Comments on: Unauthorized Rogue HAC Endorsement of Mike McGinn for Mayor

By: spencer

spencer — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:02:46 +0000

I too will likely vote for Mcginn but absolutely not for his position on the Viaduct. That’s not because I oppose his position it’s just that it’s truly annoying that we will be headed for a third or fourth delay/revote/change-of-mind on this thing. What an absolute waste of time. I wonder if anyone has calculated all the lost value productivity put forth to this issue over the past eight years. I’m nearly certain that has added up to 4.”frakin” billion dollars. If the tunnel gets built we will sooner have a great place to run the west seattle to ballard/fremont train through. If we don’t, and go with surface, we’ll win too. What will sway me to him or Mallahan is his overall platform and how it effects the thousands of other parts to urbanism. Sure this is a blog about urban issues but when has crime, poverty, job-less-ness not been urban issues? Even if Mike chooses not to talk much about other topics can we at least have an honest full bodied discussion on this blog to better convince other people to vote for Mike?

By: laralou

laralou — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:56:40 +0000

I agree with Alexjonlin. I voted for McGinn because he’s an environmentalist, and I respect his work through Great City and the Sierra Club, but he’s answer to the viaduct is unrealistic. Virtually no one has come up with a decent reason to vote against Nickels and I sorely regret my vote. So now we have McGinn against Mallahan. Ugh. I’ll try my hand at McGinn, but I really wish Nickels was in this race.

By: Zelbinian

Zelbinian — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:17:14 +0000

Michael, I don’t know you, and you may well be a very smart person, but you’re got some seriously faulty logic and bad information.

a) You pull a nice bit of sleight of hand by comparing current non rush-hour travel time to predicted rush-hour travel time. Nice try, but that’s what we like to call an intellectually dishonest argument.

b) Speaking of being intellectually dishonest, anyone skilled in mathematics would balk at your ridiculous presentation of those numbers. The word “double” has a nice, emotional appeal to it, but is not the appropriate metric when numbers are sufficiently small. Example: If your corner store closes down and you have to go to the next one, and it now takes you 2 minutes instead of 1 to walk to the store to buy a 6-pack, your travel time just doubled. That doesn’t actually mean the difference is significant in context. I mean, who really gives a flying frak about 10 more minutes? The work on I-90 next week will add way more than 10 minutes to everyone’s commute.

c) The irony is that the people that *do* give a flying frak about those 10 minutes should also be against the tunnel. Why? Only about 15-20% of trips on the Viaduct – all inclusive to type – are through Seattle. Put another way, you are throwing your support behind a $4.2B+ car-only tunnel, in an age of peak oil and climate change, that only realistically serves the needs of 1/5 of its users (and here, the fractional represenation is appropriate). Srsly dood?

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:34:26 +0000

Nate, apparently you didn’t read that document closely enough:

. Travel times on the SR
99 corridor through the central waterfront would take five to 10 minutes longer than the bypass
scenarios and 10 to 15 minutes more than today.

LOL, that’s even MORE than double the current non rush-hour travel time of about 5 minutes. Thanks for pointing that doc out to me so I can quote it going forward.

Wes: The reason you see that a lot is because it’s true. Tearing down a road doesn’t make a rail track magically appear, just like high parking rates and severely limited parking-space requirements for residential buildings didn’t do it.

It might make more condos magically appear, though. :)

By: wes kirkman

wes kirkman — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:27:34 +0000

“When we have REAL, all-weather, dedicated-track transit into the actual neighborhoods our residents live and play in – THEN we can start making plans to kill the roads.”

I see that a lot too. However, until we start sacrificing the space, money, and time dedicated to building and maintaining car capacity, we will never be able to build a real transit system that would make us comparable to SF, Vancouver, Portland, etc al.

By: Nate

Nate — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:08:29 +0000

@ 13

Michael–

With all due respect, I see THIS all the time:

A surface street viaduct “replacement” would about double current travel time through the city, whether by car or bigger multiperson car (bus). Let’s not even mention the trucks. Twice the petroleum fumes; lower gas mileage. Ahhh, saving the Earth.

The reality? WSDOT, whose transformation from the “Department of Highways” to an agency focused on the mobility of people and goods is incomplete, studied the surface option and found the following:

Most trips to or through the Center City would have minimal changes in travel time.

From: AWV I-5/Surface/Transit Hybrid Scenario Fact Sheet

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:13:45 +0000

“The tunnel won’t work.”

I see this all the time, but the only reason people ever give is their promise that there will be “overruns.” (Which BTW would be a first for a WDOT project.) This is actually one of the best thought-through projects I’ve seen in our half-assed transit plan (thanks to our dear “just say no” voters, after 40 years of trying to get REAL transit all we have to show for it is a train to the airport and a toy streetcar).

A surface street viaduct “replacement” would about double current travel time through the city, whether by car or bigger multiperson car (bus). Let’s not even mention the trucks. Twice the petroleum fumes; lower gas mileage. Ahhh, saving the Earth.

When we have REAL, all-weather, dedicated-track transit into the actual neighborhoods our residents live and play in – THEN we can start making plans to kill the roads.

Until then, anyone trying to compare us to SF or Vancouver or Portland (sorry, Chicago has Lake Shore Drive to go with its impossible-for-Seattle-to-match rail transit) is asking to be laughed at.

By: Joshua Daniel Franklin

Joshua Daniel Franklin — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:41:33 +0000

Mike rode his bike up to our Farmer’s Market and went around chatting with people. That’s something I can respect.

By the way, does Nickels or any other candidate have a clue about gang problems either?

By: dan bertolet

dan bertolet — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:05:52 +0000

For the record: I did not ghost write this post. I’ll have some things to say about McGinn soon. But this one was written by my bike-geek neighbor Dave, who really exists and has posted before:

http://hugeasscity.com/2008/06/06/they-call-it-a-city-for-a-reason/

http://hugeasscity.com/2007/12/28/rethinking-bike-lanes/

http://hugeasscity.com/2007/12/17/maybe-someone-could-pass-the-word-to-the-spd/

By: alexjonlin

alexjonlin — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:00:15 +0000

I wish, too, that we could have had a surface-transit plan, but the reality is that you can’t always get what you want, and you need to compromise. This is exactly what Mayor Nickels did. From an urban planning standpoint, it is very important to get that ugly highway off of our waterfront, and this was the only way that that could happen given the political climate. Also, his priorities are more specific than that. He wants to add more bus service (something the city can’t do), make our schools better (something the city can’t do) and add more broadband access, which is ridiculous.
Mayor Nickels has been great, being a huge leader on the environment and championing light rail as the chair of the Sound Transit board. Most people who don’t like him can’t give me a real reason why. Some say he’s just abrasive and not a nice guy, but every time I’ve seen him, I’ve found him to be very smart, frank, and honest. I really think he deserves to be reelected.