AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: No More Freeways PDX  (Read 12072 times)

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8103
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 09:48:03 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #50 on: October 30, 2017, 04:31:02 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).
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2171
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:51:36 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #51 on: October 30, 2017, 04:36:22 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....
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8103
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 09:48:03 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #52 on: October 30, 2017, 04:46:48 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.
Logged

Sub-Urbanite

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 235
  • There's at least a 60% chance I'm just trolling

  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: August 16, 2018, 09:24:40 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #53 on: October 30, 2017, 06:03:11 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.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 06:05:37 PM by Sub-Urbanite »
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2171
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:51:36 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #54 on: October 30, 2017, 07:04:16 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...
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4507
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: August 15, 2018, 12:49:21 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #55 on: October 30, 2017, 07:14:20 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.
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11727
  • Views expressed are my own, not my employer's.

  • Age: 35
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:04 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #56 on: October 30, 2017, 07:22:24 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.
Logged
~ Steve
http://www.alpsroads.net
I've listened many times, and I still can't figure out what the fox says.

"YOUR NAME IS NAMED AFTER A BUTT"

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1527
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:35:27 PM
    • Wikipedia
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #57 on: October 30, 2017, 07:24:50 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 without the incentive of a light rail transfer vs. a bus transfer for those north-south riders.

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1527
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:35:27 PM
    • Wikipedia
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #58 on: October 30, 2017, 07:26:21 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).

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 618
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 10:13:46 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #59 on: October 30, 2017, 10:12:28 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 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?
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1527
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:35:27 PM
    • Wikipedia
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #60 on: October 30, 2017, 11:12:33 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 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.



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



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

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11727
  • Views expressed are my own, not my employer's.

  • Age: 35
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 08:31:04 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #61 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.
Logged
~ Steve
http://www.alpsroads.net
I've listened many times, and I still can't figure out what the fox says.

"YOUR NAME IS NAMED AFTER A BUTT"

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 392
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:25:25 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #62 on: October 31, 2017, 02:10:01 AM »

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 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

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8103
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 09:48:03 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #63 on: October 31, 2017, 02:40:42 AM »

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 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

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.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2017, 02:42:50 AM by jakeroot »
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2171
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:51:36 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #64 on: October 31, 2017, 09:35:18 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"

Now, talking about unbiased assess of information....
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4507
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: August 15, 2018, 12:49:21 AM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #65 on: October 31, 2017, 01:56:52 PM »

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:
Logged

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 392
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:25:25 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #66 on: October 31, 2017, 03:35:46 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 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

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.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4109
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:51:54 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #67 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.         
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8103
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 09:48:03 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #68 on: October 31, 2017, 06:24:55 PM »

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.
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2171
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:51:36 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #69 on: October 31, 2017, 06:51:37 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...
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8103
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 09:48:03 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #70 on: October 31, 2017, 08:06:23 PM »

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?

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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4109
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:51:54 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #71 on: October 31, 2017, 09:14:32 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"!).                 
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1527
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:35:27 PM
    • Wikipedia
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #72 on: November 01, 2017, 02:14:42 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.

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2171
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:51:36 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #73 on: November 01, 2017, 11:10:52 AM »

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...
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4109
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:51:54 PM
Re: No More Freeways PDX
« Reply #74 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!
Logged

 


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