AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northwest => Topic started by: rawr apples on January 17, 2009, 11:25:35 PM

Title: Portland
Post by: rawr apples on January 17, 2009, 11:25:35 PM
West of Portland, US-26 is up to interstate standards as far as I know, so whats keeping it from bieng designated an interstate?
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: Tarkus on January 18, 2009, 12:55:22 AM
That's a good question.  Especially after the nice (and badly-needed) widening job ODOT did between Cornell Road and Sylvan, which actually makes it possible to get from Forest Grove to Downtown in 35 minutes. :) 

It stops being freeway-grade just before the interchange with OR-6, with that at-grade intersection with Harrison Road, but that's a good 20 miles stretch.  They could call it a western extension of I-84, but it would require multiplexing with I-5 and I-405, and it would just suddenly stop being I-84 near North Plains. 

They could also theoretically make it a stub of I-5--perhaps I-505, the designation for the formerly proposed Yeon Street Freeway, but it'd be a little jarring to have an odd-numbered route heading east/west, though ODOT signed I-105 in Eugene as East/West, much to my chagrin. ::)

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: Alex on January 18, 2009, 08:05:16 PM
There's more than just those two.  :o

http://www.westcoastroads.com/oregon/portland.html

Mt. Hood Freeway
St. Helens Freeway
Rose City Freeway

http://www.westcoastroads.com/oregon/eugene.html

portions of the Belt Line Highway in Eugene
Skinner Butte Freeway
Roosevelt Freeway
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: rawr apples on January 18, 2009, 10:32:44 PM
Don't have a snoody attidude dude.. 505 I don't understand why they couldn't if made the short 1 mile spur from 405 designated as it. Also, the mount hood freeway was probably the biggest of the freeway revolts in Portland, so you can't forget about that one mate
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: Alex on January 18, 2009, 11:08:17 PM
I was just adding a few more freeway ideas that bit the dust. Matt is the one that knows a lot more than I. He plans on a map of the Portland area showing all of the dead freeways at some point.
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: rawr apples on January 18, 2009, 11:26:52 PM
I heard something about a western bypass that would cut through Tualitan, and Aloha, connected I-5 and 26 west of 217. Anyone know anything about that?

Edit: I found a map of Portland's East side that shows all of the planned freeways

(http://www.permatopia.com/wetlands/images/portland-dead-highway.jpg)
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: V'Ger on January 19, 2009, 06:21:07 PM
That's far too many freeways for any city, especially one as dense as Portland. They would have to tear down half the city to build all of those.
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 19, 2009, 07:28:30 PM
West of Portland, US-26 is up to interstate standards as far as I know, so whats keeping it from bieng designated an interstate?
doesn't need one.  US-26 is a perfectly good number. 

So is US-220 ;)
Title: Re: Forum Introductions
Post by: ComputerGuy on January 19, 2009, 08:43:50 PM
US 220 = I-99
US 26 = I-505
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: John on January 19, 2009, 09:38:20 PM
At least it wouldn't be 500 miles away from its rightful place. What a dumb guy Bud is.
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: Tarkus on January 21, 2009, 12:27:12 AM
I heard something about a western bypass that would cut through Tualitan, and Aloha, connected I-5 and 26 west of 217. Anyone know anything about that?

Yes, the old Westside Bypass project.  The idea was thrown around some in the early-to-mid-1990s, but nothing ever happened on it.  I believe it was conceived of as part of an eventual I-205 beltway--which would be very handy. :) 

I drew up a possibility for it below, connecting into SR-14 on the Washington end.  Although the little Sauvie Island bit there may not go over very well.
(http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/5452/proposedportlandmetromalg7.jpg)

There is an I-5/99W connector proposed right now as well, that would go through to Sherwood, too, though Wilsonville is trying its darnedest to kill it, unfortunately. 

There's also another dead Oregon freeway that hasn't been mentioned--there was a plan to put an I-305 into Salem.  The closest they got to that was the Salem Parkway, signed as OR-99E BUS, which, actually, isn't a half-bad road.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: Tarkus on January 23, 2009, 12:10:25 AM
It's appearing that instead of building an actual freeway/expressway from I-5 into Sherwood, they're going to be building more surface arterials.  SStill will be an improvement to that area, which desperately needs it, but it won't really leave the option of being extended as the Westside Bypass, from the looks of it.

http://www.djcoregon.com/articleDetail.htm/2009/01/22/Washington-County-selects-solution-to-improve-traffic-between-I5-and-99W-Funding-gap-for-Three-Arter (http://www.djcoregon.com/articleDetail.htm/2009/01/22/Washington-County-selects-solution-to-improve-traffic-between-I5-and-99W-Funding-gap-for-Three-Arter)

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: DrZoidberg on January 26, 2009, 02:00:54 PM
That's a good question.  Especially after the nice (and badly-needed) widening job ODOT did between Cornell Road and Sylvan, which actually makes it possible to get from Forest Grove to Downtown in 35 minutes. :) 

The question in Portland would be how to route I-84.  North, over the Freemont Bridge to the current US 26, or south along the Marquam Bridge to I-405 and then US 26?

It stops being freeway-grade just before the interchange with OR-6, with that at-grade intersection with Harrison Road, but that's a good 20 miles stretch.  They could call it a western extension of I-84, but it would require multiplexing with I-5 and I-405, and it would just suddenly stop being I-84 near North Plains. 

It'd be Oregon's equivalent of I-39 in Wisconsin.  :-P

They could also theoretically make it a stub of I-5--perhaps I-505, the designation for the formerly proposed Yeon Street Freeway, but it'd be a little jarring to have an odd-numbered route heading east/west, though ODOT signed I-105 in Eugene as East/West, much to my chagrin. ::)

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: rawr apples on January 26, 2009, 11:44:34 PM
What was the point of quoting that? ^

I just think something badly needs to be done about the traffic on 217 and in central beaverton.
Farmington road can get backed up all the way to Cedar Hills Blvd when a train is crossing at Lombard.
The WES train going 2mph across it doesnt help either
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: Tarkus on January 27, 2009, 10:17:10 PM
The WES train going 2mph across it doesnt help either

The WES is a joke.  Don't get me started. ;)  I haven't been through that part of Beaverton in awhile, but I'm not surprised to hear of those backups.  And the thing's only doing test runs now.

The WES creates more problems than it solves--who's going to ride a slow train to Wilsonville that runs very limited hours?  For the amount of money spent on it, we could have easily gotten an extra lane on 217, rather than ODOT's pathetic excuse that they don't have enough money until 2089 unless they toll it.  (Don't get me started on ODOT and their pathetic excuses, either.)

I still think we need to get a new freeway in the western suburbs.  Actually, we need at least a couple freeways in the Portland area.  Through Beaverton itself, they seriously need some more surface arterials in that area.  Everything is too dependent on Canyon, Farmington, Cedar Hills and Hall and OR-217.  Extending Millikan and Hocken was a good start, but they need to go further.  Widening 5th Street west of Watson would do the trick nicely, though I'd imagine there'd be objections.
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: rawr apples on January 27, 2009, 10:33:33 PM
The WES train going 2mph across it doesnt help either

The WES is a joke.  Don't get me started. ;)  I haven't been through that part of Beaverton in awhile, but I'm not surprised to hear of those backups.  And the thing's only doing test runs now.

The WES creates more problems than it solves--who's going to ride a slow train to Wilsonville that runs very limited hours?  For the amount of money spent on it, we could have easily gotten an extra lane on 217, rather than ODOT's pathetic excuse that they don't have enough money until 2089 unless they toll it.  (Don't get me started on ODOT and their pathetic excuses, either.)

I still think we need to get a new freeway in the western suburbs.  Actually, we need at least a couple freeways in the Portland area.  Through Beaverton itself, they seriously need some more surface arterials in that area.  Everything is too dependent on Canyon, Farmington, Cedar Hills and Hall and OR-217.  Extending Millikan and Hocken was a good start, but they need to go further.  Widening 5th Street west of Watson would do the trick nicely, though I'd imagine there'd be objections.

So I was driving on Farmington, and got stopped by the WES on my way to work, which caused me to be just a little bit late. I heard it just about every 15-20 minutes while working (I work outside  near it). Got stopped on my way home again. There were people on it though, so im not sure if its still testing or its actually running now.

And oh yeah there would be objections to widening 5th, especially by me because I live by or on 5th and the road is busy enough as it is.

I think another major route from the south of hillsboro, to around Murray HIill and 99W would help. Doesnt necessarily have to be a full blown freeway.
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: Tarkus on January 27, 2009, 11:05:04 PM
I think another major route from the south of hillsboro, to around Murray HIill and 99W would help. Doesnt necessarily have to be a full blown freeway.

That would also help quite a bit as well.  I know Washington County is in the process of re-aligning SW 175th so it lines up with Roy Rogers Road at a single intersection with Scholls Ferry--which will help tremendously. 

If 175th between Scholls Ferry and Rigert were to get revamped a bit as well, it'd become a very nice way to get to Sherwood and Tualatin from Beaverton, as you wouldn't have to go through Tigard.  It's really a bit hairy right now going over Cooper Mountain.  And 170th and Roy Rogers on either side are already fantastic roads.

I'd say a Cornelius Pass extension could be good as well, but it'd kind of duplicate 209th. 

In retrospect, you're right on 5th.  That's also probably not the side that needs bypassing, either.  If they could punch Millikan through a little farther . . .

There's also been some talk of turning the OR-8/Murray Blvd intersection into an interchange. 

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: DrZoidberg on January 28, 2009, 11:04:25 AM
The 2 biggest items to help traffic on the west side of Portland....

I think the biggest problem with traffic in Portland is the region's refusal not just to build freeways, but to work on existing freeways.  I'm convinced that driving on the west side would be a LOT less congested if they added as little as 1 new through lane to OR 217.  I think the only area where they may run into ROW issues is between Greenburg Rd and Scholls Ferry, but Cascade Blvd could be annexed.  217 has incredibly dated interchanges, is nowhere close to Interstate standards, and is congested from about 7-10am and then from 2-7pm.  The worst part is the OR 8/ OR 10 interchange. Always a bottleneck, even on Sunday afternoon.

Also, just one extra lane on I-5 would help a lot.  With the amount of people expected to move to the region by 2020, I don't see how Portland thinks the existing infrastructure will suffice. I-5 southbound from Vancouver, WA is only 2 lanes at one point!  I commend the region on great use of an urban growth boundary and the implementation of mass transit, but the fact of the matter is with population growing, especially in coming years, not everybody is going to take the bus.  Plain and simple.

Nick,

Portland, OR
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: Tarkus on January 29, 2009, 07:08:28 PM
Nick, without a doubt widening OR-217 would have greatly improve mobility through the area.  It's amazing how much the extra lane(s) on US-26 have helped out.  ODOT needs to stop being stupid, really. 

They are basically just full of excuses for not doing things which are desperately needed and within their capabilities--widening 217, raising the speed limit to 70mph (which they can legally do as per HB3252 of 2005), intersection improvements on OR-47, etc.   Someone needs to clean house in there.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: DrZoidberg on February 08, 2009, 10:05:08 PM
Quote
West of Portland, US-26 is up to interstate standards as far as I know, so whats keeping it from bieng designated an interstate?

I drove US 26 west of Portland today, and you are correct that it seems to be interstate standards up until the 185th Ave exit in Hillsboro.  Once you get to that interchange, 26 drops to 2 lanes in each direction, the shoulders narrow, not to mention the pavement seems incredibly old compared to the rest of the highway through Portland.   

I think that a freeway to the Oregon Coast, terminating in Seaside or Astoria, would be a great benefit.  US 101, the highway hugging the coast, is a great drive and I wouldn't want that to be compromised, but a freeway connecting Portland to the coast via US 26 would be beneficial, especially with the summer traffic, and the Sunday afternoon traffic.  I think it'd also allow accesibility to the Portland metro area for coastal residents in times of rough weather.   Naturally, I-84 would be the best candidate.

I think signing this corridor west of Portland as I-84 would spur a future freeway all the way to Seaside.  Right now, however, I think I-84 would do what I-39 does in Wisconsin, terminate as soon as the highway is no longer interstate standard, which I believe would be the 185th Ave exit. Seeing I-84/US 26 signs, even if this corridor is approved, would take ODOT a minimum of 10 years to post.  :-P

The interesting thing about this would be the route 84 would take through Portland.  From it's current terminus, it could go north to I-405 via the Freemont Bridge to US 26 OR south on I-5 to I-405.

Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: Tarkus on February 11, 2009, 09:02:17 PM
Well, arguably, I'd say it's up to interstate standards up to about MP55 (the Dersham Road exit west of North Plains).  While there is some old pavement in spots, there's been some considerable upgrades to some of the interchanges west of 185th in the past few years. 

The parclo at Cornelius Pass Road (Exit 62) was upgraded from a 4-ramp to a 6-ramp Parclo, partly possible because the old railroad there was decommissioned.  Jackson School Road also used to have a horrible, horrible at-grade intersection with US-26 just east of North Plains, but it was upgraded to a really nice diamond interchange (Exit 59) about 4 years ago.

There's some plans in place to upgrade the Glencoe Road (Exit 57) interchange, which desperately needs it.  The overpass there is extraordinarily narrow and Glencoe is also the main road people take to go between US 26 and the cities of Forest Grove and Cornelius.  There's also been some talk of turning the Shute/Helvetia interchange (Exit 61) into a partial dumbbell, with a roundabout on the south side--I'll see if I can find that proposal again.  I'm not a big fan of that idea, in light of Washington County's track record with roundabouts.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: Tarkus on February 13, 2009, 11:47:20 PM
Double-posting . . . but I think it's merited here . . .

I've got my sources on the Glencoe and Shute/Helvetia interchanges.

The "dumbbell" interchange is actually something the City of Hillsboro has proposed, in the Helvetia Concept Plan (http://www.ci.hillsboro.or.us/Planning/documents/HelvetiaConceptPlanAdopted.pdf).  (Warning: rather large PDF.)  I'm not sure how much of a say Hillsboro will actually have in what actually gets built at a state-maintained interchange.

The Glencoe Road project, however, is all of ODOT's doing.  There's a project page http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION1/glencoe/ (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION1/glencoe/).

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: rawr apples on February 14, 2009, 05:52:01 PM
Alex fix your links
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: V'Ger on February 14, 2009, 06:10:53 PM
Got it.
Title: Re: Portland - US 26
Post by: Tarkus on February 14, 2009, 08:26:59 PM
Thanks, voyager. :)   It's been one of those weeks.

-Alex

Edit:  I should also add, for reference--the bit on the Shute/Helvetia interchange is on page 36 of the City of Hillsboro Helvetia plan.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: rawr apples on March 21, 2009, 02:30:25 AM
Changed the thread name because its gone much further than Sunset Hwy now
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Bickendan on June 27, 2009, 10:59:01 PM
1. I honestly wouldn't designate the Sunset Highway as I-84. If it were to receive an interstate designation, I think an x84 (184 is the most logical candidate) or an x05 (305, to use the Salem Parkway's original incarnation's number). I'm not sure extending a freeway through the Coastals (either to Tillamook or Seaside and Astoria) is warranted.
2. Disregard this map. The Willamette Week article was biased and rehashing incorrect facts.

Edit: I found a map of Portland's East side that shows all of the planned freeways

(http://www.permatopia.com/wetlands/images/portland-dead-highway.jpg)

Use this one instead: http://bickenland.lonaf.com/Maps/1990PDXPlan.jpg (http://bickenland.lonaf.com/Maps/1990PDXPlan.jpg)
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Tarkus on July 01, 2009, 04:32:38 PM
Bickendan, thanks for sharing that map--I hadn't seen it before.  I like that plan a great deal better, too, compared to the Willamette Week one.  There's still some stuff that even seems a little bit excessive to a road-infrastructure enthusiast like myself (i.e. #11 especially), but a lot of that stuff would be very useful.  Looks like #3, coupled with #10 is the Westside Bypass proposal--I like the alignment going over the Columbia there.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Chris on July 03, 2009, 02:35:20 AM
Where these freeways all planned at the same time, or is it a sum of all freeways that were once planned independently of eachother?
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Bickendan on July 03, 2009, 11:55:40 PM
It's a sum.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Truvelo on July 06, 2009, 08:05:42 AM
It would be really nice to have such a dense network of freeways. The congestion which plagues Portland could be well significantly reduced if this lot was all built. I'm not sure what the NIMBY's would say though :no:
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Bickendan on July 06, 2009, 11:18:31 AM
No, Portland doesn't need that dense of a freeway network. The only two I'd add between I-5 and I-205 would be the Mt Hood, Big Dig style, and an eastern extension of OR 217 skirting Lake Oswego into Oak Grove and connecting to OR 224. Anything else I'd add would be outside the two interstates.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: florida on July 20, 2009, 07:53:07 PM
The Going Expressway? It better live up to its name.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Bickendan on July 21, 2009, 03:21:30 AM
...Going isn't known as an expressway at all. All segments of Going are N or NE Going St.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: xonhulu on July 21, 2009, 02:08:54 PM
The Going Expressway? It better live up to its name.

Since it was never built and never will be, maybe they should change it to "Gone."  (I know, I know, corny.)

I agree with Bickendan that the Mt Hood should still be built, but it won't.  So I always thought the ghost ramps on the Marquam should have been repurposed to an improved connection to McLoughlin Blvd (OR 99E).  Then you have this possibility: a US 26 bypass consisting of an upgraded McLoughlin (which would take some doing, but a lot less than putting a freeway down Powell), the OR 224 expressway, and the new Sunrise Corridor.  While this wouldn't be a great commuting route for Gresham residents, it would benefit through traffic to Central Oregon.  The biggest drawback would be adding traffic to already busy McLoughlin Blvd.

To me, the best thing they could build in the Portland Metro area would be the Westside Bypass.  And this is old, but I see no reason to extend I-84 up the Sunset Hwy.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: andytom on July 21, 2009, 08:25:06 PM
The Going Expressway? It better live up to its name.

Would you say the same thing about the Failing Pedestrian Bridge, just south of Going (quickly resigned as 'Failing St. Ped. Br.')?

--Andy
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: mightyace on July 21, 2009, 10:19:42 PM
The Going Expressway? It better live up to its name.

Would you say the same thing about the Failing Pedestrian Bridge, just south of Going (quickly resigned as 'Failing St. Ped. Br.')?

--Andy


Would you happen to have a picture of the "Failing Pedestrian Bridge" sign?
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Bickendan on July 22, 2009, 04:03:40 AM
From the I-5 guide... http://www.westcoastroads.com/oregon/images001/i-005_nb_exit_303_04.jpg (http://www.westcoastroads.com/oregon/images001/i-005_nb_exit_303_04.jpg)
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: mightyace on July 22, 2009, 11:55:15 AM
From the I-5 guide... http://www.westcoastroads.com/oregon/images001/i-005_nb_exit_303_04.jpg (http://www.westcoastroads.com/oregon/images001/i-005_nb_exit_303_04.jpg)

I meant the "broken" version without the "Road" after Falling.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: andytom on July 22, 2009, 04:13:49 PM
The Going Expressway? It better live up to its name.

Would you say the same thing about the Failing Pedestrian Bridge, just south of Going (quickly resigned as 'Failing St. Ped. Br.')?

--Andy


Would you happen to have a picture of the "Failing Pedestrian Bridge" sign?

No.  Just the Streetview version here:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.55115,-122.678779&spn=0,359.984422&z=17&layer=c&cbll=45.551066,-122.678782&panoid=v0tmZ7VcFh8_R7puc48T5g&cbp=12,206.31,,0,-40 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.55115,-122.678779&spn=0,359.984422&z=17&layer=c&cbll=45.551066,-122.678782&panoid=v0tmZ7VcFh8_R7puc48T5g&cbp=12,206.31,,0,-40)

--Andy
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: florida on July 22, 2009, 04:55:31 PM
The Going Expressway? It better live up to its name.

Would you say the same thing about the Failing Pedestrian Bridge, just south of Going (quickly resigned as 'Failing St. Ped. Br.')?

--Andy


It'd be quite depressing to live on that street. Does Portland not believe in Easy Street as a name?
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: andytom on July 23, 2009, 03:16:34 PM
The Going Expressway? It better live up to its name.

Would you say the same thing about the Failing Pedestrian Bridge, just south of Going (quickly resigned as 'Failing St. Ped. Br.')?

--Andy


It'd be quite depressing to live on that street. Does Portland not believe in Easy Street as a name?

No.  Besides, who wants to do things the easy way anyways.   :)  Also, If you watch The Simpsons, you know the names of all the streets in the north half of downtown Portland.

--Andy
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Alps on July 24, 2009, 08:55:19 PM
Also, If you watch The Simpsons, you know the names of all the streets in the north half of downtown Portland.

--Andy


I found Evergreen Terrace west of the Rose Gardens and Quimby St.  Terwilliger Blvd. is well south of downtown.  Then I found http://www.movingtoportland.net/matt_groening_map.htm (http://www.movingtoportland.net/matt_groening_map.htm)
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: andytom on July 25, 2009, 06:31:29 PM
Also, If you watch The Simpsons, you know the names of all the streets in the north half of downtown Portland.


I found Evergreen Terrace west of the Rose Gardens and Quimby St.  Terwilliger Blvd. is well south of downtown.  Then I found http://www.movingtoportland.net/matt_groening_map.htm (http://www.movingtoportland.net/matt_groening_map.htm)

Try this: http://www.snpp.com/guides/whoiswho.html#portland (http://www.snpp.com/guides/whoiswho.html#portland)

--Andy
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: bookem on October 12, 2009, 02:04:52 PM
I'm convinced that driving on the west side would be a LOT less congested if they added as little as 1 new through lane to OR 217.  I think the only area where they may run into ROW issues is between Greenburg Rd and Scholls Ferry, but Cascade Blvd could be annexed.  217 has incredibly dated interchanges, is nowhere close to Interstate standards, and is congested from about 7-10am and then from 2-7pm.  The worst part is the OR 8/ OR 10 interchange. Always a bottleneck, even on Sunday afternoon.

One of the main issues with 217 is that there are just too many interchanges spaced too close together.  Braiding the ramps between Greenburg and Scholls Ferry would be a big help, as there are perfectly good frontage roads on either side of the freeway at this point.  Combining Allen and Denny into a single interchange would be worthwhile as well.  But as for what to do with the notorious OR 8/10 interchange... I got nothin'  :-/
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: xonhulu on October 12, 2009, 08:57:12 PM
One of the main issues with 217 is that there are just too many interchanges spaced too close together.  Braiding the ramps between Greenburg and Scholls Ferry would be a big help, as there are perfectly good frontage roads on either side of the freeway at this point.  Combining Allen and Denny into a single interchange would be worthwhile as well.  But as for what to do with the notorious OR 8/10 interchange... I got nothin'  :-/

I don't know what you could do with 8/10.  That's the problem with putting two major through routes 1 block apart!
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Bickendan on October 13, 2009, 02:54:45 AM
Do a setup similar to the Division/Powell exit on I-205. There's less space, but it'd still work.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Tarkus on October 15, 2009, 02:28:33 AM
The Highway 8/10 interchange really does pose quite a challenge.  I think the best solution might be to double-deck the little "frontage roads" on either side of 217, and have some braided ramps going between the two levels.  The intersections at Highways 8 and 10 could also be converted into SPUIs, which would eliminate one traffic signal on each. 

As far as surface connectivity between 8 and 10, a new surface arterial could be built.  There's no real viable option on the west side of the freeway, as Fred Meyer is there, but if 110th were to be beefed up and re-aligned slightly, that'd be ideal.  110th could eventually be turned into an arterial and connected directly into Walker, which would perhaps cut some additional short-distance traffic out on 217.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: xonhulu on October 15, 2009, 12:40:06 PM
I'm not really sure the 8/10 interchange really deserves the "notorious" title.  I use it all the time to get to my brother's place, the last time during Friday rush hour, and I have very few problems there, even when I go through to OR 8.  I pass three interchanges on I-5 on the way up there which are all worse as far as wait time, safety, etc.  The Woodburn interchange is probably one of the worst in Oregon and is screaming out for some relief or improvement.

Back to OR 217, I think the main issue is capacity (needs more lanes).  But the elimination or improvement of interchanges would also be a great plus.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Tarkus on October 15, 2009, 02:19:09 PM
I think the main problem with 8/10 at 217 is the fact that 8 and 10 just get to be so congested sometimes.  8's a really a mess for much of its length.

The stretch from 8/10 on south probably needs the most work.  I think if they're going to get rid of one interchange, Denney Road would be the obvious candidate.  I'm not sure that the SB exit directly onto Scholls Ferry is all that necessary, either.  The people needing to access Scholls Ferry from 217 SB could just exit at Hall Blvd (technically OR-141 :sombrero:) and take Cascade or Nimbus.  The intersection at Cascade and Scholls Ferry could then be expanded some.

If they had a consistent 3 lanes per direction between 8/10 and 99W, that'd solve a lot of problems, I think, and eliminating the Denney Road interchange would probably make that a bit cheaper and easier.

The Woodburn interchange is probably one of the worst in Oregon and is screaming out for some relief or improvement.

No kidding.  I've seen traffic routinely back up onto I-5 there from the SB exit ramp.  They haven't done anything to that interchange (except install Flashing Yellow Arrows) since they put in outlet mall there.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: bookem on October 16, 2009, 03:38:50 PM
As much as I loathe the 8/10 interchange at times, I'll take it over the mess that is 43/405/Ross Island Bridge any day.  There's a proposal on the table to untangle the mess, which includes long-overdue direct connections between 405 and Ross Island and discontinuing the use of side streets as bridge entrances, but who knows when/if it's gonna be reality:
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?&a=87366 (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?&a=87366) (fairly large PDF file)

Although I don't make it down that way too often, I've heard the I-5 Woodburn interchange is a nightmare.  There's also a proposal to deal with this problem, but again, it's anyone's guess when it'll be implemented:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION2/Woodburn_Interchange.shtml (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION2/Woodburn_Interchange.shtml)
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: xonhulu on October 16, 2009, 05:22:41 PM
As much as I loathe the 8/10 interchange at times, I'll take it over the mess that is 43/405/Ross Island Bridge any day.  There's a proposal on the table to untangle the mess, which includes long-overdue direct connections between 405 and Ross Island and discontinuing the use of side streets as bridge entrances, but who knows when/if it's gonna be reality:
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?&a=87366 (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?&a=87366) (fairly large PDF file)

I looked it over, but my computer didn't load many of the images, so I didn't get a lot out of it.  But I like the idea of direct connections between 405 and the Ross Island Bridge.

Quote
Although I don't make it down that way too often, I've heard the I-5 Woodburn interchange is a nightmare.  There's also a proposal to deal with this problem, but again, it's anyone's guess when it'll be implemented:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION2/Woodburn_Interchange.shtml (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION2/Woodburn_Interchange.shtml)

I've seen this before.  While eliminating the left turns from OR 214/219 to get onto I-5 will help, they also need to get some traffic off this interchange by creating at least one more interchange for Woodburn at already existing overpasses, either at Butteville Road south of there or at Crosby Rd north.  I'd heard something about the second option being considered, in combination with improving/straightening Arney Rd, which is the street passing by the outlet mall.  But I'd also consider making a third interchange at Butteville Rd, then build a southern Woodburn Bypass to connect to OR 99E and maybe OR 214.  In fact, that would be a great route for 214 to connect directly to I-5, leaving the existing 214 to 211.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: bookem on October 19, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
Speaking of I-5, it's nice to see the bottleneck at Delta Park finally being eliminated.  Now if only they'd do something about the one at Rose Quarter/I-84...
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Bickendan on October 19, 2009, 10:49:03 PM
What say you to a tunnel going under the river from the Ross Island Interchange to about 7th Ave, going north toward the Lloyd District and NW toward the Fremont Interchange?
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: bookem on October 20, 2009, 03:10:08 PM
I like it!  For years I've thought an I-5 tunnel would be an excellent alternative to the Marquam Bridge, which sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb among Portland's graceful spans.  It would also free up land on the east side of the river.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: xonhulu on October 21, 2009, 07:56:03 PM
The Highway 8/10 interchange really does pose quite a challenge.  I think the best solution might be to double-deck the little "frontage roads" on either side of 217, and have some braided ramps going between the two levels.  The intersections at Highways 8 and 10 could also be converted into SPUIs, which would eliminate one traffic signal on each. 

As far as surface connectivity between 8 and 10, a new surface arterial could be built.  There's no real viable option on the west side of the freeway, as Fred Meyer is there, but if 110th were to be beefed up and re-aligned slightly, that'd be ideal.  110th could eventually be turned into an arterial and connected directly into Walker, which would perhaps cut some additional short-distance traffic out on 217.

-Alex (Tarkus)

I just saw this on the Oregon Transportation Commission website (scroll down to page 8):

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/docs/otc/OTCFSCRP.pdf (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/docs/otc/OTCFSCRP.pdf)

Looks like they're considering some braided ramps between OR 10 (Beaverton-Hillsdale) and Allen.  Mind you, this is just a list of future projects, nothing imminent.  Still, an ambitious list of projects...
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Bickendan on October 27, 2009, 03:52:58 AM
I like it!  For years I've thought an I-5 tunnel would be an excellent alternative to the Marquam Bridge, which sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb among Portland's graceful spans.  It would also free up land on the east side of the river.
I'm rather fond of the Marquam. Also, define 'free up land'. It should be noted that the land was never 'free' to begin with, something that the eastbank riverfront access people don't seem to understand. Prior to a freeway, it was rail right of way. Prior to that, wharehouses, docks and quays.

Using the argument to remove the freeway to 'restore riverfront access' is a bunch of crap.

That said, removing the freeway to establish better riverfront access is a worthy goal, but. I-5 must remain as a functional highway through East Portland; I-405 cannot bear the burden alone. Hence, tunnel under the river. And I say keep the Marquam as a local arterial crossing.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: bookem on October 29, 2009, 04:12:53 PM
Quote
That said, removing the freeway to establish better riverfront access is a worthy goal...
Which is probably a better way of saying what I was trying to get across.  Moving I-5 (and possibly the railroad tracks) into a tunnel wouldn't magically make a ton of land available, but it would remove a major barrier to the east bank of the Willamette.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Bickendan on October 30, 2009, 05:21:42 AM
Note that the Eastside Big Pipe would be an obstacle in putting I-5 and/or the railroad underground.

While we're on the I-5/405 Loop, I dug this out of my PDF folder...:
http://bickenland.lonaf.com/Maps/Freeway_Loop_St_PDX.pdf (http://bickenland.lonaf.com/Maps/Freeway_Loop_St_PDX.pdf)
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: rawr apples on November 04, 2009, 03:44:26 PM
Heard on KGW that ODOT is looking to remove some on/off rams on 217 to ease congestion. Widening the entire corridor would cost over $1 billion. can't find a link to an article or anything though
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 04, 2009, 04:10:46 PM
it costs one billion dollars to remove on and off ramps?  Just toss a bunch of Jersey Barriers and a ROAD CLOSED sign or two on the pertinent roads.  One day, several thousand bucks.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: mightyace on November 04, 2009, 04:25:28 PM
it costs one billion dollars to remove on and off ramps?  Just toss a bunch of Jersey Barriers and a ROAD CLOSED sign or two on the pertinent roads.  One day, several thousand bucks.

<sarcasm>
If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times.  Stop expecting government agencies to make sense!
</sarcasm>
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 04, 2009, 04:31:00 PM

<sarcasm>
If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times.  Stop expecting government agencies to make sense!
</sarcasm>

this is outrageous, though.  a million dollars I'd accept as bloat, but this is like having the goodyear blimp sutured to one's asscheeks.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: corco on November 04, 2009, 08:46:35 PM
Quote
it costs one billion dollars to remove on and off ramps?  Just toss a bunch of Jersey Barriers and a ROAD CLOSED sign or two on the pertinent roads.  One day, several thousand bucks.

I read that as it costs a billion dollars to widen the corridor, so they're going to take the cheaper option and remove the ramps
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Tarkus on November 04, 2009, 09:13:05 PM
According to this article (http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=125722337531292200) in the Portland Tribune, they're apparently only going to be closing certain on/off ramps during rush hour traffic. 

I'm not sure that a rush hour closure will really do much.  They need to spend the money to actually fix the darn thing, instead of total and outright boondoggles like the WES Commuter Train.  And the Denney Road interchange probably needs to go away, period.  I'm kind of surprised ODOT didn't try to get stimulus funds for 217--it would have been a very deserving project.

Interestingly, I read an interesting comment over at Jack Bog's Blog (http://bojack.org/2009/11/how_to_speed_up_traffic_on_217.html#comment-105737) on the entry about the 217 plan there.  Apparently, the current alignment of 217 (after it was moved off Hall Blvd) used to be a signal-controlled expressway much like the Milwaukee Expressway (OR-224), and was retrofitted later, with interchanges going where the signals were once located.  It sounds like it was a pretty haphazard affair.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: xonhulu on November 04, 2009, 10:27:51 PM
Interestingly, I read an interesting comment over at Jack Bog's Blog (http://bojack.org/2009/11/how_to_speed_up_traffic_on_217.html#comment-105737) on the entry about the 217 plan there.  Apparently, the current alignment of 217 (after it was moved off Hall Blvd) used to be a signal-controlled expressway much like the Milwaukee Expressway (OR-224), and was retrofitted later, with interchanges going where the signals were once located.  It sounds like it was a pretty haphazard affair.

That would explain a lot, but it's on an elevated alignment near downtown Beaverton, so how could there have been signalized intersections there?  Unless that was also added later.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Tarkus on November 05, 2009, 04:00:01 PM
That would explain a lot, but it's on an elevated alignment near downtown Beaverton, so how could there have been signalized intersections there?  Unless that was also added later.

That's a very good question.  My initial guess was that it might have been routed along those frontage roads between Canyon and Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway, at least temporarily, but that doesn't quite explain the 5th Street overpass.  I'm inclined to think that 5th Street didn't extend all the way through to Western when 217 was initially built in the 1970s, meaning an overpass would have been unnecessary.  Of course, it's possible that this stretch may have even been elevated to start with.  There's rail just south of 5th, and I would imagine ODOT would have been keen to avoid an at-grade crossing.

I have to say, though, my curiosity about the history of the current 217 alignment is piqued.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Alex on November 29, 2010, 03:10:07 PM
Found this blog (http://vintageportland.wordpress.com/category/freeway/) covering early Portland freeway construction while looking for info on something completely unrelated. The 1960s aerial (http://vintageportland.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/a2005-001-274-sw-harbor-and-foothills-freeway-sw-1st-and-sheridan-1964.jpg) showing the old Harbor Drive freeway is compelling.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Bickendan on November 29, 2010, 06:30:19 PM
Bookmarked, thanks.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Alex on December 01, 2010, 01:52:01 PM
What were the stubs on the two flyovers between I-84 west to I-5 north and I-5 south to I-84 east intended to connect with?
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Bickendan on December 01, 2010, 03:40:50 PM
US 30 west: Hook back to OR 99E.
I-84/US 30 east: The Steel Bridge.

Both got taken out sometime between 90 and 94.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Alex on December 01, 2010, 04:11:32 PM
US 30 west: Hook back to OR 99E.
I-84/US 30 east: The Steel Bridge.

Both got taken out sometime between 90 and 94.

Thanks! I loaded up historical imagery on Google Earth and the ramps show up in the 1970 aerial.

Also looking at Google Earth, I also see more of the stubs at the Marquam Bridge east end for the Mt. Hood Freeway connection in the 1990 aerial. By 1994 the upper deck stub was absorbed in a wider bridge.



Did the partial "Y" interchange at Multnomah Boulevard have anything to do with the scuttled Multnomah Freeway?

What is the deal with Oregon 10 (and 99E for that matter)? The GIS files show only portions of the road under state control. Does Oregon have signed routes on locally maintained roadways? From what I have read, that is the case with some of U.S. 26 between I-405 and the Ross Island Bridge.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: NE2 on December 01, 2010, 04:13:08 PM
Does Oregon have signed routes on locally maintained roadways?
Yes, and they have some state highways without signed route numbers.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Tarkus on December 01, 2010, 04:55:47 PM
Neat find there with that blog--thanks for the link!

What is the deal with Oregon 10 (and 99E for that matter)? The GIS files show only portions of the road under state control. Does Oregon have signed routes on locally maintained roadways? From what I have read, that is the case with some of U.S. 26 between I-405 and the Ross Island Bridge.

Yes, that's a very common arrangement with highways routed along surface streets in the Metro Area.  I know with reasonable certainty that OR-10 west of Murray Blvd, all the way to the terminus at OR-219 is under the control of the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation.  The county completely funded the widening projects between Murray and Kinnaman that occurred between the mid-1990s and now.  I believe the section between there and OR-217 is under City of Beaverton control. 

OR-210 (SW Scholls Ferry Road) is also almost entirely under Washington County control.  OR-8 in Forest Grove, between OR-47 and B Street (the old alignment of OR-47) is under City of Forest Grove control, and the section west of B Street out to OR-6 is under county control as well.

One of the best ways to tell who controls what road is by looking at the fonts, size and text alignment on the "limitless" speed signs, believe it or not.  ODOT's speed signs have a distinctive style that the counties and cities generally don't use. 

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: rmichael87 on February 18, 2011, 06:26:38 PM
Portland has several highway needs. Among those:

-Better access to I-5 southbound from the Central Eastside. This is a huge concern for the freight community. Right now trucks need go north to Broadway or go across Morrison Bridge and head south on Naito Parkway to reach I-5 SB.

-Fix the whole tangle at I-5/I-405/US 26 in South Portland. Connections between Ross Island Bridge and I-5 are laughable at best. Having to drive through neighborhoods to get to the RIB slows traffic down and has adverse impact to the residential communities there.

-Better signage. ODOT recently put up new signs that have improved the situation but signs like "Oregon City/Central Eastside Industrial District" for the I-5 SB exit to Belmont Street/99E are confusing. Same with "Rose Quarter/City Center" for the Broadway exit. How about just "Broadway/Weidler Street" like they have for NB I-5 now?

-Substandard weaving distances between interchanges, especially on I-405 in both directions between 6th Avenue and US 26/Vista Ridge Tunnel. I have had many near-misses trying to get on or off the freeway in time.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: Bickendan on February 19, 2011, 01:48:18 AM
Point one: There's a ghost ramp to I-5 south as the lanes shift onto the lower deck of the Marquam Bridge. The ramp was supposed to start at either SE Salmon, Main or Madison, hook over the freeway and merge. Either environmental NIMBY's or city disinterest kept it from being built. It should be, though.

Point two: I'm rather partial to the Ross Island Maze! (Yes, it needs to be drastically simplified. How, good question. I'll get back to you in Fictional Highways sometime.)

Point three: ODOT and less than clear signage? Shenanigans, I say!

Point four: I loathe. Loathe. the SW 6th Ave onramp. Part of the problem is a lovely 'Exit 35 mph' sign BEFORE the auxiliary lane splits for US 26, when it should be for the SW 12th Ave offramp. The other problem, as you mention, is the weaving. It's a very dangerous onramp when trying to get on I-405 north; it's just slow and annoying trying to get to SW 12th or onto US 26 proper.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: sp_redelectric on June 07, 2011, 12:32:31 AM
Yes, that's a very common arrangement with highways routed along surface streets in the Metro Area.  I know with reasonable certainty that OR-10 west of Murray Blvd, all the way to the terminus at OR-219 is under the control of the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation.  The county completely funded the widening projects between Murray and Kinnaman that occurred between the mid-1990s and now.  I believe the section between there and OR-217 is under City of Beaverton control. 

Almost:  there is a stretch of Oregon 10 (Farmington Road) between MP 5.88 and MP 7.61 (roughly S.W. 198th Avenue east to S.W. Kinnaman Road), and from MP 8.68 east to an unknown point near Beaverton City Limits, that remains under ODOT jurisdiction.

The western portion makes sense as it is un-upgraded and I'm sure Washington County wants to see it widened or at least otherwise upgraded to modern spec before it'll accept jurisdiction.  I don't get the eastern part since it's already upgraded.

I also am not sure on this, but at the far western end of Farmington Road at the intersection with Highway 219 for about one mile, it appears that as part of the recent intersection project that portion of road was built to ODOT spec including ODOT spec signage...not sure if it's simply because ODOT funded the work or if that last mile was turned back over to ODOT.

OR-210 (SW Scholls Ferry Road) is also almost entirely under Washington County control.  OR-8 in Forest Grove, between OR-47 and B Street (the old alignment of OR-47) is under City of Forest Grove control, and the section west of B Street out to OR-6 is under county control as well.

Exactly - the only portion of 210 still under ODOT control is the portion from the P&W Railroad, northeasterly over Highway 217 to the intersection with Hall Boulevard (Oregon 141) - specifically, between MP 9.03 to MP 9.61, so just over a half mile.  It still retains the ODOT route number of 143 for this tiny island.

Washington County paid for the Forest Grove bypass and then turned it over to the state; in exchange the old routing of Highway 47 in Forest Grove was turned over to the city.  This results in the unusual situation of being at the intersection of Pacific and Quince Avenues in Forest Grove - with Oregon 47 passing through north-south and Oregon 8 passing through west-east, but the Tualatin Valley Highway (Highway 29) runs south-east, and the Nehalem Highway (Highway 102) starts and proceeds north.  Not that many people travel north-south on Highway 47 through Forest Grove but for the motorist this has the unfortunate consequence of having a non-consecutive milepost while following "the same highway" - going from milepost 90 to milepost 18.

My understanding is that while Gales Creek Road has for a very long time carried Oregon 8, it never was an actual state highway...

One of the best ways to tell who controls what road is by looking at the fonts, size and text alignment on the "limitless" speed signs, believe it or not.  ODOT's speed signs have a distinctive style that the counties and cities generally don't use.

ODOT seems to have several different styles of speed signs but they are definitely unique and generally not found on non-ODOT roads, unless part of an ODOT funded project.  Washington County seems to have their own unique signs (in particular oversized numerals that are wider than the word "Speed", and older signs use a somewhat unique typeface for the numerals - in particular the '3's).  Another tip-off are the "Adopt-a-Road"/"Adopt-a-Highway" signs, mileposts (non-existent on most non-ODOT roads), and any guide sign.  Also, Washington County generally does not use warning signs larger than 24x24, while ODOT has no problem using a larger sign when needed, and until recently ODOT only used wood signposts while Washington County was the forerunner in using the square steel posts.  ODOT recently has started using the square posts, and even some steel breakaway posts on non-Interstate roads.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: xonhulu on June 21, 2011, 01:35:22 PM
Washington County paid for the Forest Grove bypass and then turned it over to the state; in exchange the old routing of Highway 47 in Forest Grove was turned over to the city.  This results in the unusual situation of being at the intersection of Pacific and Quince Avenues in Forest Grove - with Oregon 47 passing through north-south and Oregon 8 passing through west-east, but the Tualatin Valley Highway (Highway 29) runs south-east, and the Nehalem Highway (Highway 102) starts and proceeds north.  Not that many people travel north-south on Highway 47 through Forest Grove but for the motorist this has the unfortunate consequence of having a non-consecutive milepost while following "the same highway" - going from milepost 90 to milepost 18.

I was unaware that it was the county that built the bypass.  Is that true for both the southern bypass (completed in 1974) and the northern bypass (completed in 2000)?

There are quite a few issues at the 8-47 intersection: besides the odd alignment of the highways, the signage is terrible and the 25 zone on 47 north is annoying.  Still, though, the newer alignment of 47 is a big improvement over the old route through downtown and past Pacific University.

I actually always travel through on 47, as that's the way I usually take to get from Salem to the Sunset Highway.  But I'm sure that you're right, most of the northbound 47 traffic turns east there.

Quote
My understanding is that while Gales Creek Road has for a very long time carried Oregon 8, it never was an actual state highway...

Yeah, I looked at the Historic State Highways document on ODOT's website and it doesn't ever mention a state highway along Gales Creek Rd.  If you drive it, though, you won't see any OR 8 shields along the county-maintained portion.  There are 8 shields at the junction with OR 6, and some in the city of Forest Grove, but in between nothing.

Title: Re: Portland
Post by: sp_redelectric on June 25, 2011, 01:23:05 AM
I was unaware that it was the county that built the bypass.  Is that true for both the southern bypass (completed in 1974) and the northern bypass (completed in 2000)?

I have no idea about the southern part of the bypass, too long ago - before my time.  But the northern bypass was a MSTIP project.  Washington County also managed the Tigard funded Highway 99W project the last couple of years...which was odd, since it involved two state highways (99W and 141, a.k.a. Hall Boulevard, and one city street, and no county jurisdiction roads.)
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: drummer_evans_aki on June 25, 2011, 04:20:37 PM
I do agree that 217 needs to be improved. Some of the interchanges are not necessary as OR-8, OR-10, OR-210, and OR-99W can connect Allen Blvd and Denney Rd. So I'd keep the Walker Rd, OR-8/OR-10, Scholls Ferry Rd (OR-210), OR-99W, and 72nd Ave Exits, widen the entire highway to four lanes in each direction (one lane serving as Exit Only) and that could help alleviate the traffic problem on that road.

The problem on 26 would be the traffic from Murray Blvd to downtown Portland in the mornings and I think if you add another lane in each direction, that can help get traffic moving a little bit faster.

Title: Re: Portland
Post by: warderjack on July 12, 2011, 01:05:50 AM

No kidding.  I've seen traffic routinely back up onto I-5 there from the SB exit ramp.  They haven't done anything to that interchange (except install Flashing Yellow Arrows) since they put in outlet mall there.

There was some seriously poor planning involved with the construction of those outlets. It should have been apparent what kind of generator of traffic that they would be and that an interchange meant for a rural highway wouldn't be up to to the task. Considering how successful the outlets are, I think they could have gotten some concessions from them on how to adapt the interchange to accommodate the extra traffic.
Title: Re: Portland
Post by: sp_redelectric on July 21, 2011, 01:27:46 AM
There was some seriously poor planning involved with the construction of those outlets. It should have been apparent what kind of generator of traffic that they would be and that an interchange meant for a rural highway wouldn't be up to to the task. Considering how successful the outlets are, I think they could have gotten some concessions from them on how to adapt the interchange to accommodate the extra traffic.

I believe ODOT REALLY wants to fix that interchange...big mistake to not have done anything.  The money just isn't there...

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION2/Woodburn_Interchange.shtml

However, a few years ago Payless Drug Stores (whose former headquarters, and Rite-Aid's current distribution center, is located) actually paid to improve the Wilsonville Road interchange...and guess what?  It's being completely rebuilt AGAIN.  Why Wilsonville seems to be getting all of the money, while Woodburn suffers (even though Woodburn's interchange involves two different state highways)...