JUST FIX IT!
Stop the demolition of the Southern portion before it's too late. For less than $2 billion, way within the funds available, without Seattle and others putting anything up, it can be retrofitted and upgraded to last indefinitely.
There would be very little disruption (which the DBT proponents lied about in choosing their preferred alternative). The traffic volumes, speeds and access/egress would remain as is, far exceeding any features of the DBT. And, the waterfront planning can continue and making better use of the under-Viaduct space for a pedestrian promanade from Pike Place market to the Stadiums. WSDOT is being allowed to get away with displacing 800 parking spaces when they should be responsible for the actual 3000 spaces that fill the underside of the Viaduct all the way down to the stadiums. Their way will remove all the industrial/port worker parking that is desparately needed.
The Viaduct can be made quieter, better looking, and be a better neighbor to the adjacent neighborhoods.

Why wait for votes or more lies.
Tell the Legislature and the Governor to stop all construction activity and planning, and declare an emergency so they can start the retrofitting that they have known needed to be done as far back as 1989, when they learned that the Viaduct needed retrofitting for $300,000,000 (what we learned from the SF Earthquake), a far cry from the $5+ billion now expected. WSDOT DID NOTHING!
Ever wonder why WSDOT has never laid asphalt over the aging concrete road decks which would make the Viaduct much less noisy? Planned obsolensence! Demolition by neglect! And at our expense.

Do the right thing! NOW!

Thanks for painting this vote into such a big picture, David.

I’d like to address one of the tactics you suggest the pro-megaproject, pro-bond-selling group will use:

“Wrapping Tim Eyman, who showed up in support of the referendum, around the mayor's neck.”

The entities that make money off public financings and unlimited construction spending plans ALWAYS trot Eyman out. That’s because he’s their guy.

Everything Eyman does corresponds to the desires of public debt issuers. He always takes positions that ultimately benefit the pro-tax interests. You can go back to how I-776 was worded, the positions taken by Permanent Offense in the I-776 litigation, how Eyman issued incorrect and misleading press releases after that litigation about the majority opinion and its significance, his never-ending advocacy for public votes on regressive local tax and spend measures (about which the proponents can lie during the run-ups to the election, and which can not be opposed in the media by the individuals they target even if they are unfair), his sudden “embracing” now of “McGinn” in relation to this tunneling proposal . . . that’s just a partial list.

When there’s a bond-backed megaproject that could use a goofy and unreliable opponent to personify the opposition, Eyman is trotted out. His moves are reactive, and inconsistent. They are deceptive in exactly the ways the financiers want.

Writing about him is eminently safe for hacks – he’s never going to criticize the fundamental flaws with financing plans or governance structures, so the press doesn’t have to worry about jeopardizing future access or payments from those benefiting from the megaprojects he “opposes”. They are safe quoting him.

Eyman invariably acts as a tool of those who’ve been designing the financing plans for megaprojects around here for 15 years. He’s used to control opposition in several ways. He’s portrayed as the insincere “face” of megaproject opponents, and he’s used to focus public attention onto issues of tertiary importance that won’t be problematic for the financiers.

When Eyman’s name pops up “in the press” he is saying and doing things that dovetail precisely with the ultimate goals of the public entity financiers. David’s reference to him in this piece is entirely consistent with how he’s been used for years by that same local interest group to promote its agenda. It’s Propaganda 101 - use a dim stiff to characterize the opposition.

Part 1

This piece does not mention how the financing plan has morphed over time, and how it still is both inadequate and subject to abuse by WSDOT's managers.

The first announcement about plans for a deep bore tunnel under Seattle’s downtown was made in 2008, by the Cascadia Center:

http://www.cascadiaprospectus.org/2008/11/cascadiaarup_report_tunnels_20.php

That was just a year and a half after Seattle voters soundly rejected the idea of a tunnel on the waterfront.

The misstatements by government leaders regarding the terms of the financing plan for all the work clustered around this tunnel proposal are legion. False claims about who would pay how much started as soon as the Cascadia Center’s concept came out:

“Gregoire said the state, city and county would each pay cost overruns from their individual parts of the replacement work.”

http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Tolls-and-taxes-would-help-to-pay-for-tunnel-1297345.php

That’s wrong, for a couple of reasons. First, the county never has had any “individual” (or joint, for that matter) responsibilities to do, or pay for, any of this megaproject work (tunnel, seawall, roads, viaduct removal, etc.). Second, the plan is not for the state to cover its cost overruns relating to the work. The plan is for an as-yet-unidentified set of Seattle property owners to pay WSDOT’s cost overruns. The method used to collect would be a LID.

Those are a couple of Gregoire’s quotes that aren’t aging well. Lots more falsehoods from her and others followed about this financing plan.

Gregoire now is the head cheerleader for this proposed megaproject. Problem is, whenever she opens her mouth about the financing plan she displays her ignorance about who is going to pay for what. Here’s a more recent misstatement from her trying to explain the financing plan: “the Legislature couldn’t make Seattle pay cost overruns unless lawmakers pass another bill”:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2012025289_mcginn_and_gregoire_spar_over.html

She’s completely wrong about that. The current statutory financing plan puts benefited Seattle property owners squarely on the hook for the construction, mitigation, and damages costs WSDOT racks up in excess of $2.8 billion.

As the scope of WSDOT’s proposed work keeps expanding, nobody even can estimate how great those overruns would be. It’s looking more and more like WSDOT’s costs will exceed that $2.8 billion spending cap. That is because there is a growing list of projects (the tunnel, the work in SLU near Mercer St. and Aurora, the work in SODO around Alaskan Way, removal of the viaduct, etc.). Obviously there will be contract overruns, mitigation costs, and damages to buildings and infrastructure. Everyone expects the $2.8 billion cap to be exceeded, especially as WSDOT just handed out expensive “sweeteners” that would reduce further the amount available under the spending cap available for all that work.

Part 2

Contrary to the message the proponents have been pumping out about how “the statute is ineffective”, the legislature wouldn’t need to enact anything else for a LID to be created to make those annual assessments start happening once WSDOT announces it’ll max out under its spending cap. Gregoire is a lawyer, she should be crystal clear on that but she acts as if she isn’t.

Instead we’re hearing stuff from her showing she doesn’t grasp the reality of the situation. Last year she announced she believes the financing plan structure is the one set out in the completely-superceded (and non-binding) January 2009 letter of agreement. That’s the one she, Sims and Nickels signed. Gregoire says she thinks that still is the controlling document. In her April 23, 2010 letter to McGinn, Gregoire says she’s committed to that January 2009 LOA:

“I remain committed to the agreement I signed with then Mayor Nickels and Executive Sims regarding our respective responsibility [sic] for the portions of the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project that each of our governments has agreed to undertake.”

http://crosscut.com/static/static_file/2010/05/06/Gregorie.letter.pdf .

Here is that letter of agreement (the “LOA”):

http://media.thenewstribune.com/images/blogmedia/blogs/politics/finalviaduct.pdf .

Here is a contemporaneous, and accurate, story in the Tacoma News Tribune about that LOA:

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/01/16/p36429#more36429 .

That LOA proposes a financing plan that is completely different than the one that has emerged over the past two years:

- One big way in which the 2009 LOA differs from the current financing plan is that LOA placed the financial risks of all WSDOT's (expanding) obligations on the state. That’s changed – the legislature in April 2009 put a subset of Seattle property owners on the hook for all the contract and damages costs over $2.8 billion that WSDOT manages to rack up.

- Another difference now from the terms of the LOA Gregoire thinks remains in force is the LOA did NOT allocate seawall replacement costs to Seattle. An informal agreement during the final days of the Nickels administration (with the departed Drago and McIver leading the council’s charge) says Seattle would be on the hook for those too.

- Another difference from what we've got now is the LOA said King County would provide more bus service with a new car tab tax - that no longer is part of the plan. Indeed, it is bizarre Gregoire would believe at this time that the County has any responsibility now relating to this megaproject - it does not.

- Another difference is the LOA said efforts would be made to secure state authority for a new “Local Infrastructure Financing Tool” – that didn’t happen. How could Gregoire not know that? She would have had to sign the bill bringing a new revenue raising district into being, and obviously that didn’t happen.

- Another difference is the LOA provided there was to be an allocation of federal economic recovery funds to this project – that no longer is part of the deal.

The governor clearly does not understand how the financing plan has changed dramatically in the past two years – and she’s the only one of the original government pushers still around and trying to ram it home. That LOA she says she is “committed to” in her 4/23/10 letter no longer exists. What it describes in terms of who would pay what bears little, if any, resemblance to the current financing plan. What have we heard from her since then about the financing plan? Zilch.

Brewster knows better than anyone that it wasn’t voters who muddied the water with the no-no vote in 2007. The trick vote was conjured up by then council person Jan Drago who was quoted in an article on this website saying that it was the only way for the tunnel to survive a heads up vote against an elevated roadway. You can read it again here: http://crosscut.com/2009/12/27/seattle-city-hall/18780/Best-of-2009:-How-Jan-Drago-dragooned-a-Viaduct-solution/

And he knows the process wasn’t a ten year plot because the tunnel was never a serious option until the end of 2008. His own article speculating about the trade-offs in Olympia that resulted in this current farce is here: http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/18899/When-Chopp-speaks%2C-parse-it-closely/

Sadly, it appears that there’s been very little actual transportation expertise at work on any of this, based on the unfinished engineering details and unknown capacities and impacts on commuter mobility.

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 provides a way to modulate how much traffic is allowed downtown. And it acknowledges the fact that rubber-tired, multi-passenger vehicles are still the choice of over 90% of us. And it's billions of dollars cheaper than this present mistake in the making. Promoting these two inferior solutions with their enormous costs and lost efficiencies over an elevated roadway is unbelievable.

A retro / rebuild of the viaduct should be considered again with the amenities mentioned above. It was the earlier choice of Frank Chopp for good reason, and remains the preference of a majority of voters. A WSDOT poll last fall found that 76% of those polled didn’t even realize that the tunnel/surface option had been chosen.

While there are certainly people who hate it, most of us understand that it is a valuable transportation asset serving the entire region and should not be sacrificed to create an expensive amenity for one influential neighborhood that reduces capacities and increases congestion for the rest of the city.

Brewster will say anything to support the tunnel.
"It was one more comical turn of the 10-year plot, with a solomonic judge wanting to let voters have their say but limiting their say to a meaningless technicality that has nothing to do with the merits of the tunnel."

The taxpayers don't want to vote on the merits of the tunnel. They want to vote on the inevitable huge cost overruns that will be laid on their backs. Plain and simple. Belt tightening? Start with scrapping the tunnel. We shouldn't be buying a Cadillac when all we can afford is a Chevy.

The problem with Brewster Denny's assessment (see below), is that it is an uninformed understanding of what has gone down, the real meaning of Section 6, and its legal implications, that it is a vital to ensuring that the tunnel is built. Without this notice, the tunnel project is going nowhere!

Bear with me, and you will see (I sent this out over the weekend to a few of you), but it really turns out to be a full bore (tunnel talk :) ) referendum on the tunnel.

The judge was wrong in her assessment, that it wasn't an up or down vote on the tunnel, b/c she wasn't factoring in the SEPA and NEPA laws and what the import was of the notice clause in the Ordinance as it relates to the environmental review process that those laws are governing.

The Section 6 notice from the City is required as part of the SEPA/NEPA process in order for it to be passed along and factored in and incorporated into the FHWA's decision about the tunnel. It is not just a little housekeeping, proforma act.

The City has to give assent to WSDOT that it wants to build the tunnel, then this all gets passed on to the Fed's Highway Administration. The Feds have to factor that into the decision they make. It is not going to be a slam dunk for them to issue a record of decision that has the City opposing the project, which is the end result of the referendum vote if it wins.

The other side and the judge made it sound like the notice was just passing on an already made decision to proceed with the tunnel, but it really isn't. That's why the notice is to be issued after the FEIS comes out, b/c, as we all know, and as every official and bureaucrat knows, the environmental review is to inform a decision, not ratify it.

It is entirely conceivable that the whole City Council could agree that they want to proceed with the tunnel, but cannot do it b/c the voters have said they cannot issue such a notice. That would mean the record would reflect that the City was legally barred from giving assent for the tunnel project to proceed.

In the end, the referendum is far from Brewster Denny's characterization of it - "It was one more comical turn of the 10-year plot, with a solomonic judge wanting to let voters have their say but limiting their say to a meaningless technicality that has nothing to do with the merits of the tunnel. That assures a vote that lets both sides interpret the results in their favor, settling nothing".

The joke is on BD, the pro-tunnel government, and their special interest accolytes. Referendum 1 is not a "meaningless technicality", it is instead a full blown tunnel killer vote. The realization will come to the State, City, and the pro-tunnel rabble if it hasn't already. I would predict that when this dawns on them they will appeal Friday's decision and seek to have the referendum in total kept off the ballot. Either that, or they're going to spend the next couple of months trying to convince the electorate that the vote means nothing. Which is absolutely untrue.

Folks, you are missing the point of Brewster's piece: he talking about politics, persuasion, tactics. Transportation solutions and urban planning are totally irrelevant.

Put in that context, it's not bad work. Obviously distorted since he favors the Tunnel, and he mis-concludes that the "vote that lets both sides interpret the results in their favor, settling nothing."

But his discussion is useful as it does point out weaknesses by both sides though Brewster completely overlooks the pro-Tunnel forces most obvious argument.

Even if the text of the referendum is "meaningless", if a large majority of the voters reject the tunnel, the 5, count them, 5 city council members up for re-election in the fall will be hard pressed to keep supporting it.

As for Tim Burgess taking the mayor's spot, I don't see it with the new top two election rules. I would expect that a conservative candidate will run pulling all the conservative voters, roughly 30% of the voters. Then McGinn, and Burgess, with McGinn getting all the liberal base and Burgess pulling only the independents, or more moderates. While independents determine elections, there aren't enough to pull their own candidate. That means who ever is the conservative and McGinn will be the final two come November. Faced with someone who is too liberal vs one who is too conservative the independents will go with McGinn.

Now had the primary system run a instant runoff, it might change with conservatives voting C,I, and Liberals voting L,I and Indpendents voting I,L. Thus the second place candidate would be the Independent. But who knows.

Former Seattle Mayor Charles Royer's outgoing comments about the "Seattle Process" rings so true today, where he observed that Seattle will chew on an issue over and over and over, but can never seem to swallow, and even when Seattle does finally swallow, regurgitation is allowed.

Just take a look at that WSDOT drawing of the proposed waterfront tunnel. That tunnel does not even have half the capacity of the current viaduct. And, who wants to travel in such a claustrophobic environment?

Mayor McGinn needs to change the focus of the debate to what Seattle will give up if the big-spending, corporate pro-tunnel forces win. The Alaskan Way viaduct is a jewel in Seattle's crown. An existing world-class scenic throughway with a view few cities in the world may boast of. It should be touted as such in every tourist guide: "Ride the Alaskan Way Viaduct!" Retrofitted to withstand an earthquake - possibly with graceful cable supports, ala Golden Gate bridge - it would still be much less expensive than the proposed west coast version of The Big Dig.

The viaduct is one of the most beautiful drives in the world - and it is affordable to average working people, unlike so much of Seattle, which is becoming more and more the playground of the wealthy. The viaduct is functional. It helps move large masses of commuters efficiently, and it has knock-out views.

I know. I know - all the elitists with their million-dollar downtown condos say "get rid of your cars and walk or bicycle," but for the vast majority of working folks, automobiles will continue to be the major form of transportation into the forseeable future. Repairing the viaduct, and repairing it well, is much cheaper than tearing it down and all the other proposed more-costly alternatives (which would all snarl up traffic for years). Let's get real folks.

Instead of pushing for "pie-in-the-sky" utopian visions that the average person will not benefit from and which will place a tax burden on yet unborn generations, let's discuss how to make the most of what we have: repair/reinforce/retrofit the viaduct - and pave it with rubberized asphalt to bring down the obnoxious noise level of the current roadway and make the waterfront a more pleasant experience for everyone.

As a bicycle commuter, I'm all for repairing the viaduct. When the big earthquake hits, we can tear down the viaduct. I'm betting that we'll get at least another 25 years from it, and by then, we'll have the infrastructure via a Light Rail line to West Seattle/Ballard built and the viaduct won't be as necessary.

Until then, patch & repair is fine by me.

the GaryP point re top two primary is irrelevant; the top two changed partisan elections; Seattle elections were non partisan and already top two.

Highway 99 proceeds to downtown from the Duwamish River three lanes each way. After the Battery St. Tunnel (two lanes each way) Highway 99 proceeds north to Green lake three lanes each way. Take out the Viaduct and what have you got? great opportunity for transit, right? fix the Viaduct? emphatically rejected by every credentialed group to study it . The estimate was $2 billion for an ugly, external steel skeleton that very expensively kicks the can down the road for 25 years. Fixing the Viaduct is imagined to be easy by those who are not structural engineers. Anti tunnel forces and their fire-breathing commenters here are in effect promoting another elevated highway (even if they don't know it). It will be bigger, uglier and more destructive than the existing Viaduct and it will probably last 100 years (put on a ballot, it would probably win). The tunnel is a big gamble but nothing else works.

the Brewster points on the waterfront seems off, as the waterfront would be opened with the I-5 surface and transit option as well; both will have the new Elliott-Western arterial in place of the AWV; even the deep bore has a six-lane arterial connecting with the south portal. the deep bore requires a larger Seattle contribution. The redistribution of the fixed state contribution would be limited by the political power of the King County delegation in the Legislature. Both I-5 and SR-520 need billions. both the deep bore and surface I-5 and transit options require transit, and the Olympia has not followed the January 2009 agreement to provide more Metro revenue.

I wouldn’t say that any of the studies emphatically rejected the viaduct. It didn’t meet certain stated criteria for things like percentages of retrofit costs vs. replacement costs, but they did state that a new structure could be built to last between 75 and 100 years for half the cost of the tunnel, so what difference does it make. Double the capacity...half the cost. And whether it’s ugly or not is up for debate. I think the structure is much more inviting to pedestrians who could better enjoy a walk along the waterfront when it’s raining. Ugly or not, it’s hard to attack something that does its job so well.

The James Corner Fields presentation last Thursday was pathetic. After 3 months, the company had nothing to present but more touchy-feely BS, including the same material presented February about Puget Sound supposedly becoming a glorious globalization hub considered a foremost guiding principle. Some very simplistic work on salmon habitat restoration was presented, but not as it could be applied to any segment of the seawall.

Brewster's "largely positive reaction to the unveiling of preliminary designs" is pretentious. People left shaking their heads wondering what 3 months of effort should have produced in terms of actual design. Brewster associated himself with those who delude themselves to believe the pitifully weak presentation plus an hors d'oeuvres food cart and jazzy live trio demonstrates progress.

The surface boulevard is the least "risky" option. Brewster deviously rebrands the term 'risk' instead of informing Crosscut readers of the incredible risks involved with the bored tunnel and Mercer West projects. These risks are so dreadful, the bored tunnel MUST NOT be built. It risks life, limb and billions worth of property to install beneath downtown. Like all bored tunnel advocates, Brewster is ignoring senseless danger.

LOL and glad to see that Brewster can not resist picking scabs when news runs low even though he might not "like what I started." Don't get me wrong— political scabs are not the same as the ones on your knee.

One thing that keeps getting left out (you listening McGinn): it was the state, city, and maybe the county that came up with the very detailed I-5, transit, Alaska Way plan that sent Drago, et al, off very late in the game to research the state of the art of tunnel boring. That first "preferred plan" scared me too, but for a different reason— the half-baked solution made a mess not only of the waterfront, but also the street that winds up at the market.

And Elizabeth, aka rorric1: you really ought to keep better track of "who it is who's on First."

Well done, Wells.

And as to you, Kieth :)

1. Consultants produce the results the client wants. So of course WSDOT's consultants make bad noises about a Viaduct repair.

2. And obviously different consultants for the Spokane Street Viaduct.
Consider what is happening at Spokane Street Viaduct:

• a complex repair/expansion
• on fill
• traffic flow maintained through entire project with few closures (though no doubt some annoyances)
• same vintage as AWV
• $160 million total project cost

So tell me why (without making me smile) why the Spokane Street Viaduct is instructive for consideration of the AWV.

SSV: no sea wall, not double-decked, and not a state highway? :)?

The main problem with the deep bore tunnel is that it just doesn't work.

Without downtown on-ramps or off-ramps it is strictly a by-pass route.

So drivers headed north on 99 coming towards Spokane Street will have three options:

A. Pay $4 or $5 and go through the tunnel

B. Drive about a mile east to I-5 and go through downtown for free

C. Get off the 99 and make your way through downtown on surface streets for free, then get back on a highway - either 99 or I-5

The only way anyone will choose the tunnel is if I-5 and the surface streets are choked and blocked.

So the tunnel success requires that I-5 and our surface streets be choked and blocked. Great planning.

Those driving south on 99 will also have three choices:

A. Pay $4 or $5 and go through the tunnel

B. Drive about a mile east to I-5 and go through downtown for free

C. Get off the 99 and make your way through downtown on surface streets for free, then get back on a highway - either 99 or I-5.

Again, people will only choose the tunnel if I-5 and the surface streets are choked and blocked.

Notice how the tunnel also chokes the Spokane Street viaduct and the Mercer Mess since those are the two routes people will most likely take to get from the 99 to I-5 to avoid the toll at the tunnel?

A big question is what type of bus service will be available to help avoid the blocking. This is where the eventual closure of the bus/ rail tunnel to bus traffic needs to be considered in the context of just where should the busways go and how many will really be needed. There are limits to how many buses can stop on any given block because of the space they take up.

I hope the EIS addresses this scenario of the bus tunnel being used only for trains and then looks at what type of throughput is realistically feasible for buses carrying people who would otherwise be driving cars along the viaduct.

The referendum can only have real meaning as a public rejection of the Deep Bore Tunnel & Mercer West projects. These two inextricably-related projects are (respectively) insanely risky and poorly engineered. Other AWV replacement options are actually feasible. An Alaskan Way boulevard can be arranged to manage traffic and not rule out either a cut/cover tunnel or a more elegant replacement viaduct eventually. Mayor Mcginn is in every way correct to support a surface boulevard option.

A new single-level 4-lane viaduct with the waterside lanes slightly lower than the townside lanes would open up the west view for motorists. Clearance above ground would be higher and shine more daylight below. Single-level reduces the noise of rushing traffic. Proper sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian amenities and landscaping would be a vast improvement over current conditions. It's not my preference but for the sake of the many people would support such a design, it should not be ruled out.

My preference has always been a cut/cover such as the version depicted in the DEIS: 'stacked' 6-lanes that line-up well with the Sodo segment and can be built while the AWV remains in place. Previous cut/cover designs required partial or whole dismantling of the AWV to complete. In an accident, severe or minor, a 6-lane tunnel is less disruptive and more survivable than any 4-lane tunnel. Wsdot is ignoring "Public Safety" in this and Mercer West.

Why Wsdot withheld this cut/cover design for last is questionable or worse. And its construction process has been bastardized like previous versions, adding perhaps 2 years to the construction timeline and increasing its disruption. Wsdot rigged all cut/cover tunnel studies to assure their rejection. An August vote of "No Confidence" is warranted.

The surface boulevard design I support is the "Pre-AWV--Post-Seawall" era in which a 2-lane frontage road (Railroad Way) ran alongside a 4-lane Alaskan Way. I say this arrangement is necessary to separate thru-traffic from motorists looking to park. Wsdot's 6-lane couplet was 'never' feasible because it forces motorists looking to park back into thru-traffic in both directions. Wsdot's current 4-lane Alaskan Way is likewise hardly a feasible design to manage traffic.

Historically, rail should be a part of the design; ideally two streetcar lines in-street or in a median. Waterfront Seawall design should not proceed until a feasible design for Alaskan Way is complete.

David, if the work by consultants is being corrupted and is not reliable then the entire argument becomes untethered and we can all guess what should work the best and cost the least. Some of what you suspect may happen; people may self edit their estimates but (correct me if I am wrong) I think the Viaduct Repair was being compared not to the bored tunnel but mainly to the New Elevated Roadway. The impressionable structural engineer would hardly know which way to shade his figures.

You make an intriguing argument about the Spokane St. Project. I know nothing about Spokane St. but it is only one deck high and it's very short compared to the Viaduct.

coolpapa, it has been my understanding that the tunnel tolls would be variable so that if, for example, you went through the tunnel at 1AM the cost would be minimal or non-existent. If it is as sophisticated as I think it will be the daytime tolls would be adjusted to compensate for things like fun runs on I-5 (just kidding) or maybe even snow days. If that level of control is not initially possible it is likely it will become possible within a few years.

Kieth, your take on the toll question is simplistic. Many motorists will avoid the toll throughout the day, even during rush hours when traffic on downtown surface streets and I-5 is heaviest. Only the upper-class have the luxury of paying the toll to avoid traffic congestion.

A toll on the 520 floating bridge cannot be similarly avoided by ALL motorists who normally drive that corridor. Brewster is twisting logic on how tolls create an economic and/or environmentally conscientious incentive that encourages commuters to use transit.

Still, the strongest argument against the DBT is the unstable soil conditions beneath downtown buildings. Period. The only sensible tunnel is the current cut/cover depicted in the DEIS. The strongest argument against Mercer West is as the Nielsen/Nygaard report concludes, the Mercer corridor is already overloaded with traffic and adding more guarantees gridlock between I-5 and Elliott and on Denny Way, likewise already overloaded with traffic.

The Lin studies reflect the instructions they were given by their WSDOT client. Those instructions say if restoration costs exceed 50% of replacement costs, then it costs too much. So when restoration costs were estimated to be 80% of replacement costs, then they reported it was too much. My point is both costs for the elevated solution are half the cost of the tunnel, so what purpose does the criteria serve? And that doesn't take into account the lost access and congestion of the tunnel design. The devil is in the details.

Obviously someone has some WSDOT criteria that says we had to hurry and knock down the southern portion of the viaduct...and then there must be some other WSDOT criteria that says we have to replace it with another viaduct.

You can't make this stuff up.

In reply to Eddiew on the waterfront park being jeopardized if the tunnel option is not built, let me elaborate a bit. Without a tunnel you will probably have either a new viaduct, with all the noise and space-taking of that, or a considerably wider boulevard to absorb the traffic. Hence the park is compromised. I would also expect that the ability to raise the hundreds of millions needed for a great park would be lost in the disillusionment following the cancellation of the tunnel and the laborious, dispiriting efforts needed to replan, relitigate, renegotiate the whole project. It would be a nightmare, and I expect both the city and the state would give up on the bulk of the waterfront park dream. Finally, a lot of the state money in the tunnel project, as well as the Port contribution, has financial bearing on the waterfront park.

Wells, I would expect the tolls for the tunnel during peak hours will be set to fill the tunnel to near capacity during those hours. That's what we want isn't it? if the toll is $100 then no one uses the tunnel and the tunnel loses money. If the toll is $1 the tunnel is overused and, at that price, the tunnel loses money. At some point in between the tunnel maximizes both income and traffic and (we all hope) pays off its bonds. I don't see what is simplistic about that.

The political powers in this State and City have concluded that tolls are necessary to fund transportation improvements. I am willing to accept their decision on that. Your argument is with them, not the tunnel.

I'm sorry, but a 1 acre park on the city's waterfront isn't worth the cost overruns that will come from digging a tunnel. The state couldn't care less about a waterfront park. The city does, but the priorities of the majority of the voters isn't a new downtown park. And depending on the seawall replacement project, water access which is what is key for a decent waterfront park can still be done. As no matter what happens with the viaduct, the seawall still needs to be replaced.

Fair enough, Keith, but toll avoidance should be expected and traffic predictions affected. Even with NO tolls, traffic and its impact would simply worsen on the Mercer and Denny Way corridors. It's a lose-lose situation.

David, aside from your pro-tunnel bias, your article fairly presented the political nature of the debate. That said, a workable Alaskan Way boulevard plan should be the starting point for waterfront and seawall planning.

The "Post-Seawall - Pre-AWV era" arrangement that adds a 2-lane frontage road (Railroad Way) to the 4-lane Alaskan Way deserves further study. It creates room to add the streetcar line and at least 1 east/west trolleybus line near Coleman Dock, a separate bikepath and pedestrian Walkway, an improvement of the current arrangement sans AWV. The stoplights between Pike & King Streets can be reduced from 13 to 9 thus increasing SR99 capacity a bit, not too much. Even with the INSANELY DANGEROUS DBT, this Alaskan Way arrangment ably manages traffic by separating thru-traffic from motorists trying to park. Etc etc.

Respected architectural firms consider the wide plaza 'disproportionate' and unsuitable for a working waterfront. It will likely include makeshift and permanent driveways and parking lots. Whoopdeedo.

The tunnel supporters nor the City of Seattle have done a study on the number of businesses leaving Seattle. The lease loss, and selling of commercial real estate will be staggering, and is already happening, but is fairly hard to notice because most assume the emptiness is "the economy".

The park is a waste of precious commercial waterfront.

I don't mind driving in a tunnel through a mountain, but under a city I see less sense in it.

I favor a mix of at grade and stacked highway. In the north section where there is a hill, all the crossings could go over it. In the south, it might still have to be elevated with crossings beneath it.

Yes, the thing now is ugly and should be demolished. Elevated highways can be things of beauty woven into the landscape, the urban landscape in this case. For example, I-70 through Glenwood Canyon in Colorado, or the Linn Cove viaduct on the Blue Ridge Mountain Parkway.

To get a decent solution they are going to have to carve out a bigger corridor in places and take out some nice buildings.