Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, August 26, 2009
City More Folks Want a Tunnel
Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:40 PM
While Mike McGinn's anti-tunnel advocacy probably helped him in the primary election—one of the few clear messages lost in the roar of numerous other campaigns—it's not clear that most people are on board (or that the battle cry will push him past Joe Mallahan). SurveyUSA released a poll today that asks the question, "Currently, there is a plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel. Do you support? Or oppose? That plan?"
The poll then asks: "The Viaduct replacement is an issue in the current race for mayor. Do you think the plan to replace the viaduct should continue to move ahead? Do you think the plan should be delayed until after the election takes place? Or do you think the entire process of deciding how to replace the Viaduct should be started again?"
Of course, McGinn has long held that once people understand the costs of the tunnel—$930 million or more in city spending—they'll rethink their position. However, McGinn's preference for a surface-transit alternative also comes at a high price. Some think that would cost the city even more (because the state wouldn't chip in to pay for it). Moreover, it could come at a high political price. With Greg Nickels out of the race, both remaining candidates are jockeying for union support—unions that represent the sort of freight interest that would loathe to lose a trucking corridor (either a tunnel or viaduct) through downtown.
Details on the poll are over here. But guys seem to love the tunnel more. Men support the tunnel by 59 percent, while women only support he tunnel by 40 percent. Likewise, 54 percent of women think we should delay the plans until after the election or start the process again, while only 37 percent of men support those options.
UPDATE: McGinn has released a very brief statement on the poll. "We're calling it 'the free-tunnel poll' because public support for the tunnel plummets once they know about its $4.2 billion price-tag, the tax increases to pay for it and that Seattle is responsible for all cost overruns," he says.
1
Rather than asking if we want a tunnel, how about asking if we want to pay for a tunnel? I suspect the results will be different.
2
Both maybe trying to get the unions support but the unions are asking Ed Murray to run as a write in candidate. So Mallahan and McGinn can probably save the minutes on their cell phones.
3
I wonder who paid for that tunnel (*cough* Nickels *cough*) and why they only phoned old white people with landlines?
For the price of the Billionaires Tunnel, we could build the entire multi-line Monorail line throughout all of Seattle PLUS the Surface Plus Transit option.
Or the Elevated Viaduct Rebuild PLUS the entire multi-line Monorail line.
Stick this poll where the sun don't shine.
For the price of the Billionaires Tunnel, we could build the entire multi-line Monorail line throughout all of Seattle PLUS the Surface Plus Transit option.
Or the Elevated Viaduct Rebuild PLUS the entire multi-line Monorail line.
Stick this poll where the sun don't shine.
4
"would you consdier a variety of tax increases to support the tunnel plan?"
"Would you support the largest tax increase in Seattle history to build the tunnel?"
"Would you agree it's a good idea to go forward on a tunnel plan where all cost overruns are to be imposed on city residents?"
"Would you agree to go forward or continue working on a $4.2 billion tunnel plan?"
"Would you support the city of Seattle taxpyers providing $930 million for a tunnel plan?"
"Would you consider the city taxpayers providing $930 million for the tunnel, plus any cost overruns, including various taxes to be decided on later for the tunnel?"
"Do you support a tunnel that calls for the largest bore in history when at the same time we can't even finish a Brightwater tunnel that's smaller?"
all would likely produce different answers.
It's a very old trick to poll for a project WITHOUT MENTIONING THE PRICE OR THE TAX.
You fell for it.
"Would you support the largest tax increase in Seattle history to build the tunnel?"
"Would you agree it's a good idea to go forward on a tunnel plan where all cost overruns are to be imposed on city residents?"
"Would you agree to go forward or continue working on a $4.2 billion tunnel plan?"
"Would you support the city of Seattle taxpyers providing $930 million for a tunnel plan?"
"Would you consider the city taxpayers providing $930 million for the tunnel, plus any cost overruns, including various taxes to be decided on later for the tunnel?"
"Do you support a tunnel that calls for the largest bore in history when at the same time we can't even finish a Brightwater tunnel that's smaller?"
all would likely produce different answers.
It's a very old trick to poll for a project WITHOUT MENTIONING THE PRICE OR THE TAX.
You fell for it.
6
There's an easy moderate position to adopt: let the people decide. He's not against the tunnel, but against mortgaging the city's future to pay for a tunnel without putting it to a vote like we did for the Monorail and the first round Viaduct Replacement options.
8
6: The people did decide in that million-dollar poll we had a few years ago. But of course, that was simply ignored. And now we're here, asking the same questions again. Only this time, the pro-tunnel people have had to massage (read: manipulate) public opinion.
9
@6, and what is great about that is you can put it up for a vote several times and select the result that you like best as "the legit will of the people" just like the monorail!
10
The results are not an artifact of the poll. The plan for a tunnel has been in public discussion for over half a decade now. Everyone is well aware that it will cost money.
Mallahan sucks from every angle except the one counts in this election - he's not McGinn.
Mallahan sucks from every angle except the one counts in this election - he's not McGinn.
12
Yes, because as you can see voters are just ignorant just like the bag tax issue. Too bad everyone is not as big of NIMBY assholes as The Stranger staff.
Let's hold off a few decades from now when it costs one trillion dollars to build to build the tunnel then we will start the project. Afterall I probably can't ride my bike through the tunnel so it is of no use to anyone.
We can use all the extra money from the tunnel for low income housing because it's NOT true that half the people in garden communities are recent immigrants taking advantage of the system by claiming they are single with children and working under the table driving taxis.
And every homeless person living under the freeway wants to move into low income housing.
Let's hold off a few decades from now when it costs one trillion dollars to build to build the tunnel then we will start the project. Afterall I probably can't ride my bike through the tunnel so it is of no use to anyone.
We can use all the extra money from the tunnel for low income housing because it's NOT true that half the people in garden communities are recent immigrants taking advantage of the system by claiming they are single with children and working under the table driving taxis.
And every homeless person living under the freeway wants to move into low income housing.
13
Most agree - you can't stick the city for a state project - no matter what.
And the State has a giant pocket compared to the city.
And a large taxing district voted by the property owners should pass and raise the money -- so what is the rib --
And the state has voted the tunnel, called a binding law.
Are you all deaf as well as dumb?
And the State has a giant pocket compared to the city.
And a large taxing district voted by the property owners should pass and raise the money -- so what is the rib --
And the state has voted the tunnel, called a binding law.
Are you all deaf as well as dumb?
14
i just can't understand the obsession with a truck corridor through town that still ends in stoplights on 99 at greenlake. how does this help freight mobility again?
or is it all for Magnolia Boeing employees to get to work without having to stop?
or is it all for Magnolia Boeing employees to get to work without having to stop?
15
We need the tunnel, because let's face it .... those shippments of latte coffee beans are not going to run on mass transit.
I was once talking to this woman who was commuting from Branford into New Haven (years ago). And I was surprised to hear that she DID NOT use mass transit. Simply because even though she would be sitting in traffic for an hour and a half every Friday evening, the cost of paying her AND HER FAMILY to use the metro would be almost 80 dollars for that day alone.
Single hipsters get along just fine without their cars because they have organized their lives to minimize their transportation needs. As much as I love my carless existance, it would be naive of me to assume that everyone would do just fine living like me.
And besides, look at the geography of Seattle. The viaduct is on the narrowest portion of the city feeding traffic to the Northwest portions of Seattle, there is nothing else out there! You need some sort of road period.
From a tourist standpoint, as beautiful as the water front is, it's annoying to try to have a conversation with that monstrous eyesore overhead!
Bury the fucking thing, even if it turns sub terranian Seattle into an underground parking lot so everyone can move on with their lives already!
I was once talking to this woman who was commuting from Branford into New Haven (years ago). And I was surprised to hear that she DID NOT use mass transit. Simply because even though she would be sitting in traffic for an hour and a half every Friday evening, the cost of paying her AND HER FAMILY to use the metro would be almost 80 dollars for that day alone.
Single hipsters get along just fine without their cars because they have organized their lives to minimize their transportation needs. As much as I love my carless existance, it would be naive of me to assume that everyone would do just fine living like me.
And besides, look at the geography of Seattle. The viaduct is on the narrowest portion of the city feeding traffic to the Northwest portions of Seattle, there is nothing else out there! You need some sort of road period.
From a tourist standpoint, as beautiful as the water front is, it's annoying to try to have a conversation with that monstrous eyesore overhead!
Bury the fucking thing, even if it turns sub terranian Seattle into an underground parking lot so everyone can move on with their lives already!
16
@14,
Ask the 80,000+ people who live in West Seattle (which, by the way, is a whole lot more than live on Capitol Hill).
Ask the 80,000+ people who live in West Seattle (which, by the way, is a whole lot more than live on Capitol Hill).
18
Follow up question: Did you vote? Or were you too busy being a CEO or VP in a major telecommunications firm?
19
Besides, I voted for both a Pony and a Unicorn.
Not a tunnel. Ponies and Unicorns don't like tunnels, especially ones they can't afford.
Not a tunnel. Ponies and Unicorns don't like tunnels, especially ones they can't afford.
20
Ummm...these polls essentially say that both questions are tied. Don't want a tunnel and are not sure about a tunnel are 50%. And, what does "move forward mean?" Either way, that is 50% and the options other than move forward are also 50%.
Finally, this poll seems poorly targeted. Not just likely voters. And the questions were vaguely worded. Seems like someone was gaming for a certain outcome.
Finally, this poll seems poorly targeted. Not just likely voters. And the questions were vaguely worded. Seems like someone was gaming for a certain outcome.
22
Mahtli69 @1: Rather than asking if we want a tunnel, how about asking if we want to pay for a tunnel? I suspect the results will be different.
This is an excellent point, and there's a subtle distinction here I wish Nickels had made and I wish McGinn would still make. Like a lot of transit supporters, I'm really conflicted about Mike McGinn's anti-tunnel stance. Instead of poking around in a hornet's nest by taking the populist, obstructionist stance of "no tunnel," why not simply turn to Olympia and demand that the agreement be modified to no longer put Seattle on the hook for cost overruns?
This makes McGinn look more reasonable to voters and powerbrokers who don't like him coming over and turning over the whole chess table. And it gives him the chance to lay claim to the political center before Mallahan can get there--and without alienating his base.
I'm sure though my idea is failing to acknowledge some political reality. So someone clue me in.
This is an excellent point, and there's a subtle distinction here I wish Nickels had made and I wish McGinn would still make. Like a lot of transit supporters, I'm really conflicted about Mike McGinn's anti-tunnel stance. Instead of poking around in a hornet's nest by taking the populist, obstructionist stance of "no tunnel," why not simply turn to Olympia and demand that the agreement be modified to no longer put Seattle on the hook for cost overruns?
This makes McGinn look more reasonable to voters and powerbrokers who don't like him coming over and turning over the whole chess table. And it gives him the chance to lay claim to the political center before Mallahan can get there--and without alienating his base.
I'm sure though my idea is failing to acknowledge some political reality. So someone clue me in.
23
I only want the tunnel because perhaps, SOMETHING WILL GET DONE in this city! I will miss the view from the viaduct though. :(
24
Typical Seattle attitude...dragging out an argument long past the due date to the point that nothing gets accomplished...well, maybe the collapse of the viaduct and the death of hundreds of people.
just build the damn tunnel and get it over with.
just build the damn tunnel and get it over with.
25
I want a McGinn & a tunnel.....
damn
does it help that I am willing to pay state income tax? Or you can charge me more for liquor. I don't really care about more taxes, honestly, i'd rather have shit done right.
As you just said: "However, McGinn's preference for a surface-transit alternative also comes at a high price."
damn
does it help that I am willing to pay state income tax? Or you can charge me more for liquor. I don't really care about more taxes, honestly, i'd rather have shit done right.
As you just said: "However, McGinn's preference for a surface-transit alternative also comes at a high price."
27
@25 - that is an option.
Hey, if they sold MJ at WSLCB stores, I'll bet we could afford a tunnel AND a pony.
Not sure how much unicorns cost ...
Hey, if they sold MJ at WSLCB stores, I'll bet we could afford a tunnel AND a pony.
Not sure how much unicorns cost ...
28
The Seattle Process rides again - that meandering path of wishy-washy indecisiveness. Can we please hold at least 3 more votes, preferably in off-year spring elections so only the cranks bother to give their input? If the ballot question could be poorly worded & in multiple parts again, so that nothing concrete could be determined from the results, that would be great.
Dragging out a final decision is a proud tradition we intend to uphold with unanimity... unless someone doesn't like that. Then we might need to discuss that idea some more... Can we get back to you?
Dragging out a final decision is a proud tradition we intend to uphold with unanimity... unless someone doesn't like that. Then we might need to discuss that idea some more... Can we get back to you?
29
@15 $80 a day to use mass transit? Was it a family of 20? What a bullshit number. Current prices for buses (with a recent proposed 40% increase) are $1.25-1.75. Okay, so, $80, is.... 40 trips? In a day? Okay, to and from work, with 2 stops for...whatever, still 10 people a day. So, on top of paying for 10 other people to ride the bus you DRIVE instead?
More importantly, you think that because transit prices are "high" this justifies a tunnel? Or was it the geography?
"And besides, look at the geography of Seattle. The viaduct is on the narrowest portion of the city feeding traffic to the Northwest portions of Seattle, there is nothing else out there! You need some sort of road period."
Right, a road. Not a tunnel. As far as narrowest portion of city feeding traffic, wtf? You ever been on 45th?
More importantly, you think that because transit prices are "high" this justifies a tunnel? Or was it the geography?
"And besides, look at the geography of Seattle. The viaduct is on the narrowest portion of the city feeding traffic to the Northwest portions of Seattle, there is nothing else out there! You need some sort of road period."
Right, a road. Not a tunnel. As far as narrowest portion of city feeding traffic, wtf? You ever been on 45th?
30
I want a tunnel. I think the state should pay for most of it, and the cost over-runs, since it is a STATE HIGHWAY.
We are already moving on this. Seattle is a big city, we need more tunnels.
I voted McGinn, but really I *almost* didn't because he wants to start over and try for a surface option.
Spoiler alert: We've been debating, polling, and rolling ideas around for a long ass time. Adding more years to that is just insane. No more talk, just fucking do something already.
We are already moving on this. Seattle is a big city, we need more tunnels.
I voted McGinn, but really I *almost* didn't because he wants to start over and try for a surface option.
Spoiler alert: We've been debating, polling, and rolling ideas around for a long ass time. Adding more years to that is just insane. No more talk, just fucking do something already.
31
This is exactly why I want McGinn to run a No Tunnel / Ban All Disposable Grocery Bags two issue campaign!
I'm sure it will give us the most favorable outcome possible.
(Any one who is surprised by this poll is out of touch with the voters.)
I'm sure it will give us the most favorable outcome possible.
(Any one who is surprised by this poll is out of touch with the voters.)
32
@ 16, How about pointing out that MOST of the traffic on West Seattle won't be able to use this tunnel since we are driving to/from Downtown?
The two problems I see with the poll questions are the following:
1) What happens if you tell people that the current tunnel proposal was not shown to the public before the decision was made, was only brought to ONE meeting of the Stakeholder's Group they like to point to for support, and is less than 5% engineered?
2) All of the Surface/Transit/I-5 option supporters that I know aren't proposing to start the process all over again. We're proposing to move forward with the already existing surface plan developed with the cooperation of WSDOT and SDOT, that was fully vetted and supported by the Stakeholder's Group, and which was presented at public meetings for comment.
Incidentally, we are ALREADY WAITING until after the election... since none of the work currently being done on the south end of the Viaduct precludes any of the options (including a rebuild, even), and the EIS has not been completed yet.
The two problems I see with the poll questions are the following:
1) What happens if you tell people that the current tunnel proposal was not shown to the public before the decision was made, was only brought to ONE meeting of the Stakeholder's Group they like to point to for support, and is less than 5% engineered?
2) All of the Surface/Transit/I-5 option supporters that I know aren't proposing to start the process all over again. We're proposing to move forward with the already existing surface plan developed with the cooperation of WSDOT and SDOT, that was fully vetted and supported by the Stakeholder's Group, and which was presented at public meetings for comment.
Incidentally, we are ALREADY WAITING until after the election... since none of the work currently being done on the south end of the Viaduct precludes any of the options (including a rebuild, even), and the EIS has not been completed yet.
33
The cost over-runs bogeyman is bullshit. McGinn knows it, and (more importantly) the legislators who wrote it know it.
34
Yeah, that surface option is great. Can't wait until crossing to the waterfront is as much fun as crossing Aurora Ave.
35
Nothing will happen until the current viaduct has a collapse that kills some people. My prediction is it'll be a few dozen fatalities, at most.
Ditto on 520.
Ditto on 520.
36
I don't understand why people are upset that the state is going to spend billions on improving Seattle's waterfront by burying the viaduct. Why look a gift horse in the mouth? McGinn has already lost the general election because he can't see beyond this one issue. But I won't be voting for him or Mallahan, because the only person I know who is qualified to be mayor of Seattle is Greg Nickels, and will write in him in November.
38
Would candidate McGinn or someone from his campaign care to provide any details at all to back up his statement. Please show me the polling where "public support plummets". It's definitely nowhere to be seen in that poll he's commenting on.
Of course I believe the public will freak out over the cost of a large project, they always do, but I think McGinn is lying through his teeth about how he knows this to be absolutely true. It seems to be what he's best at regarding the viaduct.
Oh, and could *somebody* on The Stranger take their mouth off McGinn's dick long enough to get a quote from Mallahan? Somebody besides Dominic, of course, as he's one step from us having to wonder whether it's The Stranger or McGinn paying his salary right now. It'd probably be better if he took a leave of absence to officially join the campaign.
Of course I believe the public will freak out over the cost of a large project, they always do, but I think McGinn is lying through his teeth about how he knows this to be absolutely true. It seems to be what he's best at regarding the viaduct.
Oh, and could *somebody* on The Stranger take their mouth off McGinn's dick long enough to get a quote from Mallahan? Somebody besides Dominic, of course, as he's one step from us having to wonder whether it's The Stranger or McGinn paying his salary right now. It'd probably be better if he took a leave of absence to officially join the campaign.
39
Survey USA is one of those web polls. Of course supporters can jam the ballot box, while the silent majority...those who just want to tear down the Viaduct and have a surface street, never get to hear about the survey.
40
@ 36, the State may end up spending billions on the tunnel proposal, but so will we. Electeds are already talking about raising city property and parking taxes, port property taxes, and county vehicle license fees to pay for it. And where exactly do you think state money comes from?
@ 38, I'm not a part of Mike's campaign... but I would assume he is referring to the poll that he and Mike O'Brien paid for earlier in the campaign that showed those results.
@ 38, I'm not a part of Mike's campaign... but I would assume he is referring to the poll that he and Mike O'Brien paid for earlier in the campaign that showed those results.
41
Simple:
1. Agree that the viaduct comes down by a certain date, say the end of 2011.
2. Have a binding citywide vote to agree to pay cost overruns on the state's tunnel plan. If the vote is yes, it's done. If the vote is no, it's done. Either way, the viaduct comes down.
3. If Seattle voters say no to paying for cost overruns, the state has the option to pay the full cost. If it doesn't come up with the financing, the city refuses to permit the construction.
1. Agree that the viaduct comes down by a certain date, say the end of 2011.
2. Have a binding citywide vote to agree to pay cost overruns on the state's tunnel plan. If the vote is yes, it's done. If the vote is no, it's done. Either way, the viaduct comes down.
3. If Seattle voters say no to paying for cost overruns, the state has the option to pay the full cost. If it doesn't come up with the financing, the city refuses to permit the construction.
42
People are this point are tired of stopping and starting and stopping and starting and rethinking and re-voting and redeciding. The viaduct issue has become the Crusades of urbanism vs modernism political wars. Meanwhile, the highway's worn down and something needs to be done with it.
Here's an idea from David Sucher, who has promoted an option to repair the viaduct now and prepare to take it down later, when we have a firmer handle on what to do next.
http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/citi…
1) Research and analysis by Sucher found that the viaduct's alleged crumbling was overblown, and that at worst only one fire-damaged stretch of the highway near Yesler really needs to be repaired right now.
IMO the 'ZOMG crumbling' line was likely taken by interests who just want the damn thing off the waterfront one way or another right now. Funny how several years after Nisqually it's still here and we're still bickering about it.
2) Repair and prepare would give surface/transit interests all the time we would need to properly prepare the city's transit systems and existing roadway infrastructure for the increased commute and transit load that will result from the viaduct's eventual teardown. Right now, there is so much the City would need to do to make Seattle ready for a surface/transit option to work, and rolling it out right now would prove a civic and economic disaster.
Here's an idea from David Sucher, who has promoted an option to repair the viaduct now and prepare to take it down later, when we have a firmer handle on what to do next.
http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/citi…
1) Research and analysis by Sucher found that the viaduct's alleged crumbling was overblown, and that at worst only one fire-damaged stretch of the highway near Yesler really needs to be repaired right now.
IMO the 'ZOMG crumbling' line was likely taken by interests who just want the damn thing off the waterfront one way or another right now. Funny how several years after Nisqually it's still here and we're still bickering about it.
2) Repair and prepare would give surface/transit interests all the time we would need to properly prepare the city's transit systems and existing roadway infrastructure for the increased commute and transit load that will result from the viaduct's eventual teardown. Right now, there is so much the City would need to do to make Seattle ready for a surface/transit option to work, and rolling it out right now would prove a civic and economic disaster.
43
On behalf of the Pony and Unicorn for Free party, I'd like to thank everyone who responded in this poll.
44
We're proposing to move forward with the already existing surface plan developed with the cooperation of WSDOT and SDOT...
You mean the one with a stoplight every block? That struck me as the worst of both worlds. People have to dodge traffic to walk to the waterfront, and traffic through town is plunged into stop-and-go congestion.
You mean the one with a stoplight every block? That struck me as the worst of both worlds. People have to dodge traffic to walk to the waterfront, and traffic through town is plunged into stop-and-go congestion.
45
It is hopeless, nothing sensible will ever happen. Wank wank wankety-wank wank wank. tunnel, new viaduct, boulevard, blah blah blah. Fuck cars, let's just walk everywhere, walking is fun and awesome and you can even consume alcohol or pot while doing it without being dangerous or paranoid.
I would vote for nothing to be done except for the earthquake-sensitive, hazardous AWV to be closed and demolished.
TUNNEL SCHMUNNEL
I would vote for nothing to be done except for the earthquake-sensitive, hazardous AWV to be closed and demolished.
TUNNEL SCHMUNNEL
46
I LOVE IT!!!!!
2nd Question: What should happen?
Answer (23%): Process should start again!!???!!!??!?!
YES!! The Seattle Way documented in a pie chart!
WHOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
(sorry about the all caps and exclamation points but sometimes you just get excited)
2nd Question: What should happen?
Answer (23%): Process should start again!!???!!!??!?!
YES!! The Seattle Way documented in a pie chart!
WHOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
(sorry about the all caps and exclamation points but sometimes you just get excited)
47
Survey USA had some notorious inaccuracies last year as detailed by fivethirtyeight, but they're very clear this was a telephone poll
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/methodol…
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/methodol…
49
you know, McGinn ran a single-issue primary campaign and was the only anti-tunnel candidate. He got < 30% of the vote. To me, that's more telling than this survey USA poll.
50
I wonder how many people will be talking about this subject at the Washington Bus outing at Moe Bar from 6-8 pm tonight.
Interesting.
Interesting.
51
@29 ... this was CT transit in 2003 ...
yes that was correct, it was something like 13 bucks a train ride!
yes that was correct, it was something like 13 bucks a train ride!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (52) RSS