Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Keep On Truckin' Up, PA

Anyone in favor of a truck route on Lauridsen?

Anyone thinking about the impact on Race St.?

The impact on tourists trying to get to the ONP via Race St.?

Anyone? Anyone thinking at all in City Hall?

This message brought to you courtesy of Traylor's.

26 comments:

  1. The Port Angeles Downtown Association must be thrilled. No more truck traffic through downtown. However, there will be no more accidental traffic downtown either. A bypass is the kiss of death to a downtown sector. God forbid the downtown merchants will suddenly have to start marketing to the local residents instead of the haphazard tourists. Now, if we can get munro to relocate his log jam to the outskirts of town we can get rid of that logging truck noise. Right now the trucks have to come into town to bring the logs. Leave town empty. Then, when the Chinese ship comes in, the big trucks have to come into town again, empty, load up the logs they dropped off before and shuttle them over to the ship. These are the most handled logs in town and create twice the truck traffic as a sane city would allow. Think noise, dust, two major water line breaks in past few months. All attributable to Mr. Pound Sand Munro and his greed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How many current city councilmembers live on Lauridsen? On Race?

    There you go.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd say ban trucks from downtown until noon. That way they won't wake Tom Harper up before he's ready to face the day. As for the rest of the day, there's usually no one downtown to disturb, really, so why bother trying to "make it nice"?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Port Angeles is in perpetual screw-up mode.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This just creeps closer to reality, as time passes by. This was discussed 10 or 15 years ago. Then again about 6 years ago. Last year the City spent ?? tens of thousands on a consultants study to "upgrade Race street", to match it up to Lauridsen.

    Soon, it will just be a matter of fact. They will argue they already have spent so much money on the concept, it just doesn't make any economic sense not to build the Race Street Bypass.

    Just what Port Angeles needs: A faster, easier way for people to avoid Port Angeles entirely.

    Will we see the illustrious Economic Development Council weigh in on this? As the Planning Commission considers the issues, who will support the bypass? Who will oppose it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ahhell Bubba, let's just keep PA the way it's been frever. Mebbe one day it'll be a muzeeum of old times, an we cin charge admishun!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dun't care whut them fohks in Cetty Hall duz so long as them trukses keep on a comin past my restrunt!

      Delete
  7. If and when they decide to get the trucks out of downtown, what excuse will they cling to then for why downtown will still be dead? the death of our downtown isn't due to truck exhaust.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Curious. No mention of the grant they're getting to upgrade Race street from First up to Lauridsen? As part of improving access to the park...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Excess cancer risk per million people from on-road diesel truck exhaust was last evaluated over 10 years ago. At that time that risk was modeled to be 212 excess cancers due to this emission source along Front/Lincoln. Is that acceptable? It is the second leading cause of emission-related cancer in Port Angeles after woodstove smoke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a form of population control.

      Delete
  10. ...Meanwhile...Port Townsend, a smaller town by far, is having real discussions about how to address the parking issues they face in their downtown. As in, the demand for parking outstrips the supply on a regular basis. As in, their downtown is thriving and successful, in their smaller town.

    ...Meanwhile...Downtown Port Angeles has plenty of parking at any time. Parking, and (truck) traffic are not real issues for downtown Port Angeles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But be assured that someone from the PADA or the City Council will, at some point in the near future, bring up the "parking problem" downtown.

      ANYTHING to search for an answer to our woes that doesn't in any way reflect their own failure.

      Delete
  11. Per City staff Alternative truck route on Lauridsen established in 1990s in Comprehensive Plan. Citizen requested Planning Commission to review based on changed circumstance. The Commission said they would. Another case of this blog damning city if they do and if they don't?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeepers, all I did was pose some questions...

      Delete
    2. @Anon 7:33

      How are the posts here to be construed to be "damning city if they do and if they don't?"

      What I see are valid points being made, and valid questions being expressed.

      Delete
    3. Break out the violins and cry me river @7:33. What I see is a city that very much deserves damning.

      Trying to re-route the log trucks is one issue, but re-routing ALL traffic is quite another. An alternative truck route is not the same as an alternative to PA.

      Might you be an oversensitive city employee? Or just a city Loyalee who think the city can do no wrong? Have you read this blog? The city has ZERO trust factor. And they did it to themselves. So we have no choice but to question EVERYTHING, no matter how "damning" it may be. 'Nuf said.

      Delete
    4. Ck - and they just posed one question...
      @ 6:19 - how about "is anyone thinking at city hall"? given this is about city hall re thinking designation of Lauridsen set back in last century.
      @8:48 - some damn, some work to improve.

      Delete
    5. @10:05

      You reply with "is anyone thinking at city hall"? Again, how is this to be construed "damning city if they do and if they don't?" It looks to me to be both a valid concern, and a valid question.

      And as has been said many times before, how do you "work to improve" if you haven't correctly identified the problem? Here in Port Angeles, we've seen and heard all kinds of proposals that were supposed to fix Port Angeles, but here we still are, with no improvements. Yes, a lot of money has been spent on things like the multi-million dollar fake beaches, but like the fake beaches show so clearly, every day, these "improvements" result in nothing but more money spent.

      Maybe put some more work into figuring out what is best to do, before starting to get to work on it?

      Delete
  12. The real issue for small towns is vision - how do we wish to present ourselves to the word? What makes us unique and special such that this place will be attractive? That's the basis for a local retail economy.

    PT has given thought to this, and the well-being of the business district, by riffing on the maritime theme.

    OTOH, PA's current council has no opinion at all on this. Their myopic vision is limited to maintaining the government-grant-gravy-train for their petty masters. While everyone else eeks out a living as best they can under such circumstances.

    When the masters couldn't care less about their own city, choosing to focus solely on lining their own pockets with no give-back to the community, then the council tends to abide that attitude.

    I say screw the old guard, let them have a taste of the free market, and quit getting the priority here.
    If the state wants to subsidize their businesses, fine. But why does PA squander its local resources on these few, and pile up unpayable debts that they can skim from? They view the Race Street proposal as simply one more construction project that they are drooling to skim off of. Nothing more. Common sense is not their focus. What's good for PA is not their focus. Ongoing criminal greed at the community's expense is all they know.

    As long as the citizens demand nothing, nothing is exactly what they shall get. And the city will rot.

    ReplyDelete
  13. diverting trucks off of Lincoln to Race makes sense. Lincoln has the Safeway and RiteAid ingress and egress that slows the trucks headed east-west. It also makes the waterfront more travel and tourism friendly with less noise.

    ReplyDelete

  14. Was watching this earlier, and thinking about how far from this reality Port Angeles is:

    http://livewire.seattletimes.com/endangered-economy/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The neanderthals who run this place think nothing of poisoning our land & water with toxic waste dumping without true remediation, so why should that attitude stop there? Climate change is only fer city-folk. We got us some grant skimmin'to do!

      Delete
  15. First the old lady gets attacked on a bus...Then the white trash loser opens fire on the police...And now a bomb evacuation...Jesus wept, Port Angeles. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Turns out the bomb wasn't a bomb...It was a grenade that wasn't a grenade. Stand down, everyone, stand down...

      Delete
  16. This just in...
    The petition to change the status of city governance in Port Angeles passed two important hurdles in its race to be on the November ballot.

    County Auditor, Shoona Riggs' office completed the count of over one thousand names on a petition circulated by Jess Grable and Edna Wiladsen and others including representatives of Our Water Our Choice.

    The total number of signatures was more than twice as many as needed to be placed on the ballot in November.

    The second hurdle involves the language of the petition. The Clallam County Prosecutor's Office determined the language sufficient to identify the intent of the petition.

    Rumors aplenty of secret meetings seeking a way to forestall such a momentous change for the city. According to sources, the sides are "dug in" and the process must run its course. " That train has left the station..."

    If the change of governance petition is approved by city voters in November there will be a wholesale change in the city government. All seven seats will be open seats and any registered voter in the city can be a candidate.


    ReplyDelete