This Washington
Seattle More Knowledgeable, Whinier About the Tunnel
As we reported yesterday, a poll
by the state department of transportation (WSDOT) found that a strong plurality of people polled like the deep-bore tunnel, but only a quarter could identify the tunnel as the likely replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
For further clarity, I've separated out the numbers for Seattle residents only---the residents who will be most affected by the tunnel project. Not surprisingly, they tended to be more familiar with the state's proposal. Somewhat surprisingly, they were also more supportive of the tunnel---and more likely than metro area residents in general to support a rebuilt viaduct (and to oppose the surface/transit option) if the tunnel becomes infeasible.
Let's go deeper into the numbers, shall we? I'll focus on the questions whose answers noticeably differed based on geography.
• More people in Seattle claimed to be paying at least some to the debate over what to do about the viaduct---85 percent, compared to 79 percent of those in outlying and suburban areas. (More people in Seattle were also able to say that there's a plan to replace the viaduct---64 percent, compared to 53 percent of out-of-towners).
Those numbers were borne out by the percentage of Seattelites who could correctly identify a "bored tunnel" or a deep-bore tunnel as the state's preferred solution---46 percent, compared to 33 percent of those outside the city. (More Seattleites were also able to say correctly that the current tunnel plan is different from the cut-and-cover tunnel voters rejected in 2007---60 percent, compared to 41 percent outside Seattle).
• Seattle residents were more likely to believe the viaduct is unsafe and needs to be torn down no matter what: 52 percent, compared to 39 percent in outlying areas. Additionally, just 23 percent of Seattle residents thought the viaduct could be "made safe by reinforcing," compared to 30 percent of those living elsewhere. However, after being asked a somewhat leading question about whether congestion in Seattle is getting worse, respondents were more likely to say the viaduct needs to be torn down: 77 percent of Seattle residents "somewhat" or "strongly" agreed, compared to 68 percent of those outside the city.
• A strong majority of Seattle residents said they were aware of legislation putting "Seattle-area taxpayers" on the hook for cost overruns on the tunnel (74 percent, compared to 59 percent outside Seattle), but just 39 percent of Seattle residents (compared to 25 percent elsewhere) were aware of statements by the city attorney and attorney general that that legislation is unenforceable.
• Seattle residents were also more familiar with the arguments WSDOT is making to sell the tunnel project, indicating that the state's messaging is getting through here.
For example, large majorities or pluralities said they were "aware" that the tunnel will allow the state to reconnect the street grid in South Lake Union (50 percent); that "removing the viaduct will make the waterfront quieter and cleaner and will reconnect downtown Seattle with the waterfront, creating acres of new public open space and parks" (82 percent); and that the tunnel "maintains capacity for these trips which are critical for local businesses and commercial traffic" (66 percent). Not surprisingly, aspects of the tunnel that most directly impact Seattle residents were more important to people in Seattle: 84 percent of Seattle residents ranked improving the health of Puget Sound as very or somewhat important, compared to 77 percent of those outside the city, and 80 percent in Seattle said making the waterfront cleaner and quieter was a priority, compared to 69 percent of those outside the city.
• Although most Seattle residents preferred the bored tunnel to the surface/transit option (69 percent vs. 27 percent) and a rebuilt viaduct, (67 percent vs. 28 percent), a majority said that if forced to choose between surface/transit and a rebuilt viaduct---the likely scenario if the state withdraws funding for the tunnel---they'd pick the rebuild: 51 percent said rebuild, compared to just 41 percent for surface/transit.
• Finally, although just 16 percent of Seattle respondents said they drove on the viaduct three days a week or more (11 percent said they drove on it twice a week), nearly two-thirds said they would be "somewhat" (31 percent) or "greatly" (33 percent) impacted if the viaduct was permanently closed without a replacement---an indication, perhaps, that when you give people the opportunity to complain, they will.
For further clarity, I've separated out the numbers for Seattle residents only---the residents who will be most affected by the tunnel project. Not surprisingly, they tended to be more familiar with the state's proposal. Somewhat surprisingly, they were also more supportive of the tunnel---and more likely than metro area residents in general to support a rebuilt viaduct (and to oppose the surface/transit option) if the tunnel becomes infeasible.
Let's go deeper into the numbers, shall we? I'll focus on the questions whose answers noticeably differed based on geography.
• More people in Seattle claimed to be paying at least some to the debate over what to do about the viaduct---85 percent, compared to 79 percent of those in outlying and suburban areas. (More people in Seattle were also able to say that there's a plan to replace the viaduct---64 percent, compared to 53 percent of out-of-towners).
Those numbers were borne out by the percentage of Seattelites who could correctly identify a "bored tunnel" or a deep-bore tunnel as the state's preferred solution---46 percent, compared to 33 percent of those outside the city. (More Seattleites were also able to say correctly that the current tunnel plan is different from the cut-and-cover tunnel voters rejected in 2007---60 percent, compared to 41 percent outside Seattle).
• Seattle residents were more likely to believe the viaduct is unsafe and needs to be torn down no matter what: 52 percent, compared to 39 percent in outlying areas. Additionally, just 23 percent of Seattle residents thought the viaduct could be "made safe by reinforcing," compared to 30 percent of those living elsewhere. However, after being asked a somewhat leading question about whether congestion in Seattle is getting worse, respondents were more likely to say the viaduct needs to be torn down: 77 percent of Seattle residents "somewhat" or "strongly" agreed, compared to 68 percent of those outside the city.
• A strong majority of Seattle residents said they were aware of legislation putting "Seattle-area taxpayers" on the hook for cost overruns on the tunnel (74 percent, compared to 59 percent outside Seattle), but just 39 percent of Seattle residents (compared to 25 percent elsewhere) were aware of statements by the city attorney and attorney general that that legislation is unenforceable.
• Seattle residents were also more familiar with the arguments WSDOT is making to sell the tunnel project, indicating that the state's messaging is getting through here.
For example, large majorities or pluralities said they were "aware" that the tunnel will allow the state to reconnect the street grid in South Lake Union (50 percent); that "removing the viaduct will make the waterfront quieter and cleaner and will reconnect downtown Seattle with the waterfront, creating acres of new public open space and parks" (82 percent); and that the tunnel "maintains capacity for these trips which are critical for local businesses and commercial traffic" (66 percent). Not surprisingly, aspects of the tunnel that most directly impact Seattle residents were more important to people in Seattle: 84 percent of Seattle residents ranked improving the health of Puget Sound as very or somewhat important, compared to 77 percent of those outside the city, and 80 percent in Seattle said making the waterfront cleaner and quieter was a priority, compared to 69 percent of those outside the city.
• Although most Seattle residents preferred the bored tunnel to the surface/transit option (69 percent vs. 27 percent) and a rebuilt viaduct, (67 percent vs. 28 percent), a majority said that if forced to choose between surface/transit and a rebuilt viaduct---the likely scenario if the state withdraws funding for the tunnel---they'd pick the rebuild: 51 percent said rebuild, compared to just 41 percent for surface/transit.
• Finally, although just 16 percent of Seattle respondents said they drove on the viaduct three days a week or more (11 percent said they drove on it twice a week), nearly two-thirds said they would be "somewhat" (31 percent) or "greatly" (33 percent) impacted if the viaduct was permanently closed without a replacement---an indication, perhaps, that when you give people the opportunity to complain, they will.
