Yes, you've made that comparison before, and I remain a backer of the tunnel.

When the tunneling machine gets a mind of its own and bores to the center of the earth, how many Morlocks will the Ballard Bridge carry per day?

I think the tunnel is a great idea. The viaduct is the best and easiest way to go from one end of town to the other the tunnel would be a great replacement. It would really be a boon to the Seattle water front also.

I'm against the tunnel, and like this comparison, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

The daily through traffic on the current viaduct is probably around 63,000, since that's the amount of cars that go through the Battery Street Tunnel (and the lowest volume measured anywhere along the route). So if you have 47,000 cars in the tunnel, that means you have 16,000 extra cars forced to the surface.

You also have about 40,000 other cars that use the viaduct to or from downtown who would have to use surface streets for a portion of their route that they don't use now. But some of those are already counted in current traffic volumes for the other part of the trip. The analysis of net 40K extra cars on the surface with a tolled tunnel seems consistent with these numbers.

If you don't have the tunnel, you still have to accommodate those extra 47,000 cars somewhere (on top of the 40K you're already adding). Downtown streets have some additional capacity but aside from 6-lane monstrosities like Elliott Ave and 15th from Lower Queen Anne northward (i.e. the road that eventually goes over the Ballard Bridge) none have the capacity to carry that much traffic on a single road. Other streets would have to absorb those cars and you'd end up with massive bottlenecks at roads that are already having capacity problems (such as Denny).

People will adjust over time if capacity goes away, and in the end it's the best way to go. That's why I oppose the tunnel and any viaduct replacement. But to assume that a Ballard Bridge's worth of extra traffic isn't a big deal is not realistic.

I have been wondering about the whole tunnel issue since moving here in July. Now I know I'm a newbie, but I have made Seattle my permanent home, so I'll weigh in. I moved here from New England (Providence) HAS ANY ONE IN SEATTLE HEARD OF THE INFAMOUS BIG DIG??????????? This whole project reeks of Boston's farcical nightmare. And, what exactly is WRONG with the viaduct??? Afraid of earthquakes (though you've never had one of significance)...2.8 billion would pay for a lot of reinforcements without the years-long nightmare that will come to pass if the tunnel gets built. Not to mention, people, if there WERE an earthquake, would you want to be in a tunnel only a few yards from the bay? The Boston tunnel has already flooded and had collapses of the structure that have killed communters in their cars....and has done nothing to improve traffice flow because too many people are terrified to even use the damn thing. This is the age of cost-cuts behind everyone's backs to maximize profits, not the age of 'let's build an engineering marvel' that produced the Holland and Lincoln tunnels. Boston is proof of that....(Actually, so is New Orleans....Katrina left the decades-old homes, but anything build since 1980 was wiped away). DO YOU REALLY TRUST THAT SEATTLE WILL END UP WITH CONTRACTORS WHO CARE ABOUT LEGACY MORE THAN IMMEDIATE PROFIT???? Sorry, you say 42,000 a day?? If people have any sense at all it will be more like 420 a day, while the streets and avenues become traffic nightmares. Why are you guys always fixing things that aren't broken??
And, while we're at it (on a very personal note) why do 98% of Seattleites think it is a sin to smile? Geographically Seattle is amazing, but when I want "friendly" I have no choice but to book a couple days in Manhattan or RI or NH. But, like I said, that's just another observation. You see someone smiling here, it's a dead giveaway they're a tourist

This story should be more about what a whack-job McGinn is and how his rhetoric highlight that he has absolutely zero grasp of basic transportation policy issues, much less reality, than be an attempt to give his over reaching hyperbole any traction. There are so, so many good reasons to debate about the tunnel…why would you want to focus on one of the more laughable ones? This sort of thing makes thoughtful citizens scratch our heads and wonder….maybe the Stranger should stick to covering the next all-nude folk festival or doing reviews the newest corner adult book stores…..

First, estimating a $8.5 million value for the Ballard Bridge is just ridiculous. Following the same reasoning, a 1920’s Ballard craftsman that originally sold for $2400 would only be little under $30,000 today. Good luck getting a kitchen remodeled for that. Estimates for a new South Park Bridge…a bridge with a shorter span and less daily traffic…are currently at over $130 million.

Second, the Mayor’s argument oversimplifies the science of transportation planning and mistakenly mixes compares of usage used from the tunnel tolling study used to conservatively estimate revenue generation to existing roadway capacity on a completely separate corridor! This is not even an apples and orange sort of problem. This is a grape and #8 hardened steel hex nut sort of thing! Total daily traffic volume is an overly simplistic measure that is not the standard used for evaluating road capacity because volumes fluctuate so widely during the day and are skewed by the type of transportation corridor. This comparison ignore the fact that the Ballard Bridge/Elliot Avenue corridor is actually significantly over capacity at current volumes and has a correspondingly low level of service, which is a more representative measure of traffic capacity than daily average volumes. The tunnel will actually have a higher AM and PM peak capacity than the existing viaduct using readily accepted traffic standards, and most of the diversion (accounting for the estimated lower traffic volumes versus current capacity in the tolling study), will occur during non-peak times.

Which segues into the third reason this is absurd. The whole argument is entirely disingenuous coming from a Mayor who is systematically decreasing traffic capacity on arterials thought the City by converting travel lanes to bike lanes as part of “road diet” efforts. The Mayor’s transportation department is using the same discussions about AM and PM peaks, level of service comparisons, and so forth to rguing that fewer lanes can have more capacity because there are less conflicting traffic movements. Here is a quote from the FAQ from the City about the recent Greenwood Avenue “road diet” project. “A road diet creates more consistent traffic flow by removing conflicting movements from the travel lane.” It is just weird that an administration that is pushing the whole “road diet” concept on being the “second coming” for Seattle’s arterials is then completely rejects the same underlying principles when they are held out by WSDOT and the State.

Only 1119 days to go!

This story should be more about what a whack-job McGinn is and how his rhetoric highlights that he has absolutely zero grasp of basic transportation policy issues, much less reality, than be an attempt to give his over reaching hyperbole any traction. There are so, so many good reasons to debate about the tunnel…why would you want to focus on one of the more laughable ones? This sort of thing makes thoughtful citizens scratch our heads and wonder….maybe the Stranger should stick to covering the next folk festival…..

First, estimating a $8.5 million value for the Ballard Bridge is just ridiculous. Following the same reasoning, a 1920’s Ballard craftsman that originally sold for $2400 would be $30,000 today. Estimates for a new South Park Bridge…a bridge with a shorter span and less daily traffic…are currently at over $130 million.

Second, the Mayor’s argument oversimplifies transportation planning and mistakenly compares of usage used from the tunnel tolling study used to conservatively estimate revenue generation to existing roadway capacity on a completely separate corridor! This is not even an apples and orange sort of problem. This is a grape and #8 hardened steel hex nut sort of thing! Total daily traffic volume is an overly simplistic measure because because volumes fluctuate so widely during the day and are skewed by the type of transportation corridor the surrouding service area. This comparison ignores the fact that the Ballard Bridge/Elliot Avenue corridor is actually significantly over capacity at current peak times and has a correspondingly low level of service. Level of service is a more representative measure of traffic capacity than daily average volumes. The tunnel will actually have a higher AM and PM peak capacity than the existing viaduct using readily accepted traffic standards, and most of the diversion (accounting for the estimated lower traffic volumes versus current capacity in the tolling study), will occur during non-peak times...much like use and capacity of the Ballard Bridge is lower on a sunny summer Friday when it opens for boats more often.

Which segues into the third reason this line or reasoning is absurd. The thing is entirely disingenuous coming from a mayor who is systematically decreasing traffic capacity on arterials thought the City by converting travel lanes to bike lanes as part of “road diet” efforts. The Mayor’s transportation department is using the same discussions about AM and PM peaks, level of service comparisons, and so forth to arguing that fewer lanes can have more capacity because there are less conflicting traffic movements. Here is a quote from the FAQ from the City about the recent Greenwood Avenue “road diet” project. “A road diet creates more consistent traffic flow by removing conflicting movements from the travel lane.” It is just weird that an administration that is pushing the whole “road diet” concept as being the “second coming” for Seattle’s arterials then turns around and completely rejects the same underlying principles when they are held out by others.

Only 1119 days to go!

Actually Ballardite, the mayor's opponents do far worse by inflating the amount of traffic diversion onto city streets that the surface-transit option would result in (gridlock!) when in fact the tunnel will result in a lot of diversion as well. The strength of the Ballard bridge example is that 15th Ave NW carries all that traffic handily on both sides of the bridge, in a roadway configuration similar to what WSDOT wants to put on Alaskan Way.

What makes people who drive in Seattle so special that they shouldn't have to actually pay to use the roads they drive on? Most major cities in the US have toll roads, it's not like this is a new or unprecedented concept. It's time for the entitled car culture to start picking up the slack and pay for the major disruption that it is. If you really think you deserve a personal form of transportation capable of carrying multiple passengers and their cargo, pay up or shut up.

it makes sense to those who will have condos there,not to us commuters, the tunnel is a bad idea, I don't want to pay for it, it's over priced (like those multi-million dollar honey buckets we couldn't live without)stop spending my great grandchildrens tax dollars!!!

If the Battery Street Tunnel carries 63,000 right now, at 2 lanes in each direction... why are we all saying that the new 2-lane tunnel will only be able to carry 47,000? Because of the downtown on ramps that will no longer be there? I mean, I know that it's DESIGNED to carry 47K a day, but then, I-5 runs at 120 whatever percent of what it's DESIGNED to carry every day.

Just saying... seems like a broken comparison

Comparing construction costs from 1917 to the current day, even using inflation calculators, is misleading. The associated environmental, insurance, engineering and other modern requirements are very different now than what would have been required in 1917. I don't feel you can just treat the old total with an inflation factor and be done.

Ballardite,

Your arguments aren't very strong.

1) Yes, the 8.5 million estimate is ridiculous but let's take your figure for the South Park Bridge and triple it to 390 million dollars and you've only reinforced the point the Stranger is making, i.e. for 4.2 Billion, the tunnel is ridiculously expensive for what you get. How about we take your figure and multiply it by a factor of 10? 1.3 billion and you've really reinforced the point the the tunnel is ridiculously expensive.

2) I believe you're missing the point here too. The mayor isn't comparing capacity, he's making the same point as above: You're spending 4.2 billion and what are you going to get is a road that isn't going to deliver traffic NOT because of capacity but because of tolling expenses will divert traffic. The point still holds - we're getting ripped off.

3) There is no conflict here either. Yes, a road diet, in some cases, may reduce peak capacity, but improves safety greatly for traffic as well as pedestrians and bicycles while adding bicycle capacity at almost no cost (relatively speaking). HOWEVER, that is NOT the argument being made. The argument being made time and again is that THE TUNNEL IS NOT WORTH THE COST.

Until you address the ROI for the tunnel, the points you have outlined about traffic capacity are weak and meaningless.