Comments on: Dueling SR99 Plans

By: 2010 City and County Transportation Budgets - Seattle Transit Blog

2010 City and County Transportation Budgets - Seattle Transit Blog — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:31:57 +0000

[...] plan. It’s not crystal-clear from the document, but Scott Gutierrez says $600m of the $930m City responsibility is programmed, and some of it would use the same City MVET authority that Mike McGinn hopes to [...]

By: Zelbinian

Zelbinian — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:07:51 +0000

What freakin’ planet do you live on?

The results of the 29-person Stakeholder Advisory Committee are the textbook definition of “solutions everyone can deal with” and Gregoire, Sims, and Nickels not only went with something they didn’t recommend, but didn’t even study!

How on this green Earth is a solution that we got by the leaders of our state, county, and city government giving everyone the finger count as “a deal they could live with”?

You, sir, are the one who is hilarious.

By: Zelbinian

Zelbinian — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:03:45 +0000

Didn’t the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (and the SDOT and WSDOT investigations) include some kind of EIS? I was pretty sure the did. In either case, the surface/transit option has WAY more of that work done than the tunnel, which wasn’t considered by any of those groups before we signed off to do it.

By: TunnelFacts.com | Deep-boring holes in bad ideas | TunnelFacts candidate guide

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:01:22 +0000

[...] past week has seen an impressive barrage of tunnel politics, tunnel fictions flying around the blogosphere, and even Tunnel Facts raining down like hammers of [...]

By: geekgirl

geekgirl — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:03:49 +0000

Big picture question: why do we even have a preferred option selected before doing the EIS studies? I get that it’s part of the process, but it seems completely ridiculous to me that we go through all this debate and discussion over alternatives, when it might be for nothing if the one we select doesn’t meet the EIS requirements. Maybe the reason this so called ‘Seattle Process’ is such a mess is that we try to make big decisions before we even have all of the important information.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:03:24 +0000

Even if I was willing to concede that the tunnel is the same (which I’m not given the complexity and additional cost of the previous proposal), how can you credibly rely on a vote where the electorate can say yes to everything, no to everything, or pick one? It’s a matter of statistics and sampling – when questions are designed this way, the results are too vague to be reliable. Again, if the questions forced you to pick an option, and only one option, it might be credible.

Trying to make an argument that “we voted against this tunnel” is incredibly weak.

By the way, Safeco Field is a good case study. As you mention, there was all this screaming about how we don’t want this and it’s too expensive and everything else, but in the end it’s recognized as a Seattle landmark, it’s improved the city, and is generally seen as a smart decision to build. This tunnel will be exactly the same. Same with all the chicken-littles screaming about the cost of Link back in 2000/2001 – again, now that it’s up and running there is widespread support and the city in general realizes that it was a wise decision.

By: Mickymse

Mickymse — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:06:09 +0000

Let’s say it again: There has been absolutely no “delicate public process” regarding this deep bore tunnel proposal.

It was never brought to public forums. The stakeholders saw it in exactly one meeting. It was not scoped by either the WSDOT or SDOT staff at the time.

It was proposed at the last minute.

And the Mayor clearly stated after the previous advisory votes by Seattleites that he heard loud and clear our wish not to have a new highway on the waterfront either above or below.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:45:52 +0000

The last time we did a tunnel in the region the project came in $200 million under budget.

I honestly do not care about any of the arguments against the tunnel. The tunnel is the only option that does not f*** up traffic along the waterfront while it’s being constructed. Yes, I know they plan for transit improvements. I wholeheartedly support these improvements. But the truth is that not everyone will get out of their car to take some form of public transit to work. I will never understand why they are that way. Not to mention all those people that can’t take public transit–those driving commercial vehicles.

I’m done on this subject.

By: Joe G

Joe G — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:43:25 +0000

If you truly believe that Ryan then I would say the McGinn is right, the people should vote on the new option. This is a lot of money to spend on something that the public has no clear approval, or as you are suggesting, disapproval of. I would agree with Transit Voter and say that the vote against the tunnel would stand either way, but it would be interesting to see if now, with whatever slight differences exist with this project, suddenly Seattle drops to its knees praising this project for all the wonderful glory it will bring our city.

By: Transit Voter

Transit Voter — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:32:48 +0000

The Vote against the tunnel was just as valid as any other vote. The argument that the vote was against a different type of tunnel is nuance. Remember all the cynics we’ve encountered over Safeco Field. “The voters voted it down and the $%&^@* politicians forced it down our throats anyway!” they cry. “But it was a different plan with a different funding source” we argue back, to no avail.

Well, building the big-bore tunnel in the face of the anti-tunnel vote just fuels such cynicism, and gives more weight to the Tim Eymans of the world who think that government is out to have it’s own way, to screw the people and the people’s opinion as expressed at the polls.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:21:11 +0000

You say that a huge majority of Seattle didn’t want this tunnel. On what facts do you base this assertion? If you’re referring to this supposed “vote” that occurred a couple years ago, you’re wrong, because the “vote” was not credible and the tunnel option presented then is substantially different than the one presented now.

By: westie

westie — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:16:58 +0000

The bored tunnel is best possible outcome for the viaduct debacle. Loonies like McGinn are ready to destroy a delicate public process that resulted in billions of State transportation funds being allocated for this Seattle project in order to satisfy his power ambitions. One thing I know is that I am not renewing my Sierra Club membership when it comes due, it is obvious to me now that it is a California organization bringing California dysfunction to Washington State.

By: Joe G

Joe G — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:56:01 +0000

You mean except for the city of Seattle, the people who will ultimately have to live with this thing when they didn’t want it in the first place. Politicians come and go for a reason. Reasons such as this one.

And anyone who didn’t anticipate an anti-tunnel faction is a moron and doesn’t deserve to be makign decision in the first place. A huge majority of Seattle didn’t want this tunnel. I can repeat this till I’m blue in the face. We are a liberal activist city. People had to have at least a slight idea that there would be a fight against this. We haven’t even considered what this could look like if green peace or the likes started in on this.

You do have one thing right, everyone should be wearing helmets.

By: Joe G

Joe G — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:50:55 +0000

I see this point, but i would suggest that there are many state routes through out the state that look as if they are just city streets. Hell, 99 is just like this when you get past the west Seattle bridge. I guess my point would be that it sounds like a line from the Palin/Hannity book to suggest that if we don’t go a certain way then the state just won’t do anything. Lets get real here people.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:48:02 +0000

Lake City Way is SR 522. How would the Alaskan Way surface options be different than SR 522?

By: Phillip Duggan

Phillip Duggan — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:31:22 +0000

I think because a surface option is less LIKE a state route to them? They could argue that it’s not purely designed get people from one part of the state to another. It’s more like a normal city street which makes it look to SOME people like the state is just paying for pretty Seattle park space. But I’m just guessing…

That being said, I’d prefer the surface option all the way…

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:30:09 +0000

I think the idea that the state, county, and port will “play ball” with McGinn is hilarious.

This thing went into the 11th hour, with everyone working hard for a deal they could live with. When the tunnel and surface option deal emerged, it seemed like something everyone could deal with.

What nobody expected was the emergence of the anti-tunnel faction, who firmly believe they can keep their fist closed on the candy and still get it out of the jar. Now McGinn has made this attitude the centerpiece of his campaign.

If there’s any “ball playing” to be done after this election, I think everyone involved would be wise to wear a helmet when they step up to bat.

By: Mickymse

Mickymse — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:27:50 +0000

Of course the Port isn’t thrilled with the tunnel. A significant portion of their freight trips can’t use the tunnel and it doesn’t solve their concern about the interaction of ferry traffic with pier access by trucks.

By: Mickymse

Mickymse — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:24:20 +0000

@ Tim, please see my comments here.

Many of us who oppose the tunnel actually have no problem with spending money for a large project. We object to spending it on this project, which we feel does not solve any of the existing problems with moving people and goods through the SR-99 corridor.

By: Joe G

Joe G — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:29:18 +0000

Why would we assume that the state would not pay for any of the improvements on the surface option. After all, whether there is a tunnel or a surface option it is still a state route. I’m not understanding where the state is let off the hook.