Extra Fizz: McGinn and the Surface Transit Option

McGinn will screw over the South end and West Seattle big time. The South Park Bridge will likely be decommissioned next year, putting all that traffic on the 1st Ave bridge (which opens from time to time). Next, all the the commuter traffic from the Northeast to I-90 will be stuck on surface streets downtown. Stand at the corner of EM way and 1st Ave during any commute.

This gridlock will impact trade (freight logistics) which will drive jobs out of town (Tacoma, Vancouver, Kent Valley flood plain). All of those businesses that get a chunk of wages spend by people who work here will take a hit.

McGinn promises more drama over this, and people are pretty damn sick of it. Especially considering that a viadcut rebuild got the MOST support out of all of the choices.

McGinn will screw over the South end and West Seattle big time. The South Park Bridge will likely be decommissioned next year, putting all that traffic on the 1st Ave bridge (which opens from time to time). Next, all the the commuter traffic from the Northeast to I-90 will be stuck on surface streets downtown. Stand at the corner of EM way and 1st Ave during any commute.

This gridlock will impact trade (freight logistics) which will drive jobs out of town (Tacoma, Vancouver, Kent Valley flood plain). All of those businesses that get a chunk of wages spend by people who work here will take a hit.

McGinn promises more drama over this, and people are pretty damn sick of it. Especially considering that a viadcut rebuild got the MOST support out of all of the choices.

What the surface critics omit is that the SR 99 improvements south of downtown are already under way and will provide six lanes of non-stop 50-mph traffic from the West Seattle Bridge all the way to downtown, to S. King St.

Since most of the WS traffic on 99 is going to and from downtown, they will be served just fine via multiple access points at King St. and northward — in fact they will be served better than the current situation which routes all CBD traffic via 2 one-way ramps at Seneca and Columbia streets.

What the surface critics omit is that the SR 99 improvements south of downtown are already under way and will provide six lanes of non-stop 50-mph traffic from the West Seattle Bridge all the way to downtown, to S. King St.

Since most of the WS traffic on 99 is going to and from downtown, they will be served just fine via multiple access points at King St. and northward — in fact they will be served better than the current situation which routes all CBD traffic via 2 one-way ramps at Seneca and Columbia streets.

There’s next-to-no transit in the “surface/ transit.” If McGinn is misleading anyone, it’s not the lesser Seattle folks. It’s the folks who think he can deliver more public transit out of thin air.

There’s next-to-no transit in the “surface/ transit.” If McGinn is misleading anyone, it’s not the lesser Seattle folks. It’s the folks who think he can deliver more public transit out of thin air.

McGinn’s plan seems like it will play poorly with many very important constituencies.

1. Turning the waterfront into an “auto dominated” Aurora-like corridor is not going to play well with anyone – downtown business and property owners, environmental leaders, civic leaders, etc.

2. Significantly reducing SR 99′s capacity, as his surface option would do, and slowing transit, auto and freight mobility is not going to play well with anyone who uses SR 99 regularly, especially those who depend on it – i.e. people who work or live in West Seattle, Magnolia, Ballard, the Port of Seattle, etc.

3. Turning away $2B+ in federal funding for a big public works project will not play well with organized labor.

4. And most importantly, snarling up I-5 for years to come by creating “The McGinn Bottleneck” will not play well with anyone.

McGinn’s plan seems like it will play poorly with many very important constituencies.

1. Turning the waterfront into an “auto dominated” Aurora-like corridor is not going to play well with anyone – downtown business and property owners, environmental leaders, civic leaders, etc.

2. Significantly reducing SR 99′s capacity, as his surface option would do, and slowing transit, auto and freight mobility is not going to play well with anyone who uses SR 99 regularly, especially those who depend on it – i.e. people who work or live in West Seattle, Magnolia, Ballard, the Port of Seattle, etc.

3. Turning away $2B+ in federal funding for a big public works project will not play well with organized labor.

4. And most importantly, snarling up I-5 for years to come by creating “The McGinn Bottleneck” will not play well with anyone.

McGinn’s plan seems like it will play poorly with many very important constituencies.

1. Turning the waterfront into an “auto dominated” Aurora-like corridor is not going to play well with anyone – downtown business and property owners, environmental leaders, civic leaders, etc.

2. Significantly reducing SR 99′s capacity, as his surface option would do, and slowing transit, auto and freight mobility is not going to play well with anyone who uses SR 99 regularly, especially those who depend on it – i.e. people who work or live in West Seattle, Magnolia, Ballard, the Port of Seattle, etc.

3. Turning away $2B+ in federal funding for a big public works project will not play well with organized labor.

4. And most importantly, snarling up I-5 for years to come by creating “The McGinn Bottleneck” will not play well with anyone.

But rebuild can happen if surface transit is given the nod, whereas rebuild can’t happen if tunnel is given the nod, so in fact, rebuild folks are more aligned, temporarily and tactically, with McGinn, than with Mallahan.

(Best part of the Times pieces is how Mary Margaret Haugen lets on that in fact the State would not mind having an excuse to revoke the funding then spread it around to every legislator’s district ourside Seattle. Putting to rest the notion the tunnel deal is “done.”).

But rebuild can happen if surface transit is given the nod, whereas rebuild can’t happen if tunnel is given the nod, so in fact, rebuild folks are more aligned, temporarily and tactically, with McGinn, than with Mallahan.

(Best part of the Times pieces is how Mary Margaret Haugen lets on that in fact the State would not mind having an excuse to revoke the funding then spread it around to every legislator’s district ourside Seattle. Putting to rest the notion the tunnel deal is “done.”).

But rebuild can happen if surface transit is given the nod, whereas rebuild can’t happen if tunnel is given the nod, so in fact, rebuild folks are more aligned, temporarily and tactically, with McGinn, than with Mallahan.

(Best part of the Times pieces is how Mary Margaret Haugen lets on that in fact the State would not mind having an excuse to revoke the funding then spread it around to every legislator’s district ourside Seattle. Putting to rest the notion the tunnel deal is “done.”).

@4,

FWIW, McGinn and the opponents of Prop. 1 in 2007 (the roads and transit initiative) were told that the legislature and the governron would never allow them to bring back a transit only (ie, light rail only) measure in 2008.

McGinn said that despite the naysaying from the state, it could be done. He was right. A transit only initiative passed in 2008.

@4,

FWIW, McGinn and the opponents of Prop. 1 in 2007 (the roads and transit initiative) were told that the legislature and the governron would never allow them to bring back a transit only (ie, light rail only) measure in 2008.

McGinn said that despite the naysaying from the state, it could be done. He was right. A transit only initiative passed in 2008.

@4,

FWIW, McGinn and the opponents of Prop. 1 in 2007 (the roads and transit initiative) were told that the legislature and the governron would never allow them to bring back a transit only (ie, light rail only) measure in 2008.

McGinn said that despite the naysaying from the state, it could be done. He was right. A transit only initiative passed in 2008.

@1, “gridlock” is a technical term. It does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean slower travel times.

Also, I might as well keep posting these links:
Freight Segmentation Report [PDF]. Check out pages 8 and 18 (PDF numbering, the pages are labeled 4 and 14). It’s about 4.8% of total viaduct traffic. Much more of the traffic uses I-5, which McGinn wants to improve by closing the Convention Center exit. AWV Industrial Centers Survey: “the businesses surveyed recognize commuter solutions to driving alone have the best chance of reducing congestion”.

@1, “gridlock” is a technical term. It does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean slower travel times.

Also, I might as well keep posting these links:
Freight Segmentation Report [PDF]. Check out pages 8 and 18 (PDF numbering, the pages are labeled 4 and 14). It’s about 4.8% of total viaduct traffic. Much more of the traffic uses I-5, which McGinn wants to improve by closing the Convention Center exit. AWV Industrial Centers Survey: “the businesses surveyed recognize commuter solutions to driving alone have the best chance of reducing congestion”.

Josh, in the last paragraph I think you’re referring to RTID, and not the tunnel, when you write:
…strange-bedfellows coaltion that sent the tunnel down in flames in the special 2007 election-…

Josh, in the last paragraph I think you’re referring to RTID, and not the tunnel, when you write:
…strange-bedfellows coaltion that sent the tunnel down in flames in the special 2007 election-…

I’m not sure why the original plan, of removing the viaduct, setting up the surface option, and then leaving the option open for a tunnel if necessary, is so wrong. It would give us time to test the surface option and get a better idea of the tunnel’s total cost. At the very worst it would be 5 years of 10 min longer commutes, which would certainly not kill our businesses. But realistically I think people would see how minimal the impacts of a surface option really are.

I’m not sure why the original plan, of removing the viaduct, setting up the surface option, and then leaving the option open for a tunnel if necessary, is so wrong. It would give us time to test the surface option and get a better idea of the tunnel’s total cost. At the very worst it would be 5 years of 10 min longer commutes, which would certainly not kill our businesses. But realistically I think people would see how minimal the impacts of a surface option really are.

I think this article, and to some degree even McGinn (providing the article adequately quotes his position) gets the entire messaging wrong on this issue.

1) The tunnel bypasses Seattle, eliminating downtown exits.
2) 60-70% of the current viaduct traffic uses those downtown exits.
3) That means that the tunnel option will place 60-70,000 vehicles onto surface streets in Seattle.
4) By sinking all costs into the tunnel, you lose the funding to adequately improve the traffic flow throughout the Seattle grid.
5) This makes the tunnel WORSE at moving traffic than a pure surface option.
6) The risks of cost overruns are not only likely, but likely substantial.
7) The legislation approving the tunnel plan is illegal. A State project cannot mandate that unspecified local taxpayers cover cost overruns. Because of that, the legislation will fail. This is simply true.
9) Lawmakers know this.
10) The mantra that “it’s a done deal” is disingenuous. Lawmakers know this. Ask them if it’s legal.
11) Nobody will be forcing people out of their cars.
12) The surface option improves livability of Seattle, in multiple ways.
13) Freeing up costs on the tunnel will allow expenditures to under-developed transportation options.
14) This INCREASES options, it doesn’t decrease options.
15) Highway 99 IS ALREADY A SURFACE OPTION both North and South of Seattle.

The tunnel is never going to be built. Period. It has been crafted by people who are tired of working on the difficult project and hoping to distract the public. It is Legislative work at its very worst.

Mallahan doesn’t understand the issue with any level of complexity. He’s merely playing the role of parrot for the Legislature who crafted this smoke and mirrors story about a “done deal.”

I think this article, and to some degree even McGinn (providing the article adequately quotes his position) gets the entire messaging wrong on this issue.

1) The tunnel bypasses Seattle, eliminating downtown exits.
2) 60-70% of the current viaduct traffic uses those downtown exits.
3) That means that the tunnel option will place 60-70,000 vehicles onto surface streets in Seattle.
4) By sinking all costs into the tunnel, you lose the funding to adequately improve the traffic flow throughout the Seattle grid.
5) This makes the tunnel WORSE at moving traffic than a pure surface option.
6) The risks of cost overruns are not only likely, but likely substantial.
7) The legislation approving the tunnel plan is illegal. A State project cannot mandate that unspecified local taxpayers cover cost overruns. Because of that, the legislation will fail. This is simply true.
9) Lawmakers know this.
10) The mantra that “it’s a done deal” is disingenuous. Lawmakers know this. Ask them if it’s legal.
11) Nobody will be forcing people out of their cars.
12) The surface option improves livability of Seattle, in multiple ways.
13) Freeing up costs on the tunnel will allow expenditures to under-developed transportation options.
14) This INCREASES options, it doesn’t decrease options.
15) Highway 99 IS ALREADY A SURFACE OPTION both North and South of Seattle.

The tunnel is never going to be built. Period. It has been crafted by people who are tired of working on the difficult project and hoping to distract the public. It is Legislative work at its very worst.

Mallahan doesn’t understand the issue with any level of complexity. He’s merely playing the role of parrot for the Legislature who crafted this smoke and mirrors story about a “done deal.”

We must move forward from our dependence on autos, and our transportation plans have to reflect that. To put it less delicately, I could give a rat’s ass that some self-centered SOV driver from W. Seattle has a tough time in gridlock. Get over yourself.

We must move forward from our dependence on autos, and our transportation plans have to reflect that. To put it less delicately, I could give a rat’s ass that some self-centered SOV driver from W. Seattle has a tough time in gridlock. Get over yourself.

You know, I’m not sure about the last paragraph, either, Josh. If the lesser Seattle volken don’t like the fancy tunnel, they don’t like the tunnel. Is there any other candidate for them? Write in John Fox?

You know, I’m not sure about the last paragraph, either, Josh. If the lesser Seattle volken don’t like the fancy tunnel, they don’t like the tunnel. Is there any other candidate for them? Write in John Fox?

Timothy @ 9:

If what you say is correct, then what you’ll get is a retrofitted Viaduct. I look forward with eager anticipation to your reaction when that happens.

@9

Great post!

Timothy @ 9:

If what you say is correct, then what you’ll get is a retrofitted Viaduct. I look forward with eager anticipation to your reaction when that happens.

@9

Great post!

There’s a bombshell here–McGinn opposes the underpass for freight traffic from Piers 37/46. This underpass is critical for the Port and for trade, offering a direct link to the freeway system. Replacing it with a stoplight is practically an invitation to those businesses to move to the Port of Tacoma.

That would open those piers up for condo development, which developers have wanted for some time. Four lanes on Alaskan Way rather than six from the ferry terminal to the stadiums would also make it more residential-friendly.

Intent or coincidence?

There’s a bombshell here–McGinn opposes the underpass for freight traffic from Piers 37/46. This underpass is critical for the Port and for trade, offering a direct link to the freeway system. Replacing it with a stoplight is practically an invitation to those businesses to move to the Port of Tacoma.

That would open those piers up for condo development, which developers have wanted for some time. Four lanes on Alaskan Way rather than six from the ferry terminal to the stadiums would also make it more residential-friendly.

Intent or coincidence?

Josh–

You’re right. McGinn probably peaked in the primary. Polls show there probably aren’t enough tunnel naysayers to carry him through the general. By identifying himself so strongly with one issue he may have boxed (like a coffin) himself in.

Josh–

You’re right. McGinn probably peaked in the primary. Polls show there probably aren’t enough tunnel naysayers to carry him through the general. By identifying himself so strongly with one issue he may have boxed (like a coffin) himself in.

It’s laughable that anybody who doesn’t work in the industry gives two shits about freight throughput. It may be economically important, but it’s simply not part of the debate on any other transportation issue whatsoever. So why do folks pretend they’re freight junkies when it comes to the 99 corridor? Do they even know there’s a freight train tunnel under downtown already?

It’s laughable that anybody who doesn’t work in the industry gives two shits about freight throughput. It may be economically important, but it’s simply not part of the debate on any other transportation issue whatsoever. So why do folks pretend they’re freight junkies when it comes to the 99 corridor? Do they even know there’s a freight train tunnel under downtown already?

@16, you are mixing modes, trains and trucks.
The throughput point is well taken, most people really do not know.

The tunnel does not have downtown exits and the exit under the convention center (I think) gets closed as part of the I-5 improvement.

McGinn does not have the power to raise mvet to pay for transit.
His imagined savings to redirect to more important things do not have funding sources, the port sure as hell isn’t giving him the $300 million lid for bike paths and sidealks in and around Vulcan developments.

@16, you are mixing modes, trains and trucks.
The throughput point is well taken, most people really do not know.

The tunnel does not have downtown exits and the exit under the convention center (I think) gets closed as part of the I-5 improvement.

McGinn does not have the power to raise mvet to pay for transit.
His imagined savings to redirect to more important things do not have funding sources, the port sure as hell isn’t giving him the $300 million lid for bike paths and sidealks in and around Vulcan developments.

@5 …seems a nonsequitur…my point is as strange as the rebuild/surface “coalition” in the primary was, it makes sense, because the toher option ( a rebuild/tunnel marriage of convenience) would be even stranger….

since there’s no rebuild guy in the race, the rebuilders have to go with the one who leaves the door a bit more open to the rebuild (which IMHO surface does, and tunnel doesn’t).

And it’s not a “misstep” for McGinn to explain the nitty gritty of his no. 1 issue, it’s expected and welcomed, I would think.

@5 …seems a nonsequitur…my point is as strange as the rebuild/surface “coalition” in the primary was, it makes sense, because the toher option ( a rebuild/tunnel marriage of convenience) would be even stranger….

since there’s no rebuild guy in the race, the rebuilders have to go with the one who leaves the door a bit more open to the rebuild (which IMHO surface does, and tunnel doesn’t).

And it’s not a “misstep” for McGinn to explain the nitty gritty of his no. 1 issue, it’s expected and welcomed, I would think.

I think the biggest “misstep” is having the Seattle Times frame your #1 item for you.

He does not get to present the whole package, so reading the points with interjected counter-points does not help anybody that wants to frame a debate.

The flipside is getting out in front and have everybody nitpick the details of the plan to death.

If he kills the tunnel you should prepare to see the Choppaduct get re-inserted into the debate.

I think the biggest “misstep” is having the Seattle Times frame your #1 item for you.

He does not get to present the whole package, so reading the points with interjected counter-points does not help anybody that wants to frame a debate.

The flipside is getting out in front and have everybody nitpick the details of the plan to death.

If he kills the tunnel you should prepare to see the Choppaduct get re-inserted into the debate.

@5: Sorry I’m slow on this. So what McGinn is McGinn proposing to put the “Transit” in “Surface/Transit”?

Is he arguing that the state legislature will do as he suggests and put his transit-only tax increase on the ballot as an alternative to fixing/ replacing the viaduct?

If not, where is the money for “transit” in his “surface/ transit” plan going to come from?

@5: Sorry I’m slow on this. So what McGinn is McGinn proposing to put the “Transit” in “Surface/Transit”?

Is he arguing that the state legislature will do as he suggests and put his transit-only tax increase on the ballot as an alternative to fixing/ replacing the viaduct?

If not, where is the money for “transit” in his “surface/ transit” plan going to come from?

@16 Freight movement is part of the equation. We’re talking specifically about freight from Piers 37/46 to SR 519 then onto I-5 or I-90, not trains. The underpass from Piers 37/46 included in the tunnel plan works well for freight and shipping uses.

A street-level stoplight, on the other hand, works well for residential or office uses.

The Port of Seattle is supposed to put $300 million into the Viaduct replacement project. Will they if McGinn gets his way on this underpass? If not it could be a budget-buster.

Hanjin shipping has a lease on Piers 37/46 through 2015, with an additional 10-year option they must exercise by the end of 2012. If they don’t, everything is on the table for 88 acres, right smack dab on the waterfront.

I suspect Hanjin is watching this election closely.

@16 Freight movement is part of the equation. We’re talking specifically about freight from Piers 37/46 to SR 519 then onto I-5 or I-90, not trains. The underpass from Piers 37/46 included in the tunnel plan works well for freight and shipping uses.

A street-level stoplight, on the other hand, works well for residential or office uses.

The Port of Seattle is supposed to put $300 million into the Viaduct replacement project. Will they if McGinn gets his way on this underpass? If not it could be a budget-buster.

Hanjin shipping has a lease on Piers 37/46 through 2015, with an additional 10-year option they must exercise by the end of 2012. If they don’t, everything is on the table for 88 acres, right smack dab on the waterfront.

I suspect Hanjin is watching this election closely.

@14: Intent.

@14: Intent.

@7 & 11,

Nope. In the last paragraph, it’s as I said: I’m referring to the March 2007 special election where rebuild voters and surface transit voters aligned (w/ 69.6% of the vote) against the tunnel.

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/200703/res.htm

That’s the coalition my post is about.

@7 & 11,

Nope. In the last paragraph, it’s as I said: I’m referring to the March 2007 special election where rebuild voters and surface transit voters aligned (w/ 69.6% of the vote) against the tunnel.

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/200703/res.htm

That’s the coalition my post is about.

@ 21, 22:

Hanjin and a whole lot of other people. If Josh and ECB didn’t have their lips planted firmly on McGinn’s butt, they’d call him out on it, and force him to address it. Thank goodness Lindblom still has a job; he’ll get around to it.

But if you read the comment thread on Lindblom’s story, you’ll see that the comments (241 of them as I write this) are running about 25-1 anti-McGinn. Only a fool would claim that is representative, but it’s somewhat more than nothing.

Here’s what it’s coming to: If the mayoral election becomes a referendum on the tunnel, it’s a tossup. If it becomes a referendum on the “surface option,” McGinn is toast toasty toast.

None of this is an argument for Mallahan, who I like personally but don’t consider qualified.

But qualified or not, if he runs on “Vote for Joe Mallahan. He won’t bring traffic to a screeching halt,” I like his chances a lot better.

Now McGinn, if he gets to “OK, we hate the tunnel so much we’ll settle for a retrofit and punt the final solution 20-25 years down the line,” could win on that. It might be worth it to watch Chris Stefan’s and Timothy’s heads explode, not to mention ECB’s.

@ 21, 22:

Hanjin and a whole lot of other people. If Josh and ECB didn’t have their lips planted firmly on McGinn’s butt, they’d call him out on it, and force him to address it. Thank goodness Lindblom still has a job; he’ll get around to it.

But if you read the comment thread on Lindblom’s story, you’ll see that the comments (241 of them as I write this) are running about 25-1 anti-McGinn. Only a fool would claim that is representative, but it’s somewhat more than nothing.

Here’s what it’s coming to: If the mayoral election becomes a referendum on the tunnel, it’s a tossup. If it becomes a referendum on the “surface option,” McGinn is toast toasty toast.

None of this is an argument for Mallahan, who I like personally but don’t consider qualified.

But qualified or not, if he runs on “Vote for Joe Mallahan. He won’t bring traffic to a screeching halt,” I like his chances a lot better.

Now McGinn, if he gets to “OK, we hate the tunnel so much we’ll settle for a retrofit and punt the final solution 20-25 years down the line,” could win on that. It might be worth it to watch Chris Stefan’s and Timothy’s heads explode, not to mention ECB’s.

@24,

“Lips placed firmly on McGinn’s butt” ?

Yeah, I’m sure he loved this recent PubliCola story:

http://publicola.net/?p=14023

@24,

“Lips placed firmly on McGinn’s butt” ?

Yeah, I’m sure he loved this recent PubliCola story:

http://publicola.net/?p=14023

One story means dick, Josh. You two are so in the bag for him it’s embarrassing. But you have no shame, let alone any sense of embarrassment, so just go on with your petty pamphleteering.

One story means dick, Josh. You two are so in the bag for him it’s embarrassing. But you have no shame, let alone any sense of embarrassment, so just go on with your petty pamphleteering.

Oh, and this one: http://publicola.net/?p=11631

Oh, and this one: http://publicola.net/?p=11631

@24
Oh aren’t you just precious. To be so worried about my head.

Even without the tunnel issue I have other reasons to support McGinn (you yourself say Mallahan isn’t qualified).

No matter who gets elected I don’t think the tunnel survives first contact with fiscal reality. The toll money is way short and nobody really knows what is going to happen when the costs start exceeding estimates (which is almost a certainty).

If McGinn starts talking a retrofit I’m sure that will end up dragging out forever. Given the past 8 1/2 years of studies and reports I think it is pretty clear WSDOT will fight any notion of simply retrofitting the existing structure.

In fact at this point I’m inclined to agree with those who feel the viaduct issue won’t be solved before the next quake takes it out, it falls down of its own accord, or rising sea levels make the whole thing moot.

@24
Oh aren’t you just precious. To be so worried about my head.

Even without the tunnel issue I have other reasons to support McGinn (you yourself say Mallahan isn’t qualified).

No matter who gets elected I don’t think the tunnel survives first contact with fiscal reality. The toll money is way short and nobody really knows what is going to happen when the costs start exceeding estimates (which is almost a certainty).

If McGinn starts talking a retrofit I’m sure that will end up dragging out forever. Given the past 8 1/2 years of studies and reports I think it is pretty clear WSDOT will fight any notion of simply retrofitting the existing structure.

In fact at this point I’m inclined to agree with those who feel the viaduct issue won’t be solved before the next quake takes it out, it falls down of its own accord, or rising sea levels make the whole thing moot.

@ 28:

In fact at this point I’m inclined to agree with those who feel the viaduct issue won’t be solved before the next quake takes it out, it falls down of its own accord, or rising sea levels make the whole thing moot.

See? Even the biggest zealots are forced to face the inevitable sooner or later. Welcome to reality.

@ 28:

In fact at this point I’m inclined to agree with those who feel the viaduct issue won’t be solved before the next quake takes it out, it falls down of its own accord, or rising sea levels make the whole thing moot.

See? Even the biggest zealots are forced to face the inevitable sooner or later. Welcome to reality.