Seattlest: A Tunnel? Really?

TroyJMorris

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:01:09 -0800

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

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:11:33 -0800

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

Beelzebee

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:11:14 -0800

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

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:21:01 -0800

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

TroyJMorris

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:53:22 -0800

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?!

bigyaz

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:00:37 -0800

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.

Mike D

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:58:28 -0800

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

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:52:57 -0800

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.

bilco

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:08:52 -0800

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

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:30:13 -0800

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.

seasvcvacant

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:28:28 -0800

Yes, I never was comfortable with the trench/lid approach. An actual tunnel, given it's location, seems a much healthier alternative.