There's something still amusingly quaint about the great Unsigned Editorial, the pronouncement from on high from our betters about how they world does and should work. In their archetypal form, they're utterly pompous and usually quite impervious to facts, railing against straw and the voices in their heads as they ignore actual expertise.
But, anyway, I gather some "naysayers" in Seattle think that maybe there should be some sort of 'plan B' for the tunnel just in case that Viaduct has to close. Probably some of those critics don't really think the Viaduct closing will signal the end of civilization in Seattle as we know it, but the tunnel was sold on the idea that it needed to be replaced with something.
And as for who's going to pay the bill, one has to be a bit naive to believe that "accountability from the mega-contractors consortium of Seattle Tunnel Partners" is something that will ever happen. The nice thing about a special purpose consortium is it just can declare bankruptcy in the night and just disappear. What else was it for?
