Tony says it beautifully, and I agree. Option 3 is probably the most versatile and the most pedestrian friendly overall. I agree with Dan that the bottom of the harbor steps won’t be as delightful, but something like a raised pedestrian walkway could help to prioritize the pedestrian there.

There are places where it is wider and narrower as well.

1.) Crossing. The key to reconnecting downtown with the waterfront is the ease of pedestrian crossing. We all agree on this. I believe that two 3-lane streets presents a more pleasant crossing than the 4-lane, which is actually a 5-lane when you include the median. with C, you basically cross 40 feet, then have a break while you’re walking a block and then cross another 40 feet, as opposed to B where you have to cross about 70 feet all at once. Crossing such a wide gulf is unpleasant.

Think about it, which street is easier to cross: 5th AND 4th downtown or Denny?

In addition to making the crossing distance shorter, the fact that all of the traffic is coming from one direction also makes crossing less intimidating. You don’t have to look both ways, just one way and you can keep an eye on all of the potential incoming traffic while you cross.

2.) I actually think Western could benefit from a bit more traffic, hard as that may be to believe. Western seems empty, and frankly a little scary to me. It’s a dark street and the fact that there is so little pedestrian and vehicle traffic makes a person feel alone in a city, which is unpleasant. If there are vehicles driving by to be potential witnesses, I feel I’m less likely to be mugged.

Additional traffic could potentially also benefit retail along Western. Because it is out of the way, people don’t just wander down Western Ave the way they wander down 1st ave. Retail needs large volumes of people passing by in order to scoop up a couple as they pass. Those volumes could be pedestrian or vehicle (as long as there’s parking, which it looks like there is). If all the traffic gets moved out to Alaskan while western is left with so little, all the prime retail will move out to Alaskan, and Western will
remain dark and underdeveloped.

3.) Couplets are more flexible for the future. My dream, would be to build the 6-lane couplet today, and then in 10 or 20 years (maybe sooner) turn two of those lanes into transit only lanes, either for streetcar or buses, or if we’ve already build grade separated transit elsewhere, turn those lanes into wider sidewalks (like we did on pine street) or more on street parking, which would help the retail.

Dropping two vehicle lanes from option C would amount to a 33% drop in capacity, while dropping dropping two lanes from A or B would amount to a 50% decrease. You all may think this is unrealistic, but I think we have a much better shot at a 33% reduction than a 50% reduction.

The mockups are terrible and if it ended up looking anything like that it would be a gigantic waste of space. However, I can easily imagine it being much more interesting.

It’s tough to go off their obviously rough mockups. If there was something cool that you could do with the waterfront in 104′-114′ feet as opposed to 76′-86′, then I’m still a C fan. Otherwise B is fine.

This could very well be our last chance to have any sort of central park in downtown. This gives the waterfront the most open space. Plus, it has more lanes than the surface boulevard options (A&B) and spreads the traffic out which would reduce congestion and noise on the waterfront.

Second choice would be the cut and cover tunnel (option ‘G’). This opens up a huge amount of open space in Belltown, which is almost as good as open space on the waterfront. Plus, it provides the bypass our overly-subsidized port so clamors for.

Third would be option ‘B’, obviously for the excellent transit improvements. Although, I can’t for the life of me see why they wouldn’t include those with ‘C’.

(oh, and [Dan], your attention has been requested in the comments here)