Anti-Tunnel Rally
This afternoon, a short march and a rally was held at the Seattle City Hall by opponents of Proposition 1 a/k/a The Downtown Seattle Deep-Bore Tunnel. I went over to get some shots and to show my support.
Now, I’ve gone over why I am against Proposition 1 in probably half a dozen articles, so I won’t go into it again at this moment. I would, however, urge you to take a look at this site if you have not already done so:
http://www.protectseattlenow.org/
$3+ Billion to increase traffic on Downtown Seattle streets so that corrupt local politicians can please their financiers is not a good idea for anyone.
Except corrupt local politicians and their financiers.
Please vote “No” on Proposition 1.
The Tunnel That Ate Seattle
Anti-Tunnel Rally Sign
Anti-Tunnel Rally
Anti-Tunnel Rally at City Hall
No to Proposition 1
Anti-Tunnel Rally Sign at City Hall
Hving a tunnel that doesn’t feed into the city isn’t a bad thing. There are people that simply want to go through the city. Would the tunnels construction forbid the building of surface transit in the future? It doesn’t look like it. What the emplyment impact of such a project? Pretty good I imagine. The fact that it doesn’t plan for any transit isn’t good, but perhaps that can be amended rather than tossing the whole thing. Build the tunnel, force people to use it much like NYC does…use that money to improve your surface roads.
If we paid 10,000 unemployed or underemployed women a share of $3 billion to give me erotic massages with happy endings for the next 5 years , it would be good for employment and it would have a superior effect on Downtown traffic than would the tunnel. Does that justify the expenditure? If so, vote “yes” on Prop. 2, the Save SeattleRex’s Prostate Referendum.
I can’t think of a major city that doesn’t have a tunnel. I’ve been to everyone of them in the US. This thing gets built…perhaps not now, and maybe it will be a better deal the next time it is proposed…but it gets built. What exactly is Seattle trying to do? What’s your Utopian transit system? Taking away cars isn’t an option…and not a valid suggestion.
There is no utopian solution. There are only flawed solutions that cost $3+ billion, and flawed solutions that cost less than $3+ billion.
Why would we choose the most expensive one?
Advocating for a $3+ billion tunnel simply because there is no utopian solution is specious reasoning. It can be used to justify anything e.g.
“Well, there’s no perfect solution, so let’s build a $5 billion circus-themed water park in SODO. Nobody will use it, but it will create jobs and let’s face it, every city gets a circus-themed water park eventually.”
It doesn’t make any sense.
Since we don’t really have a good solution, there’s always the option of, you know, not spending the $3+ billion at all. Do you run out and spend your paycheck as soon as you get it, or do you hang onto what you can to fund necessities like food, housing, and health care?
We just made massive cuts to BASIC healthcare in this state, as well as education. King County Metro is looking at 17% service cuts.
It’s unfathomable to think that the very best way we can think of to spend $3 billion is a taxpayer-funded gift to wealthy developers.
The money is burning a hole in local politician’s pockets (as moneyed interests douse those same pockets with gasoline), but that doesn’t make it either inevitable or wise to build a goddamn tunnel below 8 avenues and an Interstate that follow roughly the same path.
The tunnel is corruption personified, and telling people to vote for it because it’s inevitable is defeatist.
Perhaps you are right, and they will build it anyway, but it’s always better to go down swinging than to go down grabbing your ankles.
Let me ask you this; if the project cost 1 billion and no tolls would be enforced…would it be acceptable to you? Add in the fact that you were granted complete transparency on how the money was spent and where it ended up. Would you approved construction?
Let me ask you this; if the project cost 1 billion and no tolls would be enforced…would it be acceptable to you? Add in the fact that you were granted complete transparency on how the money was spent and where it ended up. Would you approved construction?
What, exactly, does “no tolls would be enforced” mean?
In general, I would not personally approve any private vehicle projects at this time. If roads were the solutions to transit problems, Los Angeles would be the poster child for gridock abatement.
You mention NYC in a comment above, and other cities that have tunnels … but in addition to tunnels, what do most of them have?
In the case of New York, the answer is the best damn transit system in the world. The result is the lowest level of car ownership than any other city in the country. Traffic is bad in Manhattan, but could you imagine what it would be like without the subway? Do you remember what happened during the transit strike? That’s what New York would be like every day had they concentrated on the private automobile over the last century. That’s what it would be like every day had they built the Holland Tunnel before the BMT.
Boston had a subway long before a deep-bore tunnel. Did their massively expensive tunnel solve their traffic problems? It depends on who you ask, but few would say it was worth the cost.
“A 2008 Boston Globe report asserted that waiting time for the majority of trips actually increased as a result of demand induced by the increased road capacity. Because more drivers were opting to use the new roads, traffic bottlenecks were only pushed outward from the city, not reduced or eliminated (although some trips are now faster).”
Roads are not the answer to Seattle’s transit problems. At least not now. I’ve explained many times why this is:
http://www.seattlerex.com/vote-no-on-the-tunnel-referendum/
I would not vote for a tunnel unless the benefit-to-cost was overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt.
Right now, we are looking at no benefit on Downtown traffic, or a negative benefit for $3 Billion (obviously final cost estimates vary).
Even at $1 Billion, I don’t think that no benefit or a negative benefit is rational.
If the argument is 100% about “jobs”, then just give the unemployed working-class people the money. I don’t see why we need to make them rip up the streets and screw up downtown traffic to get it while the company owners sit back and make a profit on their labor.
Slaves benefited from the cotton farms, but not nearly as much as the plantation owners. If the politicians and wealthy developers care so much about people, then give the people $3 billion. All of it. Without the huge skim taken by the lobbyists and wealthy developers.
If the enrichment of the working class is really the primary goal of the deep-bore tunnel, we can still do that … whether the tunnel is built or not.
In February 2007, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that the science on global warming is “unequivocal” and asserted with 90 percent confidence that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activities, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, have been the main cause. Shortly thereafter, fossil fuel companies funneled millions of dollars to the institutes of global warming skeptics, including former President of the National Academy of Sciences Frederick Seitz, who cast doubt about the science in media reports on climate change. Electricity generates about the most carbon emitted into our atmosphere, with transportation being second, a tunnel designed to serve single occupant vehicles is perverse in this light, wake-up smell the coffee, your precious car needs to go away, when you ride alone you ride with Al-Qaida.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/view/?autoplay
At the risk of being labeled a “denier”, AGW has become politicized to the extent that many politicians and the UN are risking their reputations on perpetuating their flawed solutions to a potentially non-existent problem. Moreover, proponents of the theory (read Al Gore) stand to make many millions (more) off of carbon trading schemes.
In fact, as more and more AGW scientists are being discredited and new data shows that the models used in the IPCC report are flawed the hysteria from the proponents grows ever more shrill. They realize they are running out of time to complete this wealth redistribution scam.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/scientist-who-warned-of-threat-to-polar-bears-is-suspended/article2112539/
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
for the pedantic: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_Misdiagnos_11.pdf
I could go on.
By all means ride a bike or use public transit since air quality (not CO2) is a real problem in cities. Similarily, I recycle knowing full well it costs more and is likely harder on the environment however, the trade off is less use of landfills and possibly deforestation (although the jury is out on the latter).
The jury is not out with regards to deforestation, 1 acre of hemp fiber produces as much as 20 acres of wood pulp in the production of paper.
You need not concern yourself with being labeled a “denier”: you are a denier. The anecdotal experience of living near I-5 in CA. and now in WA, I listened to the constant drone of tires on pavement, only to be muffled by the crush of traffic snaking by during what ironically is known as rush hour. According to the U.S. Department of Transpotation Statistical Records Office there are approximately 62 million registered vehicles in the U.S. at the current time and appox. 6.4 million unregistered functioning vechicles.
You have to be pretty dull to think all of this internal combustion has zero environmental consequences. Maybe you should go back to your BP ads, and believe, or maybe you just wandered out of some fundamentalist, flat earth revival. Nothing personal coolpacific, it’s just that you and yours are taking the planet to hell, with the rest of us being dragged in tow. There’s nothing cool about that.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_cars_are_currently_in_the_US#ixzz1V3C3Wh5k
The geography around Seattle and the roadways throughout it make this an interesting discussion. No matter what, you can’t increase the volume of I-5 through the downtown corridor. Depending on what games, conventions, concerts, etc… are scheduled (much less rush hour) you best plan ahead if you have to go north to south or opposite. I have family both north and south of Seattle and getting from one to the other can be quite a pain in the ass. Realistically, the only alternative is the 405. But why swing around an extra 20 miles when you will likely get caught up in the S-curves or downtown Bellevue? The viaduct is very dated as well as an eyesore on the skyline. The fact that it didn’t collapse during the Nisqually quake in 2001 was amazing. I was there for that quake as well as the Loma Prieta quake in ’89 in sfo where several elevated roadways collapsed. An abrupt stoppage to the viaduct would cripple downtown traffic. Emission concerns in the PNW are pretty negligible with the constant off shore flow from the Pacific. In my six years in Seattle (’90s), I don’t recall a single air related alert. I won’t get into the impact of scooter emissions here. ;) Regardless, if the city of Seattle is to remain economically viable, it must bring in revenue from the burbs. In order to accomplish that, they need to keep the traffic flowing. As idealistic as it may seem, not all families of 2.3 plus are going to ride vespas from Federal Way to Magnolia. Anything to relieve the congestion of I-5 should be welcomed. Opening up as many avenues into the downtown corridor from the burbs increases the economical viability of the area. If Seattle proper could sustain itself then I would say have at it, and you are right, but, the fact of the matter is, that like most other major metropolis, Seattle depends on the dollars outside its area to survive. I know that extra vehicle traffic hinders the free reign vibe of foot soldiers and non-cagers, but the fact of the matter is that you need them to sustain the viability of the same place you are trying to protect. Being idealistic is commendable, but be careful not to see the whole picture.
A Yamaha Vino emits 56.8 CO2 g/km which is roughly half that of a hybrid car (the Prius emits 104 g/km), and is less than 1/3rd that of the most economical “regular” car, the Honda Civic Coupe at 166 – 185 g/km.
The average scooter is driven 1/6th as many miles annually, which means that 20 scooters have roughly the same environmental impact as one compact car. This is not even counting the immense fuel, space, and weight savings, which would probably push it closer to a 50:1 ratio (you don’t have to roll many fuel trucks, re-pave many roads, or fight many wars when your vehicles weigh 200lbs and consume 2 gallons/month). Scooters may even be more environmentally friendly than bikes when you consider the energy cost required to propel a bicycle 100 miles (a few power bars and a half gallon of water @ $6.00 or so) vs a single gallon of fuel at $3.75 … without a huge weight difference.
That’s neither here nor there, though.
We’re talking about traffic congestion, and we are talking about a $3 Billion solution that may actually increase traffic congestion instead of relieve it.
If you are a suburban auto commuter, I don’t understand how this helps you. If you have family on either side of Seattle, I don’t understand how this helps you. If you are a Downtown resident, I don’t understand how it helps you. If you are a Seattle taxpayer, you are liable for the cost overruns as well. If you are a developer that benefits from the $3 Billion, oh now I see who it helps.
The projections vary according to the bias of the studying entity, but there’s really been no consensus or convincing evidence that this tunnel is going to relieve any congestion at all. Some studies indicate that traffic will, instead, increase.
So, conceding everything you have said to be true, the tunnel still does not make sense.
I think that if the tunnel were a clear-cut, obvious, quantifiable benefit to traffic in the region, we would be having a different discussion. Sure, some of us would still be against it, but I doubt there would be a referendum on the ballot.
Hell, I personally would wholeheartedly support the tunnel if I actually thought it would have a real, dramatic, long-term traffic-reducing effect. Everyone benefits from a reduction in traffic, urban and suburban folks alike. Less traffic is a beautiful thing, and if I thought a deep-bore tunnel meant fewer cars on these streets for a lessor amount of time, I’d be on it like skinny jeans on a hipster.
The problem is, even conceding that automobile commuters are the lifeblood of the region, there is a very real possibility that this tunnel will hurt those people rather than help them.
$3 Billion to potentially increase Downtown traffic does not help you whether you live in Kirkland or Belltown. Given the geographic restrictions of the isthmus, there is likely no road solution that will alleviate traffic long-term. Look at a map. Seattle is already plastered with roads. North to south, east to west, there are roads, roads, and more roads. Yet, with so many glorious roads to travel, why do we have so much traffic? Are we to believe that another road will suddenly solve it? A magical two mile, four lane, $3 billion road?
The fact of the matter is that, after the road is built, you are still going to sit in traffic. Potentially, more traffic.
This is something you want? Just to teach uppity Downtown snobs and asshole bike riders a lesson, you are willing to spend $3 billion to sit in more gridlock?
It makes no sense. We’ve all been had. Hoodwinked. Lied to. Led astray. Bamboozled.
This whole us vs. them, city vs. suburb, local vs. visitor, car vs. bike sideshow has been entertaining, but it’s more divide and conquer bullshit. Another loaf of bread, another ticket to the circus. The taxpayers, the transit commuters, the walkers, the bikers, and the auto commuters … well, we all get screwed with the same diseased dick if this thing gets built.
The only people who clearly benefit from a tunnel are the politicians and those who will receive money or other consideration for the construction.
Not to mention, governments everywhere are broke, some near insolvent. It’s likely a good time to take a step back.