This is a wise choice.

Remember, a general rule of engineering is that surface is at COST, elevated is at 2-3 times COST and tunnel is at 3-10 times COST. The major reason is cost overruns, permitting, lawsuits and (for tunnels) bizarre stuff that happens.

Tunneling through limestone or granite is one thing, but we're talking some weird stuff down there.

It's not going to be pretty when the first multi-car/truck fire goes off, either.

Metro is spending $850,000 to see if we should buy $150,000,000 of electric buses and McGinn only gets to spend $44,000 on a $1,900,000,000 tunnel.

The former being a no brainer (we will keep the electrics) and the latter being, well, a brainer, it seems the study costs should be reversed.

Tunnel Business Magazine - seems like a magazine that a few folks around here should be subscribing to.

What a hack.

Great move by McGinn. It's brilliant to bring in a neutral third party and I like that McGinn is choosing to get expert opinion rather than being a politician who just goes with his own amateur opinion.
I am pro-tunnel, and I voted for McGinn because I believe he will look out for us, financially... whereas Mallahan would not of. If things do not go McGinn's way for cost-overruns, let's hope that the City can dedicate the funds from increased property values/taxes in the Viaduct area to paying the cost-overruns.

McGinn = Liar. I support the tunnel, the decision is made. Now, I change my mind and I am going to do everything in my power to torpedo the project.

World class city we will never be.

McGinn = Bush = Same old BS!