Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
The AWV is broken, but Highway 99 ain't. Don't fix it.
I'm always ready to defend the interests of West Seattle when it comes to city matters, for the simple reason that it is often overlooked and in the past has been underrepresented in city government. (I concede that the current makeup of the mayor's office and the city council represents West Seattle more strongly than in the past, but with the ridiculous lack of city council districts, how do you really know who to turn to?) Despite my neighborhood loyalism, I don't see the reduction of Highway 99 capacity as an us-versus-them issue. This is an issue with city-wide effects.
A mass transit system in the city benefits everyone, not just people who live along the stops. I am not a traffic engineer, but I have sort of a blind faith in the notion that more people on trains and monorails equals less autos on the road. The monorail was good for everyone, including voters in Lake City and Seward Park, and I think that even people in West Seattle who do not commute regularly could see the value of adding a mass transit system to the west side of the city. This is common sense stuff: the east side is served by light rail, and the west side would have been served by monorail. (Of course, an integrated, single type of system would have made even more sense, but nobody could ever agree on that.)
So... then the mayor, the voters, and a SMP implosion bring about the demise of the monorail. And people are saying, "Now what? How can we solve the problem of terrible traffic (which buses get stuck in, too) in Seattle?" The Boulevard people say "by reducing the capacity of Highway 99, routing it onto a surface street, and creating a bottleneck at the downtown exits." OK, they're not really saying that. They are claiming that their goals are loftier: open space, a reclaimed waterfront, and a de-emphasis of the automobile. While the idea of getting people out of their cars is a good one, I stand by the argument that you must give them an alternative first. The boulevard option makes a lot more sense with a completed monorail and light rail in place. Without alternatives, reducing capacity and increasing traffic makes absolutely no sense.
I doubt the "billions of dollars to be invested in mass transit" are directly transferable to mass transit. The source of funds is federal money, state highway funding, the Port of Seattle, and the City of Seattle. These entities are interested in funding a functional highway. They are not interested in funding a second-try, oops-maybe-we-should-have-mass-transit-in-Seattle-after-all light rail or monorail part 2 scheme. The dollars will disappear and the city will be left to fund its own city project. There won't be enough money, and so nothing will happen.
Bottom line: Highway 99 is one of the few things that works in Seattle. Purposely crippling it and saying "the problem will fix itself" is foolishly optimistic and arrogant.
---
Note: My earlier comment about adding hours to a commute each day was an exaggeration. I would, however, argue that hours each week will be added to the overall commute. Everywhere in the region where there are bottlenecks, where three lanes reduce to two, where on-ramps and off-ramps force merging without new lanes created, where traffic lights bring traffic to a stop, you have congestion. I see no reason why traffic would behave any differently in the downtown choke point that the Boulevard group wishes to create.
A mass transit system in the city benefits everyone, not just people who live along the stops. I am not a traffic engineer, but I have sort of a blind faith in the notion that more people on trains and monorails equals less autos on the road. The monorail was good for everyone, including voters in Lake City and Seward Park, and I think that even people in West Seattle who do not commute regularly could see the value of adding a mass transit system to the west side of the city. This is common sense stuff: the east side is served by light rail, and the west side would have been served by monorail. (Of course, an integrated, single type of system would have made even more sense, but nobody could ever agree on that.)
So... then the mayor, the voters, and a SMP implosion bring about the demise of the monorail. And people are saying, "Now what? How can we solve the problem of terrible traffic (which buses get stuck in, too) in Seattle?" The Boulevard people say "by reducing the capacity of Highway 99, routing it onto a surface street, and creating a bottleneck at the downtown exits." OK, they're not really saying that. They are claiming that their goals are loftier: open space, a reclaimed waterfront, and a de-emphasis of the automobile. While the idea of getting people out of their cars is a good one, I stand by the argument that you must give them an alternative first. The boulevard option makes a lot more sense with a completed monorail and light rail in place. Without alternatives, reducing capacity and increasing traffic makes absolutely no sense.
I doubt the "billions of dollars to be invested in mass transit" are directly transferable to mass transit. The source of funds is federal money, state highway funding, the Port of Seattle, and the City of Seattle. These entities are interested in funding a functional highway. They are not interested in funding a second-try, oops-maybe-we-should-have-mass-transit-in-Seattle-after-all light rail or monorail part 2 scheme. The dollars will disappear and the city will be left to fund its own city project. There won't be enough money, and so nothing will happen.
Bottom line: Highway 99 is one of the few things that works in Seattle. Purposely crippling it and saying "the problem will fix itself" is foolishly optimistic and arrogant.
---
Note: My earlier comment about adding hours to a commute each day was an exaggeration. I would, however, argue that hours each week will be added to the overall commute. Everywhere in the region where there are bottlenecks, where three lanes reduce to two, where on-ramps and off-ramps force merging without new lanes created, where traffic lights bring traffic to a stop, you have congestion. I see no reason why traffic would behave any differently in the downtown choke point that the Boulevard group wishes to create.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
AWVB: Appeal to Westsiders
Dear West Seattle,
I am very sorry the Monorail didn't work out. Many Seattlites did their best to support a mass transit link from your neighborhood to downtown to Ballard. But in the end, the city chickened out. Now we are faced with another transportation problem: the vital Alaskan Way Viaduct. The Boulevard solution is the best replacement option because it DEPRIORITIZES THE CAR and frees up billions of available dollars to be invested in MASS TRANSIT, just like the monorail you narrowly missed.
Doing this however requires a sacrifice on your part. Your driving and bus times to Downtown will increase some, however, not by nearly as much as the anti-Boulevard alarmists claim. DoK contributor Jpo states that the Boulevard will add "hours" to the bus commute each day. This is not true. A 45-mph surface street with timed lights will slow down the trip by 3-4 minutes. Remember, the existing highway has right-of-way from the south until the stadiums, and from then on you might expect to stop at an average of 1 or 2 lights on your way to the Spring Street exit. Bus riders can expect even less of a delay with dedicated bus rapid transit lanes. A few minutes - not hours!
Supporting mass transit requires a sacrifice. There were plenty of people (albeit not enough in the end) of Lake City and Seward Park residents that chose to pay increased car tabs to support your monorail. They chose to sacrifice their hard earned dollars to make a statement in favor of mass transit – and it wouldn't have even directly benefited them! If the Boulevard option feels like a sacrifice to you, I hope you find its anti-car/pro-mass transit statement worthwhile. It is only the first step towards bringing sensible mass transit to Seattle - we need to then stipulate that its savings be devoted to a monorail or underground light-rail solution.
We need your support. Please consider the AW Boulevard plan as part of the larger, citywide movement in favor of mass transit.
I am very sorry the Monorail didn't work out. Many Seattlites did their best to support a mass transit link from your neighborhood to downtown to Ballard. But in the end, the city chickened out. Now we are faced with another transportation problem: the vital Alaskan Way Viaduct. The Boulevard solution is the best replacement option because it DEPRIORITIZES THE CAR and frees up billions of available dollars to be invested in MASS TRANSIT, just like the monorail you narrowly missed.
Doing this however requires a sacrifice on your part. Your driving and bus times to Downtown will increase some, however, not by nearly as much as the anti-Boulevard alarmists claim. DoK contributor Jpo states that the Boulevard will add "hours" to the bus commute each day. This is not true. A 45-mph surface street with timed lights will slow down the trip by 3-4 minutes. Remember, the existing highway has right-of-way from the south until the stadiums, and from then on you might expect to stop at an average of 1 or 2 lights on your way to the Spring Street exit. Bus riders can expect even less of a delay with dedicated bus rapid transit lanes. A few minutes - not hours!
Supporting mass transit requires a sacrifice. There were plenty of people (albeit not enough in the end) of Lake City and Seward Park residents that chose to pay increased car tabs to support your monorail. They chose to sacrifice their hard earned dollars to make a statement in favor of mass transit – and it wouldn't have even directly benefited them! If the Boulevard option feels like a sacrifice to you, I hope you find its anti-car/pro-mass transit statement worthwhile. It is only the first step towards bringing sensible mass transit to Seattle - we need to then stipulate that its savings be devoted to a monorail or underground light-rail solution.
We need your support. Please consider the AW Boulevard plan as part of the larger, citywide movement in favor of mass transit.
AVW thoughts and a question
I would guess that the overwhelming majority of working West Seattle residents leave that part of the city each day to go to their job. Many of them take Metro buses that use the Alaskan Way Viaduct to get there - the most environmentally friendly option short of cycling. With the demolition of the AWV under the Boulevard solution (I'll go along with the euphemism for now), these commuters would be forced into an even longer commute. These are the good-faith, do-the-right-thing, ride-the-bus folks (along with the folks who can't afford cars or who don't want to pay to park), who will be adding hours to their commute each day. These are citizens of Seattle from an area that gave the monorail its strongest support at the polls.
Can you please provide me with a better reason for purposely reducing highway throughput than the "I told you so about the monorail" explanation? This is dishonest - the people most affected by the loss of this road are the people (folks in Ballard and West Seattle) who supported the monorail the most. I agree that less automobile trips in the city is an important goal, but a realistic alternative needs to be in place for commuters before their current method is destroyed. Drivers will "look for alternatives to cars" and find nothing that doesn't get stuck in Seattle traffic.
The monorail was a great idea, but it is now dead. There is not any rail-based solution on the table for the western side of the city that I know of. The solution most often mentioned is bus rapid transit, which is road-based. Relocating all routes that currently use the AWV to access First through Sixth Avenues (main workplace destinations) onto Alaskan Way means that bus commuters will need to add another ten to twenty minutes of walking time each direction, unless this boulevard highway is going to have exits and clear bus access up the hill to downtown.
It is often mentioned that the destruction of the AWV and replacement with a surface road will open up the city and reconnect downtown to the waterfront. I smell a rat and condo developers, but I am willing to concede that -- since nobody will rebuild a double decker highway in the city -- there are interesting possibilities for the reclaimed urban space, and it could really improve the waterfront area. However, this space will only come alive if it is truly accessible to pedestrians. The four lane truck and trailer thoroughfare you speak of sure sounds nasty, and if I were a tourist (or even a Seattleite who worked downtown and thought about popping down to the waterfront for lunch), I sure would be put off by the highway that I had to cross to get there. I'm picturing Aurora north of the Battery Street Tunnel. I also cannot imagine what it would be like to access the car ferry terminal if Alaskan Way suddenly became the highway.
Can you please provide me with a better reason for purposely reducing highway throughput than the "I told you so about the monorail" explanation? This is dishonest - the people most affected by the loss of this road are the people (folks in Ballard and West Seattle) who supported the monorail the most. I agree that less automobile trips in the city is an important goal, but a realistic alternative needs to be in place for commuters before their current method is destroyed. Drivers will "look for alternatives to cars" and find nothing that doesn't get stuck in Seattle traffic.
The monorail was a great idea, but it is now dead. There is not any rail-based solution on the table for the western side of the city that I know of. The solution most often mentioned is bus rapid transit, which is road-based. Relocating all routes that currently use the AWV to access First through Sixth Avenues (main workplace destinations) onto Alaskan Way means that bus commuters will need to add another ten to twenty minutes of walking time each direction, unless this boulevard highway is going to have exits and clear bus access up the hill to downtown.
It is often mentioned that the destruction of the AWV and replacement with a surface road will open up the city and reconnect downtown to the waterfront. I smell a rat and condo developers, but I am willing to concede that -- since nobody will rebuild a double decker highway in the city -- there are interesting possibilities for the reclaimed urban space, and it could really improve the waterfront area. However, this space will only come alive if it is truly accessible to pedestrians. The four lane truck and trailer thoroughfare you speak of sure sounds nasty, and if I were a tourist (or even a Seattleite who worked downtown and thought about popping down to the waterfront for lunch), I sure would be put off by the highway that I had to cross to get there. I'm picturing Aurora north of the Battery Street Tunnel. I also cannot imagine what it would be like to access the car ferry terminal if Alaskan Way suddenly became the highway.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
AWV: The Reignman Option
I love the AWV, but it is a safety hazard and needs to come down. I prefer the Alaskan Way Boulevard solution, or, as critics say, the "do-nothing" solution. The reasons are many and require thinking about this transportation problem with a wider view than just simply Alaskan Way.
We desparately need mass transit in Seattle, for reasons ranging from traffic relief to taking money out of the pockets of big oil companies and the politicians who send Americans to war to protect those pockets. We can start doing this by RESTRICTING car capacity in our city. Alaskan Way is a good place to start. By building a 4-lane surface boulevard we can accomodate vital business traffic serving industrial areas served by Hwy 99. However, single occupancy cars will be less likely to use the thoroughfare as it will take longer and be less comfortable with the presence of truck traffic. This is a GOOD thing! Where will all those cars go? The problem will fix itself through economic forces. Cars that used to travel viaduct route will find another way, and if not, then those cars will disappear as drivers begin to look to alternatives to cars. For sure, they will wish they had that monorail which would have served the same corridor.
The surface boulevard would only cost a fraction of the $4+ billion (before crappy financing and cost overruns) while helping the long term traffic and environmental health of the city. Those $4 billion would be better spend on mass transit rather than car capacity. I don't want to add any more smog to the Puget Sound air and therefore think we should stop providing for car capacity. The future is fast, efficient, mass transit and we need to prioritize it now.
We desparately need mass transit in Seattle, for reasons ranging from traffic relief to taking money out of the pockets of big oil companies and the politicians who send Americans to war to protect those pockets. We can start doing this by RESTRICTING car capacity in our city. Alaskan Way is a good place to start. By building a 4-lane surface boulevard we can accomodate vital business traffic serving industrial areas served by Hwy 99. However, single occupancy cars will be less likely to use the thoroughfare as it will take longer and be less comfortable with the presence of truck traffic. This is a GOOD thing! Where will all those cars go? The problem will fix itself through economic forces. Cars that used to travel viaduct route will find another way, and if not, then those cars will disappear as drivers begin to look to alternatives to cars. For sure, they will wish they had that monorail which would have served the same corridor.
The surface boulevard would only cost a fraction of the $4+ billion (before crappy financing and cost overruns) while helping the long term traffic and environmental health of the city. Those $4 billion would be better spend on mass transit rather than car capacity. I don't want to add any more smog to the Puget Sound air and therefore think we should stop providing for car capacity. The future is fast, efficient, mass transit and we need to prioritize it now.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Is this a reason to hold off on purchase of POTY20'6?
Apple is rumored to be starting their own cellular phone service. Maybe the SE W810 killer is in the works?
Thursday, January 12, 2006
AWV - jpo's preferred alternative
My dream scenario is to tear down the existing structure, then build a sleek, modern, triple-decker highway in its place, with the new level dedicated to light rail. Throw some money at increased passenger ferry service on the Elliot Bay Water Taxi. Fix the seawall. The end.
But since that will not happen...
Do whatever it takes to keep the throughput of Highway 99 moving. No stoplights, no bottlenecks on Alaskan Way. I'm not in love with the tunnel idea, but at least it would not create more traffic. Replacing a torn-down viaduct with a patch of grass is completely idiotic, and will make I-5 even more horrible than it is already. People who think the journeys will disappear with the removal of the viaduct are kidding themselves. Until Seattle gets a rapid transit system on the level of BART or the El, it is unrealistic to decrease existing highway capacity. I was pro-monorail, but since the mayor killed it, I see little choice for the western half of the city but 99. Yes, Metro works great for getting downtown, but that 75-minute run from White Center to Blue Ridge is not exactly "bus rapid transit."
Let's get a little debate going here. Throw your ideas at me.
But since that will not happen...
Do whatever it takes to keep the throughput of Highway 99 moving. No stoplights, no bottlenecks on Alaskan Way. I'm not in love with the tunnel idea, but at least it would not create more traffic. Replacing a torn-down viaduct with a patch of grass is completely idiotic, and will make I-5 even more horrible than it is already. People who think the journeys will disappear with the removal of the viaduct are kidding themselves. Until Seattle gets a rapid transit system on the level of BART or the El, it is unrealistic to decrease existing highway capacity. I was pro-monorail, but since the mayor killed it, I see little choice for the western half of the city but 99. Yes, Metro works great for getting downtown, but that 75-minute run from White Center to Blue Ridge is not exactly "bus rapid transit."
Let's get a little debate going here. Throw your ideas at me.
Alitalia sucks: top five
5. They're government subsidized, and their main labor unions are always going on one-day strikes. Informational pickets are for wimps. Stay on strike until your demans are met, or get back on the job.
4. My recent flight was on an ancient, crappy A320. The pressurization was not working very well and messed my ears up. Time to order some 737-800s from Renton.
3. The interior of their planes reminds me of a dirty Astroturf putting green.
2. Taxing through the Alitalia part of Fiumicino is like going on a McDonnell-Douglas factory tour, circa 1980. The still have a ton of MD-80s in the fleet. Attenzione on the jackscrews!
1. The flight attendants do not enforce the clear-aisle policy on the exit rows. WTF? The guy next to me had the exit row floor blocked with his bags and coat. Totally unacceptable.
4. My recent flight was on an ancient, crappy A320. The pressurization was not working very well and messed my ears up. Time to order some 737-800s from Renton.
3. The interior of their planes reminds me of a dirty Astroturf putting green.
2. Taxing through the Alitalia part of Fiumicino is like going on a McDonnell-Douglas factory tour, circa 1980. The still have a ton of MD-80s in the fleet. Attenzione on the jackscrews!
1. The flight attendants do not enforce the clear-aisle policy on the exit rows. WTF? The guy next to me had the exit row floor blocked with his bags and coat. Totally unacceptable.
Schiphol thoughts
- The Communications Centre is pretty filthy, but €6.00 per half hour for internet? Isn't that a bit steep? Maybe I'm being too cheep. I needed to send just one e-mail from the airport, so I opted for an international text message sent via the T610 instead.
- What's up with the hardcore pr0n DVDs that they sell in the electronics shop in Schiphol Plaza? I guess it is permissive Amsterdam...
- KLM flight attendants, in their blue outfits, are hot.
- What's up with the hardcore pr0n DVDs that they sell in the electronics shop in Schiphol Plaza? I guess it is permissive Amsterdam...
- KLM flight attendants, in their blue outfits, are hot.
Must-have travel accessories for LVL 20'6
Commercial Plane Spotter: This laminated guide fits in your carry-on and helps pass the time when your flight gets delayed. I recommend taking it to the super-comfortable lounge chairs next to the seafood bar in Schipol airport, positioned by huge windows on the central terminal. Grab a pickled herring sandwich and start spottin'.
Carhartt Duffel Bag: Just picked this up at the surplus store on 1st Ave. for the bargain price of $19.99. This is my new carry-on.
Samsonite Passport Wallet: Northwest Airlines is now too cheap to even give you an envelope to put your tickets and receipt in. That's just bad customer service and the savings on paper is not going to get them out of bankruptcy. These days you've got to bring your own gear, and this travel wallet is filthy. This is the clutch accessory for organized travel in 20'6.
Carhartt Duffel Bag: Just picked this up at the surplus store on 1st Ave. for the bargain price of $19.99. This is my new carry-on.
Samsonite Passport Wallet: Northwest Airlines is now too cheap to even give you an envelope to put your tickets and receipt in. That's just bad customer service and the savings on paper is not going to get them out of bankruptcy. These days you've got to bring your own gear, and this travel wallet is filthy. This is the clutch accessory for organized travel in 20'6.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Lawsuit against Jesus in Viterbo?
This is amazing. I love those people!
-------------------------------
From Yahoo News:
An Italian court is tackling Jesus — and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago.
The case pits against each other two men in their 70s, who are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years.
The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.
“I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression,” Cascioli told Reuters.
Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is “Abuso di Credulita Popolare” (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is “Sostituzione di Persona”, or impersonation.
“The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala,” Cascioli claimed, referring to the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army.
A court in Viterbo will hear from Righi, who has yet to be indicted, at a January 27 preliminary hearing meant to determine whether the case has enough merit to go forward.
-------------------------------
From Yahoo News:
An Italian court is tackling Jesus — and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago.
The case pits against each other two men in their 70s, who are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years.
The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.
“I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression,” Cascioli told Reuters.
Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is “Abuso di Credulita Popolare” (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is “Sostituzione di Persona”, or impersonation.
“The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala,” Cascioli claimed, referring to the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army.
A court in Viterbo will hear from Righi, who has yet to be indicted, at a January 27 preliminary hearing meant to determine whether the case has enough merit to go forward.
PoTY06 - SE W810!
What!? There's an update to the W800 even before it hits wide release in the States? This is getting crazy. The new W810 supports Bluetooth and EDGE, which I think, allows you to download music (and stream?) and other broadband stuff. But for me, the big improvement is in the color scheme. I'm digging it much more than the clear face cream 'n orange of its predecessor. Click the title for the Engadget link.