Comments on Surface/Transit in NYT
So the New York Times proves that it is as clueless as Erica C. Barnett, and that means . . . exactly what?
Nice try, Erica, but no cigar. The surface option isn't "gaining credence" because the New York times says so, and certainly not because you might wish it to be true.
It seems somewhat anecdotal, but the experiences of other cities (not replacing their viaducts) is less credible than what exactly, Ivan?
Right, the NYT clearly has its finger on the pulse of Seattle politics and the functional day-to-day reality of our transportation infrastructure. Not.
...and John Norquist is certainly an impartial observer well-qualified to comment upon all of those nonexistent "other ways to get around" that drivers from the 1/3 of Seattle that lies to the west of SR-99 have for getting to/through downtown.
His credibility on that topic is right down there with Cary Moon's (don't get me wrong - I like Cary, but she's just flat wrong about where the interests of NW and SW Seattleites lie)
Welcome to Seattle, the alternate universe. Other cities' experience with removing elevated traffic structures? Does not apply here! Mass transit? Who needs it! Doesn't work! (Except in New York, DC, Atlanta, Chicago, SF, London, Paris, Rome, etc.)Election by district? What for? Endless process? More, please! Strippers? Keep 'em away! Beer? Think of the kiddies!
This. Town. Sucks.
Dan, y'know, we Americans seem to have underestimated just how f***ed up Iraq is. And I think The New York Times has underestimated just how f***ed up Seattle is.
Just say no to Big Dig and Big Ugly. Invest in moving people and freight, not West Seattleites' Cadillacs and Ballard's hipster-mobiles.
I repeat: MILWAUKEE'S FREEWAY WAS NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY COMPARABLE TO THE VIADUCT.
To continue to use examples like this is DISHONEST.
the Milwaukee freeway that was torn down was not on the waterfront, it did not bypass the most congested and built-up part of the city, and it was not a significant connector. It was a terminus; the thing it was supposed to connect to never got built. It would be comparable to the viaduct if the part of the viaduct that goes through the heart of downtown had never been built. The traffic that used to ride on that freeqway simply has to disperse into the grid a few blocks earlier than it used to.
LOOK AT A FUCKING MAP, and STOP TELLING LIES.
You are right, Mr. X. Seattlites and Northwesterners don't like or promote transit.
They vote against transit most of the time and do not see the connection between transit and the environment at all. It's nuts.
If you're going to YELL, please YELL at the NEW YORK TIMES, which is what I was QUOTING when I gave MILWAUKEE as an EXAMPLE.
Jesus.
Erica, Erica, Erica, you did it again. You blaming the local papers for restating the PWC's plan in language not as optimistic as the rose colored language you choose to use.
“tear down the viaduct and route traffic onto surface streets”; a plan to “simply tear down the viaduct and not replace it”; and “a surface approach that would actually cut traffic capacity” is the EXACT SAME THING. You're just playing semantics and happy the the NYT, based BTW in a city that has trains and subways and doesn't need roads so OF COURSE they see things the urbanist way, saw things your way.
See, Fnarf's comments are typical of this kind of "Seattleist" thinking -- that somehow Seattle is this special place unlike any other place in the world, and we're not going to let any of those outsiders tell us our way of life is wrong.
Sure, perhaps there's not a precise comparison between the viaduct and Milwaukee's highway or the Embarcadero in San Francisco or Portland's highway or any other elevated urban highways that have been torn down to no terrible effect. We've heard the same arguments that there is no comparison between the value of Seattle's monorail and light rail projects and other mass transit systems.
The "Seattleist" way of thinking says that the burden of proof is always on change. And the burden is so great that it can never be met, simply because of the facile, childlike notion that if something does not exist maybe it cannot. Who knows, maybe the sun will not rise tomorrow?
And yet, the status quo never faces any burden of proof. An elevated freeway along a scenic downtown waterfront? Heck, nothing wrong with that. Car exhaust the #1 pollutant in the region? Heck, nothing wrong with that. All-consuming traffic jams. Why, just evidence of what a great place this is and why we need to continue with the tried-and-true highways first approach.
It's pretty obvious that the viaduct is a secondary highway. Of the major highways in this region, its value would come in a distance fifth behind the following:
And yet, people can't imagine life without it if only because people don't have the imagination to suffer any kind of change.
I have a suspicion that many of the PWC plan supporters have lived in a city with a real transit system.
Regardless of what is built, traffic is going to be horrible. Looking at a map, Seattle is just shaped wrong for an auto-dependent commute.
To those who support the more expensive rebuild or tunnel plans, do you honestly believe either would do as good of a job moving commuters from West Seattle and Ballard to downtown as a light rail line paralleling the route?
Which way, SOV capacity or rail, do you think would do more to shorten people’s commutes?
And Fnarf, what about the teardown of the elevated West Side highway on Manhattan? New York seems to have survived that.
And go figure that the response to naysayers is to label them as negatively as possible.
I have no problem with the ideals and philosophies of urbanists, many of which are quite sound, but their ideas aren't always the best.
Golob, are you serious? NYC has arguably the biggest subway and commuter rail system in the country. It's a city unlike any other in the country, and their system was laid far before the city got as big as it did. Citing NYC as a successful example when it's unlike nearly every other city in America is silly.
Just an idea (I know I will get blasted, but what the hell)....
We have a pretty sweet tunnel going through downtown, that currently is under renovation to be retro-fitted for light rail, as we all know. What if, and I know its a big "if", they created a massive park and ride right by the international district station (first area of the "free ride zone"). Then people that would normally use the viaduct would get off the 1st Seattle Exit, park (cause face it, you are going to park somewhere downtown) and get on a bus/light rail in the tunnel. It will take you very close to major points in Seattle, and connects you to busses that go up to Cap Hill like every 10 mins. If the park and ride is free, it might even save money for people that have to pay to park normally, and the tunnel is super quick at getting you to through most the city.
Then with more people using tranist that is not hindered on the surface streets, we will have more support for expanding the light rail. If nothing else, they can do that while they re-build the viaduct to ease traffic.
But we would have to wait for the tunnel to be fixed, which is late 2007. That is enough time to get feasibility studies done...maybe....
Cressona, the burden of proof is always on the proposition for change. That's basic logic, and it isn't specific to Seattle.
"Seattleist" thinking, on the other hand, is the tendency of certain progressive moonbats to argue that dramatic, idealistic policy changes can be effected overnight, with little thought given to practicalities or consequence.
Speaking of false analogies, San Francisco replaced the Embarcadero with a 6-lane boulevard and two trolly tracks (and it's still an unholy bitch to get from the Golden Gate to the Bay Bridge). Not exactly what the PWC has in mind if they get their way and remove the Viaduct.
Does anyone who writes for the Stranger live west of I-5, let alone SR 99?
A NONY MOUSE: Cressona, the burden of proof is always on the proposition for change. That's basic logic, and it isn't specific to Seattle.
Yeah, it is basic logic. And while we're at it, let's throw out any kind of basic logic that comes with being able to apply observations about the natural world to oneself. Heck, if I love to smoke, the burden of proof might as well be on all those scientific types who say that smoking causes cancer. Yeah, maybe it causes cancer in all those other folks, but that doesn't mean it will cause cancer for me.
More A NONY MOUSE: "Seattleist" thinking, on the other hand, is the tendency of certain progressive moonbats to argue that dramatic, idealistic policy changes can be effected overnight, with little thought given to practicalities or consequence.
This comment employs a fairly common technique of the American right. Even though your views are in the ascendancy, make it seem like you're somehow some powerless, persecuted minority. It's how Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly make their livings.
This comment also employs a fairly common technique of the no-change crowd -- "effected overnight, with little thought given to practicalities or consequence." Make it seem like the only way change can take place is haphazardly. Like anyone is planning to effect anything overnight or without an eye toward mitigation! This is a bit like accusing Microsoft of operating like a startup.
Mr. X: Does anyone who writes for the Stranger live west of I-5, let alone SR 99?
Y'know, I'm starting to feel sorry for this Mr. X. He puts up such a relentless stream of ad hominen attacks that if you took cudgel that away from him, you realize he doesn't have any legitimate points to argue with.
What about that question is an ad hominem attack or irrelevent to the discussion at hand? For most of Seattle's residents, the world doesn't revolve around downtown and/or its waterfront, and I'm just asking whether the Stranger's Capitol Hill-centric worldview represents the interests and needs of a goodly portion of Seattle citizens.
(Now for an actual ad hominem attack, I could mention that you're a self-righteous, naive chump who knows little to nothing about how the world/politics/life really works in this region, but that's too substantively true to qualify as an ad hominem attack).
I repeat the question - how many Stranger staff members live west of I-5, and will be negatively affected if the PWC vision of tearing down the AWV and replacing it with nothing is implemented?
Personally, I'm convinced that we will eventually learn how to live without the viaduct, and we'll all be bitching about the design for the memorial to all the people who were killed when it collapsed.
OTOH, calling Cressona a callow little punk, while essentially accurate, would definitely qualify.
As one of those potential victims, I'll take my chances on the AWV for as long as WSDOT lets me.
Mr. X: you're a self-righteous, naive chump...
I apologize. I sold you short. I should not have said that ad hominen attacks are the only weapon in your arsenal. I should have given you credit for good, old-fashioned name-calling as well.
Anyway, let's try to take your "don't live west of I-5" disqualification seriously. How about we also disqualify anyone who doesn't have family members fighting in Iraq from debating the Iraq war? And maybe since Dan Savage is never going to have an abortion, he should mind his own business and stay away from that issue too.
As for the actual accusation that I don't really know how politics works in this region, well, they said the same things in the Boss Tweed days in New York City and the Frank Rizzo days in Philly. More recently, they said the same about the Tom DeLay, K Street days in Congress. And you know what, those naïve, self-righteous Democratic do-gooder chumps might actually take control of Congress this year.
You're releasing us from any potential litigation then, Mr. X? ;-)
I live East of the City, near the Arboretum.
How come I don't get a viaduct to whisk me quickly into the City? Why do I have to take surface streets whenever I want to go into Seattle. This is clearly unfair, and I expect West Seattleites and Ballardites to quickly remedy this injustice for me. I figure we could build a viaduct off-shoot from 520, and send it straight down Madison.
And once that fills with traffic...we can just keep adding new levels to it. And we can build more stories on parking garages downtown. And then even more.
Who's with me?
As someone who DOES live west of I-5 and SR 99, let me reiterate some FACTS here for this discussion:
1) A tunnel simply maintains EXISTING capacity. The current proposal has no plans for increasing the number of people moved along the waterfront.
2) A tunnel will actually DECREASE ACCESS for all of us living on the west side of the city, as it will eliminate the existing Central Downtown entrance and exit.
3) That means all of the current traffic entering and exiting at Columbia/Seneca will have to exit and drive on the surface street grid north and south of Downtown.
4) All the buses that currently use the Viaduct will be routed through SoDo.
5) And, finally, under most (but admittedly not all) scenarios, ALL EXISTING TRAFFIC will have to route onto the street grid or transit for at least three years during construction.
See, Mickymse is falling into the same trap Erica and Josh, and even Cary Moon at times, have fallen into: they've focused their attacks on the tunnel while barely whispering a peep about the expanded rebuild. You would think -- if you're looking at this issue strictly from the standpoint of a transit/density supporter -- the big target would be the rebuild.
I find this a bit symptomatic of this tendency in Seattle for transit/density supporters to fight amongst themselves as if wishing to cancel themselves out. I also think there's a bit of personal animosity against Greg Nickels that some folks can just never quite get over, no matter how self-defeating it is.
Micky, let me ask you. As a transit supporter, why are you only going after the tunnel and letting the rebuild get off scot-free?
cressona: Oh, don't get me wrong... There's two simple reasons for avoiding the rebuild. On the one hand, I thought five points targeting the preferred alternative of the Mayor, City Council, and Governor was a long enough list. On the other hand, while I am opposed to an elevated highway, I could live with it. At least it maintains the status quo rather than worsening it!
Catalina @ 27-
I'd say yes, but you'd really have to take it up w/my next-of-kin :)
Timothy @ 28 -
The RH Thompson Expressway would have done just that - but it was killed by a citizen initiative back in the late 60's (mercifully). Of course, as a result, there also wasn't 30+ years of new development on your side of town that would have relied on it, either.
By the way - you're already IN Seattle.
Mr. X, you're not exactly correct when you say, "Speaking of false analogies, San Francisco replaced the Embarcadero with a 6-lane boulevard and two trolly tracks..."
I think that not only is the analogy entirely sufficient, it's as close an example as what could happen in the case of Seattle as you're going to find anywhere.
The Embarcadero freeway that was torn down has been replaced by some surface street adjustments, but is not on a route served by mass transit (Neither MUNI or BART lines serve users on that end of the city, and only limited cross bay bus service is in place for Northbay or east-to-west city commuters, much like you’d see in Seattle), nor has it been replaced by a major ground level highway.
Also, the streetcars that currently run the Embarcadero are, albeit fun and useful for occasional short trips or Docker commercial location, their little more than historic to-and-fro tourist dollar getters (which I have no problem with. There are some DT commuters riding those, but they aren't people that would otherwise be driving, it's hard to explain). They don’t subsidize the commute of the former elevated highway. Furthermore, the aforementioned 6 line boulevard pretty much dead-ends into the tourist grabbing Fisherman’s Warf (but is actually quite a nice street, easy to cross on foot due to the light timings and a few huge, strategic pedestrian intersections), and is NOT the preferred route of commuters looking to get through town to 101, which would be Van Ness-to-Lombard-to-GG Bridge or Geary to Park Presidio, etc. Seattle’s viaduct does, to it’s credit, have a higher trip capacity than the Embarcadero did in its final days, but that’s because the EMB was an elevated parking lot that people had already learned to avoid - much like Seattle’s will be in years to come. (Keep in mind, there’s more people living within 50 miles of the Embarcadero than in all of Washington State.)
My point is, San Francisco employed the logic of “they will find another way”, and it’s been a great success. I credit the drivers of the Seattle area with enough sense to do accomplish same. The protective thinking toward the viaduct isn’t unique to Seattle, every city went through this debate - some cities just had better leadership.
Actually, the R.H. Thompson Expressway was to go up MLK from I-5 hooking up with 520, and continuing on to Lake City. It was never intended to go downtown.
It was never built because it pissed people off and nobody had any money for it anyway.
I can tell you as someone that grew up fascinated by the Montlake ghost ramps, Catalina is correct.
Gomez,
I am serious. For what the tunnel or rebuild would cost, we could build for ourselves a north-south rail-based transit line. I'm not talking about some exotic technology. I mean metro-subway, below and above ground grade seperated transit like that found in Boston, New York, SF, and so on.
We have to replace the seawall, something we won't have to do for another 50 years. This is the opportunity to spend this transit money wisely.
I turn the question back to you: Where do you think this sum of money would be best spent? Roads or rail?
Doug,
Interesting post, but not really analagous to the role the AWV plays for SW/NW Seattle (my grandmother and father are both SF natives, so I'm reasonably familiar with traffic there, and drove a lot in SF both pre and post Embarcadero removal).
Of course people will find another way to get around if the AWV is torn down and replaced w/nothing, as they'll have to, but the PWC types are just dead wrong when they say that existing street capacity and I-5 through downtown can absorb all of those trips without causing massive gridlock (which, by the way, most of SF experiences on a daily basis - transit notwithstanding).
Now, put a 6-lane Embarcadero-style boulevard down the waterfront along with real mass transit (buses don't count, sorry) to accomodate west side traffic and I'd be willing to consider it, but Seattle's design elite (as in, the measly 15% of those polled who support the PWC plan) would never allow it.
Golob,
Your question is academic, as that isn't the choice before us - and as SR 99 is a state highway, that choice will likely never be put before us if the City pushes for the tunnel or nothing. Existing streets and buses are what we'll get if the PWC has its way, and that ain't gonna cut it.
Of course, I think we ought to just retrofit the AWV to serve for the next 30 years and start planning for exactly the kind of mass transit you're talking about, but then I'm just a crazy (but practical) dreamer....
Mickymse on why he's not attacking the rebuild: On the other hand, while I am opposed to an elevated highway, I could live with it. At least it maintains the status quo rather than worsening it!
Okay, let me take a look here. Two highways, same capacity:
You ask this question of any mainstream environmentalist from outside this region, and they'll say the former is better from a transit/density/environmentalist/fight-global-warming standpoint. And yet you ask a Seattle environmentalist and, with a straight face, they'll say the blight is better.
I believe this is symptomatic of another unfortunate aspect of many grassroots environmentalists in Seattle. They have a populist bent that would rather stick it to "the man" than accomplish any of their stated goals. If there's anything we should be encouraging, it's density. And yet, the typical grassroots Seattle environmentalist recoils at the thought of rich people living in condos or developers getting rich off condos. Of course, there's also just the matter of the status quo. Grassroots Seattle environmentalists are at heart "Seattleists," so of course just changing from the status quo becomes "worsening it." For people to actually live in the downtown is change, so it is beyond the Seattleist's imagination to think that it actually might be a good thing.
Well, I would support a 6-lane Embarcadero-style boulevard with transit.
I have also pointed out to City Councilmembers Beach Blvd. and Pacific Coast Highway in Southern California as examples of how large boulevards can also be pedestrian-accessible and keep traffic moving while allowing access to waterfront.
Mr. X.
Of course I'm already in Seattle. But, then, so are West Seattleites and Ballardites. They expect me to pay for a few minutes shortcut into and/or through the City. So, I just think it's fair that they pay for the same for me.
Give me a viaduct down Madison! The sky will fall without it.
Cressona forgot that one also costs at least $2 billion more than the other. In the real world, numbers like that count.
cressona: I certainly don't think that the elevated rebuild is "better." I'm simply acknowledging the reality that we already live with the status quo, while providing five reasons (above) that the current tunnel proposal is flawed and makes things WORSE than our present situation.
Frankly, any new transportation project in this region that doesn't include transit as a part of moving people through the corridor should be a no-go from the start.
Unfortunately, we have a concrete-loving group at WSDOT as the moment, and a constitutional mandate that our gas tax can only be used for building roads and ferries.
The educational battle that environmentalists and transit supporters need to wage is much, MUCH bigger than that around the AWV Replacement project...
Timothy,
If there was an existing Viaduct down Madison that your neighborhood relied upon to get where you were going, I wouldn't tear it down to build a promenade for cruise ship tourists, either (or charge you a toll to build a tunnel that would benefit a bunch of would-be developers)
Max on #37:
I see your point, but I'm still hanging on to the analogy. For what it lacks in direct parallels, it makes up for with sheer volume.
Granted, we in SF do experience gridlock daily (though in this example, mass transit alternatives aren’t applicable) the old Embarcadero did nothing to alleviate said gridlock, and I’m assuming the inverse is also true, that its absence does little to contribute to it.
I agree with MCKYMSE - I could live with either the elevated Viaduct rebuild or the Surface Plus Transit option.
Sadly, only the former will be backed by the state - and right now they're schooling the city on who runs state highways ... and the permitting thereof.
Mr. X: Doug,
Interesting post, but not really analagous
(sic) to the role the AWV plays for SW/NW Seattle (my grandmother and father are both SF natives, so I'm reasonably familiar with traffic there, and drove a lot in SF both pre and post Embarcadero removal).Okay, brace yourselves. Why is the Embarcadero no AWV? Drum roll please. Because Mr. X has driven there and has family there. Gee, isn't that justification enough?
Suppose we're discussing reform in Cuba.
Mr. A: We should encourage trade with Cuba. History shows that capitalist free trade lays the groundwork for democratization.
Mr. B: No, we shouldn't. We should tighten the noose around Castro.
Mr. A: Why?
Mr. B: Because my family is from Cuba.
Well, gosh. End of argument. Poor Mr. X is so attached to the whole ad hominen thing, he doesn't even realize when he's doing it.
Anyway, let's debate on and on and on about the minutiae of how Seattle is not San Francisco or Portland or New York or Milwaukee or whatever other city has removed an elevated highway. Gee, just how minute can we get? Anyway, rather than just get into the details, why don't you "lesser Seattle" folks just say what you really believe -- that Seattle is not like those other cities because Seattle is "a shining city on a hill"?
Screw all these options. I'm holding out for a jet pack. I was promised my jet pack by hundreds of s-f stories and movies, decades ago. Where is it?!
Mr. X: Cressona forgot that one also costs at least $2 billion more than the other. In the real world, numbers like that count.
Looks like Mr. X conveniently forgot to respond to my post @26, but I don't think he wants to call any more attention to his name-calling. Anyone care to put a dollar value on the effects of global warming? Katrina ran into the billions and that's kids' stuff compared to what global warming can do in the long term? Also, anyone care to put a dollar value on our nation's providing the demand to keep the price of oil high, in the process subsidizing the same regimes that subsidize terrorists?
Really, $2 billion is a bargain, and I'm not even talking about the local impacts.
Anyway, even we're really focused on price tag, I'd be happy to put forward the PWC option. I just wish the PWC and tunnel supporters would quit fighting with each other.
There is NO surface+transit option. There is a surface option. There is no additional money for transit if Seattle says no to the tunnel or rebuild. State law prohibits it. There is a transit pot of money in this region and a roads pot of money. If Seattle folks paid attention to anything outside of Seattle politics they would realize that. If we turn down money for the viaduct, it will only go to more expansion of 405.
Cressona,
Sorry if actual life experience just isn't good enough for you. Spoken like a true-believing 15 percenter.
Do me a favor, try getting from California Avenue and Morgan Street to Stone Way tomorrow on the AWV during rush hour, and then make the same trip on I-5, and then do it on surface streets through downtown. Then imagine imagine the same trip on the latter two routes with 110,000 additional vehicles.
Ad hominem that, fella.
"$2 billion is a bargain."
And you wonder why I don't take you (and your political acumen) seriously.
Mickymse: cressona: I certainly don't think that the elevated rebuild is "better." I'm simply acknowledging the reality that we already live with the status quo, while providing five reasons (above) that the current tunnel proposal is flawed and makes things WORSE than our present situation.
Hold on, I'm getting confused here. You don't think the rebuild is better, but you think the tunnel is worse than the status quo, which is pretty much the equivalent of the rebuild -- never mind that the rebuild is 50% bigger? To summarize:
A worse than B.
B = C (charitably).
But A NOT worse than B.
I'm sorry, perhaps this logic is a little too basic, or a little too logical. So let me ask you a straightforward question, does the livability of the downtown count for nothing with you? Or is this a bit like that earlier stretch from "Transportation Choices is a bunch of sell-outs for getting paid to do advocacy" to "There's nothing with getting paid to do advocacy"?
While it is always fascinating to watch Cressona and Mr. X squabble, honest folks will admit that the examples in SF, NYC, Portland and Milwaukee have little to do with Seattle.
NYC--best transit in America
Seattle--no mass transit except buses
SF--Embarcadero was essentially a holding spot for cars waiting to get on the Bay Bridge
Seattle--Viaduct serves freight, transit and Westside commuters
Portland--tore down a waterfront freeway, but built a new one 15 blocks to the west
Seattle--no plans for more capacity on I-5 through town
Milwaukee--Dead end freeway
Seattle--no dead end
All that being said, the surface option is certainly better than a new elevated structure. But no one supports it outside of a few Cap Hill, Belltown, U-Dist folks who have no kids.
@50: There is currently a city proposal on the ballot that would do EXACTLY that -- give City money for more transit.
@53, cressona:
Tunnel
Tunnel = NO transit
Rebuild = Present State
Surface+Transit > Present State environmentally
Political leaders + Money = Tunnel or Rebuild or NOTHING = Present State politically
Mr. X: Cressona,
Sorry if actual life experience just isn't good enough for you. Spoken like a true-believing 15 percenter.
Do me a favor, try getting from California Avenue and Morgan Street to Stone Way tomorrow on the AWV during rush hour, and then make the same trip on I-5, and then do it on surface streets through downtown. Then imagine imagine the same trip on the latter two routes with 110,000 additional vehicles.
Ad hominem that, fella.
Well, Mr. X. I'm proud of you. You've advanced beyond name-calling and pure ad hominen attacks. You're making progress. It's funny though that you should identify me with the option that polled the worst, the PWC option, rather than the tunnel, which didn't do so wonderfully either but still did better than 15%. I'd prefer to align myself with the 79% of Seattle's City Council that wants anything but another viaduct. Yes, tunnel and surface route not pitted against each other but allied together, believe it or not.
You're right that it would be no picnic to just pull the tablecloth out from under the table and try eating dinner then. Maybe this is why we need to employ some little things called planning and mitigation.
Errrr... SLOG doesn't like some of my less than symbols, I guess.
The first line should be:
Tunnel is worse than Rebuild is worse than Surface+Transit
My bad - you're a 25 percenter, then.
Mickymse: Tunnel = NO transit
Rebuild = Present State
Surface+Transit > Present State environmentally
Political leaders + Money = Tunnel or Rebuild or NOTHING = Present State politically
Okay, I'm trying to understand here. Why are you applying the "NO transit" mark just to the tunnel and not the rebuild? And why are you so quick to say that the rebuild is no worse than the present state? It has to be 50% wider and higher.
By the way, I see no mention of density here. So Micky, is it fair to say that you don't factor density into this equation? If that's the case, I suggest you make an appointment with someone from that favorite group of yours, TCC. They might be happy to explain to you why transit and density do not exist in vacuums outside of each other. Of course, there's also FutureWise.
Mr. X: My bad - you're a 25 percenter, then.
Actually, I just found it interesting that you wanted to align me with the 15%, even though that was a misrepresentation.
And actually, I would like to see a poll framing the question in a more realistic way, rather than trying to split the pro-change contingent. What if the choices were just tunnel or rebuild, or tunnel or rebuild with PWC as a backup? I'm sure the rebuild would still win, but the numbers wouldn't be so stark or, really, misleading.
Anyway, Mr. X, I do have to congratulate you on your side's success in that poll. All I can say is, thank God this nation didn't have sophisticated polling back in the days when our governments actually took on difficult challenges and succeeded. In a way, we owe much of our freedom and infrastructure today to leaders who didn't sway with every political wind.
Correction. I wrote: "What if the choices were just tunnel or rebuild, or tunnel or rebuild with PWC as a backup?" I meant: "What if the choices were just (A) rebuild or (B) tunnel with PWC as a backup?" This is very much the way the City Council, and for that matter the mayor, want to frame the question.
Sure, it's not the way the question is being framed at the state level. But it's always looked like the PWC's best chance was as a kind of backup and to come out the last man standing.
It's official - Cressona really does hate democracy/majority rule.
I can't say I'm surprised.
BTW - it's kind of easy to align someone with the PWC position when a goodly number of their posts (if not today, then previously) poo poo the idea that anyone would need that filthy blighted old Viaduct to get around on anyway.
Nevertheless, I stand corrected.
I don't get the surface option! 6 lane boulevard? Don't we have a 4 lane waterfront boulevard already?
What in the world does that get us? How does that allow me to enjoy the waterfront more than I do now when I walk down from my office to lunch on a nice day?
So are we really talking about putting all those cars on 2 extra lanes?
Help me get a clue, cuz nothing I've read about the surface option makes any sense without a real mass transit system.
Totally a great idea that I like, golob, no joke. But do you know how much time, money and shutdown of thoroughfares it would take to build a subway?
NYC and others got away with it because they did it 100+ years ago, when cities weren't as large and rerouting traffic was much easier because there were far fewer residents, far fewer cars (because they had just been invented) and far less need to travel long distances.
Totally a great idea that I like, golob, no joke. But do you know how much time, money and shutdown of thoroughfares it would take to build a subway?
NYC and others got away with it because they did it decades ago, when cities weren't as large and rerouting traffic was much easier because there were far fewer residents, far fewer cars (because they had just been invented) and far less need to travel long distances.
Not true...the MTA is finally about to start construction on the decades in the making Second Ave Subway. With a tunnel boring machine, all you need is time and money. $3.8 billion to go from 96th to 63rd street, carrying 200,000 people/day, projected done in 2013.
If the surface/transit option were to work, we need something similarly bold. Too bad we killed the only bold vision in sight.
Um, that's ONE new leg of an existing system which won't have to shut down during construction. And it's still nearly $4 billion to build the extention.
Funny how billions become chump change to people who exalt mass transit.
I don't get the surface option! 6 lane boulevard? Don't we have a 4 lane waterfront boulevard already?
The PWC added the redundant 'boulevard' because of a technicality that states that the WSDOT would not receive funding for the viaduct if the highway were not replaced in some way. The original plan WAS to rip it out which was why it was originally called the 'no-highway' option, but then they realized the state wouldn't fund the plan without a highway replacement so they threw in the silly little boulevard.
I've made the same point about there already being a 4 lane road on the waterfront and that's blown off by the PWC and ECB.
One more thing, to answer golob's question: while I'd like to see money spent on rail (I'd also like a pony, world peace and a lifetime supply of Haagen Daas caramel cone ice cream), it doesn't matter where I want it spent or you do. They will either spend it to build a new viaduct, or it'll get moved over to other WSDOT roads, like the 405. The WSDOT doesn't fund urbanist pet projects.
You're asking me a chicken/egg question when you pose that. It doesn't matter.
Apples and Oranges Alert: Cleveland's West Shoreway isn't an elevated structure, it's a surface street lined with private properties. The change proposed there is to add a median and lower the speed limit from 50 mph to 35 mph. In other words this project is really more like the mayor's proposed two-way boulevard fix for Mercer Street than the viaduct.
...except the Mayor won't acknowledge that the effect of the Mercer scheme will be to make traffic slower (they're still touting their "fix the Mercer Mess" lie).
Correct. The Mercer "fix" is basically a traffic calming plan to reduce the capacity of Mercer Street, thereby increasing the value of (Paul Allen's) properties in the corridor.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).