Comments on More Viaduct Numbers

So does that mean 19% support the surface/transit? There's work to be done.

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 - 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 -

How do you do an exit poll for a mail-in election? Camp out by the mailbox?

@4: Yeah. It's done by those pesky letter carriers: "thank you for your vote- how'd that go for ya?"

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.

@4,

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

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.

@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.

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.

Nah. Bygones.

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

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.

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?

@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.

Pin the Shamrock of Truth on Frank Bruno.