The January 2009 deal
Gregoire, Sims, and Nickels agreed to jointly fund and build a $4.2 billion package: a bored tunnel, new transit service, a waterfront street and seawall repairs, and other street improvements. Currently:
• The State hasn’t yet followed through on the promise to help the City and County raise funds for their projects: the MVET authorization for transit and stimulus money for streets fell through.
• This leaves Metro with a huge shortfall since transit revenue has declined, indicating there will be no new service, and existing service will be cut.
• The modeling done in 2008 to test possible replacement options showed a big shift toward new transit usage in any scenario; not adding this service could seriously degrade Seattle mobility.

The underground bypass tunnel
Planning, design, and EIS analysis are underway now. The costs, overrun risks, constructability analysis, and environmental impacts have not yet been calculated. Officially, no decision can be made and the project cannot begin until the EIS is complete and information released to the public.
• At 54’, this would be the largest diameter bored tunnel ever done in the world.
• No alternatives approaches are being studied in the EIS.
• There are no exits downtown, so any travel to and from downtown won’t be served by this facility.
• Neither tolling nor the new transit service agreed to in January is included in the EIS, or in the current transportation modeling; this could exaggerate the need for car capacity on the waterfront.
• Early soil testing indicates that a cut and cover tunnel may be required instead of a bored tunnel on First Avenue south King Street in Pioneer Square. Construction impacts would be tough.
• While WSDOT would typically be accountable for its own cost overruns, the tunnel funding bill says otherwise: “Any costs in excess of two billion eight hundred million dollars shall be borne by property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing viaduct with the deep bore tunnel.” http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5768-S.PL.pdf

A non-highway solution: would it work?
At the conclusion of the 2008 stakeholder process, the three DOTs put forth 2 recommendations: Surface/ Transit /I-5 or an Elevated. The S/T/5 solution is a set of projects to improve through-put on I-5, better connect the street grid, add significant new transit, add incentives to inspire non-car choices, improve options for freight, and build an urban street on the waterfront – instead of rebuilding this segment of highway.
• Even tested against the unlikely worst case, where demand for car trips increases an absurd 20% in six years, S/T/5 worked great for mobility. In fact, all eight solutions examined worked well, only varying +/- 1% in the number of trips they served.
• Modeling results revealed that urban systems work differently than rural highways. If people are offered choices – a variety of streets, transit options, I-5, biking, etc – and connections are improved between urban centers, we can all get where we’re going. Trucks or people.
• Modeling results showed a 4-lane urban street on the waterfront (option B) works great, given other improvements to transit, and I-5. All the local economic and civic benefits of removing the waterfront highway can be achieved with either this approach or a bored tunnel.

There are big issues to consider in this: what kind of transportation system fits future Seattle, how will we meet our state mandate to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled 50% by 2050, and whether we can still afford a megaproject. Given that car travel is declining, given the evidence of many cities effectively reducing congestion through making alternatives more viable, given that energy economics and regional tolling will likely inspire us all to drive less in the future, we should measure twice before we cut. Building car capacity we may not need, at this high cost and risk, may turn out to be a terrible investment. It may be worth the fight, especially if the news from the EIS is bad.

What we face in this election is the choice between an adjective in Mike McGinn: Progressive. And the verb in Joe Mallahan: Progress. Seattle has spent too much energy talking and none doing, as a Seattle youth I am advocating the swallowing of some high minded liberal ideals, in exchange for the possibility of real progress on the quality of basic human services in Seattle.

Let me state first that I feel very strongly the Joe Mallahan is the best option for Mayor.

I just want to take apart one particularly analytical paragraph of Jabe Blumenthal’s email to demonstrate how it, in my mind, gives ample room for the support of either candidate, if not Mallahan over McGinn.

The Paragraph:

“If Michael succeeds at addressing his management and style issues, real or perceived, I think he can be perhaps our first truly progressive and effective mayor. If he fails, he will still be very progressive, but will be ineffective. If Joe is incredibly bright and picks up public policy amazingly quickly and if he turns out to be as good at management as we hope and he turns out to be much more progressive than the average progressive businessperson, then he will be a great mayor. If either of the first two “ands” aren’t met, then he too will be ineffective. If the third isn’t met, he will be worse than ineffective. In the end, I just see more potential upside and less potential downside to Michael.”

My reading,:

Problems: “If Michael succeeds at addressing his management and style issues, real or perceived,”

Management is a real quantifiable issue, while style is something we perceive, so these two very different issues must be counted separately.

“I think he can be perhaps our first truly progressive and effective mayor.”

This is insightful from a man who has clearly done his homework, and it is comforting to me so I leave it unchanged.

“If he fails, he will still be very progressive, but will be ineffective.”

This should read: If he fails he will be ineffective. Because it does not matter what you think if you do not influence what happens.

AND NOW JOE

“If Joe is incredibly bright and picks up public policy amazingly quickly”

If these two things are not the same, then what does being bright mean? I would ask that these two issues be combined, as his “brightness” is not being questioned, but instead his brightness in the public policy arena. Therefore this ought to read: If Joe is bright enough to pick up public policy quickly.

“and if he turns out to be as good at management as we hope”

Joe claims to be good at management. McGinn claims to be progressive. McGinn has proven he is progressiveness through his actions, therefore he is progressive as assumed above. Has Joe not proved his management skills through his actions? If we should question the effectiveness of TMobile’s payment practices to reward “good management”, should we not also question The Sierra Club’s effectiveness in supporting and furthering progressive causes? And how should we quantify these things if not with the value system of salary and years of maintained employment?
I assert that both of these men have proved these aspects of themselves by easily quantifiable measures, and to question one while not the other is unhelpful in this type of weighing system. This sentence should then be dismissed.

” and he turns out to be much more progressive than the average progressive businessperson,”

This is a well articulated concern in the email and I agree completely with this IF. So the sentence should stand.

“then he will be a great mayor”

Perhaps this is a flourish of the pen for emphasis, but it should not be understated that those of us who support Mallahan are firm believers in the inclusion of the word Great rather than progressive, effective or any other term to be placed before mayor. I think it is indicative of who Mallahan is, and can be, that a voter swayed to McGinn still includes a hope of something better than merely effective or progressive, in front of Mallahan’s mayoral bid. Great implies these things and much more.

Mr. Blumenthal finishes his thoughts:

“If either of the first two “ands” aren’t met, then he too will be ineffective.”

I hope I have been thorough in my reputation of these points, if I have not perhaps this email is–at this point–in vain.

“If the third isn’t met, he will be worse than ineffective.”

This is an interesting point, and one I agree on. If Mallahan does find that he is more conservative, or even willing to compromise rather than fight, than he thought before taking the position, Seattle may slide backwards from its hopes of being a progressive urban center. But inherent in this fear is the anticipation that the aforementioned IFs of Mallahan will be met. In conclusion I would re-write the paragraph Jabe wrote in this way:

Mallahan Negative: If Mallahan, a good manager, does not have an aptitude for public policy or is not as progressive as he says he is, Seattle will have an ineffective mayor.

McGinn Negative: If McGinn, a good progressive, is not a good manager or does not address his poor style, Seattle will have an ineffective Mayor.

McGinn Positive: If McGinn, a good progressive, is a good manager and turns out to have better style than he seems to, Seattle will have an effective and progressive Mayor.

Mallahan Positive: If Mallahan, a good manager, has an aptitude for public policy and is as progressive as he says he is, Seattle will have a great, progressive and effective mayor.

I firmly believe if either of these men are not who they claim to be–good progressive managers with style and brains–Seattle will have an ineffective mayor. I also believe that because of the progressive consensus of the city, the only useless mayor is an ineffective one. ->These are assumptions and can be freely challenged.

But I also believe that this election comes down to a choice between the possibility of progressive with a doubt of effectiveness and the possibility of effective with a doubt of progressiveness. Seattle has never lacked in progressive thought. We have always lacked in effectiveness.

This election is about choosing the possibility of something Seattle has always had, progressive thought, in McGinn, or choosing something we have never had: progress, in Mallahan.

I hope that I have been clear enough to make this argument, and I hope that you will agree with me when I say: I am voting for Joe Mallahan because I am sick of the Seattle where great liberal ideas are discussed and planned, and never executed. I am sick of a Seattle without a Commons, without a Monorail, without safe a waterfront thoroughfare. I am voting for Joe Mallahan because I’d rather have a great mayor than anything else.

Thanks for reading!
Paul Menter

is it true that

there are no exits southbound and northbound between fremont and sodo?

–no way to get on or off downtown????

there is $6.00 toll in either direction?

that between these two challenges the city estimates 25% of current users will use this proposed tunnel?

Do you remember in elementary school social studies/geography class where you had to write a report on a foreign country and were told to identify the primary products produced by the country? Well, the primary (only?) products Seattle seems to produce are process and indecision. And the apparently least bad of our two choices for mayor wants to reopen the debate on replacing the viaduct???!!! Shades of the never-ending monorail do-overs, hmm?

Is a large construction project through a heavily developed major metropolitan downtown corridor expensive? Of course. Could that amount of money do a lot of good if it were spent on other issues? Of course. If we don’t build the tunnel, will that money be spent on other issues? No. It will be spent on other transportation projects in other cities. And we’ll still be stuck with a viaduct waiting to fall in the next earthquake. Did we make the best decision regarding the viaduct replacement? No. But we at least finally have a decision. And we have to avoid continually making the perfect the enemy of the lousy-but-acceptable.

I think both candidates stink, frankly. If there is one saving grace in all this it’s that McGinn is unlikely to be successful at the one thing he’s proposing because there are too many interests at stake in building the tunnel and he doesn’t sound like the kind of person who can marshal any meaningful political support. And I’m inclined to hold my nose and vote for Mallahan solely because he isn’t proposing to reopen the viaduct debate.

Ironic. To go so quickly from the heady euphoria of last November’s election where we had a chance to make history and turn this country around, to the upcoming election where it makes one truly depressed to have to vote for the least bad choice.

Hello Friends and Associates,

I woke up this morning to an Inbox full of responses.

Some could not be forwarded, some were just acknowledgment and hello but I thought it would be fair to send around a few of the responses.

So here you go:

1) While driving around today, I heard a good bit of Mallaghan’s interview on KUOW. He came across as intelligent and reasonable…Joe didn’t pretend to have the answer to every problem or a position on every issue…these 2 candidates make Mayor Nickels look not quite so bad.

2) It’s really assuring to see respected, intelligent people supporting Michael.

3) I’ve been coming to a similar conclusion simply with “the devil you know vs. the devil you don’t know” philosophy. Mallahan is a much bigger unknown than McGinn.

4) I voted in August on a purely pro-tunnel agenda. I was thinking, like SF, we need TWO highways through town to make things flow well…Vancouver is not an easy city to traverse, in-city backups/rush hour are horrendous. Since Seattle already has the second-longest commute time in the US, I worry that things will get exponentially worse if we don’t build the tunnel to keep I-5 from getting overwhelmed. I am impressed with McGinn on other issues and worry about Mallahan’s lack of depth. Frankly, I am stunned/heartbroken that Nickels doesn’t get to continue, …he’s done so much good and people don’t realize…

5) Mike’s opposition to the tunnel is based on his belief that the only way to solve climate change is to get people out of their cars – and the only way to do that is to create horrific traffic gridlock. I don’t agree with that approach, which will inflict needless misery on everyone who lives here.

6) Sadly McGinn’s stand on the tunnel precludes the support of those who value a vibrant region.

7) I’m all about hating cars, but tearing down the viaduct without replacing it is some form seems impractical.

Hope you are well,

Joel