80 Replies to "Viaduct decision reportedly made: Deep-bore tunnel"

• Al January 12, 2009 (11:48 am)

  WHAT? Wasn’t the vote on this conclusively NO tunnel, and secondarily no re-build. Great, just great. Get ready for traffic nightmares worse than ever. Get ready for an unusable waterfront for years and years, and more public debt beyond our approval…oh yeah, this happened before…

• WSB January 12, 2009 (11:52 am)

  The deep-bore tunnel is not the same one that was being considered before or that was rejected in the 2007 vote. That one was “cut and cover” which meant basically a major digging operation. This would be bored underground, theoretically with minimal disruption along the way on the surface.

• Michael January 12, 2009 (11:59 am)

  Now we get the rash of “didn’t the people say no” rhetoric that is just as wrong as it was back when they built Safeco Field.
  .
  We live in a representative democracy, people. If the founding fathers had meant government to be run by referendum, they wouldn’t have bothered with having us elect any representatives at all, just clerks.
  .
  You don’t like it, vote them out. (Funny, as strongly as “the people” supposedly felt about Safeco, not a single representative who supported it lost their next election.)

• RobertSeattle January 12, 2009 (12:02 pm)

  I’m just glad a decision has been made. Built it!

• caselli78 January 12, 2009 (12:08 pm)

  Calm down Al. This is probably the LEAST disruptive thing they can do!

• Aim January 12, 2009 (12:11 pm)

  I hate tunnels. I understand the practicality, but they still make me really uncomfortable to drive through, and one this long will pretty much guarantee I won’t drive it. One accident, and everyone could be stuck inside for hours.

  So, there will one less car going that route, and a little more room for the rest of you who are braver than I. :)

• big gulps,eh? well, see ya later. January 12, 2009 (12:14 pm)

  A decision made by governement in WA state? Can it be? As a West Seattle resident I am generally happy with this. The gap between funding and cost only gets larger with every year we delay.
  –
  We could all poke holes in every solution, but I believe this option best repressents the needs of the transportation during construction, sustained transportation capacity, mass transit capacity, and waterfront renewal.
  –
  Now I am crossing my fingers the ensuing lawsuits can be handled swiftly enough as to actually get something done before the dinosaur falls down.

• Kathy January 12, 2009 (12:15 pm)

  I am in favor of this. Raves to WSB for getting the breaking news.

• Bogie January 12, 2009 (12:19 pm)

  This is the best thing I have heard in a long time! Yes, the views from the viaduct will be missed, and I will be sad that my children will never know the same downtown skyline that I will always remember. BUT, this is the best option to keep mobility while it is built, along with keeping mobility after it is complete. Now I will just keep crossing my fingers that we won’t have “the big one” until traffic is off of it. Oh, and if you love the viaduct and will miss it (or just want something cool to do) take the public walking tour of the viaduct the next time they do semi-annual inspections. You will see why it is so scary to travel on!

• caselli78 January 12, 2009 (12:20 pm)

  Aim: And how is the tunnel different from the viaduct in case of an accident? Do you just jump off the viaduct when there’s an accident?

• 1xSculler January 12, 2009 (12:20 pm)

  Given the strength of our tides, issues with groundwater for construction that’s far from the waterfront, and the lack of success for other similar projects (with better engineering resources available to them), this is a very disappointing choice, and will create nightmarish traffic for a decade or more. I’m really shocked at this decision as I agree I thought the tunnel options were taken off the table.

  Has no-one from our legislation heard of the Big Dig?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig_(Boston,_Massachusetts)

• B'sMomma January 12, 2009 (12:20 pm)

  Make that 2 less cars! I’m to afraid to be in an enclosed area like that. To many “what if’s”. And No, I don’t drive the viaduct either just incase it falls. I know, I’m a scardy cat and I’m OK with that. :)

• austin January 12, 2009 (12:23 pm)

  Water Taxi 4 eva

• jeannie January 12, 2009 (12:24 pm)

  Is this like Boston’s notorious Big Dig?

• elgrego January 12, 2009 (12:25 pm)

  Awesome news. If the viaduct is gonna get replaced, I’m happiest with the deep bore tunnel option.

• TroyC January 12, 2009 (12:31 pm)

  +1 to Big Gulps

  1) wow — a decision
  — as a transplant from the East [Coast] I’m amazed at how much doesn’t get done here

  2) all solutions have problems — this seems like the best solution to those that ACTUALLY USE/DEPEND upon the Viaduct.
  — i’m sorry, but have you ever traversed Seattle when the Via is closed — omg, a street only solution is NOT going to work!

  3) Will their be an Eyeman initative to stop this? Tongue-in-cheek comment that’s only going to get my tongue bitten :(

  4) Left wondering if this counts as doing the Seattle Underground [as we probably will have to dig a certain portion through old-Seattle?]

  5) There should be five things, right?

• Westwood Resident January 12, 2009 (12:33 pm)

  The Deep-Bore tunnel idea intrigues me. It is actually the best of both worlds.
  1. It is the least disruptive while being built
  2. It pacifies those that want the surface street option to “join” downtown to the waterfront
  3. The funding for it and the upkeep could be obained by leasing the land that is freed up by the viaduct coming down and increasing the taxes to developers of the properties east of the viaduct that will benefit from the new view.
  One of the many worries that I have is the reduction of lanes, which WILL result in a reduction of capacity. Right now the viaduct handles over 120,000 car trips a day using three lanes, and STILL gets jammed up.
  One of the stipulations on ANY solution to the viaduct should be to maintain current capacity AND allow for an increase of 10% in population growth for the next 10 years.
  I wonder if this is a stipulation that could possibly be placed on the project by a citizens initiative and vote?
  .
  .
  BTW – This plan, is the plan the Dino Rossi endorsed during his campaign.

• Westwood Resident January 12, 2009 (12:37 pm)

  I do seem to recall that there was a similar plan for a deep-bore tunnel the was a “over/under” plan. One set of lanes over the other, instead of side-by-side, that was three lanes in each direction.
  Does any one else remember it?

• caselli78 January 12, 2009 (12:40 pm)

  troyC: This is far below the “old Seattle” underground.

• D January 12, 2009 (12:41 pm)

  TroyC- “I’m amazed at how much doesn’t get done here” is a fantastic way of putting it. And while this option has tons of issues (as did the other options) its nice to see that a decision was actually made.

  Westwood Resident- I was thinking the same thing about the reduction of lanes but it sounds like there will be fewer on-ramps and off-ramps than the current viaduct and I really think that merging traffic causes a huge number of the backups that are seen on the current viaduct.

• Al January 12, 2009 (12:43 pm)

  I am calm Caselli. Just exercising my perspective as all others do. I have no choice in the matter, tunnel vs no tunnel. Whateveah. Just surmising how things will go in the future. All we can hope for is that SDOT and the State plan accordingly for traffic revisions and communicate those revisions effectively to the public. Like the upcoming (February) 1st Ave ramp entrance closure to the West Seattle Bridge. So far, nothing said anywhere I can find except for the fabulous blog…

• WSB January 12, 2009 (12:45 pm)

  WR – I just added a note in the post above to clarify, until the official announcement, it’s not necessarily clear (yet – I am still reading everything that’s out there) what has been agreed to, whether it’s the one-tube stacked version (which is shown in a Seattle Times illustration) or something more like the sketch above. Will update as we find out more. At this point it looks like the official announcement/briefing is first thing tomorrow morning and we’ll be there – TR

• clark5080 January 12, 2009 (12:48 pm)

  I find it interesting how recently the deep bore tunnel came into the picture and how quickly it has been adopted. I wonder where they plan on getting the additional nearly 2 Billion to pay for it? If we hurry maybe we can talk President Elect Obama to pay for it also.

  I like the idea that it won’t disrupt things much but I don’t like the additional taxes or tolling that will come to pay for it

  Jim

• KatieMcA January 12, 2009 (12:51 pm)

  I think a two-lane option of any sort is a bad idea, but I’m at least happy that someone somewhere decided to make some decision.

• JoB January 12, 2009 (12:51 pm)

  TR..

  thanks for keeping us in the loop…

  i am disappointed in the surface portion of the plan… we just put a mini-freeway between downtown and the waterfront… and killed pedestrian friendly businesses:(

  this won’t work without pedestrian overpasses and elevators…

  but if we are going to do a deep bore tunnel.. this option made the most sense to me…

• Robert2715 January 12, 2009 (12:54 pm)

  Drill Baby Drill! :-)

• WSB January 12, 2009 (12:59 pm)

  Hey, Ai — Re: Spokane Street Viaduct — Unless you have heard this somewhere else, I think you may have misinterpreted what we wrote from last week’s Southwest District Council meeting. The 1st Avenue South ramp is NOT closing next month. They are starting work on the 4th Avenue ramp from the other side of the Spokane Street Viaduct next month, but that will all be done before they start work on the other side, which includes the old 1st ramp. I have to dig out the latest timetable but that’s quite some distance away – TR

• Burton January 12, 2009 (1:02 pm)

  Finally a decision. The option works for me. The sad truth is someone is probably already drafting a lawsuit which will keep this in the courts until at least 2015 and beyond.

• Al January 12, 2009 (1:06 pm)

  Thanks WSB, I stand corrected!

• Philip M January 12, 2009 (1:07 pm)

  I participated in the meeting with Councilman Rassmussen around 2 weeks ago. That’s where I first learned that a bored tunnel with surface street improvements was back on the table. I was skeptical myself until some facts came to light.
  * Even though it’s planned for two lanes each way the tunnel will serve as an excellent bypass from Sodo to Ballard.
  * Since there will be no downtown exits, the expanded surface streets will handle some extra volume, including buses (possibly in a dedicated bus lane.)
  * Hazardous materials are prohibited in tunnels, which also made surface street improvements an important complement to the tunnel to move freight to & from the shipping terminals.
  * This may be the sweetest part of the deal: I saw the expected closures with a bored tunnel plan. During construction, if I read correctly, SR 99 will be closed for a few days instead of a few months or years!
  * We get our attractive waterfront with comparable traffic capacity.

  I went in favoring a replacement viaduct and was sold on the bored tunnel. It’ll be a steep investment, but apparently well worth it.

• Westwood Resident January 12, 2009 (1:15 pm)

  D,

  I’ll agree with you on the south bound lanes. The Columbia St on-ramp causes headaches that are felt all the way to the Aurora Bridge at times. Also because that on-ramp and the exit to 1st Ave are so close together you have a situation like the “Mercer Weave” on I-5.
  North bound, not so much that I have noticed. What causes the most problems there are people, seeing the exit to Western Ave lined up, run up to the exit then force themselves into the line, sometimes coming to a complete stop in the middle lane until someone lets them in or they force someone to stop or hit them.
  Because I take the viaduct everyday, to and from work, I hope AND pray that there will be an entrance and exit somewhere between the end of the Battery Street Tunnel and Mercer.

• Jill January 12, 2009 (1:22 pm)

  How are they going to DRILL under an existing structure, wont that be just like simulating an earthquake… and make the structure less stable by drilling under what makes it stand in the first place?!?!… they are making a weak bridge even weaker in my opinion….

• quiz January 12, 2009 (1:23 pm)

  Yeah! Start Digging!

• Stacy January 12, 2009 (1:25 pm)

  Well, the last place I want to be in the event of any unplanned events (car wreck, next earthquake, etc.) is in a deep tunnel that in this case would also be below sea level. We’ll see how all this plays out, but I continue to be on the side of those in favor of above-ground structures for safety reasons.

• que January 12, 2009 (1:36 pm)

  Jill – They do have the technology to drill underneath existing buildings w/o causing earthquake-like tremors. I grew up in DC when they were building their Metro system, which is a system of tubes underneath the city and while the traffic issues around where the stops were going to go were problematic at the time (which won’t be an issue here) the drilling was not at all. SF has tunnels that their subway runs in and they are in a seismically active area as well, and BART historically has very few problems with safety along those lines.

• Michael January 12, 2009 (1:44 pm)

  1xSculler – you DO know that the “Big Dig” is not even close to a valid comparison…?
  .
  http://science.howstuffworks.com/tunnel5.htm
  .
  Basically, the only similarity between the “Big Dig” and the bored-viaduct option is that they can both be called “tunnels.”

• Westwood Resident January 12, 2009 (1:45 pm)

  Jill,

  The same way they drilled under Beacon Hill for the Light Rail tunnels. There was little surface movement or structure damage.

• HighlandParkster January 12, 2009 (1:46 pm)

  Yay for a decision! A decision?!?! That is shocking enough. This tunnel is the BEST option. West Seattle never really came out of its denial that replacement of the Alaskan Way would cripple and possibly destroy the economy of West Seattle. This NEW tunnel option allows the rickety oooold Viaduct to remain in place while traffic relief FINALLY comes to Downtown Seattle. By the end of 2020, Seattle should have about 4-6 deep bore tunnels under downtown (like the bus tunnel) allowing I-90 and 1-5 express lanes from south of Spokane Street to north of Northgate. People traveling from Tacoma, Portland, Olympia, to Belligham, Everett, and Canada won’t contribute to Seattle’s growing traffic problem.

  In other news, we probably all could have taken the monorail to work during the December snow emergency or during Viaduct replacement, but we voted that great idea down (one out of five times).

• Yg January 12, 2009 (1:50 pm)

  I’d rather be in that tunnel, then under that the current viaduct.

  But then again, it’ll take an earthquake bringing the current one down, to actually get something off the drawing board.

  Remember back in history, that it took someone driving a barge into the old West Seattle bridge before a new one could be built. I bet there was lots of discussion about what to build then, but very few unhappy at the end result..

  Continued paralysis on the topic just increases the odds the old one will fall, and actually hurt someone.

• Bogie January 12, 2009 (2:05 pm)

  Just a note to those worried about accidents causing backups in the tunnel: The tunnel will have standard shoulders on both sides, unlike the current viaduct where (on most of it) there is nowhere to go if your car breaks down, you are stuck blocking a lane.

• Westwood Resident January 12, 2009 (2:14 pm)

  Yeah Bogie, but with the dearth of lookie-lu’s around here does it really matter??

• Meghan January 12, 2009 (2:17 pm)

  Hooray! Finally the option that is so clearly the best has emerged! Not only will West Seattle not be cut off from the rest of the city during the tunnel construction (which would have destroyed our property values); our city center will now be opened up to our beautiful historic waterfront. This is a great day for our city!

• Neighbor January 12, 2009 (2:19 pm)

  Did the rain soaked ostrich just pull it’s out of it’s ass!! Yeah baby! 21st century planning!! Welcome to the new world Seattle where things get done the most effective and forward thinking manner!
  Hats off to the Gov. on this!

  Thank you Gregiore!! You make me proud to be a resident!

• MAS January 12, 2009 (2:29 pm)

  Michael – Yes, it is a representative democracy, but when we actually spend the money to vote on something – some of us would appreciate it if our elected officials paid attention to the results. I’m not saying we need to vote on everything, just that when we do vote it should have some meaning.

  Oh, and I (at least partly) based my voting decisions after the stadium on officials positions on ignoring the vote. I was just in the minority.

  In this case, the officials are ignoring the will of the people (known through an actual vote) with the effect of costing us all an extra few billion dollars.

  if there wasn’t a vote in the first place, I wouldn’t be demanding one now. I’m just trying to figure out what the purpose of the vote was.

• rockergirl January 12, 2009 (2:37 pm)

  Good and bad points to this choice – at least it means we will finally get started on something – and as someone who has recently driven in the Boston area I thought there freeway system was pretty great below ground and above (new park above tunnel is very nice) – even though it had lot’s of problems, cost a lot of money and took along time to finish it has improved there traffic. They have lots more lanes and on and offramps and a very integrated system – where as ours does not appear to be that inclusive or integrated – not really practical to only have 2 lanes and no exits to downtown – means people will have to backtrack once they get to the surface streets on Aurora. Would be better if was going to be 3 lanes each way and exits and entrances in downtown area to get on and off – that’s my opinion at this time.

• mae January 12, 2009 (2:42 pm)

  Is this like the deep-bored tunnels under the water that I went through in Denmark/Sweden and Iceland? If so they were pretty darn amazing.

• cmc January 12, 2009 (2:45 pm)

  I think it would be great if we could identify a single method whereby 20% of the city’s population could either access downtown directly, or bypass downtown and access the north part of town.

• Bogie January 12, 2009 (2:52 pm)

  Westwood Resident – would you rather have a slow-moving lane, or a non-moving lane?

• d January 12, 2009 (2:58 pm)

  Ok.

  This is good.

  So, now can we talk about that fabulous Ferry District and the Demonstration Routes for the water taxis. And, while we’re at it, how about a few catamarans running north – south runs on the Sound and on the Lake which will serve Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties, rather than Kitsap County residents being the focus.

  Why can’t we turn that game plan up a notch at this timely junction?

  You know. Like Vancouver, BC.

• WSB January 12, 2009 (3:00 pm)

  Remember – Water Taxi dock meeting this Thursday, 7 pm. Unfortunately at the same time as the mayor’s snow-response open house. We’ll be at both, of course.

• Cash January 12, 2009 (3:25 pm)

  Hooray!!!! A great day for the city of Seattle! An even better day for us in WS!

• Philip M January 12, 2009 (3:27 pm)

  Stacy, I asked the same question of the stakeholders at that meeting regarding safety of a tunnel in an earthquake. They said a tunnel is much safer than an overhead structure. The tunnel will move but not fail because it is part of the Earth’s crust. Anything standing above ground will magnify the ripples from Earth with the height. It’s like shaking a long stick just a little bit: your fist could be barely moving, but the other end of the stick can move several feet.
  It still sounds like a great experiment for Mythbusters to try. :-)

• What January 12, 2009 (4:06 pm)

  GOOD, about time they moved forward with the tunnel. I’ve heard people say it’s unsafe and would not work near water (look at the HUGE tunnel between England and France, runs under water) and tunnels in Japan that run under water. Incredibly effective and safe + lasts longer than the other options.

• CB January 12, 2009 (4:08 pm)

  FINALLY!

  I sincerely hope this plan moves forward and is not held up by Seattle’s notorious political grid-lock. It’s time for EVERYONE to get behind this and move forward. Sooner or later the Viaduct is going to come down. Let’s hope when it does come down, the tunnel is completed.

• Westwood Resident January 12, 2009 (4:23 pm)

  Bogie – LOL!!!
  Touche’, you’re right, I guess a slow moving lane is better than a non-moving lane.
  Neighbor – Yeah, it just took almost 6 YEARS for the rain-soaked ostrich to pull it’s head out of its ass. This plan isn’t new, it is one of the ideas that were floated in the beginning. I’m not about to give the Gov, County Exec or Mayor any kudos though, if they had showed ANY of the LEADERSHIP they should have (esp. the Gov) we would be getting set to have the Grand Opening of this by now.
  How many months and how much money has been wasted by doing study after study, obtaining plan after plan and putting together and holding an idiotic election that selected nothing?
  No, they get no praise from me on the length it took to come to this decision.
  Knowing the “Three Stooges” though, they will find a way to screw this up and more time and money will be wasted. Add in the law suits that you know will be filed by people who don’t want ANYTHING but the removal of the viaduct and NO (read: ANY TYPE) replacement built and it could be YEARS before we see any of this come to fruition, while the cost will spiral up and up because of the delays.

• Westwood Resident January 12, 2009 (4:28 pm)

  What,
  This wouldn’t be as close to the water as the original tunnel that Nickles wanted. It will be under Downtown.
  Not sure how deep it will be, but it won’t be in the “fill” area that the current location of the viaduct is built upon now.

• villagegreen January 12, 2009 (4:29 pm)

  My faith in this city has finally been restored!!!!!!!!! If only momentarily.

• d January 12, 2009 (4:58 pm)

  WR and What –

  I read that the depth would “possibly” be 40-70 feet if the tunnel were under 1st Ave., but that didn’t sound very deep to my non-engineer brain.

  Oh, the excitement for the details!!!!

• k January 12, 2009 (5:00 pm)

  the most beautiful way to enter seattle will be torn down. saddens me.

• Dale Swanson January 12, 2009 (5:01 pm)

  Let’s see how we choose to fund this decision. If we need to pay tolls, then surface streets will become more clogged given many will try to avoid.

  Let’s review the COSTS of this alernative in lieu of the others. We have not seen that yet.

• grr January 12, 2009 (5:04 pm)

  glad to see SOMETHING being done. HOPEFULLY this won’t go the way of that lame-ass monorail and die in two years with $100 mil spent and nothing to show for it.

• KSJ January 12, 2009 (5:28 pm)

  Hurrah – and godspeed. The sooner the better.

• Brenda January 12, 2009 (5:53 pm)

  Fantastic news…..I can’t believe they ACTUALLY made a good decision. This will be wonderful for the waterfront and the future of the city.

• Roger January 12, 2009 (7:20 pm)

  This is the best news I have heard about this subject, since I moved to Seattle over two years ago.

• star55 January 12, 2009 (7:26 pm)

  I would like to see some sort of traffic flow chart to show how going down to two lanes will, removing some on/off ramps will allow traffic to flow smothly. Where will will of the traffic go?

• WSB January 12, 2009 (7:29 pm)

  I am hopeful that more details will be available at tomorrow morning’s announcement – we will be there, live online, and will share whatever we get, as soon as we get it – TR

• zero-to-life in West Seattle January 12, 2009 (7:33 pm)

  Can they start on it tomorrow?

• GenHillOne January 12, 2009 (7:39 pm)

  clark5080, I think you hit the nail on the head…I’m pretty convinced the sudden movement has everything to do with Obama’s proposed infrastructure investment. My guess is we’ll hear about federal funds to come and if we’re not ready to put “shovels to dirt,” it will be harder to get that funding. I don’t necessarily think this a bad thing mind you; I’m thrilled to have some actual movement.

• JenV January 12, 2009 (8:02 pm)

  well, we made Fark.com, with this headline:
  –
  “Inspired by Boston’s massively successful Big Dig, Seattle looks to go with deep bore tunnel to replace aging elevated waterfront viaduct”

• natinstl January 12, 2009 (8:11 pm)

  2 lanes each way! That really doesn’t seem like it’s taking into account any future growth at all. Aren’t they aren’t upset with the fact that they can’t expand I-5 due to their decision to put the convention center above it? I think they’ll be in the same situation with this. Personally I’m not happy with the tunnel option since I know in the end a lot of this money is going to come from us, the taxpayer. I wouldn’t be suprised if a toll is implemented either. A cost effective option that can handle current and future capacity would have been the wiser choice.

• DALYDBL January 12, 2009 (10:32 pm)

  The “Huling/triangle” zone has opened up a nice spot for the addition of a LIGHT RAIL station…

• Curious January 13, 2009 (5:30 am)

  I’m really disappointed about this decision to build a tunnel. I believe one strong earthquake and this could one EXPENSIVE mistake! I just wanted them to just replace it.

  I’m not sure I would use a tunnel so close to the waters edge, and I’m sure I’m not alone when I say that. I-5 will be WORSE than ever with this decision, what a nightmare this will be!

  I’ve lived here my whole life, I’m really going to miss that beautiful view from the Viaduct at Sunset that made our city so inviting.

  Sigh..

• MJ January 13, 2009 (8:02 am)

  Seattle already has several tunnels. The 3rd ave bus tunnels are a twin bore, and the BSNF rail tunnel is over 100 years old, runs from safeco to sculpture park. Dug by hand in 190X, seems to be doing fine and is still used daily.

  Bore is definitely the way to go.

• kiki January 13, 2009 (8:27 am)

  Hurrah! I’m not an expert on tunnels, but this sounds like a good plan. And hey, it’s a plan.

  I am continously confused by the view argument. Why aren’t you watching the road? And if you’re a passenger, it’s a fleeting view. If I understand this correctly, you’ll be able to enjoy a stunning view over the new tunnel without a big grey obstruction. As it should be.

• Westwood Resident January 13, 2009 (9:40 am)

  Lets get a few things cleared up.
  This tunnel WILL NOT be under the current viaduct.
  It WILL NOT be close to the water, it will run under 1st/2nd Ave.
  The viaduct, by all reports I have seen, WILL remain up and operating through out the construction of the tunnel.
  The BIG questions, and don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of them, here are a few off the top of my head…
  How do we pay for it?
  Will there be any downtown entrances/exits?
  Why only two lanes for the same amount of cars?
  .
  I have a feeling that, even though a decision has been made, there will be a LONG delay in the start of construction due to lawsuits and maybe even voter driven initiatives to stop or modify this project.

• Alden Sloe January 14, 2009 (6:20 pm)

  Part of the funding is being “stolen” from the 520 bridge replacement. I guess that’s why they only need two lanes vs the three of the current viaduct. None of those pesky Eastsiders will be able to get there!

  A major arterial replacing the viaduct does way more to cut off the waterfront than the current viaduct. Besides the hassle of crossing you lose parking and bring all the noise and pollution right down to ground level.

  How come nobody’s talking toll? The new Narrows was largely privately funded with the agreement the company putting up the capital would be able to generate a return on their investment by charging tolls. If the tunnel is such a great idea then construction companies will be jumping at the chance to bid on such a contract during a slumping economy.

  The bus tunnel was built in the late 80’s for 444 million. Adjusting for inflation that would be about 800 million today. The proposed deep bore tunnel would be twice as long so double that and you’re at 1.6 billion. Even if you double that to account for twin tunnels you’re only at 3.2 billion. Estimated cost is 4.2 billion. Yes, I know part of the money rolled into the project is for the seawall (which I don’t understand why that’s being hidden in the viaduct replacement costs) and part is for surface street improvements (which would happen irregardless of whether a tunnel is dug). Yet they’re saying new technology has suddenly made tunneling cheaper and that’s why the 11th hour tunnel proposal won out?

  What was the last major Seattle infrastructure project that came in on time and inside budget?

• WSB January 14, 2009 (6:37 pm)

  Alden – we did include the toll talk in our Tuesday coverage, after the decision was announced, after hearing Paula Hammond say in a radio interview it was a possibility.

• Alden Sloe January 14, 2009 (9:56 pm)

  I’ve seen tolls mentioned in passing as “a possible future source”. Code words for cost over run. Everything else, like the 520 bridge they specifically mention taking funding from put tolls out front.

  What would a toll be for a stretch of highway that costs 2 billion dollars a mile? $5 would pay it off at zero percent interest in about 30 years. A $7 toll would just cover the debt on a rate of 5% on a bond. Would people pay $12 to take the tunnel? Maybe. If it saves you an hour then sure. Put it out there and see if people think the price tag is worth it rather than propose obscure funding that makes it seem free (i.e. somebody else pays for it). Oh, btw, I love the idea that the Port of Seattle is kicking in “their” money. “Their money” comes from my property taxes. Yeah, check your tax statement if you live in King County.

• WSB January 14, 2009 (10:03 pm)

  The context in which Paula Hammond and Dave Ross were discussing tolls yesterday morning was to cover the $400 million that the state hasn’t figured out yet how to cover. (they’re contributing 2.8 billion, but only have 2.4 billion of it figured out)

• Alden Sloe January 14, 2009 (11:19 pm)

  I don’t get to hear Dave Ross much anymore, which is a real shame. The number tossed about in the press seemed to indicate a much higher portion of the total had been “figured out”. According to the Seattle times they “only” needed 1.4 BILLION.
  .
  According to WSDOT the new Tacoma Narrows was to cost $735, no wait, $800… scratch that, $849 million (see the pattern here). Actually they did a pretty good job building this on schedule and the “unexpected” overruns (like rusty cable) HAVE to be expected. In fact they claim “four weeks early and $114 million under budget”, $735 million final cost. The toll on the bridge started at $3 (the “introductory teaser rate”). It’s now at $4 and rising. If the tunnel is short 2.4 billion then we can figure a reasonable toll would be $4*(2.4/.735) or $13. Let’s throw that out there and see who’s willing to pay the $13 one way (or $6.50 both directions).

Sorry, comment time is over.