David Ammons is the latest reporter to completely misread the results of last week's Seattle Viaduct vote:
On Tuesday, the voters said no to both projects - or "no" and "hell, no" as the wags put it.When the wags said "no and hell no" they meant voting no on both. As I've written ad nauseum, there is absolutely no reason to conclude that the No-No vote won. Indeed the more plausible reading of the inconclusive numbers is that a new Viaduct won a clear plurality and No-No finished in 3rd place. (Unless Ammons knows something the rest of us don't, in which case he should tell us how many voted no on both?)
The tragedy here is that the mainstream media's pitifully incorrect reading of what the voters expressed has shifted the debate toward surface-gridlock, the least popular choice.
Anyway, the last thing anyone intended was that the last few miles of the Interstates, running through center cities, would become commuter lines for automobiles.
When you speak of gridlock...it's there alright, on the elevated highway of 99 and I-5! A new viaduct is not going to cure that congestion (nor a tunnel either). This is the myth of cutting and slicing through cities -- it ends up making more congestion and slower commutes.
Now, imagine a multientry, multilane, boulevard. There are many access points to get on or get off. There are not a few restricted exits (like Mercer) where cars pile up trying to squeeze down to a single lane.
A boulevard is fluid, flexible...it can over flow to the side streets and beyond, or draw traffic in from them. It's not all-or-nothing (get on I-5 or not).
That is the way cities used to function. Yes, the speeds were slower and there were traffic lights....but what's better...driving 30 miles an hour for the 1/2 mile through the city or being stuck at a standstill for half and hour going no where on your "freeway" or "via"duct?
No...a grand sound-front boulevard is the answer.
The media, liberal establishment, and anti-automobile crowd have always tried to paint this entire issue as "what shall replace the viaduct?," always leaving out the non-replacement, fiscally responsible retrofit option.
Therefore, faced with the double no-no result, they assume (falsely) that everybody wants to replace the viaduct, and they assume (falsely) since the two other replacement options were rejected, therefore the third replacement option ("surface option") has the most support. Insofar as you point out that there is no reason for them to draw that conclusion, you are correct, Stefan.
Forced to replace the viaduct, and forced to have no other choices but these three, and allowed to choose among the three, who knows where the "surface option" would rank?
But there is another aspect of this which is even a stronger argument against interpreting the results as "pro-surface option."
I voted no-no for the following reasons, which I assume are shared by many (how many? who knows?):
I voted against wasting billions on a tunnel because it was fiscally irresponsible, and because I oppose replacing the viaduct with anything, and because I favor a retrofit.
I voted against wasting billions on a new viaduct because it was fiscally irresponsible, and because I oppose replacing the viaduct with anything, and because I favor a retrofit.
It is not unreasonable to interpret the results as showing that a large number of people oppose replacing the viaduct, period. How many? Who knows?
Given the chance, I (and who knows how many others) would also have voted against wasting billions on the so-called "surface" option because it was fiscally irresponsible, and because I oppose replacing the viaduct with anything, and because I favor a retrofit.
Like the tunnel and like the new viaduct, the surface option causes great unnecessary expense, great traffic disruption, and does not improve the traffic situation.
Trying to interpret the results by narrowly focusing on the question "what should replace the viaduct?" accepts the framework of the anti-autombile crowd, which rules out the non-replacement option and assumes everybody wants to replace the viaduct.
We can somewhat reasonably conclude from the advisory vote that there is not a great call from the voters to "replace" the viaduct at all. There is no reason to find in the results evidence that the voters of Seattle favor replacing the viaduct.
Posted by: Steve Beren on March 19, 2007 02:27 PMAnd your source of information is what, Mr. Bailo?
Who would have thunk that the lack of intestinal fortitude in the late 60s to finish the I90 link with I5 in Seattle would be the worst think this State has ever done? What? You mean it is completed? Yes, it was completed but 30 years too late and with valuable state dollars that should have been spent elsewhere.
Mr. Berens, I am not so sure Stefan is such a believer in his numbers as you think because he always says that the results of the election are meaningless.
And with that said, he is using his analysis to ridicule the Steinbrenner analysis of the votes. And also Amons.
Posted by: swatter on March 19, 2007 03:20 PMMaybe another Billion or 14 and we could actually all agree....
Posted by: GS on March 19, 2007 03:47 PMAnd as for the rather idiotic and historically inaccurate comment about the intent of Interstate highways...
The last time I checked, "Old 99" is a state highway. And "Old 99" is called "Old 99" because it has run up and down the Puget Sound Cooridor, through cities, longer than most of us have been alive.
It will serve these tax happy demotaxocrats well to tell them to put it where the sun don't shine...
Posted by: gs on March 19, 2007 06:01 PMJohn @2 says it well. Despite the sentimentality of clinging to a near dead pet that viaduct supporters show, Seattle's and the regions transportation problems have deep underlying design and plan flaws. There will be pain, there will be cost.
You want to know the best part about a Surface Option being seriously considered in the process? It's not so some supposed car-hating hippies can do a little victory dance in their Birkenstock's at Ivar's on their way to the trolley. Whether or not or how it is implemented, the benefit is that infrastructure redevelopments at dozens of stupid chokepoints up and down the corridor get looked at and addressed with seriousness. Fixing the 'Mercer Mess' has been a joke for my entire life here. We can build all the dedicated elevated right of way throughways town people want, but as soon as you have take an exit, you are going to be hating it unless these less sexy to argue about points get addressed. If officials spend all of their time pissing all over each other for their less than visionary plans for 12 blocks of waterfront because it keeps them in the papers, good luck getting any of these real problems looked at.
This supposed car-hater character to fear that keeps showing up here is a comic book villain, a flyspeck minority, not even a sidekick. By and large, people who voted NoNo want the planner-builders to drink their coffee and wake up. Building an expensive fat pipe to route traffic through Alaskan is sleepwalking.
Posted by: Peoples Asphalt Coalition on March 22, 2007 11:12 AM