4 ms·
This article provides weak arguments and no data to back up its claims. The reason "total gridlock" hasn't happened is as simple as the city, businesses, and in
by throwawaysea 8y ago
This article provides weak arguments and no data to back up its claims. The reason "total gridlock" hasn't happened is as simple as the city, businesses, and individuals enacting different timings/routes/operations to avoid issues. Both people and businesses are taking on those pains with the knowledge that these inconveniences are temporary, and that they can return to their normal way of life in a few weeks.
Just to provide one example, the Port of Seattle is opening freight activity at 5am instead of the usual 7am (https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/tunnel-effect/how-the-port-of-seattle-is-preparing-for-the-viaduct-closure/281-a61f4120-cac4-41b5-9681-4926cb8a5b6a https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/tunnel-effect/how-t...). Some terminals are opening 3 hours early (https://mynorthwest.com/1231341/port-of-seattle-viaduct-closure/ https://mynorthwest.com/1231341/port-of-seattle-viaduct-clos...).
Other things are in place temporarily as well - for example ferries that don't service commuter routes are temporarily operating as water taxis. There are extra temporary park and ride lots set up in some locations. And on a personal level, I have time-shifted and even cancelled some of my activities and trips to minimize the time I spend in otherwise worse traffic.
There is a cost to adapting to these circumstances - reduced quality of life, increased inconveniences, etc. Just because it is hard to measure doesn't mean it isn't happening. Frankly, assuming otherwise and boldly making claims that roads are unnecessary seems incompetent or purposefully biased.
- flaque 8y ago> The reason "total gridlock" hasn't happened is as simple as the city, businesses, and individuals enacting different timings/routes/operations to avoid issues. This is the claim of the article.
- devriesp 8y agoYes, but as OP mentions, the article totally discounts any negative affects to QOL.
- smadge 8y agoExplaining how changes to transportation patterns effect quality of life in general was way outside the scope of the article. It’s claim was limited and it argued it well: road closures don’t necessarily cause traffic congestion. It’s unclear if to me if less automobile throughput is a net positive or negative to quality of life, but that’s a separate discussion.
- tomcam 8y agoI don't think it is a separate discussion. King County's transportation district is extremely poorly run and cost overages are in the billions. The governing body is appointed and accountable to no one. If people were given a realistic estimate of the costs, both financial and quality of life, I think there would have been a drastically different outcome.
- techsupporter 8y agoWhich “transportation district” do you mean? All of them I know of are run by people who have to stand for election so they are accountable to the voters who put them there.
- smadge 8y agoAre you talking about an outcome different than the replacement tunnel? What alternative do you have in mind? Personally, I live in the South Sound and I would love alternatives that would allow me to visit the city without the hassle of bringing my car.
- electric_muse 8y agoThis article is a cousin to the other HN favorite, that building roads just creates more demand (which is suggested to make building roads seem futile). Both seem to miss the point that personal vehicular travel maximizes many individuals’ utility functions. It requires less time waiting for public options, it’s point-to-point, and generally more comfortable and private. Why is it assumed that less personal vehicle travel is objectively superior?