Consensus Grows For Deep Bore Tunnel Option
Matt Rosenberg
A real consensus is emerging. Last night at the final Stakeholders Advisory Committee meeting on replacement of the earthquake-prone Alaskan Way Viaduct on State Route 99 along Seattle's downtown waterfront, Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis and a top aide to King County Executive Ron Sims joined the near-unanimous majority in voicing clear support for more detailed study of the deep bore tunnel alternative in combination with surface and transit improvements. Meeting notes here.
To minimize traffic and business disruption, the viaduct would stand until tunnel completion, and tolling the tunnel would close the funding gap. Tunnel boring technology has advanced greatly, as detailed a year ago at a Cascadia Center expert symposium on the topic. The downtown waterfront would be opened up, not blockaded with traffic or another elevated viaduct. Superior life cycle costs and seismic safety are other advantages of a deep bore tunnel. Credit for advancing the emerging compromise solution - still subject to legislative approval and a clear and workable finance plan - is due to all SAC members.
SAC members Vlad Oustimovitch of West Seattle and Tayloe Washburn of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce detail the argument for the "surface-subsurface hybrid" in today's Puget Sound Business Journal. Thanks to the SAC, the project team, and important research from deep bore tunnel experts convened by Cascadia Center, the message of the tunnel's viability is being heard at the highest levels, regionally. Governor Chris Gregoire is examining the tunnel option. She, Mayor Nickels and Executive Sims will make a recommendation to the legislature by mid-January, perhaps by late December, on a Viaduct replacement.
Today, talking to substitute host Frank Shiers on KIRO Radio's Dori Monson Show, Ceis emphasized the tunnel's advantages. Here's the MP3 file of first hour of the show. After Shiers' intro, Ceis leads off, followed by Cascadia Center's Bruce Agnew, a long-time advocate of a tolled bypass tunnel to replace the Viaduct. In today's Seattle Times, Susan Gilmore lays it out:
When the state evaluated eight options for replacing the viaduct, the deep-bore tunnel was the most expensive, at $3.5 billion. But since then questions have arisen about that cost estimate. The Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center, a nonprofit that explores transportation issues in the region, continues to push for a bored-tunnel option - just inland from the Elliott Bay shoreline, which would keep the viaduct in place during construction. The institute has lined up tunneling executives to argue that improvements in technology have made tunnel boring more efficient and that a bored tunnel could be built for much less than the state estimate.....The Legislature has set aside $2.8 billion for a viaduct replacement. "We're not asking the state to spend one more cent," Washburn said. He said other financing options should be explored, such as regional tolling and a local-improvement district. "This is a 100-year investment, and we've got to get it right. We, the region, need to take ownership with a funding package to pay for the bored tunnel." Washburn said those who would benefit from a viaduct-free waterfront should help pay for a tunnel.
Dave Freiboth, with the King County Labor Council, agreed. "Any notion of going to the Legislature to ask for more than $2.8 billion is in a dream world. That's not in the cards and shouldn't be in the cards," he said. Seattle City Councilwoman Jan Drago said the region is capable of paying for a deep-bore tunnel. The City Council officially supports the surface option, only because the tunnel was considered too expensive. "We have the available tools and authority (to build a tunnel)," Drago said. The region should explore tolling on all area freeways, she said, creating a transportation-benefit district that could collect viaduct-replacement money, a special motor-vehicle excise tax for the tunnel, and a local-improvement district. "I'm very optimistic," Drago said. "What's new here is the region picking up the funding." The state said it will decide by the end of the year which option to select for viaduct replacement. But it's unlikely support for the tunnel option will disappear when that decision is made.
Stay tuned.
Comments
FWIW, I like the idea of the Downtown LID, but I'm still sceptical that this is the same old same old.
If the Local Improvement District Stakeholders are willing to pony up for the 30% engineering and the EIS AND take responsibilities for cost overruns, than, great, go for it.
Somehow, I don't think they'll do that. And I certainly doubt Agnew or Wasburn are going to put a personal guarantee on it. It will be very telling to see how the Downtown community reacts to this consensus when asked to take responsibility.
Don't forget either that the initial budgeted monies from the nickel project are running out ahead of schedule. This means the 2.8 billion may not be there.
That said, the viaduct replacement is a high safety priority - but that might just mean delaying 520 again.
Posted by: Douglas Tooley | December 21, 2008 3:03 PM
One has to wonder why, i.e. what political forces are in play, the most logical option - the deep bore tunnel - had costs inflated with costs not related to it and why the financial comparisons of the options were limited to the one-time capital construction costs. My only surprise was that Speaker Chopp's option was not a finalist. I was not surprised that the cheapest construction option - the surface option - was a finalist; the cheapest always is! However, that option would essentially disenfranchise the 70% of the motorists who use the AWV to go through Seattle and force them to either travel through a stop-light-lined boulevard or to squeeze in with their I-5 compatriots. Both that option and the other would result in 3-4 years (according to an AWV planner) of disruption, i.e. no AWV, while the old structure gets torn down; the deep bore tunnel construction avoids this disruption. There are costs associated with those disruptions, and those should be added to those two options for a fair comparison. Thirdly, a deep bored tunnel lasts twice as long as another elevated structure (to wit: the present structure hails from the 1950s). Therefore, the cost of the elevated structure should be doubled. Lastly, I thought that the committee was going to make their recommendations, then I read that WSDOT narrowed it down for them. One wonders at the complaints of some committee members re: not getting their briefing information with adequate time to review, etc.
Posted by: bcsa | December 22, 2008 9:20 AM