August 11, 8:52 AM 11
Mike McGinn Responds to Greg Nickels’ Attacks on Tunnel
Late yesterday, Mayor Greg Nickels launched an attack on Mike McGinn claiming “to set the record straight” against “distortions.”
Let’s truly set the record straight. Here’s the record from the Associated Press (3/15/2007):
“Noting previous Seattle votes against expressways, Nickels said, ‘The voters have again told us loud and clear that a new freeway through the heart and soul of the city is not the answer. I couldn’t agree more.’
He appeared to rule out the viaduct rebuild and said he will not pursue a tunnel.
‘They’ve sent a very clear message — whether it is above ground or below, they don’t want to build another freeway on our waterfront,’ the mayor said. ‘The three of us have heard the voters. This is the 21st Century and what the people of Seattle have said is we must put aside the 1950s mind-set about transportation and find new and better alternatives.’
“After the 2007 vote, Greg Nickels promised voters that he would not pursue a tunnel,” McGinn said, referencing the 2007 vote in which only 30% of Seattle voters supported the Mayor’s tunnel plan.
“Not only did he break his promise, now he’s trying to stick Seattle taxpayers with the most expensive option on the table.”
“And now Nickels is desperately trying to convince voters that they have to pay $930 million plus cost overruns no matter what solution we come up with,” McGinn said. “That’s simply false. The cheaper option he rejected would cost Seattle much less.”
As Nickels and other politicians pursued more expensive options like experimental deep bore tunnel technology, the excess cost was transferred to Seattle taxpayers. Even worse, the state passed a law requiring Seattle taxpayers to pay for all cost overruns.
McGinn reiterated his call on Nickels to tell voters what taxes he will raise to pay for the tunnel. “Seattle’s facing a budget crisis,” McGinn said. “Taxpayers deserve total transparency about which taxes will go up to pay for the tunnel. And they deserve that information before they vote.”
McGinn pointed out that the Seattle share of tunnel costs nearly equals the total of every other voter-approved levy in the city (see chart in .pdf file).
“If Greg Nickels thinks it’s such a good deal for Seattle voters, than he should put it on the ballot and make his case,” McGinn said. “We vote on levies all the time, and we approve the ones we think make sense. To argue the voters shouldn’t get a say about the largest tax increase in city history is beyond belief.”
Another big part of this conversation regarding the proposed deep-bore tunnel is that it would increase traffic volume on city streets, especially north and south of downtown. Not only is the tunnel antipodal to mass-transit, it’s the worst example of car-centric transportation. The tunnel includes no plans for anything but car lanes inside of it and assumes that the higher-density Seattle of the future will still chiefly rely on personal automobile ownership for transportation. It’s a terrible idea in the present and will age terribly as the population increases in our city.
I don’t think the tax increase, which is being misrepresented, has anything to do with McGinn’s opposition to the tunnel. His record has shown that he is idealogically opposed to any investment in transportation that is not exclusively dedicated to mass transit. Unfortunately, the tunnel is not about making Seattle a better place for cars but rather to build on Seattle’s two greatest assets which are (a) that it is one of the few cities in the world with a (potentially) attractive downtown waterfront and (2) that it is the closest port to Asia in the US. The tunnel will beautify our waterfront while ensuring freight mobility for the port. If McGinn has an alternative that can do both of these things, we need to hear it, soon, and in detail. If not, he will be doing great damage to our city for his own peculiar Sierra Club dogma.
The tunnel is not being developed for cars. The tunnel is being developed to beautify Seattle’s waterfront while maintaining freight mobility for the port while preserving a crucial artery. Have you been to Portland, Vancouver, or San Francisco lately and seen their downtowns and waterfronts? We compete against these and other cities for talent, which in turn creates jobs. Talented young people are moving to cities for their attractiveness and quality of life. We absolutely need to make the most of our waterfront asset while preserving freight mobility for the port and not further increase the traffic strain on I-5 as it runs through the city. If you or McGinn have a good alternate solution, we would love to hear it.
I think you are off. The viaduct is what keeps the waterfront accessible to everyone. The viaduct allows 100,000+ people experience the waterfront every day. Who owns all the buildings behind the viaduct? The sponsors of the tunnel bill. Just like Paul Allen owns Belltown Selig and three other developers will own the waterfront. Almost completely.
The main problem is that Nickels has an arrogance problem and delusion. He forgot what is to be in touch with the reality. Is the disease that many politicians get in their second or third term. In this moments of economic uncertainty it is to keep it simply and solve the problems easy and fast for the main benefit of the population. Some examples of arrogance it is the final decision to built two stadiums to create more havoc downtown for the benefit of the elite of team owners and those that do not care to spend a lot of money in tickets.
Ce finni
Just like most people in Seattle, I think the tunnel is going to be too expensive. However, I haven’t seen what these “new and better alternatives” are. Show us some maps with proposed solutions.
This man doesn’t have an alternative… I wish people would figure that out… He just has a “No” and is doesn’t have anything planned that would work for everyone… Just sayin?!? Hopefully, he can prove me wrong… This mayoral race is going to turn into picking someone that can do the least damage…
I disagree. A comprehensive strategy to move people and goods (in the city as well as in the region), even one that wants to rely heavily on public transportation, would see plenty of benefits in the tunnel option. 1. the tunnel serves an immensely important need for thru traffic (which keeps Seattle in the center’s of the regions commercial N-S corridor); 2. the tunnel feeds important components of the waterfront (port, ferry docks), keepint it alive; 3. a tunnel option offer potential (alas not in the current WS-DOT design) for much more compact surface imporvements that would benefit a more livable-walkable and enjoyable waterfront environment (ah, also conducive to more public transportation oriented efforts).
The viaduct replacement is a one in a century opportunity to rethink-revisit the entire downtown connection to its waterfront, providing development and opportunities as well as potential open spaces for a grown-up city. Cost, in comparison, is a poor way to measure it.
McGinn may be closer to how the future will unfold in terms of the heavier emphasis on mass transit. Bottom line, all bids on the tunnel should have a “no cost overrun, no delay” clause. If the procedure is good, costs should be either at or under the bid. If not, cancel the tunnel and go to an alternative of old methods w/ reduced costs and better predictability. With the trend toward cost overruns in large projects, the actual cost would be way over $5 billion and numerous delays. Without a ceiling on costs, let McGinn approach it from a most simpler method. The tunnel would be a solution, but the costs will affect the average person adversely.
Early on the rebuilding of the Viaduct “as is” was DISMISSED. Perhaps I do not understand well enough what the VISION for the waterfront is, but to me making a large park there is not ideal. We have economic funding problems with park maintenance as well as parks attract the homeless and or drug users. All the property values along the route will increase at Taxpayers expense.
With new technologies why can’t we rebuild the Viaduct to look more appealing and be done with it?
It is very feasible to strengthen and rebuild the existing viaduct, though when WSDOT hired their pet consulting firm T. Y. Lin, they said a remodel would cost too much and the much more expensive preferred plan WSDOT wanted would be so much better. T.Y. Lin had over $20 million dollars in ongoing contracts with WSDOT at the time, so you can imaging they knew the answer their customer wanted to hear.
There is a local Seattle group that wants to strengthen and remodel the viaduct with a quieter roadbed, sound suppression panels at a cost below $600m. I have an engineering background and believe the Twelker & Gray structural remodel of the viaduct is quite doable. You can bet WSDOT & SDOT do NOT like that idea one bit.
So recent history. The infamous “Viaduct Stakeholders Group” was organized, vetted and run by WSDOT, SDOT and the King County transportation departments. I went as a public observer to several meetings. All the members of the stakeholders group were chosen exclusively by these transportation departments. The majority of members were “cars are evil”, surface option, transit only solution partisans with just a few token “save the elevated Viaduct option” members. Each meeting’s agenda was supplied by the transportation departments and the meeting chaired usually by SDOT dept head Grace Cunician (sp?). The effect, perhaps unintentional, was a sham PR dog and pony show that not so amazingly concluded a very expensive solution was called for - the deep bore tunnel with contractor pleasing massive new public works projects at each end of the viaduct corridor (BNSF tailtrack mitigation, Port of Seattle pork…etc). The “cars are evil” People’s Waterfront Coalition and Allied Arts boosters got what they wanted as well; a elevated Viaduct free tiny part of the Seattle Downtown waterfront.
When you walk the length of the existing Viaduct as I have you notice many important things. The elevated Viaduct only impacts a small part of Seattle’s waterfront. It turns away from the waterfront heading up toward the Battery Street Tunnel leaving blocks and blocks of unspoiled waterfront all the way to the Bell Harbor Center, the SAM Sculpture Park further north and at least 1 1/2 miles of Myrtle Edwards Park with lovely Puget Sound water frontage. All of this waterfront is quite devoid of people most of the time except for the occasional bike commuter continuing to Seattle from Interbay and Ballard. We have 2+ miles of EXISTING non-viaduct downtown waterfront right now without spending a dime and yet the 10 blocks in front of only half the waterfront piers is considered worth $4.2 billion to restore ! Our waterfront is cut off from the upper city core by elevation and topography not the Viaduct. Don’t believe me, walk along all of it or look at a topo map. This is scandalous. The Viaduct will come down but 14 stoplights and 5 lanes of car congestion will take it’s place. My understanding is, the current configuration of the deep bore tunnel has NO downtown entrances or exits. The “cars are evil crowd” waves their arms and proclaims the new design will substantially reconnect the Seattle street grid. This is hogwash, just study a map for goodness sakes. Our grid is constrained by hilly topology, Queen Ann Hill, south Lake Union, the Interlake train tracks, I-5 …etc…etc. Reconnecting the street grid works in flat mid-west urban centers NOT Seattle.
San Francisco’s Embarcadero “Freeway” removed to open up their waterfront was NEVER A FREEWAY, it was a 1 mile long elevated on-ramp to the neighboring bay bridge. The short elevated Embarcadero was supposed to be a piece of a much bigger 10 mile long freeway project circumnavigating downtown San Francisco, but was never completed. Unlike our Viaduct the Embarcadero never carried substantial thru traffic. Like I said it was just a white elephant on/off ramp to the bay bridge. Any comparison to the Seattle Viaduct is intentionally misleading “apples to oranges” which many in the Allied Arts crowd probably know full well. Tell a lie often enough though and soon it is taken as fact by too many parties around an issue. Big Oil lies and so do my fellow well intentioned enviro friends. As long as the end is justified, the means are not questioned. Sadly Mike McGinn has a very slick video regarding the San Francisco Embarcadero which never (intentionally I fear) mentions any of the true context of this elevated roadway. Propaganda in service to a cause we like should still be labeled as such - factually inaccurate propaganda, lest we on the progressive left become hypocrites no better than the Bush era Iraq War neo-con boosters we like to demonize.