...then it's time to suck it up and back a slimmer, transit-oriented new viaduct instead. So says Martin H. Duke over at Seattle Transit Blog. "The viaduct debate is famously divided between three factions, each willing to veto the others and none able to command a majority to accomplish anything," he says.

Read the whole thing.

(My TCW — I'm afraid Duke is right. There's no study for a surface/I-5/transit option underway or even planned, the pro-tunnel council has outfoxed the mayor to establish lobbying priorities in Olympia, the mayor's got no text and no sponsors for a bill to make the state pay cost overruns, and the state won't even talk about its own tunnel in public because the report is more damning than convincing. Lacking a persuasive reason to build it, the tunnel project may buckle under its own precarious financing and inherent risk, the surface option has no champions with the power to get the ball rolling on a study, and that leaves... a fugly new viaduct. Tomorrow we'll have tunnel critics Mayor Mike McGinn and Seattle City Council member O'Brien at Town Hall. One of the questions for them: Are they just laying the groundwork for a new viaduct?)