Seattlest: Seattlest Interviews: The People's Waterfront Coalition

Dan

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:37:19 -0800

I really want them to shut the thing down right now. This is partly because I want us to get a feel for how things would be without it and partly because I work practically under it and the sooner something happens the better.

Jake of 8bitjoystick.com

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:21:22 -0800

Seattle got along fine before they built the viaduct and it will be fine without it. The very last thing that Seattle needs is more cars downtown. Just don't expect the rest of the state to pay for Grid Lock Greg's Big Dig Pipe Dream

Gomez

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:54:05 -0800

The PWC will talk to whoever listens. Anyone realize the inherent stupidity of building a four lane surface street right next to another four lane surface street? Did we forget that Alaskan Way, on which the Waterfront is situated, is right next to the viaduct? A lot of the PWC's platform is pie in the sky-ism. Much of it is pinned on the hope that drivers will adapt on their own to the gridlock and loss of traffic capacity. Plus, the loss of traffic capacity will, in the long term, hamper our city's economy with respect to truck traffic to and from the ports and Downtown. This plan has no prayer of working unless there is a built in, existing, comprehensive citywide mass transit system that can transport the citizens who use that road. And no, the Green Line would not have cut it.

Michael

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:41:56 -0800

So, Jason, speaking of make-believe: The total viaduct daily traffic is estimated at 110,000 to 120,000 cars. But we don't know how many of those trips are truly necessary. The lightrail being built runs north-south. People agreed to extra taxation for roads last fall. The surface road option still allows 4 lanes of traffic, just not at highway speeds through town. And last but not least, whether you replace the viaduct, dig a tunnel, or build surface roads: the traffic has got to go somewhere else for *three years or more* without any of those options being in place. So keeping up traffic capacity is so freaking vital that we've got to spend billions more for it, but we can do without it for a few years once we get the billions and start building. I don't get it, but then I don't own a car. I take the bus.

jason

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:17:38 -0800

ah, of course. it's so obvious! make a few tweaks and the current parking lot that is I-5 at rush-hour could definitely take on another 55,000 vehicles. i'm all for the tweaks combined *with* an improved 99, but destroying a major N-S artery (freight service, one of West Seattle's major links to downtown) based on actions in other similar-but-not-really cities is folly. this city's already voted down high-speed mass transit that would have eased the traffic flow on 99. where is all the funding going to come from since the people have shown an unwillingness to accept the extra taxation? i love this land of make-believe.

Jake of 8bitjoystick.com

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:16:51 -0800

The People's Waterfront Coalition gave a very effective presentation to the Democratic party training program that I am in. they convinced me to help lobby for them next legislative session. I think that they made the most sense of all three options and Seattle might end up at the Waterfront Coalition option if the “Big Dig” option fails. Yeah. Fiscal responsibility, conservation and temperance is a radical position in today’s world.

Michael

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:03:26 -0800

I love that the "radical" plan includes saving money, optimizing existing infrastructure, and working with mass transit options. Freaks!