Comments on It's Actually Not a Meaningless Vote. Vote Today.

Done and done!

the PI had some great Walt Crowlet comments yesterday:

Seattle historian and political pundit Walt Crowley described the contentions by Licata and "other Seattle-istas (that) the viaduct is a working-class necessity while the tunnel is a bourgeois amenity" as "comic-book Marxism."

"Speaking as someone who regards himself as a social democrat, I am very distressed by this kind of simplistic and reactionary logic," Crowley said in an e-mail. "Such a point of view would be laughed out of the room at any Socialist or Labor Party meeting in England, France or Scandinavia.

"The local leftist distrust of big capital and land use projects goes back to Metro and Forward Thrust. The counterculture left actually opposed light rail in 1968 and 1970, proposing bridle trails instead (I kid you not). The aim of creative government should be to expand the commonwealth for all classes."

suck that, Dimbulb Della.

Yeah, those Crowley comments were priceless. Just one awesome, biting catchphrase after another:

• "Seattle-istas"
• "comic-book Marxism"

I'll tell you the truth I think Crowley is scratching at.

For so many people on the old counterculture left, it has never so much about any real core principles as it has been about rebelling against the establishment, authority, the man. This is how all these old-fashioned leftists like Joel Connelly can twist themselves into a pretzel of hypocrisy by assuming global warming and the war in Iraq as the great evils to fight against and yet at the same time relentlessly be pro-highway and anti-transit. They can spout their hypocrisy not just with a straight face but in full earnestness; they don't see the slightest contradiction in this. The thing is, it isn't so much their love of automobiles; it's their love of, well, themselves and their tribe.

Anyway, Walt Crowley rules. He's the best kind of historian because he can show history's relevance.

Damnnnn. Those are some bad quotes from Crowley. I thought I had something poetic with "reactionary rebuild," but "comic book Marxism" !! Go, Walt!

I just dropped my ballot off at the County building and I was interviewed by a Seattle Times reporter about my vote. I toed the Stranger party line and parroted their liberal, trust fund kid rhetoric....including, threatening remarks directed towards the Gregoire that if she doesn't shape up, Seattle ain't gonna vote for her next election...

I love how the pro-rebuilt anti tunnel alliance bemoans the anti-rebuilders a being pro-developer because an architecture (?) firm is their largest doner, when they got half their money from "what pay my bills" Selig.

Giffy, I just had another thought about the campaign funding, and I just wish I'd thought of this sooner. We keep hearing from the pro-rebuild crowd that, without a new viaduct, the port is going to die and we're going to lose all those "family-wage jobs." But then why haven't any port-associated, port-dependent businesses been contributing to the pro-rebuild campaign?

Somebody fill me in if I'm missing something here.

Cressona, once the Governor said it was going to be a rebuild—with Chopp already saying he’d ignore the election—they saw no reason to donate, as the election was clearly irrelevant.

Anybody who believes, as the gullible fools Cressona and Max Solomon appear to believe, that everybody who is pro-rebuild must automatically be anti-transit, are the real dimbulbs.

I am pro-rebuild, or at least pro-repair, specifically BECAUSE the transit solutions I have long supported, which might at least have partially relieved the need to maintain the Viaduct, have failed to materialize.

At this point, it is not either/or. It's both, whether some of you accept that or not. We will need high-speed separated-from-grade transit even after we rebuild or repair the Viaduct.

And we WILL replace or repair it, no matter how this vote comes out, and no matter how many of you stamp your little feet and hold your breath until you turn blue.

I'm with cressona, traffic back ups, maritime industries, and supposed fiscal responsibility are MacGuffins. I'd like to see the Stranger round up all of the proponents of a Vileduct Rebuild, illustrate them and their interests clearly, and show us examples of other cities building or planning similar Frankenstein projects across their waterfronts. A who's who of these supporters and their dreamy visions for a grand gray curtain over Ivar would be a nice pinch in the ass. Maybe it's a little too existential, but I'd like to know what they benefit from their efforts beyond the architectural and cultural legacy.

Ben, they want to get from point A to point B without breaking the bank. Duh.

Look at the other side. The big (and it is big) money for the anti-rebuild campaign is coming from Downtown and Belltown. Boy, not like they’ll benefit from the tunnel or a surface, now will they?

So much for Crowley’s “commonwealth” shibbeloth.

Ivan - You are pro highway because you didn't get a monorail? Or specifically for bad placement of highway and crappy urban planning because you didn't get your transit of choice? Please.

Ivan@9.

I ask this with complete earnest: Why do you think a new elevated structure is necessary? Why couldn't a six-lane surface street handle the traffic?

Isn't SR99 limited by the four lane battery street tunnel and East Marginal Way S? The current (much narrower) viaduct already has excess capacity relative to it's starting and ending points?

Why not balance out the route, save some money, and keep some historic buildings?

bb, the people who actually live and own property near it don't want it. Those evil capitalist influence peddling bastards! And getting cheaply from point a to b is neither urban planning nor the issue.

#7 cressona -

I haven't heard about port business owners giving to either campaign. All the port workers I talk with are voting NO/NO because they don't want the tunnel or the rebuild.

They want maintenance and retrofit of the existing viaduct. And it isn't on the ballot.

Golob @ 13:

One word: mobility. The surface option might nominally maintain capacity but it would damn near destroy mobility. I'm simply not interested in making that tradeoff. Obviously you disagree.

Ben @ 12:

Go beat your own wife. Nobody appointed you the arbiter for sound urban planning. You're just another schmuck on the street, like I am.

i'm "gullible"? that's rich, ivan.

i do believe it will benefit the entire city culturally to have that POS down - i am a design professional, and i spend a great deal of my day trying to convince cheap-ass seattleite clients that the qualitative has value.

there will never be a better time to start biting the bullet. 4000 trucks go down the viaduct a day. 4000 out of 100,000 vehicles (which i think is a BS total, BTW). do the math with me: that's 4% of all trips. we're supposed to become a laughing stock for every other progressive city on the globe because we're too fucking cheap to pony up the cost of a sonics arena?

the businesses donating to the rebuild are Selig & Ballard Oil. the biggest nervous nellies are Glacier Concrete.

Ivan@16.

What do you mean by "motility"? Tease this out for me. Are you concerned about crossings and lights? Theoretical maximum capacity?

Driving north-to-south, the surface option would expand from four lanes in the Battery St tunnel to six downtown. South to North, marginal way only has four through lanes that would also expand to six through downtown.

Further, the surface street would be the terminus for many downtown streets, so it would be trivial to co-ordinate lights and give vast priority to the Alaskan Way Blvd. It would be about one story below the 1st Ave grade, so pedestrian bridges could simply extend across to the west side of the street, preventing traffic from being stopped to allow slow pedestrians to cross.

I really don't understand what you are concerned about. Please explain why you believe we need 16 lanes through downtown to connect to four on either end.

@17:

we're supposed to become a laughing stock for every other progressive city on the globe because we're too fucking cheap to pony up the cost of a sonics arena?

I have zero interest in impressing anyone else. I do not need any validation from anyone to live in Seattle and to enjoy it. Period.

If you have an inferiority complex about Seattle, then either move or go into therapy.

Deep Throat on why port businesses aren't donating to the rebuild: Cressona, once the Governor said it was going to be a rebuild—with Chopp already saying he’d ignore the election—they saw no reason to donate, as the election was clearly irrelevant.

Come on, Deep Throat, you don't believe that line yourself. If the rebuild were such a done deal, why would all these businesses have donated $400K+ against it? Or are they as clueless as you take the rest of us to be?

ivan: Anybody who believes, as the gullible fools Cressona and Max Solomon appear to believe, that everybody who is pro-rebuild must automatically be anti-transit, are the real dimbulbs.

In my earlier post, I was referring to the "lesser Seattle" left, which is traditionally pro-freeway, anti-transit. And you have to admit yourself that there's probably a pretty strong correlation between "Yes on 2" voters and people who voted against monorail and light rail. And I believe a lot of these rebuild supporters who say they supported monorail or other transit are lying through their teeth. Every monorail campaign, The Seattle Times pulled people out of the woodwork who would say, "I voted for monorail every time before, but now I'm voting no."

That said, I'm sure there are a few rebuild supporters out there who sincerely do support transit and have voted for monorail and light rail. And to this small minority I would say, you are seriously misguided. To say you want an elevated freeway along our downtown waterfront and you want transit is not just wanting to have your cake and eat it too. It's like a pregnant woman smoking crack and wanting to have a healthy baby.

Ivan is right: “And we WILL replace or repair it, no matter how this vote comes out, and no matter how many of you stamp your little feet and hold your breath until you turn blue” which is why I support the tunnel. It’s the only valid option that isn’t a rebuild. I’d be happy to compromise and try the no replacement option until everyone figures out how deluded that approach is though (no reason we can’t build the tunnel later instead of immediately.)

As to transit, the ONLY way to fix that is to clean it up by eliminating the free ride zone, increasing fares, and requiring payment prior to boarding. That way the psychotics and bio hazards that keep normal people from using it will be kept off.

Cressona (#20), you asked. I’m reporting the facts, not my personal opinions.

Why have rebuild opponents donated ½ million $$$$. Because without a resounding “no”, the rebuild is a done deal. This is their only chance.

ivan you're right, maybe I should be beating my wife. I'll consider that. But in the meantime consider that every proponent of the vileduct rebuild raises arguments that can be addressed in many other ways that aren't suggested and haven't been sufficiently explored. It's a lot like a kid who won't let go of a toy. It's not an absolute fact that the city's western north south traffic flow can only be addressed over and through the limited corridor of Elliott and Alaskan. But a lot of people believe this to be true because it's all they can visualize and other options haven't been presented. It doesn't take much specialized training to see that. Alternate routes and solutions are not even being considered, the gov and state dot are blindly and greedily seeing dollar signs while gazing into a concrete mixer and weren't expecting resistance. Whoops.

There is a difference between the marine related industries and the port businesses. The BIMIC people are generally backing a rebuild. Ballard Oil being the biggest backer. Selig is actually a retrofit/repair supporter but gave to the pro rebuild campaign in order to defeat the tunnel, or so goes the rumour.

The SODO businesses back the repair option and think that either build projects will cost their member businesses heavily. Third Avenue has never recovered from building the bus tunnel and is the deadest retail street downtown.

People lose jobs, companies go out of business and people can't afford to live in their family homes because it becomes too expensive, that's life. But it is a failing not to acknowledge the real impacts caused by a project before moving forward on it.

DSA is the biggest contributor at about $55,000 to Not Another Elevated Viaduct.

Golob - without real grade separated transit the boulevard will probably not work. Before the viaduct was built there was a big problem getting through the CBD - people driving were not happy and the downtown businesses didn't like the traffic - there really was a reason they built it - we now have I-5 and about 5 times as many people in the region. 20% of the vehicles from the AWV on AWB would triple the number of cars on it. That's 50% more cars than are on 1st Ave. Trucks, buses, tourist buses, motorcycles (w/o mufflers), and leaf blowers will all be there - will that make for the bucolic waterfront in the drawings?

@20:

If the rebuild were such a done deal, why would all these businesses have donated $400K+ against it? Or are they as clueless as you take the rest of us to be?

Given the money they stand to make if they can get the viaduct torn down, $400K is a cheap investment. It's certainly less than if they had to pick up the tab for a proper tunnel.

To say you want an elevated freeway along our downtown waterfront and you want transit is not just wanting to have your cake and eat it too. It's like a pregnant woman smoking crack and wanting to have a healthy baby.

Gee, I must've missed the part where we have to blow up all the Metro and Sound Transit buses and rip up what we've built on the LINK line if #2 passes.

Some of you seem to think that if we just tear down the viaduct, then good things are just going to start happening left and right. Wrong. It's going to be seen by the vast majority of people out there as Government Screwing Up Again. Who does that benefit? That's right. Tim Eyman and Republicans. And then everyone loses.

Now repair + prepare -- and by "prepare," of course, I mean "actually coming up with an intelligent plan for mass transit and a way to pay for it and implement it" -- is actually my third choice, behind 1) a six-lane tunnel with downtown picking up the cost difference through an LID and 2) a new viaduct. But given that we've spent six years spinning our wheels over a 1.4 mile stretch of highway, and given how slowly Sound Transit has progressed, "repair + prepare" might as well mean replacing the viaduct.

"Design professional?" BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA! There's no bigger oxymoron in this world!

We're all supposed to sit in traffic jams with our motors running so you can jack off at one of your drawings?

Not me, pal. I'll live in a soddy on the Dakota prairie before I'll live in a town run by you lot.

But chances are I'll wave to you from the rebuilt or repaired Viaduct first.
Design THAT!

Whats the fear of losing mobility? We are humans but we can learn something from Ants.
If you see an Ant coloumn and drop a twig or a cinder block, they will go around it or over it.
Why can't we do the same? Are we all that stupider than Ants?
Vote no on both please. And Surface option can be done if Seattle is willing to just adjust to mobilizing through the city. Man if you don't know how to skip traffic and cut through downtown and other ways to get to 99 or u-district from west seattle you don't know how to drive in this city.
And if its a commute, I'm sure during the decontruction of the viaduct , you can tell your boss why your late commuting around, and I'm sure your boss can adjust a fucking schedule. Grow a pair during progress and construction phases please. Its disheartening to see that some have to just keep on having to drive the same goddamn way everyday. I bet if china nuked Seattle you would all just freak only if that viaduct didn't stay up.

ya know, the whole argument about this affecting local and specifically, port business is so much horse shit...whatever option gets chosen we're looking at, what, 2 to 10 years for construction? Which means 2 to 10 years of having to take an alternate route... I think they'll cope and I think they'll survive...

I'm with golob on the viaduct... it always seemed retarded to have this 'freeway' with a normal street on either side that everyone acts like its sooo essential to the city... I don't get it.
and Seattle needs some damn transit system to replace the monorail that we voted for, what, 5 fucking times?! (how bout a light rail line on the same route mayor gridlock?)
I live near the viaduct and use it all the damn time but it is ugly and i would like a boulevard, just like there is on both sides of the viaduct. its ugly and i don't want a damn tunnel in an earthquake prone city next to the seawall (am I the only one who thinks that is a stupid design??)

ps i have been watching these stupid debates on the viaduct without commenting but I thought i would just pile on to this ridiculous discussion.

@23:

It's not an absolute fact that the city's western north south traffic flow can only be addressed over and through the limited corridor of Elliott and Alaskan.

True.

But a lot of people believe this to be true because it's all they can visualize and other options haven't been presented.

Viaduct opponents have had six years to present other options and come up with a way to pay for it. Six. Years. Jesus, I was a complete undisciplined goofoff in college, but I managed to get through it in five years.

The reason we need to do something is because if that thing collapses, then we not only have a major headache on our hands, but the families of those killed in any viaduct collapse are going to have an open-and-shut case as to state and city negligence when the lawsuits come flooding in.

I know a lot of you see viaduct users as filthy subhuman beasts, but the courts are going to disagree. And juries tend to frown upon defendants who let potentially fatal conditions fester for years before someone gets killed.

Vote YES and YES!! Send capacity through the roof!

Guys, lay off Ivan. He's a realist, like me. And good point, him, about our NEED to DOUBLE LOCAL TRANSIT.

If anything killed the underwater tunnel lite - excuse me, in Marxist Seattleist speak that is "Surface Tunnel Hybrid" - it was the bigger tax subsidy for cars, the lack of transit capability, and the fear most people have of burning to death in a cold grey tunnel right before the stochastic mud flow cuts off their escape.

You sets up the pins - I knocks them down. Next time, don't think Downtown is Seattle.

and I thought it was BINMIC, but what do I know ...

Golob - how about a ramp at the north end of AWB that goes into the remains of Denny Hill above the RR tunnel and comes out near Mercer on Aurora?

Now, I haven't checked the maps for any conflicts with the RR tunnel (I think it is at st. surface level) with 3 lanes, one being for trucks. The whole thing could be built w/o shutting down anything except the connection to Aurora. At the south end the over the track bridge would still be built.

I think that would put a lot of vehicles on the waterfront and I'm not sure that's what people really want but it seems it would an improvement to the Battery St. tunnel (6 not 4 lanes).

@30 - totally agree on some points. But bear in mind that not only Vileduct opponents but Vileduct proponents and the DOT have both had six years. All the DOT can come up with is the same capacity pipe with a larger footprint and with fewer ramps? Nothing at Battery street? Nothing at Spokane, Marginal, or Michigan? Nothing at Denny, Mercer, or Garfield? It's like they were charged with the task of inventing a traffic jam for the future.

I'm not anticar, I have traveled east-west and north-south all over our fair city, and I've had my share of getting all troglodyte and groovin on the freaky old viaduct. It's just time to let it go. My mom doesn't drive her old 10mpg 60s muscle car anymore either. When this one comes down there will still be plenty of miles of beautiful elevated highways to enjoy in Seattle.

@34.

Ok, even if that could work (and could be done for a reasonable expense over the $2 -3 billion on a new elevated structure), what about the Aurora Bridge? It is only three lanes in each direction -- same as the blvd would be. In fact, after the recent safety improvements, it's more like 2.5 lanes in each direction.

SR99 is never going to be a bona-fide freeway -- never carry the sorts of people and goods moving volumes that the growing city needs. The current viaduct (with three functional lanes in each direction) is already a gross excess for what the overall route can handle.

Putting in an expanded four lane in each direction elevated structure is akin to grafting a 6 inch PVC pipe in middle of a garden hose, and expecting more water to come out the end. Traffic doesn't work that way.

Sorry Sherwin. Just read the post more carefully... I think we agree. ;p

Actually, @36, you're ignoring the outer lanes which are Bus-only during rush hours.

I expect the new Viaduct will be the same.

An added benefit of the PS tunnel (:D) is that it would allow for the building of a tunnel on the waterfront in the future if so desired. You know, if we are driving electric cars around and need the pavement cause that transit idea just never caught on, we might want a tunnel.

And we can use the Battery St. Tunnel for low cost housing!

@35:

My first preference is actually for the six-lane tunnel, with downtown picking up the difference in cost between that and a viaduct through a LID (local improvement district).

I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen even with a yes on 2 vote tonight. Actually, it's more likely with a yes on 2 vote. The only way to deal with these people is to back them up against a wall, staple their balls to the wall, and then open negotiations.

As it stands right now after six years, to use an auto race analogy, the viaduct is nearing the finish line while surface + transit is trying to figure out where the wheels go on their car.

And your mom should see about selling that muscle car. That'd pay for a winter's worth of golfing in Arizona and then some. :)

Why do metro busses need to go down on the water front anyways. First ave should be close enough. And if people need to walk or catch it go to 1st avenue. What was the bus tunnel built for anyway? To allow more busses on city streets? And doesn't anybody walk five blocks anymore? What I'm tryin to say is all the arguments about bus lanes seem like people have to have a metro drop them off at the waterfront.
I thought that was what that little train going back and forth was for.

@ 19

already in therapy.

if there is a rebuild, i will leave.

you only care about yourself.

@42:

Good for therapy. Been there, done that.

I care about my fellow citizens here in Seattle. I do not care about impressing some nebulous group of people who probably give more of a damn about the latest tidbit of celebrity gossip or the result of Saturday's Barca-Real Madrid game than they do about what happens in Seattle.

Had they made the postage prepaid I would have voted. I agree with the person who said that we should just let the next earthquake knock it down. Sure, hundreds of people will die, but consider the money we will save knocking it down. Lady Christine is going to do what she wants anyway.