Yesterday's PubliCola Comment of the Day Goes To…

What? Erica’s articles get edited?

What? Erica’s articles get edited?

I guess we can expect you to cite this post as evidence that Publicola is “tough on McGinn” despite its overwhelming, fawning fellation of McGinn and his candidacy and its constant drumbeat of Mallahan-bashing.

Some of us are not fooled. I am not trying to make a case for Mallahan here — it’s hard to conclude that there is one — just calling out this site’s smug, self-serving hypocrisy.

I guess we can expect you to cite this post as evidence that Publicola is “tough on McGinn” despite its overwhelming, fawning fellation of McGinn and his candidacy and its constant drumbeat of Mallahan-bashing.

Some of us are not fooled. I am not trying to make a case for Mallahan here — it’s hard to conclude that there is one — just calling out this site’s smug, self-serving hypocrisy.

The Viaduct does not carry a significant number of trucks and almost no Port cargo or freight. So the viaduct or any replacement is not a critical factor in the Seattle economy. And surprise — almost no cruise ship passengers use the Viaduct.

So let’s call the Viaduct or the Tunnel what it truly is: an auto commuting parkway that generates pollution and increases our national dependence on MidEast oil and foreign cars.

@2: exactly.

@2: exactly.

Didn’t this prior pubicola blog post point out that McGinn’s surface/transit solution would actually impede port truck traffic?

Didn’t this prior pubicola blog post point out that McGinn’s surface/transit solution would actually impede port truck traffic?

@3 You are correct sir!

@3 You are correct sir!

@3 you may be correct about the viaduct not carrying port cargo, but the roads that cargo currently travel on will become much more congested when the 110,000 vehicles that currently use the viaduct each day are dispersed onto city streets or I-5. As to your assertion that the tunnel will increase pollution, I would direct you to the Gehl Architects report that says the surface option would dramatically increase pollution on 1st Ave making it hazardous for pedestrians.

@3 you may be correct about the viaduct not carrying port cargo, but the roads that cargo currently travel on will become much more congested when the 110,000 vehicles that currently use the viaduct each day are dispersed onto city streets or I-5. As to your assertion that the tunnel will increase pollution, I would direct you to the Gehl Architects report that says the surface option would dramatically increase pollution on 1st Ave making it hazardous for pedestrians.

@3 Right on.

Josh, I’m not really sure what you’re thinking with lauding that comment. There is no analysis that says surface/transit/I-5 will reduce vehicle capacity by 50%. None. Furthermore, to think that a farmer from Yakima will actually use the central waterfront corridor is a silly proposition (but still referenced by Mallahan). Freight represents a small amount of total trips on the Viaduct.

I guess the comment of the day is invigorating from a journalist POV (point!/counterpoint!), but it sadly perpetuates a commonly held, but flawed understanding of the transportation corridor in question.

Grade: F

@3 Right on.

Josh, I’m not really sure what you’re thinking with lauding that comment. There is no analysis that says surface/transit/I-5 will reduce vehicle capacity by 50%. None. Furthermore, to think that a farmer from Yakima will actually use the central waterfront corridor is a silly proposition (but still referenced by Mallahan). Freight represents a small amount of total trips on the Viaduct.

I guess the comment of the day is invigorating from a journalist POV (point!/counterpoint!), but it sadly perpetuates a commonly held, but flawed understanding of the transportation corridor in question.

Grade: F

3. As 7 pointed out, you miss the point. The Viaduct keeps other vehicles off of the roadways that Port-bound freight vehicles use. Spill all those vehicles onto surface streets and suddenly you clog up the freight routes. This reduces their efficiency, and in return reduces the rate of supply replenishment as well as exports.

You have to think past the first and second level on the impact of removing the thoroughfare. It’s not just about the vehicles that use the viaduct.

3. As 7 pointed out, you miss the point. The Viaduct keeps other vehicles off of the roadways that Port-bound freight vehicles use. Spill all those vehicles onto surface streets and suddenly you clog up the freight routes. This reduces their efficiency, and in return reduces the rate of supply replenishment as well as exports.

You have to think past the first and second level on the impact of removing the thoroughfare. It’s not just about the vehicles that use the viaduct.

@8: Finally someone chose a perfect name for themselves.

2, 4, and 7 are right on with this.

And here it is straight from Windy McGinn’s mouth:

“At least 50,000 of the 109,000 vehicles now on the viaduct each weekday would have to disappear, government studies say. McGinn agrees, and he’s eager to make that happen.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009866991_mcginntunnel15m.html

Arguing that reducing the number of vehicles by 50% is a good thing is a fine stance to take. Pretending that this plan does not depend on that reduction is dishonest.

@8: Finally someone chose a perfect name for themselves.

2, 4, and 7 are right on with this.

And here it is straight from Windy McGinn’s mouth:

“At least 50,000 of the 109,000 vehicles now on the viaduct each weekday would have to disappear, government studies say. McGinn agrees, and he’s eager to make that happen.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009866991_mcginntunnel15m.html

Arguing that reducing the number of vehicles by 50% is a good thing is a fine stance to take. Pretending that this plan does not depend on that reduction is dishonest.

Can someone please explain with concrete examples how the surface option would undermine the Port of Seattle.

What major truck routes use the AWV on a regular basis to go to and from the Port? Of these what Port would they choose instead due to a 10 min addition to travel times?

Can someone please explain with concrete examples how the surface option would undermine the Port of Seattle.

What major truck routes use the AWV on a regular basis to go to and from the Port? Of these what Port would they choose instead due to a 10 min addition to travel times?

11. Sure, when you can adequately explain where exactly the ~100,000 vehicles that use the Viaduct each day would go and how you would accomodate the additional demand on each alternate thruway.

And as for the idea of eliminating half those cars with transit, you better be able to explain how you’re going to persuade tens of thousands of motorists, some of which firmly believe they need to drive (and may in fact have legitimate reasons to drive), to ditch their vehicles.

The burden of proof lies with those looking to subvert the dominant paradigm.

11. Sure, when you can adequately explain where exactly the ~100,000 vehicles that use the Viaduct each day would go and how you would accomodate the additional demand on each alternate thruway.

And as for the idea of eliminating half those cars with transit, you better be able to explain how you’re going to persuade tens of thousands of motorists, some of which firmly believe they need to drive (and may in fact have legitimate reasons to drive), to ditch their vehicles.

The burden of proof lies with those looking to subvert the dominant paradigm.

@12 Where do you think those cars are going to go when they (a) don’t use the tunnel because they’re trying to get to/from downtown or (b) don’t use the tunnel because of the toll?

@12 Where do you think those cars are going to go when they (a) don’t use the tunnel because they’re trying to get to/from downtown or (b) don’t use the tunnel because of the toll?

@12 Gomez…

Here’s a cogent answer to your question about where that traffic will go:

http://www.peopleswaterfront.org/transportation_solution.html

Take 5 minutes and read it.

@12 Gomez…

Here’s a cogent answer to your question about where that traffic will go:

http://www.peopleswaterfront.org/transportation_solution.html

Take 5 minutes and read it.

@Gomez: But even if all those cars were on the waterfront and travel times increased by 10 or even 20min how would the Port substantively lose money?

@Gomez: But even if all those cars were on the waterfront and travel times increased by 10 or even 20min how would the Port substantively lose money?

@ 14:

This is “cogent” only to creduluous, gullible, Rob McKenna-loving fools. It is pure faith-based crap.

@ 14:

This is “cogent” only to creduluous, gullible, Rob McKenna-loving fools. It is pure faith-based crap.

Wow. I never knew that Cary Moon was a Rob McKenna-loving fool. She may be surprised to hear that, too.

Wow. I never knew that Cary Moon was a Rob McKenna-loving fool. She may be surprised to hear that, too.

@16 Ivan…I note you didn’t make any specific criticisms of the points made there. I’d like to hear them if you can articulate them.

In the meantime, here are some additional reading materials as were presented to the Stakeholder Advisory Group, which after a year of meetings, concluded that the I-5/Surface/Transit option was viable and one of the top two preferences of all 8 studied.

1. A description of the plan: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FAF9612A-D0D4-4D0C-824D-8C879E457D0B/0/AWV_I5SurfaceTransitHybrid_FactSheet_Dec08.pdf

2. A comparision of the metrics of all 8 plans considered by the Stakeholders Group: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FAF9612A-D0D4-4D0C-824D-8C879E457D0B/0/AWV_I5SurfaceTransitHybrid_FactSheet_Dec08.pdf

Points of interest.

- The comparison, linked above, mentions that improving flow on I-5 has a much more significant impact on freight movement than does improving freight movement anywhere else.

- It’s interesting to understand that currently, there are 1,670,000 trips into the Central City each day. Puts adding 50,000 or so trips to the entire grid into a bit of perspective.

@16 Ivan…I note you didn’t make any specific criticisms of the points made there. I’d like to hear them if you can articulate them.

In the meantime, here are some additional reading materials as were presented to the Stakeholder Advisory Group, which after a year of meetings, concluded that the I-5/Surface/Transit option was viable and one of the top two preferences of all 8 studied.

1. A description of the plan: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FAF9612A-D0D4-4D0C-824D-8C879E457D0B/0/AWV_I5SurfaceTransitHybrid_FactSheet_Dec08.pdf

2. A comparision of the metrics of all 8 plans considered by the Stakeholders Group: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FAF9612A-D0D4-4D0C-824D-8C879E457D0B/0/AWV_I5SurfaceTransitHybrid_FactSheet_Dec08.pdf

Points of interest.

- The comparison, linked above, mentions that improving flow on I-5 has a much more significant impact on freight movement than does improving freight movement anywhere else.

- It’s interesting to understand that currently, there are 1,670,000 trips into the Central City each day. Puts adding 50,000 or so trips to the entire grid into a bit of perspective.

If I recall correctly, the stakeholder group traffic study modelled freight travel times that were better, not worse, under the stakeholders preferred alternative.

In that sense, the celebrated comment is not supported by the analysis… so, what made it so noteworthy?

If I recall correctly, the stakeholder group traffic study modelled freight travel times that were better, not worse, under the stakeholders preferred alternative.

In that sense, the celebrated comment is not supported by the analysis… so, what made it so noteworthy?

And by preferred, I mean I5 – transit.

And by preferred, I mean I5 – transit.

@20 Doctor…there are several ways to measure freight; different corridors, and the different options affect those corridors differently. You can see specific modeling on freight times on pages 14-15 here:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8DE75ACA-24B0-4871-B689-7C112CF032E5/0/AWV_SAC_Nov13_Model_Analysis_Handout_lowres.pdf

Overall, the differences are minute as an across the board average. WSDOT’s own studies show that the I-5/Surface/Transit option isn’t significantly different than the other options.

@20 Doctor…there are several ways to measure freight; different corridors, and the different options affect those corridors differently. You can see specific modeling on freight times on pages 14-15 here:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8DE75ACA-24B0-4871-B689-7C112CF032E5/0/AWV_SAC_Nov13_Model_Analysis_Handout_lowres.pdf

Overall, the differences are minute as an across the board average. WSDOT’s own studies show that the I-5/Surface/Transit option isn’t significantly different than the other options.

@7 FTW. From a pedestrian.

@7 FTW. From a pedestrian.

@15 JoshMahar…even with WSDOT’s studies, the largest time increase for a specific corridor for freight travel was 5 minutes additional time. So, even your scenario of 10 or 20 is not born out by the studies. See the reports I’ve linked above.

@15 JoshMahar…even with WSDOT’s studies, the largest time increase for a specific corridor for freight travel was 5 minutes additional time. So, even your scenario of 10 or 20 is not born out by the studies. See the reports I’ve linked above.

One final comment (I think )…

At the end of the WSDOT summary for the I5/Surface/Transit option, it says this:

The bored tunnel was not carried forward due to its high cost. However, it does have advantages
associated with avoiding some of the construction on the central waterfront. The agencies will
continue to investigate the costs of the bored tunnel as a future project that could be constructed
if the I-5/surface/transit hybrid alternative is agreed upon.

If the I5/Surface/Transit option is tried and proves not to work, we haven’t lost any ground. The work done will continue to be a benefit to the City and the State, and a tunnel can still be constructed; no money has been wasted, and the fix is incremental.

Not so with the tunnel. Build it and it’s there to stay, taking money away from all of these other fixes. No improvements to I5, no improvements to the Street grid, and no additional transit. All costs will be sunk into this one project.

One final comment (I think )…

At the end of the WSDOT summary for the I5/Surface/Transit option, it says this:

The bored tunnel was not carried forward due to its high cost. However, it does have advantages
associated with avoiding some of the construction on the central waterfront. The agencies will
continue to investigate the costs of the bored tunnel as a future project that could be constructed
if the I-5/surface/transit hybrid alternative is agreed upon.

If the I5/Surface/Transit option is tried and proves not to work, we haven’t lost any ground. The work done will continue to be a benefit to the City and the State, and a tunnel can still be constructed; no money has been wasted, and the fix is incremental.

Not so with the tunnel. Build it and it’s there to stay, taking money away from all of these other fixes. No improvements to I5, no improvements to the Street grid, and no additional transit. All costs will be sunk into this one project.

Hey, sometimes I go on the Viaduct to go up to Carkeek from West Seattle, just to take a walk at 10 am. So I am one of those 100,000 trips a day. I really need the city and state to spend $4billion on a tunnel because without it, I could only take a walk at Linclon PArk, or Alki, or Seward Park, or ohmygosh I might have to walk along the top of the hill in WS and enjoy those views. I get tired of these same views, so please, voters, make sure you tax me so I can drive 25 minutes to Carkeek instead of 35 minutes to Carkeek for my walks.

And my sister lives in Burien but has an office in the crappy part of Aurora North, it’s only $400 a month! If she can’t drive on the Viaduct, she’d probably have to set up a new office in White Center. She’s a little bit busy this monhth, that change is hard to do, so please voters, build her a $4 billion tunnel so she can sprawlify from Burinen to North Seattle every day!

Thanks, you guys sure are generous!

Hey, sometimes I go on the Viaduct to go up to Carkeek from West Seattle, just to take a walk at 10 am. So I am one of those 100,000 trips a day. I really need the city and state to spend $4billion on a tunnel because without it, I could only take a walk at Linclon PArk, or Alki, or Seward Park, or ohmygosh I might have to walk along the top of the hill in WS and enjoy those views. I get tired of these same views, so please, voters, make sure you tax me so I can drive 25 minutes to Carkeek instead of 35 minutes to Carkeek for my walks.

And my sister lives in Burien but has an office in the crappy part of Aurora North, it’s only $400 a month! If she can’t drive on the Viaduct, she’d probably have to set up a new office in White Center. She’s a little bit busy this monhth, that change is hard to do, so please voters, build her a $4 billion tunnel so she can sprawlify from Burinen to North Seattle every day!

Thanks, you guys sure are generous!

The Viaduct does not carry a significant number of trucks and almost no Port cargo or freight. So the viaduct or any replacement is not a critical factor in the Seattle economy. And surprise — almost no cruise ship passengers use the Viaduct.

So let's call the Viaduct or the Tunnel what it truly is: an auto commuting parkway that generates pollution and increases our national dependence on MidEast oil and foreign cars.