As Dominic reported earlier, a new Elway Poll suggests that after ten years of public debate and private wrangling, a majority of Seattle voters support none of the proposals to replace the crumbling Alaskan Way Viaduct, with 38 percent of respondents saying they would vote for a new or retrofitted viaduct, 35 percent that they would vote for a deep bore tunnel, and a piddling 21 percent coming out in favor of the Stranger-fetished surface/transit option.
So much for being the voice of your generation, Dom.
Elway’s take is that most people just don’t believe that surface/transit can handle the traffic volume, while Dom seems convinced that voters are simply misinformed. Surface/transit “performs better on virtually all metrics,” Dom argues, making the classic liberal mistake of presuming that having the facts on your side represents any sort of political advantage. But Dom soothes himself further by dismissing voter sentiment entirely:
If the tunnel gets shot down, I think we may end up with a surface alternative as our only realistic option. As Dan Bertolet lays out beautifully on Slog today, if the tunnel is rejected, we won’t get a viaduct.
And I agree. Both Dan and Dom are right in asserting that the likelihood of the state shoving a viaduct rebuild down our waterfront is slim to nil. If we can block a tunnel, we can certainly block a rebuild. That’s what we’re good at here in Seattle: blocking things.
But Dom is naive if he thinks that an anti-tunnel vote virtually assures state funding for the surface option, for there is an additional alternative that both he and Dan surprisingly ignore… the option to do absolutely nothing. After all, in the absence of consensus, nothing has been the overwhelming favorite of nearly every survey on the subject, and it’s not inconceivable that nothing is exactly what Seattle might get.
For if the state is convinced that a surface option would do little to handle thru-traffic on Highway 99, why spend any money at all? Why not just take down the handful of segments most at risk of toppling onto the waterfront and leave the rest of the structure roped off, but standing, as a fitting tribute to our city’s pathologically process-driven public-policy paralysis? We could dub it “The Seattle Way Viaduct” in that honor.
Sound unlikely? No more so than the likelihood of non-Seattle legislators willingly shoveling a couple billion dollars in our direction so that we can pursue our anti-car/anti-American agenda. Honestly… if the choice was between caving to Seattle liberals or digging a big ditch somewhere in Ferry County, dumping the money in there, soaking it in kerosene, lighting it afire and then bulldozing over the ashes, you don’t think there would be a helluva a lot of legislators voting for the latter? Of course there would. They fucking hate us! And considering the strained relations between City Hall and our legislative delegation, I wouldn’t be surprised if a couple Seattle legislators voted for the Ferry County Bonfire Option too.
I don’t disagree that the deep bore tunnel provides a crappy return on investment while representing a backwards-thinking approach toward transportation planning. But it’s been a decade since the Nisqually quake marked the Viaduct for demolition, and we’ve done absolutely nothing to replace it. And if you don’t think we could leave it standing for another decade or two, in use or not, then you don’t know the Seattle way.
You guys need to find some people writing opinion pieces on Seattle streets who actually own and/or drive cars.
I am with you like 95% of the time on these things but the 2 guests posts on the tunnel were so far to the anti-car extreme that they immediately lost all credibility with me.
We want objective people with numbers, not Critical Mass assholes with sticks up their asses about cars. The only people giving us the former are Stranger staffers — which is appreciated — but let’s get some sane transit professionals in here if you want to be serious.
thanks goldy for the best tunnel post yet, because if we somehow block the tunnel, my guess is that the state will wither use that money for the budget shortfall or maybe for 520 (if we’re lucky) and we’ll get a whole lot of nothing. but the crumbling viaduct turned into a homeless encampment rotting over whats left of the waterfront would be a very appropriate monument to the political process here in Seattle
and for the record I am in favor of the surface/transit model, but since we won’t have any decent transit for the next 30 years (I know I’m optimistic about our future), we might as well get a tunnel out of it
There isn’t majority support for anything—except tearing the thing down. So tear it down, patch up the raggedy street that exists, spend the money we would have to spend improving that stretch of road WHATEVER WE DO, and then see if we need to spend an additional billion or four on a replacement, rebuild, tunnel, whatever. But if it turns out that we can live without it, and that the crazy minority was actually right, then… yay! No hard feelings, promise not to rub it in, and we’ll have saved billion(s).
But if it’s clear that we need it, well, then build the tunnel or a new quintuple decker super freeway—whatever it takes. But let’s see if we need it first, okay? Just to be prudent?
You are 100% correct.
I meant Goldy is 100% correct?
And that’s what we’ll do — repair it.
This is why the current debate reminds me of the campaign to kill the monorail.
You cant keep blocking the project until it meets your transit goals, plus there’s a high probability that the mayor may not survive this fight if he decides to block anything but the surface option. To block the tunnel is one thing, but if people vote for a re-build viaduct and he tries to block that too, he’ll be recalled.
Even still, all that really does is further delay the project, even if the Gov decides to tear down the viaduct in 2012 like she threatened to do, you decide “Hahahaha, play right into my hands”, well what you get is a 2 lane road and no I-5 widening options to replace the viaduct. So you make traffic even worse, holding the city hostage because of your political views and fuck all who think otherwise.
The most successful and popular option is the “tear it down” option, hands down. We can at least get that far since it will work in concert with seawall replacement. We can all agree that the danger needs to be removed and seawall replaced. Then we can move on with the rest of the equation.
“Oh but Baconcat,” you sob, “they won’t let us! They’ll tell us tunnel or nothing! They’ll keep it standing! They’ll take the money!”
This has been the parting refrain in every freeway revolt ever, the “we get nothing” retort. The idea that they’ll simply walk away. Unfortunately for state democrats, there are votes and gobs of money here. As with every freeway revolt, we’ll get concern trolling and fearful worrying over what will happen to the money, as though the power structure will make an enemy out of the largest city.
Never happens.
The remaining options all require more or less the same mitigation, have the same access points, generally the same configuration on the waterfront. The difference is one has 6 lanes and a rebuild/retrofitted elevated, the other is just 6 lanes.
What’s left is a grab bag of solutions, from expanding transit to encouraging more parking on the periphery of the core and use of our current transit tunnel. The likely outcome is a mixture of the two. Beyond that, we’ll just be left to figure out if we ultimately need to spend a few months building an elevated portion.
Stop suggesting the money will walk away, it won’t.
And you know very well why the rebuild/retrofit solution gets the most votes, Goldy, and you know that it’s the same sort of status quo you claim to hate.
Fear of the unknown is still fear. Fear is weakness.
Let’s tear the damn thing down and get on with our lives.
Goldy, you are exactly right. It’s accept the tunnel or live with the ruins. Those are the only choices. People who think that the magic Legislature fairies will bring us sufrace transit money or a viaduct rebuild should go back to watching the Disney Channel.
@7: You’re the ones holding the city hostage, demanding people ride it out on the viaduct for several years or else, refusing to fund transit until the tunnel is dug out and blocking any and all means to promote a safe removal of the viaduct until the whole tunnel is complete, and even then there are still several years to magically discover a way to retrofit and toll the viaduct too.
The “tunnel or else” mantra is a damnable farce. It’s bullshit, it’s tripe, it’s utter fuckery. Anyone who suggests we’re making some kind of progress on removing the unsafe viaduct by not removing the unsafe viaduct is a delusional liar.
@9: 27,000 voters, 27,000 potential donors to piss off.
I don’t think the Washington State Democratic Party will play with that one. Especially since Seattle has not hit parity in transportation dollars paid versus received, like, ever. At least not since the gas tax was chained to road expenditure.
And this is only the people who signed the petition. This ignores the thousands more who are opposed to the tunnel but did not sign. Folks who think the money will vanish are the type who thought this petition drive wouldn’t even get off the ground.
Don’t think this greeny-feely agenda is DOA, either. We shot down gobs of transit over massive road expenditures attached to the measure. We will stop a bad road even if attached to good transit, and this bad road doesn’t even have that.
Baconcat, are you intending to single-handedly amend the State Constitution to permit gas taxes to be used for transit? Because unless you are, the money is not fungible. Really. There is NO money for transit. NONE. Really. So there is no surface/transit option. Really. It’s like saying there is a surface/personal jet-pack option: we could take the tunnel gas taxes and tolls and instead buy everyone a personal jet pack.
@12: kk, when the city isn’t having to divert more money and scrimp in save “just in case”, we have more of our own funds to approach transit. Coming up next year, in concert with a statewide vote on transit funding, is a likely vote on the transit master plan that would dip into our own wallets to accelerate vital transit programs in the city.
Once again, if they are going to tell us to go it alone, we can sure as hell do that.
If they’re sick and tired of us, they can take their damn viaduct and go home.
In the absence of a preferred majority opinion on an alternative you will get a tunnel.
The state is not Seattle, they are not going to cave in to your fantasy of backing your way into a surface solution.
They will build their road, they own the right of way for the viaduct, and are buying the right if way for the tunnel.
If the the citizenry is “misinformed” then maybe the media did a shitty job at advocating. Or maybe thinking that repeated batshitcrazy posts from WIS were somehow representative of your influence on the greater population.
@13: Funny, all this screaming by tunnel flacks about how there’s potential for collapse and “be afraid, very afraid” and suddenly the voters will believe you if you suddenly say we can’t tear it down sooner than the completion of the tunnel?
You made that bed, lay in it.
Imagine!
@11: “Folks who think the money will vanish are the type who thought this petition drive wouldn’t even get off the ground.”
No. Some of us knew the petition drive would succeed but also know the money will vanish for anything but the DBT.
@3 Yeah because the state is just going to sit on that money while we play games. Don’t be an idiot Dan.
@11 27,000 people are not all that significant. If the Dems are willing to ignore the countless more than that that have signed petitions demanding the State raise taxes they will sure as fuck ignore a bunch of Seattle urbanites.
@15: Let’s use your own math against you, MrBaker…
59% of voters support options other than the tunnel. The tunnel is what will be on the ballot. So the vote will be 59/41 or so against the tunnel.
All kidding aside, there is a difficult math to reckon with when it comes to issues like this. This is a road issue. It’s an expenditure issue. It’s an environmental issue. 27,000 signatures on a petition, especially if the rejection rate stays under, oh, 33% (higher and it still qualifies, by the way), is a powerful message to any legislator, councilmember or governor. This is not a “do the right thing” issue, it’s a “can we get away with spending this much” issue. The voters seem to be inclined to disagree at this point.
This is an incredibly difficult position for tunnel supporters. The number and speed of opposition to the tunnel is staggering, especially with little more than an article in The Stranger and under 600 people on the FB fanpage. None of you actually thought we could do it, admit it.
You cannot hide behind the state because those same 27,000+ signatories are also voters. Fundraisers. Volunteers. 27,000 signatures is kicking a leg out from under the tunnel.
You’ll be right back at the start with all of us, back to “what will we do when we implement mitigation and shutdown the viaduct”. If the process behind the DBT, less than 30 months from start to finish on the scoping project is any indication, by the time the spraypaint hits the brand new waterfront pavement we should know whether or not we want or even need a high capacity solution.
You’ve been outmaneuvered by volunteers, environmentalists and social justice activists. Again. If you’re willing to go down with the ship on this issue, fare thee well.
@10 You’re the ones holding the city hostage,
Not at all. Technically, I’m for the tunnel, im for moving the project forward asap. But if its put up to a vote and the people vote for a re-built elevated viaduct, then I would be for that too. What im not for, is blocking a re-build of the viaduct in favor for a surface street option that voters might soundly reject it.
@17/@18: I’m sorry if I’m not going to submit to your dreary assessment of the future or vague threats.
Just another treehuggin’ pollyanna over here. 🙂
@20: You’re wedded to the idea that this is a referendum on the surface plan. It’s not. And it will not lead to an outright assumption that surface/transit option has won.
What it will do, however, is bring about an end to this uncertainty and doubt over whether or not the tunnel can be completed and the viaduct eventually put out of service. At this point, tunnel proponents can’t even deliver a firm timeline on shutdown. The date has already slipped back and forth several times, and hasn’t even moved back to the originally proposed shutdown date.
And it makes a mighty strong case for going ahead with teardown, fearmongering be damned.
So plan for the possibility that the voters will get a chance to vote down the tunnel and gird yourself for the other possibility that the voters cannot and will not accept an inadequately scoped and funded “plan”.
Just imagine a greener future <3
@19, 27,000 people signing something is nothing. Nothing at all. Nonsense things can get that.
@21, What’s vague? There is money for the tunnel, there is no money for anything else.
27,000 signatures in under a month. Roughly 1,000 a day. In apathetic Seattle.
I’ll let that sink in for a few days, you guys.
Call me if the viaduct collapses or Gregoire promises to dig the tunnel herself with a novelty spoon from Ivar’s.
@23: “First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.”
And that money, like all money, will be there. Waiting.
You can pretend it’s gone, you can pretend it’s never coming back. Then you stop, you think, you realize that 27,000 voters shifting their vote from any candidate? That’s a shift of 54,000 in the margins. In city races, that’s an instant loss. In county races, that’s an instant loss. In a state race, it can make a major difference. Then you ask yourself, “would they ignore that reality?”
They won’t.
So keep mocking us. Keep fighting us. The reality of all this is a surge of around 1,000 voters a day with little promotion except late in the game, a Facebook with under 600 followers, tons of attacks on the petition and the right to petition, and it still managed to outstrip the requirements by thousands. The momentum is there, don’t ignore it.
And always keep us on our toes <3
@24 With the kind of funding they had that is nothing. I’ve collected signatures before. You shove a petition in front of people’s faces and if they vaguely support most will sign. Get enough people doing that and its easy as shit to get that many.
It remains to be seen what the actual valid signature count will be.
@24, the Stanger and Publicola have been beating this drum for more than a month. Whipping that pool of people into signing their names after having the petition literally given to them in a copy if the stranger isn’t exactly impressive.
The state does not give a shit about your petition, only that it will cost time and money, but not that they give a ratsass what you think or feel about their highway.
What you are clearly missing is the math the matters. The state has one (1) option and are being presented with zero (0) alternatives by the “no” voters.
To The Stranger: It’s over. The political calculus is nowhere near in your favor. The tunnel is imperfect, it’s going to be expensive as hell, and there are much better options out there. But we have cash from the state and enough collective momentum to get it done, which simply isn’t the case for surface/transit or anything else. Lay down your rhetorical arms. The time has come to just build the fucking thing and let the cards fall where they may.
@25, it is the same pool of folks. There wasn’t a shift, the numbers have not changed from the Publicola poll from almost exactly a year ago.
http://publicola.com/2011/03/28/voters-h…
Let that sink in for a couple days.
@29, there are still political careers to be built here – bear in mind this may as well have nothing to do with the actual viaduct replacement idea, and simply be a frothing agent to help replace existing city council members and Seattle state representatives with mayor-agreeing newcomers.
The thing is, if “do nothing” was included as an option on the poll, it would have gotten less votes than S/T.
Thanks for providing a much needed fresh perspective on this Goldie. It’s nice to know there’s at least a little wiggle room at The Stranger Cult for a different take, if not for outright dissent.
This is the “then they mock you” part.
@33: Actually, at this point you’re just mocking yourself.
FINALLY someone at the Stranger gets it – it’s not about what we want, or how we want to spend money in Seattle, it’s about what is the best we can get from the Legislature. To really get things that we want in Seattle, we have to realize there is a world outside of our liberal bubble, and work with folks in their communities on things that matter to them.
Part of the reason they hate us is we are so goddamn preachy, and telling others how they should live their lives, and that is not how you make friends in Olympia. We like to point out that we are a major economic force in the region and state, but we are only that way because people come into the city, and sometimes we have to think about them.
Damn right. From where I live in North Seattle, 99 is the most convenient way for me to get into, out of, and through most of Seattle. Just stick a bandaid on ‘er, slap on some decorative wrought-iron salmon or climbing ivy, and spend the money on something actually necessary.
We should:
1) Accept what we’re given
2) Make friends with the Bill Hinkle and Val Stevens of the world
3) Believe that there’s a silent majority in Seattle that support point 1 (we’ll call them “Real Seattleites”)
4) Stop being so preachy about things like principles
5) Realize our lowered station in this state
6) Recognize that without the tunnel, nothing will happen (the state has no duty to the city, neither by constitution nor federal environmental mandate — just fuck Seattle, let’s peace out!)
7) The referendum will magically disappear!
8) Urbanists == swine (metaphorically speaking, I swear!)
9) Road projects have never and will never EVER be stopped, not in the past, not now, and not in the future
10) Realize that this may say it’s about the tunnel, but it’s actually full of secret clauses that forward surface+transit! Or, wait, the rebuild!
11) Ignore that this is a coalition of surface+transit advocates and rebuild advocates, tunnel supporters being the odd-man out (which they aren’t, duh, they’re the silent majority)
Did I get it all?
Find a few new angles, I wanna make a Tunnel Everywhere Already Party BINGO game, I’m going to need more to make it work.
@3:
Only one problem with your plan, Dan:
And that problem is that if, heaven forbid, there is a problem, if we knock it down and then realize that oops! it is a royal clusterfuck! then we’re looking at starting over and not even having the possibility of getting that clusterfucky problem solved before 2021 at the earliest!
@37: As a resident of Capitol Hill, let me remind you that the tunnel received its strongest support from our neighborhood, despite all of Dom’s browbeating. Or perhaps because of it?
Not sure where you’d find a majority of people who share The Stranger’s “with us or against us” mentality on such a mundane issue. Maybe on a Critical Mass ride?
And, beyond that too-too-simple logic, try this though experiment for a sec:
Imagine if in the 80’s a politician had told you, in response to the spread of AIDS,
How would you have responded to this persons “measured, prudent” response?
And, yes, it’s a rhetorical question, Dan: we both lived through the 80’s and know damn well how assholes who employed the “lets wait and see if it all works out without investing any cash” argument were treated by ACT-UP and the like. And for good reason!
Because anyone using an argument of this structure is a lying asshole afraid to publicly admit that, if the truth were told, he honestly really doesn’t give a fuck about what problems his lack of action or failure to find solutions might end up causing.
(And here I am looking at you, Danny-boy!)
It’s understandable that most people doubt whether the surface option can manage street traffic effectively. However, it’s a fact that the bored tunnel will actually make Seattle’s street traffic worse than the surface boulevard option. To keep this post specific, here follows an explanation of what’s wrong with the proposed Alaskan Way boulevard design.
Thru-traffic is “improperly mixed” with motorists trying to park. This design failure applies to the Western/Alaskan Way Couplet, the 6-lane AND the 4-lane Alaskan Way boulevards.
An early design for Alaskan Way incorporated a 2-lane frontage road on the east side. This frontage road is a basic traffic management design that allows motorists trying to park to cycle between it and Western Ave without being forced back onto Alaskan Way thru-traffic. The 6-lane Couplet forces those trying to park into the thru-traffic on both Western and Alaskan Way! Yet Wsdot wants the public to believe the couplet is viable traffic management design.
They know better. Wsdot directors and department heads falsely present the surface boulevard option as utterly inefficient AND more expensive than necessary. For instance, the number of stoplights proposed for Lower Belltown were 4, 5 or 8 with surface boulevard options. However, a 2-stoplight option is possible and effective but ‘only offered’ with Scenario ‘H’ Cut/cover Trench Tunnel. Wsdot presented the surface boulevard option with 5 stoplights for Sodo, though 1 or 2 is now the plan. Along Aurora grid reconnection, 4 stoplights were proposed though no stoplights was possible. What the hell?
The 2-lane frontage road should be reconsidered despite wishes for an inappropriately-scaled wide plaza and an unnatural waterfront beneath extensive and maintenance-prone boardwalks. It creates road space for needed transit service (ideally the waterfront streetcar line and at least one east/west trolleybus line near Coleman Dock); creates a completely separated from traffic bikepath and pedestrian walkway similar to the existing path but better; increases curbside parking a bit, not too much; and adds a row of street trees and landscaping.
The problem is certain high-level employees at Wsdot and SDOT who should be investigated for malfeasance and dereliction of duty. Really nice guys in public.
REalLy NiCe A-HoLe Club members.
I should add 2 points about the frontage road design:
1). Between Pike and King streets, 13 stoplights are proposed (one for every intersection). The frontage road allows Washington, Columbia and Seneca streets to reach only the frontage road and create “super-islands” of fine pedestrian space bordering Alaskan Way. This reduces the number of Alaskan Way stoplights from 13 to 10 and increase traffic thru-put capacity. DOT directors know about this option, but keep it from the public.
2). A permanent bridge over the RR tracks at Broad Street is possible and prove invaluable to manage traffic during reconstruction AND thereafter. That bridge could host streetcar tracks and run north on Elliott, cross Western onto 3rd Ave W, and turn east on some sidestreet to a terminus or turnaround at Seattle Center. Imagine that and don’t take “No” for an answer from Seattle’s jackass establishment.
I made some popcorn! Olive oil and a sprinkle of sea salt. How snobby and elitist of me. Let me tip my monocle and have a read-back over what you’ve transmitted to my internets.
@40: I take your predictions very lightly, but even if they all won 95% each I would be extremely hard-pressed to even begin to support the tunnel or this fanciful “appearance of a solution” that so many cling to.
@41: The poll didn’t say “Capitol Hill”, and it suggested the sorts of folks that live within the girdle of I-5.
@42: We’re being told that carbon emissions are taking a toll on the environment and so we’re building a huge tunnel that acts like a giant exhaust pipe and huge portals and huge exits and also expanding Alaskan Way to 6 lanes and keeping the viaduct up for years… that makes sense if you think about it for a while. The cars are underground, so emissions will have to seep through the ground and that takes years, I think. We’re doin’ it for Knut, up there riding a sea turtle in heaven!
@44: “So Councilmember So-and-so actually helped keep the referendum off the ballot? What the fuck? So tell me more about Candidate Friendlyguy…” and so on. It’s interesting that you mention the environmentally-minded I-80, though… very interesting. Bah, urbanism! Bah, Sierra Club!
@48: The tunnel with less than 40% of support is on the ballot thanks to a coalition for two options with a combined 60% of support. And, more worryingly for you, many of the most vocal boosters of one option have begun to slide to support the other… but which plan is gaining the support that will make their plan the top idea if voters reject the tunnel?
Stay tuned!
Photoshop just ate my picture of Knut riding a sea turtle in heaven and Washboard timed out for the third time in as many minutes… so, it’s been fun, but I’m Audi.
…long day tomorrow upsetting the moral fabric with environmentalist and homosexualist fervor (and all without exceeding my 2 plastic bag a week quota!), so I’ll see all you dearies when I see ya.
#3 – Seriously? Or did your teenager log into your account and post that?
For those of you that think the money will be there if you just wait: The SR-520 project still needs money.
How many people will the Democrats in the Legislature make happy if they move all the money to Lake Washington? Anyone who crosses Lake Washington–including those on I-90–because the next earthquake can knock out SR-520.
If you can’t do that political calculus: A Republican won’t get elected in Seattle. The Eastside could easily decide the Democrats have come to their senses by spending money on them, instead of Seattle. The rest of the metropolitan area will be happy the money was spent on something useful, rather than being tied up in a political logjam, creating jobs for people.
You may not get the money to tear down the existing Seattle Way Viaduct.
No matter how much a minority of people in Seattle whine, there is no money (per the state constitution regarding highway money) for transit. Get over it.
And, this issue, if a vote even happens, may be the one time instant run-off voting could have a legitimate use.
Yes, it is 38%, 35%, and 21%. But, what about a second choice in instant run-off voting? The tunnel could easily end up being the most wanted in that case, especially after people figure out that the concrete in the current Seattle Way Viaduct is past its useful life (so why repair it?). (See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/pub… )
@47: Baconcat, a science question for you.
If both are traveling equal distances, which will produce more carbon emissions:
A) a semi-truck traveling at 50 mph (through hole in the ground or otherwise)? or
B) a semi-truck traveling at 20 mph and having to idle while stopped at red lights (on the surface or otherwise)?
Please show your work using the attached pages.
ug @55 4% of viaduct traffic is freight, and considering that there won’t be any downtown exits, I’d guess that the tunnel numbers would be even lower. So your option A is entirely straw man.
@3 The tunnel is the only option that doesn’t fuck up the waterfront, either with a 6 lane viaduct or a 6 lane surface parking lot. It’s also the only option that can be built while the viaduct is still in place, and this was one of the main reasons it was selected. Having that whole area impassible for several years for your stupid Danni Westneat jack off experiment would cause severe damage to our economy. And while the surface fantasy people like to say that freight wouldn’t use the tunnel that is not true–some of it would and that which didn’t would still be possible because the roads aren’t gridlocked. It is true that without the tunnel traffic would eventually adjust somewhat, and part of that adjustment would be people and businesses moving away from the core to somewhere were they can actually get around. Eliminating capacity from the core causes sprawl, surface people don’t seem to understand that.