|
anthonypants posted:Do people actually believe this? No, most of us understand they're in Humboldt/Mendocino county.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:Smart people hate the 99 tunnel because it's putting a germ-infested bandaid on an infected wound. The viaduct was a horrible monster that should never have been built so its good that it's coming down, but 99 should have stayed as a surface level street. Look up the concept of induced demand; the tunnel is only going to make congestion worse. It's a huge waste of money. They better approve it reaching everett this time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's extremely stupid urban design to have people living on one side of the city and working on the other and driving through the core. The core of a city should always be a final destination, not something you pass through on your commute. Put in good transit and just let the horrible traffic slowly force idiots who live on the wrong side of town re-locate closer. At the same time encourage land-use policies that help create the needed housing on the "right" side of the city. The only things moving north/south through the city should be trucks and deliveries, not commuters in cars. Or the fact that most folks change jobs every few years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I think the updates to the waterfront will be worthwhile, getting rid of the viaduct is a solid decision. The tunnel I think is a good idea regardless of all the problems. Right now there are only two ways to get past downtown, I5 and 99, and both of those are congested with people trying to get into or out of downtown. I think having a dedicated tunnel for bypassing downtown (and not emptying into downtown) will result in less congestion, at least for those looking to pass through on their commute. I don't think there's a better option than the tunnel, the viaduct should be torn down and there needs to be more than one way to get through the city, this seems like the only option to me. The major flaw in your thinking is that neither the Viaduct nor I5 are bypasses of downtown; they are arterials with multiple entrances and exits along the way. Replacing one half of the major arterial with a tolled bypass tunnel system is a poo poo concept and would never happened has Paul Allen not owned the land adjacent to both sides of the tunnel. Split-grade transit- a major part of the Seattle Subway campaign- was always the solution, yet they're currently tilting at windmills trying to insert delays into the ST3 from getting to commuter communities in order to demand it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Gerund posted:The major flaw in your thinking is that neither the Viaduct nor I5 are bypasses of downtown; they are arterials with multiple entrances and exits along the way. Replacing one half of the major arterial with a tolled bypass tunnel system is a poo poo concept and would never happened has Paul Allen not owned the land adjacent to both sides of the tunnel. They're tearing down the viaduct regardless of whether the tunnel gets built or not, it has to come down due to structural concerns. The tunnel isn't a replacement for the viaduct, it's a bypass. Like I said, I think there needs to be more paths to get through the city quickly, since that appears to be what the viaduct is mostly used for (with the added congestion of people trying to get into downtown too) I think the tunnel will solve that problem. I don't see what the major flaw is in my thinking, the options are either no viaduct and no tunnel or no viaduct and a tunnel. I think removing one of the two paths through the city will make things worse if there is no alternate route added. The only other path to bypass downtown is a long trip across 90 to 405 and then over 520, but that still wouldn't allow you to bypass the traffic heading into downtown. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Aug 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:They're tearing down the viaduct regardless of whether the tunnel gets built or not, it has to come down due to structural concerns. The tunnel isn't a replacement for the viaduct, it's a bypass. Like I said, I think there needs to be more paths to get through the city quickly, since that appears to be what the viaduct is mostly used for (with the added congestion of people trying to get into downtown too) I think the tunnel will solve that problem. I disagree that we need a bypass road through a major city at all. Having a through road increases congestion in the city without increasing economic activity; basically the city takes on high congestion and high financial burdens from road construction and maintenance for the benefit of truckers and the relatively few people that need to go from south to north, or vice versa. It's a poor investment of tax dollars. Plus the bypass will encourage more people to move to unsustainable places and take on longer driving distances where Seattle is only an obstacle and not a destination. Like I said earlier, in practically no time at all the tunnel is going to be backed up the entire way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:I disagree that we need a bypass road through a major city at all. Having a through road increases congestion in the city without increasing economic activity; basically the city takes on high congestion and high financial burdens from road construction and maintenance for the benefit of truckers and the relatively few people that need to go from south to north, or vice versa. It's a poor investment of tax dollars. Fair enough, I just don't see how removing the viaduct and offering no alternate path will reduce congestion... how does that make our current problem better?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Fair enough, I just don't see how removing the viaduct and offering no alternate path will reduce congestion... how does that make our current problem better?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Cicero posted:The idea would probably be to take that money and spend it on transit instead. Was there an alternate proposal that we all voted against? As far as I can tell all the transit stuff that was being proposed is being funded in addition to the tunnel, did they cancel/prohibit something in favor of the tunnel?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Was there an alternate proposal that we all voted against? As far as I can tell all the transit stuff that was being proposed is being funded in addition to the tunnel, did they cancel/prohibit something in favor of the tunnel?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Cicero posted:No, I just meant that's probably what some people like Drunk Tomato (and myself) would've preferred. I'm all for expanding transit for the city and surrounding areas, I just don't see why the tunnel is a detriment or excludes expansion in other areas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Was there an alternate proposal that we all voted against? As far as I can tell all the transit stuff that was being proposed is being funded in addition to the tunnel, did they cancel/prohibit something in favor of the tunnel? There was an alternative proposal to spend the tunnel money on transit. It had projected traffic outcomes that were as good or better than the tunnel, but with far less risk. If you want more info, dig though The Stranger's archives. e: 'Stop the Insanity' by Dominic Holden, The Stranger posted:The city hired consultant Nelson\Nygaard in 2008 to explore maximizing surface streets, optimizing lanes on I-5, and improving certain transit corridors through downtown. It concluded that it would cost $3.3 billion—almost a billion dollars less than the tunnel project—and would performs as well as, and in some cases better than, the tunnel. ======================================================================== ElCondemn posted:I'm all for expanding transit for the city and surrounding areas, I just don't see why the tunnel is a detriment or excludes expansion in other areas. The tunnel excludes expansion of transit because the tunnel and transit both need money, but we do not have unlimited money. bartkusa fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
bartkusa posted:There was an alternative proposal to spend the tunnel money on transit. It had projected traffic outcomes that were as good or better than the tunnel, but with far less risk. The alternative proposals I saw were to do a tunnel hybrid with 4 lanes or to just build a safer elevated highway, I don't remember any part of those proposals that would improve transit (trains, buses, subway, etc.). Also one benefit of the tunnel that I appreciate will be the improved view and utility of the waterfront. bartkusa posted:The tunnel excludes expansion of transit because the tunnel and transit both need money, but we do not have unlimited money. Certainly, I just don't think there was an option to either make the tunnel or <something better>, otherwise I would be up in arms over the better solution not being picked. edit: I think the conclusion is fair, the more expensive tunnel doesn't necessarily perform better. But I still think it's a less attractive option removing one of the two main arteries through the city. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
I'm not quite sure if I understand how permanently burying a huge tunnel boring machine underneath the middle of downtown is supposed to help traffic congestion. I guess I'm not enough of a dreamer 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I'm not quite sure if I understand how permanently burying a huge tunnel boring machine underneath the middle of downtown is supposed to help traffic congestion. by funneling enough money into the pockets of those who greenlit the project to allow them to move into nicer houses where they don't have to worry about traffic
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
I still thought that the Chopway was a pretty neat idea. I have no idea if it would have improved traffic in any way, but having a huge, elevated park right on the waterfront would have been rather nifty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Some of the other proposals for the viaduct replacement were pretty badass. Like, one that would straight up turn the road into a sweet park for the waterfront, or a really cool looking bridge that wouldn't crumble in a few years:
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
^I wanted that waterfront park so bad, so we could have some of the coolness of portland.ElCondemn posted:Was there an alternate proposal that we all voted against? As far as I can tell all the transit stuff that was being proposed is being funded in addition to the tunnel, did they cancel/prohibit something in favor of the tunnel? There were proposals to spend the money on transit but the city council overrode our cool bike-riding mayor because they're shitheads bribed by businesses. There have been actual studies showing that the tunnel will make things worse, the only reason it's still being built is because of payola to steal taxpayer money. Leave Bertha buried and toss in the pro-business councilmen and the new mayor in the hole with it. efb
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
It simply CANNOT be overstated how the Seattle Council elections are driven by a Tunnel-hating "throw the bums out" mindset. The tunnel is and was always the worst possible option which includes letting the Viaduct collapse during rush-hour- because that would at least be budget-neutral and not involve a billion dollars being tied up in Bertha-matics. The tunnel solves nothing and portraying it as "just as good" as a major arterial betrays an ignorant point of view.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
The problem with the tunnel and Seattle city politics is and always has been that SR 99 is not a city road - it is a state highway, and the state gets to decide what happens. And even if the City Council had all been on board with McGinn and killing the tunnel, it wouldn't have mattered, because the state was never even considering the possibility of not replacing the viaduct with something big. The state always wanted to build either a viaduct replacement, a cut-and-cover tunnel, or a deep bore tunnel. Surface/transit was never even considered at the state level. Anti-tunnel people (of which I am one) screwed up when we focused all of our efforts at Seattle city government, because the project wasn't the responsibility of Seattle city government! We even got a mayor elected on an anti-tunnel platform, and guess what, it didn't matter. Not because the Seattle city council was so bad, but because the state is what mattered, and we never fought at that level. So everyone saying how arglebargle angry they are (I too am not happy about it) at the pro-tunnel Seattle city council doesn't get it - the city council didn't make the tunnel happen, the state did. The city has a permitting role to play, but the city was NEVER going to have the opportunity to decide what happened with the SR 99 corridor. It was Gregoire and the state, and we never had our eye on the ball, and to judge from these posts many people still don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Why don't you pose this question to the ask tell traffic engineer thread?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:The problem with the tunnel and Seattle city politics is and always has been that SR 99 is not a city road - it is a state highway, and the state gets to decide what happens. And even if the City Council had all been on board with McGinn and killing the tunnel, it wouldn't have mattered, because the state was never even considering the possibility of not replacing the viaduct with something big. The state always wanted to build either a viaduct replacement, a cut-and-cover tunnel, or a deep bore tunnel. Surface/transit was never even considered at the state level. Exactly this. Lol if you think the state was going to eliminate one of the two major routes through Seattle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
i mean, if you really think about it, seattle should just ban all privately-owned automobiles, sooooooo
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:i mean, if you really think about it, seattle should just ban all privately-owned automobiles, sooooooo Actually I don't even have to think hard at all to come to this conclusion
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:i mean, if you really think about it, seattle should just ban all privately-owned automobiles, sooooooo Or at least charge a day-use tax like London does, for anyone coming through via any of the highways or roads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:i mean, if you really think about it, seattle should just ban all privately-owned automobiles, sooooooo So that everyone who is priced out of living in Seattle can never visit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:So that everyone who is priced out of living in Seattle can never visit? Shh, you'll make the car-less majority here get mad at you if you say that their ideas do more to punish the poor than to actually help with transit solutions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Mrit posted:Shh, you'll make the car-less majority here get mad at you if you say that their ideas do more to punish the poor than to actually help with transit solutions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Log flumes. Let's build a giant network of log flumes to take you anywhere in the city. They'll start from the hills and flow down into the core of the city. Viva Cascadia!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:Log flumes. Let's build a giant network of log flumes to take you anywhere in the city. They'll start from the hills and flow down into the core of the city. Viva Cascadia! Representatives from Enchanted Forest have the same old answer to everything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I doubt the majority here is actually car-less. You can be in favor of a multi-modal transportation system even if you own a car. This. I'm hella pro mass transit and bike lanes and pedestrian improvements but I still own a car. It just only gets used for long drives or errands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I doubt the majority here is actually car-less. You can be in favor of a multi-modal transportation system even if you own a car. Most certainly. More people riding buses means fewer assholes violating the left lane laws.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Most certainly. More people riding buses means fewer assholes violating the left lane laws.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
The city of Seattle has done a remarkable job already of making its feel hostile to drivers. Seattle really wants you to come into town and create economic activity but it doesn't want you to live there or commute into the city to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:The city of Seattle has done a remarkable job already of making its feel hostile to drivers. Seattle really wants you to come into town and create economic activity but it doesn't want you to live there or commute into the city to do so. Is this a real opinion a (presumably) non senior citizen has?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:Is this a real opinion a (presumably) non senior citizen has? Yes, watching the city ignore or destroy any proposal that wasn't a variation of "busses will fix it  " with regards to connectivity to the rest of the region for the past 20 years has left me rather cynical about Seattle residents ability to grasp what a mess there is regionally with transportation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:Is this a real opinion a (presumably) non senior citizen has? I think they just copied it off a king5 comment board because that's the only people who have those opinions. Especially when you consider how hard the city and whole area are going for ST3. It's only those assholes in the middle of nowhere who are anti mass transit. Also parking downtown is easy as gently caress. I drive downtown once in a blue moon and I never have a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
To get from HecEd to the Mercer St/i5 onramp via Eastlake took me an hour at 3pm last month. gently caress that new interchange, Eastlake is ruined now, used to be my shortcut. Also if people really want a bypass that avoids Seattle exits, take 405 (joking, obv, since 405 is even worse most of the time, thanks to lovely underfunded transit).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:The city of Seattle has done a remarkable job already of making its feel hostile to drivers. Seattle really wants you to come into town and create economic activity but it doesn't want you to live there or commute into the city to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
Tigntink posted:I think they just copied it off a king5 comment board because that's the only people who have those opinions. Traffic is the favorite thing to bitch about no matter what size city you're talking about but its not traffic I find issue with in Seattle city policy, its that when I attempted to conduct business that had products too bulky to put on a bike I have to deal with a lot more complications with conducting business because they don't want cars in Seattle. E: It could be better now since the last time I tried to conduct business downtown and around the greater area was going on 6 years now but...
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 00:55
|
|