Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Dick in a Box—LIVE! | What Was the Watada Judge Thin... »

Thursday, February 8, 2007

Hey, Seattle Times: NSS

posted by on February 8 at 10:03 AM

That’s No Shit Sherlock.

Today, The Seattle Times reports the big “news” that Rep. Frank Chopp (D-43) is open to the surface/transit option.

I reported this news exactly two months ago. Let’s see, my headline was: “House Speaker Frank Chopp Open to Boulevard/Transit Option.”

The reason The Seattle Times got around to reporting this news today is because King County Exec Ron Sims made a splash at yesterday’s overrated global warming press conference down in Olympia by stating again! (the PI got this wrong last week) that he’s against both the rebuild and tunnel, and he’s for the surface/transit option.

As I Slogged it yesterday:

Another great question that got asked was this: With all this talk of reducing carbon emissions, why is the state getting ready to build a giant freeway along the Seattle waterfront?

There was laughter, Paulson said he didn’t want to get into viaduct politics, and Sen. Majority leader Lisa Brown pretended to answer the question. Then, King County Executive Ron Sims took the microphone, and he said it straight: “You cannot talk about fighting global warming while also talking about building a tunnel or a rebuild. We will not achieve the goals.”

Sims then said Seattle should “vote down both” the tunnel and the rebuild and re-think transportation. “I support what’s called the surface/transit option,” Sims said.

So, Seattle Times (fans of the reactionary rebuild) thinks the Chopp “development” is a story now because Chopp is joining another high-profile leader like the KC Exec in voicing support for the surface/transit option. Well, I pointed out that angle two months ago.

Look, I’m not Slogging all this to toot my own horn. I’m Slogging all this because I’m sick of the mainstream media’s failure to cover the momentum that has been building for the surface/transit option.

Note to Cary Moon. This is what you said was going to happen two years ago. Burn on all the consultants and politicians that just can’t outmaneuver your smarty pants self on this.

And Note to America: You cannot hurt Muhammad Ali and stay alive.

RSS icon Comments

1

That's neat.

Does the state agree? No.

QED.

Posted by Gomez | February 8, 2007 10:12 AM
2

Frank has been open to Surface Plus Transit for quite a long time now, even earlier than you probably know - at least, when we talked about options he was. Look, it's not a decision he made lightly, he talked to a lot of local people about what was viable and made his own mind up.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 8, 2007 10:17 AM
3

BOOM, BOOM, BOOM -- I thought voters are going to decide? Did I miss some important inside blah blah blah?

Ron Sims has influence, one percent. A bit late to be grandstanding. And in all fairness, it is more city and state.

Polls show the voters will go for rebuild, but then, Carey Moon is a lot closer to Stranger staff that the unwashed bunch of silly taxpayers.

It really is like the Monorail, chirp, chirp, chirp - and voters lost faith and lowered the boom.

Beware chirping staff at the Stranger and the anti auto denialists - the boom is coming.

Posted by caleb | February 8, 2007 10:24 AM
4

You can make up all the momentum you want, and you can choose believe whatever Frank Chopp says, but please, please, please look first at what he has actually done to date. Frank Chopp has been engineering a rebuild-and-only-rebuild elevated option for years. Frank Chopp's "support" for the surface transit option extends to the point at which it undermines support for the tunnel--and no further.

Posted by rod | February 8, 2007 10:34 AM
5

Chopp really has no say here. The region's transportation needs are being addressed by our regional governments: RTID and Sound Transit. Now if ST was tasked with the transit half of surface + transit, we could get some big mo going for the green "third" way.

Posted by Blain Moore | February 8, 2007 10:37 AM
6

There really, truly is no better entertainment bang for the buck in this town than sitting at your computer watching Josh and Erica make shit up.

Posted by ivan | February 8, 2007 10:42 AM
7

#3 What the...?

The vote is advisory only and several politicians have said they will ignore it. The voters will not decide this. That's why we have a representative democracy. The Governor was wrong to ask for an advisory vote and the City Council was wrong to put the advisory measure on the ballot.

Secondly, Ron Sims is crucial to this debate because King County is in charge of transit. Transit isn't some fake Playskool transportation, it's the way thousands of people in our city get around every single day. It's real and deserves more time and attention from our politicians. It can help us get people around if we took it more seriously. (Thank you voters for voting for "Transit Now", by the way.)

Transit doesn't get rid of automobiles and no one has said it should or could. Paris, London, NYC, San Francisco, Amsterdam, they all have amazing transit systems and they're streets are packed with cars. Transit provides a crucial *alternative* to cars. Cars are expensive and take up a lot of room. (If I could get rid of mine, I would gladly do it and save myself hundreds of dollars every year.)

The main problem is that Seattle is not dense enough for real transit at this point and many Seattlites seem to like their Seattle Suburban lifestyle and want no part of density.

Posted by weird | February 8, 2007 11:01 AM
8
Chopp's "No!" to tunnel reverberates


Danny Westneat

January 14, 2007

[Chopp]'s intensely interested in the "thousand little things" idea of using dedicated busways, freightways and a surface boulevard to make up for the loss of the viaduct. He's not convinced it would handle the traffic. But he stressed he would support doing much of it anyway, even if we also replace the viaduct.

Posted by lexisnexis | February 8, 2007 11:09 AM
9

Weird @7 - Very minor point...please do not put San Francisco's transportation system in the same league as Paris, London or NYC. The transit system here is terrible: inefficient, costly for you get, crime ridden, rude driver/operators, and falling apart....and did I mention inefficient!

Posted by Cameron | February 8, 2007 11:12 AM
10

Lexisnexis @8,

Good on Danny Westneat (he's the best thing about the Seattle Times).

My story went up on December 7.

Posted by Josh Feit | February 8, 2007 11:19 AM
11

"Look, I’m not Slogging all this to toot my own horn."

Never. Not ever.

Posted by Shocked, shocked! | February 8, 2007 11:32 AM
12

I believe the title of the report was "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."


Seriously, Chopp is just backing the elevated to make nice with Helen Sommers, after running Alice Woldt against her a few years ago in the primary. Remember, Sommers was probably the first elected to trot out, several years ago, the specious argument that the elevated rebuild is preferable because it offers "nice views."

Posted by Trey | February 8, 2007 11:39 AM
13

Why doesn't the county just go forward with improving mass transit - light rail, buses, bike lanes - and just forget about 99 all together? Meaning, they should be making these improvements ANYWAY whether or not a viaduct gets rebuilt.

The fact is, 99 is a State highway, it was there before I-5, and it isn't going anywhere because no one has come up with a realistic rerouting system. 99 will stay in one way or another, accept it. Work around it.

And if it comes down, think of all the lovely condos and hotels that will get built in its place. You didn't think developers wouldn't get a piece of that pie, did you?

And by the way, when was the last time any of you went down to the "waterfront"? Eh? Play some arcade games did you? Buy a gift at Ye Olde Curiostiy Shoppe? Have some fish and chips at Ivars?

Posted by wsp | February 8, 2007 11:42 AM
14

@4 - you say that like it's a bad thing.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 8, 2007 11:52 AM
15

oh, and when did we vote to create RTID? I don't remember getting to vote on that. Do you?

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 8, 2007 11:53 AM
16

Rod @ #4:

You are correct, sir. Hey Josh: Chopp doesn't give a crap about anything but avoiding the tunnel. That doesn't make him pro-surface option, no matter how many times you slog it.

Posted by Matthew | February 8, 2007 11:53 AM
17

@13 - and Alice (who I've known for a few decades) was the one who wanted to run, but was smart enough to ask Frank and other nearby electeds to support her. Why is that a bad thing? Any smart insurgent Dem taking on an incumbent will try to line up endorsements and backing from the other Dem electeds they know. It's how you win. If anyone pushed her, it was SEIU.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 8, 2007 11:56 AM
18

Seattle Times still using the mendaciously overstated figure of 110,000 cars/day on the viaduct. ECB put that one to rest last year, I thought.

Posted by Ronald | February 8, 2007 12:24 PM
19

13. Good point. Why not work on developing these things the city actually could use, viaduct or not?

Agreed, and I doubt most of the s/t whiners here have been to the Waterfront more than a handful of times... and if they admit it, will blame the viaduct like there's an invisible wall underneath it.

Posted by Gomez | February 8, 2007 12:38 PM
20

Hey Josh, did you all cover the repair it news conference? I hear they have much lower numbers than the state has put out. If it's dangerous, we should make it safe while building the surface and transit options necessary to be able to remove it.

As soon as new capacity is available let's shut it down and see how it works - not good enough add more surface enhancements - whether Seattle likes it or not this is a state highway - this isn't just an issue for WS, Belltown and Ballard.

Posted by Peter Sherwin | February 8, 2007 12:40 PM
21

Ronald—state traffic counts for the Viaduct take place at numerous points along the structure, from the Battery Street Tunnel to the West Seattle Bridge.

It’s 110,000 at the highest point. Other points—like just south of the Battery Street Tunnel and south of Royal Brougham--have lower numbers.

Posted by BB | February 8, 2007 12:42 PM
22

Speaking of NSS.

So a bunch of youngish recent arrivals to Seattle who live Downtown or within a mile of it want have decided they want to tear the AWV down. Surprise, surprise.

Sorry to break it to you, but the Seattle doesn't begin and end at Downtown and/or the waterfront, and the people who live in that area are but a fraction of the electorate.

Posted by Mr. X | February 8, 2007 12:52 PM
23

@5,

So just how far over budget/beyond their stated time frame would ST have to go to accomplish that, and how many workers would they have to kill along the way?

Don't kid yourself, it's a State highway, and Chopp is a major player (and RTID hasn't accomplished a thing as yet, though they did punt their original vote when it became clear they were gonna get clobbered at the polls).

Posted by Mr. X | February 8, 2007 12:55 PM
24

All I know is Vietnam - fricken Vietnam - is building a high-speed train and we're still tooling around in the backwaters of transit here in the US of do nothing A.

And the chance Seattle voters will vote for a tunnel that means we have to pay all cost overages - every single one - on a project that typically is 40 to 400 percent overbudget (just ask Greg N) - is so close to nil as to not be believable.

City Council could have grown some and put Surface Plus Transit on the ballot, but they punted - as always.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 8, 2007 1:17 PM
25

The Viaduct Made Me Do It!

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | February 8, 2007 1:34 PM
26

Attention Ron Sims:


Your winning compromise?:


Surface:


A six lane surface street with pedestrian overpasses but no traffic lights. Noise wall separates it from frontage/promenade/bike lane.

Transit:

West Seattle gets streetcar line connecting to Link. Ballard gets extension of SLU streetcar.

Everyone's a winner!

Posted by Some Jerk | February 8, 2007 2:10 PM
27

Josh, here is the question you should ask Frank next time you chat:

If you are open to the surface option, are you willing to commit the $2 billion or a good portion of that to surface and transit solutions or would you spend that money on other freeways instead?

If Frank isn't willing to put state money behind making surface/transit work, then his support means nothing. Wishing away the viaduct solves nothing. You have to build the surface improvements and transit to replace it.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | February 8, 2007 5:25 PM
28

Josh:

The Viaduct (what your club calls The Elevated") is a concrete symbol of our post-Emerald City, and simply must win out in the end, if our precarious and precious West Edge is going to survive. Not many people know the legacy of The Viaduct, for example:

a) More presidents have traveled on The Viaduct than any other elevated highway in the state of Washington.

b) Ray Charles often remarked that The Viaduct was the most beautiful highway in the U.S.

c) That green, mossy stuff that covers the massive columns of The Viaduct -- called "Viaduct Grass" by smart scientists -- provides the magic pixie dust that became VIAGRA. Thus, millions of men and spammers will vote to keep The Viaduct.

As the great poet Todd Rundgren wrote:

"I am the emperor of the highway
Strapped with foolish mortals such as these
I need never indicate my intentions
I can stop and go and turn just as I please.

I am the emperor of the highway
This time my friend, you are outclassed
For my uncle is the duke of the state police
And he will place his royal boot upon your ass."

Posted by buck_in_america | February 10, 2007 1:42 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).