I'm not generally a believer in conspiracies in government -- the people involved aren't usually smart enough or loyal enough to pull it off. But this tunnel thing sure smells fishy.

I get that it doesn't do much good, and that it will cost dramatically more than other options.

So who is it that's running this campaign of lying ("it will fund public transit" / "it won't have tolls") and secrecy? Is it just people who stand to financially benefit? It's all so blatant, yet the profit motive isn't clear to me.

What's so bad about Seattle getting back some of the tax money from the state we've been shelling out for decades?

The state and local interests used poor financing and risk to obstruct transit in this region, from Conlin/Nicastro shuttering the Monorail to Ron Sims causing Sound Transit to scale back.

Thankfully, Sound Transit could scale back, and it has. It's not the termination sought by some, but they did critically damage it for a time.

On the other hand, what can the tunnel do to scale back work if money never materializes? They cut transit, seawall work was put on Seattle and surface road work to handle tunnel related traffic is a mystery.

The point is this: there is no room for error. No more can be cut. Unlike ST, this project can't be scaled back. If the TBM starts, so does the bill... and your name's on it.

Gary Manca is one of the Manca's Cafe family who gave the world the Dutch Baby during the first part of the last century. If I were the judge and learned this, I would have a very difficult time ruling against him no matter what I thought of his arguments.

@2: Uh, the way it's being spent? Would you be equally enthusiastic if the money was being returned in the form on a 500' tall statute of GWB squatting over I-5? The goal is not to spend money. The goal is to have sane transit policy.

Not enough cash to finance both the 520 bridge and the Deeply Borrowed Tunnel with a Baa rating for the bonds.

Got Billions?

Cause your share for every Seattle household, renter or owner, even if you never use it, will be $10,000.

Period.

@6: I'm anti-tunnel, but that'a a vacuous argument. The lifetime of the tunnel will be at least 30 years. $10k/30 years = $333/year. Still more than I'd volunteer. But infrastructure is part of the local economy -- talking about "whether you use it or not" is silly. I don't use the 520 bridge. Does that mean I shouldn't be contributing to its upkeep? What about all the people who *don't* use the street I live on -- are they being ripped off when the city repaves it?

It is a true statement.

You got the cash?

And want to spend it on something proven to increase commute time, increase congestion, and make things worse than what we have now?