Interesting, albeit incomplete, slog posting, Erica. I am wondering if you can please tell us at who's invitation this guy came to town? That might help us better undestand motivations (if any) here. Also, although I realize this guy's way of thinking fits into your's and the rest of The Stranger's "No Build Option" agenda, would there be any way that you might be able to even out coverage of all the options out there in the future -- say, slog now and again about the Rebuild option, etc.? Pretty please? It would sure be nice for us reading folk out here to have all options presented in a reasonably unbiased fashion -- rather than just a "think tank" guy's POV now and again to support what you think should happen... :)

The comparison to detroit is surprisingly apt. Both cities host the largest and most technologically advanced companies of their time. Both were/are boomtowns, with rapidly growing populations. Both have diverse populations that are strictly segregated by geography. Both had a fantastic streetcar system that was ripped up. Both have fearful and bigoted suburbs whose growth was subsidized by city tax dollars.
It is distressing how focused both the city, state and county level are on easing they way of commuters from the 'burbs, with the city picking up the tab. Welcome to the new detroit.

"Both have diverse populations that are strictly segregated by geography..."

Stretching the comparison a bit, don't you think Golob?

No matter how you slice it, white bread Seattle nowhere near as diverse as Detroit. (Oh yeah, the Central District, right...)

xoxo,
dog breath

Definitely need some more coverage of all the options here. I typically agree with The Stranger on topics like this one but I get the sense that no one writing about this has ever crossed the West Seattle bridge. Try it sometime in the morning and then pretend the viaduct isn't there. Have fun driving into town. It sucks. Yeah, it sucks on the bus too.

Replacing the viaduct is NOT about congestion relief, that's a red herring. It is totally irrelevant if the new viaduct/tunnel/road doesn't relieve traffic one iota. The main function of the rebuild, after safety, is about maintaining capacity. In particular, maintaining the ability for all of the semi trucks to get to and from the Port of Seattle. So what if it doesn't relieve traffic? It is sort of like the dumb argument we shouldn't expand existing highways, because if we do those additional lanes will just be filled. Duh. That is the point...why in god's name would you build something that's not going to get used?

seattle is definitely not detroit in terms of demographics, not even close. i lived there for the past ten years and just moved here.
what is right on, and a connection i was surprised to see someone make, is that highways are a lot of what destroyed detroit. they were a tool of suburbanization and racism, for sure, but they were the tool that worked, far better than segregation, though we talk about that more.
i wrote what i considered to be a bizarro-world master's thesis on the development of detroit's highway system. while much of the primary documentation i found was blatantly racist, far more of it revolved around the more "subtle" class aspects of racism. the desire to make it easy for hard working folk to get into and out of the city, the ability of white suburbanites to get where they are going without having to through scary neighborhoods.
of course, at the time detroit had as many scary neighborhoods as seattle does, none. and if you consider the likelihood that you'll be assaulted in *your moving car* you will reasonably understand that you are more likely to struck by lightening or bitten by a shark.
again, the answer for seattle in terms of successfully moving people through a growing city, is the same answer that every successful urban area on the globe has struck upon, that great mystery known as good public transportation.

As far as I can discover, there has been absolutely no study initiated to understand the effects of a no-build option. Neither the city nor the state have offered it as part of the viaduct solution, and I am very curious why a study has not been undertaken. It is simply mismanagement not to take it under consideration.

Why hasn't a study of a no-build option ever completed? It would certainly put the issue to rest, however the state and the city apparently have not made this a consideration.

It doesn't add up. We should be asking a lot more questions why the city and state have been reluctant to undertake complete a study.

Not to do so is exceedingly poor engineering.

---Jensen

It's a sad commentary on Seattle politics that Midwestern Milwaukee is more progressive than we are about urban planning.

P.S. I'm curious if Jessyn Schor gave any feedback.

"San Francisco’s Embacadero Freeway carried a similar level of traffic as the viaduct - and traffic on that city’s waterfront simply disappeared after the Embarcadero was torn down."

I wanted to compose a witty reply, but I can't stop laughing my ass off.

As someone who has sat in the "disappearing traffic" on the street that replaced the Embarcadero freeway I can tell you that traffic has not disappeared.

Most of the road was under construction of some sort for years when they removed the freeway so people stayed away. Once the construction of the "new" Embarcadero street level road was done, the traffic came right back with it.

Tom Lemos, could you describe the source of your information about how many car trips came back once the new road was opened? Is this based on your own experience sitting in a car, annoyed, at rush hour?

A transportation planner employed by the City of San Francisco stated that their analysis showed 40% of the trips that had been on the highway stopped happening after it was torn down.

Not long after the earthquake, the Bay Area was mired in a recession, resulting in massive layoffs. Quite a few corporate giants moved their headquarters out of state or out to new developments in the suburbs. I'm betting those factors had more to do with any trip reductions than the decision not to rebuild the freeway.

Or, we could look at the Embarcadero tear-down as the elimination of a fast route to Financial District and Telegraph Hill/Wharf locations, in which case we might look to the surface streets to see where those trips were diverted.

Or, we might consider that The City has defended its tear-down decision at every turn (make no mistake, it was a blight and we're better off -- at least from an aesthetic angle -- with it gone) and has published studies using very narrowly defined methodology at every turn.

If you want to believe traffic has been reduced 40%, go right ahead. We could probably wave studies at each other until our computer keyboards have worn out to support our viewpoints. But it doesn't change the fact that the traffic still has a detrimental impact on moving around downtown, nor does it support the assertion made in the blogpost, which is "If it worked in San Francisco, it'll work here!"

Erica, how are Milwaukee's streets laid out? What is the topography like? Are they wide streets? What's their transit system like?

"Today, thanks to the efforts of Norquist and other freeway opponents, the waterfront has been redeveloped with condos, shops and affordable housing."

It would be nice if the affordable housing part was true. Alas, it is not. Mayor Norquist was not particularly concerned about the issue and neither is the CNU.