Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

#21

Post by throwaway98121 »

FPGAhacker wrote: post #14
DaniloDias wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leave Seattle at 1pm. It takes 5-10 minutes to get to 90/I5. Leave at 5pm, it takes an hour. It is definitely a great example, but no one should strive to emulate it.

No kidding. Seattle should be an example of how not to plan a city. Traffic is astonishingly bad given the population.

Did they really plan it? I feel like no one expected Amazon to grow as much as they did. And the domino effect was everyone else started coming into the area because tech talent was here already (or across the lake in Bellevue and Redmond). I’m not a Seattle native so do correct me if that’s wrong.

Re: How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

#22

Post by hbosch »

DaniloDias wrote: post #12
maxsilver wrote: post #4

I'm really glad to see some cities still invest in unified, balanced public transportation infrastructure like this. Seattle is a great example of what all cities should be striving for.

Leave Seattle at 1pm. It takes 5-10 minutes to get to 90/I5. Leave at 5pm, it takes an hour. It is definitely a great example, but no one should strive to emulate it.

Seattle will always be congested due to sheer geography. It’s surrounded by water on all sides. Want to go east? You have two bridges, and neither one is particularly better for the suburbs of Bellevue and Co., since that area lies between 520 and I90. To get to West Seattle you have one bridge, or take the 2x as long drive down and around. Living out West puts you on the ferry schedule.

Seattle’s congestion is kind a crap-chute because every downtown/SLU employee is basically choked through a bridge in one way or another.

Edit: and no one wants to live south. For whatever reason. And even if you commuted south, seems like it’s about a 50% chance a semi is going to be crashed on that weird median.

Re: How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

#23

Post by BurningFrog »

hbosch wrote: post #22
DaniloDias wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leave Seattle at 1pm. It takes 5-10 minutes to get to 90/I5. Leave at 5pm, it takes an hour. It is definitely a great example, but no one should strive to emulate it.

Seattle will always be congested due to sheer geography. It’s surrounded by water on all sides. Want to go east? You have two bridges, and neither one is particularly better for the suburbs of Bellevue and Co., since that area lies between 520 and I90. To get to West Seattle you have one bridge, or take the 2x as long drive down and around. Living out West puts you on the ferry schedule. Seattle’s congestion is kind…

You can build more bridges. That is not "geography".

Re: How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

#24

Post by FPGAhacker »

tjr225 wrote: post #16
FPGAhacker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No kidding. Seattle should be an example of how not to plan a city. Traffic is astonishingly bad given the population.

The Seattle metro is a unique situation that exists outside of just city planning...we are trapped between various lakes, mountains ranges, and massive bodies of saltwater - and I don't say this in the regions defense - I have suffered an insane commute here before choosing to make the sacrifices necessary to live and afford to live in the city. At the same time the things that make commuting in this place difficult…

This is true, the geography does create some traffic funnels.

Re: How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

#25

Post by metildaa »

m741 wrote: post #18
jaggederest wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portland also entirely replaced our waterfront highway with an enormous park, probably not the precedent you're looking for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbor_Drive

Out of curiosity, why is this not a good precedent? Were the results bad, or because it's Portland?

This freeway removal project was generally considered a success, I know I rather enjoyed the benefits of the new waterfront park in Portland when I was younger. Lots of good memories!

Re: How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

#26

Post by ken »

tjr225 wrote: post #16
FPGAhacker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No kidding. Seattle should be an example of how not to plan a city. Traffic is astonishingly bad given the population.

The Seattle metro is a unique situation that exists outside of just city planning...we are trapped between various lakes, mountains ranges, and massive bodies of saltwater - and I don't say this in the regions defense - I have suffered an insane commute here before choosing to make the sacrifices necessary to live and afford to live in the city. At the same time the things that make commuting in this place difficult…

Adding highways isn't the only tool available to transportation planners. Isn't it interesting how some intersections bog down at any capacity, while others are busy and still keep moving smoothly?

There are types of lane and intersection designs which never seem to work well, and I'm surprised that more isn't done to avoid or eliminate them.

Re: How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

#27

Post by coryrc »

hbosch wrote: post #22
DaniloDias wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leave Seattle at 1pm. It takes 5-10 minutes to get to 90/I5. Leave at 5pm, it takes an hour. It is definitely a great example, but no one should strive to emulate it.

Seattle will always be congested due to sheer geography. It’s surrounded by water on all sides. Want to go east? You have two bridges, and neither one is particularly better for the suburbs of Bellevue and Co., since that area lies between 520 and I90. To get to West Seattle you have one bridge, or take the 2x as long drive down and around. Living out West puts you on the ferry schedule. Seattle’s congestion is kind…

Lots of people live to the south. Land in South Seattle has significant pollution problems though.

Re: How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

#28

Post by corprew »

throwaway98121 wrote: post #21
FPGAhacker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No kidding. Seattle should be an example of how not to plan a city. Traffic is astonishingly bad given the population.

Did they really plan it? I feel like no one expected Amazon to grow as much as they did. And the domino effect was everyone else started coming into the area because tech talent was here already (or across the lake in Bellevue and Redmond). I’m not a Seattle native so do correct me if that’s wrong.

the tunnel was always sort of dumb, but seattle had a really reasonable traffic growth plan for its expected growth. the actual growth has been way higher than the plan.

Re: How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

#29

Post by phillipcarter »

BurningFrog wrote: post #23
hbosch wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle will always be congested due to sheer geography. It’s surrounded by water on all sides. Want to go east? You have two bridges, and neither one is particularly better for the suburbs of Bellevue and Co., since that area lies between 520 and I90. To get to West Seattle you have one bridge, or take the 2x as long drive down and around. Living out West puts you on the ferry schedule. Seattle’s congestion is kind…

You can build more bridges. That is not "geography".

It is. The entire region is a giant landslide hazard, which makes it extremely time-consuming to build things, including the ends of bridges.

Re: How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

#30

Post by [deleted] »

FPGAhacker wrote: post #14
DaniloDias wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leave Seattle at 1pm. It takes 5-10 minutes to get to 90/I5. Leave at 5pm, it takes an hour. It is definitely a great example, but no one should strive to emulate it.

No kidding. Seattle should be an example of how not to plan a city. Traffic is astonishingly bad given the population.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN