Comments on: The Tunnel: Strategically Misrepresented?

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:23:30 +0000

I’d much rather reopen the debate than spend all of my productive years paying increased taxes for a poorly thought-out Big Dig, Seattle-style.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:24:06 +0000

Why should I let them ruin my city by encouraging people not to stop in it?

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:23:34 +0000

“Boils us” means climate change. We need to stop subsidizing cars.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:23:09 +0000

Tim… 1% engineering means that nobody knows yet if the aircraft can get off the ground.

By: Tim Whittome

Tim Whittome — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:25:14 +0000

I am satisfied that a decision has been made which is more than most of you writing here appear to be. 1% engineering plus 100% momentum means that the aircraft will fly whether you are on or not, and with that same momentum will hopefully reach its destination on time.

By: Zelbinian

Zelbinian — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:12:14 +0000

So . . . after 8 years of waiting, you are satisfied with a 1%-engineered solution? You need to raise your bar a little higher for what you consider a “solution”. If building the tunnel is like an airline ticket, ejecting at this point is like canceling the airplane ticket as opposed to skydiving out of the plane. Not a big deal.

By: Tim Whittome

Tim Whittome — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:38:24 +0000

I am comparing my support for the tunnel to the shadow of the previous long eight years of discussing this thing – a shadow darker than the hideous existing viaduct itself.

By: Tim Whittome

Tim Whittome — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:35:38 +0000

“Boils us” – what does that mean, exactly? I see no reasonable reason not to build a tunnel – it seems like the best option for duplicating the function of the existing viaduct without all the noise and sight pollution of the current structure.

There has to be a place for roads in our plans for Seattle transit – we cannot move freight by light rail. If we have the surface option, we will be replacing the function of the existing viaduct with something very different and possibly tie up freight in traffic snafus for miles in downtown Seattle.

I am all for Light Rail between West Seattle and Ballard through downtown, but this is a separate issue and not germane to the replacement of the viaduct despite what Mike McGinn might has to say on the subject.

Again, Ben, do you want to reopen this debate after eight years of haggling?

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:23:11 +0000

It helps the debate more than deciding the tunnel is a good idea based on no comparison to other options.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:22:14 +0000

Well, I do live in Seattle, and I see absolutely no reason to build a tunnel. Just give the waterfront back. Building a tunnel just boils us in the long run.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:18:57 +0000

Less than half. With the tolls necessary to support $400m in recovery, some 40% of through users will opt for another corridor as well.

By: Tim Whittome

Tim Whittome — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:17:58 +0000

Once again, if the City, State and County can come up with the funds for this project, let them go ahead with it, otherwise we’ll review but let’s no assume the worst before we know the worst. I believe strongly in civic projects with an attachment of civic pride, and getting the waterfront back for the City would be an excellent trade off – plus we have done this thing to its dying breath and time to move on.

By: Tim Whittome

Tim Whittome — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:14:41 +0000

Because Seattle gets a waterfront back and it doesn’t have all the noise and sight pollution of the existing viaduct. It is a fair trade off – I wouldn’t have any objection to chipping in if I lived in Seattle.

By: Tim Whittome

Tim Whittome — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:13:31 +0000

I am not sure that this really helps the debate.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:05:56 +0000

Paul, it’s disingenuous comments like that making this whole process so hard.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:20:31 +0000

I find it hard to believe there is any realistic cost estimate with only 1% of the engineering complete. Since there were political reasons to lowball the costs I only expect them to rise and blow past any padding in the budget as engineering proceeds.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:16:08 +0000

The complete disregard of Federal and state laws requiring a full EIS process by WSDOT is rather troubling. These are not supposed to be done “after the fact”. As much of a gadfly as Elisabeth Campbell is, she does have a point that WSDOT is doing what it wants and damn the law and the citizens.

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:32:50 +0000

Not including the surface/transit/I-5 improvements option in the DEIS is rather more problematic than you make it out to be. It’s very much distinct from the no-build option, and it’s supposed to be studied before selection of a preferred option.

In fact, considering that the final EIS hasn’t been completed, it’s bizarre that the state is going ahead with the deep-bore tunnel. The whole process stinks.

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:27:33 +0000

Considering that the deep-bore tunnel wouldn’t have exits downtown, it is utterly ludicrous for Seattle to be on the hook for cost overruns.

By: Transit guy

Transit guy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:21:42 +0000

The new tunnel will expedite that WS – Canlis connection, but with no exits or entrances for central downtown, nor Belltown, Interbay, or Ballard, it will have limited utility.

This thing was not thought through. It’s a solution for half of corridor users, not all of them.