Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« This Just In! | You Just Thought You Were A Go... »

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Viaduct TRL

Posted by on May 25 at 11:56 AM

Here’s Team Ceis’s latest campaign video for the mayor’s tunnel plan.

I have mixed feelings about the mayor’s heavy-handed campaigning for the waterfront tunnel.
Yea: I like that he’s a politician w/ an opinion (and one that rubs old school Seattle the wrong way); I like that he’s soapboxing about it; I like that he has a vision about Seattle’s future.
Nay: It bugs me that a mayor who’s already been busted by the ethics commission for campaigning out of his office is so obviously in campaign mode out of 7th floor headquarters yet again; It’s disappointing that the mayor isn’t behind the more progressive surface/transit option instead of the auto-accomodationist traffic option for a downtown freeway; and it’s annoying that Team Nickels/Ceis refuses to answer questions about paying for the tunnel (the real answer is: “We don’t have the money, but trust us, we’ll get it.”)

Ultimately, I wish this whole thing wasn’t going to a public vote. Columnist Ted Van Dyk makes his case against a public vote in this morning’s PI.


CommentsRSS icon

I like the humor, but let's face it, if we couldn't afford a monorail at one-tenth the eventual cost of the Mayor's underwater tunnel, we're sure not paying for a likely 40-60 percent overbudget underwater tunnel when the state is only going to pay for a viaduct rebuild.

The surface plus transit option looked pretty good, though. But the politicos want to hand out lots of construction jobs, so it probably won't happen. Maybe if we threw in a giant statue of them?

The "more progressive surface/transit option instead of the auto-accomodationist traffic option for a downtown freeway" is not based in reality Josh. The majority of the money that WSDOT has for projects comes from voter mandated tax packages that mandate that the money be used for roads. Get caught up in advocating for the perfect will result in us losing the good. Instead we will get a rebuild or a retrofit. What you are advocating for will require years and years of work at making systemic changes. I agree that WSDOT should be more transit focused but unfortunately we live in a state where every tax package has to go before the voters and that means transit gets screwed. I will work to change the system but in the meantime I am supporting a tunnel. I actually have seen NO evidence that your proposed surface highway alternative would be better for the city which would need to absorb many more trips on our downtown surface streets.

The monorail was half of the cost of the tunnel.

Josh,
You truly are a hypocrite.

You attack pols for taking nuanced positions, and yet here you go again, saying you prefer to stradle, stradle, stradle. Please don't change your mind, and stradle in a different direction. You don't like that either.

It's a small world, Josh, at least in your pea brain.

how is 11 billion half the cost of 4? I *wish* you monorail supporters could get laid so you would stop with your whining already...

Keshmeshi - Freight doesn't take public transit

ever tried to borrow money?

now look at the financing package for the Mayor's tunnel - he doesn't even have the money set aside yet.

yup, I predict the tunnel, when you do total Year Of Expenditure dollar cost accounting, will cost TEN TIMES the cost of the monorail.

And half of that will come from Seattle taxpayers - not port, county, state or feds.

Josh,
Rather than speculate, I'll just ask: why don't you want it on the ballot?
How do you envision getting accurate and helpful information in front of decision-makers without having it on the ballot?

I went to hear the Congress for New Urbanism dude speak at City Hall. Lots of funny graphics and good one liners. Lots of excellent theories for planning students BUT -- but the presentation did not take into account the tax structure or political realities in Washington state or the fact that the surface highway plan has NO basis in political or financial realities. It lacks any kind of detail. Connect those 103,000 trips to the grid, it will be better, invest in transit and it will be better. Considering that WA state has a VERY VERY hard time getting elected's to vote for a decent transit revenue source(voters too for that matter) you are all doing a disservice promoting this as an option with any validity.

Cary - I have watched the misinformation about this project swirl from everywhere; stakeholder groups, state representatives, etc., etc. It's even been hard for Councilmembers to keep all this information straight.

Why do we have elected officials? Do we not entrust them to make informed decisions on our behalf. I am sick to death of voters making uninformed decisions based on TV ads, the Voters Guide and (god forbid) the Stranger endorsement page.

The complex details of this issue need to be thoroughly studied and analyzed -- with public involvement, comment and participation -- and then those people who we pay and entrust can make an informed decision based on the hundreds of hours of study and analysis.

City Council should get some damn ball and make a decision without sending this to the voters -- otherwise why the hell do we pay them?

We have elected officials so that someone will sit in the dunk tank at Fourth of July picnics, silly.

You mean they have other uses?

So ethics violations (or, more likely, ethically dubious behaviors) are OK if you agree with the goal, then?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Whatever happened to Nickels the enviro? $1.8 billion for roads? $1 billion extra for the Viaduct tunnel? Who is his base now? The concrete and asphalt lobby?

And isn't the $1.8 billion proposal likely to kill any chance of Sound Transit winning at the polls next year?

Roads, roads, roads! What is this, 1950?!?!

Since we are talking about how do you pay for the tunnel--how in the hell do you pay for the surface/transit option? Erica cites some mysterious $800 million figure pulled out of thin air for the necessary street improvements. Yet the $2 billion from the state goes away for this option. And the $800 million from the RTID package. Leaving...nothing, no port money, no state money, no regional money.

It appears that the mayor is closer to the money for the tunnel than anyone is for a surface option. Last I checked he had about $2.8 million from the state and regional packages and a probable promise of $200 million from the port. That gets us to the bottom of the $3.0-3.6 billion range of the tunnel.

And can we stop calling it a surface/transit option if we aren't planning to spend at least $2 billion on transit. If we are, and I would love that, then the surface/transit option seems about $3 billion short.

Summing up the transit "debate": Our propoganda's better than you're propoganda!

So where does the money come from for the Tunnel?

incest father and daughter with mother and son!

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).