City Sightline on the “Equity Argument”
posted by on March 14 at 17:48 PM
I have a little blogcrush on Sightline’s Eric de Place. Here’s why: Often, I’ll start out reading one of his blog posts on carlessness, or the viaduct, or the state of transportation planning in Seattle, and think, “I ought to write something about this,” and then I’ll get to the end, and I’ll think, “Damn, there’s no way I could say it any better than that.”
Today was one of those days. Here’s an excerpt:
Even by the weird and hysterical standards of Seattle’s great viaduct debate, something very strange is going on. The weirdness has got to do with what I’ll call the “equity argument” — that our treatment of the viaduct should not discriminate against workers.… According to the purveyors of the equity argument, the elevated-rebuild is good for workers — and all the other choices are bad for them. And what’s even weirder is that in spite of having no actual evidence in support of the claim, the elevated-rebuild backers just keep saying it over and over again, as if repetition will make it true.
Exhibit A is P-I columnist Joel Connelly.
He recently groused that the surface-transit option, “would be underwritten by the paychecks and jobs of those who live and work in the Emerald City.” (He went on to accuse the supporters of any option other than the elevated-rebuild as being variously “highfalutin,” non-indigenous Seattleites, or politicians.)
Now, of course, Connelly is exactly right that the surface-transit option will affect paychecks and jobs. Then again, that’s true of every option – surface-transit, rebuild, tunnel, retrofit, horse and buggy, personal jetpacks, whatever. So it’s hard to know what it is about the surface-transit option that Connelly thinks is so damning. It’s hard to know because Connelly never tells us; and he never tells us because, as I said, there’s no actual evidence in support of his argument.
Exhibit B is yesterday’s article in the P-I that pits the rebuild supporters (a scrappy bunch, “barely funded, grossly outmanned campaign”) against the “plutocratic” tunnel supporters. (Never mind that the elevated-rebuild crowd counts among their number an extremely powerful developer, the editorial board of the city’s largest-circulation newspaper, the governor, the speaker of the house, and the state department of transportation, just to name a few.) The article cites a couple of rebuild-supporting politicians – city council members Licata and Della – who make the equity argument. But again, neither Licata nor Della provides any actual evidence. Not a shred.
But is it true that any option other than the elevated rebuild is bad for workers? I have no idea. Neither do Connelly, Licata, or Della. Neither does anyone else.
Look, I’d sincerely like to know which of the various choices is, in fact, best for workers. I’d love to see some actual evidence — some studies, some data, some analysis… really anything but bald unsupported assertion. Until then, seeing as how everyone in Seattle has apparently become unmoored from the necessity of logic and reason-giving, I’d be happy to speculate about the equity effects of replacing the viaduct.
Read the whole thing here.
Awwww. Did we hoit your feewings?
Suck it up. We said Heck No! to your tunnel and we said Much More Transit loud and clear.
Get over it.
Will, what in the hell does your comment have to do with Erica's post?
That's a great post by Eric. Sightline has become my happy place these days.
Of course, the other piece of empirical evidence which would be useful is a trip analysis of where from and where to those 110,000 vehicles are destined. That actually would be useful, too, for all the major bus routes. I've never understood why everything, and I mean everything, HAS to go through downtown. Can't a West Seattle bus use the busway, 5th and then hop on the express lanes to go straight to UW. I'm sure the folks in Ballard, Northgate, anywhere north of the Ship Canal in fact, would have some ideas about bus routes, too.
In reality, most of what's being discussed is replete with no data whatsoever. It isn't just cost data which is squirrel;y, it's everything.
Everyone knows that the viaduct is the glue that keeps everything together. If it weren't for the viaduct, all commerce would cease. Everyone would move to Bellevue. Our precious Maritime Heritage (whatever that is) would be lost.
The working man only sees water when on the viaduct. To deprive them of that would be the cruelest jab in an altogether too cruel world.
Without the viaduct, Grand Coulee would crumble. Rainier would deflate. The sound would fill with asphalt and Evergreen would find itself with a chapter of the Young Republicans.
Save the viaduct. Save the world.
This whole 'blue collar people want/need the viaduct, I'm a friend of working people who love driving everywhere' (Della, Licata, Sherwin) stuff is so bogus. Anyone who has spent some time stuck in the 'blue collar' sprawl of our lovely American cities knows it is a fool's gambit. No options, no diversity, needed a car to do even the most fundamental things, and spent most of your time working for peanuts to support buying/maintaining/insuring one.
You wanna turn Seattle into LA? Build more freeways, ya morons. It is ridiculous to listen to people who think they are down-to-earth hard-working sufferers because they live in Ballard rather than downtown. Please. There are hardly any more 'working class' people (translation, anyone? This term has suffered a lot of bending of late) in the city limits of Seattle. They are in Kent, in Tukwila, in White Center, in North Bend, and they are stuck there in shitty surroundings that honor only the car rather than their honorable human physical selves because 1950s America is still alive and well and building more roads for our hot future. Go somewhere people are really struggling for a change and see what that looks like. It doesn't look like some fat old well-heeled person (see today's PI cover) with the leisure to advocate for an elevated freeway. Lord love a duck. If you're a white American, you own your house and drive a car, much of your 'struggling' is chosen, and you don't need sympathy. Start thinking about the way you live.
Amen, brother!
Eric, being the brother in question.
Workers, as opposed to whom? Retired people? Homemakers? Children? It's a silly argument, because just about everybody works.
Well, it's obvious to me that the anti rebuld people hate Christians and Christianity.
And I wouldn't trust them around a child.
And there's no way that they support the troops.
From the excerpted posting: "I’d love to see some actual evidence — some studies, some data, some analysis… really anything but bald unsupported assertion. Until then, seeing as how everyone in Seattle has apparently become unmoored from the necessity of logic and reason-giving, I’d be happy to speculate about the equity effects of replacing the viaduct."
Equity effects in the context of the story refer to workers. Now let "equity effects" mean tax burdens. The transportation planning around here completely ignores how sales tax, for example, is highly regressive yet it is used to fund transportation projects. And no one will even discuss it. Pathetic, sad, and depressing.
Right, Grant. Sure. We can prevent LA by turning downtown into a park. Don't build highways downtown, they'll block the precious views of the wealthy condo dwellers; build them instead in the Cascades, and Thurston, Island, and Skagit Counties, where urban hipsters won't ever see them.
"Just about everybody works", but where, exactly? Where ARE the jobs? There are quite a few on the waterfront, but you want to get rid of them. There are a lot downtown, but you want to make it impossible to get there. You people have no clue what you're talking about; the job-creation engine IS MOVING TO THE SUBURBS, while you argue about imaginary esthetics.
As for the suggestion that viaduct users can just "hop on the express lane", that is surely the voice of someone who has never been to Ballard. Have you tried to get from the U-District to Ballard recently? One of the reasons these N-S routes are so important is because there ARE NO E-W alternatives; there are only a handful of E-W routes across the city in the entire north half of the city, and the situation in the south is if anything worse. I can get to the airport in far less time than I can get to U Village, which is ten times closer. The bus? The bus is for losers who don't have anyplace to be.
I’d love to see some actual evidence — some studies, some data, some analysis… really anything but bald unsupported assertion.
strange that erica is pointing us to something that describes her position perfectly. all that time attacking the DOT, but zero time critically thinking about what the PWC has offered. the surface-transit people continue to offer platitudes but nothing of substance.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).