You've got my vote Nick.

Time to kill the Tunnel.

And end the massive overwhelming Debt and Disaster that is the Gold Plated Vanity Tunnel that has no purpose.

Sorry Will, I'm with Nick on this one.

Nick always makes sense.

This is the same Nick Licata who unsuccessfully sued to stop Sound Transit 1 after it was already funded (because of cost overrun concerns). This is the same Nick Licata who tried to stop the South Lake Union Streetcar after it was already funded, and even after it was already constructed. This is the same Nick Licata who, months ago, tried to stop the voter-approved and funded First Hill Streetcar to replace it with buses.

All of Nick Licata's crappy arguments here could be used against himself on every transit issue. He's disingenuous. He just loves highways, hates transit.

@5, don't be silly.

#6: Here are Licata's own words, around the time the light rail tunnel was at the same point as the deep bore tunnel is now, and right before his group (Sane Transit) sued to try to stop light rail construction. He almost exactly parrots McGinn and The Stranger's position around the deep bore car tunnel.

When the construction costs are totaled, digging under Capitol Hill and Portage Bay could run $1,064,000,000 if the high estimate is coupled with the higher contingency and the additional costs. Given how construction budgets for other regional transit systems have gone over budget I believe this is a more realistic projection than a lower one. And even the higher amount is not a guaranteed cap.

The tunnel has just not penciled out. It could cost billions and congestion could remain about the same.

Of course Licata had a solution for what to build instead - highways and buses!

@7, no, I see why you think as you do, that's not the problem. It's that you used the word "disingenuous". People here really need to stop that.

#8: I honestly did that intentionally to be meta. :(

Licata quotes:

Link rail is one of the most expensive public works project in greater Seattle's history. Sound Transit's current financial projections are not transparent to the public. The citizens and taxpayers of this region are owed a transparent audit by independent experts, plus an ongoing process of financial review and oversight. If Sound Transit wants the confidence of the public, it must provide them with an open budget process, and clear, understandable and accurate financial information, honest and open. Once the public knows the full costs, it may decide to proceed. In 1996, the voters felt that $1.67 was an acceptable price for Link light rail. If the actual price is $2.5 billion, or $3 billion, for a smaller rail line, they may reconsider that decision.

http://www.cityofseattle.net/council/lic…

I am particularly concerned about the impact that the current rail plan has on the communities. Tearing up our neighborhoods, particularly evident on Capitol Hill's business and First Hill's residential districts, is becoming more and more difficult to justify. The tunnel has just not penciled out. It could cost billions and congestion could remain about the same.
With the passage of Initiative 53 and the re-evaluation of Sound Transit's rail plans, we are on the verge of creating a cost effective mass transit system for Seattle residents and the greater metropolitan area. I look forward to working with others to meet this objective.

http://www.cityofseattle.net/council/lic…

Licata also attempted to poison Sound Transit through a poll:

The results of this non-scientific poll (see below) show that an overwhelming number of those voting in favor of SoundMove in 1996 support the recent call from a group of more than 100 elected officials and prominent community leaders for an independent audit of SoundTransit's Link light-rail project. This poll comes on the heels of the SoundTransit Citizen Oversight Panel's mid-year 2000 Performance Report that states, "It is now becoming clear that SoundTransit is experiencing both cost overruns and scope creep."

http://www.cityofseattle.net/council/lic…

Interestingly enough, Licata's move was a major reason completion of the first phase of Link was pushed back.

Here's Licata reacting to the Monorail vote:

I have also argued that it must be financially sound. I am not willing to support any project, no matter how much I believe that it is an inherently good one, unless there is a solid financial plan to execute it. I introduced a resolution along these lines in 2003, which lead to the Council's independent financial review.

http://www.cityofseattle.net/council/lic…

@9, good for you!

It should be noted that ST shortened the line, removed the First Hill station and pushed back construction such that the main point of the line (connecting to the main regional cores) would not be realized for 20 years.

Raku @4, you've hit on something. If Nick Licata is a friend of transit, then transit doesn't need enemies. This is someone who recently stated that the long-term solution to our city's transit needs is broadly adopted bus service with 15-minute headways. This isn't far from what we already have, and it has proved woefully inadequate. Heck, it isn't far from the Kemper Freeman vision of Seattle-area transit.

I voted for Jessie Israel when she ran against Licata in 2009 because I'd had enough of his lesser Seattle-ism that's founded on a worldview frozen somewhere in the 1970s. Israel was a solid candidate, but until progressive candidates get more organized, better funded, and greater name recognition, we're going to continue to be stuck with this old guard.

And until we start winning some elections--and that includes gubernatorial elections and state legislature elections--we're going to have to deal with the elected officials we've got. Instead of continuing with this quixotic quest to stop the tunnel, we should address the things we can control and start pressuring this City Council to come up with a real plan to have transit take the place of at least some of the tens of thousands of daily auto trips that this tunnel is going to divert.

Councilmember Licata, The Seattle Times quoted you saying: "I want the council not to forget that a good portion of the public is expecting to have a say in this decision." I am here today to remind you that a good portion of the public still expects to have a say in this decision.

In the same article, you said: “We don’t have enough funding to pay for a tunnel...Seattle residents may have to pay the difference and any cost overruns.” $700 million of the budget is unaccounted for and State law puts Seattle on the hook for overruns. You made a good point then that holds true today. Are you worried about the missing funds and the state law?

Finally, you have long been a strong advocate for the public's right to vote on important projects. You once helped lead a campaign to allow the public to vote on stadiums. You wrote then: "The initiative is the only way the public will have an opportunity to express their opinion on the expenditure on the upcoming $800,000,000 being discussed for constructing new baseball and football stadiums." Even without the likely cost overruns, the tunnel will cost $2 billion, $1.2 billion more than the stadium financing you challenged. You fought for a public vote then and I ask you to fight for one now.

Everybody has a crystal ball. Everything that went wrong on the Boston project or the Queensland project or any other large infrastructure project worldwide is going to happen here.
Have any of YOU haters ever seen the before-and-after results of the Big Dig project In Boston?
It's extremely impressive what it's done for the city and its traffic problems and urban amenities including housing and retail development. I know several people who live in MA and none of them are in the poorhouse because of the "dig" nor do they see it as a failure.
But--keep acting like you are structural/mechanical/seismic/environmental engineers, so that we can continue this obstruction to progress forever and ever amen.

I wish this could end so I can stop saying that I agree with Nick Licata.

OOps, I meant to post my comment on Dominic's rebuttal to Nick Licata's extremely reasoned response to the matter of a vote.
What would a vote "for" or "against" the tunnel mean, if not accompanied by "then what"?
Rebuilding the viaduct (which would be much bigger the current structure due to seismic and traffic standards issues) would also be subject to the oft-quoted "34% typical overruns" as well as 8-10 years of disruption of traffic and waterfront businesses along with the public funds that would have to be expended for amelioration thereof.
As I recall the "Evergreen Point Floating Bridge" was the longest floating bridge anywhere in the whole wide world. And people fought it, and it got built, and who is complaining now that it's there? (current conversations about tolling, widening, etc. excluded.)

Those of us who voted for a monorail again, and again, and again, and again, know what a vote is worth to the so-called leadership of this town.

Skip that expense too. Forget the tunnel, it's still as wrongheaded as it was when we voted against it the last time.

Newell @20, thank you for citing Nick Licata's support for the First Hill Streetcar. You've completely changed my view of his record at supporting mass transit. I was going to give Licata an F, but maybe now I'd consider an E-.

An elevated panorama of the sound and the experience of moving through that view is the most aesthetically thrilling way to show Seattle to ourselves and our visitors. This experience should be owned by the public, not by "interests".
There is one way to keep our councilmembers from representing interests and that is to vote on them by the areas that they represent. Let them be responsive to those peope who share, most closely, their social and built environments. Since that prospect is a ways off, in the mean time rebuild the Viaduct in a safe and imaginative way.