On a related note, the sound you're hearing as we approach the now pointless March 13th ballot is the rarely heard groan of a politician impaling themself on the sharpened sword of their own base. Yes, that's harsh analogy, but is there any other way to describe how Governor Gregoire is seemingly insistent on shoving the rebuild down Seattle's throat?
Gregoire says "the so-called surface option has been studied extensively." Yet as Erica Barnett at the Stranger points out, WSDOT simply studied the surface only option (basically knockdown the Viaduct and assume everything else stays equal). In contrast, what the surface plus transit option entails is something more thorough. Danny Westneat explored the idea and how similar concepts worked in successfully mitigating the closure of the downtown bus tunnel.
Good people can disagree about how to replace the viaduct. Just here at Sound Politics Stefan favors a retrofit or a rebuild, meanwhile I prefer the surface street option. Yet it is amazing that whatever one's position, Gregoire seems hell bent on infuriating a large number of Seattle Democrats (Sen. Ed Murray already having alluded to pending "transportation warfare").
All the more reason the March 13th ballot is a nonsensical policy exercise but amazing political theater.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 19, 2007 07:34 PM | Email ThisAnyone that favors an option of surface streets must not come out of their cave all that often. Those of use that actually have jobs, need to get around and be productive need the access a highway offers. Imagine the surface streets in Seattle with a 150K more cars then today.
Eric, Go outside more often.
Posted by: swassociates on February 19, 2007 07:22 PMAs an aside, the S/T is a non-starter. There'll be a rebellion if Gregoire tries to force the monstrous Rebuild on us but there will be war if the politicos try to tear down the Viaduct before we are ready.
Posted by: David Sucher on February 19, 2007 07:33 PMThe surface street option is stupid. There is a major North - South corridor in 99 that needs to be preserved. Gregoire really doesn't care too much about the Viaduct. She knows that Utopian tunnel scheme is financially unworkable. So she's decided to punt and throw some meat to the Republicans who will otherwise have one more reason to make sure she does not get re-elected in 2008. (Not that she has a chance.) But, she's gotta do something in light of all of her previous gaffes.
Eric, go down to the waterfront during the morning or afternoon commute. A good spot is right below Pike Place Market. Get yourself a coffee, or whatever overpriced Seattle drink of your choice, and just sit there for a few minutes and look at the traffic volume on the viaduct. It won't take long, and then you'll return to sanity, because we know that unlike the lefty enviro-nuts who favor the surface option 'cuz they irrationally hate cars, you are still generally guided by rational thought.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 19, 2007 08:58 PM"If it's war you want, it's war you'll get"
"Prepare for war"
...
Any more good ones?
P.S. What has happend to the initiative to name the new monstrosity after Gregoire or Frank Chopp?
Posted by: Patrick on February 19, 2007 10:44 PMIt took a while, but Gregoire is finally experiencing Karma. I still say a celebrity death match between she and Nickels is begging to be made.
Posted by: Organization Man on February 20, 2007 06:59 AMAnd no damn RTID or ST2.
Posted by: Orotund on February 20, 2007 07:25 AMSecond, it would be very interesting to have an origin and destination study of the traffic going along the viaduct. This would help greatly in assessing what type of transit options would be most helpful, or whether surface streets would really be usable as an alternative.
The other day I got on a bus at 2nd and Pike. It went a few blocks south, turned onto the viaduct at Columbia going south, and was outside the city limits into Burien in just a few minutes. The current viaduct does work well as a transit way for some buses already. A surface alternative could actually make some of the existing transit not work as effectively.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on February 20, 2007 07:56 AMRemember, the cost is the benefit for these loons.
And, a bridge will not rebuild a local matter-the seawall, with state funds.
The bridge is a complete non starter with existing policy makers, who are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt they have non starter brains.
Posted by: Hank on February 20, 2007 08:44 AMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Side_Highway
The Legislature is working on a fix to this hairball. Check out the staff report for SB 5803:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5803.SBR.pdf
I would be very interested in Eric Earling and swatter commenting on this bill - near as I can tell, those two may have interests in the status quo continuing, and if they object to SB 5803 I'd be interested in why.
What's not to love about greater accountability to taxpayers, and the existence of a governing board with elected members that is able to prioritize among megaprojects?
We need an entity with power that can make decisions such as: "We can't afford a tunnel given the SR 520 costs, we need to fund light rail extensions using different taxes than sales taxes, paying for I-405 improvements at the SR 2 interchange is more important this year than paying for Sounder tracks to Lakewood, etc." Those are the kind of multi-variable, critical tradeoffs the current ad hoc system CAN NOT MAKE.
One thing that's a little cloudy is why the "reconnect Seattle to the waterfront" crowd is willing to compromise on a surface roadway. Take a look at the cars on 99 between Denney and Greenlake and ponder how things would really be along the waterfront with a surface makeover. Then look at 99 north of Greenlake any morning or afternoon. That sure would enhance the waterfront and reconnect things. Organization Man's spot on. The Embarcadero and 99 can't be compared.
That surface compromise wouldn't have anything to do with a scheme to get the state to foot the bill for rebuilding the seawall would it?
Posted by: tax poor on February 20, 2007 09:33 AMIn a nutshell.
Posted by: mykela on February 20, 2007 10:55 AMIt's pretty transparent. And it just might work--assuming, of course, that the Seattle/King County political elite who are now so furious at Chris don't do anything to get revenge in 2008. With a credible Rossi campaign on the horizon, I assume Chris is betting that she'll get a free pass.
Posted by: DJ on February 20, 2007 11:53 AMWhen commuters in the region see what's at stake with I-5 gridlock and surface streets that look like Bangkok, they'll be able to rationally determine how much they'd pay out-of-pocket to fix the problem.
And, hell, if the surface street/public transportation option actually WORKS--well, then we all win. Right?
Posted by: DJ on February 20, 2007 12:03 PMOne thing I couldn't understand is that 9 members were to be elected. It wasn't clear if they were to be elected to that position or as an 'elected official appointee' as ST currently is.
I noticed that 6 of the members were to be political cronies hired, I assume, at some outragious salary by the Governess.
I noticed this was another 'emergency'.
I noticed that this group was to function somewhat like the old Puget Sound Regional Council, or in other words, a rubber stamp.
I agree that transportation planning is a mess, but I don't see another superagency as a real solution. I just see this as another boondoggle in five years. Was it Truman or was it another president that said that after five years, the department regulating this or that becomes just as bad as the group they are regulating.
But, Frank, I hope you see my prejudices on this. Protect my pocketbook; I'll spend if there is a need and repair of the viaduct is my solution at this time. And, I hope you see the points I made on the SB synopsis were made as ridicule or potential ridicule of the bill.
Posted by: swatter on February 20, 2007 03:14 PMhttp://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5803.pdf
Sec. 302 talks about the board composition. The board would be fifteen nonpartisan members. Nine are elected from districts within the region (not at large). Direct elected. The other six are to have certain technical expertise. They are appointed by the governor, and approval by the senate is required.
That means FAR more accountability to citizens and voters. Compare it to ST, where all are political appointees. Sims appoints 12 of the 18, and the other six are appointed by the Co. Exec's of Pierce and Snohomish County.
You like Sims' political appointees taxing you swatter? You are a freaking un-American patsy. And this truly is an emergency. If this doesn't happen, ST2 and RTID - backed by uber-statists and the union and bond-sales interests that would buy that election - could well win in November. That'd subject this part of the world to unbelievably high sales taxes for untold decades for projects of marginal utility (and those could be pared back after the vote WITHOUT voter approval).
This entity would serve the key function of the current PSRC (the feds require such an entity to submit requests for fed money which include disbursement plans). Again - with a majority of direct electeds taking over that role the power of the citizen is dramatically increased over the status quo. Now the PSRC is appointees.
There would be numerous benefits of an entity accountable to taxpayers that can prioritize among megaproject requests. I'm not going to try to list them here. It is worth saying though that Eyman's wrong-headed approach ("Voters have to vote on all tax increases!!") would inexorably lead to SMP- and ST-like debacles, where self-interested statists draft misleading ballot measures.
I urge everyone to read the bill. I hope the legislature moves it forward. It would serve the economic interests of this region well, and it would return power to citizens in this State, where citizens' rights now are illusory.
His first post was a synopsis and I responded to the bullet lines. I like the idea of elected boards responsible to the taxpayers, unlike ST and other boards that have appointed elected officials.
I had some problem with the 9 districts divided equally/unequally among 2 or 3 counties. Where would the lines be drawn?
And could this Board be formed before this horrible bond proposal comes to a vote this fall? I doubt it.
Who would pay for the Board and their inevitable staff of 100?
And who would run to be a member of the Board? Who would win? Why would anyone run (and don't be emotional, but think down the road 5-10 years)? What would be their platform (everything okay now so let's keep at it or time to turn things topsy-turvy)?
I would prefer to see ST get elected officials not appointed officials. I prefer to solve the problem head on instead of throwing money to temporarily quench a raging forest fire.
Frank and Greg, Eric and I disagree a whole lot on light rail and other transit options when more highway capacity should be numero uno concern.
Posted by: swatter on February 21, 2007 06:52 AMRobert
Posted by: Robert on February 22, 2007 04:49 PM