Slog
News & ArtsMonday, February 7, 2011
Transportation Surface/Transit Is Still the Best Alternative for Replacing the Viaduct
Posted by Cary Moon on Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:10 AM
This guest Slog post is by Cary Moon, director of the People's Waterfront Coalition.
Today at 2:00 p.m., the Seattle City Council will consider contracts for the flawed proposal to build a deep-bore-tunnel. Voice your opposition at the council chambers at City Hall (600 Fourth Avenue), because we have a better option: I-5/surface/transit.
But Seattle City Council member Nick Licata, who has done a lot of good for our city, is wrong about about that alternative in his recent post. He’s not looking at the whole picture.
I don’t doubt that the legislators he talked to didn’t jump to support surface/transit. Because (a) like Nick, they are in the dark about the tunnel’s deteriorating financial viability, and (b) no one has pitched them a win-win solution yet.
And quit trying to mislead people, Nick!
The proposal on the table for surface/transit is not the six-lane waterfront highway from the 2004 study—no one (literally, not one person) liked that. It is not the No Replacement option WSDOT trashed in 2006; that was not a credible or constructive proposal, it was a “Watch what happens if we do nothing” study. To trot out these straw arguments and imply these had any connection to this discussion is lazy.
The I-5/surface/transit proposal PWC and our allies advocate has been the same since 2005: fixes to I-5 to improve flow; high-speed transit between downtown and Ballard, Aurora Avenue North, and West Seattle; a four-lane connected street on the waterfront; demand management and pricing tools; and grid improvements throughout Seattle to increase connectivity. The only apples-to-apples comparison of all the options was done in 2008. This rigorous analysis showed all solutions worked for mobility, serving the same trip demand, +/- 1 percent.
And remember, that analysis used exaggerated figures for "demand" in order to test worst-case scenarios, not reality. Their computer modeling posited a 20 percent increase in travel demand by 2015 and tested performance in that unreal condition. In the actual world, there has been a DECREASE in Seattle’s car travel since 2000, even though our population grew. So it is no problem to meet actual need with this approach.
Here’s the money picture:
First: The city is already committed to pay for the seawall/shoreline project, and the waterfront park. These costs aren’t known yet, but the city and local partners are paying the bill whether the tunnel tanks or not. So let’s set that aside.
Second: The State has ALREADY spent $1,148 million, with or without the tunnel. ($164 million has already been spent on engineering and design work to date. $483 million is budgeted for the Holgate to King segment, $290 million for viaduct removal and replacement of the 4-lane surface street, $181 million for other Moving Forward projects, and $30 million for central waterfront mitigation.)
That means the State has $1,252 million left.
If they pursue the $1,960 million tunnel, they are short about $700 million. Their proposition to get these funds seems shakier every day. Has anyone verified with Frank Chopp and Lisa Brown that floating a $400 million bond on future tolling revenue is even a remote possibility, given (a) the constitutional debt limit, and (b) the low usage of a highly tolled tunnel, and (c) other more pressing priorities for state spending? The Port’s promise of $300 million was supposed to be allocated in 2010, but nothing has emerged beyond arm-waving yet.
But the shortfall is probably worse, because unresolved problems with the tunnel have no budget and are likely to be really expensive:
· The project doesn’t have approval to go under the old federal building, and may not get it. What if they have to reroute? What if they have to buy the building?
· The project is required to pay to retrofit ($30 million?) or replacement ($?) of the 619 Western Building, according to the Ordinance protecting Pioneer Square, but WSDOT has only budgeted $2 million for demolition.
· The project is responsible for mitigating the traffic effects caused to City streets caused by putting a suburban scaled interchange next to the Historic District, but has not budgeted that yet either.
· There are many risks — damage to underground infrastructure, buildings, public facilities; flooding due to uncontrollable ground water; machine getting stuck — that don’t have solutions identified or funded yet. Many of these must be resolved before the final EIS. The historic preservation world is fully engaged now in birdogging WSDOT, and aren’t letting them get away with shenanigans.
· The project must purchase rights to build under 137 buildings, but has not negotiated these yet. They already have an impasse with two buildings; what if other property owners are not willing? What if $152 million is insufficient?
WSDOT is already short $700 million, and still have some really expensive solutions still to fund.
It’s time for Seattle City Council and the legislature to shut down WSDOT’s shell game with this project’s budget, and get a full explanation of all the unresolved risks, new costs, and available funds. Then we can do an apples to apples comparison, and see whether the proposed tunnel or I-5/ S/ T looks more viable.
Overall, the cost of I-5/surface/transit is cheaper by (at least) $700 million. ( I can share the details if you can stand more numbers.) It’s lower risk. As Nick says, it’s incremental to build, and it’s faster to complete. It actually improves access to Seattle urban neighborhoods instead of worsening it. It avoids risk to historic building and brittle infrastructure. It avoids dumping 50,000 cars a day in Pioneer Square. The jobs to build it are local jobs, because all the money is spent on construction and not on importing an automated machine. For you waterfront mavens, the street design and volume of traffic on the waterfront would be the same either way.
The obstacles to doing I-5/surface/transit are political. First, by convincing the legislature it’s in their best interest to take the $300 million cash and get out while they’re ahead, and second, by securing local funding authority for transit.
Every solution has its pros and cons, there is no one-liner answer. But the most disturbing problem with Nick’s argument is how shallow his personal, un-expert view of this situation. He quotes WSDOT’s former hit pieces against the option preferred by the City’s technical experts SDOT, and ignores the only comprehensive technical data from 2008 in favor of voicing his own gut-feelings. But if legislators had a clear picture of the proposed tunnel’s actual costs and funding shortfall, and were offered a $700 million savings and freedom from the looming aggravation, that’s a deal they might just take.
Cost-effective solutions are looking more delicious all the time.
We're supposed to be working to reduce VMT per capita, and instead we pay billions to increase them. We're supposed to be trying to reduce carbon emissions (see Richard Conlin's newsletter today), and instead we pay big money to increase them.
I'm sure we had a window of opportunity a year or two ago when we could've done what the governors of Oregon and Washington did to The Columbia River Crossing -- kill it and start over with something more realistic. Some historian will undoubtedly document when that moment was, and when it ended.
I expect the tunnel will get built, with a few setbacks that will basically entail pumping more grout into the soil to stabilize building foundations. And and when the tunnel opens, as has already been predicted, most current viaduct traffic will channel onto surface streets due to (1.) the tunnels absence of any (ANY!) on- and off-ramps, and (2.) the high toll that will be charged, especially during rush hours.
Surface streets will be a mess because they won't have the improvements that Cary's Surface/Transit alternative would've provided; same with I-5. And the tolls won't raise enough money, no matter how high or low they are set, to pay off the bonds.
We're leaving a fine mess for future generations. Our children will indeed be asking: "What WERE they thinking?"
And the answer is, clearly we weren't thinking enough.
2
Please provide a link with pretty pictures of the proposed waterfront.
Cary is right, it's time to stop this faith-based charade and take a serious look at this project.
At this point every time I see a semi-sane diatribe about the SeattleSinker I practically weep. I can't fathom why this project was not killed years ago and this article does a nice job of reminding us of the many flaws in the tunnel plans, as well as the fact that much more viable, more far-sighted plans were available that could still be implemented.
One aspect which gets touched upon here is traffic volume and toll-backed bonds. As the author points out, traffic in Seattle has already dropped. The SeattleSinker plan counts on ever- increasing boom-town traffic projections. Proposing that automobile and truck traffic will just continuously increase is a symptom of corrupt 20th century American expansionist thinking. It’s entirely unlikely that auto and truck traffic will continuously increase in the face of imminent fossil fuel limitations. Who the hell is going to drive downtown from Shoreline for example, when it costs $10 in gas plus a no-doubt exorbitant toll, and then additionally hiked parking rates--practically no-one. What is needed is transit. Look at King County Metro, and there you will see a real upward trajectory in terms of ridership numbers despite there being more and more of a budget gap and despite the fact that bus-based transit is pretty much the crappiest form of mass transit. The ridiculous factor here is that it is insane to spend this kind of money (BILLIONS are ‘REAL MONEY’ folks!) on antiquated and unrealistic transportation technology that mostly benefits the wealthier segment of the population and which encourages inefficient and unhealthy urban land use patterns while harming the natural environment at the same time. That kind of money should be invested in long-term, future solutions--not patches for the now, based on the questionable data we have for the now.
This is exactly the kind of mistake that’s caused so much pain and degradation in cities like Detroit, where city planners keep putting together propositions and tearing apart neighborhoods to encourage old-style growth so the city will go back to its old self. What Detroit loses in this process of limited-future-imaginary is the chance to evolve into a better, smaller city, something that could happen there. Instead Detroit’s planners look towards a future that looks like the past and which will never happen (and in the face of climate change and energy reduction shouldn’t happen).
The SeattleSinker is just that kind of pathetically unimaginative sort of planning. It’s a no-future solution. What we need is a) imagination and b) transit. Fixing I-5 is a much better idea. Tearing down the viaduct is obviously a necessary act. Throw in some non-Paul-Allen-type ‘toy’ transit and we may be well on our way to a better city. As has no doubt been stated before, multiple other U.S. and Canadian cities have torn down their urban highways and never replaced them with nothing less than fantastic results. The SeattleSinker is a faulty plan hatched out of a petroleum and past-future addled imagination. Let’s see the reality and possibility of a better future that we can actually work towards and build rather than get saddled with the staggering debt of a past that should have been left in the same dumpsters the viaduct will soon fill.
5
Increased VMT, increased congestion, increased emissions -- isn't the tunnel supposed to reduce these? It's increasing them! And dozens -- if not hundreds -- are losing their jobs.
As far as the AWV itself, we were all set to tear it down in 2012 with or without a plan. So much for that safety thing.
Finally, if it's easy for drivers to bypass Downtown Seattle, it'll be easy for business to do so. I heard Federal Way is aggressively upzoning. With Link coming and being so close to Sea-Tac, I think we'll start to see suburban flight sooner than later.
* The Affordable Care Act would have been a heck of a lot more cost-effective with a public option.
* The Iraq invasion was a trillion-dollar, 4,000-life con job perpetrated on a gullible American people.
* The Supreme Court made a completely political decision in Bush v. Gore.
* The Seahawks got screwed by the refs in Super Bowl XL (or, as Paul Constant would call it, "Superbowl XL").
Today in 2011, there's an incredibly important debate surrounding viaduct replacement that we're too righteous and set in our ways to be having. It's whether Seattle is going to get the shaft with this tunnel project or stand up for its interests through the process. It's whether Seattle is going to leverage this tunnel project to establish better rights-of-way for transit or whether we're just going to sit by and hope that lovely, little panaceas like traffic signal prioritization will make us forget about the tens of thousands of vehicles diverted by the tunnel that are about to swamp city streets every day.
Cary is starting to remind me of one of those Japanese soldiers trapped on an island who were still fighting WWII years after it had ended.
Actually no, that analogy doesn't do justice to the tragedy of Cary's lacking/lagging leadership. The better one might be Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
Signed,
Water under the bridge
7
No funding.
No bonding authority without a mandatory Public Vote of the Citizens.
And nobody wants it.
I expect the tunnel will get built, with a few setbacks that will basically entail pumping more grout into the soil to stabilize building foundations. And and when the tunnel opens, as has already been predicted, most current viaduct traffic will channel onto surface streets due to (1.) the tunnels absence of any (ANY!) on- and off-ramps, and (2.) the high toll that will be charged, especially during rush hours.
You're right about the literal reasons for most would-be tunnel traffic getting diverted onto surface streets. But I'll tell you the real, underlying reasons, i.e. whom we can blame. That impending flustercuck will be the result of a failure of leadership and imagination by elected leaders like Mike McGinn and Richard Conlin, by the press, by environmentalist/urbanist activists like Cary Moon--well, I could go on.
The consultants hired by City Council have already told us what we need to be doing:
Nelson\Nygaard suggests several methods for mitigating the traffic: Dedicated transit lanes through downtown, wider sidewalks, tolling a longer segment of RS 99 to discourage drivers from siphoning off en masse at the portals, expanding tolling to surface streets and I-5, timing traffic signals through downtown, and others.
There are some politically painful choices we could be making now to mitigate the tunnel's impacts, and yet who is there with some political skin in the game (consultants don't count) who's really championing those hard choices?
10
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/77C…
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FAF…
And no, this isn't only a rhetorical question.
12
The plan you linked to is the one that turns the waterfront into 6-lanes of stop and go traffic that cuts the city off from the waterfront even more so than the viaduct. As Cary put it, "the six-lane waterfront highway from the 2004 study -no one (literally, not one person) liked that".
Cary implies there's a new plan without a 6-lane highway. If so, I'd genuinely love to see it.
A link with the referred surface option would be valuable to this argument.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (14) RSS