June 11, 10:32 AM 5
A New Poll Shows that Voters Want McGinn to Oppose the Tunnel and Work for a Better Future
The voters of Seattle are speaking clearly: They want a mayor who understands the $4.2 billion tunnel is a boondoggle. But more than that, they want a mayor who, instead of dedicating $1 billion of city money for a two-mile-long tunnel and leaving Seattle taxpayers on the hook for cost overruns, will allocate more resources to Seattle’s real priorities: reducing overcrowding on buses, improving our public schools, and preparing for a clean-energy economy.
A poll recently commissioned by the McGinn for Mayor campaign shows that voters don’t want the tunnel:
- 64% oppose
- 7% neutral
- only 29% support after learning Seattle citizens would pay for cost overruns
And voters support my candidacy. When they learn about my opposition to the tunnel, I win a plurality of the vote. In fact, votes for me would triple if all voters knew about my stance. So while the purveyors of conventional wisdom insist that the tunnel is a done deal and that I should be quiet about it, I hear voters say to me, “We deserve better, and I’m upset that politicians aren’t listening.”
What should be done instead of a tunnel? First, get our priorities straight, and honor Seattle’s values. Make sure that when Seattle citizens are taxed, it’s for the right priorities, like great public schools for our children—not for a $4.2 billion tunnel with no downtown access. As I’ve said before, we do need to tear down the Viaduct; it’s unsafe. And then replace it with the more-affordable alternative of handling freight traffic and north-south throughput with $500 million in improvements to I-5, along with significant investments in local transit and other surface transportation. I was heartened to see that the new poll shows support for this proposal.
It’s time to build the Seattle we believe in, and it’s up to you. Join the campaign with the strongest grassroots momentum:
- The campaign already has teams of volunteers calling voters five nights per week.
- The members of the 37th District Democrats and the local Sierra Club chapter endorsed me just this week.
- This campaign has the most robustsocial-media presence.
This campaign is yours, and I promise I will never stop listening to what you’re asking for.
Join We Like Mike, online volunteer headquarters
Mike,
I live in West Seattle and use the viaduct all the time. I’d like to know just exactly what the $500 million in I-5 upgrades would do.
Would it replace the capacity (passenger vehicles and frieght vehicles) that is currently being used on the viaduct? If not, what is the plan to deal with that?
What about those who use the Viaduct and highway 99 / Aurrora to go from south of downtown / West Seattle to say Queen Anne / Ballard / Magnolia, Interbay? How would that re-routed east to west traffic be dealt with from I-5 going west to those neighborhoods? Through Wallingford? Through Ballard?
How about people going from Magnolia / Queen Anne / Ballard going to the airport or West / South Seattle? Would the improvements on I-5 really be able to hold the increased volume? I’d tend to doubt that at $500 million.
I understand your opposition to the tunnel and it’s extream costs and I’d like to see leadership that can solve the problems presented by the Viaduct being torn down. So far I’ve not seen that from anyone. If you don’t want the tunnel which is a very specific solution then what is your very specific plan to deal with the world as it exists and will exist after the viaduct is torn down and there is no tunnel replacing it?
Here’s a link that shows the “I-5, Surface & Transit Hybrid Scenario” as presented to the Stakeholders Advisory Committee. The design comes from USDOT/ WSDOT and was one of the final two approved plans developed through the lengthy engineering and public engagement process.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/77C3A087-3751-4B31-9775-69EE525140A8/0/I5SurfactTransitHybridScen_Dec08.pdf
[...] in my message of a better Seattle, and we’ve already seen how well this message resonates with voters across the city. Now I need your help. The primary is August 18th and we need to act now to reach critical primary [...]
While I strongly oppose the tunnel plan (not just for cost, but for design flaws that will make traffic worse, not better), that does not mean that I endorse tearing down the viaduct. I think the viaduct is a valuable asset, especially for those folks living in the NW and SW areas of Seattle. It needs the earthquake retrofit, and it needs some re-working of the exit/entrances to improve safety, but otherwise is a fine road with one of the most enjoyable views of the city, mountains, and Sound in the area.
As for the concept that it “divides” downtown from the waterfront, I say BS on that. The giant swathes of parking and bad sidewalk design cut downtown off from the waterfront, not the viaduct. Easily corrected, improved, and beautified, and won’t cost a bajillion dollars to do it.
I don’t think pushing us all to I-5 is an answer, either. Remember that the viaduct isn’t just about downtown, it’s about Ballard, Magnolia, West Seattle, White Center, SoDo, Georgetown, and South Park, too.
Keep/fix the viaduct and put the rest into improving our public transportation. More people will use public transit if it’s frequent and reliable, which now it is not.
It has been said, over and over again… That retrofitting the viaduct or even rebuilding the viaduct is not viable solution to the problem and using the excuse of “you get a great view”… is not an acceptable answer and is quite ridiculous…