I guess the question now is, who's willing to chip in the few billion dollars it will take to make Ida's biking and walking trips more pleasant?

Oh, and I guess the other question is, how should we prioritize this infrastructure improvement and its costs against the other projects we have underway or are considering that will make this city and region less car-dependent?

Signed,
Someone who agrees that I-5 tears our central city in half

I would imagine getting rid of I-5 would also greatly improve the air quality in our central city.

My concern is that this whole I-5 reimagining thing feels like a bit of a distraction. For those of us who want to see a city and region that offers better alternatives to driving, the pressing major issue where our attention can have real results is Sound Transit 3, and making sure the Sound Transit board doesn't cut corners and try to build out a hobbled system.

Granted, maybe I need to be a bit more tolerant of the visionaries who want to imagine a better Seattle that wouldn't arrive in decades.

Seattle has rejected freeways before - the R H Thomson Expressway would have run down the east side of Seattle, but voters defeated it.
Remember those freeway ramps to nowhere in Montlake?

@1 and @3 -- At this point, capping I-5 would be a better value than ST3. Not because it would be cheap, but because ST3 is largely crap, and now it is crap with big cost overruns. Because of the latter, everything within ST3 (even the good parts) are likely to be delayed a really long time, and it will likely become crappier. Even before the cost overruns, there was talk of moving the one and only Ballard station from 15th (already pretty crappy) to 14th (much crappier).

The best thing to do with Seattle's part of ST3 (the only part of ST3 that isn't crap, other than the one downtown Redmond station) is to start by building the second downtown transit tunnel. But instead of running a short stub, with infrequent trains going a relatively short distance, it should be built as a rail-convertible bus tunnel. Those whose trips never leave the tunnel (i. e. those that would ride the stub) would benefit because the buses would come a lot more often than the train (every few seconds, instead of every ten minutes). Those in West Seattle and Ballard would see their bus make the journey through downtown much faster. Everyone comes out ahead, while we wait for the money to run the trains to Ballard and the West Seattle Junction. (The original estimate for Ballard rail was 2035, in all likelihood it won't be here until 2045).

ST3 is massive. The original estimate was over 50 billion dollars. I have no idea what it is now. In that light, the $1.3 billion for the hybrid option for capping I-5 is a great value. It has to be viewed (in part) as the author of this letter mentioned -- as a transportation project. Most people in his position just drive. They drive because the walk is indirect, and it sucks. If they capped I-5, there are large numbers of people who would decide to walk to work, or visit friends, or go out to eat. Way more than will be served by say, light rail stations in Fife, which epitomizes ST3.

By the way, this is what we should have done instead of building the SR 99 tunnel. First put the money into the "surface improvements" (make relatively cheap improvements to I-5, add money for transit, improve the waterfront drive). Then cap I-5. This would have been cheaper, and we would be done with both downtown monstrosities. The whole thing would have been cheaper than the new tunnel (which doesn't even work well, as it lacks ramps to Western, like the old viaduct).

I wish I had the luxury of complaining about the aesthetics of I-5, and how hard it is to walk places from Capitol Hill.

Try commuting to downtown from White Center via transit. After spending 1 1/2 hours the 131 before bailing in absolute frustration somewhere in SODO, you'll develop a new appreciation for just how good you have it. You'll also realize that capping I-5 is a complete pipe dream when you see the state of the infrastructure and homelessness in the south end. Spending billions on this boondoggle when we don't even have the resources to cope with our current crop of emergencies is beyond idiotic, it's simply not going to happen in our lifetimes.

Ross @5 @6, it looks like you're just as determined to reverse the results of the 2016 ST3 election as Trump is determined to reverse the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Thankfully, we won. And thankfully, we have subarea equity, so that those of us in Seattle don't have to pay for the projects in Pierce County that you consider misguided.

As for that "rail-convertible bus tunnel" idea of yours, all I can say is, I'm glad that Peter Rogoff is where he is, as CEO of Sound Transit, and I'm glad you are where you are--pontificating on local blogs.

Thanks for the input, tech worker who used to live in Norway. You're right, you deserve a two billion dollar park to stroll through on your way to Amazon.

@3 you do realize that getting rid of I-5 would have a net negative effect on carbon emissions overall and also probably decimate several industries in the Seattle area blowing a large hole in the city budget? Like it or not I-5 is the major N-S freight corridor on the west coast. if you were to shut down I-5 or even restrict it's capacity through Seattle where is all that freight traffic going to go? 405 can't handle it so the alternative would be to build a new freeway along the lines of the once envisioned 605 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_605_(Washington). So now you have to build that monstrosity and push freight traffic around Seattle creating even more emissions. Beyond that the fishing industry and port of Seattle would all of a sudden have severe mobility issues and would either have to reduce their capacity or shift operations to Tacoma/Everett who would be more than happy to welcome them and their tax revenue with open arms. It's fun to kevetch about I-5 but its not a productive conversation if you care about anything but yourself.

District13refugee @10: "@3 you do realize that getting rid of I-5 would have a net negative effect on carbon emissions overall and also probably decimate several industries in the Seattle area blowing a large hole in the city budget?"

I have to correct myself. I was being a bit sloppy with my words when I wrote: "I would imagine getting rid of I-5 would also greatly improve the air quality in our central city."

What I should have said is "removing the broad swath that I-5 cuts through downtown Seattle." Among the scenarios for reimagining I-5, the least unrealistic is covering it in some way.

One other point. Any money we spend on such a project would not be building any new transportation infrastructure. Unlike what Sound Transit 3 is doing. And so for that, as a voter I'm willing to pay a lot more as a taxpayer.

@12 how would you remove it without a cover and not cut off the N-S throughway? Tunnel?

@13, I'm saying "removing" I-5 was the wrong phrasing. Removing I-5 is only one way (and one of the more unrealistic ways) of reconnecting the Seattle core that is disconnected by I-5.

Saying "Cap Hill" and "The I-5" are offenses nearly as bad as building an interstate through the heart of our fair city.