Tunnel mania. Who started it, and will it ever stop?

Hopefully not any time soon, if you ask me. Because the more light that is shed on the deep-bore tunnel now, the less likely we are to do something foolish later. Like build it.

All the recent noise about the tunnel has percolated up the media food chain, to the point where the Seattle Times was forced to do some actual reporting on the potential risks of the tunnel. Excellent.

Some of the noise is no surprise, as in the case of Knute Berger---who, as far as I can tell, has never articulated an opinion on the tunnel one way or the other---sounding relieved that city leaders could be off the hook for making a choice if we just have a vote on it and let the chips fall where they may.

In other cases, strange bedfellows have emerged. For example: The cloyingly paternalistic Joel Connelly points out that "bicycles are not going to supply Ballard Oil," because---wink, wink---everyone knows those naive, idealistic sustainability kids are clueless about such matters.

And over on the other end of the media spectrum: This week, the supremely measured sustainability gurus at Sightline chastised Richard Conlin for using Orwellian "newspeak" when he called the tunnel the "green alternative." Oddly enough, Sightline was much harder on Conlin than I was. That speaks volumes, because Sightline founder Alan Durning is an old friend of Conlin's and has long been his stalwart supporter.

If you're a Seattle politician whose career has been grounded in the support of the green base, it's probably not a great idea to break ranks with Seattle's most respected sustainability think tank.

Yet the meme has spread: Did you know that the deep-bore tunnel is "green" because tunnels last a long time? Council member Tom Rasmussen apparently agrees.

And of course the standard, tired pro-tunnel arguments continue to reverberate. Case in point: the argument that state will have a hissy fit and take its money and go home if it doesn't get its way. Former state transportation secretary Douglas B. MacDonald writes: "Yes, it's a state highway, but its actual use and benefit is largely local to the people and businesses of Seattle." Huh? Is Seattle not part of the state of Washington?

Last I heard, Seattle was the most important economic center in the region. So rather than sucking up to the state's anti-Seattle infantilism, the city's leaders ought to be insisting that the state fund Seattle projects in fair consideration of the city's population and economic output.

What has lately become the most parroted pro-tunnel meme, however, is that the biggest risk is delay. No! The biggest risk is not responding rapidly and aggressively to our looming environmental crises, and thereby failing to transform Seattle into a city that will thrive through the coming decades.

And the opportunity cost of the tunnel on that front is massive. With $2 billion, we could fund the Pedestrian Master Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan and have money left over to get a good start on local light rail. Yes, current state rules prevent the money being spent on those things. But if we hope to have any chance of making progress, it's time to call bullshit on those rules.

That starts with Seattle's leaders uniting to stand up for Seattle's interests. But so far, in the egregious case of tunnel cost overruns, they have failed to even manage that. For this, both the council and mayor are to blame. Work it out, people. You are failing future generations.

P.S. Love or hate the tunnel, the video below is hard not to love---the power of 3D visualization. Hit the full-screen button in the lower right corner and take a trip.