Comments on: When you’re in a hole, start digging?

By: mhays

mhays — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:45:16 +0000

Clarification on the last: six years of construction disruption with the aerial plan. Less construction disruption but permanent car-domination with the surface plan.

By: mhays

mhays — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:43:54 +0000

Part of my point is that the tunnel isn’t more expensive. Not when you factor the side costs (like loss of tourism, industry, etc.) with the six years of construction distruption.

As for turning Downtown into highways, that’s the difference between how the surface advocates intend their plan to be, vs. how it would really occur. It’s not a question of whether the “throughput” advocates would get concessions, it’s a question of how much.

By: Craig

Craig — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:12:34 +0000

Matt - Glad we agree on the vision, but here’s how the tunnel impacts it: If we want more transit then we need to fund it (the tunnel precludes this funding); if we want more walking then we need to fund it (the tunnel takes all the resources away from funding things like the Pedestrian Master Plan); if we want more density then we need to fund it (with things like parks, open space and amenities that make livable cities, and again, the tunnel takes away our ability to fund these amenities); and if we want less sprawl then we need to discourage it (the tunnel does not do this) while encouraging people to move back into cities (with the transit and amenities that we can’t afford because we wasted all of our money on the tunnel). It’s simply a matter of allocating our money in support of our vision. We don’t have to turn downtown into through-ways for cars if we don’t want to (just like we didn’t have to build 183 miles of highways to get more light rail). Let’s work together and create the political reality that we want, not let the powers that be dictate what we have to accept.

By: mhays

mhays — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:57:50 +0000

I share much of that vision (more transit, more walking, more density, less sprawl), just not your view of how the tunnel impacts it.

For example, a big part of centralizing employment and living (a key to successful transit and reducing sprawl) is keeping Downtown hospitable and functional. Turning streets into highways would hurt that.

By: Craig

Craig — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:42:12 +0000

Yes, we are building in 2012, and we won’t finish construction until 2015 (at the earliest); but more importantly, the tunnel will likely remain operational until the end of this century - and the world is going to change dramatically over the next 75 - 100 years. Faced with the problems of climate change, energy scarcity (= dramatically rising gas prices if/when our consumption based economy ever awakens from its coma) and the declining health of Puget Sound; why on earth would be spend billions of dollars on an infrastructure investment that creates sprawl, increases our impact on climate change (and in no way improves our adaptability), hurts the health of Puget Sound and quite simply makes no long-term sense for our region? For the amount of money that we are spending on the tunnel to speed cars under downtown, we could build many more RapidRide lines, another Light Rail line, the entire proposed streetcar network and still have money left over to greatly enhance Seattle’s bike/ped facilities and create a spectacular waterfront. The tunnel is a 20th century solution (we need to move cars!) and we are facing 21st century problems; its time for real leadership to step in and begin putting the pieces in place to deal with the real problems that we face.

By: mhays

mhays — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:15:52 +0000

That’s how polling works. Any questions can get different answers based on who they’re reaching (in this case “likely voters who answered their phones, probably all landlines”), how the questions are asked, etc. In this case, there’s an extra variable: it was Seattle-only. That’s a huge factor. Outside of Seattle they can be tigher with spending but they tend to favor traffic flow more.

This was a classic push poll where people “learned” a slanted view. If you introduce elements such as this being the only option where 99 stays open during construction, or being the only proposal that doesn’t close off a lot of business during the project, I suspect opposition drops.

In any case, my point about Seattle’s opinion wasn’t simply about yeses vs. nos. People might grumble, but they don’t seem to be grumbling very hard. My guess is this is due to the tunnel not being very many people’s worst case scenario (the other altneratives are nightmares to a lot of people each), a general sigh of relief that we won’t jam things for six years during construction, and another sigh of relief that a decision has been made.

The fact that McGinn would still lose 43-29 even as the only anti-tunnel candidate (even with a “push poll” at his back) supports the theory that opposition to the tunnel isn’t that strong.

As for librarians, I fail to see the relevance. We’re not building this in 2009, but in 2012. The economy will be different then. Though I agree that people don’t always think of that.

By: Craig

Craig — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:06:18 +0000

mhays - How can you not believe a poll that simply asks if you support the tunnel (and only 37% said yes)? After learning more information this support drops to the low 30s%. This correlates directly with the vote in 2007 (recognizing its an entirely different proposal). People understand that how we spend our money reflects our values; and spending $4.2 billion (potentially much more) to speed cars under downtown while we lay off teachers, close libraries, neglect our parks, cut social services and slash transit service just doesn’t mesh with most of our values.

By: mhays

mhays — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:35:52 +0000

Craig, part of those results were that Downtown streets would take up a huge amount of additional traffic. I don’t believe McGinn’s push poll either.

JoshMahar, nobody is calling for lights on Aurora, at least that I’ve seen. Where you see “reconnect the grid” (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/boredtunnelmap.htm) they’re talking about overpasses, which is also shown on renderings, though I’m not finding them.

By: JoshMahar

JoshMahar — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:51:51 +0000

The thing I dont get is that there is already a plan in place to convert 99 in SLU/Uptown into a more “regular” street, instead of a highway. By that I mean it will have more stoplights, slower speeds, and the rest of the grid will reconnect across it.

If this is the case, and I certainly think it should be, then won’t the traffic flying through the tunnel just get backed up here anyway? So really, what’s the point.

If you want to get somewhere fast and your transportation of choice is a car, then use I-5. Period. We don’t need to maintain any more highways. (eventually we should convert portions of I-5 into a rail line and try to reconnect more of the grid across it also.)

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:56:34 +0000

mhays - You are clearly forgetting the year long study and work the AWV stakeholder group completed with WSDOT that realized we could deal with the problems you mention (for half the cost of a tunnel) with improvements to I-5 and increased transit service. Also, the tunnel is about as popular as our current Mayor (~30%); I wouldn’t call that reasonably popular, I would call that a reasonable campaign issue - see http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2009314997_mcginn_poll_voters_agree_with.html for more information.