Finally, a positive article on the tunnel! My view on the DBT decision: (1) Let's give it a chance. Thousands of hours were spent by people who took time out of their lives to study this issue. Unless opponents can find a flaw in their process, it's an insult to them and their work to keep second-guessing them. Instead, volunteer the next time instead of sitting in the peanut gallery. (2) The DBT is the only option that saves us 3-4 years without the AWV and its 110,000 cars/day. Would Seattlelites be able to find other alternatives, or would they flock to mass transit service, presently in the throes of huge service-cutting exercises? Opponents seem to think the latter. (3) Most people who use the AWV - I've seen the number as 70% - use it to pass through the city, not go to Seattle. Thus, a surface option means the traffic would more than likely migrate to I-5. Note that there presently is no single-ride transit service that "passes through" Seattle other than the Sound Transit buses to the U District. (4) The DBT option also includes improvements to surface streets. (5) I've been told that, at an early stage in the process, I've seen 5-10% stage, if the DBT option isn't found to be feasible, such as for what is found "down there," other options will be looked at.

Hey Doug,

Start with the fact that capacities and access are virtually cut in half in the corridor with a tunnel replacement for the viaduct, and that the core loses a bypass. And then add your casual predictions about what you think commuters will LIKELY do is exactly the kind of silly, crypto-engineering that got this tunnel travesty this far. The rest of your article seems to just be mocking anyone who has a different position than yourself, and Crosscut for allowing them to be posted.

Lest we forget...No other proposed configuration for the AWV matches the existing viaduct in any transportation related category. The rights of ways already exist. The configuration already can handle 110,000 vehicles a day. It already provides a bypass for downtown and off ramps for the core, Ballard and West Seattle. It already meets the demands for commercial vehicles. It can incorporate modern seismic protections and other enhancements for noise abatement, bikes, pedestrians and aesthetics. It provides a way to modulate how much traffic is allowed downtown. And it acknowledges the fact that rubber-tired, multi-passenger vehicles are still the choice of over 90% of us. And it's billions of dollars cheaper than this present mistake in the making.

Refurbish or rebuild it. It works, it's affordable, and if a vote were held tomorrow it's the solution that voters would choose.

Refurbish or rebuild. The only viable options for this citys' necessary mobility.

Good article. Mr. Almquist speaks the truth.

Oh, and don't forget that mega projects like this tunnel are nearly always projected to cost 1/2 what they actually end up costing.

So besides reducing the amount of traffic capacity, increasing the cost for those who use the tunnel, making traffic worse for those who are going to Seattle (no intermediate exits or on ramps), pushing freight onto the surface streets, and spending money that the state has very little of.

Now why was it we should build this tunnel?

As for criticism hurting Seattle, it's a big city, it can take it. Whether the tunnel supports can stand up to it, well that's another thing.

That's right, Crosscut editors, to be considered a credible local authority on these sort of seattle issues, you must not publish critique. Real seattlers find critique so annoying it makes them laugh. Critique is so like, you know, so like funny, cuz it's like so what who cares, man, about like that critique-y stuff.

Now who's laughing?

Booyah!

For a "positive article about the tunnel," it sure has little to say about the project itself. I suppose we should all be grateful for any recognition by tunnel supporters that there is still a debate raging over their pet boondoggle--as their favored narrative is that the debate is 'over', it's a 'done deal', it's time to 'turn the page' and/or 'get the job done', so just move along there, sonny, there's nothing for you to see here. No cost overruns, no safety or environmental issues, no threats posed to the buildings in Pioneer Square, no ill effects on traffic congestion to be caused by the tunnel's lack of downtown exits and reliance upon tolls, no previous problems with the project's contractors, no questions about the economic or political viability of a multi-billion dollar project that most of the area's residents oppose being built at a time when local governments are facing a budget crisis and cutting back needed services. No, just move along, shut your eyes, and play dead. Speaking out is now equivalent to a cost overrun, free speech has become an oxymoron, so don't say or publish a word of dissent.

Given this mode of thinking, I'm surprised that the article is so long.

So Crosscut should have a battalion of editors to vet these pieces? that sounds silly. One would expect a good internet opinion site to publish pieces with a variety of views and it looks like that is what Crosscut is doing. I didn't think the Valdez piece was very good but that's a lot different than saying it shouldn't see the light of day. You had your chance to comment (and I think you did). No harm no foul.

I can relate to your sentiment Douglas. On Saturday (May 7), I ran into your article promoting the tunnel by Douglas Almquist. Mr. Almquist's arguments are so pedestrian I was left chuckling. Please don't mind my terrible grammar.

Seriously though, your assessment of Mr. Valdez's argument, the tunnel and Crosscut's editorial policy is shockingly over simplified. I'll address these three issues separately.

1. You summarize Mr. Valdez's argument by stating "Mr. Valdez feels the tunnel's worth is impaired by the inconvenience caused by its being built." Your response is that stopping projects because of their short term costs is silly. While this is often true, these costs should be factored in when weighing various options as different options have different short term costs. In particular, the argument "the tunnel will be able to move X more cars" oversimplifies the reality of the situation because for the 6 year construction period far less than current capacity will be present essentially negating some of those gains. In short it is naive to not include short term costs in your cost-benefit analysis.

However, what is really egregious about your analysis is that your summary of Mr. Valdez's argument completely missed his point. His point was that if short term losses in car capacity can be mitigated, especially with some transit investment, then car capacity is not as essential as people make it out to be. The WSDOT is extremely hypocritical to suggest that people changing their commuting habits for six years won't be catastrophic, but in the long term its unfeasible. In short Valdez's argument is not that the short term costs to construction aren't worth the long term gains, but rather that since those short term costs are actually NOT that bad and reduced auto capacity is very manageable suggests auto capacity is not all its made out to be and a billions of dollars are not worth spending on the tunnel.

2. Now that Mr. Valdez's argument is properly depicted, I'll address why he is right and tunnel supporters are wrong. Consider the folks that Mr. Valdez mentions switch from driving to transit (or carpooling, or to off peak commute times, or find a different place to shop etc.) during construction. Who are these people? Of all the drivers in the 99 corridor, these are the people that stand to gain the least from driving (or driving alone) in the 99 corridor. Thus, when capacity decreases and driving becomes less convenient these people switch to transit or other alternative means incurring only a small cost as a result of the reduced capacity. As for the other drivers who benefit the most from the 99 corridor, they will use the slightly slower surface streets also at a small costs. As long as drivers have alternative means like transit to travel, the situation will work itself out so that absolute gridlock doesn't occur. This is because for many people three more minutes in traffic is worse than switching to the bus, or changing commuting habits.

The above situation represents the economic concept of diminishing returns. Each additional car of capacity is less valuable than the one before it. This is why investments in highways (adding or maintaining tons of capacity) is much less valuable then simply investing much less in surface streets, which provides the capacity needed to the people who stand to gain the most by having adequate road capacity.

But the question goes beyond whether the small costs to commuters are worth the billions saved by not building the tunnel. This is because of another economic concept called externalities. Even if commuters may stand to take small loses in the surface plan, others (beyond taxpayers) stand to gain. Consider those who are currently using transit, increased transit revenue as a result of increased ridership will improve Metro's ability to maintain or expand service. This is a boon to all transit riders not just those who switched from commuting. Also, with the surface-transit plan, the resources freed up by not building the tunnel will go to better transit and more pedestrian friendly environments. In this way instead of investing all our money in roads, we put are eggs in multiple baskets, by balancing road capacity with transit capacity, and walkable environments. This better address the aforementioned law of diminishing returns by not trying to fit one solution (driving) on everyone.

Finally, all of this analysis considers SHORT-TERM issues. In the aforementioned costs to commuters will be further reduced because growth patterns and living patterns will better adapt to the underlying infrastructure. If people don't like shopping at distant malls, a better variety of local shopping options will open because the demand is there for them. When people choose were to buy their first house, they will select less auto dependent housing because it's less costly. Finally, with investment in neighborhoods instead of roads to get between or through them, people will be happier living in a smaller or costlier (in terms of rent) living spaces in Belltown, Capital Hill, or various transit oriented developments because the benefits of these pedestrian friendly environments outweigh those additional costs.

To reconsider Mr. Valdez's arguments, if we went through those six years of construction "pain" with the intention of never replacing the freeway many of these long term adjustments will crop up by the time the six years is up. Thus, instead of looking out the window in 2016 and stating "wow, what a great freeway, I'll finally be able to drive without dealing with traffic lights again," people will say "wow how great is it that all my shopping is within walking distance in a lively neighborhood center and the bus is now cheap enough and convenient enough that I don't really mind not driving to work. Indeed, I bet if you talk to a lot of the converted (due to construction) bus riders they'd tell you that their biggest complaint isn't "this is so slow," but rather "Why are all the seats full again?" or "I wish service was more frequent."

3. Now to address your questioning of Crosscut's "editorial independence and agenda." Aside from the fact that his arguments are not "weak," to make the bold claim that crosscut is following "money interests" or has an agenda is completely unfounded. Until your provide any actual evidence that money interests are involved (one opinion article that you do not agree with does not constitute evidence, evidence would be a paper trail, or reason to believe that Mr. Valdez's writers bio is notably deceptive or misleading) then published accusations to that effect are unfounded and unfair.

As for an agenda, like any editorial board Crosscut's is not 100% neutral. Based on the writing staff and editors certain opinions (with opinions referring the aggregation of many articles) do end up getting more attention. I would not be surprised to find that Crosscut has published more anti-tunnel than pro-tunnel articles in the past six months. However, I have absolute confidence that Crosscut attempts (and does) offer all voices in the debate a chance to speak. In addition, in my opinion it is better that Crosscut develop a consistent writing staff that readers have familiarity with then bring in random writers all the time. This invariably lead to bias, but this is a small price to pay for good opinion pieces. Finally, Crosscuts comment sections tend to promote and contain well informed opinions from all sides of the debate, reflecting all opinions more than adequately. Because of this transparent transfer of ideas (and the aforementioned track record of journalistic integrity) amongst informed readers and writers, Crosscut more than adequately addresses potential bias in its coverage and indeed provides a forum in which good journalism, informing the public about important stories and issues in their communities, can flourish.

Wow my comment was so long that it got cut off. This is the rest of it. I apologize for the mouth full, but I feel that a coherent and complete explanation of the reasons and logic behind support for the surface street option is needed. I hope you take the time to read it. I posted starting from the last paragraph in my above post.

To reconsider Mr. Valdez's arguments, if we went through those six years of construction "pain" with the intention of never replacing the freeway many of these long term adjustments will crop up by the time the six years is up. Thus, instead of looking out the window in 2016 and stating "wow, what a great freeway, I'll finally be able to drive without dealing with traffic lights again," people will say "wow how great is it that all my shopping is within walking distance in a lively neighborhood center and the bus is now cheap enough and convenient enough that I don't really mind not driving to work. Indeed, I bet if you talk to a lot of the converted (due to construction) bus riders they'd tell you that their biggest complaint isn't "this is so slow," but rather "Why are all the seats full again?" or "I wish service was more frequent."

3. Now to address your questioning of Crosscut's "editorial independence and agenda." Aside from the fact that his arguments are not "weak," to make the bold claim that crosscut is following "money interests" or has an agenda is completely unfounded. Until your provide any actual evidence that money interests are involved (one opinion article that you do not agree with does not constitute evidence, evidence would be a paper trail, or reason to believe that Mr. Valdez's writers bio is notably deceptive or misleading) then published accusations to that effect are unfounded and unfair.

As for an agenda, like any editorial board Crosscut's is not 100% neutral. Based on the writing staff and editors certain opinions (with opinions referring the aggregation of many articles) do end up getting more attention. I would not be surprised to find that Crosscut has published more anti-tunnel than pro-tunnel articles in the past six months. However, I have absolute confidence that Crosscut attempts (and does) offer all voices in the debate a chance to speak. In addition, in my opinion it is better that Crosscut develop a consistent writing staff that readers have familiarity with then bring in random writers all the time. This invariably lead to bias, but this is a small price to pay for good opinion pieces. Finally, Crosscuts comment sections tend to promote and contain well informed opinions from all sides of the debate, reflecting all opinions more than adequately. Because of this transparent transfer of ideas (and the aforementioned track record of journalistic integrity) amongst informed readers and writers, Crosscut more than adequately addresses potential bias in its coverage and indeed provides a forum in which good journalism, informing the public about important stories and issues in their communities, can flourish.

staybailey, there's an old newspaper adage that a letter to the editor can't be longer than the article it's griping about.

Anyway, I'd agree with Mr. Almquist that Roger Valdez's complaints about the tunnel are getting pretty thin after a half-dozen articles in Crosscut. Perhaps Roger could consider a second topic.

This is the most hollow article I've ever seen published in Crosscut. It seems like it was published just to show the Crosscut is not afraid of criticism, but there's got to be argument with a bit more foundation than this to prove that point. Regarding Crosscut being "prone to manipulation by those with money" - you can't be serious. You are suggesting the tunnel opponents are using their vast wealth to pressure Crosscut to oppose the tunnel?

So Mr. Almquist wants Crosscut to censor authors based upon their 'worthiness' or illogical arguments?

So following that logic, all editorials that dispute global warming should be banned too. Where would this list end?

WELL<
Just let me say THIS,,, about THAT! If this tunnel ever gets built, I, for one, am NOT going down there.
What's wrong with a viaduct? Great views up there, it's quick, it's free, and it takes up great real-estate that the money mongers can't get at, for the time being.
You can doll up a Viaduct with Ivy, and all kinds of plantings like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
OMG! Did I possibly suggest a naturalistic region such as Seattle use more natural materials to beatify the city?

This invariably lead to bias, but this is a small price to pay for good opinion pieces.

In my opinion, the tunnel will hurt in the long run

Who wrote the headline?? "Tunnel criticism is unworthy, hurts Seattle"

There is no criticism of the tunnel that is unworthy, and none of the criticism hurts Seattle -- it helps Seattle.

The tunnel is simply a bad, bad idea. Implementing it may well crush Seattle.