The comments so alarmed state transportation officials that in April they asked the Federal Highway Administration to dismiss the city as a colead on the project. They also weighed not giving the city a copy of the proposed final environmental-impact statement for fear of getting more comments in the same vein.
Ultimately, the state decided in consultation with the feds that after 10 years of active cooperation, the city should be included in the final review, Hammond said.
City tunnel feedback has state bristling, Seattle Times Newspaper
I am of the opinion that over the 100 year lifespan of the viaduct replacement (any of them) we will need a by-pass of some sort, improvements to our street grid, and more mass transit. The answer, eventually, is "all of the above", Tunnel+I-5 Improvements+Street Grid+Transit.
A million people will move into King County within my lifetime. Most will have to use transit, many will have to use cars, all of then will depend on trucks delivering goods to local markets and to our port. This is a port city, facilitating transportation movement is a requirement for the city, and of overriding interest to the state.
We are getting the state's tunnel, on our terms, or in spite of what we really need?
Flirting with eminent domain with the state is dumb, Mayor Mike McGinn is acting dumb. He should be leveraging this situation to get more transit to mitigate the impending traffic issues, instead he is compounding them, in a lose-lose situation.
At this time the only portion of this we have a commitment from the state to pay for is the Tunnel as a by-pass. Looking at this economy, and transportation revenues, this opportunity to have the state pay this much toward any portion of Seattle's transportation infrastructure is a limited time offer.
The by-pass tunnel is before us now, keep moving it forward.