Zeattle Tunnel?

I'm not an engineer, so my comments here need to be reviewed by experts, nor am I a commuter and use the viaduct on a daily basis. Heck, I don't even live in Seattle. I'm an Eastsider with a love for this region! I "found" it in 1994 and moved here a couple of years later, making the Puget Sound area "home"!

As wonderful as this area is, it is also amazing how hard it is to make "real" decisions on badly needed public projects. Be it mass transit, new roads, schools. Is it something in the air that makes it harder to make decisions here than in other parts of the country (or the world)?

For some $4+ billion we can reclaim our waterfront, just like San Francisco did in the early 90ies. For some $3 billion, we can replace the existing elevated freeway with one that is deemed safer and more modern. Tough choice. Money is needed for a massive amount of public projects in the state, not just along Seattle's once wonderful the water front.

Therefore, why is it so expensive to build a tunnel in Seattle?
Gothenburg, Sweden, just opened up a major underground tunnel along its water front. It is a modern 6-lane traffic tunnel, a bit shorter at about a mile, but it was built for 3.2B SEK (~$450M), or a fraction of the projected cost in Seattle. The first project decision was made in 1991, 1995 the budget was set to 1.8B SEK (~$250M) and the construction phase was to last 4 years. When the construction finally started in 2000, completion was scheduled for fall of 2005. Well, as any large project, it took longer time and turned out to be more expensive. The tunnel finally opened up in June of this year, 6 months late and 400M SEK (~$60M) over (the final) budget. About half he cost increase over the 6 year project is attributed to increases in labor and material costs.
Sweden is NOT an inexpensive place to build in, salaries are high (as are the taxes), and I dare to say that the end result might have a even higher quality than similar projects in the US. So question remains, why so expensive in Seattle?

Gothenburg finally got out of the quagmire of indecision and got its tunnel. Was it worth it? Was the money well spent? I dare to say that the vast majority will love this new tunnel. It gives downtown Gothenburg a chance to reconnect to the waterfront - sounds familiar - and yes at a high cost, but looking back through history, people will instead ask why this was not done earlier! In fact, Gothenburg is now on its way of planning a major "under-the-city-tunnel" for light rail and express trains. It start to sound more like Paris!

I spent a lot of time in Norway in the 70ies and 80ies. Driving through the capital city of Oslo was the same as utilizing the most precious real estate possible; the waterfront! All traffic passed in front of the Akershus Palace, City Hall, effectively cutting off the city from its water - the beautiful and majestic Oslo Fjord.

In the late 80ies and early 90ies, a new tunnel (and a system of toll plazas around the city) was built. This new tunnel is leading traffic essentially the same way we traveled along the waterfront, but now deep UNDER it. Getting rid of the cars changed the city dramatically. What used to be a congested thoroughfare lining an otherwise dead waterfront, has now turned the Norwegian Capital into a "Venice of the North".

The city has been reconnected to the water, there are parks, bars, restaurants, and people walking, enjoying their newfound city. The extremely dull Oslo of the 70ies is no more, thanks in large part to getting rid of the cars from the waterfront.
As a side note, most people also seem to accept the car tolls as something worth paying (about 20% of the toll revenue fund public transportation projects), dramatically changing the initial negative notion since they now actually see they get something in return. It is not just a fee, but a fee that provides something in return!

Hence, Seattle, and Seattleites (it is after all YOUR city) need to dare to be bold. Make a decision that is good not just for the slim pocket book of today, but also for generations to come. Whatever you do, its impact will last at least my life time!

That said, if the city can survive without the viaduct during a long construction phase of a tunnel, the city can probably manage without it all. But then again, I do not use the waterfront for commuting on a daily basis, nor do I rely on goods transported on the Alaskan Way.

But are there alternatives worth to be investigated? Just as an elevated tall bridge has been proposed, one needs to ask if the tunnel does need to be where the viaduct is today? Why can it not be built out of modular concrete sections that are being sunk out in Elliot Bay, essentially placing the route of the tunnel a bit west of its proposed location. Underwater tunnels have been built before. Such a design and location will allow for the Alaskan Way viaduct to be fully "operational" during the vast majority of a tunnel project. Maybe the savings of being able to use the viaduct will justify the added cost for a "true" underwater tunnel.

With the City Council's decision of last Friday, the city has dared to be bold, but also a bit cowardly by putting the final decision - and the political outfall - in the hands of Governor Gregoire. That is not fair!