Some Current Facts on the Tunnel

I just found this as Comment #7 to a posting below. Since many people have asked for facts about the tunnel I have re-posted it here. If you know other facts that are important please add comments to this post. Thank you. Joel

******************************************

Submitted on 2009/09/24 at 2:15pm by Cary

There is much misinformation around the tunnel and other alternatives, given the mayoral discussions; I hope it is useful to explain what has gone on in the recent 9 months and where we are now. Some very big problems are emerging, and whatever you thought 9 months ago, you should be paying attention.

The January 2009 deal
Gregoire, Sims, and Nickels agreed to jointly fund and build a $4.2 billion package: a bored tunnel, new transit service, a waterfront street and seawall repairs, and other street improvements. Currently:
• The State hasn’t yet followed through on the promise to help the City and County raise funds for their projects: the MVET authorization for transit and stimulus money for streets fell through.
• This leaves Metro with a huge shortfall since transit revenue has declined, indicating there will be no new service, and existing service will be cut.
• The modeling done in 2008 to test possible replacement options showed a big shift toward new transit usage in any scenario; not adding this service could seriously degrade Seattle mobility.

The underground bypass tunnel
Planning, design, and EIS analysis are underway now. The costs, overrun risks, constructability analysis, and environmental impacts have not yet been calculated. Officially, no decision can be made and the project cannot begin until the EIS is complete and information released to the public.
• At 54’, this would be the largest diameter bored tunnel ever done in the world.
• No alternatives approaches are being studied in the EIS.
• There are no exits downtown, so any travel to and from downtown won’t be served by this facility.
• Neither tolling nor the new transit service agreed to in January is included in the EIS, or in the current transportation modeling; this could exaggerate the need for car capacity on the waterfront.
• Early soil testing indicates that a cut and cover tunnel may be required instead of a bored tunnel on First Avenue south King Street in Pioneer Square. Construction impacts would be tough.
• While WSDOT would typically be accountable for its own cost overruns, the tunnel funding bill says otherwise: “Any costs in excess of two billion eight hundred million dollars shall be borne by property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing viaduct with the deep bore tunnel.” http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5768-S.PL.pdf

A non-highway solution: would it work?
At the conclusion of the 2008 stakeholder process, the three DOTs put forth 2 recommendations: Surface/ Transit /I-5 or an Elevated. The S/T/5 solution is a set of projects to improve through-put on I-5, better connect the street grid, add significant new transit, add incentives to inspire non-car choices, improve options for freight, and build an urban street on the waterfront – instead of rebuilding this segment of highway.
• Even tested against the unlikely worst case, where demand for car trips increases an absurd 20% in six years, S/T/5 worked great for mobility. In fact, all eight solutions examined worked well, only varying +/- 1% in the number of trips they served.
• Modeling results revealed that urban systems work differently than rural highways. If people are offered choices – a variety of streets, transit options, I-5, biking, etc – and connections are improved between urban centers, we can all get where we’re going. Trucks or people.
• Modeling results showed a 4-lane urban street on the waterfront (option B) works great, given other improvements to transit, and I-5. All the local economic and civic benefits of removing the waterfront highway can be achieved with either this approach or a bored tunnel.

There are big issues to consider in this: what kind of transportation system fits future Seattle, how will we meet our state mandate to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled 50% by 2050, and whether we can still afford a megaproject. Given that car travel is declining, given the evidence of many cities effectively reducing congestion through making alternatives more viable, given that energy economics and regional tolling will likely inspire us all to drive less in the future, we should measure twice before we cut. Building car capacity we may not need, at this high cost and risk, may turn out to be a terrible investment. It may be worth the fight, especially if the news from the EIS is bad.

Cary