West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

(47 posts)

viaduct we voted against

Started 1 year ago by bliss
Latest reply from JoB

bliss
Member Profile

Meeting tonight at Benaroya Hall 7-10 pm presenting the top 7 choices for design.
Glad our vote didn't meana thing to our city.

Posted 1 year ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

They added four more? Hmmm. Something smells fishy, Oh wait, I am near Spuds.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

i don't recall any coverage of this. bliss, do you have a link to info on this meeting, its purpose, and its results? is a viaduct still an option?

IMHO, the west seattle freeway is a beautiful structure with 3-4 legal lanes in each direction, and the city and state should consider something similar for 99 through downtown.

but, like the tunnel design, they should eliminate the intermediate exit/entry points (western, seneca, columbia, first ave.)

remember, it doesn't have to be ugly and utilitarian in design.

Posted 1 year ago #
c@lbob
Member Profile

The tenth anniversary of the Nisqually earthquake is only a few months away. I think the time for talking about options is past. Build the tunnel.

Posted 1 year ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

Naw, in true Seattle fashion I think we need to un-decide.

Let's hold another vote in which we can say no to every option and then debate it all for another decade!

Posted 1 year ago #
JayDee
Member Profile

I heart the Viaduct, and will miss it when it: 1) falls over, or 2) we knock it down. Normally I'd think #2 more likely, but since Seattle Process takes place on a geologic time scale, it isn't certain what will happen first.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Jaydee

i sincerely hope they knock it down before it falls down.

I was living in the Minneapolis St Paul areas when the freeway bridge came down. Talk abut a heart stopper.. literally for anyone on that bridge...

i don't want to tell stories about nearly being on the viaduct when it went down...

Posted 1 year ago #
dobro
Member Profile

I wish they would have taken the option to rebuild the viaduct properly. that was the lowest cost, quickest turn around option on the table originally but the developers and money changers couldn't stand it. My secret hope is that it will still happen if every other plan is stymied. I signed the petition for another vote.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Dobro...

please tell me you are joking..
another vote?

here we go again down the long narrow path to nothingness...

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

well, let's see. we voted "no" on a tunnel and "no" an elevated structure - on the same ballot! - and suddenly we're looking at a tunnel and a "big dig" scenario. who decided that?

reminds me of voting "no" on funding construction of a baseball stadium and then having to fund construction of a baseball stadium.

or voting "yes" five times for a monorail and the means to fund it, and then not getting the monorail. (which would be running to my front door as of last year, and would have made the loss of the viaduct a bit more bearable.)

so, for the second time, no. screw greg nickels' hare-brained insistence on publicly funding development of the waterfront for private stakeholders. i mean, his whole argument was, "the viaduct is ugly." give me a break. caltrans is building a new east bay section of the oakland-san fran bay bridge for $1.4 billion - with state-of-the-art self-anchoring suspension engineering, no less. they want over $4 billion for a tunnel here? i think we can do better.

and one other thing! any development involving the hwy 99 corridor through downtown should include grade-separated mass transit, preferably light rail, since that's the system already in place through the bus tunnel. does anyone in this town have the vision to connect the buses, ferries, highways, and trains? or the neighborhoods?

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

redblack...

that monorail you didn't get is about to become the alternate route through town you didn't get..

and the viaduct will come down one way or another.

it's the unplanned tumbling that worries me most.

Posted 1 year ago #
TKDguy
Member Profile

I'm just curious who will actually use the tunnel. As I understand it, it will cost $3.50 each way ($7 round trip) and there are no exits to downtown. It seems like everyone will just take I5 or use the smaller downtown streets to get anywhere. I don't think anyone will have the money to pay the tolls anyway after we get done footing the bills for the tunnel cost overruns.

Posted 1 year ago #
c@lbob
Member Profile

A good question, TKDguy. Getting off of 99 at a proposed stadium exit will put me close enough to downtown for most situations.

Realistically, I use the existing viaduct mostly to give visitors a good view of the city. Apres viaduct, I'll just use the Admiral viewpoint.

Posted 1 year ago #
ellenater
Member Profile

The tunnel is SUCH a bad idea on every level. We need to fix the replace the viaduct with similar and better. Redblack, I agree with you completely...
The tunnel is going to be the biggest abomination should it go through. Also, regardless of how stupid it is to hold up a solid plan do to indecision, it is even stupider to put one through JUST to have a plan.

Asinine.

Posted 1 year ago #
dobro
Member Profile

My sentiments exactly, ellenater.

Posted 1 year ago #
villagegreen
Member Profile

The people that want to "fix" the viaduct or "build something similar" make me laugh. If it cost 10 bucks to rebuild the viaduct it still wouldn't happen. That is the one option that will NEVER happen. The city has decided, and rightfully so, that an elevated highway along the entire downtown waterfront is, to use ellenater's language, "asinine." It was complete idiocy when the viaduct was first built and it's complete idiocy now.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

the same people who use the toll option on 167 will use the tunnel..
and trucks...

Posted 1 year ago #
ellenater
Member Profile

Why do you think it's idiocy, villagegreen?

Posted 1 year ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

I don't know about villagegreen, but the viaduct is idiotic because it separates our city from the bay, is supremely unattractive any way you look at it, and the "great views" every supporter crows about (Which last less than three minutes, and you need to be watching the road, not the scenery), will only be improved for EVERYBODY upon it's removal.
The Spokane St. viaduct is completely different; it bisects a flat industrial zone, blocking no views, hovering over no pedestrian areas. It is utilitarian and serves it's purpose well. No other alternative makes sense along it's route. the same can not be said at all about the waterfront viaduct.
---
And for all you scaredy-pants out there, ask any structural engineer whether they would rather be in a tunnel, on a bridge, or a downtown surface street during an earthquake.

Posted 1 year ago #
villagegreen
Member Profile

Turning one of Seattle's greatest assets, its waterfront, into an elevated highway was not good city planning. But that was the 50's, when cars ruled all and gas was cheap and plentiful. Rebuilding the viaduct today would be a travesty.

Cities grow and thrive when those that work in the city live in the city. Downtown Seattle isn't housing near the number of residents that it takes to have a thriving downtown core. Part of the reason for this is that we have not one, but two highways gutting our downtown. There is no reason to live downtown when you can drive into the city so easily. It's a catch-22, since not many live downtown, there aren't a ton of amenities downtown (such as grocery stores), so not many people live downtown, etc.

In a nutshell, the viaduct promotes sprawl, which is not good for cities. The tunnel, on the other hand, would be used by those that absolutely need it (and are willing to pay)to get BY downtown - not so much as a route into downtown (there are no downtown exits). Compare the livability of these two cities: Vancouver and Phoenix. I'll admit, Vancouver is a pain in the ass to drive into, but once you're there you realise there's no reason to leave. The city is thriving in a way that makes Seattle seem somewhat suburban and antiquated. Where is our public transportation? Where is our Robson St? Where is our downtown culture?

On the other hand, Phoenix is what happens when all common sense city planning is thrown out the window. The place is a ghostland at night. No culture to speak of and terrible public transportation. But they sure know how to build the hell out of roads.

Oh, and ditto everything dawsonct said. Ignoring the whole city planning theory stuff for a second, cutting your city off from the waterfront is just sad. I can't remember the last time I was down there. I refuse to simply write off the area as a tacky tourist trap. The city needs to reclaim the area and make it our crowning jewel. There is no reason it can't be a tourist area AND beneficial to the locals - just look at the Pike Place Market.

Posted 1 year ago #
nighthawk
Member Profile

I hate when people say we voted against the viaduct. The ballot was the worst idea ever. People could vote yes on both options, they could vote no on both options or yes on one and no on the others. Statistically it doesn't tell you anything.

Posted 1 year ago #
cjboffoli
Member Profile

Having personally experienced the beautiful, quiet pedestrian plazas and surface streets that replaced the the dirty/loud/ugly/polluting Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco and also the Central Artery in Boston, I could never vote in favor of another auto viaduct along Seattle's waterfront. Our beautiful city deserves better than another monument to the almighty internal combustion engine.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

villagegreen: don't know if you've noticed, but a lot of us here in west seattle work north of downtown. and there are those of us who work construction and whose destinations change frequently. i use 99, because the interstate goes nowhere near my most frequent destination, ballard.

but i find your larger argument specious. if connecting north and south promotes sprawl, then a tunnel does exactly that, as well.

a bridge is about a quarter of the cost of a tunnel, and - for the 80th time - it doesn't have to be ugly.

so if i have a choice of tunnel or nothing, i'll take nothing, and will head for ballard at 6 or 6:30 a.m. on surface streets.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

cjboffoli: san fran's and seattle's waterfronts are quite different. along the embarcadero, there aren't many destination points between pier 1 and pier 39. tourists mainly cluster around pier 1 and girhardeli square. without the freeway, it's just a quieter, more attractive ghost town.

seattle's waterfront, on the other hand, is a vibrant destination point. but it's also oriented along what is essentially an isthmus within an isthmus doewntown.

Posted 1 year ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

Again, you are focusing on the SOV. We need to refocus our communities on the human beings that occupy it, and not the vehicles they have become dependent on. Hate to sound harsh, but adjust and adapt; destroying the quality of life in pursuit of convenience and efficiency isn't a path we want to continue down.

Frankly, I agreed with the surface street option you mentioned; with strategic rerouting N. and S. of downtown, traffic could have been disbursed evenly through the city. Increased emphasis on trip mitigation would have helped reduce traffic as well.

Posted 1 year ago #
villagegreen
Member Profile

redblack - First off, I love the word 'specious.' Thanks for using it.

As for your critique of my argument, I agree, the surface street option would be the best option for the city of Seattle. The pain for commuters would lead to better public transit and more people would most likely choose to live closer to work rather than out in the burbs. I didn't say connecting north and south promotes sprawl, I said making it easy to get downtown from anywhere promotes sprawl. The tunnel is simply the next best solution that accomodates people such as yourself - those that work in different locations and need to bypass the city in order to get there. Ideally, everyone would live close to where they work, but we know that can't always happen. The tunnel at least gives people an option other than I5.

Unlike San Francisco and Boston, Seattle's unique geography (narrow strip of land surrounded on both sides by water) really does limit the options we have for road building. Putting them underground is a viable solution that many other cities have implemented successfully.

As for the non-ugly bridge argument, the Sistine Chapel of bridges could be built and it would still ruin the waterfront. Besides cutting the waterfront off from the city and being an ugly monstrosity, the worst thing about the current viaduct is the NOISE. What's the point in trying to turn the waterfront into a destination point for locals if they have to shout at each other while they're down there? It's a no win proposition. For the 81st time, building a new viaduct is a non-option.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

@dawsonct: i focus on the SOV because i am condemned to being an SOV. no matter how i try to arrange it, commuting with others doesn't work for me, and, believe me, i've tried. i have to lug rain gear, tools, hard hat, lunch box, etc. to destinations that change daily or weekly, and at times that change daily, and i am condemned to the SOV lifestyle. (the worst part is that my car stereo just took a dump on me. D: )

the best i can do is live in the city (unlike my rednecked, xenophobic, tax-dodging, gas-guzzling coworkers), and west seattle provides my downtown-commuting wife with easy access to work.

enough about me. let's find out what you think about me.

just kidding.

@villagegreen: my biggest question about the replacement of the 99 corridor through downtown is why "cut and cover" was given short shrift and why deep-bore was the only option for a tunnel.

it seems to me that someone, somewhere had dollar signs in his eyes.

fiscally speaking, cut and cover is probably cheaper than deep-bore or a bridge, and would be a milder engineering feat with lower construction costs. replacement of the seawall would be easier. maintenance would be easier. incorporation of rapid/light rail transit would be easier. connection to the existing battery street tunnel would be easier. (ever consider the grade-change question on the belltown/QA approach? it's a brain teaser. the deep-bore tunnel would have a damn-near vertical incline to hit the proposed mercer/aurora interchange.)

as far as a bridge goes, though, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

because my answer to the noise question is simple: recycled tire aggregate. europe uses it - with great success - for noise reduction and pavement life.

to sum up, though, my opposition to deep-bore is partly political and partly practical; i have given my vote(s) a great deal of thought, and i am not a simple naysayer.

Posted 1 year ago #
ellenater
Member Profile

The waterfront is going to end up as private property, anyway. They will give us a token little park to appease us and that will be that. I don't see how driving on a viaduct makes the experience any less appreciable. It's stunningly beautiful and the route is perfect; I enjoy it as a driver and passenger. There is no doubt it could be reconfigured to both look better, and to accommodate mass transit, i.e. trains, in the future. Instead of being an eyesore, it could be an architectural thing of beauty. I think it could actually enhance the look of the waterfront, especially when you take into account the designs of the stadiums, and even the space needle.

I agree that the ballot was crazy but I also think people are not settled on this yet. We still don't have the right solution...mainly because nobody has designed my idea yet. ;)

Posted 1 year ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

So with the surface street option what happens to the commercial traffic? It's not just about commuters, you know.

The bridge thing reminds me of Lisbon. They reinvigorated their waterfront mabye 15 years ago and one of the features is a huge bridge crossing the river to the suburbs.

From a distance the bridge is beautiful. But when you get close it's pretty imposing, noisy, and as dominant as our current viaduct. Not saying the two situations are exactly alike but you have to remember that a bridge is just another concrete and metal structure that brings noise and isn't necessarily all that attractive.

Posted 1 year ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

Redblack, I understand there are many among us who don't have a choice as to how they commute, nevertheless, we really need to consider the greater good of the community. For citizens such as yourself, getting the unnecessary vehicles off the road should make life easier for those whose jobs require they spend time in traffic.
---
Maybe part of the new waterfront should be a few elevated viewing platforms. Possibly save a couple of sections of viaduct. If they put benches in rows, facing North and South, people could sit on them and pretend they are driving.

Posted 1 year ago #
KBear
Member Profile

"people could sit on them and pretend they are driving."

...sort of like they would do in their cars, had the "Surface Steet" option been selected...

Posted 1 year ago #
Queenie
Member Profile

While I am in favor of the tunnel, largely for reasons of wanting to actually go forth and do something before the whole thing falls down and kills a bunch of people, the endless debate about this issue is not actually my biggest peeve.

What is, however, is the whole concept of a subset of people who believe that they have discerned the one true way a city and a society should function and that they are going to craft civil policy that willfully and purposefully punishes other people who refuse to adopt their outlook. Certainly mass transit is a good thing. But rather than a lot of debates about how to promote mass transit by making it a more attractive, functional, viable option to people, what I always seem to hear instead is a lot of proposals for ways to make it absolutely miserable for anyone who doesn’t take mass transit.

My husband, a New York City transplant, doesn’t drive. He takes the bus to work downtown every day, while I commute from West Seattle to Gig Harbor via car. Both our commutes take about 45 minutes to an hour, however, despite the fact that I am going an exponentially farther distance. Now, that’s silly. But these discussions anymore are never about how to make his experience better so that he could manage to travel the 5-10 miles much more quickly and pleasantly, but are always policy and legislation should make things worse for me to ‘discourage’ me from driving by road diets to make traffic worse, more tolls to make the trip more expensive, so that eventually I will be forced to change jobs and quit driving and then everything will be just great. Somehow. Nobody ever seems especially clear how intentionally attempting to make other people’s lives more stressful and unpleasant will result in this greatness, but they seem unswervingly confident that it will happen. But no, far better to work to make my commute last two hours than to try and make his ten minutes.

I think this attitude is both asinine and hugely counterproductive to the very goals of community and environment that people profess to want to cultivate with them. I know it doesn’t make me want to bike places. If I am being perfectly honest, in fact, it has made me resent our contingent of urban bicyclists, and not without cause when they go about brazenly and cheerfully nattering on about how they long to make the lives of people who drive cars a veritable hell on earth for the ‘greater good’. Because a car is sure to be just exactly the same sort of animal in 2035 as it is now and just as bad for the environment, right? And they all know this because along with having been gifted with the one true way of urban planning, they also have an omniscient knowledge of how technology as it relates to emissions and environmental impact is going to unfold over the next century. And certainly forget that the whole of the west coast was originally designed for cars, basically, and that no matter what urban planning strategies you adopt you are never, ever going to get the same level of urban density out here that you have on the east coast.

Less stick, more carrot. Less focus on punishing people and punitive attempts to control the behavior of others for their own good that only make them resent you would be awesome. Even better would be the same effort and energy spent pushing for policies that would make things better for everyone, like a really good, functional light rail system connecting all the neighborhoods of our city.

Posted 1 year ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

I had been thinking some of those same things Queenie.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

queenie: i hear this a lot, and i've never been sure why some people who are married to their cars (like i am) feel that promoting mass transit is punishment for drivers.

as a matter of fact, this whole debate is about building new roads into and through downtown.

yes, i would like to see any discussion of building more roadway or altering the route of hwy 99 include mass transit - and paid for with an MVET, no less. i am, indeed, willing to pay for the greater good, even though it's against my own selfish needs. in this regard, dawsonct is spot on.

as far as your commute goes, queenie, the cars we want off of the road aren't necessarily yours, or even mine. we are going to drive no matter how well the local transit system evolves. but wouldn't it be better if people who drive solo downtown and back every day had more and faster transit options than those that already exist? more options can and should be made available.

regarding your hubby's commute (which i find suspiciously miserable; my wife works at 4th and university and has rarely had a bus ride longer than 10-15 minutes): if we build more transit and get more local SOV cars off of the road, everyone's commute gets easier.

your post is long on platitude, but short on ideas. so what do you think is the best solution to replace the hwy 99 corridor through downtown? any ideas on how and who should fund it? in short, how do we improve the downtown-and-beyond commute for the red-headed stepchild that is west seattle?

Posted 1 year ago #
Queenie
Member Profile

Redblack: Promoting mass transit is NOT punishment for drivers. Punishment for drivers is punishment for drivers. Any argument for city planning involving mass transit that concludes with ‘...and then people would HAVE to take the bus more or bike to work because they would have no choice’ usually involves this scenario, as do most that include the phrase ‘I’m sorry but it’s for the greater good’.

Honestly, there is so much of this sentiment, even in this thread, that I find it somewhat disingenuous for you to profess not to understand what I am talking about. Sure, a lot of times people don’t have the gall to actually spell it out, but it’s pretty plain. Here, from this thread:

“Cities grow and thrive when those that work in the city live in the city.”
(… So let’s adopt policies that force people to live in the city by making it unbearable to try and commute to the city)

“Again, you are focusing on the SOV. We need to refocus our communities on the human beings that occupy it, and not the vehicles they have become dependent on. Hate to sound harsh, but adjust and adapt; destroying the quality of life in pursuit of convenience and efficiency isn't a path we want to continue down.”
(I don’t need a car and so I am sure that you don’t either! Despite having absolutely no knowledge of anyone else’s situation other than my own, I feel confident stating that you’re wrong if you disagree with me! When I say we need to refocus on human beings, I mean me mainly.)

“The pain for commuters would lead to better public transit and more people would most likely choose to live closer to work rather than out in the burbs. I didn't say connecting north and south promotes sprawl, I said making it easy to get downtown from anywhere promotes sprawl.”
(Cut me a switch off that tree there. It’s for your own good, it builds character!)

“I understand there are many among us who don't have a choice as to how they commute, nevertheless, we really need to consider the greater good of the community.”
(I understand you may not have a choice. I just don’t care.)

As to my being short on ideas, I mentioned light rail? I would be a huge fan of an actual coordinated effort to do something along those lines. My point, in fact, is mainly that I do not see why a conversation about mass transit in this city needs to be approached from a oppositional perspective, like light rail or expanded bus service could not possibly exist at the same time as decent roads and the only way to get people to use public or alternate transportation is to go after and antagonize people who drive. Setting up mass transit as the enemy of cars especially seems like a bizarre tact to take especially considering how consistently we as a community have been unable to work together to agree on anything to begin with. If a third of the people want thing A, a third of the people want thing B, and a third of the people want thing C, then there will always be enough people to vote to not do something and never enough to move us towards a decision. At some point, it behooves everyone to make some attempt to accommodate the needs and desires of other people even if they are not your own rather than trying to use brute force to try and convert people to your way of thinking a la the Spanish Inquisition.

Posted 1 year ago #
ellenater
Member Profile

Queenie,

I totally agree!

There is something seriously wrong (and pompous) about the rational that we could force people to use mass transit through a policy. It reminds me of a South Park episode featuring Prius owners who enjoy the smell of their own gas. lol!

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

queenie: i think you see this as an adversarial argument, when it doesn't have to be.

when you think mass-transit/urban density fans are saying, "...and then people would HAVE to take the bus more or bike to work because they would have no choice," what i hear - and what i hope they actually mean is, "...and then people would want to take the bus or light rail more or bike to work because they would have more choices and can adapt to changing traffic situations."

i don't hear a conspiracy to punish drivers or suburbanites. maybe my glasses are a little rose-tinted.

the best urban transit systems - like vancouver BC's - have redundancy, and it's a goal seattle should have sought decades ago. suburban and exurban commuters have different choices to get into the city, and that includes cars. the city encouraged development of high-rise condos and apartments to attract inhabitants to where the jobs are, which has the benefit of taking cars off of the roads for in-city commutes. in the city proper, denizens have many options for getting around town, of which cars are a decreasing percentage. combined, this has many benefits: roads take less wear and tear, cost less to repair, and are less congested than areas without mass transit or redundant transit systems.

i'm encouraged to hear that you support a city-wide rail system, though, and hope that you realize than an MVET will probably be necessary at some point to fund it. call it punishing drivers if you will, but it's a practical way to fund a related budgetary problem.

nonetheless, the hwy 99/viaduct/tunnel debate is about roads and driving, and actually rewards drivers. and freight. which is kind of unfortunate, because the debate should include mass transit as a way to alleviate a looming traffic problem. so far, it hasn't.

Posted 1 year ago #
autumn
Member Profile

Let's face it, people aren't going to give up the single occupancy vehicle anytime soon. I mean why would I opt for an hour commute when I can jump in my car and get there in twenty minutes? And besides why should I give up driving when we have a minority of the population jetting around in lear jets and cruising in yachts and cigar boats that consume far more petroleum than my little hyundai ever will? Don't mean to be cynical but I am just fed up.
What we should perhaps focus on is finding a way of motoring about that doesn't rely on petroleum.
I don't know somehow harnessing motion and transfering it to motors, magnetics, solar, something. Cars are way too convenient and unless we create infrastructure that is just as convenient without petroleum we will just keep on this same path until we run out.

and p.s. the tunnel is a lousy rotten idea

Posted 1 year ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

Jeez queenie, if that is how you interpreted my statement, I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
I really don't want to pry the steering wheel from your cold, dead fingers, but after sixty+ years of America focusing ONLY on the transportation system which is currently strangling our society, we don't have a lot of time to phock around making certain EVERY damned transportation project we pursue in this country gives equal shrift to the internal-combustion driven, SOV. We gave the petroleum and automobile industries more than half a century of free (for them) run of this country. Time to focus on things that will actually improve life for ALL of us, and the World we live in.
I'm sorry for being so gawdamned selfish.

Posted 1 year ago #
Queenie
Member Profile

“Cars are way too convenient and unless we create infrastructure that is just as convenient without petroleum we will just keep on this same path until we run out.”

This. Just exactly this. If you want more people to use mass transit, which once again, I do agree is a good idea, then make mass transit better.

@redblack – I completely agree with you. I don’t think this NEEDS to be an adversarial argument. But what you are hearing in my response is NOT my choosing to take an adversarial stance in this discussion, but rather me REACTING to an openly adversarial stance that many proponents of mass transit have already taken. This includes, most certainly, our mayor who I heard say very similar things (on Weekday on KUOW) about wanting to make driving more unpleasant and more unfeasible for people to encourage alternate transportation. This has become very prevalent in the last few years I have noticed. What I am mainly saying is that this holier-than-thou, sanctimonious attitude is incredibly short sighted. This whole tunnel/viaduct/surface street debate is a prime example of people myopically pursuing what they perceive as the ‘right thing’ without ever bending or making any attempt to court or include other people’s ‘right thing’ and what it results in. Which is, essentially, nothing. While I do not have statistics ready at hand and am not going to be one of those people who makes them up whole cloth to support their argument, I feel pretty confident in saying that most people in Seattle keep a car, and that of those people, most people intend to continue to keep and use a car, and trying to push through policies to punish those people is CERTIANLY not going to make them feel all warm and fuzzily inclined towards your proposals.

Recall the whole debate about the 520 bridge. At one point, I thought they had really come up with a smart, inclusive sounding proposal. Tolls, yes, but more lanes, AND the inclusion of light rail. Drivers would pay a bit, but they would also get something out of it, and it would advance mass transit in Seattle. Did this work? No. Because, as I recall, the Sierra Club voted against it because it made more room for cars, and thus was bad despite that it would have also included light rail. The message is quite clear that there is to be no compromise here by what continues to be a MINORITY. And my point is that without some measure of compromise, you can be certain that people like me will not support these things. You say yourself that it’s very likely that, as light rail expands, it’s likely that drivers will be asked to chip in for it and probably for things like the expansion of bike lanes and trails. To that I would say that, as I agree that’s likely to be the case, its high time for the people advocating for these measures to make a concerted effort to stop alienating people like me if they expect us to pay for them.

“we don't have a lot of time to phock around making certain EVERY damned transportation project we pursue in this country gives equal shrift to the internal-combustion driven, SOV”

@dawsonct – Sorry, I didn’t realize you were so pressed for time here. In that case, why don’t you go ahead and leave us out of it if you think that would be more expedient for you and yours? You and your fellow bicyclists can put together a ballot measure instituting tags and fees for bicycle registration in Seattle and then you can pay for your own bike trails and such. Toss in something about raising bus rates while you’re at it, since drivers also underwrite a good bit of the cost of that too. I promise I’ll sign it.

Posted 1 year ago #
happy hour
Member Profile

Bliss is back. Under a new name. My phone was stolen .... Oh well
I read about the meeting on viaduct design review in the paper. I happened to be at Dukes and noticed it tucked way back in the paper with very little info. Exactly how 'they' want to keep it. As private as possible. I went on the mayors web site, city council members and so forth to write my objections. WSDOT and many other government agencies are all tied together. It was designed before it ever hit the ballot. They don't want us to know. I used to go to south lake union planning meetings for YEARS!!! Its a crime how things get done in this City. Paul allen, all his pockets being filled with tax payers money to do the Mercer project, etc, made me so ill. Architects and planners have it all done before you know a thing about it. Very poorly designed as well- even by 'the best'. Our money paying for such blunders makes me ill. The viaduct/tunnel will bite us in the ass too. We, the people, have NO power!
I have too many stories. Just a quick check in.

Posted 1 year ago #
redblack
Member Profile

queenie: gee, i didn't think driving here could get much more unpleasant. we, the 23rd largest city in america, have something like the sixth-worst traffic.

i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the tone of the debate from pro-rail folks. i just don't hear it, and i usually ignore nonsense when i hear it. which is what pissing off drivers - and a huge tax base - is. nonsense.

Posted 1 year ago #
happy hour
Member Profile

Bliss is back. I have a sister in Boston. The Big did has killed people. The tiles have fallen on cars. Sound familiar- king dome? Also our bridge is just like san fran - oakland bridge that the quake destroyed. But they were able to fix that! Also I knew a prestigious Architect 20 years ago that was heading the mission to build the tunnel. It was designed years ago. The gov. Didn't want us to know. That's why our vote didn't count. It was our choice to get it on the ballot. As you can see - we did not have the power to make it so. Also, none of them have really mentioned what they are going to build on top of tunnel. More buildings,development, homeless parks, ??? They refuse tell me and I have written to them. They avoid all my questions and just give stats on bullshit budget. I have mentioned the filth and grime that we cannot keep clean just in the battery street tunnel and the lights that blow out in a day in the mercer I5 tunnel. Roadway structures has bastardized every road they get their hands on. Oh well. Love ouir gobahment!!! But their simulations are stunning and sparking clean. Just like a ride at Disney world. Someone tried to bring this to court as unlawful and judge dismissed it, oh surprise ;-o

Posted 1 year ago #
c@lbob
Member Profile

Well, this walk down memory lane has been amusing, but I stiff the petitioners and if Prop 101 is on the ballot, I'm voting no.

SCAT is an apt acronym, choose a definition ;^)

http://www.answers.com/topic/scat

Posted 1 year ago #
acemotel
Member Profile

All this talk, no mention of freight, i.e. commercial traffic. Seattle is a port town after all. It's a WORKING waterfront. I just have to laugh about the people who get their panties all in a knot about "connecting the waterfront to the city." AS if the whole world exists for their personal convenience and aesthetics on their lunch hour....

Posted 1 year ago #
charlabob
Member Profile

What happened in SF will happen here and then we'll fix it -- the damned viaduct will fall down, people will die, the people who live will be greatly inconvenienced, and then we'll stop talking and build something.

One person was killed by falling tiles and bad construction on the highway that replaced the pre-big dig maze. That is absolutely one too many, but I'm sure many lives have been saved by the fact that you can now leave the airport, even as a person new to Boston, and have some chance of getting where you're going alive. Yeah, imnho the pre-dig traffic "patterns" (and I use the word loosely) were a very bad joke.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

I just got back from spending a week in Denver, Colorado.. what a surprise that was.

the pedestrian mall downtown was lively.. full of restaurants and people every night of the week... and it stays that way in the middle of winter.

what have they done that Seattle hasn't? Well.. they built a pedestrian mall and then put a free shuttle on it that runs every 15 minutes during the peak hours. Not only are people out of their cars.. the downtown retail district is booming.

at one end of that mall all the buses can be accessed at a bus terminal... get off one and get on another... and then there are the light rails.. as in plural... and well used that connect to the same pedestrian mall...

How did they transform a dead downtown to a lively business district??? public transportation was the biggest factor...

they were able to accomplish a major miracle because they didn't spend decades trying to figure out the perfect system to sell to the people..

they just decided it was time to become a first class city and did it.

Portland has done the same.

what a shame Seattle is being left behind.

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^