Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Crime! Gangs! Frozen reporters... | Bears Fan Blames Seattle »

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Re-build: Up or Down Vote

posted by on December 16 at 14:25 PM

Yesterday, Governor Gregoire demanded a vote between the tunnel option and the re-build option, adding that the tunnel option is, according to the DEIS, “not feasible.”

So, Governor Gregoire: Why are we voting on the tunnel at all?

Pitting the tunnel vs. the re-build is a false choice—and a rigged election that will saddle Seattle with an elevated highway through downtown for another 100 years by default.

Seattle should vote on the only currently fleshed out plan, the re-build, in its own right, up or down.

(And doesn’t voting on the tunnel idea vs. re-build idea violate the two-subject rule?)

If the re-build wins on its own merit, as opposed to winning in opposition to an unfunded tunnel plan, then okay.

But if it loses, well, then: We can look at other options like a tunnel with a real funding plan or a boulevard/transit option—which no one has looked at yet.

KC Exec Ron Sims wants to look at the boulevard/transit option.

Seattle State Senator and former House Transportation Chair, Ed Murray wants to look at the boulevard/transit option.

State House Speaker Frank Chopp wants to look at the boulevard/transit option.

So, let’s look at it.

And I’m tired of hearing that there isn’t a boulevard/transit option. There is. The People’s Waterfront Coalition has laid one out. They say that 25% of riders will transfer to transit. They earmark $200 million for north/south transit fixes. And actually, given that the mid-range price for the re-build is $2.8 billion and the boulevard is $2.1—there may actually be $700 million for transit fixes.

What does $700 million get? I don’t know. So, let’s find out and… study it.

Mean time: Re-build, up or down, in its own right.

RSS icon Comments

1

Forget the tunnel and forget the blvd/transit option. Traffic is bad and it's going to get worse - taking away a highway will expedite things in the wrong direction.

I say, re-build the viaduct but make it something that is interesting architecturally. Re-building doesn't mean that you have to put up a concrete monstrosity that everyone secretly wishes didn't exist. It could mean a lot of different, and interesting, things. There's potential for exciting opportunities with this project; I wish we could focus on that once in a while instead of the constant bickering and whinging.

Posted by Ryan | December 16, 2006 2:41 PM
2

It's okay Josh. I'm tired of hearing that there is a transit option. As you say, it hasn't even been studied.

Posted by Dave Coffman | December 16, 2006 3:29 PM
3


"They say that 25% of riders will transfer to transit. They earmark $200 million for north/south transit fixes."


What is this hope that 25% of riders will transfer to transit based on?
Has that ever happened anywhere?

$200 million would accomplish nothing.

What are these 'transit fixes'?

As long as the buses (& eventually light rail) are on the same streets that you want to dump all the traffic from the Viaduct (however much that is) the result will be gridlock.
The 'transit option' has all the transit stuck in traffic with all the cars from the Viaduct. And somehow 25% of ppl are going to leave their rolling, air conditioned couches, with soundsystems for nasty overcrowded buses?

Posted by K X One | December 16, 2006 3:51 PM
4

Fine, Josh, do what we do in this state, and preempt the government. File a fucking initiative already.

Posted by Gitai | December 16, 2006 3:57 PM
5

Gitai,
The government—the City Council—said that if the tunnel proved infeasible, they would go with the boulevard option. So, I don't have to file an initiative. The Governor just said the tunnel isn't feasible.

K X One,
You make a lot of assumptions. Let's study it and see if you're right.

Posted by Josh Feit | December 16, 2006 4:29 PM
6

So I'm clear, what exactly is it you want studied Josh? And how does it differ from the City's outside analysis and the WSDOT analysis that has already examined 76 options? I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, I'm just wanting to know exactly what it is that is to be studied so that we're all on the same page. At least you've had some ideas that you're willing to put on paper (or on the net)... I've seen nothing proposed for the $200 million in transit from PWC other than to say that lump of money is there. We should at least talk about the parameters (in very broad terms- I'm not expecting bus schedules here) of the study before we study it...

What I don't wanna see is this ethereal "study" being proposed without any meat...

Posted by Dave Coffman | December 16, 2006 4:46 PM
7

Dave, ask and ye shall recieve.

I give you my new blog, The Transit Option, a discussion of potential transit improvements in Seattle.


My first stop is West Seattle, monorail-less, and soon to be more isolated when the viaduct closes for construction. Check it out!

Posted by Some Jerk | December 16, 2006 5:05 PM
8

OK, let's cut through the bullshit. There's already been a huge study of not having big freeways through a Pacific Northwestern City, greater population circa 3 million. It's called the city of fucking Vancouver.

Look on Google Maps. Zoom out where you can see the whole Seattle metro area. The thick lines are freeways.

Look at Vancouver.

How many freeways would you have to remove to make Seattle like Vancouver? You'd have to remove the damn viaduct AND I-5. And God, wouldn't that be the worst thing in the Universe. Man Vancouver. Worst place on the planet. Seriously.

Posted by John | December 16, 2006 5:06 PM
9

Y’all at the Stranger bitch and moan: Seattle isn’t a real city like the East Coast, where they make decisions, and somebody wins, somebody loses. Here, we bitch and bitch and moan and moan, clamor for more process when we lose, and everyone has to get heard, and so we never decide. Unlike our betters back East, in the real cities, so say the sages at the Stranger.

The Governor has said: decide. Now. Someone will win, someone will lose. Just like in the real cities back East.

The Stranger's reaction: bitch and moan, and call for more process. Just like true Seattleites.

Posted by TT | December 16, 2006 5:09 PM
10

I love Vancouver too, but don't forget they have their own massive highway being forced on them by a senior government: The Gateway Project, soon to pave more of the Fraser Valley.

Posted by Some Jerk | December 16, 2006 5:22 PM
11

Gregoire isn't too bright, but she and the state were bright enough not to buy the PWC bullshit.

We need to move forward and quit bickering. Everyone not personally interested in the PWC movement, with sufficient knowledge on the subject, has said that the surface option isn't feasible and in permanently instituting gridlock, would compromise the city's growth and viability in the long run.

Reason prevailed. Move on. You lost.

Posted by Gomez | December 16, 2006 6:29 PM
12

BTW, the voters will select a rebuild. Every news poll taken on the subject has shown heavy favortism towards a straight rebuild over all other options combined. Citizens know the tunnel is as infeasible as the surface option (which is why Nickels didn't want a vote on it).

I just hope Gregoire and the WSDOT step on it once the vote confirms the obvious. I'm not sure how much longer that viaduct will hold up.

Posted by Gomez | December 16, 2006 6:31 PM
13

I agree with you 100% that we should have an up-or-down on the Rebuild as the Governor herself has said that the Tunnel is not feasible.

But why do you give such credence to the PWC? "And I’m tired of hearing that there isn’t a boulevard/transit option. There is. The People’s Waterfront Coalition has laid one out. They say that 25% of riders will transfer to transit."

Uh...excuse me but who the devil is the PWC to make such predictions. The PWC comes down to one or two people, neither of whom has any more expertise in transit planning than do you or I. So why quote "The PWC" as if it is some sort of big-deal transport consultancy?

If you want to argue that the PWC's proposal should be given a hard but rigorously fair look, I'd agree entirely. But don't be a sheep being lead to the slaughter, as was your editor with the Iraq war. Don't let your desires lead your brain.

Posted by David Sucher | December 16, 2006 7:09 PM
14

I gotta agree the PWC sucks when it comes to the transit part of their plan.


"Optimize transit reliability" and "Create better bus connections"? I'm just one obsessive transit geek, and I've got a far more detailed proposal than that.


Pedestrian ferries? Great for Alki, but makes no sense anywhere else.


And finally, my biggest problem with it:
"Consider a trolley circulator"


Could you guys get any less ambitious?


I say up-or-down vote on the rebuild. The tunnel is now DOA. The boulevard could work with extensive transit improvements, but even with a rebuild we need that anyway.

Posted by Some Jerk | December 16, 2006 7:43 PM
15

So...let's do a full study of the boulevard/transit option! Thank you all! Finally!


Josh's proposal isn't crying over spilt milk - it's common sense. The Governor is asking us to choose between one feasible and entirely dismal option, and one pie in the sky, unfunded option. That's a false choice. As you've all made clear, the boulevard/transit option was never put on an equal playing field. So how can we be asked to just drop it, especially since the City has already adopted it as Plan B? If anyone's head is in the sand it's the Governor's.


The smart thing would be to fully assess it's potential now, rather than continuing to bicker about hypotheticals. PWC did its job by getting into the debate, now it's government's job to give it a fair shake. To make a choice without really understanding this 3rd option would be insane, especially since we have so many huge transportation projects that need funds (520, etc) - this is the one project where we actually have options.


If you don't trust PWC, fine, but the very real experience of other cities has proven time and time again a simple rule of transportation planning: supply creates demand. WSDOT didn't consider the potential of Transit NOW and another $200 million to improve transit ridership. More importantly, they didn't include traffic improvements to downtown that SDOT's own study shows could increase street capacity by 50%. yes, 50%. That completely changes the equation - and yet we're asked to make a choice based on the wrong assumptions .


the reality is that we'll have to do 90'% of what PWC calls for regardless of which option we choose - the transit improvments and the downtown street fixes. In other words, we'll have to live with the viaduct closed for up to 4 years before anything new is up and running. So why don't we go ahead and make the street and transit improvements (before the AWV falls down...) and see what happens with the traffic! We can still offically move forward with either the rebuild or the tunnel, but we find that the traffic is working, I'd rather see that money spent elsewhere, where it's more needed.

Posted by Mars | December 16, 2006 8:04 PM
16

Mars, don't take my saying lets look at it as a support of your position. I don't support it. It's going to take a lot of convincing to change my mind. And I suspect, at least in West Seattle, I'm in the majority. Most people I have talked to over here think the PWC and people like you are fucking us over.

If the numbers back it up, then it's worth looking at. That being said, lets use real numbers. Enough pie in the sky. None of the PWC people (nor to my knowledge any of the people in here) have any real background in transportation planning. Cary Moon and her minions may have some nice looking web site trinkets, and many ideas are good, but not at the expense of gridlock. So maybe the potential is there, maybe it's not. Time will tell. All the numbers I have seen so far from WSDOT, the city and others say it's not feasible. And contrary to what you think, this potential solution has been looked at ad infinitum (with outside consultants brought in no less) and the experts, politicians and people that will be most effected by it have rejected it. Until I hear about a real study, with real numbers with real backing, I'll oppose the PWC plan because other than some fancy words and a few pictures, there's no beef. The politically correct urbanspeak won't sell off Cap Hill.

I agree that we need real transport. I have also said that we should do transport first on a holistic basis, then plan roads under the same umbrella. Josh and I will disagree on this one, but PWC's transit "option" sucks. You want to bring me along? Expand on that. Flush that out. Find money to make real transit happen. Don't feed me bullshit then expect me to live with it. I won't and neither will the people in West Seattle or Ballard. The politicians are smart enough to know that if they punch through PWC's plan or some variant thereof and it turns out to be a big goose egg, it will be their necks on the line, and I'll be one of the first ones to demand scalps.

What you're asking for Mars is to stop the whole process that has been ongoing for many years now, and open it once again for examination. You want your twist on it. If you don't win, will you let the solution, whatever that may be happen? Or are lawyers like me gonna get rich lining our pockets suing each other?

You want this plan of yours to happen Mars? Make it happen. But expect some very pointed questions along the way. There's no free ride here.

Posted by Dave Coffman | December 16, 2006 8:34 PM
17

Whether you do your little study, make it an up or down vote, or put the surface option on the ballet, the result is going to be rebuild. Why? Because 95% of the citizens here have to drive, and they feel they need a fucking road.

Josh, your heart is in the right place, and you are in a position to do good. Instead, you stick your head in the clouds? Capitol Hill is an ivory tower. Please step down and engage the real (and sometimes disappointing) world.

P.S. Vancouver is a great city, but the commuter traffic coursing through the arterial roads (along with the pollution of thousands of idling cars) is beyond horrible. See for yourself. Take a field trip to Vancouver and try driving across the town at 5pm on a weekday.

Posted by Sean | December 16, 2006 11:17 PM
18

No, the boulevard concept hasn't had a proper review. What's there is tantalizing. Cheaper, better use of urban space, the opportunity to invest resources in more intelligent and sustainable means of moving people between the residential neighborhoods and the city core twice a day.


A detailed critique of WSDOT's erroneous analyses of the current highway traffic may be found here:
http://cnunext.org/files/SmartMobilityReport.pdf

The tragedy is that we pay for a public technical class that consisently distorts information to serve a variety of short-sighted and anti-social institutional biases.


By the way, the 28% "disappearance" of traffic is from WSDOT's own projections of traffic during the Rebuild or Tunneling construction project.

Also, I can't think of any major city that isn't nerve-wracking to cross in a private car during the evening rush hour. That's just not something an intelligent urbanite even attempts except for the warm charge that comes from a good hate-buzz.

Posted by Richard Jensen | December 17, 2006 12:49 AM
19

The Boulevard has pretty much been given the shaft by WSDOT. I've developed a more realistic boulevard plan posted here.


Check it out before you dismiss a boulevard as merely an evil hippy plan to get everyone to stop driving...

Posted by Some Jerk | December 17, 2006 1:19 AM
20

Richard, I just read the report you posted, and it's as I suspected. It admits that the 28% are trips identified as being by those persons who travel between western parts of the city. To which the report states basically that we should stay home. At least it's out there- the plan is to kill off bit by bit the neighborhoods in the western part of the city. That may not be the intent, but it will be the effect without proper transit or a roads network to keep traffic moving. Oh, and for another 17% to be dumped onto I-5- that too is nice. Not only will west side residents be effected, so will those "other" commuters. I hope the gentleman that wrote this report as well claiming that all the downtown streets have excess capacity actually visited Seattle... to see 5th or 6th and Pike (or Pine). As for the report's comments that 4,000 trucks can just roll on through downtown to get through it or to I-5... I leave that to people's imaginations how a nice 18 wheeler will pop onto I-5 from James up its 18% grade.

I encourage everyone to read the report. It's quite enlightening.

Some Jerk: I don't know if it's a "hippy plan" or "evil" but the report Richard points out in 18 says that 28% of those trips are exactly that- don't drive from one part of the city to the other... because you won't be able to. The more I read, the more I think about how it's going to kill neighborhoods, bisect the city and make it less manageable to get around. I think that's unrealistic.

However, I will say I do like some of your stuff. The streetcar for Ballard looks very interesting. I'm not excited about your BRT plan for W Seattle. It'll just get clogged on Spokane, and good luck getting City Light to free up some space to tie into the dedicated bus ROW along 5th. But you already know that...

Posted by Dave Coffman | December 17, 2006 2:05 AM
21

And just to clarify- that 28% dealing mainly with those that move between western parts of the city- those are the trips that "disappear". Guess no more George and Dragon for me with buds... or them coming down to the Beveridge Place Inn, or to check out Easy Street Records... or have dinners at each others houses. Oh, and if you Ballardites want to go to Vashon- forgetaboutit. For that matter, you Vashonites just better hope for ferries into downtown, or go via Tacoma. Part of those "28%" trips pertain to you as well - so please stay home and "shop local" to increase the vibrancy of your neighborhood.

Posted by Dave Coffman | December 17, 2006 2:48 AM
22

Dave:

The transit portion of the PWC's proposal can be funded and executed through a successful vote on ST2. ST2 contains provisions for streetcars, and ST's bus fleet can expand to fulfill the modified-BRT solution. Plus, the ST2 proposal will contain sufficient flexibility for funding these transportation alternatives on this section of a High Capacity corridor. Whose budget are you trying to lock in/protect? Your kvetching is excessive . . ..

Posted by Ron Baswhite | December 17, 2006 9:40 AM
23

Ron,

Actually ST has not contained provision for streetcars. From the ST2 fact sheet on the potential First Hill streetcar:

• It is Sound Transit’s policy that light rail lines are “provided primarily in separated rights-of-way with traffic signal preemption …” (ST Long Range Plan, 07/2005). The streetcar option considered in this project would operate in mixed traffic with signal priority, and in transit-only lanes.


• An exception to this policy to serve First Hill could re-open debate about whether or not Sound Transit should build and operate streetcars, and could call into question the scope of other light rail lines being considered for ST2.


The policy may be changing, but the Ballard-West Seattle corridor isn't on ST's radar. If you want a streetcar, its going to be a city project similar to the SLU line.

Posted by Some Jerk | December 17, 2006 11:40 AM
24

SJ - You are referring to the PWC's preliminary "streetcar" design concepts. No decisions have been made, but should the modified-BRT-only concept NOT be sufficient, there indeed could be a unified First Hill/waterfront "streetcar-with-signal-priority." And that IS within the funding and scoping guidelines of the ST2.

ST2 is designed to accomodate changes based on emerging needs. The extent of the streecar line now being addressed is not even intended for final engineering scoping until at least 2015.

Posted by Ron Baswhite | December 17, 2006 11:56 AM
25

Ron: I'm not trying to lock in or protect any budget, actually. I'm just a guy who lives in West Seattle and works in Belltown.

Ron, unless you have a crystal ball, there is nothing in ST2 plans that have anything on the radar for a project west of Highway 99 either in Ballard or West Seattle. Finally, BRT isn't rapid transit, particularly from West Seattle. Even Some Jerk has started to look at the problem and has found that at choking points, it too will be mired in the same traffic. As far as my kvetching, oh well. I'm sorry, but I'd like to be able to get to work in the future- my business and my employees depend on it.

Posted by Dave Coffman | December 17, 2006 1:03 PM
26

The comments from Ron Sims about surface + transit are not statements of support for one mode of transit extension to Ballard or West Seattle over any other.

Posted by D.F. | December 17, 2006 1:34 PM
27

Please enjoy my vision of the future $700 million could buy, now with improved graphic design...


In the year 2025

Posted by Some Jerk | December 17, 2006 3:51 PM
28

Although I should add I'm OK with the viaduct rebuild. The $700 million could just as easily refer to the extra we would spend on a tunnel Mayor McGreen says we can afford.

Posted by Some Jerk | December 17, 2006 4:05 PM
29

If you build it, they will come.
If you don't build it, they'll find another way to get to work/airport/the game/the bar.

Fuck the viaduct, fuck the tunnel, and fuck you suburban, car-wanking dick-heads who don't know when to say when.

Posted by Pomme Fritz | December 17, 2006 11:46 PM
30

@17 - you're right, in the end, the car-driving majority will vote for the great view of the Sound from their cars on the rebuilt Viaduct, and against the cold soulless no-downtown-exit underwater tunnel. Sadly, the other option, which still has no political backing (even if a very good idea), is the Surface Plus Transit option.

The SPT option will probably die when people realize it will be kind of like a supersized Aurora Avenue North or Aurora Avenue South, but with even more transit and traffic. Which, quite frankly, would be fine, except for a few ultra-rich property developers.

Money will win this argument. That and funding sources (nailed down). The tunnel has none of this, only empty promises.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 18, 2006 12:40 PM
31

@28 - um, the tunnel will cost an additional $2 billion in Seattle-only taxes - right now estimates are around $1.8 billion, but you heard it here first.

Ain't
Gonna
Happen

Rather spend it on schools, frankly.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 18, 2006 12:43 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).