Comments On: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior by Erica C. Barnett http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/11/18/viaduct_predictions_ignore_hum Comments On: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior by Erica C. Barnett en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:00:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
OK, you actually read my mind. I got busy with work, but was going to do a subsequent post suggesting that a six-lane boulevard would be a reasonable compromise, albeit with the proviso that it needs to have as few stoplights as possible (which suggests ped/bike overpasses leading to a much slower waterfront-friendly north/south through route along the water, but I haven't spent a lot of time thinking at that level of detail).

I'd be interested to know if it is feasible to reuse the Waterfront Streetcar infrastructure, and whether it would be possible to do a branch line to West Seattle along Alaskan Way or near the other BNSF right-of-way there.

Every rendition I've seen of a surface route was of a much slower street, and a lot of my objections are based on the very slow 2 or 4 lane street in the visuals I've seen.

BTW - the real through-traffic problem in SF isn't the Embarcadero boulevard segment, it's the interminable crawl down Lombard St. when you get off of the 101 heading into the city.


Posted by Mr. X]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:38:49 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
Mr. X, me personally, I'd be tickled pink to see the viaduct retrofitted to last another, say, 10 years together with a revival of the Green Line, whether as monorail or light rail.

Well, I've just introduced "ain't gonna happen" on top of "ain't gonna happen," so this is totally academic.

When I speak of a compromise, I'm really speaking of something like a six-lane surface boulevard. And the reason I see it as a compromise is that it by and large preserves the number of lanes, just going at a slower speed. Viaduct drivers still have their route, just not as fast. On the other hand, you don't get a bucolic waterfront free of motor vehicle traffic. But for anyone who's seen the boulevard that replaced the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco, that still seems to work.
Posted by cressona]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:27:08 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
Um, exactly which bus will be as fast without a grade-separated Viaduct (or tunnel, for that matter)? Certainly not the 54 or 55.

@31,

Who said I opposed the Monorail?

@33,

Actually, the most realistic compromise would be to retrofit the existing structure and develop a meaningful grade-separated mass-transit system that serves the west side of the City.




Posted by Mr. X]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:46:18 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
Read my post. The western half of Seattle isn't slated to get any meaningful alternatives to cars any time in the next 20 years, at least.


Yeah, Mr. X, and preserving viaduct drivers' speedy, straight-shot downtown bypass is the only criterion here, never mind how many billions it will cost, never mind how totally out of sync it is with the current economic and environmental realities.

"Give them nothing, but take from them everything." That really seems to be your motto.

Instead of trying to anticipate some realistic compromise, you and Gene Hoglund can't imagine any choice but absolute victory or absolute defeat. (Now, Gene Hoglund in a loincloth brandishing a sword and a shield. That's a mental image I really don't want to have this morning.)
Posted by cressona]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:09:45 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
But folks didn't listen. And they told us we were crazy that gas would cost more than $4 a gallon. And they told us we were crazy to think that people would pay $2 or $2.25 to ride a monorail if buses only cost $1.50 at peak.

Oh, wait... *FROWN*
Posted by Mickymse]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:58:39 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
And, believe it or not, I DON'T want a new elevated highway -- or to keep the old one. Maybe that's because I'm not old enough to remember when it was built!

I ride the bus. And the bus will be just as fast with or without an elevated highway!

And considering the majority of traffic on the Viaduct is coming from West Seattle and points SW into Downtown or from Ballard and points NW into Downtown, you'd think we could come up with better solutions than a frakking highway.

@10, I honestly do sympathize with your commute... but you're not the norm for a Viaduct traveler.
Posted by Mickymse]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:54:49 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
Read my post. The western half of Seattle isn't slated to get any meaningful alternatives to cars any time in the next 20 years, at least.

The kind of vague notion of "urban planning" that you advocate leaves them high and dry well into the foreseeable future, and that's not a fact that vague notions of downtown density can wish away. Period.

(And heck, if we put those GM bailout dollars into Neil Young's suggestion that we make them retool to retrofit existing vehicles for electric or other motors - which is a lot more immediately viable than you are apparently willing to acknowledge - we might just start getting somewhere on that problem, too).

Posted by Mr. X]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:15:57 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
Well, it benefits a whole lot more people (and a whole lot more of the local economy) than turning Mercer Street into Paul Allen Parkway will, but a majority of our City Council is apparently willing to pay a whole lot more for that per square yard for that than keeping SR 99 functioning ever will.

I don't use the South Park or Magnolia Bridges, but I think they need to be replaced, too, and have no problem with my tax dollars being used for that.




Posted by Mr. X]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:03:39 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]> Posted by elsinore]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:51:20 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
See, this one time, a West Seattlite was demanding to be told a "way out of West Seattle" without the viaduct. Answer: stay in school.

Hilarious. At least in Seattle we get it.

The thing is, if all those neighborhoods really couldn't live without it, then a majority of Seattle residents would be willing to pay for it. In fact, we see time and again, it is the residents of only one neighborhood who want to buy this thing, and the rest of the city doesn't see anything in it for themselves. It's expensive and it benefits only a few.

Posted by elenchos]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:27:12 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
The viaduct is a vital transit route for not only West Seattle but Burien, White Center, Queen Anne, Greenlake, Greenwood...

It is a much needed and (can you ignore 119,000) much used N/S corridor, allowing an alternative to I-5 congestion that simply CANNOT take more traffic.

I don't care if it's another viaduct, a tunnel, a hybrid – anything but surface streets - but to hear you imply that development for the ultra-wealthy should take precedent over the sustainability of the whole west side of the city (not to mention port traffic) you are giving a very clear picture of what kind of person you are – selfish, ignorant, and rude.
Posted by stringcheeseWS]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:08:22 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]> Mr. X @22:
They may not run on internal combustion engines, but cars will be with us for the rest of our natural lives, Cressona. As much as it may offend your sensibilities, you may want to try getting used to the notion, because that's the reality of the situation.

Mr. X, you're right that the internal combustion engine is seriously on the decline, you're right that cars are here to stay regardless. But here's the distinction you miss, and it has nothing to do with my sensibilities.

Nothing that's out there to replace oil and the internal combustion engine (and at the same time address climate change) is anywhere near as affordable and scalable as what we've got. Yes, automotive technology will improve and keep improving, but if you're waiting for that technological panacea that's right around the corner, you're going to keep waiting and waiting.

The late Walt Crowley captured this nuance far better than I could with this op-ed in the Times last year:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/op…

The viaduct was built at a time when we could afford to be utterly dependent on automotive transportation and we could afford to be oblivious of urban planning. We no longer live in that time, any more than we no longer live in a time when there are millions of buffalo roaming the Great Plains and white men could whip out their semiautomatic weapons and just blast away at the herd.

Posted by cressona]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:40:55 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
You mean hard choices like campaigning against Prop 8 or winning the Presidency? I think we've had a taste, thanks.
Posted by elenchos]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:30:45 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
Screw the waterfront (which, by the way, is still one of Seattle's top tourist destinations even with the AWV in place) - there are 80,000 + people in West Seattle who need to get from point A to point B, and a similar number on the northwest side of the City, and there is absolutely nothing planned to address their long-term mobility needs in any way, shape, or form.

Hell, Jan Drago wants to put a new streetcar down 1st Avenue, which will do quite a job on the absurdly optimistic modeling numbers WSDOT just released for the so-called "Surface/Transit" option comparing travel times - and the real punchline to that is that there are no plans at all to use the existing track for the Waterfront Trolley - a route that actually could be extended to West Seattle to compensate for work on the AWV.

So yeah, those of us who need to get around the western half of Seattle definitely need an elevated highway on the waterfront a lot more than we need an upscale row of exclusive waterfront new condos in its place. By about 1000 orders of magnitude, in fact.







Posted by Mr. X]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:30:04 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]> 300: "Give them nothing. But take from them everything."

Of course, in this respect you're just being typical Americans. And this is why I shudder at what will happen when Obama has to descend from the platitudes and start offering this nation some hard choices.
Posted by cressona]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:06:31 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]> Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:10:08 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
Um, there are these funny things called jobs and residences in both locations. Lots of them, in fact.

Posted by Mr. X]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:05:17 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
Now: zero stoplights on Aurora and the Viaduct.

Surface-transit: up to 28 stoplights on Aurora and Alaskan.

Chances anyone from north Seattle will visit West Seattle? Zero.

Posted by Seamus]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:17:36 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
The answer is no. Go to college if you don't like living in West Seattle or working in Renton.
Posted by elenchos]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:16:20 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
Erika, the more you write the more obvious it becomes that you don't have a clue!

Slog, please get some balance here!
Posted by stringcheeseWS]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:07:38 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]> Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:57:06 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]> Posted by Greg]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:31:43 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]> Posted by Alan D]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:31:10 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]>
regardless of the option selected, that bitch is coming down for construction. what will you do then?
Posted by maxsolomon]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:21:27 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Viaduct Predictions Ignore Human Behavior]]> Posted by Bellevue Ave]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:00:22 -0800 The Stranger