Is there an EIS-based argument FOR the tunnel? for Questionland Seattle

Reputation: 342

Is there an EIS-based argument FOR the tunnel?

Every day my mailbox and voice mail are clogged with messages from Let's Move Forward. Their fear-based arguments appeal to emotion, personally disparage the Mayor, make seemingly frivolous claims about irrelevant things such as graphic design, and generally appear to be free of substantive argument FOR the the deep-bore tunnel.

Fine, that's politics. But somewhere beneath the BS there must be some actual truths about the merit of this tunnel... such as the final EIS, which is the definitive study of the project.

The Stranger and others have used the EIS as the basis for a thorough de-bunking of the project in their campaign to kill the tunnel. So, is there anyone from the pro-tunnel camp who is prepared to refute such analysis, and to make a convincing argument FOR the tunnel BASED ON THE CONTENTS OF THE EIS?

If so, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it before voting.

mister_fusspot asked in Local News & Politics 9 months ago | Report

Answer this question or share it with a smart friend:

Type your answer here…

Asker's Favorite

Reputation: 1045

Follow 0

2 0

In their defense it's likely none of them have read the thing because a) it was just released recently and it's over 1000 pages long; and b) the deep-bore tunnel option has already been selected by The Powers That Be.

In other words, the EIS is supposed to be an input to a decision. With the decision already made by fiat (so a tunnel advocate's reasoning would go), however, the EIS is an afterthought at best and moot at worst.

Let's hope our fellow voters are less cynical and more intelligent.

capicola answered in Local News & Politics 9 months ago | Report

4 comments by mister_fusspot, Bion Satir, and mister_fusspot…

1 0

Thanks for attempting a fair and reasonable answer; I'm not sure the pro-tunnel folks are worthy.

If you heard KUOW's "Weekday" this morning, you probably noted that Cary Moon used the EIS to systematically dismantle her opponents' arguments. You could hear the labor guy's voice almost trembling while he accused her of "cherry-picking" the facts. Hey pal, just because the facts don't seem to support your side doesn't make it cherry-picking.

mister_fusspot commented 9 months ago | Report

2 0

I heard that too; I was overall depressed by how well the tunnel folks were able to weave their lies. Even when I didn't agree with what they said, they SOUNDED convincing, I thought. It definitely wasn't a fair line up; I thought Cary Moon could have done a better job calling them out on their deceptive line of argument.

Bion Satir commented 9 months ago | Report

1 0

Perhaps it would have been a mistaken tactic for Moon to be more aggressive when outnumbered like that. It was apparent to me that she had better command of the facts, even if the others sounded confident. Or smug. (God, when will Brewster go away...)

mister_fusspot commented 9 months ago | Report

1 0

She is already routinely demonized as a hippie, or shrill harpy, etc. etc. just as McGinn is constantly painted as 100% antagonistic, ineffective, and heading a malicious pro-bike conspiracy. These ad hominem canards and distortions are in the same category as the "Obama is a Muslim" crap--if you can't get away with lying, and you can't scare people (EARTHQUAKE!!!), then attack your opponents.

capicola commented 9 months ago | Report

Enter your comment or ask a new question

Share this answer with a friend:

Latest Greatest

2 Other Answers

Reputation: 11

Follow 0

3 0

Tunnel supporters (of which I'm not) tend to invoke the through travel times (ie, bypass trips PAST downtown) for tunnel users as superior to the no-build option. This combined with the freeing up of land from removing the elevated structure is the entire basis of their argument.

They prefer to ignore the aggregate figures for vehicle hours delay, which show more hours of delay resulting from the tunnel than from any other option. In fact, they prefer to outright lie, in particular about the much maligned I5/Surface/Transit option, calling it epithets like "McGinn's Gridlock Plan" when in fact Wash DOT's own EIS shows the tunnel inducing more delays.

Alex Broner answered in Local News & Politics 9 months ago | Report

1 comment by mister_fusspot…

Share this answer with a friend:

Reputation: 3

Follow 0

3 0

Most of the EIS isn't new - only a few sections have changed significantly since the Draft EIS in 2009. I've read most of the updated portion myself, and while I'm not pro-tunnel, I don't think there's any good argument for it.

In the EIS' traffic study, it shows that the tunnel performs worst overall of any option. The three options presented before this tunnel appeared all reduce congestion relative to the no-build scenario - the tolled tunnel increases congestion.

Basically, because the tunnel is so expensive, all these other recommended mitigation projects get no funding.

Ben Schiendelman answered in Local News & Politics 9 months ago | Report

1 comment by mister_fusspot…