And if there are cost overruns or sudden tax increases on business owners, the same people saying the tunnel is vital are going to cry foul and say that WSDOT/Seattle are trying to kill jobs. Tax rates are just as pivotal as megaprojects, if not more so.

Remember, the business and manufacturing community has backed tax restrictions like I-1053: http://www.seattlechamber.com/Libraries/Reports_PDF/I-1053_Resolution.sflb.ashx

So there's the chance for backlash if the finances just don't add up.

Remember that the Seattle Times raised red flags on this plan (or, rather, another $4.1billion tunnel) and how it could harm transportation plans and goodwill in the future: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20051117&slug;=tunneled17

This is why it's good to know where the money is coming from, when, how and for how long. It's great to get moving on something, but finances, not mobility or capacity, have stalled $4billion tunnel ideas here in the past.

With the stock market struggling to erase massive losses, no money to pay our health bills, education getting socked with cuts, it's good to be aware of possible money conflicts.

We've been talking about a $4,000,000,000 tunnel for nearly a decade and the money has never materialized. Ever. Why will it suddenly show up now?

Mr Gering's piece shows us all exactly why the tunnel is the wrong solution--he assumes that oil-based single vehicle transportation, the medium of mid-20th century manufacturing, is a smart and viable medium for the 21st century. And his faith in the present legislature's ability to fund this project if "tolling truly threatens I-5" is genuinely amusing. Roads are not "a progressive solution"; clinging to this idea is the true myopia.

After disparaging bicycle riders I'd like to point out that I rode in today with a heap of young riders all on their way to those great paying knowledge worker jobs. All not impeding the N/S traffic through the city. If $2B was invested in making bicycling safer, it would encourage even more riders who would be healthier and leave I-5 for freight.

Unlike one of the comments I've read here, this one is intended to be funny.

"Many in Seattle miss or minimize these points because they are so stuck in the cars vs. bike, road vs. transit debates."

It's funny because Dave Gering is one of the biggest instigators in those debates.

If traffic flow through Seattle were so important to the local economy, then what would make sense is *not* a tunnel that bypasses only about 20 blocks of downtown Seattle (with no downtown exits) for $4 billion. (Actually, the state is intentionally sitting on data that it refuses to release that apparently indicates the cost will be at least $6 billion).

What would make sense is a SR-99 tunnel that starts at Green Lake and emerges at South Park.

What would also make sense is getting ferry traffic out of the way along the waterfront, maybe by creating larger, dedicated waiting areas and disallowing people from waiting on actual streets.

What would also make sense is re-laning I-5 so that the right lane is always the exit lane so people don't have to keep changing lanes, and so that three or more lanes never merge into one lane. Fixing THOSE problems might only cost $2 billion and do way more for traffic flow-through.

But no, no, and no.

A four- or six-lane surface street along downtown Seattle, combined with a nice shorline area and maybe a bike lane, will get traffic through Seattle on SR-99 just fine. The state's own EIS says traffic will be just as bad downtown if we build or don't build the tunnel, so we should save $6 billion and not build it. Yes, there might be a couple of stoplights for traffic on SR-99 (oh, God, not stoplights!), but SR-99 already has stoplights along East Marginal Way and in SeaTac, and they don't really impede traffic all that much.

The tunnel is a huge and pricey red herring, and the campaign advertisements on Referendum 1 includes "false implications" (i.e., lies) about the tunnel project funding transit.

Wouldn't it make more sense to discourage bicycles, hybrids, mileage standards, alternative energy sources, and just burn up the fossil fuels we have left as quickly as possible? Why prolong the agony and these tedious, smug debates? If the supply of these fuels is truly finite, and we're eventually going to burn them all up anyway, why wait? As oil becomes scarcer, the price will inevitably rise, and alternative energy will become a necessity, rather than a cocktail party conceit.

It's interesting that Mr. Gering is trying to assoicate the tunnel with commerce, when there will actually be worse traffic problems affecting that same traffic flow with a DBT, than with ST5. In fact, there are/will be dedicated freight corridors for the Port that can/will avoid most tunnel traffic spillover, and most of the manufacturing he is referring to is going to I5 and located south of the DBT as well. Most of the Port traffic is also going directly to I5 and does not use the AWV route. Some of them could not even use the DBT if they wanted to, depending upon the type of cargo/load.

In fact, larger trucks and semis in general don't use the AWV now, and the local freight and service trucks are not going to pay the toll.

Pretty weak jutifications, IMO.

The obvious answer remains that 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 the only effective way to modulate traffic in the core and you can even use it to get out of the rain. And it’s billions of dollars cheaper than this present tunnel/surface mistake in the making.

The tunnel/surface option is a terrible substitute for one of the most successful north/south arterials in the city. It will add to the tax bill of the over-taxed, and it will add to the congestion faced by regional commuters.

Rebuild the viaduct. Still time to do the right thing.

Feel like letting it go, and not sure about for-or-against the insane & unstable Bore Tunnel below buildings? Or about the higher-up crew of Power followers voting yes-sorta. City Council & leaders are too cheerfully indifferent to critically-important concerns.

The DBT and the companion street rearrangements that adds 20,000 MORE CARS on the Mers-Mess is simply the WORST engineering possible... Which happy leaders "ParTayd" last night after Town Hall acting like 'their' side won? Can't they see how wrong the bore mess is?
Battery Street Tunnel could be made to work as the pass-thru HWY Tunnel it was meant to serve as. That's right, with modest measures like extending this Cut/cover to Harrison - just like with the DBT only better. Guess what? The Broad Street Underpass is about to go through a rearrangement already.
How about waiting to see how well it works before making the Decision to Close?
Lots of people are honestly aghast at all of this messed-up job.
Bite me, WARshdot. )^\ U-sukk. Crunican sucks and not a good pick for the new BART Director. I'm telling you, she fails many pedestrian-oriented projects... Whahhh?

This author makes some great points. Clearly this project is bigger than downtown and the mayor, bikes vs. cars. I appreciate his viewpoint. Although the cost is high $1.9 billion (not the larger figures tossed about that include side projects that any solution would catalog) that cost will be well worth it in the long run. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.

Come on Gering. We already know there are only two principal routes through Seattle. You rehash the points that effecient transportation is essential for moving freight. Yet you don't supply a single arguement based on facts or the EIS that indicate the tunnel solution will make moving freight better than a surface or other solution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most freight between Sodo and Interbay or NW will use the waterfront regardless, since the tunnel is inaccessible from the NW. Second, most longer distance freight uses I5 and certainly won't switch over to the tunnerl. Third, a lot of freight moves at night, when traffic is lighter.

So why are you supporting the tunnel? Sorry, I just don't get it.

Why not just do the ST5 options first, then build the tunnel if needed later? DBT could be built by the private sector if there is great demand.

The FEIS concludes that the DBT will have the same effect on surface traffic as doing nothing. Since commerce traffic will not generally be using the tunnel, the tunnel does not help.

What will help business the most is getting SOV rush hour commuters out of the surface traffic and onto BRT or Light Rail, freeing up the roads for commerce.

Dave, what is this "bikes vs. cars" thing all about? That manufactured crisis has nothing to do with the DBT debate. Putting that in your article is an insult to crosscut reader intelligence.

QUOTE "Who needs wealth creators when you can take light rail to the unemployment office?

Unlike one of the comments I've read here, this one is intended to be funny. — dbreneman"

You have added a much needed point of humor to a funny situation.

I fear we are going to do exactly what we did with the West Seattle bridge. Talk study talk study until all construction money is spent.
Luckily a fine gentleman rammed the darn fool thing with a freighter. It was fixed in two (?) years. Where can we find a terrorist to dynamite the viaduct? That way we can reubuild using insurance money - all the consruction money went up in hot air.

How about we just finish tearing down the viaduct, close SR 99 at the First Ave Bridge and the Battery Street tunnel? Remove STATE ROUTE 99 from the STATE highway list in that area. Let Seattle figure out what they want to do. Give the remaining money to Light Rail to extend as far south as possible. Seattle wants to control the argument, let them. Remove all State money from Seattle.

I think the tunnel that Boeing wants is one between Renton and South Carolina so they can move all of their tooling out of sight.

toughbretts, manufacturing involves making things and moving those things around via transportation corridors. We debate them in Seattle, they build them in South Carolina.

As long as people think Seattle and the PugetSound economy would be just fine with businesses that just service each other we will build an out of balance regional economy. Running from one cyclical economy into a different one does make us any better.

The tunnel will disrupt the area for 5.5 years, a new viaduct 10, the surface treatment 7. All of that disruption has afargreater economic impact than anybody will honestly admit.

I'm tired of being bullied by Boeing. Seems like every few years Boeing threatens us in one way or the other yet continues to relocate jobs and economic activity.

A Considoratur's considerashun of Kly-Mat are unheard-of subjects in the Hwy builder clubset; As if 'our' full/fair consideration of the risks isn't worth 'their' time; neither do many RWers really understand engineering, as if all our rides are mere mass-produced convenience-mobiles that unfortunately Don't run on pixey-dust and even electric Aren't safe for human environs.

Metro's new plan is insufficient. It should be challenged to install better overhead wire arrangements than as proposed. It's possible. Streetcar Line(s) are in "questions-asked//not-getting answers" Period in THE process.

Alaskan Way does not look good in my own personal mentally-imagined traffic scenarios & your plan, whatever it's called, ain't gonna wurk guD. Consideration? Unheard-of up there except certainly behind the closed doors in private, confident, assured, no question or concern left actually-addressed.
Uz got sum sik pepls dare, norwesteners. warshdirtt dept dunnit gin, bros.

While I have only lived in Seattle for 13 years, it has been extremely frustrating -- I am not used to the concerted efforts to block progress. Even though I am not as articulate as Dave Gering, he said everything that I would, and more. I dare anyone to look at a map of Seattle and NOT tell me that transportation is a MAJOR economic factor. His connection between transportation and economics is quite obvious. I seem to recall that Boeing cited this as one of their issues with Seattle! Boeing! Not Dave Gering!

Why some people seem to be stalling on this issue, totally confuses me. If the earthquake that we all dread, were to occur today, what would happen to Seattle!? Look at a map!!! Limited north-south and east-west routes would totally imobilize the whole area. Let's stop playing games and get the tunnel built!! The economic benefit of returning the surface land to the PEOPLE, will more than compensate for the additional expenses in construction.

Wells, step away from the glue gun.

How will a tunnel from south Lake Union to the stadiums serve anyone except folks wanting to make that trip? While I can see that freight movers going north might be near enough to the stadium area that they reasonably might use the tunnel, I can't see how or why they would enter the tunnel at south Lake Union only to go to the stadium area. And what freight movers would enter the tunnel in the stadium area to travel to south Lake Union? Where would they be going? How will 99 hook up with the tunnel at south Lake Union? I assume there's a plan but am not aware of what it is. And finally,how would all those new highrise and condo dwellers like all the noise, traffic, and dirt that kind of use would bring?
Furthermore, what will happen to those of us who wish to travel north-south without detours to the east for south Lake Union or the stadiums? Right now we have an excellent and serviceable route directly through town with the ability to go into town or off in other directions. The tunnel thing, in addition to all the other reasons not to want it, just will not serve that purpose and function, and it will leave those who do not wish to travel to the east no alternative but the surface streets, which will be hellish as all those who have no other option and those who refuse to pay tolls for this folly seek a reasonably direct route north and south. These folks who have financial interests that the tunnel will serve, mainly construction and labor interests, just keep making up reasons why they believe the very obvious problems will not occur, and they keep repeating them as if repetition will make these fantasies true. The tunnel, if built, will be a disaster. All the bikers and walkers had better begin preparing now for a more dangerous future as all the traffic that uses the viaduct now will be looking for a new and reasonable way to get from point A to point B.

'All the bikers and walkers had better begin preparing now for a more dangerous future as all the traffic that uses the viaduct now will be looking for a new and reasonable way to get from point A to point B. "

As a bicyclist, the more the traffic is slowed down and impeded by each other, the safer I am. It's also safer for those drivers as well, because even if they hit each other, it will be at slower speeds.

I'm sorry, Mr Baker, the writing style 'dialect' I think sometimes is yours and you would understand it clearly: "Uz got sum sik pepls dare, norwesteners. warshdirtt dept dunnit gin, bros."

Rewritten en English: "You have some sick people there, northwesterners. Wsdot department done it again, bros."

And may I just add it seems Crosscut Picks are more for its sponsors to read than for its readers, sorry to say. I always value but don't always respect Crosscut journalism. It is the best laid-out website (I know of) even though it presents predominately pro-business, damn the torpedoes, full-speed ahead, reckless-risky rightwing excuses for being irresponsible with their incomplete argumentation.

Bored tunnel supporters have NOT addressed anti-tunnel concerns regarding: 1) Engineering 2) "RISKS" 3) Subsurface Hydrology 4) Unstable Soils 5) Traffic management 6) Questionable street rearrangements 7) Dishonest propaganda campaigns. Many questions are too detailed to be put in single-word, but he list of points & issues against the DBT is 'very' long. Concerns are still left unaddressed by the DOTs & supportive political chums.

I believe Wsdot can and must do better. The Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement mega-project, regardless of the Referendum 1 outcome, is NOT going to happen if it includes the DBT. The DBT is engineering idiocy.
The "RISKS" are too high, obviously.

-mspat is right about one of the biggest misconceptions about the tunnel, that it doesn't even follow the route of the AWV nor is it intended to measure up to it as a transportation asset. Its purpose is to allow a reconfiguring of a portion of downtown and serve as an amenity for real estate in SLU and Seattle Center. It was never intended to replace the capacities, access or mobility of the viaduct.

It's bad enough that the costs for this congestion producing project that only benefits a couple of downtown neighborhoods will be paid for by the entire city.

The biggest fallacy of Mr. Gering's arguement is that because both SR 99 and I-5 connect the "boeing triangle," it means that both are necessary to preserve frieght mobility between these localities. Of course any thinking person would quickly realize that SR99 would never be the preffered freight route between these destinations as I-5 is far faster over those distances. With that in mind it also becomes obvious that what is not needed is two major freeways through Seattle, but better traffic flow on I-5. This is only addressed by the ST5 plan and at a much reduced cost.

The only positive part of the tunnel solution is its freeing of the downtown waterfront from freeway blight and the ensuing property value increases and public amenities opportunities. Beyond that, it is a highly inefficient use of precious transportation dollars, which the EIS clearly shows. If a roadway project fails to improve traffic flow on ANY neighborhing street, aterial, or freeway, how can it be considered the right solution at 4+billion dollars far more expensive than other alternatives?

It's rather a less big fallacy, the Gering argument and only main point, that: ("When I-5 is closed routinely for its own reconstruction or whatever, SR99 central-artery must work for cars, so trucks won't get stuck in I-5 car traffic").

Not a bad point to raise, but that argument 'For' the DBT should not be framed as if the ONLY option is their SR99 central artery DBT plan. The latest 'stacked' cut/cover tunnel option is viable and obviously better engineering with little risk & stronger seawall climate scientists say may be necessary. ST5 is indeed an actually-viable option, nevermind the fear-mongers. Maintaining the N/S thru-traffic pattern leaves I-5 with a worse prospect of regular closing of the DBT (and Visa Versa?)

Start with ST5...
Build the "stacked" Cut/cover..
Or.. build the "Elegant Elevated" option (eventually)
ONLY IF Unavoidable...
Start with ST5...
!!! GoooooO MikeS !!!

Thru-traffic should be tamed away from the SR99 corridor. Workable downtown transit upgrades must be in place to determine future traffic flow. Ignorance & neglect of more important issues within Gerings & most pro-DBT argument, I must say with regret and my fierce warnings which you clowns don't take seriously. Who's the clown now, clowns? You owe your mayor apologies, dudes & dudettes.
Mayor Mike A State Hero and heralded. Heralded!

If we're lucky and avoid building this tunnel, I predict that this story will be one of those over-confident predictions steeped in ‘political reality’ and totally wrong.

This article by David Brewster in 2007 on RTID is what I’m talking about.

http://crosscut.com/2007/10/25/transportation/8477/Proposition-1-is-as-good-as-it-s-going-to-get/

His opening lines: "The roads-and-transit measure, expensive and flawed, is politically reasonable and pulls together the region. Defeat it and you have the same folks who cooked up this one producing Proposition 2. It's hard to see how a wiser expenditure of money is going to be formulated and approved."