Comments

1
about frigging time
2
Hopefully this isn't a debacle like the Monorail, passing by less than 900 votes.
3
Yes! I've been kind of on the fence about this election - I don't like Mallahan (seriously dude, voting isn't hard), but I'm only sorta half-convinced that the tunnel is a bad idea. This makes the choice easy. If this turns out to be a reasonable plan (seems so) then he has my vote. I would kill to not have to drive to w. seattle.
4
As a long-time admirer of Mike McGinn, I've been a bit disappointed by his campaign ever since he announced it. The best I could say for McGinn lately has been that he's not Joe Mallahan.

But now this... Pushing for light rail in the Green Line corridor... This changes everything. Mike, you already had my vote, but you have finally won my unequivocal enthusiasm.
5
Baconcat @2: Hopefully this isn't a debacle like the Monorail, passing by less than 900 votes.

In retrospect, if the Green Line had been planned as light rail and managed by Sound Transit, it would either be running by now or inevitably be running soon. And if we had a mass transit line up and running north-south through the west half of Seattle in the near future, this whole viaduct debate would have taken on a whole different complexion. (And yeah guys, I realize there's not that much overlap between the viaduct's current driver base and a potential Green Line corridor's potential ridership.)

I also realize that the only way the approval of this extra route is feasible is by running it at-grade--with plenty of street crossings. That's quite a tradeoff, but who knows what might become possible once the city makes the commitment at least to building a line? Bellevue might well come up with the funds to make their light rail route run underground, so I wouldn't rule out that possibility, even though it would be a long shot.
6
Sounds like a cheap campaign promise. I'm all for a rail line there, and voted for the monorail. But is Sound Transit on board with this? Would the downtown segment run through the transit tunnel to make transfers easy?

Also, if McGinn has such a problem with city taxpayers being on the hook for a potential cost overrun on the tunnel, why is he OK with Seattleites funding this project 100%?
7
Joe M @6: But is Sound Transit on board with this?
If the city is willing to fund this, I don't see why they wouldn't be.

Would the downtown segment run through the transit tunnel to make transfers easy?
Factual answer: no. The transit tunnel has no room for additional rail lines.

Also, if McGinn has such a problem with city taxpayers being on the hook for a potential cost overrun on the tunnel, why is he OK with Seattleites funding this project 100%?

A. As we've seen with the new light rail line in Portland, costs are much easier to control when you don't have to tunnel. B. The comparison with the tunnel is a bit like saying, how could you be against giving a blank check to the Iraq War when you were in favor of giving a blank check to winning WWII? The tunnel's not exactly a good investment, no matter who's picking up the tab, and even if some of us have been willing to live with it.
8
I'm starting to warm up to the pudgy fucker.
9
touché McGinn, you have now fully secured my vote and (as Cressenova said) my enthusiasm. I want light rail to Ballard so badly. I could visit my friends out there and take an nice ride home. I like this man. But let's hope he doesn't Obama-out on us and just talk pretty with no action.
10
ahem. *cressona*
11
meh. trolley lines are faster to get done and can go up hills.
12
Max Solomon @11, I also understand that teepees are quicker to get done and more portable than houses.
13
@12 - yurts are better and more mobile, actually.
14
Go McGinn, go!

Guys, McGinn needs more than just your vote- he needs your friends' votes as well. Tell your friends why you're voting for him and that you hope they will vote for him too. If you encounter a hater who finds one silly thing to argue about, calmly explain that while you can't possibly agree with McGinn on everything, the things you do agree on with him are important enough to you to settle your own vote.

Now go spread the word!
15
Any reason why we can't run light rail down Aurora, at least to Fremont? Gets off the surface streets without building much new infrastructure. Seems like nobody really discusses this, and I've never really understood why.
16
You may all continue to drink your green line kool-aid and dream your dreams. But like I said, without a plan, without a cost figure, and without Sound Transit's cooperation, this sounds like McGinn tossing out nifty, yet unrealistic, ideas in order to win an election.
17
Joe M @16, here's the thing you don't quite understand about Mike McGinn. This is not just some guy offering up just the right market-tested promises to win an election. You may not agree with his positions, but these really are his positions. There were a lot of us who were pissed at him for opposing the Roads & Transit Proposition 1 in 2007, but you can be damn well sure that's what he sincerely believed.

Also, I don't quite get your proposition that light rail in the Green Line corridor is unrealistic. If Sound Transit puts together a cost estimate for light rail "on the cheap" (a.k.a. at-grade) and it goes on the ballot in 2012, there's an excellent chance Seattle voters--or voters in whatever area that may or may not overlap all of Seattle--will approve it. I mean, putting together a cost estimate is not hard. And winning a light rail vote within the bounds of Seattle is not hard either.

The only thing that would be a challenge is coming up with the seed money to do the study. The original Green Line planning cost $6 million. That's one question I'd like McGinn to answer, if he hasn't already--"Where are you going to come up with the $$$ to do the study?"

Other than that, Joe, perhaps you can explain a bit better what's so unrealistic.
18
McGinn is promising us all free ice cream for life. I like ice cream, and I love light rail. But how can we possibly build what he's talking about using existing right-of-ways? And quickly? Cheaply? He’s picking the most topographically challenging areas to build his fantasy trains. Hills, and water crossings. West Seattle sits atop a monster hill. Trains and hills do not mix at all, so when it gets steep, there's no choice but to dig. The Beacon Hill tunnel cost $384m, and the tunnel through Capitol Hill was recently bid at $153m. Apart from the cost, these tunnels take absurd amounts of engineering and testing, which adds a lot of time. Light rail can take gradients, but not for extended stretches like the slog up to California Avenue in West Seattle.
And trains to Ballard would be great. But we'd need a bridge, way up high so it never has to open for boat traffic. That would not be cheap or fast to plan, engineer, and build. I would strongly favor doing all of this. Dig a giant tunnel into West Seattle. Make a new bridge just for trains over to Fremont and Ballard. But I would think that both projects would take gobs of time and money.
It's foolish, and telling, for McGinn to make such vague promises.
19
Nice reality check @18
20
@18 - we already have bridges in place: aurora, and west seattle. Take a couple lanes away from cars, and you're set.
21
@15 - technically, that's a state highway.

But it is a good idea.
22
as to all you Mallahanites, you said we couldn't kill Roads Plus Transit or there would be no light rail.

You were wrong. Reality around here is far more fungible than you'd like to admit, and all your stakeholder meetings where you ignore what Seattle voters tell you won't change what we do.
23
SouthSeattle @18, why are you making the assumption that there must be a tunnel involved in building light rail along the Green Line corridor? I agree that there would have to be a high bridge across the Ship Canal not unlike the monorail bridge that was supposed to go near the existing Ballard Bridge. But could you cut down on the spin a little?

I mean, "free ice cream for life?!" That was the Iraq War or the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which Bush and Congress bestowed on us without any means to pay for them.

McGinn isn't promising light rail without anyone having to pay for it. And if there is no tunneling involved, you're going to find a price tag that Seattle voters will find palatable. 2012 is another presidential election year. It will have been four years since the last light rail vote and three years since the opening of light rail. Seattleites are going to be clamoring for more, even though they know it won't be a free lunch.
24
Y'know, the mass transit foes have before themselves a kind of a Catch-22 now.

They have to say that westside light rail is impossible. But they know full well that what's possible is really a political question, and that Seattle voters have demonstrated the political will to make "the impossible" possible, and that having a Mayor McGinn rather than a Mayor Mallahan makes that possibility all the greater. So in essence, they have to defeat the likes of McGinn to fulfill their own self-fulfilling prophesy. Or else.

Their slogan could be, light rail is a fantasy, and to keep it that way, vote Mallahan.
25
OK, I'm stupid, but is this even a slightly bold promise? To put something on the ballot in two years to see if people want to pay for it? Is that what mayors even do? Surely there must be a way of more forcefully trying to get more transit in the city than this.
26
I'm confused: Why is this coming out now... is it because he is realizing the opposing the tunnel wasn't going to get him elected, but opposing the tunnel AND promising the green line might? And if that's the case, which is fine, which one is really committed to?

I would feel much better if this was part of McGinn Transportation Package from way back. Why roll this out after the primary? Obviously it would have been popular pre-primary. It's puts the "transit" part in the surface-transit option.

If this develops, I'll get a lot more excited about McGinn.
27
WillInSeattle, we didn't say you couldn't kill the Road & Transit initiative. We said it was stupid and shortsighted, and it remains so. Our infrastructure is still crumbling and accidents are occurring when they shouldn't have to if proper money had been allocated to fix the problem areas & improve HOV lanes. Light rail is great, but let's not pretend vehicles are going to magically disappear. People are just buying hybrid or electric cars now. Freight also doesn't go by high-speed rail.

Yes, Josh @ 25, this sounds all too much like any one of our previous monorail votes. McGinn's reliance on direct democracy continues to make me wonder why he wants to be an elected official. My vote will go to someone who wants to represent my interests and then do the job; not keep coming back for advisory votes or approval.

As for the article, I'd love to know how Sound Transit conducting the initial planning studies for a streetcar line is "precedent" for ST to own & operate a city-only rail line. I wish Dominic Holden would have gotten a quote from someone in ST about how they feel about this. No, not a quote about what's already planned, but about McGinn's specific proposal.
28
Vote for Mayor McCheese! We can restart the same arguments we've been having for a decade now!
29
serotonein @27: McGinn's reliance on direct democracy continues to make me wonder why he wants to be an elected official.

Hey serotonein, if you're going to blame Mike McGinn for the dominance of direct democracy in Seattle, you might want to blame him for the weather here too while you're at it.

Just imagine a politician trying to get Sound Transit to build something without a public vote. In these parts, it would be the political equivalent of a military coup.
30
Meta-question - why is it when people critique McGinn, the people who are doing the questioning are attacked (usually their motives), but nobody actually defends McGinn's positions?

To answer your question, Cressona, I'll first point out that at no point did I blame McGinn for direct democracy. Keep looking; that line isn't there. What I am blaming him for is his full-throated support for it, and desire to use it for every major issue. Again, I don't see Mallahan pushing to have voters directly respond to any of his key issues. Why does McGinn, and why does he want to be an elected official if he's not willing to take responsibility for the hard decisions?

Since you're supporting McGinn, why do you think this is a good thing?
31
Serotonein @30, quit complaining to the refs. If you're going to make a lame charge that Mike McGinn is a slave to initiatives, I'm going to call you out on it.

Everything Sound Transit does has been enabled by direct ballot initiative. You may not like it, but that's the way it is around here. And so you're holding Mike McGinn to some special standard that he must be the first politician in this region to break that precedent?

Let's focus on the real issues around McGinn's proposal, like whether it's worthwhile to have westside light rail.
32
@27 the problem with RTID was that it spent the lion's share of the roads money on 182 miles of new sprawl highways like the Cross Base Highway. It did very little to fix our crumbling infrastructure. If it had been a fix-it-first proposal then Sierra Club would have supported it - but it wasn't, it was a, "here, we'll give you some light rail if you let us build huge sprawl highways" proposal.

Voters in Seattle love rail, hate sprawl.
33
Honestly, I think both these guys are clowns. I've yet to see a proposal out of either of them that wasn't just a load of crap, and an insult to the informed voter.

It's depressing that a town the size of Seattle can't get a non-doofus to run for mayor.

34
Again, my ignorance here is broad and deep, but when cressona says that everything that Sound transit has done has been by direct democracy, I think that is probably true. But is what McGinn's proposing here going to go through Sound Transit?

If so, why? His proposal is for service in the city of Seattle, not regional transit. Although the South Lake Union streetcar is not exactly my favorite civic project I don't remember ever holding a vote about whether to fund it. The mayor and at least one big stakeholder wanted it done and they made it happen.
35
Exactly, just call it Super SLUT!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.