I feel that the mayor should be impeached. He is not doing his job that he was elected to do by the people. He has been intent on having his name on a plaque since he was elected, by hook or by CROOK.
When he decided on buying the automated toilets, he was told by the seattle police and other leaders of the communities that it was a bad idea and that they would be taken over by drug dealers and addicts shooting up drugs, prostitues, and the homeless. But he didn't listen and what he was warned would happen is happening. the citizens are afraid to use them. So its a $1.3 million plus waste of taxpayers monies.
Seattle is looking like a city from a third world because Nickles is putting our taxes into his tunnel fund. He is giving the heads of the city departments cash bonuses if they opperate under budget. Which means the maintence for the streets, traffic signs, sidewalks etc. are not being repaired or even worked on. He even has department heads hiring hatchet men to force the workers that have 20 years or more out. Such as in the traffic dept., the concret and paving department etc. Dont even ask about what their unions are doing to protect are even back the workers.
What really gets me is that nobody is seeing what nickles is doing. Id have to venture that at least 80% to 90% of the people in west seattle, burien, white center and unincorperated seattle do not want a tunnel. Even the port of seattle is pulling their funding for the sea wall and nickles is still fighting for the tunnel just so he will have his name on a plaque.
And earlier a rep. from his office said that they are going to raise taxes so he can build the tunnel. They said they will raise the water and sewage by 5 percent after they raise it 1 or 2 percent now. Don't they get it that we are tired of being taxed to death and for what, it sure is not for the services the city is giving us now.
It is getting to the point that we the people should be shouting " no taxation without representation" because we are not from the mayor or the city.
So why are the t.v. stations and newspapers not doing anything about how the mayor isn't doing the job he was hired to do? Whats up with that?

If the mayor "tunnel boy" nickles had our best interest in mind he wouldn't be trying to be the bad boy on the block. He failed with the automated toilets, which is going to cost the tax payers over $1.4 million, he failed with the monorail which cost the tax payers over $1 million, and now that he is set on having the tunnel instead of the viaduct where it is its going to cost us taxpayers millions for studies, advertisments, voting for either the tunnel or the viaduct where it stands.
If he was a mayor for the people he would do the right thing and get the money that the Governor is offering. Just because he has vested interest in the building of the tunnel we the taxpayers are going to get the short end of the stick as usual.
We are going to get taxed again and again if the mayor has his way and some how passes it through hmmmmmmmm like the movie about no paper trail, then we the taxpayers ........

I completely agree with larry! I also want to know how the Seattle City Council and Nickels think that eliminating 2 lanes from the original tunnel to create their "lite" tunnel is NOT going to impede traffic????!!!!! By the time either roadway is completed, we'll need twice as many lanes as either option provides given our region's explosive growth rate!!! WE NEED MORE FREEWAY SPACE NOT LESS!!!! I MEAN COME ON... TAKE A LOOK AT THE SEATTLE CONVENTION CENTER AND I-5!!! YOU'D THINK OUR CITY OFFICIALS AND MAYORS WOULD LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES!!! BUT NO... NOT SEATTLE'S STUCK-UP MAYOR AND HIS COUNCIL!!!!
I SAY BACK DOWN NICKELS AND TAKE NOTES FROM YOUR GOVERNOR WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR WHAT'S BEST FOR OUR SEATTLE!!!

We need a 3 lane tunnel running in both directions. The old viaduct is too out of date.
Lets get a state of the art sleek tunnel. It will accomadate plenty of cars and yet look sharp with the waterfront. Lets pay the price and do it after all it will be there for a long time. We voted for the stadiums why not this 3 lane each direction tunnel not viaduct.

Let's repair, not replace, the viaduct! Its been proven to be a viable alternative and one that does not require closure of the roadway that over 100,000 vehicles use per day.

Let's do impeach the mayor and councilwoman Drago for their irresponsibilty on this and many other issues such as the South Lake Union giveaway, the Mercer St. fiasco, the Million dollar public bathrooms.

There is simply no contest as to which is best for taxpayers and drivers on this: rebuild the viaduct. Nickels is a joke, but then I can't remember a Mayor of Seattle that has not been a joke.

A two lane tunnel would be building something that is obsolete 50 years before it's event designed. It's nuts, but you can't really expect more from the mayor and city council.

A tunnel is too risky financially. Efforts should be made to design a viaduct that is less noisy on the streets below.

tunnel/lightrail. go big, atleast 6 lanes & light rail. build it but don't build it small just charge the right people the right amount. tunnel has more positives than viaducts one positive to save money.

To the people in Seattle: I urge you to support state funding for a tunnel solution to the Alaska Way Viaduct. I realize it is much more expensive but if you can take the long term, next-generations view on this issue it is well worth the extra expense. Please learn from the example of the Olmsted Legacy. One hundred years ago our elected officials in Seattle took the long view and today people in Seattle are still enjoying the benefits. Spending the extra money on something like this only comes around every one hundred years and is so invaluable to our quality of life.


I was born just when the Viaduct was being built. Although I grew up in West Seattle I have made Mercer Island my home for the last 25 years. Opening up the Seattle waterfront is not just a Seattle issue, it is a regional issue. I travel extensively throughout Asia and Australia on business and have seen the what really world class cities are constructing on their waterfront doorsteps to make their region attractive and enjoyable places to live. This is not the time for Seattle or the Washington State legislature to go for a cheap solution on replacing the viaduct.

I would support user fees. Put a transponder on my car and I would gladly pay the extra $2-3 for each trip in the tunnel. Raise my taxes for a tunnel. Just build a tunnel and do something on par with the Olmstead Legacy.

Please do not be remembered for a cheap and tawdry elevated structure solution on our region's waterfront.

This is a regional issue, I am part of the region, and I don't believe that only the people living in Seattle should be able to decide this important issue.

Thank you in advance for considering my opinion.

We all know that the developers and owners of the buildings and property in the viaduct area want a tunnel to make their property values go up. They should pay the extra 2 billion to build the tunnel since they will benefit for years to come from increased property values

If you look at the long-term, you will probably notice that the "nothing ventured, nothing gained" adage will apply. The "tunnel light" option would be best in the long run.

Let's rebuild. Does eveybody forget that driving into Seattle on the viaduct after picking up friends or relative from the airport has got to be the most incredible intro to our lovely City. For me I won't give that up.

This is a once in a lifetime chance to correct mistake's that were committed in the 50's and 60's. Seattle with all its beauty and wonder has a scar on its waterfront. Although not a Democrat I applaud Greg Nichols for having the political courage to stand up to the Governor and do what is right for not only Seattle, but for the symbol of the rest of the State of Washington. I support the Mayor! Please build the tunnel!

This is the first real oppurtunity for Seattle to move into the 21st century with a vision for the future. I am not a resident of Seattle, but I would be willing to pay for a solution that involves the construction of a tunnel project. I would hope that the state can find a way for people within the greater Seattle area to fund such a project. Removing the viaduct would have significant aesthetic value to the city that would last forever. I would think that the improvement in aesthetics would be a stimulus to the development of real civic projects along the waterfront that would benefit all people of the region. For years, I have considered the poltics of Seattle to be backward, with no one having a vision for the future of Seattle. I am frankly amazed to see Mayor Nichols come forward to push a vision for a greater Seattle. It may not be popular, but I feel it is necessary. I would also support the larger tunnel project, if it appears that the smaller one will not serve anticipated needs of the future. A smalller tunnel that dosen't solve the problem is not a solution.

Please vote for the tunnel!!

Erich Tietze
Richmond Beach

It is rarely mentioned that the tunnel will eliminate the Seneca Street and Columbia Street ramps downtown, making it less effective for downtown workers to commute. The remaining exits from the tunnel would be located north and south of the central downtown area, so traffic in PioneerSq and Belltown would get worse with the tunnel. Why should we replace a working, but unsafe, system with a less functional transportation system?

Why a tunnel? Why when there is already so much traffic with 6 lanes, do you want to change it to 4 lanes? What sense does this make? What about the cost to us tax payers? How much longer are you going to countinue doing what you want before you stop and really listen to us the people, the voters,and the tax payers?
I really do not see how you can say that you are for the people of Seattle. What I do see is that you are only for your self and not the people that may have once had faith in you.

If you remember the discussions about replacing the West Seattle drawspan you might support the idea of having a sea caption crash a ship into the existing viaduct as a way of bringing the issue to a head and getting the replacment under way. Waiting for a second earthquake only means years more of studies.

The viaduct should be replaced with a tunnel and the project is a regional issue that should be approved at the State level not by Seattle voters in any vote. Let those well paid and trained State Managers, engineers and planners make the tough decision and remember it is for the good of future generations.

A major issue here is the development of the waterfront as a toursit center, and area of enjoyment for all in the Puget Sound Region. If one wishes to see a well designed active water front they only need to visit Victoria BC. Their waterfront is great partly because it does not feature a open roadway carrying 100,000 cars per day.

I support Mayor Nichols in his efforts to have a tunnel built.

thanks

I drive the viaduct daily and say NO! to the Paul Allen tunnel.

So here we go again, Mayor Nickles trying to shove more taxes down our thoats..we can hardly get out of West Seattle now, so fix the the freeways we have , NO!! Lets build a tunnel in tide flats, underground, in an earthquake zone, and oh yeah the busniess's will have to close for awhile so we the tax payers will have to help them out with their lost business's...or lets just knock down the viaduct and put everybody on the street level that can't handle trafic now, have you ever tried to get to Ivars on Elliott Avenue during a sporting event....Move on Mr.Mayor....we don't want your name on a Tunnel!!!

The Mayor has his own agenda does not really care what the people of Seattle think or what is best for the city. Tunnel light is a joke and the govenor is right. Rebuild the viaduct.

We all agree with Larry, tunnel boy nichels has not served us well, we want the viaduct.

I don't know much about the political agendas of these two politicians, but I think it would be extremely short-sighted to move forward with less traffic capacity, be it with "tunnel-lite" or, did I hear that right, a surface-street option (remove the viaduct & do nothing for a while)? Egads! Just where will all those vehicles go?! I have a feeling that some people are nervous about the stability of a new viaduct, some people are nervous about a tunnel below sea-level. We just need a solid structure, that will support our growing traffic capacity. Finally, creative designs can be considered in all scenarios, but I don't think it's a valid argument that we, as a city, should be concerned with the appearance of the waterfront skyline, and that argument should not play into the discussion.

I drive the viaduct daily and say NO to the BOURGEOIS tunnel.

I agree with the comments already posted. This mayor should be impeached, although I know that isn't possible with the position he holds. He is THE BIGGEST BULLY Seattle has. He is trying to bully the taxpayers and the school district, the drivers and the residents. He has the power to try to put his buddies in positions he wants them, paying back favors...? He is throwing his substantial weight around constantly. We tax payers and voters need to fight back. THIS IS OUR CITY TOO!!!

He wants the city population (read tax base) to grow by leaps and bounds, wants to make his real estate buddies happy by taking down the viaduct for some ill-thought, problem-ridden tunnel project that would only accommodate 2/3 of the traffic the viaduct does now. How can he not see that those two together spell disaster! Traffic is a nightmare NOW!!

I sure hope the voters give him a loud and clear message that WE DONT'T WANT HIS TUNNEL!!!!

For now and for the future the "tunnel lite" seems the better choice. If the smaller tunnel means fewer automobiles...good! Should our aim be to reduce the number of automobiles on our roads or to aid in increasing the number?

Des Moines, WA

I am assuming the viaduct would allow the same, or nearly the same, amout of street level parking as is currently available. The quickly flashed graphics I have seen of the tunnel proposals appear to completely do away with parking, leaving beautiful, huge, grassy areas which no one can approach except by bus or trolley (oops, I forgot, we lost that to the art park, another large grassy area in need of being watered). With limited water sources in Seattle, and an ever growing population, this seems to be very short sighted. Many of us do not dare water our yards now because of the scarcity and cost.

Tuck your pouty lower lip back in, Greg, climb onto an exercise bike and take a long scenic ride down your tunnel.

Oh, yes, another point: Has anyone happened to mention the unexpected cost overruns due to having to tunnel through all of the loose fill and buried sawdust from the turn of the last century? The very fill which is responsible for most of the waterfront we now have?

I moved to Seattle from out of state. I have never in my life witnessed such bickering as I have over the viaduct. Personally, it’s the ugliest thing I have ever seen. Why would you keep it if you have the choice to build a tunnel, and be able to utilize the above ground area that the viaduct stands on today. With all the monies that Seattle has wasted on studies, and the time that has been wasted on bickering, a replacement of some kind could have been close to completion.

A waterfront should not be a freeway. Those opposed to a tunnel or to getting rid of the viaduct in some way must not spend much time on Seattle's waterfront. The mayor is just fighting to improve our city. The viaduct IS a past mistake. The noise and pollution alone that it creates are reason not to spend time on Seattle's waterfront. We are robbed of our city's natural beauty by the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Mayor Nickels and his "tunnel vision" leave me baffled. He must think that the tax payers of Seattle are complete idiots. How can he say with a straight face that eliminating two lanes of traffic from his tunnel project will provide the same traffic flow as the current viaduct? I understand that the state of Seattle's school system is bad, but is he hoping that we have lost our basic math skills? Not only will this tunnel (and the new tunnel light) do nothing to improve our traffic woes, the extremely high risk of building a tunnel below sea level, in an earthquake prone area, should have everyone running to City Hall to demand that someone in that building WAKE UP. Furthermore, has anyone on the Mayor's office paid attention to the impact that Boston's "Big Dig" project has had on that city? Cost overruns are guaranteed in this project, and the Seattle City Counsel has already stated that it will just raise our property taxes to cover the cost. Please wake up Seattle, do not fall into the Mayor's "tunnel vision" on this issue.

I vote for a tunnel ,I hate the uglyness that fronts our great city,and travlers that are greeted from the cruse shipsby this ugly viaduct, please take a look up and around when you are under the viaduct,its slumsville.

I regulary commute along the viaduct and I support rebuilding the viaduct for several reasons;
I enjoy the view
I can listen to my radio uninterrupted
I appreciate the covered public parking the viaduct provides.
It's more cost effective to rebuild the viaduct vs the tunnel option
Talk to your buddies in Boston and ask them how the "big dig" affected them, it was a nightmare.

I am suspect as to what becomes of the real estate created by the tunnel option. Will it remain public property? A new park perhaps? or will the now available prime real estate be sold to developers generating revenue and an increased tax base for the city.

Feel free to forward these comments to Mayor Nichols and the Govenor

I think Greg is in the sack with the Big Dig contractors, and his private agenda cost us dearly. The Washington State taxpayers are going to get reamed, once again.

Robert,

I appreciate your insightful thoughts and comments on this subject. However, I still can not understand why the various local and state government officials, and the voters of Seattle, have not seriously considered a third option; a simple surface road through Seattle. At first glance, this option sounds inadequate, however if you stop to think about long range transportation planning in Puget Sound, you realize that in order for Seattle to continue to grow and prosper, we desperately need a mass transit system. Take the money that would be saved on not building a tunnel or an elevated viaduct, and put it towards mass transit. This is a solution that has been done successfully in San Francisco, along the Embarcadero. Instead of rebuilding an earthquake damaged elevated viaduct, San Francisco built a six lane road with a center island for mass transit. Not only did it meet the transportation needs of the city, it also got rid of an eyesore on the waterfront.
Thanks for listening.

Eric Smith

Greg Nickels has Tunnel Vision!
His comment about it being more important to Accommodate the city of Seattle then to accommodate cars and trucks reflects his pompous and irresponsible attitude.(remember the auto clean toilets?) We already have a bottle neck at the convention center on I-5, should we create a new one with a tunnel on that can't accomidate current traffic flow?

99 is a STATE highway. Not a city tourist attraction. With the bad record of the people of Seattle trying on their own with transportation issues, they should be removed from the process all together. Let us look at some of the glorious decisions the fine people of Seattle have made. Yes 4 times on wanting a Monorail, then after putting a "democratic" board in place, rather then a professional group of transportation planners, they suddenly don't like a financing option and back peddled. How many time did the people of Seattle fight against the I-5 development back in the day. Is this really the best location for THE MAJOR north south freeway? Is it wide enough for ALL of the traffic that was projected when it was built? Is it the best idea to have a major east west highway crossing lake washington dump people less then a mile before the MAJOR off ramp into the city, thus creating the Mercer WEDGE as the east-siders force their way onto the freeway so they can get into the city? I would argue that the fine people and their self absorbed city government have made all of these problems or at the very minimum made them worst.
Wait there is more. Remember the Mnt Baker fighting over the I-90 project? How many millions were wasted on that little debacle? How about that god awful mess at Mercer, improvements frozen like deer in headlights until a billionaire starts building his own little bioresearch city at south lake union. So what are the good people of Seattle going to do to deal with that? Oh, lets build a trolly to bring back that good old feeling. I am sure it is going to help that whole glorious traffic experience.
Then there is my all time favorite. Sound Transit. A "Regional transit organization" Now I remember very well what we were told during the campaign. I volunteered on it. A light rail system that would connect Tacoma with Everett that would be fairly fast elevating the I-5 congestion. Then when passed, the board was stacked with Seattle and King county interests and suddenly it became mall to airport tourist line that even when the plans were finished and the studies done, it was shown that the plan would NOT reduce one bus route or remove cars off the freeway. So what did they do? Lets go ahead with it anyway. It will bring economic development to all of these fine Seattle neighborhoods.
THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WERE PROMISED NOR VOTED FOR. If it was presented to the 3 counties as a economic development plan for depressed areas of Seattle and south king county do you think people in Snohomish, me , or Pierce county would have voted for it? NO, NO, NO.
The viaduct is another example of the "self absorbed, self centered, Seattle is the economic engine that drives the world" mentality. We need a functional highway that runs trough the city so the Port and the people who work and travel around the Puget Sound have some options that are safe and not going to fall down the next time the earth moves. We need a plan, a structure that will help people move north and south. We don't need to help develop the Seattle waterfront their tourist trade. I'll tell you this, if any of my loved ones are killed on that structure during the next earthquake due to this bickering, I will be the first in line to sue the city of Seattle, City Council and Mayor personally for all of the partisan, ego feeding bickering that has went on since the Nisqually Quake. This structure should have been condemned and tore down right then. Has anyone forgotten the pictures of San Francisco? That is our future.
The people of Seattle have proven themselves not being able to make or execute cogent decisions when it comes to traffic projects that affect the entire region. They need to get out of the way and let the state fix and improve the traffic situation in a badly design part of the sound. Make a 8 lane highway with transit and commercial lanes and fix the problem. Quit trying to improve your personal capital flow for some tourist theme park waterfront. Build a Highway. A real Highway.

I agree it's time to impeach the mayor - and I'm a lifelong Democrat and proud of that. But this mayor is making it clear he does not put the interests of the people who live and work in Seattle first. About the tunnel...

The mayor's obsession with the tunnel - and that's certainly what is it - looks to me just like the president's obsession with the war in Iraq. It was an incredibly bad idea from it's first inception, but despite clear evidence to the contrary (over and over and over), he just can't seem to accept reality. It's an utter disaster in every way. It's all about "legacy" (i.e. his own sense of self-image), and all of those directly effected can go to hell. Mark my words (and please spread them): The tunnel is Nickels' Iraq war.

The tunnel would be a complete disaster for many of the same reasons that the war in Iraq is a complete disaster: IT'S BASED ON A LIE. The Big Lie that Nickels has been trying to sell (and that he media continues to parrot) is that by burying highway 99, we'll all get to enjoy some beautiful new public space. This is as much of a lie as "we will be greeted as liberators" and "the war will pay for itself". Here are the facts, evident to anyone who is honest enough to go look: THERE ARE (AND WILL BE) NO VIEWS OF THE SOUND AND THE OLYMPICS from the strip of land where the viaduct now stands. Go look. From beneath the viaduct, all you see are 1) traffic on Alaska Way (which is only going to increase); and 2) the large buildings along the waterfront. That's it. The Sound and the Olympics? No way - you cant see them from there! Hey KING-TV, please go look and report back on the nice views down there. If you position yourself v-e-r-y carefully, you can get a tiny glimpse between the existing buildings from just a few spots (in the real estate business, they charitably refer to this as a "peekaboo view" - stand in just the right spot, twist your head just so, and between the obstructions you can barely see water). The strip of land above the tunnel debacle would become like the public spaces in Pioneer Square: ugly, smelly places where the homeless have taken over and nobody else will go. The next time the mayor starts bloviating about the wonderful public space with scenic views, somebody ought to call BS and point out the truth: at ground level, there ARE no views there.

Of course, there's more to The Big Lie about views. What's going to happen is that the great city leaders are going to sell off some (or all) of the land above the tunnel to developers to help finance it, who will build more million dollar condos along that strip - which WILL be elevated enough to provide the wealthy people who buy them those spectacular views they keep telling us we'll get. Those views WILL be spectacular - those are the views that us landless peasants currently get to enjoy as we drive up and down the viaduct.

So just like all the mayors Seattle has had for as long as anyone can remember, this whole thing is just a scam to take what's now a public resource (the viaduct - which offers all of us nice views), and transfer it (and those million dollar views) to private developers. It's all about greed. To add insult to injury, the taxpayers get screwed with the bill, and everyone gets screwed when all our roads turn to gridlock.

The Big Lie. The Tunnel is Nickels' Iraq War.
I'd like to see these ideas presented on Up Front. Please start talking about them.

When I am gone from the city or if I have been just lost in work and life, I always get that warm and comfortable feeling when I see the water front and downtown from the viaduct. The mayor and his friends work downtown and see the view everyday. Most of Seattle doesn't work downtown. Most of us only get to see the view from the viaduct. I have asked around and my unscientific survey found lots of my peers feel the same. We are the uncentered masses that make up the majority of Seattle. We don't live or work downtown. We like the view from the viaduct. It is the only part of downtown that sort of belongs to us. In that it is the only part of downtown that we regularly use. It provides a connection for us to the city. If you put it underground we will loose a very important part of the visual culture of what we think of as home.

Nichols is withholding a lot of very important information that is critical for voters in making a decision. What is happening with a new sea wall? How does that impact/effect the tunnel/viaduct decision? What are the earthquake risks of the tunnel? Can he guarantee that the big earthquake everyone loves to predict will not crack and flood a tunnel? Is the state or city liable if a natural disaster damages a tunnel? If we do a tunnel, what is going to be built on top of the cut? Will this be more high end housing or office buildings or will the space be left as park land for residents to enjoy? So what will the waterfront look like in Nichols grand plan? Will we think it looks better than the viaduct, or will wealthy people just have better views? Who will pay for costs in excess of the project budget? Seattle residents through higher property taxes?
A surface road would be a great compromise. Highway 99 both north and south of the waterfront has stoplights. It would be a fabulous chance to put in light rail, 6 lanes of traffic, eliminate the viaduct and eliminate the cost of Big Dig 2.
I hope someone viable will oppose Nichols in the next election so we can have a mayor that is interested in building a city the residents can afford.

This issue is a train wreck; the classic example of the best solution falling to the bottom line. The bickering and bad decisions keep going on. What State officials don't consider is how the tunnel option is not only about transportation - it's about opening up Seattle's waterfront from something that is currently an eyesore and embarassment. It provides Seattle with a huge opportunity to finally elevate itself into the realm of a world-class city, and to finally have some kind of long open space that would serve as an economic boost and pay dividends for decades to come. The Mayor appears to be the only one with the political will and the vision to do what's right on this issue, and it's his city, so I suspect he would know best. He is correct is stating that the effects of this go beyond that of transportation and moving cars. The Governor seems to have tunnel vision (or lack thereof, pun intended) and is only looking at the bottom line from behind her desk. The cheapest alternative isn't necessarily the right alternative. She's probably one of those folks who likes to hold up traffic while driving erratically on the viaduct and "staring at the pretty view," and her behavior on this matter suggests she'd feel entitled to act that way. There will be lots of explaining to do if we don't go with the tunnel alternative, and the horsehockey answer of "the bottom line" is not an acceptable one. When my grandkids ask about the viaduct, I'll bring up her name and tell yet another sad joke of a Seattle story - up there with the skid row "tidal toilets" - so I guess that will have to be part of her legacy. The heart of the failure here falls on a lack of interagency coordination and disintegration due to multiple agendas, and for that I'm disappointed in everyone involved - and the people in the Puget Sound region are the ones that lose out.

The arrogance of Nickels is amazing. In an era where state funds are finite, he demands that the state foot the bill for an extravagance and seems poised to "take his ball away" (withhold permits) if the state doesn't play by his rules. What a joke! Just because Seattle is the largest population center for the state does not mean that they are exempt from the basic rules for the use of public money: invest in the most cost-effective alternative. Mr. Nickels, a replacement viaduct IS the most cost-effective alternative...a tunnel is not.

This state has many demands for public infrastructure investment. The 520 bridge has a far greater regional importance and deserves a place high on the list of public investment need. Protecting/improving water quality in the Puget Sound will demand great amounts of public investment and will have very significant regional impacts (the same can be said for the Spokane River and Columbia River basins). Would Mr. Nickels prefer that these critical needs are ignored (go unfunded or receive reduced funding) so he can have his over-priced tunnel? I sure hope the answer to that is NO.

As a state employee who works with communities on wastewater infrastructure issues, it is frustrating to watch projects that can go a long way towards protecting and enhancing water quality in this state go unfunded by the state because no money is available. Not only does this affect the health of the environment, public health can easily be jeopardized. While these projects are not funded from the same pool of money that goes to transportation projects, it is still embarrassing to watch a mayor demand an extravagance when critical projects go unfunded. I hope Governor Gregoire sticks to her principles of responsible use of public funds and does not cave to the walking ego known as Mayor Nickels.

I support any option that retires the viaduct from the waterfront.

After having experienced the Olympic Sculpture Park grand opening yesterday, it's easy to see the untapped potential of Seattle's waterfront. Let's build on that momentum, keep our sites on the future, and push through the immediate pain of expending the extra energy and money now to benefit generations to come.

If the viaduct is rebuilt, I will simply be at a loss for words to explain to out-of-towners why such a savvy, evolved, nature-loving, conscientious city like Seattle has chosen to renew the barrier between its people and their waterfront.

My goodness. From 3rd and Cherry one can't even see the viaduct let alone hear it. However 110,000 motorists and another few thousand passengers now experience one of the best "views from the road" in North America.

But where are the views the proponents of the tunnel are talking about? Are they next going to use City Hall to tear down the historic pier sheds and relocate the tourist shops and restaurants along the waterfront so that there are views from Alaskan Way similar to those seen from the new SAM sculpture park to the north? Let's be realistic folks, Seattle is surrounded by water and most of us enjoy these views on a daily basis from where we live and work, not as tourists along the central waterfront.

Why are we willing to let a few greedy developers who want to build more condominiums on the central waterfront dictate this one? Is this the same group who supported the ill-fated monorail which really would have blocked public views to the waterfront down our east-west downtown streets? I can imagine the moneyed interests downtown doing a huge TV/mailer campaign with pretty pictures of the Olympic Mountains to the west from the new SAM sculpture park implying this is what a vote for a mile or so of tunnel will buy.

I have more confidence in the state than our mickey mouse mayor and council. If Seattle continues to threaten, use the money for a new 520 bridge and let development/jobs go east where they will be appreciated.

Most Seattle residents are fed up with higher property taxes and declining services and livability. The tunnel option can only be built with residents paying higher property taxes for this vanity. $3.2 billion will make this the most expensive tunnel per lane mile in the country! Hopefully, the governor and legislature will prevail.

Any tunnel along the sea wall is a terrible idea; the risks are too great and the true costs of building a tunnel are unknown.
I vote for rebuilding the viaduct. As others have commented, it is with great pride that I take visitors on this stretch of road to be able to see the view of the sound and mountains. I love driving the viaduct because of the view. For those condo owners along the waterfront, I can only say it was there when they bought their condos and they still bought. Why should citizens pay to improve their views and home's values?
I agree with Larry that the Mayor is only wanting to leave something he can put his name on. He is thinking only of himself and not what is best for Seattle.

Although I don't live in the City of Seattle, it appears some of my Washington State taxes will be used to help build the new structure. Therefore, I'm voicing my opinion. I am not in favor of the tunnel - lite or otherwise. It's obvious the purpose of the tunnel is to appeal to the new condo dwellers that live down by the waterfront so they can see the water better. How about those that travel that corridor everyday? Shouldn't they have the right to see the waterfront to ease their commute, rather than be in an underground box? Both the tunnel and the viaduct are not safe. One can be destroyed by a tsunami and the other by an earthquake. Perhaps a reasonable solution, is to build a 4-lane freeway, all on one level rather than a two story structure above ground. This would allow for everyone - commuters and condo dwellers - to both enjoy the view. And, they could come up with some unique design that looks less like a freeway and more like some thought went into blending it into it's surroundings. Think outside the box.

Viaduct/Tunnel/Middleground,

I admire the mayor's stance on waterfront and the governor's eye on funds HOWEVER they need to find the middle ground. The GROUND. Not building up and not digging in, it can't help but be cheaper.

San Francisco removed their elevated highways when the earthquake took them down. They now have a beautiful pedestrian friendly highway right on the waterfront that works.

Why hasn't the compromise between above and below centered on the surface. Why hasn't this option been mention and considered. The land is there and not used for anything except parking. This option seems to been brushed aside. Does Seattle (and the state) need to continue being held hostage by the great god "the Car"? They also need to remember that it's not just Seattle residents in cars that use the waterfront viaduct. The whole world visits this place.

Some other thoughts: While this viaduct/tunnel/surface option is being built. All the cars WILL find an alternative route that works for them. They might even get out of their cars and use the perfectly good public transit system. 3 or 4 years later we invite the noise, air and eye pollution back to the waterfront with the new/rebuilt highway, kind of a backward move in my opinion.

Maybe the governor's threat of taking the money elsewhere should be allowed to happen. The viaduct is then condemned and removed And surprise…. the people and their cars find a different way and mode to get to thier destination.
Or maybe... London charges a fee to bring a car into the city. Maybe Seattle should too?!! Emerald city? Or Emerald pity???
Kate

To all those visionaries - including Boss Nickels - who suggest that the "solution" to "the viaduct problem" is to reduce the capacity of our major highways, I have the following proposal:

As long as were reducing or eliminating the available capacity on state highway 99, why stop there? If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. We should tear up I-5 from Northgate to Tukwila. We can plant grass and have a nice jogging path along the former I-5 corridor. It would cut down considerably on greenhouse gasses, and we could all use the exercise of hiking to work. It's a win-win.

Then we should sink the 520 and I-90 floating bridges. Have some vision, people! Beautiful Lake Washington is no place for ugly, concrete, floating highways! Property values up and down the lake shore would increase (and so would property tax revenues) due to what would be restored, unobstructed views of Mt. Rainier across the lake. With the money we save on road maintenance, we could invest in a fleet of sea kayaks, which commuters could use to get across the lake. We would reduce global warming and we would all end up with rock-hard, six-pack abs. Another win-win!

But why stop there? Let's plow up the runways at SeaTac and sink all the state ferries! They burn too much fossil fuel, make noise, and we can surely get by without them.

Once we are freed from our dependence on all these 20th century dinosaurs, we can think about a real mass transit system (one slow light rail line with twice-daily service from Everett to Tacoma should be adequate, since the economy will collapse and everyone who actually wants to have a job will move to some less delusional place).

So yes, by all means, let's tare down the viaduct, or build the single-lane Greg Nickels Memorial Tunnel, and take all the other steps we can to reduce our highway capacity. It's really the smartest thing we can do!

I'm for a viaduct rebuild - which can be very nice looking - not at all like the current viaduct. A viaduct doesn't stop access to the waterfront. In fact, it currently provides easy parking and access to the waterfront.

This debate is not about Transportation needs for this century. For the mayor, and the downtown business association, it is all about making views accessable for businesses /condos / developers that will takeover those building facing the waterfront.

If transportation were a factor, a system that can at least carry the current traffic load is required. As a state highway I think that has to be a priority.

This State Highway is used by many more people than those inside the Seattle city limits. It is time the Mayor gets real. He shouldn't have the final say on state projects.

I think its ridiculous that a lot of people that are weighing in on this blog in support of the tunnel do NOT live in the city, and will NOT have to pay for it with the raising of their property taxes. Honestly, since they're not paying the price, they're opinions shouldn't be considered.

And to the Mercer Island resident who is willing to pay 3 DOLLARS per drive on the tunnel, it is easy for you to say that. You're not a poor commuter from White Center who cannot afford $6 a day just to drive a public highway.

I'm 100% AGAINST the tunnel. I live in Seattle. My property taxes are high enough, and I don't want them raised to benefit a minority of people (downtown condo owners and developers.)

Furthermore, everyday the Viaduct stands, it is a threat to public safety. If it collapses in an earthquake and kills people while our city "leaders" are digging in their heels about their "pink elephant", they have blood on their hands.

I agree that Nickels should be booted out of office. He should take with him his spineless lapdogs on the city council too. On issue after issue, Nickels expects taxpayers to go for his pie-in-the-sky projects.

Taking a six lane highway, and making four - just for aesthetics just shows everyone how out of touch he is with the best interests of the citizens of Seattle.

Build a replacement elevated structure to protect the public's access to the waterfront, avoid the problems of future flooding caused by rising ocean levels from polar ice melting, reduce the down-time for the build, and keep the full utility of one half of the north/south trasport corridor through Seattle.
The waterfront tunnel, in whatever configuration, is simply a giveaway of expensive land and airspace to developers, and amounts to nothing more than a subsidy to high income housing.
The notion of 'opening up' the waterfront with a tunnel is a laugh. A concrete wall of condos and hotels is more of a barrier than an elevated highway.
To those who have no user stake in the issue but who favor having Seattlites pay the higher taxes and utility fees to construct a tunnel for esthetic improvement, I would point out that an elevated structure is just a bridge, and as such it can be made hansome as opposed to ugly - Sydney and Boston have bridges in their waterfronts and those cities put their bridges front and center in every publicity shot.
The mayor and council gambled when they dropped the plans for a vote (which I suspect they knew they would lose) and tossed the football to the governor, hoping that she would gift their wealthy developer constituents with a tunnel, only to see their hail mary pass batted away. It's pretty disingenuous of them to whine about being forced to accept the elevated option when that's exactly what they have been doing to the taxpayers and users of the viaduct with their cynical and dishonest tunnel machinations.

Our vote is against the tunnel. Some people want it because it will make the waterfront look better. Many people don't want it because of cost, safety, concerns about a tunnel on an earthquake fault and along a seawall. Sure, the toilets looked great when first installed but look at them now. No one wants to go into them unless you are doing something illegal. Personally I think the mayor has a personal interest in getting the viaduct out of the way. Does he own some property that he will get big dollars for when the view is better? Something is going on. I'm with the governor on this and applaud her strength of conviction. NO TUNNEL of any size!

Three cheers for Gov. Gregiore.

Finally, an adult showed up at the party and is enforcing a modicum of sanity. Before this, I hadn't been terribly impressed with her, but she has shown some real backbone and true political courage on this, daring to face down the mayor, city council and the county executive, all of who have invested a lot of their political capital in this folly. I am glad we have her in Olympia.

THANK YOU GOVERNOR GREGIORE FOR STOPPING THIS TRAIN WRECK!!!

The Governor has abdicated her role as a leader in order to satisfy Mr. Chopp's power as majority leader. In order to insure her political legacy by getting her legislative package adopted, she is willing to bow to Mr. Chopp's dictates and sacrifice any vision for the future of Seattle's waterfront.

We now get to vote on a dead issue. This is political bunkum by the Gov. This is the payback the voters of Seattle get for pushing the Gov. over the top in her recent close election.

Those who support the viaduct concept by waxing lyrically over taking visitors on the old viaduct to see the great views need to examine the dimensions of the new viaduct. You will not see the bay or the mountains from a standard auto, as the sidewalls will be solid and higher than the old viaduct's railings. So, if this is your opposition to the tunnel, you are not voting with your intelligence.

The above illutrates how we have been mislead into this decision over tunnel vs. viaduct. We need leadership. We have elected a mayor who, for the first time in many years is showing that trait. So, what do we do with this exhibition of leadership? We turn on him with a vengeance and support a Governor who suddenly changes the rules of the game by caving in to her own political timidity in order to buy political support for her legislative program.

Meanwhile the voters of this City are told they will get a voice in this matter. Then, we are told that unless we vote when the Gov. insists, we have no voice. Now, we are told that unless we vote the way the Gov. demands, our vote will be meaningless.

Instead of being told to 'vote' out of fear, we should be led by our elected officials. Yet, all we hear (except fot the Mayor's voice) are the handwrigners of some on the City council who are more interested in their political hides than promoting the vision and future of the City. One councilmember reduced his leadership position to concern about "risk." Never mind "leadership" attributes, never mind vision, never mind the future of this City as a world-class setting that values its natural beauty. As voters, let us all keep our heads in the sand and support the nay-sayers, because it is intellectually easier to simply react to any possibility of a threat by voting "no," than it is to think, to examine, to consider the benefits that will obviously flow to us all from the tunnel concept. And, most importantly, let us follow the "leaders" who preach nothing but fear as the basis for examining this critical matter. Remember the reason we went into Iraq? Well, remember that mistake as you blindly follow those on our City council and the Gov. when they tell us how to vote, solely because of fear.

I think its ridiculous that a lot of people that are weighing in on this blog in support of the tunnel do NOT live in the city, and will NOT have to pay for it with the raising of their property taxes. Honestly, since they're not paying the price, their opinions shouldn't be considered.

And to the Mercer Island resident who is willing to pay 3 DOLLARS per drive on the tunnel, it is easy for you to say that. You're not a poor commuter from White Center who cannot afford $6 a day just to drive a public highway.

I'm 100% AGAINST the tunnel. I live in Seattle. My property taxes are high enough, and I don't want them raised to benefit a minority of people (downtown condo owners and developers.)

Furthermore, everyday the Viaduct stands, it is a threat to public safety. If it collapses in an earthquake and kills people while our city "leaders" are digging in their heels about their "pink elephant", they have blood on their hands.

I agree that Nickels should be booted out of office. He should take with him his spineless lapdogs on the city council too. On issue after issue, Nickels expects taxpayers to go for his pie-in-the-sky projects.

Taking a six lane highway, and making four - just for aesthetics just shows everyone how out of touch he is with the best interests of the citizens of Seattle.

I think its ridiculous that a lot of people that are weighing in on this blog in support of the tunnel do NOT live in the city, and will NOT have to pay for it with the raising of their property taxes. Honestly, since they're not paying the price, their opinions shouldn't be considered.

And to the Mercer Island resident who is willing to pay 3 DOLLARS per drive on the tunnel, it is easy for you to say that. You're not a poor commuter from White Center who cannot afford $6 a day just to drive a public highway.

I'm 100% AGAINST the tunnel. I live in Seattle. My property taxes are high enough, and I don't want them raised to benefit a minority of people (downtown condo owners and developers.)

Furthermore, everyday the Viaduct stands, it is a threat to public safety. If it collapses in an earthquake and kills people while our city "leaders" are digging in their heels about their "pink elephant", IMO they have blood on their hands.

I agree that Nickels should be booted out of office. He should take with him his spineless lapdogs on the city council too. On issue after issue, Nickels expects taxpayers to go for his pie-in-the-sky projects.

Taking a six lane highway, and making four - just for aesthetics just shows everyone how out of touch he is with the best interests of the citizens of Seattle.

Has anyone look at what the Big Dig tunnel in Boston has turn out to be. One big expensive boon doggle. Now lets look at what Mayor Nickels is trying to do. First off he has picked the most expensive solution to fix the problem. Secondly he is trying to build a tunnel in a mud flat residue. Now he wants to decrease the size of the tunnel from six lane to four lanes. Where does he have his head, we can't move traffic now so I guess that a smaller solution will do the trick, all for the prospet of building a other park that we don't have the money to maintain. The question that I have is, isn't 99 a state highway? How can a city put demand on the the state on which choise to make when it is the taxpayers that end up footing the bill. It seems that the politictions only solution to every problem is to raise taxes and this taxpayer is get tired of paying taxes on projects that he never uses. Let tell the government to do the right thing and quit fighting each other and fix the traffic problem and move on.

I think its ridiculous that a lot of people that are weighing in on this blog in support of the tunnel do NOT live in the city, and will NOT have to pay for it with the raising of their property taxes. Honestly, since they're not paying the price, their opinions shouldn't be seriously considered.

And to the Mercer Island resident who is willing to pay 3 DOLLARS per drive on the tunnel, it is easy for you to say that. You're not a poor commuter from White Center who cannot afford $6 a day just to drive a public highway.

I'm 100% AGAINST the tunnel. I live in Seattle. My property taxes are high enough, and I don't want them raised to benefit a minority of people (downtown condo owners and developers.)

Furthermore, everyday the Viaduct stands, it is a threat to public safety. If it collapses in an earthquake and kills people while our city "leaders" are digging in their heels about their "pink elephant", IMO they have blood on their hands.

I agree that Nickels should be booted out of office. He should take with him his spineless lapdogs on the city council too. On issue after issue, Nickels expects taxpayers to go for his pie-in-the-sky projects.

Taking a six lane highway, and making four - just for aesthetics just shows everyone how out of touch he is with the best interests of the citizens of Seattle.

The mayor is an arrogant liar and a petulant child (reminds me of the president). Can we start the petitions to recall him now?

I'm no fan of the governor, but compared to the mayor she's looking like Winston Churchill. She's to be commended for calling a halt to the endless, circular, actionless viaduct/tunnel/"croisette" debate.

Build another viaduct. Why not the tunnel? For the same reason you don't go to Europe when you can't pay the light bill: we don't have the money! And as Licata pointed out on "Up Front" this morning, NOBODY knows what a tunnel would actually cost. If we were to be snookered into agreeing to "Tunnel Lite," they break ground, and then after three years of cave-ins and floods and Native American artifact finds, they announce the price tag will be 300% of estimate, people would go out of their minds. (Look at the difference between the Boston Big Dig initial estimate and the actual final price tag... and still, it's broken and needs fixing.)

The current route is three lanes in each direction and still gets stopped up every day. Whether you bury it or elevate it, it's completely insane to build a two-lane replacement. You'd have broken the bank to build a route that would be overtaxed, gridlocked and obsolete from opening day -- heck, from NOW.

I've lived here 13 years and cannot understand why Seattle, uniquely, takes such pride in procedural paralysis. This discussion has been on the front burner for six years and nothing's been decided! If the next earthquake collapsed the viaduct today, all these ineffectual, decision-fearing, addicted-to-dialogue public agencies would be to blame.

Let's shut up and build. Collectively, we look ridiculous. This city couldn't plan a one-car funeral in under three years. It's exhausting, especially when there's only one sensible alternative we can actually pay for: a six-lane viaduct.

I think its ridiculous that a lot of people that are weighing in on this blog in support of the tunnel do NOT live in the city, and will NOT have to pay for it with the raising of their property taxes. Honestly, since they're not paying the price, their opinions shouldn't be seriously considered.

And to the Mercer Island resident who is willing to pay 3 DOLLARS per drive on the tunnel, it is easy for you to say that. You're not a poor commuter from White Center who cannot afford $6 a day just to drive a public highway.

I'm 100% AGAINST the tunnel. I live in Seattle. My property taxes are high enough, and I don't want them raised to benefit a minority of people (downtown condo owners and developers.)

Also, how much LONGER will it take to build a tunnel vs. replacement viaduct? Do we really want are city and waterfront torn up for eternity? What if they uncover some site of historic significance? Can you imagine the legal delays?

Everyday the Viaduct stands, it is a threat to public safety. If it collapses in an earthquake and kills people while our city "leaders" are digging in their heels for their "pink elephant", IMO they have blood on their hands.

I agree that Nickels should be booted out of office. He should take with him his spineless lapdogs on the city council too. On issue after issue, Nickels expects taxpayers to go for his pie-in-the-sky projects.

Taking a six lane highway, and making four - just for aesthetics - just shows everyone how out of touch he is with the best interests of the citizens of Seattle.

Tom,

AMEN!!

Agree that Gov. Gregiore is the only one who comes out of this mess looking like a rational, responsible leader. Kudos to her for having a spine.

Build a replacement, elevated viaduct. No reduction in capacity. Duh!

The tunnel disaster would bankrupt the city and it's taxpayers for a generation. You want ANY other transit project (road, rail, whatever) built in the next 50 years? Then vote against the tunnel fiasco, because The Big Wet Hole would soak up every available transit dollar for a very, very long time.

The Mayor and City Council majority keep saying they want an "honest" vote. But they're not honest enough to bring up the fact that an elevated structure (including a new seawall) would be paid for entirely by the state ($2.8 billion), while the difference between $2.8 billion and however much a tunnel ended up costing (including all cost overruns) would have to be paid for entirely by the City -- meaning the taxpayers. But Nickels never mentions that ...

So we can have an elevated viaduct replacement without paying ANY extra local fees or taxes, or we can choose a tunnel and be stuck for untold hundreds of millions -- probably billions -- that we in the City would be solely responsible for. How many human services, environmental improvements, other transportation projects, etc., will lose out if we get stuck with the tunnel bills?

The City has already said (including in the vote resolution passed by the City Council on Friday) that it will contribute up to $500 million from the City's utilities for a tunnel -- meaning YOUR utility bills will go up to the tune of $500 million. But Nickels never mentions that ...

If the vote were to be truly honest, it would say, "Do you want an elevated replacement that would be paid for entirely by the state, or a tunnel that will cost you, the citizens of Seattle, AT LEAST $600 million, plus you will be responsible for all cost overruns?"

I love the viaduct -- it's my favorite road to drive on. I don't think it's ugly, and it's an integral part of our cityscape. I just hope the media shines a light on all the dishonest statements being made by Nickels and Drago, and that the people of Seattle are smart enough to see through them.

Saw the 1/21/07 show re: tunnel. We were ask to vote on this site tody, but there is NO PLACE TO VOTE. It's only a few hours after the program airred...so why would Robert tell his viewers to go to his website, when there are no links to actually vote.
Mine would be NO TUNNELL. I don't live in the city of Seattle, I do live in the BLUEstate of
many unnecessary & redundant taxes.
Most democats voted down the repeel of 9 1/2cent
(emergency)tax increase....so guess we're al stuck with more taxes...no action.

It seems clear from reading the posts on this issue that most Seattle residents, especially ones who live on the west side of the city, oppose the tunnel in any form. It's not just about the views and lack of access to the waterfront, it's about taxing us for a highway that's a major North South route between Mexico and Canada.
Some folks, without first hand experience of the Embarcadero, nod in agreement that tearing down the collapsed Nimitz freeway to build the Embarcadero was a good idea. I've walked the Embarcadero along the San Francisco waterfront and it is indeed pretty. But the waterfront part is located at the tip of the SF peninsula and it goes from one side of the tourist district to the other. Tourists use it and some residents work around the area, but they certainly don't use the Embarcadero to get from one city to another as we do the viaduct and Highway 99. They get off the ferries and go straight over the hill to the downtown area and other parts of the city. That's a very different issue than what we're dealing with.
Why is it that the tunnel proponents always show the tunnel with pretty, open spaces above, where people can walk and enjoy the view, which really doesn't exist at ground level except between the buildings? Of course, you could invest in a $300 hotel room to enjoy the same view you get driving your old Plymouth to Ballard. Why is it that they always show the elevated highway as a hulking, ugly structure? And why is it that they're suppressing the actual costs that would likely be involved in building a tunnel through fill, below sea level, in a time when every credible scientist states that sea levels are predicted to rise dramatically? It's because they're trying to bamboozle people who aren't going to be affected directly into out-voting those of us who will.
I live in West Seattle; I'll be paying for the tunnel in my property taxes, in my utility taxes, and in uncountable extra hours and stress when I try to get anywhere in town. Oops, forgot, the tunnel doesn't have any downtown exits so I guess I don't need to go there anyway. Maybe downtown IS just for the mayor's elite cronies who can afford the multi-million dollar condos. Sure, tell me to ride the bus; should I jump on one that that takes over an hour to go to somewhere I can get in 15 minutes in my car (even in traffic right now) and doesn't run during the snow? Sure, the 20 something pinhead planners in the city tell us to ride our bikes; that works pretty well for my 75 year old granny - especially in the rain. Is their skin more waterproof than ours?
Some call for a 6 lane surface structure. Do you really think you're going to be able to stroll across it from downtown to the waterfront? Are you nuts? It will be barricaded, with limited access, to protect us from the cars that will be speeding pell mell from Federal Way to Ballard or from Magnolia to the stadiums. So you'll be prevented from enjoying the waterfront because there will be no affordable parking and you'll have to walk long distances to safely cross at prescribed pedestrian overpasses. By the way, what will those look like?
So demand that the planners develop an elevated structure that is pleasing to the eye. It can, and has been done. And recall that many people who want to travel to San Francisco get there by crossing one of the most famous elevated structures in the world, the Golden Gate Bridge.

For those of us that are old one just needs to go back to when Interstate 5 was built. Politicians, developers and contractors got involved and thus we have a 4 lane FREEWAY through metro Seattle that is now the biggest Parking lot, almost 24/7, on the west coast. They did not want to give up enough land to built a freeway of the future so we built a trap or chock point. Why would we be so stupid to do that again with the Viaduct. We need 6 lanes now why would we build it with 4. The mayor seem determained to force what he and what appears to be deveolpers/conractors ideology upon Seattle. Who will pay for the difference if we build a tunnel with 6 lanes. I certainly do not believe that only Seattle residents will. And what will happen when the cost goes up, as it will either way, by the time they get it done. We need a tremendous amount of infastructure built in western washington, in the tri-county, do to the lack of Leadership over the last 25 years. Lets make sure not to build another chock point into the viaduct and add another 10-15 minutes to our travels.

I don't understand how the opponents of the tunnel can be so short minded as to think of only what is good for today. I moved away from Seattle to a city in Florida for 20 years and fought vehemently against a major highway that was being run thru the center of town that had actually been planned 20 years prior when I-90 was not finished thru to Palm Beach. The impact on the core downtown area was devasting to the businesses, but the engineers wanted to ram it down the citizens throat against the objections of the city planners. This seems to be the case in other urban planning issues that I have studied. Engineers want to move cars, planners want to create enviroments for people. I would suggest that anyone opposed to anything but the viaduct study the urban planning of Andres Duany and you might be convinced otherwise. Seattle's waterfront is it's greatest asset and it is being underutilized because of the viaduct. The tax revenue that would come from rising property value and businesses along an open waterfront would, over time, more than compensate for the extra cost of the tunnel. I'm not saying it would pay for it, but it certainly would be an incredible asset. And you can't think just 10 and 20 years down the road. This waterfront would be there for whatever time is left before Seattle is swallowed up by an earthquake, and it won't really matter at that point what road we build!!! Let's create something for our future and not just think about what is impacted now.

This is truly a gutsy stand by the governor. Where I live we will pay for generations to come on the new Narrows bridge. Those who use the Bridge will pay the majority of the cost for the bridge. The state wouldn't pay for the bridge and it doesn't cost a billion dollars. Really the only fair way to approach the problem is to make the tunnel a toll road. Those who use it pay. Spokane people do not use it. People who live in Allyn will not use it. In addition all that vote yes on the tunnel should be willing to help pay for it on their property taxes. That was from the council of Seattle President - Nick Licota. How did he get elected? I like the idea. Those who benefit pay. Those who don't benefit don't pay. A lot of people who don't live in Seattle are tired of paying for city benefits. People of Seattle need to vote that whining cry baby Nickels. I never voted for the Governor but if she makes a few more decisions like that she will get at least one Republicans vote.

I think the mayor is right. You have to consider the quality of life in Seattle, and a tunnel would make the waterfront much quiter, and a nicer place to visit. The governor is in too big a hurry, and this case about the safety of drivers is rediculous. You should not make decisions based on fear.

I strongly believe that the cost difference is too great. ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS can be spent so much better. We have parents getting in fist fights over schools closing, we need more police and we hear "where is the money?". I don't wake up in the morning concerned that we have a viaduct. I have concerns about traffic, taxes, schools, police and fire resources. The mayor should move back to Chicago!

Rebuild the viaduct.....Our only tax option is real estate and that tax is high enough.....

Politicians need to leave this up to the voters, then respect our decision. We are the ones that are going to use the roadway. On that note, I think we should have a tunnel. If they are worried about the finances, just think of all the tax revenue that will be possible if Alaskan way is under ground. That is, all of the vacant or poorly used buildings along the viaduct can become multi million dollar hotels/offices/codos. Building code doesn't allow for that? Change it, they do all the time for building heights etc. in downtown.
Give us a beautiful waterfront... not another eye sore!

Is the mayor of Seattle pushing for a tunnel to fund his tunnel and sea-wall? I think, if the mayor of Seattle wants HIS tunnel, he should come up with his money and not expect the taxpayers of Washington state to fund money for Seattle only. Don't forget our Federal dollars are also taxpayer money. For once why don't our politicians listen to what the people want and not what they think is good for us.

I vote for neither of the above. Both are bad solutions. Surface streets are what we will be using for years in either case, and we will learn to make it work.

Considering what has happened in Boston, building any tunnel here is absurd! Besides that, there is
a long list of regional traffic problems to correct and spending an enormous amount on a tunnel should be out of the question.

I admire the Mayor for holding on to this one. Tunnel is the best route if you truly appreciate the beauty of Seattle. We have an amazing waterfront and hillside. Do you ever go to Pike Place Market and walk accross the street to the public park to enjoy the view? Probably not because it's so NOISY! Not to mention the looks of the ugly viaduct below. I understand many of you like the downtown views from your car while driving on the viaduct, but you would like the view even more if you got out and took a stroll around our beautiful city with a quiet, clean waterfront. It's not just about money folks. Our sparkling city, full of fresh ideas and generally progressive people deserves to have a tunnel.

Yes, by all means, we don't need those lanes of traffic going through the city. Lets pull down the viaduct and not replace it. Those cars will do just fine running on surface streets. Same goes for I-5, who needs it? Put those cars on the streets too. Seattle got along for years without an interstate highway, we really don't need one. Then lets close the floating bridges, we did OK before they were built, I'm sure we can manage without them. Who needs 'em? Then lets plow up I-90 and if people want to cross the mountains, they can strap on some snowshoes and hike over. Come on, the mayor is a visionary, can't you see?

save the money, rebuild the viaduct. no tunnel. spend the money saved on more neighborhood swimming pools, public art (a la
simon rodea's watts towers or niki de st phalle/ jean tangly in paris, more city funded solar panels, p-patches, whatever. avoid future costs when rising elliott bay floods tunnel (james lovelocke expects the seas to rise, and then what: an expensive holland-like reclamation?). remember the "big dig."

The Legislature and city of Seattle officials that built the Viaduct in the 1950s did do their job which was to site a highway to carry 6500 vehicles per day. The site they chose was very different than the site and situation the Viaduct finds it's self in today. In the 1950's Pioneer Square was not designated a Historical District, had no housing/condos and was a derelict neighborhood in which homeless shelters, taverns, and street prostitution reined. Seattle's waterfront did not have tourist shops or cruise ship terminals but instead had fishing and rail terminals that catered to the unsightly industrial sector. If you have lived in Washington long enough you also remember that Seattle's business district used to close up at night leaving the streets empty and dark except for the infamous 1st Avenue, home to porn shops, more prostitutes, and drug dealers.

As evidenced by the disparity between then, the 1950s, and now, the local community and officials have done an amazing job over the last 50 years at recognizing a Washington State asset in the Seattle waterfront and surrounding communities. The current Washington State Legislature however has not recognized this asset of Washington State. The fact that the Washington State Legislature believes that they have simply done their job by funding a Viaduct replacement without the slightest regard for the impact on the surrounding community proves that they have not even done their job as well as the 1950's Legislature. Funding a rebuild may be what the Legislature is only "required" to do but the Legislature has not done its job in looking out for the welfare of a vital community and its citizens.

It seems to me that the viaduct will move more trafic, more efficiently than a four lane tunnel and the cost for the tunnel will be conciderably more. Our property taxes are already too high. If we are forced to accept a tunnel I feel the ones that will benefit the most are the property owner right next to the existing viaduct. Their property values will increase greatly and they should pay accordingly.

Come on, this is just the latest scam to give away more of the public waterfront to developers (dear newcomers: this is nothing new). There ain't gonna be no beautiful park, there are going to be more condos built where the viaduct now sits - exactly what we don't need.

No tunnel, period. Fix the darn viaduct if it can be fixed (I suspect it can be) if not, then rebuild a new one in its place, and get on to dealing with other things.

The tunnel plan is really stupid.

Regarding a tunnel or new viaduct for Seattle--no one gave us the option of choosing a surface road. I definitely do not want a new viaduct. I would accept a surface road or the tunnel. The governor should not be bullying Seattle like she is.

Riiiight. Let's pull down the viaduct and send all that traffic to the surface streets. Brilliant idea. That'll be great!!

MORONS!

Keep the viaduct , and repair/upgrade only the section(s) that need repair! Whatever happened to the opinion of the engineer who claimed only part(s) of the viaduct need attention? Also, what would happen to the proposed tunnel if we experienced a major earthquake...would it be any more resistant to damage than the viaduct?

I strongly support rebuilding the viaduct - not the tunnel option

Jim Moore raises some good questions. Regarding the earthquake question...if (or I guess I should say "when") there's an earthquake, an elevated structure can be built to withstand one. A tunnel that's buried BELOW SEA LEVEL and that's built on fill...note that the soil there turns into jello in an earthquake. I suspect that the damage to a new elevated highway would be minimal, but a below-sea-level tunnel? I wouldn't want to be stuck in there when Elliott Bay came rushing in. What madness!

How about vulnerability to a terrorist attack? Homeland Security recently has been VERY concerned about the tunnels between NYC and NJ because it wouldn't take much of an explosion to cause the tunnel to rupture and fill with water!

I agree with the post above: repair/upgrade the existing viaduct if it can be made safe - where's that DOT engineer who said the whole thing could be retrofitted for a fraction of the cost?

NO tunnel...Rebuild

Please don't rebuild the viaduct. Save the water front for the people and the future. I support the mayor's brave stand on this one - it's the only way to make Seattle keep up with progressive and quality cities like Portland, Vancouver, SF. Don't let our autocentric attitudes destroy such a wonderful opportunity to remove the noise and drive by polluters from this unique and special quality of the city. I am really diappointed in the governor - wow is she wrong on this one. Please, PLEASE don't rebuild the viaduct.

To all the people who say, "please don't rebuild the viaduct" ... "save the waterfront for the people" ... "the people of this city deserve a tunnel" ... what do you propose to use for money? And what do you propose to do about the majority will of the people?

Because the citizenry already seems to perceive itself as overtaxed -- and a strong majority, when apprised of the relative costs, favors a replacement viaduct.

I don't understand how so many people can advocate a tunnel without at all coming to grips with the costs and risks involved. Sure, we all deserve nice things. I deserve a Ferrari. But if I mortgaged everything else to bring one home I would be totally irresponsible.

There is no money and no public support for anything else: it's viaduct time.

Big Issues too much noise by people vested with Mayor Nickels.

Tunnel Lite? Viaduct capacity now, 6 total lanes (3 in each direction). Tunnel Lite will only provide with 2 lanes in each direction (north 2 lanes, & south 2 lanes) WHERE will all the cars fit???

NEXT, Burlinton Northern Railroad right-of-way, the land below the current viaduct. NONE of the artist drawings show the railroad, only parks (grass & trees) i.e. political smoke screen is the likely culprit!!!!

COST!!! Enough already with the high taxes.

The time has come for FORWARD-THINKING people. A tunnel will repair the transportation problem and improve the waterfront area, which will enhance tourism in the area. We had a viaduct and we don't want another mistake simply because it may be cheaper.

A tunnel is the only smart choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rebuild the Viaduct. It's that simple.

you make difficult enough to vote...having to send an email to do it rather than a check box on your site! i vote for the viaduct..i have always liked it, the view for the average traveler is spectacular. Always keeping an eye on the road of course. The tunnel will result in high end condos etc being built closer to the water and benefitting the rich. The mayors' stand on this issue shows just how out of touch he is with his constituents.

I can't believe an option that reduces the lanes from 6 to 4 is actually being considered just so we can have a tunnel. This is so short sighted. I'm so sick of Seattle failing to get going on transportation issues. The traffic really effects the quality of my every day life! I admire the Governor for standing up to say 'enough is enough' let's get going. Let's go with the cost effective option for traffic capacity and replace the viaduct with a newer viaduct.

I have always loved driving through town on the viaduct. The views are incredible and enjoyed by all not just those who can afford the high rent downtown. We have a traffic problem in this city and the tunnel is not the solution.

The mayor is true to the form of politicians in that he is not listening to his constituents who have said no to the tunnel. But then again when are we listened to you. We voted no on a stadium too.

I think he looked like my five year old when he doesn't get the new toy he wants. It is not his city it is our city. We have three problems. 1. No more tax hikes. 2. Traffic problems and 3. a viaduct that is need of repair.

We as voters need to do a better job when we elect our leaders. We need leaders that are smart and can come up with solutions and execute without taxing us to death.

Mayor Nickels has vision. I am a long time resident and feel he is the best mayor in the City's history.

He realizes that building a livable city is far more important than anything else, regardless if capacity is reduced by some amount with a 4 lane tunnel.

Repeating the biggest design mistake in the history of the city is simply not an option. If the people of the city want Seattle to be a truly world class city you do not build an elevated highway on the city's greatest asset.

The Mayor has it right on! Tunnel light combines transit and roads.

The bottomline is DON'T LET OLYMPIA TELL US WHAT
WE CAN OR CAN NOT DO!

Seattle tax dollars have been paying for eastern Washington roads for years. It is time we say enough.

Go to seattlechannel.org and watch the 1/19 council meeting. Be informed...it is all there.

Some objections to the tunnel concept are about it being below sea level. Why not build the tunnel at, not below, sealevel, and if that requires raising the waterfront level somewhat on both sides of the tunnel, then fill it in as required. It is difficult to know if this idea is reasible because a lot of engineering information I am not aware of.

I want a tunnel!
I want a lollipop!
I want a pony!
Chris Gregiore is MEAN TO ME!!
WAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

We should all do anything we can when we have a chance to beautify our city.
With our limited land we will get very few chances to make our city even greater. I don't want my grandkids growing up saying "I can't believe you voted on that monolith". Twenty years from now 5 billion dollars will be a drop in the bucket.
Seattle is a progressive city. A tunnel is progress.

I HAVE THE SOLUTION! I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M THE ONE THAT FIGURED IT ALL OUT!
Okay, everyone really wants the tunnel. Not the light tunnel. Let's go for an 8 lane tunnel. You know it will be needed for future frowth. A 4 lane tunnel is rediculous.
We get all our local billionaires to pay for it, then pay it back through computerized tolls, and that money goes toward the billionaire's favorite charities.
Now evertime you look at our unblocked Sound and Olympics, everytime you skip rocks with your kids on our new beach, everytime you stroll down our new boardwalk, and everytime you drive through our amazing new tunnel - you'll be helping starving kids around the world.
Now I have to fix world peace.

NO TUNNEL!!
Nickels is acting like a dictator! He's not listening to the citizens of Seattle, and as for his comment "rebuilding the viaduct is being shoved down his and the citizen's of Seattle's throats"--what is this? He's obviously not from Seattle, cares not at all about the future of Seattle except for having his name put on that tunnel far into the future, or until the next earthquake takes it down. I'm sure there are some other more questionable motivators for his complete disregard for how the real people of Seattle feel. Reading so many of the statements on this blog, I've become relieved to know that so many of you feel the way I do about the views from the viaduct, the ability of parking underneath and easy access to the waterfront, the cost to rebuild it as opposed to the hefty price of a tunnel, and I really love the idea that the viaduct reduces/ impedes further building of condos along the waterfront. I have lived here all my life, and I love looking at the skyline and at the ferries and water while driving through, it is a breathtaking view. One writer stated our view from the viaduct would be taken away by the building of higher walls, but has he seen the plans himself? There may be a way to have even more spectacular views for all this person knows. The people of Seattle have spoken. NO TUNNEL, MAYOR NICKELS. LET GO. PLEASE GO AWAY AND STOP SHOVING THE TUNNEL DOWN OUR THROATS.

The Viaduct has been apart of the Seattle waterfront for longer than majority Seattlites have been alive. The mayor and his supporters can have their waterfront with a viaduct, all they have to do is put Alaska Way under the Alaska Way viaduct. With the viaduct going to 75 feet wide, there should be plenty of room for a road, the tram, and parking. This would leave the existing area where the tracks and roadway open for development into a continuation of the new park on the North down to the sports stadiums on the South. The only views that the viaduct blocks are all the warehouses converted to offices and condo's. Anytime you dig below Sea Level, and particularly in the area proposed, is a high risk proposition. It could turn into another Boston tunnel, the risk and unkown costs are to high. Remember, not only is Seattle paying for this, but all the tax payers of Washington.

Mayor Nickels,

When are you going to get off your soapbox and start representing your voters? We elected you to represent us. Well, start doing that. Get off your high horse and realize that a tunnel is not feasible. In fact, have you even thought of looking towards the future and tried to incorporate light rail into the structure. Don't you think a light rail route along the West Seattle bridge, along the viaduct into Magnolia could be a reality. If you did that, we might get some federal dollars involved. Seattle has always been known for forward thinking. I think it's time for to do that as well.

Boss Nickels: the man who killed the $1 Billion monorail project because (he said) he thought it was too expensive and the financing was too questionable.

Boss Nickels: the man who now says his $3 Billion tunnel fantasy is "affordable" and tells us not to worry about the money - we'll find it somewhere.

Hmmm....

A Tunnel !!!!!! The Mayor can only see a tunnel as
an answer to the overall problem, The real problem is when the digging starts,below sea level,
all fill from the Denny regrade,and who knows what,
not to mention,The repair to orreplacement of the sea wall.---Wise up Mayor !!This could make the BIG DIG look like a day in a sand box

YES TO THE TUNNEL!
I can't believe anyone think cement is pretty.

I visit and use the Seattle waterfront pedestrian bike and walking trail just below the current viaduct every day, and have for the past 6 years. Over these years I've had freeway garbage such as cigarette butts, hamburger wrappers, and car antenas rain down on me from our GREAT viaduct. On a typical walking and biking trail and waterfront community you might hear somthing being hurled at your head but the viaduct noise is so load you can't hear the garbage coming. Maybe if the drivers who want to replace the viaduct to preserve their drive-by view stopped hurling garbage at people's heads I might be a little more sympathetic.

My vote is no for either tunnel or deck!! All this petty political squabbling over the years has been obscuring the need for a regional approach to the area's transportation needs, to include public transport options that don't include more roads, above or below ground. I fully expect the viaduct will collapse before anything is done. I'm relieved that I will soon change my employment location to where I won't have to use the viaduct anymore.

Tunnel lite or Spokane Street Viaduct Rebuild to support access to and from downtown on Surface Streets. NO WATERFRONT VIADUCT IN OUR CITY!

Our schools are funded by property taxes, along with federal funds. The City of Seattle school district is in crisis, with the superintendent resigning and the district running a major deficit. Removing the viaduct would increase property values between Alaskan Way and 1st Avenue dramatically, hence raising property values. I feel that the city and state should build the full tunnel, possibly forming public/private partnerships with developers to help raise some of the money. This would increase tax revenue and help the city and schools develop over the long term. Now is not the time for half-baked measures, like the Governor is proposing. That is what got us into this mess in the first place. WE NEED LEADERSHIP!

Nickles if you want a tunnel or a viaduct. Pay for it by tolls, the way other states have paid for projects and the way the second narrows bridge(built in the wrong place) was forced on the people of Pierce county to pay a toll forever.

Our schools are funded by property taxes, along with federal funds. The City of Seattle school district is in crisis, with the superintendent resigning and the district running a major deficit. Removing the viaduct would increase property values between Alaskan Way and 1st Avenue dramatically, hence raising property tax revenue. I feel that the city and state should build the full tunnel, possibly forming public/private partnerships with developers to help raise some of the money. This would open up the area for development-generating jobs and more tax dollars for the city and state, and help the city and schools develop over the long term. Now is not the time for half measures, like the Governor is proposing. Short sighted solutions are what got us into this mess in the first place. WE NEED LEADERSHIP!

After reading all of the above comments, it appears some are based on facts and other on emotions. If all of the Structural Engineers have worked on the above options to ensure safety for earthquakes etc. and if there are no more risks for one over the other, I would prefer the original tunnel plan, not the Lite. In order to address the concerns of how the property above a tunnel would be used, legislation could prevent use of the space for condos etc. and make sure the space remains for public access parks etc. We need to focus on what we are leaving for future generations and not just on what our generation wants. I for one, although I consider myself a sports fan, get really tired of being held hostage by the demands of the sports teams, to move out of Seattle if they don't get everything they want. Let them move and use the money saved for more important issues like safe and efficient roadways. I realize they generate revenue, but their demands are unreasonable!!!

I am so sick and tired of hearing about Seattle's transportation woes, with little or nothing being done about it! C'mon! We need our government leaders to make a decision...geez, any decision! But, decide something! Seems the voters can make up their minds...Monorail anyone? Whether you agree with it or not, at least it's a decision. But, then it's overturned or not implemented by our so-called community leaders. Hmmmmm... community leaders not doing what the voters ask? Sound familiar? Safeco Stadium anyone? Anyone?

Please don't repeat a mistake twice. Building the viaduct as it is in it's present form is simply horrible. The noise alone is a killer and ruins the enjoyment of the waterfront, much less the ugliness. Live up to be a world class city and build the 6-lane tunnel. The next generation will certainly appreciate the foresight.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
** SEATTLE NEEDS TO STAND UP TO OLYMPIA! **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Are we going to let Olympia force Seattle to bear the burden of an ugly, noisy highway on the waterfront for the next hundred years?

I would vote for a complete tear down so the tunnel will get my vote. The viaduct is by far the ugliest, noisiest most hideous thing in Seattle. Looking at the future of Seattle and the connection between downtown and the waterfront would make Seattle 1000% better and a world class city. Self righteous Seattle people are so car dependent its ridiculous. Looking to future of Seattle this is a no brainer. The tunnel will get my vote.

I have enjoyed the water view when driving on the Via Duct. NO TUNNEL! NO TUNNEL! Please use the fund for your Seattle Public School that is going downhill now, instead. School is for our children. Tunnel is for water view property owners in downtown. The bridge can be nice too. How safe and how much is actually cost for undersea level tunnel? The President of Seattle City Council said the cost is still not known. No more raising tax for the tunnel.
I thank the Governor for her strong decision on this issue.
Zorro T

I have enjoyed the water view when driving on the Viaduct. NO TUNNEL! NO TUNNEL! Please use the fund for your Seattle Public School that is going downhill now, instead. School is for our children. Tunnel is for water view property owners in downtown. The bridge can be nice too. How safe and how much is actually cost for undersea level tunnel? The President of Seattle City Council said the cost is still not known. No more raising tax for the tunnel.
I thank the Governor for her strong decision on this issue.
Zorro T

With the sea wall and the land fill I think a tunnel is a bad idea. Its going to cost more than they are planning on. No matter what, we need the sea wall fixed. I'm for a new Viaduct, It still can have a park built under it, and the Viaduct could look nice. It doesn't have to just be a dark old slab of cement. Look at the freeway walls that they are now building. As for people throwing things off the Viaduct, those people need to be ticketed. We do live with a few nasty dirty jerks.

The more Investigate this the more I'm interested in the possibilities of NEITHER a deck or tunnel is built. The arguments of Councilman Steinbrueck and Ron Sims are starting to make more long term sense. For a long time we have really needed a regional approach to transportation yet continue to get only petty self interested efforts by our elected politicians. I think the viaduct will collapse before anything is actually done.

The tunnel is clearly a better option, we need to stop worrying about costs. If the legislature doesnt want to build a tunnel then take out a loan, then tell the State the city will go bankrupt unless the state pays off the loan or find a way to pay for it yourself. I bet you more than half the tax revenue in the state comes from Seattle alone.

Look at it this way, someone tells you they can rebuild the viaduct and another person tells you they can build the highway underground. Which would you choose?

Weelllllll, this is a multidimensional, thorny problem. One angle not too many people have thought of is Global Warming, and how it should influence this choice.
I think GW (hey, look whose initials are the same), is under way and coming at us. The only question is how much sea level is going to rise, and how fast. By the time any tunnel is finished, it should be definitely measurable, and we will have firm estimates of just what we will be dealing with.
Would a tunnel, already buried, be easier to maintain? Cars have become truly amazing transportation, but most don't operate under water, so another viaduct may be problematic.
Some say we might see sea level rise as much as 23 FEET, not 23 inches, as one estimate says. If we lose the West Antarctic Ice Shelf and a big chunk of Greenland, all bets are off.
With the most conservative estimates of 7-23" in place, I would vote for the tunnel.
The tunnel is silent, and doesn't block the view. It would open up our already beautiful waterfront and give people some real room to enjoy it.
I am fairly new to Seattle, but fail to understand how anyone would think the Viaduct is at all beautiful. To me it is a hulking gray monstrocity that has also become dangerous to anyone anywhere near it. There are a number of other places to go for a view.
The tunnel is best.

Why haven't we explored tearing down I-5 and replace it with a multi-level tunnel instead of the viaduct? THAT is the true boondoggle in town, not the viaduct. Build more I-5 lanes with a tunnel and fix that stupid problem, and all traffic will flow through the city better. We may not even need a viaduct or tunnel along the waterfront if we could fix THE REAL traffic bottleneck. By expanding the W Sea viaduct, dead end the existing 99 at the stadiums into surface streets and a I-90 interchange, and we all can travel safer and smoother.

Elliott Bay Floating Bridge
I prefer that someone at least looks at the Proposed Initiative 964 as filed with WA State Secretary of State advocating a Elliott Bay Floating Bridge to replace the Alaska Way Viaduct. It's less expensive and should satisfy more people because it can be constructed within about six years without disturbing existing commerce,utilities and viaduct except a little when ramps tied in when complete. Waterfront could be made beautiful with a marina as advocated in Northern Lagoon as shown by Allied Arts on their web. Port activity not curtailed. Future Ferry terminal outside will have room for expansion of present terminal whereas it does not now. It is less earthhquake and terrorist sensitive. Provides 10 lanes of thru local traffic from Harbor Island, Holgate (to Beacon Hill), Royal Brougham Way (For Sports), Madison St (up to Capital Hill), Battery Street Tunnel & Wall st. (on to Aurora Ave) and Western Ave., Westlake, & Eastlake Ave which will help congestion on I-5 and a host of other reasons available on line if you do some research.

NO TO TUNNEL-BIG (6 lanes) $600M MORE TO EXPENSIVE
NO TO TUNNEL-LIGHT (4 lanes) OBSOLETE NOW...AND THE FUTURE

YES TO VIADUCT
or something that has at least 6 lanes...

An Elliot Bay Floating Bridge is interesting, if finished in about 6 yrs and as described above by Connie. But, there goes your Elliot Bay vista.

I'm a bit perplexed with Mayor Nichels and the City Council on this issue.

I believe at one time he said he and/or the city council should make the decision on a tunnel or rebuild...because "that's what they pay me for."

Something of this magnitude is not what we "elected" him or council members for.

I'm glad they "elected" to allow the citizens to voice their preferences with the March 13 vote. However, unfortunatley now, it appears Mayor Nichels is using the the March 13 vote to fight w/ the Governor.

Elliott Bay Floating Bridge per Washington Stae Initiative 964 is my favorite plan which should satisfy most of the compaints I see in above blogs.
Note:
A) No disturbance of Alaska Way during construction. Present viaduct and street usable during all construction
B) No utilities relocation before begin
C) Ten lanes as needed now and in future Not 4 as tunnel nor 6 as elevated for less money
D) No Rights of Way except from Port of Seattle at ends
E) Bridge acts as breakwater for many options such as; marina or even a beach on waterfront
F) No Construction Equipment like concrete trucks, even logistics for street lights etc, downtown
G) Soon to be needed expansion for ferry terminal impossible in present location easy outside west of proposed structure
H) Could be built two parallel 5 lane stages within funds available from city alone, or state alone. All ten lane by funds from both City & State,
I) Would not want to be in tunnel built in seismic zone three within Uniform Building Code that close to a body of water. OK in Boston They don't have earthquakes there
J) Why replace a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure with a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure that is also a earthquake risk.

ALSO SEE BELOW MAP SHOWING APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT IN PDF FORMAT AS ATTACHMENT ON SECRETARY OF STATE WEB
Please give this matter some consideration. While at first glance I'm sure the impact on Port Properties and Operations to this proposal would bring very negative response. But, I have skippered vessels over a block long from Seattle to Emmonak & Kotsebue for five summers and other vessels thru The Hood Canal Bridge. Taking a vessel into dock inside a breakwater could have it's advantages. The marina discussed by Allied Arts in the Northmost lagoon and operated by The Port of Seattle would be creatable by this proposal. Vehicular traffic advantages for trucks and Cruise Ship autos during the next ten or twelve years of utility relocation and actual construction would be realized. Rents to the Port of Seattle in the Piers for Alaska Way would be uninterupted. It's my understanding from listening at The Senate hearing on AWV Replacement that all these businesses would have to be bought out if either tunnel and/or maybe even viaduct replacement proceeds.
The signature form will be pasted up on large paper ( law says has to be 11 x 14 or bigger). Reduced to 8 1/2 x 11 for e-mail as a attachment to all interested. Anyone interested in helping may then please download and print one 8 1/2 x 11 copy of each of both sides. Take that to Kinkos, Staples or where ever and have both sides enlarged to 11 x 14 on good enough paper for people to gather signatures. I am funding this on my retirement income and do not want any contributions from anyone or any organization. Follow the directions for folding etc. on the signature form for mailing. Your expence and effort for printing and mailing is the only contribution that should be necessary by anyone. There are some actors in my theater here that said they will help unfold them and bundle them in packages of 50 as required to hand deliver to the Secretary of State's Office. Since this is a Statewide initiative I can't figure out any other way we can afford to do this. At least it's not costing me (except $5 and some gasoline), the people, the Governors Office, The DOT, or the legislatue anything to find out if the idea is respected enough to consider further.

To request e-mail of 8 1/2 x 11 copies of both sides of the signature form as two attachments on a e-mail reply please do not reply to this e-mail but rather to below address

kingofelma@yahoo.com

for any other reason for contact please e-mail below

kingsleyhall_elmatheater@hotmail.com

Thanks for your interest. Connie
There are nineteen pages of info related to my initiative written and submitted to most concerned politicians. Out of context please at least consider the following.
Some considerations in favor of Replacement of Alaska Way Viaduct with a 10 lane Elliot Bay Floating Bridge;
A) No disturbance of Alaska Way during construction. Present viaduct and street usable during all construction
B) No utilities relocation before begin
C) Ten lanes as needed now and in future Not 4 as tunnel nor 6 as elevated for less money
D) No Rights of Way except from Port of Seattle at ends
E) Bridge acts as breakwater for many options such as; marina or even a beach on waterfront
F) No Construction Equipment like concrete trucks, even logistics for street lights etc, downtown
G) Soon to be needed expansion for ferry terminal impossible in present location easy outside west of proposed structure
H) Could be built two parallel 5 lane stages within funds available from city alone, or state alone. All ten lane by funds from both City & State,
I) Would not want to be in tunnel built in seismic zone three within Uniform Building Code that close to a body of water. OK in Boston They don't have earthquakes there
J) Why replace a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure with a inadequate traffic capacity viaduct structure that is also a earthquake risk.
ALSO SEE BELOW MAP SHOWING APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT IN PDF FORMAT AS ATTACHMENT ON SECRETARY OF STATE WEB
Below part of submition to Port of Seattle;

Please give this matter some consideration. While at first glance I'm sure the impact on Port Properties and Operations to this proposal would bring very negative response. But, I have skippered vessels over a block long from Seattle to Emmonak & Kotsebue for five summers and other vessels thru The Hood Canal Bridge. Taking a vessel into dock inside a breakwater could have it's advantages. The marina discussed by Allied Arts in the Northmost lagoon and operated by The Port of Seattle would be creatable by this proposal. Vehicular traffic advantages for trucks and Cruise Ship autos during the next ten or twelve years of utility relocation and actual construction would be realized. Rents to the Port of Seattle in the Piers for Alaska Way would be uninterupted. It's my understanding from listening at The Senate hearing on AWV Replacement that all these businesses would have to be bought out if either tunnel and/or maybe even viaduct replacement proceeds.
Below is part of submission to Ron Sims, KCE
Dear Ron Sims, King County Executive;
I forward this as hopefully the fastest way to get information directly to you on these matters as might pertain to your stated opinions as heard on last night's KING-5 news which I really respect regarding the Alaska Way Viaduct. I live all the way down here in Elma, Washington and have many non-financial interests in this controversy or I certainly wouldn't have bothered to attempt to get this initiative on the statewide ballot. You would not believe the response I have (50-75 e-mails per hour) from even Eastern Washington. The resurrection of this old 1961 idea may be a way to get some consensus. We need to have Seattle realize that their continued use of the Interstate I-90 to handle local vehicular traffic that should be their responsibility must stop. The Interstate was mandated by law to be designed not to handle local traffic. In fact at one time it was considered to make it illegal to allow non-interstate busses. Farfetched as this may seem there are those in the FHA (see their new Web) considering encouragment of this attitude Nationwide. They may have a point when I see the criminal negligence of the City of Seattle forcing the misery on those of us that want to go non-stop all the way thru downtown Seattle some on a daily basis by not providing a minimum of the 10 lanes they agreed to in 1961. Certainly this has to be the case for many more King County residents. Therefore I'm glad you are I assume even more concerned than all the rest of us in The State of Washington.
Below indicates my intentional lack of funding. Note one of two on Seattle ballot has over $200,000 in donations and other over $100,000. II wonder where these dollars come from? No wonder they get the media coverage and I don't except in Eastern Washington

I came to Seattle from Detroit 8 years ago wide eyed and loving Seattle. I just moved out of the city (Northgate area) to Renton and am VERY happy there. No more crack heads wandering out onto Aurora during morning rush hour. No more condoms and needles in my front yard. Seattle you can keep the congestion, snobbieness, crime and taxes. This city will at the very least have to face the harsh reality of liberal politics in the years to come. Good luck and good riddance!