Seattlest: People's Waterfront Coalition: "You Win Some, You Lose Some"

Matt

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:28:33 -0800

I don't think we'll ever "run out" of oil, it will just keep getting more expensive. Peak oil refers to the point at which supply can't meet demand. After that point, prices start going up without the ability to come down. And as prices go up, people will drive less. And as people drive less, the tunnel will start to feel more and more silly.

Jeremy M. Barker

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:50:06 -0800

"Peak oil" is a canard--as we've seen with fuel prices, demand is highly related to cost, it doesn't just magically continue rising till we run out. Not that I don't agree with your message, it's just that this isn't all about green v. drivers; that's only part of the story. This isn't that good for people driving cars, either.

Matt

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:36:16 -0800

@1 Although I'd love it if they were wrong, 61% or petroleum geologists tell us that peak oil will hit us within a decade (before this thing gets built). Of course there will be some electric and plug-in hybrid cars on the road by then, but car traffic in general will decline sharply. We'll also see truck-based freight become very expensive compared to rail, and we've had a rail tunnel through downtown for over a century that connects our north and south terminals (and it only cost $1.5M to build - in two years - by hand).

MvB

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:33:32 -0800

From where I'm sitting, the tunnel "consensus" is actually three parties each blindly doing their own thing. Seattle gets its waterfront back, the county gets more transit, and the state maintains a "vital north-south corridor." Am I outraged? More nonplussed that we waited years for this. There's a huge irony in the fact that--after everyone has been complaining for decades about the bottleneck of I-5 through Seattle--the state is so set on building the one thing that is *more* physically constrained than that. Also, given that we're talking about a vital freight corridor, let's keep in mind that you can't send flammable or other hazardous materials through a tunnel. The blowback will be around cost though. Even Seattleites didn't want to spend money on a tunnel. I can't imagine--with the state's finances where they are today--that the rest of the state will thrilled to spend $3 billion for a 2-mile stretch of road that is of use primarily to those people who commute from north to south of Seattle. And bilco, the light rail to the airport opens in June. There won't be any easier, cheaper, more congestion-free way to get to Seatac than that. Park and ride.

Jeremy M. Barker

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:53:53 -0800

Bilco--Not sure I agree with your interpretation. The streets and transit option isn't all just social-engineering people out of the cars. Build a waterfront highway for all I care at this point; just don't raise it or bury it. The thing that has to be understood about the tunnel is that it's not really all that great for commuters--it doesn't actually add capacity; it's the same capacity or less (I don't know if they plan three lanes each way or just two). Now, we have to keep in mind that it won't be done for five to ten years, which means the demand for highway access will just increase over that time since, again, we're not intending to do anything to increase highway capacity, which means that more people will be demanding public transportation, which will--again--be difficult to pay for with this budget stress. And after it's done, you can't actually make it bigger or change it in a cost-effective fashion, which is what everyone agrees needs to be done to I-5 and which actually can be changed, so effectively the tunnel paints us into a corner. So in short, it's (1) expensive at a time when we might want to spend the money elsewhere, including all the other important projects; (2) doesn't improve traffic, just maintains it; (3) isn't an investment that will meet increased future needs; (4) allocates substantial funds to a non-green project, which Seattle has consistently opposed; (5) takes longer to complete, which means we spend longer with the Viaduct, which carries some danger of catastrophic failure and the long-term impact on traffic and infrastructure resulting from it becoming unusable. Bilco, I know you admit to not being sold on it, but I'm listing plenty of reasons for really opposing it. The only real benefits--the only reasons to build the tunnel, that I'm hearing--are that it opens up the waterfront (really, who cares? it'll be great for condo developers and...?) and that we need public investment in the economic down-turn. The latter's definitely true, but that's not a real reason for the tunnel--there's plenty of other ways to do public investment with more long-term benefit. I just don't get it.

bilco

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:42:51 -0800

Let's be clear - I'm by no means a tunnel diehard. I would have been more than happy with the surface/transit option. What I don't get is why (some) people are so vehement against the tunnel. Surface/transit will social-engineer some commuters to change their patterns. All for the good. When my brother in NW Ballard needs to go to the airport, I guess he could go all across town to get to I5. Doesn't seem like a good idea, when 99 is sitting there. You can't social-engineer away the need to go the airport. I'm all for putting pressure on folks to change their behaviors. But guess, what? I travel. I travel (relatively) light. And the Prius that's available at the airport is a VERY tight fit. Perhaps that's why I left my 2002 Prius at home (it sure ain't cheaper for me to take a cab to the airport [which, by the way, is typically done in a crappy 'late-model' Detroit pig]). You need to take into account our city's odd geographical constraints. In town, bike-commuting folks on the west side do need to be respected and served. For the record, I'm a Montlake-based bike commuter. Amazing how much better the east side of Seattle is served. One HUGE benefit of the tunnel is the lower construction impact. Understand - the infrastructure work on the books is going to make life very miserable for folks that have to go North-South - 1) They need to completely dig up and replace much of the I5 concrete. 2) The aforementioned 99 replacement project (whatever form it takes) 3) The 520 project - the Master use permits have been up around Husky Stadium for months 4) The Sound Transit tunnel to Husky Stadium (expected 100 trucks a day moving waste dirt from the Stadium terminus). Imagine that. 5) Oh, the incredibly successful football team from UW has decided they need a bigger stadium to house all their fans. How will anyone get north-south for the next 8 years or so??

MvB

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:44:48 -0800

I think that's the macro, Max Max view, bilco, you know, when we're shooting each other for spare gallons of gas. On a related note, I just found this "I Hate This Tunnel" post on the Seattle Transit Blog, btw.

bilco

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:24:50 -0800

Which is not to mention the reduced usefulness of a tunnel if people end up driving less. Who in the world thinks that the problem with the tunnel is going to be that it will be underused?