Editor's Note: The bored tunnel alternative isn't just a topic of debate on the mayoral campaign trail this fall, it's also getting attention in the local courts as opponents file lawsuits to halt its construction. Randall Olsen, an attorney at the Buck Law Group—a Seattle-based land use, environmental, dispute resolution and civil litigation firm that is a Northwest Hub sponsor—provides insight into the most recent lawsuit and provides a handy timeline to track the viaduct replacement process. You can reach him by sending an email to rolsen@bucklawgroup.com.
Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel ("SCAT") and Elizabeth Campbell filed a lawsuit on Oct. 6 against Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) claiming it is violating the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The lawsuit specifically claims WSDOT is prejudicing the decision-making process through the allocation of resources toward a single Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement alternative (the bored tunnel alternative) before the environmental impacts have been evaluated and a final decision on the appropriate alternative can be made. Campbell, an anti-tunnel advocate, recent mayoral candidate, and the sole agent and chairman of SCAT, favors a replacement structure for the viaduct.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction to prohibit WSDOT from "taking any further actions that pre-judge the decision to be made with regard to the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct or actions which prejudice WSDOT's ability to make that decision." If successful, the lawsuit would halt the pre-construction activities for building the recommended bored tunnel alternative and delay the viaduct's replacement.
In mid-September WSDOT issued a request for qualifications (RFQ) seeking statements of qualifications from entities interested in submitting proposals to design and construct the SR 99 bored tunnel project. WSDOT said that it intends to award a design-build contract to the entity that offers the best value. This procurement process—the process of selecting the preferred design-build entity—is estimated to cost WSDOT between $4 million and $6 million. All of those costs would be expended on the bored tunnel option before the final environmental impact statement on the viaduct replacement alternatives is completed. (For more details about the RFQ, read Northwest Hub's coverage here.)
Campbell, who filed a similar lawsuit in federal court in September, thinks WSDOT's expenditures and resource allocations toward the bored tunnel alternative have gone too far, and are prejudicing the selection of the recommended viaduct alternative in violation of SEPA. Campbell's suit states that WSDOT "is making a mockery of the SEPA process." WSDOT is likely to respond in the coming month.
Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement: A Brief History
For many, the drama surrounding the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement process is old news. But others may realize only now that there is value in educating themselves about how we have reached this point in the viaduct replacement debate. For those people, the following timeline provides the history they have been missing.
2001 – The 6.8 magnitude Nisqually earthquake rocked Seattle, damaging the Alaskan Way Viaduct. The viaduct was temporarily shut down and repaired. Restrictions for large vehicles were put in place to reduce stress on the aging structure.
2002 – WSDOT and the City of Seattle considered an initial set of 76 viaduct replacement concepts, and then organized those concepts into six groups. The best ideas from those six groups were further distilled into five alternatives evaluated in a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). Open house meetings with the public and several meetings with agencies, tribes, businesses and neighborhood groups followed. From this process, five replacement alternatives emerged: the Rebuild, Aerial, Tunnel, Bypass Tunnel and Surface alternatives.
2004 – In December, Washington State Secretary of Transportation Doug MacDonald, Federal Highway Administration Division Administrator Dan Mathis and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels announced that the preferred alternative is a cut-and-cover tunnel along the waterfront. As a contingency plan to the preferred alternative, an elevated structure alternative was also included as a second option.
2006 – In order to study the revised cut-and-cover and elevated structure alternatives, a supplemental DEIS is published, seeking input from agencies, tribes and the public on the changes proposed.
The Washington State Legislature passed legislation requiring an expert review panel to provide an independent financial and technical review of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. The panel conducted a study reviewing the project's costs, risks, design plans and environmental process. The panel's report, which was submitted to the governor, concluded that the biggest risk, "more severe than financial and logistical hazards—is that of indecision and vacillation by political and civic leaders."
In December the governor called for an advisory vote to allow Seattle citizens to provide input on the selection of the preferred alternative.
2007 – The citizens of Seattle voted down both the surface-tunnel hybrid alternative (different than the 2006 cut-and-cover alternative) and the elevated alternative.
With no clear guidance as to how to move the viaduct replacement forward, Governor Christine Gregoire, King County Executive Ron Sims and City of Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels decided to push forward with safety and mobility improvement projects at the north and south ends of the viaduct. These projects moved forward as key political players tried to seek public consensus on a replacement solution for the central waterfront portion of the viaduct.
In December, Gregoire, Sims and Nickels entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, which established a specific collaborative process (the "Partnership Process") guided by a leadership team and a management team (the "Partnership Team").
2008 – Because the viaduct replacement programs studied in the 2004 DEIS and the 2006 supplemental DEIS were limited to the SR 99 corridor, the Partnership Team was left with conflicting alternatives for the central waterfront. The Partnership Team chose to widen the transportation area under review in order to identify new strategies for moving people in and through Seattle.
After initial review, the Partnership Team identified eight viaduct replacement scenarios; three surface roadways, two elevated roadways and three below-ground scenarios. Each system scenario was evaluated using six guiding principles: safety, transportation, economics, urban design, fiscal responsibility and natural environment.
Based upon the guiding principles, none of the eight scenarios stood out as the best performer. As a result, the Partnership Team developed three hybrid scenarios: the surface and transit hybrid, the elevated bypass hybrid and the twin-bored tunnel hybrid.
After further review the Partnership Team concluded that, while the twin bored tunnel hybrid had many attractive features, it appeared to be too costly. Those supporting the tunnel option lobbied to convene a group of independent tunnel experts to reevaluate the costs given different and more modern tunneling techniques. The tunnel experts later reported that a single-bore tunnel coupled with new techniques could meet the state's financial constraints.
2009 and Beyond – In January, Gregoire, Sims and Nickels recommended replacing the central waterfront portion of the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bore tunnel, a new waterfront surface street, transit investments, and downtown city street and waterfront improvements.
The recommended single-bore tunnel is a new alternative that has not been rigorously evaluated in an EIS as required by NEPA and SEPA. A second supplemental DEIS therefore needs to be evaluated and is currently underway. It is slated to be published in February 2010, after which a final EIS will be prepared.
The Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision is anticipated in spring of 2011. At that time the project will have a green light to go forward with construction, though construction is
unlikely to commence if Campbell's lawsuits remain unresolved.
