The Costs of Fixing Potholes

Every now and then, I check back on Seattle and Washington state politics, if only because it helps keep me connecting to my old stomping grounds and because it provides a refreshing change of pace from the usual Washington swamp politics that roll around.

Perfect example. Anyone who remotely follows Congress knows that every couple years they pass a "public-works" bill for highway, roads, etc. funding for the subsequent five years or so. Anyone who reads up on these bills can sum them up in one simple adjective: "behemoth."

One of my favorite adjectives, btw, kind of like how Elle Driver likes "gargantuan." However, unlike the cycloptic foe in Kill Bill, I am creative enough to find enough instances to use said adjective...like describing the massive scope and cost of federal public-works bills. These gargantuan (ha! Using Elle's adjective too) reams of legislation generally exist in the realm of some $250 billion over five years and are so stuffed with pork that it makes even the most lazy Jew flinch.

So what does all this have to do with Seattle politics, you ask? (Or don't - either way, I'm going to say anyway)

Just as there's too much spending in Washington, D.C. on projects that shouldn't get it (we all remember the legendary "bridge to nowhere" of Ted Stevens lore), there's not nearly enough in Washington state for re-building the SR 520 bridge. Just to contrast the "bridge to nowhere" with the SR 520, the longest floating bridge in the world. It carries commuters across Lake Washington, from the semi-affluent East Side (think Redmond, WA, where Microsoft is based) to downtown. On the East Side of Lake Washington, the SR 520 also connects with the I-405, one of the two main arteries that carry people up and down the West Coast (the other, naturally, being the I-5...which is like the I-95 on the East Coast).

So you could say that the SR 520 is relatively important.

Unfortunately, it's also falling apart. Washington state - to my knowledge - hasn't built a new highway in three decades and it hasn't revamped any of its existing ones. The SR 520 bridge alone is over four decades old. The damn thing could fall apart during a windstorm or an earthquake (by the WA-DOT's own admission)...both of which Washington is dreadfully overdue for. So you can understand that when I found out that Washington state is dreadfully underfunding the rebuilding of the SR 520 bridge, you could say that I became a little upset.

Not surprised, mind you. After all, this isn't exactly the first time that it's happened. The Washington state legislature is notorious for its lack of forethought...which is one of the reasons that Seattle has some of the worst traffic in the nation. The Reason Foundation put out a very interesting study regarding the future needs infrastructure-wise of commuters by 2030. They estimate that traffic in Seattle by 2030 (ceteris paribus) will be worse than Los Angeles is now.

Anyone who's heard of what traffic's like in Los Angeles now probably just felt a shiver run down their back. Anyone who's actually driven in Los Angeles before probably began shaking visibly.

What's causing all these problems, anyway? I don't agree with the Reason Foundation's claim that we simply need more roads - though it would certainly help. Actually, according to a study that the Federal Highway Administration put out in 2005 found that bottlenecks and traffic incidents (i.e. accidents) accounted for nearly two-thirds of all sources of congestion from 1993-2003. Take a look at the pie chart:

Bottlenecks and traffic incidents (particularly) can both be solved by smarter city planning...not necessarily more roads, but a more organized means to direct traffic. Personally, I think those highway signs that give up-to-the-minute info regarding traffic times across various freeways are awfully helpful. They definitely help in Southern California, that's for sure. It'd be tougher in Washington state, since there simply aren't that many freeways to choose from, but anything that gives commuters a leg up in traffic can only help congestion problem.

As for bad weather...well...we all know that won't be changing in Seattle anytime soon. But in any case, the same study also has a spiffy little index (about 3/5ths down the page) about commuting times in Seattle. The graph at the bottom of the page, Figure 3.17, Potentially Congested Highways by 2020, should be a chilling look into the future:

So do we need more and more roads? Yes, we do. As cities get larger and larger, as suburbs sprawl and sprawl, and as "exurbs" fill up from people who can't afford the suburbs, we do need more roads to accomodate them. This does mean that cities, states, and the national government are going to have to spend more money to build and upkeep those roads.

But more than that, it means we have to think smarter about how we get from one place to another. That means smarter city planning to avoid bottlenecks...and yes, it does mean vastly expanded public transportation.

Before any of that can get done, though, governments should start by fixing the 520.