News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Sunrise Expressway

Started by Sub-Urbanite, July 04, 2016, 06:02:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sub-Urbanite

Anyone checked out the new OR 224 Sunrise Expressway yet? Interesting setup. More like a parkway with a 50 mph limit — the center median is more of a landscaped curb, doesn't have any exits, and it's got a funky connection to I-205. But, it's a nice bypass and, fingers crossed, is Phase I of a freeway out to US 26.


opspe

Well, the Milwaukie Expressway isn't much different.  Somehow I don't think they'll ever connect it to 26 though, seeing as how well that went last time they tried...  I think the main impetus for building the Sunrise Expressway was to alleviate congestion relating to that giant Fred Meyer warehouse.

sp_redelectric

If the Sunrise Expressway were pushed east, I wonder if it would be worthwhile to reroute US 26 onto Oregon 212, then 224 to the Ross Island Bridge (or, for that matter...route it west on I-205, north on I-5 and 217...) 

Powell Boulevard, within Gresham city limits, is already outside of ODOT jurisdiction, and Portland is begging to get its share of Powell.

sparker

If they ever did reroute US 26 along or near OR 212, I'd like to be first in line to scavenge the infamous "OR 212/Boring/Oregon City" BGS!  :biggrin:  But seriously, as one who resided in Portland in the early '90's, I'm surprised ODOT didn't attempt to reroute 26 north on Hogan Drive or one of the avenues to the west up to I-84 in order to remove through traffic from Powell; and then multiplex it west on 84 & US 30 to the downtown loop.  Removing through traffic from city streets was something of a priority with them.

The Ghostbuster

I'm surprised a new road got constructed in the Portland area, as the city is more known for building rail transit, and densifing the entire region.

sparker

Multnomah County (Portland) and parts of 4 neighboring counties are included in Metro, the regional governing body (so far, the only one of its type in the U.S.).  All issues re transportation, land use, housing deployment, etc. must be vetted through this agency -- even the jurisdictions within the regional boundaries cannot act on any of these matters on their own without the consent of Metro.  Even the state must defer to Metro decisions and policies; the directors of Metro are elected officials rather than appointees.  The existence of this body has essentially put a halt to housing starts around the regional periphery; the only significant development that has been allowed to date has been infill to increase density in areas with existing significant population, such as the unincorporated area between Portland and Gresham. 

Even ODOT must defer to Metro policy -- but the developmental policies of the two agencies are more alike than different; the effects of this can be seen in the lack of capacity expansion on I-5 from downtown to the Columbia River; neither entity wishes to expedite auto travel in or out of the region (and the region ends at the state line in the middle of the river!).  The construction of the direct freeway connection from I-5 to OR 217 has been the highest-profile road project (aside from safety-related modifications to the I-5 Terwilliger Curve section of that route). 

Most of Metro's land-use planning decisions stem from research done by the urban planning department of PSU -- I ascertained that when I was doing my doctoral program there (public policy) in the '90's.  Took a lot of U.P. courses as part of the curriculum; not a lot of love for the automobile there, folks!   However, PDX (local term derived from the airport designation) does have a quite extensive rail system (LR & trolley, plus new local passenger service south of town) -- but the last time I was there (about 2005), the bus system still was so convoluted as to be practically useless -- particularly in the western reaches of town; east of the Willamette the city is principally laid out in a grid pattern, so bus service is at least adequate out there. 

Ironically, the fact that the state line along the river functions as Metro's boundary has been both a problem as well as an unanticipated boon to the area:  there's no equivalent agency in Washington, and development in the area around Vancouver features the type of housing anathema to Metro planners -- mainly large-property single dwellings, with commercial development similar to much of the rest of the West Coast.  Metro had invited Clark County to join itself, but the state of Washington demurred in a fashion, requiring that any county wishing to join such an entity must vote to do so; so far, Clark County has rejected several referenda on that issue dating back to 1994.  The unanticipated boon has been that Washington has provided something of a "safety valve" for developers and political factions opposing Metro (both in concept and in deed).  Regional developers wishing to construct single-family housing merely have to cross the river to do so; at the inception of Metro circa 1990 it was feared that a constant barrage of litigation might derail the regional concept.  But the presence of a viable alternative has kept such opposition to the level of political rumblings and grousing over unfavorable Metro decisions.  But the housing market across the river is booming -- not in small part to the somewhat lower Washington state income tax, but the fact that Oregon has no sales tax.  All the Southern Washington consumer needs do to save the 7-8% in state sales taxes is head on over the Columbia and buy their big-ticket items in Oregon -- and drag them back across the river! 

But getting back to road issues -- bottom line:  as long as there's a Metro, with its particular take on regional development and egress, don't expect much in the way of highway projects within a 30-mile radius of downtown Portland.         

compdude787

That's some really interesting info there about Metro, sparker. I've always found it amazing that most of the interstate freeways in Portland are three lanes max in each direction, with a stretch of I-5 between I-84 and the northern terminus of I-405 being a mere two lanes in each direction. Good thing they're widening that!!

But then again, Portland is a much smaller urban area, and it actually has a decent bypass (I-205), something that cannot be said of Seattle. So I guess the narrower freeways make sense. I'm just not used to freeways being that narrow!

Bickendan

If you think Portland's freeways are narrow, take a drive down I-35 through Kansas City. It doesn't even hit six lanes until the I-29 concurrency. https://goo.gl/maps/ixJWF3hW6bx

opspe

They've been doing some major upgrades along 217 as well - not to mention that they sort of botched its intersection with I-5.  But as a rule of thumb, after what happened with the Mt Hood Freeway, most freeway projects are non-starters in Portland.

But hey, Metro can say that the Sunrise Expressway isn't technically a freeway.  I remember similar statements about the Bend Parkway.

Sub-Urbanite

Quote from: sparker on July 06, 2016, 10:25:02 PM
Multnomah County (Portland) and parts of 4 neighboring counties are included in Metro, the regional governing body (so far, the only one of its type in the U.S.).  All issues re transportation, land use, housing deployment, etc. must be vetted through this agency -- even the jurisdictions within the regional boundaries cannot act on any of these matters on their own without the consent of Metro.  Even the state must defer to Metro decisions and policies; the directors of Metro are elected officials rather than appointees.

They can, they just have to do transportation decisions within the confines of the Regional Transportation Plan — which is no different than any other MPO in the country.

Quote from: sparker on July 06, 2016, 10:25:02 PM
  The existence of this body has essentially put a halt to housing starts around the regional periphery; the only significant development that has been allowed to date has been infill to increase density in areas with existing significant population, such as the unincorporated area between Portland and Gresham. 

How? There's plenty of land around the UGB. Developers aren't building there because Portland and its suburbs don't subsidize growth through sales taxes the way other cities do.

sparker

Most MPO's function as either a source of planning concepts and/or a vetting agency for plans conceived by jurisdictions other than the MPO itself.  Enforcement of those plans remains with the separate jurisdictions (cities, counties, state transportation agencies).  PDX's Metro has the legal standing to itself compel enforcement of its standards and policies -- even absent the consent of the other jurisdictions within its parvenu -- which sets it apart from cookie-cutter MPO's.  For the most part, they do function as an MPO -- but with an additional set of teeth!

There is plenty of land around the UGB -- and a substantial amount that has yet to be developed.  That, in a nutshell, is one of the missions of Metro -- setting aside a significant amount of open land as "greenbelts".  A significant plurality of the building permits vetted by Metro are in fact "infill"; one of their programmed goals is the increase of density between I-205 and Gresham, as well as the deployment of relatively compact housing along the west LR line between Beaverton and Hillsboro (this was often the subject of ongoing discussions at PSU planning seminars back about 1993-94, when the west side LR tunnel was still being bored through the West Hills).


Bickendan

Midcounty's street network is abysmal for supporting higher density. Portland and Metro needs to address that problem if they want to increase density between 95th and 174th.

bookem

I drove the new highway the day after it opened and it does have a nice parkway feel... and fairly scenic despite skirting a huge industrial area. I don't see this corridor ever being built out to the originally proposed 6-8 lanes, especially now that Damascus likely won't be densifying as previously planned, but this is an important enough commuter route and connection to Mt. Hood and central Oregon that it could easily become a 4-lane expressway all the way to Boring Jct. (and, as suggested above, even serve as an eventual reroute for Hwy 26).

The signage on I-205 is a little wonky; the old route still carries Hwy 212 and has Damascus as a control city, while the new expressway (Hwy 224) has Estacada as a control city, even though both destinations can be approached via both routes. Trying to split the traffic load, I guess?

sparker

#13
Fully agree with you, Bickendan, about the mid-county network.....still a lot of dirt & gravel, not to mention discontinuous streets galore!  Problem is, as always, $$$; the locals in unincorporated territory (including my cousin Carol, who owns a convenience store at 148th & Powell) bristle at any increased assessment -- not surprising, since it's generally older housing stock out there, including a lot of frame houses that look like they're on their last legs.  It'll take a lot of political will (and probably more than a few buyouts!) to accomplish any significant revamping of the area.  Since housing development and streets tend to be developed as a unit, revision in that area will likely result in drastically different traffic patterns.

Sub-Urbanite

Quote from: sparker on July 09, 2016, 07:18:18 PM
Fully agree with you, Bickendan, about the mid-county network.....still a lot of dirt & gravel, not to mention discontinuous streets galore!  Problem is, as always, $$$; the locals in unincorporated territory (including my cousin Carol, who owns a convenience store at 148th & Powell) bristle at any increased assessment -- not surprising, since it's generally older housing stock out there, including a lot of frame houses that look like they're on their last legs.  It'll take a lot of political will (and probably more than a few buyouts!) to accomplish any significant revamping of the area.  Since housing development and streets tend to be developed as a unit, revision in that area will likely result in drastically different traffic patterns.

Welcome to 2016, 20 years after the area got annexed by the city.

The city significantly up zoned the area — Metro has no authority to force upzoning in single-family neighborhoods — and that was a debacle. A lot of downzoning happening in the next comp plan. Biggest issue now is a bunch of activists in the area think things like sidewalks will lead to endless gentrification.

sparker

Yeah -- Metro was chartered as a "big picture" agency, IMO wisely keeping their distance from zoning issues (lest they be accused of micromanagement of localized/neighborhood issues); while their overall policy is to expedite infill, it was never intended that they  have specific condemnation authority.  The ball is in Portland's court regarding mid-county zoning issues; as long as development formats that actually decrease the present density level aren't introduced, Metro will be reluctant to nose into the matter.  Portland itself seems a bit gun-shy regarding the appearance of gentrification -- ever since the Pearl District was redeveloped in such a fashion as to price out all but more affluent residents.  Although the lack of affordable housing in the Pearl was, to a large degree, a product of its location adjacent to the CBD (a similar situation has occurred here in San Jose, where I am presently residing, with the neighborhood in the area of North First Street -- like the Pearl, developed in conjunction with in-city rail facilities -- changing from a mixed-architecture traditional neighborhood to a series of condo complexes, all priced well above the local median for that format), it has nevertheless cast something of a shadow on density increases elsewhere in the city, even if the local environment is decidedly different.  To many of the local residents (my relatives included), their rights to reside as they choose where they choose, even if the neighborhood is a bit ragged around the edges, are in jeopardy -- not so much by a Metro-initiated "master plan" of sorts, but by developers who seem intent on "slicing & dicing" their neighborhoods into continuous strings of pricey condo complexes.  Specifically, there seems to be a pervasive fear that more financially desperate households in the midcounty area  - and this area has not come close to recovery from the last recession -- will be persuaded to sell out to such developers.  The realty market, especially to those without the current admission price, has become a very frightening thing -- if one simply wants to stay put in their present housing situation.  The whole infill process in the area has become an ongoing scenario of unintended consequences; I for one don't see this deadlock subsiding in the near term unless the city or Metro can provide believable reassurances to midcounty residents that localized denser development won't result in massive area changes.  Perhaps if any upzoning could be limited/restricted to the areas directly adjacent to the East Burnside LR line (or possibly the Gresham CBD), any ongoing tensions might be eased a bit.             

froggie

QuoteIronically, the fact that the state line along the river functions as Metro's boundary has been both a problem as well as an unanticipated boon to the area:  there's no equivalent agency in Washington, and development in the area around Vancouver features the type of housing anathema to Metro planners -- mainly large-property single dwellings, with commercial development similar to much of the rest of the West Coast.  Metro had invited Clark County to join itself, but the state of Washington demurred in a fashion, requiring that any county wishing to join such an entity must vote to do so; so far, Clark County has rejected several referenda on that issue dating back to 1994.  The unanticipated boon has been that Washington has provided something of a "safety valve" for developers and political factions opposing Metro (both in concept and in deed).  Regional developers wishing to construct single-family housing merely have to cross the river to do so; at the inception of Metro circa 1990 it was feared that a constant barrage of litigation might derail the regional concept.  But the presence of a viable alternative has kept such opposition to the level of political rumblings and grousing over unfavorable Metro decisions.  But the housing market across the river is booming -- not in small part to the somewhat lower Washington state income tax, but the fact that Oregon has no sales tax.  All the Southern Washington consumer needs do to save the 7-8% in state sales taxes is head on over the Columbia and buy their big-ticket items in Oregon -- and drag them back across the river! 

Problem here is that it has made a bad situation at the Interstate Bridge that much worse.  Those developing Vancouver and expecting those new residents to cross the river for work are reaping the money, but the residents are stuck with the congestion tab.  It's also affecting North Portland negatively, as I saw during my stay there last summer.

Sub-Urbanite

Quote from: sparker on July 10, 2016, 02:48:21 AM
Yeah -- Metro was chartered as a "big picture" agency, IMO wisely keeping their distance from zoning issues (lest they be accused of micromanagement of localized/neighborhood issues); while their overall policy is to expedite infill, it was never intended that they  have specific condemnation authority.  The ball is in Portland's court regarding mid-county zoning issues; as long as development formats that actually decrease the present density level aren't introduced, Metro will be reluctant to nose into the matter.  Portland itself seems a bit gun-shy regarding the appearance of gentrification -- ever since the Pearl District was redeveloped in such a fashion as to price out all but more affluent residents.  Although the lack of affordable housing in the Pearl was, to a large degree, a product of its location adjacent to the CBD (a similar situation has occurred here in San Jose, where I am presently residing, with the neighborhood in the area of North First Street -- like the Pearl, developed in conjunction with in-city rail facilities -- changing from a mixed-architecture traditional neighborhood to a series of condo complexes, all priced well above the local median for that format), it has nevertheless cast something of a shadow on density increases elsewhere in the city, even if the local environment is decidedly different.           

Wow. That's not my impression at all. The Pearl District doesn't really enter a lot of gentrification conversations because it wasn't home to a lot of people when the project started, and the city has put in about 1,000 affordable units there. The bigger gentrification issues are North Williams, where the black community hasn't quite been forced out but has been heavily fractured, and to a lesser extent inner Division, where people's quiet single-family homes suddenly were surrounded with apartments. (Gasp! You live in a city and there are apartments on a main street! Shocking!)

There's a weird meme in Portland that new apartments somehow drive up housing prices. It's wrong, but for some reason people firmly believe it.

sparker

That's an interesting development regarding the deployment of affordable housing in the Pearl!  The last time I was up there a little over 10 years ago, there was a lot of grumbling going on among my PSU cohorts regarding this very issue.  I did know that there was some land left within the district (the "gentrification" centered around the newly-installed trolley line and was, at the time, expanding outward from there) -- but the mood among the planning community back then was decidedly cynical.  They fully expected, despite their protests (and numerous submitted position papers), that pressures to offset the public costs incurred in the development process by deploying income-generating entities (upscale condos & businesses) would prevail.  Glad to hear that some common sense set in and that lower-income housing was indeed built there.   The fact that the Pearl was previously zoned as an industrial area -- which meant that redevelopment didn't involve residential displacement -- became moot with the original upzoning; once it was built up, they came!

Sad to hear about N. Williams -- unfortunately, once the LR line up Interstate, a few blocks over, was in place some form of disruptive development was likely to occur, taking advantage of the enhanced access.  For better or worse, that area featured some of the city's older housing stock -- ripe for "teardown"-style development (epidemic here in San Jose!); such likely spread east to include Williams.

There is indeed a disconnect among metro PDX residents; the more "blue-collar" Midcounty residents, as well as their counterparts in the lower-density parts of Washington County -- that aggregate group being the locus of much of the anti-apartment seniment --  seem to have "circled the wagons", intensifying their perceptions.   IMO, it's not just the financial aspect of prospective development that has them up in arms; it's the concept, real or imagined, that the large population influx anticipated with denser development will have a deleterious effect on the semi-rural lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.  Bottom line -- they don't want to live next to large blocks of people; they prefer a more individualized and dispersed approach to their living environment.  For better or worse, this is the perception that Portland, Metro, or whomever must address when formulating "master plans" including these areas.

JasonOfORoads

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 04, 2016, 06:02:07 PM
Anyone checked out the new OR 224 Sunrise Expressway yet? Interesting setup. More like a parkway with a 50 mph limit — the center median is more of a landscaped curb, doesn't have any exits, and it's got a funky connection to I-205. But, it's a nice bypass and, fingers crossed, is Phase I of a freeway out to US 26.

According to ODOT, this portion isn't an extension or realignment of the Clackamas Highway #171, but a brand new highway, the Sunrise Expressway #75. ODOT released a straightline chart in June (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/rics/docs/Straightline_Charts/slchart_pdfs/Hwy075.pdf). Officially, its mileage (more or less) continues that of the Clackamas Highway, starting at MP 4.11 and ending at 6.26. However, the route uses mileposts 1 and 2 instead of 5 and 6 :confused: I'm not even sure if they're located at the same spots as 5 and 6.

This weird milepost sitch may lend credence to that full freeway to 26 by giving it separate mileposts. However, given that the mileposts are extending #171's mileage internally, ODOT also could just be doing what they did in the past -- give the freeway its own name and number (like the T.H. Banfield Expressway #56 in the 1950s), then move the highway designation (in my example, the Columbia River Highway #2) onto the freeway when completed, thus giving the old route a different highway name/number (such as the Sandy Boulevard Highway #59) or just decommission it altogether. I can envision the latter happening on current #171 west of SE 122nd, and certainly the entire street portion will no doubt be decommissioned from 205 to the current 212/224 split once it's a full freeway.

On that note, I'm wondering if 212 will be decommissioned back to the split soon. Probably not until the freeway is complete, I imagine.
Borderline addicted to roadgeeking since ~1989.

Thunderbyrd316

Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 04, 2016, 06:02:07 PM
Anyone checked out the new OR 224 Sunrise Expressway yet? Interesting setup. More like a parkway with a 50 mph limit — the center median is more of a landscaped curb, doesn't have any exits, and it's got a funky connection to I-205. But, it's a nice bypass and, fingers crossed, is Phase I of a freeway out to US 26.

   The thing that REALLY annoys me about this whole highway project is how S.E. 82nd Drive now connects to S.E. 82nd Avenue, ESPECIALLY southbound! Who in their right mind would ever thing it is a good idea not only to make a left turn from a segment of roadway that was previously freeway standard ACROSS the high speed northbound ramp from I-205 and then as if that was not bad enough, put a STRAIGHT arrow on the signal mast that makes it look to those not familiar with the set up of this wonky junction that you are supposed to go STRAIGHT AHEAD ONTO the ramp from I-205 north the WRONG WAY! Link: http://gokml.net/maps-azteca.php#ll=45.419681,-122.568545&z=16&t=r



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.