Slog
News & ArtsMonday, July 19, 2010
City Poll: Two-Thirds of City Agrees With Mayor on Tunnel Costs; 58 Percent Want Public Vote
Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Posted earlier and updated with pie!
SurveyUSA has released a poll of 500 Seattle residents that shows most people agree with Mayor Mike McGinn's position on dealing with cost overruns for the deep-bore tunnel and they think the measure should go to a vote. Respondents were asked this question: "Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn wants construction of the tunnel to wait until the state promises to pay for any cost over-runs. Do you agree with the Mayor? Or disagree?"
And here's how they replied:
- SurveyUSA
The pollsters also asked, "Should Seattle hold a public referendum on the deep bore tunnel before agreeing to construction? Or not?"
- SurveyUSA
There's more over at KING 5, which commissioned the poll. Overall, people are concerned about the tunnel's costs (77 percent). But people are split down the middle over whether we should build a tunnel at all.
Cross tabs on the all the questions and responses over here.
1
Unless Seattle wants to pay for it in its entirety (that means no Federal or State funds) then the whole of Washington State should be allowed to vote on it.
4
@1 fuck you. You pay for it, you get to vote. If we pay for the cost overruns, only Seattle Citizens should vote.
5
State will never pay for this and the only reason were going with this option is because the city spent way too long and in the end, COULD NOT MAKE A DECISION. So the state made it for them.
Option #1) Re-build the Viaduct.
Problem#1) You displace all the businesses who rely on the parking found UNDER the viaduct.
Option #2) Tunnel under the viaduct.
Problem#2) cant, its too close to the sea-wall, too soft a soil and would be far more expensive than the current plan.
Option #3) Tear it down and build a ground level road (half the capacity).
Problem#3) Lose all the parking, which the local business need, yet along tourists and ferry commuters. Also, you lose the ability to link to 1st Ave.
Option#4) Do nothing.
Problem#4) Watch people die.
Cant just repair the viaduct, it sustained too much damage during the Nisqually earthquake, you cant just mend the fence. It needs to be replaced.
Option #1) Re-build the Viaduct.
Problem#1) You displace all the businesses who rely on the parking found UNDER the viaduct.
Option #2) Tunnel under the viaduct.
Problem#2) cant, its too close to the sea-wall, too soft a soil and would be far more expensive than the current plan.
Option #3) Tear it down and build a ground level road (half the capacity).
Problem#3) Lose all the parking, which the local business need, yet along tourists and ferry commuters. Also, you lose the ability to link to 1st Ave.
Option#4) Do nothing.
Problem#4) Watch people die.
Cant just repair the viaduct, it sustained too much damage during the Nisqually earthquake, you cant just mend the fence. It needs to be replaced.
6
Why don't we do the opposite of what's expected?
Let's say to the contractors that cost overruns will be deducted from their payments unless they result from emergencies.
Let's say to the contractors that cost overruns will be deducted from their payments unless they result from emergencies.
8
@6 That's a fun idea in theory, but it would not produce a desireable outcome. You could, on the other hand, build in incentives to reward a contractor for coming in ahead of schedule, but if you were to put the entire burden for cost overruns on the contractors, you proabably wouldn't find a single one who would bid on the job, and if you did, the bid would be prohibitively high.
9
@6 ftw.
This will cause them to reprice the total contract price to its true nature, and make the Billionaires Tunnel costs actually reflect reality, thereby dooming this insane boondoggle to the trashbin of history.
This will cause them to reprice the total contract price to its true nature, and make the Billionaires Tunnel costs actually reflect reality, thereby dooming this insane boondoggle to the trashbin of history.
11
@1 you can put the same issue on a state ballot. The city residents are simply saying construction should wait. we obviously can't forfeit the state to pay.
I wonder if poll results would've been different of McGinn wasn't mentioned. Maybe the tv station has ulterior motives. More interesting news?
I wonder if poll results would've been different of McGinn wasn't mentioned. Maybe the tv station has ulterior motives. More interesting news?
12
@11 no, Seattle loves our Mayor.
It's just the Powers That Be that we kicked out and nerfed that don't like him.
It's just the Powers That Be that we kicked out and nerfed that don't like him.
14
Could these questions be any stupider? I mean, who is going to say "yes, please make me pay for cost overruns rather than someone else"?
And who is going to say "no, please don't give me any say in this"?
@10: It is completely keeping in form with the Stranger's coverage of this issue to bury the only useful question asked in the survey, that is, whether or not the tunnel is favored (yes).
And who is going to say "no, please don't give me any say in this"?
@10: It is completely keeping in form with the Stranger's coverage of this issue to bury the only useful question asked in the survey, that is, whether or not the tunnel is favored (yes).
15
Ahahahaha, the city supports the tunnel 46% - 47% and this means the tunnel should go forward! Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Thankfully, Mayor Mallahan was swept into office on SurveyUSA polling that showed him drubbing McGinn by a squeaker of 2 percentage points. This is why we're enjoying such a speedy process and are gladly offering to shoulder cost overruns.
You people need to put your ballots down and promptly walk into traffic on the viaduct. Obstruction by false mandate and withering bullshit like "the city is doomed if we don't build this tunnel!!!"? Fabulous.
Thankfully, Mayor Mallahan was swept into office on SurveyUSA polling that showed him drubbing McGinn by a squeaker of 2 percentage points. This is why we're enjoying such a speedy process and are gladly offering to shoulder cost overruns.
You people need to put your ballots down and promptly walk into traffic on the viaduct. Obstruction by false mandate and withering bullshit like "the city is doomed if we don't build this tunnel!!!"? Fabulous.
16
@5, only if I get to pick the people.
At Will, fuck you, it is state-wide gas tax money.
There was a vote involving the entire state's representatives, its senators, and governor.
If the state has to revisit this then get ready for more years of tolling, or choppaduct.
Hey, maybe they can put a Chihuly museum in one of the Choppaduct retail spaces, he can sell bongs
At Will, fuck you, it is state-wide gas tax money.
There was a vote involving the entire state's representatives, its senators, and governor.
If the state has to revisit this then get ready for more years of tolling, or choppaduct.
Hey, maybe they can put a Chihuly museum in one of the Choppaduct retail spaces, he can sell bongs
18
I think this thing should be voted on by us Seattle residents but saying two-thirds of the city agree based on a sample size of 500 in a city of over 500,000 is quite a projection to say the least.... I'd be a bit sketchy about relying on these results as hard fact.
19
I just want this thing to go away.
Can we have another vote on the monorail, too? I wish we had that instead. This tunnel argument would never even happen.
Can we have another vote on the monorail, too? I wish we had that instead. This tunnel argument would never even happen.
20
Let's talk about the poll on Seattle Channel- the one where McGinn's ratings were hovering in the range of 70%+ disapproved of him
21
@19, did you know that had we gone forward with the monorail the first portion would have been up and going by now? Just sayin'!
Oh yes, the Seattle Process is just wonderful!! Hope it doesn't kill us but still it's WONDERFUL!!!
Oh yes, the Seattle Process is just wonderful!! Hope it doesn't kill us but still it's WONDERFUL!!!
23
@5, Folks do realize that the bored tunnel proposal is designed to be 4 lanes, and only carry 40-60% of the existing traffic on the Viaduct, right?
Without any money programmed to fix the Downtown street grid or I-5 to accommodate the additional traffic put down on the surface?
Without any money programmed to fix the Downtown street grid or I-5 to accommodate the additional traffic put down on the surface?
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
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
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
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (25) RSS