WSDOT
He’s unhappy about the notorious provision saddling Seattle with the cost overruns, although his veto isn’t likely to matter:
The city plans to co-sign a request for proposals for tunnel construction with the state at the end of May. A previous memorandum of understanding with the state passed the city council unanimously; unless McGinn manages to convince four council members to change their positions, that’s a veto-proof vote.
The overrun issue is a big one, as it could further eat into the taxing authority McGinn is trying to gather for the seawall and other transportation improvements. Some tunnel supporters claim that the overrun provisions are unenforceable; some legislators insist the opposite. I don’t know the law in this case but I know that someone is the sucker here.
Other differences we perceive between DBT and 520 here.
Seattle taxpayers are the suckers here, plain and simple. We’re getting stuck with a project that costs billions of dollars and does nothing to improve mobility in our City while potentially saddling us with crippling bills if the project goes over budget. Who in their right mind takes responsibility for paying overruns on a project that someone else is managing?
The City didn’t “take responsibility” for paying the overruns on the tunnel, the legislature imposed it.
But the city council is going along with it.
Sort of. There haven’t been any overruns yet so the city hasn’t been asked to pick up the tab. I’m guessing the city council either believes there won’t be overruns, or that the state won’t ask for a check if they do happen.
Alright, as someone who looks at both highways and transit, I’ll have to interject here.
We all know that Vancouver doesn’t have a highway running through its heart. You know what that does for transit ridership.
But, SR99 the way it is now runs through Seattle, with several access points within the city. That creates one of two problems:
1. It creates congestion because of the access points.
2. It allows people to use the highway to get anywhere in the city.
The tunnel replacement will eliminate the access points, improving congestion. And because those access points are gone, you no longer have a highway that will allow people to use for direct city access.
In a sense, the tunnel becomes a bypass of DT Seattle, and that can do wonders for future (rail) transit lines along the corridor.
So in essence, we on STB with our pro-transit view should support the tunnel over an elevated replacement. We should also support it over the surface option because the tunnel serves as a bypass, which may improve bus services that bypass Seattle.
Finally someone who makes sense here!
Jason,
There are no bus services that bypass Seattle, except perhaps the 586, which doesn’t use SR99. Do you think that should be a priority for Metro?
Is there any highway project that, in some minimal sense, can’t be spun as helping transit by providing more SOV capacity?
That’s not to say that there couldn’t be in the future – it might prove kind of useful in the long run.
There is absolutely no highway project anywhere that would not be approved under the criteria you propose. It doesn’t get any more speculative than “there might be buses on there someday.”
Well that doesn’t invalidate my point – I am sure that Metro will look at a tunnel bypass of Seattle on the SR99 – it already places most of its West Seattle buses on the existing viaduct.
Well, let me say this. It may not be dedicated to transit, and it may not have the best transit accomodation, but it’s much better than what we have now.
There is no way that this will be a transit-only tunnel, and there’s not enough money to build an HOV lane. But do realize that people won’t be able to access downtown as easily as they do now by using SR99, and that’s one of the first steps in improving transit ridership: eliminating highway access points.
And also, we’re going from 6 SOV lanes to 4, because we want SR99 to be a bypass, not another downtown arterial. In my opinion, that’s much better than the constant lane expansions that we’re getting in other areas.
It still has exits just north and south of downtown. The fact that people will have to drive an extra mile or two on downtown streets isn’t going to dissuade them from using 99 for their downtown trips, given that it’s less congested than I-5 or the other streets.
But that’s the point. If you want to travel to downtown, you can’t drive directly into it using SR99. It will act as a bypass through downtown. No one will be getting off SR99 in the heart of downtown, and that does wonders for congestion relief.
OK, I just think people hear “no exits downtown” and “bypass downtown” and get a misleading impression. What they’re doing is equivalent to closing the Columbia entrance and Union exit on the current viaduct… so people would use the Denny Way and Royal Brougham exits instead. So they would add more congestion to the edges of downtown. People have the idea that “no exits downtown” means that only people going from the north end to the south end or vice-versa will use 99, but that’s not true.
“So they would add more congestion to the edges of downtown.”
That’s what we want right? :] Make it easier to go through downtown, but not get in it. Same logic as Vancouver. You can go around it easily, but not into it easily (by car).
It’s only a mile from Pine Street to either Denny Way or Royal Brougham. Whereas it’s some ten miles from the Trans-Canada Highway to downtown Vancouver. A significant difference. To drivers, the north and south exits will still be essentially “downtown”. But the businesses and residents of Belltown and Pioneer Square will find more congestion on their streets, cars which were previously on the highway. There may be a slight decrease of lined-up cars at Columbia, but I’ve never seen that to be a significant backup.
But Seattleites will benefit from it in the long term even if they have to pay any expense overages.
I don’t know that anyone is a ‘sucker’ here – it is more a question of who wants to be constructive and who does not.
Civil engineering projects appear to be at a low ebb these days if most of you here are to be believed but I like civil engineering projects. I like building trains, bridges, tunnels and occasionally roads that make sense. Ultimately a good road benefits buses and the same for elegant bridges. Would any of you have criticised the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, or the Tacoma Narrows bridges as wastes of time? I am sure that for their day and time, all of them were expensive but they are great projects. Before you say anything, I am not referring to the galloping gertie bridge in Tacoma.
We need the civil engineering jobs in Seattle and there is a chance of getting the waterfront back without having to see or hear cars in the future – certainly not at the level or volume of the current viaduct.
“We need the civil engineering jobs in Seattle” Do we even know what CE design firm is onboard? Are they in Seattle? Don’t forget WSDOT is in Olympia.
Not sure about Seattle, but there’s a few in Bellevue. Inca engineering is one of them.
Contractor pulls out of Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct bidding
Someone will need to build it and so it will be local workers I am sure. Either way, it constitures civil engineering.
The unanimous vote for the memorandum was before the election, perhaps partially as a ploy to take the wind out of McGinn’s sails.
Now, we’ve got O’Brien to bolster Licata into resistance. The debate over the panhandling ordinance may have helped break up the united front against the mayor. Don’t give up yet.
No way that more than a couple councilmembers vote against this. The panhandling ordinance was a whole different issue; on this the Council is pretty unanimous, and has been for a while. We chose this alternative, and now we just have to do it, because of the urgent safety problems and the threat of a new elevated viaduct if we block this. This will do great things for our waterfront, and sure, we hate the fact that it’s increasing roads capacity, but it’s a done deal.
Ah, remember when the panhandling ordinance had 8 councilmembers supporting it?
This is what Seattle gets for electing a civil activist, community organizer as president. All he seems to be able to do is obstruct things.
Fine the tunnel isn’t the best option but my god please McGinn get your act together and accomplish something…
I meant to say mayor, not president. Ooops.
It’s rather convenient that of all the dozens of things McGinn coming out of the Council that McGinn signs, people pick out a couple that he opposes and scream “obstructionist”.
Hmmm I thought Seattle voted in a bicycle riding environmentalist… Could be totally confused but automobiles and cities don’t really make for a high quality of life.
And getting stuck with the cost overrides would be a major mistake. Can you say “Big Dig?”
I will say that the bike riding environmentalist thing had much to do with why I voted for him.
Sure McGinn is using the cost overrun provision as an excuse to drag his feet, but it is a valid question and should be settled one way or the other before the majority of construction starts.
Who is on the hook for the cost overruns is a valid concern.
Lets fast forward a few years … WSDOT has to fess up that the tunnel project has blown the budget. The state tells the city “pay up”. At that point the council and mayor could try to find the money somewhere in the budget, raise taxes, or tell the state to take a long walk off a short pier.
The first option means other things like parks or sidewalks get cut to pay for the tunnel.
The second option isn’t really all that good as there are limited taxing options that don’t require a public vote of some sort. I’ve heard people claim that a LID limited to property along the waterfront would be enough to pay for overruns, but I don’t think so, plus there is the problem of getting the property owners to agree.
The third option pisses off the legislature, and means the state may get creative in how it charges for the tunnel overruns. Everything from using some of the port’s taxing authority to finding state funding to cut from programs and projects in the Seattle.
In any case expect a full flurry of lawsuits as part of the aftermath.
I don’t think this is an issue that blows up down the road. It’ll be sooner. The contractors are going to start signing contracts within the next year or so, and there certainly will be someone that steps up and agrees to cover the overruns. It’ll either be the City, the State, or the contractor.
Well count me as someone who would prefer it wasn’t the city.
“This is what Seattle gets for electing a civil activist, community organizer as president. All he seems to be able to do is obstruct things.”
Which other mayor or mayoral candidate has been so pro-transit and pro-bicycle? Who else has publicly spoken up for prioritizing transit over cars? Nickels did a good job of supporting Link and streetcars alongside cars, but only McGinn has raised the issue of reducing car lanes or not replacing roads. So McGinn is doing things many transit fans and environmentalists have wanted to see for years. There may be some rough edges in the particulars, but overall he’s doing what voters elected him to do.
Seattle is not a petri dish for transit ideas, however, and any transit ‘plan’ that lays such emphasis on bikes is not going to achieve too much. You can’t kick start the local economy on the seat or pedals of a bicycle!
How can *anyone* say it’s a done deal when *no one* seems sure who’s going to pay for the thing? (The cost overruns could be a big part of the cost of the project – I lived in Boston during the Big Dig – so I know about tunnel cost overruns :-)
“Done” deals have “done” financing. This one clearly doesn’t.
McGinn is right to make a stink about this issue – the council is clearly out of their league in dealing with the state.
Greg
The Big Dig comparison is a two edged sword. If cost overruns are inevitable for the AWV they are also so for the University Link which hass an even longer tunnel.
Maybe so but at least we know who is paying for it.
Exactly, the City of Seattle won’t be on the hook for cost overruns associated with U Link. Besides I have a bit more confidence in Sound Transit’s project management than I do WSDOT’s.
However, the DBT will be a design-build project meaning that whoever is the winning team will be held to that bid unless there are some pretty outstanding issues found. In essence, this shifts a lot of the risk to the contractor rather than the state (and, ultimately, the taxpayer).
Look at the recent completion of SR 519 Phase 2. It was finished 1-year ahead of time and on budget.
Just because something is design-build doesn’t mean they are held to the bid. Change orders and claims related to what is actually encountered in the tunneling vs. what was in the bid documents are commonplace because, surprise, you don’t know what you’ll encounter until you get down there. Comparing a simple ramp and overpass-type project to a bored tunnel is fallacious.
Chris
More faith in ST over WSDOT? I’ve been a supporter of light rail in the Puget Sound region since 1994 but you belief is not supported by the facts.
Remember the Sound Move ballot that was passed in 1996? The Link was supposed to reach Brooklyn Ave in the U-District by 2006. The WSDOT has never been that far off on a project.
Sound Transit as it exists today wasn’t around when Sound Move was on the ballot in 1996. The RTA, which was created in 1993, crafted the Sound Move ballot measure after the defeat of a larger measure in 1995. The RTA board was made up of local politicians who had very little practical experience planning and implementing rail-based transit. The cost estimates were ballpark at best and the schedule was impacted by lawsuits, initiatives and escalating construction costs. The Sound Transit of today is staffed with people who now have practical knowledge of the realities of building light rail in this region, something the board members of the RTA in 1995 didn’t have.
Well that would be the taxpayers too – same as with the tunnel – it doesn’t make much difference which way you look at it. Cost overages on Link or the tunnel should both pass a cost-benefit analysis whether trains or cars ultimately use the things.
Well by the time you get to cost overruns with most civil engineering projects typically the sunk costs are high enough that it makes more sense to just pay the overruns until the project is finished.
Besides Sound Transit has a revenue stream to cover any overruns with and has been extremely conservative with cost estimates.
On the other hand I get the distinct impression the 99 tunnel estimates are lowballed and at the very least there won’t be any contingency left by the time the bids come in.
MUST MOVE MORE CARS!!!!
(Being able to get from the Space Needle to Pier 48 in 5 minutes or less is written in Magna Carta, didn’t you know?)
The problem is we’re thinking too small. What we need to do is double the width of I-5 from Everett to Olympia. So what if we have to tear down a few skyscrapers to do it. We must close the highway gap with Phoenix, Houston, and Atlanta!
You’re not kidding either…I lived in the Valley of the Smog (Phoenix) for 22 years and they are on a freeway building spree. Though I do give them credit for their new light rail line!
Good for McGinn. If the state wants this project to happen, they should be willing to deal with any cost overruns. It’s that simple. The City Council should be very worried at the potential consequences for the city’s finances.
If the state wants this project to happen
I think the state actually wants to just rebuild the viaduct. The City asked to get the highway off the waterfront and the tunnel was agreed to be the best solution.
To the extent “the city” wants anything it pretty much wants this tunnel.
I think the state and city want the same thing, to improve mobility in Seattle, how to achieve that is where they differ. WSDOT being a road building agency solves problems by guess what, building roads. The city which is mandated with improving the quality of life for its citizens wants to protects its interests, thus no new viaduct. The whole problem with this project is that it presumes that roads are the only solution to the problem, and thus the tunnel becomes the only acceptable solution. It’s a catch 22.
If for example PSRC was the lead on the project and had all the money I think you would see a *very* different solution.
Street films did a piece on Minneapolis and at the end you see the Mayor talking about how cities need to change the way they build themselves.
http://www.streetfilms.org/major-bike-mojo-in-minneapolis/
Very enlightened thinking.
I’m not against the tunnel in principle, I am just against the cost overruns. To save some time, I’m cutting and pasting what I said on Publicola:
Okay, someone help me out here, b/c my nose must be failing me.
If the State is not going to run over budget, if the State doesn’t plan on going after the city, if the WA Constitution says that the State CAN’T go after the city, why was the clause there in the first case, and why won’t they take it out? Seriously if it doesn’t matter than why is everyone giving ‘obstructionist’ McGinn a platform?
I smell BS.
The political answer that is given is that it was to satisfy legislators that wouldn’t vote for the bill unless that was in there. This means that the people that added the clause did or are lie to someone. Either they are lying to the public or they lied to other legislators. Take your pick.
So everyone outside Seattle are naive morons? Not realizing that these are empty promises that the state has no ability to enforce?
Yeah, again, doesn’t pass the smell test. (I’m not arguing with you, just taking your explanation the next step)
This issue certainly has a political dimension but it transcends politics. We can all hope there won’t be any cost overruns, but the Mayor’s stance here is the fiscally responsible one from the perspective of the city he has been entrusted to lead. If the legislature is unwilling to commit funds for potential cost overruns, that doesn’t bode well for their willingness to pay real money for a real cost overrun, and the risk to the City appears to be unbounded in that case. Going forward, there would seem to be no better time to have this discussion than now, even though naturally, there are those who would rather it not occur.
Here goes our illustrious mayor again – blocking and obstructing like our city is just some scene from the barricades in Les Miserables.
There may be some hope for those of us concerned by this rudderless, leadership shambles and that is that former mayor Greg Nickels is back in town and maybe he can lead a recall election against McGinn.
This is all a pathetic shambles of obfuscation on the mayor’s part and it just is depressing quite frankly.
I have a suggestion for the mayor that he runs for Congress and pits his strengths against extremist Republicans in DC. He is way more effective as a fringe advocate than he is as a leader and as there is so little Congressional leadership emanating from Washington DC these days, he would feel right at home over there and where effectiveness is determined by compromise. As a Congressman and as an advocate, I believe it would be better for all of us if McGinn had to compromise with someone, rather than that we should have the current situation where the City Council has to compromise with him as mayor. See the difference? Far better that he be a member of a caucus than leader of a city.
Has Mayor McGinn obstructed RapidRide? The First Hill Streetcar? ST2? U-Link? Bridging the Gap? No. He’s been obstructing highway projects. Anyone who thinks highways downtown are good idea doesn’t understand what makes cities work.
No, and those are valid points, but then these are not as far along the interminable Seattle process as the viaduct and the 520 bridge are.
I know that you and Ben have repeatedly shot me down for saying this, but the ramifications of Greg Nickels losing last year’s primary still have not fully played themselves out as of yet. We are still in Act One of a five act play and so far the play is not very good.
I know you like the new mayor and that you have good and genuine reasons for doing so but for him to be sabotaging as much as he has or is trying to do is not good leadership.
Tim,
You know that we endorsed Greg Nickels in the primary. At this stage, I don’t yet regret that pick. But I recognize that Mike McGinn has the right principles and has some promising items on his agenda.
Mike McGinn said during the campaign he wanted light rail over 520. He said during the campaign that he would do what he could to raise tough questions about the DBT, a project he opposes. I’m not sure why you think it’d be “good leadership” for him to abandon his campaign promises. Should he really just sort of go along with projects he believes are fundamentally wrong for the city?
Hmm, you know many of those projects are either under construction or past environmental review which is more than I can say for either 99 or 520.
If the point of the tunnel is to replace the capacity of the viaduct, then consider the ahistorical approach the state has taken to measuring capacity.
Since the viaduct opened, the city bus service has evolved into a huge county bus agency (not to mention agencies in the two adjoining counties with their own fleets of commuter buses to Seattle) with a tunnel under 3rd Avenue, a commuter rail service north to Everett and south to Tacoma, a light rail line to the airport via Rainier Valley, and an ever-growing fleet of buses. Plus, the county has a serious vanpool program, and a huge bicyclist population. In addition, skyscaper condos downtown have replaced the need for commuting into downtown at all. I think Seattle and King County have done more than replace the capacity of the viaduct, if you define capacity as the ability to move people around.
Yes, cars continue to use the viaduct, and no amount of transit seems to deter those who like their magic carpet ride in their personal vehicles. However, if only transit gets the magic carpet ride, will people insist on driving downtown no matter how slow it gets? Some will, and some won’t.
If we’re looking for a project with at least some marginal benefit for transit, this automobile-only tunnel isn’t it. Nor does it do much to replace the freight-carrying capacity of the viaduct (since it really doesn’t connect to Interbay) or even the ability of the viaduct to get cars into downtown quickly.
Indeed, the tunnel cost overruns threaten to swallow up hundreds of millions of dollars in funding sources that could have been used to build and operate transit. The positive impact on the quality of transit in Seattle from stopping the viaduct tunnel would be absolutely huge.
How about this.
Create a tax fund from existing revenues and only build the thing if there is enough money on hand.
Pay as you go; instead of spend as you can.
I do think cities should raise money for projects beforehand rather than issuing bonds. Then all that interest money could be used for further useful projects. But it’s difficult to raise money beforehand because people don’t want to be taxed now for something that won’t be built for 20 years, and they don’t trust the government not to divert the funds to something else.
But “pay as you go” can’t quite work when there’s such a serious backlog of transit investment as is the case of Seattle and the US today. If you don’t invest to improve things, we’ll be stuck in automobile dependency until the oil runs dry and other countries have PRT to everybody’s house and transcontinental bullet trains.
This tunnel is a terrible investment. Existing highway 99 doesnt carry that much through traffic – the majority of the traffic begins or ends in downtown Seattle and won’t be served by the tunnel.
Getting rid of the viaduct is desirable. Building a tunnel isn’t economically justified. McGinn is dealing with the political realities.
As a region, we should let them tear down the viaduct and not replace it. Through traffic will find another route. The money should not be spent to build a tunnel.
Allelujah, brother!
The concept of “surface+transit” (which needs a better name) may be unpopular, but every element of it so far has been very popular. Go figure.
If we invest more in dedicating the ROW for RapidRides C-E so that they truly are BRT, then that will take care of the remaining people-carrying capacity issues of the viaduct once people lose the option of SOVing downtown.
If it isn’t enough, well then light rail, not a useless tunnel, should be the fallback. If the the RapidRides don’t have sufficient capacity, expect the light rail bond issue to then be a much easier sell.
A four lane road could be done as a single level elevated roadway. There are some advantages to the land use. It could provide a dry pedestrian and non-motorized route. The views from the viaduct are wonderful. A lower single level structure would open up the views to most of downtown to almost the same extent as the tunnel (the only “losers” would be 2-3 story buildings directly east of the viaduct (although ground level might actually be winners). Built using modern construction techniques there would be far less support structure. It might even be possible to do with only center pylons. Anyway, I think it’s hard to make a good decision without being able to compare cost. One big thing that really bugs me about the tunnel plan is that there seems to be very little talk about the ganormous roadway planned for under where the current viaduct sits. To me that seems worse than the status quo.
It seems like given the design/build structure of the contract the most likely place for cost overruns are the seawall and surface “improvements”. Wouldn’t the City be on the hook for those anyway or does McGinn want the State to backstop those projects?
I still have a couple of questions nobody seems to want to take a swing at. First, why is this so vital to business and not just a convenient way to get to sporting events? Second, if it’s such a vital and important route why isn’t electronic tolling, including pre-tolling on the viaduct part of the funding package?
How about this as a compromise: The lower deck gets reserved for the bullet train, when it reaches here from California. At that point, the upper deck would become one lane each direction.