I want you to know that blogs come with a statistics package that give information on unique site visits. I do not have access to who read the blog but I do know how many people visited and what they read. When Cary posted her tunnel facts I had just over 50 people read her facts the first day and over 30 people the second day.

So, there is interest even if no one comments so I am going to go ahead and post these comments, to read them click here.

One more thing, I would love to have people post or comment a factual counterpoint to Cary’s tunnel facts. Several of you have emailed me with a please keep private but it would great if one of you would give the other factual side of the issue.

Thank you and have a nice day.

******************************************

Submitted on 2009/09/24 at 2:15pm by Cary

There is much misinformation around the tunnel and other alternatives, given the mayoral discussions; I hope it is useful to explain what has gone on in the recent 9 months and where we are now. Some very big problems are emerging, and whatever you thought 9 months ago, you should be paying attention.

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.

Cary

FYI, check out comments to post immediately below. Or you can click on the most recent comments on the right side of this page.

You can continue comments here if you want to instead of scrolling down to the next post.

Also, please Register if you want to leave a comment.

******************************************

On Monday, 9/21, I forwarded two emails to a group of friends in Seattle. Those two emails are below in italics. They generated about two dozen responses. I forwarded a handful of those responses which then stimulated another set of responses. So, I thought that I would move this discussion to the blog so that others could read any comments that people are willing to make public. I will post my second email with initial responses as a first comment to this post.

Joel

******************************************

From: jabe blumenthal Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 Subject: thoughts on the Seattle mayor race

Recently I talked to Joe Mallahan (with Rod Brown) and Michael McGinn (just myself). Here are my own observations and conclusions. I’m happy to provide more specifics from the conversations over the phone to anyone that asks. I ask only that you not forward this without asking me first.

Where I came down: Joe Mallahan seems to be a smart, decent and mature person. I hope and expect to have a constructive working relationship with him on environmental issues should he be elected. However I ended up firmly for Michael McGinn. On almost all the issues about which I know enough to assess him, Michael has very progressive, informed, and nuanced opinions in line with my own. To be a good progressive mayor, Michael will have to prove himself to be a better manager, listener, and collaborator than many, understandably, fear he will be. However Joe will have to show an incredible interest in and aptitude for all kinds of complex public policy, which, over the last decade, Michael has been focused on and Joe has shown almost zero interest in. Then, once up to speed, we have to hope that Joe is anywhere near as progressive as Michael is or even as Greg turned out to be. From a probabilistic point of view, both are a gamble, but Joe is the much bigger gamble with a lower expected value.

Why I came down there: Michael is firmly at the very progressive end of the political spectrum and has a deep understanding of at least the public policy issues about which I know enough to assess. He has some personality and style issues of real concern that will affect how well he manages and how well he works with others he doesn’t manage. And even aside from the style issues, he just doesn’t have much management experience. However, in our conversation, he demonstrated significant self-awareness of his weaknesses and inexperience in certain areas. I think some – though by no means all – of the negative impressions of his style come from campaigns where such a style was successful and, arguably, even required and thus not evidence that he is incapable of other styles when required. And while he can come across as quite arrogant to some, others I respect who have worked with him say that they are able to work with him well and that he listens and learns. But others that I also respect have had different experiences, so I can’t dismiss these concerns. I think Michael probably can be taught and influenced, and is probably smart and self-aware enough to successfully work on these things. (Of course Greg was smart too, yet, as much as anything else, his arrogance and style brought him down. Most people would have forgiven him the snow day debacle, for example, if King Greg was an even slightly sympathetic figure.) Meanwhile, as someone said to me, Joe seems to know less about public policy than the average person who has read Newsweek for a couple of years (with the one exception of social justice issues, which he seems to have given some genuine thought). His web site, at least on the issues I know well, had quite shallow “policy 101” positions. Repeatedly in my conversation with Joe, it became clear that there were issues he just hadn’t thought about much at all. There are several problems with that: First, it turns out that public policy is really complicated. It’s taken me several years to get the point where I have what I would call informed and nuanced views about climate and energy policy. And, as someone pointed out to me the other day, more often than not our initial conclusions on complex public policy issues are exactly 180 degrees wrong. Nickels, Rice, Royer, even Schell, all had spent a lot of time working, in some way, on issues of public policy (which perhaps shows that to be a “necessary but not sufficient condition” as the mathematicians say). Second, it means that we don’t have much of an idea where Joe will end up on the

political spectrum, because, frankly, he doesn’t know yet. Yes, he supported Obama and is almost certainly at least mildly progressive. But that’s the “ante” to get into the Seattle Mayor game at all. The majority of the members of the Chamber of Commerce are also mildly progressive. They would be considered liberal radicals if we all lived in Houston. But we don’t live in Houston, and there are very few of them I would consider remotely ideologically acceptable for Mayor of Seattle. Third, at some level if you haven’t voted much and haven’t read much and haven’t gotten involved much in public policy, it doesn’t mean you’re a bad person, but it does mean that it’s just not that much of a priority for you and not that interesting to you. That’s likely to hinder, not hasten, the policy crash course we need him to take. Joe does, for sure, have more management background than Michael. It shouldn’t be overblown: running and having complete responsibility for all aspects of even a 100 person company is much deeper and broader management experiencing than managing a 200-400 person division in a 20,000+ person company as Joe did, and as I did at Microsoft (and about a third of the managers at Microsoft that I knew were pretty bad). But, still, points to Joe.

If Michael succeeds and 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 hopeand 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.

For what it’s worth.

Jabe

*******************************************

On Sep 19, 2009, at 8:04 PM, ALAN DURNING wrote:

Dear Friends,

The short story: I whole-heartedly endorse Mike McGinn for Mayor of Seattle. You should, too. I made a donation to his campaign. Would you do the same, please?

The whole story: I know Mike McGinn well. He shares my values and beliefs about what’s right for our city: better schools, more-affordable housing, better transit,

better pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, stronger communities—and no $4 billion dollar freeway excavated under downtown. I almost get physically ill when I consider that the price tag of this tunnel would be enough to fund, for example, the current Seattle Schools budget shortfall for 200

consecutive years. My son Peter’s favorite highschool teacher lost her job this Spring, because of that shortfall. And we’re going to dig a #%$@ underground freeway?!

(See this Sightline post, for more perspective on the deep-bore tunnel: http://tinyurl.com/bpg394) **

Unlike his rival (who has a spotty record of even voting in city elections), Michael has been active in civic affairs and city policy for a very long time. He’s served on countless boards and panels and advisory groups, including several where I’ve also served. And he knows a very wide array of grassroots community leaders across Seattle, because he founded and directed the Seattle Great City Initiative–a local organization that brings together a diverse coalition for good urban development. I’ve sat in many meetings with him and watched him work effectively with groups large and small. He’s both tough and charming. Does Mike have the management experience to be mayor? Wrong question. Does he have better management experience than his rival? Yes. Running a democratically minded city like Seattle is completely unlike running a mid-sized division of a national mobile phone company, which his opponent did. City governance is all about coalition building, cajoling, and organizing. It’s a nonstop campaign. And that’s what Mike does best.

Some of my friends wonder if Mike can win against a fresh-faced centrist. Ahem: Mike McGinn just ran the most surprising campaign in recent Seattle history. He was outspent about seven to one, yet he finished first! (FIRST!) Having watched his campaign—and his previous, successful campaigns for parks and transit—I have no doubts Mike can win. But only if we help. For all McGinn’s grassroots strength across the city, he’s up against a wall of money. His opponent has put hundreds of thousands of his own dollars into the race, and establishment types are unlocking their vaults.

You can help by:

1. Making a large donation here: http://mcginnformayor.com/ (How much to give? If it doesn’t hurt, you haven’t given enough.)

2. Telling your friends that you’re with McGinn, and asking them to support him as well. You could forward this letter or write one of your own.

Thanks for you attention!

Alan Durning

**Yes, I know. We can’t just spend the same money on schools instead—at least not without amending the state constitution. But the principle remains: a billion-dollar freeway tunnel is a preposterous allocation of resources in a climate-constrained age. In a time when our president is leading us in a long-needed transformation of our energy economy to stave off more oil wars and catastrophic climate change, when our cities are remaking themselves to be walkable, bikable, and transit-oriented, why would we sacrifice other public needs to rebuild a second freeway through the heart of our city? Vancouver, BC, for example, doesn’t even have one freeway through its downtown, much less two.

And yes, I know, it may be too late to stop the tunnel. Even if it is, the tunnel is a perfect litmus test of leadership instincts on future questions. Mike passes. His opponent fails. More on the tunnel controversy here: http://tinyurl.com/mgvfsf.