What Danny said, and more…
A rap on Mayor Greg Nickels was that he was a strongman. He supposedly made decisions without taking the full advice of the public or City Council. Many citizens felt, therefore, that he was arrogant.
We say we want leadership… we like to whine about not getting it from our elected officials… but the truth is, we hate leadership, for as soon as a politician attempts to actually use political power and exert it, we attack him or her for being arrogant.
Take the Viaduct for example, perhaps the classic textbook illustration of the political cluster fuck we quaintly refer to as “the Seattle Way.” It’s been eight years since the Viaduct was nearly dismantled by the relatively mild Nisqually quake… eight years of watching it topple over, slow motion, onto the waterfront as its western supports gradually sink into the muck at a steady rate of a fraction of an inch a year. Eight years of knowing that we are one inevitable shake away from, depending on the time of day, perhaps the greatest man-made disaster in our region’s history.
And we could be on the verge of electing a mayor with workable plan to stop the plan to replace the Viaduct, but with no real plan to build political consensus for an acceptable alternative. I oppose the Big Bore too, and hell, I might even vote for Mike McGinn myself. But you gotta admit, on this issue at least, our city/region/state is more than a little fucked up. The Viaduct is a triple-digit fatality waiting to happen (or worse), and no elected official with an ounce of common sense or humanity could choose to allow it to stand any longer than absolutely necessary.
And the truth is, given our current financial, environmental, geographic and political constraints, there is no good alternative to the current structure—at least not one that could likely satisfy a majority of voters. The proposed tunnel is hugely expensive and technically uncertain, the current deal placing untenable risks on Seattle taxpayers, all in the service of an outmoded transportation philosophy that ignores the energy and environmental reality of the twenty-first century. Despite the claims of its proponents, the surface/transit option would likely exacerbate congestion, at least in the short term, and by dumping tens of thousands of vehicles a day onto surface streets, could prove the least pedestrian and bike friendly of the three major alternatives. And while a rebuild might seem like the perfect compromise in both price and function, no city planner in his or her right mind would propose building a double-decker freeway today across such a vital and beautiful waterfront, if one already didn’t exist, and it would be crime to burden future generations with such a stunning lack of civic pride and vision.
In their favor, by diverting traffic underground, the tunnel would do the most to open up, revitalize and beautify our waterfront into a civic treasure future generations would come to cherish. The surface/transit option is by far the least expensive and most forward thinking of any of the plans. And the rebuild… well… current generations of Seattleites grew up with the Viaduct, and if it was good enough for us, it’s good enough for future generations as well. (You know, stop trying to change Seattle into New York or San Francisco and all that.) But even if you believe there is a best alternative, good luck convincing a majority of elected officials, let alone a majority of the voting public.
Though, of course, that’s half of what Mayor Nickels somehow managed to do. He always favored a tunnel, and voters be damned, he ultimately got the governor and the legislature, who originally pushed for the less expensive rebuild, to agree to a tunnel deal, albeit an awfully bad deal for Seattle taxpayers. Call that arrogance if you want. But it’s also leadership.
And as we saw in Tuesday’s election results, we hate leadership.
In helping to end Mayor Nickels career, Mike McGinn has made blocking the tunnel one of the centerpieces of his campaign, and like him, I favor the surface/transit option, if not always for the same reasons. And if elected, I’ve little doubt that McGinn will succeed in fulfilling this campaign promise. For in Seattle, saying “no” is what we do best.
But whether a Mayor McGinn could succeed in building political consensus for his own favored alternative to the Viaduct before nature succeeds in knocking the current one down, well, that’s another question. And if he does show the leadership necessary to force his own plan into implementation, how could he possibly survive the dire political consequences of his success?
yes, tear up the streets, let the grass grow, we can all live in walking distance of out jobs! Ve don’t need no steenking devils wagons bothering our horsies and bike riders!
(sarcasm alert for the humor impaired — which means 95% of Seattle)
But on a side note, I am always wary (even when I use it) of statements led in by a phrase like “And the truth is,…”
but those coupla paragraphs are as cogent a description of the situation as I’ve come across, I do believe
no, it’s not leadership to say there’s a plan for the tunnel when the plan is based on a law that you say is unconstitutional….or if it is constitutional, the plan is to put all overruns on city residents. this is the opposite of leadership; it’s irresponsible. and to go further and say “there will be no overruns” is at best reckless.
the brightwater tunnel is only 17 feet in diameter. last week it was reported that the two boring machines are halted and are stuck in tunnels we can’t get to except with mechanics who scuba dive to the boring machines, because the water is filling up the tunnels. so, they have to dig a new entry shaft just to get to the machine, pump out water, then fix it. this is resulting in a delay of unkown length to get the tunnel boring going again, so in the meantime they are going to pipe the water from bothell to the sound….exactly the option the bored tunnels were to replace.
look every project has its overruns. so do tunnels. usually, they have more unknowns because no one has usually built a tunnel in the same place before…..so it’s well known that tunnels are risky. so you should build a tunnel based on a full plan with more engineering and a sound understanding of who wll pay for overruns.
because the agreement on the tunnel is built on the sand of a state law that is either unconstitutional or reckless presumes no overruns or ludicrously makes city residents alone liable for all overruns, the whole “plan” is actually a fake. it’s a device to pretend there’s a solution, when there is none in reality. as such it’s the epitome of politicians pandering and making promises they can’t fulfill, the exact opposite of leadership, and it represents the Seattle way…keep everyone happy with a nondecision decision that will certainly lead to 5–8 more years of study and renegotiation and process. in contrast mcginn saying “if I am mayor the tunnel will not be built” IS the clear decision and the clear leadership that you say you want.
“you say is unconstitutional” refers to nickels.
“you say you want” refers to Goldy and Westneat.
Despite the claims of its proponents, the surface/transit option would likely exacerbate congestion, at least in the short term, and by dumping tens of thousands of vehicles a day onto surface streets, could prove the least pedestrian and bike friendly of the three major alternatives.
Not only that, the result would be gridlock of our freight transporation infratructure and it would give developers the green light to force TTI to abandon Terminal 46, taking livable wage jobs with them. Still wondering why the “People’s Waterfront Coalition” never actually had anyone in it that worked on the waterfront.
Nickels in the Pickels
I agree with Goldy that Greg was and is a very good administrator. But, long term success in politics requires building a support base and Nickels failed to do this.
Nicklels supprt came from three organized sources .. labor unions, the dem party, and business. All that is pretty tradional and ays for LOTS of ads.
What he never did was create the kind of local support previous mayors have done . esp Norm Rice. Nor did he use the Council to create a political infrastructure to support his ideas.
I fault Obama in the same way. He ran a great TOP DOWN campaign that has left local activists (moi) largely leaderless.
This is inept poltics in an age of media chaos. The Brown Shorts understand this all too well .. they are very well organized onh the ground in churches, hate radio stations, … they have an almost fityh colyumn like structure of activists .. from Susan Hutchinson to the Mars Church.
If Damayor had built a community structure of his won or had kicked the GD demo party to do ITS job, Nickle would not be in the pickle now.
“The Viaduct is a triple-digit fatality waiting to happen (or worse), and no elected official with an ounce of common sense or humanity could choose to allow it to stand any longer than absolutely necessary.”
I think you’ve just made the case for replacing AWV with another viaduct. This is what Gov. Gregoire decided on and the Legislature funded several years ago. The work would be underway by now if Nickels hadn’t brought AWV replacement to a standstill with his gold-plater tunnel idea.
Oh, I know you like the surface-boulevard idea, but let’s be realistic, this is a state highway and the city doesn’t have a right to drive a stake through a key arterial that carries commerce through Seattle — Hwy. 99 is not a city street which carries only city traffic that the city can do with as it pleases.
I believe the viaduct should have been red tagged and torn down right after the earthquake no matter what sort of plan was in place to replace it. It is a hazard and structurally unsound and the state is being criminally negligent in not shutting it down for good.
I’m told political pressure is the only thing keeping the WSDOT engineers from closing the viaduct for good.
Goldy, you’re such a fucking imbecile. You’re all over the map with this incoherent post, which is why I have largely abandoned this blog.
You simply cannot reconcile this:
Which is true, with this:
Which is utter flapdoodle. Tell me what is “forward thinking” about exacerbating congestion, dumping tens of thousands of vehicles a day onto surface streets, and making things worse for pedestrians?
The cult greenies who populate this and other blogs, and who are the shock troops of the McGinn campaign, are at root a gang of public scolds. They would take great pleasure in making Seattle so hostile to private motorized transportation as to drive it out of the city altogether.
Better they should take heed of the bag tax vote. It didn’t fail because of the eeeeeeevil chemical industry. That’s a copout and avoidance of the truth. I suspect that the bag tax would have failed even if the chemical industry hadn’t poured a nickel into it.
It failed for the same reason the latte tax failed. Voters DO NOT LIKE self-righteous public scolds messing with their daily lifestyle choices. Plenty of people voted against the bag tax who supported a total ban on plastic packaging, instead of this gutless nickel-and-diming consumers to death.
The same public scold mentality is alive and well throughout this entire Viaduct replacement debate. How is foisting a commuter hell on this area “forward thinking,” except to a public scold?
The tunnel is the best alternative because it promises the least disruption to daily traffic. Even rebuilding the Viaduct would have snarled traffic for years, as the cut-and-cover tunnel would have, and the cult greenie public scold “surface option” absolutely and certainly would, if the Legislature ever let it see the light of day, which it won’t.
Time is money to people. The cult greenie public scolds are dreaming if they think they can get people to abandon private transportation, or tell people where they should live — closer to work — as if anyone in this day and age could be certain of where they might be working next year — or even next month! To a lot of people who have to get to work and home again, and to whom choices of residence and workplace are limited, the “surface option” is the MOST costly.
You have little doubt that McGinn will succeed? You’re fucking batshit is what you are.
I just spoke with Mother Nature about this, and she assured me that if you humans don’t knock down the old viaduct, she’ll do it for you one of these days (and maybe sooner than you think). So … make up your minds already!
@2 “mcginn saying ‘if I am mayor the tunnel will not be built’ IS the clear decision and the clear leadership that you say you want.”
No it’s not, because it still leaves the region locked in impasse between (a) the surface option, (b) the rebuild option, and (c) doing nothing.
To be a leader, he has to clearly choose one of the other options, then explain how he’ll make it happen, and then follow through by making it happen.
Um… Nickels had 8 years to get something done, he didn’t.
The surface streets plan is all drawn up and ready to go, the people of Seattle even had a vote and said they wantthe surface streets plan.
It would see to me throwing Nickels out was a sign that the the people of Seattle WANT leadership.
It’s not about arrogance, it’s about competence. He had none.
Michael @ 11:
You’re just a fucking liar. The surface streets plan has never been up for a vote. Every time you lie like this, I’m calling your lying ass out.
@6
I and a number of other people are more than prepared to stop a new elevated highway from being built on the waterfront by any means necessary. For now I am content to work within the system but if construction actually starts I will engage in civil disobedience. I do not care if I am arrested, I do not care if I go to jail. A new elevated freeway on the waterfront is an atrocity that cannot be allowed to happen. Building the viaduct in the first place is as stupid a civic decision as demolishing the Pike Place market or Pioneer Square in the name of “Urban Renewal” would have been. Lets not repeat the same mistake twice.
@7 “the state is being criminally negligent”
Oh c’mon, lighten up! You don’t want to deprive lawyers of work, do you? Think of all the contingency fees that will flood into Seattle’s economically battered legal sector if the fucking thing collapses and kills 5,000 people! And having to pay billions in legal judgments likely would force the state to finally adopt an income tax!
@13
Well technically no. But the voters did say “no” to a tunnel and “no” to a new elevated freeway which pretty much leaves surface. Furthermore the stakeholders committee had all but decided on the surface option when the chamber showed up with cascadia’s deep bore tunnel “plan”.
Chris Stefan @ 14, @ 16:
Of all the dumb-ass things to go to jail over, this about takes the cake. This is PETA territory.
Damn straight “technically no.” Why don’t you cult greenie public scolds have the stones to put the “surface option” on the ballot?
You know why. It would get clobbered. No one likes a self-righteous public scold.
@8 If you’ve “abandoned this blog” why are you here?
[raucous rabbit laughter in background]
@10
McGinn has already said he wants the surface option. He hasn’t really said how he plans to make that happen, he can’t really do anything to make it happen until and unless he makes it into office.
@14 “I and a number of other people are more than prepared to stop a new elevated highway from being built on the waterfront by any means necessary.”
Must be nice to have several million dollars to spend on legal fees in order to promote your views on a civic project.
Roger Rabbit @ 18:
I’m here for YOU, you crazy lovable fool!
@14 “if construction actually starts I will engage in civil disobedience”
huh — so you’re gonna chain yourself to a bulldozer?
Sorry to be sarcastic like this, but the reality is the opinions of peons like you and me don’t count for shit in the big scheme of things. One millionaire developer has far more say in what will happen then 10,000 ordinary citizens. That’s why residents, not businesses or commercial property owners, got stuck with the overruns for the Nickels Tunnel.
@17
Ok you may see it that way, I see building a new and bigger elevated freeway as an assault on the civic fabric right up there with tearing down the Pike Place Market or turning the Seattle Center into a parking lot.
Mind you I’ll use every legal means to stop a new viaduct before engaging in civil disobedience but if it comes to that I’m prepared to do it.
@21 Don’t let me detain you here, if you have better things to do.
@19 That doesn’t sound like much of a program for making it happen.
If this election turns into a referendum on the viaduct, as I suspect it will, then I think Mallahan is going to be our next mayor.
I’m not saying that’s good or bad, I’m just guessing where the tide will come in.
@ 23:
Civic fabric my ass! Homeless people on the streets, in need of food, shelter, clothing, mental health, alcohol, and drug counseling, and decent jobs is the biggest “assault on the civic fabric” this town faces, not a fucking highway.
Put your ass on the line for THAT if you expect to be taken seriously. Otherwise you’re just an esthete, a social and political dilettante, and one of many self-righteous public scolds.
@23 “Mind you I’ll use every legal means to stop a new viaduct before engaging in civil disobedience but if it comes to that I’m prepared to do it.”
If you can’t afford litigation (and who can?) you can always fall back on cardboard and felt markers.
@11: No, actually, less people voted for neither “no/no” option then for the tunnel. But nice try.
McGinn is taking us for a ride. He is making a promise that HE KNOWS he cannot fulfill. But, when Olympia tells him to pound sand GUESS WHAT? He will say that we are all victims, while doing what he knows is the only choice: accept the decision. That people are buying this obvious pandering is UNBELIEVABLE.
I think they should just replace the viaduct with the $2.1 billion they’ve got in hand for another viaduct and be done with it, before a whole bunch of people get killed. It defies credulity to suggest giving up a third of the north-south through traffic capacity in Seattle.
@13, 16
Ivan gets it right in theory, Chris gets it right in practice. I’ll take practice over theory any day.
The point I was trying to make was that Nickels had 8 years to get something done and didn’t. That’s not leadership.
The only person to show any leadership on the viaduct has been Carrie Moon.
@31: Are there any waterfront employees in Moon’s group? I bet the answer is No. That leaves downtown property interests and green architects, doesn’t it?
when the viaduct collapses and kills a whole buncha motorists+….
this city will be paying out the wazoo for decades & decades just to settle the lawsuits.
& it’ll be the fault of a do-nothing political establishment, if not also the wacko uber-environmentalists who wanna return to the days of yester-year, say c. 1840 (see McGinn cultists posts)
““mcginn saying ‘if I am mayor the tunnel will not be built’ IS the clear decision and the clear leadership that you say you want.”
No it’s not, because it still leaves the region locked in impasse between (a) the surface option, (b) the rebuild option, and (c) doing nothing. To be a leader, he has to clearly choose one of the other options, then explain how he’ll make it happen, and then follow through by making it happen.”
Nope. If McGinn wins, that’s a choice to do the surface transit option.
Now as to making surface transit happen:
1. it’s pretty clear the state can’t build a tunnel over the opposition of the mayor and the electorate of the city of seattle. There are 1,000 ways that the bored tunnel plan depends on the cooperation of the city; a mere announcement that the city will not in fact pick up any overruns would mean you can’t bond the project at all, and that’s just one example. The bored tunnel plan also is dependent on raising taxes inside the city of seattle and it’s not clear how that gets done if the mayor opposes it…if the state can somehow force a special district to be drawn, and the vote to be held, do you really think those landowners will vote to increase their own taxes when the mayor is campaigning against that and the city electorate just elected him on a platform of no tunnel? So part of making surface transit happen, is stopping the tunnel, and the little secret the tunnel proponents keep hidden is building the tunnel has many steps that the city must take in cooperation with the state and if mayor mcginn doesn’t play ball, then it’s not going to be built.
2. the surface transit option is the most doable of all options. because it can be broken into pieces and there is no one large megaproject involved!
it includes not rebuilding and not boring a tunnel. we all agree, not doing things is what we’re best at.
it includes a sewall. ok, I say the city can do the sea wall; we have to.
it includes 100 other things. many the city controls and we will do all or some of them. id we don’t do all of them then yes congestion will be the price. if we do all of them there will be less congestion.
the ones the state controls, like restriping I 5, why yes the state could screw us. but also, you guys are saying the congestion will be horrible, so i would think the state would respond to that and take action.
So yes the surface transit option is the most doable.
Finally, all the folks worrying about congestion, tell me this. State highway 99 has red lights all over it in Shoreline, in North Seattle, and down south. It has some red lights on it just south of downtown, too. How is it that it’s okay for it to be a normal arterial in those places yet in the 1. 5miles downtown it has to be a freeway? You get a few lights between Denny and Pioneeer Square. that’s a marginal adjustments that people can make and the studies were that it increases the drive time a bit.
Finally, the surface transit option has the power of being all stuff we SHOULD GO AHEAD AND DO ANYWAY WHETHER OR NOT WE BUILD A NEW FREEWAY IN THIS PART OF SR 99. Indeed many tunnel and viaduct proponents agree with that…that we should go ahead and to the surface transit improvements along with their preferred choice. So, yes, part of leadership is simply taking what we all agree on and moving forward on that!
@25
I never said it was, just that he has indeed chosen among the remaining alternatives.
@26
I wouldn’t underestimate McGinn. Sure the media will portray it as a referendum on the viaduct, and to some extent the candidates will play into that. On the other hand I wouldn’t underestimate the power of Mike going out and pressing the flesh everyday or the power of his army of volunteers. He’s run a textbook perfect grassroots campaign on a shoestring.
I’ve already signed up to doorbell my precinct for McGinn. Now Mallahan still has a chance to convince me he’s a better choice, but he’d better do it damn quick.
@34: Leadership is not taking 8 years of consensus and undoing the decision. Nice doublespeak, though.
look mcginn is clear — no tunnel.
mallahan is clear — tunnel.
yes, the election is about the tunnel.
if mallahan wins, then all he has to do is get the tunnel built while telling the state legislature and the bond investment community it’s all premised on a state law that unconstitutionally puts all overruns on city voters. So he will be telling the legislators the whole state will pick up the overruns, contrary to their stated position that it won’t. That someone will sue the state and they will be big, big losers. And he will tell Wall Street to come on and bond in billions, all based on a state law he says is legally flawed.
Now, maybe about 2 years ago he could get Wall Street to sell that kind of risk. But today, they’re a little more aware of risk and they don’t really want to pour money into things that have a crappy foundation and unclear risk horizons.
So, Joe, will have to move forward on a “plan” while he tells everyone the whole thing is based on an illegal law. Good luck with that!
Somehow, I don’t think if you were at T Mobile and you said “let’s move forward with a $4 billoin project, you see, it’s all based on this unconstitional law we’ll sort out later” you get very far.
Kind of undercuts his whole “effective management” promise, doesn’t it?
@37: What are McGinn’s policy positions on things OTHER then the tunnel? He has none. If you want a referendum, get signatures. One issue candidates are not suitable substitutes.
@37
Yep, if the tunnel moves forward expect plenty of lawsuits around the financing just for starters. We haven’t even got into the fact that the deep bore tunnel has no EIS. No doubt someone will find something there to sue over too.
I expect to be driving the Viaduct for the next 15 years at least.
@38
You clearly haven’t been paying attention. He has said plenty about issues other than the tunnel. In fact he has addressed more issues and in greater detail than Mallahan has.
So far Mallahan is an empty suit who has no idea about how city government works, the issues it faces, or what to do about them. He speaks in empty platitudes and couldn’t even be bothered to vote for most of the past 10 years.
@41: Great. Name some policy positions. Vapid rhetoric about urban dreams doesn’t fly. Policy. Positions. Please. Don’t change the subject to Mallahan.
Question for those advocating the surface/transit option: did you live here in March of 2001 when the Viaduct was shut down after the earthquake? Why don’t you remind everybody how the surface/transit option worked out in practice? As opposed to your theory of how things should happen and all.
@20 @22 & @28
First I won’t be the only plaintiff or the only one funding lawsuits. I can think of several organizations who will be right there with me with all of their members contributing to the cause. In addition there are some deep pockets who in no way want to see the viaduct rebuilt including property owners along the waterfront. Furthermore there are a number of really good environmental lawyers who no doubt would take on some of the lawsuits for free.
You say 10,000 citizens don’t have the power of one developer, but look a handful of your fellow citizens just tossed an incumbent mayor with a huge war chest, the support of the business community, and most of the large developers out on his ass. Those same citizens are going to continue to toss incumbents out of office if they continue to ignore the voters.
tpn.
He has positions on other issues. Mallahan says “effecitive management,” okay, that’s a nice overall position, I get it and I like it. But it’s kind of limited, too….
tpn, you say “@34: Leadership is not taking 8 years of consensus and undoing the decision.”
Um, you ignore the fact the consensus is not one including Seattle voters, and if they elect McGinn, then big duh, they aren’t for the bored tunnel!
“Nice doublespeak, though”
Hey, listen, it’s not me who’s saying the legal foundation of the tunnel and the 3 way deal between nickels sims and gregoire is flawed doublespeak. It’s them. You have a deal where
-state legislature wants to build a state highway project with overruns on backs of voters. Wow, that’s really sound!
-the city officials like nickels who back it say “well that part is unconstitutional” — wow that’s really sound management!
–both are lyling through their teeth to us and saying “there will be no overruns!” wow that’s really sound management, and very honest!
I gave the example of brightwater. Right now, we have boring machines that are STUCK IN THE MUD DOING NOTHING beause something went wrong, leading to really cheap repairs like DRILLING NEW SHAFTS TO GET TO THE BORING MACHINES and repair folks wearing scuba suits and laying “temporary” surface pipes.
This is what can go wrong with a 17 foot bored tunnel with two bores. A 54 foot bored tunnel very oviously CAN GO WRONG SOMEHOW.
The bored tunnel “plan” is based on mutual self deception and as such it represents everything that’s wrong with the Seattle way…the passive pretense there’s a decision when the plan isn’t a real plan with real numbers and real costs and a real clear understanding of the risks.
The bored tunnel “pla” is all doublespeak. McGinn has the balls to say so. That’s leadership. And as to other issues:
-yes the school district is nonfunctional. Every year more students flee. How can we have a livable walkable city and avoid sprawl if the urban schools are so bad we are approaching half of the kids not going to public school? At least McGinn is pointing to the problem. You say he can’t solve it. At least he’s focusing us on the problem. Mallahan’s solution appears to be to ignore it.
–McGinn is for broadband. I don’t follow this but can say this” it’s maddening to think we’re so high tech here and so progressive but the truth is cities like Tacoma are AHEAD OF US ON BROADBAND…maybe this has something to do with the fact there’s been more jobs created in the last 8 years in teh suburbs than inside Seattle?
–Police, parks, libraries, all that, yes we have to make cuts. How is it going to help us to at the same time load up on a billion fo debt and unkown cost overruns on the bored tunnel?
–city role in transit. Who do you trust more, someone who’s been advocating for transit for more than a decades or a cell phone executive?
–neighborhoods. McGinn got sidewalks in his neighborhood and was a neighborhood leader. Mallahan, um, he was involve din a Fremont Wurst Festival.
Look, Mallahan’s a nice guy and I like the fact he was a community organizer. But really, someone who’s been in a neighborhood community group knows more about the city. Someone who votes in primary elections, knows more about the city. You ain’t gonna be able to tag McGinn as the one issue candidate when his opponent hasn’t even voted for mayor in a few primaries in recent years!
@43
yes I was here.
The shut down isn’t the surface transit option; the surface transit option includes other improvements plus the fact that when streets are congested, more people adjust.
The point isn’t there won’t be more congestion, of course, there will be. The point is the extra congestion won’t be as great as you think, because people adjust to an increased cost in time to travel, and the total cost of that increase in travel times is LESS THAN spending $4 billion on a two mile highway segment that has no transit and doesn’t serve 1.3 of the viaduct drivers today anyway and at best simply gives more subsidization to the Shoreline-Burien commuter who, without the tunnel, might move his or her job or apartment so the broader public isn’t subsidizing a 20 mile commute based on the existence of two miles of freeway thru downtown.
Vancouver has no n s freeway. It works pretty well. Does Burrard and Lion’s Gate Bridge have more congestion because there isn’t a massive underground freeway to shoot me to Whistle? Um, yes. So what?
As stated before, 99 has red lights for many many miles thru lynnwood and shoreline. why don’t we spend another $2 billion to make a cut and cover tunnel through shoreline? That would speed up traffic, too. Oh wait, we know we don’t need to do that because people can get by just fine with a state highway with lights on it. It’s only downtown that is so magical and special that we need a $2 billion freeway for two miles. Somehow, the very same people driving from Tukwila and going through 30 lights down south, who then drive up to Lynnwood and go through 30 lights in Shoreline, my oh my, they can’t possibly endure going thru 30 lights downtown on a surface 99. Because they might be slowed down by a bit of traffic.
Okay, so their trip takes ten minutes longer.
To get from their home in Tukwila to their job in Lynnwood will take 40 minutes instead of 30 minutes.
Deal.
@ 46:
This is exactly the kind of public scold arrogance that led to the scuttling of the bag tax. Voters don’t like people like you telling them how to lead their lives. Logic has nothing to do with it. This is where the logical meets the visceral, and not you, not I, not Mike McGinn, and not the man in the moon can predict the outcome.
“The extra congestion won’t be as great as you think?” Fuck you. You can’t possibly know that.
@31
I didn’t say Moon was right; I said she showed leadership. She built a movement and got a plan on the table while electeds dithered.
With something like the viaduct, If you wait till you get everyone to agree on everything it would take years to get anything done…
The PWC, unfortunately, doesn’t list its supporters in its website.
http://www.peopleswaterfront.org/
@27
Knock off the name calling and I’d be right there with ya’ on that one.
@34
Best comment in the history of HA.
I don’t live in Seattle. I don’t like Nickels personally, having met him. But from what I have seen over the past few years, he’s not a bad mayor at all. Being a chief executive was clearly more suited to his talents than the County Council seat.
The whole “snow removal” thing was idiocy. We have a forty-year snowstorm and we don’t have the capacity on hand to handle it. I’d prefer that the city put up with a few bad days than spend forty years paying for equipment we won’t use.
I prefer a tunnel, but can see the case for surface streets. After all, in the future we will probably see less vehicle traffic, not more.
Seattlites are scolds, though I don’t really find it annoying. A recent restaurant review in the online newspapers had a reviewer praising a new NY style pizzeria and telling us that we don’t have good pizza locally (I know the reviewer, he lives here), and the commenters were absolutely LIVID at his supposed “arrogance.”
Ivan @8,
Gee… why don’t you try a little selective reading?
I wrote that I was confident McGinn could succeed at blocking the tunnel, not that he would necessarily succeed at anything else.
But you know, unless we all agree with you 100%, we’re all imbeciles and morons.
Well, Goldy, that’s exactly what I was referring to — blocking the tunnel.
Either way, it’s win-win for me. If the tunnel isn’t built, the Viaduct stays up. They might even retrofit it. I’ll wave to you, Michael, Voter, and Chris Stefan as I cruise through downtown at 50 MPH.
@47
Actually professional traffic engineers have a pretty good idea of what will happen under the various scenarios.
As for why we shouldn’t build the tunnel or a new viaduct go google “induced demand”. You can keep widening roads and building new ones to deal with “congestion” but it just leads to more congestion.
@46 is right, travel times will be a little slower and maybe a lot during rush hour but people will adjust. They will take trips at less congested times of day, they will combine trips, they will take transit, etc.
Besides only 2/5 of the trips currently using the Alaskan Way Viaduct are through trips, the other 3/5’s have their orgin or destination downtown. These trips won’t be served by the tunnel or a new elevated with no on and off ramps. Those 60,000 cars a day will be dumped at Denny and Royal Brougham. Furthermore about half of the through trips are going to Ballard, Magnolia, Interbay, Crown Hill, etc. which also won’t be served by the tunnel or the elevated rebuild the state proposed. In fact surface/transit does a better job of serving the trips to/from downtown and Ballard/Interbay by reconnecting the street grid and dispersing the trips with an orgin or destination downtown rather than dumping them at two already congested locations. (see “Mercer mess” and “stadium traffic”)
@ 54:
Sorry, not credible. The way to reduce traffic congestion is to build as many mass transit alternatives to highway travel as possible, and not to reduce highway capacity or mobility UNTIL those alternatives are online.
You can’t just reduce capacity and mobility and say “people will adapt.” That’s bullshit, and most voters won’t buy it.
Build a light rail spine FIRST! It should be online by the time the Viaduct retrofit reaches the end of its estimated 25-year life.
@27
Hey I’m not getting into some pissing match about “my issue is more important than your issue”, I find that sort of nonsense rather pointless. I have things I care about and you have things you care about, lets not argue over who’s issue is better when they don’t come into direct conflict.
Am I concerned about the homeless problems in Seattle? Yes. Am I motivated to become an activist on them? Not particularly. Transportation, land use, peak oil, and global climate change, and general civic engagement are much more important to me. To each his own.
@40 and @53
Sadly you are probably right assuming the damn thing doesn’t fall down and kill a bunch of people first. Personally I’d stay off the thing it is a death trap.
@53
You wont be waving at me, I’m not in Seattle.
I wasn’t trying to argue for or against any plan for the viaduct, but to use it as an example of lack of leadership (Seattle’s ever shrinking cycling master plan being another) on the part of mayor.
Like it or lump it, Carrie Moon put together a coalition of folks and put a cheap, workable, option on the table while Seattle’s elected folks did nothing.
@45: I see. No policy positions. And, a bunch of rhetoric about Mallahan. I don’t care about Mallahan at the moment. I care about your candidate, whom you can’t form a coherent argument in favor of.
But…
What I do know is the non profit EDs only deal with one constitutency, whoever happens to be involved with their issue. A company, otoh, has to deal with many differnt types of people of varying ideology, in order to accomplish a goal. Who would be the most pragmatic in representing everyone in Seattle and not just the urban design cult?
If the Mayor’s job was community organizing that would be one thing. But it isn’t. It’s an executive function. Even though I voted for Obama, it is disappinting that he can’t seem to take a solid position on much of anything, or fulfill much of what he campaigned on. He’s all inspiration and no meat. Yet the best alternative. Go figure.
No, I can’t support a figurehead for “green” development profeteering who has no clue about people’s jobs in the industrial transporation industry. Trade is a 1/3 of washington’s economy, and most of it comes through SODO; or, haven’t you heard? Steinbrueck and Moon and the rest won’t touch the issue, except to say “it’ll all work out”. The whole thing is wierd and culty, and most of Seattle won’t go for it, which is why you and others are so adamant about shoving your ideas down our throats via lawsuits.
Oh, this will be a fun 4 years.
@ 57:
The “surface option” is not “workable.” Repeating it 1,000 times will not make it so.
@55
You’d be surprised, because “people will adapt” is exactly what the research shows. Mind you I agree some form of high-capacity transit needs to be build between downtown and Ballard and downtown and West Seattle, but I wouldn’t put tearing down Seattle’s waterfront death trap and eyesore off just because the transit isn’t fully in place yet.
Besides I’m comparing surface/transit to the two highway replacement alternatives not to keeping the existing viaduct which needs to come down before it kills someone. Surface street and transit improvements will do a better job than the two highway alternatives of serving the roughly 66,000 daily trips on the existing viaduct going to or from downtown. Surface street improvements will also do a better job of serving the roughly 22,000 daily trips on the existing viaduct going to or from Ballard and Interbay.
@ 60:
Because you say so? I think eyesore is where it’s at for you.
The Viaduct is yet another reason why Portland is better than Seattle.
Portland use to have an ugly elevated highway too, on it’s waterfront.
But they had the good sense to get rid of it years ago.
@58
Well McGinn is more than a one trick pony. You can find what he has to say about various things out there if you look. Yes, I know the campaign needs to collect what he has to say about issues other than the tunnel and put it somewhere more accessible as well as counter the notion that he is a one-issue candidate.
I understand your concern that neither candidate is really addressing the concerns of Seattle’s labor, trade, and industrial communities. However I’ve found Mike McGinn to be quite accessible, go to an event he is planning on being at and talk to him. Heck if you represent a labor or business group you might even be able to get him to come to you. Perhaps he can address your concerns, perhaps he’ll take your input on issues he hasn’t formed a strong opinion on. At the very least he’ll listen and if you engage him enough you’ll probably have a seat at the table if he becomes mayor.
I wish I could say the same for Mallahan. The one opportunity I had to see him in public he wasn’t taking questions from the general public and his handlers were intercepting anyone who was trying to talk to him or ask him questions.
@61
Not “because I say so”. I’ve spoken with people who do transportation planning and engineering for a living. I’ve read a lot of the relevant literature. Most of what I’ve heard or read has agreed with what I’ve said here.
Hell WSDOT’s own studies show the deep bore tunnel or a bypass elevated highway (WSDOT’s preferred highway alternative for most of the 8 years this saga has been dragging out) won’t serve roughly 88,000 of the 110,000 daily trips currently served by the viaduct. So by default no matter which of the three alternatives you pick you force at least 80% of the existing trips into the same scenario you’d have with surface/transit.
Is it really worth spending billions on a two mile road that only serves 22,000 existing daily trips? The other 88,000 daily trips will have to “just deal” with congestion if the tunnel is built.
Max Vekich, when he visited Drinking Liberally, commented that there would be much less need for the tunnel if the Port operated its gates 24 hours instead of only during the day. Perhaps there is part of a solution there.
Transitwise, the sensible thing to do is to build the long-overdue Seattle rail system, but this is likely to happen when pigs fly.
Yeah, I don’t get it. No surface option because the streets can’t handle it. Yet we will pay for a tunnel that won’t handle what the Viaduct does? How does that work? And, Seattle is on the hook for all cost runovers?
Lastly, I, like many Seattle residents, know what we voted on in the advisory vote. A tunnel is a tunnel is a tunnel. I voted, like the majority, no tunnel. Don’t f’ing tell me I didn’t know how I voted.
@65:
Right, why can’t the freight move in and out of the port in the evenings and at night? They certainly load and unload ships 24 hours a day.
One thing I think should be part of any solution to the waterfront is providing a direct connection from the terminals along Alaskan Way to the BNSF Stacy street intermodal yard. On dock rail would be another thing to think about.
wow ivan, thanks for the lesson in how to win friends and influence people. “Fuck you. You can’t possibly know that” — can I quote you on that? IT sure persuades me, I now understand how we can build a bored tunnel that’s 54 feet in diameter when we can’t build one that’s 17 feet in diameter, and it gives a compelling answer to bond investors who would worry about a project the leading proponent of which (nickels, now mallahan) say the law undergirding the project is unconstitutional. We’ll just tell wall street, fuck you, you can’t possibly know that…then they will have over a few billion pronto.
And then we can tell the state legislature the same thing. Hey, Mary Margaret Haugen, you think that state law imposing cost overruns on the city is enforceable? Well fuck you you can’t possiby know that.
I am sure she will say, “oh well gosh darn it all, we tried to stick you with the cost overruns, but we failed. Okay we give in. The state will pay for the $2.8 billion AND the billion in overruns. You win Seattle!”
Nickles loss was not as much for notbuilding an arena (as Westneat reports) for the Sonics, as it was for settling with the NBA and not enforcing the lease. By allowing the Sonics to pull out of the lease, we open the door for the Mariners, Sounders, Storm to do the same. Had the lease been enforced, we could have bought some time to come up with a remodling option for the Key that would have been doable within the confines of the newly passed legislation.
@67:
Right, why can’t the freight move in and out of the port in the evenings and at night? They certainly load and unload ships 24 hours a day.
Wow. Are we really suggesting that the global shipping ndustry adjust all of their routes and schedules to accomodate a “surface” option? On top of that, are we suggesting tha BNSF also adjust their national rail schedule to suit Seattle’s needs? Ships unload and load when they show up. Are we also going to force all local warehouses to stay open 24/7? In a recession? Not likely. There is on dock rail at Harbor Island and in West Seattle but NOT at Terminal 46. And a good chunk of that are for local consumption; not all is destined for long haul or rail.
I’m going to go with the best case scenario, and assume that this is due to not knowing a heckavalot about logistics, rather then wanting everyone else to bend to our green developer whims.
@33 “this city will be paying out the wazoo for decades & decades just to settle the lawsuits”
No it won’t. The viaduct is state property.
Too bad old Capt. Rolf Neslund’s wife murdered him, cut his body up in the bathtub with a chainsaw, and cremated the pieces in a burn barrel in their backyard. We need another bridge.*
* For those of you who came to Seattle too recently to remember, old Capt. Neslund ended the debate over a new West Seattle bridge by ramming the old one with a ship. They should’ve named the new bridge after him, because he did more to get it built than anyone else.
@46 “when streets are congested, more people adjust”
Yeah, they get even madder than they already are!
@ 68:
Whatever made you think I had any interest in being your friend, or in influencing you.
@70
Look I know damn well the ships load and unload when they show up which is why I’ve personally witnessed a ship unloading at terminal 46 at 2:30 in the morning. However the gates are only open at the container terminals from 7 to 4:30 or 8 to 5.
If anything the port is inconveniencing the shippers by not operating the gates at the terminals 24/7 since trucks can only move in and out of the terminals when the gates are open.
While not every business is set up to receive deliveries before 7 AM or after 5 PM plenty are and many might find it more convenient to deal with their port traffic during second or third shift rather than first shift as the port forces them to do now. This is a huge aid to freight mobility as there is hardly any traffic on the roads during the early morning hours.
I’m also aware terminal 30 and 46 don’t currently have on-dock rail. I was suggesting installing it might not be a bad idea and might increase freight mobility even further, especially considering there are active tracks right across the street from the terminals.
tunnel proponents should acknowledge that the early January agreement between the three executives has already failed. the politics of the agreement required that three legislative branches do the heavy fiscal liftiing. Executive Sims signed on to the deep bore agreement because it included a fix for the Metro Transit fiscal crisis: the one percent MVET. but the Governor abandoned that pretty quickly and the Legislature said no. the Metro Transit budget is in free fall. the Mayor of Seattle has yet to ask its Council for the means to pay for its $930 million share; we only know that the utility relocation will come for rate increases. the seawall, the surface streets including the second phase of Mercer, the streetcar, the transit priority treatments all have unknown funding. on top of that, we will have a new mayor. WSDOT has until the end of the calendar year to provide a firmer cost estimate for the deep bore and its portals. what if it is higher than the available state funds? what will the Legislature do with its part of the agreement. the bill says “cost over runs” will be covered by the property tax payers in the Seattle area. what are they and who are they? those that benefit most directly are those making bypass trips through downtown Seattle in vehicles, not necessarily Seattlelites. under either the deep bore or surface and transit, the AWV will be demolished and the waterfront opened up. the key aspect of the debate is the expenditure of the known state funds; they can only be spent once. the opportunity cost of the deep bore is that the state funds cannot be spent to improve I-5 or the surface streets or on transit improvements. is bypass traffic the highest priority? As pointed out above, the Interbay and Magnolia traffic is treated the same in the deep bore and surface and transit options.
tpn, #70: actually, unloading and loading is 24 hours, but cargo only leaves the Port on the land side on day shift. IIRC, Vekich said that one of the reasons for the tunnel is to take some of that load off of I-5 in the day. If that’s so, changing the Port’s schedule would probably be an excellent simple fix.
@77: The Port does not determine “schedules”, the terminal operators (tenants) do. There is a misperception that the Port directly employs people in cargo operations; they do not. What you are asking is for private companies to double the on-dock labor costs with no oncrease in overall total tonnage. That is the kind of thing that drives jobs out of Seattle. Classic tail wagging the dog there.
@78
Look, maybe shifting the hours trucks move in and out of the terminals would work for improving freight mobility and maybe it wouldn’t. But at the very least what is the harm at looking at ways of moving freight that don’t necessarily involve building a new highway.
Maybe the terminal operators can’t economically add gate hours or shift the hours the gates are open. On the other hand maybe moving the trucks at times of day where there is less traffic on the roads saves enough money elsewhere that it pencils out. I think it is at least worth a look.
@79: The trouble is that there is no proposal to “have a look”. In fact, McGinn et al is pitting environmental issues vs. jobs. Remember how this played out in the 70s and 80s? It meant hoards of out of work people on the penninsula hating environmentalists (and Democrats). Now McGinn is repeating this same mistake.
What remains clear is that for McGinnsters, keeping living wage jobs in Seattle is less of a priority then promulgating pie in the sky urban design visions. I’ll bet money that McGinn does not get a single endorsement from the Teamsters or the ILWU. I bet Dave Gering of the MIC does not endorse him. Has McGinn entered into a dialouge with any of these folks? Judging by his supporters on this thread, I have much doubt. The MIC is vehemently opposed to the surface option. That’s a huge chunk of the job base along SR99.
But the bottom line is that it appears that everyone else has to make concessions for this “surface” option that even fewer people then the tunnel support. It reeks of entitlement and an unwilligness to understand that people’s jobs and livlihoods are at stake. There is also a failure to understand that the logistics industry is global and is managed on a “just in time” basis. Gate hours do not determine the freight patterns; they are the result of them.
So creating a logistical choke point means increasing labor costs, delaying cargo turns, and more diesel fumes from trucks idling in commuter surface traffic (Ballard to I-90, West Seattle to Downtown, Burien to Downtown)–imagine trying to comply with new emissions standards under this scenario. These realities are not being factored into the equation; the surface option is based on a pretermined outcome that needs to exclude certain facts. The end result is a flight of jobs to Tacoma, Kent, and even Vancouver and Prince Rupert, BC.
I think the hugely expensive tunnel is the pie-in-the-sky option–the state’s transportation engineers don’t advise it, after all. The main reason working class jobs and people are leaving Seattle (aside from the general collapse of US manufacturing) is most likely the real-estate bubble, which makes it expensive to operate any land-intensive business like a factory or warehouse in Seattle, and expensive for workers to live in Seattle. So don’t go complaining that this is going to cost jobs–the jobs are already going.
If, as tpn argues, the main reason to build the tunnel is to support the Port tenants, then this project is a huge subsidy to the tenants. Is this the best way to spend tax money in hard times? I doubt it very much. There are very likely less expensive ways to support Seattle workers and industry than building this tunnel. There are probably also ways to do without the tunnel and improve diesel freight emissions.
Can anyone point to the WSDOT studies on the tunnel? Are they publicly available?
tpn, #80: “Gate hours do not determine the freight patterns; they are the result of them.”
And somehow freight patterns exactly match first-shift hours, when the roads are busiest? I believe the technical term for this is “nonsense.”
@80
So you’d have the state, city, county, and port spend billions for a road that can’t be used by many trucks and will only serve a small fraction of the existing trips along 99.
Wouldn’t it be better to do a number of smaller freight mobility projects rather than one huge megaproject with marginal value to freight mobility and industrial businesses?
As for gate hours, why don’t we take a look at it? It seems suspicious to me that the gates at the terminals have bankers hours.
Oh and another thing, I can do without your condescending attitude. You know nothing of me or my background. Don’t assume I’m some elitist granola crunching green with no appreciation for the working man.
@81: Now the logic becomes circular. DPD upzoning, residential development, and the developer lobby were causes of the local bubble. But since they are driving out jobs as you say, then we might as well keep up the same policies.
@83: The McGinn people haven’t looked into it. There is little evidence that they care. “Appreciation” doesn’t pay the bills. Neither do predetermined outcomes. The entire McGinn meme about how this won’t effect jobs and is therefore not worth looking at is what is most condescending, not some post on some blog thread.
I suppose it is suspicious that gates are only open during the days. That might have to do with the cost of labor as well. But maybe not. Maybe it’s a Grand Conspiracy, and the face that I won’t mention that is Proof of its existence.
@84
In case you didn’t notice the real-estate bubble was a nationwide phenomena driven mostly by the availability of credit.
I mean what would you advocate? Locking in the current land use for every square inch of the city. Refusing to issue any permits for demolition or new construction? Trying to freeze everything as it is now would only drive prices higher.
rebuild another elevated highway and be done with it…hell, throw a roof on it and plant some fucking grass on top – that way the eco-nuts will be on board also…
@85 It’s clear you have lost this debate. Evidence: straw men arguments voiced in hyperbole, sudden interest in the tone of the discussion, and more or less trying to change the subject into a debate on land use and the national housing market (not driven by available credit–driven by the ability for lenders to pass on risk to counterparties–but I digress), rather then sticking to defending your candidate. McGinn won’t consider the impact of his one issue on jobs, because it would undermine his credibility that he Is The One who Wil Stop the Tunnel. It’s an empty promise in an attempt pander to his base (who will forgive him for failing to deliver), to pander to knee jerk people who hate government spending/stimulus in a recession (read: conservatives) and this becomes more apparent by the day.
tpn, #85: calm down, man. I’m trying to address your points. I didn’t invent the Seattle real-estate bubble, and it has an effect on both commercial and industrial business and working-class housing–it’s pointless to deny it. I don’t find your claim that gate hours are set by patterns of international trade credible; I’ve said why. Perhaps there’s no way to change them…but perhaps there is and I think the possibility is worth investigating. If it would reduce daytime traffic on I-5, that would be a huge win. I don’t believe that that giving a huge subsidy to the businesses (if that is what the tunnel in part is, which I want to confirm) which run the port is the best way to support working men and women. I’ve real doubts about major highway projects for economic stimulus, as well.
These are obvious points of disagreement, and they are also subject to verification. Stop calling names. As a participant in the debate, you don’t get to say who won or lost, so stop claiming victory.
The tunnel doesn’t make sense to a substantial fraction of voters. That’s a legitimate issue, and an important one. If it’s the best solution, then let’s hear the logic, and see the analysis which backs it up.
Again I ask…
has ANY of the anti-tunnel/viaduct/highway, anti-democracy uber-environmentalist candidates cracked even 30% of the vote?
Doesn’t that tell you the level of support people have for their anti-car agenda?
Naaahhh, just like w/ the bag referendum, it just shows us how stupid people are when they don’t let the environmental nazis control policy.
I don’t know many anti-democracy uber-environmentalists, so it’s hard to say. Usually they’re so pro-democracy that they’re anarchists: don’t want no stinking government messin’ with their democracy. Croak!
tpn, I consulted with a union activist politician, and he says that the bottom line to the unions and the Port is freight mobility, so as long as that’s addressed in some way, I don’t think the tunnel is a requirement. Whether it can be…let’s ask McGinn!
So here’s what’s hilarious: proponents of the surface/transit option claim that “people will adjust” to the massive congestion that will be caused by the closure of the viaduct. We know that’s not true. And we know that because we had a dry run of what it would be like when the viaduct closed after the earthquake in ’01.
It took two hours to get from West Seattle to downtown. Traffic getting in and out of downtown was an absolute nightmare. That’s the reality of the surface/transit option. That’s what happened when the viaduct actually closed. You can claim that people will change their commuting habits all you want; reality belies your claims.
And that’s why the surface/transit option is nothing more than a pipe dream that will be an unmitigated disaster.
Bax, there’s a difference between a planned change and an emergency shut-down. But, no, your intuition trumps all.
One issue that seems to be forgotten in all this is the long-term use of the tunnel. Does it make sense to undertake a huge civil engineering project that is likely to be obsolete in a generation? Especially in the middle of a recession, when we need all the money we have just to maintain essential services.
Hominids.
@92:
Does it make sense to undertake a huge civil engineering project that is likely to be obsolete in a generation? Especially in the middle of a recession, when we need all the money we have just to maintain essential services.
This is a conservative based argument, in that the current liberal/Keynesian policy is that infrastructure investment is needed in times of economic downturn to minimize the adverse effects of the business cycle. Would you extrapolate this same argument to say that Obama should not have promoted a stimulus plan? Because it applies.
It’s one more nail in McGinn’s coffin, in that his defenders are appealing to a conservative ideology of “no taxes” and as you have illustrated, no government spending during a recession.
Bax, there’s a difference between a planned change and an emergency shut-down. But, no, your intuition trumps all.
Do you understand the irony of what you just wrote? I’m not talking about intuition. I’m talking about what actually happened when the viaduct shut down. There was complete and utter gridlock south of downtown, because the surface streets that surface/transit proponents claim could handle the traffic couldn’t handle the traffic.
There’s no real difference between the viaduct shutdown in 2001 and what will happen if the surface/transit option is implemented. None. We’ve already had a dry run. If you want it to take two hours from West Seattle to downtown, that’s fine. Just quit being dishonest, and tell people that’s what you want to do. Then we can at least have an honest conversation about the surface/transit option, instead of pie in the sky fantasy.
“There’s no real difference between the viaduct shutdown in 2001 and what will happen if the surface/transit option is implemented.”
That seems very unlikely–if nothing else there will be buses ready to go. But there will be other changes as well.
tpn, I would prefer that stimulus projects be of lasting value and not aggravate existing problems. The tunnel seems to me to fail both criteria.
That seems very unlikely–if nothing else there will be buses ready to go. But there will be other changes as well.
This is probably why Ivan got so pissed earlier in this thread. Because you and other surface/transit proponents say that something “seems unlikely” doesn’t mean that is actually unlikely. The extra buses will just be sitting in the gridlock. The “changes” are to essentially dump traffic on the N/S streets of downtown. In other words, just what happened in 2001, when it took two hours to get from West Seattle to downtown.
Did you live here in 2001? Were you in the city when the viaduct was shut down?
Bax, I think the traffic engineers know a bit more about the subject than you do. At this point, however, I want to review the proposed plans before I write anything more, and perhaps interview Mike McGinn as well. I’m outta this one, until that’s done.