Comments on Greenwashing Greg

Agriculture and power generation are each responsible for as much global warming as driving.

I agree, but our personal driving is easier in the short term to curve and limit as opposed to agriculture and power generation. Consider watching the traffic on a typical Saturday afternoon in the U-District on 45th Ave. Just count number of vehicles with one person in them. We are not a green city, and it is annoying to hear that we are.

And the roads don't cause the pollution.

The tunnel vision has nothing to do with green vs. non-green, and you can't change the debate by trying to frame the issues in that context.

This whole fixation by Nickels and McIver (and McIver's buddies on the SCC) on building a tunnel is largely being driven by Sound Transit's subarea equity spending imbalance. Because expenditures on light rail in the N. King County subarea (which includes Seattle) are so high, not enough ST money is being spent in the East King Co. subarea. Hence, RTID. RTID will cause something like $1.5 B to be spent on roads on the eastside, and that money will count toward reducing ST's subarea equity imbalance. That's per HB 2871 from last year. So RTID will take huge amounts of tax money out of Seattle and divert it Bellevue roads.

What Nickels (in particular) and the SCC are trying to do is grab a chunk of the RTID money that would go toward sprawl-inducing roads, and put it to a non-sprawl-inducing road in Seattle. The tunnel plan would also mean big profits for Nickels' political base, the unions and developers.

You've got to get the regional picture here, it isn't about the greenhouse gasses, it is about the RTID money.

If Nickels was concerned about greenhouse gasses, he'd be advocating for higher gas taxes, or an emissions-based tax, or a tax on using vehicles during peak hours, or an annual mileage tax, or . . . well, you get the point.

The "tunnel" debate is just Nickels trying to pay off his political supporters by trying to glom onto RTID money. Trying to look at this through "environmentally-conscious" glasses is just causing you to miss the point.

Probably true Fnarf, but that's no reason to let it remain the case.

I mentioned this before, but didn't articulate it very well... when we project civic projects in dollar value relative to the year they're completed (costs $__MM in 2012 dollars), why not project freeway capacity relative to increased drivership as well (highway capacity is generally at 90% within 4 years of expansion)? When you consider that, the idea of spending money to retain or increase road capacity is misleading. It could be we are spending more and getting less in the long run.

(Also, highway lane changes are typically the most fuel-burning part of your commute. Increased highway widths lend themselves to much less efficient driving.)

Remember, $5 million for hybrid cars and $20 million for hybrid bus service is just the same as $2.2 billion extra for less transit in an underwater tunnel ... in BushLand.

REALITY: All the dollars spent add up. When you pay $5 for an organic fair-trade mocha with sprinkles, it doesn't wash away the sins from your slave-labor sweatshop you have $10000 invested in ...

Please get on board the tunnel lite COMPROMISE before we get another elevated structure. Yet another occasion to sacrifice the good at the alter of the perfect.

Transit alternatives would be great, but we've already killed the monorail. At $330 million/mile light rail will not be in the cards in our lifetimes for this corridor.

Removing the through-capacity of this corridor will not help keep blue collar jobs in ballard or make downtown livable.

We should all get on board with the "we'll have to live without it for years anyway, so why not tear it down right now and see if we even need to build a new one?" plan. It's the Westneat/Sucher/Savage proposal, and it's a good one.

Tunnel lite isn't a compromise plan - it's a marketing concept for a politically unpopular cut-and-cover tunnel with a new focus group-tested name, and that tries to take credit for a bunch of improvements (fe - a new overpass at Holgate and a rebuilt Spokane Street Viaduct) that are already planned (but, not coincidentally, not fully funded).

He'll stop in the fall of 2009 when a credible candidate pushes his fat ass out of the mayor's office.

Why not. Well this report for starters

http://www.seattle.gov/council/attachments/06awv.pdf

Surface options would not:

1) allow for the same amount of public open space because the surface lanes six abreast take up too much space (see the cross section slide)
2) free up the waterfront from traffic, because we'd have 6 lanes there. We'd essentially have a wall of traffic, even if moving at slow speeds.
3) Provide fast travel times through downtown because it would be near impossible to toll.
4) Generate revenue because it would be near impossible to toll

In addition, while I'm all in favor of making use of TDM monies to implement more transit, the structure would only be totally closed for a number of months. The reason for the long construction period is that some lanes would remain open for through capacity throughout most of the construction period.

I'd urge you to read the cost breakdown that is in the presentation. Take a look at the surprisingly small % of costs that is dedicated to the actual tunnel/aerial/surface portion of the project. Costs for all options (c. fall 2006) include most of the same elements (seawall, SR 519 reconstruction, battery tunnel upgrades, lowered aurora ave). This means that for the new version (4 lane tunnel) only small fraction of costs are actually relating to the waterfront cut and cover tunnel. - The value of the four items above is well worth the tunnel costs IMHO.

I'm pretty sure that the cost estimates DO NOT include the $400 million (or so) it will cost to lower Aurora Avenue north of Battery Street. It's included in all of the EIS options (except "No-Action), but it is not included in the actual price (caveat - one temporary flyover ramp that will be needed when the Battery Street Tunnel may be included in the project costs, but that is a very minor element in the overall plan)

What, WSDOT and Nickels being dishonest about a Hallivulcan funding demand? I'm shocked, simply shocked...

Hmmm. And, yet, surprisingly, even "tunnel-lite" (aka mini-underwater-tunnel) still is more expensive - devoting more tax dollars to subsidizing cars on a highway when we could choose to spend even less on an elevated viaduct and pay ZERO in Seattle-only taxes.

Not counting the SeaWall, which is part of every single plan, and has always been Seattle-only in tax structure (although the Port chips in some).

Let's just ask - do you want to pay more for cars - cause that's what you're doing if you choose tunnel-lite.

Will- unfortunately there are no simplistic solutions to difficult problems. We've had bright minds (hard to admit I know) working at many levels to solve this but something has to give. I would rather pay more for a better solution knowing that 20 years down the line the $400 million or so extra to build the throughput capacity and waterfront will be well worth it. As a prof as UW once told me "people seem to know the price of everything and the value of nothing."

I don't think the Walmart mentality is the best solution for seattle.

I might support a general tax to pay for waterfront costs above those envisioned. First, I think the risks have for the msot part been captured in the price tag - check the link above and note the $1 billion in tunnel contingency in the $4.6 billion (old "tunnel heavy") price tage. Second, it looks like the prime beneficiaries of the tunnel will pay for the additional costs if we can all get behind the plan. These include the Port of Seattle, downtown users (LID for property owners near waterfront) and users via tolls.

Speaking of tolls, some people's time is worth a lot. Mine's usually not so I take transit to work. However, when it is valuable I want a fast convenient option, and I don't mind paying for it. We need to support a transportation system that gives us many options and allows users to bear the costs of use as much as possible. A surface option doesn't do this

FLOTOWN Wrote:
"Please get on board the tunnel lite COMPROMISE"

Oh please, don't insult us. It is neither a compromise nor a solution. It is an attempt to resusitate a failed plan. It is no different than what the Monorail Board attempted to do. This was proposed without the the review of the citizens of Seattle and vetting by the state. This was done knowing full well there are alternative plans that should have had equal vetting and
review.

Reject this Tyranny! Boycott the Vote!

---Jensen

...and if you believe that the "compromise" tunnel will only cost $400 million more than an elevated AWV replacement, I have a bridge across Elliott Bay to sell you...

One of the main reasons Gregoire rightfully rejected this transparent hail Mary from the tunnel-at-any-costs crowd is that the Expert Review Panel substantially increased the projected costs of these projects after vetting them for a second time (no one should be surprised that the tunnel increased in cost by a higher percentage than rebuild, btw).

Dan - your "kill them all and let god sort them out" mentality is the worst proposal of all. Doing that does nothing to solve transportation for South Seattle, which last I checked was still part of Seattle.

Ah, I should specify, the tunnel that was vetted by the Expert Review Panel was the 6-lane alternative our Mayor and Council have spent 6 years and $20+ million to prop up. I wonder how much Tim Ceis' napkin calculations would change if subjected to the same level of rigor...

Mr. X, I don't think you read the link posted in #11.

- Look at the cost of the 6-lane tunnel section alone and add in the pro rata share of soft costs. $575MM+ hard costs in 2006 dollars. This plan has been vetted.
- Assume a 4-lane tunnel is something less - might be a whole lot less, as the EXPERT REVIEW PANEL stated last week - or it might be a little less if you find the claim dubious and think you know more about transportation construction costs than they do
-Consider costs have already been escalted to year of expenditure dollars, which accounts for inflation at the same stratospheric rates as the past three years
-Consider the 6-lane tunnel has $1 billion in cost contingency (probably will be less for the smaller tunnel)

The plan's finances are reasonable. I think there's enough evidence to warrant a thorough vetting of the state of this plan, which would be happening now if Gregoire did not pull the plug on WSDOT last week at the insistence of Frank Chopp.

I don't put full faith in the numbers but I think they pass the test of reasonableness needed for the public "cover your ass" process. The ERP is behind it. As is a broad coalition of business, transportation, arts and environmental groups. Sometimes life calls for some risks to produce ends not otherwise attainable.

And there’s no longer any question that it’s caused by human activity; according to a new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there’s more than a 90 percent likelihood that global warming since 1950 has been caused by human activity, and that more warming and rising sea levels are on the way.

Does nobody else see that this sentence is self-contradictory? There is, according to this very study, a 10% chance that global warming is not human-caused. Would you engage in an activity if it had a 1 in 10 chance of killing you? No? Then 10% is a significant doubt.

And gridlocked cars idling on clogged downtown streets is somehow greener?

FLOTOWN Wrote:
"Assume a 4-lane tunnel...might be a whole lot less....or it might be a little less"

Assume? Might? Were these not the reasons that other proposals were shot down before they could see the light of day? Under the circumstances, shouldn't a surface plan, a cable stayed bridge or other relevant plans be given adequate vetting too? They are no less credible than what you are currently attempting to support. If, as you state, you don't have full faith in the hybrid numbers, you should urge the state and city to stop, take a deep breath, and consider alternatives instead of rushing into this hurried and clearly politically motivated plan.

---Jensen

Flotown,

You point me at a study blatantly designed to push the surface alternative, and which also shows a $45 million price tag for a project to lower Aurora north of the Battery Street Tunnel that has been identified as costing closer to $400 million and tell me to stop worrying?

The Expert Review Panel said that a 4-lane tunnel was (as I recall) "feasible" and "not fatally flawed." That is a far cry from having a full range of cost estimates (as opposed to a single figure the Nickels administration apparently pulled out of its collective ass) that have been thoroughly vetted not once, but twice.

I'm sorry, but the likely $1 billion (at least) difference between the cost of an elevated AWV replacement and a tunnel (even if somewhat smaller) is a "risk" that Seattle taxpayers can't afford to take (Oh gee, the pro-tunnel Council majority didn't put that Inconvenient Fact in the ballot title, did they?).

Neither is giving NickelsCo another year to run their "let us start digging so we can commit the public to the entire cost" strategy (you have been paying attention to this process for the last 5 years, haven't you?).

There were lots of studies showing that local public works projects (schools, libraries, fire stations, etc.) were going to come in on time and on budget. Guess what? They didn't.

"Does nobody else see that this sentence is self-contradictory?"

It doesn't seem to be. The more than 90% confidence is expressed for anthropogenic climate change SINCE 1950.

Keep reading, Mr. X. It was meant to study the surface but in the end recommends against it.

The I agree with the ERP's position it should be studied further, not killed like Gregoire has done. I applaud the Mayor for having the guts to stick to his decision.

Question for you, if you're a transit advocate, as I am, does the threat of cost overruns mean that we should not pursue more light rail lines? Does a $17 billion price tag for ST 2 make you wince? A billion (in cost adjusted numbers) just is not what is used to be I guess, but I recognize the ultimate VALUE in the outcome.

Is the waterfront worth a billion dollars (in 2009-2014 dollars), or about $600MM in today's dollars. Hell yes. Having a connected waterfront park running from OSP to Colman Dock for the nest 50 years? Care to place a guess on what that might be worth??

-start with 240,000 downtown employees, 3.5 millin people in the region, and $2-4 billion in annual tourism dollars...do some math...then think of all value that can't be quantitfied.

Still won't spend another billion?

Nope. And it'll be a lot more than $1b if we let Nickels start digging.

Slash and burn agriculture in the tropical rainforests is the largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission. We can stop eating Brazilian beef and soy.

FLOTOWN Wrote:
"Having a connected waterfront park running from OSP to Colman Dock for the nest 50 years? Care to place a guess on what that might be worth??"

If dollars are your criteria, Flotown,
we would be better off utilizing the
shoreline from the OSP to Coleman
Dock for ocean shipping. It would indeed validate the often abused notion of connecting the Seattle with its
central waterfront. Oh, and lets not forget the rail lines to accomodate the shipping of that freight. A working waterfront, Flotown, which would provide revenue far in excess of your laughable and completely misassigned 2.4 billion tourism dollars you've attributed to the Seattle waterfront.

---Jensen

@26 - you got that right!

remember, if you vote for the tunnel, you're voting more Seattle-only taxes in the BILLIONS to go help our road addiction.

What the fuck is with all this "tunnel lite" astroturfing? And stop calling it "surface/tunnel hybrid" Greg, you are just trying to create name confusion with the surface/transit, which actually has supporters.

We shouldn't boycott the vote, that doesn't send any message at all, other than that we don't have an opinion. VOTE NO and tell the mayor and governor that they can take their expensive highways and shove 'em.

Flotown, if tolls are so great, why aren't we using them on 520, I-90, and the viaduct RIGHT NOW to raise money to repair, upgrade, or replace those roads? Toll the viaduct and watch traffic drop… in which case there is less capacity to replace. Traffic volume is very fluid and, despite Republicans cries of "social engineering!!!", we affect volume with every decision, whether we like it or not.

The bickering lot of you still don't get it. You are wasting your keystrokes and missing the point. The green rhetoric is simply that: rhetoric. No one involved cares about anything other than meeting their agendas.