http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:11:37 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/03/12/053913.php#comment-560344 In San Francisco the (incomplete) bayfront Embarcadero freeway was cursed by residents for being an eyesore and by travelers for being incomplete and impeding their rapid transit thru the city. The 89 loma prieta quake solved the problem by making it unsafe so the residents tore it down. Now there are beautiful sweeping views across the Embarcadero and light rail transport up and down for residents. Since through traffic is impeded there is less of it. In fact, fewer traffic problems because there are no exits where massive traffic is dumped onto surface streets. Freeways do not solve traffic problems. They increase their magnitude and create greater crises at entry and exit points. 560344@blogcritics.org Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:11:37 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/03/12/053913.php#comment-559067 I assume that the OP is relatively new to Seattle. A bit of possibly useful background: in the 1960s is when Seattle put up the ugly freeway I-5--which meant in the summer of 1963 the tearing down of two of our favorite restaurants--The Captain's Table (where a lunch of quilicene oysters was $1.35 and the waiter went around with a silver-plated lighter lighting our cigarettes) and The Italian Village. That freeway was also incomplete for years. It earned the enmity of most of Seattle's longtime residents. And it did not solve the problem of gridlock. In 1967-68 when we were living in San Francisco celebrating and burying Hippie as well as going to grad school, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system was designed and its implementation started. I mention this subway system because the Bay Area has pretty much the same land-water configuration as the Seattle Area, and therefore the same problems with traffic. Seattle was still in denial that it was a "real city" in those years--and still smarting from the rejection of the I-5 freeway, so the city's non-planners decided to do nothing about improving the traffic situation. Within a few years they were forced to do s LITTLE something--which turned out to be the Evergreen Point Bridge (a toll bridge for several years) and a couple of very short bus tunnels downtown. It was not enough. I was working on a renovation project at the Pike Place Market in the late 70s, and I faced pretty much the same transportation problems from the U District that the OP describes dealing with today. I stopped working in Seattle, and until we left for Santa Fe, New Mexico, in 1984 I worked on the East Side--Bothell and Bellevue. It was faster for me and I didn't have to hassle with parking. By the time we left Seattle--more than 20 years ago--it was gridlock. I was just there last month and it still is gridlock much of the time. None of the options suggested by the non-planners will solve the problem. That's where denial leads you. If Seattle had designed and implemented a subway system similar to the BART in the late 60s, a lot of blood pressure prescriptions would not have been written. Now it's too late. It's been too late for more than 30 years. Just one of the reasons why I don't live there. 559067@blogcritics.org Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:25:40 EDT