Portland Metro Freeway/Highway/Roads News and Discussions

[dubu]

they should have built the freeway so the whole thing was elevated by the river. it could have been nice

[hat]

Originally Posted by Abide

Despite the "structurally deficient" tag, isn't the Fremont more in danger of failure in a major quake than the Marquam is? I've read that the Marquam style box truss bridge type is extremely resilient, however, Fremont style tied-arch bridges have a whole section under their Wikipedia entry titled "Issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tied-arch_bridge

Fremont's condition is ok, not great (6s across the board). But it is certainly not structurally deficient.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by dabom

they should have built the freeway so the whole thing was elevated by the river. it could have been nice

Or elevate the river and build the freeway at ground level.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Or elevate the river and build the freeway at ground level.

They should've just built the freeway directly into the river. Carboats.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by Derek

They should've just built the freeway directly into the river. Carboats.

are you talking car/boat hybrids, or ferries? or hybrid ferries ferrying gas/electric/car/boat hybrids?

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by eric cantona

are you talking car/boat hybrids, or ferries? or hybrid ferries ferrying gas/electric/car/boat hybrids?

Salmon cars makes more sense if we are gonna seriously talk about moving the interstate to the river.

[dubu]

or have robots do all the work for us so we dont have to drive some place every day

[Encolpius]

+1

[hat]

Streetfilms video of the potential savings and development in Dallas if the freeway through downtown were removed. Removing I-5 always gets kneejerk reactions about how necessary it is. Having a study like this would be helpful to reinforce the argument of how useless it actually is.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by hat

Streetfilms video of the potential savings and development in Dallas if the freeway through downtown were removed. Removing I-5 always gets kneejerk reactions about how necessary it is. Having a study like this would be helpful to reinforce the argument of how useless it actually is.

That video isn't persuasive at all to me. It relies on false statements like the one about how freeways have never improved neighborhoods, as well as assuming that all the underdeveloped property near it would suddenly get developed.

Removing a freeway can be a great thing, especially if it's a stub or been replaced. The only discussion they had was that eliminating longer trips (including freight movement?) is good. As part of a loop system removing that freeway also would include either a lot of gridlock or reconfiguring other ramps in a dense urban environment. That and a combination of more traffic on the urban streets that people already walk and live on.

In San Diego extending I-15 (officially California Route 15) between I-8 and I-805 seemed to improve the neighborhood a lot, but it was done as a below grade freeway with streetscape improvements to the roads it connected to. It also had a park deck put overtop of the freeway which seemed to help as well.

Removing a freeway won't magically cause development, and assuming it will is just one of their problems. It can be part of a solution, but so can rebuilding it to actually fit the neighborhoods.

[hat]

Originally Posted by davehogan

In San Diego extending I-15 (officially California Route 15) between I-8 and I-805 seemed to improve the neighborhood a lot...

Hmm... perhaps we should ask some of the people living next to the freeway.

[tworivers]

I think removing the Eastbank Freeway will happen in the next 15-20 years. Anything besides removal won't be worth the astronomical cost to society. Whether the Marquam stays in some fashion (the current I-5 could be turned into an arterial on one of the bridge levels) or is removed entirely remains to be seen. But eventually there will be tremendous pressure to re-make the East Bank into an urban, people-first place that re-centers a mixed-use, 24-hour city center around the river. Maybe by then we'll have the cultural and financial pieces in place to construct a contemporary arts center on the river. A Millennium-style walking bridge. A ferry system. Who knows.

Portland needs to make some other transitions first IMO, starting with some combination of tolling and a comprehensive income/vehicle-based VMT tax. We need to fix our funding issues. But right now I think the #1 obstacle to getting the ball rolling is political will and progressive vision. Our current city council/PBOT admin can't even put NE 28th on a road diet or do a re-design of Williams Ave right. A big, complex, controversial project like this just isn't "possible" in the current climate. With something like freeway removal, numerous powerful interests would obviously need to be satisfied, or simply over-powered, in the name of a massive civic gift. Freight interests, for example, would presumably need some sort of exclusive ramp access to 84 and there would need to be systems in place to control demand on what is currently 405 -- something that would probably start at the 3 interchanges with 205, i.e. you'd want to encourage through traffic to avoid traversing the central city. Everyone else would pay to use the central city highway system. Taking our public transit system to the next level will also be crucial, some of which has to do with policy at the federal level. And on and on.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by tworivers

I think removing the Eastbank Freeway will happen in the next 15-20 years.

I really hope you're right. It's absolutely tragic that SE is cut off from the river by that monstrosity. I have no idea what the future of the Marquam Bridge will be, but it's going to need some major work in the near future and that will probably get the conversation started regarding its future. I remember reading a report a few years ago that said rehabbing it would exceed the cost of replacing it

[hat]

Little comic that sums up typical freeway-always-improves-things ideology.

[hat]

Originally Posted by tworivers

I think removing the Eastbank Freeway will happen in the next 15-20 years. Anything besides removal won't be worth the astronomical cost to society. Whether the Marquam stays in some fashion (the current I-5 could be turned into an arterial on one of the bridge levels) or is removed entirely remains to be seen. But eventually there will be tremendous pressure to re-make the East Bank into an urban, people-first place that re-centers a mixed-use, 24-hour city center around the river. Maybe by then we'll have the cultural and financial pieces in place to construct a contemporary arts center on the river. A Millennium-style walking bridge. A ferry system. Who knows.

Portland needs to make some other transitions first IMO, starting with some combination of tolling and a comprehensive income/vehicle-based VMT tax. We need to fix our funding issues. But right now I think the #1 obstacle to getting the ball rolling is political will and progressive vision. Our current city council/PBOT admin can't even put NE 28th on a road diet or do a re-design of Williams Ave right. A big, complex, controversial project like this just isn't "possible" in the current climate. With something like freeway removal, numerous powerful interests would obviously need to be satisfied, or simply over-powered, in the name of a massive civic gift. Freight interests, for example, would presumably need some sort of exclusive ramp access to 84 and there would need to be systems in place to control demand on what is currently 405 -- something that would probably start at the 3 interchanges with 205, i.e. you'd want to encourage through traffic to avoid traversing the central city. Everyone else would pay to use the central city highway system. Taking our public transit system to the next level will also be crucial, some of which has to do with policy at the federal level. And on and on.

Yep. Spot on. Perhaps one necessary addition for this transition: No. Free. Public. Parking. What a cultural change this would bring about.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by hat

Yep. Spot on. Perhaps one necessary addition for this transition: No. Free. Public. Parking. What a cultural change this would bring about.

curious - has any city/state/region provided a single lane for truck traffic only? I wonder what would happen if, say, you changed the HOV lane on I-5 heading to the 'Couv into a truck only lane all the way north of Ridgefield. how would that effect the rest of the traffic? personally, if it moves trucks faster and slows all the commuter traffic I think smart growth advocates should be down with the idea. is it just crazy enough of an idea to work?

others thoughts?

[hat]

Originally Posted by eric cantona

curious - has any city/state/region provided a single lane for truck traffic only? I wonder what would happen if, say, you changed the HOV lane on I-5 heading to the 'Couv into a truck only lane all the way north of Ridgefield. how would that effect the rest of the traffic? personally, if it moves trucks faster and slows all the commuter traffic I think smart growth advocates should be down with the idea. is it just crazy enough of an idea to work?

others thoughts?

I think it's an excellent idea. Though for interstate traffic (say driving through the entire Portland metro area), it seems possible to limit trucks to 205. There's really no need for traffic bypassing the metro area to pass through the center of the city. This might further reduce the need for I5.

Also, as much as I dislike the idea of building new freeways, the Westside bypass advocates have a point for freight traffic to bypass Portland.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by eric cantona

curious - has any city/state/region provided a single lane for truck traffic only? I wonder what would happen if, say, you changed the HOV lane on I-5 heading to the 'Couv into a truck only lane all the way north of Ridgefield. how would that effect the rest of the traffic? personally, if it moves trucks faster and slows all the commuter traffic I think smart growth advocates should be down with the idea. is it just crazy enough of an idea to work?

others thoughts?

it's crazy, but won't work. The freight lobby is wise, but not that strong. Freight traffic already causes most of the physical damage to roadways. Giving up a lane of the most congested highway in the region to freight would be a non-starter. We'd be more likely to see a tolled facility before we see a freight-only lane.

The only freight-only facility I know of is in Long Beach, CA, but I think even that is open to cars, but it's just not used by anything but freight because it leads from the port terminals to major roads.

I would be opposed to giving any roadway to freight without recouping the cost. Freight is a business and truck traffic is the most inefficient version of it. I would tax the hell out of it.

[davehogan]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

The only freight-only facility I know of is in Long Beach, CA, but I think even that is open to cars, but it's just not used by anything but freight because it leads from the port terminals to major roads.

Rt 47? I've driven a Honda Civic on it. They just don't expect it.

[hat]

"This is about far more than making things tough for drivers, however. The space freed up from redirecting cars will be broad enough to create a wide promenade, shaded by trees and with space for children’s playgrounds and sports facilities."

No. Not Portland yet. Paris plans to remove all the car-focused areas along the Seine. When will we figure this out?

Citylab article.