AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: No More Freeways PDX  (Read 6264 times)

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1189
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: December 14, 2017, 07:56:30 PM
    • Wikipedia
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #25 on: September 29, 2017, 01:43:18 AM »

Probably not.  Clark County has a 7.7% sales tax. If you're buying a bike at $200, that's ~ $215 after tax (no savings). Any more expensive than $200 (most bikes), and that flat tax looks really appetising.

7.7% -- for the West Coast, that's nothing; we're 9.25% here in San Jose -- and some neighboring communities are up to 9.75%.  So far, nobody's dared to go into double figures -- but I figure that's coming within 2-3 years!

Tacoma (where I live) is 10.1% (6.5% state + 3.6% city). Figuring out after-tax prices is pretty easy! I believe we have one of the highest sales taxes in the country (.5% higher than Seattle!), although behind several Snohomish county cities (10.3% to 10.4% in many municipalities).

Yikes!  Are all those 10%+ taxes general funding or are portions thereof dedicated to specific expenditures (i.e., buses, LR expansion, public housing, or other earmarked outlays?).  Many of the higher tax rates in CA can be "parsed" out, with fixed portions applied to certain projects (such as the BART extension to SJ, which accounts for about a half-percent of our local sales tax base); it would be interesting to see if WA is utilizing that concept as well.

Sales taxes can be levied by all sorts of government agencies. It varies from city to city, and even within cities (if you are within certain boundaries, like the regional transit authority).

The highest sales tax is 10.4%, shared by Lynnwood and Mill Creek in Snohomish County.

Breaking it down for Lynnwood: 6.5% set by the State of Washington, 1.4% for Sound Transit (regional transit, voter approved in 2008 and 2016), 1.2% for Community Transit (local transit, voter approved in 2015), 0.1% for the Lynnwood Transportation Benefit District, and some other taxes I can't find at the moment.

Also, car sales have a surcharge that increases the sales tax to 10.7%. And car tabs are pretty expensive. Fair price to pay for the environmental damage, so happy motoring!

sp_redelectric

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 413
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Tigard, OR
  • Last Login: December 05, 2017, 02:28:50 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2017, 05:49:09 PM »

The money raised by the bike tax will go directly to projects "that expand and improve commuter routes for nonmotorized vehicles and pedestrians."

While lawmakers consider the passage of the bill a big win, bicycle activists are less enthusiastic.

"Congrats to Oregon," wrote Angie Schmitt on Streets Blog USA, "on its preposterous bike tax that accomplishes no discernible transportation goal except dampening demand for new bikes."

Best way to combat this, is tie cycling-specific infrastructure funding to the tax.

If cyclists choose to circumvent the tax, they'll find fewer bike paths, lesser maintenance on the existing paths, bike lanes removed during repaving projects...it'll be obvious.

Cities don't pour more money into roads when gas tax revenues decline - my local community has increased sealcoating and chipsealing, and tried some new methods to avoid repaving streets; plus we're doing fewer miles with each year.  And we're fortunate to have a city gas tax.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8782
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: December 14, 2017, 11:11:46 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2017, 08:30:40 AM »

Do Oregon local jurisdictions not use property taxes to pay for streets?  That's what's done in most other states/cities...because gas tax apportionments only cover a small share of a given city's streets.  And bicyclists certainly pay property taxes.
Logged

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 203
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: December 14, 2017, 08:17:56 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2017, 12:13:13 PM »

Do Oregon local jurisdictions not use property taxes to pay for streets?  That's what's done in most other states/cities...because gas tax apportionments only cover a small share of a given city's streets.  And bicyclists certainly pay property taxes.

Yeah, important point. For example, Portland's transportation department gets $14.6 million from the city's general fund; ODOT gets lottery money; and a lot of federal pass-through money comes from discretionary Congressional spending, because needs far outweigh what the federal gas tax can provide.
Logged

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 22
  • Location: Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, San Bernardino
  • Last Login: December 14, 2017, 07:52:37 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2017, 08:30:03 PM »

But that's not what this group (and others of its ilk) want -- as they consider all traffic modes to be part of a fungible continuum, their goal is to render metro driving so onerous that mass abandonment of the automotive mode occurs as a natural progression.  However, if I-5 in the north half remains as is with the likely resultant increase in congestion in short order, the "overflow" traffic will simply move to parallel streets -- N. Interstate, MLK, and even local arterials (to the consternation of neighborhood residents).

BINGO!

I lived in the then-gentrifying Lloyd District of Portland about 15 years ago, without a car (financial reasons).  My neighbors were very vocal about how the auto industry was a big conspiracy, etc.  They were dead set on riding their bike to put up fliers, attend meetings, etc. to make driving a thing of the past.  Sounds like it's only gotten louder and more obnoxious since then.

Fun fact:  I moved away to Salt Lake City where the freeways are like 10 lanes wide and traffic is actually... decent.  No, a city can't forever build itself out of congestion, but Utah has sure tried and as a result commute times are pretty reasonable.  (And there is also a lot of transit, bike lanes, etc.; proof a city can do both).

Portland will NEVER see the curves south of downtown fixed.  In my lifetime I'll probably see the I-5 torn down from the Marquam and the Banfield.  And I'll see a road diet on 82nd.  Idiots.  They picked their destiny when they cancelled the US-26 freeway across SE Portland and built the MAX instead.  I can't say I blame them, but it just frosts me to see these crappy collector streets in SE that have no sidewalks or shoulders -- which would be fixed if ODOT and Metro were allowed to do their job and widen these roads to 5 lanes (2+1+2).  Bicyclists would actually BENEFIT from the widening improvements, because multiuse trails, bike lanes, sidewalks, and ADA ramps would be part of the project.  Instead these crappy undersized roads just sit there like it's still 1971.  Oh well.  I love Portland, but when it comes to transportation, I'm suuuuuuuuure glad I moved away.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 08:35:04 PM by i-215 »
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6491
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 02:39:39 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2017, 09:26:28 PM »

Fun fact:  I moved away to Salt Lake City where the freeways are like 10 lanes wide and traffic is actually... decent.  No, a city can't forever build itself out of congestion, but Utah has sure tried and as a result commute times are pretty reasonable.

Makes no difference. SLC will eventually run out of room, ROW will become too expensive, etc. It's the same story in every single city that has ever grown to become a bustling metropolis.

(And there is also a lot of transit, bike lanes, etc.; proof a city can do both).

It's just smart growth. By your own confession, cities cannot build their way out of congestion. Therefore, counter the congestion ahead of time by building out a rail and foot-based network before shit hits the fan. I wish every city grew like Salt Lake. But, in so many of these newer, relatively congestion-free cities, the residents see no reason to build out the public transit network because, well, why bother? Traffic is fine...there's no reason to the blow the money.

I have no opinion on the widening of the 5 through Portland. I think in ten years, it won't make a difference. But it will keep the motorists happy, and more willing to invest in future public transit projects (rather than abandoning the motorist and expecting them to fund something that they may never use). Sounds slightly deceptive, but it's not the government's fault traffic is shitty. People seem willing to put up with congestion as long as they feel like the DOT is doing work to improve things, regardless if they actually do as much.
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7035
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 03:07:13 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2017, 05:04:33 PM »

It could be argued that Oklahoma City "built their way out of congestion" and still has the space to continue doing so indefinitely. Faced with a lack of space to expand I-40, they simply realigned it to the south where there was room.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6491
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 02:39:39 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2017, 11:30:11 PM »

It could be argued that Oklahoma City "built their way out of congestion" and still has the space to continue doing so indefinitely. Faced with a lack of space to expand I-40, they simply realigned it to the south where there was room.

Google Maps's "Typical Traffic" tool suggests some pretty heavy congestion during afternoon commutes along the 235, 35, and 44 freeways. Still, for a city that has grown by some 25 percent in the last two decades, it's impressive things aren't worse. But, OKC would be smart to invest in other forms of transport, other than person vehicles, if they want to continue accommodating new persons. I don't see a lot of room for new freeways within the city. New freeways meandering out the metro area do nothing to improve capacity within the city, so simply sprawling out in all directions would be a poor idea. I'd suggest high-density growth within the downtown area, and light rail lines connecting downtown with the OU hospital, Penn Square Mall, and Will Rogers Airport. Take advantage of the cheap land while you still can. It's something Seattleites wish they had done 40 years ago.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 337
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:22 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2017, 11:39:10 PM »

Being from OKC, google is misleading. Traffic is almost non existent in OKC. There might be a few spots that back up for an hour at most and even at that traffic still flows around 30MPH or so.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6491
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 02:39:39 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2017, 12:06:43 AM »

Being from OKC, google is misleading. Traffic is almost non existent in OKC. There might be a few spots that back up for an hour at most and even at that traffic still flows around 30MPH or so.

Gotcha. Probably not anything like what I'm used to in Seattle and Vancouver. But, would you say traffic is getting worse, or better?
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 337
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 03:22:22 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #35 on: October 16, 2017, 04:21:03 AM »

Being from OKC, google is misleading. Traffic is almost non existent in OKC. There might be a few spots that back up for an hour at most and even at that traffic still flows around 30MPH or so.

Gotcha. Probably not anything like what I'm used to in Seattle and Vancouver. But, would you say traffic is getting worse, or better?
I’ve noticed a considerable uptick in traffic. Having lived in L.A. my tolerance for traffic has gone way up. Even at that, I have still noticed a substantial increase in traffic. Congestion is starting to happen all day on I-44 along the west side of the metro and I-35 from DTOKC to Norman. It shouldn’t be long now before the same is said for Edmond.

That being said, I do wish they’d get on the ball with rail. With a streetcar wrapping up, the OKC city council has laid out preferred routes for LRT though none have been formally studied. Still exiting to see “official” possible route lists from the city.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6491
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 02:39:39 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #36 on: October 16, 2017, 04:15:50 PM »

Being from OKC, google is misleading. Traffic is almost non existent in OKC. There might be a few spots that back up for an hour at most and even at that traffic still flows around 30MPH or so.

Gotcha. Probably not anything like what I'm used to in Seattle and Vancouver. But, would you say traffic is getting worse, or better?

I’ve noticed a considerable uptick in traffic. Having lived in L.A. my tolerance for traffic has gone way up. Even at that, I have still noticed a substantial increase in traffic. Congestion is starting to happen all day on I-44 along the west side of the metro and I-35 from DTOKC to Norman. It shouldn’t be long now before the same is said for Edmond.

That being said, I do wish they’d get on the ball with rail. With a streetcar wrapping up, the OKC city council has laid out preferred routes for LRT though none have been formally studied. Still exiting to see “official” possible route lists from the city.

No surprise to hear ^that^, at all. People moving to a new city need to get around. Because OKC lacks a serious light rail or BRT network, many of these people have moved to where it's cheap enough that they can afford both a car and a house. If they didn't need a car, they might have moved somewhere nicer, somewhere denser...either way, not contributing to the growing congestion.

I too am excited to see what the city is planning. OKC is in a great position to build out a wonderful light rail or BRT network. Land is affordable, and the geography is generally flat. Both would contribute to lower costs than the $50+ billion that Seattle is having to spend to build its light rail (due to tunnels and bridges all over the place, plus extremely expensive land).
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7035
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 03:07:13 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #37 on: October 27, 2017, 07:05:47 AM »

OKC definitely has physical geography and real estate costs working in its favor, but working against it, it has a lack of density outside the core (the core being the area inside the I-44/I-235/I-40 loop, where Downtown, Bricktown, Deep Deuce, etc.) is. That makes it difficult to determine good places for lines or stops that will actually get decent amounts of use. Put the stops too close together, and you'll get maybe one or two people using each stop. Too far away, and people won't bother to use the system at all. Much of the year, Oklahoma weather is extreme enough that what would be a comfortable walk in Seattle becomes a health hazard in Oklahoma. (Do we want Grandma walking a mile to the station in 105° heat?) In a denser city, you can put the stops in at high-density nodes and be assured of a certain "audience" within the surrounding area. OKC has few such nodes.

(Of note is that this lack of density has caused many national retailers to write off Oklahoma City. Retailers often evaluate potential sales from a proposed store site by calculating the aggregate income within a certain radius of the site. These methods tend to produce inaccurate results in OKC because they do not account for the fact that OKC residents are accustomed to driving much greater distances than residents of denser cities, so a particular store's "catchment area" ends up being much larger in OKC than it would be in other cities. Retailers that do take a gamble here typically end up blowing out the meager sales figures they were projecting.)

OKC is working on developing some higher-density developments, but it's a slow process, and lenders are often reluctant to finance such projects because they are unproven in the city (despite the fact that they work and find tenants in literally every other city that tries them).  The prevailing hope is that the stops along the streetcar and light rail systems will serve as seeds to grow higher-density developments around, as they become more desirable places for such developments. As it stands now, though, there's enough infill that needs to be done in the core that we're not likely to see such things at, say, SW 59th and Western or SE 104th and Sunnylane anytime soon. (You know you're hopelessly in suburbia when the addresses hit five digits...)
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2812
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:46:00 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #38 on: October 27, 2017, 09:52:42 AM »

You know you're hopelessly in suburbia when the addresses hit five digits...

West L.A., Brentwood, and the UCLA area in general say a big hello!  Although about 15 miles west of the downtown axis (L.A. zero point at Main St. and 1st), it's basically part of the L.A. urban continuum.  Everything west of the Beverly Hills "break" is, on E-W streets, 5 digits; this extends to the Santa Monica city line as well as Marina Del Rey (Venice has its own individual grandfathered-in block-numbering system based on the beach as zero point). 

However, that being said, the only place within L.A. city limits that gets to 5 digits both N/S & E/W -- the north end of the San Fernando Valley -- is, sui generis, suburbia (and designed as such).   
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6491
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 02:39:39 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #39 on: October 27, 2017, 10:12:36 AM »

If you can't succeed in attracting people to density, it is definitely difficult to create a successful light rail line. You could always take the DC approach in the mean time. Build massive parking garages at certain stations, to at least prevent traffic from growing too much. You'll get some backups near the garage during peak hours, but it has the potential to relieve the urban freeways at least a bit. And sets a precedent for developers, who may be interested in building near stations that get lots of use.
Logged

AlexandriaVA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 844
  • Location: Virginia
  • Last Login: December 14, 2017, 01:28:06 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #40 on: October 27, 2017, 10:17:18 AM »

If you can't succeed in attracting people to density, it is definitely difficult to create a successful light rail line. You could always take the DC approach in the mean time. Build massive parking garages at certain stations, to at least prevent traffic from growing too much. You'll get some backups near the garage during peak hours, but it has the potential to relieve the urban freeways at least a bit. And sets a precedent for developers, who may be interested in building near stations that get lots of use.

Interestingly enough, the model is starting to shift. There will always be park-and-ride demand at the ends of the lines, but at least in Virginia, you're starting to see an uptick in density even at those end stations. Just this week there was an announcement about a massive development plan at the Huntington Metro, there's already MetroWest near Vienna, etc.

You'll always need park-and-ride capacity near the ends of the lines, but there's only a few stations anymore in Virginia that are under-developed by any reasonable argument. I can't see Franconia-Springfield being built up due to its layout and geography.
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7648
  • Age: 43
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: December 14, 2017, 09:22:28 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #41 on: October 27, 2017, 10:57:41 AM »

It should also be argued that building your way out of congestion isn't a static line.  You're building to keep up with building!  If not a single additional house, business, tourist destination, etc were to be constructed, and thus the population and traffic were thus held at a fairly constant level, then it's possible to completely build out of congestion.  But if you keep adding people to the existing landscape, at some point something has to be done.

Yes, anti-car people love to point to transit and bicycle lanes as a solution.

However, the question is: Has mass-transit ever relieved traffic to a point where traffic was significantly reduced to below-congestion levels? 

Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3976
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 02:42:58 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #42 on: October 27, 2017, 01:40:31 PM »

It should also be argued that building your way out of congestion isn't a static line.  You're building to keep up with building!  If not a single additional house, business, tourist destination, etc were to be constructed, and thus the population and traffic were thus held at a fairly constant level, then it's possible to completely build out of congestion.  But if you keep adding people to the existing landscape, at some point something has to be done.

Yes, anti-car people love to point to transit and bicycle lanes as a solution.

However, the question is: Has mass-transit ever relieved traffic to a point where traffic was significantly reduced to below-congestion levels? 

Probably not, but very very few road projects have eliminated congestion either.

Is that the only criterion for success?  If instead of LOS F for 4 hours a day, you have LOS E for two hours a day, isn't that success?
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6491
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 02:39:39 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #43 on: October 27, 2017, 08:05:04 PM »

Is that the only criterion for success?  If instead of LOS F for 4 hours a day, you have LOS E for two hours a day, isn't that success?

In some of the project documents (which I can't find at the moment) for the southbound WA-167 HOT lane extension, from Kent to Pacific, WSDOT "touted" that the LOS at ramp terminals, during peak hours, would improve from LOS F to LOS E. Better than nothing, I suppose.
Logged

sp_redelectric

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 413
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Tigard, OR
  • Last Login: December 05, 2017, 02:28:50 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #44 on: October 29, 2017, 02:42:45 AM »

it just frosts me to see these crappy collector streets in SE that have no sidewalks or shoulders -- which would be fixed if ODOT and Metro were allowed to do their job and widen these roads to 5 lanes (2+1+2).

The problem is that it is Metro that keeps ODOT from doing its job.  Any major transportation expenditure must be vetted by Metro before it can be spent, even by ODOT.

Metro is bought and paid for by the light rail industry, so if it doesn't make their bosses happy, Metro doesn't do it.  Want a bike path to the nearest MAX station?  You'll literally feel the ground anywhere near Metro's "Regional Center" shake as hundreds of Metro employees jump over each other to get it done.  Want a safety improvement on a State Highway?  Metro will tie up that project in so much red tape you'd think it was a 3M tape factory.  (Don't believe me?  Look at Powell Boulevard, a.k.a. United States Highway 26!)

It'd be great if Metro were just shoved out of the way altogether.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2812
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:46:00 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #45 on: October 30, 2017, 02:30:35 AM »

it just frosts me to see these crappy collector streets in SE that have no sidewalks or shoulders -- which would be fixed if ODOT and Metro were allowed to do their job and widen these roads to 5 lanes (2+1+2).

The problem is that it is Metro that keeps ODOT from doing its job.  Any major transportation expenditure must be vetted by Metro before it can be spent, even by ODOT.

Metro is bought and paid for by the light rail industry, so if it doesn't make their bosses happy, Metro doesn't do it.  Want a bike path to the nearest MAX station?  You'll literally feel the ground anywhere near Metro's "Regional Center" shake as hundreds of Metro employees jump over each other to get it done.  Want a safety improvement on a State Highway?  Metro will tie up that project in so much red tape you'd think it was a 3M tape factory.  (Don't believe me?  Look at Powell Boulevard, a.k.a. United States Highway 26!)

It'd be great if Metro were just shoved out of the way altogether.

For better or worse, PDX Metro is the sole cross-metro omnibus governing agency in the nation, and serves as something of a "petri dish" for that type of agency since it was voted into being in the early '90's.  Imagine a MPO with broad enforcement powers, both civil and criminal, and you have Metro.  Most of their staff comes from the urban planning departments at either PSU or OSU -- and anti-automotive (and more than a smidgen of just plain anti-mobility) sentiment prevails there (I'm personally acquainted with quite a few of these folks, having done my public-policy doctoral work at PSU).  I was out of there well before they installed the trolley down the middle of the campus commons (the concept was in the early planning stages back in '96-'97, and everyone in u.p. was tickled pink about the prospect!).  LR isn't so much a local "industry" as it is a passion with Metro personnel, who like to maintain the self-perception that they're "ahead of the curve" in regards to metro transportation issues.  They've "doubled down" on the concept of local-service rail despite the high developmental costs, largely due to the local geography/topography that has required extensive tunnels and bridges to effect efficient routing.  Interestingly, when I was up there in the mid-90's, the PSU economics department was regularly railing against the LR expansion, suggesting that it would be more cost-effective to increase bus service to virtually the saturation level, particularly in the eastern parts of Portland and the flatlands out to Gresham, as that area is characterized by grid-pattern streets particularly amenable to bus service (like south-central Los Angeles, but with more rain!).   But LR, being the newer and more glamorous option, became the means of choice to Metro, who seemingly want to portray themselves as being on the "cutting edge" of the urbanist movement.  The Metro experiment has hit the quarter-century mark; but the concept of an omnipotent regional government that can ride herd on any activity within its bounds has yet to be fully duplicated elsewhere in the country -- not that some MPO's haven't tried, but found that they just didn't have that level of enforcement capability.  I guess more than a few jurisdictions elsewhere don't want to be second-guessed by an entity with absolute veto power. 

Interestingly, Metro has tried on several occasions to bring Clark County, WA (directly across the Columbia) into their fold; the reactions from north of the river have ranged from simple bemusement, garden-variety apathy (WA state government would fit into that category re that concept!) to responses strongly suggesting that Metro fuck off and die! (many of those from developers who simply moved their previously denied projects across the river out of Metro's reach).     
Logged

tdindy88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1192
  • Last Login: Today at 02:23:12 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #46 on: October 30, 2017, 03:20:50 AM »

I thought I recall the Minneapolis-St Paul metropolitan area having a similar kind of organization albeit without all the powers that Portland's Metro has. They have a similar mindset with the light rail and future addition of streetcars but at least they have done some work on their freeways so it can't be exactly like the PDX area.

I minored in urban planning back in Indiana and our class took a week-long field trip to Portland. In those circles, as I'm sure some are aware Portland seems to be a kind of urban-planning mecca. We rode around the light rail and streetcars around the city center, explored a few TOD developments (Orenco Square I believe was one of them,) and listened to various people talk about Portland's planning, the creation of Metro and the involvement of PSU in all of that. I thought it was so alien to what I've seen in Indiana.

Still, on the very first day our class arrived in Portland me and a group of students wanted to head out to see the Pacific Ocean (around Cannon Beach) and what did we need to get there, a car. Using that car to drive around Portland that day and the following day when I wanted to clinch I-5, I-84 and I-205 around the Portland metro area I saw the condition of the roadways. I traveled during the middle of the day but I saw enough traffic jams in the rush hours the following days to conclude that the system did and still does need some major work, regardless of how well the trains run, or don't (at least there was still a Fareless Square back when I was there.)

It was a very eye-opening trip and I could see that while it may sound cool and neat, to some, it had problems and was not necessarily the sort of model that should be repeated elsewhere.
Logged

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 203
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: December 14, 2017, 08:17:56 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #47 on: October 30, 2017, 10:48:21 AM »

It's hard to blame Metro for ODOT's ineptitude. Metro doesn't have a ton of discretionary money for transportation funding – the federal pass-through dollars are allocated through JPACT, with the Metro Council rubber-stamping it; the situation at JPACT can be described roughly as "What percentage of money do we give to 'active transportation' (bikes and pedestrians), what percentage to transit capital, and what percentage to 'freight' (roads)." The breakdown ebbs and flows depending on the political winds and the economy.

The fact is, ODOT's got all the state gas tax money and yet they can't even keep a decent road resurfacing schedule going in the urban area. It's not Metro standing in their way. It's themselves. If you look at what happened in the 17 legislature, it was Metro pushing the plan to get ODOT money to do the Rose Quarter and 217… but again, look at how ODOT's handling this. They don't have a consistent message on why the Rose Quarter project is good. One day it's congestion relief, the next day it's safety, the next day it's to build a nice park on top.

Imagine a MPO with broad enforcement powers, both civil and criminal, and you have Metro.

Criminal enforcement powers? When did Metro get cops and a DA?
Logged

Desert Man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 732
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Sou Cal USA
  • Last Login: December 12, 2017, 01:30:00 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #48 on: October 30, 2017, 04:03:57 PM »

Why is Portland obsessed with bikes, buses, ride shares and walking??? Same with rainy Seattle and hilly San Francisco, even sprawling Los Angeles and hot Sacramento? The Left coast tries to do away with the car, but I don't believe they will succeed to change our habits.
Logged
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 203
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: December 14, 2017, 08:17:56 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #49 on: October 30, 2017, 04:09:04 PM »

Why is Portland obsessed with bikes, buses, ride shares and walking??? Same with rainy Seattle and hilly San Francisco, even sprawling Los Angeles and hot Sacramento? The Left coast tries to do away with the car, but I don't believe they will succeed to change our habits.

Portland has an entire political class devoted to bikes. They're an effective and active lobbying group (see, the reason this thread exists to begin with). It's a combination of scared riders who are legitimately concerned about getting around safely, and militant activists who would be happy to see cars banned.

Pragmatically, everyone on a bike is a person not in a car. Realistically, that's less enticing when you're pulling car lanes off major roads in order to make new bikeways.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.