Oregon

[Plutonic Panda]

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 

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.

[kernals12]

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.

[SkyPesos]

^ We get it, Phoenix is your ideal example of a metro area design. All of this forum and this one Reddit sub knows that.

[Max Rockatansky]

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 

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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 

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.

[SkyPesos]

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 

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.

[sparker]

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.

[roadman65]

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?

[ClassicHasClass]

an 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"

[TheHighwayMan3561]

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.

[sparker]

an 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!)

[Sub-Urbanite]

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.

[kernals12]

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."

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[JasonOfORoads]

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):

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[Bickendan]

^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.

[Max Rockatansky]

^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.

[xonhulu]

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:


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:




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:


OR 70 in Bonanza:

[Bickendan]

^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.

[stevashe]

^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)_/¯

[Max Rockatansky]

^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

[xonhulu]

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.