If you are weary of the seeming inability of this region and state to deal constructively with pressing problems, you found today's op-ed in the Seattle Times by Christine Gregoire, Ron Sims, and Greg Nickels to be somewhat revolting. The missive amounts to one giant excuse for why we're still twiddling our thumbs about the Viaduct.
Key quotes:
To some, it's straightforward and simple. They say replace it, either with a new viaduct, a tunnel, or surface street. Failure to pick one and move forward is seen as a failure of leadership. But deciding what to do with the viaduct is more complicated than just looking at traffic and deciding whether to pour concrete and lay pavement. That's just one dimension, and maybe the easiest one.In 1950, one-dimensional thinking made sense. Gas was cheap and there was land enough to live where we wanted. Today, we live in a multidimensional world where gas is increasingly expensive, and few can afford to live near where they work and play. For their pocketbook and the planet, more people want alternatives to their cars. Seattle is a prime example.
Translation: there are too many competing interest groups and left-of-center constituencies complicating matters for us politically to have made a decision about the matter over seven years after the Nisqually Earthquake.
A joint recommendation for the future of the central portion of the viaduct will be presented at the end of this year.
Translation: the state's Legislature, which has been so decisive and definitive in dealing with the Puget Sound's transportation issues over the course of the last decade, will soon have this dumped on their laps...along with the rest of the Puget Sound's backlog of roads projects and repairs.
We have learned a lot in the past few years, and we are no longer focusing solely on the Highway 99 corridor. We are also considering the larger question of how to keep people moving throughout the region and Seattle without sacrificing the need to protect the environment and quality of life.
Translation: please don't recall that voters were asked to reject I-912 in 2005 so that work on the Viaduct would not be delayed. Two and half years later we still have no plan in place. Oops.
We're working hard to reach a solution that makes the most sense. We have until the end of this year. We cannot and will not spend the next five years debating and studying.
With a decade worth of prompt action, effective use of funds, and visionary leadership from state and regional elected officials, who can really argue with that statement?
Posted by Eric Earling at May 29, 2008 09:51 PM | Email ThisWe, the Conservatives, are more aligned with the exurbs...Kent, Renton, Issaquah, Snohomish....Ultimately, "Seattle" should be yet another exurb or ring city in the network. Therefore, tear down the Viaduct if dangerous. Remove the 520 if dangerous...and then take it from there.
Focusing on Big City problems is not what we're about. We don't have those problems. We have different needs. We need sprawl...into the hinterland of Black Diamond and along Route 2.
Posted by: John Bailo on May 29, 2008 10:14 PM"where gas is increasingly expensive"
If they had started on a project seven years ago the gas prices would not be an issue.
"and few can afford to live near where they work and play."
More reason for more road capacity so we do not spend all our time in traffic.
"more people want alternatives to their cars."
I seem to remember that Sound Tranist's riddership has not significantly grown in the last seve years.
"A joint recommendation for the future of the central portion of the viaduct will be presented at the end of this year."
Of course after the election is over, this way if they deliver (which this could be another empty promise) they can have any plan they want without worry of angering the voters.
"We're working hard to reach a solution that makes the most sense. We have until the end of this year. We cannot and will not spend the next five years debating and studying."
Again, they show that they will not produce any plan prior to the election. Not to mention they cliam they will not spend five years debating, but they have already spent seven years doing just that so why should we believe that it will be different?
The left likes to sit on time bombs. If the Viaduct comes down before they figure out how to please all of their extremist constituencies, there would be no surprise.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 30, 2008 01:14 AMThe first step in this process is to acknowledge that support of this tax was idiotic in two respects: first, as I claimed at the time, we were all being lied to concerning the condition and emergent nature of the viaduct and second, we were all being lied to about the project list; initially cut some 31% from that promised shortly AFTER the election and, of course, with more cuts to come.
Once you get the idea that the leftist regime running this state lies to us with impunity, everything else falls into place.
Simple, really.
As a result, the lies of these 3 stooges are to be expected... since their dishonesty has only resulted in their past and future re-elections.
To gas tax supporters: you were warned. And you chose to delude yourselves into believing. Enjoy it now.
Posted by: Hinton on May 30, 2008 06:22 AMFunny I have not seen this idea in public print. Guess tunnel jobs create more income to campaigns.
Posted by: Ken Howard on May 30, 2008 08:02 AMBut when politicos say they are working hard at solutions- about the last four or five paragraphs- I take that as politico speak as "I don't have a clue and I am not really, really doing anything, but if you ask, I can say I have a committe working on an answer no one will like". Right, guys? Give me some hugs, today- ok?
Posted by: swatter on May 30, 2008 08:27 AMYou know, I'm not so sure you remember correctly.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/354495_sound11.html
"Sound Transit ridership rose 12.5% in 2007:
Gasoline prices, new services cited for increase"
Ahem, a ten-lane freeway that will "return to a surface street?"
That is sheer lunacy. It's one reason why the 520 replacement has been scaled down in terms of number of lanes. You can't connect a fire hose to a drinking straw and expect that the flow will be unimpeded.
Posted by: Daddy Love on May 30, 2008 03:36 PMCan we please get some people in office with a clue? I am tired of sitting in traffic, and I don't have a taxpayer-funded limo service unlike these bloviating nimrods.
Yes, thanks, I reread and recongnized the sloppy pronounn reference. Nonetheless, my remarks is no less valid. A 10-lane highway across Elliott bay would be a disaster at both ends as you try to funnel those 10 lanes into the surface streets that are your only option.
You can't pave your way out of congestion because making huge public subsidies for driving encourages ever more driving, and any additional road surface is immediately utilized more or less to its capacity.
Posted by: Daddy Love on May 31, 2008 11:18 AMThe above paragraph is mental gibberish.
Suggesting that paving encourages driving and any additional road surface is immediately utilized to capacity is to argue that proper road planning is unable to cope with transportation needs. On second thought, perhaps Daddy Love explains the type of group thinking to be found at the WA DOT.
"Don't build roads as citizens and commerce would use them." Or to say in another, "let them be paralyzed."
I find it strange. And moving on to other elements of society, would the same mental gibberish apply to:
Hospitals - Don't build new hospitals as they will only fill to capacity.
Quality Schools - Don't build new quality schools as they will immediately fill to capacity.
The list may incorporate every sector of society. From Hospitals to Jails, from Schools to Parks.
The idea being, for reasons I don't understand that if a system, any system, is utilized to capacity (immediately) then perhaps there are needs for better planning and execution to satify demands.