«
»

Let’s no-go tunnel referendum idea

Opponents of the deep bore tunnel are getting desperate. Now some are proposing a City referendum. Assuming your standpoint is something other than “stop the tunnel at all costs,” this is a ridiculous idea. Without getting into the minutiae, here are a few major flaws in their thinking.

1. It would cause delay, which would increase cost. To ensure top-quality, low-price proposals, WSDOT would presumably postpone the team selection, and much of the public deal finalization would be delayed as well. Even if the referendum resulted in a “go,” this would risk moving the pricing into a period of general economic recovery. As everyone in construction knows, any economic recovery will cause prices to rise substantially due to higher material costs, normalization of margins at every level, etc. The current RFP process is well timed to take advantage of low pricing that we know will last into early next year, but might not last much longer.

2. If opponents were to win, what then? Would it be a simple matter of clarifying Seattle’s exposure to overruns, or would it stop the tunnel concept entirely? Does anyone think that another option would be more popular? Based on who is supporting the referendum, it sounds like the “surface” option is their intended goal. That might play well in some neighborhoods, but it’s the worst nightmare for many of the viaduct’s

The deep bore tunnel being studied as part of the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement will carry four lanes of traffic under downtown Seattle. Much of the two-mile-long tunnel will go through glacial till, reaching a depth of 220 feet. Image courtesy of WSDOT
current users, much of the business community, and many of us Downtown workers/residents who would see our Downtown avenues turned into pedestrian-unfriendly throughways for drivers who don’t want to be here. Others insist that we’re all insane if we don’t retrofit the viaduct so it’ll last two or three decades longer, or we’re insane if we don’t rebuild a similar viaduct, or the only solution is a bridge in Elliott Bay, or we should revisit the cut-n-cover idea…  Every one of them has a built-in opposition, which I think will be larger than the opposition to the tunnel. Anyone who thinks their pet idea will magically make a majority happy is delusional.

3. It would be a City referendum for a State project that affects the whole metro. I agree that the cost risk should be shared by the State and the City…which currently appears to be the case, barring any future contract language that specifies otherwise. Aside from the issue of Seattle’s risk, there’s the issue of who the viaduct belongs to. Referendum supporters appear to be forgetting that tunnel is a State project, and serves a region-wide traveling public. Do they really think the State will let Seattle delete a regional lifeline? If the tunnel were stopped, the result would be another highway of some kind. Probably an aerial replacement, built a couple years after the current plan during a time of much higher pricing. The no-replacement people would get to look at THAT for the next 60 years, which horrifies me as well.

4. The other concepts have MORE cost risk. In 2008 it could be argued that a tunnel had higher cost risk than an aerial option. Off the cuff, the opposite seems to be true today. The tunnel has gone through a year and a half of intense study, design, and improvement since becoming the chosen option. A replacement viaduct (or any other concept) would start over with very minimal design, very minimal knowledge of what’s under the existing viaduct, and very minimal idea of what would be needed to minimize the considerable construction inconveniences. Further, those who prefer other options typically forget to include the cost of knitting South Lake Union and Lower Queen Anne back together via a lowered Aurora, which would be a much more difficult project in their scenarios, and they leave the current tunnel severely under code. (This is all completely separate from the hidden costs of disruption (during construction and permanently) with the surface, aerial, or cut-n-cover options, which would dwarf the project cost in every instance.)

In another blog post I discussed why the idea that driving will suddenly become unpopular (an idea held by many surface option supporters) is wrong as well. I won’t get into the opponents claims about overruns on past projects, which are based on ancient history rather than the modern practices of agencies like WSDOT, Sound Transit, etc., who have done well in keeping their recent work on budget.

I suspect the referendum won’t happen because smarter heads will prevail. And if it does, it’ll probably lose, because as some old polling suggested, the public’s #1 priority is to get it done, even among many people who consider the tunnel their second or third favorite option. The tunnel is a good plan, which does an excellent job of balancing millions of viewpoints, and is ultimately the lowest-risk concept.

This entry was posted by Matt Hays on Wednesday, July 14th, 2010 at 11:26 am and is filed under Engineering, Government, Planning, Politics, transportation, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

  • ohitsyoubob

    So this idea of a longer Battery Street tunnel on steroids and under Elliot Bay is a better idea? Wait until some non-attentive driver screws up in the tunnel and botches traffic up–how long will it take to clear the wreck and ease the back up? Will it take longer than if it happened in the Battery Street tunnel? Just curious.

    I must say, though, that the tunnel will certainly raise the property values for the few along the soon-to-be-defunct Alaskan Way Viaduct, finally getting rid of the “poor man’s” view of Elliot Bay and access to and from downtown Seattle from it. Chalk it up to the price of progress and a lot of other people’s money.

  • Matt the Engineer

    What are your thoughts about the latest bidder dropping out, leaving us with only two bidders? Or the fact that the state knew this months ago, and just admitted this bidder dropped out when pressured by the media?

    I don’t think it’s the opponents that are getting desperate. I think the state is.

  • matt hays

    Matt — Regarding being down to two competitors, my only worry would be one of those two dropping out. This seems unlikely given that they each face better odds of winning than before, and given that they’ve come this far. As a marketing guy for a construction company, my personal psychology is that you try hard to win either way. If there are several competitors, you try hard because the bar is high. If you’re one of two competitors, you try hard because it’s terrible to lose when the odds are so good, and it’s both exciting and important to win.

    ohitsyoubob — For clarification, the alignment is under Downtown, not under Elliott Bay, though (like many tunnels as well as some parking garages) much of it will be under the water table. Regarding accidents and breakdowns, the benefit compared to the current tunnel and viaduct will be that the tunnel will have breakdown lanes. These will be narrower than ideal, but wide enough that both lanes can continue moving. I assume that a lot of safety codes regarding fire supression etc. are improved today vs. the standards used for the Battery St. tunnel as well.

    As for the poor-man’s view, we’re adding a bunch of public space along the waterfront, and improving the views from existing public spaces like Steinbrueck Park, Harbor Steps, and various street intersections. While I like the view from the viaduct too, I think the experience on the ground is more important than the experience for drivers. Passengers I sympathize with.

  • Al Hudgens

    Let’s face it (finally!). The majority DON’T want the tunnel option. While Washington D.C. doesn’t seem to care what the country as a whole wants, let’s not emulate them by ignoring the voters and taxpayers. The tunnel only has one exit, it’s too expensive as an option and it’s capacity is LESS than the viaduct. Who the hell thought that was a good idea in the first place?

  • http://seattletransitblog.com Adam Parast

    I wouldn’t say that tunnel opponents are getting desperate, in fact it is the exact opposite, tunnel supporters are getting desperate.

    Take WSDOT. From pushing forwards without a completed EIS, release of videos during the election WSDOT, and not disclosing the 3rd bidder dropped out it is no longer a unbiased body. WSDOT has ceased being and impartial body and that is bad for any project needs public scrutiny to be completed on time and on budget.

    Then there is the city council. Their tactic over the last 6 months or so has been to ignore McGinn. Don’t engage him on the details of the plan because they know they can’t win. Any publicity is bad publicity. Their plan was to just push through the plan before anyone wised up.

    Now that plan isn’t possible. With the threat of a public ballot measure the city council has to rethink their strategy. If they don’t deal with AWV risk, the citizens of the city will more likely than not put the brakes on it.

    Both options in the 2007 advisory ballot, elevated and tunnel lost 43% and 30% respectively. This time opponents have much more dirt on the tunnel.

  • Real Progress

    We had a great chance to do a tunnel in the late 40′s and passed it up because of cost ($10 million was too much!). Instead, we built a monstrosity and eye-sore that cut off the waterfront from downtown.

    Let’s not screw up again. Must Seattle never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity?