Even if the state is treating the environmental review process as a joke, Seattle businesses, government, nonprofits, and citizens have taken it seriously. Below, we post a number of formal comment letters to the SDEIS. Getting this paper-trail on record is a key step for future stages of this ludicrous process.

The letters are a treasure-trove of good information and argument, outlining the current known issues with the tunnel proposal. We are posting them to further conversation and shared knowledge.

There are some common themes to many of them:

1. It’s not acceptable to change the statement of purpose and need, tailoring it to one alternative (moving cars vs. moving people & goods)
2. It is disingenuous – and impractical – to ignore the I-5/Surface/Transit alternative. This option was recommended by the officials leading the 2008 exhaustive stakeholder process as a practical, effective, low-cost solution. (WSDOT pretends that a “do-nothing option” is the same. Clearly, it’s not.)
3. Study impacts to Pioneer Square more comprehensively; the issues are interrelated and complicated and we need to know more about what might happen and how the project will prevent / protect from / mitigate harm.
4. Measure the greenhouse gas (GHG) effects of the various alternatives, especially the tunnel which serves cars only, given the state’s commitment to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and thereby GHG emissions.
5. Include tolling effects in the whole analysis, since the traffic effects of tolling change everything, especially impacts to mobility in Seattle and the experienced quality of streets.
6. Include more thorough analysis of how this project affects access to downtown and mobility on city streets. Include transit as part of the solution; the tunnel itself does not provide adequate access without the promised transit.
7. Ensure there is a complete funding plan lined up with a complete project budget, where all needs and funding sources are explained. This is necessary and prudent given the firm budget cap, confusion about what is funded and what is not, and contention about responsibility for any cost escalation.

Eight of these letters are from some of Seattle’s leading civic and professional organizations. One is from the Director of Seattle Department of Transportation, representing the collective concerns of City government. One is from the federal government. These issues are serious. City and State decision-makers should use the thorough analysis of the DEIS review process to identify and negotiate adequate solutions before environmental review is complete.

The letters:

• AIA Seattle
• Historic Seattle
• Bill Speidel Enterprises (the Underground Tour)
• FeetFirst
• Seattle Department of Transportation
• People’s Waterfront Coalition (PWC)
• Sierra Club, Cascade Chapter
• Transportation Choices Coalition (TCC)
• Washington Trust for Historic Preservation
• A downtown citizen (contact info removed for privacy)
• United States General Services Administration (GSA)
• Friends of Seattle

“Delaying the project only increases the danger of a catastrophe and hurts the economy and Seattle taxpayers.”
–Conlin in a blog post.

“I don’t think that [the mayor] understands that delaying this project is very, very risky.”
–Rasmussen said.

“This project’s an urgent safety problem and we need to stay on schedule.”
– Lloyd Brown, state Department of Transportation spokesman.

But the same leaders don’t seem at all worried about waiting longer when the tunnel itself causes delays.

Thursday WSDOT announced to the public that they’re adding yet another year to the tunnel timeline (mayor-style, they didn’t warn council – perhaps the end of a cozy relationship?). We have heard zero doom and gloom pronouncements from Rasmussen and Conlin.

So now the viaduct’s coming down in 2016, not 2015 – a full four years after Gregoire’s 2012 deadline. (“… if we don’t have some alternative by then, boy are we going to have a mess on our hands because it’s coming down.”)

Other alternatives such as the I-5/surface/transit option could start taking the viaduct down immediately.

So is the viaduct danger a real threat, or just a red herring to smack anyone who asks real questions about the tunnel and likely cost overruns?

All the science we’ve heard makes it sound like a serious danger. So we’d like to hear from Councilmembers Rasmussen and Conlin. Given this unexpected extra year of dangerous delays, how soon will you be canceling the tunnel plan?

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.

Make no mistake, political decisions cannot change the physical and economic realities that loom in the tunnel’s future: it is a really bad time to rush into this decision.

October 19, 2009

Dear Mayor Nickels and Members of the Seattle City Council,

We are writing today to express our concern over the undue economic, environmental and social risks that Seattle residents will be taking on if the City Council moves forward with its Memorandum of Agreement to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep bore tunnel. While our specific motivations are varied, we are united in our belief that in the current economic climate, it is premature to irrevocably obligate the City of Seattle to the fiduciary and environmental risks associated with this project without holistic review of possible detrimental impacts.

Below is an unbiased list of the critical issues and uncertainties. We believe that the voters and taxpayers of Seattle deserve answers to these questions before our elected leaders further commit significant public resources to the deep-bore tunnel project through the proposed agreement.

COST OVERRUNS. Who will pay for cost overruns and how? Currently the State has mandated that Seattle voters will be responsible for all cost overruns. While many have asserted that this is illegal, there will need to be some equitable distribution of the risk of overruns between the City, County and State. A recent study by the Sightline Institute showed that recent tunnel projects have gone over budget by 30 – 56%.

THE IMPACTS OF I-1033. If I-1033 passes, severely limiting both the City, County and State’s abilities to raise revenues, how will the project be funded without drastic cuts to other government programs?

SAFETY. The deep-bore tunnel plan leaves the current viaduct in place for the longest amount of time. The safety of the viaduct continues to be a pressing matter and leaving it standing until 2016 increases the risk of catastrophic and life-threatening failure.

CLIMATE CHANGE. The transportation sector generates half of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions. Studies have repeatedly shown that new urban highways induce vehicular travel resulting in increased greenhouse gas emissions. How will the tunnel project help us achieve our broader goals as outlined in the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement?

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. What are the range and consequences of potential environmental impacts? How will salmon and other marine life be affected? What is the likely cost of cleanup from historic industrial practices? How does building a tunnel support or detract from Seattle’s goals for a healthier, more sustainable and environmentally responsible future? We fear that these questions are not being adequately addressed due to the lack of alternative evaluations in the State’s EIS process.

PIONEER SQUARE IMPACTS. What will the impacts be upon our cultural resources in Pioneer Square? Since the tunnel does not have any downtown exits and there are no plans for the First Avenue streetcar, the project will direct a large number of cars through Pioneer Square, and the tunnelling equipment may cause instability under these cherished buildings.

GEOLOGY. The geology of the waterfront area is some of the most complex in Washington State.The tunnel routing goes through liquefaction zones andcuts across earthquake faults. What kind of risk does this incur? Will the tunnel be safe in an earthquake?

AN ELEVATED OVERPASS. Will the state rebuild a portion of an elevated structure West of Pioneer Square? If built, what impact will that have upon Pioneer Square’s connection to the waterfront?

CUTS TO HUMAN SERVICES AND OTHER PROGRAMS. What cuts will be taken out of other programs to free up the $17 million dollars in general fund resources that were identified to replace downtown parking revenue? Will these cuts be made in social services, arts, police, or parks?

SIDEWALK FUNDING. How will the City fund sidewalks when many of the proposed if funding sources for sidewalks are used to fund the tunnel project, including increased parking taxes, increased utility fees, and a vehicle licensing fee?

TOLLING COSTS. What will the tolling cost for the tunnel? Some WSDOT estimates place the annual toll cost at close to $3000 for a commuter who uses the tunnel daily.

IMPACTS ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY. What will the impacts be to housing affordability be from new taxes, utility rates and other fees are levied upon development?

HIGHER UTILITY RATES. A report in Saturday’s Seattle Times documented the high costs of basic services that Seattle residents already pay. How will the new utility rates impact those at the margins and on fixed incomes? How will it affect Seattle’s capacity to be a jobs-generator?

As concerned citizens and in many cases experts on issues related to the proposed deep-bore tunnel project, we are urging you to wait before signing any agreement with the State. While we appreciate the desire to move forward with a solution to the replacement to the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the City Council attend to the questions above before taking any next steps.

In short, we believe that there simply is not enough information at this time to commit Seattle to this momentous decision without further clarity on the issues described above. We hope that you do not bear this burden lightly, and are united in our belief that consideration to this letter will save the City residents from unwarranted expenses, service reductions and assure a waterfront replacement project worthy of Seattle’s world standing in the 21st century.

Sincerely,

Sign Here

Disclaimer

Before you get too excited, let us note that these are facts only, and do not constitute endorsements on the part of TunnelFacts.com. We do not and will not make endorsements. All names are in ballot-order, and citations follow the post.

Also for the record (in case you haven’t noticed): TunnelFacts.com is solidly Anti-Tunnel, and Pro-I-5/Surface/Transit Hybrid.

Understanding the TunnelFactor ©

A scientific rating scale based on extensive empirical research: where does this candidate stand on the tunnel?

• — thinks the tunnel is a total bore. Supports I-5/Surface/Transit option
• — somewhere disconcertingly between the tunnel and I-5/Surface/Transit
• — full-bore tunnel supporter

King County Executive

Candidate	TunnelFactor	Preferred Alternative
Larry Phillips
Fred Jarrett
Stan Lippmann		“Suspended Structure”
Alan Lobdell		I-5/Surface/Transit Hybrid
Susan Hutchison
Dow Constantine
Ross Hunter
Goodspaceguy		Elevated Freeway Rebuild

Seattle Mayor

Candidate	TunnelFactor	Preferred Alternative
Mike McGinn		I-5/Surface/Transit Hybrid
James Donaldson
Greg Nickels
Joe Mallahan
Kwame Wyking Garrett		Awaiting response from Garrett campaign.
Jan Drago
Elizabeth Campbell		Cable-Stayed Bridge or Elevated Freeway Rebuild
Norman Zadok Sigler		Doesn’t like tunnel, but feels “it’s a done deal”.

Seattle City Council Position 2

Candidate	TunnelFactor	Preferred Alternative
David Ginsberg		I-5/Surface/Transit Hybrid
Richard Conlin

Seattle City Council Position 4

Candidate	TunnelFactor	Preferred Alternative
Sally Bagshaw
Dorsol Plants	*	* See comment from Dorsol below.  In an email exchange, he said he’s against the tunnel in principle and would prefer the I-5/Surface/Transit option.  However, unless a citizen-backed initiative came up, or a new Mayor presented it to the council, he would only make an effort to fix what he sees as flaws in the current plan, vice trying to fight the tunnel outright.
David Bloom		Elevated Freeway Rebuild or Retrofit.  We spoke with David, and he said that he was very anti-tunnel for many of the reasons outlined on this site.  He went on to say that he won’t rule out the I-5/Surface/Transit option, but would have to be convinced it could handle the traffic.

Seattle City Council Position 6

Candidate	TunnelFactor	Preferred Alternative
Marty Kaplan
Nick Licata	*	* Unless the financing plan collapses
Jesse Israel

Seattle City Council Position 8

Candidate	TunnelFactor	Preferred Alternative
Mike O’Brien		I-5/Surface/Transit Hybrid
Rusty Williams
Bobby Forch
David Miller
Jordan Royer
Robert Rosencrantz

Primary source:

Responses to “lightning round” questions at Alki Foundation’s May 7, 2009 Candidate Forum:
http://www.seattlechamber.com/enews/pdf/Lightning-Round-City-Council.pdf

Other sources:

• Phone conversations with Hutchison and Lobdell campaigns, 8/12/09.
• Email exchange with David Ginsberg, 8/12/09
• Email exchange with Dorsol Plants, 8/13/09
• Phone conversaton with David Bloom, 8/14/09
• http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008610476_opin11phillips.html
• http://www.seattlepi.com/local/406192_jarrett14.html
• http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003340600_councilrace03m.html
• http://www.westseattleherald.com/2009/01/14/news/update-constantine-supports-tunnel
• http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/members/hunter/20090512_AWV%20Bill%20Signing.asp
• http://colonizespace.blogspot.com/
• http://www.rainiervalleypost.com/?p=13594
• http://www.friendsofseattle.org/2009-voters-guide-primary-election/seattle-city-council-pos-4/david-bloom

What now?

First, if you have any more information about any candidate’s position on the tunnel, or found any errors, please email us right away. Otherwise, enjoy this research and do what you do best, citizens: participate in our democracy!

So that’s the tunnel fiction. Let us hit you with some Tunnel Facts.

Will the State Pull its Funding?

Senator Judy Clibborn (D-Mercer Island) has been in the press recently saying that the tunnel is a done deal regardless of what the Mayor of Seattle thinks. Sandeep Kaushik, the Mayor’s spokesperson, takes that statement one step further, suggesting that if the tunnel plan falls through, the State would not support allocating even one cent to an I-5/Surface/Transit alternative. “The State is not going to pay for it,” he says.

So, could the State take their $2.82 billion and go home in a huff? Legally, maybe they could. But to suggest that the State would abdicate all responsibility for SR 99 just because they didn’t get their preferred alternative is both absurd and insulting to the Governor and Legislators involved. To our knowledge none of the relevant State Legislators have made any such threat. The State will still have responsibility for maintaining a surface-level SR 99 on the waterfront, just like they have responsibility for SR 99 north of the ship canal, or like every other numbered State highway in Ephrata, Omak or Enumclaw, which doesn’t run through a deep-bore tunnel.

Will Seattle Have to Pay $930 Million, No Matter What?

Both Kaushik and Washburn go on to say that the City would still be required to spend that $930 million whether or not the tunnel plan goes through, because of the specific projects that make up the $930 million: seawall replacement, utility relocation, and surface street improvements. When Mayor Nickels, Executive Sims and Governor Gregoire hammered out their deep-bore tunnel plan, they allocated all the ancillary costs to the City and County, while the State took on the cost of the tunnel itself. They did this to provide tunnel proponents with this very argument. But while it’s true that utility relocation, seawall replacement and surface street improvements all need to happen, the city need not shoulder the entire cost of each of those items. If the State were planning on renovating a waterfront highway in Bellingham or Vancouver, the State and Port would be shouldering a substantial portion of the cost of replacing the seawall and relocating utilities. Any attempt to say otherwise is a blatant attempt to intimidate voters.

Do We Need the Tunnel to Avoid Gridlock?

Regarding the I-5/Surface/Transit option, Washburn writes: “Department of Transportation studies show that I-5 would suffer gridlock for 10 to 14 hours a day.” Sadly, he does not provide a citation for those studies. The only WSDOT studies we know of say that we could improve I-5 through downtown to get rid of the bottleneck, and improve surface streets and mass transit along the waterfront, and in doing so end up with only a 5 – 10 minute increase in trips across town, and roughly no difference in trip times to downtown. Also, the empirical experiences of other cities show that removing raised urban highways nearly always reduces congestion as people combine or forgo non-critical trips. San Francisco, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Paris, Seoul and a host of other cities worldwide have all removed elevated freeways without experiencing the sort of traffic Armageddon predicted by Chicken Littles such as Mr. Washburn and Mayor Nickels.

Similarly, Mr. Washburn cites the “Hebert Economic Study” to support his prediction of economic calamity if the I-5/Surface/Transit option is pursued. But the Hebert study didn’t examine the I-5/Surface/Transit option; it only studied the loss of the viaduct with no mitigation whatsoever. Yes, if the viaduct were knocked down tomorrow by an earthquake, one would predict a substantial impact on commerce. But we’re not talking about knocking it down and replacing it with nothing. We’re talking about a solution that was engineered by WSDOT and SDOT, and recommended by the Stakeholders.

Is the Tunnel Better for Business?

Regarding the effects to business and industry: in the long run, a bypass freeway does nothing to help downtown business. Downtown businesses will be better served by the I-5/Surface/Transit option which seeks to keep downtown as the commercial core of the city, instead of encouraging consumers to bypass downtown on their way to Lynnwood and Southcenter. Second, very little of the freight coming out of the Port even uses SR 99. 90% of the traffic coming out of the Port either goes south on SR 99 or north on I-5 – not along the waterfront. Traffic from the Ballard/Interbay industrial area does use the waterfront corridor, but there are other solutions to that problem. We can allow freight to use the bus lanes, or even put in freight-only lanes. There are plenty of good solutions to try before spending billions of dollars on a tunnel project.

Did the Stakeholders Recommend the Tunnel?

Washburn claims that the Stakeholders supported a deep-bore tunnel, but this is simply not true. The Stakeholder’s letter, which bears Mr. Washburn’s signature, specifically recommends that the State:

“Move forward with an Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Plan that includes improvements to I-5, transit, surface streets and potential for construction of a deep-bore tunnel,” and goes on to suggest “A state-funded Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement should include review of an I-5/surface/ transit hybrid, including the proposed building block investments. Sufficient funds should also be included within the SEIS for design and necessary environmental review of construction of a bored tunnel with a commitment to bring it to a record of decision.”

The Stakeholders’ Committee clearly recommended improvements to I-5, to transit and to surface streets. To suggest that the phrase “the potential for a deep-bore tunnel” translates to a near-unanimous recommendation for a deep-bore tunnel is another fabrication, especially given that the Stakeholders released their recommendations in December, and the Mayor and Governor released their decision a mere month later. If there were a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement over the Christmas holiday, we must have missed the press release.

Besides, the Tunnel Costs More Than They Admit

Finally, the Mayor and Mr. Washburn fail to mention the potential for cost overruns, despite a recent Oxford University study stating that over 90% of transportation mega-projects go substantially over budget. And neither the Mayor nor Mr. Washburn want to talk about how the tunnel project relies on the Mercer and Spokane projects to make the tunnel fit into the street grid, as WSDOT’s own website admits. That’s another $300 million. Nor do they want to talk about how, under the I-5/Surface/Transit plan, we will actually improve I-5 at a cost of $500 Million, which everyone knows has to happen anyway. At our count, we’re looking at another $800 million of City and State money for projects that relate directly to, but are not included in, the tunnel plan. And that’s before cost overruns.

So we have to ask: who’s deceiving whom?

WSDOT gets sassy

WSDOT fired a quick round at us on their Viaduct homepage — heard some tunnel “facts”?? — but then decides not to fight this grassroots Goliath and backs down (text changes to “Hearing a lot about the proposed SR 99 bored tunnel?” sometime today).

Google cache reveals WSDOT's short-lived sass attack on TunnelFacts.com

Viaduct project most important issue in Mayoral election

The recent UW poll shows that the Alaskan Way Viaduct is the #1 issue for Seattle voters in the mayoral election — higher than jobs/economy and taxes combined!

Now that the site has been up for a week, we wanted to take a moment and fill you in on the news and where we’re hoping to take the site.

We’ve had a few good mentions in the press: Publicola, Huge Ass City, and Seattle Transit Blog, and some nice links from environmental sites WorldChanging and Sustainable Cities Collective. We’ve had nearly 1500 visitors so far this week, and with KING 5 doing a short story on us tonight, we should get many more! [Update: King5 story aired at 5:30pm! What did you think?]

We’re going to start posting tunnel updates on the main page, and linking to stories about us or about the tunnel. We’re also extending our supporters an invitation to become contributors. Just shoot us an email with details on what you’d like to write, and we’d be happy to post your message. Even if you only post once, your voice is valuable and we’d like to hear what you have to say.

Also, if you have any ideas for “Tunnel Facts”, such as the ones listed on our How Much is $4.24 Billion and Other Uses for $4.24 B pages, please send them our way and we’ll post them to our Twitter and Facebook streams. You can find examples on our Twitter page.

Finally, we received a suggestion to create a few good t-shirts with Tunnel Facts on them. We were thinking just a simple tee with “TunnelFact # 642: 9 Inches of Tunnel = 10,000 Street Trees” and the campy tunnel graphic with “TunnelFacts.com” printed on it. Let us know what you’d want to wear!

Thanks again for supporting the site, and please keep checking back for more tasty Tunnel Facts.

Derek, Elliott and Skye

The TunnelFacts Team