Comments

1
Seems to me the beneficiaries of the tunnel would be businesses in Tacoma and Everett.
2
The beneficiaries of the tunnel are the SOV drivers in Queen Anne, Magnolia, Ballard & West Seattle. Perhaps we could have a special toll for SOV drivers on 99? It could equal the amount of the overrun divided by a certain number of car trips expected in a 10 year period. You drive on it, you pay for it.

Go, McGinn! Finally, some fiscal responsibility.
3
Another reason not to vote for McGinn!
4
Earth Day tally: McGinn 4 (this, Parks, ST1, ST2), Mayor 0.

Seattle just got screwed by the state. Thank you again, Frank Chopp.
5
Go McGinn! Here is his statement in its entirety:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id…

I, for one, would welcome a mayor whose priorities are Seattle's priorities. It was bad enough that Nickels agreed to the tunnel deal to begin with, but now the deal is even worse. Yet he is caving to the Legislature.
6
Win with McGinn!
7
Regardless of the machinations involved, will you please stop with the bullshit regarding the 2007 ballot measure?! It really makes you look ridiculous.

This isn't a cut-and-cover tunnel, so that doesn't relate to the current debate at all. Beyond that, your 70% figure is completely made up and you know it. Nobody knows what the hell people voted for or against because the question and possible answers were so horribly designed. Guessing at what people were really thinking (and then continually spouting false facts) just so your own position looks better makes you less a journalist and more a Fox News contributor.
8
This was an opportunity for Mayor Nickels to walk away from a lousy deal that was neither recommended by an expert committee that analyzed viaduct replacements nor approved by Seattle voters. He blew it. Seattle's got no one willing to stand up for its best interests -- unless you're a transportation contractor.
9
@7,

While I think it's pretty safe to say that most of those 2007 votes were against a tunnel of any kind, the more interesting assumption was that the vote validated the so-called "Surface/Transit" option, which wasn't on the ballot at all.

As I recall, a number of polls that were done before the vote saw S/T getting clobbered by the voters by as badly or worse than a tunnel was.

There's a reason S/T wasn't on the ballot.

10
Yeah, J but her basic jist is correct. This Mayor has too often--more than twice, importantly--defied the will of the voters. And this Mercer Mess shit over fixing so many other projects in town--has finally pissed me off. Get this guy out of office, please.
11
History repeating indeed. Perhaps a look at the "on budget' claims for the City of Seattle's Bus Tunnel will reassure all.
A bit before the Stranger's time, but the Seattle Times archives are amusing; try and find which articles use the same numbers more than three times.....
12
@11: Why is it safe to say that a vote against one project is a vote against a completely different project? Unless, of course, you backed viaduct replacement, which was rejected by the voters.

Now that viaduct replacement is off the table, that only leaves a tunnel or S/T or both (which is essentially what the deep bore tunnel plan does).
13
Dang, I meant @9.
14
Oh please, people voted against a tunnel (personally, I think the current plan is moderately better, but I would still vote against it if given the opportunity).

An elevated AWV replacement got far more votes than the rejected tunnel did, or than all of the polling at the time showed S/T would have if it was on the ballot. In short - there is plurality support for one of the options, but not majority support for any of them.

Frankly, your argument reminds me of stadium apologists who say that voters didn't actually reject the Mariners' Stadium, they just rejected the specific tax on the ballot - which is a crock.

15
Absolutely true-and as one of those daily SOV drivers that toll should be in place at fair market value. If I take METRO I lose three hours a day to my commute from West Seattle to Magnolia/Interbay and back-at state minimum wage I am willing to fork out $22 a day for a round trip pass.
Sadly, I was duped into voting for TRANSIT NOW! 2006 - my Rapid Transit Bus is unfortunatley still being built (over budget and behind schedule) in Italy and the money raised by the initiative is wholly insufficent to operate the BRT program.
And so - to my car via the VIADUCT OF DEATH and home-as my time to wait out traffic is now at a close!
16
FWIW - if the current tunnel proposal and S/T were on the ballot head to head, I'd vote for the tunnel.

17
Have you heard of the gothard base tunnel? The tokyo bay tunnel?

Largest deep-bore highway tunnel in the world? Don't just make shit up.
18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tun…

It's actually "Gotthard Road Tunnel", but still. Of these that were "deep-bored":

Hsuehshan Tunnel (8.042 mi)
Arlberg Road Tunnel (9.01 miles)
Zhongnanshan Tunnel (11.21 miles)
Lærdal Tunnel (15.2 mi)
Gotthard Road Tunnel (15.3 miles)

Are all way the fuck longer. I don't like that tunnel, but don't just print bullshit McGinn talking points without even wikipeding to see if maybe there is some tunnel longer.

Erica Barnett: Credulous Hack of the Day
19
Too bad. I was open to McGinn, but now he has positioned himself as TOTALLY anti-progress and anti-development.
I'm as green as the next Seattle-ite, but I will not accept this "we voted against the tunnel" argument OR the we can just ride our bike from Ballard to the Sodo. Dumb.
Not McGinn. Still not sure about Nickels, but absolutely not McGinn.
20
So nice to have ECB back so that the amount of shoddy journalism can return to The Stranger's usual levels.
21
@19 If you are in reasonable physical shape. Ballard to Sodo on what exists (bike trail) versus extensions to serve the peculiarities of you commute should take, you what, 45 , minutes? Or less-a lot less? Think out side-a-da-fuckin-box, my fiend!
23
@21:

As opposed to driving it in considerably shorter time than 45 minutes right now?

Man, that whole people expecting value from their tax dollars thing just sucks, doesn't it?

McGinn is a complete idiot. Period.

Nickels is barely smart enough to realize that if he really really really wants the tunnel, then those that will benefit most from getting rid of the viaduct (read: developers) will have to pay the extra cost.

Of course, this threatens their world-class cred by not sticking taxpayers across the state with their bill while walking away with the profits. Life sucks. Grab a straw.

We could've reached this compromise five fucking years ago at a considerably lower cost. Way to go, world-class city!
24
@22
Just to point this out, north-to-south, Seattle is about 14 miles. There are highway tunnels that are longer than 14 fucking miles.

Largest? What fucking stupid measure? Jesus christ.
25
Why shouldn't every location have to pay for cost overruns? They all go to the legislature with their demands and requests and believe it, the bacon is not handed out in a scientific and impartial manner.

If the people in Belfair, or Bremerton, or Silverdale had to pay for overruns they would have a new incentive to get it right.
26
@25:

Seattle's getting the special treatment it wants. They just have to pay the extra cost. Why is that not fair?
27
@24: Diameter. Please find an example of a completed tunnel anywhere in the world larger than 50' in diameter.
28
@26

It's STATE ROUTE 99:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?…

It's the states job to maintain the STATE highway system, not the local jurisdiction.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?…

Seattle isn't getting "special treatment" having the viaduct repaired. They are offering to pay $930 million dollars already. They are giving the state a good deal. McGinn is right. It's a bullshit move for the legislature to peg cost overruns to the backs of Seattle taxpayers for a state route that runs from Tukwila to Everett. The states job is maintain the state highway system, period!
29
@28 It's Seattle's preference to build the state route into a tunnel, therefore Seattle will help pay for the tunnel. If Everett wanted highway 99 to run underground through their city the state would laugh at them and tell them to come up with the money if they want it so badly.

I think the state is being rather generous paying so much of the pricetag, considering the massive budget shortfall forcing park closures and massive tuition hikes, among other fun things, just to make Seattle happy.

Seriously, why is this a good idea again?
30
@27
This is bigger (AND USED FOR A LONGER HIGHWAY):
http://www.cascadiaprospectus.org/2008/1…

It's just complete lies, there's no truth to it, even with that ridiculous definition of "largest"

31
@29:

You beat me to it. Thanks.
32
@29

It's not a good idea. That's why 70% of people voted against it in March 2007.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…

We don't want it. We don't want to pay for it.
33
Remember Boston's "Big Dig"?
This is like getting involved in an illegal (the people are against it), expensive (several times the cost estimates), and rather stupid decision, just like Vietnam & Iraq. NO TUNNEL! Follow the money: the city wants the taxes from shoreline developments (hotels & condos). I love the views from the current viaduct. A suspended bridge would be better, like they have in Vancouver, B.C. Taking that tunnel would be a life-threatening gamble, and I would avoid it at virtually all cost. This is an ego thing, a legacy thing for the Governor and the Seattle Mayor, but if there were a referendum, it would not pass. Is this a democracy or are our politicos seeking the equivalent of Bush's library in Dallas ("The Museum of Shame") for their ego fulfillment!!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.