I really don't get how tunnel supporters can be saying they don't expect cost overruns. How can they even be confident that their cost estimates are accurate with only 1% of the design

I hesitate to say they are lying - but if not, are they crazy optimistic? Daft? There doesn't appear to be a good answer.

State law says that Seattleites are responsible for all cost overruns on this experimental mega-project. When it does go overbudget, it could be billions. All to move cars 1.7 miles.

It's refreshing to see that there are still people who realize that the entire Viaduct Epic has been equal parts "shuck" from the city council, "jive" from the mayor's office, "three-card Monte" from Olympia and a few "Hail Marys" from the Discovery Institute.

Mike O'Brien, and Michael McGinn, are correct on this issue. A poor decision for our future reached through a poor process in our present. If you want to learn more about the "shuck, jive and three-card monte" process that led to the tunnel deal, check out tunnelfacts.com.

O'Brien, if you're running for council, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

Largest in diameter ever built? Jesus freaking christ. Right here in Seattle is the I-90 tunnel, which is significantly larger in diameter. If 99 is the "largest," it's so only by a narrow definition specific to a technique or location. You throw it around incorrectly, and that speaks to your lack of integrity.

Your entire article is full of misconceptions and poor understanding. It doesn't need to "meet the need of 60%" that's because they exit slightly earlier. There's potential for cost overruns, but there are with the other options as well.

As for public transit, do you really think "highwayizing" surface streets and clogging Downtown with traffic will help buses, or pedestrians? Maybe you don't see First Avenue before Mariner games, but I do, and it's a pedestrian nightmare. Welcome to the future for Downtown.

I put you and McGinn in the category of a Tim Eyman. Maybe you honestly believe this stuff, but you seem to want to kill the city based on uninformed ideas or in pursuit of a personal vision disconnected from reality, and you'll go to dishonest means to make it happen.

Any poor gullible fool who buys O'Brien's claim that the "surface transit option" will move traffic through downtown better than the tunnel would had better put down that crack pipe. This position alone should disqualify O'Brien and his Sierra Club buddy McGinn from public office -- unless, that is, you just flat-out hate automobiles and the poor working slobs who have to drive them to make a living, and nothing else matters to you.

If the potential tunnel costs scare you -- and they should -- then there's only one fiscally responsible solution that would still provide a much-needed alternative north-south vehicular corridor to I-5.

That is to retrofit the Viaduct, replace the sea wall, and install the needed mass transit infrastrucure that might -- just MIGHT -- make the "surface transit option" a viable substitute.

Until I see the transit part of it, I'm not buying the surface part of it. Just south of the Battery St. Tunnel, and right around Colman Dock, I visualize the most horrendous bottlenecks imaginable. Supporters of this so called "option" are every bit as disingenuous in dismissing any potential negative outcomes as the tunnel supporters are.

mhays-

You can't really tell driving through it, but the 1989 I-90 tunnel through Mt. Baker Ridge is actually twin bore, not a single like this one would be. WashDOT estimates that using the same technique here would add at least $600 million to the project cost. The soil is also considerably more consistent at Mt. Baker -- clay -- versus the mix of gravel, sand, and fill dirt that the downtown tunnel would face.

Originally, WashDOT cited the Mt. Baker tunnel to prove their experience building tunnels. But it has since been removed from the Viaduct project FAQ -- perhaps because it was built 20 years ago.

And I should add-- this tunnel will indeed be the largest diameter deep bore tunnel ever built, anywhere the world. No one has ever tried to build a tunnel boring machine this big, anywhere in the world -- as the Tacoma News Tribune noted yesterday, the tunnel boring machine will be the approximate size, length, and weight of super-jumbo class state ferry.

ChrisB is right, not only has a tunnel of this diameter never been attempted, there is not even a machine built to dig it. http://www.thenewstribune.com/topstory/story/822857.html

The tunnel sympathizers want to lead us into a hole of dept and make it impossible to afford public transportation or anything else this city holds dear.

It is only 1.7 miles of roadway people! We are spending BILLIONS. Why can't we have something progressive in its place? Something that reduces air pollution, not makes it worse?

I-90 is still a significantly larger diameter tunnel at 63' -- that's a three-level single tunnel, not including the other tunnels.

As for "largest" even within the deep bore type, that's by a small increment, and tunneling is a field where the technology and expertise have grown hugely in the past decade or two, particularly in Seattle.

Oxford Professor Bent Flyvbjerg published a large study of cost overruns in 258 mega-transportation projects like our tunnel. His study indicates that the backers of these projects suffer from "delusional Optimism" or they are knowingly lying to the public.

The tunnel was REJECTED by a stakeholder advisory committee because it is too expensive, it was also REJECTED by voters. But still our elected officials are trying to force it upon us - and people like mhays want to argue that this mega-hole isn't much wider than another.

Do you not care that we got an F in air quality last year from the American Lung Association? This is the wrong path, the path of the past. We need a future with cleaner air so that it is safe for our children to breathe.

mhays,

Now you are just making things up! If we use conventional technology to build this tunnel, the cost will be at least $600 million more. Instead we're trying new technology that has never been used on this scale before. There is huge financial risk here, which our leaders are pursuing to avoid higher certain costs. But since it's never been used before, it could very well cost more than conventional techniques, which we couldn't afford in the first place.

As for our regional experience with tunnels, we've had two recent deep bore tunnels -- Sound Transit at Beacon Hill, and King County at Brightwater. Both have experience huge cost overruns. I think deep bore equipment on the Brightwater tunnels is still stuck underground, submerged in water.

In reply to LiviaRyan, who asks:
--
It is only 1.7 miles of roadway people! We are spending BILLIONS. Why can't we have something progressive in its place? Something that reduces air pollution, not makes it worse?
--
The answer is to build nonpolluting cars, and to enforce that at the manufacturing and licensing levels, not at the end user level. That goes for the idiotic plastic bag tax, too, but I digress.

If you are seriously expecting to force people away from private, personal, motorized transportation, prepare to be eternally frustrated.

ivan,
Your proposal is to have everybody still driving around in individual cars in the next 50 years? Our population is going to double. There absolutely is not enough physical space for your idea to be realistic. Our geography demands that we start getting serious about providing alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle.

Secondly, Seattleites will be mired in sky-high taxes from cost overruns on the mega-tunnel that regular people won't be able to afford a new electric/solar car.

What's your next idea, hovercrafts? -oh wait, we won't need a tunnel for those either.

LiviaRyan, do you think the surface or aerial options are immune to overruns? Based on what?

In terms of a vote, I doubt any one option would do well right now -- particularly if you factor in the suburban voters who will play a large role on this issue (wanna guess what they think about the surface option?). In any case, surely you know we haven't voted on this plan.

ChrisB, did you know that the first two North Link tunnel bids came in around $300,000,000, vs. an expected $400,000,000 (actually 96m diff) earlier this year? That doesn't mean no overruns, but it makes them are more unlikely. Current estimating standards tend to do a much better job of predicting costs, as ST has been learning since it adopted them.

Has anyone considered the indirect costs of the other options' turning Downtown into a war zone for several years, either temporarily with an aerial option or permanently with the surface option? I suspect this would dwarf the difference in construction cost.

How is flooding Downtown with "pass through" traffic helpful for buses, pedestrians, or bicyclists? Get the pass-throughs into a tunnel and let Downtown be for people who want to be here. PS, I'm a pedestrian commuter and recreational bicyclist who doesn't have a license, let alone a car.

I share the dream that driving will be greatly reduced in the coming years. Realistically, with peak oil, better transit, and fuel-efficient cars, driving might fall by a percent or two per year on average. Meanwhile local population is growing by a percent per year. To assume that we can delete our #2 artery without turning surface streets into constant traffic jams is pure myopia.

The PI's first comment about the surface option when the "two options" came down was something about not needing pedestrian crossings at "every" street. Pretty instructive about what much of the electorate will think.

Livia:

People will demand and will use personalized transportation whether I "propose" it or not. That toothpaste is out of the tube, whether YOU like it or not.

Yes, by all means build alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. That was the entire point of my first post in this thread. I am not a tunnel advocate and never have been. But by all means I prefer it to the odious "surface transit option," which should not be considered (i.e., demolishing the Viaduct) until enough mass transit is in place to take up the slack.

Above ground options are a lot more likely to meet cost expectations compared to an experimental tunnel with a digging machine the size of a ferryboat. A digging machine that is not even in existence yet.

How is that brightwater tunnel progressing right now?

Above ground options are not acceptable in terms of traffic mobility. What about the cost expectations of current Viaduct users? Is their time not worth money?

McGinn and O'Brien are telling these people to go p*ss up a rope. Is that your position? I say that's unacceptable, and that even a tunnel is preferable to that. But retrofitting the Viaduct until adequate public transit options were in place, or replacing it with a new and better one, would be *my* first option.

Take a look at the I-5/Surface/Transit Hybrid Scenario recommended after a year of study on this issue - http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FAF9612A-D0D4-4D0C-824D-8C879E457D0B/0/AWV_I5SurfaceTransitHybrid_FactSheet_Dec08.pdf

Another good site is www.tunnelfacts.com

The tunnel is not going to keep us out of traffic problems, it doesn't have any downtown exits and it lets cars out in the middle of the mercer mess. If they toll the tunnel as proposed, even less people will use it. Those cars will be on the surface anyway, but there will not be funding for enough transit to help alleviate gridlock and tailpipe emissions.

The "plan" document for the "I-5/Surface/Transit Hybrid Scenario" referenced by Mike O'Brien above is a State DOT fact sheet dated December 2008 that clearly references the deep-bored bypass tunnel as an optional add-on to be explored for feasibility, NOT an alternative to what O'Brien wants.

The fact sheet he points us to concludes, "The bored tunnel was not carried forward due to its high cost. However, it does have advantages associated with avoiding some of the construction on the central waterfront. The agencies will continue to investigate the costs of the bored tunnel as a future project that could be constructed if the I-5/surface/transit hybrid alternative is agreed upon."

Doesn't this last sentence describe what's happening now? The I-5/surface/transit hybrid has been selected by the present Governor and Mayor, and the bored tunnel is being investigated as an optional add-on. This investigation includes figuring out how to pay for it, which clearly would require issuing bonds paid off through tolls from the users of this tunnel.

The deep-bore bypass tunnel is only at the beginning of the environmental review process. Its official status is "Under Investigation."

Political candidates and other stakeholders saying "hell no" or "lets build it" are simply part of the process. Those like Mike O'Brien and Michael McGinn are clearly saying, in effect, "abort the environmental process on the tunnel ... no way can its environmental impact be mitigated."

Strong positions like those held by these candidates make it easy to decide how to vote!

The deep bore also helps reconnect LQA/Belltown and South Lake Union by extending the tunnel three blocks. That's a pretty big plus, along with the two-way Mercer project.

Yes the surface option has tremendous cost risk. The seawall is probably the riskiest element of any of these plans. The surface option also has an aerial component that's inherently variable cost-wise. It has probably the highest mitigation costs including construction mitigation and permanent traffic mitigation, both due to political concessions as well as engineering variables. Of course the biggest variable of all is the indirect cost due to lost business.

The same day Ron Sims admitted that he was leaving for DC the governor admitted that the transit portion of the plan (a million hours for metro) were not a deal breaker. The car tab idea died, and so, uh, how about everybody take a giant step back and see that part if this is not possible.
Tunnel, or no, Drago's unfunded streetcar A line is unfunded and unlikely. Metro bus hours are not going up by a million anytime soon.

The tunnel is to pass through the 40% that are not going to points downtown.

And anyway this goes, improving I-5 throughput should be done.

If you look critically, the anti-tunnel arguments are not impressive.

Let's start with including the cost of seawall replacement in the 'tunnel cost'. In reality, the seawall has deteriorated and needs to be rebuilt, regardless of what is done about transportation.

Then we also see mass transit and street improvements included as "tunnel costs', even thought the anti-tunnel people always tell us, usually in the next paragraph, that those transit and street improvements would make the tunnel unnecessary. Make up your minds- are the transit and street improvements a cost we'll avoid by not building the tunnel, or are they costs which, in all likelihood, will grow even larger if the tunnel is not built?

In the same vein, O'Brien tells us the Seattle Engineering Department can't build curb cuts or sidewalks, and then goes on to express total confidence that the same department will be able to handle all of the Viaduct traffic dumped on local streets. In reality, he referred to an article about a few botched projects out of literally thousands Seattle Engineering has completed to much higher specs than you can expect from the contractor you hire at home.

Next we come to the "largest tunnel ever built", "the machine hasn't been made that can do it" etc etc. Well, of course the machine hasn't been made- they are assembled on site, and if you'd ever seen one of these out in the open, you would immediately know why. They're huge, they've been used for years, they are not an unknown quantity, and making a bigger tunnel just means making a bigger machine. I think the society that put a man on the moon- 40 years ago- might be able to handle this.

On to the "Big Dig", cost overruns, etc. Yes, the Big Dig cost a lot of money, as it tunneled under a river, built an entire freeway under downtown Boston with parks above, built a new transit line and and rebuilt a railroad and existing transit lines without interrupting service on any of them. Other tunnels that probably had overruns might include tunnels under the Alps, undersea tunnels being built by the Japanese, and the Chunnel- any one of which is 20-100 times as large and complex as our piddly little tunnel under Seattle.

Face it, if the tunnel under Seattle is built, people will not be coming here to see an engineering marvel of the age.

I'm happy to regard this as a spectator sport. From what I've seen, the anti-tunnel people are congenital liars, but I've spent my entire life in America watching the liars win, so maybe that's the way to go.

But if you really want some fun, make McGinn the mayor. I'm sure Gregoire would be happy to go back to square one in this game and put the ball in McGinn's court. The expression on his face when he had to deal with real numbers would be priceless.

Agree with Ivan's sentiment, plus some.

Saying a streetcar on First Avenue is a viable alternative for Hwy 99 traffic -- this is a current surface transit option -- is truly telling people to go piss up a rope, both local and through traffic.

That's why business owners on First Avenue said they would rather be on the hook for deep tunnel cost overruns---than allow the City to call a First Avenue streetcar boondoggle a "contribution" to the traffic carrying capacity of this project.

Folks from West Seattle and everybody else who uses the viaduct now need more than wishful thinking and pipe dreams. We need safe and viable transportation options, including safe roads and viable transit options like buses that work now.

Ivan is right. Retrofitting the Viaduct is probably the best option.

However, removing the Viaduct, improving Alaskan Way for boulevard or ground level traffic, recovering the waterfront, and doing the deep bore -- with properly designed access at both ends that make it workable for SODO & Ballard traffic--especially jobs related SODO and Ballard commercial traffic--is a workable compromise, and protects current waterfront business and access during the construction phase.

The train tunnel underneath downtown was built a hundred or so years ago with what, shovels, mules and steam engines? Digging holes isn't rocket science, though the record of holes dug with massive boring machines--on time and under budget--is rather impressive. There are certainly a lot less productive projects---Sound Transit light rail, to name one---that we've blown billions on.....

I read an article today about how much our delay on light rail has cost us. Seattle has the need to please everybody, and those whose choices aren't chosen never move on; we have to keep discussing until their choice is chose. My reaction to this article: (1) who's to say that any of the estimates for any of the alternatives are correct; (2) the other replacement options only assume one replacement, yet over a 100 year timeframe, a viaduct such as this 1950s edition would need to be replaced twice for a single time with a tunnel, but this wasn't accounted for, making the tunnel look twice as expensive. (3) all of the other options, including the surface option that this seems to be, have 3-4 years of surface disruption without any viaduct for the 110,000 vehicles/day to use, yet those costs aren't factored in. (4) the tunnel option includes re-working of surface streets that will involve improvement of surface operations. (5) not having downtown exits mean that downtown-bound traffic will be dispersed at the outer fringes of downtown and through traffic won't be slowed down by folks slowing down to make a turn nor those entering SR99 and accelerating to speed, usually while you wait. I think we need to give this plan a chance, deep-bored tunnels are in successful operation throughout the world and are in some areas of the U.S. I'm not crazy about cost overruns, i.e. I don't think that Seattle residents should be paying them, and I hope that costs come in below estimates.

OK, let's look critically at the anti-tunnel arguments; but let's start at the right place - what should we be spending billions and billions of dollars on at this moment in history? First, what are the real problems that we, Seattle, Washington, the United States of America and the World are facing. Let's see, 1) climate change - it's real, it's happening now and it's already worse than we expected; 2) energy scarcity - anyone who's actually paying attention (like the major oil companies, our government and all of the oil producing nations in the world) realize that we've either already reached, or are about to reach peak oil in the next few years, meaning that oil (you know, the stuff that fuels cars - and don't give me any of that pipe dream clean car technology crap that people have been trying to shove down my throat for the past 30 years, it's NEVER going to happen; and don't start with that "there are alternatives to oil" argument, all you have to do is understand the concept of EROI and look at what we're doing in Alberta with the tar sands to know that this is another chimera) is only going to continue to rise in price if our oil-based economy ever recovers; 3) a struggling economy - we are going to face continuing budget crises and declining revenue streams for as far as our revenue predicitons can see - meaning that we really, really, really need to invest our public dollars wisely; 4) the declining health of our natural eco-systems, like Puget Sound - runoff from automobiles and suburban sprawl are two of the key drivers of the declining health of Puget Sound, and our regional ecosystem; 5) increasing population pressure - both in our region and across the world.

OK, we've got some pretty serious issue to tackle with our public policy decisions, so how in the world does spending billions of dollars to build an underground freeway help solve any of these problems? The tunnel doesn't help decrease our impact on, or our adaptability to, climate change; it doesn't decrease our oil dependence and provide us with mobilty options not based on oil (that stuff that's always under some country with a nasty dictator's soil); it does not help solve our budget crisis (and will make it much, much worse) and takes away our public resources from other priorities (education, health care, parks, the list goes on and on and on); it doesn't help the health of Puget Sound or any of our eco-systems - in fact, it may very well help contribute to additonal sprawl by continuing to subsidize and encourage an auto-dependent pattern of growth; and it does very little to provide mobility options for the millions of people that are coming our way. And that's all before we even begin discussing issues in this comment tread, like the potential for cost overruns and the like.

If we're going to spend billions and billions of dollars on a 75-100 year infrastructure investment it should help address the real problems that we're facing, not make them worse. I've said this before and I'll say it again, and again; let's think long-term with this decision and put the pieces in place to help address the real problems that we're facing. The surface + I-5 + transit alternative helps deal with climate change and energy scarcity, costs billions less, will support the recovery of our regional ecosystems (at a minimum will do less damage than the tunnel) and will provide some real mobility options. This issue is bigger than cost overruns or a couple of years of lost business (not to downplay the importance of those issues, they are a big deal); it's about our choice to step up to the responsibility of addressing the real problems that we face, and right now, we're making the wrong choice.

benjamincm says:

"The surface + I-5 + transit alternative helps deal with climate change and energy scarcity, costs billions less, will support the recovery of our regional ecosystems (at a minimum will do less damage than the tunnel) and will provide some real mobility options."

It will not "provide some real mobility options." It will strangle mobility and will bring it to a crashing halt.

You want to get people out of their cars (not that it's any of your damn business how people choose to get around)? Build rail first. Repair the sea wall and retrofit the Viaduct for DOT's estimated 25 years of the life of a retrofit. Put all the rail online that we can build during that time.

Then, and only then, explore the options of a tunnel, a rebuilt Viaduct, or some "surface option."

I'm all for alternatives to cars, and hopefully getting people out of cars. And it sounds like we're close to peak oil. However, the idea that driving will be reduced in a substantial way seems unlikely, particularly in a region that is growing and will continue to grow.

The 99 tunnel is a replacement, not an addition. It's a compromise between the highway enthusiasts (heavy on the Burien and Lynnwood residents as well as manufacturing companies) and those who, like me, want to avoid freeway expansion.

Plenty of people oppose the tunnel. But like Ross Perot supporters, they're all over the map once they name their personal solutions. There's no such thing as a "majority" opinion on this, even in Seattle by itself, let alone the whole close-in 99 corridor.

This proposal is a winner because it gives everyone part of what they want -- whether that's keeping the "through" capacity, avoiding another half-century mistake on the waterfront, saving Downtown (and transit) from the wave of cars with the surface option, avoiding the majority of the visible construction nightmare, etc. It's probably the cheapest proposal once disruption is factored in.

Meanwhile, the surface and aerial options are the worst nightmares of many people.

That's why we see blog posts and lackluster poll numbers, but no major push so far. Many of the people who understand "process" are realizing that this isn't just about "deep bore" vs. "my favorite alternative," but also "my worst nightmare coming back." Personally, while "aerial" and "surface" are equally nightmarish to me, I have a feeling the aerial option would have the upper hand, with the inner suburbs tipping the scales.

The people who keep bringing this up are beyond tiresome. The two Mikes don't know anything about tunnels. They appear to promote fantasies and advocating protracted impass.

I'm happy that the Viaduct is coming down - eventually. A four lane tunnel for through traffic is a good compromise that voids most all construction hardships, appears to come with reasonable cost estimates, and will make the city better to support far more density and far less sprawl than any other alternative.

It also resolves other disputes that have gone on far too long.

It seems like the main argument here is about the extra cost, which is also seems to be the problem with the Mercer project. I do think there are several better things to spend the money on in each case (such as state highway HOV lanes, and bike/pedestrian paths). As serial_catowner says, though, just because there are better ideas out there doesn't mean they'd happen.

By the way, mhays, do you have a source on the "deep bore also helps reconnect LQA/Belltown and South Lake Union by extending the tunnel three blocks"? My understanding is that it would just be an open portal dumping traffic onto Aurora, Westlake, and Mercer, but I'd be overjoyed to hear otherwise.

Sure, look at page 11. It shows the tunnel from Denny to Harrison (dark brown), topped by a surface road (with an intersection at every block). Then they merge and rise above Mercer.

I suspect much of the public doesn't understand this.

(combine these into one line)

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/
rdonlyres/3B09C2E6-E16E-414A-AE10-
C4FABDC2975E/0/North_Portal_
Presentation_060409.pdf

Mike O'Brien is trying to sell us on a plan with no cost estimate attached to it because he says there are to many uncertainties about the cost estimate for the tunnel. If you can get past that twisted bit of logic, one might ask Mr. O'Brien which side of I-5 does he plan acquiring properties for demolition and expansion of the freeway? So how many people will be displaced, and how much will that cost?
Mr. O'Brien's argument sounds a lot like those that we heard for abandoning the 19th century technology of the light rail and instead put our money into the can't miss future of monorail. How did that one work out? Seattle can no longer afford to keep electing people who turn their back on money from the State or Federal government, because they have a better idea. This is why it took us 30 years to get light rail. And this is why even now, 9 years after the Nisqually earthquake, there are still politicians that don't want to move forward on taking care of a serious problem, and instead advocate starting over.
The deep bore tunnel has identified funding sources. All other options would be at the sole expense of the City.
The deep bore tunnel will allow the viaduct to continue operating until the tunnel is open. All other options would require years of diverting traffic from the viaduct to I-5 or through downtown streets.
The tunnel may not be a perfect solution, but it's far and away better than the fantasy being pushed by Mike O'Brien.

crash63: You make a very good point. Seattle has often made the mistake of canceling or severely weakening a project because it was too expensive or didn't fit someone's idealized vision. We have numerous examples of this: Westlake Mall as our urban park, a large commons park at South Lake Union (which Paul Allen was essentially going to buy for the city) a sewer plant on our largest and some would say, nicest park (Discovery).

At the same time, just building things because we really need it now can result in some fairly stupid decisions. We have two stadiums when one would do. We could have very easily built a stadium for both teams while providing plenty of money to keep the Sonics in town.

To answer your question, the Monorail died because of a funding problem. The folks responsible for estimating the amount of money the taxes would raise made a mistake. The city, at that point, could have stepped in and helped save it (or at least saved the section from West Seattle to downtown) but the Mayor refused (literally, you can talk to the people who were there). The city council provided no leadership whatsoever. This is, in part, why so many people are so angry about the tunnel situation. If asked to choose, the people would have much preferred a monorail over a tunnel (they were both about the same cost) but we never got that option.

Mike O'Brien is not a hack. He is not suggesting that we do nothing. What frustrates him (and others like him) is that the recommendations made by the committee that was specifically designed to tackle this problem was ignored. If you read his original post on the subject (http://obrienforseattle.com/2009/05/public-voice-ignored-in-viaduct-decision/) you can see that his stand is reasonable and well argued. He is basically admitting that by following the recommendations of the board, it would be quite possible to build a new viaduct (which would not exactly thrill the "don't do anything for cars" crowd). It is unfortunate that this type of reasonable, thoughtful thinking is not as easily conveyed in this article.

Personally, I don't like the tunnel because it is just too expensive. The biggest advantage the tunnel has over the viaduct is that it improves the experience downtown. This is nice, but there are way cheaper ways to do this. How about extending Freeway Park a few blocks north, including Pike and Pine? This would link downtown with Capital Hill. How about extending the lid which covers Aurora by Denny north a few blocks. This would create a new park and make it much easier to walk around that area. These ideas would be much cheaper than the difference between the costs of the tunnel and viaduct.

A few odds and ends: The I-90 tunnel was not only Twin bore, but was actually 24 some small tunnels to create a large circle, then the center was dug out. Those who work with wood can use the example of drilling lots of small holes in a circle to create a much larger one.

In the scope of overall transportation in this region, we are the Keystone Cops of transportation. We cannot believe the future tea leaves till they choke us.

We had Cable Cars and removed them. We had an Interurban that ran from Tacoma to Seattle, and tore it out so we could spend 2.3 billion to replace 15.5 miles of the original 60 some mile long line. We tore out overhead wiring for Trackless Trolleys in the late 60's because of Visual Polution, only to reinstall them and add to it in the Gas Crisis of the early 70's.

We got all excited about a West Seattle Water Taxi, and are arguing about adding 4 ferry boats when Puget Sound had more than 600 such vessels 100 years ago. Thats how they got the name Mosquito Fleet... so numerous.

We passed on light rail funding so Portland got it. We overplanned a monorail that never was completed to it's original goal of King Street Station and Union Station. We sealed it's doom for further easy extension south by pinching it to save money at Westlake (no one will EVER crash one into the other... you can SEE it long before you'd hit it... took us, what, 19 years to find someone that dense to drive it...).

I never was interested in traveling by monorail from Ballard to West Seattle, but 46 MILLION have paid to travel above the traffic jam between downtown and the Seattle Center. Imagine what it could have done if extended to Pike Street and Second, then down to our two stadiums, circle both, then circle the other end of the Center Grounds.

12 bus lines travel that current span, yet 46 MILLION opted to ride above. Seperated grade that Proved itself.. and we Seattle-fied the idea until it collasped in the fiscals of OVERDONE.

We used to have private developers pay for streetcar lines. Today we tax ourselves 52 million and still want to build 3-4 more while a half dozen historic cars that would make a wonderfull waterfront attraction sit and rust.

After 20 years and 200,000 passengers a year on a proven line, the city does nothing to extend the old Benson Line NORTH to the newest cruise ship pier (just 800,000 passengers at 66 and 91 who MIGHT want to head into town to say, the city owned Aquarium, meet the WSF (4.1 million walk ons) and the venerated Water Taxi.

We own all the right of way and the historic trolleys, but are far more interested in going up first Ave than dealing with 10 year long contracted use of Pier 91, let alone the offices at pier 86 (they PAY for a shuttle downtown for lack of good transit options).

G-d forbid, the logic of earning money from TOURISTS. Why not? I was told because the new viaduct and plans for the First Ave new Streetcar.

NEITHER serves the ship pier or Amgin. And the trolley line can just be severed at Pier 52 once the Viaduct construction begins. Meantime... New Orleans, Portland, and EVEN YAKIMA are proving a historic streetcar line makes money and is an attraction in and of itself.

Go figure. I hope SOME candidate for Mayor or city council could see the option of the city EARNING money from tourism as a good thing.

Til then, the tradition of our transportation judgement marches on.

At the 2nd of the 3 editor's picks:
"'The agencies will continue to investigate the costs of the bored tunnel as a future project that could be constructed if the I-5/surface/transit hybrid alternative is agreed upon.' Doesn't this last sentence describe what's happening now? The I-5/surface/transit hybrid has been selected by the present Governor and Mayor, and the bored tunnel is being investigated as an optional add-on."

That's the history, but most of the talk is still either/etc. Probably because the add-on stopped at some point being optional, introducing the distinct possibility of an OSHA cowboy--satisfaction to the point of overload--(young'ns: "OSHA cowboy" comes from a cartoon depicting federally approved safety equipment)

Prudent skepticism is more than appropriate, no matter one's religion or opinion on the tunnel. More studies, an EIS, are critical, not just formality.

I'd like timely confirmation of the least expensive routings for tunneling "under it all." Down there, it's far from the uniformity that we think of as "under the rug" and more like the unique Seattle that contributed to the Monorail's downfall (no pun intended) although the property rights are less problematic assuming no surprising sinkholes.

I'd also like to see further elaboration of the Hybrid by itself. How truly operational is it by itself, that is, how much risk would we be assuming if the tunnel proves not to be a realistic fix (an optional-add-on that would bail us out)? Are there other "optional add-ons" that would be more realistic?

Sometimes the process of coming to sound public judgment gets confused with the "Seattle way." Hang in there.

According to that post, you're referring to something from December. That's before the tunnel became the main option.

The drill rigs along the tunnel route in recent months are an example of what's been happening to hone in on the real cost. There was a rig outside my office for a week.

I agree that keeping options open is smart. But since studies and design cost huge amounts of money, it's easy to see why they want to focus on the main option rather than a list of options.

Of course the Tunnel is "it far from a done deal"- my native city needs a lot more time to chew this over again and again and again.....................................................................

(Corrected)- Of course the Tunnel is "far from a done deal"- my native city needs a lot more time to chew this over again and again and again and again.....................................................................

And well it should. One could hope that with more time and scrutiny folks would finally act on what most of us already believe and flush this profoundly bad idea.

Parhaps Seattle should look at how other big cities have handled the problem of aging waterfront traffic viaducts. A good place to start would be the former West Side Highway in New York. The initial proposal to replace this viaduct was a buried highway -- like the Seattle tunnel -- called Westway. It was eventually defeated due to environmental concerns.

When the project went back to the drawing board, a more common-sense combination of surface roadway and waterfront park was developed. The result is a rebuilt Route 9A and the fabulously successful Hudson River Park. The roadway handles lots of traffic and the linear park is wildly successful

Take a look: http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/construction/index.asp

Or better, come visit us in New York and see for yourself what happens when you spend money on parks and updated roads instead of tunneling.

The best thing to come from the March 2007 voter rejection of both AWV replacement options then on the table -- a 6-lane elevated replacement monstrosity and 6-lane Cut-n-Cover tunnel construction mess -- was forcing WsDOT and SDOT honchos to use a comprehensive approach that included transit, land-use and development, travel demand, pedestrians, bicycling, etc.

This is not to say WsDOT and SDOT have achieved transformative reform, far from it. The Deep-bore tunnel is not a comprehensive solution at all. In fact, it's more of the same old, bigger is better nonsense that creates traffic nightmares all over the country.

The Western/Elliott couplet is the worst surface boulevard option. WsDOT and SDOT know how much traffic the new Alaskan Way needs to handle and went with the highest capacity possible, enough lanes to handle about 40,000 Ballard-bound vehicles daily or 2500 per hour with 15-20 stoplights, and that's 'with' the Deep-bore tunnel. Even half that much additional traffic there will produce bumper-to-bumper gridlock all day long.

Thus, the Deep-bore tunnel is not a comprehensive solution and Mikes McGinn and O'Brien are wise to oppose it. I'm convinced that WsDOT's revised "4-lane" Cut-n-Cover tunnel is the best option. It's about $1 billion less expensive, maintains accesss to Ballard-bound traffic, and does not cause too much construction disruption. It should be considered, but Seattle's media, including Crosscut, are suspiciously mum. "Nobody likes to be embarrassed, therefore it's better to do wrong and save face" some famous dead person once said, probably.

Wells,

The vote in March 2007 was designed to obfuscate and confuse the entire viaduct issue and to skirt any honest voter preference for an "elevated" vs. "tunnel" solution. It was a million dollar trick played on voters, paid for with their own tax dollars.

If you read the Crosscut article of Jan. 16, 2009 "How Jan Drago dragooned a Viaduct solution" you will even find her quote gloating over how she and Tim Cies connived it up and how it made all the difference..."Had it been a single vote, tunnel vs. elevated,” she now says, “we [tunnel supporters] would have been dead on arrival."

The retro/replacement solution, by far the best (most popular) solution, never got a fair shake due to the fact that special interests changed the project from a transportation endeavor to a real estate scam. Any solution that decreases the capacity to move rubber tired vehicles through that portion of the city is a mistake.

Thanks for the feedback,jm. One determining outcome of the vote was the percentage of NO votes against the tunnel - about 70% compared to about 56% opposing the elevated replacement. More people opposed 'primarily' the disruption of normal traffic flow on SR-99 AWV and 'secondarily' opposed the disruption of Waterfront District business.

In other words, the "6-lane" Cut-n-Cover was dead on arrival anyway. But so too was the "6-lane" elevated replacement monstrosity. It was huge!, but incurred only slightly less construction disruption, thus less voter disapproval.

The retrofit/replacement option is a non-starter, jm. It's an overall loss to devalue the waterfront property. I'm not speaking for developers as much as for cultural and public space aspects. It ain't gonna happen.

Anyway, WsDOT's subsequent "4-lane" Cut-n-Cover tunnel proposal reduces most of the disruption to both the Waterfront District and normal traffic flow on SR-99. It has enough capacity if traffic speed is limited to 40mph, a good idea anyway. Elliott/Western access is maintained although SR-99 is rebuilt 'under' rather than overhead through Lower Belltown. It's wise to not replace the ramps to downtown at Seneca and Columbia. There's too much traffic on 1st Ave and cross streets headed for those ramps.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad Liz Campbell stepped up to the plate to voice concerns about cutting off the Elliott/Western access -- she's absolutely correct about this shortcoming of the Deep-bore. But again, there's no way an elevated replacement is gonna happen. Give some thought to the "4-lane" Cut-n-Cover tunnel. It's been my pick since Summer 2001. WsDOT had to be dragged kicking and screaming back to reality and SDOT is still screwing with the public with ridiculous Alaskan Way designs.

mhays said,
'Plenty of people oppose the tunnel. But like Ross Perot supporters, they're all over the map once they name their personal solutions. There's no such thing as a "majority" opinion on this, even in Seattle by itself, let alone the whole close-in 99 corridor.'

Very well put! Personally, I'm just against the aerial option. As long as the anti-tunnel camp is poisoned by pro-aerial folks, I have a tough time getting up energy to fight the tunnel. In fact, I've gotten so riled up just thinking about it that I'm going to rant about why the aerial option sucks so bad, even though it's fairly off topic.

1) Our current viaduct is unsafe. Even if we strengthen it siesmically, the roadway has been rendered unsafe by trying to maximize capacity. People are regularly killed when they stop to change tires, have merging issues, etc. I honestly don't understand why the lanes aren't restriped right now to insert shoulders, and why the 50mph speed limit is not enforced electronically. Any new or repaired viaduct must be wider or support fewer, slower lanes of traffic (which I assume is a no-go). It's going to be huge.

2) Our current viaduct is loud. Kudos to tourists who decide it's worth screaming to hang out on the peirs. You wonder why Steinbrueck Park is filled with homeless during the day? It reminds them of their nighttime homes in The Jungle over I-5. Luckily, Washington State law requires noise mitigation for any new freeway construction. Get ready for a long, hard fight to box in the freeway in order to stop vertical noise. And you can bet that it will be difficult to see through the walls that are built, even if they're weathered plexiglass. A retrofit needs to at least put on noise dampening below the roadway, as was done on I-5 recently near the ship canal.

There are many other reasons, particularly from an "opportunity" perspective, to not retain or replace the aerial viaduct. But I think if people knew what it would really be like to ride on and see the aerial option, they wouldn't want it.

In a 2004 letter to the editor I expressed hope that the viaduct debate would drag on another decade, so that the sculpture park and SLU park would show people a better option than another aerial structure. We're halfway there timewise, and SLU is in phase two! I really do wish they would make the current structure safe though - by reducing lanes and speed - since construction won't start tomorrow, and people will continue to die.

(We have to replace the seawall, and I'd love to see the viaduct come down... but could we just use the rest of the money to buy each current viaduct rider a Vespa, and buy a fleet of trucks with flatbed trailers to ferry them in and out of town? Then we can make the waterfront road freight and ferry only... The amount of money we're talking about is so ridiculous that ideas like this seem plausible.)

I have a prediction. This city will dither about the Alaskan Way Viaduct until the next earthquake knocks it flat (hopefully without loss of life). At that time the public outcry will be as loud as it was after the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minnesota. After the national magazines and media have a field day, we will be declared a National Disaster and emergency FEMA money from Washington will help rebuild the Viaduct as it is now, except wider and uglier. In the meantime, the tourist business along the waterfront will evaporate, the cruise ships will leave for Vancouver and whatever business dependent on the Viaduct like the industry in Ballard will wither.

This city needs to come together quickly and make some hard decisions about this. Everyone who has dug their heels in and thinks they know what the right answer is needs to come back to the table with open eyes and mind, listen to all the facts and try to find a solution. Now.

Yes, a solution now would be good. A suggestion:

Continue with the current plan.

Because the Deep-bore doesn't provide access to Ballard-bound traffic, about 40,000 vehicles daily or 2500 per hour are directed onto the new Alaskan Way with 15-20 stoplights. What's so frickin hard to understand? Only an idiot will accept the Deep-bore as an environmentally sound solution.

The "4-lane" Cut-n-Cover proposal that WsDOT produced after their "6-lane" Cut-n-Cover was rejected by voters in March 2007, reduces most of the construction disruption, maintains access to Ballard-bound traffic, has a better emergency evacuation system and costs about $1 billion less. It's a solution, but no one has the guts to fight City Hall or the corrupt media who've been screwing Seattle for so long, down looks like up. Bunch of chickenshits, the whole lot.

Freeway access toward Ballard is important, but you're talking about environmental soundness? Mixing and matching a little?

@Wells: Don't you think that rational people would take Nickerson, Leary, (two-way) Mercer, or Denny from SR99 to Ballard? The waterfront route will have too much unpredictability with game and ferry traffic.

I use Nickerson and Leary all the time to get to Ballard from Capitol Hill or South Lake Union (via Westlak). Great, underused routes.

The plan shows a pretty smooth route along Alaskan Way, including a four-lane street in the 99 ROW up to Elliott/Western (with sidewalks...imagine that!). The whole stretch should synchronize pretty easily -- while pedestrian crossers need to be high on the priority list, there are no cross streets, meaning no competing synchronization needs. The 40,000/day figure sounds like a lot but we have surface streets that carry more than double that.

If a real elevated vs. tunnel vote was held tomorrow the tunnel would lose. But since it looks like the patients have taken over the sanitarium I guess my second choice would be Rob K's Vespa idea. Or maybe Cushman Eagles...remember them?

Maybe. But it's debatable. The original tunnel concept involved several years of construction and economic nightmare. The new concept doesn't. People will like that.

I'm convinced that half of you just pull things out of their air, because half of you are clueless as to what is actually going on. First, part of the tunnel is going to be a cut-and-cover, where they dig straight down, build the tunnel, then cover it. While the other half if going to be bored out by a large drill. There are only two of these large drills in the world, but they have been used for years, so they are trustworthy and reliable. Imagine being able to go down to the Seattle waterfront and not having to see this huge atrocity called the viaduct. Current plans call or a park to be put in place there. A park, the runs the ENTIRE length of the wharf. The biggest issue that they are going to have is the re-routing of traffic during construction. The tunnel option is the way to go, and it has been thoroughly thought through and planned for over a year. It is much more earthquake-resistant than the viaduct too- just take a look at what happened to the Cypress street Viaduct in California. Just think about it- Would you rather walk along the wharf and have it be nice and peaceful with the sound of the boats and birds, or would you rather have the constant drone of traffic coming fron the viduct.