April 07, 2008
More Lane Capacity DOES improve traffic flow--Here's Proof

For years, our commute off the plateau to school each weekday morning used to be 25 long minutes. Occasionally it was even worse than that.

But now it's down to 10 minutes. How did this amazing achievement occur?

More lanes.

Yep---despite the false claims of anti-roads leftists that more lanes doesn't ease traffic, it certainly did over here in outer Redmond/Sammamish at the intersection of Sahalee Way and Redmond-Fall City Road, also known as SR-202.

Getting off the plateau and driving westbound into Redmond had been an increasing nightmare since the late 90's, as more people moved to the area. Over the last five or so years, road improvements have been made from the Hwy 520 onramp on the east side of downtown Redmond eastward, to eventually deal with the problem. Progress has been slow but steady. Lanes were added, Redmond-Fall City road was widened. And now there are even two lanes off of Sahalee Way at the SR-202 intersection to empty the cars onto SR-202 twice as fast as before. A new fly-over ramp just opened in downtown Redmond to help get cars onto Westbound Highway 520 much more quickly than before. Most of the work on this long-term project looks to be completed, and the traffic flow into downtown Redmond is amazingly better. Many of the final changes have been instituted in just the last couple of weeks. The results are extremely impressive.

Widening roads and adding lanes DOES work. Just ask the commuters driving off the Plateau or driving westbound from east Redmond/Fall City everyday.

The next time someone tries to claim it doesn't, ask them why traffic is moving so much better out our way. These improvements benefit EVERYONE. It's a much better use of tax dollars than pouring them into mass transit that relatively few people will ever use.

Posted by MicheleDeRouis at April 07, 2008 07:35 PM | Email This
Comments
1. If the theory that more lanes=more congestion were correct, then by the same token less lanes could mean less congestion. That would mean that Christine, Ron, and WSDOT should be able to improve congestion, at least in some cases, by the low-cost measure of some orange barrels.

That they haven't even suggested this option tells me how much they really believe in the 'lane travel' theory.

Posted by: russell garrard on April 8, 2008 09:46 AM
2. We wouldn't be sitting in traffic burning large amounts of C02 if we could zoom down the lane and get home.

Has anyone noticed all the Buzz about the Carpool lanes on I167 being set up to accept tolls if you choose to drive in them? Uh OK

Well WHY have they put their transponders over NOT ONLY THE carpool lane, but the Middle lane also, leaving only ONE lane on I167 for non tolled traffic.

Part of some untold plan?


Posted by: Gs on April 8, 2008 07:46 PM
3. Same is true down here in Tacoma. There were times when I would wait in hour long traffic jams to cross the Narrows Bridge. Now traffic is a distant memory with a wide open freeway flowing well in both directions at all times. Capacity matters.

Similarly, there were often big backups through the curves of I-5 where it went through downtown Tacoma and through the 16 interchange. Especially Northbound where there was a particularly ridiculous and poorly designed merge from 16E to I-5N. That's also fading in memory with a much better and more more subtly curved design.

Much of the road system in this state was built in the 50s and 60s. Like anything that old, there is a need to maintain it and update it for modern vehicles, modern road surface technologies, etc.

And when we do, it solves problems and frankly carries many, many times the volume of a puny two car light rail train moving 30 mph through Rainier Valley on a single track.

But, the goal of the Progressive left and the envrio-nuts is not efficient transit. The goal is inefficient socialism rammed down your throat whether you like it or not. And don't you dare question them, or they'll slap a fairness doctrine on you and label you a Nazi.

Posted by: Jeff B. on April 8, 2008 09:56 PM
4.
The argument is that more lanes will make people move further out to cheaper suburban land.

However (a) the suburbs are expensive too (b) the net migration into the Puget Sound has ground to a halt (c) it would probably be a good thing if people who work on the Eastside moved to Bellevue (if they like cities) or the other suburban areas rather than jamming on the bridge every day.

We do need to expand roads...but we also need to relocate the center of activity to downtown Bellevue instead of Seattle. New Sonics stadium? Sure.

Posted by: John Bailo on April 10, 2008 11:00 AM
5. The Seattle Times had a great article written by a UW proffessor on why housing prices in Seattle are so high that no-one can afford them.

"Rules add $200,000 to Seattle house price"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004181704_eicher14.html

"Theo Eicher, founding director of the UW's Economic Policy Research Center, states in this Seattle Times article, that Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations."

And Greg Nichols and Ron Sims will tell you they are trying to figure out how to make Seattle Housing affordable"

Yeh Right!

Posted by: GS on April 10, 2008 04:43 PM
6. But if we build it they will come.
LOL

Posted by: Publicbulldog on April 11, 2008 03:40 PM
7. Ha--Publicbulldog: Even when they WEREN'T building it, people were still coming. So they might as well build it, eh? "-)

Posted by: Michele on April 11, 2008 05:32 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?