Slog
News & ArtsMonday, March 28, 2011
City Elway Poll: Most City Voters Want to Vote on Tunnel—Majority Oppose Everything
Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:26 PM
Elway Research, a local polling firm, reports today that by a 15-point margin most Seattleites want to vote this summer on the proposed $4.2 billion deep-bore tunnel. But that's where agreement ends: Most voters also oppose building a new Alaskan Way Viaduct (though it is the most popular option) and, by a large margin, oppose a surface/transit alternative to the existing freeway. "There is nowhere near a consensus about what the preferred alternative should be," says firm president Stuart Elway.
The campaign Protect Seattle Now appears ready to submit enough signatures today to qualify the tunnel issue for the August ballot. Meanwhile, sources say that the Seattle City Council is trying to block that vote.
I've posted the full Elways Report in this .pdf
Pollsters began by asking asked 405 registered Seattle voters, "Should the agreement to build the tunnel stand or should the question of the viaduct replacement be put to Seattle voters?" Here's how they replied:
- Elway Poll
But while a majority of respondents want to vote, there's not majority support for any option:
- Elway Poll
Who supports the tunnel most? "The tunnel has its strongest support in the swath between downtown and Capitol Hill," Elway says. "The viaduct has the strongest support in northwest sections of the city and West Seattle." In other words, he adds, "People who drive it want the viaduct, and poeple who live with it want the tunnel."
As for the poor performance of surface/transit, Elways says, "My sense is that people are not convinced that surface/transit would handle the volume of traffic, and they have visions of clogged downtown streets and the waterfront. I think poeple just don't think it would do the job."
MY TCW: As an admitted supporter of surface/transit—which performs better on virtually all metrics than the tunnel—I don't think it's getting a fair shake. First, the broadcasting powers of the city council, governor's office, and mainstream media have routinely portrayed it as resulting in a city-wide traffic jam. That's untrue—and the state's own data prove it. Second, in this poll it's described as simply "improved surface streets," when, in fact, it also involves changes to I-5 and improvements/adjustments to transit corridors. If the tunnel gets shot down, I think we may end up with a surface alternative as our only realistic option. As Dan Bertolet lays out beautifully on Slog today, if the tunnel is rejected, we won't get a viaduct.
1
Dan's argument was basically that people will laugh at us if we rebuild. How is that beautiful? Dumb ass is more like it. 57% of the people that want a vote favor a rebuild and over 70% of the total want a highway replacement of some kind.
What makes you think the defeat of the tunnel is somehow going to magically make embrace the Surface Option?
To follow WiS technique of making up names for things you don't like I say that if they win and kill the thing we call the newly build viaduct the Moon-McGinn Highway as both a description of why we have it and a suggestion for a good idea.
What makes you think the defeat of the tunnel is somehow going to magically make embrace the Surface Option?
To follow WiS technique of making up names for things you don't like I say that if they win and kill the thing we call the newly build viaduct the Moon-McGinn Highway as both a description of why we have it and a suggestion for a good idea.
2
If only there were some technology to make a ballot question where you can choose only one of three options. But how? How?
3
I know I will be heckled, but what ever happened to the possibility of a cut-and-cover? They could just make it connect to the battery street tunnel and design it to have less lanes and to integrate transit, yeah?
Cut-and-covers are cheap. DSTT or Canada Line, anyone?
Cut-and-covers are cheap. DSTT or Canada Line, anyone?
4
@2, that's the whole point: in that case all three will be rejected. That's a stupid way to vote. This vote is stupid. None of the people polled know what any of the three options entail. I could move any of those numbers by a factor or two by rephrasing the question: "should we spend $6 billion we don't have, at a time the state is practically bankrupt, to build a tunnel that wipes out huge areas of downtown and handles less than half the traffic of the current viaduct?", for instance, might get a slightly different result.
My preference is for doing the least damage. That makes me reluctantly support the surface option, even though it's going to be horrible and none of the other supposed mitigations are ever going to happen (I-5 expansion, transit). My second choice would be the tunnel, even though we can't afford the stupid thing. Last would be a new viaduct, which I think is just spectacularly awful in every possible way. Unless it's Frank Chopp's version, where it's really a building with a road on top of it.
The only thing that matters is which option creates the most business opportunity.
My preference is for doing the least damage. That makes me reluctantly support the surface option, even though it's going to be horrible and none of the other supposed mitigations are ever going to happen (I-5 expansion, transit). My second choice would be the tunnel, even though we can't afford the stupid thing. Last would be a new viaduct, which I think is just spectacularly awful in every possible way. Unless it's Frank Chopp's version, where it's really a building with a road on top of it.
The only thing that matters is which option creates the most business opportunity.
5
If you break down the 55% pro-vote respondents by their preferences, then add the 40% who want to build the tunnel without a vote, you get:
59% in favor of tunnel
21% in favor of rebuild/repair
12% in favor of surface street
4% with no opinion on whether or not to vote
3% with no opinion on what to build, but who do want to vote
I think your headline is wrong.
59% in favor of tunnel
21% in favor of rebuild/repair
12% in favor of surface street
4% with no opinion on whether or not to vote
3% with no opinion on what to build, but who do want to vote
I think your headline is wrong.
6
@1: It's just as shortsighted to assume that going ahead with a rebuild/retrofit will automatically ensure such a thing is built. Current obstacles to the total project being built are the shutdown period required, the aggressive traffic mitigation (surface enhancements + transit) and the general lack of understanding of how we can operate as a city without two major freeways going through our core.
In practice it's been discovered that folks will always support the status quo because it feels right, but ultimately accept and adapt to a smaller profile project (SF, Portland, NYC). In this case, yes, many people support a rebuild/repair because it's a gut thing. It keeps what feels right in place without taking a wild leap out into the unknown.
That's why it's so scary to tunnel supporters, that's why they lash out and scream about a hyoooooooooge viaduct going up and gridlock and fear. They fear the simple fact that we'll have a period of surface + transit and those gut feelings will be tested by actual logic. This is why rebuild proponents are starting to accept the likelihood of a surface+transit option if the tunnel is scuttled by voters.
It should be noted that Portland and SF both expanded their transit systems after the shutdown of their major highway expansion/replacement projects. The scuttling of Harbor Drive gave momentum to stopping the Mount Hood Freeway which gave Portland the MAX system. Removing the Embarcadero and demands for capacity upgrades gave them both the F Market & Wharves and the T Third lines, the T Third being a major motivator in the aggressive pursuit and eventual approval of the Central Subway which could very well lead to a light rail solution for Geary if BART doesn't get funding to move forward on a study/build in the next 10 years.
More...
In practice it's been discovered that folks will always support the status quo because it feels right, but ultimately accept and adapt to a smaller profile project (SF, Portland, NYC). In this case, yes, many people support a rebuild/repair because it's a gut thing. It keeps what feels right in place without taking a wild leap out into the unknown.
That's why it's so scary to tunnel supporters, that's why they lash out and scream about a hyoooooooooge viaduct going up and gridlock and fear. They fear the simple fact that we'll have a period of surface + transit and those gut feelings will be tested by actual logic. This is why rebuild proponents are starting to accept the likelihood of a surface+transit option if the tunnel is scuttled by voters.
It should be noted that Portland and SF both expanded their transit systems after the shutdown of their major highway expansion/replacement projects. The scuttling of Harbor Drive gave momentum to stopping the Mount Hood Freeway which gave Portland the MAX system. Removing the Embarcadero and demands for capacity upgrades gave them both the F Market & Wharves and the T Third lines, the T Third being a major motivator in the aggressive pursuit and eventual approval of the Central Subway which could very well lead to a light rail solution for Geary if BART doesn't get funding to move forward on a study/build in the next 10 years.
7
I agree with Fnarf @ 4. One thing, though -- if it is going to be a tunnel, I would hope that a new waterfront could become an attraction that generates lots of tourism dollars and makes the cost of the tunnel worthwhile in the long run.
8
"which performs better on virtually all metrics than the tunnel"
I find it IRONIC how The Stranger puts common sense on the table "It costs too much, its never been done before, it wont provide the same features as our existing elevated viaduct!!". But put common sense alternatives, tunnel, rebuilt viaduct or surface street option, with surface street coming in dead last, then clealy the people are confused and the stranger needs to re-educate those people eh?
When Elway polls support your argument, theres no need to question them and the Stranger has posted a number of such polls. When Elway polls dont support the argument, well its time to discredit them.
Q) Would you support the tunnel if it cost 5 billion dollars?
A) Hell no!!
Q) If you didnt have to pay a dime of that 5 billion, would you still support it?
A) Yes.
So yeah, a poll can be misleading and as long as you ask the right questions, you can skew the results to whatever result you desire.
I find it IRONIC how The Stranger puts common sense on the table "It costs too much, its never been done before, it wont provide the same features as our existing elevated viaduct!!". But put common sense alternatives, tunnel, rebuilt viaduct or surface street option, with surface street coming in dead last, then clealy the people are confused and the stranger needs to re-educate those people eh?
When Elway polls support your argument, theres no need to question them and the Stranger has posted a number of such polls. When Elway polls dont support the argument, well its time to discredit them.
Q) Would you support the tunnel if it cost 5 billion dollars?
A) Hell no!!
Q) If you didnt have to pay a dime of that 5 billion, would you still support it?
A) Yes.
So yeah, a poll can be misleading and as long as you ask the right questions, you can skew the results to whatever result you desire.
9
The 6-lane elevated kicked the crap out of surface/transit on the metrics, if you care about metrics. You voted no on it because you don’t care about metrics. You care about preventing an elevated viaduct. Your arguments about extra Downtown traffic, cost overruns, tolls, etc are hogwash. You voted no on the option that best addresses those issues when you had a chance back in 2007.
The reality is you didn’t want a big ugly viaduct on the waterfront. You won. You didn’t want a cut and cover tunnel that would close the waterfront for years. You won. You didn’t want a highway that maintained 6-lane capacity. You won.
Declare victory and stop whining.
The reality is you didn’t want a big ugly viaduct on the waterfront. You won. You didn’t want a cut and cover tunnel that would close the waterfront for years. You won. You didn’t want a highway that maintained 6-lane capacity. You won.
Declare victory and stop whining.
10
We elect politicians with pluralities all the time. And if you insist on seeing a majority, have a runoff with the top two choices. I'd be much happier with that outcome than anything Gregoire, Chopp, McGinn and Licata could hammer out.
11
Is it weird that they combined a repair with a new viaduct in the poll? A repair was never really on the table for the DOT, was it? And even if it was an option, it's totally different than a new viaduct -- should be separated out I'll bet the poll would have looked quite different.
12
@7, now you're just having a laugh. Tourist dollars. Right. They've got tourist dollars now, and handful of them. A boulevard? A park? How do those things bring in tourist dollars?
@6, is this "NY" of which you speak the one that is criss-crossed by tunnels and elevated freeways every which way?
@6, is this "NY" of which you speak the one that is criss-crossed by tunnels and elevated freeways every which way?
14
@11: It has been on the table the entire time; a partial rebuild/total retrofit was the first suggestion out after the quake.
15
The waterfront should be modeled on other cities that have made them into commercial centers, or at least commerce mixed with other attractions.
16
I'm actually confused as to why the city hasn't proposed making the waterfront into a place for commerce/entertainment/tourism -- I think if the public saw that it could generate a lot of revenue, they might look at the cost of the tunnel differently, no?
17
Why is the retrofit even part of this poll? It's simply not a viable option. Having this on here invalidates the rest of the poll results.
18
@12: The same one that hasn't built freeways into/under/through it's core since Robert Moses was ripping out tracks. The same that has turned huge pieces of world-famous thoroughfares into pedestrian plazas and put down bike lanes on famous stretches of road like Prospect Park West.
That one ;)
That one ;)
19
Isn't it a bit obvious that "Most City Voters Want to Vote ... Majority Oppose Everything"? How long have you lived in Seattle for?
You know what? Maybe we could vote to fund another study! Yes! That will solve everything!
You know what? Maybe we could vote to fund another study! Yes! That will solve everything!
20
@15: Many of those waterfronts were rehabilitated by removing but not replacing immediate road capacity. And by a focused rehabilitation of the core by making more roads end there than bypass it altogether.
@17: It's hard to trust someone who has little grasp of the lay of the land when it comes to the alternatives proposed. Do a little more reading.
@17: It's hard to trust someone who has little grasp of the lay of the land when it comes to the alternatives proposed. Do a little more reading.
21
@11, Google told me this is the online library of electronic versions of seventeen studies and analyses of studies of the retrofit option. Happy reading - if you find one that looks like it works, you'd be the first...
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct…
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct…
22
I didn't read all of the details, so perhaps this has already been advocated, but the fact that none of the options has garnered majority support calls for ranked-preference voting. That way we can put all of this shit to rest once-and-for all without bickering after a referendum determines that there isn't support for the tunnel.
23
@20: What utter dismissive crap.
Polling on rebuild and retrofit as if they were one in the same absolutely clouds the picture. Do a little more thinking.
Polling on rebuild and retrofit as if they were one in the same absolutely clouds the picture. Do a little more thinking.
24
So if a majority support a vote, what happens if incumbent City Councilmembers block a public vote?
This is going to be a difficult year for incumbents.
This is going to be a difficult year for incumbents.
25
@23: They have always been linked together and considered part of a whole solution. Parts of one, parts of the other. Since the beginning. Do some reading: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct…
27
@18: The one that has an article in NY magazine this week about the Bikelash that's resulted from that? The one that takes hours to get back into on a weekend causing a disgusting foul smog as millions of cars sit idle on the highways? I think I may have lived under an elevated highway there, but perhaps I hallucinated that... Although you are right about the beautiful Broadway park initiative.
Many large cities have a big highway through/beside them and many smaller connecting loops around them (I5/305/405 etc in CA) -- which is what we should have done with these roads in the first place. The question now is how to we correct the mistakes of urban planners past, not how do we make new more interesting ones.
Many large cities have a big highway through/beside them and many smaller connecting loops around them (I5/305/405 etc in CA) -- which is what we should have done with these roads in the first place. The question now is how to we correct the mistakes of urban planners past, not how do we make new more interesting ones.
28
@27: Emissions in NYC are lower per capita, however. If NYC's population were modeled on that of, say, Phoenix, their emissions would nearly triple. And in response to its relative geographic disadvantage (and climate, to some extent), they built lots of underground and elevated rail when it was clear their road network was pretty much built out and they couldn't sustain the grand boulevards they thought they needed.
The backlash against bikes is completely artificial, too, and reminiscent of the early days of Portland's bike wars that have ended up in everyone's favor.
Long story short, we have a great deal of momentum we can springboard off of with this whole dust-up over the tunnel.
The backlash against bikes is completely artificial, too, and reminiscent of the early days of Portland's bike wars that have ended up in everyone's favor.
Long story short, we have a great deal of momentum we can springboard off of with this whole dust-up over the tunnel.
29
The poll is stupid and pointless unless "new viaduct" and "repair viaduct" are sepatrate options.
And if "repair viaduct" was a choice it would win a majority or very close to it.
And if "repair viaduct" was a choice it would win a majority or very close to it.
30
@18, Robert Moses bitterly opposed the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel and wanted to build a bridge instead.
They've also got the Lincoln Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, and Queens-Midtown Tunnel, not to mention the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, Verrazano Narrows, Throg's Neck, George Washington, Bronx-Whitestone and a couple of dozen more bridges, and a dozen major freeways and parkways. To say that none were built after Moses is beside the point; the city was built by then. It has barely increased in size since 1950, by less than 200,000 people out of more than eight million.
Seattle in contrast has grown tremendously since then -- our metro area is five times larger than it was in 1950.
The "NY" you mention is really only Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, which are increasingly becoming a playground for young white professionals who enjoy the basically suburban amenities you favor -- bike paths, the High Line, etc. -- while increasingly shunting the poor and people of color out and away. New York is still one of the great economic engines of the world, but that energy is found not in the crowds of adorable web designers and marketing professionals and media producers who park their strollers outside the latest cupcake emporium but in the immigrant communities in the outskirts and unloved corners of the city.
And Seattle is not New York. It never will be. The nineteenth-century city was a wonderful thing, but no new ones will be built. We don't know how. Seattle is a twentieth-century city; we are LA, not New York. Our core is being hollowed out as jobs flee to the suburbs, and low-income and working-class people, and people of color, follow them, leaving behind more and more of the young white professionals, who are less adorable than New York's, because they work at dorky companies like Microsoft, but they still live in the city because they want that gentrified dream -- but it's still suburban in outlook.
We want to be a twenty-first-century city but we don't know what that entails. It has nothing to do with waterfront parks, that's for sure.
More...
They've also got the Lincoln Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, and Queens-Midtown Tunnel, not to mention the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, Verrazano Narrows, Throg's Neck, George Washington, Bronx-Whitestone and a couple of dozen more bridges, and a dozen major freeways and parkways. To say that none were built after Moses is beside the point; the city was built by then. It has barely increased in size since 1950, by less than 200,000 people out of more than eight million.
Seattle in contrast has grown tremendously since then -- our metro area is five times larger than it was in 1950.
The "NY" you mention is really only Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, which are increasingly becoming a playground for young white professionals who enjoy the basically suburban amenities you favor -- bike paths, the High Line, etc. -- while increasingly shunting the poor and people of color out and away. New York is still one of the great economic engines of the world, but that energy is found not in the crowds of adorable web designers and marketing professionals and media producers who park their strollers outside the latest cupcake emporium but in the immigrant communities in the outskirts and unloved corners of the city.
And Seattle is not New York. It never will be. The nineteenth-century city was a wonderful thing, but no new ones will be built. We don't know how. Seattle is a twentieth-century city; we are LA, not New York. Our core is being hollowed out as jobs flee to the suburbs, and low-income and working-class people, and people of color, follow them, leaving behind more and more of the young white professionals, who are less adorable than New York's, because they work at dorky companies like Microsoft, but they still live in the city because they want that gentrified dream -- but it's still suburban in outlook.
We want to be a twenty-first-century city but we don't know what that entails. It has nothing to do with waterfront parks, that's for sure.
31
@25 Throw around all the three to fifteen year old documents you like - do you think any of the 38% of the 405 poll respondents who indicated "New or repair" read any of those documents?
I think that the 38% who responded to "New or repair" included two populations with very different ideas about how to proceed. True, the repair crowd probably is more or less completely detached from reality, but lumping them in with the more grounded rebuild crowd inflated that result. So the whole poll is suspect.
I think that the 38% who responded to "New or repair" included two populations with very different ideas about how to proceed. True, the repair crowd probably is more or less completely detached from reality, but lumping them in with the more grounded rebuild crowd inflated that result. So the whole poll is suspect.
32
@28: The thing is -- NYC is an island. I's use of transit and lack of highways doesn't effect the whole state. I5 is an interstate and 99 is a major highway. So Seattle's highway choices impact the whole West Coast. I WISH we had NYC grade public transportation. I hate cars. I just think we need to make responsible choices that benefit everyone. I'm just not sure what those would be.
The anti-bike backlash in NY actually seems pretty real, although many are attributing it to a fear of change. I tend to believe in that explanation, but it also doesn't help that the most visible bike advocates back East often end up being groups like Critical Mass.
The anti-bike backlash in NY actually seems pretty real, although many are attributing it to a fear of change. I tend to believe in that explanation, but it also doesn't help that the most visible bike advocates back East often end up being groups like Critical Mass.
33
@12: A boulevard? A park? How do those things bring in tourist dollars?
It's easy to take Seattle's parks for granted when you've lived here as long as we have, Fnarf, but in fact, they do draw lots of tourists.
Did you happen to read the NYT travel section this weekend? It calls out Volunteer Park, The Sculpture Garden, and the Arboretum as must-see destinations for 36 Hours in Seattle.
I live next to Volunteer park, and it has plenty of tourists. I see tour buses there all the time. I'm often asked for directions or to take a photo. Just yesterday, I met a (hot young) Italian couple and a Dutch family as we all watched a bunch of guys in medieval costumes doing a make-believe battle.
A waterfront park with views of the Olympics would be beautiful, and it would definitely attract tourists.
It's easy to take Seattle's parks for granted when you've lived here as long as we have, Fnarf, but in fact, they do draw lots of tourists.
Did you happen to read the NYT travel section this weekend? It calls out Volunteer Park, The Sculpture Garden, and the Arboretum as must-see destinations for 36 Hours in Seattle.
I live next to Volunteer park, and it has plenty of tourists. I see tour buses there all the time. I'm often asked for directions or to take a photo. Just yesterday, I met a (hot young) Italian couple and a Dutch family as we all watched a bunch of guys in medieval costumes doing a make-believe battle.
A waterfront park with views of the Olympics would be beautiful, and it would definitely attract tourists.
34
@30:
Sorry. This is basically an extended +1/QFT/me too. Apologies.
The "NY" you mention is really only Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, which are increasingly becoming a playground for young white professionals who enjoy the basically suburban amenities you favor -- bike paths, the High Line, etc. -- while increasingly shunting the poor and people of color out and away. New York is still one of the great economic engines of the world, but that energy is found not in the crowds of adorable web designers and marketing professionals and media producers who park their strollers outside the latest cupcake emporium but in the immigrant communities in the outskirts and unloved corners of the city.That was amazing. Thank you for being incredibly articulate. I'm scared we're increasingly evolving into some sort of dystopian AmaSoft arcology.
And Seattle is not New York. It never will be. The nineteenth-century city was a wonderful thing, but no new ones will be built. We don't know how. Seattle is a twentieth-century city; we are LA, not New York. Our core is being hollowed out as jobs flee to the suburbs, and low-income and working-class people, and people of color, follow them, leaving behind more and more of the young white professionals, who are less adorable than New York's, because they work at dorky companies like Microsoft, but they still live in the city because they want that gentrified dream -- but it's still suburban in outlook.
Sorry. This is basically an extended +1/QFT/me too. Apologies.
35
@25 What are you talking about? The retrofit was always separate from the viaduct rebuild options.
36
@33: I see them more as "things to do once you're here" and not attractions that encourage people to visit in the first place, but I could be wrong about that.
37
@32: "Fear of change" -- bingo. Now tie that in to your grander vision of what SR99 really means and why this is an important fight to push ahead on. Like most fears, they're unfounded.
For what it's worth, for through traffic we have an ever-widening 405 to take those folks going 20+ miles away from the Seattle core north and south.
@31: You can call foul all you want, but there's a general awareness that repair/rebuild are pretty much the same thing. It's been around longer so it isn't as susceptible to the sorts of gross misrepresentations leveled at surface+transit. Most supporters already know what the two entail and how they work together. It's not a misrepresentation to present the two together.
@30: You're conflating my activism with the distortions you find elsewhere, I'm actually an advocate for building a whole city and luring the middle class back in. I would forsake some density (opting for 200 unit blocks with rowhouses and manageable walk-ups instead of 15 story condos, for example, in most urban locales). I think as a city, we're pretty much set up for our future and just need to fill in a lot of blanks or swap out parts. Seattle at 600,000 residents will be indistinguishable for the most part from Seattle at 900,000 residents. Fears of gentrification, as real as they are, are just symptomatic of the swell and swallow of a city's life cycle. Plantations replaced indian villages, immigrant communities replaced plantations, the rich bulldozed those for huge mansions, those huge mansions got swallowed up by the growing urb.
And from your larger argument, part of a functional city is accepting that in many places, a network of pocket parks and plazas is better than large sweeping swaths of greenery. For our own waterfront, as long as you can connect Myrtle Edwards to the larger waterfront and city, you've got a quality destination and means of transportation. The Waterfront Seattle program has proven that little interconnected bits here and there around active commercial and residential areas is better than saying "here's our waterfront, it's green, come play here but don't build your condo or office tower on it!" -- so you aren't fighting against a huge organized campaign of "LET'S DO IT THIS WAY", you're batting away pie-in-the-sky dreaming from people who are working on the same sort of whole city solution you advocate.
As for me, I just think we have enough roads right now and should probably work on smoothing out our current system instead of trying to build our way out of systemic inadequacy and failure.
More...
For what it's worth, for through traffic we have an ever-widening 405 to take those folks going 20+ miles away from the Seattle core north and south.
@31: You can call foul all you want, but there's a general awareness that repair/rebuild are pretty much the same thing. It's been around longer so it isn't as susceptible to the sorts of gross misrepresentations leveled at surface+transit. Most supporters already know what the two entail and how they work together. It's not a misrepresentation to present the two together.
@30: You're conflating my activism with the distortions you find elsewhere, I'm actually an advocate for building a whole city and luring the middle class back in. I would forsake some density (opting for 200 unit blocks with rowhouses and manageable walk-ups instead of 15 story condos, for example, in most urban locales). I think as a city, we're pretty much set up for our future and just need to fill in a lot of blanks or swap out parts. Seattle at 600,000 residents will be indistinguishable for the most part from Seattle at 900,000 residents. Fears of gentrification, as real as they are, are just symptomatic of the swell and swallow of a city's life cycle. Plantations replaced indian villages, immigrant communities replaced plantations, the rich bulldozed those for huge mansions, those huge mansions got swallowed up by the growing urb.
And from your larger argument, part of a functional city is accepting that in many places, a network of pocket parks and plazas is better than large sweeping swaths of greenery. For our own waterfront, as long as you can connect Myrtle Edwards to the larger waterfront and city, you've got a quality destination and means of transportation. The Waterfront Seattle program has proven that little interconnected bits here and there around active commercial and residential areas is better than saying "here's our waterfront, it's green, come play here but don't build your condo or office tower on it!" -- so you aren't fighting against a huge organized campaign of "LET'S DO IT THIS WAY", you're batting away pie-in-the-sky dreaming from people who are working on the same sort of whole city solution you advocate.
As for me, I just think we have enough roads right now and should probably work on smoothing out our current system instead of trying to build our way out of systemic inadequacy and failure.
39
@28, but if Phoenix's population was modeled on New York's -- but that's crazy. They're not similar. And they're not really relavent to Seattle -- which is however MUCH more like Phoenix than it is New York.
41
@30: It has nothing to do with waterfront parks, that's for sure.
WTF, Fnarf, did your puppy drown at a waterfront park when you were kid?
There must be over 30 waterfront parks in NYC already, and they are building more.
Waterfront parks (rivers, lakes, fjords, sounds, oceans, etc.) have been an important part cities for centuries, and they will remain so despite your sentimentality for the sort of urban grit mythologized by 1970s cop shows and exploitation movies.
WTF, Fnarf, did your puppy drown at a waterfront park when you were kid?
There must be over 30 waterfront parks in NYC already, and they are building more.
Waterfront parks (rivers, lakes, fjords, sounds, oceans, etc.) have been an important part cities for centuries, and they will remain so despite your sentimentality for the sort of urban grit mythologized by 1970s cop shows and exploitation movies.
42
@9 "The 6-lane elevated kicked the crap out of surface/transit on the metrics"
Yes. It did.
But, the Surface Plus Transit also outperformed the Tunnel on the metrics.
Let's just be clear here - there is no 2/3 support for the Deeply Borrowed Tollway. There is no state or federal funding for even HALF the eventual post-overrun cost of the Deathly Barrows Tunnel. And the only people who support it - are people WHO DO NOT USE THE EXISTING VIADUCT OR THE SURFACE ARTERIALS ALONG THE SOUND.
Yes. It did.
But, the Surface Plus Transit also outperformed the Tunnel on the metrics.
Let's just be clear here - there is no 2/3 support for the Deeply Borrowed Tollway. There is no state or federal funding for even HALF the eventual post-overrun cost of the Deathly Barrows Tunnel. And the only people who support it - are people WHO DO NOT USE THE EXISTING VIADUCT OR THE SURFACE ARTERIALS ALONG THE SOUND.
43
@37, a Seattle of 600,000 may not be vastly different than a Seattle of 900,000 -- hell, it's not all THAT different than the Seattle of 450,000 I remember -- but a region of three and a half million today is very different indeed of the region of one million I remember and the region of nine million we're going to have before you might think.
Especially if you misunderstand the forces that brought us to 3.5 mil or are bringing us to nine. Hint: it's not going to be rowhouses and, uh, walkups (hello, ADA!); it's going to be immigrant vitality. Which is going to take place outside of downtown and well away from the waterfront.
I'm not talking only about gentrification, I'm talking about calcification. Note that the current city government, both in the mayor's office and the council, is vigorously anti-commerce. My god, you can't even put up a SIGN in downtown without have the whole power structure write three studies and hold a dozen votes. We're going to finally allow food carts -- but the rules will be designed to keep out Asians and Mexicans, you watch. The food carts will be exclusively young white people with trendy haircuts. Seriously: go walk around downtown Vancouver sometime, not the tourist parts but the alive parts to the east of Granville, and you will see what we're missing. You don't even have to go that far -- just go to Othello Station or even 12th and Jackson, to see what the vast numbers of new Chinese immigrants are coming up with. Just for an example.
They don't give a crap about the Viaduct one way or the other; downtown's not for them. It, and South Lake Union, and Capitol Hill, and Ballard, and increasingly even places like the CD, are like a white preserve, an Idaho in the middle of Los Angeles. We're preserving the buildings but not the economic life that makes cities happen.
And what's happening while all the planners and architects are busy checking their Facebook status is that immigrants are making the economy move. I'm not talking about day laborers on the street corner, either; I'm talking about Chinese-American banks and insurance companies and venture capitalists. But this isn't mostly happening here, it's mostly happening in other places that aren't so hidebound -- like our dreaded nemesis LA. I mean, really -- look at our dying port!
If the viaduct removal was being geared at opening up our economy and moving goods and services and filling every corner with small businesses, I'd be on board. Instead, it seems to be focused on creating more bedroom communities for suburban office parks. Rowhouses, condo towers, what's the difference -- neither is a living option as formulated in Seattle.
More...
Especially if you misunderstand the forces that brought us to 3.5 mil or are bringing us to nine. Hint: it's not going to be rowhouses and, uh, walkups (hello, ADA!); it's going to be immigrant vitality. Which is going to take place outside of downtown and well away from the waterfront.
I'm not talking only about gentrification, I'm talking about calcification. Note that the current city government, both in the mayor's office and the council, is vigorously anti-commerce. My god, you can't even put up a SIGN in downtown without have the whole power structure write three studies and hold a dozen votes. We're going to finally allow food carts -- but the rules will be designed to keep out Asians and Mexicans, you watch. The food carts will be exclusively young white people with trendy haircuts. Seriously: go walk around downtown Vancouver sometime, not the tourist parts but the alive parts to the east of Granville, and you will see what we're missing. You don't even have to go that far -- just go to Othello Station or even 12th and Jackson, to see what the vast numbers of new Chinese immigrants are coming up with. Just for an example.
They don't give a crap about the Viaduct one way or the other; downtown's not for them. It, and South Lake Union, and Capitol Hill, and Ballard, and increasingly even places like the CD, are like a white preserve, an Idaho in the middle of Los Angeles. We're preserving the buildings but not the economic life that makes cities happen.
And what's happening while all the planners and architects are busy checking their Facebook status is that immigrants are making the economy move. I'm not talking about day laborers on the street corner, either; I'm talking about Chinese-American banks and insurance companies and venture capitalists. But this isn't mostly happening here, it's mostly happening in other places that aren't so hidebound -- like our dreaded nemesis LA. I mean, really -- look at our dying port!
If the viaduct removal was being geared at opening up our economy and moving goods and services and filling every corner with small businesses, I'd be on board. Instead, it seems to be focused on creating more bedroom communities for suburban office parks. Rowhouses, condo towers, what's the difference -- neither is a living option as formulated in Seattle.
44
I don't see how you can argue that the Surface/Transit option performs best on all measures - in 2008 the "Urban Quality Evaluation" by Gehl Architects of Copenhagen, internationally respected experts on pedestrian-friendly design, evaluated all eight of the proposed options being considered at the time, examining the effect of traffic on the pedestrian realm. Excluding the elevated structure that is inherently unfriendly to pedestrians and the waterfront, only the “demand-management option” had better traffic levels on downtown streets than the bored tunnel option, and all surface options made the downtown as a whole a worse environment for bicyclists.
“The less vehicle traffic on the surface, the better,” Gehl found. “A double-edged strategy is called for: get traffic underground and start lowering traffic volumes on the surface. Discourage more vehicular traffic and invite more people to walk, bicycle, and take public transportation.”
“The less vehicle traffic on the surface, the better,” Gehl found. “A double-edged strategy is called for: get traffic underground and start lowering traffic volumes on the surface. Discourage more vehicular traffic and invite more people to walk, bicycle, and take public transportation.”
45
This is the primary fear - another fucking public vote with a poorly written ballot statement will potentially kill the project with no consensus on what to do next. We then have another ten years of study and debate ("hey, we'll simply improve transit and widen I-5 - wait, what? Not everyone around the I-5 corridor is in favor of the improvements that we propose? Perhaps we should put THAT to a vote?") and more inaction, uncertainty, rinse and repeat.
To you the surface option is the best solution, but shock of shocks, the public does not agree with you. So, since you're so keen on public votes, it looks like we get another viaduct. How do you feel about that? And you can bet your ass that there'll be some smartass Republican from Spokane who will put the same fucking overrun language in the funding for that alternative as there is in the tunnel language. Yee haw. Jeezus this shit just pisses me off.
To you the surface option is the best solution, but shock of shocks, the public does not agree with you. So, since you're so keen on public votes, it looks like we get another viaduct. How do you feel about that? And you can bet your ass that there'll be some smartass Republican from Spokane who will put the same fucking overrun language in the funding for that alternative as there is in the tunnel language. Yee haw. Jeezus this shit just pisses me off.
46
These polls are inadequate in the sense of "No Opinion" is not the same as "Do Nothing"...and "New Viaduct" is miles apart from "Repair Viaduct".
Then also, I only recently found out that if we don't do a DBT we could do other things with the money like widen I-5.
So, you could have two broad questions:
1) Enhance waterfront
2) Enhance Through Traffic past Seattle
And then have options under each...individual options.
Then also, I only recently found out that if we don't do a DBT we could do other things with the money like widen I-5.
So, you could have two broad questions:
1) Enhance waterfront
2) Enhance Through Traffic past Seattle
And then have options under each...individual options.
47
@44, OK: "The less vehicle traffic on the surface, the better." So the best option is clearly a FREE TUNNEL. Where do we get one of those? Tunnels aren't free. And the toll is going to take all those vehicles right back out of the tunnel and onto the surface -- so now you've got an expensive tunnel that hardly anyone uses. How is that a win?
You say the existing viaduct is "inherently unfriendly to pedestrians and the waterfront". WHAT pedestrians? The ones that are able to stroll under the viaduct at their leisure now, without having to worry about crossing a surface highway? The viaduct opens up the waterfront to pedestrians; it doesn't close it off. The reason peds aren't flooding the waterfront is because there's nothing ON the waterfront -- a handful of bad restaurants, some trinket shops, an aquarium, a ferry (for CARS).
People don't really spend money in parks.
@45, the stuff about "widening I-5" and yadda yadda doesn't exist. No one is seriously talking about it. There's no money for it. Same with the transit. There's no proposal, just a proposal for a proposal.
You say the existing viaduct is "inherently unfriendly to pedestrians and the waterfront". WHAT pedestrians? The ones that are able to stroll under the viaduct at their leisure now, without having to worry about crossing a surface highway? The viaduct opens up the waterfront to pedestrians; it doesn't close it off. The reason peds aren't flooding the waterfront is because there's nothing ON the waterfront -- a handful of bad restaurants, some trinket shops, an aquarium, a ferry (for CARS).
People don't really spend money in parks.
@45, the stuff about "widening I-5" and yadda yadda doesn't exist. No one is seriously talking about it. There's no money for it. Same with the transit. There's no proposal, just a proposal for a proposal.
48
The poll is meaningless unless it asks each question in isolation, as follows:
"If you had to choose between repairing the current viaduct at a cost of $X billion to extend its life for Y years, or tear down the current viaduct without replacing it, which would you choose?"
"If you had to choose between replacing the existing viaduct at a cost of $X billion, or tearing it down without any replacement, which would you choose?"
"If you had to choose between building a deep-bore-tunnel at a cost of $X billion, or tearing it down without any replacement, which would you choose?"
"Regardless of what happens with the viaduct, do you support spending $X billion to add transit lanes, reconfigure I-5, and increase transit frequency?'
"Would you support spending the money for I-5, surface, and transit improvements if the current viaduct was being repaired?"
"...if the viaduct was being replaced with a new, bigger viaduct?"
"...if the viaduct was being replaced with a tunnel?"
If any separate option gets 50%, you do that. If more than one gets 50%, you do the one with the most support. The reason no option can get 50% in any poll to date is that people are given a menu of options, or the question is open-ended so that those answering imagine a third or fourth option. Each should be evaluated on its own compared to the default option of doing nothing.
If no option can get 50% under these conditions, don't build anything.
I actually don't know how this would play out. I'm guessing that no option would get 50%, the viaduct would be destroyed, some people would adjust, and then a majority would coalesce around one or more options for replacement. I suspect that I-5, surface, and transit improvements, if seen on their own separate from the question of freeway replacement, would be very popular.
But I could also see a majority choosing one or more of the options if presented with doing nothing as the only alternative. I'm willing to live with the results of a poll worded this way.
More...
"If you had to choose between repairing the current viaduct at a cost of $X billion to extend its life for Y years, or tear down the current viaduct without replacing it, which would you choose?"
"If you had to choose between replacing the existing viaduct at a cost of $X billion, or tearing it down without any replacement, which would you choose?"
"If you had to choose between building a deep-bore-tunnel at a cost of $X billion, or tearing it down without any replacement, which would you choose?"
"Regardless of what happens with the viaduct, do you support spending $X billion to add transit lanes, reconfigure I-5, and increase transit frequency?'
"Would you support spending the money for I-5, surface, and transit improvements if the current viaduct was being repaired?"
"...if the viaduct was being replaced with a new, bigger viaduct?"
"...if the viaduct was being replaced with a tunnel?"
If any separate option gets 50%, you do that. If more than one gets 50%, you do the one with the most support. The reason no option can get 50% in any poll to date is that people are given a menu of options, or the question is open-ended so that those answering imagine a third or fourth option. Each should be evaluated on its own compared to the default option of doing nothing.
If no option can get 50% under these conditions, don't build anything.
I actually don't know how this would play out. I'm guessing that no option would get 50%, the viaduct would be destroyed, some people would adjust, and then a majority would coalesce around one or more options for replacement. I suspect that I-5, surface, and transit improvements, if seen on their own separate from the question of freeway replacement, would be very popular.
But I could also see a majority choosing one or more of the options if presented with doing nothing as the only alternative. I'm willing to live with the results of a poll worded this way.
49
@47 you've never been to Waterfront Park, Volunteer Park, or Cal Anderson Park then?
People go to parks, have fun, and buy stuff from retail establishments nearby.
People go to parks, have fun, and buy stuff from retail establishments nearby.
50
@47:
I didn't say the existing viaduct was unfriendly to pedestrians - the people who say that are the same pedestrian/bicycle proponents who you would expect to be of the same opinion as the surface/transit proponents. But hey, maybe there aren't any pedestrians and maybe there aren't any waterfront attractions worth visiting in large part because there's a huge, ugly, noisy monstrosity sitting right next to it (no, I'm not making a McGinn joke, I'm talking about the viaduct).
I also think that the toll diversion estimates are overstated, peak hour and off-peak as well. Think about it - if your options are to sit in gridlock on I-5 for an extra 15 minutes or to pay $3, or $4, or whatever it is - which are you going to choose? If you make more than $16/hour, you're going to choose the toll.
"the stuff about "widening I-5" and yadda yadda doesn't exist. No one is seriously talking about it. There's no money for it. Same with the transit. There's no proposal, just a proposal for a proposal."
But that's what the Surface/Transit option proponents are selling - kill the tunnel, divert the dollars to improving transit and throughput on I-5. But that's my point in @45 - we kill this project now, we go back to square one because the surface option isn't really feasible, and you can bet that there will be some group somewhere who thinks that the public should vote on whatever solution is settled on and they'll kill that one too.
I didn't say the existing viaduct was unfriendly to pedestrians - the people who say that are the same pedestrian/bicycle proponents who you would expect to be of the same opinion as the surface/transit proponents. But hey, maybe there aren't any pedestrians and maybe there aren't any waterfront attractions worth visiting in large part because there's a huge, ugly, noisy monstrosity sitting right next to it (no, I'm not making a McGinn joke, I'm talking about the viaduct).
I also think that the toll diversion estimates are overstated, peak hour and off-peak as well. Think about it - if your options are to sit in gridlock on I-5 for an extra 15 minutes or to pay $3, or $4, or whatever it is - which are you going to choose? If you make more than $16/hour, you're going to choose the toll.
"the stuff about "widening I-5" and yadda yadda doesn't exist. No one is seriously talking about it. There's no money for it. Same with the transit. There's no proposal, just a proposal for a proposal."
But that's what the Surface/Transit option proponents are selling - kill the tunnel, divert the dollars to improving transit and throughput on I-5. But that's my point in @45 - we kill this project now, we go back to square one because the surface option isn't really feasible, and you can bet that there will be some group somewhere who thinks that the public should vote on whatever solution is settled on and they'll kill that one too.
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
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
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
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (50) RSS