The article below is a DOE study looking at the factors affecting vehicle miles traveled VMT). It is a little weak in the demographics department (particularly with reference to economic factors, women in the work-place, and increased number of linked trips) but it does show certain things crystal clear. Even a doubling of transit use (and the trends have been in the OTHER direction) really wouldnt make much of a difference in VMT, because transit has declined to where it represents a negligible fraction of total passenger miles. The graph on page 15 demonstrates this pretty vividly. From:

Factors That Affect VMT Growth Vincent Schaper, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Philip Patterson, U.S. Department of Energy February 12, 1998

2.8.1 Carpooling Carpooling has declined in share of travel in spite of growth in high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and other carpool incentives. The Texas Transportation Institute reports that the number of miles of HOV lanes has grown from 10 miles in 1970 to 540 miles in 1994. 2.8.2 Mass Transit Mass transit has played a decreasing role in the US over time as the nation has become more spread out and household vehicle ownership has increased. Cheap fuel prices and suburban growth led to a long period of transit decline from the late 1940s to early 1970s. Mass transit is still declining today as a percent of overall travel, despite substantial federal, local, and state commitment to transit infrastructure.

http://www.ott.doe.gov/pdfs/vmtwhite.pdf

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 21, 1999

Answers

Warning: Don't get too riled, since this is just speculation.

With Eyman's latest initiative aimed at directing funds to solve traffic problems...

Most of the people posting messages here seem to prefer reducing ferry and transit subsidies and prefer more funding be directed to highway construction to relieve congestion. So adding additional highways and bridges to link the Puget Sound area sounds like the preferred solution.

So, to improve the link to and from the Olympic Peninsula, there be an additional 8 lanes be added with a bridge built from Gig Harbor-to-Vashon and another bridge from Vashon-to-Seattle. And maybe another bridge across the sound connecting Bainbridge-to-Mukilteo to take care of the North end commuters. Now those people can commute like the rest of us.

To handle the North-South commuters, doubling the capacity of I-5 through the Seattle area should take care of things. Additional roadway could be built on to of the existing roadway in some areas. In other areas, it would probably need to be built along side displacing existing homes and businesses. Of course, you could dig down and build under the existing roadway, which is a more expensive option, but it looks much nicer.

There are also some North-South commuters that need to by-pass Seattle completely. So some similar projects need to happen with I-405 and Highway 167 all along the eastern side of Lake Washington and down through Tacoma. Maybe highway 167 could be extended to by-pass downtown Tacoma.

Of course, to handle the East-West commute, the 520 bridge really needs another 4 lanes each way. And I-90 could use a couple more lanes. In these cases, it doesn't seem reasonable to build on top of the existing floating bridges, so we probably will have to displace some homes and businesses to build along side the existing roadway.

That should solve the traffic problems in Western Washington. And Western Washington residents should thank Eastern Washington residents who will help foot the bill.

-- Gene (Gene@Gene.com), December 21, 1999.

"Warning: Don't get too riled, since this is just speculation. " Actually, it looks more like you got some bad weed, man!

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

Zowie,

Craig has basically championed the "Reduce transit/ferry subsidies & increase roadway capacity" issue. Many people have expressed similar feelings of which they are entitled to.

If reducing transit and ferry subsidies is the goal. Most will agree that the answer will probably be a combination of reducing service and increasing user fees. Coming up with an answer is relatively straight forward.

But the issue of increasing roadway capacity is much more vague. There are many questions that need to be answered.

Where is increased capacity needed? When is it needed? Do we allow for growth? How is the increased capacity to be provided? How much will it cost? How is it going to be funded?

I agree that my input was a bit over the top. I could have taken even farther by suggesting a bypass highway even farther east of Bellevue. However, the intent was to get those people who have expressed similar opinions as Craig, to consider what they specifically want and what it might take to get it.

And if everyone considered how their specific wants when combined with everyone else's specific wants, then they might have a better understanding of what the "increasing roadway capacity" might really mean.

So, Zowie, is there something constructive that you have to offer?

-- Gene (gene@gene.com), December 22, 1999.

"So, Zowie, is there something constructive that you have to offer? "

Sure- Open HOV lanes to all classes of users. Then build roads for cars/light vehicles ONLY. Many of the costs of road constuction are due to the requirements of oversize vehicles and oversize loads. We used to have specific truck routes for these vehicles, but the trucking lobby got written into the law a requirement that all roads that are partially federaly funded must accomodate heavy trucks. I think we OUGHT to have a bypass aroung Seattle for trucks that are just passin through, funded by the truckers. I think we ought to add more car (not general purpose) lanes paralleling I-5, that won't necessarily require the real high overpasses and other things that are truck (and bus) requirements, that drive up the cost. If you want to pay for them with tolls, OK, as long as cars aren't excluded from existing highways.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.

One of the purposes for building the Interstate Highways was to facilitate the movement of troops for the defense of the nation. Another was to facilitate the movement of goods/commerce. Both of these purposes would require interstate highways to handle large oversized loads.

I would guess that these were the basis that the trucking lobby used to get what they wanted.

I'm not sure if accommodating commuter traffic was one of the primary purposes for the interstate.

But you have made some interesting suggestions... Thank you.

-- Gene (gene@gene.com), December 22, 1999.

"One of the purposes for building the Interstate Highways was to facilitate the movement of troops for the defense of the nation. Another was to facilitate the movement of goods/commerce. Both of these purposes would require interstate highways to handle large oversized loads. " And valid purposes they are. That doesn't necessarily mean that EVERY lane has to have this capability though.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.