I thought the same thing when I read this article the other day. Why the hell should we be concerned in any way with driver's views? Dig, dig, dig....

Not all of the people who take the viaduct are drivers. I myself take the bus everyday downtown from West Seattle. I do enjoy the view, but losing 4 inches? Big whup. As far as I'm concerned, all of you who support a tunnel are very short sighted. The land that they will dig through is fill. Fill will collapse. If there is an earthquake you will see a greater catastrophic loss than with the viaduct. It's unstable ground down there, and the grade up to get the Battery Street tunnel will be too steep. Stop. Think. Tunnel bad.

For those of you who want to tear down the viaduct and replace it with a surface street, you're also short sighted. The I-5 corridor through downtown will be irrevocably packed during rush hour, and the safety of pedestrians down on the waterfront will be seriously compromised. Stop. Think. Surface street bad.

To me the only solution is to replace the viaduct with another viaduct. It will be the cheapest, least dangerous route to go. Modern engineering can compensate for a structure above the ground to make it less susceptible to damage by an earthquake. The other options are absolutely bad ideas. Stop being short sighted on this and rebuild the damn thing.

Oh, and if you want to take my license away, go ahead. I don't drive anyway. And one more thing, stop being stupid.

It's hard for me to believe that modern engineering can't compensate adequately for lack of bedrock- even in a project like the viaduct. I'm no expert, but I believe a tunnel option wouldn't even be discussed if it wasn't feasible to build safely...even with that pesky Juan de Fuca plate lingering offshore. We've learned a lot in the last 50 years about building in earthquake prone areas.

Short sighted? Are you kidding? Seattle has less green and open space in its urban core than nearly any other metropolitan center in the country. A tunnel is a compromise for traffic that allows Seattle to reclaim a bit of it's prime feature- the water. We lack community space in our city, and to address that while not crippling our infrastructure is the most forward thinking way to address this problem that I can comprehend.

In 50 years or even a hundred, do you think northwest urban citizens will sit around and lament the fact we didn't build an elevated freeway right above our waterfront?

The reason they are discussing it is because Greg Nickels is an idiot. I’m telling you this now not because I’m opposed to tunnels; I’m telling you this because I’m opposed to tunnels under unstable ground. The whole waterfront that we have today was created in the aftermath of the great Seattle fire of 1889. To rebuild and to reduce the hills of the city they put in fill, in some places up to 22 feet high. That’s a whole lot of dirt. Do you know what happens to dirt in an earthquake? It’s called liquefaction, literally it turns fluid. What will happen when this dirt turns to liquid in an earthquake, and what will be the result on a tunnel? It becomes more fill. Take a look at Boston’s big dig, and how much of a failed project it is. Do we want that in Seattle, just because that idiot Nickels wants it? Give me a break. Nickels wants the tunnel so he and his developer friends can build more condos that people can’t afford and block out the view. Did you know that recently they tried to increase the height limits of buildings in that area? And why would they do that if they can’t build there? Do you seriously think that all of that space is going to be replaced with green!? Please. It’s the shortsightedness of Seattle that really is making me think about a move somewhere else. If the tunnel idea goes in, I’m out. This is idiocy and lunacy at its finest.

In 50 to 100 years whatever will be built will have to be replaced again. So whatever they lament now they will lament about in the future, unless they get that whole teleporting thing down. But how would I know? How would you know?

According to the UW we'll just fix the soil.
(http://www.ce.washington.edu/~liquefaction/html/how/soilimprovement.html)

Ok, in all seriousness Boston's Big Dig is a whole different monster. True, they may have had some problems with leaking, but they haven't found that continental shift is responsible. On the other hand they've had a host of issues with their contractors performing shoddy work http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=131024
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/28/big_dig_testing_a_theory_on_leaks/

In other words, I think using that as an example is completely irrelevant. Personally I would be fine if 100 condo units sprung up on the waterfront. I don't see how this would be any worse than what we have currently and it would most likely be a boon for the surrounding economy. What's the feasability of building large structures on top of a tunnel anyhow?

Public spaces define a city. They carry incalculable intrinsic value that adds to nearly all aspects of a community. They can create awareness between natural and built environments, define features of human urban experience, and provide a framework that guides public and private civic life.

I'm painting with broad strokes because I believe this is a larger issue than even the staggering 4 billion dollar pricetag, or the significant technical difficulties that would need to be overcome for construction.

Any public space should incorporate art, science, landscape; with the purpose of connecting its citizens. Density is by no means the converse of adequate common space, in fact I believe density is necessary to properly actualize it- unless in rare cases city planners have the wherewithal to realize their communities needs 50-100 years in advance.

You point out that in 50-100 years the structure that is built, whatever it is, will have to be rebuilt, and that is completely correct- but until then what is the ultimate priority? The rambling cars overhead that cut a garish swath through the heart of our city? I don't think this need be an elusive metaphor, either the people of Seattle find an alternate route for traffic- underneath their feet, or reduce pedestrians to second class citizens where cars roll over their heads.

You say you'd consider moving away from here if our community decides to build a tunnel for traffic. I value your opinion, but for years I've been saying the opposite- if we don't bury that same traffic- and instead raise it again on a pedestal- I'll move away from here and likely not regret it.

In 2004 the State decided that if the Viaduct shifted more than 6 inches, repairs would have to me made. According to the PI, its now moved 4 1/2. Sounds to me like time is running out.

i believe from the state's own estimate, a rebuild of the viaduct would have to be replaced or have major fixes done on it in 50 years while the tunnel would work for the next 100.

i'll have to google that and find it, but it's another arguement for the tunnel (or, at least, against rebuilding the viaduct in its current form) as it would last twice as long.