"Rosebud."

Yeah McGinn, you have brains and courage! I see courage in your willingness to lay out your logic here... Conlin didn't dare to do it. And it's a good analysis. Now is the time to clarify what the city...and/or its property owners... are in for.

Since the State law saying "Seattle-area taxpayers who benefit from the tunnel would be responsible for cost overruns," is -- according to the Governor -- no more than a statement of intent, why doesn't the Seattle City Council now pass for the record its own statement of intent?

Council could pledge to make sure Seattle taxpayers are not going to be held responsible for unplanned costs of a tunnel with benefits that extend beyond the Seattle area.

Another representative of Seattle-area taxpayers, King County Councilman Phillips, documented in a letter (http://tinyurl.com/278cbj9) to the Governor what he claims is the intent of the full County Council NOT to pay overruns.

I'm wondering why even just a little pledge is a big ask of the city council.

Let it be known that when the AWV was built, the state did not fund access to the downtown core. The Columbia and Seneca ramps were funded by a bond approved by Seattle voters.

The argument that there will be no overruns is assuming that the state can build the minimally accepted product and the city can repair or augment it later. It's intellectually dishonest to claim there will be no overruns when the current product is completely flawed.

It exists as a bypass, which even in the heady autocentric days of the 50s and 60s was considered completely inadequate and snarled traffic. Voters did not approve of such a thing and voted to add direct access to downtown Seattle. It lacks transit connectivity. It requires maintaining the current structure for at least 4 years beyond what was promised by many in the interest of safety-- a very dangerous and manipulative lie.

The State is assuming they can build this and say it was "as promised", even if Seattle needs to shovel millions to make a functional part of the regional transportation system.

And why are we pushing for MORE roads when we've basically wrecked the gulf coast in a calamity that will claim many more lives before this is over?

Thanks Mayor McGinn for standing up for the people of Seattle. City council has lost the tunnel debate-- when will the council conced

Current access to SR99 from the north is via Western and Elliott through commercial Lower Belltown for about 40,000 vehicles daily, straight, shortest distance with least stoplights. Moving access to Denny Regrade (or whatever that area is called) "circuitously" redirects this traffic longer distances through high density residential and active commercial districts with many turns, more stoplights, side streets to cut through, and a significant hill climb. Forget about Mercer Place hill as SDOT's first choice. SDOT knows it's not possible and plans to inform y'all later, the frickin liars. Redirecting the traffic this way makes no sense, whatsoever. It even makes Mercer between Aurora and I-5, the Mercer Mess worse. Highway Department honchos plan takes a figurative dump on Seattle. Smell the power.

And then there's the Alaskan Way rebuild pile. While roughly half the 40,000 vehicles daily will scatter like cockroaches through Lower Queen Anne, the other half will jam Alaskan Way's 13 stoplights between Pike and King Streets, plus 3 in Lower Belltown and 3 in Sodo. 20,000 vehicles daily is about 1250 an hour, more or less. Alaskan Way will be bumper-to-bumper frequently.

It's possible to improve the Alaskan Way design, but Seattle's psuedo-environmentalists want their pweshush pwomenade. What a fraud. It'll become a makeshift parking lot. No, make that: It's already planned to become a makeshift parking lot.

Early designs for Alaskan Way (pre-Crunican), incorporated a 2-lane frontage road on the east side, with islands between it and 4-lane Alaskan Way, much like the current arrangement sans AWV monstrosity. This frontage road would allow for reinstallation of the Waterfront Streetcar Line and make possible east/west bus lines near Coleman Dock; thru-traffic would be divided from motorists looking to park, and 3 or 4 stoplights could be removed between Pike and King.

Park-loving psuedo-environmentalists pitted against goofball transit advocates so that gridlock-loving automobile-related private interests may fulfill their dreams of Seattle becoming an even more maniacal diorama of machine addiction despotism.

The only sensible tunnel option is some version of the cut/cover Tunnelite. It's the only option that creates a car-free gardened walkway between the Waterfront and Stienbrueck Park. It has numerous additional advantages that WSDOT directors censored from public consideration while lying about its supposedly intolerable construction disruption. The deep-bore tunnel and related surface street rearrangements is criminal.

For drivers using 99 Northbound to get to fisherman's terminal and all of the businesses in that area, without the Western exit leading there, they will be stuck on 99 and weave through the Mercer area and take Nickerson west to fisherman's terminal.

I think it's just fishy that Nickerson is on a Road Diet and being re-striped to be 2 lanes now, before the influx of cars and shipping trucks.

I have to agree with Council President Richard Conlin - there is nothing to say to defend the Council's position that each and every Seattle citizen - renter or property owner (cause property taxes get passed through in your rent) - to pay $10,000 per household for a Billionaires Tunnel we can't afford and don't want.

So his response is best.

Conlin for the "Who Cares What You Voters Want, I Work For the Billionaires" position win!

oh, by the way, the bus tunnel's closed this weekend

@8 Roads diets generally increase throughput. Much of our road system was designed without current capacity algorithms and driver behaviors being considered. It may seem counter intuitive but often having a single turn lane shared by a lane in each direction on either side is actually faster and more efficient than a 4 lane road. This is due to a breakdown in the decision making process in the driver during high usage.

http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads…

If you don't believe me look at the actual hard numbers in the PDF above. This is not up for debate. You can debate other facts involved like whether or not cyclists and pedestrians deserve safe roads but the numbers are not disputable.

Thus ends Conlin's political career.

Bravo Stranger! Bravo Mayor! Grow some balls and debate your side Conlin! What kind of man are you? DO IT!!!

I love the way the article is laid out in the print edition.

If State law is saying "Seattle-area taxpayers who benefit from the tunnel would be responsible for cost overruns" then this would be referring to the increase in real estate value for those prime locations which line the noisy and obstructed AWV and would become quiet, clear view waterfront properties. I would expect the value of those properties and the resultant tax revenue from them to triple. This, along with a targeted tax that would share in the property owners’ gain, would be the cost overrun fund.

The gauntlet has been thrown -- rationally, and well. To not debate these points is to admit that the Council f***ed up. Bury their political careers in the tunnel for all we'll care when this is over.

Up till now, I've generally been a fan of Conlin. I think he has been a pretty decent council member, overall.

I'm totally baffled by his intransigence on this. I get that the council wants a tunnel. But this deal is a horrible one. Both Conlin and the governor are plugging their ears, la la la la, I can't hear you. The sole argument that either of them have articulated is that there won't be any cost overruns. That's it.

WTF? Seriously? I've never heard of a major project that HASN'T had cost overruns. Cost overruns are nearly guaranteed on a massive project like this. And if Conlin and the governor honestly think there won't be any cost overruns, then why specifically put Seattle taxpayers at risk. The slightest boondoggle, and you know it will happen, would cripple the Seattle budget for years.

Here's what I think will happen. Boss Gregoire and her minions on the city council will manage to shove this tunnel down our throats, but only part way. Then the problems will start. Will it be a stuck boring machine? Or maybe a sink hole in the middle of down town? Who knows, but it will certainly be something. Then the city and the state will get into a pissing contest over who pays the overrun, and the project will grind to a halt. Maybe forever. We already have our share of on ramps to nowhere. The result: billions wasted with nothing to show for it.

Asian1981 @17:

So if the state clearly states that it will cost over runs you'll all support the tunnel?

Yeah right, that's what I fucking thought.

Actually yes, I'd be happy to support the tunnel in this case. I consider the tunnel a waste of billions of dollars. But as long as it's the state's highway money being wasted, fine with me. Frankly, I can think of much, much worse ways the state could be wasting our gas tax revenues.

P.S. This is not to say that I agree completely with the mayor. There are some good ideas--from some earlier commenters, from Nick Licata--about how to proceed with this project without taxpayers across Seattle worrying they're going to be on the hook.

That is cute. McMayor is still talking about the damn tunnel. Blah blah blah. Can we just get on to doing work that improves the citizens of Seattle and their daily lives.

McMayor's only chance is Gregoire getting the S.G. job in the White House. McMayor lacks the political clout to take on Gregoire...a new governor would be a different ballgame however.

But...who gives a fuck. McMayor would just jump on the next agenda his bicycling hipster nanny state freegon base would have him do.

jniles @3:

Council could pledge to make sure Seattle taxpayers are not going to be held responsible for unplanned costs of a tunnel with benefits that extend beyond the Seattle area.

Morganb @4:

I'm wondering why even just a little pledge is a big ask of the city council.

This is a great idea. I realize the language written into the state law over cost overruns is vague and unenforceable. That's a red herring now.

The thing that worries me--and maybe my fear is unfounded--is not what Seattle gets compelled to do, but what Seattle's elected leaders freely decide to do when their backs are to the wall.

I'm worried we're going to get into a situation like "Don't you think he looks tired?" @20 describes, where the project grinds to a halt, or like Nick Licata describes in his newsletter, where the state reneges on its commitments to other parts of the project to help pay for the tunnel. Out of desperation to keep the project going, the City Council will pass a new tax, without anyone compelling it to. I wouldn't put it past Conlin, Rasmussen, Burgess, and Bagshaw. Godden, Clark, and Harrell maybe. The only councilmembers I could trust on this one are O'Brien and Licata.

The fear I express @24 about the City Council eventually selling Seattle taxpayers down the river--I'm not saying that's a reason not to go forward with the project. My fear may be unwarranted, and even if it is warranted, I just want to feel confident that, if we do go forward with the project, we're not going to get sold down the river.

To my mind, the most likely scenario in the event of overruns on the tunnel is also the best-case scenario. The state will pay.

I really don't want to agree with McGinn here. Seattle has a serious problem with political balls. We need them and we don't have them. We waste millions of hours and dollars on over-the-top process for decisions about BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE. Infrastructure that is demonstrably UNSAFE. If this thing falls down before we get started on fixing, we're going to look like an even bigger group of assholes than we do right now.

ALL THAT said, the state legislature needs to get over their pile-on, Seattle-bashing ethos and grow the fuck up. They tried to pull some serious bullshit by hooking Seattle with the overages, and now someone is going to call them on their BS. Bout time. Did Walla Walla sign a contract saying they would pay for the overages on highway 12? Did Spokane sign a contract to pay for the overages on highway 395? Fuck no. So why do I have to pay for 99?

Go look at the the state Department of Revenue's site. Seattle pays more in state taxes than we get back. Been that way for the majority of our state's history. I subsidized highway 12 in Walla Walla, and highway 395 north of Spokane, and highway 167 in S. King and Pierce Counties, and, and, and. Your turn. Time for this piling-on, Seattle-bashing crap to stop in Olympia. It's a State Highway. Fix it. With State money. I've been paying for everyone else's shit. Now pay for mine.

We need a tunnel... we need to tear down the viaduct, and we need to do it now, with contractors falling over each other to bid the job cheaper. Stop the stupid politics... make Seattle a world class city by helping it's infrastructure.

McGinn... you are only in office because you opposed the Tunnel, then decided against opposing it as you knew you couldn't win with your cronies that don't want a tunnel. The vote is done, don't make this another monorail... fight for the overruns to be paid by the state, but push this project on before the viaduct falls apart.

While excavating to rebuild the seawall, put in a cut/cover tunnel to the Pike Street portal and keep it a secret. Tell anyone who asks, "the forest of pilings behind the seawall had to be removed" block by block.

When the portal at Pike is finished, "demolish" the World Trade Center North building and direct traffic west of Battery Street Tunnel over a 'temporary' bridge to Alaskan Way and the Pike Street portal. Then remove the overhead highway and ramps in Lower Belltown and rebuild SR99 'under' Western and Elliott. Badda bing badda boom.

Conlin posted the response to this question in May:
http://conlin.seattle.gov/2010/05/18/tim…

McGinn is doing the right thing here - there is no logical scenario where this project becomes the first tunnel ever to come in under budget. #29, contractors are lining up to bid this precisely because of the potential for change orders. As a former construction contractor I know that as soon as the contractor encounters soil conditions contrary to what the pre-bid bore samples indicate, the project stops while the engineers re-evaluate the plan. Delay the work, calculate new excavation requirements, bring in more equipment, extend the contract, pay the contractor's extended overhead, etc. Ka-ching.

McGinn had his debate and got dope-slapped silly by the Gov:

http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=20467

Mayor McGinn: I voted for you because you promised NO TUNNEL. We talked about this and other issues when we walked the Bitter Lake neighborhood with you. I'm disappointed!