Comments on The Surface Option: None Dare Call it Fascism

Dogs and cats doing it in the streets ... Man, I hope they remain civil at our forum on the Tunnel, Viaduct, and other No-No choices at the 43rd Dems meeting on the 20th.

I had to ask the bus to pull over this morning so i could wretch my guts out after reading Connelly's article. Perhpas someone can put together a vision of a future where car-mongers like Connelly win out with the entire globe covered in asphalt. I have no doubt it would be more terrifying, more bleak, and much much more REALISTIC.

kinda tense over there - no sense of humor at all

loved joel's piece - called satire

and we all know the Stranger has no staff with 30 years of journalism experience

and no fat old guys - god forbid

That story sucked.

It was not even smart enough to be satire; it was the whiny rant of an angry, middle-aged man obviously terrified that someone might suggest he WALK somewhere instead of drive.

Oh, the horror, for a fat man to have to walk. The injustice of walking! The indignity of mass transit! The scourge of a pedestrian city!

connelly is too mean-spirited to be capable of humor. and his satire is repulsive not because it's pro-car or whatever but because he wildly exaggerates the power of the left just so he can tear it down as if he's some fucking giant slayer. but the distortions he goes through to rip people just shows how out of touch he is, and what a sad sack he has become. he hates nader, but the two have something in common: their glory days are long gone, and now all they're doing is embarrassing themselves.

caleb: loved joel's piece - called satire

Loved it too. Satire yes -- albeit unintended satire. This "fat old guy," Joel Connelly, is getting to be like a "skinny young woman," Ann Coulter. He's become impossible to satirize because you just can't go any loonier than he already is.

Has he not heard of Manhattan? In the American city with the best transit system one can walk across the island without ever stepping on pavement thanks to all the cars.

This isn't satire, it's Bush-worthy sophistry. He sets up a straw man ("transit supporters will take away your car") and then proceeds to knock it down.

Call it Potemkin journalism.

And, Joel Connelly is totally perving on Erica C!

When he writes "The mural depicts its chief agitator, the radical journalist Erica Barnett, in a Delacroix-like pose with a bicycle chain thrust into the air," he's referring to this painting:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Delacroix_Liberty_Leading_the_People_1830.jpg

Becuase, of course, failing to spend billions of dollars in order to support something is the same as banning it.

golob: Has he not heard of Manhattan?

Not a fair comparison. Manhattan has a limited amount of land that is constrained by the sea. You know, completely unlike Seattle. ;-)

I thought the part about the memorial to driving out the Sonics was actually a great idea. I'd be proud to have such a memorial in my city. Perhaps the best thing about his retarded vision of the future is that it doesn't include him, YAY for progress!

Oh, Dan.

He's talking about the perils of letting mob rule overruling the authority of the city and state governments, a mob rule that has already fucked up our school system. And in this case, the issue at hand is just as serious, that of a major local transportation corridor.

The people fronting the mob are woefully ill informed and misguided. It's the supreme failure of emotion over reason, change in the name of romance rather than practicality.

Mob rule is majority rule. The majority supports a rebuild. So, if anything, it's the supporters of the viaduct who are going to run roughshod over everyone else.

Every time I see one of Joel Connelly's pieces I think, "Oh, I never read Joel's stuff, I probably should" and then can never get past the first line without losing interest. Happened again today. I skimmed through, though and was reminded of what a bully that guy is.

Just because he's gone through hard times and has 30 years of writing experience doesn't give him the right to lash out, call people names, and not do any research whatsoever on whatever he's writing about. He plays this "I'm a victim" thing every time.

Forget it. I got yer world's smallest violin right here and I'm not afraid to use it.

I knew Erica C was a trust fund baby...

feels kinda cult like here

is this the site of the true believers?

piece is skilled writing, funny, and right on in many perceptions

find your sense of humor

by the way- erica fits the delacroix painting perfectly and it is a great compliment to compare her to the female fury of justice figure that leads the glory of the french revolution in the symbolic painting

hardly perving -

It is like a cult here. We see the same idiotic tropes pulled out time and time again -- New York, San Francisco, Milwaukee. Yes, the Connelly piece was lame. But anyone who thinks that New York City is in ANY way similar to Seattle simply shouldn't be allowed to participate in the discussion. And the SF and Milwaukee spur roads don't mean a thing for us.

Where in the world did the serious word fascist get thrown in??

Day, your loose use of the word is Strange.

Joel is a better old commie than any staffer at the Stranger

Yes, Fnarf. Seattle is different and special and the same rules that apply elsewhere do not apply here. We're the Special Olympics of Urban Areas.

C'mon Fnarf. Can you at least agree that the column would have been both more interesting if he had just made that point after some research: The viaduct plays a different role than the embarcadero in SF or the West Side highway in NYC. There is a need for a real journalist to research those experiences and make an honest evaluation of the need of the AWV corridor. Call me a cultist if you'd like, but I don't feel like taking the word of a single WSDOT (e.g. highway-building department) report as gospel.

His column wasn't lame, it was vulgar and churlish. Unlike Joel, I am at least willing to honestly hear and evaluate opposing viewpoints. Even columnists should be held to some journalistic status.

(Speaking of cult-like-behavior, perhaps I should ask Ted Haggert if there is a methadone-like program to get off posting about the viaduct on slog. Three weeks and I could be cured. )

having additional lanes available doesn't promote driving or cars... just like having condoms available doesn't promote sex...

Liberty, not Justice, Selma. Justice has a pretty choice rack herself, as seen behind John Ashcroft's head here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ashcroft_soj.jpg

Anyhow, making Erica C into an allegorical figure of liberty makes no sense in the context of the article. Except if he's perving on her. I think Kathryn Rathke should be retained to make a future Stranger cover illustration on the theme, though.

@8 - oh come on, we all worship ECB's fine form. @13 - yes, the majority does support a rebuild, but they're not even given a chance to vote on a Surface Plus Transit option.

I think he kills his own argument when he implies that Nichols' 4-ft Strip-Club rule was some kind of liberal-inspired PC witch-hunt.

... not to mention his description of snow-less mountains, a result of global warming, right along side his refusal to get out of his car.

FNARF, Selma et al - I think the "infuriating" element to Joel's article is that it is simultaneously arrogant and ignorant - what i like to call Glen Beckinitis. He scoffs dismissively at options that he obviously has not given any serious consideration to. Clearly Connelly hates the idea of surface transit ONLY because the Stranger supports it. As far as his whacko vision of the future, far from being (effective)satire, it more closely resembles the ramblings of a paranoid, dillusional and out of touch old man whose best years are far, far behind him. Now if he won a Schrammie for this diatribe... THAT would be funny.

selma: feels kinda cult like here

is this the site of the true believers?

fnarf: It is like a cult here.

Gosh, this sounds familiar. Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, the global warming deniers have taken to calling global warming activism a "religion," with Al Gore the high priest. So I guess anyone wishing to prevent a new, 50% larger viaduct from being built on our waterfront is in good company.

Of course, the irony is that rebuild foes -- just like global warming activists -- are anything but a cult or a religion; their principles are based on dull things like empirical evidence. And the real faith-based religion here is "Seattle-ism," the belief that Seattle is a chosen city (where all the men are good-looking and all the children above-average) -- a city to which the rules that apply to other cities don't apply.

Dan, are you saying that anything that happens in any city anywhere is a good model for what happens in another? I hear the traffic on the bridge in Cincinnati is pretty light at 3:30 AM, therefore we don't need any bridges here, right?

Do you know anything, anything at all, about the freeway that was removed in Milwaukee? Can you describe any similarities between it and the Viaduct? No, you can't, because there aren't any, aside from them both being elevated roads.

San Francisco: can you seriously say that the result of the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway is attractive, and that you would like to see it here, on our most important waterfront stretch?

New York: Are you suggesting that if we could only build a hundred thousand of hundred-year-old apartments, with a hundred-year-old subway system underneath them (built with labor conditions closely resembling slavery), and get nineteen million people to move here, that the viaduct wouldn't make sense?

Your comments about the aesthetics of the viaduct, as repeated for years now, suggest that you don't know anything about the road. For instance, you appear to believe that it's just along the main downtown part of the waterfront. It's not; it lifts traffic over the industrial heart of Seattle as well. You laugh at people who whine when new condo towers cut off their view, but you have no problem repeating the canard that the viaduct "cuts off the waterfront" when in fact it does exactly the opposite.

The vision that the Stranger is espousing for the waterfront is more suited to a tiny yuppie enclave like Kirkland than it is a city. You claim to be all about cities; you talk about Chicago, and there's the famous "urban archipelago" article. But you are advocating for the lamest kind of suburbanist blandness imaginable, right in the middle of town. I don't see Chicago tearing down North Lake Shore Drive, which is nowhere near as central in importance as the Viaduct.

Might be good to keep in mind two things:

1) WSDOT's absolute NO on the surface option is based on a report that required all the existing traffic currently in the corridor to travel through the Battery Street Tunnel -- which no one is proposing to do, and

2) About 1/5 of the existing traffic on the AWV is coming from West Seattle/Burien/White Center into Downtown. Don't you think there might be a cheaper and more efficient way to move those people?

fnarf: Dan, are you saying that anything that happens in any city anywhere is a good model for what happens in another?

Fnarf, are you saying that nothing that happens in any other city anywhere can serve as a model for what could happen in Seattle?

The reason why the piece completely fell flat, was as much for Mr. Connolly's tendency toward self-contradiction, which just completely blunts most of his satirical barbs. Not to mention the fact that it has to go down as one of the more ham-fisted examples of sarcastic pollemic to come down the pike in quite some time.

For all his posturing about the PCP, the legacy of rabid left-wing Seattle School Board members, et al, he also describes a city that, in his supposedly "dystopian" vision (because, well nothing illustrates the Downfall of Western Civilization better than snowless mountains, right?) is apparently both economically vibrant and well-populated, which sort of begs the question as whether the staw men he's set up for a-knockin' down (with all the subtlety of a Dick Cheney shotgun blow to the face) are really the best choices to make his point, whatever that may actually be.

I mean, truly, if the Seattle of 2077 he describes is supposed to be such a gosh-darned awful place, what does it say that even he envisions so many people still living and thriving here?

fnarf: I don't see Chicago tearing down North Lake Shore Drive, which is nowhere near as central in importance as the Viaduct.

Hey, don't be talking about other cities around here. Seattle is a unique and special place, unlike any other.

As far as central importance, I can think of at least four highway corridors that are far more important, and more heavily used, than the viaduct:

• I-5
• 520
• I-90
• 405

I would bet that 167 is also more important. And the central portion of the viaduct only gets, what? 70,000-some trips a day? Hardly more than Montlake Blvd. gets, and that thing doesn't have the advantage of being a grade-separated freeway.

So we want to spend billions expanding a pretty second-tier highway? Meanwhile, the 520 rebuild goes begging.

Yes, occasionally I think Joel is losing it, but then I remember his greatness in years past and cut him some slack.

North of Denny Way and south of Spokane St., Hwy 99 is an urban arterial, complete with intersections and stop lights at regular intervals. What is so magical about this short section through downtown Seattle that demands that it be grade separated like a freeway? Yes, in the 1960's, the City comprehensive plan showed Hwy 99 converted into a freeway (Aurora Freeway) but that hasn't been part of urban highway planning for many years.

The Alaskan Way Viaduct is congested for less than one hour a day. One friend who lives in Greenwood and works in Tukwila calls it "his own private freeway" because his commute trip through downtown is non-stop. The need simply is not there to rebuild all that existing (and mostly unused) capacity at truly enormous cost.

The Surface+Transit alternative has never been studied in any depth. Highway planners (city and state) have looked at first-blush vehicle capacity numbers (less than what's there today) and then dismissed the option out of hand.

Given the chaos this project is currently drowning in (even the mayor's office now admits), S+T needs to get an in-depth and objective analysis, and the sooner the better.

Go Josh, go Erica

lighten up all you yuppie trust fund people

who cares if madamoiselle is liberty or justice, great tits and obvious good politics

I have alwasy liked reading joel, fat, old, commie, or just goading the stranger - go joel --- and after all, the stanger goads all in sight with barb after barb, modus operandi

wish other writers were as talented as he

the rebuild will prevail - move on

beautifully summed up @ 27.

Can I say again--emphatically--how glad I am that I don't live in Seattle?

Nice blog, though.

Prediction: The Rebuild gets "approved" one way or another either through the vote or through divine fiat from her highness Queen Gregoire/Court Jester Chopp. Then the real fun starts as an unholy shitstorm slowly erupts as people start to realize how fucking big the new one will be -- taller, wider, thicker columns -- and in order to make it eartquake resistant the views from the roadway that everyone keeps waxing about will be virutally gone. Next thing you know, it'll be the Monorail all over again..Our only real hope is a nice gentle one in the middle of the night that brings the fucker down with minimal injury/damage..

Vote NO and NO!!!

Re #32: I think what's "magical" about that short section is it provides an alternate, bypass route for the congested part of I-5. There's no way to widen I-5 where it goes through the convention center, so we're never going to get any relief from that. A parallel route helps take some of the pressure off.

Fnarf @ 27: I don't know about Dan, but I certainly can honestly say that I think the Embarcadero looks better than it did as an elevated roadway. I used to cross the boulevard's expanse on foot (without water or other supplies) with hundreds of other people when I commuted from SF to Larkspur via ferry. It handles a lot of car traffic but it's got stop lights and crosswalks, too.

I've ridden the F line down the Embarcadero. I've taken the bus up it. At various points, it's a beautiful view. If Seattle ended up with anything even remotely like the Embarcadero, it could count itself very lucky. Since I can't understand your animosity to the actual Embarcadero, I can only suppose the imaginary one in your head is just awful. And I agree, no one wants that one.

I'm with MvB. I'm not necessarily a fan of the new area, but it is a huge improvement over what was there before.

Also, as several folks have pointed out before, the apt SF-Seattle comparison is not the Embarcadero (which was little more than a shortcut to North Beach and parking), but the old city center freeway. The loss of that route was predicted to be an utter disaster. It has had minimal impact on traffic and has dramatically changed the central city landscape for the better.

#36 something titled goodgrifed

now the Rossi folk are here mocking Gregoire

It has always been the call of the state - replacing a state hiway and they have the purse .... since the clue bus is mentioned a lot today - get on it.

Yes, Gov. Gregoire has the final say ....what else is not new

#36 something titled goodgrifed

now the Rossi folk are here mocking Gregoire

It has always been the call of the state - replacing a state hiway and they have the purse .... since the clue bus is mentioned a lot today - get on it.

Yes, Gov. Gregoire has the final say ....what else is not new

caleb@3
selma@16
eric@33

all the same person, don't you think?

Gnossos (#39) I agree that the correct analogy is not the Embarcadero, but the Central Freeway.

But what leads you to say that tearing it down had no impact on traffic? How much time did you spend in San Francisco? In my own experience living in post-earthquake SF (1990-2003), getting from the northern part of the city to 101S by way of surface streets became noticeably worse as the Central Freeway was torn down.

Lets assume for a minute that the viaduct comes down and surface streets are the option. Where exactly is the transit component? What is it?

No answer? Thought so. There is no transit solution It isn't surface+transit, it's surface+clogging. Really environmentally friendly too since the smog will be nice and thick along I-5 where cars will be stop&go an additional several hours a day.

Ok Dave, I'll bite.

Add a spur light rail route from the Junction, across the West Seattle Bridge, along the AWV right of way to connect with the existing light rail route (completed in 2009) at the Pioneer Square station.

Re-use as much as possible the engineering plans and EIS from the monorail project, particularly for the WSB portion.

This plan has about as much real vetting behind it as tunnel-lite. I suspect it would be cheaper than either option currently being considered.

Ok Golob. But nothing like that has been put forward by The Stranger, Sims, People's Waterfront Coalition or anyone else that has danced around the mantra "surface+transit". We just get fancy pictures and sound bites like "lets study it" instead of any ideas. Sound Transit has decided that anyone that lives west of Highway 99 isn't a part of their district except for taxation purposes.

I'm with you Dave with the ineptitude of our leadership and media on this topic.

How about a serious analysis comparing our waterfront highway to those that have been torn down? How about evaluating things like using transit to partially replace capacity?

Where is the serious discussion of what the city is going to do during the decade long construction?

This isn't my damn job to answer these questions. Yet, we're voting, so I'll do my best to guess where all of our leadership has failed.

@#40 (and 41) -- Sorry Freddy dude -- I voted for Gregoire and I am the farthest thing from a Rossi supporter, but she is effing this up by her stubborn insistence on car capacity. Letting the WSDOT engineers run this show is a recipe for disaster.

BTW, learn how not to double post (and maybe how to type), asshole....

Goodgrief - asshole is a specific place you need to get your head out of.

Oh sure, she should leave it to people like you, not engineers, sure, people who think all conversation should include calling everyone asshole or pitching over the top right wing slang.

Stupid fool. Airhead.

BTW, I have Parkinson. Lucky it is this good. Shit mouth. Feel sorry for your mother.

Dave, Ron Sims has some ideas for Metro to provide the +transit portion:

http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2007/0125transit.aspx

i think we have the whole debate backwards. all great cities in the world have leaders with visions about what're good for their cities. and most of the time drastic measures are needed. ironically, most of us are not planners nor leaders and the so-called democracy will just lead us to a solution which is most harmful to the city. so what's needed to make Seattle a better place?

- we need better transit like all other great cities;

- we need to be less car-independent coz' we all know that what we have in US won't last forever; we need to plan for a sustainable future;

- instead of spending billions on highway and all the interests to maintain it in the years to come, we should spend the money on other important issues like eduacation, eradication of pverty, affordable housing and etc.;

- yes, the viaduct is a eyesore. it visually, acoustically and physically pollutes our beautiful waterfront. the waterfront belongs to the people not the cars.

if we have these as our visions and goals, then it makes perfect sense to adopt the surface street + transit option. remember we will have to live without the viaduct for many years anyway. do you think people who use the viaduct most (like us living in west seattle) will die off? no, we will adapt creatively just like what humans always do.

instead of heading to a costly solution which will permanently scar the waterfront, why don't we give the surface street option a try, at a fraction of the cost? in the worst scenario, we can always put the god-damned viaduct back if the experiment fails. when London started to charge cars going into the city, people thought it's the craziest idea in the world, now the people love it and want more of it!!

i live in west seattle but i'm willing to sacrifice my personal inconvenience to make Seattle a better city. i hope you will too.

let's start a revolution here. vote NO-NO. we can do it with some courage and we do this not for ourselves but for our children.

Stefan @ 43:

I haven't lived in SF for close to 20 years, so I missed Loma Prieta and the aftermath. I do, however still have friends and colleagues in the city and visit on a regular basis.

Totally agree that as the central freeway was coming down and for a period right after traffic was a mess and was hell for those trying to connect from the Bay Bridge to the Golden Gate.

My own experience though is that for the last several years the situation is steadily improving as people adapt and as things like the Octavia St. project get finished. Also, I've read a few studies (sorry no cites or links off the top of my head) analysing the effects of the central freeway closure and they all say about the same thing: short term gridlock followed by longer term adjustment.

And I bet we'd experience the same thing here. Like others, I'm just not buying the argument that there's something so different about Seattleites (other than being incredibly bad drivers) that we can't make the same adjustments that folks in other cities have made.