Frickin' right on Dominic. We definitely should be moving way beyond 1950's car culture thinking. If Portland, San Franciso, Cincinatti and New York can remove urban freeways, why not Seattle? The answer is WE CAN.

Seattle stopped the Bay and the RH Thomson: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?Dis…

We can stop this.

FINALLY! I've already got 15 signatures.

The State controls this project. Seattle can vote on the issue as much as they want to, their local vote will not be binding on a state hiway project. Useless "vanity" votes just cost taxpayer money that would be better used to help the needy.

If we keep obstructing this project we will end up with many dead under the collapsed viaduct and hiway 99 back in it's original location - 4th avenue.

Someone in the state and/or local govt. is clearly on the take here. Politicians are not the smartest bunch in the world, but they're not dumb enough to be blind to the absurdity of this plan. Someone is getting paid under the table to get this tunnel rammed through the city...literally

Someone in the state and/or local govt. is clearly on the take here. Politicians are not the brightest bunch around, but even they are not so dumb as to be blind to the absurdity of this plan. Someone in their ranks is getting paid to ram the tunnel through Seattle...literally. And @4, don't underestimate the power of the popular will, particularly with the considerable number of people in the Seattle area willing to do something to make a difference when critical issues such as this arise...this is too big to roll over for!

My wife signed the petition, but even she agrees that not having off ramps from the tunnel into 1st ave or the waterfront, who ares, it doesnt matter, the whole point is to bypass the downtown area. So she'll sign it, allow a vote for it, but probably vote in favor of the tunnel.

Safety concerns are meaningless because as long as some billionare steps in to say "I'll pay for the cost overruns!", then the mayor drops all obstacles and signs off on the project.

@4: There's a lot of wrong in your statement, but let's unpack it:

1) "The State controls this project. Seattle can vote on the issue as much as they want to, their local vote will not be binding on a state hiway project." False -- voters have led to the cancellation of road projects in the past and have even trumped the feds. More than that, the democratic power structure in this state is funded and run from Seattle. Reading between the lines isn't too difficult.

2) "Useless "vanity" votes just cost taxpayer money that would be better used to help the needy." False -- opponents to the referendum have grossly overstated the cost of the actual process (actuals are in the thousands, not millions). They've also presented costs as coming out of the funding stream for programs for the needy while simultaneously decrying CM O'Brien's references to spending billions when we're cutting Basic Health and other programs.

3) "If we keep obstructing this project we will end up with many dead under the collapsed viaduct" False -- many opponents to the 99 tunnel have advocated for near-immediate shutdown. Indeed, part of the opposition to the tunnel is the fact that the viaduct will be open for several more years beyond both the engineer-suggested shutdown period (late 00s/early 10s) and the defiant promise of Governor Gregoire, who later flip-flopped. The tunnel is the plan that keeps the viaduct up the longest and presents the least mitigation for near-term collapse. If anything, the tunnel has a catastrophic cost risk far greater than any of the fear-based and unbacked-by-science traffic scenarios proposed by tunnel supporters.

4) " hiway 99 back in it's original location - 4th avenue" False -- SR 99 was originally a corridor that ran the length of First Avenue from its southern reaches to the current mini-expressway on 15th Ave.

As I have said a couple dozen times before- Seattle already voted on this, y'all wanted a tunnel. So you've changed your minds because it is going to be as expensive as we all knew it was going to be. In the mean time you've squandered 8 years.

This is what we back home call 'Coward Conservatism' - unwilling to put their money on the line for the big ticket items that cities like Seattle actually need. This puts off infrastructure projects and makes them WAY more expensive when they become unavoidable.

My guess is the surface & transit folks will eventually win this one. If you have real estate in West Seattle, I'd sell it, 'cause commutes from there are going to be come nearly impossible.

@9 Seattle rejected the tunnel with a 70% vote. Seattle also rejected a viaduct replacement with about a 55% vote.

Facts are stupid things.

@9: Seattle voters opposed a 4-lane tunnel with upgrades to the surface street system, also known as the Surface-Tunnel Hybrid. It was the least popular: http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/200…

The state opposed it because it only had 2 full-time lanes (and they wanted 3) and narrow shoulders. This was part of the reason it lost: http://www.seattlepi.com/transportation/…

Unfortunately, the current DBT includes only 2 full-time lanes and only one shoulder that is designed to later be repurposed into a peak hour travel lane. The reason this one is being pushed, in spite of essentially matching the Surface-Tunnel Hybrid, is because it was moved into the more dense core and will not shut down the viaduct early, keeping traffic on the earthquake-damaged structure for many many MANY more months.

So no, Seattle voters didn't want a tunnel. We also voted for two anti-tunnel candidates. Don't believe anyone who says "but McGinn's flip-flop is the only reason he won" -- nobody believed him and the rhetoric in that time, especially in the MSM, was that he was a liar and that he would still oppose the tunnel if elected.

@12: I'm definitely with you there. McGinn was pretty obviously elected on the assumption he'd block the tunnel and stall the SR-520 bridge replacement.

The assumption seems to be that you can get people out of cars and into buses if you just make driving miserable enough. But having done both, sitting in a car in stop-and-go traffic is often less unpleasant than sitting in a bus stuck in that same traffic. Especially since Metro's commuter buses are rarely air-conditioned.

There's a terrible lost opportunity in all this political energy being expended to purportedly stop the tunnel by having yet another advisory vote.

Those 64K vehicle trips a day being diverted mean that the tunnel gives us an opportunity to convert a sizable number of those trips to transit. But the only way to do that is to expend some serious political capital pushing changes that won't happen on their own. I'm talking changes like dedicated transit lanes and extending the range of the Highway 99 tolling--changes that the consulting firm Nelson\Nygaard has already suggested to the city council. In a vain attempt to kill the tunnel (and I mean both meanings of "vain"), the feel-good tunnel opposition has the potential to leave us with a worst-case tunnel, one where we've done nothing to account for all the spillover trips.

I wasn't engaged in the discussion over the cut and cover option. What was the objection for most people? (in a nutshell if you must).

As far as the tunnel, I like big cool projects like this. Engineering awesomeness that is not only cool in how it is created, but the creation itself! Take me to the fucking moon now!

But this tunnel is as stupid as the viaduct was in the first place. Opening up the waterfront is good of course (which is why I don't understand the objection to cut and cover). And without the viaduct monstrosity, and 4 lanes with turnouts, some dips for low pedestrian over passes (as few traffic lights as possible), some parking and I think surface transit is the way to go.

@15: I think the problem with a cut-and-cover tunnel is it would mean tearing up a large stretch of the waterfront for a long time. It was basically the most disruptive option to businesses and traffic.

It just boggles my mind that such a stupid plan is going forward and that so many people buy into it. I really think it's as simple as people loving their cars more than they love the city. That's just sad.

@13: "The assumption seems to be that you can get people out of cars and into buses if you just make driving miserable enough", that's called poisoning the well and is blatantly dishonest on your part.

The goal of this and most transit projects is to make all transportation better, not to make driving worse. Assuming in any part that devoting X amount of time/money/lanes to transit and not cars will cause X amount of deterioration is nowhere near a rational argument, but the emotion behind it is powerful. And it's wrong. Transportation choices -- the name of our regional transportation advocacy outfit, too -- benefit everyone by offering just that, choices. You can't say cars are being vilified when doing the same to transit.

@14: You know for a fact, and have pointed it out when it was expedient, that even when pressured the state will block or prevent advances in transit funding. You also should immediately recognize the city council's willingness to stall grander transit studies. This "terrible lost opportunity" has been shaken repeatedly, but it hasn't got us one piece of fruit.

If we build the tunnel, we won't get more transit, we won't get a wiser use of our existing thousands of in-city lane miles, we will get a tunnel, tolls, and noting else. It's foolish to say "stop opposing the tunnel and work for transit" because it won't happen.

@18: I'm not against transit. In fact, I take the bus on a regular basis. That's why I don't want to see lane capacity reduced; if traffic gets worse for cars, it gets worse for buses, too. And I'll be honest; if I find my choice is between being stuck in traffic sitting in my air-conditioned car, or being stuck in traffic standing up in a hot, crowded bus, I'm probably going to choose the former.

I have a love/hate relationship with transit, to be honest. I love the money it saves me, but I hate the hour of my free time that it steals every day I take it.

@19: Again, you're basically arguing on the worst aspects of transit with little more than a token nod to the money you're saved -- while still saying, flat out, that you're more than ready to throw transit under the bus for relative comfort.

Decreasing lane capacity doesn't always make traffic worse, like data has shown on Nickerson: here.

Moreover, presenting something that seems like it's ostensibly a traffic obstruction like bus bulbs can actually increase speeds: TCRP study here

Assuming that forging ahead with a plan that has fewer outright benefits to cars (it doesn't have as much capacity or more stop lights, for example) is akin to basically forcing SOV drivers into the transportation ghetto is the sort of wrongheaded assumption of modern transportation that leads us to knee-jerk cries of "WAR ON CARS". It's a diversion from advances that can make car usage more efficient and transit and other choices more accessible and less stigmatized.

Assuming we need to replace 1 mile of road with 1 or more miles of road in every case is not progress.

1) A ramp connecting I-5 and the viaduct to the West Seattle is needed in both directions, North & South.

2) The I-5 bottleneck at Lake City Way reducing traffic to only 3 lanes needs new lanes added.

@18: "I have a love/hate relationship with transit, to be honest. I love the money it saves me, but I hate the hour of my free time that it steals every day I take it."

You have a love/hate relationship with shitty transit. Which is the only kind that Metro currently offers, and is all you'll ever get out of any cheap, afterthought "mitigations" that could get tacked onto the Deep Boondoggle.

Do you have any idea the kind of transit improvements that $4.2 billion dollars could buy this city? How many more people it could move (faster and more easily) than would ever use the Deep Bore tunnel?

Baconcat @18 responding to me:

@14: You know for a fact, and have pointed it out when it was expedient, that even when pressured the state will block or prevent advances in transit funding. You also should immediately recognize the city council's willingness to stall grander transit studies. This "terrible lost opportunity" has been shaken repeatedly, but it hasn't got us one piece of fruit.

Baconcat, I'd love to have a real dialogue here, but you only seem willing to respond to me when you can craft a response that is nothing but anti-tunnel talking points, when you feel you can score some points against me. It's one of the sad realities of comment boards--that some people are simply not interested in any kind of discussion, no matter how unproductive the jousting they prefer is. But hey, start sharpening your snappy comeback. I'm sure you'll show me.

Listen, if the state and the City Council are so thoroughly anti-transit as you say, then what's the point in fighting for any transit? We might as well be hunkering down and saying no to everything.

I'm not just talking about transit funding that the state can block, such as the governor has vetoed before. I'm talking about establishing dedicated transit lanes within the city limits. This is something the City Council has expressed an openness toward, but the only way they can get away with doing it is if they've got constituencies pushing them to.

And when it comes to actual transit funding, state legislators like Scott White and Marko Liias are putting forward some solid legislation to provide additional funding for the likes of Metro. I don't know where those bills are now, but wouldn't it be great if there was enough pressure applied on the governor so she wouldn't think of vetoing those bills?

Baconcat, you would agree that, if there is to be a new tunnel, then there's a huge difference between mitigating its presence in a way that promotes transit and, well, not doing so?

(That's for @19, not @18. Obviously.)

More Baconcat @18:

If we build the tunnel, we won't get more transit, we won't get a wiser use of our existing thousands of in-city lane miles, we will get a tunnel, tolls, and noting else. It's foolish to say "stop opposing the tunnel and work for transit" because it won't happen.

Here's the thing I don't quite understand, Baconcat, and maybe you can help me out here. Let's suppose that, if we build the tunnel, the City Council will take as anti-transit a tack as you say--that the worst possible tunnel mitigation will be a natural outgrowth of the tunnel. So if the City Council is that anti-transit, then how are they going to behave any differently to mitigate a surface route?

The same goes for the state legislature. I notice this ongoing conceit that, if we go with the tunnel, our elected officials will be a bunch of Mitch McConnells. But then the only way for the surface alternative to work is for those same elected officials to suddenly turn into a bunch of Daves.

Of course, I realize that a no campaign never has to be intellectually consistent or present viable alternatives or even engage in a real discussion, so feel free to shout me down if necessary.

@22: Your choice of words speaks volumes when you talk about "...the kind of transit improvements that $4.2 billion dollars could buy THIS CITY." (Emphasis mine.) I don't live in the city, but I commute to it, and Seattle transit advocates seem largely disinterested in making transit any better for me. In fact, they routinely argue that funding for transit outside the city limits should be *cut* in favor of more transit in the city.

I don't trust that I will see any benefits from this pot of money you're talking about. The S&T plan offers me no upside, just the promise of a more difficult commute.

@23: I would argue, cressona, that tunnel advocates put their money with their mouth is. Instead of saying transit advocates need to work to keep tunnel advocates from destroying transit funding, tunnel advocates need to work to keep transit advocates on board by, I dunno, funding transit directly tied to this project? Reconnecting the corridor lost to putting it into a tunnel?

Saying "oh, you aren't interested in real discourse" is more or less sticking your fingers in your ears. We've had it demonstrated, from vetoes from the governor to lack of movement from those who make the claim that they support transit, it's not happening. I don't know what you don't get about that, you've decried piss-poor transit funding in this state before.

If they would be so heinous to not push transit forward unless tunnel opponents come around -- a "compromise" -- then they don't actually support transit. You can't promise me a pony and then hand me a bottle of glue, acting surprised when I'm upset.

@1: SPOT ON!!!!!!

@20: You're right, it's a token nod, because it's largely a token amount. I've done the math; I save about $10 in gas and parking fees every day I take the bus instead of driving. That's not completely insignificant, but it's also not hard to argue that my time is worth more than $10/hour.

@23: Legislation is being advanced that permits local jurisdictions to levy previously impermissible fees and taxes on itself to fund transit.

That's very different from Olympia voting to "provide additional funding" for transit.

The latter, by the way, happens all the time in states that realize the value of keeping their major metropolitan areas flowing smoothly and that don't have a malignant political habit of beating up upon their primary economic engines.

@25: Now you see why the vote is important. And the upcoming primaries and election. :)

@26: That's a red herring, most transit advocates in the area comprehend subarea equity well enough to know that you can't simply cut suburban service unless it's simply not used at all -- in which case the benefit would be to, well, you. In fact, if you knew much about the transit you suggest you use, you'd know that we can't simply cut transit and direct it to Seattle. But god forbid we spend in-city money in-city the way it's preferred in-city.

BTW, it should be noted that the leadership in the suburbs seem completely disinterested in improving transit, from suing over I-90 light rail, Tukwila blocking light rail for some time, opposition from Shoreline and Lynnwood, Bel-Red corridor going apoplectic and so on. A high capacity rail line to the main urban cores would go far to improving commutes and circulation, but who's blocking it? Oh, right.

Can someone post a few links stating precisely what this referendum would do, like what would be the legally binding outcome? Can it nullify the contracts the city is signing with the state?

Yet again, @29, you have "a love/hate relationship" with the shitty transit we have, and not with transit as a concept.

Unfortunately, your attempt to tie negligible transit improvements into a massive auto project will do nothing to rectify that.

Americans want the luxury to drive their cars anywhere, and park their cars anywhere and not have to pay for it.

They don't want mass transit, they don't want to car pool. They want to drive their gas guzzling SUV anywhere they like no matter the cost to them or the taxpayers.

The city population is on the raise. Let's not encourage more driving by building\expanding freeways through the city. Obviously, high gas prices isn't going to keep people from driving their cars so what will?

@1 - you're spot on.
And to add to your comment, the 2010's have much more of a driving culture than in the 50's where there was only 1 car per household.

Car drivers are such an annoying, dominate and ruling class of people and they don't seem willing to share the road with bikers, buses, people walking, etc. We've got to get out of this 50's mentality of driving everywhere and modernize like the rest of the world.

Whoops, Orv. Missed your reply @26...

@29: Most folks' time is worth more than $10/hour, especially in this region. The 545 is full of pretty well-paid engineers, and the ones lucky enough to grab a seat often do work en route or read or check their internet, or... well, the possibilities are endless. So you aren't the only one with time worth more than $10/hour. So what's your point?

@13: Man if that's not the truth. I own a car for that very reason... if I'm gonna be stuck in traffic, I'd rather not be stuck in traffic with a bunch of other sweaty people in a stuffy, vibrating, dirt encrusted bus, and lots of other people think exactly the same way. You don't have to like it, but it's reality.

As a driver, I say let's tear the viaduct down this year, retime the lights on Alaskan way to let it handle more traffic for the time being, and solve the longer-term question about what to do once we have traffic data on how people move without the viaduct as an option. We can probably get away with a much cheaper option than we think we can.

The tolling study actually concluded that people would pay the toll during high traffic times, the spillover onto surface streets would only occur during low traffic times, when there's you know, less traffic on the streets anyway. The surface option would be dumping more cars onto surface streets at all times, including rush hour. That's why some people hold the insane belief that somehow that might cause gridlock.

Adding another lane to I-5 and removing the Seneca exit is expanding urban freeways and removing downtown exits, 2 things that that the anti-tunnel crowd go ballistic over with the tunnel. The tunnel is taking a 6 lane hiway, reducing it to 4 and putting it underground, so that's a lot different from adding a new freeway, which I agree is generally bad when done in areas that aren't already built up such as the exurbs, where it causes sprawl. West Seattle and Ballard aren't going to sprawl anymore, they're already developed.

Baconcat @27:

We've had it demonstrated, from vetoes from the governor to lack of movement from those who make the claim that they support transit, it's not happening. I don't know what you don't get about that, you've decried piss-poor transit funding in this state before.

OK, so suppose as you say the state is never going to lift a finger to fund transit or allow King County to fund transit. Then if that's the dagger in the heart of the tunnel option, it's just as much the dagger in the heart of the surface option.

Baconcat: @25: Now you see why the vote is important. And the upcoming primaries and election. :)

So you're saying your pro-transit vote counts, but only when the vote is being used in the context of the tunnel being killed. If the tunnel survives, then we're never going to have another opportunity to elect pro-transit leaders?

@26: I don't know where you live, but the frustration among urban transit advocates -- including myself -- stems from a system so dysfunctional that it's often faster to get to Lynnwood or Issaquah than it is to get to Ballard. Hell, I've had rides 1.5 miles up Capitol Hill that took longer than the boat to Bainbridge! (This may not be true precisely where you live, although you might be able to drive and switch to a very fast service of the sort that doesn't exist, for the most part, in the city.)

That doesn't mean we want to dump on you and cut your service out of spite. It does mean that we recognize, which Metro/the City Council/the County Council/Olympia don't seem to, that a well-integrated and highly functional transport system even helps those from the suburbs who may commute to Seattle but not have downtown as their only or final destination. (Hey, that even includes the Deep Bore's target through-market!)

My point is that you phrased the trade-off in terms of the value of your time. But any system that makes commute trips 3x longer, trips anywhere but downtown 6x longer, and evening outings 17x longer is shitty, shitty transit and does not represent the inherent properties and potential of public transit (as you seem to presume).

I also don't buy that when push comes to shove many people will suffer through 27 stoplights in order to save $3.50. They might say that before hand, but when their looking at crawling through downtown they'll open up their wallet.

Dominic, great article, except you have to cite the atrocious Smart Mobility report. The numbers they come up with are just plain bad math. If you drive from West Seattle to Ballard, because you get off at Western they say you drove to downtown, but they don't include you in the total number of Viaduct users that they divide by to get the percentage -- only people who were already on the Viaduct before the West Seattle Bridge are part of the total. Same problem for southbound.

If you want to argue about it we're having a discussion about that very report over at the Seattle Transit Blog:

http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/03/15…

Good find on the waterfront traffic count and the total travel times. I'd be curious what the travel time difference is for someone who can use the tunnel. I suspect that is the only number the state is looking at. Their attitude seems to be that SR99 is their highway and they won't have any option that does not maintain a highway between Aurora and Marginal Way, but Seattle streets and the Elliot/Western corridor aren't their concern and if the city of Seattle would rather support that traffic with a surface solution that's fine with them.

"And did you know that Conlin decriminalized the possession of itty-bitty goats for personal use in Seattle? He did! Vote Conlin!"
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/2009-…

I'm still laughing about the fact that I voted against this doofus based upon his "bag tax" proposal and the best you could come up with is that he saved goats.

Well, Seattle, you wanted a power-hungry jerk and you got one. I can no longer find his quote of "The Seattle Voters only 'advise' the City Council" when we voted against his "bag tax," but once I can find it again, I'll be sure to post the link to that, as well.

I'll vote against him, again. But my little vote doesn't seem to count with The Stranger endorsing him... over "saving itty-bitty goats."

@26 Every time there's a transit investment in an urban area, it makes it a lot faster for suburbanites like yourself to get around. Transit isn't as cost effective in suburbia, so we should invest transit in city areas get the most bang for the buck right at the choke point.

@39: You seem to imagine that this is some sort of endgame for me. It's not.

The opposition lining up against the DBT represents a lot of what I love about Seattle: progressive liberals (not fauxgressives!), environmentalists, social justice activists and transportation choice proponents. If this tunnel goes forward, you will be answering to all of them, not just me. Not just the favorite scapegoat, Mayor McGinn. All of them.

We can talk about how this tunnel is a sure thing, but that's irresponsible. It's dumping all our eggs into a single basket and creating this end game that raises the stakes for only one party: tunnel supporters. If it's built -- if -- it will create problems that that same coalition rising up against the tunnel will be working to fix. If it's not built, then what? You're required to compromise. With us. Those wacky greeny "obstructionists" that floated ideas like solving the issue with science and transit. We will continue to push for transit, for sensible use of our thousands of existing lane miles, for emissions reduction, for sensible management of the 1/3rd of Seattle's land area that's devoted to cars and to combat the "let them eat cake" attitude of Olympia that shrugs and says "we can't use gas tax for those social services we're cutting, but look at this gorgeous tunnel plan!"

As far as elections go, the council's stance is increasingly troublesome. For them. They've shown the backbone of a squid on this matter, punting issues like transit and saying "if you want transit, YOU work for it", they've ignored the cost overrun provision saying they're working on it, they've refused to explain under what circumstances they could conceive Seattle paying for the road and how they think the state would pay for it. Most troubling, however, is what they would do if the referendum gets to the ballot and voters reject the tunnel.

That pushes the stakes incredibly high. In essence, if they wait until the results come in, they're flip-flopping or they're willfully ignoring a vote of the people. If they wait until this qualifies for the ballot, or for the first polls, they're pretending that nothing is happening.

CM Licata's reaction to being told we'd elect people to lead us was telling, a furious "THEN DO IT! THEN DO IT! THEN DO IT!" with a pointed finger. It was almost symbolic of his unwillingness to buck the status quo, to simply accept what the state will do. That's unacceptable to all of us. Taking the status quo is not functional in a liberal city like Seattle.

We are a progressive city, we demand progress. Adding lane miles to the existing corridor (far more lane miles are built with the DBT than with the S+T plan) is not in any way progressive or environmentally forward thinking. It's status quo. It's the same "build roads, wait, build roads" plan we've always had (by the way: the DBT has the ability to add a lane in each direction and the surface configuration on the waterfront can add several lanes).

So don't ask me what I'll do when I lose as though it's a sure thing, don't assume I'll give up and NEVER predict my failure or loss before it's happened.

That's a mistake, I promise you.

@42: In that thread, the regulars shut you down for a variety of flawed claims and generally slingshotting your argument off of Norman's.

When they say "Downtown Seattle", they refer largely to the literal delineation, which encompasses Denny to the I-90 Interchange and east to First Hill (not I-5/Waterfront/Jackson/Denny as you profess, excluding tens of thousands of employees and residents). They also refer to the psychologically charged definition that generally also includes lower Cap Hill, SLU and parts of LQA.

You and Norman also insist -- wrongly -- that the corridor breadth will remain the same. It won't. The access points are further north and south and expand exclusion and further limit access. The access issues cited by the Smart Mobility report, as STB regulars pointed out, are exacerbated by the changed configuration.

Moreover, what you missed was that exiting at Western has a chain reaction on traffic in the core. You ARE exiting downtown, you ARE exiting in the driving radius and you DO have an appreciable effect on mobility in Downtown.

But more importantly, you basically agreed with Norman. That's pretty much anathema on STB. Even Bailo disagrees with Norman.

All this talk about cost and transit and blah blah is a bunch of horse.....(not to insult horses). The experience of driving the Viaduct is a one of a kind visual knockout and should be preserved as a valued architectural feature that displays the beauty of the Sound/Seattle environment like no other view here. Traveling through that view and it's elevation are part of that gestalt. Granted the Viaduct needs to be rebuilt. I must say that the people that designed the original should be prosecuted for attempted homicide. (Could they be the same people as those who designed Highway 5?)

Of course the main proponents of the tunnel are the owners of the downtown commercial core. They are powerful enough to have the city council (save for O'Brien and mayor McGinn) as their lackies. They don't give a damn about a waterfront that (100,000 drivers every day!)enjoy. Their main objective is Seattle-Cashcow. Needless to say the views from those highrise offices will impress clients even more without a surly old Viaduct waddling across the screen.

And while we're at it the same people who designed the original Viaduct are probably the same as those who wrote the rediculous ballot of 2007 that gave three choices that could be voted on yea or nea. What the hell kind of ballot is that?! (Obscurist?) The ballot should be: vote for one of the three choices; the winner has to win by 20%, or there is a run off between the top two. If there is another ballot it will be very important that it is legible and conclusive.

The STRANGER has its head up its ass..

@41 - So basically your argument is, "When the tunnel tolls make traffic bad enough, people will pay the toll."

I agree with you completely. But this will be a daily decision, not a lifetime commitment; people will look at the traffic report on their phone or whatnot and decide then. Would you pay the toll if you knew I-5 to be wide open? No - almost no one would (assuming that, if traffic-free, both routes are equal).

Which means everyone who is the slightest bit cash-conscious will avoid the tunnel each day UNTIL the alternative gets gridlocked. This collective strategy will guarantee that non-tunnel traffic is gridlocked every day. The only variable is at what time. And eventually, each day, this strategy will balance things out, but only long after the daily damage is done.

In case anyone missed it in the sidebar above, the petition can be downloaded from http://www.protectseattlenow.org/sign-th…

@47: I think I'd feel better if you kept your eyes on the road instead of taking in the gestalt of the Sound/Seattle environment.

As long as somebody is getting paid to pimp the opposition I guess we will have Dominic following the direction the wind.

Wasn't too long ago that the Surface Treatment was costing Seattle more.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

I guess the State didn't volunteer to pay for all the crap in McGinn's response back then, just as I do not expect the state to support any of the crap coming out of his mouth now.

In the unlikely event that your collective whine stops the tunnel then you should prepare for the Choppaduct.

@46. Gotta give you credit for the best argument I've heard for including traffic to Ballard in downown traffic. But no matter what definitions of "viaduct" and "downtown" they were using, their math is wrong because they divided by a much smaller number than they should have to get a much higher percentage than they sould have.

Baconcat is schooling Karenin and cressona. They need to just give up; their arguments are circular and antiquated. Why can't you envision something greater for Seattle than the 20th century transportation paradigm?

@51 - I don't know, Baconcat - eyes on the road or not, you can't argue that northbound 99 is beat by the view in a tunnel.

I read that the supposed superior surface/transit plan would eliminate the Seneca Street exit on I-5. So where will all those cars go to get into the city? They would clog the Madison Street exit, and Mercer Street exit.

Seems the surface/transit plan isn't as nice as it sounds, and the cheerleaders leave out facts like this.

Also in my opinion you would be dreaming to think that all the traffic that uses the viaduct to bypass downtown would happily and seemlessly fold into the mix of surface streets and I-5. And I love and use transit but let's get real. You aren't going to force most people to get out of their cars. Now that is extreme dreaming.

This is one city resident who looks forward to the tunnel being built while businesses stay open and traffic can keep moving.

For the last time, Idiotwhat @47:

A rebuilt viaduct, by law, would not have this view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5cwcS9uH… [bone-dry narration not mine]

It would have this view:

http://www.rwsystems.com/images/Jersey-B…

Born and raised in Western WA; living in GA for the past four years--this article only confirms an aphorism about Seattle: The City That Never Met a Problem It Couldn't Further Discuss and Discuss and Discuss and Discuss and Discuss and Discuss.

Gods forbid anything of magnitude--absent Stadia (not one, but two!)--should ever actually occur.

The problems of Savannah and the Deep South are mostly what you would imagine but the dysfunction of the PNW in general, and progressive Seattle specifically, is in a realm of reality completely all its own. Incredible.

From down here, it really looks like Seattle is going to ditz around until time and tectonic forces solve the viaduct problem for you.

Yeah you're all so right! Let's keep the debate going for another 20 years!!

@53: Review the thread without attempting to dismiss numbers that aren't your own and recognize that most of the people commenting have spent a great deal more time studying the report than you're giving them credit for. I'm not sure how you aren't seeing the conclusion they've reached that you can not just disagree somewhat, but disagree very strongly.

You keep using those numbers. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

@59/@60: The problem is the viaduct. The solution is removal. The tunnel doesn't let the viaduct come down. Tunnel opponents generally advocate a more immediate teardown.

I'm going to keep pointing this out until people get it. Suggesting that opposing the tunnel is tantamount to keeping it open for a greater span of time is the height of dishonesty.

We want it torn down but WSDOT, Gregoire and City Council want it open for as long as possible. It's their gamble with your life.

Either baconcat is unemployed or will be soon...

@63: I'm a student ;)

@61, Who else in the thread bothered with numbers?

It's easy to redo the calculations they did. Add up the total of the onramps they considered, verify that it matches the total they got, divide by the traffic count leaving town at the location they used, you get their percentage. If you get on at 1st Ave S and get off at Western, (I estimate about 400 people) you're part of the numerator and not part of the denominator. Putting aside the question of whether someone travelling from a job in SODO back home to Magnolia should be considered through traffic or downtown traffic, and putting aside the fact that most of the people considered in the northbound calculation did not drive on the viaduct (and these questions are the only ones you or anyone at the STB thread has been willing to address), that math just isn't valid. These numbers don't mean anything.

Can you say "The Big Dig"?

Big Dig.

But with extra lying.

@65: So where did you get your "estimate", then? It's hard to take your math very seriously at this point with a comment like that.

Great article, very informative. I'm glad your willing to stand up and point out the fallacies

@68: By figuring out what percentage of viaduct traffic gets off at that exit, and assuming they were as likely to get off there as someone who got on further south. I assumed no one who gets on at 1st gets off at Seneca.

I heard from a friend of a friend's sister's boyfriend who works within the GSA that the Feds may crash the party. It turns out nobody invited the GSA to the party and now they're pissy about it. See, the GSA runs the Federal Building. What you don't see is the Federal Building runs six floors underground and this will be impacted by the drilling. Here's the catch: part of the six floors underground is reserved for the Secret Service vehicles that support the President whenever he is in town. So, for national security reasons, the Federal Building cannot be comprised.

This is rumor, but it would be great if someone at the Stranger could confirm or deny the rumor.

I heard from a friend of a friend's sister's boyfriend who works within the GSA that the Feds may crash the party. It turns out nobody invited the GSA to the party and now they're pissy about it. See, the GSA runs the Federal Building. What you don't see: the Federal Building runs six floors underground and will be impacted by the drilling. Here's the catch, part of the six floors underground is reserved for the Secret Service vehicles that support the President whenever he is in town. So, for national security reasons, the Federal Building cannot be comprised.

This is rumor, but it would be great if someone at the Stranger could confirm or deny the rumor.

@72: Did you bother to map any kind of scenario that this would be the case? For example, to get into the Seneca-area core folks from the western reach of Beacon Hill are told to follow Beacon Ave S into SODO then take the viaduct to Seneca & 2nd. How many thousands of jobs are there? That's one instance in which you would use the viaduct so right away based on google maps' suggestions your assumption is wrong.

For Seneca between 3rd and 5th it suggests I-5 first with a time savings of a few seconds, but there's a psychological factor to that suggestion that probably skews choice. Don't drive on 5 and whatnot.

Oh, another one! Get directions from Jefferson Park Golf Course to Pike Place Market. I'm sure nobody that lives in that neighborhood would EVER go to the market, right? None of them actually work at the market, either.

@76 and none of the people who live on Beacon Hill ever take light rail to Pike Place Market either. It's not like it's faster or anything, or they save more in parking than the gas for the trip or the lightrail fare.

Cars are us. We'll always use battery electric cars, like God intended, just as we did before that demon Ford popularized his infernal machines.

@77: See, this was supposed to be like a big surprise with an awesome reveal. "SURPRISE, MANY OF THE RESIDENTS HAVE ANOTHER OPTION!" I would have shouted.

Where's Fnarf when you need him?

@78 he's probably getting drunk at the Dubliner or the Owl & Thistle.

Sshh, @83, we're not supposed to admit that, or how the ultra-rich get a cheaper ride at the rest of our expense ...

I hate Mayor McSchwinn as much as the next person and relish the prospect of voting him out of office with the next election (or recall campaign, whichever comes first), but this piece (and Danny Westneat's piece in the Times a couple of days ago, "Maybe we should try McGinn's idea to shut the viaduct now," http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/da…)
make a good case for McSchwinn being right in spite of himself.

From WSDOT:
The current viaduct carries approximately 110,000 vehicles daily. Of this amount, 20,000 vehicles enter/exit at Columbia/Seneca ramps, and 35,000 enter/exit at Elliott/Western in Lower Belltown. The remaining 55,000 vehicles continue north through the Battery Street Tunnel, exit in Lake Union/Queen Anne or continue north on Aurora. (5,000 travel between Lake Union and Lower Belltown.)

This flaw among the bored tunnel's many flaws is the impact of redirecting 35,000 vehicles from Lower Belltown to the Lake Union/Queen Anne exit/entrance.

The current route along Elliott/Western has 7/9 stoplights between Mercer Place at Elliott and the access ramps in Lower Belltown is the straightest, shortest route with least hillclimb and most suitably commercial corridor for thru-traffic. There are 12/13 stoplights via Mercer Place to the bored tunnel access ramps and 15/16 stoplights via Denny Way.

Redirecting this much more traffic into Queen Anne and the Mercer Mess is not a good idea. Residential and pedestrian-oriented Queen Anne is NOT a suitable corridor for more thru-traffic.

Wsdot and sdot expect only 1/3 or 12,000 of these vehicles will be redirected onto Mercer through Queen Anne. The other 2/3 or 24,000 will ply Alaskan Way with ~19 stoplights.

Doesn't sound so bad, but converting the Mercer Mess into a complete thru-corridor will induce more traffic between I-5 and Elliott, (a figure as yet not estimated by Wsdot); figure 5,000 for a total of 17,000 more cars daily added to the Mercer Mess. No matter how you slice n' dice it, 40,000 more cars are added to surface streets through Queen Anne, Lake Union and Denny Triangle, along with the 20,000 that are added to Pioneer District area. Then, there are thousands more who will avoid the toll ending up on surface streets.

All studies show the cut/cover in the DEIS displaces the least traffic onto surface streets. The surface/transit option does not rule out this cut/cover built while rebuilding the seawall or eventually. These two options best manage traffic.

Correction: No matter how you slice n' dice it, tens of thousands of more cars are added to surface streets through Queen Anne, Lake Union, Denny Triangle, along with tens of thousands added to Pioneer Square and Alaskan Way, and tens of thousands more who avoiding the toll end up on surface streets. That's the plan, Stan. Again, the cut/cover displaces the least traffic and could be built after the surface/transit option which offers fixes to I-5, transit upgrades, and takes the AWV down soonest. Wsdot is offering their worst design and selling it to the public as if it is their best.

"...That we have no other option. They're lying to us."

Dominic: Great. Glad you got that out of your system. Now that you're in the right frame of mind, do you think you could shift your focus to Dan Satterberg, with just as much healthy skepticism, focus, depth, detail and dogged determination? Please?

All you self-righteous washed up monorail nutjobs that get all your opinions from the stranger might want to read this:http://lightandair.wordpress.com/

Nice that you decided to take down the googlie eyes. Of course, it was pretty juvenile that you did that in the first place.

I wonder if Seattle property owners can band together to challenge the state's law (the one saying cost overruns will be paid by "property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from the...deep-bore tunnel") on the grounds that we clearly don't fucking benefit from it.

Another opinion/advocacy piece pretending to be journalism. When will The Stranger give up its moniker of being "Seattle's Only Newspaper" and admit it's actually a propoganda piece for a small slide of Seattle?

The deep bore tunnel displaces tens of thousands of cars to surface streets through Queen Anne, Lake Union and Denny Triangle; tens of thousands of cars to Pioneer Square and Alaskan Way, and tens of thousands more in avoiding the toll.

All studies show the latest design for a Cut/cover Tunnel in the DEIS displaces the LEAST traffic and could be built after the surface/transit option which immediately offers needed fixes for I-5, transit upgrades, and takes the vulnerable AWV down soonest.

Wsdot is offering their worst design to the clueless or misinformed public as if it is their best. Wsdot is corrupt.

Friend of Green is evidently more friendly to green paper currency dollar bills. The deep bore tunnel is a blackish ripoff.

@31: I'm perfectly aware that the funding formula prohibits cutting transit money from the suburbs and directing it to Seattle. But I also know Seattle transit advocates constantly rail against that formula and would happily take that money if it were legal to do so.

@40: I hear you about downtown trips. The thing is, downtown trips are slow because the streets are congested, which slows down buses. This is not something you can solve by spending money on more buses that will just get caught in the same congestion. It's REALLY not something you can solve by cutting lane miles and making congestion worse.

@44: My point is you can't cut transit for suburban areas and then argue that people in the suburbs shouldn't drive.

@55: The way I usually explain it to people is, "the Viaduct gives you the kind of views that normally require investing $1 million in a luxury view condo." ;)

@58: That's not a given. Have you seen the new SR-16 bridge? Still has a nice view, not walls of concrete.

Dear Dominic.
Fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you.
Love, West Seattle, White Center, Burien, Georgetown, etc.

Some of us have to get to work. Look, the ONLY idea more stupid than this tunnel is your "surface/transit" clusterfuck. It is not a viable option, and thank god the governor and King country executive you supported are smarter than you, and see through your assinine plan to pit all of Seattle against its West and South end in order to make the waterfront nice for developers. The Viaduct will be shut down for inspection this weekend. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE come to West Seattle and see how badly it fucks up traffic, your pointy headed studies nothwithstanding...on a weekend. You cannot "improve" I-5 without removing freeway park and the convention center, and EVERY shred of evidence you offer is complete horseshit, especially the one you keep offering over and over: the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco, a never-completed feeder line that was supposed to take cars from Highway 101 to the Golden Gate. If you want to use a more appropriate bay area example, ask folks down there how they would feel about ripping out highway 280 or 101...like us, they have only two main roads going through a water-locked penninsula. Nobody missed the Embaradero, because it didn't do anything. I just do not understand why The Stranger, which once opposed Paul Allen's "Seattle Commons" park project on the grounds that it would just "make a nice lawn for rich people" is so hell-bent on making the Seattle waterfront all nice for real estate developers, yuppie condo owners, and high-end office space users. You seem to be on Mayor McSchwinn's bandwagon of "get everyone out of their cars by making it painful for them to use them". I met Hizoner out in front of the 5 point not so long ago...he arrived in a chauffer-driven luxury SUV, and parked in a "police cars only" spot. What this region needs desperately is political leadership...and magazine writers... that understand the difference between mass transit and rapid transit...there are many examples of cities where it is EASIER to get around without a car. The dedicated-line monorail was a good start in that direction, and The Stranger completely dropped the ball. Now you are pimping the "People's Waterfront Coalition of Greedy Delvelopers Who Own Parking Garages Uphill Of The Viaduct" at the expense of the people...this is the sort of thing Republicans do all the time.

@99: I'm pretty convinced that the folks at The Stranger consider West Seattle one of those evil sprawling suburbs, not part of Seattle proper.

Has anyone mentioned that the 520 replacement project, already underway, is simply going to move the bottleneck of 6-lanes-down-to-4-lanes from Medina to the Arboretum without completing the mass transit/HOV hookups promised on the west side?

And guess how much they expect it will cost to complete the Montlake section of 520 to I-5? About $1 Billion. So, instead of the tunnel, go with surface+tansit use the $1 billion left to fund completion of 6 lanes 520 all the way to I5, including major transit improvements & bike lane integration with Burke Gilman? Why, that would be downright.... logical!

But I suppose people prefer to be held hostage by our elected officials who seem to have... TUNNEL VISION! :)