I've yet to decide how I'm voting on Referendum 1, but this statement...

"...tolls can always be adjusted down over time..."

seems rather unrealistic. While there are exceptions, my experience tells me that 99% of government fees, fines, charges and tolls only go up over time, not down.

i myself happen to like working ports; that is, i am a waterfront rat and don't care for promenades or the one pictured here.

as to the air being improved - perhaps in the immediate length, however, the air needs to be vented at both ends and inbetween the two ends of the tunnel, too. so unless you install scrubbers...

since the initiative process is part of democracy and since money's voice has been confirmed by the supreme court - until there is the necessary amendment to the constitution, both on the state and federal level, mr. eyeman [and whoever] are allowed to proselytize to their hearts and pocketbook's delight. my choice would be to find a way to push the viaduct traffic onto I-5. frightening i find the prospect that the tunnel with its tolling will drive more traffic into the downtown north-south avenue.

http://www.facebook.com/mike.roloff1?ref=name

The tunnel will only improve the environment of the pockets of the downtown business interests and leave the rest of the hundreds of thousands of viaduct users with no Sound to enjoy in a completely utilitarian and community-of-Seattle fashion. Promenades like the simulation are highly commercialized and belong mainly to tourists.
Rebuild the Viaduct, keep the waterfront for citizens of Seattle.

Well intentioned piece, but it has the facts wrong:

Fact: The tunnel plan has a $700 million deficit before construction has even begun. The Port has no plan for where it will come up with $300 million (likely a property tax increase) and there's no real tolling plan.

Fact: The tunnel plan includes NO money for improved transit service. The original tunnel deal included $190 million from the County, the Governor vetoed the County's authority to raise this money. The money mentioned in this article is simply mitigation for the traffic nightmare tunnel construction will create.

Fact: State law makes Seattle taxpayers liable for cost overruns on the project and state legislators have made it clear that the project will not proceed unless this law stays in place. Given that 90% of projects similar to the tunnel go over budget by 30%, we must resolve this issue before the bill comes due.

Fact: Spending billions on the tunnel as currently planned is actually worse for Seattle's mobility than simply tearing down the viaduct and doing nothing - the EIS will show this when it's released today.

Why in the world would we spend billions of our limited public dollars (that we don't actually have) on a project that makes it harder to get around, makes transit service worse, will stick Seattle taxpayers with the bill for cost overruns and simply won't work? This is insane.

Unfortunately articles like this, whether promoting aesthetics or the environment or this weird desire to have Seattle be a city in Europe, quickly brush over the eminent mess of diverting thousands of commuters into a congestive “neverland” that is never quite explained and for which there is no realistic solution given. Modern elevated roadways with seismic protections are being incorporated into transportation projects all over the world. The fact remains that the AWV configuration is the superior choice for Seattle's waterfront for many reasons, including cost.

Unfortunately the reduced capacities and increased congestion resulting from either tunnel or surface options will not be fully realized until this important asset is destroyed…which tunnel proponents are scrambling to do as soon as possible.

The tunnel WILL be OK when the sea level rises? Right, Prominent Environmentalists?

"The tunnel will give back Seattle its waterfront and make it a place with fewer cars and less noise and exhaust."

Except that the tunnel will leave 40,000 more cars on the surface than the current viaduct does.

Who are these self appointed environmentalists anyways? They clearly don't represent the environment I want to live in.

Downtown highways, let alone downtown bypass highways -- are not a great way to reduce sprawl. Also, would the authors care to detail the $32M in transit funding that the tunnel project is said to fund? My understanding is that the tunnel project provides no additional funding for transit, and that Metro coaches wouldn't even operate in the tunnel if it gets built."Harnessing goodwill" for future transit projects seems like vaporware compared to spending billions for a luxury bypass option that will only benefit the few drivers who can afford it.

What? This is nonsense. Environmentalists know that exhaust underground is the same as exhaust on the surface - and the tunnel creates more of it in total.

The tunnel project funds ZERO transit. The small, temporary transit funding that these authors refer to is part of a different SODO project that's already under construction, and is completely separate from the central waterfront project everyone is talking about. The thing we're about to see the EIS for has no transit funding - but the other options on the table do.

Usually I see crosscut pieces fact checked better than this. I think this one deserves some corrections.

The environmentalists who actually engaged in the process to review viaduct replacement options know that alternatives to the tunnel are perfectly viable and that the deep-bore tunnel is a a very poor plan. That's why the Sierra Club is leading the fight to stop it. In 2007, the Sierra Club stood up to the mushy thinking that said we had to build 182 miles of new highways to get regional light rail funded. Just like this time, proponents said we had to accept the plan the state offered because nothing better was available. The Sierra Club proved what a sham that was -- who are you going to believe this time?

If the tunnel is such a great idea, why doesn't the private sector step up and build it. The plan was hatched by the Discovery Institute. Put them in charge and they can recoup their investment via tolls. They should have faith in their intelligent design. This way the state funds can be used to rebuild the seawall, connect sr99 via a minimal surface boulevard like the one pictured, and reformat I5 to provide better throughput.

Personally, I am not interested in paying increased property taxes for the ports $300 million or any cost overruns that may occur.

I decided to copy & print to edit this semi-environmentally conscientious opinion piece. What a piece of carved baloney. It's full of holes of course, but shows how members of 'our' environmental community are easily misled. I do not blame misled people who support the earthquake-dangerous BORE TUNNEL.

With 1/3 the concrete, recycle more, a wise move instead, would buttress Puget Sound Seawall with the shorter Cut/cover Tunnel to address global warming sea rise and storm severity. What the sometimes only semi-environmentally conscientious forget to put into practice probably wasn't included in their decision-making. Please seriously reconsider any support for the insanely risky deep bore tunnel.

And the just as stupid Mercer West is crapola on ice. Mercer East looks good but stop Mercer West as likewise poor engineering that predicts failure. Geez you bored tunnel supporters have no idea how good engineering works. This State highway and sdot 'insider' job is in the process of being thwarted.
Thanks again & again to our Mikes, national heroes fighting absurd incompetence.

If anything, tunnel opponents are underselling the problem with tolls. The authors are completely wrong on this point. The State needs to finance $400 million in bonds with tolls; for at least 30 years, the State will set toll rates at the level necessary to pay the debt-service payments. Tolls will not go down. The State's own studies conclude that $7-$8 roundtrip toll payments will be necessary, with only about 38,000 cars actually using the tunnel as a result. 38,000 cars! That's one third as many using the Viaduct today. And the unmitigated traffic diversion will be so bad that the tunnel is as bad for I-5 and the downtown streetgrid as doing nothing.

The authors are also incorrect when they claim that "[t]he Viaduct replacement project is funded." It is not. The State of Washington capped its financial contribution at $2.4 billion, of which approximately $500 million would come from the federal government. Who will pay for the rest of the project? No one knows. The Port of Seattle made an unenforceable pledge to contribute $300 million, but it's hard to see the Port Commission actually following through when it will mean spending property taxes and maybe even a public vote.

The authors say, "we are confident the state and property owners whose property will skyrocket in value will pick up the tab." Sorry, but legislative leaders have made very clear, even laughing, that Seattle will be on the hook for the tab: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJHe-9Pef_c. We should take them at their word. The State will not pick up the tab.

And the City of Seattle's funding plan already assumes that it will levy a special assessment on waterfront property owners for the benefit to them from the project. When the cost overruns come, the only option will be to raise city taxes and cut funding for other, more important priorities.

Whenever I hear someone state that it is for "lives of our children and grandchildren," I turn-on my BS detector and reach for my wallet.

I keep reading here that the tunnel will create traffic congestion in the city. But I wonder at the traffic impact of the Mayor's great wish - no viaduct and a surface solution. Where do the cars go in that dream? I thought Peter Steinbrueck, who has environmental credentials equaling anyone here, put it best at a Crosscut writers meeting a few weeks back: He said it's time to focus on the transformation of the waterfront, on the positive change that losing the viaduct will bring, on shuttle connections from the ferry terminal to the King Street Station - rail, metro, etc. - and on creating park and open space in that transformation. He asks who will be the waterfront architect, what is the vision, and what do we want from this opportunity. For him, and I agree, it's time to move on, not fight viaduct plans over and over again. Let's focus on getting the waterfront right this time.

The blind leading the blind!

This is the kind of stuff that further muddys the water of responsible public decision making.
Here's an Idea, Let's have everyone who likes the idea of tearing down the viaduct, move to a second version of Seattle to be built just South of Downtown. Let them try out all their theories causes little and see if anyone is attracted to that site. Those that don't become attracted, can stay right where they are, with a retrofitted viaduct capable of carrying 110,000 vehicles a day and maintaining current speeds and maintains current access and egress ramps into downtown and beyond, causes minimal disruption during a 1-2 year construction period, has repaving of the two roadbeds to lessen the noise, , eliminate the parking underneath the Viaduct and relocate them into adjacent garages, converts and repaves the ground level into a covered predestrian promenade stretching from the Pike Place Market to the Stadiums with all sorts of vendors, artwork performance venues, retail kiosks, etc.and then, finally dealing with the seawall that does not accommodate sea-level rise as predicted and has to be redesigned as an elevated and widened walkway that acts as a dike.

I'm staying!

Do the right thing!

The point that's being made here is that it's a grand compromise that both moves vehicles and frieght (they're not delusional to think that cars will or should magically disappear into the ether) AND provides clear funding for pedestrian and bicycle amenities, while making the surface streets walkable and appropriate for a city. What we do NOT want is Aurora N on the waterfront - with the so-called surface/transit, that's what you'll get.

And sorry, for people who think exhaust is exhaust - no, idling cars stuck in traffic will emit more carbon over time than ones moving. That is why we're asked to turn off engines when bridges go up and in ferry lines. It's not rocket science. Gricklock = extra pollution both in the air and in runoff.

Let's move forward on a grand compromise that keeps Seattle moving and preserves and enhances our beautiful city and environment.

Thanks to Crosscut for showing us there are environmentalists and then there are environmentalists. The figure heads of today are far different then the originals. Much like recalling that Dan Evans was/is a Republican.

Thanks to mikegjames for helping us grasp the difference between Peter and Vic. Even so I do find it hard to believe that Peter really said "THE waterfront architect." If so, how ironic that the lead advisor is a lead proponent of Landscape Urbanism, which might be just the ticket, but from the movement's gibberish only the already converted have any clue. As far as I can tell, this latest movement of urbanism needs a little less visual imaging and more consideration of what David Harvey calls "The Right to the City." Downloadable here http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2740

I thought this was a thoughtful and balanced piece. A few thoughts:

One: I'm not sure what the anti-tunnel crowd is in favor of. Surface + transit, which has no funding? Rebuilding the viaduct? What is the opposition's plan? It's one thing to be "anti" and another thing to actually have a plan that people and elected officials get behind.

Two: The tunnel may not be the perfect solution. But what solution could possibly please everyone in a city as big and diverse as Seattle? Following an extensive citizen stakeholder process that involved a dozen alternatives for replacing the Viaduct, state, city, county and port officials selected the Bored Tunnel alternative. The stakeholders worked together, listened to each other’s concerns, made compromises and came to an historic agreement.

Three: I personally believe we made a huge mistake as a city 50 years ago when the Viaduct was built. The viaduct is noisy, dangerous and cuts the city center off from the waterfront. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to correct that mistake and give Seattle the world class waterfront we deserve.

There is no environmentalist argument for the Deeply Tolled Tunnel.

It literally has Twice the pollution of the other two choices - both particulate and carbon emissions.

Both for construction and for operation.

It literally increases traffic congestion by 35,000 to 55,000 - WSDOT figures, not mine, read the EIS appendices.

It literally increases commute time - and thus pollution - by 15-20 minutes on game days and expanded rush hours.

Only an insane subsidized hack would claim it was pro-environmentalist.

Or someone looking forward to keeping the hoi polloi out of their taxpayer-subsidized private limo tunnel.

To follow, I haven't heard from specific, notable enviros against the tunnel. Where are these people? Or, is Sierra Club considered the only enviro game in town these days?

There are a TON of notable enviros against the tunnel, Bill McKibben for one, but most of the local ones have to stay underground because of the devastating political repurcussions they would face for opposing "the man."

Do I really have to tell you to read the Energy Discipline Report in the EIS which proves the Deeply Polluting Tunnel is an environmental disaster?

I was at an event last night at Pier 56 and as we soaked up the sun and beauty of our city's front porch, many of us suddenly realized that beyond the small parking lot on the backside of the Pier, there stood a few very lonely, very unoccupied wooden benches. We spent the next several minutes dreaming up the ways we could use those benches (now that we finally knew about them).

While it seems this has NOTHING to do with the tunnel debate - it in fact has much to do with it. Even if it is not a perfect plan, moving forward with the tunnel means our city has a chance to reclaim and rebuild our waterfront. The viaduct is so loud that it's almost hard to hear yourself talk, let alone hear the sounds of iconic Elliott Bay.

Putting a surface freeway in front of our city's front porch would be a travesty (and we don't have funding for it, anyway). The hard truth (as said so well by Urbanist) is that there is no other plan - I'm sure there are several "ideas", but those ideas don't have $2.4 billion from the state.

Now is the time for compromise. Now is the time to take the plan before us and work together to make sure it's done right.

many reasonable folk share the authors' view. but ouch!

there are three key issues with the deep bore: political, fiscal, and environmental.

politically, we are divided: in the city and between the city and the state. fiscally, the state has a much larger appetite for highway mega projects than they have wallet (e.g., SR-99, I-5, SR-520, and SR-509); the city and port will have issues paying their shares of the deep bore. environmentally, the deep bore invests the certain state transport funds on bypass trips that are the least important for our adopted land use objectives.

the january 2009 agreement between the three executives included a one-percent MVET for transit; that would have provided funding for three things: SR-99 related service such as elevating Route 120 to BRT; downtown transit capital to improve flow such as trolley overhead on Yesler Way; and, most important, revenue to make up for the decline in sales tax revenue that Sims anticipated. but the three executives did not win approval from the legislature for the MVET. it is not clear if the governor worked very hard on it at all.

the tolling is a serious issue, as WSDOT will have to bond against the toll revenue to pay for its project. the state funds are capped at 2.4 bilion; $400 million must come from tolls.

yes, the deep bore would open up the waterfront for development. but Seattle will have to fund the seawall, the new parks, Mercer West, utility relocation, and other costs. if the less costly surface, transit, and I-5 option were chosen, Seattle's costs would have been lower. the surface option would also open up the waterfront. both would have traffic. under the deep bore, there will a six-lane arterial between the south portal and the center of the CBD. under both the deep bore and the surface option, there will be a new Elliott Avenue connector; Alaskan Way will not be full of cars.

the tunnel proponents should be lobbying the legislature in the interim for transit funding, sytemwide dynamic tolling and increased gas taxes for maintenance, both state and local. it takes a lot of money to build a dream. the political reality is one of tax aversion and Eymanism. we are headed toward a partially completed deep bore, a six lane SR-520 to the western highrise only, and greatly reduced transit service.

I believe both the drill-baby-drill folks and the no-tunnel/ST5 people agree that the tunnel would
make for a Seattle that's easier to drive in than a Seattle in which the viaduct is demolished and not replaced.

Actually, some of us believe, and the EIS might even suggest that the tunnel will make driving more difficult. But let's assume that it performs as proponents promise, and that driving becomes easier and less congested than it would be without any replacement of the viaduct.

That means more people will drive, and that they'll drive more.

And more vehicle miles traveled means more pollution, and more sprawl.

I suppose you could try to squint and see a green lining in that cloud of fumes, and I believe the authors are doing just that. But from where I sit, it looks like they're really reaching.

I used to be a tunnel supporter.
All the reasons to build a tunnel are valid.
- freight mobility
- downtown bypass
- reduce traffic on the waterfront

Problem is, these reasons aren't being satisfied. One of the main reasons is that traffic to|from Ballard & other NW locations can't easily get to the north porthole; will likely opt to use the waterfront. According to the EIS, there will be *as much* waterfront traffic with as with a surface solution.

Another reason is that much of the traffic on Aurora is targetted for downtown and won't use the tunnel anyway (unless there are downtown exits).
So that leaves the small percentage of Aurora to way-south travellers to use the tunnel. Some of those will opt-out as well, due to tolls.
The results? More traffic on I-5 and downtown and waterfront streets.

Notice I'm not even mentioning the price. If the solution worked, maybe the price is worth it. But the solution doesn't even work!
Join me in promoting a tunnel solution under Western Ave, connecting to surface just south of downtown and roughly at the western battery street tunnel entrance.

There are many logical reasons to argue against the bored tunnel.

The arguments in its favor are weak, biased, absurdly nonchalent about RISK.

The new waterfront will be great, but its engineer designers are inept.

Angular treeless Lawn Roofs? Weak piers with storms coming?
Alaskan Way no medians & bikes lanes in traffic? No Rail?
There is NO 'approved' workable design for Alaskan Way.
A roadway design that divides thru-traffic from motorists trying to park...
Work on that thought, or not, lazy, amateur, poser, wannabees.
Washington State DOT chiefs are up to no good.
The blame for ruining the CRC goes to Wsdot.
ODOT produced a FINE I-5 at Marine Dr interchange.

This tunnel idea is so twentieth century. Does anyone really think America will continue to burn 25% of the world's oil output much longer?

If we're going to go in debt, let's at least do it for something that will be of some use post-Happy Motoring. Are we going to use up the last of our oil and credit to build something straight out of the 1960's?

There are so many inaccuracies here it's tough to even start. Tyler's comment above hits the big ones. The tunnel has no downtown exits, and that combined with the tolls will mean most people don't take it - flooding downtown streets and I-5 with more traffic. I/5-surface-transit makes those streets and I-5 better and invests in transit alternatives - probably a better outcome for everyone except rich people who want a quick bypass around Seattle. See Nelson/Nygard or the new Final EIS for that data.

But you know what? All this spin isn't new. What's new is pretending it's "environmental." As an environmentalist, that bothers me. So yesterday I gave money to the no-tunnel campaign. www.protectseattlenow.org if you want to too.

I also second all of the fact checking on costs, transit investments, and surface traffic among other things. However, I'd like to elaborate on how anti-urban the tunnel is and how flawed the statement "[Surface/I-5]is not good urban planning, and it’s not good for the environment." In short having the additional auto capacity will induce (i.e. increase) demand on other surface streets as far out as Shoreline or West Seattle because more drivers will be on the road. This has a negitive impact on all those urban spaces.

In particular, the South Lake Union neighborhood that 99 goes through just north of the potential tunnel entrance gets choped up by having an urban freeway. This makes urbanizing this envrionement (and indeed having effective traffic flow as evidenced by the current mercer mess) very difficult and expensive. Thus the real tunnel costs must include all the mercer projects and the negitive impact that freeway has on creating urban living spaces and traffic in that area.

In addition, the article triumphs the effect a downtown waterfront park will have on creating liviable urban spaces. While tearing down Alaska Way should have a positive impact on the livibility of that area that is no guarentee, especially without transit imrpovements, that the area will suddenly become an urban hot spot. That requires smart zoning and good land use policy not a massive park.

The tunnel does nothing to improve Seattle's ability to urbanize (and reduce sprawl) while Transit/I-5 is a big step towards removing a redundant freeway that chops up neighborhoods and inhibits the ability for urban spaces to develop in many areas of the city.

Also "second-guessing our elected leaders erodes our democratic process." Realy? I thought that "second-guessing our elected leaders" was more or less the whole point of democracy.

Time to take out some buildings and make a first class transit corridor design. This is a failure of imagination. You can't do a good remodel if you are afraid to take a few things out. Above ground, grade separated 45 mph roadway. Underpasses, overpasses, lids, sheds, green spaces. Modern highway design and landscape architecture is capable of a world class solution and a tunnel is a solution befitting a rodent.

The need and desire for mobility is not in decline. The age of the automobile is not ending. The criteria for the corridor should emphasize "transportation" as in "moving things efficiently from one place to another."

For the great majority of us the issues with the waterfront have nothing to do with aesthetics or design or vision or Seattle's front door or how easy it is to meet Cary and Samantha for Mojitos after work. We resent that downtown Seattle is spending billions trying to turn itself into Paris while the rest of Seattle's neighborhoods go without.

The question is whether or not the solution provides commuters with the most economical and efficient way to get around. Currently that solution is still a refurbished or rebuilt viaduct.

Quote of the day:

"The Tunnel is a solution befitting a rodent"

-toughbretts

The DBT RISK is off the charts...

Mercer West becomes a 'freight corridor' majore Boulevarde Trafficko
--through Lower Queen Anne neighborhoods,

Somebody tell the Queen Annians what more traffic moving faster looks like; how unsafe and intimidating; how much more air/water pollutants; that sort of stuff most armchair engineer doofs OUGHT to understand better.

A rebuilt AWV, rolls, is nowhere near an ideal solution, nor is it worth preserving. Only a Repacement Viaduct is viable, believe me. A 'more elegant' replacement viaduct should be reconsidered.
A refurbished AWV is a no-show.

The promise of a restored waterfront grabs our attention, but we also need to be alert to the risks to Pioneer Square. For well over a year, WSDOT has recognized that the volume of traffic rerouted into Pioneer Square “would not be acceptable,” but they offer no alternatives.

The amount of traffic – combined with the scale of the southern interchange itself – will permanently alter the character of Pioneer Square. In addition to the giant portal, likely changes include constant streams of traffic on previously quiet streets, no street parking, elimination and damage to trees, damage to buildings from traffic vibration, etc.

Many Seattleites are dreaming of an open waterfront, so it's important to acknowledge that the same 4-lane road is being planned along the waterfront with –or- without the tunnel. Yet the tunnel will more than double traffic in Pioneer Square because there are no exits into downtown. Currently, autos can exit on and off the viaduct at Seneca, Columbia, Elliot and Western. But once the tunnel is built, Pioneer Square becomes host to the single interchange for all trips in-and-out of downtown. WSDOT acknowledges that many people will drive through Pioneer Square just to avoid tolls.

Here's a quote from Knute Berger's March article "My picks for this year's list of the "most endangered" historic properties in Washington"

"The Square is in transition, and as WSDOT's approach to the 691 Building demonstrates, proposed trade-offs need to be zealously watchdogged . . . and public awareness raised about potential threats and the importance of the fabric of the district, not simply its individual buildings. The city must also ensure that WSDOT adheres strictly to the letter and spirit of federal and state preservation laws and requirements."

Here's the link to the full article:
http://crosscut.com/2011/03/02/mossback/20678/Pioneer-Square:-Some-great-signs,-but-still-at-risk/

A thank you to Crosscut for covering this issue.

One word: Frontage Road, AKA, Railroad Way historically, two lanes east of a 4-lane Alaskan Way circa Post-seawall/Pre-AWV, about 30 years of no bypass highway which I-5 now mostly accommodates; therefore, that circa Alaskan Way arrangement should absolutely be considered instead of ignored. No one here is as sure about an arrangement as I am about the frontage road idea.

And, the seawall question is an intregal component to the roadway design, IMO, that favors the stacked 6-lane C/c tunnel built eventually if another bypass is absolutely necessary...

Railroad Way reduces stoplight intersections (from 13 to 9) between Pike and King streets. This reduces traffic problems with motorists being forced into thru-traffic or around circuitous drives to reach a place to park.
Railroad Way. You'd think someone would want to restore RAILROAD WAY?
Not no seattlers kno's hous tado that kina werk much good.
Mayor Mike is sooooooooooo CoRRecT! to oppose the DBT & to support a new Railroad Way DesigN at least looked at gooder than mosta yous ever done seen nohow anyways. Thanx again mike

These so called environmentalists are still trying to figure out why Puget Sound is polluted and where the pollution is coming from.

Common sense isn't their strong point.

Cheryl's post is also a sound warning. additional traffic will be drawn through Pioneer Square to both the north-south avenues and to South Jackson Street and all are important pedestrian and transit streets. In addition, the poorly conceived First Hill Streetcar, if implemented, will further gum up traffic and transit flow on South Jackson Street.

The north portal will not be a traffic picnic either. the one advantage will be new east-west streets connecting across Aurora Avenue North. But transit flow will be going through choke points: both the Denny Way jams related to toll diversion and the weaving traffic northbound and southbound as the main general purpose flow will cross to the inside from the outside northbound and to the outside from the inside southbound, both opposite transit.

This is fantastic! An article explains very clearly why the tunnel is a win and all of the nuckleheads surface their archaic self centered opinions. Humorous reading and you have to love this forum. Seattle grow up and let this project move forward. At least you'll create lots of jobs for decades to come. Portland would have solved this problem by now and Vancouver (BC) wouldn't have allowed the viaduct to be built in the first place! Now all of you need to get to work and make Seattle the envy of all by actually doing something. Hopefully before Microsoft and Boeing continue their slow and painlul exit from Washington. Build it and they will stay! Move on...

Chuck

waterfront rat, the promenade pictured here is lifeless, souless, and dull. It also reduces jobs, and revenue to Seattle.

This tunnel is not affordable in every way imaginable.

jimrolls, will you run for governor? Please.

jimrolls, will you run for governor? Please.

jimrolls, will you run for governor? Please.

At this point, the tunnel seems like a done deal. The more effective debate may be to ask ourselves whether the public spaces and surface streets that get rebuilt once the viaduct is gone are what we want to see in Seattle. Check out the simulations shown in the final EIS on the WSDOT web site at http://data.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/viaduct/AWVFEIS-AppendixE.pdf. Some of the simulations for the new stretch of Aurora Avenue look more like Bellevue or Redmond. Do we need to have three lanes in each direction with left-turn lanes and paved medians (A-56 and A-58)? Will a few banners make up for all that pavement and concrete highway barriers shown in A-60? Taking down the viaduct is supposed to give us an opportunity to make better facilities for pedestrians, bikes, and transit on the surface streets. Is anyone minding the store on this issue? I'm worried that energy spent fighting the tunnel is coming from the same people who would typically speak up on behalf of having complete streets and good city design. In the meantime, the city is going to get paved over as the tunnel plans proceed!

One more point I forgot... it's interesting to me that James Corner omits the roadway in many of his proposals for the central waterfront. A six-lane highway along Alaskan Way is going to divide downtown from the waterfront more than the current viaduct does unless Corner takes a serious look at how we might break up or reduce the six lanes into smaller units that are easier for pedestrians to cross.

Apologist BS regurgitated, not even originated. Red herrings in abundance. Why do the DBT proponents continue to ignore the fact that the risk factor for the current AWV has already been mitigated? That is, sensors and gates have been installed to minimize the number of vehicles that might be caught on the Viaduct in an earthquake. Aren’t you tired of scare tactics? Let’s look at the data:

1. The currently proposed DBT design is a gold-plated solution (while the rest of us and our projects are on a cheapo budget) which fails Finance 101. (Many others have pointed this out well—such as ‘The transit money isn’t there,’ ‘The necessary $300 million from the Port of Seattle isn’t really committed,’ ‘toll revenue estimates are clearly too high,’ etc.)
2. It is dangerous, due to unsafe deviations from six highway design standards (meaning they are REQUIRED).
• Especially egregious are the too-narrow/substandard right-hand shoulders, i.e. two feet wide northbound and six feet southbound: a fire truck needs at least eight feet; every vehicle needs a lot more than two feet in which to pull over in an emergency; wheelchair ramps need eight or nine feet to deploy.
• Let’s be really clear: it fails to meet ADA standards for handicapped egress. It may well set you up to be unable to quickly extract your kids from the back of your SUV as well.
• Everyone should know that we are in earthquake country: would you rather ride one out 150 feet below ground, with probable fire and/or flood; or on the surface, with bricks and mortar falling down; or on a seismically robust elevated structure? (Do your homework and discover that, around the world, the fiscally and structurally prudent solution to problems like we have with US/SR 99 is an elegant type of bridge called “cable-stayed.”) Such a solution does not preclude spiffing up the waterfront, BTW; and the signature, iconic equivalent of an Embarcadero and the Golden Gate bridge will enhance our competitiveness for tourist dollars with San Francisco.
3. It is illegal on a State level: it violates RCW 18.43.010, which requires such a structure to “Safeguard, life, health and public welfare.”
4. It is illegal on a Federal level: WSDOT has refused to conduct a CFR-mandated, objective third-party Value Engineering Study. (Can you spell “arrogance”?)
5. Listen up, oh environmentalists: WSDOT has already illegally spent hundreds of millions on their (only since late 2009) “preferred solution,” which by law cannot be, because the Final EIS must be the starting point for such a mega-project—not vetting of a predetermined outcome. (Getting easier to spell “arrogance”?)
• Has any of the tunnel proponents told you how much they’ve already spent in purchasing rights-of-way from owners of private property above the tunnel’s route?
6. It creates fewer local jobs than other, more reasonable viaduct replacements (which cost less and whose costs are predictable).
7. It robs neighborhoods of established traffic routes (i.e. access and egress to downtown). (I understand this personally, having lived in West Seattle, Magnolia, Queen Anne etc.)
8. It ignores the proven reality of tunnels through glacial till: both the Beacon Hill and the Brightwater projects failed miserably to meet cost and schedule targets...with relatively tiny drills —far from the DBT's never-before-attempted 'big boy'. (No arrogance here, eh?)
9. It ignores the fact that PB and 17 consultants rejected all 15 proposed tunnel designs; and that Governor Gregoire clearly stated in 2007 (when most would agree the economy was better than now) that we could not afford a bloody tunnel. (Isn’t it amazing how effective a little wining and dining can be?)
10. It ignores the fact that an overriding majority of Seattleites voted against a tunnel (of course, we did the same with a couple of sports stadia, so what’s new?—just accept what your ‘elected officials’ (whose loyalty is not necessarily to you-all) ‘give’ you. (You should now be able to spell “arrogance” in your sleep, right?)
11. It’s myopic view ignores the fact that most people who work downtown cannot afford to live there, and most of their residences in Snohomish, Pierce et al. counties have zero to poor transit service. At best, it takes way too long for most folks’ trips to do it by public transit, and ‘time is money.’
12. Its myopic view ignores the fact that we live on a (glacial)moraine, and will never have the population density necessary to sustain profitable, widespread transit service.
13. Its carbon footprint is one of the largest in Seattle’s history: this non-Emerald City insanity (actually, just typical greed in action) needs over 70 megawatts of electrical power (the equivalent of 10,000 horsepower) to run its fans and lighting (plus ?? for its pumps), representing an additional $1.4 million per year in operating costs—that’s right, it ain’t all up front, baby—the costs just keep mounting).
14. Oh, yes—the Federal Government has not authorized these greedy tunnelers and their minions to drill under the Federal Building! This is a terrorist concern-driven security issue. Bets, anyone?
15. And the capper: the DBT’s current design is not the conforming design that was presented to the Legislature. Say what they want (e.g., the Gov and Pete Holmes)—this is a POLICY issue, not an administrative one.
16. And the super capper: the DBT violates the Washington State Transportation Plan’s top priority, as well as every one of its key transportation goals: the WST's 2010 Annual Report makes it clear that the “State’s top priority must be to maintain the capacity of the existing transportation system”—which the DBT will NOT do, since it would handle tens of thousands fewer vehicles than the 110,000 currently using the Viaduct. The DBT also fails by currently proposed design to address Statewide consensus on ALL key transportation goals, in summary:

Economic Vitality (connectivity of people and communities; efficient movement of freight)
Preservation (Utility)
Safety (dangerous design deviations)
Mobility (especially for the aged and those w/ special needs)
Environment ($1.4 million annual increase in electrical power required for pumps and fans)
Stewardship (re quality, effectiveness and efficiency).

Any questions?

Ham