legislature. It’s a good plan, and NelsonNygaard have great ideas. But think about it: those claiming such allegiance to S/T/5 have allied with the new-viaduct folks to keep the focus on swaying Council members, who have no power to switch directions.

Sure, “journey of a thousand miles begins with one step” and all, but by the time S/T/5 proponents get around to trying to move the legislature to even consider redirecting funding to any of their ideas, the darn tunnel will be open for business, bustling city streets and all…

One wonders how enamored of this plan those who claim it really are, if their willingness to go to bat for it outside City Hall extends no further than various blogs.

Gus, the right course of action is to reject the referendum, and *then* talk to the legislature from a position where the population has said “we don’t want this”. Everyone has tried to talk the legislature into S/T/5, but there’s no traction unless they realize they’ll piss off Seattle voters with the tunnel.

The legislature needs Seattle voters to vote for their next transportation package. If they do something we voted against, they’re unlikely to win that vote. So they’ll listen – but not before the referendum.

so long as current political feasibility is your only criterion of success (not environmental impact, not congestion, not transit, not capacity for moving people and goods), then sure, “let’s move forward.”

It is telling, though, that when the main claim of tunnel supporters is destroyed by their own data, you suddenly pivot to attack ST5 proponents.

This is why the law says you have to do your EIS before you choose an option.

What’s fortunate here is that local transportation activists are informed and engaged enough to know this was going to be the case. It’s now clear we’re pushing for the right course of action.

Reject the tunnel. Reject referendum 1. Don’t saddle us with the tunnel’s extra billion dollars (and debt service on that!) – fight for the better solution.

Ben is exactly right.  Once we demonstrate that the citizens understand how the tunnel is not a transportation solution worth anything like the $billion+ premium, then we can work to unify the people behind a workable option we can afford and that delivers alternatives for everyone.  At the end of the day, electeds are obliged to and will follow the people and the analysis.

This is exactly why the EIS process exists. You put all the data on the table so that your decision is an informed one.

Why have our elected officials been beating the “done deal, the decision has been made” drum since mid-2009?

All they have to do is move the tolling point back a bit so everybody using 99 pays whether they get off before the tunnel or not and those numbers will plummet. ST5 has no such fix for its delays–it’s stuck with them.

You mention the need for leadership on the issue, but my question is this: if the numbers are saying the tunnel isn’t so hot and that we get similar benefits from ST5 for far less, why haven’t we seen leadership materialize on the council? The numbers, justification and ethics behind backing ST5 are there, is there anyone on the council that would come out of their tunnel vision to back a good, environmentally sound and affordable plan?

That’s the question we should ask, not “how hard will Olympia ignore us and screw us over”.

One way to find those leaders beyond those we already have is by rejecting referendum 1.

I don’t doubt you believe that, but the legislature’s been steaming along without hearing a concerted peep from you guys for awhile. Not even our own reps. I’ll be surprised if you don’t find yourselves awfully far behind the curve regardless, but I’ll certainly doff my hat if you swing wind up swinging this somehow.

Councilmember Licata, here’s your chance to lead. You’ve always stood up when the numbers didn’t quite pencil out, now’s the time. Bertolet makes that clear.

Don’t let the raw deal your friends at 619 got spread to the rest of the city.

Fount, I lend no credence to what the Let’s Move Forward idiots said about congestion – if a bunch of people want to give money to some PR flacks, fine, but they don’t represent my thinking, or that of most people who aren’t particularly bothered by the tunnel. Congestion in not evil in a region we all want to keep bustling.

And there’s nothing sudden about my doubting the wisdom of the one-baby-step-at-a-time-to-Olympia strategy of those who claim to love S/T/5 either. I’ve been poking fun at that for months.

@Bob, WSDOT studied five tolling scenarios, including two which toll people leaving SR-99 to enter the city at the north and south portals.

@Bob, WSDOT studied five tolling scenarios, including two which toll people leaving SR-99 to enter the city at the north and south portals.

Just days ago Murray and Brown made it clear that they are watching. Articles like this or in The Stranger are more powerful than you suggest.

And Kastama last year pointed out that the legislature is fine with paying less. It’s foolish to assume Olympia will turn away a cheaper option just because they have something on paper.

Tell them you’re going cheaper and you end up making Seattle and Olympia winners twice over.

Just days ago Murray and Brown made it clear that they are watching. Articles like this or in The Stranger are more powerful than you suggest.

And Kastama last year pointed out that the legislature is fine with paying less. It’s foolish to assume Olympia will turn away a cheaper option just because they have something on paper.

Tell them you’re going cheaper and you end up making Seattle and Olympia winners twice over.

So the facts show that the tolled tunnel won’t work, we can’t afford it, and State Legislators are laughing at Seattle taxpayers for being on the hook for cost overruns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJHe-9Pef_c); do the LMF folks think Seattle voters are complete idiots?

I was reading through Bertolet’s piece yesterday, wondering where he got the numbers for ST5 (which was not studied in the EIS). And then I found it: in the section that talks about the alternatives not preferred by the analysis for a variety of reasons. So since omitted it from his graphic, here’s what the FEIS says about Mr. Bertolet’s chart:

“VHD measures the number of hours lost by travelers due to traveling at less than the posted speed limit during an average weekday. VHD is often used as an indicator of congestion. As shown in Exhibit 2-12, the surface andtransit hybrid has a lower VHD than the other build alternatives in the Seattle Center City area and higher thanthe Tolled Bored Tunnel and Tolled Cut-and-Cover Tunnel for the four-county region. This indicates that withthe surface and transit hybrid, fewer vehicle trips would go through the Seattle Center City area due to reducedroadway capacity on SR 99 and more trips would divert to other regional routes or destinations, increasing delay and congestion within the region.”So, like the surface folks seem to be wanting: Hey just get another job that’s not in Seattle, and if you can’t afford to simply choose another job, why don’t you just move closer? And if you want to keep things as they are, don’t mind the 10+ minute delay you’ll incur (see the N/N report). If you’re having trouble finding N/N’s report in the FEIS, just look in the comments section. Because it was not submitted to the State for review, and did not undergo the same scruting as all the other data in the FEIS. WSDOT’s response: “The benefits cited in the document are speculative in nature.”  

Leadership? What interests are our so-called leaders more interested in?  The overall population? or the cash people*?    

* See the “Let’s Move Forward” top donors. 

And how does this all compare to the existing viaduct?  All the options listed are far worse than the existing conditions.

Why would anyone want to spend billions of dollars to make traffic worse?

And where did the “tolled” elevated” come from?  A new viaduct, which would be only about half the length of the existing viaduct, would cost far less than digging a tunnel.  Therefore, there would be no need for tolls on a new viaduct.

And, obviously, there would be no need for tolls on a retrofitted viaduct, which is the best option of all.

It is incredibly disingenious to not compare the tunnel and surface options to a new elevated without tolls.  It is not surpising that Bertolet would be disingenious.  As usual. 

The viaduct is vastly superior in moving people to any of the other options. 

And where is the continuning cost of about $55 million PER YEAR for the transit in the surface option?  Over 50 years, that adds up to about $2.75 BILLION in operating costs in 2010 dollars.  There is very little operating cost for a viaduct.

Seems like for you and Ben it’s “we can’t trust Olympia” when it regards a project you dislike, but suddenly there is this optimism that they will all suddenly change their minds if you ask nicely? I guess there’s that, or the other one I’ve seen pulled by PSN – “they won’t be in office.” nice.

Watching, sure, but their comments made clear they were watching because of its entertainment value, for now.  They suggested that so far they haven’t seen much that’s new from Seattle’s anti-tunnel campaign, that it seemed another instance so familiar to Olympia that Seattle loves to get its pride wounded and try to sink regional planning efforts.

Hey, if you guys actually intend to, and actually do, move past that, great, but I don’t think legislators are exactly holding their breath waiting for it.

Grover, the only thing that wasn’t studied fully was the surface plan. The rest is in there, Mr. Bertolet just cherry picked what he wanted. Remember, the surface people may be trying to round up Viaduct rebuilders for the ‘no’ vote, but they’ll drop you like a bad habit once it’s over.

Grover, the only thing that wasn’t studied fully was the surface plan. The rest is in there, Mr. Bertolet just cherry picked what he wanted. Remember, the surface people may be trying to round up Viaduct rebuilders for the ‘no’ vote, but they’ll drop you like a bad habit once it’s over.

So if I understand this correctly. Sitting at a stand still on I-5 creates a greater VHD than sitting at a stand still on a 25-mph surface street even though in both cases I’m not moving or moving at the same speed?

So if I understand this correctly. Sitting at a stand still on I-5 creates a greater VHD than sitting at a stand still on a 25-mph surface street even though in both cases I’m not moving or moving at the same speed?

So if I understand this correctly. Sitting at a stand still on I-5 creates a greater VHD than sitting at a stand still on a 25-mph surface street even though in both cases I’m not moving or moving at the same speed?

So if I understand this correctly. Sitting at a stand still on I-5 creates a greater VHD than sitting at a stand still on a 25-mph surface street even though in both cases I’m not moving or moving at the same speed?

Mike McGinn opposes an elevated option.

Mike McGinn opposes an elevated option.

Mike McGinn opposes an elevated option.

Mike McGinn opposes an elevated option.

“then we can work to unify the people behind a workable option we can afford and that delivers alternatives for everyone.”

Since that hasn’t happened in 10 years why should anyone believe that it would magically happen now?

Especially in Olympia. They aren’t going to wait another decade for Seattle to fake-consensus this to death.

I could probable support an elevated replacement, but not as a first choice. It takes nearly twice as long to complete (10 years vs 5.5 for the tunnel).

Politicians make mistakes, Meh.

Or are they perfect? I can’t tell from your rhetoric.

There are always some who insist you aren’t doing enough without qualifying what enough would be.

“Oh, so you’ve been in the media, you’ve made your point clear, you’ve sent your message, you’ve sent letters, but you didn’t go to Suncadia last year and talk to them at the prayer breakfast so it’s all your fault.”

This assumes that all the trips that are diverted are _necessary_ trips. With 60% of center city employees not using cars, that’s a little too optimistically cynical.

Alex – of course they do.. I’m just confused by the seemingly opposing themes of working with/against government I see from PSN. I’m getting whiplash watching. You’re so warm a fuzzy today, but tomorrow, electeds look out!

Moreover, Bertolet calls out that argument. So… yeah.

Oh, so now he matters to you

Way to just open the closet door and show everyone the boogeyman.

The problem with that argument is that it suggests that there was an underlying process behind choosing the DBT that was the result of 10 years of work.

No, Dan B’s numbers omitted the regional VHD data, and he took only the Center City numbers. In the ST5 option, there is *technically* less vehicle hours because there are fewer vehicles travelling through Seattle. But not because everyone’s on a bus or telecommuting; it’s because the trips have gone elsewhere. It’s a dispersal of cars to the region instead of moving trips within Seattle; a growth of trips from people avoiding Seattle, if you will. And avoiding Seattle by going around simply takes longer.

And 7.5 for the surface, fwiw

McGinn’s opinion has never mattered to me on this subject. It may be worth pointing out to the elevated proponents. The elevated option would get just as much support from McGinn as the tunnel.
Erica asked him a while back at a press briefing, I watched the video.

It’s the flow for relocating utilities that is stunning. I thumbed through the report on Saturday morning and kept flipping the pages back and forth thinking that there was some hidden blue-ish bar, but I see in the note that the relocation for the most part happens during much of the other activity.

I did not locate the projected costs for each option due to disruption. The cut and cover isn’t too bad untill you see how long it shuts down the waterfront.

McGinn is totally irrelevant in this entire debate.

You have it just backwards.  The elevated supporters outnumber the surface supporters by about 2 to 1.  Once the tunnel is eliminated, it will be patently obvious that the elevated is the only option that won’t completely screw up downtown traffic, and the only option that is funded.  And there is no money for the $55 million per year in transit operations cost for the surface option.

The surface option is a complete non-starter.  It has very little public support, and no financing.

Surface supporters are just useful idiots in the effort to try to stop the tunnel.

“There are always some who insist you aren’t doing enough without qualifying what enough would be.”

Yeah, legislators are funny that way. You’ll know what “enough would be” when they pass your bill, right?

Bertolet is the master of cherry picking. He lost all credibility to me years ago.

Grover, McGinn’s opinion is representative of a population that actually believed the bullshit coming out of his mouth during the election.
Olympia will just change direction as soon as Seattle say so, they will devote the same dollars to the project and help pay for Transit.

As we all know:
Olympia loves Seattle.
Olympia will spend almost a billion state dollars on transit for Seattle.

The problem with yours is believing that consensus on your preferred option is possible within a realistic timeframe.

No.  You are wrong.  Olympia doesn’t give a shit about McGinn.  This is a state highway.  Olmpia is not going to do something as stupid as the surface option.

Not noted in the figures in the chart above is that the tunnel will give an uninterrupted trip through downtown Seattle to between 40,000 and 90,000 vehicles per day.  Those trips are not accomodated by the surface option.  Those tens of thousands of trips per day on a state highway are what Olympia cares about.  And not putting 10′s of thousands of those vehicles on I-5, which Olympia also cares about.

“As shown in Exhibit 2-12, the surface and transit hybrid has a lower VHD
than the other build alternatives in the Seattle Center City area and
higher than the Tolled Bored Tunnel and Tolled Cut-and-Cover Tunnel for
the four-county region. This indicates that with the surface and transit
hybrid, fewer vehicle trips would go through the Seattle Center City
area due to reduced roadway capacity on SR 99 and more trips would divert
to other regional routes or destinations, increasing delay and
congestion within the region”

I don’t follow this insinuation. It reads to me like spurious cause and effect here. VHD goes down therefore it MUST BE because of reduced capacity? What if ST5 was more efficient at getting people where they want to go than the tunnel? That would similarly show a drop in VHD and would have nothing to do with reduced capacity.

The report may be right, that ST5′s lower capacity could cause that, but 2-12 is not proof of it.

“As shown in Exhibit 2-12, the surface and transit hybrid has a lower VHD
than the other build alternatives in the Seattle Center City area and
higher than the Tolled Bored Tunnel and Tolled Cut-and-Cover Tunnel for
the four-county region. This indicates that with the surface and transit
hybrid, fewer vehicle trips would go through the Seattle Center City
area due to reduced roadway capacity on SR 99 and more trips would divert
to other regional routes or destinations, increasing delay and
congestion within the region”

I don’t follow this insinuation. It reads to me like spurious cause and effect here. VHD goes down therefore it MUST BE because of reduced capacity? What if ST5 was more efficient at getting people where they want to go than the tunnel? That would similarly show a drop in VHD and would have nothing to do with reduced capacity.

The report may be right, that ST5′s lower capacity could cause that, but 2-12 is not proof of it.

“As shown in Exhibit 2-12, the surface and transit hybrid has a lower VHD
than the other build alternatives in the Seattle Center City area and
higher than the Tolled Bored Tunnel and Tolled Cut-and-Cover Tunnel for
the four-county region. This indicates that with the surface and transit
hybrid, fewer vehicle trips would go through the Seattle Center City
area due to reduced roadway capacity on SR 99 and more trips would divert
to other regional routes or destinations, increasing delay and
congestion within the region”

I don’t follow this insinuation. It reads to me like spurious cause and effect here. VHD goes down therefore it MUST BE because of reduced capacity? What if ST5 was more efficient at getting people where they want to go than the tunnel? That would similarly show a drop in VHD and would have nothing to do with reduced capacity.

The report may be right, that ST5′s lower capacity could cause that, but 2-12 is not proof of it.

“As shown in Exhibit 2-12, the surface and transit hybrid has a lower VHD
than the other build alternatives in the Seattle Center City area and
higher than the Tolled Bored Tunnel and Tolled Cut-and-Cover Tunnel for
the four-county region. This indicates that with the surface and transit
hybrid, fewer vehicle trips would go through the Seattle Center City
area due to reduced roadway capacity on SR 99 and more trips would divert
to other regional routes or destinations, increasing delay and
congestion within the region”

I don’t follow this insinuation. It reads to me like spurious cause and effect here. VHD goes down therefore it MUST BE because of reduced capacity? What if ST5 was more efficient at getting people where they want to go than the tunnel? That would similarly show a drop in VHD and would have nothing to do with reduced capacity.

The report may be right, that ST5′s lower capacity could cause that, but 2-12 is not proof of it.

Surface is dead. Kill the tunnel you get a new viaduct, full stop, the end. Choose your poison. 

Surface is dead. Kill the tunnel you get a new viaduct, full stop, the end. Choose your poison. 

Surface is dead. Kill the tunnel you get a new viaduct, full stop, the end. Choose your poison. 

Surface is dead. Kill the tunnel you get a new viaduct, full stop, the end. Choose your poison. 

Gus, I’ll give you one example of why your comment represents an exercise in futility: if you’ve ever seen, heard, or read Seattle-area Senator Ed Murray talk about ST, you’d know it’s a waste of time to try to persuade him with facts regarding that alternative. On this particular issue, at least, he is bought and sold to the powers that be (like most of the other state elected officials) and is publicly dismissive of surface-transit, to put it as favorably as possible.  He, Tom Rasmussen, and KCLC head Freiboth publicly insulted and mocked supporters of ST (including Cary Moon, Mike O’Brien, et al.) fairly recently as politically naive for thinking the state legislature would ever consider ST.

Gus, I’ll give you one example of why your comment represents an exercise in futility: if you’ve ever seen, heard, or read Seattle-area Senator Ed Murray talk about ST, you’d know it’s a waste of time to try to persuade him with facts regarding that alternative. On this particular issue, at least, he is bought and sold to the powers that be (like most of the other state elected officials) and is publicly dismissive of surface-transit, to put it as favorably as possible.  He, Tom Rasmussen, and KCLC head Freiboth publicly insulted and mocked supporters of ST (including Cary Moon, Mike O’Brien, et al.) fairly recently as politically naive for thinking the state legislature would ever consider ST.

You mean Ed “zOMG! More I-5 traffic would be noise for my constituents!” Murray? Please. It is indeed like talking to a brick wall.

Not “if we ask nicely”. Rejecting the tunnel leaves them having to choose between trying to build it anyway, and having Seattle voters uninterested in the transportation vote they need next year – and not building it in order not to make us all pissed at them.

We had consensus already, in 2008. The governor just decided to ignore it. A new governor won’t be able to.

We had consensus already, in 2008. The governor just decided to ignore it. A new governor won’t be able to.

That doesn’t make any sense. Neither the legislature nor the city council have the votes for an elevated alternative.

That doesn’t make any sense. Neither the legislature nor the city council have the votes for an elevated alternative.

If you just want to remove congestion, you could forget about the tunnel, the surface, the transit and SR-99 altogether and just do what really needs to be done — add lanes to I-5.

Oh wait — they put a Convention Center across it so that can never happen.   Sorry, I forgot where I was…good nite.

The EIS document Dan supposedly references leads to a 404. Until the methodology along with the currently baseline congestion and delay hours are outlined in detail, the argument is just another propaganda crack.

The EIS document Dan supposedly references leads to a 404. Until the methodology along with the currently baseline congestion and delay hours are outlined in detail, the argument is just another propaganda crack.