[jhatax]

While it might not be super accurate, this simple site captures the way people panic in the PNW when it snows. It’s not uncommon to see cars abandoned on the side of roads (SR-520 in Washington, for example).

Thanks for making me smile this morning.

[qbasic_forever]

Having grown up in the midwest and moved to the PNW as an adult, the PNW does not manage snowfall in populated areas. This is not a fault of the people but rather the infrastructure--there just aren't enough plows, de-icing agents, etc. In Ohio for example when winter storm warnings occur there will be armies of plow drivers mobilized and removing snow almost the minute it hits. They realize the sooner you can get it off the road the easier it will be in the long run to keep everything clear. In Seattle unfortunately it will snow on the roads, stay there and get compacted, icy, hard, etc. and be much harder to remove (and much, much more dangerous to drive on especially with the hills in the city).

[AstroDogCatcher]

Exactly the same situation in the UK - snow is common but rarely persistent enough to justify the infrastructure investment to deal with it. Also, having an excuse to combine moaning about the weather with moaning about our inept government is basically enough to trigger a collective national orgasm.

[midasuni]

Plenty of plows and gritters in Scotland (all with names like Lord Coldemort and Buzz Lightyear)

A fair number of plows in northern England too, the A66 across the Pennines is often blocked. Further south it’s typically just gritters spreading salt on the roads, but it’s rare to have the type of snow you need to shift.

We had heavy snow in the south east and northern france back in December 2010, my flight to the US was cancelled on the 22nd, I managed to get one from Paris to Newark for the 23rd, and had to drive from Bedfordshire to Paris. Felt like a massive blizzard driving though it, could barely see the tracks of the vehicle 800 yards ahead coming down through france.

Landed in a clear New York on the 23rd, but then went out for dinner opposite the hotel in Tribecca, possibly that night. The snow came down, and kept coming. First time I’d ever seen a snow plow in person, and the drifts the next morning with covering taxis. It was a different world to the 3-6” of heavy snow we were used to.

[steelstraw]

But is it worth having such infrastructure in the PNW? How often would it be used compared to Ohio?

[reilly3000]

Spokane in eastern WA stands in contrast, where there is an average annual snowfall of 44 inches and 17 inches of rain. Seattle averages 5 inches of snow and 40 inches of rain. Hence Spokane maintains an enviable fleet of snowplowing equipment and a deep bench of citizens-plowers… Seattle has little of that sort but quite a bit of rainwater harvesting.

[noahtallen]

Exactly. In the 20-21 winter, there was one meaningful snowfall which stuck for two days. The “big” road nearby got plowed maybe once, along with the interstate getting regular plowing. That’s “good enough” for most people.

In the mountains in the PNW, there seems to be plenty of heavy-duty equipment for snow. But in the cities at 0 elevation, it’s just not worth the money, unless it starts snowing more frequently!

[qbasic_forever]

It's not--I agree and think the PNW manages snow just fine on the whole. It's why these comments trying to blame the drivers are so silly.

[redisman]

0-5 days per year

[vvanders]

West WA doesn't have the infrastructure to clear the roads(which makes sense given how infrequently it snows) combine that with some steep areas and it's fairly predictable what happens.

[cronix]

Western OR is the same way. Portland rarely gets snow, so we have basically no snow plows and have to just wait it out. It's also rare that the snow isn't preceded by a lot of rain, so they don't use deicer unless it's dry pavement. We don't do salt on our roads for environmental reasons either. East of the Cascades, the other 2/3 of the state, it's a completely different story.

[tzs]

I don't know if this is accurate but I recall an article that said another significant difference between western WA snow and snow in the states that get seriously cold for a long time in winter is that the ground in western WA usually doesn't freeze like it does in the colder states.

When snow falls in western WA, the fall at the start gets melted by the ground, and the refreezes as the following fall hits it. This results in an ice layer covered in snow.

The states with frozen ground don't get that bottom layer of snow melting, giving them just ground covered by snow which is not as challenging to drive on as snow on ice.

So what we get in western Washington is that when it snows it gives us a particularly annoying kind of snow for driving. Combine that with us not getting snow frequently enough to get good at snow driving even in regular snow, and driving is a mess when it snows here.

[selectodude]

> When snow falls in western WA, the fall at the start gets melted by the ground, and the refreezes as the following fall hits it. This results in an ice layer covered in snow.

Which is why cities that competently deal with snow begin salting immediately when it starts snowing.

[bobthepanda]

Does salt work on hilly terrain?

In my experience in Seattle what I've seen a lot is the snowmelt washes salt downhill, so you generally just get back to square one.

[sizzzzlerz]

Around Thanksgiving, I drove through Portland on my way up to Washington and then back to Cali. Even with the roads dry and snow-free, traffic was a frickin' nightmare. Even so, Portlanders should feel good that traffic there is still better than driving through Seattle.

[rootusrootus]

About fifty years ago, when building out new freeways was a thing, Portland revolted and stopped building new roads. We haven't built anything meaningful since completing I205 in the 80s. But the city continues to grow. Traffic sucks because the local government has bet the future on light rail.

[lotsofpulp]

> Traffic sucks because the local government has bet the future on light rail.

In a place with consistent high population growth like Portland, induced demand would create congestion on 2, 3, 5, or even 10 lanes of road.

Investing in modes of transport where each person requires less space is the only way to have both population growth and not look like Houston or Dallas or Atlanta.

[stevenbedrick]

As context for non-Portlanders, the "revolt" against additional freeways was one part of a larger effort to manage urban growth so as to avoid endless sprawl and preserve the agricultural landscape surrounding the metro area. One of the freeways that the city specifically opted out of building fifty years ago would have taken up the entire west side of the city's waterfront; because we _don't_ have a freeway running there, we instead have a beautiful park that is one of the city's gems and that provides space for music festivals, etc. right in the downtown core. Instead of strip malls and condos running all the way to the ocean in one direction and Mt. Hood in the other, the area surrounding the city is home to a whole series of vibrant agricultural industries (wine, various fruits, etc.).

Like anything else, it's about tradeoffs. This series of planning decisions had a ton of downstream consequences, both positive and negative (and I'm happy to enumerate plenty of examples of either). I certainly don't enjoy the amount of traffic that has come with the city's growth --- I'm a lifelong Portlander, and have watched it happen --- but I firmly believe that more freeways would not solve the problem. Induced demand is a thing, and there is also geography to contend with. For example, one of the biggest traffic choke points is the freeway coming in to downtown from the western part of the metro area; since the 80s, there have been several major (one might even say "meaningful") projects that have widened it about as far as it is possible to go, but at this point there's literally nowhere else to put another lane. Of course, part of why it's a choke point is that after the tunnel it immediately intersects with another ill-sited freeway --- one of the last ones built before our "revolt," and one whose siting and construction caused logistical problems that the city is still dealing with, fifty years later.

Anyway, it's complicated, but the local government "betting the future on light rail" is not the reason traffic has gotten as bad as it has. Population explosion, geography, and seventy-odd years of path-dependent decisions about freeway placement and urban planning are the reasons.

[rootusrootus]

I'd much rather see a really robust network of buses than another light rail expansion. It's not convenient to get to the train, and it crawls through downtown at an average pace of 17 mph. I live all of 20 minutes from downtown (by car), and even then it would take me as long as 60 minutes during the day to catch the nearest bus, and then 30+ minutes to make it downtown (and that assumes the connections work flawlessly). It's not practical to use the bus here except for people who live and work in relatively close proximity, in certain areas of town.

I personally believe that part of the problem is Portland's style of government. There's a pretty good reason why it's the largest city in the US governed by committee. Though to be fair that may not really explain the whole problem. Just trying to design a replacement bridge across the Columbia cost 175 million without ever doing anything. Dysfunctional is an understatement for Oregon.

[stevenbedrick]

I have zero disagreement with you, there- I would personally much rather see a dramatically-expanded bus service than another light rail expansion, or at the very least increased service on the existing lines. In its current state, you are correct in that there are large parts of the metro area where it's just not a practical choice, and that's something that needs to change. I am lucky enough to live and work along one of the transit corridors where TriMet's bus service _does_ make sense, but it's definitely not viable in much of the metro area.

And yeah, "dysfunctional" only begins to describe the Columbia bridge debacle. But I will say, in defense of the project and its staff: that was a spectacularly challenging problem to solve. One of those fractal problems, where the more closely you look at it, the more complex it gets. The physical challenges were already going to be hard enough, and then the twelve-dimensional politics of the situation made it even more so. I don't pretend to know what the best solution would even be, but like everybody else in town I was disappointed to see it blow up after so much had been invested in it.

[selimthegrim]

Oracle hiring random college graduates with a pulse to manage devs for the state healthcare exchange was an eye opener

[stevenbedrick]

Agreed. I was genuinely shocked by that whole saga...

[Ccecil]

Well...certain areas. I myself get excited when it is snowing and I get to drive.

Seattle tends to lose it's mind when there is barely any snow...but as soon as you get past Issaquah people start driving like they have been in snow before.

I remember one trip coming over the pass maintaining 50-60mph with a ton of snow...but as soon as I got down the hill everyone was driving 25mph on the freeway.

Mostly the PNW communities inland have it together when it comes to snow. Aside from certain areas such as Tri-Cities south to Umatilla, Columbia river gorge and the mountain passes you can typically expect to at least be able to get to your destination without issues. Central Oregon (HWY97) uses what appears to be crushed lava rock on the highway...which is quite nice.

From what I have seen though...the coastal areas (or any area which doesn't regularly get snow) people, cars and road crews are not prepared for what happens when it falls.

I live and grew up in North Idaho...outside Spokane. Snow driving is just something you accept and learn to prepare for. If I lived in Portland though I would likely stay home. It isn't "my" driving I am worried about. It is the person who has near 0 snow driving experience, and/or in a car without proper tires and maintenance that is going to be the issues.

At night you should never outdrive your headlights...in winter you should never outdrive a reasonable stopping distance. If you are not prepared or comfortable operating a vehicle in the snow...don't drive for a few hours or even days.

[danans]

> I remember one trip coming over the pass maintaining 50-60mph with a ton of snow...but as soon as I got down the hill everyone was driving 25mph on the freeway

Driving at 25mph in a ton of snow seems a lot more sensible than driving 50-60mph, especially if your vehicle isn't equipped with snow tires.

Snow related accidents are often caused by people not slowing down.

[Ccecil]

There was only about .5-1" of snow at the bottom...while on the top of the pass was easily 4-6" on the road.

Agreed...drive the speed which you feel safe. The point was that to the people who don't see snow "any snow" is unsafe...meanwhile...those who drive in it regularly don't even notice.

Just like the amount of snow which shuts down most of the nation doesn't even seem to make the news when it happens here.

[brewdad]

I grew up in Michigan where snow is a regular occurance. Driving on ice at any speed feels safe, right up until the point it isn't. A lesson that is learned by dozens of drivers every winter who line the ditches of I-94 in their 4WD vehicles that lack 4-wheel stop on ice.

[Ccecil]

Absolutely...very important. Driving too fast on ice is very dangerous.

Although, I would argue it is even more risk to drive significantly higher or lower than the average speed being maintained by the traffic flow. If you do not feel safe at that speed...don't drive. Stay home a few hours or days...let the plows get out there.

The main point of my statement wasn't about "what is a safe speed"...it was about the very clear difference of "speed of traffic flow" as soon as you get off of the pass. In the original case I was discussing...I had drove 300+ miles at 50-60mph (speed of traffic flow)...then the last 10 miles the average traffic speed cut in half (which was also the best weather conditions).

I made a comment about it to my friend when I got to Seattle and his comment was "yeah...people over here lose their minds when any snow falls"...up until that point I had no idea that was a thing.

[jeffreygoesto]

Unless you are in Sweden and it's so cold that the snow feels more like concrete. It is "milled" in longitudinal direction, if I remember correctly, so that there is no flat surface but many small grooves. And they do have extreme headlamps, especially around the arctic circle. Driving on completely iced roads between trucks going 65mph can be quite an experience...

[klyrs]

During the first 'snowpocalypse' in Seattle, I noticed that the first two or three days were utter chaos. After that, people had either wrecked their cars or learned to drive, and the roads were nice and quiet (if slippy, but I was comfortable with that -- as I recall, the city only had two plows at the time). Since then, I try to stay off the road for the first few days of snow, to avoid the perennial novices.

[williamstein]

This week with the extended cold is going to be interesting.