520 and *something* to replace the viaduct wouldn't count as "more highways", though. They are replacements to existing structures that are dangerously unsafe. That's a bit different than building new freeways that never existed before, which I would have a problem with.

@1: They would actually be "more highway" if the gross capacities of their replacements were increased. Two extra lanes to an existing highway, for instance, is still "more highway".

The Billionaires Tunnel will result in the following:

1. a reduction to HALF the freight capacity of the existing viaduct and HALF the freight capacity of either of the two alternatives (Surface Plus Transit or Rebuilt Viaduct).

2. a reduction in downtown exits and entrances resulting in the route being used mostly by people who don't live here in Seattle.

3. a tax to pay for the inevitable cost overruns on the Billionaires Tunnel that will range from $1 BILLION to $3 BILLION - which will all be paid by Seattle TAXPAYERS - and thus jack up rents citywide.

The obvious solution is not to build it. Ever.

and a second bridge for the cut would allow us to not shut down all traffic when we (inevitably) have to replace/repair the existing bridge at Montlake ...

I realize when he writes the following Dominic is just trying to adhere to the Dan Savage rule of slogging: the more petulant and dysfunctional the post, the more views and comments it receives: But, of course, if we don't build the tunnel, a wider 520 bridge, a second Montlake bridge, Seattle will simply perish.

But let's consider the "wider 520 bridge" now being considered, with the concessions and improvements wrung by the mayor and city council from the governor and WSDOT. And let's suppose that our city's elected representatives can keep up the pressure and ensure the following:
* The tolls over the bridge are made permanent for the sake of maintaining traffic flow.
* A guarantee that buses will normally travel at least 45 MPH over the bridge, otherwise the HOV restrictions get tightened.
* The promised funding for increased bus service arrives. (My vague understanding is that the state promised this.)
* Light rail in the coming decades is not precluded.

Dear God, if such a highway is not a good thing, I don't know what is. Of course, for some people there is no such thing as a good highway.

And let's just compare the reasonably possible good-case scenario for the 520 bridge I described @5 to the de facto alternative, the status quo.

Currently, there's a great deal of pressure for people who might otherwise live in denser, more transit-friendly communities on the Westside to move to the sprawling communities of the Eastside because the Eastside is where so many jobs are and the commute across the lake is so punishing.

What's more, the current 520 commute creates an "every man for himself" dynamic where the incentive to take transit is not great enough compared to just driving solo. So everyone's stuck fighting everyone else for a finite resource, the lanes. I can absolutely guarantee that transit use would skyrocket with a "good" new 520 compared to what we've got now; meanwhile auto vehicle miles traveled wouldn't go up nearly so much.

Of course, it's never all that much fun to achieve enormous, measurable wins when the only way to do so is through compromise. And I've got nothing against driving a hard bargain, which our Seattle electeds have been pretty successful at lately now that they've finally gotten engaged on the 520 issue.