Seattle 1-5 lanes/future freeways (Everett, Des Moines: 2014, house, live)

[jm31828]

Originally Posted by Backstrom

Sorry, but as a native Bellevuite, downtown Bellevue most certainly does not come to mind when it comes to a "vibrant downtown." The city shuts down at 7pm on the weekdays and maybe 9pm on weekends. The only time you get throngs of pedestrians is during rush hour, lunch break, and Snowflake Lane. Until the downtown core is rezoned for significant additions of housing, office, and retail, it still cannot hold a candle to Seattle's vibrancy.


It may sound intuitive to just add lanes, but that actually worsens traffic. First, your local street network limits capacity, and two, there is a widely understood phenomenon in transportation planning/modeling called Braess's Paradox, where latent demand only ends up inducing congestion that quickly eats up added capacity. Ever notice how drivers are quick to merge into another lane when they see that space has opened up? Try multiplying that on a much bigger scale. On top of that is the mathematical fact that extra lanes = more merging = more congestion.

Not to mention that the construction of I-5 destroyed about 50,000 homes in the process.

But when you have a certain number of cars that definitely WILL be on the freeway each day, in a system designed to only handle a fraction of that, you can't just sit here and be afraid to expand because somehow it will mythically create more cars to be on the roads. We need to figure out a way to expand as EVERY other city/metro area does to keep up with demand!

I think the loop around the metro area as other discussed is a great idea that I am shocked hasn't already been done- most other metro areas have these, because it makes total sense to take the huge amount of pass-through traffic we have and route them elsewhere, so they are not clogging up the freeways through our two major downtown areas- keep those freed up for more local traffic. If that were done, what we currently have with I-5 and I-405 may be fine.

[Garethe]

Originally Posted by BellevueNative

I'm guessing OP doesn't live here, since he seems to not know anything about the Hwy 99 tunnel project.

Or the history trying to get funding for various projects, not all the money is federal. Much of it is state which stirs up eastern washington vs. seattle debates in Olympia.

[BATCAT]

Originally Posted by jm31828

But when you have a certain number of cars that definitely WILL be on the freeway each day, in a system designed to only handle a fraction of that, you can't just sit here and be afraid to expand because somehow it will mythically create more cars to be on the roads. We need to figure out a way to expand as EVERY other city/metro area does to keep up with demand!

I think the loop around the metro area as other discussed is a great idea that I am shocked hasn't already been done- most other metro areas have these, because it makes total sense to take the huge amount of pass-through traffic we have and route them elsewhere, so they are not clogging up the freeways through our two major downtown areas- keep those freed up for more local traffic. If that were done, what we currently have with I-5 and I-405 may be fine.

What if we widened the 405 and then just got rid of I-5 through Seattle completely?

6 Freeway Removals That Changed Their Cities Forever

[PrincessoftheCape]

Originally Posted by pw72

Let's hope Light Rail can help the situation, but we are talking decades away. As for the new 99 tunnel, well, as per usual, look at the cost, overruns, and delays. Par for the course for the Seattle area.

I think the light rail is a bit of a red herring, sadly. Light rail systems are absolutely wonderful for conveying people within the urban core. Unfortunately, like busses, they stop too frequently to be really viable solutions for those approaching from far away (and the networks often don't extend that far anyway). Heavy medium and long distance trains (such as Amtrak, the Sounder, etc.) are the solution then. Unfortunately, Seattle doesn't really have the corridor capacity for additional rail service, and railroads are just as expensive as highways to build.

Like I said before, Seattle's biggest problem is that it compresses long distance travelers with metro travelers on the two north-south freeways and attempts to funnel everyone through the CBDs of two very large cities. The light rail may get some of these local bodies off the road (maybe), but its chances of alleviating the overall problem are slim.

While it's no business of mine whether or not seattleites despise the automobile, this is a Washington question that transcends the whims of just those people living in the city. The continuing and growing problems with I-5 and I-405 affect all of us living in this half of the state. And, contrary to what a car-hating washed up hippy in Seattle might believe, the issue is not simply going to go away if you light up a bowl, thrust your head into the sand and wait.

[sean98125]

One idea I've heard is to reconfigure the express lanes to have two lanes each direction through Seattle with no downtown exits. That takes the commuters off that route and makes it better for the long distance drivers and haulers. It also gives the trucks a way north through Seattle from the port. They'd merge back in to the main line around Roosevelt in the north and around Yesler in the south.

[PrincessoftheCape]

Originally Posted by sean98125

One idea I've heard is to reconfigure the express lanes to have two lanes each direction through Seattle with no downtown exits. That takes the commuters off that route and makes it better for the long distance drivers and haulers. It also gives the trucks a way north through Seattle from the port. They'd merge back in to the main line around Roosevelt in the north and around Yesler in the south.

Another idea that might work is to double deck the entire route through downtown. While this would be costly, it would possess the advantage of not dramatically widening the highway's footprint. I have no idea, however, if double decking is even a possibility anymore in a severe earthquake zone.

[Backstrom]

Originally Posted by jm31828

But when you have a certain number of cars that definitely WILL be on the freeway each day, in a system designed to only handle a fraction of that, you can't just sit here and be afraid to expand because somehow it will mythically create more cars to be on the roads. We need to figure out a way to expand as EVERY other city/metro area does to keep up with demand!

I think the loop around the metro area as other discussed is a great idea that I am shocked hasn't already been done- most other metro areas have these, because it makes total sense to take the huge amount of pass-through traffic we have and route them elsewhere, so they are not clogging up the freeways through our two major downtown areas- keep those freed up for more local traffic. If that were done, what we currently have with I-5 and I-405 may be fine.

You don't blindly add road capacity. You figure out how to direct your growth and create alternative commute options, like transit, van/carpool, bike/ped infrastructure, etc. You will NEVER be able to keep pace with population growth by building roads alone.

[jm31828]

Originally Posted by Backstrom

You don't blindly add road capacity. You figure out how to direct your growth and create alternative commute options, like transit, van/carpool, bike/ped infrastructure, etc. You will NEVER be able to keep pace with population growth by building roads alone.

But when you are already as far behind that curve as we are, you do have to expand to at least CATCH UP with the demand. Once we get there, then yes you work on planning and all of the other things you mentioned before decisions are made for further widening.

[PrincessoftheCape]

Originally Posted by jm31828

But when you are already as far behind that curve as we are, you do have to expand to at least CATCH UP with the demand. Once we get there, then yes you work on planning and all of the other things you mentioned before decisions are made for further widening.

I wouldn't fight it. The problem is, simmering just beneath the surface for a lot of these people is a pronounced hatred of anything with an internal combustion engine. Until vehicles start burning a combination of fairy dust and moonbeams, roughly half of Seattle will despise anything that isn't pedal-powered.

This ideology is one of many that the lunatic local majority have adopted as a replacement for religion in their lives (sort of. It bears mentioning that many of these same people worship our sitting president as a stand-in deity). And they adhere to the tenets of this 'pseudo spirituality' as blindly and rigorously as a Georgia snake handler, with none of the accompanying compassion. Advocate building highways? You're a obviously heretic. Start gathering wood for the bonfire.

[JBVirtuoso]

Originally Posted by PrincessoftheCape

I wouldn't fight it. The problem is, simmering just beneath the surface for a lot of these people is a pronounced hatred of anything with an internal combustion engine. Until vehicles start burning a combination of fairy dust and moonbeams, roughly half of Seattle will despise anything that isn't pedal-powered.

This ideology is one of many that the lunatic local majority have adopted as a replacement for religion in their lives (sort of. It bears mentioning that many of these same people worship our sitting president as a stand-in deity). And they adhere to the tenets of this 'pseudo spirituality' as blindly and rigorously as a Georgia snake handler, with none of the accompanying compassion. Advocate building highways? You're a obviously heretic. Start gathering wood for the bonfire.

I wouldn't say Seattle really has this kind of "hatred" - it has a higher rate of car ownership than many other large cities in the US (NYC, Boston, DC, San Francisco, Chicago, and a few others). It should also be noted that these cities are also not doing much to expand highway capacity. Manhattan, San Francisco, and DC barely have any inner city highways to begin with. Chicago has major highways in the city, but like Seattle, there's not really any room to expand them at this point. Chicago is building some new highways in the outer suburbs. The best example here of an urban highway expansion is probably Boston's Big Dig, and we all know how that went.

The places in the sunbelt that are expanding highways have rapidly growing populations expanding outward from the city center, whereas growth in Seattle is more focused on in-fill development. The sunbelt has a completely different approach to development - bigger houses, larger lots, and large subdivisions for houses that are separated from commercial districts. With that kind of development, it becomes a necessity to have roads capable of moving lots of traffic at high speeds. Seattle doesn't have the same needs.