It's shady BS on the part of tunnel supporters. Whenever pressed to discuss anything related to the soundness of the tolling and financial plan, they attempt to obfuscate the issue.

They don't like to be put in a position where people start to question the financial scheme of the tunnel plan, so what do they do? They scream "EYMAN!" as loud as they can.

As several have pointed out, there is no binary when it comes to tolling. Not all tolls are good and not all tolls are bad. And on top of everything, this initiative wouldn't effect SR99 in any terrible way anyway.

If they're truly worried about things that could sway public sentiment on tolling, perhaps they should look at their handling of SR520 and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge recently?

Their hand-wringing over sunlight on their poorly executed tolling plan is pretty dishonest.

Unlike Baconcat, I have no clue where the McGinn+Eyman rumor may have started, but I do fault Publicola and anyone else naive enough to fall for it.

McGinn may have more problems than most local pols, but stupidity isn't one of them.

it is entertaining to see some anti-tunnel commenters at Publicola defend the Eymann's initiative.

For me, it has failed logic. A law that ensures that the tunnel tolling only pays for the tunnel doesn't exactly "blow up" the plan.

I agree with McGinn, tolling should have a broader application for the revenues.

VWouldn't this initiative also destroy any future hope for a downtown congestion toll like that in London? Tolls are actually a pretty awesome (market-oriented, decentralized) way to manage traffic and mitigate pollution in an area, and variable. tolling is the even smarter, more granular and efficient manner of tolling.
It is just mind-boggling that there could be anyone believe that there is something inherently libertarian about one type of road over another. The state is still doling out massive amounts of taxpayer dollars to corporations and unions, for the same purposes. Is the ability to pick out the color of your Civic just that much more free? How is sitting in a train on a schedule that much different than a morning commute in the minivan in traffic?

It's not just the tolling that could be a problem for the tunnel. How could you do anything to the viaduct when it would necessarily mean the use of highway lanes for non-highway purposes. I suppose you could make an argument that its just moving lanes, but that would it seem at minimum require a one for one replacement. That would make the tunnel impossibly expensive.

What Baconcat said.

@5, they are re-routing the through lanes,and eliminating on ramps and off ramps.
It isn't as if they are replacing through lanes with bike lanes or Light Rail.

Road diets would be at risk.