Picking the most expensive option is not making the tough decision. At a time of falling gas tax revenues, it's reckless and will cause much needed maintenance to be deferred. It's also resulted in the delay of completion of HOV lanes in Pierce County.

Even worse, this is a tunnel to nowhere. You can't get on or off the tunnel downtown. Only 20 percent of current viaduct trips do not start or stop downtown. You can't connect to Magnolia or Ballard via 15th. Since the highway starts descending five blocks south of Royal Brougham, it's not even very good access to the stadiums.

So we're building a new four-lane highway to do what exactly? Suck up a bunch of money, it seems.

A bore tunnel is really whats make the most sense. If another viaduct is built the city will just come back in another 50 years when the new one is in decay and need to rebuild again. While building only two lanes in each direction may not be enough it is not set in stone yet and its pretty clear three would be better. Seattle area residents will also have to bite the bullet and accept that a toll is in the future. A user fee to pay for the cost of building and maintaining the tunnel is a must. The days of free roads are coming to an end in the west and its high time for the public to accept it in an age of failing infrastructer and deficit budgets.

This is not the time to buy a pig in a poke. (No - that is not a cheap shot @ hizzonors appearance)

It's a boondoggle that clearly come in over budget with the taxpayers being responsible for the cost and the cost of the inevitable cost overruns.

We should just reinforce the viaduct and make it safe for future use.

Hopefully the City Council will show better judgement than they did with the gazillion dollar toilets and kill this tunnel.

I don't feel the coverage that Up Front provided on this issue was fair or unbiased. Why is the media so against the tunnel? Why are you so obviously imposing your personal views on this issue? A good news program would provide a fair and balanced coverage, and you have not.

As a community we should trust our leaders to make decisions about mass transit. Voters are not experts on things like traffic flow, construction, and maintenance. We need to let the experts and community leaders make decisions that the rest of us aren't qualified for. For once, Nicols and Gregiore have stepped up to lead Seattle in this respect, and I for one am going to let them lead and not stand in the way of them trying to make our mass transit system better. We have to do something and this looks like the best option.

The thought that the deep bore tunnel can be done for the estimated cost is ridiculous. Look back at the I-90 bridge and the Hood Canal Bridge upgrade. And, no one speaks about earthquake risk in our area? This is another Mariner Stadium deal where the big money has gotten to the politicians.

The politicians are doing their own will. If the people who are paying the taxes say no then they need to listen to the people. We did not elect them to do their will but to do ours! They are only thinking of the buildings they can put on top of the tunnel and the profits and tax revenue that will bring in.
If the vote was a tie or close to a tie then I can see the politicians making a tough choice but the people have clearly spoken and should be heard!

It will be just like the big dig in Boston, not on time and way over budget.
The local bussinesses went broke.

First of all keep in mind this is not the same tunnel concept we voted on two years ago. This option presents the best option especially when compared to slow-moving surface streets or another elevated viaduct. We need a by-pass to reduce I-5 congestion, a water-front we can be proud of and a long-term solution for the future. This solution also allows for the least economic impact since the tunnel can be bored while the existing viaduct can remain in use. It is a vital link for the residents of West Seattle (20% of the cities population) to the rest of the city. The tunnel is our best choice.

Thank you for the fair reporting on this issue. Too bad our major newspapers arn't up to the task. Jean's interview with Mayor Nickles was priceless. His audacity in blowing off the voters who voted 70% against a tunnel replacement showed how little he cares about pubic input. And then he wonders why citizens don't show up to his community open houses, such as the recent one regarding SDOT's response to our recent snow event! This downtown bypass tunnel does nothing for downtown ingress/egress, takes away major public views that we currently don't have to pay for, and will kill off our struggling maritime industry.
Bet the deep bore tunnel ends up costing us more than $6 billion when interest, cost overruns, and the Mayor's wished for unfunded seawall replacement and other public amenities are thrown in. Hopefully, the voters, when they know the true cost of this project, will reject it and the mayor!

Thank you, Allen Schauffler and UpFront for offering a forum for public opinion on this issue.
And thank you for interviewing Mayor Nickels on this issue.

It's great that you're asking the public for their comments, but really, where's the local press in investigating how our elected leaders got to this point?

Two years ago, there were distinctly different views on this issue, with Gov. Christine Gregoire and House Speaker Frank Chopp both saying we couldn't afford to pay for it.

Two years ago also, King County Exec. Ron Sims was siding potentially with a third alternative, a surface street development that would also open up the waterfront and reconnect a lot of the surface streets and be about $3 billion less expensive.

At the same time you had environmentalists and urbanism advocates like the Peoples Waterfront Coalition pushing for this THIRD WAY. They argued that other cities have shown they're able to absorb traffic within the street grid without having major disruptions. And they made the point that other cities, like San Francisco, have also benefited from real estate booms around the land opened up. At the same time, Seattle's Town Hall brought in speakers from the 'new urbanism' movement saying precisely that. To quote an article in Seattle Metropolitan Magazine to that effect:

“No city today would advocate building a highway through its downtown core,” said John Norquist of CNU. “So for Seattle to do this, in its stunning setting, would be stunningly stupid.”

The magazine also quoted Vancouver city planner Gordon Price: "The value of creating a beautiful urban space, which people will really love, will so outweigh the technical fix of a highway, that Seattle will be praised if it does this, and condemned if it doesn’t.”

So I'm wondering how politicians are able to get away with statements like Mayor Nickels' quoted on your show: to the effect of 'Yes, The People said they didn't want it, but We Leaders know better."

Can you offer more analysis, investigation, and journalistic inquiry into this issue? Please describe the process by which our leaders came to embrace this $4 billion project, which will, as you say, probably balloon into even more money as construction costs swell in coming years. Please continue to hold our leaders' feet to the fire --

How could the Mayor who launched the Mayor's Task Force on Climate Change support something so anti-environmental in his own back yard? What will taxpayers get for this transportation project, how will the city benefit as a whole, and what will we sacrifice in the process?

I THINK THE GOVERNMENT HAS GONE TO FAR THIS TIME. THEIR GOING AGAINST THE VOTERS REQUEST AND EVEN THOUGH WE NEED SOMETHING DONE ABOUT THE VIADUCT, I THINK THE SHAKING OF THE BORING UNDER 1ST AVENUE MIGHT SHAKE THE 1ST AVENUE AND THE ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND CAUSE IT TO COLLAPSE ANYWAY. TOO MUCH IS AT STAKE AND WE CAN'T AFFORD ANYMORE TAXED. WE'RE BEING TAKED OUT OF WESTERN WASHINGTON.

Politicians and their special interest's are ignoring public sentiment just as they did regarding the Mariners stadium that failed during the '95 pennant run. Building a replacement that reduces capacity is not only NOT a "solution for the next 100 years", as the Governor says, it isn't even a solution for right now. Are there going to be fewer cars of some type in the future? Of course not.

Leave it up to the "3 STOOGES", Gregoire, Sims and Nickels to come up with a Deep Bore Tunnel as a replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement. A tunnel is basically a tunnel no matter how you cut it. 70% of the voters didn't want a tunnel. Have the people spoken ? I think not. Are our elected officials just following the money trend established by our Federal Government in spending money we don't have and never will ? The Deep Bore Tunnel is too expensive and will be outdated before it is ever built.The price tag will double before it's completed and we are stuck with the bill. The 3 Stooges know that. Seattle does not have the additional roadway or transit support to accommodate the daily 60,000 vehicle Deep Bore Tunnel. Nickels will probably convert 2 of those lanes in the new tunnel to bike lanes so it will become even smaller. We can only hope for now that the State Legislature votes it down and enough signatures can be acquired to get this problem on a ballot that we can vote on.

Seahawks stadium, Mariners stadium ring a bell? All were voted down and look what happened!!"NO" to elected officials means that "we are not educated well enough to make the decisions that need to be made". We are stupid taxpayers, what do we know? They think that we need to let them do the right thing for everyone even if we vote against it.

I BELIEVE THE PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL OPTION FOR REPLACING THE VIADUCT STILL SHOWS A HIGHWAY ALONG THE WATERFRONT. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A TUNNEL IF THERE IS STILL A ROAD OBSCURING VIEW AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS? WHY NOT A COMPROMISE WITH A SOMEWHAT SUNKEN ROADWAY WITH LARGE ELEVATED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT VIA ESCALATORS AND ELEVATORS? WHEN I WAS A KID AND WE WERE TRAVELING FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TO ALABAMA ACCROSS CANADA WE TRAVELED ALONG A CITY ON AN ELEVATED HIGHWAY LOOKING DOWN AT THE DREARY BACKSIDES OF OLD BUILDINGS AND I THOUGHT HOW UGLY. WONDER WHICH CITY THIS WAS?

If this tunnel goes through and actually gets built, then its a true sign that state and city officials are not honest. The people said no to the tunnel, the people said no to higher taxes. Gregoire said no to more taxes, and higher taxes to get herself re-elected. So what does it mean when they try to build a tunnel anyway, and they tax us to pay for it when we dont want it?

Absolutely, they are going against our will, and no doubt this is a part of Nickels's own "world class" city dream--whether we want it or not. We cannot be rid of this joker soon enough. He acts as though our fair city is his private property to do with as he wishes, regardless of the will of the people. We do not want a tunnel, and we hope there is still some of our city left by the time Nickels and his developer puppeteers are gone. Jean has never made us prouder than she did tonight. Thanks for speaking up for us, Jean!

I'm actually a transplant from Chicago, IL. and I've found Seattle citizens (and NW citizens in general) to be afraid of the future and resistant to holistic change that is much needed! In Chicago Lake Shore Drive skirts lake Michigan along the city's waterfront and could have been an eyesore if it weren't for great city planning and voter involvement and initiative. Lakeshore Drive is an amazing piece of engineering and allows the citizens of the city to utilize the beautiful waterfront and beaches as well as public parks and view points.
On my first visit to Seattle I was shocked to see a huge, ugly cement wall and highway crumbling along the waterfront of the city. The waterfront is a huge resource for the city and it's being choked off by that grey monster!
I heard rumours of a vote in the 70's to keep a transit initiative OUT of Seattle that allowed other cities to claim the Federal funds and they now enjoy increased tourism, and less congestion due to their transit system.
Is it going to be the same thing with the viaduct solution? Will the citizens of Seattle vote down a modern solution to an aging eyesore and dangerous hazard such as the viaduct?
I love the bore-tunnel idea - while I'm concerned about the risks such a massive project will bring I'm willing to support the build in order to change the face of Seattle. (The viaduct is like a bad set of braces/or a retainer, too long obsucuring the face of the lovely city of Seattle!) It did it's job in the past but now we're in need of a 'facelift' that is more thanjust skin deep!
I am concerned about shifting soil, water intrusion and earthquake safety when it comes to ANY sort of project involving digging/boring under the city, especially near the waterfront.
As for the funding... it is the citizens who drive in the city, who use the city streets, why shouldn't we be the ones to invest in our own city? It makes sense to question such a huge endeavor and perform a natural checks and balance with regards to where the money goes and how it's used... however, our money, and our future, is better spent working together to build our future than to stall it's inevitable arrival!
The bore-tunnel is a step in the right direction; the future!

I think a deep bore tunnel is a far better option than a cut and cover surface tunnel, or a new viaduct, based on the simple fact that the latter two options would all greatly disrupt traffic in already gridlocked Seattle. With a deep bore tunnel, all the roads in the area stay open during construction.

Two lanes each direction is a bad idea, as the current viaduct has what? Four each way?

As far as the money aspect, I don't think we can afford it, but we wouldn't be to afford ANY replacement, if you really think about it. We already have a deficit, so really, we can't afford ANY of the options. But we also can't just sit on our thumbs. In any case, I much prefer a usage tax (toll) to a general tax increase. Why should I have to pay more for my tabs and my electricity, given that I have used the viaduct a whopping one time in my 18 years in the Seattle area?? Slap a toll on it and be done with it.

The reality is that the same people who complain about a tunnel would probably turn out in droves to complain about the traffic nightmare if any of the other options are selected. There are a lot of people that just want to complain. If you think you have a better idea, run for office.

Going back in history, it reminds me of the watergate scandal, where the officials think they have the right to go against the people, this is not democracy, this is in simple terms terrany.

Democracy means, when you the public vote, the vote stays, and the "PUBLIC" official abides by their wishes. Not to spear head his own agenda and disregarding the same people who put them into office.

Have we turned into a communistic government, where the publics interests are tossed to the side?

As one said earlier I forget who said it, that the mayor seemed to be very arrogant, as to say he doesn't have to listen to the public, nor the voting process.

Although a tunnel in simple terms would provide the least financial impact upon the companies while the viaduct is removed. Although the costs are exponential it still remains a viable avenue to move traffic through the city.

But when the public says "No" that's a clear sign find other alternatives.

When the public vote is meaningless when the public officials don't heed the publics oppinions, they take the law into their own hands, disregarding 200 + years of democracy.

Enough rambling, personally I think their should be an ethics committee built to keep the public officials on track of what the public wants and doesn't want. Atleast then the public would get what they vote for, not the other way around.

The voters DID reject the higher priced tunnel, with good reason. We do not want (and cannot afford) more unreasonable taxes. Plus, we DO live in an ACTIVE earthquake zone and the city cannot keep water out of the above ground tunnel that we already have. He's attempting to condo-ize West Seattle, and we STILL have only 2 ways in and out. There is no more room for cars over here. I personally think that Nichols is lining his pockets with promises from developers who want to attempt to develop the waterfronts.

Road with lid, above sea level, new alignment moving East. Take out some old buildings.

I don’t have a problem with a tunnel, but I do have a problem with the costly choice. A tunnel large enough for a double deck two lanes highways is a huge hole and very costly. The drilling equipment for that size of hole is much more expensive, the bridge work to support a mid-tunnel road way is much more expensive than a ground supported road base, and the support walls for a large tunnel is thicker and more expense. Why not build a two-lane tunnel first. The cost would be less, and we could have a usable highway in a shorter time and we would know the cost of the first tunnel. After completing the first tunnel they could start on the second tunnel adjacent to the first. The safety advantage of a second tunnel is that it could provide access and exit from the other tunnel in case of an accident or other emergencies. In case of major cost over runs we are not held hostage with an unusable partially complete tunnel.

I liked Jean Enersen’s report. She is clearly behind us voters!

Gregoire, Nickles and Sims clearly (Do Not Listen) to the voters. Jean is listening and reporting on what she hears!

KING 5's Jean Enersen interviewed the Mayor Greg Nickels and asked him why he's backing a tunnel to replace the viaduct when just 22 months ago the voters said “NO” to that option.

What about what voters want??? No wonder some people Do Not Vote!!

What about earthquakes? The Seattle Fault cuts across Puget Sound and into Seattle itself. Are the politicians forgetting how much of that area is “Fill Dirt”? What kind of DESTRUCTION is digging a tunnel going to cause?

What if we had an earthquake and the tunnel collapses? What about water leaking into the tunnel or what about the runoff from rain water? Look what just happened with the Seattle rain’s in several areas (recently) that has made a real problem, mess and expense for the property owners? It is clear that Seattle has a (BIG) water problem!

When the tunnel is finally built, it will run into more expense then originally planned!! It will be at the EXPENSE of the tax payers (and) will it be the right choice in the next 20 years as the volume of people increase? There must be another option!!!

Obama is trying to get us out of a “financial mess” in America. I think the politicians should (pay attention) and do what “they” can for the state of Washington’s economy. Is a tunnel really the answer, or is there a safer more cost effective option?

Will this raise our taxes? YES!!! Politicians will say WHATEVER we want to hear to get back into office! .……. Thanks again Jean, great news interview!!

Maybe tear the Viaduct down, re-route the traffic, and rebuild a bigger, better Viaduct!!

Dear Citizens of Seattle

I would like to share with you the final answer to the SR99 viaduct replacement problem. A three lane wide two level cut and cover tunnel can be constructed directly under the existing viaduct without disrupting the viaduct traffic and no more than two blocks of surface area under the viaduct during construction. All construction materials and equipment can be brought on site by rail car and all excavation material would be removed by rail. There would an eight month period of time when the tunnel would need to be connected to the existing roadways on the south end near Massachusetts St. and on the north end near Denny Way and SR99. A new single level cut & cover tunnel would need to constructed under Bell St. parallel to the existing Battery St. tunnel. This tunnel can be constructed in one city block increments at a time thereby reducing the impact to surface street traffic. This proposed project can be constructed for less money (2.8B) and only using city and state monies. The cost savings are coming from hiring all of the necessary labor force from those people who are on unemployment at the present and/or will be in the future.

When they did the Denny regrade, they took out everything. Buildings were removed for I-5. If you want a decent remodel, you can't be afraid to do some major demo.

I never heard why "cut" without cover wouldn't be viable? Much like I-90 ... dig out the roadway (with rail below grade too); and put occasional pedestrian covers (about the width of a road bridge). One surface road next to piers for service vehicles. That would put the whole thing below grade ... but has big drawback of needing to destroy existing viaduct for construction.

In any case, support the bore method (though skeptical about two lane limit) ... and to address a few other comments, I did not see any bias in the reporting. The questions posed to the Mayor were very fair given the history.

We elect representatives to educate themselves on the various options and to make these kinds of decisions, and when they do so, we should accept it. If we don't like it, we vote them out.
The tunnel may prove to be a brilliant idea. Unlike a viaduct replacement, it will last twice as long and will not involve 3-4 years of surface disruption and the costs that entails. Unlike a surface plan, no surface disruption and no permanent 110,000 vehicles/day displacement (or they face 20+ traffic lights).
What I dislike the most is that the costs of the proposals weren't put in an "apples to apples" comparison. If so, the viaduct replacement's costs would be more than doubled...so would the surface option.
Let's give this a chance. These types of tunnels have been successfully built and are being operated throughout the world: France, Russia, China, etc.

" the total price tag of $4.25 billion requires Seattle residents to contribute almost one billion dollars, the state to contribute 2.8 billion, King County roughly 200 million and the Port of Seattle 300 million dollars."

Duh! I live in Seattle and guess what? I pay taxes in Seattle, in King County, to the Port of Seattle and to the state of Washington. Breaking this cost thing out this way hides that fact. ...And you want a toll?!!

We can't afford this worthless, ruthless tunnel thing and it is time we not only say so, we need to stop it. This mayor can't keep the existing surface streets in workable condition, let alone a tunnel to nowhere!

The person who said something to the effect that a new viaduct will need replacement has forgotten that a tunnel will need replacing/repairs as well.

I am up for spending a teeny tiny amount of this cost to replace the existing mayor of Seattle.

Ultimately this is the best option put forth that is not another viaduct. If done right this option will provide the best bypass and waterfront/downtown access of all options thus far.

I envision a split on 99 somewhere around Holgate where you can either enter the tunnel to bypass downtown altogether, or exit to Alaskan way which will hopefully be 2 lanes south and 3 lanes north (to accomodate the ferry line).

TAX TAX TAX thats all anyone thinks about any more, It doesn't matter whether it is tax money for the huskeys ( a private company who should not be getting PUBLIC tax dollars ) a new bridge across the lake, better funding for schools or a tax and tolls for a new tunnel that is going to take lives when a 7.0 or bigger earthquake hits, what happpens when we can no longer pay the taxes for all these improvements. I am already paying 45% of my paycheck for all the various taxes that all the governments of this country charge me,and mayor lard head and his best girlfriend gov. crissy want to tax us some more. WE CAN"T AFFORD IT. it is going to be just like the monorail project only worse, billions of dollars that we can't afford before it even starts and billions more over budgit that we also can't afford before it gets done if it ever does. Give it up people lets learn live with what we have at least until the financial situation of the city,county, state and country has turned around. Until then if you don't like tha viaduct or feel unsafe on it THEN don't drive on it, I don't

if I tried to put myself as deeply in debt as the various politicians of the various governments involved plan to do over this tunnel and the other tax absorbing ideas they presently have I would be laughed at, ridiculed and possibly even arrested for fraud because i would never be able to pay anyone back. All the governments need to learn that if you cannot afford something you should not start it. The tax paying public cannot continue to afford these taxes and may never be able to pay back the over runs that are presently on the books. we voted NO tunnel but they did not listen, the politicians need to be forced by whatever means are legal to listen to those who do the voting instead of those who toss money in to the election campaign funds. I voted no for the tunnel once I will vote no again, I will vote no on the paper bag tax and I will vote no on every other tax they come up with, because I cannot afford it. But I can almost guarantee that the government will not listen because as one of the other comments above stated I'm just a stupid tax payer, not smart enough to know what is best for me. I

1) The current (and future) Battery Street Tunnel has two in each direction (four all together) and it will only acts as a bottleneck even if a replacement viaduct has six lanes or more. Two lanes (four all together) going through the tunnel below 1st Avenue must be sufficient to handle through traffic only.
2) To those who oppose the new tunnel plan because there are no on/off ramps but support a replacement viaduct, how are you going to deal with the traffic when you do not have any access what-so-ever during the construction of a new viaduct? It may take several years to complete. You are in essence saying that you can handle the adversity and you should be able to handle the new tunnel plan with minimum impact to your daily life.
3) If we have to vote for every major project, I am sure that nothing will be done. I do not know what people in other areas want and I most likely will vote down "their" projects if I do not see any benefit to me directly or indirectly. Public officials are supposed be better informed than most of voters, and it is their job to make cridical decisions.

Why wouldnt they build a tunnel, we dont want it, we cant afford it, we voted against it. Of course they are going to build it, no means yes.

Of course they will do whatever we voted against. At least they let us vote. It gives us the illusion of democracy.

I applaud Frank Chop for recognizing that the latest tunnel design is not going to meet the needs of this region. I agree with him that going from a 6 lane capacity to 4 is not advantageous to anyone, the money available is only 2.4 billion - not enough to pursue this option and lastly, it will not provide access to the areas that need it most.

Furthermore, even though Major Nichols seems to believe that making any decision, no matter how costly, shows leadership, I contend it shows just how out of touch he is with the electorate.

Early on various engineers admitted that the viaduct could be retrofitted in spots and rebuilt in others, but because the folks want a view for the condos and a fancy area for tourists the least expensive approach is being withheld from the public. Reminds me of the County Computer System debacle, the tunnel track debacle, the no votes that have been ignored. Then they wonder why people are not interested in being a participate in the political process - Gee, I wonder!!!

First problem that has not been addressed is the uncontrolled growth of Seattle. Quality of life and job opportunities were better thirty years ago when the city was smaller. Investing the money in developing a better Tacoma and a better Everett would be smarter in the long run. Linking our children's futures to the immediate interests of real estate speculators guarantees the misery of both. Seattle needs to stop growing and strive to rebuild the quality that made it so attractive so long ago. This means a return of blue collar industry and affordable housing. Without answering the question of "Why should there be a Seattle?" there is no point in building more roads to and through nowhere. Stop the tunnel, take down the Viaduct, and put HWY 99 back on 1st Avenue. The city will adjust, and billions will be saved until more reasonable heads have figured out the proper directions of growth for the Puget Sound.

First problem that has not been addressed is the uncontrolled growth of Seattle. Quality of life and job opportunities were better thirty years ago when the city was smaller. Investing the money in developing a better Tacoma and a better Everett would be smarter in the long run. Linking our children's futures to the immediate interests of real estate speculators guarantees the misery of both. Seattle needs to stop growing and strive to rebuild the quality that made it so attractive so long ago. This means a return of blue collar industry and affordable housing. Without answering the question of "Why should there be a Seattle?" there is no point in building more roads to and through nowhere. Stop the tunnel, take down the Viaduct, and put HWY 99 back on 1st Avenue. The city will adjust, and billions will be saved until more reasonable heads have figured out the proper directions of growth for the Puget Sound.

Viaduct...or tunnel to Where ? it is so sad that this looks like another monerail feasco...how many times do we have to vote on this and how many millions are we going to spend like on the monerail..and then nothing...like so many things we keep spending money on voting on the same thing and the city does whatever it wants anyway...in the mean time the $$$$$$$ are going no where but out of our pockets..

We need to bring this to a real vote.

No matter how you describe the building of a viaduct tunnel ... it is simply too much money.
$4-point-whatever-BILLION too much.

NO, NEVER, Uh-huh.

We cannot afford this option. And why do we need more parks and views down there anyway??

For pete's sake - check out Myrtle Edwards Park at the other end. Ever see many people there?? Nooooo.

We have plenty of views, plenty of parks - we need no more money wasteful projects.

I feel that the Seattle taxpayers got ripped off.
They voted against the tunnel, but who cares. The "Golden Rule", those with the gold make the rules. I wounder what the Governor's price was.
Just like Boston, this will be way over buget and time.