Re-branding is Magic: Meet the Tunnel+Transit Coalition

Who is behind the “Tunnel and Transit” effort? Curious minds want to know.

Maybe instead of chasing after gossip about iPhones, Erica (who is truly an excellent report) could follow up on who is funding this group and who is a part of it.

Maybe instead of holding people accountable for credentials on 5 year old powerpoints, she can hold these major powerbroker accountable for blatantly lying.

Just a thought about a better use of your time.

who else, but the power elite: http://tunnelplustransit.com/who-we-are/member-…

Kind of like how the surface supports pretend we'll have all the tunnel money to spend on other projects! Or that it won't involve a 4 lane highway down the waterfront.

Congrats though on uncovering the scoop that people often try and portray their ideas in a manner that is convincing and appealing.

The tunnel gives us the best ability to transform the waterfront into a great open space with transit, ped, and bike corridors.

It's as much about transit as the 520 kerfuffle is.
The current 520 plan already has train capacity in mind (just not the right kind in some people's eyes).
That political fight is mostly, really, actually about the west-side landing. But they've re-branded that as cars vs. trains.
So why is it suddenly dirty pool when t someone else gets in the game?

If the tunnel is a done deal, then why the need for a fancy new website? Why the need to lie about the transit component, yes lie; if the project is moving forward? Every member of this coalition should be ashamed of themselves for signing onto such a baldfaced lie that's blatant propaganda. Looking right at you City Council.

fount, Curiouser, don't jump on the author for not linking you directly to the “who we are” page. It's right there. Try first.

Frankly, this website is irresponsible. I suspect I'll be looking back at this list again in a week, and saving it for when I'm deciding who my campaign contributions go to in the future.

Nice post Dan.

I confess myself confused…this seems to be an editorial or rant or something of that sort, yet is not branded as such.

Even worse, it just complains about things that the writer clearly disagrees with. There are no solutions offered, and just the assertion that the fact that the surface street non-option (again, it's a STATE highway) would lead to worse traffic is a “myth”. I would wait for the promised other post by a group of transportation experts who have fully studied the difference between the tunnel+transit plan that is moving forward (which, realistically, the tunnel is, and more of it has dedicated funding than any surface street option proponent has been able to identify), and how traffic patterns would change, but I would venture a guess that we'll just hear from the same people who just *know* that everyone who uses roads now will magically start using buses instead.

Michael,

Dan's columns will be clearly labeled as columns soon enough. (Part of the redesign.) Dan used to write the opinionated eco urban blog HugeassCity, which merged w the Cola a few weeks ago.

We announced that and have tried to make it clear that he's a columnist.

It will be clearer 1nce we get some redesign stuff up and running.

Hope that's helpful.

Anyone can put up a list of names… the whois for the site reveals the ugly truth:

Administrative Contact:
Domain Discreet
ATTN: tunnelplustransit.com
Rua Dr. Brito Camara, n 20, 1
Funchal, Madeira 9000-039
PT
Phone: 1-902-7495331
Email: bc516f0b0a1411510065030e1b1b13ce@domaindiscreet…

That's right: CANADIANS!

Oh poopie, than that gets rid of my initial gripe. And were I paying better attention, I would have known this. Will there be counter balancing to these columns, or will Publicola be one-sided on the tunnel issue from here on out?

Dan, it may come as a surprise to you that tunnel backers equally support transit. I suspect that is the opinion of most people in this city, to support rational balanced transportation planning. You need to get out more, meet some people outside of your little club. I have a feeling you might learn what a real city is all about. It is complex, not the simplistic model that you cling to. There are too many people in this city that are calling themselves urban designers that have no clue what that term really means.

I supposed both the tunnel and transit. But then I'm not much of an ideologue like the author of this post.

*support* not supposed

Yes indeed, Dow Constantine, Greg Nickels, Tim Burgess and many more.

Vlado: You are being disingenuous here. It's one thing to say you equally support transit, it's another thing to actually do something about it. You guys have moved heavens and earth to get the tunnel funded and moving. You, like the governor, haven't done shit to realize the transit part of the SR 99 agreement. Actions speak louder than words here.

Michael:

You're ignoring (conveniently) the whole point of Dan's post. There is no transit to the supposed tunnel+transit plan. The transit has been completely ignored. Actually worse than ignored, the governor and other tunnel backers have lied to the public about it. They are making the tunnel part happen but said no to any transit funding.

You need to actually read agreements instead of just your buddies commentaries, Transpo Guy. “Investments in transit will add 17,000 new riders to King County METRO buses. New service will be provided for west side neighborhoods that use the viaduct to go to downtown Seattle. A new streetcar will be built on First Avenue from Pioneer Square to Seattle Center.”

http://www.kingcounty.gov/exec/news/release/200…

KC may be financially challenged right now, but by 2016 when the viaduct comes down, these improvements will be going in. And I'm one those that is pushing for them.

Vlado:

You are either misunderstanding the facts or you are intentionally misleading here. Those 17,000 new riders only come if with new funding, ie, the funding that was promised as part of the tunnel agreement but from which the governor and you have walked away from. It's not simply an issue of Metro getting past a temporary financial challenge.

If you're pushing for that funding, I'd like to see some evidence of it. Again, you worked your ass off to get the tunnel bill passed but you didn't lift a finger to make sure the transit funding was part of the tunnel bill. And you haven't since.

The current design for a 4-lane Alaskan Way looks pretty bad. With the deep-bore tunnel, 40,000 vehicles currently using the AWV are displaced onto the new Alaskan Way and Mercer West. All this thru-traffic on Alaskan Way, with at least 20 stoplights, is bound to created bumper-to-bumper gridlock. Early designs for Alaskan Way called for a 2-lane frontage road on the east side. It's separated from a 4-lane Alaskan Way with transit/ped/bicycle islands similar to the current arrangement sans AWV. It reduces the width of the Wide Plaza, but maintains access. I'm afraid the wide plaza will ultimately become makeshift and permanent parking lots, like San Francisco's Embarcadero tourist trap.

vlado,

How exactly will these buses that will use the Viaduct actually get to downtown Seattle through the tunnel? The tunnel is a downtown bypass.

(how do I undo a “like”? I was trying to reply to vlado)

vlado, your KC press release link is about the exact funding that Gregoire vetoed: “the county will seek new motor vehicle excise tax authorization from the legislature to fund over $190 million in transit capital and $15 million annually in operating expenses.” Last January's surprise “agreement” was nothing more than a press conference. Dan rightly points out that the state has not followed through by funding the promised transit funding.

There is transit, just not dedicated funding at this time. And I'm not ignoring it, I'm just calling bullshit. North-South mobility is important, even to transit. There are two ways to do that with respect to the AWV – another elevated structure, or a tunnel. Period.

Bitching and whining is one thing. Not one alternative, not one solution is offered in this post. Editorials tend to say “this sucks, this is what's better”. This misses the second half of that.

And this editorial (just to belabor the point, because it's fun) offers nothing in the way to support how to fund these transit improvements, either.

To take it a bit further – I have yet to hear a funding plan for the surface street option from any of its supporters. There seems to be this belief that the money from the State, County and Port come if the tunnel (or an elevated structure) is not built. It has been made very clear that that is not the case.

So, a risk of some potential cost overruns, or funding a whole surface street/gridlock for buses mess all on the city's back…I would take the risk of overruns (especially considering there is 400mm planned for potential overruns, plus the ability to toll and bond for an additional 400mm for additional excess).

What do you mean it offers nothing to fund transit? Did you miss the whole part about the MVET? How about sticking to the agreement for a funding plan?

The current surface design was probably designed to look bad. Why else would you put so many stoplights on a road that has no cross streets? The frontage road wouldn't need that level of connectivity. Downtown has managed with only a couple of ramps to the viaduct, and Alaskan Way has limited access from it's intersections with east-west roads.
Also, didn't the south end become a surface road too, even though no one was asking for that? What was that about?

@Anc

It discusses forms of funding that are being held up in politics, including the MVET, that are part of the greater plan to implement the improvements for transit, and pay for the $15mm/year in better service.

Nowhere does the author espouse what he thinks should be done differently, or how to pay for it. Again, it's just a bitching session. If I wanted to hear that, with no alternatives, just “no” to stuff, I'd listen to CSPAN2 when they're broadcasting Senate Republican speeches.

Anc has it right. The MVET is the solution that was provided for in the agreement. This is not a point about surface vs. transit. It's the tunnel plan that called for the $190 million in transit funding but none of the tunnel boosters are doing shit to make it happen.

Michael M.:

Here's a plan: all the tunnel boosters, including the governor, who worked their asses off to get the legislature to approve the tunnel do the same to get the legislature to approve the promised MVET funding. That the boosters are sitting on their hands is proof that it is only a tunnel plan, not tunnel + transit.

I'm really wondering if we read the same blog post. B/c to me it seems the title and content dealt with the re-branding of the deep bore tunnel as a 'tunnel + transit' deal when as it is now it is a tunnel PLAN with a transit PROMISE. You say the author doesn't mention how to fund it, when he clearly does, FUND IT THE WAY YOU AGREED TO. How is that not a funding plan? What exactly are you arguing about or are you just arguing to argue? I'm really confused.

There's the title and then there's the substance. The substance goes after the funding proposals in the original plan because they haven't been enacted as of yet, complains about the entire project, yet offers no solutions, alternatives, or anything else. (continue reading after the headline, it helps)

I would venture a guess that our next legislative session will tackle the MVET funding. It'll be more politically viable, and outside of a hostile political climate. It will also help if the economy has improved, so that 2012 won't look so awful. There's a political reality that has to be taken into account, and keeping Democratic majorities is the best we can do to ensure any sort of transit positive bills coming out of Olympia.

I read the entire thing, you are the one that refuses to see that the article clearly points out how to pay for it, hear let me quote it for you:
“But what they conveniently neglect to mention is that the $190 million was to come from a new MVET that the State subsequently failed to authorize. King County then asked Gregoire to introduce a Governor request bill for the transit funding piece, but she said no.”

That's a bit more than 'haven't been enacted.' It's not like they were passed it's just that the mechanism hasn't been set up yet so no money is rolling in. That would be 'haven't been enacted.' This is more like 'but that the state refuses to do anything about'.

Also, having the State fulfill it's part of the agreement IS a plan. How is that not a plan, please enlighten me.

Again, I ask you, what exactly are you arguing against here?

Maybe Josh should include Dan's other day job at the end of his columns, like Crosscut does.

I've seen no signs that the legislature is getting ready to tackle MVET funding next year. In fact, Senate Transportation Chair Mary Margaret Haugen says she's not going to allow any new funding for transit. The only way to overcome this kind of resistance is for the same group of boosters that made the tunnel happen (again, including Gregoire) is to get up off their asses and make it happen. But they refuse because, as Bertolet argues, they are only interested in exploiting transit popularity to sell their tunnel vision to the public.

It is clear from the tone that the author is anti-tunnel. The “solutions” and “alternatives” that you describe are the solutions that are agreed to in the current plan. As I stated to Transpo Guy, last year, when they first could have been enacted in Olympia, was not the right year, politically, to do that. Gregoire had just won re-election on a “no new taxes” platform, which, of course, has since changed due to the economic realities.

And that is what makes implementing these tax increases this year politically untenable. Additionally, the entire State House and a large portion of the State Senate are up for re-election this year. Keeping those majorities is important for so many issues, including transportation in general.

Being anti-tunnel is one thing, but the fact remains that the tunnel (or a new elevated structure) in and of itself is good for transit. It allows for maintaining a certain level of north south mobility, while also providing incentives for additional transportation ridership (tolls, to be specific).

The only alternative that I've heard many of the anti-tunnel folks come up with is the surface street option, which would not work, and would not be funded, and would not receive the blessing for certain local funding from the State (additional MVET).

So, Josh, shouldn't all these kinds of things be done BEFORE launching re-designs and such?

Transpo Guy:

I think that you, Joshua and Dan have what the French call an “idée fixe” and are going to react to anything contrary to it. I'm sure you have fun getting together and brainstorming about how to save the city from itself. I may even agree with some of your ideas but let me say that having been in the thick of the viaduct issue for the past two years, the solution to our transportation problems isn't going to happen unless we start working together. The Tunnel + Transit solution is a balanced, progressive step forward. One of the things that shows me that we are on the right track is that some critics claim there is too much car capacity (i.e. your gang), or others that there is not enough car capacity (the Elizabeth Campbell clan).

If you want to help our city, focus on the transit portion of the agreement, which is the last piece of the equation. And stop making spurious claims that people who support the tunnel are anti-transit, that is plain ignorant. I’m sure that the Amalgamated Transit Union would appreciate it if you didn’t call it anti-transit because it supported the plan, and I can assure you that I would – as a big transit booster myself.

Shhhhh. There working out bugs and stuff! Three month rule.

Michael, I'm not sure why you're pretending WSDOT options B and C (those surface options) don't exist. B or C would be fully funded by existing revenue for SR-99, as per WSDOT's plans.

Actually, the current 520 plan does not have train capacity in mind. Where are you getting that?

If for some reason, the state reversed course and picked B or C, transit would still be unfunded.

Paul, if the state picked B or C, tolling revenue would not be necessary for construction, so it could be used for transit.

It's Dan Bertolet. Film at 11.

You can't really make a transit plan until you know what the plan and timeline is for the viaduct project first.

Mayor McGinn is on the hot seat now because he's standing up for better transit. Standing incredibly against overwhelming roadbuilders who plan to divert freight access through high-density Lower Queen Anne. The deep-bored replacement for the AWV does that. Oooops-sorry-didn't-see-that-who-knew? At least 10,000 more cars/trucks regularly through LowerQueenAnne. Please!!

There's no way, Governor Gregoire! It would be a disgrace if you allowed it, Governor! Approve seawall replacement, Governer!, sooner not later! Yours, a sidewalk builder extraordinaire. Thank you. I know you like them. Well, you're welcome then. Have a good Val-n-Tines.

The Surface Couplet Alaskan Way/Western option should be rejected by now. It's No Good, duh. There's strong evidence that the 4-lane version cannot accommodate traffic properly. Probably the best option for Alaskan Way are early versions that add a 2-lane frontage road. They deserve a timely and brief conclusional study along with such a study of the cut-n-cover which is undoubtedly the far better tunnel technology. I'm tired of you frickin Know-it-all transit nerds missing your chance to learn something. Lesson 23.5 “When chosing a tunnel technology, don't chose the one that won't work.”