Is it time to build I-605?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

NAFTA has increased trade along the I-5 corridor. An awful lot of traffic traversing Seattle doesn't have Seattle as a destination, it's just passing through on the way North or South. Is it time to build a bypass?

Study renews I-605 debate: Irons wants decision on freeway through Snoqualmie Valley 2000-01-30 by Jeff Switzer Journal Reporter

A new four-lane, $1.44 billion freeway punched north and south along the Snoqualmie Valley's rivers and flood plains would pay for itself -- mostly by saving drivers 200,000 hours a year now spent in stalled traffic.

That's the conclusion of a half-million-dollar state study to be released in coming weeks on the controversial freeway, long dubbed Interstate 605, which has been fought over for at least three decades.

``When 605 came up in the past, it was largely pie-in-the-sky,'' said David Irons Jr., newly elected King County councilman who represents the district where the freeway could be built.

Traffic issues can't wait, he said. Depending on the costs, either existing streets need to be expanded or I-605 should be considered.

``It's time for discussions and hard decisions. It's time to talk about 605,'' Irons said.

-- Craig CArson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 31, 2000

Answers

It should have been built 25 years ago because, contrary to the narcissistic beliefs of the 'Royal Seattleites', all roads Do lead to Seattle but it has never been the destination of everyone who travels I-5. This state is DECADES behind the rest of the country in road technology and road common sense.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 31, 2000.

>"This state is DECADES behind the rest of the country in road technology"

Perhaps that's one reason why western Washington is so popular to those seeking a new place to live, and is one reason why the region has been constantly rated at the TOP of America's "most desireable" places to live (minus the weather) over the past 10 years.

If people prefer freeways that sprawl out in every direction, they can move to L.A., Houston, Phoenix, Orlando, or Detroit. But to no one's surprise, those freeway capitals are constantly at the BOTTOM of the "most desirable places" list. Do you see the connection? It should be obvious.

Put short: Roads are not always a good thing, and people know it.

Now whether the proposed new Interstate in Washington would be a good thing is open to interperetation. While the new freeway would relieve some traffic from I-5 through downtown (but how much is open to debate), the new freeway would at the same time cause plenty of negative effects on the other side of Lake Washington. And I'm not just talking environmental damage here, folks. The new freeway would also cause economic problems, as businesses now along I-5 in Seattle to relocate to the new freeway, thus draining Seattle of businesses, creating commerce lines that are more and more spread out (and thus costly), etc. etc.

In short, don't be so quick to back the new freeway. There are reasons that it's been on hold for 30 years. Very good reasons.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 31, 2000.


30 years ago I-405 was supposed to be the Seattle bypass. Anyone travel on SR 305 through Poulsbo? That was supposed to be a bypass around that town a number of years ago too.

Bypasses have the uncanny tendency to sprout up growth around themselves and become just as congested as the routes they were designed to relieve.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 31, 2000.


Sounds like the only problem with the proposed Interstate 605 project is it will only be four lanes. If they plan to build an entirely new freeway it should be three or four lanes in each direction with a rail system operating in the median. Sounds like the typical Washington mentality, build a half-assed road project and continually make half-assed improvements over many years, never really mitigating traffic congestion but keeping roads in a perpetual state of construction. Now that's progress!

-- James Andrews (jimfive@hotmail.com), January 31, 2000.

"with a rail system operating in the median. " Before you get too excited about rail systems, read the MIT study (website is posted on another thread). While I'll concede that if you are going to build rail. it's best to do it initially, dedicated busways (which you could also do initially) will carry a heck of a lot more people for a lot less money, if your goal is to move people. But part of the goal is just to keep through traffic (and freight) from contributing to the I-5 congestion, and rail (or busway) probably wouldn't be a big player in that issue.

"In short, don't be so quick to back the new freeway. There are reasons that it's been on hold for 30 years. Very good reasons. " Dang right. Thirty years ago the demand wasn't there, now there is.

"Bypasses have the uncanny tendency to sprout up growth around themselves and become just as congested as the routes they were designed to relieve. "

This phenomenon is known as "growth." Now if you are against "growth" (and that isn't a new position. See Emmett Watson's tongue in cheek Lesser Seattle Incorporated newspaper columns of the 60s that were parodies of downtown Seattle's Greater Seattle Incorporated), what you really want to do is drive current residents out and discourage new residents, but particularly work towards DECREASED population density. We did that for a while, by heavily taxing business which tended to decrease jobs and push people to leave. The problem is that the Seattle establishment WANTS more business (hence public subsidies to the parking garage for Nordstrom's for example), not one but TWO sports stadiums, heck, they'd get the Olympics if they could. They also WANT more population to offset the growing political clout of what used to be the suburbs hence SmartGrowth. Now the problem is that since cities were built, logistics became more difficult as size increased. So as long as we are going to allow new people to come into the area (or be born here,for that matter) faster than we are losing people, then we are going to have this problem.

"Perhaps that's one reason why western Washington is so popular to those seeking a new place to live" In a mobile society, people are attracted to PROSPERITY, which we currently have in abundance in the Puget Sound region. They were attracted here for the Yukon Gold Rush, and the North Slope Oil development built up even Pt. Barrow. If you want Seattle to be a placid little burg again, kick out Boeing and Microsoft, scale back the UW to where it was before Magnuson jump started it with federal money, close down the Hutch, get rid of the Seahawks, Mariners, and Sonics, and we'll slip back into the world's smallest big city mode that we were in before the World's Fair.

But if you, like the Seattle Establishment, LIKE the prosperity, you'd better be ready to cope with the crowds that prosperity brings. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 31, 2000.



Patrick posts "Bypasses have the uncanny tendency to sprout up growth around themselves and become just as congested as the routes they were designed to relieve."

He is absolutely right. The surest way to raise property values is to have major transportation with an interchange or stop. This is a particularly vexatious issue when moving hazardous materials. The safest place to put them is a 2 or more lane divided highway with controlled access (unless you can go with a pipeline or or a ship or barge). But as soon as you build the highway, up sprout the housing, schools and shopping, and out come the NIMBYs.

Craig also has a point, though. I-5 is not the same as Seattle Central.

Problem: Moving through traffic through, and local traffic locally. When major through roads are routed through the central city, or through its major suburbs, congestion is inevitable.

Perhaps the long term solution lies partially in sending the major North-South Cascadia traffic East of the mountains approximately along the US 395 routing.

Unlike transit, build it and they will come, in spades!

-- Terry Jackson (terryj@olypen.com), February 01, 2000.


Rail? Down the middle of the freeway? Why should new rail be built anywhere? Don't you realize there is rail all over Washington and they are removing it so dimwits can jog? Makes a lot of sense to me..

30 years ago there was no demand?

Is that why major highways were built all over the country back then?

The reason things have been on hold in Washigton is pure unadulterated stupidity..

I don't think I-5 would have been built except for the world's fair. This is an extremely backward state.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), February 01, 2000.


If money is needed to fund I-605, the humanitarians of Gig Harbor will make the great sacrifice and defer their "badly needed" new Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

Please, please. No thanks are necessary. We feel honored to be able help out others in need.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@sn.com), February 01, 2000.


"This phenomenon is known as 'growth.'"

I agree, and just how receptive to the I-605 idea do you think the people in the Snoqualmie Valley would be to this idea. "How would you rural folks like to be the next 405 corridor?" Terry has it right that the NIMBY's would be out in force, but I doubt they would wait until the thing was built to raise a fuss. It's the exact same reason why you'll never see SR 509 built the way it was designed, as a mirror to SR 167, ending in Tacoma. The cities of Federal Way and Des Moines have already said that there is no way the thing will go further south than it already is. This despite the fact that it would do wonders to relieve I-5 congestion.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 01, 2000.


605? What a joke. Why build a road that takes drivers miles out of their way, only to deposit them back onto an already congested I-5? Besides, if you want to do that, you already can.

Just take Highway 2 east to Monroe, then go south on 203 to Fall City, then take Preston-Fall City Road to I-90, then east to Highway 18, then south to 167, then south to 512, then east to I-5, then you've bypassed I-5's congestion! Of course that huge list of roads tells you about how much time it will actually take on this bypass that would supposedly save time.

If you're gonna spend money on roads, it'd be better spent expanding I-5. It's already the straightest line between two points. Of course you'd better be prepared to spend many billions, seeing how I- 5 is basically one big bridge from N 85th in Seattle all the way down to mid Boeing Field. Any expansion would probably require that this bridge be torn down and rebuilt, as the only way to fit any expansion without diplacing tons of property owners is to double deck the freeway. You guys think that light rail is expensive, just wait to see how much it'll cost to do anything with I-5...

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), February 01, 2000.



>"Why build a road that takes drivers miles out of their way, only to deposit them back onto an already congested I-5?"

BB is absolutely correct. "Bypass" freeways, as these highways are sometimes called, are rarely used by those who would bypass.

Truckers don't use bypass freeways because time is money, and the shortest distance between two points (Tacoma and Bellingham) is a straight line (I-5). So unless they are FORCED onto 605, truckers traveling North-South will always use I-5. ---Both auto commuters and tourists each behave in much the same way.

Indeed, bypass freeways are more often used by developers as a license to sprawl. This phenomenon is proven in countless cities with bypass freeways (also called "circle freeways" or "outer beltways"). Rather than alieviating traffic, these outer beltways serve instead to open up more land for unchecked development, thus dumping more traffic into a region's highway network.

The cycle feeds upon itself until peole cry out for ANOTHER bypass even further out than before, even though existing commuters never really used the first one to begin with! And soon, yet ANTOHER bypass is called for. And so on, and so on, and so on. . .

Bottom line: 605 wouldn't solve the problems we want it to solve. It would only create more problems than before. This isn't just my opinion or a hypothetical: it's stone-cold fact. But don't just take my word for it: chances are that no matter WHAT I posted here you wouldn't believe it, anyway. So for proof of this negative phenomenon of outerbelts IN ACTION TODAY that YOU CAN RESEARCH FOR YOURSELF, check out the examples of Cincinnati, OH; Indianapolis, IN; Atlanta, GA; Dalls/Fort Worth, TX; Detroit, MI; and the list goes on and on and on. . . .

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), February 03, 2000.


CS-

If you read what I posted up above, I don't even necessarily disagree with beltways contributing to growth, or if you prefer, sprawl.

But it should be plainly understood that Seattle and King County is trying to HAVE growth (as in, SmartGrowth) and my point is that if you want the growth, you'd better be willing to build the infrastructure to support it.

If you truly believe that there should be no growth, then what you really need to do is something that will drive people out of the area rather than bring them in. That would be no more difficult than to allow them to settle into the area and then to force them to use transit or walk, because people in the aggregate will not willingly use non-auto modes for a large enough proportion of their travel to offset the increase travel demand that comes with increased population. If increasing the population density by 50% is associated with tripling the transit mode share (and the NPTS indicates it comes nowhere near tripling the mode share) that would still yield a net increase in congestion, because you would have increased travel by 150% (94% of which would be auto) while increasing transit from a 2% to a 6% mode share. It's still a SUBSTANTIAL net increase in congestion, if additional roads aren't built. And this doesn't count the non-travel logistics demands (food and goods) for the new population.

So if you want to be honest like the "Lesser Seattle Incorporated" gang, and just say that you liked Seattle better with fewer people, OK CS, I've got no gripe with that. But if you are saying as King County is with SmartGrowth, that we can have our population increase and magically avoid congestion through SmartGrowth, well...... that dog ain't gonna hunt!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 03, 2000.


1. A freeway does not necessarilly result in growth in the wrong places. Someone still needs to change the land use class, and you can have an interstate next to a wheat field (I-90). It changes where growth may make sense, however, and that can result in approval of a land use change if that becomes justified. The same is true of utilities.

2. If we assume growth will occur, and that at some point in several years a bypass freeway will be needed, it makes sense to plan for it now and aquire the right-of-way before the land becomes even more valuable and is occupied by homes and industry.

3. A bypass route IS used by truckers and travelers when the direct route is conjested. Time is money, and the added miles are often better than the delay of going through traffic. I use the route around Portland, for example, when traveling south; and 512 to bypass Tacoma. In addition, the bypass route provides a way to get to the nearest route that will get you to the city. 405 takes you to I-90 or 520 or either end of I-5, so you have some options.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), February 03, 2000.


dbvz,

Than you must be one of the few people who actually use bypass freeways as they were intended to be used.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), February 04, 2000.


Did you all read today's PI? If you did, then you saw how much time I-605 would save for north-south commuters going through the Puget Sound region. A grand total of...5 minutes.

That's right, spend $1.44 billion on a new freeway to save 5 minutes. Of course that $1.44 billion is a VERY rough cost estimate, considering construction in the entire Snoqualmie Valley from Fall City up north of Monroe would have to deal with the restrictions of the Endangered Species Act. And the area is pretty much one giant wetland for its length, meaning that costs of a new freeway would end up being significantly higher than that $1.44 billion number being thrown about.

All so we can save five minutes bypassing I-5.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), February 08, 2000.



BB Did you read the PI?????? Do you know what an AVERAGE IS? So they take the average time it takes to get from point A to point B...maybe a 24/7 average......

Then they discover that.....well...maybe it takes 35 minutes at the posted speed limit....... and they mark off a section of empty road and rive the same distance at posted speed limits and it takes 30 minutes... VOILA!!!!!!!! You would only save FIVE minutes.....

Tell that to the guy who is sitting in the crap and overload of rush hour combined with the crowd of meatballs trying to go watch a baseball game and it takes him 90 MINUTES to run the gauntlet......

And during Normal rush hour it takes 60 MINUTES or more...

Average speed means absolutely NOTHING to the drivers who are stuck...

and if 605 were built then MANY MANY MANY of the trucks buses and vehicles that have absolutely NO DESIRE to even glimpse Seattle will be on a different road............. and the average time on arterial-schlerotic I-5 may drop to 20 minutes.......

USE YOUR BRAIN!!!!!1

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), February 08, 2000.


Why are we willing to build an un-tolled I-605, but my community has to pay a toll for "expansion" to Hwy 16? Until we get a "no tolls" solution, no one else should get it either.

"The enemy of the WSDOT is my friend." - Matthew M. Warren

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 09, 2000.


Toll collection facilities obstruct traffic and create congestion through the physical act of collecting tolls. After the public is sold on new roads and freeways intended to relieve present and future traffic congestion, they will still be stuck with delays if toll collection is allowed to be developed. While tolls appear to be direct funding of certain roads, the net revenue from toll collection operations do not justify the delays due to obstruction of traffic. Even with a FasTrak electronic toll collection system, there will still be the need for physical toll collection due to out of state vehicles or motorists who do not or cannot participate. Result: continued congestion.

Tolls were a device invented by politicians to obtain additional free revenue and keep a few people employed in outrageously high salary positions. The proposed second Tacoma Narrows Bridge span is being sold as congestion relief but still features toll collection producing continued congestion. It's apparent the California toll road example mentioned is clearly another government boondoggle: unrealistic expectations based on revenue estimates which never materialize. In the end the traffic situation does not improve and taxpayers lose.

-- James Andrews (jimfive@hotmail.com), February 09, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ