Non CRC related I-5/I-205/I-84 development

[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

[JoshYent]

Originally Posted by 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

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...

[westsider]

Originally Posted by JoshYent

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.

[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.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

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.

[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?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.

[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]

Originally Posted by PacificNW

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

no, its not.

Originally Posted by rsbear

zilfondel for Transportation Commissioner!

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

[deasine]

Originally Posted by PacificNW

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.

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


Interchange at Waterfront


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.


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.

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]

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

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by deasine

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.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by JordanL

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.