Oregon

[Alps]

Fictional discussion has been moved to Fictional Highways.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23988.0

[OCGuy81]

Oregon's approach to a growing population and lack of infrastructure to serve said growing population.....

"Take bikes, mass transit, or go fuck yourself"

[Hurricane Rex]

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

[kphoger]

Help the homeless

How dare they

[jakeroot]

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.

[Bruce]

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).

[compdude787]

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.

[jakeroot]

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?

[Hurricane Rex]

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

[sparker]

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!

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.   

[Sub-Urbanite]

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!

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:

• Metro was at the front of the lobbying effort to get the Legislature to fund the Rose Quarter. A handful of activists are still trying to spike the project and while there's certainly room for improvement (a bigger cap, anyone?) I don't think they're getting traction on their hopes to kill the whole damn thing.
• It's easy to say road widening debates are about cars vs. car haters. But local policymakers are also weighing out the impact of vehicle pollution on the citizens they represent. If you want to breathe in car pollution, feel free to buy a house next to a freeway. Remember the impacts of PM 2.5: Lung disease, heart disease, brain cancer, links to autism... the discussion on increasing capacity is more nuanced than it used to be.
• There's also the issue of cost in the Portland area. Oh, you want to widen 26 between Beaverton and downtown? So let's talk about rebuilding the Vista Ridge Tunnel. You want a wider Eastbank Freeway? Are you going to also replace the Burnside and Belmont bridges, which limit the width of any freeway beneath them? Even the 205 widening in Stafford, which has broad support in Clackamas, is a $500m+ proposition.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
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!   

[jakeroot]

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.

[Bruce]

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.

[Sub-Urbanite]

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:

• Banfield MAX was put there because of the deal to redirect allocated Mt. Hood Freeway money to build MAX instead
• 205 had a never-used busway built into it, so there were significant savings by using that facility. Many planners lament not building the Green Line on 82nd instead.
• The Barbur proposal is mostly because it's the main thoroughfare in SW Portland. Terrain-wise, there's a reason that I-5, Barbur and now MAX are clustered in that same area — most of the rest of SW Portland is hills and ravines. I think the thing that surprises me the most is that they wrote off direct connections into Hillsdale and Multnomah Village
• The Westside MAX mostly uses an old freight railroad line, so again, not only cheap ROW but already graded.

[Bickendan]

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.

[Hurricane Rex]

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

[Sub-Urbanite]

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.

[Hurricane Rex]

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

[Sub-Urbanite]

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.

[Bickendan]

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.

[Hurricane Rex]

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.

Will 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

[Hurricane Rex]

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

[sparker]

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.

Will 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. 

[sp_redelectric]

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...)