Judy Clibborn, Welcome to Seattle. You're New, Right?

There were several reasons voters rejected WsDOT's "6-lane" Cut-n-Cover tunnel. But, the significant factor is the percentage of voters who rejected the tunnel compared to the percentage who rejected the elevated replacement -- about 70% rejecting the tunnel vs about 55% rejecting the elevated. This indicates construction disruption was the overriding factor from all political perspectives.

After the vote, WsDOT reduced the number of lanes to a "4-lane" Cut-n-Cover tunnel design. This significantly reduced construction disruption, mainly because SR-99 can remain in place up til the last year or so for rebuilding the Lower Belltown segment.

Digging up Alaskan Way has become a political taboo that forbids discussion of how the 4-lane Cut-n-Cover tunnel construction is manageable, even as much construction disruption is simply unavoidable -- removing the AWV, rebuilding the seawall and Alaskan Way.

Because the Deep-bore tunnel does not maintain access to Ballard-bound traffic, about 40,000 vehicles daily or 2500 per hour will be directed through the new Alaskan Way with 15-20 stoplights. Even half this much new traffic will generate bumper-to-bumper gridlock all day long. The powers that be don't want to deal with the public and are willing to accept this outcome as they've accepted horrible traffic everywhere else in the city.

The 4-lane Cut-n-Cover tunnel maintains access for Ballard-bound traffic and will thus produce a better Waterfront District. Its construction disruption is manageable. It costs about $1 billion less. It requires the construction of a very desirable bridge over the railroad tracks at Broad. You, dear reader, don't get to think about it because the powers-that-be don't care what you think. Shut up and drive. And don't forget to make your car payments.

this is really shoddy reporting. i would reiterate what tom said so well: the option voters were presented with are pretty different from the one decided upon and written into state law this past session. it's not an apples to apples comparison. officals did a lot of outreach to understand what people liked and didn't like about those earlier proposals in order to craft the now agreed-upon design.

it's also incorrect to assume the state has billions lying around for the tunnel that could just as easily be spent on health care. we have three separate budgets in this state: operating, capital and transportation. gas taxes and other transportation-related fees are what fund our transportation budget. replacing the viaduct has long been a plan of the state, so this money has been earmarked for a while. again, it's incorrect to insinuate we have all this money lying around that could be spent however we like.

i'd also go one step further and argue the viaduct is a major safety hazard, with the capability of seriously injuring or killing hundreds (thousands?) of people if it were to fall down. i dont understand how or why mcginn thinks he can get the legislature to do an about-face on an issue that's taken years and years and years to come to agreement upon by city, county, port and state officials. if he were to get us out of the tunnel agreement, we're back to square one, trying to work out yet another agreement, meanwhile the viaduct isn't getting any younger. enough dithering and inaction! personally, i favored an elevated rebuild, but i respect the agreement and think we need to get this thing moving.

The idea that the deep-bore tunnel is a form of consensus is wrong. The state and local officials like it because it's a big project, which appeals to bureaucrats and elected officials who want to deliver jobs. And that's fair, to a degree. But as you point out, the Viaduct itself is extremely dangerous as it is, which begs the question why officials simply didn't accept "no" for an answer some time ago. The obstacles in the way of the tunnel are immense--in terms of cost, interruption, etc. It was the tunnel advocates who've strung out this process, to everyone's detriment.

Also, while you're of course correct that budgeting is not as simple as a couple billion here means a couple billion not over there, it's a disingenuous argument. It is perfectly fair to ask why we can come up with billions of dollars for a project that's at the very least lacking in vocal public support, while other projects languish.

To be fair, though, voters rejected a shallow, cut-and-cover tunnel running adjacent to the waterfront. This would have been much more disruptive and ugly than the deep-bore option. I wonder how a deep-bore tunnel blasting through downtown's underbelly would have fared. It probably woulda been rejected, too.

If I know our beloved kneejerk Seattleites, the disruption was the least of their worries--it was the price tag. As for how the deep-bore would fare, McGinn's willing to hang his whole campaign on polling that puts a majority saying no to a tunnel (again). It is also hilarious that Cliborn says we're "so far down the line" when the tunnel (last I heard) was 1 percent designed.