http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/11/21/the_great_wall_of_chopp Comments On: The Great Wall of Chopp 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) Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:30:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
"1. surface solution with transit & freight-only lanes, and fuck personal vehicle traffic."

Seriously, that is one of the best ideas - EVER!

Assuming you can ride bikes on it too.
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:17:28 -0800 The Stranger
For the good of Seattle!
Posted by NapoleonXIV]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:10:31 -0800 The Stranger
Additionally I'm not exactly sure how this project severs the city as you state. Please check out the WSDOT scenario studies (are they full of shit, too?), which show that all scenarios serve a comparable amount of total trips. What opposite directions might the north and south be going? I just don't know how to respond (Stanwood? Do you hate Snohomish County?) to your hyperbole...

Similarly, we are about to increase our options into the downtown core in the coming years as Rapid-Ride and Light Rail come on line. There are many answers to improving mobility for our City. Let's think a little more creatively about it.

@31, There are a number of options to increasing capacity in the downtown, including more transit-only lanes, removing parking to expand capacity, etc. To assume the outcome will simply be to make the streets less-pedestrian friendly (a number of other variables will be altered, and as the City is putting a heightened emphasis on pedestrian mobility issues through the development of the Pedestrian Master Plan) is suspect. Other cities (Milwaukee, SF) have done a fine job of removing a shoreline highway and others (Vancouver) don't even have a highway that bisects their downtown. How do they do it?

Posted by ABadIdea]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:08:05 -0800 The Stranger 2. cut & cover.
3. lidded trench.

it is absolutely vital to the future of seattle that the waterfront be freed from above-grade high-speed traffic.
Posted by Max Solomon]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:47:24 -0800 The Stranger
When did you at the Stranger turn into Socialist Republicans?

FREEDOM!
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:26:46 -0800 The Stranger
@28, all three surface options include "improving capacity of several downtown streets " (ie, widening of several downtown streets and making them less pedestrian-friendly).

The tunnel, trench, and Chopp's plan are the only options that make the waterfront more pedestrian- and transit-friendly. The surface options cut off the waterfront more than the current viaduct.
Posted by jrrrl]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:15:40 -0800 The Stranger
The current viaduct is a wonderful thing. It makes this city work.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:09:31 -0800 The Stranger
Chopp's a fixer, the LBJ-in-Texas of the Evergreen State. So when as here he falls in love with one of his own ideas, dissenters are being carefully noted for future political stranglings. Nickels and Ceis have learned a lot from him.
Posted by tomasyalba]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:55:35 -0800 The Stranger
Can you please define "a zillion" because for two of the surface scenarios, we're talking two lanes of traffic each way and the third couplet scenario expands the roadway to three lanes on two separate streets (definitely not the preferred option of the three surface street alternatives). All three of these scenarios present a similar streetscape to that of most of the main downtown avenues.

Your "heavy traffic" scenario makes several assumptions about the future that the People's Waterfront Coalition have already placed into question. Other modes of transport besides single occupancy vehicles figure into the solution. Please consider that.

By your logic, the current viaduct is a fine urban amenity and a newer version (don't forget the shops under the roadway!) that has wide passages would just be dandy? I'm glad you're not sitting at the Stakeholder table.
Posted by ABadIdea]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:52:37 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Grant Cogswell]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:46:03 -0800 The Stranger
Perhaps a blackmail attempt? Pass something or else this is what you're gonna get?

Or maybe he just needs his meds adjusted?
Posted by NapoleonXIV]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:41:07 -0800 The Stranger
No fear this will not be built - nothing will be build.

The state is broke.

UTAH just suspended 3.6 billion of state DOT projects, 50, indefinitely. Honest political leaders.

Utah is honest about the economy. Washington is not.

We will build, in 3-4 years, what the feds will finance as make work - depression era projects.

You read it here.
Posted by Adam]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:15:56 -0800 The Stranger
The real solution would be something like this, only, instead of blank walls, with shops under the roadway.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:08:52 -0800 The Stranger
Options from best to worst:
1) Lidded trench (tunnel)
2) Chopp's option
3) Surface highway
Posted by jrrrl]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:06:15 -0800 The Stranger Posted by COMTE]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:47:49 -0800 The Stranger Posted by cressona]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:46:34 -0800 The Stranger Posted by DaveO]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:43:12 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Keo]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:37:24 -0800 The Stranger
So much ownership - an hour ago we read "Obama's Secretary of State," and now we have this viaduct. Is it possible to simply let things, people, titles be?
Who is this we? Claiming possession is an early development of the species' competition, or so someone has quoted me as such.
Posted by Darwin]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:35:24 -0800 The Stranger Posted by laterite]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:28:28 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Bellevue Ave]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:26:26 -0800 The Stranger Posted by w7ngman]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:24:29 -0800 The Stranger
Buildings are not an extended, monotonous, featureless, concrete facade stretching a half mile in each direction. And those buildings are twice as far away from the waterfront sidewalk as this monstrosity would be.

When you have downtown buildings visible and accesible from the waterfront, the image is one of a vibrant, integrated urban waterfront. When you have a giant concrete wall being the dominant feature between waterfront and city, the image is one of a disconnected, non-functioning waterfront where you send tourists to spend their money.
Posted by display name]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:22:37 -0800 The Stranger Posted by DOUG.]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:20:39 -0800 The Stranger Posted by maxsolomon]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:19:56 -0800 The Stranger