Since we've had CM Harrell on the line, does he have any comment?

How is this news? We all knew this would happen. And, guess what, it won't make any difference! The tunnel will get done, and then no one will even think about it after that.

How weird to ask for a stay of litigation by the same party that is putting forth the litigation in the first place.

Duh, major construction projects result in delays and lawsuits. You do know that a tunneling machine broke down in the Brightwater tunnel and had to be rescued, right? Or, since that was sewers and not transit, and Snohomish County and not downtown Seattle, you couldn't be bothered to notice? But you have heard of the Big Dig? In Boston? Major infrastructure projects are complex and unpredictable. Good thing the Stranger wasn't around when the "DISASTER" that is now the downtown transit tunnel was built . . . .

So, does the state pay for my lawyer, or what?
@BerthaDeBlues

When can we sue Gregoire and Murray?

We knew this was coming as soon as this mess began. Couldn't we have just skipped ahead to this part?

Without reading more, where does this leave Seattle? Why isn't the city in on that lawsuit so WE don't get stuck holding the bag.

Thank you, Doug. Remember when Gregoire dismissively and condescendingly cut McGinn off and informed him that his concerns about who's responsible for cost overruns were unfounded and everything was just fine and there would be no overruns? What a load of bullshit.

I wish they would cut our losses and abandon the whole sorry project anyway. If it goes perfectly from here on out, which it won't, it still won't be worth the cost.

Well of course the lawsuits were inevitable with this clusterfuck of a project. But I naively thought they'd wait till it was done before they brought out the long knives.

This lawsuit will get WSDOT's dibs in -- it's not a case of "Geez, we just discovered we're being taken by STP and we're shocked!" This isn't the long knives; it's a legal maneuver.

and just in case someone wonders about the "New York Supreme Court" mention; in New York superior courts are called supreme courts; it doesn't mean they're appeals courts.

@8: It will be 'worth the cost' because it would have been completed. And traffic will flow through the tunnel - and alleviate traffic on I-5. All this angst will be forgotten after completion just like Boston's woes over the big dig.

What do you suggest then? Turning the uncompleted tunnel into municipal wine cellar?

Amazing that some people still talk trash about Mike McGinn. Seattle owes him a collective apology.

#6

First Gregoire, and McGinn and Constantine go out of their way to insure that every taxpayer in Washington State are on the hook for this boondoggle.

Now the current leadership are trying to keep us off the hook for same.

Wait until it gets stuck again.

@2 - Sure people will still think about the tunnel when it is complete. They will think real hard about whether to drive through it and pay the toll of approximately $5.

Why is this a big deal? Weren't we all expecting a lawsuit? As for filing it and then asking for a stay, I imagine it's because of a statute of limitations thing or some insurance coverage timing thing. You ask for a stay because you don't know yet how much the damages will come out to be.

@11, do you know anybody in Boston? They're still complaining about The Big Dig over there.

Also, can I use the crystal ball that told you this project will be completed, used effectively, alleviate specifically I-5 congestion, and all with the cost and time overruns forgotten? I have some questions for it.

@17: Are they complaining how much longer it takes to get to Logan International Airport from downtown than before? No.

#15 More like $7 or 8 by the time the thing is done.

#18, Apples and Oranges. People rarely complain about the amount of time it takes them to get to an airport. I don't see protests over the 6+ lost minutes on the Seattle-SeaTac route, for example (Link has so many stops, the light rail line is 6 minutes slower than the peak rush hour 194).

@11 -- You've got this completely wrong. One big difference between this and the Big Dig is that just about everyone in Boston supported the big dig. They had terrible problems getting it done, but they certainly wanted it done (because it was a good idea).

This is the opposite. This is crap. Remember, there are only going to be two lanes, no downtown exits and no exit on Western. Just think about that last one for a second. What if you are in Ballard or Magnolia and want to go to the south end of downtown, the airport, West Seattle (or anywhere else in the south end). Your choices are:

1) Slog through Mercer.
2) Slog through downtown.
3) Cut through Fremont, then get on Aurora and go from there.

So basically, this will send more traffic to other places that are already clogged, while creating new pinch points. Traffic on Market as well as 39th are going to be a mess.

Oh, and if you think downtown will suddenly be a walker's paradise -- something akin to Vancouver BC -- think again. See option 2. All that traffic will go through downtown, so of course the city is making a street as wide as Aurora to handle it. Not that they will be able to handle all the traffic, because, of course, they won't have the money.

All of this was known. All of this was studied. But the folks in charge simply ignored the results of the study. The study basically came up with two solutions:

1) A new viaduct. There would be no downtown exits, but there would be an exit and on ramp for Western, which means that people slogging through downtown are simply going downtown. The viaduct would not be split level (like the current one) but have parallel roads, making it a lot quieter. Oh, and it would be a lot cheaper, allowing money left over for things mentioned in the second proposal, which is:

2) A combination of surface improvements, I-5 improvements and transit. It is crazy that you think this will make I-5 better, when the main alternative was to actually make I-5 better. That was a key part of the "surface option". The other parts were to do basically do what is being downtown anyway (but do it better) and add money for transit.

That is the key thing here. Don't be distracted by the current set of problems. That isn't the big problem. The big problem is that we will build a very expensive tunnel that very few people will use because it doesn't have the key on-ramps and exits when alternatives would have moved people and goods a lot better.

@21 Has it exactly right.

The sweet justice is that all the provincials here that were against the surface option, 'because San Francisco is stoooopid and we don't have to do what they do, we're special...neener neener' will now get a surface option that isn't as good, with a tunnel that sucks.

Yay PNW exceptionalism!

Yep, @21 is right. The Big Dig was a disaster in execution but a fundamentally useful project. The DBT is not--it would have been a catastrophic waste of public resources had it come in on time and under budget.

@11: Currently the viaduct is alleviating traffic on I-5.

Seattle traffic is, on the whole, a mess.

The tunnel has *less* capacity than the current viaduct. And it'll cost at least $5 per use.

The only "alleviation" of traffic on I-5 that the tunnel will do is relative to the traffic that's forced off the viaduct once the project reaches the point where we have to tear it down, and the months (probably years) until the tunnel actually opens.

Re: update: Fair enough, it would have been improper to comment earlier. So since its not a Friday news dump, is there a press conference scheduled for Monday?

Stoel Rives is a fantastic law firm - the state's interests couldn't be better represented.

Jesus Christ, Sydney. "Greatest Friday news dump ever"??????????????

Are you new????

No. You are just fucking clueless at this point in your career. Please ask for help from your editor, and if it's not forthcoming, move on for your own good.