Great move, Mr. Mayor, er, Sanders.

Wait -is the one for his surface/transit plan over on the right there, out of frame, perhaps? Or maybe that's beside the point still.
Got debt?

Well, with the Billionaires Tunnel you get lots of that!

And, at no extra charge, you get a SLOWER COMMUTE, $8 to $10 roundtrip tolls, and if you act NOW you get ZERO TRANSIT and ZERO DOWNTOWN EXITS!

Operators are standing by, leaning on their shovels ...
Hmm. An apartment in Ballard costs less than an apartment downtown, too. Does that mean we shouldn't build anymore density downtown?
Congratulations to Eli on getting a politician to parrot his sound bite. He has taken his first step on the road to punditry.

No congratulations to Eli for constructing a ridiculous argument. I could draw a chalk line across I-90 an claim that my chalk line moves many more cars than the Ballard bridge for much less money. The comparison is about as apt.

I guess it means we shouldn't build a sprawling apartment complex that will have front and back entrances only outside of downtown and cost billions of taxpayer dollars with no provision for cost overruns other than taxing Seattle residents, yes.
Interesting how somehow that tolling business managed to be obfuscated (if it was planned from the get go) in the original debate about the tunnel. Kind of turns an already bad idea into a laughable idea.
So, we conclude that tunnels are more expensive to construct then bridges. That is about it, really.
I beseech thee Stranger Magazine, keep pushing this topic until people catch on!

There are lots of situations where it is important that a state can be granted large amounts of federal money to accomplish great things. But there are times when, to be true to your convictions about that which is fair, and say NO I do not accept this money to be used for these purposes. It is to wasteful, too risky, and there are just too many other programs that can use that money. I do not accept.

Oh, and @4, would you please clarify your last statement because...I don't get it.
What is your point exactly Mayor McSlob? This guy is such a clueless joke.
got traffic congestion - the Deeply Boring Tunnel will make it worse - dumping 45,000 to 65,000 extra cars on downtown arterials and slowing your commute by 4-5 minutes (in the tunnel, after paying a toll) or 10-20 minutes (outside the tunnel).

Hey, it's time to get all #filibernie on the Governator's ass.

If we take this line of logic to its conclusion, I believe we would be talking about rebuilding the current viaduct... right? Capacity-return on $ invested?

Surface is low investment, but very low capacity. Tunnel is high investment and moderate capacity. Viaduct is moderate investment and moderate investment.

@11 either that or surface.
An ignorant and misleading soundbite instead of a rational argument - what a win!
Every time I start to think the Stranger may have a point about the tunnel, I read some "billionaires tunnel" BS from WIS.

When in doubt, take the side opposite from him.
@14 tell you what, break open Appendix C and read it.

Chances are you can't, because you don't understand what it means.

I boil it down for you into plain English.

Got pollution? Cause the Deeply Boring Tunnel literally has DOUBLE the construction AND operating pollution impacts (on two measures our County exceeds EPA levels on already) of the other two options.

Now, if you want, you could go read the relevant 126 pages that tell you that in detail. But the cold hard reality is that you won't.

How do I know? Because when I asked the questions that allow one to draw these conclusions, I found out nobody else had asked the questions.

Can you trust me? Good question. Got an extra BILLION DOLLARS to spare on trusting them - for a guaranteed LOWER capacity project that is guaranteed to SLOW TRAFFIC and INCREASE congestion? I sure don't.
@15 So WIS, if not the tunnel, then what?
Got pollution? Cause the Deeply Boring Tunnel literally has DOUBLE the construction AND operating pollution impacts (on two measures our County exceeds EPA levels on already) of the other two options.

Have you read this document? Are you intentionally lying about what it says? Do you want to tell SLOG what the alternatives discussed really are, or should we just go back to remembering you've been discredited on next to every issue on which you speak.
@17: Actually, on several measures of pollution, the DBT does in fact raise emissions to levels that exceed EPA standards at several key monitoring points in the downtown core, per Chapter 9 of the SDEIS. As you may well be aware, the active daytime density of Downtown Seattle is well over 80,000 workers and residents per square mile.
@16: Why do you keep insisting it's either/or? Why does anyone pretend that there have been any studies on any actual scenarios beyond the rebuild, cut and cover and DBT? The no-build was a sham, simply dividing traffic between I-5 and the waterfront streets 50/50, the S+T modelling was no-build volume modelling minus transit riders and the current numbers touted by WSDOT, Gregoire and the Council are completely sans tolling.

People keep saying this is the solution, we have a solution, we're lucky we have a solution, oh this is the answer to all our dithering! It's not. It's simply another series of questions tooling around under the guise of some kind of unsustainable non-solution.

The only solid fact of this entire deal is that we need to tear the viaduct down ASAP.

If the state wants to keep the property on the waterfront, let them. If they want air rights, give them air rights. Just don't dick around with our traffic as though it's going to fix things.

Screwing up the tunnel at the wrong time or to the wrong extent would completely, totally and absolutely demolish the democratic hold on state government for years. This is completely reckless behavior and we can't afford to basically let Olympia dig in the sand and pretend there would be no future ramifications on the environment, on society or on governance in the State of Washington.

Tear this viaduct down and find a solution that actually works, Olympia.
Isn't the South Park Bridge closed? Nice try McGinn.
@19, I admire the effect of the "tunnel setback = republicans take over the state" angle you've floated there. I look forward to reading the iterations.
Next Thursday McGinn will debate the State Senate Chairman of the Ways & Means Committee about the state's highway.

"You are wrong and you will change your mind."

Ya, that'll work.
@20, that looks like the $131M projected cost of the South Park Bridge replacement.
What the mayor should talk about in detail is what exactly is his vision for the replacement or demolition of the AWV.

As far as I can determine all that he and his anti-tunnel minions at the Stranger have done is snipe at this or that aspect of the DBT plan. The DBT IS THE COMPROMISE reached by every other stakeholder involved with the project. In the final analysis. if there is no tunnel or some sort of replacement for the AWV 100% of the traffic will become SURFACE TRAFFIC.

My analogy: If we tear down the Ballard bridge and not replace it with anything won't traffic probably increase on the Fremont Bridge so that central Fremont will be total grid lock most of the time?

Here are my questions for McSchwinn:


2. Why don't you just say you don't want the tunnel under any circumstances and that every other government entity in the state who thinks it's a good compromise can go fuck themselves because you and the Stranger claim to know what's best for the City.

3. Do you know how many jobs the replacement of the AWV with a tunnel will create? (the answer in case you give a shit is approximately 30.000 union wage jobs)
Bullshit! McGinn is a liar. He's been lying about his agenda since before the election--I don't believe a word he says.

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.