And you forgot to mention:

Tear down permanently, and re-route traffic is the least popular option of ALL of them.

Let's follow Josh's logic here:

• A majority of Seattle doesn't want a tunnel, therefore no tunnel.
• A majority of Seattle doesn't want a repair or replacement, therefore no repair or replacement.
• A majority of Seattle doesn't want to just tear the thing down, therefore don't just tear the thing down.

Josh's conclusion: the people of Seattle have spoken and the answer is "Don't do anything." Now that's real Seattle way at work.

All the more reason for the leaders to actually lead and make the decision themselves.

P.S. Grammar check: "didn’t fair as badly" should be "didn’t fare as badly."

Most people actually don't mind the tear down option, if it's the actual surface-plus-transit option where they tear down the viaduct, replace the current surface streets with a real six-lane road that has a bus/HOV/transit lane AND they double the local bus transit in the affected corridor.

But the underwater tunnel vision people don't want to let that one show up on the ballot, because it would win a lot of support.

I'm personally for the Elevated Viaduct rebuild option, and don't think most voters understand the difference in cost between that option and the underwater tunnel option (which ends up, with borrowing costs, being almost twice that with typical cost overruns) will be borne ENTIRELY BY SEATTLE TAXPAYERS as the state's only paying for the Viaduct rebuild and Seattle's already on tap for a lot of cash for the Seawall rebuild.

But if the "leaders" force a tunnel on Seattle, they'll be thrown out of office quickly - heck, I'll even file the paperwork.

oh, and glad to see the Sonics numbers.

note to Frank Schrontz of Starbucks - no, paying off the other stadium by 2016 doesn't mean you get to steal our tax dollars. Just leave, or STFU.

p.s. go see Heart of the Game next week - excellent movie of a REAL basketball team - Roosevelt girls basketball team - Go Roughriders!

If the proponents of all the different options got to phrase the poll in their own preferred language, of course the results would be different.

In the second poll, it's:

Tunnel: 44%
Repair: 25% + Replace: 19% = 44%

Looks like they're neck and neck.

Also, isn't repair simply not an option? We would have more accurate results if it were not included in the poll.

Frank Schrontz? Wasn't he Boeing's CEO some time ago? When did he oust Howard Schultz?

i want a tunnel cuz they're cool. do you actually notice the tiny amount of pennies taken from your check to pay for the stadiums? you also would never notice the money to pay for the tunnel. a tunnel is a much better idea than a stupid fucking monorail that went to ballard and west seattle. in fact, let's tear up I-5 and make that a tunnel too! tunnels are cool!

Josh, it's misleading to say the majority of voters don't want a tunnel based on a straw poll, especially given there were five options to choose from. It's hard to get a majority opinion from relatively uninformed pollees when you give them five options to choose from.

That said, assuming the Elway poll has merit, it doesn't appear the Beautiful Seattle Option's "growing support" hasn't really grown that much. And that's after, what, nearly a year of lobbying and propoganda ERRRRRR reporting from ECB.

Napleon XIII and Keshmeshi are right: Having proponents phrase the poll questions would certainly influence results and retrofit isn't an option.
This all certainly does in fact point to the need for leadership on this issue. Josh got it wrong in his previous viaduct post: It's not that we need to know whether the public wants a tunnel or not, which is just rooting for technology like Windows vs. Mac, but what do we want the function of the waterfront to be. The relevant questions then are whether we want the waterfront to be the location for a freeway or not and whether we want improved access to the waterfront amenities (or ecological restoration. From this general information, the public and politicians should get out of the way (except for monitoring of performance) while engineers design the best solution to meet the objectives within the constrains of money, geography and building codes. Engineering design can't be done by popular vote, though that's not to say the public can't be involved in the design review process.
Based on this poll, 81-88% of people interviewed want a freeway on the waterfront, while 44-51% want improved access to the waterfront. But, that's not how the poll was posed and I'm guessing the results would be different if it had been.

Wow Josh, could you take a darker look at the numbers? The Mayor wants the most expensive option and it comes out number 1 in a crowded field. I think Team Nickels should be happy with that.

Yes, just ask anyone from Boston. They love tunnels there, and know that digging a giant tunnel through the heart of your city center is absolutely not a way to generate a protracted financial and logistical fiasco.

Will in Seattle wrote: "Most people actually don't mind the tear down option, if it's the actual surface-plus-transit option where they tear down the viaduct, replace the current surface streets with a real six-lane road that has a bus/HOV/transit lane AND they double the local bus transit in the affected corridor."

Wow, with this kind of spin, Will in Seattle should go to work for the GOP this year. Like, most people don't mind the job George W. Bush is doing when you point out that we're winning the war in Iraq and the economy is great. Anyway, I'm glad to know Will in Seattle has his finger on the pulse of the people.

By the way, Will, if you're going to repeat the "underwater tunnel" lie, I'm happy to repeat that this is a "cut-and-cover" tunnel, not a deep tunnel. If a tunnel just below the surface is actually underwater, then how the hell is the current viaduct able to stand in the first place?

There seems to be a certain "Groundhog Day" quality to this whole debate. All the more reason for the City Council to just commit to something.

Josh: I know everyone tries to spin statistics, but if you want to convince people you can't be quite so blatent about it. Claiming that the 44% that the tunnel gets outright shows that "a majority of Seattle doesn't want it" while the 44% that you get by adding together the "Repair" and "Replace" responses puts it in "first place" makes you look like a nincompoop.

About the only things you can conclusively say from this data are: (1) The "Tear Down" option favored by mass transit radicals is very unpopular. (2) People are more-or-less split among the other three options, ensuring that any vote with all three on the ballot will leave about 2/3 of the voters unhappy.

Hijacked wrote: "Yes, just ask anyone from Boston. They love tunnels there, and know that digging a giant tunnel through the heart of your city center is absolutely not a way to generate a protracted financial and logistical fiasco."

Conclusion: all tunnels are the Big Dig. This is a bit like saying all baseball players are Barry Bonds or all vehicles are Hummers. Thanks for the great logic, Hijacked!

David,

That 44% is if money is no object. Unfortunately for tunnel supporters, it is, and voters know it - hence the fact that retrofit/rebuild gets the most votes in a head to head poll.

My beloved hometown's patented passive-aggressiveness strikes again. We can't reach a consensus that makes everyone happy after umpteen surveys and polls and committees and similarly useless bullshit, so we will do nothing until Mother Nature does it for us. Heaven forbid we do anything - someone somewhere might not like it!

(For the record, not that it matters, I'm a proponent of the tunnel, IF the seawall is replaced at the same time - the waterfront has to be dug up anyway to replace the seawall. This is the only chance we've got to really look to the future, not the past.)

Now do the the poll with the ONLY options that will be considered by WSDOT -- Tunnel or Rebuild. In that scenario I bet Tunnel will be the overwhelming majority. And, by the way, retrofit and rebuild ARE NOT THE SAME option.

What this tells me is the 'tear down and do nothing' folks really need to jump in bed with us Tunnel lovers and make sure we have a great waterfront and lots of transit on the surface street (which Seattle WILL get to program).

THE BOSTON EFFORT IN NO WAY COMPARES WITH SEATTLE'S NEEDS.

IN FACT, THE SO CALLED BIG DIG WAS BIGGER THAN MOST UNDERSTAND -- A MARVEL IN ITS COMPLEXITY AND CHALLENGES. NO WONDER IT COST SO MUCH AND TOOK SO LONG.

IT IS AN ENGINEERING MAZE OF ASTONISHING COMPLEXITIES.

CALLING THIS LITTLE HOMETOWN PROJECT THE BIG DIG IS BULL SHIT.

VERY SIMPLE STUFF IN MODERN ENGINEERING TERMS. NOTHING LIKE BOSTON.

X: I'm aware that the poll where the tunnel got 44% was the "money-is-no-object" poll. But Josh made a statement about that poll, so it's entirely valid to call him on it. The question of which poll is more relevent to the actual decision is a seperate one.

In these three-or-more options polls, there is always room for endless spin. The tunnel is the favorite option, but a majority oppose the tunnel. But when you add up the two options that keep a viaduct, they beat the tunnel. But when you add up the two options that remove the viaduct, they beat the two options the keep it. And so on...

For the first four years of Clinton's presidency, we had to keep hearing that he was opposed by a majority of the voters. To avoid that same phenomenon here, if there is a vote it needs to be between just two options: the tunnel, and either repair or replace. Whether the second option is repair or replace should be decided by the DOT, not the city council, since that is fundamentally an engineering decision.

Wow, a poll of 400 people, authored with lots of endpoints. You know what this tells us: pretty much nothing. In fact, the poll shouldn't have even been conducted. There's a fair chance the numbers do not represent the general public. This debate got a poling, not a polling!

We might stop and think, for once, that highly qualified experts in the appropriate field (in this case, engineers) should probably decide a complex issue. The viaduct will probably suffer major damage from an earthquake in the next thirty years. If The People would just STFU for once, the engineers might be able to (gasp!) build something between now and then that would tolerate a 'quake.

Josh,

C'mon buddy, you are spinning the numbers in such an obvous way. Are you now going to start the Surface Option taliban? Will it be as effective as your monorail taliban?

I am not super psyched with Nickel's on some issues, but on the tunnel he is showing the leadership that many politicians here lack. Vision and leading.

Josh, you say the tunnel doesn't have a majority of support in the poll. I say it is the #1 favored option, and out of the realistic ones, by far the most popular.

The Sonics are staying by the way. The silence from them and the mayor is defining.

You tunnel fans can live in denial all you want, but an Elway poll with a sample of 400 is money, as those things go.

There's a reason our tunnel-supporting Mayor wants to avoid a vote on that project - it would most likely lose.

A vote or poll which does not tell the voter (participant) how much money they will have to pay in new taxes is useless.

Go back and ask voters to authorize the $3-4 billion more we'll need for a tunnel and see what sort of results you get.

Until you ask people to start paying, you don't get useful information.

I favor the surface boulevard option too - but if you want to stop the idiots who want a repair/rebuild - foisting another Berlin wall between the the city and the waterfront for at least 50 years - all of us who support it had better start playing nice with the tunnel folks, or we'll get the hellhole of a waterfront we deserve.

Oh, and as for taxes - f*** that.

A toll is the way to go to get the extra money for the tunnel.

Let the jerks who really think they need a replacement put their money where their mouths are.

Geni touches on a good point. With this and other issues, we see several factions pushing their own individual agendas, instead of working together and brokering a compromise, or everyone compromising their own issues to get behind a single project. And that's the biggest problem of all with this viaduct. We've got the Mayor pimping his tunnel, ECB and the PWC brainwashing everyone they can with their rip-it-out plan, the WSDOT raring to rebuild, a sect in favor of retrofitting... GOOD LORD.

I don't know who to believe at this point, because everyone's stretching the truth to suit their own agendae. No one in this debate can be classified as unbiased.

I am unbiased. I don't think anyone has proposed what could be the best solution, but the Mayor's proposal is best on the table. It should however include more mass transit planning in it. The surface plan isn't so great and ain't going to happen, and where I do have a bias is against the rebuild. That is a shit idea if I've ever heard one. Got to give it up to Nickel's for leading the way on this one. Expect the Stranger to oppose whatever plan he supports as they are still drying their tears over the bungled monorail loss.

"Berlin Wall"? Oh, please.

As long as we're using that tired "cutting off downtown from its waterfront" mantra - as if you will be able to get one inch closer to water under any of these scenarios - let's also start talking about how eliminating SR 99 through downtown would cut Ballard and West Seattle off from downtown, as well as from other neighborhoods north and south.

10 years worth of different financial analysis all keeps arriving at the same conclusion - tolls are nowhere near enough to pay for this project - let alone a tunnel.

Oh, and you waterfront aesthetic types will just LOVE a 6-lane surface boulevard down Alaskan Way, I'm sure. Now THAT would cut the water off in a way the AWV doesn't even come close to...

"Also, isn't repair simply not an option?"

Of course Repair or Retrofit is an option. People favoring the Tunnel would have you believe that it is not feasible.

mike dodds--if you don't believe that sampling works, remember: next time your doctor wants to take a blood test, do insist that he takes ALL your blood.

The plurality of people surveyed want a tunnel, and the majority of people surveyed want there to be no viaduct (repaired or replaced) on the waterfront. That is a pretty convincing result. But it is fun to watch people try to spin this survey to suit their own biases. David Sucher is golden.

Please explain to me how 44% (32% + 12%) is greater than 49% (28% + 21%).

Mr. X,

It's not.

Keep the viaduct options: 28 + 21= 49.

Tunnel option: 32.

Tear Down (which is the boulevard option): 12.

The tunnel and tear down are not simpatico options like the "Repair" and "Rebuild" options are. So you don't add them together.

So, the plurality winner in that first question is 49% for sticking w the viaduct.

If "tolls are nowhere near enough to pay for this project - let alone a tunnel" - then why are we building it?

There's not enough demand, if that's the case.

What is it with Josh Feit? He's passionate about treating the mayor as Mr. Big, how come he's silent on Jan Drago?

She's the transportation chair.

C'mon Josh open your eyes, start reporting on how weak the council is and start holding them accountable. Drago was chair of the monorail committee, now the viaduct committee. Is there a pattern here, Josh? Pay attention.

Tunnel and tear down not simpatico?

They are to me - and many other people.

Josh,

I was refuting Cite's post, and agree with yours. I'll have to ratchet up the sarcasm to make my point, I guess.

New Urbanism,

I understand that they are simpatico in the sense that they are both about reconnecting downtown to the waterfront. If that's what you mean, I agree.

But at a more important level they are exact opposites. The tunnel option is about accommodating cars. The boulevard option is about changing our driving habits to de-prioritize cars.

It should be obvious that if there is a compromise option, it's the tunnel: handles the traffic, opens up the waterfront.

Sure, it costs more. Make the people who use it pay.

New Urbanism,

Actually, it's because the tunnel project is just TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE. As in, the most expensive 1.5 miles of road, EVER.

Josh: yes, in a perfect world, we'd choose the option that deprioritizes cars.

But as things are - wouldn't a toll dissuade them enough?

Mr. X,

Dumb on me. Sorry. Been a long day.
I'll go back to staying out of this thread.

X: yes, and the rebuild is the second most expensive.

What the heck, then let's just commit to (at least) another billion we don't have.

Oh, wait, that IS the Nickels plan - start digging, regardless of the cost....

It is not really possible to say objectively which options should be considered compatible enough to lump their supporters.

If your metric is cost, then teardown is your favorite option and the tunnel is your worst. If, on the other hand, your metric is opening up the waterfront, the the tunnel and the teardown are nearly substitutes and the re-build is the worst.

To really get a handle on public opinion, you'll have to present a poll with only two options. Presumably those should be a tunnel and a rebuild. Or the tunnel and the retrofit, if DOT says the latter is doable. But on no account should more than two options appear on the ballot.

But perhaps the confusion that results from many options is precisely what Josh et al. want. If the tunnel wins outright on a two-choice ballot, they have no argument left. But if it only wins a plurality in a three-or-more choice ballot, they can continue to argue endlessly against it on the grounds that it didn't win a majority.

As I've said before, why not put all options on the ballot - as independent options?

You could vote for as many of them as you'd support.

Then you'd get a clear idea of which is truly the compromise option - not the most favored of a plurality, but the most acceptable to the greatest majority.

Finally, let's do the math on a toll - say it's a buck a trip.

That's $100,000 a day.

That's $1 billion in 30 years.

That's about the difference between the rebuild and the tunnel.

Make it $2 a trip, and we're there.

Ever hear of net present value? The engineers at WSDOT have, and that's why they rejected tolls as a viable financing mechanism for this project years ago.

yes, I have heard of net present value

that's what inflates our estimates so much that voters quail at the cost

OTOH, to be more serious: consider that $1 or $2 to be the net present toll.

In future, it will rise with inflation.

Or if you need more money, tax downtown condo and buisiness suite occupiers, who will benefit most (perhaps) from eliminating the above-ground viaduct through the opening up of their views and the general beautification of the downtown area.

Hell, they're paying upwards of $1 million for luxury condos these days. Why not take a 5% tax every time someone sells a condo down there?

but it doesn't need to be a 6-lane surface freeway.

WSDOT's analysis presumes a bunch of things that aren't true, including an artificially constrained 2-lane Battery Street tunnel, and uses models that assume a never-ending growth in car trips regardless of any other factors that point in the opposite direction.

More importantly, if we actually tried to build a boulevard - a street that can handle significant volumes of cars AS WELL AS lots of peds, bikes, and a streetcar line - we could build something truly great on the waterfront, that would serve a variety of purposes (not just a car sewer). It's been done elsewhere - it is entirely possible to have both lots of cars and lots of people on the same street. Why not build that here?

As for the "make nice with the tunnel" argument - here's the thing: the tunnel is an awful lot of money. the opportunity cost of spending that money on this project means we don't spend that money elsewhere on something else we really need (insert your own pet project here). While I can't guarantee we will get that money for anything else, we at least have a chance at it...whereas if we throw it down the tunnel project, it's gone.

If the only choice I'm given (assuming there is a vote) is tunnel vs. aerial, I'll take the piddly little cut-and-cover tunnel with all its attendant disappointments versus the unmitigated disaster of blowing another great opportunity at taking advantage of our waterfront. But I hope it doesn't come to that.

Josh - stop the argument that the tunnel is just an option to accomodate more cars. The argument that creating worse traffic on downtown surface streets will reduce the number of cars is impractical. We need 99/ tunnerl for trucking and could use it for buses too. And cars aren't necassarily a bad thing, not if we make them enviromentally friendly, which is the trend. Think to the future when cars are smaller and environomentally neutral, Seattle's waterfront is open and traffic downtown isn't a total clusterfuck.

Who said "do you actually notice the money taken to pay for the Stadium"?!?!?

YES!

And I'm not paying for another stadium. If the Sonics don't like they can leave, and we'll use Key Arena for good teams like High School and College Basketball.

As to spin and my "double local transit" - I got that DIRECT from the State plan for the Elevated Viaduct Rebuild - asked questions directly of the staff to be sure - all plans involve that during the full life of the construction anyway, so it's not that hard to build it right and keep the doubled local transit that was ramped up during the Viaduct rebuild.

P.S.: the money for the underwater tunnel still comes out of Seattle-only taxpayer pockets, and with typical overruns, we're looking at DOUBLE the cost of the Elevated Viaduct rebuild which is already paid for by the state.

my mistake, i was looking at the second survey numbers, which does she a majority prefering the tunnel or tear-down (44% + 7%). But to say that the retrofit and the rebuild can be combined like they are the same thing is BS. People might support the retrofit because it much cheaper and because the viaduct would not have to be closed. The rebuild is extremely expensive and would leave us without any highway for years. So for Josh to say that those two can be combined but the tunnel & tear-down cannot, is simply his own wishful thinking. Sorry dude, but all four options are unique, and the fact is the tunnel won the plurality in both polls. Deal with it.

"if you need more money, tax downtown condo and buisiness suite occupiers, who will benefit most (perhaps) from eliminating the above-ground viaduct through the opening up of their views and the general beautification of the downtown area."

Fine idea except do it as a Local Improvement District so that the people who benefit the most have the choice whether to tax themselves i.e whether the benefits exceed the costs. If we really think that the benefits are so great for the CBD, the the "stakeholders" there should be delighted to tax themselves.

You know that secondary arterial you take thru your neighborhood when the big boy is backed up? Aren't you glad they built it for you way back when? That's the viaduct's current role for the urbans. I drive a ton for work and hate, hate, hate the no option option. The viaduct is the coronary bypass of I-5 that is vital for those needing to shoot from one end of downtown to the other. I-5 is for hydrogenated pilgramages, the viaduct is for getting shit done.

Dig a tunnel, throw a park on top -- SOMETHING -- or else you're gonna see your numerous Seattle, no-option, wah wah 'money', aggro-pedestrian, no-lookin'-both-ways, jaywalkin', unable-to-control-your-runnypants-children, perhaps-tourist, retard asses smeared onto the No-Balls surface grid. If the first blown-fuse-on-wheels misses ya, look out for the happy camper parade stopped at the red light the next block down.

Too expensive? And you (whoever your low-end ass is) just bought the last 350K, biggest-craphole-you-ever-saw-in-your-life-house? There's tons and tons of money in Seattle.

I smell something that's not coffee: it's that Northwest blend of selfish and self-righteously terrified, that's what that is.

Seattle and WSDOT should consider the four-lane bypass tunnel of the EIS with dynamic tolling and ramps to Western and Elliott avenues added. It could be affordable with the funds available. The preferred alternatives with six lanes would actually increase capacity by providing wider lanes and shoulders. A signal could be added at the Elliott Avenue on ramp. East Marginal Way South has several signals. We need not build a 70 mph freeway through downtown Seattle.

JESUS BICKERING CHRIST. More stubborn self righteous bickering, as my point goes sailing over everyone's self-righteous heads.

Somebody drop a nuke on this city. THERE is your fucking viaduct solution.

Josh, elementary to political thinking is that people will always lean towards the status quo. Go with what you know. Look how many idiots voted for Bush again. So it is hardly surprising that a majority of people at this point favor an elevated viaduct of some sort.

A polling expert could also conclude that it is a good sign that an elevated viaduct is under 50% already since that is what exists. But this poll means little because folks weren't educated on any costs, current funding, engineering or anything about the project. Presumably this would happen in a campaign. Personally, I don't think the voters are up to it, especially with all of the misleading rhetoric out there.

David Sucher misleads when he says the tunnel is $3-4 billion short of funding. WSDOT's estimate for the tunnel is $3.0-$3.6 billion. There is $2 billion from the state, $800 million from RTID, a probable $200 million from the Port. That puts the tunnel at the low end of the range already for financing. But they need to have at least $3.4 billion committed to have a reasonable chance of success.

The rebuild is estimated at $2.0 to 2.4 billion, so the money is in hand unless the RTID and Sound Transit fail at the ballot box in 2007. But the rebuilt viaduct will be even larger. To make a conscious decision to put another elevated structure on our waterfront is so unbelievably short-sighted that it is hard to fathom in educated Seattle.

The cost estimates for the tunnel and the rebuild are at the same level of risk. This is no big dig, but a 12 block cut-and-cover tunnel. Been done a million times including our bus tunnel. WSDOT is well recognized for a strong cost estimation process.

The retrofit/repair option is dumbest of all. The reason a new viaduct would be larger is because it would have such modern amenities such as shoulders and lanes wide enough for cars and trucks to fit in. The current viaduct is unsafe and prone to crippling accidents due to the lack of shoulders on the road for cars to pull over into. Any retrofit adds only 30 years at most to the life of the viaduct. This is worth a billion or more? For a crappy road to start with?

Face it, if you owned an ugly house with a bad foundation and drainage problems you would not spend half the cost of a new house to prop it up with braces on the outside and better drainage. The viaduct was built 60 years ago to handle 50,000 cars and last 50 years. Three quakes later it handles 120,000 cars and is literally falling apart. To try to fix up an unsafe road because you have no vision is the height of folly.

Finally the surface option. If there was transit included I might support it. But the state's money and the RTID and port money will go away. Leaving nothing for street improvements and nothing more for transit. In this state and political climate, roads money is roads money and transit money is transit money. Say no to a tunnel and you will end up helping to pay for a bigger better 520, or a few more lanes on 405. Most of the people who support this option either live in the center of the city like the Stranger staff or have some bizarre notion that they are striking a bold blow against car culture by helping build more sprawlways out in the burbs with Seattle's viaduct money.

BTW--David, they are already talking about LID's to pay for the park and amenities on top of the tunnel. And they are getting a good reception too.

fine tooth comb, whomever you are behind your mask, your arguments fails for me in its initial statement: "WSDOT's estimate for the tunnel is $3.0-$3.6 billion." I simply don't believe it that such numbers are anything but part of a sales pitch..

As to your remark that they (who?) "...are already talking about LID's to pay for the park and amenities on top of the tunnel." That's like saying "Build me a house and I will be happy to paint it, inside and out."

David Sucher -- It is typical of someone with such an entrenched position to simply not believe the cost estimates -- except of course when they support your own position. Just because you think it is a "sales pitch" by the DOT does not mean that it is one, and it certainly doesn't mean anyone else is going to go along with you. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it any more true. You don't have any special knowledge and you don't have a crystal ball. I think the DOT estimate sounds very expensive and if they were just trying to do a "sales pitch" they would make it lower than it is. And yes, that's just my opinion, but it's as valid as yours. And I don't even favor the tunnel, by the way. But I'll take a tunnel any day over a retrofit.

The funny thing is that, while folks on this thread are hammering away at each other, the City Council may actually be arriving at a viaduct solution, and one that involves compromise and incorporates elements of different proposals.

For example, if there's not enough money for a tunnel, establish the surface route as the backup. And it sounds like they're even willing to consider a point in between. I could swear I read a brief article recently in the P-I about the council looking that this very proposal from Eddiew:

"Seattle and WSDOT should consider the four-lane bypass tunnel of the EIS with dynamic tolling and ramps to Western and Elliott avenues added. It could be affordable with the funds available. The preferred alternatives with six lanes would actually increase capacity by providing wider lanes and shoulders. A signal could be added at the Elliott Avenue on ramp. East Marginal Way South has several signals. We need not build a 70 mph freeway through downtown Seattle."

Likewise, in the spirit of compromise and getting things done, it strikes me that paying the extra cost of the tunnel provides a wonderful opportunity to put in place some fair and enlightened taxes: the Local Improvement District (LID), tolls (and I realize tolls by themselves aren't gonna cut it). Instead of just fighting a road and failing, environmentalists have a chance to see a road built on their terms -- as in, no freeway.

Meinert,

"Josh - stop the argument that the tunnel is just an option to accomodate more cars. The argument that creating worse traffic on downtown surface streets will reduce the number of cars is impractical. We need 99/ tunnerl for trucking and could use it for buses too."

1) No, we don't need it for trucking. The Port of Seattle doesn't use it for the overwhelming majority of their freight traffic, and WSDOT's own numbers indicate the Viaduct carries no more truck trips than any standard arterial (approx. 5%). If we really are worried about freight (which we're not, it's a cover story) then dedicate a lane for freight, or do what other cities have done when confronted with an issue like this. Freight is simply not the issue.

2) Bus service - build a ramp from the rebuilt Spokane Street (which is in Greg's transportation package before Council currently) down to the busway. Run your West Seattle buses there. Tell me what other service uses the Viaduct? Much cheaper solution.
And cars aren't necassarily a bad thing, not if we make them enviromentally friendly, which is the trend. Think to the future when cars are smaller and environomentally neutral, Seattle's waterfront is open and traffic downtown isn't a total clusterfuck.

"And cars aren't necassarily a bad thing, not if we make them enviromentally friendly, which is the trend. Think to the future when cars are smaller and environomentally neutral, Seattle's waterfront is open and traffic downtown isn't a total clusterfuck."

Ha.

"which is the trend". Mmm...right. Tell that to the Hummer people. Cars and the infrastructure required to support them aren't ever going to be "environmentally neutral" - I suspect you're referring to CO2 neutral, and even that is a massive leap from the status quo.

And I'm really not at all clear how any large city avoids having mountains of downtown traffic. The only one I've seen that doesn't is Vancouver, where driving rates have actually declined. However, Vancouver has made a ton of decisions over the past 30 years that we have not. In other words, much like folks say about noise, with traffic, it's a city - it's a fact of life. Spend your money on options to getting around.

And for the record, Cressona, if Council decides that 4-lane tunnel is their preferred alternative, things get interesting. If the State is adamant about the car culture, well, at least perhaps we can show them something different here. Tolls might work in that scenario as the very nature of the project changes.

John wrote: "And for the record, Cressona, if Council decides that 4-lane tunnel is their preferred alternative, things get interesting. If the State is adamant about the car culture, well, at least perhaps we can show them something different here. Tolls might work in that scenario as the very nature of the project changes."

Not only is the state adamant about the car culture, the residents of Seattle unfortunately are adamant about the car culture. A tunnel gives the rare opportunity to give 'em what they want and at the same time sabotage that same car culture. Spending the gas tax to preserve existing capacity is a lot better than spending it to widen roads in the suburbs. More important, the best alternative we have to sprawl, besides mass transit, is a desirable downtown, and hiding a highway is a big step in that direction.

As far as I know, Nickels' tunnel proposal leaves a lot to be desired. It strikes me that the most effective use of political energy at this point involves pushing for a more sensible tunnel plan: don't spit out traffic at the Pike Place Market, use tolls, use a LID tax, do four lanes, etc. It's worth noting that Transportation Choices Coalition, the most prominent transit advocacy organization in the state, is taking very much this approach.

If there's anything to be learned from hard political problems, it's that your most ardent friends sometimes can be your worst enemies. Look at Israel where the Orthodox settlers have undermined Israel's security and prosperity, and the likes of Arafat and Hamas have undermined Palestinians' political aspirations. The surface route works fine as a backup plan for the tunnel, but at some point Cary Moon and gang have to realize their plan is about as popular as Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaigns and unite to fight a common enemy.

Regarding truck traffic around the viaduct: True, truck traffic from the port doesn't use the viaduct as a main flyover of downtown. All that truck traffic is what you avoid by taking the viaduct. All the surface streets from Seneca to the 1st Ave S. bridge are dominated by trucking ingress to/egress from the port, heavy train cargo moving, not to mention ferry traffic/staging. You avoid all that on the viaduct. Short of moving the port, I don't see how merging these currently separated layers will be an improvement. They should both be left to do their own things. Build a tunnel, redesign the surface commercial-use layout, and landscape the shit out of the rest of it for a stroll through the park. Let's go, people.

Trucks don't necessarily use the viaduct, but METRO BUSES certainly do, the same Metro buses that are part of the PWC's beloved surface/transit option. If buses from West Seattle can't get Downtown in bumper to bumper traffic (much like it couldn't following the Nisqually quake), then transit isn't any more attractive an option than sitting in said traffic in your car. (BTW, the Green Line, aka Plan A in G.Cogswell's master plan, with the viaduct teardown being Plan B... wouldn't have helped matters much. At absolute best, it wouldn't transported a couple thousand residents from West Seattle to Downtown, hardly a dent in matters)

So then what? Do you tell everyone in West Seattle to quit their jobs in Downtown and North Seattle if they don't like it?

Initiative 91 stops the Sonics tax giveaway. You can do something about the Sonics. You can keep them out of your pocketbook. Grab a copy of I-91--some Strangers have them, if not, request one at citizensformoreimportantthings.org--sign it, get a friend or two to sign it, and send it in. Do it today. Thanks.

A few facts for the ongoing discussion -- from a Surface+Transit supporter:

1) Most freight will not be allowed in a tunnel, and will have to go on the streets anyway.

2) A tunnel will eliminate the existing Downtown entrance and exit, so the +/- 20,000 vehicles currently traveling from West Seattle into Downtown everyday will have to exit at either Western or by the stadiums and travel on city streets.

3) Surface proponents expect re-connecting some existing streets as part of the plan, offering MORE options for vehicles to access Downtown than we have today.

4) If the Viaduct is going to be closed for a MINIMUM of 4 years and possibly as long as 10+ years -- and everyone has to either use I-5, transit, or city streets anyway -- then why not just choose that as an option since we have to implement most of the Surface+Transit plan anyway?

FIND "facts"
REPLACE "propaganda"

There, Mickymse, fixed that for you.

At this point, I just want the state to ram a plan down Seattle's throat and start construction, just to shut everyone up.

Gomez has BINGO! Something, for chrissakes, Seattle; do SOMETHING. Nothing against the pothole patrol or choo choo ST charlie (ah, remember 1996?). C'mon, clap, clap, snap, snap, slap, slap, let's go, let's go, let's go!

LET'S GO, AC-TION!! :clap clap clapclapclap: LET'S GO, PRO-GRESS! :clap clap clapclapclap:

Gomez, do you actually read anything written or simply re-state your personal opinion?

Note that I said "built a connection to the busway for West Seattle buses". It's a necessary component of any management plan for the long period of time when the Viaduct is unavailable in any scenario, anyway...otherwise those bus riders are truly screwed.

Your potshots at the Green Line (which are wrong, but hey, who needs facts) notwithstanding, I don't know anyone who's actually serious about this issue who's trying to screw over West Seattleites who use transit.

And as for your comments about Mickeymse's comments, well, gee, you're wrong again - there won't be a tunnel exit downtown anyway in the current plan...which means, guess what, all those West Seattle folks are going to have to be routed around, either by the stadiums or to Western, in the tunnel scenario. Which means those downtown streets are going to be busy, regardless.

I ignore proposals from random people like you, John, usually because these pie in the sky proposals haven't been researched or troubleshot, the way civil/transport engineers research and troubleshoot their plans (since, of course, their plans have to actually WORK for them to keep their jobs). I don't humor pipe dreams.

Now anyway, you realize that the reason traffic from West Seattle comes over one bridge is because the topography made it impossible to build any other roads into Seattle? Why anyone would want to live in a neighborhood with only one rickety highway leading to Downtown Seattle is beyond me, but I don't make their choices. That said, by choosing to live in West Seattle, these folks have essentially screwed themselves. Nothing really can be done to solve their problem short of mass-mandating their usage of transit. I'm not say screw them, John, because they fundamentally are already screwed. Many screwed themselves by choosing to live there. Building a multibillion dollar tram that served only a handful of them wouldn't have solved their problem.

Also, Mickeymse stating speculative statistics as FACTS is incorrect. M cannot go out right now and physically prove anything that was stated.

Except for her 2nd point, of course. We agree on that.