1(a) The State Treasurer sold bonds, presumably guaranteed by state gas tax revenue. That’s what the state did and it didn’t commit the state to building a deep bore tunnel or even building anything else. It just committed the state to paying off the bonds with the gas tax revenue. Period.

2(a) – Technically, they haven’t chosen to proceed with the deep bore tunnel — at least in the sense that it matters under NEPA and SEPA. WSDOT and Seattle have simply announced their preferred alternative and are proceeding with the process towards eventually selecting it and building it, assuming they don’t change their minds (again). Bottom line, in the context of SEPA they have not chosen an alternative.

2(b)i – The MOA is not a binding commitment to complete the tunnel. I’ll point out that the 1976 I-90 MOA, which had a description of what was to be built that was at least as proscriptive as the recent AWV MOA, was also signed before SEPA was complete. If for some reason, the NEPA/SEPA process for the deep bored tunnel takes an unexpected turn and they end up wanting to do something else, they can just tear up the MOA and write a new one.

While the state and the city certainly are getting things lined up to pull the trigger once a final decision is made, from what I can see they have not gone past the point of no return and taken a pre-decision ‘action’ to build the deep bore tunnel.

…if the trail needs a SEPA study then the deep bore tunnel sure as heck seems like it needs a study…but I also am skeptical about the need for a study of the trail since hearing examiner found on the SEPA checklist that a study wasn’t needed.

First off how is selling a bond not an action? The fact that the government did something, as opposed to do nothing, means it is an action. And the fact that they are only forwarding one alternative means they have made a choice. Not only that but the City Council, the Mayor, and the Governor have signed a memorandum of agreement that chooses the tunnel as the replacement alternative.

So it is an action under:

1(a) – They sold bonds
2(a) – They chose a single alternative
2(b) i – They signed planning document (memorandum of agreement) that explicitly state a deep bore tunnel.

Lets not be coy. These are actions plain and simple.

We know something has to be done. The status quo doesn’t work.

How have they made peace with this decision? Nickels, stakeholders, etc. It can’t just be that they think the other options are worse. That’s debatable, but silly. How does the tunnel address the problem?

I see the push for additional light rail in the City as a three prong effort to get to the point where it is ready for a ballot measure:

1. A study of alignments and costs needs to be done. This needs to be at least as complete as the studies prior to the Sound Move and Prop. 1 votes were.

2. A study of potential funding sources and revenue available without action from the legislature needs to be done.

3. An effort to lobby the state legislature for additional taxing authority needs to be done.

The thing to remember is that, at the moment, the viaduct replacement is a deep bore tunnel project. As far as NEPA/SEPA are concerned, all the other alternatives are currently in the ‘alternatives considered but not carried forward’ heap. The deep bore tunnel is the preferred alternative. That doesn’t mean things can’t change – it’s already happened once on this project. Back in 2004, it was a cut and cover tunnel project. But the fact is, this is now a deep bore tunnel project. WSDOT can tell the State Treasurer they are spending money on the deep bore tunnel project to replace the AWV and they’re probably using the money to pay for the remainder of the NEPA process and related preliminary engineering. If the NEPA process takes another turn and WSDOT ends up building something other than the deep bore tunnel, the State Treasurer isn’t going to come back and ask for that money back.

Anyway, my point is that it isn’t important what WSDOT tells the State Treasurer they are going to spend the money on. It’s important what they actually spend it on.

Yes the RFQ doesn’t comment WSDOT to the tunnel but the next sentence in that update says that the state treasure has ALREADY sold bonds that are specifically dedicated to the deep bore tunnel.

you have to say moving cars is more important than anything else.

No, no, no. You still don’t get it! Moving my car is more important than anything else. :P

Practical or fundamental?

If you want a case for why it’s a good idea in an absolute case, I don’t think it can be done in the value system of this blog: you have to say moving cars is more important than anything else.

If you want to see the practical case that the other real alternatives are worse, I could actually take a shot at that.

CEQ NEPA regulations
http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm

FHWA NEPA regulations
http://tinyurl.com/23CFR771

All federal agencies follow the CEQ regulations and often have their own NEPA regulations to cover their specific needs.

I’ll also point out that a request for qualifications (RFQ) doesn’t commit WSDOT to build the deep bore tunnel.

From the RFQ:
“WSDOT is preparing an EIS for the Project in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the NEPA. The WSDOT Project team is engaged in early coordination with all Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local agencies that have permitting authority, special expertise, or interest in transportation projects. WSDOT anticipates issuing a Supplemental Draft EIS for public comment in March 2010. The issuance of the Final EIS is scheduled for January 2011, and the issuance of the ROD, which completes the NEPA process, is scheduled for March 2011. Therefore, the NEPA/SEPA documentation, Section 106 and Endangered Species Act consultations, and environmental permits for the Project will not be completed prior to the award of the contract. In light of that, WSDOT anticipates issuing two phases of Notice To Proceed (NTP) for this Project RFQ for SR 99 Bored Tunnel Design-Build Project as further defined in Section 4.1. This is to ensure that no commitments are made to any alternative being evaluated in the NEPA process and that the comparative merits of all alternatives presented in the NEPA document, including the no-build alternative, will be evaluated and fairly considered.”

If you want to read more, go here:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/contaa/DESIGNBUILDCONTRACTS/SR99AWVBoredtunnel/DEFAULT.HTM

Also, the fact that constructing a deep bore tunnel was listed as an example of how WSDOT would spend bond proceeds in a letter to the State Treasurer also isn’t a binding commitment.

Many of us monorail “kool-aid drinkers” suspect that opposition to the SMP from Olympia had much to do with the roads folks wanting an MVET for their projects.

I’m afraid the inevitable cost overruns — aside from impacting the city’s ability to work on other issues — will eat away at the funds available for any new transit options. It’s already having an affect on plans for a new streetcar in the corridor.

I find myself always being forced into a position of defending the surface/transit/I-5 alternative which I support. And pro-tunnel folks seem to spend more time arguing why this alternative or a new/reinforced Viaduct are bad.

Why should I support the tunnel other than some belief that there are ~110,000 vehicles on the AWV every day at present, and we should continue to allow some amount of these vehicles to bypass Downtown in this corridor???

Perhaps you could get one of the Stakeholders Advisory Group tunnel supporters to write something?