King County DOT on Tunnel Project: Transit Funding “Not There.”

If King County has that much money for the millionaire Tunnel then why are they asking us $20 license fee increase?

So that lit piece by tunnel advocates is a total lie?  Makes sense considering Metro is cutting all kinds of service and people, especially low income folks & allies, are pretty upset about it.

The $20 is to bridge operating costs for 2 years, then it ends. As noted above, the transit for the AWV Replacement Project is not due until 2013, in 2 years.

I reject the optimistic suggestion of tunnel supporters that the money will be there. We are struggling to fill gaps to 2014, so planning for 2013 is weak. If they are indeed funding in that timeframe, we might be facing hints of the first tunnel-related tax on the making.

LMF needs to be more honest about what they’re selling us.

So let’s be clear: Let’s Move Forward saying “millions for transit” is entirely true.

There is no surface option, it didn’t even make it into the EIS because it’s not on the table. Therefore their supposed transit and $3.3b in funding that would be necessary to execute is not on the table either.

@seatowner said it best here
“Funny how when the cost of the “tunnel” is mentioned by the anti-tunnel
folks, the cost of the entire AWV program is referenced ($4.2 billion).

But
if improvements outside of the tunnel element (such as the Holgate to
King project) – which are part of the AWV program – include items such
as transit funding, they don’t count?”

WSDOT, not King County, builds the Viaduct replacement and indeed it’s a big piece of their capital budget.  King County owns and operates the Metro bus system.  Let’s face it people.  There is no money for new transit service for any of our projects and correspondingly, no transit for any option on the table for Viaduct replacement.  The reality check is that unless we find new money somewhere,  our current level of service will be profoundly cut/deminished/etc. over the coming years.

The truth is that when it comes to bus service the sky REALLY IS FALLING.  I’ve seen the projections and it’s UGLY.  Unless there is new revenue (or a major shift in the economy which would produce more revenue) we will have to drastically cut bus service in Seattle.  Tunnel or no tunnel we should NOT rely on buses to deal with capacity issues.  Additionally, the so-called (Surface/Transit/1-5) would really just be Surface/I-5.  The Rebuild option would be rebuild.  Our bus transit picture is bleak.

Cool flyer!

Look at that little soccer guy in the logo!

Nope. “Seattle gets millions for transit” from “the viaduct replacement package” that LMF is pushing (as opposed to alternatives) is not true. Sorry. The original plan had $190M for transit along with the tunnel. Then Gregoire vetoed that. So no, it’s not there, and the campaign is selling Sounders fans a bill of goods.

Now that we see that there is simply no money for a tunnel option, I suppose it wouldn’t be much help to try to bring about a viable surface option… with the severity of the danger caused by the viaduct, we need some solution though.

Bottom line: It is deceptive and a lie to tell people you already have something that you in fact do not. It’s not a “white” lie, but a manipulative one,  based upon deceit and avarice.

Just like the whole DBT boondoggle–par for the course. 

Bottom line: It is deceptive and a lie to tell people you already have something that you in fact do not. It’s not a “white” lie, but a manipulative one,  based upon deceit and avarice.

Just like the whole DBT boondoggle–par for the course. 

In fact, a viable surface option is what was the recommended option by the “stakeholders” all along. It was certainly viable then, and it is more so now.

In fact, a viable surface option is what was the recommended option by the “stakeholders” all along. It was certainly viable then, and it is more so now.

I reject the optimistic suggestion of Surface Option supporters that the money will be there. We are struggling to fill gaps to 2014, so planning for 2013 is weak. If they are indeed funding in that timeframe, we might be facing hints of the first transitl-related tax on the making.

Surface Option proponents need to be more honest about what they’re selling us.

I reject the optimistic suggestion of Surface Option supporters that the money will be there. We are struggling to fill gaps to 2014, so planning for 2013 is weak. If they are indeed funding in that timeframe, we might be facing hints of the first transitl-related tax on the making.

Surface Option proponents need to be more honest about what they’re selling us.

The surface option is not viable, or anything close to viable, and ten thousand people saying that it is viable ten thousand times a day will not make it viable. 

Repair the Viaduct, or replace it altogether, and be done with it.

The surface option is not viable, or anything close to viable, and ten thousand people saying that it is viable ten thousand times a day will not make it viable. 

Repair the Viaduct, or replace it altogether, and be done with it.

How about the Surface Option that depends on believing the money will be there to fund that transit, but not for the Tunnel Option.

Having it both ways?

How about the Surface Option that depends on believing the money will be there to fund that transit, but not for the Tunnel Option.

Having it both ways?

Interesting how there’s never money for transit, but somehow there’s always money for roads.

That’s why we ended up with the DBT, cause no other option had the political support to get it done. just watch, in the upcoming proxy vote, the DBT will end up with more voting in favor of it than any other option has ever gotten so far.

35-40%?

35-40%?

I hope you’re not trying to argue that “Seattle get millions for transit” is an un-deceptive and accurate way of saying “While the tunnel is being built, there will be funding to temporarily mitigate the impact of the construction.”

I hope you’re not trying to argue that “Seattle get millions for transit” is an un-deceptive and accurate way of saying “While the tunnel is being built, there will be funding to temporarily mitigate the impact of the construction.”

well if only all the rich progressives and liberals in seattle were not so greed; lets see, free rides in the CBD, bus fair that is lower then in most parts of the country, but lets have the middle class pick up the tab… yep sounds like democrats are in control

well if only all the rich progressives and liberals in seattle were not so greed; lets see, free rides in the CBD, bus fair that is lower then in most parts of the country, but lets have the middle class pick up the tab… yep sounds like democrats are in control

You didn’t read it correctly… money is NOT there.

“Rich progressives and liberals in Seattle”?  What planet do you hail from?  Your comment does not even address the article in any way.  That sort of makes you, like, a troll…

The money will not be there unless it is taken from other areas of public services. 

 Every year for the past four year, revenue projections have fallen short, resulting in cuts to services across all areas of public service.  Until the economy turns around (e.g., banks start lending again, companies start hiring again, and people start spending again), this will probably continue to the be case. 

The reality is that the tunnel is a very costly proposition that will, like the Boston Big Dig, run over budget and have its share of disasters along the way.

Surface option is much less costly than a tunnel.  That much is being honest.  It is much more likely that a surface option will be able to be completed more rapidly and with less probability of going over budget than a tunnel.  Nice trolling redirect attempt, nice fail.

You’re right. Progressive liberals arent’ rich. That’s why they always want other people’s money.

http://www.slate.com/id/2175725/
CEOs for ClintonEven the ultra-rich are abandoning the Republicanshttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312628,00.htmlHeritage Foundation Study Finds Democrats Represent More Wealthy Districts Than Republicanshttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-13-House-wealth-gap-Democrats-richest-districts_N.htmIn major flip, House Dems now represent richest regionshttp://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/2007/11/richer-american.htmlshall I go on?

well that didn’t load right, just google democrats represent the rich and you will be shocked,

hell one of you guys even brags about it
Ruy Teixeira of the liberal Center for American Progress disagrees: “The movement of professionals to the Democratic Party is a long-term realignment in American politics.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-13-House-wealth-gap-Democrats-richest-districts_N.htm

Right, the surface/transit/i-5 widening option only costs about – what? – 50 bucks or so?

I guess we’ll see, but let’s say that it’s 40%, does any other option come close? Does any other option have the buy-in from all major governments involved (city, county, state and port)?

Sure, the viable surface option is when there is an earthquake that damages the AWV, we close it and let mode shifting do its magic. People will adapt, right?

Why don’t rich non-Progressive people just make their own clothes, build and fix their own homes and cars, grow and harvest their own food, clean their own homes, pick up their own garbage and process their own sewage – all on their own dime and by their own manual labor?  Let’s throw in “no paid sick leave”, or childcare, or paid vacation, or some other misery they love for others to endure.

sounds good to me

I never thought I would find myself *sort of* agreeing with Ivan.  Shit

I’ve seen drastically cut bus service and it’s called MARTA-Atlanta.  It is very ugly, especially where sprawl interests at county levels have had their way for years with endless outward growth.

WSDOT’s own Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in fact does say that the surface option is as viable as the tunnel – just MUCH more affordable than the tunnel.

Exactly.  Tunnel-heads “win” by us old-timers not remembering and the new folks not knowing the truth.

This is even more ridiculous than your normal comments.

yes, DBT will get a full 34% of the vote, woo hoo!

Let Democracty rule.

yes, DBT will get a full 34% of the vote, woo hoo!

Let Democracty rule.

You think you’re being sarcastic, but actually you’re correct: To paraphrase Ivan: “Tear it down and be done with it.”

You think you’re being sarcastic, but actually you’re correct: To paraphrase Ivan: “Tear it down and be done with it.”

The surface option could be *twice* as “viable” as the tunnel, and two times zero still would equal zero. Let’s not forget that WSDOT’s first option was to rebuild the Viaduct. Neither the surface option nor the tunnel provide the capacity or the mobility that the rebuild does. Neither the tunnel nor the surface option remove as much traffic from surface streets as the rebuild does. If we put that many cars on the surface streets, whether surface or tunnel, just trying to get through town, we will regret it, and we will curse for eternity those who foisted that situation on us.

It’s a damn highway. It exists to move people in cars and in buses, and goods in trucks. We can’t afford an esthetic statement (tunnel) or an ideological statement (surface option). We can’t afford them because the hours we will spend in traffic with either of them will be time we can never get back. I want what we have now. WSDOT can build it, and we won’t be tolled for it.  

Right. Because other people’s time means nothing to you. Classic case of  “I got mine, and screw everybody else” masquerading as environmentalism. Typical selfish elitist bullshit.

Not at all. Which option leaves more room for getting that transit funding? Which option is not a one-trick pony with certain overrruns creating a giant funding, tolls, and taxation sucking sound that can overwhelm all other transportation and streets funding not related to existing maintainence?

It ain’t the surface option.

Then why do you care about the transit being included with the tunnel. Those that don’t use the tunnel (because the state is no longer providing a highway for intercity trips) will adapt.

BS back to you Ivan; calling names and imputing evil motives is just bullying. If the damn thing is torn down, people (and businesses) will do just fine figuring out other ways to move their asses and crap around.

Easy for you to say when you’re not affected. Tell me how you can reduce capacity and mobility like your precious surface option would do, when the population of the area is projected to grow what, 20-25 percent in the next 20-25 years?

I’ll repeat it, because you need to hear it. The surface option is a selfish, elitist position, pushed by selfish elitists for their own ideological purposes. Their I-5 “solution” is a fucking joke, which only they take seriously. Other people’s time means nothing to them. The port means nothing to them. The traffic situation around Colman Dock means nothing to them. “Just adapt,” they say. “Figure out some other way,” they say.   

It’s like rich Republicans telling old people “so we’re going to cut your Social Security a little bit. Just suck it up.” Selfish is just what you are.

Out of curiosity, how much money is committed for transit from surface/transit/I-5 option?  

surface/transit is even less popular.  woo hoo indeed.

but surface/transit option isnt really an option at all.  It is a deceptive lie.  State isnt going to fund it — they care about the port, Highway 99, and getting cars through downtown with the least amount of traffic interruption possible.  They will NOT fun surface/transit.  Furthermore, when it comes to popularity contests, surface/transit is a dog, in last place.  But yet, all the Anti-tunnel heads ignore this fact.  They act as if democracy only counts when it comes to voting on DBT.  Well, why is that the only vote that counts, why doesn’t the fact the plurality of people NOT liking surface/transit count.  Lastly, it’s real easy to knock a fully vetted project when the fantasy alternative project has had not testing whatsover.  You can promise anything, make it sound like your plan will be the panacea for everything.  When reality sets in, however, you’ll notice problems with your pet project as with any other.

So, there will be no transit option for the Surface/Transit since metro is funded by Seattle and Seattle already doesn’t have enough money to fund it…but that only matters when transit is tethered to the DBT, then it needs to be funded in the hundreds of millions.  Fair enough.  So what the surface folks then propose is tearing down the AWV and calling it a day, even though that would choke the waterfront with cars slowly crawling through downtown, further choke I-5, choke the port of Seattle, sending even more business to Tacoma and choke off the ferries.  

As for widening I-5, last I checked, it runs under a convention center, so any changes will be cosmetic at best.

Either rebuild the AMV (which I don’t favor but at least addresses the problem realistically) or build the DBT (which is much better alternative in my mind, for reasons already enumerated a million times by thousands of other folks).  But quit acting as though Surface/noTransit/cosmeticI-5 has any real viability other than as post-car society fantasy.

And in several notable cases, your elected representatives were for it, before they were against it.

I’m just asking Surface proponents to be consistent in their arguments, but you can’t and still present your fantasy.

The Surface option would not complete sooner, but later, if it was ever selected. You would have to kill the tunnel and then rerun the past 3 years with the legislature, city council, EIS, court challenges from elevated and tunnel supporters. And you would be hoping for transit funding from the same legislature, and we would still be on the hook for the $960 million Seattle has to do in all options. The transit “provided” by the state would fall on city residents to pay for.
On an ongoing basis the surface option will be very expensive.

Now you are just telling lies.

Zero.

I will be affected. More to the point, it’s not “my precious surface option”; I’m not Gollum and you’re not Gandolf coming to save us from stupid public works projects.You can rant all you want but it won’t change the underlying problems that the DBT won’t solve. We live in times of decreasing resource availability and environmental changes that BAU (business as usual) simply cannot address. Assuming endless growth and the need to build infrastructure for it under the BAU model (cars, fossil fuels, port moving endless crap in and out) will not lead to a society that either of us like.

And stop calling me selfish and Republican, you bullying fuck. You know damn well I’m not. I’m just calling the situation as I see it. We can build the stupid tunnel and end up poorer with equally large or worse problems at the end (of the tunnel, ha), or we can start moving toward social justice by working for and investing in a steady state economy that might actually attain that most precious of all worlds, “sustainable.”

I use the viaduct. I use transit. I’ll probably use the DBT if it gets built.

I care because it doesn’t make sense to “solve” movement of goods and people in cars through a tunnel while making movement of people generally worse everywhere downtown.

“post-car society fantasy” will happen sooner than the fossil fuel free biofuel/electric car fantasy.

“WE THE PEOPLE” must rally together to stop this MADNESS. The endless spending. The pointless building.
 Too many good things are being closed or shut down because of budget cuts. Important things like parks and schools. Yet there is so much money to build a tunnel which is GAURANTEED to cost more than they originally will tell us.
All you hear about is how there is no money. Budget cuts. So if we ALL work together we can come to an agreement that makes the most sense for “WE THE PEOPLE”.
I just purchased http://www.notunnel.net I need a volunteer to help build the website. I have a business location that I am happy to share towards the cause. Our children are counting on us. The people of Seattle are counting on us. We’ll make this our first action of stopping the madness.
PEACE IS NOW is the organization that will be representing “WE THE PEOPLE” of this great country- the United States of America. iwantourcountryback.us is another domain I’d like to put to use soon. Volunteers that are interested in saving our country before it’s too late are more than welcomed to join. We need people to wake the people up.
Then we need people in the political arena to help us make changes possible. Change that is good for our country- no longer just good for big business. Our forefathers would be very upset for what is taking place today.
You have to start somewhere so I’m starting with this crazy tunnel idea. Enough is enough people.
From here we’ll work our way to a National level. Congress and Obama taking shots at each other while our country goes down the drain is not only childish but an insult to “WE THE PEOPLE”. There are very limited jobs available yet everything is being made in China. It’s time The large companies paid their taxes. The rich get richer and “WE THE PEOPLE” the backbone of America get kicked to the gutter. The list goes on and on…..
no more. It’s time to build America back up. Before it’s too late.

Peace Is Now
jeff@peaceisnow.com
peace is now (facebook)

Good points – Plus, for those ST5 proponents who claim it can be built faster (and that the AWV can be torn down sooner), I’d like to know how they believe that WSDOT would ever agree to undertake major I-5 re-construction (which is supposedly part of ST5) without having AWV still open to serve as a detour.

So even with the unlikely string of events listed above, AWV stays up until off-setting improvements are in place.

And in what has been previously pointed out, the lack of funding for transit applies to any option being considered. How well would the Surface/Transit option work given KC Metro’s budget?

Given that WSDOT can’t fund transit with the gas taxes collected for the program (per State law), the lack of funding for transit affects ST5 far worse than the DBT. 

No one says any of the options are without some drawbacks. And the tunnel has a more of them than any other option, including a rebuild. The surface option is still an option until the tunnel begins construction (or after it gets bogged down when one of those well known high risk factors becomes reality). The state is interested in preserving that corridor, as it is a state highway. How that is done is secondary. The fact that they committed to a DBT without proper vetting has ample evidence. You don’t make contractual committments until the FEIS sings, and what they did was technically illegal.  The actions of WSDOT in this are examples of malfeasence at best.

How exactly is a surface street in that corridor more risky that any other option? What kind of “testing” is needed for a surface street, when you already have an existing roadway that is now elevated in the same spot? You are deliberately being disengenous, becasue you cannot make a case on the reality or the facts of the FEIS here. The fact is, a surface option can be designed far better than what WSDOT deliberately threw out to fail. And you cannot conviently ignore the fact that the DBT was never given a vote, much less a “plurality.” Nether was the surface+ transit option. I would welcome a vote, but the DBT boosters will never allow it.  Polls are not ballots. And not all of the polls done support your presumptions.

Some people always whine that they’re being “bullied” when the positions that they hold, and the motivations for them, are exposed as bogus, and they can’t stand the heat. Who the fuck are you, and your fellow urbanist cultists, to decide for me, or for anyone else, what is “sustainable” and what is not?

People need to “sustain” what traffic capacity and mobility there is. People, goods, and services need to get into, out of, and through Seattle in a  timely manner. The existing Viaduct helps us do that. That will be the case no matter what the oil situation is. The “surface option” throws a huge crimp into that.

Nobody elected you, nobody elected Josh Feit or (shudder!) Erica C, Barnett, nobody elected Cary Moon, nobody elected Roger Valdez or Dan Bertolet, or any of the commenters on these threads. Only McGinn and O’Brien were elected, and hopefully we will be rid of both of them in 2013.

I’m for all the transit we can get. I’m for the $20 car tab for the county, I’m for all the light rail we can build. . There is not, and there should not be, any assumption, taken on faith, that all jobs will be in the downtown core. There is not, and should not be, any assumption, taken on faith, that people will demand to live packed like sardines in a fucking can, because you lot think it’s “vibrant.”

People can, will, and should, decide for themselves what they will “sustain” and what they will not, or can not. That is anathema for you urbanist cultists. You want to decide that for everyone else, and for what you claim is everyone else’s good. Bunch of selfish damn elitists is what you are, and it’s time you owned up to it.
 

1. downtowns will and should be successful, that is, totally congested.  ours will be congested no matter what we do, unless we want to give seattle all the attractiveness vibrancy and number of jobs of say okanagon.
2. no hugely sucessful city requires a thruway through its downtown, viz., vancouver, manhattan.  SF.  it is  not needed to make a vibrant city work.  “You whill choke downtown”  Hey amigo get a clue — all lkinds of cities around the world are choked downtown, lack major freeways through downtown, and do just fine including many of the most biggest successful cities you can think of.  We got one freeway through downtown on I 5.  Paris has only the little riverside parkways.  They got no interstte.  Manhattan — no interstate through it.  Vancouver — no interstate through it.  You do not need one and your scaremongering about congestion is at odds with facts, history, experience and economics on display through the world.  It’s simply 1950s era highway religion mythology, akin to believing in creationism.  A choked downtown is just fine.  Many cities got that.  Doesn’t matter.  
3. this dbt is in a time of cutting busses, teachers, programs, basic health and general lack of finances so it’s completely fucking insane.  the finance plan is very shady.  the cost overrun provision, the shaky tolling projection, and above all the fact that we’re taxing millions and spending billions to build a highway that’s only open to the better off as it’s tolled and will only carry 45K a day.  It fails basic CBA as a highway regardless of any and all enviro concerns. 
4. no option has over 50%.  There fore respect will of the people and do nothing.  Surface wins because it’s taking down AWV — what we all agree on, and by what I mean taking down the AWV ivan — so do that, then stop there.  Do what we agree on.  don’t do what we do not agree on and can’t afford. 
5. after doing that, reevaluate.  political fights are never over.  if the rebuild crowd then garners majority support, they are allowed to use that to rebuild.  if the DBT then garners majority support, they are fee to use that to do DBT.  MEanwhile, saving our money and fix the potholes, my GOD, we can’t even maintain current roads without all kinds of gimmicky super regressive add on fees like the $100 in car licensure we’re about to incur.  This on top of the metro cuts and the $100 per household from the king county ferry tax we put into metro.  Fix potholes, maintain metro, THEN let’s talk about megaprojects.  You really think we get more mobility from billions on DBT moving 45K a day while we’re cutting 17% of metro to save hundreds of millions?  Building DBT is akin to pouring money into AIG cerca 2007. We can’t maintain what we got now.  Shouldn’t load up on risky megaventures right now, esp. not highway ones.

1. downtowns will and should be successful, that is, totally congested.  ours will be congested no matter what we do, unless we want to give seattle all the attractiveness vibrancy and number of jobs of say okanagon.
2. no hugely sucessful city requires a thruway through its downtown, viz., vancouver, manhattan.  SF.  it is  not needed to make a vibrant city work.  “You whill choke downtown”  Hey amigo get a clue — all lkinds of cities around the world are choked downtown, lack major freeways through downtown, and do just fine including many of the most biggest successful cities you can think of.  We got one freeway through downtown on I 5.  Paris has only the little riverside parkways.  They got no interstte.  Manhattan — no interstate through it.  Vancouver — no interstate through it.  You do not need one and your scaremongering about congestion is at odds with facts, history, experience and economics on display through the world.  It’s simply 1950s era highway religion mythology, akin to believing in creationism.  A choked downtown is just fine.  Many cities got that.  Doesn’t matter.  
3. this dbt is in a time of cutting busses, teachers, programs, basic health and general lack of finances so it’s completely fucking insane.  the finance plan is very shady.  the cost overrun provision, the shaky tolling projection, and above all the fact that we’re taxing millions and spending billions to build a highway that’s only open to the better off as it’s tolled and will only carry 45K a day.  It fails basic CBA as a highway regardless of any and all enviro concerns. 
4. no option has over 50%.  There fore respect will of the people and do nothing.  Surface wins because it’s taking down AWV — what we all agree on, and by what I mean taking down the AWV ivan — so do that, then stop there.  Do what we agree on.  don’t do what we do not agree on and can’t afford. 
5. after doing that, reevaluate.  political fights are never over.  if the rebuild crowd then garners majority support, they are allowed to use that to rebuild.  if the DBT then garners majority support, they are fee to use that to do DBT.  MEanwhile, saving our money and fix the potholes, my GOD, we can’t even maintain current roads without all kinds of gimmicky super regressive add on fees like the $100 in car licensure we’re about to incur.  This on top of the metro cuts and the $100 per household from the king county ferry tax we put into metro.  Fix potholes, maintain metro, THEN let’s talk about megaprojects.  You really think we get more mobility from billions on DBT moving 45K a day while we’re cutting 17% of metro to save hundreds of millions?  Building DBT is akin to pouring money into AIG cerca 2007. We can’t maintain what we got now.  Shouldn’t load up on risky megaventures right now, esp. not highway ones.

Mr Baker is a liar.

“The fact is, a surface option can be designed far better than what WSDOT deliberately threw out to fail.”

Thanks Nemo, for recognizing that Wsdot “rigged” their surface boulevard studies for rejection.
Wsdot similarly “rigged” their cut/cover tunnel studies. Even the latest cut/cover in the EIS, (a ‘stacked’ 6-lane version built while the AWV remains in place), was rigged to increase its construction disruption and timeline by at least 2 years. Wsdot should have started with this latest cut/cover, but ”threw out” a dozen other versions first knowing the public would object.   

I suspect Wsdot directors and department heads are self-righeous conservatives hellbent on punishing Seattle liberalism to justify committing highway robbery with their cronies in automobile-related business, many, no doubt church-going idol-worshippers, the conservative pretense of respectability. Jesus to them, is no different than the golden calf of the Exodus.        

That may happen jakers, but only if most Seattlers remain as ignorant as you.   

many large cities don’t have throughways w no exits through their downtown and do just fine.  new york, rome, paris, london I do believe, vancouver.  i guess they’re all post car fantasies.

they all have choked downtowns.  yup.  yet they prosper and succeed.  they’re cities and they don’t try to suburbs with freeways.

it’s only a model of urban development that’s been successful for oh about 2,000 or 5,000 years — no need for ignorant Murkans to learn anything from How they Do Stuff Elsewhere, right? 

Or ignorant seattleites.  Ever drive to Whistler?  Wow, isn’t that north south freeway under Vancouver great, why without that vancouver would be a great big nothing, right?  Imagine the horror of getting through Vancouver without a freeway, my god, you might has to stop off and have dinner downtown on the way to whistler, WOULDN’T THAT BE HORRIBLE FOR VANCOUVER.

Citation, please.

Surface/transit, which was originally named the No Highway Option by co-creator Grant Cogswell, was part of a two-pronged master plan concocted between he, Dick Falkenbury, Cary Moon and others: Remove the SR 99 viaduct and build out a West Seattle to Ballard monorail, under the assumption that everyone who used the viaduct would give up their cars and use the monorail instead.

Does that plan sound like stupid logic to you? That’s the sort of product of the brains behind the “surface transit option”, a pipe dream over a decade in the making.

Amen,

Way to call out the elitists in this little echo chamber who are giving the rest of us Democrats and progressives a bad name.  I’m sick of their supremely entitled attitude that we have to bend over in the face of their demands in the name of “civility”.   Bravo!

How much money do you think King County would have for the Surface/Transit option?  – hint, no more than for the tunnel.

And where does Surface/Transit plan to get the transit funding?  Recall, it can’t be from the gas-tax money collected by WSDOT for the AWV program – State Law doesn’t allow that.

Lack of transit funding hurts the DBT, but cripples Surface/Transit.

“People can, will, and should, decide for themselves what they will
“sustain” and what they will not, or can not.”

Wrong. “People” think they have some say, but the fact is that most important capital investment decisions, both public and private, are not made democratically. That’s why it’s called capitalism; the capitalists make those decisions. “Sustainability” is mostly a BS concept in the hands of those driven to make decisions based on capitalism which is based on growth, and most people have little to say about it. We nibble around the edges.

“People need to “sustain” what traffic capacity and mobility there is.”

I disagree. There is no way we can keep using resources at the current rate, and moving bodies and crap around is a major use of resources. We can solve some of the problem with increased efficiency (“conservation” in energy parlance), but ultimately there are too many people who consume too many resources per capita. In short, our current path is not sustainable; we will NOT be able to keep moving ourselves and our crap around at the current energy cost per pound/mile. Not gonna happen.

“That is anathema for you
urbanist cultists”

More name calling. Fact is, most of those who you call “urbanists” don’t like me because I try to force development to pay the costs of its externalities. I am called a “NIMBY”, a dirty word for those who try to interfere with capital investment decisions that impact the 95% of us who are not capitalists. I am not welcomed in “urbanist” circles; urbanists tend to be functionaries for the capitalists and I am not one of them.

Calling me an elitist because I think the DBT is a wrong-headed, non-problem solving capital investment is way off base.

And nobody elected you either.

Today is our day SEATTLE.  The state government isn’t the sovereign.  We The People are the sovereign.
We do NOT need, do NOT want, and can NOT afford this tunnel.
We killed that Monster in 2007 and we will kill this monster in 2011.

Don’t blame Dick Falkenbury for that – I’m pretty sure he’s a retrofit guy.

Don’t blame Dick Falkenbury for that – I’m pretty sure he’s a retrofit guy.

Don’t blame Dick Falkenbury for that – I’m pretty sure he’s a retrofit guy.

New York? London? Paris? Seriously? Seven million people and up? You’re comparing Seattle to them, given Seattle’s geography? And you expect such a comparison to have any credibility whatever?

Even Vancouver doesn’t work. Can you guess why? It’s because there’s no Vancouver north of Vancouver, let alone Everett, Mount Vernon, Bellingham, etc. That is why we need through highways.

You WANT a choked downtown? Seriously? Well, I don’t, and I’d venture to say the overwhelming majority of people here don’t. I want those cars off the surface streets, like the Viaduct lets us do now.  I am no fan of this bored tunnel, but at least it lets the through traffic go through, and the Viaduct remains in place till it is ready.

You want New York? Move to New York. Leave Seattle to us hicks from the sticks. Go get your “vibrant” somewhere else.

always with the name calling and insults.  fail.

Sirkulat (or Wells), you might want to cut down on the Portlandia..

Its making you paranoid..

umm, you do realize that the Surface + Transit plan can be done for less money than the Tunnel?  In fact, over 50% less?  It has far less risk of project failure do to seismic events or unforeseen engineering problems due to soils shifting etc.  No buildings are likely to slide into Elliott bay over the surface + transit project. 

Prove it.

You don’t have to agree with my opinion. It is the nature of opinion to be true to the expressing it, jackass.

There is even less money for transit in the Surface option.

I believe I have a grasp of the relative costs of the various options. 

However, Surface + Transit would not cost less for the City of Seattle, or King County Metro.  It would cost less overall, which would result in lower cost for the AWV program, but the savings would be to statewide gas-tax collected funds by WSDOT. Note that State law won’t allow gas taxes to be used to fund transit projects.

Your talk of failure “due to seismic events or unforseen engineering problems” is based on your lack of understanding. People fear what they don’t understand.  I’m not trying to insult you, but these are technical concepts, and not always intuitive. 

Actually a reinforced interlocking concrete shell (which will be used to form the DBT) is extremely robust, and designed to withstand a 1000-year siesmic event.  The roadway will not be nearly that robust, and during a major earthquake will potentially heave, and rupture utilities beneath the roadway surface. This can cause sinkholes, natural gas leaks, etc…  

Unforseen engineering problems related to soil conditions are of the greatest concern in the area closest to the surface, where much of the fill is man-made from the Denny regrade.  The actual boring won’t begin until the boring machine has at least 60 feet of clearance above it, where the soil is native, and of higher “quality”   Before that point, the tunnel will be cut/cover, sandwhiched between two walls composed of drilled concrete shafts (which are very stout, and stable).

Buildings situated above the tunnel path are most at risk at the portal areas. Some of these buildings are already being reinforced through soil improvements beneath their foundations. Others will have similar preparations. 

No buildings will “slide into Elliot Bay”. The risk is that they would settle (which is why the soil is being improved). Under no scenario will buildings slide the 100+ feet west to enter Elliott Bay.

We have two through highways (I-5, I-405), which, unlike 99, are actually “through” at both ends. Driven to Everett up 99 lately? AWV is not used much for through traffic in the sense of beyond Seattle, nor will be the DBT.

“cars off the surface streets” — As the EIS clearly shows (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/its-official-downtown-traffic-after-the-multibillion-dollar-tunnel-would-be-nearly-identical-to-shutting-down-the-viaduct-and-doing-nothing/Content?oid=9125286 ), this will not be a result of the DBT. The only way to get cars off streets is to reduce the use of cars.

Perhaps the Department of Transportation would have more funding for this project if they stopped making stupid business decisions, such as “upgrading” perfectly effective bus shelters that already HAVE seating for their new INEFFECTIVE Rapid Ride bus shelters, which won;t keep much rain out and the benches, I’ve only seen a few connected to these horrific things, are away from the shelters completely, thereby making sure that if you want to sit down, you better not mind the rain.

And this is far from the first time we’ve seen foolish decision-making where King County Metro is involved. Last year to make it look like they were actually doing something, they changed the time schedules of a number of morning route to coincide exactly with EVERY school bus in the area! Thereby insuring its rider maximum capacity tardiness. Nice work, KC Metro~!

I have been an active supporter of giving the DoT my money and voting for them on the ballots, but if I keep seeing these ludicrous decisions, I’m going to start considering putting my money elsewhere.

Perhaps the Department of Transportation would have more funding for this project if they stopped making stupid business decisions, such as “upgrading” perfectly effective bus shelters that already HAVE seating for their new INEFFECTIVE Rapid Ride bus shelters, which won;t keep much rain out and the benches, I’ve only seen a few connected to these horrific things, are away from the shelters completely, thereby making sure that if you want to sit down, you better not mind the rain.

And this is far from the first time we’ve seen foolish decision-making where King County Metro is involved. Last year to make it look like they were actually doing something, they changed the time schedules of a number of morning route to coincide exactly with EVERY school bus in the area! Thereby insuring its rider maximum capacity tardiness. Nice work, KC Metro~!

I have been an active supporter of giving the DoT my money and voting for them on the ballots, but if I keep seeing these ludicrous decisions, I’m going to start considering putting my money elsewhere.