Nevermind the Columbia/Seneca access ramps which make traffic downtown worse, the Deep-bore doesn’t provide thru-traffic access at Western/Elliott, currently about 40,000 vehicles daily, 2500 per hour, give or take depending upon the time of day. This traffic will be directed along the new Alaskan Way. Even half that much new traffic there will produce bumper-to-bumper gridlock all day long.

It’s better that Seattle bite the bullet and dig up the waterfront for a Cut-n-cover that will maintain the Interbay/Ballard access. There’s no avoiding the mess of removing the AWV, rebuiding the seawall and Alaskan Way.

WsDOT’s Scenario ‘G’ 4-lane Cut-n-cover was designed after the 2007 voter rejection of their 6-lane version to specifically reduce construction impacts. Coincidentally, it costs less than the Deep-bore by about $900 million.

WsDOT videos show a new Alaskan Way with 4-lanes. Dream on. 6-lanes is probably necessary with this much traffic, and even so would not prevent gridlock.

Think that Wide Plaza looks nice? Narrow it by 20′, then picture it with makeshift parking lots and driveways. You didn’t hear this from arduous committee discussion because WsDOT and SDOT department heads didn’t want the ugly details aired in public.

McGinn is right-on to oppose the Deep-bore and emphasize a wholistic approach to transportation planning. I-5 needs upgrades. Transit service downtown must improve. McGinn is closest to being open to the 4-lane Cut-n-cover. Seattle would be fortunate to have McGinn as a mayor who thinks outside the box.

First and foremost it is my opinion and not associated with any other organization I work for or for any candidate. Just the one guy.

Second, it is purely about politics not about how to run a winning campaign not a thoughtful or inspirational one although those things are NOT, and SHOULDN’T BE mutually exclusive.

Anyone running for anything in this town ought to focus on the issues people care about while at the same time articulating a vision for the City beyond promising to keep snow off the roads when the next snow storm hits.

Since this blog is so strongly affiliated with Dan it might be nice to have a little note about new writers and who they are when there is such a guest post.

It’s sad for you to be pushing just one issue. It’s sensational and uninforming. Still I thank you for standing put on your values. I will find myself coming to your blog for all that is Viaduct related (while hoping for a little more on other issues at least)

I really hope Seattle Voters will be more intelligent than to fall pray to a one issue campaign. I’ll be voting for the person who can show me a full range of understanding all the issues that Seattle faces rather than be duped into one polarizing issue.

We will never completely agree with anyone politician. We MUST make choices based on who can act best on the most issues. If I have to sacrifice to cast my vote, so be it.

Maybe that new hole can be added to the Underground Tour in five or six years. That way we get tourist to pay for it!

@1 I also like your idea. I think that McGinn should incorporate this into his message. It certainly goes right along with his agenda. And this is something very near and dear to Seattleites hearts.

Seattleites will soon awaken to the fact that Mallahan is the Elle Woods (with out the successful ending, of course) of Seattle Politics. Just waking up one day and saying, “Girls, I going to run for Mayor!” McGinn or maybe a “neighbors to elect Mike McGinn” campaign will need to push on this.

If Malahan pushes his pro-tunnel view very hard he loses because so many people see the tunnel as unwise, too-expensive, too-risky financially, too-focussed on a ten block section of Seattle etc.

If McGinn pushes the surface/transit option he loses because so many people think it’s impractical, high-risk, politically-impossible in a regional perspective etc. And since I understand that McGinn sincerely believes in surface/transit, he may find it difficult to step away from it.

I give political to Malahan as he seems less ideologically-committed to the tunnel. He may be able to step away gingerly from the tunnel as by saying something like that he favors it so long as some (actually impossible) condition can be met e.g. Seattle voters will take no financial risk whatsoever because ALL cost overruns will be responsibility of “someone else” such as the State Legislature, the design-build contractor, the tooth fairy. He still has the huge problem of where Seattle gets the $1 billion down payment.

I’d say that the winner will move toward the Repair option as quickly and gracefully as possible. Maybe that means McGinn has an advantage because he can (justly) claim that he really wants “Repair and Prepare.” (Prepare to take the viaduct down, which will in fact take years e.g. actually planning the whole operation, putting the public transit portion in place, etc. You really thought it could be done quickly? In Seattle?)