Tunnel wins if Surface/Transit framed as only alternative to the tunnel

Some sensible talk about the inapt comparison to Seoul's freeway tear-down. 

The SDOT Blog, Grist and the Slog all have posts covering a lecture about how Seoul torn down an elevated highway and replaced it with a stream, finding parallels with the Alaskan Way Viaduct...Whether or not you agree with the tunnel project, I think comparing Seoul to Seattle is absolutely and utterly ridiculous in this context.

via seattletransitblog.com

My take is that when it comes to politics, reason sometimes loses:

• Anti-tunnel people think that the vote -- if it happens -- will be about the tunnel — "YES" or "NO" e.g. Eli Sanders was articulate on that issue on KUOW recently.
• But pro-tunnel people will frame the issue -- over and over -- "Well what's the alternative to the Tunnel?"
• Mayor McGinn has no other alternative than Surface/Transit. I heard him asked about alternatives recently and frankly his answer -- Surface/Transit -- was lame and unconvincing.
• There is no way that a majority of the people of Seattle will (in effect) vote for Surface/Transit. They've said pretty convincingly in vote and polls.
• So as it is now, if Surface/Transit framed as only alternative, pro-tunnel wins.
• That would be a disaster.
• McGinn should create room for discussion of a long-term plan along the lines of  

Repair (now) and Prepare (to eventually tear down the Viaduct.)

Realistically, even in the best of circumstances,  suppose we had a 70% agreement on Surface/Transit and we were all set to do it. Would we really just tear it down? Don't you think that Preparation would take a number of years? You have to create a fairly complex new infrastructure and that itself will be both complex and contentious. So Surface/Transit means a fairly extensive period and probably would require more Repair.

Anyway, the voters simply won't go for an unadorned Surface/Transit. And that will be the way Pro-Tunnel forces will frame it. As a a commenter at publicola.com wrote:

I want the viaduct down and no new freeway above or below ground. But what you're saying is right: Repair and Prepare is a better way to get that than "Surface and Transit." People see the latter as a do-nothing option that will inevitably make traffic worse. Repair and Prepare has the same goal but commits to keeping the existing road up until we have alternatives in place. Those alternatives will essentially be the same as surface and transit but the staging will prevent the apocalyptic traffic scenario that people fear.