A "conviction politician" would first ask what all residents can afford, including folks with fewer financial resources than most Sierra Club members, before proposing more rail transit, taking over the city's school system, and building a redundant public broadband network.

Sadly, I see nothing in McGinn beyond a green-washing, elitist and cynical attorney that he is. In his socially engineered world there are no jobs to sustain our city, just lots of useless toys that we can't pay for because we have no revenue. If he is elected McGinn will turn our rainy city into an economic desert.

I'm sorry that Anthony doesn't recognize a charlatan when he sees one.

Here's what McGinn is REALLY for...

More delay and discussion on the tunnel. Since delay is the #1 reason for overruns, he is FOR overruns.

McGinn is for the most expensive option to Seattle taxpayers, the surface option. He wants to reject $2.4B state financing which is paying 100% of the cost for the tunnel. This means the state would have to revote to allocate $ to the surface option. They are highly unlikely to provide much if any funding for a project that reduces capacity. That leaves Seattle to fund most of the $3.6B cost of the surface option.

McGinn is for cutting off West Seattle from the northern neighborhoods and vice-versa. By eliminating 1 of 2 N-S through routes, he is proposing to permanently log-jam I-5, while eliminating the viaduct altogether. Sure, he is counting on transit to pick up the slack...but doesn't it make sense to have a real transit system in place before you eliminate capacity like this, busses will be stuck in the same traffic jams as everyone else. Maybe that is why he is proposing new light rail lines between W. Seattle and Ballard, which will take 7-10 years to plan, permit, and build.

McGinn is stuck in a "congestion is my friend" alternate reality.

Conviction politician? Pretty loaded word. In fact, it's Mallahan that's been saying that he's a "strong moral voice". McGinn has a long history of bringing everyone to the table and driving solutions that work - that's hard work and you have to balance competing interests. Mallahan has worked with people who have the same goal: more profit. Very big difference. McGinn does seem to have real values that he actually lives (how refreshing!) as opposed to changing his position based on which ever politically-connected and powerful group he's wooing says that they'll endorse him if he promises them access and will support their pet issue. Opinion of the Day is not what we need - we need real leadership. The flip-flops coming out of the Mallahan campaign are stacking up - he takes positions and then changes them or says he didn't say them. I prefer that politicians at least make an attempt at honesty! Said it, didn't say it, misquoted me, wah! wah!

His phone must ring after every public statement or press release and a powerful, monied (there's your elitist, pal) endorser drives a new Mallahan position? You figure it out.

If, for one, am ready for real leadership - not political pandering using the same old tired machine and institutional politics (access and promises for endorsements and donations).

Wouldn't it be really great if the voters actually got to have a voice in Seattle? You only get that with McGinn.

DN - you've got his backwards. Broadband is not redundant and the plan is paid for by subscriptions. A municipal broadband plan closes the gap for the poor - because it's municipal, we can also allocate subsidies like we do for electricity - over 65, etc. Furthermore, with competition like this, broadband providers have to be competitive. Joe's quotes on broadband illustration he has no clue what he's talking about: Municipal broadband is not a priority becase "we don't need more hotspots at Starbucks for guys like me" and we have libraries. Facts are - municipal broadband has nothing to do with hot spots at starbucks and libraries can't serve everyone, especially when we are closing them. Entreprenurial types can open small businessess if they have a fast pipe and it's available to them under the same terms that we offer water and electricity.

The Tunnel plan is a social justice issue for me - it taxes and then tolls - working class people cannot afford $10-12 a day to use it. Plus, it eats up our taxing authority, so that we will not have funding for the people programs that need attention the most: seniors, homelessness, community centers, etc.

If uber-expensive bored tunnels are the right way to go - we'd have one under MLK right now.

Unter - Nice campaign rhetoric with no facts. Elitist? Really? Check out the differences in how Mallahan and McGinn live and get back to us.

@loudquack

First of all, let introduce some facts to the discussion instead of campaign polemic.

The tunnel is fiscally irresponsible. We don't have the money. 1.3 Billion is unfunded. Another 570 million that we have no idea where we can even ge the money.

Overruns on a project like historically run high. 35% expected with over 100% possible. You can't dump tunnel traffic into the mercer mess without fixing mercer. The 3% of traffice on the viaduct will have to go to I-5, causing further bottlenecks. The tolling on the tunnel means that lots of people can't AFFORD to use the tunnel, so that traffic moves to I-5. We have to widen I-5, especially with the tunnel. Gotta do the Spokane project.

$4,200,000,000.00 tunnell (engineering only 5% done, so this is an air number)
$4,200,000,000.00 overruns (35% to over 100%)
$179,245,283.02 borrowing for tolls
$200,000,000.00 mercer
$80,000,000.00 spokane
$500,000,000.00 fix 1-5
$9,359,245,283.02

That's damn near 10 Billion.

You say McGinn is for the most expensive option. Again, let's see those facts instead of polemic.

McGinn does not want to "reject" state funding. And the above numbers illustrate the lie in your assertion that 4.2 will pay for 100% of the tunnel.

The political will on the tunnel is falling apart, the voters are wising up and the money is just not there for the tunnel.

Your assertion that McGinn wants to cut off West Seattle is just bull. With the reduced traffic on the surface option from moving freight to a widened I-5, adding east west feeders to 1-5 and beefing up transit, the surface option is sensible for the traffic load.

In fact, West Seattle is screwed with the tunnel plan. A) most of us can afford the upward to $3,000 a year it will take to pay tolls. Furthermore, the tunnel doesn't even get us to downtown - we have to weave through the mercer mess and wind our way to our destination downtown. Ballard and Interbay aren't even served by the tunnel.

So, please, cut the false rhetoric!

A path-finding book just crossed by path quite by accident. Economist Jeff Rubin's "Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller--Oil and the End of Globalization, 2009.

In fact, Crosscut just waylaid my task of calling it to IBD's attention, who should be aware of it before writing any more editorials about environmentalists taking us back in time: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=507064

We're going back alright, have been for some time. But its the dismal science that is doing the job and elected representatives, short on economics, are now digging a deeper hole for us to climb out off as the benefits of globalism no longer accrue.

IBD need not fear being "driven back to the age of the outhouse" and there is more good news too. The best part, however is how much easier decision-making gets when the task is timely adaption to forces far beyond conflicting convictions.

So thanks, Mr. Robinson, for introducing me to the phrase "conviction politics," I think it will be a good handle for historians when they seek that neutral phrase to capture the age.

With every major public project these days, there's always a loud faction of nay-sayers who mindlessly bleat "we can't afford it, we can't afford it!"

And yet, afford it we do. Turns out we could afford to build two new stadiums and to remodel a major arena. And we could afford a light rail line. And we could afford building new libraries. And remodeling our schools. And hiring new cops. Etc, etc.

At what point are we all going to recognize the mindless bleating for what it is?

Sean,

If by "could afford" you meant that the growing $500,000,000 backlog of deferred maintenance in roads, parks, and utilities (and mind you - that 1/2 billion is in EACH of those categories - and just within the City of Seattle) is A-OK by you, then yes indeedy, we sure could afford to put two new stadiums across the street from each other (and I still sorely resent paying additional sales taxes each and every time I eat lunch in a restaurant or have a beer in a bar for a stadium that voters opposed at the polls and I have no intention of using).

By that token, I guess we can also "afford" to beautify Mercer Street at Hallivulcan's request, even if it does mean that the South Park and Magnolia Bridges fall down.

Welcome to the real world, where you can't have it all.

Sean,
Please note that not only have we NOT paid off the two stadiums that are currently standing but we have yet to pay off the Kingdome.

So no, we don't have the money.

BTW I would rather have better schools and better paved roads (we currently have) instead of an Arena (that doesn't have the Sonics) and Libraries filled with books (which is ironic in the land of the Internet and the Kindle).

Mr Robinson. I support Mike McGinn largely because my analysis of Seattle's transportation planning over the last decade leads me to conclude the old crew must be replaced.

The Deep-bore has two 'fatal flaws' centered around its lack of access at Western/Elliott: 40% of current AWV traffic using that access will be diverted to the new Alaskan Way. That's about 40,000 vehicles or 2500 per hour, plus side-street traffic, through 15-20 stoplights, 4-lanes or more likely 6-lanes. And, SDOT's plan for Mercer includes widening to 6-lanes through Queen Anne for truck traffic and general access to the Deep-bore tunnel on Aurora.

I've tried to make a credible case for WsDOT's Scenario 'G' 4-lane Cut-n-cover as the best tunnel option because it maintains the Western/Elliott access ramps; possibly costs less by about $900 million (debatable); has less construction disruption because it was designed specifically for that purpose after the 2007 voter rejection of the 6-lane version; has a better emergency evacuation system, etc. But, all I get for my effort is bunkus from those who can't or won't think outside the box.

Whoever gets elected, the Deep-bore tunnel is a terrible mistake, a short-sighted view of resolving transportation needs put together by planners who think highways first, all other modes of travel an afterthought. Whoever came up with the redesign for Alaskan Way blvd also screwed up. Look closely and think about the new Alaskan Way according to the Deep-bore plan. To me, it's just an appalling, intentional traffic nightmare about to be constructed and few see coming; in short, another horrifying fiasco.

@tikunolem

You asked me to use facts, and then you provide nothing but speculation.

Here's facts answering your rhetoric.

"The tunnel is fiscally irresponsible. We don't have the money. 1.3 Billion is unfunded. Another 570 million that we have no idea where we can even ge the money."

The tunnel portion is 100% funded. The tunnel costs $2.4B. As you've stated, some is unfunded, but we don't need everything to be funded right now. King County is supposed to contribute $300M for transit improvements. Transit improvement funds can be allocated in time to meet project demands. City of Seattle is responsible for 930M for utilities, surface improvemnts and the seawall ALL OF WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER MCGINN'S PLAN. So if it is unfunded and irresponsible for the tunnel, same goes for McGinn's plan.

"Overruns on a project like historically run high. 35% expected with over 100% possible. You can't dump tunnel traffic into the mercer mess without fixing mercer."

Overruns on any construction project may occur. However, the bidding climate is incredibly favorable, and the costs so conservatively estimated, this is the best environment to build. More delay means we may miss this window, thus assuring cost increases for any option. BTW: Sound Transit bids for the First Hill tunnel came in 20M UNDER Budget, as is the case with several recent tunnel projects in the US and abroad. So no, it is not a given that cost overruns are assured.

Tunnel traffic will not be dumped on Mercer. Some traffic may exit in SLU and find it's way to Mercer.

"$4,200,000,000.00 tunnell (engineering only 5% done, so this is an air number)"

2.4B = Tunnel, not 4.2. 4.2B = total project cost.

"$4,200,000,000.00 overruns (35% to over 100%)"

Overruns are not a given, and contingencies are built in already. 35%-100% cost overruns...where did you get these numbers? If there are cost overruns for the tunnel (the most risky portion of the project), then the percentage would be based on the tunnel cost of $2.4B, not project cost of 4.2B

"$179,245,283.02 borrowing for tolls"

????? There are no tolls authorized for this project yet I believe, where are you getting this number? Tolls may be a part of additional financing, up to 400M may be authorized by the legislature.

"$200,000,000.00 mercer"

Technically 190M, and most of the money is in place with the last bit potentially coming from federal grants. Seperate project, with seperate financing. Yes, some freight movement is critical to work with the tunnel, but this project will be needed independantly of viaduct option.

"$80,000,000.00 spokane"

Already funded, and again, a seperate rpoject.

"$500,000,000.00 fix 1-5"

This has been determined to not be needed I believe by WSDOT in the most recent project costs, only the surface option is required to make this revision.

"$9,359,245,283.02 That's damn near 10 Billion."

That's damn near misleading.

"You say McGinn is for the most expensive option. Again, let's see those facts instead of polemic."

Here's the facts, the surface option costs $3.6B, the tunnel costs $4.2B. Both the surface and tunnel cost Seattle taxpayers 930M for surface improvements, utility movement, and seawall. The tunnel option is funded to 2.4B, the surface option has no funding. Key legislators have stated that the state will not contribute as much to the surface option, and may only contribute the costs of teardown, and I-5 improvements (approximately 1.1B). Assuming King County still contributes 300M, and the Port contributes 0 (because the surface option screws their interests), Seattle taxpayers owe...$2.2B for the surface otpion vs. $930M for the tunnel.

"McGinn does not want to "reject" state funding. And the above numbers illustrate the lie in your assertion that 4.2 will pay for 100% of the tunnel."

McGinn has stated he is anti-tunnel. The 2.4B is legally binding to a tunnel solution, per the language used in the bill passed to allocate the funds. Therefore, to build the surface option, McGinn would have to reject 2.4B, and go back to the legislature asking for money the legislature has basically said would not be there for a surface option, it would go to other roads around the state. So yes, McGinn wants to reject 2.4B in hopes of getting something for the surface.

I did not say that the entire project was funded...I said the tunnel portion of the project is funded, which costs 2.4B not 4.2B which is the total project costs.

"The political will on the tunnel is falling apart, the voters are wising up and the money is just not there for the tunnel."

Based on what? Last poll out there McGinn was behind. Public support in mixed at best, and may actually lean towrds the tunnel just to get the project going and stop dithering. Buisness, state and local electeds are for the tunnel. The real question is, how will McGinn convince the state to give us enough money to build the surface when the state has no tolerance to readdress this issue, and no love for Seattle? I have yet to hear a plan from surface supporters that leads to accomplishing your ultimate goal. It's damn near political impossibility.

"Your assertion that McGinn wants to cut off West Seattle is just bull. With the reduced traffic on the surface option from moving freight to a widened I-5, adding east west feeders to 1-5 and beefing up transit, the surface option is sensible for the traffic load."

Freight from the viaduct won't go to I-5 because I-5 doesn't go where the freight wants to go. It would take to long to go to I-5 and back to Ballard, Interbay and north on Aurora. Have you talked to freight interests? I have.

McGinn doesn't propose adding E-W feeders to I-5, the surface option eliminates on-off ramps just to make it work. And who will beef up transit? Metro is in a 100M hole right now, they are looking at making draconian cuts to transit, not adding to it.

"In fact, West Seattle is screwed with the tunnel plan. A) most of us can afford the upward to $3,000 a year it will take to pay tolls. Furthermore, the tunnel doesn't even get us to downtown - we have to weave through the mercer mess and wind our way to our destination downtown. Ballard and Interbay aren't even served by the tunnel."

If you want to go to downtown you wouldn't even enter the tunnel, you would get off, take surface Alaskan way and then enter downtown via a number of E-W streets, or use the new Spokane St. offramp to 4th, so access to downtown is preserved. Again, there are no tolls imposed yet, so throwing out dollar signs is hardly sticking to the facts as you wanted me to do.

Is there anything else we can clear up, the facts are on my side. The surface street is an unfunded scheme that is twice as costly to the Seattle taxpayer with half the mobility. It will send nearly 40,000 cars onto downtown streets, causing game day traffic all day, I-5 is estimated to be congested up to 14 hours a day, nearly twice as much as now. Buisnesses will have little ability to move goods in and through downtown. These are the facts. So don't accuse me of throughing out speculation, when your didn't present a single fact yourself.

@Wells,

"The Deep-bore has two 'fatal flaws' centered around its lack of access at Western/Elliott: 40% of current AWV traffic using that access will be diverted to the new Alaskan Way. That's about 40,000 vehicles or 2500 per hour, plus side-street traffic, through 15-20 stoplights, 4-lanes or more likely 6-lanes. And, SDOT's plan for Mercer includes widening to 6-lanes through Queen Anne for truck traffic and general access to the Deep-bore tunnel on Aurora."

The traffic diverted may use Alaskan Way, or it may tke the Spokane street exit to 4th and filterinto the city that way.

The Mercer street project does not propose widening to 6-lanes through Queen Anne. It will be 6 lanes from the Mercer onramps, to about 5th Avenue. Then it is reduced to about 4 by the Seattle Center, and then 2 through Uptown.

"I've tried to make a credible case for WsDOT's Scenario 'G' 4-lane Cut-n-cover as the best tunnel option because it maintains the Western/Elliott access ramps; possibly costs less by about $900 million (debatable); has less construction disruption because it was designed specifically for that purpose after the 2007 voter rejection of the 6-lane version; has a better emergency evacuation system, etc. But, all I get for my effort is bunkus from those who can't or won't think outside the box."

Has less disruption? The reason why the cut-and-cover doesn't work is because the viaduct needs to be closed down partially or completely for a number of years, and the construction impacts along the waterfront will kill the buisnesses down there. The bored tunnel allows the current viaduct to remain in use throughout construction. This is why a number of people who voteed against the cut and cover tunnel are actually proponants of the bored tunnel. Maybe I'm not outside the box, but you have to take into account the construction impacts to stakeholders.

"Whoever gets elected, the Deep-bore tunnel is a terrible mistake, a short-sighted view of resolving transportation needs put together by planners who think highways first, all other modes of travel an afterthought. Whoever came up with the redesign for Alaskan Way blvd also screwed up. Look closely and think about the new Alaskan Way according to the Deep-bore plan. To me, it's just an appalling, intentional traffic nightmare about to be constructed and few see coming; in short, another horrifying fiasco."

Long Term planning needs to take into account short term impact, and needs of all the constituents like commuters, freight, pedestrians, residents, buisnesses. That is why the surface fails (not that you support the surface), it doesn't take into account all of these elements.

FYI, there is no design for the surface yet. The WSDOT graphics are placeholders for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, not a design. They only need to know functionality (i.e. how many lanes, how the streets connect, etc.). The "open space" is supposed to give an idea of the opportunity, not depict a design.

tikunolum has it exactly right. Nothing matters but the money. Everyone wants a Cadillac or a BMW option. Why doesn't everyone drive a BMW then? Because they don't have the money.

$1.3 Billion is unfunded. That's ALOT of money. That's essentially the entire price tag for the Green Line Monorail that was proposed a few years ago and it collapsed. Why? Because there wasn't enough money for it.

A smart political move for McGinn would be to accept the fact that the tunnel has been approved by the Legislature. He should embrace it with one caveat. That not one shovel of dirt will move until all of it is fully funded with credible funding sources. That would keep Gregoire quiet and even put her on the defensive since one thing is clear. There isn't enough money to build this tunnel.

And push for exactly the same conditions that the anti-transit crowd pushes for. Namely, a revote clause if it goes overbudget. That's what the Seattle-hating crowd in the legislature wanted for the light rail project. A revote by the public. What's good for transit should be good for roads. This would be politically difficult for Gregoire or anyone in the legislature to oppose given the populist nature of the state and given that's exactly what they wanted for Sound Transit.

McGinn is in a politically losing situation now by having Gregoire oppose his idea outright. By accepting the tunnel with a tough-love financing caveat, and a revote clause, McGinn can easily turn the tables back on the legislature and force them to produce the $1.3 billion dollar shortfall. Keep repeating the $1.3 billion shortfall and keep asking where it's going to come from. That's the price of the entire 14 mile monorail. And they don't have it. You can never lose by being fiscally responsible.

A little piece of history regarding transportation. Here's a piece from Danny Westneat that captures it as well as anything.

Transit on fast track to nowhere
Friday, April 02, 2004
Danny Westneat / Times staff columnist

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20040402&slug;=danny02
 
Sound Transit may soon get what it has long had coming:    A regional vote on whether to kill its troubled light-rail project.
 
An anti-rail group called Trust in Transit has filed a statewide initiative that would force all voter-approved transit agencies to build roughly what they promise in those glossy pre-election brochures.
 
If a project is more than 30 percent over budget or the route is shortened to less than 90 percent of the promised length, the agency must seek voter approval for a new plan. Or quit working on it. (click the link above for the whole article)......

The Seattle Times should embrace McGinn if he frames his approach to the tunnel as a lessons-learned stance from the light rail project. Namely, make sure there's enough money before the project begins. And if there's not, there needs to be a Plan B... like perhaps a surface option.

No blank check for the tunnel. It's an appealing message to everyone expect the roads-only crowd. And it's pretty politically bulletproof.

Loudquack. I appreciate your measured response. Let me repeat myself to show where our positions differ. Everyone wants the best AWV replacement possible, excluding another hideous elevated.

"The traffic diverted may use Alaskan Way, or it may tke the street exit to 4th and filter into the city that way."

I'm referring 'only' to Interbay-bound traffic, to and from Interbay/Ballard/etc, not traffic that originates on the south end and filters into the city via Spokane or elsewhere. Removing the Seneca and Columbia ramps is smart.

"The Mercer street project does not propose widening to 6-lanes through Queen Anne. It will be 6 lanes from the Mercer (on/off ramps to I-5), to about 5th Avenue. Then it is reduced to about 4 by the Seattle Center, and then 2 through Uptown."

Recent articles suggest the plan is for 6-lanes for Mercer all the way through Queen Anne. I figure it meant removing curbside parking. Either way, SDOT appears to be suggesting Mercer will become a thru-corridor for freight and general traffic that would otherwise access SR-99 at Western/Elliott. It's a circuitous, high-impact diversion no matter how you look at it. I'm not surprised SDOT kept it under wraps, especially from Queen Anne residents.

"The reason the cut-and-cover doesn't work is because the viaduct needs to be closed down partially or completely for years, and the construction impacts along the waterfront will kill businesses there. The bored tunnel allows the current viaduct to remain in use throughout construction."

Loudquack, the Cut-n-cover does 'work' by taking the traffic off Alaskan Way and Mercer. The Deep-bore doesn't 'work' in this critically important regard.

I contend the 4-lane Cut-n-cover can be constructed with the AWV left in place, unlike the 6-lane version that voters rejected for that reason. There is some unavoidable contruction disruption, especially for rebuilding the Lower Belltown segment, and more for removing the AWV, rebuilding the Seawall and Alaskan Way. In the long-term, it's best to bite the bullet and dig up the waterfront. The stakeholders are only thinking short-term.

The likely trench construction would occur thus: The trench is dug in 2-block segments, traffic diverted around the trench under the AWV and returned to the surface above completed segments. Excavation debris is removed via the tunnel. When doing the Lower Belltown segment shuts SR-99 down, traffic is diverted via Broad St to a probably permanent (and desirable) bridge over the railroad tracks onto Alaskan Way and enters the completed portal at Pike. The Seawall and sidewalk are then mostly done and removing the AWV commences. Waterfront District businesses can survive this construction process, possibly even thrive.

As for the final Alaskan Way surface street design, WSDOT and SDOT propose a 4-lane version with a wide plaza and 13 stoplights between Pike and King. I contend that a 6-lane version is their more likely design. They say the 4-lane version can handle 35K to 70K vehicles (thru 13 stoplights). They also say Mercer needs 6 lanes to handle 80K vehicles (with 5 stoplights).

Early designs showed a 4-lane Alaskan Way with a 2-lane frontage road. I believe this frontage road is absolutely necessary to divide thru-traffic from motorists looking to park. The frontage road can enable fewer stoplights from 13 to 9 or 10. It can also enable reinstalling the streetcar line and east/west bus service. The seawall sidewalk could still be widened by 6'-12'.

The Deep-bore would put too much traffic onto a poorly designed Alaskan Way and other corridors. It irks the hell out of me to make this case and have it completely dissed. McGinn is making a sensible case against the Deep-bore though he hasn't yet proposed reconsidering the 4-lane Cut-n-cover. Think about all this.

Correction: "The trench is dug in 2-block segments, traffic diverted around the trench under the AWV..."

I'm talking about 'normal' Alaskan Way traffic here, not SR-99 traffic which I contend remains in place up until rebuilding the Lower Belltown segment.

Conviction? Another public vote on stuff he doesn't like?

We'll see conviction when he pushes for a public vote on his surface option. It'll get 40% max, just like every other option.

Until then, it's just crass politics. Smart? Sure. Conviction? Please.

Comparing McGinn's resume with Barack Obama's by simply focusing on Obama's early years as a community organizer is ridiculous. It leaves all of Obama's other experience out. We know Obama. Obama is a masterful experienced politician. McGinn is no Obama. He does not appear to have the wits or all the other stuff that could make him an effective leader, which means uniting people in common cause.

It's good that McGinn is moving beyond his Viaduct contortions and starting to put up a vision for other things. Why? Because there are more important things facing the City that have been eaten alive by the nearly decade long Viaduct tussle.

The problem is this: McGinn would surely continue a focused crusade on the Viaduct, which would surely continue to distract from everything else. McGinn's divisive "conviction" on this subject projects no ability to unite the City around other big things.

It's time to move on. But it is is not clear that Mallahan is much better. The choices are grim.

Wells,

Thanks for clarifying your position.

Mercer is proposed as I've described it per presentations I've seen. See page 30 of this document.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D777316F-D98C-4A95-9F79-F0E111A5EA6C/0/AWV_North_Portal_Presentation_5_7_09.pdf

This is about as screwed up as I've seen Seattle since about 1972. You certainly have to wonder how so many people, who otherwise probably wouldn't have even noticed the thing, could get so worked up about the tunnel.

McGinn is the perfect candidate for time when people have a lot of anxiety and fears about the present and future, and a lot of anger, but no real clear ideas about what can or cannot be done. McGinn's supporters hear what they want to hear, but he helps confuse them with some outright lies and some statements that would be considered to be lies anywhere outside a courtroom.

Consider his light-rail proposal. In spite of having campaigned against cars for years (to hear him tell it) he obviously has put zero thought into transit. In spite of having campaigned in the primary against "the biggest tax increase in Seattle history", he hints at the construction of a transit line that actually would require the biggest tax increase in Seattle history.

But that's ok! Because he doesn't really mean it! When you read his actual statements carefully, he says he'll sponsor citizens who work with KCMetro and Sound Transit so the people can vote on it. That's all that he has promised to do, and if people turn down the plan, McGinn is still in the clear.

And let me be perfectly clear- I planned my life and career so I wouldn't need a car. When I commuted on my bike I sure never had a weight problem in spite of eating whatever I wanted. My views on preserving the environment (the natural environment, silly) go way beyond anything the Sierra Club has ever thought of.

And I've worked with people who were "holier than thou". This "moral high ground" talk cuts no ice with me. Representative democracy got us this far on solving the Viaduct problem, and it's fair enough for McGinn to try democracy as his leg up. But I don't think transit and bikes are going to suffer if he loses, and I don't think they're going to prosper if he wins.

McGinn has been consistent on the principle of 'it's not a done deal until the voters okay the financing' - on both his own ideas and the ideas of others. This is a crucial issue of this election.

The surface option is not without road improvements. Although we may need more roads later, especially for freight, it is a solution we can afford.

Attempting to blame McGinn for the weaknesses of the Seattle economy is like blaming Obama for the failings of the Bush Administration.

It may well be that the costs of new roads is too much for Seattle and it's growth halted by that fact. Here in Tacoma we can handle additional growth and affordable housing at a much lower cost. This is an appropriate use of the tools of the growth management act. It may also be the case that Seattle will show the way for affordable growth via light rail serving its denser neighborhoods - much more likely to be a good investment within the city than outside.

Tooley,

Until MCGinn supporters can answer the basic question..."How will we pay for a $3.6B surface option, which has NO, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH dollars identified for it, you can't claim that it is affordable.

Remember, the 2.4B allocated to pay for 100% of the tunnel portion of the tunnel + transit option is in hand, and DEDICATED to a tunnel option by law. The legislature is not going to be happy to revisit the issue, if they even would, and will not likely alocate any where near $2.4B for a surface option that ignores freight mobility and buisness. If McGinn passes up $2.4B, we have NO money to replace the viaduct.

So, the least affordable option right now is the $3.6B option that has no financing.

The Deep-bore is NOT the best tunnel option, but the Ranier Club boys have decided it's the one they want because it'll cause the least inconvenience with its construction. The 4-lane Cut-n-cover does a far better job managaing traffic, costs less, and creates more jobs.

It's kind of like California's high-speed rail project. In Sacramento, legislators mandated that it reach speeds of 200+mph. It's what wealthy people want, so the legislation was jiggered in their favor. This made it too expensive to build, and for most people, too expensive to ride. Now, with the economy in the tank, an affordable high-speed rail project can't be legally considered, so the wealthy say while seeking out ways to redirect scarce state funds to their pet project.

I checked Mr. McGinn's website for the position paper on culture and the arts mentioned in the article. Can't find it, and a Google search of the site turns up nothing in the way of a issues document. Where is it?

In making the statement "[everyone] wants the best AWV replacement possible, excluding another hideous elevated," Wells is at least guilty of gross exaggeration. I for one favor an elevated solution; and we can leave the aesthetic appraisals alone, since I doubt whether any amount of discussion will change them.

This shrill "anything but an elevated solution" reflects the real problem with the entire project. It was always the goal of special interests to demolish the viaduct and eliminate any possible elevated replacement in spite of the fact that it was preferred by voters and remains the best solution today. Virtually no honest effort was ever spent on an elevated solution. Regardless of the negative spin from contract consultants hired to bury the concept near the end of the process, the fact is that there are many safe, modern elevated roadways under construction all over the world...many with superior seismic protections.

Sadly, this was always about aesthetics and social engineering and not about transportation

At least this is one of those projects that when people see the resulting mess they will remember who was responsible.

Well, excuse me, but jmrolls is just being silly. A viaduct rebuilt in the same location would still be standing when the automobile is just a memory. The whole thing is just preposterous on every level.

As for the "many safe, modern elevated roadways under construction all over the world", I would like to see an example of even one being built in a dense urban area with a grand scenic prospect. I'm guessing if there were an example it would be in some part of the world where huge numbers of extremely poor people are ruled by a tiny oligarchy with funding from the World Bank, which has always pushed the dismantlement of public transit and the building of freeways.

-serial

Some are in Japan. There some large examples in India...is that dense enough for you? But what's your point? Do you actually believe that individually owned, self-propelled vehicles are going the way of the dinosaur? Technology will evolve them through their current shortcomings size, fuel, speeds limits, roadway requirements arguably within a decade. Wouldn't it be cool if we saved some these here roads (like the viaduct) so that the next generation of cars could continue to serve as one of our most successful modes of transportation? After all they are currently the preferred choice of over 90% of everyone in the area.

Car hatred does not mean that they're not viable transportation now or in the future. What is silly is to continue to spend our resources as if we all lived in a condominium in SLU. We don't.

Downtown is not Seattle. It's just where this area's tiny oiigarchy spends all the money.

In publicola comments ivan has presented what I think is a compelling case for a retrofit of the viaduct. This has been regarded as the least attractive option, but there is a good chance that due to the funding situation that's what we'll end up with for the next couple decades.

hi
[URL="http://mls.fastrealestate.net"] mls listings[/URL]--mls listings
mls listings--mls listings

Just for the record, I do not have 'car hatred'. I have owned, among others, a Morris Minor, a DS-19, numerous Mercedes, and a 65 Chevelle with a big block, fast cams, and 14 hand-rubbed coats of metalflake.

When you drive into a small town and people bow to you like you're a god, which they will if you're driving that Chevelle, you learn how to love a car.

But that has nothing to do with the end of the age of the automobile.

The extent of the delusion that happy motoring will go on forever is amply illustrated by this idea of rebuilding the Viaduct as a sort of keepsake, a reminder of the good times we once had. There's a little humor in the fact that most people with this delusion don't really know what the fun times were, they simply don't know any other way to do things.

The road to the future is not paved with people saying "Well, I can't think of any better way to do this".

jmrolls, I'm not suggesting cars be eliminated, but a good case can be made that they amount to a "constitutional inequity". No matter how road infrastructure is funded (taxation), motor vehicles impose upon other modes of travel a severe impediment. Thus, gas taxes should be legislated to fund pedestrian/bicycling/mass transit infrastructure. Furthermore, when motor vehicles dominate travel modality, they face the severe impediment of their own numbers.

As for the elevated replacement, in march 2007, voters rejected a 6-lane replacement, WsDOT's wildest wet dream and only intent up til then, because it was a monstrosity. Properly chastened, WsDOT produced a more graceful 4-lane elevated replacement proposal, but it too was deemed by most people aesthetically inappropriate for Seattle's Waterfront. A bridge off shore was rejected because of vessel navigation concerns.

Cocktails42, I think it's fair to say "everyone wants the best AWV replacement possible". However, an elevated replacement is simply NOT the best option for most people. You're on the losing side of this argument, for sure. The best you can do is oppose the Deep-bore (and Mallahan) because there is at least one much better tunnel option, WsDOT's Scenario 'G' the 4-lane Cut-n-cover, produced after the March 2007 voter rejection of the "6-lane" version which disrupted SR-99 traffic and the Waterfront District way too much. Voting against Mallahan would be a delicious (and appropriate) slap upside the face of Seattle's establishment.

God, how I hate Seattle's High Art Society, bunch of warped weirdos. "Death in a flying Ford" "Giant Traffic Cones" "Robot Poop in the Woods" "Metal Tree" "Medieval Torture Device" "Giant Plow Wave" "Dancing Metal Model Contemplating Suicide at The Steps" "Chessboard Seating in Traffic Triangle" "Jagged Scrap Danger Park". "Hammering Man" is a blatant insult to Labor and wants to be moved to Gas Works Park away from the leisure set and the clueless tourists.

Hi Wells, I endorse all forms of getting around and I support your goal to remedy this “constitutional inequity” but I think it should take into consideration the gaps that you are trying to fill. When 90 percent of people want or need to drive cars and trucks you can’t destroy or impede their right of ways and then just wait for your preferred mode to catch on. Is that really a good idea? By all means allocate funds from motor vehicles for other types of transport. Just do it in a rational manner and don’t cripple the city while we’re waiting.

You continue to refer to the trick referendum of March 2007 as some kind of legitimate vote by the masses. It was not. It was an expensive manipulation concocted by Jan Drago and paid for with a million tax dollars to confuse the issue. In a Jan. 16, 2009 Crosscut article by C.R. Douglas, How Jan Drago dragooned a Viaduct Solution he quotes her. “Had it been a single vote, tunnel vs. elevated,” she now says, “we [tunnel supporters] would have been dead on arrival.”

Erica Barnett wrote in the Stranger 2/20/07 that voters are being asked to vote on two new freeways on the waterfront…a larger elevated viaduct (the option preferred by Gov. Gregoire, key members of the legislature and the Seattle public) and a scaled down 4-lane tunnel preferred by Mayor Nickels.

So I guess “monstrosities” are in the eye of the beholder. Please stop using this March 2007 PR stunt as a basis for your argument. It bothers me as much as Seattle’s High Art Society apparently bothers you.

jmrolls, fyi 2000 Seattle commute mode split is 56% solo driver, 11% carpool, 18% transit, 3% bike, 7% walk, 5% work at home.

http://www.cityofseattle.net/dpd/stellent/groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@proj/documents/Web_Informational/dpd_001015.pdf

Over half choosing (or being forced to?) drive is still a lot, of course. Oh, and if you look at places that make it easy to not drive alone (such as downtown or the U-District), it's about 30% solo drivers.

How many people represented in your mode splits own and drive cars? What mode do they use when they travel for reasons other than commuting? (Commuting only accounts for about 30% to 40% of travel miles in most studies.) What mode do they choose when trips are unanticipated? What mode do they choose when traveling in family units?

The paper you reference also states that due to variables and uncertainties it does not serve as a reliable planning tool for areas other than downtown and the U District. It is informative though and I thank you for referring me to it.

Hey, no problem. I can't speak for everyone of course, but my urban family prefers to walk when possible (often including a stroller and baby carrier), take the bus when going to the zoo or museums, and drive to camping trips and birthday parties in the suburbs.

I also have no doubt we'll be able to bike more as the kids get older.