The other day I reported that Seattle City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, who is leading the fight to tear down the Viaduct without a replacement in order to force people to reduce automobile trips, is the hypocritically the most prolific user of automobiles on the City Council (and most of the Councilmembers drive a lot too). This is a timely issue, as the Council is advancing the "no-rebuild" option for the Viaduct. The no-build option is a foolish distraction, as removing the Viaduct would impede mobility through the city, there is no money to implement it, and the extra months of dithering to talk about it would only increase the likelihood that people will be killed in a Viaduct collapse.
Erica Barnett at The Stranger apparently thought she was defending Steinbrueck in this largely nonsensical post, but she only confirmed my conclusion that Steinbrueck is a hypocrite:
For people with busy lives and young kids (two of ‘em), even a rabid transit supporter like me will admit that bus commuting isn’t always realistic. (Especially on Seattle’s less-than-stellar bus system: Getting from Steinbrueck’s house in Lake City to City Hall, for example, requires one bus transfer and takes approximately 40 minutes, assuming both buses show up on time; driving, according to Mapquest, takes just 13.) For the record, though, Steinbrueck’s staff says he sometimes takes the bus or walks, especially to appointments downtown.Wow, Steinbrueck "sometimes takes the bus". If this is the strongest and most specific statement his staff is willing to make after the boss is alleged to be "the most prolific automobilist on the Council", I think it's safe to interpret "sometimes" as "almost never". Barnett's most sensible statement is that "bus commuting isn't always realistic". Of course people with lives and kids can't always be expected to cheerfully forfeit an extra hour of every work day in order to take the bus. I don't fault Steinbrueck at all for commuting in the most time-efficient manner. I fault him for his policy agenda. If he prefers driving instead of busing, maybe he should consider that those who currently drive on the Viaduct have similarly valid reasons for driving and that the city's transportation policy should accommodate those people. Instead of designing his transportation policies around the fantasy world of the rabid anti-car ideologues, Steinbrueck should design his policies for the real world where people need to get around town, for which his own daily experience is a useful data point. And if the most important thing to him really is to pander to the anti-car fetishists, then he really should start relying on public transportation more often before he imposes the same on others. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 27, 2006 10:13 AM | Email This
I'm not sure how you reconcile those two positions. If it doesn't work for many, many folks, why is spending yet more money to provide a service that most people won't use a good thing?
Posted by: BornRight on April 27, 2006 10:51 AMLiberals don't think they should live by the rules they write because they are somehow excepted from them.
Liberals demand tolerance but refuse to give it.
Liberals demand the right to speak but refuse to allow others to do the same.
Liberalism is simply selfishness, conceitedness, and infantilism. When liberals grow up, they become conservatives.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 27, 2006 12:06 PMEvery option's going to tick off some constituency, so let's go with the fiscally conservative one.
He should be a City Council member. His intent is to unilaterally defeat the individual choices of those viaduct users, and impose all that traffic on the overburdened streets that the rest of us use.
But the gaping void in his plan is the huge loss of hours, mobility and money that the loss of the viaduct would burden the regional economy with. This void he shares with Herr Steinbrueck and the other 'get them out of their cars' fantasists on the Council. Leave the benefits out of your analysis so you can proclaim the viaduct a wholly negative burden on society? Fiscally conservative, my guzitsa, this is economics from the Sierra Club.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on April 27, 2006 01:55 PMSounds like someone's got a case of the Entitlements. Hail Tax-&-Spend Hank, conservative hero!
What part of "every option's going to tick off some constituency, so let's go with the fiscally conservative one" didn't make sense to you?
Posted by: bowow on April 27, 2006 02:04 PMThe thing is, Steinbrueck isn't using "conservative finances" as his motivator for tearing down the Viaduct and not replacing it. He's using the whole "let's get everyone out of their own cars and force them to use public transportation" idea. The fact is, Seattle traffic SUCKS! Making it worse is just STPUID.
Personally, I'd love to see it replaced with some huge monster of a suspended bridge. It's cheaper than a tunnel, would perform better than Nothing (Steinbrueck's idea), and would stick out like a black eye just to highlight the morronic decisions Seattle has made. It would fit nicely.
Posted by: Mikey on April 27, 2006 02:31 PMa. Lower the rate of job growth.
b. Increase the probability of businesses going out of business because of regulations and expenses involved in following regualations.
c. Increase green house gases production in the Seattle area. (Slower the traffic moves the more green house gases are produced) In English improve the chance of global warming.
d. Increase costs to run the mass transit system will take a larger bit of the budget. The choices here are cut spending on social programs to support the mass transit projects or increase taxes. I wonder which one the Democrats will choose.
e. Increase regulations such as to make it nearly impossible to get to the Hospital for emergency vehicles. 12 hours of grid lock I guess that is good if you want believe there are too many people in the world. As one extreme Democrat (not mainstream, yet) is 90% of the population should be killed. Wants to use germ warfare on them. Just that he gets to part of the 10% that is not infected. Yea Right.
Many more cause and effects will take place. Just use your imagination. Ports moving good in and out of Seattle port if it takes too long they go to another port. Police response to emergencies. Police response time will be longer so criminals will have more time to do there thing. Less criminals in jail because the police can not catch them. Stuck in traffic. A prime way to lower prison population.
Posted by: David Anfinrud on April 27, 2006 02:57 PMWant a good $2bln project? Replace the 520 bridge that's also falling apart.
But the Viaduct? Just improve connections down by Spokane Street and widen Alaskan way to 6 or 7 lanes. Be done for under a billion (Ok, under 2 billion. And does anyone think a straight rebuild is going to cost less than 3 when the current cost estimate is 2.2?)
One final depressing note: The heart of New York's subway system was built about 4 years for $35 million (about $800 million in 2006 dollars).
Now *THAT*'s cost effective public spending on infrastructure. We'll spend more than that just replacing the seawall.
Posted by: bowow on April 27, 2006 03:23 PMShouldn't we be expecting Seattle City Council members to maintain views consistent with reality?
Steinbrueck exposed as yet another shyster who is supposedly serving the public.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2006 04:31 PMWe regularly rent a car on the weekends from the Thrifty on pier 48 for ~$25/day and leave it parked in their lot when we're not using it. This costs less per month than parking alone would, to say nothing of the other costs of buying and maintaining a car.
That's our reality. We like it. We don't hug trees. We hold steady jobs and pay plenty taxes. We don't advocate for the death of 90% of the human population. So, if by "this crap" you mean living near work and not needing to get in a car every time you step out your door, then I take issue with the assertion "no one who spews this crap can actually implement it in their own lives because it does not fit with the reality of the world today." Because, you see, we are real and we have seen the world. It's North American suburban sprawl (including Canada - they're even higher per-capita energy consumers than the US) that's the oddity in "the world today."
Posted by: It can be done on April 27, 2006 04:53 PM