As Dominic reported earlier, a new Elway Poll suggests that after ten years of public debate and private wrangling, a majority of Seattle voters support none of the proposals to replace the crumbling Alaskan Way Viaduct, with 38 percent of respondents saying they would vote for a new or retrofitted viaduct, 35 percent that they would vote for a deep bore tunnel, and a piddling 21 percent coming out in favor of the Stranger-fetished surface/transit option.

So much for being the voice of your generation, Dom.

Elway's take is that most people just don't believe that surface/transit can handle the traffic volume, while Dom seems convinced that voters are simply misinformed. Surface/transit "performs better on virtually all metrics," Dom argues, making the classic liberal mistake of presuming that having the facts on your side represents any sort of political advantage. But Dom soothes himself further by dismissing voter sentiment entirely:

If the tunnel gets shot down, I think we may end up with a surface alternative as our only realistic option. As Dan Bertolet lays out beautifully on Slog today, if the tunnel is rejected, we won't get a viaduct.

And I agree. Both Dan and Dom are right in asserting that the likelihood of the state shoving a viaduct rebuild down our waterfront is slim to nil. If we can block a tunnel, we can certainly block a rebuild. That's what we're good at here in Seattle: blocking things.

But Dom is naive if he thinks that an anti-tunnel vote virtually assures state funding for the surface option, for there is an additional alternative that both he and Dan surprisingly ignore... the option to do absolutely nothing. After all, in the absence of consensus, nothing has been the overwhelming favorite of nearly every survey on the subject, and it's not inconceivable that nothing is exactly what Seattle might get.

For if the state is convinced that a surface option would do little to handle thru-traffic on Highway 99, why spend any money at all? Why not just take down the handful of segments most at risk of toppling onto the waterfront and leave the rest of the structure roped off, but standing, as a fitting tribute to our city's pathologically process-driven public-policy paralysis? We could dub it "The Seattle Way Viaduct" in that honor.

Sound unlikely? No more so than the likelihood of non-Seattle legislators willingly shoveling a couple billion dollars in our direction so that we can pursue our anti-car/anti-American agenda. Honestly... if the choice was between caving to Seattle liberals or digging a big ditch somewhere in Ferry County, dumping the money in there, soaking it in kerosene, lighting it afire and then bulldozing over the ashes, you don't think there would be a helluva a lot of legislators voting for the latter? Of course there would. They fucking hate us! And considering the strained relations between City Hall and our legislative delegation, I wouldn't be surprised if a couple Seattle legislators voted for the Ferry County Bonfire Option too.

I don't disagree that the deep bore tunnel provides a crappy return on investment while representing a backwards-thinking approach toward transportation planning. But it's been a decade since the Nisqually quake marked the Viaduct for demolition, and we've done absolutely nothing to replace it. And if you don't think we could leave it standing for another decade or two, in use or not, then you don't know the Seattle way.