The C is for Crank
Tolling Cognitive Dissonance
Tunnel opponents---and environmentalists generally---frequently (and rightly) belittle the state Department of Transportation's traffic-projection numbers, which tend to assume massive traffic increases over time (because population growth automatically means more and more and more cars, right?) Most recently, Sightline's Clark Williams-Derry skewered WSDOT for predicting that traffic volumes on SR 520 would go "up up up---even though actual traffic volumes have been flat or declining for more than a decade!"
The point here is that these bad traffic projections lead to bad planning---more highways that aren't needed, because people are driving less and less.
Here's my question, though: Why do the same environmentalists and tunnel opponents who pooh-pooh WSDOT's projections for traffic growth---saying, to use Williams-Derry's words, that we "shouldn't trust WSDOT's projections"---take WSDOT's predictions about dire downtown traffic impacts from tolling on the deep-bore tunnel at face value? (Earlier this week, the anti-tunnel campaign even did a press stunt in which they set up a fake "toll booth" during rush hour to demonstrate the impact tolls will have on downtown streets).
In the final environmental impact statement on the tunnel, WSDOT predicts that about 40,000 cars will divert onto city streets if the tunnel is tolled at rates high enough to pay for construction. Instead of viewing that number with the same skepticism they direct toward other WSDOT predictions, however, tunnel opponents point to it as evidence that the tunnel will be a failure.
A more consistent position, it seems to me, would be the same argument tunnel opponents have made when WSDOT engineers say we need to accommodate 110,000 cars on the waterfront: People are capable of changing their behavior. If the options are a toll as high as $5, a drive through gridlocked city streets, or finding an alternative (traveling at a different time, eliminating or combining trips, or busing, walking, or riding a bike), many people will opt for the alternative.
I'm not saying tunnel opponents' credulity on WSDOT's tolling numbers sinks their argument against the downtown freeway: I do think the surface/transit option would provide plenty of capacity to move people and goods through downtown, because people are smart enough to choose alternatives to driving alone when driving alone becomes too inexpensive or inconvenient. But by trashing WSDOT's traffic projections on one hand, and taking them as gospel on the other, the tunnel opponents are doing damage to their otherwise righteous cause.
The point here is that these bad traffic projections lead to bad planning---more highways that aren't needed, because people are driving less and less.
Here's my question, though: Why do the same environmentalists and tunnel opponents who pooh-pooh WSDOT's projections for traffic growth---saying, to use Williams-Derry's words, that we "shouldn't trust WSDOT's projections"---take WSDOT's predictions about dire downtown traffic impacts from tolling on the deep-bore tunnel at face value? (Earlier this week, the anti-tunnel campaign even did a press stunt in which they set up a fake "toll booth" during rush hour to demonstrate the impact tolls will have on downtown streets).
In the final environmental impact statement on the tunnel, WSDOT predicts that about 40,000 cars will divert onto city streets if the tunnel is tolled at rates high enough to pay for construction. Instead of viewing that number with the same skepticism they direct toward other WSDOT predictions, however, tunnel opponents point to it as evidence that the tunnel will be a failure.
A more consistent position, it seems to me, would be the same argument tunnel opponents have made when WSDOT engineers say we need to accommodate 110,000 cars on the waterfront: People are capable of changing their behavior. If the options are a toll as high as $5, a drive through gridlocked city streets, or finding an alternative (traveling at a different time, eliminating or combining trips, or busing, walking, or riding a bike), many people will opt for the alternative.
I'm not saying tunnel opponents' credulity on WSDOT's tolling numbers sinks their argument against the downtown freeway: I do think the surface/transit option would provide plenty of capacity to move people and goods through downtown, because people are smart enough to choose alternatives to driving alone when driving alone becomes too inexpensive or inconvenient. But by trashing WSDOT's traffic projections on one hand, and taking them as gospel on the other, the tunnel opponents are doing damage to their otherwise righteous cause.
