State Route 99 is a critical north-south freight and transportation corridor that runs more or less the length of the state, and the State Legislature has declared it a highway of "statewide significance." As such, any efforts by any local municipality to block the project has been superseded and preempted.

The Viaduct is a state highway, and no less the Governor and the Attorney General have declared that the State will be on the hook for cost overruns, that the legislative language in question is unenforceable. As such, what gives Seattle residents any special rights to speak on the future of the highway? If there is any vote, it should be statewide.

I'm sure residents of Tacoma would be happy to vote to reprogram the funds to their critical needs to extend State Route 167; I'm sure residents of Southwest King County would be happy to vote to reprogram the funds to their critical needs to extend State Route 509; I'm sure residents in Spokane would be happy to vote to reprogram the funds to their critical needs regarding the North-South Freeway.

Knute, it might be worthwhile for you to get out of Seattle and around the state. Seattle is not the center of Washington State, let alone the universe.

Good comeback Knute! It was refreshing!

No matter what it takes or how long this project (Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall repair or replacement) takes to be implemented, it has almost been a decade since the earthquake, with only minimal repairs to the waterfront structure.

WSDOT/SDOT have allowed us to continue using the Viaduct in it's present state. That must mean that it is "safe" to use for years to come. But, this is not good risk management.

The Viaduct needs to be retrofitted to extend it's life until this community (State & Local) can come up with a defensible, less risky alternative that people can get behind. Without it being retrofitted, every day is a potential tragedy.

Retrofitting is relatively inexpensive, less disruptive, requires less time to complete, and maintains the same traffic volumes, access and speeds we presently enjoy.

Let's take the pressure off ourselves and put the polorization behind us. Buying more time to come up with the best solution for all concerned is worth the time it will take to get consensus.

Who knows, perhaps people will turn to alternative forms of transformation beyond projections and the need for the Viaduct will be greatly reduced, warrenting a less ambitious solution. It could happen.
We sure have spent Billions to have that happen.

So, heed the Legislatures warning, take it seriously as a political line in the sand, and make responsible decisions that will keep our citizens safe for as long as it takes.

Had Gary Locke (then Governor) taken the legislative approved "emergency" funds of $2.4 billion and fixed the Viaduct then, we would not be wasting all this valuable time, which should be better spent on other more pressing issues like affordable housing, education, expanding services, maintaining our present infastructure and keeping costs down.

Let's get on with fixing the Viaduct, making it a better neighbor by deadening the sound, lighting it's underside and perhaps moving the underneath parking into adjacent new garages and convert the linear space to a long pedestrian/bike promanade from the Market to the Staduims.

That would add covered openspace to the waterfront, allow for the return of the Trolley, save the trees, improve the waterfront experience and cause less disruption for a fraction of what otherwise another solution would cost.

Let's get busy being constructive and get something done. We all deserve it!

Do the right thing.

If the people of the entire state get to vote on this issue, the winner will certainly (and logically) be to rebuild the viaduct. The tunnel was proposed as a sop to Seattle residents who demanded the removal of the viaduct. So Seattle doesn't want the tunnel? Fine. Let's get to work on replacing the damaged sections of the viaduct and seismically refitting the rest. During that process, much viaduct traffic will need to be detoured onto Seattle city streets. This will be a golden opportunity for anti-99 folks to experience their "surface option" green utopia. And, like "arties4453" points out above, removing the viaduct is not a prerequisite to developing a more pedestrian friendly waterfront tourist zone. Everyone wins.

Because "testing it at the polls" would mean significant delay, and probably add hundreds of millions to the price.

Your reliance on the "research" about "inevitability" is bordering on unethical. You KNOW it's not applicable here for several reasons, starting with being many years out of date. It's your attempt to persuade the uninformed.

Your MO is to cling to your original position, and rely on discredited points to do so.

Nonsense, the Mayor does not have plans, he has ideas the state won't fund. By not forcing McGinn to explain how he will get the Governor and the Legislature to fund his ideas the press becomes part of the Mayor's propaganda machine. Seattle at risk of losing a world-class waterfront and several billion dollars in much-needed economic development - and a co-opted or complacent press is a big part of the problem.

Fear mongering? We are investing billions on a project that is based on fear (the earthquake!) and fuels big labor - the turnout of hard hats at the recent council meeting underscored their want for jobs no matter what. I'm fearful of a 3 story in diameter tunnel bored under downtown Seattle buildings through soil that is a combination of fill and silt! Driving through the Battery St. tunnel yesterday reminded me of the original 'trench and cover' concept for the waterfront...whatever happened to that option? A viaduct retrofit seems the course of least resistence, but a west coast version of Boston's 'Big Dig' should not be the course of an enlightened educated city like Seattle.

Knute: I could agree with you at face value but this is a situation where McGinn has two faces, one of which you are choosing to ignore. While the cost overrun issue has merit, it is clear that this is a wedge issue that McGinn is surgically using to further a different objective. He is a strong and true believer in the surface option which has very little public support (less than 20% of stakeholders on the special committee supported this idea and according to a recent Publicola survey it has a paltry 21% support in the general electorate). But instead of pushing his own unpopular solution, McGinn is strategically trying to undermine the project already under way. Through subterfuge he is trying to get to the surface option. That is the key issue of his actions that you seem to be willing to overlook, and as a reporter I would have hoped that you would have the critical eye to see through the fog of the war he has so disingenuously ignited. The cost overrun issue is not a weapon of mass destruction.

Have you been to Boston since the "Big Dig?" - It's been transformative. Future generations will thank the people who had enough foresight and guts to push this through. Same would be true with the tunnel here. Oh, but wait, because of an unenforceable bit of language in a bill inserted incredibly by our own Seattle neighbor Frank Chopp, we should put everything on hold, go back to a public vote and potentially, probably, start all over? Sure why not, while we're at it, let's bring back the monorail.

Dramatic films at WSDOT's website showing the breakup of the 520 floating bridge in a high wind and claiming it could happen anytime were also intended to scare the public into approval of whatever design WSDOT advanced for a huge replacement project. Now, instead of addressing the vulnerable floating bridge part of the project first, WSDOT is widening the highway on the east side, complete with three lids--at Evergreen Point, Hunt's Point, and Yarrow Point.

The bridge, whose repair and improvement should have been WSDOT's highest priority according to its publicity about the dangers inherent in further delay, could collapse this coming winter. It should be repaired and improved with wider shoulders now, and we should use the time that buys us to study what we really need in light of congestion management via tolling of both 520 and I-90 (set to go onto only 520 Spring 2011).

This would also buy us time to learn about and institute the adjustments in transportation methods and requirements that are surely ahead of us but lagging behind the last gasp of bigger is better. We will be timing our commutes to avoid expensive peak hour travel, which means that big companies will be supporting flex time. Neighborhood work stations and telecommuting will become more commonplace. And of course, smaller electric cars, shuttles, and rapid transit will replace the single occupancy behemoths we run across the bridge right now.

If the Viaduct really is that shaky, if the floating bridge really is that vulnerable to a high wind, why are we postponinig their repair (which could be accompanied by acoustical and width improvements) while we rush into big projects? This really is a watershed moment in transportation and energy use in general, and we should be fixing instead of building on an ambitious scale for business as usual. We don't know yet what business as usual is going to look like.

According to a press release, a group, Citizens Against the Tunnel (SCAT), are filing an initiative with the city to put the tunnel to a public vote. Former monorail booster Dick Falkenbury is part of the effort. Details here:
http://www.scatnow.com/

Fine. Let people vote. If Seattle voters reject the tunnel, taxpayers STATEWIDE win. This leaves the Governor no other choice but to fix the Viaduct. Neither Seattle voters, nor the City, can legally,impede a STATE HIGHWAY. Then the story will be over.

Ross Kane
Warm Beach

Knute is very perceptive- he's seen McGinn's plans for transit and surface options that have never been presented to the public.

And there's a reason these plans have never been rolled out (I mean, aside from the fact that they don't exist)- kill the tunnel and the next thing you get is a rebuilt viaduct, or a highway on the surface at the waterfront.

Now, if the past nine years had been spent in backroom scheming to "put one over on us", calling for a vote might be appropriate.

But that's not the case. The whole thing has proceeded in public with more than enough time for everyone who wants to to add their opinion. What the tunnel opponents are saying is that they don't like the outcome and they want to change the rules.

So, if that's how it works, what do we do for the next big project? Do we vote first, up or down, and then study the possibilities and solicit public input? Yeah, that would make things better, for sure.

Seattle has an initiative process. If opponents want a vote, they should collect signatures and put an initiative on the ballot. This might inspire a fuller discussion of what the real alternatives are.

To become a reliable source of information, editors and columnists must present contrasting perspectives alongside each other. A return to the "Fairness Doctrine" in journalism is opposed by demogogues who have no compunction against shouting down opposing views when hautily demeaning them is an insufficient "might makes right" tactic in their contact sport of psychologically manipulated concensus.

Throughout the public planning process, I've tried to broaden the discussion with critical aspects of engineering, environmental impact and risks as more important than the narrow issue of potential cost overrun. It's reasonable to expect posters who've chosen sides to limit debate with one-sided opinion, but not editors and guest columnists.

I'm afraid the result of a voter referendum would be determined, as too often is the case, by the least informative and most misleading propaganda. Mayor McGinn's hands are tied seemingly as if the only issue deep bore tunnel stakeholders comprehend is money.

Seattle should absolutely have an AWV-free waterfront. The only question to answer is which SR99 replacement option ably manages traffic best with least environmental impact and least inherent risk. In those regards, the choice is between the Surface/Transit option and the cut/cover Tunnelite.

In 2006-07, Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business Associations, regional and statewide agencies, various organizations and stakeholders supported the cut/cover Tunnelite. Then commenced a private ideological battle within the public arena that sorely misled and continues to mislead the public regarding the cut/cover Tunnelite which is in every important way the best replacement for the doomed AWV.

If I thought voters knew anything of substance about the tunnel option, I might be more inclined to support one more vote, but I don't. They're not scientists or engineers or city planners so they really can't make judgment about whether it would come in over or under budget. In terms of the Viaduct, they also probably see it operating "just fine" on a day-to-day basis, and can't comprehend it failing in a major quake (let alone preparing a their own disaster emergency kits). Instead, they are homeowners and renters who have a vested interest in making their own lives easier and their own taxes lower over the long term.

I voted for McGinn on the premise that he was an honest broker, but his vow to not stand in the way of the tunnel replacement ended up being a farce. Shame on me for believing a politician. If he thinks there's some silent majority out there who will re-elect him down the road because he got a supposedly-unpopular project spiked, he may be sorely disappointed. Standing up is one thing, but standing in the way is something else.

Uncertainty about the project is a feature of all mega-projects, especially tunnels. How could a vote resolve that uncertainty? Does the vote provide further guarantees against cost overuns? Further funding? Further project review? Further testing of soil samples? No, it would not.

OK, so let's ask this question? A vote in an election usually means you like Politician A or Politician B more. In other words, it is a choice. That is the purpose of the election. And the purpose of this vote? You can vote for a tunnel or you can vote for....what exactly? Retrofit? Re-build? Surface streets? What?

An intiative of this nature can only be an honest referendum if it grants a real choice. If the supporters of the initiative have a better choice, let them put it on the ballot against the tunnel.

But they won't - because what Unter pointed out is true. Those who wish other solutions are using uncertainty as a tool to eliminate competing options which they support, but which they know the public doesn't. The fact is, the public is split, and cannot come to an informed decision. This is why we have representatives to represent us - because they have the time and expertise to figure things out. Don't like them? Don't like their decisions? Vote them out.

The whole idea that we need to tear down the viaduct and build a tunnel because the viaduct may be dangerous when "The Big One" earthquake hits is laughable. There have been proposals for retrofitting the viaduct, to make it safer in an earthquake, for a fraction of the cost of what this tunnel will cost. And, the common sense question, "Where would you rather be during an earthquake - driving on a siesmically retrofitted viaduct, or buried under tons of mud and water?" never seems to get asked.

California has Highway 1, Chicago has Lake Shore Drive and The Magnificent Mile. Seattle has its own World Class scenic thruway: Alaskan Way, which can be improved upon and promoted as a jewel of our great city. But, our extremely nearsighted leaders want to have it torn down and commit taxpayers to spending billions of dollars on an ugly experimental tunnel that just about every expert says will encounter billions of more dollars in cost overruns which will make Boston's "Big Dig" costs seem paltry by comparison.

A seismically retrofitted viaduct, with rubberized asphalt pavement, is what we need. By utilizing rubberized asphalt for the road surface, current complaints about noise levels will be addressed and make the waterfront very pedestrian friendly (see Sacramento County Rubberized Asphalt Noise Reduction Study, http://www.rubberpavements.org/Library_Information/4_6_Sac_County_Noise_Study.pdf).

Seattle has an historic opportunity to preserve and improve one of its greatest public assets - an urban thruway with a view unparalelled by any US city. Let's not blow it.

Our leaders insist that they speak for the people - but this is too great of an opportunity, and a risk, for any one leader or group of leaders to claim the glory for, or bear the public scorn if it becomes a boondoggle.

The question for Councilmember Godden: "Why not submit the choice to the people, along with the proposed costs - tunnel vs. retrofitted viaduct - on the ballot, and let the voters decide?"

It wasn't tunnels that collapsed in Kyoto, San Francisco, LA, etc. -- it was elevated highways, often much sounder than ours!

It's a false argument.

Some random thoughts:

It's hard to stay focused on what the People of Seattle want for the waterfront...and weather or not that reconciles with what is actually needed.

Had it not been for the Boeing Bust of 1970, I wonder how things would be today if King County voters passed all 12 Forward Thrust Forward Thrust Propositions?

The economy is bad now and Voters may be just as inclined, like they were back in the 70's, to vote down the tunnel option especially when faced with the specter of cost overruns. But wouldn't cost overruns could happen with any project?

Voting in the Northwest can be unpredictable. And were not always as progressive as we like to think. Case in point, March 10, 1964 when Seattle voters defeated an open housing ordinance 115,627 to 54,448.

When I think of the Viaduct, I think of the Kingdome. It was an adequate eyesore, and despite popular opinion we got a new & nicer one anyway.

I happen to agree that the Viaduct needs replacing. If it fell down today, who would pay for it's replacement? And if the state is only willing to finance a base model with no bells & whistles, then where would the rest of the money come from in order to make it Seattle friendly...Tolls?

Strong and well-reasoned piece until the gratuitous bashing of the Monorail Green Line so-called "boondoggle." If the city were truly committed to transit solutions, an expanded elevated railway would by now have been curbing demand for automobile capacity (whether tunnel OR viaduct) along the city's west edge and adding real dimension to this debate.

Not only are 63% of Seattle residents 'birthers', as the Seattle Stranger extrapolates from Ms. Godden's rather odd little rant BUT, according to her colleague Sally Bagshaw "virtually all lawyers in Seattle believe State financial responsibility mandates are unenforceable".

Go Figure!

I don't believe in representative government.

I want to vote on every proposed governmental expenditure in excess of $1,000,000, and on any activities that may cost more than originally estimated.

I want each mayor to push any policy s/he wishes, no matter how adverse to policies and projects previously approved.

I'm happy with paralysis of decision-making.

I don't want to free the Seattle waterfront from unsightly visual, sound, and air pollution, removing an incredible eyesore.

I am happy with Mayor McGinn. He is the only mayor I have.

He will be remembered in the history of Seattle as The Great Obstructionist, and his image will be added to "Waiting for the Interurban" in honor of his leadership style.

Yes. Yes.
Bash someone who wants to question saddling taxpayers with massive tax increases and debt, "obstructionist." Somewhere in this debate, a sarcastic reference was made to re-opening the monorail vote - as if Sound Transit somehow is the cure to our transportation ills. A lot of folks, especially our leaders, thought that once, but now we are realizing what many "obstructionists" warned would be the case: ridership is nowhere near what the promoters predicted, and taxpayer subsidies will be increasingly required into the forseeable future.

The Seattle City Council and other regional and state leaders were lead down the lightrail fairy-tale path for years, and a bureaucracy is now set firmly in place to ensure that tens of billions of dollars continue to be wasted on this massive government boondoggle. Let's not forget that for quite awhile, Sound Transit was spending millions of dollars per month on salaries and administrative costs, without laying one mile of track.

When the people voted for Sound Transit, it was not because we believed that light rail was the best alternative - it was the only one on the ballot. Most folks would have preferred monorail to light rail, but that option was not part of the package. It should have been. Monorails could already be up and running throughout the region. But Sound Transit is stuck on light rail and so we have unending projects, millions of dollars over budget and years away from completion.

Re-open the monorail debate? Yes!

Let's build a transportation system that people will actually want to ride - a swift-moving modern monorail that can travel above-ground along existing transportation routes that people now use everyday. Common sense. Sound Transit already has our money. Stop the lightrail nightmare and build a world-class transportation system that people will actually be delighted to use. Then traffic, either on the viaduct, in a tunnel, or on the side streets, might not be as bad.

Perspective.

When the 1989 earthquake struck San Francisco, every city in America sent their structural engineers down to see what happened and determine what would be needed to avoid a similar impact in their own comnmunity.

WSDOT did just that, and came home with the understanding, while seeing the differences in structural design between the San Francisco viaduct that pancaked and our own Alaskan way Viaduct, they addressed our need to be retrofit the AWV ASAP. That was 1989. WSDOT present the legislature with a proposed allocation of $300 million (not billions) to adequately retrofit the Viaduct.

Guess what? Nothing was done!!! Had it been accomplished, the Viaduct would have not suffered the damage caused by the Nisqually Quake of 2001.

Now we are talking Billions. And due to their irresponsible actions to NOT fund a retrofit, we are being asked to cover their mistakes at a rate of no less than $800 for every citizen in this state. That's $3200 for a family of four!

It isn't too late to retrofit the whole Viaduct for less money that a Bored Tunnel. In fact, the $2.4 billion the State has, need not be accompanied by other funders. The Retrofit can be done way within those dollars. Imagine, having surplus funds that might be diverted to hlping SR 520 and perhaps eliminating tolls.

And, the Retrofit would be more beneficial to our community on all fronts.

Don't be missled by those that passed the buck, only to come back and ask us to cover their errors with big bucks.

LET'S JUST FIX IT and have a nice day!

Fix the seawall first. If you watch the DOT disaster video, you'll notice that the seawall fails first, allowing the land to sluff away from the viaduct supports, then it falls.

Second, build the Trolley line to Ballard and the Light Rail line to West Seattle, move people not cars.

Then if we still need to dig a cars only, not for freight remember!, tolled tunnel, it will be obvious. But I suspect that the obvious thing will be to tear down the viaduct and replace it with a 4 lane surface street. Not an 8 lane highway. And while the disruption is happening, we'll have reasonable alternatives to driving to get everywhere.

The city and the state have their spending priorities all messed up. It's not that we don't need to build and repair, but what we need to build should be useful in a "tough oil" future. And a city in which auto mobility is not required will be better off than otherwise.

It does seem fair that Seattle should pay more than, for example, farmers in Whitman County for a tunnel that does more than just move vehicles on Highway 99. It is our preference to demolish something cheap and ugly and build something that more gracefully moves cars past our downtown. So we should pay cost overruns. If one assumes Seattle residents will pay almost all the tolls the arithmetic gets complex but if the tunnel is $.5 billion over that should be about $1,000 for every man, woman and child in Seattle, yes? seems worth it to me. We want the leather seats we should pay for them.

If McGinn thinks that carbon emissions and high priced gas are going to eliminate or even substantially reduce the private vehicles and trucks I think he is wrong. The tunnel will be at capacity even if gasoline costs triple what it does today.

Godden may be offended by McGinn’s underhanded ways, but one would be hard pressed to find anyone involved in this current mess who’s clean. If you recall, the phony referendum of 2007 was the opening ceremony for three years of spin and obfuscation by PR flaks, blue-ribbon committees, evangelical consultants, stake-holders, waterfront partnership committees and various toadies for downtown special interests who are peddling this tunnel.

That vote wasn't intended to give voters a voice, but rather a deceitful trick designed to defeat the elevated viaduct that was the assumed solution by the public and the WSDOT at the time. Jan Drago stated that she and Tim Ceis cooked up the phony referendum so has to confuse the voters and avoid an honest “tunnel vs. elevated” vote. She states, “Had it been a single vote, tunnel vs. elevated, we [tunnel supporters] would have been dead on arrival.” You can read it here in the Crosscut archives. Use SEARCH for the article by C.R. Douglas on Jan. 15, 2009 called, “ How Jan Drago Dragooned a Viaduct solution.” It clearly wasn’t what the voters expected or wanted then, and it’s not what they want now.

Modern elevated roadways are being built all over the world with seismic protections. It’s only here in Seattle that they cannot even be discussed. Seems odd too, when you consider that over the last several years our leadership has seen clear to allow the wholesale lifting of the voter approved height limits for downtown developers.

Reach for the sky guys.

Pretty scary.

Here's what I know and want to know about the tunnel:

1) The deep bore tunnel won't have downtown on-ramps or off-ramps. So where will the the volume of viaduct trips that start or end downtown go instead and what are we doing to improve capacity on those roadways?

2) We still have to replace the sea wall. What is the status of that project?

3) I'm not aware of any citizen support for the DBT. The people I know who want it just want progress on any solution.

4) Any legislature that could put that un-enforcable language into the bill that funded the tunnel could - and would - revise the bill to include enforcable language. The legislature intent is clear: Seattle must pay costs in excess of the budgeted costs. They wouldn't hesitate to re-write the bill to make their intention enforcable. To pretend that the legislature missed their one and only chance to hang expenses on Seattle is naive and foolish.

It's pretty clear to me that a cut-and-cover tunnel with a rebuilt sea wall as its west wall and some downtown on-ramps and off-ramps is the most reasonable solution. Of course, I also think that northbound I-5 should be expanded to more than two lanes as it goes under the convention center.

If we're talking about having a vote, it's important to look ahead and see what would come of it. If 60% of the city favors the tunnel, then what? If 40$ of the city favors the tunnel, then what? The thought experiments reveal that if a vote occurred, no matter the outcome, nothing would be resolved. It would only serve as a psychological victory for one side of the debate, or maybe both sides if they can find a good way to spin it.

A couple of other points. First, the state constitution explicitly forbids unequal taxation. If the legislature tried to impose a property tax on Seattle residents only, it would be a blatant violation of the constitution. So this truly is a red herring matter. Second, having seen a number of comments related to a viaduct retrofit, I must say that I am distressed by this idea. Such a retrofit would keep the viaduct structurally sound, but only for a few years. It would serve as a costly delay, not a solution, to the problem.

@coolpapa. The Lower Belltown access ramps (for Ballard, Magnolia, Interbay, West Queen Anne traffic) should be retained. The various designated and makeshift routes for this major traffic pattern (from Elliott to the DBT north portal on Aurora) will incur high environmental impact and severe inconvenience to motorists. Even the Surface/Transit option has less impact because it contains the traffic to Alaskan Way.

The Columbia and Seneca ramps to 1st Ave should not be retained. Traffic on Seattle's dangerously steep side streets leading to these ramps should be discouraged, and, 1st Ave is a major pedestrian and transit corridor with too much traffic. Downtown Seattle desperately needs transit upgrades, but most transit agencies are Old School and don't understand why their system upgrades rarely succeed.

You're right to support the cut/cover tunnel.

This week I reviewed WSDOT's construction process diagram for their stacked SIX-LANE cut/cover tunnel, circa 2007, purportedly a 6-year project and the AWV remains in place and operating. What's notable is the staging:

Stage One, a 6-block trench between Spring and Main, followed by Stage Two, a 4-block trench from Main to the south portal AND a 6-block trench from Spring to the north portal at Pike. The 6-block and the 10-block stages both supposedly take 6 years.

I've based designs for the cut/cover tunnel, no matter how many years it takes, with staging from the south portal and working in 2-block segments northward, and finishing in 4 years. The seawall is rebuilt at the same time. Personally, I think Seattle should take on the greater share of costs, but NOT the extreme risks inherent with the DBT.

I find it impossible to accept a Stage 1 trench that completely cuts off Coleman Dock, followed by Stage 2 trenches from both ends to the portals. For removal of excavation debris alone, it makes more sense to start at the south portal and work north, returning finished blocks to surface use. Is this another sign (among many) that WSDOT honchos purposefully rigged cut/cover designs to discourage support?

Please stop with the "Big Dig" comparisons. They are the worst kind of red herring. The Big Dig involved 3 separate roadways, 2 separate tunnels, including one that had to go under an existing subway line. Other than both being holes in the ground that cars pass through, the Big Dig and the Seattle Tunnel have about as much in common succotash and chocolate. Let's be clear, the viaduct replacement will have cost overruns, regardless of which option is chosen. Why? Because every major construction project has them. But to dismiss the tunnel option by citing the example of a project that was orders of magnitude more complex is, at best uninformed, and at worst plain demagoguery.

Many people seem to be overlooking two things:

1) The tunnel was originally the Governor's idea. The City Council are only currently holding the batton in this political relay race. So how is this a case of the city demanding that our projects be "gold-plated," as one reader suggested? We were told that the only option was a tunnel and now we're being told that because our City Council now approves of the tunnel, we have to pay for the excess?

2) A city vote makes sense because it is our City Council who are currently making a city decision: whether to sign off on the tunnel. The state is free to make their own vote, too, but our leaders should be more concerned about what their constituents want. Maybe the state should vote on whether to put the city on the hook for cost overruns to the state portion of the project (the tunnel; the city part is only the sea wall), just to make the issue of intent clear for everyone involved. But if this the way things are going to be run in the future, I imagine projects outside of King County will lose similar votes on their own projects.

At this point, the city shouldn't sign off on the tunnel. We should pull out of the decision-making process and take a lesser position of pledging money to the sea-wall portion of whatever project the state forces upon us. Any replacement option would be better than the the city being put on the hook for cost overruns from a state project due to a perception that it is a city project merely because our leaders have signed off on a plan proposed by WSDOT.

I'm so happy to have voted for Mike McGinn! I can't imagine Malahan, Nichols, or Schell holding the pro-tunneler's feet to the fire and asking the hard questions. We need to know who's going to pay how much in the event that things don't go according to plan.