Why shouldn't they pay? They'll reap direct benefits from the increased attractiveness of their property.

Especially those multi-million-dollar penthouse buyers - and even those fools who keep driving even 1 bedroom prices well beyond the reach of any reasonable person.

They will pay. Their increased property taxes will show up in the general fund...for the whole city to benefit.

I'm saying: Don't keep the money down there. If we're already prioritizing public money to build this thing at the exclusion of other citywide needs...than at least, let's let the potential financial benefits flow back to the rest of the city.

Josh: The reason we are just hearing about this new pot of money is that the Gov.'s expert review panel started its work this week, and it has to have a report out on Sept. 1 saying there will be enough money for the 520 bridge replacement (whatever that will look like) and the viaduct rebuild/tunnel. That panel needs some more money to "work with" for its report.

Look at the map in the P-I. Roughly half of the properties are to the south of where the tunnel would be. The tax zone goes all the way to what, Spokane Street?

Why ever in the world should *they* be taxed for this?

LIDs like this work well when the thing being funded is useful and beneficial to the payers. This is not the case here: the new highway will be unusable to those paying this extra tax. The tunnel isn't for them; with no exits downtown, people who live and work downtown are expected to use surface streets. WSDOT estimates tunnel usage to be only 65,000 or 70,000 cars a day, since only cars bypassing downtown will use it.

The benefit to downtown property owners derives from removing the viaduct, not from building another highway. It makes great sense to ask downtown property owners to help pay for the new park that can be created post-viaduct. But not for a very expensive new highway they can't even use.

We'll all pay.

The elevated viaduct can be replaced using state dollars - with no tolls.

Or we can build a tunnel, get tolls to use what used to be FREE, get ZERO view while we're stuck in it, have NO EXIT DOWNTOWN, and pay every single cent beyond the much cheaper cost of an elevated viaduct replacement.

EVERY
SINGLE
DOLLAR
WILL
COME
FROM
ONLY
SEATTLE
TAXES!

Think about it.

Look, I used to rent at the Harbor Steps, with an 8th floor view right over the top of the viaduct - and if they had come to me and asked if, as a renter, I'd be willing to pay a yearly tax not only to have that sucker torn down - but to have no 6-lane surface boulevard put in its place either - I'd willingly have coughed up 10% on top on my rent for that - maybe more.

Oh, and when I lived at the Steps, I rarely if ever go on the viaduct to go out of town.

I prefered surface streets myself.

You should have tried the Columbia onramp if you were going south - it kicks ass (even w/the merge into traffic from the left).

65,000 - 70,000 trip is a hell of a lot of trips that will not be routed onto city streets. Giant boulevards suck and we won't get much park space if we build a giant boulevard on the waterfront.

I was just in San Francisco and I can't believe people are pushing for something that resembles the Embarcadero. I was on a tour bus and it took us 45 minutes to go four blocks. One side of the street has nothing to do with the other and it is NOT pedestrian friendly...and that is supposed to be a GOOD example of the giant boulevard concept?

Josh,
Me Thinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much

Why should the city bear the bulk of the cost here?

I say tax the northern and southern 'burbs for this fiasco. It's the long-distance car commuters who stand to benefit the most.

The fairest financing plan for both the viaduct and 520 seems to be massive tolls, in perpetuity. Let people pay the true costs of their suburban lifestyle. Poor working class folks could be given a free or discounted pass.

City tax dollars should go for grade-seperated mass transit. Peroid.

Excellent point, Cary. Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear the Mayor call this a "remove the Viauduct" tax?

Part of the reason the taxing district goes to the south of the existing elevated structure is that that is the area most affected by need of seawall replacement. That's also one of the most seriously deteriorated parts of the entire structure. The worst damage after the Nisqually Quake was at Washington Street, but there was delamination and cracking on the south end of the AVW, too.

It's an old road, nearing the end of its original expected lifespan. It's a blight on the city's landscape. It creates a horrid, dark, dangerous cavern beneath it at one of the parts of the city that should be the most vibrant. I hate it. Can you tell?

Oh, and I drive on it all the time, since I work in Burien - anytime I need to come into the city after work, that's the route I take. My husband works construction and frequently takes jobs in Seattle, and that's by far his preferred route to points west in the city (Greenwood, Fremont, et al.).

Hell, why not both taxes to pay the difference between another viaduct and a tunnel: tax property owners downtown for their new view and restored neighborhood, and tax commuters who insist they need this local bypass arterty via a toll - would $5 per trip be too much?

Not with gas nearing that per gallon.

Like Tunnel of Love, I've visited SF's Embarcadero - and also the huge surface boulevard that replaced the Westside Freeway in NY.

While it's an improvement on the freeway - it's even less pedestrian friendly than the Embarcadero.

When I was there, it seemed only teenage gang members has the guts to cross it, and they were having a rumble in the new pier park area.

Will in Seattle wrote: "Or we can build a tunnel, get tolls to use what used to be FREE, get ZERO view while we're stuck in it, have NO EXIT DOWNTOWN, and pay every single cent beyond the much cheaper cost of an elevated viaduct replacement."

Wow, with talk like this, Will in Seattle, shouldn't you perhaps be "Will in Issaquah" or "Will in Los Angeles"?

If you're going to be defending the God-given, inalienable American rights to drive on public roadways for free and to be distracted by a beautiful view while you're hurtling along at 50 miles an hour in thousands of pounds of steel, you might consider helping out Jim Horn with his lobbying efforts in Olympia. Or ExxonMobil with their lobbying efforts in the other Washington.

Why is it that downtown boosters (and would-be "New Urbanists") get so self-righteous about their notion that world revolves around them?

Yes, $5 per trip is TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE for a trip through a 1.5 mile tunnel that benefits a relatively small part of the City at the direct expense of vast swaths of the rest of it.

80,000+ people live in West Seattle, and a similar number live in NW neighborhoods.

Can we talk about the greatest good for the greatest number, for once?

I don't know, isn't continuing to debate San Francisco's no-build replacement of the Embarcadero a bit like debating what kind of president Ralph Nader would make?

Seattle Native-

$5 a trip is what the ability to drive from west seattle and the northwest neighborhoods costs. Why should't it be borne by those who will use it?

$5 a trip * 60,000 trips per day = $300k per day. * 250 work days per year = $75 mil per year.

$4 billion / $75 mil per year = 53 years, or about the useful life of the tunnel.

If $5 a trip is "TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE" go buy a bike. The gas alone for that trip is at least that...

That is exactly the kind of elitist bullshit I'm talking about. Not everyone can "just ride a bike" for a 10+ mile commute, and most people can't afford to move downtown either.

BTW - the gas doesn't cost nearly that unless you're driving a Hummer - and most people aren't.

I live in Seattle, Cressona. You can move to Boston and enjoy their tunnels if you want.

Oh, and if we spent the difference in money between an elevated viaduct (paid for by the state) and an underwater tunnel (all beyond viaduct cost paid by Seattle only) on bus service, we could literally QUINTUPLE BUS SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

No more 30 minute waits - it would be 10 minutes max, even at 1 am.

Think about it. Then just say no to the underwater boondoggle.

Boston. Big Dig. Hmm... So all tunnels are the Big Dig. Y'know, I think the Chunnel cost even more than the Big Dig. Why not just say we're in for another Chunnel?

Anyway, Will in Seattle, I appreciate your determination to stay in Seattle and try to turn it into Los Angeles or Houston, rather than just take the easy route and move to Los Angeles or Houston.

Will in Seattle wrote: "Oh, and if we spent the difference in money between an elevated viaduct (paid for by the state) and an underwater tunnel (all beyond viaduct cost paid by Seattle only) on bus service, we could literally QUINTUPLE BUS SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE CITY."

You build an elevated highway along the downtown waterfront, we're stuck with it for at least another 100 years. You expand bus service, we could lose it next year. This kinda has to do with why I was a monorail supporter, but Will in Seattle, I suppose you wouldn't be able to identify with that.

All the "just ride a bike" rhetoric in the world will not alter the fact that a fairly significant percentage of traffic along the AVW are people like my husband. He's a small business owner, a carpentry contractor, who has to drive to worksites. He doesn't have the option of riding transit or riding a bike - he has to carry materials to jobsites. He doesn't have the option of moving closer to his workplace; he doesn't dictate where his customers will be coming from. And $5 a trip would cripple his business, and a lot of other small businesses like it.

Yes, we'd be willing to pay a toll to use a tunnel, but $5 a trip is a bit extortionate.

And Will, why do you keep insisting on it being an "underwater" tunnel? Does that kind of framing make you feel better about it? NO part of the proposed tunnel will be underwater, not unless they're stupid enough not to rebuild the seawall. If they don't rebuild the seawall, we'll be lucky if the entire fill area of the waterfront isn't underwater after the next quake. You're usually a sensible fellow, so I don't understand your insistence on that terminology.

As with every 'city-improvement plan', the goal is to flush out the older, lower income business owners and replace them with richer, higher revenue business owners. It's the same concept that fuels gentrification in the name of urban renewal and improvement.

Gomez wrote: "As with every 'city-improvement plan', the goal is to flush out the older, lower income business owners and replace them with richer, higher revenue business owners. It's the same concept that fuels gentrification in the name of urban renewal and improvement."

I'm with Gomez here. All the rich people belong in the suburbs. Let the suburbs get flush and corrupt; the city can stay poor and virtuous. Just look at how the yuppies destroyed Fremont.

In fact, I say we do whatever we can to reduce property values in the city. That way we can reduce our property taxes in the process. Starve the beast, baby.

"Not everyone can "just ride a bike" for a 10+ mile commute, and most people can't afford to move downtown either."

I actually commute 15 miles per day by bicycle. There are more choices than downtown penthouse and suburban mcmansion. There are many afforable places that just aren't on a quarter acre lot.

I'm not saying "don't drive", but there is *nothing* elitist about saying pay for your own damn usage of the roads. Want to live in burien? Fine. Don't make *me* pay for your choice. This is a perfect example of dine-and-dash conservatism.

Look at a place like chicago, where every major freeway is tolled. People survive, small buisiess survives. I call bullshit on a small toll ending any company.

Remember, $5 a trip is what this boondoggle costs, assuming it even lasts 50 years. That doesn't even count upkeep! Why should people who accept a smaller home for a shorter commute pay for others to insist on the suburban lifestyle?

What about tolling based on traffic time? Or income? There are fair ways to do this, but "the city should pick up the tab" isn't one of them.

Every day,
They say we pay
A toll each way.

But if you say
No way,
No toll to pay,
Hip hip hooray!

Underwater Tunnel Haiku, by Will

Dude,

West Seattle isn't the "suburbs" - it's in the City limits.

Will in Seattle:

• "Underwater tunnel."
• "Underwater tunnel."
• "Underwater tunnel."
• "Underwater tunnel."

Can someone help me here? I thought it was Lenin who said "A lie repeated enough times becomes the truth." But I go searching on the Internet and see the quote attributed to Chairman Mao and Joseph Goebbels.