Seattle City Council Hearts Tunnel Progress 8-1

This morning, the Seattle City Council held a special briefing on the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement project, in advance of voting on an ordinance that agrees to move forward with the State of Washington on preliminary design–but not construction–of the deep-bore tunnel.

It was largely pro forma, because the City has little leverage in redefining the project, other than the nuclear option of pulling out of it. That political recognition seemed in part to drive the Council’s overwhelming 8-1 vote in favor this morning, though a solid majority seems to support the tunnel against all comers. Also pro forma was the public comment period that opened the briefing. 

King County Executive Dow Constantine sent a representative down to champion the tunnel as “part of a complete systems approach to improve mobility,” and puzzlingly, insist that the project, with a deep-bore tunnel with no downtown exits, is “great for transit” to downtown. WSDOT’s Paula Hammond mentioned that the 10-year anniversary of Nisqually Quake is coming up and talked about keeping ”critical momentum.” Gov. Gregoire (in D.C. today), sent a representative as well, who I’ll sum up with: “Safety. Jobs. Mobility.”

---

---

Pro-tunnel input included pleas to maintain capacity in Ballard/Interbay to Duwamish corridor. The Sailors’ Union of the Pacific representative was for the tunnel, as were construction unions, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, and manufacturers. The rhetoric reached a high point with the man from the Building Owners Association, also on the board of Downtown Seattle Association, who said the Council’s pro-tunnel stance will be “lauded by generations to come.”

Anti-tunnel input claimed the Council was “demonstrating your loose connection with fact,” arguing that before the cut-and-cover tunnel was shot down, all deep-bore tunnels were dropped from consideration as too risky. One woman noted that the tunnel would effectively serve neither the Duwamish zone nor Ballard/Interbay. A man testily asked for the value engineering study he said was legally required. The people behind the Move Seattle Smarter initiative appeared, followed by a ”Peak Everything” gentleman. 

Then it was time for the Council members to have their say. Sally Bagshaw was excited to move forward after ten years. Sally Clark argued the merits of keeping a place at the table in the design period. Jean Godden compared the tunnel to the Grand Coulee Dam. Bruce Harrell (and here I’m paraphrasing) insisted that “we have covered our ass legally.”

Tim Burgess said giving up a major north-south thoroughfare was too much to ask. Richard Conlin, delightfully, argued that listening to the public on this issue passes for democracy, but then noted that as a representative he was entitled to vote however he wanted. Also, he wanted to know, have any of the anti-tunnel crowd considered that the state legislature might want to roast Seattle on a spit, transportation-wise? 

Council member Mike O’Brien

The lone hold-out, Michael O’Brien made three points: 1) the mega-project is still not fully funded, 2) while it’s wonderful to say the project is “great” for transit, it contains no funding for transit, or mitigation for the tens of thousands of cars diverted to city streets by tolls, and 3) the responsibility for cost overruns is unsettled. As as aside, he noted the irony of business leaders pushing a project none of them would undertake based on its fuzzy financing and risk. 

Nick Licata then got up, saying “I wasn’t going to say anything,” but wanting to address O’Brien’s points. “What is the alternative? Think it through,” he asked. (Licata has made this argument in detail.) With no legislative support for an elevated replacement, that leaves only the surface/transit/I-5 solution. But what legislative support there is for that promises significantly less funding. As Licata sees it, the tunnel is the only option. “There’s no Plan B,” he said, adding, “You cannot keep punting the ball down the field forever.” 

It’s ironic that he puts it like that, because it’s as if there’s no Plan B by design. Given the inherent trade-offs in any choice, nothing will solve every transportation need, but you need to rewrite a good deal of WSDOT research and study (which I understand is in progress) to conclude that the surface/transit/I-5 option is not feasible at all, or that it can’t be improved.

Mayor Michael McGinn has said he’ll veto any Council agreements, claiming that the tunnel’s cost overruns provision is too risky for the city. KING 5′s story captures the lively division over that issue: 

Although the governor, the attorney general and the city attorney doubt Seattle taxpayers will be on the hook, the mayor showed a video clip from a City Club meeting two weeks ago, where state legislators Brown, Dammeier, Hewitt and Springer disagree.

Asked, “Will Seattle be on the hook for cost overruns?” All four answered yes.

This morning, Mayor McGinn’s office also posted a letter “from a concerned citizen” that opens: “I’ll just comment here about the financial uncertainty engendered by the DBT contact itself and leave such matters as the pending toll induced traffic diversion fiasco, the elusive nature of the “promised” Port funding and the State’s increasingly shaky fiscal picture for another time.”

At 8-1, the Council can override a mayoral veto, but despite Council member Tim Burgess’s tweet that “We’re taking public testimony now on the tunnel ordinance, most are in favor of moving forward,” it’s worth noting that there’s little evidence that the people of Seattle are also 8-1 in favor of the tunnel. To date, the Council has studiously avoided finding out, through democratic means, exactly how much support there is. That may come to an end. 

Last week, Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel (SCAT) handed in their signatures for a “Stop the Tunnel” initiative; they needed some 20,000 signatures and came up with over 27,000.