*SIGH* There wasn’t anything wrong with the project itself.

And why would boulevards have been a negative for pedestrians in the surface streets and transit plan? Sure they’d have to deal with some auto traffic but they’d have street lights, crosswalks and sidewalks that would make navigating the space very manageable, even urbane in most cases. Tens of thousands of pedestrians cross Michigan Avenue in Chicago each day to reach Millennium Park — 100,000 or more per day during peak season. Well-designed surface streets are quite good places for pedestrians because they put them on equal footing, so to speak, with cars.

In the end, this kind of high-volume infrastructure will disrupt and degrade significant parts of Seattle, even if it’s underground for part of its route.

Thanks for pointing out that another elevated edifice to the automobile is the real enemy here.

The main reasons I don’t like the tunnel are:
1. I think there are any number of other transportation improvements where the money for the cost difference between the surface option and a tunnel could be more cost effectively spent.
2. This takes away money that would have been used to improve surface traffic flow throughout downtown. Some of the surface street improvements are still likely to happen as they are necessary for the waterfront street portion of the tunnel plan, but not to the scale of the surface only options.
3. The tunel takes away mitigation money that might have been spent on transit or replacing the waterfront streetcar.
4. Anything that encourages driving, and isn’t necessary to keep buses moving is bad for transit.

OTOH objecting to the tunnel because it might interfere with a future rail line is going to sound really lame to anyone who isn’t a transit geek. Similarly objecting because of BRT concerns is fairly lame as the routing options for BRT into downtown with the tunnel are pretty much the same as they are without the tunnel.

It will certainly still be possible to add rail tunnels, it just makes it (much) more expensive.

Wow, I never knew Seattle had so many transit lines that would be discommoded by a tunnel! When would I get to ride the West Seattle-Ballard Line if the tunnel weren’t built?

And hey, if BRT is so flexible, shouldn’t it be possible to adjust the BRT which hasn’t even been built yet (which is to say, all of it) to line up with the needs of the tunnel and commuters?

Seriously, you guys need to remember the elephant in the room, that is to say, WSDOT and the elected representatives who have heard earfuls from their constituents, and are determined to replace at least a substantial amount of the Viaduct capacity in any follow-on. I’m guessing there are still a number of people who would be just as happy to see a tunnel idea shot down and then say “Well, we tried and failed, so now we have to build the less costly elevated freeway”. And I’m sure that Chopp and his bait-and-switch highway in the sky is one of them.

Also, I agree with you that a tunnel is extremely unlikely through Wallingmont. The most likely solution is probably an elevated line roughly following 45th street, with a terminus near the upper UW station.

2.) I have not yet heard King County or the City of Seattle step up to fund the difference. IF either KC or Seattle fills in the gap, then you are correct, but right now the gap is not funded. We don’t know where it will come from. IF it does come from the state, or from tolls for that matter, in whole or in part, OR if the gap gets filled by the feds, then my point remains. Money on this project is money taken away from 405, 167, etc.

3.) By removing through traffic from the grid and I-5, this tunnel frees up capacity on surface streets and I-5 for downtown bound traffic. Also, road capacity in the center city does not drive sprawl, capacity at the edges drives it (i.e. 405, 167, 202 etc). Unless you consider Ballard to be sprawl.

Good point about the bus access point though, but buses would need to travel on surface streets if we implemented a surface option anyway, so this is not a net loss for buses over the alternative.

5.) See point 3.

Also, when SMP got in trouble, the city, or ST should have stepped in and taken over. The point is: you had a public that was willing to tax themselves heavily in order to build transit in this corridor and THAT is what ST let slip through their fingers. Everyone dropped the ball on this issue, and now we have a $4 billion dollar car tunnel.

West Seattle is more difficult if for no other reason negotiating the WS bridge. Not to mention where to go once you’ve crossed. Do you go Delridge (line of least resistance) or try to get up near 35th?