CRC Open House Question # 11

Solutions for moving people cars and trucks should minimize taking additional land for right-of-way.

Agree/Disagree. Discuss…

11 Responses to CRC Open House Question # 11

  1. Chris Smith
    January 31, 2007 at 6:25 am Link

    Let me save Ross the task of pointing out that this question is rhetorical.

    Everyone who wants to pave paradise (or Vancouver), please take one step forward.

  2. Paul Edgar
    January 31, 2007 at 8:41 am Link

    As a rule of thumb we do not need to pave over the world. The I-5 Bi-State Transportation and Trade Partnership Study made a recommendation that the I-5 should not be widened to greater then its current 3-lane scope even if the ROW would allow for it.

    I surprised that at last nights CRC Open House the CRC Staff in public comments suggested that to eliminate the out of balance condition that would exist in the I-5 corridor with a new 6-lane CRC Bridge going into a 2 and 3-lane I-5 corridor that they could expand the I-5 corridor out to 4-lanes and that would be good.

    To me that was grabing at straws to identify a possible solution to this increase in congestion that would be caused by inducing more traffic into the I-5 corridor with a new wide CRC Bridge project. It reflects inconsistencies with the I-5 Bi-State T&T Partnership recommendations, that in some cases they say that they have mandate to follow and in other cases they do not follow.

    But so much for credibility of the CRC Team that truly has only one goal and that is not regional need but to build a new bridge even if other alternative make more sense and fit our regional land use goals better.

  3. Adron B Hall
    January 31, 2007 at 10:46 am Link

    Forget paving more space. If it isn’t a semi-permeable, water flowing, right of way I’m not pro-additional land being consumed by the monstrosities we call roads.

    Blagh. A railroad track takes up about 25 ft for high speed throughput. In the US most railroad tracks take up about 15 ft. per track.

    Two tracks are able to handle as much freight as a 4 lane interstate easily.

    Tracks allow water flow, don’t cause heat to generate by capturing sun rays (ala black top) and generally are easier to walk across than a respective amount of roadway.

    Needless to say, I don’t want to see more roads. There are plenty enough. Overflow of transportation needs to happen in some other form.

  4. Anthony
    January 31, 2007 at 11:00 am Link

    I guess you don’t see the point. MOST PEOPLE DRIVE (over 90%). That means roads. That means more then 6 lane freeways. Chill with the social engineering.. people vote with their cars!

  5. Adron B Hall
    January 31, 2007 at 11:42 am Link

    People vote in their cars? Bulls$%^! That is such a bad way to put it, and so innaccurate at that.

    Social Engineering, pft. You think people drive out of choice? You think no social engineering was used to motivate and create our dependency on the automobile?

    Look at the history of America, you’ll find that the creeping auto and the sprawl of our cities, along with their associated flights of peoples where almost all incurred by “planners” and “social engineering”. I mean really, yesterdays interstates where merely today’s Government urged density and high capacity transit.

    Neither solution was born out of real choice, market value, and relevancy. The Government is just now struggling to right its wrongs.

    You want to see choice. See the cities and neighborhoods of 1910 & 1920. Hell, even the depression era cities of 1930+ are more representative of REAL choice.

  6. Adron B Hall
    January 31, 2007 at 11:43 am Link

    Btw “MOST PEOPLE DRIVE (over 90%).”

    That is incorrect in many big cities. Sure they drive at some point, but do they commute that way?

    If everyone in Chicago, New York, or almost any city in the North East Corridor area drove, they would NOT be able to get to work by the end of the work day.

    Now that wouldn’t be a very good situation would it. :(

  7. Terry Parker
    January 31, 2007 at 6:14 pm Link

    “Solutions for moving people cars and trucks should minimize taking additional land for right-of-way.”

    This statement too needs to be modified to read:

    Based on the demand for the mode of transport, solutions for moving people and freight including options for cars, trucks, transit and bikes should attempt to minimize taking additional land for right-of-way.

    I can not support the original statement without including minimizing the taking for alternative modes of transport.

  8. Erik Halstead
    January 31, 2007 at 8:23 pm Link

    I have to second Mr. Parker’s comment; why is it fair to deny one mode of transportation from having access to land while allowing other modes access to the land?

    Certainly, one could argue that the MAX expansions – especially on East Burnside and North Interstate, and along the Burnside, Sunset and 217 freeways, have resulted in a transfer of land from highway to transit uses; and construction of bike lanes have netted a loss in vehicle lanes.

    If land is scarse, then all modes of transportation must fit within the mold. Whether or not one agrees, numerous studies show the vast majority of transport is by auto. Roads aren’t built (in modern times, anyways) because government wants sprawl; roads are built typically by developers who have purchased the land and are seizing on a market for development. Is transit being used strictly to manage transportation growth, or as a development tool? TriMet and Metro both acknowledge it’s a development tool; clearly showing that transit growth isn’t intended primarily to manage transportation needs.

    If our goal is to manage the need of transportation within the confines of what exists, without requiring additional land, then such should be an immediate wakeup call to purchase higher-density transportation vehicles (BRT and articulated busses), as well as non-land-using modes of transport such as aerial tram/cable car and monorails.

    But this isn’t Seattle, this is Portland. We still have our “light rail” blinders on. How many times have I suggested commuter rail using the numerous EXISTING railroad tracks, that would require ZERO land (except maybe a couple of park-and-ride lots, using already vacant and generally railroad-owned land, that wouldn’t be developed anytime soon anyways), and get shot down for such idea??

    I forgot. Commuter rail isn’t light rail. My bad.

  9. Professor Ulrich
    January 31, 2007 at 10:02 pm Link

    Every street, road, avenue, and freeway in Oregon should be paved to at least 5 lanes each way + an extra lane for vehicle breakdowns. To do anything less would be criminal.

  10. Hawthorne
    January 31, 2007 at 10:32 pm Link

    Professor,

    Are you employed by the FHWA?

  11. Adron
    February 1, 2007 at 1:04 am Link

    I tell ya what. Why don’t we just say hell with it and build one big ass corridor with about 30 lanes each way (that MIGHT meet demand), build exits every 5 miles, and just sprawl off of each exit as far as we can see.

    We can spread New York and Chicago out, the LA too, then hit up San Fran. We can call it the United Sprawl of North America. We can bump up our fuel usage a little 200-400% of what it is now, rip up all the railroad tracks and start carrying stuff by tractor trailer all around.

    In addition to that lets open another 15 refineries, every 100 miles or so along hte interstate to directly provide petro to fueling stations spread across the 100 miles. Everyone can have a house and yard, driveway, carport, porch, grill, a big flat screen LCD screen, etc.

    Every house can have an immigrant maintain the yard and live in an unknown, undisclosed location.

    That’s what we should do. We’ll create massive employment in the vast and endless wasteland of suburbia across the continent. We’ll need to fill those jobs it’ll take the level the rockies and appalachians for all the new tracts of suburban houses.

    It won’t be that big of deal. Everyone will get their acre!

    :)

    (I’m done with my sarcasm for the week now)