We asked yesterday why the video was produced and then concealed from the SAC, whose job was to work with traffic engineers to produce a practical viaduct replacement plan. The video, which cost taxpayers $80,000, was released neither to the stakeholders nor the public because, as Ron Paanenen puts it, the members of the Department who had seen the video “believe it sensationalizes a serious safety issue.” The desire to avoid sensationalizing a serious safety issue did not, apparently, interfere with WSDOT’s wide public release (promotion, even) of the video. The Department received a Public Disclosure Request, which, Paanenen explains (on TV and in the newspaper), necessitated this pre-emptive release.

None of which explains why we spent $80,000 on a disturbing video that was kept hidden to avoid scaring the public, only to be released to the media a week before a local election.

The Stakeholders’ response:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

SEATTLE, WA — Oct. 26, 2009

Yesterday the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) released a dramatization showing the potential damage to the viaduct in the case of an earthquake. The probability of an earthquake strong enough to close the viaduct happening was stated as a 10% chance in the next ten years.

As citizens who served for a year in 2008 on the Viaduct Stakeholder Advisory Committee, we are disturbed that WSDOT did not share this video with us during the stakeholder process, even though it appears that they had paid Parsons Brinkerhoff to prepare it in 2007.

“From the beginning of the process, we had always operated under the assumption that the Governor meant what she said when she insisted that the Viaduct was coming down in 2012,” said Mike O’Brien.

“The deep bore tunnel was the only scenario that did not meet this strict deadline of removal of the viaduct by 2012,” commented Chuck Ayres. “All of the other scenarios we studied, including the two recommendations made by WSDOT, would have allowed for removal by 2012.”

“After watching the video, we are even more convinced that taking down the viaduct by 2012 should be a non-negotiable public safety priority of all parties involved,” said Mary McCumber.

“Would you sign a ten year lease on a building if you knew there was a 10% chance of it collapsing on you in those ten years?” asked Cary Moon. “By delaying the closure of the viaduct, that is in essence what we are asking the citizens of Seattle to do.”

Viaduct Stakeholder Advisory Committee members:

Chuck Ayres 206.851.4312
Rob Johnson 206.920.9578
Mary McCumber 206.284.0605
Cary Moon 206.624.1061
Mike O’Brien 206.200.2980

Coming soon to a theater near you

The video was produced by Parsons Brinckerhoff, an engineering firm that has been heavily involved in the planning of the deep bore tunnel project. You might know them from their work in Boston’s Oscar-winning infrastructure horror show The Big Dig.

Despite the fact that this video was produced over two years ago, it has been withheld until a week before a local election. Our question? Why was this withheld from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee?

An email sent to members of that group yesterday by Ron Paanenen, the WSDOT administrator of the deep bore tunel project, claimed that it was kept secret because it was inflammatory (literally–cars go up in flames in the video) and they did not want to scare people.

The email was sent a matter of hours before KING 5 News ran the video.

In what world does this make sense: an important and incendiary safety-related video is withheld from experts and community leaders assembled to solve a critical infrastructure issue but is released a year later to TV news a week before a local election.

Smells pretty bad to us.

Yesterday morning on Dave Ross’s radio show on KIRO, Senator Judy Clibborn of Mercer Island, Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, was asked about the legality of the infamous cost overrun provision, which provides that Seattle taxpayers would be responsible for all cost overruns on the deep bore tunnel project.

Clibborn tried to reassure Seattle listeners that the provision was illegal and could not force Seattle to pick up the tab on what could be billions of dollars of cost overruns. She argued that the provision was inserted simply to pick up the necessary votes for the bill, and that Seattle would never actually have to live up to the commitment. Implied, of course, was that when push comes to shove, the state will pick up the tab on any overruns.

Clibborn and Kastama, a member of her committee, appear not to be on the same page.

Senator Kastama of Puyallup proclaimed in no uncertain terms that it did not matter to him whether or not the provision was illegal, because any additional funds for the project would have to be approved by the legislature. He all but threatened to cut off funding for the tunnel project if overruns occurred, since there is no room in the budget for many real transportation projects all over the state, let alone cost overruns on any one of them. If that funding were withheld, the tunnel project would grind to a halt, and the City would have no choice but to assume all responsibility for tunnel overruns.

Listen: Kastama on Dave Ross

Chris Grygiel of the PI has more on the story here.