The surface/transit option is not an option. You only need to look at Viaduct traffic for half a minute to see that throwing that amount of cars and trucks on to surface streets and asking people to take the bus would just not fucking work. Some of us don't want to live in the city and bike everywhere or spend twice as much time getting to where we're going on the bus.

In 1960, voters approved an $11 million omnibus highways bond issue for the R. H. Thomson Expressway (then the Empire Expressway), for an expressway route along Shilshole Avenue, for ramps to connect the Alaskan Way Viaduct to downtown Seattle, and for an extension of the Spokane Street viaduct westward to a connection with Harbor Avenue SW. At the same election, an additional bond issue of $1,925,000 was approved to help finance design and construction of a Mercer Street connection between Aurora Avenue N and the proposed Interstate 5.

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?Dis…

WSDOT is basically recreating the original failed AWV/Spokane Street configuration that proved to be completely flawed, one that Seattle voters had to foot the bill to fix.

Which means when traffic gets really terrible when the tunnel opens, they're going to make Seattle pay to fix the problem. Just like last time.

Also, when the AWV was built, a pretty busy business district on First Avenue South was destroyed. If we're repeating history, let's go whole hog and destroy businesses like last time.

Looks like The Gates Foundation is a likely candidate:

Last May, foundation leaders formally asked the city to add a route option skirting the campus. Turning up the heat in July, Choe wrote to then-Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis that a route through the campus would “create tens of millions of dollars of financial damage to our headquarters site — damages that the city would be obligated to pay.”

The route would “disrupt our work,” Choe wrote, “exposing the City to substantial tort damages.”

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/s…^3320511

I don't like the fact that the city is still on the hook for cost over-runs, and I hope that gets put onto the state instead. But what's the big deal about the tunnel not having exit or onramps downtown? After the first read, I thought, "Yeah! Without exit or onramps in the city, the city shouldn't have to pay for it!". But it's just *downtown* that doesn't have onramps or exit ramps. Big deal. So what? There's a lot more to the city than downtown. The city will still benefit from the tunnel. I don't get it.

there are already STOP LIGHTS down at michigan and up at Green Lake. i just don't get where the traffic's going in such a hurry. to those traffic lights? to mercer?

"In fact, the only people who will benefit from the tunnel over the surface/transit option will be those seeking to drive through downtown Seattle without being slowed down by the street traffic above."

Wrong. You're missing out the most important group that benefits: real estate developers, who will now have a nice wide swath of land to develop, without those pesky on/off ramps.

"In fact, the only people who will benefit from the tunnel over the surface/transit option will be those seeking to drive through downtown Seattle without being slowed down by the street traffic above."

Wrong. You're missing out the most important group that benefits: real estate developers, who will now have a nice wide swath of land to develop, without those pesky on/off ramps.

I love Goldy's notion here that the Gov and Leg need to rescue McGinn from the deadend he ran into, or else. Like rescuing a treed cat that keeps yowling.

Considering how limited the downtown exits and entrances are on the viaduct, I don't think the lack of them on the tunnel is much of an issue. In fact, I actually prefer that the tunnel not be dumping traffic into the heart of downtown.

And I hate to see Goldy here try to revive a tunnel-vs.-surface+transit debate. It's counterproductive, especially for someone who supports surface+transit. Sometimes the best way to get what you want is not to directly demand it.

The issue now is who's going to get stuck with the cost overruns. For those of us who want to see more transit investment, this is precisely the debate we should be welcoming. And even here, I'm convinced this is a fight we'd best not take a blunt-force approach to. Elected officials like Pete Holmes have convinced me that the city can't get stuck with the cost overruns under the controversial language in that one state law.

So let the state go ahead and build the damn thing. And if they run out of money, let them find more. But let us make clear to our own elected leaders--to Richard Conlin and Tim Burgess and Tom Rasmussen and Sally Bagshaw--that any attempt to tax their constituents to finish the tunnel simply will not fly.

Can't we just go halfsies?

@1 wrong.

We are only obligated, as a city, to move utilities to permit construction and permit construction material to be removed.

And to rebuild the Sea Wall.

Everything else is NOT an obligation.

I agree - if it has no exits downtown, let's not rebuild the exits until they either rebuild the Viaduct or build the Surface Plus Transit.

Either choice requires them to tear down the existing Viaduct, so it's not that big an impact.

I've been saying this all along. If you want to encourage people from West Seattle to bypass downtown, beef up I-5 on-ramps from West Seattle, but call it what it is: "West Seattle Express Lanes". Anyone else who is using 99 is doing do as a bypass for I-5 when it gets too crowded. Fix the actual problem and you remove the need for the tunnel. Or if we simply MUST bypass - just rebuild the viaduct, better & stronger than before - that option is starting to look a lot better, compared to the single choice now on the table.

@1The trouble with this theory is that option that "won't fucking work" is what we'll have the moment demolition begins on ANY option for at least 5 years - which seems long enough for people to get used to the "new normal" of using I-5 to bypass Seattle.

@3 Without the tunnel, we still have a straight shot into the downtown core, and 99 still runs from Bell Street to all points north. Again, if If you're not going into downtown, take I-5.

@8 If the option is to let the state build it, I'm sure no one would have a problem - they're just trying to get US to pay for it (and all the overruns, and all the maintenance) - that's the whole point.

@1 doesn't think people change their behavior when circumstances change. How delightfully stupid.

misha99 @9:

Hey everyone. EVERYONE. The tunnel is NOT the complete viaduct replacement. It is less than ONE HALF of the viaduct replacement. There is also a NEW SURFACE HIGHWAY with 4-6 lanes being built by WSDOT where the viaduct currently sits. The tunnel is the EXPRESS LANES with 4 additional lanes beyond the 4-6 on the surface highway replacement.

I have a vague recollection of this additional surface route, but perhaps someone can fill in some details.

Will it be running alongside the existing Alaskan Way or replacing it?

Can it really be called a highway? Won't it have a number of lights and cross streets and a fairly "street-y" speed limit?

If that's true, then wouldn't it be a ton easier to simply remove the HOV restriction on the I-5 express lanes to replace 99?

(Honestly I can't believe that 99 is really used as a bypass much at all.)

Question for the anti-tunnel crowd - how does a four lane surface freeway open up the water front?

@16 if I wanted a tunnel to go THROUGH Seattle, I wouldn't be paying $10,000 per household for every Seattle renter or property owner for it.

Capiche?

@19 Got $4 BILLION? Didn't think so ...

The ETP (Exitless Tunnel Project) is what Paul Allen wishes built at public expense to most profitably connect his Pioneer Square and South Lake Union holdings. And that's separate from the $500 million in other city subsidies that have been earmarked to benefit Allen's property investments.

Basically, as we've done with the plans to build a Chihulhy Museum of Insanity at Seattle Center, we should do the same to the Billionaires' Tunnel.

If you actually believe Seattle VOTERS want it that much, put the project up to a PUBLIC VOTE.

Cause we don't want it.

Well...good thing is...we have a lawyer for a mayor who can just sue the state for any overruns.