Mossback's comeback is weak.

He appears to have been seduced by The Shark.

Are assumptions outdated if they cast a future not so very different than the recent past - of a city largely built on the auto? Are they outdated if they assume that the city and the region around it will continue to grow?

Perhaps those assumptions are: Pragmatic.

The best way to grow the city, and put that growth where it belongs (in Seattle - not Black Diamond) is to take back the waterfront. The only option on the table that accomplishes that in our lifetimes is: the tunnel.

Pragmatic.

The tunnel is just in the wrong place. One portal should be located to connect with the 520 half-bridge (replacing the western high rise).

"...pragmatic to me is seeing the folly of pushing ahead with major public projects that are brutish, risky, of questionable long-term value, based on out-dated assumptions about the depth of our pocket-books..."

Wait a second... didn't you recently advocate for a Seattle Writers Park?

Ceis would move to Vancouver where they have no inner city freeways due to voter opposition, plenty of transit, and still seem to be a vibrant community that's growing every day?

I see.

The tunnel is the only option with a relatively clear price. The others have hardly been studied let alone designed, soil tested, etc. The tunnel could go over of course, but much of the cost risk either has passed (now that the agreement exists) or is reduced substantially by the design-build method.

This is all B.S. folks, and in the END, it will be bad for you.

mhays: What portion of financing is bond interest, and how is that accounted for? I don't see reference to the actual cost of bonds anywhere in the FEIS nor in any documentation WSDOT has released.

That actually makes a big impact on the eventual cost.

It's as if they're trying really hard to get people to ignore the cost...

@alexjon - I think he means Vancouver, Washington. The lack of urban highways in Vancouver BC would clearly disqualify it.

@mhays - what part of cost overruns risk has "passed" due to agreements? Check out Boston's Big Dig - or our Brightwater tunnel-boring machine (stuck underground for years) for that matter. When tunnel-boring machines get stuck, it costs millions per day.

And don't think a "design-build contract" will mean that the contractor will just eat those costs. This contractor will sue the state and city:

According to a 1,600-word report in the Lower Hudson Journal News this weekend, the Perini Corp. and Tutor-Saliba, the two companies that make up Tutor-Perini, one of the partners that won a state contract to build the deep-bore tunnel last week, has a long history of litigation and cost overruns, including allegations of fraud and racketeering.
http://publicola.com/2010/12/13/report-tunnel-bidder-has-history-of-overruns-lawsuits/

"[P]ragmatic to me is seeing the folly of pushing ahead with major public projects that a brutish, risky, of questionable long-term value, based on out-dated assumptions about the depth of our pocket-books and the future of highways."

That's a pithy, spot-on critique of Sound Transit's financing plan - in every respect.

Anyone disagree?

The only aspect of that critique that arguably doesn't apply (in spades) to the ST2 plan is the reference to "the future of highways". Here's why even that factor argues against this particular light rail build-out plan. There are "out-dated assumptions about . . . the future of highways" at the core of the ST2 planning. Those center on the false contention that 29% the surface of the I-90 corridor bridges, tunnels and roadways can be taken over for train use without causing significant adverse impacts to the tens of thousands of people who drive daily on that infrastructure, the businesses and individuals who rely on those car and truck operations for their commercial and personal interests, and the local economy.

Perhaps Knute there was taking a dig at the grandiose, brutishly expensive regressive tax confiscation scheme that drives Sound Transit?

The Seattle World's Fair was a massive civic endeavor that was also a leap of faith on the part of the community. It paid off extremely well. Today we are a global city full of commerce, arts, and brainpower. And we have Seattle Center.

The tunnel is also such a project where the upfront investment is huge, but the long-term benefit to our city will be transformative and lasting. Imagine our waterfront opened up and connected to downtown while much of the traffic is diverted below. This is the lemonade we can make from the Nisqually earthquake's lemons.

Somebody above asked this: “What portion of financing is bond interest, and how is that accounted for? I don't see reference to the actual cost of bonds anywhere in the FEIS nor in any documentation WSDOT has released.”

Pretty sure I can explain why the FEIS doesn’t set out the bond financing costs. First, it isn’t clear any new motor-vehicle-fuel-tax bonds would need to be sold if this project goes forward. The state already may have enough revenue from prior sales of fuel-tax bonds. Even if more of those bonds are issued the proceeds would be applied to other roads projects around the state. The costs of servicing any fuel-tax bonds would be incurred anyway, irrespective of this project. The EIS materials don’t address those financing costs because they will be paid whether or not this tunnel is constructed.

There also are going to be bonds the state sells secured by the tolling revenue. Those financing costs are not disclosed in this FEIS either. I expect the reason for that “omission” is that those proceeds could be used on nearby state projects, not the tunneling project described in the EIS. Other related projects that the tolling revenue bonds could be spent on include the Spokane Street Viaduct widening, SR 519 Phase 2, Holgate to King work, Mercer West, demolition of the exiting viaduct, and rebuilding the surface Alaskan Way.

So, a vote for the tunnel is a way for the state to blow all its money along the waterfront and leave the 520 bridge project wanting; hence the smaller 4 lane 520 that would make Montlake and Madison Park happy? Wow; what strategic thinking and foresight for the whole city and region!

Ceis may see Vancouver as a place where another example of Warshdot incompentence gone awry can be exploited. Some 80,000 SOV motorists commute to Oregon daily, the majority across the outdated and aging I-5 bridge with miles of stop-n-go traffic. Sound familiar? Warshdot leads the committee to design its replacement but after 6+ years has little to show. And what they do show foments vehement opposition.

The James Corner Fields aerial rendering of Alaskan Way shows no medians. Grace Crunican's legacy as "fired" former director of Oregon State DOT includes the notion that medians are unsafe! Pedestrian advocacy organizations disagree. Ms Crunican turned a dear ear to their recommendation she uphold federal ADA standards and state codes regarding sidewalk widths on the (3/4 mile) Ross Island Bridge surface and ballustrade rebuild project which she oversaw. Ms Crunican retained the very narrow sidewalk and 'wickedly' poured salt on the wound by installing required traffic safety barriers on the ballistrade instead of between the sidewalk and 45+mph heavy traffic inches from pedestrians and bicyclists who must use the sidewalk as there is not enough room for a bike lane.

Mr Ceis may admire Ms Crunican, but her work is considered substandard in Oregon. Seattle's surface street reconfigurations related to the bored tunnel are all atrocious engineering. Crunican has left a legacy at SDOT that should be challenged by Seattlers who aren't pompous idiots.

To me, it's not just about the cost. The solution needs to work. When I see the figures - that approx the same number of vechiles would be on the waterfront with a tunnel solution vs a do-nothing approach, I see the money wasted.

Besides the waterfront, traffic will build on Mercer St. That's because drivers to-from interbay and Ballard won't be able to get to the tunnel without taking Mercer to the other side of Queen Anne. By the time they get there, they probably will go to I5 instead of take the tunnel and pay tolls. At least, during rush hour.

On top of that, Mercer street will crawl. It's already backed up from I5 to Queen Anne Ave and further during rush hour. The current improvements underway to Mercer St. probably will have little effect since the backup is primarily caused by the intersection of the I5 ramps. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So, maybe it's about cost afterall. If I'm going to pay for something, it needs to work! In this case, I'm not arguing about the price (though it is expensive), but about its practicality. Not there. Might as well spend less and get at least a good a result.

The state's own EIS has said that traffic downtown will be the same if we build the tunnel or if we don't (i.e. surface option).

It's not like there's not going to be a street along the waterfront still, after all. No one's talking about turning the waterfront into a carless park. No, there will be a surface street there anyway.

Why should be spend billions on a tunnel whose traffic benefit over the much, much cheaper surface is exactly nothing?

"he'd ponder a move to Vancouver. He says any other Viaduct alternative solution will "get the crap beat out of it." There's never going to be consensus on a solution. When there's no consensus, the tough, like Ceis, get going"

When there is no consensus, the viaduct will fall down/crack/shift/fail and the only affordable solution will be the surface option. Which is what should be built in the first place.

"One thing that strikes me about guys like Ceis is that they frequently wrap themselves in the cloak of pragmatism while promoting projects that are often highly problematic. It's a little like today's Tea Party radicals claiming to be conservatives. "

Knute, by this measure, you are no better. Unfortunately you contradict this statement.
It is interesting and entertaining that you chronicle how Ceis moved from supporting a Surface solution to the Tunnel when presented with information. Tea Party folks start with a solution.

You might not like the decision that was made, or how Ceis arrived at his opinion, but I think your own bias is negatively influencing your ability to write about the subject.
Dominic Holden carries water for the mayor on this subject, and so do you.

The center of politics in Seattle has become process. It is now process for the sake of process. The fun is gone. If a cause interests you enoug h to become involved - the Monorail, various forms of mass transit, whatever - you will almost surely be disappointed in the end.

Seattle has become so wed to and dependant upon process, we now process our political projects until they are officially dead. It is nearly impossible to move forward in this city.

Solutions were laid out in the 70's to many of Seattle's problems. We can't get there for all the process.

Some may not like the way Tim Ceis "comes across", but he is an great human being and he can get things done! That is very rare combination in Seattle. I will always want Tim Ceis on my side. Ceis puts Seattle first. I miss having someone like him in charge. (I miss having anyone in charge.)

I say more Ceis and less McGinn. What is McGinn doing anyway??? Well, I mean besides taking up traffic lanes for the three bikes to use, without replacing the loss of traffic volume with a high volume alternative.

We were going to build a variety of mass transit, light rail to trolleys. Forward progress seems to be halted. It makes me long for the days of the old "Forward Thrust" programs. Don't we wish...

Please stay involved Tim. We need you more and more.

Mono,

Mayor McGinn is getting things done. You just don't like them or acknowledge them. Stopping this DEEP BOONDOGGLE TUNNEL insanity is the first and most pressing thing getting done.

$6+ Billion for what $1+ Billion (rebuild sea wall/surface/transit) can do.
Gregoire and City Council should be ashamed or recalled.

Thanks Knute: While giving Ceis plenty of room to speak his piece, you conclude with a trenchant summary of why the tunnel is / would be a huge mistake.

A lesson for all of us: It's time to reverse roles in the Seattle-Olymppia dance: Seattle can decide its own future, take initiative in planning its transportation, without waiting for Olympia to send us its auto-centered mega-projects.

Bob Corwin

tburley: "The tunnel is also such a project where the upfront investment is huge, but the long-term benefit to our city will be transformative and lasting. Imagine our waterfront opened up and connected to downtown while much of the traffic is diverted below. This is the lemonade we can make from the Nisqually earthquake's lemons."

Hogwash. The remaining traffic on the surface will not make for a pleasant waterfront park. Are you seriously going to send/take your out of town guests to the waterfront park when you can go to Discovery, Lincoln, or Myrtle Edwards just up the street with no traffic? The waterfront park is for the office workers downtown. May through September.

Besides, you get the same result tearing down the viaduct without a tunnel (unless you can find enough money to eliminate tolls, which would reduce the surface traffic more). So why spend the money?

The waterfront redesign and viaduct replacement are completely independent projects. Claiming that a tunnel is required to give us a great water front is leveraging intuition but not facts. Even with a tunnel, we’ll still have a road just back from the waterfront, and it will be full of toll avoiders.

The traffic count has been fudged again. Last year 35,000 vehicles, this year 25,000 WITH TOLL accounting for MORE not LESS traffic on Alaskan Way! Wah?
The official warshdut figure has "decreased" for some reason. Where did that traffic go? I-5? I-5 thru the MESS? I-5 with no 'extra' northbound lane? Predetermination-ism of the Wanted Numbers? Murky soils sure to soften under new and 'diagonal' pressures off the TUBE walls... New water flows along seams... carrying away silt somewhere, leaving gaps... Fill gaps with glue, but then the hardened glue likewise redirects the miniature flows all along vulnerable foundations and become moreso. Are you supporters insane or just stupid? "What could possibly go wrong, Suzanne le Glamour?" "Why suh, I never bother to think of a distrust toward my guardian fraternity fellowship and Seattle entertainment events with their gracious hosts," and quietly under Suzanne's breath, "brrup".

For the growing and prospering exurbs that ring it, Seattle is simply a clog in the drain. Seattle's digging its heels in the mud provincialism is preventing the rest of Western Washington from having speedy and low cost Personal Transit served by automobiles and augmented by taxis.

What we need are more lanes on I-5. What we get is a 50 billion dollar boondoggle on transit and a 6 billion dollar boondoggle tunnel.

All we want is more of I-5.

That's it.

But, of course, the bottleneckers in Seattle built a Convention Center across I-5 so that it can never be right sized!

Seattle needs to get over itself. Just this week, I went to see a Mexican pop group at Lake Meridian on East Kent Hill as part of the Kent Summer Concert series. I rode my bike there and sat and watched the sun set over the lake as the music played.

We have espresso on East Hill.

We even have a Nature's Market a whole foods store.

"Seattle" the culture has spread all over Washington...all over America.

But Seattle the City is now just an overprice, aging parody of its former self that is making life too hard and expensive for the rest of the state. Rather than giving in to "Seattle" our (especially Republican) lawmakers should be spreading the focus to the new and emerging multicultural exurbs and Eastern parts of this state.

The slogan "Let's Move Forward" should be replaced with my version, "Seattle -- Get Out of My Way!!"

Tburley, the Seattle World's Fair had nothing to do with making Seattle a global city. Technology did, and our becoming Silicon Valley North wasn't a result of a world's fair. Yes, we have the Seattle Center as a result of that fair, and the Center is decrepit and losing money. In that sense, equating the tunnel to Seattle Center may be appropriate.

The waterfront may indeed be opened up: by an earthquake, with or without the Tunnel. But if you're talking about creating a waterfront park/whatever, the City has absolutely no money for such an endeavor.

jaibailo: "Seattle the City is now just an overprice, aging parody of its former self..." You're funny; this place is not even 200 years old and you think it can be a parody of its past? Try Venice if you want to experience that.

I'll be happy to get out of your way if you'll take Tim Eyman and the freeways with you and leave us alone.