Worst case for the tunnel is the Eyman thing passes and it forces re-negotiations or the two-year waiting period until the legislature can undo it, at which point Eyman redoes it.

See where that's heading? At what point in what year must we tear down the Viaduct, whether or not there is a replacement option ready to go?

Safety first.
Goldy I love you but, you've got to get out of the Slog office and go out and meet some regular working class type people around town more. I can believe your making some intellectual devil's pack with Eyman on his toll limiting initiative, all because it may kill the tunnel. It shows you've been sucked into the eggheaded, one issue, 30 more years of talking while everyone bikes to work "mouse milking", sell your soul to stop the tunnel vortex.
@2, I'm against the tunnel and I'm against I-1125. The tunnel is already underfunded without this law.

And, last I checked Vashon Island residents will not be voting on the tunnel referendum. They also aren't subject to RCW 47.01.402 which requires Seattle residents to pay for the overruns.

Thanks for weighing in though.
It will also kill funding for the non-existent surface plus plan, because theres going to be tolls on that road no matter what replaces the viaduct. Everyone seems to think that there wont be a toll, but thats just wishful thinking.
There's going to be a ballot measure, a straight up or down vote, on the deep-bore tunnel?!

I know there's going to be a vote on an administrative measure somewhat related to the tunnel, but that won't mean much. Between what I'm suspecting will be yet another low voter response for an off-year ballot, and again the fact that it's a rather meaningless vote, we will yet again have an outcome where various opposing parties will all declare some sort of victory.

Kudos on trying to spin anything Tim Eyman does into meaning something positive for the state. Nobody's buying it, but kudos anyway for the laugh.
Obviously we need to ignore the whiny politicos who tell us if we kill Roads Plus Transit (mostly roads, little transit) there is no More Transit option, as there ended up being.

Just kill the Tunnel.

The alternatives are all much better than that boondoggle, and after a lot of whining, they'll come around, as they always do.
@4 I-5 is a federal interstate highway. Eyman can't touch it and he knows it. Same with I-90.

Seriously, don't you guys understand "domain"?

All he can do is mess with SR-520 and SR-99. SR means State Route.
@5: why are tunnel supporters saying this is a proxy vote on the tunnel if it's meaningless?
@8, only the dumb ones among them are saying that. What the dumb ones among the tunnel foes are saying is pretty funny as well.
@9: Freiboth said it and he's the most vocal non-elected supporter.

The campaign keeps saying "approve the tunnel", too. So what is it, Gus?
@2, I'm not making any deal with Eyman, and I'm not supporting I-1125. I'm not even as anti-tunnel as the rest of colleagues here.

I'm just pointing out a little irony.
@10, if Frieboth wants to do take part in some dumb PR thing, he can. It's still dumb. The vote is what it is. My view of the referendum -- and I know how little it's worth -- is that no result will make up for surface/transit/I-5 proponents sitting on their hands with the legislature for the last two years. It's of a piece with the cowards on the King County Council hiding behind Eyman, punting the fate of Metro service to an electorate groomed to be scared of taxation.
@12: Proponents of both alternatives have been incredibly active since Nisqually. Obviously they haven't failed if Kastama (a good candidate for SOS) is saying he has support to punt to a cheaper alt plan if Seattle won't accept cost-overruns.

Your strawman is ill-informed.

Also, the pro-tunnel campaign is starting, as a whole, to call this an approve/reject on the tunnel itself. Inconsistent rhetoric isn't exactly a sign of good faith, especially after months of saying it isn't a referendum on the tunnel.

Writing on the wall...
@11: Being more explicit in the original post as to your opposition to I-1125 would help bolster your case. Exposing this pathetically awful policy initiative as the knee-jerk 1960s road-centric measure it is would be better yet. It ranks right down there with 745 and 985 of years past.
Death to the Demon Tunnel.

Death to the Demon Eyman.

Long live the Seattle Revolution!
What a great poison pill.

I live in the city and generally support transit, but if I am against the tunnel whats the downside in voting for I-1125? Oh yeah, the eastside will get totally fucked for a decade while we wait for whoever succeeds Ballmer to decide transportion is important the people who build your products.

I hate me some crazy Eyman lawmaking as much as the next guy, but someone is going to have to convince me not to vote for this.

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

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