A Tunnel? Really?

After years of debate, acrimony, and a vote or two thrown in, the P-I is reporting that city, county, and state leaders have reached an agreement on the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement: a deep-bore tunnel. For those unfamiliar with the concept, this is what you would actually call a "tunnel," whereas the mayor's original proposal was more like a big trench with a lid on top. The proposed plan is estimated to cost $2.8 billion in state money, with the above-ground improvement costs borne by the city. The news signals a reversal on the part of Gov. Gregoire, who previously supported the voters' decision to build neither a tunnel nor a new raised structure and instead concentrate on a streets and transit solution.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@seattlest.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jeremy in News on January 12, 2009 11:40 AM

Comments [rss]

Troy Morris

I heard it was over 4b.

Also, wtf is wrong with our mayor. You wait a day to do the official announcement? Trying to prepare properly for the public backlash?

I don't like this guy, he's weak kneed. Stand behind your "grand plan!" If you believe in it so strongly, you can defend it and convince us it's worth the extra billions...

Matt

Gregoire tells us she's really hoping the price will drop from $2.8B to $1.8B. Start holding your breath... now.

Beelzebee

Boy, I sure am glad I moved away from Boston and the Big Dig...

Watch the 2.8 billion bill MAGICALLY increase threefold before your eyes!

Tom

Deep bore is the right option. It'll be less messy around the waterfront than the cut-and-cover would have made it. It'll make the waterfront pedestrian friendly without adding the extra traffic of the surface option. It'll remove the "wall" and reconnect the waterfront to downtown and Pioneer Square, unlike the rebuild. And it will preserve "capacity" for north-south bypass and freight traffic, putting that crap underground. Despite what Cary Moon says, vehicle traffic will increase overall in the coming years, even if proportionally less people be driving.

It's the most expensive option on the surface (pardon the pun). But both other options had additional costs (bad aesthetics in case of the rebuild, bad pedestrian effects in case of the surface couplet) that made them unpalatable. Kudos to the choice

Troy Morris

I thought it was down to two options just a month or so ago? And this was not included. Did they even make fancy art work for it?!

Mike D

More than anything voters have been deciding not to decide, putting off repairs and hoping the situation will fix itself or some new better choice will become available to them.

tdogg241

It's going to cost more than $2.8bn, that's just the money we have currently set aside to pay for it. I'm willing to bet that a chunk of the rest will probably come from Obama's stimulus plan.

bigyaz

Not likely. Obama's plan is for projects that are ready to go within the next year. Given the scope of this project, and our predilection for endless process, it won't remotely qualify.

bilco

Hey, signins got fast!

I think it's unfair to say that voters opted to concentrate on an above-ground solution - that was not an option they voted on, one way or another.

When the voters last chose, it was on such a non-binding mess that I think it meant zero. And, given that a community greater than Seattle was going to pay and use the facility, what exactly was the point of a Seattle vote? Yep, place to hide for pols.

Seth

If it were up to me, I'd probably just blow the whole thing up and let people make their way south on the freeway...but I sympathize with people who drive more than I do wanting to, you know, get where they are going within an hour.