How can you define wacky in these ever-increasing traffic-congested times? Here’s an example from the Seattle Times editorial page:
Over the next 20 years, Seattle plans to “aggressively convert street right of way to non-vehicular use, discourage creation of parking capacity as the city grows, and minimize parking at public parks, limiting their accessibility. It may also toll streets to pay for such improvements.”
But, that’s not all.
The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) — under the direction of Seattle Mayor Ed Murray — will begin ranking street performance “by how many single-occupant vehicles (SOV) are using them.” Because the ultimate priority is to get people out of their cars, the streets with fewer cars using them will be ranked as the best performing. Via the Seattle Times:
So a street may be ranked as performing well, even if it takes an hour to drive a mile, as long as it has a good mix of buses and bikes.
… this approach will influence decisions on where to improve or reduce street capacity for cars. It will also affect the city’s negotiations with big developers, to mitigate the effect of their projects.
Most of all, this shift gives the finger to those who drive cars, meaning nearly all residents and businesses.
Ladies and gentlemen, that’s called a war on cars.
The approach still needs to be approved by the Seattle City Council. But, considering it’s the Seattle City Council, the only real questions are whether it will pass unanimously as is, or whether the council will try to make it even worse.
Seattle’s plans even have some liberals raising their eyebrows.
As the recent Times editorial points out, the plan doesn’t reflect “reality.” The reality of transportation here is that, in 2014, 82 percent of trips in the Puget Sound region were made in personal cars. By contrast, in 1999, 86 percent of trips were made in personal cars.
That’s a mere 4% decrease in the course of 15 years, despite an increase in public transportation options. Simply put, even Seattle liberals are not all that interested in abandoning their personal vehicles.
Seattle’s war on cars also breaks a promise made to voters in 1990 — not that liberals care about whether or not they keep their promises. Via the Seattle Times:
“Nor does it fulfill promises made to city dwellers by the state Growth Management Act of 1990 — the original grand bargain. In return for accepting density and preserving rural areas, urban residents were promised infrastructure that would keep up with the growth.”
Seattle cannot sustain growth with its out-of-touch, irresponsible far-Left agenda. The costs are too high.
A 2014 state study revealed that “21,700 jobs and $3.6 billion in economic output will be lost if congestion increases 20 percent in the central Puget Sound region.”
That means Seattle’s war on cars is also a war on jobs. But maybe the City Council will tackle that problem by creating even more staff positions to handle the complaints from constituents who are stuck in traffic.
Glad to see the liberal media still gets high praise here. (There’s a reason we here in Seattle call it “The Bothell Times”.)
Reducing congestion is a requirement for increased economic growth. There’s nothing in the Growth Management Act which requires any city to cater to single-occupancy vehicles, and in fact, that quote from The Bothell Times shows that building Sound Transit satisfies the Growth Management Act quite nicely.
So, I guess your complaint then is that Seattle will do too good a job of reducing congestion by reducing the number one component of congestion: single-occupant cars.
You seem as confused by the meaning of “high praise” as you were by the general opinion of Mayor McSchwinn. (Nobody outside of you and maybe a couple of other pin-headed comrades calls anything “The Bothell Times”)
“Reducing congestion is a requirement for increased economic growth”
And here you’ve been telling us all you have to do is mandate a $15 minimum wage.
There’s also nothing in the Growth Management Act which requires any city to restrict single-occupancy vehicles. In fact, reality shows that building UnSound Transit does virtually nothing to reduce congestion, given its 33,000 daily riders in an area of 3.8 million people.
You seem as confused by the meaning of “high praise” as you were by the general opinion of Mayor McSchwinn.
You seem to remain hopelessly confused about how Shift’s approving quotations have given de facto praise to those it has quoted. (Since being quoted approvingly and reading comprehension are both experiences which are utterly alien to you, I understand your confusion.)
And here you’ve been telling us all you have to do is mandate a $15 minimum wage.
It’s one element in the overall program, yes, but it’s hardly the entire thing. Appropriate investments in public education, public transportation, clean environment, and other business-building policies are other pillars of our prosperity here.
There’s also nothing in the Growth Management Act which requires any city to restrict single-occupancy vehicles.
Yep, Shift’s conflation of the two is indeed wholly imaginary, but that’s just another reason not to take seriously editorials in The Bothell Times.
Ah comrade, maybe if you hadn’t slept stoned through your ESL class, you’d know the difference between praise and ridicule. One’s good, and the other? Not so much. If it makes you feel better, keep on believing it’s really praise you’re getting.
“It’s one element in the overall program, yes, but it’s hardly the entire thing”
It certainly is the “entire thing” whenever you’re on a thread about minimum wage. To hear you tell it, it’s the economic difference between Seattle and Kettle Falls. How about other elements of the overall program? Is $50 Billion an appropriate investment in a transportation system that serves .008 of our population?
You said: “There’s nothing in the Growth Management Act which requires any city to cater to single-occupancy vehicles”
I said: “There’s also nothing in the Growth Management Act which requires any city to restrict single-occupancy vehicles”
Yep, it appears Shift’s conflation is indeed wholly imaginary to you. Just another reason to laugh at somebody that thinks anybody believes The Bothell Times is a popular reference to The Seattle Times.
… know the difference between praise and ridicule.
So, educate us, O wise and learned one. How did Shift “ridicule” The Bothell Times in this post? It sure looks like Shift agrees with everything it quoted here.
Parse out the headline, doofus. The first three words. If that sounds like praise to you, you’re a bigger idiot than anybody realized. They must have told you the people ridiculing you were really praising you when you were on the short bus riding to your public school indoctrination.
“… the headline … first three words.”
So, Shift inaccurately claims The Bothell Times is “liberal media” in the headline. So what?
If you read *past* the headline, you’ll see Shift agreed with everything it quoted from The Bothell Times. Do you really believe they intended to “ridicule” one of their primary sources?
“Shift inaccurately claims The Bothell Times is “liberal media” in the headline”
You actually think the Seattle Times is a hard-right publication? If that’s the case, what exactly is the “liberal media”? I did read *past* the headline and saw ridicule where you saw agreement and praise. Must be the special rose-colored “liberal vision” glasses
I did read *past* the headline and saw ridicule where you saw agreement and praise.
Such as … ?
Every time Shift quoted The Bothell Times in this post, it was to agree with the quote. Shift even explictly agreed with The Bothell Times’ groundless and ludicrous assertion that the Growth Management Act somehow prohibits Seattle from prioritizing other forms of transport over cars. That shows Shift’s clear approval, not the ridicule The Bothell Times actually deserves for publishing such utter nonsense.
“In return for accepting density and preserving rural areas, urban residents were promised infrastructure that would keep up with growth”
That you read into this as The Seattle Times asserts that the Growth Management Act somehow prohibits Seattle from prioritizing other forms of transport over cars is hardly surprising. Any opinion other than mass transit, mass transit and more mass transit is taken as an attack by you and your ilk, so much so that you make a pathetic attempt to denigrate fellow travelers at a leftist rag like The Seattle Times. One that falls flat with everybody but you and the other two members of the beret-and-goatee set down at “Komrades Koffee” (where somebody else pays for your drink)
I’ll translate it into crayon for you: Along with not prohibiting it, the Growth Management Act also doesn’t direct Seattle to prioritize other forms of transportation over cars, that’s all on Special Ed and the Silly Clowncil. That shows their clear approval, not the ridicule they deserve for having such utterly nonsensical policies, hence the subject of this entire article and thread. That’s why it’s called a “War on Cars”
Most normal Americans discovered at 16 the fact that Cars = Freedom. Go where you want on your schedule. I’m sorry you weren’t one of us or you’ve forgotten it in the laundry. The numbers say the vast majority of normal Americans still agree with that fact. If you don’t think so, why does light rail serve 0.8% of our population?
With leftists, it’s all about control. Personal transportation to anywhere you’d like to go, anytime, as far as you want to drive, is way too much Freedom for the proletariat to have. Control of when and where the peasants travel is a much better option. But don’t worry, you’re free to walk anywhere you’d like. For now, anyway.
That you read into this as The Seattle Times asserts that the Growth Management Act somehow prohibits Seattle from prioritizing other forms of transport over cars …
That’s exactly how *Shift* interpreted it, reading comprehension genius:
Seattle’s war on cars also breaks a promise made to voters in 1990 — not that liberals care about whether or not they keep their promises. Via the Seattle Times:
If you disagree with Shift’s interptetation of what The Bothell Times wrote, please take it to Shift.
“The Seattle Times asserts that the Growth Management Act somehow prohibits Seattle from prioritizing other forms of transport over cars”
“That’s exactly how *Shift* interpreted it”
Unless you can find that quote anywhere in the body of the article you’re commenting on, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with Shift’s interptetation (sic) of anything. It’s exactly the interptetation (sic) coming from YOUR feeble mind. The same interptetation (sic) the sees in the Growth Management Act the requirement that freedom-hating, control-loving Seattle leftists prioritize mass transit over the cars that the overwhelming majority of our population chooses for their transportation needs.
But I do like the way you heap praise on Shift by agreeing with them.
… keep on believing it’s really praise you’re getting.
Reading comprehension much? It was The Bothell Times receiving praise from Shift, not me. (Since both The Bothell Times and Shift are owned by guys on Mercer Island, their love-fest is understandable.)
Pretty sure you don’t operate a retail establishment in Seattle. As a non-resident, I already avoid Seattle due to traffic/parking. As a senior citizen, biking 90 mi to an establishment would be out of the question. Public transportation would not allow me to get to my destination and back on the same day. You are as much of a fool as your Mayor and your far left city council.
As a non-resident, I already avoid Seattle…
Thank you for describing yet another benefit Seattle’s policies bring to its citizens!
I decline to respond to the likes of you. You are a fool and anyone who would debate couldn’t look any better,
I decline to respond to the likes of you.
Uh, since you haven’t already noticed, I’ll tell you: it’s a bit late for that.
But please, continue to stay out of Seattle. Your absence is the greatest gift you could ever possibly give us Seattle liberals.
If Seattle wants to reduce congestion, then it needs to shed the things that force people to come to the city. Here are some things that should be shut down and moved to help Seattle reach it’s goal: Both Pro sports stadiums, Port of Seattle, State Ferry terminal, cruise ship terminal, Seattle Center, Pike Place Market, Pioneer Square, UW, SPU, Woodland Park Zoo, all the marinas and fishing terminals, ship yards, Paramount, 5th Ave Theater, Northgate, the parks, Boeing Field, Harborview & Swedish hospitals, the Community Colleges, various markets and street fairs, etc.
Then all the interchanges for I-5 & I-90 could be demolished. Teardown the viaduct, stop the tunnel and remove the rest of 99 in the city.
…that force people to come to the city.
No one is ever “forced” to come to Seattle, and at the rate our free market is converting parking lots into high-rise residential towers, we’ll soon have gone a long way toward having people live within walking distance, or Sound Transit riding distance, of all those great attractions you listed.
Seattle is the county seat, so those who live in King county are forced there for various reasons. The Federal Courthouse for the region is there, so again, many in the region are forced to go there. The premier trauma hospitals & many other medical professionals and care are located in the city and people are forced there to get the care they need. Shipping, entertainment that will only be in the venues in the city, various shopping, education etc. These are all things that the city used to want and invited people there, yet now there is a political change and visitors are no longer welcome in the city and steps have been taken to make it hard to do the business you need to.
So if the city will no longer welcome visitors, then those things that force them to come should be moved outside the city.
Seattle is the county seat, so those who live in King county are forced there for various reasons. The Federal Courthouse for the region is there, so again, many in the region are forced to go there.
Those buildings are within easy walking distance of downtown Light Rail stations, so you’re really advocating for better public transportation into Seattle from outside — you know, more Metro and Sound Transit service.
The premier trauma hospitals & many other medical professionals and care are located in the city and people are forced there to get the care they need.
Medical facilities are located in regions of densest population, yes. You’re advocating spending huge amounts of money to make medical care less efficient.
…visitors are no longer welcome in the city.
It’s easier than ever for visitors to reach Husky Stadium and other attractions, thanks to opening of the Link Light Rail.
We’ve decided to emphasize more effective ways of moving persons and goods in and around the city. We’re under no obligation to subsidize single-occupancy vehicles just because people want to come here.
You’re welcome to live in Afghanistan or Antarctica. Stay out of my neighborhood.
“You’re welcome to live in Afghanistan or Antarctica. Stay out of my neighborhood.”
Your staying out of Seattle works well for me; thank you!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You’re delusional, tensie, old bean!
“It’s easier than ever for visitors to reach Husky Stadium and other attractions, thanks to opening of the Link Light Rail stations on Capitol Hill and U-District”
With all this ease, maybe UnSound Transit can double their numbers and skyrocket to serving 1.6% of our population.