At the last meeting of the Columbia River Crossing Taskforce participants got a first glimpse of the all of the potential transportation improvements that are being considered for I-5 across the Columbia River. Much to my alarm the list includes a couple of ideas that smack of what was considered a done deal in 1988 – the Westside Bypass – a freeway that would have decimated neighborhoods and farms in Washington County, and helped fuel uncontrolled sprawl development. Thanks to lots of hard work by folks who wanted to see something else happen in Washington County and the forward-thinking alternative vision provided by LUTRAQ, it died.
Unfortunately, some things never really die…even really, really bad ideas. If a new freeway across the Columbia River, that travels over Sauvie Island and impacts sensitive areas lands in the Tualatin Mountains and Vancouver lowlands makes your skin crawl, come to the taskforce meeting at the Department of Transportation, Southwest Region Office in Vancouver on Wednesday, March 22nd at 4 pm and testify during the public comment period.
38 responses to “The Westside Bypass Rears its Ugly Head Again”
Chris,
By way of clarification: Is the West Arteial Route, in your mind, identical to the West Bypass Route? I could see the West Arterial Route, i.e. Union Pacific/Amtrak bridge + North Portland Rd. connecting to Hwy 30, as a way to get a good portion of traffic off the I-5. You are right; to carve up the West Hills and Tualatin Valley with a freeway would be tragic.
Sorry, “Jill”
I don’t mean to be abrasive by saying this, but considering that cars are not leaving the Tualatin Valley any time soon, why is there such opposition to the addition of adequate infrastructure to support them?
I’m not advocating that we “carve up” the Westside, per say, but think about what it will be in 50-100 years: the UGB will have expanded, and there will be no room left for new arterials or freeways (without removing existing development). Our current system, which essentially consists of US26 and ORE217, is already bursting at the seams, with no feasable plans for future expansion.
I’m no traffic expert, but I’d venture to say that opening up the freeway system and arterials to more traffic would move traffic off of smaller roads, clearing up the system as a whole. Most of the traffic improvements we are seeing in the Beaverton area right now are on these smaller roads which people resort to in the rush hour to avoid freeway traffic.
Right now, we have an opportunity to build with the future in mind. The Hillsboro/West Union area has already seen much development in the last two decades. How will we move about the metro area after two more?
It’s not obvious to me that the UGB will expand in that direction. That’s some of the best farmland in the state out in Washington County. Building a west-side bypass is perhaps the fastest way to turn that farmland into subdivisions.
oregon is NOT about new freeways. The paradigm shift we experienced in the 70’s and continues today is about building communities – for people. Not cars.
Just because the subarbanites haven’t figured out how to do this yet does not entitle them to free billions to further screw up the state. As far as transportation, the city of Portland (in comparison to places like Beaverton) has a very efficient street grid that allows easy connections by people who live there. Tons of transit, backed up by dense, livable neighborhoods, and main streets all over the place with stores and shops. Beaverton and the burbs are dead-set on building subdivision after subdivision, strip mall and shopping mall after the other… well, I gots to say that it is not a very effective growth pattern, and its already hitting the fan right now with the dysfunctional arterial/collector street system. Its time they woke up and reconfigured their local streets to allow more connectivity, encourage mixed income/mixed use and denser developments – INFILL – to help alleviate problems.
I repeat: we are not Arizona or LA. Take a look at Vancouver BC for a better model.
I love living in the Portland area. We purposely chose to buy a house by Orenco Station. We utilize alternate forms of transportation as much as possible. We want to protect farmland out in Washington County. And my wife, a transplanted Clevelander, is well aware that additional highways, and additional lanes on highways, do not relieve congestion as promised.
That being said, the fact that there is NO easy transportation connection between the two largest economic engines in the area (Clark County and Washington County) is ABSOLUTELY INSANE… and the fact that the transit crowd in Portland doesn’t even want to consider it (even if it is done in a balanced fashion), well… We’re taking a good idea from the 70’s (not building the Mt. Hood Freeway) and taking it to its illogical extreme.
Gee, I must be a DMU fan, this is the second time in as many weeks that I’ve brought up the topic.
There is an abandoned rail line that basically runs this exact alignment — from somewhere on the west side of the Willamette to somewhere around Beaverton/Hillsboro. I bet that DMU passenger service between Washington County and Clark County could be initiated for a fraction of the cost of a new freeway, and if everybody is right about the volume of traffic between those two points, it would do quite well.
Of course, there is the matter of the spectacular railroad trestle that burned to the ground about a decade ago, which would need to be re-built along with much of the rest of this line (if, in fact, any of the rails/trestles/tunnels are still serviceable). However, the fact that the ROW exists already should still bring the cost of implementing a new service in this corridor way down.
I agree with the previous posters, that the era of building freeways in Oregon is over. We now need to think of better ways to get people around, for less money and less damage to the natural landscape. Putting old railways back to use to serve new markets is an example of the type of innovative thinking that will cause Oregon to emerge as a leader in the 21st century.
Hear, hear! Way to put it, Garlynn.
Don’t forget the bicycle freeway they have been constructing (Springwater Trail) and the overpass bridges for it over the highway/rails in SE.
Wanted to provide an update on the bypass from last night’s task force meeting. The good news is that the Columbia River Crossing Project staff recommmended that all proposals for new corridors be dropped from their analysis because they did not adequately address the problem. The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) from the Washington side of the river also recommended that this project should focus narrowly on improving the I-5 Corridor, rather than look at new river crossings. At the same time, RTC promised to address the issue of other potential river crossings through its upcoming 2030 plan update. Another future window of opportunity for the bypass and new freeway building, but as one person at the meeting put it, “all bridges across the river have to land somewhere on the Oregon side.”
While the tone from the meeting was generally positive for keeping the the westside bypass and other new river crossings off the table, it will be critical to maintain the pressure during the next month. There were a few comments from task force members questioning the removal of some of the new crossings, and representatives from the Westside Economic Alliance, which continues to be one of the key supporters of the westside bypass, were not at the meeting.
The task force is expected to make a decision on the staff’s first cut recommendations at its meeting on April 26th. In the meantime, the Project will be holding open houses on April 12th and 13th to collect public comments on these recommendations. Details about the open houses and how to submit comments via email are on the project website at http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org.
And hear hear to all of the great discussion on building the communities for people – not cars!
A Metro Rideshare study done by Urban Trans analyzed O & D from the 2000 census…go to the Metro website and follow the links to the RTO (Regional Travel Options page). Relatively few people travel from Clark county to Washington county. Most people who work in the latter have figured it out that it makes sense to live there.
Most Clark county commuters work in N/NE Portland…Rivergate, Swan Island, Lloyd District, Airport Way as well as Downtown.
Didn’t know where else to post this, but I hate to revive such an old thread…
Interesting thing I stumbled across tonight: apparently there is a political push to build a massive 8 lane freeway in Vancouver, BC right into the heart of downtown. Since this city – with its decided lack of freeways – is so oft cited for alternative development types, etc – combining land use planning/development with transportation systems – I thought it VERY interesting that all of a sudden they want to spend billions on such a community-wrecking measure… and so late in the game, too.
http://www.livableregion.ca/index.html
Of note is one of the areas was titled goods movement… sounds exactly like the arguments made for widening the CRC for freight, too.
I am replying very late to this… but:
I think the thing that many people are forgetting on this site is that Portland is NOT Vancouver BC. They can not be compared because they are nothing alike and are in very different situations. (Just as one can not directly compare Portland to LA)
This is a MAJOR flaw in logic. First off… Vancouver BC is at the end of a long string of west coast cities all connected by the major artery I-5. Most freight that carries NECESSARY things like food, building supplies, etc (ya know, things that keep an economy running) stop at Vancouver. To go further north they are either put on ferries or head east on the Canadian highway system. Therefore, Vancouver is OKAY without an extensive freeway system. (even though they will choke during the Olympics). Portland, on the other hand, would suffocate with mass amounts of traffic and trucks bottle-necking our streets trying to get further north or south. OR, they would just avoid Portland all together – thus severely hurting our economy.
Portland needs an expanded system – and a Westside bypass would be a great way to direct traffic around the city instead of through it. It would also provide easier access for people living on the west side to Portland and other metro areas.
I keep reading, “building the communities for people – not cars!” … this is a nice little catch phrase, but you fail to realize that people drive cars, people want to live in the suburbs and people don’t want to give up their cars (they won’t anytime soon… and that’s not going to change).
There is plenty of farm land in Washington County left… and people are going to move there no matter what. If the farmers want to sell the land they will – If they won’t, they won’t. A freeway (Westside bypass) would simply alleviate the pressure and congestion in that area.
As for “hurting” wildlife in the Sauvie Island area… I suggest you all read up on the progressive freeway design that is available today to share the land with the wildlife. (example: I-70 through the Rockies in Colorado)Raised freeway systems provide convenience and a lack of destruction to wildlife areas.
Portland is going to grow whether you like it or not… and not everyone wants to live in a small apt in central Portland. Because of this, plans need to be made for the future so we won’t have to bulldoze blocks up subdivisions later to build a freeway because of the mistakes we make today.
Portland, on the other hand, would suffocate with mass amounts of traffic and trucks bottle-necking our streets trying to get further north or south. OR, they would just avoid Portland all together – thus severely hurting our economy
Chris –
I think most studies of freight indicate this isn’t true, there is very little economic value from traffic going through a city. The economic value comes from traffic that stops. If all the freight from Los Angeles to Seattle went through Bend, Portland would not notice it economically. Neither would Bend.
There is plenty of farm land in Washington County left… and people are going to move there no matter what. If the farmers want to sell the land they will – If they won’t, they won’t.
That is an argument about Oregon’s land use laws, which currently don’t allow it to be developed whether farmers want to or not. Until that changes, making plans that anticipate that development makes no sense and wouldn’t pass legal muster anyway. But you are correct, the western bypass would certainly promote development. All you have to do is look at I205.
Westside bypass would be a great way to direct traffic around the city instead of through it
The studies of the bypass show the traffic doesn’t choose to go there. Most of the traffic on 217 is moving short stretches along it and out 26 to Hillsboro. There are very few trips from all the way from Wilsonville to Hillsboro that the bypass would provide an alternative for.
Now that study didn’t look at what happens if you build a freeway all the way around Forest Park and over Sauvie Island to Vancouver. But through trucks now use I5, not I205, and I suspect they would continue to do so. I think the problem is that out of route beltways are almost always slower than the direct route and take more fuel.
not everyone wants to live in a small apt in central Portland.
There is an awful lot of housing outside of central Portland and a lot more planned for the future. The goal is to have a variety of housing options close to people’s jobs. So that someone can live in an apartment in Hillsboro or buy themselves a suburban single family home.
Of course the Portland city is never going to have large lot, suburban homes close to downtown any more than any other central city does. So if that is what you want and you will either have a long commute or have to use transit or find a job closer to home. There are a lot of jobs in the suburbs too.
the other thing to remember from a historic viewpoint is people will travel in the mosat convenient form available
in the early part of this century it was the trolley and the interurban, then came the bus and the popularity of the automobile
Today we wrestle with a mass transit plan that is designed to be obselete before it is completed or rejected by the powers that be. Commities in which the people who make the decisions have never stepped foot in a light rail car
Portland Metro population will triple by 2020 as will the cars so we will need to do something folks
remember “He that has the gold, makes the rules!!!
there needs to be a westside freeway from south of Wilsonville to north of the I-205/I-5 intersection in Washington. OR-217 cannot handle the load any more!!! so make it swing out through Hillboro/Cornelius area.
there needs to be a westside freeway from south of Wilsonville to north of the I-205/I-5 intersection in Washington. OR-217 cannot handle the load any more!!! so make it swing out through Hillboro/Cornelius area.
There are very few trips that are made from Wilsonville north that would make use of that freeway. The reality is that 217 is filled with trips from Wilsonville to Tigard, Tigard to Beaverton, Tualatin to Beaverton, Beaverton to the Sunset etc. A freeway out in rural Washington County doesn’t serve any of those trips.
That’s why it fell off the plate the last time it was considered. The solution is to provide more alternatives to 217 for those trips which includes both local arterials and transit. Take a look at the LUTRAQ study linked above, nothing much has changed since it was done.
Garlynn says:
“Putting old railways back to use to serve new markets is an example of the type of innovative thinking that will cause Oregon to emerge as a leader in the 21st century.”
Agreed, but they should be recycled as busways,
instead of inflexible commuter rail lines. This
would serve the region much better.
And the Springwater Trail should have been widened
and built as an all-weather busway instead of a
fair weather bike freeway. This
would have been really a great thing for SE.
Agreed, but they should be recycled as busways,
instead of inflexible commuter rail lines.
The railroads would not agree to have their track paved over. The Washington County Commuter Rail project is sharing existing track with other rail traffic.
There is also nothing more inflexible about a rail line than a busway. People who see them as more flexible are usually thinking the bus fills up on local streets and then uses the busway as an express lane instead of having to transfer to light rail.
There are some advantages to that, but they usually fall way down on the list when the cost of operators and the mixture of destinations is considered.
The Coalition for a Livable Future Transportation Reform Working Group’s People’s Transportation Plan supported the idea of a busway in the Milwaukee corridor initially, but when the details were examined it quickly fell off the table. And that was without considering the preference transit users have shown for rail over buses.
Phil’s Comment:
there needs to be a westside freeway from south of Wilsonville to north of the I-205/I-5 intersection in Washington. OR-217 cannot handle the load any more!!! so make it swing out through Hillboro/Cornelius area.
You know, I began to think about such an idea, and it actually makes a lot of sense the more I think about it.
But the freeway wouldn’t start in Wilsonville…oh no… It’d start in Salem.
Travel to a point slightly east of McMinnville but west of the McMinnville Airport…which is basically an area that is being planned as a new connector road (but is still years, if not decades away.) Whether the new highway would follow Oregon 221 or Oregon 99W, is up to discussion; neither really has any particular benefit or disadvantge to it.
Continue north to a point in or around Forest Grove, Cornelius or Hillsboro. Probably between Cornelius and Hillsboro. Continue straight north towards the westside of North Plains.
Continue north-northeasterly, towards St. Helens/Columbia City. Then cross the Columbia River over a new bridge and reconnect with I-5.
In essence, I-605, and would largely handle a lot of the through traffic that is currently routed over I-5, or in some cases I-205 (from what I hear, a lot of truckers continue to use I-5, because I-205 can get nasty and is longer.)
It would provide an economic boost and increase to freight mobility to the westside of the region (particularly McMinnville and the area from Forest Grove to Hillsboro), and allow north-south traffic to bypass the Portland central business area.
It would improve transit conditions between McMinnville and Salem, which have a choice of a very poorly maintained 2-lane road, or a better road that is longer and out-of-the-way.
It would improve transit conditions between McMinnville and western Washington County, where the only road available is a narrow, 2-lane, sometimes trecherous (particularly in winter-time) road that has numerous safety related concerns.
It would also create another crossing of the Columbia River which is badly needed, and provide an additional outlet for traffic that is currently restricted to the two-lane Lewis & Clark Bridge, which dumps onto congested city streets at its north end.
People have got to get into the 21st century! Our current freeway system is a joke and because of that our states economy will fail. We need additional freeways and more lanes on our existing freeways. If you like farmland, move to Eastern Oregon, there is plenty over there. People are moving here and they don’t all want to ride MAX. Mass transit is a horrible solution to our traffic congestion problem. Do the math, 1 million more people in 20 years. Oregon needs to wake up and get with the rest of the nation and build some roads so we can still get around in 10 years. You think the extra 500,000 people moving to Washington County aren’t going to buy homes built on that prime farmland? There is a real world out there folks, wake up!
People have got to get into the 21st century! Our current freeway system is a joke and because of that our states economy will fail.
Eric –
That second thought is so 20th century…
If you like farmland, move to Eastern Oregon, there is plenty over there.
There sure are plenty of uncongested roads on the other side of the mountains. But not much farmland that compares to the Willamette Valley. which has some of the best farmland in the world.
Mass transit is a horrible solution to our traffic congestion problem.
People using Max don’t have a traffic congestion problem. The only people who have a traffic congestion problem are the people who insist on creating it or are forced to by the lack of alternatives. It seems like giving more people more and better alternatives is the logical solution.
You think the extra 500,000 people moving to Washington County aren’t going to buy homes built on that prime farmland?
Not under current state land use laws they aren’t. Whether that will change is an interesting question, but until it does change it would be foolish to start investing in sewer, water or highways to serve the farms in rural Washington county.
I don’t know how long you have lived in Oregon, but it takes some getting used to. No sales tax. A bottle bill. Public ocean beaches. All sorts of things that seem strange to people from other places. The idea that there is a hard line between rural and urban lands is the one that seems to be the current sticking point for a lot of newcomers.
A famous argument in the ongoing Oregon transportation debate: “new highways and additional lanes on existing highways did not relieve congestion in other cities”
PLEASE, this is the most illogical argument a seemingly-intelligent person can make. These cities that folks so often point to; Chicago, Cleveland, Houston, LA, etc. built TONS of new highways and added capacity and still have severe congestion issues.
You know what will NOT relieve congestion in a growing metro area? BUILDING NO NEW HIGHWAYS AND ROADS!!! If Portland does nothing, how will it be better off than those cities?
The answer is it won’t; MORE roads or capacity AND better transit options is the solution. Cities that focus on ONLY ONE option for transportation will fail.
***
Favorite bash from road-opponents on those that favor additional roads; “well, in Oregon WE do things differently, so get used to it” OR “Portland is NOT so get used to it”
PUH-LEASE!!! Not only is this illogical, it is just dumb and uninformed. Less than 50% of native Oregon residents were born here. Face it, Oregon’s population is growing and diversifying; mostly by influx of inhabitants from other regions of the country. If we learn from other cities, we can make the best overall transportation system in the nation.
Twenty or thirty years ago, one set of solutions worked for transportation issues in Oregon; these same solutions WILL NOT work today. Not building highways or adding capacity simply for the sake of not doing it is just plain stupid. The solution to Portland’s growing pains will involve aspects of all ideas; highways and roads, transit and alternatives.
If we do NOTHING with our highways and roads, and focus solely on transit Portland will become a negative example for transportation planning in the coming decades.
Josh, no question if you’re a user, getting on a freeway in your car is usually the most convenient way to get somewhere.
Until the freeway congests. So pretty much freeways will ALWAYS fill to their point of congestion during peak hours.
But looked at from a societal point of view, adding more mobility via freeways has tremendous impacts on health, environment and energy dependence.
So if we have to figure out where to put the next transportation dollar, do we put it into a freeway or some other form (like LRT) that has a better profile for the other factors?
Cities that focus on ONLY ONE option for transportation will fail.
Using an auto is an option for almost every trip in the region. The question is not whether someone can get there by auto, but how fast. Of course the answer to the “how fast” question raises others, like “how far” are people willing to drive for a particular purpose. How wide a market can a single facility serve. etc.
Do you have an example of a city that failed because it invested too much in transit? I don’t think there are any. In fact, I don’t think you will find a single city where people complain there is too much transit use.
More to the point, Portland has consistently invested in both auto and transit capacity. Even if one starts with the decision to build the first light rail line, far more has been spent in the Portland region on increased automobile capacity than transit capacity.
Less than 50% of native Oregon residents were born here.
I think many people who move to Oregon do so because it is different than other places. They do not want to remake it into the places they left. Its one of the things that makes them suspicious when people start suggesting that Portland should be more like … wherever. They came from there.
(Aren’t ALL of the native Oregonians born here???)
:-)
I like the I-605 idea Erik is proposing! Washington County is going to eclipse this joke of a city soon enough, the might as well start planning for it early. Beaverton, future Oregon’s largest city.
I could go for a Westside Bypass–if it were two lanes and for use by trucks and buses only.
Any opinions?
Also, Wash. County seems to be growing MUCH faster than Mult., so in 20-30 years the locus of the Metro area might shift there, at least somewhat.
so in 20-30 years the locus of the Metro area might shift there, at least somewhat.
Not very likely as long as Oregon’s land use laws contain development.
Beaverton, future Oregon’s largest city.
If the commuter rail line morphs into a higher capacity transit system the density along that corridor could increase dramatically. But a good portion of that growth will probably be outside the city of Beaverton.
Do you have an example of a city that failed because it invested too much in transit?
No, there hasn’t really been a city that fits the bill…yet. Portland could be the first example of such a failed policy in the years & decades to come.
I think many people who move to Oregon do so because it is different than other places.
Agreed…AND they DO NOT want it to be like the places they left. So when they see traffic approaching levels of much larger cities, they become alarmed. My point here is if you read above in this blog, some road-opponents easily dismiss (or slam) the opinion of these ‘new’ Oregonians. The demographic scales are tipping in the Valley and Metro area, so ‘old’ Oregonians will need to embrace ideas other than pure hatred of additional roads.
Aren’t ALL of the native Oregonians born here???
:) native in this case means US residents. In other words, this number does not count foreign-born residents.
Do you have an example of a city that failed [at all?]
Pompeii, but that was 2000 years ago.
If you look at most cities that have been completely destroyed, like Dresden or New Orleans, you’ll note that most of them came/are coming back, so failure seems like a kind of nebulous term. New Orleans is coming back smaller than it was before, but Pompeii was destroyed a couple of times before the last one, only to come back as well, so… You have to define failure: did San Fransisco “fail” after the tech bubble? Will Detroit “fail” with the largest employers? Is failure 10% unemployment, and even if we had that here could we logically blame it on a lack of freeway infrastructure, and not on things like our state’s high minimum wage, or the fact that much of the rural land around the city was dependent on timber revenue that they no longer receive, and therefor, no longer spend [ultimately] in Portland?
some road-opponents easily dismiss (or slam) the opinion of these ‘new’ Oregonians.
Quite the contrary, I suspect many of the “road-opponents” are “new Oregonians”. They understand you can’t build your way out of congestion.
There are many people who don’t agree with that, both native Oregonians and “new Oregonians”. But many of the “new Oregonians” come from places where the car culture dominates and no one even questions whether more capacity is really a solution to congestion. So they take adding capacity to fix congestion as “common sense” and are bewildered not only by the debate, but that they are on the losing end most of the time.
So when they see traffic approaching levels of much larger cities, they become alarmed.
I think you will find that is the reason many people here oppose new roads that create more traffic. The problem is too much traffic, not too few roads.
For the community on this blog this is not about new Oregonians or being oppose to new roads or adding new capacity to our road network it is about balance and meeting basic needs.
When I was part of a group proposing putting in a Speed Bump to slow traffic and improve safety, I was told that on this street this was not possible because there was a public safety requirement for the Fire Engines to use the ROW and that there was very little options otherwise. What that meant was NO, we could not restrict access of our street.
For me there are too many people wanting to “Socially Engineer” and restrict access to our streets and provide less then adequate capacity.
Good Public Policy thinking requires reasonable transportation policy decisions that provide reasonable access to the majority of the citzenry. Currently approximately 90% of commuting the public uses motor vehicles on our roads and they deserve a fare shake on how our dollars are invested into creating a balanced transportation system.
Currently approximately 90% of commuting the public uses motor vehicles on our roads and they deserve a fare shake on how our dollars are invested into creating a balanced transportation system.
I think this misses the central point. The best investments for people who use a motor vehicle are those that get people out of their cars for trips where using an auto isn’t necessary. Adding capacity in one spot that clogs the road network in two others isn’t giving anyone a “fair shake”.
The best investments for people who use a motor vehicle are those that get people out of their cars for trips where using an auto isn’t necessary.
As long as TriMet, our regional transportation provider, fails to operate its transit system with this in mind, we are going to need cars.
We have a transit agency that can’t get me from my home to MY city’s center (yes, the Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan Statistical Area includes more than just the City of Portland; and TriMet’s service territory is in three counties – hence the “Tri”, and the “Met”.) – THAT is a problem.
I HAVE to use my car to get groceries, to reach the nearest hospital, or go to the bank or post office, because TriMet refuses to provide adequate bus service. TriMet refuses to provide adequate bus service because TriMet and Metro (which controls the purse strings) wants MAX, MAX and more MAX. MAX is sexy, busses are dull. Further, 30 minute service intervals are not sufficient – when “transit advocates” complain about how much time is lost in congestion – they conveniently overlook how much time is lost in transit (which for me I can calculate 30 minutes just in waiting, without being in transit, plus a travel time that is 15 minutes longer than private auto. — one way.)
Ok everyone. Those of you who are advocating not building any new roads or expanding the already insufficient ones we have now, I have one question. In 20 years, when 1 MILLION more people live in our metro area, how bad do you think our traffic congestion is going to be? It is unbearable now at certain locations throughout the day. How are we going to deal with that? You aren’t going to force me out of my car, sorry. I use my car for my business and personal reasons and always will. Poor planning and investing billions on Tri-Met that only serves 9% of the population WILL hurt us in the long run. I realize what METRO is trying to do-Force us to ride mass transit so we can be an example of a well planned city to the rest of the nation??? We will be known for our horrible traffic congestion and air pollution because the thousands of cars sitting in traffic all day spewing out carbon monoxide fumes. I am sorry but for those of you who ride the bus or take MAX, that is great, you probably don’t have a car or a driver’s license anyway. Oh for those of you who want to know, I am a native Oregonian…yes born in Portland. Believe me there are many other “Native born” Oregonians who feel the same way I do about the pathetic lack of investment in our states infrastructure. We are only hurting ourselves. Mark my words, do nothing about the problem, and we will all pay the price….trust me….you will see.
Eric –
Who here has opposed, as you characterize it, “any new roads” and who here has called for a blanket policy of not expanding existing roads?
You’ll certainly find strong skepticism toward expansion of the freeway system, especially along I-5 in North Portland, but I think it is fair to say that most people here are unopposed to removing bottlenecks, improving connectivity in the road network, etc. The disagreements come in terms of priorities and scope.
– Bob R.
Forget about highways for freight, put it all onto the railroads, they’re more efficient.
Looking for extra rail? Impound some Hummers and melt them down for the steel. ;)
Ed – a lot of the freight movement in the area is local.
Most of those trucks getting on/off I-205 at Clackamas? They’re local deliveries from Fred Meyer and Safeway’s distribution centers. They aren’t going to go on rail.
Garbage trucks, dump trucks and cement trucks? Not rail-suitable.
UPS, FedEx and DHL? Nope, that’s going to be highway based.
What can be moved by rail, probably already is – auto traffic from Hyundai, Subaru, Honda and Toyta (from the Ports of Portland/Vancouver); potash and grain traffic, containers, and lumber. But that still leaves the majority of freight traffic in the Portland area that is going to be dependent on the roadway network. Melting down every SUV in the world isn’t going to change that.