No More Freeways PDX

[kalvado]

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?

[hotdogPi]

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)

[Bruce]

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.

[Hurricane Rex]

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:

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

[silverback1065]

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:

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

[kalvado]

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...

[sparker]

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. 

[jakeroot]

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.

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.

[sp_redelectric]

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.

[bigdave]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

[kalvado]

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

[jakeroot]

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.

[kalvado]

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?

[silverback1065]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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. 

[US 89]

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. (the strips have faded since they were put in)

[sparker]

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. (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!

[jakeroot]

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.

[US 89]

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.

[silverback1065]

i hate bike lanes that are painted with that green thermo.  fucks with your traction!

[Hurricane Rex]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[Alps]

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!

[Hurricane Rex]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[kalvado]

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...