The last 25 feet are the hardest. Don't count your chickens.

I sense hubris.

You guys have been rooting for it to fail since the beginning; I'm sure this hurts.

That is an exciting event. Sorry I can't' be there to see it live!

Trigger warning: This stream is incredibly offensive because it reminds me of the crippling PAIN of BEING BORN.

When Bertha breaks through to open air I will raise my middle finger good and high to Mike McGinn, Cary Moon, Erica C. Barnett, Charles Mudede, and the rest of the wretched urbanist cult who pimped their unworkable "surface option."

@6
Absolutely correct.

@6,

Technologically, I've always been a fan - Giant tunnel! Neat!

But as a transit solution, it just sucks. (Even if I do look enthusiastically forward to driving through it for the first time.) Costly, with a toll that's going to divert a lot of traffic onto city streets and I-5 anyway, and zero access to downtown. I mean, they couldn't even be bothered to put a bump-out somewhere under downtown for a bus stop.

@6 -- You seem to forget that the so called "surface option" included improvements to I-5. Think about that next time you are stuck on the most important freeway in the region. It also, of course, included money for improvements to transit. Think about that the next time you are stuck on a bus. Oh, sure, we have our light rail, but improvements to the bus system -- which carries way more people -- are left wanting, because the money allocated for said improvements (with Move Seattle) was way too tiny. The so called RapidRide+ improvements are being watered down because of lack of funding.

This is why the committee that studied the issue came up with two solutions. One is obvious -- a new viaduct. Add ramps for Western (of course) because without it, this won't be nearly as useful (you will soon see traffic funneled to city streets, as Eric described). A new viaduct would not be stacked, but parallel, thus making it far less noisy. This proposal was so much better than a tunnel, that a leading transit blog proposed it as a compromise. Yes, that's right -- folks from a transit blog wanted a new viaduct -- because at least a new viaduct was a better value than this piece of shit.

Of course, what would have made the most sense -- what would have saved more people more time -- is the other proposal the committee came up with. Improvements to I-5, along with money for transit.

There is a reason the committee specifically rejected a tunnel, and that is because it is extremely expensive, and offers fewer benefits. Even for cars it sucks. Two lanes instead of three. No downtown ramps and no ramps at Western.

It is a piece of shit. It is way too expensive for what it delivers and thus right in line with so many projects this city seems be very good at building in the last 20 years.

When do the Elder Gods come out?

I told you we should have sacrificed Eyman first ...

@9 - and you seem to forget that the "improvements" to I-5 in the surface/transit option were basically a joke. Oooooo, convert a shoulder to a lane between downtown and 520 on northbound I-5, that'll solve everything!

We've already tried surface/transit many times during the various closures of SR 99 over the last 16 years. Every time, without fail, it resulted in compete gridlock downtown. And funny enough, every time, without fail, surface/transit proponents were nowhere to be found.