[...]Different Campaign Strategies | hugeasscity[...]…

They didn’t support the “roads and transit” proposal (the one you refer to) because there was too much road construction. Considering the fact that the 1995 proposal lost, this was a very risky strategy. However, it was successful (if you are looking at the ratio of transit to rail instead of total miles of rail). I’m curious (perhaps you know) what rail would have been built with the “roads and transit” proposal that won’t be built until we get another vote passed (or what rail has been delayed).

On Portland’s Green Line, it is true that the portion along I-205 was set aside long ago. However, Portland also built the Green Line through downtown from Union Station to PSU using the existing right-of-way of public streets. (The Yellow Line also uses this route now.) Even the downtown Portland portion was vastly less expensive per mile than Sound Transit’s surface line on MLK which required lots of land acquisition. Of course, running on streets also has its drawbacks–it would be guaranteed to be much slower than a tunnel, for example.

I have mixed feelings about McGinn’s opposition to Roads and Transit–I voted for it myself (because I love devil’s bargains). I don’t feel too bad about the loss because suburban King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties defeated worse than Seattle. They’re the ones who were supposed to vote for the roads.

Hmm, that didn’t turn out to be “quick points.”

Here’s what I’ve noted so far regarding McGinn’s positions.

The Budget. Cutting government jobs sounds suspiciously Republican. Also, in a time where we need jobs and less unemployment this sounds like an even worse idea.

Public Out Reach. Sure as a line item in a budget report this sounds like a great idea. Placing few people in charge of multiple departments’ PR and outreach sounds like a lot of over worked people and even more under educated public on the happenings of our city. This is especially important since 1/5th of our city consists of immigrants. Lord knows the online “news papers” aren’t doing their part. This particularly concerns me when McGinn wants to increase public participation in policing our streets. Who is going to do this outreach?

Anyone take a guess at what the cash savings are for McGinn’s consolidations? Anyone know?

No Bid Contracts. Anyone know how many projects the city puts out there that are less than $260,000? I can’t imagine many.

On crime: Planning a policy around Waterloo Iowa? a city that is 1/10th our size? Not convincing at all. I do love the job creation bit but what mayoral candidate hasn’t stated we need more police? I do like the Clean Dreams program, that at least gives an alternative to prison, and the Green Jobs idea. Maybe he can get Van Johnson to volunteer to run that program since we won’t be hiring any expensive consultants.

Immigrants. This is a sound policy to me. I hope that he holds true to getting out to the immigrant communities but also to those later generational communities that already exist to explain and recruit to improve the services in their neighborhoods. Speaking of marginalized people, I wonder if he will visit Nicholsville regularly too?

By the way, did the Times article really shed any more light on Mcginn’s other policies.

Folks don’t get me wrong. I’ll likely vote for Mcginn because of his background alone and not really anything he’s saying now. I just don’t think he’s a perfect candidate. No matter who is Mayor either choice will be learning on the job.

It’s McGinn’s *plan* for light rail that’s vague. “Half-baked” would have been a better term. He didn’t address the practical challenges of placing a line in Ballard, Queen Anne, Belltown, and West Seattle. Also, it was misleading when he invoked Portland’s Green Line, since its devoted, graded right-of-way was planned and built along I-205 during the Carter administration.

My point about Prop. 1 was that, among other things, the 2007 measure would have funded a 50-mile expansion, whereas the 2008 measure funded 34 miles. The Sierra Club lost my support when we lost those sixteen miles of rail. That is why I’m so annoyed with my probable vote for McGinn.

1) Yes, as far as I can tell. In other words, if he doesn’t stop the tunnel I’ll be very surprised and disappointed (and so will many of his supporters). Of course, we live in a republic, not a democracy, so he can change his mind, but unless there is a very good reason too, I don’t suspect he will. He has made it a cornerstone of his campaign, so I doubt he will change his mind.

2) Maybe, maybe not. The clock is ticking, but I don’t know if anyone has really figured out the odds of dying on the viaduct vs. dying on, say, Highway 2 (the so called highway of death). Driving is dangerous. People die all of the time. We may not get “the big one” for 200 years, but we know more people will die on the road (by the way, I’m not a car hater, I drive quite a bit). To answer your question though, I would think that the fastest solution would be surface solution, followed by a new viaduct, followed by a tunnel. I think a fair amount of the planning work has been done for the first and the third (see http://obrienforseattle.com/2009/05/public-voice-ignored-in-viaduct-decision/ for information about the committee that studied the various proposals).

3) I don’t think McGinn is a vague supporter of light rail. I think he was a strong supporter of the monorail, which was essentially elevated rail. As he correctly said, the monorail failed not because of an engineering failure (it was on budget) but because of a financing problem (the miscalculated the amount of money that needed to be assessed). I believe the Sierra Club has always supported light rail. I believe they supported the original proposal, which would have added way more rail. They didn’t support the “roads and transit” proposal, but that proposal would not have added more transit (just more roads). I think that was a very risky position to take (since it was possible for us to get neither) but if you are a fan of light rail, the risk paid off. There are a bunch of reasons not to support McGinn, but if you like light rail, you’ll him.

I haven’t heard anything about Mr. Mallahan that makes me want to vote for him, and he seems out-of-touch with Seattle values. Voting for him would kind of be like voting for my boss’s boss. I would rather not.

I know more about Mr. McGinn, but that isn’t helping. I would like some answers to the following questions before he gets my vote…

1) Has McGinn *promised* to stop the tunnel if elected?

2) Will stopping the tunnel option mean that it will take longer – in terms of process, planning, and construction – to replace the viaduct? Getting cars off that thing is literally a matter of life-and-death, and the clock is ticking.

3) I read about McGinn’s (vague) support for more light rail in Seattle, but couldn’t one argue that without opposition from him and the Sierra Club, we would be on track for more regional light rail than is currently approved?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EY7lYRneHc