|
UnclePlasticBitch posted:People who have a choice about which route to go will try other ways. If you think there should be several major thoroughfares built to replace one that you dislike, that might work. Just saying "suck it car people I dont need to travel there!" is a bad plan. They also need to plan a better set of east-west routes.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
Didn't Portland remove a waterfront highway and turn it into a park, without its downtown turning into a desolate wasteland? That seems more applicable to Seattle's project.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
size1one posted:Vancouver is only an appealing suburb if people can commute to their jobs. If either bridge closes people will migrate back to Oregon. If you want to keep "Vantuckians" out the best thing to do is build them a bridge. At least then they'll go home at night. Conversely, if we don't build them a bridge then Vantucky will die and there will be no more Vantuckians.  At the end of the day, I think Oregon is willing to be a good neighbor and help pay for a bridge in the interest of regional economic growth and commuter safety, but if Vancouver expects that we're going to finance the entire thing, or that they can leverage imminent bridge closure to make outrageous demands about what kind of bridge is built, then they're being delusional and they can build their own bridge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
UnclePlasticBitch posted:You are both making the same mistaken arguments that people made in the 80s about the Embarcadero freeway. Everyone thought it would be a gigantic mess and would make traffic worse, but it didn't. There was like a month where it sucked, but it leveled out and everything went back to the status quo prior to the demolition. Well BART was needed because the vast majority of people in the Bay Area lived outside of SF itself after the post-war period, MUNI has been messed up besides that but if anything SF was smart keeping its streetcar routes if only it provides an alternative transit system. Otherwise SF's liability is its a peninsula, and that is going to be a headache especially after you push a bunch of development. Sullat posted:Didn't Portland remove a waterfront highway and turn it into a park, without its downtown turning into a desolate wasteland? That seems more applicable to Seattle's project. It did and became a major asset to the city to the point people couldn't think now of the city without it. Also, there is a major boulevard day there that does a adequate job all things considered. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:I'm genuinely interested in positive examples that aren't San Fransisco. There are other examples where freeway removal is largely accepted as having been positive (Portland, NYC, Milwaukee) but I have a feeling none of those cities are going to meet your "ideal comparison" criteria because there is no other city that is almost exactly like Seattle but has somehow solved all of their transit/land use/housing problems. What are the conditions that a city needs to meet before you think we can make an appropriate comparison? FRINGE posted:Seattle is not CA. CA has 15 ways to get anywhere you want (most times). Seattle is "planned" in a terrible way, with few ways to "go around" when a normal route is blocked. You cant even get from Eliot to Queen Anne without making a major trip essentially re-tracing your ground. 15th and Eliot are one of the ways "around" the 99, and it is also already jammed back to the bridge during work hours. What is "CA" supposed to mean? San Francisco is a very densely populated peninsula with very steep hills surrounded by water on three sides and is nothing like LA or San Diego, which I think is what you're picturing. They are not 100% the same, of course, as Best Friends pointed out, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a North American city more geographically/topographically similar. But the fact remains that building more and more capacity for cars is not going to alleviate Seattle's traffic. This phenomenon is called "induced demand" and has been observed in many places where a new freeway was supposed to help and ended up doing nothing or making things worse. More capacity leads to more cars leads to more traffic. The only way out is better transit (and we are inching toward that goal, but nowhere nearly as fast as we should be). I don't need to tell car people to suck it up, because driving is only going to get worse in the long run no matter how many more roads we build.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
I'm not concern trolling or whatever the term is, I really am asking for other examples.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
UnclePlasticBitch posted:What is "CA" supposed to mean? San Francisco is a very densely populated peninsula with very steep hills surrounded by water on three sides and is nothing like LA or San Diego, which I think is what you're picturing. They are not 100% the same, of course, as Best Friends pointed out, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a North American city more geographically/topographically similar. Seattle has two major routes north-south. Closing one leaves ... one. This is a Bad Plan. UnclePlasticBitch posted:But the fact remains that building more and more capacity for cars is not going to alleviate Seattle's traffic. This phenomenon is called "induced demand" and has been observed in many places where a new freeway was supposed to help and ended up doing nothing or making things worse. More capacity leads to more cars leads to more traffic. The only way out is better transit (and we are inching toward that goal, but nowhere nearly as fast as we should be). I don't need to tell car people to suck it up, because driving is only going to get worse in the long run no matter how many more roads we build. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:I'm not concern trolling or whatever the term is, I really am asking for other examples. yeah I posted one and other posters have also discussed it between your posts Portland - has MAX, and you don't. -has gone through the economic transformation Seattle has, less so or maybe proportionately -is a good situation
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Yes I saw the list of cities thank you, I was hoping for more information.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6YPDbWilCo&t=225s
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
UnclePlasticBitch posted:But the fact remains that building more and more capacity for cars is not going to alleviate Seattle's traffic. This phenomenon is called "induced demand" and has been observed in many places where a new freeway was supposed to help and ended up doing nothing or making things worse. More capacity leads to more cars leads to more traffic. The only way out is better transit (and we are inching toward that goal, but nowhere nearly as fast as we should be). I don't need to tell car people to suck it up, because driving is only going to get worse in the long run no matter how many more roads we build. That isn't an argument against the viaduct, but rather an argument for more transit. And sadly Sound Transit will not be servicing any of the populations affected by the viaduct's route until both ST3 is passed AND a schedule of projects is set to include the areas affected first AND the projects up to ST2 are finished by 2023, so your presupposition (that better transit would solve the problem) is naive. Gerund fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
Think of how much money for public transit Seattle would have if they didn't spend 4(?) billion dollars burying a giant tunneling machine under ground. That is something like twice the cost of extending the Light Link to Bellvue 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Anyone know what the magic number is for when this project bankrupts Seattle?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Anyone know what the magic number is for when this project bankrupts Seattle? Don't worry they'll just make cuts to absolutely everything else first. Stop all this wasteful non-car related spending on bike lanes and transit and poo poo and focus on real practical spending, like building more billion dollar tombs for TBM's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Anyone know what the magic number is for when this project bankrupts Seattle? I mean bankrupt is a pretty subjective term. Seattle - like most American cities - is already in debt up to their eyeballs, with something like $800 million in general obligations. The project advocates tout that the project is 70% complete, but most of that is the easy stuff above ground. The tunnel itself is only 11% complete, and the project has been stalled for a year. At this point, the city is already making noise about Seattle taxpayers having to foot further bills if the $170 million in city contingency funds are used up. That being said, Seattle still enjoys an excellent credit rating from financiers, who will be only too happy to continue loaning money that they know Seattle taxpayers will eventually pay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:Calling a constitutional convention at a time when parties are willing to shut down the entire government to further their interests is loving insane. We've got a supreme court that has made one had ruling after another, you think they'll stop a convention from exceeding any limitations? We've got rampant voter suppression throughout the country and non-stop examples of business interests being put above the will of the people. With our current political situation a constitutional convention would be a disaster for the people and the country in general. Perhaps I should just stop repeating myself, or find some other thread to discuss, but the above doesn't seem like a valid argument. Its not a constitutional convention, it's a limited convention under Article V, and it excludes those fuckwads that are using the government shutdown as leverage. What does the supreme court and voter suppression have to do with anything? We are adding an amendment to the constitution. What's happening right now IS the disaster. Do you think its just going to fix itself somehow? We have spent years attempting alternative solutions to no avail. Plain an simple, this forces action. If the memorial is passed by 34 states, then an amendment for free and fair elections will happen. Is your concern that congress will preempt the convention and pass its own amendment? Again, if anyone wants to help with the efforts in WA State, please drop me a PM.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
DBlanK posted:Perhaps I should just stop repeating myself, or find some other thread to discuss, but the above doesn't seem like a valid argument. The point, as has been stated multiple times, is that the idea of a "limited" constitutional convention about a single issue is a concept that does not hold water with multiple generations of legal scholars. Also, that the group of people you've hitched your wagon to is riven with dogshit careerists who will use any information that you provide unethically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
For the record I have not hitched my wagon to anyone. The goal is to get anyone and everyone who can to Sponsor, Cosponsor or at the very least vote for it. Regardless of what the scholars say is legally plausible, like mass genocide, and the death of "free" speech and the "free" market. History has shown that anytime states have even gotten close to a limited convention, Congress has acted, out of the same bullshit fear you schmucks are trying to sell me. And if by chance they slap together some corrupted attempt to placate the masses, We will simply reveal it for what it is and continue until we have 34 states. Whatever the states come up with will surely be better, and in the history of state run conventions, never has there been a runaway. Our society is unbelievably hosed right now, and you are worried that the people tasked with blowing up the asteroid about the hit the earth are going to stop and have an argument about world piece and trade agreements or who can rear end gently caress the donkey. It seriously boggles the mind that anyone would be concerned about the propaganda seeds of doubt you are being spoon fed from the powers that be. Will you seriously not act on your own behalf? Are you waiting for a messiah or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
DBlanK posted:Whatever the states come up with will surely be better, and in the history of state run conventions, never has there been a runaway. There is no history of state-run conventions. One amendment was ratified by the states, but there has never once been a convention called by the states. If you don't even know that much basic history of the Constitutional amendment process, why should we trust your judgment on the matter at all? I think you just can't accept that the thing you want to do might be literally illegal. And there's no way of knowing in advance whether it is or not. Idran fucked around with this message at 11:23 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
Idran posted:There is no history of state-run conventions. One amendment was ratified by the states, but there has never once been a convention called by the states. If you don't even know that much basic history of the Constitutional amendment process, why should we trust your judgment on the matter at all? Technically, the first Constitutional Convention was called by the states. And it swept away the old Articles and replaced them with the current Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Your comment about "find another way around" is not relevant to Seattle the way it is to much of CA. (I am extremely (and unfortunately) familiar with the CA coast between SD and SF.) SF is definitely more aggravating to traverse than many other places, but it is still not as trapped-in as Seattle. Speaking anecdotally, I live in shoreline and almost never take 99 further south than Queen Anne. If I'm going past Seattle I will nearly always take I-5. If they turned the viaduct into a city street it really wouldn't affect me.  When the light rail is built out, I will also be able to take that from my house 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
sullat posted:Technically, the first Constitutional Convention was called by the states. And it swept away the old Articles and replaced them with the current Constitution. In fact that convention was also intended to be of a limited nature. But once you start changing the rules at that level, it quickly becomes apparent that anything is possible. There is no such thing as a "limited convention".
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
DBlanK posted:... Maybe wait till the majority of states wouldn't vote to hatefuck you to death? You're in the PNW, one of the last parts of the country that has federal lands worth a drat. Would you like those to continue existing? They drat sure won't under Constitution 2. Neocons, theocons, and teabaggers outright control the majority of the states. Why would you want to let them amend things?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
For those of you saying we need the tunnel in order to alleviate the traffic from the torn-down viaduct, who are insisting that those of us who are anti-tunnel provide you with the evidence for tearing down the freeway without replacing it with either a tunnel or a freeway (and note that the tunnel would not support nearly the same volume of traffic, and it would be tolled, and there would be no way to get to downtown Seattle using it, and the entry/exit points for it--if it were used in the volume the tunnel proponents say it will be--will be huge clusterfucks): what are your numbers to show the tunnel would be useful? What type of traffic relief are we talking here? What's your evidence?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Maybe wait till the majority of states wouldn't vote to hatefuck you to death? You're in the PNW, one of the last parts of the country that has federal lands worth a drat. Would you like those to continue existing? They drat sure won't under Constitution 2. Neocons, theocons, and teabaggers outright control the majority of the states. Why would you want to let them amend things?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
I actually voted for surface transit and was just asking if anyone had actual data supporting it, and am impressed by how thoroughly goons flip out and perceive conflict when asked for data.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:His argument is that things are hosed now, and that there's no way the people in charge right now would gently caress things up worse if given the chance. There's no way the people in charge right now wouldn't gently caress things up. As bad as the federal government is, state level politics are worse. It's even easier to buy state politicians, they're even more gerrymandered in place, and they're the ones who are too lovely for federal level elections. The way to fix our current crisis is to fix public opinion. Right now there are a ton of voters who think we should shut the federal goverment down completely. We can't do anything until that changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:I actually voted for surface transit and was just asking if anyone had actual data supporting it, and am impressed by how thoroughly goons flip out and perceive conflict when asked for data. Surface transit would be fine if people followed the drat law. Buses have complete right of way yet moron drivers will block them from changing lanes erry day on i5. The light rail surface routes have been mostly good. Every single accident that has occured has been the fault of a moron driver making an illegal left or right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Idran posted:There is no history of state-run conventions. I can accept that its possible that it might be illegal, but I am unwilling to accept people's unwillingness to try. What's the worst case of it being illegal? A bunch of people get together, come to consensus, and then someone else says oh noes you can't do that, its not real. Then we find a way to make the decision real. Through continued action. As if the process of having 34 states come together and come to consensus on a solution to the defining issue of our time is bad thing? Or is your concern really about someone saying its not legal for it to be limited, and trying to derail the process? I dislike pointing at random links from google, but here is one that perhaps talks about your concerns? http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/sites/default/files/10%20Facts%20Runaway%20Conv.pdf My argument is 1) The people "in charge" will not be participating ----a) 16 states have already asked them to do something, to which they say gently caress off ----b) The current proposal restricts them from the process 2) In this case, action is better then inaction ----a) We are requesting action on solving a specific topic. ----b) Any progress towards free and fair elections is progress. ----c) Anyone who tries to derail the convention will be shot dead (politically). 3) It doesn't matter who wants to hatefuck me ----a) This is a crosspartisan issue, as sane people don't want this financial civil war. ----b) The vast majority of American's want to end government corruption. Once we have a government for the people, by the people, dependent on the people alone, Then we can go to war about whether or not we should let our people starve and die, Whether or not we should let profit plunder and poison our land. At least then we will know it's the people that are batshit loving crazy, vs a system that measures success on numbers going up, vs achieving our ideals of free speech and free market. and people having their rights to life, liberty, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Also, if anyone wants to help me convince Pam Roach to help us, that would be cool as well Will just need to buy her a lot of flowers. http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/Roses.wav 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
I wish light rail got built much much faster up north, and getting complete earlier than it's current date of 2021 in Northgate and 2023 in Lynnwood (and I suppose Shoreline & Mountlake Terrace too).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
DBlanK posted:What's the worst case of it being illegal? A bunch of people get together, come to consensus, Here's the worst case: 34 or more states pass legislation to call a convention, and attempt to make it limited. A challenge is brought saying that the limited nature is unconstitutional. As it's an interstate issue, it's brought before the Supreme Court in original jurisdiction, meaning they can't just ignore it. The Supreme Court passes a decision agreeing with the challenge. The part about the convention being limited is struck down as exceeding the authority of the states, but the rest holds, and a full Constitutional Convention proceeds. This is a part of the Constitution that in its full 225 year history has never once been applied, and so there is literally no existing law or judicial precedent to determine the actual scope of a state convention under Article V. What other states have done for their own constitutions is irrelevant, because those conventions were called under their own state constitutions. If you can find a state whose amendment process describes a convention with exactly the same language as the relevant portion of Article V - "...or...shall call a convention for proposing amendments" - and who still proceeded to call a limited convention under that wording, then you'll have an argument. Because the legal argument used for Article V is that states can only "call a convention for proposing amendments". Not "propose amendments", but "call a convention for proposing amendments"; as in, a convention in which any amendment can be proposed. This has nothing to do with "what the founders intended". It has to do with "what does that actually legally mean". Idran fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:There's no way the people in charge right now wouldn't gently caress things up. As bad as the federal government is, state level politics are worse. It's even easier to buy state politicians, they're even more gerrymandered in place, and they're the ones who are too lovely for federal level elections. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Idran posted:Here's the worst case: Each state then selects/elects delegates and sends them to said convention. They are going there with full knowledge, their state requested this convention for a specific purpose, As well as the state retaining its right to restrict or expand the power of its delegates, You think those delegates are going to start pushing their own agenda, and the majority of delegates will go along with it, and the state won't recall that delegate? It will devolve into a hosed chaos of lets have a revolution and modify everything we have a problem with. Thats your argument for not even trying? Just because something CAN happen, doesn't mean its likely to happen. oxbrain posted:As bad as the federal government is, state level politics are worse. Public opinion is on the side of ending corruption. What does the party system and shutting down the Fed have to do with anything? Sure lets abolish the party system, and reinstate the fairness doctrine, so we can have educated citizens, where the best idea wins. But first lets stop using money as a bar for political election/warfare via mass media/etc, and stop profit driven legislation. Our system of representation has simply not scaled well in my opinion, And we need many more tiers of accessibility and filtering. But creating new communication channels is off topic. First we need to be part of the conversation. As originally intended.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Does anyone have a good source for Seattle's population growth in various parts of the city/region over the past several years? Or a source for housing stock increases/decreases in and around the city?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
DBlanK posted:Thats your argument for not even trying? Just because something CAN happen, doesn't mean its likely to happen. I think the argument centers around finding actual practical solutions rather than ill-informed wankery about a constitution convention based on a fanciful belief about how the whole situation works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
DBlanK posted:It will devolve into a hosed chaos of lets have a revolution and modify everything we have a problem with. It's not "not even trying," I would actively fight a constitutional convention. It has absolutely no chance of ending with a favorable amendment and some tiny chance of ending really, really badly. DBlanK posted:The state level is more accessible to the people. Its just simply about the numbers. The state level is technically more representative, but generally a lot less public. There is little to no media coverage of state politics and most people are completely uninvolved in the process. oxbrain fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:For those of you saying we need the tunnel in order to alleviate the traffic from the torn-down viaduct, who are insisting that those of us who are anti-tunnel provide you with the evidence for tearing down the freeway without replacing it with either a tunnel or a freeway (and note that the tunnel would not support nearly the same volume of traffic, and it would be tolled, and there would be no way to get to downtown Seattle using it, and the entry/exit points for it--if it were used in the volume the tunnel proponents say it will be--will be huge clusterfucks): what are your numbers to show the tunnel would be useful? What type of traffic relief are we talking here? What's your evidence?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I dont know about anyone else, but the only stance that I am taking is that: "tear it down and gently caress the traffic" is not a good idea. The tunnel seems dumb from the get-go. My position is "don't tear it down until the transit is built", but I don't think anyone will be advocating for the tunnel in the year of our lord 2015.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
As someone who doesn't live or work in seattle and never drives on the viaduct I say cancel the tunnel and leave the viaduct open. When it finally collapses we'll get some sweet federal disaster money to build whatever replacement we want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 01:53
|
|