However, the longer it takes to make a decision, the harder it will be to actually build anything, so, by default, the surface/transit option just has to obstruct the other options long enough . . .
If the City politicians think it will continue to get them elected, they will fight a new viaduct tooth and nail . . . and although the state could theoretically pull rank, in practice the City can delay indefinitely.
Hurray for political gridlock.
(I myself voted yes for tunnel, as the better option of the two. Disapointed the tunnel lost worse than the viaduct--not that it "lost" just that more people disliked it than the viaduct.)
Yeah, I do wish Seattle was a bit better at making decisions. I certainly cursed that tendency enough when Sound Transit was tottering. This time it just happens to be working in my favor.
Makes me wonder if it can be harnessed for good in the future. Just need to make sure every big project I don't like has a shiny, impractical alternative to cancel it out...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
However, the longer it takes to make a decision, the harder it will be to actually build anything, so, by default, the surface/transit option just has to obstruct the other options long enough . . .
If the City politicians think it will continue to get them elected, they will fight a new viaduct tooth and nail . . . and although the state could theoretically pull rank, in practice the City can delay indefinitely.
Hurray for political gridlock.
(I myself voted yes for tunnel, as the better option of the two. Disapointed the tunnel lost worse than the viaduct--not that it "lost" just that more people disliked it than the viaduct.)
-B.
no subject
Makes me wonder if it can be harnessed for good in the future. Just need to make sure every big project I don't like has a shiny, impractical alternative to cancel it out...