Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area
 [Register]
Seattle area Seattle and King County Suburbs
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-22-2013, 08:04 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,321,941 times
Reputation: 7990

Advertisements

I don't think there's any question that the OP is correct. Just look at 520 West leading up to the bridge. Before the bridge there is always a big slowdown, caused by people changing lanes from the HOV lane to the general purpose lanes. The need to change lanes at that point causes much braking and a bottleneck. Once you get onto the bridge, speeds invariably go up, even during periods of heavy traffic.

The state could improve traffic flow simply by getting rid of the HOV, for the cost of some orange barrels, but they won't do it. Why? They clearly like the slowdowns.

The state is no different from anyone else; they are trying to figure out how to maximize revenue coming their way. Creating slowdowns and tie-ups generates public support for mass transit and tax hikes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2013, 10:54 PM
 
Location: PNW
2,011 posts, read 3,448,267 times
Reputation: 1403
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ8089 View Post
I really believe that the environmental nut job liberals are what is causing Seattle's traffic problems. When you have for an example I-405 (a major bypass beltway) in Renton/NewCastle with only 2 main lanes and 1 carpool lane outside a MAJOR American city, there's a problem. When you have I-5 from the south going into downtown bottle-necking into with 2 lanes, there's something wrong with that. When you have to get many many years of approvals to build a new SR520 bridge and SR99 roadway, something is wrong with how liberals get things done here. Why haven't they fixed these problems? They don't want to....or they will drag their feet. Liberals want to force us all on mass transit. Seattle's traffic problem is a growing embarrassment. At least other cities try harder when it comes to freeway widening and building new freeways. Which brings me to another topic....why haven't they build the I-605? Yes, the Seattle area needs the I-605.

Interstate 605 (Washington)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_605_(Washington)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 10:14 AM
 
Location: the Beaver State
6,464 posts, read 13,410,280 times
Reputation: 3581
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post

The state could improve traffic flow simply by getting rid of the HOV, for the cost of some orange barrels, but they won't do it. Why? They clearly like the slowdowns.

The state is no different from anyone else; they are trying to figure out how to maximize revenue coming their way. Creating slowdowns and tie-ups generates public support for mass transit and tax hikes.
I love how people attribute to maliciousness what is more likely either incompetence or unforeseen consequences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Midwest/South
426 posts, read 428,234 times
Reputation: 388
Should only be carpools on freeways with 5 or more lanes. I can understand I-5, but I don't understand what it's accomplishing on SR167, I-405, and even I-90. Seriously, when you are driving I-405 in the Renton S-curves, are you thinking like I am "what the heck is this?" Tiny freeways. It's an embarassment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 10:46 PM
 
7,934 posts, read 8,569,155 times
Reputation: 5889
Goddamitt, I wan't the 605, 805 and the 1005!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2013, 03:01 AM
 
Location: Past: midwest, east coast
603 posts, read 875,193 times
Reputation: 625
I am a Republican voter and I don't entirely agree with OP's assessment. I attribute Seattle's traffic to the fact that he city was not built for the number of people it has today. The population has increased significantly the past ~15 years. Also, metro Seattle is geographically-constrained, meaning that the metropolis is smaller than most cities and that mountains/lakes prevent any highway expansion for taking place.

Despite these factors, something really needs to be done about this metro's traffic problem. I-405 south of the I-90 interchange only has a couple lanes and one of them is an HOV lane. 520 and 90 bridges are only 2 lanes. What kind of highway planning is this??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2013, 05:13 AM
 
Location: Arvada, CO
13,827 posts, read 29,859,427 times
Reputation: 14428
How about everybody just stay home, and there will be no traffic?

Thus, nobody to blame it on, no reason to get political, no reason to be upset.

Traffic and road problems are in every major city.

It is up to you to minimize its effect on you.
__________________
Moderator for Los Angeles, The Inland Empire, and the Washington state forums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2013, 03:54 PM
 
347 posts, read 667,897 times
Reputation: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Aguilar View Post
How about everybody just stay home, and there will be no traffic?

Thus, nobody to blame it on, no reason to get political, no reason to be upset.

Traffic and road problems are in every major city.

It is up to you to minimize its effect on you.
I'd do a little sidestep with this logic and say there's traffic because so many have the propensity to live in high population areas. If more people decided they liked less densely populated areas traffic would be manageable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2013, 07:37 PM
 
Location: Kent, WA
54 posts, read 122,882 times
Reputation: 47
I basically has given up on discussing about Seattle's problems because it always lead to the same ****. If you ask me personally, I can write a whole book about Seattle and its problems, but I say you do what I do, save ups, get yourself financially and mentally ready and move.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Arvada, CO
13,827 posts, read 29,859,427 times
Reputation: 14428
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyled View Post
I'd do a little sidestep with this logic and say there's traffic because so many have the propensity to live in high population areas. If more people decided they liked less densely populated areas traffic would be manageable.
Traffic was a good enough deterrent for me to leave Southern California!

Make things horrible enough, and the more sane people in the bunch will have the propensity to leave!

Life's too short!
__________________
Moderator for Los Angeles, The Inland Empire, and the Washington state forums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:02 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top