HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2121  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 4:05 AM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
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.
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2122  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 5:25 AM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,788
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2123  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 5:36 AM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
I like to dream
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2124  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 6:00 AM
Stepping Razor Stepping Razor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Francisco, via Portland
Posts: 30
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2125  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 6:09 AM
rsbear's Avatar
rsbear rsbear is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas - Hill Country
Posts: 822
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2126  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 3:56 PM
digme digme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 51
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2127  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 4:56 PM
JordanL JordanL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by bvpcvm View Post
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".

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2128  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 5:26 PM
cab cab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,450
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2129  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 6:38 PM
PacificNW PacificNW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,116
Is downtown Vancouver, B.C. still not serviced with a freeway?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2130  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 9:45 PM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2131  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 10:24 PM
rsbear's Avatar
rsbear rsbear is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas - Hill Country
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilfondel View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2132  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2008, 12:27 AM
westsider's Avatar
westsider westsider is offline
Kicking a** since 1907
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilfondel View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2133  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2008, 12:40 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificNW View Post
Is downtown Vancouver, B.C. still not serviced with a freeway?
no, its not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbear View Post
zilfondel for Transportation Commissioner!
Hey, thanks! Maybe I should start a campaign? lol...

Last edited by zilfondel; Jun 13, 2008 at 12:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2134  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2008, 12:58 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,477
infrastructure needs money!

Quote:
Originally Posted by westsider View Post
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

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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 freight system - AlpTransit:

They are investing in huge tunnels 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.



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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2135  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2008, 1:24 AM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
^God I hope that doesn't happen...only because I'm selfish. My employer buys me a pass annually, and with a 'smart card' they could then change their stance to only paying for trips I take commuting to and from work. I had a 'smart card' in Phoenix and my employer forbid us from using it for anything other than the commute...and the damn card readers were broken down so much I had to take a couple bucks anyway, just in case. (When the card reader is down, they don't let you ride for free because you have a card)
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2136  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2008, 2:21 AM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
Smart cards seem like such a Portland thing. I bet the project manager up here in Seattle will run down there after he finishes his final report on the ORCA card
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2137  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2008, 3:32 AM
rsbear's Avatar
rsbear rsbear is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas - Hill Country
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilfondel View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2138  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2008, 4:05 AM
zaphod's Avatar
zaphod zaphod is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 700
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

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten.../0519wear.html
__________________
Ray bradbury was right. The future sucks

Last edited by zaphod; Jun 13, 2008 at 5:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2139  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2008, 4:22 AM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
^why do you think that? Portland is so anti-establishment, I don't see a huge 'smart card' lobby emerging.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2140  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2008, 4:23 AM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
^more reason to believe this is NOT the answer to the Portland metro's issues.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:20 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.