HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #401  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2020, 5:59 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Getting rid of bottlenecks IS increasing capacity. They're playing word games.

I'm on the fence about that sort of upgrade in theory (in my city up north). But a 36' widening would probably flip it to a "no" in my mind unless major non-car benefits were included, like new bike lanes and caps.

I imagine some of the widening would be due to federal highway standards, not just state. But reassigning fault doesn't make it a better project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #402  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2020, 6:36 PM
Rob Nob Rob Nob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 242
Are there any Interstates or modern via-duct style highways that have actually improved an urban area design wise? All I can think is how much better parts of the city I love would be without them.
Seems like a less and less "necessary evil" that we should really keep to a minimum moving forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #403  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2020, 8:32 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Getting rid of bottlenecks IS increasing capacity. They're playing word games.

I'm on the fence about that sort of upgrade in theory (in my city up north). But a 36' widening would probably flip it to a "no" in my mind unless major non-car benefits were included, like new bike lanes and caps.

I imagine some of the widening would be due to federal highway standards, not just state. But reassigning fault doesn't make it a better project.
The problem with this is the bottleneck through the corridor would still exist. Only two lanes in each direction would continue through the corridor and connect to three lane highway on each side like it currently does.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #404  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2020, 3:45 PM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
Totally agreed, urbanlife. Increasing overall capacity of the freeway system in this area would mean additional lanes through, which this project doesn't propose. Getting those vehicles that are transferring from one highway to another off the through lanes creates a smoother transition, but as has been pointed out, the bottleneck will still exist. The merits of keeping the bottleneck or making through-capacity consistent could be argued, but to say this project 'increases capacity for the corridor' is a bit of a red herring.

From my perspective in Sacramento, I would LOVE to see a project like this here, more in relation to the capping and bridge projects. We have some ramping issues at the 1-5 and US 50 interchange, and if we could cap more of I-5 downtown where it cuts off the city from the river, that would be huge win. Not holding my breath that Caltrans would ever take that bold and needed step though. While not knowing all the gritty politics (and I suspect no one here does either, unless someone has an inside scoop...?), ODOT appears to have a well balanced proposal of highway-focused and city-focused aspects to this project.
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #405  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2020, 2:05 AM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...ew-needed.html

Quote:
Rose Quarter freeway project does not need additional environmental review, state commission says
Updated 4:51 PM; Today 12:49 PM
By Andrew Theen | The Oregonian/OregonLive

A more than $715 million transportation project to widen Interstate 5 through the Rose Quarter, a 1.8-mile stretch that state officials call one of the nation’s worst bottlenecks, does not require a more extensive environmental study that would delay construction for three years.

That’s according to the Oregon Transportation Commission, the state’s top decision-making body for highway and freeway projects. The commission, which is comprised of volunteers appointed by the governor, voted unanimously Thursday against pursuing an Environmental Impact Statement, a lengthier federal review process that at one point was a key talking point pushed by Portland area politicians.

“I think we need to move forward with a decision,” Chair Bob Van Brocklin, a Portland attorney said before the vote in a meeting held by conference call and live-streamed through the state’s YouTube channel.

The five commissioners from all around Oregon agreed.
...(continues)
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #406  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2020, 4:08 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Oh good, that's gonna be a great way to flush a billion dollars down the toilet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #407  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 7:23 PM
uncommon.name's Avatar
uncommon.name uncommon.name is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 444
Quote:
Interstate 5 Rose Quarter project is getting bigger and more expensive
After years of wrangling, the Oregon Transportation Commission has granted conditional approval for a plan to widen Interstate 5 through Portland’s Rose Quarter corridor. The original funding was approved by the Oregon Legislature in 2017. The newest plan includes “caps” over the freeway to enable some redevelopment of the former Albina district, the historically Black neighborhood that I-5 destroyed when the highway was initially constructed. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about how all this will work, and where the money will come from...
Read more at OPB...
__________________
Passion for Landscape and Architectural photography. Check out my flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #408  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 7:46 PM
CorbinWarrick CorbinWarrick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 555
Well to be fair if they hadn’t wasted time bickering over this it would have been cheaper years ago
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #409  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2021, 6:30 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick View Post
Well to be fair if they hadn’t wasted time bickering over this it would have been cheaper years ago
Sort of, it was only cheaper before because it didn't include caps, then it included nondevelopable caps. Now it includes caps that can be developed.

Granted, a highway project that just extends off ramps that doesn't address the actual traffic issues probably shouldn't happen to begin with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #410  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2021, 3:13 PM
downtownpdx's Avatar
downtownpdx downtownpdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,671
I have mixed feelings about this one. I'm glad the Albina plan has been included, and hopefully it really results in some quality stitching together of that neighborhood. I'm typically against widening freeways. But this is a true bottleneck on one of the busiest stretched of I-5 on the west coast. To have it randomly narrow to 2 through lanes at this point makes no sense. I get the argument of induced demand. But this just seems like a case where a freeway that's constantly in gridlock should be "unchoked". It's not like we're building a Houston style 12 lane monstrosity. On the other hand, if it creates an overhang at the waterfront path... ugh I really don't like that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #411  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2021, 4:05 PM
CorbinWarrick CorbinWarrick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownpdx View Post
I have mixed feelings about this one. I'm glad the Albina plan has been included, and hopefully it really results in some quality stitching together of that neighborhood. I'm typically against widening freeways. But this is a true bottleneck on one of the busiest stretched of I-5 on the west coast. To have it randomly narrow to 2 through lanes at this point makes no sense. I get the argument of induced demand. But this just seems like a case where a freeway that's constantly in gridlock should be "unchoked". It's not like we're building a Houston style 12 lane monstrosity. On the other hand, if it creates an overhang at the waterfront path... ugh I really don't like that.
Totally agree. It’s just fixing one section of a “clogged artery”..

Regarding the overhang that part definitely sucks but at this point the Esplanade is so loud and so unwelcoming with the freeway next to it, does it really even matter at this point?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #412  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2021, 5:52 PM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbinWarrick View Post
Regarding the overhang that part definitely sucks but at this point the Esplanade is so loud and so unwelcoming with the freeway next to it
Have to agree that parts of the Esplanade are unpleasant.

I don't see anything about this overhang, though -- where did you see that? I don't even really see how this project extends far enough south to affect the esplanade. ??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #413  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2021, 9:02 PM
uncommon.name's Avatar
uncommon.name uncommon.name is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownpdx View Post
I have mixed feelings about this one. I'm glad the Albina plan has been included, and hopefully it really results in some quality stitching together of that neighborhood. I'm typically against widening freeways. But this is a true bottleneck on one of the busiest stretched of I-5 on the west coast. To have it randomly narrow to 2 through lanes at this point makes no sense. I get the argument of induced demand. But this just seems like a case where a freeway that's constantly in gridlock should be "unchoked". It's not like we're building a Houston style 12 lane monstrosity. On the other hand, if it creates an overhang at the waterfront path... ugh I really don't like that.
The thing that most people fail to look at when using the "induced demand" argument, is that this isn't a true freeway widening project. This is just connecting on/off ramps as auxillary lanes and improves access so that the existing thru lanes can flow better. The freeway is 3 lanes in each direction both north and south of this bottle neck so even a widening to 3 lanes through rose quarter wouldn't fall under the parameters of "induced demand" and would fix a lane mathmatics problem. I'm happy that they are including the Albina Vision into the design of this and the freeway cap will definitely help repair the torn neighborhood. My concern is that it will hamper future transportation expansion needs if say... Portland continues to grow?
__________________
Passion for Landscape and Architectural photography. Check out my flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #414  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2021, 9:54 PM
downtownpdx's Avatar
downtownpdx downtownpdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by bvpcvm View Post

I don't see anything about this overhang, though -- where did you see that? I don't even really see how this project extends far enough south to affect the esplanade. ??
Sounds like they scrapped that part of the expansion -- a 1,200 foot section would have had wider shoulders and resulted in the freeway jutting out over the esplanade. Phew! Glad they listened to the critics. Not sure what part of the freeway they were talking about though.

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...r-closure.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #415  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2021, 10:23 PM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownpdx View Post
Sounds like they scrapped that part of the expansion -- a 1,200 foot section would have had wider shoulders and resulted in the freeway jutting out over the esplanade. Phew! Glad they listened to the critics. Not sure what part of the freeway they were talking about though.

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...r-closure.html
Got it, thanks! Glad to see this won't be happening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #416  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2021, 11:10 PM
uncommon.name's Avatar
uncommon.name uncommon.name is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 444
Quote:

Hayden Island community introduced to three interchange options for Interstate Bridge
The three options centered around whether or not to have I-5 interchanges on Hayden Island. Their choices were for a full interchange with on and off ramps to the interstate in both north and southbound directions. Second was no interchanges, but access via two “local” bridges after traffic uses the Marine Drive interchanges on I-5. Third was a “half interchange.” It served Vancouver and Southwest Washington residents with a southbound exit off the freeway, and then an onramp to I-5 north for the return trip across the river...
Continue reading and watch video at Clark County Today...
__________________
Passion for Landscape and Architectural photography. Check out my flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #417  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2021, 8:01 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownpdx View Post
I have mixed feelings about this one. I'm glad the Albina plan has been included, and hopefully it really results in some quality stitching together of that neighborhood. I'm typically against widening freeways. But this is a true bottleneck on one of the busiest stretched of I-5 on the west coast. To have it randomly narrow to 2 through lanes at this point makes no sense. I get the argument of induced demand. But this just seems like a case where a freeway that's constantly in gridlock should be "unchoked". It's not like we're building a Houston style 12 lane monstrosity. On the other hand, if it creates an overhang at the waterfront path... ugh I really don't like that.
Fun fact, this widening won't actually fix this problem. It will still bottleneck. All that ODOT would be doing is connecting the off/onramps for 84 and 405 together. Then will be adding a wider pull off zone for accidents and emergency vehicles, and that's it. It's seriously going to a huge waste of money that will be a pain in the ass for commuters for years and then do nothing to improve traffic or get rid of a weird bottleneck.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #418  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2021, 10:22 AM
downtownpdx's Avatar
downtownpdx downtownpdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,671
I need to look at the plans more closely, but if they're extending a lane from 405 to I5 SB all the way to 84 EB, it seems that would relieve the bottleneck that occurs where that lane currently disappears at the Broadway exit, right? That's where the bottleneck occurs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #419  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2021, 7:21 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownpdx View Post
I need to look at the plans more closely, but if they're extending a lane from 405 to I5 SB all the way to 84 EB, it seems that would relieve the bottleneck that occurs where that lane currently disappears at the Broadway exit, right? That's where the bottleneck occurs.
Exactly. I drive the 84 to the Fremont Bridge when coming into the office and the dropped lane forcing me into the I5 through traffic, only to change lanes again to get onto the bridge approach, that is also an onramp for traffic coming from the Lloyd District, is absolutely bonkers. There a delicate dance of cars switching lanes all over the place and traffic generally slows to a crawl while this is going on. I've also had people get nervous and practically hit me when realizing their lane turned into a exit only or whatnot. There's the same issue going south too when the 5 suddenly loses a lane to go down to two lanes before the 84 onramp.
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #420  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2021, 9:20 PM
CorbinWarrick CorbinWarrick is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownpdx View Post
Sounds like they scrapped that part of the expansion -- a 1,200 foot section would have had wider shoulders and resulted in the freeway jutting out over the esplanade. Phew! Glad they listened to the critics. Not sure what part of the freeway they were talking about though.

https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...r-closure.html
Oh ok that was the one I was talking about. Didn’t know they scrapped that. But I don’t mind it. The Esplanade although I totally understand it’s vision and idea, it’s just not a pleasant place to be. It sucks. Way to loud. Not really an inviting experience.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:48 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.