Testimony is two-to-one against the deep-bore tunnel:

Council members Sally Clark and Richard Conlin are attempting to make the case that the city’s tunnel ordinance isn’t a referendum on the tunnel—just a set of contracts that protect the city’s interests in a state project. “If we let them dig without the protection, we get what we deserve,” Clark says. But elderly people are heckling them. Either Conlin and Clark are being naïve or disingenuous; if Seattle rejects the tunnel, the project won’t happen.

UPDATE: Council Member Mike O'Brien—riffing on the theme of the day—calls on his fellow council members to refer the tunnel to a public vote. "We can refer this to the August primary," he says, at a cost of $50,000 to $100,000. "We would have results back at the same time the final [Environmental Impact Statement] is complete. If the citizens of Seattle say we are willing to accept this risk, then I was wrong and we move forward. But if they are not willing to accept this risk... we go back to the drawing board and figure out something better."

UPDATE 2: Licata has a rage attack on the dais, arguing that surface/transit lacks leadership or any feasible plan. "I don’t know a single elected official in favor of a surface/transit option," says Licata. "It’s not only not realistic, its not going to protect Seattle." He says $2.2 billion is reserved for a tunnel, "but we have zero—zero—for the surface transit option." It is easy to be against something, he says, but hard to be for something. He called the tunnel opposition "a stupid strategy."