Why don't we rename it the Queen Margaret Deeply Boring Ferry and Tunnel Imperial Mandate?

Got Debt? Cause you're soaking in $10,000 per Seattle household of it, even if you rent ...

If the Republicans actually gave a damn about fiscal responsibility, they'd be all over this.

It's going to be interesting to watch the obstructionists try to stop this project. In spite of the unknowns.

Consensus is a difficult thing to build, and the perpetually discontent can attempt to gnaw it down, but it has a snowballing effect that given the limited patience most people have with respect to the commonwealth means that redirecting the AWV project to some other solution will be increasingly difficult.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

On behalf of all Seattle, thank you for helping rein in the awesome power of the P-I.

I love the disgusting rhetoric coming out of tunnel supporters about pulling bodies out of rubble after they've decided to walk lockstep with a plan that pushes Gregoire's original 2012 teardown years back.

http://www.seattlepi.com/transportation/…

Public safety is only appropriate when the safety of your pocketbook is ensured first.

@3: We're going to set a timer on your rhetoric. For every dollar or life lost as a result of the viaduct from 2012 forward, we'll see how long it takes Gregoire or others to own up to their flip-flop.

BREAKING: THE STATE IS BROKE GUYS

Even better, a rundown on the shell game: http://seattletransitblog.com/2010/06/04…

@7 and @8 tied for the win.

Our best hope is that the next inspection shows that the viaduct is too unsafe to remain open. Then we'll see exactly how much we really need or do not need a viaduct. I suspect that by the time they got around to tearing it down habit and public sentiment would have moved on so that building another freeway above or below ground is a non-starter. I'm willing to accept a new freeway if it's really impossible for people to adjust their behavior.

The problem we have is that everyone is projecting or imagining what the impact of removing the viaduct will be, but we don't really know and can't know until we just go ahead and do it. That's the one part everyone agrees has to happen at some point, so let's do it now. The Governor was right the first time around: the viaduct should come down by 2012.

@10: Precisely where I'm at.

If the DBT is deemed necessary by real world education and not some frenzied panic-based projections, then let's build it. Otherwise we're just trying to pretend the viaduct is safe.

I half wonder if they would be willing to close the viaduct permanently at this point "ahead of schedule", even if someone in WSDOT asked them to for safety concerns. If WSDOT told her tomorrow, "Close it", would she?

I don't know if that is extreme cynicism, but to be honest, given all the games being played, I have to ask if we can even trust WSDOT and Gregoire on that. I really hope I'm wrong.

@12: Minnesota was warned repeatedly as early as 1990 about the risks of the I-35W bridge: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007…

And expanding more on that, when warned by outside investigators to proceed with better investigations (and apparently hire inspectors less affiliated with the state), MN decided to go ahead and use state investigations and more or less sign off on inspections while downplaying cracking, stress and the potential for collapse.

And here are the actual inspections including an, ahem, postmortem on the bridge from Aug 2, 2007: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/in…

Gee, I wonder if anyone should file records requests with WSDOT over this.

I'm cynical enough to believe that not only is the state willing to ignore safety conditions that would require a teardown, they're also opposed to a teardown precisely because they're afraid the surface/transit people are right and that a highway won't seem necessary after people adjust to life without the viaduct. That means a smaller budget and fewer miles under their control. And worse than that, it sets a precedent. If this highway isn't needed, what other highways are unnecessary?

The only way to clear the air of mistrust and determine who's right is to tear down the viaduct now. And the only reason not to do it is that the cynics might be right.

What @13 said.

Tear it down today and keep going with the mandatory two state DEIS and two federal EIS hearings in the meantime, if it's unsafe.

Well, I guess the second span of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge might fall down, too, so we probably shouldn't call that a done deal. Dom, you might go back and review all the righteous hysteria about that project ("Why should we have to pay for a bridge when the one we have is already FREE? Why us? No one else has to! The vote was rigged! It's too expensive! The steel cables are rotting! It's been delayed! Look at all the lawsuits!") And guess what we have now? No more hour-long waits to get across the Narrows, the high-speed tolling seems to work great, and folks are just generally pleased. You might learn from this.

@18: or not.

It seems like a whole generation of politicos have been well programmed by the GOP to believe that most of the time, government can't get anything done without multiple restarts.

Good luck reimagineering this project to something other than the DBT after the EISes. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Another anti-tunnel circle jerk.