I will only read the letter if you tell me it was "leaked".
Shorter version: UR dumb not picking my awesome plan.
Are you guys still talking about the tunnel? Wow.
Isn't it kind of insane, in the most literal sense of the word, to have a $4B project whose funding plan assumes tolls and whose usage projections assume no tolls?

Government is often inept and bureaucratic and all that, but seems like a particularly glaring and indefensible problem. Why would anyone defend it?
Same shit, different day.

I can't be the only one who is sick of this endless "debate". Frankly at this point, I just want them to build it. If it's a mistake, ok, fine. There is a ton of uncertainty on each and every solution to the viaduct, and they all cost a fortune. Please, let it rest. Move on to the next battle.
Dont worry, if you drag and delay the tunnel option, the state will force the city into a surface option by tearing down the viaduct in 2012 like they said they would.

Of course, city is on the hook to pay for this 100% as the State will pull the existing money.
Longer version of what I said.


Still a stupid waste of scarce tax dollars.
@6 um, why is that bad?
This tunnel is a GD disaster, and it's going to ruin the historic sector. The increased traffic into crappy streets is going to reverberate in a multitude of issues. This may be one of the most horrifically understated bad decisions the city has ever made. People that don't care don't understand the extent of the damage. People should be protesting.
@5 revision:

I can't be the only one who is sick of this endless "debate". Frankly at this point, I just want them to [not] build it. If it's a mistake, ok, fine, [we dodged that bullet]. There is a ton of uncertainty on each and every solution to the viaduct, and [this alternative above all others] cost[s] a fortune. Please, let it rest. Move on to the next battle. [Don't build the tunnel.]

Seriously, the tunnel is a terrible idea, being pursued by interests I cannot even understand. As with SR520, the state is pushing a delusional plan that lacks funding, destroys communities, and is nonsensical. Billions are being committed to plans that nobody likes because after 10 to 20 years of debate, the plans don't incorporate any of the smartest, cheapest ideas well regarded by stakeholders.
@8 Will in Seattle

With the viaduct torn down and no options to re-build it, it no longer becomes an interstate road or at least one that the state may feel that Seattle can pay for. All the money donated by the state to pay for the costs, might get pulled and the city spends 500-700 million building a 2 road.

All the city parking spots that the mayor jacked the prices on, gone, so the city loses some revenue.

All the commerce on the waterfront will face major disruptions.

So we lose funding and a little bit of trust from the state. We lose more money from loss of parking and business on the waterfront will feel it.

The only people who win in this scenario are those who own condos on the first ave. Their view will be much better with the viaduct demolished.
@11 bull.

The cold hard reality is it's a STATE HIGHWAY.

Tearing down the Viaduct itself is a cost the State would have to pay. There is a small incidental cost to the City for utility relocations, but not the actual teardown.

And the impact on traffic would light a fire under a lot of people to actually do something REAL that is NOT ABOVE THE DEBT LIMITS for the City, County, Port, and State.

End result - a practical solution.


Must be some seriously powerful shit Carey Moon ans WIS are smoking. Then again Will's probably thinking with the wrong head.

Most of the utility relocation has already been done Will. Try again.
@13 most != all - read the fucking letter, you tax-wasting WSDOT slime.
@12, you are right, for once, it is a STATE HIGHWAY.
The state will build its road, if Seattle jerks around then it is Choppaduct, and we are not pocketing the difference.

You gotta be fucking high to think the state is giving Seattle a second chance at sitting on the state gas tax money while Elevated proponents and tunnel supporters give McGinn and Cary Moon a hard time similar to the bullshit going on now.
News flash, the rest of the state is not going to suddenly fall in love with the surface option after all this bullshit.
These people are complaining because they say the tunnel will pour traffic onto downtown streets? Well, what exactly do they think will happen if the viaduct is torn down and nothing replaces it? That there will somehow be less traffic on downtown streets?
@ 16: False dichotomy. Just because they are against the tunnel does not mean they are for tearing down the viaduct and not replacing it with anything at all.
No other proposed configuration for the AWV matches the existing viaduct in any transportation related category. The rights of ways already exist. The configuration already can handle 110,000 vehicles a day. It already provides a bypass for downtown and off ramps for the core, Ballard and West Seattle. It already meets the demands for commercial vehicles. It can incorporate modern seismic protections and other enhancements for noise abatement, bikes, pedestrians and aesthetics. It provides the only effective way to modulate traffic in the core. A retro / rebuild of the viaduct should be honestly considered. It works, it's at least 2 billion dollars cheaper, and if a vote were held tomorrow it's the solution that would be chosen.

Still time to do the right thing.

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

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