Planners in Tallahassee, Florida are resisting calls to add more ramps to I-10, trying to prevent congestion:
“A lot of locals are using I-10,” said Tommie Speights, a spokesman for the department. “That’s what’s causing the congestion.”
Planners in Tallahassee, Florida are resisting calls to add more ramps to I-10, trying to prevent congestion:
“A lot of locals are using I-10,” said Tommie Speights, a spokesman for the department. “That’s what’s causing the congestion.”
46 responses to “Limiting Local Trips on Interstates”
What are the odds those same locals are moving all the way to left in order to be in the fast lane for 1/2 a mile, then crossing all the way back to the right for their exit?
“The more you add to (the interstate),” Reed said, “the more it’s going to get clogged.”
“A lot of locals are using I-10,” said Tommie Speights, a spokesman for the department. “That’s what’s causing the congestion.”
“That’s not what interstates are for,” Reed said.
Truly, these are words of wisdom.
The main difference between freeways in the US and freeways in Europe is because the Europeans built them around their cities, not through them. As a result, they are less congested.
The main difference between freeways in the US and freeways in Europe is because the Europeans built them around their cities, not through them. As a result, they are less congested.
Actually, in the US they build the freeways around the cities too. Then they build more city around the freeways. Then they build new freeways around that city. And on and on…
Thus we have “sprawl”.
This is why, in the US, “bypass” routes never *stay* bypasses.
“bypass” routes never *stay* bypasses.
From what I understand, US 97 through Bend is a good (non-Interstate) example of this. I think the present Bend Parkway is the second version of a bypass.
Also remember that Multnomah County insisted on fewer, more spread out interchanges on I-205 before allowing it to get built. Overall, I definitely agree that freeways should be for thru-travel.
I definitely agree that freeways should be for thru-travel.
I disagree in urban centers. The point of transportation is to provide access. The more access points there are the better. The problem is that we built freeways through urban centers instead of to them.
Any suggestion of limiting local trips on Interstates in the Portland Metro region is totally comical. PDOT is doing everything possible (streetcars clogging up high volume arterials, TriMet busses stopping to board passengers in travel lanes, curb extensions, narrowing streets and motor vehicle lanes, reduced speeds, traffic control devices, etc) with their transport funds to increase congestion and obstruct traffic flow on arterials. All these politically motivated obstructions increase fuel consumption for motorists and forces traffic not only onto freeways for neighborhood to neighborhood hops, but also adds to the number of drivers cutting through neighborhoods on residential streets.
If freeways are to be reserved for through traffic, then land use planning gurus must be willing to accept and plan for more free flowing local traffic on major arterials that pass through Portland neighborhoods, On the other hand, if the current trend of creating obstructions on local streets continues, transport officials need significantly create more freeway vehicle capacity.
Equally comical to this issue is the HOV lane on I-5 northbound. .First off, taking away the far left lane for use by the majority of taxpaying motorists and
designating it for high occupancy vehicles only is nothing more than a politically oriented agenda that creates more congestion. Additionally, drivers crossing over the remaining two full service lanes going between freeway ramps and the HOV lane only create even more congestion. This HOV lane is a total joke that only adds to the cost of congestion and increases the amount of fuel that drivers use.
Ed:
The main difference between freeways in the US and freeways in Europe is because the Europeans built them around their cities, not through them. As a result, they are less congested.
Bob T:
The original plan was to build them around the
cities, but local politics, being what it is,
brought the interstates into the central area.
Contrary to what a previous poster said — had
they originally ringed the cities the later
growth around the interstates would not have
the same problems as bringing an interstate
right into the original central core which
in most cases is never duplicated outside the core.
Bob Tiernan
had
they originally ringed the cities the later
growth around the interstates would not have
the same problems as bringing an interstate
right into the original central core
I205 is pretty congested and it wasn’t built through the core. The same is true of most of the beltways around major cities. The fact is that freeway access has tremendous value for development purposes. It doesn’t matter where you put the freeway, if it provides good access to a dense urban narket it is going to be congested.
The great irony of the Delta/Vanport widening of I-5…called by some a “freight project”…is that it will inhibit freight access to I-5 southbound from Columbia, Going and Greeley, especially if ramp meters are governed by traffic levels in the freeway lanes. Freight bypass lanes are needed at all three on ramps with guaranteed wait times.
This project, like the massive I-5 bridge proposal, is for Clark county commuters…done at the expense of north Portland residents and their access.
This project, like the massive I-5 bridge proposal, is for Clark county commuters…done at the expense of north Portland residents and their access.
Why is it, Portland even spends a sent to perpetuate the sprawling joke that is Vancouver? It really irks me that Vancouver needs a new I-5 bridge, not Portland, Vancouver needs light rail.
But then Portland has to pay for it~!?!?!? Portland is the reason Vancouver even grows. People looking to get into PDX and theoretically save money (which is BS) by living in sprawl. Sprawl is NOT cheaper than urban and transit friendly development.
I’ve tried more than 4 times. The lowest tax burden I’ve had was Florida, the auto vehicle costs more than made up the difference and was a multiple over what transit, auto costs, AND living costs me in Portland. No other city is even remotely close. New Orleans, Memphis, Madison, and others where just insane with hidden auto-based costs from being sprawling messes of non-organization.
Blagh, this has me riled up lately as I keep hearing about the stupid I-5 bridge. I’d almost rather it fall in the damnable river so I can stop hearing about all their self induced issues.
Because meanwhile, all us urban lifestylers and reasonably located people in PDX have barely a percentage of the issues.
blagh.
“Blagh, this has me riled up lately as I keep hearing about the stupid I-5 bridge. I’d almost rather it fall in the damnable river so I can stop hearing about all their self induced issues.”
Hear Hear. If they want to come to Portland, they should swim. And I-5 is 6 lanes north of Salem and south of Centralia, why does it need to be 14 (6 on I-5 proper and another 8 on I-205) in town? The stupid thing isn’t for local trips. Even assuming that all the people from Salem were trying to go to Vancouver, and all they people from Seattle were trying to go to Wilsonville, it is still too big.
Adron, you have it 100% correct. I lived in Vancouver when they defeated the light rail project (1994), and the only thing you can say is that they made their bed then and there.
For Oregon and especially for Portland to spend even a dime to facilitate more auto-dependent travel from Vancouver to Portland is simply obscene. The age of cheap oil is over; Clark Co. folks will not be able to afford the carburban commute for much longer no matter how much money you tax the Portland folks to do it.
Vancouver has a chip on its shoulder and Clark County has an even bigger one about being treated as a red-headed stepchild by Portland, and don’t even get one of the commuters started about the horror of having to pay Oregon income tax while living in income-tax free Washington. You’ll be there all night if you do. (Oddly, they don’t mind coming to Oregon to buy lots of things without sales tax.)
Any money spent on highways to serve Clark Co. folks simply winds up in sprawl developers’ pockets in North County.
Any money spent on highways to serve Clark Co. folks simply winds up in sprawl developers’ pockets in North County.
I think that is right. Developers will take the opportunity to build more houses in the most auto-dependent part of the region. That is going to increase traffic and congestion, not reduce it. As a result, no amount of capacity is going to reduce congestion – the only way to do that is to make the alternatives to creating congestion more attractive.
Ed Says:
The main difference between freeways in the US and freeways in Europe is because the Europeans built them around their cities, not through them. As a result, they are less congested
Bob T:
Yeah, but how congested are the streets in the city itself? Why is that better?
Bob Tiernan
Bob T:
had they originally ringed the cities the later
growth around the interstates would not have
the same problems as bringing an interstate
right into the original central core
Ross Williams Says:
I205 is pretty congested and it wasn’t built through the core.
Bob T:
I wasn’t claiming otherwise. The flaw with local
politicians in the 50s and 60s getting the interstates to run through city cores was that
there were bad designs to fit them in. For example, the Terwilliger curves, and the east
bank portionon the other side of the Marquam.
These are bad designs aesthetically (east bank)
and for driving (curves from Terwilliger up to other side of the Marquam).
Bob Tiernan
Terry, don’t forget about bikes. Some people ride bikes, and they all suck.
It’s not just to serve the Clark Co. commuters, but those going the other way. Traffic on the I-5 bridge is terrible even for those of us that work in Vancouver and live in Portland. Ignoring the problem won’t solve anything, and definitely won’t make Vancouver a self-sustainable type of community that it seems like everyone in Portland is hoping will happen.
Seven lanes of directional traffic over the Columbia is simply not enough. Look at what the Willamette allows for traffic. 26 lanes directionally between St Johns and I-205.
It’s worth mentioning that the only current way for most people to travel between Portland and Vancouver is on either Interstate 5 or Interstate 205. No options if you don’t want to get on the freeway, unless you own a boat (or know someone who does).
Jason, you bring up a good point. I don’t necessarily care if Portland adds more lanes to I-5 or I-205, I just want to see more lanes somewhere. Anywhere it’s added over time will be a supplement at the very least for what we already have. If trips deflect to alternate routes, it’s a plus for everyone.
Most freeways that are bumper to bumper are barely 10% over design capacity from what I understand. Funneling 15% of I-5’s traffic over a third bridge might make I-5 both more efficient as well as less costly to maintain.
Maybe an arterial drawbridge from N Portland Rd to Mill Plain isn’t a bad idea to start thinking about, even if I-5 is improved. Let the cities split it with a gas tax for all I care, if it makes it possible for me to get back to my office in Vancouver at 1 pm without a long delay.
It couldn’t hurt Jantzen Beach to have another outlet or two either. I almost always go over to the airport if I need something during my lunch, just because the Glenn Jackson is much more reliable.
If not, I go to downtown Vancouver, because I’m not going to risk the Interstate Bridge on my lunch hour. Maybe it’s better for Vancouver not to replace the bridge…
Dave –
The argument for more arterial connections across the Columbia has been made since the start of the Columbia River Crossing process. It was ridiculed by WASHDOT staff as not their job. “If the cities want to build a new bridge, let them, that isn’t what we are here for.” In short, WashDOT is in the business of building highways, not providing transportation options.
There is a large difference in the impact on land use from adding more local arterials and adding freeway capacity. There is also a difference in the impact they have on the adjacent street network. Just compare the Marquam and Hawthorne at rush hour.
Because meanwhile, all us urban lifestylers and reasonably located people in PDX have barely a percentage of the issues.
I suggest that for a two week period that we shut down all transportation links in and out of the “urban lifestyle” center (the central city) and see how all of those issues just go away.
Of course, there’ll be a little problem when there is an inability to transport food into the area. And since downtown is not free from oil, there will be no way for Portland’s police or fire departments to function, among other entities. Tens of thousands of downtown employees will have no ability to get to work affecting numerous large employers. Oregon’s banking system would come to a halt. PSU would not be able to function. Good Samaritan Hospital would essentially serve downtown only. And since the Multnomah County and U.S. court system would be shut off from the outside world, those systems would inevitably shut down as well, along with the prosecution of criminals.
And since fair is fair, there’d be no need for MAX as it serves the suburbs and promotes regional transportation; so Portland’s transit needs would be met by only the Streetcar and one or two bus routes; the rest of the MAX system would become three isolated segments (because they couldn’t travel through downtown); the bus system would largely operate normally but would terminate at the edge of downtown.
Be careful what you ask for. Yes, having transportation to outer regions does create problems, but it also solves problems – thus why we have it in the first place. There was once a time when there was little to no transportation infrastructure in this part of the country. There was also once a time when none of us lived here, nor our ancestors (unless one can claim Native American decendency – which my wife and son can.) So maybe the solution isn’t to rip up the transportation infrastructure – if you don’t like it here, there’s always London, or Paris, or Berlin. High taxes, high public transport services, and the urban lifestyle.
Why limit people’s choices? If they want to drive on the freeway, it should accomodate their request. Try driving around in D.T. Portland on the streets and see how fun it is…. Construction everywhere, potholes, vagrants crossing while drunk. If there was a nicer freeway, like a wider 405 or I-5 then we wouldn’t have to deal with the downtown morass so much!
We need the equivalent to a I-205 on the westside. Perhaps turn 217 into a freeway and go right up over the hill and connect to I-5 where 205 currently connects. Has anyone thought of this brilliant idea?
“Perhaps turn 217 into a freeway and go right up over the hill and connect to I-5 where 205 currently connects. Has anyone thought of this brilliant idea?”
Right. You can just go ahead and demolish St. Vincent’s Hospital along with all the rest of the houses on that hill behind it.
We need the equivalent to a I-205 on the westside.
Why do we need a heavily congested freeway on the westside?
Why do we need a heavily congested freeway on the westside?
Maybe to accomodate the 600,000+ people who are going to be moving here in the next 20 years?
?Why do we need a heavily congested freeway on the westside?”
I really can’t understand how anyone remotely paying attention to traffic and growth in our region can ask such a dumb question.
The answer is, for the exact same reason we built I-205 and the Glenn Jackson.
Confoundly it almost seems opoponets would have us now tear out the 205 and Glenn Jackson as a means to reduce congestion. After all, that would discourage all that uneccessary driving and light rail would replace the loss?
Maybe to accomodate the 600,000+ people who are going to be moving here in the next 20 years?
People aren’t moving here to sit on congested freeways. Quite the contrary. They are moving here in part because there are attractive alternatives. But what makes anyone think that I205’s congestion is a model to be repeated?
People aren’t moving here to sit on congested freeways. Quite the contrary. They are moving here in part because there are attractive alternatives. But what makes anyone think that I205’s congestion is a model to be repeated?
So you’re saying that the only reason people live here is because of MAX, the Portland Streetcar, the Aerial Tram, and bike lanes?
When I last checked most people moved here because of a job. Thus, the recent study that was publicized last week that showed that nearly 100% of Multnomah County’s population growth was Hispanic. I don’t think many Hispanics really care about the Streetcar or the Tram (not to sound racist, but face it – how many Hispanics ride those two modes of transport; or ride into Downtown Portland on MAX?)
What about all the growth occuring in Washington, Clackamas and Clark Counties – they surely aren’t happening because of the transportation “alternatives”; nor is the growth that is occurring in the Willamette Valley or in Bend/Redmond.
Why do companies move here? Is it because of light rail? Or is it because of favorable business conditions – an airport that is uncongested; freeways that have shorter “rush hours” than other cities; access to deep-draft shipping channels and two railroads; lower taxes (and no sales tax) compared to Washington and California?
Yes – some (small) businesses do locate near the MAX line. You know what – I know businesses that locate in Tualatin too, and in Sherwood, and in Oregon City, and Milwaukie, and Troutdale, and Vancouver, and McMinnville, and Salem. It isn’t the light rail that’s attracting them, it’s that there is a customer base – and a captive audience is always a good audience. Just imagine, a dry cleaning business located off a MAX station. That same business could just as easily exist across the street from the State Capitol (sans MAX), at Bridgeport Village (sans MAX), at Portland State University (sans MAX), near the outlet mall in Troutdale (sans MAX), or in downtown Tigard (sans MAX).
So as I understand it, I moved here from a city that had excellent mass transit serving my neighborhood, as well as less congested freeways, so that I could have similar transit service and much worse freeways? Not even close.
I moved here because it’s cheaper, my job was here, and I had no reason not to try PDX out. It’s a nice place, but definitely lacks planning to pay for it’s growth.
Yes, we can brag about our LRT, but there’s other cities with significant LRT that have better bus service and freeway access, if you choose the right neighborhood.
there’s other cities with significant LRT that have better bus service and freeway access,
There are other transportation alternatives than freeways, light rail and buses.
But I think a lot of people fail to see the connection between the kind of transportation alternatives provided and how the city develops. In southeast Portland, for instance, you have several choices of grocery stores all of which are accessible by auto without getting on a freeway, by transit and by walking for the dense population living near them. And, as Joe Cortright found in his study, Portland saves huge amounts of money as a result of that compact development. In many cities stores are built to serve people coming from much longer distances. People drive more. And that costs more money.
As for congested freeways, if you don’t drive on them it won’t bother you and they won’t be as congested for everyone else.
But I think a lot of people fail to see the connection between the kind of transportation alternatives provided and how the city develops.
So, just how is Seattle doing these days? More people, more jobs, more corporate headquarters, more educated people (i.e. college educated folks), more culture (access to arts, music, and other cultural programs or facilities), more desirable environment, better schools, more international commerce, more airline flights, and housing prices (a barometer of demand) are higher.
And they did all this without any light rail, but they sure have a lot of busses.
So San Diego, where I could walk to three grocery stores, tons of neighborhood bars and restaurants, several major bus routes, and the Trolley, not to mention several major cab areas doesn’t count because I also could have predictable freeway travel times?
Just because parts of it resemble Forest Grove, Tualatin, Tigard, West Linn, Demascus, Vancouver, Sherwood, Oregon City, Wilsonville, Milwaulkee, Lake Oswego, or even Portland it can’t count? It’s about where someone chooses to live, and the options given. San Diego has been willing to take ideas from Portland.
Portland will not admit other American cities can do anything right is the thing I keep hearing from you. Portland has good ideas, but the motion by some to refuse balance in planning (whether freeway, arteral or local vs. bike, ped or transit) seems to be a bit backwards.
Portland will not admit other American cities can do anything right is the thing I keep hearing from you. Portland has good ideas, but the motion by some to refuse balance in planning (whether freeway, arteral or local vs. bike, ped or transit) seems to be a bit backwards.
That’s not what I said.
What I said is that Portland has developed an over-reliance on light rail as the solution to growth and transportation planning, which has directly resulted in an ignorance of where people already live, work and play. This is very evident in the maintenance backlog that we currently have, plus the disinvestment in bus service.
Meanwhile, cities like Seattle ARE growing and haven’t used light rail (Seattle is just now building a light rail line).
Light rail is great, when it is truly balanced. Portland is not balanced – Portland is heavily slanted to light rail. If you ride a bus in Portland, you get the short end of the stick.
Don’t believe me? Do a search on Metro’s website for bus. Look at TriMet’s budgets. Look at TriMet’s “bus and rail projects” website. Look at the City of Portland’s website. Look at TriMet’s bus fleet and bus capacity.
I ride the bus every day, twice a day (if not more) and I sure see the results. When Metro and TriMet finally fess up and start investing in the bus service, then I’ll have no problem with a “balanced” transportation network. Right now MAX gets $10 for every $1 the busses get, and the busses carry 2/3rds of TriMet’s total passenger count. How is that balanced?
1/3rd of TriMet’s bus fleet is 14-17 years old and lacks air conditioning. How is that balanced?
TriMet considers new bus stop signs to be a major investment, but hasn’t added any new bus routes in years. Yet four new MAX lines have been added in the last decade. How is that balanced?
Erik –
Metro is involved in disbursing federal transportation money, it has no responsibility for transit operations, including bus, light rail, streetcar or commuter rail.
The other thing is that MAX is capital intensive. A lot is invested up front but operating costs are lower and ridership is higher. And MAX does not get $10 for every $1 buses get. In fact, MAX costs less per passenger in operating costs than buses.
Which is not to say there shouldn’t be improvements to bus service, their should and have been. Or that they shouldn’t buy new buses, they should and have.
BTW, how old is the oldest MAX car still in operation for comparison?
how old is the oldest MAX car still in operation for comparison?
21 years for the 100 series cars.
Metro is involved in disbursing federal transportation money, it has no responsibility for transit operations, including bus, light rail, streetcar or commuter rail.
You are ABSOLUTELY correct.
That means Metro controls the purse strings that feeds TriMet, and Metro controls how the money is spent.
And Metro has declared that virtually all the money go to light rail, am I not correct?
Has Metro earmarked any money for capital spending towards busses? No.
Has Metro earmarked any money towards new/replacement busses? No.
Has Metro earmarked any money towards non-light rail transit center improvements? No.
What has Metro earmarked money for? Sidewalks (a couple million dollars) and particulate filters.
Oh, and a few hundred million for light rail.
The other thing is that MAX is capital intensive. A lot is invested up front but operating costs are lower and ridership is higher. And MAX does not get $10 for every $1 buses get. In fact, MAX costs less per passenger in operating costs than buses.
According to TriMet’s own budget, MAX capital spending is 10 times that of bus capital spending. Read it for yourself at http://www.sos.state.or.us (look for audits, then local government audits, then search for TriMet).
I don’t give a damn if MAX is capital intensive. What it means is that it’s a convenient excuse to disinvest in bus service, and that TriMet (and the controller of the money, Metro) is going to focus hundreds of millions of dollars in investments on a select few transit routes, at the blatant disregard for the 2/3rds of TriMet riders that ride the bus; and to the blatant disregard of the square miles of the metro region that are served by the bus network but not MAX. TriMet/Metro’s service district includes far more than just the area 1/2 mile off the MAX line, and they have a LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to serve all residents, not just those they want to serve.
BTW, how old is the oldest MAX car still in operation for comparison?
The correct question is have any MAX cars reached their end of service life? And the answer is no, because TriMet is rebuilding the 100 series cars.
How many busses have reached the end of their service life? All of the 1400 and 1600s have; the 1700-1900s are at or near the end of their lives, and the 2000s and 2100s will be in just a few years. What’s TriMet’s plan to deal with this? When is Metro going to provide for a balanced transportation network that provides for adequate capital funding to maintain, grow and improve bus services?
“I don’t give a damn if MAX is capital intensive.”
You don’t care? Wow, you could have fooled me, you just posted an entire page about it.
Why not just build the access and charge a toll to get on. People with urgent needs to get places will get on and those that can drive on surface streets, bike or take the bus will do that.
That means Metro controls the purse strings that feeds TriMet
Uh, no, it doesn’t. TriMet is funded by a tax on employer payrolls. Metro has nothing to do with it.
am I not correct?
No you aren’t.
What has Metro earmarked money for?
Metro doesn’t earmark money. It allocates federal transportation dollars to various projects proposed by jurisdictions, including Trimet, that are included in the regional transportation plan.
I don’t give a damn if MAX is capital intensive. What it means is that it’s a convenient excuse to disinvest in bus service
There has been no “disinvestment” in bus service. To the contrary, by adding MAX service, bus service has been expanded. For instance, when Interstate MAX went into operation the number of service hours for buses in that area remained constant but were shifted to improve service on other routes. Far from disinvesting in bus riders, MAX has freed up buses to provide better service.
Your argument seems to be that replacing lightly used older buses with air-conditioned new buses is a priority over expanding bus service. I don’t buy that. And the federal new starts money, that makes up the bulk of the MAX capital investment, isn’t available to buy new buses. So the capital cost comparison has nothing to do with choices made by Metro or Trimet. They couldn’t buy new, air-conditioned buses with it even if they agreed that was the priority.
I’m not sure how we got from limiting Freeway access to MAX versus buses (Erik seems to always find a way), but I think we have to admit that as TriMet has continue to expand the Light Rail system (a goal I heartily support), the bus system has seen little new investment (and claims of disinvestment are arguable).
And TriMet does bond some payroll tax revenue to go into rail construction, so the claim can be made the revenues available for bus upgrades have not been used that way.
Fair is fair. But I still think we should spend our energy growing the pot of funding rather than squabbling about which of many worthy projects it gets spent on.
I don’t give a damn if MAX is capital intensive.
And one last point. You should. Because without that capital investment and MAX’s lower operating costs, Trimet would have to spend a lot more on bus service to serve even the portion of MAX users who would continue to use transit. And that would mean cutting back bus service elsewhere to pay for it.
the bus system has seen little new investment
I don’t think that is true. In fact, the bus system has grown through almost the entire period that MAX has. There are no buses, not one, that was in service prior to MAX beginning operations. Those new buses came from somewhere. And the number of service hours for buses has increased as well during that time. As has ridership.
And TriMet does bond some payroll tax revenue to go into rail construction, so the claim can be made the revenues available for bus upgrades have not been used that way.
The question is whether not making that investment and not building MAX would have resulted in a net decrease in bus service. If you took the money Trimet bonds for light rail and applied it to buying buses you couldn’t buy the same level of service, not to mention the additional operating costs of those buses.
The argument that “you could have invested in enw buses” can be made for any Trimet expense. The increased hours of operating costs for frequent service bus lines could have been used to pay for bus upgrades. Eliminating express service could ahve been usesd to pay for bus upgrades. The same could be said for MAX hours of operation or the streetcar. Either one could be cut to pay the capital costs of replacing aging buses.
Fair is fair. But I still think we should spend our energy growing the pot of funding rather than squabbling about which of many worthy projects it gets spent on.
Like the road construction argument, I don’t buy it. Trimet cut bus service because of operating costs, not because they can’t afford buses. They have buses sitting idle most of the day (mostly those aging buses). Without capital investments that reduce operating costs, transit service is going to deteriorate over time. Whether that is MAX or articulated buses or BRT, those investments need to get made.