talk host has 'zero cost' way to solve Seattle traffic congestion. (Sammamish: condos, daycare)

[wutitiz]

A zero-cost traffic fix for the Puget Sound area - The Dori Monson Show - MyNorthwest.com

A recent study found that Seattle traffic is sixth-worst in the nation. KIRO talk host Dori Monson proposed a solution that would cost taxpayers nothing. He wants to put government employers on varying shifts in order to get a more dispersed traffic pattern.

His idea is based on his observation of what happens to traffic on days that are holidays for most gov't workers, but not for most private sector workers (veterans day, MLK day for example). On those days, he says that even during peak hours most traffic is at the speed limit. It only takes a 10% reduction in the number of vehicles on the road to go from gridlock to the speed limit.

Government workers represent 18% of the workforce in WA, according to Monson. Nationally I think the number is about 16%, so we are a little higher than average. Anyway, it would only take moving 55% of the gov't work force to odd shifts in order to achieve a 10% reduction in cars on the road during rush hour. That's actually understated since some gov't workers already work odd shifts. Monson thinks the number is about 2/3rds, or 66%.

What do you think? Could it work? Could we obviate the need for $10 billion in tax revenue that is currently being sought by Gov. Jay Inslee, just by moving a few gov't workers' shifts around?

[Hemlock140]

No, that won't work. We live in Sammamish along with many, many Microsoft employees, who have staggered start times. All that does is to extend the rush hour to 3-4 hours on Bel-Red, 520, 202, and East Lake Sammamish Parkway.

What's worse, is that it will play havoc with the transit. Metro is already planning big budget cuts and reduction of routes, eliminating those with less passengers. Stretching out the commute will mean more cars on the freeway because the early and late people will have no bus option.

[flyingsaucermom]

I agree with above. Staggering workers doesn't mean they won't be using roads during peak hours... daycare, school and most other businesses operate between 7am-7pm, therefore, all social and economic transactions will still need to take place in that time frame as well. The density of bus ridership is really important in order to keep routes viable. Staggering will only defuse riders and risk route cancellations, forcing even more cars into the extended congestion. The only way to reduce the number of cars on the road is to make them more of an inconvenience than other forms of transportation.

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

No, that won't work. We live in Sammamish along with many, many Microsoft employees, who have staggered start times. All that does is to extend the rush hour to 3-4 hours on Bel-Red, 520, 202, and East Lake Sammamish Parkway.

What's worse, is that it will play havoc with the transit. Metro is already planning big budget cuts and reduction of routes, eliminating those with less passengers. Stretching out the commute will mean more cars on the freeway because the early and late people will have no bus option.

I disagree with the first paragraph. If you move a person's commute from, say, 8:30AM/5:30 PM to 1:30PM/10:30PM, you're distributing the load more evenly. You might be extending 'rush hour' to 4 hours instead of 2-3 hours, but you're also reducing the intensity of rush hour at any given time.

The second paragraph seems to me a legit point. But there could be ways to solve it. Perhaps gov't workers who use transit every day could be exempted from staggered shifts. In fact that would be a win-win, because it would create a huge incentive for gov't workers to use transit. Another possibility would be to offer van pools for workers who don't have a bus option.

[Transmition]

Good luck convincing that many people to change their work hours to inconvenient times.

It won't "solve" congestion, just spread it out more.

[mkarch]

How would adding logistical overhead to every government agency not increase cost to taxpayers?

Aside from that, there are 2 flaws in reasoning:

- The reduction on government holidays isn't just due to government workers
- Getting rid of congestion is only going to encourage more people "save money" by living in more geographically undesirable locations - which will in turn create more congestion


Aside from that, the main issue is a whole lot of people don't have a short/fast commute as a high priority, at least not above having a larger/newer house. As long as that's the case, the same kind people that purposely chose to live far away from work are still going to continue to make that choice. (yeah, it's not always a choice, but in a lot of cases it is)

[jm31828]

Originally Posted by mkarch

How would adding logistical overhead to every government agency not increase cost to taxpayers?

Aside from that, there are 2 flaws in reasoning:

- The reduction on government holidays isn't just due to government workers
- Getting rid of congestion is only going to encourage more people "save money" by living in more geographically undesirable locations - which will in turn create more congestion


Aside from that, the main issue is a whole lot of people don't have a short/fast commute as a high priority, at least not above having a larger/newer house. As long as that's the case, the same kind people that purposely chose to live far away from work are still going to continue to make that choice. (yeah, it's not always a choice, but in a lot of cases it is)

The first argument is not really a good one, because most people don't just decide they WANT to live far from work. They do so because they simply cannot afford to live close to where they work. For example where I work, the area nearby is very expensive- it would probably be 750,000 for a house in the area, and condos would by sky high as well. So I live just far enough to get an affordable home, but yet not too far for my commute. It's just the way it is, I'd love to live close to work, but I would have to be one of the executives at the company to be able to afford to live nearby!
And even if I could, it doesn't mean I'm at this job forever- what if I get laid off and end up taking a job in a completely opposite area? DO I need to sell my home and move every time I get a new job? That would be ridiculous.

We can't purposely keep congestion just to try to force people not to drive. Mass transit works in certain situations going to/from certain places, but is not a solution for everyone- it is just one piece to the puzzle. Like it or not, driving is another bigger piece that will always exist, no matter how good our mass transit is.

And with that being said, I like Monson's idea, it should be something that is looked into before billions of dollars are spent to try to widen roads. (which absolutely does need to be done if no other solution such as Monson's is found, because we are a growing metro area and just as with every other growing metro area in the country, highways/roads have to be updated and widened to keep up with demand. Not doing so is like constricting a fire hose when trying to put out a fire, it can have a negative effect on the whole area's economy, directly affecting commerce).

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

I disagree with the first paragraph. If you move a person's commute from, say, 8:30AM/5:30 PM to 1:30PM/10:30PM, you're distributing the load more evenly. You might be extending 'rush hour' to 4 hours instead of 2-3 hours, but you're also reducing the intensity of rush hour at any given time.

Since most government workers are union, I doubt that they would agree to a contract requiring a large number of them to work those hours.

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

Since most government workers are union, I doubt that they would agree to a contract requiring a large number of them to work those hours.

Something like this would have to be done via initiative. Not being a lawyer, I have no idea if it's feasible. For example could state law direct cities or counties how to schedule their work force? I have no clue. But I do know that the law supersedes the contract. If it were passed into law, they would have no choice (other than to quit their jobs and go to the private sector).

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by Transmition

Good luck convincing that many people to change their work hours to inconvenient times.

It won't "solve" congestion, just spread it out more.

But spreading out congestion does in fact solve it. Again, if you take a car that is on the road every day at 8 AM, and instead move it to, say 4:30 AM when the roads are relatively empty, you have just reduced congestion.

If we could take the total traffic load for a day and evenly distribute it from 12 AM to 12 PM, we would probably all be driving at the speed limit everywhere, 24/7. In other words, the congestion problem is solved.