The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a pretty thorough article on “alternative” (i.e. not just one-passenger cars) transportation in the Seattle area: “A drive toward fewer cars.”
I wouldn’t say that the article has anything terribly profound, but it was an interesting read, nonetheless, especially for someone like me who uses only non-car methods of transportation.
The Pike-Pine neighborhood also is interested in turning one of its side streets into what is known as a “living street,” similar to Pike Place, where there are no curbs, and cars and people mingle in the street. The city has resisted the idea, Levinger says.
… personally, I would love this. The Pike/Pine neighborhood (where I live) is very up-and-coming (I once heard someone refer to “Pike as the new Melrose” [or something ridiculous like that]).
Since then, the news has only gotten worse, says Victor Obeso, who is in charge of service planning for Metro [bus transit]. The recession kicked in and projections for added service hours are even lower. Instead of the 165,000 additional service hours projected for the six-year period, Metro now projects 99,000 hours — about a half a percent per year growth. And Seattle is entitled to only 20 percent of that increase.
… this is a drag. I love the busses and it’s unfortunate that they can’t get all the funding/growth needed. Damn that Tim Eyman! (“Metro’s budget was clobbered by Tim Eyman’s Initiative 695, a $30 car-tab initiative passed by voters in 1999.”)
2 thoughts on “PI Article on Seattle Transportation”
A living street? That would be amazing! I would be all for that idea as well. Does it mention where exactly this street would be?
it doesn’t, and i’m not sure where to find more information about it. also, i should correct myself: pike is the new “beverly hills” — not “melrose.” (though they are probably equally as stupid.)