Mr. Seltzer's article makes some good points, among them ones that have been made before (e.g. rebuild the railroad bridge, and align the channels there), but I've never come across someone advocating for a MAX tunnel under the river.

Is that not discussed because of the cost? Or is it that bundling car traffic with MAX traffic is a more politically tenable way to promote the CRC?

Appreciate the article, but it's unfortunate Ethan repeats the safety talking point.

If we're really concerned about targeting our road safety dollars, we wouldn't spend money in that corridor. The crash data simply don't support it being a high target of our limited dollars.