Politics Up or Down Vote on the Re-Build.
posted by on December 15 at 15:16 PM
Gregoire has set up a rigged vote.
Here’s what she has said about the two options she wants to put before the voters:
The finance plan for the Elevated Structure Alternative project as described in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is “feasible and sufficient” to complete the project;The finance plan for the Tunnel Alternative as described in the DEIS is not “feasible and sufficient” to complete the project.
Well, okay. So why vote on the tunnel option at all?
If the only feasible option right now is the re-build, let’s just have an up or down vote on that. Pitting the re-build against a project without feasible or sufficient funding is like asking someone who’s got $6 in their wallet if they’d rather go to Dick’s or Black Bottle in Belltown. It’s not a meaningful question.
Of course, since there’s no funding for the tunnel, people are going to choose the re-build. But is that really their choice? The fairer question is: Do they want the re-build? Yay or Nay?
In other words, there are other things we can do besides the tunnel and the re-build. But since the only one that is feasible right now is the re-build, let’s figure out if we want thatwithout landing there by default in a rigged vote.
The Governor never actually studied a real surface/transit option. The WSDOT studies prioritized moving cars rather than people, and so, never looked at divvying capacity up into cars and transit.
their/there... :P
Huh Josh?
Hope all is well. The governor is the "DECIDER". The problem is, as it always is, in this state - lack of leadership.
Rebuild or Tunnel. Wish our greater problems could be handled/settled with a vote. We have education and health care problems that exceed importance of viaduct solution and the Governor did the cowardly thang. punted. Oh I am sure that will be the topic of next weeks Counter-intell.
Respectfully
Once At City
Yo check this out:
Date: Dec. 15, 2006
Contact: Sandeep Kaushik, 206-296-4010
Sims statement on Gov. Gregoire’s call for a vote on the Viaduct
“Governor Gregoire’s announcement today that the public should vote between two Viaduct replacement options – a tunnel or a rebuild – is too limited. While I can support the idea of a public vote, and strongly prefer the tunnel over the rebuild, I disagree with the governor’s call for excluding a surface-boulevard-plus-transit option from public consideration.
“That option, which could potentially open up the waterfront while providing an affordable, environmentally friendly means of moving traffic through the city, has not yet been studied. The surface option that WSDOT briefly examined contained no transit element and bears little resemblance to what surface-transit advocates are proposing.
“If we are going to position Seattle as a vibrant world-class 21st century metropolis, we need to proceed with boldness and vision. We need to think beyond present-day categories, with an eye to the long-term. How we decide on the Viaduct today is a profound test of our commitment to a better, more enlightened future. The right sort of transit-friendly surface proposal could meet that test
Hey, whatever on the viaduct. The really important thing is to vote yes on ST2! That will mean lots more money for the train line. And as we already decided, trains are the good kind of social engineering. And Sound Transit is the best because it is bringing trains, like New York and Paris have. To the sour-puss above talking about the importance of other things, well, you sir simply do not grasp the fundamental transformative power of Transportation Alternatives. Think about the benefits, only more so. You are a Dem., right? Sound Transit is UBER-Dem. It really doesn't matter about the viaduct - support ST2.
Greetings from the real world, and a very, very savvy Governor.
The only other option today was the Gov would say “rebuild,” and the City would go apeshit and obstructionist, and build up a viaduct-size martyr complex. Doing it this way, however, places the onus on the City to step up and show them the money.
She’s giving the City a free shot at its #1 option, if they agree to pay, while checkmating the surface option. Furthermore, she’s committing to only enough funding to replace the current option, so she won’t piss off the rest of the state.
Smart politics, even if you don’t like it.
Whenever someone spouts boosterish tripe like "If we are going to position Seattle as a vibrant world-class 21st century metropolis, we need to proceed with boldness and vision" I feel a compelling need to simultanously reach for a barf bag and my wallet.
There wasn't a study on a "surface/transit option" Josh because the transit part of that option hasn't been included, even by surface street proponents. Like I said in a previous post, until it is, the surface street proponents won't have the support it seeks from a majority of the people.
In section 5 of the Guv's recommendations, some glossy tidbits on what they think WILL happen if the surface option is punched through (and why they took it off the table) (I'm plagraizing in large part from the same report):
- Traffic volume increase from 11,000 trips to 74,000
- Travel times from that increased northbound from 12 minutes to 33 (great environmentally, isn't that with cars stalled in traffic); projected southbound increase from 9 to 16 minutes
- Number of congested intersections downtown increased from 8 to 14, with an expected traffic increase downtown of 16%
- 22,000 additional trips on I-5, increasing the "severely congested conditions" from 5 to 7 hours per day
- For freight, trip times increase from 19 mins to 27.
According to the report, the city's own outside analyst concluded that impacts on transit would be significant with the surface option (since both would be sharing the same space) as well as "transferring significantly more vehicles from the Alaskan Way Viaduct to the downtown grid limits the City's ability to provide expanded transit servie and ERODES the performance of the existing service."
If the surface street people want that option, cool... but let's be realistic about it and not pie in the sky. I wouldn't mind a parklike waterfront myself, but I'd want to be able to get to it. Under the PWC's and their supporters plan, they want me to stay at home, not visit said waterfront (except at maybe 2am) and twiddle my thumbs.
I don't like everything the Guv has to say either, but at least her office has put some kind of numbers to what will happen. That's more than the glossy pictures on the PWC website, and in my opinion kills their option as it's now formulated.
The only small problem with the way Gregoire has set things up is that the Rebuild is not politically viable. Gregoire has condemned Seattle and the Democrat Party to two years of strife.
Why she let herself get cornered into only two options -- both of them idiotic -- is a mystery as both were obviously dumb when the Legislature chose them. Bad staff work? Maybe she really is over hear head?
Coffman @ 7,
You are so wrong.
PWC's plan includes 25% going to transit @ about $200million in additional north/south transit service thru downtown. Is that real? I don't know. The point is: Study it.
Josh, I'm not wrong. 200 million doesn't do squat for rapid transit and you know it. Everything with numbers put to it to date indicates that more buses on streets equals gridlock. If buses on streets do that, there need to be other options all of which are much more expensive than 200 million. Remember that little thing called the Monorail? That was in the billions. It's going to take that kind of money to fix the transit problems, and until we move in that direction everything else is either a bandaid or shifting problems around on the same grid.
Dave,
Okay: So try $700m. Put the $2.8B for the rebuild to the $2.1B for the sufrace and spend the difference on transit. I don't know what $700m (or $200m) will get. But let's at least find out. Chopp wants us to look at it. Murray wants us to look at it. Sims wants us to look at it. And the City Councnil flagged it as their Plan B. So....
You know what Josh, I'm really willing to look at it. But what I want is for the politicos to put transit first- sort that out then plan the roadwork to accomodate that. That would be some real urban planning. It is the only sane way to approach the surface option, and with a proper transit option in place add the surface part to it. It needs to be comprehensive for the inner core of the city.
Without a throughway, there will need to be a uncoupling of the seawall from the roads/tunnel/viaduct. That cost needs to be separated from the project. I'm all for looking at the surface option, but only if it includes some reality with regards to getting some of those cars off the streets. Otherwise, we should call things as they are and stick with (what I agree is unfortunate...) a roads/traffic mentality for dealing with our transport problems because we don't seem to be able to address things holistically.
Since you're gonna filibuster, Josh, I'm gonna filibuster back.
The surface option is not viable. It HAS been studied, even after basic analysis and common sense shows that it just won't work in a city that's already struggling to handle traffic in the status quo.
In a variety of polls on the issue, the vast majority of citizens polled support a straight rebuild over all the options combined, over the tunnel, over the surface option, over everything.
The citizens want the city to cut the crap and let the state get to it. Put the pipe down and let the state do what it has to do.
Throw your lobbying behind developing existing transit, developing transit and getting the citizens to use it. Quit trying to sabotage the city because of some crackpipe belief that if you do so, the citizens will be coerced to think your way. Quit thinking like a 10 year old. Life doesn't work that way.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).