Vote against the Seattle Tunnel (no on referendum 1)
So, the environmental impact statement finally came out, and it appears that the tunnel plan will be useless - it would cost $4,000,000,000 and provide only a 2% improvement in traffic over just closing the viaduct and doing nothing. That's a waste of our money that we could spend in more efficient ways.
I was initially in favor of the idea of a tunnel. It seemed like the ideal solution, replacing the current ugly viaduct with something that was functionally identical, but that kept the traffic out of sight and allowed a greener, more pedestrian/cylist-friendly waterfront. Sure, it might be more expensive, but it seemed like a worthwhile investment.
But then we found out that we'd have to bore so deep that there wouldn't be any exits downtown. And then the state decided that Seattle would be on the hook for any cost overruns. And then we found out that there'd be a $5 toll. And finally, the environmental impact statement's analysis showed that between the lack of exits and the toll, that the actual impact on traffic would be barely better than doing nothing.
And now we have people claiming that because we thought we liked it before we found out how effective it would be, we have to continue? That's like having an argument over which clothes to buy, before looking at what's actually available and trying them on. The previous arguments had no relevance to reality. We did not have the data to make a meaningful decision. Only now can we actually decide in any real way.
And from first principles: I mean, OK, so people take the viaduct. I do, when I have a car. How many of them enter or exit downtown? Eliminate those, and we have people who only want to skip downtown and go from north of downtown to south of downtown.* They are already the less-important-to-us fraction of traffic. Then eliminate all the people who would take an alternate route to avoid a $5 toll. Who's left? Do we want to spend $4,000,000,000 to save them 17 minutes a trip? Why not just add a few more express bus routes?
There are other plans, that produce much better outcomes, at much less cost. The "Street/Transit/I-5" plan, or "ST5", seems to be the leading one. Let's do something like that!
Here's another breakdown, The Environmental Case Against the Deep-bore Tunnel, courtesy of pielology.
* Not strictly true, as some drivers would find it efficient to overshoot their destination by taking the tunnel to the first exit, and then doubling back into downtown. And the reverse, of course. But still.
I was initially in favor of the idea of a tunnel. It seemed like the ideal solution, replacing the current ugly viaduct with something that was functionally identical, but that kept the traffic out of sight and allowed a greener, more pedestrian/cylist-friendly waterfront. Sure, it might be more expensive, but it seemed like a worthwhile investment.
But then we found out that we'd have to bore so deep that there wouldn't be any exits downtown. And then the state decided that Seattle would be on the hook for any cost overruns. And then we found out that there'd be a $5 toll. And finally, the environmental impact statement's analysis showed that between the lack of exits and the toll, that the actual impact on traffic would be barely better than doing nothing.
And now we have people claiming that because we thought we liked it before we found out how effective it would be, we have to continue? That's like having an argument over which clothes to buy, before looking at what's actually available and trying them on. The previous arguments had no relevance to reality. We did not have the data to make a meaningful decision. Only now can we actually decide in any real way.
And from first principles: I mean, OK, so people take the viaduct. I do, when I have a car. How many of them enter or exit downtown? Eliminate those, and we have people who only want to skip downtown and go from north of downtown to south of downtown.* They are already the less-important-to-us fraction of traffic. Then eliminate all the people who would take an alternate route to avoid a $5 toll. Who's left? Do we want to spend $4,000,000,000 to save them 17 minutes a trip? Why not just add a few more express bus routes?
There are other plans, that produce much better outcomes, at much less cost. The "Street/Transit/I-5" plan, or "ST5", seems to be the leading one. Let's do something like that!
Here's another breakdown, The Environmental Case Against the Deep-bore Tunnel, courtesy of pielology.
* Not strictly true, as some drivers would find it efficient to overshoot their destination by taking the tunnel to the first exit, and then doubling back into downtown. And the reverse, of course. But still.