The Surface/Transit/I-5 option increases the capacity of Downtown streets and I-5 to carry vehicles, and requires transit to increase throughout the corridor.

The tunnel makes NO CHANGES to I-5, FEW changes to the Downtown street grid, and currently has inadequate funding for new transit.

That’s why the tunnel could increase congestion more than the Surface option. It simply doesn’t prepare enough for the additional trips expected on the streets once the Viaduct is removed.

1/5 of the traffic alone is going to/from Downtown and SW Seattle. That traffic is currently helped by a viaduct, but not a tunnel.

What about traffic to/from Downtown and NW Seattle, which is also not served by the tunnel?

How about the study which shows that adding tolls to the tunnel to help pay for it dramatically reduces the number of vehicles traveling on it?

Despite the blatant lies from some elected officials, WSDOT’s own studies showed that the Surface/Transit/I-5 option was extremely viable, and should be studied as part of the EIS.

as other poster have stated, even if one supports the deep bore McGinn is the much better choice: he knows the city better, he has been a leader and organizer, he is better on transit and land use issues, has has voted. some deep bore supporters assert that it is done deal. then why not McGinn, if he cannot stop it?

Who’s going to spend billions of dollars on bus service?

For that matter look at when they had to reduce capacity on I-5 for a week a couple of years ago. So many people avoided driving to work alone during rush hour that there was actually less congestion than during a normal week.

But you’re right, of course- there are better ways I could spend my time.

The roads that feed the Viaduct will dump X number of cars on the surface if the Viaduct is removed and not rebuilt. If a tunnel is built, the roads feeding the Viaduct will dump Xminus tunnel vehicles on the surface. X minus tunnel vehicles will be less than X. Because X minus tunnel vehicles is smaller, you will need to spend less on surface roads to achieve the same result if the tunnel is built.

As for what I said, it was basically that if you can take traffic lanes for transit, we should let them build the tunnel, and take that. I’m beginning to understand that while the mighty McGinn can take traffic lanes for his transit, that could never happen with the tunnel.

Did you know that the original tunnel under the Thames was used for something different about every thirty years, and that it’s still in use today, 150 years after it was built?

I simply fail to see how building nonsense like “I-605″ or the cross-base highway helps transit any.

If there is a serious proposal to convert existing lanes — any lanes, any road — to transit, you’ll find this blog leading the charge. In fact, when examining the McGinn light rail plan, which you crapped all over, I mentioned that as a cheap and effective way to achieve his objectives.

Don’t confuse indifference to your comment as opposition to the idea.

However, aside from the political obstacles, the technical obstacles to adding rail stations to the deep-bore tunnel are nearly insurmountable. This has been explained again and again. Supporting the deep-bore in the hope that it’ll be converted to transit is delusional.

I think it’s likely that at some point we’ll become less car-centric. However, smug assertions about what gas prices are going to be in 12 years are tiresome. If you’re so sure, put your money where your mouth is and start trading oil futures — it’ll be a much more productive use of your time.