Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Hot, Slippery, Questionabl... | Neglect »

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

The Tunnel Is Dead

posted by on January 17 at 16:10 PM

(3:35 p.m.) Well, Deputy Mayor Ceis was just called into the governor’s office to join: the meeting with Nickels, Chopp, Brown, Clibborn, Haugen, and Licata. (Word is city council transportation chair Jan Drago is on speaker phone.)

I guess this is one of those Gregoire meetings—it’s already run an hour and a half over—where no one leaves until there’s a compromise. (Gregoire has pulled it off before, including, famously, brokering a deal between doctors and lawyers on medical malpractice…)

Oh wait… Gregoire just came out (it’s 3:55 p.m.)—with everybody except Nickels and Ceis (?!?)— and she read a statement that there are only two options on the table now: Move forward with an elevated viaduct replacement or reallocate funding to the 520 replacement.

According to the statement, Nickels and Drago tried to pitch having a vote on tunnel lite by April 24. However, Chopp and the governor and all the transportation chairs rejected that timeline.

Gregoire left it this way: Everyone needs to get back to her with their ideas on the elevated option and also the possibility of moving the $2.2 billion to 520.

This is a nuclear threat from Gregoire to the city saying you either build this elevated viaduct or lose the money to 520 (i.e., no fucking surface option, and no obstructing the elevated in order to revive the tunnel).

It looks like the governor and Democrats like Chopp do not want to go back up for election in 2008 having got the 9.5 cent gas tax for major projects and not having delivered on either one of the biggies.

RSS icon Comments

1

Whoa... an elected politician actually made a decision. This is scary.

Posted by Jeff | January 17, 2007 4:15 PM
2

Wow. I'm kind of floored? Surprised? Weirded out? I'm also need some confirmation - does this mean rebuild or nothing?

Posted by Soupytwist | January 17, 2007 4:22 PM
3

Told you so, ad nauseam. Now let's get on with it.

Posted by ivan | January 17, 2007 4:25 PM
4

The irony is that the Rebuild is not politically feasible -- wait until the WSDOT starts to really move forward with it -- so we will end up with the Repair, which is a good thing and where we should have started.

Posted by City Comforts | January 17, 2007 4:28 PM
5

That's sad.

Posted by monkey | January 17, 2007 4:29 PM
6

Well, here's hoping we have another earthquake -- looks like God will have to knock it down. It's the only way we'll ever get to see that, yes, we can live without it.

But, hey, the next time Al Gore comes to town, we can all go see him speak, clap like maniacs, and then drive home on our brand new elevated freeway. Yay!

Posted by Dan Savage | January 17, 2007 4:36 PM
7

Does the second option for the Viaduct mean tear down and not replace or keep it and repair?

I have to agree, the money would be much better spent on 520 and mass-transit to the eastern suburbs, but the red tape and NIMBYs will keep that from happening for the foreseeable future, too.

Unless Gregoire can pull that off, too.

Posted by SB | January 17, 2007 4:39 PM
8

Why not reallocate funding to 520 and go with the surface/transit alternative?

Posted by Beachhead | January 17, 2007 4:39 PM
9

Silly Seattle, faux center of the universe.

Of course - dreams galore for what you can't afford and call it good policy.....

Tunnel - rhymes with monorail. And this is the outcome I predicted a year ago on asses blog. Gregoire is a winner all around.

Maybe the Stranger faves, Licata and Steinbrook will lie before the dozers.

Josh.... stupid Filipino Dave Della has been calling this for months.

Posted by sidney | January 17, 2007 4:45 PM
10

We're waiting to hear more about what this means for transit/streets.

Posted by FoS | January 17, 2007 4:50 PM
11

Stupid Filipino???

Posted by wf | January 17, 2007 4:54 PM
12

@8 & 10: The surface option costs money too, especially if you do add the additional transit capacity (without which the surface option isn't a good idea).

Posted by annie | January 17, 2007 4:55 PM
13

thinking out loud here as this is being processed... nickels gambled big and we lost out HUGE. his political career may have just ended. glad he killed the monorail so that we could get a walled off waterfront, more concrete and 50+ more years of auto-dependancy . . . with the cherry on top of destoyed wetlands and 16 lanes (yes, you read that right) of concrete over foster island. green/progressive my foot. .

nice reporting, josh.

Posted by breech-a | January 17, 2007 4:59 PM
14

Sidney @ 9:

Licata? Licata has been for the rebuild all along.

Posted by ivan | January 17, 2007 4:59 PM
15

Nickels and Sims are both numbskull drama queens.

Now let's see those two plan out how they are going to tax to pay for the SR 520 bridge shortfall. Oh, yeah, right . . . they won't talk about that. Their plan is to just tell everyone to vote for the ST and RTID measure, and then they'll impose a bunch of additional taxes without voter approval later.

DO NOT TRUST EITHER OF THEM - THEY CAN NOT "DO" MEGAPROJECTS.

Posted by Orenthal Jones | January 17, 2007 5:01 PM
16

Hey STOOPID Sydney, Licata supports rebuild and has supported rebuild for the last 5 years at least (long before Della) not the surface option, so I dunno why he'd "lie before the dozers."

Posted by lovetheviaduct | January 17, 2007 5:02 PM
17

Sanity prevails. Pity about the $10 or so million that the City and State have pissed away studying an option that never had much chance of being funded.

Next stop - retrofit.

(Note - as I write this, KIRO TV is still reporting on the 4-lane tunnel as being the new topic of a vote. Ha!)

Posted by Mr. X | January 17, 2007 5:06 PM
18

I'd like to add that although at times I dump on Josh when he writes something dumb, I appreciate that he was on the scene and that he scooped everyone else in town with this news.

There isn't any substitute for that, which is why Slog is one of my top sources of local news. Make it YOURS, yo!

Posted by ivan | January 17, 2007 5:08 PM
19

I have never favored the surface option, but the new viaduct, from the sound of it, is going to be one seriously problematic monstrosity. My ideas for making a viaduct a functional part of a working city are not in the designs I've seen. Neither are the famous views (code will demand walls above sight line). It will be substantially wider and taller than the one we have now, which presumably means the loss of several historically significant buildings along Western.

Of course, the tunnel plan that the mayor was promoting actually included a substantial stretch of elevated viaduct at one of the most sensitive parts of the tunnel approach: the Battery Tunnel hookup.

In short, as with most things these days, the engineering, planning, and political will to create something valuable is lacking, and we will get a monstrosity. Knowing the way they build things nowadays, it will have a predicted lifespan of 30 years or less.

I'm coming to the point of view that the surface option will be merely horrible, which is the least evil of the possibilities. I just hope no one takes that for support. I'm sorry that my city can't do anything bigger than a parade right anymore.

Posted by Fnarf | January 17, 2007 5:13 PM
20

Please call or email the City Council and the Mayor's Office right now to tell them you support their strong leadership in saying "no thanks" to a new Viaduct and "yes" to the state spending the $2.2 billion on 520. This is urgent. All you supporters of transit + streets, this means you! Thank you for your support.

http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/contact.htm

Posted by FoS | January 17, 2007 5:14 PM
21


Hey #1: The City Council voted for a tunnel in 2002, 2005, and again in 2006. They made a decision sooner than anyone else.

Posted by hey | January 17, 2007 5:15 PM
22

Hey @ 21 - they did, but it was a decision in favor of a choice that the Gov. and Speaker knew the public would never support PAYING for...

Posted by LH | January 17, 2007 5:23 PM
23

Email the City Council right now to tell them you support their strong leadership in saying "no thanks" to a new Viaduct and "yes" to the state spending the $2.2 billion on 520. This is urgent. All you supporters of transit + streets, this means you! Thank you for your support. Just copy and paste this email list in your "to" field.

nick.licata@seattle.gov, sally.clark@seattle.gov, richard.conlin@seattle.gov, david.della@seattle.gov, jan.drago@seattle.gov, jean.godden@seattle.gov, richard.mciver@seattle.gov, tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov, peter.steinbrueck@seattle.gov

Posted by FoS | January 17, 2007 5:25 PM
24

Thanks, Josh, for being on the scene and keeping us updated on what's going on.

It's nearly impossible to find out specifics of what happens in Olympia unless you know someone who works there; that lack of transparency is one of the major contributors to the gridlock situation in which we seem to be stuck on a wide scope of issues in this state.

Actual *reporting* -- a rare thing, and I appreciate your efforts in preventing its extincton.

Posted by rlv | January 17, 2007 5:26 PM
25

Wow, I really don't know what to make of this news. At first glance, it sounds like good news (for us anti-viaducters out there). I mean, I think there's a better chance of the city successfully sandbagging the viaduct and seeing the gas-tax money get shifted to the 520 bridge than there is of an advisory ballot conclusively killing a rebuild. Well, I'd be curious what Cary Moon and PWC make of this.

We all know that 520 is a vastly more vital route for our region than the viaduct is. We all know there's a heck of a lot more agreement on what to do with 520 than there is on the viaduct. (And by agreement, I don't mean consensus. We don't even have consensus as to whether the earth is round or flat.) And is the viaduct really that much more vulnerable to natural disaster than the 520 bridge? To be more precise, are we talking a real risk of a natural disaster that actually causes casualties or one that merely renders the structure unusable?

Well, all risks being equal (admittedly making a huge assumption there), it's overwhelmingly obvious that 520 replacement should be a higher priority than viaduct replacement. It always struck me that putting the viaduct ahead of 520 for gas-tax funds was a bit of a land-grab by the "Department of Highways" and the legislature. That is, we want to grab the money now for something the public might say no to, so that we can still ask for yet more money for something the public will eventually say yes to.

As FoS says: We're waiting to hear more about what this means for transit/streets.

Posted by cressona | January 17, 2007 5:33 PM
26

Dittoing ivan and rlv. Thanks, Josh Feit, for getting the scoop on this story.

Responding to Mr. X: Next stop - retrofit.

It sure looks like the retrofit is still in play, although it still needs -- what -- $1.5 billion, $2 billion? Where's that money coming from, the RTID? BTW, I gotta say, the retrofit is sure the lesser evil compared to the rebuild. Retrofit-vs.-surface makes for a vastly saner debate than rebuild-vs.-tunnel.

FoS: Email the City Council right now to tell them you support their strong leadership in saying "no thanks" to a new Viaduct and "yes" to the state spending the $2.2 billion on 520. This is urgent. All you supporters of transit + streets, this means you! Thank you for your support. Just copy and paste this email list in your "to" field.

Sounds like good advice, FoS.

Posted by cressona | January 17, 2007 5:41 PM
27

Ugh! Don't move the viaduct to Montlake. It is an eyesore on downtown waterfront and will ruin Union Bay environment!

Posted by city girl | January 17, 2007 5:43 PM
28

Ugh! Don't move the viaduct to Montlake. Don't build the proposed, pricey Pacific Interchange. It is a grimy eyesore on downtown waterfront and building a new one at the UW stadium will ruin Union Bay environment!

Posted by city girl | January 17, 2007 5:44 PM
29

Licata supported the upgrade to our current viaduct - least costly solution that would have kept the fantastic views - I know those of you with tunnel vision think one can't drive and still appreciate it - the upgrade should have been done 5 years ago if safety really is the issue they are making it which of course its not - only an opportunity to promote a mega project.

Licata was told by WashDot that it couldn't be patched up - but after the work of retired engineers finally WashDot or more to the point Parsons Brinkerhoff was told that yes it could be fixed but alas it would cost almost as much - really can you trust a engineer or general that's not retired?

So let's give a $1B to 520 and put some transit (for inside Seattle) money on the RTID and upgrade the viaduct. Fix it, put ivy on it, put attractive lighting under it, sound dampening pavement and on the bottom of the top deck, build a walkway under from Pioneer Sq. to the Pike Place Stair climb.

Plan and build transit as well as restructuring roadways to get the city ready for a future 40 or 50 years from now without the highway.

Posted by Kush | January 17, 2007 6:00 PM
30

Cressona,

WSDOT set as a criteria for the retrofit that it be usable after the next big quake to artificially inflate the cost. If they were to set the criteria such that it should not catastrophically fail after a major quake, the cost would come down by several orders of magnitude (per the Grey and Twelker plan).

Also, retrofit could occur in stages (fe - starting with the one section by Washington Street that was actually damaged in the Nisqually Quake), and be funded that way, as well.

As regards to the so-called "Surface Plus Transit" alternative - this means that it is dead, dead, dead.

Your State Govt. has spoken - get over it.

Posted by Mr. X | January 17, 2007 6:10 PM
31

FUCK FRANK CHOPP! Who made him the buzzkill king on this anyway? Once again, Chopp sells Seattle down the river to make nice with 'the rural eastside'. He can kiss my urban archipelgo ass. We need that guy gone because this is only the latest example of his Seattle sellout.

Posted by Crankster | January 17, 2007 6:20 PM
32

F*@K FRANK CHOPP! Who made him the buzzkill king on this anyway? Once again, Chopp sells Seattle down the river to make nice with 'the rural eastside'. He can kiss my urban archipelgo ass. We need that guy gone because this is only the latest example of his Seattle sellout.

Posted by Crankster | January 17, 2007 6:20 PM
33

Mr. X, I acknowledge that the state is likely playing with an inflated estimate for the retrofit. And I also have to acknowledge that the surface+transit proposal ain't free either. Ostensibly, any plan has to account for rebuilding the seawall (if we do believe the seawall needs believing). And if you're going to do surface+transit right, the transit really ought to include light rail to West Seattle, although I'm not holding my breath on that one. Not to mention tearing down the viaduct is no small task.

But please explain how you come to this conclusion: As regards to the so-called "Surface Plus Transit" alternative - this means that it is dead, dead, dead.

Posted by cressona | January 17, 2007 6:25 PM
34

F*@K FRANK CHOPP! Who made him the buzzkill king on this anyway? Once again, Chopp sells Seattle down the river to make nice with 'the rural eastside'. He can kiss my urban archipelgo ass. We need that guy gone because this is only the latest example of his Seattle sellout.

Posted by Crankster | January 17, 2007 6:25 PM
35

Let's call a spade a spade. The viaduct today is at exactly the same risk of a catastrophic collapse in a major earthquake that it has been at throughout its lifespan. The Nisqually quake damage merely woke everyone in the region up to the fact that this piece of 1950s infrastructure was not engineered with the worst-case seismic scenario in mind. Our choices are to (a) leave it standing and operating, advise drivers to use it at their own risk, and suffer the loss of perhaps a few dozen previously-warned lives in its eventual collapse when the Big One hits, (b) plunge billions into some kind of rebuild or tunnel, or (c) choose to save the lives and the billions by removing the structure and forcing all those who currently "rely" on the viaduct to reroute their commutes, deliveries, shopping trips, etc. to the transportation infrastructure that remains viable. Yes, we'll make improvements to signaling, transit and the like to mitigate some of the impact. Will all this mean it takes longer to get to or through downtown Seattle? YES. Will that cost people their personal time, fuel, and exasperation? YES. Will it cost businesses money? YES. And I say, good! For once, these people and businesses will be realizing and paying the full cost of being mobile in this region. I commute every day, west-to-east and back again in the afternoon across 520, and that is a horrible experience. Were I making the same commute 30 years in 1977, it would have been a breeze. Note to the viaduct-reliant: TIMES CHANGE. The region changes. What worked for you yesterday may not work for you tomorrow. Adjust. Deal. Relocate your business, or your home, to a location where you can get where you want to go in the timeframe you want to get there. This is a market economy. Isn't there a Hidden Hand that's supposed to fix this for you, Ballard-businesses-who-need-a-freight-mobility-corridor? These are the things the People's Waterfront Coalition are too polite to tell you, when what they really want to say is, "Keep your 140,000-vehicle-a-day transportation corridor off our waterfront!"

Posted by Ryan | January 17, 2007 6:28 PM
36

Chopp, a sell-out? No way:

http://www.theolympian.com/119/story/31513.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/297678_chopp29.html

Chopp is the very best kind of liberal: 1) cares about poor people first, 2) fiercely principled, 3) tough as nails, and 4) effective.

Posted by LH | January 17, 2007 6:31 PM
37

Well, in one sense we've just been given a golden opportunity. We can be free of WSDOT's inflexibility about cars-on-highways as the only way to provide mobility. That regressive position is what drove this project into the ground. We can tell the Governor Yes, actually, that sounds great! We'll do this without you. Please de-designate this stretch of road, pay for its removal, and the City and County can figure out how to provide mobility with street improvements and rapid transit.

Of course the scary question is can RTID, the City, the Port, PSRC and the federal gov't (Transit Agency? Army Corps? next SAFETLU allocation?) come up with funding for this alternative and seawall repair/replacement. That is going to require some excellent teamwork between City, County, regional and Federal folks.

Posted by Cary Moon | January 17, 2007 7:27 PM
38

"...the City and County can figure out how to provide mobility with street improvements and rapid transit."

Cary,
The City and the County do not have the capability to "figure out" anything. That's obvious, by now. The Governor and the rest of the region are not going to turn over the Viaduct to Jean Godden and Sally Clarke et al. You may think it's a dream but most would cosnider such a scenario a nightmare. And considering how they have treated your own proposal -- not funding it sufficiently to really give it a fair study -- I can't see how you can see them as allies.

Posted by David Sucher | January 17, 2007 7:51 PM
39

There is still the the cable-stayed bridge option which the city and WSDOT have continued to ignore because they earlier put all their political capital into a cut and cover tunnel or rebuild option. The proposal made some headway last summer but was buried by WSDOT as they further sided on the tunnel.

Too bad. It is likely the most effective, cheapest and easiest
compromise.


Posted by Princess Caroline | January 17, 2007 8:12 PM
40

@37: Get rid of one of two through routes by "de-designating" it and calling for its removal? So basically kill Highway 99. A major through route that runs from Federal Way to Everett. That's insane.

You and your group need to be stopped at all costs, in my opinion. The urbanista fantasy you put forth will cause misery for several hundred thousand people. If it comes to fruition, it will take billions to fix the problems it causes. Billions that aren't even in the cards for the problems we already have.

PWC has offered NOTHING in the way of transit or any details as to how their plan would work. I'm glad Gregoire to date has recognized that.

Posted by Dave Coffman | January 17, 2007 8:51 PM
41

Why don't we just say Thank You to Chris for saving us the extra $2.2 BILLION we would have wasted in EXTRA taxes for Seattle-only taxes and use HALF that money to actually build the Green Line Monorail?

Just saying.

Have our cake and eat it too.

Next time you want to play stare-down with Frank and Chris, Greg, talk to me first - I tried to warn your crowd but you just were off in BushLandThoughtSpace where Up is Down.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 17, 2007 10:47 PM
42

oh, and @15 - at least Sims delivered a 20 percent increase in local bus service to Seattle. More transit than anything Greg's delivered.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 17, 2007 10:49 PM
43

A 6-8 lane elevated, new super-viaduct called I-905 from the Mercer Mess westerly and southerly through SoDo and re-joining I-5 would be very nice. Let's get federal funding and call it the 'George W Bush Expressway."

Posted by Alan Deright | January 18, 2007 10:21 AM
44

The PWC are many of the same people that led cheers for the moronrail. These are people with zero comprehension of the economics associated with freight mobility and should not be trusted to influence policy. Do the adults a favor and stay up on Capitol Hill. Please leave a forwarding address so that the unemployed longshoremen can easily find you after their jobs have been relocated to Oakland and Long Beach.

Posted by Rex | January 18, 2007 4:13 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).