Tunnel Initiative Filed

So why is this guy so anti progress? Does he ( and many of the people opposed to the tunnel) think somehow that Seattle is a quaint little village from the turn of the century? Did they protest when the city council spent a few million of sidewalk toilets for downtown? Are they Luddites? Seriously, I can understand some concern about going over budget, but to want to replace the viaduct. Dang. That seems to me to be rather questionable in many ways. Do they think that if the viaduct just goes away that the surface streets of downtown could handle the traffic ( or do they just want all traffic to go away, classic NIMBY). I don't get it. A tunnel makes sense. The viaduct is ugly. Always has been.

Old news –

They will get the signatures. The question is whether the initiative is legally binding on the state or the council.

The state has the right to put state highways where they want to put them. They have to work with the locals for permits and such, but in the end they have eminent domain.

If they get the signatures in record time, they still won't make the November ballot. The city is not obligated to put it on the ballot until the next regular election which would be next August.

The easels system worked fantastically for the second monorail campaign in 2000. This is the kind of issue that doesn't need much explaining. STOP THE TUNNEL is pretty clear with the inevitable tag line of NO BIG DIG in Seattle.

Excuse me, I mean't rebuild the viaduct, not replace.

As they said, from the viaduct it's a beautiful view. I will sorely miss it.

Oh ECB – their web site has been saying since 8 this morning that they will use signature gathers, web available petitions and that Faulkenbury is only heading up the easel part of the effort.

John Fox will throw his low-income housing people into the mix and the S/T people may help out on the sly, hoping to stop the T and get their wish.

I wish they would link to these sites and stuff. What's the URL?

Does progress for you involve higher taxes and less money for public safety and public transit programs? All because a viaduct is ugly?

I would like to see the full text of the initiative. I am a tunnel opponent and retrofit supporter, but it bothers me if the initiative is worded in ways that will alienate other tunnel opponents (namely those who favor the so-called surface/transit option). This effort would have the best chance of winning if it united the entire anti-tunnel coalition. Right now that should be our priority–stopping the tunnel. Once that's been accomplished, it opens up the process to other, more viable options.

Joe ECB wrote: Instead of using signature gatherers—paid or otherwise—Campbell’s group will use unmanned kiosks and signing boards with petitions sheets for people to sign. Passive tactics like sign boards typically generate far fewer signatures than active signature gatherers, who can answer questions and pressure people to sign.

Which as you can see is not what they said they were doing.

All weather A-frame easels that will be set out in key 2007 tunnel/elevated vote neighborhoods, signing boards placed at select businesses, downloadable petitions that will be available through the SCAT website, and personal signature gatherers..

Btw – I posted the link this morning when I had the scoop -;)

http://www.publicola.net/2010/07/28/obrien-to-i…

I don't think they'll need to. Between rebuild/retrofit supporters and teardown supporters they'll make the ballot without paid signature gathering – which is usually very difficult to accomplish, indeed.

That said, I agree with Morning – it may make little or no legal difference because SR99 is a state highway..

Correct, and ultimately if WSDOT and Gregoire ponied up $5B they could build the tunnel barring lawsuits completing to their heart's content, as it should be. I think what they're aiming for here is to force a public vote to bind the City Council to what the public wants. Which, they're legally entitled to do as as far I know.

So, it is tunnel or elevated, neither one is McGinn's preference.

Coelition be gone!

Ha, ha!

There isn't a majority opinion on the three options, there is about not accepting cost overruns.

That money would come from the Legislature, and not from “WSDOT and Gregoire.” But you knew that.

Now I ask you, in all seriousness: Why would legislators from outside of Seattle vote that money? Why would they vote the money, in the face of an economic downturn and in an atmosphere of fiscal austerity, for Seattle's waterfront beautification project?

Why, while roads and bridges all over the state need repair, would legislators vote for anything other than a rebuilt Viaduct, For which Seattle would pay ZERO and the state would pay 100 PERCENT of any cost overruns?

Kill the tunnel, by all means. But understand what you're going to get once you do, and it isn't McGinn's or Cary Moon's wet dream. If you must be rid of the Viaduct, then pay for the overruns on the tunnel and STFU about it, once and for all. Because the rest of the state isn't playing your game.

I suspect the viaduct rebuild is what a lot of people are personally after myself. Roads and transit isn't going to happen, and since Gregoire has already punted the bonus to transit funding that would have come from the DBT, there's nothing there of value on that end for pro-transit people. I'm personally still torn between viaduct and tunnel knowing we have to get one, but in general I'm most down on the way that the Council is being dictatorial in their approach. Which isn't worth anything, but that's how I feel.

This is responding to Joe, because Disqus' nesting is FUBAR:

“Roads and Transit isn't going to happen?” Mark my words, every single highway component in the 2007 RTID package will be built — Cross-Base, the 509 extension, all of it. and light rail from Tacoma to Sea-Tac Airport will be built.

The viaduct IS coming down. That's the only “done deal” here. The only truly objective vote on this would use rank choice. Score in order of priority:

Tunnel/Tunnelite

Rebuild

Surface + Transit

Let the facts for each, speak for themselves, honestly presented.

The benchmark is the 70% against the tunnel that the March 2007 advisory vote received. I know a recent poll showed much closer numbers, but tunnel backers still have a huge hill to climb to get to 50%+1.

Has McKenna taken any public position on the tunnel? This will probably drag into 2012 and become an issue in the governor's race…

Honestly presented, is it? That begins with you, bubba. Tunnel and Tunnellite are not the same; don't try to con us with that line. With Tunnelite, the Viaduct comes down and we get 4-5 years of gridlock while Tunnelite is dug. With the tunnel, the Viaduct remains in place during boring, and we get to use it till the tunnel is ready to connect.

Each option requires transit. The ranked choice should note that on all three.

At least one can not use tolling in a meaningful way.

@Ivan did we ever get numbers on the long-term benefits of lite vs dbt for capacity? Ignoring the possibility of local gridlock for a couple years and just looking at that. I half wonder if anyone has seriously taken the 20-30 year view of this vs. the immediacy is why I ask.

The first question should be to accept or reject cost overruns.
There is nothing preventing the legislature from putting the same cost overrun language on a bill for any other option.

Fair enough Ivan. Make it four choices. My intention is not to Con anyone. However I would make sure you qualify your DBT statement with your own apparent assumptions of no disruptions due to the risk of buildings being damaged by the tunnelling, which would certainly disrupt traffic as well…

Choppaduct

That was a vote against the cut-and-cover tunnel, not the bored tunnel. BIG difference. See my comment above.

And BTW, I am NOT a supporter of the bored tunnel.

The waterfront highway crowd should be paying attention — a rebuild is the inevitable result of killing the tunnel. Is that what you want?

This initiative is almost a word-for-word copy of one circulated 30+ years ago against the Seattle segment of the state's I-90 project. They got their signatures all right, but project supporters (not City government) took them to court and won an easy victory against the initiative — it was thrown out, and never even got to the ballot.

The lawyers on this list can weigh in better than I, but the law basically boils down to a City not having the authority to forbid or pre-empt a State project. The City's role in this project is ministerial and not policy-making, and under law ministerial decisions are not subject to the initiative process.

I'm not a lawyer, but I fail to see how a city can't tell the State or even the Fed “you can't do this,” even if it's symbolic. They know they can't stop it with this — how could they? — but the point is they're forcing a public referendum to prove whether or not the support that the City Council claims exists really exists, and to tie their hands from assisting the state in any way.

Walmarts and another elevated freeway, that is Elizabeth's political platform which garnered her 2% of the vote in last year's Mayoral primary. Now that the overrun issue is being used to divide the city she may get her wish, but the legacy of that outcome will be on the shoulders of McGinn's uncompromising behavior. By spilling the glass half full, he will end up with the glass completely empty. There are many civically minded people in this city who supported the tunnel who are reluctantly going to have to back another elevated if the Mayor screws the pooch.

Check out Grant Cogswell's facebook comments. he is not pleased with the person behind it.

I think you have a point but I need my medical mj to grok it….

I think you're probably correct – they'll get the signatures but it'll be kept off the ballot after a court challenge.

That's not how the public perceived it. Sure, you could probably bring down the 70% number to 65% or maybe even 60% if it's a bored tunnel vs. the cut-and-cover proposal from '07, but I didn't get a sense at all back then that voters were quibbling over details. The tunnel simply wasn't that popular, as transit-friendly voters combined with spending-averse voters to produce the 70% number.

That is the result of this initiative, it narrows the comparison to two.

People giving this the “surface” treatment have helped put a rebuild in position to be a potential second option in a field of two.

I think it is very, very funny.

McKenna, exactly. He's running surprisingly well (for a Repub) in the Seattle region. A “green” position on HWY 99 could put him over the top.

I think the last option would be more honestly expressed as “Surface – Transit.” Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall WSDOT commiting to f
funing anything other than viaduct replacement–either the tunnel or the so-called “surface option.” They are not going to apply any of the viaduct replacement money to transit.

A city initiative is not binding on the state, and if the state really really wants to do it, it can do so without an agreement with the city.

And often there isn't a majority opinion in Seattle when presented with just two options.

If ever there were a case of biting the nose to spite the face.

The City of Seattle owns huge dams in Pend Oreille and Skagit Counties. I wonder if those counties had a vote about taking out those dams how it would turn out? Would Seattle give a damn (pun intended) about those votes? Nope, so who cares what Seattle thinks about a state highway?

Typical Seattle politics. I feel sorry for Elizabeth. Anyone that considers a viaduct pretty has all their taste in their mouth! I wish the Governor would just roll right over Seattle and get the tunnel built before the viaduct collapses and kills people. Get the unsafe eye sore out of here.

Those counties can certainly vote to remove the dams, and then subject to the likely mega-long term contracts they have with Seattle, do so, or take the contracts to court. Again, SCAT can't stop the tunnel per se with their ballot, but if the thing hypothetical runs to an election and 70% reject the DBT–for whatever reason–who in their right minds would say that Conlin & the council would still push it?

The state would put it in, completely out of their own pocket, and if it ended up over budget, and the state said: OK, Seattle, all you–pay to finish it, we could say go to hell. See? We REJECTED that. You pay for it to finish the project or fill in and seal the tunnel. If the state says OK, it's either built or filled in. If they say again, Seattle can pay for that, then it goes to court. If that went to court, and Seattle wanted no part of the project, I can't even begin to imagine the state budget wouldn't be on the hook to clean up or finish.

I half wonder if this has been the long-term strategy–for different reasons–all along by both sides.

Saying that the teardown is a done deal is as much of a sham as saying that the DBA is a done deal. Neither is inevitable. (Ever hear of High Line Park in Marhattan?) For a truly 'honest' ballot, you MUST include the retrofit option. The option with the most votes wins.

… get the tunnel built before the viaduct collapses and kills people?

What death rate do you believe will exist in the DBT since the traffic lanes have now been narrowed to 11 feet from 12, shoulders reduced to 2 feet from 4, vertical grades exceed the adopted standards, the NB lanes 6-wide wide shoulder has been shifted to the left side contrary to both the WSDOT Design Manual and AASHTO Design Policy, and the vertical clearances have been lowered to 25 feet from 16.5 feet?

With the mandated design standards from the 1966 Highway Safety Act now consigned to the ash pit, how safe will the DB tunnel be? And the SFD asked for 10-foot shoulders so they could get their 8-foot wide fire apparatus to any scene? Of course, telephones will be included behind the 4-hour fire doors and any handicapped person can wait for help to arrive, according to the SDEIS2. How cool is that?

Best of all, the daily power consumption, 4,201,600 megawatts per day is equally troubling if the local power goes out.

What? Me worry. The city council will do it for me.

Chris

Trogn beGow

I remember taking a water taxi to West Seattle and on the way out, turned to look at the downtown shore fully expecting to be appalled at the sight of the 'ugly' viaduct (like everyone was saying). Instead, I found the sight of cars and trucks zipping along in front of the top stories of buildings to be a beautiful sight–reminiscent of the film “Metropolis.” Of course, Elizabeth Campbell was refering to the view FROM the viaduct; but the case can be made for it having beauty in its own right. This is a subjective matter, so my own judgment here is really as good as anyone else's. If you don't like it, that's fine; but you shouldn't base a project of this magnitude on such flimsy sentiments.

Correction is due. Vertical clearances are 15 feet.

Chris

I am beginning to understand, after having lived in this town for a decade, that people actually don't want anything to ever get done. Stasis, with continual bickering, is the preferred option for everything.

All of these comments and arguments only relate to the DIRECT cost comparison of two options. You have to take into account what the impact of tearing down and re-building the existing viaduct would mean to Seattle's economy. The disruption and resulting economic impact (just in terms of lost business) would equate to $3.3 billion per year, with a loss of 33,000 jobs. It would take nearly 10 years to pull down and rebuild the viaduct! That's 10 years with no SR99 and at a cost to Seattle's economy of $33 billion. The tunnel will have little surface impact as the viaduct will remain in use while it is constructed, it will create thousands of new jobs (through latter re-development of the Waterfront – which will provide a great view of the sound once people can actually see it!) and will not have to be torn down and re-built again and again in the future. The tunnel is not an ideal solution – there IS no ideal solution – but it is certainly the best solution available.

We do want things to be done but we require that everyone agree before they are done. That may seem impractical and, indeed, it is.

That was then, this is now.

I voted against the Tunnel on the advisory , but am 100% pro-DBT.
I hate when Tunnel Cons misrepresent citizens like me. Please desist.

THANKYOU!
I was against the first tunnel & very much for the DBT.

WE demand the right to complain, but a solution presumes someone's figured something out and has the power to change things, so our egalitarianness kicks in, defeating actual change.

The only way for all to be equal, is if no one ever wins, or if the only things we do are with consensus.

The surface/transit option includes a new 6-lane highway near the waterfront (actually two 3-lane highways going one way each), widening I-5, increasing capacity on city streets, and $500 million for transit. And the WSDOT offered to pay for the whole thing, plus the seawall, with current gas tax funds. It replaces the entirety of the 100,000+ trips on the viaduct.

The tunnel includes a 4-lane tunnel that doesn't come close to replacing all of the current viaduct capacity. The city, county, and port, pay over $1 billion extra. No transit, no seawall.

Nobody benefits from the tunnel construction. Not car drivers, not taxpayers, not transit users. Nobody. It's just stupid.

Elizabeth Campbell was very active in the 36th District Republican Party years ago. Without going into detail, some of her behavior was alarmingly erratic. I was surprised to see her name on the ballot running for mayor and I thought, that can't be the same one…. went to her website, and wow. Turns out she went from being a Bush-loving Republican to an Obama-loving, tunnel-hating liberal.

Regardless, she is kooky. She comes across as friendly at first, but there is an instability beneath it all…

How about people taking signatures out on Recall Petitions Out on McGinn.

Big signs around town. They would get enough signatures. Put it on the same ballot.

Click on Erica's link and read the text of the initiative. It's a mess, the work of zealots who chose not to sit down with a knowledgeable attorney and at least make an attempt at a defendable product.

I am full of doubts about the DBT, but I cannot get behind this thing. It won't get my signature. And regardless, as I note below, it won't make it to the ballot anyway.