Last night on my show, former Governor Gary Locke unequivocally stated his opposition to building another elevated freeway to replace the aging Alaska Way Viaduct… and he said former Governors Rosellini, Evans and Lowry were firmly with him. (Gov. Spellman is apparently neutral.) Gov. Locke went on to say that while he enthusiastically supports the current “Tunnel-Lite” proposal, and believes the financing is in place to build it, he would back a surface-plus-transit option over a rebuild should voters reject the tunnel on March 13. The overwhelming priority for voters in the upcoming special election, Gov. Locke repeated several times, is to vote “No” on the rebuild.
Personally, I tend to agree with King County Executive Ron Sims, who last week on my show stated that Mayor Nickels’ tunnel proposal is politically dead. But what do we know? It is very clear that Gov. Chris Gregoire, Speaker of the House Frank Chopp and a handful of vocal legislators adamantly oppose a tunnel, and it is hard to imagine them backing down. But the pro-tunnel forces contain some heavy hitters and experienced politicos, so it may be too early to count them out.
What I find most striking though is the growing number of high profile political, civic and business leaders who are willing to publicly lend their credibility towards the notion that a surface-plus-transit option is not only a reasonable and serious alternative, but preferable to a rebuild. The pro-rebuild/anti-surface camp tends to brush off surface supporters as a bunch of crazy, car-hating hippies or something like that, but that’s a pretty dismissive way to describe Gov. Locke, Executive Sims and a substantial chunk of our political and business establishment. While wealthy developer (and deadbeat) Martin Selig may support a rebuild/retrofit campaign, Gov. Locke insists that many of Selig’s tenants do not. Indeed, Gov. Locke claims that the majority of businesses who would be most impacted by waterfront redevelopment are willing to tax themselves hundreds of millions of dollars via a special improvement district to help pay the cost of a tunnel. (A funding mechanism I first floated way back in November of 2005.)
I fully understand that some of our state Democratic leaders see a political upside to shoving another elevated structure down our throats: that voters elsewhere in the state will view them as finally standing up to us Seattle bullies. But I sincerely hope that such a base (and ultimately self-defeating) political motivation does not overwhelm the decision-making process should Seattle voters reject a rebuild on March 13. The final decision shouldn’t pivot on a political battle between Seattle and Olympia or between Nickels and Gregoire; it should be based on what is best for Seattle and the state. But for such an objective debate to occur, the pro-rebuild forces must actively disown the politically convenient misconception that Seattle is somehow demanding the rest of the state to pay for its “gold-plated tunnel.”
The state has committed $2.8 billion towards replacing the Viaduct. Assuming WSDOT’s cost estimates are correct, that is exactly what it will cost state taxpayers to build a new elevated structure. But if the city chooses the more expensive tunnel alternative, nobody expects the state to cough up additional funds. The tunnel will not cost state taxpayers a dime more than the $2.8 billion already committed… indeed, if the city opts for a cheaper surface-plus-transit alternative, it will save state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars!
I find it ironic that there are state legislators — Democrats no less — who are willing to pass a state law requiring Seattle voters to tax themselves to build a new Sonics arena we’ve already rejected at the polls… while at the same time refusing to let us tax ourselves to build the Viaduct replacement alternative the city wants.
This is our city, this is our waterfront, and the Viaduct overwhelmingly carries our traffic. If we choose to raise the money locally to pay the difference between a rebuild and a tunnel, that should be our choice. And if instead we opt to let go of our 1950’s mentality and re-imagine the way we address transportation and transit issues, we should be given every opportunity to make the case that a less expensive, less auto-centric surface-plus-transit alternative is the right solution for our city.
What happened to MY land when the urbanites confiscated a chunk of it via the CAO?
Right on. And let me again plant the seed of an idea: if Frank Chopp succeeds in pushing another viaduct down our throats, his name had better be all over the damn thing where everyone – not just drivers – can see it. At pedestrian level on the support columns, and in 5-foot-high letters on the outside of the upper roadway so every downtown worker, tourist, resident, and ferry rider knows who’s to blame.
The Frank Chopp Viaduct – Seattle’s newest monument to ego.
Is light rail part of the surface/transit option?
Several trends could converge over the next couple of years that would make surface + transit by far the best option. Gas prices could skyrocket, decreasing vehicle throughput requirements. Transit Now could take people out of their vehicles. There could be an economic slowdown, again decreasing vehicle throughput requirements. Point being, there is no need to make this decision that Seattle will be living with for one hundred more years right now. The options being considered don’t require RTID money, so that is no reason to rush into some kind of half-baked and not-well-vetted decision immediately. Let’s get some of the more important regional projects underway and funded (light rail, SR 520), let the benefits of Transit Now start showing themselves, and THEN study how best to deal with this stretch of SR 99. We don’t HAVE to decide now, and it probably would be better to wait, as it is clear powerful interests are all over the map on how best to proceed.
Wasn’t Gary Locke’s legacy supposed to be as having Washington State lead in education?
How did that work out for him?
Goldy:
Your head is way up your ass on this one. The “surface-transit” alternative will not fucking work. It is the worst kind of faith-based transportation planning imaginable, pushed by moonbats who want everybody else to sacrifice for their “vision.” It will reduce capacity and lengthen trip time for everybody. It is a huge step backwards, and there is no reason to accept it.
As for Gary Locke, why should I or anybody else believe a fucking word he says? Elected twice by large majorities, he couldn’t even stand up to Tim Eyman, and now he works for a union-busting right-wing law firm. Using Gary Locke to buttress your argument is grasping at straws indeed.
Goldy,
I like your arguments and if your city council could have found what they lost (guts) and put it on the ballot when Gregoire asked for it the first time, with a tax attached to the tunnel, you would already know what the majority of Seattle voters want………………
goldy, explain in specific terms (you know, as literally concrete as a viaduct or tunnel) the transit part of the ‘surface/transit’ option & i’ll stop describing you as a car-hating hippie with his head in the clouds. reducing capacity because you believe it has the potential to all work out in the end does, in fact, make you as stupid as cary moon… and yes, i’ll describe anyone (including current and former elected officials) making that argument the same way until they offer me some details.
at least you’ve finally acknowledged that it is “our traffic”. now you need to recognize that it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon & I5 is already too crowded to take the excess. the population of this city isn’t decreasing, hybrid cars are becoming more available and popular (i.e. gas prices less of an issue), and you’re talking about tearing down a freeway. brilliant. this isn’t about politicians wanting to stand up to seattle residents. it’s about the reality of the situation. i don’t like the idea of a brand new viaduct, but it’s far preferable to nothing.. which is all you’ve offered as an idea.
Alex at #4 –
I agree with what you’re saying, except that there is a pretty good reason to rush – the viaduct is one more earthquake away from falling down. So while I would rather we take the time to really figure out if surface/transit is a viable option and if Tunnel Lite is as affordable as is billed, after a while we’ll have to consider closing the viaduct down just because it’s such a safety hazard.
@6: I guess you just travel back and forth between Western and Idaho St all day long? Because the Battery Street tunnel is 4 lanes, Aurora ave is a surface street, and there’s traffic lights before the 1st ave bridge. I don’t see why a 6 or 8 lane surface road a la Aurora Ave won’t work.
“This is our city, this is our waterfront, and the Viaduct overwhelmingly carries our traffic. If we choose to raise the money locally to pay the difference between a rebuild and a tunnel, that should be our choice. And if instead we opt to let go of our 1950’s mentality and re-imagine the way we address transportation and transit issues, we should be given every opportunity to make the case that a less expensive, less auto-centric surface-plus-transit alternative is the right solution for our city.”
You Bet! The city should pay the difference. Not King County, Not the state.
We agree.
Now let’s get going replacing SR520 bridge!
FYI off topic.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/.....BU600.html
Six party talks seem to be working…
Jason @8,
Let me repeat:
I don’t know exactly what a surface-plus-transit option would look like, and all I’ve ever argued for was the opportunity to explore it fully and make the case if there is one. But you and others, by dismissing surface supporters as a bunch of kooks, clearly don’t want us to have that opportunity.
As is pointed out @10, the Viaduct runs from a surface street with lights at the South to a four-lane tunnel to the North… and yet you describe as crazy anybody who suggests that we might want to look into exploring whether we need a 6 to 8 lane freeway in between.
Goldy @ 12:
“all I’ve ever argued for was the opportunity to explore it fully and make the case if there is one.”
Sounds just like Bush talking about military “victory” in Iraq. HOW MUCH MORE “PROCESS” DOES THIS TOWN NEED? The election is March 13. People all over this area have talked and studied this damn thing to death for years now. Let’s get the hell ON with it!
Jesse P.
The vision of a huge earthquake is absolutely no reason to rush this decision. Yes an earthquake could take down the viaduct. But an earthquake could kill just as many people no matter what replaces the current viaduct structure. Plus, the odds are miniscule that a huge quake is going to hit during the short period between when a rushed plan would have been implemented vs. when a well-thought-out plan would have been implemented (a year or two window). And, other structures – buildings, bridges, overpasses, etc. – also would come down if the quake were big enough. The potential for an earthquake is no reason to unduly rush the decision of how to progress from the current viaduct situation. That is especially the case now, when there are strongly-held positions and there has not been anywhere near enough analysis of the costs of the current slate of proposals.
As many of you know I’ve made it a hobby of mine to catch conservatives lying on this blog. Which isn’t hard to do, but sometimes it does take a long time to develop the trap.
Puddybud, just got caught lying and I made my case on the Feb 10 open thread @ 68.
Enjoy, my fellow Liberals.
Take heed conservatives and repent.
whore @ 15: Take heed conservatives and repent.
Fuck you, you smug son of a bitch.
Learn to use a commma, you whore.
“Gov. Locke claims that the majority of businesses who would be most impacted by waterfront redevelopment are willing to tax themselves hundreds of millions of dollars via a special improvement district to help pay the cost of a tunnel.”
This is a step in the right direction although it remains to be seen whether they really will do it — talk is cheap. My concern all along is that hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs for a tunnel would get passed along to all local residents — and when you do the math, that’s hundreds of dollars per household. Money I don’t want to pay for a project I won’t use to improve views I’ll never see. Not when I’m a senior citizen on a non-inflation-adjusted fixed income with my own expenses to worry about. But I remain intensely skeptical about who will really foot the bill for the gold-plater, given how adept the people who promote these things usually are about making someone else pay for them.
Speaking of which, keep a damn close eye on those civic leaders down in Renton who are scheming to score a shiny new $500 million civic improvement for their burg that will be 99% paid for by taxpayers who DON’T live in Renton! If the legislature even LOOKS like they might be thinking about going along with a statewide tax to pay for this piracy, we should get all over them.
Renton civic leaders…
Good old MAYOR Kathy Keolker, formerly Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, an upstanding liberal in the mold of Gregoire and Billary.
Sniveling conservative @ 16.
“Learn to use a commma, you whore.”
Sure, sure, sure, right after you learn to spell comma with two “m’s,” Puddybud. I mean, PacMan. I mean, LIAR.
I just LOVE to see the anger seething from the fingertips of conservatives.
Face it, conservatism as a political movement has died on the vine because PUNKS like you have ZERO moral clarity.
oohhh you got me!
holding downe the M key a moment too long is the moral equivalent to the lack of use/misuse of comma\’s.
You\’re an idiot AND a whore. How proud you must be.
Some Sniveller @ 15 said:
And fuck you very much, too. Learn to spell “comma,” ya frackin’ dope!
dippy @ 21… learn to read.
put down the bong and fucking pick up Hooked on Phonics.. instead of Hooked on Crack
“. . . moral equivalent to the lack of use/misuse of comma\’s.
Moral equivalent in punctuation?
Fuck, how stupid are you?
How do you merge morality and punctuation? Do you even understand the concepts of the RNC talking points you’re regurgitating, Puddybud?
Dumb ass.
P.S.: While you’re lecturing the rest of us on the finer points of grammar and punctuation, your misuse of the backslash is getting rather boring.
Sniveling Puddybud @ 21:
Speaking of crack; are you a “Crystal Meth-odist” like Rev. Haggard?
Just axin’.
dippy @ 21… learn to read.
put Sniveling Liberal Lefties Love Islamo-Nutjob\’s says:
down the bong and fucking pick up Hooked on Phonics.. instead of Hooked on Crack
Liar, liar, Puddybud, PacMan, Sybil, Crystal Meth-odist dude.
Do you not see the problem with your remark? Hooked on Phonics is a teaching program for those who can’t read. Obviously Darryl can read. After all, he, too, caught your typo.
Maybe you should invest in a reading comprehension program. Ever thought of reading My Pet Goat with a reading teacher? It might help you understand the meaning of words. Can you say W-O-R-D?
Baaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa
You dolt.
Puddybud:
Time to pick a new persona, you’ve fucked this one up reaaaaal good.
Git-r-done! You “Honky”-tonk woman.
There is no transit component, nor is one proposed even by Sound Transit or anyone else for anyone west of Highway 99. The BRT proposed for West Seattle connects into… wait for it… nothing! That BRT will be on the same clogged roads as… cars!
Someone wants to propose doing something about that, then I’m all ears. Otherwise the “surface+transit” is a farce. Unless there’s a through north-south route, I-5 will be a parking lot for 12 hours a day and the environment will actually suffer more from the amount of additional smog from cars that move at 3-5 mph. Sounds really progressive and super enviro friendly to me!
Humor in the big dig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7dfzNHfQmA
You know what…. maybe we are all missing on a great opportunity here. For those in favor of a tunnel, how about this. “Go Big, or don’t get home” (I know lame-o)
I have been against the tunnel option for a long time becuase of the cost, and the inevitable overuns that will fall on the state to pick up… We all agree (I think) that the I-5 design and especially the choke point at the convention center is a real mess. Something must be done to AWV. Let’s build a super highway tunnel. Hell if we’re gonna dig a hole, dig a big one… Instead of 6 lanes, how about 10 or 12? We might be able to realize more federal help by merging the new thruway to I-5 south and north.
N/S I-5 express lanes go thru the tunnel and the current express lanes become general use lanes…
Rough idea that will cost massive $$$$
If we want to move traffic thru Seattle, building 4 lanes or even 6 barely meets the existing demand. It would be up to our congressional delegation to really go to bat for Seattle to get more federal help, but with a tie-in to I-5 the justification is there…
@1 Your land wasn’t confiscated. You still own it, and continue to enjoy its exclusive use and enjoyment, subject only to reasonable government regulation necessary to prevent your use of your land from adversely affecting the community as a whole.
@1 Besides, you don’t really “own” your land. All land belongs to the Great Mother Rabbit. You merely enjoy a license to its exclusive use and occupancy while you “own” it, subject to payment of taxes and reasonable government regulations. The Great Mother Rabbit does not allow you to pave over the whole thing because it’s hard on bunny teeth to dig holes through asphalt.
@15 Pudding Butt aka Kevin Carns got caught lying again? What’s new about that? Everything he writes is a lie.
@16 Looks like you got to him, GBS. Good work! Keep it up.
The way to manage traffic with the surface + transit option is the same way it’ll be managed during the construction of any other option: surface + transit.
The bigger vision of the surface + transit goes something like this: Obviously, we all drive too much and there’s no way to manage the growth of traffic with new highway lanes. Therefore, growth should be directed in order for fewer people to work so far from home. This kind of growth supports walkable neighborhoods and bicycling networks and transit systems that are more practical to arrange.
Oh wait. What am I thinking! Seattle is where the film “Mulletville” was made. Hyuk! Hey thar, hillbillies! Ain’t that George Bush a grand ol guy? Whup them darkies, I say. Yesirree! We gotta rid the daggone wurld of them thar non-krischun types. They’s all goin to hell, anyways.
Indeed, Gov. Locke claims that the majority of businesses who would be most impacted by waterfront redevelopment are willing to tax themselves hundreds of millions of dollars via a special improvement district to help pay the cost of a tunnel.
Well, they’re going to need quit being coy about it and step up and sign up for the special improvement district, though. And it had better be for the six-lane tunnel and not the four-lane fraud.
I’m going to go out on a very short limb and predict that the tunnel fails, and fails badly, on March 13. My crystal ball clouds up on the viaduct, though. It’s perfectly conceivable to me that it could fail, although not by as much as the tunnel; it’s also perfectly conceivable to me that the voters could send a strong resounding “YES!” on the viaduct as a message to get something done around here.
Hi, Goldy! Nice of you to acknowledge, however obliquely, my theory about how Speaker Frank Chopp is playing this. However …
But for such an objective debate to occur, the pro-rebuild forces must actively disown the politically convenient misconception that Seattle is somehow demanding the rest of the state to pay for its “gold-plated tunnel.”
Ummm … not quite, Corky. The problem the pro-rebuild forces have is that Seattle(TM) wants Seattle to pay for a gold-plated tunnel. Oh, no doubt Seattle(TM) would love to stick the rest of the state with the cost, but they’ve already given up on that objective.
And you’re quite the one to call for an objective debate after your “viaduct lite” crap the other day. So whatever happened to those rumors, anyhow? Hmmmmm?
@2:
Grow up: Judging from the poll results, Speaker Chopp is representing his constituents. Deal.
Jenny – excellent video. At least part of my scepticism about the tunnel idea is due to all the “fun” Boston had with the “Big Dig” project.
Even tunnel supporters will enjoy the video. It’s just so true!
I’m talking, of course, about the King 5 poll results that are out there.
Again, if Seattle(TM) wants its tunnel, it’s going to have to cover the difference for a real tunnel. I’ll support the tunnel if that happens. And then I’m going to have to go to full alert on account of all the flying pigs.
@34:
Please get a clue about Seattle and then come back and discuss the issue, mmmmkay?
When are people going to wake up to the fact that the state highway department has blown 10s of millions of dollars on a highway builders dream to expand freeway capacity through downtown Seattle that will never be built.
The highway department holds all the cards and state hired engineers with old school ideas about traffic have manipulated the debate, including the opinions of many of the above.
If Frank Chopp really wants to save us all a ton of money and support a workable fix he should come clean and tell us his first priority is to build a high capacity surface transit mix and quit the gameplaying.
He’s right about one thing: the upcoming vote isn’t the right vote. The rebuild of a bigger freeway over Seattle is dead. Has been for years. The only real choices are tunnel light or a high capacity surface proposal the state’s engineers can’t even imagine.
How much has the state highway department spent on this so far? Would someone please print that?
@41:
The rebuild of a bigger freeway over Seattle is dead.
OK. I just decided to go ahead and bookmark this. Saves me some time to have to look it up.
I’m not going to pretend those results should be carved into stone as to what will happen once we’ve counted the votes — but if the viaduct gets a 60 percent yes vote, it’s getting built.
And, yeah, it’s over the whole city all right.
:rolleyes:
CORRECTIONS: It’s FORMER Gov. Gary Locke, and current “Governor” CHRISTINE (not Chris) Gregoire; as much as she thinks she has (and wants) the male reproductive equipment, (like Gary), she certainly doesn’t. Maybe suggest to her to click her heals together twice and chant ‘There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home……’
Is light rail part of the surface/transit option?
Nobody knows for certain, but the best guess at this point is that the “surface/transit” option consists of tearing down the viaduct and putting a bunch more buses on the streets downtown. Now, keep in mind that these same streets are also supposed to be where all of the cars that were on the viaduct now go. How are the buses going to get through that mess? They’re probably not.
Also keep in mind when you hear people talk about how all of these other cities have torn down freeways that they’ve torn down spurs, not a freeway all the way through downtown. If we tear down the viaduct and don’t replace it, we’d be the first city in the country to do anything like this.
Given that there’s supposed to be more and more people moving into this area, the end result is likely to be complete gridlock in Seattle. Which is fine if you don’t like cars, but for the rest of the world that needs to get around, it’s a disaster. And for all the talk of being pro-environment, considering it’s going to create a whole lot of idling and stop and go cars, it’ll just make things worse.
Or maybe it’ll get people out of their cars to avoid the gridlock. Who knows?
Also, I think the current value of the surface transit is “undefined.” It could be light rail, in which case it won’t share space with cars at all. Or, if it’s busses and they build an eight lane surface option, they might just decide to make one of those lanes HOV only. A dedicated busway would be nice, but an HOV lane would be more likely (in my layman’s opinion).
I would still like to see the city shut down the viaduct for a couple of days so we can see where all the cars go if there’s no viaduct, how big the traffic load really is, and get some idea of what to plan for if, (fill in your favorite deity here) forbid, the Viaduct were to collapse. Then maybe we could do some intelligent planning based on hard data rather than what-ifs and oh-nos and maybe-they-woulds.
(I remember someone once telling me that when the UC Irvine campus first opened, there were no sidewalks anywhere. Then, after a year or two, they looked at the paths students had created and put the walkways where the students created them. Sounds like a smart idea to me, and something to think about when considering a surface transit option.)
I would still like to see the city shut down the viaduct for a couple of days so we can see where all the cars go if there’s no viaduct, how big the traffic load really is, and get some idea of what to plan for if, (fill in your favorite deity here) forbid, the Viaduct were to collapse.
We already did that in 2001 after the earthquake. The result was absolute gridlock. It took 2 hours to get to downtown from West Seattle.
That’s what’s so interesting — we’ve already had a preview of the “surface/transit” option when the viaduct was shut down after the earthquake. Why don’t people remember what a total nightmare it was?
@47: No! Even leaving aside transit (and I’m a bitter cynic about transit planning in this town) – nobody is talking about tearing down the viaduct without expanding Alaskan Way and improving the Spokane St. connections at least.
Shutting down the viaduct in place is a lot different than tearing it down and using its footprint to expand the surface Alaskan Way.
Traffic in Seattle sucks. The viaduct carries over 100,000 cars every single day, which is an inconvenient truth for those dreamy greenies who think that already overcrowded streets in a city incapable of building a subway can somehow “absorb” it. Where do they think it’s going to go? Pure practicality dictates that Seattle needs more freeway options – sure more transit options would be nice – but Seattle voters would rather whine at each other than do something that works.
Surface plus transit will help any of us in West Seattle … how?
I don’t park in downtown now. I don’t have a single damn bus or combination of busses that will get me where I go in less than 3 hours. I drive it via the viaduct in 16 min each way.
I should vote to give that up for the benefit of… exactly who? Those who do not use it any damn way?
No.
Rebuild it and let the downtown developers love it or sell their investment properties.
The damn road was there when they bought their property, apartment or office space.
If we had built the monorail then no one in West Seattle would be complaining, but since you screwed us, with viable transit once , we can only assume a surface plus transit will repeat the ” transit to the burbs and back only” definition of “transit” so overwhelmingly evident in Seattle.
There is a transit component in the surface/transit option, as well as the tunnel option.( Not sure about the rebuild)>
The City and Metro/King County have plans to rebuild the waterfront streetcar, double tracking it so they can have service every ten minutes, and likely using modern streetcars. At the same time, Sound Transit is proceeding on proposing an extension to that from the 5th and Jackson end east into the ID and then north to First Hill/Capitol Hill..They’ll need a place to put the streetcars (the Pioneer Square proposed location would only hold 5 or so cars), and the former location has been torn down to accommodate the Sculpture Park.
Makes sense, doesn’t it?
I know that if I were the transit czar, I’d run tracks to West Seattle, but First Hill, Capitol Hill do have a lot of population density, and ID residents and merchants have demanded streetcar service for years.