Portland Metro Freeway/Highway/Roads News and Discussions

[MarkDaMan]

https://www.wweek.com/news/2019/03/2...-highway-lids/

A Portland Neighborhood Atop Interstate 5? Even Avowed Foes of Rose Quarter Project Support Highway Lids
Albina Vision, the group working to restore the district’s African American identity, supports the caps but opposes interstate widening.
By Elise Herron | Published March 20 at 3:55 PM Updated March 20 at 3:55 PM

Portland might soon build new land atop Interstate 5.

The highway caps are part of Oregon Department of Transportation's Rose Quarter improvement plan. That plan also calls for the expansion of lanes of I-5 in the Rose Quarter, which drawn protest from community groups who say the highway project will hurt poor residents and people of color.

But those organizations do support ODOT's designs for highway lids—which would connect existing bridges to create one large, continuous cap for parks and new buildings to be built on.

Current renderings show proposed lids near Broadway, Williams and Weidler Streets and over I-5 connecting Vancouver Avenue with a new Hancock/Dixon Street over-crossing.

...(continues)

[hat]

Rukaiyah Adams letter to ODOT requestiong EIS.

"Buildable highway covers are necessary to restore the streetscape in lower Albina. The original construction of l-5 bulldozed hundreds of homes, and five decades later, nearly 90 acres of land remain under-developed in the central city. The original homes in lower Albina were never replaced. The impact on the Albina community, its neighborhood centers, its churches and schools, was never mitigated. Buildable highway covers are a critical environmental remediation for the proposed RQIP of today and the original l-5 construction of the 1950s."

[MarkDaMan]

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...er-report.html

Metro criticizes ODOT for ‘inadequate’ and ‘potentially misleading’ Rose Quarter report
Updated Apr 1, 2:16 PM; Posted Apr 1, 2:11 PM

By Andrew Theen | The Oregonian/OregonLive

Metro criticized Oregon’s Department of Transportation for an “inadequate” and “potentially misleading” analysis of its proposed $500 million project on Interstate 5 through the Rose Quarter.

The regional government’s planning staff sent a 7-page letter to state and federal highway officials Monday, the deadline for public comment on an Environment Assessment released by the state in mid-February.

Metro took aim at the state’s assertion that the key I-5 bottleneck is one of the most crash-prone areas, calling that analysis “inadequate,” while characterizing the argument that adding auxiliary lanes to the freeway doesn’t add or create more capacity on the freeway to the freeway as “potentially misleading.”

“This statement is not objectively true,” Elissa Gertler, Metro’s director of planning, wrote regarding the auxiliary lanes issue. She wrote that “further environmental documentation” could shed light on “the scale of the change.” BikePortland first reported on Gertler’s letter.

...(continues)

[uncommon.name]

Oregon’s I-5 Rose Quarter project proceeding despite concerns
By Liz Carey | February 27, 2020 | Transportation Today

Still three years away from the beginning of construction, the I-5 Rose Quarter Expansion project in Portland, Oregon, is moving forward, despite concerns about budget increases and environmental impact.

Continue reading...

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by uncommon.name

Continue reading...

related:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8..._daily_1023202

see also: induced demand.

[uncommon.name]

Originally Posted by eric cantona

related:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8..._daily_1023202

see also: induced demand.

Induced demand has been debunked by several other studies and in fact was originally a misguided interpretation of a paper written by Duranton & Turner

This is all very well explained here...

I-5's infrastructure has barely been updated or expanded through the core of the city since 1966 and the population of the metro area has gone from 755,000 to nearly 2.5 million in that time-frame. Even with the addition of our mass transit system and the continued growth and push for more public transit, bike lanes, etc... the area has simply outgrown the main artery through the City. This idea that increasing our freeway capacity is going to make the traffic worse is very misguided. When the population has more than tripled and the freeway capacity has barely changed, it is going to cause the 12 hours of daily congestion we see today.

[maccoinnich]

If induced demand has been "debunked" would you care to point to examples of large cities who have been successful at using freeway widening as a strategy for eliminating congestion, or even substantially lessening it?

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by uncommon.name

This is all very well explained here...

There are so many logical leaps in that article that I'm not sure where to start. And don't have time. This one, in particular, jumped out at me:

By comparison, building expensive transit systems aimed at getting people out of their less-expensive cars generates zero economic benefits if it generates no new travel. Only new travel generates economic benefits, so people who argue that new roads induce new travel are actually arguing that new roads create economic benefits.

Transit vs. SOV travel is not only an economic question but, more importantly, an equity question.

Overall he refutes an extreme position by postulating his own extreme position. Take a look through other articles he's posted there for reference.

[eric cantona]

Also: Climate Change

[MarkDaMan]

Do I wan't to weigh in here? I'm craving social interaction, so...

The I-5 through the 84 to Fremont is ridiculously outdated. It needs a severe renovation to smooth out the poorly planned mess that we have now. I don't believe in enlarging, but I also know in order to smooth out this corridor it will take a demolish and rebuild of several sections to accomplish this.

That said.

We should demand the public portions of the Albina Vision be a funded feature of this project. That includes freeway caps that can support both parks and buildings. A build out of our street level bicycling network in the area should be required. As well, a proper physical school to honor Harriet Tubman, rebuilt on property away from the current overcrowded freeway, should be funded and constructed as part of this renovation.

I believe we can leverage this project to build a better Portland and provide a safer corridor for highway traffic.

[winstonLT5]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

Do I wan't to weigh in here? I'm craving social interaction, so...

The I-5 through the 84 to Fremont is ridiculously outdated. It needs a severe renovation to smooth out the poorly planned mess that we have now. I don't believe in enlarging, but I also know in order to smooth out this corridor it will take a demolish and rebuild of several sections to accomplish this.

That said.

We should demand the public portions of the Albina Vision be a funded feature of this project. That includes freeway caps that can support both parks and buildings. A build out of our street level bicycling network in the area should be required. As well, a proper physical school to honor Harriet Tubman, rebuilt on property away from the current overcrowded freeway, should be funded and constructed as part of this renovation.

I believe we can leverage this project to build a better Portland and provide a safer corridor for highway traffic.

YouDaMan, MarkDaMan. I agree completely. The way anti-automobile groups are trying to frame this proposal as a major freeway expansion (in order to kill it) seems very specious to me. It's a partial fix of a horribly outdated interchange, and new auxiliary lanes simply allow for safer and more efficient throughput. It presents an opportunity for a major win-win for both ODOT and Albina Vision. A Columbia Crossing-type failure to engage would be an utter disaster. They need to find a way to get this done.

[NOPO]

Ugh, I don’t want this expansion to happen. We need this money for transit.

[tworivers]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

Do I wan't to weigh in here? I'm craving social interaction, so...

The I-5 through the 84 to Fremont is ridiculously outdated. It needs a severe renovation to smooth out the poorly planned mess that we have now. I don't believe in enlarging, but I also know in order to smooth out this corridor it will take a demolish and rebuild of several sections to accomplish this.

That said.

We should demand the public portions of the Albina Vision be a funded feature of this project. That includes freeway caps that can support both parks and buildings. A build out of our street level bicycling network in the area should be required. As well, a proper physical school to honor Harriet Tubman, rebuilt on property away from the current overcrowded freeway, should be funded and constructed as part of this renovation.

I believe we can leverage this project to build a better Portland and provide a safer corridor for highway traffic.

It's not about safety. If ODOT was doing this because of safety concerns they would do well to spend this money on our actual high-crash corridors where people die regularly.

Otherwise, I more or less agree with you Mark. I think the way that this megaproject has unfolded reveals the lack of visionary, forward-thinking leadership that has slowly infected our city over the past 15 years. In my opinion, PBOT should have used its considerable heft to negotiate a compromise where ODOT agreed to everything you listed as well as income-based tolling before construction and a commitment to move forward with the removal of I-5 from the east bank of the river in the next ten years. Instead, they saw dollar signs and no one stood up to say "wait..."

I don't think you're "anti-automobile" (I drive all the time) if you're committed to smart transportation projects that are in the public interest. We're talking about a billion dollars here for a project that increases freeway capacity and has so far been marked by a process that falls somewhere between treacherous and obfuscatory. In 2020. Come on.

Also, no. The concept of induced demand has hardly been debunked. There is truly interesting debate around the issue but that linked article is ideologically-straitjacketed propaganda from the arch-capitalist Cato Institute, an utterly untrustworthy organization that will forever be prioritizing "economic benefits" uber alle.

[NOPO]

Very well said, two rivers.

[RED_PDXer]

Induced demand has not been debunked, at all. Check out what happened in Boston after the $8 billion Big Dig project. A 2008 Boston Globe report asserted that waiting time for the majority of trips actually increased as a result of demand induced by the increased road capacity. Because more drivers were opting to use the new roads, traffic bottlenecks were only pushed outward from the city, not reduced or eliminated (although some trips are now faster).

That said, I would support a limited southbound auxiliary lane between Fremont Bridge and I-84, so that it doesn't narrow from 3 to 2 lanes anymore. But ODOT is proposing a megaproject with much, much more than that. Anytime ODOT gets a chunk of money to spend, their engineers go wild and try to force excessive highway standards with enormous shoulders. For example, they are proposing to widen I-5 over the Rose Quarter by about 18 feet in each direction (about 36 feet total). That's more than an auxiliary lane. The sad, inevitable outcome is that people drive faster in these autobahn-like conditions leading to more serious crashes than the fender benders that occur here and at the interstate bridge area.

[green_man]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

Induced demand has not been debunked, at all. Check out what happened in Boston after the $8 billion Big Dig project. A 2008 Boston Globe report asserted that waiting time for the majority of trips actually increased as a result of demand induced by the increased road capacity. Because more drivers were opting to use the new roads, traffic bottlenecks were only pushed outward from the city, not reduced or eliminated (although some trips are now faster).

That said, I would support a limited southbound auxiliary lane between Fremont Bridge and I-84, so that it doesn't narrow from 3 to 2 lanes anymore. But ODOT is proposing a megaproject with much, much more than that. Anytime ODOT gets a chunk of money to spend, their engineers go wild and try to force excessive highway standards with enormous shoulders. For example, they are proposing to widen I-5 over the Rose Quarter by about 18 feet in each direction (about 36 feet total). That's more than an auxiliary lane. The sad, inevitable outcome is that people drive faster in these autobahn-like conditions leading to more serious crashes than the fender benders that occur here and at the interstate bridge area.

Agreed. If ODOT had simply marketed this as a multimodal project that included auxiliary lanes rather than a huge expansion of the freeway's footprint, I doubt they'd be getting so much pushback (I don't recall the recent addition of auxiliary lanes to I-5 in Tualatin or I-205 generating so much as a ripple of controversy). The ever-increasing price tag definitely gives me pause, but if includes lidding the freeway I can accept it, especially if it incorporates the proposed Portland Green Loop.

[winstonLT5]

Originally Posted by green_man

Agreed. If ODOT had simply marketed this as a multimodal project that included auxiliary lanes rather than a huge expansion of the freeway's footprint, I doubt they'd be getting so much pushback (I don't recall the recent addition of auxiliary lanes to I-5 in Tualatin or I-205 generating so much as a ripple of controversy). The ever-increasing price tag definitely gives me pause, but if includes lidding the freeway I can accept it, especially if it incorporates the proposed Portland Green Loop.

In recent years auxiliary lanes have been added to stretches of Portland area freeways to improve traffic flow – all up and down O-217 (maybe not so recent there), on I-84 eastbound before the I-205N/PDX exit, on I-205 southbound just north of the Powell/Division exit, on I-205 northbound from I-84 to NE Sandy, and elsewhere. These projects weren't meant to expand freeway capacity but instead mitigate bottlenecks and reduce traffic weaving. Isn't that the main goal of this Rose Quarter project? Some are calling it a freeway expansion, but it's not as if a fourth through lane is being added in both directions in that corridor. Isn't it simply allowing for three through lanes (which I-5 is for miles and miles in either direction) and adding some auxiliary/exit-only lanes? Yes that does mean widening, especially when adding up-to-modern-standard shoulders, but that seems like a reasonable price to pay for consistent through lanes and increased safety, particularly if the surrounding neighborhood (and the city) benefits from a well-executed freeway cap. The devil is in the details of negotiating what that looks like in the end, but at least it seems like a solid starting point for negotiation, as opposed to being a non-starter.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by uncommon.name

Induced demand has been debunked by several other studies and in fact was originally a misguided interpretation of a paper written by Duranton & Turner

This is all very well explained here...

I-5's infrastructure has barely been updated or expanded through the core of the city since 1966 and the population of the metro area has gone from 755,000 to nearly 2.5 million in that time-frame. Even with the addition of our mass transit system and the continued growth and push for more public transit, bike lanes, etc... the area has simply outgrown the main artery through the City. This idea that increasing our freeway capacity is going to make the traffic worse is very misguided. When the population has more than tripled and the freeway capacity has barely changed, it is going to cause the 12 hours of daily congestion we see today.

The problem with this is the I-5 expansion isn't an actual expansion, they are just extending on and off ramps. This will not increase current capacity, so the traffic you see now will be the same or worse when this is finished with nothing really being improved and we will have blown probably a billion dollars at that point that could have been spent better.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

The problem with this is the I-5 expansion isn't an actual expansion, they are just extending on and off ramps. This will not increase current capacity, so the traffic you see now will be the same or worse when this is finished with nothing really being improved and we will have blown probably a billion dollars at that point that could have been spent better.

Auxiliary lanes do add capacity. The result is more through lanes are dedicated to travel through the area. Just a couple examples.

The auxiliary lane from I-405 N to I-84 will allow me to travel without getting onto any of the I-5 through lanes, freeing up capacity. The auxiliary lane from I-84E to to SE Market St (on I-205 S) allows me to travel without getting onto an I-205 S through lane.

I like them because they allow for more localized travel that doesn't clog surface streets.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

Auxiliary lanes do add capacity. The result is more through lanes are dedicated to travel through the area. Just a couple examples.

The auxiliary lane from I-405 N to I-84 will allow me to travel without getting onto any of the I-5 through lanes, freeing up capacity. The auxiliary lane from I-84E to to SE Market St (on I-205 S) allows me to travel without getting onto an I-205 S through lane.

I like them because they allow for more localized travel that doesn't clog surface streets.

Except that ODOT has already said this wouldn't increase capacity. It would just add longer on and off ramps. It will be nice for those like you that won't have to change lanes to get through the area, but the stretch won't be able to handle more cars, so the traffic today (well not, today today, but normally) will look the same or worse after the project is completed.