I doubt you’d win your vote. In fact, by the time voting rolled around, you’d be talking about going back 1.5 years in the process, plus the interminable legislative issues.

As for your points about number of lanes: Alaskan Way will be widened, and also have a direct surface slope up to Western/Elliott. The tunnel will be the same width of the existing tunnel, but with breakdown lanes added. Capacity isn’t an issue. Neither is access to the waterfront…if you’re a car from West Seattle, you’ve lost two offramps but gained continuous access along the new Alaskan Way boulevard.

The referendum process allows the Seattle citizens to put to a public vote the ordinance passed Monday. Given that voters rejected a tunnel concept by a 70% margin, I believe the deep bore tunnel ordinance would be rejected. However, this city would rather save trees than save money, so stay tuned.

McGinn is not paying billions - we the citizens are on the hook. There is no need to spend this much money. The state would fund elevated structure, cut-and-cover, or tunnel methods that better serve the central waterfront. A deep-bore tunnel cuts off existing waterfront access and reduces the number of existing lanes in both directions.

I don’t think a surface/transit option will cut the mustard with the other paying participants in this infrastructure replacement. I believe that McGinn is pragmatic enough to realize that fact, and work to protect Seattle citizens. His opponent and council seem more beholden to special interests that would benefit from a deep bore tunnel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcs7GRwprS8

“The guy is a demagogue. He was NEVER going to be able to kill the tunnel, and he knew it. Whether the tunnel is a good thing or not, this debate has been raging far too long. At some point, you have to make a decision and move on. This issue is a perfect example of why Seattle doesn’t work. Nothing ever gets done. No progress is ever made. Citizens flock to solutions that, if enacted, would wreak havoc on the economy.

Think about it. Under McGinn’s plan you would take down the viaduct, dump 100,000+ cars extra every day into downtown, tie I-5 up for at least a decade with his improvements. I’m all for going green. Unfortunately, change has to occur gradually to give the region time to absorb it and avoid major shockwaves. Never actually having to have met a payroll, McGinn doesn’t get these basics.”

I would also argue that rebuilding/replacing the viaduct is much smarter than doing the surface streets and transit.

It’s almost a non-issue anyway since McGinn has little chance of winning anyway.

I was simply asking a question if the ST research was a quality (sic) as that done for their endorsement on Susan Hutchinson.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mike McGinn:

“Today, the City Council authorized Mayor Greg Nickels to sign an intergovernmental agreement with the State of Washington committing Seattle to the tunnel plan.

I disagree with the decision. I disagree with the timing.

But the reality is Mayor Nickels and the Council have entered into an agreement, and the City is now committed to the tunnel plan.

If I’m elected Mayor, although I disagree with this decision, it will be my job to uphold and execute this agreement. It is not the Mayor’s job to withhold the cooperation of city government in executing this agreement.

I will, however, continue to ask tough questions:

– We don’t know how much it’s actually going to cost.

– If it ends up costing more than the current budget allows, there is serious disagreement between Seattle and the State over who will pay the cost overruns.

– Where will the money come from, and who will bear the burden? Will we have to cut police, fire, library, or services for the poor?

I will not stop asking the tough questions nor will I ever stop standing up for Seattle’s interests in this process.

I’m worried the people that want the tunnel have a champagne appetite and the City has a beer budget. The question is who will end up paying the tab.

There is a clear choice in this election.

My opponent has refused to ask any hard questions about the tunnel.

In fact, when asked about the Legislature passing the cost overrun amendment, he said:

“If I were mayor, rather than taking potshots at Democratic leadership who put that (amendment) on, I’d express disappointment and say, “OK, we can live with this.”

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/406102_mallahan12.html

Seattle cannot live with paying the cost overruns on the tunnel.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2010095811_mike_mcginn_says_he_would_upho.html

Regardless, rebuilding the viaduct would be a lot smarter and better for CO2 emissions than surface streets and transit.