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
( ... )
Having lived in SF, I can comment a bit more effectively on this. SF is on a peninsula. Very few (sane)people travel *through* San Francisco as a means to get elsewhere. SF also has a remarkably effective public transportation system and extremely high density, meaning that most people don't own a car. The Embarcadero freeway was more of a loop around the city, local access
( ... )
Have you seen the new development around I-90 to handle the commercial traffic?
With improvements they can do the same for access to Hwy - 599. That would take care of commercial traffice from the port.
But as you pointed out we need to deal with commuter traffic.
(A personal guess says) most Viaduct traffic comes from corridores along the waterfront; West Seattle, White Center, Ballard, Greenwood, Etc. The monorail was the best option to absorb that traffic, but because there wasn't the political connection it was studied to death.
I'm slightly more optimistic about viaduct replacement, if for no other reason than not doing so is more likely to result in death (and the resultant wrongful death lawsuits) than not building a monorail.
the traffic can and should be rerouted to I5, one highway through city is more than enough. and the port must go away too, to relieve the traffic even further. i hear tacoma and everett both have plenty of spare capacity and cheap land. in 21st century there is no excuse to keep these archaic industries in the middle of downtown.
actually the port itself is fine where it is. You are talking about the ferry terminal, and that needs to stay. There is a *reason* it goes to downtown seattle.
the traffic can and should be rerouted to I5, one highway through city is more than enough.
Obviously not - have you been on I-5 during rush hour lately?
and the port must go away too...there is no excuse to keep these archaic industries in the middle of downtown.
That's your personal opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I'd say your statement is a little short-sighted. The Port directly generates 18,000 jobs, $972 million in personal income, $2.5 billion in revenue, $87 million in point-of-sale revenue, $431 million in local purchases, and $210 million in state and local taxes are pretty good reasons to keep the Port in Seattle. (Source: 2003 Seaport Economic Impact Statement). Indirect jobs and income are even higher. And 2003 wasn't all that great a year for trade, either
( ... )
quite honestly, i think that "18,000 jobs, $972 million in personal income, $2.5 billion in revenue, $87 million in point-of-sale revenue, $431 million in local purchases, and $210 million in state and local taxes" are peanuts compared to what this territory can generate if it was sold to residential and office developers, including hitech companies. this city was build on shipping, but these times are over. IMHO, of course.
Yes, but that also brings in more traffic, construction, population density, infrastructure disruption, and, yes, pollution. Hell, the waters of Puget Sound are caffeinated just from treated wastewater
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
With improvements they can do the same for access to Hwy - 599.
That would take care of commercial traffice from the port.
But as you pointed out we need to deal with commuter traffic.
(A personal guess says) most Viaduct traffic comes from corridores along the waterfront; West Seattle, White Center, Ballard, Greenwood, Etc.
The monorail was the best option to absorb that traffic, but because there wasn't the political connection it was studied to death.
Reply
People will still be driving just as much. I wish that weren't the case, but I have read the studies myself. :(
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
It'll be "studied" to death until it falls down.
Washington State doesn't want to pay to keep State Highways running.
Reply
Reply
and the port must go away too, to relieve the traffic even further. i hear tacoma and everett both have plenty of spare capacity and cheap land. in 21st century there is no excuse to keep these archaic industries in the middle of downtown.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Obviously not - have you been on I-5 during rush hour lately?
and the port must go away too...there is no excuse to keep these archaic industries in the middle of downtown.
That's your personal opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I'd say your statement is a little short-sighted. The Port directly generates 18,000 jobs, $972 million in personal income, $2.5 billion in revenue, $87 million in point-of-sale revenue, $431 million in local purchases, and $210 million in state and local taxes are pretty good reasons to keep the Port in Seattle. (Source: 2003 Seaport Economic Impact Statement). Indirect jobs and income are even higher. And 2003 wasn't all that great a year for trade, either ( ... )
Reply
besides, the cargo ships pollute air and water.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment