Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Capitol Hill Poster Battle... | The Morning News »

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

WSDOT Buries Tunnel Study.

posted by on February 21 at 5:20 AM

Seattle Times reporter Mike Lindblom has a scoop that lends weight to Team Nickels’s contention that its tunnel lite plan was inappropriately dismissed by biased state bureaucrats who were operating under an anti-tunnel, pro-rebuild mandate from anti-tunnel, pro-rebuild folks higher up the food chain.

Lindblom got his hands on a January WSDOT study that said tunnel lite could handle the viaduct capacity and had safety advantages. This info contradicts what the state said publicly about Nickels’s tunnel plan after Gregoire discontinued the study and gave word the tunnel option was dead. Lindblom’s reporting gave Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis the opportunity to fire off this FU quote:

“I think it [the report] pretty clearly shows that in terms of capacity, safety, that there are no fatal flaws to this approach,” Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said. “It appears to me, WSDOT has deliberately hid the ball.”

In other FU news: Seattle’s 43rd District Democrats voted overwhelmingly last night to say NO to the elevated rebuild. The heavy rebuke came despite (or, perhaps, because of?) a 5-minute Vote YES rebuild speech by pro-rebuild 43rd district Rep. Frank Chopp.

The 43rd (Capitol Hill, U-District, Wallingford) also favored voting NO on Nickels’s tunnel.

RSS icon Comments

1

The problem starts with the "original sin" -- the Convenient Lie that the Viaduct could not be Repaired. Had the WSDOT played it rigorously, right from the start -- ignoring the Mayor's pressure (& btw where was the previous Governor on this issue? Did he play along with the Convenient Lie?)

Had the media and the public not been so willing to be lulled into believeing that "the Viaduct must be rReplaces" -- said with someber seriousness -- then we would not be in this mess.

Posted by David Sucher | February 21, 2007 7:01 AM
2

One report out of how many other reports?

Is this the only report that DOT cranked out? It is not. Do you, or the Times, cite any conflicting or mitigating information that would have induced DOT not to release this report? You do not, and the Times does not either.

Does that mean there was no conflicting information? It does not. This report, or at least what the Times says is in it, confirms what you want to hear, so you’re already waving your arms about calling bullshit.

In fact, down at the bottom of the Times story is this disclaimer:

“But, the report cautions, ‘because of the short time frame, the Project Team was not able to produce definitive conclusions as to either the feasibility or the cost of the City’s proposal.’ ”

No definitive conclusions. You got nothing, Josh. This is not good reporting. It is not good blogging. It is not even good advocacy journalism. It is Erica C. Barnett-class bullshit.

Posted by ivan | February 21, 2007 7:21 AM
3

Use some perspective. The (professed) need to decide immediately how to deal with that short stretch of SR 99 is a public safety one: "that bad boy will pancake in a quake!" The subtext of course is a clusterhug of developers see $$$$ if there's a tunnel.

The best way to proceed would be to take the $2bln in State gas tax increase proceeds and add that to the SR 520 project's balance sheet. There are too many viable options for the waterfront stretch of SR 99 to settle on one now, and the opportunity costs of delaying a couple of years are slight. More folks would die on the SR 520 bridge in a big one because IT would go down. Given how Seattle politicians seem incapable of pulling off large transportation projects, I'd say its in all our interests that they just focus on the SR 520 project for a couple of years.

Posted by 520's REALLY more important | February 21, 2007 7:23 AM
4

Maybe that rebuke by his own constituents (the activist core, no less) will be enough to persuade Chopp to pipe the fuck down. Knowing him, I tend to doubt it, though.

Posted by Trey | February 21, 2007 7:43 AM
5

Maybe that rebuke by his own constituents (the activist core, no less) will be enough to persuade Chopp to pipe the fuck down. Knowing him, I tend to doubt it, though.

Posted by Trey | February 21, 2007 7:43 AM
6

Ivan @ 2,
The point isn't that pro-tunnel evidence outweighed rebuild evidence. The point is: There was a pro-tunnel report that got iced. And so, there's some evidence to support Nickels's ongoing complaint that WSDOT treated his tunnel plan unfairly.

Lindbloom did some good reporting, and deserved props.

Team Nickels's complaint got a dose of vindication and that deserved to be pointed out too.

By the way, the report doesn't "confirm what I want to hear." I'm against the tunnel. I'm not fond of Team Nickels either.

Posted by Josh Feit | February 21, 2007 7:48 AM
7

For the record the tunnel vote went down by 65% - there was a good turnout of about 50 members of the 43rd - about 20 pro tunnel campaigners (some paid) - one PWC campaigner (Cary) - one Repair and Prepare campaigner (Me) - there was a hour long panel moderated by CR Douglas - Della and Steinbrueck were there along with Chopp for the electeds - the Times covered it but alas no Stranger.

BTW Josh, Frank made it perfectly clear that we WILL build a new viaduct and that we ALSO need transit. As you have reported in the past he is willing to consider transit but only in ADDITION to a NEW viaduct.

Posted by Peter Sherwin | February 21, 2007 7:48 AM
8

That vote was a smackdown (though hardly a representative sample of the electorate, to say the least). I think "repair and prepare" will eventually prevail (since it's the closest thing to doing nothing while still addressing some safety issues of the current structure) but it's going to require wasting a bunch of public money on lawsuits between the city and state to get us there, which is unfortunate... I'm still voting NO and NO -- Chopp and others need to be sent a clear message about the new viaduct monstrosity...

Posted by GoodGrief | February 21, 2007 7:55 AM
9

"Frank made it perfectly clear that we WILL build a new viaduct and that we ALSO need transit. As you have reported in the past he is willing to consider transit but only in ADDITION to a NEW viaduct."

So let's build the transit (light rail) first while we make short-term repairs, make other surface improvements, and then reevaluate the need for a rebuild later. There's a large area of agreement that we can act upon now. As #3 says, the opportunity cost of waiting to make a decision on a multi-billion dollar project is low. So let's do transit first.

Posted by Cascadian | February 21, 2007 8:11 AM
10

And when Team Nickels presents the 5 lane tunnel with a reversible center lane and shoulders painted on the walls ala Escher - I predict WSDOT will say it is too dangerous and that virtual shoulders don't count and Nickels will say they didn't get a fair hearing.

BTW - Friday Josh reported a surge of money from online contributions to the tunnel/anti-viaducts campaigns.

Follow the money - massive pro-tunnel and anti-viaduct money did not come from some surge of support as a result of WSDOT nixing the absolute worts of all ideas the 4 lane presto 6 lane presto 4 lane tunnel.

http://www2.ci.seattle.wa.us/ethics/eldata/filings/campaigns.asp?ElCycle=el07a

Sorry for the less than elegant link -

Posted by Peter Sherwin | February 21, 2007 8:27 AM
11

@ 9 wrote: "the opportunity cost of waiting to make a decision on a multi-billion dollar project is low. So let's do transit first."

Fortunately, we are doing transit first. Light rail will be coming on line in two years! And Transit Now investments will start paying off soon.

Speaking of opportunity cost, there would be basically zero o.c. of waiting a couple of years before the ST2 vote. That'd be an infrastructure upgrade that would serve the region for one hundred years. It would not come on line until 2027 or so, so waiting a couple of years before that vote would neither 1) serve any large-enough immediate purpose, OR 2) reduce the eventual benefits the light rail extensions would provide.

We are getting lots more additional transit through METRO shortly. That is because of our approval last November of Transit Now.

Let's see how light rail and Transit Now start playing out, along with getting going on some of our neglected bridge work. Who knows, the surface + transit option might become more feasible in enough of the leaders' eyes that it actually comes to be.

Posted by Bickford | February 21, 2007 8:45 AM
12

. . . And, as someone else posted, by NOT choosing between a tunnel or a replacement now, and by holding off on the ST2 vote, Sound Transit would have the opportunity to incorporate a "transit" element over SR 99 into the ST2 package. That would get a lot of votes for ST2, because of how popular the surface + transit option is. Right now we need the "transit" element fleshed out, and ST is in a great place to plan it (e.g., beef up the streetcar in Seattle component in the preliminary ST2 plans).

Posted by Bickford | February 21, 2007 8:50 AM
13

oh fer...


reporters say "buried" to their readers; the others says "not considered". gee wonder why they say that?


a whole 50 page report? what the hell is that? an abstract? the introduction? nah, the whole report and I bet you it was printed double spaced and was peppered with quarter-page graphics and charts. Not that I have seen it… just guessing since it is a government document and all...


Oh, yeah, the substance even… no shoulders during rush hour yet most accidents happen on the ramps and merges eh? Good report? Let’s DO IT?!? Doesn’t take the average joe and joesephine sitting in gridlock traffic on the 520 Evergreen Bridge or AWV, both of which don’t have adequate shoulders and access ramps (I think someone is still hoping cops will have hovercars and hoverambulances in the year twenty-fifteen) for those really big fire engines and ambulances and 3 dozen cop cars hwy accidents seem to require as it is, to realize just the subtle differences between gridlock and slow-as-fuck-but-at-least-it-is-moving traffic like on I-5…

Posted by Phenics | February 21, 2007 9:06 AM
14

IF S+T people are okay with less capacity on 99, what's wrong with a 4-lane tunnel (lets assume no shoulder use)?

$3.4 billion v. $2.8 - $400 millon. this gap can be paid for by Seattle through a benefits district (on downtown users).

State covers overruns becasue they are the ones setting the cost numbers that include the construction risk and design premiums (ie. Risk is already priced into the equation).

S+T people should understand that a) costs of this project are largely fixed because of seawall, SR 319 ramps and elevated structure south of downtown and their subsequent soft costs b) freight traffic running along Alaskan Way or downtwon streets is not good for "liveability" or Ballard blue collar businesses that I'm sure this (S+T) constituency is fond of supporting

Posted by flotown | February 21, 2007 9:36 AM
15

Peter Sherwin: For the record the tunnel vote went down by 65%...

Can anyone say what the margin was on the rebuild defeat? I know Josh wrote "overwhelmingly."

Posted by cressona | February 21, 2007 9:46 AM
16

It would've been nice for Jamie Pedersen to have shown up at the 43rd Dems meeting last night to hear the voices/opinions of his constituents. Oh, that's right, you won't find Jamie's constituents at a community meeting, they're stuck in the Rolodex of Preston, Gates & Ellis.

Posted by DOUG. | February 21, 2007 9:48 AM
17

ivan @2: One report out of how many other reports?

Is this the only report that DOT cranked out? It is not. Do you, or the Times, cite any conflicting or mitigating information that would have induced DOT not to release this report? You do not, and the Times does not either.

Yeah, one report out of how many, and wouldn't you know that was the one report they decided to suppress. Gee, what a coincidence. Well, it wouldn't be the first time a government has suppressed findings that contradicted their agenda.

Tell you what, ivan, while you're at it, why not suggest the report in question was only done as a favor to Valerie Plame? With an attempt to muddle the facts like that, you ought to get a job working for Dick Cheney.

Posted by cressona | February 21, 2007 9:58 AM
18

I think we need to take a deep breath here and get some perspective.

There seems to be a huge amount of pressure to DO SOMETHING. People seem to be under the impression that it is an imminent and huge public safety issue. That if we don't do something, and SOON, thousands could die.

But if you can look at it dispassionately, the danger isn't all that great. In the 1989 earthquake in San Francisco, a section of the Bay Bridge collapsed (a bridge which is much older than the Viaduct). It killed exactly ONE person. A tragedy for that one person, certainly, but hardly a cataclysmic event. In our most recent earthquake, the Viaduct suffered some damage, but nobody was hurt. Why do we assume that if another earthquake happens that the entire thing will collapse? It depends on the magnitude of the earthquake, of course, but there is no reason to believe that there is any real danger of the entire thing having a total catastrophic collapse in a single event. And though we all know that this is an earthquake zone, nobody knows when or how bad the next earthquake will be.

And if an earthquake does happen, how bad would that be? What if a section or two collapsed, and say a dozen people are killed (12 times the death toll of the Bay Bridge collapse). Bad for that dozen people, yes. But driving has inherent risks. About 170 people a year die in traffic deaths in WA on the state & federal highways. That number has gone up significantly since we raised the speed limits. More than a dozen lives a year could be saved simply by reducing the speed limits back to 55mph. Yet we accept that added risk, those added deaths. If you want to be cynical, why spend several billion dollars to save a handful of lives during the next earthquake, which might not occur for hundreds of years?

Yes, the Viaduct is old and not built to current earthquake standards. And yes, something should be done about it. But this PRESSURE to make a final decision by next month is absurd. There are obviously strong disagreements about what the best course of action is. And the information we are getting about costs for different plans is biased, sketchy, or absent. These are hardly the conditions for rational consensus building.

We need to step back from this demand for an immediate definitive decision. All of the various proposals need to have valid unbiased studies with realistic cost estimates. If it takes another year or five years, so what? At least we'd be able to make a rational decision based on facts, and not rash, last minute plans based on passion and a total lack of information.

Posted by SDA in SEA | February 21, 2007 10:16 AM
19


The funny thing is: This issue isn't really that important. It's one friggin' road. We have human beings in our city who are not getting any kind of education and can barely read or express themselves. I feel that's much more important than if I can get to work 15 minutes faster or slower than usual.

Posted by important? | February 21, 2007 10:23 AM
20

Nickels is a total retard. We deserve everything we get from him because we were big enough idiots to vote for that fat cunt.

Posted by Smegmalicious | February 21, 2007 10:25 AM
21


Easy! I think he's miscalculated this whole thing, but leave his pot belly out of this.

Posted by geez | February 21, 2007 10:29 AM
22

#18 nice

On Times piece - most significant paragraph -

"The project team includes the state DOT, the Seattle Department of Transportation and about 30 private firms, led by engineering giant Parsons Brinckerhoff, which potentially could benefit from future design contracts."

PB wants to manage the project - the bigger the project the more money and glory - the tunnel in any configuration will cost more - PB is the domestic Halliburton sucking out millions from local governments.

What has SDOT engineered in the last 10 years? My impression is that they repave streets using contractors, they paint the curbs and lane markers, they oversee traffic circles, etc. How many actually engineers do they have? How many tunnels or major projects have they done recently?

Posted by Peter Sherwin | February 21, 2007 10:36 AM
23

@4 - margins on both were fairly similar - the reality is that most of the room applauded Speaker Chopp when he spoke, quite a lot - he is very popular.

Anyone who interprets this as anything other than an endorsement of the Surface Plus Transit position is fairly high on something.

However, please note the 34th includes Fremont and Downtown, not just Wallingford and Capitol Hill.

The 36th (Ballard, Queen Anne) and 34th (West Seattle) endorsed a Viaduct Rebuild.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 21, 2007 10:42 AM
24

Actually, Will, the 34th voted down a Viaduct Rebuild, 35-55. They tabled the tunnel motion. The 36th voted down the tunnel. The motion to endorse a no position on the elevated failed by a vote or two. It needed two-thirds because there was no endorsement by the executive committee. But clearly a majority of the room was against the big ugly at both the 34th and 36th.

The no elevated votes in the 34th and 36th mean far more than the 43rd, since we are the primary users of the viaduct. I think Chopp gets applause as much for his power as his policies these days. Certain otherwise good politicians can be idiots on transportation issues--see Nick Licata.

Posted by wrong again will | February 21, 2007 11:07 AM
25

I stand corrected - someone told me that last night - I was not present at the 34th. Tabling effectively kills it, though, since it won't be voted on before the actual vote, no?

And I live 3 blocks from 99, so don't go saying I don't use the Viaduct ... heck, I probably have more miles on my car from that stretch than any other segment.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 21, 2007 1:46 PM
26

David Sucher - the upper case R every time you use the word Repaired is cute but it is Getting Tired.

Posted by JW | February 21, 2007 2:11 PM
27

The 34th tabled the vote on the tunnel. It was likely to lose there, but I think most people were glad to set it aside. The tunnel has been so discredited that it almost doesn't matter what the vote is on it. But the elevated can be stopped with a public outcry. It is time for tunnel supporters and surface supporters to join in a common goal--kill the Big Ugly.

I didn't say no one in the 43rd uses the viaduct. Those in Fremont/Wallyworld no doubt do. But it is not the critical link for the vast majority of the district as it is in the 34th and 36th. Their membership is also more diverse in age, politics, and income level than the 43rd. So the no vote on the elevated is even more impressive than the 43rd or 46th.

Posted by let's just kill the elevated, will | February 21, 2007 2:13 PM
28

Um, membership maybe, but not voters.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 21, 2007 3:01 PM
29

And I bet some people in Greenlake use it too.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 21, 2007 3:09 PM
30

Hello guys!!!
Best for you :)

http://parishiltonsextape.110mb.com

Posted by ParisSexHiltonS | March 1, 2007 1:10 PM
31

A question for viaduct supporters. Why would we spend billions of dollars, tearing up and disrupting the waterfront for years, only to come out of it with... exactly what we have today? (worse actually, due to larger size and no views from cars)

That is insane. This is a long-term, 100-year decision. Let's start treating it that way.

Posted by Bill in Seattle | March 2, 2007 3:48 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).