Comments on: “Frank Chopp is a Complete Jackass” and Other Less Obvious Viaduct News

By: Liane Bramwell

Liane Bramwell — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 09:23:04 +0000

@admin: I just have to say your website is the first I’ve come across this morning that doesn’t have spelling errors every other line. Thank you for taking the time to write something that doesn’t look like a 5th grader wrote. I apologize, just had to vent.

By: On The Wretchedness Of A World In Which Susan Hutchison Can Pose A Serious Challenge To Dow Constantine In The Race For King County Executive | hugeasscity

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:13:01 +0000

[...] (gasp!). At a recent event Constantine cited concerns that reopening the debate could lead to far worse options resurfacing. Fair enough, though conveniently skirted is the core question of whether or not the [...]

By: Dan Staley

Dan Staley — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:06:17 +0000

It’s been a few years since I’ve been there, of course, but IIRC the tunnel’s N end had a grade that made it hard for laden trucks to accelerate through. Has something changed? And where would the money come from?

By: Joshua

Joshua — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:14:27 +0000

It seems the bored tunnel + surface + transit is gaining traction in an effort to form a “grand compromise”.

http://crosscut.com/2008/12/11/alaskan-way-viaduct/18703/

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/391263_viaduct09.html

I’m still on the fence about the bored tunnel. I’ve been a surface+transit supporter from early on, but the tunnel does have a few benefits that appeal to me. Separating freight traffic from surface traffic is a big plus, and the fact that the tunnel could accommodate transit in the future is appealing.

I’m interested to hear other weigh in more on this…

By: MW

MW — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:58:59 +0000

Giddyup…

By: AJ

AJ — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:23:59 +0000

I think we can put low rises throughout the new waterfront, put a ramp down from Seneca/Columbia from the old ramps and prioritize transit. Give 1st BAT lanes, drop a streetcar on Third as well and create usable transit access points. Even if we have to build parking garages.

By: Dan Staley

Dan Staley — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:38:10 +0000

Shorter JoshM: induced demand.

What he said.

By: JoshMahar

JoshMahar — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:40:56 +0000

@MB Mike:

I think the most common argument by us surface/transit option people is that vehicles trips are far more flexible then the established culture gives them credit for. People drive cars because its convenient and if its not convenient they won’t drive, simple as that.

When driving is less convenient, people will do one of two things: a) choose a different mode of transportation such as cycling, walking, or public transportation, or b) eliminate the trip by combining it with others or choosing an alternative destination.

And this is not just some hopeful dream of a possible situation. Its a proven fact. Take the Embarcadero in San Francisco or the Mega highway in Seoul, South Korea. Both of these roadways were removed without the devastating traffic problems that some doomsayers believed.

For years we have systematically widened streets and highways throughout the region only to end up with even worse traffic congestion then when we started.

I think it’s time we consider a new approach.

I leave you with the words of public spaces guru Jan Gehl (and I’m paraphrasing here): cars will drive on as much pavement as you give them. So let’s stop giving it to them!

By: Mt. Baker Mike

Mt. Baker Mike — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 03:44:48 +0000

Here is the part I don’t get. I look out at the viaduct every day and I see backed up traffic, often stop and go. The surface options, even if they have the same amount of lanes (which some do not) seem like it make a bad situation worse. How can we justify putting a huge amount of traffic on the waterfront streets?

I’ve seen lots of support for the surface option, but in my meager reading, I haven’t seen that question answered well. They only thing that I hear from the surface folk is that it costs less. Is that really the right tradeoff?

I’m new to this topic, so I apologize in advance if I’m just reopening settled ground. feel free to point me to the faq. :)

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:51:24 +0000

I think you mean $3.5 billion. Or we’d jump at the deal.