Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Stefan Sharkansky vs. Reality


Yeah, but given the staggering intellectual dishonesty ECB displayed in last week's issue calling the election a conclusive vote for the so-called "Surface/Transit" option (which stood out in an ocean of dishonest recent editorials disguised as newspaper reporting), the Stranger is hardly one to point fingers, here.

Posted by Mr. X | March 26, 2007 11:29 AM

@1: Mr. X, agreed.

The viaduct closure this weekend really made the point as well that we have to have the capacity kept in place until we have adequate transit options. Those options will probably take 20-30 years. It was basically gridlock coming out of W Seattle yesterday at noon (on a Sunday no less) and I-5 moved at a horrendous crawl. Even with publicity of the viaduct closure and people "adjusting" to that, it proves that a magic wand can't be waived and the traffic disappears.

This weekend's traffic snarl shows the bare truth of what will happen if the surface/lack of transit option is put in place.

Posted by Dave Coffman | March 26, 2007 11:39 AM


Sharkansky is a fool and you are a bigger one. They're repairing the Viaduct already, and I expect to be driving on it 20 years from now.

Posted by ivan | March 26, 2007 11:45 AM

Erica, I still haven't seen you present a whit of evidence that those who voted against the replacement also voted against the tunnel (a "no-no" vote). True, neither option received majority support. However, in a contest with more than two scenarios, a plurality may be the best we can hope for.

Posted by joykiller | March 26, 2007 11:51 AM

Hmmm. Let's take it a step further,
Barnett: 72.9% voted for some form
of rebuild.

You also failed to mention that 54%
of the electorate failed to cast a
ballot. Since we are using percentages
here, why don't we assume the
advisory vote invalid since less than 50% of the qualifed voters didn't care to respond.

Actually, why don't we label this what it really turned out to be: A complete waste of our time time and money.

Posted by Princess Caroline | March 26, 2007 11:52 AM


I was lucky yesterday - southbound I-5 was also jammed up, but I didn't have to leave for West Seattle until just after the AWV reopened. Coming from the North End, I hit the offramp at 85th, where traffic was crawling bumper-to-bumper, jumped over to SR99 and the AWV, and made it to WS at least 20 minutes faster than I would have if I'd stayed on I-5.

Posted by Mr. X | March 26, 2007 11:53 AM

Weren't there some exit polls done on this? Where did those go?

Posted by tsm | March 26, 2007 11:53 AM

The only way I see to get people out of their cars and onto some sort of mass transit (be they buses or trains) is to make driving way inconvenient. Since I ride the bus everywhere (unless a friend gives me a ride to White Center for some Tacos) I haven't been any further south on Aurora than Denny more than 10 times in the past 5 years.

I voted No/No because the Stranger told me to, but I would just like a waterfront that looks nice and is easy to get to, whether that be a tunnel, or a surface option with nice, easy to use pedestrian overpasses. The one thing I don't want is a monstrosity of a concrete freeway.

Posted by elswinger | March 26, 2007 12:03 PM

Agreed, Coffman @2. I had to drive from Interbay to Burien on Saturday without the Viaduct. My one consolation was hearing about it about 5 minutes before I left.

I took I-5 south. Pretty packed. Getting to I-5, worse than I-5 itself. (Remember, the North/South always fucks the East/West in Seattle). I took 509 back to town -- you know, giving it a try for shits -- not bad, excepting that you had to of course get off northbound at that last E Marginal surface exit (Spokane-ish), drive on Alaskan Way, which wasn't bad until you got to Lander, at which point it was packed.

My smart-guy move? (No, I didn't take any sort of ghostly Transit) I drove under the Viaduct to Yesler, then up Western, which seemed savvy until I got to the Hillclimb crosswalk. That's where it all really fell apart. 25 minutes to get up (150 yards) and through the Market intersetion. Then I could only laugh in spite when, once through that crapper, I saw the snarlings of the hoodwipes dealing with the reverse -- the closed southbound Western St. onramp. Terrible. And I live "in the city".

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | March 26, 2007 12:07 PM

Don't forget that less than half of all eligible Seattle voters bothered with the election.

Another Elway poll, please, to canvas the 54% who saw the election for the farce it was.

Posted by Laurence Ballard | March 26, 2007 12:10 PM

This is what I'm talking about: the vote was rigged in such a way as to create maximum possible confusion. I think it's the stupidest election I have ever seen.

There's no way of knowing what percentage of the "NO on 1" vote was "YES on 2" or vice versa. But it is true that of the 159,360 ballots counted so far, a total of 111,448 YESes were recorded for either one or two. I'm assuming that the number of nonsensical YES-YES votes is miniscule. But that leaves the strong likelihood that NO-NO was at most 39,349 (the smaller of no-on-1 minus yes-on-2 and no-on-2 minus yes-on-1), leaving it in third place.

There's also no way of knowing if any of the "NO on 1" votes would have voted differently if the result of "NO on 2" was known, or vice versa. Since the number of votes is significantly less than twice the number of ballots cast, 13,891 people only voted on on, and not the other. Those may have been "YES" votes, for a preferred option, but they might just as well have been "NO" votes, for a strongly disfavored one.

It is spectacularly dishonest to suggest that "Option 3", or surface plus transit, or any other conceivable option 3, won this election. No one won this election. No one could have won this election; it's a travesty. Seattle process has finally imploded on itself.

Posted by Fnarf | March 26, 2007 12:21 PM

As much as I hate to admit it, Sharkansky's math is essentially correct. But Erica's correct too. Both options certainly "lost" at in the sense that each option, when compared against all other conceivable options including the other ballot option, lost. However, it's also likely that a fairly small proportion of voters simultaneously voted No-No. All this shows that it was a horribly-conceived election.

Posted by JPF | March 26, 2007 12:30 PM

I had to go to Tukwilla on Saturday. It was a blast getting back into town. Considering that there were no events this weekend, the traffic was pretty stunning.

Too bad they didn't do this a few weeks before the election and on a Tuesday. I wonder how the vote would have gone then ;)

Posted by zzyzx | March 26, 2007 12:32 PM

FNARF Wrote:
"It is spectacularly dishonest to suggest that "Option 3", or surface plus transit, or any other conceivable option 3, won this election. No one won this election. No one could have won this election; it's a travesty. Seattle process has finally imploded on itself."

Excellent assessment, Fnarf. However far from Settle imploding, I would suggest this is what we get when we draft and elect politicians who really shouldn't be doing the job. The lack of study with this group is amazing.


Posted by Jensen Interceptor | March 26, 2007 12:43 PM

Wow, with all the horrible traffic this weekend it's a good thing we're not rebuilding a new viaduct with its 7-10 years of closures and gridlock!

Posted by jamier | March 26, 2007 12:43 PM


I asked about this in another thread, but wanted to ask again. You said that your numbers contradict the WSDOT's claim that most of the traffic is long-distance traffic past downtown. Where do these two sets of numbers come from? It seems like the crux of the matter to me, yet you've relegated it to a parenthetical comment in your article.

Posted by Gabriel | March 26, 2007 12:43 PM

According to the newspapers, the Viaduct was closed this weekend from Spokane St. to Denny Way, resulting in traffic displaced onto other streets and I-5. Some folks apparently think this represents what a Surface+Transit option would be like, and they couldn't be farther from the truth.

S+T would keep the south end of "the viaduct", where it's actually on the surface between the rail yards, open to traffic just like it is today -- 50 mph. There would also be an intersection at Atlantic/Royal Brougham, allowing Pioneer Sq. and stadium traffic to exit there, instead of forcing it to exit at Seneca and then crawl southward through downtown streets, like it must today.

There would also be new surface boulevard in the alignment of the existing elevated viaduct, leading north and into an improved Battery St. tunnel. Again, it would have 3 or 4 intersections, allowing downtown traffic to go directly to its destination, rather than forcing it all off at two exit ramps, like happens today (Western & Seneca ramps).

Recurrent temporary viaduct closures are not, repeat not, representative of a well-crafted Surface+Transit option, and it's high time the City and the S+T advocates get to work and make this clear to people.

Posted by R on Beacon Hill | March 26, 2007 12:52 PM

MR X Wrote:
"ECB displayed in last week's issue calling the election a conclusive vote for the so-called "Surface/Transit".."

Mr. X, the article may have been based on Stranger's notion and practice of advocacy journalism. It states an opinion. That's about it.


Posted by Jensen Interceptor | March 26, 2007 1:06 PM

R on BH -- Where is it? Nothing in place so far....

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | March 26, 2007 1:11 PM

What Fnarf said.

And I say this as a strong surface/transit advocate: I don't see how you tease out any mandate from this outcome at all.

Maybe someone will actually have to make a decision!

Posted by MHD | March 26, 2007 1:16 PM

R on BH: where are you getting this idea that the surface option keeps the southern part of the viaduct? I'm not being rude, I'm asking a serious question.

I'm curious whether that means that section will be rebuilt? If so, what's the cost of that? Or is it going to be retrofitted? If so, why is that any different than retrofitting the downtown portion? Or is that section is significantly better shape than the downtown portion? If so, why?

For me, the southern portion between the rail tracks is more of a problem than the downtown section, as it actually acts as a barrier to some very useful rail links. The downtown section isn't a barrier at all.

To me it's very clear that WHATEVER they do 2/3 of the city will be opposed to it. I think I'll start checking house prices in Montana....

Posted by Fnarf | March 26, 2007 1:24 PM

"I'm assuming that the number of nonsensical YES-YES votes is miniscule." - Fnarf.

Fnarf, why make that assumption? It is entirely possible that there were people out there who want something built to replace the viaduct, and they don't care much whether it is a newer bigger viaduct or a tunnel. If that were my attitude (it isn't), then I would have voted "yes/yes".

Since no data was released on the subject, none of us have any idea how many yes/yes or no/no votes there were. Any speculation we might dream up is just that: speculation. The only actual data we have is the stats that Erica posted (repeatedly).

Princess Caroline, yes, slightly less than half the public voted. But even in a presidential election, you only get about 60%-70% turnout. Considering that this was an off election, and the first time for a forced mail-in ballot for King County, the turnout is actually not bad. There is no reason to assume that if you dragged the remaining 54%, kicking and screaming against their will, to the ballot box, that you would have had a significantly different result. People who cared, voted. People who either didn't care, or were confused, or thought the whole thing was bullshit, didn't vote.

I would agree that it is dishonest to claim that surface/transit "won". That wasn't on the ballot. Sure, probably some of the no/no votes would have gone for a surface transit option, but we don't know how many no/no votes there were, and we don't know how many of them would have gone for surface/transit, so again we are left to uselessly speculate. Had there been a #3 surface/transit option on the ballot, nobody knows if it would have fared any better or worse than the two options presented.

I don't know if a surface/transit option is a good one. Nobody really does. Why? Because neither the state nor the city has bothered to realistically consider it, and study the option as a realistic possibility. I like the idea as a concept. I'm guessing that if we spent $2 or $3 billion on light rail to West Seattle and points south that linked into the underground downtown light rail they are building now, that could eliminate the need for a viaduct at all. There is no reason to believe that would take any longer to build than a tunnel or a new viaduct. I could be completely wrong, of course, but we don't know, because nobody has bothered to conduct a proper assessment.

If a proper unbiased study was done, and it proved that a transit option was not viable for whatever reason, then I could be persuaded to blow billions of tax dollars on an ugly freeway. But as long as the city and state actively ignore the option, they will not get MY consent to build a Seattle Big Dig or a bigger uglier freeway on the waterfront.

I don't think the election was completely useless. It was far from perfect, but I think it accomplished 2 things: (A) it killed the tunnel idea dead. It will never come back. (B) it raised the surface/transit option as a possibility that at the least must be seriously considered and studied.

Posted by SDA in SEA | March 26, 2007 1:33 PM

R on BH,

An intersection at Royal Brougham doesn't begin to solve the traffic problems ST puports to.

In short, the hard part isn't getting traffic from Spokane Street to Royal Brougham/Atlantic - the problem is getting from Royal Brougham/Atlantic past Denny Way, and ST fairy dust and wishful thinking about mode shifts ain't gonna cut it!

Posted by Mr. X | March 26, 2007 1:53 PM

ECB, don't you know that reality has a well known liberal bias?

As for all those whiners bitching about weekend traffic, yeah, it sucked for one one weekend with NO adaptations, NO improvements in transit, NO surface boulevard, NO adjustments to the downtown grid. Now imagine that the lights downtown were actually synchronized, there were dedicated transit/cargo lanes, the six line boulevard advocated by the PWC was up and running, and everyone changed their driving habits in response to the lack of a viaduct. Do you think that traffic would be as bad?

Posted by Gitai | March 26, 2007 1:58 PM

This vote says that a majority of voters did not want a rebuilt viaduct AND a majority of voters did not want a tunnel. It was not an either or. Nor was it multiple choice (one that would have included surface options and just trying to repair the old viaduct). It was a million dollar opinion poll and a half-assed one at that.

Posted by elswinger | March 26, 2007 2:17 PM

Fnarf: But it is true that of the 159,360 ballots counted so far, a total of 111,448 YESes were recorded for either one or two.

You know what that means? There could have been 318,720 possible yes votes, so only 35% of the possible yeses were yes.

As for the closure this weekend, that is horribly inaccurate as to what the S+T option would provide (and anyone who suggested closing the viaduct for a week to see how things would behave are misguided). It takes time for people to make adjustments. I didn't know about the viaduct closure until this thread, so if I was a driver, I wouldn't have known to change my plans. It will take a few months for drivers to adapt to the closure, as people realize what times are bad for driving, which routes are the best bypasses, and as people switch their destinations. It will be even better after a few years if people take the closure and new traffic patterns into account when finding a new home or job. This doesn't even take into account additional transit and/or whatever Transit Now will provide for West Seattle.

Posted by Andrew Hitchcock | March 26, 2007 2:27 PM

SDA in Seattle: Yes, it's possible there were YES-YES votes. We don't know. We don't know anything. Unfortunately, after this stupid vote, we know no more about the will of the voters than we did before.

We do know more about the marketing philosophy of the various camps, though. I don't know about you, but I fucking hate marketing.

Posted by Fnarf | March 26, 2007 2:29 PM

Yes, Andrew, there could have been, if everyone voted YES and YES, but that's extraordinarily unlikely, since very few of the proponents of either replacement were going to do so, and people whose preference was "don't know, but one of them", as well as people whose preference was "don't much care for either of these, but want SOMETHING" probably didn't either.

Whatever. You're guessing, and grasping at straws. The knowledge you seek or claim to have is NOT IN these results, period.

Posted by Fnarf | March 26, 2007 2:33 PM

Gitai @ 24:

The answer to your question is yes, which is why the Viaduct will be repaired and will remain.

Posted by ivan | March 26, 2007 3:09 PM

Does haste always make waste?

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | March 26, 2007 3:17 PM

The no/no result was a victory for surface/transit not because the majority of people voted for it, but because it bought us time, coverage and credibility. It was just a battle, but it was an important battle.

Posted by gfish | March 26, 2007 3:23 PM

GFISH Wrote:
"The no/no result was a victory for surface/transit not because the majority of people voted for it,..."

Suppose Surface/Transit goes so far as to get a proper study. Then suppose it turns out to be completely untenable... a not unlikely scenario. What's next, Gfish? Anybody?


Posted by Jensen Interceptor | March 26, 2007 3:37 PM

An unbiased poll was done by Surveyusa for King TV - of the 34% that voted No-No about 56% were for the S&T or somewhere aroung 20%. Of all the people that voted 67% wanted a viaduct to retain the capacity of the viaduct.

The leaders should drop the idea that they care what the voters want or wanted or they should commission a solid poll with a national firm

Posted by Sherwin | March 26, 2007 3:42 PM

Wait a minute, Dave @6. The southbound crawl is a permanent weekend state on I-5, whether the viaduct is closed or not. The 80th street route to 99 has been my prefered route to/through downtown for 20 years.

Posted by elm | March 26, 2007 4:11 PM

Ivan, it's so not going to be repaired. The retrofit would cost as much as the tunnel (more than tunnel lite), and the goddamn thing sits on landfill. Read up on liquefaction. Because the area the viaduct is built on was underwater a century ago, a good, solid earthquake will knock the fucking thing over. Indeed, they could retrofit it to avoid the pancaking that occured in SFO (theoretically at least; Kobe had the most advanced earthquake building codes in the world and still got fucked up), but nothing short of completely transforming the soil composition under the viaduct would make it a structure that's remotely safe in the long term.

Now the repairs you're talking about are going to happen no matter what. They're entirely non-controversial and are taking place at either end of the viaduct, not on it.

Posted by Gitai | March 26, 2007 4:22 PM

Elm @ 34 --
The weekend southbound I-5 crawl generally occurs only after the A.M.
southbound express lanes are closed off and reconfigured for northbound traffic around noontime. I am surprised WSDOT hasn't attempted to mitigate this.

Posted by Princess Caroline | March 26, 2007 4:23 PM

#35 The retrofit at $2.3 billion was $500,000,000 less than the rebuild and $2.3 billion less than the 6 lane tunnel. Victor Gray and his group dispute the retrofit number. We are now redoing the north end of the viaduct Lenora thru the Battery street tunnel and moving the utilities. It looks to me as if the Gov. is moving straight ahead towards a rebuild - the question is whether it will be 6 lanes or viaduct-lite.

All the cost estimates include the total project. I believe the retrofit report was done by T Y Lin and only looked at Victor Gray's approach.

Posted by Sherwin | March 26, 2007 4:52 PM


How sad for you that you feel the need to trash me just because you're too fucking stupid to understand the numbers.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky | March 26, 2007 4:55 PM

Gitai @ 35:

Twenty years from now, I'll wave to you from the Viaduct, whether rebuilt, repaired, or retrofittted, when I cruise by.

Posted by ivan | March 26, 2007 5:16 PM

Shark @ 38,

Erica's assertion that the No and No votes are a victory for the surface/transit option is a bit of a stretch. But your crazed interpretation of the numbers are pure fantasy.

We don't know how the public would have voted if a surface/transit option were on the ballot. Because it wasn't on the ballot. Neither you nor Erica have a legitimate claim to assume how voters would have voted based on the numbers that were released. You are both just making assumptions.

But what the ballot did show was that a huge majority of voters don't like the idea of the tunnel. And a significant majority of voters don't like the idea of spending a shitload of money on a new bigger uglier elevated freeway along the waterfront.

There may be other more acceptable options out there, but most people clearly were not excited about either option that was presented to them.

Posted by SDA in SEA | March 26, 2007 5:31 PM

Fnarf, I was trying to point out the error in your logic by showing the reverse. The way you present it, it looks like yes got 70% of the vote, which it didn't.

Posted by Andrew Hitchcock | March 26, 2007 6:16 PM

SDA @40

Advocacy Journalism --- there is only a very fine line that separates The Stranger from FOX News.

Posted by Bacchus | March 26, 2007 6:19 PM

SDA - why not read the poll - once again, we probably shouldn't decide most issues by votes or polls but if you all pretend to care then read the poll - it wasn't done by a group with an agenda - they could have done a better job but it makes it quite clear that a significant majority want to retain road capacity and don't support a surface option.

The best way to get to a waterfront without a highway is to accept the repair it for now and put together the transit approach. Even if Seattle was marginally in favor of surface the region isn't and it is still a state highway -

Posted by Sherwin | March 26, 2007 6:19 PM

No, Andrew, you're showing nothing of the kind, and I claimed nothing of the kind. You are trying to ferret out of this data something that is not in it.

If none of the voters voted YES and YES, or voted on only one of the items, then it is true that 70% of the voters voted YES on EITHER 1 or 2. That's a simple fact. But we don't know how many voted for just one item, and we don't know how many voted YES and YES. We don't know fuck-all, in short.

Posted by Fnarf | March 26, 2007 6:22 PM

SDA -- I'm not assuming anything about people's 2nd choices, or how they would have voted if the ballot were different. I'm simply pointing out that the most realistic interpretation of the actual returns is that
about 41% - YES on Viaduct, NO or blank on Tunnel
about 28% - YES on Tunnel, NO or blank on Viaduct
most of the rest - NO-NO, with a few NO on one, blank on the other and a few blank-blank

That's not a mandate for any of the options, and it's certainly not a mandate for tearing down the Viaduct in favor of surface gridlock.

(For what it's worth, I voted YES viaduct, NO tunnel. My first choice is to repair the existing Viaduct, not build a new one. But that wasn't on the ballot. And now I'm really glad I didn't vote NO-NO, because my vote would have been misinterpreted by numerous "experts" as an endorsement of surface-gridlock)

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky | March 26, 2007 6:27 PM

Question 17 asked of all voters:

Does a replacement viaduct need to carry as many vehicles as the existing viaduct?

Yes - 67%
No - 25%

Does anyone think that a surface option supporter would answer the question yes?

Posted by Sherwin | March 26, 2007 6:31 PM

Fnarf, Sherwin, Sharkansky:
All together now little babies: "We hate that stupid election! It was dumb. I hate that Erica girl. She's a jerk."

Posted by Susan Lanset | March 26, 2007 7:55 PM

elswinger@8, a total fucking parasite, writes:

The only way I see to get people out of their cars and onto some sort of mass transit (be they buses or trains) is to make driving way inconvenient.

It's interesting how so many public transit advocates are self-righteous fucks who, instead of trying to make public transit better and a real alternative to driving, which would require work, are more interested in making driving inconvenient. Public transit advocates like Elswinger are like religious conservatives who figure that since no one listens to their bullshit about abstinence that the best way to keep people from fucking is to shut down abortion clinics and restrict access to contraception.

Oh and elswinger, if you're bumming rides off of your buddy to get down to White Center for tacos you're morally no better than any commuter on the viaduct because if you really gave a shit you'd put your money where your mouth is, eschew riding in a car and take the bus down there (and if you did you might find that most of the buses to and from White Center use the viaduct).

Posted by wile_e_quixote | March 26, 2007 9:09 PM

Stefan: "Criticizing"=calling attention to the fact that both votes were "no"; therefore it isn't really relevant that the majority of ballots cast weren't "no/no".

"Trashing"=using juvenile name-calling like "fucking stupid" instead of making an actual point.

Posted by ECB | March 26, 2007 9:26 PM


Now imagine that the lights downtown were actually synchronized, there were dedicated transit/cargo lanes, the six line boulevard advocated by the PWC was up and running, and everyone changed their driving habits in response to the lack of a viaduct. Do you think that traffic would be as bad?

I'll imagine all of this. And while I'm at it I'll imagine that I have a magical box at my house that when I dance around it three times in a circle will bring me vast quantities of cocaine and beautiful and decadent women who will have sex with me, cook for me, clean my house and then vanish into thin air when they're done.

But seriously, the answer to your question is Yes, it would be. This was a viaduct closure on the weekend. On the weekend when people don't have to you know, go to work, and traffic was jammed down on the waterfront and miserable downtown and on I-5. You can take all of your mythical signal and transit improvements (by the way, have any of you surface transit hacks ever taken a bus to West Seattle from downtown? Do you know how they get in and out of downtown? They use the viaduct you stupid bastards!) and all of the other pixie dust that Cary Moon and the cretins at the PWC are blowing out their asses and it's still going to suck on weekdays. And how pedestrian friendly is the waterfront really going to be with a six lane boulevard next to it? Not very. Either you're going to have limited signals to speed traffic along, so you'll have lots of fast moving cars next to pedestrians, or you'll have gridlock, which won't be any friendlier.

Transit is also going to suck in the mythical surface transit option, again, most of the buses to and from West Seattle use the viaduct, which makes getting in and out of downtown pretty quick (again, if any of you surface +transit hacks had actually gotten off of your asses and left Capitol Hill you might know this). Take that away and how are these buses going to get in and out of downtown? They'll be stuck on the same surface streets as all of the cars, albeit in dedicated lanes. How simply marvellous.

Oh, and if these 'dedicated transit /cargo lanes' are going to be so wonderful and great then why don't we save a ton of money, scrap ST/2 and replace it with a bunch of dedicated transit lanes? Seriously, why not? If these dedicated transit lanes are a good enough solution for everyone who lives west of SR99 why aren't they good enough for the rest of Seattle? Why bother wasting more money on light rail to the UW, build dedicated transit lanes along Eastlake and let the existing bus service do the job?

I ask this question because it is interesting to me how many transit advocates in Seattle will roll their eyes and shit their pants any time anyone mentions bus rapid transit instead as an alternative to light rail (and dudes, spin it any way you like, but Sounder light rail is a fucking joke) but then turn around and basically advocate bus rapid transit as a major part of the surface+transit plan. Again, if you're willing to advocate a what is basically a BRT scheme for West Seattle then why aren't you willing to advocate it for the rest of the county? Do you have any reasons other than expedience and intellectual dishonesty? It's as if the attitude is "well, we deserve light rail in Capitol Hill, the U-District and downtown, but you fuckers in Magnolia and West Seattle you can eat shit and take the bus. But please, vote yes on ST/2, even though it will never do anything for you because we want to be able to take a train from downtown to the UW instead of riding icky buses like you have to."

Posted by wile_e_quixote | March 26, 2007 9:54 PM

Well said, Coyote!

Posted by Mr. X | March 26, 2007 10:36 PM

For the record, 4th and 5th already have synchronized lights. It's great at 6 AM or off hours but it doesn't help in rush hour.

Posted by zzyzx | March 27, 2007 5:24 AM

Wile @ 50: "If these dedicated transit lanes are a good enough solution for everyone who lives west of SR99 why aren't they good enough for the rest of Seattle?"

Oh, did someone just fart in the
room?? Could Surface/Tranist alterations make Sound Transit redundant? Interesting idea.

Posted by Princess Caroline | March 27, 2007 7:31 AM

Indeed, Wile_e, indeed.

Show me the fucking money, already.

Hey, also, Stefan Sharkansky: Easy now. You still pissed you got talked to like a baby then hung up on by Steinbrueck on KUOW the day after the vote? I mean, a lot of Sloggers prob don't listen to KUOW and all, so it isn't thaaaaat bad, buddy boy. Here, take my comb; fix your haircut and relax.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | March 27, 2007 8:05 AM

ECB et al. - if you care what the vote meant looking at the polling data gives the best incite. Now I realize that I haven't called anyone a name and therefore don't deserve any response or engagement but I do believe that no one has given a logical explanation for the 67% that said they wanted to retain capacity, other than 67% wanted to retain capacity. Did some of the surface proponents or maybe better put the "just do it" segment actually answer that question in the positive? I really doubt it.

It seems clear that we have a Seattle population that doesn't want to give up capacity (could be a big boulevard) and a state government that doesn't want to give up capacity and is starting the rebuild shortly.

Without real transit to the west side of the city a surface option will be hard to sell and it probably won't work well either.

It is interesting that the "natural" place for express bus service is where there are freeways and that's where we are building rail and where grade separated rail would be the best we are suggesting buses.

Since no one seems to want to look at the best information on the past vote, the poll, I assume that the best way to gather this kind of information is not accepted by this group. Should we have another advisory vote? Maybe the bay bridge and surface transit? We could do this like the NCAA. The best finisher in each round would advance.
Probably no bay bridge (not that's it's not a good idea Jensen) vs no 6 lane tunnel in the final.

OK that won't happen so why doesn't someone like ECB or Cary or Josh run against Della with the slogan "Vote for me if you want a surface option for the viaduct" - he's the weakest candidate and he was pro rebuild.

Posted by Sherwin | March 27, 2007 8:49 AM

Ah - too early - insight not incite

Posted by Sherwin | March 27, 2007 9:21 AM

Princess Caroline: why do you think it's "interesting" to throw away a multi-billion-dollar system that's nearing completion and start over again? What in the hell are you going to build instead that's better? It's morally indefensible not to support ST now; it's what we've got. It's real. Everything else is not.

Posted by Fnarf | March 27, 2007 10:24 AM

Sherwin, keep it coming. These comments would be stilt-o-riffic without your *counterpoint*.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | March 27, 2007 11:09 AM

FNARF @ 57
Call it musing out loud, Fnarf. Not really serious. After reading Wile's post @ 50, I pondered the idea of replacing the downtown section of Sound Transit with a Cary Moon-Surface/Transit like Viaduct replacement type proposal. Heck, what they say would work and benefit the Westside of the city ought to work for the Eastside too, shouldn't it? The East side has the advantage--- I-5 and Hwy 99, too!! Of course, it would end up being as much of a cluster fuck as the entire Viaduct issue has come to be. Non issue.

Posted by Princess Caroline | March 27, 2007 11:41 AM

"...why doesn't someone like ECB or Cary or Josh run against Della with the slogan "Vote for me if you want a surface option for the viaduct" - he's the weakest candidate and he was pro rebuild."


Cary or Josh or ECB should run for Council against Della and make it an explicit referendum on S/T. That will conclusively prove that S/T was the choice of the people.

Where do I send my campaign contribution?

Posted by City Comforts | March 27, 2007 4:37 PM

why is the mayor and the media so supportive of the surface option? More than once i have read "the surface option is the obvious winner" did i miss something? was that a choice? when the public says (well 46 %) "i dont want to get slapped in the face, or in the ass" are they really saying "i want to get slapped in the nuts?" where is the logic in this. lets see a vote on the surface option and see how many people vote yes. if they vote no on that, does that make the "only land speeders on alaskan way" option the clear and obvious winner?

Posted by ac/dc | March 27, 2007 5:10 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).