3 ms·
Meh. This article is way too hyper focused on one tiny corner of the city. Any and all traffic proposals must consider the greater region. I-5 into the city, 40
by forrestthewoods 12y ago
Meh. This article is way too hyper focused on one tiny corner of the city. Any and all traffic proposals must consider the greater region. I-5 into the city, 405 into Bellevue, within the city, 90/520 across the lake, etc. Almost 100% of people in the greater Seattle area care a lot of about traffic. It affects us all. Only a tiny handful care about South Lake Union specifically.
The severe lack of arterials in our region is insane. The fact that there is no reasonable way to get from Ballard/Freemont to I-5 is mind boggling. Everyone loves to bitch about the gentrification of Capitol Hill/Central District. If there was more than one tiny land mass that allowed you to get across the lake it'd be less of an issue. If 520 was accessible by Freemont, Ballard, Queen Anne, and Magnolia the area that could live on the west side and commute to the east would increase by at least 8x.
- markvdb 12y ago"If 520 was accessible by Freemont, Ballard, Queen Anne, and Magnolia the area that could live on the west side and commute to the east would increase by at least 8x." Looks like the perfect reason _not_ to increase road capacity from Freemont, Ballard, Queen Anne and Magnolia to 520. That would encourage "live on the west side, commute to the east", and a complete standstill in the long run.
- forrestthewoods 12y agoWe could pass a law saying you must live within 1 mile or your job. I don't think that'd be a good idea. Or legal. But it would improve traffic!