Comments on: The deep bore tunnel will do what?!? http://blog.cascade.org/2011/08/vote-no-on-ref-1/ Creating a better community through bicycling, throughout Seattle, King County and Washington state. Fri, 24 May 2013 21:32:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Dan Merlino http://blog.cascade.org/2011/08/vote-no-on-ref-1/comment-page-1/#comment-25168 Dan Merlino Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:29:35 +0000 http://blog.cascade.org/?p=7812#comment-25168 You ask "Can someone remind me why Seattle is even considering rebuilding an urban freeway in an age of global warming and severe public health crises?" The answer is easy - mobility and commerce. 110,000 cars per day use the viaduct. I am one of them. Presumably unlike you, I have a job that requires trips into the city, through the city, and out of the city, sometimes several times a day. If there is no replacement for the viaduct I am hosed, as is my employer. Then my employer decides this is not a reasonable place for our company and moves (see Boeing). Not everyone lives in the city and/or can commute by bus. Your "analysis" conveniently leaves out facts and perspectives not pertinent to your foregone conclusion. Growth defines the vibrancy of a city. Car accessibility, much as you may hate to admit it, is a major factor in determining growth. I would rather accommodate commerce and rely on technological advancements in alternative fuels. You ask “Can someone remind me why Seattle is even considering rebuilding an urban freeway in an age of global warming and severe public health crises?” The answer is easy – mobility and commerce. 110,000 cars per day use the viaduct. I am one of them. Presumably unlike you, I have a job that requires trips into the city, through the city, and out of the city, sometimes several times a day. If there is no replacement for the viaduct I am hosed, as is my employer. Then my employer decides this is not a reasonable place for our company and moves (see Boeing). Not everyone lives in the city and/or can commute by bus. Your “analysis” conveniently leaves out facts and perspectives not pertinent to your foregone conclusion. Growth defines the vibrancy of a city. Car accessibility, much as you may hate to admit it, is a major factor in determining growth. I would rather accommodate commerce and rely on technological advancements in alternative fuels.

]]> By: Seadmiral http://blog.cascade.org/2011/08/vote-no-on-ref-1/comment-page-1/#comment-24869 Seadmiral Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:00:36 +0000 http://blog.cascade.org/?p=7812#comment-24869 The meat of this argument against the tunnel assumes and hinges upon an obviously flawed tolling model: "We can assume that tolls will be around $8-9 for a roundtrip during peak commute hours." Can you please explain this statement? Where does this assumption come from? Are there other options on the table? If the above argument relies so strongly on an assumption of how tolling would work, the assumption should be more completely justified in this article. The meat of this argument against the tunnel assumes and hinges upon an obviously flawed tolling model:

“We can assume that tolls will be around $8-9 for a roundtrip during peak commute hours.”

Can you please explain this statement? Where does this assumption come from? Are there other options on the table?

If the above argument relies so strongly on an assumption of how tolling would work, the assumption should be more completely justified in this article.

]]> By: Let’s Get Political. « Ratty Thoughts http://blog.cascade.org/2011/08/vote-no-on-ref-1/comment-page-1/#comment-24868 Let’s Get Political. « Ratty Thoughts Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:37:19 +0000 http://blog.cascade.org/?p=7812#comment-24868 [...] tunnel). I will not claim to be any sort of expert, but I feel that the Cascade Bicycle Club has a fantastic write-up on the tunnel option. Currently, Seattle is voting on Referendum 1 which would endorse the tunnel. The catch is that the [...] [...] tunnel). I will not claim to be any sort of expert, but I feel that the Cascade Bicycle Club has a fantastic write-up on the tunnel option. Currently, Seattle is voting on Referendum 1 which would endorse the tunnel. The catch is that the [...]

]]> By: Salty Seattle http://blog.cascade.org/2011/08/vote-no-on-ref-1/comment-page-1/#comment-24850 Salty Seattle Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:16:48 +0000 http://blog.cascade.org/?p=7812#comment-24850 Also diagreeing with CBC on this one. Really? You want to throw out an opportunity for a better waterfront experience all because of an I'll-conceived tolling plan? And do I happen to smell capitulation to our douchebag of a non-cyclist mayor? No, really. I'm not buying into his "I ride my wife's bike" PR machine. Very disappointed in you Tessa. Your argument talks about data, but your analysis was squishy at best. Also diagreeing with CBC on this one.

Really? You want to throw out an opportunity for a better waterfront experience all because of an I’ll-conceived tolling plan?

And do I happen to smell capitulation to our douchebag of a non-cyclist mayor? No, really. I’m not buying into his “I ride my wife’s bike” PR machine.

Very disappointed in you Tessa. Your argument talks about data, but your analysis was squishy at best.

]]> By: Le'bouf http://blog.cascade.org/2011/08/vote-no-on-ref-1/comment-page-1/#comment-24849 Le'bouf Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:13:57 +0000 http://blog.cascade.org/?p=7812#comment-24849 Just a bit more. I was hoping the surface alternative would be a real, serious solution. But reading FEIS appendix w, which is a transportation comparison of the tolled bored tunnel versus the partnership surface hybrid, convinced me otherwise. So, by the way, that means that the CBC needn't have focused on tolled bored tunnel versus no action. If you want to include the state s analysis of the tunnel vs. Surface, then read the last section of appendix w. Another key persuasive piece of anysis for me was appendix v, which is the so called Nygaard report. Read that, with its preface of wsdot comments. Pretty helpful. Finally, CBC complains that the bored tunnel does not include funding for waterfront pedestrian and bicycle facilities, while the cut and cover alternative does. This is disengenuous because the cut and cover tunnel includes the waterfront and seawall, while the bored tunnel does not. It's tricky keeping track of the Alaska way viaduct replacement program, the Alaska way viaduct replacement sr 99 action alternatives, and other projects, but, if you want to make bold faced criticisms you ought to have that business straight. I m an avid commuter and I like the theory of reverse induced demand - gridlock makes people stop driving - but, the needs of this project are broader than stopping single occupancy cars. Sr 99 is important to the region, and, well, I think the tunnel- which does reduce capacity for cars compared to the viaduct is a fairly elegant compromise. Just a bit more. I was hoping the surface alternative would be a real, serious solution. But reading FEIS appendix w, which is a transportation comparison of the tolled bored tunnel versus the partnership surface hybrid, convinced me otherwise. So, by the way, that means that the CBC needn’t have focused on tolled bored tunnel versus no action. If you want to include the state s analysis of the tunnel vs. Surface, then read the last section of appendix w. Another key persuasive piece of anysis for me was appendix v, which is the so called Nygaard report. Read that, with its preface of wsdot comments. Pretty helpful. Finally, CBC complains that the bored tunnel does not include funding for waterfront pedestrian and bicycle facilities, while the cut and cover alternative does. This is disengenuous because the cut and cover tunnel includes the waterfront and seawall, while the bored tunnel does not. It’s tricky keeping track of the Alaska way viaduct replacement program, the Alaska way viaduct replacement sr 99 action alternatives, and other projects, but, if you want to make bold faced criticisms you ought to have that business straight. I m an avid commuter and I like the theory of reverse induced demand – gridlock makes people stop driving – but, the needs of this project are broader than stopping single occupancy cars. Sr 99 is important to the region, and, well, I think the tunnel- which does reduce capacity for cars compared to the viaduct is a fairly elegant compromise.

]]> By: Le'bouf http://blog.cascade.org/2011/08/vote-no-on-ref-1/comment-page-1/#comment-24847 Le'bouf Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:57:37 +0000 http://blog.cascade.org/?p=7812#comment-24847 No mention of the two one way three lane couplets that are part of the surface alternative? Hmm. Yes, more traffic on Alaskan way will result from the bored tunnel. But, the bored tunnel also removes two very busy one way boulevards from the surface to the blocks east of Alaskan way. In short, the surface alternative truly does include capacity for cars, on the surface. Also, all of the trucks that would use the tunnel, would be on the surface, so, we could breath their diesel exhaust and hear the engines rumble better I guess. Perhaps we should just wish the trucks away, then we can become like Portland - "where the young come to retire". I want to walk to the waterfront without having to cross so many busy north south streets, and, read the surface alternative - two, three lane, one way north south streets are part of it. As far As a sustainable vision for the city is concerned, I say learning how to cope with and facilitate a substantial industrial base in an information technology town sounds like a global model to me. I'd rather integrate those old economy aspects into our thriving town than export them to some more investment friendly place. No mention of the two one way three lane couplets that are part of the surface alternative? Hmm. Yes, more traffic on Alaskan way will result from the bored tunnel. But, the bored tunnel also removes two very busy one way boulevards from the surface to the blocks east of Alaskan way. In short, the surface alternative truly does include capacity for cars, on the surface. Also, all of the trucks that would use the tunnel, would be on the surface, so, we could breath their diesel exhaust and hear the engines rumble better I guess. Perhaps we should just wish the trucks away, then we can become like Portland – “where the young come to retire”. I want to walk to the waterfront without having to cross so many busy north south streets, and, read the surface alternative – two, three lane, one way north south streets are part of it. As far As a sustainable vision for the city is concerned, I say learning how to cope with and facilitate a substantial industrial base in an information technology town sounds like a global model to me. I’d rather integrate those old economy aspects into our thriving town than export them to some more investment friendly place.

]]> By: Sveinung Odegard http://blog.cascade.org/2011/08/vote-no-on-ref-1/comment-page-1/#comment-24844 Sveinung Odegard Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:47:18 +0000 http://blog.cascade.org/?p=7812#comment-24844 The worst possible thing would be to throw the 20+ year old process back to ground zero. This is the only opportunity Seattle has to get the cars under the ground, so we can start the process of regaining the surface for people, bikers, pedestrians, kids and strollers. To the naysayers: Have you been to a city with noisy polluting traffic underground? Rolled down a street in a metropolitan city on your bike knowing the cars are way below you? By the way. Ask people in Boston now if the BigDig was worth it. Now first, they start realize how positive this is for the city. They looooove it! To attract young positive crowd in the future, we have to compete with cities like Boston, Copenhagen, Paris, Oslo. Please go, rent a bike, and then make up you mind.... Regards all the prognoses about traffic: Infrastructure projects will change the pattern of the city. People and business will adapt, and use the opportunities as provided to them. The tunnell will be used. That is a fact! For every car in the tunnell, there will be one less on the surface. Please, don't be so against everything. Don't block initiatives for solutions. At least, try to see the positive effects. The worst possible thing would be to throw the 20+ year old process back to ground zero.
This is the only opportunity Seattle has to get the cars under the ground, so we can start the process of regaining the surface for people, bikers, pedestrians, kids and strollers.

To the naysayers:
Have you been to a city with noisy polluting traffic underground?
Rolled down a street in a metropolitan city on your bike knowing the cars are way below you?

By the way. Ask people in Boston now if the BigDig was worth it.
Now first, they start realize how positive this is for the city. They looooove it!

To attract young positive crowd in the future, we have to compete with cities like Boston, Copenhagen, Paris, Oslo. Please go, rent a bike, and then make up you mind….

Regards all the prognoses about traffic:
Infrastructure projects will change the pattern of the city. People and business will adapt, and use the opportunities as provided to them. The tunnell will be used. That is a fact!
For every car in the tunnell, there will be one less on the surface.

Please, don’t be so against everything. Don’t block initiatives for solutions.
At least, try to see the positive effects.

]]> By: Philip Mariconda http://blog.cascade.org/2011/08/vote-no-on-ref-1/comment-page-1/#comment-24841 Philip Mariconda Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:21:40 +0000 http://blog.cascade.org/?p=7812#comment-24841 As a regular bicycle commuter, I have to also respectfully disagree with the position of CBC. No plan will be perfect, and I see some stats here that are being overused in my opinion. Sure, cars will be reduced, as businesses leave town in frustration. Some people are GOING to drive out of necessity or self-entitlement - no matter how much fun cycling is. :-) It's just like how cats are GOING to scratch furniture - you can keep scolding them, or give them a scratching post. Reducing car capacity is not the answer. SDOT has gone out of their way to keep bike trails open along SODO and the waterfront. I can get downtown fairly easily. 4th Avenue was recently improved for bikes, but 2nd Avenue is already nearly unusable by bicycle due to chronic illegal blockages of the bike lane. Really the main objection that I have to the current tunnel plan is little or no consideration for transit. I keep pushing for that when I meet someone from SDOT, and I am sure CBC is doing the same. Also, tolling will make matters far worse, but the voters asked for this when approving Tim Eyeman's car tab fee reduction. The money has to come from somewhere. As a regular bicycle commuter, I have to also respectfully disagree with the position of CBC. No plan will be perfect, and I see some stats here that are being overused in my opinion. Sure, cars will be reduced, as businesses leave town in frustration. Some people are GOING to drive out of necessity or self-entitlement – no matter how much fun cycling is. :-) It’s just like how cats are GOING to scratch furniture – you can keep scolding them, or give them a scratching post. Reducing car capacity is not the answer.

SDOT has gone out of their way to keep bike trails open along SODO and the waterfront. I can get downtown fairly easily. 4th Avenue was recently improved for bikes, but 2nd Avenue is already nearly unusable by bicycle due to chronic illegal blockages of the bike lane.

Really the main objection that I have to the current tunnel plan is little or no consideration for transit. I keep pushing for that when I meet someone from SDOT, and I am sure CBC is doing the same. Also, tolling will make matters far worse, but the voters asked for this when approving Tim Eyeman’s car tab fee reduction. The money has to come from somewhere.

]]> By: Luther James http://blog.cascade.org/2011/08/vote-no-on-ref-1/comment-page-1/#comment-24840 Luther James Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:05:50 +0000 http://blog.cascade.org/?p=7812#comment-24840 Well said, Tessa. Simply voting yes on the tunnel for the sake of "moving forward" is a mistake if it's the wrong solution. Best-case scenario, we're looking at $3B+ simply to have a <2 mi tunnel, with few substantive benefits for cyclists, that costs a two-way auto commuter $9/day in tolls. It doesn't seem worth the price to me. We should be workting toward a solution with multiple transportation benefits -- rather than a short, expensive, single-purpose tunnel. Improve surface streets, add some capacity to I-5, invest in transit where it makes sense, and pay for the entire shortfall of the bike master plan with ~5% of the tunnel budget. That's the kind of investment that makes sense for a city of the future. Well said, Tessa. Simply voting yes on the tunnel for the sake of “moving forward” is a mistake if it’s the wrong solution. Best-case scenario, we’re looking at $3B+ simply to have a <2 mi tunnel, with few substantive benefits for cyclists, that costs a two-way auto commuter $9/day in tolls. It doesn't seem worth the price to me. We should be workting toward a solution with multiple transportation benefits — rather than a short, expensive, single-purpose tunnel. Improve surface streets, add some capacity to I-5, invest in transit where it makes sense, and pay for the entire shortfall of the bike master plan with ~5% of the tunnel budget. That's the kind of investment that makes sense for a city of the future.

]]> By: Willa B http://blog.cascade.org/2011/08/vote-no-on-ref-1/comment-page-1/#comment-24823 Willa B Wed, 10 Aug 2011 02:57:47 +0000 http://blog.cascade.org/?p=7812#comment-24823 The bored tunnel project as a whole includes two bike trails in the south end--one along the port to connect to West Seattle and one closer to the stadiums to connect with the Mountains to Sound bike trail. The project also includes a new bike-friendly green street in the end on Thomas Street to connects South Lake Union & Seattle Center, and that's before you even start thinking about the opportunity to create a wider bike trail along the waterfront parallel to Alaskan Way. The tolling plan is the problem, not the tunnel itself. The tunnel, if not tolled, takes cars off the downtown streets and gives us the chance to remake Seattle based on the values cited in the comprehensive plan. I'm saddened to see CBC taking what I see as a trendy position, rather than looking at the project thoroughly. The bored tunnel project as a whole includes two bike trails in the south end–one along the port to connect to West Seattle and one closer to the stadiums to connect with the Mountains to Sound bike trail. The project also includes a new bike-friendly green street in the end on Thomas Street to connects South Lake Union & Seattle Center, and that’s before you even start thinking about the opportunity to create a wider bike trail along the waterfront parallel to Alaskan Way. The tolling plan is the problem, not the tunnel itself. The tunnel, if not tolled, takes cars off the downtown streets and gives us the chance to remake Seattle based on the values cited in the comprehensive plan. I’m saddened to see CBC taking what I see as a trendy position, rather than looking at the project thoroughly.

]]>