This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.
Joel Connelly, on why the surface/transit alternative for the viaduct is flawed:
A guy from the state Department of Transportation called in, with ready reassurances. The waterfront lights would be synchronized. Traffic that currently drives the viaduct would “disperse” onto city streets, causing less racket on Western Avenue.
Heard that once before, in West Seattle, at a 34th District Democrats’ meeting. A leader of the People’s Waterfront Coalition leader pooh-poohed predictions of congestion on Interstate 5, and forecast that 25 percent less traffic would travel the path of a torn-down viaduct.
No evidence was given. The DOT guy who called in Friday based his prediction on “models” that the department had studied.
The truth is: You can’t forecast the future.
Next week: why global warming and evolution are just “theories.”
We certainly can forecast the future. We can’t always predict it, of course. But that hardly proves anything. Infrastructure projects are usually built based on the best evidence we have at the time. (If we knew in 1953 that Redmond, WA was going to explode into a huge job center, we might have added a lane or two to 520!) Right now the overwhelming evidence says that congestion is elastic. You build it, they will come. You don’t build it, they’ll find another way around.
Why did traffic volumes on I-5 drop so significantly last August during the construction? People carpooled or took transit. They found a way. Some of them liked it so much, they kept doing it long after I-5 reopened.
Comments are closed.