No, endless Seattle process is frankly not a good idea, let's just get on with it.

We've already voted (several times now since the Nisqually Earthquake). We've vote for a governor, a whole two houses full of state legislators, a King County executive, King County councilmembers, Seattle port commissioners, a Seattle mayor, Seattle councilmembers.

There have been thousands of public stakeholder meetings and open houses. Enough already, we need to move forward. Just because a mayor who came late to the game, and a single councilmember, want to socially engineer our city so that traffic is so unbearable that we all have to walk or bike, doesn't mean we now need to throw a wrench in the whole thing and start over. (and don't expect mass transit anytime soon if you're in love with process and afraid of cost overruns - what's good for the goose is good for the gander and the anti-tunnel crowd has now provided a great road map for the anti-Light Rail expansion in Seattle crowd)

Watching Seattle today is like watching the Lindsay Lohan of cities. And, you know, hey, as long as they spell the name right!

So I would suggest some modest improvements to the voting idea. First, why not make this a national reality-tv show and let national audiences vote selected electeds "off the island", according to how well they do at eating worms, dancing to the public opinion of the moment, or singing. Also, a dunk tank.

Then, there should be Midway, with a booth for every wackadoodle idea that will be presented, ad nauseum, in every comment thread until the whole thing is over and all of the ideas are cast in time capsule boxes in concrete.

Also, a state lottery, to ensure that at least one person is somehow the gainer for all of this. That would just be too sad if all of us were losers.

And somewhere, in whatever project is chosen, a monument to the voter, who is not only entirely unaccountable for how they vote, but feels no individual responsibility at all, because, how can my single vote affect the outcome?

None of this will reduce the costs or increase the revenue, but I think we all know it's not about the money.

Oh, and if we vote Knute, shouldn't we have a state-wide vote since this is a state highway and residents from across the state will be both paying for the Viaduct replacement and using it?

Also, since WashDOT came out with multiple options for each of the surface, the elevated and the tunnel proposals, shouldn't we include all of the 8 or so options on the ballot and have a once-and-for-all winner-take-all vote? Then whichever option gets a plurality of votes, no matter if it's only a measly 15% will be the option WashDOT goes with?

Yeah, that's the ticket. Seattle process at its best . . .

Wow. Let's do vote. And please allow the existing viaduct an honest evaluation this time. After all, it was/is the choice of voters and was the assumed solution by the WSDOT up until the, "Gee, does this viaduct make Seattle's ass look too big" crowd got involved.

No other proposed configuration for the AWV matches the existing viaduct in any transportation related category. The rights of ways already exist. The configuration already can handle 110,000 vehicles a day. It already provides a bypass for downtown and off ramps for the core, Ballard and West Seattle. It already meets the demands for commercial vehicles. It can incorporate modern seismic protections and other enhancements for noise abatement, bikes, pedestrians and aesthetics. It acknowledges the fact that rubber-tired, multi-passenger vehicles are still the choice of over 90% of us. And it’s 1-2 billion dollars cheaper than this present mistake in the making.

Still time to do the right thing.

@ catowner: Bravo! And you're right this is about politics, in the end.

At the end of the day, we taxpayers will pick up the bill. The question of what we are building is settled. It's a tunnel. The only open question is WHICH taxpayers will pay for what share of any cost overruns should they occur--Seattle, King Co., or rest of state. That's not something that voters get to decide. That's a political question to be resolved by politicians. That's the kind of thing we elect them to negotiate and resolve.

Since, the current law says that cost overruns will be negotiated between these paying partners, there's no need for any vote and no need to be even discussing it. The law if fine and says exactly what it should say. If there's more to be paid, the politicians will figure which taxpayers pay how much of those additional costs. Seattle residents SHOULD pay some share of any cost overruns. End of story. Let's stop talking about this and move on.

Sierra_Girl is exactly right here.

It is coming up on 10 years since the Nisqually earthquake and we are still talking about what to do about the Viaduct. This is insane.

If there is going to be (yet another) vote, it can't just be a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on the deep-bore tunnel. It has to be a vote that settles the issue, not one that just kicks the can down the road until we have another South Park Bridge situation.

If there is going to be a vote, all options have to be on the table. And they should be detailed proposals with computer animations of what it will look like with current Viaduct traffic (or include clear statements that the proposal only works if people stop driving). And they should include detailed information about how the waterfront will be disrupted and for how the disruption will be.

Yes, Seattle has voted on a bunch of big ticket items. Like Safeco Field. Oh, wait. Seattle voted that one down and somehow it got built anyway. Seattle initially voted down light rail and it tooks decades longer to get it here than it should have.

At this point, voting and delaying seem to be the road to confirm that the anti-tunnel crowd's concern of budget overruns will happen.

I am SO SICK of the endless hand-wringing. Let's just do it. And if there are overruns then we can continue the hand-wringing by litigating it. At least that would make a change.

I agree with most comments so far. We've hashed this thing out for nearly a decade. The leadership did their jobs, the plan is good, and now it's time to do it.

It's also astonishing that anyone thinks the other concepts have less risk. At this point, the greatest risk is the cost escalation that will come with any recovery, along with the variables inherent with switching to any concept not studied or designed yet (if the tunnel if halfway designed/studied, the other concepts are what, 5%?).

Choice One: Spend millions on yet another election that could simply deadlock and leave the matter stalemated.
Choice Two: Delay, delay, delay. When will Seattle ever make up its mind on anything. Delay costs money.
Choice Three: Tear down the Viaduct, strangle downtown in traffic. That will make everybody upset.
Choice Four: Move to Bellevue.

If the endless delay game does result in the construction of a waterfront-killing new viaduct, let's name it "The Mike McGinn Highway."

The majority of Seattle voters, when asked, did not want a tunnel. I think it's monstrously unfair for the state to cram this tunnel - and it's potential cost overruns - down Seattle's throat. If this project goes 30% over budget - like many large projects - Seattle property owners will be paying a portion of the $600 million dollar overrun. No thanks.

I'm part of the "anti-tunnel crowd." I'm glad that our adversaries now recognize us to be more than just a few oddball whiners with no real support in the community. The fact is, we've got plenty of support--and they know it. That's why they resist having any kind of public vote on this project. When the pro-development, anti-viaduct City Council had such a vote forced on them by the governor back in 2007, they deliberately crafted the ballot language so that the outcome would be confusing--and it was. An up-or-down vote on the present tunnel plan would not be ambiguous. Let's get on with it.

The $1.96 billion figure for the tunnel includes a reserve that covers a 26% overrun.

I'm starting to wish the cataclysmic earthquake would just hurry the hell up.

There are plenty of reasons to resist having a vote on this project, and tunnel supporters are under no obligation to enable the nattering nabobs of negativity. If tunnel opponents want a vote, let them seek a vote.

Will the Tunnel Project be subject to Monorail rules, 5 elections, single loss closes it down? Those of you tired of waiting for the tunnel have no idea of what impatience for a transportation solution feels like. One great commonality of these two projects has been the poor financial planning for both of them, technical issues aside. I'm all for giving them one other thing in common, their state of being.

Recall McGinn?

Delay is the biggest cost risk for the viaduct replacement project. McGinn is Seattle’s number one risk. Not only does he risk losing over $2 billion in funding for the deep-bore tunnel and waterfront projects, he is willing to risk the return of a new viaduct and a ruined waterfront. McGinn's rancorous relationship with politicians at all levels of government threatens funding and cooperation on many other projects. If there is a vote on the deep-bore tunnel, McGinn’s recall should be on the same ballot.

More at www.lightandair.wordpress.com

I'm impressed with how they've managed the process to keep it all on budget so far. This will be confirmed when the design-build price proposals are submitted, of course. Paricularly since the design-build process puts much of the cost risk on the company, rather than the public.

Fine. Vote. But if Seattle voters say "no", the default position has to be fixing the Viaduct.

Washington State taxpayers have invested BILLIONS in Seattle: I-5, the Viaduct, HWY 509, 99,I-90, State 520, Ferry terminals, Light Rail, airports, Port facilities, railroad connections and truck bypass routes to move goods to and from the waterfront.

If the Seattle vote is to CUT or COMPROMISE these links, then everyone in the STATE should get to vote. IT'S OUR MONEY AND OUR ECONOMIC FUTURE THAT IS AT STAKE.

You aren't going to keep the economy afloat by selling iced mocha lattes
with whip on Capital Hill, or overpriced cocktails in Belltown.

Ross Kane
Warm Beach

If the vote doesn't turn out the way you/he/she/I want, could we have another vote later? Or another if that one fails? McGinn was one of the big endorsers of a stakeholder process after the last grid-locked vote, he can't just keep asking for a new process each time his own radical approach is rejected.

A vote is not a good idea in my opinion. More Seattle process is not a solution. The tunnel is a compromise solution that meets the important priorities of (1) creating a wonderful waterfront park and (2) preserving freight and transportation mobility and (3) replacing a viaduct that is an eyesore and a hazzard. The biggest risk we face right now is delay.

Democracy by referendum is generally not a very good idea and rarely results in optimal outcomes. Look at where Tim Eyman's initiatives have gotten us. Look at California. On major issues related to "collective action" sometimes leaders need to take bold leadership positions. Now is one of those times. I support the City Council and Governor in their effort to actually get this done.

I get that many (MANY!) people are tired and frustrated... and just want to get something done already.

However, let's be clear here on a couple of facts.

This bored tunnel proposal has not been considered for 10 years.

It was never voted on by voters - yea or nay.

It was not vetted through the stakeholder process until the very end of their process.

It was never taken out to any of the "official" public meetings and comment periods.

And we STILL do not have the legally required and internationally accepted standard EIS completed for the project yet!

So, let's not act like "two people" (as if McGinn and O'Brien are the only ones to ever raise a concern) are suddenly trying to stand in the way of a solution that "everyone" agreed to. Okay?

Mr. Urbanist, may I humbly submit that the tunnel might be seen as a 'compromise' among those who hate the viaduct, but a lot of us want to keep it. Preserving it only during the tunnel's construction phase fails to address our goals. It's easy to speak of 'compromises' when only those who share your views are part of the discussion.

Any vote on this issue should involve the entire state, not just Seattle. SR-99 is a state highway not a Seattle city street. Frankly, most of us in The Rest of The State do not care what Seattle wants in this regard. We just want to make sure that we can continue to drive through Seattle without having to drive within Seattle on Highway 99.

Since there is controversy over whether to have a vote on the tunnel, the first step in a fair and complete process will obviously have to be to vote on whether to have a vote. Once we have determined that there is indeed a public mandate to vote on the tunnel (including resolving any challenges to the validity of the voter list and the fundamental constitutionality of voting whether to vote), we can proceed to the second step, which of course is the actual vote itself on whether to dig the rabbit hole, er, I mean...the tunnel.

" He maintains the cost provision is the only thing standing in his way regarding implementation. " Knute, I am surprised to read this. Councilman (I believe) Conlin asked His Honor if he would support the tunnel if the cost overrun issue was resolved in
Seattle's favor and, as I recall, the Mayor's answer was "no".

If the tunnel is a great idea, and it has many merits, supporters shouldn't fear a vote. The assumption seems to be a vote will derail the project, but it could in fact give it a boost: If a majority of Seattleites say let's just build the damn thing, there would be no political barriers and the tunnel would have strong impetus. And there would be accountability on cost over-runs--the public will have openly embraced the risks.

The fear of the vote by tunnel supporters seems to be based on the notion that this project can only happen if the people are held at arm's length meaning, they fear it would get shot down. I really don't know that it would. My colleague Doug MacDonald makes a strong case for staying the course in Crosscut today by pointing out the risks of not going ahead. Let the city council make its case to the voters.

kieth: All I can say was the McGinn was firm on this point at the Crosscut meeting Tuesday when pressed. While he made it clear he didn't like the project, he said the only thing standing in the way at this point was the cost overrun provision.

Here's the Seattle Times piece on Thom Neff's report on tunnel risks.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012368981_tunnel16m.html

Keith please note this quote from the story:

"McGinn reiterated that if the council will add that language [requiring that Seattle off the hook for overruns], he will sign the agreements, which deal with utility access, schedules and other planning issues that would help builders finish the work by 2016."

I agree with the headline to Mr. Berger's article with the one difference than I would insert the word "NOT" between the word "Let's" and the word "vote." McGinn looks more and more like a lost soul and a lost cause. How soon is 2013, anyway?

Thank you 'inplainair' for saying the RECALL word. Mr. McGinn hasn't been in office for a year, and he's spent most of this time alienating people. I know some number of Seattlites are perfectly happy to 'give the finger' to other elected officials--both local and in Olympia. But there comes a time when Seattle has to get support from these same groups--and what reception shall we expect? Turn the other cheek? I think not.

The bored tunnel is it. Final answer. The state is done with the viaduct game over. There will be no new legislation. There will be no replacement. The gamble is $2 billion for a risky tunnel or nothing. A vote will kill the viaduct replacement.

Good god, tear the damned thing down and wait five years. The world will be so horrible by then, this won't seem quite so important.

This idea that "if we don't fear the outcome we should welcome a vote" is total baloney. So, what, all of a sudden every settled process of government is to be subject to a vote if a minority screams loud enough? That doesn't make any sense at all.

In reality the plebiscite process has become, or perhaps always was, the tool of the Tim Eymans of the world- people who are supported by big-pocket interests to bring disruption and deceptive proposals for a vote.

In this case, the Stranger serves as the big-pocket interest. In the case of the Commons the 'alternative' newspaper fighting to prevent the Commons park from being built was actually part of a chain of suburban newspapers that also published 'alternative' inner city papers. Acting in concert with a local demagogue and a car dealer, they killed the park through the voting process.

Of course, Fox's 'revitalized' Cascade neighborhood with all the low-income apartments preserved in amber never happened, and Paul Allen did not decide to leave town. All that killing the Commons did was to prevent a park from being built.

Is we learning yet?

I predict that the viaduct will fall in an earthquake before anything is done.

"Pro-tunnel City Councilman Tom Rasmussen asked McGinn if he would support a tunnel if the clause were repealed.

The mayor wouldn't say "yes," but only that he would carry out the council's policies. "My independent position is it's not a good project even at the list price," added McGinn -- a longtime environmentalist who has objected to building a multibillion dollar tunnel for cars in an age of global warming."

Knute, the above quote (Politics NW, 6/3/10) is apparently what I am remembering. I stand corrected. Note that what he said then is different than what he is saying now.

serial_catowner -

I totally agree with you on the Commons.

http://www.seattlepi.com/archives/1996/9605270046.asp

It was Seattle's last attempt at a beautiful park in the center of the city. It could have been Seattle's 'Central Park'. Instead, it's just condos and the public got nothing. Seattle is just a city of small ideas I guess. And when it gets big ideas, the elites are totally disconnected from the grassroots people in the city and so these big visionary projects are viewed as elistist pork projects rather than projects that the whole city could enjoy.

I also learned that Joel Horn, of monorail fame, was the point man on the Commons.

http://joelhorn.com/2008/10/27/seattle-monorail-project-green-line/

Direct from Joel Horn's own blog. These quotes from the blog are priceless:

-----------------------
Horn is assembling his project team at a pace his friends think will revive the city’s can-do spirit.

“It will be built,” said Blair Butterworth, a political strategist for the monorail campaign who now advises one of the prospective construction teams. “I have no doubt it will be built. I have no doubt it will be done on budget. I have no doubt that if he possibly can do it, he will do it with enough money left over to get to Northgate.”
-----------------------

I wonder who political strategist Blair Butterworth is advising now. Perhaps he's advising the Deep Bore Tunnel people.

Lest we forget that voting and revoting is some sort of scheme that big project people like Knute advocate, here's a few words about Gov Gregoire.

Gregoire: 'Watch me' tear down the viaduct
http://www.seattlepi.com/transportation/346052_gregoire04.html

"It's coming down in 2012. I'm taking it down -- the middle," she said, referring to the elevated portion of the span that runs roughly from Battery Street Tunnel to Pioneer Square, which has been the most vexing and controversial piece of the transportation puzzle.

Last year Gregoire twisted arms and issued her recommendation but ultimately deferred the decision to Seattle voters, who rejected both a proposed elevated rebuild and a more expensive tunnel along the waterfront. The surface option was not on the ballot.
----------------------------------------------------------

So the Governor is a bit of a hypocrite and so is the City Council because when the going got tough, they punted and sent the issue to the ballot for a completely worthless and confusing advisory vote. They didn't exercise their authority as duly elected representatives of the people. They folded and sent it out for a direct vote.

Berger doesn't mind a public vote because Crosscut frames the debate, censors information and derisively dismisses contrary viewpoint to influence the outcome.

The 'stacked' SIX-LANE cut/cover Tunnelite closes the AWV and rebuilds the main segment of the seawall at least 2 years before the DBT and poses no risk of damage to downtown buildings, ever. Tunnelite doesn't displace 40,000+ vehicles onto surface streets through Lower Queen Anne, South Lake Union and the Denny Way and Westlake/Nickerson corridors causing severe environmental impact. Only Tunnelite offers a car-free gardened walkway between Steinbrueck Park and the Waterfront.

Berger and his colleagues ignore these FACTS to control public consensus.

Paula Hammond will join Grace Crunican in exile as DOT rejects.

Mickymse - good list! but leaves out that the DBT was rejected by the State as too risky engineering and cost wise (somebody wake Doug McDonald up from counting his consulting fees and see if he can recall that fact.)The DBT was pushed for 5+yrs in the hallowed halls of the Rainier club where these decisions actually get made by the Discovery Institute - the teach creationism folks.(God wants a DBT) The DBT was declared the winner by Nickels, Gregoire, Sims based on a letter from Bruce Agnew at Discovery and ONE engineer they came up with who said they could LOWER the cost estimate by 1/2 billion because he thought the reserve for cost overruns DOT had built into the budget was too high. (Lets find that guy and send him the bill!)

Richard Borkowski: Since when did I become a "big project" person? Interesting.

Wells: What is the Crosscut conspiracy? We've published many differing views on the Viaduct/tunnel etc. and there is no consensus here.

Knute -

I've heard you talk on KUOW for years and you seem to have a distaste for big projects like the monorail, light rail, the commons and now the viaduct replacement. I think you're one of the types of people who long for the older, simpler Seattle, which is fine. But I think that's your bias.

I find it stunning how the elected officials and WSDOT continue to screw up project after project after project. They hide information and essentially lie to the public. Then when the City Council and Guv Gregoire were too timid to make a decision, they thought a vote was a great idea.

But now that you support a vote and they've gotten DBT religion from the creationists at the Discovery Institute, they're all outraged.

Even your co-guest on the KUOW Friday roundup Joni Balter is outraged at a public vote on the DBT now. However, her and the rest of the Times Editorial Board enthusiastically supported a revote on light rail a few years ago. So she's flip flopping all over the place like a fish coated in BP oil.

Once again, the DOT and the elected officials have politically botched yet another project by their need to deceive the public, which is once again backfiring on them. It's like Groundhog Day.

Crosscut frames the debate, censors information and derisively dismisses contrary viewpoint to influence the outcome of a vote. I didn't say Crosscut conspires with pro-DBT interests, but it's evident there's some back-scratching going on. Crosscut allows contrary posts like mine, but rarely addresses the factual premise behind contrary viewpoint. It seems Crosscut is no more "fair and balanced" than the Seattle Times.

My position has always been to pick the AWV replacement option that best achieves the objectives of managing traffic, minimizing environmental impact, avoiding risk and keeping cost down. Of the 4 basic replacement options, (DBT, Cut/cover Tunnelite, Surface/Transit, Choppaduct), the DBT is the worst and Tunnelite is the best option in those regards. DBT cheerleader's only concern is avoiding short-term inconvenience and they don't address long-term impacts.

Your good friend Grace Crunican didn't get the job she applied for in Clackamas County Oregon. I sent an email and left a phone message to remind county officials how she botched the Ross Island Bridge rebuild project and left Portland's ADA, pedestrian, and bicycling groups outraged.

Not only does Mayor McGinn support a vote on the tunnel, he was in fact the force behind the effort to bring it to a referendum. The mayor is an obssessive single issue activist and is unfit for public service. He is also, quite frankly, a liar and is completely wrong on this issue. If the Mayor wants to reduce the carbon footprint of automobiles he should (a) make Seattle more bicycle and pedestrian friendly, which he is doing (b) make Seattle a leader in electric car adoption (c) help create more public transit options and (d) perhaps try to encourage a higher gas tax at the state level. The tunnel will improve our regions economic competitiveness and quality of life. The argument that the tunnel creates auto exhaust could be used to encourage the removal of the 520 bridge, rather than replacement, and all other kinds of absurdities. His position is nonsensical and he is deceitful. The referendum I would like to see is one for his empeachment.

You'll notice that the people calling for a vote are very carefully not telling us what their proposal is.

This may be because the basic alternatives are simply to put all the traffic on surface streets, making the waterfront into a six-lane highway, or to rebuild the elevated highway, putting us a half-century behind the curve on the 'liveable city' indices.

Local news is having a field day with this 'controversy'- would it be too much to do some actual reporting so we could have an informed vote?

The DBT is poorly engineered, has the worst environmental impact, is extremely risky, and most likely to be most expensive and even a complete failure. It's inextricably related surface street rearrangement "Mercer West" is likewise the worst engineering imaginable.

The only sensible tunnel is some version of the cut/cover Tunnelite.

!! Mike McGinn For Governor !!

Ludicrous idea. If we vote on this, why not abolish all elected bodies and have voters vote on everything. After all, they have and are willing to spend the time to examine and weigh all of the issues and make a decision. While we're at it, let's compensate all of those who were on the commission studying this issue, for there are folks willing to trash your work because it didn't come out as you wanted it. I'd prefer that we stick with a decision for a change! In this instance, there is a point that's coming soon that will determine the viability of the deep-bore tunnel. If that proves the tunnel isn't viable, then you can have your surface or whatever other option, but realize that means 3 or 4 years of no Alaskan Way Viaduct and those up to 110,000 vehicles/day going elsewhere. I'm sure glad I don't commute downtown anymore!

Voting for big projects has been a worthless endeavor in Seattle. After voting for the monorail many times and then loosing it in the end, after voting against stadiums and getting them built anyway, experience tells me voting "for or against" these projects is fruitless.

Let the politicians make brave or foolhardy decisions and stand by those decisions, if we disagree with their policies and choices we vote them out of office. Thats the way our representative governments are suppose to work.