The Viaduct Goat Has Been Slaughtered--Now Let's Read the Entrails

Since you all want to discount the vote of the "No/No" group (I admit we aren't huge, but there are a good number of use who ant the Surface (ehh..)/TRANSIT (YES) option), I think it is only fair to point out that there were probably some yes/yes votes too.

These people wanted a tunel, realized it wasn't going to pass, and were willing to settle for a rebuild. This vote option would inflate the numbers of people who wanted something rather than none-of-the-above.

Here are the real "results"

45% for a rebuild

30% for a Tunnel

"x" for one or more of the following:

"Surface/Transit/Job-Killer"

"Retrofit"

"Prepare and Repair"

"The Choices Suck"

"other"

Results: inconclusive.

Lack of closure: extremely painful for those vested in a particular outcome.

Since "x" is split at least 4 ways (probably more), one cannot conclude anything, except that (of those that bothered to vote) 30% are for a tunnel, and 45% are for a rebuild.

Anyone who can claim the a vote for no on either option represents anything is blowing smoke. There is not enough information to even guess.

Thanks for the kind advice.

I've long held that this city is way too smart for it's own good. The level of education is so high that running the place becomes like a university English department or a grad school philosophy seminar - lots of deliberation and agonizing over opinions and brainstorming and hurt feelings and crying over hurt feelings but no Doing. Any. Thing. Monorail, school closures, viaduct, take your pick.

It needs to be run more like a trucking company. Or an organized crime syndicate. The things this city could accomplish if we had a decent working Mafia. Occasional murders, yes, and plenty of bribes but shit would get done.

I'm thinking I'll move to Chicago. Maybe Boston.

Here's the option we didn't get:

1) Knock the damn thing down

2) Install fast, high-capacity mass transit lines from West Seattle to Downtown (no traffic!)

3) Package Darrell Jackson in a trade for a first round pick and draft a good young guard.

Matt: that is a really smart analysis. I was thinking about this on my way to work this morning. I voted no/yes simply because even though "better" options may exist I'm not at all confident that the city based on the monorail fiasco could pull it off. I voted for what I felt would do the least damage.

What the no/hell no crowd doesn't seem to understand is that focusing on how bad a solution is doesn't encourage people to vote against it. What takes it's place? I couldn't bring myself to vote for "nothing", which is basically what the no/hell no crowd has to offer in terms of a solution. I don't want to vote against a "bad" idea and just kind of trust that a "better" solution will somehow identify itself. I want to vote for a good idea that I think might actually happen. But I didn't get a "better" solution so I voted for the less of two evils.

The message that I *hope* they mayor and governor take from the vote is that the tunnel is dead (obviously a "bad" idea) but unless there is a very clear alternative to a rebuild/retrofit they should play it safe and just rebuild the fawker and hope that in fifty years our kids are smarter than we are.

Seattle has spoken, and what it said was “Do nothing.” Great! Let’s cancel all pending viaduct plans and use the money for Sound Transit 2 and 520 bridge replacement, and let Seattle live with its decision.

If so much as a dime gets spent on the viaduct corridor before it crumbles into dust, I will be very disappointed.

John,

I absolutely recommend trying out other cities. Each one has a different feel, and I've found I like Seattle the best only because I've tried others.

But don't let politics affect your decisions. We are just talking about building a road, after all.

Oh Seattle. It's come to this: a non-binding vote on a meaningless election that advocates further deliberation and rejects all previous ideas while implicitly calling for something that many regard as unworkable. Sigh. It figures that given a choice, Seattle would opt for more agonizing deliberation. This place sucks. I've lived here all my 38 years but I think it's time to pack up and leave. Maybe to a city because I've never lived in one before.

This one was easy to call beforehand, knowing Seattle's record.

However, it's really not a victory for no/hell no. Let's run the numbers:

Assuming everyone voted yes/no, no/yes, or no/no (ignoring those that voted for only one), then the race came out like this:

yes/no: 31%

no/yes: 45%

no/no: 24%

So the no/no camp registered, but even lost to the tunnel. Of course, this was a last-minute campaign with no clear message anyway and the numbers would be much more valid if there were a few more options (boulevard, bridge over water, do nothing, make it watertight and turn it into canals complete with Venice-style gondolas, etc.).

So it will be interesting what message the mayor and the govenor take from this vote.