Comments on: Today in Transitwashing: Tunnel+Transit (Minus Transit)

By: John Jensen

John Jensen — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 02:35:44 +0000

The tunnel + transit site is not referring to the fact that some buses will use the tunnel (though not many). The site specifically promotes transit elements that are completely unfunded. It is misleading, and intentionally so.

By: Mike Skehan

Mike Skehan — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:31:04 +0000

Er, the article was on the Vision line, not all the options on the table. It’s no wonder the article focused on the title of the story. As far as ‘lovefest’, I think Mike does a great job of presenting the facts in as unbiased manner as any professional journalist can do.
Does this quote from the article sound one-sided and pro-Vision line.
“Wallace’s concept has taken a pounding in pro-transit blogs”. He even gives you a URL to go find out more.

By: Adam B. Parast

Adam B. Parast — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:06:06 +0000

I think that Publicola has been much more detailed in their reporting about McGinns first months than the times.

I don’t get the other point you are making. I don’t think anyone here is the type of person that thinks that spending billions of dollars on infrastructure is a bad idea. If anything we need to spend more. I rather see this money spent on BRT and light rail.

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:45:02 +0000

Any chance the state could buy me a sailboat? It would be a transit investment, since in theory it could be used as a ferry. Actually, for the cost of the tunnel, they could buy 400,000 sailboats at $10k each – at least one per Seattle family. Of course, that would probably create a whole new traffic problem.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:59:54 +0000

Especially considering that surface would provide more local dollars to labor, and tunnel would be more for a machine built elsewhere.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:58:25 +0000

4 minutes, I thought.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:56:56 +0000

Er, it doesn’t seem neutral, no. Most of the article is spent discussing the least cost effective option. Nothing is mentioned of the rest of the city council, discussing how to fund a tunnel.

By: NJL

NJL — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:34:00 +0000

Damn that toad lobby and their motor-cars!

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:02:50 +0000

Tim, by that definition any new highway is a “transit” investment because buses could conceivably use it, even if there no obvious high-demand routes.

I-605? Transit investment! R.H. Thompson Expressway? Transit investment! After all, buses could use it!

That would really rob the term of all meaning.

By: T. Undretti

T. Undretti — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:54:50 +0000

So the point of this tunnel is what?

To keep traffic out of Seattle?

To not provide any new transit?

If so then why not just add a new level to I-5?

By: T. Undretti

T. Undretti — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:53:19 +0000

Wow, so now you’re going to punt and say “do it for the tax dollars”? Pretty much admitting the futility of the whole thing?

By: Tim Whittome

Tim Whittome — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:23:36 +0000

Sorry, I meant the road lobby, not the toad lobby in my last line!! Apologies.

By: Tim Whittome

Tim Whittome — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:22:47 +0000

I read that piece in Publicola and it seems to me to be just a rant. By transit, I am sure they are referring to the fact that buses will be able to use the tunnel. It opens up the possibility of faster service perhaps between West Seattle and the University District without having to change in downtown Seattle.

I think most of you here, should start to view the tunnel as offering a huge boost to the local economy which needs a serious jolt right now from construction dollars.

Normally I discount the Seattle Times, but they are offering some valid criticisms of what has not exactly been a stellar start for McGinn in Seattle and all of this flaying around of what the tunnel will or will not do for traffic and transit in the downtown core, what it costs or doesn’t cost. If you don’t support the high cost of the tunnel project, it is going to make it that much harder for you to justify spending an equal sum of money on mass transit projects that we all want – well here we do at least.

Looking to the future, of course mass transit is an integral part of this, but along the way, we can still throw out sops t the toad lobby – especially during this period of chronic unemployment.

By: Adam B. Parast

Adam B. Parast — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:21:36 +0000

Josh I have sent both the website, Larry Phillips and Dow Constantine and e-mail asking if they really support what the website says.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:17:56 +0000

I thought it was pretty neutral. Both sides are presented, all the warts of the so-called “Vision Line” are mentioned. Were you expecting an editorial or a news article????

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:16:23 +0000

There will be some new express routes from West Seattle to Ballard, from West Seattle to UW, from West Seattle to Northgate, and from West Seattle to Lynnwood for the large number of riders going between those places who don’t want to stop downtown.

Just kidding.

By: joshuadf

joshuadf — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:33:30 +0000

So, in the theory that this is legit I just sent them this email:

Hi,

Thanks for your support of transit. I’d like to suggeest a
new FAQ about transit funding, based on your text at the bottom
of this page:
http://tunnelplustransit.com/what-is-the-t-t-solution-/the-transit-component.html

The agreement signed by the governor, King County executive and Seattle mayor calls for the county to commit $190 million to Tunnel+Transit, mostly in the form of transit infrastructure and services, as well as $15 million a year for transit operations. None of these funds has been allocated as yet. Meanwhile, the debate at the county has centered around the ability of Metro to maintain its current commitments.

Our coalition supports added transit as a vital part of the Tunnel+Transit plan and encourages decision makers to ensure that the funding is there for it.

I don’t really like the tunnel plan, but if it’s happening we need support to get transit funded.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:21:24 +0000

Follow the money, of course, and be ever vigilant of these folks saying something that isn’t true enough times their lies take on the aura of truth – something skillful politicians have been doing for decades.

By: Adam B. Parast

Adam B. Parast — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:18:05 +0000

Are you kidding me? I think you need to more critically read articles by the Times. The piece this week that Ben linked to is a practical lovefest.

By: Cascadian

Cascadian — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:13:12 +0000

[response to off-topic]