Recently, some supporters of the deep-bore tunnel plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct held a press conference to complain that I’ve been spreading “misimpressions” by calling the project a $4.2 billion tunnel when the price tag for the tunnel alone is $2 billion. I don’t think they convinced anyone. The press conference included a large chart with the Washington State Department of Transportation’s estimate that the total cost of the tunnel project is . . . $4.2 billion.
Of that $4.2 billion, more than $900 million is supposed to come from the citizens of Seattle. This would require the largest tax or fee increase in city history.
That’s far too much to spend on a project that won’t address the city’s basic transportation needs. And that number will probably turn out to be far too low—studies show that projects like this almost always end up costing hundreds of millions more than planned.
The fact is that there are better options that will cost far less and make more progress toward solving our pressing transportation issues.
Today Crosscut, the Seattle-based news and opinion website, has posed an op-ed I wrote that explains more about why I oppose the deep bore tunnel and what I think we should do instead. It’s titled Misimpressions’ about the Viaduct plan and if you have a moment, I encourage you to read it.
Mike:
Thanks for the reference in the Crosscut piece to the fact sheet on the surface option Plan from WSDOT. It shows that to the government types, the deep bore bypass tunnel is officially a potential add-on to the surface option if the numbers and environmental impacts work out OK. They may or may not in my opinion.
I gather you and mayoral candidate McGinn have already decided that this tunnel is a bad thing. Good for you … nice to see politicians be clear on how they stand on important questions.
I’m undecided until further along in the environmental and fiscal feasibility processes.
One of the potential good things about the tunnel is that it would provide a pure bypass of the Seattle CBD without any on or off ramps serving the CBD. If completed before the Viaduct is removed, it would provide a path for the fraction of Viaduct users who want to completely bypass the CBD from the moment that the Viaduct is closed for demolition.
I would have to note, however, that the funding of a bypass tunnel through user tolls may simply not pencil out. User tolls are key … with off-peak discounts. Our tunnel definitely should not be paid for out of general purpose taxes on all Seattle residents.
Another point: IF I were a high-speed rail fan — and I’m not — I would be holding out for a mega-tunnel under central Seattle that carries both tolled expressway lanes and dedicated rails for passenger trains. At the moment, high-speed passenger rail on the freight tracks of central Puget Sound is an impossibility.
John N