August 11, 11:31 AM 59
We Can Stop the Largest Tax Increase in Seattle History
Michael McGinn is the Only Candidate for Mayor Who Will Stop the Tunnel — the Largest Tax Increase in Seattle History.
Three things you should know about the proposed tunnel megaproject.
- It will cost $4.2 billion, requiring the largest tax increase in Seattle history.
- There will be no downtown on-ramps or exits, making it useless for 59.8% of current viaduct traffic.
- Seattle taxpayers are liable for all cost overruns — which could be in the billions.
There are smarter and cheaper solutions to replacing the viaduct. Seattle has many urgent needs and our tax dollars must be spent responsibly. It’s time to say NO to the tunnel and YES to listening to the people. Together we can build a community based on Seattle’s real priorities.
TRANSIT
We can improve transit by expanding light rail, adding bus service, and increasing biking and walking choices. I will work with Metro to make overcrowded buses a thing of the past.
EDUCATION
I agree with the Obama Administration that mayors should be responsible for city schools. I will turn Seattle schools around, and be held accountable for their success or failure.
TECHNOLOGY
Seattle needs to upgrade its Internet infrastructure to faster fiber optic networks to connect more people and stay competitive in the world economy.
Please vote for Michael McGinn for Mayor on August 18.
Airlines are required by law to have no passengers without seats and seat belts. The occupants of every auto, whether on I-5 or elsewhere in the area, are rightfully required to wear seat belts. By contrast, Seattle Metro riders have no seat belts available. In last winter’s snow and ice we almost had a bus dive nose-first through a retaining wall onto I-5. What chance would its passengers have had without seats and seat belts? Every day there are buses such as the 71 Express barreling down I-5, often with “standees”. Sooner or later there will be an accident. What chance is there that any of the passengers, seated or not, can avoid being an unguided missile? Is it possible to have seat belts on transit buses, starting with those that travel at high speeds?
I completely agree. And the same with school buses. Whenever I talk to someone about it, they cite all the statistics to say how safe it is. And statistically, riding the bus is very safe. But the reality is - if there IS a serious accident, bus riders are vulnerable to serious injuries or death. At least give people the OPTION to wear a seat belt if they want to.
I am not a strong proponent of the tunnel, but I do think this is a done deal and we should move forward. The tunnel shouldn’t have on and off ramps for downtown, the idea is to move the bulk of the traffic through the downtown bottleneck, leaving streetlevel service to handle the rest. As to the rest of our street infrastructure, we need to quit building new roads and concentrate on fixing the ones we have and expand bus & light rail service.
The problem is that “the bulk of the traffic” doesn’t move through downtown. 60% of the trips on the AWV go TO downtown. The deep-bore tunnel bypasses downtown. So not only would it cost billions but the tunnel would actually cause more traffic in the downtown grid.
When you take into account that part of the funding plan for the tunnel is to toll it you see that even more trips will get diverted onto downtown streets and I5.
But the tunnel is so expensive that there is no money left to improve I5 or add extra transit to take cars off the road.
I know it sounds like a silver bullet: put all that traffic underground and solve the problem. But it is not a silver bullet. It’s a really bad idea.
The tunnel is not a new road it is a replacement road. The tunnel has exits at each end of downtown plus a less congested waterfront to distribute traffic and additional roads at the seattle center as well. With regart to funding…the state is paying for the viaduct and cost overruns are calculated into their number at +27% and the Beacon Hill tunnel came in at 22% UNDER budget. A street option would be a tragedy for livability in Seattle.
My biggest issue with knocking the tunnel out of the picture is that the street option just doesn’t sound viable to me at all, and no amount of talk will convince me. I may be wrong on that, but I can’t see it working. And to go against a choice that has finally been made, 20 years after we knew it had to be made, strikes me as too little too late. We need an option now, not more dialogue about it.
I’d love to vote for someone other than Drago or Nickles, but this one subject on your platform makes me very uncomfortable.
The biggest lie here is about the tunnel causing a great tax increase. McGinn is using disinformation and distortion as the flagship of his campaign. The tunnel is being paid for along with a +27% overrun . The Beacon Hill tunnel was 22% under budget. The 930 mil we pay for street/transit/seawall will be spent even with the street option. Absolutely disingenuous!
I agree that busses without seatbelts aren’t the safest. But the bus that almost went over the embankment in the ice storm wasn’t a Metro bus, it was a private bus, from out of state. There is nothing the mayor can do to require private busses from out of state to have seatbelts.
Thanks Mike!
You have my support.
I am sick and tired of our officials not listing to what the voters have to say, I hope you can make a difference.
Please no tunnel.
So, if your answer is “no” to the tunnel viaduct, what is your plan? It’s been 20 years too long without an answer, and Seattleites aren’t willing to wait much longer, aka until it collapses on itself.
i’ve heard Mike say, several times, that he prefers the I-5/surface/transit option that was deemed a feasible alternative by WSDOT during the stakeholder process a few years back.
It’s fine to say what he prefers. It’s another thing entirely to get the State legislature to do an about-face on legislation that has already been enacted, and to convince them that the State should pay for a new sea wall while dramatically reducing intra-state traffic. How long has it taken to get the tunnel plan approved? And how long will it take to build new consensus?
need to answer how you keep the viaduct safe. having no solution is a very serious public safety issue. i dont care if we replace it. it works fine. but we need to know it is safe. it is unforgiveable that we all know a major earthquake will bring it down - yet the city and state do nothing. i cannot support a candidate that does not have an answer to this question.
Mike,
I was expecting to find your plan for replacing the viaduct somewhere on this website. For you to win this election, we need to start hearing your plan NOW. I am a West Seattle resident who uses the viaduct frequently. It has been a main thruway for residents on the west side of greater Seattle for much longer than I5. It’s commercial traffic use is high. Sending this traffic to I5 would be a mistake. My “wish list” for a viaduct replacement includes: build something that is pro-taxpayer, not pro-downtown property owners, keep costs down, provide a corridor for traffic passing through Seattle (maintain it’s original highway function). I do not agree with having exits right downtown. This causes a huge traffic backup and does not encourage downtown workers to take the bus. Finding other routes into town for cars could be incorporated into a new viaduct — many of the plans already presented have done this (including the tunnel plan).
Mike, tell us what you are planning for the viaduct!
Mike,
I too was disappointed that you did not have your alternate to the planned tunnel replacement to the viaduct on your web site. If you have a plan that will (a) remove the viaduct (b) beautify and open up our waterfront (c) will continue to provide freight mobility for the port (d) will not overly congest the already bottlenecked I5 as it passed through downtown (e) will cost less than the current plan and (f) can realistically acheive concensus quickly enough to proceed shortly, we need to see it and see it now. Otherwise, you are obstructing a project important to the city (likely for your own personal idealogical reasons) and only perpetuating Seattle’s pathetic inability to get anything done. Vancouver BC and Portland are both passing us by in terms of livability and quality of life, largely because they find the way to get things done.
RE: Viaduct Replacement Plan
We have a very carefully considered compromise plan in place, that addresses the complex needs of all the various stakeholders. It will result in a beautifully re-opened waterfront, a new sea wall as well as transit, bike, auto and freight mobility through what is a very busy corridor. The compromise was negotiated over a period of months by a well qualified stakeholder committee. To kill the viaduct replacement solution that’s been agreed to and start all over again strikes me as a miscalculation that would be yet another sad chapter in Seattle’s schizophrenic history of transportation planning. I don’t think that to funnel all of the region’s car, bus and freight traffic through an I-5 bottleneck makes any sense.
I agree with almost everything I hear from McGinn’s camp - except the lack of “other options” to the tunnel plan. I commute along the viaduct every day with a two-year old in my backseat. The viaduct as it stands is NOT safe. I can’t believe we can’t come up with a solution, and I can’t vote for someone that says the tunnel is not the solution but doesn’t offer up any immediate alternatives. Did we not learn from San Francisco? The viaduct is an urgent problem that requires an immediate solution. Sorry Mike.
The tunnel option allows the viaduct to be in full operation until the tunnel is complete… which means zero disruption to traffic during construction. (The viaduct won’t be torn down until the tunnel is finished.) Isn’t there tremendous value in that? Downtown traffic would be a disaster for the several years that it would take to complete the surface street option…
Mike,
I like how you make it sound like Seattle will have to come up with 4.2 billion. You don’t explicitly state that, but with a quick read that’s how it comes off. Props to you for trying to confuse us.
Furthermore, the current viaduct is like a set of ugly braces on the face of our beautiful city. Surface streets sound fine at first, but if you put in a whole pile of stop lights then that defeats the entire purpose of having a viaduct. The tunnel option will enhance the beauty of the city and maintain a functional thoroughfare as it is intended to do. How can you ignore this? All for what another tax? Seattle doesn’t seem to have a problem taxing everything else, for what reason would they disapprove of this one. I am very fiscally conservative, but this is an INVESTMENT in the future of the city. The surface streets idea is a Band-Aid on a significant future problem. How about we prevent rework and do it right the first time.
Only improvement I can see for the viaduct is to expand it to 3 lanes in each direction for future traffic. Our population isn’t on the decline…
The street proposal reminds me of Chicago. If you think the viaduct cuts us off from waterfront activities, wait until we have 6 lanes of traffic with stop lights etc… When we were in Chicago with 2 small kids, we realized we were actually safer crossing against the lights because there were so many vehicles trying to make left and right turns while we were crossing. One of the vehicles that nearly ran us over was a police cruiser. We stood a better chance jaywalking.
Brandon,
This whole tunnel is a very hard thing for many people to swallow. “ugly braces on the face of our beautiful city”…….Those are the words that make people like me so vehemently opposed to this tunnel. Let me explain.
The viaduct has been here since 1953 and everyone is painting it as ugly. Public safety is a tangential issue as to why the tunnel should is being built. The main issue is the tunnel bypasses any utilitarian function of a road. This is a 4.2 billion dollar tunnel for vanity sake.
It is nice to live in a place so beautiful as Seattle but we need to move traffic and conduct business. The container traffic is ugly, Boeing plants are ugly. Traffic is just plain ugly. Shall we do away with business for the beautification of Seattle.
I think that we need to move traffic. The tunnel wont move traffic so what type of solution is it? This is done at an extremely high cost. I know there are some peripheral costs but mainly this is just a waste of money.
If the idiots currently in office will put a solution in front of us, then we can find a solution. I am also a small businessman and the this state, city, and county are hanging and bleeding me with their taxes. This is happening to everyone. This tunnel is actually anti-business and anti-human. It needs to be stopped.
Open to picking a new mayor for Seattle and took a hard look at your website. I am in favor of the tunnel or at least a viable soluition that brings the viaduct down. Your website only says you’ll stop the tunnel. Not much of a platform. It means I will look elsewhere for a candidate
The tunnel will be a huge cost to the taxpayers, yes. So will any other responsible idea on the table. At least the tunnel will improve the Seattle waterfront, increase tourism, and bring in more businesses to boost the economy. This is a long-term investment to improve our fair city and possibly give us a recognizable major tourist attraction (the park/additional business) like most of the city’s we are trying to compare ourselves to. Come to the table with solutions, not more problems.
Yo Mike - What IS your plan for the viaduct. If you want to be mayor, and you want my support, you’ll have to give us more to work on that “I don’t like it”. Tell us what you would do!
Really need to know what your viaduct plan is immediately, I am like 75% of Seattle voters and will vote for ANYONE besides our current mayor, but I (and others) need your answer immediately in order for us to stand behind you.
I am asking the same question to Mallahan as this is the biggest subject to me personally and will be the deciding factor for who I will actually cast my vote.
We need your answer…..
Mike
I have been working on another option to the viaduct for the past two years. I submitted my “trench” plan to :the mayor, city council, op-ed columns, and attended the town hall meeting.
After drawing concepts, and thinking - through an inexpensive construction method, the powers that be changed the budget from 2.8 billion to 4.3 billion so they could force-feed their tunnel project through. Shape changing…
Mike,
I love your green stance and your advocacy for better land use and design aesthetics for Seattle’s neighborhoods.
But your position on the tunnel is misguided. It’s the best option we’ve had on this issue, and one of only a few that won’t ruin the city and its west-side neighborhoods. And better yet, it’s been decided and is moving forward. Your opposition to it now is more of the same Seattle never-stick-with-a-decision politics.
I’d love to vote for you, so please rethink your position, or else I can’t.
I agree completely. I find myself aligned with McGinn on most issues, and I’m even willing to forgive a lack of political experience, but I cannot vote for a man committed to fighting a pointless war with the state over this issue. Unless McGinn backpedals on his tunnel crusade, I can’t vote for him.
I concur
Mike McGinn - nothing new here - same old politics of distorting the truth and using scare tactics about tax increases to dupe the public, while Seattle infrastructure crumbles. Mike - are Seattle tax payers footing the entire bill for the $4.2 billion. Last time I looked the state was putting up $2 billion, and the federal gov’t was also contributing. So how much is the city really putting up? What is your plan for 110,00 cars a day? You skated into the primary - so we are awaiting some answers - not just beating up Greg Nickels.
The truth is that the 930 mil we’ll spend on the viaduct project goes to street/transit/sea wall/utility relocation that must be done in any event. He’s talking about walking away from a 2.4 Bil gift to make our city better. Nuts.
MichaelBob,
The so-called $2.4B “gift” you site seems more like a “trick or trap”. Sounds more like bribe money.
Mike. Early next week I am mailing you a short description and drawings of the “trench” option to replace the viaduct. If you see value in the idea, this should be an answer to the folks that claim” you never come up with concrete plans, just vague promises”
As past five-year chairman of The Great Cross Sound rowing Race, I acknowledge and appreciate your sierra Club affilliation. Like to join your campaign within my limitations.
The idea of a trench sounds intriguing to me, Tom Bush. I hope that Mike McGinn will take a look at your idea and consider it. As a West Seattlite there is no way that I can vote for McGinn if his plan is just to have surface streets to replace the viaduct. The viaduct makes living in West Seattle while enjoying Seattle possible, and it was very useful when I lived in Seattle as well. Frankly, I hope to spread the word in West Seattle to get the vote out for Mallahan unless McGinn comes up with a plan that is friendly to West Seattle.
I would not want to have to use I5 every time I needed a thoroughfare. Ugh. The idea is very discouraging to consider. Also, when I moved to Seattle one of the things that immediately impressed me was how cool it was to drive on the viaduct with the water and mountains stretched on one side and a view into the city on the other, and all my visitors have always felt the same. On the other hand I can see the value in a waterfront area without the sound of the viaduct. However, being from Kansas, I think the sound just adds a cool urban feel to the waterfront area–if I want to feel like I am in nature I can go to nature. This is a city, so I enjoy the urban feel when I am here. I almost always take visitors on a walk through Pioneer Square and then over to the waterfront/aquarium and they always find the urban feeling of the area thrilling. The viaduct really does add to that.
But a trench thoroughfare may just be the perfect compromise. Less expensive than a tunnel, I would think. Still providing a thoroughfare. And could probably be done with the viaduct still up. Seems perfect.
The viaduct is the best view in Seattle!!! If we cannot figure out a way to fix it so that it is safe we should instead keep it but MAKE THE BRIDGE INTO A GREEN SPACE so that we have a beautiful, unique structure on the water front with the best views in Seattle.
Imagine if the viaduct became a beautiful park where you can see into the building on one side and have this spectacular view on the other!!
“The viaduct if the best view in Seattle” People are not going to be thinking that when there is an earthquake… It has been repeatedly recommended that replacing the viaduct is the only viable solution. Fixing it to make it safe will not work in the long run…
Regarding the tunnel, if there are no downtown on-ramps or exits what is the point in doing it?
I do not think that streets are the answer though. Look at how backed up the street-level traffic already on the water front! Its a terrible idea. The viaduct provides something unique to Seattle–a means of quickly moving from one end of the city to another without having to go way over to I 5. What is so hard about coming up with an alternative that still provides everything that the viaduct offered–with exits and entries?
I think this idea of the trench sounds interesting. It would probably cost less, reduce noise, and could have exits and entries.
But I still prefer replacing the viaduct as the best idea of all.
The downtown exits need somewhere to go and the tunnel will be deep under downtown to build it cheaply. There will be better access at each end. Perhaps this will encourage perimeter parking and a better more livable transit oriented downtown.
RE: Viaduct, why did we only see one architecturally hideous option for a raised viaduct replacement - where is the beautiful suspension bridge [over land] submisison? Also, our replacement MUST facilitate port of Seattle freight traffic - we’re loosing out to Tacoma continuously.
Folks are not satisfied with the options that were presented, let’s see the rest - it’s a big huge expenditure of time and money, let’s make a well informed decission. I think it’s worth reopening the discussion, even if it takes a couple more years.
Hi Mike (and followers),
I must say I agree on many of your views EXCEPT for the tunnel issue. I am a geologist who has worked on the preliminary engineering for several of the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement options. This is my personal view and I do not speak for my company when I say this:
We need to break ground on a viaduct replacement now, rather than do more studies and make a decision in a few years. The current viaduct is not going to last much longer. I love the view from the top of the viaduct and I will miss it when it is gone.
The ball is rolling for the large bore tunnel. I like the tunnel option because it takes all that traffic out of the city streets and out of view. Then the waterfront can blend with downtown again. The surface option is not viable, and I-5 can’t be widened sufficiently due to the Convention Center. Taking out 1 exit lane isn’t enough.
I want to see most mass transit and light rail improvements in the region, but we still need a city bypass for industrial traffic. Have you observed what vehicles travel the AWV every day? Sit down sometime and count the number of garbage trucks, cement trucks, and other industrial vehicles that go by in a minute. I don’t want to see those vehicles added to the congestion on the waterfront. That won’t help the bicyclists and pedestrians down there.
What about the residents of West Seattle? The Viaduct is their lifeline. Have you tried to get on I-5 from the West Seattle Bridge and Spokane Viaduct?
Please rethink your view on the tunnel. We need to start building a viaduct replacement now.
H: You have raised some good points, however, as a geologist, can you tell why it is not possible to continue the retrofitting of the viaduct? Am I incorrect in my impression that it has not sunk any since the last time it has some modest retrofitting work done?
I remember seeing a presentation on TV many, many years ago by a structural engineer about a method of connecting the slabs to prevent dropping in case of earthquakes, consisting of a sort of S-joint connection. (This was after the collapse of some fwy in a So Cal quake.)
Thanks for your comments.
I agree with all of your other positions except this one. Your idea of making the surface streets and one lane of I-5 absorb all the traffic that the Viaduct supports now is ridiculous on it’s face. I’d vote for you, except for your stance on this issue. Frankly, I think the deep bore tunnel option is the best long term plan and it needs to be started now, before the viaduct falls down on its own.
Welcome to Seattle. This opportunity to remove the viaduct and provide a valid route for Ballard and West Seattle residents has been a long time coming. I’ve been interacting with this route for 50 years and it is a necessary thruway for these residents. You are completely wrong about the viaduct for various reasons that have been well vetted: economic, travel time and gridlock, opening the water front etc. Also implying the cost of 4.2 Bil is going to Seattle taxpayers shows a little dishonesty.
The AWV now has 2 very inefficient downtown exits at Seneca and Western. They will be no great loss. The new surface exits from the tunnel put traffic on the north and south end of “downtown” as they do now while greatly enhancing the flow of east west traffic around the Seattle Center. If you live in Ballard, Magnolia, Queen Anne or West Seattle the Tunnel will be a huge improvement. The city is Beautiful without the AWV. Great Link to Tunnel Video: http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation/archives/176415.asp
Sorry this is all to much…here’s one more item from KUOW:
Vogel: “There was not complete agreement that the surface alternative would work.”
Vogel says the stakeholders went with the deep–bore tunnel because of a convincing report done by a Danish consulting firm.
Vogel: “And that happened to have been done by one of the world’s great firms at understanding how to create walkable, bikeable places. And they found that the surface alternative would put far too many cars on the street to make a good place for people to walk and bike.”
If the tunnel project goes ahead, the city of Seattle is pegged to pay $930 million on street and waterfront improvements. There’s no firm plan yet to come up with that money. But the city would spend that same amount, on the same improvements, for a surface transit option.
Guy Nelson, KUOW News.
© Copyright 2009, KUOW
OK folks, I still am not convinced by all you W Seattle residents and industrial-vehicle proponents that no tunnel and no viaduct replacement spells catastrophe for traffic. The tunnel will literally be us pouring billions of dollars into a hole in the ground. I live next to Aurora and use it, and the AWV for, about half of my car trips; however I don’t usually use a car to get around town, including to W Seattle. If you need to go north from West Seattle, then use the improved waterfront; it’ll take a few minutes longer, quit complaining. Or try biking or taking the bus instead (hey, for less than the cost of the tunnel we could probably put a very efficient street car out to West Seattle that connects to a north-south line downtown… oh wait, aren’t we talking about such transit improvements instead?).
Industrial traffic uses? Let’s find somewhere to create an efficient industrial-traffic-only lane that connects Duwamish/West Seattle industrial areas with Inerbay/Ballard. Can’t we think outside the box here? A shared lane with bus rapid transit maybe?
I just think that pouring so much money into a hole in the ground is not really thinking ahead and working towards a long-term vision of where people really want to live. Will you be proud that your city has a second big tunnel under it? Or proud that you have a beautiful, vibrant waterfront, and high-quality efficient public transit? We don’t need a tunnel to create the vision we want… we need to reduce traffic by starting to eliminate non-essential auto trips. Besides, how long does everyone think oil will remain so cheap? 10 years? 20 years? By the time we finish the tunnel maybe driving will be so expensive that we won’t need it.
Justin: Have you ever tried to get from West Seattle to, for example, UW on a weekend when they have closed the viaduct for a footrace or some such thing? A trip that normally takes me 20-25 minutes takes over an hour. ‘Nuff said.
Linda you are so correct. We need solutions that make it possible to travel to nearby communities. It seems this group wants all to live in the city and ride bikes. I’ll bet they like roads when they travel to do the outdoor stuff this area is known for. Or they’ll just make other choices.
Justin,
The problem is not a box; rather it is an isthmus, and we legitimately do have to think within the confines of it. The title of this post has to do with the largest tax increase in Seattle’s history. Say there’s no viaduct and no tunnel, but rather a nice efficient street car to get from West Seattle to Downtown and vice-versa. I think having a rail route to West Seattle is a capital idea.
But speaking of capital, how much capital will it take to get across the Duwamish with a light rail line of some variety? As a piece of a waterfront surface option, how much of the total expense is that, and taken together, are we still not in the realm of largest tax increase in Seattle history?
As far as industrial traffic on the viaduct goes, a surface option that is not adequate for industrial traffic will not be tolerated by the industry in Northwest Seattle that are reliant upon the viaduct to get to the southend will move and some have already started to do so — as an example, prior to the discussion about replacing the viaduct, I never saw trucks from Ness Cranes parked along Hwy 99/599 before, but now I do. How much revenue will be lost by a collapse of the industrial areas in Ballard and Fremont? Boats move, and they don’t need to go to Ballard to get repairs and refits if those people that repair and refit boats have moved to either Everett and Tacoma, or both.
The idea of an industrial traffic lane is a great one, but we’re still limited by the isthmus we have to work with. It’s great to exhort people to think outside the box, but the problem with your argument is that forcing people to a surface option is forcing them back in the box. Getting traffic off of the isthmus either with another aerial roadway like the viaduct or with a tunnel of some variety is thinking outside the box. Perhaps you should try it.
The other thing that bothers me is Mike’s suggestion that Seattle residents voted down the tunnel. While this is technically correct, it’s misleading. As I recall, the choices I had on that ballot were: (1) voting for the tunnel and against the viaduct, (2) voting against the tunnel and for the viaduct, (3) voting for both, or (4) voting against both.
In reality, that election was a referendum: viaduct, tunnel, or something else (surface streets?). The problem is, the results of that referendum have never been released. All we know is that a majority of people disapproved of the tunnel, and a majority of the people disapproved of the viaduct. We don’t know how many people approved of the surface option, and we don’t know which alternative a plurality of the population would have chosen. That election does not make McGinn’s case that the tunnel was somehow rejected by Seattle residents.
I don’t think the tax increase, which is being misrepresented, has anything to do with McGinn’s opposition to the tunnel. His record has shown that he is idealogically opposed to any investment in transportation that is not exclusively dedicated to mass transit. Unfortunately, the tunnel is not about making Seattle a better place for cars but rather to make it a better place for people by building on Seattle’s two greatest assets which are (a) that it is one of the few cities in the world with a (potentially) attractive downtown waterfront and (b) that it is the closest port to Asia in the US. The tunnel will beautify our waterfront while ensuring freight mobility for the port. If McGinn has an alternative that can do both of these things, we need to hear it, soon, and in detail. If not, in the interest of his own peculiar Sierra Club idealogy, he will be doing great damage to our city.
Reply
tunnel advocate says:
September 11, 2009 at 2:26 pm
The tunnel is not being developed for cars. The tunnel is being developed to beautify Seattle’s waterfront while maintaining freight mobility for the port while preserving a crucial artery. Have you been to Portland, Vancouver, or San Francisco lately and seen their downtowns and waterfronts? We compete against these and other cities for talent, which in turn creates jobs. Talented young people are moving to cities for their attractiveness and quality of life. We absolutely need to make the most of our waterfront asset while preserving freight mobility for the port and not further increase the traffic strain on I-5 as it runs through the city. If you or McGinn have a good alternate solution, we would love to hear it.
Reply
J Lopez says:
August 12, 2009 at 5:15 pm
The main problem is that Nickels has an arrogance problem and delusion. He forgot what is to be in touch with the reality. Is the disease that many politicians get in their second or third term. In this moments of economic uncertainty it is to keep it simply and solve the problems easy and fast for the main benefit of the population. Some examples of arrogance it is the final decision to built two stadiums to create more havoc downtown for the benefit of the elite of team owners and those that do not care to spend a lot of money in tickets.
Ce finni
Reply
concerned seattleite says:
August 19, 2009 at 9:24 am
Just like most people in Seattle, I think the tunnel is going to be too expensive. However, I haven’t seen what these “new and better alternatives” are. Show us some maps with proposed solutions.
Reply
Jeremy J says:
August 28, 2009 at 8:19 pm
This man doesn’t have an alternative… I wish people would figure that out… He just has a “No” and is doesn’t have anything planned that would work for everyone… Just sayin?!? Hopefully, he can prove me wrong… This mayoral race is going to turn into picking someone that can do the least damage…
Reply
Pietro Potesta says:
September 3, 2009 at 11:53 am
I disagree. A comprehensive strategy to move people and goods (in the city as well as in the region), even one that wants to rely heavily on public transportation, would see plenty of benefits in the tunnel option. 1. the tunnel serves an immensely important need for thru traffic (which keeps Seattle in the center’s of the regions commercial N-S corridor); 2. the tunnel feeds important components of the waterfront (port, ferry docks), keepint it alive; 3. a tunnel option offer potential (alas not in the current WS-DOT design) for much more compact surface imporvements that would benefit a more livable-walkable and enjoyable waterfront environment (ah, also conducive to more public transportation oriented efforts).
The viaduct replacement is a one in a century opportunity to rethink-revisit the entire downtown connection to its waterfront, providing development and opportunities as well as potential open spaces for a grown-up city. Cost, in comparison, is a poor way to measure it.
Reply
Please, feel free to post your own comment
Click here to cancel reply. Name * Email * Website Message
Post comment * these are required fields
We Can Stop the Largest Tax Increase in Seattle History » « Seattle’s budget situation: “Awful”
The problem is that “the bulk of the traffic” doesn’t move through downtown. 60% of the trips on the AWV go TO downtown. The deep-bore tunnel bypasses downtown. So not only would it cost billions but the tunnel would actually cause more traffic in the downtown grid.
When you take into account that part of the funding plan for the tunnel is to toll it you see that even more trips will get diverted onto downtown streets and I5.
But the tunnel is so expensive that there is no money left to improve I5 or add extra transit to take cars off the road.
I know it sounds like a silver bullet: put all that traffic underground and solve the problem. But it is not a silver bullet. It’s a really bad idea.
The vote was for a cut and cover tunnel project that would disrupt traffic for years while it was being built. The deep bore tunnel allows for work to be done while the viaduct is still in use.
I’m a Washingtonian, but have no stake in Seattle’s mayors race. Being a student engineer in the transportation field, I don’t know why McGinn needs to stop a ball that’s already rolling… and has been studied to death since 2001.
Mind you, WSDOT has conceived just about every plan to replace the viaduct. Yes, they even planned a trench tunnel plan, duel-bored tunnels, three “surface” options. The big thing to note was the fact that in the viaduct replacement scenarios (which there were eight), were mainly four-lane alternatives.
Interstate 5 is through Seattle cannot be expanded beyond the current lane capacity due to certain engineering like the trade convention tunnels and the huge wall that hold first hill from collapsing on NB I-5 (that wall by the way has a foundation running a couple hundred feet deep)
When WSDOT conceives a project, it thinks… honestly, one of the earliest design proposals I saw was the “Elliot Bay Bridge” that would span over Elliott Bay… unfortunately it would be more expensive since it would use 800 foot high suspension towers and such. The tunnel project, just isn’t a “tunnel” project, it’s a host of improvements to accommodate the traffic flow of the tunnel and more. A big thing in the Viaduct replacement is the restructuring of Mercer Street to a two way, six lane roadway and bulldozing Broad Street into nothing.
And no engineering project is “a silver bullet” for engineers are constrained by time and money… manpower, equipment, technology, etc.
The thing one should be worried about is whether the state legislature demarks the $2.4 billion into a free-for-all to other projects… to say like SR 520, or I-90 Snoqualmie Pass improvements, or North Spokane Freeway. I’m sure the Feds with their partial earmark to AWV would subtract their share.
If you want the facts, you need to stop listening to the candidates and start going to WSDOT.
Here’s my blog, I have a topic on the tunnel and WSDOT links to SR 99 Project
http://worldobjectiveviews.blogspot.com/
[...] with a tunnel. Seattle and the state would be smarter to spend the money on what he calls the Surface-Transit-I5 option which would open up the city’s waterfront by funneling viaduct traffic onto 6 surface lanes [...]
I agree that if a tunnel it won’t be, we need to hear what the option is. we are horribly deficient when it comes to mass transit, and a project is was overdue. Bring us a plan! Make us believe!
STOP THE TUNNEL.
Is this tunnel idea supposed to be for freight? If so, then Olympia/Port of Seattle and the corporations which want it should pay more money for it and it should be a toll road to fund future maintenance.
Those Chicago Boeing Executives can pony up the money to pay for the whole thing.
As a Seattle voter I am sooo torn on which Mayoral candidate I will vote for. Opposition to the tunnel is the only issue standing in my way of completely endorsing McGinn. At this point I don’t care what gets put in place of the Viaduct, I am just sick and tired of visiting and revisiting and revisiting this issue. I just want to move forward with the plans that have been put into place so far, an have the Mayor focus on other more pressing issues.