It's sad how the rich developers and their hired guns try to steal from Seattle's taxpayers for their own personal profit.

Huh? What rich developers?

I don't for a minute believe that a tunnel can be built for a mere 25% more than a rebuilt viaduct. Nickels' estimate of $4 billion is a total fantasy. I seriously wonder how he came up with that number. Other credible estimates I've read about have been as high as $10 billion by the time the thing was all done. So, being generous, let's say it ends up costing $7 billion. That adds up to a bit more than $12,000 for every man, woman, and child in Seattle. Even Nickels' pipe-dream figure of $4 billion comes to a little over $7000 for every man, woman, and child in Seattle.

There is some state and federal money available, and my figures don't reflect that. But Nickels himself says we will need to come up with the difference ourselves between the viaduct and the tunnel. For every $1 billion over the cost of the viaduct (plus cost over-runs), it will cost every man, woman, and child in the city roughly $1,700. Or, roughly $3,800 per household for every $1 billion over the viaduct cost.

So, yeah, I think it would be super to have a tunnel to make all the cars invisible, and make a nice pretty transition to the waterfront. But the cost to the city will be astronomical. We'd have to raise some serious taxes over what we pay now, or they'd have to gut the schools and other programs even more than they already do. Nickels is crazy.

I agree: Nickels is crazy. And SDA IN SEA calls it like it is more than he/she knows w/ the description: "making cars invisible." Nickels's plan does make cars invisible—and that's the problem. Nickels' underground FREEWAY plan caters to cars instead of discouraging them, but in typical Seattle fashion, it pretends to deal with our transportation problem—by hiding it. It's like wearing baggy clothes when you've put on extra weight. You've still put on extra weight, but hey, no one can see it. Make no mistake, even though Nickels—pretending to be a smart growther— declared in his state of the city speech that the era of running freeways through cities is dead, his tunnel option is exactly that: a freeway through a city. Nickels is being downright Orwellian.

And, by the way, I'm w/ FNARF,
What rich developers???

Erica,
Everytime i read "dumps six lanes of traffic into the north end of Pike Place "
I get a ghastly image of SUVs and 18 wheelers crashing through vendor stalls and mowing down heards of tourists. I can picture a busker diving into a mound of ice and coho salmon to avoid being run over. It's a seattle version of the last 20 minutes of the Blues Brothers.

Well, no one in their right mind would suggest building a giant freeway on our waterfront again. Why would we vote to rebuild this thing? It's either a tunnel or nothing as far as I'm concerned. Realistically, the utopian idea of doing nothing and putting a big hippie park where the viaduct once stood is just totally ridiculous. Maybe the tunnel isn't the perfect solution but I'd rather have the freeway underground than above it.

"Big Hippie Park"?

I like the sound of that. Let's build one of those. Can small hippies hang out there too?

It's really funny, with Nickels the Finance Chair of consistently overbudget projects (300 percent over cost is his average for transportation projects), how they expect us to believe his "only $1 billion more" price tag isn't sheer insanity.

And as someone who's actually built tunnels, I know it's sheer fantasy.

Of course it's fantasy. If they do build the tunnel, I'll predict right here for the record that the final cost will be AT LEAST $8 billion, probably ten.

Anyone remember the bus tunnel fiasco?

Will: "It's sad how the rich developers and their hired guns try to steal from Seattle's taxpayers for their own personal profit."

Will, good job pandering to the "lesser Seattle" populist crowd out there. While you're at it, maybe you could work in a "cross of gold" reference too.

It strikes me that the tunnel would be the classic case where a special taxing district would be applicable, so that the developers who might profit from an opened waterfront could help pay for an opened waterfront. I'm no economist, but you have to figure that would scare up a few hundred million at least. Also, what about making the tunnel tolled?

I like SDA in SEA's logic. It's completely shocking, and true. With only 5% of the funding coming from the fed, and lots of careful wrangling in the legislature to make sure eastern WA doesn't pay for Seattle projects, Seattle citizens are going to foot nearly the full cost. It's a nightmare: 520 isn't funded yet, Sound Transit Phase 2 isn't funded yet, I-5 resurfacing isn't funded yet. They're already starting to beg for more money just to keep surface streets intact. We can't afford it all, and they're being completely dishonest by trying to hide that fact.

Wake up Nickels, it's not 1953 anymore and you aren't Robert Moses.

"Wake up Nickels, it's not 1953 anymore and you aren't Robert Moses." Now this is a good argument against building another viaduct.

An observation here. I can understand why The Stranger would support the surface-route option, but is The Stranger now supporting another viaduct? Either this whole "stick it to Greg Nickels" thing has gotten out of hand, or The Stranger has morphed into a voice for the lesser Seattle, status quo, NIMBY, anti-urbanist crowd. In other words, The Stranger has become the Seattle Weekly.

I suppot the Nickesl tunnel plan 100 per cent.

It is such a crock to use all this scare stuff instead of facts. There is about 2.5 billion ready to go. The port will up the ante. Taxing LID, other idea in process.

The tunnel part has been shortened, many other things modified. Cutting costs and bringing final design.

The sea wall must be replaced.

Can't affotd it? Must do it.....now or never.

The Seattle tax base will rise by three billion over the next five years. That is a giant resource all you shrill nayayers.

The State will pay more - this is a negotiation. And did you all miss that the Feds have pushed 200 plus million into the project- early sucess, expect more.

Who mentioned the bus tunnel - Feds paid 90 percent. What is you sad tale about how much it cost you? Jeez. And how about your sad story about how much I-5 and I-80 cost you? Nada.

The Fed free ride is over. Ain't as easy as the old game, Seatle can can do.

Should be a toll road.

By the way, NO Monorail left to pay for. Lets call it a total system cost reduction factor.

I want the wonderful free space, I want a new seawall and I want the ugly viaduct to be ground up for the cement work on the new tunnel.

By the way- Peter- you missed the whole issue to whine a lot.

The state DOT is saying that if you want our money there are two options. State money, state decision.

Seems to me, voting on a third option that the state will not fund would be a silly game.

Truth, the state needs no permission from Seattle to rebuild the viaduct. It is their road, their money. Called STATE hiway system, not city street.

Peter S. is sexy when he snaps and sulks, kinda early Brando -- whatca mean I'll put anything I want on my bllot.....

Go tunnel.

.

URBA SMITH Wrote:
"Should be a toll road."

Wrong. WSDOT and the city have already
concided this won't happen. There are too may alternative roads for drivers to use that would defeat a toll....

Which is just one more reason to continue to question the need for this kind of capital intensive project.

Now new 520 bridge would be perfect for
capturing a toll....just as the current one was 44 or 45 years ago.

---Jensen

"Is this the beginning of a new trend – legislators dictating what municipalities can put on the ballot?"

Where the hell has Peter Steinbrueck been? Legislators have been doing this for hundreds of years.

Sometimes I can't believe this guy is a city councilman.

Jensen - I think may of the theories of early on may chnge in the hardball of the next few months.

The new system will have the same benefit of the old - a quick through fare to bypass downtown - a toll will surely be more debated.

I once did a term paper on the Floating bridges. The current I-90 replaced the one that sunk.

Famous footage on King 5 -- the bridge was under repair and they let water flood the pontoons, and viewers watched as section after section sank to the deep bottom of Lake Washington.

The first so called Old Bridge, paid its bonds in record time, about 15 years. Of course tht fast access acros the lake started the Eastside change from mixed rural to suburban.

Nickels just kicked the
sonics to the curb. Good poitics, he is saying infra structure has the prioriy. Good quote, "the people who own the team are very wealthy and can take care of themselves. The city has other priorites". ---Smart, smart move -