Slog - Comments on More Viaduct Numbers http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers KING 5 did some exit polling from the viaduct vote. Here's what they got: 70% No on the tunnel. 60% No on the elevated. 34% voted No/No. And of those 34% No/No voters, 56% supported a surface/transit option. In real life, KC has counted 140,000 of the 157,000 votes that have come in so far, and the stats are (like KING 5's poll) 70% NO on the tunnel and, (slightly lower than the KING 5 poll) 56% NO on the elevated. King County Elections will announce an updated vote count at 4:30 today.... Copyright 2008 Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:04:08 -0800 Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:04:46 -0800 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Comment by DOUG. So does that mean 19% support the surface/transit? There's work to be done.

]]> DOUG. http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672071 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672071 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:03:32 -0800 Comment by golob Given the S/T plans are far less developed than either the tunnel or elevated plans -- as many have pointed out here -- that is pretty good support. It's probably at least 19%, as some of the "yes/no" or "no/yes" voters might have S/T as their preferred second choice.

This just buys time and political support for a honest and hard look at the S/T plans.

And as a hat-tip to Mr. X, we should probably study the cable stay bridge choice a bit more seriously.

]]> golob http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672082 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672082 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:17:58 -0800 Comment by Sherwin Golob - the more specific a plan the less support in general - it's like festival seating everybody thinks when they buy their ticket they will get a good seat -

]]> Sherwin http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672094 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672094 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:29:34 -0800 Comment by Frank Bruno How do you do an exit poll for a mail-in election? Camp out by the mailbox?

]]> Frank Bruno http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672095 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672095 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:30:10 -0800 Comment by Dave Coffman @4: Yeah. It's done by those pesky letter carriers: "thank you for your vote- how'd that go for ya?"

]]> Dave Coffman http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672107 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672107 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:49:03 -0800 Comment by Giffy The big question is what is the alternative for the tunnel folks. Meaning that assuming the tunnel is dead, would they likely support an elevated or surface option.

]]> Giffy http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672113 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672113 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:59:32 -0800 Comment by Josh Feit @4,

You call people and ask them if they voted. If they did, you ask them how they voted.

]]> Josh Feit http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672114 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672114 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:01:29 -0800 Comment by Will in Seattle Meanwhile, in the real world, Toronto is DOUBLING it's transit and DOUBLING it's light rail system.

We could easily just take Vancouver BC's SkyTrain light rail system and build it here along the old Green Line route, while building a Surface Boulevard with dedicated Truck/Bus/Taxi-only lanes.

But that would be wise - and good for the environment.

]]> Will in Seattle http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672128 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672128 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:12:34 -0800 Comment by golob @3.

Heh. I always assume that people act rationally. A fatal mistake.


Given most city residents do NOT need or use the AWV frequently and is the "cheapest" choice, I believe the sale will be easier than for other projects. The real trick is to establish:

1. moving people and goods (rather than cars) as the benchmark.

2. a six lane blvd has enough capacity to transfer traffic from the six lane East Marginal Way to the four lane Battery St Tunnel.

3. the money "saved" is better spent on expanding transit, particularly to the Eastside, Ballard and West Seattle.

]]> golob http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672139 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672139 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:18:09 -0800 Comment by vooodooo84 wouldn't it be great if we had some sort of elevated transportation system that could bring commuters from West Seattle directly to downtown or North Seattle? we should get on that, it could possibly be cheaper than some $5bn tunnel and actually pass city wide elections several times i would bet. we could save money by only using one rail too.

]]> vooodooo84 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672188 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672188 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:42:59 -0800 Comment by Will in Seattle Nah. Bygones.

But, you're right, it would be cheaper.

]]> Will in Seattle http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672268 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672268 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:52:02 -0800 Comment by Christopher That 34% no/no is very enlightening. Broken down this is:

36% no on tunnel, yes on elevated
34% no on both
26% no on elevated, yes on tunnel

I wouldn't take the surface/transit number very seriously at this point since there's nothing concrete yet to give a yes/no answer to. I would be surprised if it ever broke 40% though.

It looks like there's no real consensus in favor of any option. I'm pro-transit so I hope not too many people figure this out, and just stick with the "people don't want another highway" interpretation. But I hope the politicians will keep in mind that probably anything would fail a yes/no referendum.

]]> Christopher http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672308 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672308 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:57:15 -0800 Comment by chas Redmond At this point, even if we had to spend another $200 million on property acquisition, the fixed-price bid for the Green Line is both competitive and feasible with all the other equally-priced options on the table.

Is there some reason we're avoiding this discussion - again, was the fifth time really the charm?

]]> chas Redmond http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672327 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672327 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:17:43 -0800 Comment by Frank Bruno @4 - thanks for clearing that up, Josh.

@13 - I hear ya... original opening day for the green line was Dec. 15, 2007, right? That's less than a year away. Imagine how different this debate would be if we had a monorail about to open! (yes, i realize that the date got pushed back)

Hell, Nickels coulda shored up the monorail's finances for $200M AND made it double-tracked the whole way. That would have avoided the financial crisis that prompted the recall vote. $200M! That's like a rounding error in viaduct money.

]]> Frank Bruno http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672335 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c672335 News Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:59:37 -0800 Comment by Lloyd Clydesdale Pin the Shamrock of Truth on Frank Bruno.

]]> Lloyd Clydesdale http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c673099 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/03/more_viaduct_numbers#c673099 News Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:04:46 -0800