Tunnel criticism is unworthy, hurts Seattle

An article this week provided weak arguments, ones that would fit with an agenda to hurt the city.

Tunnel criticism is unworthy, hurts Seattle

Sponsorship

Ashli Blow

by

Ashli Blow Feb 6, 2018

Feb 6, 2018

Republish Article

You can republish articles in print or online. Simply copy the HTML below, which includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline, and credit to Cascade PBS. Republishing of the photos or videos embedded in an article can occur only if the photo or video is a copyright of Cascade Public Media ("CPM") and not of a third party. Photos and videos that are a copyright of CPM are not required to appear in the republished article, but if they are used, they must be embedded where they appear in the original article and must include the attribution to the CPM photographer.

You may reprint in any medium
You may edit only for tense and timeliness
If republishing in print you can edit for length if you follow our print republishing guidelines.
You may write your own headline
Include a byline and shirttail with credit and link to Cascade PBS
Include our tracking pixel
Remove if we ask

          <article>
            <header>
              <hgroup>
                <h1>Tunnel criticism is unworthy, hurts Seattle</h1>
                <h2><p>An article this week provided weak arguments, ones that would fit with an agenda to hurt the city.</p></h2>
              </hgroup>
               <p>By <a href="/author/ashli-blow/">Ashli Blow</a></p> 
              <p><time datetime="2025-02-04T05:00:00-08:00">Feb 6, 2018</time></p>
            </header>
            <p>An article this week provided weak arguments, ones that would fit with an agenda to hurt the city.</p><p><strong>I've recently run into energetic criticism </strong>of the tunnel project  downtown. Having long appreciated the curious nature of well-funded  political initiatives in the region, I've become more attuned to the  quality of the arguments being thrown around. On Wednesday (May 4), I ran into <a href="http://crosscut.com/2011/05/04/alaskan-way-viaduct/20886/Tunnel-supporters:-Aren-t-you-creating-gridlock-/?ref=dev.cascadepbs.org">your article criticizing the tunne</a>l by Roger Valdez.</p><p>Mr. Valdez's criticisms are so pedestrian I was left chuckling. Then I began to wonder what could possibly motivate Crosscut's editors to let such detritus get published.</p><p>Let's take the two issues separately.</p><p>1. Roger Valdez's comments: Mr. Valdez feels the tunnel's worth is impaired by the inconvenience caused by its being built. "The point is that the tunnel project is  creating the very gridlock that it claims it will be solving," he writes. I cannot  think of any public transportation project in history for which this is not true. Imagine if U.S. residents followed Mr. Valdez's thinking whenconsidering the Interstate project. This is beyond naive.</p><p>2. Crosscut's editors for some reason felt that this article merits a wide audience. They, of course, feel that attaching the Crosscut brand to it is a good idea. This is interesting. At best, this is an article by one of Seattle's detractors (it could be from one of the usual Seattle detractors who finance and manage automobile-dependent malls on the east side).</p><p><strong>Crosscut is trying to show itself</strong> to be a viable alternative to the once-celluloid news options: <em>The Seattle Post-Intelligencer</em> and <em>The Seattle Times</em>. Being a relatively underfunded entity leaves one more prone to manipulation by those with money.</p><p>If Crosscut wishes to be a player in news media, I feel that the  editorial board needs to rethink what constitutes news. The merits of  this article are so weak I am forced to reconsider the editorial  independence and agenda of Crosscut as a whole.</p><p>I'm as startled as I am disappointed. I thought we had a local winner in Crosscut.  Perhaps not.</p><p>Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.</p>
          </article>

An article this week provided weak arguments, ones that would fit with an agenda to hurt the city.

I've recently run into energetic criticism of the tunnel project downtown. Having long appreciated the curious nature of well-funded political initiatives in the region, I've become more attuned to the quality of the arguments being thrown around. On Wednesday (May 4), I ran into your article criticizing the tunnel by Roger Valdez.

Mr. Valdez's criticisms are so pedestrian I was left chuckling. Then I began to wonder what could possibly motivate Crosscut's editors to let such detritus get published.

Let's take the two issues separately.

1. Roger Valdez's comments: Mr. Valdez feels the tunnel's worth is impaired by the inconvenience caused by its being built. "The point is that the tunnel project is creating the very gridlock that it claims it will be solving," he writes. I cannot think of any public transportation project in history for which this is not true. Imagine if U.S. residents followed Mr. Valdez's thinking whenconsidering the Interstate project. This is beyond naive.

2. Crosscut's editors for some reason felt that this article merits a wide audience. They, of course, feel that attaching the Crosscut brand to it is a good idea. This is interesting. At best, this is an article by one of Seattle's detractors (it could be from one of the usual Seattle detractors who finance and manage automobile-dependent malls on the east side).

Crosscut is trying to show itself to be a viable alternative to the once-celluloid news options: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The Seattle Times. Being a relatively underfunded entity leaves one more prone to manipulation by those with money.

If Crosscut wishes to be a player in news media, I feel that the editorial board needs to rethink what constitutes news. The merits of this article are so weak I am forced to reconsider the editorial independence and agenda of Crosscut as a whole.

I'm as startled as I am disappointed. I thought we had a local winner in Crosscut. Perhaps not.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Ashli Blow

By Ashli Blow

Ashli Blow is a Seattle-based freelance writer who talks with people — in places from urban watersheds to remote wildernesses — about the environment around them. She’s been working in journal

Ashli Blow is a Seattle-based freelance writer who talks with people — in places from urban watersheds to remote wildernesses — about the environment around them. She’s been working in journal