I wonder when the Joel “Global Warming Is A Problem” Connelly is going to meet the Joel “Let’s Build A New Freeway On The Waterfront” Connelly.
Just askin’.
I ALMOST FORGOT…
Joel’s a friend of the blog, so consider this post just friendly needling.
JOEL RESPONDS:
“When you unleash an additional 50,000 cars a day onto Seattle city streets, and onto I-5, they’re going to spend hours and hours a day belching pollutants into the atmosphere.
How do you square your position with its potential impact on Seattle’s airshed . . . and on Pioneer Square, the first Seattle neighborhood liberated from automobile culture.
‘Suggest you might devote some critical examination to the governor’s talk-it-over position on global warming rather than taking shots at those who have consistently urged action.”
There’s no inconsistency here. Traffic stuck for an hour on
AlaskanGreg Nickels Way will belch out more exhaust fumes than traffic that goes by in 15 minutes or less on the viaduct.I know, I know — cars are icky, and we need to get people to drive less. Well, to do that, you need to have a sound solid plan to entice people to get out of their cars. And surface + transit proponents have only a plan straight from South Park’s underwear gnomes:
1. Tear down viaduct.
2. ?????
3. Transportation problem solved!
We need better planning than that. Especially if we’re a “world-class city.”
Yanno…our esteemed “leadership” continues wanking over all this whilst the price tag continues to rise.
One possible outcome is that we’ll have the surface plus transit (or even more fun, surface without transit scheme happen because there just plain ain’t gonna be the money to do anything else.
The other is that we end up with any one of the elevated or tunnel options, and attempt to pay for it by charging a high enough toll that it really hurts a little for people to drive downtown. Dunno how much that will be, exactly, but since there are plenty of people paying 15 bux or more to park every day, they’ll probably be stubborn (read that: STUPID) enough to put up with another $20-30 dollars before they decide that maybe it doesn’t suck all that much after all to get on a bus with the po’ folks.
Otherwise, if you build a nice shiny new road, people are going to use it, in droves. They’ll continue to do so in increasing numbers, until it becomes sufficiently constipated that it ain’t fun any more. Then a lot of those same people will still keep doing it out of habit.
You don’t believe me? Look at the present state I-90 and 520.
Joel “i only care about global warming if it means i don’t have to change my behavior at all” Connelly
There’s plenty of bus seats not being used. We can build huge parking lots and people can bus it around the city. The invisible hand will provide us with cheap taxis manned by stout and enterprising immigrants.
You know, once you get downtown,you can walk almost anywhere in about 20 minutes. Quit cryin’.
Look on the bright side, Goldy. If we filled in the seaward side of the viadukky with concrete panels, they could serve as a seawall when Puget Sound water levels rise 25 ft. due to global warming.
Other thoughts:
1. We have the money. A certain segment of the population that has a lot of money isn’t ponying up their fair share to contribute to the common good. The “no money” argument is a red herring.
2. “Forcing people out of their cars”. Ho-ha. Right now we “force” them to undertake incredibly long and boring commutes from the ‘burbs to work. This has been a conscioulsy adopted PUBLIC POLICY subsidized stupendously with tax dollars.
@ 5
It’s actually my post, but you’re on the mark regardless.
The “forcing people out of their cars” meme is a slap at those folks who DON’T want to live in their cars.
Freeways require a person to[ own a car (which is about a 7k a year burden). Riding the bus/ taking the train requires no such investment by the user. You just buy a ticket and get on.
Oops. Apologies, Will.
That plus the fact that not ever again having to deal with car salesmen is virtually incalculable.
Let’s see.
Some folks here are in favor of the “tear it down” answer, not because they think that it will work, but precisely because they think that it won’t carry the traffic?
The lack of any actual alternative is beside the point. (Oh, and I’ve actually taken the bus in Seattle. It really does suck all that much.)
“Rapid transit”
(Odd system glitch)
As I was saying, “Rapid transit” in Seattle is anything but. There are some routes that go useful places, but those tend to be jammed to capacity.
Many of the other routes either run so infrequently as to be effectively unusable, or they are so slow and circuitous as to be less usable than a bicycle, or both.
The much-maligned monorail system actually had some potential, but was so poorly executed that by the time the voters pulled the plug, millions had been spent without a single spade of dirt being turned.
So, unless people can manage to get a decent rapid transit system running in Seattle, the “tear it down” answer simply results in Seattle grinding to a halt, business leaving, port traffic goes to other ports and Seattle becomes a quaint little tourist town, with a neat little “fisherman’s wharf” area. Complete with mimes.
Joel Connelly is a doddering old goof- he’s the Major Hoople of Seattle politics. Does it surprise anyone he’s forgotten what his opinions were only a few days ago?
Will:
When you unleash an additional 50,000 cars a day onto Seattle city streets, and onto I-5, they’re going to spend hours and hours a day belching pollutants into the atmosphere.
How do you square your position with its potential impact on Seattle’s airshed . . . and on Pioneer Square, the first Seattle neighborhood liberated from automobile culture.
‘Suggest you might devote some critical examination to the governor’s talk-it-over position on global warming rather than taking shots at those who have consistently urged action.
Joel-
Thanks for the comment (and Danny Westneat, if you’re reading this, you too can hang out with us bloggers every Tuesday at Drinking Liberally).
I think those 50,000 cars are belching pollutants into the atmosphere regardless of whether they’re on a new viaduct or on city streets. The real goal should be to give folks an incentive to drive less, or to make trips on public transportation, if possible. The fact that Capitol Hill, with all its density, does not have a trolley or light rail yet is a shame.
Personally, I’d love to see every trolley line from Seattle’s trolley heyday back in the 40’s rebuilt. I wonder what that cost would be versus building another viaduct. That would REALLY do something about auto use and maybe even global warming.
ps: you have been good on global warming (viaduct notwithstanding), and Gregoire’s plan is weak.