Ben Schiendelman over at the Seattle Transit Blog has a good, if anecdotal, overview of how the surface/transit and tunnel options for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct would work for two specific commuters from West Seattle. The first commuter, a doctor who currently takes the bus or drives to First Hill, would see his commute get worse under the tunnel option (because that driver would switch to I-5, where the tunnel is expected to make congestion worse), while the second, a woman who commutes to Google, would see her commute get slightly better, but substantially more expensive because of tolls.

Conversely,

If a surface option were built, Google lady’s time on 99 would be a little slower than it is today – by as much as a couple of minutes. However, because the fast bypass through downtown isn’t there, a lot of trips aren’t taken, so the West Seattle bridge is less congested – making up time. Her total trip is still slower, but not nearly as slow as tunnel proponents suggest. Because the surface option also included transit improvements, there’s also a significantly better chance that she’ll take RapidRide and a local bus (or Dexter bike lane) the rest of the way to work. There’s another good discussion here about Central Streetcar and a future Fremont extension, but that’s for another post.

Doctor dude uses the new surface boulevard when he drives – it’s faster than sitting in traffic on I-5. He wasn’t spending that much time on 99 anyway, and the West Seattle bridge is now slightly faster, so his commute time improves. Transit improvements more than made up for that travel time decrease, though, so he continues to bus.

Schiendelman's a supporter of the anti-tunnel referendum, whose backers have until next Tuesday to turn in 16,000 valid signatures. Protect Seattle Now spokesman Drew Paxton says he expects the group will have enough signatures by the end of the week.