The Deep-Bore Tunnel: New Extended Edition with Added Commentary

Tunnel enthusiasts and anti-enthusiasts: Stay focused! There's a lot of arguing yet to be done. 

Nick Licata, in one of his many hats

The City Council's Nick Licata has dedicated this month's Urban Politics newsletter to an update on the long and winding road that is the deep bore tunnel's political future, Seattle Transit Blog has just published not one but two think pieces on the unthinkable ("Viaduct or Tunnel," and the compelling "RE: Viaduct or Tunnel"), and tonight at 7:30 p.m., The Stranger invites you to a Town Hall forum: "The Deep Bore Tunnel--What Could Go Wrong?"

The Stranger's news editor Dominic Holden "moderates" a skeptically-stacked panel that includes Mayor Mike McGinn, Councilmember Mike O'Brien, and Drew Paxton (Move Seattle Smarter). No official or unofficial representatives of the tunnel are on the panel because they refused the invitation to speak. WSDOT declined, stunningly, because they are in a public comment period.

Licata highlights two challenges to the deep bore tunnel. Move Seattle Smarter is busy working up an initiative that would rule out Seattle taxpayers ending up on the hook for potential cost overruns. And Tim Eyman, as I've previously mentioned, believes that I-1053 requires that tolling to pay tunnel construction would require a legislative vote. Notes Licata:

It may not be easy for the legislature to set tolls without opening up the issue of project funding and cost overruns. Worse, if the costs for the tunnel go over the set-aside contingency (i.e. goes over budget) the state legislature would need a two-thirds vote if they were to raise taxes to pay for the gap.

In retrospect, says Licata, the state's offer to pay full freight for an elevated replacement looks like a good deal passed over. That's the heresy offered up by Seattle Transit Blog's Martin Duke, who argues that the 4-lane, single-deck Viaduct replacement option has it all over the deep bore tunnel: cheaper, better tied-in to the street network, and able to accommodate transit. While noting that the surface/transit/I-5 option is still the thinking person's choice, he conjectures that Viaduct replacement option could still gain the political support needed.

Today, STB's John Jensen disagrees, concluding, "What compels me to write this post is the fact that I do not want a viaduct along my waterfront and I suppose I’d swallow a tunnel if I had to. It’s almost entirely emotional, I admit." 

Which is where I think we honestly arrive on all our positions, pro and con. The only non-emotional component continues to be whether the deep-bore tunnel is even an affordable option at this juncture.