Talk:State Route 99 tunnel

Tunnel Back on the Table?
Seattle Times: City, county, state agree on tunnel to replace viaduct

Looks like the tunnel is back on the table after all. From the Times article, it sounds pretty final. They've been changing the game plan so many times, though, so it's anyone's guess as to whether this is what will actually happen. I'll update the tunnel section accordingly.

98.203.198.33 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well actually it is a different plan. As a matter of fact, I read about this proposal several years ago in the Seattle Times. I agreed with that idea although I though that it should be 3 lanes each way with an Embarcadero style highway/avenue by the waterfront so there would be a greater traffic capacity. Azemocram (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring
Originally I came to this article merely to add mention of the "floating highway on Elliott Bay" proposal. In the process, though, I found the article difficult to follow mainly due to unclear flow. My goal is to strictly separate the historical planning period from the bored tunnel design and construction. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This was a kind of decent article back before they made a final decision on the replacement for the tunnel, but now that they've settled on the deep bored tunnel, the structure is somewhat backwards. It needs to put the fact that the tunnel is a done deal out in front, and then push all the back and forth controversy into the history section. It needs to greatly expand the description of how the new tunnel is engineered and to chronicle the construction process.I added some photos from the Milepost 19 museum, but there is a lot more information there we can use. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article should be about the tunnel itself, with the controversy relegated to a history section. Yworo (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article should be on a better track to expand with tunnel information once the historic information is separated. As it was, some current info was interspersed into historic sections because it was almost all historic. Very confusing. —Mrwojo (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pausing for today. The major reordering is done. History needs fat trimming. Design and construction needs to be expanded. —Mrwojo (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The back-and-forth nature of some of the options being considered gets pretty confusing from the perspective of 2012+, with years of familiarity with a single deep bored tunnel. Historical options considered hybrid 4-lane tunnels that were multiple tunnels separated by travel direction, several options of cut-and-cover tunnels (single stacked, separated), etc.  I think it might be helpful to consider separating options out with a "year" subheading and an accompanying cross-section compilation graphic with matching year labels.  This article might not be served by what my Paint3D skills can deliver, but if someone is interested in making a graphic I'd be willing to help with labels and providing some direct source material to use.  Jwfowble (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

AWV
Going forward, details about the Alaskan Way Viaduct itself should be kept on that article. That includes the problems it faced and its ongoing demolition. Summary information about the AWV should remain here when relevant. I suggest this only because the tunnel article could be mistaken as a sub-topic of the AWV when actually it's more like the next article in a series. —Mrwojo (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Gardiner Expressway
Toronto's Gardiner Expressway is included in the #See also section, saying Toronto has considered similar plans. True -- every five or ten years or so someone suggests burying the Gardiner -- but they are always blue sky suggestions. Cooler heads always prevail.

The analogy between the AWV and the Gardiner is strained. First, the elevated portion of the Gardiner is several times longer than the AWV. Second, the AWV has no entrances and exits, other than at its terminii. A buried Gardiner would require multiple exit and entrance ramps, which, I suggest, would considerably complicate the design.

I don't think the Gardiner is related enough to justify being placed in the See also section. Geo Swan (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The current viaduct has multiple exits and entrances (at the south end, in the middle at Columbia/Seneca, and at the north end at Western/Elliott). The Gardiner warrants inclusion in the section because the structure and proposals are very similar in being North American elevated urban freeways that are proposed for demolition and replacement.  Sounder Bruce  00:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707140502/http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Cypress_Viaduct_Freeway.html to http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/Cypress_Viaduct_Freeway.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141110124014/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/News/2012/12/10_sr99_tunnel-machine-name.htm to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/News/2012/12/10_sr99_tunnel-machine-name.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121228222304/http://www.seattlechannel.org/issues/viaduct.asp to http://www.seattlechannel.org/issues/viaduct.asp
 * Added tag to http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003571128_viaductreport14m0.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013133922/http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2008619010_webviaduct12m.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2008619010_webviaduct12m.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706041118/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003533235_viaductvote20m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003533235_viaductvote20m.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115000109/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008621043_viaduct13m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008621043_viaduct13m.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115232433/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008622393_webviaduct13m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008622393_webviaduct13m.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228200658/http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021696892_99tunnelxml.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021696892_99tunnelxml.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204190949/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003249507_webviaduct08.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003249507_webviaduct08.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204190340/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003185081_viaduct09m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003185081_viaduct09m.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814202721/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003169038_viaduct02m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003169038_viaduct02m.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814202716/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003149875_viaduct25m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003149875_viaduct25m.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Some proposed changes
Please change: Investigations a month later revealed that the machine had damaged several of its cutting blades after encountering a steel pipe that was used to measure groundwater in 2002 around the Alaskan Way Viaduct

To: "Investigations later revealed the seal system that protects the machine’s main bearing had been damaged.” Three days prior to stopping, the machine mined through an 8-inch-steel well-casing used to help measure groundwater in 2002 around Alaskan Way. Whether this pipe had anything to do with the machine’s failure is at the center of legal dispute between WSDOT and the contractor, Seattle tunnel Partners.”

Please change: Tunneling was paused again on January 18, 2016, when a sinkhole formed above Bertha near the launch pit.[8] Tunneling resumed on February 23, 2016

To: On January 18, 2016, Governor Inslee halted tunneling when a sinkhole formed above Bertha near the launch pit.[8] Tunneling resumed on February 23, 2016[9].

Construction section Please change: "when Bertha struck a steel pipe, installed as a well casing for an exploratory well drilled as part of the planning phases of the project."

To: "Boring was delayed when the seals on the machine’s main bearing failed.”

Please change: As of March 2018, Seattle Tunnel Partners are targeting an August 2018 completion of work, with the tunnel possibly opening in October 2018; the cost overrun estimate now stands at $600 million.

To: "As of March 2018, Seattle Tunnel Partners are targeting an August 2018 completion of work, with the tunnel possibly opening in October 2018. The contractor Seattle Tunnel Partners and machine manufacturer Hitachi Zosen incurred the costs of repairs. The dispute over the cause of the damage and whether they are entitled to reimbursement is now with the courts."

Bertraj (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)bertraj

Reply 25-JUN-2018
Since these claims are being made by certain individuals or organizations, the repeating of their claims needs to be clearly stated as such, per WP:NPOV. This can be accomplished by ensuring that all statements be clearly attributed in the text, as the following example demonstrates:"Certain issues arose during the investigation. According to Susan Way of the Seattle Times, the rigging 'showed definite problems in several key areas'."Please redraft your proposal, making sure that all statements are properly attributed to their sources in the text. Regards,  spintendo   21:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Article title
With the tunnel being open, is it time to give this article a proper name? Most national sources are calling it "Highway 99 tunnel" although local sources tend to use "SR 99 tunnel". BLAIXX 12:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, SR 99 Tunnel is definitely the common name and the de facto official name. Descriptions of things that have been replaced or superseded should be kept somewhere, moved to another article or split off. Often when things change we lose a lot of content of historic value. The pre-2012 version of Museum of History & Industry for example, have descriptions of how the museum once was that we should resurrect in an appropriate section. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - My vote is for the more formal "Washington State Route 99 tunnel" name. --RickyCourtney (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME and Naming conventions (geographic names) tend to point in the opposite direction, away from formality, and not using unnecessary disambiguation like "Washington" when we don't have any other Route 99 tunnel articles. We have several Albert Bridges so Albert Bridge, London is necessary, but no need to say Chelsea Street Bridge, Massachusetts since we have only one Chelsea Street Bridge article, even with Chelsea Bridge (London) sounding so similar. Similarly Bjorøy Tunnel, Blackwall Tunnel and so on aren't disambiguated in the title. And "Washington State Route 99 tunnel" is a phrase that is used in a vanishingly small number of sources. The names "Highway 99 tunnel" and "SR 99 tunnel" (lowercase T, rather than what I said above) do at least appear literally written that way in our sources. "Washington State Route 99 tunnel" is fine though. Acceptable, but not ideal according to the guidelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The naming of the Washington State Route 99 came about through the WP:SRNC after several edit wars and arbitration battles within the roads community. I'd rather see SR 99 Tunnel used, since it has the most Google results (257K as of today) and appears quite often on WSDOT websites and literature (e.g. this website, the project website, and this press release). Some contractor documents seem to refer to it as the "Alaskan Way Tunnel", but it has only had occasional mentions since 2011 or so.  Sounder Bruce  05:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Go slow on this. The article is more about the project to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel than it is about the new tunnel per se. Let it settle a while. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In the long run, this article should be focused on the tunnel. The associated projects can be split of as needed to Washington State Route 99 (general corridor), Alaskan Way/Central Waterfront, Seattle (waterfront park/promenade), and Alaskan Way Viaduct/Battery Street Tunnel (demolition and legacy).  Sounder Bruce  06:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Route map
This edit war doesn't need to happen. In my opinion, the map is no more visible below the infobox than inside it. My preference would be for something analogous to the West Side Elevated Highway article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As a key part of the article, the map belongs in the infobox first and foremost. Replacing it with an older static map with fewer labels and no ability to pan around is a net loss for usefulness. WP:USRD has already begun transitioning hundreds of articles to the new map format, as they can be corrected without the use of an image editor and the background data is able to be updated through pulls from OpenStreetMap (so that viaduct will eventually disappear, giving us a clearer view of the waterfront streets). I don't think the diagram approach would work at all. I'd rather use the vertical space in the article to display more images, because there are a ton of good Commons images that will otherwise sit unused.  Sounder Bruce  08:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Please do not collapse the map. I didn't notice the existence of the map until this edit war began.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Having read MOS:COLLAPSE, I've uncollapsed the map in the infobox. I'd still rather not see a raster map unless it is used in historical context (e.g. with the viaduct and its downtown exits marked as comparison).  Sounder Bruce  03:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Should the tunnel length include the cut-and-cover sections at each end?
The article currently lists the tunnel length as 9270 feet. As show in the article's Reference [3}, this is the length of the part of the tunnel bored by Bertha.

According to the following reference, both the north and south portals have addition "cut and cover" tunnel sections (1000 feet at the south end and 450 feet at the north).

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/Media/Default/-NewDocuments/Library/201705_AWVBytheNumbersFolio.pdf

There is also this WSDOT video pointing out that for drivers the cut-and-cover and the bored sections will appear as one tunnel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaEvjXhxHOQ

Adding the cut-and-cover sections to the 9270 foot bored length makes for a total tunnel length of 10,720 feet. Or, is the convention not to include the cut-and-cover sections of tunnels in their overall length?

Quixotix (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would think those should be included except where talking specifically about the length of the bored tunnel. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source that states the full length of the tunnel (without having to synthesize on your own), then we can add it to the route section. The 1.8-mile figure is more common and thus should be kept in the front.  Sounder Bruce  05:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This WSDOT page says "Bored and cut-and-cover tunnel combined: 11,000 feet". But it's 3 years old.


 * http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/Contents/Item/Display/2573


 * Note that I brought this subject up because I've seen this tunnel referred to as the "longest road tunnel in the contiguous U.S." And the "the longest (two miles) ... multilane tunnel in North America".


 * https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2019-02-04/seattle-opens-longest-road-tunnel-in-the-us


 * https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/heres-how-the-highway-99-tunnel-will-shake-up-your-travel-routine/


 * I think the truth of these statement depends on whether the cut-and-cover sections are included in the length of the SR 99 tunnel. Quixotix (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there's any standard convention for tunnel length, but I do think it's appropriate to include the cut and cover sections and think the description as a "single tube" oversimplifies the cut-and-cover sections being necessary to obtain the stacked roadway. Maybe single bore tunnel with cut-and-cover ends would be a better description.  I also think 52 ft internal diameter would be a better descriptor than "wide" (supported by the pdf below).  As it starts now "The SR 99 Tunnel is a single tube that measures 9,270 feet (2,830 m) long and 52 feet (16 m) wide"
 * Some source info about the "rings" that make up the bored tunnel segment - 6.5 ft per segment and 1445 rings = 9392.5 ft (synthesized estimate) http://www.enconunited.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SR99.pdf
 * Slide 24 has a diagram showing 2017 construction progress (I believe since restart) that has a 9317.76 ft final length and 1431 rings (synthesized estimate of 9301 ft) https://bridges.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2017/05/Digging-Deep-into-the-Alaskan-Way-Viaduct-Replacement-Project-Tim-Moore.pdf
 * I'd suspect some rings are in excess/are removed later because they were just necessary to push the borer, but it does help illustrate that 201705_AWVBytheNumbersFolio.pdf's 9270 ft length is purely the bored tunnel (as it was labelled). That's a fine, single reference for 9270 ft bored + 450 N cut-and-cover + 1000 ft S cut-and-cover length.  Basic arithmetic is considered fine as a "routine calculation" if there's consensus that adding cut-and-cover lengths to the bored segment length makes sense for reporting the total tunnel length.  I'd consent to that, if the text were to more accurately reflect the 3 segments instead of calling it a "single tube ... 52 ft wide". --Jwfowble (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI Jwfowble -- according to the following video (at 2:30), the rings are tapered. That is, while they have an average length of 6.5 feet, they are 6.4 feet long in the key position, and 6.6 feet long opposite the key.  Clocking the ring thus lets the tunnel turn in different directions.


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5szTFyUUgo Quixotix (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * First, I know the email I'm about to describe is original research and thus the information from it cannot be used in the Wikipedia article.


 * So I emailed WSDOT asking if they knew of a better published source I could reference (for the total length of the tunnel) than the 2 I listed here previously. After a couple of back-and-forths, they never provided me a published source. But they did send the following information:


 * "The tunnel is 11, 343 feet..."
 * "Bored tunnel = 9,273’"
 * "Total cut and cover = 2070’"


 * Previously I was leaning toward using the reference that came out to a total tunnel length of 10720 feet as the more reliable. Now I like the 11000 foot reference better. Any thoughts on how I should handle this would be appreciated. Quixotix (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless you can find a secondary source or a public document from WSDOT that uses the 11,343-foot figure, then it's dead on arrival. We should not be using internal documents or correspondence for basic figures like the tunnel's length. For most purposes, the bored-only figure of 9,270 that has been used by the media is fine.  Sounder Bruce  03:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * An earlier plan provided a longer cut-and-cover estimate: "The approach roadways at the North End (800’) and the South End (2,400’) will be constructed using cut and cover excavation and concrete placement methods." I think this is measuring more than the cut-and-cover part of the approach roadways though.  Sure would be nice to find a good source.  I'm OK sticking with the published 9,273 for the bored tunnel, but we should acknowledge that there's more cut-and-cover even if we don't say how much.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The blow-ups of the design for the tunnel in the EIS on (what's labelled as) pg 66 and 67 for the N and S portals probably help highlight the issues in defining "cut and cover" lengths. They only use slightly different shades of pink for "cut and cover" vs "lowered roadway" but how you reduce that to a linear measure is awkward.  Some exits/entrances are even partially cut-and-cover.  I still think that the 2017 publication for the media (AWVBytheNumbersFolio) with all the numbers would be a solid source for assigning distances to the segments, until WSDOT comes up with something more detailed (maybe they'll make posters of blueprint-like documents). Jwfowble (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Too bad they can't make up their minds and publish a final number. But yes, the 2017 "by the numbers" pub seems like one we could use and cite. Dicklyon (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just use WP:INTEXT attribution. "Source X says it's this many feet, source Y measures it another way and gets that many feet". How is this any different than how tall the Columbia Tower is, depending on which side you start measuring from? Or whether you count the crap sticking out the top of the building? Oh, radios tower don't count, unless you're trying not to fly our plane into it. Context matters. Or what even is a building? It's like trying to find sources to tell us what is the fastest production motorcycle. What is "production"? What is a "motorcycle"?Inform the reader what number we are given if they measure this way, which sources A, B & C prefer, and that they give us this other figure if you measure that way, which is how sources D, E, & F measure tunnels. Why? "Because of the following reasons..." Which is better? "Source A says it's because..., source B says, balderdash! It's really blah blah blah..." Anybody who isn't a WP:FRINGE source gets to be heard.This issue comes up again and again. It's why I want to develop this idea at Wikipedia is not here to settle bar bets into a policy that can be added to WP:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia editors can't decide that the "right" way to measure a tunnel is. In short: Verifiability, not truth. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Pictures of the viaduct
I've taken some photos that I like (being biased, I admit), but so far haven't found one that SounderBruce will accept as an improvement. From the ferry, there was usually a great view of most of the double-decker viaduct, situated with respect to the downtown skyline behind it, which I think helps make the point of what an awkward and dangerous thing it was. The other photos we have are not so great, in my view, but maybe others prefer them (e.g. the one of mostly the top roadway surface from Pike's Place Market (D), or the "tight" view from Elliott Bay(E)). Can I get some opinions on these? Some of them, being "panoramic", really need a "wide image" presentation to be effective. I've put letter labels into the captions that were in the article, for reference. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobody cares but me and SounderBruce? Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think B is the most impactful and visually informative. I note that D and E are currently in the article, but D just looks like a road, any road. A would be my second choice; benefit is that it doesn't need wide presentation, drawback is the flat lighting (in comparison to B). When I look at E, the trees pop, and I have to work at seeing what's behind them. C has much too much visual information that isn't relevant. My 2 cents. UrbanToreador (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I agree that A and B are good. I could put B, not wide, like this.  I'll replace one of the others, and see what SB does. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the intent of inserting images to make a point. The original caption was a blatant NPOV violation and if the entire purpose of inserting this particular image is partisan, the whole thing is skunked beyond salvage. Nobody wants to read a Wikipedia article in which a group of editors sit down and choose an image based on its propaganda value. I was opposed to replacing the viaduct and was glad to see it gone, but when we write articles we have to work to be charitable to opposing arguments, presenting the side we don't agree with in the best possible light.Remove the image and drop this attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. There's no walking this back now and pretending we're merely trying to pick a good illustration. Maybe at a later date someone else with take this up and we can collaborate with the agreement that we won't try to bias the article to one side or the other. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Consider that Images B small and C both have the viaduct as small features and not in the main focus. Including the entire vertical of the skyline is not necessary to convey the viaduct's location or place in the landscape.  Sounder Bruce  04:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's a good point. Now that you've made it, I realize that I didn't account for my own familiarity with the viaduct. So in almost every picture, if I didn't already know what the viaduct looked like, I wouldn't be sure which part of each picture (except E) the article was talking about. The pops of green still bug me, but E does seem to focus as much as possible on the viaduct and doesn't include as much extraneous information to distract/confuse the unfamiliar reader. The only other close-up, D, still just looks like any old road, and that's even knowing the area., neither of my comments here had anything to do with the captions, only the images. UrbanToreador (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The intent of this entire thread is that we want an image that, per, "helps make the point of what an awkward and dangerous thing it was". We're sitting here picking which image makes that point best. NPOV requires that we stop in our tracks and start over.This is a review of a historical event, and it is useful to understand the arguments on all sides. Ideally, we'd want actual copies of the kinds of photos the anti-replacement campaigners used, and present those side by side with the kinds of images the pro-viaduct side published. Failing that we should choose photos similar to what each of these advocates used. We can illustrate this with in-text attribution but not in Wikipedia's voice. It isn't just words that speak in a voice; an image can make a political statement, i.e. "what an awkward and dangerous thing it was". It's fine to choose that image, but not as original research -- what we think presents the viaduct in the most damning light -- but rather as observation, what they thought made their case. I realize the anti-replacement side broke into those for and against a deep or shallow tunnel freeway, for and against a multi lane street level boulevard vs transit-only. But as far as this goes, we should "quote" the images as they were, not as we want to think of them now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article section where the picture goes makes the point in text that the viaduct was a dangerous and divisive structure. A photo to illustrate that seems appropriate.  My photos weren't taken with any of that in mind, but they do show the situation pretty well. That is, they show how the viaduct was situated, relative to the waterfront and downtown.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The body text attributes those opinions to the people or factions that said them, not in Wikipedia's voice. You said clearly that your internet here is not to merely illustrate where the viaduct is situated, but to illustrate the "fact" that it is "a physical and visual barrier" and that it is "awkward and dangerous". And now you want to walk all that back and go on with this poisoned discussion as if it were not originally designed to push a POV. Why? Burn it down and start over. It's the sensible approach. And using original images published by the two conflicting POVs is a better historical illustration anyway.This need to illustrate where it was -- are readers confused? It ran along the waterfront. What's the misconception that we're trying to deal with? Roads are long and flat. It's very hard to take a picture of a piece of roadwork or an elevated highway that shows the entire thing. It's loooooooong. Why do we even have to try to do that? The pictures we have show downtown buildings on one side, the waterfront on the other, adjacent to, wait for it, the water. What's the problem? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Page Move / Rename
I changed the page name to SR 99 Tunnel. This tunnel is not known as the "Alaska Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel" when being referred to by the media or Washington DOT. Washington DOT does refer to the project to replace the viaduct as the "Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement" but the tunnel itself is now just referred to as the SR 99 tunnel. (Tweets: 1 2 3 4, blog entry on the transition to the tunnel, Blog entry on tolling.) --—Cliffb (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please remember to cleanup links and dependent pages (e.g. the KML file) when moving articles. There is no permanent name for the tunnel and no consistent name used by WSDOT or local media, so this should have been discussed first.  Sounder Bruce  08:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did take a look at the redirects, but by the time I got to them a bot had already addressed it. My apologies for messing up the KML link, I noted that it wasn't working, but I didn't dig into why. As for changing the name, I chose to be bold. --—Cliffb (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cliffb, as you pointed out, WSDOT calls it the "SR 99 tunnel". So why did you capitalize "Tunnel"? Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move page. (non-admin closure) —  Young Forever (talk)   04:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

State Route 99 Tunnel → State Route 99 tunnel – Sources don't mostly cap "tunnel", so per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, neither should we. Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Nom's case – see news search. Today when I count, I see 8 of the first 10 using "State Route 99 tunnel" (with lowercase tunnel).  In book search, I don't see any capped.  And the WSDOT uses lowercase. The undiscussed move to the over-capitalized form should be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have sent an email to WSDOT asking for what they officially call the tunnel. On the WSDOT website and in mentions from The Seattle Times, there isn't a clear preference for either form. I would not trust other news websites (e.g. Patch and TV news as linked above) to have a consistent standard.  Sounder Bruce  03:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move. The article title discussion last February didn't address capitalization (except where at least one editor pointed out that it should be lower-case), and the references that SounderBruce provided in that discussion ( this website, the project website, and this press release ) all use lower-case. I can't find any reliable sources using title case except in the instances where it's in a heading/headline that is using title case. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The news sources Dicklyon has presented show a clear preference for lowercase. The opinion of the DOT is irrelevant.  Calidum   15:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:CAPS. The subject is not consistently uppercased in reliable sources. Dohn joe (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)