I admire Stefan's zeal in pushing the theory that the elevated rebuild came out a winner from our recent non-election election on the Viaduct. I just don't agree.
The SurveyUSA poll in question does offer some information worth digesting on voter opinion related to the Viaduct question. Stefan believes the poll validates his conclusion inferring voters prefer the elevated rebuild by a modest plurality. That may be all well and good, I accept Stefan's basic numerical analysis on that score, but it doesn't change the fact a decisive majority of voters rejected the rebuild. Hence, it is on the political conclusions where we really disagree.
The issue of the number and intent of "no-no" voters is also a muddy issue. According to the poll, 34% of voters cast ballots thus. Consequently, Stefan concludes "the surface gridlock option" has little traction. That's an odd conclusion to draw from a ballot which excludes any mention of the surface transit option, and from a poll which only queries selected subsets of respondents on the surface transit option through a couple different multiple choice questions, rather than the "yes" or "no" format of the ballot.
Frankly, lots of people can pull numbers out of the poll to support their cause. For example, in contrast to Stefan's highlighted results, note that in question #8, only 45% of those opposing the tunnel actually wanted the elevated rebuild. Note that in question #10 only 24% of rebuild supporters expressed priority for traffic capacity. 41% instead cited cost as a greater concern for their vote (meanwhile 19% worried primarily about views from the Viaduct, not a great endorsement of their serious consideration of the matter). And, as Stefan alluded to, 77% of those voting against the rebuild said they wouldn't support a Viaduct under any circumstances, creating an assumed 47% plurality against the Viaduct larger than inferred support for it.
Here's where Stefan and I do agree. The election was a waste of time and resources. Sensible people should have been able to agree in advance the tunnel option was too financially perilous. Likewise, the intractable divide between tunnel backers and rebuild supporters should have been equally obvious.
We still have more questions than answers based on the election results and the poll. Bluntly, it's a case study on why elected officials should make decisions, not rely on unclear plebiscites to decide a complex and challenging policy dispute.
Perhaps the retrofit will gain steam in addition to the surface transit option. At this point, the former seems more likely than a full rebuild. Yet, it is inescapable the surface transit option gets serious attention. It's the second choice of most elected officials playing a major role in this interminable process. Thus, a natural fall-back position once voters said "no" to both the viaduct and the tunnel.
Candidly, the biggest scandal in this whole debate is the notion of postponing a final decision on the disputed stretch of the Viaduct until after the 2008 election. After everything the community has been through brooding over the issue, elected leaders need to make up their minds and get the project moving. It's no wonder, as Stefan highlighted, poll respondents expressed an overwhelming degree of cynicism toward the future decision-making of public officials on the issue. Is it too much to ask that leaders, well, lead?
Posted by Eric Earling at March 28, 2007 06:59 AM | Email ThisThe cost of road improvements are going up everyday. We are faced with a wish list of 25-30 billion dollars for projects in the Puget Sound area. With that background, should the state 'retrofit' the existing structure at a cost savings of $2 billion (let's get real here viaduct consultants) and use that money elsewhere?
Posted by: swatter on March 28, 2007 07:47 AMNot THESE leaders. I would do anything in my power to assure that they do not lead us in the direction they want the region to go. If that means accepting stupid "elections" and digging for logical meaning in the results that would prevent construction of either a tunnel or a surface boulevard, then so be it. THESE leaders are systematically ruining Seattle, and they are going to continue to make it worse as they deprioritize basic government functions (road maintenance and construction, public safety, schools (the buildings, not the curriculum), for example, while they prioritize spending to promote wealth transfer programs and irrational environmentalism based on the junk science produced by a generation of leftist scientific zealots graduating from our public universities.
By the way, while I applaud the notion of fiscal responsibility that underlies the advocacy by many here of repairing/retrofitting the viaduct, it is my no means clear to me that the cost, when examined over the long term, compares well with simply replacing it. The roadway will have to be replaced eventually, and not only will the cost be higher in the future (inflation), but when it is eventually rebuilt (or something else is built), we'll have to include in the total cost the amount spent to repair/retrofit it as well. Simply rebuilding it now is really the only fiscally responsible choice. It avoids the unnecessary retrofit costs, and like other government expenditures on infrastructure, taxpayers not only get to use the completed structure, but the construction itself will generate lots of beneficial economic activity (direct jobs and support jobs for the actual construction activities as well as increased opportunities in the community as the money from these jobs is spent in and around Seattle).
Of all the obstreperous folks who voted no-no in this election, the retrofit people were most disappointing to me, because they unneccessarily cast extra confusion into the results by voting for a flawed choice that wasn't even on the ballot. It was pretty clear that there was an organized effort by "environazis", NIMBY seattlites, utopian socialists, property owners who stand to gain a windfall from the destruction of the viaduct, and general idiots (and Peter Steinbruek - who is pretty much all of the above) to push a surface option with a no-no vote. The retrofitters strengthened the message of these selfish idiots. Not cool.
Posted by: srogers on March 28, 2007 07:48 AMAnd hello!!! No on the viaduct and No on the tunnel doesn't mean a vote for surface. Even if you hammer people like me who want a retrofit, there is still at least 10-20? that voted NO on any option just because there were 10-20% that voted YES just because.
Posted by: swatter on March 28, 2007 08:15 AMYou have to admit that there was an actual campaign to convince people supporting the surface option to vote no-no. Retrofitters knew that in advance and still voted for that option, thereby strenthening the worst choice with a dubious exercise in principle. Had everyone but the infantile surface-no-no crowd voted yes on one of the two choices on the ballot (which anyone who had followed the debate in the prior weeks would have known was the determination the state told the city to make, i.e. whether the city taxpayers were willing to pay for excess cost of a tunnel over a rebuild without help from the state or feds), then a little good could have come out of the fiasco. But babies had to be babies, take their marbles and refuse to play - so the obstreperous voters gave us a meaningless result, as the snickering pseudotyrants on the Klowncil knew they would.
Posted by: srogers on March 28, 2007 08:41 AMSo NO/NO may not necessarily mean surface street option, but NO/YES may not necessarily mean any elevated viaduct option. YES/NO voters may also prefer the street option over any elevated viaduct option.
The end result is that Eric is right on this, and the powers that be will have to seriously take the surface street option into consideration if they want to figure out what the voters want. Of course they could just do what's right and screw the voters just as easily, after all would you trust Seattle voters to make any decisions on your tax dollars?
Posted by: Doug on March 28, 2007 08:53 AMAll you gas tax supporters (And have I mentioned how badly all you gas tax supporters screwed the rest of us?) whined and sniveled that the viaduct was going to crumble any second... and now, we're not even going to get a decision on what to do until after the 08's?
I am leaning towards the surface option, but only because it will screw up the city of Seattle's transportation system even more then it already is, a fact the aesthetic freaks could care less about.
I'm basking in the glow of a paralyzed democrat leadership (using the term loosely) thrilled with the idea that the residents of King County generally and Seattle particularly, not only have the government in this state they deserve... they have the government in this state, their county and Seattle that THEY installed.
Yes, I'm rapidly becoming a surface-option kind of guy... as long as they don't use one thin dime of state money to accomplish it.
Posted by: Hinton on March 28, 2007 08:57 AMYou sound like the Mayor, SROGERS. Why do you so casually reject the idea of repair?
It's ironic that the Viaduct passes immediately by the poster children -- Pike Market and Pioneer Square -- for repairing old things rather than throwing them out.
One of the many disappointments in the whole Viaduct fiasco is the absence of any curiosity that a structure only 50 years old is now considered ready for the junk pile. Ditto for SR520.
Posted by: David Sucher on March 28, 2007 09:13 AMTherefore, the retrofitters may have realized the compromise position would be the retrofit and actually they would be the win-winners.
Posted by: swatter on March 28, 2007 09:16 AMWhen clearly it means "Do nothing until it falls on someone!" I mean, duh.
Posted by: Al on March 28, 2007 09:25 AMThat's MY analysis - I am highly insulted to be mentioned in the same sentence as our gawdawful mayor. :-)
Posted by: srogers on March 28, 2007 09:36 AMThe void was filled by a group of retired engineers who quickly recognized that repairing the existing structure was glossed over because of politics. Groups who stood to profit bigtime lined up behind Mayor Bozo de KLOWN. And the charade began.
I tend to trust these retired engineers much more than the DOT or DOT "hired guns". Yeah, the existing AWV is ugly. So what??? It's "historically" ugly!! I believe taxpayers should pay the minimum for a FUNCTIONAL structure...beauty should be on the backs of the Seattle politico's.
Taxpayers have been repeatedly lied to about the root cause of imminent danger of the existing structure which is part of it is built on JELLO! It has little to do with the structure itself.
The impact of any other option besides retrofit on Seattle businesses is monsterous.
Had the Retrofit option been pursued a few years ago, it would be done by now. Instead, the Seattle elite continue to burn $$ on endless process & "Beauty"...rather than functionality.
The citizens of Washington ought to pay for functionality. The existing structure is functional.....despite the crowing of hand in the pie Chicken Little's.
Beauty??? That is Seattle's problem.
RETROFIT!
"Was the vote worthwhile?"
54% replied no. That is the same percentage who chose that the vote wasn't worth licking an envelope or buying a stamp to express an opinion on the lousy choices.
I voted NO-NO because I WANTED endless delay and nothing more than maintenance and a couple of new footings. I think that's what we'll get.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on March 28, 2007 11:50 AMYou say that the retrofit option will never have a chance because this is a "political process."
So what you're saying is that we, as taxpayers, really don't have a voice in politics then?
Well I think you've summed up the current mindset of King County politicians and also the heart of the problem. What's your suggestion on fixing it?
We "useless," (your word) voiceless little taxpayers are not going to fit the bill for yet another multi-billion dollar boondoggle that the local political machine has created so they can pay off their friends in labor with jobs projects.
Posted by: johnny on March 28, 2007 01:23 PMWhen I say its a political process, I mean that in our representative democracy, the executive branch gets to execute the laws, and the city and state legislatures have enacted laws creating departments of transportation that have the power to expand, repair, and maintain roads. There is no actual place in this system that requires that you and I have a "voice" in how the expansion, repairs, and maintenance takes place other than when we elect city and state legislators and executives (mayor and governor).
In the wake of the big earthquake and the damage suffered by the viaduct, the city government put tremendous pressure on the state government to build a tunnel. The state looked at many options, including doing nothing and retrofitting the viaduct, and decided that rebuilding the viaduct was the most reasonable option, despite the full court press by the city for a tunnel. That was a tremendous political win for those of us who are in favor of limited, responsible government; but the governor undid all that when she caved into the city's pressure and called for a vote to see if the people of Seattle were willing to pay the additional costs for a tunnel. The city council then stacked the deck by producing a ballot that was guaranteed to deny the state an election result that favored rebuilding the viaduct. That is the reality of the past election; its the reality of state and city politics. You folks who let the non-option of a retrofit get in the way of your thinking, and voted no-no as if it meant something, just played into the hands of a devious city council well versed in dirty politics. Had you all voted for a replacement viaduct, it likely would have won a majority of yes votes.
I'll repeat - even if its a good idea, (and many of us who are fiscal conservatives think it isn't), the viaduct is not going to be retrofitted as a permanent fix. After this election, I think its highly unlikely that a tunnel will be built. Which leaves rebuilding it, which is a good option, with the money already raised and available to pay for it, or a surface option that may be affordable but will lead to traffic gridlock, litigation by the port if there are no expensive overpasses to get freight to the trains from the docks, a loss of traffic capacity through the city, and a (real) blight on the waterfront with surface level noise, dirt and emissions.
Posted by: srogers on March 28, 2007 06:17 PM