Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Diarrhea Pocket! | McGavick Campaign to Stranger:... »

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Go to This Thing

Posted by ERICA C. BARNETT on May 16 at 15:40 PM

So far, the city’s presentations to the City Council on the three viaduct replacement proposals have been informative, but a bit of a snooze. (And not exactly objective and unbiased: If you didn’t already know which option the city preferred, hearing Seattle DOT head Grace Crunican describe the elevated replacement option as “a significant visual and psychological barrier between the waterfront and downtown” yesterday would have answered that question).

For a more entertaining presentation (and a more sustainable transportation vision than the car-centric model that’s currently driving the city’s transportation decisions), go to a panel discussion at Town Hall next Monday featuring John Norquist, the articulate, entertaining former Milwaukee mayor whose administration tore down a waterfront freeway in 2001, and Scott Bernstein, co-founder of the Surface Transportation Policy Project. The event starts at 7:30 pm and costs five bucks.

Permalink

CommentsRSS icon

1

I could've sworn there was some city-wide polling conducted recently on the viaduct replacement, and the rebuild won out. I don't even know if the no-build was presented as an option. Anyone know about this?

For that matter, anyone have a sense of where Seattle public opinion is on viaduct replacement? I suppose you can't judge by the people who come out to meetings and write letters -- just the vocal minority.

Posted by cressona | May 16, 2006 3:52 PM

2

LOLfest. This not going to be a biased presentation at all :P

Posted by Gomez | May 16, 2006 4:15 PM

3

I don't think opinions count until you ask people to pay.

There is no money for a tunnel and the City knows better than to ask for the >$2 billion it would take as it would be defeated decisively.

Posted by Raw Data | May 16, 2006 5:02 PM

4

Is this at "Town Hall" or at City Hall?

Posted by Joel | May 16, 2006 5:42 PM

5

Town Hall Town Hall.

Posted by ECB | May 16, 2006 5:46 PM

6

What’s wrong with the city’s transportation director expressing informed opinions based on her experience and knowledge? I’m pretty sure that’s her job. Asking planners (or engineers or architects or whomever) to ignore their “opinions” is essentially asking them to ignore what they have learned over the course of their careers.

It's ironic that Erica made that statement, since she hasn’t exactly made much of an effort to be unbiased or objective in her reporting on the viaduct.

Posted by daytrpr | May 16, 2006 7:35 PM

7

Have to respond to the Milwaukee thing too. The freeway that was torn down there didn't really connect to much and carried very little traffic. There was no reason for it to exist.

It was a great decision to tear the thing down, and Norquist and others should be commended for that. But it was also a relatively easy decision (okay...probably not easy, but obvious). I don't think it did much to make Milwaukee less "car-centric" though.

Oh...BTW, the freeway Milwaukee tore down wasn't on the waterfront. Not that it matters.

Posted by daytrpr | May 16, 2006 7:50 PM

8

Well shit, Erica, an elevated viaduct is “a significant visual and psychological barrier between the waterfront and downtown”

No debate there. Elevated freeways are ugly and a new one will be bigger and uglier. I can't believe this is even an option in Seattle. Damn, we are dumb...

Posted by surf logs kill | May 18, 2006 12:34 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).