the stupid, it burns us

[staxxy]

why on earth would *anyone* think that putting a tunnel for cars RIGHT NEXT TO THE WATERFRONT is a good idea

Comments

[liberpolly]

why do you want a viaduct? it will fall. i say, make a boulevard.

[m1sfit_t0y]

That's two of us. Make a damn (dam?) boulevard.

[loree]

As someone who commutes this route during rush hour every weekday, I can say with certainty that this is a phenomenally bad idea. Traffic along Alaskan Way is already horrific during rush hour. There just isn't the space there to replace six lanes of access-controlled highway with a street-level boulevard

[staxxy]

thank you. and yes, exactly.

[loree]

Sorry if I got a bit ranty-pants there, but it seems that the majority of the people weighing in on this issue in the media and elsewhere aren't those who'll actually be *affected* by it on a daily basis (with the exception of multi-millionaire downtown condo owners, who get zero sympathy from me).

[mojrim]

Unfortunately, the problem goes further than that. No replacement for the existing structure can possibly handle the projected traffic load. At a certain point, commuter driving becomes impossible in an urban setting; you just can't build enough roads to handle that many single-occupant vehicles.

As for the studies you refer to, they are very specific. Millions of people work in NYC and live in NJ, CT, or upstate, and the overwhelming majority commute by rail. The same is mostly true of SF, and almost all European cities live by mass transportation.

Long term, te only viable answer is for Seattleites to realize that their city has outgrown the "small town" so many remember growing up in, and get with the urban program.

[staxxy]

I think this is the most logical solution, really.

a lot of people don't belive just *how big* the seattle area actually is now.

[loree]

I think people are trying, but a lot of efforts are being defeated by self-serving asshats in the business community abusing the public initiative system. How many times did we as a city vote in favor of the monorail? Three? Four?

[cynickal]

You wouldn't have as much traffic if there were some way to get people moved along the same route, like say a monorail.

[staxxy]

yes you would. People will still be driving just as much. I wish that weren't the case, but I have read the studies myself. :(

[cynickal]

People will still be driving just as much.

Why?

Most reports out now show we're close to peak oil.
http://www.theoildrum.com/?gclid=CO7Lgs2544oCFQkfYAodpgSp0w

[staxxy]

I have *no* idea why. I just know that all of the transportation studies done shows that people would be driving nearly as much. I think a lot of it has to do with where they are going to, and where from.

And I did miss-speak. It will cut it down but by so little that it is negligable.

[cynickal]

What about the studies regarding the tearing down of the San Fransisco elevated road?

I can't find any actual studies, just anicdotal stories. :(
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/06/17/MN108484.DTL

[staxxy]

yeah, I wish the monorail studies that I read were public. :(

I am glad I got to see them when I worked for transportation engineers, but I wish I could share them with others. :(

[cynickal]

What's funny is they used Disney World as an insult.

Since 1971, when the loop at the Magic Kingdom was built, the monorail has traveled the equivalent distance of twenty-one trips around the world. On a typical working day, around 150,000 Walt Disney World guests travel on three routes.

This is a system there moving people efficiently and reliable means MONEY!!! If people can't get around in Disney World they DON"T return.

Can you imagine asking tourists to walk 13 miles in Florida heat?

[staxxy]

they have a monorail in Singapore too. Apparently it is hugely popular, and exteremly well used.

the problem with our monorail is that they proposed extremely limited coverage and services. They designed a proposal that would not be "good enough" for everyone to jump on board.