Yes to Gehl: drive more cars underground. A commonly-priced toll for entering downtown and the deep-bore tunnel would have the advantage of eliminating toll-driven under-utilization of the tunnel and more cars on surface streets. The impact of a downtown entry toll could be offset by a reduction in parking meter fees and parking taxes. The additional surface capacity created by a full tunnel would make it possible to make some downtown lanes bicycle-only. Dedicated lanes are the kind of improvement that will attract large numbers of less-athletic people to regular bicycle commuting. More on the tunnel at wwww.lightandair.wordpress.com.

The author’s point of how valuable the existing viaduct is as a transportation resource for the region is absolutely right. It also would provide a better solution for the rest of the items on his list if only he could get beyond the need to eliminate automobiles from the face of the earth.

The viaduct is the only realistic way to modulate traffic in the core by providing a bypass for traffic through the core. Move some exit points and you can have as much or as little traffic as you like downtown. The current ability to handle all of the existing requirements for capacity while still providing access to Ballard and West Seattle make it clearly the best solution of all the designs. And its configuration of cover / open space actually provides a better environment for the vibrant, pedestrian friendly streets that he promotes. Look at the architecture of Paul Thiry. A lot of it looks like the viaduct.

I believe that it is still the preferred solution of the voters, who are tired of one neighborhood sucking the resources out of the entire city and who hopefully will have a chance to have their voices heard.

Spending 3 Billion to move some cars underground for a mile and half improves bicycling? That's nuts.

If you wanted to improve bicycling in the city, you can do that for a lot less than 3 Billion dollars. Alaska Way is not a major bicycle route to anywhere. The surface option with some paint for bicycle lanes and the congestion which would slow traffic to 30 mph would be fine for the number of bicycles down on Alaska Way.

The tunnel is a loser option for a future that does not exist. Making cities more automobile friendly is a 1950's plan that didn't work as well as it was hoped. It's time to focus on spending money moving people not autos. Those job loss numbers are total bogosity. 20K people won't quit or have their business move if they can't drive to work. Get to work, maybe, and for that we should impliment the McGinn plan of extending Light Rail to West Seattle and the Trolley to Ballard via Fremont.

Oh, and spend the 3 Million on the city's Bike/Walk plan. Only a 100x savings.

All good points that make the tunnel the "only" solution. It can be added the the intangible benefits of a revitalized waterfront will invigorate Seattle as a premeir place to live. This will give Seattle a once in a lifetime opportunity to make the inner city attractive enough to create a demand for higher density and all the activities needed to complete a community - like schools and grocery stores etc... I hope those that oppose the tunnel will now turn their attention on how we will ensure a spectacular result, especially in all their respective concerns. This is not the time to throw in the hat but to hold their feet to the fire. I remember, during the process of constructing the Olympic Sculpture Park, how that part of the city began to change and how remarkable it was to witness that transformation. Now I await with even more anticipation as a vision of a "real" waterfront for Seattle unfolds. it's Seattles turn to "seize the day" and a remarkable future...

I've never seen anyone riding a bike up Queen Anne Avenue, which suggests that the largest constraint of bike commuting is the topography of the city. Seattle has done it before with the Denny Regrade. Why not just extend that plan to Queen Anne, Magnolia, and Capital Hill?

Our forefathers were bold visionaries, giants who strode the Sound like children in a Greenlake wading pool. Why do we shrink from such grand designs? Three sister mesas, sculptured out of inconsiderate nature into compliant uniformity, vertiable hives of leg powered velocipedes.Fleets of Pedicabs captained by an army of Vista volunteers will be maintained for those respected seniors whose artificial hips and knees will no longer take the daily revolutions. European ecoturists will line the decks of visiting cruise ships towering over the new lanscape, and marvel at American audacity.

Nice article. It mirrors a lot of my own opinions!

While your point, Brian, on ensuring that transit improvements are funded as a part of the tunnel plan is well appreciated, I still don't see why the bored tunnel solution is the only solution, and more importantly the best solution to the problem. This project is too big and too important to not take the time necessary (I know its been a while already) to make the best choice. The bored tunnel is quite costly and far more importantly fails to address the current traffic that uses the Western Ave on ramps and off ramps. Currently, the plans call for that traffic to either use Alaska way/downtown streets (bad by your criteria), or to use Mercer, which is already a traffic bottleneck that is so bad that it has its own nickname. On the other hand, a cut and cover tunnel lite (4 lanes just like the bored tunnel) would address that latter issue, while still meeting all but one of your criteria (Improving Belltown walk ability).

Also your assertion that building the surface street alternative would cost $3.4billion each year indefinitely is, no offense to Herbert Research, ludicrous. The study is clearly referring to construction or earthquake/disaster related closures, not the solution of "closing" the viaduct, which includes other mitigation strategies to accommodate the lost freeway space. If the surface/transit plan was enacted transportation, business, commuter, and mass transit patterns would change, some immediately and some gradually in response to the new infrastructure. Additionally, you provided no assessment of the economic gain or loss of building the bored tunnel as opposed to keeping the functional though, like many buildings and roadways around Seattle, earthquake prone viaduct. This decision will have a significant impact on the shape of Seattle's future and would be a shame if we didn't fully consider all of the long term impacts of this decision and its sculpting effect on the region in an effort to just do something or make every "stakeholder" happy.

All solutions, real or imagined, require that we have more transit. I think the cost of shutting off the viaduct is lost on too many people, some folks have chosen to omit that information from their discussions on the matter to promote their personal preference.

In the end it could be a mix of both a bypass tunnel, transit, then later a stripped down surface street solution. Over the lifetime of the tunnel we will grow and likely require I-5 improvements, as well as surface street enhancements. It seams unlikely that we could get the state to help Seattle with a bypass tunnel later, if for some strange reason with were saddled with the Surface + Still Needing Transit solution first.

An investment in telecommuting infrastructure should be part of the solution. People getting on a bus/train/bike to go "be" in front of a computer screen is dumb to the advances in technology.

I dream of a future of road diets for Downtown! The surface crowd, who otherwise tend to like road diets, strangely wants Downtown avenues to supersize...

"Excluding the elevated structure, only the “demand-management option” had better traffic levels on downtown streets than the bored tunnel option, and, all surface options made the downtown a worse environment for bicyclists."

-NOT TRUE-

"In 2006, Hebert Research found even partial closure of the AWV on SR99 would cost our regional economy $2 billion a year and 20,000 jobs. Full closure without a replacement, would cost the regional economy $3.4 billion a year and 32,000 jobs."

-FLIM FLAM-

"The stakeholders committee challenged WSDOT initial recommendation of either a new elevated viaduct or the "surface + transit option" as the only two choices for replacing the AWV. Neither state-supported options would achieve the primary goals of the stakeholders: Maintaining capacity and reconnecting the city with its waterfront without severely impacting the regional economy."

-MORE FLIM-FLAM I DONT GET- FLASHY FLIM-FLAM?

"What both those short-lived state options would have done was take the AWV out of commission for the duration of construction."

-NOT TRUE-

"The surface option costs $3.4 billion per year, indefinitely, (assuming). Champions of Surface/Transit who attack the DBT ignore a 'guaranteed' financial impact of their prefered solution."

-NOT TRUE-

The surface/transit option has much less environmental impact than the DBT and some members of Seattle's chambers doubt the dbt.

Sounds like a good poster:

DOUBT
THE
DBT

PS: AWV-free Waterfront Forever!

The fact is, any of the surface options would require 3-4 years of the AWV being closed. The cost of that has not been factored in to the comparisons, making the tunnel look like a weaker option from a financial standpoint and fodder for surface option proponents. Another thing that's been missed is that there is a point early on when the tunnel will be determined "viable" or "not" based on what is found down there. This hasn't been reached yet. Will it cost more than estimated? In other places throughout the world where deep bored tunnels have been built, such as France, Russia, etc., the cost of such tunnels have been at or under budget. Still, the odds are that, as with *any* capital project, that costs will be higher. Why? Because proponents always underestimate enough to secure voter support while not sounding too out of line. The voters rarely do anything about it after it's revealed that the costs will be higher than expected, and in fact most of the politicians voting that way have moved on to other offices or are retired, and the media doesn't shine a spotlight on them. In other words, zero accountability. Case in point: Sound Transit's light rail line: way shorter, way more costly, far fewer riders than expected. Plus, the voters' penchant for voting for "the names they know."

It appears that the stakeholders primary goal were to make it easier to meet Carey and Samantha for Mojitos after work, and the rest of that pesky transporation stuff would just work itself out.

I think people are starting to realize what is going to happen when the viaduct comes down. The question for the council should be, "If I do what they told me at the party, should I start thinking about my next job?"

Anyway, I would like to order one of whatever these other guys are having.

What is the value of a public park along the downtown waterfront? Can you even put a price on it?

The park is what makes the tunnel pan out financially.

Brian you're really pushing the limits of absurdity claiming that a 4+ billon dollar tunnel is necessary to improve biking downtown. That certainly is a worthy cause but if the city spent just 1% of what the tunnel cost on bicycle infrastructure you could build more bicycle infrastructure than the city has in the past 5 years. Which do you really thing is a better investment?

On a related note please stop using the whole "Tunnel + Transit" shtick. It is a flat out lie and everyone involved knows it. It was manufactured by tunnel supporters and has no grounding in reality. Of course you and everyone involved probably support transit, but transit is *not* an integral part of the package. Gregoire has said that flat out.

This leads me to my final point. What really troubles me is how your article and many others are trying to paint the tunnel as green, sustainable, transit friendly and now apparently bicycle friendly. It's not and anyone that is intellectually honest with themselves knows it not.

What the tunnel is all about is maintaining capacity for cars. Period. You at least mentioned that in passing, but it's really what this whole debate boils down to. It would be nice if this debate could return to that discussion.

Yes, it's initially going to be about 2+BILLION dollars...for a park. In addition it will reduce the north/south traffic capacities for the entire region so it will continue to cost us on an ongoing basis. Even people who don't want to go downtown will suffer from not having a bypass for the core.

Miss the Sonics...just wait until the viaduct is gone.

Let's start by tolling the viaduct $4 per trip, and see how much traffic is left to worry about.

Words are nice, but I intend to get some anti-tunnel petitions from the SCAT folks for the purpose of gathering signatures at this year's Bumbershoot. You guys can keep debating...

The Surface/Transit Option 'constrains' displaced traffic to Alaskan Way, unlike the DBT which 'disperses' displaced Interbay-bound traffic from the straight Elliott/Western most suitable commercial corridor to at least 3 alternate thru-corridors - Mercer, Denny Way and Westlake/Nickerson where traffic impacts WILL worsen.

The DBT also closes the Battery Street Tunnel displacing that traffic, unlike Tunnelite and Surface/Transit options that retain the Battery Street Tunnel.

Mercer is NOT a suitable MAJOR thru-corridor between I-5 and Elliott. A combined Mercer West & DBT nets new traffic patterns added to Mercer Phase One. Leave Mercer 4-lanes wide west of 8th but convert to 2-way. Keep Broad Street Underpass to 6th and/or Taylor where southbound traffic is straight to 5th Ave.

--The Cut/cover Tunnelite 'displaces' and 'disperses' the least traffic.

--The Surface/Transit option 'constrains' displaced traffic to Alaskan Way.

--The DBT's displaced/dispersed traffic has the worst environmental impact.

I'm considering the 2-lane frontage road design hosting both directions of streetcar track. The median becomes exclusively bike/ped with more landscape options for pathways between street trees. The sidewalk faces the frontage road. The bikeway faces Alaskan Way with no parking northbound side. The frontage road (AKA Railroad Way) would allow turn-arounds for 2 east/west bus lines near Coleman Dock. This frontage road could reduce the number of Alaskan Way stoplights from 13 to 9/10, increasing capacity and speed while it divides thru-traffic from motorists trying to park. At this point, the frontage road design has about 45'-50' for the Promenade.

Wells, do you HONESTLY believe the surface option "constrains displaced traffic to Alaksan Way"?!

Surely you know that's complete BS. Every Downtown avenue would take some of the load, as would I-5. Alaskan Way and Western (if the couplet idea was used) would simply be the primary reroute.

Spock, this is the most rational, intelligent idea I have seen. A $4 toll on the existing viaduct would tell us very quickly how much actual demand there is. Also, it could pay for some transit improvements. Why not?

Actually a better option would be for downtown to decide what its boundaries are and then create a special taxing authority for residents to pay for whatever transportation elements that they think it needs. The only caveat should be that an effective bypass be maintained for the majority of commuters who aren’t obsessed with spending time in Paris on the Pacific.

Whack-a-doodle urban moonbeam thinking by those that have the political power to have us all help pay for this idiocy in the worst economy since the great depression.

mhays, it's true. The Surface/Transit option does NOT shift Interbay-bound traffic as the DBT does, up and over the hill to its north portal in South Lake Union. That traffic is expected to use Mercer Street and steep Mercer Place to get to Elliott, but it's more likely that Denny Way and Nickerson will handle most of this displaced traffic. Mercer Place is too steep, too narrow and too residential, but it looks good on paper if you don't look too close. Mercer West is another nail in the DBT coffin.

The DBT also closes the Battery Street Tunnel. The Surface/Transit option retains it to continue carrying traffic between SLU and Lower Belltown - traffic displaced to surface streets with the DBT.

With the DBT, that's 4 corridors in addition to Alaskan Way that get more traffic. It's good that the Columbia and Seneca ramps are coming down.

The Surface/Transit option literally requires mass transit upgrades, which are possible, even ideal if the state of Washington had engineers worth their salt.

Maybe you guys should start with the existing viaduct as a model and then work backwards, since it already does everything that's required as a transportation resource for downtown. Then the only thing that remains is that it's not convoluted enough for Wells, and it isn't something that -mhays can dream about at night.

That doesn’t seem like a legitimate reason to spend an extra 3-4 billion dollars on a tunnel that reduces the ability to travel through and around downtown.

jmrolls, you know full well that even the construction cost is much closer than that between options. Even without the added disruption cost of the non-DBT replacement options and the permanent loss of function of the surface option.

And Wells, you know full well that the surface option has to take a lot more than just the traffic heading for Elliott, and that Downtown avenues in general would have a much larger role. (As for southbound 99 traffic heading for Elliott, that traffic will mostly use Denny, aided by the reduced pressure on Denny due to the Mercer Phase II project...surely you know this too.

Your posts seem to be written in the hopes that readers are competely ignorant.

I think you must be dreaming about some other forum. I said that the viaduct already does everything that's required as a transportation resource for downtown. That means like…right now...today. The two versions for refurbishment that were ever briefly considered were less expensive than any of the tunnel solutions. And then you haven't factored in the cost of the congestion caused by the reduced capacities of ANY of these other designs. Jeez.

I don't consider that ribbon of concrete to be "long-blighting" as it's described in the caption to the article's top photo. That's a subjective value judgment which is not held universally. Unfortunately, I think it's either such value judgments or the lure of state pork (as, say, for architect services) that have been the main culprits in turning a safety and transportation issue into a frenzied and controversial land grab. A retrofit is the solution that the current power elite refuses to recognize. Maybe the SCAT initiative will help to open their eyes.

cocktails, You must be able to see the "blight" of an elevated gigantic road between the core city and Elliot Bay! It's not subjective at all unless you sell concrete or appreciate that kind of engineering. This isn't a pork project to everyone it's an unprecidented opportunity to improve our city and save some lives before the viaduct comes tumbling down. Land is way too precious to leave to such dinosaurs. The retrofit is the fall back position that is truly a big waste of money. Why put more money into something that shouldn't be there in the first place? Let's get on with the inevitable while so many people need work and it will give us a vastly improved infrastructure system that will lead to other improvements...

Modern elevated roadways with seismic protections are being built all over the world because they provide effective solutions for moving things from one place to another…like our viaduct does now. The viaduct presents no barrier between the city and sound. Actually, on rainy days it makes a more pleasant way to visit the waterfront.

Because it really is a superior transportation solution compared to ANY of the other designs including this tunnel, all that’s left for detractors is name calling. You may see a dinosaur but I see a near perfect transportation resource that, as yet, has not been improved upon.