Seattle Times Newspaper's Danny Westneat: Digging into Seattle's century-old debate

Seattle, vote Yes on Referendum 1.

In 1904, the Great Northern Tunnel, although not the longest, was the highest, 28 feet, and widest, 30 feet, in the United States. The finished tunnel was lighted by electricity, well ventilated and large enough to accommodate a double line of tracks. In constructing the tunnel, $1,000,000 was spent on labor alone and $500,000 was spent for materials and other costs. The tunnel was intended for use by both the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific Railroads, who split the cost of construction.
Historylink.org

Today, in the Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat points out that we have a tunnel already, it is 100 years old, and was constructed to reduce traffic congestion.
I think it is odd that a journalist has to point something out to the anti-tunnel folks, including the mayor.

In part, here is Danny Wesrtneat:

Mayor Mike McGinn mostly opposes digging a tunnel for financial and environmental reasons, but he has also called the project "unacceptably risky." He cited how it will be dug through "extreme soil conditions" beneath a major American city.

But nobody ever seems to mention that we already have a tunnel down there. It was dug through these same soils. It's no minor tube, either. It's a mile long and 30 feet in diameter (enough room for two train ways). In places, it is 140 feet below the surface.

And here's the thing that gets me: They dug it by hand.

In April 1903, "an army of 350 workers with pickaxes, shovels and wheelbarrows began digging into the hillside" at the foot of Virginia Street, according to theSeattle history website historylink.org.

The Great Northern Tunnel is smaller — it's 60 percent of the length of today's proposed 1.7 mile-long tunnel, and only about half as wide. Still, at the time it was the largest train tunnel ever attempted (again — sound familiar?). Yet it took two work crews digging from opposite ends only 17 months to chisel the entire thing out by hand.

That's about the time it takes us to convene an advisory commission.

According to newspaper reports at the time, incessant water seepage hampered work, as did soil cave-ins, boulders and the discovery of a prehistoric forest. Yet the entire project cost only $1.5 million. Plus it's still in heavy use 108 years later. The last earthquake, in 2001, didn't crack it or move it an inch.

In today's dollars, the old train tunnel cost about $40 million — fifty times less than what we're projected to pay for the new tunnel.

"I don't think that train tunnel has ever missed a day of service," says Ron Paananen, manager of the state's team planning the current tunnel. "It changed the face of Seattle, and it doesn't get a lot of notice."

How can we be so freaked out by something when we did a version of the same thing more than a hundred years ago?

Danny Westneat | Digging into Seattle's century-old debate | Seattle Times Newspaper

I have mentioned it, many times, and so the joke goes like this:
1 hundred years ago, hundreds of pickaxes, hundreds of men, 10's of jackasses, were used to build the tunnel we already have.
Now we have 1 machine, hundreds of men and women, and 1 jackass - Mike McGinn, will be used to build this tunnel.

Fwd: [Urban Politics] WHO PAYS FOR TUNNEL COST OVERRUNS? Urban Politics #294 - 6-7-2010

Hmmm, I agree with Nick Licata.
Mark that one down on your calendar.

Have a great day,
Mike Baker

Sent from my iPhone

Urban Politics #294, 6-7-2010

By City Councilmember Nick Licata


WHO PAYS FOR COST OVERRUNS? TUNNEL AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACT

The question that has dominated the discussion of the deep bore tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct has been: who will pay for any cost overruns? The answer is the State with regards to the contract for the tunnel. The reason is that the contractor that wins the design-build contract for the tunnel will be signing a contract with the State of Washington, not the City of Seattle. The contract will oblige WSDOT to cover risks associated with the tunnel.  The City of Seattle will not be contractually obligated to cover cost overruns for the tunnel.

WSDOT: Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program News

Great news, the project is still very close last year's estimate.

Bad news, Surface Option proponents, the tunnel is still the plan.

Change in scope was the primary reason for the $60 million dollar increase: Adding 640 feet to the tunnel; changing where itboth start and ends.

How will the tunnel haters twist this?

Have a great day,
Mike Baker

Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here:
http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com

Begin forwarded message:

From: Alaskan Way Viaduct
Date: January 19, 2010 3:52:01 PM PST
To: (me)
Subject: Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program News

View online version.
 

Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program News

January 19, 2010   

Today WSDOT released an updated cost estimate and tolling study (pdf 2.4 Mb) for the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement. This report, requested by the Legislature, shows that the cost estimate to replace the viaduct remains within its $3.1 billion budget, and that it is feasible to generate $400 million in toll funding for the replacement.

Updated cost estimate shows viaduct replacement remains within budget
Last year, when the legislature endorsed a bored tunnel as its preferred option for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct, they directed WSDOT to provide updated cost estimates for the viaduct replacement, including the proposed bored tunnel. After extensive cost and risk workshops, value engineering and design changes, we released the updated estimate this week.

We determined that the cost estimate to replace the viaduct remains within the $3.1 billion replacement budget, which includes $2.4 billion raised from existing state and federal sources and no more than $400 million raised from tolling the proposed bored tunnel. An additional $300 million is committed from the Port of Seattle.

The estimated cost for the bored tunnel increased by $60 million, to $1.96 billion; this increase, however, was offset by savings elsewhere, including design improvements for the south end viaduct replacement. Changes made to the proposed tunnel’s design in December, which included new north and south portal locations; resulting in a lengthening of the tunnel, with an overall increase of 640 feet. These changes also addressed significant risks identified during our estimating process. For example, we moved the south end of the tunnel away from Pioneer Square to reduce the impact to this historic neighborhood and also reduce the potential need to reinforce older structures during construction. A better understanding of these risks gives us opportunities early in the project to manage or reduce them, and thus keep a tight rein on costs.

New study shows tolls could help fund proposed bored tunnel
As we updated the viaduct replacement’s cost estimate, the legislature also asked us to determine the potential for tolls to contribute to construction funding. We examined five toll scenarios, with low, medium and high toll rates, that would toll the proposed bored tunnel and, potentially, the north and south SR 99 segments that would lead to it. Our study showed that it is feasible to toll only the tunnel at a medium toll rate and generate $400 million to fill the gap in funding for the viaduct replacement.

If a toll is charged to use the tunnel, traffic model analysis shows that some traffic would divert to local streets and I-5, mostly during the midday, evening and weekend times when these routes are able to absorb additional trips. Because there is capacity during those off-peak times, travel times would stay the same or increase by two to four minutes. Tolling the proposed bored tunnel would encourage longer through trips and discourage shorter, more localized trips on SR 99.

This fall we will release a second Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the viaduct replacement. The document will focus on the bored tunnel alternative and will look at how the transportation system functions, including the potential effects of tolling.

About these updates
Please forward this e-mail to others who might be interested. To subscribe or unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit the subscription page. You will be asked first to enter your e-mail address and set your preferences. Then you can subscribe or unsubscribe to the Alaskan Way Viaduct e-mail update from the Northwest updates section. For more information about the viaduct program, visit www.alaskanwayviaduct.org.

Know before you go
We have a new Web page that describes how WSDOT projects in downtown Seattle are affecting vehicle and pedestrian traffic. It covers projects on SR 99, including the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement; SR 519 and city streets through downtown and SODO.

Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program links
Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program 
 South End Viaduct Replacement | Central Viaduct Replacement
Current Construction | Public Events | Contact Us

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of WSDOT · 310 Maple Park Ave SE · PO BOX 47300 · Olympia WA 98504-7300 · 360-705-7000

SeattlePI.com: Group sues in federal court to stop Alaskan Way tunnel

The SeattlePI.com ran this story in its blog on September 15, 2009. The headline, Group sues in federal court to stop Alaskan Way tunnel, was not enough court action.
Today we have Publicola.net, Lawsuit Filed Against State Over Tunnel

Elizabeth Campbell and Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel have filed a lawsuit against the state Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and WSDOT director Paula Hammond to stop the proposed waterfront Alaskan Way tunnel, arguing that WSDOT is “making a mockery of” the state environmental review process by moving forward with the $4.2 billion deep-bore tunnel without having completed a required environmental review. Campbell, an activist who supports rebuilding the viaduct, filed a similar but separate suit in US district court last month.

So, why does this tunnel need to be stopped?

Seniors beware:  As we drive into the tunnel from the bright sun, and when Seattle is bright the light is strong, within 60 seconds you will be coming to a semi blind curve and if cars are stopped ahead, then accidents are going to happen. And remember, accidents in tunnels cause many times the magnitude of destruction and injury than when they occur on an above ground, open highway.

                 We cannot protect seniors or the taxpayers without your financial and moral support.  Each lawsuit will cost over $100,000 and it will likely take several lawsuits as the tunnel is a very complex project with lots of permits and lots of related government efforts going into trying to improvise [scat] on the facts; not to mention lots of special interests wanting to scat upon the public and its hard earned dollars for these special interests’ benefit.
SCAT

So, Campbell, after her failed run for Mayor of Seattle, has filed this case in two courts. Why two court filings? I think she will file as many cases as people are willing to pay for. She is a lawyer, this is how she makes a living.

By the way, seniors, by SCAT's statement, we should have packed so many wrecked cars in the Battery Street Tunnel that the dangers of building a new tunnel would be common knowledge. That is some freaking stupid logic, lookout older people, the sun is bright, the NEW tunnel will be dark like cave, and you will die in a horrible car crash unless you give me money to SLAP as many lawsuits as possible.

SCAT (might be pronounced shat?) is Campbells stab at "activi$m", something that will keep her name in the public.  



Seniors beware:  As we drive into the tunnel from the bright sun, and when Seattle is bright the light is strong, within 60 seconds you will be coming to a semi blind curve and if cars are stopped ahead, then accidents are going to happen. And remember, accidents in tunnels cause many times the magnitude of destruction and injury than when they occur on an above ground, open highway.

Have a great day,
Mike Baker

Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here:
http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com

Crosscut.com: What would Jane Jacobs do about the Viaduct?

Crosscut's Knute Berger has written an interesting essay that effectively states the urbanist conflict within the race for Mayor of Seattle, between Joe Mallahan and Mike McGinn.

Though I had not read Jane Jacobs, I think I understand her point of view. I will give her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), a read. I will also read the book about her, Wrestling with Moses (2009), by Anthony Flint.

I have arrived at supporting the current tunnel solution as replacement for the viaduct in much the same way Seattle City Councilmember Tim Bergess did.

But Burgess worries that the surface option will be destructive at the street level, especially to the businesses that rely on Highway 99 and waterfront access. Both blue-collar industry and tourism would be heavily disrupted during the construction and street rewiring process. The fear of the damage that disruption could do is shared by many tunnel backers. That's partly how the deep-bore tunnel became the kind of have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too solution: We keep the cars and trucks rolling out of sight and underground, and still have a new, Viaductless waterfront to make pretty. Expensive, yes, but in the passing Greg Nickels era, it was often claimed that the money could be found. It's only a billion extra (if we're lucky).
Read the rest here, at Crosscut.com, What would Jane Jacobs do about the Viaduct?

On another front, last Thursday the Seattle Times played host the mayoral candidates, Joe Mallahan and Mike McGinn.
There was, at one point, actual debate between the two opponents. That is a bit of a rarity, though both men appeared comfortable engaging in discussion that helped to contrast their views on solutions to the Alanan Way Viaduct.

When the questions turned to the political reality of McGinn's surface solution he did not really have a good argument. It appears that he is prepared to fight the Governor, the State Legislature, King County, and the majority of the Seattle City Council. If he could stop the tunnel project over the next couple years how would he get those people he just battled to support his surface solution. He said that leaders would do the "right" thing and get to work on the surface solution.
That just seams so unlikely, if he can stop the tunnel project there is no good reason for any of those other politicians to support his solution. We are talking about a State highway. The state will support a solution that supports its requirements.
It took eight years for a solution to be agreed to by all levels of government.
Here is a link to the video.
Joe Mallahan was successful at painting Mike McGinn as a fighter. Having a fighter as a mayor sounds great until you think about Greg Nickels reputation as a bully and his relationship with othe levels of Washington State government.
Fighting for and about everything is not leadership, according to Joe Mallahan. Mike McGinn did not effectively argue that was not his style or that fighting was the best method of leading change.
He accepted that he would be fighting and pretty much said that everybody else would just get over it. That is just stupid.
I support the active solution, and, I guess, Joe Mallahan.

Have a great day,
Mike Baker

Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here:
http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com

Tunnel, or Surface option? Eventually it could be both

In today's Seattle Times Mike Lindblom has written a story on mayoral candidate Mike McGinn's proposal to shelve the tunnel as the replacement for the aged Alaska Way Viaduct and go with a less expensive surface and transit option. The surface option would include increasing throughput on Interstate 5, a boulevard to replace the viaduct, and an increase in mass transit.

The good news is that McGinn's alterative would be cheaper, the bad news is that it will not be enough capacity.
The tunnel is a more expensive idea, it includes having vehicle traffic that is passing through Seattle not mixing with the local surface traffic. The good news is that seperating that traffic will help that some, the bad news is that it will not be enough capacity, either.

Skim through Washington State Office of Financial Management data here and it becomes pretty clear that Seattle is not absorbing as much population as the rest of King County, and King County is growing.
The facts are that people keep moving to King County, and to Seattle. King County increased by about 13% over the past 9 years, Seattle about 6.8%.

Over the lifespan of either option, surface, or tunnel, more capacity will be required, the question is moot.

McGinn scenario

MIKE McGINN would seek to move $2.4 billion in state highway funds to a "surface transit" plan instead of a tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Alaskan Way/waterfront: Demolish viaduct, rebuild surface road similar to present width, mostly four lanes, $825 million.

Interstate-5 widening: Eliminate left-side offramps to fit an additional lane through downtown, make other improvements, $553 million.

Utility relocation: Paid by the state instead of the city, $250 million.

Sea-wall replacement: Paid by the state instead of the city, $255 million.

Transit: Cost savings applied to buy new buses and increase service in waterfront and other areas, $500 million.

Source: McGinn campaign

Read about the strawman debate here, in the Seattle Times Newspaper: McGinn's no-tunnel campaign counts on fewer cars

Build the Tunnel, and make all of the surface improvements, and the increase in mass transit, and the bike lanes, and the sidewalks, and a million people will come to King County and Seattle, no matter what.

Do it all, start with the throughput tunnel first.

Have a great day,
Mike Baker

Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here:
http://ManyWordsForRain.blogspot.com