Oregon

[nexus73]

99E runs south of Albany to Junction City instead of multiplexing with I-5 to Eugene.  Junction City is where 99E/99W join and head south to Eugene as 99.

Rick

[xonhulu]

The 99E shields on the Jefferson Hwy have now been removed, except this one that was not recently installed but has been in place for several years now:


However, they have not been replaced by OR 164 signage, so I'm hoping that's still planned & that my innocent, well-meaning question hasn't messed things up!

[TEG24601]

They should have stuck with 82, though...

Then what's now I-82, actually added to the network in the final original system draft at the beginning of 1958, would likely have been the first iteration of either I-86 or I-88 rather that waiting for the 1968 batch of additions to utilize those numbers.

Part of why they changed it was that I-82, which was signed over Snoqualme pass at one point, was going to be a freeway from Yakima to the Washington Coast along US 12 and/or US/SR 410.  Portland really deserves to be connected to I-80, and give the freeway to San Francisco another, more appropriate number... like 50.

[Alps]

They should have stuck with 82, though...

Then what's now I-82, actually added to the network in the final original system draft at the beginning of 1958, would likely have been the first iteration of either I-86 or I-88 rather that waiting for the 1968 batch of additions to utilize those numbers.

Part of why they changed it was that I-82, which was signed over Snoqualme pass at one point, was going to be a freeway from Yakima to the Washington Coast along US 12 and/or US/SR 410.  Portland really deserves to be connected to I-80, and give the freeway to San Francisco another, more appropriate number... like 50.

I don't think the number 84 vs. 80 is going to affect Portland's economy substantially.

[sparker]

They should have stuck with 82, though...

Then what's now I-82, actually added to the network in the final original system draft at the beginning of 1958, would likely have been the first iteration of either I-86 or I-88 rather that waiting for the 1968 batch of additions to utilize those numbers.

Part of why they changed it was that I-82, which was signed over Snoqualme pass at one point, was going to be a freeway from Yakima to the Washington Coast along US 12 and/or US/SR 410.  Portland really deserves to be connected to I-80, and give the freeway to San Francisco another, more appropriate number... like 50.

I don't think the number 84 vs. 80 is going to affect Portland's economy substantially.

The designation of I-80N was a sop to Portland politicos during the '50's, when the Interstate system was still being "sold" to the states, with the lure of a "major" interstate a salient feature.   By the time the suffix was removed and the route became I-84 circa 1980, the city's anti-freeway sentiment was in full bloom; by then the political environment had changed and the designation was no longer a matter of contention.  At this point in time it's just another number.

[xonhulu]

We can add OR 255/Carpenterville Hwy to the list of signed Oregon Routes.  I don't know how long these have been in place, as this was my first visit to the area in about 3 years.

Its northern junction with US 101 near Pistol River, as seen from southbound 101:




There is no signage for it on northbound 101 at this endpoint. 

There are no confirming shields on 255 itself until its junction with Cape Ferrelo Rd further south:




Finally, there is a corresponding length limit sign on northbound 101 near 255's southern end in Brookings:


However, no 255 shields were posted at the intersection ahead where the highway leaves 101.  I guess motorists are left to figure that out for themselves.  And mirroring the northern terminus, there was no 255 signage posted on southbound 101 for this endpoint.

I also saw that OR 250, OR 251 and OR 542 remain unsigned.  The first two aren't surprising, as they are short (~3 mi and ~1 mi long respectively) spurs off 101 into state parks. 

But OR 542 is a substantial route of about 19 miles connecting the town of Powers to the state highway system and it appears on the State Highway map, so one would think it would merit signposting.  I drove its entire length and the only mention were bridge inventory markers and a pair of posts marking the southern end of ODOT's maintenance (using its hidden Hwy #242 instead of its route designation OR 542):


Nexus73, I believe you live near there: any idea why there's no love for OR 542?

[Bickendan]

542 has a bonus of a building with its address painted on it near the north end, and the street name is Hwy 242.

[nexus73]

Our local ODOT office is VERY reluctant to place signage for routes, let alone do an adequate job.  If I had not pushed hard with some help from our state House rep, what we have for 540 would not be present.

Want to deliver your opinion to this office?  Email: darrin.l.neavoll@odot.state.or.us

Rick

[xonhulu]

542 has a bonus of a building with its address painted on it near the north end, and the street name is Hwy 242.

I'm surprised they use Hwy 242 and not "Powers Hwy."  But I saw the same thing with home addresses on Hwy 241, as well.

Our local ODOT office is VERY reluctant to place signage for routes, let alone do an adequate job.  If I had not pushed hard with some help from our state House rep, what we have for 540 would not be present.

It's not much better around here (Salem), what with the nearby routes OR 153, OR 154, OR 164 and OR 194 still virtually completely unsigned almost 20 years after they were designated. 

Although that may soon be changing for OR 164. 

Want to deliver your opinion to this office?  Email: darrin.l.neavoll@odot.state.or.us

I just might.  The response could be amusing, if nothing else.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wonder if it's possible that the OR 42 to Powers road now signed as OR 542 was originally planned as signed Highway 242 back in the day, since it does fill a numbering gap between long-signed 240 and 244, and, south of Powers, winds its way down to the Rogue River canyon, which has often been speculated about as a "missing link" in the state signed highway network.  If that is indeed the case, then "242" would have been a ready (if mountainous) connection from such an E-W corridor up to the Coos Bay/Bandon area. 

One thing for certain:  OR 242 would never host even a tiny fraction of the traffic of its CA numbering twin!

[xonhulu]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wonder if it's possible that the OR 42 to Powers road now signed as OR 542 was originally planned as signed Highway 242 back in the day, since it does fill a numbering gap between long-signed 240 and 244, and, south of Powers, winds its way down to the Rogue River canyon, which has often been speculated about as a "missing link" in the state signed highway network.  If that is indeed the case, then "242" would have been a ready (if mountainous) connection from such an E-W corridor up to the Coos Bay/Bandon area. 

One thing for certain:  OR 242 would never host even a tiny fraction of the traffic of its CA numbering twin!

The secondary highways in Coos County, like 242, were originally given numbers in the 240's.  They also include Hwy 240 (Route 540); Hwy 241 (also Route 241); and Hwy 244 (signed as OR 42S).  Neighboring Curry County has hwy #s in the 250's, like the aforementioned 250,251, and 255.

I don't know if there were ever plans to make the Powers Highway into Route 242 previously, but that's pretty unlikely.  The route designation OR 242 was originally applied to a highway in the Willamette Valley in the 30's and 40's that is now part of OR 219.  Then that number got recycled for the McKenzie Pass highway in the 60's, when US 126 was re-routed up to Santiam Pass.  Thus in 2002-3, when ODOT assigned route numbers to their previously unnumbered highways, route number 242 was unavailable, so they assigned OR 542 to the Powers Highway.

A Gold Beach-to-Grants Pass highway does look like it would fill a gap on the map, but the mountainous terrain would make an improved highway very costly.  There actually is a road across there right now called Bear Camp Road, but it's largely one-lane (although it is paved).  It's a fun drive I've done 3 times, but it's not maintained in winter currently.

I also drove the continuation of Powers Highway down to the Rogue River years ago, and it's a typical forest road: fairly primitive 1 lane gravel most of the way with sharp curves.  I actually managed to get nails in not 1 but 2 tires on that drive.  Fortunately, they didn't really start getting low until I'd made it to Brookings where a Les Schwab was handy!

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wonder if it's possible that the OR 42 to Powers road now signed as OR 542 was originally planned as signed Highway 242 back in the day, since it does fill a numbering gap between long-signed 240 and 244, and, south of Powers, winds its way down to the Rogue River canyon, which has often been speculated about as a "missing link" in the state signed highway network.  If that is indeed the case, then "242" would have been a ready (if mountainous) connection from such an E-W corridor up to the Coos Bay/Bandon area. 

One thing for certain:  OR 242 would never host even a tiny fraction of the traffic of its CA numbering twin!

The secondary highways in Coos County, like 242, were originally given numbers in the 240's.  They also include Hwy 240 (Route 540); Hwy 241 (also Route 241); and Hwy 244 (signed as OR 42S).  Neighboring Curry County has hwy #s in the 250's, like the aforementioned 250,251, and 255.

I don't know if there were ever plans to make the Powers Highway into Route 242 previously, but that's pretty unlikely.  The route designation OR 242 was originally applied to a highway in the Willamette Valley in the 30's and 40's that is now part of OR 219.  Then that number got recycled for the McKenzie Pass highway in the 60's, when US 126 was re-routed up to Santiam Pass.  Thus in 2002-3, when ODOT assigned route numbers to their previously unnumbered highways, route number 242 was unavailable, so they assigned OR 542 to the Powers Highway.

A Gold Beach-to-Grants Pass highway does look like it would fill a gap on the map, but the mountainous terrain would make an improved highway very costly.  There actually is a road across there right now called Bear Camp Road, but it's largely one-lane (although it is paved).  It's a fun drive I've done 3 times, but it's not maintained in winter currently.

I also drove the continuation of Powers Highway down to the Rogue River years ago, and it's a typical forest road: fairly primitive 1 lane gravel most of the way with sharp curves.  I actually managed to get nails in not 1 but 2 tires on that drive.  Fortunately, they didn't really start getting low until I'd made it to Brookings where a Les Schwab was handy!

Brainfreeze -- completely forgot about current 242 (old US 126 and previous US 28) across McKenzie Pass (never drove it).  As the late great Gilda Radner's Emily Litella repeatedly said, "never mind"!

[kernals12]

Now Metro is throwing its support behind widening 217 and 205.

Is the anti-car lobby now losing its grip on Portland?

[Plutonic Panda]

I hope so. Maybe people there are getting fed up.

[kernals12]

I hope so. Maybe people there are getting fed up.

Now if only Boston could get with it. The $3 billion they're spending on South Coast Rail could easily fix all of 128's major bottlenecks.

[kernals12]

I hope so. Maybe people there are getting fed up.

I think we also tend to overestimate the power of the anti-highway lobby.

[sparker]

I hope so. Maybe people there are getting fed up.

I think we also tend to overestimate the power of the anti-highway lobby.

That, and the officeholders and planners ostensibly in the lobby's pocket eventually realize they have to answer to the general public at some time, and when they do, many draconian anti-vehicle concepts tend to provoke negative reactions from said public (including the large body of drivers).  Hopefully this produces new concepts that include more factors than the prospect of simply getting people out of cars and subsequently cars off city streets/roads -- or in PDX's case, "starve the beast" (I-5 Rose Garden widening) or "toll the beast" (I-205 sections) approaches.  Street "diets" and LR expansion tend to be widely accepted; it's when rationality is discarded because it impinges upon the belief structure of the anti-vehicle activists that wider reaction occurs.  What is happening in Portland is probably the result of someone in Metro planning actually listening for once instead of merely reiterating the party line.

[kernals12]

I hope so. Maybe people there are getting fed up.

I think we also tend to overestimate the power of the anti-highway lobby.

That, and the officeholders and planners ostensibly in the lobby's pocket eventually realize they have to answer to the general public at some time, and when they do, many draconian anti-vehicle concepts tend to provoke negative reactions from said public (including the large body of drivers).  Hopefully this produces new concepts that include more factors than the prospect of simply getting people out of cars and subsequently cars off city streets/roads -- or in PDX's case, "starve the beast" (I-5 Rose Garden widening) or "toll the beast" (I-205 sections) approaches.  Street "diets" and LR expansion tend to be widely accepted; it's when rationality is discarded because it impinges upon the belief structure of the anti-vehicle activists that wider reaction occurs.  What is happening in Portland is probably the result of someone in Metro planning actually listening for once instead of merely reiterating the party line.

Actually, Portland voters turned down a tax increase for light rail last year.

I think Washington DC is another city giving up on its anti-car stance.

[xonhulu]

Some shields along OR 164/Jefferson Highway have now been installed.

This is posted immediately after 164's northern junction with I-5 heading southbound:


This replaced the erroneous 99E shield I posted awhile ago:


This shield was at another road junction on the north end of Jefferson:


Finally, there were a pair of shields at 164's southern end, one each for the two off-ramps from I-5.  This one is on the west side of the interchange -- its counterpart looks pretty much the same:


There are no signs on I-5 at either endpoint indicating OR 164.  And they should have included a SOUTH banner with the first shield, and the pair at 164's southern end should have included both NORTH banners and left arrows indicating which direction 164 actually goes.

So pretty minimal signage, but I guess some is better than none! 

[Bruce]

I hope so. Maybe people there are getting fed up.

I think we also tend to overestimate the power of the anti-highway lobby.

That, and the officeholders and planners ostensibly in the lobby's pocket eventually realize they have to answer to the general public at some time, and when they do, many draconian anti-vehicle concepts tend to provoke negative reactions from said public (including the large body of drivers).  Hopefully this produces new concepts that include more factors than the prospect of simply getting people out of cars and subsequently cars off city streets/roads -- or in PDX's case, "starve the beast" (I-5 Rose Garden widening) or "toll the beast" (I-205 sections) approaches.  Street "diets" and LR expansion tend to be widely accepted; it's when rationality is discarded because it impinges upon the belief structure of the anti-vehicle activists that wider reaction occurs.  What is happening in Portland is probably the result of someone in Metro planning actually listening for once instead of merely reiterating the party line.

Actually, Portland voters turned down a tax increase for light rail last year.

I think Washington DC is another city giving up on its anti-car stance.

If you bothered to read any of the reporting on the Southwest LRT project, you'd have known that the rejection at the ballot box was because it was too expensive, not as some great pushback against transit. MAX expansion is still widely supported in Portland, but this project was too expensive (thanks to the roadwork bundled in) and didn't serve a pressing need.

The so-called "lobby" has no financial power, but has general support because, as a region, the urbanized areas of the Pacific Northwest recognize that we can't pave our way out of traffic and congestion.

[Max Rockatansky]

I hope so. Maybe people there are getting fed up.

I think we also tend to overestimate the power of the anti-highway lobby.

That, and the officeholders and planners ostensibly in the lobby's pocket eventually realize they have to answer to the general public at some time, and when they do, many draconian anti-vehicle concepts tend to provoke negative reactions from said public (including the large body of drivers).  Hopefully this produces new concepts that include more factors than the prospect of simply getting people out of cars and subsequently cars off city streets/roads -- or in PDX's case, "starve the beast" (I-5 Rose Garden widening) or "toll the beast" (I-205 sections) approaches.  Street "diets" and LR expansion tend to be widely accepted; it's when rationality is discarded because it impinges upon the belief structure of the anti-vehicle activists that wider reaction occurs.  What is happening in Portland is probably the result of someone in Metro planning actually listening for once instead of merely reiterating the party line.

Actually, Portland voters turned down a tax increase for light rail last year.

I think Washington DC is another city giving up on its anti-car stance.

If you bothered to read any of the reporting on the Southwest LRT project, you'd have known that the rejection at the ballot box was because it was too expensive, not as some great pushback against transit. MAX expansion is still widely supported in Portland, but this project was too expensive (thanks to the roadwork bundled in) and didn't serve a pressing need.

The so-called "lobby" has no financial power, but has general support because, as a region, the urbanized areas of the Pacific Northwest recognize that we can't pave our way out of traffic and congestion.

Caught a certain "someone"  cherry-picking the data you say?

It is remarkable how the "equity" crowd dispenses with facts that don't fit their worldview

Pot, meet kettle...

Is there even a thing as a "Car Centric Urbanist?"   If not, I think we need to coin the term.

[SkyPesos]

It is remarkable how the "equity" crowd dispenses with facts that don't fit their worldview

Pot, meet kettle...

Is there even a thing as a "Car Centric Urbanist?"   If not, I think we need to coin the term.

Not sure if a term is needed for that when it applies to most (sub)urban planners in the US since like the 1950s. People in Europe simply go with "Americans" for stuff like that.

[Max Rockatansky]

It is remarkable how the "equity" crowd dispenses with facts that don't fit their worldview

Pot, meet kettle...

Is there even a thing as a "Car Centric Urbanist?"   If not, I think we need to coin the term.

Not sure if a term is needed for that when it applies to most (sub)urban planners in the US since like the 1950s. People in Europe simply go with "Americans" for stuff like that.

Certainly applies given the abstract view of a particular poster who hates Urbanism but yet uses their methodologies.

[SkyPesos]

It is remarkable how the "equity" crowd dispenses with facts that don't fit their worldview

Pot, meet kettle...

Is there even a thing as a "Car Centric Urbanist?"   If not, I think we need to coin the term.

Not sure if a term is needed for that when it applies to most (sub)urban planners in the US since like the 1950s. People in Europe simply go with "Americans" for stuff like that.

Certainly applies given the abstract view of a particular poster who hates Urbanism but yet uses their methodologies.

Considering that this poster uses "new urbanist" as an insult, maybe this new term would work on them then 

[Plutonic Panda]

I hope so. Maybe people there are getting fed up.

I think we also tend to overestimate the power of the anti-highway lobby.

That, and the officeholders and planners ostensibly in the lobby's pocket eventually realize they have to answer to the general public at some time, and when they do, many draconian anti-vehicle concepts tend to provoke negative reactions from said public (including the large body of drivers).  Hopefully this produces new concepts that include more factors than the prospect of simply getting people out of cars and subsequently cars off city streets/roads -- or in PDX's case, "starve the beast" (I-5 Rose Garden widening) or "toll the beast" (I-205 sections) approaches.  Street "diets" and LR expansion tend to be widely accepted; it's when rationality is discarded because it impinges upon the belief structure of the anti-vehicle activists that wider reaction occurs.  What is happening in Portland is probably the result of someone in Metro planning actually listening for once instead of merely reiterating the party line.

Actually, Portland voters turned down a tax increase for light rail last year.

I think Washington DC is another city giving up on its anti-car stance.

If you bothered to read any of the reporting on the Southwest LRT project, you'd have known that the rejection at the ballot box was because it was too expensive, not as some great pushback against transit. MAX expansion is still widely supported in Portland, but this project was too expensive (thanks to the roadwork bundled in) and didn't serve a pressing need.

The so-called "lobby" has no financial power, but has general support because, as a region, the urbanized areas of the Pacific Northwest recognize that we can't pave our way out of traffic and congestion.

I mean I don't really see his comments as trying to claim there was some great pushback against transit. You are really going strong with the hyperbole there. All the guy said was it seems like the anti car crowd is loosing its grip a little bit and with the vote against LRT expansion and recent freeway expansion approvals how is wrong? Furthermore how is point that out insinuating there is "some great pushback against transit?"  

The "lobby"  mat have general support but there's just a many if not more people that also see refusing to invest or paving new lanes because of the ridiculous induced demand theory is bad policy. There is plenty of new road building and car centric infrastructure expansion going on in the NW.