Gregoire champions Fear-Based Planning, digs own political grave

[maxsolomon]

listen to the fear in her language. she sounds as testy as president moron. the best case is that she's lying in order to get enough political traction to get to the surface solution. but i doubt it.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/304352_viaduct20.html

OLYMPIA-- Plan A is to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a new elevated highway. There is no Plan B, Gov. Chris Gregoire asserted Monday.

Despite growing calls to further explore a surface street and transit option, Gregoire refused to back away from her position.


"Today, there is no viable option other than an elevated structure," Gregoire said. "I know people don't necessarily like the elevated structure, I appreciate and respect that, but the fact of the matter is we cannot do nothing."

"I have yet to see any surface option that works," she said.

"I can't see just tearing it down and letting it go and creating a parking lot on I-5. I think the citizens would be appalled," Gregoire said. "They want congestion relief. If what we're going to do is cause them just the opposite, I think they will be very unhappy, and rightfully so."

[LeFleur1]

1. Maybe

Maybe she's getting sick of saying the same things over and over.
An elevated Alaskan Way is an eyesore/earsoar for Seattle. A person can't sit at the waterfront without the roaring of traffic spoiling the whole experience. That's a given. What to do? A tunnel in earthquake country probably isn't a good option. An elevated way might be the safer option...a person probably wouldn't be buried alive, at least. Are those the only two options? A flat street? What would the logistics of that be? Would it eliminate the roaring for tourists at the waterfront?
It seems to me, an outsider, that everyone is stubbornly sticking to their favorite scenerio, one which ignores logistics, dangers, and costs.
Some clearheaded thoughts would be good.

[maxsolomon]

2. less speed = less noise

WSDOT stubbornly refuses to realistically evaluate a surface street's logistics because they are fixated on the 100,000 cars/day capacity. a 6-lane blvd. would handle 76000/day.

the gap of 24,000 vehicles/day is debatable, of course. is that trips through town that are "mission critical"? can a percentage of thos trips not happen, or happen on either side of downtown? are they voluntary?

i say fix the west seattle bridge's i-5 access, and i-5 northbound @ seneca (so it doesn't neck down to 1 lane), and there's extra capacity for our doomed auto culture.

please go read this document:

http://www.peopleswaterfront.org/pdfs/PWC_sustainableEconomics.pdf