[JordanL]

Portland is a green city, and we certainly loves us some transit. God knows I don't own a car.

But within the next 10 years we're going to have to start facing the reality that both I-84 and I-5 are woefully inadequate as trasnportation corridors within the city.

I know a lot of people within the city are concerned about global warming, yada yada yada. I get that. But I-5 is a huge transportation cooridor; it is almost laughable how the freeway drops to two lanes near the Rose Quarter.

At some point we've got to widen I-5 an provide better connection with I-84. Any solution to global warming/peak oil will make use of our current road system. There's too many trillions of dollars invested in it to think that the entire thing will be defunct in 30 years.

When are we going to see the city seriously look at our main freeway cooridors as opposed to mass transit? There are a certain type of person that isn't going to take public transit because no matter how affordable or direct you make it, it isn't convenient for them.

I fully support and applaud the work on the green line, the planning on the orange line, the WES (although commuter rail to city center would have made more sense IMO), etc. But we've got to stop kidding ourselves: Portland and it's surrounding suburbs are going to get too big too fast for us to not consider updating our inner-city freeways.

[downtownpdx]

If I'm not mistaken, there is a region-wide policy that limits freeway through-lanes to 3 in each direction. I agree with you on the Rose Quarter area, it's pretty ridiculous to allow a major freeway in a major city to drop to two lanes near a major interchange (I-5 @ I-84). They're adding a third southbound lane on I-5 near Delta Park, which will finally relieve that bottleneck.

It's hard to say how much capacity we should allow, but personally I agree with the 3-lane stance - (which would make a lot more sense if they followed through with this at the Rose Quarter). This region invests a lot in mass transit and land-use planning, and it's wise that our leaders to operate on the premise that widening a freeway to solve congestion is like loosening your belt to solve obesity.

We've all seen the 12-lane freeways in other cities that were once widened to solve congestion, and it doesn't work. I think this region just needs to make mass-transit as convenient and safe as possible, with 'reasonable' additions to the freeway system that would relieve bottlenecks and make for safer commutes. But we'll never see freeways like Houston or LA -- this region takes a congestion 'management' approach, as opposed to 'relief.' There will always be congestion in some form, and we can offer creative alternatives, but we can't 'widen' our way out in the hope that one day we'll say "we're done!"

[alexjon]

We need a by-pass is all.

205 is inadequate in this regard. Give the by-pass limited access points and just let people use it to get around the city

[bvpcvm]

even if i supported this (which i definitely don't) it'll never happen for two reasons: 1. any neighborhood negatively impacted will (rightly) raise holy hell about it and 2. the portland "process" will ensure nothing gets built before 2050.

[alexjon]

I think it would be good-- start it north of Vancouver and bring it down east of Troutdale.

That way, people can bypass Vancouver, reduce traffic in Portland and still get to where they need to go.

[bvpcvm]

1. if we are actually experiencing peak oil then there's no reason to spend billions on a new road. 2. trying to limit the number of exits (to limit sprawl) would be a good idea, but political interests and whining business owners would demand an exit for every jurisdiction and every potential business park - with the result that the number of exits would be limited to about the amount of exits any regular freeway would have.

[alexjon]

I like to dream :)

[Stepping Razor]

I think the inevitable long-term solution will be to expand the capacity of the central city freeways as part of the same project that will bury the Eastbank Freeway and Marquam Bridge in a tunnel.

A few years ago the City's "Loop Group" advisory board issued a report which, to me, reads as heavily favoring the "Full Tunnel" option. Check page 11:
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=104959

I think the idea is crazy enough that it just might work; the half of Portland that hates alternative transportation and wants more auto capacity will be happy to increase capacity, while the half of Portland that hates cars and wants more alternative transportation will be compensated by ripping out the horrible Eastbank Freeway and Marquam Bridge.

Part of me even thinks that Metro and the City's support for CRC is some kind of Machiavellian strategy to make the "Full Tunnel" happen; after the CRC results in moving the permanent traffic jam into the heart of the city at the Rose Quarter bottleneck, they will be able to make a much more compelling case that the "Full Tunnel" is necessary.

It will cost a crapload of money, of course, but who knows what the federal funding situation will be like in a few years. Perhaps more infrastructure investment in central cities will be more favored in a different political environment. In any case, I think that the benefits to the city of having there be no at-grade freeways from PSU through SoWa through the Central Eastside through the Rose Quarter would far outweigh the potential negative impact of adding more freeway through (or under, perhaps) the central city.

[rsbear]

I've lived in LA for 15 years now, where some freeways are five or six lanes in each direction. The 134/101 near my home is stop and go before noon on Saturdays. And it's jammed at least eight hours each weekday. Adding lanes to freeways does not eliminate traffic jams, it simply allows more cars to be in the same traffic jam at the same time.

That said, I5 in both directions through the Rose Quarter was poorly designed and is missing a third lane (or even a fourth lane) in each direction between I84 and the Fremont Bridge. How you add additional lanes there and deal with the on and off ramps around Broadway I don't know - it's a complex design problem.

The freeway loop around downtown (I5/I405) was intended to allow for four continues traffic lanes in each direction around the city - two on I5 and two on I405. Keep in mind the loop was designed over 45 years ago with the metro area having about 1/3 its current population.

Extra lanes (above the two through lanes on each freeway) exist between the major interchanges, such as between I5/I1405 south of downtown and I5/I84 on the east side, and traffic on the through lanes in those sections moves reasonably good (from memory and recent visits) most of the day. The ramps coming off the loop, such as from I5 north to I84 east back up pretty bad, but the through lanes move much better. The important section of the loop that lacks those extra lanes is on I5 between I84 and the Fremont Bridge. Fixing that design error really needs to be done and will help traffic flow, but it won't eliminate traffic jams - traffic always grows to fill available freeway lanes in urban areas.

[digme]

I agree with alexjon. If we care about the health of our cities, freeway removal is the way to go.

http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/

I grew up in Milwaukee, and the removal of the Park East freeway has been an incredible improvement for the area. Grade separated, limited access, high speed roadways have no place in the fabric of our cities.

Improve the I205 and rebrand it I5, and come up with a 50 year plan to remove all other freeways from Portland. That would be incredibly forward thinking and serve as a model for other cities.

[JordanL]

1. if we are actually experiencing peak oil then there's no reason to spend billions on a new road.

Did you not read my original post? I addressed this. It's unfathomably short-sighted to pretend that any solution to peak oil, such as other fuels, won't involve our current road system.

It's absolutely laughable that we wouldn't address our roads because "we're running out of oil".

2. trying to limit the number of exits (to limit sprawl) would be a good idea, but political interests and whining business owners would demand an exit for every jurisdiction and every potential business park - with the result that the number of exits would be limited to about the amount of exits any regular freeway would have.

Again, as a person who stays in Portland because of how liveable it is, I'm all for addressing a balance of environmental, business and philosophical concerns, but the one thing the PDC has fallen behind in promoting is jobs. Business owners always look out for themselves first, sure, but we're adding people at over twice the rate we're adding jobs to this city.

[cab]

Why the Myth of increased auto infrastructure and jobs? We all agree that more road capacity will not solve congestion and then call to increase road capacity. Its insane.

A few threads below is a PBA report of Downtown job growth, seems we're doing pretty well without increase road capacity.

Now if you want to argue that we should convert existing road capacity to freight and transit only to best set priorities then I'm all for it, but to build more capacity for Business PR purposes is just plain stupid.

[PacificNW]

Is downtown Vancouver, B.C. still not serviced with a freeway?

[zilfondel]

We need more rail - for freight, and passenger.

In Switzerland they put all of the truck freight onto trains and have them bypass all of the cities, and don't produce any pollution because the trains are electric. Not to mention it is much cheaper, and keeping the trucks off the road prevents road damage (the average truck causes 10,000 times more damage to the road than a passenger car).

Rail links - more frequent intercity trains to salem, eugene and seattle...
more MAX lines, and streetcars or even subway in the city.

And more buses and other regional transportation options, as well. More bike paths and even passenger ferries should be built.

[rsbear]

We need more rail - for freight, and passenger.

In Switzerland they put all of the truck freight onto trains and have them bypass all of the cities, and don't produce any pollution because the trains are electric. Not to mention it is much cheaper, and keeping the trucks off the road prevents road damage (the average truck causes 10,000 times more damage to the road than a passenger car).

Rail links - more frequent intercity trains to salem, eugene and seattle...
more MAX lines, and streetcars or even subway in the city.

And more buses and other regional transportation options, as well. More bike paths and even passenger ferries should be built.

zilfondel for Transportation Commissioner! :tup:

[westsider]

In Switzerland they put all of the truck freight onto trains and have them bypass all of the cities, and don't produce any pollution because the trains are electric. Not to mention it is much cheaper, and keeping the trucks off the road prevents road damage (the average truck causes 10,000 times more damage to the road than a passenger car).




Though I'm all for shipping by rail, besides the problem of limited and disappearing capacity, the main setback to shipping all or most freight by train is that most of its destinations are not serviced by train track. If the nearest train depot is not across the street, or the delivery point is not on a rail spur, than how is the cargo going to get where its needed? By truck. So unless you are advocating running a rail spur on non-existent ROW to every industrial or distribution building, construction area, grocery store, and every one of the millions of locations that receive deliverys on a regular basis that idea is just never going to work. I don't know how Switzerland supposedly does it, but I've been to neighboring Austria and saw no less trucks on the highways then here. For cross country movement of freight, there is nothing better than rail, but for getting it on and off the train and for local deliverys there will never be an alternative to trucks.

[zilfondel]

Is downtown Vancouver, B.C. still not serviced with a freeway?

no, its not.

zilfondel for Transportation Commissioner! :tup:

Hey, thanks! Maybe I should start a campaign? lol... :P

[zilfondel]

Though I'm all for shipping by rail, besides the problem of limited and disappearing capacity, the main setback to shipping all or most freight by train is that most of its destinations are not serviced by train track. If the nearest train depot is not across the street, or the delivery point is not on a rail spur, than how is the cargo going to get where its needed? By truck. So unless you are advocating running a rail spur on non-existent ROW to every industrial or distribution building, construction area, grocery store, and every one of the millions of locations that receive deliverys on a regular basis that idea is just never going to work. I don't know how Switzerland supposedly does it, but I've been to neighboring Austria and saw no less trucks on the highways then here. For cross country movement of freight, there is nothing better than rail, but for getting it on and off the train and for local deliverys there will never be an alternative to trucks.


Well, you still need railroads to move that freight long distances. Most of our food and goods we buy aren't even made or grown in this country, so they travel a long distance. Trucks are fine for local delivery, but for longer distances, rail is more efficient and less expensive. Oh, and its less environmentally damaging, too!

However, there are positive signs - for instance, the railroads are spending over $10 billion this year in upgrading their infrastructure. link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042002407.html)

This year alone, the railroads will spend nearly $10 billion to add track, build switchyards and terminals, and open tunnels to handle the coming flood of traffic. Freight rail tonnage will rise nearly 90 percent by 2035, according to the Transportation Department.

The industry estimates it will take $148 billion in expansion to carry the amount of traffic anticipated by 2035. Of that, the railroad companies will contribute $96 billion, said the industry's trade group. The rest would have to come from the federal government and the states.

Europe - especially Switzerland - offers a good example. As far as Switzerland's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBB_Cargo) freight (http://www.citytransport.info/Trains01.htm#Freight)system - AlpTransit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlpTransit):

They are investing in huge tunnels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6tschberg_Base_Tunnel) so trains can move underneath the Alps much faster than can trucks or other transport routes.

However, Europe has a much different freight rail system, which is much faster than the US's low-speed bulky mile-long freight rains. They can deliver smaller trains to more depots, which could, thanks to containerized freight, be fed by trucks - which negates the need for a railroad spur into each factory.

http://citytransport.info/Digi/1517a.jpg

However, if we were smart, we would do that anyways. Instead, we are, as usual, only building part of the infrastructure thats needed. Ie, no MAX, transit, streets, parks, or schools in new UGB expansions... unpaved streets in SW/SE Portland... etc.


==================================
Just building a huge loop freeway around Portland would be a waste of money, because it would take longer to traverse it (during those few hours each day that are actually affected by peak travel in the rush hours) than it would be to sit in traffic. And it would be too expensive to build a truck freight tunnel underneath the city, which would require enormous ventilation systems and require constant repaving. A freight tunnel under the city would be far easier to maintain, and could be electrified - and offer high speed freight and rail service which could bypass Portland.

I would really like to see a % of freight traveling through the region to see how much is actually just passing through - I bet the numbers aren't all that high.

[rsbear]

I would really like to see a % of freight traveling through the region to see how much is actually just passing through - I bet the numbers aren't all that high.

I think you're right - most of the freight goes in and out of Portland, and does not just travel through Portland. I remember reading (years ago) that Portland was the 10th largest distribution center in the U.S., which is amazing considering we're what, the 25th largest metro area? So most of the trucks on local freeways would logically be going to Portland or leaving from Portland, and not just passing through Portland.

[zaphod]

Austin which has a similiar freeway system to Portland built a huge bypass to I-35 recently , a toll road, and it turns out that on almost every circumstance is it faster to just drive through town.

Of course, it will still be usedbecause sprawl is going to explode along it:yuck:

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/05/19/0519wear.html

[MarkDaMan]

^more reason to believe this is NOT the answer to the Portland metro's issues.

[westsider]

Well, you still need railroads to move that freight long distances. Most of our food and goods we buy aren't even made or grown in this country, so they travel a long distance. Trucks are fine for local delivery, but for longer distances, rail is more efficient and less expensive. Oh, and its less environmentally damaging, too!




Thats exactly what I said at the end of my last post. Its just that you said earlier that ALL freight should be moved by train.

[RED_PDXer]

I think you're right - most of the freight goes in and out of Portland, and does not just travel through Portland. I remember reading (years ago) that Portland was the 10th largest distribution center in the U.S., which is amazing considering we're what, the 25th largest metro area? So most of the trucks on local freeways would logically be going to Portland or leaving from Portland, and not just passing through Portland.

I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly, but freight coming to or from Portland could just as easily be placed on a freight train. Trucks are only necessary for local distribution. Thus, a significant portion of the freight traffic on I-5 and I-84 are the result of freight being picked up at the port and then unnecessarily being driven to Idaho, Montana, Utah, Illinois, Indiana, etc.. Lots of pollution and adding to lots of congestion.

Existing highway infrastructure should be maintained through tolls and congestion pricing. But it will cost hundreds of millions more to add capacity in the Rose Quarter area and perhaps over a billion to do so. I find it laughable to think that an extra lane or two will alleviate that congestion. Too much local traffic is using the highways, as evidenced by the severely peaked auto flows during rush hour in the morning and evening at the I-5 bridge. I ride the MAX to work along I-84 every morning. Most every car I pass is carrying only one passenger. This is a ridiculously inefficient system that must stop. Why spend so much on a system that fosters socially- and environmentally-destructive behavior.

When the green line opens, the MAX line along that freeway will have the achievable capacity to carry about 7,000 commuters per hour (350 passengers x 20 trains per hour) in each direction. That's 3x as much capacity as a single auto lane in free flow traffic and even more capacity than a single auto lane in congested traffic. Investing in rail, transit, and multi-use paths is the most efficient way to improve our transportation systems and alleviate traffic. We need options, not more restricted lanes for inefficient behavior.

[JordanL]

Existing highway infrastructure should be maintained through tolls and congestion pricing. But it will cost hundreds of millions more to add capacity in the Rose Quarter area and perhaps over a billion to do so. I find it laughable to think that an extra lane or two will alleviate that congestion. Too much local traffic is using the highways, as evidenced by the severely peaked auto flows during rush hour in the morning and evening at the I-5 bridge.

I think people have got the wrong impression about my suggestions... almost feel like I'm about to have an angry mob remove my "Portland creds".

Way too many people commute via the freeways, but a lot of that is because:


A disproportionate numebr of new jobs are created in Hillsoboro, Beaverton & Downtown Portland compared to the number of housing units on the east side.
All of the side streets that feed into Portland's bridges have a very large number (relatively speaking for a commuter pathway) of lights on them, and most, with perhaps only the exception of Morrison St, are far too narrow fo rthe number of people that work downtown or on the west side.
The transit we have is incredibly efficient but terribly inconvenient because Portland has limitted sprawl so much.


People don't seem to get this: limitting sprawl brings thigns closer together, which is generally good. But it makes transit less convenient, especially since BRT will always face the same traffic delays that one would in a car, only with the added time of stops.

I commute from Division at Mt Tabor to downtown Portland every day, using the Line 4 bus. This takes me a minimum of 35 minutes each direction, often at least 45 minutes. Which is fine, I'm willing to do that. But a lot of people aren't because even in rush hour surface traffic it only takes me 10 minutes to drive from my house to where I work.

In order to get to the MAX line, I have to travel 14 blocks on foot, grab the 71 to the MAX at 60th, then wait for the MAX. That's a 1.5 hour trip, assuming the 71 isn't running late which it almost always is.

The MAX is incredible... when I lived over on 70th & Glisan I'd walk to the MAX and I could get anywhere. But if you don't live within 15 blocks of the MAX, the billions of dollars invested in it are completely useless.

My whole point with this thread was that we need to recognize that we're leaving almost all of Southeast Portland, a lot of North East Portland, and a lot of far East Portland/Gresham without a viable reason to use transit, and also without a good solution for personal transit.

Honestly I'm more concerned about the effect congestion has on safety than on the congestion itself.

None of this will personally affect me, because I'll still be riding the 4, but to say that any roads we build will magically fill with cars that for some reason aren't already there now, and thus we should just never build roads, is about the stupidest thing I've heard in a very long time.

But then, this is Portland, and people here for one reason or another have always had real issues caring about anyone's opinion but their own. :/ Our regional politics make me shake my head... people get so angry so easily.

[cab]

Jordan I mean no disrespect, but you should take an urban planning or transportation course. Your entire premise is all over the place and totally off. I would highly suggest taking the FREE PSU/City of Portland transportation class given twice a year at PSU for PDX residents with an interest in these type of topics. I bet it will be a huge eye opener for you.

[JordanL]

Jordan I mean no disrespect, but you should take an urban planning or transportation course. Your entire premise is all over the place and totally off. I would highly suggest taking the FREE PSU/City of Portland transportation class given twice a year at PSU for PDX residents with an interest in these type of topics. I bet it will be a huge eye opener for you.

I am completely open to being wrong. I might take an urban planning course actually.

Would anyone be willing to take the time to explain some of it to me though?

[rsbear]

... people get so angry so easily.

You certainly made that point.

[JordanL]

You certainly made that point.

I just want someone to help me understand instead of saying "you're wrong I'm right".

[cab]

Jordon here is the site to the free class.

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=35727

[deasine]

Is downtown Vancouver, B.C. still not serviced with a freeway?

No and thank god for that. Back in the late 60s and 70s (or it might be 70s and 80s, either way I wasn't there back then), there was a huge plan for freeway expansion in the Greater Vancouver area. As the city was growing, many planners and professors believed that freeway expansion was the way to fix our congestion and traffic problems in Vancouver. Transportation planners often used models such as Portland and LA.
http://www.earthblog.ca/elgg/gprice/files/-1/187/Web%20-%20A%20ROW%20Third%20Crossing.JPG
The plan was to build a freeway from the Northshore (Hwy 1, which is the only highway that goes through Vancouver City) underground or above water to Downtown, then underground Downtown to Yaletown. Phase two of the project [sort of a vision] was to have a freeway go on Cambie street to Richmond connecting with Hwy 99.

Tunnel Option/Bridge Option
http://www.earthblog.ca/elgg/gprice/files/-1/190/Web%20-%20A%20Third%20Crossing%20tunnel.JPGhttp://www.earthblog.ca/elgg/gprice/files/-1/189/Web%20-%20Third%20Crossing%20-%20bridge.JPG

Interchange at Waterfront
http://www.earthblog.ca/elgg/gprice/files/-1/191/Web%20-%20Waterfront%20Freeway.JPG

I can't imagine what will happen if Vancouver continued on this freeway. We would probably not see Yaletown, Cambie-Heritage Blvd, and Gastown. Now JordanL, I understand why you think this way. As a matter of fact, when I started posting at SSP, I thought the same.

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/managed_lanes/crosscuttingstudy/images/exhibit4.jpg
Source: US Department of Transportation Freeway expansion only solves congestion in the short-term, not in the long run.

Looking at Seattle, I-5 is heavily congested throughout the day and WSDOT continues expansion to relieve these problems. Only as of recently, they realize this isn't the way to go. Even though they continue expanding I-5, often, it's for high occupancy vehicles. When I was in Portland, I noticed congestion was horrible at many interchanges and junctions. Then I noticed that there were no priorities given to higher occupancy vehicles, for carpoolers and transit users? If there is any freeway expansion, it should only be for adding HOV lanes, and Bus Queue Jumpers. Transit and carpooling is not really an alternative to commuting if you are still stuck in the same traffic as everyone else.

http://www.tankbus.org/images/xHOV.jpg http://www.tankbus.org/images/xMinn_Shoulder_Bus.jpg Source: TANK Bus

Portland has been mainly focusing on light rail expansion for a while now. This isn't a bad thing, but it's not good either. I think Portland really needs to start a Bus Rapid Transit network and further improve their frequent transit netowkr, trying to connect as many communities and possible. It's far cheaper to have than LRT, and BRT can be easily converted to LRT should there be demand for it.

Then, there is biking! JordanL, have you ever tried to get to work with a bike before? It's magical. Portland's a national leader when it comes to biking developments, particularly with the new bike boxes and new bike routes. Many trips under 5 km can be made with biking, even trips under 10 km.

Basically, Portland needs to adapt this kind of guideline (from the greatest priority to the least)
1) Pedestrians
2) Cyclists
3) Transit
4) Goods-Movement
5) Carpooling
6) Single Occupancy Vehicles

I'm half dead right now so I don't really know what I'm typing makes sense... zzz...

[rsbear]

:previous: Great post, deasine, and thank goodness Vancouver didn't push that freeway through downtown.

[JordanL]

Then, there is biking! JordanL, have you ever tried to get to work with a bike before? It's magical. Portland's a national leader when it comes to biking developments, particularly with the new bike boxes and new bike routes. Many trips under 5 km can be made with biking, even trips under 10 km.

Basically, Portland needs to adapt this kind of guideline (from the greatest priority to the least)
1) Pedestrians
2) Cyclists
3) Transit
4) Goods-Movement
5) Carpooling
6) Single Occupancy Vehicles

Yeah, biking is an improvement of about 5 minutes over the bus, but is way more refreshing.

Unfortunately we have something like 220 rainy days a year...

The times I've found it hardest to not have a vehicle, or the times I've been most frustrated with Portland's transportation, is actually when I'm going somewhere for R&R.

Getting from South Tabor to Lloyd is at least an hour. Ditto for Clackamas. Getting somewhere like Classic's Billiards on Powell and 122nd is nearly an hour as well.

And in all those cases 11:30 is the absolute latest I can start heading home. People talk about night life, but right now that night life is restricted to those who have a car or those who can afford a $300,000 condo downtown. :/

I seem to be missing something that other people know though. How does getting rid of freeways/purposely making it less convenient to own a motorized vehicle make it any less trouble to use alternate transit options? I think the freeway's are ugly, noisy and intrusive, but I don't see the alternatives people are referring to.

I stay home quite a bit right now because I don't want to spend two hours in transit for an hour and a half of R&R. How does purposely not investing in roads lower that time?

I guess that's what I'm most confused about.

[MarkDaMan]

I think Portland should really be pushing TODs. Create community centers along the line so the billions invested in creating MAX create the density needed to fully utilize the system.

[PacificNW]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion, deasine. I agree with creating TODs along the MAX lines, Mark.

[JoshYent]

We need a by-pass is all.

205 is inadequate in this regard. Give the by-pass limited access points and just let people use it to get around the city



i agree with you

there are so many available areas/options and if they did it right they could establish a few key areas that are needed on the outskirts of the metro area....theres alot of land, and if they did it right and controlled the development kind of like a ring highway either east or most likely west near forest grove then up over the mountains into st helens and over the river which would really help our coastal region develop as well.
and then back up into washington

or maybe along the columbia through longview then alight back up with I-5

this would really increase development between vancouver and longview and st.helens, this would open up all sorts of areas along the river, especially the island, and they could slowly raise the level above 100 or even 500 year flood levels.....and create an entire new area/development, this would maybe open up more ferry travel, max or an express lines could be pushed to the outlying areas and concentrate everything inside of that ring permanently.... sort of like a two state urban growth boundary...

this would allow the cities to grow together and form kind of a competition on either side of the river for both states....they could create so many jobs in close proximity to the major transportation corridors, and allow the area to compete with the seattle area...

[deasine]

Yeah, biking is an improvement of about 5 minutes over the bus, but is way more refreshing.

Unfortunately we have something like 220 rainy days a year...

See that's the problem. Everyone uses rain as an excuse, which really isn't the best one. The one I would accept is... that there isn't enough (or any at all) biking infrastructure.

If someone can throw me a few bike stats in Portland, that would be nice =P

Vancouver has the same climate as Portland, yet Vancouver has at least 5% of all trips made within the city made by bikers. This number significantly drops to 1-2% within the Metro Vancouver however. And the main reason for that is the lack of biking infrastructure.

There are many European cities that are just as rainy as Portland and Vancouver, yet they achieve a substantial number of bikers:

1) Netherlands - 27% of all trips made by bike
2) Denmark - 18% of all trips made by bike
3) Finland - 11% of all trips made by bike

(These statistics are based on a powerpoint presentation by John Pucher, a professor of urban design and development)

Mind you, these stastics are a few years old, so these numbers have increased significantly by today.

And why were they able to achieve such high numbers? It's because they made so many new biking developments. Back in 1970s, European cities were exactly like North American cities today. There were many lanes on a road just for cars. Because of the congestion, they decided to take a smarter approach. They began creating bike-only lanes and continued from there.

Now, I can tell you that bikers have priorities over cars. Many intersections have bike boxes, similar to the ones in Portland, just triple the size. Then there are bike signals, that give the green light to the bikers before cars. And the most impressive thing is that they have sensors that calculate the speed of the bikes giving bikers a "green wave" to bikes.

I believe Denmark has taken a bigger step: there is a smartcar equipped with sensors that detect potential pot holes.

Now, of course I'm not saying we need all of that and we shouldn't expect bikes to be roaming our cities overnight. But why shouldn't we start today? Portland has already introduced bike boxes and has a few bike lanes running around the city.

First, we need more bike lanes of course. But then that's also not enough. Often, bike lanes on the road still deter many from biking: it's still not very safe. Alright then, how about raised bike lanes?

http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v233/79/110/537325252/n537325252_2667289_1700.jpg
My Image

Here's one that is being constructed in Vancouver right now. We only have one, but in Europe: holy cow. Many.

We want to make biking easy for everyone, not just for extreme bikers. Raised bike lanes are a crucial step. Just think of it this way: bike lanes should be an extension of the sidewalk, not an expansion of a road.

The other way is making side streets great for bikers, which is actually Vancouver's approach. We don't usually see bike lanes on arterial streets, but instead, made bike priorities on side streets near arterials. Traffic calming measures such as traffic circles, "false dead ends", and narrower streets help.

Example of a "false dead end":
Edit: I couldn't find a good example of one. But basically the road "ends" at an intersection but bikes can continue through.

Example of a Narrower Street:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1121/1144847625_159d9e18b9.jpg
Source: Flickr

Notice only one vehicle can get through the street without entering other lanes? But bikers don't have this problem.

Well hmm, alright we got our bike lanes but where are we going to park them? Simple. Have bike lockers or bike racks. You can even take away one parking space and be able to fit 10 bikes.


I seem to be missing something that other people know though. How does getting rid of freeways/purposely making it less convenient to own a motorized vehicle make it any less trouble to use alternate transit options? I think the freeway's are ugly, noisy and intrusive, but I don't see the alternatives people are referring to.

I'm only naming a few solutions. But if you don't outline basic infrastruture for biking, how can you make it an attractive option? It's the same formula for public transportation, if you don't have the infrastructure for public transportation, there is no way you can would achieve high commuting numbers.

It's a little harder in the Unities States because people are just so used to their cars. This is why we need to try even more to get people out of their cars, and get them into buses, trains, and bikes.

I think Portland should really be pushing TODs. Create community centers along the line so the billions invested in creating MAX create the density needed to fully utilize the system.

Yes, yes, and yes! Hong Kong's MTR is incredibly sucessful because of this. The MTRC really played in the real estate, and they would sell land or build apartments and offices right on top of the MTR station or areas around it.

TransLink (Vancouver) is finally doing such a thing. They realized they own a lot of land that can be sold for developers.

Please note: I'm still learning about all of this, and I haven't been in enough places so I can only use Vancouver as an example. But I know Vancouver too has a lot to learn. If you ever got a chance, go look at John Pucher's presentations: http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/. I learned a lot when I attended his presentation and the Vancouver regional bike strategy plan.

[westsider]

i agree with you

there are so many available areas/options and if they did it right they could establish a few key areas that are needed on the outskirts of the metro area....theres alot of land, and if they did it right and controlled the development kind of like a ring highway either east or most likely west near forest grove then up over the mountains into st helens and over the river which would really help our coastal region develop as well.
and then back up into washington

or maybe along the columbia through longview then alight back up with I-5

this would really increase development between vancouver and longview and st.helens, this would open up all sorts of areas along the river, especially the island, and they could slowly raise the level above 100 or even 500 year flood levels.....and create an entire new area/development, this would maybe open up more ferry travel, max or an express lines could be pushed to the outlying areas and concentrate everything inside of that ring permanently.... sort of like a two state urban growth boundary...

this would allow the cities to grow together and form kind of a competition on either side of the river for both states....they could create so many jobs in close proximity to the major transportation corridors, and allow the area to compete with the seattle area...



If this is not tongue in cheek, its the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Sorry to sound harsh, but read that over again and try to see how your idea could do anything but destroy the west side and columbia county.

[RED_PDXer]

I seem to be missing something that other people know though. How does getting rid of freeways/purposely making it less convenient to own a motorized vehicle make it any less trouble to use alternate transit options? I think the freeway's are ugly, noisy and intrusive, but I don't see the alternatives people are referring to.

Limiting sprawl makes taking transit much easier. That's a no-brainer. Instead of riding Line 4 from the equivalent of Mt. Hood, you're riding it from Mt. Tabor (a 60+ mile commute is not unusual in LA or other sprawled places). It takes you 30-40 minutes to get to work as opposed to 2 hours like it would in LA. A local bus is always going to be slow, but only taking it 3 miles as opposed to 60 miles makes it tolerable. Taking transit to/from downtown is feasible for just about everywhere in this region on regional transit. It takes about 1 hour at most from Gresham or Hillsboro to downtown Portland if taking MAX. On the other hand, if there were freeways on every corridor, neighborhoods would be disconnected from their main streets, small businesses would be less likely to thrive from local consumers, walking to your destination or to transit would be more cumbersome, biking would probably be considered far too unsafe for 99.9% of the population, and vast parking lots would be the most dominate image of our region. I won't even go into the environmental effects of those actions.

Of course it'd be nice to travel more quickly on transit than riding a bus in mixed traffic, but that requires more density and more transit ridership to justify that level of investment. We're investing in more MAX lines on certain corridors where the right of way and opportunity for TODs are more conducive to regional transit, but we're never gonna have regional transit lines on every corridor.

It seems like you're gripe is with the adequacy of our transit system, which is totally justified from where you are on Division near Mt. Tabor. I think there's a huge demand for transit connections between the whole of SE Portland and N/NE Portland and there's currently no easy way to serve that demand. For one thing, there are few streets that directly provide that type of trip. Transferring once or twice is necessary for most "suburb to suburb" trips at this point, but it doesn't haven't be in the future. We can invest in better transit, and use it more frequently.

In summary, there are two things going on here.. personal decisions and level of investment in non-auto infrastructure. If you really want a quick trip into downtown for work or otherwise, you could live close to a MAX station (like I purposely did) or close-in on a bus line. If you want a quick trip to work in general, you could move closer to work (for some people that's Wilsonville, Hillsboro or wherever those human factories are located). Most people have a choice and until recently, the decision to reduce the commute distance or locate near transit hasn't even registered for the majority of the population. Secondly, there needs to be more investment in "other" ways for people to get around to reduce the harmful side effects of "too much" driving and automobile dependence. This means better bike facilities, more intelligent transportation systems for transit (traffic signal coordination with buses), bus-only lanes, more MAX lines, more buses, etc. However, to justify spending more on transit and other modes, we need more people making personal decisions in support of these modes such as choosing to live in higher density housing near work/transit connections, commuting by bus, MAX or bike, walking to your neighborhood store instead of driving to a big box store 6 miles away, etc...

I can't spend all day speaking to the ill-effects of auto-dependence and sprawl, but hopefully this is step toward that understanding.

[alexjon]

2006 Bike Usage: 4.4%
2007 Bike Usage: 6%

[JordanL]

Of course it'd be nice to travel more quickly on transit than riding a bus in mixed traffic, but that requires more density and more transit ridership to justify that level of investment. We're investing in more MAX lines on certain corridors where the right of way and opportunity for TODs are more conducive to regional transit, but we're never gonna have regional transit lines on every corridor.

It seems like you're gripe is with the adequacy of our transit system, which is totally justified from where you are on Division near Mt. Tabor. I think there's a huge demand for transit connections between the whole of SE Portland and N/NE Portland and there's currently no easy way to serve that demand. For one thing, there are few streets that directly provide that type of trip. Transferring once or twice is necessary for most "suburb to suburb" trips at this point, but it doesn't haven't be in the future. We can invest in better transit, and use it more frequently.

In summary, there are two things going on here.. personal decisions and level of investment in non-auto infrastructure. If you really want a quick trip into downtown for work or otherwise, you could live close to a MAX station (like I purposely did) or close-in on a bus line. If you want a quick trip to work in general, you could move closer to work (for some people that's Wilsonville, Hillsboro or wherever those human factories are located). Most people have a choice and until recently, the decision to reduce the commute distance or locate near transit hasn't even registered for the majority of the population. Secondly, there needs to be more investment in "other" ways for people to get around to reduce the harmful side effects of "too much" driving and automobile dependence. This means better bike facilities, more intelligent transportation systems for transit (traffic signal coordination with buses), bus-only lanes, more MAX lines, more buses, etc. However, to justify spending more on transit and other modes, we need more people making personal decisions in support of these modes such as choosing to live in higher density housing near work/transit connections, commuting by bus, MAX or bike, walking to your neighborhood store instead of driving to a big box store 6 miles away, etc...

I can't spend all day speaking to the ill-effects of auto-dependence and sprawl, but hopefully this is step toward that understanding.

I actually considered these things when I chose this location to live. Unfortunately this is as close to town as I could get where I could still afford more than a cardboard box.

I also couldn't have moved to the west side because most of the people I visit, including all of my family, are on the east side. From where I am it's already a 45 minute ride and two transfers to get to my sisters house at 102nd and Halsey.

It would have been at least three transfers and an hour and a half from the west side.

I suppose that chosing a more accessible location would be something that people could pay more attention to if the $/sq.ft. didn't get completely rediculous close to city center.

Thank you for the reply though, that actually did go in to a lot more detail on the things I was confused about.

It does seem to be a self-feeding cycle. In that sense, investment in public transit would have to be the bitter pill that is horribly inefficient for a while. I certainly don't want Portland to be like LA, and I can sorta see why people went nuts when I asked abotu adding one lane at the Rose Garden.

I still think that needs to happen, but it should definitely be part of a larger effort to minimize the impact of highways. The tunnel concept seemed the best asthetically... but it also sounds really expensive. The east bank south of the Burnside bridge is just so ugly and noisy... it'd be nice if they could bury that all.

Anyway, thanks for the reply, it was certainly enlightening. (And despite my gripes with it, I have been planning on biking most places I go.)

[pdxman]

Just to throw out an idea/question. Would it be possible to re-designate highway 26 from the tunnels to the coast as I-84? Would that work or do anything to improve the corridor? Once you get on 26 through the tunnels it seems more like a freeway not a highway.

[bvpcvm]

i doubt it. 26 doesn't meet the standards of an interstate (limited access) past north plains or so.

[tworivers]

Wow. If it was April Fool's Day I'd be suspicious.


Mayor Sam Adams revisits idea of rejiggering Interstate 5
Published: Friday, April 06, 2012, 10:21 AM Updated: Friday, April 06, 2012, 10:50 AM
By Beth Slovic, The Oregonian

An expensive idea that first gained traction in Portland in the 1980s, flared again in the 1990s and resurfaced in the 2000s could rise again in some fashion under Mayor Sam Adams, who has nine months left in his term.

But city officials are so far keeping mum about the recent $11,000 study that shows a rejiggered Interstate 5 near Portland's Central Eastside Industrial District, declining this week to release "a draft concept-level diagram" of the interstate to The Oregonian.

Nonetheless, Adams has reached out to former Mayor Vera Katz and Nohad Toulan, dean emeritus of the College of Urban and Public Affairs at Portland State University, who in 2004 led a committee that, among other things, supported burying about one mile of I-5 near the Central Eastside Industrial District. Both Katz and Toulan confirmed this week that Adams asked them to meet, although no date has been set.

Katz, for her part, said she was told that Adams wanted "to share a plan to bury the section of the freeway."

Jonna Papaefthimiou, a sustainability adviser to the mayor, said Adams instead wanted Katz and Toulan to know that their work eight years ago "had not been forgotten."

Back in 2004, Katz and Toulan studied how changing the freeway would create space for new development and strengthen Portlanders' connection with the east side of the Willamette River. Detractors, on the other hand, worried aloud about changing the nearby property's industrial character.

The concept of remaking Portland's waterfront on the east side is even older than that, however.

In 1988, Riverfront for People pushed a plan to remake the area guided by the image of Tom McCall Waterfront Park (which used to be Harbor Drive until the 1970s). "Our gem of a river is overwhelmed by concrete superstructures," a website for the group still reads today.

(As an aside, mayoral candidate and state legislator Jefferson Smith is listed as a former Riverfront for People member along with his father, R.P. Joe Smith. These days, Jefferson Smith says the east side of the river still has untapped potential, but he doesn't see any available money to execute new plans.)

Charlie Hales, another 2012 mayoral candidate, has also been part of reworking the freeway. In 1993, as a newly elected city commissioner, he asked a citizen commission to study the area and it recommended moving the freeway. Today, Hales also says he doesn't see how the city would have the resources to undertake such a huge task.

That's not a new problem, either.

"Why not conduct a study on how to grow a money tree?" barked one critic of the plan, according to an article in The Oregonian on Nov. 18, 1993.

[zacaway]

How great would that be for the east side. With all the redevelopment going on in that area, this might actually go somewhere!

The concept plan for this is here: http://www.portlandonline.com/mayor/index.cfm?c=49522&a=392837

[RED_PDXer]

I pretty sure this concept will be shelved for quite some time. It was only done to appease the industrial property owners in the area and assure them that there was an option to underground the freeway without impacting private property. The cost of $11,000 means that virtually no serious engineering work went into the study.

The City and ODOT should just dump this freeway section, add a lane to I-405 and re-designate it as I-5, and institute congestion pricing on it through downtown. May cap a few blocks of the I-405 could be part of it.. who knows. :shrug:

[2oh1]

Wow. What a phenomenal, and expensive, idea. The east side esplanade is really more of an extension of the west side than it is a part of the east side. How sad is that? The I-5 pushes inner SE away from the river rather than toward it, turning some of the best land in the entire city into a wasteland in the process. Fixing the I-5 will be insanely expensive... but, again, wow. SE Portland would gain a river. How amazing would THAT be? I can't even imagine it. But I'd love to try!

[davehogan]

I pretty sure this concept will be shelved for quite some time. It was only done to appease the industrial property owners in the area and assure them that there was an option to underground the freeway without impacting private property. The cost of $11,000 means that virtually no serious engineering work went into the study.

The City and ODOT should just dump this freeway section, add a lane to I-405 and re-designate it as I-5, and institute congestion pricing on it through downtown. May cap a few blocks of the I-405 could be part of it.. who knows. :shrug:

Removing I-5 won't fly, too many powerful interests would not be happy if they had to take I-5 north to go south on I-405. I can't see the feds being enthusiastic about funding it either, and widening I-405 would be nearly impossible without a bit of property acquisition, which again I can't see being a real possibility. I just can't see downtown accepting widening I-405 just to remove a freeway that's across the river from them, and downtown will win that fight fairly easily.

I do think selling air leases to build over I-405 would be a great idea, but I'm not sure if developers would find that to be a cost effective solution in Portland. I'm not sure if the extra costs of building in that style would be worth it for a developer to pay much versus just buying land elsewhere in Portland.

I have a feeling I-5 won't be a tunnel for a long time though. I doubt any local politicians will seriously push for it until the CRC is completed, and that doesn't sound like it'll be anytime soon. I'd have to guess a tunnel of the size and length they're talking about would end up being at least the price of the CRC, and even with the land that could be sold, I doubt if Portland's real estate is valuable enough to really make a huge dent in the overall cost.

Maybe by the time they get around to it they'll have Central and South Waterfront figured out, and the ConWay site might be finished, and the east side street car may have paid off. If all of that has happened, then I'd think burying I-5 might start looking a bit more worthwhile, and by then it would be a good excuse to replace the Marquam Bridge with a tunnel as well.