Oregon

[jakeroot]

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

[JasonOfORoads]

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.

[Hurricane Rex]

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.

[nexus73]

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

[Sub-Urbanite]

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.

[Hurricane Rex]

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

[sp_redelectric]

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.

[Sub-Urbanite]

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.

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

[Hurricane Rex]

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.

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

[Bruce]

1962 model of Downtown Portland with several proposed freeways, looking south towards the Marquam Bridge.

[Bickendan]

Ooh, nice find!

[Bruce]

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.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
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.   

[Sub-Urbanite]

A map showing a plan for the 205/MHF interchange:



Rendering of the MHF looking west from over the Willamette:

[The Ghostbuster]

That proposed freeway paralleling US 26. Was that part of the canceled Mount Hood Freeway?

[Sub-Urbanite]

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.

[Alps]

Rendering of the MHF looking west from over the Willamette:

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

[ErmineNotyours]

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.

[Bickendan]

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.

[Thunderbyrd316]

Rendering of the MHF looking west from over the Willamette:

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.

[Hurricane Rex]

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)

SM-J737T

[Bickendan]

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.

[Hurricane Rex]

Just got a content disabled AGAIN when talking about Portland improvements to freeways. This was on the Oregonian.

SM-J737T

[jakeroot]

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).

[Hurricane Rex]

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