Neither Valhalla or King's North have an elevated green, nor do their 'safe' routes have 2 water carries for both routes (KN might, but only if the player doesn't hit his second down into the neck), and they have nothing but water fronting their greens from the 'island' fairways. The last reason is KN's and V's biggest 'fail', for me.
Lido's raised green adds to the player's uncertainty in choosing the proper club, plus, Lido has a substantial section of fairway between the water and the green for the player who opted to play to the 'island'. That 'saving' fairway is the temptation-piece that might make a marginally long player decide to take the shortcut in the first place.
None of these are seen at Valhalla or King's North. So yes, there are general similarities in their design, but they aren't the same hole.
Jim, I don't think anyone has suggested that there aren't differences between Valhalla's 7th and Lido's channel hole. I do think, however, that the playing qualities are very similar, and that there are several aspects of Valhalla's 7th that I might even consider superior. For one, Valhalla requires you to fully "cast the die" on the tee shot. If you choose the island fairway, you not only need to pull off a tee shot to a fairly small target, but you also must trust your ability to pull off a second shot that's fully over water to make the gamble worthwhile. The demands of the route mean that it will only be available to the strong player, much like the island fairway at the channel hole, and for that player I prefer the shot demands of a full forced carry to the green as opposed to the way that the Lido hole offers a safety net of about 100 yards of fairway fronting the putting surface. Valhalla's hole gives the long hitter a chance to do something spectacular, but also gives him just enough rope to hang himself on either of his two shots. Lido's tee shot appears equally demanding, but the second shot is far less risky than the one at Valhalla.
The safe routes are also quite different, with the safe shot at Lido appearing not to be all that safe. Sure, the fairway is wide in the driving zone. However, there's little margin of error for the player who misses the fairway and even this "safe" route involves two forced carries over water and a substantial cross bunker near the green. Valhalla's dichotomy is far clearer - the risky route is shorter but fraught with far more risk, while the safe route is longer but truly safe. Lido's "safe" route isn't safe at all.
Of course, much of Lido's praise centers on its virtues as a championship test, and I suspect the channel hole would be quite interesting in a championship with players choosing routes based on how they gauged the risk and reward. I also like that the routes have a bit of ambiguity - what appears to be the safe play isn't completely safe, and the risky play actually has some forgiveness built in. There's no doubt to me, however, that the channel hole wasn't remotely accommodating of the weak player. While I don't mind a hole that punishes a high handicapper on occasion, the demands of the channel hole are clearly severe. It's always a bit messy to try to guess how our biases affect our perceptions of golf holes, but it is fun to imagine what the response would be if Raynor had designed a hole more like Valhalla's 7th at Lido and Nicklaus had designed a hole that more closely resembled the channel hole at Valhalla.