Portland Transit | TriMet/Mass Transit News

[RED_PDXer]

I, for one, would have no problem supporting maintenance and seismic safety improvements of the existing bridges at a fraction of the cost. It's the exorbitant cost and the automobile-inducing behavior of three additional lanes in each direction that turn me off..

[Inkdaub]

Originally Posted by JordanL

There's plenty of people that are all about public works projects that are viscerally against things like improving I-5 or Burnside because they don't think people should be driving cars at ALL.

Bold mine as I am one of these people. However, I do think infrastructure is important and that includes roads. I just object to the mentality that the automobile is the first and only option while transit is more of a hobby or a vanity project.

[tworivers]

Personally, I think the automobile has proved to be one of the worst technological inventions ever. There are a whole slew of measuring sticks one can use when making that argument: pollution; effect on land use patterns; human injury and death (not to mention other species); social isolation; etc.

Most of us, however, I think, recognize the need to acknowledge the multiple modes that we are currently using to get around. Which means a balanced approach to transportation, something which we can only strive towards after the last 60 or 70 years of social engineering by the federal government in favor of the automobile.

I am diametrically opposed to a new I-5 bridge with extra lanes (even if the claim is that the extra lanes are for local traffic) for two reasons: one, it will worsen the bottleneck that already exists around the 405 interchange and the Rose Quarter, which will increase pollution for local residents and increase pressure to widen the highway further south. And two, because it will undermine the region's land use planning -- the fact that the CRC commission explicitly asked Metro planners to not include land use data/forecasting for outer Clark County in the modeling seals my opposition. That is borderline corrupt and will probably form the basis for future lawsuits if the project moves forward as currently constituted, "New Deal II" or not.

To close, why not deal with the "vital need" of facilitating the movement of people and goods up and down the I-5 corridor, a goal I agree with btw, by designating 205 as the new 5? The entire I-5 corridor through PDX is a mess and moving the bottlenecks around is not going to fix the problem. The Terwilliger curves, at the very least, can never be straightened. By changing the designations around, and instituting appropriate tolling, we can make what is currently I-5 the local highway (I-405?) it should be and keep the removal of the Eastbank Freeway and Marquam Bridge on the table (the only way we'll ever reclaim the Willamette as our central boulevard at the heart of the city).

[bvpcvm]

i find it difficult to believe that merely changing the designation of i-205 to i-5 is going to make any difference at all, since the current route thru dt pdx would still be shorter. certainly long-distance truckers won't be fooled into taking i-205 just because of a designation. personally, i'd say don't do anything to the roads, except for resurfacing as necessary, and spend that 4-6 billion on transit.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by tworivers

I am diametrically opposed to a new I-5 bridge with extra lanes (even if the claim is that the extra lanes are for local traffic) for two reasons: one, it will worsen the bottleneck that already exists around the 405 interchange and the Rose Quarter...

Both are easily solvable if we want to. The I-5/Fremont interchange can be fixed with a flyover or two, and better merge opportunities. The Rose Quarter can be improved with better on/off ramp access. It's not that tough, especially with improve access overall.

[zilfondel]

^ great, so we're going to flatten Mississippi and/or the brewery underneath it for more lanes?

I know, we should just pave a mile-wide swath through Portland's eastside to give it better freeway access.

The fact is that better freeway access to the central city has always acted to speed up urban sprawl and white flight. And Portland has a very recent strong history to eliminating freeways; we shouldnt be doing the opposite, particularly now.

[Okstate]

"white flight" in oregon? Whom were they running from?

[NJD]

^^^ DaveHogan:

you seam to have all the answers, but in all reality the I-5 interchanges with Fremont/Rose Quarter/I-84 are not easily remedied by "a flyover or two, and better merge opportunities" as you so put it. First, where do you put these flyovers? Have you ever even driven the stretch with its 6 roads high interweave? Do you know where the columns for the bridges and overpasses are located? Do you know how many lanes merge in and out already, and how much of that merging roadway is on viaducts? ODOT puts the figure for fixing this bottleneck at $50 million... to study. Past that, all that ODOT has ever told the public is that it will be the most expensive fix in the Oregon Interstate System (more than the CRC) and would likely take 20 years to complete.

^^^^TwoRivers:

I agree with you that the automobile has caused some of the worst social, psychological, environmental and health problems of our time. The way I see it, some people were smart and warned US politicians back in the 60's to not build the interstates to the city centers but surround the metros with ring roads much like how European cities have built them. However, greed and politics came into play, and we are now left with their poor decision making. I like your idea of re-designating and possibly removing the freeways, but it will take a long time to implement as all of the developed area built after the freeways were in place rely heavily on these roads.

If only we could stop letting suburban developers rape billions off of existing landowners in Oregon, and make them pay the insanely high price of sprawl.

[MightyAlweg]

Originally Posted by tworivers

I am diametrically opposed to a new I-5 bridge with extra lanes (even if the claim is that the extra lanes are for local traffic) for two reasons: one, it will worsen the bottleneck that already exists around the 405 interchange and the Rose Quarter, which will increase pollution for local residents and increase pressure to widen the highway further south.

Before I start, I just need to state that I don't mean to pick on you personally tworivers. But your sentiment here about the "bottleneck" at the Rose Garden on I-5 has been mentioned before by other folks, and it just causes me to shake my head in amazement and disbelief.

Yes, there is a bottleneck at the Rose Garden. On my trip to Portland this August I got caught in it a couple of times in the afternoon where things just grind to a halt and/or merging is a nightmare. But...

It's a bottleneck because the freeway is only two lanes wide there! Any fewer lanes and all you would have is a Burgerville drive-through! This is a major interstate freeway through a large city we are talking about here, not a rural state highway outside of Mayberry. Of course a two lane freeway is going to be bottlenecked in the middle of town, especially with three seperate interstate freeways merging and splitting apart all within a half mile of each other.

Yeah, there's a sporadic merge lane off to the side that either leads to the Banfield southbound or MLK northbound, but the core travel lanes are reduced to the bare minimum of two lanes. And the funniest part is that if you drive I-5 from Seattle to San Diego the freeway widens as it passes through cities. Only in central Portland does it narrow to two lanes as if it was still 1958 and ODOT was on a tight budget.

Keep going south on I-5 for 750 miles and when it arrives in my corner of the world in Orange County it widens to 12 LANES; Four lanes of regular traffic, one lane of HOV, and one dedicated merge lane in each direction. When the I-5 passes by Disneyland it widens to 14 lanes and there are dedicated multi-lane flyover ramps that lead directly into the Disneyland parking structure. Disneyland has over 20 Million people visit per year, so Disney, CalTrans, and the Orange County Transit Authority all worked together to create a massive and incredibly efficient freeway system to smooth entry and exit to the park's 10,000 space parking garage. It's reduced pollution and saved countless dollars in efficiency and fuel. When the I-5 merges with the I-405 south of me in Irvine it has 16 LANES of travel as the two large freeways meet and merge together, with dedicated flyover ramps for trucks and HOV lanes.

From 4 lanes past Portland's Rose Garden area, to 14 lanes past Disneyland. What else were people expecting out of these four lanes in Portland but choking, sputtering traffic?

Now I know that the paragraphs above have sent some native Portlanders who bike to work in ice storms into fits of convulsion and horror, and I appreciate those of you who struggled through them, but I think that should serve as a valid point of reference for what Portland is dealing with here by hosting 30 miles of Interstate 5 through town.

The I-5 bridge over the Columbia needs to be replaced since it is 50 to 90 years old. It needs to be widened to handle the additional traffic no one foresaw in 1917 and 1958 when the bridges were built. Cars and trucks aren't going away anytime in the next 50 years. They will be cleaner and leaner and easier to own in the decades ahead, but they aren't going away. Widen and modernize the Columbia river freeway bridge. Add in lanes for transit and bikes and accomodations for rail. Make it safer in earthquakes. Make it prettier. Because it will still be used by millions of privately owned vehicles 50 years from now.

And once the new Columbia crossing is funded and underway, then Portland needs to do something about the two lane freeway that barely classifies as a freeway through the center of town. I realize the 12 lane average in Orange County, where traffic flows remarkably freely and easily in a county of 3.5 Million, isn't going to happen in greener-than-thou Portland. But do you think that just maybe PDX could think about widening the eastside I-5 to 8 lanes of traffic instead of 4? Three lanes of regular traffic and one HOV lane in each direction perhaps?

It just kills me that people comment about a "bottleneck" when Interstate 5 is reduced to just two lanes! A freeway bottleneck with two lanes?! Why, you don't say!

[pdxman]

I have to agree with you MightyAlweg on everything you brought up, except the point about 4 lanes running by the rose garden. I would say there is only actually 2 lanes that run through that area--both of those lanes being dedicated i-5 lanes. The two lanes that break away from i-84 aren't even direct merge lanes on to i-5, they are exit only's to the lloyd district and rose quarter. This perhaps explains why there is such a huge bottleneck there. All the cars coming from 84 going to 5 have to immediately slam over 1 or 2 lanes to merge, creating very slow traffic and bad backups.

Portlands freeways are very poorly designed and unless some action is taken to clear up and streamline the many bottlenecks in the area traffic will only get much, much worse and with a million+ people possibly moving to the area within the next 30 years or so I see this as a major issue. As mightyalweg said the car is not going to disappear anytime soon and with a good amount of these newcomers coming from places like california you can bet they won't just dump their cars and jump on the bus and max right away or even at all--Trimet needs to be much, much, much better than it is now for that to happen.

Also, we tend to focus on the young, single educated crowd moving to portland or the wealthy nesting in the pearl or sowa but what about the families moving to beaverton or gresham or, god forbid, vancouver? Transportation options for them are very limited and for the most part not even practical. Good bus service in the burbs is almost non-existent, and while the max runs through places like hillsboro and gresham it only serves those who live close by or have the patience to wait for a bus to take them to it. The southern suburbs are perhaps the most underserved in the metro area! These are the places where people and their families will be moving. I'm not advocating giving up on transit in these areas but the reality is people will drive in these areas because it is the easiest, fastest, most convenient way to get around.

Portland proper is a special and unique place that is designed well with great transit and a population that supports it but the suburbs are the same as anywhere else in america and the people who live in them do so because they like that environment and they prefer that lifestyle. It doesn't mean we just give in and build 12 lane highways everywhere but that we streamline the freeways and eliminate bottlenecks so that the system can flow. Transit also has to be good enough(fast, efficient, safe) to lure them away from their cars and right now in the suburbs it is definitely NOT good enough.

That's my 2 cents on the subject, feel free to disagree! I know most will. And just to remind everyone that I do not have a car and ride the bus DAILY. I am most certainly not anti-transit nor pro-car.

[zilfondel]

Yeah, there's a sporadic merge lane off to the side that either leads to the Banfield southbound or MLK northbound, but the core travel lanes are reduced to the bare minimum of two lanes. And the funniest part is that if you drive I-5 from Seattle to San Diego the freeway widens as it passes through cities. Only in central Portland does it narrow to two lanes as if it was still 1958 and ODOT was on a tight budget.

Keep going south on I-5 for 750 miles and when it arrives in my corner of the world in Orange County it widens to 12 LANES; Four lanes of regular traffic, one lane of HOV, and one dedicated merge lane in each direction. When the I-5 passes by Disneyland it widens to 14 lanes and there are dedicated multi-lane flyover ramps that lead directly into the Disneyland parking structure. Disneyland has over 20 Million people visit per year, so Disney, CalTrans, and the Orange County Transit Authority all worked together to create a massive and incredibly efficient freeway system to smooth entry and exit to the park's 10,000 space parking garage. It's reduced pollution and saved countless dollars in efficiency and fuel. When the I-5 merges with the I-405 south of me in Irvine it has 16 LANES of travel as the two large freeways meet and merge together, with dedicated flyover ramps for trucks and HOV lanes.

Dude, you live in Southern California. Seriously, you can HAVE your 12 & 16-lane freeways, your endless traffic jams, and smog. Jesus Christ, there are places in this world that are different. Many people who live in Oregon do not want to be turn our state into the urban sprawl shithole that is California. Don't get me wrong, there is lots of money in California. And lots of cars. But that doesn't mean that we need to copy what has been done there.

In fact, do some research: did you know that Portland was the first city in America to REMOVE a freeway? Thats right! And one day, we're going to remove the eastbank freeway altogether. Ha! Then you'll really be pissed. And so will probably many other people.

But myself and many other residents of this city don't really give a shit, since the eastbank freeway doesn't really benefit residents all that much, except for SOV commuters and perhaps suburban delivery services. Take a look at most mid-sized cities in Europe, tho: very few of them have freeways that go through the middle.


For the cost of upgrading that freeway interchange, if it really would cost more than $4 billion that the CRC would, we could build at least 10 miles of metro lines in Portland, or over 40 miles of more light rail - that would expand the capacity of the region's transportation system a hell of a lot more.

The interstate is there, it works, and ironically its limited capacity/poor design actually helps to get people to take alternative forms of transportation - and for the city to look for more cost-effective transportation solutions.

For instance, we could be expanding I-5 like they do in Seattle and Tacoma. But, like they say, adding an extra lane to I-5 through Seattle could cost ~$25 BILLION. (by comparison)

Just something to think about...

...ride a bike. it will save you money. ;-)

[NJD]

^ well Zin, you may ride your bike as part of the potential infrastructure stimulus package, via Bike Portland:

AASHTO approves framework for U.S. Bike Route System

Bike Portland, Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on October 28th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

“We know this route network will not materialize overnight. But then again, neither did the Interstate Highway System.”
– Adventure Cycling’s Ginny Sullivan

Calling it a “very big milestone”, backers of the U.S. Bicycle Route System (USBRS) are celebrating a key decision that sets a course for creating the largest official bicycle route network in the world.

The system’s National Corridor Plan has just been approved by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The corridor plan is a 50,000 mile network of 50-mile wide swaths that criss-cross the country and link key destinations (map below).

[rsbear]

I'll throw this out, just for the hell of it. More than a couple of folks have made a big deal out of the fact that I5 is two lanes in each direction along the East Bank and through the Rose Quarter. While that is correct for I5, the actual number of complete freeway lanes through the city center is four - two lanes on I5 and two on I405. Plus there's I205 that adds two constant through lanes through the entire metro area.

[MightyAlweg]

Originally Posted by pdxman

I have to agree with you MightyAlweg on everything you brought up, except the point about 4 lanes running by the rose garden. I would say there is only actually 2 lanes that run through that area--both of those lanes being dedicated i-5 lanes.

I was just going off of memory from when I was stuck in traffic there for 10 minutes a few times during my August visit. I just remember counting the lanes on one hand and thinking "This is Interstate 5? I've seen drive-thru banks with more lanes than this! How have they not widened and modernized this yet?!"

[NJD]

Public Works Projects Promoted at Hearing

NYTimes By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 29, 2008

WASHINGTON — Business executives and Republicans joined Democrats and labor unions in clamoring Wednesday for a multibillion dollar initiative to stimulate the economy with more federal spending on roads and bridges, waterways, airports, railways, schools and energy-saving technology.

Now is not the time to worry about the federal budget deficit, the witnesses and members of Congress said at a hearing of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey, a Democrat, told the committee that Congress should take action “post-election, not post-inauguration” — in November or December, instead of waiting until after the new administration takes over in late January — to provide $250 billion to $300 billion for new projects.

Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota and chairman of the committee, said he was tired of hearing from economists who believed that spending on public works would not be of much help because the projects were built slowly, over months or years.

“The problem with those economists,” Mr. Oberstar said, “is that they never had their hands on a shovel and never had a callus on them.”

Lawmakers of both parties said that Congress, having passed a $700 billion bill to bail out banks and Wall Street investment houses, now needed to help consumers and smaller businesses.

Mr. Oberstar said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, had made a “firm commitment” to pass an economic recovery bill, with money for transportation and public works, as soon as possible.

Ms. Pelosi said this week that she would try to work with President Bush to “find bipartisan agreement on an economic recovery package.” She emphasized the need for “fiscal discipline,” and House leadership aides said that any bill passed this year was unlikely to provide more than $100 billion.

Mr. Bush threatened to veto a $61 billion stimulus bill passed by the House on Sept. 26. “Infrastructure projects require lengthy time periods to plan and build and would not create a substantial number of jobs in the near future,” Mr. Bush said then.

Lawmakers took issue with the president on Wednesday.

Because of the recent slowdown, Mr. Oberstar said, “there is a huge backlog of infrastructure projects that are ready to go” in three or four months, if additional money is made available.

State transportation officials said they could start work on more than 3,000 highway projects totaling $18 billion within 30 to 90 days. Mass transit officials said they could have $8 billion of projects ready to go in 90 days.

The senior Republican on the committee, Representative John L. Mica of Florida, heartily endorsed the effort. “Every billion dollars of spending on highways and transportation projects results in 35,000 new jobs,” Mr. Mica said, using a figure in the midrange of estimates by economists.

Mr. Mica said that any bill should include tax relief to help businesses create jobs, perhaps by allowing them to write off equipment expenses faster.

The total package will probably cost $200 billion to $300 billion, Mr. Mica predicted.

Business executives and some economists said that such spending would increase economic activity, national income and productivity, thus generating revenue for the government.

Many points made Wednesday echoed arguments made long ago by Henry Clay, the Kentucky congressman who championed federal support for roads and canals in the 19th century, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who put hundreds of thousands of people to work on construction projects during the Depression.

John D. Porcari, the transportation secretary in Maryland, urged Congress on Wednesday to take a long view. “Transportation dollars are converted to physical assets that will last 50 to 100 years or more,” he said.

John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and Terence M. O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, which represents construction workers, joined the chorus of support for the legislation.

“There is no better time than today” to begin a major program of public works projects, said Mr. Engler, a Republican who was governor of Michigan from 1991 through 2002.

The deteriorating condition of roads and bridges harms manufacturers, he said, because 80 percent of the nation’s freight is carried by truck. Moreover, he said, manufacturers depend on inland waterways to move coal, petroleum and agricultural products.

Mr. O’Sullivan said the construction industry was in the midst of the worst downturn in 40 years, with nearly one million construction workers, or one-tenth of the total, out of work.

“Construction jobs are too good to keep losing,” Mr. O’Sullivan said, noting that they paid an average of more than $40,000 a year.

The starting point for Congress is the bill passed last month by the House, which would provide money for public works projects, extended unemployment benefits, larger food stamp allotments and help for states struggling with Medicaid costs.

The National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities sent a joint letter to Congress this week appealing for help. They endorsed proposals for transportation spending and a temporary increase in the federal share of Medicaid.

Inevitably, Mr. Mica said, Congress will earmark some money for specific projects. But, he added, Congress will avoid “bad earmarks” and the legislation will not be stuffed with pork barrel projects.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by MightyAlweg

I was just going off of memory from when I was stuck in traffic there for 10 minutes a few times during my August visit. I just remember counting the lanes on one hand and thinking "This is Interstate 5? I've seen drive-thru banks with more lanes than this! How have they not widened and modernized this yet?!"

And I5 in the East LA interchange drops down to only three lanes. Let's see - 2 lanes for 2 million people (PDX) versus 3 three lanes for over 10 million people (LAX). Seems like the point could be made that LA's I5 is more deficient than Portland's I5.

Side note - I lived in Portland for 26 years and I've now lived in LA for 15 years, so I have relevant experience to make this observation.

[MightyAlweg]

Originally Posted by rsbear

And I5 in the East LA interchange drops down to only three lanes. Let's see - 2 lanes for 2 million people (PDX) versus 3 three lanes for over 10 million people (LAX). Seems like the point could be made that LA's I5 is more deficient than Portland's I5.

Side note - I lived in Portland for 26 years and I've now lived in LA for 15 years, so I have relevant experience to make this observation.

You and I have lived similar lives. I was in the Northwest for 25 years, and have been in SoCal for 15 years.

Now I live happily in Orange County and try never to drive north of the 91 Freeway. If I do go to LA, usually once per year to the Auto Show, I take the Surfliner from the Anaheim station or Metrolink from the Orange station and then take the Red line to the Blue line to get to the convention center.

I just refuse to drive on LA County's decrepit freeways. You can tell you have crossed over the Orange County line on I-5 when it goes from three lanes to eight lanes. When it comes to driving I stay happily in Orange County, with occasional jaunts to San Diego or Palm Springs. LA just isn't my scene.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by MightyAlweg

You and I have lived similar lives. I was in the Northwest for 25 years, and have been in SoCal for 15 years.

Now I live happily in Orange County and try never to drive north of the 91 Freeway. If I do go to LA, usually once per year to the Auto Show, I take the Surfliner from the Anaheim station or Metrolink from the Orange station and then take the Red line to the Blue line to get to the convention center.

I just refuse to drive on LA County's decrepit freeways. You can tell you have crossed over the Orange County line on I-5 when it goes from three lanes to eight lanes. When it comes to driving I stay happily in Orange County, with occasional jaunts to San Diego or Palm Springs. LA just isn't my scene.

Similar but opposite - I try never to go south of the 10 let alone the OC line.

[WestCoast]

started seeing new signage downtown for the yellow/green lines going down 5th and 6th.

looks great.


Sort of surprised it will be another 10 months before service is running, but I guess there is still plenty of work and testing to do?

[Dougall5505]

from a email:

Train testing means no parking on 5th & 6th avenues, November 19 & 20
Crews from the Portland Mall project will be running equipment on the new rail tracks that have been completed downtown, to test the connection between the overhead wire and the pickup point on the trains. The tests will be conducted on Wednesday and Thursday, November 19 and 20, and to run the testing equipment on the rails, all parking must be temporarily removed from 5th and 6th avenues on those two days. The good news is that this testing work is ahead of schedule, and was originally listed to be done among the project's holiday moratorium exceptions.