In fact, the Tunnel Of Terribleness would not only have less capacity and carry less freight for higher tolls, it literally would be slower than the two alternatives.

Only al-Qaeda would support this insane Deeply Borrowed Tunnel.

The statistical evidence of the numbers collated across multiple paradigm based data collection processes shows that people still won't respond to stuff like this.

Other blogs are busy this week too:
http://publicola.com/2011/05/10/is-the-t…

Tunnel proponents are fine with lying if it suits their purposes.

The Surface Option is neither. DTMFA.

#4 Lying? We're fine with waterboarding.

There you go bringing facts into the argument again. The deep-bore-tunnel is the Iraq War of infrastructure projects. Those who support it will use whatever argument is convenient while demonizing the fact-based opposition as ignorant hippies. And sure, like the Iraq War the DBT debacle will eventually stabilize and supporters will try to claim they were right all along and look how great things are. But the more prudent course would be to listen to the skeptics.

"For the routes that did use the viaduct, "There is not strong statistical support for the conclusion that removing the viaduct would lead to any increase in travel times.""

While I'm sure that is likely the case for 4 or even 6 of the routes under study, I can say with solidity that the white center/west seattle commuter who takes the viaduct and exits into downtown or belltown will see a significant commute-time increase. That said, if my choice is between tearing down the viaduct and the tunnel, I'd rather we tear it down. But lucky me, I'm only directly impacted by the travel, not the cost, since I'm not in Seattle City Limits.

Its already a parking lot.

@4 for the insightful win.

Seattle Citizens for the Serfs For Billionaires And Millionaires loss.

[i]UW researchers say the average is closer to six minutes—and only for drivers who use the viaduct as a "core component" of their commute.[/i]

I'm not sure "tearing down the viaduct will mainly hurt people who use the viaduct" is exactly news.

[i]The UW researchers "added an urban land-use component that allows people and businesses to adapt over time."[/i]

Note that "adapt over time" here means they're forced to move, which has real costs.

Ugh, I edited that comment to fix the markup, then when I logged in to post the edits disappeared.

The tunnel psychology harks back 50 years to a time of prosperity and naive optimism. And a helluva lot less cars.

Knock down the ugly viaduct. Replace it with a modest surface thoroughfare, thoughtfully integrated with a public green with a great view and tourism draw - not tens of thousands of tons of concrete.

Use the substantial saved gas tax monies to fix existing, deficient infrastructure. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/…
"29% of Washington’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.... 33% of Washington’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition.... 29 ... dams are in need of rehabilitation."

We haven't even been fixing what we've got. We've got to do repairs, cut emissions and waste, and attend to our future. Even if it comes in at the projected cost, the traffic hole is an oatbag from another time.