For months, Seattle-area residents have been warned that the partial closure of northbound I-5 leading to downtown would result in an apocalyptic traffic jam stretching all the way to Tacoma. Instead commuters taught the region a lesson.
What happened? As the P-I put it, "looks like a little planning goes a long way." People adjusted by finding alternate routes, taking transit or working remotely. Traffic sailed by on the two open lanes of I-5, buses and the Sounder trains (including an extra run added for the 19-day closure) were at full capacity. Apparently alternate roads were busy but far from gridlocked.
The clear takeaway is that people are more flexible than they think. In this case, there is a strong incentive (not wasting hours in traffic) to find alternatives. It's exactly what would happen if the viaduct freeway were replaced with a combination of better transit and a more efficient network of surface streets. It's exactly what would happen if there were tolls based on the amount of congestion on the roads. As long as there are effective alternatives (like far more transit, better carpool lanes) people will take them.
The same happened with the SF I-580 overpass meltdown a couple months ago and the more recent I-35 Minneapolis bridge collapse. The anticipated massive gridlock did not materialize.
Maybe fear is the best way to keep people out of their cars.
Posted by: vincent | August 13, 2007 at 15:01
Yep. Here's what happened in CA: http://www.cascadiareport.com/cascadia_report/2007/04/how_the_bay_are.html
Seattle's viaduct is in worse shape than the I-35 bridge was. When it collapses we'll all adjust and realize there's no need to rebuild it.
Posted by: brad | August 13, 2007 at 15:26
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the data that accompanies this situation. How many people relocated for the 19 day closure, how many aligned their summer vacations with the closure, how many are working remotely? In other words how many “alternative routes” are short-term and not actually long term solutions? It just begs for a pie chart…
Posted by: Andrew | August 14, 2007 at 19:19
like Andrew's question. It would be interesting to know how many of the changes are short-term. My personal thought is that more and more people will go back to driving and traffic will get much worse for I-5 and the other routes. People are creatures of habit and people will go back to their old ways and that means driving.
Fall sports for high schools start Monday and that means thousands of more cars go to and from practice and that is going to traffic. Life gets in the way and unless there is a lifestyle change, people are going to drive. Look at your test of the bus ride home from work. Almost 2 hours to take the bus 15 miles. So you drive. Eventually, the alternates will no longer be convenient and people will choose to sit in their cars to be able to have the lifestyle they want.
Posted by: Chong | August 15, 2007 at 08:46
No question, most of the changes are short-term. So how do we encourage making the lifestyle changes that will actually help improve mobility.
This is a big start: http://www.cascadiareport.com/cascadia_report/2007/08/tolling-money-f.html
Posted by: brad | August 15, 2007 at 13:54
I'll say that new roads are not the solutions. The solution is better planning of communities that prevent the need to drive. This, in my opinion, is a combination of buses and a light rail/subway that goes to every major public space.
This is going to cost a lot of money and take a long time but we are at a crossroads and we need to get over the fact our taxes are going to go up and gas is going to get the crap taxed out of it.
If we start now, maybe in 50 years, we'll be able to not even own a car.
Posted by: chong | August 15, 2007 at 22:31