Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So why is traffic so bad in Seattle versus other cities? Is traffic more widespead or you move at slower speeds? Lynwood to south of Seattle is BAD! I think the worst traffic spots are from the north getting into Seattle there is like ALWAYS traffic I have no idea why! And getting into Seattle from the south is BAD! I-405 by I-90 is bad and by Renton. Traffic threw Tacoma is bad too! I think those are the worst spots, traffic is usually there everyday and during the week day it is HORRENDOUS!
Freeways here do not have enough lanes, i.e. most of the freeways here are 2 lanes + 1 carpool, ridiculous. Having everyone crammed into 2 lanes causes major congestion.
In CA, TX, and VA where I used to live, freeways were usually 5, 6, and even 7 lanes EACH DIRECTION, not these little tiny "freeways" we have here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seattle4321
So why is traffic so bad in Seattle versus other cities? Is traffic more widespead or you move at slower speeds? Lynwood to south of Seattle is BAD! I think the worst traffic spots are from the north getting into Seattle there is like ALWAYS traffic I have no idea why! And getting into Seattle from the south is BAD! I-405 by I-90 is bad and by Renton. Traffic threw Tacoma is bad too! I think those are the worst spots, traffic is usually there everyday and during the week day it is HORRENDOUS!
Freeways here do not have enough lanes, i.e. most of the freeways here are 2 lanes + 1 carpool, ridiculous. Having everyone crammed into 2 lanes causes major congestion.
In CA, TX, and VA where I used to live, freeways were usually 5, 6, and even 7 lanes EACH DIRECTION, not these little tiny "freeways" we have here.
I-5 in central Seattle at evening rush hour. 4 lanes southbound, 7 lanes northbound.
I-405 (San Diego Fwy) between LAX and Culver City. 5 lanes each north/southbound
Both are flowing at or near equilibrium. More lanes leads to more cars until a point is reached where the nth driver determines the congestion is intolerable, and then chooses a different route, a different mode (carpool, bus, train) or shifts his/her residence or workplace location.
Most east coast cities and most in Europe haven't built a new lane of freeway in years and years; nor have they invested billions in new fixed rail. The marketplace, along with human nature, takes care of the problem. Why should Seattle voters pay to make commuters living in Lynnwood happier, when the result is inevitably that congestion re-establishes itself badda-bing? Ask people who lived on the outer limits of the freeway system in southern California how building new freeways worked for them. Ask in Santa Clarita or Costa Mesa or Pomona.
More lanes leads to more cars until a point is reached where the nth driver determines the congestion is intolerable, and then chooses a different route, a different mode (carpool, bus, train) or shifts his/her residence or workplace location.
Most east coast cities and most in Europe haven't built a new lane of freeway in years and years; nor have they invested billions in new fixed rail. The marketplace, along with human nature, takes care of the problem. Why should Seattle voters pay to make commuters living in Lynnwood happier, when the result is inevitably that congestion re-establishes itself badda-bing? Ask people who lived on the outer limits of the freeway system in southern California how building new freeways worked for them. Ask in Santa Clarita or Costa Mesa or Pomona.
In order to choose, one must have a choice. Many are locked into one route and one mode, and are unable to change their residence or workplace. That is the rationale for expanding options for jobs, housing, transportation modes (light-rail to Lynnwood and Federal Way, for instance), and, yes, routes/lanes, where they make sense (the long-stalled connection of SR-509 to I-5, for instance). Note that it isn't Wetside Liberals who're blocking expanding non-tolled general lanes in the Puget Sound Basin, but Dryside Conservatives.
In order to choose, one must have a choice. Many are locked into one route and one mode, and are unable to change their residence or workplace.
Of course. Statistically there are always going to be people in that situation, just as statistically there will be others for whom the transition to another mode or other origin-destination points is quite feasible. This very board is full of examples of people changing their locations or habits in order to achieve a higher quality of life or greater convenience. The issue comes from the erroneous belief that expanding infrastructure results in net reductions in congestion in the middle to long term. It does facilitate population growth, which will ultimately take the infrastructure to its new congestion equilibrium point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey
That is the rationale for expanding options for jobs, housing, transportation modes (light-rail to Lynnwood and Federal Way, for instance), and, yes, routes/lanes, where they make sense (the long-stalled connection of SR-509 to I-5, for instance). Note that it isn't Wetside Liberals who're blocking expanding non-tolled general lanes in the Puget Sound Basin, but Dryside Conservatives.
Yes, if the aim is to facilitate regional population growth. But saying these steps are a means to achieve congestion relief is bogus. And not addressing the population impact they'll have is - in my opinion - deceptive.
Now this isn't to say we shouldn't maintain our infrastructure or undertake capital projects that will improve safety or flow through pinch points. On the contrary, we're obligated to squeeze maximum efficiency out of what we do have in the way of transport infrastructure; it's a fiduciary role we expect of our governments.
There's a lot of (loose) talk on this board and elsewhere over the subject of self-driving cars or automated flow controls on highways. When I say "loose" I mean it's like space tourism discussions 20 years ago - oh sure, ha ha, maybe someday.
But we'll still be paying off ST3 bonds in the year 2050. Who's to say that technological progress in the next 34 years will be any less dramatic than it's been between 1982 and now? Non-polluting automatic cars? 80% of the workforce telecommuting? Drone-delivered groceries? The end of big-box and regional shopping centers as Macy's goes the way of Fredrick and Nelson? Hell, all of those could be around by the time the Class of 2026 is marching down the (virtual) aisle.
One of the problems with city and regional planning is that the "feedback loop" - the time needed to see if something worked or not - is way longer than in most other fields, and way, way longer than individual political careers. We built urban freeways when gas was cheap and the feds were picking up the whole cost; it took 50 years in many cases to discover the downside.
But things are a LOT more expensive now (in real dollars) than they were in the 1950s, so it seems to me that taking the time to study the bejeezus out of $50 billion projects - in public - is worth it. How about the growth advocates point to other cities in similar circumstances and how they coped, or didn't cope? How about if the Times ran a series on growth, congestion, quality of life, infrastructure investment in other places? Pick Phoenix, Atlanta or Boston, or Glasgow or Melbourne. How did they do it and how's it working? If "measure twice cut once" is good for carpentry, isn't it good for whole regions?
The many lanes pictured above is one tiny part of Seattle, and that soon bottlenecks down to less lanes, as do all the other areas where they pop in an extra lane. The latest trick of toll lanes instead of car pool lanes is not helping and doesn't carry through far enough anyway. You pay your $10 to jump into the Elite lane, then discover it ends and bottlenecks after only a couple miles. Meanwhile the common folk are crammed into the 2 lanes they have always had.
Not enough lanes and no planning ahead.
Second problem is not enough options to spread out the traffic, due to terrain, lakes, and lack of planning. In the Bay Area they have expressways as big as our "freeways" connecting the main freeways.
Seattle area has a couple of toll bridges connecting the 2 freeways.
Live where you work is a nice theory, but jobs/careers change and move around too fast these days. It costs a lot of effort and money to relocate a household. 30 years of living in the Seattle area, my commute has ranged from cycling a couple of miles, to grinding out 55miles a day in grinding along traffic. And I am lucky that I had the foresight to buy our home in a nice central Puget Sound location.
My wife and I are cashing out, selling our humble abode, and heading for a less crowded retirement location that is unfortunately lacking jobs, so moving earlier wasn't an option.
What is stress-inducing is the sensation of being trapped, which I think expresses the essence of the Seattle-traffic experience. In other major cities, while the traffic might be statistically as bad, or even worse, in reality many drivers have other choices available to them, even if only freeway-hopping. In Seattle, on the other hand, drivers, with few freeways, funneled into no-exit corridors/bridges, and hedged in by large lakes and high hills, are much more likely to have NO choices, other than downsizing and moving closer to work (if they can afford it).
Transit? Many do choose to use it, who can solve the first-/last-mile(s) problem to nab a one-seat express ride to work, say, in Seattle's or Bellevue's downtowns. Much less useful, however, if working elsewhere. And anyone who has ridden the #40 from Ballard in the morning rush to SLU, stuffed to the gills and passing by stop after stop of riders begging to get on, can attest that the sensation of being TRAPPED is not limited to car-commuters.
This is how we feel as well. We frequently feel trapped and find we often don't want to do things anymore because dealing with the traffic and just 'sitting' in our cars or on busses is so unpleasant (and that is if you can get a seat on the bus, standing in a slam crowded bus is even worse). And technically we live quite close to everything but it does not seem to help much anymore.
Its even getting bad for "escaping to nature" in our beautiful mountains.
You have to start planning around traffic for that.
On a nice Sunday in the summer, traffic can be backed up all the way to Stevens pass on highway 2, and take you a couple hours just to get down out of the mountains to where traffic used to start.
More and more, you have to develop strategies to only end up in heavy traffic, not stopped traffic.
Heck, for our regular trips to oregon, we have to leave the house in Kirkland by 5:30am or add an hour or two or more to our travel time.
When we moved here 30 years ago, Seattle was an easy 20 minute drive on a slow day on the weekend. We used to go into Seattle often. Now we add up the hours of driving(on the weekend) and tolls and parking and say forget it.
I've noticed something about myself-I've started planning shopping around rush hour. In other words, I've started to avoid going out to shop in anticipation of rush hour. These days, its not just the freeways that become irritatingly busy.
Yes, if the aim is to facilitate regional population growth. But saying these steps are a means to achieve congestion relief is bogus. And not addressing the population impact they'll have is - in my opinion - deceptive.
Now this isn't to say we shouldn't maintain our infrastructure or undertake capital projects that will improve safety or flow through pinch points. On the contrary, we're obligated to squeeze maximum efficiency out of what we do have in the way of transport infrastructure; it's a fiduciary role we expect of our governments.
I said nothing about relieving congestion, which is a red herring, but only about creating options and choices for mobility.
Unfortunately, population growth here is almost certainly unavoidable, so planning for it and developing strategies to best accommodate it is not unwise. I'm not in favor of any large expansion of general lanes (pointless to build what we can't afford, or refuse to pay, to maintain), which is unlikely anyway without a large infusion of federal cash - even then, that cash would be better spent on accelerating the building of a 20th century mass transit (people-moving) system. Even so, some money has to be thrown at highways/bridges if you want to keep voters, mostly drivers, on board. I am in favor of completing SR-509 to I-5, for instance - it is needed even more as a freight, than a traffic, corridor.
I'm not in favor of a hub-and-spoke model of development, with "workers" funneled in and out of urban centers they can't afford to live in, and without good jobs available where they live, other than low-pay service work. Planning needs to include creating good-paying jobs where people live and affordable housing where people work. We need to seek a balance of centripedal/centrifugal social/economic/development forces. (More of a satellite than a hub-and-spoke model.) If people have choices of where they can live and work, they needn't face the Hobson's Choice of paying through the nose for housing or being stuck in grueling hour+-commutes. The missing element right now is high(er)-speed passenger rail, which can leap-frog urban-suburban sprawl.
Quote:
There's a lot of (loose) talk on this board and elsewhere over the subject of self-driving cars or automated flow controls on highways. When I say "loose" I mean it's like space tourism discussions 20 years ago - oh sure, ha ha, maybe someday.
And various PRT fantasies. Unless the government subsidizes it so every driver can have one, you've got the problem of self-driving cars mixing with and avoiding cars being driven by fools and idiots. Either way, the costs and problems skyrocket. That doesn't mean that cars can't become a LOT smarter - they'll have to.
Quote:
One of the problems with city and regional planning is that the "feedback loop" - the time needed to see if something worked or not - is way longer than in most other fields, and way, way longer than individual political careers. We built urban freeways when gas was cheap and the feds were picking up the whole cost; it took 50 years in many cases to discover the downside.
But, that's what we have been doing for 40+ years - unable to decide between moving cars or moving people, and thus sitting on our hands, doing neither. Political sentiment has shifted toward moving people over cars around here only in the last decade or so. The problem is less our planning than our inability to execute any long-range plan in a timely manner that is financed almost completely on the shoulders of local tax-payers. What we need is an infusion of infrastructure spending from the federal government (directly to projects and/or through states), which is, however, bottled up by partisan gridlock in Washington D.C.
Last edited by CrazyDonkey; 04-13-2016 at 02:46 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
