Why not explore how to retrofit or restore the viaduct? The majority of voters still prefer that solution. It's the most economical and effective of all the plans submitted.

You're right about all this being wasteful and silly.

It IS social engineering, Roger. But you LIKE social engineering. You are a nice guy, but let me roll the way I want to.

Not every day I agree with the governatrix, but most days I disagree with you.
The Geezer

LIES!
Remember what WSDOT/SDOT/GOVERNOR et al told us (promised us) about the DBT alternative and why it was chosen? "IT WOULD NOT CREATE DISRUPTION DURING CONSTRUCTION LIKE THE OTHER ALTERNAIVES"! What BS!
LIES!
And why are they moving to tear down the southern end of the Viaduct before the Tunnel is ready for us, "IT'S TOO DANGEROUS".
LIES!
If it was SO dangerous, why are we still using it along with the total Viaduct, who's danger doesn't seem to be reality after 10 years of use since the Earthquake.
Rather, they should have avoided this promised gridlock by holdin goff on demolition of the Southern portion until the DBT is open.
LIES!
Here's the current stragety. In order to get public support for the DBT and force the choice, they segmented the "Project"(remember the $11 billion project from Mercer to Holgate. They said the Southern portion can't wait to be demolished (even though the Spokane street corridor was in worse condition, got retrofitted (so could the southern portion of the Viaduct). That way they gain momentum for the Tunnel and start spending money, reducing the pot of money so the other alternative can't be chosen due to a lack of funds, WHEN THE FEIS IS FINISHED and a Preferred alternative is then selected. CART BEFORE THE HOUSE (See BRICKLIN comments)
And now the Gridlock which we were not supposed to experience!
LIES!

DBT supporters, "GET OF THE BUS"

JUST FIX IT AND STOP THE DEMOLITION OF THE SOUTHERN VIADUCT>

Imagine this: The southern portion is demolished, the tunnel alternative it tied up for decades in court, or money runs out for the tunnel as well, and we are left with "temporary" gridlock, forever.
Let's not forget the Mercer BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT that will not lessen congestion. Another brainchild form the same folks that brought us this illegal DBT alternative.

SUCKERS! Time to move!

Roger -- the same advice was given when the state had to do major work on I-5. They did it during the summer and a lot of people decided to take vacations during that timeframe. That DOESN'T mean it's a smart move for the economy to intentionally restrict capacity. Or, maybe we could all just take vacation permanently. I'm sure the bank that owns my house would be appreciative.

a researcher and writer, lol. man, it sure is good to have a working mans take on this. what else is good for us yokels Rog?

WSDOT could have also suggested bicycling to work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01Straight.html?scp=1&sq;=x-husband%20bicycle%20work%20auto%20delivery&st;=cse

And it's May! Time for Bike to Work Month!

http://www.cbcef.org/btw/cc.html

all I can say is, don't buy a house in West Seattle, it will be easier and quicker to get downtown from Bremerton .

Oh, and folks, "free" roads are social engineering as well. It's all social engineering, every group decision that we make about our transportation options.

What you need to look at is what things do you want to have when gasoline is $10/gal? When our regional population doubles, still want to drive?

Some roads are clearly necessary, even us bicyclists need them. But is 4.5 Billion on tunnel for cars the best use of our limited funds to move people? Not in my opinion.

Perhaps the most important statements for the author’s argument comes near the end. He asserts that tunnel-supporters’ distinction between short-term congestion (for construction) and long-term congestion (for the roads-only option) is deeply flawed. Normally, this would then require the author to refute this belief or, at the very least, explain why this belief is flawed. Here’s how that section unfolds.

“The point is that the tunnel project is creating the very gridlock that it claims it will be solving. Proponents will likely argue that the gridlock is only temporary, while we solve the bigger gridlock problem….But this is silly.”
---I think there is a valid point in distinguishing between short-term and long-term consequences, but at this point in the article, I’m interested to see how the author will demonstrate how the pro-tunnel’s position here is flawed.

“We’re knocking out the viaduct and building a tunnel because we’re worried that gridlock will kill our economy, but we’re creating gridlock to do it.”
---Ok, the reasoning didn’t come in this sentence; rather, it was merely a restatement of the initial pro-tunnel argument over short-term versus long-term. Perhaps the next one will turn up the vitally important argument.

“It’s the destroying the village to save it, to use a warfare analogy.”
--Ok, the reasoning didn’t come; it was just a wildly inappropriate metaphor.

“If gridlock is so deadly, then why is WSDOT creating it, then suggesting transportation alternatives to it, the same alternatives many of us suggested as alternatives to the $4.5 billion tunnel?”
--and we’re back to the original statement. A pro-tunnel supporter could read this sentence and say, “see above. I believe that there is a valid distinction between short-term and long-term gridlock. In a similar manner, I would see a distinction between short-term fixes (temporary rerouting and transit) and long-term fixes.”

This essential last couple of paragraphs set up the heart of the argument: that the pro-tunnel distinction between short-term and long-term gridlock is meaningless. Yet, the author never explains why this is the case. I’m not deeply wedded to one particular position on the viaduct, but I don’t like to see poor argumentation.

The point of tunnel opponents is that any construction that creates years of gridlock is going to kill any business or force it to move. Therefore all the arguments about saving businesses are worthless. Therefore, since we are going to create a mess, lets build what we really need long term.

Anyone looking at this graph

http://www.peak-oil-crisis.com/

and this graph:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=1566
Gas up.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=1567
Dollar down

can see that the future price of oil is not going to be cheaper.

So given that you are going to pay more for energy in the very near future, what do you want to do to move people and keep this city viable?

I suggest that spending 3 Billion on a tunnel for cars is not the future you and I are going to want.

This article is so stupid. The state is closing ONE LANE in each direction for a period of time. And the author equates this to completely closing the viaduct. lol

So, Roger, are you claiming that closing one lane in each direction, while keeping two lanes in each direction open, is the same thing as permanently closing all six lanes? You honestly see no difference between having 4 lanes of SR99 open all the time compared to having zero lanes of SR99 open (no viaduct at all)? How dishonest can you be?

For GaryP and other pathetic cheerleaders for $10/gallon gasoline. Not going to happen any time soon. The current price spike is just that -- a temporaty spike. The price of oil has just fallen by about $5/barrel in the past 3 days. Simple supply and demand: price goes up; consumption goes down; price goes back down. Just like the past several gasoline price spikes which were temporary.

And this is a glimpse of our future:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/02/autos/volt_1000_miles/index.htm

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The electric-powered Chevrolet Volt is averaging 1,000 miles on each tankful of gas, according to General Motors.

"The Volt's gas tank holds 9.3 gallons, so that means drivers are averaging about 111 miles per gallon. As a result, Volt drivers are stopping to fill their gas tanks only about once a month, GM (GM) said."

The price of oil is going to matter less and less as the years go by, and people switch to alternate fuels, like natural gas and electricity.

This is my letter to the editor regarding this piece.
----------------------------------------------------
I've recently run into energetic criticism of the tunnel project downtown. Having long a...ppreciated the curious nature of well-funded political initiatives in the region, I've become more attuned to the quality of the arguments being thrown around. Today I ran into your article criticizing the tunnel by Roger Valdez.

Mr. Valdez's criticisms are so pedestrian I was left chuckling. Then I began to wonder what could possibly motivate CrossCut's editorial board to let such detritus get published.

Lets take the two issues separately.

1) Roger Valdez's comments
Mr. Valdez feels the tunnel's worth is impaired by the inconvenience caused by it's being built. "The point is that the tunnel project is creating the very gridlock that it claims it will be solving." I cannot think of any public transportation project in history for which this is not true. Imagine if US residents followed Mr. Valdez's thinking when considering the Interstate project. This is beyond naive.

2) Crosscut's editors for some reason felt that this article merits a wide audience. They of course feel that attaching the Crosscut brand to it is a good idea. This is interesting. At best, this is a article by one of Seattle's detractors (perhaps from one of the usual Seattle detractors who finance and manage automobile-dependent malls on the east side).

Crosscut is trying to show itself to be a viable alternative to the once celluloid news options:Seattle Post Intelligence and the Seattle Times. Being a relatively underfunded entity leaves one more prone to manipulation by those with money.

If Crosscut wishes to be a player in news media, I feel that the editorial board needs to rethink what constitutes news. The merits of this article are so weak I am forced to reconsider the editorial independence and agenda of Crosscut as a whole.

I'm as startled as I am disappointed. I thought we had a local winner in Crosscut. Perhaps not.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Ravenna, Seattle

It's important to keep in mind that Detroit, which is in the business of selling cars (back in the business, some would say), is not exactly sitting on its hands. Ten or so years ago the auto companies complained that they had wrung the last bit of efficiency out of vehicles, and the CAFE standards had reached a technological limit. Now, under 2007 legislation, CAFE standards are being ramped up beginning with the 2011 models and are expected to meet a combined car and light truck fleet fuel economy of 35 mpg by 2020. Is this the new limit for fuel economy? Hybrids have already topped 50 mpg and all-electrics that reach an equivalent 100 are on the way. And that's not to mention compressed natural gas powered vehicles which, given that fuel's abundance and low price, could also take a large share of the future passenger vehicle market

Yeah, take a seat. On the bus. Then get up and take another seat. On a different bus. Repeat three times -- you are THERE!!

I'm a huge transit fan and cycling commuter. Just last week I took light rail to and from the airport and loved it. But buses are slow, traffic-jam-prone, and uncomfortable. I know people on Queen Anne who can WALK to their downtown Seattle office faster than taking a bus.

I wonder what "reading through Seattle's land use code and blogging about it" pays...

I, like several others, came to this article hoping to find a reasonable argument against the tunnel, but it's simply a non-sensical piece. I agree with the correspondent who wondered how it passed muster with Crosscut editors.
Where's the solution in the article, or some suggestion of one? It's no argument to say that since the tunnel will cause disruption and relies on transit to ease the traffic crunch it's no better than tearing down the viaduct and dumping traffic onto I-5 and surface streets while relying in transit and a sea change in traveling habits to ease the crunch. One, though, is a short-term disruption on the way to a solution; the other is long-term disruption with the hope that bicycles will save us.
One difference between Seattle and Portland is that the latter argues, then makes a decision and carries it out while we simply like to argue again and again. In Seattle no, or being on the losing side, doesn't mean moving on. It simply means changing the question. With two more coming on the ballot, how many times will we have voted on this corridor? Whateve else it is, it's hardly a model of adult behavior.

There are plenty of reasonable arguments against the tunnel. The frustrating thing is to watch this consideration of two terrible ideas while ignoring the obvious solution. A retro / rebuild of the viaduct should be considered. No other proposed configuration 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 provides the only effective way to modulate traffic in the core. And it’s billions of dollars cheaper than this present tunnel/surface mistake in the making.

The tunnel/surface option is a terrible substitute for one of the most successful north/south arterials in the city. It will add to the tax bill of the over-taxed, and it will add to the congestion faced by regional commuters. Seattle is preparing to get out of step once again by showing more concern for how the city appears on a post card than about the mobility of its citizens.

It works, it's affordable, and if an honest vote were held tomorrow it's the solution that tax payers would choose.

----Imagine this: The southern portion is demolished. The bored tunnel is tied up for years in court, or the money runs out, and we are left with permanent gridlock....

To manage traffic: I-5 gets widened. That'll help. 1st Ave could rearrange its trolleybuses routes to run more often. At least one Trolleybus Line should reach the waterfront near Coleman Dock. C'mon. Downtown Seattle transit needs a LOT of money for the new overhead wire design. Park cars near downtown district entry points parking garages. Then hop on a 5-minute trolleybus N/S and E/W another 5-minute trolleybus up and down the worst hills.

Waterfront Streetcar is a Historic Essential, but the current Alaskan Way Plan omits rail. The next I-5 ramp to remove (I think) is Spring Street Southbound on-ramp. Put the rail back in Alaskan Way.

----Let's not forget the Mercer WEST (is worse) and will not lessen congestion. Another brainchild from the same folks that brought us this illegal DBT.....

Thank you for realizing how Mercer West is not an improvement via the DBT connection. The same logic applies to Pioneer Square bottleneck that Nielsen/Nygaard predict will occur there too with the DBT. A surface boulevard Alternative should be in place for any semi-temporary tunnel closure. The far more logical tunnel is still the latest cut/cover design, which is incidentally "LINES-UP" rather equally with the DBT idiot option.

Mayor Mike is right.
Deep Bore Tunnel proponents are Rong.

We now hear Nielsen/Nygaard describing in professional terms, quite legibly actually, the same detailed misgivings I entreat forum boards readers to understand. My detailed and documented designs are submitted to Washington State/Seattle/Fed DOTs and Transit Agencies who have unaccountably failed to address concerns & provide answers.

Wsdot incompetence ruined the Alaskan Way Viaduct SR99 replacement project repeatedly over the years. The DBT+Mercer West is insultingly absurd.
Are they Crazy? SDOT too must have a few old school notions still circling around stinking up the place with all engines running.

Mayor Mike is right.
Deep Bore Tunnel proponents are Rong.

any wonder why our economy is in the dumper?

"Gasoline Price Spike temporary"

Want to bet on that?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/21/markets/gasoline_prices_rising/index.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/2/dramatic-spike-in-gas-prices-forecasted/

It's not just USA demand for the stuff that's driving the price, it's that #1 oil is sold in dollars and dollars are being devalued.

#2 India and China have a growing middle class which is now driving.

As for electric, we have plenty of wind power in the Midwest, but the grid isn't sufficient to move it from the Midwest to the coast where it's needed. There is no current plan to build the grid out. It will take years to do once there is a plan. Until then Gasoline is your fuel, and its price is rising. As for $10/gal that's in 10 years, which is about when any of these Viaduct project will be done.

Tunnel supporters just lost one big supporter! The Port!

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/05/04/port-commissioner-seeks-to-divert-millions-from-from-tunnel-to-transit

Anti tunnel is the new "birther" issue.

JMRolls is correct:

Repair the Viaduct.

Even though i disagree with many of them, there are better arguments in the comments than anything Roger has written.

Crosscut, please, enough of Roger.

Whidbey looks good. Ferry to Mukilteo, walk to train. Commute downtown Seattle in 50 minutes. Easy peasy.

If the bore tunnel work doesn't end your job that is.

Kemper Freeman's engineers found that the solution to the Viaduct would be to increase capacity on Interstate 5, through downtown. People are going on the viaduct since I-5 is clogged. They take SR-99 because they know that I-5 is perpetually clogged, due to insufficient capacity.

Kemper's engineers call for adding two lanes in each direction through downtown, along with widening 405, and adding a I-605 bypass around the entire region, to take pressure off of both I-5 and I-405.

Expanding our freeway system would create lots of jobs and help tens of thousands of unemployed construction workers and their hungry children. Let's expand our freeway system to the standards outlined by Kemper's engineers.

But then again, we are talking about the Seattle Metro, run by the Far Left Urban Planners in the Seattle City Limits. Yet the residents outside the City Limits are conservative, resist centralized planning, and favor more freeway lanes.

So there will be gridlock on the streets, because of the political gridlock.

I think that tearing down the viaduct, expanding I-5 / I-405 / I-605, and adding bike lanes and rapid transit on the waterfront, is a win-win scenario for bringing commerce and tourism to the waterfront.

Kemper Freeman video and links to Dr. William Eager's engineering reports: http://tiny.cc/0oie3