The tunnel would have four lanes and run less than two miles. The $4.2 billion sticker price for the underground freeway doesn’t account for interest (financing is estimated to exceed $2 billion), and Seattle and the port still haven’t come up with $1.2 billion of their share. And none of the hidden costs—like redesigning downtown streets and paying for “enhanced transit services and vanpools,” which the state says are required—have any funding. All told, the costs will easily top $7 billion, making this the most expensive little chunk of road in the state. Meanwhile, traffic in Seattle is declining. And if the tunnel encounters cost overruns, as 90 percent of tunnels do, state law prevents the state from paying for it.
Get this: The state’s final report shows that if we build a tunnel, it would have the same effect on downtown traffic, waterfront traffic, and traffic on I-5 as if we simply tore down the viaduct and did nothing. And we would have saved billions.
The tunnel would have zero downtown exits (it’s underground), and it would have a $5 one-way toll at rush hour. The state’s impact studies show two-thirds of the vehicles that currently drive on the viaduct would go onto I-5 and city streets, creating worse traffic than we have now. The tunnel, in function, would be a luxury for those who can afford the expensive tolls and want to avoid downtown.
Big cities—San Francisco, Portland, New York, Seoul, and many others—have torn down urban freeways they didn’t need without creating economic havoc or gridlock. Traffic actually improved. In 1972, Seattle voters stopped the R. H. Thomson Expressway from being built through the Arboretum, even though the Seattle Times and others said was necessary for north-south mobility. Seattle can do that again. Instead of a freeway, we can implement surface/transit—an alternative the city and state have studied since 2008 that would bolster transit service, optimize streets, and add another lane on I-5—and it would cost only about $3.1 billion. Surface/transit would cause less congestion downtown, vehicle delay would drop by 9 percent downtown in the city center, and the average car trip between downtown and West Seattle would be a minute shorter than if we had a tunnel.
The pro-tunnel group Let’s Move Forward has raised $380,000 to tell you to approve it, and the campaign’s two leading backers are the international companies that stand to make $1.1 billion off the project. The group’s ads claim the project funds bus service, but the price tag doesn’t include a penny for bus service. The group claims that a surface/transit alternative will cause “gridlock,” even though the tunnel causes more congestion. The group claims Mayor Mike McGinn is colluding with right-wing initiative trickster Tim Eyman, even though that’s pure fabrication. The group even filed a legal complaint with the city ethics board against their opposition that was tossed out because it was baseless. The campaign’s strategy is clear: Mislead the public all the way to the election. Don’t let them get away with it. Reject Referendum 1. 
This tunnel is a disaster: too much and nothing for the trouble. No savings in time and a big cost in a state where transportation management is an embarrassment. Vote against the tunnel and then hope your fellow citizens read this article.
Toby W.
Things are so simple and black/white for the far-left zealots here – you’re no better than the ditto-heads on the far right.
Please – a little honesty.
The “surface-only” fantasy advocated by our ninny mayor and uber-greens is remarkably stupid; fortunately, it will never happen. The grown-ups in charge understand the physical realities of the downtown corridor. They understand that the tunnel preserves what Seattle cannot do without – two additional highway lanes through the downtown corridor. That is the story – all of it.
Is the tunnel perfect? No. But it is – pay attention please – the best alternative. Period. Yes, we lose the current viaduct’s northbound Seneca exit, and we lose the southbound Columbia on-ramp. There’s your surface street alternative in reality. We’ll have to jigger lights and buses and bike lanes to accomodate the West Seattle/Burien/N.P. folks like me who use those ramps now. To be clear – I suffer with the tunnel – I lose my easy access to downtown.
But I am an adult. I recognize the greater regional good accomplished with the tunnel. So I accept my own inconvenience as part of the price we pay for solving the viaduct problem.
What I shake my head at are these far-left folk who would impose their anti-car agenda on all of us. Don’t like the Yes on Ref. 1 TV commercial. Cool. I agree – its manipulative. But all you anti-tunnel folks are equally dishonest if you fail to publicly and loudly say you want nothing – just more buses and bikes. Because you know that the Seattle public is smart enough to never choose that. Instead, the public face of the anti-tunnel movement just says “lets study this more” … as if we don’t already have all the information.
Things are so simplistic and black/white for the far-left zealots here – you’re no better than the ditto-heads and Fox morons on the far right.
Please – a little honesty.
The “surface-only” fantasy advocated by our ninny mayor and uber-greens is remarkably stupid; fortunately, it will never happen. The grown-ups in charge understand the physical realities of the downtown corridor. They understand that the tunnel preserves what Seattle cannot do without – two additional highway lanes through the downtown corridor. That is the story – all of it.
Is the tunnel perfect? No. But it is – pay attention please – the best alternative. Period.
Yes, we lose the current viaduct’s northbound Seneca exit, and we lose the southbound Columbia on-ramp. There’s your surface street alternative in reality. We’ll have to jigger lights and buses and bike lanes to accomodate the West Seattle/Burien/N.P. folks like me who use those ramps now. And yes, some people will choose surface streets to avoid a toll (which – setting aside another lie here, won’t be $5 – WSDOT knows they have to set it lower and they will).
But here’s another inconvenient truth – we need to pay for shit. Tolls are a fair way to impose user fees on those of us will drive on roads.
To be clear – I suffer with the tunnel – I lose my easy access to downtown. I’ll still use the tunnel often, being a W. Seattle resident and I know I’ll pay a toll when I do. I’m cool with that.
Because – and here’s the thing, Stranger-readers – I am an adult. I recognize the greater regional good accomplished with the tunnel. So I accept my own inconvenience as part of the price we pay for solving the viaduct problem.
What I shake my head at are these far-left folk who would impose their anti-car agenda on all of us. Don’t like the “Yes on Ref. 1” TV commercial? Cool. I agree – its manipulative. But all you anti-tunnel folks are equally dishonest if you fail to publicly and loudly say you want nothing – just more buses and bikes. Because you know that the Seattle public is smart enough to never choose that. Instead, the public face of the anti-tunnel movement just says “lets study this more” … as if we don’t already have all the information. Give me a break.
The tunnel makes the best of a bad situation. Want to blame someone? Blame the idiots who choked I-5 to two lanes through downtown 50 years ago. But please, don’t behave like petulant children and whine for “more study” or “let’s all go green and ride bikes and buses”. Those are as mature and reasonable views as a 6 year old throwing a temper tantrum. Grow up people.
Tramway running from West Seattle to Balard would be the only solution.. and why not make roads dedicated only to bicycles?!
Agree! Bike-only from West Seattle straight to Ballard. And let’s hope every bicyclist uses it at least once. Problem solved!