Tunnel Advocates Have Something to Say


"I'm curious if they present any new information—like advance data of the environmental impact study that show the tunnel would perform well-of if it's a dog and pony show:"

Well edited Dom.
Can't take a break from being the mayor's stenographer for even one day?
"Well edited, Dom."
There's going to be a toll for the tunnel, isn't there? Shouldn't we take every opportunity we can to call it the "toll tunnel," or if you desire verbosity, the "Seattle Downtown Bypass Toll Tunnel"?
Dom, thanks for fixing that for me.

Also, thanks for spelling my name right. That can be hard for some people.
Dow seems to be forgetting that there's already a tunnel for buses.
I wonder how much each of the participants at that LaserCat and Unicorn show paid for parking today?

$10 each?

Maybe they should have carpooled.

Cause if we're insane enough to build a Deeply Tolled Tunnel and pay $10 roundtrip tolls for limos to use it, then we're out of our budget deficit gourd.
Chris is wagging her finger and screeching that the deal is done, dammit!

She's so cute when she gets mad.
@8 just don't feed her liquor after midnite and let her get wet ...
I had to stop watching for a bit partway through to DO WORK, but jeez, if y'all love the tunnel so much WHY DON'T YOU MARRY IT
Green? Green is reducing car use. Not building more roads.

Conlin is a huckster.
Conlin scolds McGinn and declares that the tunnel *is* the green alternative.

I was only listening, not watching, so I couldn't tell if he had his hands on his hips when he did so.
Gregoire says until the signatures are counted there is no referendum and the contracts stand. As a gay Washingtonian I wonder why she suspended 5688 the moment R-71 it was filed?

And she said 29,000 signatures don't count oh wow.
Face it, she only loves roads and limos, Baconcat.

If you were Bill Gates and Gay she'd be all in favor of it.
Hey, can you guys repeat all your comments above? I was busy watching an epic multijurisdictional ass-kicking.
"The live stream has ended." Very helpful, seattlechannel.org. I didn't realize I still needed a VCR on the internet.

translation: anyone got a link to the not-live-anymore video?
Underestimating again, Gus ;)
@16) The Seattle Channel will post the archive soon and I'll put it up.
Stop making it so easy, Baconcat!
Im a little confused about the enviornmental impact study, if I do a search for this on google, I can clearly see that the tunnel has passed these studies and are even online.


Anti-Tunnel supports complain that the city council signed off on the tunnel without an EIS. Or is this like the Sea-Tac third runway where people are forcing study after study in an lame attempt to delay the inevitable?
Nice Embarcadero-Freeway-reminder as your user icon, TLjr.
@15 got funding?

lol. didn't think so ...
Pretty compelling presentation. And unlike those that oppose the tunnel, they actually sound like adults.

Unfunded adults.
One thing I'd like to add here.

There's something very disingenuous about the Stranger's opposition to the tunnel. All this talk about potential cost to local taxpayers (a "what-if" proposition that is both legally and politically questionable) and potential alternate projects (moot point: money is earmarked for the tunnel. If rejected, this money goes back to the general kitty. Maybe we'll be able to get them to spend it on something else around here, but do you think any Olympia politician is going to want to expend political capital on a major Seattle transportation project after this display?) is nothing more than a smokescreen. As Dan Savage's earlier comments show (just tear the thing down and see what happens), the Stranger just can't stand the idea of any money going into road building and wants to perform social experiments that involve dismantling the core of our transportation infrastructure. It's a luddite-like attitude that seems to say "if we just don't take care of the cars (and buses, trucks, etc) they'll just go away and, somehow, transportation will just kinda take care of itself."

Clearly, this is lunacy. But this isn't my real problem with the reporting here. Can the Stranger at least be honest about their agenda? Can you at least have the balls to come out and just say "we hate cars, we don't want any money (state or otherwise) going towards their use"? At least that'd be honest.

And I promise to use less parentheticals in the future.
How many times was the monorail project repeatedly approved by voters, then ignored and eventually killed by the city council? The council didn't have a problem blocking that project even though some contracts were signed and landowners or tenants had already relocated or made plans to vacate their properties under threat of eminent domain actions by the city.

Just wondering, since -- you know -- the council now insists that the tunnel project is too far along to kill or tinker with it before a public vote and before any construction has started.
@25 lol. You first.
@25, it's not exactly a reckless social experiment with no precedents to a) tear down or b) refuse to build some butt-ugly, seismically dubious, monumentally expensive automotive intestine:


Yeah makes you wonder how many staff members drive cheap polluting cars. Im 40 and I dont even own a drivers license and I think we absolutely need to piss away 4 billion on a tunnel. If we dont, then the state could divert the funds to the Columbia Bridge replacement and we get zip.
And I don't have a driver's license either. I knew we had something in common.

Build the damn tunnel.