Various people have stated their position AGAINST transit, ferries, growth management, government subsidies (state and federal), etc. Some have provided tons of documentation supporting their position. Does anyone have SPECIFIC recommendations to resolve traffic congestion for the following commutes? And "more road construction" is not specific enough. How much road construction - 1 additional lane, or 2, or more? Bridges? Tunnels? Where would these solutions be located? Assuming that it takes time to construct these solutions, how much time is acceptable? How should these solutions be paid for?

1. Olympic Peninsula / North Seattle 2. Olympic Peninsula / Seattle 3. Olympic Peninsula / South Seattle 4. Olympic Peninsula / Tacoma 5. Vashon / Seattle 6. Vashon / Tacoma 7. Kirkland / Seattle 8. Bellevue / Seattle 9. Everett / Seattle 10. Tacoma / Seattle 11. Tacoma / Everett

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 02, 2000

Answers

A great percentage of state residents choose to live in the areas you listed. These people contribute to the congestion, and therefore become part of the problem. I would venture to say that most of the people prefer to live where they do, and put up with the traffic problems. If I was a gambling person, (and I'm not) I would just bet that most of the people that live where they do could move if they had (or wanted) to. If incentives were made for the residents to leave (mass exodus) it might be cheaper than new highway programs. Besides, I think the cost of living is a lot less in other communities of the state. I say If they want to live there, they can figure out there own solutions. How about toll roads. Wouldn't that go over big?

-- Sig Landoe (slandoe@bentonrea.com), January 02, 2000.

I am not against transit, ferries, growth management, government subsidies (state and federal), etc. I am against the way my monies have been spent over the years. Thirty years ago I traveled on a 2 lane highway which was clogged from construction projects, peak hour use, too small (2 lanes). Now...after thirty years, I get to hand down to my daughter a 2 lane, construction delayed, over used I- 405....the tune has not changed. No more money please, thank you. As to how improvements are to be paid for...DOT has not spent what funds they have had wisley.

I suggest: - 120 day trial use of all cars to use HOV lanes 24 hours per day. - Build 3rd major state route from Everett along Rt 2, Rt 203, Rt 18 and require large long haul trucks to use this route now. See what effect for 120 days. - Require other long haul trucks to stay in right lane.

-- Doug (dgoar14@hotmail.com), January 02, 2000.

I think the problem that we have is that we have leased (at an inflated price) roadway capacity rather than investing to buy capacity. Prior to 695, Metro was the biggest item in the King County Budget, but what does it give us? A third of a billion per year spent with one-third of that going for wages, one-third for capital equipment that must be amortized away over twenty years, and one-third covering the costs of doing business. How much business? About 500 million passenger miles (at about 66 cents a mile). Two and one-half times the capital investment in roads was going into transit (and this does not count Sound Transit). That equates to the annual driving needs of about 36,000 people (at 14,000 miles/Yr), in an area with a population of 1.75 million. That's a fraction over 2% of the transportation of the region, and at the end of the year all you have to show for it is old bus passes. Even a doubling of transit use (and remember, most buses are running with lots of empty seats right now, so doubling will be neither cheap nor easy) would have a trivial effect on congestion. (Heck, 27% of the trips and 8% of the system miles come from the waterfront trolley bus!) Time to divert this money back into investment. Even if they are expensive, a new road (which can also serve transit) pays dividends every single year, because you have new capacity. It's past time to build additional transit capacity with an "If we build it they will come," mentality. You built it, they didn't come. The AVERAGE metro bus carried 12.66 passengers per revenue hour in 1998 and this doesn't count deadhead runs at the start and end of each shift. The South King County runs averaged less than NINE passengers per hour. With a theoretical capcity of 845 passenger miles per hour, Metro buses chalked up 172 passenger miles per hour, about 20% of theoretical system capacity. (http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1998+All/0001/ $File/P0001.PDF) The average transit bus runs one-fifth full. Suburban runs are much less. Let's admit that we tried to sell transit and failed. Let's start building roads again.

.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 03, 2000.

Craig,

Great answer and if I never get behind another smelly, empty and slow Metro bus again, I will be happy. Our negelected freeways are the same as when they opened in the 60's and it is time to do something.

-- Jim Labyak (jimlab@msn.com), January 03, 2000.

Sig,

I'm fairly sure that encouraging people to move away is NOT the answer. Most people are here for the jobs. You also suggested the implementation of toll roads. Is that just a suggestion to reduce congestion like traffic control lights on on-ramps (They could replace those lights with toll booths!) or is it to fund additional road construction? And if it is for road construction, what construction? Where? How much?

Doug,

Your suggestion on opening up the HOV lanes for a trial period is an excellent idea. There are possible legal issues with it. Much of the highway construction was built with federal monies which may have strings attached, one of which could be the installation of HOV lanes. Opening up HOV lanes may require the state to repay the federal funds. I'm not sure. I like your idea for a bypass corridor. I'm not sure about the routes that you mentioned, but a route avoiding the central portion of King County would be nice. Would that be a 2 lanes? 4? 6? In the long term, such a by-pass could also be used to access a new airport to alleviate Sea-Tac's capacity issue, but that would be an entirely separate issue.

Craig/Jim,

As I stated in the opening question, I understand your comments against transit, but I am trying to gain an understanding of what people like you would want, NOT what you don't want. I specified some standard commutes in the Puget Sound region. If you are familiar with the commute in any of these regions, do you have any solutions to propose?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 04, 2000.

Questioning-

See parallel discussion on the "We know LINK is a loser, but what about Sounder" thread. That'll avoid double postings.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 04, 2000.

A friend of mine once suggested that we rename the HOV lane the LOV lane (for those who love to drive) and redelegate its use for single- occupancy vehicles. The other lanes would be reserved for multiple- passenger vehicles and buses. It sounded ridiculous then, but in this wacky post-695 atmosphere it sounds great! Maybe more people would start using public transportation and stop whining about traffic!

-- anonymous (anonymous@home.com), January 05, 2000.

Having commuted between Puyallup and Sandpoint every day for over 8 years before I retired, I can say in no uncertain terms that there is no traffic problem in Seattle. The problem is Boeing. There was no gridlock when Boeing was out on strike or shut down for Christmas. The solution is simple; move Boeing to Moses Lake and let them deal with the traffic congestion. Gino/

-- Gino Giannini (g_giannini@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.