10 reasons we shouldn't vote on the waterfront tunnel

How amazing that after the phony vote that started this messy process, Brewster would submit this article. 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.

Confusion has been intentionally generated about this process on a massive scale. It doesn't do anyone any good to continue the discussion as if it doesn't matter. It does.

Rushing the process now achieves nothing. Bad ideas don't get better over time.

Here's the article jmrolls was talking about:

http://crosscut.com/2009/12/27/seattle-city-hall/18780/Best-of-2009:-How-Jan-Drago-dragooned-a-Viaduct-solution/

Whats the deal with the tunnel haters? Do they not want progress in Seattle? This can't be over "cost overruns". McGinn seems to want to do away with traffic altogether ( while a notable ideal, the reality of no trucks delivering produce to the downtown area would leave some hungry people). Do people really love the Viaduct that much? I don't get it. It seems to me that the anti-tunnel crowd ( if I may lump them together like that) seem to think it's hip. Leave well enough alone. Stay the course ( to borrow George H. R. Bush's phrase). Not in my backyard. Is there any valid alternative? Besides the reality that the state owns the property, not the city. Real good till a earthquake kills someone and the lawsuits against the city start.

oops, George H. W. Bush, not H. R.

"...rushing the process..."??? What are you talking about jmrolls? It's been 9-1/2 YEARS since the Nisqually earthquake, which triggered the need to remove viaduct, which has greatly exceeded its design life.

It isn't just "downtown special interests" who favor the tunnel. It's ordinary people who are concerned about the devastating impacts of the surface option, which would dump 90,000 vehicle trips a day onto I-5 and downtown streets. It is people who want to get to get to work on time and get back home at at a reasonable hour after work. I know many people in West Seattle, Queen Anne, Magnolia and Ballard whose evening commutes from downtown took over an hour when the bus tunnel was closed because of extra BUS TRAFFIC that was routed on the surface. It is people who want to get to and from ballgames, many of which start during rush hour. It is truckdrivers who need to deliver their cargo to numerous businesses throughout Seattle.

If the surface option is selected people will be shocked at the traffic backups caused by not only by all the extra vehicles on surface streets, but also by the dead stop of traffic caused by trains crossing Broad Street just east of the north end of Alaskan Way. There will be NO ROOM for amenities such as a line of trees and a bike trail along the norther part of Alaska Way, because all available space will be occupied by the BNSF train tracks, and one car extra vehicular lane that will be freed up when the Waterfront Trolly tracks are removed. Seattle, which pretends to be so green, will choke in ugly Manhattan-style gridlock much of the time. Mayor McGinn's call to make Seattle a walkable-bikable city will be seen for what it is--a pathetic joke.

Perhaps the vote will bring us to our senses, get us off our high horse, start behaving responsibily, and just fix it. That is not a bad senerio given the impacts of a NEW Viaduct or tearing it down with no replacement.

Life in Seattle is always the lesser of two, or more, evils. That applies to project and polititions.

We never seem to learn from our mistakes and blunder along wasting time, money and friendships.

The real impact of the 2001 Quake has been the civic discord that it has given us. And like most energenic arguments, they become personal, volitile, and thus diminishes us all.

Let's face it, we aren't sofisticated enough (or together enough) to handle this mega-project. If the Quake hadn't happened, we would be worrying about other more manageable and critical issues like affordable housing, maintaining our current infastructure, improving our schools, etc.

So, you are wrong X 10 David!

This project needs to be unraveled and fixing the Viaduct will be done for the money the state now has, finished in a few years, be less disruptive and maintain the same volumes and of traffic and access we now enjoy. And, less we not forget, maintaining the only world class part of our city, the view from the Viaduct.

I say, bring it on. Let the eruption begin. And then, fix it and have a nice day!

fgruben, you were confusing George Bush Senior with H. R. Pufnstuf, which is certainly understandable.

I agree that the surface option would be a disaster.

I have always endorsed refurbishing and enhancing the existing viaduct. It is the best solution. 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 2 billion dollars cheaper than this present mistake in the making.

As for safety, 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 buildings.

Any solution that doesn’t provide at least the capacities and transportation features of the existing viaduct is a waste of money and a giant step backwards for the city. I think that’s the reason for this scramble to start demolition before common sense results in some honest public review.

If you had a heads up vote next week for a tunnel vs. elevated vs. surface, the elevated solution would win. Why not give it a whirl? It was OK to spend a million tax payer dollars on the phony referendum in 2007.

Mud Baby speaks for me, except for his solution. Retrofit the sucker, I say.

I agree with you .. a vote is a copout and a poor and dangerous one at that. A vote would stand as a blatant admission that Seattle elected officials cannot or will not lead.

But I also agree with you that "Risk is everywhere in this mammoth project .. "

Therein lies the rub. If the city could ever be held responsible for anything over the state approved amount for a state responsibility, It wouldn't take much of an overrun to cause serious harm to the future citizens of Seattle. The mayor is, in my opinion, right on the mark on his insistence on clarifying the language in the state law.

The frustrating part of all this? Why can't the mayor and council sit down and agree to proceed subject to that clarifying language? It's very simple .. if the legislature won't make their intentions crystal clear then rethink this option .. if they do .. get on with it and stop arguing and posturing.

In my opinion, we did great disservice to the quality of life in Seattle, when we squeezed the city between the I-5 freeway and the monster called the viaduct. The tunnel could rectify that, but not if it could potentially do more harm by handing future generations a bill that they can't afford.

Bob Gogerty

Let's get clear about McGinn's motivations: he hates cars and will do anything to make life miserable for their occupants. His concern about Seattle taxpayers' pocketbooks is a farce. We need practical ways to reduce petroleum-base vehicle miles traveled......Mike's social engineering creates collateral damage to the movement of freight and our entire economy.

Excellent summary Mr. Brewster. A little light on the rapscallion protagonist . . .

Many good points David. I'd add another huge one: Any delay would probably cause prices to go up.

Right now, construction is at a 20-30% discount, as shown by the bids coming in these days vs. estimates by various public agencies for their projects. There are many reasons for this discount, including low material prices, a reasonably strong dollar, tight margins, and most importantly (according to some commentators more knowledgable than I), the fact that every project superintendent can have his pick of the best crews.

I have no idea how much delay a ballot issue would cause, win or lose. And it's not clear when prices will rise significantly. But some parts of the construction industry are showing signs of life already, both in Seattle and elsewhere, and the fire sale could ease by next year.

The cost risk of the other alternatives is an important question. They've had a fraction of the design and study. And they'd almost certainly start a couple years later, at which time it's very likely that costs will be back to normal levels. What's studied least of all is the cost of disruption -- either the five(?) nightmare years of the aerial or cut-n-cover plan, or the shorter construction nightmare but permanent liveability nightmare of the surface option. The relative lack of disruption is a big benefit of the tunnel.

The only winner in a vote such at that suggested is the companies that provide ballots, and printers.

We voted against the Bogue plan in March of 1912 have been lamenting it since. We also lament NOT passing Light Rail bonds in 1968 and 1970, and the Commons twice.

We also voted against Safeco Field funding in Sept of 1995 , and the vote for Qwest Field won by just 51.1 percent. Both are there.

We voted for the Monorail four times, then against it on the last run.

Thanks to the internet, we have a lot of folks who apparently know more about structural engineering, geology, finance, transportation, traffic and taxation than the folks we supposedly hire to do these things on our behalf (and dime) for the city, county and state.

The only vote in our sordid past that probably would have stayed the same if the internet had been around back then would have been the vote to turn the city water supply over to the city. That vote was taken in the weeks after the great Seattle Fire, when it was obvious that private enterprise had failed to supply adequate water to fight the fire.

Until we find our own era’s version of R.H. Thompson, or the big quake does it for us, the “Seattle” process does little other than add huge costs and delays.

I am not against public input. But I have noticed in reviewing the major projects of Seattle’s past that a lot of professional thought went into them. Most involved wanted them to work. Discussion is good. Ten years of Discussion is not.

All those who voted against Light Rail in 68 and 70 should be charged double to ride it today.

Oh wait… We ALL are.

It's time for the state to get on with repairing and retrofitting the viaduct. The Noble Experiment of letting Seattle get involved in this project has proven that the city leaders are incapable of making these kinds of decisions. All the while Seattle activists and politicians are throwing one roadblock after another in the way of a viaduct replacement, they express outrage at the thought that they should have to pony up the extra expense that their actions are adding to the eventual solution. If Seattle doesn't want to be part of the solution, let the solution go on without them. Maybe, 25 or 30 years from now, when this issue comes around again, there will be some self-aware adults in leadership roles in the Queen City ready to engage The Rest of the State in a rational decision making process. In the meantime, it's time for the rest of us to move on. Retrofit the viaduct.

Better yet, dbreneman, let's not face it in 25-30 years. Let's do the permanent solution now. Tunnels last longer than retrofits, as well as new viaducts.

Perhaps, Mr. Brewster, if "governance" was more interested in what is in the best interests of ALL the citizens they represent, there would be little need to vote down bad and irresponsible decisions by "stakeholders."

The Surface + Transit plan was never put up for any vote, advisory or otherwise, and neither has the DBT. No one can say with any certainty, that the Surface + Transit plan, espeically if done much better than what the WSDOT threw out, would be voted down.

An objective, binding ranked choice vote all the options in 2002 would have made the decision easier, and any option chosen would already have been completed and in use by now. Don't blame the initiative process for the behavior of politicans and stakeholders. It's simply a reaction to going too far and without accountabilty.

No one really seems to focus all the work that has put into this. The decision for a tunnel came from a collaboration between the City of Seattle,(WSDOT), Port of Seattle, and King County.

Putting this to a vote seems like an unpredictable strategy because, especially in this economy, elections don't always reinforce the progressive way we see ourselves.

When the economy soured in the late 60's early 70's. King County Voters killed Forward Thrust, which in hindsight seemed like a lost golden opportunity. Voters also said no to a fair housing ordinance in '64, which is puzzling. Voters also said no to a stadium, and yes to a monorail, and well...

David wrote: "Mayor Mike McGinn owes his election to a last-minute switch to favor (technically, not to block) the tunnel, the same position of the runners up, Joe Mallahan and Greg Nickels."
Whenever I read that analysis, I feel the need to refute it. For the statement to be true, it would have meant (a) that all tunnel opponents like myself would have either sat out and not voted in the mayor's race or would have distributed our votes between the 2 candidates without regard to the tunnel matter; and (b) that many tunnel proponents would have voted for McGinn. As far as the first condition goes, I can tell you that I--a tunnel opponent--enthusiastically voted for McGinn, and that he was the favorite candidate of all the other tunnel opponents that I know of; we didn't sit out the election, and we delivered our votes to McGinn, whose opposition to the tunnel was highlighted (literally) in the Voters Guide. As for the second condition, I really find it hard to believe that any tunnel supporter--for whom the tunnel project was important enough to make a difference in how they voted--would have cast a vote for the guy who had made tunnel-bashing his main argument throughout most of the campaign, and would have chosen him over a candidate who had become the project's main cheerleader. (It's like saying that those Jewish retirees in Florida back in 2000 really did cast their votes for Pat Buchanon--it just doesn't make any sense...)

The problem with the tunnel vote isn't that it's decisive, it's that the tunnel is a bad idea. The toll effectively kills 1/2 the traffic that might use it. And the money it's going to suck up could be used to much better uses to move people not cars.

All this talk about freight mobility is also more BS, the tunnel is for auto traffic, and that's a 1950's way of thinking about people mobility. Cars are useful, but cities should be designed to move people & freight.

Another tunnel is a good idea, however it's going to be needed for the Light Rail system.

McGinn is right, the future for cities isn't to accommodate auto traffic it's to move people around.

Putting up the deep-bore tunnel to a vote is a non-starter, literally. We all know the electorate is pretty evenly divided into three camps, surface, viaduct or tunnel, so a yes or no vote to approve any one option is doomed to fail.

If we are to have a vote on this a better idea is to put all three up for a Primary vote with a run-off election for the final two options. This is one problem that can only be solved by taking one of these options off the table.

However, if we can agree that the State will not accept a surface option, then we can forgo the Primary and put a simple choice to the voters: Tunnel or Viaduct? Then the real issue here is does Seattle want to pay extra to open up its waterfront?

Meanwhile the clock continues to tick. Frankly, I cannot imagine this petition not getting enough support to qualify for the fall ballot. What we really need is to have the right questions posed to the voter to resolve this issue once and for all.

A public vote that has no legal meaning will not resolve anything. The first stadium vote, because it was binding on King County, at least forced the legislature -- elected officials -- to defy voters as they moved forward with Safeco Field. That decision many legislators have since regretted, not because of what was built, but because of that defiance.

Ironically, the public outrage over that decision gave impetus to the second, football vote on Qwest Field. That vote validated the decision most elected officials were pursuing. Opponents agreed, beforehand, that if there were a vote, they would abide by and not legally contest the voter's decision to move forward. (Bob Gogerty--comment noted above--was a key player in those decisions.) You win some, you lose some, that's democracy at work. (Don't blame me, I didn't vote for whomever or whatever.)

Mayor McGinn's seeming support for his electoral opponent Elizabeth Campbell's viaduct initiative may be, in contrast to the Qwest stadium vote, entirely short-sighted. The tunnel cost overrun provision had more to do with the City of Seattle allocating its tunnel monies for extraneous bells and whistles that would do little to improve the Hwy 99 corridor in terms of moving real traffic; legislative leadership wanted to address the real problem, and keep Seattle's money in the real game.

Downtown property owners were, and are, balking at paying for traffic solutions with which they do not concur, and which may not be effective; most have signed off on the tunnel, the cost overrun provision notwithstanding. Tunnels of this scope have been constructed on time and within budget around the world; the proposed tunnel may not be large enough, but you have to start somewhere. Many believe a retrofit would work; many don't; at some point, you have to decide which risk to take, and move on. Under Rep. Clibborn's and Sen. Haugen's leadership, the legislative transportation committees did exactly that...

More than a few legislators have said, Seattle seems to be forgetting that, as regards population, and folks who vote, it is now at most some 9% of the state. And for the little guy to think he can sit forever on the pot of gold, as the bigger guy circles, and salivates---in this case, the much bigger group of bigger folks--is a fool's game. Especially when nearly every one of them other folks has a bridge or bridges or viaduct or whatever that is also in danger of falling down.....

Construction worker unemployment in Washington State is about 35% right now. The viaduct/tunnel project is funded and should be shovel-ready to go. Political dallying---the inability to get on with it, for better or worse---serves no one. With all due respect, the Mayor and the Council should be shoveling project permits, fast, and not, as former Governor Lowry liked to say, spending their time and our money shoveling the heap of bull out from behind the barn.

GaryP, freight organizations have been more positive about the tunnel lately. While it's true that fuel trucks won't use it, most trucks will be fine. Their main interest, as stated, is "avoid the surface option" because the surface option would make their lives much harder.

cocktails42, McGinn's switch wasn't designed to change how most people vote. It was designed to switch a small percentage of voters who might have been on the fence. It seems clear than many fence-sitters were persuaded when McGinn took away a plank that was clearly losing some of his potential voters.

mhays: If McGinn's 'switch' was on behalf of "a small percentage of [fence-sitting] voters", wasn't it also pretty risky to possibly alienate his base while sabotaging his own credibility? My own take is that McGinn's switch narrowed the final election outcome--that his margin of victory would have been bigger if he had stuck to his guns.

Chris Van Dyk says:

"The first stadium vote, because it was binding on King County, at least forced the legislature -- elected officials -- to defy voters as they moved forward with Safeco Field. That decision many legislators have since regretted, not because of what was built, but because of that defiance."

That's pure nonsense, just as it was then. Not one single legislator was voted out of office because of the stadium vote, and I defy Van Dyk to name a single one who has publicly regretted that vote.

Safeco Field is one of Seattle's great successes, because state legislators exercised the leadership that we sent them to Olympia to exercise. Every sellout crowd at Safeco Field is another nail in the coffin of Van Dyk's nonexistent credibility, and of the career he has built on sour grapes.

Stadium votes are different. The only voters who really stay offended are those who don’t care about sports. Fans get over it. And stadium designs at least result in facilities that are actually functional.

The AWV plan is different. It’s a terrible design that has reduced transportation capacities and will certainly cost more than proposed. The resulting chaos and gridlock during and after construction will be a constant reminder to voters who will be stuck in endless traffic day after day remembering who spent billions of tax dollars to create all the congestion.

Ex-mayor Nickel's demise was more about his choices regarding the viaduct than it was about his mishandling of the snow storm.

We should refurbish and enhance the viaduct.

Overturning the will of the voters after the M's vote pretty much made Tim Eyman. And don't kid yourself, lots of people are still pissed off about it (and to cite one politician who was wounded by it, Phil Talmadge will never win high office again)

I stand corrected -bubbleator. I haven't followed the aftermath.

Excessive process, polemics, compromised proposals, obstructionism, lack of leadership - that's what you get when a city's populace is as divided as Seattle's.

We simply can't make up our collective mind. I'm beginning to think we should punt - do the cheapest solution now, and hope the city is more socially coherent in 25 years to come up with something truly grand.

A retrofit is punting. Should have been done 9 years ago.

You mean 9 years ago and start the process over again in 2025? I bet that seemed like a long way off 9 years ago.

It's funny hearing people talk about uncertainties with the tunnel, then acting like a retrofit is somehow cheap and a known quantity. In reality, very little is known about what's underground, and there's been very minimal study of what a retrofit might entail or how long it might allow the viaduct to last.

-mhays, you're exactly right. There's been a very minimal study of what a retrofit might entail or how long it might allow the viaduct to last.

Why is that? How can that be?

Doesn't is seem odd that the most economical and effective solution compared with any of the other plans under consideration would be tossed out before the circus starts? Something that is known, measurable, and preferred by the majority of voters. and something that is in service every day?

I think the reason is that it was taken off the table early on because of special interests who have short term economic goals not related to the transportation needs of the city.

That doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

I think that the points in this article are good, but I would submit a minor correction. Tom Rasmussen was last elected in 2007, not 2009.

The stadium votes still bug me also. I look at all the cuts to schools, police and public health that we are facing and really wish the funds were going there, not the stadiums.

I agree with Mhays: there are a lot of unknowns about every one of these options. It is really easy to come up with problems about one of these choices, but the same problems could well be even more present for the other options as well.

If there is a ballot measure, it would be really interesting to have cross-examination of one alternative by all the other alternatives. Questions could include:

--what's a bad outcome that could occur with your proposal during construction, and what would you do if that bad outcome appears likely? Proceed, or stop and change direction?

--what's a bad outcome that could occur during operations, and what would be some options to fix that? For example, if DBT is built, there could be a lot of congestion at the entrances to the tunnel. So how do we reduce it? Ditto for surface transit: we could see a significant increase in traffic jams through downtown. So what do we do to reduce them, and how much will it cost? Who will pay to fix whatever the "bad outcome" is on each proposal.

--how long will your approach work? what happens when it no longer works? For example, at some point, tunnels might wear out. Certainly a retrofitted viaduct would wear out at some point. How many years away is this? It is really hard to tell how long any of these would last. for example, would a cut/cover tunnel face gribbles issues? How soon?

--what are the "gotchas" we might find in 10 to 20 years, and what do we do at that point? Who pays? Some gotchas could include: sinkholes above the DBT emerging over time, making some buildings less stable or making it more costly to build above it (if construction could occur at all). So who pays then?

One final question I wish every DBT proponent would have to answer: "the Brightwater tunnel machine that is stuck will cost $X to fix, it will cost $Y to complete that tunnel, and the reason this can't happen in the viaduct tunnel are (fill in the blank).

Every project may have risks, but some could be much more costly to fix than others. Making building owners whole who own property above the DBT could add multiples to the total cost, especially if a judge says the damage is not just current value, but potential value.

Hope this helps. Is Muni league taking a look at these type of questions? Or League of Women Voters? I do not feel qualified to assess the engineer reports and make sense of the risks and uncertainties. It will be very interesting to see what type of insurance policies or construction bonds the bidders end up including in their proposals to cover the risks they see.

After reading sjenner's questions, I have to think it's a darn shame we're trapped on this parallel world where nobody has ever done anything like this before.

Because I read in books about this other Earth, where people have dug tunnels and built roads and bridges in all sorts of places. For hundreds of years. And the people on this other Earth regard it as fairly normal to do these things.

But maybe Seattle is just mentally ill, with two personalities in one body. Because it seems that just recently a tunnel was dug under Beacon Hill...(ominous drum roll)...the same kind of soil you find at Brightwater And right now they're boring a tunnel under Capital Hill.....(ominous drum roll)...the same kind of soil you find at Brightwater! Oh noes!! We're all gonna die!!

Frankly, if I was an engineer, I would be crossing Seattle off my list of places to have a career by now. The city reminds me of my cats warily watching a mechanical mouse. What a laff riot! No wonder this area was the first place anyone ever saw a flying saucer!

Alaskan Way is part of a State Highway. The Surface/Transit option connects SR99 in the south to the Battery Street Tunnel and Aurora/SR99 in the north. The State is committed to removal of the AWV and reconstruction of Alaskan Way, also the elevated roadway to Elliott and Western Aves in Lower Belltown and the connection to Battery Street Tunnel.

WSDOT is NOT committed to reconnecting the grid at John, Thomas and Harrison Streets, nor rebuilding the Aurora bridge over a widened Mercer there which isn't necessary and isn't a good idea.

I dug out a WSDOT construction process diagram for their stacked SIX-LANE cut/cover tunnel, purportedly a 6-year project. 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 combined 10-block stages both supposedly take 3 years.

I've based my designs for the cut/cover Tunnelite, no matter how many years it takes, with staging from the south portal and working north in 2-block segments, and finishing in 4 years.

It seems odd that the Stage 1 trench completely cuts off Coleman Dock, and then Stage 2 works from both ends to the portals. For removal of excavation debris alone, it makes sense to start at the south portal and work north, returning finished blocks to surface use. This is more evidence that WSDOT honchos purposefully rigged cut/cover designs to discourage supporters?

Yes, the cut/cover would incur a lot of inconvenient construction disruption. But it is nowhere near as RISKY as the DBT and manages traffic way better.

The choice is simple: Suffer temporary inconvenience for a cut/cover tunnel, or, suffer permanent inconvenience of badly managed traffic with the DBT. The DOTs have engineered badly managed traffic in Seattle and advocate for the DBT which significantly increases badly managed traffic. Hmmm.

Brewster, the Viaduct Bore Idea needs to go the way of the Monorail Idea.

Extinct.

Ditto this: I have always endorsed refurbishing and enhancing the existing viaduct. It is the best solution. 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 2 billion dollars cheaper than this present mistake in the making.

Except add that it's 7 billion dollars cheaper than the bore tunnel fiasco-in-waiting. Not to mention that the bore tunnel will destroy jobs, and not add any jobs (once the fiasco building is finished that is).

Thanks everybody for proving David Brewster's point.

If a vote is forced then I expect more than one option on a ballot, no majority winner, and the state keeps moving with its tunnel.

Remakinlbly absent in the conversation has been the state legislators that represent "Seattle area" residents, as if they only exist when the legislature is in session.

Does Frank Chopp really want his district to pay cost overruns?
What is he willing to do about it?
He is Speaker of the House, where is his leadership on this issue and the larger state policy?

This begins and ends with the state, and beyond this one project.

Here's a link to what Mr. Brewster predicted that Frank Chopp might do regarding the AWV.

http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/18899/When-Chopp-speaks,-parse-it-closely/

He changes his support from his preferred elevated solution to the tunnel in return for the most expensive Option K termination of 520 so as not to disturb his neighborhood. The result...two neighborhoods dictate the most expensive configurations of these mega-projects for aesthetic reasons, and the rest of the city gets to pay for it.

I understand the trade-off, that did not answer my questions.

The tunnel will be tolled. Therefore the traffic will be on the surface streets.
Improve the south of downtown sea/truck access and disallow northbound trucking on 99.

There's plenty of precedent on what tolling does in terms of people taking alternate routes. From what little I've heard, WSDOT has a good handle on that.

It's a classic self-regulating system. Some people avoid the tolls, which reduces traffic on the tolled road, which in turn convinces people to use the tolled road. Basically, as long as the tolled road is a bit quicker, it'll get a large percentage of the use, assuming the tolls are within reason, as they're supposed to be in this case.

WSDOT will have more and better data on pricing and utilization before the tunnel opens, tolling will begin on 520 in 2 years.
The state will want the most revenue possible in order to pay off the construction.

Retrofit the existing viaduct; fix the mess underneath with all the tracks and right turns only, open up the lanes, and realize that the viaduct has been safe to drive on for 55 or so years.

No major seaport of any beauty or interest has a double decker monstrosity polluting its precious waterfront with a roar of noise and fumes.

I'm native here, and I grew up never bothering to visit our waterfront, because I have to shout at whoever I'm with to be heard. Ridiculous. And the Viaduct's purpose is not to do "drive by" viewing of the City. Those days are long over.

San Francisco lost their "viaduct" (Embarcadero) what, 12 years ago? From all I've read it has been a huge blessing, a great shot in the arm for the waterfront, and traffic has generally adapted to the new conditions.

Tunnel or no tunnel the Viaduct has got to go.

I'm ashamed to live in a city which, unlike Portland and Vancouver B.C., has failed to develop the infrastructure to keep people moving, preferring to rely on I-5 and other roadways, never looking further ahead than 5 years.

We could never do another World's Fair here. IMHO that was the last time we displayed any kind of vision as a city.
There has to be difficult decisions made, and voting over and over for decades is not the way. A strong leader has to ram these projects through. Years later people make statues and holidays for leaders with vision and clout.

Large numbers of Seattleites resisted the World's Fair, but now, years later, who would argue with the long lasting benefits that came from that endeavor?

Quit bickering and do it already! I didn't elect all these politicians to just turn around and put the questions to the masses? I elected them to make decisions, to REPRESENT me. What next, governance via iPhone voting at some website that asks us to decide every daily issue for the City or nation? There's an app for that. Called Opinion Poll mania.

One the viaduct is gone (tunnel or by any other means) a whole new era will open up for the Waterfront.
Cruise boats will actually want to dock there. People might actually want to walk, shop and dine there.

I personally never quite understood the reason the deep bore had to be along the waterfront. It will not be tied TO the waterfront.

Take out a map of downtown Seattle... Where 99 curves west to follow battery, why not begin to deep bore straight south, under 7th or 6th? Firmer soil, no fill, and a straight shot south diving to go under the Pine street Link/bus tunnel, then popping out EAST or Adjacent to the train tunnel and buss run. Let the road split 3 ways near the metro base... those going to the Stadiums/Ferries and SODO/Harbor Island, those heading to I-5 and those heading to 99

This would allow the Viaduct to continued to be used until they were ready to pop through the tunnel. It would allow the port to swap more land for container freight adjacent to the docks, something they and BNSF have wanted for years... It would be a straight shot to help move freight from the north to the docks and vice versa...

Once finished, the Battery street tunnel could be used as a direct east west exit from 99 to the waterfront north...another long needed connection from freight and rail at Pier 91, and Interbay, and locks.

Once they stopped talking about waterfront exits, the bigger question is why does it have to follow that route?

Fred117 (above) makes sense to me.

David Brewster’s observation that “the tunnel would likely fail in a vote because the majority of voters would not [directly] benefit from it” might, ironically, apply to the proposed central waterfront park as well. The park would benefit residents and landowners in the immediate vicinity in obvious ways, and some business interests, but it’s arguable how much further a need or benefit extends. Would folks from Ballard or West Seattle, for example, come downtown to go there? The Seattle Center International Fountain already has a hold on the city’s heart as the public space to gather in at times of overwhelming civic need so a park on the waterfront isn’t needed for that. An improved place to walk on the (commercial, touristy) central waterfront could be supplied by simply widening the sidewalk to accommodate more strollers—so the park isn’t needed for that. And for a quiet, green, waterfront park close to downtown people head up to Myrtle Edwards and beyond—so the park isn’t needed for that, either.

The 2008 Evaluation of Seismic Retrofit Options by WADOT/KPFF and the 2008 Stakeholder Advisory Committee Retrofit Briefing should have scared everyone off from thinking retrofit is an option. David Brewster’s comment that “the likely outcome of blocking the tunnel solution now would be to repair the viaduct and kick the can down the road a generation” has got to be calculated mischief, then. But it does off-handedly acknowledge that the functionality of the current viaduct is worth something. In looking to replace the viaduct, you’d think one of the top questions would be, Which solution would?

1 – This is like saying that we should just go with whatever plan we have, because getting a different plan is too hard.

2 – How many pro-tunnel candidates ran against viable, ant-tunnel opponents?

3 – I’ve heard otherwise—that the imitative could legally stop the tunnel.

4 – Take care when naming other people’s intentions. Some days, everything responsible citizens try to do is framed as subverting the tunnel. On other days, like today, responsible actions are just to win political points.

5 – This is not an engineering decision. This is about our fiscal priorities and about competing visions for the future of our city. Voting about shoulder widths or fire safety design would be poor governance.

6 – I’ve been watching this issue for a while, and there’s hardly been any debate. The tunnel option is a back room deal negotiated mainly among officials no longer in office and whose agencies are not coming through with what they offered at the outset.

8 – Why would all legislators be unhappy if the project imploded? I’ll bet many would prefer a cheaper option. The longer this project delays, the closer we get to an economic & budgetary recovery.

9 – There is always someone advising we avoid conflict and its unpredictable outcomes.

10 – Maybe, maybe not. Speculation.

We can see how editors don’t often move to politics or activism.

Name one waterfront Seattle park that isn't full of bums, drunks and druggies.

And we want another, even bigger one of those?

Wow! Someone FINALLY raised the real issue here(thanks Rosswell)!! I am PRO-Tunnel. Anti-tunnel folks' primary interests seem to be eco-friendly transportation and minimizing cost to the taxpayer. While I share those values, I argue that in taking a broader perspective, and a longer view, that the tunnel option would ultimately serve the two above interests as well. Now, hear me out.

1) If it's true Mayor McGinn's argument for undermining the tunnel option is the theory that if we "build it, they will come"-that is build roads and more autos will come, I would have to ask:
- with Seattle's/Washington State's projected population growth over the next 20 - 100 years, does/do he/you really think that we will have less of a need for auto/truck transportation than we do now? Even if 30% of all present and future citizens ride bikes and take public transport over the next 20-100 years, we will still have more cars and trucks on the road than we do now.

2) Destroying the viaduct and putting traffic underground will accomplish two main objectives: 1) maintain traffic flow through the city 2) open up the waterfront(front door to our city) to huge civic, recreational, business and housing development and opportunities.

Either a retrofit or a new elevated highway will only accomplish #1 above

Surface road options, in my humble opinion, will accomplish neither. The only way it could possibly come close to accomplishing #1 would be to essentially add 2-3 lanes of traffic in both directions(4-6 lanes total) between Elliot Ave and Western Aves., essentially directly beneath the present viaduct. This means that the waterfront would be a 4-6 lane freeway(no lights) alongside the current 4 lanes of Elliot Ave. arterial traffic. Hmm. . . that doesn't sound very pedestrian or tourist friendly. I don't care how you slice it! Do the math. There ain't no way other surface streets can handle the traffic. Maybe it could, between 8pm and 6am. I believe there will come a time when we have a more extensive fixed rail mass transit system to get folks out of cars, but not in my lifetime, and until then . . . ?? Bikes? They're great! I have two! I'm pretty athletic and I like to ride. But this is Seattle!! Most folks, including me, don't want/like to ride in the cold, wet and dark, and they don't like to arrive to work needing to shower after they've worked up a sweat on our hilly terrain. So, I'd say bikes are good for . . . 10-15% of the population, at most, even with increased bicycle traffic enhancements.

Granted, another elevated expressway, sounds like it would be "cheaper" than a tunnel on the front end, I venture that in the long run, the economic returns of opening up the waterfront would, over 20 to 100 years, easily outweigh the initial investment.

Here's where Rosswell and I try to make our points. Have you been to Vancouver, B. C. in the past 5-10-15 years? Do you get out much?? They have truly capitalized their political will and creative imaginations. They have beautiful public access to waterfront- a seawall that encircles their whole downtown and Stanley Park, beautiful private-public projects that give easement to, and accomodate pubilc spaces that are gorgeous urban environments for recreation and socializing(i.e. Coal Harbor, Yaletown, Granville Island). They have "Skytrain"-a cool lightrail/monorail hybrid to their major suburbs and the airport. Have you been to Portland lately. Light rails for miles. They have a riverwalk down there that everyone enjoys and that draws folks from all over.

Now, if you wouldn't like living in an urban and more densely populated environment than we do now, then here's where we will disagree. Opening the waterfront will finally give Seattle a large civic promenade/park and gathering space in our central downtown area. What large, beautiful city does not have one? I envision Chicago's Millenium and Grant Parks, adjacent to their downtown core and on Lake Michigan when i imagine what Seattle's waterfront could be, in scale and proportion to our smaller city, of course. Westlake Park was originally conceived of as incorporating not only what it does now, but the whole block on which stands the Westlake Mall building. The mall and building was to be underground originally. There's a huge need for this. A half block between 2nd and 3rd Aves. between Cherry and James is slated to be a open public space beside a proposed office tower. Opening the waterfront, will invite development. Uh-oh, there's that ungodly "D" word. We can capitalize on this to generate housing, businesses and tax dollars to leverage more public space for recreation, etc., and when it is blended thoughtfully and aesthetically, can truly transform a landscape. I would love to be able to rollerblade, walk or run from the Quest Field part of the waterfront to the northend of Myrtle Edwards Park and beyond, passing artwork, vendors, street musicians, artists, etc.. This could be a place with a central feature/plaza where there would be concerts, political rallies, and large public celebrations for when the Mariners or Seahawks win the World Series or Superbowl. Imagine the new SAM Sculpture Park X 10 or 20. It wouldn't even have to be all flat. It could have a rolling(berms) terrain in parts, optimizing views, and creating natural rises to bridge with downtown streets and the Market

All this would serve the interests of eco-friendliness and and the taxpayer. This type of development will attract people to live downtown, thus cutting down on # of commuters and carbon pollution, and generate tax $$ and stimulate tourism $$'s

I get so frustrated with not moving forward. Seattle has such a beautiful natural setting, that unfortunately, has not been taken advantage of by us. Why didn't we build the Commons? Because we thought it was a conspiracy by developers? Did it stop the development? Now what do we have? I'll tell you! The development W/OUT THE DAMN PARK!! What would be wrong with a 4 block width of park between Denny and Mercer Streets?? Why didn't we move forward with FREE $$ from the Feds in the 60's to build mass transit?? Because many of us are too provincial, too afraid that someone else is getting over on us, unimaginative and small minded. We think that Seattle is just fine the way it is, I guess!? Why shouldn't we enhance our natural beauty and give Seattle a beautiful new featured attraction and selling point.

"As for safety, 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."

Wrong. It also cannot be discussed in the Bay Area. Everyone points to the collapsed Cypress roadway in Oakland and the Embarcadero Fwy (to nowhere) and that ends the dicussion.

Alaigo:
Long-term benefits vs. up-front costs are part of the picture, as you point out, and it’s certainly exciting to think that a tunnel and waterfront promenade could spur the transformational developments you envision. The waterfront you picture is a sort of downtown Seattle version of the world on a string. But people oppose the tunnel not just for costs, let alone for presenting alternative transportation visions for the future, but for a variety of reasons having to do with priorities, functionality, risks, costs, timing, and politics. People do disagree about the basic problem, after all. Consider this: a partial list of “things to do” on a viaduct replacement job could include these familiar-sounding, contradictory, occasionally contentious items:

1. Destroy the viaduct, as in “Kill and remove that that dirty, awful, noisy thing”,
2. Replace the viaduct with a tunnel,
3. Create a waterfront park,
4. (2) and (3) above as the rationale for each other,
5. “Reconnect the people of the city with Elliott Bay like they’ve never been before”,
6. Retrofit the existing viaduct to keep functionality as is and save money,
7. Replace and upgrade current viaduct functionality/safety with an elevated,
8. (Re)define viaduct capacity in such a way as to finesse replacing capacity, e.g. in terms of (1) riders, not vehicles, (2) non-rush-hour trips, (3) (proposed but unfunded) public transportation-supplemented trips, etc.,
9. Create a surface solution along transit-oriented, visionary eco-ideological grounds,
10. Just do a streamlined SR99 to Aurora to get traffic through city center fast and eliminate connectors for downtown, Western, and Elliott,
11. Re-route west-of-Queen-Anne traffic to a reconfigured Mercer, possibly as a deterrent to such traffic existing, possibly in the service of an as yet undisclosed re-envisioning of the NW quadrant of the city—Working Ballard, watch out!,
12. Run a separate “stakeholders” viaduct replacement selection process parallel to the public one and present a tunnel at the last minute as a done deal,
13. Present a “city-making” waterfront park/promenade (with 6+ lanes of traffic running through it) as what downtown Seattle now can’t live without,
and so on.

Which is to say, “destroying the viaduct and putting traffic underground” is all hits and misses. The tunnel solution solves some of the problems associated with demolishing the viaduct, skirts some of the problems, shifts problems elsewhere, creates delicious windfall opportunities here and there, improves the lower regrade neighborhood by removing some heavy traffic, and delivers a waterfront park/promenade downtown. Depending on whom you ask—and perhaps where they live in the city—that’s a good solution. But other reasonable people wondered about the selection process and find the “solution” wanting on various grounds. Alarums from the Mayor over cost overruns are only part of the picture here. Another metric is simply how well the proposals handle the traffic.
How sure a thing is the tunnel/park? Who knows? KING5-sponsored a survey last month that showed adults dividing almost equally between support for/opposition to the tunnel (47/46%). In the wake of that, signature-gathering has begun for an initiative to put the tunnel on the ballot, even as the city Parks Foundation has proceeded to publicly vet design firms for the proposed waterfront park. Fifty-eight percent of respondents in the survey thought there should be a public referendum on the tunnel proposal before signing up for construction. Que sera sera.