Just Say No

Or we could go with my idea of shutting down the Viaduct immediately and waiting a month. Then vote. If traffic really becomes as bad as the Council thinks, the tunnel will pass with a strong majority and we’ll open back up the Viaduct.

Fortunately our elected officials already looked at this for us and concluded that the tunnel was the best option. McGinn doesn’t agree with that, but he has more of an axe to grind. I agree with him that new freeways out in suburban/ exurban areas cause sprawl and are bad. Putting an existing freeway in an already built up urban area underground would actually reduce our carbon footprint since cars will be able to move steadily rather than crawl along stopping at, what was it, 38 stoplights they were predicting for the surface option.

Only 40,000 cars will “move freely” through the tunnel, the other 80,000 will be diverted to surface streets and I5.

“How about putting the three options up for a vote, and the one with the highest percentage wins?”

We did that. Rebuild got 47%. Tunnel got roughly 25%. “No/No” got even less (the unspoken “surface” choice promoted here and at the Stranger).

We already voted on it, for chrissakes. Yet the choice that got the most votes is off the table, and the (supposed) choice that got the least (No/No = surface) is front and center here.

Obviously there is small but vocal group who oppose the tunnel for various reasons. One key point to the tunnel is the fact that the viaduct will still stand while the tunnel is being excavated. This is a huge plus for mobility and commerce. Other options will severely screw things up.

This is exactly why we should have used ranked choice voting for the viaduct. It’s a situation like this, precisely, where you need to be able to put your preferences in order. We’d have much better information now if we had done the vote that way. As it was done, the vote did not really give good information about what people really wanted.

This is exactly why we should have used ranked choice voting for the viaduct. It’s a situation like this, precisely, where you need to be able to put your preferences in order. We’d have much better information now if we had done the vote that way. As it was done, the vote did not really give good information about what people really wanted.

Actually, if traffic became as bad with the viaduct closed as most people expect, that would prove we should build a new viaduct, which is the obvious choice from a transportation perspective — lower cost and more capacity than the tunnel, with downtown onramps and offramps.

Even McGinn has said the tunnel will cause bad traffic congestion downtown. With no tunnel and no viaduct, what would traffic be like?

What’s stopping McGinn from implementing his surface (Seattle City streets so totally in his power) / Transit (Metro KC and ST, so he should have some influence) option no matter what the state decides to do with its highway?

I’m no transit engineer, but it sounds like a lot of those 80,000 diverted to surface streets are intra-city trips that should be the worry of the City anyway.

“How about putting the three options up for a vote, and the one with the highest percentage wins?”

Wins what? Which three options (DBT, rebuild, surface/transit, do nothing, retrofit)?

The question on the advisory vote should be, “Should the City Council work with the state on the Deep Bore Tunnel project?” Not which options Seattleites want. Because working with the state or not is really what the end result of a vote will be if the council decides to follow it; it will not mean that the chosen option will then be implemented.

Exactly.

Exactly.

While we are at it, it would be nice to use ranked choice voting for politicians as well. If only…

While we are at it, it would be nice to use ranked choice voting for politicians as well. If only…

Proves nothing. “No SR-99″ between Spokane St. and Aurora Ave. is not one of the options, under anyone’s scenarios. Taking that piece off-line and doing nothing just creates a big mess — but if your strategy is to bamboozle voters into supporting the tunnel, it might work. But it would still be disingenuous.

The viaduct replacement between Spokane and King streets is already under construction as a surface highway with no stop-lights. That gets us from West Seattle to downtown very well — in fact for people going to City Hall or the stadiums, it works better than the current Seneca St. ramp.

This West Seattleite figured out a long time ago, the tunnel does nothing for me, except for a couple of times a year when I’m headed up Aurora Ave. When the tunnel does come, I’ll undoubted do like most motorists and avoid the toll; I-5 here I come.

The argument the tunnel folks use is that a rebuild means not having a Viaduct for years anyway. So if a Viaduct-less Seattle is really gridlocked, a rebuild proably isn’t the best option.

money. If we spend money on the tunnel it’s not available for removing the I5 bottleneck, improving surface streets, or improving transit.

You’re right, they should be the worry of the city. Why then are we going full speed ahead with the tunnel, which has no downtown exits? It continues to baffle me that downtown businesses are ignoring the actual effect of the tunnel which is to let some people pay to bypass downtown while cramming more cars onto the surface streets with no mitigation.

money. If we spend money on the tunnel it’s not available for removing the I5 bottleneck, improving surface streets, or improving transit.

You’re right, they should be the worry of the city. Why then are we going full speed ahead with the tunnel, which has no downtown exits? It continues to baffle me that downtown businesses are ignoring the actual effect of the tunnel which is to let some people pay to bypass downtown while cramming more cars onto the surface streets with no mitigation.

Get over it Feit. The state will build a state highway on state owned property. They don’t need permission from the naysayers that read this rather boring blog.

Get over it Feit. The state will build a state highway on state owned property. They don’t need permission from the naysayers that read this rather boring blog.

Yawn. The horse is dead. Get a (journalistic) life.

Yawn. The horse is dead. Get a (journalistic) life.

I think Josh is asking a good question, but I don’t see any good answer out there. Not on this blog or anywhere else. The tunnel is much as Churchill described democracy: “”Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

“The tunnel is the worst form of alternative, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Basically what Nick Licata told the naysayers yesterday.

The element of this story that Josh and everyone else is ignoring is who is running the referendum campaign – the folks behind I-101 and I-102. They forged an alliance against the tunnel. Who knows what the relationship is truly like, but it doesn’t really matter – it changes the power dynamic completely.

Now the tunnel supporters are in the minority and have to defend their choice. Meanwhile, if the alliance can keep the tunnel folks on the defensive, it buys them time to figure out how they settle on a jointly supported alternative.

Say what you will, but the tunnel crowd just got caught in a classic pincer move.

I don’t think that the state should be paying for Seattle streets or transit and should only pay mitigation if they decide to simply tear the AWV down and do nothing else.

Sure it stinks to have no downtown exits, but the 2007 advisory vote also struck down the rebuild option that would have had those exits. So the only option left would be the surface/transit option, which to me is the state does nothing option.

The current cut-cover tunnel in the DEIS is constructed while leaving the AWV in place and operating. It’s a ‘stacked’ 6-lane version that lines-up well with Sodo SR99 design. It is built at the same time as the seawall. The cut-cover tunnel in March 2007 was a wider, single-level, 4-lane version that required taking the AWV down to finish it.

Wsdot could have put the ‘stacked’ version on that ballot. They studied it and knew it would be less disruptive to construct, but they preferred building the elevated replacement monstrosity (from the very start) and gambled voters would approve it and reject the cut-cover option which was not the best.

Once the 6-lane ‘stacked’ cut-cover tunnel is completed, the AWV is demolished and the SR99 segment between Pike Street and the Battery Street Tunnel is constructed. Traffic is diverted via Broad Street and a new bridge over the RR tracks. This takes 1-2 years, boo hoo. Reconnecting the grid over Aurora at John, Thomas and Harrison Streets can also be done at this time, or not. Maybe the Paul and Bill club could pay for that part. They want it more than anyone else. Or, by cancelling the terrible Mercer West project to build a new bridge over a widened Mercer at Aurora, the money could go to reconnecting the grid. The 1st Phase of Mercer should be okay, but Mercer West will ruin Queen Anne with traffic.

Removing some stoplights on Alaskan and doing a bit of work on I-5 aren’t huge changes. Most of the streets-and-transit plan is about removing or changing car trips. Beef up bus service, and if things don’t slow down too much then we can fatten up I-5 with some of our saved money.

Why aren’t we fixing the I5 “bottleneck” with Federal funds if it’s so easy in addition to the viaduct problem no matter what the final solution. Did Seattle and WA State government forget to submit an application for stimulus money? Or perhaps it really can’t be done…

The square quotes around the word bottleneck are unnecessary, the bottleneck is there around the Seneca st exit. Check it out on Google maps, the number of through lanes get reduced at that point.

Removing the bottleneck isn’t “easy” or “hard” but like anything else requires money and political will. Since Seattle city council chose not to do the I5/Surface/Transit option in favor of the tunnel no attempt was made to secure funds for that part of the I5/Surface/Transit option or any part of it for that matter.

Tell you what sirkulat, if the viaduct gets toppled in an earthquake tomorrow and wasn’t a factor anymore, I’d support such an option. But I wouldn’t put up with a decade of construction otherwise. Yours may be the most optimal transportation system in the end, but time is a factor that you need to consider in your equation. The DBT does have some major advantages in being able to be built with minor disruption while keeping the viaduct open. That is a critical issue.

Tell you what sirkulat, if the viaduct gets toppled in an earthquake tomorrow and wasn’t a factor anymore, I’d support such an option. But I wouldn’t put up with a decade of construction otherwise. Yours may be the most optimal transportation system in the end, but time is a factor that you need to consider in your equation. The DBT does have some major advantages in being able to be built with minor disruption while keeping the viaduct open. That is a critical issue.

Josh is asking a great question (I’ve been asking it for about a year but that’s not the point).

Resolve the “opinion” of the Seatlle people. No, it is not enforceable or meaningful to the project, but it is important to understand an official survey of opinion. If the “no” folks insist on pissing money away on a meaningless “no” vote then you should not have to have another vote on what “yes” would be. Assuming that if Seattle said “no” to the DBT is an automatics “yes” for the Surface option if flat-freaking-stupid.

I, for one, would support traffic going under or over, but not through. I am willing to wager with my tax dollars by paying for a ranked choice “yes” vote to find out to resolve the non-binding and unenforceable opinion of the Seattle electorate.
Maybe McGinn knows that he could not gain a majority out of a ranked choice vote?
Maybe he s a chicken?

Well, you must have missed the news yesterday, the tunnel is moving ahead. The tunnel supporters are still in an 8 to 1 majority. The council could put something on the same ballot. If we are going to be forced to pay for counting votes then they might as well tell us something other than “no”.
The Knights who say “no” are still having to scramble.

Hey Jakers, thanks for the reply. It’s important when considering transportation issues to focus on the “trip” as the basic unit of analysis, not the mile. State transportation planning should respond to the scale of the physical environment rather than impose an inappropriate scale. To do otherwise is to punish municipalities with more compact land use.

I don’t understand the logic of the argument that the “state” will build whatever it wants over the wishes of its largest city because it’s a state highway, but we don’t have to worry about the Legislature clearly stating that it will not pay for cost overruns because the city won’t let that happen.

I like Josh better than I like Erica.

The voters said “Yes” to ST1, the monorail, ST2, the monorail, KC Transit Now, the monorail, Seattle Transit Now, the monorail, and Bridging the Gap. What part of “Yes” don’t you understand, Josh?

I try to take all factors into my analysis, guide. You’re right about the DBT may be built with least disruption though there’ll still be plenty, but it also has many red flags for predictable worst-case scenarios and worsens already terrible traffic patterns on Mercer and Denny Way and somewhat worsen traffic on Alaskan Way and Pioneer District. Studies show the cut-cover tunnel displaces the least traffic onto surface streets. Retaining the Battery Street Tunnel and cancelling “Mercer West” will likewise displace the least traffic onto surface streets.
(I’ve always supported the initial Mercer rebuild.)
I am sorry to have to be blunt and alarmist about the DBT.

I don’t think this is about the tunnel anymore. I think it’s about winning.

Great Post Josh.

Exactly Josh. A solution and action are required.
To the Surface villagers with torches:
there are seven options that are beloved to your dear fellow neighbors,that’s the problem:
Deep Bore Tunnel under 1st Ave (1), Surface (2), Elliott Bay Suspension Bridge (3), Do Nothing Hoard-Pennies Wait-For-Quake (4), Ditch Along Waterfront Tunnel (5), Retrofit (6), Rebuild (7).
Get the picture, y’all?

I’m better at liking Erica, but I like Josh more.

If we grant your premise, we still end up at the same place — no option with popular support.

Except this time would have cost us even more time and money. Awesome.

Sure, Seattlites vote for transit plans — and that’s a good thing.

However, I still have yet to understand what the “transit” in the “Surface/Transit” plan actually is (and no, I’m not going to look at your damn fact sheet).

If you can’t explain it in a sentence, you don’t have a plan. And you certainly don’t have 50%.

I’m not sure why a vote in Seattle is relevant. It is a state road being replaced with state money. It is a state decision. Any binding vote needs to be a vote of voters statewide. The elected officials with responsibility for the decision (State Legislature and Governor) made the final decision a couple of years ago and construction has begun. The city government cannot prevent the state government from moving forward with the project. All the city can do is delay the project and make the costs go up for all of us.

You forgot Choppaduct.

Yeah, we’ll see how many people who said they wouldn’t pay a toll will actually not cough up $2.50 to not sit there idling through 38 stoplights.

And they said no to ST, ST again, the monorail, and Roads & Transit.

But yes, voters can say Yes. So, put up some solutions, and see which one the most voters say Yes to. I think we agree here, Brent.

Try to have some empathy for these poor sods. Publicola is their much-needed escape from reality.

The real numbers were 42.65 in favor of the rebuild; 30.35 in favor of the tunnel. Just sayin’…

Your assumption is that the two anti-tunnel groups somehow comprise more than 50 percent of the city’s population? I’d say it’s more like 10-15 percent.

There’s more transit in the Surface/Transit plan, but actually the majority of it is REQUIRED under the tunnel plan in order for the tunnel plan to be successful.

Unfortunately, there is currently no guarantee of that required transit funding.

No Seattle vote or survey or poll or collection of commenters is relevant. It’s never been relevant. State road, state money. It’s painful to agree with Ivan but this one time he’s right. It’s also painful to see some justice groups, including Real Change, wasting their time on this rather than attacking issues on which they could actually have effect.

If the city wants to pay for the vote and building one of these options, more power to them. Right now they get a tunnel with a largely inenforcement tax requirement pay for by the STATE.

Probably McSchwinn’s inability to collaboratively work with the regional partners who actually control things like transit allocation, highway construction, and regional transit! Money is one component, but if he put 1/10th the energy he spends f*cking sh*t up into actually developing strong regional partnerships, he might accomplish something that will benefit Seattle.

Probably McSchwinn’s inability to collaboratively work with the regional partners who actually control things like transit allocation, highway construction, and regional transit! Money is one component, but if he put 1/10th the energy he spends f*cking sh*t up into actually developing strong regional partnerships, he might accomplish something that will benefit Seattle.

Just curious, are you calling the monorail a success? From where I sit, it spent millions of dollars to learn they didn’t have a clue how to design, build, or implement regional transit before they folded leaving the Seattle car owners with a big fat bill for a bunch of feel good public meetings that included childcare and fancy pictures.

Just curious, are you calling the monorail a success? From where I sit, it spent millions of dollars to learn they didn’t have a clue how to design, build, or implement regional transit before they folded leaving the Seattle car owners with a big fat bill for a bunch of feel good public meetings that included childcare and fancy pictures.

Just curious, are you calling the monorail a success? From where I sit, it spent millions of dollars to learn they didn’t have a clue how to design, build, or implement regional transit before they folded leaving the Seattle car owners with a big fat bill for a bunch of feel good public meetings that included childcare and fancy pictures.

It’s a state project that CITY residents may have to pay cost overruns on, and it’s being built under CITY land.

Why do you believe that taking that portion of SR-99 offline would create a big mess? In other cities, taking portions of highways offline has NOT created messes, and has in some cases actually alleviated traffic. In this case, we have a strong study that shows traffic would be fine.

Considering stoplights are timed well enough through 2nd Avenue that I’ve been through the city without stopping, I’d say a lot of them. 4th is similar.

As CNU’s 2006 study noted, our elected officials didn’t study the surface/transit plan with anything like the planning they put into a tunnel or elevated rebuild – and the surface/transit plan could actually result in better traffic in the city than a highway replacement.

However, I still have yet to understand what the “transit” in the “Surface/Transit” plan actually is (and no, I’m not going to look at your damn fact sheet).

If you’re not going to read the answer when provided a link, why telegraph your own ignorance?

I tend to find approval voting or Olympic-style voting (range voting) work better, but agreed, simple “vote for only one” doesn’t give much information when you have more than two choices.

The state government keeps trying to pin Seattle with any cost overruns.