AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northwest => Topic started by: Hurricane Rex on December 12, 2017, 06:15:33 PM

Title: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 12, 2017, 06:15:33 PM
General Overview:

I'm creating this thread to create a general board where if anyone finds a small roadway related project in Oregon they want to post, they can do so here.

If it is a major project like the Newberg-Dundee Bypass, another revival of the CRC, or most significant Portland freeway expansions (the auxiliary lanes on I-205/I-5 don't count). If it is a speed limit increase statewide, there will be enough people wanting to respond to that to create its own thread based on the last couple of topics on it.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on December 12, 2017, 06:20:52 PM
The reminder is wholly unnecessary and there's no need to do my job for me.  As it is,  a general Oregon thread hasn't particularly been needed as there aren't a dearth of projects; individual threads have served quite well to meet the need.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 12, 2017, 06:23:06 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on December 12, 2017, 06:20:52 PM
The reminder is wholly unnecessary and there's no need to do my job for me.  As it is,  a general Oregon thread hasn't particularly been needed as there aren't a dearth of projects; individual threads have served quite well to meet the need.

Thought I'd try. If you want to delete the thread, go ahead.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on December 12, 2017, 06:44:47 PM
I think it's worthwhile to have a thread. I started a thread for New Jersey years ago in the same conditions and it's blossomed since. There will be a lot of little things to throw in here.
I also don't think an official moderator warning was necessary, but what do I know?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on December 13, 2017, 11:12:55 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 12, 2017, 06:23:06 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on December 12, 2017, 06:20:52 PM
The reminder is wholly unnecessary and there's no need to do my job for me.  As it is,  a general Oregon thread hasn't particularly been needed as there aren't a dearth of projects; individual threads have served quite well to meet the need.

Thought I'd try. If you want to delete the thread, go ahead.
I don't have a problem with the thread per se. It's up, make use of it ;)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: mrsman on December 14, 2017, 01:13:27 PM
FWIW, I believe there are good reasons to have state specific threads.  As it is, there isn't much traffic on the whole PNW boards anyway so it isn't as though Oregon stuff will get lost in the shuffle.

But is some of the western boards get merged, it would be a good idea to keep each state separate.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 16, 2018, 08:42:21 PM
I 84 crash if anyone cares: http://www.kgw.com/mobile/article/news/local/bystanders-rescue-driver-after-semi-crashes-into-columbia-river/283-508301440

Could see NIMBY's and the "one reluctant I" to want to put back the 65T55 limit or worse, 60T55 like said person wants.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on January 17, 2018, 12:52:57 AM
Here's some projects going on in the area I travel in.

US 20 Eddyville Bypass: The west end was finished in late 2017.  There was a decent sized cut that needed to be made for the last small section to be added in.  Right now I would rate US 20's quality as a route from the coast to inland destinations as very good.  There is just one 35 MPH curve which is not overly severe on the part between the Bypass and Toledo, which is an amazing change from what there used to be.

SR 62 Bypass: ODOT messed up by not adding in interchanges so this bypass would serve as a way for trucks to serve the backside of the commercial zones along 62 but otherwise it is shaping up to be a decent roadway.  Given that the ADT count on 62 was over 100K and exceeded I-5's flow, I am surprised that ODOT did not connect the Bypass to I-5 and call it I-x05.  This project is scheduled for completion later this year.

SR 38: Multiple culverts are being replaced through this year.  Right now two areas have one lane traffic controlled by traffic lights.  Next year is when the start of the new Scottsburg bridge will take place. 

US 101: Bridge maintenance continues in Florence, Reedsport, North Bend and a few miles north of Brookings where the highest bridge in Oregon is located.  Port Orford went from 4-lane to 3-lane with more sections of that coming to Reedsport and Bandon.  A small section of 4-lane 101 south of Brookings will lose one lane as a center turn lane is created with the plan being to add it back in when money to do a widening comes in.

With this being a very mild winter compared to last year's torrential downpours and colder weather, the central and south coast of 101 has held together quite well.  US 20, SR 126, SR 38 and SR 42 have had no problems.

Eugene: The bus lane project from downtown Eugene to west Eugene that runs along SR 99/126 and 126 is now completed.  There is a small transit mall on the west end of the project.  What is unusual is how there are sections dedicated to the buses with other parts having nothing on the western section of the project.  Hopefully those larger transit bus drivers don't have too many problems dealing with the traffic.

SR 540 South Empire Boulevard-Coos Bay: This street improvement project was completed in late 2017.  The lighting is very bright on this section.  What remains to be done is finishing the sewage treatment plant that is on this street so one still has to watch out for trucks.  The plant is scheduled to be completed late this year.

Right now that's all I know about road goings on over here.  Hopefully as time passes more Oregonians and those who travel through this state will post up news of what they see taking place!

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on January 17, 2018, 08:52:23 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 17, 2018, 12:52:57 AM
Eugene: The bus lane project from downtown Eugene to west Eugene that runs along SR 99/126 and 126 is now completed.  There is a small transit mall on the west end of the project.  What is unusual is how there are sections dedicated to the buses with other parts having nothing on the western section of the project.  Hopefully those larger transit bus drivers don't have too many problems dealing with the traffic.

Generally, new bus lanes are only built across areas that have the worst congestion problems for buses. In areas with less traffic, buses can operate in mixed lanes to save on project costs and cut down on public backlash to the lanes. I understand that the west extension was more than a little contentious politically, so I think LTD made a good call in limiting the scope of the bus-only sections.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on January 18, 2018, 12:53:13 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 17, 2018, 08:52:23 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 17, 2018, 12:52:57 AM
Eugene: The bus lane project from downtown Eugene to west Eugene that runs along SR 99/126 and 126 is now completed.  There is a small transit mall on the west end of the project.  What is unusual is how there are sections dedicated to the buses with other parts having nothing on the western section of the project.  Hopefully those larger transit bus drivers don't have too many problems dealing with the traffic.

Generally, new bus lanes are only built across areas that have the worst congestion problems for buses. In areas with less traffic, buses can operate in mixed lanes to save on project costs and cut down on public backlash to the lanes. I understand that the west extension was more than a little contentious politically, so I think LTD made a good call in limiting the scope of the bus-only sections.

W. 11th is very congested so I do not think your take is correct.  If you had personally followed the projects for bus lanes over the course of years in Eugene as I have, you would know better.  What the deal is: Two pounds of sh*t in a one pound bag.  There was not that much room to work with on W. 11th.  As far as I am concerned, the engineering side did all they could do within the limitations of space and finances.  Were the job to be done properly, it would have required the removal of the south side blocks along W. 11th and that would have been quite expensive although the traffic flow situation would have been solved by using a superboulevard design with a frontage road on the south side with enough room remaining for a continuous bus lane.

As for political contentiousness, yes, there was plenty of that.  Before we had the bus lane project. ODOT had planned and set aside money for the West Eugene Parkway.  This project was even subject to a public vote and it barely won but it was still a win until the liberals of Eugene did their usual crap by being progressives against progress and brought the whole shebang to a halt despite the democratic process having gone against them.  ODOT took the millions they had set aside for this needed project and spent them elsewhere as a result.  W 11th is still heavily congested. 

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 18, 2018, 02:02:01 AM
Portland is now 20 on most roads now. Another effect of the vision zero failure.
http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2018/01/portland_speed_limits_vote_20.html
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on January 18, 2018, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 18, 2018, 02:02:01 AM
Portland is now 20 on most roads now. Another effect of the vision zero failure.
http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2018/01/portland_speed_limits_vote_20.html

What's the criteria for failure? Not enough vehicle-related fatalities and injuries on city streets that are teeming with people on foot? You don't need to be going any faster than 20 mph on residential back streets.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 18, 2018, 08:09:12 PM
Quote from: Bruce on January 18, 2018, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 18, 2018, 02:02:01 AM
Portland is now 20 on most roads now. Another effect of the vision zero failure.
http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2018/01/portland_speed_limits_vote_20.html

What's the criteria for failure? Not enough vehicle-related fatalities and injuries on city streets that are teeming with people on foot? You don't need to be going any faster than 20 mph on residential back streets.
Believe it or not, I actually want people to slow down in neighborhoods but the problem is when a speed limit is lowered, most drivers don't change their habits. Also Portpsnd PD has come out saying they won't do any increased patrols or anything special to enforce the 20 mph limit.

Why vision zero will fail: If your goal was just as close to 0 as possible, that is reasonable. What most plans have done: 0 deaths on the road by 2030 (12 years). With distracted driving, drunk driving also prevalent causes, I don't see any money going to that and people will still do it. We all know a lot of drivers who don't pay attention to the road. This doesn't even include weather related traffic deaths.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on January 18, 2018, 09:38:18 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 18, 2018, 08:09:12 PM
Quote from: Bruce on January 18, 2018, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 18, 2018, 02:02:01 AM
Portland is now 20 on most roads now. Another effect of the vision zero failure.
http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2018/01/portland_speed_limits_vote_20.html

What's the criteria for failure? Not enough vehicle-related fatalities and injuries on city streets that are teeming with people on foot? You don't need to be going any faster than 20 mph on residential back streets.
Believe it or not, I actually want people to slow down in neighborhoods but the problem is when a speed limit is lowered, most drivers don't change their habits. Also Portpsnd PD has come out saying they won't do any increased patrols or anything special to enforce the 20 mph limit.

Why vision zero will fail: If your goal was just as close to 0 as possible, that is reasonable. What most plans have done: 0 deaths on the road by 2030 (12 years). With distracted driving, drunk driving also prevalent causes, I don't see any money going to that and people will still do it. We all know a lot of drivers who don't pay attention to the road. This doesn't even include weather related traffic deaths.

The goal is zero preventable deaths related to traffic incidents. This means taking engineering actions to build safer roads for all users (forcing drivers to slow down, clearing sight lines, building bicycle facilities), stepping up much needed enforcement, training better commercial drivers, and having reasonable transportation options for those who can't drive.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 19, 2018, 01:48:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 18, 2018, 09:38:18 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 18, 2018, 08:09:12 PM
Quote from: Bruce on January 18, 2018, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 18, 2018, 02:02:01 AM
Portland is now 20 on most roads now. Another effect of the vision zero failure.
http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2018/01/portland_speed_limits_vote_20.html

What's the criteria for failure? Not enough vehicle-related fatalities and injuries on city streets that are teeming with people on foot? You don't need to be going any faster than 20 mph on residential back streets.
Believe it or not, I actually want people to slow down in neighborhoods but the problem is when a speed limit is lowered, most drivers don't change their habits. Also, Portland PD has come out saying they won't do any increased patrols or anything special to enforce the 20 mph limit.

Why vision zero will fail: If your goal was just as close to 0 as possible, that is reasonable. What most plans have done: 0 deaths on the road by 2030 (12 years). With distracted driving, drunk driving also prevalent causes, I don't see any money going to that and people will still do it. We all know a lot of drivers who don't pay attention to the road. This doesn't even include weather related traffic deaths.

The goal is zero preventable deaths related to traffic incidents. This means taking engineering actions to build safer roads for all users (forcing drivers to slow down, clearing sight lines, building bicycle facilities), stepping up much-needed enforcement, training better commercial drivers, and having reasonable transportation options for those who can't drive.

Portland's vision zero website says nothing about predictable that I could see, also it's 2025, not 2030 like I thought. Plus weather-related and distracted driving is predictable.

Quote from: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/74093Vision Zero is the goal to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2025.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: compdude787 on January 20, 2018, 05:22:07 PM
Vision Zero is nothing but pie-in-the-sky idealism. It won't happen until 100% of cars on the roads are self-driving and I'm pretty sure that's not going to be the case in 2030. Reducing speeds will only increase distracted driving. I find that I get less focused on the road when I'm driving at a slower speed.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on January 20, 2018, 09:51:07 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on January 20, 2018, 05:22:07 PM
Vision Zero is nothing but pie-in-the-sky idealism. It won't happen until 100% of cars on the roads are self-driving and I'm pretty sure that's not going to be the case in 2030. Reducing speeds will only increase distracted driving. I find that I get less focused on the road when I'm driving at a slower speed.

Perhaps you should not be driving then. The human brain can react to things much better at a lower speed...you would be able to catch a slow moving piece of paper much easier than a baseball, right?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on January 20, 2018, 11:29:10 PM
Quote from: Bruce on January 20, 2018, 09:51:07 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on January 20, 2018, 05:22:07 PM
Vision Zero is nothing but pie-in-the-sky idealism. It won't happen until 100% of cars on the roads are self-driving and I'm pretty sure that's not going to be the case in 2030. Reducing speeds will only increase distracted driving. I find that I get less focused on the road when I'm driving at a slower speed.

Perhaps you should not be driving then. The human brain can react to things much better at a lower speed...you would be able to catch a slow moving piece of paper much easier than a baseball, right?

Not always true.  The battleship Bismarck was attacked by torpedo carrying biplanes.  One got a lucky hit to jam the Bismarck's rudder and that led to its destruction.  Why did such slow planes even survive long enough to get a chance to launch their torpedoes?  Because the AA targeting system of the Bismarck was not set up to handle very low speed planes!  Did the human brain make up for the difference in guns aimed by them?  Nope. 

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on January 23, 2018, 02:12:36 PM
Posting the full article from here (http://democratherald.com/news/odot-to-start-highway-safety-projects/article_8a302282-cba5-5d17-9086-1148d06f155b.html) to avoid the Google Survey paywall:


ODOT to start Highway 34 safety projects
ALEX PAUL - Albany Democrat-Herald - Jan 22, 2018

Public reception to the installation of traffic signals and street lights at Seven Mile Lane and Highway 34 in 2016 has been overwhelming, according to Linn County Roadmaster Darrin Lane.

Now the Oregon Department of Transportation is preparing to start the second round of projects designed to improve traffic safety along Highway 34 between Lebanon and Corvallis.

The Seven Mile Lane project was a cooperative effort between Linn County and the Oregon Department of Transportation.

"As far as the signal goes, I have had 99.9 percent positive feedback,"  Lane said. "I feel like it has been very successful in accomplishing the goals of improving safety and allowing crossing traffic to get through safely."

The lights became active on Dec. 21, 2016.

By the end of the month, ODOT plans to begin the $3 million second phase of projects that will include:
Lane said the Goltra Road project will go a long way toward improving safety issues for the corridor. He said the more illumination, the better on long stretches of roadway.

"In the end, these projects won't prevent every kind of accident from happening,"  Lane said. "There will still be people who do dumb things such as driving under the influence or speeding. The move to right-only turns at Columbus should make a big difference in the number of crashes there. That should be a big help in terms of safety."

ODOT plans to install a concrete center median on Highway 34 at the Columbus intersection.

"Plans to make this change have been in place for several years because that intersection has been recognized as a high crash corridor since at least 2008 due to the number of crashes, how often they have occurred, and how severe they have been,"  ODOT spokeswoman Angela Beers Seydel noted in a prepared statement. "Between Jan. 1, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2016, there were 23 crashes involving injuries or fatalities. Of those 23 crashes, 14 were left-turn crashes. Nine of the 14 were from Columbus Street turning on to OR 34 eastbound."

ODOT says drivers from south Albany and Linn-Benton Community College looking to access the freeway via a left-hand turn from Columbus Street can go to Seven Mile Lane and use the signal. To reduce the chance of severe rear-end crashes in the westbound direction of Highway 34, concrete median islands and separators were installed to calm traffic. A radar detector also was installed at the signal to increase green times if a vehicle couldn't stop in time.

New lighting, signs, and striping at Goltra Road and Colorado Lake Drive, as well as upgraded lighting at Denny School Road, will improve awareness and safety. Median rumble strips also were installed last year to help reduce crossover crashes.

Drivers can expect to see crews in various locations day and night in the project area.

ODOT asks the public to use caution and drive carefully. Lane closures will not be allowed during peak travel hours to minimize traffic impacts. But lanes may be closed Monday through Thursday between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Additionally, work closing a lane at Goltra Road may be done between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. Work without lane closures may be done during the day in other parts of the project area.

For more information on the project, including a background video: http://www.oregon.gov/odot/projects/pages/project-details.aspx?project=19662 (http://www.oregon.gov/odot/projects/pages/project-details.aspx?project=19662).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on January 23, 2018, 07:34:18 PM
Around 15 years or so ago, ODOT had a plan to improve the last few miles of the eastern section of 34 in Lebanon.  Having not been on that section in many years nor having heard anything about improvements, do you have any word on such a project Jason?

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 23, 2018, 10:00:03 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 23, 2018, 07:34:18 PM
Around 15 years or so ago, ODOT had a plan to improve the last few miles of the eastern section of 34 in Lebanon.  Having not been on that section in many years nor having heard anything about improvements, do you have any word on such a project Jason?

Rick
Doing a search of ODOT's projects with the filter being "must involve Lebanon, only the project Jason mentioned came up unfortunately. None was also mentioned in the transportation package'd projects.

Quote from: ODOTThe area is posted at 50, but many people drive way faster than that
Really? Then raise it if people go way faster than that especially if this stretch of road is safer. I don't know, how does 60 sound?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on January 24, 2018, 02:50:50 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 23, 2018, 10:00:03 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 23, 2018, 07:34:18 PM
Around 15 years or so ago, ODOT had a plan to improve the last few miles of the eastern section of 34 in Lebanon.  Having not been on that section in many years nor having heard anything about improvements, do you have any word on such a project Jason?

Rick
Doing a search of ODOT's projects with the filter being "must involve Lebanon, only the project Jason mentioned came up unfortunately. None was also mentioned in the transportation package'd projects.

I'm gonna try looking on the Wayback Machine to see if such a project was ever listed on ODOT's Region 2 projects page. I'll report back if I find anything of interest.

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 23, 2018, 10:00:03 PM
Quote from: ODOTThe area is posted at 50, but many people drive way faster than that
Really? Then raise it if people go way faster than that especially if this stretch of road is safer. I don't know, how does 60 sound?

I can see 55 being an option for the part east of I-5. I'm not sure if there's any grade separation west of I-5 apart from the 99E interchange. If so, I could see 60, but 55 otherwise. (I-5 between Albany and Eugene, however, should be at least 70.)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 24, 2018, 12:08:38 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on January 24, 2018, 02:50:50 AM


I can see 55 being an option for the part east of I-5. I'm not sure if there's any grade separation west of I-5 apart from the 99E interchange. If so, I could see 60, but 55 otherwise. (I-5 between Albany and Eugene, however, should be at least 70.)

I see it as 60 mainly because of the fact that I've driven this at 70 to keep up with the flow of traffic. Actually, the 60 section was referring to the mile west of I-5. The rest of the roadway can probably be posted at 65 with current data (predicting, I don't know the exact 85th%) and 70 without too much of a hitch.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on January 25, 2018, 02:35:24 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 23, 2018, 10:00:03 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 23, 2018, 07:34:18 PM
Around 15 years or so ago, ODOT had a plan to improve the last few miles of the eastern section of 34 in Lebanon.  Having not been on that section in many years nor having heard anything about improvements, do you have any word on such a project Jason?

Rick
Doing a search of ODOT's projects with the filter being "must involve Lebanon, only the project Jason mentioned came up unfortunately. None was also mentioned in the transportation package'd projects.

After digging around the Wayback Machine from ~2002 to ~2016, I found a couple things of interest:


I didn't really see anything about OR-34 to the east of I-5. Most of them were either the above two projects, something in the Coast Range and something in/near Waldport on the coast.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on January 25, 2018, 01:33:41 PM
Thanks for the research Jason.  ODOT bureaucrats have often drawn up plans and then let them fade away.  Back in 1990 the plan for 101 was to improve various segments to a 4-lane standard including what was then the busiest stretch of 2-lane highway in Oregon between North Bend and Reedsport.  It never happened.  What we got instead was a short lived segue into a parkway concept with one mile of demonstration road built in Lincoln County.  ODOT tried selling the concept to communities on the coast.  No one else wanted this.

Today the McCullough Bridge maintenance project continues.  It has been going on since 2009 and the current completion date is 2019.  Had ODOT built a modern 4-lane bridge it would not have cost that much more and been done quicker.  You can see how the planning for a 4-lane main bridge was used to make the bridge just north of it (Haynes Inlet) a 4-lane width with it currently marked for three plus an extra wide shoulder on the east side.

What would such a bridge have looked like?  If you go to Waldport and cross Alsea Bay on the one truly modern 101 bridge in Oregon, you'll be on a 4-lane affair with some beautiful arches that pay tribute to Conde McCullough.  Oh what could have been if ODOT was on the ball like they used to be in the glory days.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on January 25, 2018, 04:54:37 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 25, 2018, 01:33:41 PM
Thanks for the research Jason.  ODOT bureaucrats have often drawn up plans and then let them fade away.  Back in 1990 the plan for 101 was to improve various segments to a 4-lane standard including what was then the busiest stretch of 2-lane highway in Oregon between North Bend and Reedsport.  It never happened.  What we got instead was a short lived segue into a parkway concept with one mile of demonstration road built in Lincoln County.  ODOT tried selling the concept to communities on the coast.  No one else wanted this.

Today the McCullough Bridge maintenance project continues.  It has been going on since 2009 and the current completion date is 2019.  Had ODOT built a modern 4-lane bridge it would not have cost that much more and been done quicker.  You can see how the planning for a 4-lane main bridge was used to make the bridge just north of it (Haynes Inlet) a 4-lane width with it currently marked for three plus an extra wide shoulder on the east side.

What would such a bridge have looked like?  If you go to Waldport and cross Alsea Bay on the one truly modern 101 bridge in Oregon, you'll be on a 4-lane affair with some beautiful arches that pay tribute to Conde McCullough.  Oh what could have been if ODOT was on the ball like they used to be in the glory days.

Rick

It's real easy to blame ODOT. They've had their fair share of boondoggles recently (US-20 at Eddyville, US-97 at Wickiup Junction), as well as projects that went over budget. However, I imagine that politicians are also to blame for playing with ODOT resources and funds, since they're the ones who actually control the purse strings. Also, due to some good-intended but really stupid laws (sending taxes to voters for approval, the kicker law, etc.) the voters share a part of the blame. For example, phase 1 of the Newberg-Dundee Bypass might've been built 5-10 years earlier had Measure 82 passed in 2000. That would've raised gas taxes by a nickel and increased vehicle registration fees to fund $600 million in transportation projects, $15 million of which was earmarked for the bypass. It got shot down for a few reasons, mostly because AAA opposed the measure, truckers opposed changing how their mileage and fuel were taxed, and gas started increasing in price weeks before the election (though not to the levels we see regularly today). I also blame Washington state for wasting ODOT money by messing up the CRC project years ago, and they look like they're trying to mess up these latest plans as well -- though maybe both of those are the faults of Washington politicians rather than residents.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on February 02, 2018, 11:31:03 AM
Part of the funding puzzle, too, is that ODOT's maintenance bills are pretty high — close to $500 million a year for maintenance and preservation alone. ODOT also is responsible for kicking back a significant portion of revenue back to local communities — about $150 million a year.

This isn't to say we should feel bad for ODOT — their capital project management is just dreadful, the leadership is entrenched... but at least they could screw up *more* projects if they didn't have to dump so much into maintaining the existing system.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on February 03, 2018, 12:54:00 AM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on January 25, 2018, 04:54:37 PM
I also blame Washington state for wasting ODOT money by messing up the CRC project years ago, and they look like they're trying to mess up these latest plans as well -- though maybe both of those are the faults of Washington politicians rather than residents.

The fault for that is on Oregon's side.  Washington wanted a simple highway bridge.  It was Oregon - specifically the former and now disgraced Mayor of Portland - that DEMANDED, undiplomatically, a whole slew of so-called "green" projects that were unnecessary, wasteful, and unwanted by most of the people involved.  A light rail line to Vancouver.  Wind turbines and solar panels atop the bridge.  A "green" rooftop park with a bike path.

Washington got fed up with Portland's demands and walked away.  ODOT tried to wrestle Portland out of the committee, but Washington was already fed up at that point and walked away from Portland's demands.

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on February 03, 2018, 02:48:24 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on February 03, 2018, 12:54:00 AM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on January 25, 2018, 04:54:37 PM
I also blame Washington state for wasting ODOT money by messing up the CRC project years ago, and they look like they're trying to mess up these latest plans as well -- though maybe both of those are the faults of Washington politicians rather than residents.

The fault for that is on Oregon's side.  Washington wanted a simple highway bridge.  It was Oregon - specifically the former and now disgraced Mayor of Portland - that DEMANDED, undiplomatically, a whole slew of so-called "green" projects that were unnecessary, wasteful, and unwanted by most of the people involved.  A light rail line to Vancouver.  Wind turbines and solar panels atop the bridge.  A "green" rooftop park with a bike path.

Don't forget Kitzhaber saying: "no light rail, no project, no kidding."
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on February 05, 2018, 12:28:52 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on February 03, 2018, 12:54:00 AM
Washington wanted a simple highway bridge.

Even without light rail, the project was cumbersome. Washington had to do about a billion dollars of interchange improvements on the north side of the river. Oregon had a similar number on the south side for Port access. And politically, there was never going to be a project that didn't feature a rail line across the river.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on February 05, 2018, 08:43:51 PM
Really, what helped kill it for Washington were the issues surrounding bridge height for Pearson Airfield and lack of consideration for the Coast Guard.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on March 02, 2018, 11:53:47 PM
So the following quote I'm taking from the Sherwood Archer (one of our newspapers) about speeding:
Quote from: Sherwood archer: Police Department SectionSpeeding is the most common complaint we receive from the community and the Police Advisory Board reports that speeding is one of the topics they most often hear about.
Without question speeding is an issue in Sherwood and a concern of many residents. Speeding is a contributing factor in many crashes, and plays a roll in every crash. The higher the speed, the more significant the crash and the higher the risk of injury.
We recently learned that a portion of Elwert road is now inside the city limits, between Handley and Edy. Many people have shared their concerns with us about this stretch of roadway and we will be assuming enforcement in that area to increase safety.
We also have a speeding issue along Highway 99W right through town. We recently conducted a speed survey at the two intersections where we presently have red light cameras and found that in 2016, an estimated 89,000 were travelling 56 mph or faster through our 45 mph intersections.
The Oregon Legislature recently passed new laws allowing cities like us to use existing red light cameras for speed enforcement as well. With the recent appoval of your City Council we intend to do just that. Speeding through our major intersections at Highway 99W/Sunset and Highway 99W/Tualatin-Sherwood Road is not safe and we intend to take advantage of the tools and technology at our disposal to address it.
You can expect to see speed enforcement added to our existing photo enforcement program in the months ahead. Adressing the intersection speeding with the use of our existing cameras will allow us to keep focusing on our school zones, neighborhoods and other trouble spots, like Elwert road.
If you have an area you are concerned about because of speeding, please let us know. You can report dangerous traffic situations to dispatch by calling 911 if it is urgent, or the non-emergency number if it is not urgent. If you would simply like us to patrol a certain area, call us at 503-625-5523 and ask for some focused patrol.
I am always available to chat if you have any questions or want more information. I can be reached via email at grothj@sherwoodoregon.gov or by calling 503-625-5523.

In your service - Chief Jeff Groth

A couple of things to note and I quote:
1. "Speed plays a roll in every crash."  :-D :-D :-D :-D :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

2. "We also have a speeding issue along Highway 99W right through town. We recently conducted a speed survey at the two intersections where we presently have red light cameras and found that in 2016, an estimated 89,000 were travelling 56 mph or faster through our 45 mph intersections." I see a few red flags here. 1. Where is the average and 85th percentile speed? 2. That is a lot of cars driving through over 55 mph. (Speed limit is 45) More on this down below. 3. Highway 99W/Sunset is not a well designed intersection and a lot of crashes I can bet money that a vast minority, or a majority of crashes has to do with Sunset/Elwert traffic turning onto 99W with the oncoming traffic going strait. 4. The wording of that section and words after it makes it sound like they need more revenue and using speed as a way to do it.

3. "Speeding through our major intersections at Highway 99W/Sunset and Highway 99W/Tualatin-Sherwood is not safe..." Really? I already explained above what the issue is with the sunset intersection but the TSR intersection I have not seen or heard of accidents that often. In fact, I run through there at about 4pm once a week (start of rush hour) and over the past 4 years, I have noticed 1 crash on the stretch of 99W between MP 15.3 and 14.6.


This is the last straw. I am going to officially propose 55 mph on 99W in Sherwood, but I don't know who to talk to. Reasons why I'm doing it.
1. Entire highway through Sherwood is a divided 4-6 lane highway with minimal non-traffic signal intersections on the 4 lane sections, and the 6 lane sections have a reduced amount than what would normally be the case, and that is with an acceleration/slow down lane. The intersections that aren't controlled by a traffic signal are RIRO.
2. I rarely see people drive slower than 50 mph outside of rush hour. When I am being passed in the left lane going 50 between 2 sets of signals, there normally is a problem there.
     a. As a lot of you know, most drivers will go what feels right to them given the conditions. My father drives to work in Beaverton and notices that on Roy Rogers Road (55 mph limit, 2 lane with shoulder) people commonly drive 45 due to lower sight lines and fog is more common there due to the river's proximity. After he turns on Scholls Ferry road (40 mph limit, 4 lane+center lane) said cars go 50 mph because they feel more comfortable on the 4 lane, well lit segment of roadway.
3. Due to the higher differential in speeds, it makes it less safe for the drivers to travel along. A 55 mph speed limit will reduce if not eliminate this differential
4. In neighboring Tualatin, a section of 99W is 55 mph with similar conditions as Sherwood. Brookwood Parkway is 55 mph north of Evergreen Parkway with similar conditions (6 instead of 4 laned though), Redmond is 50-55 mph with similar conditions (excluding downtown area). You understand the point.

The evidence is there for a 55 mph limit. Again, I don't know who to talk to. Does anyone know who I would talk to (I'm going to wait until after the special election so that drama is done 1st).

The Sunset intersection is poorly designed with traffic frequently getting backed up at the north end of the intersection as well. Both signals turn green at the same time which for 2 busy roads crossing is not a wise thing to program. Here is where it is. https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3529605,-122.8670278,419m/data=!3m1!1e3

With the new High school coming in at this intersection, there is going to be a roundabout added in place and the distance between the intersection and the signal will increase, but congestion often goes further than that, caused by people wanting to get onto 99W but can't due to the people at the intersections, and 99W traffic. I have also come up with a plan to fix that as well and my friend said in his next superintendents director's meeting, he'll propose it (or I may do it myself). It is here: (retracted since I made it to a city-wide plan, see my fictional page)

I think I've ranted enough about this.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on March 03, 2018, 04:23:04 AM
Most likely your state representative and/or senator. Possibly a contact person at ODOT, but I think ODOT's reluctant to raise speeds.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Tarkus on March 03, 2018, 05:47:42 AM
It's a state highway, and so it'd be up to ODOT, who would probably solicit significant input by the overlapping jurisdictions (City of Sherwood and Washington County).  It appears based on the current Speed Zone Order for that stretch of the highway (Order J9188 (https://zigzag.odot.state.or.us/uniquesig78ff0d392336a284c69037220217ce07902ac9825cdd667d43555eddf0570a01/uniquesig0/cf/szi/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewPDF&SZOI=9188) from December 11, 2017) that Sherwood is listed as an "interested jurisdiction" for the 45 zone.  There are actually some staunchly pro-85th percentile folks embedded at ODOT, who are in the speed zoning area, though they sometimes get trampled by local jurisdictions with enough clout.  Sherwood, to my knowledge, has a decent amount of clout to fight, given that they were able to get the red light cameras onto 99W in the first place, and Chief Groth seems to love exploiting poor engineering practices as a way for the city to make a buck.  (The cameras came shortly after he was hired out of Tualatin PD.)

BTW, it's also worth noting that the camera facing 99W SB at Sunset actually appears to be outside the city limits.  The border appears to run diagonally through the intersection, leaving at least some of the equipment (the camera that takes the facial image, at the very least) in unincorporated Washington County.  Don't know if that's enough to throw a spanner into the works there, but Beaverton got busted for using cameras outside their city limits sometime in the late-90s/early-00s, IIRC (which were also set to enforce a 25mph zone that had no basis in law).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on March 09, 2018, 12:37:56 AM
One big problem I've run into recently with Highway 99W, all the way from Durham Road in Tigard/King City, through Tualatin, through Sherwood, and even over Rex Hill, is that too many motorists are completely unaware they are leaving the big city and entering a rural highway.  Too often people are poking along in the left lane doing 40 MPH, 45 MPH, maybe 50 if I'm lucky.  Completely oblivious to where they are, or the crowd of cars behind them.  What happens?  People get impatient and have to pass on the right at high speed.  So you have a combination of very slow drivers, and very fast people...and nobody doing 55 MPH or within 5 of it.

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on March 11, 2018, 09:50:05 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on March 09, 2018, 12:37:56 AM
One big problem I've run into recently with Highway 99W, all the way from Durham Road in Tigard/King City, through Tualatin, through Sherwood, and even over Rex Hill, is that too many motorists are completely unaware they are leaving the big city and entering a rural highway.  Too often people are poking along in the left lane doing 40 MPH, 45 MPH, maybe 50 if I'm lucky.  Completely oblivious to where they are, or the crowd of cars behind them.  What happens?  People get impatient and have to pass on the right at high speed.  So you have a combination of very slow drivers, and very fast people...and nobody doing 55 MPH or within 5 of it.

I have that problem often as well, oh and it was funny when one person was going 25 in a 45 soon to turn 55 in the left lane today (edit, all signals were green for the last 40 seconds (estimation) and did not turn red) :ded: however assuming you don't drive in the rush hours, then that number of drivers that do that go way down, at least from personal experience. It doesn't always go away though.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: US 89 on March 12, 2018, 12:41:02 AM
If OR 99W through Sherwood was in Utah, it would probably be posted at 55 mph. The most similar road to that in UT that I can think of is US 89 between UT-193 and UT-273, and that is posted for 55 mph.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: doorknob60 on March 12, 2018, 03:59:52 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on March 12, 2018, 12:41:02 AM
If OR 99W through Sherwood was in Utah, it would probably be posted at 55 mph. The most similar road to that in UT that I can think of is US 89 between UT-193 and UT-273, and that is posted for 55 mph.

Hard to say for Idaho. ID-55 (Eagle Rd) in Meridian/Boise is posted at 50 (S of Fairview) and 55 (N of Fairview) and is more urbanized, has more driveways, and more traffic than 99W. But look at US-95 in Coeur D Alene, which I would say is a more similar design to 99W, but only has a 45 MPH speed limit. That kind of bothers me, and it will bother me again when I drive on both segments in the same day at the end of April :P Guess it just shows that Northern Idaho takes more cues from Washington, and southern Idaho takes cues from Utah and Nevada (which take cues from California).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on March 20, 2018, 12:29:03 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on March 12, 2018, 12:41:02 AM
If OR 99W through Sherwood was in Utah, it would probably be posted at 55 mph.

It was a 55 zone for many years.  Until Sherwood sprawled out and built one shopping center after another...Six Corners became two intersections...and then another traffic signal, and another, and another...

Meanwhile Tualatin-Sherwood Road is just clogged 24/7, Washington County underbuilt Roy Rogers Road and now its northern end has to be widened; 124th is being extended south to Wilsonville, there's another shopping center under construction...
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on March 20, 2018, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on March 20, 2018, 12:29:03 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on March 12, 2018, 12:41:02 AM
If OR 99W through Sherwood was in Utah, it would probably be posted at 55 mph.

It was a 55 zone for many years.  Until Sherwood sprawled out and built one shopping center after another...Six Corners became two intersections...and then another traffic signal, and another, and another...

Meanwhile Tualatin-Sherwood Road is just clogged 24/7, Washington County underbuilt Roy Rogers Road and now its northern end has to be widened; 124th is being extended south to Wilsonville, there's another shopping center under construction...
Despite all of that, the main access seems to be on Edy road off of 99W for said new shopping center (with RIRO access but it looks like its wide enough for one lane). And 99W somehow remains divided with the extra lane in the six corners area further justifying my point in the rant including the examples in there (there are others and I will supply them on request).

The proposed fun center next to Wal Mart on the other hand....

Edit: spelling error. Also the mayor election is over and its been a week since I've emailed my state representative and he hasn't responded. I'm assuming this is due to them not being in session anymore. I have been advized to talk with the city manager 1st and if it isn't him/her, the manager would know who to talk to so that is where I'll start.

Title: I-84/I-5 split photograph in The Oregonian
Post by: sp_redelectric on March 20, 2018, 10:04:41 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.oregonlive.com%2Fhome%2Folive-media%2Fwidth960%2Fimg%2Ftrending%2Fphoto%2F2018%2F03%2F19%2F1966-press-photo-traffic-signs-banfield-freeway-6396a914aee35216.jpg&hash=89099d7ec11af8f7e4e167053920b11c9c8c1a2f)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on March 20, 2018, 10:06:31 PM
And here's what it looks like today...notice the exit is now just for Lloyd Center which doesn't follow the current MUTCD (it should be a street name):

https://goo.gl/maps/qG66Ynm1Ly72 (https://goo.gl/maps/qG66Ynm1Ly72)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on March 21, 2018, 12:19:22 PM
Love that I-80N pix!  Hardly any cars on the Banfield showing so maybe this was Sunday morning? 

Rick
Title: Re: I-84/I-5 split photograph in The Oregonian
Post by: JasonOfORoads on March 21, 2018, 08:46:25 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on March 20, 2018, 10:04:41 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.oregonlive.com%2Fhome%2Folive-media%2Fwidth960%2Fimg%2Ftrending%2Fphoto%2F2018%2F03%2F19%2F1966-press-photo-traffic-signs-banfield-freeway-6396a914aee35216.jpg&hash=89099d7ec11af8f7e4e167053920b11c9c8c1a2f)

That's a great shot! When was it in the Oregonian? Are there any more of them?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: roadfro on March 25, 2018, 11:44:11 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on March 20, 2018, 10:06:31 PM
...notice the exit is now just for Lloyd Center which doesn't follow the current MUTCD (it should be a street name):

There's nothing specific in the national MUTCD that says the exit destination has to be a street name. Just that a city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided.

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on March 25, 2018, 07:27:44 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on March 20, 2018, 10:04:41 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.oregonlive.com%2Fhome%2Folive-media%2Fwidth960%2Fimg%2Ftrending%2Fphoto%2F2018%2F03%2F19%2F1966-press-photo-traffic-signs-banfield-freeway-6396a914aee35216.jpg&hash=89099d7ec11af8f7e4e167053920b11c9c8c1a2f)
That could easily pass as old CalTrans signs. And that US 99E shield is gorgeous.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: compdude787 on March 25, 2018, 11:48:25 PM
It looks like the arrows are kind of an afterthought; they looked like they just got crammed in there underneath the text. But hey, it's historic....
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on March 26, 2018, 03:24:07 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 25, 2018, 11:44:11 AM
There's nothing specific in the national MUTCD that says the exit destination has to be a street name. Just that a city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided.

Hmmm.  I've noticed both ODOT and WSDOT (which don't always see eye to eye with each other) renaming a lot of exits to the street/road name.

For example, I-5 Exit 278, formerly Aurora/Donald is now Ehlen Road/Aurora.  Oregon 217, formerly Progress, is now Hall Boulevard.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on March 26, 2018, 03:24:39 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on March 21, 2018, 08:46:25 PM
That's a great shot! When was it in the Oregonian? Are there any more of them?

Yes, it was in The Oregonian, and no there weren't any more road photos (at least that day).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on April 02, 2018, 03:04:57 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on March 20, 2018, 10:04:41 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.oregonlive.com%2Fhome%2Folive-media%2Fwidth960%2Fimg%2Ftrending%2Fphoto%2F2018%2F03%2F19%2F1966-press-photo-traffic-signs-banfield-freeway-6396a914aee35216.jpg&hash=89099d7ec11af8f7e4e167053920b11c9c8c1a2f)

Is there any way we can get that back on I-84? She's a beauty. Edit: It looks like the collesium is called Seattle Collesium (I know it isn't though). End edit.




Update on Sherwood and my effort to raise it to 55 MPH: I did a makeshift engineering study because I did not find the time to do a proper engineering study or do something similar to what Speed Kills Your Pocketbook suggrsted on 2 cameras 2 seconds apart at (45 MPH). I instead did 5 passes through Sherwood. 3 were at 45 MPH, 2 were at 50 MPH. I also went out to 124th avenue for a round of passes (2) to see what the comparision was. The results are as follows:

45 MPH (current limit): passed by 17 times (after rewatching after the original post). Passed someone else once. Except for an RV, couldn't keep up with traffic. Felt unsafe going that slow.

50 MPH: passed by 4 times. Passed someone else 5 times (these 5 were in between 2 signals, not including that in the presentation because I'm out of space on that slide). Kept up easier but still struggled in spots.

Tualatin 55 MPH: passed 2 people, one of them in the city limits. I added 1 because I had to slow down to 50 so I could make my turn for the turnaround and I had 3 cars in front of me. If I kept 55 and moved over, I would've made the pass before it dropped to 45 MPH. Passed by 2 people and all werein the wildlife refuge area.

10 second break (2.5 on video) if I hit a red light.

Done on 3/31 at 3pm. It is on video however hard if not impossible to see me passing someone else due to me angling it so I could see spedometer for review. I'm in the right lane 75% of the time. 20% of the time I'm in the center lane (only in the 6 corners area). 5% in the left lane.
Also can you do us a favor and give us back US 99W signs in Sherwood? :bigass:  I was hopeful and had to enter an April fools thing somehow, even if its bad.


I wish I found time to do this earlier in the month because I wanted to respond to how magnificent that photo is bit also report an update. I blame scholarships and finals.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on April 02, 2018, 11:15:07 PM
The coliseum there refers to the Veterans Memorial Coliseum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Memorial_Coliseum_(Portland,_Oregon)), not the Washington State Coliseum in Seattle (aka KeyArena).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: mrsman on April 02, 2018, 11:38:54 PM
I think it's obvious that a sign for arena or coliseum or airport refers to the one in your own city, it's just disconcerting to see a sign that says Seattle coliseum but if it instead said coliseum Seattle then I think people would understand that you take the exit for the coliseum or north and if you stay on the freeway long enough you are at seattle.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on April 02, 2018, 11:54:22 PM
Quote from: mrsman on April 02, 2018, 11:38:54 PM
I think it's obvious that a sign for arena or coliseum or airport refers to the one in your own city, it's just disconcerting to see a sign that says Seattle coliseum but if it instead said coliseum Seattle then I think people would understand that you take the exit for the coliseum or north and if you stay on the freeway long enough you are at seattle.
I agree, and I did say that I knew what it meant back in the original post (Veterans Memorial Collesium.)

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: mrsman on April 03, 2018, 08:42:32 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on April 02, 2018, 11:54:22 PM
Quote from: mrsman on April 02, 2018, 11:38:54 PM
I think it's obvious that a sign for arena or coliseum or airport refers to the one in your own city, it's just disconcerting to see a sign that says Seattle coliseum but if it instead said coliseum Seattle then I think people would understand that you take the exit for the coliseum or north and if you stay on the freeway long enough you are at seattle.
I agree, and I did say that I knew what it meant back in the original post (Veterans Memorial Collesium.)

LG-TP260

True.  But I think the confusion that it might lead to has lead the future signs in the area to remove Coliseum completely from the BGS. 

Hopefully, there are supplemental signs on I-84 to tell people to use I-5 north for the coliseum.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on April 18, 2018, 12:24:00 PM
So at last nights city council meeting for Sherwood, the mayor mentioned that metro is working on a transportation bond to be released in 2020. The current number is, according to him, $20 billion. For reference, the one just passed by Oregon was $5.3 billion (although not a bond). It also apparently doesn't do much to fix congestion and a lot of it will go to trails out of what the mayor knows. I bet its for mostly light rail and public transit.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on April 19, 2018, 11:27:45 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on April 18, 2018, 12:24:00 PM
So at last nights city council meeting for Sherwood, the mayor mentioned that metro is working on a transportation bond to be released in 2020. The current number is, according to him, $20 billion. For reference, the one just passed by Oregon was $5.3 billion (although not a bond). It also apparently doesn't do much to fix congestion and a lot of it will go to trails out of what the mayor knows. I bet its for mostly light rail and public transit.

LG-TP260

Huh. I know that Lynn Peterson, the main candidate for Metro Council President, has been pitching a $20 billion transportation plan. Last I'd heard, though, Metro was thinking something much smaller than that. The point is, Seattle just did something like $50 billion, and Los Angeles did what, $100 billion? $150 billion? So $20 billion, proportionally, doesn't seem all that exorbitant, depending on how it's spent.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on April 19, 2018, 08:31:51 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 19, 2018, 11:27:45 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on April 18, 2018, 12:24:00 PM
So at last nights city council meeting for Sherwood, the mayor mentioned that metro is working on a transportation bond to be released in 2020. The current number is, according to him, $20 billion. For reference, the one just passed by Oregon was $5.3 billion (although not a bond). It also apparently doesn't do much to fix congestion and a lot of it will go to trails out of what the mayor knows. I bet its for mostly light rail and public transit.

LG-TP260

Huh. I know that Lynn Peterson, the main candidate for Metro Council President, has been pitching a $20 billion transportation plan. Last I'd heard, though, Metro was thinking something much smaller than that. The point is, Seattle just did something like $50 billion, and Los Angeles did what, $100 billion? $150 billion? So $20 billion, proportionally, doesn't seem all that exorbitant, depending on how it's spent.
The new light rail line probably will take about $2 billion of that, if cost estimates turn out to be true.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on April 24, 2018, 01:35:37 AM
So, Portland has a decently new Vision Zero Commercial, and it seems weird how there is only one on speed slowing down and not on distracted driving. Also this seems to go against a majority of the data saying that higher speeds are safer in busier areas and especially on highways *cough cough* Division and Stark Street *cough cough*.  :pan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOPfdMO9ZVw
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on April 26, 2018, 01:25:13 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on April 19, 2018, 08:31:51 PM
The new light rail line probably will take about $2 billion of that, if cost estimates turn out to be true.

The Southwest Corridor light rail line is currently estimated at $2.8 billion.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 27, 2018, 05:03:32 PM
Surely there are better things to spend that $2.8 billion on than useless light rail lines? Maybe they could revive replacing the Interstate Bridge across the Columbia River, only hold the light rail line this time.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on April 27, 2018, 05:42:16 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 27, 2018, 05:03:32 PM
Surely there are better things to spend that $2.8 billion on than useless light rail lines? Maybe they could revive replacing the Interstate Bridge across the Columbia River, only hold the light rail line this time.
Washington wants it, Oregon only if its tolled and it has light rail... That's metro for you.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on April 27, 2018, 07:59:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 27, 2018, 05:03:32 PM
Surely there are better things to spend that $2.8 billion on than useless light rail lines? Maybe they could revive replacing the Interstate Bridge across the Columbia River, only hold the light rail line this time.

Vancouver wants light rail, just FYI. It's Clark County that is holding back the bridge replacement, mostly out of spite.

The Southwest Light Rail doesn't look like a good rail corridor at all, especially since the route options use I-5 or adjacent streets without much potential for real development. That money could be better spent on a tunnel for MAX through downtown, or other improvements to the existing lines (which are terribly slow).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on April 27, 2018, 08:50:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 27, 2018, 07:59:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 27, 2018, 05:03:32 PM
Surely there are better things to spend that $2.8 billion on than useless light rail lines? Maybe they could revive replacing the Interstate Bridge across the Columbia River, only hold the light rail line this time.

Vancouver wants light rail, just FYI. It's Clark County that is holding back the bridge replacement, mostly out of spite.

The Southwest Light Rail doesn't look like a good rail corridor at all, especially since the route options use I-5 or adjacent streets without much potential for real development. That money could be better spent on a tunnel for MAX through downtown, or other improvements to the existing lines (which are terribly slow).
One of the options the SW LR corridor had, but was shot down due to NIMBYism in the Hillsdale area, was a tunnel under OHSU to Sylvania via Hillsdale and Multnomah Village.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 27, 2018, 05:03:32 PM
Surely there are better things to spend that $2.8 billion on than useless light rail lines? Maybe they could revive replacing the Interstate Bridge across the Columbia River, only hold the light rail line this time.
I would not classify it as 'useless'. There will be a point where the investment will pay off, even if we're currently at the point where investing in LR to the detriment of roads and highways is frustrating. I don't believe Portland and Metro have a balanced approach, but those light rail lines will become more and more important as time goes on. (The bottlenecks of downtown and Lloyd District will need to be addressed, however, and attention should be focused there while LR is the darling child of the area).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: KEK Inc. on April 28, 2018, 02:43:47 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 27, 2018, 07:59:24 PM
Vancouver wants light rail, just FYI.

Citation needed.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on April 28, 2018, 02:23:53 PM
A decade ago, the city council endorsed light rail by a 5-2 vote (http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/07/vancouver_wash_officals_greenl.html). More recently, Vancouver voted in favor of the 2012 sales tax increase (http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/nov/06/voters-soundly-reject-c-tran-measure-outcome-deliv/) for CRC light rail that was rejected due to non-Vancouver voters. Instead, C-Tran is building a bus rapid transit network that funnels into downtown Vancouver, with the hope of someday feeding light rail.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on May 01, 2018, 11:56:40 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 27, 2018, 08:50:30 PMOne of the options the SW LR corridor had, but was shot down due to NIMBYism in the Hillsdale area, was a tunnel under OHSU to Sylvania via Hillsdale and Multnomah Village.

It wasn't NIMBYism, it was Metro realizing the project was getting too expensive.

I've heard rumblings that they may not even be able to afford pushing the line south of downtown Tigard; which IMO is utterly pointless anyways.  Who else builds a light rail line to serve a luxury "lifestyle shopping center" most often frequented by people who own $80,000 SUVs, and even IF they wanted to use the light rail, they couldn't because the light rail line travels north but they live east or west in Lake Oswego, Bull Mountain, Tualatin or Sherwood?  The line won't even serve Tualatin, nor most of Tigard, nor Kruse Way, nor Washington Square, nor PCC Sylvania, nor any other schools (south of Portland State University)...it's just a big long parking lot shuttle for downtown government workers and folks going to Blazers games.

And Highways 99W and 217 will continue to be as congested, if not MORE congested, than ever, thanks to the required and necessary cutbacks to bus service in the area.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 02, 2018, 02:29:49 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 01, 2018, 11:56:40 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 27, 2018, 08:50:30 PMOne of the options the SW LR corridor had, but was shot down due to NIMBYism in the Hillsdale area, was a tunnel under OHSU to Sylvania via Hillsdale and Multnomah Village.

It wasn't NIMBYism, it was Metro realizing the project was getting too expensive.

I've heard rumblings that they may not even be able to afford pushing the line south of downtown Tigard; which IMO is utterly pointless anyways.  Who else builds a light rail line to serve a luxury "lifestyle shopping center" most often frequented by people who own $80,000 SUVs, and even IF they wanted to use the light rail, they couldn't because the light rail line travels north but they live east or west in Lake Oswego, Bull Mountain, Tualatin or Sherwood?  The line won't even serve Tualatin, nor most of Tigard, nor Kruse Way, nor Washington Square, nor PCC Sylvania, nor any other schools (south of Portland State University)...it's just a big long parking lot shuttle for downtown government workers and folks going to Blazers games.

And Highways 99W and 217 will continue to be as congested, if not MORE congested, than ever, thanks to the required and necessary cutbacks to bus service in the area.
They also plan to take out a lane of Barbur Blvd in the process however the jury is still out whether it expands to Tigard 99W or not. If it does, we are in trouble.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on May 02, 2018, 05:44:26 PM
A healthy combination of the two. NIMBYism in Multnomah Village and Hillsdale, and concern over the price tag of the faster, more useful option.

As for Bridgeport — I don't think it's about people shopping at West Elm as much as it is serving people who work at West Elm. (Is there even a West Elm at Bridgeport? Seems like there would be. I don't actually know what West Elm is.)

Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 01, 2018, 11:56:40 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 27, 2018, 08:50:30 PMOne of the options the SW LR corridor had, but was shot down due to NIMBYism in the Hillsdale area, was a tunnel under OHSU to Sylvania via Hillsdale and Multnomah Village.

It wasn't NIMBYism, it was Metro realizing the project was getting too expensive.

I've heard rumblings that they may not even be able to afford pushing the line south of downtown Tigard; which IMO is utterly pointless anyways.  Who else builds a light rail line to serve a luxury "lifestyle shopping center" most often frequented by people who own $80,000 SUVs, and even IF they wanted to use the light rail, they couldn't because the light rail line travels north but they live east or west in Lake Oswego, Bull Mountain, Tualatin or Sherwood?  The line won't even serve Tualatin, nor most of Tigard, nor Kruse Way, nor Washington Square, nor PCC Sylvania, nor any other schools (south of Portland State University)...it's just a big long parking lot shuttle for downtown government workers and folks going to Blazers games.

And Highways 99W and 217 will continue to be as congested, if not MORE congested, than ever, thanks to the required and necessary cutbacks to bus service in the area.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 02, 2018, 07:01:30 PM
One of the most redundant speed limit signs I've seen ever has just been posted. I-5 SB to I-205 EB has a speed limit 65 sign posted at the very end of the onramp followed by the Speed 65T60 sign a half a mile away. ODOT has had the second sign in its current location  it since the last time 205 has had construction last (2007) and its been fine. Also there was no ODOT crew out to remove the other one. Seems like a waste of money to me. No truck limit was posted with that sign.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: bing101 on May 02, 2018, 08:25:23 PM
http://katu.com/news/local/oregon-drivers-are-among-the-slowest-in-the-nation

Update on Oregon Roads
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 06, 2018, 08:14:15 PM
It has been 2 months since I mentioned my intent to propose 55 mph on 99W through Sherwood. As of today, the proposal is dead, mainly due to lack of City of Sherwood executive support. The main reasons why it was declined at the city level was:

1. OR 99W is planned to be a more pedestrian friendly highway in the future. I knew improvements were going to happen but not on the entire corridor (confirmed findings on city website). Also with the new high school coming in almost next to OR 99W, they are worried that an accident at 55 mph would kill someone (they did also say 45 mph would too). Also, 5 intersections (out of 5) have crosswalks crossing the highway. There still has been talks on a pedestrian overpass to alleviate this chance.                    Personal opinion: 99W is closest to an urban expressway with a design speed of 50-55 mph according to the ODOT design manual chapter 6 (I believe, could be wrong), adding sidewalks decreases it to 45 mph if it is curbside. While I can see the concern, 99W being transformed into a pedestrian friendly highway is not ideal, unless the speed limit is dropped to a more ridiculously low 40 or 35. If anything, it should be more like an expressway with pedestrian overpasses at 2-3 points and exits at the busy intersections (yes TSR can support one if the road is re-aligned). Even if it doesn't get to expressway status, I did explain to the that the signals would need to be re timed for 55 mph and it wouldn't have an impact then if a pedestrian is crossing because all intersections have a pedestrian signal to minimize impacts. I would argue the risk is lower because of the longer yellow light time.

2. ODOT's process will take a lot of time and they likely won't accept it 100% agree, I can't argue back. ODOT sucks when it comes to setting speed limits (90% of the time) and is reluctant to increase anything. It took the Oregon leglislative branch to force it down their throats to get I-84 to 25% reasonable (should be 80 IMO between mp 87 and 216 for instance), and only did the truck study after a representative threatened to introduce a bill to increase truck speeds on interstates. I haven't seen a single location where they were glad to raise a speed limit.

3. Number of vehicle trips will increase if the speed limit is raised to 55 I'll let you decipher what that means.

4. Future Commercial development In the same city plan I mentioned above, there is also a plan for a frontage road from Meinecke rd. to Elwert road, which will act like Langer drive and Borchers road in Sherwood. you can do the rest of the info from there. The Sherwood West plan barely includes OR 99W except for a Brookman signal and a gateway shopping center. I don't know how it will turn out. Valid concerns, as much as I disagree with them (unfortunately).

I am only speaking on the major points here. If you want to see the full plan for Sherwood's future, it is on the city website.

The only way I can see this section being raised is forcing through the house and senate like what happened with HB 3402/4047, and that still likely won't happen (but a better chance than going strait to ODOT). I will probably make that move in 2021 if I don't delay myself like I do in almost everything nowadays. It can be 2019 but I don't feel a bill will be ready in time (yes I know about the one that I posted in my fictional plans. I've edited it but haven't posted the edits yet).

As always, your input is appreciated.






2nd and more minor thing. Re-watching a safety presentation in Sherwood with a Professor from the University of Portland, he stated that the 85% speed of I-5 is closer to 74 mph, and 76 mph near Corvallis. I believe this much more than ODOT data (really ODOT? 62 is the AVERAGE in the Rouge river valley, and 64 in the Willamette Valley, even though everyone (and I mean everyone) has cruise on at least 67, and 85% is 68 through there but 70 in Roseburg?). Thought it was interesting to note.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Tarkus on May 14, 2018, 09:01:06 PM
Leah Treat just resigned as PBOT director (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2018/05/portland_bureau_of_transportat_15.html#incart_target2box_default_#incart_target2box_targeted_) . . . apparently, it's to take some job with some transportation consulting firm.  The 9-day Snowpacolypse shutdown and the continued disaster that is Vision Zero were under her command, so she really needed to go.  My only concern (especially since it is Portland we're talking about) is that PBOT somehow ends up with a director who is much the same, if not worse.

Speaking of which, "(SE) Division by (Vision) Zero" continues to rack up fatalities after the speed limit reduction and speed/red light cameras.  There's now been two pedestrians killed within the new 30 zone on Division in the past two months, the latest in the 16900 block at the east end of the zone on May 9th (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=159074).  The previous one was March 12th in the 11500 block (https://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/389519-280637-pedestrian-dies-after-sunday-crash).

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on May 14, 2018, 09:08:33 PM
That 30 on Division really irks me, especially since PBOT also wants to ram it down Stark east of 108th.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on May 15, 2018, 11:48:25 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 14, 2018, 09:08:33 PM
That 30 on Division really irks me, especially since PBOT also wants to ram it down Stark east of 108th.

I mean, either enforce it or don't, right? I feel like the 1% of really bad drivers who threaten lives don't have any fear of actually getting a ticket in this city. And then when people die because someone drove like a shitbag, it's the road's fault.

If you want to have 4-lane boulevards in East Portland, then commit to making them as safe as possible and enforce the crap out of speed limits and crosswalk laws. And if you can't commit to that, then you might as well road diet them, too.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: US 89 on May 15, 2018, 06:47:22 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 15, 2018, 11:48:25 AM
If you want to have 4-lane boulevards in East Portland, then commit to making them as safe as possible and enforce the crap out of speed limits and crosswalk laws. And if you can't commit to that, then you might as well road diet them, too.

The only time road diets actually work is when they’re done on a 4-lane road with no shoulders and no center turn lane. From a quick GSV, it looks like both Division and Stark and most of the other collector roads in that area have 4 lanes, a center turn lane, and a decent shoulder. The only effect of a road diet on that kind of road is to increase congestion, while the safety improvement is little to none.

Also, I’m surprised that Powell Blvd is only 2 lanes between I-205 and Gresham, even though it carries US 26 and looks to be a major arterial.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on May 15, 2018, 08:58:47 PM
Division did receive a road diet between SE 60th and 79th (4 lanes, no shoulders or turn lane -> 2 lanes with turn lane and bike shoulders), and there I grudgingly admit it worked. East of there, it's the full width artery inner Division wishes it were.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on May 16, 2018, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 15, 2018, 08:58:47 PM
Division did receive a road diet between SE 60th and 79th (4 lanes, no shoulders or turn lane -> 2 lanes with turn lane and bike shoulders), and there I grudgingly admit it worked. East of there, it's the full width artery inner Division wishes it were.

Yeah, I mean, I think the road diets have been effective at slowing down traffic most of the day. On Glisan, on inner Burnside, on Division, on outer Holgate, sure.

But did they create more cyclists? Nope. Did they increase congestion, particularly at key intersections? Yep. Did they do anything for transit? Not a damn thing.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 16, 2018, 01:03:07 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 16, 2018, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 15, 2018, 08:58:47 PM
Division did receive a road diet between SE 60th and 79th (4 lanes, no shoulders or turn lane -> 2 lanes with turn lane and bike shoulders), and there I grudgingly admit it worked. East of there, it's the full width artery inner Division wishes it were.

Yeah, I mean, I think the road diets have been effective at slowing down traffic most of the day. On Glisan, on inner Burnside, on Division, on outer Holgate, sure.

But did they create more cyclists? Nope. Did they increase congestion, particularly at key intersections? Yep. Did they do anything for transit? Not a damn thing.
I don't even want to start to think what will happen when Barbur is dieted to a max line. :ded:

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on May 16, 2018, 02:48:24 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 16, 2018, 01:03:07 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 16, 2018, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 15, 2018, 08:58:47 PM
Division did receive a road diet between SE 60th and 79th (4 lanes, no shoulders or turn lane -> 2 lanes with turn lane and bike shoulders), and there I grudgingly admit it worked. East of there, it's the full width artery inner Division wishes it were.

Yeah, I mean, I think the road diets have been effective at slowing down traffic most of the day. On Glisan, on inner Burnside, on Division, on outer Holgate, sure.

But did they create more cyclists? Nope. Did they increase congestion, particularly at key intersections? Yep. Did they do anything for transit? Not a damn thing.
I don't even want to start to think what will happen when Barbur is dieted to a max line. :ded:

LG-TP260


Pretty sure that's not on the table.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 17, 2018, 01:23:01 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 16, 2018, 02:48:24 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 16, 2018, 01:03:07 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 16, 2018, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 15, 2018, 08:58:47 PM
Division did receive a road diet between SE 60th and 79th (4 lanes, no shoulders or turn lane -> 2 lanes with turn lane and bike shoulders), and there I grudgingly admit it worked. East of there, it's the full width artery inner Division wishes it were.

Yeah, I mean, I think the road diets have been effective at slowing down traffic most of the day. On Glisan, on inner Burnside, on Division, on outer Holgate, sure.

But did they create more cyclists? Nope. Did they increase congestion, particularly at key intersections? Yep. Did they do anything for transit? Not a damn thing.
I don't even want to start to think what will happen when Barbur is dieted to a max line. :ded:

LG-TP260


Pretty sure that's not on the table.
According to the mayor of Sherwood, it is on the table.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Tarkus on May 18, 2018, 07:14:23 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 14, 2018, 09:08:33 PM
That 30 on Division really irks me, especially since PBOT also wants to ram it down Stark east of 108th.

The good news is, it appears ODOT told them to shove it with Stark.  A new Speed Zone Order came out for Stark today--J9262 (https://zigzag.odot.state.or.us/uniquesig78ff0d392336a284c69037220217ce07902ac9825cdd667d43555eddf0570a01/uniquesig0/cf/szi/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewPDF&SZOI=9262)--and specifies a 35mph speed limit for Stark between 109th and 179th.  It's actually identical in content to Speed Zone Order J9105 (https://zigzag.odot.state.or.us/uniquesig78ff0d392336a284c69037220217ce07902ac9825cdd667d43555eddf0570a01/uniquesig0/cf/szi/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewPDF&SZOI=9105) from June 2017 (from when the reductionistas fowled up the east end of the couplet and got it dumped down to 30).

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 17, 2018, 01:23:01 PM
According to the mayor of Sherwood, it is on the table.

It's been a rumor that's floated around for awhile.  I'd imagine there's definitely some Metro/PBOT types that would be all over that.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 20, 2018, 02:08:18 AM
Be warned: If you are travelling SB 205 to SB I-5, the speed limit drops from 65 to 55 for about 1500 feet before it goes back up to 65. It is a construction zone (with nothing except dirt movement happening) and there is no warning of the drop. Speed trap is possible here.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on May 20, 2018, 04:13:45 AM
Where specifically,  and could you add that to the I-205 thread?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 23, 2018, 12:39:22 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 20, 2018, 04:13:45 AM
Where specifically,  and could you add that to the I-205 thread?
I can't because the decrease happens as you come onto I-5 from 205, which wouldn't fit that thread. 65 up until you finish crossing the bridge over I-5, drops to 55 (sign on the left side at the merge), and goes back up to 65 1/3 of a mile south. It is related to the SB I-5 widening as far as I can tell.

Also, covered and turned 45 signs are posted between TSR and Capitol highway SB only. The 55 limit is still in effect but could change at any time.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on May 23, 2018, 03:23:47 AM
Gotcha. Thought it was on the 95th Ave portion; haven't seen anything like that posted.
Speaking of I-5, however, I should send an inquiry if ODOT has any plans of widening I-5 between Elligsen and Wilsonville Rd; should be widened until the OR 551 split, really.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on May 23, 2018, 01:18:19 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 23, 2018, 03:23:47 AM
Gotcha. Thought it was on the 95th Ave portion; haven't seen anything like that posted.
Speaking of I-5, however, I should send an inquiry if ODOT has any plans of widening I-5 between Elligsen and Wilsonville Rd; should be widened until the OR 551 split, really.

There's some talk about making some kind of fix to the Boone Bridge, but any widening would require a full replacement, plus probably extending a 4th lane (Oregon blasphemy) northbound all the way to I-205... so, about that billion dollars...
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on May 23, 2018, 02:51:44 PM
I-5 is 8 lanes from Elligsen to I-205 already.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 31, 2018, 12:53:04 PM
Vancover gives advice on Tolling. There are also some salty comments. http://www.columbian.com/news/2018/may/28/vancouver-city-council-gives-odot-5-suggestions-tolling/

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on June 07, 2018, 12:48:33 PM
A few random musings — 

- I-205 got a fixed concrete median from Division to Stark last night.

- Southwest Corridor DEIS is out. Nothing too surprising, but notably, one proposed alignment also includes turning the Naito/Ross Island Bridge interchange into a signalized intersection.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on June 07, 2018, 06:31:13 PM
Is there a link to the SW DEIS?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on June 25, 2018, 10:56:06 PM
I've come across a little newspaper article from 1964 that talks about a proposal to extend Interstate 80N to Astoria. Does anyone know what happened to it?

(https://i.imgur.com/eZobYxX.png)

And for that matter, what happened to the I-82 proposal from 1999? I've seen it discussed in a few places, but haven't been able to track down any additional information.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on June 26, 2018, 08:10:00 AM
My first thought this I-80N is really the I-505 proposal, slated to run from I-405 along NW Vaughn St and St Helens Rd all the way out to Clatskanie via Scappoose, St Helens, and Rainier. I have drawings of the St Helens Rd portion to the Yeon/Kittridge Ave intersection somewhere.

As for I-82... was it something like extending it south and west toward Bend?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on June 26, 2018, 12:38:07 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 25, 2018, 10:56:06 PM
I've come across a little newspaper article from 1964 that talks about a proposal to extend Interstate 80N to Astoria. Does anyone know what happened to it?

(https://i.imgur.com/eZobYxX.png)

And for that matter, what happened to the I-82 proposal from 1999? I've seen it discussed in a few places, but haven't been able to track down any additional information.

Yet again, a shame that they went for the Big Blue Shield and didn't start with an expressway out there.

As for the 1999 proposal, I think this is the report you're looking for: https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Eastern-Oregon-Freeway-Alternatives-Study.pdf
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on June 26, 2018, 06:27:38 PM
That report is helpful. I've been asking around various libraries to see if they have a specific Bend Bulletin article from 1999 that describes the proposal as well.

All of this to spruce up the Interstate 82 entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_82) on Wikipedia.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on July 12, 2018, 10:09:43 PM
http://www.columbian.com/news/2018/jul/11/portland-city-council-pushes-immediate-tolls-i-5-i-205/

I'm ending my long pause off the forum to post this. Great way to get back from a 3 week vacation/registering for college classes (not). Also public comment is open and I highly encourage you to speak your mind. For me, its a NO! You should know why.

Submit comments here:
https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Pages/Value-Pricing-Comments.aspx

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on July 14, 2018, 02:16:05 AM
As I continue my digging through the Oregon archive for I-5 opening dates, I stumbled across a nice sign spec sheet from the 1940s or 1950s.

Enjoy: https://digital.osl.state.or.us/islandora/object/osl%3A7705
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on July 25, 2018, 05:55:41 PM
https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/401672-298054-initiative-would-require-vote-on-tolls

There is now an initiative petition to not allow tolls in Oregon unless passed by voters. Would be on the 2020 ballot. Thoughts?

My POV: Thank you Rep. Nearman for starting this. If ODOT and PBOT (mostly PBOT) wasn't so pro toll with no added capacity, I'd be more hesitant, but since these 2 organizations have violated common engineering practices and federal law when it comes tolling (you must add lanes on existing interstates if you want to toll them), I'm 110% for it.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 06:10:58 PM
Tolling approvable only by initiative? That's great, if you never want to see tolls. Voters would never vote to toll themselves. That's like asking voters if they want a sales tax. If there was already a toll, I could see voting to increase the toll by X-number of cents to pay for certain new things, but asking voters outright for permission to toll is suicide if tolling is seriously being considered.

So, no, I think that's a dumb initiative. Leave budgeting to the senators. If Oregonians don't like tolling, they need to get rid of the politicians who approve of it.




OT: Express toll lanes should be added to the 205 to improve the bypass' capacity. Not personally a fan of full-blown tolling, except of bridges, and new construction.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: vdeane on July 25, 2018, 08:46:47 PM
I don't mind toll express lanes either (within reason... I don't support I-77 NC since they're willing to widen everything else as free lanes but for some reason wanted a toll for I-77), but the current proposal is to toll everything, so this initiative is needed.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 09:19:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2018, 08:46:47 PM
I don't mind toll express lanes either (within reason... I don't support I-77 NC since they're willing to widen everything else as free lanes but for some reason wanted a toll for I-77), but the current proposal is to toll everything, so this initiative is needed.

Express toll lanes would only be installed if approved by the public, which they would never do. The public just wants more and more GP lanes.

This initiative effectively bans tolls in Oregon. Are you sure that's a good idea? There's never a good reason for a toll? No situation where it's appropriate?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on July 25, 2018, 09:34:19 PM
The ballot should come down to a single question: tolls or a massive VMT charge to pay for ongoing maintenance and remediation.

The latter will get some people up in arms about government tracking, but highways are already doing that anyway. I bet the former would win with variable charges that increase based on demand (aka in urban areas, to stick it to them city-slickers).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on July 26, 2018, 12:09:20 AM
I've now had 8 hrs to think on this and I'm kind of changing my mind. I would amend the initiative to make voters whether or not existing facilities/lanes are tolled. After what some of you mentioned and looking back at my tier 1/tier 2 (draft) fictional plans, I realized I knee-jerked beard on how much I hate ODOT's current tolling plan, and more so Portland's reccomendation. This amendment will still leave existimg facilities as-is (unless tolls are voter approved), bit gives potential for new facilities to be tolled and new express lanes to be constructed.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on July 26, 2018, 01:49:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 06:10:58 PM

So, no, I think that's a dumb initiative. Leave budgeting to the senators. If Oregonians don't like tolling, they need to get rid of the politicians who approve of it.


YES. Government-by-initiative lets politicians off the hook too easily.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2018, 02:04:41 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 26, 2018, 01:49:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 06:10:58 PM
So, no, I think that's a dumb initiative. Leave budgeting to the senators. If Oregonians don't like tolling, they need to get rid of the politicians who approve of it.

YES. Government-by-initiative lets politicians off the hook too easily.

Yep, I agree. To be frank, I support tolling, so I would not be the one to vote out these politicians. But it's the best way to send a message.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on July 26, 2018, 09:29:16 PM
So, Pamphlin media has mis-read the facts on the said initiative, as voter approval would only be required on the current system of roads.

I'm posting the bill and the link (https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/irr/text-petition-2020-009.pdf) here.

Article IX of the Oregon Constitution is ammended by adding the following:

Article 16 Requirements for fees and tolls
(1) No personal vehicle or truck usage of transportation infrastructure in Oregon may be subject to any fee or toll unless:
     (a) The entirety of the fee or toll is used to finance net new capacity for personal vehicle or truck usage and the fee or toll is applied to the net new capacity; or
     (b) The fee or toll was in operation prior to January 1, 2018; or
     (c) The fee applies to marine uses, or a rail system; or
     (d) Such a fee has been approved by both
           (1) A majority of voters in the state; and
           (2) A majority of voters in each county in which the fee or toll applies.


Personal note: I feel it's still missing a provision allowing express lanes. That being said, its better than what was reported because at least it has the option to add new freeways/capacity and toll those lanes/freeways. It does look the tolls would end the moment the bonds are paid off, which for new construction, I'd support (except the Westside Bypass if it ever got build), but for new lanes, make it tolled express lanes permanently. In its current form though, I'd be willing to sign it to get onto the ballot.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: vdeane on July 26, 2018, 10:01:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 09:19:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2018, 08:46:47 PM
I don't mind toll express lanes either (within reason... I don't support I-77 NC since they're willing to widen everything else as free lanes but for some reason wanted a toll for I-77), but the current proposal is to toll everything, so this initiative is needed.

Express toll lanes would only be installed if approved by the public, which they would never do. The public just wants more and more GP lanes.

This initiative effectively bans tolls in Oregon. Are you sure that's a good idea? There's never a good reason for a toll? No situation where it's appropriate?
1. As mentioned, the initiative applies to tolling existing facilities (though I do agree that it could use a provision allowing for indefinite tolling of HOT lanes).
2. I don't believe for a nanosecond that the state is seriously planning to build HOT lanes in Portland.  I think it's almost certain that they're going to toll all the lanes of existing I-5 and I-205 (and possibly I-84) in the area, barring the initiative.  And, as I'm sure we've discussed before, I'm against anything that renders interstates unclinchable for those of us not from the area who don't do bill by mail.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on July 27, 2018, 01:19:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 26, 2018, 10:01:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 09:19:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2018, 08:46:47 PM
I don't mind toll express lanes either (within reason... I don't support I-77 NC since they're willing to widen everything else as free lanes but for some reason wanted a toll for I-77), but the current proposal is to toll everything, so this initiative is needed.

Express toll lanes would only be installed if approved by the public, which they would never do. The public just wants more and more GP lanes.

This initiative effectively bans tolls in Oregon. Are you sure that's a good idea? There's never a good reason for a toll? No situation where it's appropriate?
1. As mentioned, the initiative applies to tolling existing facilities (though I do agree that it could use a provision allowing for indefinite tolling of HOT lanes).
2. I don't believe for a nanosecond that the state is seriously planning to build HOT lanes in Portland.  I think it's almost certain that they're going to toll all the lanes of existing I-5 and I-205 (and possibly I-84) in the area, barring the initiative.  And, as I'm sure we've discussed before, I'm against anything that renders interstates unclinchable for those of us not from the area who don't do bill by mail.

1. I see as much now. Basically renders my entire post pointless.
2. It wouldn't surprise me if express lanes became a serious proposal. I'm sure the DOT will try and find a middle-ground, and that's a good one that WSDOT (just to the north) is exploiting more every day.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Kniwt on July 29, 2018, 09:01:49 AM
Quote from: Bruce on July 14, 2018, 02:16:05 AM
As I continue my digging through the Oregon archive for I-5 opening dates, I stumbled across a nice sign spec sheet from the 1940s or 1950s.

Enjoy: https://digital.osl.state.or.us/islandora/object/osl%3A7705

I'm intrigued by the possible uses for this one, which looks like it's supposed to banner something else:
(https://i.imgur.com/uaMqAUo.png)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on July 29, 2018, 10:59:44 PM
IP 9 was withdrawn by the chief petitioners on July 27th. I have a feeling some politicians or ODOT got to him asking for the withdrawl but can't confirm. I am emailing one of the chief petitioners to confirm.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on July 30, 2018, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 29, 2018, 10:59:44 PM
IP 9 was withdrawn by the chief petitioners on July 27th. I have a feeling some politicians or ODOT got to him asking for the withdrawl but can't confirm. I am emailing one of the chief petitioners to confirm.
IP 9 being...?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on July 30, 2018, 11:25:00 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 30, 2018, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 29, 2018, 10:59:44 PM
IP 9 was withdrawn by the chief petitioners on July 27th. I have a feeling some politicians or ODOT got to him asking for the withdrawl but can't confirm. I am emailing one of the chief petitioners to confirm.
IP 9 being...?

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 26, 2018, 09:29:16 PM
Article IX of the Oregon Constitution is ammended by adding the following:

Article 16 Requirements for fees and tolls
(1) No personal vehicle or truck usage of transportation infrastructure in Oregon may be subject to any fee or toll unless:
     (a) The entirety of the fee or toll is used to finance net new capacity for personal vehicle or truck usage and the fee or toll is applied to the net new capacity; or
     (b) The fee or toll was in operation prior to January 1, 2018; or
     (c) The fee applies to marine uses, or a rail system; or
     (d) Such a fee has been approved by both
           (1) A majority of voters in the state; and
           (2) A majority of voters in each county in which the fee or toll applies.


This, posted above. I personally never reffered to this as IP 9 (I thought I did) but the article I linked to did.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on July 30, 2018, 12:41:42 PM
IP 9 = Initiative Petition 9, aka the formal title of the ballot measure
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on July 30, 2018, 02:04:29 PM
Just got emailed back, it was refiled under IP 10 instead so an ammendment could be made so ferries can be better accommodated.

The new IP (most is the same bold is changes)

Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by adding the following:
Section 16. Requirements for Transportation Fees and Tolls
(1) No personal or recreational vehicle, or commercial truck usage, of transportation infrastructure in
Oregon may be subject to any transportation fee or toll, unless:
(a) The entirety of the fee or toll is used to finance net new capacity for personal or recreational
vehicle, or commercial truck usage and the fee or toll is only applied to the net new capacity; or
(b) The fee or toll was in operation prior to January 1, 2018; or
(c) The fee applies to marine uses, or a rail system; or
(d) Such a fee or toll has been approved by both
(1) A majority of voters in the state; and
(2) A majority of voters in each county in which the fee or toll applies.
(3) "Net new capacity" is defined as expansion of transportation infrastructure which did not exist
prior to January 1st, 2018, and which has not been converted from a previous form of transportation
infrastructure which had already been built and/or operated with public dollars.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 10:02:10 PM
Is it constitutional for voters to decide taxes and fees? Every one of Tim Eyman's initiatives in WA which gave voters direct control over taxes were overturned in court. Different state and different constitution, obviously, but I'm sure the relevant sections are similar.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on July 31, 2018, 12:44:47 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 10:02:10 PM
Is it constitutional for voters to decide taxes and fees? Every one of Tim Eyman's initiatives in WA which gave voters direct control over taxes were overturned in court. Different state and different constitution, obviously, but I'm sure the relevant sections are similar.

In Oregon we had a ballot measure about having the electorate decide fees back in the Nineties as I recall.  The voters turned it down.  That means "who knows?" as to the constitutionality since there never was a test case to decide the issue.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on July 31, 2018, 12:49:43 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 31, 2018, 12:44:47 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 10:02:10 PM
Is it constitutional for voters to decide taxes and fees? Every one of Tim Eyman's initiatives in WA which gave voters direct control over taxes were overturned in court. Different state and different constitution, obviously, but I'm sure the relevant sections are similar.

In Oregon we had a ballot measure about having the electorate decide fees back in the Nineties as I recall.  The voters turned it down.  That means "who knows?" as to the constitutionality since there never was a test case to decide the issue.

By "electorate", do you mean voters in a specific area? Or something else?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on July 31, 2018, 12:57:16 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2018, 12:49:43 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 31, 2018, 12:44:47 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 10:02:10 PM
Is it constitutional for voters to decide taxes and fees? Every one of Tim Eyman's initiatives in WA which gave voters direct control over taxes were overturned in court. Different state and different constitution, obviously, but I'm sure the relevant sections are similar.

In Oregon we had a ballot measure about having the electorate decide fees back in the Nineties as I recall.  The voters turned it down.  That means "who knows?" as to the constitutionality since there never was a test case to decide the issue.

By "electorate", do you mean voters in a specific area? Or something else?

"Electorate" means those who get to vote.  Those who reside in Oregon and are registered to vote would constitute the electorate. 

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on July 31, 2018, 01:10:12 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 31, 2018, 12:57:16 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2018, 12:49:43 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 31, 2018, 12:44:47 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 10:02:10 PM
Is it constitutional for voters to decide taxes and fees? Every one of Tim Eyman's initiatives in WA which gave voters direct control over taxes were overturned in court. Different state and different constitution, obviously, but I'm sure the relevant sections are similar.

In Oregon we had a ballot measure about having the electorate decide fees back in the Nineties as I recall.  The voters turned it down.  That means "who knows?" as to the constitutionality since there never was a test case to decide the issue.

By "electorate", do you mean voters in a specific area? Or something else?

"Electorate" means those who get to vote.  Those who reside in Oregon and are registered to vote would constitute the electorate. 

Thought so. Interesting that Oregon voters would vote against giving themselves control (even if unconstitutional). Perhaps a hint as to how voters might swing with IP 9?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 01:44:00 PM
Given that this amends the state constitution, how could it not be constitutional?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on July 31, 2018, 07:39:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 01:44:00 PM
Given that this amends the state constitution, how could it not be constitutional?

Lawyers...LOL!  They'll always have an argument to present you know.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on August 01, 2018, 01:59:01 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 01:44:00 PM
Given that this amends the state constitution, how could it not be constitutional?

It may depend on what the other amendments say.

The Washington State constitution is not as extensive as Oregon's, apparently. Taxes/fees are managed by the RCW (Revised Code of Washington).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on August 02, 2018, 12:30:07 AM
Quote from: Bruce on July 30, 2018, 12:41:42 PM
IP 9 = Initiative Petition 9, aka the formal title of the ballot measure
Thanks, that's the clarification I was looking for.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on August 19, 2018, 02:46:36 PM
Today is a good day IMO. The Westside bypass has been revived. https://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/402848-299671-stage-set-for-renewed-debate-on-westside-bypass

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on August 19, 2018, 06:10:05 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on August 19, 2018, 02:46:36 PM
Today is a good day IMO. The Westside bypass has been revived. https://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/402848-299671-stage-set-for-renewed-debate-on-westside-bypass

LG-TP260



Written opposition came from Mary Manseau, a former planning commissioner, and Mary Kyle McCurdy, deputy director of 1000 Friends of Oregon, a statewide land use watchdog group.

1000 Enemies Of Oregon is how I refer to this group.  One could also call them "Progressives Against Progress".  When I compare the ease of moving around the east metro area with the heavy congestion of the west, right there is a ready-made case for Doing Something and doing so NOW.  Even when it is not rush hour, US 26, SR 217 and I-5 are unbelievably snarled up with heavy traffic.  I say make those who oppose westside highway projects drive a commute each and every workday for a year on these routes to gain an appreciation of the situation.

Ricl 

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on August 19, 2018, 10:51:39 PM
Traffic is a land use problem as much as it is about transportation capacity. Clearly, someone dropped the ball by allowing the westside to sprawl out so much. $26 billion to build a new freeway is a pretty absurd cost, especially for a mid-sized metro like Portland that doesn't have much justification for that kind of project.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on August 20, 2018, 12:38:54 AM
And unfortunately, light rail will only address so much when trying to service sprawl.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on August 20, 2018, 12:43:41 PM
Let's just let this sink in for a second: $26 billion.

That's 8 CRCs. That's the entire MAX system, tripled. Even if that is a gross overestimate — even if that's half that, $13 billion... that's... stunning.

And, given the challenges of construction — buying right of way for a roughly 50 mile corridor, building a new bridge over the Columbia, tunneling under Cornelius Pass ... yeah, I could see a project getting to $26 billion.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on August 20, 2018, 01:40:59 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 20, 2018, 12:43:41 PM
Let's just let this sink in for a second: $26 billion.

That's 8 CRCs. That's the entire MAX system, tripled. Even if that is a gross overestimate — even if that's half that, $13 billion... that's... stunning.

And, given the challenges of construction — buying right of way for a roughly 50 mile corridor, building a new bridge over the Columbia, tunneling under Cornelius Pass ... yeah, I could see a project getting to $26 billion.
If we cut costs and say don't bore a tunnel under the Chehalem and Tualatin mountains (totally possible), and don't run it along an urban corridor (namely 185th, which would cause extreme damage to the surrounding areas, but would be most beneficial, Cornelius Pass and especially Brookwood parkway are better options. Heck, if you go in the urban gap between Hillsboro and Cornelius, there is no urban areas to deal with), and don't bring it back to Vancouver, instead bring it back to Battleground or Woodland or Longview, I think cutting the cost to sub $10 billion isn't out of question. They did say $26 billion for road and transit improvements so I don't know if that is for the entire area, or if a MAX line will be put near this.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on August 20, 2018, 01:44:46 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on August 20, 2018, 01:40:59 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 20, 2018, 12:43:41 PM
Let's just let this sink in for a second: $26 billion.

That's 8 CRCs. That's the entire MAX system, tripled. Even if that is a gross overestimate — even if that's half that, $13 billion... that's... stunning.

And, given the challenges of construction — buying right of way for a roughly 50 mile corridor, building a new bridge over the Columbia, tunneling under Cornelius Pass ... yeah, I could see a project getting to $26 billion.
If we cut costs and say don't bore a tunnel under the Chehalem and Tualatin mountains (totally possible), and don't run it along an urban corridor (namely 185th, which would cause extreme damage to the surrounding areas, but would be most beneficial, Cornelius Pass and especially Brookwood parkway are better options. Heck, if you go in the urban gap between Hillsboro and Cornelius, there is no urban areas to deal with), and don't bring it back to Vancouver, instead bring it back to Battleground or Woodland or Longview, I think cutting the cost to sub $10 billion isn't out of question. They did say $26 billion for road and transit improvements so I don't know if that is for the entire area, or if a MAX line will be put near this.

LG-TP260

Without extensive grade cuts — which are just never going to happen in Oregon, because both of environmental impacts and because of post-Eddyville flashbacks — there's just no feasible way to get over the Tualatin Mountains. As for an alignment, buying people's farms is still expensive. It might be nominally cheaper than buying homes, but... it's still expensive.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: vdeane on August 24, 2018, 09:05:22 PM
Looks like Oregon is moving forward on the tolling in Portland.  Looks like those of us who aren't local and don't do bill by mail are going to have to clinch everything soon, or we won't be able to.
https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-oregon-toll-federal-approval-vote/
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on August 24, 2018, 10:17:16 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 24, 2018, 09:05:22 PM
Looks like Oregon is moving forward on the tolling in Portland.  Looks like those of us who aren't local and don't do bill by mail are going to have to clinch everything soon, or we won't be able to.
https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-oregon-toll-federal-approval-vote/
Or hope the voteontolls.com initative passes in 2020, banning non-voter approved tolling on facilities that existed on and before Jan 1 2018.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on August 25, 2018, 01:12:27 AM
IP 10 has submitted their sponsorship signatures (about 1450 including myself). http://www.dailyastorian.com/da/capital-bureau/20180823/measure-requiring-voter-approval-of-tolls-moves-forward

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on October 06, 2018, 11:02:12 AM
There was a govenor debate 2 days ago. One of the things that were brought up were the transportation package. Context: Govenor Brown went on the attack against Buehler (the republican challenger) for voting against the transportation package back in 2017, and against progress. Buehler then went back in the attack saying that he voted no for 2 reasons. 1 it didn't go far enough to fix our problems, and 2, it requires tolling on Portland's freeways. True question should be, what would be do to change it?

Wait, those are the same points I've been making.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on October 06, 2018, 05:32:10 PM


Quote from: JasonOfORoads on January 24, 2018, 02:50:50 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 23, 2018, 10:00:03 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 23, 2018, 07:34:18 PM
Around 15 years or so ago, ODOT had a plan to improve the last few miles of the eastern section of 34 in Lebanon.  Having not been on that section in many years nor having heard anything about improvements, do you have any word on such a project Jason?

Rick
Doing a search of ODOT's projects with the filter being "must involve Lebanon, only the project Jason mentioned came up unfortunately. None was also mentioned in the transportation package'd projects.

I'm gonna try looking on the Wayback Machine to see if such a project was ever listed on ODOT's Region 2 projects page. I'll report back if I find anything of interest.

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 23, 2018, 10:00:03 PM
Quote from: ODOTThe area is posted at 50, but many people drive way faster than that
Really? Then raise it if people go way faster than that especially if this stretch of road is safer. I don't know, how does 60 sound?

I can see 55 being an option for the part east of I-5. I'm not sure if there's any grade separation west of I-5 apart from the 99E interchange. If so, I could see 60, but 55 otherwise. (I-5 between Albany and Eugene, however, should be at least 70.)

Update on this done project: The 50 zone that I previously reffered to that needed to be raised has been raised to 55 mph. The 40 zone around I-5 still remains. It was 50 for a long time even after the barrier was added and this is a welcome change IMO.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on October 07, 2018, 01:34:21 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on October 06, 2018, 11:02:12 AM
Buehler then went back in the attack saying that he voted no for 2 reasons. 1 it didn't go far enough to fix our problems, and 2, it requires tolling on Portland's freeways. True question should be, what would be do to change it?

Did you mean "what would we"?

In either case, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on October 07, 2018, 08:03:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 07, 2018, 01:34:21 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on October 06, 2018, 11:02:12 AM
Buehler then went back in the attack saying that he voted no for 2 reasons. 1 it didn't go far enough to fix our problems, and 2, it requires tolling on Portland's freeways. True question should be, what would be do to change it?

Did you mean "what would we"?

In either case, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I meant what would he do to change it.

All I'm saying is if you don't like the transportation package, provide an alternate proposal or say the system is fine as-is with the quoted paragraph especially since you are running for the highest office in Oregon.

You in this case means Knute Buehler.


Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on October 07, 2018, 08:17:29 PM
Ahh, got it.

Yes, that's rather annoying when politicians shoot down proposals, but fail to present alternatives. Or at the very least, alternatives that provide the same amount of funding, just from other sources. Too often, the alternative proposal is to bring in less money, but cut down on the original proposal.

Up here in WA, the conservatives in the legislature tried to cut back the Sound Transit RTA tax, but were unsuccessful as they failed to find an alternative funding method. This was especially important, as voters had already approved the tax and what it paid for, so being able to provide that exact same level of funding was essential.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on October 12, 2018, 05:47:33 PM
Just found this in a Corvallis park. Looks a lot like the 1970s style to me.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181012/739377e48aea58dac9473beacc8f328e.jpg)

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on October 21, 2018, 06:44:43 PM
Another episode of interesting signage in Corvallis(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181021/374152bd66652833e89cde083355fc8a.jpg)

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: pdx-wanderer on October 21, 2018, 09:28:42 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181022/03d4eb5481499d39fb0b03c67932e7c0.jpg)

A little bit of "Craig County" on a pretty new looking sign on the OR 217 freeway.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on October 24, 2018, 07:37:16 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on October 21, 2018, 06:44:43 PM
Another episode of interesting signage in Corvallis(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181021/374152bd66652833e89cde083355fc8a.jpg)

LG-TP260


Any way to map out just where this sign is located? -- (obviously EB on an arterial south of 20/34)  The blue signage on the bottom is likely locally-posted, while the top looks like cookie-cutter ODOT stock.  But it's too new a sign to predate the designation change from US 99W to OR 99W, so it's clearly an error of discernment. 

And why is the US 99W portion of the sign on hinges, with a clasp on top of the I-5 trailblazer to hold the lower part shut covering the upper portion?  If I had to venture a guess, it's a sign posted to give exit egress directions during OSU events, possibly near their stadium. 
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on October 25, 2018, 12:01:28 AM


Quote from: sparker on October 24, 2018, 07:37:16 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on October 21, 2018, 06:44:43 PM
Another episode of interesting signage in Corvallis(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181021/374152bd66652833e89cde083355fc8a.jpg)

LG-TP260


Any way to map out just where this sign is located? -- (obviously EB on an arterial south of 20/34)  The blue signage on the bottom is likely locally-posted, while the top looks like cookie-cutter ODOT stock.  But it's too new a sign to predate the designation change from US 99W to OR 99W, so it's clearly an error of discernment. 

And why is the US 99W portion of the sign on hinges, with a clasp on top of the I-5 trailblazer to hold the lower part shut covering the upper portion?  If I had to venture a guess, it's a sign posted to give exit egress directions during OSU events, possibly near their stadium.

Surprise! Its westbound and north of US 20/OR 34. I would guess the same thing to your theory with the OSU games.

Location: 4492 NW Harrison Blvd

https://goo.gl/maps/eMza9WUwEmD2

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on October 25, 2018, 12:49:07 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
Just looked at "south" vs. "north" on the 99W sign.  Must be brainfreeze -- or just getting addled in my dotage (hit 70 next year!).  Of course it's on something WB (sigh!). 
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on October 25, 2018, 01:55:22 AM


Quote from: sparker on October 25, 2018, 12:49:07 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
Just looked at "south" vs. "north" on the 99W sign.  Must be brainfreeze -- or just getting addled in my dotage (hit 70 next year!).  Of course it's on something WB (sigh!).

Location on mqp if you want to know that as well.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181025/34cb628ba0b678c8261fa6dd00638996.jpg)

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: mrsman on October 25, 2018, 08:20:18 PM
Seems to me a very far out bypass only to be used in extreme traffic.  Probably after football games, when some traffic is directed west even though 99w is quite a way to the east.

Nexus 5X

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on November 23, 2018, 12:31:30 PM
Rant warning:

Some of you may remember me attempting to propose a speed limit raise on 99W through Sherwood. This failed but instead, speed cameras were put in to "increase safety." I've already heard of 2 serious crashes, and 80,000 tickets have been written in a month. For the record, about 289,000 went over the laws tolerance zone last year (2017). My predictions came true, this is IMO the worst place to place a speed camera, driver behavior didn't change except around the signals that have it (about 2 miles apart). Its also being called on the community page a "disco party." Why politicians like their $$$, even at the cost if road safety baffles me. Originally I was the only comment saying "don't put them in," and now there are more people saying it's bad/not the best/etc. I try not to do "I told you so" statements, but I have to make an exception here, just because I know this town better than most here (if not all), and how ignorant the city council/police chief seemed to be.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: MNHighwayMan on November 23, 2018, 12:34:06 PM
That's because they pretend it's about safety, while it's really about revenue.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on November 23, 2018, 02:06:46 PM
The city of Port Orford has as part of their city budget the revenue from traffic tickets.  The limit there is 30 MPH.  Be sure to not exceed it!  As for what the public thinks, the last law enforcement levy was voted down.  If all the city police do is issue tickets and do little to stop criminals, guess what that does for public support?

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on November 24, 2018, 04:13:52 AM
I wonder if a ballot petition could get going to ban red light and speed cameras statewide...
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Tarkus on November 24, 2018, 06:23:26 AM
My experiences driving through the 99W/Roy Rogers/Tualatin-Sherwood intersection back in 2010, when the red light cameras were first installed, was a catalyst in making me a fierce opponent of photo enforcement.  I didn't get flashed, thankfully (and even if I had, it was still in the "warning phase"), but I saw firsthand how engineering problems were being manipulated for financial gain, having a close call with an extraordinarily short signal phase (let all of 3 cars through before turning yellow) on the Roy Rogers approach.  It was a terrifying experience.  I also got a little more "terror" just a couple miles later, when I ran across Tualatin's new red light cam at Tualatin-Sherwood and Avery (a signal which, thankfully, stayed a steady green, allowing my heart rate to finally start coming down after I passed through).

Oregon did recently allow red light cameras to also be used as speed cameras, via 2017 HB2409 (https://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2017/HB2409/) (in large part due to Beaverton's lobbying efforts (https://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/35632534-75/oregon-may-let-cities-use-red-light-traffic-cameras-to-also-identify-speeders.html.csp), and PBOT's earlier lobbying to allow fixed speed cameras in the first place)--if those cameras in Sherwood have indeed racked up 80,000 tickets, that's an insane number, and not entirely surprising, given how messed up that stretch of highway is.

There may actually be one little weapon at least in this case, however--the city limits of Sherwood appear to go diagonally down the middle of the 99W/Sunset intersection, meaning that half of the intersection and some of the equipment (facing the southbound 99W traffic) may not actually be within Sherwood.  While police can pursue violators outside city limits, photo enforcement is a different story, AFAIK.  Beaverton got their butts handed to them for running photo radar outside the city limits (with an illegal 25mph speed zone they invented, too) back in the '90s, and indeed, the southbound photo enforcement may be legally questionable.

I'd absolutely love to see them go the way of the dodo.  Sadly, Oregon seems to be bucking the national trend of late and expanding their use considerably (Tigard is getting them now (https://pamplinmedia.com/ttt/89-news/407580-306164-photo-red-light-cameras-coming-to-3-tigard-intersections), too).  It would take a very well-funded and smart campaign to pull off a ballot measure to ban them here statewide.  Other approaches would entail going the "nickel and dime" route, as was done in Washington (getting bans on the ballot in individual cities), or some of the end-arounds they've done in Arizona (i.e. requiring that the motorist be served the violation notice in 180 days, with the mailed violation notice having no official legal merit).

Title: MOVED: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on November 24, 2018, 03:34:12 PM
Fictional discussion has been moved to Fictional Highways (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=20.0).

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23988.0
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: OCGuy81 on November 26, 2018, 02:18:25 PM
Oregon's approach to a growing population and lack of infrastructure to serve said growing population.....

"Take bikes, mass transit, or go fuck yourself"
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on November 26, 2018, 05:19:35 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on November 26, 2018, 02:18:25 PM
Oregon's approach to a growing population and lack of infrastructure to serve said growing population.....

"Take bikes, mass transit, or go fuck yourself"
Its mainly Portland, but the rest of the state isn't immune. Help the homeless and antifa, and ignore motorists who are crying for extra lanes (look at Oregonian comment section)

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: kphoger on November 26, 2018, 05:32:01 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on November 26, 2018, 05:19:35 PM
Help the homeless

How dare they
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on November 26, 2018, 05:36:04 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on November 26, 2018, 05:19:35 PM
and ignore motorists who are crying for extra lanes (look at Oregonian comment section)

If they're smart, they'll improve where the bottlenecks occur, such as interchanges, merge points, and sharp curves. More lanes doesn't always help.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on November 26, 2018, 06:09:59 PM
Can we not drag unrelated politics into this?

Oregon's urban growth boundary policy has been somewhat successful at curbing intense sprawl (one only needs to look to Vancouver/Clark County for the "solution"). Though, like all cities, Portland needs to catch up and build more urban housing (and upzone everything) to accommodate the current and projected population growth.

Building new lanes in the city is a pointless endeavor that saps funding for useful projects (like signal re-timings, alternative modes, traffic calming) and angers residents. Newspaper comments be damned, they are an insular, tiny minority voice that goes against what most residents want (and probably don't live in the city, either).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: compdude787 on November 26, 2018, 07:06:13 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 26, 2018, 05:36:04 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on November 26, 2018, 05:19:35 PM
and ignore motorists who are crying for extra lanes (look at Oregonian comment section)

If they're smart, they'll improve where the bottlenecks occur, such as interchanges, merge points, and sharp curves. More lanes doesn't always help.

Here in Seattle--I-5 SB in particular--I don't support adding more lanes so much as I support rebuilding the interchange with 520 to get rid of those stupid left exits and entrances. I-5 has plenty of lanes between Northgate where the express lanes start, and downtown.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on November 27, 2018, 02:39:46 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on November 26, 2018, 07:06:13 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 26, 2018, 05:36:04 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on November 26, 2018, 05:19:35 PM
and ignore motorists who are crying for extra lanes (look at Oregonian comment section)

If they're smart, they'll improve where the bottlenecks occur, such as interchanges, merge points, and sharp curves. More lanes doesn't always help.

Here in Seattle--I-5 SB in particular--I don't support adding more lanes so much as I support rebuilding the interchange with 520 to get rid of those stupid left exits and entrances. I-5 has plenty of lanes between Northgate where the express lanes start, and downtown.

I could definitely get behind that, if for no reason other than to improve safety from all that left-to-right weaving. The 520 Shuffle (northbound Mercer towards 520) would also need re-working.

Definitely no more lanes. If anything, convert the express lanes to HOV/express toll. That's controversial, but it might be the only way to improve bus and carpool performance without massive construction projects.




What's ODOT doing in the median of the 205 near SE Division?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on November 27, 2018, 02:51:00 AM


Quote from: jakeroot on November 27, 2018, 02:39:46 AM

What's ODOT doing in the median of I-205?

I-205 is being widened to 4 lanes each way between Powell Blvd and I-84. It is supposedly an auxillary lane.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on November 27, 2018, 03:09:05 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 26, 2018, 06:09:59 PM
Can we not drag unrelated politics into this?

Oregon's urban growth boundary policy has been somewhat successful at curbing intense sprawl (one only needs to look to Vancouver/Clark County for the "solution"). Though, like all cities, Portland needs to catch up and build more urban housing (and upzone everything) to accommodate the current and projected population growth.

Building new lanes in the city is a pointless endeavor that saps funding for useful projects (like signal re-timings, alternative modes, traffic calming) and angers residents. Newspaper comments be damned, they are an insular, tiny minority voice that goes against what most residents want (and probably don't live in the city, either).

If I-5 isn't brought out to 6 through lanes on the East Bank and from I-405 north to the river, then the concept of I-205 as the designated "through route" through metro PDX should be not only revived but moved to the "front burner" in order to expedite through N-S traffic while essentially leaving downtown alone.  That facility needs to be 3+3 at a minimum, including I-5 east to OR 213 through West Linn (sorry, NIMBY's), with signage reflecting its regional bypass role restored. 

When I lived in Portland in the mid-90's, there was a definite divergence of opinions regarding the state of regional transportation, with the "anything but automotive" sentiment ascendent within official circles, abetted by local academia.  It's unlikely that such a standpoint constitutes a majority opinion within the metro area -- possibly perhaps a marginal plurality in Portland itself.   Unfortunately, the view of PDX as an "urban enclave" serving as the vanguard for future policies has permeated the regional atmosphere -- even though that concept tends to dissipate the further one gets from downtown; essentially gone once past 82nd Street!

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on November 27, 2018, 02:51:00 AM


Quote from: jakeroot on November 27, 2018, 02:39:46 AM

What's ODOT doing in the median of I-205?

I-205 is being widened to 4 lanes each way between Powell Blvd and I-84. It is supposedly an auxillary lane.

LG-TP260


OK, fine......sounds like a slip lane to me.  3 per direction + slip sounds like an absolute minimum for that stretch of 205.   

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on November 27, 2018, 12:37:29 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 27, 2018, 03:09:05 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 26, 2018, 06:09:59 PM
Can we not drag unrelated politics into this?

Oregon's urban growth boundary policy has been somewhat successful at curbing intense sprawl (one only needs to look to Vancouver/Clark County for the "solution"). Though, like all cities, Portland needs to catch up and build more urban housing (and upzone everything) to accommodate the current and projected population growth.

Building new lanes in the city is a pointless endeavor that saps funding for useful projects (like signal re-timings, alternative modes, traffic calming) and angers residents. Newspaper comments be damned, they are an insular, tiny minority voice that goes against what most residents want (and probably don't live in the city, either).

If I-5 isn't brought out to 6 through lanes on the East Bank and from I-405 north to the river, then the concept of I-205 as the designated "through route" through metro PDX should be not only revived but moved to the "front burner" in order to expedite through N-S traffic while essentially leaving downtown alone.  That facility needs to be 3+3 at a minimum, including I-5 east to OR 213 through West Linn (sorry, NIMBY's), with signage reflecting its regional bypass role restored. 

When I lived in Portland in the mid-90's, there was a definite divergence of opinions regarding the state of regional transportation, with the "anything but automotive" sentiment ascendent within official circles, abetted by local academia.  It's unlikely that such a standpoint constitutes a majority opinion within the metro area -- possibly perhaps a marginal plurality in Portland itself.   Unfortunately, the view of PDX as an "urban enclave" serving as the vanguard for future policies has permeated the regional atmosphere -- even though that concept tends to dissipate the further one gets from downtown; essentially gone once past 82nd Street!

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on November 27, 2018, 02:51:00 AM


Quote from: jakeroot on November 27, 2018, 02:39:46 AM

What's ODOT doing in the median of I-205?

I-205 is being widened to 4 lanes each way between Powell Blvd and I-84. It is supposedly an auxillary lane.

LG-TP260


OK, fine......sounds like a slip lane to me.  3 per direction + slip sounds like an absolute minimum for that stretch of 205.   


So, a few things to note:

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on November 27, 2018, 04:55:51 PM
^^^^^^^^
Right now -- if the (minimal) expansion of I-5 in the East Bank/Rose Quarter section is still an active project and hasn't been fucked with yet -- and some attention is being paid to 205 in the east part of the city -- then Metro and ODOT are on the right track.  Truthfully, it's only the portion of I-5 north of the Banfield/I-84 interchange that warrants expansion; 2+2 between the I-84 divergences/merges is adequate to handle that traffic that hasn't exited to the east, so neither Belmont nor Burnside bridges would require modification.  Because of the physical limitations (hill cuts, tunnel) 26 from I-405 to OR 217 isn't a likely candidate for any significant expansion.  And while not cheap in absolute terms, money spent on I-205 in order to divert through traffic away from the downtown loop is, IMO money well spent.  Select projects rather than general expansion seems to be the way to go -- and will probably be the method of choice for PDX for the foreseeable future.

The one drawback to siting MAX lines along freeways (particularly I-205) is the issue with one of Metro's hallmarks -- the development of "transit villages" along the LR lines.  As stated above, there are ongoing issues endemic to housing situated alongside freeways; if the entire (or majority) of the transit line follows alongside the freeway or in the median, then the whole "village" concept becomes problematic.  Better to promote the 205 MAX line down to Clackamas as point-to-point commute or serving commercial development alongside the line rather than utilize it as a housing locale; let the other lines (such as the one out Burnside to the east) serve as "hubs" for potential transit-based residences; this also applies to the MAX line out to Beaverton and Hillsboro.  Site the "villages" well away from freeways, make sure that there are localized commercial amenities (and try to locate In-N-Outs nearby so the residents can avail themselves of real food!), and develop away!   
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on November 27, 2018, 09:00:46 PM
I've never understood locating light or heavy (metro) rail alongside freeways, other than to save cash. Sound Transit is doing this with the Seattle Link rail, between SR-516 and Federal Way. IMO, this is a huge mistake and does not take full advantage of all the prime development area alongside Highway 99. Rail transit is really aimed at non-car owners...only non-car owners living next to freeways are the homeless!

Vancouver's SkyTrain is an excellent example of the "village around a station" style of development.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on November 27, 2018, 10:22:49 PM
Even worse, the Federal Way section requires a lot of twists and turns to keep near I-5 while SR 99 would have been a straight shot. Too bad the city leaders decided to give into complaints from a handful of selfish people.

Up north, Link is also going to follow I-5, which is only slightly worse than SR 99/Aurora. The connection from Northgate to Aurora would have been tough, Aurora itself is pretty hard to walk across or on, and most of the major transit facilities are at park-and-ride lots on I-5. It made as much sense to choose either, but costs won out.

Ironically, the choosing of local roads for Everett Link is going to be much worse for passengers. A long, winding trip that takes a half-hour between Everett and Lynnwood is not exactly music to people's ears. But at least you get Paine Field service.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on November 28, 2018, 01:07:56 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 27, 2018, 09:00:46 PM
I've never understood locating light or heavy (metro) rail alongside freeways, other than to save cash.

Not an insignificant factor. But specific to the Portland area:

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on November 28, 2018, 05:47:04 PM
In re: Barbur, if memory serves, planners considered a subway alignment under OHSU, Hillsdale, Multnomah Village, and Sylvania before turning toward Tigard and Bridgeport Village on the surface -- in effect, resurrecting the Glencullen Tunnel Robert Moses advised against building in 1943.
It would have been costly, to be sure, but NIMBYs killed the alignment.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on November 28, 2018, 06:10:26 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on November 28, 2018, 05:47:04 PM
In re: Barbur, if memory serves, planners considered a subway alignment under OHSU, Hillsdale, Multnomah Village, and Sylvania before turning toward Tigard and Bridgeport Village on the surface -- in effect, resurrecting the Glencullen Tunnel Robert Moses advised against building in 1943.
It would have been costly, to be sure, but NIMBYs killed the alignment.
I would've been more keen to support that routing, but I can't get behind the current one especially since they will diet Barbur.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on November 29, 2018, 01:35:37 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on November 28, 2018, 06:10:26 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on November 28, 2018, 05:47:04 PM
In re: Barbur, if memory serves, planners considered a subway alignment under OHSU, Hillsdale, Multnomah Village, and Sylvania before turning toward Tigard and Bridgeport Village on the surface -- in effect, resurrecting the Glencullen Tunnel Robert Moses advised against building in 1943.
It would have been costly, to be sure, but NIMBYs killed the alignment.
I would've been more keen to support that routing, but I can't get behind the current one especially since they will diet Barbur.

LG-TP260

I'm fairly sure there's no lane reduction on Barbur.

I think the biggest problem was the tunnel (besides cost) was a lot of uncertainty about tunneling under Pill Hill. Limits on tunneling during eye surgery, limited space to build a station (where, exactly, do you dig 500 feet down on a hill that is already covered by big buildings?) and general uncertainty about geological conditions played a factor.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on November 29, 2018, 01:44:53 PM


Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 29, 2018, 01:35:37 PM


I'm fairly sure there's no lane reduction on Barbur.

According to the Sherwood Mayor and city council, it is. They also said its not well known of.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on November 29, 2018, 02:14:19 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on November 29, 2018, 01:44:53 PM
According to the Sherwood Mayor and city council, it is. They also said its not well known of.
LG-TP260

They are wrong. Look at the EIS.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on November 29, 2018, 03:21:51 PM
I'll have to dig up the EIS, because I can't imagine a light rail line being installed on Barbur without giving it the Burnside/Interstate treatment.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on November 29, 2018, 03:47:14 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 29, 2018, 02:14:19 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on November 29, 2018, 01:44:53 PM
According to the Sherwood Mayor and city council, it is. They also said its not well known of.
LG-TP260

They are wrong. Look at the EIS.
And now I know someone who lied or at least misinterpreted the facts.

And today's grill goes to the Sherwood City Council for giving the community false facts, and trying to paint them as real. Can't believe I fell for it and they should be ashamed of themself.

Quote from: EIS FAQWill the route on Barbur Boulevard remove any driving lanes for automobiles?

The proposed light rail line maintains two lanes for automobile traffic in each direction on Barbur Blvd. south of Naito Parkway.


LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 02, 2018, 03:37:04 PM
https://www.eastoregonian.com/news/local/speed-and-impact-rural-highway-fatalities-increase-after-speed-limit/article_88d4608e-f53d-11e8-bbd8-bf815f7b5b6f.html

1st review of the eastern Oregon speed limits that I've seen, but there are some suspicious things on here.

1. One of the crashes it cited was a driver on ice, so driving 40 is generally too fast for that. Another crash has a wrong way driver on an interstate. How is that related to speed? There goes 1/2 of the death increase.

2. It does not take into account that 2017 was one of the worst winters on record for the area, and 2018 wasn't a nice ime for the blue mountains or the Wallowas mid-late season. Compared to 2014-2016 had 3 of the best winters when it came to driving conditions.

3. If ODOT is against speed traps, they'd be advocating for a higher limit near Onterio. Also my (former) campaign to raise Sherwood's speed limit comes to mind (defiantly a speed trap). There are other examples.

4. They even admit that they don't take into account for lower speed limit areas on the highways. This probably would only affect US 97 significantly, where Redmond to Madras is a high crash corridor.

5. Speed is too vauge for the true data. 3rd highest crash cause would be driving too fast for conditions, not speed in general.

6. Cites government/insurance study, which tends to contradict private sector and university studies (void if joint).

7. How did the actual speeds change? Oh wait, ODOT IS SO SECRATIVE ABOUT THEM THAT THEY DON'T RELEASE IT TO THE PUBLIC.

8. US 97 from I-84 to US 197 is still 55. That's 67 miles not raised. I'll give you the Redmond to Madras section because it was raised before being re-lowered.

Added: 9. There was a statewide increase in deaths in 2016, and I don't know about 2017 but I don't think the decrease was substantial. Where is the -3.5% you got from?

No, I do not trust this article at all based on those 9 things that are susp.

Reading over the upcoming ODOT/PSU study will be fun. But serious question: Why PSU? I don't mean to be against them but OSU and OIT are the best engineering schools of the state, when looking at national ratings, and OSU is closer to ODOT's headquarters than PSU.

Disclaimer: I do study at OSU, but I study meteorology there.

LG-TP260
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on December 03, 2018, 01:03:09 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on November 29, 2018, 03:47:14 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 29, 2018, 02:14:19 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on November 29, 2018, 01:44:53 PM
According to the Sherwood Mayor and city council, it is. They also said its not well known of.
LG-TP260

They are wrong. Look at the EIS.
And now I know someone who lied or at least misinterpreted the facts.

And today's grill goes to the Sherwood City Council for giving the community false facts, and trying to paint them as real. Can't believe I fell for it and they should be ashamed of themself.

Quote from: EIS FAQWill the route on Barbur Boulevard remove any driving lanes for automobiles?

The proposed light rail line maintains two lanes for automobile traffic in each direction on Barbur Blvd. south of Naito Parkway.


LG-TP260



I'm guessing that the proposed MAX line down Barbur is configured with the rail lines down a partially isolated median; probably due to the fact that it's still a commissioned state highway.  Question: have reasonably detailed plans for the alignment both along Barbur and SW to Sherwood been published?   As someone who lived a few blocks from the proposed route, I'd certainly be interested to see just how Metro, ODOT, and the other parties are intending to deploy the line without severe disruption. 
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on December 05, 2018, 12:57:38 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 03, 2018, 01:03:09 AM
I'm guessing that the proposed MAX line down Barbur is configured with the rail lines down a partially isolated median; probably due to the fact that it's still a commissioned state highway.  Question: have reasonably detailed plans for the alignment both along Barbur and SW to Sherwood been published?   As someone who lived a few blocks from the proposed route, I'd certainly be interested to see just how Metro, ODOT, and the other parties are intending to deploy the line without severe disruption. 

From what I have seen (not final by any means), the third lane from Capitol Highway north to Naito Parkway will be removed, and it is likely that there will be a "road diet" between Capitol Highway and Terwilliger to reduce Barbur to one lane in each direction in that stretch only.  I would imagine that the overpass over Multnomah Boulevard likely would not be widened, so we could likely see a lane reduction there.

But officially, there are supposed to be two through lanes on Barbur post-MAX.  (Now, whether they will maintain a 35-40 MPH speed limit or be slowed down to 25-30 MPH as per PBOT's wet dream...)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on December 05, 2018, 02:54:45 AM
Barbur south of OR 10 is only 5 lanes wide (2+1+2). The two viaducts and a choke point near Spring Garden would need to be addressed.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on December 05, 2018, 01:59:24 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on December 05, 2018, 02:54:45 AM
Barbur south of OR 10 is only 5 lanes wide (2+1+2). The two viaducts and a choke point near Spring Garden would need to be addressed.

It sounds like a reference to the narrow section of Barbur in front of the Fred Meyer just west of Terwilliger.  Since the boulevard is sandwiched in between I-5 and the Meyer complex, they'll probably have to eat a bit of the front parking lot to accommodate 2 tracks, 1+1 lanes, and any turning facilities at Terwilliger.  The old bridges at Spring Garden will need addressing as well as the ones further north (both in terms of width and weight limits); rebuilding might be necessary.  The last time anything significant was done on Barbur was well over 55 years ago when I-5 was being built -- with the exception of the Barbur/Capitol I-5 overcrossing, which was being revamped just as I was leaving PDX back in '97; that entire stretch of street was a mashup of original pavement and structures with lane additions and slight realignment at the Terwilliger and Capitol intersections.

On a lighter note -- wonder if there's going to be a station stop at Buster's BBQ just west of I-5 in Tigard?  Considering its popularity (maybe not with the vegan contingent at PSU!), something close might be appropriate.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: pdx-wanderer on December 06, 2018, 10:50:14 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 02, 2018, 03:37:04 PM
https://www.eastoregonian.com/news/local/speed-and-impact-rural-highway-fatalities-increase-after-speed-limit/article_88d4608e-f53d-11e8-bbd8-bf815f7b5b6f.html

1st review of the eastern Oregon speed limits that I've seen, but there are some suspicious things on here.

1. One of the crashes it cited was a driver on ice, so driving 40 is generally too fast for that. Another crash has a wrong way driver on an interstate. How is that related to speed? There goes 1/2 of the death increase.

2. It does not take into account that 2017 was one of the worst winters on record for the area, and 2018 wasn't a nice ime for the blue mountains or the Wallowas mid-late season. Compared to 2014-2016 had 3 of the best winters when it came to driving conditions.

3. If ODOT is against speed traps, they'd be advocating for a higher limit near Onterio. Also my (former) campaign to raise Sherwood's speed limit comes to mind (defiantly a speed trap). There are other examples.

4. They even admit that they don't take into account for lower speed limit areas on the highways. This probably would only affect US 97 significantly, where Redmond to Madras is a high crash corridor.

5. Speed is too vauge for the true data. 3rd highest crash cause would be driving too fast for conditions, not speed in general.

6. Cites government/insurance study, which tends to contradict private sector and university studies (void if joint).

7. How did the actual speeds change? Oh wait, ODOT IS SO SECRATIVE ABOUT THEM THAT THEY DON'T RELEASE IT TO THE PUBLIC.

8. US 97 from I-84 to US 197 is still 55. That's 67 miles not raised. I'll give you the Redmond to Madras section because it was raised before being re-lowered.

Added: 9. There was a statewide increase in deaths in 2016, and I don't know about 2017 but I don't think the decrease was substantial. Where is the -3.5% you got from?

No, I do not trust this article at all based on those 9 things that are susp.

Reading over the upcoming ODOT/PSU study will be fun. But serious question: Why PSU? I don't mean to be against them but OSU and OIT are the best engineering schools of the state, when looking at national ratings, and OSU is closer to ODOT's headquarters than PSU.

Disclaimer: I do study at OSU, but I study meteorology there.

LG-TP260

I-84's entirety would be a good place for more variable speed signs like the ones around Baker City. Each of the Gorge, plateau, Blue Mountains, Ladd Canyon, Baker Valley, Snake River sections of that freeway have their own unique inclement weather challenges with plenty of chances for people to be driving too fast for conditions, but the thing is conditions which 70 mph is too fast for 65 mph is also very likely too fast for as well. "Speeding" and driving too fast for conditions or the roadway are different things. I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of average speeds and accident rates, with type of accident between the newly increased roads and other roads in neighboring states in similar terrain with similar posted speeds. I recall an article from when Utah raised their speed limits to 80 mph in rural areas and 70 mph in metro Salt Lake City that stated that actual speeds only increased about 2 mph.

Regardless even if returning to the low limits is warranted, it will take a lot more given that as its neighbors have posted higher speeds, Oregon has taken to the California approach of under-post and under-enforce so any lowered speed limit will have to come with highly increased enforcement. I'd wager a guess that the average speed is higher on I-5 from Wilsonville to Salem than on 70 mph stretches of I-84. Anecdotally, driving 80-85 mph there will often put you comfortably in the flow of traffic in the left lane, because the presence of a third lane generally allows the trucks and speed limit sticklers to not get in the way a la the San Joaquin Valley (on a side note, I wish ODOT put signs officially banning trucks, busses, and trailers from the left lane there like there are on similar stretches of road in Utah, Washington, and I'm sure in other states). Meanwhile going that fast on much of 70 mph I-84 would likely put you much faster than most if not all the other traffic, and east of Pendleton that is simply too fast even in good conditions. 70 mph on Cabbage Hill and the Blue Mtns while the Willamette Valley is still 65 is pretty funny (as is the 65 mph truck speed limit on Cabbage Hill and two lane US 95 being the highest on the entire west coast).

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 07, 2018, 12:15:09 AM


Quote from: pdx-wanderer on December 06, 2018, 10:50:14 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 02, 2018, 03:37:04 PM
https://www.eastoregonian.com/news/local/speed-and-impact-rural-highway-fatalities-increase-after-speed-limit/article_88d4608e-f53d-11e8-bbd8-bf815f7b5b6f.html

1st review of the eastern Oregon speed limits that I've seen, but there are some suspicious things on here.

1. One of the crashes it cited was a driver on ice, so driving 40 is generally too fast for that. Another crash has a wrong way driver on an interstate. How is that related to speed? There goes 1/2 of the death increase.

2. It does not take into account that 2017 was one of the worst winters on record for the area, and 2018 wasn't a nice ime for the blue mountains or the Wallowas mid-late season. Compared to 2014-2016 had 3 of the best winters when it came to driving conditions.

3. If ODOT is against speed traps, they'd be advocating for a higher limit near Onterio. Also my (former) campaign to raise Sherwood's speed limit comes to mind (defiantly a speed trap). There are other examples.

4. They even admit that they don't take into account for lower speed limit areas on the highways. This probably would only affect US 97 significantly, where Redmond to Madras is a high crash corridor.

5. Speed is too vauge for the true data. 3rd highest crash cause would be driving too fast for conditions, not speed in general.

6. Cites government/insurance study, which tends to contradict private sector and university studies (void if joint).

7. How did the actual speeds change? Oh wait, ODOT IS SO SECRATIVE ABOUT THEM THAT THEY DON'T RELEASE IT TO THE PUBLIC.

8. US 97 from I-84 to US 197 is still 55. That's 67 miles not raised. I'll give you the Redmond to Madras section because it was raised before being re-lowered.

Added: 9. There was a statewide increase in deaths in 2016, and I don't know about 2017 but I don't think the decrease was substantial. Where is the -3.5% you got from?

No, I do not trust this article at all based on those 9 things that are susp.

Reading over the upcoming ODOT/PSU study will be fun. But serious question: Why PSU? I don't mean to be against them but OSU and OIT are the best engineering schools of the state, when looking at national ratings, and OSU is closer to ODOT's headquarters than PSU.

Disclaimer: I do study at OSU, but I study meteorology there.

LG-TP260

I-84's entirety would be a good place for more variable speed signs like the ones around Baker City. Each of the Gorge, plateau, Blue Mountains, Ladd Canyon, Baker Valley, Snake River sections of that freeway have their own unique inclement weather challenges with plenty of chances for people to be driving too fast for conditions, but the thing is conditions which 70 mph is too fast for 65 mph is also very likely too fast for as well. "Speeding" and driving too fast for conditions or the roadway are different things. I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of average speeds and accident rates, with type of accident between the newly increased roads and other roads in neighboring states in similar terrain with similar posted speeds. I recall an article from when Utah raised their speed limits to 80 mph in rural areas and 70 mph in metro Salt Lake City that stated that actual speeds only increased about 2 mph.

Regardless even if returning to the low limits is warranted, it will take a lot more given that as its neighbors have posted higher speeds, Oregon has taken to the California approach of under-post and under-enforce so any lowered speed limit will have to come with highly increased enforcement. I'd wager a guess that the average speed is higher on I-5 from Wilsonville to Salem than on 70 mph stretches of I-84. Anecdotally, driving 80-85 mph there will often put you comfortably in the flow of traffic in the left lane, because the presence of a third lane generally allows the trucks and speed limit sticklers to not get in the way a la the San Joaquin Valley (on a side note, I wish ODOT put signs officially banning trucks, busses, and trailers from the left lane there like there are on similar stretches of road in Utah, Washington, and I'm sure in other states). Meanwhile going that fast on much of 70 mph I-84 would likely put you much faster than most if not all the other traffic, and east of Pendleton that is simply too fast even in good conditions. 70 mph on Cabbage Hill and the Blue Mtns while the Willamette Valley is still 65 is pretty funny (as is the 65 mph truck speed limit on Cabbage Hill and two lane US 95 being the highest on the entire west coast).

Writing on my phone, so its dificult to remove the post.

Normally on I-5 in the valley (have minimal experience south of exit 162):
Wilsonville to Salem: can confirm your findings, plus 70-75 in the middle lane.

Salem to Albany: 75 in left, 65 in right
Albany to Eugene: 80-85 in left, 70 in right
Eugene to Cottege Grove: same as Salem to Albany.

I-84: Gorge: 75 left, 70 right
Exit 97 to exit 216: 80-90 left, 75 right (litterly hard to go 75 or 80)
Cabbage hill: 60 or less
Cabbage Hill to La Grande: 75 left, 65 right
Have minimal experience east of La Grande

The high accident corridors on I-84 are cabbage hill, just west of la Grande, Ladd canyon, Paridise valley, and mp 332-340, all of which except Paridise Valley could be reduced (and cabbage hill despratly needs to be reduced). Noticibally the gorge isn't on there as most accidents are from 2014, which was a bad year for weather. If I rake that out it becomes below average (ODOT crash data).

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: pdx-wanderer on December 07, 2018, 08:54:50 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 07, 2018, 12:15:09 AM


Quote from: pdx-wanderer on December 06, 2018, 10:50:14 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 02, 2018, 03:37:04 PM
https://www.eastoregonian.com/news/local/speed-and-impact-rural-highway-fatalities-increase-after-speed-limit/article_88d4608e-f53d-11e8-bbd8-bf815f7b5b6f.html

1st review of the eastern Oregon speed limits that I've seen, but there are some suspicious things on here.

1. One of the crashes it cited was a driver on ice, so driving 40 is generally too fast for that. Another crash has a wrong way driver on an interstate. How is that related to speed? There goes 1/2 of the death increase.

2. It does not take into account that 2017 was one of the worst winters on record for the area, and 2018 wasn't a nice ime for the blue mountains or the Wallowas mid-late season. Compared to 2014-2016 had 3 of the best winters when it came to driving conditions.

3. If ODOT is against speed traps, they'd be advocating for a higher limit near Onterio. Also my (former) campaign to raise Sherwood's speed limit comes to mind (defiantly a speed trap). There are other examples.

4. They even admit that they don't take into account for lower speed limit areas on the highways. This probably would only affect US 97 significantly, where Redmond to Madras is a high crash corridor.

5. Speed is too vauge for the true data. 3rd highest crash cause would be driving too fast for conditions, not speed in general.

6. Cites government/insurance study, which tends to contradict private sector and university studies (void if joint).

7. How did the actual speeds change? Oh wait, ODOT IS SO SECRATIVE ABOUT THEM THAT THEY DON'T RELEASE IT TO THE PUBLIC.

8. US 97 from I-84 to US 197 is still 55. That's 67 miles not raised. I'll give you the Redmond to Madras section because it was raised before being re-lowered.

Added: 9. There was a statewide increase in deaths in 2016, and I don't know about 2017 but I don't think the decrease was substantial. Where is the -3.5% you got from?

No, I do not trust this article at all based on those 9 things that are susp.

Reading over the upcoming ODOT/PSU study will be fun. But serious question: Why PSU? I don't mean to be against them but OSU and OIT are the best engineering schools of the state, when looking at national ratings, and OSU is closer to ODOT's headquarters than PSU.

Disclaimer: I do study at OSU, but I study meteorology there.

LG-TP260

I-84's entirety would be a good place for more variable speed signs like the ones around Baker City. Each of the Gorge, plateau, Blue Mountains, Ladd Canyon, Baker Valley, Snake River sections of that freeway have their own unique inclement weather challenges with plenty of chances for people to be driving too fast for conditions, but the thing is conditions which 70 mph is too fast for 65 mph is also very likely too fast for as well. "Speeding" and driving too fast for conditions or the roadway are different things. I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of average speeds and accident rates, with type of accident between the newly increased roads and other roads in neighboring states in similar terrain with similar posted speeds. I recall an article from when Utah raised their speed limits to 80 mph in rural areas and 70 mph in metro Salt Lake City that stated that actual speeds only increased about 2 mph.

Regardless even if returning to the low limits is warranted, it will take a lot more given that as its neighbors have posted higher speeds, Oregon has taken to the California approach of under-post and under-enforce so any lowered speed limit will have to come with highly increased enforcement. I'd wager a guess that the average speed is higher on I-5 from Wilsonville to Salem than on 70 mph stretches of I-84. Anecdotally, driving 80-85 mph there will often put you comfortably in the flow of traffic in the left lane, because the presence of a third lane generally allows the trucks and speed limit sticklers to not get in the way a la the San Joaquin Valley (on a side note, I wish ODOT put signs officially banning trucks, busses, and trailers from the left lane there like there are on similar stretches of road in Utah, Washington, and I'm sure in other states). Meanwhile going that fast on much of 70 mph I-84 would likely put you much faster than most if not all the other traffic, and east of Pendleton that is simply too fast even in good conditions. 70 mph on Cabbage Hill and the Blue Mtns while the Willamette Valley is still 65 is pretty funny (as is the 65 mph truck speed limit on Cabbage Hill and two lane US 95 being the highest on the entire west coast).

Writing on my phone, so its dificult to remove the post.

Normally on I-5 in the valley (have minimal experience south of exit 162):
Wilsonville to Salem: can confirm your findings, plus 70-75 in the middle lane.

Salem to Albany: 75 in left, 65 in right
Albany to Eugene: 80-85 in left, 70 in right
Eugene to Cottege Grove: same as Salem to Albany.

I-84: Gorge: 75 left, 70 right
Exit 97 to exit 216: 80-90 left, 75 right (litterly hard to go 75 or 80)
Cabbage hill: 60 or less
Cabbage Hill to La Grande: 75 left, 65 right
Have minimal experience east of La Grande

The high accident corridors on I-84 are cabbage hill, just west of la Grande, Ladd canyon, Paridise valley, and mp 332-340, all of which except Paridise Valley could be reduced (and cabbage hill despratly needs to be reduced). Noticibally the gorge isn't on there as most accidents are from 2014, which was a bad year for weather. If I rake that out it becomes below average (ODOT crash data).

LG-TP260

Siskiyou Pass: 55-60 southbound ascending, 70-80 past the summit (in good weather obviously). Northbound it seems the steepest grades are in CA. Again, having a speed limit of 55 there makes no sense considering it goes up to 65 in California, and the Cabbage Hill speed limit. Trucks can in theory go quite a bit faster on Cabbage Hill than anybody can on Siskiyou Pass!

Ashland to Grants Pass: 75-80

Grants Pass to Roseburg is so mountainous and winding that it's hard to go faster than 73 or so for any prolonged period of time. 65 is probably a good speed limit there, similar to the Mt Shasta area. The 50 zone for the big curve around Myrtle Creek isn't really necessary though, there are ample warning signs of that. Again, why drop all the way to 50 there when Cabbage Hill is set at 70? 

Roseburg to the Willamette Valley I've found similar to Ashland to Grants Pass. The 60 mph speed limit is Roseburg is widely ignored; I wonder if that's changed the avg speed or crash data there. People do actually seem to slow down somewhat in Eugene proper, not so much in Salem proper. Both of them should have 65/60 mph speed limits anyway, in my opinon.

Baker Valley in good weather I usually set cruise control at 79 mph there and rarely get passed or pass anyone else that's not a truck. The variable speed limits do work though; last month I went through there in very foggy conditions and they showed a 45 mph speed limit which seemed just about right and then, when the fog thickened, reduced to 35 which again felt right. On the other hand, that would be a good place to potentially test 75 mph limits in good weather.

Past Baker, the Paradise area is similar in speed to the Blues; once the freeway stop following the Snake, it has some steep grades but outside of those traffic moves very fast, often well over 80 mph, before slowing down through the Ontario limits. I was only out there a few times when the speed limit was still 65 but I can't say I remember traffic moving consistently that fast until relatively recently.

As for the two laners, I think US 26 from Madras to the eastern areas of Mt Hood NF move faster if traffic conditions allow than most of the new 65 mph roads.  Obviously with a two lane road it only takes one slow vehicle to slow things down, but thats another place with frequent speeds of 80+.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on December 08, 2018, 07:34:25 AM
Re: the Myrtle Creek curve -- my dad said he saw a semi jack-knife in his rearview mirror as he was clearing the curve.
While I fully agree that Emigrant Hill* being posted at 70 makes zero sense (the eastbound curves are tight enough I can feel the lateral Gs going 50), I'd say that Myrtle Creek is no joke. I feel more comfortable crusing through the Terwilliger Curves at 65 -- and that's a valid 50 zone.

*Emigrant Hill; Cabbage Hill -- which is it? I've always heard it as Emigrant Hill.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: mvak36 on December 09, 2018, 01:20:35 PM
https://www.ktvz.com/news/odot-seeks-feds-ok-to-toll-2-portland-area-freeways/917569296

QuotePORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Oregon is seeking federal approval to toll two Portland-area freeways.

KOIN reports the Oregon Transportation Commission voted unanimously on Thursday to send its tolling proposal to the Federal Highway Administration.

Oregon wants to collect tolls along 7 miles of Interstate 5 between North Going Street/Alberta Street and Southwest Multnomah Boulevard.

The second tolling section would fall on Interstate 205 near the George Abernethy Bridge in Clackamas County.

Proponents say the tolling will help pay for road projects and ease congestion. The rates and times of day when drivers would have to pay have not been decided.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 09, 2018, 05:43:08 PM


Quote from: mvak36 on December 09, 2018, 01:20:35 PM
https://www.ktvz.com/news/odot-seeks-feds-ok-to-toll-2-portland-area-freeways/917569296

QuotePORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Oregon is seeking federal approval to toll two Portland-area freeways.

KOIN reports the Oregon Transportation Commission voted unanimously on Thursday to send its tolling proposal to the Federal Highway Administration.

Oregon wants to collect tolls along 7 miles of Interstate 5 between North Going Street/Alberta Street and Southwest Multnomah Boulevard.

The second tolling section would fall on Interstate 205 near the George Abernethy Bridge in Clackamas County.

Proponents say the tolling will help pay for road projects and ease congestion. The rates and times of day when drivers would have to pay have not been decided.

The fine print. I will support the 205 tolling section as it will fund a widening to 3 lanes each way from mp 3 to mp 9 (currently 2), provide A bridge upgrade ($250 million), and 2 auxillery lanes, one between exit 8 and 9, and another between 9 and 10. Ok, I can get behind that.

I-5 though... It took ODOT a while to reveal they were going to spend some of the profits on the I-205 widening. They have now mentioned that they want to spend some of the money on the rose quarter project. Except the transportation package from 2017 mandates that the state provides the funding for the ENTIRE Rose Quarter project, currently estumated at $450 million. They aren't saying what other projects would be paid with this, again meaning they aren't that transparent.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on December 19, 2018, 05:12:32 PM
ODOT is planning on replacing the van Bueren Bridge in Corvallis with a two-lane facility. Note that while they bill it as part of OR 34 in the project title, it's not (OR 34 diverts to the bypass). It is, however, part of ORH 210.
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/projects/pages/project-details.aspx?project=20688
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 20, 2018, 02:21:38 PM
IP 10 (vote on non-capacity increasing tolls initiative) has been moved passed the pre-reqs and will be starting to gather signatures shortly (secretary of state's office).
Quote from: Bickendan on December 19, 2018, 05:12:32 PM
ODOT is planning on replacing the van Bueren Bridge in Corvallis with a two-lane facility. Note that while they bill it as part of OR 34 in the project title, it's not (OR 34 diverts to the bypass). It is, however, part of ORH 210.
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/projects/pages/project-details.aspx?project=20688
Its about time this happens as Corvallis shut down the first attempt and instead added a 2nd right turn lane to the bypass. Prepare for the historians, environmentalists and NIMBY's to go full force against this.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 07, 2019, 10:32:03 AM
The 124 th avenue road extension is now open. Fun to drive on, but 45 is a joke for the speed limit (until its built up) (I drove 60 fine with other cars doing the same).
https://pamplinmedia.com/ttt/415941-318208-124th-avenue-extension-open-for-business-

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Tarkus on January 13, 2019, 03:05:22 AM
Technically, the 45 zone there isn't established by a Speed Zone Order, so its legality is hazy at best.  The last SZO for SW 124th Avenue (J8675 (https://zigzag.odot.state.or.us/uniquesig78ff0d392336a284c69037220217ce07902ac9825cdd667d43555eddf0570a01/uniquesig0/cf/szi/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewPDF&SZOI=8675) from August 29, 2013) only covers from 99W to Tualatin-Sherwood, which means anything else would be covered by the statutory limits in ORS 811.111 (which would make it a 55mph zone presently).  At best, they could call it a "construction zone" limit, since the road just opened, but even then, it's potential Miles v. Milwaukie fodder* if one were to be ticketed. 

The stretch that's Basalt Creek Parkway, however, has been open for over a year, and at least on the Google Street View from August 2018 (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.346395,-122.7858699,3a,75y,319.59h,77.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY4TXyVdgFC4BrJNhDvxysw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), the "Speed 45" sign is almost immediately followed by an "End Road Work" sign, so the county clearly doesn't consider it to be a construction zone there anymore.  Unless they're making the very precarious argument that when Tonquin Road was closed, its SZO (1030D (https://zigzag.odot.state.or.us/uniquesig78ff0d392336a284c69037220217ce07902ac9825cdd667d43555eddf0570a01/uniquesig0/cf/szi/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewPDF&SZOI=6116) from February 22, 1995) would be valid over there during the detour time, but now that both are open, there's no real case they can make. 

Simply put, SW Basalt Creek Parkway ≠ SW Tonquin Road.

Speaking of which, there's quite a few other "illegal" speed zones of this type around. 

Does anyone know if that infamous "emergency" 30 zone on SE Stark (between 109th and 162nd) is still posted?  Assuming PBOT got the extension it claims it can get (an additional 120 days, for a total of 240 days), counting back from today, it should be legally expired if the signs went up before May 18, 2018. 

*Miles v. Milwaukie: 2009 case when the City of Milwaukie got their backside handed to them for trying to use photo radar to ticket people for violating a non-existent 25mph zone on SE King Road.  That section of road was legally a 35mph zone per a Speed Zone Order.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on January 13, 2019, 03:38:38 AM
Stark is still 30 as from my last trip. Can reconfirm tomorrow.

Milwaukie got slapped for photo radar on King? lmao
I wonder if that's why I haven't seen the vans at the speed trap on McGloughlin at River.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 13, 2019, 05:07:27 AM
Quote from: Tarkus on January 13, 2019, 03:05:22 AM
Technically, the 45 zone there isn't established by a Speed Zone Order, so its legality is hazy at best.  The last SZO for SW 124th Avenue (J8675 (https://zigzag.odot.state.or.us/uniquesig78ff0d392336a284c69037220217ce07902ac9825cdd667d43555eddf0570a01/uniquesig0/cf/szi/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewPDF&SZOI=8675) from August 29, 2013) only covers from 99W to Tualatin-Sherwood, which means anything else would be covered by the statutory limits in ORS 811.111 (which would make it a 55mph zone presently).  At best, they could call it a "construction zone" limit, since the road just opened, but even then, it's potential Miles v. Milwaukie fodder* if one were to be ticketed. 

The stretch that's Basalt Creek Parkway, however, has been open for over a year, and at least on the Google Street View from August 2018 (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.346395,-122.7858699,3a,75y,319.59h,77.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY4TXyVdgFC4BrJNhDvxysw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), the "Speed 45" sign is almost immediately followed by an "End Road Work" sign, so the county clearly doesn't consider it to be a construction zone there anymore.  Unless they're making the very precarious argument that when Tonquin Road was closed, its SZO (1030D (https://zigzag.odot.state.or.us/uniquesig78ff0d392336a284c69037220217ce07902ac9825cdd667d43555eddf0570a01/uniquesig0/cf/szi/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewPDF&SZOI=6116) from February 22, 1995) would be valid over there during the detour time, but now that both are open, there's no real case they can make. 

Simply put, SW Basalt Creek Parkway ≠ SW Tonquin Road.

Speaking of which, there's quite a few other "illegal" speed zones of this type around. 

Does anyone know if that infamous "emergency" 30 zone on SE Stark (between 109th and 162nd) is still posted?  Assuming PBOT got the extension it claims it can get (an additional 120 days, for a total of 240 days), counting back from today, it should be legally expired if the signs went up before May 18, 2018. 

*Miles v. Milwaukie: 2009 case when the City of Milwaukie got their backside handed to them for trying to use photo radar to ticket people for violating a non-existent 25mph zone on SE King Road.  That section of road was legally a 35mph zone per a Speed Zone Order.
In that case, I will assume the limit is 55 until further notice, and if I'm ticked, I will challenge it if I'm going 55 or less (flow was 60 the one time I wemt through though so...). I might send an email in though to Washington county notifying them of the illegal limit, and possibly getting it raised to 55? That last one is a long shot.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on January 13, 2019, 10:35:39 PM
I assume the likelihood is greater that an SZO order would be created, rather than the responsible agency accepting the statutory limit.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: polarscribe on January 15, 2019, 12:57:25 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 07, 2018, 12:15:09 AM
I-84: Gorge: 75 left, 70 right
Exit 97 to exit 216: 80-90 left, 75 right (litterly hard to go 75 or 80)
Cabbage hill: 60 or less
Cabbage Hill to La Grande: 75 left, 65 right
Have minimal experience east of La Grande
I would dispute Cabbage Hill being 60 or less in the left lane... with the truck lanes up the hill, it's not hard to do 65-70 in places. Sure, you're slowing for the corners, but there's enough point-and-shoot straights to keep the speed up.

In my experience, La Grande to the Idaho border is basically a continuation of 75 left, 65 right, with the exception of Ladd Canyon. When I'm driving it, I just lock the cruise at 75 from the OR-7 onramp in Baker City all the way to Ladd. Yeah, there's the occasional person trying to do faster but the State Police like to run speed coming out of the Baker Valley Rest Area. (Of course, as soon as you cross the Snake eastbound, the left lane goes to 85.)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 26, 2019, 03:16:43 PM
https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/01/portland-metro-voters-would-support-transportation-bond-prefer-freeway-widening-over-transit-improvements-poll-finds.html

So it seems that the proposed 2020 transportation package will fail if it doesn't include freeway widening.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 28, 2019, 10:25:23 PM
PDF of a new bill in the house that allows Portland to set their own speed limits across town. You can guess my thoughts on this.http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5c4fc7470acb5/HB2702.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5c4fc7470acb5/HB2702.pdf)

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on January 28, 2019, 11:24:42 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 28, 2019, 10:25:23 PM
PDF of a new bill in the house that allows Portland to set their own speed limits across town. You can guess my thoughts on this.http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5c4fc7470acb5/HB2702.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5c4fc7470acb5/HB2702.pdf)

FWIW, Seattle hasn't been really affected by the 20 MPH speed limit that was implemented in September 2017. Traffic is still the same, though I've heard of slightly fewer pedestrian fatalities.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 29, 2019, 02:05:43 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 28, 2019, 11:24:42 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 28, 2019, 10:25:23 PM
PDF of a new bill in the house that allows Portland to set their own speed limits across town. You can guess my thoughts on this.http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5c4fc7470acb5/HB2702.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5c4fc7470acb5/HB2702.pdf)

FWIW, Seattle hasn't been really affected by the 20 MPH speed limit that was implemented in September 2017. Traffic is still the same, though I've heard of slightly fewer pedestrian fatalities.
I honestly don't mind the 20 mph limit on residential areas as much as what they've done on artiels, especially division street.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Tarkus on January 29, 2019, 04:23:19 AM
Speaking of Division, since the limit from 82nd to 174th went down to an absurd 30mph, they've had 3 deaths on that stretch, plus this last week (https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/418203-321451-rollover-car-crash-leads-to-duii-charge-police-say). 

PBOT's methodology with their Vision Zero scheme is horribly flawed, and they basically use any excuse--however misguided--to justify their speed limit reductions, with some roads seeing multiple reductions in the span of only a year or two.  They cited "speed racing" as a reason to drop a stretch of Marine Drive to 35mph (speed racers aren't going to give a flying crap what the number on the sign says, and since when is 40mph "speed racing"?), and they used the excuse of a massively impaired driver who was going 55mph in a 30 zone and ran over a pedestrian to impose a 20-block long 20mph zone on the east end of Hawthorne Blvd (the guy's way over the legal limit--he's not going to care if it says 30, 20, or 9000).

The prospect of them no longer having to be accountable to ODOT's speed zoning program at all is frankly terrifying.  The reason for that oversight is to prevent cities from creating speed traps--which Portland is doing at an alarming rate and scale.  They've already started playing around with posting East Portland 5-lane arterials at 25mph, with a stretch of NE/SE 102nd Avenue (most of the rest of which is now a Division-style 30 zone now, per here (https://zigzag.odot.state.or.us/uniquesig78ff0d392336a284c69037220217ce07902ac9825cdd667d43555eddf0570a01/uniquesig0/cf/szi/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewPDF&SZOI=9309)).

Reducing the speed limit does not curb DUII, distracted driving, or speed racing.  Period.  No one says "oh hey, Division's a 30mph zone now, I'm only going to drink one IPA instead of four". 
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on January 29, 2019, 02:27:15 PM
Quote from: Tarkus on January 29, 2019, 04:23:19 AM
Reducing the speed limit does not curb DUII, distracted driving, or speed racing.  Period.  No one says "oh hey, Division's a 30mph zone now, I'm only going to drink one IPA instead of four".

They might — if the speed limits were ever enforced.

I have no problem with them lowering the speed limits. My issue is that I almost never see Portland cops writing traffic tickets.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on January 29, 2019, 09:47:32 PM
I drive that stretch of Division every day. The Portland Police are always somewhere along Division.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on January 30, 2019, 12:21:59 AM
The only effective way of getting to Vision Zero is to re-engineer the roads themselves to make high-speed driving extremely uncomfortable. Narrower lanes (and less of them), more street furniture to break up the straightaways, and better pedestrian crossings, to name a few.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on February 04, 2019, 10:08:03 AM
Portland question. I see the Steel Bridge ramp to I-84 was removed sometime after 1981. Why was an active ramp removed? The WB counterpart remains. I've heard that it had to do with cancellation of US 26 across the western city but that only makes sense if it was always a stub.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on February 04, 2019, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 04, 2019, 10:08:03 AM
Portland question. I see the Steel Bridge ramp to I-84 was removed sometime after 1981. Why was an active ramp removed? The WB counterpart remains. I've heard that it had to do with cancellation of US 26 across the western city but that only makes sense if it was always a stub.

Not being intimately familiar with Portlandia, I can only make a few guesses:

1) Lloyd Blvd construction in the 80's required its removal, and Lloyd Blvd's alignment was considered more important than that ramp
2) the merge was problematic, so it was replaced with a rebuilt on-ramp from NE Grand/NE Everett (which appears to have been widened in the 80's)
3) reduced usage thanks to removal of Harbor Drive
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on February 13, 2019, 02:52:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 04, 2019, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 04, 2019, 10:08:03 AM
Portland question. I see the Steel Bridge ramp to I-84 was removed sometime after 1981. Why was an active ramp removed? The WB counterpart remains. I've heard that it had to do with cancellation of US 26 across the western city but that only makes sense if it was always a stub.

Not being intimately familiar with Portlandia, I can only make a few guesses:

1) Lloyd Blvd construction in the 80's required its removal, and Lloyd Blvd's alignment was considered more important than that ramp
2) the merge was problematic, so it was replaced with a rebuilt on-ramp from NE Grand/NE Everett (which appears to have been widened in the 80's)
3) reduced usage thanks to removal of Harbor Drive

I'll have to look at some aerial shots of Portland from around that time, but I'm curious if part of it was because of the construction of the Moda Center Rose Garden in the 1990s necessitating a different configuration in that area. There used to be a lot more ramps on the east side of the bridge back when it carried 99W.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on March 09, 2019, 12:14:01 AM
http://oregon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=26076

This is a public hearing on speed limits. I responded to it on my FB page and I am posting it here because its so ridiculous. Enjoy the long read. I could've gone into greater detail on the bills.

really thought that I wouldn't need to do another rant of speed limits, especially since I posted one a few days ago, but Oregon, you really deserve it. And this will be my longest one yet.
Yesterday there was a "public hearing" on speed limit and speed limit related bills. Problem? You had to be invited to testify according to the website! Not exactly transparent.
I will quickly touch on the possible mandated WES line from Wilsonville to Salem. I'm not 100% opposed, especially if its super high speed, but then again, you can just upgrade Amtrak, and widen the freeway/get a westside bypass. I am opposed to something like the current line which is limited to 55 mph vs a 65 mph limit on I-5 or 80 mph (with stops) on Amtrak. I won't delve into it further as that gets too much into politics that I don't want to get into publicly.
1. The "informational meeting": What a joke. Just for fun, I imitated cinemasins and counted each time there was a bent fact, lie, or ridiculous statement. Sin total:
ODOT: 26
PBOT: 16
Eugene engineers: 3 (covered a lot of Portland)
Washington County: 2 (covered a lot of Portland)
Here are some highlights and my responses:
"As the speed limit goes up, the traffic speed goes up." Rarely. Data generally proves the opposite. The average speed will rise 2 mph per 5 mph raise due to the drivers who are limit watches are going faster. Here are 2 notable examples: Utah I-15 at 75: average 82 mph, at 80: average 81. BC (this was decreased later) sea to sky highway: 80 kph: average 104 kph. 90 kph: 90 kph average. The 85% speed will rarely rise over 1 mph as well on a similar increase. Also the tolerance goes down when the speed limit goes up.
Classic: "It is well accepted that raising speed limits leads to increased deaths." Then why was there a drop when 2/3 of states increased their limit in 1996, and the ones who raised the limit has a higher drop in accidents and fatalities (-6% vs 0% change)? Then why did 2/3 of limit increases in BC had a drop in accidents and 2/7 remaining are the only ones that had an increase in speed? Geez that can be debunked easily.
"I don't know why more people are still in cars instead of walking, biking, or taking public transit." Oh let me see, having a car is more flexible, you can travel farther in less time, you have a family, and want a private space, you can go to the grocery store less times, and travel to places you otherwise can't in a reasonable time frame (insert forest location here).
(graph) "rural road: 30-45 mph is acceptable." WHAT? 30 is acceptable on a rural road? This is separate from a highway but still, for those in Sherwood, would you like Roy Rogers road being 40 mph? For those in Corvallis, would you like Peoria road to be 40 mph? Both are currently 55 mph when not in construction.
"Pedestrian deaths are down citywide (Portland)." Yes its true, but the crashes on the principal arteries have increased (as I've repeatedly pointed out on Division street). There are also an increase of vehicle to vehicle accidents which is not mentioned.
"All new roads should be built with pedestrian and the bicyclists in mind when going through urban areas." Goodbye new/expanded freeways. I'm actually fine with more bike/pedestrian facilities, but it shouldn't be to the detriment of the driver, who occupies non-downtown roads much more than the biker or pedestrian. Looking at you Portland road diets This is an area I praise Corvallis on.
"More deaths are on the 4 lane roads with a 35 mph limit or above." There are also more pedestrians who blindly cross there which offset that. Also distracted driving is up.
"Speed cameras work." You forgot to say "in generating revenue and speed traps."
"The 85% way doesn't work." Then why does Europe has 1/3 the traffic accidents per million miles traveled with 75 or 81 mph limits in most areas? The same 1996 example? And if you actually used the 85% like you claim to be, our interstates would be 75-80 mph, not 65 or 70.
There are more but that is going to be it from this.
Now the bills
HB 2702: This is the Portland be that I mentioned but re-filed to make it so all cities with departmental approval can do it. I'm not as opposed in it but my points last rant said. There should be more firewalls in place instead of just ODOT.
SB 558: Residential limit 20 easier to get: Minimal thoughts, I actually don't oppose 20 on residential limits only.
SB 397:No engineering study has to be done to increase/decrease a limit. Max is still 55. Only affects low population counties east of the cascades. 1. It mainly accounts for counties that make a decent revenue off speeding cameras. 2. It creates artificial speed traps. 3. Speed limits will be set too low and will be set for political purposes and not for engineering purposes. The story used was 1 market on US 20 with a 6 foot shoulder and a speed limit of 65 mph. They complain about that they feel dangerous crossing the street, and pulling out. Then allow ample room for both, cause reducing the limit won't do anything. This is when advisory speeds would be good. It also avoids consistency which is hazardous for truck drivers especially.
Side note: There is a push for SB 397 to make all sign speed limit. Fine, but I like the Oregon style Speed just fine and by law they have the same meaning. I will support speed limit though if they change the letter size from 16 inches tall to 20 inches tall if the font doesn't change (using interstate signs).
Edit (accidently clicked post): I'm fed up with Oregon on this, and your crossing the line now. If the two bills that I massively oppose passes and are signed, I will declare my intent to start a ballot measure AND post the text to my fb for friends only. I will still put it contingent on how much it would cost to do so and/or if I can get any legislators to support it.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on March 09, 2019, 11:08:08 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 09, 2019, 12:14:01 AM
http://oregon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=26076

This is a public hearing on speed limits. I responded to it on my FB page and I am posting it here because its so ridiculous. Enjoy the long read. I could've gone into greater detail on the bills.

really thought that I wouldn't need to do another rant of speed limits, especially since I posted one a few days ago, but Oregon, you really deserve it. And this will be my longest one yet.
Yesterday there was a "public hearing" on speed limit and speed limit related bills. Problem? You had to be invited to testify according to the website! Not exactly transparent.
I will quickly touch on the possible mandated WES line from Wilsonville to Salem. I'm not 100% opposed, especially if its super high speed, but then again, you can just upgrade Amtrak, and widen the freeway/get a westside bypass. I am opposed to something like the current line which is limited to 55 mph vs a 65 mph limit on I-5 or 80 mph (with stops) on Amtrak. I won't delve into it further as that gets too much into politics that I don't want to get into publicly.
1. The "informational meeting": What a joke. Just for fun, I imitated cinemasins and counted each time there was a bent fact, lie, or ridiculous statement. Sin total:
ODOT: 26
PBOT: 16
Eugene engineers: 3 (covered a lot of Portland)
Washington County: 2 (covered a lot of Portland)
Here are some highlights and my responses:
"As the speed limit goes up, the traffic speed goes up." Rarely. Data generally proves the opposite. The average speed will rise 2 mph per 5 mph raise due to the drivers who are limit watches are going faster. Here are 2 notable examples: Utah I-15 at 75: average 82 mph, at 80: average 81. BC (this was decreased later) sea to sky highway: 80 kph: average 104 kph. 90 kph: 90 kph average. The 85% speed will rarely rise over 1 mph as well on a similar increase. Also the tolerance goes down when the speed limit goes up.
Classic: "It is well accepted that raising speed limits leads to increased deaths." Then why was there a drop when 2/3 of states increased their limit in 1996, and the ones who raised the limit has a higher drop in accidents and fatalities (-6% vs 0% change)? Then why did 2/3 of limit increases in BC had a drop in accidents and 2/7 remaining are the only ones that had an increase in speed? Geez that can be debunked easily.
"I don't know why more people are still in cars instead of walking, biking, or taking public transit." Oh let me see, having a car is more flexible, you can travel farther in less time, you have a family, and want a private space, you can go to the grocery store less times, and travel to places you otherwise can't in a reasonable time frame (insert forest location here).
(graph) "rural road: 30-45 mph is acceptable." WHAT? 30 is acceptable on a rural road? This is separate from a highway but still, for those in Sherwood, would you like Roy Rogers road being 40 mph? For those in Corvallis, would you like Peoria road to be 40 mph? Both are currently 55 mph when not in construction.
"Pedestrian deaths are down citywide (Portland)." Yes its true, but the crashes on the principal arteries have increased (as I've repeatedly pointed out on Division street). There are also an increase of vehicle to vehicle accidents which is not mentioned.
"All new roads should be built with pedestrian and the bicyclists in mind when going through urban areas." Goodbye new/expanded freeways. I'm actually fine with more bike/pedestrian facilities, but it shouldn't be to the detriment of the driver, who occupies non-downtown roads much more than the biker or pedestrian. Looking at you Portland road diets This is an area I praise Corvallis on.
"More deaths are on the 4 lane roads with a 35 mph limit or above." There are also more pedestrians who blindly cross there which offset that. Also distracted driving is up.
"Speed cameras work." You forgot to say "in generating revenue and speed traps."
"The 85% way doesn't work." Then why does Europe has 1/3 the traffic accidents per million miles traveled with 75 or 81 mph limits in most areas? The same 1996 example? And if you actually used the 85% like you claim to be, our interstates would be 75-80 mph, not 65 or 70.
There are more but that is going to be it from this.
Now the bills
HB 2702: This is the Portland be that I mentioned but re-filed to make it so all cities with departmental approval can do it. I'm not as opposed in it but my points last rant said. There should be more firewalls in place instead of just ODOT.
SB 558: Residential limit 20 easier to get: Minimal thoughts, I actually don't oppose 20 on residential limits only.
SB 397:No engineering study has to be done to increase/decrease a limit. Max is still 55. Only affects low population counties east of the cascades. 1. It mainly accounts for counties that make a decent revenue off speeding cameras. 2. It creates artificial speed traps. 3. Speed limits will be set too low and will be set for political purposes and not for engineering purposes. The story used was 1 market on US 20 with a 6 foot shoulder and a speed limit of 65 mph. They complain about that they feel dangerous crossing the street, and pulling out. Then allow ample room for both, cause reducing the limit won't do anything. This is when advisory speeds would be good. It also avoids consistency which is hazardous for truck drivers especially.
Side note: There is a push for SB 397 to make all sign speed limit. Fine, but I like the Oregon style Speed just fine and by law they have the same meaning. I will support speed limit though if they change the letter size from 16 inches tall to 20 inches tall if the font doesn't change (using interstate signs).
Edit (accidently clicked post): I'm fed up with Oregon on this, and your crossing the line now. If the two bills that I massively oppose passes and are signed, I will declare my intent to start a ballot measure AND post the text to my fb for friends only. I will still put it contingent on how much it would cost to do so and/or if I can get any legislators to support it.

For Oregon speed limit issues, you just made the post of the year. 

It was illuminating to read how well the 85% rule works when used to set speed limits.  My personal story on this goes back to 1996, when my newly married to me wife and I moved from Utah to Louisiana.  As we crossed Nebraska, which had a speed limit of 75 MPH on I-80, I noticed how most people were driving 72.  If the limit had been 50 or 100, they would have still felt comfortable at that speed apparently.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on March 09, 2019, 12:56:29 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 09, 2019, 12:14:01 AM

Yesterday there was a "public hearing" on speed limit and speed limit related bills. Problem? You had to be invited to testify according to the website! Not exactly transparent.

That is generally not true. There is a sign-up sheet to speak at Legislature hearings, but you can sign up day-of.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on March 09, 2019, 01:48:23 PM


Quote from: nexus73 on March 09, 2019, 11:08:08 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 09, 2019, 12:14:01 AM
Super long post(see above)

For Oregon speed limit issues, you just made the post of the year. 

It was illuminating to read how well the 85% rule works when used to set speed limits.  My personal story on this goes back to 1996, when my newly married to me wife and I moved from Utah to Louisiana.  As we crossed Nebraska, which had a speed limit of 75 MPH on I-80, I noticed how most people were driving 72.  If the limit had been 50 or 100, they would have still felt comfortable at that speed apparently.

Rick

Thank you very much for you kind words. In response to Sun-Urbanite, that is good to know; I'm glad its normally that way but it still confuses me why this happened for this hearing. Too much information and too little time?

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on March 10, 2019, 12:07:06 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 09, 2019, 12:14:01 AM
I will quickly touch on the possible mandated WES line from Wilsonville to Salem. I'm not 100% opposed, especially if its super high speed, but then again, you can just upgrade Amtrak, and widen the freeway/get a westside bypass. I am opposed to something like the current line which is limited to 55 mph vs a 65 mph limit on I-5 or 80 mph (with stops) on Amtrak. I won't delve into it further as that gets too much into politics that I don't want to get into publicly.

WES has a mechanical top speed of 55 MPH; anything faster would require new train equipment.  And if you follow that right-of-way into the heart of Salem, you have two 10 MPH curves with homes within 20 feet of the centerline of the track.  You can rest easy knowing that it will NOT be "super high speed" or even "high speed" - it'll be 55 MPH.  Maybe they could squeeze it to 79 MPH but definitely no faster.

We'd be better scrapping WES altogether, using conventional railroad equipment, using the Union Pacific (not the Portland & Western) which has a 79 MPH speed limit TODAY, but then you have the issue of Canby-Oregon City along the Willamette River.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on March 10, 2019, 08:24:35 AM

Quote from: sp_redelectric on March 10, 2019, 12:07:06 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 09, 2019, 12:14:01 AMI will quickly touch on the possible mandated WES line from Wilsonville to Salem. I'm not 100% opposed, especially if its super high speed, but then again, you can just upgrade Amtrak, and widen the freeway/get a westside bypass. I am opposed to something like the current line which is limited to 55 mph vs a 65 mph limit on I-5 or 80 mph (with stops) on Amtrak. I won't delve into it further as that gets too much into politics that I don't want to get into publicly.

WES has a mechanical top speed of 55 MPH; anything faster would require new train equipment.  And if you follow that right-of-way into the heart of Salem, you have two 10 MPH curves with homes within 20 feet of the centerline of the track.  You can rest easy knowing that it will NOT be "super high speed" or even "high speed" - it'll be 55 MPH.  Maybe they could squeeze it to 79 MPH but definitely no faster.

We'd be better scrapping WES altogether, using conventional railroad equipment, using the Union Pacific (not the Portland & Western) which has a 79 MPH speed limit TODAY, but then you have the issue of Canby-Oregon City along the Willamette River.

I thought WES could make it to 65? But, yeah — to be truly effective, commuters on I-5 need to see that sucker blowing past them. I don't think the value ad of "not having to make that commute in your car" is enough on its own.


fixed quote ~S
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on March 10, 2019, 03:29:58 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on March 10, 2019, 08:24:35 AM

Quote from: sp_redelectric on March 10, 2019, 12:07:06 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on March 09, 2019, 12:14:01 AMI will quickly touch on the possible mandated WES line from Wilsonville to Salem. I'm not 100% opposed, especially if its super high speed, but then again, you can just upgrade Amtrak, and widen the freeway/get a westside bypass. I am opposed to something like the current line which is limited to 55 mph vs a 65 mph limit on I-5 or 80 mph (with stops) on Amtrak. I won't delve into it further as that gets too much into politics that I don't want to get into publicly.

WES has a mechanical top speed of 55 MPH; anything faster would require new train equipment.  And if you follow that right-of-way into the heart of Salem, you have two 10 MPH curves with homes within 20 feet of the centerline of the track.  You can rest easy knowing that it will NOT be "super high speed" or even "high speed" - it'll be 55 MPH.  Maybe they could squeeze it to 79 MPH but definitely no faster.

We'd be better scrapping WES altogether, using conventional railroad equipment, using the Union Pacific (not the Portland & Western) which has a 79 MPH speed limit TODAY, but then you have the issue of Canby-Oregon City along the Willamette River.

I thought WES could make it to 65? But, yeah — to be truly effective, commuters on I-5 need to see that sucker blowing past them. I don't think the value ad of "not having to make that commute in your car" is enough on its own.


fixed quote ~S
Not to mention there would likely be higher fares when compared to the normal fare of $2.50 for the longer distance. Also, there is already a Salem to Wilsonville express bus line that costs $3 a ride.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on April 21, 2019, 11:49:00 PM
1962 model of Downtown Portland with several proposed freeways, looking south towards the Marquam Bridge.

(https://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/width960/img/oregonian/photo/2015/01/14/1962-freeway-modeljpg-2ab869eeef76333d.jpg)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on April 22, 2019, 06:13:43 PM
Ooh, nice find!
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on April 22, 2019, 08:14:24 PM
The full gallery has tons of images, which I'm trying to sort and separate for a deeper dive into Portland freeway history. https://www.oregonlive.com/history/2015/01/throwback_thursday_portland_fr.html

Sadly I don't have access to The Oregonian archives, even with my Vancouver (WA) library card. Can't get a reciprocal card from Multnomah as an out-of-area resident.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on April 23, 2019, 07:02:32 AM
^^^^^^^^
Obviously pre-McCall era; the Harbor Drive arterial concept along the Willamette west bank is still alive and kicking in this rendering.  Also, it appears that the Mt. Hood (US 26/I-80N) freeway concept continued the double-deck Marquam Bridge concept further east; it would be intriguing to uncover similar renderings for that facility east of the depiction above -- particularly in regards to the "weaving" of I-80N with I-205 to return the former route to its eastward alignment toward the Gorge.   
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on April 23, 2019, 12:48:20 PM
A map showing a plan for the 205/MHF interchange:

(https://i.imgur.com/ro6k9hu.jpg)

Rendering of the MHF looking west from over the Willamette:

(https://i.imgur.com/heZO1Fp.jpg)

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 23, 2019, 05:01:56 PM
That proposed freeway paralleling US 26. Was that part of the canceled Mount Hood Freeway?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on April 23, 2019, 05:54:50 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 23, 2019, 05:01:56 PM
That proposed freeway paralleling US 26. Was that part of the canceled Mount Hood Freeway?

Yes. It was to essentially run along Division Street to about 50th, then cross over to Powell and go east from there.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on April 23, 2019, 07:35:34 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 23, 2019, 12:48:20 PM
Rendering of the MHF looking west from over the Willamette:

(https://i.imgur.com/heZO1Fp.jpg)


As someone interested in Portland but with no native knowledge, what is "the Willamette" in this context - what approximate streets am I looking at?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: ErmineNotyours on April 23, 2019, 11:02:53 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 23, 2019, 07:35:34 PM

As someone interested in Portland but with no native knowledge, what is "the Willamette" in this context - what approximate streets am I looking at?

It's from approximately this angle. (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5044434,-122.6704384,502a,35y,97.51h,73.17t/data=!3m1!1e3)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on April 24, 2019, 07:36:44 AM
I dug up a lot of info from Portland State's library back when I was taking classes. The segment from Division to Powell around 50th Ave was to be a shared alignment with the Laurelhurst Freeway (the Yellowbook alignment of I-205), ala I-35W/94 setup. If memory serves (if I can dig up the plans I copied), I-80N was going to be the outer carriageways, and I-205 the inner roadway.
Laurelhurst pushed back hard against the 52nd Ave alignment, pushing I-205 east out to 95th Ave (and 112th Ave was also considered). The Laurelhurst Freeway would have crossed the Columbia near 33rd Ave; this alignment would have also gone through Lake Oswego and crossed the Willamette near Oak Grove.

I had done a map at some point showing the various I-205 proposed alignments, but I don't know what happened to it.
In brief: Yellowbook - Roughly along Boones Ferry Rd, then through Lake Oswego, Oak Grove, and roughly north along Linwood Ave, 52nd Ave, 48th Ave or so, angling toward 33rd Ave north of Beaumont and into Vancouver. Shot down by both Lake Oswego and Laurelhurst.

Johnson Creek Freeway/112th Ave - an eastward extension of the Multnomah Expressway from I-5 in the Terwilliger Curves, decending down the hill along Taylors Ferry Rd and across the Willamette into Sellwood, and following Johnson Creek Blvd then up 112th and 102nd Aves and across the Columbia along what is now the Glenn Jackson Bridge

Willamette Falls-Oregon City/95th Ave - I-205 as built.

Interestingly enough, the Mt Hood's Division to Powell jog remained even after I-205 got pushed south and east, resulting in the proposed four level stack with I-80N/US 26. My files do show the proposed stack, but not the complex ramp braiding both north and south of Powell along I-205.

As for the Mt Hood alignments, what was selected (and later defeated) was one of three alignments: The other two included swinging south of Creston Park (42nd-46th Aves from Powell to about Center St), and tunneling under Creston Park.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Thunderbyrd316 on May 02, 2019, 08:55:14 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 23, 2019, 07:35:34 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 23, 2019, 12:48:20 PM
Rendering of the MHF looking west from over the Willamette:

(https://i.imgur.com/heZO1Fp.jpg)


As someone interested in Portland but with no native knowledge, what is "the Willamette" in this context - what approximate streets am I looking at?

In this image you are looking toward the east with the river behind the "camera". I spent a lot of time looking at this image a while back on another site and I believe that the freeway that branches off to the south is supposed to be a connection to the Ross Island Bridge and the interchange closest to the "camera" is US 99E. The oil tanks are now long gone but in the '70's two of the three still remained and could be seen just north of the Ross Island Bridge on the east side of Ore. (formerly US) 99E. This configuration would actually make sense as otherwise all that traffic would have ended up on I-5. PS, the street branching off to the SE from the spur freeway is SE Powell Blvd.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 27, 2019, 02:49:59 AM
Just found this. From the AP originally purpose to show the MAX line, but I thought I-84 was 6 lanes to I-205 since 1986 or so. Notice the right lane ends sign. Taken in 1994 (which is why there is a Speed 50 sign)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190527/ccb2cdc60506f4857e529d8e89081a0f.jpg)

SM-J737T

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on May 27, 2019, 04:51:54 AM
It's an illusion from the photo's angle -- the auxiliary lane from Sandy Blvd to Lloyd Blvd used to extend past exit one a bit before a forced merge to the next lane ahead of the 12th Ave bridge in the photo. Now the aux lane is an exit only lane to Lloyd Blvd.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 29, 2019, 01:53:03 PM
Just got a content disabled AGAIN when talking about Portland improvements to freeways. This was on the Oregonian.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190529/c8db47c611bdf31b77dfe2dc8f338274.jpg)

SM-J737T

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on May 29, 2019, 06:30:05 PM
Was your comment directly relevant to the article? The way its written, it sounds like an advertisement, which may not be permitted by the Oregonian.

There's also a couple spelling errors in your comment. Not saying this was directly an issue, but it's possible that it was the deciding factor in someone reporting your comment; someone may have though that it was spam (since spam mail often contains spelling errors).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 29, 2019, 08:47:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2019, 06:30:05 PM
Was your comment directly relevant to the article? The way its written, it sounds like an advertisement, which may not be permitted by the Oregonian.

There's also a couple spelling errors in your comment. Not saying this was directly an issue, but it's possible that it was the deciding factor in someone reporting your comment; someone may have though that it was spam (since spam mail often contains spelling errors).
The article was about Portland not using gas tax money the most efficiently, with an additional increase on the ballot in 2020. I gave my suggestion (condensed version of tier 1 of my fictional plan) on how to use it correctly and how it should be structured.

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/05/portland-failed-to-meet-some-of-its-promises-on-10-cent-gas-tax-auditors-say.html?outputType=amp

SM-J737T

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on May 29, 2019, 10:53:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2019, 06:30:05 PM
Was your comment directly relevant to the article? The way its written, it sounds like an advertisement, which may not be permitted by the Oregonian.

There's also a couple spelling errors in your comment. Not saying this was directly an issue, but it's possible that it was the deciding factor in someone reporting your comment; someone may have though that it was spam (since spam mail often contains spelling errors).

O-Live censorship is so random.  There is a censor HQ back east which handles a bunch of forums for a bunch of papers.  One complaint and POOF, there goes your post.  No one at that HQ is really reading the post and the ones associated with it to establish context.  Of course we already know that Silicon Valley is big into censoring conservative POV's on social media, which is bad enough, but when the censorship is as mindless as the type O-Live forums have, it goes beyond the pale.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 30, 2019, 03:32:08 AM
Public hearing happened recently on the HB 558 and HB 3029. One is mandatory widening to I-205 in the 4 lane segment. Another was the 20 in residential areas if cities approve. Then a lobbyist came up to testify against the I-205 widening. She claimed she wasn't but her language speaks otherwise. Her askings:

Decrease the interchange amount. I-205 is good on interchange spacing here, focus that on OR 217, I-84 and northern I-5.

Reconstruct interchanges so they take up less space. Thats going to be way too expensive for a less safe road.

More space in between cars. Actually support.

Freight only lanes. Need more info on.

Block off traffic during rush hour so freight can get through. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. Is that enough nos? That will make freight better yes, but forces 80,000 plus cars off the freeways, and they have to go somewhere.

Speed Limits 45 mph. WHAT???????? She contradicted herself too saying reduce speed limtis to 45, then said at peak times, its better to drive 45 than 60 so you don't go 10. There was not a mention of variable speed zones, so I will assume the 45 is at all times. Put another speed limit rant on Facebook. Here's what I had on this subject:

There was a lobbyist today talking about how widening lanes isn't the answer to congestion. Instead, reducing speed limits, increasing space in between and condensing interchanges is.
a. Condensing interchanges? We have no room to condense interchanges, and some are far substandard (looking at you I-84). Plus, do you know how much it is to condense every interchange? Likely around $100 billion.
b. Speed limits should be reduced. Okay when I heard this, I thought it was going to be to 55 mph on the interstates like it was in the 70s and 80s. But no, it was 45 mph on all roads. FORTY FIVE!!! How has that been working on the Bend Parkway (US 97)? Oh wait, the average speed is 55 mph, and 94% of drivers violate the speed limit (KTVZ (edit)). And 65 mph is working great as it is with a nice 20% compliance rate estimate (sarcasm intended). And no it will make congestion worse with a massive increase in accidents (Division street examples), causing traffic to slow back to 10 mph. Also, and again, drivers generally won't slow down, the 85% will stay 75 mph, and average will decrease slightly to probably 60 mph. That's a hazard for having the high range in speeds from the fastest 20% to the slowest 20% being 30-40 mph. That isn't to mention the massive increase in accidents, which I think will rise by 50% if that happens. So much for your Vision Zero Portland. And congestion will get worse. I think there will be a modest improvement if it is raised to 75 mph in rural areas (80 in eastern Oregon, but there is no congestion) and 60-75 in urban areas depending on location, and its lower cost than transit and widening the freeway.
c. Longer spaces in between cars: Its been tried educating the public on that, they won't listen, so good luck in trying. The only thing that could work is making them take the permit and drivers test every renewal.

Edit: Also from the rant but against a rep instead of this person:

6. One of the representatives said we can keep the flow of traffic smooth until electric cars become the norm. WHAT?? That has to be a joke right? Keep it smooth before and after, don't understand the kick the cars off when going all electric, that seems counter intuitive. (Yes I realize it wasn't a state rep, but was representing a city)

oregon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=26920

Skip to 56:00 for the person I'm taking about.

Somehow I didn't cuss through all that. 95 days and counting cuss free.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on May 30, 2019, 11:03:30 AM
It's okay to cuss Rex.  That is how things get done in Oregon.  Lots of 4-letter words...LOL!

I know.  I'm a native Oregonian.  Consider it your heritage.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on May 30, 2019, 11:47:25 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 30, 2019, 03:32:08 AM
Public hearing happened recently on the HB 558 and HB 3029. One is mandatory widening to I-205 in the 4 lane segment. Another was the 20 in residential areas if cities approve. Then a lobbyist came up to testify against the I-205 widening. She claimed she wasn't but her language speaks otherwise. Her askings:


She's not a lobbyist. You can easily search Oregon lobbyists, who are legally required to be lobbyists.

Every other word in the prior 40 minutes of testimony was in favor of the bill. Why are you sweating about one person's testimony?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 30, 2019, 12:07:53 PM


Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 30, 2019, 11:47:25 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 30, 2019, 03:32:08 AM
Public hearing happened recently on the HB 558 and HB 3029. One is mandatory widening to I-205 in the 4 lane segment. Another was the 20 in residential areas if cities approve. Then a lobbyist came up to testify against the I-205 widening. She claimed she wasn't but her language speaks otherwise. Her askings:


She's not a lobbyist. You can easily search Oregon lobbyists, who are legally required to be lobbyists.

Every other word in the prior 40 minutes of testimony was in favor of the bill. Why are you sweating about one person's testimony?

1. I get frustrated easily if someone is talking about speed limits and isn't correct, or is correct but thinking is flawed.
2. Yes, I know she's the only no opinion, but she doesn't recognize the second problem of seismic upgrades.
3. It wasn't but was almost a distraction to try to reduce limits.
4. I left portions of the rant out about the others opinion in support.
5. Crazy proposals always get the most attention, even from one person.

SM-J737T

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on June 03, 2019, 02:57:03 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 30, 2019, 03:32:08 AM
Freight only lanes. Need more info on.

Block off traffic during rush hour so freight can get through. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. Is that enough nos? That will make freight better yes, but forces 80,000 plus cars off the freeways, and they have to go somewhere.

I do not for the life of me understand this line of reasoning with a certain group of "advocates".  They hate freight rail for some reason (basically they hate oil trains and coal trains), but love passenger rail.  So they feel that roads should be for freight, and rail should be for passengers.

Never mind that most of Oregon's railroads would never be a suitable passenger route, and taking freight off the rails would mean a LOT more trucks on the roads (paid for by taxpayers, not private companies).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on June 03, 2019, 11:49:08 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on June 03, 2019, 02:57:03 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 30, 2019, 03:32:08 AM
Freight only lanes. Need more info on.

Block off traffic during rush hour so freight can get through. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. Is that enough nos? That will make freight better yes, but forces 80,000 plus cars off the freeways, and they have to go somewhere.

I do not for the life of me understand this line of reasoning with a certain group of "advocates".  They hate freight rail for some reason (basically they hate oil trains and coal trains), but love passenger rail.  So they feel that roads should be for freight, and rail should be for passengers.

Never mind that most of Oregon's railroads would never be a suitable passenger route, and taking freight off the rails would mean a LOT more trucks on the roads (paid for by taxpayers, not private companies).

They hate oil trains because they leak and explode. They hate coal trains because said coal is going to be burned somewhere and contribute to our little planet-altering CO2 problem.

I have to say, I've often thought freight-only lanes on 205 might be a good idea. There's a ton of volume taken by freight and those companies hate the traffic jams even more than drivers do.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on June 03, 2019, 01:08:48 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on June 03, 2019, 02:57:03 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 30, 2019, 03:32:08 AM
Freight only lanes. Need more info on.

Block off traffic during rush hour so freight can get through. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. Is that enough nos? That will make freight better yes, but forces 80,000 plus cars off the freeways, and they have to go somewhere.

I do not for the life of me understand this line of reasoning with a certain group of "advocates".  They hate freight rail for some reason (basically they hate oil trains and coal trains), but love passenger rail.  So they feel that roads should be for freight, and rail should be for passengers.

Never mind that most of Oregon's railroads would never be a suitable passenger route, and taking freight off the rails would mean a LOT more trucks on the roads (paid for by taxpayers, not private companies).
I'm pretty sure at one time tri met proposed extended WES along freight rail to Salem. Don't know how that would've worked.

SM-J737T

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on June 03, 2019, 01:18:25 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on June 03, 2019, 01:08:48 PM
I'm pretty sure at one time tri met proposed extended WES along freight rail to Salem. Don't know how that would've worked.

There's often a bill in the Legislature (this year HB 2219) to move this forward.

WES was extraordinarily cheap to build — $166 million for 14 miles. The downside, of course, is the limited daytime service. Finishing the last 25 miles to Salem wouldn't be exorbitant; the bigger question is could you get enough service to make it worthwhile.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on June 03, 2019, 03:14:41 PM
^^^^^^^^^
If I understand correctly, the tentative WES line is along the old Oregon Electric tracks (later owned by BNSF, but now owned by Genesee, the short-line conglomerate); it's primarily utilized for local service (on-line agriculture, lumber yards, etc.) rather than long-distance freight, which is primarily handled on the UP/former SP line to the east along OR 99E via Canby and Oregon City.  BTW, the line extends all the way down to Eugene via Albany (former electric interurban service, similar in concept to the old Sacramento Northern in northern CA).  If some arrangement could be made with Genesee, the line's owner, for scheduling WES over that line to avoid conflict with the sporadic freight movements, it would be considerably simpler than trying to do something over a more heavily trafficked line -- besides, the UP line currently hosts the regional Amtrak "Cascade" service as far south as Eugene. 

This may be construed as speculation -- but returning electric catenary to that line might be a long-term goal -- lower diesel particulate pollution, and the ability to employ electric MU trains -- which would render operation considerably more efficient in the process. 
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on June 29, 2019, 01:42:28 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 03, 2019, 01:18:25 PM
WES was extraordinarily cheap to build — $166 million for 14 miles.

I wouldn't call that cheap, but yes - compared to MAX light rail, it was cheap.

The problem is, WES costs $16 per rider to operate.  The POINT buses that ODOT "supports" between Portland and Eugene?  They get $0 public subsidy, and the buses are run by private companies that pay weight-mile fees, income taxes, property taxes, vehicle registration fees, etc.  The only support from ODOT is a little bit of advertising and some coordination support with other providers, which amounts to pennies.

As for running WES to Salem:

ODOT (the State of Oregon) owns the Oregon Electric District right-of-way as far south as Quinaby, on the north side of Keizer; GWI (Genesee & Wyoming Industries, the owner of the Portland & Western Railroad) only owns the track hardware sitting atop the ballast.  This is also true for the segment of the track from Wilsonville north to Tigard.  (Tigard north to Beaverton is a bit more complicated.)

P&W only has more-or-less exclusive control of the track south of Quinaby, in which they lease the track and facilities from BNSF.

I highly doubt P&W would object in any way for more passenger trains south of Wilsonville since they would get a brand new railroad track for nothing, while retaining the rights to run their freight trains on it for free - just as they do from Wilsonville to Tigard.  Basically a free government handout to a private company.  Plus, P&W has the lucrative contract to run WES Commuter Rail, so their staff get paid and the profits roll in, regardless of who is riding the train.

The real problem is TriMet has cut bus service so much, that once you get off WES there's literally nowhere to go; Cherriots bus service in Salem is limited and doesn't even run on weekends (it will start running on Saturdays in September but not Sundays).  Wilsonville's SMART does a somewhat decent job of running a bus service that is tied into WES and serves the entire city (and is free!) but also doesn't run on Sundays.  The City of Woodburn is several miles east of the OE, since it grew up around the Southern Pacific mainline.

We'd be far better served with half hourly motorcoach/bus service from Portland to Salem, which would be cheaper, faster, better...and less costly for taxpayers.  When those buses have 55 warm bodies on each bus, on each trip, then come talk to me about trains.  As it is, Amtrak Cascades between Portland and Eugene averages fewer than 90 boardings per schedule, for a train that has over 300 seats.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Hurricane Rex on July 11, 2019, 09:27:46 PM
Another day, another tolling plan: https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/07/portland-to-create-equitable-mobility-task-force-to-investigate-how-to-charge-people-to-use-local-roads.html?outputType=amp

SM-J737T

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on July 11, 2019, 11:32:57 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on June 29, 2019, 01:42:28 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on June 03, 2019, 01:18:25 PM
WES was extraordinarily cheap to build – $166 million for 14 miles.

I wouldn't call that cheap, but yes - compared to MAX light rail, it was cheap.

The problem is, WES costs $16 per rider to operate.  The POINT buses that ODOT "supports" between Portland and Eugene?  They get $0 public subsidy, and the buses are run by private companies that pay weight-mile fees, income taxes, property taxes, vehicle registration fees, etc.  The only support from ODOT is a little bit of advertising and some coordination support with other providers, which amounts to pennies.

As for running WES to Salem:

ODOT (the State of Oregon) owns the Oregon Electric District right-of-way as far south as Quinaby, on the north side of Keizer; GWI (Genesee & Wyoming Industries, the owner of the Portland & Western Railroad) only owns the track hardware sitting atop the ballast.  This is also true for the segment of the track from Wilsonville north to Tigard.  (Tigard north to Beaverton is a bit more complicated.)

P&W only has more-or-less exclusive control of the track south of Quinaby, in which they lease the track and facilities from BNSF.

I highly doubt P&W would object in any way for more passenger trains south of Wilsonville since they would get a brand new railroad track for nothing, while retaining the rights to run their freight trains on it for free - just as they do from Wilsonville to Tigard.  Basically a free government handout to a private company.  Plus, P&W has the lucrative contract to run WES Commuter Rail, so their staff get paid and the profits roll in, regardless of who is riding the train.

The real problem is TriMet has cut bus service so much, that once you get off WES there's literally nowhere to go; Cherriots bus service in Salem is limited and doesn't even run on weekends (it will start running on Saturdays in September but not Sundays).  Wilsonville's SMART does a somewhat decent job of running a bus service that is tied into WES and serves the entire city (and is free!) but also doesn't run on Sundays.  The City of Woodburn is several miles east of the OE, since it grew up around the Southern Pacific mainline.

We'd be far better served with half hourly motorcoach/bus service from Portland to Salem, which would be cheaper, faster, better...and less costly for taxpayers.  When those buses have 55 warm bodies on each bus, on each trip, then come talk to me about trains.  As it is, Amtrak Cascades between Portland and Eugene averages fewer than 90 boardings per schedule, for a train that has over 300 seats.

Given the congestion on I-5 as one approaches the PDX metro area, using buses would not work well.  They would be delayed so much!  Transit systems are like chains, only as good as their weakest link.  Make everything strong enough to handle all weather conditions, capable of handling volume, run it 24/7/365 and people will ride.  Reliable service covering a large area is the key. 

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on July 12, 2019, 12:02:20 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 11, 2019, 11:32:57 PM

Given the congestion on I-5 as one approaches the PDX metro area, using buses would not work well.  They would be delayed so much!  Transit systems are like chains, only as good as their weakest link.  Make everything strong enough to handle all weather conditions, capable of handling volume, run it 24/7/365 and people will ride.  Reliable service covering a large area is the key. 

Rick

Especially with the increasing congestion at the Boone Bridge and no reasonable way to address it. I mean, you could rebuild the Boone Bridge w/ Bus-only lanes on I-5 in the areas with the most congestion... but you're easily in the $500m-$1b range for a new Boone Bridge that doesn't really do much for congestion (even if it does improve seismic reliability and add a busway).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on July 12, 2019, 05:06:03 PM
Part of the Boone Bridge's issue is that it's literally the only way for residents of Wilsonville's Charbonneau District to get into Wilsonville and vice versa. Some buildings would have to come down, but a Willamette crossing east of Wilsonville Memorial Park connecting SW French Prarie Road and SW Wilsonville Road wouldn't be a terrible idea.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on July 12, 2019, 05:26:23 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 12, 2019, 05:06:03 PM
Part of the Boone Bridge's issue is that it's literally the only way for residents of Wilsonville's Charbonneau District to get into Wilsonville and vice versa. Some buildings would have to come down, but a Willamette crossing east of Wilsonville Memorial Park connecting SW French Prarie Road and SW Wilsonville Road wouldn't be a terrible idea.

Or something connecting Boones Ferry Road across the river... the challenge is keeping people from using it as a bypass for I-5 congestion. (Modest toll exempting local residents?) Oh and paying for it.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on July 12, 2019, 05:37:48 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 12, 2019, 05:26:23 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 12, 2019, 05:06:03 PM
Part of the Boone Bridge's issue is that it's literally the only way for residents of Wilsonville's Charbonneau District to get into Wilsonville and vice versa. Some buildings would have to come down, but a Willamette crossing east of Wilsonville Memorial Park connecting SW French Prarie Road and SW Wilsonville Road wouldn't be a terrible idea.

Or something connecting Boones Ferry Road across the river... the challenge is keeping people from using it as a bypass for I-5 congestion. (Modest toll exempting local residents?) Oh and paying for it.
Connecting Boones Ferry Road on both sides of the river would mean taking out the marina on the south bank, and Boones Ferry Park on the north one, and there could also be proximity issues with the rail bridge just to the west. Any crossings to the west of there defeats the purpose of being a local connection for Charbonneau and Wilsonville.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Thunderbyrd316 on July 20, 2019, 10:00:46 PM
   I was on my way to work this morning when I came upon an interesting sight. (Note that I have been using 224 - 99E all this week because of the closure of the US 30 By-Pass westbound exit 23B but took 205 today because it was Saturday and knew I would not be late.)

   Well right between the Burnside and Glisan Street over-crossings sticking out of the ground on the right shoulder was part of what looks to be Oregon's first "tube" style sign gantry. (And of a fairly decent diameter too.) Then I saw some more on the ground off the shoulder up by the 84 East exit (22). Coming home this afternoon I saw several more, including one all the way down by Johnson Creek.

   The first time I personally recall seeing this style of gantry was in California on the 41 freeway in Fresno in the '80's though I saw one in a 1977 episode of CHiPs a while back that I somehow missed in the past. They are common in Utah and Colorado (and several other states) but they are pretty rare in Washington and until today I had NEVER seen one in Oregon.

   Since I happen to love this style of gantry I am happy Oregon is finally getting on board with these. Some good news out of this state for a change! (Though I do not really care for the grey color.)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on July 24, 2019, 12:52:19 AM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on July 20, 2019, 10:00:46 PM
Well right between the Burnside and Glisan Street over-crossings sticking out of the ground on the right shoulder was part of what looks to be Oregon's first "tube" style sign gantry.

Not only did I see a number of them lying on the ground along I-205 southbound, but the first one has been constructed and is in place on Airport Way eastbound from the airport to I-205.

I noticed quite a bit of new signage on Airport Way and in typical Port fashion there is no consistency...the new signs are of a very dark, almost navy blue color, and use yet a different typeface than the previous signs.  (At least it's not that hideous font they were using for awhile...I want to say Futura Narrow?) 
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2019, 12:25:49 AM
Just got back from my first of two visits to Oregon this most.  The first trip was center around the northern part of the State which gave me an opportunity to grab a ton of photos and get some road observations:

Portland Area

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGEnQyB

-  I got around to a lot of the city and at least had a visual on almost every bridge near downtown on the Willamette River.  In particular I really liked the Vista Bridge and Vista Ridge Tunnels.  I did cross the Steel Bridge and Marquam Bridge by car.  I liked the VMS signage on all the major freeways which showed the travel times, I kind of wish that there was more of that in California (the only place I've seen it was in the Bay Area).  I did end up driving portions of; I-5, I-84, I-205, US 26, US 30, I-405, OR 99W, OR 99E and OR 217 while in Portland.  I'll refrain from talking on the 50-55 MPH freeway speed limits, I think the stance on that being a negative in most instances is close to universal at this point.


US 26 Sunset Highway

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGF6Ds9

-  The first big drive out of Portland was on US 26 west out of downtown Portland to US 101 on the Sunset Highway.  As noted above the Vista Ridge Tunnels are a nice feature that adds to the scenery.  I thought US 26 was pretty well managed west of the Portland Area which worked out despite it being labor day weekend.  I get the sense there is probably a lot of interesting alignment history to dig into with the Sunset Highway.


US 101 north Cannon Beach over the Washington State Line

-  I did check out the original alignment of US 101 in Cannon Beach while stopping at the namesake beach.  I headed north through Seaside which was an awful bottleneck in traffic and through Astoria over the Astoria Bridge into Washington briefly.  I've been wanting to cross the Astoria Bridge for quite some time which I'm glad to have finally gotten off my to-do list.


US 30/Columbia River Highway from Astoria to Portland

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGGxoEo

-  I didn't want to double back to US 26 so I opted for US 30 on the Columbia River Highway instead.  While certainly not as scenic as the portion of the older Columbia River Highway in the Columbia River Gorge I wasn't disappointed by the route between Astoria and Portland.  The speed limits on US 30 for most part (especially when it expands to four lanes) could really use a boost, but that's par for the course in Oregon. 


Historic Columbia River Highway/Old US 30

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGGtqod

-  I was able to sneak in a portion of the Historic Columbia River Highway/Old US 30 from Lewis & Clark State Recreation Site east to Bridal Veil Road.  Obviously the overlook at Crown Point at the Vista House is the name attraction since it overlooks the Columbia River Gorge.  From what I had a chance to drive and explore I was really impressed what the older route of US 30 had to offer.  I'm to understand that the Historic Columbia River Highway carries the hidden designation of OR 100, does anyone have anything to back that up aside from a Wikipedia page citation?

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on September 04, 2019, 12:44:29 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2019, 12:25:49 AM
Just got back from my first of two visits to Oregon this most.  The first trip was center around the northern part of the State which gave me an opportunity to grab a ton of photos and get some road observations:

Portland Area

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGEnQyB

-  I got around to a lot of the city and at least had a visual on almost every bridge near downtown on the Willamette River.  In particular I really liked the Vista Bridge and Vista Ridge Tunnels.  I did cross the Steel Bridge and Marquam Bridge by car.  I liked the VMS signage on all the major freeways which showed the travel times, I kind of wish that there was more of that in California (the only place I've seen it was in the Bay Area).  I did end up driving portions of; I-5, I-84, I-205, US 26, US 30, I-405, OR 99W, OR 99E and OR 217 while in Portland.  I'll refrain from talking on the 50-55 MPH freeway speed limits, I think the stance on that being a negative in most instances is close to universal at this point.


US 26 Sunset Highway

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGF6Ds9

-  The first big drive out of Portland was on US 26 west out of downtown Portland to US 101 on the Sunset Highway.  As noted above the Vista Ridge Tunnels are a nice feature that adds to the scenery.  I thought US 26 was pretty well managed west of the Portland Area which worked out despite it being labor day weekend.  I get the sense there is probably a lot of interesting alignment history to dig into with the Sunset Highway.


US 101 north Cannon Beach over the Washington State Line

-  I did check out the original alignment of US 101 in Cannon Beach while stopping at the namesake beach.  I headed north through Seaside which was an awful bottleneck in traffic and through Astoria over the Astoria Bridge into Washington briefly.  I've been wanting to cross the Astoria Bridge for quite some time which I'm glad to have finally gotten off my to-do list.


US 30/Columbia River Highway from Astoria to Portland

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGGxoEo

-  I didn't want to double back to US 26 so I opted for US 30 on the Columbia River Highway instead.  While certainly not as scenic as the portion of the older Columbia River Highway in the Columbia River Gorge I wasn't disappointed by the route between Astoria and Portland.  The speed limits on US 30 for most part (especially when it expands to four lanes) could really use a boost, but that's par for the course in Oregon. 


Historic Columbia River Highway/Old US 30

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGGtqod

-  I was able to sneak in a portion of the Historic Columbia River Highway/Old US 30 from Lewis & Clark State Recreation Site east to Bridal Veil Road.  Obviously the overlook at Crown Point at the Vista House is the name attraction since it overlooks the Columbia River Gorge.  From what I had a chance to drive and explore I was really impressed what the older route of US 30 had to offer.  I'm to understand that the Historic Columbia River Highway carries the hidden designation of OR 100, does anyone have anything to back that up aside from a Wikipedia page citation?



Were you able to see the metro expressway sections of 99E?  The one by Milwaukie is rather scenic when it goes through a corridor of trees.  On the north end of 99E you get a great look at how old expressways were designed.  Alas, once the light rail was put in on what used to be 99W in north Portland, the character of this highway changed completely.

For more vista views, going to the west side of Mt. Tabor on a clear day lets one see the contrast between nature (the West Hills) and the works of man (downtown, bridges).  Nature's massiveness really comes through.  You also get the "sea of trees" effect from the residential neighborhood below this now extinct volcano, the only one in any American city.

Gotta love the Vista House view.  The only way to see the Gorge better is to fly on a plane.  If you go back to PDX, take Washington SR 14 and find the tall (800 feet) large rock spire to climb.  Looking down you will see the large power towers getting shrunk by the altitude.  I climbed the trail on this rock back in 1973 or 1974.  Not up for it today though...LOL!

Seaside is a congested mess.  ODOT offered to build a bypass years ago.  Seaside turned it down.  Bad move!

Glad you got to see what Astoria looks like from the other side of the Columbia.  Had you continued exploring the SW Washington coast, you would have been amazed at the amount of development present.  The map makes one think there is not much there.  I could not believe how set up that area is!  Of course it will all be colored gone when the Big One hits.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on September 04, 2019, 05:40:24 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 04, 2019, 12:44:29 AM
Seaside is a congested mess.  ODOT offered to build a bypass years ago.  Seaside turned it down.  Bad move!

Seaside is a mess in general. A tourist area, on two sand spits, guaranteed to be obliterated once the inevitable Northwest earthquake occurs — likely with no access to higher ground given that the bridges will fail.

If you ask me, they should just be bought out & started over about 50 feet uphill...

Anyway, Seaside, like Lincoln City, *does* have a bypass — Avenue S / Wahanna Road in the former's case, Devils Lake Road in the latter's case.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on September 04, 2019, 06:18:14 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on September 04, 2019, 05:40:24 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 04, 2019, 12:44:29 AM
Seaside is a congested mess.  ODOT offered to build a bypass years ago.  Seaside turned it down.  Bad move!

Seaside is a mess in general. A tourist area, on two sand spits, guaranteed to be obliterated once the inevitable Northwest earthquake occurs – likely with no access to higher ground given that the bridges will fail.

If you ask me, they should just be bought out & started over about 50 feet uphill…

Anyway, Seaside, like Lincoln City, *does* have a bypass – Avenue S / Wahanna Road in the former's case, Devils Lake Road in the latter's case.

That would be strictly local knowledge.  There are no signs indicating a bypass exists.  Oh well.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 04, 2019, 07:00:08 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2019, 12:25:49 AM
I'll refrain from talking on the 50-55 MPH freeway speed limits, I think the stance on that being a negative in most instances is close to universal at this point.
Is that enforced much? I would imagine police giving more leeway. How fast did traffic move when it was in free flow?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2019, 07:04:24 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 04, 2019, 07:00:08 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2019, 12:25:49 AM
I'll refrain from talking on the 50-55 MPH freeway speed limits, I think the stance on that being a negative in most instances is close to universal at this point.
Is that enforced much? I would imagine police giving more leeway. How fast did traffic move when it was in free flow?

I didn't get a good read on it.  I didn't see much in the way of highway patrol aside from one officer on US 30.  The traffic moved incredibly slow even when there was not much reason to do so.  62 MPH had me blowing the doors off of most traffic.  It probably didn't help I was in a black Dodge Charger, I got the feeling a lot of people were thinking I was a patrol vehicle given how a lot of people slowed down when I approached. 
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2019, 08:40:16 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 04, 2019, 12:44:29 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2019, 12:25:49 AM
Just got back from my first of two visits to Oregon this most.  The first trip was center around the northern part of the State which gave me an opportunity to grab a ton of photos and get some road observations:

Portland Area

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGEnQyB

-  I got around to a lot of the city and at least had a visual on almost every bridge near downtown on the Willamette River.  In particular I really liked the Vista Bridge and Vista Ridge Tunnels.  I did cross the Steel Bridge and Marquam Bridge by car.  I liked the VMS signage on all the major freeways which showed the travel times, I kind of wish that there was more of that in California (the only place I've seen it was in the Bay Area).  I did end up driving portions of; I-5, I-84, I-205, US 26, US 30, I-405, OR 99W, OR 99E and OR 217 while in Portland.  I'll refrain from talking on the 50-55 MPH freeway speed limits, I think the stance on that being a negative in most instances is close to universal at this point.


US 26 Sunset Highway

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGF6Ds9

-  The first big drive out of Portland was on US 26 west out of downtown Portland to US 101 on the Sunset Highway.  As noted above the Vista Ridge Tunnels are a nice feature that adds to the scenery.  I thought US 26 was pretty well managed west of the Portland Area which worked out despite it being labor day weekend.  I get the sense there is probably a lot of interesting alignment history to dig into with the Sunset Highway.


US 101 north Cannon Beach over the Washington State Line

-  I did check out the original alignment of US 101 in Cannon Beach while stopping at the namesake beach.  I headed north through Seaside which was an awful bottleneck in traffic and through Astoria over the Astoria Bridge into Washington briefly.  I've been wanting to cross the Astoria Bridge for quite some time which I'm glad to have finally gotten off my to-do list.


US 30/Columbia River Highway from Astoria to Portland

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGGxoEo

-  I didn't want to double back to US 26 so I opted for US 30 on the Columbia River Highway instead.  While certainly not as scenic as the portion of the older Columbia River Highway in the Columbia River Gorge I wasn't disappointed by the route between Astoria and Portland.  The speed limits on US 30 for most part (especially when it expands to four lanes) could really use a boost, but that's par for the course in Oregon. 


Historic Columbia River Highway/Old US 30

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGGtqod

-  I was able to sneak in a portion of the Historic Columbia River Highway/Old US 30 from Lewis & Clark State Recreation Site east to Bridal Veil Road.  Obviously the overlook at Crown Point at the Vista House is the name attraction since it overlooks the Columbia River Gorge.  From what I had a chance to drive and explore I was really impressed what the older route of US 30 had to offer.  I'm to understand that the Historic Columbia River Highway carries the hidden designation of OR 100, does anyone have anything to back that up aside from a Wikipedia page citation?



Were you able to see the metro expressway sections of 99E?  The one by Milwaukie is rather scenic when it goes through a corridor of trees.  On the north end of 99E you get a great look at how old expressways were designed.  Alas, once the light rail was put in on what used to be 99W in north Portland, the character of this highway changed completely.

For more vista views, going to the west side of Mt. Tabor on a clear day lets one see the contrast between nature (the West Hills) and the works of man (downtown, bridges).  Nature's massiveness really comes through.  You also get the "sea of trees" effect from the residential neighborhood below this now extinct volcano, the only one in any American city.

Gotta love the Vista House view.  The only way to see the Gorge better is to fly on a plane.  If you go back to PDX, take Washington SR 14 and find the tall (800 feet) large rock spire to climb.  Looking down you will see the large power towers getting shrunk by the altitude.  I climbed the trail on this rock back in 1973 or 1974.  Not up for it today though...LOL!

Seaside is a congested mess.  ODOT offered to build a bypass years ago.  Seaside turned it down.  Bad move!

Glad you got to see what Astoria looks like from the other side of the Columbia.  Had you continued exploring the SW Washington coast, you would have been amazed at the amount of development present.  The map makes one think there is not much there.  I could not believe how set up that area is!  Of course it will all be colored gone when the Big One hits.

Rick

I actually was on very little of 99E, I mainly used it as a short cut to get out of downtown eastward.

Speaking of views I did make it up to Rocky Butte near the junction of I-205/I-84.  There was some really decent views of the Glenn L. Jackson Memorial Bridge on I-205 but we were there more for the view of Mount Hood.  The Tunnel on Rocky Butte Road was a nice surprise given it is part of a 360 circle.

For what its worth I'd really like to try the entire Historic Columbia River Highway east to The Dalles the next time I'm in the area.  Aside from scenic route there was a lot of stuff that I like such as hiking and viewing old infrastructure like the Oneonta Tunnel.

Seaside was probably the least favorite placed we stopped at.  The community had that "Pismo Beach" feel to it which isn't exactly what any of us wanted.  Parking was a pain in the ass and it was obviously crowded given it was a holiday weekend.  At least you could find space to be somewhat alone in Cannon Beach and Astoria just seemed chilled out in general.  Astoria was of interest for me given that I wanted to see the older terminus point for US 30 in downtown.  We did manage a couple photos of the Goonies House from a distance (which wasn't my idea).

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on September 04, 2019, 11:19:16 PM
Next time to see Mt. Hood, take US 26 to the Depression-era massive in size Timberline Lodge.  Might as well see the mountain up close and personal!  Besides, you get your chance to see the Boring Oregon City BGS...LOL!

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 05, 2019, 12:04:33 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 04, 2019, 11:19:16 PM
Next time to see Mt. Hood, take US 26 to the Depression-era massive in size Timberline Lodge.  Might as well see the mountain up close and personal!  Besides, you get your chance to see the Boring Oregon City BGS...LOL!

Rick

Either way it will be hard to beat my photo from 2018 when I fly by:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/897/41784562354_ffd84e8c1c_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26EmNCS)0 (https://flic.kr/p/26EmNCS) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

I would like to track down parts of the Barlow Road, hiking Lolo Pass (just off screen in the power line track above) sounds like something up my alley.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on September 05, 2019, 12:44:32 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 05, 2019, 12:04:33 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on September 04, 2019, 11:19:16 PM
Next time to see Mt. Hood, take US 26 to the Depression-era massive in size Timberline Lodge.  Might as well see the mountain up close and personal!  Besides, you get your chance to see the Boring Oregon City BGS...LOL!

Rick

Either way it will be hard to beat my photo from 2018 when I fly by:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/897/41784562354_ffd84e8c1c_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26EmNCS)0 (https://flic.kr/p/26EmNCS) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

I would like to track down parts of the Barlow Road, hiking Lolo Pass (just off screen in the power line track above) sounds like something up my alley.

Being two miles away is a superlative view too.  Once you see it you will know why so many people die trying to climb the mountain.  It looks so easy when you are at the lodge!  Those looks are deceiving.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on October 03, 2019, 11:01:20 PM
Come check out the Gallon House Bridge, Oregon's oldest covered bridge in continuous use. The name has quite the history attached to it...
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/10/gallon-house-bridge.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/10/gallon-house-bridge.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 14, 2019, 12:36:40 AM
I found a 1915 promotional guide by the Portland Chamber of Commerce regarding the Columbia River Highway.  Suffice to say the historic photos of the Columbia River Highway in the 1910s make it a worthwhile document to look at:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~299051~90070118:Columbia-Highway-America-s-Premier-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:oregon%20highway;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=10&trs=28
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: bing101 on December 24, 2019, 04:14:48 PM

Oregon DOT is in the process of renovating the I-105 Bridge.

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on December 24, 2019, 05:59:31 PM
Quote from: bing101 on December 24, 2019, 04:14:48 PM

Oregon DOT is in the process of renovating the I-105 Bridge.



Do you know when the bridge project will be completed?

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on January 20, 2020, 07:29:03 PM
I had the opportunity to take US 20 across the High Desert in Central and Eastern Oregon. Here's my take on the highway.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/01/us-20-through-oregons-high-desert.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/01/us-20-through-oregons-high-desert.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on January 20, 2020, 10:41:27 PM
Last summer saw my best friend and I take both US 20 and US 26 in eastern Oregon.  The winner for Best Highway went to US 26.  Better scenery and more variety plus Burns sucks rutabagas for places to eat while John Day surprisingly excelled in that department.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on January 21, 2020, 06:21:36 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 20, 2020, 10:41:27 PM
Last summer saw my best friend and I take both US 20 and US 26 in eastern Oregon.  The winner for Best Highway went to US 26.  Better scenery and more variety plus Burns sucks rutabagas for places to eat while John Day surprisingly excelled in that department.

Rick

I took US 26 across central and eastern Oregon years ago and remember it being a scenic drive. There wasn't much for places to eat in Burns or Hines (I made a rare-for-me stop at McDonald's in Hines), so I may have to agree with that sentiment. Still, US 20 in eastern Oregon has its charm, and for me being from the Northeast, it's an interesting change of pace.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: ClassicHasClass on January 21, 2020, 03:03:32 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 20, 2020, 10:41:27 PM
Last summer saw my best friend and I take both US 20 and US 26 in eastern Oregon.  The winner for Best Highway went to US 26.  Better scenery and more variety plus Burns sucks rutabagas for places to eat while John Day surprisingly excelled in that department.

Rick

As someone approaching those towns from US 395, I actually thought there was a little more in Burns, personally (and I've spent the night there several times). As it happens we ended up eating at DQ in both of them though :)

For scenery, yes, US 26 is unquestionably better. US 20 from Bend to Burns can be rather dreary.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on January 21, 2020, 10:09:31 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on January 21, 2020, 03:03:32 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 20, 2020, 10:41:27 PM
Last summer saw my best friend and I take both US 20 and US 26 in eastern Oregon.  The winner for Best Highway went to US 26.  Better scenery and more variety plus Burns sucks rutabagas for places to eat while John Day surprisingly excelled in that department.

Rick

As someone approaching those towns from US 395, I actually thought there was a little more in Burns, personally (and I've spent the night there several times). As it happens we ended up eating at DQ in both of them though :)

For scenery, yes, US 26 is unquestionably better. US 20 from Bend to Burns can be rather dreary.

There was a pair of nice upscale restaurants in John Day.  That is two more than I expected!  Also as a surprise, the one my friend and I ate at had catfish on the menu.  How often does one see that anywhere in Oregon?

Burns is a foodie desert in the High Desert in comparison.  DQ does not count as good fare in my book.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on January 22, 2020, 01:03:20 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2020, 10:09:31 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on January 21, 2020, 03:03:32 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 20, 2020, 10:41:27 PM
Last summer saw my best friend and I take both US 20 and US 26 in eastern Oregon.  The winner for Best Highway went to US 26.  Better scenery and more variety plus Burns sucks rutabagas for places to eat while John Day surprisingly excelled in that department.

Rick

As someone approaching those towns from US 395, I actually thought there was a little more in Burns, personally (and I've spent the night there several times). As it happens we ended up eating at DQ in both of them though :)

For scenery, yes, US 26 is unquestionably better. US 20 from Bend to Burns can be rather dreary.

There was a pair of nice upscale restaurants in John Day.  That is two more than I expected!  Also as a surprise, the one my friend and I ate at had catfish on the menu.  How often does one see that anywhere in Oregon?

Burns is a foodie desert in the High Desert in comparison.  DQ does not count as good fare in my book.

Rick
https://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=restaurant&find_loc=burns%2C+oregon&ns=1
would suggest that you just weren't looking hard enough.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on January 23, 2020, 09:39:49 PM
The Short Covered Bridge in Foster, Oregon is anything but short, plus you can drive across it, or to it from US 20.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/01/short-covered-bridge.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/01/short-covered-bridge.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on January 23, 2020, 10:33:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2020, 01:03:20 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2020, 10:09:31 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on January 21, 2020, 03:03:32 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 20, 2020, 10:41:27 PM
Last summer saw my best friend and I take both US 20 and US 26 in eastern Oregon.  The winner for Best Highway went to US 26.  Better scenery and more variety plus Burns sucks rutabagas for places to eat while John Day surprisingly excelled in that department.

Rick

As someone approaching those towns from US 395, I actually thought there was a little more in Burns, personally (and I've spent the night there several times). As it happens we ended up eating at DQ in both of them though :)

For scenery, yes, US 26 is unquestionably better. US 20 from Bend to Burns can be rather dreary.

There was a pair of nice upscale restaurants in John Day.  That is two more than I expected!  Also as a surprise, the one my friend and I ate at had catfish on the menu.  How often does one see that anywhere in Oregon?

Burns is a foodie desert in the High Desert in comparison.  DQ does not count as good fare in my book.

Rick
https://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=restaurant&find_loc=burns%2C+oregon&ns=1
would suggest that you just weren't looking hard enough.

Better than Yelp is doing what my friend and I did.  We asked the locals and looked over the town to see what was available.  It turned out to not be much.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on January 24, 2020, 12:05:31 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 23, 2020, 10:33:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2020, 01:03:20 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2020, 10:09:31 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on January 21, 2020, 03:03:32 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 20, 2020, 10:41:27 PM
Last summer saw my best friend and I take both US 20 and US 26 in eastern Oregon.  The winner for Best Highway went to US 26.  Better scenery and more variety plus Burns sucks rutabagas for places to eat while John Day surprisingly excelled in that department.

Rick

As someone approaching those towns from US 395, I actually thought there was a little more in Burns, personally (and I've spent the night there several times). As it happens we ended up eating at DQ in both of them though :)

For scenery, yes, US 26 is unquestionably better. US 20 from Bend to Burns can be rather dreary.

There was a pair of nice upscale restaurants in John Day.  That is two more than I expected!  Also as a surprise, the one my friend and I ate at had catfish on the menu.  How often does one see that anywhere in Oregon?

Burns is a foodie desert in the High Desert in comparison.  DQ does not count as good fare in my book.

Rick
https://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=restaurant&find_loc=burns%2C+oregon&ns=1
would suggest that you just weren't looking hard enough.

Better than Yelp is doing what my friend and I did.  We asked the locals and looked over the town to see what was available.  It turned out to not be much.

Rick
I would try any number of those local places that aren't chains.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on January 24, 2020, 10:12:15 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 24, 2020, 12:05:31 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 23, 2020, 10:33:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2020, 01:03:20 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 21, 2020, 10:09:31 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on January 21, 2020, 03:03:32 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 20, 2020, 10:41:27 PM
Last summer saw my best friend and I take both US 20 and US 26 in eastern Oregon.  The winner for Best Highway went to US 26.  Better scenery and more variety plus Burns sucks rutabagas for places to eat while John Day surprisingly excelled in that department.

Rick

As someone approaching those towns from US 395, I actually thought there was a little more in Burns, personally (and I've spent the night there several times). As it happens we ended up eating at DQ in both of them though :)

For scenery, yes, US 26 is unquestionably better. US 20 from Bend to Burns can be rather dreary.

There was a pair of nice upscale restaurants in John Day.  That is two more than I expected!  Also as a surprise, the one my friend and I ate at had catfish on the menu.  How often does one see that anywhere in Oregon?

Burns is a foodie desert in the High Desert in comparison.  DQ does not count as good fare in my book.

Rick
https://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=restaurant&find_loc=burns%2C+oregon&ns=1
would suggest that you just weren't looking hard enough.

Better than Yelp is doing what my friend and I did.  We asked the locals and looked over the town to see what was available.  It turned out to not be much.

Rick
I would try any number of those local places that aren't chains.

We avoid chains. 

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on January 28, 2020, 05:25:09 PM
You've inspired me. I've made sure that my upcoming California trip will include a night in Burns and I'll see what I find to eat.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: corco on February 04, 2020, 06:17:19 PM
Burns sucks though - I've been to the Pine Room and it was fully adequate middle of nowhere food. John Day is way better
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Rothman on February 04, 2020, 07:38:01 PM
Quote from: corco on February 04, 2020, 06:17:19 PM
Burns sucks though - I've been to the Pine Room and it was fully adequate middle of nowhere food. John Day is way better
My parents recently volunteered at the Malheur Refuge and were suprised how many locals were angry with the armed takeover.  They liked Burns.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: corco on February 04, 2020, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2020, 07:38:01 PM
Quote from: corco on February 04, 2020, 06:17:19 PM
Burns sucks though - I've been to the Pine Room and it was fully adequate middle of nowhere food. John Day is way better
My parents recently volunteered at the Malheur Refuge and were suprised how many locals were angry with the armed takeover.  They liked Burns.

Interesting - at a random bar in Burns a couple years ago that was exactly the opposite of my experience
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Rothman on February 04, 2020, 09:16:45 PM
Quote from: corco on February 04, 2020, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2020, 07:38:01 PM
Quote from: corco on February 04, 2020, 06:17:19 PM
Burns sucks though - I've been to the Pine Room and it was fully adequate middle of nowhere food. John Day is way better
My parents recently volunteered at the Malheur Refuge and were suprised how many locals were angry with the armed takeover.  They liked Burns.

Interesting - at a random bar in Burns a couple years ago that was exactly the opposite of my experience
Interesting indeed, as my parents were there for months rather than a single bar experience.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on February 05, 2020, 12:48:25 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2020, 09:16:45 PM
Quote from: corco on February 04, 2020, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2020, 07:38:01 PM
Quote from: corco on February 04, 2020, 06:17:19 PM
Burns sucks though - I've been to the Pine Room and it was fully adequate middle of nowhere food. John Day is way better
My parents recently volunteered at the Malheur Refuge and were suprised how many locals were angry with the armed takeover.  They liked Burns.

Interesting - at a random bar in Burns a couple years ago that was exactly the opposite of my experience
Interesting indeed, as my parents were there for months rather than a single bar experience.

someone with enough experience at pub-crawling can learn the entire story of a city in just one night. At the other end of the spectrum, you can live as a hermit for twenty years.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Rothman on February 05, 2020, 06:28:53 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 05, 2020, 12:48:25 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2020, 09:16:45 PM
Quote from: corco on February 04, 2020, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2020, 07:38:01 PM
Quote from: corco on February 04, 2020, 06:17:19 PM
Burns sucks though - I've been to the Pine Room and it was fully adequate middle of nowhere food. John Day is way better
My parents recently volunteered at the Malheur Refuge and were suprised how many locals were angry with the armed takeover.  They liked Burns.

Interesting - at a random bar in Burns a couple years ago that was exactly the opposite of my experience
Interesting indeed, as my parents were there for months rather than a single bar experience.

someone with enough experience at pub-crawling can learn the entire story of a city in just one night. At the other end of the spectrum, you can live as a hermit for twenty years.

Meh, not sure about the former (can't think of any place I've lived in where one bar would provide representative of the community -- in fact, more examples to the opposite come to mind), but regarding the latter, my parents weren't hermits and attended various community functions (of which there were more than you'd think in that dinky place).  It seemed to be a lively little town from their description.

No town is monolithic, either, however small.  From their observations, they were just surprised by the prevalent negative attitudes towards Ammon Bundy, given the stereotypes one associates with rural western towns.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Tarkus on February 26, 2020, 05:09:53 AM
Regarding Burns, the previous mayor (who was in office at the time of the occupation) coincidentally happens to be a somewhat distant cousin of mine--I believe he's my fourth cousin, once removed.  Haven't ever met him, actually, but the last time I visited, I learned he was pretty popular in town, and was against the Bundy occupation.

Onto an interesting highway-related thing: I was browsing Washington County's site, and reading about their plans to fix the mess that is Cornelius Pass Road at Germantown and Old Cornelius Pass Roads.  (BTW, they're installing a signal at Cornelius Pass/Old Cornelius Pass, and turning the short little bit of Germantown between the two into a one-way slip lane sort of thing).  The fact sheet here (https://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/TransportationProjects/upload/100363-CPG-Fast-Facts-ERP.pdf) noted something that I had heard rumored since 2014, but was not sure if it would ever come to pass, but apparently, it did in 2017 HB2017 (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2017/Enrolled) (see Section 134(3)(d)).

Apparently, once this project and the other work on the Multnomah County segment are done, Cornelius Pass Road between US-26 and US-30 is going to be transferred to ODOT.  This means that, presumably, it's going to get a highway number, at least internally--whether or not it actually gets signed as a numbered route is another matter entirely.  Based on the county-based internal highway numbering system (which is where the mostly unsigned post-2002 route numbers originate), it would probably end up being somewhere in the 140s, since that's the range for Washington County.  145, IIRC, is the next available number.

Whether or not it'd be considered to act as an extension of another route is another interesting question.  On the secondary 200-series route grid, for north-south routes, it's right in between the termini of OR-219 and OR-217.  Just to engage in a little fun speculation, OR-217 does terminate at US-26 as it is, so while I'd consider it unlikely, it's not completely implausible that they could send it up Cornelius Pass, and have a seven-mile-long multiplex.  OR-219, however, doesn't go any farther north than OR-8 at the moment (S 1st and Baseline).  In theory, it could be continued up 1st/Glencoe to US-26 in North Plains--that is all city/county, but that doesn't necessarily preclude it (see OR-210, OR-10, and OR-8 still being signed--albeit not all that well--along segments under Washington County control), and it'd be a bit more consistent in terms of the type of route (a predominantly 2-lane road, rather than a freeway).  And the multiplex would be two miles shorter.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on March 26, 2020, 04:59:00 AM
Quote from: Tarkus on February 26, 2020, 05:09:53 AM
Apparently, once this project and the other work on the Multnomah County segment are done, Cornelius Pass Road between US-26 and US-30 is going to be transferred to ODOT.  This means that, presumably, it's going to get a highway number, at least internally--whether or not it actually gets signed as a numbered route is another matter entirely.  Based on the county-based internal highway numbering system (which is where the mostly unsigned post-2002 route numbers originate), it would probably end up being somewhere in the 140s, since that's the range for Washington County.  145, IIRC, is the next available number.

It's also possible that this could be a Multnomah County route. Oregon traditionally mileposts its north-south highways with Mile 0 at its northern terminus, which in this case would be US-30. Assuming ODOT isn't going to recycle numbers when it doesn't have to, the next available number would be 126.

Or... they could do like the Sunrise Expressway and give it a primary number like 76.

I suppose we'll see which one it is when the dust settles.

I presume that it would also get the name Cornelius Pass Highway.

QuoteWhether or not it'd be considered to act as an extension of another route is another interesting question.  On the secondary 200-series route grid, for north-south routes, it's right in between the termini of OR-219 and OR-217.  Just to engage in a little fun speculation, OR-217 does terminate at US-26 as it is, so while I'd consider it unlikely, it's not completely implausible that they could send it up Cornelius Pass, and have a seven-mile-long multiplex.  OR-219, however, doesn't go any farther north than OR-8 at the moment (S 1st and Baseline).  In theory, it could be continued up 1st/Glencoe to US-26 in North Plains--that is all city/county, but that doesn't necessarily preclude it (see OR-210, OR-10, and OR-8 still being signed--albeit not all that well--along segments under Washington County control), and it'd be a bit more consistent in terms of the type of route (a predominantly 2-lane road, rather than a freeway).  And the multiplex would be two miles shorter.

Another more-direct route between the two could utilize SE 10th Ave and NE Cornell Rd. between Hillsboro and Cornelius Pass Rd. This would require a multiplex of OR-8 for 0.8 miles on the western/southern end and just under a mile of either Hillsboro or Washington County owned Cornelius Pass Rd. on the eastern/northern end. Here is a map showing both routings, the "Glencoe Routing" in green and the "Cornell Routing" in blue with 217 in red (click image for larger version):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.beaverstateroads.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F03%2F217-219-cornelius-pass-small.jpg&hash=cd966d69ddcc22df65857f0365e31fe601237924) (http://blog.beaverstateroads.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/217-219-cornelius-pass.jpg)

The Cornell Routing would allow greater Hillsboro to be served by a state route, albeit one on city and county streets. It's a more effective means of reaching Cornelius Pass coming from existing OR-219 or OR-8. It's also shorter, coming in at 6 miles vs. 10.7 miles for the Glencoe Routing. The only issue I see (well, aside from the "non-existent signage on some locally-maintained state routes" one) is that some intersections may need to be reconfigured or rebuilt somehow to move the flow of traffic along this new corridor.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on March 26, 2020, 11:13:48 PM
I wouldn't count on Oregon following the old county-based system for the numbering of the Cornelius Pass Highway, based on recent history.

Somewhat recently, when ODOT merged the North Umpqua Hwy #73 and East Diamond Lake Hwy #425, it was re-christened North Umpqua Hwy #138 to match its Route #, even though Hwy 138 would be in Tillamook County under the old county-based numbering system.  In that system, it would either be in the 230's (Douglas County) or in the 420's (Klamath County). 

But this decision is understandable, because ODOT took advantage of a chance to make the Hwy and Rte numbers coincide on that stretch of road.  Although a better Route # for the North Umpqua Highway would've been OR 60, imo, since it's between OR 58 and OR 62.

Interestingly, the western segment of OR 138 was not included in this re-designation, as it's still Elkton-Sutherlin Hwy #231.

Less explicable than that is, when the jurisdictional transfer of the Delta Highway in Eugene is complete, ODOT is apparently going to assign it Hwy #132, again a number that should be in Tillamook County, not Lane County (Hwys #22x).  Here's a link to the jurisdictional transfer agreement; look near the bottom of page 2:

https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Get-Involved/OTCSupportMaterials/Consent_10_Attach_3_Jurisdictional_Transfer_Agreement_832.pdf

It says Route #132, but I'm assuming the Hwy # will be the same.

So it's anybody's guess what number the Cornelius Pass Highway gets.

The idea to extend OR 219 up Cornell Road to Cornelius Pass Road, then up to US 30 is actually pretty logical, but I'm sure ODOT is only interested in the segment north of US 26 as a link between the two US highways.  Combined with 26 and 217, you now have a highway bypass of downtown Portland for traffic between 30 and I-5.  Not really a great route for trucks, though, given Cornelius Pass' limitations.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on March 27, 2020, 02:59:12 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on March 26, 2020, 11:13:48 PM
Less explicable than that is, when the jurisdictional transfer of the Delta Highway in Eugene is complete, ODOT is apparently going to assign it Hwy #132, again a number that should be in Tillamook County, not Lane County (Hwys #22x).  Here's a link to the jurisdictional transfer agreement; look near the bottom of page 2:

https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Get-Involved/OTCSupportMaterials/Consent_10_Attach_3_Jurisdictional_Transfer_Agreement_832.pdf

It says Route #132, but I'm assuming the Hwy # will be the same.

The reason a 22x wasn't picked is because all 22x's have been "used up":

Since ODOT doesn't seem to be in the mood to recycle highway numbers, it looks like they borrowed a number from a county with very few secondary highways. However, if that was the aim, they should've used a 31x number. Those were assigned to Gilliam County, but in the 89-year history of the state secondary highway system they haven't ever had one assigned to them. I don't even know offhand if they've tried. Interestingly enough, at the time the system was devised Gilliam County had 15 market roads to offer as possible corridors. OR-206 traverses three of them in whole or part: #4 (Cottonwood Road, from county line to Condon), #3 (Lone Rock Road, from Condon to 5 miles E of Condon) and #13 (Condon-Heppner Road, from 5 miles E of Condon to county line). However, those roads became part of the larger Wasco-Heppner Highway #300 -- a number belonging to neighboring Sherman County. Guess ODOT must be holding out hope for Lonerock Road or Base Line/Ione to become state highways or something.

Quote from: xonhulu on March 26, 2020, 11:13:48 PMThe idea to extend OR 219 up Cornell Road to Cornelius Pass Road, then up to US 30 is actually pretty logical, but I'm sure ODOT is only interested in the segment north of US 26 as a link between the two US highways.  Combined with 26 and 217, you now have a highway bypass of downtown Portland for traffic between 30 and I-5.  Not really a great route for trucks, though, given Cornelius Pass' limitations.

I figure that none of the blue route was going to transfer to ODOT anytime soon. Unlikely construction projects aside, I pretty much only meant that they might put up shields to pass travelers between the two pieces of state highway. "Might" being the operative word.

I'd been playing around with alternative numbers in my head ever since I heard of the transfer. Provided they don't extend a current route or use its highway designation for the route, I was thinking a joint designation of Alt US-26/Alt US-30 might be fun, but that also might require approval from AASHTO.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on March 27, 2020, 03:54:08 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If the Cornelius Pass highway were to be designated as a separate/independent entity, ODOT could conceivably re-use the number 215, which hasn't been posted since the early '50's.  Since state highways in the 200 series seem more to be deployed in clusters rather than strict geographic location, it would locate the 215-217-219 series in the same vicinity.  Just a thought!
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on March 27, 2020, 08:24:46 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on March 27, 2020, 02:59:12 AM
The reason a 22x wasn't picked is because all 22x's have been "used up":

  • 220: Mapleton-Eugene Highway (1931-1966)
  • 221: Fox Hollow Highway (1931-1955)
  • 222: Springfield-Creswell Highway (1938-2018)
  • 223: Junction City-Eugene Highway (1935-1994)
  • 224: West 7th St-West 11th St Highway (1940-1955)
  • 225: McVay Highway (1951-)
  • 226: Goshen-Divide Highway (1957-)
  • 227: Eugene-Springfield Highway (1955-)
  • 228: Springfield Highway (1960-2019?)
  • 229: Mapleton-Junction City Highway (1966-)

Looking at your list, I think the problem with those numbers isn't that they've been used before for Highway numbers; it's that nearly all are currently in use as Route numbers.  Only 220 isn't currently on the books as an official Oregon Route.  I think Hwy 222 was recently relinquished to Lane County, but I don't think they ever officially removed Rte 222 from law.  OR 225 also isn't signed along South Franklin Boulevard, but the designation still exists.  So 220 would be the only available number on that list.

Historically, there was a Rte 220, serving the town of Sumpter west of Baker City, but that's been gone for decades, ever since OR 7 was re-routed onto its current route and absorbed most of it.  The little remnant is officially OR 410, so 220 is available, and probably should have been the choice for the Delta Hwy.  Oh, well.

Quote from: sparker on March 27, 2020, 03:54:08 PM
If the Cornelius Pass highway were to be designated as a separate/independent entity, ODOT could conceivably re-use the number 215, which hasn't been posted since the early '50's.  Since state highways in the 200 series seem more to be deployed in clusters rather than strict geographic location, it would locate the 215-217-219 series in the same vicinity.  Just a thought!

The problem with 215 is that it's currently in use as a Hwy #: Clear Lake-Belknap Springs Highway #215, which carries OR 126 from the McKenzie Hwy near Belknap Springs up to US 20 west of Santiam Jct.  ODOT would not want to add to its list of roads that have inconsistent Hwy and Rte #'s.

I like Tarkus' suggestion of Hwy/Rte 145 for the Cornelius Pass Hwy.  Not currently in use and checks all the boxes.  Someone should suggest it to ODOT before they designate it Hwy 133!
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on March 28, 2020, 08:00:28 AM
It'd have to be mentioned to the OTC. They're the ones that decide route/hwy numbers.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on July 22, 2020, 12:37:51 PM
Looks like the designation for Cornelius Pass Rd will be OR 127.  So they are going with a Multnomah County #, not Washington County.

https://www.oregon.gov/odot/projects/pages/project-details.aspx?project=CornPassTransfer

QuoteThe Oregon Department of Transportation is preparing to assume ownership of NW Cornelius Pass Road between U.S. 30 and U.S. 26 through a process called a jurisdictional transfer. Multnomah County and Washington County currently manage this road. This transfer is part of Keep Oregon Moving (HB 2017), the large transportation package passed through the State Legislature in 2017.

After the jurisdictional transfer, there will be changes to how projects are planned, designed, funded and delivered, how road maintenance is prioritized, and in the official name of the road. NW Cornelius Pass Road will officially be Oregon 127 and will have a new highway name in addition to being known as Cornelius Pass Road.

I just drove it yesterday, although I had to detour all the Multnomah County section, which is closed for the construction project.  No 127 signage I could see, but I didn't expect to see any since the transfer hasn't occurred yet.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on July 22, 2020, 03:37:35 PM
^^^^
Any ideas what the new highway name might be?

One area I'm continually jealous of Oregon and California: Washington rarely utilizes highway names. The damn 99 tunnel is still known as the "Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel". Really rolls off the tongue...
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on July 22, 2020, 04:15:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2020, 03:37:35 PMAny ideas what the new highway name might be?

I had been assuming it would just be the Cornelius Pass Hwy, but that project paper makes me wonder.  Now I'm wondering if it won't end up with some boring name like the Burlington-Hillsboro Hwy or something equally unimaginative.  Which brings me to:

QuoteOne area I'm continually jealous of Oregon and California: Washington rarely utilizes highway names. The damn 99 tunnel is still known as the "Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel". Really rolls off the tongue...

That is pretty cumbersome.  It sounds like an early working name for the tunnel, and nobody bothered to come up with a better, more concise name afterwards.  Plenty of possibilities come to mind, like Waterfront Tunnel, Downtown Tunnel, City Tunnel, etc.  Or name it after a locally- or nationally-known individual.  Heck, they could just call it the 99 Tunnel! 

But don't be too jealous.  For all the good, short, concise names for highways in Oregon, like Ochoco Hwy, Redwood Hwy, Sunset Hwy, there are just as many that are pretty dull, just listing the two towns the highway links, like the Hillsboro-Silverton Hwy, Corvallis-Newport Hwy, Ukiah-Hilgard Hwy, etc.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on July 22, 2020, 06:03:12 PM
WSDOT just uses SR 99 Tunnel now, as do most local media outlets.

I suspect the original plan was to have an official name, but the whole controversy over the tunnel might have put the kibosh on it for a few years.

We do need more meaningful and well-used names in Washington. Valley Freeway (SR 167) is pretty much the only freeway in the Seattle area with a current and popular name.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on July 22, 2020, 09:08:49 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 22, 2020, 06:03:12 PM
WSDOT just uses SR 99 Tunnel now, as do most local media outlets.

I suspect the original plan was to have an official name, but the whole controversy over the tunnel might have put the kibosh on it for a few years.

We do need more meaningful and well-used names in Washington. Valley Freeway (SR 167) is pretty much the only freeway in the Seattle area with a current and popular name.

And it's the only regional freeway that for the most part sticks to a particular valley that just happens to host a sizeable portion of the Seattle area industrial facilities.  Very appropriate name, seeing as how WA otherwise didn't adopt the CA idiom of naming freeways after either their service areas (Bayshore, Eastshore), outlying destinations (Santa Ana, Ventura, San Bernardino, etc.), or, in some cases, public/historic figures (MacArthur, Nimitz).  But over time most of those devolved, at least with on-air traffic reports or TV coverage, to their numeric designations, which seems to be the default in WA as well.  But for the four years I resided in Portland, the one freeway that received regular "name recognition" was the Banfield urban section of I-84.     
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on July 23, 2020, 03:27:22 AM
The freeway portion of US 26 also is well known as the Sunset, so at least there's that.
Quote from: xonhulu on July 22, 2020, 12:37:51 PM
Looks like the designation for Cornelius Pass Rd will be OR 127.  So they are going with a Multnomah County #, not Washington County.
Since it's a north-south route, its 0 point will be at its northern end, which is in Multnomah County.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on July 23, 2020, 01:23:57 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 23, 2020, 03:27:22 AM
The freeway portion of US 26 also is well known as the Sunset, so at least there's that

Is it "the Sunset Freeway" or "the Sunset Highway" or just "the Sunset"?

Quote from: Bruce on July 22, 2020, 06:03:12 PM
We do need more meaningful and well-used names in Washington. Valley Freeway (SR 167) is pretty much the only freeway in the Seattle area with a current and popular name.

I think "Boeing Freeway" (WA 526) is fairly well-used?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on July 23, 2020, 01:25:35 PM
Sunset Highway.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on July 23, 2020, 09:38:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 23, 2020, 01:23:57 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 23, 2020, 03:27:22 AM
The freeway portion of US 26 also is well known as the Sunset, so at least there's that

Is it "the Sunset Freeway" or "the Sunset Highway" or just "the Sunset"?

Quote from: Bruce on July 22, 2020, 06:03:12 PM
We do need more meaningful and well-used names in Washington. Valley Freeway (SR 167) is pretty much the only freeway in the Seattle area with a current and popular name.

I think "Boeing Freeway" (WA 526) is fairly well-used?
Also, how well known is WA 14 as Lewis and Clark Freeway or Evergreen Highway?
And WA 500 could easily adopt 'Orchards Freeway'...
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: stevashe on July 24, 2020, 02:08:17 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 23, 2020, 01:23:57 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 22, 2020, 06:03:12 PM
We do need more meaningful and well-used names in Washington. Valley Freeway (SR 167) is pretty much the only freeway in the Seattle area with a current and popular name.

I think "Boeing Freeway" (WA 526) is fairly well-used?

It is indeed, along with "Mukilteo Speedway" for WA 525, though only part of the route is freeway.

I'm sure if we could come up with some decent names for the rest of them, might post a list to the Washington thread a bit later if I can come up with some good ones.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: BloonsTDFan360 on July 29, 2020, 07:41:50 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 23, 2020, 09:38:42 PM
Also, how well known is WA 14 as Lewis and Clark Freeway or Evergreen Highway?
Absolutely no one. Nobody calls it the Lewis and Clark, and Evergreen Hwy refers to the older roadway that parallels much of SR 14.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on July 30, 2020, 05:52:22 AM
Quote from: BloonsTDFan360 on July 29, 2020, 07:41:50 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 23, 2020, 09:38:42 PM
Also, how well known is WA 14 as Lewis and Clark Freeway or Evergreen Highway?
Absolutely no one. Nobody calls it the Lewis and Clark, and Evergreen Hwy refers to the older roadway that parallels much of SR 14.
See, consternation here...
The Portland Thomas Guide has consistently called the SR 14 freeway 'Lewis and Clark' from 1994 to 2012 (the final edition before RMN pulled the plug), and the non-freeway portion (eg, from Camas east) the Evergreen Highway, though the later editions seemed to apply the L&C designation further east as well.
I'll grant that locally it's not referred to as such, but I question the absolute.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: stevashe on July 30, 2020, 10:42:38 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 30, 2020, 05:52:22 AM
Quote from: BloonsTDFan360 on July 29, 2020, 07:41:50 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 23, 2020, 09:38:42 PM
Also, how well known is WA 14 as Lewis and Clark Freeway or Evergreen Highway?
Absolutely no one. Nobody calls it the Lewis and Clark, and Evergreen Hwy refers to the older roadway that parallels much of SR 14.
See, consternation here...
The Portland Thomas Guide has consistently called the SR 14 freeway 'Lewis and Clark' from 1994 to 2012 (the final edition before RMN pulled the plug), and the non-freeway portion (eg, from Camas east) the Evergreen Highway, though the later editions seemed to apply the L&C designation further east as well.
I'll grant that locally it's not referred to as such, but I question the absolute.

Looks like Google Maps shows them as well, not that that's worth much.

(https://i.imgur.com/cBNGG59.png)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on October 11, 2020, 08:51:12 PM
There are now a pair of OR 132 shields posted on the Delta Hwy in Eugene, one in each direction.  No mention of 132 on either I-105 or OR 569 at their junctions with Delta Hwy, though. 

I imagine the Beltline/Delta interchange will get all new signs when its major rebuild is finished, and 132 will likely be noted from 569 then.

Also from the Eugene area: the signs at the new roundabout (actually a double roundabout!) where BUS 126 junctions with unsigned OR 225 now identify that road as "McVay Highway," its ODOT designation, instead of "S Franklin Blvd," as it was previously noted.  However, nowhere along McVay Hwy were there any OR 225 shields.  I'm pretty sure this highway is on ODOT's relinquishment list, so I expect it'll never be signed.  On the other hand, the nearby OR 528 is also on that list, and it's still pretty well-signed, so who knows?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on November 06, 2020, 07:11:52 AM
Start your day with a scenic virtual tour in eastern Oregon along OR 7 from I-84 in Baker City to US 26 in Austin Junction. From picturesque views to ghost towns along the way and everything in between, I hope that you'll enjoy the article.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/11/scenic-oregon-state-route-7.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/11/scenic-oregon-state-route-7.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on December 07, 2020, 06:52:57 AM
Visiting the Ritner Creek Covered Bridge, which was the last covered bridge located on a state highway in Oregon (OR 223 in this case). It was moved next to the highway in 1976

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/12/ritner-creek-covered-bridge-oregon.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/12/ritner-creek-covered-bridge-oregon.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sp_redelectric on December 20, 2020, 10:53:13 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 22, 2020, 03:37:35 PM
One area I'm continually jealous of Oregon and California: Washington rarely utilizes highway names.

The problem in Oregon is that not only do the highway names follow the internal highway numbers (not the signed route), but then you have differing names by jurisdiction:

Case in point:  Oregon Route 47 has three different names depending on which segment you're on, but that's only the ODOT name.  Now throw in all of the cities' individual names for the highway as it passes through town.

Oregon Route 8 might be officially "Tualatin Valley Highway" (east of Forest Grove, anyways) but don't dare it call it that in Beaverton - it is Canyon Road.  Oregon 10?  If you're west of Beaverton it's Farmington Road, east of Beaverton it's Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway.  Keep going east to Hillsdale, and it becomes Capitol Highway prior to the merge onto Barbur Boulevard, also known as Pacific Highway West.

And then you have the issue, which ODOT is no help of, of reporting a traffic incident on "Pacific Highway", which can refer to I-5 (almost never in common use but that is the legal name), Oregon 99W, Oregon 99E (legally north of Salem), or Oregon 43 where the City of West Linn refers to it as such, and that's just in the Portland Metro area.  Or, trying to explain that Oregon 99 between Junction City and Eugene is the Pacific Highway WEST, Not just "Pacific Highway", but when you are in Junction City you actually have to turn to stay on the "same highway" even though if you proceed straight you go onto 99E, which is the Albany-Junction City Highway.

Confused yet?  Don't get me started on U.S. 26.  I'll take WSDOT's system any day, all day, especially when it comes to secondary route numbers.  Much, much, much, much better system than Oregon.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Rothman on December 20, 2020, 11:58:49 PM
On a tangent, NY has an obsolete state highway naming convention that is still used in design documents so contractors can look up really old plans if need be.  Sounds like Oregon's.  The old names are broken up by segment in NYSDOT's GIS system.  So, it's sort of a pain for the developers to go through and deal with it, but it would be a lot worse without GIS.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on December 21, 2020, 12:48:19 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 20, 2020, 11:58:49 PM
On a tangent, NY has an obsolete state highway naming convention that is still used in design documents so contractors can look up really old plans if need be.  Sounds like Oregon's.  The old names are broken up by segment in NYSDOT's GIS system.  So, it's sort of a pain for the developers to go through and deal with it, but it would be a lot worse without GIS.
I'm interested in this tangent. I had no idea NY used anything but its 4-digit tags.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Rothman on December 21, 2020, 12:56:08 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2020, 12:48:19 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 20, 2020, 11:58:49 PM
On a tangent, NY has an obsolete state highway naming convention that is still used in design documents so contractors can look up really old plans if need be.  Sounds like Oregon's.  The old names are broken up by segment in NYSDOT's GIS system.  So, it's sort of a pain for the developers to go through and deal with it, but it would be a lot worse without GIS.
I'm interested in this tangent. I had no idea NY used anything but its 4-digit tags.
The four digit tags are usually associated with actual names.  I am sure there are a few that have "N/A" now in the system, but most do have highway names.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on December 22, 2020, 10:23:49 PM
Take the scenic drive along OR 38 from the Oregon Coast to I-5 south of Eugene, Oregon.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/12/oregon-state-route-38.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/12/oregon-state-route-38.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on December 23, 2020, 03:40:40 AM
Quote from: Dougtone on December 22, 2020, 10:23:49 PM
Take the scenic drive along OR 38 from the Oregon Coast to I-5 south of Eugene, Oregon.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/12/oregon-state-route-38.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/12/oregon-state-route-38.html)

According to the most recent version of the "Descriptions of US and OR Routes" (July 2008), OR-38 is actually only signed to Drain, with OR-99 signed east to I-5:

Quote from: ODOT on July 11, 2008, 03:00:00 AM
OR38 - Over the Umpqua Highway from its junction with the Oregon Coast Highway, US101, in Reedsport, easterly via Scottsburg and Elkton to its junction with the Drain-Yoncalla Highway, OR99, in Drain.

...

OR99 - (snip) Thence southerly over the Pacific Highway (common with I-5) to its junction with the Umpqua Highway at Anlauf; thence southwesterly over the Umpqua Highway to its junction with the Drain-Yoncalla Highway in Drain; thence southerly over the Drain-Yoncalla Highway to its junction with the Pacific Highway, I-5, at the Yoncalla Interchange; thence southerly over the Pacific Highway (common with I-5) to its junction with the Oakland-Shady Highway near Oakland; (snip)

Note that there is no "(common with OR38)" among the bolded portion. It used to be, but apparently wasn't supposed to be and was removed from OR-99's route description on 3/17/1992 by the Oregon Transportation Commission:

Quote from: OTC on March 17, 1992, 11:30:00 AM
5) Revisions to the Oregon route system as follows:

(snip)
2. The change for ORE99 is an error which needs to drop the reference "(common with ORE38)" in the Drain area on the Umpqua Highway, as ORE38 does not cover the same roadway.
(snip)

The route descriptions document hasn't been updated since 2008, and is starting to show its age. However, the Umpqua Highway straightline chart (https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Data/Documents/SLC_Hwy045.pdf) was updated this year, and it too still only shows OR-99 on the segment between Drain and I-5. Given how de-emphasized OR-99 is in Douglas County now, OR-38 probably should officially be officially extended eastwards, especially since signs for 38 are already up on that corridor.

(It's also possible that it has become an extension of OR-38 in the past 12 years and the straightline charts haven't caught up/I haven't read of the extension in the OTC minutes yet.)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on January 18, 2021, 05:44:06 AM
Setting course for the Bridge of the Gods that crosses the Columbia River between Cascade Locks, Oregon and Stevenson, Washington. The Bridge of the Gods was built in 1926 and is 1,858 feet long, along with being one of a handful of tolled river crossings along the Columbia River. The bridge's name beckons to a geologic event that took place in the same area of the Columbia River Gorge as well as the lore that helps explain the creation of the Bridge of the Gods. This feels more like an Oregon bridge to me.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/bridge-of-gods-over-columbia-river.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/bridge-of-gods-over-columbia-river.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on January 24, 2021, 04:24:25 PM
Built in 1929 and spanning across the Marys River just a few miles away from US 20, the Harris Covered Bridge is located in the community of Harris in Benton County, Oregon.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/harris-covered-bridge-benton-county.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/harris-covered-bridge-benton-county.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on March 04, 2021, 11:25:48 PM
A modest 1966 proposal for Portland's freeway network, as seen in the Oregonian:

(https://i.imgur.com/KO0CDyS.png)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: compdude787 on March 06, 2021, 10:13:10 PM
Wow, that was quite an ambitious proposal! I never knew some of those freeways were even proposed.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: OCGuy81 on March 06, 2021, 10:18:56 PM
I'd love to show this to portlanders nowadays! They'd lose their shit. Even a proposed extra lane (much needed) in the Rose Quarter is met with fierce opposition. The city won't rest until Interstates 5 and 84 are bikes and buses only.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on April 03, 2021, 01:14:45 AM
Was browsing through the old AASHO documents archive and found a 1958 numbering proposal (https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=95417ef4-36e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8) from Oregon.

Introducing, I-5A and I-5B...

(https://i.imgur.com/aehyIly.jpg)

Luckily, the AASHO didn't accidentally approve these suffixes and instead we got I-105 thru I-505. I-82 was also switched to I-80N around the same time, and later became I-84 in 1980.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on April 03, 2021, 01:21:11 AM
It would have been marginally better than the 69W-C-E mess, but not by much.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: stevashe on April 03, 2021, 01:41:26 AM
They should have stuck with 82, though...
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on April 03, 2021, 04:32:07 AM
Quote from: stevashe on April 03, 2021, 01:41:26 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on April 05, 2021, 03:11:49 AM
A "new" sign on 5th Avenue at I-405, as reported in The Oregonian in 1966:

(https://i.imgur.com/ySIN5O6.png)

And the same location today on GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/3afY5P1LavRZXHUC8

(https://i.imgur.com/gBNhPqY.jpg)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: OCGuy81 on May 07, 2021, 05:32:59 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 05, 2021, 03:11:49 AM
A "new" sign on 5th Avenue at I-405, as reported in The Oregonian in 1966:

(https://i.imgur.com/ySIN5O6.png)

And the same location today on GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/3afY5P1LavRZXHUC8

(https://i.imgur.com/gBNhPqY.jpg)

Ahhhh typical ODOT.  They seem to have an aversion to using "TO" on their signs.  One could think this ramp puts you on I-84...

They do the same too coming along I-5NB into Portland.  You're led to believe 26 is routed along 405 at the Marquam Bridge.  They don't like using "TO".
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on May 08, 2021, 06:54:29 AM
Technically that ramp does put you on 84, as it directly becomes I-84/US 30's center lane.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on May 09, 2021, 03:30:43 AM
I recently finished writing up the history of I-405 on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_405_(Oregon) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_405_(Oregon))

I'll be delving into the more complicated history of I-205 while I still have access to the Multnomah Library's online newspapers.

Fixed up the URL. -Bick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on May 09, 2021, 10:19:35 AM
A nice long article about a nice short freeway sums it up!  Thank you Bruce for an outstanding wiki.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on May 13, 2021, 05:14:02 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 09, 2021, 03:30:43 AM
I recently finished writing up the history of I-405 on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_405_(Oregon)

I'll be delving into the more complicated history of I-205 while I still have access to the Multnomah Library's online newspapers.

I skimmed the write-up and it's phenomenal. Very well-researched and full of solid dates.

I did find one thing that needs to be added. I managed to acquire the July 1968 I-80N Study through interlibrary loan. The study covers two routings: The Mt. Hood Freeway (which was the one eventually chosen) and the Rose City Freeway (called the "Northeast Freeway" in the study). I haven't really dove into looking at it, but I do know that the thought was that one of the two routes was going to be 80N. I remember the ramp placement at the Rose City Freeway/205 interchange being such that 80N through traffic would seamlessly pass through without lane changes. I think the Mt. Hood Freeway/205 interchange was a stack by comparison. I'll have to post more info later.

Also, IIRC according to the 1955 OSHD Technical Report No. 55-5, the Clay-Market routing included a bridge that would've crossed the river instead of the Marquam Bridge. It would've directly continued east as the Mt. Hood Freeway, with the East Side Freeway branching off of it. I don't remember if the Foothills route was even an option at the time.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on May 13, 2021, 07:23:15 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on May 13, 2021, 05:14:02 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 09, 2021, 03:30:43 AM
I recently finished writing up the history of I-405 on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_405_(Oregon)

I'll be delving into the more complicated history of I-205 while I still have access to the Multnomah Library's online newspapers.

I skimmed the write-up and it's phenomenal. Very well-researched and full of solid dates.

I did find one thing that needs to be added. I managed to acquire the July 1968 I-80N Study through interlibrary loan. The study covers two routings: The Mt. Hood Freeway (which was the one eventually chosen) and the Rose City Freeway (called the "Northeast Freeway" in the study). I haven't really dove into looking at it, but I do know that the thought was that one of the two routes was going to be 80N. I remember the ramp placement at the Rose City Freeway/205 interchange being such that 80N through traffic would seamlessly pass through without lane changes. I think the Mt. Hood Freeway/205 interchange was a stack by comparison. I'll have to post more info later.

Also, IIRC according to the 1955 OSHD Technical Report No. 55-5, the Clay-Market routing included a bridge that would've crossed the river instead of the Marquam Bridge. It would've directly continued east as the Mt. Hood Freeway, with the East Side Freeway branching off of it. I don't remember if the Foothills route was even an option at the time.

Thanks! I'll go look into the 1955 report, as I don't think there was a second bridge mentioned in the newspaper articles I found from that time.

I do remember reading that I-80N was to follow the Mt. Hood Freeway alignment, but that might have been at a later point.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on May 25, 2021, 01:11:20 AM
Since I was posting some OR 127 shields in the Cornelius Pass Highway thread tonight, I thought I'd share some other photos of recently-signed Oregon state routes.  Sorry in advance for the long-ish post.

Delta Highway in Eugene/ OR 132:
(https://i.imgur.com/oL2Pp4u.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/sLjNEMY.jpg)

There was also a shield on SB Delta Highway up by Belt Line Hwy, but I couldn't photograph it safely.

Up by Dayton, here's the sole Lafayette Highway/OR 154 shield in the field:
(https://i.imgur.com/erVeKE3.jpg)

Down in Coos Bay, this one's been posted for a few years now and was reported on here, but I don't remember seeing any posted photos on the forum, so here's the junction signage for the Coos River Highway/OR 241 from NB US 101:
(https://i.imgur.com/S3wZ3n1.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/8kayLuo.jpg)

There's complimentary signage on SB 101, but I wasn't able to get pictures of those.

Over by Milton-Freewater, these have been signed for several years now, but again, I don't remember seeing any mention of them on the forum, so here are OR 332 and OR 339:

Sunnyside-Umapine Highway/OR 332's eastern endpoint as seen from NB OR 11:
(https://i.imgur.com/fVsdnOQ.jpg)

And from SB OR 11:
(https://i.imgur.com/rrPf0V2.jpg)

332's western endpoint at Stateline Rd west of Umapine:
(https://i.imgur.com/SnY2Dbe.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/T0f8oXx.jpg)

Freewater Highway/OR 339's northern endpoint on Stateline Rd:
(https://i.imgur.com/zzR6S1S.jpg)

And 339's southern terminus in Milton-Freewater:
(https://i.imgur.com/V7y7D6F.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/QCnHxwf.jpg)

The last time I checked last fall, the nearby routes OR 334 and 335 are still completely unsigned.

Finally, there's a good chance ODOT is about to sign the Jefferson Highway/OR 164.  Last week, I saw OR 99E shields had been installed along the route, so I emailed ODOT to ask why the correct designation OR 164 wasn't used, and I got this reply:

"You are correct that Jefferson Highway is Oregon Route 164 and will be signed as such in the near future. The sign crews were addressing a few different highways and there was a misunderstanding about what signing. The request asked for OR 99E route signing at the I-5 ramps to show OR 99E is also on I-5 as well as route signing on Jefferson Highway. The mix up was the part that Jefferson Highway should have OR 164 route signing. I spoke with the District sign crew today and they will change the signs out once they have ordered and received the correct signs."

So maybe soon we'll see some OR 164 shields? Given ODOT's usual "efficiency," I don't think I'll be holding my breath . . .

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on May 25, 2021, 06:37:05 PM
Although I personally wouldn't mind if 99E were signed along ORH 164, to give it another deviation from I-5...
But good, seeing OR 164 actually signed will be nice.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on May 25, 2021, 09:19:18 PM
I also had mixed feelings, as the Jefferson Highway was US 99E at one time, so seeing it restored as 99E was a little cool.

When I saw the new signs, I also wondered if they actually wanted the highway signed as BUS 99E.  That would've made some sense.

But I could see a scenario where someone looking to take 99E in Albany getting confused, exiting at the North Jefferson exit, and following it through Jefferson, just to rejoin I-5 again by Millersburg.  So it's probably best if OR 164 is treated and signed as a separate entity.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on May 25, 2021, 09:57:19 PM
Then again, would it be any different from 99 peeling away from I-5 or 30 with I-84?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on May 26, 2021, 12:35:49 AM
That's a good point. 

The only slight difference is that when those routes veer off the interstate, they invariably return again fairly quickly, while once 99E leaves I-5 in Albany, it's gone for a fairly extended distance, until 99 returns in Eugene.  So maybe they don't consider 99E to be a companion route to I-5; they're just considered two separate highways that happen to have an extended duplex..

But ODOT goes to great pains in many of 99's & 30's off-freeway loops to have graphic map signs on the interstates showing that the route just loops off and returns, so they could have easily done the same here.

The main difference might be historical.  US 99E was re-routed onto the more direct bypass of Jefferson (more-or-less modern I-5's route) in 1945, well before I-5 was planned.  So by the time I-5 was built on that alignment, the Jefferson Highway had not been 99E for some time.  That might be why ODOT never returned 99E to that loop.

I'd have to think if there were any examples where 99 or 30 got moved onto more direct routings in pre-interstate times, then were returned to their original alignments after I-5/84 took over the newer ones.  I wouldn't count the various relocations of US 99 onto the completed-but-discontinuous sections of I-5 in the 50's - 60's, as those were always intended to be temporary.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on May 26, 2021, 10:45:28 AM
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
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on June 05, 2021, 02:04:38 PM
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/C1AXFM0.jpg)

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!
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: TEG24601 on June 06, 2021, 03:16:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2021, 04:32:07 AM
Quote from: stevashe on April 03, 2021, 01:41:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on June 06, 2021, 03:45:42 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 06, 2021, 03:16:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2021, 04:32:07 AM
Quote from: stevashe on April 03, 2021, 01:41:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on June 07, 2021, 03:24:47 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 06, 2021, 03:45:42 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 06, 2021, 03:16:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2021, 04:32:07 AM
Quote from: stevashe on April 03, 2021, 01:41:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on June 29, 2021, 06:38:27 PM
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/heWjcbk.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/6QFXm7v.jpg)

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:
(https://i.imgur.com/DruVO1N.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/OfOfsc1.jpg)

Finally, there is a corresponding length limit sign on northbound 101 near 255's southern end in Brookings:
(https://i.imgur.com/lfvM4nE.jpg)

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):
(https://i.imgur.com/16yKU8g.jpg)

Nexus73, I believe you live near there: any idea why there's no love for OR 542?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on June 29, 2021, 07:11:02 PM
542 has a bonus of a building with its address painted on it near the north end, and the street name is Hwy 242.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on June 30, 2021, 10:19:58 AM
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
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on June 30, 2021, 07:31:04 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on June 29, 2021, 07:11:02 PM
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.

Quote from: nexus73 on June 30, 2021, 10:19:58 AM
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. 

QuoteWant 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.

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on June 30, 2021, 09:24:24 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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! :sombrero:
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on June 30, 2021, 10:56:57 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 30, 2021, 09:24:24 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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! :sombrero:

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!
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on July 01, 2021, 01:29:14 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on June 30, 2021, 10:56:57 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 30, 2021, 09:24:24 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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! :sombrero:

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"!
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 09:54:39 AM
Now Metro is throwing its support (https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/517812-413681-metro-oks-new-205-217-lanes-as-gonz%C3%83%C2%A1lez-pans-highway-plans) behind widening 217 and 205.

Is the anti-car lobby now losing its grip on Portland?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 10:16:34 AM
I hope so. Maybe people there are getting fed up.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 10:52:46 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 10:16:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 11:40:37 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 10:16:34 AM
I hope so. Maybe people there are getting fed up.

I think we also tend to overestimate the power of the anti-highway lobby.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on August 07, 2021, 01:18:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 11:40:37 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 10:16:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 06:39:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2021, 01:18:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 11:40:37 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 10:16:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on August 07, 2021, 07:07:55 PM
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/NRkCRrw.jpg)

This replaced the erroneous 99E shield I posted awhile ago:
(https://i.imgur.com/iczrqOX.jpg)

This shield was at another road junction on the north end of Jefferson:
(https://i.imgur.com/WeZfHMq.jpg)

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:
(https://i.imgur.com/ajrS7ij.jpg)

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! 
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on August 07, 2021, 07:16:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 06:39:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2021, 01:18:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 11:40:37 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 10:16:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 07:25:26 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 07, 2021, 07:16:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 06:39:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2021, 01:18:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 11:40:37 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 10:16:34 AM
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?

Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2021, 11:02:07 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 28, 2021, 09:25:40 AM

Quote from: kernals12 on July 28, 2021, 07:40:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 07:25:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2021, 11:02:07 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 28, 2021, 09:25:40 AM

Quote from: kernals12 on July 28, 2021, 07:40:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 09:57:05 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 07:25:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2021, 11:02:07 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 28, 2021, 09:25:40 AM

Quote from: kernals12 on July 28, 2021, 07:40:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 10:57:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 09:57:05 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 07:25:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2021, 11:02:07 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 28, 2021, 09:25:40 AM

Quote from: kernals12 on July 28, 2021, 07:40:18 AM
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  :D
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 11:28:18 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 07, 2021, 07:16:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 06:39:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2021, 01:18:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 11:40:37 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 10:16:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 11:32:36 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 10:57:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 09:57:05 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 07:25:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2021, 11:02:07 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 28, 2021, 09:25:40 AM

Quote from: kernals12 on July 28, 2021, 07:40:18 AM
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  :D
Not sure if you are referring to me or not but I have certainly used the term new urbanist in jest though I suppose some would see me as being a weisenheimer in doing so. Still, it's hard not to take shots at new urbanists sometimes and I do love urbanism and believe we shouldn't rely on cars for all of our needs.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 11:33:56 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 07, 2021, 07:16:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 06:39:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 07, 2021, 01:18:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 11:40:37 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 10:16:34 AM
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.

Actually you can. Plenty of cities in the midwest did that years ago. Give Portland a Westside bypass and put 8 lanes on Interstates 5 and 205 and watch the traffic disappear. Also, they need to stop encouraging high density infill housing which just means more automobiles per square mile and hence more congestion.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 11:39:05 PM
^ We get it, Phoenix is your ideal example of a metro area design. All of this forum and this one Reddit sub knows that.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 11:42:33 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 11:32:36 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 10:57:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 09:57:05 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 07:25:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2021, 11:02:07 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 28, 2021, 09:25:40 AM

Quote from: kernals12 on July 28, 2021, 07:40:18 AM
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  :D
Not sure if you are referring to me or not but I have certainly used the term new urbanist in jest though I suppose some would see me as being a weisenheimer in doing so. Still, it's hard not to take shots at new urbanists sometimes and I do love urbanism and believe we shouldn't rely on cars for all of our needs.

It wasn't a reference to you. 

Pertaining to Urbanists their adherence to extremist beliefs regarding cars and attempting to force the views on everyone is generally the reason why I find it hard to entertain their notions.  I have nothing against mass transit and recognize that some cities will benefit greatly from it (or even have it has a primary transportation model).  All the same, I don't suffer from the delusion that any form of transportation is a one-size fits all solution for every city.   

That said, some people on the forum don't see the irony of their concepts centering every city around the car.  It's all the more laughable when they suggest cities like Portland are beginning to abandon mass transit concepts while conveniently ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 11:48:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 11:42:33 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 11:32:36 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 10:57:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 09:57:05 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 07:25:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2021, 11:02:07 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 28, 2021, 09:25:40 AM

Quote from: kernals12 on July 28, 2021, 07:40:18 AM
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  :D
Not sure if you are referring to me or not but I have certainly used the term new urbanist in jest though I suppose some would see me as being a weisenheimer in doing so. Still, it's hard not to take shots at new urbanists sometimes and I do love urbanism and believe we shouldn't rely on cars for all of our needs.

It wasn't a reference to you. 

Pertaining to Urbanists their adherence to extremist beliefs regarding cars and attempting to force the views on everyone is generally the reason why I find it hard to entertain their notions.  I have nothing against mass transit and recognize that some cities will benefit greatly from it (or even have it has a primary transportation model).  All the same, I don't suffer from the delusion that any form of transportation is a one-size fits all solution for every city.   

That said, some people on the forum don't see the irony of their concepts centering every city around the car.  It's all the more laughable when they suggest cities like Portland are beginning to abandon mass transit concepts while conveniently ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Agreed on all counts. OKC is shining example of being too car centric, IMO. I don't pay that much attention to Portland however I get the feeling the city is anti growth in general be it rail or car based.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 11:59:02 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 11:42:33 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 11:32:36 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 10:57:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 09:57:05 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 07, 2021, 09:18:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 07, 2021, 07:25:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 28, 2021, 11:02:07 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 28, 2021, 09:25:40 AM

Quote from: kernals12 on July 28, 2021, 07:40:18 AM
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  :D
Not sure if you are referring to me or not but I have certainly used the term new urbanist in jest though I suppose some would see me as being a weisenheimer in doing so. Still, it's hard not to take shots at new urbanists sometimes and I do love urbanism and believe we shouldn't rely on cars for all of our needs.

It wasn't a reference to you. 

Pertaining to Urbanists their adherence to extremist beliefs regarding cars and attempting to force the views on everyone is generally the reason why I find it hard to entertain their notions.  I have nothing against mass transit and recognize that some cities will benefit greatly from it (or even have it has a primary transportation model).  All the same, I don't suffer from the delusion that any form of transportation is a one-size fits all solution for every city.   

That said, some people on the forum don't see the irony of their concepts centering every city around the car.  It's all the more laughable when they suggest cities like Portland are beginning to abandon mass transit concepts while conveniently ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
I fit in that middle too, with a balance of automobile and other modes of transit. I don't like the extreme car centrism in a lot of American metro areas today, but I also disagree on "let's replace this busy freeway with trains to solve traffic!!!" I see on urbanism subreddits sometimes.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on August 08, 2021, 05:00:11 AM
I have no quarrel with urbanism as a constructive methodology for adding value to metro areas; it's when it "morphs" into an exclusionary ideology replete with a litany of designated villains, generally encompassing everyone not adhering to their constructs, that the disdain arises.  Particularly noxious are those positing a "zero-sum" approach -- they can only win when the other side (generally the driving public, commercial and otherwise) loses something (a facility here and there, accessibility in general, etc.).  They can often be their own worst enemy, provoking reaction rather than response from those negatively affected by their machinations -- reaction that can jeopardize even their more reasonable and generally acceptable ideas.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: roadman65 on August 08, 2021, 06:09:45 PM
What is the nature of ODOT permits at Exit 308 (Hayden Island) on I-5 in Portland?  What kind of permits is issued and why is that a control city?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: ClassicHasClass on August 08, 2021, 08:00:06 PM
Quotean exclusionary ideology replete with a litany of designated villains, generally encompassing everyone not adhering to their constructs

I believe, sir, that you have misspelled "politics"
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on August 08, 2021, 11:09:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 07, 2021, 11:33:56 PM
Actually you can. Plenty of cities in the midwest [paved their way out of congestion] years ago

(Inigo Montoya voice) You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: sparker on August 09, 2021, 03:22:34 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on August 08, 2021, 08:00:06 PM
Quotean exclusionary ideology replete with a litany of designated villains, generally encompassing everyone not adhering to their constructs

I believe, sir, that you have misspelled "politics"

Not all politics arises from ideology; economics and the shuffling of resources account, at least with the politics of this nation, for at least as much political activity and controversy as does ideological adherence.  That being said, recent occurrences point to at least a temporary revival of basic ideological clash, even to the point of revisiting concepts thought to have been "put to bed" back in 1945!  Nevertheless, I for one have little doubt that within a short period of time things will revert to the resource-based chess game that has been played for centuries (actually more like a game of bridge, since the exact nature of one's rivals/opponents has to be determined by the other side!)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on August 09, 2021, 07:42:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 11:48:58 PM
Agreed on all counts. OKC is shining example of being too car centric, IMO. I don't pay that much attention to Portland however I get the feeling the city is anti growth in general be it rail or car based.

Portland is definitely in an anti-growth phase. It's a cycle, where the feels like it has to actually contract to succeed, and then everything goes to crap, the city invests in itself again, and then it has another growth spurt. Currently, the anti-growth crowd is in charge. The people rioting on the street want Portland to stop growing — the Proud Boys don't want a liberal utopia to succeed, and the antifascists aren't sad to see Portland get some bad PR if it means they get to cosplay against the MAGA chuds. From their perspective, worse PR = cheaper rents, so yeah, bring it on. (Not saying I agree with that concept but it's definitely the milieu)

The urbanists in Oregon tend to lend themselves towards that mindset as well, so "no progress"  is perceived as a win for them. If traffic gets so bad that nobody wants to live in Oregon, well, that's fine, they think, as long as the limited amount of transportation investment is focused on bike lanes instead of anything with four or more wheels. They increasingly view light rail as a tool for gentrification (with absolutely zero evidence for this beyond the MAX Yellow Line, which was probably going to gentrify anyway).

The problem is the politicians don't hear from the populous on transportation beyond the climate fatalists and the hardcore urbanists. If 80% of people drive it sure as hell doesn't sound like it to a politician in Oregon unless they read the comment threads on news articles — and those folks aren't exactly nuanced advocates for their cause either. I mean, there's nobody saying "I drive an electric car, my transportation is carbon neutral, and also you need to replace that old bridge or deal with my shitty commute or connect the rest of the state to the highway network."  It's just "WIDEN THE FREEWAYS NOW YOU COMMIES"  or "WHY DO YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO BURN,"  leaning towards the latter.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: kernals12 on August 17, 2021, 07:30:57 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 09, 2021, 07:42:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 11:48:58 PM
Agreed on all counts. OKC is shining example of being too car centric, IMO. I don't pay that much attention to Portland however I get the feeling the city is anti growth in general be it rail or car based.

Portland is definitely in an anti-growth phase. It's a cycle, where the feels like it has to actually contract to succeed, and then everything goes to crap, the city invests in itself again, and then it has another growth spurt. Currently, the anti-growth crowd is in charge. The people rioting on the street want Portland to stop growing — the Proud Boys don't want a liberal utopia to succeed, and the antifascists aren't sad to see Portland get some bad PR if it means they get to cosplay against the MAGA chuds. From their perspective, worse PR = cheaper rents, so yeah, bring it on. (Not saying I agree with that concept but it's definitely the milieu)

The urbanists in Oregon tend to lend themselves towards that mindset as well, so "no progress"  is perceived as a win for them. If traffic gets so bad that nobody wants to live in Oregon, well, that's fine, they think, as long as the limited amount of transportation investment is focused on bike lanes instead of anything with four or more wheels. They increasingly view light rail as a tool for gentrification (with absolutely zero evidence for this beyond the MAX Yellow Line, which was probably going to gentrify anyway).

The problem is the politicians don't hear from the populous on transportation beyond the climate fatalists and the hardcore urbanists. If 80% of people drive it sure as hell doesn't sound like it to a politician in Oregon unless they read the comment threads on news articles — and those folks aren't exactly nuanced advocates for their cause either. I mean, there's nobody saying "I drive an electric car, my transportation is carbon neutral, and also you need to replace that old bridge or deal with my shitty commute or connect the rest of the state to the highway network."  It's just "WIDEN THE FREEWAYS NOW YOU COMMIES"  or "WHY DO YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO BURN,"  leaning towards the latter.
Oregon has been in an anti-growth phase for at least half a century. In 1971, Governor Tom McCall famously said:
"Come visit us again and again. This is a state of excitement. But for heaven's sake, don't come here to live."
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2021, 07:21:52 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 17, 2021, 07:30:57 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 09, 2021, 07:42:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 07, 2021, 11:48:58 PM
Agreed on all counts. OKC is shining example of being too car centric, IMO. I don't pay that much attention to Portland however I get the feeling the city is anti growth in general be it rail or car based.

Portland is definitely in an anti-growth phase. It's a cycle, where the feels like it has to actually contract to succeed, and then everything goes to crap, the city invests in itself again, and then it has another growth spurt. Currently, the anti-growth crowd is in charge. The people rioting on the street want Portland to stop growing — the Proud Boys don't want a liberal utopia to succeed, and the antifascists aren't sad to see Portland get some bad PR if it means they get to cosplay against the MAGA chuds. From their perspective, worse PR = cheaper rents, so yeah, bring it on. (Not saying I agree with that concept but it's definitely the milieu)

The urbanists in Oregon tend to lend themselves towards that mindset as well, so "no progress"  is perceived as a win for them. If traffic gets so bad that nobody wants to live in Oregon, well, that's fine, they think, as long as the limited amount of transportation investment is focused on bike lanes instead of anything with four or more wheels. They increasingly view light rail as a tool for gentrification (with absolutely zero evidence for this beyond the MAX Yellow Line, which was probably going to gentrify anyway).

The problem is the politicians don't hear from the populous on transportation beyond the climate fatalists and the hardcore urbanists. If 80% of people drive it sure as hell doesn't sound like it to a politician in Oregon unless they read the comment threads on news articles — and those folks aren't exactly nuanced advocates for their cause either. I mean, there's nobody saying "I drive an electric car, my transportation is carbon neutral, and also you need to replace that old bridge or deal with my shitty commute or connect the rest of the state to the highway network."  It's just "WIDEN THE FREEWAYS NOW YOU COMMIES"  or "WHY DO YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO BURN,"  leaning towards the latter.
Oregon has been in an anti-growth phase for at least half a century. In 1971, Governor Tom McCall famously said:
"Come visit us again and again. This is a state of excitement. But for heaven's sake, don't come here to live."

The State of Jefferson region and Medford might take exception to that notion of "anti-growth."   Then again, most people probably just associate Oregon and Portland as one in the same entity.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on August 18, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 17, 2021, 07:30:57 AM
Oregon has been in an anti-growth phase for at least half a century. In 1971, Governor Tom McCall famously said:
"Come visit us again and again. This is a state of excitement. But for heaven's sake, don't come here to live."

But he then said "if you do have to move in to live, don't tell any of your neighbors where you are going."

The whole quote seems pretty tongue-in-cheek, especially when you consider that (a) Portland is roughly 1.75 times larger than in 1970, and (b) the whole state of Oregon has more than doubled in population over the same time-frame.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2021, 07:49:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 18, 2021, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 17, 2021, 07:30:57 AM
Oregon has been in an anti-growth phase for at least half a century. In 1971, Governor Tom McCall famously said:
"Come visit us again and again. This is a state of excitement. But for heaven's sake, don't come here to live."

But he then said "if you do have to move in to live, don't tell any of your neighbors where you are going."

The whole quote seems pretty tongue-in-cheek, especially when you consider that (a) Portland is roughly 1.75 times larger than in 1970, and (b) the whole state of Oregon has more than doubled in population over the same time-frame.

But that wouldn't be taking the quote selectively and literally.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on August 18, 2021, 08:48:39 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on June 29, 2021, 06:38:27 PM
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):
(https://i.imgur.com/16yKU8g.jpg)

I've never seen these kinds of terminal mileposts before. Are these relatively new? Formerly, unsigned state highways usually got the "End state highway maintenance" treatment, if anything.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2021, 09:04:47 PM
Speaking of mileage on Oregon Routes anyone have any idea why OR 39's mileage begins at OR 140 and Alameda Avenue as opposed to US 97?  Also, aside from the overhead reference on US 97 it seems OR 39 isn't signed in Klamath Falls at all.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on August 18, 2021, 09:19:34 PM
^Which segment are you speaking of, along the northern bypass or from downtown?
If my read is correct, the downtown segment is ORH 20 and becomes OR 140 out to Lakeview, and the northern bypass is part of ORH 50, which has a brief overlap with 20, then runs south along the OR 39/140 overlap, through Merlin, then peels away from OR 39 to Malin and then to California; OR 39 follows ORH 426 to California and CA 139/161.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2021, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 18, 2021, 09:19:34 PM
^Which segment are you speaking of, along the northern bypass or from downtown?
If my read is correct, the downtown segment is ORH 20 and becomes OR 140 out to Lakeview, and the northern bypass is part of ORH 50, which has a brief overlap with 20, then runs south along the OR 39/140 overlap, through Merlin, then peels away from OR 39 to Malin and then to California; OR 39 follows ORH 426 to California and CA 139/161.

The bypass route of downtown Klamath Falls is what I'm referring to.  Interestingly I didn't see any OR 39 Business signs either, just US 97 Business.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on August 19, 2021, 02:07:27 AM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on August 18, 2021, 08:48:39 PM
I've never seen these kinds of terminal mileposts before. Are these relatively new? Formerly, unsigned state highways usually got the "End state highway maintenance" treatment, if anything.

I think I've only seen them around Coos Bay.  This one's posted at the end of OR 241:
(https://i.imgur.com/qCqXHzy.jpg)

There are others on 241 and 540 marking where the route transitions between state and city maintenance.  I also saw them on OR 250 and OR 251:
(https://i.imgur.com/OxeITU2.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/kB9U0aV.jpg)

Other places around the state, you're right, they just use simpler "End State Maintenance" or "Begin/End County Maintenance" signs:

OR 380 in Paulina:
(https://i.imgur.com/Wv1wVtb.jpg)

OR 70 in Bonanza:
(https://i.imgur.com/Ks1HCcg.jpg)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on August 19, 2021, 05:35:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2021, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 18, 2021, 09:19:34 PM
^Which segment are you speaking of, along the northern bypass or from downtown?
If my read is correct, the downtown segment is ORH 20 and becomes OR 140 out to Lakeview, and the northern bypass is part of ORH 50, which has a brief overlap with 20, then runs south along the OR 39/140 overlap, through Merlin, then peels away from OR 39 to Malin and then to California; OR 39 follows ORH 426 to California and CA 139/161.

The bypass route of downtown Klamath Falls is what I'm referring to.  Interestingly I didn't see any OR 39 Business signs either, just US 97 Business.
Not sure why there aren't any OR 39 shields along the northern bypass or even along the original route into downtown on ORH 20 -- I suspect K Falls took maintenance of both segments and ODOT just treats it like OR 8 on Gales Creek Rd -- it's part of the Route, but not ODOT's problem.
That said, if the bypass had mileposts, they'd be X series, I think, as the 0 would be where OR 39 turns south from ORH 20 and OR 140 turns east onto ORH 20.

Just looked that the ODOT GIS. ODOT maintains the bypass (ORH 50) while K Falls has 6th Ave to east of Washburn Way (where ORH 20 now starts). Despite lack of signage, OR 39 ss both on ORH 20 and 50, and along 6th into downtown. ORH 20 and 50 officially overlap from Altamont to OR 140.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: stevashe on August 19, 2021, 11:23:22 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 19, 2021, 05:35:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2021, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 18, 2021, 09:19:34 PM
^Which segment are you speaking of, along the northern bypass or from downtown?
If my read is correct, the downtown segment is ORH 20 and becomes OR 140 out to Lakeview, and the northern bypass is part of ORH 50, which has a brief overlap with 20, then runs south along the OR 39/140 overlap, through Merlin, then peels away from OR 39 to Malin and then to California; OR 39 follows ORH 426 to California and CA 139/161.

The bypass route of downtown Klamath Falls is what I'm referring to.  Interestingly I didn't see any OR 39 Business signs either, just US 97 Business.
Not sure why there aren't any OR 39 shields along the northern bypass or even along the original route into downtown on ORH 20 -- I suspect K Falls took maintenance of both segments and ODOT just treats it like OR 8 on Gales Creek Rd -- it's part of the Route, but not ODOT's problem.
That said, if the bypass had mileposts, they'd be X series, I think, as the 0 would be where OR 39 turns south from ORH 20 and OR 140 turns east onto ORH 20.

Just looked that the ODOT GIS. ODOT maintains the bypass (ORH 50) while K Falls has 6th Ave to east of Washburn Way (where ORH 20 now starts). Despite lack of signage, OR 39 ss both on ORH 20 and 50, and along 6th into downtown. ORH 20 and 50 officially overlap from Altamont to OR 140.

Yes, I can assure you that ODOT is maintaining both the bypass and the original route of OR 39 (but only east of Washburn like you found), as I have been working on a project for ODOT designing sidewalk upgrades on that part of OR 39 for the past 10 months!

They also apparently still own and maintain US 97's business route and Laverne Ave, a little stub of road cut off by a closed rail crossing that's part of ORH 420. I guess ODOT Region 4 just isn't that into relinquishment  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 19, 2021, 11:44:28 PM
Quote from: stevashe on August 19, 2021, 11:23:22 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 19, 2021, 05:35:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2021, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 18, 2021, 09:19:34 PM
^Which segment are you speaking of, along the northern bypass or from downtown?
If my read is correct, the downtown segment is ORH 20 and becomes OR 140 out to Lakeview, and the northern bypass is part of ORH 50, which has a brief overlap with 20, then runs south along the OR 39/140 overlap, through Merlin, then peels away from OR 39 to Malin and then to California; OR 39 follows ORH 426 to California and CA 139/161.

The bypass route of downtown Klamath Falls is what I'm referring to.  Interestingly I didn't see any OR 39 Business signs either, just US 97 Business.
Not sure why there aren't any OR 39 shields along the northern bypass or even along the original route into downtown on ORH 20 -- I suspect K Falls took maintenance of both segments and ODOT just treats it like OR 8 on Gales Creek Rd -- it's part of the Route, but not ODOT's problem.
That said, if the bypass had mileposts, they'd be X series, I think, as the 0 would be where OR 39 turns south from ORH 20 and OR 140 turns east onto ORH 20.

Just looked that the ODOT GIS. ODOT maintains the bypass (ORH 50) while K Falls has 6th Ave to east of Washburn Way (where ORH 20 now starts). Despite lack of signage, OR 39 ss both on ORH 20 and 50, and along 6th into downtown. ORH 20 and 50 officially overlap from Altamont to OR 140.

Yes, I can assure you that ODOT is maintaining both the bypass and the original route of OR 39 (but only east of Washburn like you found), as I have been working on a project for ODOT designing sidewalk upgrades on that part of OR 39 for the past 10 months!

They also apparently still own and maintain US 97's business route and Laverne Ave, a little stub of road cut off by a closed rail crossing that's part of ORH 420. I guess ODOT Region 4 just isn't that into relinquishment  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Still begs the question, was the entirety of OR 39 up for relinquishment at some point in Klamath Falls?  It seems incredibly odd for the mile markers on OR 39 to start here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1815535,-121.6981229,3a,25.2y,194.34h,83.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1LMjv1QxHe6-31JfzxidEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on August 20, 2021, 12:35:03 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 19, 2021, 11:44:28 PM
Still begs the question, was the entirety of OR 39 up for relinquishment at some point in Klamath Falls?  It seems incredibly odd for the mile markers on OR 39 to start here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1815535,-121.6981229,3a,25.2y,194.34h,83.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1LMjv1QxHe6-31JfzxidEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

It's hard to completely parse the HSHO document on ORH 50, but I'm guessing that it began at that junction with ORH 20 east of K Falls for most of its history, reflected by that Mile 1 marker.  Then when the bypass was added to it, it looks like no one changed those mileposts.

Just a guess, I could be completely wrong here.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 20, 2021, 12:44:17 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 20, 2021, 12:35:03 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 19, 2021, 11:44:28 PM
Still begs the question, was the entirety of OR 39 up for relinquishment at some point in Klamath Falls?  It seems incredibly odd for the mile markers on OR 39 to start here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1815535,-121.6981229,3a,25.2y,194.34h,83.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1LMjv1QxHe6-31JfzxidEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

It's hard to completely parse the HSHO document on ORH 50, but I'm guessing that it began at that junction with ORH 20 east of K Falls for most of its history, reflected by that Mile 1 marker.  Then when the bypass was added to it, it looks like no one changed those mileposts.

Just a guess, I could be completely wrong here.

Seems that early on OR 39 began just east of Klamath Falls at OR 66.  That certainly would line with the mile markers seen in-field today:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26bs%3D10%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DOregon%2520road%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=5212%2C8857%2C943%2C1545

If I recall correct ORH 50 still is aligned through Malin even though OR 39 now jogs towards Tulelake and CA 139?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on August 20, 2021, 05:48:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 20, 2021, 12:44:17 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 20, 2021, 12:35:03 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 19, 2021, 11:44:28 PM
Still begs the question, was the entirety of OR 39 up for relinquishment at some point in Klamath Falls?  It seems incredibly odd for the mile markers on OR 39 to start here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1815535,-121.6981229,3a,25.2y,194.34h,83.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1LMjv1QxHe6-31JfzxidEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

It's hard to completely parse the HSHO document on ORH 50, but I'm guessing that it began at that junction with ORH 20 east of K Falls for most of its history, reflected by that Mile 1 marker.  Then when the bypass was added to it, it looks like no one changed those mileposts.

Just a guess, I could be completely wrong here.

Seems that early on OR 39 began just east of Klamath Falls at OR 66.  That certainly would line with the mile markers seen in-field today:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26bs%3D10%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DOregon%2520road%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=5212%2C8857%2C943%2C1545

If I recall correct ORH 50 still is aligned through Malin even though OR 39 now jogs towards Tulelake and CA 139?
^Yes, that OR 39 divergence toward Tulelake/CA139/161 is ORH 426 (Hatfield Hwy).

Looking at that map, it does give OR 70 some context, and completely contextualizes OR 238.
Also, amusing to see an OR 209 and 232 in Crater Lake NP (and 232 going to US 97, when the road doesn't extend past Pinnacles Monument at all).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 20, 2021, 07:55:25 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 20, 2021, 05:48:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 20, 2021, 12:44:17 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 20, 2021, 12:35:03 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 19, 2021, 11:44:28 PM
Still begs the question, was the entirety of OR 39 up for relinquishment at some point in Klamath Falls?  It seems incredibly odd for the mile markers on OR 39 to start here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1815535,-121.6981229,3a,25.2y,194.34h,83.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1LMjv1QxHe6-31JfzxidEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

It's hard to completely parse the HSHO document on ORH 50, but I'm guessing that it began at that junction with ORH 20 east of K Falls for most of its history, reflected by that Mile 1 marker.  Then when the bypass was added to it, it looks like no one changed those mileposts.

Just a guess, I could be completely wrong here.

Seems that early on OR 39 began just east of Klamath Falls at OR 66.  That certainly would line with the mile markers seen in-field today:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26bs%3D10%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DOregon%2520road%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=5212%2C8857%2C943%2C1545

If I recall correct ORH 50 still is aligned through Malin even though OR 39 now jogs towards Tulelake and CA 139?
^Yes, that OR 39 divergence toward Tulelake/CA139/161 is ORH 426 (Hatfield Hwy).

Looking at that map, it does give OR 70 some context, and completely contextualizes OR 238.
Also, amusing to see an OR 209 and 232 in Crater Lake NP (and 232 going to US 97, when the road doesn't extend past Pinnacles Monument at all).

Regarding the Pinnacles Monument isn't there an abandoned east entrance station to Crater National Park out there?  I could swear I saw someone recently post about that on a social media platform.  What's interesting about OR 238 I found when I was researching US 199 is that it incorporated a small piece of what had been the old Gasquet Toll Road.

CA 139 intrigued me since that became a state highway after the Forest Service built a modernized road through Modoc National Forest and transferred to the DOH.  CA 139 obviously is taking its number from OR 39 and couldn't fully match it due to CA 39 already existing.  I always kind of found it curious OR 39 didn't stay aligned through Malin and a new designation of OR 139 was assigned to ORH 426. 
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on August 20, 2021, 11:47:00 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 20, 2021, 07:55:25 AM
Regarding the Pinnacles Monument isn't there an abandoned east entrance station to Crater National Park out there?  I could swear I saw someone recently post about that on a social media platform.

Yes, there is. 
(https://i.imgur.com/WvJI3xq.jpg)

It's a short walk from the Pinnacles parking lot.  I believe you can continue walking down the old road several miles until it becomes a drivable road again.  I'm told the Crater Lake National Park sign that hung from it lasted quite awhile, but it was gone by the first time I'd visited it.

For fun, here's what that old OR 232/US 97 junction looks like now:
(https://i.imgur.com/JZXsI77.jpg)

The road ahead is the original OR 232.  Here's a close-up of the signage:
(https://i.imgur.com/QajAzpy.jpg)

What's interesting is that when US 97 was re-routed further east, the OR 232 designation was removed from the Pinnacles Hwy straight ahead, and transferred onto 97's old alignment (the cross road in the pic) when that became the Sun Pass Highway.  It lasted on that new alignment at least into the 1960's.

QuoteCA 139 intrigued me since that became a state highway after the Forest Service built a modernized road through Modoc National Forest and transferred to the DOH.  CA 139 obviously is taking its number from OR 39 and couldn't fully match it due to CA 39 already existing.  I always kind of found it curious OR 39 didn't stay aligned through Malin and a new designation of OR 139 was assigned to ORH 426.

That would've made a lot of sense.  But ODOT likely only thought to keep OR 39 on what ends up being the main through route.

That remaining part of ORH 50 wasn't given a route designation back in 2002-3, one of only a few of the previously-unsigned highways in Oregon that weren't.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 20, 2021, 11:54:26 PM
^^^

That's pretty neat to see.  What I find interesting is that former OR 232 is fairly easy to track even on satellite images through the tree line.  When I saw that the first time it reminded me of the abandoned pavement from the Old Big Oak Flat Road in Yosemite National Park.  I guess the next time we are up at Crater Lake we'll have hit the Pinnacles Trailhead.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: stevashe on August 21, 2021, 12:52:31 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 20, 2021, 12:35:03 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 19, 2021, 11:44:28 PM
Still begs the question, was the entirety of OR 39 up for relinquishment at some point in Klamath Falls?  It seems incredibly odd for the mile markers on OR 39 to start here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1815535,-121.6981229,3a,25.2y,194.34h,83.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1LMjv1QxHe6-31JfzxidEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

It's hard to completely parse the HSHO document on ORH 50, but I'm guessing that it began at that junction with ORH 20 east of K Falls for most of its history, reflected by that Mile 1 marker.  Then when the bypass was added to it, it looks like no one changed those mileposts.

Just a guess, I could be completely wrong here.

Given how many weird things ODOT does with mileposts (increasing north to south in most cases, mileposts follow the archaic internal numbering instead of posted routes), nothing would really surprise me. Looking at ODOT's GIS data, it would seem that xonhulu's theory is correct since it's showing negative mileposts on the bypass, of all things.

(https://i.imgur.com/BA5D5VN.png)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on August 22, 2021, 12:02:40 AM
Max, did you happen to see if this gem was still posted downtown?

(https://i.imgur.com/PB1fswo.jpg)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 22, 2021, 12:05:05 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 22, 2021, 12:02:40 AM
Max, did you happen to see if this gem was still posted downtown?

(https://i.imgur.com/PB1fswo.jpg)

Didn't see it on this last go around.  Doug (another Gribblenation writer) doesn't appear to have seen it either when he did the Winnemucca to the Sea Highway in it's entirety.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on August 22, 2021, 12:13:50 AM
The photo was taken in 2007, so it's probably gone now.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: stevashe on August 23, 2021, 02:12:32 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on August 22, 2021, 12:13:50 AM
The photo was taken in 2007, so it's probably gone now.

Actually it was still up when I was there for work last October. Meant to post it in the US/State Route mixup thread as a double feature but forgot.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51395791437_b05317a52a_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2miESc8)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: roadman65 on August 24, 2021, 12:27:49 AM
Why is Exit 2 on I-84 signed as 43rd Street when in fact the ramp connects to Halsey Street?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on August 24, 2021, 02:11:32 AM
The ramp itself is NE 43rd Ave.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: roadman65 on August 24, 2021, 11:46:44 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 24, 2021, 02:11:32 AM
The ramp itself is NE 43rd Ave.
Only for a tenth of a mile.  It connects to Halsey Street as some big developer severed it from the rest of 43rd Avenue with high rises.  Ideally it should really be signed as Halsey Street or Hollywood District.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Tarkus on August 26, 2021, 05:46:17 AM
The 58th Ave exit (Exit 3) on I-84 Eastbound is the same exact thing.  The ramp is NE 58th Ave, and it immediately terminates at NE Glisan St.  It's an I-84 thing, I guess.

-Tarkus
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: roadman65 on August 28, 2021, 12:17:43 AM
Also I-5 Southbound considers OR 58 to be the fifth exit for Eugene and Springfield, but the road is past those two cities. Another Oregon oddity if not a miscount of actual exits.

A sign says north of OR 569 that the next 5 exits serve those two cities. The Willamette Highway is number 5.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on August 28, 2021, 01:47:52 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 28, 2021, 12:17:43 AM
Also I-5 Southbound considers OR 58 to be the fifth exit for Eugene and Springfield, but the road is past those two cities. Another Oregon oddity if not a miscount of actual exits.

A sign says north of OR 569 that the next 5 exits serve those two cities. The Willamette Highway is number 5.

I think they're counting the separate off-ramps for west I-105/OR 126 and east OR 126 as two exits. That would make 5 exits: OR 569, I-105, OR 126 east, Glenwood Blvd, and 30th Ave.

Northbound I-5 has a sign stating "Eugene/Springfield Next 7 Exits," which is after both the OR 58 and OR 99/Goshen exits so it's not counting those.  If you again count multiple off-ramps as separate exits, that sign was true at one time, since northbound can count the OR 99 half-interchange.  However, it's been wrong since the flyover to west OR 569 was constructed, replacing the 2 off-ramps in the older cloverleaf interchange there with one single off-ramp for both east & west OR 569.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 19, 2021, 12:47:34 AM
I'm not sure how well no known the 2020 document titled "History of State Highways in Oregon"  is but I'm finding it incredibly useful with some stuff I'm writing currently:

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/ETA/Documents_Geometronics/ROW-Eng_State-Highway-History.pdf

Example; I had no idea Rim Drive in Crater Lake National Park was once designated as part of Oregon Highway #24 in 1917. 
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 20, 2021, 05:55:32 PM
Does anybody here see this truck on the left?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seeking_I-5_bridge_deck_defects_(50095635137).jpg
I can't tell of that's a triple trailer, or a straight truck towing two trailers.


Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Kniwt on September 20, 2021, 06:00:40 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 20, 2021, 05:55:32 PM
Does anybody here see this truck on the left?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seeking_I-5_bridge_deck_defects_(50095635137).jpg
I can't tell of that's a triple trailer, or a straight truck towing two trailers.

It's a triple. The LONG LOAD banner is the (legally required for triples in OR) giveaway:
https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=184690
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on September 20, 2021, 10:47:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 19, 2021, 12:47:34 AM
I'm not sure how well no known the 2020 document titled "History of State Highways in Oregon"  is but I'm finding it incredibly useful with some stuff I'm writing currently:

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/ETA/Documents_Geometronics/ROW-Eng_State-Highway-History.pdf

Example; I had no idea Rim Drive in Crater Lake National Park was once designated as part of Oregon Highway #24 in 1917.

The HSHO was first published online in 2007, according to its own publication history.  I've known about it since 2009, and I'm pretty sure I was steered to it by another forum user here.

I've also found it very useful over the years.  A lot of great information in there.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on September 21, 2021, 03:47:38 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 20, 2021, 05:55:32 PM
Does anybody here see this truck on the left?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seeking_I-5_bridge_deck_defects_(50095635137).jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seeking_I-5_bridge_deck_defects_(50095635137).jpg)
I can't tell of that's a triple trailer, or a straight truck towing two trailers.
Definitely a triple. The two trailer breaks are easy to make out, but it is a good foreshortening discernment exercise. Also, as Kniwt notes, the Long Load banner.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on September 28, 2021, 02:24:22 AM
An interesting sign for I-205 I saw photographed in an old copy of The Oregonian in 1981: it appears to show a yellow "OPEN ONLY ..." sticker above Powell Blvd, where I-205 terminated for about 2 years before the Glenn Jackson Bridge opened.

Perhaps it is "OPEN ONLY TO"?

(https://i.imgur.com/b1cEc3A.png)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: ClassicHasClass on September 28, 2021, 02:25:31 PM
Possibly "OPEN ONLY TO"?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on October 10, 2021, 10:59:57 PM
ODOT put up a couple of shields on the OR 154 mainline sometime in the last month:

(https://i.imgur.com/UIQprlu.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/HWssaau.jpg)

So far, these are the only shields installed on the highway itself; as I posted previously, there's also a JCT 154 shield on a side road. 
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on October 12, 2021, 08:20:06 PM
The Earl Blumenauer Bridge across I-84 in Portland is almost complete. The main span is now in place and the bridge will open next summer.

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2021/10/its-an-infrastructure-party-blumenauer-portland-biking-enthusiasts-gather-for-installation-of-new-car-free-bridge.html
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on October 17, 2021, 03:08:48 PM
A couple of interesting videos ODOT has up on blasting out a new Mitchell Point Tunnel for the Historic Columbia Highway State Trail:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6b7p1mVcrQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKOZDpsP2KU
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on October 28, 2021, 11:24:50 PM
Another long research project finally finished: Interstate 205 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_205_(Oregon%E2%80%93Washington)).

Now I can ignore Oregon for a bit while I finish up Washington.  :D
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on November 25, 2021, 12:13:12 AM
A section of OR 213 is being transferred to the City of Portland to allow for pedestrian improvements

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/11/18/oregon-odot-portland-82nd-avenue-local-control/
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on December 03, 2021, 09:12:15 PM
The "Green Lady" of Oregon Coast bridges is the graceful Yaquina Bay Bridge, a 3,223 foot long arch bridge that US 101 uses to cross the Yaquina Bay in Newport, Oregon.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/yaquina-bay-bridge-us-101-in-newport.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/yaquina-bay-bridge-us-101-in-newport.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on December 16, 2021, 10:16:28 PM
Continuing an occasional series of the US 101 corridor in Oregon and Washington State, we land on the beautiful Siuslaw River Bridge. Spanning 1,568 feet across the Siuslaw River in Florence, Oregon, the Siuslaw River Bridge carries US 101 and was built in 1936.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/siuslaw-river-bridge-us-101-in-florence.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/siuslaw-river-bridge-us-101-in-florence.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on January 13, 2022, 10:43:59 PM
Where the river meets the sea, the Astoria-Megler Bridge is a 4.1 mile long cantilever truss bridge crossing the Columbia River on US 101 between Astoria, Oregon and Megler, Washington. Opened in 1966 and later featured in a scene in the movie Short Circuit, the bridge cost $24 million to build.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/astoria-megler-bridge-us-101-over.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/astoria-megler-bridge-us-101-over.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on January 17, 2022, 05:43:58 PM
Built in 1920, the 220 foot long Grave Creek Covered Bridge is located on what was US 99 in Sunny Valley, Oregon. Featuring a main span of 105 feet in length, this Howe through truss designed covered bridge is the only covered bridge that is visible from I-5.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/grave-creek-covered-bridge-josephine.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/grave-creek-covered-bridge-josephine.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on January 24, 2022, 09:56:19 PM
Come take a scenic drive along US 26 between OR 7 and OR 19 in Grant County, Oregon. Come see the Strawberry Mountains, the town of John Day and more as we head in the direction of the Picture Gorge at the entrance to the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/oregons-us-26-between-or-7-and-or-19.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/oregons-us-26-between-or-7-and-or-19.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on January 26, 2022, 06:28:43 AM
The new Burnside Bridge designs are advancing, including reduced widths to save costs. One of the design options is a reversible lane, which would work similar to Vancouver's Lions Gate Bridge.

https://burnsidebridge.participate.online/
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on February 03, 2022, 12:07:52 PM
ODOT is going to start rebuilding the I-5 Aurora/Donald interchange (exit 278) this month. The project will be completed in two parts. The first part will consist of realigning some roads and building a soundwall and is due to be completed by November. The second part consists of constructing a new DDI (the state's second, after the I-5 Fern Valley interchange, Exit 24) and realigning another road. Bids for this part will commence in 2023 with a goal to open by 2025.

https://www.salemreporter.com/posts/5962/odot-to-start-rebuilding-aurora-donald-interchange-this-month
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on February 10, 2022, 11:59:10 AM
ODOT has a survey out about how to spend its federal largesse. It was linked on an anti-car advocacy group webpage, so, y'know, feel free to also weigh in...

https://odotopenhouse.org/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on February 13, 2022, 08:01:58 PM
Sometime in the past month, ODOT installed a couple of shields on OR 153, making it finally officially signed in the field (only 20 years after its designation!).  I saw them for the first time today, and here are photos of both:

(https://i.imgur.com/m2MHSjm.jpg)
This is at OR 153's eastern terminus on northbound OR 221 near Hopewell.  There was no 153 junction signage on southbound 221, though.

(https://i.imgur.com/wd8p9EB.jpg)
This was on westbound 153 at its junction with OR 154.  Oddly, this was the only shield they put up at this junction.  There was no indication that continuing straight ahead puts you on 154.  Instead, you have to drive 1.2 miles farther to see a confirming 154 shield (which you can see in a previous post of mine upthread).  Also, there were no shields in view along either eastbound 153 or southbound 154 at the junction.  I'm hoping ODOT will improve on things at this junction soon.

I drove the rest of OR 153 west to OR 18 in Bellevue, but saw no other 153 shields. No additional signage has been added to 154 since my prior post, either.

There has been a mini-flurry lately in the mid-Willamette Valley in finally posting shields for some of the 2002-3 routes, with 153 joining 154 and 164 in finally being officially signed.  Add those to the newly-acquired OR 127 and OR 132 being signed, and it's been a relatively lively last few months in new signed routes. Hopefully more to come this year.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on February 17, 2022, 03:08:41 PM
Looks like OR-224 will finally be open to traffic again east of Estacada on May 1st of this year. This comes after the highway was closed for 19 months due to the massive devastating wildfires in the area in September 2020.

https://www.kgw.com/article/traffic/highway-224-oregon-reopen-date/283-e8b51ba6-3a5c-4c18-b3cb-bb1d2b2cf483

I happened to take a bunch of photos of 224 in June 2020. I'll have to head down the highway after it reopens for some before and after comparisons.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: ylekot on March 04, 2022, 06:42:21 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on February 13, 2022, 08:01:58 PM
Sometime in the past month, ODOT installed a couple of shields on OR 153, making it finally officially signed in the field (only 20 years after its designation!).  I saw them for the first time today, and here are photos of both:

(https://i.imgur.com/m2MHSjm.jpg)
This is at OR 153's eastern terminus on northbound OR 221 near Hopewell.  There was no 153 junction signage on southbound 221, though.

(https://i.imgur.com/wd8p9EB.jpg)
This was on westbound 153 at its junction with OR 154.  Oddly, this was the only shield they put up at this junction.  There was no indication that continuing straight ahead puts you on 154.  Instead, you have to drive it 1/2 a mile to see a confirming 154 shield (which you can see in a previous post of mine upthread).  Also, there were no shields in view along either eastbound 153 or southbound 154 at the junction.  I'm hoping ODOT will improve on things at this junction soon.

I drove the rest of OR 153 west to OR 18 in Bellevue, but saw no other 153 shields. No additional signage has been added to 154 since my prior post, either.

There has been a mini-flurry lately in the mid-Willamette Valley in finally posting shields for some of the 2002-3 routes, with 153 joining 154 and 164 in finally being officially signed.  Add those to the newly-acquired OR 127 and OR 132 being signed, and it's been a relatively lively last few months in new signed routes. Hopefully more to come this year.

OR 154 has only one sign.  At the junction of String Town Road and Lafayette Highway south of Lafayette:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.1958832,-123.1032447,3a,75y,107.92h,79.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so9I0gmZK463vjB7mUx0bUw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on March 04, 2022, 11:35:53 PM
Quote from: ylekot on March 04, 2022, 06:42:21 PM

OR 154 has only one sign.  At the junction of String Town Road and Lafayette Highway south of Lafayette:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.1958832,-123.1032447,3a,75y,107.92h,79.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so9I0gmZK463vjB7mUx0bUw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

That was indeed the first 154 shield posted.  But last fall, ODOT put up two more 154 route markers on Lafayette Hwy itself.  See post #398 for my photos of them.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on March 08, 2022, 01:01:40 PM
Our next installment in the Webinar series is scheduled to take place on Saturday (3/12) at 6 PM ET and will serve as the *official* Season 3 Finale event. Come join me and members of the AARoads community as we profile the Portland, OR metro area and discuss the history and features of the regions freeway system. We'll also be discussing the history of the many bridges in the area that span both the Columbia and Willamette Rivers; if you like roads and/or bridges, this is a show you're not going to want to miss!

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on May 24, 2022, 11:50:00 PM
All personal vehicles seeking to drive the Historic Columbia River Highway between Memorial Day and Labor Day will now need to register for timed-entry permits. Overcrowding at the waterfalls and other sites on the corridor have forced their hand. $2 a pop online or free in-person (in limited quantities) and required from 9 am to 6 pm daily.

https://www.oregonlive.com/travel/2022/05/new-columbia-gorge-permits-begin-tuesday-joining-other-permits-parking-fees.html
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Rothman on May 25, 2022, 06:55:12 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 24, 2022, 11:50:00 PM
All personal vehicles seeking to drive the Historic Columbia River Highway between Memorial Day and Labor Day will now need to register for timed-entry permits. Overcrowding at the waterfalls and other sites on the corridor have forced their hand. $2 a pop online or free in-person (in limited quantities) and required from 9 am to 6 pm daily.

https://www.oregonlive.com/travel/2022/05/new-columbia-gorge-permits-begin-tuesday-joining-other-permits-parking-fees.html
I think quotas like these are the only way to control overcrowding.

There also seems to be less awareness of how to preserve nature on the behalf of visitors, too, though.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: kernals12 on May 25, 2022, 07:11:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 24, 2022, 11:50:00 PM
All personal vehicles seeking to drive the Historic Columbia River Highway between Memorial Day and Labor Day will now need to register for timed-entry permits. Overcrowding at the waterfalls and other sites on the corridor have forced their hand. $2 a pop online or free in-person (in limited quantities) and required from 9 am to 6 pm daily.

https://www.oregonlive.com/travel/2022/05/new-columbia-gorge-permits-begin-tuesday-joining-other-permits-parking-fees.html

I think a lot of people will suddenly decide the view from I-84 is just as good.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on May 25, 2022, 07:52:01 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 25, 2022, 07:11:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 24, 2022, 11:50:00 PM
All personal vehicles seeking to drive the Historic Columbia River Highway between Memorial Day and Labor Day will now need to register for timed-entry permits. Overcrowding at the waterfalls and other sites on the corridor have forced their hand. $2 a pop online or free in-person (in limited quantities) and required from 9 am to 6 pm daily.

https://www.oregonlive.com/travel/2022/05/new-columbia-gorge-permits-begin-tuesday-joining-other-permits-parking-fees.html

I think a lot of people will suddenly decide the view from I-84 is just as good.

The article and blurb make it clear that access to the waterfalls is the issue here. I-84 only has access to one (Multnomah), while the rest are on the HCRH.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 25, 2022, 08:30:39 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 25, 2022, 07:52:01 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 25, 2022, 07:11:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 24, 2022, 11:50:00 PM
All personal vehicles seeking to drive the Historic Columbia River Highway between Memorial Day and Labor Day will now need to register for timed-entry permits. Overcrowding at the waterfalls and other sites on the corridor have forced their hand. $2 a pop online or free in-person (in limited quantities) and required from 9 am to 6 pm daily.

https://www.oregonlive.com/travel/2022/05/new-columbia-gorge-permits-begin-tuesday-joining-other-permits-parking-fees.html

I think a lot of people will suddenly decide the view from I-84 is just as good.

The article and blurb make it clear that access to the waterfalls is the issue here. I-84 only has access to one (Multnomah), while the rest are on the HCRH.

There is a substantial difference between the scenery of the HCRH and I-84.  The water fall access is the big draw but there is a lot of people who just plain like the scenic drive over the Interstate and will dog pile in their without restriction regardless of crowd size.  Basically it is the Oregon analog for something like CA 1 in Big Sur. 
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: doorknob60 on May 25, 2022, 11:17:17 AM
Another scenic alternative to I-84 is WA-14. Not quite as many waterfalls and such to stop at (and probably not as scenic as the HCRH), but if you're looking for a scenic drive, it's a great option. I bet it will see a modest increase in traffic once the permit system goes into effect.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: pderocco on May 25, 2022, 09:39:34 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on May 25, 2022, 11:17:17 AM
Another scenic alternative to I-84 is WA-14. Not quite as many waterfalls and such to stop at (and probably not as scenic as the HCRH), but if you're looking for a scenic drive, it's a great option. I bet it will see a modest increase in traffic once the permit system goes into effect.

Personally, I'd take 14 over I-84 if I was looking for a pleasant ride. HCRH has Crown Point, though, and the famous view of Crown Point from the Portland Women's Forum lookout. On the other hand, for much of HCRH, the only view you've got is the trees right next to you.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on May 25, 2022, 11:35:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 25, 2022, 08:30:39 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 25, 2022, 07:52:01 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 25, 2022, 07:11:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 24, 2022, 11:50:00 PM
All personal vehicles seeking to drive the Historic Columbia River Highway between Memorial Day and Labor Day will now need to register for timed-entry permits. Overcrowding at the waterfalls and other sites on the corridor have forced their hand. $2 a pop online or free in-person (in limited quantities) and required from 9 am to 6 pm daily.

https://www.oregonlive.com/travel/2022/05/new-columbia-gorge-permits-begin-tuesday-joining-other-permits-parking-fees.html

I think a lot of people will suddenly decide the view from I-84 is just as good.

The article and blurb make it clear that access to the waterfalls is the issue here. I-84 only has access to one (Multnomah), while the rest are on the HCRH.

There is a substantial difference between the scenery of the HCRH and I-84.  The water fall access is the big draw but there is a lot of people who just plain like the scenic drive over the Interstate and will dog pile in their without restriction regardless of crowd size.  Basically it is the Oregon analog for something like CA 1 in Big Sur. 
I saw the two main falls on old 30 with my family. I went back to drive more of it recently and saw a few other less-touristy falls. Glad I drove it when I did (admittedly outside peak season, so didn't contend with tourist speed traffic), but no, you see NOTHING from 84 compared to old 30.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Albert on July 28, 2022, 02:00:41 PM
OR 241 and US 101: Working on it. Reconstructing sidewalks east of Flanagan right now. When the project finishes, they will have new sidewalks, new curb ramps at Flanagan, and even new pavement. This project's paving will be like US 101 CB-NB project's Jun.-Sep. 2013 paving.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on August 09, 2022, 04:05:14 AM
From OPB: How freeway builders collided with Oregon's growth management system (https://www.opb.org/article/2022/08/05/oregon-growth-management-system-westside-bypass-washington-county/)

Pretty good look into the 1980s revival of a west side freeway proposal.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on August 10, 2022, 02:50:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 09, 2022, 04:05:14 AM
From OPB: How freeway builders collided with Oregon's growth management system (https://www.opb.org/article/2022/08/05/oregon-growth-management-system-westside-bypass-washington-county/)

Pretty good look into the 1980s revival of a west side freeway proposal.

That was a great read. Thanks for sharing, Bruce.

I have to echo their frustration, at least long term. Washington County doesn't seem to have pulled enough from that LUTRAQ proposal over the years, and I think you can see that in the dwindling MAX ridership numbers, even pre-pandemic. Development patterns seem to have changed very little since the 1960s and 1970s, with only slightly more density in certain pockets. Enough hasn't changed that, frankly, I'm not sure the lack of a bypass has truly had any positive effect on development patterns. The lack of a bypass may have resulted in more infill than if a bypass were built, no doubt, but I'm not convinced the differences of that alternate reality and what we see today would be remarkably different.

Was any map ever made public showing the route options?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on August 10, 2022, 04:43:49 PM
1000 Friends of Oregon posted it on their Instagram today but of course it showed the broad corridors, showing that literally half of Washington County would become a freeway.

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on September 24, 2022, 08:49:43 PM
Is there any way to determine Umatilla County routes? Old 395 west of Pendleton is definitely one but there are no signs with route numbers.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: ClassicHasClass on September 25, 2022, 08:02:58 PM
You mean the alignment through Echo? That's old US 30; US 395 went along OR 37.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on September 25, 2022, 10:25:27 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 25, 2022, 08:02:58 PM
You mean the alignment through Echo? That's old US 30; US 395 went along OR 37.
Crap but thanks! So okay, does old 30 have a number?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on September 26, 2022, 12:00:44 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 25, 2022, 10:25:27 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 25, 2022, 08:02:58 PM
You mean the alignment through Echo? That's old US 30; US 395 went along OR 37.
Crap but thanks! So okay, does old 30 have a number?

Some counties include the numbers of their roads on their GIS maps. I'm on my phone right now, so I haven't checked yet if Umatilla County's GIS (https://www.co.umatilla.or.us/departments/gis) has that. I'll see if I can pull it up and find anything out.

Edit: It looks like the number is included in the GIS data, as CO_RD_NUM. Umatilla River Road and Rieth Road, the former US-30 alignments, are defined as Co. Rd. 1275 and Co. Rd. 1300 respectively.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Alps on September 26, 2022, 12:50:32 AM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on September 26, 2022, 12:00:44 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 25, 2022, 10:25:27 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 25, 2022, 08:02:58 PM
You mean the alignment through Echo? That's old US 30; US 395 went along OR 37.
Crap but thanks! So okay, does old 30 have a number?

Some counties include the numbers of their roads on their GIS maps. I'm on my phone right now, so I haven't checked yet if Umatilla County's GIS (https://www.co.umatilla.or.us/departments/gis) has that. I'll see if I can pull it up and find anything out.

Edit: It looks like the number is included in the GIS data, as CO_RD_NUM. Umatilla River Road and Rieth Road, the former US-30 alignments, are defined as Co. Rd. 1275 and Co. Rd. 1300 respectively.
THANK YOU <3
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on December 20, 2022, 09:53:59 PM
I just came back from a trip to the Oregon coast.  I had a chance to cruise by the northern end of unsigned OR 542 at its junction with OR 42, and I'm pleased to report . . . something?

(https://i.imgur.com/Hj4WuWk.jpg)

The 42/542 intersection is a trumpet interchange.  This signpost looks to be recently placed, looking at the ground around the base.   But it's missing the OR 542 shield that should be on the right.

I'm guessing I caught it mid-installation, and there's a 542 shield on the way?  It seems unlikely ODOT would make a space for a route shield if they didn't intend to place one there.  The signage at the gore on eastbound 42 does not appear new, so maybe that signage is also slated for replacement?

I'm also a little surprised this direction on 542 would be bannered "West."  "South" would be way more appropriate, as 542 trends mostly south and slightly east between this junction & Powers.

I'll have to check it out again the next time I go through those parts.  I only drove a mile or so down 542 before U-turning, so if there was 542 signage further along I missed it.


Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: pderocco on December 21, 2022, 02:00:09 AM
The old sign shown in GSV is much bigger. I wonder if a big wind blew it over. Looks like it was mounted on a toothpick.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on December 21, 2022, 10:50:11 AM
Did you go down 542 at all?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on December 21, 2022, 11:17:29 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on December 21, 2022, 10:50:11 AM
Did you go down 542 at all?

Only about a mile. It was getting later in the afternoon, and I wanted to get back to Coos Bay with some light left in case there was anything new to photograph on OR 241 (there wasn't), and I was camping north of there.  Unfortunately, short days come with winter travel.

Not impossible they've installed signs elsewhere on the route, but I figured the north end is where they'd start.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on December 21, 2022, 08:31:06 PM
Did you see the building that has the address xxxxx Hwy 242 painted on the side? A rare instance of the ORH number being known in the wild.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on December 23, 2022, 06:14:19 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on December 21, 2022, 08:31:06 PM
Did you see the building that has the address xxxxx Hwy 242 painted on the side? A rare instance of the ORH number being known in the wild.

Not this time, but I saw it when I drove the whole road to Powers & back last summer.

If they do finally sign it as 542, I wonder if that guy will feel the need to re-paint?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on February 10, 2023, 07:35:17 PM
No timed permits needed this year to access the Historic Columbia River Highway: https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2023/02/09/columbia-gorge-waterfall-corridor-permits-wont-return-this-year/69889706007/
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: compdude787 on February 28, 2023, 10:09:31 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 10, 2023, 07:35:17 PM
No timed permits needed this year to access the Historic Columbia River Highway: https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2023/02/09/columbia-gorge-waterfall-corridor-permits-wont-return-this-year/69889706007/

Are they going to get rid of the permits needed to park at and visit Multnomah Falls as well? That was an unpleasant surprise when I visited the falls with my brother and his friends when they were in town last summer. At least we could see it from the parking lot...  :-D

EDIT: I actually read the article now, and it answered my question--they are going to keep the permits to park in the I-84 Multnomah Falls parking lot, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on February 28, 2023, 10:38:04 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on February 28, 2023, 10:09:31 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 10, 2023, 07:35:17 PM
No timed permits needed this year to access the Historic Columbia River Highway: https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2023/02/09/columbia-gorge-waterfall-corridor-permits-wont-return-this-year/69889706007/

Are they going to get rid of the permits needed to park at and visit Multnomah Falls as well? That was an unpleasant surprise when I visited the falls with my brother and his friends when they were in town last summer. At least we could see it from the parking lot...  :-D

EDIT: I actually read the article now, and it answered my question--they are going to keep the permits to park in the I-84 Multnomah Falls parking lot, unfortunately.

It's not like it wasn't well signed far in advance? They had VMS's in Troutdale warning drivers that permits were required.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Rothman on February 28, 2023, 10:41:29 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 28, 2023, 10:38:04 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on February 28, 2023, 10:09:31 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 10, 2023, 07:35:17 PM
No timed permits needed this year to access the Historic Columbia River Highway: https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2023/02/09/columbia-gorge-waterfall-corridor-permits-wont-return-this-year/69889706007/

Are they going to get rid of the permits needed to park at and visit Multnomah Falls as well? That was an unpleasant surprise when I visited the falls with my brother and his friends when they were in town last summer. At least we could see it from the parking lot...  :-D

EDIT: I actually read the article now, and it answered my question--they are going to keep the permits to park in the I-84 Multnomah Falls parking lot, unfortunately.

It's not like it wasn't well signed far in advance? They had VMS's in Troutdale warning drivers that permits were required.
All for them.  The area was getting trashed from the crowds.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: compdude787 on March 01, 2023, 12:10:41 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 28, 2023, 10:38:04 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on February 28, 2023, 10:09:31 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 10, 2023, 07:35:17 PM
No timed permits needed this year to access the Historic Columbia River Highway: https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2023/02/09/columbia-gorge-waterfall-corridor-permits-wont-return-this-year/69889706007/

Are they going to get rid of the permits needed to park at and visit Multnomah Falls as well? That was an unpleasant surprise when I visited the falls with my brother and his friends when they were in town last summer. At least we could see it from the parking lot...  :-D

EDIT: I actually read the article now, and it answered my question--they are going to keep the permits to park in the I-84 Multnomah Falls parking lot, unfortunately.

It's not like it wasn't well signed far in advance? They had VMS's in Troutdale warning drivers that permits were required.

I don't recall seeing those. I knew about the permits to drive on the Historic Columbia River Highway, since that was way more publicized than requiring permits to park at Multnomah Falls.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: roadman65 on April 11, 2023, 03:19:10 PM
Interesting video of why "Limit"  is missing on OR speed limit signs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmGDCrxYpAU
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: PNWRoadgeek on July 23, 2023, 09:36:12 PM
The OR 217 widening is coming along nicely. The new frontage road is nearing completion, the new lighting is wonderful, and the road is gonna look nicer in general. Hopefully it fixes the traffic problems.. Considering that was one of the entire points of the widening.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on July 24, 2023, 01:45:15 AM
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on July 23, 2023, 09:36:12 PM
Hopefully it fixes the traffic problems.. Considering that was one of the entire points of the widening.

It won't. It never does.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: jakeroot on July 24, 2023, 02:43:24 AM
I'm not even sure what "fix traffic problems" means. On its surface I suppose it (you) may mean "reduce congestion" but I think there's a lot more to it than that. Improving safety is a big indicator of a successful fix, as is an increase in capacity. Reducing traffic on surface streets is also a measure of success, though I think OR-217 needs to be about 10 lanes to have any chance of making a big impact there.

I think this project will lead to an increase in AADT on OR-217, a small reduction in traffic on nearby surface streets, and overall similar congestion to today...though with a higher capacity, you're still moving more cars, so it's still "successful", at least on paper.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 02:43:31 AM
Quote from: Bruce on July 24, 2023, 01:45:15 AM
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on July 23, 2023, 09:36:12 PM
Hopefully it fixes the traffic problems.. Considering that was one of the entire points of the widening.

It won't. It never does.
Let's just ignore OKCs I-40 that was widened 10 years ago and let's also ignore the fact you're so hung up on semantics like "fix"  when that isn't the right word. It will help with traffic issues.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: PNWRoadgeek on July 24, 2023, 08:36:30 AM
After thinking about it, I should have worded my post better. Yes, jakeroot. I did mean help with safety, which it probably will, or it won't, we just need to find out. The Portland Metro in general has a lot of bottlenecks, it's not I-4 bad in any way, but it's still pretty bad. But it might also lessen the congestion a little bit during the early afternoon, when it's frequently traffic-heavy. Probably won't change anything during the late afternoon, it's still gonna be a bottleneck with quite a few wrecks. Especially south of the OR 210 interchange, due to a lot of poor design flaws originally around that area(OR 217 was/is 2 lanes in each direction through Tigard except around the I-5 interchange, where it ends)

I have some plans for OR 217 myself, but I'll post those in fictional at some point.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 02:43:31 AM
Quote from: Bruce on July 24, 2023, 01:45:15 AM
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on July 23, 2023, 09:36:12 PM
Hopefully it fixes the traffic problems.. Considering that was one of the entire points of the widening.

It won't. It never does.
Let's just ignore OKCs I-40 that was widened 10 years ago and let's also ignore the fact you're so hung up on semantics like "fix"  when that isn't the right word. It will help with traffic issues.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 24, 2023, 02:43:24 AM
I'm not even sure what "fix traffic problems" means. On its surface I suppose it (you) may mean "reduce congestion" but I think there's a lot more to it than that. Improving safety is a big indicator of a successful fix, as is an increase in capacity. Reducing traffic on surface streets is also a measure of success, though I think OR-217 needs to be about 10 lanes to have any chance of making a big impact there.

I think this project will lead to an increase in AADT on OR-217, a small reduction in traffic on nearby surface streets, and overall similar congestion to today...though with a higher capacity, you're still moving more cars, so it's still "successful", at least on paper.
Quote from: Bruce on July 24, 2023, 01:45:15 AM
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on July 23, 2023, 09:36:12 PM
Hopefully it fixes the traffic problems.. Considering that was one of the entire points of the widening.

It won't. It never does.

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Dougtone on August 02, 2023, 10:10:30 PM
Sure, why not take a virtual drive down one of the most scenic stretches of road along the Oregon Coast. At least in my opinion. But yes, the Three Capes Scenic Route in Tillamook County is pretty neat, don't you think.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/08/oregons-three-capes-scenic-route.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/08/oregons-three-capes-scenic-route.html)
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on August 03, 2023, 06:14:55 PM
Thanks for a great feature on one of my favorite coastal drives in Oregon.  In my opinion, in terms of sheer scenery, it is only surpassed by a couple stretches of US 101 itself (Yachats-Florence & Port Orford-Brookings).  However, you're sharing the drive with 101's higher traffic levels on both of those, so the 3 Capes is a much more relaxing drive.  There are some hikes at several of the parks along the route, with the trail to the tip of Cape Lookout being one of my favorites.

I'm happy US 101 was not ultimately shifted to run through Pacific City, as it would have ruined both the 3 Capes drive and the charm of the towns along there.  However, it would be nice to see 101 straightened out on its existing routing between the southern end of 3 Capes and Sandlake Rd through Cloverdale, Hebo & Beaver.  That road is too curvy for the amount of traffic it carries, and I somewhat dread it when I have to drive it.

I'll definitely have to check out the realigned route over Cape Meares when it opens this fall, if all goes as scheduled.  I'll try to post a report on it here when I do.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on August 08, 2023, 11:46:44 PM
I posted this picture back in December speculating that it appeared OR 542 might be finally posted in the field, as there was a blank space in a new sign assembly just waiting for a 542 shield:

(https://i.imgur.com/Hj4WuWk.jpg)

I returned to that intersection again 2 days ago, and I'm happy to report that shields for 542 have been installed.  However . . .

(https://i.imgur.com/6Cu9eDY.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/AGNGeCM.jpg)

. . . wrong number!  The sign crew undoubtedly confused the hidden hwy number (242) with the route number (542). 

This time, I did drive down 542 all the way to Powers & back, but I saw no other posted shields.

Also on this trip: I had realized awhile back there was a little piece of state-maintained highway I'd missed in Oregon: an unposted, non-contiguous piece of OR 255 called Myers Cr. Road, just south of Gold Beach.  Like the signed portion of OR 255, it's a former alignment of US 101, even still carrying mileposts from that time.  The one acknowledgement of ODOT's jurisdiction was on this bridge over its namesake creek . . .

(https://i.imgur.com/WCcQPo9.jpg)

. . . bearing this bridge inventory sign:

(https://i.imgur.com/E3YGA92.jpg)

Keeping with the apparent theme of this post, it's the wrong Hwy #: it should read OR 255, not 250.  OR 250 is the (still) unsigned Cape Blanco Hwy several dozen miles north of here.  But note the mileage of 338.33, reflecting what would've been 101's distance from Astoria.

Nothing else new highway-wise from this trip.

However, since this post seems to be all about erroneous signs, here's a fun one I saw in Forest Grove a week ago. Enjoy!

(https://i.imgur.com/hVpfH2L.jpg)

Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on August 09, 2023, 01:50:16 AM
I'm glad US 8 and 47 are still in Forest Grove :)

IIRC, that's been there since before the pandemic, when I had an Oregon Symphonic Band concert out at Pacific University.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: roadman65 on August 13, 2023, 10:24:12 PM
I was noticing how that US 95 in Oregon is 135 miles in one single county.  Malhuer County, OR is a desert region County and has no major cities or towns within its borders.

In addition, the US Route only connects to the rest of the state's Route network via OR 87. Other than that there are no other Route junctions between NV and ID.

Has anyone ever clinched it here? Most of all, are there any traffic signals in Oregon at all on US 95?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: US 89 on August 13, 2023, 10:56:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2023, 10:24:12 PM
I was noticing how that US 95 in Oregon is 135 miles in one single county.  Malhuer County, OR is a desert region County and has no major cities or towns within its borders.

In addition, the US Route only connects to the rest of the state’s Route network via OR 87. Other than that there are no other Route junctions between NV and ID.

Has anyone ever clinched it here? Most of all, are there any traffic signals in Oregon at all on US 95?

Ontario is pretty substantial at 11,600 people. It’s also right across the border from Idaho and pretty close to Boise, which is why most of Malheur County is in the Mountain time zone. The only part that isn’t is the area around McDermitt, which is on the border with the Pacific time zone state of Nevada.

If 95 had a light in Oregon, it’d probably be in Jordan Valley, and that appears to lack any sort of signalization.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: doorknob60 on August 14, 2023, 11:58:49 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2023, 10:24:12 PM
I was noticing how that US 95 in Oregon is 135 miles in one single county.  Malhuer County, OR is a desert region County and has no major cities or towns within its borders.

In addition, the US Route only connects to the rest of the state's Route network via OR 87. Other than that there are no other Route junctions between NV and ID.

Has anyone ever clinched it here? Most of all, are there any traffic signals in Oregon at all on US 95?

It's a pretty easy clinch. Drive from Boise to Reno or almost anywhere in California, and US-95 is the fastest route. Definitely no signals. It's an easy drive, mostly straight, fairly low traffic, easy sightlines for passing, and now with a 70 MPH speed limit. Last time I drove it, even 80 MPH felt a bit on the slow side haha.

I'm glad I didn't have to drive the whole thing during the 55 MPH days (I don't mean NMSL, it was 55 until 2016). I did drive the segment from OR-78 to the Idaho border pre-2016, though I was probably driving around 70-75 MPH. On these Eastern Oregon highways before 2016, cops usually wouldn't bother you if you kept it under 70 (and definitely wouldn't bother you under 65). My friend got pulled over on US-20 east of Bend going 70 in a 55, and even with Washington plates only got a warning. With Oregon plates, neither me nor my dad ever got pulled over on that drive.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: roadman65 on August 16, 2023, 03:18:28 AM
I think I heard before in thread over a decade ago that in Idaho as well, that US 95 has segments over 200 miles signal free. I assume US 95 in OR is the same way, and most likely US 95 in general is a good N- S non freeway in that part of the US for long haul travelers.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on November 01, 2023, 12:24:27 PM
ODOT has now corrected the OR 542 signage:

(https://i.imgur.com/EjV9YN3l.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/OVuf8Xml.jpg)

I saw no additional OR 542 signage, but I only checked the immediate vicinity of the interchange.



Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on November 02, 2023, 02:58:31 AM
Most likely the only other sign will be in Powers for the other direction. But it's good to see ORH 242/OR 542 having a proper shield finally go up!
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: pderocco on November 02, 2023, 03:07:49 AM
I find it stunning that road departments, even state ones, make so many stupid mistakes. "You had one job..."
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: nexus73 on November 02, 2023, 08:26:25 AM
542 is a N/S route, not E/W.  Look at the map to see this but that is beyond the ability of ODOT these days.

Rick
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on November 02, 2023, 01:22:15 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on November 02, 2023, 08:26:25 AM
542 is a N/S route, not E/W.  Look at the map to see this but that is beyond the ability of ODOT these days.

Rick
I wasn't going to care about that detail... but Powers is to the east of the OR 42 junction, so West 542 from the 42 is wrong regardless  :banghead:
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Amaury on November 02, 2023, 02:01:05 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on November 02, 2023, 08:26:25 AM542 is a N/S route, not E/W.  Look at the map to see this but that is beyond the ability of ODOT these days.

Rick

That's even more weird since they should have used an odd number, but I realize the whole S/N = odd and W/E = even is probably a more of a guideline than an actual rule. Just like people getting worked up over I-82 being north of I-84 and calling it a violation, when that's just a guideline.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on November 02, 2023, 05:24:54 PM
Quote from: pderocco on November 02, 2023, 03:07:49 AM
I find it stunning that road departments, even state ones, make so many stupid mistakes. "You had one job..."

I think you can chalk up some of it to lack of precise directions from the office to the sign crew.  At least, that's what they told me after I pointed out they had mistakenly signed OR 164 as 99E a few years back.

QuoteThat's even more weird since they should have used an odd number, but I realize the whole S/N = odd and W/E = even is probably a more of a guideline than an actual rule.

Oregon followed the odd/even guideline with the older route numbers.  But since the hidden hwy #'s were probably just assigned sequentially by county, with no notion they'd ever be used as signed routes, they wouldn't have even given parity a thought on those. 

So there are quite a few post-2002 routes that break the parity-direction guideline.  Examples include OR 153, OR 154, OR 528, OR 569, and OR 132, off the top of my head.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on November 02, 2023, 05:32:30 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on November 02, 2023, 02:58:31 AM
Most likely the only other sign will be in Powers for the other direction.

I did go out to Powers when I saw the erroneous 242 shields earlier, and there was no 242 or 542 shield installed down there, just the END ODOT MAINTENANCE marker.

QuoteBut it's good to see ORH 242/OR 542 having a proper shield finally go up!

Always fun to see a new signed route. 

Unfortunately, I took a trip to Wallowa Lake two weeks ago, and can't report the same thing about routes 334, 335, 350 and 351 -- they still remain unsigned!
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on November 02, 2023, 05:42:28 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on November 02, 2023, 05:24:54 PM
Quote from: pderocco on November 02, 2023, 03:07:49 AM
I find it stunning that road departments, even state ones, make so many stupid mistakes. "You had one job..."

I think you can chalk up some of it to lack of precise directions from the office to the sign crew.  At least, that's what they told me after I pointed out they had mistakenly signed OR 164 as 99E a few years back.

QuoteThat's even more weird since they should have used an odd number, but I realize the whole S/N = odd and W/E = even is probably a more of a guideline than an actual rule.

Oregon followed the odd/even guideline with the older route numbers.  But since the hidden hwy #'s were probably just assigned sequentially by county, with no notion they'd ever be used as signed routes, they wouldn't have even given parity a thought on those. 

So there are quite a few post-2002 routes that break the parity-direction guideline.  Examples include OR 153, OR 154, OR 528, OR 569, and OR 132, off the top of my head.
OR 569 was originally OR(H) 69, but ODOT quickly realized they didn't want it signed as 69. That said, even as 69, it wouldn't match the Route guidelines.
132 is an odd case, as it wasn't ever part of the ORH system being a Lane County highway that was only recently adopted by ODOT. It's one of the few Routes that doesn't have a Highway underpinning it (like how OR 8 west of OR 47 in Forest Grove doesn't).
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Amaury on November 02, 2023, 07:09:51 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on November 02, 2023, 05:24:54 PMSo there are quite a few post-2002 routes that break the parity-direction guideline.  Examples include OR 153, OR 154, OR 528, OR 569, and OR 132, off the top of my head.

Yeah, I already knew about OR 569 since I went that way coming back from a drive to Eugene last year in May. The west-east designation makes sense since it travels that way more than it does south-north, it's just the number that makes no sense in that regard.

Washington only has one route that doesn't follow the convention. WA 548 is designated as south-north, despite its even number. And there, it's not as easy to tell which way it runs more just by looking at it, as it runs about 7 miles south-north and 6 miles east-west. But the south-north designation does make sense since it does run that way more, even if just a little. Numbers were available, so I don't know why it wasn't numbered as something like WA 549.

But, anyway, yeah, there are more of those in Oregon, and don't get me started on Montana. LOL
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on November 02, 2023, 08:30:26 PM
Quote from: Amaury on November 02, 2023, 07:09:51 PM
Quote from: xonhulu on November 02, 2023, 05:24:54 PMSo there are quite a few post-2002 routes that break the parity-direction guideline.  Examples include OR 153, OR 154, OR 528, OR 569, and OR 132, off the top of my head.

Yeah, I already knew about OR 569 since I went that way coming back from a drive to Eugene last year in May. The west-east designation makes sense since it travels that way more than it does south-north, it's just the number that makes no sense in that regard.

Washington only has one route that doesn't follow the convention. WA 548 is designated as south-north, despite its even number. And there, it's not as easy to tell which way it runs more just by looking at it, as it runs about 7 miles south-north and 6 miles east-west. But the south-north designation does make sense since it does run that way more, even if just a little. Numbers were available, so I don't know why it wasn't numbered as something like WA 549.

But, anyway, yeah, there are more of those in Oregon, and don't get me started on Montana. LOL

Washington has several routes that break the convention, including several that were added in 1991 that had to be fit into the existing scheme: SR 523 is east-west on the Seattle/Shoreline city line and SR 531 is east-west as well because there's no available even numbers until you hit 540 (a former route) or 550.

I suspect SR 548 was numbered as such because it was originally intended just to serve the Cherry Point Refinery and was extended up to Blaine after some nudging by local officials during the planning process.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: xonhulu on November 02, 2023, 09:10:54 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on November 02, 2023, 05:42:28 PM
132 is an odd case, as it wasn't ever part of the ORH system being a Lane County highway that was only recently adopted by ODOT. It's one of the few Routes that doesn't have a Highway underpinning it (like how OR 8 west of OR 47 in Forest Grove doesn't).

At first, I thought "that couldn't be."  But I searched out this document:  https://www.oregon.gov/odot/planning/pages/jurisdictional-transfers.aspx

. . . and sure enough, no hwy # is listed for the Delta Hwy: it just says "Delta Hwy." 

But there was a jurisdictional transfer from Lane Co. to ODOT, so one would think it would have been assigned a highway #.  Seems like an odd bureaucratic oversight, unless ODOT just considers it a long off/on-ramp for either Beltline or I-105.

The choice of a Tillamook County number for it is also weird, considering at least one Lane County #, 220, was available.  Maybe nobody bothered to check, or they just don't care about the county-by-county system. 

But then they correctly picked a number in the 120's for Cornelius Pass Rd., so it must be selective amnesia.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on November 07, 2023, 12:21:05 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on November 02, 2023, 09:10:54 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on November 02, 2023, 05:42:28 PM
132 is an odd case, as it wasn't ever part of the ORH system being a Lane County highway that was only recently adopted by ODOT. It's one of the few Routes that doesn't have a Highway underpinning it (like how OR 8 west of OR 47 in Forest Grove doesn't).

At first, I thought "that couldn't be."  But I searched out this document:  https://www.oregon.gov/odot/planning/pages/jurisdictional-transfers.aspx

. . . and sure enough, no hwy # is listed for the Delta Hwy: it just says "Delta Hwy." 

But there was a jurisdictional transfer from Lane Co. to ODOT, so one would think it would have been assigned a highway #.  Seems like an odd bureaucratic oversight, unless ODOT just considers it a long off/on-ramp for either Beltline or I-105.

The choice of a Tillamook County number for it is also weird, considering at least one Lane County #, 220, was available.  Maybe nobody bothered to check, or they just don't care about the county-by-county system. 

But then they correctly picked a number in the 120's for Cornelius Pass Rd., so it must be selective amnesia.
With that document in mind, I'm surprised ODOT assigned an ORH to OR 127 (same number, but still). I was imagining they were content with just the OR number for brand new routes at this point.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bickendan on November 13, 2023, 09:47:10 PM
I'm happy to report that US 8 and US 47 are still signed in Forest Grove.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: JasonOfORoads on January 02, 2024, 06:09:13 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on November 07, 2023, 12:21:05 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on November 02, 2023, 09:10:54 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on November 02, 2023, 05:42:28 PM
132 is an odd case, as it wasn't ever part of the ORH system being a Lane County highway that was only recently adopted by ODOT. It's one of the few Routes that doesn't have a Highway underpinning it (like how OR 8 west of OR 47 in Forest Grove doesn't).

At first, I thought "that couldn't be."  But I searched out this document:  https://www.oregon.gov/odot/planning/pages/jurisdictional-transfers.aspx

. . . and sure enough, no hwy # is listed for the Delta Hwy: it just says "Delta Hwy." 

But there was a jurisdictional transfer from Lane Co. to ODOT, so one would think it would have been assigned a highway #.  Seems like an odd bureaucratic oversight, unless ODOT just considers it a long off/on-ramp for either Beltline or I-105.

The choice of a Tillamook County number for it is also weird, considering at least one Lane County #, 220, was available.  Maybe nobody bothered to check, or they just don't care about the county-by-county system. 

But then they correctly picked a number in the 120's for Cornelius Pass Rd., so it must be selective amnesia.
With that document in mind, I'm surprised ODOT assigned an ORH to OR 127 (same number, but still). I was imagining they were content with just the OR number for brand new routes at this point.

The Delta Highway/OR-132 is in Oregon's maintenance system as "Delta Highway #132". Like OR-127, the route designation matches the highway designation. However, as was previously mentioned, Lane County highway #220 was available, as is OR-220, and those probably should have been the designation. I'm guessing that it probably has something technical in nature, such as creating a unique number in their database, that prevents them from re-using 220; that was the reason all the spurs got changed from things like "Salmon River Highway #39Y (McMinnville Spur)" to "McMinnville Spur Highway #483" in 2010.

In any event, OR-132 doesn't defy the longstanding convention of state maintained roads having some sort of highway number underneath.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Amaury on January 14, 2024, 04:04:31 AM
Why someone would do this is beyond me: https://ktvz.com/news/2024/01/04/oregon-state-police-seek-tips-to-find-whoever-cut-down-discarded-7-odot-road-signs-in-wasco-county/
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: pderocco on January 14, 2024, 05:12:34 AM
Yeah, you'd think they'd keep the signs.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 14, 2024, 01:25:45 PM
Why was this thread recently locked?
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Amaury on January 14, 2024, 02:33:59 PM
I think it was a mistake at some point. Bickendan fixed it and unlocked it.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: roadfro on January 20, 2024, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: Amaury on January 14, 2024, 04:04:31 AM
Why someone would do this is beyond me: https://ktvz.com/news/2024/01/04/oregon-state-police-seek-tips-to-find-whoever-cut-down-discarded-7-odot-road-signs-in-wasco-county/

Quote from: pderocco on January 14, 2024, 05:12:34 AM
Yeah, you'd think they'd keep the signs.

Especially since one of the signs was milemarker 68.9...

Really odd that somebody went through the trouble to cut through the metal posts to get these signs, and then just discarded them all. All the signs seem fine, so they could just go right back into the field on new posts.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: pderocco on January 20, 2024, 06:10:54 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 20, 2024, 12:23:21 PM
Really odd that somebody went through the trouble to cut through the metal posts to get these signs, and then just discarded them all. All the signs seem fine, so they could just go right back into the field on new posts.
If they can figure out where they go. Someone might hurt himself from all that thinking.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Amaury on January 25, 2024, 04:24:14 PM
Wikipedia says that Oregon Route 35 runs silently concurrent with US Route 30 in Hood River, which I assume is just another way of saying it's an unsigned concurrent. However, that is not entirely true, as seen below:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VfSdpY5myoE5pZRx5

Trivia: The green sign here is damaged, as is the I-84 shield, and the east directionality platelet over the I-84 shield fell off, seen here in an earlier capture: https://maps.app.goo.gl/vapGcNncynMtiKhz5

https://maps.app.goo.gl/7yYqw4drTFtjF2az6

It's not signed on the other end for going east and north, as seen here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/f69J2aPwzhc4AqPk8 (northbound OR 35)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GCV7YXMqDBVuWRR37 (eastbound US 30)

But it's not entirely silent, either, as it is signed going west and south.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on January 25, 2024, 07:44:29 PM
Quote from: Amaury on January 25, 2024, 04:24:14 PM
Wikipedia says that Oregon Route 35 runs silently concurrent with US Route 30 in Hood River, which I assume is just another way of saying it's an unsigned concurrent.

And now it doesn't. It's a useless statement anyway.
Title: Re: Oregon
Post by: Bruce on March 29, 2024, 04:53:02 AM
Everyone loves an emergency expansion joint repair.

https://katu.com/news/local/failed-jointed-forces-closure-of-southbound-lanes-i-5-in-portland