Tunnel a reality
Editor, The Times:
“McGinn on tunnel: worth it ‘at all costs’?’ ” [page one, May 15] leads me to wonder why there is such a big deal being made about potential cost overruns on the tunnel getting built to replace the viaduct.
Let’s face it: Rarely does a huge public-works project stay within budget. The tunnel is a reality.
To help with cost overruns, tolls could be paid by businesses moving goods from one end of the tunnel to the other.
And it is not just Seattle property owners who would benefit from the new tunnel. As the story pointed out, “The state Legislature stipulated overruns will be paid by Seattle-area property owners.”
To me, the “Seattle area” includes people and businesses in Tacoma, Everett and Bellevue, as well as the rest of Pierce, King and Snohomish counties.
I frankly do not see why the federal government should not be asked to foot some of the cost overruns as well. After all, without a free-flowing Highway 99 tunnel, I-5 would be more clogged. That is bad news for the entire region’s business community, including the Eastside.
Something the mayor could be doing instead of battling against the reality of a tunnel would be to craft proposals emphasizing a transit-friendly tunnel and getting the region’s government and business players to commit to significantly improved incentives for citizens to use buses and light rail.
— Tom Hundley, Seattle
Our way or the highway
Mayor McGinn is opposed to the tunnel for the sake of being opposed. He has no alternative proposal worthy of consideration.
The mayor is not helping the city of Seattle with his recalcitrance. He should step aside and let progress happen.
— Jon Lehman, Seattle
Tunnel a ‘Seattle’ idea, a Seattle cost
I suspect that the vast amount of traffic on the viaduct is not Seattle traffic. In that regard its replacement could be considered “largely a state project.”
But replacement of the viaduct with a much more expensive and disruptive deep-bore tunnel, with many unknowns, is the choice of people such as former Mayor Greg Nickels, who sought to “connect” Seattle to the waterfront —though, clearly, it has always been connected.
The benefits to be derived by the replacement with a tunnel would accrue to the few industrial and retail owners nearby and residents gaining very small bits of views between those businesses.
The decision to replace the viaduct with a tunnel is certainly the choice of Seattle. Non-Seattle drivers who must pass through the city would much prefer an improved and cheaper, more direct replacement of the viaduct. The city should pay a lot more than just the overruns.
— Spencer Higley, Edmonds