«
»

‘Build it — or else’

I just posted about a phenomenon called job blackmail on Sightline’s Daily Score. Job blackmail happens when businesses threaten to leave the state or city because of environmental legislation. But megaprojects like the waterfront tunnel replacement for the viaduct also become the focus of what could be called megaproject blackmail. The blackmail machine was humming along the other day when Port of Seattle Commissioner Bill Bryant said that a s

Build more highway capacity? Not when our policies might finally be catching up to our rhetoric about saving the planet.
urface option without a tunnel would be “municipal suicide.” Wow. Fail to build the tunnel and Seattle will die.

So now Patrick Doherty, right here on SeattleScape, has offered yet another arm-waving warning that borders on what could be called “throughput blackmail.” If you don’t build the tunnel we’ll have to build another freeway somewhere else to handle all the traffic. Things will be even worse for climate change and there will be even more cars. Don’t build the tunnel and we’ll be destroying the environment. We’ll have to build even more highways. He writes:

If north-south circulation through the metro area is even further complicated by the removal of one of the region’s vital north-south highways, the I-605 promoters would essentially be offered more fuel for their fire. Constant gridlock on I-5 and the downtown Seattle streets, coupled with the congestion already on I-405, could lead to a ready-made argument in favor of efforts to pursue an I-605.

First of all, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and gasoline consumption are down, a fact that defies classic transporation planning. Part of this is attributable to last year’s wild increases in gasoline prices but it is also because people are making different choices that result in less driving. And gasoline prices are still volatile, causing people to get off the fossil-fuel rollercoaster.

Second, Doherty is comparing apples to oranges. Traffic volumes on the viaduct are nowhere near what they are on highways like I-5 and I-405. Those are interstate highways while the viaduct is a state highway. Why would we build a new high-capacity interstate freeway to deal with whatever capacity issues are created by a surface option? And remember, whatever problems with capacity that are created by a surface option are only periodic in nature, not constant.

Finally, our policies might finally be catching up to our high-flying rhetoric about saving the planet and being responsible stewards of our resources. If Mike McGinn is elected mayor of Seattle, for example, there is really a chance that the tail will stop wagging the dog. Like Portland and Seattle in the past, we might just resist the urge to spend billions of dollars on a new highway — one that has no exits downtown for all this throughput that Doherty is concerned about. And if Doherty is right about stoking the fires of I-605 there is no reason to believe we won’t be able to resist that too.

Tags: , , , ,

This entry was posted by Roger Valdez on Friday, October 9th, 2009 at 11:00 am and is filed under Planning, Politics, Seattle lifestyle, transportation, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

  • JoshMahar

    Thank you Roger for calling out Mr. Doherty’s very problematic argument below. I think you hit it right on the head that if we can prevent wasting billions on an unnecessary freeway on Seattle’s waterfront, we can also stop any proposed plan for an even less useful freeway on the Eastside.

  • Matt Hays

    Portland has two north-south downtown freeways. It’s the poster child for a downtown that doesn’t suffer from an overload of through-traffic on its surface streets. So what’s your point? Portland is great because its downtown doesn’t have a third north-south freeway?

    Seattle should have what Portland has…no through-traffic on surface streets. Keep the second freeway to save our downtown.

  • Lydia

    Thank you Matt Hays.

  • Matt the Engineer

    Portland is a freeway nightmare (or perhaps a concrete salesman’s dream), and something I’d hate for us to copy. Why does the world need a “poster child” for little through-traffic on surface streets? That’s a self-solving problem (resulting in fewer trips to Costco from Queen Anne, but is that so terrible?). Where is the poster child for walkable cities without spending billions on car infrastructure? It might be us.

  • mhays

    First Avenue is an example of a downtown street that’s routinely at capacity at rush hours, and a poor pedestrian street because of it, with cars routinely blocking crosswalks.

    If we had a surface 99, there would be major concessions to the drive-through crowd. It would be much worse than simply jamming our existing streets…the streets themselves would be widened, with less-frequent walk lights. The PI even advocated for eliminating some crossings entirely!

  • Matt the Engineer

    1st is quite walkable, and could be more walkable with more intersections like the one at Pike Place Market.

    You are presenting a false choice. Want a more walkable waterfront? Resist building wide streets and give pedestrians priority at intersections. Yes, this will discourage through-traffic on the waterfront and fewer car trips to the stadiums from Ballard. I still don’t see this as a problem.

  • JoshMahar

    mhays,

    While short-term the tunnel might seem problematic, overall it will do much more to encourage dense living and transit use, and this will be a driving factor in creating a walkable, livable city.

    I also agree with M the E here in that if you want Belltown to be more pedestrian-friendly, work on that goal. Work to put some of the streets on road diets, widen sidewalks, and increase crosswalks. If anything, can’t the threat of increased traffic be a catalyst for these pedestrian improvements? These are not things that have to go to a public vote. If you get a few neighbors together you can do this with a number of available grants and pots of money, regardless of how the drivers feel about it.

    As far as the waterfront: It will be a highly public project and one intended to impress (car-free) visitors. I guarantee you that no matter what, it will be a whole lot better than what we have now.

  • M

    I know that Olympia, Paul Allen and the Port (real estate player) can pay for their state road/tunnel in cash. Why are they hell-bent on making Seattle pay a penny?

    McGinn is right to refuse to play this rope-a-dope game as usual. Time for Seattle, King County and Olympia to make their walk match their talk on progressive environmentalism.

  • M

    …more specifically, “progressive URBAN environmentalism”. Where’s the monorail anyway?

  • mhays

    Good post JoshMahar!

    Matt the Engineer, First & Pike is a good intersection, but it relies on having two stages only…cars or pedestrians, and pedestrians can jaywalk n-s. The same approach at a typical four-direction (or one-way crossign) intersection would mean pedestrians couldn’t cross in 2 of 3 stages, and jaywalking would be tougher…unacceptable.

    Regarding street widths, despite the good intentions of not widening streets, they’re going to happen. The surface options create one or two high-traffic, widened surface through-ways, and would involve a huge amount of traffic on other surface streets.

    The 99 issue won’t be decided by Seattle alone. The Buriens and Lynnwoods will get their say, aided by the State and County. Even if the most favored dreams of the surface crowd come true…”throughput” will get major concessions.

  • Chris

    Surface streets instead of a tunnel don’t automatically mean less pollution. The lowest estimate I’ve seen for making the waterfront just surface streets (basically extending Aurora, yikes) is that it will add 6 minutes to commute times. That’s 6 minutes of extra time each car will be pumping out CO2 and I doubt it will be a smooth 6 mins, but stop and go which depresses gas mileage even further.

    The surface street doesn’t make any sense except that it the price tag. A used truck is cheaper than a new hybrid but which one would you buy?

  • M

    It’s the “price tag plus”. The problem with the shell-game-of-a-tunnel is that it is counter to what the so-called green-this green-that crowd in office claim.

    If you want to move freight, move freight if you want to move people, move people.

    Carmageddon is coming! Carmageddon is coming! Hello, SR-520 is dying and the waterfront tunnel is helping to kill its replacement!

    –Why does a so-called progressive state (Washington) have only a couple of choo choos to move its people in the most populous region of the state?

    –Why does a so-called progressive city (Seattle) approve of gross misplacement of funds vs. needs. I thought we were so smartest city and all?

    –Why aren’t we building 21st Century freight mobility and people mobility?

  • Matt the Engineer

    [M] My answer to all of those questions is that our state has in our constitution (inserted in the ’50′s during the great age of the car) that all funds collected from gasoline tax must go to road construction. Thus the state will only pay for big car infrastructure. Add to that the layers of Eyman-esque limits on raising tax funds, and you get crumbling bus systems, and train building becomes slow and difficult.

    It will take peak oil (coming to a planet near you within the next decade) to even start waking our state up. Of course, by then we’ll be deep in debt from the tunnel and 520.

  • JoshMahar

    A slight oversight…I actually meant that Surface/Transit seems problematic short-term but will be much better long term. The rest of my comment stands though.

  • JoshMahar

    As David Owen pointed out in a recent talk: Stopped/slow traffic can actually be better for the pedestrian because you can basically cross any time and the crawling speeds makes it generally safe.

  • mhays

    JoshMahar, that concept is predicated on the street being jaywalkable, like parts of Western or Pike Place. It doesn’t apply to avenues with three or four lanes. (Would you jaywalk across First or Second, regardless of how slow traffic is?)

    Further, the concept has a big flaw: cars incessantly block crosswalks.

  • lheard

    David Owens was also assuming that because Manhattan is the most sustainable city in America, everything about it is preferable, including the congestion stalled traffic. Some of us might prefer something like the London model. They had the transit in place for years, ring roads for bypass, and then with the alternatives already in place, instituted congestion pricing to discourage driving into the city. I spent a lot of time there before and after congestion pricing. Before, it was proof of why urbanites wear black – very dirty air, lots of diesel particulates, high asthma rates, black nostrils by evening. After, it was a much more pleasant city, and the buses were ever so much more efficient. I don’t really want Manhattan traffic in my neighborhood.

  • Chris

    If you want to focus on the short term and the long term then build the tunnel and change the state constitution so that more funding can go to rail. You can’t force people out of their cars by extending Aurora like surface streets and creating such bad traffic without having alternatives already in place. Especially in this sort of economic climate, it is very unwise to leave businesses that rely on 99 up the creek without an oar.

    I would say that truly being progressive is seeing to it that Seattle makes actual progress in making the water front nicer, keeping the existing capacity as much as possible by building the tunnel, and then working on other transit options for the future. Progress is not extending Aurora down to the waterfront, increasing traffic and thus C02 emissions, cutting capacity which will hurt businesses, and funding/building rail that won’t be ready for a decade while the waterfront, environment, and business suffer.

  • M

    If we’re talking short-term vs. long-term wouldn’t we have to talk about SR-520 over and before the waterfront tunnel?

  • Matt the Engineer

    Nobody here wants to continue Aurora through the waterfront in the way you imply. The proposal was for stoplights at intersections, not a 50mph highway.

    If the tunnel is so important to these businesses, why don’t they pay for it? Sounds like yet another corporate subsidy to me.

  • M

    Also, waterfront niceness comes by building transit and 21st Century freight-mobility now… today… primary…, not after thought.

  • Chris

    So you’re suggesting that we also build freight on/near the waterfront then to move goods for businesses? Don’t know exactly what you’re saying there. How long will it take to build 21st Century freight-mobility? Sure sounds nice but gridlock for the city surface streets for at least 7 to 10 years doesn’t sound like progress to me.

    You could make the argument that every major roadway is important to business. Isn’t 520? Well according to your reasoning, since it’s so important to them, they should pay for it or else it would be a corporate subsidy.

    Lastly, even if you put stop lights at intersections the surface streets on the waterfront they will simply be like Aurora with just more stop lights. Aurora is bad whether it’s farther north with less stoplights or closer to the ship canal bridge where there are more stoplights as the city gets denser.

    I’m all for 21st century transit but let’s not cut off our nose to spite our face in trying to get there.

  • Matt the Engineer

    The proposed design is nothing like any current section of Aurora. Aurora isn’t bad just because it’s Aurora – it’s bad because it’s designed as a major highway. It’s wide, buildings are set back from the road, and the few sections with stoplights have these lights set far enough apart to allow highway speeds. A waterfront boulevard would have a design more like 3rd downtown.

    I’m not proposing that businesses should have to pay for 520 either, but you’ve pulled out the argument that we need to build a tunnel for businesses. This argument actually explained to me why we used a “stakeholder” process instead of a democratic tool (vote or elected officials). If that’s really the reason we’re building it, the trucking companies should pay for it.

    “gridlock for the city surface streets for at least 7 to 10 years” Is there a source for this? It sounds like a “build it – or else” statement to me.

  • http://daily.sightline.org/ Roger

    When I wrote this piece I was mostly focused on the issue that Matt just mentioned: that jobs will be lost and our economy damaged by not building the tunnel.

    There simply isn’t anything that I have seen that warrants spending the billions of dollars we’ll have to spend on the tunnel for the return. I am still mystified by the freight mobility argument. There simply isn’t enough freight moving on the viaduct to warrant the billions. Certainly there is some local inter-city freight, but international freight has access points that don’t or shouldn’t require a billion dollar tunnel. Do apples and hops from Eastern Washington need to use the viaduct or the tunnel to get to China or Japan?

    The evidence simply isn’t there to support a risk benefit analysis that results in the tunnel as an answer. Let’s face it, the tunnel is a political solution not a transportation solution. It gets the waterfront folks their waterfront access, the through put people their through put and the freight people their mobility–at least on paper.

    In reality water access will happen WHEN the viaduct comes down (whether there is a replacement or not), and the scale of the through put and freight issues can hardly be seen as regional, statewide or even significant city issues.

    Commutes will be longer, there will be more traffic at certain times during the day but eventually, if we plan for it and invest in substantial but less expensive and car focused fixes, we’ll reach an equilibrium. People and freight will get where they need to go.

    What I was responding to was the latest in a long series of irrational, over the top, doomsday scenarios (see the trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz86TsGx3fc) about what will happen if we don’t build the tunnel. Seattle will not die if we don’t build the tunnel. The world will not end. In fact we will see the same benefits that other cities have gained from resisting the urge for big, car focused infrastructure.

    The hyperbolic rhetoric being used by the pro-tunnel folks is reflective of the paucity of good reasons to go forward with the tunnel. Claims of municipal suicide, more freeways and economic collapse if we don’t do this don’t help civic debate and should raise a red flag among voters who are wondering where to cast their ballots in the mayoral election. The choice is pretty clear.

  • mhays

    We could delete pretty much anything and the city would continue. Doesn’t mean we should.

    I used to see the viaduct out my living room window, a block away. There are LOTS of trucks.

  • Matt the Engineer

    Around 700 a day. Let’s see… assuming a 30 year life, 700 trucks a day would have to pay $548 each trip to pay off the $4.2B tunnel. Shall we propose that as the toll?

  • mhays

    Actually it’s several times that. Page 9 shows 3,310 per day on the viaduct:
    http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/579A7E3F-1F42-4D3D-A722-93D389BC04FF/0/Seattle_Freight_Segmentation_Study_August08.pdf

    Even then, I’d compare the tunnel cost not with “0″ but with the cost of other alternatives, all of which are in the billions.

  • mhays

    PS, they seem to be counting “major” trucks only.

  • M

    The difference then is to spend billions on alternatives that are actually green-walk vs. green-talk-only. The choice is clear. Spend the money on the most sustainable alternatives. Make the future happen now.

  • mhays

    We probably each consider our alternative the greenest. Personally I consider the tunnel the truly green alternative, while surface options are penny-wise and pound foolish in both dollar and sustainability terms.

    The tunnel allows greater Downtown to be a large, concentrated, mixed-use, healthy center, unimpeded by the extra tens of thousands of cars. It avoids the tradeoffs toward street “capacity” that the surface option would entail. It allows us to concentrate jobs both within greater Downtown and in other regional business districts, so they can be served by transit.

  • M

    From what you describe, the greenest most sustainable way would be to build the transit alternative now and forget the tunnel.

  • Matt Hays

    Not at all. That would involve everything I’ve said about hurting greater Downtown’s viability as a place to work and live, and job dispersal from both greater Downtown and other core and not-so-core districts. Further, there’s no mechanism to make transit on that scale work.

    I’m a transit freak and militant pedestrian with no car, but also a pragmatist. We should have a ST3, and Seattle should have a vote for more in-city bus (avoiding the asinine 80/20 rule) and rail. But those are longer-term at best. Even if they happen, they’ll serve destinations in major centers and nodes, but won’t serve the purposes the tunnel serves — people passing through Downtown rather than going to it, and freight.

    Together with my other posts, I’m saying the tunnel is a big boost to transit, even before any parallel transit projects are included. It does this by keeping the “hub” system viable, and higher density in general viable.

  • Matt the Engineer

    [mhays] Page 9 says only 1,830 use the Battery Street tunnel (compared to 15,800 on I-5). That’s still certainly more than my number (although the number of which that could easily switch to I-5 is unknown), and brings the toll down to only $210 a trip. Note that 2,100 truck trips will still need to move from the viaduct to surface streets under the tunnel plan. Maybe we could build another tunnel for these trucks?

  • M

    Mhays,

    It’s still the same. More and improved transit now can remove to-Seattle travelers from existing roads, clearing the way from through-Seattle travelers and the small trucks that can move to surface and a re-enforced and improved I-5.

  • mhays

    M, in a sustainable world, Greater Downtown’s continued growth as our primary job and mixed-use center will offset improvements in transit mode share. Either way, the 99 issue is much larger in scale than any flux in modes we might realistically hope for in the foreseeable future, even as transit improves and oil rises.

    Matt, the tunnel puts a reasonable amount of truck traffic on surface streets, generally headed toward Interbay along a direct Alaskan Way that meets Western/Elliott where the current ramps already do. You’re talking about is a lot of additional trucks headed north-south. I’m not sure how “a little is ok” translates to “therefore a lot must be ok”. (In any case, what about the tens of thousands of added cars?)

  • Matt the Engineer

    The number going downtown or to Western/Elliott are greater than those that continue into the Battery tunnel. You’ve made the argument that we should build this ridiculously expensive thing for the trucking industry, but why stop at that smaller number? You could serve more trucks with a tunnel that goes west. Or even more with a tunnel that breaks into two, serving both areas. Or much more if we added a tunnel under I-5, going to a new level of the bridge.

    My only point is that your argument that we’re doing this for business isn’t a logical one. Add to this that the argument that you can build your way out of traffic is foolish in the long term, and I don’t know why we’re building the thing.

  • http://daily.sightline.org/ Roger
  • mhays

    I haven’t suggested that this is for the trucking industry. I jumped in to say that a lot of trucks use the viaduct.

    Though yes, I don’t want the Tukwila-to-Edmonds through traffic on Downtown streets, and I consider 99 a necessity for the region’s economic health.

    Regarding other truck routes, we’re already dealing with issues #1, (99), #2 (90 to port), and #3 (westbound Mercer). There’s no need to go beyond that. (Ok, speaking as a pedestrian, the Great Wall of Denny could use a fix, but transit would help reduce car volumes, a westbound Mercer will move some traffic northward, and City policy that doesn’t prefer cars over pedestrians would reduce the “wall” effect.)

  • M

    Not sure where the transit money for the great wall of Denny will come, currently there isn’t money to cut the #49 bus wait in half from the current 20min mid-day wait. That’s a 40-minute trip (Cap. Hill – U.D.) when you add the 20-30min ride. Seven years for U-Link seems an excessive time to wait and it makes sense that so many people refuse to park their cars.

    The waterfront tunnel proposal is a misplacement of BILLIONS of dollars to the wrong project.

  • M

    BTW, the Tukwila-to-Edmonds traffic whould be on I-5 (or rail) if the Washington State constitution supported funding for environmentally and technologically progressive and sustainable transportation.

  • mhays

    We should have a levy for additional Seattle-only bus service — let the City fund Metro just as the State funds Amtrak. Something like $50 million per year would go a long way.

    Our heavy rail capacity should also be worked on. That would be important to both greater use of rail for freight, and additional intercity passenger service. However, rail is extremely difficult as a replacement for local truck routes.

    It works well in some cases, such as building a rail spur to avoid trucking containers the “last mile” to a seaport terminal, or a major manufacturer scheduling regular train service from a major supplier nearby. However, it’s safe to assume that most trucks on 99 are of the “local” variety, taking 30 minute or 60 minute trips from small point to small point. These trips aren’t easily replaced with rail because that would typically require three modes — truck, rail, then another truck. This would typically take several extra hours vs. those 30 or 60 minutes. (Rail’s vaunted efficiencies for long freight trips aren’t present for short local trips, for numerous reasons)

  • M

    The shell seems to keep shifting. If we’re talking small point-to-small point freight then we’re talking freight mobility that can be aided in other ways (remove parking lanes on sections of SR-99 and on other key arterials such as Elliott Ave./15th Ave., and Eastlake Ave.).

    If we’re talking about people driving cars from the north to south of downtown and back then that’s a different thing which can and should be handled in yet another way such as using the parking free lanes as rapid bus lanes.

  • Matt Hays

    Sounds like the same shell to me. Turning surface streets into highways.

  • M

    Not all surface streets are the same. There are types of roadway between residential streets and freeways, and better lane uses that we can create to improve small truck freight mobility and transit through the city. Some of our surface streets should be faster-moving streets but we can do this without them being freeways. We simply remove things that are clogging the artery and slowing the flow.

    The idea is to use what already exists with innovation for progressive and sustainable goals.

  • Chris

    Progress simply is not making the downtown area so bad for cars that people are forced out of them. Traffic will get worse per the studies anyway and business will likely suffer. That is not progress either.

    McGinn’s whole push to do surface streets (not as bad as Aurora’s but they will still be surface streets with many stop lights and stop and go traffic, raising C02 emissions as commutes will average at least 6 minutes longer per car) is predicated on the erroneous belief that the money not spent on the tunnel will allow him to spend it on the surface streets and transit. However, if your read this, that will not be the case. He is starting on a false premise and that entirely negates his argument and he has a good amount of falsehoods he is spreading. Fortunately, it seems like more and more people are seeing McGinn for what he is and will vote for Mallahan:

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2010081563_tunnelclaims17m.html

  • M

    Is this the same Seattle Times that just endorsed the serial liar Susan Hutchison?

    A progressive state, county and city would spend the money on existing infrastructure needs such as stabilizing I-5, transit and on non-road projects. Honest, realistic, and progressive people will vote for Mike McGinn.

  • M

    Lets be clear. The waterfront tunnel will do nothing to improve the flow of traffic on Eastlake Ave, on SR-99 north of Denny or on 15th Ave.

    It’s simply a grand misplacement and mismanagement of money.

  • Chris

    So are you saying that McGinn, contrary to the Seattle Times’ research, will be able to spend (in the increasingly unlikely event that he is elected) at least $500 million on surface streets and transit if he doesn’t do the tunnel? Instead of attacking the Seattle Times (shooting the messenger), please come up with some research that proves the TImes wrong.

    Regardless, rebuilding the viaduct would be a lot smarter and better for CO2 emissions than surface streets and transit.

  • Chris

    In the end, it’s a moot point. McGinn just changed his tune because his chances of becoming mayor are going down the tubes. What’s worse? Having a backbone and losing or being a flip-flopper desperado who loses anyway?

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2010095811_mike_mcginn_says_he_would_upho.html

  • M

    I see you’ve drunk the kool-aid. If you call this a flip-flop then you didn’t read Mike McGinns words from the link you posted so I’ll post them here:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, Mike McGinn:

    “Today, the City Council authorized Mayor Greg Nickels to sign an intergovernmental agreement with the State of Washington committing Seattle to the tunnel plan.

    I disagree with the decision. I disagree with the timing.

    But the reality is Mayor Nickels and the Council have entered into an agreement, and the City is now committed to the tunnel plan.

    If I’m elected Mayor, although I disagree with this decision, it will be my job to uphold and execute this agreement. It is not the Mayor’s job to withhold the cooperation of city government in executing this agreement.

    I will, however, continue to ask tough questions:

    – We don’t know how much it’s actually going to cost.

    – If it ends up costing more than the current budget allows, there is serious disagreement between Seattle and the State over who will pay the cost overruns.

    – Where will the money come from, and who will bear the burden? Will we have to cut police, fire, library, or services for the poor?

    I will not stop asking the tough questions nor will I ever stop standing up for Seattle’s interests in this process.

    I’m worried the people that want the tunnel have a champagne appetite and the City has a beer budget. The question is who will end up paying the tab.

    There is a clear choice in this election.

    My opponent has refused to ask any hard questions about the tunnel.

    In fact, when asked about the Legislature passing the cost overrun amendment, he said:

    “If I were mayor, rather than taking potshots at Democratic leadership who put that (amendment) on, I’d express disappointment and say, “OK, we can live with this.”

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/406102_mallahan12.html

    Seattle cannot live with paying the cost overruns on the tunnel.

  • M

    @ Chris Re: Seattle Times Research,

    I was simply asking a question if the ST research was a quality (sic) as that done for their endorsement on Susan Hutchinson.

  • Chris

    Until someone proves the Seattle Times wrong about the $500 million McGinn thinks he can spend but can’t, we should go forward with the idea that McGinn is operating on false assumptions.

    I would also argue that rebuilding/replacing the viaduct is much smarter than doing the surface streets and transit.

    It’s almost a non-issue anyway since McGinn has little chance of winning anyway.

  • Chris

    I just saw this on a Seattle Times blog and think it’s on the mark:

    “The guy is a demagogue. He was NEVER going to be able to kill the tunnel, and he knew it. Whether the tunnel is a good thing or not, this debate has been raging far too long. At some point, you have to make a decision and move on. This issue is a perfect example of why Seattle doesn’t work. Nothing ever gets done. No progress is ever made. Citizens flock to solutions that, if enacted, would wreak havoc on the economy.

    Think about it. Under McGinn’s plan you would take down the viaduct, dump 100,000+ cars extra every day into downtown, tie I-5 up for at least a decade with his improvements. I’m all for going green. Unfortunately, change has to occur gradually to give the region time to absorb it and avoid major shockwaves. Never actually having to have met a payroll, McGinn doesn’t get these basics.”

  • Chris

    Here’s some more info for everyone. More proof McGinn is done:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcs7GRwprS8

  • Abdul Alhazred

    The Seattle city council transportation last Friday put detailed numbers to a deep bore tunnel option. Last Monday (10/19/09) the council voted unanimously for the deep bore, pledging $800M. Why the hurry? I phoned and emailed the council to postpone the decision and allow adequate public comment – none responded. Are they THAT afraid of a new mayor? Such council action does not bode well for working together with the executive.

    The referendum process allows the Seattle citizens to put to a public vote the ordinance passed Monday. Given that voters rejected a tunnel concept by a 70% margin, I believe the deep bore tunnel ordinance would be rejected. However, this city would rather save trees than save money, so stay tuned.

    McGinn is not paying billions – we the citizens are on the hook. There is no need to spend this much money. The state would fund elevated structure, cut-and-cover, or tunnel methods that better serve the central waterfront. A deep-bore tunnel cuts off existing waterfront access and reduces the number of existing lanes in both directions.

    I don’t think a surface/transit option will cut the mustard with the other paying participants in this infrastructure replacement. I believe that McGinn is pragmatic enough to realize that fact, and work to protect Seattle citizens. His opponent and council seem more beholden to special interests that would benefit from a deep bore tunnel.

  • Anonymous

    The last mainstream poll I saw said that while most people aren’t in favor of this particular option, they say go forward anyway. I’m just guessing, but one reason is probably their realization that:
    1. no single option would ever get a majority, or even remotely close.
    2. we all have “nightmare” scenarios, and for many of us that’s either aerial or surface. The tunnel does pretty well, or very well, for most. Attempting to go back to square one makes nightmare scenarios possible….particularly since this is a State project that will reflect non-Seattle priorities (capacity) as well as Seattle priorities.
    3. Eight years since Nisqually is long enough.

    I doubt you’d win your vote. In fact, by the time voting rolled around, you’d be talking about going back 1.5 years in the process, plus the interminable legislative issues.

    As for your points about number of lanes: Alaskan Way will be widened, and also have a direct surface slope up to Western/Elliott. The tunnel will be the same width of the existing tunnel, but with breakdown lanes added. Capacity isn’t an issue. Neither is access to the waterfront…if you’re a car from West Seattle, you’ve lost two offramps but gained continuous access along the new Alaskan Way boulevard.

  • mhays

    PS, the last “anonymous” post is from me (matt hays or mhays).