I work with a view of the Viaduct. Do you know how many freight trucks whiz by north and south every hour? Throwing those vehicles on surface streets with block after block of traffic lights is a nightmare in and of itself. The tunnel budget is a horror but the Viaduct carries more than just commuters.

And aside from repainting I-5, thanks to our State Constitution, gas tax dollars are not available to pay for any of these things. Which means that they all come out of the general fund. Which means they'll never, ever, ever, ever happen. Ever.

There's a scorched-earth, "by any means necessary" quality to the latest efforts by Mike McGinn, Cary Moon, et al to block the tunnel project. If you've convinced yourself that the other side is evil, then any evils you yourself might perpetrate, any moral compromises you might make, are justified. You see just this sort of rationalizing from Dan Bertolet in his latest blog.

What's so sad about this "ends justify the means" politics is that it means that so-called progressives are now tracking the same descent as the latest generation of vested-interest-backed Republican politicians.

You see these Republican governors across the country cancelling rail projects at the first opportunity, no matter how far along these projects are. Walker in Wisconsin, Scott in Florida, Christie in New Jersey, Kasich in Ohio. And John Kasich didn't just refuse the stimulus rail money. He's now pulling the rug out from under a streetcar project in Cincinnati that is well under way.

The Transport Politic blog explores the implications of killing a mature streetcar project:

Whether or not this project is a good investment or not, though, is only half of the question: At this point, the funding for the project had been identified and people had begun making decisions based on the assumption that it would be completed. The same could be said for the intercity rail line planned for Wisconsin, for example, where train maker Talgo built a manufacturing plant and hired employees after getting a state commitment to buy rail cars — only to be told months later that the project had been de-funded.

What message does this send to potential investors in a city like Cincinnati? If a city’s plans for a transportation project, even when fully funded, can be shut down because of the decisions of a new governor, how can anybody make long-term assumptions about where and how to develop? Moreover, why should they invest in a place whose politicians think they can renege on previous commitments?

Start a transportation project with a Democratic governor in place and then you better keep looking behind your back. Your project is not safe up until the contracts are signed or even the ribbons are cut if a Republican comes into office. We're now squarely in the era of zero-sum, tribal transportation politics in America.

Whether or not you agree that this tunnel project is a defeat for environmentalists (and as an environmentalist, I disagree), you can see how McGinn and the assumed "good guys" are really no different from John Kasich, Chris Christie, and the assumed "bad guys," at least when it comes to what they're willing to do to our democracy.

One thing I've never been able to get my head around: WSDOT claims 110,000 trips per day on the viaduct... I'm not arguing that data, but that's 30k more trips than the Oakland Bay Bridge, and over a 1/3rd as many trips as the George Washington Bridge. Those are huge numbers, and from and area with less than 1/3rd and 1/10th, respectively (I'm compelled to use that word here for some reason) the population of those comps. [I also get that it's weird to use bridges and an elevated highway as comps, but it's got to have a start and an end—I can't just compare it to El Camino Real]

I don't have a concrete point here, other than finding out exactly why that is could be key to solving this issue—not that ya'll are still considering "why" phase of this project anymore.

The reason why you use forcast data, in addition to WSDOT studies, is to guestimate what things will be like 10-20 years in the future.

If you look at the data that says more and more people are taking the bus, then that must mean we should build more bus routes immediatly, but fail to take into account that the reason what due to gas prices spiking to 4$ a gallon. Once it dipped down to 2.50-3$ a gallon, people either switches to more fuel efficient cars or went back to their own cars. If you ignored the forcast data and decide to expand metro and ridership drops back down to normal levels, then your scewed, or in this case, either fired or voted out of office.

As a life long user of mass transit, I did indeed see a surge in people using the bus when gas prices spiked. But its dropped a bit with the advent of EV and Hybrids.

If you ignore the forcast data and rely only on WSDOT studies, then what your doing is cherry picking the data that supports your argument.

We don't need crap.

Lying high density charlatans who want to steal the state's tax money based on ill designed premises have just been exposed!!

New York City’s Population Barely Rose in the Last Decade, the Census Finds

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/nyregi…

That's right, crooks. You're Pie in the Sky "Real City" that you've been trying to foist on the good people of Seattle for two decades now is a overripe banana...you with your light rails and your condos and your urban plazas...are now walking in the Naked City...bareassed for all the world to see!!!

Cary Moon - You can talk til your blue in the face about how great surface/transit is and how the tunnel is the worst thing ever, but nobody on your side will explain exactly how you're going to implement surface/transit (after you've killed the tunnel) when it has the least support from the public, the business community, and the political power players. You have had YEARS to convince people, and you've failed -- that's why we're currently building a tunnel instead. So please, don't come at me with more arguments about the virtue of your position -- no, just explain how you are going to get it built after you kill the tunnel. Please explain how you are going to ensure that we don't wind up wth a bigger newer Viaduct instead of surface/transit. I'm all ears, Cary.

tl;dr

Now you see why I use sound bites.

Short version:

a. Surface plus Transit or a Rebuilt Viaduct both have 50 percent more vehicle capacity than the insane Deeply Bollocksed Tunnel.

b. Tunnels are way expensive and risky. ... No, even riskier than that. ... No, keep going.

c. Tunnels have more pollution than either Surface plus Transit or a Rebuilt Viaduct due to: 1. DIGGING A TUNNEL 2. 24/7/365 fans and pumps for said tunnel. 3. moving all that fracking earth and vacuoles and the native tribes suing your butt off when you drill thru a shell midden or skeleton.

d. DBT will increase gridlock by dumping 40,000 to 65,000 extra cars on downtown arterials AND slow your commute by 8 to 20 minutes EACH WAY.

e. the rest is meaningless cause let's get real most people drive cars and don't bike. Period. Yes, including Portland.

@2 most taxes collected on vehicles are not gas tax dollars.

that's why you get to pay $8 to $10 roundtrip TOLLS in addition to the inevitable $10,000 per Seattle household EXTRA TAX paid by all renters and homeowners.

Translation: Deeply Ballsup Tunnels mean TAX HIKES FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS. Especially drivers. Billionaires and millionaires don't pay that.

@2 Exactly.

Plus if you discount the effect of the recession the decrease in vehicle miles traveled goes away.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%…

A few observations about this piece.

1. It can't be a good sign that the surface/transit project is going through a sort of perpetual rebranding. First it was surface/transit. Then it was surface/transit/I-5. Now it's "I-5/Streets/Transit."

2. Notice Moon goes on and on about the purported flaws in the tunnel project. But nowhere does she explain how the "I-5/Streets/Transit" plan, as it's now called, can happen politically in Olympia or what will happen to the gas tax money earmarked for the project. Remember, "no" campaigns are infinitely easier than "yes" campaigns.

3. Notice Cary Moon writes: "The citizens of Seattle deserve to vote."

Actually, there's one thing that the surface supporters don't feel Seattleites deserve to vote on, and that's their own project.

There's a famous quote by pundit Michael Kinsley, "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth." And one of the surface advocates, Ben Schiendelman, committed just such a gaffe when he admitted on Seattle Transit Blog that, while he's perfectly happy to use the blunt instrument of direct democracy against the tunnel, he doesn't want that same instrument wielded against the surface plan:

Second, a pure surface transit option probably wouldn’t pass. Voters aren’t informed about induced demand, largely because it’s counterintuitive, and they’re afraid of congestion, just like in every other city that’s removed a highway. And they are fatigued already, thanks to the state trying to force this for so long. The only way to get to the good policy choice here is to kill the bad ones.

@4:
Here are the links to analysis by CNT, and explanation.
In the past decade, the economy grew (14% per capita) in our region, the population grew (10%) and the amount we drove dropped (6%). So the net effect is 14% decline in driving per capita during a period of economic growth. These are gross statistics, not meant to prove anything beyond pointing out that a growing economy doesn't necessitate increased car trips.
http://www.cnu.org/node/3920
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

The 'about 25% less likely' stat is shorthand for several measures of how much young people drive, how likely they are to own cars, how much car culture is shifting. Here is one article:
http://adage.com/article/digital/digital…

Many cities have invested in a integrated set of strategies to give people better alternatives to driving. For a variety of reasons -- a practical realization that there is simply not enough room for everyone to bring a car into a denser and denser city; emissions reduction goals; equity concerns about rising cost of fuel affordability; effort to make great streets; effort to use existing pavement more efficiently to move more people, efforts to reduce congestion and increase access, etc.

It's very possible to achieve improved mobility with lessening car usage; many success stories point the way. It takes investing in transit, compact growth, better connectivity, and focusing on creating better access to urban centers.

To kk @2
The gas taxes can be used for any pavement, if the political will is there. If the plug is pulled on the tunnel for financial and practical reasons, which is getting more likely all the time, then there are several leaders at the City and State who would like to figure out a viable solution.

A lot has to change regarding the politics to get there, no question. But gas tax money may be spend on the I-5 projects, on removing the viaduct and rebuilding the waterfront street, on some of the arterial street improvement projects, and on the capital costs of improving streets to allow Bus Rapid Transit -- if that is pursued. Gas tax money may not be spent on transit service, you're right. But that is the only black and white rule.

@11

Sure, its to be expected that gas prices will surge again, just like it is now. But you dont need a hybrid of EV car to get better gas milage. At the top of my head (and mind you, I dont know much about cars), Geo Metros are cheap POS cars that have been getting 30-40 MPG for years.

Not being able to afford a hybrid is the least of your worries when gas surges to 6-8$ a gallon, you wont be able to afford to drive period.

Oh and bus riderships are sorta misleading as those who find it expensive to drive, will take the bus to work, but still drive on the weekend or in the evening.

Short version. You pay a lot and you get more congestion, more taxes (tolls), slower commutes, and the Ultra-Rich ride in comfort in their limos to their private jets.

To Mr X @15
The difference has been stated many times, but I'll say it again if you've forgotten. The tunnel plan expects about 70,000 cars a day to be dumped onto unimproved city streets. Many of these are expected on the narrow, physically fragile (because of decaying historic areaways) streets of Pioneer Square because of where the single SR-99 downtown interchange would be located. One single, suburban scaled interchange is expected to handle ALL the downtown traffic the viaduct currently handles in 7 on and off ramps spread throughout downtown.

With I-5/S/ T, improvements are made across the grid, to I-5, and to transit so the trips would be distributed to many facilities.

Check out Seoul Korea which did this in 2005 on a much larger scale: took out an elevated highway and replaced it with street improvements, BRT, and some assertive demand management. Net result: traffic flows better, there is less congestion, and the economy is thriving.

The current story from a recent article in the The Korea Times:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz…

A thorough report from the local government:
http://www.wfeo.org/documents/download/C…

From Seattle's Urban Mobility Plan -- Nelson Nygaard did a brief case study on Cheonggye:
http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportat…

Super thoughtful, cressona. Thanks.

"Trips within Seattle" does not mean "short". I regularly travel between various points in north and northwest Seattle and various points in the Rainier Valley, Beacon Hill, South Park, and West Seattle (and further south), and I use the viaduct. Those trips would be much, much longer without it. I-5 is not an option because I-5 is often not moving, and I-5 doesn't go anywhere near most of the places I'm leaving from or arriving at. Mention I-5 to a Ballardite and he'll just laugh at you.

To ian @8,
Politics are changing all the time. What looked practical and viable to Gregoire in January 2009 -- when she decided to ignore the official recommendation of the three DOT heads who counseled AGAINST the bored tunne after a year of evaluation -- is looking less and less practical now. The tunnel might have been sold as the silver bullet then, but now, with its poor technical performance, high cost and risk, the dismal condition of the state budget, the giant combined shortfall in the funding for SR-520 and SR-99 replacement projects (($2 billion for 520, roughly $700 million for the DBT), it might simply not be financially viable.

If it fails, that means there is a lot of political work to do to find a viable solution. The solution has to be affordable, it has to offer good urban access, it has to allow quick removal of the damaged viaduct. Because everyone is between embarrassed and distraught that it hasn't been closed yet.

I'm not claiming it's easy to get there. However, if City leaders and key legislators actively tried to determine such a solution, they could put together a deal where:
the state pays for I-5 which it wants to do anyway,
the state gives local agencies authority to raise funding for transit (what Gregoire already promised once),
the state pays for viaduct removal and waterfront street replacement,
the city found money -- via a TBD and possibly federal sources -- to do the street improvements,

then the state could save $500 to $700 million, and walk away from the on-going and expensive headache that this project is proving to be. (Because they still are short $700 million to do the tunnel, it's not actually clear how to count the savings. But walking away from a $700 million problem is probably as beneficial anyway.)

I cannot speak for legislators, obviously. But there are several who care about the waterfront opportunity, who realize that the civic leaders, economic leaders, and their major donors in Seattle do not want the elevated for another 100 years. It would be surprising if legislators tried to force that.

The City and State have plans for how to handle the traffic if the viaduct must be closed due to further damage, or during construction. Danny Westneat's idea to do the essential projects that allow closure in 6 months, and then see how we fare, is practical and sensible.

The voters are split, it's true; after ten years at this, it may not plausible to convince a majority to agree on one answer. But if we did the shared experiment, and all could see how well our city can adapt to a change in traffic, then we'd at least have some good empirical evidence to decide next steps -- instead of conjecture on what is and is not possible.

You're kicking butt, Cary -- in this thread and in general. Keep up the good work!

For a greener sustainable Seattle!

Cary Moon - Thanks for the response. If I can sum up your answer in a sentence, it would read: "I have no fucking clue how'd we pull this off, but hope springs eternal."

@25: ian, you've proven yourself blind and deaf to any option that isn't the tunnel. You can be directed to studies, plans, suggestions and functional existing real-world examples, but you seem to lack sufficient honesty or integrity to acknowledge any of them.

I will counter your entire dishonest argument by reminding you that absent a complete EIS, the tunnel is not a functional plan. It's an idea. An incomplete one. Until the EIS is completed, until the GSA drops its planned suit, until everyone calms down this is not a done deal.

It's just a theory on paper.

And Cary, you mention that the public is "split". Well, that's true. But I'd love to know why you never address the remarkable lack of public support for surface/transit. Why do you think the surface/transit option was only about to muster 21% support in last year's poll, around 15 points behind either rebuild or tunnel? And that is after nearly a decade of hearing your arguments for surface/transit (it's not like you've been shy about arguing your position). Why haven't you been able to convince people? And I have a really hard time understanding why the public's opinion is so critical when it comes to the tunnel, but you just shrug off the fact that the public supports your option the least.

Cary, you're doing an excellent job. Separating the pieces and who pays, as you mention in your last post, is really important.

As you say:

State: pay for I-5 improvements and viaduct destruction

City: pays for surface improvements with a local transit improvement district.

I'd argue that the state could relieve itself of even more headaches by signing legal control of the corridor through downtown to Seattle in exchange for Seattle picking up the Alaskan Way street replacement costs. I think you could make a case for doing this for the entire length of the state highway, really, but the larger question is beyond the scope of the immediate problem.

Fnarf, I don't think anyone is saying that people in Ballard should drive to I-5 to get downtown. The idea is to give them other options for getting downtown along the same corridor. I suppose if you live in Ballard and work on (for example) the Eastside that could make your already super-crappy commute even crappier, but you really ought to reconsider living in Ballard in that case.

Also, the number of freight trips (requested @1) is about 5000 from what I've seen. Freight is not a significant part of the problem.

#26 - Yes, I know how inflexible I am -- although of course as I've mentioned to you before I supported surface until they decided on the tunnel, and then I said "ok, at least it's not a rebuild" and moved on. But you are a model of flexibility on this issue, aren't you? You're open to any and all options, right? Maybe you should call me a few more names, that's what you typically do at about this point in a comment thread. I'm through addressing you -- you're basically Will In Seattle only without the sad attempts at humor.

lol, @ian for the Dilbert Feminism is Whining Cartoon win!

ian - Your side never explains how to get people to drive into a tolled tunnel with un-tolled options right above(city streets) or six blocks away(I-5).

Mr. X - Seattle worst traffic in the nation? Are you fucking kidding? Sure its bad compared to Spokane, but try a mid-day trip in SF, LA, NY, NJ, Boston, DC, Atlanta, Dallas or Houston. Seattle's "rush hour" does not compare and if you left 30 minutes earlier/later you'd miss it. (Or maybe everybody in your Eastside cul-de-sac leaves at the same time and it takes 30 minutes to get on the Sammamish Pkwy and you attribute the long commute to downtown traffic.)

#31 - I don't care if people use the tunnel or not, personally. If people need a quick way through downtown, I guess they'll shell out for it. If they're ok sitting in traffic, then I guess they won't. Whatever.

Anyway, I think all bridges and tunnels should be tolled, and I can't believe the whole West Coast no-toll thing. It's got to end, and certainly will.

Ian @27,
Different polls say different things, depending on what info is given and how the questions are framed.
Many polls are obviously biased, fishing for a particular outcome.
I've seen polls that say 62% of folks will go for I-5/S/T if you give them the full explanation of how it works and how much cheaper and lower risk it is than the tunnel. There is not a single black and white truth of What The Public Wants in this situation.

It is dismaying how much the well has been so poisoned at this point. There is a LOT of misinformation out there, and many people are confused and too frustrated by the rancor to even engage. WSDOT has spent millions and millions of public money, some of it trying to create an illusion that the tunnel is fully funded, is a done deal, is underway and impossible to stop, is the only answer.

At the end of the stakeholder process, there was a LOT of support for spending the money we have now on I-5/ S/ T, and seeing how it works for a few years. Then reviewing whether more bypass capacity was needed. Many civic leaders of Seattle were willing to go for that. But the public discussion never happened because Gregoire pulled rank and went in a different direction based on what Boeing and the regional Chamber of Commerce wanted.

gloomy gus @20: Super thoughtful, cressona. Thanks.

Thanks, Gus. I find it interesting that Cary has chosen to respond to other critiques, in posts @14, @16, @19, and at length @23. And yet she obviously has made the judgment, perhaps wisely, not to respond to my own critiques @3 and @13.

Frankly, I can't blame her. I think she realizes that there are some aspects of the surface campaign that are best left unaddressed and let's just hope nobody pays attention. And paramount among them is the dirty, little secret that the surface supporters don't want the public to vote on their own plan. They only favor democracy when it suits their own agenda.

As we've learned with the monorail, if every infrastructure project was subjected to a death-blow popular vote at its most vulnerable point, we wouldn't be able to build any infrastructure projects in this region. I remember a time when Sound Transit light rail was experiencing billion-dollar cost overruns and was tremendously unpopular. If someone had the legal mechanism to subject light rail to a vote at the time, I doubt we'd have it today. As I pointed out in my post @3, I hate to see us descend into a "live by the sword, die by the sword" politics because the result will only be "die by the sword."

Hello cressona @ 34,
If you want to ask a question about how I-5/ S/ T works, why I care, what issues and evidence seems important in this decision for Seattle, I'll engage. If you want to toss passive aggressive grenades or inflammatory accusations about our side, then there doesn't seem to be much point in responding.
I'm not in this because I like fighting for sport, I'm trying to help shift this decision toward an outcome that I and many folks I respect believe would position Seattle to be a better future city.

#34: We had 3 votes on light rail. Two of them passed, the one that included expensive highways for cars like the tunnel failed. There were also lawsuits and anti-transit groups (Sane Transit) to address financial concerns. Light rail was built when those concerns were addressed.

The monorail was also popular, passed multiple public votes, but was defeated when the financial concerns weren't addressed.

The difference here is that the tunnel is both unpopular and nobody is addressing the financial concerns.

Cary #33 - The survey I'm referring to, I think you must know, is the one that simply polled people on the three options - rebuild, tunnel, or surface. Pretty straightforward. It's the only thing we have that I know of that polled the three options. If you think that was rigged against surface, do tell. Here is the Publicola story:

http://publicola.com/2010/03/29/publique…

But I think you are being disingenuous, Cary - you won't admit that the surface option has very small support among the public. Or you kind of acknowledge it, but say there is too much misinformation out there, and blame the governor (as if you haven't had plenty of time to make your case to the public!). And then after acknowledging that the pubic is misinformed, you are still totally happy to have the public vote on the tunnel? Just not on surface?

Cary, when you start using language like accusing someone of tossing "passive aggressive grenades," that's a sure sign you don't want to have a thoughtful argument on the merits. Sorry, I will not be dragged into a mud fight.

Actually, I was thinking you'd respond to my observation of your selective willingness to employ direct democracy by bravely saying, "Sure, we'd love to let the public vote on I-5/surface/transit." I think it speaks volumes that, instead of addressing this apparent hypocrisy that strikes at your entire movement's political integrity, you would manufacture an accusation of nastiness against a transit supporter who's one of the most painstakingly diplomatic commenters in this forum. (Hey, I understand though. By any means necessary. Or as Dan Bertolet would say, "Do what you have to do.")

What I find fascinating is that later in that Seattle Transit Blog post, Ben Scheindelman apparently realizes he'd made a Michael Kinsley gaffe when he said he wouldn't want a vote on surface. So he does a complete 180:

If the council put surface on the ballot, we’d get a stand-up fight, and one I think we can win. I haven’t even started publicly boiling down the simple, understandable reasons why surface works, and it’s easy to explain – I’m honing my skills there while signature gathering.

At least Dan Bertolet is more frank in his post on his own blog:

In my view, a choice made with that perspective would have an obvious answer: the I-5/Surface/Transit alternative, as I have argued previously. But if we had a three-way run-off vote between the deep-bore tunnel, a new elevated highway, and I-5/Surface/Transit, the latter would likely come in last, simply because so many people have incorrect, knee-jerk attitudes that it could never handle the traffic—and nothing is more universally loathed than traffic jams.

While the majority of the public has the best intentions, the fact is that most are not engaged enough to appreciate the complex interplay between transportation investments, land use, car-dependence, greenhouse gas emissions, and urban livability. In short, car culture still rules the day, even in “green” Seattle.

Bottom line, Cary: Why should we listen to you now? What exactly is different between the argument you have now and the one we've been hearing for the past decade? This city has consistently found your approach to be the worst of the lot. Granted, they all seem like crappy options, but the tunnel would appear to be the least crappy.

And yeah, like other commenters have mentioned, there's something distinctly Rovian in your "NO NO NO" approach to the argument.

Cary @35:

I'm not in this because I like fighting for sport, I'm trying to help shift this decision toward an outcome that I and many folks I respect believe would position Seattle to be a better future city.

Cary, what's disappointing here is that, instead of addressing the merits of my arguments, you accuse me of challenging you for sport. Tell me, on what basis did you come up with this accusation?

The truth is that I'm about as passionate and committed a supporter of transit as you'll find in this city, and the countless comments I've made on this blog bear witness to that. In fact, there was a time when the surface option was my #1 choice, although I was never so much interested in surface vs. tunnel as I was in just preventing another viaduct from being built. But we've long since passed the point when the surface option can be realized in a way that doesn't cause deep ancillary damage to the rest of this region's transit agenda, and I've come to realize that you're doing about as much good for transit in Seattle as the Bar Kokhba rebellion did for Jewish self-rule.

Still, I realize it's a lot easier to make personal, ad hominen attacks than address the fundamental flaws in your movement, flaws like a willingness to exploit direct democracy even though you know your option is the least popular, flaws like not having a clear path to seeing your option realized other than engaging in a lengthy war of attrition that few voters have an appetite for, flaws like:

Notice Moon goes on and on about the purported flaws in the tunnel project. But nowhere does she explain how the "I-5/Streets/Transit" plan, as it's now called, can happen politically in Olympia or what will happen to the gas tax money earmarked for the project. Remember, "no" campaigns are infinitely easier than "yes" campaigns.

I remember in 2001 when we implemented the surface/transit option for a week or two after the earthquake. It took at least 2 hours to get from West Seattle to downtown.

Why would it be any different if we did it again?

Bax - Because it was a FUCKING EARTHQUAKE, dumb ass. Go tell your tragic tale of the 2hr West Seattle commute to people in Japan or Haiti.

With surface/transit we have months and years to re-design traffic patterns, expand telecommuting, require businesses to have a plan for their employees in case of another minor earthquake, etc. Start with making people who aren't behind the wheels of ambulances or firetrucks ride the bus downtown the week(s) after an earthquake(or blizzard).

If we're stuck with the tunnel, can we make the crybabies in West Seattle and Ballard pay for the whole thing? You know how long it will take them to get downtown without the tunnel or viaduct? Same time it takes to get downtown from Lake City or Rainier Valley. Oh boo hoo!

@43
West Seattle Traffic Clusterfuck=Going slower than 60mph over the West Seattle Bridge

Seattle Rush Hour = So many cars, we have to drive the speed limit on city streets

West Seattle is so fucking special they have get to downtown in less than 15 minutes. The hard-on from the bikini coffee stand and blasting butt rock in the SUV doesn't last the whole 25-30 minutes the trip takes from every other neighborhood not named Queen Anne or Capitol Hill. USA! USA! SUV! SUV!

@9: Do you see the irony between saying "tl;dr" and then creating a chunky 5 point post?

Mr X, are you really going to let her get away with adding up all 7 on and off ramps from both N and S and compare that to N offramps only? The tunnel would give the same access to downtown that the surface option would--you'll be able to get on Alaska, 1st or 4th and access downtown from many different points, which is a lot better than the existing 2 current points of seneca and western, which frequently have long backups. Going back up the line and calling that a single access point is a crock of shit because you could say the same thing about about the surface plan--it only provides one access point to downtown, that from N 99.

The only difference with downtown access betweeen the 2 plans is the tunnel allows the option of taking most of the thru traffic out of the mix so all those access points from alaskan etc are not completely gridlocked.

And the polling study actually showed that most people will in fact take the tunnel during rush hours--they'll only choose to take surface streets when there's not enough traffic on the surface streets to deter them, unlike with the surface plan which will force all cars onto the surface grid, rush hour or not.

And while there's only $190 million available for transit in the tunnel plan, there isn't any available in the surface plan because the state isn't paying for that. And not building the tunnel doesn't magically give us billions to spend on transit because that's state money. And while it might be possible for Seattle to tax itself more for transit, it's not any more or less possible wether we build the tunnel or not--the tunnel could just as easily be branded as the tunnel/streets/transit option. And more importantly, when the city council studied this their consultant found that without the tunnel, capacity on all the downtown streets would be so maxed out that it would severely limit the ability to add transit in the future.

Either traffic will be fine without the viaduct or 50,000 cars will flood Seattle streets. Which is it? Why do the anti tunnel people speak from both sides of their mouths in the same article?

That link to the Publicola survey is, um, quite something.

I'm no statistician, but a quick bit of napkin doodling and it looks like what they're trying to say is that they threw a survey at a sample of 681 hopefully average voters, and 143 said they preferred S/T. About 228 went for the rebuild and 227 for the tunnel.

Or so. No mention of methodology,how the questions were phrased, etc. Not even a mention of where they lived.

It's kinda lame to wave stats around and then ask for $5 to see the full report. It doesn't cost that much to run a PDF. Are things really that tight over at Publicola?

Local polls often are conducted with only 500 voters, 681 is more than enough for accurate results. The concluding statement in the article accompanying the poll is worth highlighting; "PubliQuestion results ought to be a major warning for McGinn, revealing that the rebuild still has significant public support in Seattle, far more than the surface-transit option that McGinn hopes to implement. If McGinn is somehow able to derail the deep-bore tunnel, Olympia – which fiercely opposes the surface-transit option – is likely to revive the rebuild as the fallback option."

If that happens we're naming it the Cary Moon's Big Fucking Ego Viaduct. I'll go down there at night and personally stencil her face on all the support columns.

Cary, I read your lengthy article in the Weekly many years ago when you first rolled out the surface option. You convinced me that the cut and cover tunnel was a bad idea because it was a very inelegant solution in that it was only a tunnel for a very short length--starting to far north in Pioneer Square and ending by arching out of the ground and soaring thru the air in front of Steinbrueck park to dive into the Battery street tunnel. That made sense, you converted me. The deep bore tunnel answers those objections, it is a very elegant solution to the problem. We beat the rebuild, you've won, it's time for you to move on.

@31, I will definitely pay a toll to go through the tunnel if it keeps me out of a traffic jam. I don't care if the toll is $5. And I'm not a rich guy, either. My time is more valuable than to sit in a goddamn Seattle traffic backup.

@26: Baconcat, your self-satire is way better than anything I can come up with.

While the tunnel is asserted to increase our carbon footprint, it is actually the surface option that does that because cars are sitting there crawling along the waterfront at 8mph, suffering thru 26 stoplights. Contrary to how it's being pitched, the surface option increases pollution, and the tunnel is more amenable to adding transit in the future because it doesn't make such a mess of everything. From Nick Licata's blog; "In 2006, as then Council President, I commissioned a study of a 6-lane surface option, to further analyze it, as Councilmembers wanted additional information. The study indicated it would result in more pollution, greater congestion, and showed how streets with too much vehicle traffic quickly become pedestrian unfriendly.

The study also noted If Viaduct capacity were reduced, or trips diverted downtown, future decision-makers would have little flexibility for the surface street system to accommodate transit needs in the future, because the Downtown grid can accommodate about 20-30% of Alaskan Way Viaduct traffic during peak periods; once you get to 40-50%, you start breaching the capacities of the streets."

And that was a 6 lane surface street. Now they're talking about 4, and the argument seems to be that this won't cause gridlock because there will be buses sitting in the mess, further screwing it up with special transit priority lanes, so it's really more of a 2 lane road. Oh, but a lot of trips won't be taken--in other words, people will be forced to quit their jobs and sell their houses and move out to places were they can actually get around.

@52, I agree, I think the tolling study is flawed. If you call people up and ask them if they'll pay a $4 toll of course a lot of people are going to say "no," hoping that if they say that there won't be a toll. But when they're staring down the neck of spending 20 minutes crawling along the waterfront or paying $4 to zip thru the tunnel I think pretty much everyone is going to pay, I know I would and I'm the type of person that usually will sacrifice my own time to save some money. I may be fucking poor but I'm not spending 20 minutes of my life crawling along in gridlock traffic burning expensive gas, surrounded by cursing and honking road-raged drivers just to save $4.

And even if the worst case scenario were true and what is it they're claiming, 90,000 cars per day are spilling onto surface streets to avoid the toll, all you would have to do is toll 99 a little further up the line so that everyone is paying it rather than just the tunnel users. After all, people taking the surface streets to access downtown are greatly benefitting from the tunnel because the only way they can use those streets without gridlock is if there's a tunnel to get those by-pass cars out of the mix.

The I-5/S/T approach is just flat out cheaper.

How much cheaper? Try $700 million less than the deep bored tunnel — if, magically, the tunnel comes in on budget.

BUT... we'd also lose the $700 million in stimulus funds we've got coming from the feds for the tunnel! So, by your own admission, the cost to WA taxpayers is exactly the same for "surface+transit" as for the DBT!

Moreover, WA-DOT isn't going to pay a dime for the transit portion of your surface+transit option because, as you so elegantly note:

In fact, 85 percent of trips on the viaduct start and end on Seattle city streets—in thousands of various locations.

So here we see the real genius of the surface+transit "option":

It costs us just the same as the tunnel, but foots Seattlites with the majority of the bill!

Oh yeah... like I'm gonna run right out an vote for THAT!

Timrrr @57, do you have a link concerning $700 million in federal stimulus funds going toward the tunnel project? I know there is a federal component to the funding, but I didn't think it was stimulus money and I didn't think it was that much.

Dear Cary,

You're wrong, and you're only damaging the future of this city. Go away.

-- All People North of Downtown

@26/53: How did we block progress before repetitive environmental impact studies? You can keep throwing monkey-wrenches into the process but let's not pretend we actually care what these studies say.

I need to stop reading these threads.

@59: you're right. Ms. Moon is interested in improving the value of her property (she lives a few feet away from the viaduct) but she it's what's best for the city. I live on lower Queen Anne and use the Viaduct several times a month for work and leisure. The Viaduct works. @5 and apparently many others can't get their heads around this fact. I don't understand why so many people hate the Viaduct. If unsightliness is cause for getting rid of structures there are many candidates downtown that are more deserving.

@60: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?Dis…

"In a special election on February 8, 1972, Seattle voters endorse cancellation of the R. H. Thomson Expressway, previously recommended by the City Council, and abort the proposed Bay Freeway linking SR 520, I-5, and SR 99 along the south shore of Lake Union...."