I hope the CRC is rebuilt with additional lanes, as well as full shoulders. As for the light rail element, they can take it and dump it at the bottom of the Columbia River. It would be more useful down there.
Yes, then we can have a new bottleneck in a new location while thousands of bus commuters are stuck trying to get to the nearest MAX station. A very short extension to the already robust MAX network is a no-brainer.
Exactamundo Bruce! The snarl will be moved back from the Interstate Bridge to I-5/I-84 and I-5/I-405. Until the progressives against progress are willing to pony up for a complete redo of the PDX freeway system to make it more akin to what I saw on the Wasatch Front where traffic flowed at 70 MPH on a busy day, the Rose City will suffer from congestion until the end of the world.
Rick
The Salt Lake City metro has half the population and is much more spread out. It's definitely been proven that you can't build more lanes in general to relieve congestion...you have to build alternatives. Light rail is one, as is better land use within Portland proper.
The idea that alternatives can relieve highway congestion is definitely not proven. Alternatives can complement highways, but they do not replace them in economically healthy areas.
All my electives in graduate school were in regional planning. The mantra that transit can relieve congestion was more dogma than based upon good science.
Therefore, the idea that we should build alternatives to relieve congestion INSTEAD of increasing highway capacity is not well-founded.
That said, I am in favor of building BOTH as a two-pronged solution to congestion.
(Sorry for the capitals, but I am on Tapatalk and formatting is limited).
Sure, but the impacts of freeway expansion are disproportionately worse than transit expansion. Air pollution, land takings, noise pollution, mental health impacts, childhood asthma, neighborhood disconnectivity...all linked with freeway expansion.
I should have clarified that transit expansion is about siphoning off existing and future demand from freeways, not relieving them. It would be impossible to accommodate all of the drivers on I-5 with light rail expansion (let alone the needed park-and-ride facilities). What it can do, however, is influence land use to encourage car-free or car-light lifestyles for new arrivals or intra-urban emigrants, especially when it comes to denser housing (which also helps with the West Coast's severe housing supply crisis). We've committed to this in Seattle and while the number of employers and people in Seattle have increased, traffic volumes have not increased at the same rate...in fact, drive-alone and carpooling rates have decreased while transit ridership is way up.
Unfortunatly, Portland transit ridership is down if you look at % of population, and the increased air pollution is BS, as the congestion is causing idle cars, which increases the air pollution due to cars not running at their max efficiency vs time (about 55-60 mph), and the childhood asthma and health impacts. Land use and disconnected neighborhoods I can agree on, but only marginally, as there is still ROW available on about 70% of Portland freeways to expand. If you want to see an example of that, my fictional tier 1 transportation package has expansion, but is careful on land use, except on the Westside bypass/I-605. It is posted on my fictional Oregon plans thread.
Do I think light rail should be expanded? Within reason, as I disagreed with building the Tilikum crossing for transit/pedestrian use only, but likes all the previous lines. Do they have flaws, too many, especially Max in downtown Portland, and 55 mph limit when the cars are designed for 65. The bridgeport line I have trouble getting on board with as planned, due to the Barbur road diet, low projected ridership (15% according to a KGW viewer poll would use it often, another 15% possibly), and due to the top 2, the Tigard buisness displacements. Would I like a line there? Yes, but it shouldn't be prioritized over badly needed expansion.
On Seattle: I like the balance they are having right now and they are planning thier light rail lines well (with the exception of removing the I-90 express lanes).
Edit: The effectiveness of light rail goes down as density gets thinner as well, making a line past Bridgeport near useless ubless its a high speed line. This is also why I'm opposed to light rail in the outer suburbs. A Washington Square line though would be nice, maybe connect Bridgeport to Beaveron Town Center with a diversion to Washington Square? Now I don't know how that would be done.
Also another problem is Portland's downtown hub light rail system which doesn't provide the best efficiency IMO. Many potential riders confessed they don't ride it due to people not needing to go downtown. Bus is similar but better laid out.
Author
Topic: CRC Revival? (Read 28528 times)