Argument: Tunnel perpetuates wrong car-centric mentality
- Debate: Seattle deep-bore tunnel - con argument.
Paul Andrews. "Richard Conlin Interview, Part 1: Deep-Bore Tunnel is “green” solution." Bike Intelligencer. July 5th, 2010: "Having seen city after West Coast city make the call against car dependency and in favor of livable waterfronts, we've been inclined to support the Surface Transit option — a boulevard along the waterfront, with former viaduct traffic using the boulevard or finding alternate routes. The surface option is admittedly not the fastest way to move vehicles — but then, in a post-carbon era, the whole point is that the car is no longer king."
"A Downtown Tunnel Referendum." Seattle Rex. March 30th, 2011: "Seattle should not continue to pour money into private automobile usage programs Downtown. Instead, they should be encouraging NON-automobile transit. The money for the tunnel could certainly go a long way toward building out the Seattle Subway, and reducing the need for cars in the area that the tunnel will serve. Those who insist on driving into Downtown could sit on I-5 as many of them do now. Eventually, they will grow tired of doing so, and they will explore alternate methods of transit through the dense urban core. Build billion dollar tunnels, however, and the incentive to drive only grows stronger."
Mike O'Brien, chairman of the local Sierra Club chapter: "To spend a couple billion to build an underground highway along the waterfront only used for automobiles is the wrong type of investment to make right now. The governor, mayor and executive turned their backs on global warming."