He's got a point. God, Nickels is a douche.

mcginn needs to win this thing.... seattle is taking its final turn for the worse.... if nickels or god-forbid mallahan wins then these next four years WILL tip seattle over its threshold.... our little progressive green city will be a parody of itself (much like capitol hill now is, culturally speaking) and peeps will flock to portland or where ever....

"which would be less expensive: a deep bore tunnel under downtown, which Nickels prefers, or McGinn's preference for a surface transit option"

That comparison would make sense if they DID THE SAME THING.

Wait, surface/transit means WIDENING I-5?

Dude, you really think restriping I-5 is going to have the same risk of cost overruns as a two-mile deep bore tunnel under the city? That's laughable.

And one reason not to use the WSDOT surface-transit numbers: they include a half billion dollars to rebuild a mile of the viaduct south of King Street.

Today the Seattle Weekly reported that, "The final state taxpayer cost of the project is thus $6.14 billion - or $3 billion a tunnel mile - not counting any interest that Seattle taxpayers may additionally incur"

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweek…

The $6.14 billion also does not include cost overruns or improvements to Mercer or Spokane streets that the tunnel will require.

The numbers look good to me. How funny that you may suggest that McGinn can't estimate numbers, yet have no questioning of the current mayor who couldn't make up his mind, for it, against it, for it, against it. Hmmmmmmm, who could possibly be dishonest, a man who cant decide what he wants and is now stuck in one position or risk changing positions just for the political cash or a man who was against it from the begging with a proven track record of supporting more transportation options for the city. I wonder.

I agree with w7ngman: McGinn's plan serves downtown (where the majority of viaduct traffic now exits), Nickel's doesn't.

It would be nice if the argument was about the merit of one plan over the other, rather than over cost. Both plans will go over budget.

The stakeholder's preferred alternative is: I-5/Surface/Transit Hybrid Scenario link from the Federal Highway Administration, King County, Washington State Dept. of Transportation and Seattle Dept. of Transportation:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FAF…

You want facts about this debate? Check out tunnelfacts.com for the real scoop. The tunnel is a poor decision reached through an even poorer process; that will make us all poor.

I'm confused. He would saddle us with a much worse plan in the name of saving just 100 million dollars (100 million that we clearly have by his own admission)?

Nickels estimated the cost of surface/transit at $3.5 billion. McGinn's got it at $2.4b. The difference is $1.1b in "moving forward" funds, the work that's already started on the north and south ends.

Dominic, can you resolve this discrepancy? Is McGinn omitting a huge piece of the project, or is Nickels padding the cost?

@11 "serves downtown (where the majority of viaduct traffic now exits)"

The majority of traffic on the viaduct goes through and does not exit downtown. From the north or south, only 30% of traffic gets on or exits downtown and only half of that uses the downtown exit/on-ramp that will be eliminated. Downtown traffic will be served fine by exits at the end of the tunnel and surface streets into the core.

Being from West Seattle it's still inane to me that the proposed tunnel does not have an exit in downtown Seattle... I understand thats b/c it is likely very expensive to engineer, but the point is that 40-50% of the traffic on the viaduct uses those exits... So what is the point.

The head of the International Energy Admin has pretty much said in the last month that Peak Oil is right around the corner (I think its here already, but when the IEA says its close, you can be sure its not far).

Do we REALLY think electric cars are going to replace gas cars as quickly as the latter dissappear with oil? I think the US is in a long term transformation to a place with less cars and its going to be rocky... the best we can do for ourselves is not committ to difficult, expensive engineering projects that don't solve the problem... finding more solutions that are non-car based.

I'm grateful McGinn is making this the center of his campaign... he needs to stay focused on it and talk about the relationship of Peak-Oil to this problem. I've spoken to him about this and he knows the issues with oil depletion, but politicians seem loath to tell voters that there is a strong possibility that the oil will not even be there to run the cars anyhow.

@ 18 & 19, I'm not sure if you're looking at numbers or going with your gut... So here's some for you to work with.

The Bored Tunnel proposal has a MAXIMUM capacity that is 60% of the existing AWV.

That pencils out because WSDOT expects the overwhelming majority of traffic from Ballard/NW and West Seattle/SW to be using surface streets to get into and out of Downtown.

Some have estimated that as high as 20% of current trips could "disappear" as drivers choose alternative routes, travel at alternative times of day, or simply choose not to make discretionary trips.

WSDOT's own studies also show that adding merely a $1 toll on the new tunnel would result in 40,000 fewer trips -- approx 35% of current travelers.

We also hear concerns about freight, but most of the freight trips currently in the corridor will not use the tunnel, either -- because they are traveling to/from the NW and SW or because their "hazardous cargos" would not be allowed in the Tunnel.

So, exactly who are we spending billions of dollars on this tunnel to move?

@8, @12: It's actually in the WAC that WSDOT must preserve or increase vehicle carrying capacity whenever they do revisions to the state highway system (or at least it was a few years ago - did they finally axe that to move forward the S/T option?), so I don't think it's "unfounded specualtion" to say they're in the highway business and going to be institutionally opposed to the surface/transit option.

Too funny. A surface transit option in a city with an additional 110,000 cars from a removed viaduct clogging our streets. Somebody needs to tell our pseudo-envirnmentalist McGinn that he is Cascades , not the loony Sierras.

@8, Why so easily defeated by simple regulations? You make it sound like vast laws have to be changed, when it could easily be found that we can satisfy the regulation though mobility gains from good stuff like investing in transit.

The WAC (WA Admin Code) is regulations, not statutes. Regulations can (and should) be changed by the Secretary of Transportation with a quick administrative process.

It's not actually widening, tunnel babies, it's called "removing non-productive lanes from parking use to more productive traffic and transit and bike use".

Or as we like to call it ... telling you to stop driving so frickin much.

Wait,

Did anyone even notice he didn't answer the core question...

How would McGinn pay for the Seawall, Utilities, and surface street replacement (i.e. the $930 M). He assumes the state will...but there is no way the state will pay for a reduction of capacity.

McGinn is out of touch with the reality of the state. How is an ex-Sierra club leader going to get Republican from Wenatchee to eliminate the route their apples take to the port, or otherwise clog the streets in front of their trucks?

That's because you're wrong...

The State/WSDOT is not required to maintain the existing vehicle capacity. Transit advocates and enviros got that changed.

WSDOT now is required to look at throughput -- moving the same or more numbers of people and freight through a corridor. So, if we can provide options for moving more people through the corridor (such as by transit) or put in place incentives to make those trips at alternate times (or not at all) we can move forward.

This is why WSDOT was able to certify the Surface+Transit+I-5 option as a possibility, as well as to certify the Bored Tunnel proposal which only has 60% of the vehicle capacity currently available on the Viaduct.

@25 The Port and State both have a stake in fixing the seawall - both would profit by it and both should pay for at least part. The $930 million should not be shouldered by Seattle alone.

it is also true that Seattle should not have to pay for all of the cost overruns on a tunnel project we don't even get to manage (Tunnel is managed by WSDOT, not the city). Both of these are a bad deal for Seattle.

@20, "So, exactly who are we spending billions of dollars on this tunnel to move? "

anybody north or south of downtown that doesn't want to go downtown? which is 70% of those trips. And the 99 corridor is still viable for those that want to go to the downtown core with offramps before and after the tunnel itself.

Why does the bored tunnel have a maximum capacity 60% of the viaduct? Because it is two lanes? So is the current battery street tunnel.

Freight, Ballard to SODO is better off on Elliot right now, today. Don't hang out this red herring.

A real issue here, though, is that the mayors race has become a proxy referendum for the viaduct, which is too bad.

Ahoy Schmucky,
60% of viaduct users take downtown exits. The tunnel is only helpful to 40% of travelers. 70% of Seattle doesn't want the tunnel. 90% of these mega transportation projects go over budget (according to an Oxford study). When they do go over budget, they do so by an average of 30%. 100% of which would be for Seattle taxpayers to pay.