No More Freeways PDX

[kalvado]

No problem -- no apologies necessary or sought.  I do agree with you about the situation where folks tend to self-select into a group -- with the resultant "groupthink" being absorbed by susceptible individuals -- and those go on to form more or less "adjunct" militancies (such as folks who purchase F-150's and the like primarily because it's a middle finger raised to the more militant folks on the other side), where ideological motivation comes and goes but the detritus (a $40K vehicle spewing out hydrocarbons) remains.  The side of me that sees irony within circumstances has long recognized that there's a whole slew of industries out there catering to these ideological whims (organic foods, various therapies, and similar things on the nominal "left", and trucks, outdoor gear, and, unfortunately, firearms for the nominal "right".  At times it seems the only winners in the ideological wars are the firms that are ready, willing, and able to "accessorize" those conflicts!

But coming back to transportation - there is really a pretty clear cut between primarily driving car owner and carless commuter - unlike me getting organic milk today, but garden variety store brand next week.
Car is significant investment for a person, transportation system similary a big investment for community; and I do see psychological reasons for defending those investments.
Trying to look at a bigger picture - and I think my experience with transportation modes is more diverse than anyone's else on this board - I can say that everything has advantages and disadvantages. But my current cost is 30 MPG car, and not really looking back..
Looking at hydrocarbon side.. primary reason for reducing emissions is reduced travel range. Which may be seen as quality of life issue to a certain extent. And the main cost factor is actually labor - one thing we don't appreciate is value of time driver spends.. Thinking about it, I really cannot afford paying myself for 45 minutes a day at the rate my employer pays me! And that has to be paid in full, with overheads and benefits, for commercial drivers/conductors...

But this is getting too far off-topic!

[sparker]

One last thought -- the investment in a vehicle, to an individual or family group, may be simply a component of a larger pattern of spending on items perceived to offer improvements to the lives of the purchasers -- be it transportation-related machinery, entertainment/information devices, structural home improvement, and the like.  All of these "components" are capable of providing specific and largely independent benefits to the individual or small group on their own, while a intrinsic level of functional overlap exists -- as well as varying level of social prerogatives and responsibility pertaining to each.  For instance, let's say a family is music-oriented and wishes to maximize their auditory experience.  That would necessitate progressing beyond earbuds and headphones to a sound system capable of conveying the complete impact of an orchestra or full-on rock group (albeit at levels that don't involve ear damage!).  In practicality, that would entail (a) a residence with a minimum of shared walls, particularly in regards to the room where such an audio system resided, and (b) either an automobile to bring the units home from the dealer (aside: IMHO anyone who purchases high-quality audio components or speakers from a catalog or website without personally auditioning them first is a fool!) or the funds to have them shipped to one's residence (with full-range speakers, this can be in the $500-1K level, depending on distance, weight, and insurance).  Here, the optimal procedural efficiency to get such an audio system up & running requires (a) in the form of a stand-alone residence and (b) a vehicle to get the parts from the source to the destination so as not to incur a major transport expense aside from the normal level needed to operate the vehicle (OK, having a hand truck available helps as well!).  Any compromise to (a) or (b) incurs either additional expenses (meaning less available funds elsewhere) and/or the ability to achieve the goal of unmitigated music reproduction; the greater the compromise, the lower the expectations of outcome.  Of course, one could always go to live performances -- but the price of tickets to a few such events can and often does approach the cost of a very nice audio system that can provide a decent facsimile of the performance itself.

The ownership and use of a vehicle often goes beyond the use as a means to commute; it is used as a delivery/pick-up vehicle, a local "personal Uber" or taxi (especially when younger kids are involved), or an alternative to air travel for relatively short trips.  Do recall that one of the classic commute situations involves a personal vehicle between home and a commuter-train depot; the greater part of the composite journey is aboard the train -- while the automobile does what it does best -- allows the user to accomplish errands or chores (picking up dry cleaning or visiting the grocery, picking up kids -- or even visiting one's local audio store to audition that system mentioned above)*  To me, that's a scenario that's close to realistically optimal if not perfect from an absolutist standpoint.  You can parse costing out to the nth degree re time spent behind the wheel, but the truth is that life itself involves overhead -- and a lot of folks, including yours truly, have "pre-folded" that into our personal economics -- as one of life's little write-offs. 

*Yeah, I'm a former working musician and a current audiophile.   Fortunately, my current living situation allows me to listen to, for example,  Mahler's 3rd followed by Metallica at close to concert levels during most waking hours.  Have a more-than-tolerant GF; she used to be a back-up singer in the early '80's, so she gets it!             

[OCGuy81]

"We want clean air".....

Yeah, traffic idling on Portland's horribly dated freeways really help create clean air.

[Bruce]

"We want clean air".....

Yeah, traffic idling on Portland's horribly dated freeways really help create clean air.

The solution is obviously to remove the freeways. Less car throughput reduces air pollution.

[silverback1065]

"We want clean air".....

Yeah, traffic idling on Portland's horribly dated freeways really help create clean air.

The solution is obviously to remove the freeways. Less car throughput reduces air pollution.

but wouldn't those same cars just be on city streets? 

[OCGuy81]

Basically Portland's solution to traffic is to hope everybody rides a bike or takes a bus.

Wonder when they'll try to make I5 or i84 bikes and TriMet only

[AlexandriaVA]

Isn't generally the premise to get people to change habits on the margin? That is, if you've been a solo driver commuter, and switching to the bus makes for a benefit in one way or another.

[jakeroot]

"We want clean air".....

Yeah, traffic idling on Portland's horribly dated freeways really help create clean air.

The solution is obviously to remove the freeways. Less car throughput reduces air pollution.

but wouldn't those same cars just be on city streets?

Yes. But you'd eventually see a demographics switch, where people want to live closer to where they work (drivers just get fed up with traffic). This increases demand for dense housing (skyscrapers, etc), decreases demand for high-capacity road networks, and increases the demand for high-capacity transit.

[silverback1065]

I'd like to see your logic applied over here in the Midwest.

[jakeroot]

I'd like to see your logic applied over here in the Midwest.

It never would. Portland and Seattle (similar situations) have geographical obstacles all around them, which make it very expensive to build and widen roads. That simply isn't the case in the Midwest. Around here, you get more bang for your buck with dense housing and public transit than with roads and suburban housing.

[AlexandriaVA]

Chicago is a relatively dense city. Obviously Lake Michigan constrains growth to the east. Density in North America is mostly a function of geographic constraint (e.g. lakes, mountains, coastlines).

Of the highest-density cities in the heartland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density), all of them seem to have a constraining factors (Chicago area and Detroit area, both subject to the effect of the Great Lakes).

[jakeroot]

Lake Michigan constrains Chicago's eastern growth, and the Detroit River + Lake St Clair contain Detroit's southern and eastern growth. But neither city has anything on the other side of those bodies of water that would make them as fierce a geographical boundary as Portland's Willamette River or Columbia River, nor Seattle's Lake Washington and the Puget Sound. In both Portland and Seattle, a lot of people live all around these bodies of water (the Willamette completely cuts Portland in two, and Lake Washington sits right in between Seattle and the Eastside, two very important parts of the Seattle metro). The water boundaries are in addition to the land boundaries. All around Seattle are hills and mountains. Portland isn't as bad, until you leave the city, and then it starts getting really hilly. The Tualatin Mountains, directly west of Portland, present a massive geographical road boundary. The only major freeway that passes through the Tualatin Mountains is US-26, which had to be tunneled through.

[sparker]

Lake Michigan constrains Chicago's eastern growth, and the Detroit River + Lake St Clair contain Detroit's southern and eastern growth. But neither city has anything on the other side of those bodies of water that would make them as fierce a geographical boundary as Portland's Willamette River or Columbia River, nor Seattle's Lake Washington and the Puget Sound. In both Portland and Seattle, a lot of people live all around these bodies of water (the Willamette completely cuts Portland in two, and Lake Washington sits right in between Seattle and the Eastside, two very important parts of the Seattle metro). The water boundaries are in addition to the land boundaries. All around Seattle are hills and mountains. Portland isn't as bad, until you leave the city, and then it starts getting really hilly. The Tualatin Mountains, directly west of Portland, present a massive geographical road boundary. The only major freeway that passes through the Tualatin Mountains is US-26, which had to be tunneled through.

Nevertheless, east of the Willamette, Portland has had it relatively easy in regards to developable land; except for Mt. Tabor, the ancient cinder cone in the center of the East Side, it's pretty damn flat out to Sandy and Gresham, where the Cascade foothills begin.  But except for relatively close-in (essentially west of Tabor) the development has been reminiscent of most outer urban areas in the West -- very mixed use, and dominated by single homes on medium-sized tracts (the closest analog down here in the Bay Area would be Fremont), interspersed by apartments.  To the credit of those charged with regulating development, there has been considerably denser development along East Burnside, where the eastern LR branch out to Gresham travels -- while high-rise apartments are few and far between, there is a lot of dense condominium development near the LR stations along the line -- a small step toward the denser infill that is needed in that area.  But countering that elsewhere in the eastern 'burbs is a serious NIMBY factor -- residents with larger lots who value their sense of privacy and relative isolation (including, I may add, some of my own family members residing in such circumstances out near Powell & 148th!).  Convincing those folks that denser development is indeed beneficial may be a difficult task -- particularly with those who have resided in that area for generations.  It's still likely that the region will, in an overall sense, display more density over the next several decades than is seen currently -- but it's also likely that patches of sparsely populated areas will exist adjacent to newly-dense complexes well into this century.  Apartment/condo living isn't for everyone -- and this area will likely be a mixed bag in that regard.

[kalvado]

"We want clean air".....

Yeah, traffic idling on Portland's horribly dated freeways really help create clean air.

The solution is obviously to remove the freeways. Less car throughput reduces air pollution.

but wouldn't those same cars just be on city streets?

Yes. But you'd eventually see a demographics switch, where people want to live closer to where they work (drivers just get fed up with traffic). This increases demand for dense housing (skyscrapers, etc), decreases demand for high-capacity road networks, and increases the demand for high-capacity transit.

I think this model still misses a few things on a larger scale.
People living closer to where they work is definitely a good idea, but it may be easier to say than to do. In order for job market to operate, you need employers to have reasonable population within commute distance, and people to live within same distance from multiple employers - so jobs can be changed and personel can be hired.
Of course, it doesn't apply to higher paying more specialized jobs where changing job often means moving to a different city, if not a different country - but there are enough lower qualified jobs which need to be filled as well.
Next, there are companies that naturally require footprint - think Boeing production sites, if we're talking Northwest, or Amazon warehouses.
Even high tech business running some production involving chemicals (e.g. pharmaceutical, semiconductor) is better off with some undeveloped space around it for safety reasons.  Of course, major companies can have a dedicated transit line to their site, but not every company is major, and even those major today need to start small.
This is not very conductive for high density city center - which works best for smaller footprint offices. You may argue that a lot of work is done at the office these days - but then look at US trade deficit and think about how sustainable that model is.

[silverback1065]

not everyone is a fan of density, i guess thats why the midwest is the way it is. 

[kalvado]

not everyone is a fan of density, i guess thats why the midwest is the way it is.

There is much more to that than just being a fan.
First is, what is realistic for the given situation. Talk about high density to midwest farmers, good luck.
Second is what is sustainable - oil and fossil fuel for transportation are finite resource, we know that.
Then, affordability is another issue. San Francisco housing bubble, anyone?
Last, but not the least, people being told what they should be fans of - and this thread started with some similar concept. After all, diverse opinions are a good thing - as long as everyone shares my opinion, right?

[silverback1065]

not everyone is a fan of density, i guess thats why the midwest is the way it is.

There is much more to that than just being a fan.
First is, what is realistic for the given situation. Talk about high density to midwest farmers, good luck.
Second is what is sustainable - oil and fossil fuel for transportation are finite resource, we know that.
Then, affordability is another issue. San Francisco housing bubble, anyone?
Last, but not the least, people being told what they should be fans of - and this thread started with some similar concept. After all, diverse opinions are a good thing - as long as everyone shares my opinion, right?

I'm a fan of density, but it seems that dense areas tend to be quite expensive. how do you remedy this?

[Plutonic Panda]

not everyone is a fan of density, i guess thats why the midwest is the way it is.

You also have to remember in the Midwest there aren't many geographical restrictions that force density.

[kalvado]

not everyone is a fan of density, i guess thats why the midwest is the way it is.

You also have to remember in the Midwest there aren't many geographical restrictions that force density.

And, if you will, still another side of the coin:
Obstacles forcing density on the metro area - are they benefit or hindrance in terms of overall situation? Should we consider extreme development of spatially constrained areas (e.g. Manhattan, Silicon Valley)  as a good approach or more as a development issue which would need to be resolved in future?

[hotdogPi]

I feel like population should be much more evenly spread out, instead of having huge cities with absolute wilderness past the edge of their suburbs. But being from the Northeast, where this is mostly already the case (for example, in Connecticut, almost every town has over 1000 people, and there are no unincorporated areas), I might be biased.

Germany also seems like a semi-good example of even population distribution. Obviously large cities must exist, but there are no obvious gaps without people between cities.

[kkt]

Then, affordability is another issue. San Francisco housing bubble, anyone?

S.F. housing prices aren't a bubble.  A bubble is increases not justified by fundamentals, scarcity and existence of jobs that would allow people to pay those high amounts.  S.F. housing is very scarce, with no place to build new housing stock, and has very high paying jobs (for some people) that allow them to pay those housing prices.  S.F. housing prices have been increasing since, well, WW II, and even 2008 was a pause in the rate of increase, not a drop in prices.

[silverback1065]

Then, affordability is another issue. San Francisco housing bubble, anyone?

S.F. housing prices aren't a bubble.  A bubble is increases not justified by fundamentals, scarcity and existence of jobs that would allow people to pay those high amounts.  S.F. housing is very scarce, with no place to build new housing stock, and has very high paying jobs (for some people) that allow them to pay those housing prices.  S.F. housing prices have been increasing since, well, WW II, and even 2008 was a pause in the rate of increase, not a drop in prices.

not only that, but some zoning laws can contribute. 

[jakeroot]

I feel like population should be much more evenly spread out, instead of having huge cities with absolute wilderness past the edge of their suburbs.

You need to leave room for arable land.

[kalvado]

I feel like population should be much more evenly spread out, instead of having huge cities with absolute wilderness past the edge of their suburbs.

You need to leave room for arable land.

US is 2.4 billion acres. You need about 1 acre of arable to feed one person.
Of course, not all of that land is usable for agriculture - but 1 acre lot is HUGE for the home. We have 1.2 acre - and I walked to back property line.. once upon a time, just to make sure that place exists.
NYC is about 40 people per acre, PDX is 16.. going lower - 0.25 acre per person is 10 times lower than NYC and 3x Portland, still a small fraction of required agriculture area

[jakeroot]

I feel like population should be much more evenly spread out, instead of having huge cities with absolute wilderness past the edge of their suburbs.

You need to leave room for arable land.

US is 2.4 billion acres. You need about 1 acre of arable to feed one person.
Of course, not all of that land is usable for agriculture - but 1 acre lot is HUGE for the home. We have 1.2 acre - and I walked to back property line.. once upon a time, just to make sure that place exists.
NYC is about 40 people per acre, PDX is 16.. going lower - 0.25 acre per person is 10 times lower than NYC and 3x Portland, still a small fraction of required agriculture area

A couple issues...1) not all 2.4 billion acres are arable, and 2) not all 2.4 billion acres are appropriate for home building. I have no idea what any other numbers might be, but when you consider the fact that you can't just chop down all trees and build homes on the land, plus the lack of utilities in rural areas, the amount of land appropriate for home-building *outside of metro areas* drops off dramatically.

Further, there are many people (myself, for example) who would much rather live in a dense area where walking was easier than driving. I would reckon that about 30-50% of the people in this country have the same preference (and that number is growing, judging by how many people now live in cities versus unincorporated areas). As long as this desire exists, dense cities will always exist. I have no interest in living 70 miles from work, because the government put a cap on density (something 1 would seem to like). I would like to live as close as I can.

And let's be honest here. A 40-storey skyscraper is a lot more environmentally friendly than sprawling suburbs. Less materials and less land-take.