Traffic Volumes in Seattle Are Down. So Why Are We Building More Highways?

Well, we are building the bored tunnel because we are tearing down the viaduct, stupid. That is a net loss of lanes.

The 520 bridge is not a “new highway”, genius. It is a replacement for the current bridge, which will be torn down.

You actually needed someone to explain this to you?

I guess a better question would be: why are we wasting tens of billions of dollars on more light rail, if all the streets and highways in our area are so congestion-free? Buses cost a fraction of what light rail costs, and, obviously, Erika, the transportation genius, says there is a vast amount of unused roadways in our area for more buses!

Forget the light rail. High mpg cars are the way of the future, along with bus rapid transit for trips into and out of downtown. According to cola's transportation guru we have plenty of road capacity. Let's use it!

You realize the deep bore tunnel won't have any ramps downtown, right? Hang out at 1st and Columbia during rush hour sometime and watch the commuter traffic. Funny you mention buses as part of that project; a new MVET to fund transit was part of the state-city-county agreement, but Gregoire vetoed it.

WTF are you talking about, 2 “new” highways, 6 “new” lanes of traffic across Lake Washington? These roads are not being duplicated, they are being replaced because they're falling apart. You can talk about the net change in capacity if you want but you just look manipulative when you try to position necessary replacements as “new”.

Since your worldview covers maybe 10 square miles, you might be surprised to learn that if you let 2 of the 4 major Seattle highways fall into ruin, the economy will be majorly impacted. The same economy that, even now, is struggling to maintain your precious bus service and many other essential services. It's not like people (or buses) can just use surface streets to get across Lake Washington. I know it's comforting for you to close your eyes and pretend the rest of the county doesn't exist, but for better or worse the region is interconnected.

Erica, you're smarter than this. If you want to be taken seriously you have to learn how your pet issues fit into a holistic understanding of the world. Your essay on why you personally gave up owning a car was effective food for thought. This “TWO WHEELS GOOD, FOUR WHEELS BAD!!!1!1!” drivel makes people far less likely to listen to what else you have to say.

K3 – Can you back up the claim that Seattle's economy would be majorly impacted (I assume you mean negatively) if highway capacity is reduced? Please show some examples of cities that significantly reduced highway capacity and as a result have a less vibrant economy. I'm not aware of any.

If it's not too personal…
There's a Grover on the board of the SSCPC. Must be about eighty now. You speak like a member of the SSCPC.
But are you really Grover? Or are you using the name out of a false sense of respect for the real one?

Something Ray would do.

I agree with you on the tunnel. I oppose the tunnel. We should rebuild the viaduct. Costs less money and moves more people.

But just tearing down the viaduct and replacing it with nothing, as the author seems to suggest, would be very stupid.

My main point is that the tunnel is not NEW capacity — it is just a partial replacement of the existing viaduct, which is going to be torn down, unfortunately.

Never heard of him, or the SSCPC. I am not that Grover, if such a person does exist.

What cities in the U.S. can you name that have significantly reduced highway capacity?

Is there a list of these counts that puts one year next to another?

I'd say the economy just might have something to do with a drop between 2006 and 2008. Unemployment – October 2006 4.1% October 2008 5.5%.

Not only that but LR is only averaging about 10% of capacity (16 people on a car at average).

What does 25% of capacity for a road even mean? The traffic reduction designs SDOT has building are working. Seattle has the most congested streets in the country (Tom-Tom GPS study) which might be reducing counts.

What's the current usage percentage of “capacity” for existing bike and pedestrian infrastructure?

What do you think? Maybe 1/10%.

I think it is hardly a “given that this trend is unlikely to reverse itself” — if anything, better fuel efficiency would on balance tend to push up miles driven.

On a side note, Cary moon is apparently pretty easily boggled.

Bullshit.

Erica,

Are you unable to read? or are you dishonest?

Your post hangs on the Sightline report. One factor in the Sightline report — blithely ignored — which might just happen to be one of the reasons why traffic might be down:

“Unemployment is up. Recession has hit the Northwest hard, and many are out of jobs. Last year’s combination of high fuel prices and tight family budgets trimmed fuel consumption dramatically.”

You ignore a major factor in order to help your argument. Are you sloppy? (I am being polite.) Or dishonest?

You know I'd like to agree with you — as surely you agree with the sentiments in “City Comforts.” But your casual indifference to reality-based thinking is such a turn-off to alliance.

You are a smart woman and your heart seems to be in the right place — but distortions push your good intentions into comedy.

As Ivan quoted from Pulp Fiction the other day, let's don't start sucking each other's d***** just yet. Unless ECB really wants the recession to last forever, this reduction is in fact “likely to reverse itself” soon enough.

It wasn't a trend, it was a anomaly (and as I recall, the Texas Transportation Institute reached pretty much the same conclusion, and this was pretty widely reported at the time)

http://www.inrix.com/pressrelease.asp?ID=65

INRIX National Traffic Scorecard Reveals Startling 30 Percent Decrease in Traffic Congestion in 2008
Study that ranks 100 worst congested cities cites tumbling economy and fuel price volatility as causes for unprecedented decline in traffic congestion

INRIX®, the leading provider of traffic information, today released its second annual INRIX National Traffic Scorecard, revealing a 30 percent decline in traffic congestion in 2008 during the peak periods on major roads in urban America. Overall the report found that 99 of the top 100 most populated cities in the U.S. experienced decreases in traffic congestion levels in 2008 as compared to the prior year. The Scorecard contains the most accurate and current information in the country regarding overall congestion and bottlenecks on nearly 50,000 miles of America’s major roadways, and is compiled using tens of billions of data points from INRIX’s network of nearly one million GPS-enabled cars and trucks traveling across over 800,000 miles of roads.

The report cites turbulent fuel prices and a struggling economy as sources for a consistent decline in overall traffic volume. Detroit, where the jobless rate climbed past 21 percent in 2008, saw the second largest decrease in congestion nationwide. Additionally, Riverside, Calif., which ranked third-highest in the nation in foreclosure activity during 2008, saw the highest drop in congestion of the nation’s larger regions.

“On average, Americans spent 13 hours less stuck in traffic in 2008 versus 2007,” said Bryan Mistele, INRIX president and CEO. “While less traffic is generally good news, the causes of it aren’t necessarily something to celebrate. Traffic congestion is an excellent indicator of trends, telling us whether businesses are shipping products, whether people are going to work, and whether shoppers are going to the mall. The Scorecard provides an amazing lens through which we can see these and other major events unfolding across the country.”

By analyzing traffic on major highways in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas, the Scorecard informs the ongoing debate of one of the most frustrating and intractable issues: urban traffic congestion. How bad is congestion? Where is it worst? How has it changed? What can be done about it? The Scorecard provides the most comprehensive and national scale glimpse of the answers to these questions. According to the report, the top 10 most congested cities in 2008 were:

1. Los Angeles, California

2. New York, New York

3. Chicago, Illinois

4. Dallas, Texas

5. Washington, DC

6. Houston, Texas

7. San Francisco, California

8. Boston, Massachusetts

9. Seattle, Washington

10. Minneapolis, Minnesota

Among countless significant findings, the report found the following:

• Los Angeles moved ahead of Honolulu with the highest metropolitan Travel Time Index (TTI), now 1.33 as compared to Honolulu’s 1.31.

• San Diego saw the second largest decrease in congestion (tied with Detroit)

• Minneapolis made the top 10 list for the first time (up from 13th) replacing Atlanta which dropped to 12th.

• The nation’s worst bottleneck remained the same, a westbound stretch of the Cross Bronx Expressway/I-95 leading up to and including the Bronx River Parkway exit 4B interchange.

• National congestion was lower every hour of every day in 2008 versus the year prior, 30 percent lower on average depending on the hour and day.

• 99 of the 100 regions studied saw congestion levels decrease. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, with a 6 percent increase in overall congestion, was the only region with an increase from 2007, shooting up in the metropolitan rankings from 47th to 33rd in overall congestion.

• Friday from 5 to 6 p.m. remained America’s most congested hour of the week, although the Travel Time Index (TTI) fell 23 percent. Thursday from 5 to 6 p.m. ranked as the next most congested hour.

• National congestion levels were essentially the same when comparing the first and second halves of 2008, suggesting that higher fuel prices in early 2008 and the slower economy later in the year netted the same drop in overall congestion.

• Congestion during off-peak hours (outside of the AM and PM weekday commuting times) decreased by more than 36 percent, substantially outpacing the significant drop in peak hour congestion.

• Wednesday saw the biggest drop in congestion, with a 31 percent overall decrease in peak hours.

• Each weekday morning, peak hour congestion dropped much more than its corresponding evening peak hour congestion.

The report cautions becoming lax in pushing forth infrastructure developments due to the decrease in congestion this year, because when the economy improves and if fuel prices remain affordable, traffic will likely increase again.

“While we all should cheer the reduction in congestion in 2008, we should be under no illusion that this is permanent,” said Rick Schuman, vice president of public sector, INRIX. “We must still continue to focus energies on policies and methods to reduce traffic.”

And how about the commercial property occupation rates downtown over the same period?

People go to work, any way they can, by any means.

The great Exodus has begun as the 90s sheen has worn off Seattle and what's left is a cold northern city with bad weather,overpriced apartments and tax raping politicians who drain businesses dry.

Eh, FWIW, citing a lack of evidence for your point does not prove your point.

A couple years ago, I heard that development in Seattle was some 15 to 25 years ahead of the projections made when major infrastructure was planned. With fewer cars on the road now, it's a lot closer to being on track and it's now reasonable to drive in most situations. I'm rather enjoying it.

Now I just need to get me an all-electric car that I can juice up from renewable hydro-electric and I'll be set!

The question “why are we building more highways” is a poor choice of words. Specifically the “more” qualifier.

By my tally, We are replacing an existing 6-lane highway along the watefront with a 4-lane highway below ground (that's 2 less lanes). On SR 520, we are replacing an existing 4-lane highway, and replacing it with the same 4 lanes, plus 2 HOV/Transit lanes. On I-90, we are adding light rail, not new highway lanes. So where are these “new” highways you are referring to? There was a planned extension (completion) of the SR 509 highway in Sea-Tac, but that has been shelved.

Admittedly, I-405 on the eastside is being expanded, but I would argue that over the last 40 years (since 405 was first built), Bellevue/Redmond/Newcastle/Renton have grown substantially, and the original intent of 405 (to be a bypass around Seattle for freight) is no longer the case.

Though there has been a lot of money programmed for highway work, I can't think of any “more” highways that are being built in Seattle (which is what the post focused on in terms of congestion).

I am glad to say that we are funding transit at a level that is the greatest on the entire west coast. ST2 is valued at $17 Billion.

Roads (especially bridges) do not last forever. Most of the highway infrastructure is now 50 years old. It may seem like we are concentrating so much on rebuilding our highways, but the reality is that we built most of it at the same time back in the 1950's and 1960's.

Its like if you were to move into a house, and put in all new light builbs. You would not need to spend any money on light builbs for 6-9 months, but then, all of a sudden, they would all need to be replaced. This simplistic analogy can explain why so much of our highway infrastructure is in need of help (either its crumbling (AWV, SR 520), or its current usage is well beyond its original intent (I 405).

As for congestion, to assume we will continue on a negative trend is possible, but that would also assume that our economic situation won't improve, and that our population will not increase. Not sure I would count on either of those..

ECB on highways is like the Taliban on women's literacy.

Less jobs; people aren't driving to work, can't afford to drive to entertainment; can't afford to drive to buy stuff. As soo as jobs come back (which will probably be a while), the congestion will increase again. There'd better be the roads to accommodate that volume, because those people are not going to take the almost-as-expensive bus system which doesn't get them where they need to go, when they need to get there, and there are less buses all the time because of…yes, no money for it. Bus system good: less driving. Bus system bad: more driving. Why is this portrayed as being difficult? Electric cars need roads, just as Priuses do. Anything with wheels needs roads, even bicycles.

ECB – why don't you CM commission a study of traffic counts done on the city streets the day after New Years Eve and then declare the end of the automobile based on the outcome?

And you could sell the results.

We're not replacing the viaduct with just a smaller tunnel. We're replacing the 6 lane viaduct with 10 lanes: a 4-lane deep bore tunnel for trips bypassing Seattle and a new 6-lane surface highway/boulevard above the tunnel for trips to/form Seattle. The entire point of the tunnel is to fit more lanes of traffic into a smaller space (the 4 lanes can be underneath the 6 surface lanes). Why the heck do you think WSDOT wants to build a tunnel – for the views?

We're also not replacing the 520 bridge with the same size of a highway. We're replacing 4 lanes with 6 lanes.

These are new, larger highways. 10 lanes to 16 lanes.

I'm sorry Erica missed the 2008 episode where Cary Moon attacked Gehl Architects from Denmark after the expert concluded that her preferred surface option would seriously destroy the quality of the pedestrian quality of our city. Gehl concluded that bored tunnel was the best way to deal with the Alaskan Way Viaduct, opening the waterfront to public use and keeping our streets open for transit bicycles and people.

Is this really a popular misconception – that WSDOT is replacing the 6 lane viaduct with ONLY a smaller tunnel?

The 4 lane tunnel is essentially only the “express lanes” for the viaduct replacement for people passing through Seattle. There is also a massive 6 lane surface highway (“boulevard”) that will run along the waterfront. The tunnel will go underneath the surface highway.

See the WSDOT's YouTube simulation of the surface + tunnel highways. The tunnel is relatively insignificant to Seattle compared to the surface highway.

http://www.youtube.com/user/wsdot#p/u/22/rgtOTM…

Suburban bus systems support SPRAWL, the idea of develop 'anywhere'. Plus with buses, Metro giveth and Metro taketh away.

I'd speculate less downtown traffic has something to do with the lack of and cost of parking. Wonder how many park up in lower QA or into the CD and just hop a bus or walk?? Gonna defintiely see more of that around the SE Light Rail Stations.

Build the darn tunnel through Seattle with NO on or off ramps in downtown is what I vote. Ramp them in at a connection point that also include I90 and let people escape the funnel way up north.

You've got that backwards. The deep-bore tunnel holds 6 lanes, same as the viaduct; and the surface Alaskan Way boulevard will be 4 lanes, which is less than the current Alaskan Way capacity (4 lanes to the West, and 1 lane plus 2 angle-parking lanes under the viaduct.) If you want to count the future surface boulevard, you have to count the current one, too.

Viaduct project: 12 lanes to 10 lanes. 520: 4 lanes to 6 lanes. Net: 0.

Why do we need to build more highways despite of the evidence– We don't need highways. The answer is a simple one –to keep Union Bosses happy, and also to misuse the tax payer Dollars.

4 less than the Viaduct? At both ends of the Viaduct there are only 4 lanes. How do you count 8 lanes?

Does this mean latent demand doesn't exist anymore, so we can build our way out of congestion?

Is there a single city in the U.S. which has significantly reduced its highway capacity?

That simulation does not show any 6-lane surface highway along the waterfront. I think you must be hallucinating.

Unfortunately, this video does not show at all what is planned for the waterfront, so there is no way to tell from this video. I believe there would be no more than 4 lanes along the waterfront. And there are already 4 lanes along the waterfront now, in places, which is called “Alaskan Way”, plus another lane underneath much of the viaduct along the waterfront.

You are aware that there are existing surface lanes along the waterfront now, are you not?

No, it is you that has been mis-informed. If you look at the materials that the City of Seattle's Waterfront Planning Committee (and sub-committees) are using in their deliberations to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Waterfront framework task, they are depicting a 4-lane boulevard with parking along the central waterfront. Here is a link to the meeting materials from the meeting held March 11, 2010. http://www.cityofseattle.net/DPD/cms/groups/pan…

If you go to page 21, it shows a visualization of the boulevard. There are also several cross-sections as well. None of these show what you describe; a “massive 6-lane” highway. This is to be a City street. This would assume that the tunnel is built, if not, then the street may have to be widened to accomodate the added traffic.

Anyone who thinks that not having the tunnel will make a better waterfront is grossly mistaken. The tunnel will deduct traffic from the waterfront, allowing the area to better serve other modes.

For those who lament that the money from the tunnel should be used in another fashion (like for light rail, or schools(!?), that simply won't (can't) happen. WSDOT will be forced by the legislature to allocate the money to other State highway projects.

You are either deliberately spreading mis-information, or have been given some bad facts.

Except Seattle's population is growing, John. But why start letting facts get in the way now?

I don't think he is the Grover from the SSCPC. He's an anti-rail (and anti-dedicated right-of-way for any transit) zealot who posts as Grover here, as Copernicus on the Seattle Times, as McMurphy on the PI, and as Norman on STB. I think he was also briefly Charles on STB before someone else started posting transit-friendly comments using the same handle and he got all confused about how the Internet works. Lives in QA, not South Seattle.

Why are we bulding more lanes?? Well let's see .. Country backroads have more lanes then I-405.

3 lanes on either side is ABSURD. 405 has had the same amount of pathetic lanes for the last 20 years.

DIAF greeny, take ur friends with u too.