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.
posted by jpo at 04:22
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home