A KING 5 poll tries to find out what voters really meant.
Yes, the voters have spoken. But we knew the outcome would leave more questions than answers. So a week before the election, we created a poll to get some feeling for what message voters were really sending. We began fielding it on election night, about the time everyone's ballot was in. The SurveyUSA poll includes 707 registered Seattle voters who said they did cast a vote in the recent viaduct advisory election. Here are a few tidbits from our poll that we didn't have time to explore on-air.
--54% said they felt the vote was not worthwhile. (And that's of people who took the time to vote and spent 39 cents.)
--74% said they expect lawmakers will ignore what voters have to say.
--The tunnel did 14 percentage points better among men than women. Men still rejected it though, 61-37%.
--Downtown voters were most opposed to a new viaduct, but according to the poll, residents in West Seattle actually approved it.
Obviously, in hindsight, there are many questions we should have asked but didn't. But we designed the poll before we had any idea of the outcome.
Here's how it all breaks down. Very rough numbers here--30% voted for a tunnel. Somewhere from 38% to 43% voted for a viaduct (our poll suggests a slightly lower number supporting the viaduct compared to actual election returns, but as the final election numbers come in, the viaduct opposition has been going up). And in our poll, 34% said they voted "no" to both. And of those 34-percent, roughly half (56%) said a surface street was their choice. So really, no option has more than 50% in this scenario.
What do you think the election accomplished, if anything? And why did you vote the way you did? We especially want to hear from those who voted "No-no"--what's your message? Is it a surface street you want?
Missed the show? Watch it on streaming video: KING 5 News Up Front with Robert Mak EVERY SUNDAY: THE ISSUES THAT MATTER KING-5 @ 9:30 a.m. NWCN @ 8:00 p.m. KONG-TV @ 10:30 p.m.
20 Comments
Fred Quarnstrom said:
The elections show we have idiots a leaders. If you want to know what people want ask the question correctly vote for one:
1. Viaduct,
2. Tunnel,
3. On street traffic Streets,
4. Repair the existing viaduct
Asking two questions "do you want A?" and "do you want B?" was an unwise decision. In general, people are resistent to change, and that's all I think we really saw in the results of the vote. The question should, instead, have been "Which do you want, A, B, or a third option?" As it stands, understanding the meaning of the vote requires speculation and guessing about voter intent: a fruitless exercise that could easily have been avoided with proper question wording.
Now that we're stuck with "No & No", I think the third option should be a radical rethink far outside the box. Not some ridiculous "surface street" but rather something totally new. Perhaps a high-capacity, train system, maybe hovercraft ferry system that runs up the coastline. The point is to move people and cars. That doesn't mean they have to drive.
Julie said:
I, for one, voted "no" to both ballot choices. My reason - we need to scale back the vehicles on roads: not continue to accommodate more vehicles.
I would like to see a boulevard that shows off the waterfront and gracefully transitions between downtown and the Elliot Bay. It would force people to use alternative transportation, which, in the long run, would benefit the environment and provide the city with open space, which it has neglected to allow for consistently.
Other cities have achieved this balance with river/waterfront surface streets.
Time to look beyond our noses and think long term for the welfare of this region.
andy G said:
The council is anti viaduct. They know Seattle always votes no on all large civic projects so they thought they could claim victory for the surface option if they didn't get their precious tunnel and both went down. Actually the surface option got no votes at all. The Times was extrememly biased in favor of the surface option, but it's just crazy if you try to explain how it would actually work without simply banning cars from downtown. The surface option would kill business in dwontown Seattle and force everyone to commute away from it. Futile.
woody said:
turnout for this election was low, something like 20% of elgible voters. and rightfully so -- the election was meaningless and didn't even include the surface street option. an opinion poll would give more realistic results of the will of the people. how about giving voters real numbers on prices, years, and capacities of different plans?
beyond that, no one trusts local leaders to be able to accomplish anything within a budget or a timeframe. light rail isn't slated to reach redmond till 2030....if EVER. boggles the mind that we pay people to come up with plans like this.
here's a thought: impose a windfall tax on the property owners that stand to make billions when the viaduct goes away and they get taxpayer-subsidized million dollar views (you know, the ones that have been lobbying and "donating" money to local politicians). use the money to pay for surface-street construction, and the leftovers for light rail extension.
what we really need is a no-no option when electing the mayor or governor. no, we don't want corporate-welfare stick-it-to-the-middle-class and destroy-the evironment republicans, and no, we don't want incompetent do-nothing democrats.
Steve Probst said:
Any solution to the problem must be able to handle 100,000+ cars a day without stop lights for commuters and business's and be constructed with as few disruptions as possible. I don't think there is a surface solution to this problem and if the election had been worded better the viaduct would have been the clear winner.
MLM said:
I BELIEVE IT MEANS NO TUNNEL BECAUSE OF THE EXPENSE: MEANS MORE TAXES FOR DRIVERS AND NON-DRIVERS, ONCE A TUNNEL PROJECT STARTS THERE WILL BE "UNKNOWNS" THAT WILL RAISE THAT COST DRASTICALLY (THE LOCATION IS RECLAIMED LAND, REMEMBER).
THE VOTE FOR NO VIADUCT WAS BECAUSE NO ONE GAVE US A REASONABLY ACCURATE PICTURE OF WHAT A MODERN, STYLISTIC, WELL PLANTED AND PLANNED STRUCTURE COULD LOOK LIKE. (EVEN THE SURFACE STREET PLAN IS SHOWN AS A BEATIFIED SPACE BUT THE VIASUCT IS ALWAYS THE OLD UGLY THING, GIVE ME A BREAK!!) OH, I WONDER WHAT THE POWERS THAT BE COULD MEAN BY THAT BLATANT EXIBIT OF THEIR VOTE????
NO! NO! NO! WE DO NOT LIKE BEING TOLD WHAT WE WANT AND WE DO NOT LIKE SLANTED REPORTING BY THE NEWS OR BY THE POLITICAL MANOUVERS OF A NARCISIST.
IF THE CHOICES WERE CLEARLY THERE, THE VOTE WOULD BE CLEAR.
THIS SURFACE STREET PLAN IS JUST ANOTHER MANOUVER OF NICHOLS WHO LIKES TO MUDDY THE WATER WITH HIS UNCLEAR THINKING AND CONTINUALLY PRACTICES THE DISFUNCTIONAL CHARATERISTIC OF ALL OR NOTHING!
mike felkins said:
the viaduct does not handle all that many cars. it's just disinformation put out by people that stand to make money off the viaduct.
i lived in the bay area when san francisco tore down its own viaduct, the embarcadero freeway. traffic didn't get any worse. it is just as horrid as always! the city got a lot nicer.
what if we just had mass transit to west seattle? would we still need the viaduct? and i mean mass transit with no smelly bums on it; no one likes to sit next to alcoholics/drug addicts, which is why public transit has failed to take off. so the city would have to cancel that free ride zone nonsense.
Malkenhorst said:
No Viaduct
No Tunnel
Have a surface street for access to waterfront and piers.
Widen I-5 through downtown. Build another branch to I-5 coming through Seattle
K Malkenhorst
West Seattle Resident
annie said:
I am really unhappy we never got our monorail. Why should I vote for an expensive tunnel that enhances downtown and the business interests when they jinxed the monorail?
We need to solve the transportation problen, not spend a fortune that doesn't address the issues people care most about.
I skipped the vote!
Ballard
Aaron Johnson said:
i am strong defender of either rebuilding the viaduct or making some sort of crossover highwasy
but building a surface street in place of the aging viaduct would be flat out wrong
a lot of people drive around on that viaduct every day to get where they need to go
and it would be a sad day in seattle if all of gregoire's underlings got their way and said
"let's build a street"
i think they should just either build a crossover viaduct highway that involved the monorail or rebuild the viaduct
chad said:
Let's look at one of the main things the King 5 poll found out. If 34% of voters voted NO/NO, and 56% of NO/NO voters favor a surface street option, that means that only 19% of everyone who voted in the election favors a surface street option. That is fewer than 1 in 5 voters who want to replace the viaduct with a surface street.
Both the elevated and tunnel have more support than the surface street option. There is far more support for an elevated SR99 along the waterfront than for any other alternative.
chad said:
Here is another interesting thing we have learned from the King 5 poll.
If 34% of the 154,934 ballots counted as of today were NO/NO, that totals 52,678 NO/NO ballots. The poll found that 18% of those NO/NO voters (9,482) favor retrofitting the current viaduct, and 3% of those voters (1,580) favor a new viaduct of a different design than the one being presented. So a total of 11,062 of people who voted NO on the rebuild actually favor an elevated highway along the waterfront.
So of the 85,829 people who voted No on the rebuild which was presented, only 74,767 are opposed to an elevated highway of any sort. And a total of 75,067 voters favor an elevated highway along the waterfront (64,005 favor the rebuild presented; 9,482 favor a retrofit; and 1,580 favor a new viaduct of a different design).
So, of the people who voted on the rebuild, there are actually slightly more who favor an elevated SR99 of some sort along the waterfront, than there are who oppose any sort of elevated highway along the waterfront. An elevated SR99 along the waterfront actually enjoys a slight majority support, according to the King 5 poll and the latest election returns.
scott said:
Frankly I am confused and frustrated by this entire process. Everytime I hear mention of a surface option in this issue, I think of the traffic that passes through that North-South artery every morning and evening and know it could never exist in any of the "surface street option" renderings that keep flashing in the media.
Our government was elected to make decisions that will provide this community and the people that visit and pass through it, multiple, viable North-South travel options. This area will grow from here and never, ever get smaller. Whatever replaces this viaduct needs to handle a tremendous amount of traffic, and I am not hearing people discuss that.
Gerald Larkins said:
It would be interesting to see what the outcome would be on a county wide vote. Those of us who live in the cities outside of Seattle will be impacted by the type of viaduct or tunnel that is built and deserve a voice too.
cj said:
I have commuted and traveled the viaduct for 30 years. If I could have voted in the recent election, I would have. Unfortunately, a large part of South Seattle was left out of the vote. A great number of people use the viaduct for commuting and general travel from South to North Seattle. I'm still trying to figure out why South Seattle, Burien, and Des Moines were left out of voting on this important issue. I personally would love to have the tunnel and probably would have voted that way. However, a raised viaduct would also be fine. Regardless of which option is chosen, a street option has to be out of the question. The quality of the waterfront and city would suffer greatly. Too many cars and probably more in the future. Better transit might help, but it will never reduce the 100's of thousands of cars that travel it daily. I know this might be something most people wouldn't like, but what about a toll to help pay for it. Also, if something isn't decided soon, it will probably fall down on its own. Then watch out I-5. You think gridlock is bad now, just wait.
Gretchen Erickson said:
I find it hard to believe it is taking this long to make a decision. I leave in Burien and drive the viaduct often holding my breath that we don't have an earthquake. I did not realize that Highway 99 was a Seattle issue. Shouldn't a vote included everyone in King Country or all of Washington. I have lived in the Seattle area all my life and find the Viaduct part of the Seattle scenery. A replacement of the Viaduct with all the advance engineering can't be that detrimental to Seattle. All one has to do is look at the back up in traffic during rush hours to see we need more not less to move traffic. No matter what is decided their going to have to a alternative route while the replacement is constructed so lets get started.
Tom Lee said:
Heck, I wouldnt' mind if Seattle had even magnetic levitated trains. But I'm stretched too dang thin with all these taxes and expenses just for living in Seattle. Real estate is ultra expensive around here, my discretionary spending is too weak for more projects. Sorry Seattle.
Eric Dawes said:
Wondering if anyone has considered a cross between tunnel and surface ... much like I-90 through Mercer Island. Still expensive .. but what about a big "trench" (open on top) for traffic to go without stoplights; but occasional wide pedestrian paths over the top? Seems it would eliminate large concrete structure, would not have as many safety concerns as tunnel, would open waterfront to pedestrians, etc. Could still have a couple lanes "up" to facilitate deliveries to piers, etc.
Essentially, though, this would be equivalent of a freeway underpass ... because the KEY part (as far as pedestrian traffic) of the waterfront is only a few blocks long and wouldn't require the complexity of a fully-enclosed tunnel. Granted still requires seawall retrofit -- but I was under impression that was also inevitable at some point.
Peter said:
Whatever...
the public wasn't qualified to vote on this issue. The Seattle mayor has already ruined one public works project (the monorail) and I suspect he will ruin this one too. The State will have their way.
Yes, the voters have spoken. But we knew the outcome would leave more questions than answers. So a week before the election, we created a poll to get some feeling for what message voters were really sending. We began fielding it on election night, about the time everyone's ballot was in. The SurveyUSA poll includes 707 registered Seattle voters who said they did cast a vote in the recent viaduct advisory election. Here are a few tidbits from our poll that we didn't have time to explore on-air.
KING 5 News Up Front with Robert Mak
The elections show we have idiots a leaders. If you want to know what people want ask the question correctly vote for one:
1. Viaduct,
2. Tunnel,
3. On street traffic Streets,
4. Repair the existing viaduct
Asking two questions "do you want A?" and "do you want B?" was an unwise decision. In general, people are resistent to change, and that's all I think we really saw in the results of the vote. The question should, instead, have been "Which do you want, A, B, or a third option?" As it stands, understanding the meaning of the vote requires speculation and guessing about voter intent: a fruitless exercise that could easily have been avoided with proper question wording.
Now that we're stuck with "No & No", I think the third option should be a radical rethink far outside the box. Not some ridiculous "surface street" but rather something totally new. Perhaps a high-capacity, train system, maybe hovercraft ferry system that runs up the coastline. The point is to move people and cars. That doesn't mean they have to drive.
I, for one, voted "no" to both ballot choices. My reason - we need to scale back the vehicles on roads: not continue to accommodate more vehicles.
I would like to see a boulevard that shows off the waterfront and gracefully transitions between downtown and the Elliot Bay. It would force people to use alternative transportation, which, in the long run, would benefit the environment and provide the city with open space, which it has neglected to allow for consistently.
Other cities have achieved this balance with river/waterfront surface streets.
Time to look beyond our noses and think long term for the welfare of this region.
The council is anti viaduct. They know Seattle always votes no on all large civic projects so they thought they could claim victory for the surface option if they didn't get their precious tunnel and both went down. Actually the surface option got no votes at all. The Times was extrememly biased in favor of the surface option, but it's just crazy if you try to explain how it would actually work without simply banning cars from downtown. The surface option would kill business in dwontown Seattle and force everyone to commute away from it. Futile.
turnout for this election was low, something like 20% of elgible voters. and rightfully so -- the election was meaningless and didn't even include the surface street option. an opinion poll would give more realistic results of the will of the people. how about giving voters real numbers on prices, years, and capacities of different plans?
beyond that, no one trusts local leaders to be able to accomplish anything within a budget or a timeframe. light rail isn't slated to reach redmond till 2030....if EVER. boggles the mind that we pay people to come up with plans like this.
here's a thought: impose a windfall tax on the property owners that stand to make billions when the viaduct goes away and they get taxpayer-subsidized million dollar views (you know, the ones that have been lobbying and "donating" money to local politicians). use the money to pay for surface-street construction, and the leftovers for light rail extension.
what we really need is a no-no option when electing the mayor or governor. no, we don't want corporate-welfare stick-it-to-the-middle-class and destroy-the evironment republicans, and no, we don't want incompetent do-nothing democrats.
Any solution to the problem must be able to handle 100,000+ cars a day without stop lights for commuters and business's and be constructed with as few disruptions as possible. I don't think there is a surface solution to this problem and if the election had been worded better the viaduct would have been the clear winner.
I BELIEVE IT MEANS NO TUNNEL BECAUSE OF THE EXPENSE: MEANS MORE TAXES FOR DRIVERS AND NON-DRIVERS, ONCE A TUNNEL PROJECT STARTS THERE WILL BE "UNKNOWNS" THAT WILL RAISE THAT COST DRASTICALLY (THE LOCATION IS RECLAIMED LAND, REMEMBER).
THE VOTE FOR NO VIADUCT WAS BECAUSE NO ONE GAVE US A REASONABLY ACCURATE PICTURE OF WHAT A MODERN, STYLISTIC, WELL PLANTED AND PLANNED STRUCTURE COULD LOOK LIKE. (EVEN THE SURFACE STREET PLAN IS SHOWN AS A BEATIFIED SPACE BUT THE VIASUCT IS ALWAYS THE OLD UGLY THING, GIVE ME A BREAK!!) OH, I WONDER WHAT THE POWERS THAT BE COULD MEAN BY THAT BLATANT EXIBIT OF THEIR VOTE????
NO! NO! NO! WE DO NOT LIKE BEING TOLD WHAT WE WANT AND WE DO NOT LIKE SLANTED REPORTING BY THE NEWS OR BY THE POLITICAL MANOUVERS OF A NARCISIST.
IF THE CHOICES WERE CLEARLY THERE, THE VOTE WOULD BE CLEAR.
THIS SURFACE STREET PLAN IS JUST ANOTHER MANOUVER OF NICHOLS WHO LIKES TO MUDDY THE WATER WITH HIS UNCLEAR THINKING AND CONTINUALLY PRACTICES THE DISFUNCTIONAL CHARATERISTIC OF ALL OR NOTHING!
the viaduct does not handle all that many cars. it's just disinformation put out by people that stand to make money off the viaduct.
i lived in the bay area when san francisco tore down its own viaduct, the embarcadero freeway. traffic didn't get any worse. it is just as horrid as always! the city got a lot nicer.
what if we just had mass transit to west seattle? would we still need the viaduct? and i mean mass transit with no smelly bums on it; no one likes to sit next to alcoholics/drug addicts, which is why public transit has failed to take off. so the city would have to cancel that free ride zone nonsense.
No Viaduct
No Tunnel
Have a surface street for access to waterfront and piers.
Widen I-5 through downtown. Build another branch to I-5 coming through Seattle
K Malkenhorst
West Seattle Resident
I am really unhappy we never got our monorail. Why should I vote for an expensive tunnel that enhances downtown and the business interests when they jinxed the monorail?
We need to solve the transportation problen, not spend a fortune that doesn't address the issues people care most about.
I skipped the vote!
Ballard
i am strong defender of either rebuilding the viaduct or making some sort of crossover highwasy
but building a surface street in place of the aging viaduct would be flat out wrong
a lot of people drive around on that viaduct every day to get where they need to go
and it would be a sad day in seattle if all of gregoire's underlings got their way and said
"let's build a street"
i think they should just either build a crossover viaduct highway that involved the monorail or rebuild the viaduct
Let's look at one of the main things the King 5 poll found out. If 34% of voters voted NO/NO, and 56% of NO/NO voters favor a surface street option, that means that only 19% of everyone who voted in the election favors a surface street option. That is fewer than 1 in 5 voters who want to replace the viaduct with a surface street.
Both the elevated and tunnel have more support than the surface street option. There is far more support for an elevated SR99 along the waterfront than for any other alternative.
Here is another interesting thing we have learned from the King 5 poll.
If 34% of the 154,934 ballots counted as of today were NO/NO, that totals 52,678 NO/NO ballots. The poll found that 18% of those NO/NO voters (9,482) favor retrofitting the current viaduct, and 3% of those voters (1,580) favor a new viaduct of a different design than the one being presented. So a total of 11,062 of people who voted NO on the rebuild actually favor an elevated highway along the waterfront.
So of the 85,829 people who voted No on the rebuild which was presented, only 74,767 are opposed to an elevated highway of any sort. And a total of 75,067 voters favor an elevated highway along the waterfront (64,005 favor the rebuild presented; 9,482 favor a retrofit; and 1,580 favor a new viaduct of a different design).
So, of the people who voted on the rebuild, there are actually slightly more who favor an elevated SR99 of some sort along the waterfront, than there are who oppose any sort of elevated highway along the waterfront. An elevated SR99 along the waterfront actually enjoys a slight majority support, according to the King 5 poll and the latest election returns.
Frankly I am confused and frustrated by this entire process. Everytime I hear mention of a surface option in this issue, I think of the traffic that passes through that North-South artery every morning and evening and know it could never exist in any of the "surface street option" renderings that keep flashing in the media.
Our government was elected to make decisions that will provide this community and the people that visit and pass through it, multiple, viable North-South travel options. This area will grow from here and never, ever get smaller. Whatever replaces this viaduct needs to handle a tremendous amount of traffic, and I am not hearing people discuss that.
It would be interesting to see what the outcome would be on a county wide vote. Those of us who live in the cities outside of Seattle will be impacted by the type of viaduct or tunnel that is built and deserve a voice too.
I have commuted and traveled the viaduct for 30 years. If I could have voted in the recent election, I would have. Unfortunately, a large part of South Seattle was left out of the vote. A great number of people use the viaduct for commuting and general travel from South to North Seattle. I'm still trying to figure out why South Seattle, Burien, and Des Moines were left out of voting on this important issue. I personally would love to have the tunnel and probably would have voted that way. However, a raised viaduct would also be fine. Regardless of which option is chosen, a street option has to be out of the question. The quality of the waterfront and city would suffer greatly. Too many cars and probably more in the future. Better transit might help, but it will never reduce the 100's of thousands of cars that travel it daily. I know this might be something most people wouldn't like, but what about a toll to help pay for it. Also, if something isn't decided soon, it will probably fall down on its own. Then watch out I-5. You think gridlock is bad now, just wait.
I find it hard to believe it is taking this long to make a decision. I leave in Burien and drive the viaduct often holding my breath that we don't have an earthquake. I did not realize that Highway 99 was a Seattle issue. Shouldn't a vote included everyone in King Country or all of Washington. I have lived in the Seattle area all my life and find the Viaduct part of the Seattle scenery. A replacement of the Viaduct with all the advance engineering can't be that detrimental to Seattle. All one has to do is look at the back up in traffic during rush hours to see we need more not less to move traffic. No matter what is decided their going to have to a alternative route while the replacement is constructed so lets get started.
Heck, I wouldnt' mind if Seattle had even magnetic levitated trains. But I'm stretched too dang thin with all these taxes and expenses just for living in Seattle. Real estate is ultra expensive around here, my discretionary spending is too weak for more projects. Sorry Seattle.
Wondering if anyone has considered a cross between tunnel and surface ... much like I-90 through Mercer Island. Still expensive .. but what about a big "trench" (open on top) for traffic to go without stoplights; but occasional wide pedestrian paths over the top? Seems it would eliminate large concrete structure, would not have as many safety concerns as tunnel, would open waterfront to pedestrians, etc. Could still have a couple lanes "up" to facilitate deliveries to piers, etc.
Essentially, though, this would be equivalent of a freeway underpass ... because the KEY part (as far as pedestrian traffic) of the waterfront is only a few blocks long and wouldn't require the complexity of a fully-enclosed tunnel. Granted still requires seawall retrofit -- but I was under impression that was also inevitable at some point.
Whatever...
the public wasn't qualified to vote on this issue. The Seattle mayor has already ruined one public works project (the monorail) and I suspect he will ruin this one too. The State will have their way.