Portland Metro Freeway/Highway/Roads News and Discussions

[hat]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Great! A city and country(Spain) that was developed before the automobile is surely comparable to a country and city that was either founded after the auto or developed heavily around it.

I'd also like to see something long term as 9 days could just be said as people checking it out as it is new. Most people will check out changes and then it's business as normal.

I have no idea what any of this means.

[cab]

We've had dense cities for 4,000 years now. The car oriented suburbs (which is what many cities are in the US) are really the experiment. Without cheap oil or cheap movement, how long do they last? It seems suburban car oriented cities are nothing more than a subsidized design pattern with no long term potential. They are inefficient and dehumanizing. I think most of the world will stick with 4,000 years of successful building format over a subsidized inherently inefficient anomaly.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by cab

We've had dense cities for 4,000 years now. The car oriented suburbs (which is what many cities are in the US) are really the experiment. Without cheap oil or cheap movement, how long do they last? It seems suburban car oriented cities are nothing more than a subsidized design pattern with no long term potential. They are inefficient and dehumanizing. I think most of the world will stick with 4,000 years of successful building format over a subsidized inherently inefficient anomaly.

eloquent and delightfully on point. love it!

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by cab

We've had dense cities for 4,000 years now. The car oriented suburbs (which is what many cities are in the US) are really the experiment. Without cheap oil or cheap movement, how long do they last?

Exactly as long as oil is cheap. Doesn't anyone remember the recession? We had like 8 million abandoned houses in the suburbs!

That was gas at $4/gallon. Europe has gas @$8-$9/gallon.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Originally Posted by hat

I have no idea what any of this means.

I believe this person is saying that the Gran Via was developed before cars were the primary mode of transportation in central Madrid.

The sales figures for a short period after a grand opening can be highly misleading. Was the baseline period during construction to make it car free?

[hat]

Originally Posted by Pavlov's Dog

I believe this person is saying that the Gran Via was developed before cars were the primary mode of transportation in central Madrid.

The sales figures for a short period after a grand opening can be highly misleading. Was the baseline period during construction to make it car free?

Ok. Seems irrelevant. Vancouver was developed while cars were the primary mode of transportation. And they have met a bike/transit mode share of 50% through similar means. Simply because a place was designed before cars were the primary means does not preclude their redesign. It just means there are more people who think roads are only for cars.

During holiday. Arguably not a a good sample for baseline. Poor research IMO. However, the convergence of evidence on road closures and protected bike lanes in central cities and their consistent increase on sales is pretty compelling. Here's another review out of the Uk. Here is some data on economic/safety benefits of PBLs. Research on air quality improvement for pedestrianization.

[maccoinnich]

From Ted Wheeler's State of the City address:

There is another vision, with regard to the river, that we should begin looking at with serious intentions. I mentioned that we walled off the Willamette with highways. First the Harbor Freeway where Tom McCall Park is now, and later the Marquam Bridge and I-5 on the Eastside.

The latter has further separated us from the river, created a physical divide between east and west Portland, stunted development opportunities, and created an environmental hazard damaging both water and air quality.

This multi-generational mistake will probably not be resolved in my lifetime. But someday it will be. Someday the economic value of the land, along with the health and social benefits, will outweigh the cost of burying it. I will ask the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability to begin early concepting for the burial or removal of I-5 on the Eastside. If future funds are identified at the federal level, I want Portland to be prepared to take advantage of the opportunity. We need to start building support now, so that perhaps future generations of Portlanders can complete it.

Some might call me crazy, but I was in Boston when they started talking about removing the highway running between the downtown core and Boston Harbor. People thought it would be impossible at first. It took them a quarter of a century, but they did it. Seattle is in the process of re-visioning the area of the Alaska Viaduct.

Portland has done it before, by turning the Harbor Freeway into a signi cant park and community gathering space. We can do it again by addressing I-5 on the Eastside.

(For reference: the Below Grade I-5 Concept Plan, developed while Sam Adams was Mayor).

[urbanlife]

I would rather see that money go to expanding light rail and streetcar lines, but I wouldn't be against burying I-5 through downtown. Of course, if we are gonna spend that much money to bury something, why not do a subway system, get more bang for the buck. Plus the east side of the river is industrial land, I won't want to see condos encroaching that district.

[stan]

Burying I-5 is a great idea, getting rid of six lane highway from the middle of central city would be even better. That said, I'm not sure how you can bury I-5 and maintain the central eastside as an industrial sanctuary. With the expanded EOS overlay coming land prices will rise even if there isn't some dramatic rezoning in 10-15 years from now.

Eliminating I-5 as a barrier, will only accelerate the change in land use patterns. Not saying this a good or bad thing, but given all the lip service to preserving maker spaces, don't see it as tenable.

[innovativethinking]

One day in the far future folks will read our posts about this and talk about how this was a dream for a lot of ppl many many years ago. Crazy to think about..

Personally this will be so far out from even happening it's discouraging to even think about

[cityscapes]

Originally Posted by stan

Burying I-5 is a great idea, getting rid of six lane highway from the middle of central city would be even better. That said, I'm not sure how you can bury I-5 and maintain the central eastside as an industrial sanctuary. With the expanded EOS overlay coming land prices will rise even if there isn't some dramatic rezoning in 10-15 years from now.

Eliminating I-5 as a barrier, will only accelerate the change in land use patterns. Not saying this a good or bad thing, but given all the lip service to preserving maker spaces, don't see it as tenable.

That area was industrial before the Interstate Highway System.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

That area was industrial before the Interstate Highway System.

That was a much different time, and the value of waterfront property is much higher. Protecting our industrial land within the core of the city is extremely important to the life of the city.

[RainDog]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Protecting our industrial land within the core of the city is extremely important to the life of the city.

What is the argument here? What are the economic/social benefits of industrial land within the city center specifically?

Let us say hypothetically that every industrial business moved from the CEID to some place like West Hayden Island. What would be lost? What is the negative impact of have industrial land on the periphery as opposed to the center of the city?

[hat]

There are several posts on the bikeportland blog related to the I-5 RQ freeway project estimated at $450 million.

https://bikeportland.org/2017/08/29/...y-fight-240692

https://bikeportland.org/2017/08/30/...project-240799

https://bikeportland.org/2017/08/31/...rojects-240988

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by hat

There are several posts on the bikeportland blog related to the I-5 RQ freeway project estimated at $450 million.

https://bikeportland.org/2017/08/29/...y-fight-240692

https://bikeportland.org/2017/08/30/...project-240799

https://bikeportland.org/2017/08/31/...rojects-240988

I am a huge bike and alternative transportation advocate, but everyone should be fine with expanding I-5 through the Rose Quarter because it makes sense. There is no point for I-5 to go from three lanes to two lanes and back to three lanes for no reason. It should be three lanes in each direction. This is an unnecessary bottleneck that needs to be corrected.

[innovativethinking]

Portland traffic is beyond terrible. We need to stop worrying about bikes and focus on our freeways

[maccoinnich]

innovative1950sthinking

[innovativethinking]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

innovative1950sthinking

Look at our freeways bud. There packed and have terrible planning. It was recently reported that rush hour is now characterized at anytime. Not the way it use to be during only designated times.

While we worried and worried about bike lanes and light rail we neglected our freeways

[mhays]

Then you'd have more cars. It's next to impossible to build your way out of traffic in a growing city. Many tens of billions of dollars and an enormous amount of destruction would be required, and the result would suck for everything other than the act of driving across the metro.

Anyway, people can make location decisions based on what cities do stuff they like.

[maccoinnich]

If you think bike projects are stealing money from road projects, your perception is way off. Just by way of comparison, here are some recent road projects (and their cost) followed by some recent bike projects (and their cost):

Recent Portland Metro Area Road Projects:

• Rose Quarter Widening ~$450 million [pending]
• Sunrise Corridor (Phase I) $139 million
• Sandy River I-5 Bridge $92.7 million
• Iowa Street Viaduct $38 million
• OR 217 Modernization Project $50 million

Recent Portland Metro Area Bike Projects:

• Central City Multimodal Project $9 million [pending]
• Flanders Crossing and Greenway $5.9 million [pending]
• Twenties Bikeway $4.5 million
• N Williams Safety Project $1.5 million

The entire Central City Multimodal Project, intended to build out a network of protected bike lanes in the central city, would only be a rounding error in the cost of widening I5 through the Rose Quarter (which was recently part-funded by the Oregon legislature).