Three readers responded to yesterday's call to write a guest post in favor of the deep-bore tunnel. One more post is on the way, but for now, two pro-tunnel pieces (as cogent and convincing as any we're hearing from elected officials) are after the jump. They're completely unedited.

From Scott:

I support the Tunnel.



It is by far the best compromise between the reality of our current transportation system and the real need to begin to move beyond car focused development.



The forces arrayed against the project may be loud, but they are wrong.



They are also contradictory. For example, you hear both that we are building a new highway/expanding auto capacity, and at the same time the tunnel will only hold a fraction of the trips the Viaduct currently does causing gridlock. Well which is it?



In reality the Tunnel preserves needed cross town capacity including freight that needs get to/from the Port or other locales. At the same time we are reducing car capacity to downtown, a place well served by transit from almost anywhere in the region. A person in Burien or Georgetown can get downtown almost any time of day via fast frequent transit. You cannot say the same thing about getting from those same places to Ballard or points north.



The Surface Option puts all those cars on our waterfront and city streets causing gridlock, noise, and general unpleasantness.



With the Tunnel we keep a good, underground, route for those needs.



This also presents an opportunity to push for more transit. The loss of Seattle exits will make travel downtown more difficult creating demand for alternatives. The Mayor campaigned on a promise to let us vote on light rail to Ballard and West Seattle. The Tunnel project can help make that a reality. The newly opened waterfront could potentially be an excellent corridor for light rail with a fully built street car network carrying people to other points from there.



The City also could and should use its clout not to kill the Tunnel, but to give us the means to make our system better. We should be demanding the state allow us to build more light rail. We should be tying our cooperation on the Tunnel to Olympia giving us the means to adequately fund Metro. And we should be fighting for a two lane, not four lane, road down the waterfront to provide space for bike, train, or pedestrian use. The Mayor can lead on this if only he is willing.



The other main objection is that Seattle will be on the hook for overruns.



Contrary to what some say, the City of Seattle is not named as responsible in the legislation outlining the plan for the tunnel. Instead it says that “Seattle Area Property Owners” should pay and the truth is that there is no legal way for the State to make this subset of people pay. The State Constitution forbids it. They can ask, but we can say no. This is a State project and in the event there are overruns we should pay no more than any other citizen of this state.



Though with a solid contingency fund, and the fact that this is not the first time we have tunneled under the City, overruns are far from certain. If they occur, we should refuse to pay, but let’s fight that battle when it happens.



Finally, what the opponents don’t tell you is that if the Tunnel is killed the most likely result is a rebuild. In fact many currently arrayed against the Tunnel are actively in favor of a rebuild. The dreams of the Surface Option are just that, dreams. They have no funding, nor any real hope that Olympia will decide to move funds from the Tunnel to them instead of other projects. Even if they kill the Tunnel and a rebuild the most likely result is a demolished Viaduct and nothing in its place.



The Tunnel gives us a chance to open the waterfront, create more demand for transit, and keep goods and people moving. It is without a doubt the best choice and a reasonable and fair compromise.



It’s time to move beyond this battle.