Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Thank You All for Playing | The Morning News »

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Tunnel Surge

posted by on January 18 at 0:15 AM

The reason Mayor Nickels didn’t appear when Gregoire came out with Chopp et al to make her announcement this afternoon is because Nickels left the meeting early (after his tunnel plan got shot down). He headed out the back way because he didn’t want to talk to the press.

That was around 3:35 when Deputy Mayor Ceis was called back. Earlier, I Slogged that Ceis had been called into the meeting at that time.

Nope. Ceis had been called back to exit out the back with the mayor.

The mayor’s security guard, who had been sitting with Ceis in the lobby, cut out with Ceis. I couldn’t help notice the guard was reading a copy of Fiasco, Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks’s fat volume on the Iraq war. It says Fiasco in bright red on a white background.

Obviously, Bush’s war is one of the gravest blunders in this country’s history and Nickels’s tunnel plan doesn’t even merit a footnote in the scheme of things. But I have to say: Nickels’s intransigent oblivious commitment to his tunnel fantasy (the financing just never penciled out) reminds me of Bush and how Bush is delusional about Iraq.

And so, I thought it was fitting when the guard shuffled after Ceis—with his nose still buried in a copy of Fiasco. I have this funny image of Team Nickels heading back up to Seattle on I-5. Ceis and Nickels are in the back seat sternly plotting their surge to revive the tunnel. And the guard is sitting up front by the driver, still quietly reading his copy of Fiasco.

•••

Anyway, here’s the statement that Team Nickels sent out to the press once the Mayor got back to Seattle:

“Deeply disappointed”

SEATTLE- We are deeply disappointed with the announcement today by the Governor and
legislative leadership. After asking for a public vote, the leadership in Olympia is
now saying they are not interested in the opinions of Seattle citizens. Instead,
they are threatening to impose a new elevated freeway or, even worse, taking state
funding away from the most dangerous section of highway in the state of Washington.
No other city in the state has been treated in this manner.

It is clear that Olympia is not interested in a real solution to the Viaduct
replacement. The proposal for the Surface/Tunnel Hybrid offers a more
cost-effective, environmentally-sound transportation solution that will save over $1
billion compared to WSDOT*s inflated six-lane alternative.

Olympia has arbitrarily rejected the Hybrid solution and ignored the advice of their
own Expert Review Panel. Their assertion that the Hybrid Tunnel had not yet been
validated rings hollow in light of the Governor*s order that WSDOT stop working on
this proposal last Friday.

The voters of Seattle have a clear expectation that they will be given honest
choices; that their voices will be heard; and their choices respected.

This is a choice about the future of our city, not about politics in Olympia. We
will move forward with our plans to put the question on the ballot and let the
people of Seattle decide the future of our city.

We will follow the will of the people of Seattle, not the dictates of Olympia.

Arbitrarily rejected?

At the meeting yesterday, Nickels laid out his plan to fund his abridged tunnel option, which according to him would cost about $3.4 billion (as opposed to the $3.6 to $5.5 billion for his full-fledged tunnel.)

He included $250 million in Local Improvment District money (money that would have to be approved by a supermajority vote of businesses that would be negatively impacted by tunnel construction); $200 million from the Port (not secured); $800 million in RTID money (not anywhere near secured); $373 million in money the Governor had earmarked for the elevated (ummm?); and some $110 million in federal money. That’s $1.7 billion right there that sounds pretty shaky.

RSS icon Comments

1

The state is considering the nuclear option, from the Times:

The Legislature, she (Majority Leader Lisa Brown) said, could force the issue and replace the viaduct, which is part of state Highway 99, with an elevated highway by declaring it a "project of statewide significance." That would mean the state, and not the city, would be in charge of issuing permits.

The City could challenge the legality of this, but the courts have taken a very, very broad position in favor of permitting projects of statewide significance, and not allowing local jurisdictions to interfere. Des Moines tried mucking with permits with the 3rd Runaway and Tukwila with light rail, and both got smacked down bigtime by the courts.

Oddly enough, the section of state law dealing with projects of statewide significance is located in the section dealing with growth management. In other words, because such projects are needed to promote DENSITY.

Posted by Biff | January 18, 2007 7:19 AM
2

If you're in a dysfunctional relationship, and your partner gives you an ultimatum, promising to walk out if you don't comply, what do you do? You don't cave immediately, and you don't keep fighting. You take a deep breath, and consider whether or not you might be better off going it alone. You ask your friends what they think, and if they're ready to help.

How about Seattle leaders retreat for a moment together, and work through the scenario where the City lets the State walk away? Most of the trips on the viaduct start and end within the city. Local trips, local issue, local land -- why not local control? 520 is desperately in need of funding. WSDOT "just wants to build a project", so let them go put their energy into that one, which everyone agrees must be replaced.

The questions are: can King County, the City, the Port, and PSRC figure out a solution that doesn't replace that chunk of highway? And can we pull together enough money?

Posted by swell | January 18, 2007 7:21 AM
3

The City Council & Mayor are looking out for their big political donors. They literally do not care about the bigger picture. That is why these boards made up of politicians elected to OTHER offices (Sound Transit and RTID) necessarily are dysfunctional. This "tunnel vision" by Nickels is a symptom of this disease. He wanted a tunnel because of unions and property developers who would back his campaigns. He did not want it because it was good for the RTID region (which he was going to use to pay for a big part of it). He also did not want the tunnel because it would be good from the perspective of Sound Transit (he's the main guy there - always has been).

The idea for the ST plus RTID vote was put together years ago. It is a bad idea on numerous levels, and Nickels' demands for the tunnel as payola to his base shows why.

Posted by Albert Hall | January 18, 2007 7:41 AM
4

I've had it personally. Get rid of the viaduct. Do not build another one. Do not dig a tunnel. Put size limitations on the vehicles, diverting the big rigs to I-5.

Now can we do something fix Metro?

Posted by elswinger | January 18, 2007 7:52 AM
5

Josh seems to be cheering the Governor's and Frank Chopp's decision to ram a 50% larger structure through downtown, if only to stick it to the mayor. I think Josh is still sore because the mayor didn't ram a feeding tube down the throat of the dying monorail. I don't know why he cares so much about it, since like the viaduct, you'd never see him commuting on it.

Meanwhile, an opportunity for more open, quieter, and less polituted waterfront was just knifed in the back by a visionless Governor and a bloody-minded Frank Chopp.

I think we can expect some angry citizen's popping out in 2008 to run against the Speaker.

Posted by Sail | January 18, 2007 8:13 AM
6

I think the 520 is much more important than the viaduct. I say that as a Beacon Hill resident, who hardly ever goes to the eastside, and never, ever uses 520. I have no hidden agenda there.

I also think that we could very easily live without the viaduct. Particularly if they would finally fix the mess that is I-5 from the brewery to the ship canal bridge. (This includes the Spokane Street viaduct.)

So again I say, proudly and defiantly, "Tear that schitt down!"

Posted by catalina vel-duray | January 18, 2007 8:15 AM
7

"We will follow the will of the people of Seattle, not the dictates of Olympia."


What a motherfucking joke. Greg Nickels is still talking the populist bullshit from his 2001 campaign that he jetisoned as soon as he entered office. He creates a political machine by kicking people out of city government who don't agree with him to make room for his lackies, destoys political processes he can't manipulate, serves a handful of big developers in South Lake Union, and then has the fucking gall to claim that he's the mainspring of democracy in this town.

He just had his ass handed to him on a platter. Crying about it is pathetic enough. But acting as if he is the only voice of the people, as if Reps from Seattle in the State Leg somehow have no connection to the city, is just asinine. This is the last job Nickels will have as an elected politician. And if Nickels keeps this crap up, he might finally deliver the issue others need to kick his ass to the curb in the next election before he gets totally delusional about his own grandiosity.

Posted by wf | January 18, 2007 8:48 AM
8

Nickels is complaining about dictates from Olympia? Has he forgotten that the viaduct is a STATE road being replaced with STATE money. The state does not legally need to consult with the City of Seattle. The only mistake the State has made has been trying (out of the goodness of their heart) to work with Seattle City leaders like Nickels. It's time to cut the Mayor and City Council out of the picture, and just move ahead with the rebuild. If the City tries to sue, then move the money to 520.

Posted by james P | January 18, 2007 9:03 AM
9

I was more annoyed by the earlier "arbitrary rejection" of the surface option, myself -- in wihch Nickels was an enthusiastic participant. Will of the people? Hardly.

Posted by sarah irene | January 18, 2007 9:29 AM
10

On this issue, I envy those who don't live here and can only shake their heads and ask "what's a viaduck?"

Posted by Original Andrew | January 18, 2007 10:00 AM
11

A political challenge to Representative Chopp in the 43rd LD in 2008 is not outside the realm of possibility if he supports the idea Sen. Brown floated - the "statewide significance", ram-it-down-Seattle's-throat approach. I highlight the word Representative because those of us who know him know that he prefers to think of himself as the Speaker and leader of the party caucus moreso than as the elected representative of his district. Such a challenge, even if it had no chance of success, would nontheless be damaging to Chopp, to the Democratic party in the district and citywide, and to his standing in the caucus. Chopp would be well-advised to reject Brown's trial balloon publicly, and to remain open to the surface boulevard option, which is where I think this is ultimately headed (if it's headed anywhere at all).

Posted by Ryan | January 18, 2007 10:04 AM
12

Maybe Nickels is dragging the viaduct project out as long as he can so he can campaign on the issue and get re-elected. Sort of like Bush and his "War on Terror". This means 6 more years of studies, proposals, votes, blech.

Posted by him | January 18, 2007 10:22 AM
13

Sail (#5) - I agree with 100%.

In case people failed to notice Seattle is being dissed on this. This is NOT a good thing for Seattle. Chopp and the majority of the Seattle delegation have a tendency to wimp out on our agenda and pushing for Seattle to get it's share of the tax expenditures because they fear a 'backlash from Eastern Washington'. That's why they did not fight for what's right and what's best for Seattle. Our Seattle delegation (with a few notable exceptions) is either ball-less or ineffective when it comes to fighting for Seattle.

Sarah Irene (#9) - The Surface Transit option was polling at something like 7% so it's really only about 7% of the will of the people that Nickels ignored.

Posted by Mrs. Y | January 18, 2007 10:39 AM
14

Ryan @11, Frank's more popular than the rest of the 43rd's delegation.

Seriously.

The mayor and city council - they're not even half as popular (except for two of them).

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 18, 2007 10:42 AM
15

Give me a break. We're talking about an urban design project with an *enormous* lasting impact on our city, and we're going to make the decision based on what's most convenient given the legislative schedule?

And how is investing in our city in anyway comparable Bush's prosecution to the war on terror? Why not go the whole way and start comparing Nickels to Hitler? How is Nickels any more stubborn than the stick-in-the-mud "No to the Tunnel"?

Brainless and partisan.

Posted by Sean | January 18, 2007 10:56 AM
16

I don't know, "tunnel surge" sounds pretty hot.

Posted by Gabriel | January 18, 2007 10:57 AM
17

Will Affleck-Asch @ 14, I think you need to talk to some people not serving on the executive committee of the 43rd LD Democrats before reaching the conclusion that Frank's so popular that he can foist something like this on the district without political consequences.

Posted by Ryan | January 18, 2007 11:00 AM
18

It was just a smartass comment from being fed up at how long politicians have been dickering over this. Get over yourself, Sean, you sound like Hitler with your rantings.

Posted by him | January 18, 2007 11:01 AM
19

The shame of it all is that the city wasted milions along with the state on a project that all that have been paying attention knew would be way to expensive to ever happen - the Boston experience run by the same company that is consulting on the AWV project should have given a clear picture of how difficult and expensive these types of projects are. Much of those millions were not transportation dollars and could have used on the social programs (didn't a woman's clinic just close for the lack of $200k?) our leaders support - at least lip service wise.


Retrofit/upgrade what we have - make it quieter and prettier - save the money and build transit - just imagine what could be done with the billions that the tunnel would have wasted. And the tunnel was the least green of all the plans - yet our hypocrites or in case of the mayor hippocritter - they continue act like they are environmentalists -


Posted by kush | January 18, 2007 11:13 AM
20

Ryan,

A scant 15% of Seattle voters support tear down/don't rebuild. Notwithstanding that it's an influential 15% (ie - an unholy alliance of Transportation Choices Coalition types and the Downtown big business community), I don't think most electeds are gonna tremble in their boots at that number.

Posted by Mr. X | January 18, 2007 12:17 PM
21

@17 - Ryan, even the mayor's polls show he doesn't have Seattle voter support for his tunnel. No matter how you slice it. Besides, Frank's just being realistic.

And @20 is correct.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 18, 2007 1:05 PM
22

@20 is correct with the 'most electeds are gonna tremble in their boots at that number', sure - but find me someone at the DSA who's a transit + streets supporter...

Posted by John | January 18, 2007 1:22 PM
23

Will @ 21 - I wasn't advocating the tunnel (I prefer the surface/transit option, or the do-nothing option where we shift the funds to 520). I was merely arguing that neither Chopp nor Gregoire have the political heft to foist an unwanted elevated freeway on this city.

Posted by Ryan | January 18, 2007 1:31 PM
24

Well, Ron Sims didn't exactly have the political heft to foist Brightwater on Snohomish County/Woodinville/et al, either, but he didn't need it, either.

BTW - the most serious poll done on this showed over 50% of Seattle voters supported an elevated AWV replacement.

Posted by Mr. X | January 18, 2007 1:56 PM
25

Ryan,
Most downtown business interests (i.e. DSA,Chamber, etc.) DON'T actually support the surface option. They supported the tunnel and have recently supported the tunnel/surface hybrid proposal (a.k.a. tunnel lite)as a compromise solution.

Posted by Mrs. Y | January 18, 2007 3:29 PM
26

A few predictions:

  • We'll reach Peak Oil before the viaduct replacement is completed (whatever form that replacement takes). This means we'll be finishing a project focused on gas-vehicle mobility at a time when gas-vehicle operating costs will be skyrocketing.
  • The replacement cost will exceed $7 billion, regardless of which configuration is selected. Who here remembers the original $12-14 billion estimates, back in 2002-03?
  • If the state attempts to force an elevated structure on Seattle, an initiative or referendum will pass which will block the project from proceeding.

    Anyone have a valid reason to doubt any of these?
  • Posted by Jerry | January 18, 2007 4:58 PM
    27

    Amazing! Not only could no one get rapid transit resolved and built in Seattle now the same goes for the Viaduct, bogged down in politics. I feel the worst will be done when there is an opportunity to make the waterfront in Seattle beautiful by getting rid of the unsafe Viaduct eyesore. The whole waterfront in Seattle could be an amazing place to visit offering a spectacular view of the city. The city could have something to be proud off. As it is now the waterfront does not offer much not even a beach to sit by not even a section of seawall to walk on.
    Reinvent as much of the waterfront as possible the viaduct should be looked at as just the tip of the iceberg and the whole area needs to be addressed. Don't develop for cars develop for people.

    Posted by Brian | January 18, 2007 5:00 PM
    28

    Jerry,

    Statement #1 - arguable, and even if true, cars in some form will be with us long after petroleum-fueled internal combustion engines have left the scene.

    Statement #2 - there was never a $12 or $13 billion price tag for an elevated replacement - that was the figure for the full-meal-deal tunnel that Nickels has been trying to phase in smaller-to- digest chunks by lowballing the cost to start digging. I'm sure an elevated replacement will cost more than the $2.6 billion now cited, but I doubt that it will be $7 billion.

    Statement #3 - it would have to be a statewide initiative or referendum, as it's a State highway. In other words, you're dead wrong on this point, as statewide voters would happily ram an elevated replacement down Greg Nickels and the pro-tunnel Council majority's throat that was 5 times the size of the version now under consideration.

    And Brian, guess who uses the cars that use the Viaduct? People (and rather a lot of them, in fact).

    Posted by Mr. X | January 18, 2007 5:18 PM
    29

    "We'll reach Peak Oil before the viaduct replacement is completed (whatever form that replacement takes). This means we'll be finishing a project focused on gas-vehicle mobility at a time when gas-vehicle operating costs will be skyrocketing."

    I'm looking at the GM Volt for a future car or maybe a hydrogen car, or biodiesel -


    "The replacement cost will exceed $7 billion, regardless of which configuration is selected. Who here remembers the original $12-14 billion estimates, back in 2002-03?"

    I'm sure the tunnel would be in that region - original plan had a much longer tunnel that wouldn't have had connection to Battery St. but would have come out further north on Aurora.


    "If the state attempts to force an elevated structure on Seattle, an initiative or referendum will pass which will block the project from proceeding."

    You thinking of a statewide initiative? Cause there is no way a Seattle law can stop a state highway.

    Posted by kush | January 18, 2007 5:27 PM
    30

    Good for Rep. Chopp and the Governor. An elevated alternative can be just as good for the waterfront as the tunnel. I just don't understand the negative reaction to Chopp's plans for enclosing the road and/or putting a park on the top deck.


    If we have to go cheap, how much more could it cost to add glass or acrylic noisewalls? Combine that with raising it up a bit and building fewer columns to reduce the blight factor underneath, and you've got 90% of the way to fixing what I find unpleasant about the Waterfront.


    If Nickels really wants an open waterfront, why don't we just use the elevated monies to put a lid over an 6-8 lane surface boulevard? Cut it back to just a few downtown intersections, and voila, all the traffic capacity and an amazing waterfront space above.


    I hope the final death of the tunnel can move us past the tired debate based on the assumption the only surface option is of the militant green variety, and that the only elevated option is brutalist.

    Posted by Some Jerk | January 18, 2007 7:25 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).