I know some of this could border on fictional, but could there ever be a shot of this happening?
Let's say I 605, or even making 205 a full beltway.
Are there any viable corridors? The western burbs seem to be majority of the metro area's growth
(This should be in fictional IMO) Yes it is possible, for $8 billion. ODOT and especially PBOT won't do it on their own.
LG-TP260
There was a western bypass of Portland proposed from 1988 to 1996. I found a webpage on the internet that gives information about the bypass, and why it wasn't built: http://www.peaktraffic.org/portland-western-bypass.html
Yeah, no. There's some interest in improving throughput for freight from westside manufacturers to I-5 and PDX, but even then, without a new I-5 bridge are you really saving any time?
The southern part of the Westside Bypass isn't *too* complicated (for Oregon, anyway), because it's flattish farmland with only one river crossing. The challenges there are all political (and they are significant).
It's the middle third — through Hillsboro, (who wants to buy that ROW?) — and particularly the northern third that are problematic.
How does one build a freeway through the Tualatin Mountains? How does one pay for that?
Does one then connect that freeway to St. Johns (which means the Portland City Council gets a say) or directly to I-5 in Washington? If it's the latter, given that you are never going to get approval to build a freeway over Sauvie Island (political + wetlands), do you take it all the way up to St. Helens and cross the Columbia there? And that's where we are in the $8 billion range, which is, I think we can all agree, a jaw-dropping number.
If you can link Vancouver to the Tualatin Valley, I think that can help traffic immensely; however, you'd need a crossing over the Columbia north of Frenchman's Bar, and either upgrade Cornelius Pass to a freeway or find a different way through the Tualatin Mountains.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on January 25, 2019, 01:53:43 PM
If you can link Vancouver to the Tualatin Valley, I think that can help traffic immensely; however, you'd need a crossing over the Columbia north of Frenchman's Bar, and either upgrade Cornelius Pass to a freeway or find a different way through the Tualatin Mountains.
Most prior plans have suggested a tunnel through the mountains.
LG-TP260
Quote from: KEK Inc. on January 25, 2019, 01:53:43 PM
If you can link Vancouver to the Tualatin Valley, I think that can help traffic immensely; however, you'd need a crossing over the Columbia north of Frenchman's Bar, and either upgrade Cornelius Pass to a freeway or find a different way through the Tualatin Mountains.
Most prior plans have suggested a tunnel through the mountains.
LG-TP260
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 25, 2019, 02:57:40 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on January 25, 2019, 01:53:43 PM
If you can link Vancouver to the Tualatin Valley, I think that can help traffic immensely; however, you'd need a crossing over the Columbia north of Frenchman's Bar, and either upgrade Cornelius Pass to a freeway or find a different way through the Tualatin Mountains.
Most prior plans have suggested a tunnel through the mountains.
LG-TP260
I was living in Portland when MAX was pushing the LR tunnel through the West Hills; if the Tualatin Mountains, essentially their northwestern extension, have a similar geologic profile (essentially mud on top of a pile of rocks), boring a tunnel would be an especially costly venture, since large boring heads tend to wear out or even break with such conditions. Lots of traditional digging and blasting might be necessary to complete a project of this type; that would result in an extended construction period with correspondingly increased expenses.
Quote from: sparker on January 27, 2019, 01:29:29 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 25, 2019, 02:57:40 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on January 25, 2019, 01:53:43 PM
If you can link Vancouver to the Tualatin Valley, I think that can help traffic immensely; however, you'd need a crossing over the Columbia north of Frenchman's Bar, and either upgrade Cornelius Pass to a freeway or find a different way through the Tualatin Mountains.
Most prior plans have suggested a tunnel through the mountains.
I was living in Portland when MAX was pushing the LR tunnel through the West Hills; if the Tualatin Mountains, essentially their northwestern extension, have a similar geologic profile (essentially mud on top of a pile of rocks), boring a tunnel would be an especially costly venture, since large boring heads tend to wear out or even break with such conditions. Lots of traditional digging and blasting might be necessary to complete a project of this type; that would result in an extended construction period with correspondingly increased expenses.
To my knowledge, the specific rock it is made if is basalt, after some dirt/mud of course. Don't know how that would affect the cost.
LG-TP260
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 27, 2019, 01:53:01 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 27, 2019, 01:29:29 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 25, 2019, 02:57:40 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on January 25, 2019, 01:53:43 PM
If you can link Vancouver to the Tualatin Valley, I think that can help traffic immensely; however, you'd need a crossing over the Columbia north of Frenchman's Bar, and either upgrade Cornelius Pass to a freeway or find a different way through the Tualatin Mountains.
Most prior plans have suggested a tunnel through the mountains.
I was living in Portland when MAX was pushing the LR tunnel through the West Hills; if the Tualatin Mountains, essentially their northwestern extension, have a similar geologic profile (essentially mud on top of a pile of rocks), boring a tunnel would be an especially costly venture, since large boring heads tend to wear out or even break with such conditions. Lots of traditional digging and blasting might be necessary to complete a project of this type; that would result in an extended construction period with correspondingly increased expenses.
To my knowledge, the specific rock it is made if is basalt, after some dirt/mud of course. Don't know how that would affect the cost.
LG-TP260
Unless the basalt is arrayed as a solid mass (unlikely), it's pretty nasty stuff to try to drill through; it tends to crack, break up, and crumble back into the bored hole (this happened repeatedly during the MAX tunnel project circa '94). This is one of the reasons there aren't any through major facilities in the John Day River area in the north central part of the state -- the hills are essentially piles of deposited basalt (leftover from past Cascade volcanic activity); most of the roads (such as OR 19 and 207) snake around the existing canyons simply because ODOT has long realized that any attempt to straighten out the alignments would involve exceptionally heavy expense. In another NW thread the prospect of a southern freeway extension of the I-82 trajectory south of I-84, eventually finding its way back to US 97 in the Redmond/Madras area was discussed; the construction problems in the John Day area have effectively put the kibosh on such plans regardless of specific alignment.
I made an illustrated version of why the Western Bypass won't happen.
(https://i.imgur.com/s7mjMIK.jpg)
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 29, 2019, 02:25:51 PM
I made an illustrated version of why the Western Bypass won't happen.
(https://i.imgur.com/s7mjMIK.jpg)
Love it --
"nope.....nope.....nope....(ad nauseum)". :-D :-D :-D Nice to have the relevant issues illustrated like this. :nod:
That's a pretty solid explanation for at least that particular alignment. Personally, I think it'd have a greater chance of happening if it went further west--there are places where it could pass through with considerably fewer potential eminent domain cases, and its function at that point would be more of actually bypassing Portland, rather than being a more freeway-like version of Roy Rogers Road (which has turned into a trainwreck in recent years).
In terms of just how far west, I think you'd probably be looking at something that passes close to Newberg, Forest Grove, and North Plains, possibly near/using part of OR-47 and Cornelius-Schefflin/Zion Church Road, the latter of which is actually the second-busiest non-ODOT rural facility in Washington County (Zion Church at a point 0.2 miles west of Glencoe Road had an AADT of 16,570 in 2017 (https://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/Divisions/TrafficEngineering/Programs/upload/2017-publish-public.pdf)).
While the planning powers-that-be and groups like 1000 Friends of Oregon seem to have an aversion to allowing new/expanded facilities in rural areas ("it'll open them up to development!"), that quite frankly seems like an incredibly silly argument, given that one can just simply not bring the surrounding land into the Urban Growth Boundary, which would also have the benefit of preserving the functional lifespan of those improvements. Metro, the counties, and the cities simply have to have a backbone and rebuff the developers' lust for land.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 29, 2019, 02:25:51 PM
I made an illustrated version of why the Western Bypass won't happen.
(https://i.imgur.com/s7mjMIK.jpg)
Compare and contrast to the I-505 I did in this mockup several years ago (I think our alignments are pretty similar, save for the southern and northern ends): https://imgur.com/a/Hd7QgS8
You Robert Moses'd the crap out of that
It was based on the '1990 PVMATS' map published in 1970 by CRAG.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 29, 2019, 02:25:51 PM
I made an illustrated version of why the Western Bypass won't happen.
(https://i.imgur.com/s7mjMIK.jpg)
So now farms are a reason not to build freeways!? LOL. You are actually right about all of this and that is what is sad. In the past this would be obstacles to overcome. Today it is a reason why it can't happen. *sigh*
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 05, 2019, 07:36:02 PM
So now farms are a reason not to build freeways!? LOL. You are actually right about all of this and that is what is sad. In the past this would be obstacles to overcome. Today it is a reason why it can't happen. *sigh*
We're talking about Oregon politics. The land conservation lobby is extremely powerful here and the preservation of the urban growth boundary continues to enjoy broad public support. And Oregon law doesn't generally allow for freeways on farmland.
So if the federal government came in and said "Here, have $8 billion and build that thing," you'd still be looking at years of litigation as the concept works its way through Oregon's land use appeals system.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 05, 2019, 07:43:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 05, 2019, 07:36:02 PM
So now farms are a reason not to build freeways!? LOL. You are actually right about all of this and that is what is sad. In the past this would be obstacles to overcome. Today it is a reason why it can't happen. *sigh*
We're talking about Oregon politics. The land conservation lobby is extremely powerful here and the preservation of the urban growth boundary continues to enjoy broad public support. And Oregon law doesn't generally allow for freeways on farmland.
So if the federal government came in and said "Here, have $8 billion and build that thing," you'd still be looking at years of litigation as the concept works its way through Oregon's land use appeals system.
I honestly have no clue about Oregon politics, but it seems to be the way of a bunch of needed infrastructure projects including rail as well.
PS, don't you think 8 billion would be a bit conservative? LOL
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 05, 2019, 07:51:13 PM
PS, don't you think 8 billion would be a bit conservative? LOL
8 billion IMO is actually pretty low, but doable if it starts in the rural part between Wilsonville and Tualatin, and this way, most if the Chehalem mountains and one bridge crossing can be dodge (saving 2 billion, 1 if using 99w). Also, going over Cornelius Pass should save money instead of drilling basalt. Now if environmental concerns are thrown out, then the 8 billion becomes possible. If you do the route shown above, I'm thinking 12-15 billion.
Also, the public also wants freeway expansion in Portland, so don't discount the politics yet.
LG-TP260
Quote from: Tarkus on February 02, 2019, 02:08:23 AM
While the planning powers-that-be and groups like 1000 Friends of Oregon seem to have an aversion to allowing new/expanded facilities in rural areas
1000 So-Called Friends of Oregon
Theoretically, yes. But you'd have to build it a little bit further west.
There are some states where you would be lucky to ever have any new roads constructed. Oregon may be one of those states.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 13, 2019, 02:47:13 PM
There are some states where you would be lucky to ever have any new roads constructed. Oregon may be one of those states.
The eastern two thirds of Oregon (by area) is completely different from the western third. This "no freeway" attitude only applies to the western third (and possibly only the northern half of this region); Bend could easily get several upgrades.
Unrelated, Portland does have a western freeway bypass: I-95 through Westbrook, ME.
Quote from: 1 on February 13, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
The eastern two thirds of Oregon (by area) is completely different from the western third. This "no freeway" attitude only applies to the western third (and possibly only the northern half of this region); Bend could easily get several upgrades.
But even Bend balked at a full freeway through town, going for a 45 mph, no-shoulder parkway (which, to be clear, I think was the right call).
I think rural Oregon likes freeways in theory, but when you start talking about how to pay for them, the interest wanes.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 05, 2019, 07:43:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 05, 2019, 07:36:02 PM
So now farms are a reason not to build freeways!? LOL. You are actually right about all of this and that is what is sad. In the past this would be obstacles to overcome. Today it is a reason why it can't happen. *sigh*
We're talking about Oregon politics. The land conservation lobby is extremely powerful here and the preservation of the urban growth boundary continues to enjoy broad public support. And Oregon law doesn't generally allow for freeways on farmland.
Emphasis in above quote is mine
In other words, Oregon really doesn't want new freeways pretty much anywhere west of the Cascades or near the Columbia River.
Quote from: skluth on April 29, 2019, 06:30:08 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 05, 2019, 07:43:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 05, 2019, 07:36:02 PM
So now farms are a reason not to build freeways!? LOL. You are actually right about all of this and that is what is sad. In the past this would be obstacles to overcome. Today it is a reason why it can't happen. *sigh*
We're talking about Oregon politics. The land conservation lobby is extremely powerful here and the preservation of the urban growth boundary continues to enjoy broad public support. And Oregon law doesn't generally allow for freeways on farmland.
Emphasis in above quote is mine
In other words, Oregon really doesn't want new freeways pretty much anywhere west of the Cascades or near the Columbia River.
No freeways period in the state. ODOT is dragging their feet on upgrading 6 miles of US 97 due to start construction THIS YEAR and no info since 2017.
The only exceptions to this is the N/D bypass, and the Sunrise expressway (thank you Bickenden)
Not quite true: Phase one of the Sunrise Freeway was finished a few years ago.
I forgot, there's upgrading OR 217! 😂😂😂😂😂
I'll be decades gone before that ever sees.another lane.
I guess maybe I should've originally posted this in Fictional, being Oregon (especially the Portland area)😂
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on February 06, 2019, 12:18:22 PM
Also, the public also wants freeway expansion in Portland, so don't discount the politics yet.
When did the public want freeway expansion in Portland? I thought most of the public in Portland wanted more freeways shortly after the sun turns into a red giant.
Quote from: kkt on April 25, 2020, 08:24:21 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on February 06, 2019, 12:18:22 PM
Also, the public also wants freeway expansion in Portland, so don't discount the politics yet.
When did the public want freeway expansion in Portland? I thought most of the public in Portland wanted more freeways shortly after the sun turns into a red giant.
When I lived up there (mid-'90's), there was a push to expand I-5 to 6 lanes north of Lombard; even back then that got kicked down the road. I don't see any widenings, including the currently contested Rose Garden project,
not drawing derision from factions within both ODOT and PDX Metro that view the driving public with disdain. Even though the overall public support for this position is largely a "working plurality" at best, that attitude is pervasive in regional official circles. Part & parcel of such an attitude is that the policy should reflect a "starve the beast" process -- with the impression that if they don't build it, fewer and fewer will come!
It'll be interesting to see, down the road, if and when electric vehicles are the default transportation mode for both individually-owned and transit applications, a sizeable portion of the anti-car argument is rendered moot, and what remains comes down to collective vs. individual social conceptualization. And it's ironic that in these COVID-dominated days, riding around in your own metal & glass can may be afforded reconsideration as a valid way to address the near/mid-term pandemic problem.
It's been interesting to see the I-5 dynamics at play.
CRC couldn't get built, in part, because there was an intellectually valid argument of "Well what's the point of a wider freeway if you're just moving the bottleneck down to Rose Quarter."
Rose Quarter, now: "What's the point of a wider freeway when there's just a bottleneck at Lombard"
It's so convoluted. And we all know where this is going: Status quo. The writing is on the wall. There will be no lid over I-5. There will be no new lanes. And the environmentalists will declare victory at the expense of a valid effort to address the racist history of I-5 construction to begin with.
Yes, Sparker, that was my impression. A minority favoring expansion, outnumbered by the people who didn't.
Electric vehicles would remove one large argument against cars. But land use problems remain. I enjoy driving and how much territory I can visit by car, but when I'm in a city or town I much prefer the local areas that are served only by foot and maybe Metro. Wide streets and the parking lots/structures take up so much land in the downtowns.
The point of the CRC to me was a bridge that wouldn't fall down when the Big One or even the Medium One hits. Too bad the states let the Perfect Bridge win over the Good Enough Bridge.
Quote from: kkt on April 27, 2020, 11:54:44 PM
Yes, Sparker, that was my impression. A minority favoring expansion, outnumbered by the people who didn't.
Electric vehicles would remove one large argument against cars. But land use problems remain. I enjoy driving and how much territory I can visit by car, but when I'm in a city or town I much prefer the local areas that are served only by foot and maybe Metro. Wide streets and the parking lots/structures take up so much land in the downtowns.
The point of the CRC to me was a bridge that wouldn't fall down when the Big One or even the Medium One hits. Too bad the states let the Perfect Bridge win over the Good Enough Bridge.
Apparently my comment about the anti-automotive movement in greater PDX being a "working plurality" didn't actually gel with some. What I meant with that evaluation was that the movement has managed to dominate both the public discussion of regional transportation issues as well as the corresponding discussion within the public agencies (City of Portland, Portland Metro, and ODOT and its legislative/gubernatorial oversight) charged with formulating policy. There are a couple of million drivers in the state -- but probably about 5000 people statewide actively involved in such policy decisions, both in and out of an official capacity. Since the state population centers around the Willamette Valley and PDX metro, the discussion has always seemed to start and stop there. Legislators, county supervisors, and department management gain their offices through not only elections but appointments -- and, as our national situation has plainly showed, elections do have consequences -- some beyond the scope of their individual electoral platforms. The majority of Oregon legislators decidedly did
not run on a platform openly stating that
if elected they would take measures to remove drivers from their automobiles and place them either on bicycle seats, in buses or light/commuter rail, or just on their own (hopefully) two feet. In most districts that wouldn't help in their electoral prospects. But it seems that once in office that atmosphere is pervasive within the various institutions; to even consider a contrary position brands one as, in current terms, "un-
woke" or, in more general parlance, politically incorrect. That situation is largely due to self-selection of personnel within agencies; unless one wants to subsist on close to minimum wage working for a PIRG or other activist group, one gets a reasonably appropriate degree and goes to work as a planner or other functionary in a public agency. And
these folks are the ones who put the nuts and bolts of policy together, including tailoring or "tweaking" situations to dovetail with their preferred agenda. And this is not some "deep state" fantasy scenario; more than a few of my grad school colleagues openly professed this career path as a means to gain some measure of policy influence. This is often accomplished via the old "garbage can" method -- essentially a solution looking for a problem which to be applied.
I do agree about land use issues forming additional arguments for density-conscious development. And Portland Metro has for all intents & purposes done a pretty damn good job of controlling sprawl where it's possible for them to do so (but watch for eye-rolling when Clark County [WA] is brought up! -- it's the exception that proves
their effective enforcement of their own rules). But they've extended their parvenu, with the complicity of the City of Portland and ODOT, to micromanaging the existing freeway situations to death! What they don't seem to realize is that while I-84 ends at I-5, through traffic on US 30 heads north there to turn SW onto the Fremont Bridge and I-405 en route to St. Helens; accommodating that traffic is a "bare minimum" rationale for adding one lane per direction to that less-than-a-mile stretch. But no --
concept trumps (no pun intended) reality here. It's as if the driving public is afflicted with a functional analogue to alcoholism or other substance abuse -- and anyone who attempts to accommodate on-the-ground transportation reality is "enabling" the aggregate bad behavior of that population.
When one is in a more densely-populated/developed city, of course it's preferable to have the amenities one wants available by foot or by readily accessible transit; Portland is one of those cities where that is possible. But not all those amenities are service-oriented (restaurants, bars, clubs -- even, arguably, Powell's); some activities require schlepping purchases substantially larger than one's pocket home (not touching the "3rd rail" of "consumerism" detraction here!). But unless one wants to pay fifty bucks for a cab or forty for an Uber (which may not even accommodate some larger items) having a vehicle at hand -- even in the midst of density -- can be a useful thing. And not all such purchases are pre-planned; some happen on the spur of the moment (one of my businesses is a specialty audio retail store, and such decisions happen several times a week with my customer base -- at least until the shit hit the fan re COVID!). The upshot is --
life is situational -- and limiting one's resources can often paint one into a proverbial corner. Now -- maybe one doesn't need to have a vehicle present on every excursion into the city -- but having one available and the means to access points there with reasonable efficiency when necessary is, realistically, part of everyday life. The key is adaptibility -- if one wants to emulate an archetypal New Yorker and eschew a car, accepting the resultant limitations, then more power to you! But do so with your eyes open!