Even by the weird and hysterical standards of Seattle’s great viaduct debate, something very strange is going on. The weirdness has got to do with what I’ll call the “equity argument” — that our treatment of the viaduct should not discriminate against workers.
Good. Fair enough. No doubt most of us agree: voters and policymakers should be attentive to ordinary- and lower-income folks when making decisions.
But what’s strange is this: according to the purveyors of the equity argument, the elevated-rebuild is good for workers—and all the other choices are bad for them. And what’s even weirder is that in spite of having no actual evidence in support of the claim, the elevated-rebuild backers just keep saying it over and over again, as if repetition will make it true.
Exhibit A is P-I columnist Joel Connelly.
He recently groused that the surface-transit option, “would be underwritten by the paychecks and jobs of those who live and work in the Emerald City.” (He went on to accuse the supporters of any option other than the elevated-rebuild as being variously “highfalutin,” non-indigenous Seattleites, or politicians.)
Now, of course, Connelly is exactly right that the surface-transit option will affect paychecks and jobs. Then again, that’s true of every option—surface-transit, rebuild, tunnel, retrofit, horse and buggy, personal jetpacks, whatever. So it’s hard to know what it is about the surface-transit option that Connelly thinks is so damming. It’s hard to know because Connelly never tells us; and he never tells us because, as I said, there’s no actual evidence in support of his argument.
Exhibit B is yesterday’s article in the P-I that pits the rebuild supporters (a scrappy bunch, “barely funded, grossly outmanned campaign”) against the “plutocratic” tunnel supporters. (Never mind that the elevated-rebuild crowd counts among their number an extremely powerful developer, the editorial board of the city’s largest-circulation newspaper, the governor, the speaker of the house, and the state department of transportation, just to name a few.) The article cites a couple of rebuild-supporting politicians—city council members Licata and Della—who make the equity argument. But again, neither Licata nor Della provides any actual evidence. Not a shred.
But is it true that any option other than the elevated rebuild is bad for workers? I have no idea. Neither do Connelly, Licata, or Della. Neither does anyone else.
Look, I’d sincerely like to know which of the various choices is, in fact, best for workers. I’d love to see some actual evidence—some studies, some data, some analysis… really anything but bald unsupported assertion. Until then, seeing as how everyone in Seattle has apparently become unmoored from the necessity of logic and reason-giving, I’d be happy to speculate about the equity effects of replacing the viaduct.
Here’s what I think. The surface-transit option is probably the most equitable of all choices under serious consideration. It’s by far the cheapest, the least reliant on highly regressive taxes, and the least susceptible to cost-overruns that would be paid for by further regressive taxes. It opens up the waterfront to more public uses. It creates opportunities for a more attractive, more densely populated, and probably more affordable downtown. (Admittedly, the tunnel option has many of these same virtues, though it’s costlier.)
So absent some evidence to the contrary, I just can’t see how the surface-transit option is worse for workers than the other options. Just the opposite is probably true since transit tends to be pretty great for lower- and middle-income folks. By comparison to transit, in fact, driving is the province of the bourgeoisie.
I, for one, have only limited sympathy for “workers” who can afford daytime parking rates in the city, sipping on their venti soy lattes as they pilot their L.L. Bean-edition vehicles through downtown. I’d rather worry about the fellow balancing a cup of joe on his lap during his bus ride to work.
But there I go, lapsing into class rhetoric with no evidence whatsoever to support my claims.
When in Rome…
Anonymous
Does the vote show that surface is the only option left to Seattle? I’ve been away from Seattle for a few years now, and visit about once a week, on business & pleasure. Paid the ever rising taxes for many years for living in the city since 77. I don’t support a tunnel, primarily for the cost to the state, draining funds for other projects. (how much should we spend on 11 blocks?). But the surface option just seems unworkable. It *seems* cheapest, (no real data I’ve seen). But I drove the viaduct *a lot*, and the notion of putting those 100K+ cars, trucks etc., many of them going north and south through the city (not just latte sipping downtown workers) on surface streets, slowing them to a crawl, seems like a very bad idea. Growing up in Chicago in the 50’s, my first memories are of massive surface street traffic jams due to a lack of freeways, which were just getting built. Do we really want to pour thousands of more cars into the downtown core? As environmentalists, I just cannot see wanting to do that. I would need a whole lot more convincing to support such an idea from out here in the hinterlands (I have let my representatives know that if Seattle wanted a tunnel, it should have to be built on tolls by the users, not state funds), and more importantly, the voters probably would too. It would be great to tear down the Viaduct, but, the question is “at what cost?” Voters killed the monorail project for the same reason. They percieved it was too expensive.
David Sucher
The Surface/Transit “option” is not really an option—it is a worthy goal puffed-up by its supporters into something real.
daniel
I don’t think the elevated people really understand the passion of the people opposed to that option. No one in their right mind is saying that the elevated option is the “best” option, the argument always comes down to cost. Well, we’re really sick of people selling out the long-term future of the city because of short-sighted financial decisions. THE ELEVATED OPTION WILL RUIN THE WATERFRONT FOR ANOTHER GENERATION. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.Period. At any cost, or any cost savings.If the state goes forward with a “rebuild” option, don’t just expect legal trouble from the city. Expect people laying down in front of bulldozers. Expect massive protests. The “rebuild” people don’t care as much. They just want something cheap. Or just to keep the status quo. If it doesn’t get rebuilt, they’ll complain, write a few letters to the editor, and then go home. That’s the difference here. I’ve yet to meet one person under 25 who lives in the city who would suffer a rebuild. Lets do the right thing and find a better way for the future of this great city.
Lansing
Hmmm… I’ve heard of this thing called Peak Oil, that seems to suggest that by the time a new viaduct could be completed gas will likely be significantly more expensive. What kind of “equity” is served by workers paying $5+/gallon to drive SOVs to & from work? Aren’t there more equitable solutions?Yes, I’d also like to see some real evidence, but studies need to be based on future likelihoods more than on the past.Seems to me I’ve also heard both Nickels & Gregoire talking a lot about the importance of confronting Global Warming, which would seem to suggest that 110,000+ (mostly SOV) trips along that corridor might not be in the best interest of the planet either.Since we’re planning for something likely to last for most of the 21st century, why is so much of the debate still stuck in the 20th century?