AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northwest => Topic started by: Sub-Urbanite on September 22, 2017, 05:59:46 PM

Title: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on September 22, 2017, 05:59:46 PM
So this is a thing.

https://nomorefreewayspdx.com

They are literally opposing construction of an auxiliary lane between I-405 and I-84 on I-5 through the Rose Quarter... and a freeway deck lid to make it less noxious.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sp_redelectric on September 22, 2017, 07:20:37 PM
The anti-freeway groups are mobilizing, and they are now pushing for a congestion tax on the region as their "solution".

But because they are the vocal minority that are aligned with the bicycle interests in this city, the 5% will get to trample on the 95%.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Indyroads on September 22, 2017, 11:44:55 PM
Nothing new .. This has been going on for years all over the country... just under the auspices of environmental protection
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: compdude787 on September 22, 2017, 11:57:44 PM
Their opposition is utterly stupid and backwards. It is clear that this organization really hates cars!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on September 23, 2017, 02:10:34 AM
Well duh, when you don't have a car, cars are a problem. A pest.

This freeway expansion seems to be pretty pointless, though, and will do little to "fix" congestion. Just correct the merges without increasing the number of lanes. Call it a geometric revision, not an expansion.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Duke87 on September 24, 2017, 12:21:51 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 23, 2017, 02:10:34 AM
This freeway expansion seems to be pretty pointless, though, and will do little to "fix" congestion.

But it will improve throughput. Four congested lanes is still a 33% capacity improvement over three congested lanes.

This might not be sexy but it is objectively a benefit.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on September 24, 2017, 12:28:58 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 24, 2017, 12:21:51 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 23, 2017, 02:10:34 AM
This freeway expansion seems to be pretty pointless, though, and will do little to "fix" congestion.

But it will improve throughput. Four congested lanes is still a 33% capacity improvement over three congested lanes.

This might not be sexy but it is objectively a benefit.

What good is it when the downtown streets and connectors are clogged up and can't handle that throughput? It's an overflowing sink that you're plugging more pipes into.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Duke87 on September 24, 2017, 01:13:42 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 24, 2017, 12:28:58 AM
What good is it when the downtown streets and connectors are clogged up and can't handle that throughput? It's an overflowing sink that you're plugging more pipes into.

This statement is directly contradictory to the original assertion that the widening would not fix congestion.

If capacity on streets downtown were the singular limiting factor in the freeway's utility, adding lanes to it would make it less congested because you would have more space for the same number of vehicles. More vehicles wouldn't use the road because they'd have nowhere to go once off of it / be unable to get to it on the return trip.

If lanes are added to a freeway and getting used by additional traffic, somewhere there must be available capacity for those vehicles once they get off the freeway because we know they're successfully completing their trips.


Now it may well be the case that downtown streets cannot really handle more traffic (I'm not familiar enough with Portland to know whether that is the case or not). But, who says the traffic is going downtown? Those extra lanes are useful for people going from Tigard to Vancouver. Or from Montavilla to St John's.

Even if we accept the analogy that downtown is an overflowing sink (flawed, IMO), adding another pipe doesn't necessarily mean dumping more water into it. It can also mean helping drain water out of it so it stops overflowing.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on September 24, 2017, 02:41:11 AM
As a former PDX resident, the notion that the 5/405 downtown "loop" can and will collectively disperse traffic from all four directions -- with only 2 lanes per travel direction -- was and is absurd to the nth degree!  If the longer routes extending from the routes (5 [x2], 84, and 26 -- even though west 30 is contributory, it has relatively lesser effect on the overall flow) effectively divide the loop into overlapping halves, each half (regardless of whether it's on a N-S or E-W axis) can be expected to host traffic from both the through route and the entering outer extension; 3 lanes for the outer and inner loops (not considering the connections west of Marquam and east of Fremont bridges) would be the minimum required to effect continuous flow.

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).

The prevailing public response to efforts to curb urban driving (and/or driving in general!) has decidedly not been an attitudinal sea change to "Gosh -- since I can't make good time between point A and point B, I'm just going to give up my car and take public transit -- even though I can't "trip-chain" anymore and now I have to get up at 5 in the morning to catch all the necessary buses/LR/trolleys to make it to work at 8!"  Nah -- they're going to grit their teeth and do what's necessary to maintain a personal mode as close to their accustomed methodology.  While some folks assume (w/o much besides low "n" anecdotal evidence as backing) that we're shooting headlong into a postconsumer/postcapitalist modality, the plain truth is that folks require the movement flexibility that the individual-automotive mode provides -- the willingness to accept extremely bounded rationality is limited to a relatively few parties; the ranks of those, despite the "throw enough shit out there and someone will believe it" mentality of some activists (ironically mirroring in their own way the efforts of the current national administration), isn't increasing outside small circles of those same activists (the old adage of "preaching to the choir" applies here as well).       

I hear the clarion cry of "sustainability" ready to pounce on my previous assertations.  But the reality is that within the overall realm of our current democracy and its various components, elevating a reductionist agenda to the position of being the sole methodology considered to achieve sustainability is not only politically but logistically infeasible; taking things away from folks -- particularly their flexibility regarding freedom of living choices -- is hardly an acceptable or even realistic course of action.  Rather than engage in a wholesale condemnation of those who make the choice to function within a commercial/consumer atmosphere -- and attempt to limit their ability to do so -- the more rational -- and (small "d") democratic choice would be to make their current modus operandi compatible with those goals of sustainability -- which, of course, will mean hard corporate choices (eliminating fossil fuels in favor of biofuels and/or electricity would go far toward that) that may mean some severe "blips" for Wall Street. 

Essentially, this argument is simple -- turn populist energy toward technical changes to effect sustainability -- and whatever structural modifications are necessary to achieve those -- rather than attempting to change basic human nature and/or create a new "homus urbanus communitarius" species.  And to all those activists out there -- please resist the temptation to look at yourself in the mirror each morning and think "....if everyone were like me, all would be right with the world!" -- and don't elevate methodology to ideology.   Perhaps I'm just your basic utilitarian -- always looking for ways to get things done without banging my head against too many walls; but I learned long ago that eschewing ideology in favor of effectuality was invariably the way to go!  Change the environment in which people operate; don't try to change people in a wholesale manner.   
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: compdude787 on September 24, 2017, 05:03:01 PM
^ Sparker is exactly right here. He hits on a principle, which is: People. Like. Their. Cars. They will be hard pressed to give them up. Only the lack of inexpensive parking will force people to consider alternate modes of transportation. Making congestion worse by not doing anything about it--or hanging on to this delusional fantasy that adding more light rail and buses will reduce congestion--will not make people get out of their cars. Oh, and speaking of public transit, I think that it's going to be replaced by services like Uber and Lyft, and we won't need to waste taxpayer money on something that does NOTHING to reduce congestion! Oh what a day that will be!!! :D
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on September 24, 2017, 09:34:04 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 24, 2017, 05:03:01 PM
^ Sparker is exactly right here. He hits on a principle, which is: People. Like. Their. Cars. They will be hard pressed to give them up. Only the lack of inexpensive parking will force people to consider alternate modes of transportation. Making congestion worse by not doing anything about it--or hanging on to this delusional fantasy that adding more light rail and buses will reduce congestion--will not make people get out of their cars. Oh, and speaking of public transit, I think that it's going to be replaced by services like Uber and Lyft, and we won't need to waste taxpayer money on something that does NOTHING to reduce congestion! Oh what a day that will be!!! :D

Transit is meant to bypass congestion, not directly affect it. Lyft and Uber are not going to be able to carry the same amount as a single bus or light rail vehicle (even the under-sized Portland version) as efficiently, even with everything automated.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bickendan on September 24, 2017, 11:36:01 PM
Bruce is right -- Uber and Lyft can only supplement public transit. They might be able to replace yellow cabs, but not buses, streetcars, and LRTs.
As far as LRT goes in Portland, the two care limitation a bane for MAX capacity, not to mention the downtown and Lloyd District routings. MAX should have been built as a subway downtown, like Seattle's transit tunnel, which would have allowed for three or four car trains.

As for cars, and this anti-freeway sentiment this group is harboring, I'd like to have whatever they're smoking. Widening I-5 through Rose Quarter isn't for the sake of widening the freeway; it's to remove a long-standing bottleneck on I-5 and mitigate several dangerous weaving sections. Notably, the two lane section between the Marquam Bridge and I-84 remains...
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 24, 2017, 11:55:18 PM
A lot of city traffic is caused by cars searching for parking spaces. Hired cars (cab, uber, limo, etc) eliminate the parking need.

Think of how many people get around by cab in New York...imagine if they all drove and trolled around for spots.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 25, 2017, 06:42:58 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 24, 2017, 11:36:01 PM
Bruce is right -- Uber and Lyft can only supplement public transit. They might be able to replace yellow cabs, but not buses, streetcars, and LRTs.
As far as LRT goes in Portland, the two care limitation a bane for MAX capacity, not to mention the downtown and Lloyd District routings. MAX should have been built as a subway downtown, like Seattle's transit tunnel, which would have allowed for three or four car trains.

As for cars, and this anti-freeway sentiment this group is harboring, I'd like to have whatever they're smoking. Widening I-5 through Rose Quarter isn't for the sake of widening the freeway; it's to remove a long-standing bottleneck on I-5 and mitigate several dangerous weaving sections. Notably, the two lane section between the Marquam Bridge and I-84 remains...
I think ridesharing services have greatly impacted transit. Transit ridership is down in almost every city. Uber and Lyft have likely played some part in that.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Stephane Dumas on September 25, 2017, 10:21:04 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 24, 2017, 05:03:01 PM
^ Sparker is exactly right here. He hits on a principle, which is: People. Like. Their. Cars. They will be hard pressed to give them up. Only the lack of inexpensive parking will force people to consider alternate modes of transportation. Making congestion worse by not doing anything about it--or hanging on to this delusional fantasy that adding more light rail and buses will reduce congestion--will not make people get out of their cars. Oh, and speaking of public transit, I think that it's going to be replaced by services like Uber and Lyft, and we won't need to waste taxpayer money on something that does NOTHING to reduce congestion! Oh what a day that will be!!! :D

Also, just imagine having lots of groceries bags in public transit or worse as shown in the 1985 movie "Moving Violations" in this clip at 2:55. ;)
https://youtu.be/Q4FxzFyITuo?t=2m55s
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on September 25, 2017, 12:40:30 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 25, 2017, 10:21:04 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 24, 2017, 05:03:01 PM
^ Sparker is exactly right here. He hits on a principle, which is: People. Like. Their. Cars. They will be hard pressed to give them up. Only the lack of inexpensive parking will force people to consider alternate modes of transportation. Making congestion worse by not doing anything about it--or hanging on to this delusional fantasy that adding more light rail and buses will reduce congestion--will not make people get out of their cars. Oh, and speaking of public transit, I think that it's going to be replaced by services like Uber and Lyft, and we won't need to waste taxpayer money on something that does NOTHING to reduce congestion! Oh what a day that will be!!! :D

Also, just imagine having lots of groceries bags in public transit or worse as shown in the 1985 movie "Moving Violations" in this clip at 2:55. ;)

Probably much less of an issue with services like Amazon pantry, Uber Eats and home delivery from local grocery store.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: edwaleni on September 28, 2017, 01:29:55 PM
In response to the various demands for more bicycle lane availability/accessibility, Oregon has passed a bicycle tax.

Interesting response from those who rely solely on highway taxes to pay for a bicycle way around town.

Oregon just passed the only bike-specific tax in the country

On Thursday, the Oregon Legislature approved an ambitious $5.3 billion transportation tax and fee package. House Bill 2017, which passed the Senate 22-7, includes a 4-cent gas tax hike, a $16 vehicle registration fee increase, 0.1 percent payroll tax and 0.5 percent tax on new car sales.

It also includes something that no other state in the country has: a tax on the sale of bikes.

That means, unless opponents challenge the bill at the ballot or in court, starting Jan. 1, 2018, new bicycles with a wheel diameter of 26 inches or more and a retail price of $200 or more will be taxed a flat rate of $15.

The tax will be collected by retailers at the time of sale. It should be noted that most states do tax the sale of bikes because they have sales tax and tax the sale of most goods, which Oregon does not.

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."

"The only way to like this tax is to think 1) it will quell the anger from people who think, 'Those bicyclists don't pay their fair share!' (it won't)," wrote Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, "or 2) you think the money it raises for infrastructure outweighs the potential disincentive to new bike buyers, the erosion of profits from bike retailers, and the absurdity of it on principle alone."

"Time will tell I suppose," he added.

Others are already coming up with ways to skirt the law. One suggestion? Buy bikes with smaller wheels:
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jwolfer on September 28, 2017, 04:19:20 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on September 28, 2017, 01:29:55 PM
In response to the various demands for more bicycle lane availability/accessibility, Oregon has passed a bicycle tax.

Interesting response from those who rely solely on highway taxes to pay for a bicycle way around town.

Oregon just passed the only bike-specific tax in the country

On Thursday, the Oregon Legislature approved an ambitious $5.3 billion transportation tax and fee package. House Bill 2017, which passed the Senate 22-7, includes a 4-cent gas tax hike, a $16 vehicle registration fee increase, 0.1 percent payroll tax and 0.5 percent tax on new car sales.

It also includes something that no other state in the country has: a tax on the sale of bikes.

That means, unless opponents challenge the bill at the ballot or in court, starting Jan. 1, 2018, new bicycles with a wheel diameter of 26 inches or more and a retail price of $200 or more will be taxed a flat rate of $15.

The tax will be collected by retailers at the time of sale. It should be noted that most states do tax the sale of bikes because they have sales tax and tax the sale of most goods, which Oregon does not.

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."

"The only way to like this tax is to think 1) it will quell the anger from people who think, 'Those bicyclists don't pay their fair share!' (it won't)," wrote Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, "or 2) you think the money it raises for infrastructure outweighs the potential disincentive to new bike buyers, the erosion of profits from bike retailers, and the absurdity of it on principle alone."

"Time will tell I suppose," he added.

Others are already coming up with ways to skirt the law. One suggestion? Buy bikes with smaller wheels:
People will buy bikes in Washington

Z981

Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on September 28, 2017, 04:29:05 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on September 28, 2017, 04:19:20 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on September 28, 2017, 01:29:55 PM
In response to the various demands for more bicycle lane availability/accessibility, Oregon has passed a bicycle tax.

Interesting response from those who rely solely on highway taxes to pay for a bicycle way around town.

Oregon just passed the only bike-specific tax in the country

...starting Jan. 1, 2018, new bicycles with a wheel diameter of 26 inches or more and a retail price of $200 or more will be taxed a flat rate of $15...

People will buy bikes in Washington

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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on September 28, 2017, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on September 28, 2017, 04:19:20 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on September 28, 2017, 01:29:55 PM
In response to the various demands for more bicycle lane availability/accessibility, Oregon has passed a bicycle tax.

Interesting response from those who rely solely on highway taxes to pay for a bicycle way around town.

Oregon just passed the only bike-specific tax in the country

On Thursday, the Oregon Legislature approved an ambitious $5.3 billion transportation tax and fee package. House Bill 2017, which passed the Senate 22-7, includes a 4-cent gas tax hike, a $16 vehicle registration fee increase, 0.1 percent payroll tax and 0.5 percent tax on new car sales.

It also includes something that no other state in the country has: a tax on the sale of bikes.

That means, unless opponents challenge the bill at the ballot or in court, starting Jan. 1, 2018, new bicycles with a wheel diameter of 26 inches or more and a retail price of $200 or more will be taxed a flat rate of $15.

The tax will be collected by retailers at the time of sale. It should be noted that most states do tax the sale of bikes because they have sales tax and tax the sale of most goods, which Oregon does not.

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."

"The only way to like this tax is to think 1) it will quell the anger from people who think, 'Those bicyclists don't pay their fair share!' (it won't)," wrote Jonathan Maus, editor of BikePortland.org, "or 2) you think the money it raises for infrastructure outweighs the potential disincentive to new bike buyers, the erosion of profits from bike retailers, and the absurdity of it on principle alone."

"Time will tell I suppose," he added.

Others are already coming up with ways to skirt the law. One suggestion? Buy bikes with smaller wheels:
People will buy bikes in Washington

Z981


Just like folks in Vancouver and environs buy many of their big-ticket goods in Oregon because of the lack of sales tax.  In this case, turnabout is certainly fair play! 
Quote from: jakeroot on September 28, 2017, 04:29:05 PM
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!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on September 28, 2017, 05:02:51 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 28, 2017, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 28, 2017, 04:29:05 PM
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).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: MisterSG1 on September 28, 2017, 05:47:16 PM
Regarding taking an uber versus "hunting around for parking". There is something to consider about Uber and it's impact on the transportation picture.

For starters, open up your Uber app, those cars on the map are those drivers currently waiting for rides, so thus they are out on the roads (if they can't find a parking spot especially in a downtown setting) with no destination in mind. This adds more traffic to the roads, sure Uber may be popular but it could arguably make road transportation worse.

An uber driver in essence with regards to a trip is active in 3 phases, only the third phase transports a passenger somewhere.

Phase 1: Driver online waiting for trips - A driver doesn't necessarily need to be on the road in this phase, but in urban settings, finding a decent place to "hide" while in Phase 1 can sometimes be difficult to find, so some drivers will be driving around aimlessly

Phase 2: Driver accepts ping and enroute to pick up rider - The closest driver on the map is now summoned to pick up the rider

Phase 3: Rider gets in vehicle and driver transports rider to destination - Only in this phase is the desired trip for the rider occurring


What I'm trying to say is that uber drivers take up a significant footprint in the role they do that many overlook.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on September 28, 2017, 05:47:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 28, 2017, 05:02:51 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 28, 2017, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 28, 2017, 04:29:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Duke87 on September 28, 2017, 07:02:33 PM
It should be noted that Washington does not have a state income tax. Their sales taxes are high because, well, the money's gotta come from somewhere.

As for the bike tax, on the principle of infrastructure being paid for by those who use it, it makes perfect sense. Although, $15 per new bike seems like a trivial sum. How much of an impact will this have on bike sales, really? And, concurrently, how much money will it really raise? Seems like mostly a symbolic gesture to quell complaints about bikes getting a free ride.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on September 29, 2017, 12:01:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on September 28, 2017, 05:47:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 28, 2017, 05:02:51 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 28, 2017, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 28, 2017, 04:29:05 PM
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.

As mentioned by Duke (previous page), these taxes are indeed traced to not having income tax. The Puget Sound region is paying for light rail through yearly vehicle registration fees (my tabs went from $80 to $300 but I'm fine with it).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on September 29, 2017, 01:43:18 AM
Quote from: sparker on September 28, 2017, 05:47:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 28, 2017, 05:02:51 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 28, 2017, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 28, 2017, 04:29:05 PM
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 (https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/Docs/forms/ExcsTx/LocSalUseTx/LocalSlsUseFlyer_17_Q4_alpha.pdf), 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!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sp_redelectric on October 01, 2017, 05:49:09 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on September 28, 2017, 01:29:55 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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: froggie 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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on October 02, 2017, 12:13:13 PM
Quote from: froggie 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.

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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: i-215 on October 04, 2017, 08:30:03 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 24, 2017, 02:41:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on October 04, 2017, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: i-215 on October 04, 2017, 08:30:03 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.

Quote from: i-215 on October 04, 2017, 08:30:03 PM
(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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Scott5114 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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on October 15, 2017, 11:30:11 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 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.

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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda 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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on October 16, 2017, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda 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.

Gotcha. Probably not anything like what I'm used to in Seattle and Vancouver. But, would you say traffic is getting worse, or better?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 16, 2017, 04:21:03 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 16, 2017, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda 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.

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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on October 16, 2017, 04:15:50 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 16, 2017, 04:21:03 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 16, 2017, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda 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.

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).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Scott5114 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...)
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on October 27, 2017, 09:52:42 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 27, 2017, 07:05:47 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).   
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot 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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: AlexandriaVA on October 27, 2017, 10:17:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot 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.

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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jeffandnicole 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? 

Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kkt on October 27, 2017, 01:40:31 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole 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? 

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?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 08:05:04 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 27, 2017, 01:40:31 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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sp_redelectric on October 29, 2017, 02:42:45 AM
Quote from: i-215 on October 04, 2017, 08:30:03 PMit 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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on October 30, 2017, 02:30:35 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on October 29, 2017, 02:42:45 AM
Quote from: i-215 on October 04, 2017, 08:30:03 PMit 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).     
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: tdindy88 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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Sub-Urbanite 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.

Quote from: sparker on October 30, 2017, 02:30:35 AMImagine 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?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Desert Man 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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on October 30, 2017, 04:09:04 PM
Quote from: Desert Man 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.

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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on October 30, 2017, 04:31:02 PM
Quote from: Desert Man 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.

They're more obsessed with providing alternatives to the car. For many years, west coast cities focused heavily on freeway expansion. Which was fine, until each city's economy grew to the point where traffic congestion became apocalyptic. Rather than widen and build forever (which would be necessary to keep up with the growth of car adoption), the cities knew that it was important to introduce alternative modes of transportation, not only to accommodate those who are physically incapable of driving, but also to accommodate future growth without crushing the road network. When people move to a city, they need to be able to get around. If someone moves to a city with transit, they might be more likely to sell their car (if they owned one already) before moving, or just not bother buying a car at all. That's the primary goal. Of course, you need to be able to get to the bus or train station, so that's the primary reason for the road diets that are common in Seattle and Portland (to accommodate those cycling or walking to the stations).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 04:36:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2017, 04:31:02 PM
Quote from: Desert Man 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.

They're more obsessed with providing alternatives to the car. For many years, west coast cities focused heavily on freeway expansion. Which was fine, until each city's economy grew to the point where traffic congestion became apocalyptic. Rather than widen and build forever (which would be necessary to keep up with the growth of car adoption), the cities knew that it was important to introduce alternative modes of transportation, not only to accommodate those who are physically incapable of driving, but also to accommodate future growth without crushing the road network. When people move to a city, they need to be able to get around. If someone moves to a city with transit, they might be more likely to sell their car (if they owned one already) before moving, or just not bother buying a car at all. That's the primary goal. Of course, you need to be able to get to the bus or train station, so that's the primary reason for the road diets that are common in Seattle and Portland (to accommodate those cycling or walking to the stations).
And car alternatives also have capacity limits - which are not impossible to hit, see NYC..
It seems a curse of a big city - they tend to grow too big....
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on October 30, 2017, 04:46:48 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 04:36:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2017, 04:31:02 PM
Quote from: Desert Man 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.

They're more obsessed with providing alternatives to the car. For many years, west coast cities focused heavily on freeway expansion. Which was fine, until each city's economy grew to the point where traffic congestion became apocalyptic. Rather than widen and build forever (which would be necessary to keep up with the growth of car adoption), the cities knew that it was important to introduce alternative modes of transportation, not only to accommodate those who are physically incapable of driving, but also to accommodate future growth without crushing the road network. When people move to a city, they need to be able to get around. If someone moves to a city with transit, they might be more likely to sell their car (if they owned one already) before moving, or just not bother buying a car at all. That's the primary goal. Of course, you need to be able to get to the bus or train station, so that's the primary reason for the road diets that are common in Seattle and Portland (to accommodate those cycling or walking to the stations).

And car alternatives also have capacity limits - which are not impossible to hit, see NYC..
It seems a curse of a big city - they tend to grow too big....

Thank you, Captain Obvious. You can only build so fast.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on October 30, 2017, 06:03:11 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 04:36:22 PM
And car alternatives also have capacity limits - which are not impossible to hit, see NYC..
It seems a curse of a big city - they tend to grow too big....

Sure, but those capacity limits are much higher and easier to mitigate. If your train that runs every 10 minutes is full, add a train that runs every 5 minutes and you've doubled capacity for a minimal capital investment. New York is absolutely a cluster, but a big part of that is just the age and piecemeal construction of the system. Contrast that with, say, Los Angeles, where trains are well-used but they aren't even close to operational capacity.

In a way, Portland's transit issues are like New York's — the system wasn't built with this big of a city in mind. The solution, IMHO, is to scrap the central city MAX segments and start over — extending the stops so they can be 300 feet long instead of 200 feet, for example, and removing all of the at-grade light rail in the city core, including the Steel Bridge. But that's a pipe dream. The reality is the best thing that's come out of Portland's light rail experiment is that Seattle, Phoenix, LA, etc have gotten a glimpse of what not to do with their systems, as far as at-grade traffic and faux "community building" goes.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 07:04:16 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 30, 2017, 06:03:11 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 04:36:22 PM
And car alternatives also have capacity limits - which are not impossible to hit, see NYC..
It seems a curse of a big city - they tend to grow too big....

Sure, but those capacity limits are much higher and easier to mitigate. If your train that runs every 10 minutes is full, add a train that runs every 5 minutes and you've doubled capacity for a minimal capital investment. New York is absolutely a cluster, but a big part of that is just the age and piecemeal construction of the system. Contrast that with, say, Los Angeles, where trains are well-used but they aren't even close to operational capacity.

In a way, Portland's transit issues are like New York's — the system wasn't built with this big of a city in mind. The solution, IMHO, is to scrap the central city MAX segments and start over — extending the stops so they can be 300 feet long instead of 200 feet, for example, and removing all of the at-grade light rail in the city core, including the Steel Bridge. But that's a pipe dream. The reality is the best thing that's come out of Portland's light rail experiment is that Seattle, Phoenix, LA, etc have gotten a glimpse of what not to do with their systems, as far as at-grade traffic and faux "community building" goes.

And of course a packed 10-car train every 5 minutes (12x2500)gives a throughput about 5x of a highway (3 lanes x1800 VPH). And of course you can push to 25 trains per hour for 10x highway throughput.. Race to the crazyness...
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kkt on October 30, 2017, 07:14:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 07:04:16 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 30, 2017, 06:03:11 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 04:36:22 PM
And car alternatives also have capacity limits - which are not impossible to hit, see NYC..
It seems a curse of a big city - they tend to grow too big....

Sure, but those capacity limits are much higher and easier to mitigate. If your train that runs every 10 minutes is full, add a train that runs every 5 minutes and you've doubled capacity for a minimal capital investment. New York is absolutely a cluster, but a big part of that is just the age and piecemeal construction of the system. Contrast that with, say, Los Angeles, where trains are well-used but they aren't even close to operational capacity.

In a way, Portland's transit issues are like New York's — the system wasn't built with this big of a city in mind. The solution, IMHO, is to scrap the central city MAX segments and start over — extending the stops so they can be 300 feet long instead of 200 feet, for example, and removing all of the at-grade light rail in the city core, including the Steel Bridge. But that's a pipe dream. The reality is the best thing that's come out of Portland's light rail experiment is that Seattle, Phoenix, LA, etc have gotten a glimpse of what not to do with their systems, as far as at-grade traffic and faux "community building" goes.

And of course a packed 10-car train every 5 minutes (12x2500)gives a throughput about 5x of a highway (3 lanes x1800 VPH). And of course you can push to 25 trains per hour for 10x highway throughput.. Race to the crazyness...

2.4 minutes apart on a single track is really pushing it.  People need time to get off the train and for others to board, and if sheer numbers are high enough to justify that frequency of service, they'll be tending to struggle to get past each other.  Maybe if you enforced one exit door and one entrance door for each carriage of the train.

But notice how little land they need: a 10-foot ROW per track, no shoulder needed, just perhaps a catwalk, so for two tracks perhaps 25 feet wide.  Compare a 6-lane freeway, over 100 feet wide including shoulders if you follow interstate standards.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Alps on October 30, 2017, 07:22:24 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 30, 2017, 07:14:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 07:04:16 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 30, 2017, 06:03:11 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 04:36:22 PM
And car alternatives also have capacity limits - which are not impossible to hit, see NYC..
It seems a curse of a big city - they tend to grow too big....

Sure, but those capacity limits are much higher and easier to mitigate. If your train that runs every 10 minutes is full, add a train that runs every 5 minutes and you've doubled capacity for a minimal capital investment. New York is absolutely a cluster, but a big part of that is just the age and piecemeal construction of the system. Contrast that with, say, Los Angeles, where trains are well-used but they aren't even close to operational capacity.

In a way, Portland's transit issues are like New York's — the system wasn't built with this big of a city in mind. The solution, IMHO, is to scrap the central city MAX segments and start over — extending the stops so they can be 300 feet long instead of 200 feet, for example, and removing all of the at-grade light rail in the city core, including the Steel Bridge. But that's a pipe dream. The reality is the best thing that's come out of Portland's light rail experiment is that Seattle, Phoenix, LA, etc have gotten a glimpse of what not to do with their systems, as far as at-grade traffic and faux "community building" goes.

And of course a packed 10-car train every 5 minutes (12x2500)gives a throughput about 5x of a highway (3 lanes x1800 VPH). And of course you can push to 25 trains per hour for 10x highway throughput.. Race to the crazyness...

2.4 minutes apart on a single track is really pushing it.  People need time to get off the train and for others to board, and if sheer numbers are high enough to justify that frequency of service, they'll be tending to struggle to get past each other.  Maybe if you enforced one exit door and one entrance door for each carriage of the train.

But notice how little land they need: a 10-foot ROW per track, no shoulder needed, just perhaps a catwalk, so for two tracks perhaps 25 feet wide.  Compare a 6-lane freeway, over 100 feet wide including shoulders if you follow interstate standards.

Just for reference, Boston's Green Line runs with sub-2 minute headways. Granted, those are 2-car trains that operate on visual and run much slower than a typical subway, but if you use Japan as an example where the doors open when you get there and shut after no more than 30 seconds, 2-minute headways are very reasonable.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on October 30, 2017, 07:24:50 PM
Quote from: Desert Man 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.

Because we're sitting in traffic already and experiencing yet another cycle of growth, with an influx of new people and new development. The road system will never be able to grow to handle it, so alternatives must be considered. Transit is, by far, the easiest way to carry a large amount of people in very little space. Bikes are less efficient, but take up very little space compared to cars and can be better suited to short-to-medium trips, where they're often faster than other modes. And walking is pretty basic, having a problem with more walking is like having a problem with more breathing. People will always need places to walk. Ride shares make things convenient for people without cars (able to ditch the extra costs and invest instead in living closer to work/recreation or other things...a great economic driver, I might add), but do need a touch more regulation.

You can't just keep throwing buses at the problem and calling it fixed. Dedicating road space to buses is politically difficult compared to light rail, which can be used as a trunk service to which buses feed perpendicularly. It's more efficient to have frequent rail service with buses radiating out from stations, as Portland has done. Portland would be hard pressed to have its current bus grid (http://humantransit.org/2012/08/portland-the-grid-is-30-thank-a-planner.html) without the incentive of a light rail transfer vs. a bus transfer for those north-south riders.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on October 30, 2017, 07:26:21 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 30, 2017, 07:14:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 07:04:16 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 30, 2017, 06:03:11 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 30, 2017, 04:36:22 PM
And car alternatives also have capacity limits - which are not impossible to hit, see NYC..
It seems a curse of a big city - they tend to grow too big....

Sure, but those capacity limits are much higher and easier to mitigate. If your train that runs every 10 minutes is full, add a train that runs every 5 minutes and you've doubled capacity for a minimal capital investment. New York is absolutely a cluster, but a big part of that is just the age and piecemeal construction of the system. Contrast that with, say, Los Angeles, where trains are well-used but they aren't even close to operational capacity.

In a way, Portland's transit issues are like New York's — the system wasn't built with this big of a city in mind. The solution, IMHO, is to scrap the central city MAX segments and start over — extending the stops so they can be 300 feet long instead of 200 feet, for example, and removing all of the at-grade light rail in the city core, including the Steel Bridge. But that's a pipe dream. The reality is the best thing that's come out of Portland's light rail experiment is that Seattle, Phoenix, LA, etc have gotten a glimpse of what not to do with their systems, as far as at-grade traffic and faux "community building" goes.

And of course a packed 10-car train every 5 minutes (12x2500)gives a throughput about 5x of a highway (3 lanes x1800 VPH). And of course you can push to 25 trains per hour for 10x highway throughput.. Race to the crazyness...

2.4 minutes apart on a single track is really pushing it.  People need time to get off the train and for others to board, and if sheer numbers are high enough to justify that frequency of service, they'll be tending to struggle to get past each other.  Maybe if you enforced one exit door and one entrance door for each carriage of the train.

But notice how little land they need: a 10-foot ROW per track, no shoulder needed, just perhaps a catwalk, so for two tracks perhaps 25 feet wide.  Compare a 6-lane freeway, over 100 feet wide including shoulders if you follow interstate standards.


Vancouver is able to use 90-second headways, on a totally automated system. It's feasible and can move a lot of people. The Canada Line in particular has very small stations, even smaller than MAX's, but is able to carry 130,000 people per day (though it is nearing its capacity).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2017, 10:12:28 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 30, 2017, 07:24:50 PM
Quote from: Desert Man 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.

Because we're sitting in traffic already and experiencing yet another cycle of growth, with an influx of new people and new development. The road system will never be able to grow to handle it, so alternatives must be considered. Transit is, by far, the easiest way to carry a large amount of people in very little space. Bikes are less efficient, but take up very little space compared to cars and can be better suited to short-to-medium trips, where they're often faster than other modes. And walking is pretty basic, having a problem with more walking is like having a problem with more breathing. People will always need places to walk. Ride shares make things convenient for people without cars (able to ditch the extra costs and invest instead in living closer to work/recreation or other things...a great economic driver, I might add), but do need a touch more regulation.

You can't just keep throwing buses at the problem and calling it fixed. Dedicating road space to buses is politically difficult compared to light rail, which can be used as a trunk service to which buses feed perpendicularly. It's more efficient to have frequent rail service with buses radiating out from stations, as Portland has done. Portland would be hard pressed to have its current bus grid (http://humantransit.org/2012/08/portland-the-grid-is-30-thank-a-planner.html) without the incentive of a light rail transfer vs. a bus transfer for those north-south riders.
Portland traffic is much worse than other cities it's size that have invested more in roads. What is the share of transportation modes across Portland metro?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on October 30, 2017, 11:12:33 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2017, 10:12:28 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 30, 2017, 07:24:50 PM
Quote from: Desert Man 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.

Because we're sitting in traffic already and experiencing yet another cycle of growth, with an influx of new people and new development. The road system will never be able to grow to handle it, so alternatives must be considered. Transit is, by far, the easiest way to carry a large amount of people in very little space. Bikes are less efficient, but take up very little space compared to cars and can be better suited to short-to-medium trips, where they're often faster than other modes. And walking is pretty basic, having a problem with more walking is like having a problem with more breathing. People will always need places to walk. Ride shares make things convenient for people without cars (able to ditch the extra costs and invest instead in living closer to work/recreation or other things...a great economic driver, I might add), but do need a touch more regulation.

You can't just keep throwing buses at the problem and calling it fixed. Dedicating road space to buses is politically difficult compared to light rail, which can be used as a trunk service to which buses feed perpendicularly. It's more efficient to have frequent rail service with buses radiating out from stations, as Portland has done. Portland would be hard pressed to have its current bus grid (http://humantransit.org/2012/08/portland-the-grid-is-30-thank-a-planner.html) without the incentive of a light rail transfer vs. a bus transfer for those north-south riders.
Portland traffic is much worse than other cities it's size that have invested more in roads. What is the share of transportation modes across Portland metro?

It's incredibly poor for a large city, especially one with a "robust" rail system.

(https://i.imgur.com/g9SarZU.png)

Compare it to Downtown Seattle, which has a single all-day rail line and tons of buses.

(https://i.imgur.com/3JmHFjf.png)

(And related, Seattle's allocation of street space. Seems a bit inequal to actual use, no?)

(https://i.imgur.com/wWYPgP2.png)
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Alps on October 31, 2017, 12:20:45 AM
That street space diagram is stupidly misleading. So buses can't use regular travel lanes? Neither can bikes? And HOVs just don't exist.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: compdude787 on October 31, 2017, 02:10:01 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2017, 10:12:28 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 30, 2017, 07:24:50 PM
Quote from: Desert Man 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.

Because we're sitting in traffic already and experiencing yet another cycle of growth, with an influx of new people and new development. The road system will never be able to grow to handle it, so alternatives must be considered. Transit is, by far, the easiest way to carry a large amount of people in very little space. Bikes are less efficient, but take up very little space compared to cars and can be better suited to short-to-medium trips, where they're often faster than other modes. And walking is pretty basic, having a problem with more walking is like having a problem with more breathing. People will always need places to walk. Ride shares make things convenient for people without cars (able to ditch the extra costs and invest instead in living closer to work/recreation or other things...a great economic driver, I might add), but do need a touch more regulation.

You can't just keep throwing buses at the problem and calling it fixed. Dedicating road space to buses is politically difficult compared to light rail, which can be used as a trunk service to which buses feed perpendicularly. It's more efficient to have frequent rail service with buses radiating out from stations, as Portland has done. Portland would be hard pressed to have its current bus grid (http://humantransit.org/2012/08/portland-the-grid-is-30-thank-a-planner.html) without the incentive of a light rail transfer vs. a bus transfer for those north-south riders.
Portland traffic is much worse than other cities it's size that have invested more in roads. What is the share of transportation modes across Portland metro?

Proof that improving and expanding road capacity actually (gasp) reduces traffic! Who knew?! And it's not as if Houston, which has expanded its freeway network more than any other city, has seen the LEAST amount of increase in traffic congestion! I know, so shocking, but true!! Source (http://americandreamcoalition.org/highways/congestionmyths.html)
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 02:40:42 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on October 31, 2017, 02:10:01 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2017, 10:12:28 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 30, 2017, 07:24:50 PM
Quote from: Desert Man 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.

Because we're sitting in traffic already and experiencing yet another cycle of growth, with an influx of new people and new development. The road system will never be able to grow to handle it, so alternatives must be considered. Transit is, by far, the easiest way to carry a large amount of people in very little space. Bikes are less efficient, but take up very little space compared to cars and can be better suited to short-to-medium trips, where they're often faster than other modes. And walking is pretty basic, having a problem with more walking is like having a problem with more breathing. People will always need places to walk. Ride shares make things convenient for people without cars (able to ditch the extra costs and invest instead in living closer to work/recreation or other things...a great economic driver, I might add), but do need a touch more regulation.

You can't just keep throwing buses at the problem and calling it fixed. Dedicating road space to buses is politically difficult compared to light rail, which can be used as a trunk service to which buses feed perpendicularly. It's more efficient to have frequent rail service with buses radiating out from stations, as Portland has done. Portland would be hard pressed to have its current bus grid (http://humantransit.org/2012/08/portland-the-grid-is-30-thank-a-planner.html) without the incentive of a light rail transfer vs. a bus transfer for those north-south riders.

Portland traffic is much worse than other cities it's size that have invested more in roads. What is the share of transportation modes across Portland metro?

Proof that improving and expanding road capacity actually (gasp) reduces traffic! Who knew?! And it's not as if Houston, which has expanded its freeway network more than any other city, has seen the LEAST amount of increase in traffic congestion! I know, so shocking, but true!! Source (http://americandreamcoalition.org/highways/congestionmyths.html)

I don't know if you've driven around Seattle lately, but there's a lot more fucking hills and water here than in Texas. Combine that with much higher land prices here, and you should be able to get a pretty good idea of why new road construction, both here and in Portland, has been (basically) limited to reconfigurations and add-lane projects. There just isn't enough money to fully build our way out of congestion.

FWIW, your source comes across as extremely biased, and provides no source for their data, so it's not reliable either. It's also riddled with spelling errors, which reduces credibility.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on October 31, 2017, 09:35:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 02:40:42 AM

FWIW, your source comes across as extremely biased, and provides no source for their data, so it's not reliable either. It's also riddled with spelling errors, which reduces credibility.
I had to read everything twice to make sure I got it right.
per linked article,
QuoteThe Texas Transportation Institute's annual mobility report shows that
Ctrl-C Ctrl-V that very line in Google, and a first link you get is
https://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/
with links to "full report" and "How We Got the Numbers"

Now, talking about unbiased assess of information....
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kkt on October 31, 2017, 01:56:52 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 31, 2017, 12:20:45 AM
That street space diagram is stupidly misleading. So buses can't use regular travel lanes? Neither can bikes? And HOVs just don't exist.

Agree!    :clap:
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: compdude787 on October 31, 2017, 03:35:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 02:40:42 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on October 31, 2017, 02:10:01 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2017, 10:12:28 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 30, 2017, 07:24:50 PM
Quote from: Desert Man 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.

Because we're sitting in traffic already and experiencing yet another cycle of growth, with an influx of new people and new development. The road system will never be able to grow to handle it, so alternatives must be considered. Transit is, by far, the easiest way to carry a large amount of people in very little space. Bikes are less efficient, but take up very little space compared to cars and can be better suited to short-to-medium trips, where they're often faster than other modes. And walking is pretty basic, having a problem with more walking is like having a problem with more breathing. People will always need places to walk. Ride shares make things convenient for people without cars (able to ditch the extra costs and invest instead in living closer to work/recreation or other things...a great economic driver, I might add), but do need a touch more regulation.

You can't just keep throwing buses at the problem and calling it fixed. Dedicating road space to buses is politically difficult compared to light rail, which can be used as a trunk service to which buses feed perpendicularly. It's more efficient to have frequent rail service with buses radiating out from stations, as Portland has done. Portland would be hard pressed to have its current bus grid (http://humantransit.org/2012/08/portland-the-grid-is-30-thank-a-planner.html) without the incentive of a light rail transfer vs. a bus transfer for those north-south riders.

Portland traffic is much worse than other cities it's size that have invested more in roads. What is the share of transportation modes across Portland metro?

Proof that improving and expanding road capacity actually (gasp) reduces traffic! Who knew?! And it's not as if Houston, which has expanded its freeway network more than any other city, has seen the LEAST amount of increase in traffic congestion! I know, so shocking, but true!! Source (http://americandreamcoalition.org/highways/congestionmyths.html)

I don't know if you've driven around Seattle lately, but there's a lot more fucking hills and water here than in Texas. Combine that with much higher land prices here, and you should be able to get a pretty good idea of why new road construction, both here and in Portland, has been (basically) limited to reconfigurations and add-lane projects. There just isn't enough money to fully build our way out of congestion.

FWIW, your source comes across as extremely biased, and provides no source for their data, so it's not reliable either. It's also riddled with spelling errors, which reduces credibility.

So what that it's extremely biased? You really need to consider multiple viewpoints before coming to a conclusion on what you think about something. At least I did provide a source, unlike Bruce, who could have just made up those graphs for all I know. Mine gives you enough info that you can google it and read the Texas Transportation Institute's report for yourself. I do trust the one that shows single-occupant car usage because it is backed up by data that was reported on in the Seattle Times a few months ago. It is worth noting that the only reason why single-occupant car usage is so low is that Seattle has really high parking rates downtown. I think people take the bus mainly for that reason.

I can't help but find it funny that despite Portland's heavy investment in light rail and them being sort of a "model city" in that regard, not only is their traffic not any better than other cities of that size, but they still have a heavy amount of people who are driving to work! Shows that it is very, VERY difficult to reduce car usage, and you have to practically drag people kicking and screaming out of their cars.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on October 31, 2017, 06:11:08 PM
The persistence of automotive usage largely boils down to one thing:  individual automobiles can go where the driver wishes to go; they're not dependent upon a decision, consensual or not, by a public transportation entity.  Also they can be utilized to carry a reasonable amount of one's possessions around; a process highly bounded by both public transport or bicycle usage.  And most of the residents of urbanized areas haven't elected to limit their usable possessions to what they can carry around in a backpack or satchel; to paraphrase an old Madonna song -- we are living in a material world, and (we) are material (people)!  That hasn't markedly changed since the the "counterculture" days of 50 years ago; while there are sub-groups (and sub-cultures) with alternate viewpoints and living choices, their aggregate number has yet to even approach the numbers of those living (by choice or default) in the "conventional" realm.  And they have kids, pets, and assorted material shit to haul around on a regular basis -- and doing so on public transit and/or bicycles is inconvenient to the point of infeasibility.  But in the larger picture we're damn fortunate that folks purchasing automobiles have options as to propulsion type or differing efficiencies within each type -- and are increasingly selecting vehicles with more sustainable characteristics (the F-150 die-hards notwithstanding!).  I'm well aware that by and large we can't "tech" our way to full sustainability -- that can only get us part of the way there -- but it'll take multiple future generations to, in an aggregate sense, even achieve minimal reductions in our overall "footprint".  Attempting to force the issue by making current practices overly onerous will only bring about backlash -- of the type witnessed in last year's electoral cycle.  But over time, much of any time period's bouts of deliberate stupidity dissipate with the influx of realities; the storms, floods, and wildfires of this past year have caused even those skeptics not driven by half-baked ideologies to examine their preconceptions; maybe some small but meaningful change will come out of the plethora of disasters.  And maybe Elon Musk will overcome the production glitches and make the Tesla 3 a successful model for things to come.  Most significant progress is preceded by skepticism, apathy, and ennui; all we can do is try to persevere while recognizing the "dotted line" bounds of human nature.  One can venture outside those lines to explore alternatives -- but eventually either the lines must be either universally re-drawn or unilaterally re-crossed just to proceed with daily living.         
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 06:24:55 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2017, 09:35:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 02:40:42 AM
FWIW, your source comes across as extremely biased, and provides no source for their data, so it's not reliable either. It's also riddled with spelling errors, which reduces credibility.

I had to read everything twice to make sure I got it right.
per linked article,

Quote
The Texas Transportation Institute's annual mobility report shows that

Ctrl-C Ctrl-V that very line in Google, and a first link you get is
https://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/
with links to "full report" and "How We Got the Numbers"

I was looking for links.. My mistake.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on October 31, 2017, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2017, 06:11:08 PM
The persistence of automotive usage largely boils down to one thing:  individual automobiles can go where the driver wishes to go; they're not dependent upon a decision, consensual or not, by a public transportation entity.  Also they can be utilized to carry a reasonable amount of one's possessions around; a process highly bounded by both public transport or bicycle usage.  And most of the residents of urbanized areas haven't elected to limit their usable possessions to what they can carry around in a backpack or satchel; to paraphrase an old Madonna song -- we are living in a material world, and (we) are material (people)!  That hasn't markedly changed since the the "counterculture" days of 50 years ago; while there are sub-groups (and sub-cultures) with alternate viewpoints and living choices, their aggregate number has yet to even approach the numbers of those living (by choice or default) in the "conventional" realm.  And they have kids, pets, and assorted material shit to haul around on a regular basis -- and doing so on public transit and/or bicycles is inconvenient to the point of infeasibility.  But in the larger picture we're damn fortunate that folks purchasing automobiles have options as to propulsion type or differing efficiencies within each type -- and are increasingly selecting vehicles with more sustainable characteristics (the F-150 die-hards notwithstanding!).  I'm well aware that by and large we can't "tech" our way to full sustainability -- that can only get us part of the way there -- but it'll take multiple future generations to, in an aggregate sense, even achieve minimal reductions in our overall "footprint".  Attempting to force the issue by making current practices overly onerous will only bring about backlash -- of the type witnessed in last year's electoral cycle.  But over time, much of any time period's bouts of deliberate stupidity dissipate with the influx of realities; the storms, floods, and wildfires of this past year have caused even those skeptics not driven by half-baked ideologies to examine their preconceptions; maybe some small but meaningful change will come out of the plethora of disasters.  And maybe Elon Musk will overcome the production glitches and make the Tesla 3 a successful model for things to come.  Most significant progress is preceded by skepticism, apathy, and ennui; all we can do is try to persevere while recognizing the "dotted line" bounds of human nature.  One can venture outside those lines to explore alternatives -- but eventually either the lines must be either universally re-drawn or unilaterally re-crossed just to proceed with daily living.       
Well, there is an ideal world - it is called Foxconn factory in China. While production floor is located on a ground level, while beds are on the second floor. Commute is done by stairs, and all other needs - like food and bed - are located at the same place. This is pretty much the ideal solution you're looking for...
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 08:06:23 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on October 31, 2017, 03:35:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 02:40:42 AM
FWIW, your source comes across as extremely biased, and provides no source for their data, so it's not reliable either. It's also riddled with spelling errors, which reduces credibility.

So what that it's extremely biased? You really need to consider multiple viewpoints before coming to a conclusion on what you think about something. At least I did provide a source, unlike Bruce, who could have just made up those graphs for all I know. Mine gives you enough info that you can google it and read the Texas Transportation Institute's report for yourself. I do trust the one that shows single-occupant car usage because it is backed up by data that was reported on in the Seattle Times a few months ago. It is worth noting that the only reason why single-occupant car usage is so low is that Seattle has really high parking rates downtown. I think people take the bus mainly for that reason.

I've seen the graphs before. They're by Zach Shaner, an author at Seattle Transit Blog. The first is based on data from Commute Seattle (see link below). The second is based on the author's own data:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/seattletransitblog.com/2017/02/13/how-cars-still-dominate-downtowns-right-of-way/amp/

I have only ever lived in suburban areas, and driven/ridden in cars for 99.9% of all my trips. I take the light rail only seldom, and have rode a bus maybe twice ever. Trust me, I am not some sort of granola urbanist who dreams of banning cars. My opinion on urbanism, however, does tend to reflect this new-school of thought that endless road construction is not sustainable. Even your American Dream source mentions as much (paragraph 5). There are cities that will continue to attempt this. Houston is trying, but they still saw an 8% growth in congestion. When does that end?

Quote from: compdude787 on October 31, 2017, 03:35:46 PM
I can't help but find it funny that despite Portland's heavy investment in light rail and them being sort of a "model city" in that regard, not only is their traffic not any better than other cities of that size, but they still have a heavy amount of people who are driving to work! Shows that it is very, VERY difficult to reduce car usage, and you have to practically drag people kicking and screaming out of their cars.

As I've mentioned before, Seattle and Portland both suffer from high land prices and awkward geography that make road building both difficult and expensive, and often controversial as a result. It was therefore decided, by many different people over many years, I assume, that both cities would be better off investing in large public transportation systems. Both cities suffer from zoning that was centered on the car, so both cities are still largely made up of single-family housing, which tends to work better with cars. But both cities are growing, so it would be wiser to construct more dense structures near metro stops, instead of single-family homes further and further out, that requires roads that don't exist and couldn't because they'd be too expensive.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on October 31, 2017, 09:14:32 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2017, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2017, 06:11:08 PM
The persistence of automotive usage largely boils down to one thing:  individual automobiles can go where the driver wishes to go; they're not dependent upon a decision, consensual or not, by a public transportation entity.  Also they can be utilized to carry a reasonable amount of one's possessions around; a process highly bounded by both public transport or bicycle usage.  And most of the residents of urbanized areas haven't elected to limit their usable possessions to what they can carry around in a backpack or satchel; to paraphrase an old Madonna song -- we are living in a material world, and (we) are material (people)!  That hasn't markedly changed since the the "counterculture" days of 50 years ago; while there are sub-groups (and sub-cultures) with alternate viewpoints and living choices, their aggregate number has yet to even approach the numbers of those living (by choice or default) in the "conventional" realm.  And they have kids, pets, and assorted material shit to haul around on a regular basis -- and doing so on public transit and/or bicycles is inconvenient to the point of infeasibility.  But in the larger picture we're damn fortunate that folks purchasing automobiles have options as to propulsion type or differing efficiencies within each type -- and are increasingly selecting vehicles with more sustainable characteristics (the F-150 die-hards notwithstanding!).  I'm well aware that by and large we can't "tech" our way to full sustainability -- that can only get us part of the way there -- but it'll take multiple future generations to, in an aggregate sense, even achieve minimal reductions in our overall "footprint".  Attempting to force the issue by making current practices overly onerous will only bring about backlash -- of the type witnessed in last year's electoral cycle.  But over time, much of any time period's bouts of deliberate stupidity dissipate with the influx of realities; the storms, floods, and wildfires of this past year have caused even those skeptics not driven by half-baked ideologies to examine their preconceptions; maybe some small but meaningful change will come out of the plethora of disasters.  And maybe Elon Musk will overcome the production glitches and make the Tesla 3 a successful model for things to come.  Most significant progress is preceded by skepticism, apathy, and ennui; all we can do is try to persevere while recognizing the "dotted line" bounds of human nature.  One can venture outside those lines to explore alternatives -- but eventually either the lines must be either universally re-drawn or unilaterally re-crossed just to proceed with daily living.       
Well, there is an ideal world - it is called Foxconn factory in China. While production floor is located on a ground level, while beds are on the second floor. Commute is done by stairs, and all other needs - like food and bed - are located at the same place. This is pretty much the ideal solution you're looking for...

Please don't try to read anything into my motives; I'm just outlining the situation as I assess it.  I'm certainly not looking for the "ideal solution" by any means; one person's ideal world would be another's hell on earth.  I'm more or less a utilitarian; don't have much use for ideology of any sort.  And I'm certainly not a communitarian by any means; having lived & worked alongside more than a few folks of that bent during a decade plus in academia, I now bear the scars of years of verbal assault from that quarter; like most persons with an exclusionary collective viewpoint, they have come to see themselves as the modern keepers of the fabled/notorious "dictatorship of the proletariat" wherein they, the inculcated, select what is appropriate in the realm of discourse and what is not.  So, not unlike the Coen Bros' "Dude", I abided (with more than a few sarcastic asides along the way), got my degrees, and departed. 

That being said -- like others I do see a need for sustainability -- but I don't see the path to such being characterized solely by relegating human behavior and predilections to a tightly-defined, regulated, and controlled bounded rationality, particularly when the definitions are formulated by a self-selected few.  I previously stated that we can't solely depend upon technology, current & future, to provide us with the means to insure our own continuation -- but we can leverage the technology to give us the means to supply us with what we need to live our lives with more of what gives us a reason to go on rather than endure a diminishing level of such.

You know, I reread my previous post -- and I can't for the life of me figure out what prompted your interpretation of it as favoring a highly controlled environment such as the Foxconn factory format; the gist is quite the opposite -- unless you thought the whole statement was sarcastic or satirical -- which, believe me, it wasn't!  If I was engaging in drippingly sarcastic commentary, you'd know it right away!  I save that for folks like the AASHTO morons who designated I-87 in NC (still think that was the functional equivalent of "drunk-dialing"!).                 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on November 01, 2017, 02:14:42 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 31, 2017, 12:20:45 AM
That street space diagram is stupidly misleading. So buses can't use regular travel lanes? Neither can bikes? And HOVs just don't exist.

HOV lanes are uncommon on surface streets in Seattle. It's either bus lanes (that usually revert to parking off-peak) or normal lanes. While buses can (and do) use regular lanes, they have zero priority and are unable to keep their schedules and be an effective mode of transportation. This comes despite carrying a near majority of people into downtown.

The diagram, mostly for dramatic effect, is to highlight the inequality here.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 01, 2017, 11:10:52 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2017, 09:14:32 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 31, 2017, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2017, 06:11:08 PM
The persistence of automotive usage largely boils down to one thing:  individual automobiles can go where the driver wishes to go; they're not dependent upon a decision, consensual or not, by a public transportation entity.  Also they can be utilized to carry a reasonable amount of one's possessions around; a process highly bounded by both public transport or bicycle usage.  And most of the residents of urbanized areas haven't elected to limit their usable possessions to what they can carry around in a backpack or satchel; to paraphrase an old Madonna song -- we are living in a material world, and (we) are material (people)!  That hasn't markedly changed since the the "counterculture" days of 50 years ago; while there are sub-groups (and sub-cultures) with alternate viewpoints and living choices, their aggregate number has yet to even approach the numbers of those living (by choice or default) in the "conventional" realm.  And they have kids, pets, and assorted material shit to haul around on a regular basis -- and doing so on public transit and/or bicycles is inconvenient to the point of infeasibility.  But in the larger picture we're damn fortunate that folks purchasing automobiles have options as to propulsion type or differing efficiencies within each type -- and are increasingly selecting vehicles with more sustainable characteristics (the F-150 die-hards notwithstanding!).  I'm well aware that by and large we can't "tech" our way to full sustainability -- that can only get us part of the way there -- but it'll take multiple future generations to, in an aggregate sense, even achieve minimal reductions in our overall "footprint".  Attempting to force the issue by making current practices overly onerous will only bring about backlash -- of the type witnessed in last year's electoral cycle.  But over time, much of any time period's bouts of deliberate stupidity dissipate with the influx of realities; the storms, floods, and wildfires of this past year have caused even those skeptics not driven by half-baked ideologies to examine their preconceptions; maybe some small but meaningful change will come out of the plethora of disasters.  And maybe Elon Musk will overcome the production glitches and make the Tesla 3 a successful model for things to come.  Most significant progress is preceded by skepticism, apathy, and ennui; all we can do is try to persevere while recognizing the "dotted line" bounds of human nature.  One can venture outside those lines to explore alternatives -- but eventually either the lines must be either universally re-drawn or unilaterally re-crossed just to proceed with daily living.       
Well, there is an ideal world - it is called Foxconn factory in China. While production floor is located on a ground level, while beds are on the second floor. Commute is done by stairs, and all other needs - like food and bed - are located at the same place. This is pretty much the ideal solution you're looking for...

Please don't try to read anything into my motives; I'm just outlining the situation as I assess it.  I'm certainly not looking for the "ideal solution" by any means; one person's ideal world would be another's hell on earth.  I'm more or less a utilitarian; don't have much use for ideology of any sort.  And I'm certainly not a communitarian by any means; having lived & worked alongside more than a few folks of that bent during a decade plus in academia, I now bear the scars of years of verbal assault from that quarter; like most persons with an exclusionary collective viewpoint, they have come to see themselves as the modern keepers of the fabled/notorious "dictatorship of the proletariat" wherein they, the inculcated, select what is appropriate in the realm of discourse and what is not.  So, not unlike the Coen Bros' "Dude", I abided (with more than a few sarcastic asides along the way), got my degrees, and departed. 

That being said -- like others I do see a need for sustainability -- but I don't see the path to such being characterized solely by relegating human behavior and predilections to a tightly-defined, regulated, and controlled bounded rationality, particularly when the definitions are formulated by a self-selected few.  I previously stated that we can't solely depend upon technology, current & future, to provide us with the means to insure our own continuation -- but we can leverage the technology to give us the means to supply us with what we need to live our lives with more of what gives us a reason to go on rather than endure a diminishing level of such.

You know, I reread my previous post -- and I can't for the life of me figure out what prompted your interpretation of it as favoring a highly controlled environment such as the Foxconn factory format; the gist is quite the opposite -- unless you thought the whole statement was sarcastic or satirical -- which, believe me, it wasn't!  If I was engaging in drippingly sarcastic commentary, you'd know it right away!  I save that for folks like the AASHTO morons who designated I-87 in NC (still think that was the functional equivalent of "drunk-dialing"!).               

This is not going into motives, this is just continuing the logic of significant groups.  Please accept my apology if my argument became too personal, I didn't mean to do that. I just wanted to bring some extreme views into the discussion so we can look at another aspect of the issue.
As always, there are multiple extremes (F150's, megalopolises, train-is-the-only-way-to-go, etc ), but few compromises. And of course only finite amount of resources available; and realities may, or may not, support any of extremes and compromises...
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on November 01, 2017, 03:56:18 PM
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!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 01, 2017, 05:31:12 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 01, 2017, 03:56:18 PM
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!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on November 01, 2017, 09:55:34 PM
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!             
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: OCGuy81 on November 27, 2017, 09:43:22 PM
"We want clean air".....

Yeah, traffic idling on Portland's horribly dated freeways really help create clean air.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on November 27, 2017, 10:06:37 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on November 27, 2017, 09:43:22 PM
"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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on November 27, 2017, 10:13:31 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 27, 2017, 10:06:37 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on November 27, 2017, 09:43:22 PM
"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? 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: OCGuy81 on November 27, 2017, 10:13:40 PM
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
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: AlexandriaVA on November 27, 2017, 10:20:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on November 27, 2017, 10:55:52 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 27, 2017, 10:13:31 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 27, 2017, 10:06:37 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on November 27, 2017, 09:43:22 PM
"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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on November 27, 2017, 10:56:42 PM
I'd like to see your logic applied over here in the Midwest.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on November 27, 2017, 11:03:41 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 27, 2017, 10:56:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: AlexandriaVA on November 27, 2017, 11:59:24 PM
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).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 01:09:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on November 28, 2017, 02:58:44 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 01:09:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 07:52:24 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 27, 2017, 10:55:52 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 27, 2017, 10:13:31 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 27, 2017, 10:06:37 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on November 27, 2017, 09:43:22 PM
"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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on November 28, 2017, 07:52:42 AM
not everyone is a fan of density, i guess thats why the midwest is the way it is. 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 09:27:40 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 28, 2017, 07:52:42 AM
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?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on November 28, 2017, 09:31:52 AM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 09:27:40 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 28, 2017, 07:52:42 AM
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?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 28, 2017, 10:21:23 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 28, 2017, 07:52:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 28, 2017, 10:21:23 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 28, 2017, 07:52:42 AM
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?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: hotdogPi on November 28, 2017, 10:39:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kkt on November 28, 2017, 02:19:14 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 09:27:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on November 28, 2017, 03:17:38 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 28, 2017, 02:19:14 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 09:27:40 AM
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. 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 03:37:20 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 28, 2017, 10:39:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 05:16:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 03:37:20 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 28, 2017, 10:39:26 AM
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
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 05:49:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 05:16:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 03:37:20 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 28, 2017, 10:39:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 07:02:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 05:49:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 05:16:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 03:37:20 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 28, 2017, 10:39:26 AM
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.
Well, numbers are the easy part:
US agricultural land: 44.5% of area, of those: arable land 16.8%; permanent crops 0.3%; permanent pasture 27.4%
forest: 33.3%, other: 22.2% (2011 est.)
At 4 people per acre we're talking about 3% of land - noticeable, but hardly a showstopper.
People who don't want to live across the continent from work are a simple fact of life, no question here.
Question is more about why cities congregate, and if there is a logical limit to that - or 100 years from now 90% of US will live within 100 miles from statue of liberty. More city center office jobs, less production jobs are probably the biggest factor regardless of people desires.  And at some point density plays a dirty trick with commute - NYC commutes are longest in US. Hard to imagine 40 minutes trip in 100K area, city is plainly not big enough for that.

And lets face it - steel and concrete skyscraper probably takes 10x environmental resources compared to rural home with  wooden frame and drywall.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kkt on November 28, 2017, 07:59:19 PM
Steel and concrete buildings take more to build (don't know about 10x), but last a lot longer too.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 09:11:18 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 07:02:50 PM
And lets face it - steel and concrete skyscraper probably takes 10x environmental resources compared to rural home with  wooden frame and drywall.

A skyscraper with 40 stories, assuming 10 apartments per floor, comes to 400 apartments. 400 single-family homes requires a significant amount of resources. And then you have the decay factor, as mentioned by kkt. There's also the roads and public utilities required to connect those 400 homes to the rest of civilisation. Skyscrapers are usually built where roads already exist. Utilities need to be upgraded, but it's cheaper than laying brand new utilities.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 09:14:13 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 07:02:50 PM
And at some point density plays a dirty trick with commute - NYC commutes are longest in US. Hard to imagine 40 minutes trip in 100K area, city is plainly not big enough for that.

Let's go ahead and take the population of New York City, and plop them down in a suburban setting connected by freeways, like Los Angeles or Houston. Then we'll talk commute times.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 09:38:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 09:14:13 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 07:02:50 PM
And at some point density plays a dirty trick with commute - NYC commutes are longest in US. Hard to imagine 40 minutes trip in 100K area, city is plainly not big enough for that.

Let's go ahead and take the population of New York City, and plop them down in a suburban setting connected by freeways, like Los Angeles or Houston. Then we'll talk commute times.
Unlike NYC, nether LA nor Houston make top 10 worst commute lists.
Here are 2 examples - they don't quite overlap, but NYC is consistently among worst:
http://fortune.com/2016/03/03/us-cities-average-commute-time/
http://wgntv.com/2017/11/01/these-are-the-10-worst-commutes-in-the-u-s-did-your-city-make-the-list/
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on November 28, 2017, 09:38:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 05:49:49 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 05:16:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 03:37:20 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 28, 2017, 10:39:26 AM
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.

Many -- but certainly not all.  What seems to drive the choice to live in high-rise or other highly dense circumstances is (a) proximity to employment, (b) relative cost of such living choices vis-à-vis alternatives in outlying and likely less dense circumstances, (c) relatively early-life circumstances where one hasn't yet acquired a sizeable level of material possessions -- and can fit what one does have into a living space of mid-3-figures of square footage (conversely, late-in-life circumstances where both logistic and fiscal constraints dictate downsizing might mirror this as well), and (d) self-selection into such circumstances in order to be in proximity with others who share either broad social outlooks or recreational interests.  A change in one or two of those factors (the desire to start a family, job promotions that require expanding one's possession portfolio: clothing storage, space to entertain, etc.) can and often does (at least in these parts!) serve as a catalyst for satisfying those new requirements by seeking out larger quarters amenable to such activities.  Unfortunately, that's where urban economics come into play -- often such expansion is hardly affordable in the "ring" areas surrounding the densest spots, so venturing far afield becomes the norm -- in this area, that means shuffling off to Brentwood, Tracy, or other areas where $500K gets you 2000+sf -- enough to accommodate expanding needs.  Of course, one could always elect to remain childless, unattached, or otherwise adherent to a previously bounded rationality -- but expecting a large portion of a population to do so (or choose to raise kids in a relatively confined space) would not be a safe bet.  Although the concept of lessening one's "footprint" might be admirable in the abstract, real life tends to interfere with such a course in more instances than not -- adherence to a priori ideals and pursuits tends to dissipate as the progression of life unfolds.  Dense living may, for many, just be a "stopover" on the way to something else.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 09:50:27 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 28, 2017, 07:59:19 PM
Steel and concrete buildings take more to build (don't know about 10x), but last a lot longer too.
Hard to tell. Wood and drywall lasts 50 years quite often. Most concrete structures today are designed for 100 years - and, looking at bridges, many start falling apart before that. 
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 09:11:18 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 07:02:50 PM
And lets face it - steel and concrete skyscraper probably takes 10x environmental resources compared to rural home with  wooden frame and drywall.

A skyscraper with 40 stories, assuming 10 apartments per floor, comes to 400 apartments. 400 single-family homes requires a significant amount of resources. And then you have the decay factor, as mentioned by kkt. There's also the roads and public utilities required to connect those 400 homes to the rest of civilisation. Skyscrapers are usually built where roads already exist. Utilities need to be upgraded, but it's cheaper than laying brand new utilities.
Meaningless math. Resource per capita is what matters. Skyscraper would have about same length of wall per room - but it is going to be much stronger wall..
As  for utilities.. Greenfield development is known to be cheaper than brownfield. And when I think about rebuilt of Manhattan infrastructure - when pipes start breaking and subway tunnels collapsing - it really seems abandoning the area is going to be the only option.
If you will, 1 mile of subway costs as 10-15 miles of light rail and 100 miles of highway. Lets face it, surface road is cheaper than city center infrastructure even if there are more miles.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on November 28, 2017, 10:32:35 PM
*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Portland is building a 12-story wood-framed tower, the first of its kind in the USA. It could open up a huge market, especially in the Northwest where sustainable wood is able to be harvested for such purposes.

There's plenty of reasons that show suburban development is a really bad idea, especially in the 21st century: the urban heat island effect, which forces more people to use air conditioning; the loss of natural water features, which worsens flooding and pushes stormwater pollution into the ocean; making the production of agricultural products more expensive, since they have to compete with developers for land; and urban geometry, which means more cars can't physically fit in the same amount of space (unless we start demolishing buildings).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 10:41:11 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 09:38:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 09:14:13 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 07:02:50 PM
And at some point density plays a dirty trick with commute - NYC commutes are longest in US. Hard to imagine 40 minutes trip in 100K area, city is plainly not big enough for that.

Let's go ahead and take the population of New York City, and plop them down in a suburban setting connected by freeways, like Los Angeles or Houston. Then we'll talk commute times.

Unlike NYC, nether LA nor Houston make top 10 worst commute lists.
Here are 2 examples - they don't quite overlap, but NYC is consistently among worst:
http://fortune.com/2016/03/03/us-cities-average-commute-time/
http://wgntv.com/2017/11/01/these-are-the-10-worst-commutes-in-the-u-s-did-your-city-make-the-list/

Much to my surprise, the LA metro area actually has a higher population density than the New York City metro area. I suspect the average commute in LA or Houston is lower because there are some days where you can get to work quickly, and some where it takes a while. But in New York City, where something like 50% of the population rides the subway to get to work, your commute time is limited by the speed of the trains, the amount of time it takes to make a connection, etc.

I think a more important metric than commute times is how well a city can accomodate new residents. I suspect LA and Houston will eventually crack the top ten, and at some point overtake NYC. New York's growth pattern allows it to accomodate a lot of people without cars. LA and Houston are less impressive in this regard. Both largely require to own a car to get anywhere. I don't have any reason to believe New York's commute time would improve, but I expect LA and Houston's to increase at a faster rate.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on November 29, 2017, 12:09:40 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 28, 2017, 10:32:35 PM
*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Indeed.  Carbon fiber can readily be extracted from all that coal that won't be burned; structurally, it's strong as steel -- and without all that nasty RF interference, oxidation, etc.  One of the more appropriate materials for constructing large structures.  And it can be bonded together to function as a single unit per building -- considerably more earthquake-resistant than most other building methods.  And the raw material is readily available....what more could you ask of a building block? 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 29, 2017, 07:59:22 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 28, 2017, 10:32:35 PM
*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Portland is building a 12-story wood-framed tower, the first of its kind in the USA. It could open up a huge market, especially in the Northwest where sustainable wood is able to be harvested for such purposes.

There's plenty of reasons that show suburban development is a really bad idea, especially in the 21st century: the urban heat island effect, which forces more people to use air conditioning; the loss of natural water features, which worsens flooding and pushes stormwater pollution into the ocean; making the production of agricultural products more expensive, since they have to compete with developers for land; and urban geometry, which means more cars can't physically fit in the same amount of space (unless we start demolishing buildings).
Yes, wooden skyscraper is the way to go!
I know someone who finished their basement - so they live in a 3-floor skyscraper today!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 29, 2017, 08:00:12 AM
Quote from: sparker on November 29, 2017, 12:09:40 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 28, 2017, 10:32:35 PM
*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Indeed.  Carbon fiber can readily be extracted from all that coal that won't be burned;
What??
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 29, 2017, 08:04:05 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 28, 2017, 10:32:35 PM


There's plenty of reasons that show suburban development is a really bad idea, especially in the 21st century: the urban heat island effect, which forces more people to use air conditioning; the loss of natural water features, which worsens flooding and pushes stormwater pollution into the ocean; making the production of agricultural products more expensive, since they have to compete with developers for land; and urban geometry, which means more cars can't physically fit in the same amount of space (unless we start demolishing buildings).
Was that meant to be "urban development is a bad idea"?
Heat island is a dense urban feature - you may confuse that with corn sweat, which is a completely different story. And pushing development into flood plane is definitely a feature of density and land value.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on November 29, 2017, 08:40:18 AM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 09:38:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 09:14:13 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 07:02:50 PM
And at some point density plays a dirty trick with commute - NYC commutes are longest in US. Hard to imagine 40 minutes trip in 100K area, city is plainly not big enough for that.

Let's go ahead and take the population of New York City, and plop them down in a suburban setting connected by freeways, like Los Angeles or Houston. Then we'll talk commute times.
Unlike NYC, nether LA nor Houston make top 10 worst commute lists.
Here are 2 examples - they don't quite overlap, but NYC is consistently among worst:
http://fortune.com/2016/03/03/us-cities-average-commute-time/
http://wgntv.com/2017/11/01/these-are-the-10-worst-commutes-in-the-u-s-did-your-city-make-the-list/

I must say in my opinion, after visiting LA this year for the first time, that city is a mess.  It sprawls out for miles in each direction, the highways are a clusterfuck, and even if they built all the highways that were proposed, it wouldn't be any different.  I think LA is the most poorly designed city I've ever been to.  Denver and SF are among the best.  I've yet to go to NYC yet, hope to change that next year though!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2017, 02:51:42 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 28, 2017, 10:32:35 PM
*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Portland is building a 12-story wood-framed tower, the first of its kind in the USA. It could open up a huge market, especially in the Northwest where sustainable wood is able to be harvested for such purposes.

Wonder how well that building will do when the Cascadia Subduction Zone fault ruptures again (and the resulting earthquake could be a 9.2 or better).

Quote from: Bruce on November 28, 2017, 10:32:35 PM
There's plenty of reasons that show suburban development is a really bad idea, especially in the 21st century: the urban heat island effect, which forces more people to use air conditioning; the loss of natural water features, which worsens flooding and pushes stormwater pollution into the ocean; making the production of agricultural products more expensive, since they have to compete with developers for land; and urban geometry, which means more cars can't physically fit in the same amount of space (unless we start demolishing buildings).

In many  places south  of the Mason-Dixon Line, air conditioning is considered a requirement. 

The heat island effect seems to be at its worst in the middle of dense urban areas.  Imagine that!

The United States has plenty of land for agricultural  production, even  if some of that land is lost to suburban sprawl.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on November 29, 2017, 03:39:49 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2017, 02:51:42 PM
The United States has plenty of land for agricultural  production, even  if some of that land is lost to suburban sprawl.

We really should be thinking years ahead of where we are. How big will Houston, Dallas, Chicago, etc be in a thousand years, if things keep sprawling? Even if traffic is great, who wants to drive 3 hours to work?

Myself, and other urbanists, would simply prefer that we built up more often than we build out.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: hotdogPi on November 29, 2017, 03:41:56 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2017, 03:39:49 PM
Even if traffic is great, who wants to drive 3 hours to work?

Why can't most people work in the suburbs?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: compdude787 on November 29, 2017, 03:46:51 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 10:41:11 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 09:38:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 09:14:13 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 07:02:50 PM
And at some point density plays a dirty trick with commute - NYC commutes are longest in US. Hard to imagine 40 minutes trip in 100K area, city is plainly not big enough for that.

Let's go ahead and take the population of New York City, and plop them down in a suburban setting connected by freeways, like Los Angeles or Houston. Then we'll talk commute times.

Unlike NYC, nether LA nor Houston make top 10 worst commute lists.
Here are 2 examples - they don't quite overlap, but NYC is consistently among worst:
http://fortune.com/2016/03/03/us-cities-average-commute-time/
http://wgntv.com/2017/11/01/these-are-the-10-worst-commutes-in-the-u-s-did-your-city-make-the-list/

Much to my surprise, the LA metro area actually has a higher population density than the New York City metro area.

Hm. That might be why LA has the worst traffic. It seems to be quite common sense that higher density means higher traffic.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: compdude787 on November 29, 2017, 03:47:46 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 29, 2017, 03:41:56 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2017, 03:39:49 PM
Even if traffic is great, who wants to drive 3 hours to work?

Why can't most people work in the suburbs?

That is increasingly becoming the case. Less and less jobs are located in downtown areas these days.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: hotdogPi on November 29, 2017, 04:06:42 PM
I live in the Northeast. As long as I don't go far enough north into New Hampshire, there are cities of all sizes between 10k and 100k, and very few far outside this range. (The obvious exception is Boston.) Most people work in one of these cities/towns, compared to the alternative which doesn't happen, which is almost everyone working in Boston.

Also, there are no areas without any people, unless they are water (obviously) or protected areas.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on November 29, 2017, 04:11:49 PM
Businesses are often located downtown because it's a central location for all employees. If a Seattle-based company suddenly up-and-moved to Tacoma, you'd have quite a few irate employees who previously lived in Everett, Bothell, etc. So to prevent employees from having to drive an extra hour, or even move, companies set up shop in the middle of the metro (usually downtown), so employees have the maximum amount of area to search for a home.

Small businesses, such as those based in small towns, usually only employ a handful of people. Those are not the type of companies that would ever relocate to downtown.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on November 29, 2017, 04:35:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 29, 2017, 08:00:12 AM
Quote from: sparker on November 29, 2017, 12:09:40 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 28, 2017, 10:32:35 PM
*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Indeed.  Carbon fiber can readily be extracted from all that coal that won't be burned;
What??

Coal is about 97% pure carbon and 3% trace materials (depending upon density; anthracite from PA and upstate NY is the densest and most carbon-heavy of the lot); it's one of the prime sources for structural carbon fiber.  One of the businesses I'm involved with is loudspeaker manufacturing; one of my main suppliers, based in Minneapolis, has been using carbon fiber for both speaker cone material and for the "baskets" , or structural frames of the units -- and they get their sheets and billets from a supplier near Harrisburg, PA -- which uses granulated coal as their raw material from which to form carbon fibers.  The finished product exhibits exceptional rigidity when machined from billets or vacuum-formed from sheeting (I'm working on a new product with multiple smaller CF units for low frequencies).  And, as it turns out, the costs are not out of line with that of other materials.  Carbon fiber has been utilized elsewhere within the audio industry in places where both rigidity and freedom from spurious resonance is vital (which means in almost any mechanical device like tonearms, turntable plinths, CD drives, etc.).  The stuff is pretty amazing -- and finding more and more uses in various fields that need such structural characteristics.  Right now it is a bit more costly than standard molded resins and other structural methods (maybe by a factor of 10-15%, which tends to worry corporate bean-counters) -- but compared to what the difference was 10-15 years ago, that difference is miniscule -- and will probably diminish to the point of being marginal within a few years.     
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 29, 2017, 05:04:44 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 29, 2017, 04:35:36 PM
supplier near Harrisburg, PA -- which uses granulated coal as their raw material from which to form carbon fibers. 
And this is an extremely strange statement. In my world, carbon fibers are produced by controlled oxidation of polymers, and I don't see any way to use coal - other than through coke processing and  using tar as raw material for polymer synthesys. That may be the case, but that is a long technological chain. Saying coal is used for fibers is like saying rust and clay are used to make cars. Which is true, and probably involves a shorter chain of technological transformations
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 29, 2017, 05:06:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2017, 04:11:49 PM
Businesses are often located downtown because it's a central location for all employees. If a Seattle-based company suddenly up-and-moved to Tacoma, you'd have quite a few irate employees who previously lived in Everett, Bothell, etc. So to prevent employees from having to drive an extra hour, or even move, companies set up shop in the middle of the metro (usually downtown), so employees have the maximum amount of area to search for a home.

Small businesses, such as those based in small towns, usually only employ a handful of people. Those are not the type of companies that would ever relocate to downtown.
That may be true for finance and similar business; it is not uncommon to start manufacturing at the outskirt of a city - and find it in the city center 50 years later. Mocving is difficult, yes - but starting in the center is often too costly to begin with
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 29, 2017, 05:10:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2017, 03:39:49 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2017, 02:51:42 PM
The United States has plenty of land for agricultural  production, even  if some of that land is lost to suburban sprawl.

We really should be thinking years ahead of where we are. How big will Houston, Dallas, Chicago, etc be in a thousand years, if things keep sprawling? Even if traffic is great, who wants to drive 3 hours to work?

Myself, and other urbanists, would simply prefer that we built up more often than we build out.

And a serious question - is it a bad idea to build elsewhere? Do yopu prefer a 1M area to grow in 10M area, or into five 2M areas?
There are some reasons to cluster, but how many of those reasons are essential, and if 1 mile vertical commute is actually better than 1 mile horizontal commute in a different city?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on November 29, 2017, 05:27:58 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 29, 2017, 05:04:44 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 29, 2017, 04:35:36 PM
supplier near Harrisburg, PA -- which uses granulated coal as their raw material from which to form carbon fibers. 
And this is an extremely strange statement. In my world, carbon fibers are produced by controlled oxidation of polymers, and I don't see any way to use coal - other than through coke processing and  using tar as raw material for polymer synthesys. That may be the case, but that is a long technological chain. Saying coal is used for fibers is like saying rust and clay are used to make cars. Which is true, and probably involves a shorter chain of technological transformations

I know the polymer-oxidation method that you're referring to is used as well to form long-chain CF material (and is used by a number of overseas manufacturers of CF-intensive products) -- but from what my speaker vendor has told me on several occasions, they have chosen the PA firm as their supplier -- despite its "long way around" methodology -- specifically because that supplier is attempting to demonstrate that there are alternate uses for coal resources other than simply as fuel.  The speaker company is attempting to get away from hydrocarbon-based materials (polyolefin and other such compounds) that have found widespread usage in sound reproduction in the last 40 years.  They've even employed laminated-wood as speaker-cone material!  As one of the few remaining domestic speaker driver manufacturers, they're trying to position themselves as environmentally sound as feasible -- and they attempt, wherever possible, to use vendors who are doing likewise.  Personally, I've employed several of their products, using either woven carbon fiber or CF-infused wood pulp as cone material, in my designs (so far so good!); if they can continue to supply appropriate products that are somewhat "greener" than the competition (and maintain competitive pricing, which they've done so far!), then I'll continue to use them as a vendor. 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 29, 2017, 05:44:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 29, 2017, 05:27:58 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 29, 2017, 05:04:44 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 29, 2017, 04:35:36 PM
supplier near Harrisburg, PA -- which uses granulated coal as their raw material from which to form carbon fibers. 
And this is an extremely strange statement. In my world, carbon fibers are produced by controlled oxidation of polymers, and I don't see any way to use coal - other than through coke processing and  using tar as raw material for polymer synthesys. That may be the case, but that is a long technological chain. Saying coal is used for fibers is like saying rust and clay are used to make cars. Which is true, and probably involves a shorter chain of technological transformations

I know the polymer-oxidation method that you're referring to is used as well to form long-chain CF material (and is used by a number of overseas manufacturers of CF-intensive products) -- but from what my speaker vendor has told me on several occasions, they have chosen the PA firm as their supplier -- despite its "long way around" methodology -- specifically because that supplier is attempting to demonstrate that there are alternate uses for coal resources other than simply as fuel.  The speaker company is attempting to get away from hydrocarbon-based materials (polyolefin and other such compounds) that have found widespread usage in sound reproduction in the last 40 years.  They've even employed laminated-wood as speaker-cone material!  As one of the few remaining domestic speaker driver manufacturers, they're trying to position themselves as environmentally sound as feasible -- and they attempt, wherever possible, to use vendors who are doing likewise.  Personally, I've employed several of their products, using either woven carbon fiber or CF-infused wood pulp as cone material, in my designs (so far so good!); if they can continue to supply appropriate products that are somewhat "greener" than the competition (and maintain competitive pricing, which they've done so far!), then I'll continue to use them as a vendor.

I hope I wouldn't be prosecuted for off-topic if I ask for some company names? I really want to look at the specs -because what you say sounds too much to particle board, which is a reasonable product, but...

And as far as I know, coal is a prime source of aromatic compounds, so it is far from being just fuel...
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on November 29, 2017, 11:57:52 PM
 :sombrero:
Quote from: kalvado on November 29, 2017, 05:44:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 29, 2017, 05:27:58 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 29, 2017, 05:04:44 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 29, 2017, 04:35:36 PM
supplier near Harrisburg, PA -- which uses granulated coal as their raw material from which to form carbon fibers. 
And this is an extremely strange statement. In my world, carbon fibers are produced by controlled oxidation of polymers, and I don't see any way to use coal - other than through coke processing and  using tar as raw material for polymer synthesys. That may be the case, but that is a long technological chain. Saying coal is used for fibers is like saying rust and clay are used to make cars. Which is true, and probably involves a shorter chain of technological transformations

I know the polymer-oxidation method that you're referring to is used as well to form long-chain CF material (and is used by a number of overseas manufacturers of CF-intensive products) -- but from what my speaker vendor has told me on several occasions, they have chosen the PA firm as their supplier -- despite its "long way around" methodology -- specifically because that supplier is attempting to demonstrate that there are alternate uses for coal resources other than simply as fuel.  The speaker company is attempting to get away from hydrocarbon-based materials (polyolefin and other such compounds) that have found widespread usage in sound reproduction in the last 40 years.  They've even employed laminated-wood as speaker-cone material!  As one of the few remaining domestic speaker driver manufacturers, they're trying to position themselves as environmentally sound as feasible -- and they attempt, wherever possible, to use vendors who are doing likewise.  Personally, I've employed several of their products, using either woven carbon fiber or CF-infused wood pulp as cone material, in my designs (so far so good!); if they can continue to supply appropriate products that are somewhat "greener" than the competition (and maintain competitive pricing, which they've done so far!), then I'll continue to use them as a vendor.

I hope I wouldn't be prosecuted for off-topic if I ask for some company names? I really want to look at the specs -because what you say sounds too much to particle board, which is a reasonable product, but...

And as far as I know, coal is a prime source of aromatic compounds, so it is far from being just fuel...

The name of the my vendor speaker company is Misco; the carbon-infused pulp is certainly not in any way related to particle board, and the carbon fiber drivers are woven pure carbon fiber.  They probably won't reveal the name of their carbon-fiber supplier (I buy from them, and they won't tell me! -- they do have a lot of trade secrets that they don't let drift "downstream" to their customers -- they're deathly afraid of Chinese copies of their products).  Specifically, the carbon-infused pulp-cone driver I use is a variant of their model OC8W series; the carbon-fiber is a LC62W series (I buy units based on these models but customized for my specific design needs).  They're listed on their website, so anyone can see their basic product selection.

BTW, my website (Cascade Audio Systems) will likely be operative by February; if anyone has any interest in audio, feel free to peruse it once it's up & running (talk about off-topic..................).  One of my business partners is handling that project, so when a domain name is up, I'll move over to Off-topic to announce it.  But maybe it's not so off-topic at all; if you're sitting around home listening to your audio system, you're not driving around the city causing pollution and other mayhem!  :sombrero:

P.S. -- If we're going to continue to yap about chemical processes, audio, or other ancillary subjects, I suggest a breakaway thread somewhere over in Off-Topic; this sideshow has gone on long enough! 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bickendan on November 30, 2017, 03:36:57 AM
Actually, I'm very happy how this this thread has evolved.

(Now that I've commented, I'm sure the discussion will deflate faster than a punctured balloon x.x)
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on November 30, 2017, 04:00:06 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on November 30, 2017, 03:36:57 AM
Actually, I'm very happy how this this thread has evolved.

(Now that I've commented, I'm sure the discussion will deflate faster than a punctured balloon x.x)

Nah -- I'm sure it'll come back around in time.  Actually, I'm getting a bit of an education about polymer-chain processes thanks to kalvado; my own educational background is in public policy analysis, not chemistry; I got into speaker design from the music industry back in the early '70's, and used the business to fund my ventures in grad school.  So I tend to take what my business associates say as basically true in areas where I don't have a lot of technical expertise (I know what different speaker cone materials offer in sonic capabilities and/or limitations, but the process by which they get there is a bit over my "pay grade", so to speak).  I just tell the mfrs. what I need and they do or don't supply it (a few clunkers over the years!).  But I've toggled between audio and policy most of my adult life and I've managed to stay afloat (for the most part!) doing so.   
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on November 30, 2017, 05:41:13 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 30, 2017, 04:00:06 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on November 30, 2017, 03:36:57 AM
Actually, I'm very happy how this this thread has evolved.

(Now that I've commented, I'm sure the discussion will deflate faster than a punctured balloon x.x)

Nah -- I'm sure it'll come back around in time.  Actually, I'm getting a bit of an education about polymer-chain processes thanks to kalvado; my own educational background is in public policy analysis, not chemistry; I got into speaker design from the music industry back in the early '70's, and used the business to fund my ventures in grad school.  So I tend to take what my business associates say as basically true in areas where I don't have a lot of technical expertise (I know what different speaker cone materials offer in sonic capabilities and/or limitations, but the process by which they get there is a bit over my "pay grade", so to speak).  I just tell the mfrs. what I need and they do or don't supply it (a few clunkers over the years!).  But I've toggled between audio and policy most of my adult life and I've managed to stay afloat (for the most part!) doing so.   
OK, if mods are happy - lets continue carbon fiber discussion over here  :bigass:
As far as I understand carbon technology, all those procedures with polymers are aimed at producing linear structures which do not readily exist in nature. They are very directional, and work best for stretching, maybe sheer perpendicular to fiber - not sure.
Saying coal powder can do any of that is real strange.
Now looking at Misco products, they seem to use real fiber.

Next, there is something about carbon fibers in petroleum coke - solid leftover of oil processing. THose fibers are mostly mentioned in terms of health effects - as carbon fiber in general, they can be lung killers.

Concrete reinforced with carbon fiber looks like a good, but expensive material. Demolition of such structures would be a big safety issue as well.
What I see so far, is repair and certain elements - not full construction. Probably difference in directional carrying capacity vs steel  would also be an issue..
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kphoger on November 30, 2017, 06:57:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 23, 2017, 02:10:34 AM
Well duh, when you don't have a car, cars are a problem. A pest.

For the 5 years I lived in the Chicago area without a car, I didn't think cars were a problem.  In fact, it would have been really hard to hitchhike if nobody had had a car.  Having a car would also have made grocery shopping easier, because hauling a shopping cart on and off a bus is not exactly easy.  I was all for expanding the public transit system in my area, but it never once occurred to me that it should be done at the expense of drivers' mobility.

Why is it that you don't hear people who love cars calling for the removal of bus stations and railroads and bike lanes, yet you frequently hear people who love transit and bicycles calling for the removal of highways?  Why can't there be room for all modes of transportation?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on November 30, 2017, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 30, 2017, 06:57:30 PM
Having a car would also have made grocery shopping easier, because hauling a shopping cart on and off a bus is not exactly easy.

People I know that don't have cars usually stop at the grocery store several times a week to collect various things, so there's less to haul around. A couple tote bags (much larger than plastic bags, and also legal, unlike plastic bags) can carry a lot of stuff.

Quote from: kphoger on November 30, 2017, 06:57:30 PM
Why is it that you don't hear people who love cars calling for the removal of bus stations and railroads and bike lanes, yet you frequently hear people who love transit and bicycles calling for the removal of highways?  Why can't there be room for all modes of transportation?

I don't hear people calling for the removal of these facilities (although I hear drivers complain about bus, bike, and HOV lanes), but drivers get very vocal when it comes to expanding the system. Most cities have a very minimal cycling/public transportation infrastructure, that generally doesn't impede traffic flow. But bigger cities with more complex public transportation systems sometimes have to take from the general purpose area (a lane here and there) to benefit the public transportation user. This sometimes doesn't seem fair, but in certain cases, it can be necessary. Denny Way in Seattle will eventually have a bus lane going several blocks from Fairview to Stewart, requiring the removal of one westbound lane. Although that doesn't seem quite fair, the buses that run along that stretch carry far more people than any of the cars (even HOV traffic), so in a way, it will improve the capacity of that road. Just not for cars.

Cars and public transportation can exist in harmony. But when space becomes a luxury, like in Seattle, one mode of transport has to give. Cars are usually first on the chopping block, because they carry the fewest amount of people per-square foot.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on December 01, 2017, 04:50:10 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2017, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 30, 2017, 06:57:30 PM
Having a car would also have made grocery shopping easier, because hauling a shopping cart on and off a bus is not exactly easy.

People I know that don't have cars usually stop at the grocery store several times a week to collect various things, so there's less to haul around. A couple tote bags (much larger than plastic bags, and also legal, unlike plastic bags) can carry a lot of stuff.

Quote from: kphoger on November 30, 2017, 06:57:30 PM
Why is it that you don't hear people who love cars calling for the removal of bus stations and railroads and bike lanes, yet you frequently hear people who love transit and bicycles calling for the removal of highways?  Why can't there be room for all modes of transportation?

I don't hear people calling for the removal of these facilities (although I hear drivers complain about bus, bike, and HOV lanes), but drivers get very vocal when it comes to expanding the system. Most cities have a very minimal cycling/public transportation infrastructure, that generally doesn't impede traffic flow. But bigger cities with more complex public transportation systems sometimes have to take from the general purpose area (a lane here and there) to benefit the public transportation user. This sometimes doesn't seem fair, but in certain cases, it can be necessary. Denny Way in Seattle will eventually have a bus lane going several blocks from Fairview to Stewart, requiring the removal of one westbound lane. Although that doesn't seem quite fair, the buses that run along that stretch carry far more people than any of the cars (even HOV traffic), so in a way, it will improve the capacity of that road. Just not for cars.

Cars and public transportation can exist in harmony. But when space becomes a luxury, like in Seattle, one mode of transport has to give. Cars are usually first on the chopping block, because they carry the fewest amount of people per-square foot.

From what I've seen over the years, most of the people who "love transit & bicycles" are simply trying to achieve a measure of balance within a system that, frankly, has favored cars and the facilities to optimize that particular mode of transit.  It so happens that the larger share of those have opted for living in densely populated area -- particularly those who also have also opted not to own a personal vehicle -- the reasons for such possibly being some sense of solidarity with others of like minds, but more likely simply because such places have the potential to provide as many personal/social/commercial needs as possible within a given bounded area.  For the most part, their goal is to live their lives as best they can within the bounded rationality that comes with self-imposed limited mobility; their choices have fostered the methodology they use to do so:  going to the store more often for less items per visit, depending upon USPS, UPS, or FedEx as part of whatever acquisition chain they favor, and certainly allowing more time when distances must be overcome.  Over time it becomes second nature not only to themselves but the others -- with or without vehicles -- with whom they interact.

It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.  It seems that they have framed the auto/everything else dichotomy in zero-sum terms; they not only want to "win" the argument but they want to see the other side lose!  It's not enough that they stop the planning of automotive-oriented facilities in their midst; they want to deprive those who are not "enlightened" enough to want to mimic their choices of the ability to efficiently traverse the urban region.  Essentially, it boils down to "our tribe versus their tribe!", with each side hunkered down in their "forts".  We see this dynamic in Dallas, Syracuse, and other venues that have longstanding freeway arterials serving their city centers; the hue and cry has reached the Northwest as well, particularly in Portland.  Seattle has largely been spared such controversies primarily because it only has effectively 1.5 N-S arterials bisecting the city (I-5 plus the somewhat less efficient WA 99 corridor); there's not a lot of fodder for the fire.  PDX, on the other hand, features that big old oval surrounding downtown (5/405) with four distinct directional branches toward the hinterlands.  The ideology witnessed there is a classic "starve the beast" program -- keep the narrow gauntlets within the oval and the first few miles of the branches from growing to address capacity issues.  It doesn't seem to matter that most of the central city is already geared toward transit, bicycles, and dense housing and commercial deployment -- some folks just seem to need to "make a statement" by denying the legitimacy of the other side; cars are intrinsically evil, so let's not let them continue to spread the disease in OUR house!  Essentially binary tribalism at its most vehement -- but part of a politicized process. 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on December 01, 2017, 08:48:28 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2017, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 30, 2017, 06:57:30 PM
Having a car would also have made grocery shopping easier, because hauling a shopping cart on and off a bus is not exactly easy.

People I know that don't have cars usually stop at the grocery store several times a week to collect various things, so there's less to haul around. A couple tote bags (much larger than plastic bags, and also legal, unlike plastic bags) can carry a lot of stuff.

Quote from: kphoger on November 30, 2017, 06:57:30 PM
Why is it that you don't hear people who love cars calling for the removal of bus stations and railroads and bike lanes, yet you frequently hear people who love transit and bicycles calling for the removal of highways?  Why can't there be room for all modes of transportation?

I don't hear people calling for the removal of these facilities (although I hear drivers complain about bus, bike, and HOV lanes), but drivers get very vocal when it comes to expanding the system. Most cities have a very minimal cycling/public transportation infrastructure, that generally doesn't impede traffic flow. But bigger cities with more complex public transportation systems sometimes have to take from the general purpose area (a lane here and there) to benefit the public transportation user. This sometimes doesn't seem fair, but in certain cases, it can be necessary. Denny Way in Seattle will eventually have a bus lane going several blocks from Fairview to Stewart, requiring the removal of one westbound lane. Although that doesn't seem quite fair, the buses that run along that stretch carry far more people than any of the cars (even HOV traffic), so in a way, it will improve the capacity of that road. Just not for cars.

Cars and public transportation can exist in harmony. But when space becomes a luxury, like in Seattle, one mode of transport has to give. Cars are usually first on the chopping block, because they carry the fewest amount of people per-square foot.

I've attempted to do this, I live about 500 yards from a grocery store, but I'm afraid I'll just come home everyday with a bunch of extra stuff, and it would cost more.  I'm going to give it another try!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kkt on December 01, 2017, 12:40:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2017, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 30, 2017, 06:57:30 PM
Having a car would also have made grocery shopping easier, because hauling a shopping cart on and off a bus is not exactly easy.
People I know that don't have cars usually stop at the grocery store several times a week to collect various things, so there's less to haul around. A couple tote bags (much larger than plastic bags, and also legal, unlike plastic bags) can carry a lot of stuff.

Yes, I lived without a car as an adult for about 15 years.  I stopped at the grocery story 2-3 times a week and got about one grocery bag's worth each time.  I shopped at a grocery store close to my house, so I was only carrying the bag ten or fifteen minutes' walk.  I never tried to take a grocery cart onto a bus - the carts are supposed to stay at the grocery store, and the bus wouldn't allow it anyway.  One plus was getting fresh produce more often, so it hadn't been sitting in my fridge for a week before I ate it.  Of course, I was only shopping for one at the time, but if the kids are older than 4 or 5 you can draft them to help carry.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 01, 2017, 04:50:10 AM
It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on December 01, 2017, 05:19:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 01, 2017, 04:50:10 AM
It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).
Yes, dementia seems to be on the rise... But some people believe total amount of intelligence is fixed while population keeps growing..
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on December 01, 2017, 05:29:39 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 01, 2017, 04:50:10 AM
It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).

If the Interstate System had been designed around the more European concept of a main "intercity" trunk route skirting or circling around the metro areas -- which is, according to most accounts, what Eisenhower pictured from the get-go; then the issue of freeways in the cities would have devolved down to state & local levels.  But most city halls in the '50's -- as well as the representatives they sent to the state and national capitals -- wanted those freeways for a number of reasons.  Unfortunately, in retrospect, those reasons included inherent racism -- fearing the loss of cash flow from "white flight" to the 'burbs (and calculating that minorities didn't have the resources to replace that cash flow), the Interstate trunks, by and large, were routed through the city centers.  Of course, ten or so years later some cities strenuously objected to the city-center freeway plans, with the resultant re-routing and truncations in several of those (we all know the list:  pretty much everything along the Northeast Corridor except Philadelphia, plus Memphis, New Orleans, Indianapolis, Hartford.....the list does go on).  Most of the West Coast, with the exception of San Francisco, was essentially built out to the original plans from the late '50's.  Seattle's plan was quite simple -- one north-south arterial (I-5), an easterly upgrade of the old US 10 (I-90), and the loop east of Lake Washington (I-405).  Of course, no one could have expected the Boeing expansion or the tech boom.  When that was on the horizon, there were several iterations of locally-promulgated networks of freeways to serve that population increase.  But none really came to fruition -- the popular backing was never there to support such development.  As a Seattle resident, you might say that either you dodged a bullet or, alternately, that Seattle citizens are, as a group, a bit more prone to prefer an environment with a minimal amount of freeway mileage -- which, in comparison to other metro areas, you have! 

I'm totally in agreement regarding surface streets; if the situation calls for replacement of general-purpose lanes with dedicated bus lanes, then by all means implement that format!  Surface streets do need to be shared; drivers can't expect to run rampant over them without concern for the safety of those outside a metal shell.  That being said -- taking an absolutist position regarding urban freeways, including attempting to lay blame for just about every disease and psychological condition known to mankind at their ramps seems somewhat "over the top".  I get it -- you just don't want through traffic from elsewhere traveling through the area you've adopted as your own (essentially the poster-child concept of tribalism!); you'd rather see it dispersed to city streets (akin to what US 99 did through downtown Seattle for 40+ years until I-5 was constructed).  Frankly, unless one is prepared to widen I-405 out to 12 lanes to accommodate that through traffic, I-5 is there to stay -- and I-90 as well (although much of it within the city is in a tunnel!).  There are no absolutes in the realm of transportation policy -- enough people value mobility that a shared situation is inevitable -- and Seattle seems to be moving in the direction of correcting past errors -- but eliminating urban freeways would be a bridge too far -- even downtown businesses would not likely relish that thought -- they need those tenets to the outlying areas of the region to bring in potential customers; like others, Seattle's not a "walled city" designed for its close-in residents alone -- it's the hub of a larger region. 

In short -- Seattle's moving toward a more even-handed approach to transportation; except for the tunnels, there hasn't been much in the way of roadway expansion within the 405 loop for decades; most resources have been directed to mass public transit.  Just don't let the quest for what you deem perfection derail the progress toward what's doable.  The goal should be balance -- not dominance!  Maybe coexistence with cars is a difficult situation -- psychologically and physically -- for a few folks -- but face it -- life's difficult on many levels most of the time; if your happiness and well-being depends upon a multitude of others' drastic changes in their lives, then you have my condolences if not abject sympathy -- it's not a particularly realistic position in which to put one's self.   
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on December 01, 2017, 07:11:44 PM
^^
Very well said, sparker. Ultimately, it will come down a compromise. That's just life. We can move towards a city where the dominant mode of transportation isn't SOV (single-occupancy vehicle) (and we have -- downtown commuters have been choosing public transport over SOVs very consistently lately), but SOVs will always be there. There will always be people in the suburbs who need to go downtown, and who don't want to take a bus, or train, etc. Even if that means paying a congestion charge (in discussion, as mentioned upthread), there will be that demand.

One psychological effect that urban freeways have is the inherent division they create. Walking from Harborview Medical Center to downtown Seattle via James St takes you through two very busy signals (6th and 7th, the on and off ramps respectively). Plus, you have to cross beneath I-5's 13 lanes of traffic. It's not a pretty walk. It's nearly impossible to avoid getting wet from the dripping overhead structure; you have to deal with a lot of homeless people who hang out under there (it's still drier than out in the open, to be fair); it's also just really dark. In the middle of a summer day, you're waltzing along James St, suns out, and then -BAM!- you hit the 5. Suddenly very dark. It's not pleasant. The walk would be much more enjoyable without having to cross under the freeway. Now, when you consider the benefit the freeway provides to the hundreds of thousands of motorists who use it everyday, compared to the not-so-walkable underpass, this all seems rather unimportant. But, you can't ignore the psychological barriers that freeways force upon a city.

One way to deal with the pollution of our urban freeways is to lid them. Seattle has been going crazy with lids lately. I-90 got a host of them in the 90s. The 520, once the "rest of the west" project is complete, will have four or five (or something like that). There is ongoing discussion to completely lid I-5 through the city center. It's ambitious, sure. It would be expensive, and it would take a long time to complete. And, it would almost certainly prevent further widening (which shouldn't be discussed anyway -- I-5 is already plenty wide). It will probably take an initiative for it to get built. But judging by past city initiatives, Seattleites are usually quite willing to pay increased taxes for just about anything. This is one I'd happily support.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Duke87 on December 01, 2017, 11:02:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 10:41:11 PM
Much to my surprise, the LA metro area actually has a higher population density than the New York City metro area. I suspect the average commute in LA or Houston is lower because there are some days where you can get to work quickly, and some where it takes a while. But in New York City, where something like 50% of the population rides the subway to get to work, your commute time is limited by the speed of the trains, the amount of time it takes to make a connection, etc.

I think a lot of it also has to do with where people are going to work. In Los Angeles only something like 5% of the jobs are downtown, which means that
A) people commute in all sorts of different directions which makes for efficient use of the freeway network since all lanes get well used during both peak periods, and
B) that it's not hugely difficult to live relatively close to where you work since both the jobs and the homes are spread out.

Contrast this to New York City where a lot of the jobs are concentrated in one place (Manhattan) while the homes are still geographically spread out, and the ones in or near Manhattan command a high price. This means much of the population cannot live near where they work, which naturally drives commute times up. It also hurts the efficiency with which the transportation system is used - while the roads fill up in both directions (since anyone reverse commuting is likely to have to do so by car), train after train is running near-empty away from Manhattan during AM rush hour, purely because they gotta go back to the end of the line to pick more people up... or because they have to go somewhere after they've dropped their load of commuters from the other side of town.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2017, 02:51:42 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 28, 2017, 10:32:35 PM
*cough* Skyscrapers don't have to be all steel *cough*

Portland is building a 12-story wood-framed tower, the first of its kind in the USA. It could open up a huge market, especially in the Northwest where sustainable wood is able to be harvested for such purposes.

Wonder how well that building will do when the Cascadia Subduction Zone fault ruptures again (and the resulting earthquake could be a 9.2 or better).

Forget that - I wonder how well that building will do when someone on the 5th floor experiences an electrical short in their kitchen, or knocks a lit scented candle over in their sleep.

Building a large apartment building with a flammable structural frame just seems like a horrible idea no matter where in the world it is. If I were the fire marshall there's no way in hell I'd sign off on that building.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on December 02, 2017, 10:20:22 PM
Modern skyscrapers are also prone to all those factors, and are rigorously tested. So too are cross laminated timber buildings, which have more up-to-date tests. This article (https://archpaper.com/2017/06/framework-portland-timber-tower/#gallery-0-slide-0) has links to some of those tests, and there's already modern buildings that use timber structuring (http://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/t3-becomes-the-first-modern-tall-wood-building-in-the-us_o). Not to mention most new apartment buildings still use wood frames and structure on top of a concrete base (especially in earthquake-prone regions, where they're actually able to sway and take the brunt of seismic waves).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 01:36:13 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 01, 2017, 04:50:10 AM
It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).


having cars at all increases all of these illnesses, where is your evidence that highways do this alone? 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on December 03, 2017, 01:55:59 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 01:36:13 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 01, 2017, 04:50:10 AM
It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).


having cars at all increases all of these illnesses, where is your evidence that highways do this alone?
I think we should start eliminating vehicles, one type at a time. EMS, fire trucks and police should be the first set on the chopping block, me thinks.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 02:02:25 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 03, 2017, 01:55:59 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 01:36:13 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 01, 2017, 04:50:10 AM
It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).


having cars at all increases all of these illnesses, where is your evidence that highways do this alone?
I think we should start eliminating vehicles, one type at a time. EMS, fire trucks and police should be the first set on the chopping block, me thinks.

and how do you propose to do that?  i don't see how that's even remotely legal
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: hotdogPi on December 03, 2017, 02:18:04 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 02:02:25 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 03, 2017, 01:55:59 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 01:36:13 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 01, 2017, 04:50:10 AM
It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).


having cars at all increases all of these illnesses, where is your evidence that highways do this alone?
I think we should start eliminating vehicles, one type at a time. EMS, fire trucks and police should be the first set on the chopping block, me thinks.

and how do you propose to do that?  i don't see how that's even remotely legal

Cut the fireman/police budget to zero (which means they won't exist anymore), and give the money saved from that to corporations.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on December 03, 2017, 02:18:33 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 02:02:25 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 03, 2017, 01:55:59 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 01:36:13 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 01, 2017, 04:50:10 AM
It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).


having cars at all increases all of these illnesses, where is your evidence that highways do this alone?
I think we should start eliminating vehicles, one type at a time. EMS, fire trucks and police should be the first set on the chopping block, me thinks.

and how do you propose to do that?  i don't see how that's even remotely legal

Followed in turn by the UPS/FedEx trucks the carless depend upon to get the shit they ordered online! (BTW, the next to last statement above was an excercise in sarcasm!) Seriously, a properly functioning freeway (yeah, in urban areas that's often akin to a unicorn!) has the potential to scoot polluting vehicles through a given area much more quickly than a network of city streets with the generally preferred urban 25mph limit applied; those on the sidewalks will be breathing much more in the way of CO, CO2, etc. than when encountering a crossing freeway either up on a bridge/berm or below grade (and possibly capped with filtered exhaust).  Maybe Elon Musk will eventually do as he's claimed and we'll have a quantum lessening of hydrocarbon pollution -- but in the meanwhile keeping that traffic that isn't destined for local service on the freeways remains the "best of a bad lot" in this regard.     
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on December 03, 2017, 02:41:05 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 03, 2017, 02:18:33 PM
Seriously, a properly functioning freeway (yeah, in urban areas that's often akin to a unicorn!) has the potential to scoot polluting vehicles through a given area much more quickly than a network of city streets with the generally preferred urban 25mph limit applied; those on the sidewalks will be breathing much more in the way of CO, CO2, etc. than when encountering a crossing freeway either up on a bridge/berm or below grade (and possibly capped with filtered exhaust).  Maybe Elon Musk will eventually do as he's claimed and we'll have a quantum lessening of hydrocarbon pollution -- but in the meanwhile keeping that traffic that isn't destined for local service on the freeways remains the "best of a bad lot" in this regard.   
Not sure. CO2, while not a cause of any medical problems, is a good one to consider: it directly relates to amount of fuel burned. I average 29.5MPG on a fast highway, 30.5 on a slower one, and city streets drop me towards 26-27. So difference is not that great. Idling - traffic lights, traffic etc - definitely makes things worse.
CO and NOx are more a function of properly working catalytic converter.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on December 03, 2017, 08:13:44 PM
Nice strawmaning.

Personal vehicles for single-occupant users that are traveling to city centers during peak hours are wholly unnecessary and a wasteful use of precious resources (fuel, road space, road capacity). Of course we'll still need service vehicles, hence why I'm not on the far-flung edges of the debate advocating for the total annihilation of roads in general, but we should be accommodating the growing population of the region with better modes (transit, cycling, walking) that are able to carry more people in less space. Otherwise, we're going to drown in traffic forever and keep wondering why those new, mega-expensive road expansions don't relieve traffic for more than a few months.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 09:08:52 PM
ban squiggly subdivision roads, and bring back the grid!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on December 03, 2017, 09:26:35 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 03, 2017, 08:13:44 PM
Nice strawmaning.

Personal vehicles for single-occupant users that are traveling to city centers during peak hours are wholly unnecessary and a wasteful use of precious resources (fuel, road space, road capacity). Of course we'll still need service vehicles, hence why I'm not on the far-flung edges of the debate advocating for the total annihilation of roads in general, but we should be accommodating the growing population of the region with better modes (transit, cycling, walking) that are able to carry more people in less space. Otherwise, we're going to drown in traffic forever and keep wondering why those new, mega-expensive road expansions don't relieve traffic for more than a few months.
A somewhat personal question: I understand where you stand with respect to personal transportation - but given your preferences what brings you to roadgeek forum?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: hotdogPi on December 03, 2017, 09:31:22 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 03, 2017, 09:26:35 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 03, 2017, 08:13:44 PM
Nice strawmaning.

Personal vehicles for single-occupant users that are traveling to city centers during peak hours are wholly unnecessary and a wasteful use of precious resources (fuel, road space, road capacity). Of course we'll still need service vehicles, hence why I'm not on the far-flung edges of the debate advocating for the total annihilation of roads in general, but we should be accommodating the growing population of the region with better modes (transit, cycling, walking) that are able to carry more people in less space. Otherwise, we're going to drown in traffic forever and keep wondering why those new, mega-expensive road expansions don't relieve traffic for more than a few months.
A somewhat personal question: I understand where you stand with respect to personal transportation - but given your preferences what brings you to roadgeek forum?

He doesn't seem to have a problem with roads being more important than other forms of transportation everywhere; he's only referring to centers of major cities.

(edited)
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on December 04, 2017, 02:29:01 AM
Exactly. Roads are great for just about everything, but in dense city centers they should be split among the modes carrying the most people. In Northwestern cities, that means transit and bike priority.

My roadgeeking interest mainly stems from the history behind the corridors.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 04, 2017, 02:48:45 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 04, 2017, 02:29:01 AM
Exactly. Roads are great for just about everything, but in dense city centers they should be split among the modes carrying the most people. In Northwestern cities, that means transit and bike priority.

Personally I don't mind an expansion of public transit just as long as people will ride it *cough* WES *cough*. That being said, I don't understand why many of our transit systems aren't modeled after ones that work. I recently went to Paris and the metro trains was my most common way of transportation to get around town. Portland should take a lesson from them: Short times at stations (8 second average, 15 at busy stations), high speed where deserved. I also wouldn't mind having a downtown Portland subway extending to the airport to serve more of NE Portland but I realize how expensive this is and this isn't likely to be done. If it is done, this will result in more diverse station locations in locations where there wouldn't normally be one. I'm going to stay silent on the bike subject for now.

Our safety of our roads should not be ignored however, and on our downtown roads finding that balancing can be tough.

Back on the original subject of this board: The best way to relieve freight congestion without much downtown impact in the Rose Quarter is in my opinion the West-side Bypass and I don't know why any of our public officials (except Richard Vial) aren't looking at that idea. Don't care if they toll it (unlike most other Portland freeways).

Last thing:
Quote from: 1 on December 03, 2017, 02:18:04 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 02:02:25 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 03, 2017, 01:55:59 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 01:36:13 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 01, 2017, 04:50:10 AM
It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).


having cars at all increases all of these illnesses, where is your evidence that highways do this alone?
I think we should start eliminating vehicles, one type at a time. EMS, fire trucks and police should be the first set on the chopping block, me thinks.

and how do you propose to do that?  i don't see how that's even remotely legal

Cut the fireman/police budget to zero (which means they won't exist anymore), and give the money saved from that to corporations.

And how do you think law and order would remain in a city without police? And in case fires break out who will have the equipment to stop them
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on December 04, 2017, 07:56:03 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 04, 2017, 02:48:45 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 04, 2017, 02:29:01 AM
Exactly. Roads are great for just about everything, but in dense city centers they should be split among the modes carrying the most people. In Northwestern cities, that means transit and bike priority.

Personally I don't mind an expansion of public transit just as long as people will ride it *cough* WES *cough*. That being said, I don't understand why many of our transit systems aren't modeled after ones that work. I recently went to Paris and the metro trains was my most common way of transportation to get around town. Portland should take a lesson from them: Short times at stations (8 second average, 15 at busy stations), high speed where deserved. I also wouldn't mind having a downtown Portland subway extending to the airport to serve more of NE Portland but I realize how expensive this is and this isn't likely to be done. If it is done, this will result in more diverse station locations in locations where there wouldn't normally be one. I'm going to stay silent on the bike subject for now.

Our safety of our roads should not be ignored however, and on our downtown roads finding that balancing can be tough.

Back on the original subject of this board: The best way to relieve freight congestion without much downtown impact in the Rose Quarter is in my opinion the West-side Bypass and I don't know why any of our public officials (except Richard Vial) aren't looking at that idea. Don't care if they toll it (unlike most other Portland freeways).

Last thing:
Quote from: 1 on December 03, 2017, 02:18:04 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 02:02:25 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 03, 2017, 01:55:59 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 03, 2017, 01:36:13 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 01, 2017, 04:50:10 AM
It's when this methodology evolves (or devolves) into ideology that such things as roadway/freeway/structure removal begins to be posited.  Instead of attempting to coexist with other denizens of the metro area, including the driving public, the ideologists seem to be trying to draw stark lines -- to the point of considering dense city areas functional "reservations" to be occupied and governed by the like-minded.

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

Speeding motorists leads to more pedestrian and bicycle deaths, so road diets get implemented. People complain and politicians get cold feet, sometimes even reversing the decision, while fatalities and injuries spike back up to "normal" levels (which are disastrously high for an industrialized nation).

The existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia. The case for removing a freeway is very sound, when you look at public health, and can actually improve the road network by shifting bottlenecks and spreading them out over a wider area instead of concentrating them on offramps and onramps.

Transit is slow but efficient, so the city cries out for bus lanes. With no room to expand the roadway, there's no choice but to "take away" car lanes (which, in reality, are heavily underutilized compared to a dedicated bus lane). The motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).


having cars at all increases all of these illnesses, where is your evidence that highways do this alone?
I think we should start eliminating vehicles, one type at a time. EMS, fire trucks and police should be the first set on the chopping block, me thinks.

and how do you propose to do that?  i don't see how that's even remotely legal

Cut the fireman/police budget to zero (which means they won't exist anymore), and give the money saved from that to corporations.

And how do you think law and order would remain in a city without police? And in case fires break out who will have the equipment to stop them

pretty sure that guy's trolling
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on December 04, 2017, 08:24:54 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 04, 2017, 02:29:01 AM
Exactly. Roads are great for just about everything, but in dense city centers they should be split among the modes carrying the most people. In Northwestern cities, that means transit and bike priority.

My roadgeeking interest mainly stems from the history behind the corridors.
But then you should also favor long haul rail - both freight and pax?
In general, once you talk about reduced car ownership, use of car for longer trips is also reduced as relative convenience of mass transportation goes up. Again, that goes against the roadgeek concept...
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on December 04, 2017, 04:42:11 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 04, 2017, 08:24:54 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 04, 2017, 02:29:01 AM
Exactly. Roads are great for just about everything, but in dense city centers they should be split among the modes carrying the most people. In Northwestern cities, that means transit and bike priority.

My roadgeeking interest mainly stems from the history behind the corridors.
But then you should also favor long haul rail - both freight and pax?
In general, once you talk about reduced car ownership, use of car for longer trips is also reduced as relative convenience of mass transportation goes up. Again, that goes against the roadgeek concept...

I suppose that one could be strictly an "observational" or "second-party" roadgeek, possibly using this forum to obtain information (and occasionally some mighty fine pictures!) about roads and corridors that they never intend to personally traverse unless they hop on a bus or ride Amtrak on a regular basis.  I would imagine that if the hobby persists, eventually one would come to a juncture where the decision to forego car ownership might be revisited with an eye toward personally experiencing "what's out there" -- unless they can occasionally cajole their car-owning friends to take them on "tours" of roads and road projects (which would probably, to those friends, get "old" rather quickly unless they also were so inclined!). 

But then a lot of urban dwellers aren't really in it for the journey; they're more destination-oriented in that they're starting in a city setting and zipping off to another city setting where the means and modes are familiar and comforting.  If LR or reasonably quick shuttle service gets one between the airport and downtown efficiently, then they're happy as clams! 

Re long-haul rail:  absent a sea change in the presently problematic cooperation level between the host railroads and Amtrak regarding scheduling and routing, don't expect to see any expansion of long-haul intercity passenger service.  And, please, no one chime in with "maybe we need to nationalize the railroads" to effect on-demand service; that ain't gonna happen -- period!!!!   Freight by rail works well when there's a unified and easily-handled cargo (bulk grain, coal, ore pellets -- and the savior of the railroads, containerized cargo) that can travel long distance between hubs.  For all else -- including regional distribution from those hubs, trucks are the mode of choice for their routing and time flexibility; of course, a similar dynamic regarding hydrocarbons vs. electricity (with possibly biofuel somewhere in the middle) as seen with cars applies to trucks as well.  It is presently not logistically nor financially feasible for rail to be used for short-distance freight delivery; the best that can be anticipated is a move to biofuel or electric trucking. 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on December 04, 2017, 06:19:19 PM
I'm just pulling some numbers out of my ass, but I like cities that operate in this manner:

Urban areas: less than 20% of trips by single-occupancy vehicle
Suburban areas: greater than 70% of trips by single-occupancy vehicle
Rural areas: greater than 95% of trips by single-occupancy vehicle

Although I sometimes can take the middle-ground approach with transport policy, I tend to agree with Bruce that cities simply aren't built to accomodate single-occupancy vehicles in the manner that we seem to ask of them. Cities are much better built to accomodate mass transportation options. It's just a mathematical fact (https://img.odometer.com/filter:scale/slides/3/8/1/6/2/8/3816280018/eb6e07071eb5f0f3f1b25409e2df5b5f089e5c34.png?mw=615).

That said, I still like roads. That's why I live and work in relatively suburban areas, where cars tend to work better. Although my main interest is traffic control and route history. I couldn't give a rat's ass about route number's, interstates, etc.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sp_redelectric on December 05, 2017, 02:24:17 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 04, 2017, 02:29:01 AM
in dense city centers they should be split among the modes carrying the most people. In Northwestern cities, that means transit and bike priority.

In Portland, 75-80% of downtown trips are still by private, single-occupant motor vehicle.  Transit and cycling together make up about 10% of trips taken.

The numbers only get worse further out.

Seattle has a pretty good transit usage, because of their far superior bus network.  Portland has been cutting its bus service expecting that MAX will pick up the slack, but so far it hasn't.  Total transit ridership in Portland today is at the same level it was back in 2008 - we've added two light rail lines, a commuter rail line, and expanded the streetcar system in the nine subsequent years, and we haven't gained ANY ridership.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: bigdave on December 05, 2017, 10:07:41 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PM

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

So is coexisting with scofflaw and inconsiderate bike riders. Case in point last night - driving home downhill on a narrow two lane road. Coming the other way is a bike rider struggling uphill in his lycra outfit, trailed by five or six cars. (This is at rush hour.) The bike rider is making maybe 3-5 mph. Just to the right of the bike rider is a nice new concrete sidewalk completely absent of pedestrians. But the bike rider insists on being treated like a car, and stays on the road. Not to mention there is an all way stop at the top of the hill, and I didn't even need to be there to see if said bike rider came to a full stop or not.

Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PMThe existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia.

Other than Mother Jones, the links to dementia do not seem that well established yet. BTW what is your alternative to the poorly designed freeway systems - they went where the people are. And oddly enough, when new roads are built new homes are built near the new roads. Whose fault is that.

Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PMThe motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).

So we are particularly biased against non-white bicyclists? Wow.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on December 05, 2017, 10:43:14 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2017, 06:19:19 PM
I'm just pulling some numbers out of my ass, but I like cities that operate in this manner:

Urban areas: less than 20% of trips by single-occupancy vehicle
Suburban areas: greater than 70% of trips by single-occupancy vehicle
Rural areas: greater than 95% of trips by single-occupancy vehicle

Although I sometimes can take the middle-ground approach with transport policy, I tend to agree with Bruce that cities simply aren't built to accomodate single-occupancy vehicles in the manner that we seem to ask of them. Cities are much better built to accomodate mass transportation options.

Honestly speaking, it looks like largest cities are not built to accommodate anything. Problem is that city core is built to accommodate what was there at the time of construction. Once you start building more and more - up or wide, or both - that center is overloaded (if it remains core business area - which is often the case). If business spreads out, keeping city big is only that important, but current trend is the growth of megacities.

WHat makes things worse, industrial decay actually pushed business inward, making it all even more difficult with higher concentration of business (aka commute destinations) in high rise areas

Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on December 05, 2017, 02:43:46 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 05, 2017, 10:43:14 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2017, 06:19:19 PM
I'm just pulling some numbers out of my ass, but I like cities that operate in this manner:

Urban areas: less than 20% of trips by single-occupancy vehicle
Suburban areas: greater than 70% of trips by single-occupancy vehicle
Rural areas: greater than 95% of trips by single-occupancy vehicle

Although I sometimes can take the middle-ground approach with transport policy, I tend to agree with Bruce that cities simply aren't built to accomodate single-occupancy vehicles in the manner that we seem to ask of them. Cities are much better built to accomodate mass transportation options.

Honestly speaking, it looks like largest cities are not built to accommodate anything. Problem is that city core is built to accommodate what was there at the time of construction. Once you start building more and more - up or wide, or both - that center is overloaded (if it remains core business area - which is often the case). If business spreads out, keeping city big is only that important, but current trend is the growth of megacities.

WHat makes things worse, industrial decay actually pushed business inward, making it all even more difficult with higher concentration of business (aka commute destinations) in high rise areas

City cores can change what they can accommodate, but change is expensive because of land prices. So, usually, cities opt for less intrusive modes of transport that can carry the most number of people. Buses, trains, and a network of bike lanes are what most cities opt for, because they carry a lot more people per-square-foot than a car occupied by only one or two people. Many cities were greatly modified in the mid-to-late 20th century to accommodate cars, but these roadways have their own capacities, and they're being met in places like Seattle and Portland. Because widening would demolish an untold number of buildings, cities often have to find other ways of ferrying people into the city. Bus lanes can replace general-purpose lanes on certain streets with popular bus routes. Small bored tunnels can accommodate high-capacity rail, bringing hundreds of thousands of people into a city without demolishing anything. And, bike lanes can improve local access.

Businesses tend to stay downtown, assuming they are already there, because they eventually become a central location for the business' employees. A company won't move 30 miles south, when 60% of their employees live north of where they are currently located. Plus, there's the social factor, of working near everyone else. The number of restaurants, bars, and things to do in a city improves worker morale. And it's easier for businesses to conduct business between each other when they're only a few blocks from one another.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on December 05, 2017, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2017, 02:43:46 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 05, 2017, 10:43:14 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2017, 06:19:19 PM
I'm just pulling some numbers out of my ass, but I like cities that operate in this manner:

Urban areas: less than 20% of trips by single-occupancy vehicle
Suburban areas: greater than 70% of trips by single-occupancy vehicle
Rural areas: greater than 95% of trips by single-occupancy vehicle

Although I sometimes can take the middle-ground approach with transport policy, I tend to agree with Bruce that cities simply aren't built to accomodate single-occupancy vehicles in the manner that we seem to ask of them. Cities are much better built to accomodate mass transportation options.

Honestly speaking, it looks like largest cities are not built to accommodate anything. Problem is that city core is built to accommodate what was there at the time of construction. Once you start building more and more - up or wide, or both - that center is overloaded (if it remains core business area - which is often the case). If business spreads out, keeping city big is only that important, but current trend is the growth of megacities.

WHat makes things worse, industrial decay actually pushed business inward, making it all even more difficult with higher concentration of business (aka commute destinations) in high rise areas

City cores can change what they can accommodate, but change is expensive because of land prices. So, usually, cities opt for less intrusive modes of transport that can carry the most number of people. Buses, trains, and a network of bike lanes are what most cities opt for, because they carry a lot more people per-square-foot than a car occupied by only one or two people. Many cities were greatly modified in the mid-to-late 20th century to accommodate cars, but these roadways have their own capacities, and they're being met in places like Seattle and Portland. Because widening would demolish an untold number of buildings, cities often have to find other ways of ferrying people into the city. Bus lanes can replace general-purpose lanes on certain streets with popular bus routes. Small bored tunnels can accommodate high-capacity rail, bringing hundreds of thousands of people into a city without demolishing anything. And, bike lanes can improve local access.

Businesses tend to stay downtown, assuming they are already there, because they eventually become a central location for the business' employees. A company won't move 30 miles south, when 60% of their employees live north of where they are currently located. Plus, there's the social factor, of working near everyone else. The number of restaurants, bars, and things to do in a city improves worker morale. And it's easier for businesses to conduct business between each other when they're only a few blocks from one another.
There is always a right-of-way which was  aquired in 18XX, and allows only to squeeze only that much today. 
Rail is great if you have a linear city - stretched along the river, or a narrow island like Manhattan; otherwise you really need hyperconcentration.
And if you need a bar to improve worker's morale.. Oh, well, I hope those folks do use public transportation.
And I am not sure if businesses within a few blocks of each other actually matter too much these days. Do you have any specific examples in mind?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 06:19:52 PM
Quote from: bigdave on December 05, 2017, 10:07:41 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PM

Coexisting with cars is hard. Really hard.

So is coexisting with scofflaw and inconsiderate bike riders. Case in point last night - driving home downhill on a narrow two lane road. Coming the other way is a bike rider struggling uphill in his lycra outfit, trailed by five or six cars. (This is at rush hour.) The bike rider is making maybe 3-5 mph. Just to the right of the bike rider is a nice new concrete sidewalk completely absent of pedestrians. But the bike rider insists on being treated like a car, and stays on the road. Not to mention there is an all way stop at the top of the hill, and I didn't even need to be there to see if said bike rider came to a full stop or not.

Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PMThe existing freeway system was so poorly designed that they cut through neighborhoods and help blast nearby residents with tons of pollution that causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and even dementia.

Other than Mother Jones, the links to dementia do not seem that well established yet. BTW what is your alternative to the poorly designed freeway systems - they went where the people are. And oddly enough, when new roads are built new homes are built near the new roads. Whose fault is that.

Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2017, 12:50:08 PMThe motoring public just doesn't want to share "their" streets with anything, especially those they perceive to be lower class (and possibly non-white...a real issue in the Northwest).

So we are particularly biased against non-white bicyclists? Wow.

in a lot of places, bikes are supposed to be in the road.  i prefer not to be in the road, because i don't want to deal with cars.

to the person saying freeways were poorly designed, that's disingenuous, years were put into the alternatives, there were many r/w constraints along many of the routes, and portions were cancelled or forced to be rerouted.  At least in Indianapolis, the process for creating our highways was very well thought out, and it works pretty well, aside from the cancelled 69 freeway. 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: US 89 on December 05, 2017, 08:31:37 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 06:19:52 PM
in a lot of places, bikes are supposed to be in the road.  i prefer not to be in the road, because i don't want to deal with cars.

I believe Salt Lake City has a law that says bicycles cannot ride in the sidewalk and must ride in a bike lane if one is provided. That includes the "green strips" that have been painted on several roads...here is an example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7693782,-111.8855982,3a,15y,277.04h,86.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI6SKQwTEsRpYLXikHpr3PQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). (the strips have faded since they were put in)

Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on December 05, 2017, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 05, 2017, 08:31:37 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 06:19:52 PM
in a lot of places, bikes are supposed to be in the road.  i prefer not to be in the road, because i don't want to deal with cars.

I believe Salt Lake City has a law that says bicycles cannot ride in the sidewalk and must ride in a bike lane if one is provided. That includes the "green strips" that have been painted on several roads...here is an example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7693782,-111.8855982,3a,15y,277.04h,86.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI6SKQwTEsRpYLXikHpr3PQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). (the strips have faded since they were put in)



When I was growing up in Glendale (SoCal) in the 50's and '60's, it was an infraction to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk -- although the only actual enforcement I ever witnessed was in business districts; residential sidewalks seemed to be functionally exempt.  Neighboring Burbank and Pasadena also had similar laws on the books; IIRC the city of L.A. had something similar, but it specifically applied to commercial areas and was rather sporadically enforced depending upon police precinct (at least according to my friends who frequently rode their bikes over the hill into Hollywood and Silver Lake); apparently the enforcement was particularly tight on both Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards because of pressure from local merchants.  Bike lanes didn't start appearing until the early '80's in that area, so cyclists had to intermix with generally unforgiving traffic -- more than a few buddies "hit the pavement" down there trying to maneuver between and around cars.  Hearing about this almost made me glad I have an inner-ear balance issue that's not favorable to bicycle travel!  If I had to go to Hollywood in my early teens (mostly for movie openings), I just took the bus!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on December 05, 2017, 09:49:01 PM
Quote from: bigdave on December 05, 2017, 10:07:41 AM
last night - driving home downhill on a narrow two lane road. Coming the other way is a bike rider struggling uphill in his lycra outfit, trailed by five or six cars. (This is at rush hour.) The bike rider is making maybe 3-5 mph. Just to the right of the bike rider is a nice new concrete sidewalk completely absent of pedestrians. But the bike rider insists on being treated like a car, and stays on the road. Not to mention there is an all way stop at the top of the hill, and I didn't even need to be there to see if said bike rider came to a full stop or not.

The rider is definitely not being very considerate, and should get off and walk their bike up the hill using the sidewalk. However, the driver's behind the cyclist are not being very smart. They should overtake the cyclist. Most states have laws that allow drivers to overtake on a double yellow to pass an obstruction; a slow moving cyclist would almost certainly qualify.

Driving around here in Seattle, I come across cyclists in the road all the time. They are usually travelling below the limit, so I usually pass them. I'm happy because they aren't slowing me down, and they're happy because I'm not on their ass, threatening to kill them should they accidentally crash.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: US 89 on December 05, 2017, 10:11:53 PM
Quote from: bigdave on December 05, 2017, 10:07:41 AM
last night - driving home downhill on a narrow two lane road. Coming the other way is a bike rider struggling uphill in his lycra outfit, trailed by five or six cars. (This is at rush hour.) The bike rider is making maybe 3-5 mph. Just to the right of the bike rider is a nice new concrete sidewalk completely absent of pedestrians. But the bike rider insists on being treated like a car, and stays on the road. Not to mention there is an all way stop at the top of the hill, and I didn't even need to be there to see if said bike rider came to a full stop or not.

I have had the opposite experience in Emigration Canyon (a very popular cycling road) just outside Salt Lake City. I was driving down the canyon, and as a new driver I was making sure to follow the 40mph speed limit. The bicycles coming down behind me were actually passing me, on the left like an overtaking car might.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 10:49:08 PM
i hate bike lanes that are painted with that green thermo.  fucks with your traction!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2017, 11:25:39 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 10:49:08 PM
i hate bike lanes that are painted with that green thermo.  fucks with your traction!
Why do you say that? I don't notice anything different when driving on them.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on December 05, 2017, 11:29:46 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2017, 11:25:39 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 10:49:08 PM
i hate bike lanes that are painted with that green thermo.  fucks with your traction!

Why do you say that? I don't notice anything different when driving on them.

I can see where he might be coming from, but I too have not had any problems, neither when I'm on my bike, or when I'm driving. Paint is inherently slicker then cement or asphalt, but the material they use for those colored pavements (see some bus lanes as well) are usually not slick.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Alps on December 05, 2017, 11:30:27 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2017, 11:25:39 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 10:49:08 PM
i hate bike lanes that are painted with that green thermo.  fucks with your traction!
Why do you say that? I don't notice anything different when driving on them.
Try them wet!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2017, 11:58:13 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 05, 2017, 11:30:27 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2017, 11:25:39 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 10:49:08 PM
i hate bike lanes that are painted with that green thermo.  fucks with your traction!
Why do you say that? I don't notice anything different when driving on them.
Try them wet!

I have not driven on them wet so that would explain it.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on December 06, 2017, 12:55:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 05, 2017, 11:30:27 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2017, 11:25:39 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 10:49:08 PM
i hate bike lanes that are painted with that green thermo.  fucks with your traction!

Why do you say that? I don't notice anything different when driving on them.

Try them wet!

I drive in the rain a lot. Seattle also has a quite a few bike boxes, which are massive solid green boxes, which you must drive over when accelerating away from a signal. Never had any traction issues that I can recall.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on December 06, 2017, 06:51:09 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 05, 2017, 11:30:27 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2017, 11:25:39 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 10:49:08 PM
i hate bike lanes that are painted with that green thermo.  fucks with your traction!
Why do you say that? I don't notice anything different when driving on them.
Try them wet!
Wet is not the worst thing, try them with some black ice...
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: bigdave on December 06, 2017, 09:35:45 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2017, 09:49:01 PM
The rider is definitely not being very considerate, and should get off and walk their bike up the hill using the sidewalk. However, the driver's behind the cyclist are not being very smart. They should overtake the cyclist. Most states have laws that allow drivers to overtake on a double yellow to pass an obstruction; a slow moving cyclist would almost certainly qualify.
It was rush hour, so there were a lot of cars going in both directions. No opportunity for the cars stuck behind the cyclist to pass, and no bike lane.  :-(

But I'm sure the bicyclist made up for it by going downhill really fast once he ran the all way stop at the top of the hill.  :bigass:
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on December 06, 2017, 11:14:28 AM
Quote from: kalvado on December 06, 2017, 06:51:09 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 05, 2017, 11:30:27 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2017, 11:25:39 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 10:49:08 PM
i hate bike lanes that are painted with that green thermo.  fucks with your traction!
Why do you say that? I don't notice anything different when driving on them.
Try them wet!
Wet is not the worst thing, try them with some black ice...

.......which is a very common occurrence in PDX during late fall and winter months; when I lived up there, it on several occasions prevented me from heading home up the hill (near Taylors' Ferry and SW 35th) from downtown when Barbur, I-5, and Taylors' Ferry were all closed as impassible.  Even OR 43 on the west bank of the Willamette wasn't immune from this as well!  And watch out for the cross-river bridge decks!   
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 06, 2017, 11:18:29 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2017, 09:49:01 PM

The rider is definitely not being very considerate, and should get off and walk their bike up the hill using the sidewalk. However, the driver's behind the cyclist are not being very smart. They should overtake the cyclist. Most states have laws that allow drivers to overtake on a double yellow to pass an obstruction; a slow moving cyclist would almost certainly qualify.

Driving around here in Seattle, I come across cyclists in the road all the time. They are usually travelling below the limit, so I usually pass them. I'm happy because they aren't slowing me down, and they're happy because I'm not on their ass, threatening to kill them should they accidentally crash.

Is it a law in the PNW states to ban bike riding on sidewalks? If it isn't it should be for pedestrian safety. Plus we have spent a lot of money on bike lines so why don't we utilize them?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on December 06, 2017, 11:45:55 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 06, 2017, 11:18:29 AM
Is it a law in the PNW states to ban bike riding on sidewalks? If it isn't it should be for pedestrian safety. Plus we have spent a lot of money on bike lines so why don't we utilize them?

In Portland, bikes are only banned on sidewalks downtown. Given that there are still a ton of major streets with no bike lanes, this makes sense.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on December 06, 2017, 12:18:08 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 06, 2017, 11:45:55 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 06, 2017, 11:18:29 AM
Is it a law in the PNW states to ban bike riding on sidewalks? If it isn't it should be for pedestrian safety. Plus we have spent a lot of money on bike lines so why don't we utilize them?

In Portland, bikes are only banned on sidewalks downtown. Given that there are still a ton of major streets with no bike lanes, this makes sense.
The way I see the problem, bikes do not mix well with pedestrian traffic. In case sidewalk is mostly empty, riding there is probably OK (technically, not talking about legalities).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on December 06, 2017, 04:56:37 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 06, 2017, 11:18:29 AM
Is it a law in the PNW states to ban bike riding on sidewalks? If it isn't it should be for pedestrian safety. Plus we have spent a lot of money on bike lines so why don't we utilize them?

Washington State definitely doesn't have any laws on the books that dictate where cyclists should ride, but some cities do. The downtown core of the city I live in is a "wheels up" area, so cycling is only allowed on the street. But I see people ride on the sidewalks all the time in most cities that I drive in. Seattle doesn't have a law, but the cyclists there generally use the streets.

Quote from: bigdave on December 06, 2017, 09:35:45 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2017, 09:49:01 PM
The rider is definitely not being very considerate, and should get off and walk their bike up the hill using the sidewalk. However, the driver's behind the cyclist are not being very smart. They should overtake the cyclist. Most states have laws that allow drivers to overtake on a double yellow to pass an obstruction; a slow moving cyclist would almost certainly qualify.

It was rush hour, so there were a lot of cars going in both directions. No opportunity for the cars stuck behind the cyclist to pass, and no bike lane.  :-(

Damn.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bickendan on December 06, 2017, 06:49:41 PM
I'd like to see bike lanes segregated from both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Ideally, the cross-section would be sidewalk, post barriers, bike lane, curb, street parking, vehicle lanes of travel, median, then the reverse.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on December 06, 2017, 06:55:46 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on December 06, 2017, 06:49:41 PM
I'd like to see bike lanes segregated from both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Ideally, the cross-section would be sidewalk, post barriers, bike lane, curb, street parking, vehicle lanes of travel, median, then the reverse.

Agreed. On-street bike lanes are a good middle-ground, but they don't really achieve anything spectacular. They allow drivers to get dangerously close to cyclists, and they often start and end at random, whenever there's an intersection, slip lane, roundabout, etc.

I think the Netherlands does it right (doubt I'm the first one to say that). All bike facilities are segregated, except for those on neighborhood streets, where low speeds don't present much of a danger to the mixed traffic.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: US 89 on December 06, 2017, 07:02:31 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on December 06, 2017, 06:49:41 PM
I'd like to see bike lanes segregated from both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Ideally, the cross-section would be sidewalk, post barriers, bike lane, curb, street parking, vehicle lanes of travel, median, then the reverse.

Something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/aeEtqBV17ZN2) or this (https://goo.gl/maps/u73izN6KSKN2)?

This has been done on most of 300 South and 200 West in Salt Lake City (and the second link above is the intersection of those two streets). The problem with having the curbs separating the bike lanes from the road was that they violated the fire code, since fire trucks could not pull up right next to the buildings.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on December 06, 2017, 07:17:27 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 06, 2017, 07:02:31 PM
The problem with having the curbs separating the bike lanes from the road was that they violated the fire code, since fire trucks could not pull up right next to the buildings.

Curbs used in this instance are usually mountable, so that fire trucks can reach the edge of the roadway. With setups such as this (https://goo.gl/Lgs3Zw) (with planters), fire trucks would stop/park in the right turn lane, as that's effectively the right edge of the roadway.

It's common in the Netherlands for the emergency services to drive up the bike paths. I'm sure American fire trucks would do the same if necessary.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bickendan on December 13, 2017, 11:11:49 PM
Taking this thread back in the vein of the original post, the Portland Tribune published seven options ODOT is considering for tolling I-5 and/or I-205:
https://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/380765-268232-odot-looks-at-seven-toll-scenarios
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on December 14, 2017, 12:56:55 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on December 13, 2017, 11:11:49 PM
Taking this thread back in the vein of the original post, the Portland Tribune published seven options ODOT is considering for tolling I-5 and/or I-205:
https://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/380765-268232-odot-looks-at-seven-toll-scenarios

If presented to the public, options #1, #5, and #6 would likely not see the light of day; the outcry from virtually everyone outside PDX Metro would be overwhelming.  Option #2 would also be looked at with something of a jaundiced eye as well.  That leaves new construction of toll lanes as the salable method; the more drastic tolling options will be seen as gratuitous at best and punitive at worst, except in very particular urban circles (including those who have influence within PDX Metro, but not much pull elsewhere).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on December 14, 2017, 02:13:06 AM
WSDOT gets grief from drivers after building entirely new toll lanes. I can't even imagine the backlash if they tried to convert a GP lane to a toll lane.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 14, 2017, 02:49:12 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 14, 2017, 02:13:06 AM
WSDOT gets grief from drivers after building entirely new toll lanes. I can't even imagine the backlash if they tried to convert a GP lane to a toll lane.

Vancover's congressional representative proposed to the tools as it would not benefit Clark county drivers a bunch. Don't see it being too popular with Portland either with any option. its either a no or another no the way these citizens work
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on December 14, 2017, 05:58:20 PM
I'm just surprised they didn't propose toll lanes for 217 and the inner (tunnel) portion of US 26 as well -- just the interstates!  To some degree it looks like some circles within ODOT are looking to Make A Statement!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sp_redelectric on December 16, 2017, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 14, 2017, 05:58:20 PM
I'm just surprised they didn't propose toll lanes for 217 and the inner (tunnel) portion of US 26 as well

It'd make far more sense to toll those freeways which have a MAX line running alongside them - U.S. 26, I-84, and I-205.

Why I-84 is not being considered for tolling is beyond me, other than politics.  Same with U.S. 26, that ought to be a no-brainer.

As a Tigard resident I'm perfectly happy with 217 not being tolled, because doing so will just dump a lot more of the local Beaverton-Tigard-Tualatin traffic on local streets.  I can already imagine Oregon 99W will get a significant boost in traffic, especially from folks in Beaverton and S.W. Portland that will use local streets just to get to Wilsonville where they can jump onto I-5 toll free headed south (or, coming up from Salem, exit in Wilsonville and use "free" local streets north.)
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 16, 2017, 02:45:08 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on December 16, 2017, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 14, 2017, 05:58:20 PM
I'm just surprised they didn't propose toll lanes for 217 and the inner (tunnel) portion of US 26 as well

It'd make far more sense to toll those freeways which have a MAX line running alongside them - U.S. 26, I-84, and I-205.

Why I-84 is not being considered for tolling is beyond me, other than politics.  Same with U.S. 26, that ought to be a no-brainer.

As a Tigard resident I'm perfectly happy with 217 not being tolled, because doing so will just dump a lot more of the local Beaverton-Tigard-Tualatin traffic on local streets.  I can already imagine Oregon 99W will get a significant boost in traffic, especially from folks in Beaverton and S.W. Portland that will use local streets just to get to Wilsonville where they can jump onto I-5 toll free headed south (or, coming up from Salem, exit in Wilsonville and use "free" local streets north.)

If 217 is tolled, I'm worried a lot of that traffic will go to Roy Rodgers Road and to the congested TSR (Tualatin Sherwood Road) and 99W intersection to dodge surface street traffic to head to Wilsonville.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on December 16, 2017, 08:47:20 PM
It's likely that the confinement of the toll proposals to N-S Interstates was a variant of the age-old maxim that tolls are best extracted from long-distance drivers passing through the region rather than local residents.  That's a concept that works until locals realize that they're using the target roads as much if not more than traffic originating or ending out of the area.  I'd be willing to bet that despite whining from some quarters, all-facility tolling will be one of the first items off the table when serious discussions commence.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 16, 2018, 08:34:01 PM
A new protest. http://www.kgw.com/mobile/article/news/local/rally-opposes-i-5-freeway-expansion-near-rose-quarter/283-508509459

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2018, 10:30:49 PM
I hope they build it anyways. This needs to happen. It needs more lanes than what they are proposing, but this is better than nothing.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: AlexandriaVA on January 16, 2018, 10:48:28 PM
If anything, PDX needs fewer freeway lane-miles than it presently has.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on January 16, 2018, 11:03:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 16, 2018, 10:48:28 PM
If anything, PDX needs fewer freeway lane-miles than it presently has.

I think it would be wise to add new lanes that aren't general purpose lanes. Portland's freeway network does not have enough HOV lanes.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2018, 11:10:55 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 16, 2018, 10:48:28 PM
If anything, PDX needs fewer freeway lane-miles than it presently has.
Yeah that's just the thing! Forget about the horrid traffic there now! Let's just remove the roads and the problem will go away.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: AlexandriaVA on January 16, 2018, 11:15:06 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2018, 11:10:55 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 16, 2018, 10:48:28 PM
If anything, PDX needs fewer freeway lane-miles than it presently has.
Yeah that's just the thing! Forget about the horrid traffic there now! Let's just remove the roads and the problem will go away.

How are all those freeways doing for LA?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2018, 11:17:29 PM
They need more lanes. But otherwise they move. Is that your argument? Cities twice the size of Portland have better traffic.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on January 16, 2018, 11:36:16 PM
I like how the KATU footage shows a driver illegally passing a cyclist while traveling slower than the cyclist. Classic stuff.

http://katu.com/news/local/groups-collect-signatures-to-petition-interstate-5-expansion
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on January 16, 2018, 11:46:49 PM
Quote from: Bruce on January 16, 2018, 11:36:16 PM
I like how the KATU footage shows a driver illegally passing a cyclist while traveling slower than the cyclist. Classic stuff.

I'm sure there's more than just what we saw. It doesn't make any sense to me, as a driver, how a car could be to the left of a cyclist but going slower than it.

Driving left-of-center is not a big deal, especially in cities. People do it all the time with all sorts of other vehicles: trash trucks, emergency vehicles, metro buses, etc. In the case of cycling, passing a cyclist is in everyone's best interest because it reduces road rage induced by slow-moving traffic, while simultaneously improving cyclist safety by not having vehicles driving five feet behind them, ready to plow over them in the event of a fall.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on January 17, 2018, 12:36:01 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 16, 2018, 08:34:01 PM
A new protest. http://www.kgw.com/mobile/article/news/local/rally-opposes-i-5-freeway-expansion-near-rose-quarter/283-508509459

Any thoughts?

The whole matter of freeways within urban areas has become the subject of what could be best described as tribal ritual.  First, either something like what's happening in Portland occurs:  in this instance, a proposal to alleviate a longstanding bottleneck (it was already one when I lived up there 20-odd years ago) is brought forth -- in this instance by ODOT, which is not particularly known for any propensity to readily deploy new corridors or expand existing ones; to even consider doing a project like this implies there's sufficient data regarding safety and efficiency to back up their decision.  Subsequently organizations like NMFPdx (ostensibly ad hoc but more likely having grown their own institutional roots) voice objections to the project, citing a litany of rationales that rarely vary by venue:  that doing anything that may in some way relieve congestion is anathema to their urban vision; they somehow see congestion as a positive occurrence.  An progression of sorts seems to be omnipresent within their thought processes:  sustained congestion >> disillusionment among the driving public >> less private automotive travel coupled with significantly increased use of public transit.  And as that particular outcome seems to be part & parcel of at least a sizeable portion of their goals, they pounce upon specific aspects of the project (in this case a minor street bridge) to elucidate the wrongs and/or damage to be caused by freeway modification -- trying to beat the drums to pump up localized support for their position.  Legal action may be threatened down the line as well; citing possible damage to the area adjacent to the project (if there's considerable use of eminent domain for ROW acquisition, this is often seen as a delaying tactic).

The second scenario involves actual teardowns of existing facilities; I'm not going to expound on this concept here, as (a) it's not what's happening in this instance and (b) that sort of thing has been beaten to death within the scope of the I-345 teardown thread over in Mid-South.  Suffice it to say that in PDX, the effort by the congestion-relief opposition is to both increase and broaden their ranks by adding a local aspect to the more ideological "core" activists, more often than not consisting of urbanists, bicycle activists, a smattering of anti-capital/commerce folks, and a few anti-mobility environmental actors.  I'll readily acknowledge that PDX has more of these per capita than most metro areas -- but at this point hardly even making up a plurality within the metro region. 

But the one consideration that the activist contingent seems not to have been disabused of is this:  transportation is not a fungible entity!  While the ranks of activists seem to be willing to self-impose the particular bounded rationality intrinsic to a carless existence (regardless of whether that willingness translates to action), such a concept isn't even on the radar of much if not most of the region's residents, particularly when that would require truncation or even cessation of many activities engaged in by the greater populace.  The ability to engage in commerce -- especially the ability to ascertain and take advantage of competitive pricing among vendors -- is significantly curtailed without the ability to both access said vendors as well as transport any purchases to their destination in short order.  And -- believe it or not -- online shopping can only take you so far (satisfactory if you know exactly what you want) -- but there's a lot of items that require a "hands-on" approach prior to actual purchase (disclaimer: I despise mushy bananas!).  But mobility, decried as it is in certain quarters, is much more than mere shopping -- absent saturation-level transit, it allows one to go about their business (either work-related or personal) regardless of where in the area that business is sited.  And despite the best efforts of those communitarians among us, the last I heard rights and prerogatives were still delegated to the individual (to quote Chevy Chase's character Ty Webb in Caddyshack: "Are we in Russia?  This isn't Russia, is it?")

But tribes will be tribes, and some will engage in quixotic combat in an attempt to counter human nature with collective self-righteousness.  But eventually the preaching to the choir will reach its limits, and the aggregate will (as opposed to any collective sort) shall prevail.  I for one applaud the move within some jurisdictions to legislatively demand the phasing out of fossil-fuel vehicles -- but to favor measures to inhibit their replacements seems to me to be profoundly counterproductive; electric (or other) trucks & autos will still need facilities on which to travel; maintaining efficiency of movement will still be a desirable outcome. 

Our species is still homo sapiens; attempting to "morph" the population into homo urbanus communitarius is an exercise in futility well beyond the quixotic!

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 16, 2018, 10:48:28 PM
If anything, PDX needs fewer freeway lane-miles than it presently has.

For its population base, PDX already has fewer freeway lane-miles per capita than most other metro areas (certainly far fewer than any in CA!); much of that is due to major portions of both I-5 and I-205 being 2+2 facilities, although their AADT indicates inadequacy at that level.           
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 17, 2018, 02:00:27 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2018, 10:30:49 PM
I hope they build it anyways. This needs to happen. It needs more lanes than what they are proposing, but this is better than nothing.
On the safety aspect, I want it to be built.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 16, 2018, 11:03:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 16, 2018, 10:48:28 PM
If anything, PDX needs fewer freeway lane-miles than it presently has.

I think it would be wise to add new lanes that aren't general purpose lanes. Portland's freeway network does not have enough HOV lanes.

Agreed but ODOT I'm guessing would rather toll all lanes unfortunately. On a fictional side (I'll be brief) I do have this project in all my tiers but extra HOV lanes are added in tiers 2 and above in both directions. Model after another city for once ODOT.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Mark68 on February 05, 2018, 03:05:58 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 09:38:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2017, 09:14:13 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 28, 2017, 07:02:50 PM
And at some point density plays a dirty trick with commute - NYC commutes are longest in US. Hard to imagine 40 minutes trip in 100K area, city is plainly not big enough for that.

Let's go ahead and take the population of New York City, and plop them down in a suburban setting connected by freeways, like Los Angeles or Houston. Then we'll talk commute times.
Unlike NYC, nether LA nor Houston make top 10 worst commute lists.
Here are 2 examples - they don't quite overlap, but NYC is consistently among worst:
http://fortune.com/2016/03/03/us-cities-average-commute-time/
http://wgntv.com/2017/11/01/these-are-the-10-worst-commutes-in-the-u-s-did-your-city-make-the-list/


The Fortune article does put Riverside-San Bernardino on the worst commute times list, and a lot of those commuters do go to LA/Orange County (as evidenced every day on the 91, 60, and 10 freeways).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Hurricane Rex on February 05, 2018, 04:00:33 PM
Another anti-freeway group, this time with businesses is growing. Apparently they are to make our plans by the way I'm reading it. God help us. https://www.google.com/amp/s/bikeportland.org/2018/01/31/business-leaders-hear-how-portland-has-fallen-behind-needs-support-to-reach-new-transportation-vision-266163/amp

Link on mobile.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on February 06, 2018, 08:13:18 AM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/02/06/yep-l/1088205001/

portland was mentioned in this story.  Even cities with incredibly great transit, still have terrible traffic.  What do you guys think about this article?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on February 06, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 06, 2018, 08:13:18 AM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/02/06/yep-l/1088205001/

portland was mentioned in this story.  Even cities with incredibly great transit, still have terrible traffic.  What do you guys think about this article?
What is "incredibly great"? Weekday originating rides number in PDX  is just shy of 260K in 2012 - their best year in the decade. That is 130K round-trips.
PDX area population is 2.3 million, that is about 1 million people working at US average workforce participation rate (excluding active military).
Some work from home, some walk to work - and less than 1 in 7 use transit. Probably actual number is below that as unemployed, retired students etc also use transit.
For comparison, Moscow 12 M population has 6.5M daily subway rides - nowhere close to enough. London has 5 M subway rides per 8.5 M population. These numbers are for subway alone.

Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Tarkus on February 06, 2018, 08:21:21 PM
Quote from: kalvado on February 06, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 06, 2018, 08:13:18 AM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/02/06/yep-l/1088205001/

portland was mentioned in this story.  Even cities with incredibly great transit, still have terrible traffic.  What do you guys think about this article?
What is "incredibly great"?

The perception that PDX's transit is "incredibly great" is really just a show of force by the TriMet/Metro/City of Portland PR machine.  Sometimes, they get caught (http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2011/09/us_news_reporting_error_turns.html). 

TriMet is obsessed with the idea of a wheel-and-spoke light rail system that goes in and out of downtown, which doesn't actually fit many common commute patterns in the area, and the lines make too many stops in odd places.  Coupled with the fact that those downtown segments take forever, since they didn't think to use any of the billions of dollars they've spent on the system to grade separate it and alleviate the biggest bottleneck, it takes a long time to get where you need to go using their "pride and joy".  Last time I took the MAX to the airport from Hillsboro, it took 2 1/2 hours.  They've also continually de-funded their bus system for the past two decades, in part to prop up their obsession.

I think the issues are a product of the fact that the infrastructure here is just flat out garbage, and the area simply does not how to handle growth properly.  Everyone's always talking about the "housing crisis" here, but there's also a festering "infrastructure crisis" that is only going to get worse as the former "crisis" dies down.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 06, 2018, 08:38:19 PM
Quote from: sparkerThe ability to engage in commerce -- especially the ability to ascertain and take advantage of competitive pricing among vendors -- is significantly curtailed without the ability to both access said vendors as well as transport any purchases to their destination in short order.  And -- believe it or not -- online shopping can only take you so far (satisfactory if you know exactly what you want) -- but there's a lot of items that require a "hands-on" approach prior to actual purchase (disclaimer: I despise mushy bananas!).  But mobility, decried as it is in certain quarters, is much more than mere shopping -- absent saturation-level transit, it allows one to go about their business (either work-related or personal) regardless of where in the area that business is sited.

I think anti-freeway activists have selfishly lost sight of the basic purpose of city "core" central business districts. The activists think a city's CBD or any other trendy urban area is only there to serve them. They either forget (or ignore) the financial, mathematical fact those zones are built to serve the population of an entire region. Those zones depend on the dollars, not to mention manpower, of people across that entire region. The bicycle riders and pedestrians in the core do not have enough spending money and workforce bodies to sustain all of that.

I frequently visit Oklahoma City, driving up from Lawton. It's easy getting in & out of downtown areas like Bricktown via automobile. And there's a good number of free places to park. If all the freeways inside of the I-44/I-240 partial loop were removed (I-35, I-40, I-235) I would visit downtown OKC far less often. Maybe I'd shift more of my attention to places like Edmond, Norman and Moore. But it's even more likely I would just stay at home.

Building a subway or light rail line wouldn't change much. If I had to drive up I-44, park near Will Rogers Airport to take a train into downtown the train ride part would likely add another hour to my trip time. I would have to leave Lawton considerably earlier to factor in wait times on train platforms, train stops, etc. That would be critical if I was going to a scheduled event, such as a concert or a movie in Dolby Atmos on Harkins' Cine Capri screen. The train ride would add even more cost on top of the fuel and tolls I spent just to get to the outskirts train station. All the more reason to stay at home or go elsewhere in the suburbs. Edmond has a new Dolby Cinema screen up there.

The other truly whacked-out thing from at least some anti-freeway activists is the suggestion to shop online rather than doing business in the city core. I guess they haven't noticed all the closings of brick and mortar retail stores taking place -a record number in 2017. The contagion has been spreading to restaurants, movie theaters and other "get customers out of the house" businesses. "Services Providing" jobs are by far the biggest sector of America's jobs base, 125 million out of 156 million total jobs. Doing as much shopping and business as possible online will eliminate many of those jobs. Retail is taking it in the shorts now. As robotics and AI continue improving a whole lot of white collar jobs will have the digital target painted on their backs.

If these activists get rid of the car commuters, regional shoppers, people who want to party downtown, etc they're going to end up with a city core in decline.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on February 06, 2018, 08:53:01 PM
Quote from: Tarkus on February 06, 2018, 08:21:21 PM

I think the issues are a product of the fact that the infrastructure here is just flat out garbage, and the area simply does not how to handle growth properly.  Everyone's always talking about the "housing crisis" here, but there's also a festering "infrastructure crisis" that is only going to get worse as the former "crisis" dies down.
My  impression is that PDX is not alone there. It is almost impossible to develop infrastructure with labor costs, property values, NIMBYs and what not.
Problem is that population growth occurs mostly in megacities - where there are problems of housing availability, housing affordability (hello, ever heard of free market?), transit crisis and people being upset over transportation costs... ANd construction costs grow way faster than inflation.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on February 06, 2018, 10:02:49 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 06, 2018, 08:38:19 PM
Quote from: sparkerThe ability to engage in commerce -- especially the ability to ascertain and take advantage of competitive pricing among vendors -- is significantly curtailed without the ability to both access said vendors as well as transport any purchases to their destination in short order.  And -- believe it or not -- online shopping can only take you so far (satisfactory if you know exactly what you want) -- but there's a lot of items that require a "hands-on" approach prior to actual purchase (disclaimer: I despise mushy bananas!).  But mobility, decried as it is in certain quarters, is much more than mere shopping -- absent saturation-level transit, it allows one to go about their business (either work-related or personal) regardless of where in the area that business is sited.

I think anti-freeway activists have selfishly lost sight of the basic purpose of city "core" central business districts. The activists think a city's CBD or any other trendy urban area is only there to serve them. They either forget (or ignore) the financial, mathematical fact those zones are built to serve the population of an entire region. Those zones depend on the dollars, not to mention manpower, of people across that entire region. The bicycle riders and pedestrians in the core do not have enough spending money and workforce bodies to sustain all of that.

I frequently visit Oklahoma City, driving up from Lawton. It's easy getting in & out of downtown areas like Bricktown via automobile. And there's a good number of free places to park. If all the freeways inside of the I-44/I-240 partial loop were removed (I-35, I-40, I-235) I would visit downtown OKC far less often. Maybe I'd shift more of my attention to places like Edmond, Norman and Moore. But it's even more likely I would just stay at home.

Building a subway or light rail line wouldn't change much. If I had to drive up I-44, park near Will Rogers Airport to take a train into downtown the train ride part would likely add another hour to my trip time. I would have to leave Lawton considerably earlier to factor in wait times on train platforms, train stops, etc. That would be critical if I was going to a scheduled event, such as a concert or a movie in Dolby Atmos on Harkins' Cine Capri screen. The train ride would add even more cost on top of the fuel and tolls I spent just to get to the outskirts train station. All the more reason to stay at home or go elsewhere in the suburbs. Edmond has a new Dolby Cinema screen up there.

The other truly whacked-out thing from at least some anti-freeway activists is the suggestion to shop online rather than doing business in the city core. I guess they haven't noticed all the closings of brick and mortar retail stores taking place -a record number in 2017. The contagion has been spreading to restaurants, movie theaters and other "get customers out of the house" businesses. "Services Providing" jobs are by far the biggest sector of America's jobs base, 125 million out of 156 million total jobs. Doing as much shopping and business as possible online will eliminate many of those jobs. Retail is taking it in the shorts now. As robotics and AI continue improving a whole lot of white collar jobs will have the digital target painted on their backs.

If these activists get rid of the car commuters, regional shoppers, people who want to party downtown, etc they're going to end up with a city core in decline.

I'm pretty sure the experience of living in Oklahoma is very different from living in the Northwest. Driving around cities in the Pacific Northwest is a miserable experience, with parking being hard to find (or expensive), roads that take you up and down steep hills, and the chaotic environment that comes with being in a densely populated place. You can't just expect to drive around carefree, and you shouldn't.

I'm not sure where you're seeing these strawmen anti-freeway activists, but the demographic that supports non-automobile use generally lives in the city center (or a close-in neighborhood), works in the city center (or nearby), and spends a hefty amount of money at local businesses. In fact, they spend as much (if not more) money compared to drivers, but visit in multiple trips. And the thousands of Portland Timbers and Trailblazers fans who go to the games every week seem to do just fine using transit, their feet, or their pedals to and from the game.

Encouraging downtown patronage also means improving transportation to and from the city center. The only way to add more capacity is to encourage non-automobile uses, not spend a wasteful amount of money on an extra lane that will be instantly clogged like it was before, but with more air/noise pollution and less local connectivity. Most American city cores that embraced transit in the late 1990s are booming now, thanks to the popularity of car-free (or car-lite) living among younger people. Being free of car payments and insurance means more spending money (which is welcome when wages have stagnated and job prospects can be harsh for this generation), which goes back into the local economy instead of being lost to the wind.

One last note: it's much more fun to party while drunk, something that is absolutely 100% irresponsible to do with a car.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 08, 2018, 05:30:42 PM
Quote from: BruceI'm pretty sure the experience of living in Oklahoma is very different from living in the Northwest. Driving around cities in the Pacific Northwest is a miserable experience, with parking being hard to find (or expensive), roads that take you up and down steep hills, and the chaotic environment that comes with being in a densely populated place. You can't just expect to drive around carefree, and you shouldn't.

Nevertheless some people (including certain participants in this forum) still float suggestions of greatly limiting highway development in places like Oklahoma City and Tulsa, all to build light rail lines costing untold billions of dollars when there's no proof the rail lines would generate enough ridership to be even remotely self-sufficient. One of the reasons why a metro like OKC is relatively easy to get around is it's fairly de-centralized. The downtown core is not the only attraction. Not everything important in the city is crammed there. That also makes it difficult to build an effective light rail system without having to build lots of different rail lines.

I lived in New York City for 5 years. I used mass transit extensively when I lived there (the subway, city buses and the Staten Island Ferry). There is no point in driving a car to Manhattan unless one has a guaranteed place to park. While driving into a dense city core can be a miserable experience, the mass transit commute experience is not without its own miseries. When I lived on Staten Island my commute to/from Manhattan took 90 minutes each way. Bad weather made those waits at bus stops or walks between different modes of transport even more of a chore. More often than not I spent much of the commute standing (open seats were rare during rush hours), elbow to elbow with other fellow strap-hangers while trying to hold onto all my school supplies crap.

The Pacific Northwest is also well known for windy, rainy weather. Walking and bike riding on a warm, pleasant day is nice. It sucks when the weather is bad.

Quote from: BruceI'm not sure where you're seeing these strawmen anti-freeway activists, but the demographic that supports non-automobile use generally lives in the city center (or a close-in neighborhood), works in the city center (or nearby), and spends a hefty amount of money at local businesses. In fact, they spend as much (if not more) money compared to drivers, but visit in multiple trips. And the thousands of Portland Timbers and Trailblazers fans who go to the games every week seem to do just fine using transit, their feet, or their pedals to and from the game.

My point wasn't about which camp (downtown residents vs car drivers) was spending more money than the other. My point was the businesses in the downtown core depend on BOTH camps to survive. If it's made impossible for people to reach a destination in a city's core by car then businesses in the core will get hurt both in terms of lost customers and lost manpower.

Quote from: BruceEncouraging downtown patronage also means improving transportation to and from the city center. The only way to add more capacity is to encourage non-automobile uses, not spend a wasteful amount of money on an extra lane that will be instantly clogged like it was before, but with more air/noise pollution and less local connectivity. Most American city cores that embraced transit in the late 1990s are booming now, thanks to the popularity of car-free (or car-lite) living among younger people. Being free of car payments and insurance means more spending money (which is welcome when wages have stagnated and job prospects can be harsh for this generation), which goes back into the local economy instead of being lost to the wind.

Those younger people are blowing the money they're not spending on car payments, plus quite a bit more, on soaring housing costs. In New York City the number of homeless people has shot up dramatically (over 70,000 now) and many of these new homeless are people with jobs. The problem is costing NYC quite a lot of money since they're one of few cities in North America with a "right to shelter" law on its books.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on February 08, 2018, 06:54:44 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 08, 2018, 05:30:42 PM
...all to build light rail lines costing untold billions of dollars when there's no proof the rail lines would generate enough ridership to be even remotely self-sufficient.

Roads 👏 aren't 👏 remotely 👏 self 👏 sufficient 👏 either
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on February 09, 2018, 01:14:12 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 08, 2018, 06:54:44 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 08, 2018, 05:30:42 PM
...all to build light rail lines costing untold billions of dollars when there's no proof the rail lines would generate enough ridership to be even remotely self-sufficient.

Roads 👏 aren't 👏 remotely 👏 self 👏 sufficient 👏 either

There is no publicly owned and operated transportation system, whether designed to be utilized individually or collectively, that generates enough direct or indirect (the latter historically referring to fuel taxation) revenue to be self-supporting.  Theoretically, mass (transit) systems are supposed to come closer to this state than roadways intended for personal and/or commercial usage; but by the time the mandated specifications for breadth of service are even partially met the capital outlay to achieve this is more often than not staggering!  The political reality is that both road and transit facilities attempt to be all things to all potential users/customers -- but rarely is that even approached much less achieved. 

Quote from: Tarkus on February 06, 2018, 08:21:21 PM
The perception that PDX's transit is "incredibly great" is really just a show of force by the TriMet/Metro/City of Portland PR machine.  Sometimes, they get caught (http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2011/09/us_news_reporting_error_turns.html). 

TriMet is obsessed with the idea of a wheel-and-spoke light rail system that goes in and out of downtown, which doesn't actually fit many common commute patterns in the area, and the lines make too many stops in odd places.  Coupled with the fact that those downtown segments take forever, since they didn't think to use any of the billions of dollars they've spent on the system to grade separate it and alleviate the biggest bottleneck, it takes a long time to get where you need to go using their "pride and joy".  Last time I took the MAX to the airport from Hillsboro, it took 2 1/2 hours.  They've also continually de-funded their bus system for the past two decades, in part to prop up their obsession.

This concept of functionally requiring LR system users to traverse downtown regardless of where in the metro area they need to go, described as a "feature" of the TriMet system in PDX, is duplicated down here in San Jose with the VMT (Valley Metro Transit) LR system, which has, since the first segments opened back in 1990, clearly engaged in this sort of program.  In an attempt to turn the classic housing arrangement on its head (with housing in the city center and employment at the perimeter, opposing the historic idiom), a convoluted configuration was made, with the original batch of lines taking indirect routes to the city center, which was intended to be the system hub.  However, with their infinite lack of common sense, the VMT LR hub ended up at North 1st and Tasman -- out in the employment zone (right in the middle of Cisco Central).  The lower-income residents of the East Side were given very short shrift by such planning -- and those constituted many of the folks who would benefit from a direct path downtown (as the crow flies, from the north/east branch of the LR network, the "Alum Rock" line terminus at the north end of Capitol Expressway, it's about 3 miles from downtown -- but the LR journey requires about 12 miles of travel up to Tasman and First and back toward downtown.  This system was designed to ferry coders and other IT workers from their places of employment to where VMT thought they'd prefer to live -- they expected the original "yuppie" idiom to prevail, with downtown condos the preferred residence of choice.  But they were confronted with great numbers of folks with families whose residential requirements generally precluded small urban apartments.  VMT LR was built on "spec" to an idiomatic but overblown standard; what the planners thought would be ideal overrode what was actually happening on the ground!  LR ridership has, at best, plateaued; and the roller-coaster ride that is the employment data in many of these firms, particularly those engaged in commercial networking, has wreaked havoc on the overall ridership.  But in spite of this, suggestions that the system expand to address already congested regional corridors (particularly the Stevens Creek/I-280 corridor extending west from downtown) have been dismissed in favor of extending the existing lines;  to placate the East Side community, the Alum Rock line will be extended in the next few years southeast to the Oakridge Mall (which has been losing occupants like so many other malls), even though the other (NW) direction goes right by the "Great Mall" in south Milpitas.  Reality has yet to sink in at VMT; if my experiences with PDX Metro back in the mid-'90's are any indication, the same applies up there as well! 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 09, 2018, 03:47:55 PM
I don't think financial reality or reality in general has set in for these urban "planners" dreaming of moving people from the far flung suburbs into the city core. Housing in downtown areas is getting too damned expensive. Price differences are extreme when talking cost per square foot of living space. Very often people chose the location where they live based on what they can afford. If they insist on living in a high cost downtown location their choice may involve serious compromises, like sharing the space with one or more roommates.

Just this morning while driving to work I was listening to a comedian on the Bob & Tom show talking about his living arrangment (in NYC, IIRC); he and his girlfriend share their apartment with another couple, all of whom work to share living costs. That's effectively 4 roomates. If you're crowded into a downtown apartment with other people you're not going to be buying very much "stuff" to store there, not like you would with a standalone house. That kind of existence isn't great for bringing new babies into the world.

I'm not surprised to hear San Jose is short-changing lower income residents on light rail service. What qualifies as "lower income" in San Jose? Any salary less than $100,000 per year? Limited rail and bus service to "poor" people will be another thing to threaten the manpower base of service industry jobs. The notion of transit authorities designing rail lines to bounce riders through the the downtown core on all sorts of trips seems silly. It will make people hate taking the train and consider other options. But the option of moving to the city core is financially out of reach for many people. That leaves lots of people living well outside the core and still using their cars.

City cores have plenty of their own downsides. They're crowded. The noise can keep you awake at night. I still remember the smells of the commute to Manhattan on ground level and in the subway. Bus exhaust and that orange juice smelling cleaning fluid the MTA would use to partially cover up the smell of piss in the subway stations are both smells tattooed into my memory.

Quote from: Sub-UrbaniteRoads 👏 aren't 👏 remotely 👏 self 👏 sufficient 👏 either

They cost a hell of a lot less to build than a glorified railroad. Mile for mile a light rail line costs more than a freeway. Subways take construction costs way into the stratosphere.

Streets and highways are getting excessively expensive to build and maintain, but for every cost increase that happens with roads the increases will shoot up even worse with rail. There is no such thing as a cost efficient passenger rail line, at least not in the United States.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Hurricane Rex on February 09, 2018, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 09, 2018, 03:47:55 PM

Quote from: Sub-UrbaniteRoads 👏 aren't 👏 remotely 👏 self 👏 sufficient 👏 either

They cost a hell of a lot less to build than a glorified railroad. Mile for mile a light rail line costs more than a freeway. Subways take construction costs way into the stratosphere.

Streets and highways are getting excessively expensive to build and maintain, but for every cost increase that happens with roads the increases will shoot up even worse with rail. There is no such thing as a cost efficient passenger rail line, at least not in the United States.

On a per person who uses the system basis (Portland Perspective): Freeways are less expensive than light rail in almost every place (looking at you Vista Ridge Tunnel).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on February 09, 2018, 05:01:07 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on February 09, 2018, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 09, 2018, 03:47:55 PM

Quote from: Sub-UrbaniteRoads 👏 aren't 👏 remotely 👏 self 👏 sufficient 👏 either

They cost a hell of a lot less to build than a glorified railroad. Mile for mile a light rail line costs more than a freeway. Subways take construction costs way into the stratosphere.

Streets and highways are getting excessively expensive to build and maintain, but for every cost increase that happens with roads the increases will shoot up even worse with rail. There is no such thing as a cost efficient passenger rail line, at least not in the United States.

On a per person who uses the system basis (Portland Perspective): Freeways are less expensive than light rail in almost every place (looking at you Vista Ridge Tunnel).

I was living in Portland when the shit hit the fan about Vista Ridge; the planners (and the preliminary geological findings) presumed that the ridge was comprised of a few layers of muddy earth over a relatively solid core; when it was discovered that what was in the center of the ridge was basically a pile of individual rocks (shattered shale) that tended to stop boring machines in their tracks the choice was to redesign the route (more or less staying near the surface along US 26) or continue the original planned tunnel, albeit with immense cost overruns.  The latter course of action prevailed, and, of course, the tunnel opened about 3 years behind schedule (but with an added interior station platform serving an elevator to the city zoo up on the hilltop).  Construction involved a lot of "old-school" digging and blasting through the rocks, which of course added time and labor expense to the final tab.   The lesson, which was rediscovered later with the Seattle dig, is that rock formations in the Northwest are never as presupposed (the "measure twice and cut once" mantra seems not to have sunk in with the folks planning these projects).     
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kkt on February 12, 2018, 04:20:34 PM
Light rail is more expensive than freeway, but it occupies less land and can realistically be tunneled where a freeway would be prohibitive.  And potentially the light rail line can carry more people, although demand is not always that high.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 12, 2018, 06:41:18 PM
The last part is the deal breaker. Demand has to be there and since it is possible to build freeways in this fashion(we have before) if it isn't, than it's against the will of the people.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on February 13, 2018, 03:17:04 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 12, 2018, 06:41:18 PM
The last part is the deal breaker. Demand has to be there and since it is possible to build freeways in this fashion (we have before) if it isn't, than it's against the will of the people.

Zoning law modifications can create demand where it might be low. These modifications can create neighborhoods geared more towards transit, lessening the strain on nearby roads.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on February 13, 2018, 09:02:32 AM
Quote from: kkt on February 12, 2018, 04:20:34 PM
Light rail is more expensive than freeway, but it occupies less land and can realistically be tunneled where a freeway would be prohibitive.  And potentially the light rail line can carry more people, although demand is not always that high.

the geniuses here banned that in Indy, now with the amazon hq, they are thinking of changing this.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: hotdogPi on February 13, 2018, 10:17:01 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 13, 2018, 09:02:32 AM
the geniuses here banned that in Indy, now with the amazon hq, they are thinking of changing this.

Where did you get the classified information of the final decision for Amazon's second headquarters? :colorful:
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on February 13, 2018, 10:19:25 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 13, 2018, 10:17:01 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 13, 2018, 09:02:32 AM
the geniuses here banned that in Indy, now with the amazon hq, they are thinking of changing this.

Where did you get the classified information of the final decision for Amazon's second headquarters? :colorful:

:-D no where, apparently Indy is in the top 15 for some reason (according to several news sites).  I personally hope we don't get it.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Duke87 on March 16, 2018, 08:34:57 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 16, 2018, 10:48:28 PM
If anything, PDX needs fewer freeway lane-miles than it presently has.

Okay I'll bite. Why? Please explain the rationale behind this statement.

Quote from: Bruce on February 06, 2018, 10:02:49 PM
it's much more fun to party while drunk, something that is absolutely 100% irresponsible to do with a car.

And this is one perk of transit access.

Most trips, however, are not to a party. Nor does everyone who goes to a party have a desire to consume alcohol. So this is a niche consideration, which does not impact the viability of car travel as a mode transportation in the vast majority of cases.

Don't get me wrong, public transit is great - I have nothing against it and generally support building it out to the degree that it is viable.

But so is car travel. And I just don't see why it is necessary to oppose the buildout of legitimately useful infrastructure. As you say, the extra lane will be "instantly clogged like it was before" - good! That means it'll be seeing a lot of use, and more people will be able to get through where they're going. I fail to see the problem here.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 12:46:24 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 16, 2018, 08:34:57 PM
I just don't see why it is necessary to oppose the buildout of legitimately useful infrastructure. As you say, the extra lane will be "instantly clogged like it was before" - good! That means it'll be seeing a lot of use, and more people will be able to get through where they're going. I fail to see the problem here.

The problem is the lack of vision. No consideration for the future. When do cities stop sprawling? How many lanes is enough? Cities grow, of course. That's inevitable as long as the population increases. But we need to think smarter than just "roads".

Quote from: Duke87 on March 16, 2018, 08:34:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 06, 2018, 10:02:49 PM
it's much more fun to party while drunk, something that is absolutely 100% irresponsible to do with a car.

And this is one perk of transit access.

Most trips, however, are not to a party. Nor does everyone who goes to a party have a desire to consume alcohol. So this is a niche consideration, which does not impact the viability of car travel as a mode transportation in the vast majority of cases.

Most trips that people take on weekends is more than likely social, and I think there's a good chance that alcohol will be involved. Our infrastructure should be built around human nature, which is often not forgiving.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 07:53:12 AM
When do cities stop sprawling? When the population stops growing probably. People need places to live and not all of them want to be stacked on top of each other in a concrete jungle.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on March 17, 2018, 09:53:54 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 12:46:24 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 16, 2018, 08:34:57 PM
I just don't see why it is necessary to oppose the buildout of legitimately useful infrastructure. As you say, the extra lane will be "instantly clogged like it was before" - good! That means it'll be seeing a lot of use, and more people will be able to get through where they're going. I fail to see the problem here.

The problem is the lack of vision. No consideration for the future. When do cities stop sprawling? How many lanes is enough? Cities grow, of course. That's inevitable as long as the population increases. But we need to think smarter than just "roads".

Quote from: Duke87 on March 16, 2018, 08:34:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 06, 2018, 10:02:49 PM
it's much more fun to party while drunk, something that is absolutely 100% irresponsible to do with a car.

And this is one perk of transit access.

Most trips, however, are not to a party. Nor does everyone who goes to a party have a desire to consume alcohol. So this is a niche consideration, which does not impact the viability of car travel as a mode transportation in the vast majority of cases.

Most trips that people take on weekends is more than likely social, and I think there's a good chance that alcohol will be involved. Our infrastructure should be built around human nature, which is often not forgiving.

If you look at drunk pedestrian fatalities, you would realize that public transportation doesn't work as a risk mitigation factor. In fact, it looks opposite. Alcohol is a HUGE risk factor for pedestrians. So I would say a door-to-door is the only somewhat safe mode of transportation for intoxicated.
Now what we need is a drinking culture, not zero-tolerance prohibitions and bans.  Infrastructure should be build to match demand of dynamic society, and people should stop making up reasons for their agenda - especially if such fake reasoning will be paid for by human lives.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: hotdogPi on March 17, 2018, 10:19:09 AM
Walking while drunk is more dangerous than driving while drunk (per mile), but if you are riding a bus or a train, or you are a passenger in someone else's car, you're not the one in control, so it's safer.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on March 17, 2018, 10:33:56 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 17, 2018, 10:19:09 AM
Walking while drunk is more dangerous than driving while drunk (per mile), but if you are riding a bus or a train, or you are a passenger in someone else's car, you're not the one in control, so it's safer.
And eliminating getting to/from bus portion of the journey (and bus normally runs on busy streets!) seems to be critical for safety. Taxy, Lyft, Uber... So eliminating highways makes problem worse.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Duke87 on March 17, 2018, 11:32:15 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 12:46:24 AM
The problem is the lack of vision. No consideration for the future. When do cities stop sprawling? How many lanes is enough? Cities grow, of course. That's inevitable as long as the population increases. But we need to think smarter than just "roads".

I'm all for thinking smarter than just "roads", but again - why does that make widening I-5 a problem? It's not like doing so precludes also making improvements to TriMet, or building out more bike infrastructure. All of these things can and should be done.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 12:46:24 AM
Most trips that people take on weekends is more than likely social, and I think there's a good chance that alcohol will be involved. Our infrastructure should be built around human nature, which is often not forgiving.

I think you grossly overestimate the percentage of people who consume alcohol when they leave home on the weekend. Sure, someone who's young and going out to party on a Saturday night is probably going to drink, but parents taking their kids to the zoo or to go see the latest Disney movie on a Saturday are not. Teenagers going to hang out at the mall are not (okay some of them maybe, but most of them no). Grandma and Grandpa going out to breakfast at the local pancake house are not.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on March 17, 2018, 04:55:00 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 17, 2018, 11:32:15 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 12:46:24 AM
The problem is the lack of vision. No consideration for the future. When do cities stop sprawling? How many lanes is enough? Cities grow, of course. That's inevitable as long as the population increases. But we need to think smarter than just "roads".

I'm all for thinking smarter than just "roads", but again - why does that make widening I-5 a problem? It's not like doing so precludes also making improvements to TriMet, or building out more bike infrastructure. All of these things can and should be done.

Unfortunately, the politicized nature of the "non-road" advocates tends to posit a "zero-sum" approach, where methodology "A" involves a full repudiation of methodology "B".  This often manifests itself in not only the process of not advocating any road improvements, but in teardown efforts (e.g. Dallas, Syracuse, etc.) -- trying to eliminate as many traces of the previous idiom as possible.  Some of these advocates seem to think that collectively we've reached a postconsumer/postcapitalist state -- despite all evidence that disabuses such notions (which may not pervade their "circles" of information -- a version of "alternate facts" or tribal identification might be in play here). 

If you haven't guessed, I'm not a fan of ideological approaches to provision of public goods (and, correspondingly, ideologues of all stripes generally aren't fans of some of my analyses!).  My position is that if I'm not pissing off partisans of both left and right then I'm not doing a very good analytical job!
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on March 17, 2018, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 17, 2018, 04:55:00 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 17, 2018, 11:32:15 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2018, 12:46:24 AM
The problem is the lack of vision. No consideration for the future. When do cities stop sprawling? How many lanes is enough? Cities grow, of course. That's inevitable as long as the population increases. But we need to think smarter than just "roads".

I'm all for thinking smarter than just "roads", but again - why does that make widening I-5 a problem? It's not like doing so precludes also making improvements to TriMet, or building out more bike infrastructure. All of these things can and should be done.

Unfortunately, the politicized nature of the "non-road" advocates tends to posit a "zero-sum" approach, where methodology "A" involves a full repudiation of methodology "B".  This often manifests itself in not only the process of [/i]not[/i] advocating any road improvements, but in teardown efforts (e.g. Dallas, Syracuse, etc.) -- trying to eliminate as many traces of the previous idiom as possible.  Some of these advocates seem to think that collectively we've reached a postconsumer/postcapitalist state -- despite all evidence that disabuses such notions (which may not pervade their "circles" of information -- a version of "alternate facts" or tribal identification might be in play here). 

If you haven't guessed, I'm not a fan of ideological approaches to provision of public goods (and, correspondingly, ideologues of all stripes generally aren't fans of some of my analyses!).  My position is that if I'm not pissing off partisans of both left and right then I'm not doing a very good analytical job!
Well, it is getting off-topic, but since you want analytical, not ideological approach - Syracuse issue is really really complicated, not ideology driven. .
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jwolfer on March 17, 2018, 05:45:57 PM
I love the concrete jungle!

Repeat until is true

Z981

Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on March 17, 2018, 05:45:57 PM
I love the concrete jungle!

Repeat until is true

Z981
A concrete jungle where it's transit system is superior because it packs people in like sardines.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: compdude787 on March 17, 2018, 10:42:08 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

No, it's not politics, it's just that people with families don't want their families crammed into an apartment. This ain't Europe. Also, suburbs are just more peaceful and often tend to be safer for kids and just a heck of a lot nicer than the city. I like detached homes amid lots of trees. Those kind of suburban developments are MUCH nicer than the new kind of suburbs where houses are crammed together on tiny 3,000 SF lots. I would not like living in one of those houses. Also, walking along the streets in one of those developments feels like a concrete jungle just because of how few trees there are (with houses crammed so close together, there simply isn't room for any large trees, sadly).

I really don't like concrete jungles. The only urban developments that I like are old brick buildings from 100 years ago that have really intricate facades with lots of detail. You know, kinda like how trees have lots of details on them. As for single family houses, my favorite are craftsman houses.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jwolfer on March 17, 2018, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.
People like having green space and trees near them.. not having to plan a day trip to see a tree

Z981

Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 11:07:44 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.
That is kind of ironic given that sprawl has more nature intertwined in it than urban areas though I do understand what you're saying. It certainly isn't the same as it was before. Humans will always have an effect. I'll personally take my suburban sprawl for where I want to live. I live in the heart of Hollywood right now and I'm ready to get out of urban lifestyle. It's a nice option to have an I can certainly see the appeal of it, but it isn't for me.

I like my wide freeways and roads to accommodate me with the other majority of the population who wants to live in the suburbs and I'll take my bike trails off the road where it's safer and more peaceful. To me the suburbs have more nature than urban areas do just because of how spread out and how more green space they have.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: AlexandriaVA on March 17, 2018, 11:47:17 PM
Lawns aren't natural for a large part of North America. At least upper nw doesn't suffer from water issues. I can't believe people in the SW are big on lawns. Much more water-efficient desert plants.

My point is that a lot of suburbs may not be urban, but their "nature" elements are a bit misleading at times. Many suburbs were forests (trees) or fields (grasslands) before being developed.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 12:05:01 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on March 17, 2018, 10:42:08 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

No, it's not politics, it's just that people with families don't want their families crammed into an apartment. This ain't Europe. Also, suburbs are just more peaceful and often tend to be safer for kids and just a heck of a lot nicer than the city. I like detached homes amid lots of trees. Those kind of suburban developments are MUCH nicer than the new kind of suburbs where houses are crammed together on tiny 3,000 SF lots. I would not like living in one of those houses. Also, walking along the streets in one of those developments feels like a concrete jungle just because of how few trees there are (with houses crammed so close together, there simply isn't room for any large trees, sadly).

I really don't like concrete jungles. The only urban developments that I like are old brick buildings from 100 years ago that have really intricate facades with lots of detail. You know, kinda like how trees have lots of details on them. As for single family houses, my favorite are craftsman houses.

Tell that to the many families in European cities who do just fine living in dense quarters. They can own a home that shares a solid wall with their neighbors (rowhomes and brownstones), or live in a communal setting with shared daycare facilities, or live in apartment (an option used by a lot of younger families across the U.S.). In fact, these kinds of arrangements often encourage a better sense of neighborliness and improve quality of life...who actually wants to mow their lawn to the HOA-mandated height anyway?

Quote from: jwolfer on March 17, 2018, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.
People like having green space and trees near them.. not having to plan a day trip to see a tree

Good news, we have these things called "parks" and "nature conservatories" where people can look at trees without having to leave their neighborhood. There's a magnificent development called "street trees" where you add trees (wait for it) TO YOUR STREET. It's brilliant!

Really, most suburbanites aren't living out there for "nature" and rarely take advantage of the greenspace (which takes a lot of resources to maintain). Having denser cities with decent access to truly wild areas (protected from sprawl) and excellent access to parks and other greenspaces within a short distance is much more natural for humans.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 11:07:44 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.
That is kind of ironic given that sprawl has more nature intertwined in it than urban areas though I do understand what you're saying. It certainly isn't the same as it was before. Humans will always have an effect. I'll personally take my suburban sprawl for where I want to live. I live in the heart of Hollywood right now and I'm ready to get out of urban lifestyle. It's a nice option to have an I can certainly see the appeal of it, but it isn't for me.

I like my wide freeways and roads to accommodate me with the other majority of the population who wants to live in the suburbs and I'll take my bike trails off the road where it's safer and more peaceful. To me the suburbs have more nature than urban areas do just because of how spread out and how more green space they have.

Suburbs are fine as long as they're constrained to otherwise useless land, include walkable/bikeable corridors, and aren't shackled by racist covenants (like many were and still are). Most suburbs aren't, however, new ones need to be stopped before they worsen a lot of the crises suffered by today's America. Obesity, racial inequality, income inequality, homelessness, environmental hazards, car-related deaths (America's major non-disease killer)...all can be tied to the stereotypical post-war suburb and the resistance to densifying areas.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on March 18, 2018, 12:13:42 AM
Quote from: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 12:05:01 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on March 17, 2018, 10:42:08 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

No, it's not politics, it's just that people with families don't want their families crammed into an apartment. This ain't Europe. Also, suburbs are just more peaceful and often tend to be safer for kids and just a heck of a lot nicer than the city. I like detached homes amid lots of trees. Those kind of suburban developments are MUCH nicer than the new kind of suburbs where houses are crammed together on tiny 3,000 SF lots. I would not like living in one of those houses. Also, walking along the streets in one of those developments feels like a concrete jungle just because of how few trees there are (with houses crammed so close together, there simply isn't room for any large trees, sadly).

I really don't like concrete jungles. The only urban developments that I like are old brick buildings from 100 years ago that have really intricate facades with lots of detail. You know, kinda like how trees have lots of details on them. As for single family houses, my favorite are craftsman houses.

Tell that to the many families in European cities who do just fine living in dense quarters. They can own a home that shares a solid wall with their neighbors (rowhomes and brownstones), or live in a communal setting with shared daycare facilities, or live in apartment (an option used by a lot of younger families across the U.S.). In fact, these kinds of arrangements often encourage a better sense of neighborliness and improve quality of life...who actually wants to mow their lawn to the HOA-mandated height anyway?

Quote from: jwolfer on March 17, 2018, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.
People like having green space and trees near them.. not having to plan a day trip to see a tree

Good news, we have these things called "parks" and "nature conservatories" where people can look at trees without having to leave their neighborhood. There's a magnificent development called "street trees" where you add trees (wait for it) TO YOUR STREET. It's brilliant!

Really, most suburbanites aren't living out there for "nature" and rarely take advantage of the greenspace (which takes a lot of resources to maintain). Having denser cities with decent access to truly wild areas (protected from sprawl) and excellent access to parks and other greenspaces within a short distance is much more natural for humans.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 11:07:44 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.
That is kind of ironic given that sprawl has more nature intertwined in it than urban areas though I do understand what you're saying. It certainly isn't the same as it was before. Humans will always have an effect. I'll personally take my suburban sprawl for where I want to live. I live in the heart of Hollywood right now and I'm ready to get out of urban lifestyle. It's a nice option to have an I can certainly see the appeal of it, but it isn't for me.

I like my wide freeways and roads to accommodate me with the other majority of the population who wants to live in the suburbs and I'll take my bike trails off the road where it's safer and more peaceful. To me the suburbs have more nature than urban areas do just because of how spread out and how more green space they have.

Suburbs are fine as long as they're constrained to otherwise useless land, include walkable/bikeable corridors, and aren't shackled by racist covenants (like many were and still are). Most suburbs aren't, however, new ones need to be stopped before they worsen a lot of the crises suffered by today's America. Obesity, racial inequality, income inequality, homelessness, environmental hazards, car-related deaths (America's major non-disease killer)...all can be tied to the stereotypical post-war suburb and the resistance to densifying areas.
let me guess.. You never been more than 3000 feet away from nearest paved road?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 12:31:18 AM
I've been on hikes and around the national parks here, but that doesn't make my viewpoint less/more valid.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jwolfer on March 18, 2018, 12:41:59 AM
Quote from: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 12:05:01 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on March 17, 2018, 10:42:08 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

No, it's not politics, it's just that people with families don't want their families crammed into an apartment. This ain't Europe. Also, suburbs are just more peaceful and often tend to be safer for kids and just a heck of a lot nicer than the city. I like detached homes amid lots of trees. Those kind of suburban developments are MUCH nicer than the new kind of suburbs where houses are crammed together on tiny 3,000 SF lots. I would not like living in one of those houses. Also, walking along the streets in one of those developments feels like a concrete jungle just because of how few trees there are (with houses crammed so close together, there simply isn't room for any large trees, sadly).

I really don't like concrete jungles. The only urban developments that I like are old brick buildings from 100 years ago that have really intricate facades with lots of detail. You know, kinda like how trees have lots of details on them. As for single family houses, my favorite are craftsman houses.

Tell that to the many families in European cities who do just fine living in dense quarters. They can own a home that shares a solid wall with their neighbors (rowhomes and brownstones), or live in a communal setting with shared daycare facilities, or live in apartment (an option used by a lot of younger families across the U.S.). In fact, these kinds of arrangements often encourage a better sense of neighborliness and improve quality of life...who actually wants to mow their lawn to the HOA-mandated height anyway?

Quote from: jwolfer on March 17, 2018, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.
People like having green space and trees near them.. not having to plan a day trip to see a tree

Good news, we have these things called "parks" and "nature conservatories" where people can look at trees without having to leave their neighborhood. There's a magnificent development called "street trees" where you add trees (wait for it) TO YOUR STREET. It's brilliant!

Really, most suburbanites aren't living out there for "nature" and rarely take advantage of the greenspace (which takes a lot of resources to maintain). Having denser cities with decent access to truly wild areas (protected from sprawl) and excellent access to parks and other greenspaces within a short distance is much more natural for humans.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 11:07:44 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.
That is kind of ironic given that sprawl has more nature intertwined in it than urban areas though I do understand what you're saying. It certainly isn't the same as it was before. Humans will always have an effect. I'll personally take my suburban sprawl for where I want to live. I live in the heart of Hollywood right now and I'm ready to get out of urban lifestyle. It's a nice option to have an I can certainly see the appeal of it, but it isn't for me.

I like my wide freeways and roads to accommodate me with the other majority of the population who wants to live in the suburbs and I'll take my bike trails off the road where it's safer and more peaceful. To me the suburbs have more nature than urban areas do just because of how spread out and how more green space they have.

Suburbs are fine as long as they're constrained to otherwise useless land, include walkable/bikeable corridors, and aren't shackled by racist covenants (like many were and still are). Most suburbs aren't, however, new ones need to be stopped before they worsen a lot of the crises suffered by today's America. Obesity, racial inequality, income inequality, homelessness, environmental hazards, car-related deaths (America's major non-disease killer)...all can be tied to the stereotypical post-war suburb and the resistance to densifying areas.
Many people lived in very dense cities 100 years ago, like New York City... They were called tenements...

They had to send kids to summer camp to see nature.

Landscaped parks and a trees on the side of the road are NOT nature. What's wrong with a yard with some trees.

Humans have in instinctual desire to be in nature.

Because someone wants some land, albeit small suburban lot doesn't make them racist.( No I am not denying racist exclusionary laws-- as an aside, this was not the horrible racist Deep South, it was places like Levittown, NY and suburbs of progressive places like Chicago. People up North don't get a pass.)

Ironically some of the same people who want more people in dense urban neighborhoods and have contempt for suburban living turn around and bitch about gentrification when people move into old neighbohoods.

A nice urban neighborhood is wonderful. If I buy another house I would like to be able to walk places as much as possible. But everyone should not be forced to live in the city if they don't want to. And with the growth of telecommuing, non traditional hours and new types of jobs people don't have to live close to their jobs as in the past, so people will move where they want to live.

And part of the reason for sprawlnis the cities become unaffordable so people move farther out to get what they want





Z981
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jwolfer on March 18, 2018, 12:50:58 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 17, 2018, 11:47:17 PM
Lawns aren't natural for a large part of North America. At least upper nw doesn't suffer from water issues. I can't believe people in the SW are big on lawns. Much more water-efficient desert plants.

My point is that a lot of suburbs may not be urban, but their "nature" elements are a bit misleading at times. Many suburbs were forests (trees) or fields (grasslands) before being developed.
Amen on the lawns( and golf courses too)... Yards ideally should be native plants. Here in Florida the water management districts have PSA stuff about xeriscaping, using native plants.. avoiding invasive species.

We don't have soft grass here in Florida like up north, lawns have to be able to deal with heat, lots of rain in the summer, fast draining sandy soils, dry season winters.

And yards don't need to be green... I love a yard of pine straw, very low maintenance. The pine needles, keep grass and weeds from growing



Z981
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on March 18, 2018, 01:01:08 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on March 18, 2018, 12:41:59 AM
Humans have in instinctual desire to be in nature.

That's debatable.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 01:17:51 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on March 18, 2018, 12:41:59 AMMany people lived in very dense cities 100 years ago, like New York City... They were called tenements...

They had to send kids to summer camp to see nature.

Landscaped parks and a trees on the side of the road are NOT nature. What's wrong with a yard with some trees.

Humans have in instinctual desire to be in nature.

Because someone wants some land, albeit small suburban lot doesn't make them racist.( No I am not denying racist exclusionary laws-- as an aside, this was not the horrible racist Deep South, it was places like Levittown, NY and suburbs of progressive places like Chicago. People up North don't get a pass.)

Ironically some of the same people who want more people in dense urban neighborhoods and have contempt for suburban living turn around and bitch about gentrification when people move into old neighbohoods.

A nice urban neighborhood is wonderful. If I buy another house I would like to be able to walk places as much as possible. But everyone should not be forced to live in the city if they don't want to. And with the growth of telecommuing, non traditional hours and new types of jobs people don't have to live close to their jobs as in the past, so people will move where they want to live.

And part of the reason for sprawlnis the cities become unaffordable so people move farther out to get what they want

Let's take this point by point, because it's basically copied from the NIMBY playbook:

The modern apartments, condos, and urban living units (townhouses, duplexs, mother-in-law units, etc.) are far, far from the tenements. Even the derided "Apodments" that unapologetically cram as many people into a small complex are much, much larger than those. We have housing standards and agencies to enforce them, y'know?

Suburban kids still go to summer camp to see nature. Turns out maincured lawns and non-native trees don't really count. If a landscaped park (which can be enjoyed by the public and designed with the intent of bringing natural features into an artificial landscape) doesn't count, then neither does anything in the suburbs.

The whiners about gentrification are annoying and often wrong. The root cause is a lack of housing stock, which can be derived from a lack of attention by developers in the right areas. Many of these developers have their hands full building sprawl-burbs in god knows where, a few hours away.

The root cause of sprawl is lax regulation. Look at the tight greenbelts around European cities, which should have sprawled to cover the entire damn continent after the war. Instead, people recognized the issues with sprawl (pollution, environmental degradation, impacts on agricultural production, lack of mobility, fostering of social inequality) and put a stop to it. We only got around to it in the 1970s with the urban growth boundaries, but by then it was far too late.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Duke87 on March 18, 2018, 01:56:18 AM
Quote from: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 12:05:01 AM
Suburbs are fine as long as they're constrained to otherwise useless land, include walkable/bikeable corridors, and aren't shackled by racist covenants (like many were and still are).

No arguments here. One of the biggest things I dislike about the bulk of suburbs is how they rely on developmental monoculture. Nothing but house after house after house on cul-de-sac after cul-de-sac, and it's impossible to walk anywhere meaningfully because there's nothing but other people's houses within walking distance. Why people think this is an ideal, I do not understand.

QuoteMost suburbs aren't, however, new ones need to be stopped before they worsen a lot of the crises suffered by today's America. Obesity, racial inequality, income inequality, homelessness, environmental hazards, car-related deaths (America's major non-disease killer)...all can be tied to the stereotypical post-war suburb and the resistance to densifying areas.

Sounds like the problem is specifically stereotypical post-war suburbs, not suburbs of other sorts.

I'd also be careful what stones you cast at suburbs over various issues. I can't really dispute the assertion that suburbs contribute to car-related deaths, that there is an inherent link to racial inequality, and that they are in some ways not ideal for the environment.

But, the link to obesity seems a bit dubious. It seems logical at a glance that living in a walkable area encourages more walking, but this isn't necessarily true to the degree you might think. Per the pedometer feature on my 3DS, I take more steps on an average trip to the grocery store (even though I drive there) than I do walking to the train station, and this is for a grocery store located in an urban area. A sprawling suburban grocery store that's more than twice the square footage will only increase that step count if you're shopping in a place like that regularly.

And walking is just one piece of the puzzle. I'm pretty sure I've been a lot less physically active overall since I left my parents' house in the suburbs and started living in apartments in the city. Know why? Because at my parents' house there was always all sorts of outdoor manual labor to be done. In the summer the lawn needed mowing. In the fall leaves needed raking. In the winter snow needed shoveling. When there was a storm brush needed clearing. Sometimes wood needed chopping. Since I have started living in an apartment, I no longer do any of these things anymore because they either do not need doing or are taken care of by other people hired by the company that owns the building I live in.

If anything it seems like urban apartment living is contributing to my obesity, and it will be good for my physical health when I live in a house again.

I'm also not getting how suburbs are contributing to income inequality or homelessness. They don't really do much to help either of these things, sure, but they're not causes of them. Meanwhile resistance to construction of new suburban development certainly is bad for these things because it means artificial constraint on the supply of housing and, in turn, higher costs of housing.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: oscar on March 18, 2018, 03:00:35 AM
Quote from: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 12:05:01 AM
Suburbs are fine as long as they're constrained to otherwise useless land, include walkable/bikeable corridors, and aren't shackled by racist covenants (like many were and still are).

Those covenants have been unenforceable for decades, and so have no effect even if they've not been removed from deeds (which costs money, easier to just ignore them, especially when Federal housing laws require you to ignore them).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on March 18, 2018, 07:56:24 AM
Quote from: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 12:31:18 AM
I've been on hikes and around the national parks here, but that doesn't make my viewpoint less/more valid.
Of course any opinion has a value for the discussion.
However you're talking as a Mowgli who grew up in concrete jungle, and who didn't see any life outside those jungles nor realizes scale of what is going on to support that jungle. Agriculture, mining, industry... Do you know where your tap water is coming from, and what king of structures are used to bring and purify that water, and treat sewage? Where is the landfill your trash goes to?
High density doesn't mean reduced footprint. As an anecdote, I was really surprised to learn that certain reservoir - 4 hours drive to NYC - is part of NYC water supply system. Oh-oh..  Of course, no NYCer would consider influence of that reservoir on flooding in remote area as part of their impact on nature!
As for "what is natural" for human beings... Until pretty recently, relatively small farms and villages were the norm. Agriculture demanded low density, and bigger settlements were possible only to the extent they could be supported by excess agriculture product. Doesn't make such arrangement "natural", but that is part of what formed human society as a whole and describes environment where US grew up a a country.
Moreover, lower density allow for more localized resource use. No need for trash trains to travel hundreds miles, like NYC does. And THAT is a true sprawl of a big city.
Of course, there is some (probably pretty wide, but still) optimum in density. And if you think suburbs are too low in density, I equally think big cities are tumorous in their growth, and need to be curbed before they reach malignant stage (as many places actually did).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 18, 2018, 09:10:37 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 17, 2018, 11:47:17 PM
Lawns aren't natural for a large part of North America. At least upper nw doesn't suffer from water issues. I can't believe people in the SW are big on lawns. Much more water-efficient desert plants.

My point is that a lot of suburbs may not be urban, but their "nature" elements are a bit misleading at times. Many suburbs were forests (trees) or fields (grasslands) before being developed.
I pointed these things out in my posts too.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 18, 2018, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 12:05:01 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on March 17, 2018, 10:42:08 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.

No, it's not politics, it's just that people with families don't want their families crammed into an apartment. This ain't Europe. Also, suburbs are just more peaceful and often tend to be safer for kids and just a heck of a lot nicer than the city. I like detached homes amid lots of trees. Those kind of suburban developments are MUCH nicer than the new kind of suburbs where houses are crammed together on tiny 3,000 SF lots. I would not like living in one of those houses. Also, walking along the streets in one of those developments feels like a concrete jungle just because of how few trees there are (with houses crammed so close together, there simply isn't room for any large trees, sadly).

I really don't like concrete jungles. The only urban developments that I like are old brick buildings from 100 years ago that have really intricate facades with lots of detail. You know, kinda like how trees have lots of details on them. As for single family houses, my favorite are craftsman houses.

Tell that to the many families in European cities who do just fine living in dense quarters. They can own a home that shares a solid wall with their neighbors (rowhomes and brownstones), or live in a communal setting with shared daycare facilities, or live in apartment (an option used by a lot of younger families across the U.S.). In fact, these kinds of arrangements often encourage a better sense of neighborliness and improve quality of life...who actually wants to mow their lawn to the HOA-mandated height anyway?

Quote from: jwolfer on March 17, 2018, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.
People like having green space and trees near them.. not having to plan a day trip to see a tree

Good news, we have these things called "parks" and "nature conservatories" where people can look at trees without having to leave their neighborhood. There's a magnificent development called "street trees" where you add trees (wait for it) TO YOUR STREET. It's brilliant!

Really, most suburbanites aren't living out there for "nature" and rarely take advantage of the greenspace (which takes a lot of resources to maintain). Having denser cities with decent access to truly wild areas (protected from sprawl) and excellent access to parks and other greenspaces within a short distance is much more natural for humans.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 11:07:44 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 07:29:22 PM
I'll take more concrete jungle if it means there's less sprawl ruining the surrounding natural areas. In the Northwest, cities are rather suburban in nature (lots of detached homes amid tons of trees) and could easily be densified to handle expected population growth. But the politics prevents it from happening.
That is kind of ironic given that sprawl has more nature intertwined in it than urban areas though I do understand what you're saying. It certainly isn't the same as it was before. Humans will always have an effect. I'll personally take my suburban sprawl for where I want to live. I live in the heart of Hollywood right now and I'm ready to get out of urban lifestyle. It's a nice option to have an I can certainly see the appeal of it, but it isn't for me.

I like my wide freeways and roads to accommodate me with the other majority of the population who wants to live in the suburbs and I'll take my bike trails off the road where it's safer and more peaceful. To me the suburbs have more nature than urban areas do just because of how spread out and how more green space they have.

Suburbs are fine as long as they're constrained to otherwise useless land, include walkable/bikeable corridors, and aren't shackled by racist covenants (like many were and still are). Most suburbs aren't, however, new ones need to be stopped before they worsen a lot of the crises suffered by today's America. Obesity, racial inequality, income inequality, homelessness, environmental hazards, car-related deaths (America's major non-disease killer)...all can be tied to the stereotypical post-war suburb and the resistance to densifying areas.
Im using my phone so it will take me too long to quote each part sorry but I'll say this...

As for your response to me I'm not quite understand what you're saying in your first sentence. Racist are somehow in areas with less bike lanes? I guess I can agree with that but that's a pointless thing to say. Building bike lanes in those areas will not solve racism so I don't know what you're going on about now.

I don't care if suburbs have racist people. That's their right to feel that way and not your right to dictate the building style of communities because you don't like how they are. Every single person I know doesn't have an ounce of racist blood in them and they all live in the suburbs. So please, let's not make this about racism and segregation. That stuff is well and alive in Los Angeles too. Just yesterday on the red line there was a guy screaming the n word at people along with a bucket of other slurs and profanities. If you really have a problem with racial segregation and inequalit, then look no further than where you live. Isn't Seattle like one of the whitest cities in the country? Income segregation in NYC is extremely prevalent. But again please, let's keep this discussion more on track and not about politics and pulling race cards.

It is not argument whether the suburbs have more nature than urban areas. They do. There is way more green space. Yes there are public parks in cities and yes there nature reserves. Guess what, the suburbs have too; some more than urban areas.

About you comment regarding Europe, just my opinion here obviously but I can't stand when people try and compare Europe to the US. No comparison there at all! Some people in Somolia live in shacks with no roads, no water supply, no police, etc. That seems like a pretty cheap way to run a city, so let's just build like them. FYI, Europe has its share of transportation issues to. Lot of the roads suck! Isn't just an American thing and transit is packed so much you have to wait 2-3 trains during certain to even get on one. Congestion is still awful in the manor cities and poverty is a real issue in several countries around Europe. I don't want the US at I get anywhere close to some of the socialists type governments you see there.

If it's such a paradise over there, then why don't you move there? People get along great in many situations that aren't ideal. My point is we don't need to build like them because it works for them. What we have works for us. The world is shifting to cars(especially BRIC counties where freeway construction and new car sales are through the roof).

We certainly have room to improve on the way we build but the car will always be king in the suburbs and it should get priority over any form of transportation. Now if you want to talk about inner cores of cities, I'm listening. I won't ever accept congestion charges or tolled freeways as that creates further income inequality and only helps the rich, which you seem to be against. I can afford the tolls so I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, but I don't support it because it isn't right for people who can't and already paid a shit ton of money for a car.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: hotdogPi on March 18, 2018, 10:21:32 AM
I live in the suburbs.

Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 05:23:35 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 18, 2018, 07:56:24 AM
Quote from: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 12:31:18 AM
I've been on hikes and around the national parks here, but that doesn't make my viewpoint less/more valid.
Of course any opinion has a value for the discussion.
However you're talking as a Mowgli who grew up in concrete jungle, and who didn't see any life outside those jungles nor realizes scale of what is going on to support that jungle. Agriculture, mining, industry... Do you know where your tap water is coming from, and what king of structures are used to bring and purify that water, and treat sewage? Where is the landfill your trash goes to?
High density doesn't mean reduced footprint. As an anecdote, I was really surprised to learn that certain reservoir - 4 hours drive to NYC - is part of NYC water supply system. Oh-oh..  Of course, no NYCer would consider influence of that reservoir on flooding in remote area as part of their impact on nature!
As for "what is natural" for human beings... Until pretty recently, relatively small farms and villages were the norm. Agriculture demanded low density, and bigger settlements were possible only to the extent they could be supported by excess agriculture product. Doesn't make such arrangement "natural", but that is part of what formed human society as a whole and describes environment where US grew up a a country.
Moreover, lower density allow for more localized resource use. No need for trash trains to travel hundreds miles, like NYC does. And THAT is a true sprawl of a big city.
Of course, there is some (probably pretty wide, but still) optimum in density. And if you think suburbs are too low in density, I equally think big cities are tumorous in their growth, and need to be curbed before they reach malignant stage (as many places actually did).


The resource argument is precisely why we should be building denser cities (at least to European scales, not quite to Hong Kong/Singapore levels)! To serve 100,000 people in a dense area of 3 sq mi vs. a suburb of 20 sq mi, you use less metal for pipes, you have less pumping stations, and you can have redundant corridors so that it's less failure prone. My entire suburban county (of 700K) is supplied by a single lake and a major water pipe, which is only feasible because it connects to the denser county seat before continuing on to the less dense suburbs. We're relatively concentrated, so a less dense layout would have probably forced additional points of entry in our water system, sapping more water from the rivers that house critical salmon habitats and help drive industry.

And speaking of industry, there's no worse use for land than suburban tract housing. 5 acres for a single house is far, far less productive than that same land being used for farming or even mining (which is still really awful for the environment). It's not often that it can be reverted back to farmland (it did happen recently here (http://kuow.org/post/how-arlington-subdivision-was-returned-farmland)), so it's a long-term decision that must be decided with care.

Within the context of modern civilization, humans have been living in cities for the past 8,000 years and the world continues to rapidly urbanize, especially in areas that had long lived in the traditional low-density villages model. Turns out that it's not socially sustainable and economically feasible.

The great thing about cities is that you can scale the density. You can go from a forest of high-rises like most downtowns are, all the way to three-story row homes and corner apartments with grocers like most "dense" European cities. With suburbs, you can't really scale due to the broken street grid and fundamental government structure that resists all forms of change.

Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 18, 2018, 05:34:46 PM
Socially sustainable? I'd disagree as would a lot of people. No one is arguing whether or not it is more efficient to pack in like sardines in concrete jungles. But a lot of people don't want to live to that way and the suburbs are great for them.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: hotdogPi on March 18, 2018, 05:45:12 PM
Europe is less spread out than we are? It seems like it's more spread out.

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a8/06/5d/a8065d8345b27daf51e9e9c15c57965a--population-maps.jpg)

In case you can't read the legend at the top (all numbers per km²):
0-1
1-2
2-4
4-8
8-15
15-30
30-60 (US as a whole: 33, entire world: 50)
60-120
120-240
240-480
480-1000
1000+

Anything in red or darker is more dense than the United States average. Especially in Germany and Italy, population seems to be more spread out. And the Netherlands is almost all dark red (not just part of it), as well as the surrounding areas. If this color scheme was put into the United States, there would be a lot of black surrounded by yellow. Madrid is an example of that in this photo, but there is very little of it.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on March 18, 2018, 07:36:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 05:23:35 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 18, 2018, 07:56:24 AM
Quote from: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 12:31:18 AM
I've been on hikes and around the national parks here, but that doesn't make my viewpoint less/more valid.
Of course any opinion has a value for the discussion.
However you're talking as a Mowgli who grew up in concrete jungle, and who didn't see any life outside those jungles nor realizes scale of what is going on to support that jungle. Agriculture, mining, industry... Do you know where your tap water is coming from, and what king of structures are used to bring and purify that water, and treat sewage? Where is the landfill your trash goes to?
High density doesn't mean reduced footprint. As an anecdote, I was really surprised to learn that certain reservoir - 4 hours drive to NYC - is part of NYC water supply system. Oh-oh..  Of course, no NYCer would consider influence of that reservoir on flooding in remote area as part of their impact on nature!
As for "what is natural" for human beings... Until pretty recently, relatively small farms and villages were the norm. Agriculture demanded low density, and bigger settlements were possible only to the extent they could be supported by excess agriculture product. Doesn't make such arrangement "natural", but that is part of what formed human society as a whole and describes environment where US grew up a a country.
Moreover, lower density allow for more localized resource use. No need for trash trains to travel hundreds miles, like NYC does. And THAT is a true sprawl of a big city.
Of course, there is some (probably pretty wide, but still) optimum in density. And if you think suburbs are too low in density, I equally think big cities are tumorous in their growth, and need to be curbed before they reach malignant stage (as many places actually did).


The resource argument is precisely why we should be building denser cities (at least to European scales, not quite to Hong Kong/Singapore levels)! To serve 100,000 people in a dense area of 3 sq mi vs. a suburb of 20 sq mi, you use less metal for pipes, you have less pumping stations, and you can have redundant corridors so that it's less failure prone. My entire suburban county (of 700K) is supplied by a single lake and a major water pipe, which is only feasible because it connects to the denser county seat before continuing on to the less dense suburbs. We're relatively concentrated, so a less dense layout would have probably forced additional points of entry in our water system, sapping more water from the rivers that house critical salmon habitats and help drive industry.

And speaking of industry, there's no worse use for land than suburban tract housing. 5 acres for a single house is far, far less productive than that same land being used for farming or even mining (which is still really awful for the environment). It's not often that it can be reverted back to farmland (it did happen recently here (http://kuow.org/post/how-arlington-subdivision-was-returned-farmland)), so it's a long-term decision that must be decided with care.

Within the context of modern civilization, humans have been living in cities for the past 8,000 years and the world continues to rapidly urbanize, especially in areas that had long lived in the traditional low-density villages model. Turns out that it's not socially sustainable and economically feasible.

The great thing about cities is that you can scale the density. You can go from a forest of high-rises like most downtowns are, all the way to three-story row homes and corner apartments with grocers like most "dense" European cities. With suburbs, you can't really scale due to the broken street grid and fundamental government structure that resists all forms of change.

Less metal? You mean that 160 mile aqueduct including tunnel under the Hudson river feeding water to NYC uses less metal than a pipe from the well 1 mile away from my home?
Think twice..
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on March 18, 2018, 07:40:27 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 18, 2018, 05:45:12 PM
Europe is less spread out than we are? It seems like it's more spread out.

Europe has an interesting "feature" called "blue banana". Really a super-hyper-megapolis..
upd: it is actually somewhat similar to US east coast conglomerate Boston-NY-DC corridor. Twice as many people, though
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Duke87 on March 18, 2018, 09:52:50 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 18, 2018, 07:36:57 PM
Less metal? You mean that 160 mile aqueduct including tunnel under the Hudson river feeding water to NYC uses less metal than a pipe from the well 1 mile away from my home?
Think twice..

Most of that tunnel uses no metal whatsoever as it is simply drilled directly through solid rock or lined with concrete. Also the main Delaware Aqueduct is only 85 miles long, not 160.

But I was curious about this anyway so I started doing math.

Let's assume for sake of argument that it is a huge metal pipe. It's 14 feet in diameter... and now let's assume the walls are 6" thick. Okay, so that gives us a cr0oss sectional area of 3.14159*(15/2)^2-3.14159*(14/2)^2= 22.7766 SF. 85 miles of that gives us 10,222,138 cubic feet of metal. And since it serves about half of NYC's population of 8.2 million people, that's about 2.5 cubic feet of metal per person.

Now let's say for a good well you gotta go 100 feet down, and maybe 50 feet over to get to your house. And let's say that's mostly schedule 40 2" pipe. The cross section of that is about 1.0745 square inches, so 1.1193 SF for 150 ft worth. If a family of four lives in that house that's 0.2798 cubic feet of metal per person.

So yeah it looks like the well wins over the aqueduct in terms of metal per person, at least with back of the napkin calcs like this.

This is only possible, though, because you are able to source water where you stand. Running water mains around a suburb (assuming wells for everyone is not a viable solution) certainly uses more metal per person than running them around a city.

Consider as well other infrastructure needs. Rural and suburban areas have more pavement per person than cities because of the lower density. The distance you have to run power lines per person is greater. The amount of fuel you have to burn driving to where you need to go (not even factoring in public transit here) is higher because things are further apart.

Overall there are definite economies of scale associated with dense development.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on March 18, 2018, 10:11:54 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 18, 2018, 09:52:50 PM
Quote from: kalvado on March 18, 2018, 07:36:57 PM
Less metal? You mean that 160 mile aqueduct including tunnel under the Hudson river feeding water to NYC uses less metal than a pipe from the well 1 mile away from my home?
Think twice..

Most of that tunnel uses no metal whatsoever as it is simply drilled directly through solid rock or lined with concrete. Also the main Delaware Aqueduct is only 85 miles long, not 160.

But I was curious about this anyway so I started doing math.

Let's assume for sake of argument that it is a huge metal pipe. It's 14 feet in diameter... and now let's assume the walls are 6" thick. Okay, so that gives us a cr0oss sectional area of 3.14159*(15/2)^2-3.14159*(14/2)^2= 22.7766 SF. 85 miles of that gives us 10,222,138 cubic feet of metal. And since it serves about half of NYC's population of 8.2 million people, that's about 2.5 cubic feet of metal per person.

Now let's say for a good well you gotta go 100 feet down, and maybe 50 feet over to get to your house. And let's say that's mostly schedule 40 2" pipe. The cross section of that is about 1.0745 square inches, so 1.1193 SF for 150 ft worth. If a family of four lives in that house that's 0.2798 cubic feet of metal per person.

So yeah it looks like the well wins over the aqueduct in terms of metal per person, at least with back of the napkin calcs like this.

This is only possible, though, because you are able to source water where you stand. Running water mains around a suburb (assuming wells for everyone is not a viable solution) certainly uses more metal per person than running them around a city.

Consider as well other infrastructure needs. Rural and suburban areas have more pavement per person than cities because of the lower density. The distance you have to run power lines per person is greater. The amount of fuel you have to burn driving to where you need to go (not even factoring in public transit here) is higher because things are further apart.

Overall there are definite economies of scale associated with dense development.
Of course that is true that last mile is shorter in a city (sorry for some pun). However heavy duty city solutions are not the same as suburban. Yes, you do need more square foot of pavement for a suburb. This is a light duty pavement with 15-20 years weather-limited lifecycle, as opposed to full-strength pavement on heavily travelled streets.
Yes, suburbs running more utilitiy feet per person - at a cost of more local supplies which also costs a lot.

I don't think we'll come to a rock solid number for resource consumption. But as another factor - our mortgage for a small 3-bedroom home is about the same as a single bedroom rent in area namesake city, and I don't think you can get a studio in NYC for that kind of money.
Until someone makes tremendous profits off city's real estate, you can relate that to underlying costs and resources.
Or another number:
quote from NYP 2017:
QuoteOwners of one-family homes [in NYC] currently pay an average $1,000 annual water bill. Apartment-building owners are billed roughly $700 per tenant.
I believe we have about $250/year, lawn and garden watering included. I don't think it is the profit margin that makes the difference.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: compdude787 on March 22, 2018, 03:44:39 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 05:23:35 PM
My entire suburban county (of 700K) is supplied by a single lake and a major water pipe, which is only feasible because it connects to the denser county seat before continuing on to the less dense suburbs. We're relatively concentrated, so a less dense layout would have probably forced additional points of entry in our water system, sapping more water from the rivers that house critical salmon habitats and help drive industry.

Not true; that lake and pipe is only for the City of Everett's water system. Much of south Snohomish County (including where I live in the Lynnwood/Brier area) is served by Alderwood Water District, which gets its water from a series of wells in the area. So no, that one lake does NOT supply the water for all of the county. And let's not forget that many people living in the more rural parts of the county get their water from wells.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 04:50:53 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on March 22, 2018, 03:44:39 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 05:23:35 PM
My entire suburban county (of 700K) is supplied by a single lake and a major water pipe, which is only feasible because it connects to the denser county seat before continuing on to the less dense suburbs. We're relatively concentrated, so a less dense layout would have probably forced additional points of entry in our water system, sapping more water from the rivers that house critical salmon habitats and help drive industry.

Not true; that lake and pipe is only for the City of Everett's water system. Much of south Snohomish County (including where I live in the Lynnwood/Brier area) is served by Alderwood Water District, which gets its water from a series of wells in the area. So no, that one lake does NOT supply the water for all of the county. And let's not forget that many people living in the more rural parts of the county get their water from wells.

My water in Marysville comes from Spada and other parts of the Everett system, which does feed a large area of the county.

The point is that a concentrated urban area would be easier to serve with a single water source, and redundant ones in case of emergency, thanks to the lower cost of hooking into the system.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 04:51:29 PM
Portland is going to spend $9 million on bike and bus improvements, which will have a greater return on investment than any project ODOT has proposed in decades. http://www.oregonlive.com/roadreport/index.ssf/2018/03/portland_wants_help_plotting_b.html
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on March 22, 2018, 05:08:58 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 04:50:53 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on March 22, 2018, 03:44:39 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 18, 2018, 05:23:35 PM
My entire suburban county (of 700K) is supplied by a single lake and a major water pipe, which is only feasible because it connects to the denser county seat before continuing on to the less dense suburbs. We're relatively concentrated, so a less dense layout would have probably forced additional points of entry in our water system, sapping more water from the rivers that house critical salmon habitats and help drive industry.

Not true; that lake and pipe is only for the City of Everett's water system. Much of south Snohomish County (including where I live in the Lynnwood/Brier area) is served by Alderwood Water District, which gets its water from a series of wells in the area. So no, that one lake does NOT supply the water for all of the county. And let's not forget that many people living in the more rural parts of the county get their water from wells.

My water in Marysville comes from Spada and other parts of the Everett system, which does feed a large area of the county.

The point is that a concentrated urban area would be easier to serve with a single water source, and redundant ones in case of emergency, thanks to the lower cost of hooking into the system.

Large area with significant water demand either need a very big natural water source - major river or (great) lake, or rely on scattered sources. If I remember correctly, moderate climate and modern use pattern require 0.1 acre of 100% precipitation collection - more if you don't want the area to turn into desert.
And "big river" means big one. Colorado river is overused, and desalination starts to gain traction in California.
Wells have a limit on amount of water to be drawn - essentially you don't want to exceed amount of precipitation that sips through the soil within collection area.

Result: Chicago area can drink from one lake, Atlanta has 20 reservoirs and a lot of other things, and LA almost got into civil war over water supplies with at least 3 very different sources being used.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Hurricane Rex on March 22, 2018, 06:04:03 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 04:51:29 PM
Portland is going to spend $9 million on bike and bus improvements, which will have a greater return on investment than any project ODOT has proposed in decades. http://www.oregonlive.com/roadreport/index.ssf/2018/03/portland_wants_help_plotting_b.html
I blame part of that due to ODOT not spending money the wisest way.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: silverback1065 on March 25, 2018, 06:02:35 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 18, 2018, 05:45:12 PM
Europe is less spread out than we are? It seems like it's more spread out.

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a8/06/5d/a8065d8345b27daf51e9e9c15c57965a--population-maps.jpg)

In case you can't read the legend at the top (all numbers per km²):
0-1
1-2
2-4
4-8
8-15
15-30
30-60 (US as a whole: 33, entire world: 50)
60-120
120-240
240-480
480-1000
1000+

Anything in red or darker is more dense than the United States average. Especially in Germany and Italy, population seems to be more spread out. And the Netherlands is almost all dark red (not just part of it), as well as the surrounding areas. If this color scheme was put into the United States, there would be a lot of black surrounded by yellow. Madrid is an example of that in this photo, but there is very little of it.

this argument only applies to cities, our cities are way more spread out than Europe's, and that's a problem if you're going to rely on roads alone.  But it's also a problem for mass transit too. 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Mark68 on April 02, 2018, 02:58:53 PM
Having spent time in some European cities (namely Berlin, with some time spent in Amsterdam, Prague, Belfast, and London), I have seen that the cities there are very dense, compact areas (conducive to the various forms of mass transit that are successful there--and to bicycles). If you go about 10-15 miles out from the city center in most of these areas (save London), you're in the country. Berlin has a great model in that they have the "Ringbahn" train that runs in a loop around the central core, with bus, subway, streetcar, and other trains connecting to or nearby the Ringbahn stations and going out to most parts of the city (and into the center itself).

This model is generally unworkable in most American cities because of sprawl. There are some exceptions, cities that have a dense urban core (NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston), but even these cities have suburbs that are sprung out far and wide. Because Europe built up (instead of out) and began to build their transportation infrastructure in the age of trains, their cities are much more conducive to non-auto-related transportation infrastructure. Hell, Berlin has the fewest cars per capita of any major European city, IIRC.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on April 02, 2018, 03:06:37 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on April 02, 2018, 02:58:53 PM
Having spent time in some European cities (namely Berlin, with some time spent in Amsterdam, Prague, Belfast, and London), I have seen that the cities there are very dense, compact areas (conducive to the various forms of mass transit that are successful there--and to bicycles). If you go about 10-15 miles out from the city center in most of these areas (save London), you're in the country. Berlin has a great model in that they have the "Ringbahn" train that runs in a loop around the central core, with bus, subway, streetcar, and other trains connecting to or nearby the Ringbahn stations and going out to most parts of the city (and into the center itself).

This model is generally unworkable in most American cities because of sprawl. There are some exceptions, cities that have a dense urban core (NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston), but even these cities have suburbs that are sprung out far and wide. Because Europe built up (instead of out) and began to build their transportation infrastructure in the age of trains, their cities are much more conducive to non-auto-related transportation infrastructure. Hell, Berlin has the fewest cars per capita of any major European city, IIRC.
And efficient construction of public transportation systems as well. New Berlin airport which opened in 2011 2012 2013 2016 2017 maybe will open in 2020 is a great example of efficiency!

Berlin is still on a poor side of Germany, and public transportation was significantly inherited from "no, you cannot buy a car" socialist approach.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: jakeroot on April 02, 2018, 04:23:25 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on April 02, 2018, 02:58:53 PM
This model is generally unworkable in most American cities because of sprawl. There are some exceptions, cities that have a dense urban core (NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston), but even these cities have suburbs that are sprung out far and wide.

Yes, these cities have massive amounts of sprawl, sure. But there are still millions of people who, combined, ride these public transport systems every day. If these cities lacked what they already have, could you imagine how bad traffic would be?

This new-age of public transportation construction is a two-fer: build the networks, and re-zone the areas around the stations. Vancouver has embraced this steadfastly, building massive skyscrapers around many of their hubs (Metrotown, Brentwood, Coquitlam). And Seattle's growing Link Light Rail network is being built through areas which should see some rezoning changes to support not only new residents moving to the area, but also residents who live farther out who might want to live closer to work.

Density is important not only to help bring people closer to the city (a choice that people should be able to make, but can't always due to affordability issues), but it also reduced the cost of housing. Demand increases the cost of a home, so reducing demand reduces the cost of homes. Seattle is short on homes, so we have very expensive homes. Same in San Francisco. Building the most amount of "dwellings" per-square-mile as we can (generally by building up as much as possible) will help use achieve housing goals and reduce the chance that traffic will get even worse.

America has not grown in a very smart way. We grew emotionally, because we like parks and low-density, green space to run through, etc. But we have to think about the bigger picture. Reducing the cost of housing will allow people to potentially live closer to where they work. The more we can get that to happen, the less we strain our roads.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 02, 2018, 05:59:08 PM
I don't get the Europe-envy of some Americans. The United States, for the most part, is very different from Europe. Our cities are farther apart. Our society and history is a lot different. Imposing "European" solutions on American cities have not and will not work. Besides, a "tourist's" view of Europe is in no way indicative of completely explaining how Europeans live. I admit I've never been to Europe, but I think I have read enough to distinguish between American society and European society.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Mark68 on April 02, 2018, 06:19:42 PM
Quote from: kalvado on April 02, 2018, 03:06:37 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on April 02, 2018, 02:58:53 PM
Having spent time in some European cities (namely Berlin, with some time spent in Amsterdam, Prague, Belfast, and London), I have seen that the cities there are very dense, compact areas (conducive to the various forms of mass transit that are successful there--and to bicycles). If you go about 10-15 miles out from the city center in most of these areas (save London), you're in the country. Berlin has a great model in that they have the "Ringbahn" train that runs in a loop around the central core, with bus, subway, streetcar, and other trains connecting to or nearby the Ringbahn stations and going out to most parts of the city (and into the center itself).

This model is generally unworkable in most American cities because of sprawl. There are some exceptions, cities that have a dense urban core (NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston), but even these cities have suburbs that are sprung out far and wide. Because Europe built up (instead of out) and began to build their transportation infrastructure in the age of trains, their cities are much more conducive to non-auto-related transportation infrastructure. Hell, Berlin has the fewest cars per capita of any major European city, IIRC.
And efficient construction of public transportation systems as well. New Berlin airport which opened in 2011 2012 2013 2016 2017 maybe will open in 2020 is a great example of efficiency!

Berlin is still on a poor side of Germany, and public transportation was significantly inherited from "no, you cannot buy a car" socialist approach.

This latter is true--partly. Most of the system existed before the division of Berlin, and, interestingly, some lines were still operational between East and West Berlin during the (First?) Cold War. The Friedrichstrasse station was the main transfer point between the two halves.

And the East Berliners, at least those with high enough positions and/or clout, could buy a car. They were (mostly) cheap pieces of crap called Trabants, and they're now a novelty for tourists (you can now take a "Trabbi" guided tour).

I do know that in the three months I was there, I NEVER needed a car, even between cities (took the train to Amsterdam and to Prague).
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on April 02, 2018, 06:22:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 02, 2018, 04:23:25 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on April 02, 2018, 02:58:53 PM
This model is generally unworkable in most American cities because of sprawl. There are some exceptions, cities that have a dense urban core (NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston), but even these cities have suburbs that are sprung out far and wide.

Yes, these cities have massive amounts of sprawl, sure. But there are still millions of people who, combined, ride these public transport systems every day. If these cities lacked what they already have, could you imagine how bad traffic would be?

This new-age of public transportation construction is a two-fer: build the networks, and re-zone the areas around the stations. Vancouver has embraced this steadfastly, building massive skyscrapers around many of their hubs (Metrotown, Brentwood, Coquitlam). And Seattle's growing Link Light Rail network is being built through areas which should see some rezoning changes to support not only new residents moving to the area, but also residents who live farther out who might want to live closer to work.

Density is important not only to help bring people closer to the city (a choice that people should be able to make, but can't always due to affordability issues), but it also reduced the cost of housing. Demand increases the cost of a home, so reducing demand reduces the cost of homes. Seattle is short on homes, so we have very expensive homes. Same in San Francisco. Building the most amount of "dwellings" per-square-mile as we can (generally by building up as much as possible) will help use achieve housing goals and reduce the chance that traffic will get even worse.

America has not grown in a very smart way. We grew emotionally, because we like parks and low-density, green space to run through, etc. But we have to think about the bigger picture. Reducing the cost of housing will allow people to potentially live closer to where they work. The more we can get that to happen, the less we strain our roads.

You also have to consider actual cost of construction.
Rural style wood stud and drywall construction is probably cheapest you can envision, both in cost of  material and building process. Going 9-12-24 floors up require steel rebar and concrete, or some other heavy duty material. And you need more material PER SQUARE FOOT, since at least some of the walls have to be high strength to support units above. Yes, that can be somewhat balanced by cost of transportation.

And nobody grew a smart way. If you think, until about 100 years ago horse was pretty much the only short-haul transportation thing, and building wide was not really an option. Labor was also cheap.. That defined a lot of older cities.
Think about a world where car is unaffordable luxury. You instantly end up with very dense environment... Full of people who dream of getting out of that concrete jungle.

The only way you can consider truly "smart" is reduction of living standard. Single 200 sq foot room per family should be enough. No question about affordability. 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on April 02, 2018, 06:31:27 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on April 02, 2018, 06:19:42 PM
I do know that in the three months I was there, I NEVER needed a car, even between cities (took the train to Amsterdam and to Prague).
Lets consider two different scenarios here:
1. Lifestyle of general population is organized without need for car because people cannot afford a car - and have to accommodate that. (Replace "car" with "horse" for 19th century and earlier). "afford" include full cycle - purchase, parking, food and care for the horse, etc.
2. People don't want cars because lifestyle implies normal carless life with little to no benefit of having a car. 

What I say is that many older cities got where they are via first scenario.  And once given the opportunity, driving population would increase. Such increase wouldn't happen in second scenario.
If you want to distinguish between two cases for Berlin, look at number of cars  owned by residents.Did it grow up in past 20 years? 
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Mark68 on April 02, 2018, 06:48:23 PM
As far as that (Berlin-Brandenburg) airport issue is concerned...yeah, that's pretty much the definition of a boondoggle. The two existing airports (serving the two former halves) are antiquated and not able to handle the capacity that Berlin should receive. I flew in and out of Schoenefeld, which is the former airport that served East Berlin...and it looks and feels like it.

The Berlin-Brandenburg Airport will probably never be opened as conceived. The states of Berlin and Brandenburg will probably just have to reconstruct the whole damn thing.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: Bruce on April 02, 2018, 11:21:33 PM
Quote from: Mark68 on April 02, 2018, 02:58:53 PM
This model is generally unworkable in most American cities because of sprawl. There are some exceptions, cities that have a dense urban core (NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston), but even these cities have suburbs that are sprung out far and wide. Because Europe built up (instead of out) and began to build their transportation infrastructure in the age of trains, their cities are much more conducive to non-auto-related transportation infrastructure. Hell, Berlin has the fewest cars per capita of any major European city, IIRC.

All the more reason to build more transit and try to redirect commuters (who aren't going to bring more than a backpack full of materials everyday) so that existing road space can be used by trades that require specialized vehicles or larger payloads that can only be transported by car.

Quote from: kalvado on April 02, 2018, 03:06:37 PM
And efficient construction of public transportation systems as well. New Berlin airport which opened in 2011 2012 2013 2016 2017 maybe will open in 2020 is a great example of efficiency!

Berlin is still on a poor side of Germany, and public transportation was significantly inherited from "no, you cannot buy a car" socialist approach.

This is very wrong. Most of the Berlin U-Bahn was on the West side (http://transitmap.net/post/18962170546/west-berlin-1977) (aka the "capitalist" side), while East Berlin had the majority of the old tram system and expanded their S-Bahn network to compensate. During the division of Berlin, U-Bahn trains would actually travel non-stop through East Berlin to connect segments in West Berlin, with each closed platform under armed guard.
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: kalvado on April 03, 2018, 08:51:08 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 02, 2018, 11:21:33 PM

Quote from: kalvado on April 02, 2018, 03:06:37 PM
And efficient construction of public transportation systems as well. New Berlin airport which opened in 2011 2012 2013 2016 2017 maybe will open in 2020 is a great example of efficiency!

Berlin is still on a poor side of Germany, and public transportation was significantly inherited from "no, you cannot buy a car" socialist approach.

This is very wrong. Most of the Berlin U-Bahn was on the West side (http://transitmap.net/post/18962170546/west-berlin-1977) (aka the "capitalist" side), while East Berlin had the majority of the old tram system and expanded their S-Bahn network to compensate. During the division of Berlin, U-Bahn trains would actually travel non-stop through East Berlin to connect segments in West Berlin, with each closed platform under armed guard.

Do you actually assume people didn't have to get to work on east side?
Title: Re: No More Freeways PDX
Post by: sparker on April 06, 2018, 05:53:50 PM
Quote from: kalvado on April 03, 2018, 08:51:08 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 02, 2018, 11:21:33 PM

Quote from: kalvado on April 02, 2018, 03:06:37 PM
And efficient construction of public transportation systems as well. New Berlin airport which opened in 2011 2012 2013 2016 2017 maybe will open in 2020 is a great example of efficiency!

Berlin is still on a poor side of Germany, and public transportation was significantly inherited from "no, you cannot buy a car" socialist approach.

This is very wrong. Most of the Berlin U-Bahn was on the West side (http://transitmap.net/post/18962170546/west-berlin-1977) (aka the "capitalist" side), while East Berlin had the majority of the old tram system and expanded their S-Bahn network to compensate. During the division of Berlin, U-Bahn trains would actually travel non-stop through East Berlin to connect segments in West Berlin, with each closed platform under armed guard.

Do you actually assume people didn't have to get to work on east side?

Don't know how many of you were alive during the height of the Cold War, but after the Berlin Wall was erected in 1961, there was very little commercial movement between East and West; East Germany quite deliberately cut itself off from the West, including West Berlin.  People living in the Western Sectors and working in the East found themselves unable to get to work -- and functionally unemployed (E. Germany simply brought workers in from elsewhere to replace Western employees).  If they couldn't find work in West Berlin, they simply migrated to other locations in West Germany.  Of all the Eastern European "satellite" states essentially controlled by the Soviet Union, East Germany was arguably the most regimented and tightly controlled.  From 1961 to the early 1980's there was very little free travel between East and West (not that there were Westerners clamoring to visit East Germany in any instance); it wasn't until the post-Brezhnev Soviet era (1982-1991) that things started "loosening up" -- but even then, East Germany lagged behind other Eastern European countries in establishing commercial and social contacts with Western Europe -- partially because their highly vertical power structure (in that case, a functionally permanent "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- but really a dictatorship of the top echelon of the state) was a formidable obstacle to any such moderation.  The wall came down in 1989, but most of East Germany was still postwar "scorched earth", requiring foundation-up reconstruction (largely financed by former West Germany, the foundation of the reunified nation -- but with added billions from the U.S. and the other NATO countries).   

Considering the troubles facing Europe as a whole today, one could make the point that things have progressed directly from the frying pan to the fire (hey, you're free -- but impoverished).  But at least it's not an unholy amalgam of socialism and fascism all rolled into one, like East Germany for 43 years -- although fascism seems to have reared its hideous head once again!