New WSDOT Poll on Viaduct Options | Slog | The Stranger's Blog | The Stranger

1

Why do you refer to it is a poll of "Seattlites" and then go on to reveal that it was a poll of people in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties? That is so misleading. I couldn't give a rat's ass what somebody in Edmonds or Kent wants the city to do. Those people hate Seattle.

2

Gene,

The tunnel numbers I cited are a subsetâ€”just polling Seatlleites.

3

oh my god, we really are fucked.

did the poll specify that the rebuild is 50% larger and blocks views?

what was the sample size on that poll? something must be wrong?

4

1,000 people.

The question on the tunnel Vs. rebuild does not specify that the rebuild is 50% larger.
It also doesn't give specifics on costs for either project.

5

Can you post the link to the results in the SLOG. thanks

6

Hoknow,
I'm using the poll for an article in the upcoming issue of the paper. So, I'm going to hold onto it for now.

7

I don't know how seriously I can this poll. Just from my own personal experience talking to people about this, I am usually taken aback by how uninformed most Seattlites are about the viaduct issue. Most people have this vague idea about it but aren't really following it closely at this point. I would think (hope!) that people start to get more up to speed on what's going on as the deadline draws nearer.

8

Gene, the rebuild option may or may not be a good idea, but if you oppose it, at least use legitimate arguments. The rumor that a new viaduct would block the views of car drivers is false. DOT has stated that the side barriers would be in line with other bridge barriers. Drive the I-90 or 520 bridge. Drive the ship canal bridge. While the barriers may be a few inches higher than is currently on the viaduct, most car drivers will still be able to see over them just fine.

9

Josh, the fact that a large majority of people want something done about transportation but don't want to pay for it reminds me of education. Remember a few years ago we overwhelmingly passed an initiative which would increase teacher pay and reduce class size, but there was no funding mechanism attached to it. When the state tried to fund it through a sales tax increase, the people voted it down. Same thing. People want better schools, less traffic. But are not willing to voluntarily inconvenience themselves to pay for it.

10

SDA,

I was going to say the same thing to Gene about his views ding. (Erica C. Barnett debunked that lineâ€”Tim Ceis's lineâ€”about blocked views for drivers right here on Slog, I believe.)

Maybe he's not talking about the views while driving, though. At 50% bigger, maybe he means pedestrian views from the waterfront.

I mean, the thing is: If people are going to object to the Viaduct rebuild because drivers' views of Elliott Bay aren't going to be as good as they are now, they certainly aren't going to support an underground tunnel. Right?

11

People are dumb!

12

I would be much more willing to support the tunnel, if we could get some sort of progressive taxation plan for it. The idea of paying $4 billion-plus in regressive sales taxes makes my blood pressure skyrocket.

13

When WSDOT was trying to sell the tunnel, they claimed that the views would be blocked for most cars. Now that they see the the tunnel isn't very popular, they are now saying that well, maybe they won't be blocked all that much after all.

I'm not feeling very confident about this view/no view situation. Suffice to say, the views will probably be affected in some way.

14

The "50% larger" is 50% wider. The whole "higher guardrails blocking views" thing seemed a bit dubious, but you can't dispute the 50% wider.

About the poll, I can't say I'm surprised a replacement viaduct is winning -- and I'm a tunnel supporter. That's just the read I got from talking to people. I am surprised by the margin.

What's remarkable to me is that Seattle touts itself as this progressive, environmentally conscious city, and yet Seattleites favor building an elevated highway along a scenic downtown waterfront. If there's one thing that Seattle's squabbling environmentalists and urbanists and transit supporters have to unite behind, it is this: preventing another viaduct from happening.

15

SDA -- Well you can debate whether the new viaduct will have great views, I guess. I would imagine higher guard rails and an added shoulder would mean drivers would really have to crane their necks to get the same view as the old viaduct. But I guess that's just what we want, people speeding down a freeway looking off to the side over a guard rail instead of ahead of them -- great. But anyway, if you are going to say that I am not using legitimate arguments, why do you only bring up the view issue? Please tell me how the 50% wider viaduct is a false claim or an illegitimate argument.

16

Cressona -- it was a great disappointment for me too after moving here to find out that Seattle does not live up to its progressive reputation. It's just politically liberal, but it really is pretty retrogressive when it comes to urban planning, transportation, etc. I think that is changing as more new, younger people move here from around the country. But it will take a while for the new folks to outnumber the old-guard lefty city-hating hippies.

17

People are all for big things until they see the price tag. The poll is rather telling. People will be all for this until they see their MVET fees, just like they were with the Monorail.

And Gene, you're the one raising a stink about obstructed views. Practicality trumps aesthetics.

18

It's funny how enthusiastic people are about a tunnel until you ask them to pay for it. "What? Us?"

Bet on the viaduct retrofit.

It solves all the problems -- except the "problem" of a large structure on the waterfront -- and that's another "problem" that people do NOT want to pay to solve.

So it's not a problem.

19

Let me see, spend ten times as much as we were going to spend on the Monorail Green Line to build an underwater tunnel in an earthquake zone with no views, to satisfy the billionaire developers who don't even live in Seattle?

- or -

Use the money the state GAVE us to rebuild the elevated Viaduct all true Seattleites love and stick it to the rich developers?

Man, that was hard. I go for option B.

20

"And 71% vs. 21% favored a combo roads and transportation package, much along the lines being pushed by RTIDâ€”extending light rail to Northgate and the Eastside, replacing the Viaduct and 520, and adding lanes to 405."

The legislature just passed a law requiring a combo roads and transit package. ST2 and the RTID package will be together on the November 2007 ballot. Both sink, or both swim.

21

Since moving to Seattle 9 years ago, I wondered why nothing ever happened on the transportation front in this town. So many problems, so many obvious solutions. But nothing got done.

After seeing the monorail (they *voted* for it OVER AND OVER) go down, now I understand. We don't want to pay for *anything*. We want it for free. Or else, and I'm beginning to think this is the more likely case, we love to wallow in our misery.

22

I love this from Josh Feit:
>I was going to say the same thing to Gene about his views ding. (Erica C. Barnett debunked that lineâ€”Tim Ceis's lineâ€”about blocked views for drivers right here on Slog, I believe.)

Yes, of course the Slog is the last word on any issue! All hail the Slog. Haha. It's like People magazine, if it's in the Slog, you know it's true! And you know, Erica C. Barnett has been transported to the future where she took a drive on the rebuilt viaduct, so what she says goes.

Nice site...look now

Nice site...look now

Look now

acyclovir-vg0a.blogspot.com

27

worldpharmacy

28

amiloride-5ity.blogspot.com