Thursday Night’s Tunnel Debate

it was a shame to see Dave Freiboth so emphatically lie about the plain language of the stakeholder committee’s recommendation letter, saying that I-5/surface/transit “wasn’t thought out” and wasn’t supported. here’s a quote from the letter, which i wish someone would’ve had on hand last night:

“After considerable analysis, input and consultation with our constituencies we recommend & conclude the following:
• Move forward with an Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Plan that includes improvements to I-5, transit, surface streets and potential for construction of a deep bore tunnel.”

potential for a tunnel, but implementation of I-5/surface/transit.

also, great job Essex Porter.

Wasn’t the 2007 vote about a cut and cover tunnel? I honestly don’t recall, but if it was, that’s a very different project that the voters rejected.

Of course no one changed their mind! As welcome as the discussion was, no one in that room is open minded.

Wasn’t that along the sea wall, and would shut down the viaduct to be constructed?

Josh wandered into editorial/opinion mode in a hurry. He might watch his own video.

You are correct. It is fair to say, though, that the public voted against the most expensive and riskiest of the options being presented at that time. Today’s deep-bore tunnel proposal is certainly the equivalent. I feel confident if a vote was taken today, in the current economic climate of $4B state budget cuts, that Seattle citizens would again say ‘no’.

Great event.

Re: best sound bite: had to laugh, since McGinn said that line in response to Ed’s explaining how the tunnel funding wasn’t tied to the state budget cuts in the way both Mikes have been saying. Mikes have been saying it is, and last night Ed described how it’s really not, at which point Mike the Bigger pulled the sound bite out of his pocket: “but it is!”

It wasn’t a sound bite, but I really enjoyed Mike the Smaller’s lovely “But that fact is so inconvenient!” moment once Ed reminded him that it would take a constitutional amendment to reallocate the gas tax money.

And I’m glad you’re starting to edge away from toeing McGinn’s line that Freiboth and his ilk were ever “blindly moving forward”. The problems the tunnel will cause were never unanticipated.

Seattle has never once voted to approve or reject the deep bore tunnel. We are not allowed to.

Despite PubliCola’s stated intent of an elevated discourse, last night’s debate was long on skirmish and short on dialogue. Both sides arrived with fairly intractable positions, but to my ears, the pro-tunnel panelists were most responsible for slinging the mud early – Ed Murray in particular.

Many have praised moderator Essex Porter; he did a fine job of keeping the fireworks under control. However, the discussion might have been better, and minds might have been changed, if Porter had focused the session on the draft EIS. In context of a debate, the dEIS is an “objective” document which could have been the foundation for debate about facts in the present.

IN THE PRESENT. That’s important. McGinn and O’Brien (as they did at the recent Stranger session) along with Moon appeared ready to debate the project on its merits in context of today, based upon the recently-released dEIS. Tunnel supporters, on the other hand, seem obsessed with rehashing past politics.

CC Transportation Chair Tom Ramsmussen must be singled out as last night’s biggest embarrassment. His arguments were often illogical, combative and self-contradictory. There is no indication that he read any further than page 1 of the dEIS. And he clearly stated that while he would respect a public vote, he would not hesitate to first sign a binding contract before the public process plays out. That is incredibly disingenuous and should be remembered when he runs for re-election.

Thanks to PubliCola for organizing!

“The goal for the series is to bring together the smarites”

what’s a “smarite”? Which neighborhood are they from?

What you falied to include about Mike O’Briens comment, is that he followed up with “then we should find a way to change it!” The issue was dedicated accounts for specific programs and projects. The screwy way the state is setup does not supposedly allow for reallowcation of funds in dedicated accounts unless an emergency is declared.

With a 2/3 vote now required, fat chance that will happen. The original intent of dedicated accounts was to keep those funds from being bled off to the General Fund. Great on paper, but the two-edeged sword is painfully apparent in times of budget cuts.

The main point is unchanged: It looks really stupid and disfunctional to have Billions of dollars in one account for a project that is broken, when social services are being drastically cut. This is also related to public safety, that all the participants tried to make hay with. It’s should not be framed as a choice between the AWV collapsing during rush hour, and more hatchet murderers walking the streets of Seattle.

“Tom Ramsmussen must be singled out as last night’s biggest embarrassment.”

True, true.
He was in “candidate’s debate” mode all the way.

“At the end of the evening, Porter asked if anyone in the audience had changed their mind over the course of the debate. No one raised their hand.”

Precisley why the consensus is that the debate is over. Precisely why the tunnel is getting built.

Seems clear enough that tunnel opponents won the debate. Opponents raised virtually all the pertinent questions regarding how the DBT would fail. Proponents failed to address the questions and only offered weak defense of their planning efforts, another issue in question. There is not an argument in favor that doesn’t have a more compelling argument against.

McGinn comment:

“We’re not united because it’s hard to unify behind a bad project.”

“You can shut the viaduct down faster and fix problems faster with surface option than deep bore tunnel.”

“What’s really irresponsible is keeping the viaduct open (as long as we are) and not building the I-5/transit option.”

“We don’t know how much it’s actually going to cost. Seattle cannot live with paying the cost overruns. I’ve kept my word to ask the tough questions about this tunnel. If we say we don’t want to pay, and the state says they don’t want to pay, it leaves out the question, who will pay?”

Dave Freiboth said, “Constituents want jobs, not talk about social services,” which flies in the face of the fact that there are “more jobs” sooner and overall with the surface/transit option than with the DBT.

I was in the audience, and thought there was actually a fairly equal division of people for variious options in attendance.

What I don’t get are the people for an AWV rebuild.

This WAS something that WAS voted upon, and it was a definate NO. Assume the AVW rebuild was going to happen. Do these people understand what it will have to look like? Because of new standards that did not exist at the time the current one was built, it woulld have to have about a 50% bigger footprint. It also would have high side walls. You would have to be sitting in the cab of a large semi-truck to see over it. Finally, it would still come down in a major earthquake. There is only so much sesimic reinforcement and design that can be done. The soil below it negates any sesimic resistance.

Finally, it’s an eyesore that cuts off the waterfront now, and will be a bigger one in version 2.

No new information. Nobody changed their minds.

Sounds like a non-event to me.

Good observations. There were also lots of things that have a major impact on this project, especially developments in the last week, that were not said by anyone, or just alluded to, due to the time constraints.

The Ironworkers are going to get work, no mater what option is implemented. However the DBT is going to give them a huge windfall, so it’s not suprising that is their preferred option.

Plus, we should put ourselves in the shoes of laborers thinking about which project is most likely to bring actual as opposed to theoretical pay. Are you going to support the project that is actually moving forward, or the one promised by people whose approach to the legislature is the backhanded poo-fling?

It’s all moot. Rasmussen was sent out to Dick Cheney the proceedings for Conlin. Nothing will stop the train now until/if

A) I-1053 wins the fight for us in absurd fashion–which is possible by forcing the tolling/cost overruns to be re-opened.
B) The funding is re-opened again–will the legislature again approve $4B+ considering our deficit?
C) Lawsuits bury the tunnel.
D) The SCAT initiative or the alliance one somehow stops it.
E) Conlin & co grow a pair and actually allow voters to be heard on a vote on this project, rather than letting a handful of insiders set the fate of the entire region for the next half century.

Potential construction of a deep bore tunnel was included in the letter because the surface transit component of the replacement would not get the job done in terms of a comprehensive replacement plan. That’s what I meant by indicating that it “wasn’t thought out”. The letter was not intended as an endorsement of the surface transit option as the sole solution.

Once Mike’s “We should find a way to change it!” converts itself into a concerted legislative effort on his part I will gladly support him. Until then, he’s just another guy who got caught flatfooted in a debate.

Freiboth is an idiot, at least politically speaking. His all-out endorsement of Nickels in the primary, followed by his all-out endorsement of Mallahan in the general, shows how much political weight he commands.

Freiboth is an idiot, at least politically speaking. His all-out endorsement of Nickels in the primary, followed by his all-out endorsement of Mallahan in the general, shows how much political weight he commands.

Let’s talk about social justice and funding for priorities.

The money that is paying for these projects is from the Transpo funds, which can’t be diverted to programs for things like ending homelessness or extending a lifeline to poor families.

Rather, we focus on an advisory vote that cost the city over $1 million, a vote that everyone admitted was pointless.

And now we’re talking about spending money on two initiatives that will also be pointless – Cities don’t get to tell States what to do.

So all of you folks saying we should spend this money in other ways – go fuck yourselves. It can’t be done. It’s either being spent here, or being spent on expanding capacity on Highway 9, or Highway 2, or in Eastern “we hate taxes that help the poor” Washington.

You would rather divert city resources to pointless elections, and spend your own money on advocating a position in this pointless election, then actually getting out there and doing something good for poor folks that I’m starting to hear people say we are neglecting.

Way to go.

Let’s talk about social justice and funding for priorities.

The money that is paying for these projects is from the Transpo funds, which can’t be diverted to programs for things like ending homelessness or extending a lifeline to poor families.

Rather, we focus on an advisory vote that cost the city over $1 million, a vote that everyone admitted was pointless.

And now we’re talking about spending money on two initiatives that will also be pointless – Cities don’t get to tell States what to do.

So all of you folks saying we should spend this money in other ways – go fuck yourselves. It can’t be done. It’s either being spent here, or being spent on expanding capacity on Highway 9, or Highway 2, or in Eastern “we hate taxes that help the poor” Washington.

You would rather divert city resources to pointless elections, and spend your own money on advocating a position in this pointless election, then actually getting out there and doing something good for poor folks that I’m starting to hear people say we are neglecting.

Way to go.

I live sixty miles away. Yet I am – an will be – paying to replace the AWV.

Which is another way to say, THIS IS A STATE HIGHWAY. Voters in Seattle
are NOT NOT NOT the final decision makers – nor is your Council. The Governor and the Legislature decided.

Dollars being used are GAS TAX DOLLARS. According to the State Constitution, these funds can ONLY be spent on roads. You can’t spend these dollars on services for the homeless, OR TRANSIT.

Those are the facts. McGinn knows these are the facts. Yet he grandstands and plays cute on these issues. Fine. But Murray is right: Because of all this political posturing, Seattle has zero credibility in Olympia.

Ross Kane
Warm Beach

My favorite monorail vote was the third one. Or maybe the second. Or maybe the fifth. I voted so many times I get confused.

Joe, when are you going to accept that votes do not necessarily equal progress?

Some of us hate the idea of a tunnel but are more opposed to the ridiculous legal language that says Seattle pays for overruns. If that language was killed today in Olympia and the cost was spread evenly between all the 6,600,000+ people here, in the law, a lot of would have no more major cause to complain.

On the flip side, for some of us, we’re upset on the local level that our city council is basically not even willing to budge and actually investigated legal steps to stop Seattle’s own citizens from impeding their work on the tunnel. If they hadn’t acted out like spoiled little kids when groups said, “Wait a minute, what about this overruns thing?” a lot of us wouldn’t even be bent out of shape. When you try to legally curtail the ability of your citizens to petition the government some of us justifiably get upset.

Technically, his reelection over and over to lead the M.L. King County Labor Council shows how much political weight he commands. As in, rather a lot, whether you like it or no.

I have no illusions on that, believe me. It’s just the principle of the thing.

By the way, Josh, what happened to our questions via Publicola? Did anyone even ask these clowns where the Port of Seattle was getting their share of the tunnel money from, and when they were paying it up?

Ross and MichaelP are sadly right. The article’s remark, “social justice dollars over public transportation dollars (some could argue they’re the same thing)” is ridiculous. Temporary jobs for certain classes of union workers do not equal social justice. Freiboth may feel that his “constituents” equate the two but in the face of whole programs for the poor and soon-to-be-poor being eliminated over the next two years, his remark is at the least insensitive. Transportation dollars are walled off from the vulnerable general fund, one-third of which will be cut over the next two years. Don’t drag social justice into this stupid argument.

That’s assuming that doing nothing is less costly and less risky. Sounds like we need another EIS to study the impacts of doing nothing.

And should we have the same “no” attitude to walk, bike, ride during this tough economic times? The great recession is the the great scapegoat. Most of the costs will be bore for years to come when this down-turn is long gone, as will the benefits.

The sadly more likely scenario is more folks off their meds wandering the streets. May not necessarily be hatchet murderers, but that’s what we’re going to be facing.

I’ve changed my position (mainly from the comments section here at publicola) from DBT supporter to rebuild to replace a portion or most capacity. The other portion plus future capacity should be met by transit.

At some point something has to get done, even if it’s not what half the people want.

If I wore a hat I’d tip it to you for that.

On the other hand, many politicians that get things done subscribe to the Groucho Marx approach: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them … well, I have others.” Hard to say which approach seems to be succeeding here.

To be completely fair, we can spend money however we want – it’s our money. Sure we have a piece in our constitution about having to spend fuel tax money on roads, but it’s our constitution and we can change it if we want.

That said, there are massive political roadblocks between here and there.

But you’re shoving your state highway through my city. And then telling me that if you build it wrong, I have to pay for your over-runs.

Yup, it’s called representative government.

The surface transit option did have the support of 6 of the 29 stakeholders. Of course to PubliCola Moonies, they are the only ones who count. The other 23 are simply misinformed, reactionaries, or part of some kind of evil conspiracy

The tunnel will get started. Built is a different question?

The cost overrun provision is unfortunate, but it makes sense. Folks like Larry Seaquist would have not only voted against the bill, but probably could have successfully killed the tunnel, without the provision. What would be left? A taller, wider viaduct.

If I may – let’s change the conversation to priorities in transit and transportation. The Surface Street option isn’t going to happen. While there may be the political will in Seattle, I have yet to see the will to reduce capacity that much in Olympia (and having a mayor that calls the Legislature and Governor a liar really doesn’t help). However, this little tunnel does reduce capacity pretty significantly. The tolls add to that reduction. Then there’s the $15mm per year that the County is supposed to kick in. And maybe, with a bit more effective lobbying in Olympia, we can get that provision in to allow us to tax ourselves for more transit.

Either way, the options before us are a tunnel with reduced capacity, or a rebuild with increased capacity.

Now, it really is unfortunate that the idea came so late in the game, but personally, I don’t mind the STB plan at all. Single level, four lane rebuild. That would also give us reduced capacity, cost less (although the idea that that $1b would actually be spent in Seattle is ludicrous), and Elizabeth Campbell can continue to watch the water instead of the road when she drives.

In the end, I get that the Mikes want us to have a surface street option, but at this point, I fear Olympia would blockade that just to spite McGinn. I’m in the reduced capacity camp. If that’s through a tunnel with unenforceable overruns provisions, or through the STB plan, I don’t really care, as long as we start moving ourselves to more transit usage for urban dwellers.

As a side note – I think that transit should include BRT from Ballard and W. Seattle, a larger foot ferry from W. Seattle, and a park and ride for the foot ferry. But that’s just me.

King County, and Seattle in particular, pay a lot more in gas and other taxes then we get back, so it is not really far to say that anyone other than us are paying for it. But the rest is spot on.

Well, we can be technical, or we can live in the real world. You and I both know better than that

If that is what you meant, then you need to realign your position in light of the fact that the DBT as currently known, is also not a comprehensive replacement plan. The purpose should have been to find out what was the most feasible in terms of all the factors that you alluded to, and some you left out, not just as a replacement for equal capacity (which the DBT is not), but for the abiltiy to build upon that in the future.

The DBT as is currently known, pretty much stops with the DBT.

So who is it REALLY for? You alluded to that question last night, but were not challenged on it.

I don’t know what this “real world” thing that you’re talking about is, but in my world there has been an obvious shift since that amendment was added to our constitution in the ’50s. Fuel spending no longer has a direct relationship with road miles, and there are more and more of us questioning why we hold roads up on a pedestal. Beer tax money isn’t written in the constitution to only be spent on public toilets, why should be roads be any different?

Don’t get me wrong – I would be amazed if we changed this amendment this decade. But it’s possible and worth fighting for.

Unfortunately, nobody brought up the very vaild point of the MVET tax (declared unconstitutional), and the fact that the Gov vetoed or threatened to veto anything similar that would deliver what was promised.

The original package she endorsed no longer exists. It’s amazing how She and the Legislature can continue to behave like nothing has changed. Maybe not so amazing….

Don’t yell Damn the Torpedoes, unless you are willing to get hit and sunk by them.

It should be changed, sure, but we have many things that are dedicated taxes. Parts of tobacco tax are dedicated to public health stuff. Alcohol to public safety (if memory serves, at least part). The candy/soda tax was tied to education.

This “real world” I talk about is the world outside of Seattle. I love my city, but it would behoove folks to remember that Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma, Spokane, Vancouver et al do not feel the same way about transit that we do. If we were to ever get this amendment removed or modified (ie: roads AND transit), then it’s a fight that has to be taken outside of the city. And not by being the moral preaching high ground taking folks, but an honest conversation about the benefits to everyone, and not just environmental, but economical, etc.

You don’t have to be sad when I make a good point! Be happy! They’re few and far between

I’d agree to all that. Except I think you’re missing a few strategies, such as using the tunnel debate to outline exactly how many tax dollars could be saved by changing that amendment. Or removing it completely so that we can build roads when we’re rich and not build roads when we’re poor. But that could be a full post on its own.

Matt Master of Misinformation.

The amendment was the result of actions in the thirties that resulted in an amendment being passed in the 1943 by the House and being approved in 1944.

I know you’re a great supporter of EVs but how is it that fuel spending is no longer a direct relationship with road miles in that almost every vehicle uses fuel that is on the highway today?

Starting to grow on me, this based in reality perspective of yours.

In my opinion it isn’t fair to say that the vote communicated that sentiment. The cut/cover approach is much more disruptive and it could be that the disruption was what the voters didn’t like about the plan– costs more than a rebuild but has the same unpleasant disruption, to say it bluntly.

You’re being hyperbolic. Who has endorsed “doing nothing?” There are more sensible options than a DBT; they also happen to be more affordable. Let’s all have a rationale conversation about those options as a way to move forward.

Union elections are rarely — i.e. almost never — contested. So while he’s technically an “elected” leader, he was elected without opposition. That’s either because he’s so wildly popular with every single union member in the county… or because of something in the structure of union organizations that tends to preclude competitive elections.

None of which is relevant to his actual political weight in the County as a whole. Which is slim-to-none.

Excellent, Jakers. Any shift away from the DBT is a shift toward something more rational; you’re advancing a healthy dialogue for everyone.

You’re full of baloney, the letter you are talking about was crafted after the SAC released its findings, which was that the hybrid elevated and the hybrid surface were the two that the SAC believed to be the most viable. That was the findings of the SAC. The deep bored was the thing that you and your cronies put together outside of the SAC. Let’s keep with the truth, there are too many documents assembled that show that high level WSDOT officials, in conjunction with labor and downtown interests commandeered the replacement conversation and set their own agenda. You folks may try to claim the cover of the SAC – but to do so is a lie.

End of SAC process, it recommends hybrid elevated, hybrid surface on Dec. 11th ; it is hard to find coverage of this event, but nickels, Gregoire and sims were at it: http://westseattleblog.com/2008/12/new-alaskan-way-viaduct-scenarios-guest-editorial

Dec. 13th, see gene hoglund’s narrative of what happened, http://www.scatnow.com/index_files/TunnelFactFictions.htm

Dec. 16th, the insider group of SAC starts paving the way for the bored tunnel to come to the fore: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008528037_opin17viaduct.html

Dec. 18th see letter attached that is basis for the claim now that the SAC actually thought the deep bored was better – understand – the SAC never studied deep bored, the only basis for this letter is the ARUP report that Discovery Institute, Bruce Agnew cooked up and that was processed behind the scenes with WSDOT officials

Then here is the things on the web that I mentioned, you can follow these links:

Erica’s review of tunnel fix
http://www.publicola.net/2009/10/23/documents-reveal-the-fix-was-in-for-deep-bore-tunnel/

I take your point; we could parse the “meaning” of a three-year old vote endlessly. However, we have to make a decision in today’s environment with today’s facts.

In that context, I’ll stand by my belief that the #1 issue to voters, whether in Seattle or state-wide, is cost. Government budgets everywhere are in shambles. We need to be spending money as wisely as possible. That strategy does not include a DBT which is by far the most expensive option on the table.

I am 100% sympatico with O’Brien on the arrogance of building the world’s largest-ever DBT to carry one third of the present trip load (per the draft EIS).

I take your point; we could parse the “meaning” of a three-year old vote endlessly. However, we have to make a decision in today’s environment with today’s facts.

In that context, I’ll stand by my belief that the #1 issue to voters, whether in Seattle or state-wide, is cost. Government budgets everywhere are in shambles. We need to be spending money as wisely as possible. That strategy does not include a DBT which is by far the most expensive option on the table.

I am 100% sympatico with O’Brien on the arrogance of building the world’s largest-ever DBT to carry one third of the present trip load (per the draft EIS).

Which is why he was on the stakeholders’ committee and last night’s panel. Got it. Thanks.

But 2/3 of the people oppose every option. That’s the problem. If you could get even half of the people who care, this wouldn’t be so intractable.

Think of him as a labor version of Knute Berger. People sometimes listen to him because he’s somebody who they’ve been told they should listen to. Doesn’t mean he can make anything happen. But it does mean he gets invited to sit at a lot of tables.

Think of him as a labor version of Knute Berger. People sometimes listen to him because he’s somebody who they’ve been told they should listen to. Doesn’t mean he can make anything happen. But it does mean he gets invited to sit at a lot of tables.

I probably shouldn’t respond to you for a few months, since you’re demeaning the position of Publicola commenter, but here it goes.

I believe your ’44 date – I hadn’t looked it up for a while.

“almost every vehicle uses fuel that is on the highway today” There’s been a debate for the past year or two about how to keep highway funding going as we see more efficient vehicles (and therefore more miles driven on roads per dollar of taxes) and electric cars. These arguments have arisen from the road-lovers complaining about a lack of road funding, but might be useful in consensus building.

I probably shouldn’t respond to you for a few months, since you’re demeaning the position of Publicola commenter, but here it goes.

I believe your ’44 date – I hadn’t looked it up for a while.

“almost every vehicle uses fuel that is on the highway today” There’s been a debate for the past year or two about how to keep highway funding going as we see more efficient vehicles (and therefore more miles driven on roads per dollar of taxes) and electric cars. These arguments have arisen from the road-lovers complaining about a lack of road funding, but might be useful in consensus building.

I’m all in favor of the state spending its money on projects closer to where you live instead of in Seattle, ruining my hometown.

In fact, I think that’s a key to solving this whole problem: cut the state out of the decision by limiting their involvement to a teardown of the existing viaduct, followed by a transfer of the right-of-way to Seattle. Then Seattle can decide what to do all by itself, on its own dime, or regionally via Sound Transit.

I’m all in favor of the state spending its money on projects closer to where you live instead of in Seattle, ruining my hometown.

In fact, I think that’s a key to solving this whole problem: cut the state out of the decision by limiting their involvement to a teardown of the existing viaduct, followed by a transfer of the right-of-way to Seattle. Then Seattle can decide what to do all by itself, on its own dime, or regionally via Sound Transit.

I agree with you there– I’d rather see the money go elsewhere– 520 for instance, if it has to be a road. I don’t personally feel the risk is as great as it is made out to be, but the other questions/disagreeement about the project are enough to make it seem inappropriate to proceed.

The rebuild got a lot more votes than the tunnel did – and probably got more votes than any option other could except for retrofitting the existing structure.

You want to see something get its ass kicked decisively by the voters? Put the so-called “Surface/Transit” option on the ballot. There’s a reason why Jan Drago and Nickels saw to it that voters didn’t get to weigh in on that.

oops – make that “other option” could

oops – make that “other option” could

the Mikes will have a difficult time convincing Olympia to change the deep bore project.

the discusison here is mistating the issue over the opportunity cost. the wsdot funds from the gas tax are subject to the 18th amendment. the deep bore exhausts them and requires $900m in Seattle funds. the surface, transit, and I-5 also exhausts them, but spent more wsdot funds on the arterials and required less Seattle funds. both options need the one percent MVET for transit; where is that?

We supported the elevated because the state paid 100%, plus cost overruns. No tolls. No extra traffic on city streets. Zero city costs. No $500 million city cost for utilities or the seawall—the state picked that up. Not a bad deal in hindsight, no?

“My belief, the #1 issue to voters, Seattle or state-wide, is cost.”

Agreed. Closely following cost issue is construction ‘disruption’ for waterfront businesses and driving routine for SR99 motorists.
Should these concerns be first and foremost?
Should basic engineering to manage traffic and limit environmental impact take back seat? Were all the issues presented to the public honestly?

Question: Could the surface/transit option make a Phase One, shovel-ready project that doesn’t rule out a cut/cover tunnel?

Consider WSDOT Scenario ‘H’ lidded trench cut/cover. Particularly note its Lower Belltown treatment for “neatly” aligning SR99 to the Battery Street Tunnel. There’s only 2 stoplight intersections – Western & Bell and Elliott & Blanchard.

WSDOT Scenarios ‘B’ & ‘C’ Surface Boulevard have 5 & 8 stoplights respectively. This is why I question whether DOT presents material honestly.

Could the 2 stoplight intersection design of Scenario ‘H’ work for a Phase One surface/transit design that doesn’t rule out a future cut/cover? Once the seawall is rebuilt and the AWV removed, could SR99 traffic use the east half of Alaskan Way while the trench cut/cover is constructed in 2-block segments on the west half? Is WSDOT being honest?

Not true. Dominic Holden pointed out 16 months ago in the Stranger, before the primary, that the Surface option actually required a few million more funds from Seattle.

The rebuild still got 55 percent no votes. Close but no cigar. The state at the time was also willing also kick in the money for the Surface + Transit option. The Gov got so frustrated, she backed up the “stakeholders” to get things moving in any direction. Bad choice.

Did I say there was majority support for any option? No – what I said is that of all the possible options, a rebuild (and probably retrofit) would have the strongest plurality, and that the so-called “surface/transit” option has the weakest one. Kind of a difference, there.

I still contend WSDOT (vindictively?) rigged their studies to favor the elevated replacement. Who really knows if any cost projection is accurate. Fricking Highway Robbers at Club WSDOT. Rebuilding the seawall is city responsibility. Losing the Columbia/Seneca ramps to 1st Ave would reduce traffic on 1st Ave and on steep side streets leading to the ramps. The overhead highway and ramps in Lower Belltown were always stupid engineering.

I don’t think that I am. The bad economy is a lame excuse. But let’s say that it is valid, then spending money, no matter the solution/need (walk, bike, ride or surface/transit or for whatever needed major infrastructure) would need to be prioritized. Prioritization means stuff doesn’t get done and that means that you don’t only study the effects of the things that your think should be done, it means that you study the effects of not doing anything for the items that don’t get funded.

If we (the state) don’t have the money for a tunnel and aren’t going to pay for Seattle’s transit and surface streets and Seattle doesn’t have money for the surface street upgrades and to pay for it’s own transit, then we need to study what will happen if we maintain the status quo.

Let me correct my statement….even if it’s not what 66.7% of the people want.

We have cussed and discussed this topic ad infinatum! We have had a vote and the funding is set. The red herring about Seattle having to come up with millions in cost overurns is bunk. McGuinn did a 180 on his views re the tunnel b/4 the election to get elected. He did just barely – maybe. Then after the election he has thrown every objection he can dream up to throw a monkeywrench in the process. Go back to Chicago and the rest of you go back to wherever you came from. I am tired of being “advised” from these johnny-come-lateleys. Let’s get on with it!

Well, we will never know without a vote, will we?

the 18th amendmenet constrains the WSDOT funds from the gas tax; that is capped at $2.4 billion; the surface, transit, and I-5 option would have used less of the state funds on SR-99 itself and would have covered more of the arterials; but the state is proceeding with the deep bore; the social service opportunity cost issue arises if the deep bore cost more than the capped state funds AND with the $900m in city funds that are not constrained by the 18th amendment; we will not know the outcome for several years, if costs are higher than the cap and the expected Seattle costs.

the panelists misstated the transit funding issue a bit. the 2009 agreement of the executives was for the one percent MVET; the 2010 Gregoire veto was for the more modest vehicle fee that the county already has under the transportation benefit district enabling legislation. will Gregoire propose the MVET?

OK then – let’s have an honest vote. Tunnel, elevated replacement, or the so-called “Surface/Transit” plan, and the one that gets the largest plurality goes forward.

I bet you wouldn’t like the results.

The public is deceitfully misled by DOT propaganda. Why do car dealers fly dozens of US flags above their lots? Answer: To mislead psuedo-patriotic Americans into believing car dealers give a shit about the United States. They don’t. Their only love is money. They’re your kind of people, X.

Whatever you say, armchair planner guy.

Oh yeah, I forgot – Portland armchair planner guy.

I’m more of a planner than beer gut, big mouth, know nothings like X.

I repeat the question I have repeatedly asked and you have repeatedly refused to answer – what are your professional qualifications to sit in judgement of anyone who comments here?

I’m not holding my breath.

I will also settle for any actual resume experience where you were paid to offer your pearls of wisdom, too.

Actually, you have to qualify that by acknowledging that the AWV is going to be taken down, no matter what is decided.

Once you acknowledge that, doing nothing could mean a vacant lot and no more access via that route, or the minimalist approach of a Surface replacement only on that section. Nothing else.

I think that would be a bit drastic, don’t you? Then again, it would be great for shock value, to get people to wake up as well….

Using bridges for pedestrian access across the highway could eliminate any unneeded stoplights in the sections in question, as has been done elsewhere in a surface replacement option. It would also lessen the impact at the Northern entrance, and on Aurora, since the traffic would flow a lot more smoothly.

Note none of the abover was even considered in the WASDOT scenarios. Not because it was not feasible or possible or course….

She does not seem interested, or really cares at this point. Damn the Torpedoes. Then again, if pressed, she could duck the issue like Sen. Murray did, by saying “no one asked.”

She does not seem interested, or really cares at this point. Damn the Torpedoes. Then again, if pressed, she could duck the issue like Sen. Murray did, by saying “no one asked.”

Talking sense to X is indeed like casting pearls before swine.

Talking sense to X is indeed like casting pearls before swine.

So I take it by your non-response that the answer to my question is none?

So how many sitting Mayors, City Councilmembers, and/or City Attorneys have you participated in televised debates with? For me it’s one, two and one – which I strongly suspect is one, two and one more than you have.

I call for a debate on Interstate 5.

Would we close the freeway for that, or just let the politicians dodge cars?

X, you rarely have anything of merit to say. You’re playing a game of shoot the messenger, me, because I expose incompetence and corruption, and this upsets your perverted notion of public participation. Nothing you’ve ever written indicates you have the wherewithall to interview city officials.

…still haven’t answered the question, have we?

And I didn’t say I had “interviewed” city officials – I participated in public policy debates with them. Of the four instances I cite, my side prevailed in three….

…and hearing you talk about someone playing a “game of shoot the messenger” is really rich coming from someone who is making cracks about “beer guts” and whatnot (fortunately for me, my smoking hot girlfriend likes me despite the fact that I’m carrying a few extra pounds around the middle)…

Oh yeah, just to remind everyone out there who is still following this thread, Sirkulat is also the paranoid nutjob who said that WSDOT was going to be prosecuted for their criminality.

So how’s that coming along?