Let's face it -- the Alaskan Viaduct needs to come down. The 2001 Nisqually Earthquake has proven that it wasn't a stable, safe highway structure to begin with. But is there a better solution then the Seattle Viaduct Tunnel? Will the costs -- in convenience and finances to Seattle residents -- outweigh the benefits? Does Seattle really have a good track record for big project construction or will this be a repeat of Boston's Big Dig project? 

1. Let's face it - Washington lawmakers have already dedicated $2.4 billion in state gas–tax money to fund the tunnel. But what about cost overruns? How's that factored in? via Seattle Times Oxford University study stating that over 90 percent of transportation mega-projects go substantially over budget

2. Will it actually reduce traffic congestion? According to King5, critics say the bore tunnel would carry 20 percent less traffic and cannot be expanded. 

On the bright note, at least the SR-99/Alaskan Tunnel will be in operation while the Viaduct Tunnel is in construction so we won't have MAJOR traffic issues ongoing. 

What do you think?

What's the real cost? Remember what they did to the monorail, where they added up all the costs of financing and interest and came up with some giant amount.

Let's do the same for the tunnel... Counting interest and other expenses, how much will it REALLY COST?

The money is "there" pretty much.  Tunnels are hard to expand once built.  And no, it's not a "Big Dig" project, Boston's approch to redesigning is: 

a) covered more miles in construction compared to the 2-mile tunnel,

b) there is no "huge" engineering hurdles facing Seattle's Tunnel Compared to the I-95 Big Dig.

- No building just feet below a busy trainyard where engineers in Boston had to freeze the soil to not let the tracks to cave into the tunnel

- No building a tunnel just below foundations of an interstate highway which had to be kept open.

- No cable-stayed bridge.

c) Tunnel is two-lanes because they expect Downtown traffic to hit city streets at either end of the tunnel.  This is a bypass instead of serving Downtown, not that Hwy 99 should serve Downtown Seattle directly.

d) They expect the surface improvements will direct people off SR 99 into Seattle or use I-5

e) I-5 is technically at "max. capacity" meaning no big improvements besides regular maintaince is on the agenda.

If you are not an engineer, Seattle Viaduct Replacement project being compared to Boston's Big Dig is a big misleading comparison.

We need to rebuild the Viaduct, it serves multiple areas. Rebuild it and quit waisting time!

My idea was to fortify the Viaduct from the ground up; build condos and shops from ground to first level. The view would be so good people won't care about the noise. NO TUNNEL

Safety IS an issue that we cannot afford to overlook. However, I don't think Seattle has the administrative leadership or quality workers to manage this ginormous project. Just look at LiteRail. I have lived in Korea for 5 years in my formative years, and the expedience of the work done there was amazing. Whereas it takes nearly a year to raise a 5-story tall commercial building, where I used to live, they raised about 10~15 of 25-story tall buildings in less than that time. Even developing new routes for subway system didn't take more than 2 years (at the most).

Growing up having seen that type of speedy execution, I can't hold back my discontent whenever i see road blocked for half a year just to do some small project.

For these reasons, although I'd like to have the the new viaduct (or alternative solution for it), I don't think we can execute it properly with the leadership and worker quality we have here in Seattle.

Does the current viaduct need to come down?  Of course, its coming down anyway, let's not wait for the thing to just sink into oblivion.  But to replace with a tunnel?  NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The freedom to see the sky, Elliot Bay and the City when driving though town, plus the parking and access under protects our Seattle waterfront history and lifestyle.  Why do we want to turn our waterfront into more overpriced real estate?  I wish our little old viaduct was not a death trap or I would say leave it alone.

This is another one of those Seattle Boondoggle that's going to cost a minimum of double what their claiming. The real story behind building the tunnel is so the can build on that prime waterfront property to raise tax revnue. Yes the money has been passed under the table and all hands greases to make this fly even though the taxpayers don't want it. Kind of like Obamacare.

Frank Chopp's is the only sensible plan proposed so far other than rebuilding/reinforcing the existing structure.  I'm not sure I believe all the Nisqually damage hoo ha.  I suspect it's a red herring to scare us into letting the developers ruin our waterfront and Public Market.

Tear it down and improve I5. Give the city a proper, proud waterfront. Only a minority of users (~30%) actually use it to get beyond downtown. Why should we build a $4B tunnel to serve so few people who want to get from Ballard to West Seattle? A tunnel would have no downtown exits, essentially creating a solid bypass.

This city needs to be more transportation-progressive, not car-slaving regressive.