Comments

1
Drivers will have an incentive to avoid the Tunnel - duh. $10 roundtrip to ride the same route and have it take 15-20 minutes LONGER? I mean of course we'll be avoiding it. Faster to just hop across the Fremont Bridge or take an exit after the Aurora Bridge and use one of the other arterials.

Kind of hard to help freight mobility when it literally cuts off 40 to 50 percent of the current freight trips taken on the existing Viaduct. Especially with the other two CHEAPER alternatives having 50 percent MORE VEHICLE AND FREIGHT CAPACITY than the Tunnel Of Debt.

Next month is volcano month, after this month being quake month. In the event that Rainier goes, the hot molten mud and scurf will literally burn out the air vents and the resulting disaster that we can't even rescue school kids by airlift from, will mean anyone trapped below in the Deep Burial Tunnel will die cold and wet alone when the power is cut (see devastation) and we won't even get to the bodies for two weeks (if ever). The doors will be frozen shut (no power, covered in up to six feet of ash while all crews busy with the hundreds of thousands of victims still alive) and you'll be left there.

At least with surface plus transit or an elevated viaduct rebuild you'd have a chance of escaping. But not in the tunnel. No downtown exits, remember?
2
Blah blah blah, Billionaire's Tunnel, blah.
3
A tunnel for 38,000 or fewer trips? What the...
4
That SDOT freezeout is troubling. I can't wait to read the full report - I really enjoyed seeing Tim Payne's presentation in january.

And Will, your Mt. Rainier eruption-apocalypse fantasy story gets more baroque every time. Maybe in the next version you can add in scantily clad vixens or something.
5
Thank you, Stranger, for not giving up on this. The Tunnel is tragedy and to stop it is to care about the future of Seattle.
6
Will Waggener-Edstrom break out its comment spammers this late in the day?
7
More traffic = more interesting Traffic Reports.
8
@6 they would if i'd posted a short link on my twitter feed. Unless they're at some all-day crab feed for PR peeps.
9
What about the personal-jetpack alternative? That has the same funding mechanism as surface/transit (= none). Does anyone else find it odd that this report neglects to mention that the only significant source of funding CAN be used for a tunnel but CANNOT be used under our State Consitution for surface or transit? Cienna, how can you put up a post of this length without at least mentioning that surface/transit is just an unfunded fantasy?
10
@9 everyone knows that's not true. look at the DBT tunnel plan - that includes transit.

try another lie.
11
Wait, Will is talking about Rainier erupting and burying the tunnel now? Do you even know what a topographical map is, Will? Rainier could blow in the biggest eruption and mudslide of all time and it wouldn't reach the Seattle waterfront. Puyallup, Auburn, Kent, Tacoma, yeah; Alaskan Way no. Of all the possible disaster scenarios, that one isn't even on the list.
12
@9
So if we kill the Tunnel there won't ever be another chance to fix this in a SMART way?
13
The surface-transit option you describe is a Unicorn-- it assumes the state would be willing to widen I-5. I don't see that happening.
14
@12: There won't ever be a way to spend a billion dollars of gas tax revenues on surface or transit, since our State constitution prohibits it. If you can figure out where to get a billion other dollars, then you should be working for the Legislature, cuz we're about five billion short at last count.
15
I will pay the toll and I'm not a millionaire or a billionaire.
17
@11 you do know where it ends, right?

each time you express surprise at what I say and then later some engineer admits that technically I'm correct.

seriously, Fnarf ...
18
@12 @14 that's what they said when we killed the Wetlands Destroying Carbon Emitting "Roads plus Transit" plan (3/4 roads, 1/4 transit).

and they came back with a Transit with minor bridge/onramp plan instead.

never underestimate how much they're pretending they "can't" do something.

We can't afford the Deeply Borrowed Tunnel - that's for sure.

So a CHEAPER alternative?

Yeah, we can afford that one a heck of a lot more.
19
@14: What are you talking about? They spend hundreds of millions on state roads statewide, even in the middle of the city. Numerous roads in the city are signed as state roads like SR513 and SR523. Since those are surface you think the state is just going to ignore them?

As far as transit, there are equitable ways like this to use gas tax for transit upgrades.

@16: Yes, these people would overlook a gigantic chunk of the City of Seattle like West Seattle.
20
@16 - YEAH FUCK WEST SEATTLE! Now they'll have the same travel time to Downtown as every other neighborhood in Seattle without a Hill in its name(Queen Anne, Capitol, First, Beacon). Poor babies!
21
@20: No, even conservatively speaking West Seattle will still have an advantage with numerous access points to I-5, I-90 and the ability to bypass the central city and head directly to other generally N/S thoroughfares like 23rd, Boren, a widened I-5 and so on.

And even then, they're also getting a bunch of transit investments and the city is paying pretty sharp focus on providing them with direct light rail access.
22
@9, Folks -- including Nick Licata -- need to stop repeating this fact... because it's not entirely correct.

The Tunnel Proposal is not funded solely with gas tax monies. There's an expected $300 million commitment from the Port, $190 million for transit improvements (presumably through a county/Metro funding mechanism to be approved by the Legislature), city funds to replace the Seawall, and more...

ALL of these things will need to be done under ANY replacement alternative. Plus, gas tax monies COULD be used for street improvements in the corridor as well as I-5 capacity improvements under a surface scenario.
23
@14 - So if they cancel the tunnel, they'll never, ever try to address the viaduct issue in a different way? That doesn't sound very likely. The state is still responsible for maintaining its infrastructure; they'll have to do something.

It's obvious to anyone who's paying attention that the tunnel is a horrible plan, but people still support it solely because the money is there to build it. I've YET to hear any pro-tunnel voice argue for it on its traffic-moving merits. It's always about the funding. I wonder why that is....
24
I wish you were still whining about the monorail instead of the tunnel.
25
I want a pony.
26
#9/22: It also ignores the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars of the same gas tax that is going to the viaduct replacement, is TODAY going to Amtrak Cascades, ferries, bike trails, rural transit, transit centers, etc etc etc.

Saying the state constitution can only be used to build highways is like saying the US constitution says freedom of speech only applies to talking, not writing.
27
@25: I have 3, do you want one?

They're magic.
28
@17, no engineer has ever in the history of the world "admitted" or otherwise confirmed that you are correct. You ARE never correct.

"It" ends at the Tacoma waterfront outflow of the Puyallup River, and if large enough it could follow the White into Auburn and, I suppose, eventually Lake Washington via the Green River. But no mudflow is going to come down the Duwamish; the Puyallup will take it first. ALL of it. And of course the Nisqually and Cowlitz systems to the south (though few people live there).

If you live in Orting, you are deeply screwed. If you are in downtown Seattle, you will be fine (until the ash starts to fall). A little flooding -- WATER flooding, not lahars or "burning scurf", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean -- in the Duwamish valley, maybe, but that's not really that unusual.

The state and the feds both have prepared vast quantities of materials on potential lahar damage from a Rainier eruption. It's all available online, including some really quite nice maps which utterly contradict your claim.

You are, quite simply, WRONG. 100% wrong. Blatantly wrong. Obviously wrong.

And you won't find a single engineer anywhere on earth to back you up, just like you have NEVER found anyone to back up any of the hundreds of other stupid, anti-factual claims you make here all the freaking time. Even the crazies think you're full of it.

In short, on this topic as on all others, YOU ARE A TURD. Flush yourself.
29
@27, I want a pony with an appetite for Will in Seattle's throat.
30
@29: Her name is cinnamon, she's quite nice otherwise.
31
If she grants me this one wish, I will brush her hair every night FOR HOURS.
32
I'll get her all dolled up, put on her pony mascara, add a bow, give her a finger wave, then send her right over. Can't have her looking cheap, she's gotta look like a My Little Pony or else she'll be completely unloved.
33
Seriously guys, you need to compare both surface option and tunnel to gloat. If the state omitted facts or statistics, clearly thats fucked up, but it doesn't mean the surface option is any better. All this does is push the "Tear Down / Re-Build" option as a valid solution should voters reject the tunnel, should it be on the ballot this year.
34
@33: No, it doesn't.

It actually does the opposite of what you said and completely contradicts the tired "if we lose, you'll get a rebuild" line of thinking you're so fond of. Read it again.
35
Cognitive dissonance Seattle style, or how the elite get the rest of us to vote against our best interests: The Viaduct works great and rebuilding it is the only option that keeps the same amount of traffic and freight moving, doesn't cause lots and lots of people to avoid downtown and surrounding areas and would cost way less than the tunnel, but it's ugly/dirty/noisy/immoral/causes crime/blocks people from walking to the waterfront/makes us not a world class city/ gives people riding the ferries an unflattering impression of the city, SO it's even discussed any more.Boo.
36
@35: The report points out that surface/I-5 easily accommodates our freight needs and doesn't need much help in managing traffic either. And this is just a summary.

Plus, it gives I-5 a pretty clear fast lane in the core and adds enough capacity to absorb most of the tunnel traffic. You know, if folks wanna bypass the core so badly ;)
37
"Tear Down / Re-Build" is absurd. Voters won't go for it and the impacts too vast/stupid for even WSDOT to try.

Only solution remaining, folks, is to Repair the Viaduct.

"You heard it here first."
38
Silver linings at the edge of seattle's dark cloud are brighter than other cloud form, speaking of Seattle's 'renown' landscape and mismatched transport & transit planners who don't do the best work here and there, but won't take advice from outside more successful engineering departments. I suspect the Righties won't listen to the Liberals whose plans however are succeeding. Hm. They also build highways fer a livin. S'mazing beeuteeful countree.

This outsider thinks you're all crazy-if-unable to SEE how badly the bored tunnel conceptually falls apart. Ack! It's amazing. "Hey, let's use twice as much new concrete and recycle less of the old fer this here tunnely-thingy. That be fishent nuf fer ya?

Good news finally got here. Engineering experts agree. The DBT design too bad to not oppose. Thanx to ALL & help is welcome round here. Thank you's to Mike & Mike. And thank you's to good engineers who always knew the dbt a rotter and not to be built. It's absurd. You've got to admit it -- the mayor is right -- Surface Boulevard +Transit + Fixes to I-5 plan is BEST. Hurray! Whatta guy. You done it !! Good for you, MIKE !! and for others nearby, which I'm now sure a suit could be drawn up on national grounds and validate my outside appeal and articulate undeniable explanations about route designs and vehicle technologies. Some of you know I'm good.

The ending of the dbt nonsense is nye. Sooner the better. The DBT is OVER or at least DOWN for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th? time and counting. 1.2.3.4.5 -- We're past 5 on count of red flags -- 6, 7 -- we're at 8 or 9 on this count now.
I say ONE more count to go. Not long...til partee thyme..
39
Raku @26, quit misinforming people about what state gas tax funds can and cannot be used for. You've done this before:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

And I've called you out on this before:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

If your case to stonewall the tunnel project is so rock-solid, one would think you wouldn't have to continually resort to deception to make it.
40
It's coming down, Sucher because the boulevard design is survivable. Alaskan Way should go back to pre-AWV street configuration: 3 thru-roads+2 rail lines. Build nice medians between, 1 with out-of-traffic bikeway.

A new viaduct or a cut/cover are kept as future options if one or the other for higher capacity is unavoidable. A more elegant viaduct or an invisible cut/cover that converts the connector road past Steinbrueck Park into its grand landscaped pathway extension with no road or traffic.
It's possible. Who's got the vision, gehl? I know one.
41
@25 for the pony win.

All your tunnel is belong to #epicfail.
42
The reason that many Seattle Councilmembers gave for signing ordinance 123424 was that they wanted SDOT to be a co-lead on the project. The fact that WSDOT is now cutting SDOT out of the process is not only highly irregular but should be an alert to anyone who cares about public process. The Stranger's slant that WSDOT's recent actions are somehow a result Mayoral politics fails to recognize that a transportation agency should not be engaged in politics at all, but should be following clear public process. The story that we've heard a thousand times is that the tunnel project could go forward, if only the Mayor would stop asking questions. The real question is: why are tunnel supporters so quick to disregard good public policy?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.