Portland Metro Freeway/Highway/Roads News and Discussions

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

Good. Cars are comfortable. When it's hot it has air conditioner. When it's cold it has a heater. We are grown adults with lives we don't have time to bike

Yes, that is why obesity is through the roof in this country. Also cars are a pain when you create traffic and it takes forever to get anywhere because of it. Also, when biking, your body keeps you warm because you are being physically active. The only reason why you are cold or hot in a car is because you are just sitting.

You want skyscrapers and freeways, so seriously, why do you live here?

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by Pavlov's Dog

The purpose of my post was to address a current transportation issue, not lament about our ancestors choices. In this day and age it is pretty much a given that a new bridge across the Columbia will have to be financed by a toll. In general I am very much in favor of both road pricing and increased fuel taxes. People who use roads should pay for them. There is a massive back-log of both maintenance and construction. As always the poor would be very adversely effected by a fuel tax increase though since it is a large portion of many people's incomes.

sorry, but weren't you advocating for an entirely NEW bridge AND freeway? I apologize if you were being sarcastic, but that thinking is precisely what's wrong with state and federal transportation planning. constantly thinking about how to make it EASIER to commute by cars. creating a more efficient way to get from Vantucky to Intel will only ENCOURAGE that sort of thinking, no?

I agree on the backlog of maintenance, but I personally will draw the line at any new freeways or even most widening projects. collectively we need to pull the focus away from cars and into transit/bike/ped thinking.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

You want skyscrapers and freeways, so seriously, why do you live here?

Sounds like he should check out Dubai, he'd probably love it there.

[hat]

Recent city council hearing on the I-5 project was covered on bikeportland.

[Rob Nob]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

Good. Cars are comfortable. When it's hot it has air conditioner. When it's cold it has a heater. We are grown adults with lives we don't have time to bike

And some people don't care about the negatives and are perfectly fine having their wasteful lifestyle subsidized by the public with no thought to the terrible environment it is creating.

I am a grown adult with a life and a child. I choose to live in the central city where I can bike, walk, and take transit for 90% of my trips, and it often takes less time than looking for a parking space.

[MarkDaMan]

Portland Bridge Climb project aims to give people view from the top
Christine Pitawanich, KGW 6:27 PM. PST December 06, 2017

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/portla...-top/497460402

PORTLAND, Ore. -- Hovering about 400 feet above the ground, KGW’s drone captures gorgeous views of downtown Portland. It’s the kind of view that Ryan Purdy wants people to take in from the top of the Fremont Bridge, that stands 381 feet above the Willamette River.

On Wednesday, he officially launched the website for his project, the "Portland Bridge Climb."

“The idea for the Portland Bridge Climb is to put a contraption or an attachment to the bridge and allow people to walk to the very top of it,” said Purdy.

...(continues)

[hat]

ODOT is studying seven different models for tolling, none of which appear to be aimed at reducing congestion in the city center. While tolling on either/both of the interstates that cross the Columbia may have an effect on revenue, it will have a negligible effect on the purpose of congestion pricing and tolling, i.e. reducing congestion where density and transit are most present and where SOV trips need not travel through the city center.

A much more effective method as evidenced by London, Oslo, Stockholm etc. is congestion pricing in the city center. This does not preclude tolling, but it does have an immediate effect on actual vehicle numbers.

Here's a quick vid on Stockholm.

Here are ODOT's scenarios:

1) Both interstates would be tolled on all lanes in both directions;

2) Both interstates would have one existing lane in each direction converted to a toll lane;

3) Both interstates would have an additional toll lane constructed in each direction;

4) I-5 would have no toll lanes and I-205 would have one additional lane constructed in each direction that would be tolled;

5) I-5 would be tolled on every lane in both directions; no tolls on I-205;

6) I-5 would have one existing lane in both directions converted to a toll lane; I-205 would have all lanes in both directions tolled;

7) I-5 would have one existing lane in both directions converted to a toll lane; I-205 would have a newly constructed toll lane added in both directions.

[trail_blazers_7]

Looks like the proposal is to toll 7 miles of I-5 and I-205 at the Abernathy bridge. If I’m not mistaken, the state constitution requires that money collected from tolls is to be used on roads. This would go mostly to ODOT, correct? My fear is that they would expand roadways well beyond what is reasonable. I don’t think bike infrastructure would be off limits for expansion with these funds.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by trail_blazers_7

Looks like the proposal is to toll 7 miles of I-5 and I-205 at the Abernathy bridge. If I’m not mistaken, the state constitution requires that money collected from tolls is to be used on roads. This would go mostly to ODOT, correct? My fear is that they would expand roadways well beyond what is reasonable. I don’t think bike infrastructure would be off limits for expansion with these funds.

The tolls would be used to help pay for the transportation bill that was recently passed. Basically it will be used to help cover he costs to the expansion that is planned for the 205, mostly the southern portion where they will be expanding each direction from two lanes to three lanes, which requires rebuilding the Abernathy Bridge. The other major construction would be getting rid of the bottleneck though the Rose Quarter.

Other major things that I wouldn't be surprised if the toll money went to would be expanding 217 from 4 lanes to 6 lanes.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

The tolls would be used to help pay for the transportation bill that was recently passed. Basically it will be used to help cover he costs to the expansion that is planned for the 205, mostly the southern portion where they will be expanding each direction from two lanes to three lanes, which requires rebuilding the Abernathy Bridge. The other major construction would be getting rid of the bottleneck though the Rose Quarter.

Other major things that I wouldn't be surprised if the toll money went to would be expanding 217 from 4 lanes to 6 lanes.

The transportation bill that passed last year (HB2017) essentially paid for itself by instituting an increase in gas tax and a variety of other taxes. I expect funds generated from tolling will be up for grabs by many competing interests - ODOT, cities, TriMet, etc

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

The transportation bill that passed last year (HB2017) essentially paid for itself by instituting an increase in gas tax and a variety of other taxes. I expect funds generated from tolling will be up for grabs by many competing interests - ODOT, cities, TriMet, etc

Tolling was also a part of the transportation bill. It was passed with the notion that tolling would need to happen to cover portion of the bill, without tolling, the state would have to figure out how to cover the shortcomings of the bill.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/ore...ss-house-2017/

[trail_blazers_7]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Tolling was also a part of the transportation bill. It was passed with the notion that tolling would need to happen to cover portion of the bill, without tolling, the state would have to figure out how to cover the shortcomings of the bill.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/ore...ss-house-2017/

What’s troubling about any method used to price roads is the fact that the state constitution requires those funds to be put back into roads. AFAIK that doesn’t preclude investment in cycle infra that would exist in the same ROW as a road, but I would imagine transit use would be off limits. The best that could be hoped for would be more money available that would have otherwise gone to subsidize roads.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by trail_blazers_7

What’s troubling about any method used to price roads is the fact that the state constitution requires those funds to be put back into roads. AFAIK that doesn’t preclude investment in cycle infra that would exist in the same ROW as a road, but I would imagine transit use would be off limits. The best that could be hoped for would be more money available that would have otherwise gone to subsidize roads.

Road funds can be used in a variety of ways for transportation purposes. Bike and pedestrian facilities are required adjacent to road facilities, so funds could be used for some of those. Bus lanes also qualify, but transit subsidies, light rail, and purchase of buses is probably off the table unless the constitution is amended. However, the article linked below says the state has raised a judicial inquiry about toll revenue uses and that hasn't come back yet as far as I know.

Recent Portland Tribune article on what tolling revenue can be used for

[trail_blazers_7]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

Road funds can be used in a variety of ways for transportation purposes. Bike and pedestrian facilities are required adjacent to road facilities, so funds could be used for some of those. Bus lanes also qualify, but transit subsidies, light rail, and purchase of buses is probably off the table unless the constitution is amended. However, the article linked below says the state has raised a judicial inquiry about toll revenue uses and that hasn't come back yet as far as I know.

Recent Portland Tribune article on what tolling revenue can be used for

Ah very good. Bus lanes that allow line jumping of traffic would go a very long way toward improving system reliability. There’s a lot of work to be done just repairing and repaving roads. Another thing I’d be curious about is fund allocation. That is, whether those funds would be used in the Portland metro area or if it would subsidize the entire state, ODOT vs PBOT etc

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by trail_blazers_7

Ah very good. Bus lanes that allow line jumping of traffic would go a very long way toward improving system reliability. There’s a lot of work to be done just repairing and repaving roads. Another thing I’d be curious about is fund allocation. That is, whether those funds would be used in the Portland metro area or if it would subsidize the entire state, ODOT vs PBOT etc

I am not fully sure of this, but my understanding is that the use of tolls on federal roads require that money to be used on those routes, so in a sense that money collected would only be used on the routes they are on within the Portland metro.

[MarkDaMan]

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...-approval.html

Tolls on I-5, I-205 ‘likely eligible’ for approval, feds say
Updated Jan 10, 1:11 PM; Posted Jan 10, 11:07 AM
By Andrew Theen | The Oregonian/OregonLive

When Oregon applied for federal approval last month to toll sections of Interstate 5 and 205 in the Portland area, state transportation leaders admitted they were “in somewhat uncharted territory.”

A proposal to toll all lanes on or near the Abernethy Bridge on I-205 to raise revenue for a new or seismically retrofitted bridge at the Clackamas County chokepoint was pretty straightforward. Tolling to raise cash for bridges, highways or tunnels is one of the key criteria under federal law.

But the plan to toll all lanes of Interstate 5 for several miles in North Portland was “a little bit more of a stretch,” according to Oregon Department of Transportation Deputy Director Travis Brouwer. Oregon had to make a case through a separate federal program, the Value Pricing Pilot Program, that tolling I-5 met federal standards.

Brouwer said there are only a handful of comparable cases where states have tolled existing freeways before building something like a bridge, tunnel or additional travel lane.

So, it was welcome news Tuesday when the Federal Highway Administration said both tolling proposals are “likely eligible” to move forward.

...(continues)

[MarkDaMan]

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...port-says.html

Rose Quarter freeway project would reduce travel times and greenhouse gases, report says
Updated 1 hr ago; Posted 2 hrs ago
By Andrew Theen | The Oregonian/OregonLive

If built, a proposed construction project along a problematic 1.7-mile stretch of Interstate 5 in the heart of Portland will dramatically reduce travel times, improve safety for bicycles and pedestrians through the area, and “slightly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

That’s according to an assessment released Friday by the Portland and state transportation departments. The two governments released their Environmental Assessment, kickstarting a 45-day public comment period.

The report is the most detailed analysis yet of the more than $500 million project to add wider shoulders, merging lanes and cover a section of I-5 through the Rose Quarter broadly between the I-405 and I-84 interchanges. The project includes a new pedestrian and bike bridge over the freeway and other street-level improvement the report says will make it safer for everyone to get around.

The city and state have been working on the project since 2010, and state lawmakers in 2017 agreed to contribute $500 million to the effort. The Rose Quarter section of I-5 is a key bottleneck across the state, and a proposal to address it drew support from outside the metro area.

As recently as last month, it appeared the project would include just 30 days for public comment, but that was subsequently extended to 45 days after concerns from Commissioner Chloe Eudaly and local advocacy groups.

...(continues)

[green_man]

I-5 in the vicinity of Rose Quarter is one of the more heinous bottlenecks in the metro area, and if it can reduce the amount of idling and accidents along this stretch, great. Looks like it also includes major improvements in biking and pedestrian facilities, including a vital link for the proposed Green Loop.

That said, half a billion for such a short stretch of freeway?

[Rob Nob]

http://cityobservatory.org/a-wider-f...educe-traffic/

"We’re going to dig deep into Portland’s proposed freeway-widening controversy today, and in the process we’re going to get into some very wonky traffic engineering details. Here’s the background: the Oregon Department of Transportation is proposing to widen a mile-long stretch of Interstate 5 through Portland, at a cost estimated approaching $500 million. ODOT is offering up a shifting array of rationales for the project. While they conceded that the project won’t reduce the regular daily traffic jams due to induced demand as we pointed out earlier, they argue that it will relieve congestion due by reducing crashes. The theory is that a wider road will have fewer crashes.

The project’s advocates have acknowledged that widening I-5 will do nothing to reduce the daily backups on I-5 that are associated with the heavy flows of commuter traffic. Instead, they’ve build the case for this project on its ability to reduce what they call “non-recurring” congestion–the delays associated with back ups due to crashes."

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by green_man

That said, half a billion for such a short stretch of freeway?

The project includes several new or expanded structures, which are quite costly to build. For example, the project would widen the structure over the Rose Quarter MAX station by about 18' in each direction and construct several new overpasses. In addition, widening the freeway in an urban setting means lots of costly retaining walls to stay within the transportation right-of-way. The estimate seems realistic, if not a bit underestimated given the amount of night work needed to minimize traffic disruptions.