If I may, allow me to flail away at this horse carcass for a minute...
It takes little genius to figure out Stefan and I don't see eye-to-eye on the results from the Viaduct vote. My thoughts are here, Stefan's are here, here, and here. The thirty-second version is that Stefan believes the vote is a victory for the rebuild, I think it's not.
On a certain level I understand Stefan's point. Based on analysis of the results, one can infer the probability that an elevated rebuild may have garnered a plurality of support. There is one significant problem with that though: elected officials are going to make decisions based on the actual votes, not the inferred probability of what voters may or may not have been thinking.
What do the actual votes tell us? The voters of Seattle were asked two specific but separate questions. One, what they thought of a hybrid tunnel. Two, what they thought of an elevated rebuild.
They answered the first question pretty convincingly, with nearly 70% rejecting the tunnel. They also answered the second question decisively as well, with 56% rejecting the elevated rebuild as of this typing. Note that in today's tabulations rebuild opponents added to their lead, with a 19% margin in today's votes versus an 11% margin on "Election Night."
Taken as separate issues, which is how politicians will treat the results, the vox populi is rather clear. They sure doesn't want the tunnel, and a solid majority aren't terribly enthralled with the rebuild either. Stefan is highly interested in how many people voted "No-No" on the ballot. It's an interesting question, but in the end it doesn't matter to elected officials because it wasn't asked directly.
Concurrently, I find it impossible to agree with Stefan's assertion that "the surface-gridlock option, which enjoyed the loudest and best-funded campaign, has been soundly rejected." Ardent supporters of the surface plus transit option are no doubt making too much of the dual defeat of both ballot questions. They've still got some serious issues to address with the Governor and the Legislature to turn their dreams into reality. Yet, since the surface option wasn't even remotely on the ballot it is virtually impossible to extrapolate what voters think about it based on this election.
Considering the totality of the debate about what the results mean, it's great evidence the whole election was a farce. The results are ambiguous since the debate itself is much more complex than the two questions posed, particularly in the manner in which they were presented on the ballot. People can read a multitude of conclusions into the results; and obviously have.
Setting aside who supports what option for replacing the Viaduct, there is some clarity on what course politicians will now take on the issue. The tunnel has finally been given its due burial, but likewise the rebuild is badly weakened. Opponents of that option, including the Mayor, the City Council, and assorted Seattle-based legislators, have a strong argument in their favor with a clear majority of voters rejecting the elevated rebuild.
The surface plus transit solution has never been an ideal option. But given the intractable divide between supporters of the tunnel and backers of the rebuild (and that the retrofit offers a poor long-term return for dollars spent), the natural compromise position inevitably falls to the dominant second choice of most deciding officials, the surface street. It's the only realistic way out of the current political impasse unless the facts as we know them change substantially. Why it took a $1 million election to come to such a basic understanding is another matter.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 14, 2007 10:07 PM | Email ThisDon'tch love WA politics, like mud wrestling, but not nearly as clean a sport.
Posted by: JCM on March 14, 2007 10:21 PMGas tax supporters swindled us with a variety of approaches... not the least of which was a REPLACEMENT for the Viaduct, which, we were assured, was going to fall down with the next stiff breeze.
We did not agree to an option that would have ENDED the viaduct, so, if you folks like the surface option, then feel free... and feel free to pay for it yourselves, without a dime of state money.
Since that will never happen, look forward to the "new and improved" viaduct, being built soon at a water front near you.
Posted by: Hinton on March 14, 2007 10:26 PMAs I pointed out in a comment in another post regarding this vote, I think there were a lot of people who said yes on elevated rebuild because that is better option than the tunnel even though their real preference is the retrofit. For example, Stefan in an earlier post indicated that he was voting as such even though he'd rather see the current structure retrofit.
Posted by: DopioLover on March 14, 2007 10:26 PMMost of the people I've talked to voted no to both because they want a "surface street" solution. They seem to forget that after the earthquake that shut down the viaduct the surface streets became gridlocked.
The right solution would be to expand I-5. Problem is that the morons in Seattle put a building over the top of it.
Posted by: Vince on March 15, 2007 05:17 AMI can't help but figure that this was their plan from the start.
Hey, maybe Seattle will get an above ground section that will plunge into a tunnel and climb out onto surface streets, then do it a couple times? Why not, when money is no object to tax and spend liberals?
Posted by: MJC on March 15, 2007 06:35 AMUnfortunately there is a distinct shortage of voters in Seattle that are in their right minds. Most are left out - waaaaaaaaay left and waaaaaaaaaaay out.
Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2007 06:41 AMSo Erik, should we spend billions more for a tunnel in an earthquake prone area. So the Big Dig needs a cousin. How many billions are you willing to waste? and I do mean waste!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 15, 2007 06:56 AMThe retrofit option went through more cost scrutiny than any of the other options that have been thrown out there. The potential for doubling of construction costs, in essence, was taken out of the equation since the reviewers (those standing to make 100s of millions in engineering and construction fees) made sure to factor in all the costs of the retrofit. Compare that to "ballpark" figures without scrutiny- like using $1 billion for one mile of roadway ballpark numbers.
There was a definite bias against the "retrofit" and the reviewers made "sure" the costs were high so people like yourself could just "fluff" over it.
What I said above, Eric, is the very reason that I extremely dislike Sound Transit and the politicos, past and present, that inhabit that organization. But, more about that one later.
Mark my words, whatever option is chosen other than the retrofit gets built, you take today's estimate and multiply by 4 for the final cost. Compare that to the retrofit and its cost will be 1.5-2 times the today estimate. Mark my words!!!
Posted by: swatter on March 15, 2007 07:17 AMThis transportation corridor should be a freeway from Seatac to at least the north shore of Greenlake (the current north extent of the freeway). It should not be made worse with an additional stretch of lights in the exact middle where the vehicle on-flow is greatest. What kind of moron can't understand this? If you don't regularly drive this corridor, you have an excuse. But if you can actually name E. Marginal and understand its tie to the city's western north/south flow, and you still think you can replace the viaduct with a section like E. Marginal and flow the same amount of traffic in the same amount of time, you are just too stupid to live.
Posted by: srogers on March 15, 2007 09:01 AMI think you may be correct in your estimation that the surface/transit appears to have the momentum at the moment - at least in the media.
I will, however, challenge your assertion that "elected officials are going to make decisions based on the actual votes, not the inferred probability of what voters may or may not have been thinking."
It is quite clear that several elected officials - Greg Nickels and Peter Steinbrueck to name a couple - have already come out and declared that those participating in this silly advisory excercise endorsed the the "tear-it-down-and-let-God-sort-it-out" surface/transit so-called solution.
But in my estimation, the retrofit seems to be the defacto winner. In addition to the immediate work announced by the Governor, notice that she said the state would start dismantling the Viaduct by 2012.
[see her comment in today's Seattle Times]
Well, by punting it out five years, it seems we're now 15% of the way toward a 75 year solution with the current Viaduct. By 2012, it will have been eleven years since the Nisqually quake. And I don't imagine there will be any more consensus on a solution in 2012 than there is now.
If I were betting, it would be that we are looking at rolling updates to the existing structure for the foreseeable future.
The nice thing as well is that unlike most other roads there is very little need for streets to cross Alaskan way, with the exceptino of the ferry terminal which could probably stand to be moved a bit South, at least for car ferries.
This would allow us to lower the road construct sound walls and any number of things to isolate it form the city. Have a couple of intersections at the most advantageous points and your good to go.
Posted by: Giffy on March 15, 2007 10:03 AMYou seem to be willing to just ignore this fact as if that will make it go away, and redirect the conversation to the commuters who use the viaduct to get in and out of Seattle. That's both dishonest and irrational, but then you have a perfect example of both traits in the person of your apparent champion, Peter Steinbrueck.
Posted by: srogers on March 15, 2007 10:19 AMI beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden.
Along with the sunshine there's gotta be a little rain sometime.
When you take you gotta give so live and let live and let go, oh oh oh oh...
I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden.
I could promise you things like big diamond rings,
But you don't find roses growin' on stalks of clover
So you better think it over.
Well, if sweet talking you could make it come true,
I would give you the world right now on a silver platter,
But what would it matter.
So smile for a while and let's be jolly, love shouldn't be so melancholy
Come along and share the good times while we can.
I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden.
Along with the sunshine there's gotta be a little rain sometime.
I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden.
I could sing you a tune and promise you the moon,
But if that's what it takes to hold you I'd just as soon let you go,
But there's one thing I want you to know.
You'd better look before you leap, still waters run deep
And there won't always be someone there to pull you out,
And you know what I'm talking about.
So smile for a while and let's be jolly, love shouldn't be so melancholy
Come along and share the good times while we can
Have some cheese with your whine.
Posted by: martina mcbride on March 15, 2007 10:36 AMBoth highways worked fine back in the glory days when a long commute was 15 minutes. In the 21st century they are going to look more and more like mall parking lots if smart designs and fixes aren't put in place. On I-5 there are so many dumb chokepoints like Mercer, SR520, 45th/50th, and they should be addressed instead of recreating the same mess on the waterfront. They also would have the opportunity for much more matching federal dollars than SR99 does. There are also the impossibly undesigned and undercapacity east-west flow in areas in northwest and southwest Seattle that won't get anything out of a SR99 or I-5 adjustment. If it's still all jammed up in the grid, no freeway design miracles will solve the crunch.
To make up for the bad initial infrastructure placements of our past, Seattle and the region are not going to ease traffic and move people and goods without major capital projects and painful reroutings. And don't even get started on how Seattle dismantled one of nations best and most heavily used public transit systems in the 1940s. Our predecessors have handed down quite a Gordian knot to us. The people in office now have got to get bold and creative, whether or not 126% of the voters demanded reduced capacity in this election.
Posted by: Peoples Asphalt Coalition on March 15, 2007 10:59 AMWrong! The three of them are bigger fools than ever!
Posted by: John Bailo on March 15, 2007 03:52 PM