I lived through the Big Dig. Boston would have chosen just about anything else if they had a mulligan. And it leaks.

Instead of a mass of freeways they have this in Boston now:
file:///2008_Greenway_Boston_2739303146.jpg">File:2008_Greenway_Boston_2739303146.jpg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/file:///2008_G&hellip">File:2008_G…

"Big Dig West"

Right because that was a tunnel, and this is a tunnel, so they must be the same!

" But it didn’t really reduce congestion. It lengthened automobile trips and relocated congestion to other choke points. And other projects could have increased regional mobility at a cheaper price."

That's nice and all, but the point of the tunnel is not to do any of those things. It's to replace existing capacity.

"Besides, most of those trips are trying to get to downtown and a tunnel will mean a less direct route."

That's why we are not building a tunnel with the same capacity as the Viaduct. We are talking about the cross town trips.

"Seattle’s strong commitment to being an environmental leader should begin with reducing car trips, not increasing them"

As the anti-tunnel types love to point out, the tunnel is a reduction in capacity. The idea is to preserve the corridor for cross town trips instead of running them down the waterfront as the surface supporters want.

What we should be doing is working to get Ballard/West Seattle light rail on the ballot. Let the State take care of the cross town trips while we build a light rail system to handle the trips downtown.

But that would require a Mayor with an ability to lead instead of just bloviate so I'm not holding my breath.

Bad link, meant to link to this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co…

Sometimes, like Gaddafi, people like the Governator and the Council get stuck on stupid.

You'd think with massive budget problems, this traffic-slowing Deeply Slow Tunnel would have been the first of the Lower Capacity Than Before projects they would have killed.

But no, have to kickback to the property developers and their limo-riding friends who want a straight shot to their private jets at Boeing Field ...

The Big Dig wasn't really for Bostonians; it was for people passing through the city. Most people I knew when I lived in Boston didn't drive or own cars, but unlike Seattle, Boston has a viable, useful transit system (that was built early on when human, or Irish, lives were cheap).

One thing all of these commentaries have in comment is that they don't bother to address what happens after you "stop digging." Another ten years of fighting and squabbling while waiting for the BIg One to take down the Viaduct? I don't want that, but I'm starting to think that is exactly what the Stranger crowd does want!

@6 Come on Will, you know how State finances work. I'd be all for amending the Constitution or shifting to a sales tax on gas model, but gas tax revenues are still coming in in sufficient amounts.

Peter: Seattle has similar per capita transit use to Boston. We have a pretty amazing bus system.

@8 no, the Mayor has been clear the existing Viaduct should be torn down now, rather than later.

Again, you literally move MORE SLOWLY in the Designed By Termites tunnel than you do on either the existing Viaduct, or a replacement Surface Plus Transit or a replacement modern Viaduct.

And all for MORE COST.

Someone has to pay for the cost overruns - and those will come out of Seattle Citizens - both renters and buyers - in addition to the $8 to $10 roundtrip TOLL to use it (hah!)

@10, I use our bus system and I beg to differ. It's a pale, pale shadow of the T.

Will: Just tear down the Viaduct. With no replacement. OK, that's a great plan. Thanks for clearing that up. You're a wonderful advocate for your camp.

Man, I'd loooove me some West Seattle to Ballard light rail. But that's not going to happen in the next 50 years or so. I fell for the monorail, got excited, and watched as we put that project to death after 5 public votes.

I really could care less whether we have a tunnel or a rebuild. I simply don't buy the surface option--not because I'm a hater, it would be great if it would work. But last time I checked, right at the point where I-5 N chokes down to two through lanes, the state wisely built a convention center over the freeway. All you surface option fans keep talking about how "improvements" to I-5 can take up the slack, how the FUCK are they going to squeeze in a third through lane at the exact point where I-90 traffic merges into the two through lanes? Build ANOTHER set of express lanes? Just not going to happen.

The tunnel, whether you hate it or not, has the momentum. It has the backing of the council and the state. There is a plan in place, and contracts have been signed. Ditching this agreement, which by definition is a compromise, means another decade of "thinking it over". Meanwhile, the area grows, and we're stuck with a dangerous highway used by over a 100,000 people a day.

@13 You asked a question. I answered.

You seem to think that a very large coalition of groups is "me". Which is amusing - I think the first time I even donated to said groups was last Friday, and I can't recall being involved in their planning or going to any meetings. But I did drink some beer and have a brat, and listened to people who mostly hadn't even been involved in this process until it went so seriously off track that the Citizens decided it was a catastrophe ...

@14 really?

Then why does the polling show otherwise?

Did we magically complete the mandatory DEIS hearings when the Stranger and everyone wasn't watching?

Did the mandatory federal EPA and other hearings suddenly occur without anyone knowing about it?

Tell me, are you involved in nuclear reactor operations, by any chance?

#14 - I feel exactly the same way. I don't really care about the tunnel, but I do care about not starting this entire process over from zero. This debate has been going on for 10 years. There is no overwhelming public support for any of the options we have. At least we have a plan in place. I have yet to hear from an anti-tunnel person a likely scenario to prevent another 10 years of process if they stop the tunnel. I have yet to hear a surface/transit person who is willing to subject that option to the same public vote that they demand for the tunnel. It is so painfully obvious where this movement to stop the tunnel is headed, and I can only conclude that the anti-tunnel group WANTS nothing to happen so that eventually an earthquake takes care of the viaduct and we have a surface option, by default (along with horrible death and destruction)

Technically, the DEIS has alternatives in it. When they find one plan is Really Really Insane they dump it and replace it with something sane.

Like a Rebuilt Viaduct or Surface Plus Transit.

But those would be cheaper, have higher capacity, move more freight, cause less congestion, have more transit, and not put the Citizens of Seattle at risk to line the pockets of Developers and the limo-riding private-jets-at-Boeing-Field-using billionaires and millionaires that love them.

Rebuilt Viaduct would be a crime against God.

Can't wait to put a surface option up for a vote! And then a rebuild! Yay for another decade of doing nothing!

@16 you didn't answer the most basic question the surface option faces: how can I-5 be "improved" to take up the majority of traffic currently on 99. You don't because you can't.

Regarding polling, who gives a fuck?!? Saying yes to the idea of light rail linking Ballard to West Seattle is so far away from an actual plan, with dedicated taxing authority which it would need (count on Oly giving us a big fuck you for a non-state project) and a clear right of way (which took the Monorail project over three years to secure) that it's like asking people if they like sunshine.

Try polling that project once the tax hit is calculated and people are faced with reality and not some vague vision of future transit.

@8 - Yes, tear it down ASAP. That's what San Francisco did after their Embarcadero Freeway was damaged in the earthquake (you'll be amazed how fast that can be done these days). We had exactly the same arguments about repair vs. surface vs tunnel. Clear heads prevailed and now we have a delightful waterfront highway, garden, parking, and pedestrian access. Look and learn, Seattle. Watch the video ...
http://www.streetfilms.org/lessons-from-…

"There is no overwhelming public support for any of the options we have."

Actually a clear majority agrees that the viaduct should come down. We can do that, end the danger, create a minimal surface option, then go back to designing a future.

But The Boondoggle needs the excuse of the viaduct to exist. Else it'd already be gone. And why it will hang around for years as insurance.

Repair the viaduct.

This idea of "build the tunnel or you get no transit" is ridiculous, especially since the only transit in this plan is a few thousand service hours that expire when the tunnel opens. So is this idea that nothing will happen if we don't build the tunnel, as though failure to support the tunnel means nobody will tear down the viaduct.

If the viaduct is dangerous, any politician that decides that turning down the tunnel is a reason to keep the viaduct up is basically writing their own pink slip.

@23 has it right: tear the damn thing down.

@23: You've never, EVER, driven down Alaska Way -- on the real live surface street -- at 5:00pm on a weekday, have you?

Little thing called a "Ferry Terminal" in the path of traffic that fucks the hell out of your bright idea.

Ben @10:

I know for a fact that you're smart enough to know that you just spouted a lie.

Boston's commute transit share is 34.5% to our 19.5%.

Off-peak mode share in Boston remains well above 20%; ours drops to less than 10%.

A majority of Seattle residents refuse to put up with riding Metro, under any circumstances, ever. I dare you to find a Boston-area resident who doesn't use the T at least sometimes.

Service quality and frequency reflect that. Completely spontaneous transit travel is feasible. There are virtually no trips that take 5 times longer than than they would by car (the minimum standard here).

The two systems aren't even in the same league. As I've said who knows how many times on S.T.B., you can't improve our crap transit until you recognize that it's crap and that most people don't willingly immerse themselves in crap.

Ballard and Magnolia will be dramatically hindered with the new tunnel. Businesses in those communities will drop radically.
1. Few people will travel one to two hours to get to Ballard or Magnolia from the south.
2. My business is marinas. Half of my cliental comes from south of Seattle. People will not pay $5/trip (the cost of two gallons of gas by the time the tunnel is finished) to go 10 miles. Yes it cuts down on tunnel traffic but it also drastically cuts the opportunities we currently have to traverse the city to businesses that cater to the public and tourism.
3. The new tunnel option will not improve the standard of life in Seattle, it will limit it, not to mention the $$$ out of your pocket.
4. Most every one I have talked to have said rebuild the viaduct. Politicians don’t get it! If you want business to stay in Seattle then you need to provide a means to do business.

@6

Being called stupid by you Will is like being called ugly by a toad.

San Francisco's Embarcadero is nice for tourists; but when one wants to go from south to north or vice-versa, it is 'way too slow. In coming from Palo Alto, I often take the bridge to Oakland, then another bridge back to Marin to avoid the sluggish pace through the City.

If we don't retrofit the current AW Viaduct, the clear winner is a cable-stayed bridge replacement: re a tunnel--any tunnel--far cheaper, far less risky, far greater capacity, aesthetic in the extreme, far greener (no need for lotsa power for fans and pumps), downtown on- and off-ramps, a restaurant and observation deck on top, elevators to the buses, a signature icon to welcome tourists (nicer-looking than the Golden Gate or the Oakland Bay bridges), full-width lanes, full-width shoulders, no ADA-egress restrictions, no height restrictions, no claustrophobia, no tolls--you name it, the superior solution. Otherwise, take down the Viaduct and what is revealed?: a bunch of ugy old brick warehouses! Nice. Great tourist attraction...ya sure, you betcha.

Ham

Dumb as a Ham @ 31: "Take down the Viaduct and what is revealed?: a bunch of ugy old brick warehouses!"

Greatest laugh the Slog comments have given me in a while. Seattle really is the most tasteless place on earth, isn't it?

Let me guess... you live in one of these: http://publicola.com/wp-content/uploads/…