I'm way too lazy to do the research, but are you perhaps thinking of the Phase 1 (Fairview to Dexter) cost? They're already taking down the facade of the Pacific and Ford buildings, and demolition of it and other buildings (old West Marine and Taco del Mar, etc) are scheduled for before the election. In other words, it will be Nickels' last hurrah.

Phase 2 is completely unfunded, right? Oh wait, it's in the SR-99 bored tunnel deal, which Mallahan supports... but he doesn't support the Mercer part. Huh. I guess the bored tunnel will just come in on time and budget without a north portal.

And by the way, I think the Mercer plan is not a good use of our currently limited funds. Bridging the Gap should go to sidewalks and bike lanes.

It really doesn't matter how much this stuff costs anymore.

Mercer has to be fixed and
the Viaduct has to come down and
*should be replaced with a tunnel.

Any more discussion/voting etc. deciding, un-deciding just makes everything more expensive in the end.

Not fixing Mercer and the Viaduct are NOT Options.
Pay the money.

Does mallahan seriously not realize that we can't have the tunnel without mercer? The tunnel dumps traffic right in to the mercer mess.

Do you mean like the local media not reporting negative stories about Dow, or even looking for that matter, while screaming for legal records to be unsealed for his opponent?

Or protecting Maria Cantwell by not fighting to unseal court records which name her as a corespondant in Ron Dotzauer's divorce action. Then lending him tens of thousands of dollars he hasn't repaid. You know, the Ron Dotzauer that gets lobbying contracts and government jobs with Cantwells help to this day.

People around here would just be confused with facts that don't fit their political views, so why bother? It will not change the way they vote, they can not get past D in the alphabet.

Mercer Mess is just a catch phrase. If no one had ever put the two words together, the I-5/Mercer Street exit would have been properly maintained (okay--I'm being optimistic about street maintenance in Seattle), and there would be no issue for Vulcan to capitalize on. Instead of the grandiose plans for Mercer/Valley, why not just fix the street? Would that be too hard? After all, we have been navigating that exit for how many years now? Just because it's not pretty, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

And if the city just repaved Mercer/Valley, wouldn't that mean that the Bridging the Gap funds could be used as the voters wanted--for pedestrian, car, and bike improvement? What a concept.

Aaron Pickus, a volunteer with the Mike McGinn campaign, sends in this clarification of McGinn's views on the Mercer Street corridor:

I read your article last night and believe it needs a correction regarding Mike's stand on the Mercer Project.

When he announced, Mike said that we can't proceed with Mercer without financing, and we need to figure out how to do it cheaper before proceeding. Further, there are streets all over town running through neighborhoods that deserve improvements - Rainer Avenue, Lake City Way, North Aurora, 15th NW and more.

Here is a link confirming Mike's position: http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/03/from_mcginns_mouth.php

- Aaron Pickus

Aaron: Thanks for this. In other places McGinn had expressed general support for the project, emphasizing that his main point of disagreement with Mayor Nickels was on Nickels' proposal to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel. It would be good if he clarified his position on the Mercer Project in light of the amended Nickels/Crunican proposal.

Where has McGinn expressed general support for Mercer? He's been very clear, in my experience, that we can't afford the $200 million price tag. I can't imagine that he supports $90 million more.

Ted and David:

The contradiction pointed out by joshuadf (@1) and tikunolum (@3) is glaring: It is actually *impossible* to build the tunnel *not* convert Mercer into a two-way street, because Broad Street would be destroyed by the tunnel's north portal. Why do publication -- including yours -- fail to highlight Mallahan's contradictory stance?

McGinn understands important details such as this, and he thinks Seattleites have better ideas for investing in Seattle than simply writing blank checks to roads projects. (That is why he actually opposes the current Mercer project.)

-David Levinger

Aaron Pickus, McGinn's spokesman, feels that I have not accurately represented McGinn's position on the Mercer Project.

Before the primary both McGinn and Mallahan came, separately, to Crosscut editorial luncheons. We questioned both on their positions on transportation issues. The tunnel: Mallahan said he considered this "a settled issue" and one which, if reopened, would further delay an Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement. McGinn, by contrast, said he strongly opposed the tunnel and that this was his principal difference with Mayor Nickels.
He pledged to "stop the tunnel" if elected mayor.

The Mercer Project: Mallahan said that neither the Mercer Project nor, for that matter, a streetcar line extension was even an option for discussion during this time of financial/economic stress for the city. McGinn said his position on the Mercer Project was not like his position on the tunnel.
He was disposed toward the project but "deeply concerned" because of its
lack of financing. Later, at a Neighborhood Coalition meeting, I discussed the Mercer Project informally with two neighborhood representatives in attendance. Both had the same impression of McGinn's position on the Mercer Project as I did---as related above.

The Nickels/Crunican proposal of last week is now on the table. Both McGinn and Mallahan, as well as City Council candidates, will be asked to express themselves again on the Mercer Project.

The questions are quite straightforward.

1. Do you support or oppose the Mercer Project as proposed by Mayor Nickels?

2. If you support it, how do you see it being financed?

3. Do you support diverting city money from other transportation projects to make up any shortfall in Mercer Project financing? If so, from what?

4. If you oppose it, do you favor an alternative plan from that of the mayor?

5. What is that plan? What would it cost and how would it be financed?

6. Or do you favor neither the Nickels plan nor an alternative? If so,
what is your approach to dealing with ongoing traffic congestion in the so-called Mercer Mess?

If McGinn has answers to these questions, I am sure Crosscut would be pleased to make them public. I certainly would do so in an article of my own. In meantime, my appraisal of his present position on the Mercer Project is that he is fudging by "expressing concern" about finances
without taking a straightup position on the matter.

Backing politicians into positions is not all its cracked up to be. Some even know that drawing a line in the sand creates impasses, not breaks them.

The main reason why citizens talk past each other on urban transport has to do with a little something called Traffic Calming Level III (city-wide). The mystery is why so few politicians are interested in growing citizens, themselves included. The following may or may not explain why.

"The achievement of ‘trafilc calming’ in its ultimate form, as envisaged by those promoting the city-wide definition of traffic calming, requires widespread and fumdamental changes in the community’s attitudes to urban development, travel mode and how they behave as drivers. We have enough experience to verifiy that traffic management at a significant level cannot lead social attitudes, and that we cannot expect to bring about cultural change through traffic engineering alone. At the city-wide scale, a different kind of outcome is implied - not just a ‘calming’, but a radical change in travel behavior."
http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/CCA97A37.pdf

Sea change in objectives, or not, getting results still takes analysis.

"Evidence-based planning requires information about current problems, and about the effectiveness of potential solutions. Information about current problems includes data on existing transport patterns, and on factors likely to affect future demands, but also information about current policies and their consequences.

The long-standing pattern is for policy documents to proclaim the virtues of modal shift away from road-based passenger and freight transport, while actual policies and travel patterns consistently head in the opposite direction. The result is ‘conviction- based planning’: exciting-sounding individual projects presented on the basis of rhetorical claims about their effectiveness, but little or no analysis.

Conviction planning usually treats projections of future traffic levels as if they represented irresistible forces, when they are actually the results of transport and other policies. This approach has been abandoned in most other ‘public infrastructure’ fields, notably water supply, in favor of demand management.

For almost four decades, governments have released policy documents proclaiming a commitment to ‘balanced transport’: roads would be upgraded, but so also would public transport. The result has been a spectacular decline in public transport use and walking, and a sustained increase in traffic levels. There is no evidence that traffic congestion is a brake on economic growth, nor is there any evidence that massive road-building alleviates congestion. Google Melbourne's Future Transport Options 2005.

Think I exaggerate?

"ContextSensitiveSolutions.org is pleased to present a Forum on Livability in partnership with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The free event, held in webinar format, will be on Thursday, September 24, 2009, from 2:00–3:30 PM EST. The Forum on Livability will be the first national-scale opportunity for dialogue with some of the key U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) leaders and staff engaged in the new transportation and livability initiatives of the Obama administration. Click here for more information."
"here" is: http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/webinar/livability/ Poke around.

The only thing that should be done, rearranging-streets-in-South-Lake-Union-wise, is Roy Street should be reconnected via an underpass under Aurora. That would make everything better for everyone, especially people going to Lower and South Slope Queen Anne, and except maybe Paul Allen.

The AWV replacement bored tunnel can exit north of the Battery Street Tunnel, it does not need to take out Broad St. Changing Mercer Street/ Valley St from a(n) (essentially) one-way couplet to a two way street will not fix congestion, if that is the concern, or make it easier for pedestrians to cross Mercer St, if that is the concern. The widening of Mercer Street to accomodate three lanes each way, with a median down the middle, will lengthen crossing times for pedestrians to an extremely long cycle length, unless you are willing to strand peds in the middle to wait for the next cycle. Peds in this city won't put up with being stranded. And you simply cannot progress a two-way street as easily as a one-way street. Back-ups on Mercer St are caused by the weave on I5, not the signal progression or perceived lack of progression. Mercer/Valley was changed from two way operations to this one-way couplet operation in the very early '70's to accomodate the freeway traffic - which couldn't be handled on a two-way street. And you can't ignore trucks, trucks who use these ramps, if you expect to have a viable City.

I am a McGinn supporter who was concerned with Ted Van Dyk's piece about McGinn's position on Mercer Street. I don't think that politician's should necessarily have their hands tied by their positions but I do think they should stay true to the broad strokes of their platforms. At any rate, last night I sent the jist of Van Dyk's comments to the McGinn camp with the stated hope that they would respond here. And they have. And in reasonable fashion. That is the way politics should be, with give and take on issues, with all concerned listening to the others.

I have been encouraging certain large local property owners to revisit McGinn's positions, especially with a view of preventing city, county, and port tax increases. If all three contribute to this tunnel, we may end up with property tax increases from the county and the port, and who knows what kind of taxes from the city. The tunnel must be stopped first. Then projects such as Mercer Street should be re-evaluated by the new council, the new mayor, and the public.

John Crosby
Fremont

lizard, perhaps the design "can" be altered, but that is definitely not the current plan from the SR-99 Alaskan Way Viaduct North Portal Working Group:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/workinggroupmaterials.htm

The Mercer Street project is associated with the AWV replacement and both major projects are complicated with cost overruns and design inadequacies. No matter how disappointing the lengthy planning process may be, these projects must be designed to the highest standards and result in the best predictable outcome. The process must not be rushed. McGinn takes the wise course. Mallahan is between a rock and a hard place reconciling his position on the two projects. Both should be put on hold. Hand Grace Crunican a pink slip.

I've come to some conclusions about the differences between McGinn's and Mallahan's perspectives on these big transportation projects. Mallahan is more closely aligned with WsDOT and SDOT 'ideology' or whatever passes for principles which 'suggest' bigger is better. The Deep-bore 'seems' to have more capacity, and, the Mercer rebuild 'seems' to reduce capacity. Thus, Mallahan supports the Deep-bore and opposes the Mercer rebuild based upon 'capacity' considerations.

McGinn's perspective on both these projects is more comprehensive. Mercer is a nightmare for whomever comes near - motorists, pedestrians and transit users, bicyclists. Fixing the Mercer Mess will require a comprehensive view, not one that judges a proposal on roadway capacity alone. The Deep-bore has severe, even fatal flaws in its design. Its high cost is also a concern. The better replacement for the AWV similarly requires the comprehensive view which only McGinn offers.